[BBC News] Scallop survey results defended

[Newsbot]

The fisheries minister defends his decision to publish the results of a survey into high numbers of baby scallops in Manx waters.

 

Source : http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/world/...man/7203716.stm

[keyboarder]

It is possible that Mr Gawne is a naive buffoon.

[triskelion]

The iomtoday website gives a slightly different perspective: http://www.iomtoday.co.im/news/Fishing-boa...-bed.3698478.jp

 

To me it sounds like it was bound to happen.

[manxy]

Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Minister Phil Gawne defended the decision to publish the results of a pre-season survey which revealed details of the scallop bed. 'I feel the department has acted admirably,' he insisted.

He said DAFF's chief fisheries officer had received a hostile reception from the fishermen.

 

I bet he did. What an absolute prat!!!

Doesn't he know that advertising that here's loads of scallops to the world wide media, means that the local fishing fleet will lose out?

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Gawne

Quote: He has spent time in jail on the Isle of Man for arson. He and others set fire to houses in the Isle of Man in protest of the mass immigration of the English to the Isle of Man, which in their view was destroying the Island's culture

 

Culture eh! Is he a minister that looks after his own, or not??

[Freggyragh]

We can't afford to defend scallops alone when our 'defence' spending goes to the UK, and if they aren't interested in stopping the fishermen then the situation was bound to happen. The fisheries department anouncement meant nothing by the way - every fishing boat is equiped with fish finding equipment which would have found these babies in no time - and as soon as one boat signals it is trawling (which it must do by law) the game is up.

[%age]

"What rubbish you're talking, what rubbish"

 

Manx Radio sound clip is well worth a listen! clickety click

[Skeddan]

Anyone who has been following the 'Mec Vannin Make Believe' thread might be able to guess some of my views on this one...

 

There are some interesting points to have come out of this:

 

1. The IoM Govt does not seem to have exclusive control of territorial waters (to 12 nautical miles) but only within a 3nm limit (that is the old historic territorial waters of 'cannon shot' as it was in 1765, and which should have been extended to 12nm by operation of international law). Why the UK has any say within the 12nm limit is something to be wondered at.

 

[Phil Gawne] explained his department had no powers to act as the scallop bed was outside a three-mile limit in waters where the Manx and UK authorities effectively had joint control.

http://www.iomtoday.co.im/news/Fishing-boa...-bed.3698478.jp

 

2. iomtoday and BBC reports both speaks of this being 'plunder' (the BBC reporting this as being what Manx ministers said it was). The difference between the two reports is that the BBC has it that Manx fishermen were excluded, in the iomtoday would seem to indicate that the Manx Govt had no powers over the Manx fleet and they joined in. It is clear however that non-Manks fishing vessels (primarily UK and Irish) were collecting scallops in these beds - which was described as plundering these resources (which to me at least seems a reasonable way of describing this).

 

3. There seems to have been little serious consideration of what might be done / might have been done to protect these resources.

 

..David Cannan (Michael) .... suggested that the fisheries protection vessel The Barrule should have been deployed to prevent the scallop bed being 'desecrated'.

 

Mr Gawne retorted: 'Is he trying to establish some kind of queenies and scallop war using our Barrule against the might of the Royal Navy. He has brought it down to this ridiculous level.'

 

In my view it is simple - affirm exclusive jurisidiction within the 12nm limit and declare an Exclusive Economic Zone and clearly put these scallop beds within exclusive Manx jurisdiction as they should be. Enforcing protection within Territorial waters and the EEZ with the Barrule would be entirely legitimate in international law. Any vessles illegally fishing within the 12nm limit can be detained and prosecuted under Manx law. Any Irish or English vessels illegally fishing within the EEZ may also be detained, arrested and prosecuted. (What is or is not proportionate use of force, such as firing shots as by the Australian navy, is however a matter which is the subject of some dispute).

 

The Barrule would not (I would think) be up against the might of the Royal Navy if there were such territorial waters and an EEZ. The Barrule would be acting in accordance with international law, and interference with this by the Royal Navy would be an internationally wrongful act. Might does not make right, and any 'Scallop War' would not be the result of Manks action, but only (if one were to suppose such a thing) the Royal Navy coming against the right of a vessel carrying out official duties enforcing legitimate fisheries protection. If it came to it I'd think the mighty Royal Navy would do no more than take a couple of pot shots over the bows, and then would be beaten back by the Barrule (and force of international law). I'd say even a single unarmed Manks tin-bathtub would be able to successfully come up against the might of the Royal Navy.

