1 Management of fishing
effort in western waters
| (24139)
15253/02
COM(02) 739
| Draft Council Regulation on the management of the fishing effort relating to certain Community fishing areas and resources and modifying Regulation (EEC) 2847/93.
|
| Legal base | Article 37 EC; consultation; QMV
|
| Department | Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
|
| Basis of consideration | Minister's letters of 16 September and 30 October 2003
|
| Previous Committee Report | HC 63-xxv (2002-03), paragraph 5 (18 June 2003)
|
| Discussed in Council | 13 October 2003
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Not cleared; further information requested
|
Background
1.1 In view of the pressure on the stocks in the Communitys "Western
Waters", particularly following the accession of Spain and
Portugal, the Council established in 1995 a system for managing
such effort, involving the establishment of lists of vessels
authorised to fish, a number of general rules for determining
the fishing effort deployed by each Member State for demersal
species, and the laying down of the actual maximum effort for
each Member State in each fishery.
1.2 The first of these Regulations also took into
account the terms governing Spanish and Portuguese accession,
but, in December 2002, the Commission put forward the current
proposal, which sought to reflect the fact that, as from 1 January
2003, Spain and Portugal would become fully integrated into the
Common Fisheries Policy, and that consequently transitional provisions,
such as the limit placed on the number of Spanish vessels allowed
to operate in the so-called Irish box, would need to be revised.
Thus, although the new measure would substantially re-enact the
earlier provisions on catch reporting and those requiring vessels
to notify flag and coastal states by telex, fax, telephone, or
radio when they enter into or exit from fishing areas within western
waters, they would also incorporate certain amendments. In part,
these would reflect the change in the status in this area of Spain
and Portugal, but they would also introduce, on wider conservation
grounds, one significant change applying to vessels of all Member
States, under which:
- lists of vessels over 18 metres
authorised to fish in the waters in question would be limited
to those which had done so in the period 1998-2002 (though replacements
would be permitted, provided this did not increase capacity);
- maximum fishing effort ceilings (defined as capacity
times activity) for both demersal and pelagic species would be
evaluated and set for each area, and then be allocated according
to the actual fishing opportunities available in 2003.
1.3 As we noted in our Report of 18 June 2003, the
Government said that it recognised the importance of maintaining
effort controls in Western waters, but wished to examine the implications
of the proposals against the background of other conservation
measures which had been adopted over the last year. It also wished
to examine the monitoring and control aspects to see whether there
was scope to reduce some of the reporting burdens on vessels operating
in the waters in question, though we were also told that the additional
compliance costs were likely to be limited, and would mainly impact
on vessels engaged in pelagic fishing. Subsequently, a partial
Regulatory Impact Assessment confirmed that, although the industry
would face compliance costs arising from the reporting in and
out conditions, there should be no increase for vessels targeting
demersal species, the main impact being felt by those holding
pelagic licences. However, the Assessment also said that these
costs could be reduced by removing the reporting requirement for
those vessels over 18 metres subject to satellite monitoring.
1.4 Shortly before the Agriculture and Fisheries
Council on 11-12 June 2003, we received a letter from the Government,
in which we were told that the Greek Presidency had suggested
a compromise under which there would be larger management zones,
with controls based on fleet capacity (defined in terms of numbers
and size of vessels) rather than fishing effort. Also, the proposed
regime would cover five separate fisheries — demersal (towed
gear); demersal (fixed gear); scallops (towed gear); edible and
spider crab (fixed gear); and small pelagic species (purse seine
and pelagic trawl) — for which capacity ceilings would be
set zone by zone, but not, as originally proposed, deep sea and
larger pelagic species, such as tuna and shark. In addition,
the regime would be extended to vessels below 18 metres, and include
a special zone to the south and west of Ireland to safeguard juvenile
hake stocks, but, where vessels were submitting position reports
by satellite, usually every two hours, movements in and out of
zones would no longer have to be notified to coastal and flag
states.
1.5 We were also told that, provided the present
levels of fishing activity did not increase, the proposed regime
should have only a limited impact on vessels over 18 metres, and
that compliance costs could fall if satellite position reports
are accepted in place of "hailing in and out" messages
each time a vessel enters or leaves a western waters zone. It
was also suggested that the compliance costs for vessels under
18 metres should not be significant, since most undertake trips
lasting less than 72 hours, and would thus be required to hail
out only when leaving port with the intention of fishing in the
waters of another Member State.
