Cliff Hatton
Well-known member
http://www.fishingmagic.com/news_events/18466-rod-sturdy-ever-closer-union.html
This article received a small number of complaints on the grounds that it was 'too political' and consequently taken down. Having re-studied Rod's well-written, heart-felt article, FM feels that its content is overwhelmingly fishing and fish-orientated rather than politically based. Angling needs more Rod Sturdy's; people who care enough about fishing and marine matters to sit down for an hour or two and air their thoughts for the benefit of us all. Talk of the EU, quotas, directives et al is, indeed, unappealing to those who - quite understandably - wish to read of bending rods and screaming reels. Thank heaven, then, we have individuals concerned enough to look at the drier aspect of our sport. Remember: FishingMagic welcomes articles and stories - humorous, instructive, philosophical, entertaining - from its much-valued readership. We have an enormous wealth of experiences to share so DO write in with yours. In fact, let's make this an official appeal!
The often-repeated phrase ‘ever closer union’ is one aspect of the EU that has filled me and many others with a sense of dread. The prospect of a European super-state formed of former independent, sovereign countries, and with centralised administration and legislative bodies calling the shots, is something I personally would choose to live without. The stuff of nightmares, almost.
The EU has shown itself ever more incapable of forming a coherent policy on several issues, with proper agreement among its member states, so much so that it is increasingly more difficult to think of the positive benefits our membership has brought. That is the way I personally see the EU as far as international affairs is concerned; others may think otherwise. And the very best of luck to them. As for the EU as a trading partnership, well that makes better sense…
However, one area in which the EU has been proactive recently on the international front is the marine environment: the creation of the first marine conservation zone to be established in international waters. The Ross Sea marine park is a conservation project brokered between 24 nations and the EU; establishing it has been a hard slog – 5 long years of failed negotiations passed before the deal was done. It has been hailed as a marine conservation triumph, the Ross Sea representing a huge area, as big as France and Spain combined, and the agreement not to fish or exploit the area is good for the next 35 years.
Issues of politics and sovereignty apart, let me remind you of one further field where the EU has shown admirable leadership: its laying down of environmental standards which need to be either maintained or striven for. And there are plenty of them, so much so that the UK, in common with other member countries, does not come up to scratch on many. Air quality is one, and more importantly for anglers, water quality.
The European Water Framework Directive (WFD) sets out water quality standards for member states and a time-frame for their achievement. But only a meagre 17% of UK waters were up to standard when they were meant to be, in 2015. In fact the general situation in the UK is that we are as a nation woefully short of the target when it comes to the aquatic environment. No single EU member state has in fact yet fulfilled the criteria as laid down.
Does this mean that WFD standards are unduly strict? No, the standards relate in a realistic manner to what rivers should be: living watercourses which are an integral part of the environment. This means that it is the EU which has given the long-term vision. It is for example the Urban Waste Water Directive which essentially, some 20 years ago, triggered the clean-up of the UK’s rivers. It is the WFD which has reinforced and maintained the admirable principle of making the polluter pay.
Proper environmental standards are things which have been sadly lacking, or had little influence in the UK’s political decision-making process. Normally I - along with the majority of people I assume - am not at all fond of endless documents laying down standards and norms, but things like the WFD are an exception in my book. Long-winded and comprehensive they may very well be, but at least they do provide environmental leadership and long-term vision where it has previously been lacking.
Too often those in positions of leadership, and that of course includes our dear friends the politicians, have looked on environmental standards as things which can be watered down, fudged, or in the worst case, totally ignored. If there is one thing which these people as a breed unfortunately tend to lack, it is long-term vision. So of course they need to be constantly lobbied in order to persuade them to act responsibly.
It is only in recent times that politicians have given particular thought to, let alone attempted to get to grips with - and then only in a half-hearted fashion - such things as flood management and water policy. I still have in mind a certain fairly recent environment secretary’s rather flippant admission on air that the UK had no flood management policy, or even any particular drought strategy come to that.
Even more problematical is the marine situation, and with it the future of UK recreational sea angling. I can hardly imagine dear little Britain going it alone on its own marine resources, being as close as it is to its European neighbours. Since much of our commercial fishing is done in EU and other waters, it will be difficult, if not impossible, to define boundaries beyond which British commercial fishermen may not stray, or into which others may not intrude. Most stocks are to some extent shared with other countries. Realistically, many years of renegotiations lie ahead.