 

4. In the clickety click link provided by %age we find Pav Phil Gawne saying "I don't have the powers to impose this unilaterally". Apart from the question of what consultation he may or may not have had with the UK on the matter, Gawne needs to say a bit more about this lack of powers - where does he get this information from? (Whitehall?) On what basis are such powers delimited between the UK and IoM? What is going on with Manx territorial waters, and what about the principles of Resolution 1803 of the UN, which inter alia expressly states: "Violation of the rights of peoples and nations to sovereignty over their natural wealth and resources is contrary to the spirit and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.."

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/c_natres.htm

 

5. Contra to what Phil Gawne might think, territorial waters, EEZs, fisheries protection, UNCLOS-III, UN Charter, UN General Assembly Resolutions, and International Law are not matters which are at a 'ridiculous level'. Personally I think petty acts of vandalism such as committing arson as a protest is what counts as silly and ineffective behaviour, and IMO acts of violence against property, and especially people ought to be condemned. Now when Gawne is in a position where he might take a legitimate, principled and meaningful stand to protect Manx interests with the backing of a ton of international law, what happens? What kind of minister is it who quivers at legitimate protection of territorial waters? Phil Gawne is starting to look like a big Pavlova - the outside may seem hard and firm, but it's full of air and crumbles easily and one finds a soft squidgey inside.

[Sharp]

The fishermen said to help protect scallops they would be prepared to increase the size of the Belly rings on the dredgers. This is a crap statement to make and it might kid the Government but the true fact is, increasing the size of the belly rings will only aid the fisherment, firstly it would allow the small dead scallops to drop out of the net and also small debri from the sea floor.

Small scallops in the first years of their lives have a ver britlle shell and are easily damaged, once damaged the shell is open to a scallops worst enemy the spider starfish. Any hole or damage in the shell is a wecome invitatation to the startfish who will destroy the scallop in hours, Its not only small scallops that are killed or damged its other shellfish, lobsters. crabs and many other species. Take a look at the following vidios to see what sort of damage is done.

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=VnCg_A0YGZg

 

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvwUeZirCe0

[Tango]

It's obvious that the only real solution to this problem is public floggings.

[staaue]

So this three nautical mile limit is proof that we are still under the thumb of Westminster!!!!

 

Phil Gawne is looking like a bit of a pussy, he needs to start speaking up so people understand more about the reasons our international waters are being plundered by foreign fishing fleets...

 

So recently, the skippers (none Manks) that were charged with fishing undersized queenies, was that anything to do with this zone. I mean, did the cheeky gits plunder our resources and then try to sell them to us. :lol: This so wouldn't surprise me.

 

This is just more evidence of our subjugation by the UK.

 

Staaue.

[bluemonday]

Future history...........

 

as a result of a dispute over fishing zones, in early 2008; the Isle of Man declared war on the United Kingdom - this conflict became known as the "queeny war"

[homarus]

The iomtoday website gives a slightly different perspective: http://www.iomtoday.co.im/news/Fishing-boa...-bed.3698478.jp

 

To me it sounds like it was bound to happen.

 

Especially if you supply the exact co-ordinates in writing ,to every scallop fisherman (Manx or otherwise ) !

[Grianane]

admirably stupid IMO

[Sharp]

The Barrule has only been out on patrol about twice since November 2007, she is at present tied up against the wall in the Douglas inner harbour and the reason is they do not have any money to operate the boat left in this finacial year.

[Skeddan]

For those interested in some of the background to this - the fishing limits, how the UK has managed this for its own interests, the Isle of Man's semi-colonial status, and Phil Gawne’s hopeless inability to assert and defend Manks interests - here is some of the history to this, beginning with the various fishing limits:

 

First off, one sees how in 1976 the UK extended its fishing limits by an Act of Parliament:

 

Subject to the following provisions of this section, British fishery limits extend to 200 miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea adjacent to the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man is measured.

(my italics)

Fishery Limits Act 1976

 

This shows the UK was happy to extend the Manks fishery limit to 200 miles, but only for the purpose of counting this as British fishery limits. With the UK being a full member of the EU this means fishing vessels from any EU member state have the same rights as UK fishing vessels. However any Manks fishing outside the 3nm internal waters have to obtain a license from the UK – even to fish in territory which the UK claims by virtue of it being measured from the Isle of Man.

