脫歐之后，魚該怎么辦？

脫歐之后，魚該怎么辦？

魚是一種共享的資源。無論從經(jīng)濟(jì)還是環(huán)境的角度講，漁業(yè)都應(yīng)該合作管理。但脫歐卻為英國乃至歐洲的漁業(yè)帶來了令人擔(dān)憂的不確定因素。

測試中可能遇到的詞匯和知識：

salvo齊射，突然爆發(fā)['sælv??]

regime政體；管理體制[re?'?i?m]

sovereign具有主權(quán)的，至高無上的['s?vr?n]

tailored特制的，合身的['te?l?d]

depletion消耗，罄盡，放血[d?'pli??n]

trawler拖撈船，拖網(wǎng)捕魚者[d?'pli??n]

unilateral單方面的，單邊的[?ju?n?'lætr?l]

The EU and UK need each other to manage fish（597 words）

FT View

A fish fight was bound to appeal to the psyche of Brexiters, who in the management of fisheries always saw much to gain from leaving the EU and little to lose. British fishing communities have long complained of being unfairly limited by EU quotas. They remember Europe's intervention in the cod wars, which in 1976 forced Britain to concede an exclusive 200-mile fishing zone to Iceland.

Brexit, they contend, should offer an opportunity to reclaim pre-eminence over the quintessential ingredient of fish and chips, at a time when cod stocks have shown promising signs of recovery from earlier battering in the north Atlantic.

For politicians like Michael Gove, the UK environment minister, there is also the temptation to seek quick victories in the battle to repatriate sovereign powers from the EU, which for nearly 50 years has determined where British fishermen can operate and how much they can catch.

Last week Mr Gove fired his opening salvo by announcing the government's decision to withdraw from the 1964 London Fisheries Convention, which allows vessels from six EU nations to fish within six and 12 miles of the UK coastline. This, he suggested, is a prelude to Britain withdrawing from the EU's Common Fisheries Policy that governs access to waters between 12 and 200 miles from coasts. In Mr Gove's view “taking back control” will enable the UK to “dramatically increase the amount of fish that we catch”.

Theoretically, at least, withdrawing from the CFP would give the UK an opportunity to develop a regime that is, in the words of a recent House of Lords report, “tailored to the conditions of UK waters and its fleet”. The UK would be able to set its own conservation rules, and would have an independent voice alongside Norway and the EU in setting quotas for allowable catches.

The reality may not be so simple. Fish for one, do not respect international boundaries. Fishermen often do so reluctantly. In the case of the former, there is the danger of a rapid depletion of stocks if agreements are torn up and replaced by a stand-off of the kind that fuelled the cod wars of old. Then there is the question of how the UK in practice will keep foreign vessels out. Will they shoot at Spanish and French trawlers?

As the Lords' report notes, most commercial fish stocks are shared between UK waters and those of other EU or European coastal states. Some species spend different stages of their lives in different nations' waters. This is true of cod. If Britain seeks exclusive fishing rights over adults of the species — which predominate in its waters — the temptation for other nations will be to catch them earlier in their life cycle. The net result would be to undo progress towards sustainable fishing.

Andy Lebrecht, a former director-general for food and farming at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, argues that such a stand-off could also quickly affect trading terms. He points out Britain's vulnerability to tariffs if EU nations retaliate against any unilateral UK action. Britain exported £921m of fish to the EU in 2015, whereas total imports were worth £775m.

It might be tempting to think we would be better on our own. But fish are a shared resource. For both economic and environmental reasons they require shared management. Going by precedent, any new agreements will be tortuous to negotiate and there is no guarantee that UK fishermen would end up better off, nor that the UK's dwindling fish stocks will be better conserved if we go it alone.