Select Committee on European Scrutiny Seventh Report


1 Fisheries: catch quotas and effort limitation 2004


(25124)

15388/03

COM(03) 746

Draft Council Regulation fixing for 2004 the fishing opportunities and associated conditions for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Community waters and, for Community vessels, in waters where catch limitations are required

Legal baseArticle 37 EC; QMV
Document originated3 December 2003
Deposited in Parliament9 December 2003
DepartmentEnvironment, Food and Rural Affairs
Basis of considerationEM and Minister's letter of 19 January 2004
Previous Committee ReportNone
To be discussed in Council17-19 December 2003
Committee's assessmentPolitically important
Committee's decisionFor debate in European Standing Committee A

Background

1.1 Each year, the Fisheries Council agrees the Total Allowable Catches (TACs) for particular fish stocks in the following calendar year, based on advice from the Advisory Committee on Fisheries Management (ACFM) of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES), and of the Commissions Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF). In those cases where particular fisheries are jointly managed with third countries, the Council agrees the Community share following negotiations with the countries concerned; and, once the relevant TACs for the Community as a whole have been decided or negotiated, the Fisheries Council allocates the catch between Member States in the form of national quotas according to a predetermined key. At the same time, the conditions under which the quotas may be fished are specified.

1.2 current proposal These annual proposals habitually present scrutiny difficulties, in that official texts are very often unavailable, requiring us to rely substantially on the Explanatory Memorandum provided by the Government. Last year, however, these usual difficulties were compounded because the lateness of the Commissions proposals made it impossible for the Government to supply an Explanatory Memorandum prior to their adoption by the Council on 20 December 2002. As a result, we were not able to consider until 15 January 2003 the Explanatory Memorandum provided a few days earlier by the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Commons) at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Elliot Morley). At that meeting, we recommended that the proposals[1] should be debated on the Floor of the House, but as they had formed part of a motion on fisheries considered by the House the following day, we subsequently agreed that further consideration was unnecessary, and that the proposal could be regarded as having been cleared by the debate held on 16 January.[2]

1.3 Regrettably, a similar situation has arisen on the current proposals, setting out the TACs for 2004. These originated on 3 December 2003, were deposited in Parliament on 9 December, and, in view of the need for decisions to be taken before the start of 2004, had to be agreed at the meeting of the Council scheduled for 17-19 December. In view of this, the Government again arranged for a motion on fisheries to be debated on the Floor of the House (on 9 December), the relevance of which we consider below.

The current proposal

1.4 As in previous years, this deals with:

  • TACs and national quota allocations for fish stocks in Community waters;
  • quotas for Community vessels in Third Country waters, and in international waters regulated by regional fisheries organisations;
  • quotas for third country waters in EU waters;
  • the licensing and other conditions (including control and enforcement of catch limits and effort restriction) which apply to the fishing of these opportunities;
  • technical measures.

TOTAL ALLOWABLE CATCHES (TACS) IN COMMUNITY WATERS

1.5 As before, these allocations form the corner-stone of the opportunities available to Community fishermen in the coming 12 months, and the table at Annex I shows, for the major stocks of interest to the UK in the North Sea, West of Scotland, Channel and Irish Sea fisheries, both the Community TACs[3] proposed for 2004 and those subsequently agreed by the Council. It also sets out, by way of comparison, the figures agreed in 2001, 2002 and 2003, and the percentage changes as between 2003 and 2004.

1.6 The Commission says that, as in previous years, its proposals are based on the latest scientific advice, modified in some cases by the need to ensure continuity of economic activity, and to take account of earlier decisions by the Council to reduce quotas, to introduce effort controls for some fisheries, and to pursue decommissioning programmes. Its proposals can be categorised as follows.

Stocks where scientists advised a closure of fisheries[4]

1.7 In the case of stocks for which closure had been recommended in 2002, the Commission proposed an unchanged TAC for North Sea cod (where it says that ICES has not been able to provide new quantitative advice), whilst for other such stocks, it proposed TACs consistent with the latest information and the Council's intended reduction in fishing mortality in 2002. This implied a 53% reduction in the TAC for West of Scotland cod, but a slight (10%) increase for Irish Sea cod. For stocks where closure has now been recommended, including Western Channel sole, it proposed TACs consistent with decisions taken in 2002 on fishing mortality, and it also indicated its intention to introduce during 2004 a recovery plan for Irish Sea whiting. The Minister says that the outcome of the Fisheries Council broadly reflected the Commission's proposals, but that its "extreme interpretation of the relatively inconclusive" Western Channel sole assessment was successfully challenged, and a more moderate cut agreed (which should enable the survival of that part of the industry).

