3. RECOVERY OF COD AND HAKE STOCKS
(23079)
15245/01
COM(01) 724
|
Draft Council Regulation establishing measures for the recovery of cod and hake stocks.
|
| Legal base: | Article 37 EC; consultation; qualified majority voting
|
| |
| Department: | Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
|
| Basis of consideration: | Minister's letter of 14 December 2002
|
| Previous Committee Report: | HC 152-xxii (2001-02), paragraph 13 (20 March 2002) and HC 152-xxxvii (2001-02), paragraph 2 (17 July 2002)
|
| To be discussed in Council: | 16-19 December 2002
|
| Committee's assessment: | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision: | Not cleared
|
Background
3.1 While the general state of the fish stocks in Community
waters has given rise to concern, the International Council for
the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) identified in November 2000
particular problems in respect of the cod stocks in the North
Sea and West of Scotland and the Northern hake stock. The Fisheries
Council therefore agreed in December 2000 that the Community should
establish a recovery plan for these stocks.
3.2 The Commission subsequently put forward in December
2001 proposals for the conservation of these stocks (and of cod
in the Irish Sea and Kattegat) in the longer term. These would
include:
- the setting of quantitative targets for the adult populations
of cod and hake;
- the setting of multi-annual total allowable catches (TACs)
at a level to assist biomass to increase annually by 30% in the
case of cod and 15% in the case of hake;
- all fishing vessels authorised to land cod and/or hake being
restricted to fishing effort limits linked to their average catch
of those species;
- additional monitoring arrangements, including an extension
of satellite monitoring systems to vessels over 15 metres in length;
- a 20% increase in the maximum rate of Community financial
assistance for scrapping vessels engaged in fishing these stocks,
together with a relaxation of the rules for subsidising temporary
laying-up and on the granting of aid for vessel renewal and modernisation.
3.3 In his Explanatory Memorandum of 28 February 2002,
the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Commons) at the Department
for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Elliot Morley) said
that the UK accepted the need to bring fishing effort into better
balance with available fish stocks, but had some reservations
about the extent to which the proposed measures would achieve
this. In addition, he believed that the potential resource implications
for both the administration and enforcement of the scheme nationally
were likely to be significant. The Minister said that the Government
was currently seeking the views of the industry, and would then
provide a Regulatory Impact Assessment.
3.4 This was enclosed with his Supplementary Explanatory
Memorandum of 11 July 2002, but, as the Government intended to
continue its dialogue with the industry, this was still in draft
form. Nevertheless, the Assessment made it clear that, whilst
the industry favoured taking no action until the impact of existing
measures could be assessed, the Government's scientific advice
— like that of the Commission — was that the impact
of those measures would be significantly below the level needed
to ensure the required recovery, and that failure to take any
action at this stage would place the stocks at high risk of collapse.
3.5 The Assessment went on to say that the proposal would
require an overall cut in the time at sea for the approximately
1200 UK vessels over 10 metres targeting cod, and the further
1100 or so targeting hake, which (after fuel savings and any increase
in fishing efficiency) would reduce net vessel revenue. The extent
of any such reduction would, however, depend on a number of factors,
including the alternative catching opportunities available. The
Assessment added that, although vessels over 24 metres must already
have satellite monitoring terminals, the proposal would require
these to be fitted to the 1000 or so vessels between 15 and 24
metres which land cod and hake. The cost of a new terminal is
put at about £3,000, with annual operating costs of about
£1,000.
3.6 In our Report of 17 July 2002, we noted the position,
but said that it was clear that there were still a number of major
uncertainties, which required further consultation between the
Government and the industry. In view of this, we would
hold the proposal under scrutiny and await information on that
further consultation.
Minister's letter of 14 December 2002
3.7 In his letter of 14 December 2002, the Minister says
that the Commission has indicated that it intends to make a formal
amendment to the proposal, but that this is still awaited. However,
he understands that it will respond to the latest scientific view
that stocks, especially of cod, are in a more depleted state than
hitherto believed, and that a moratorium should be introduced
on fishing for cod in the North Sea, West of Scotland and the
Irish Sea, with fishing for species caught with cod substantially
reduced. He adds that, in the light of this advice, the Commission
intends to propose that the limits it has suggested on fishing
effort (days at sea) should be tightened, with those on cod, haddock
and whiting reduced by 80%, that on flatfish by 40%, those on
megrim, anglerfish and industrial species by 10%, and that on
nephrops by 5%. On the other hand, measures for northern
hake would be somewhat relaxed in the light of the latest scientific
opinion. Vessels would be allocated to segments depending on their
catch composition over the period 1999-2001, with the overall
effort for each segment being allocated among the relevant vessels
by the Member States concerned.
3.8 The Minister says that the UK catching sector has
emphasized the "highly damaging" impact of 80% cuts
in effort in the white fish sector of the fleet, and on the dependent
shore industries, and that it therefore rejects the effort limitation
approach. He adds that he has been closely consulting the industry,
that he appreciates their alarm, especially at the latest Commission
views, and that the Government fully accepts both that a moratorium
would greatly damage the white fish fleet and that the effect
of an 80% cut would be little different. He says that he has made
clear in the House that neither course is a realistic option.
3.9 On the other hand, the Minister states that "we
cannot ignore the very depleted state of the stocks", and
that, without these being viable, the industry has no future.
He also points out that the Commission has stated that, in the
absence of agreement by the Council on its proposed approach,
it intended to use its own powers to make emergency regulations
to impose a moratorium on cod fishing. He further points out that
the issue is to be considered by the Council meeting on 16-19
December, where he hopes it will be possible to reach an agreement
on a suitable way forward. He adds that he is anxious to avoid
a situation where, in the absence of a decision, the Commission
considers itself obliged to take emergency action, and he warns
that he may be asked to agree to some sort of compromise.
Conclusion
3.10 We are disturbed that not only is this proposal
being amended in ways which seem likely to be highly damaging
to the fishing industry, but also the Council is being put under
pressure to agree this week a measure on which the Commission
has yet to put forward a formal proposal. Whatever the merits
or otherwise of such a proposal, an approach of this kind makes
meaningful parliamentary scrutiny well nigh impossible, and, although
we appreciate that the situation which has arisen is to an extent
outside the Government's control, we are concerned that the Minister
should only now have alerted us to it.
3.11 In view of this, and notwithstanding the Minister's
warning that he may need to consider agreeing to some sort of
compromise in the Council, we do not feel able to clear this document.
We therefore intend to return to it in the light of the outcome
of the Council, and of the discussions on the Community's total
allowable catches (TACs) and quotas for 2003, where we have also
been told that a decision will need to be taken at the Council,
even though we have yet to receive either a proposal or an Explanatory
Memorandum from the Government.
|
