10 FISHERIES: CATCH QUOTAS
AND EFFORT LIMITATION 2006
(a)
(27063)
14919/05
COM(05) 598
|
Draft Council Regulation fixing the fishing opportunities and associated
conditions for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks in the Baltic Sea
for 2006
|
(b)
(27079)
14920/05
COM(05) 617
+ ADDs 1-2
|
Draft Council Regulation fixing for 2006 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
|
| Documents originated | (a) 24 November 2005
(b) 30 November 2005
|
| Deposited in Parliament |
(a) 5 December 2005
(b) 15 December 2005 |
| Department | Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
|
| Basis of consideration |
(a) EM of 19 December 2005
(b) EM of 9 December 2005
(Both) Minister's letter of 19 December 2005
|
| Previous Committee Report |
None |
| Discussed in Council | 20-22 December 2005
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Cleared
|
Background
10.1 Each year, the Fisheries Council agrees the Total Allowable
Catches (TACs) for particular fish stocks in the following calendar
year, based on advice provided by the International Council for
the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) in mid October, and by the Commission's
Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF)
in early November. 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.
10.2 These annual proposals habitually present scrutiny
difficulties, in that official texts are very often unavailable
until after the Council meeting at which decisions have to be
taken, or (at best) too late to enable us to consider them properly
beforehand. Regrettably, a similar situation arose on the proposals
in document (b) setting out the TACs in 2006 for the stocks of
major interest to the UK. These had to be agreed at the meeting
of the Council scheduled for 20-22 December 2005, but were not
deposited in Parliament until 15 December. Moreover, although
the Government had prepared an Explanatory Memorandum on the basis
of an unofficial text, it was not able to do so until 9 December,
thereby making it impossible for any debate recommended by us
to be held before decisions were taken by the Council.
10.3 In view of this, the Minister for Nature Conservation
and Fisheries at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs (Mr Ben Bradshaw) wrote to us on 19 December, explaining
the position on both this document, and on a separate proposal
(document (a)) on catch quotas in the Baltic Sea which the Commission
had produced somewhat earlier in the (ultimately vain) hope that
this could be agreed before the December Council. He also enclosed
with this letter a copy of the paper which the UK Presidency had
presented to the Council in December, aimed at addressing the
Parliamentary scrutiny problems posed by the present timetable
for the provision of scientific advice.
10.4 That paper is attached as Annex I to this Report,
and recognises that any fundamental change in the ICES timetable
would require a rescheduling of scientific surveys, and that this
could take some years to achieve. In the meantime, it proposes
that the Commission should draw up proposals for TACs for the
following year as soon as the May ICES advice is available, based
on the previous October's advice for those stocks dependent
on survey results. These proposals would then be published by
mid-July at the latest, and decided at the November meeting of
the Fisheries Council, thus on the one hand allowing four months
for technical examination and consultation, and on the other,
one month to implement the decisions taken before the start of
the next calendar year.
10.5 This approach would also be based on an understanding
between the Council and Commission that, where the subsequent
October advice shows a clear change for a particular stock compared
with that in the previous October, the Commission would table
as a Presidency compromise any corresponding changes to the TAC
already proposed: however, where the October advice implies a
much more fundamental reassessment, consideration of this would
be held over to the following year.
10.6 We therefore took the view that it would be
sensible, before reporting to the House, to take oral evidence
from the Minister, and this we duly did on 18 January 2006.
The current proposal
10.7 As in previous years, the main proposal 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 vessels 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; and
- technical measures, such as closed areas.
As usual, the TAC allocations form the corner-stone
of the opportunities available to Community fishermen in the coming
12 months and tend to attract the greatest media attention (although
the Minister's Explanatory Memorandum comments that it is the
related measures which have increasingly proved to be the most
difficult to agree).
TOTAL ALLOWABLE CATCHES (TACS) IN COMMUNITY WATERS
10.8 The table at Annex II 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[33]
agreed for 2006 and the UK's share of each of these. It also sets
out, by way of comparison, the equivalent Community figures in
2004 and 2005, and the percentage changes as between 2005 and
2006.