Stocks where scientists advised a reduction to very low levels or a recovery plan

1.8 In the case of those stocks in this category of interest to the UK, the Commission proposed a 40% reduction in the TAC for plaice in the North Sea; a TAC for northern hake consistent with the recovery plan; a TAC for cod in the Celtic Sea corresponding to a 30% increase in biomass; and a 29% cut in TAC for plaice in the Celtic Sea. In each case, less stringent cuts than originally proposed were agreed, and the Minister points out that, in the case of North Sea plaice, the Commission agreed to these in return for technical measures designed to aid recovery and minimise discarding of small plaice.

Stocks associated with a stock for which scientists have advised a closure or a reduction to the lowest possible level

1.9 The Commission said that the relationships between cod and other stocks in the North Sea have been quantified by a multi-species model, which it has taken as a basis for setting TACs for some closely associated species, such as haddock and whiting. It also said that, at the request of the industry, it considered ways of decoupling the fishing of recovery and associated stocks, either through separation of fishing grounds or by measures relating to catch composition, but concluded that it would be difficult to pursue the former approach because of the problem of applying different rules to fishing activity in small geographical areas. However, the Minister says that, following intensive discussions at the Fisheries Council, proposals were agreed which allowed the relatively healthy stocks of haddock and nephrops in the North Sea to be exploited, subject to a regime of special licenses to keep vessels targeting these stocks out of identified cod-rich zones of the North Sea. This licensing is to operate in tandem with the days-at-sea effort limitation, and vessels with a track record of less than 5% by-catch of cod will be permitted more days-at-sea than others with higher by-catch percentages of cod.

1.10 In areas outside the North Sea, the Commission proposed an additional reduction in fishing mortality for associated stocks (e.g. megrim, anglerfish, sole and whiting) to contribute to the recovery of the cod, hake and sole stocks. However, the Minister says that, because the science in many cases does not support the degree of linkage originally assumed by the Commission, its proposals were challenged, with the outcome reflecting a "more sophisticated assessment of linkages between various associated stocks that is more closely reflected in landings data".

Other stocks

1.11 For stocks outside safe biological limits but not falling in either of the two above categories, the Commission proposed a TAC corresponding to the short-term catch option advised by the scientists, subject to any change as compared with 2002 being limited to 40% to maintain stability of markets and fishing operations, whilst for those inside safe biological limits and not associated with a stock subject to a closure or recovery plan, it proposed a TAC aimed at preventing the stock crossing a safe biological limit in the foreseeable future. Also, precautionary TACs were proposed for stocks for which no assessments were available.

Stocks managed in the context of bilateral agreements

1.12 For the seven North Sea stocks jointly managed by the Community and Norway (cod, haddock, whiting, saithe, plaice, mackerel and herring), the Commission proposed a rollover for cod, whiting and haddock; increases of 15% in the TACs for saithe and herring; a 40% reduction in the fishing mortality for plaice; and a reduction in the TAC for mackerel (already agreed). The Minister says that these were broadly agreed as proposed, with the exception of plaice and haddock, where the outcome of the Council did not reflect what had originally been proposed in EU/Norway negotiations. He adds that this caused the Norwegians to walk out of the negotiations in the final stage, with the result that the Community and Norway have yet to reach agreement. Consequently, no fishing by vessels of either party may take place in waters under the jurisdiction of the other.

EFFORT RESTRICTIONS

1.13 In the absence of agreement on the form of long-term stock recovery plans, the Commission proposed the continuation of interim arrangements for cod, suitably enhanced to ensure more effective monitoring and control. In addition, it proposed that the range of species covered should be extended to include plaice, sole and southern hake, and the geographical coverage extended to include the Irish Sea and English Channel. It envisaged that these arrangements would apply from 1 February to 31 December 2004, but that agreement would subsequently be reached on longer-term measures to apply from 2005. The major operational changes proposed were:

  • a requirement that a vessel should remain in port once its allocation of days has been used up;
  • the removal of derogated areas in the North Sea and West of Scotland which had not previously been subject to effort control;
  • further encouragement (through the allocation of additional days) to vessels with low catches of cod, plaice, sole and hake;
  • a requirement for the advance notification of potential gear use; and
  • stricter controls on the carriage of gear.