 

However this ‘Scallop plunder’ took place in Manx waters; within the Manks territorial sea – within 12 nautical miles, but outside the 3 nautical mile limit. Here is some background about the Isle of Man’s territorial sea limits:

 

The 12nm limit for territorial sea was formally established by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) in 1982:

 

Coastal States exercise sovereignty over their territorial sea which they have the right to establish its breadth up to a limit not to exceed 12 nautical miles; foreign vessels are allowed "innocent passage" through those waters;

UNCLOS

 

In the absence of a boundary agreement, UNCLOS requires states not to extend their territorial sea beyond the median line with neighbouring states. The means of extending the territorial sea in accordance with UNCLOS is unilateral action. i.e. by passing legislation. (see for example, The Principle of Sovereignty Over Natural Resources, Elian, G; p.128).

 

In 1987, the UK’s Territorial Sea Act 1987extended the UK’s territorial sea for the UK (including Northern Ireland) from 3nm to 12nm (but not going beyond the median line with the Isle of Man). However no such extension was made regarding a Manks territorial sea, so the 3nm limit remained. Hence British (and EU) vessels were able to continue to fish and dredge to within 3nm of IoM.

 

Then in 1991 there was an Order in Council:

 

The Territorial Sea Act 1987 shall extend to the Isle of Man with the exceptions, adaptations and modifications specified in the Schedule to this Order.

Territorial Sea Act 1987 (Isle of Man) Order 1991

 

Among various reservations in the Schedule, 3(2) states:

 

Nothing in section 1 above, or in any Order in Council under that section, shall affect the operation of any provision relating to sea fisheries made by or under any enactment contained in an Act of Parliament.

So while the UK claims these fishing rights for itself, it does not see fit for Manks to enjoy the same. UK and EU vessels can continue to fish to within 3nm - just the same as before. Manks still have to obtain licenses from the UK to fish in what should be exclusive Manks fishing grounds - just the same as before.

 

Then in 2005, we find that the Manks Government made an attempt to obtain full control of its territorial sea. However, there appears to have been a strong lobby against this by the NFFO (National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations - the representative body for fishermen in England, Wales and Northern Ireland).

 

The NFFO had this to say about it:

 

It appears that the UK Government has thrown its weight behind the Federation’s opposition to plans put forward by the Isle of Man for full control of its waters out to its 12 mile limit.

 

At the moment, any change in management policy in waters from three to 12 miles off the IoM coast require concurrence from the UK Government. The NFFO put up strong resistance to the proposal and it is now understood that ministers have accepted that the measure should be opposed.

 

Chief executive Barrie Deas says: “We put forward strong arguments on the basis of our members’ interests in these waters, which were particularly relevant given that the Isle of Man has a minimal interest in whitefish stocks.

“It looks like the Government has been persuaded by our arguments.”

NFFO release 25/05/06

 

What were those arguments? The main one seems to have been this:

 

“To grant the Isle of Man authority to place an arbitrary cap on activity within the 12 mile limit would have no coherent fisheries management justification in terms of rational management of demersal or scallop stocks in the Irish Sea.”

NFFO newsletter Aug 2005

 

Events from the last few weeks show how rational the management of scallop stocks has been thanks to this decision – at least for the NFFO’s members’ interests.

 

If the inability of the Manks authorities to undertake the ‘rational management of scallop stocks’ was a key reason for the UK opposing such a measure, then what justification is there for Phil Gawne to make the following statement last month:

 

the Hon. Phil Gawne MHK, Minister for DAFF said: ‘The Isle of Man has built an enviable reputation for sustainable management of our scallop stocks.

Isle of Man Guide, News, Dec 2007

 

These scallops that have been taken are - by rights - Manks scallop stocks. The UK should have given the same treatment to the Isle of Man as it did to itself when extending fishing limits and territorial sea. This is both a fiduciary responsibility under principles established by the UN (such as UN General Assembly Resolution 1803 noted in an earlier post) and in International law, and may well also be a requirement under EU principles.

 

Moreover Tynwald can and should have unilaterally passed legislation for full control within territorial seas. If it cannot, then why not? Is the agreement of May 1st last year not worth the paper it’s written on? What possible rationale can there be for the Isle of Man to not have full control over its territorial sea? (Other than it not being in the interests of the UK fishing industry).

 

IMO it strikes me as a dismal failure by the Manks Government - aren’t they meant to manage their responsibilities in the best interests of the Manks people? By rights under International law the Manks people should have exclusive fishing rights within this 12nm limit, and indeed within an EEZ. Phil Gawne’s lame excuses only highlight his inability to vigorously assert and defend Manks fishing rights as should be expected of a Minister.

 

Does the Minister for DAFF have any form of ministerial responsibility? Isn’t it time that Phil Gawne started to do what he is paid to do?