10.9 The Commission says that, as in previous years,
its proposals are based on the latest scientific advice, which
has once more underlined the generally poor state of the stocks
in question, with many being exploited at levels in excess of
those which correspond to the maximum potential yield. It adds
that in some cases the proposals also take into account the need
to ensure continuity of economic activity, and of the decision
taken to establish annual catch limitations within a multi-annual
framework which seeks to achieve sustainability through a gradual
reduction of fishing mortality. The proposals —
which can be categorised as follows —
also reflect both the complexity arising from the need to set
TACs for species caught in mixed fisheries, and the need for quotas
to be reinforced by effort limitations.
Stocks where the Council has adopted a recovery
plan[34]
10.10 The Commission says that, where the Council
has adopted recovery plans (notably for a number of cod stocks
and for Northern hake), it sought to take into account the relevant
rules, including any necessary adjustments in fishing effort.
However, it stresses that the TACs proposed are higher than those
recommended by ICES only because the Council has accepted a long-term
approach, and that some cod stocks may be at such a low level,
and the information about real catches so poor, that strict application
of the plans is far from straightforward. For recovery stocks
where a proposal has been made, but has not been adopted by the
Council, such as sole in the Western Channel and North Sea flatfish,
it says that that the TACs proposed correspond to the rules in
the relevant recovery plan.
Other stocks outside safe biological limits
10.11 The Commission says that, so long as the Council
is prepared to accept that agreeing TACs higher than those recommended
by the scientists involves a commitment to a long-term approach,
such a trade-off should be extended to those stocks outside safe
biological limits where a sudden reduction would cause disruption
to the industry. It therefore proposed that, in such cases, the
reduction in the TAC should be limited to 15%, a figure which
it says represents a compromise between reducing biological risks
and what has repeatedly been represented by the industry as maximum
cut if undue economic disruption is to be avoided.
Overfished stocks
10.12 In cases where the stocks are over-fished in
terms of achieving a sustainable yield but are not at risk of
collapse, and pending a debate planned in 2006 about how to reduce
fishing mortality in order to achieve maximum sustainable yields
by 2015, the Commission proposed TACs for 2006 which are consistent
with not increasing fishing mortality.
Stocks taken in mixed fisheries
10.13 In cases where vulnerable species are caught
together with others which are commercially important, the Commission
has sought to set TACs for the latter which avoid the catching
and discarding of the vulnerable species after their quotas have
been exhausted.
"Paper fish" stocks
10.14 As in previous years, the Commission has reduced
by 20% those TACS which are underfished by all Member States
Stocks managed in the context of regional fisheries
organisations or following bilateral consultations with third
countries
10.15 The Commission proposal for these stocks reflects
the decisions taken within certain regional fisheries organisations,
but did not initially include those for stocks shared jointly
with Norway, where discussions were continuing. However, the latter
were set out in a table attached to the Minister's Explanatory
Memorandum of 9 December, and these are included in Annex II to
this Report, indicating that cuts of 15% were agreed in the TACs
for North Sea cod, whiting, saithe and herring, and one of 13%
for North Sea haddock.
EFFORT RESTRICTIONS
10.16 In the light of the ICES advice that TACs have
in many cases been ineffective in controlling fishing mortality,
the Commission has considered it necessary to use as well fishing
effort controls to achieve sustainability objectives, and limits
on days at sea have accordingly been in force during the last
few years to protect cod in the North Sea, west of Scotland and
the Irish Sea. The main feature of the current proposals was for
a 15% cut in effort by the whitefish, beam trawl and nephrops
fleets, coupled with cap on the effort in each of the North Sea,
west of Scotland and Irish Sea fisheries.
10.17 Other such changes include less restrictive
measures for sole in the Western Channel; an effective closure
of the North Sea sandeel fishery, subject to a possible re-opening
if monitoring shows that the stock has recovered sufficiently;
and the particular need, highlighted by ICES, to tighten the effort
deployed on exploiting the deep sea species, which are especially
vulnerable as they are often long lived and slow growing. The
Commission has therefore proposed in this latter case that effort
should be reduced by a further 20%, on top of the 10% cut agreed
last year.
TRANSITIONAL TECHNICAL MEASURES
10.18 Measures of this kind have been on force for
a number of years, and the Commission has proposed that a number
of closures, including those off the west of Scotland and in the
western Irish Sea should continue, along with the protection of
sandeels off eastern Scotland. This year's proposal also introduces
a number of new measures, including a closure of three areas off
the north coast of Cornwall to demersal trawlers in February and
March to protect spawning cod (which amends in the light of experience
measures introduced last year) and a ban on the use of fixed gear
in waters below 200 metres to the west of the British Isles.