1.14 Separately, the Commission proposed to limit effort on sandeels in the North Sea, initially at 2003 fishing levels, but with provision for controls to be tightened in the light of scientific advice on the 2003 year class, anticipated in the first half of this year.

1.15 The Minister says that, following a number of adjustments, agreement was reached on new arrangements to apply from 1 February, with a new days at sea scheme to apply for the rest of this year. These measures were then accepted as part of the longer term cod recovery plan (which also included rules on the setting of TACs), which was approved for operation from 1 January 2005 (unless there is agreement in the interim on an alternative method of effort control). Agreement was also reached on a long-term plan for Northern hake.

1.16 The major changes agreed on the days at sea proposal were:

  • the measures were restricted to the North Sea, West of Scotland, Irish Sea and Eastern English Channel, with a Commission commitment to coming forward next year with separate proposals to deal with the recovery of sole in the Western English Channel;
  • additional days were provided to encourage the more selective fisheries (with the lowest bycatch of cod and other associated species); and
  • at the UK's behest, the averaging of days (possible under the existing arrangements) where more than one gear was used in a particular management period, was retained, thereby allowing those fishermen who have traditionally switched between gears at particular times of the year to continue to do so without undue penalties.

1.17 Agreement was also reached on a new effort control regime for sandeels in the North Sea.

CONTROL AND ENFORCEMENT OF CATCH LIMITS AND FISHING EFFORT

1.18 The Commission drew attention to shortcomings in the enforcement of catch quotas, effort ceilings and fishing vessel reporting obligations, and called upon Member States to take urgent action to improve control and enforcement in these areas in 2004. This was reflected in an Annex to the proposal which requires, above certain levels, the prior notification of catch and landing into designated ports, along with the weighing of landings and a significant reduction in the weight tolerance for completing fishing logbooks. The Commission also plans to adopt, under Management Committee procedure, detailed rules for the inspection of cod and other recovery stocks.

1.19 The Minister says that, at the Council, the Commission repeated its call for Member States to take urgent action to improve controls and enforcement in 2004. Rigorous control provisions, applicable to all Member States, were adopted as part of the cod recovery measures and in respect of the conduct of the UK haddock fishery in the North Sea, with similar measures to be adopted for the UK North Sea fishery for nephrops in early 2004.

ADDITIONAL TECHNICAL MEASURES

1.20 In recent years, the TACs and quotas regulation has included an annex which renews a number of technical conservation measures which have not been incorporated yet in the main technical conservation legislation.

1.21 The Commission indicated that it will consider, with Member States, further technical measures in three areas:

  • developing devices which reduce by-catch (for example, sorting grids to separate nephrops from associated whitefish);
  • regulating the dimensions of fixed nets;
  • assessing the potential benefits of further mesh size increases in some fisheries.

1.22 The Commission indicated that it aims to bring forward new measures by July 2004. In the meantime, the Council agreed to renew a number of significant measures. Many of these are not of direct interest to the UK, but they do include the continued closure of an area off Eastern Scotland to industrial fishing for sandeels, already closed for the past four years, as well as a proposal for a closed area off the West of Scotland. The latter is identical to that closed in the 2000 cod spawning season, although the closure would be all year and, unlike in 2000, when pelagics and purse seines were permitted, would allow no fishing. There is no mention of the Irish Sea spawning closure which was included in the technical annex last year.

1.23 No decisions were taken on new technical measures at the December Council. Discussions on the consolidation of the technical measures regulation will continue under the Irish Presidency.

OTHER ISSUES

Allocation of quotas for acceding countries

1.24 Quotas were adopted for the new Member States (Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Estonia) in respect of cod, herring, plaice, Atlantic salmon and sprat in the Baltic Sea, an area in which the UK has no quotas.

Inter-annual quota flexibility

1.25 Each year the Council decides, on a stock by stock basis, whether Member States should be allowed to borrow quota (up to 10 per cent) from the next quota year or alternatively carry over unutilised quota (up to 10 per cent) into the following year. This year the application of the arrangements is to be made more transparent.

UK QUOTAS IN THIRD COUNTRY AND INTERNATIONAL WATERS

1.26 UK quotas in Third Country and international watersThe Community has a large number of fisheries agreements with Third Countries, and, in many such cases, the UK has little or no direct interest. However, four agreements — those with Norway, the Faroe Islands, Greenland, and Iceland — do provide catching opportunities for UK fishermen, and the UK also has quotas in waters regulated by the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC) and the North West Atlantic Fisheries Organisation (NAFO).