We are in no position to claim fish stocks as our own and act like Iceland in the 1970’s: warding off mainland European and other ‘invaders’ with gunboats. It is difficult enough to forecast the full implications of Brexit for commercial fishing, let alone try to fathom out how it might affect recreational angling.
But the Brexit process will present the perfect opportunity for anglers, in the shape of the Angling Trust, to lobby for certain species to be designated as recreational-only, or for stricter quotas and size limits to be enforced. Bass are a case in point. There was a sea-change (if you will pardon the pun) in 2014, when politicians finally woke up to the economic importance of recreational sea angling. They were persuaded that sea angling, as opposed to commercial sea fishing, generates much more value in terms of employment in needy coastal areas. So the time is ripe to push home the case for the needs of recreational angling, and for the proper recognition of social and economic benefits it brings.
I suspect that Brexit, once the process gets properly under way, will spark a widespread reaction among interested parties as to why they deserve special attention: commercial interest groups, companies, manufacturers, entrepreneurs, farmers and commercial sea fishing interests will all be out to make sure that they come out of the process as they each individually would wish to.
There is still everything to play for. Brexit will bring the opportunity to tailor European environmental principles to our own needs in the UK. It will be the perfect opportunity, once we are free of the Common Agricultural Policy, to push for sound use of agricultural land, with a system of payments to go with this. It will be the perfect opportunity to campaign against the widespread growing of maize, which is notorious for causing soil erosion and river degradation.
But make no mistake, angling will be just one lobby among a crowd of others who have their eye on the Brexit opportunity to push their own case. And there is no real reason to think that their view of the future will coincide with ours. The National Farmers’ Union were not slow to start putting forward their own case immediately after the referendum.
It is therefore now more than ever important that we anglers support our representative body, the Angling Trust, in the run-up to Brexit, and beyond. Because make no mistake, if the sort of political free-for-all that I envisage actually comes about, proper representation, and with it the clout to be able to influence government policy, will be the key thing to defend and enhance our sport.
To put it in plain language, anglers, whether of the game, coarse or sea variety, will need to stick together. So just for once, and in this particular context, ‘ever closer union’, if it means anglers closing ranks, in the form of memberships and donations, with the Angling Trust for the battles ahead, would be something I really welcome.
This article received a small number of complaints on the grounds that it was 'too political' and consequently taken down. Having re-studied Rod's well-written, heart-felt article, FM feels that its content is overwhelmingly fishing and fish-orientated rather than politically based. Angling needs more Rod Sturdy's; people who care enough about fishing and marine matters to sit down for an hour or two and air their thoughts for the benefit of us all. Talk of the EU, quotas, directives et al is, indeed, unappealing to those who - quite understandably - wish to read of bending rods and screaming reels. Thank heaven, then, we have individuals concerned enough to look at the drier aspect of our sport. Remember: FishingMagic welcomes articles and stories - humorous, instructive, philosophical, entertaining - from its much-valued readership. We have an enormous wealth of experiences to share so DO write in with yours. In fact, let's make this an official appeal!
The often-repeated phrase ‘ever closer union’ is one aspect of the EU that has filled me and many others with a sense of dread. The prospect of a European super-state formed of former independent, sovereign countries, and with centralised administration and legislative bodies calling the shots, is something I personally would choose to live without. The stuff of nightmares, almost.
The EU has shown itself ever more incapable of forming a coherent policy on several issues, with proper agreement among its member states, so much so that it is increasingly more difficult to think of the positive benefits our membership has brought. That is the way I personally see the EU as far as international affairs is concerned; others may think otherwise. And the very best of luck to them. As for the EU as a trading partnership, well that makes better sense…
However, one area in which the EU has been proactive recently on the international front is the marine environment: the creation of the first marine conservation zone to be established in international waters. The Ross Sea marine park is a conservation project brokered between 24 nations and the EU; establishing it has been a hard slog – 5 long years of failed negotiations passed before the deal was done. It has been hailed as a marine conservation triumph, the Ross Sea representing a huge area, as big as France and Spain combined, and the agreement not to fish or exploit the area is good for the next 35 years.
Issues of politics and sovereignty apart, let me remind you of one further field where the EU has shown admirable leadership: its laying down of environmental standards which need to be either maintained or striven for. And there are plenty of them, so much so that the UK, in common with other member countries, does not come up to scratch on many. Air quality is one, and more importantly for anglers, water quality.