1.6 In the event, the Council in question was not
able to reach agreement, and we therefore said that, in view of
this, and the potentially important enforcement issues raised
by the proposal, we thought it right to continue to hold it under
scrutiny. We also said that we would like the Government to keep
us informed of any significant developments.
Minister's letter of 16 September 2003
1.7 We subsequently received a letter of 16 September
2003 from the Minister for Nature Conservation and Fisheries at
the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Ben
Bradshaw), in which he said that a fresh compromise text for the
Council had just been received, proposing an effort-based regime,
rather than one based on capacity. He added that this did not
take on board the UK's wish to see a separate management zone
for the Irish Sea, but that concerns about increased effort in
that area had to some extent been addressed by a joint statement
by the Council and Commission that any fishing effort in previously
restricted areas will be closely monitored. The Minister also
said that, all in all, what was being proposed adequately addressed
most of the UK's outstanding concerns, although efforts would
be made to secure further improvements before, or at, the Council
on 29 September, at which it was anticipated that the new text
would be adopted.
Minister's letter of 30 October 2003
1.8 As with the Council on 11-12 June, the meeting
on 29 September was unable to resolve the differences of view
between a number of Member States, notably the UK, Ireland, France,
Spain and Portugal, and agreement was not finally reached until
a meeting of the Council on 13 October. We have only now received
a letter of 30 October from the Minister, in which he says that
the compromise adopted was acceptable to the UK, France and Portugal,
but not to Spain and Ireland. He confirms that there will be
no separate management zone for the Irish Sea, but that the Council
and Commission have made a joint statement on the need for close
monitoring of fishing effort. These points apart, the Minister
says that the final outcome offers the UK significant improvements
over the text originally tabled by the Commission, notably:
- vessels not over 15 metres
would be excluded from the scope of the regime in all areas, except
a specially biologically sensitive area ("hake box")
off the south-west coast of Ireland, where it will apply to all
vessels over 10 metres;
- the list of vessels able to fish in western waters
would no longer be restricted to those with a previous history
of having done so;
- except when entering or leaving the hake box,
vessels would no longer have to hail in or out on entry or exit
from western waters zones, thus reducing the industry's compliance
costs to zero;
- there would be arrangements for adjusting Member
States' effort allocations to let them take their quotas in full
or increase fishing activity on non-quota stocks;
- the number of fisheries would be reduced from
five to three (demersal, scallops and edible/spider crabs).
1.9 The Minister also says that, since further delay
might have prejudiced this outcome, he hopes that we will understand
why he felt it important to agree to the proposal before it had
received scrutiny clearance.
Conclusion
1.10 The Minister's latest letter raises two concerns.
First, on the Government's handling of the proposal, we understand
the difficulties created by the various attempts by the Council
to reach agreement over a period of three or four months, and
by the fact that much of the relevant discussion took place at
a time when the House was not sitting. Even so, we note that
it took the Minister 17 days to let us know the outcome of the
Council's consideration of a proposal which had not received scrutiny
clearance (and moreover that it took a further five days for his
letter to travel the short distance between his office and here).
1.11 Secondly, on the substance of the proposal,
it is clear that all the parties to this negotiation faced a difficult
balance between on the one hand ensuring that, following the end
of the arrangements made when Spain and Portugal joined the Community,
suitable steps were made to protect the stocks in question against
a major increase in fishing effort, and, on the other hand, avoiding
control measures which would be unduly onerous for fishermen of
other Member States, such as the UK, who have previously operated
in these waters.
1.12 Only time will tell whether the correct balance
has been struck, and we note both the declaration by the Council
and Commission on the need for close monitoring of fishing effort
in the Irish Sea and the Minister's view that the outcome agreed
is acceptable to the UK. However, before we consider clearing
the document, we would be glad if the Minister could spell out
more fully how the Regulation agreed will in practice address
the need to safeguard the stocks in these waters against a sudden
increase in fishing effort, particularly from Spanish and Portuguese
vessels.
|