1.27 These quotas, which are important for the UK distant water fleet, are summarised in the table at Annex II. There is no change in quotas in Icelandic or Faroese waters, and only minor adjustments to those off Greenland, the main change being an increase in the cod quota at north Norway.

THIRD COUNTRY QUOTAS IN COMMUNITY WATERS

1.28 Third Country quotas in Community waters Access is provided for Norwegian and Faroese vessels to certain quotas in the Community zone of the North Sea and in Western waters and for Faroese, Icelandic and Norwegian vessels to quotas held by the Community in Greenland waters. These opportunities are provided as part of a balanced exchange of quotas between the Community and the countries concerned.

OTHER SPECIES

1.29 Other species As part of the Commissions obligations as a contracting party to the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), rollover quotas have been set for bluefin tuna, albacore tuna and swordfish. The UK does not have a directed fishery for bluefin tuna or swordfish, though it takes limited quantities in other Atlantic fisheries, and thus benefits from small amounts of unallocated quota enabling it to continue to land by-catches. It does however have a very small amount of the quota for albacore tuna.

The Government's view

1.30 In his Explanatory Memorandum of 19 January 2004, the Minister for Conservation and Fisheries, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Ben Bradshaw) says the cornerstone of the UK's approach to TACs and quotas is that these must be consistent with scientific advice, but that it is at the same time important to maximise the opportunities which can responsibly be taken, and allow associated stocks to be exploited where it can be ensured that impact on recovery stocks will be minimised. He suggests that, if necessary, this can be done through management measures and/or improved control and enforcement. He says that this year's proposal maintained the severely restrictive approach adopted last year in relation to the cod stocks, and broadly maintained the restrictions imposed last year on stocks "associated" with those recovery stocks, as well as curtailing the TACs for various other stocks in decline, but that it was understood at the Council that the Commission would be more flexible in its approach on TACs if agreement were reached on the recovery plans for cod and hake. He adds that the UK sought solutions which ensure stock recovery, whilst preserving a viable degree of activity for the industry and those communities dependent on it — an aim shared by a number of like-minded Member States, which was crucial to the success of the Council.

1.31 On other aspects of the proposals, he says that:

  • in the case of effort limitation, the Government supports the principle of effort control applied to stocks whose long-term sustainability is under threat and will continue to seek to achieve a balance between conservation and recovery and the maintenance of fishing opportunities, in order to provide the industry with a viable future: it will also look for a mechanism which is practicable for both fishermen and administrators to operate;
  • on enforcement, effective and consistent standards have been a key priority for the UK, and are crucial to the success of the common fisheries policy and the conservation of fish stocks: the Government welcomes the Commission's plans to strengthen control and enforcement, and will work constructively with other Member States and the Commission to ensure that effective, practical and proportionate measures are adopted;
  • on the additional technical measures, the UK welcomes the continued sandeel closure off east Scotland, since it believes the scientific evidence does not support removal of the closure at this time: the proposal for a closed area to the West of Scotland and a possible need for an Irish Sea cod spawning closure are closely linked to negotiations on recovery plans for cod in these areas, and, in both cases, the Commission has proposed effort control which would limit fishing days;
  • on inter-annual quota flexibility, the UK industry has made use of the facility to bank or borrow quota in the past and the continuation of previous arrangements is therefore welcome: the Minister adds that the number of stocks for which the banking or borrowing of quota is permissible has increased, and that the inclusion of nephrops for the first time could be of particular benefit to the UK industry.

Representations from the Scottish Fishermen's Federation

1.32 We have received representations from the Scottish Fishermen's Federation (SFF) about one aspect of the proposals, touched upon only briefly in the Minister's Explanatory Memorandum (see paragraph 1.9 above). This relates to the conditions under which the UK may, as from 1 February 2004, take its haddock quota of 50,811 tonnes in the North Sea. According to the Commission, the need for these conditions arises because of the risk of by-catches being taken from the depleted cod stocks, and they provide that only 20% of the UK haddock quota may be caught in the cod protection areas where it has traditionally been taken, with the remaining 80% (amounting to 40,469 tonnes) having to be caught in other areas by vessels holding special fishing permits. It is maintained by the SFF (and others) that these conditions are not only discriminatory (in that they do not apply to other Member States' quotas, or to Norway), but that, since haddock is most abundant in the cod protection areas, they will also make it impossible in practice for the UK to take its full haddock quota. Moreover, because haddock itself is a by-catch in the nephrops fishery, the restrictions will also make it difficult for the UK to use its increased nephrops quota in the North Sea, and the "other areas" where the UK would be forced to take the bulk of its haddock quota are important spawning grounds. The SFF says that it is taking legal advice, with a view to challenging the discriminatory aspects of the Regulation in the European Court of Justice. In the meantime, it has asked us to seek to delay the implementation of the Regulation in the UK until the management issues have been re-assessed, and a more feasible arrangement is agreed with the industry.

