David Levy – Brexit Inertia – Sep 16
A paradox in terms is Theresa May, our Prime Minister, negotiating the terms of Brexit when she clearly wanted to remain. It’s tantamount to making Nicola Sturgeon responsible for the Union. It demonstrates how integrated fraud is within our corridors of power.
I have written twice to Brexit advocate George Eustice MP, our Minister for Fisheries within Defra, asking him about the policy he is advancing within his ministry for the post Brexit decision.
It is clear from his weak reply that he didn’t expect the result he got. Clearly the atmosphere of London pervades all thinking to the point of where they did not expect the Inquisition (Monty Python).
Marinet has maintained that Brexit is a public vote and not the thinking of bureaucracy, and it would be a mistake to exclude public thinking from future plans.
I do not hold out much hope given past history. The fishing industry will likely pull all the strings.
However we have been forward in our thinking by sending George Eustice a document of 20 policy changes that would deliver change in the marine map. They are attached.
I send this small blog, along with my Chairman’s address at the AGM for September 2016.
Marinet Policy Statement — September 2016
10 Policy Areas and the Principles for Change
1. Monitoring and Governance:
a). The UN Law of the Sea (UNCLOSUNCLOS The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, also called the Law of the Sea Convention or the Law of the Sea treaty.) needs to establish in law that all seas and oceans are effectively a marine protected area, and no activity can occur without a licence.
See: Conserving the Great Blue : overturning the dominant ocean paradigm. Published by Marinet, 2014.
Printed copies available, or www.marinet.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Conserving-the-Great-Blue.pdf
b). The UN needs to establish a worldwide licensing authority, financed by the licences, which enforces rigorously this new principle of law (all seas and oceans effectively a marine protected area).
c). All industries using the seas and oceans, in the UK and worldwide, have to by law provide CCTV and Satellite Navigation Tracking evidence to their national government or the UN enforcement agency.
2. Marine Management Organisation (UK):
a). The MMO should have a protected fixed budget which reflects its responsibilities and provides the latest monitoring equipment. The MMO must build a liaison structure with enforcement agencies and the courts.
3. Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs):
a). Marine licences and their EIAs to be continually updated by scientific evidence from the monitoring of impact.
4. Marine Reserves:
a). Marine Protected Areas (SACSAC Special Areas of Conservation, MCZMCZ Marine Conservation Zone etc) should not be breached by socio-economic activities which impact on the protected species, habitats and the overall ecology on which the MPA depends.
b). All Marine Protected Areas should have a clear management plan and management structure.
c). All of the potential 127 MCZsMCZ Marine Conservation Zone to be officially established within 5 years (by 2020).
d). The UK Government (JNCC) to define and publish the “ecological coherence of the MPA network”.
5. Fishing:
a). All fishing quota to be allocated to the British Registered Fishing Fleet.
b). Under 10 metre boats are given 50% of the quota.
c). All fishing catch is landed in UK ports and, where possible, a Black Fish public monitoring presence will provide the Marine Management Organisation with reports.
See for further details about Black Fish’s Citizens Investigation Network: http://theblackfish.org/cin
d). The economics of the reformed fishing industry to be regionalised, and for the maximum value for each fish landed to be encouraged through the use of appropriate fishing gear and localised end use customers.
e). All UK fishing vessels to desist from global fishing, and where possible operate only within UK seas.
f). Establish close links with Norway and Iceland Fishing Agencies for the management of the NE Atlantic.
6. Aggregates:
a). Where an alternative to virgin sands and gravels exist, especially via recycling, alternatives are used as a priority.
b). Priority is given to the monitoring of impact on marine ecology at licensed sites, and its publication.
7. Shipping:
a). Dirty diesel engines to be replaced wherever possible, with subsidy where necessary, and for dumping at sea (oils, plastics,, netting and general waste) to be eliminated and enforced by MMO.
8. DEFRA:
a). All marine NGOs provide an annual report to DEFRA on areas of concern, DEFRA responding biannually.
9. Brexit:
a). DEFRA to run a review with all parties to explore existing practices, and the need/scope for change.
10. Scientific Panel:
a). UK Government to establish a “Standing Scientific Panel” to provide impartial advice as required.
* * * * * * * *
AGM 2016, Chairman’s Report.
Welcome to the first independent Marinet AGM.
I am pleased to say that the transition from our parent company has been comparatively painless and without continued rancour. We waited to hear from FOE what their marine strategy was to be in order to assess whether joint campaigning could be possible. We have heard nothing from them, and that is okay for our direction is clear to us and our work schedule is pretty full.
We were really pleased to hear from Save Our Sands, a community conservation group from Deal, Kent, working to preserve the Goodwin Sands. Our meeting with the group at the British Library was on a filthy rainy day, but the cross fertilization of ideas showed clearly that Marinet is a healthy vibrant entity which can provide education and clear thinking on specific problems.
We are also liaising with the Marine Management Organisation and Defra, trying to engage these bodies with opportunities from Brexit.
We have produced forward thinking discussion documents for both these bodies, and have been concerned by how little preparation they have made for consultation. One gets the feeling that nobody expected the Inquisition and they are playing catch up. Marinet has made it very clear that Brexit was a public decision and not a decision from their bureaucracy, and therefore should reflect conservation measures in whatever changes they are proposing.
One of my concerns this year is how Marinet can engage its members into activity on its behalf. That’s being blunt, and is a brutally honest reflection of who does the work within our company. We are not short of ideas, just people with the time to deliver a performance.
We would always welcome having people who want to lead on a subject/issue so long as they can take direction from the Directors. Let’s talk about this.
Stephen will give a review of the year and talk about the agenda for today. Let me once again welcome you all and hope you have an instructive/inspiring day.
David
