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 base | Article 37 EC; QMV
|
| Document originated | 3 December 2003
|
| Deposited in Parliament | 9 December 2003
|
| Department | Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
|
| Basis of consideration | EM and Minister's letter of 19 January 2004
|
| Previous Committee Report | None
|
| To be discussed in Council | 17-19 December 2003
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | For 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
| 260,502 | 260,502
| 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
| 4,800 | 4,800
| 0 |
VIIe,f |
1,000
|
1,000 |
1,000
| 1,000 | 1,000
| 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
| 22,659 | 22,659
| 0 |
Vb, VI, XII, XIV
|
3,700 |
4,600
|
1,808 | 848
| 848 | -53
|
VIIa |
2,100
|
3,200 |
1,950
| 2,150 | 2,150
| 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
| 16,396 | 18.099
| 26 |
Anglerfish
|
|
|
| | | |
IIa, IV |
14,130
|
10,500 |
7,000
| 6,081 | 7,000
| 0 |
Vb, VI, XII, XIV
|
6,400 |
4,770
|
3,180 | 2,749
| 3,180 | 0
|
VII |
21,700
|
18,600 |
15,810
| 20,027 | 20,902
| 32 |
Haddock |
|
|
| | | |
IIa, IV |
61,000
|
77,935 |
39,521
| 37,202 | 65,467
| 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
| 12,294 | 12,294
| 0 |
Vb, VI, XII, XIV
|
4,000 |
3,500
|
2,000 | 1,600
| 1,600 | -20
|
VIIa |
1,390
|
1,000 |
500
| 514 | 514
| 3 |
VIIb-k |
21,000
|
31,700 |
31,700
| 14,110 | 27,000
| -15 |
Hake |
|
|
| | | |
IIa, IV |
870
|
946 |
1,053
| 987 | 1,373
| 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
| 18,987 | 21,350
| 28 |
Vb, VI |
11,340
|
11,340 |
11,340
| 11,300 | 11,300
| 0 |
VII |
18,900
|
17,790 |
17,790
| 17,450 | 17,450
| -2 |
Plaice |
|
|
| | | |
IIa, IV |
78,000
|
73,110 |
69,282
| 40,873 | 57,923
| -17 |
Vb, VI, XII, XIV
|
1,920 |
1,728
|
1,534 | 1,227
| 1,227 | -20
|
VIIa |
2,000
|
2,400 |
1,675
| 896 | 1,340
| -20 |
VIId,e |
6,000
|
6,690 |
5,970
| 6,060 | 6,060
| 2 |
VIIf,g |
760
|
680 |
660
| 470 | 560
| -15 |
VIIh-k |
1,215
|
1,080 |
582
| 349 | 466
| -20 |
Pollack |
|
|
| | | |
Vb, VI, XII, XIV |
1,100 |
1,100
|
880 | 704
| 704 | -20
|
VII |
17,000
|
17,000 |
17,000
| 17,000 | 17,000
| 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
| 22,063 | 21,381
| 21,381 | -3
|
IIa, Vb, VI, VII, VIIIa,b,d,e,, XII, XIV
| | 345,012
| 310,808 | 296,349
| 296,349 | -4
|
Sole |
|
|
| | | |
II, IV |
19,000
|
16,000 |
15,850
| 13,500 | 17,500
| 7 |
Vb, VI, XII, XIV
|
140 |
125
|
106 | 85
| 85 | -20
|
VIIa |
1,100
|
1,100 |
1,010
| 664 | 800
| -21 |
VIId |
4,600
|
5,200 |
5,400
| 4,050 | 5,900
| 8 |
VIIe |
600
|
525 |
394
| 197 | 300
| -24 |
VIIfg |
1,020
|
1,070 |
1,240
| 830 | 1,050
| -15 |
VIIh,j,k |
650
|
650 |
390
| 360 | 390
| 0 |
Sprat |
|
|
| | | |
IIa, IV |
232,000
|
220,000 |
240,000
| 238,000 | 238,000
| -1 |
VIId,e |
12,000
|
12,000 |
9,600
| 9,600 | 9,600
| 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
|