1.33 It would not be within our powers to require the Government to delay the implementation of a measure to which it has already agreed in the Council, and in any event we doubt if such a course would be possible in the case of a Regulation having direct effect in the Member States. Nevertheless, we note the strength of feeling which these restrictions have generated, particularly in Scotland, and that they were the subject of a debate in Westminster Hall on 13 January. We also note that, in his response then — for which the time available was very short — the Minister simply pointed out that the UK accounts for nearly 80% of the Community TAC for North Sea haddock, and that it had been necessary to accept these conditions in order to secure the increase in its quota (to 50,811 tonnes, from the 28,874 tonnes originally proposed by the Commission).

Conclusion

1.34 We recognise that the situation faced has arisen for reasons outside the Governments control. Nevertheless, we must again voice our concern that the Commissions proposals should have been deposited in the House such a short time before the start of the Council meeting at which decisions had to be taken, and that we are only now — some five weeks later — able to consider them on the basis of an Explanatory Memorandum. In saying that, we recognise that, in arranging a debate on 9 December, the Government did its best in the circumstances to allow Members to express a view prior to the crucial discussion in the Council. We have therefore considered whether any further consideration by the House is called for, given also the debate held in Westminster Hall on 13 January.

1.35 In view of the motion on fisheries considered before Christmas, we do not think it would be sensible, particularly at this stage, to call for a further debate on the Floor of the House. On the other hand, the House has had little opportunity to question the Minister on the outcome of the Council, and the debate on 13 January was concerned with only one, albeit important, aspect of the arrangements agreed, and the time available for the Minister's response was short. Consequently, we believe it would be helpful for Members to have the opportunity to raise any outstanding issues on that point and on the package as a whole, and we are therefore recommending that there be an early debate in European Standing Committee A.

  COMPARATIVE TABLES OF TACs: 2001, 2002 2003 AND 2004

  (tonnes)


2001

2002

2003

Proposal

2004

Agreed

2004

% change

from
03 to 04

Herring






IVa, b

265,000

146,327

224,458
260,502260,502
16

IVc, VIIId

42,673

59,542
66,098 66,098
11

Vb, VIaN, VIb

36,360

36,360

29,340
29,340 29,340
0

VIa (Clyde)