The European Water Framework Directive (WFD) sets out water quality standards for member states and a time-frame for their achievement. But only a meagre 17% of UK waters were up to standard when they were meant to be, in 2015. In fact the general situation in the UK is that we are as a nation woefully short of the target when it comes to the aquatic environment. No single EU member state has in fact yet fulfilled the criteria as laid down.
Does this mean that WFD standards are unduly strict? No, the standards relate in a realistic manner to what rivers should be: living watercourses which are an integral part of the environment. This means that it is the EU which has given the long-term vision. It is for example the Urban Waste Water Directive which essentially, some 20 years ago, triggered the clean-up of the UK’s rivers. It is the WFD which has reinforced and maintained the admirable principle of making the polluter pay.
Proper environmental standards are things which have been sadly lacking, or had little influence in the UK’s political decision-making process. Normally I - along with the majority of people I assume - am not at all fond of endless documents laying down standards and norms, but things like the WFD are an exception in my book. Long-winded and comprehensive they may very well be, but at least they do provide environmental leadership and long-term vision where it has previously been lacking.
Too often those in positions of leadership, and that of course includes our dear friends the politicians, have looked on environmental standards as things which can be watered down, fudged, or in the worst case, totally ignored. If there is one thing which these people as a breed unfortunately tend to lack, it is long-term vision. So of course they need to be constantly lobbied in order to persuade them to act responsibly.
It is only in recent times that politicians have given particular thought to, let alone attempted to get to grips with - and then only in a half-hearted fashion - such things as flood management and water policy. I still have in mind a certain fairly recent environment secretary’s rather flippant admission on air that the UK had no flood management policy, or even any particular drought strategy come to that.
Even more problematical is the marine situation, and with it the future of UK recreational sea angling. I can hardly imagine dear little Britain going it alone on its own marine resources, being as close as it is to its European neighbours. Since much of our commercial fishing is done in EU and other waters, it will be difficult, if not impossible, to define boundaries beyond which British commercial fishermen may not stray, or into which others may not intrude. Most stocks are to some extent shared with other countries. Realistically, many years of renegotiations lie ahead.
We are in no position to claim fish stocks as our own and act like Iceland in the 1970’s: warding off mainland European and other ‘invaders’ with gunboats. It is difficult enough to forecast the full implications of Brexit for commercial fishing, let alone try to fathom out how it might affect recreational angling.
But the Brexit process will present the perfect opportunity for anglers, in the shape of the Angling Trust, to lobby for certain species to be designated as recreational-only, or for stricter quotas and size limits to be enforced. Bass are a case in point. There was a sea-change (if you will pardon the pun) in 2014, when politicians finally woke up to the economic importance of recreational sea angling. They were persuaded that sea angling, as opposed to commercial sea fishing, generates much more value in terms of employment in needy coastal areas. So the time is ripe to push home the case for the needs of recreational angling, and for the proper recognition of social and economic benefits it brings.
I suspect that Brexit, once the process gets properly under way, will spark a widespread reaction among interested parties as to why they deserve special attention: commercial interest groups, companies, manufacturers, entrepreneurs, farmers and commercial sea fishing interests will all be out to make sure that they come out of the process as they each individually would wish to.
There is still everything to play for. Brexit will bring the opportunity to tailor European environmental principles to our own needs in the UK. It will be the perfect opportunity, once we are free of the Common Agricultural Policy, to push for sound use of agricultural land, with a system of payments to go with this. It will be the perfect opportunity to campaign against the widespread growing of maize, which is notorious for causing soil erosion and river degradation.
But make no mistake, angling will be just one lobby among a crowd of others who have their eye on the Brexit opportunity to push their own case. And there is no real reason to think that their view of the future will coincide with ours. The National Farmers’ Union were not slow to start putting forward their own case immediately after the referendum.
It is therefore now more than ever important that we anglers support our representative body, the Angling Trust, in the run-up to Brexit, and beyond. Because make no mistake, if the sort of political free-for-all that I envisage actually comes about, proper representation, and with it the clout to be able to influence government policy, will be the key thing to defend and enhance our sport.
To put it in plain language, anglers, whether of the game, coarse or sea variety, will need to stick together. So just for once, and in this particular context, ‘ever closer union’, if it means anglers closing ranks, in the form of memberships and donations, with the Angling Trust for the battles ahead, would be something I really welcome.