1,000

1,000

1,000
1,000 1,000
0

VIIa

6,900

4,800

4,800
4,8004,800
0

VIIe,f

1,000

1,000

1,000
1,0001,000
0

VIIg,h,j,k

20,000

8,000

13,000
11,000 13,000
0

Cod




IIa, IV

48,600

41,620

22,659
22,65922,659
0

Vb, VI, XII, XIV

3,700

4,600

1,808
848 848
-53

VIIa

2,100

3,200

1,950
2,1502,150
10

VIIb-k, VIII, IX, X

10,500

8,700

6,700
3,518 5,700
-15

Megrim




Vb, VI, XII, XIV

4,360

4,360

4,360
3,600 3,600
-17

VII

15,000

13,350

14,336
16,39618.099
26

Anglerfish




IIa, IV

14,130

10,500

7,000
6,0817,000
0

Vb, VI, XII, XIV

6,400

4,770

3,180
2,749 3,180
0

VII

21,700

18,600

15,810
20,02720,902
32

Haddock




IIa, IV

61,000

77,935

39,521
37,20265,467
55

Vb, VI, XII, XIV

13,900

14,100

8,675
7,205 7,205
-17

VII, VIII, IX, X

12,000

9,300

8,185
9,435 9,600
17

Whiting




IIa, IV

29,700

32,358

12,294
12,29412,294
0

Vb, VI, XII, XIV

4,000

3,500

2,000
1,600 1,600
-20

VIIa

1,390

1,000

500
514514
3

VIIb-k

21,000

31,700

31,700
14,11027,000
-15

Hake




IIa, IV

870

946

1,053
9871,373
30

Vb, VI, VII, XII, XIV

13,920

15,118

16,823
15,757 21,926
30

Nephrops




IIa, IV

15,480

16,623

16,623
18,98721,350
28

Vb, VI

11,340

11,340

11,340
11,30011,300
0

VII

18,900

17,790

17,790
17,45017,450
-2

Plaice




IIa, IV

78,000

73,110

69,282
40,87357,923
-17

Vb, VI, XII, XIV

1,920

1,728

1,534
1,227 1,227
-20

VIIa

2,000

2,400

1,675
8961,340
-20

VIId,e

6,000

6,690

5,970
6,0606,060
2


VIIf,g

760

680

660
470560
-15

VIIh-k

1,215

1,080

582
349466
-20

Pollack




Vb, VI, XII, XIV

1,100

1,100

880
704 704
-20

VII

17,000

17,000

17,000
17,00017,000
0

Saithe




IIa, IIIb-d, IV

87,000

66,150

79,300
91,200 91,200
15

Vb, VI, XII, XIV

9,000

14,000

17,119
19,713 19,713
15

VII, VIII, IX, X

5,600

8,710

8,710
6,968 6,968
-20

Mackerel




IIa, IIIa-d, IV

25,798 22,06321,381 21,381
-3

IIa, Vb, VI, VII, VIIIa,b,d,e,, XII, XIV
345,012 310,808296,349 296,349
-4

Sole




II, IV

19,000

16,000

15,850
13,50017,500
7

Vb, VI, XII, XIV

140

125

106
85 85
-20

VIIa

1,100

1,100

1,010
664800
-21

VIId

4,600

5,200

5,400
4,0505,900
8

VIIe

600

525

394
197300
-24

VIIfg

1,020

1,070

1,240
8301,050
-15

VIIh,j,k

650

650

390
360390
0

Sprat




IIa, IV

232,000

220,000

240,000
238,000238,000
-1

VIId,e

12,000

12,000

9,600
9,6009,600
0


TACs are defined in terms of areas designated by ICES. Those of most immediate relevance to the UK correspond roughly to the following geographical regions:

Area II

North Sea N of 62

Area IV

North Sea S of 62

Area Vb

Faroes

Area VI

West of Scotland

Area VIIa

Irish Sea

Area VIIb,c,h,j,k

Western approaches

Area VII d, e

English Channel

Area VIIfg

Celtic Sea

Area VIII

Bay of Biscay

ANNEX II

  TABLE OF UK EXTERNAL WATERS QUOTAS

Outcome of Commission negotiations in terms of UK Quotas in Third Country Waters and the Waters of Regional Fisheries Organisations





Location/Species

2003 Quota (tonnes)

2004 Quota (tonnes)

% Change

North Norway(1)




Cod

7,665

9,431
23

Haddock

1,446

1,446

0

Saithe

257

257

0

Redfish

100

100
0

Greenland Halibut

50

50

0

Other species

240

240

0





Faroe Islands




Cod/haddock

430

430

0

Saithe

580

580

0

Redfish

67

67

0

Blue ling/ling

184

184

0

Blue Whiting

7,040

7,040

0

Flatfish

680

680

0

Other species

180

180

0



Greenland




Cod

364

364

0

Redfish (east)

150

150
0

Redfish (west)

105

105

0

Greenland Halibut (east)

193

213
10

Roundnose   Grenadier

(east)


86

86

0





Iceland




Redfish

1,160

1,160

0





NAFO




Cod 3NO (2)

0

0

0

Cod 2J3KL (2)

0

0

0

Cod 3M(2)

0

0

0

   (1) Provisional quotas, pending conclusion of fisheries consultations with Norway for 2004

(2)  Stocks under moratoria due to poor biological condition.




1   (24091) 15246/02; see HC 63-vii (2002-03), para 1 (15 January 2003). Back

2   HC 63-xvi (2002-03), para 3 (26 March 2003). Back

3   In some cases, notably those North Sea stocks shared with Norway, these figures differ slightly from those in the Explanatory Memorandum.This is because the latter relate to the whole TAC (including any share due to Norway), whereas we have thought it better to focus on the quantities available to Community fishermen. Back

4   Those of direct interest to the UK include cod in the North Sea, Eastern Channel, West of Scotland and Irish Sea; whiting in the Irish Sea; and sole in the Western Channel.

 Back


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2004
Prepared 4 February 2004