The Government's view
10.19 In his Explanatory Memorandum of 9 December
2005, the Minister for Local Environment, Marine and Animal Welfare
at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr
Ben Bradshaw) says that the proposed Regulation reflects the serious
state of many fish stocks, with recovery plans for cod, hake and
nephrops and proposed plans for certain sole and plaice stocks.
However, he adds that, in order to protect the viability of vulnerable
sectors of the UK fleet and the interests of communities dependent
on fisheries, it is important at the same time to maximise the
opportunities which can responsibly be taken, and to allow associated
stocks to be exploited when it can be ensured that the impact
on recovery stocks will be minimised. He also says that measures
must have a clear objective, be well balanced between Member States
and different sectors of the UK fleet, and be capable of quick
implementation.
10.20 Against that background, he says that the UK
will in most cases be able to accept the proposed TACs, and that
it welcomes in particular the increases (of 32% and 39% respectively)
for North Sea and west of Scotland nephrops, whilst also believing
that an increase in the TAC for nephrops in the Irish Sea would
be appropriate. On the other hand, he says that, whereas the Commission
has proposed a reduction of 15% in the TAC for Irish Sea plaice
on the grounds that large amounts of cod are caught in that fishery,
the UK has presented scientific information to show that this
is not the case, and has argued for a 20% increase in the TAC,
which it considers could be caught without increasing the very
low fishing effort in the fishery.
10.21 More generally, he suggests that account needs
to be taken of the possible impact of management measures on fishermen's
behaviour, in that, where stock abundance is significantly out
of line with the TAC, this leads, not to stock conservation, but
to increased discarding and misreporting, which in turn produces
poor data leading to increased uncertainty in future assessments.
He therefore believes that, where fishermen's experience is corroborated
by other means, alternative measures to protect stocks should
be put in place. The Government also considers that stakeholder
collaboration in management decisions plays an important part
in achieving sensible, workable measures, and will in many cases
increase compliance. It has therefore been in close touch with
fishermen's representatives, with the Commission and with other
Member States with the aim of developing effective arguments and
measures, and believes that active cooperation is needed between
the fishing industry and fisheries managers, scientists and other
stakeholders to gather data and draw up proposals for improved
management.
10.22 As regards other aspects of the proposals,
the Minister says that:
- The Government continues to
agree that effort control is appropriate for stocks whose long-term
sustainability is under threat, and will seek to achieve a balance
between conservation and recovery and the maintenance of fishing
opportunities. He adds that the UK has demonstrated substantial
cuts in effort by its white fish fleet in the cod recovery zone,
and that further cuts in this sector would create substantial
risks to its long term viability. However, he accepts that some
further effort reduction in those sectors (mainly concerned with
beam trawling and nephrops) which take cod as a by-catch may be
needed, although there should be an incentive for vessels to adopt
more selective gear which avoids catching juvenile fish.
- The Government supports the proposals for the
protection of deep sea species and North Sea sandeels.
- Effective and consistent standards of enforcement
have been a key priority for the UK, and are critical to the success
of the CFP 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.
- The Government considers that in some cases closed
or restricted areas can play an important role in the management
of marine resources, if supported by scientific evidence and underpinned
by clear objectives and monitoring, and it supports most of the
measures proposed in this area, including the proposed closure
off north Cornwall.
Minister's oral evidence
10.23 When we took oral evidence from the Minister
on 18 January 2006,[35]
we considered in turn the UK's suggestions for improving the future
timing for handling TAC proposals and the outcome of the last
month's Council on those for 2006.
10.24 On the first point, the Minister told us (Q.1)
that the suggestions had not been specifically discussed in advance
with the Commission, but reflected discussions which had taken
place throughout the UK Presidency, including at an informal Ministerial
lunch at the Council in October 2005. He added that the Commissioner
will be producing his own proposals for the April Council. He
also said, when asked (Q.2) whether there was any other way of
shortening the timetable, for example by the STECF considering
the ICES advice before the beginning of November, that the underlying
problem was the absence of scientific advice for most of the relevant
stocks until mid to late October.
10.25 On the outcome of the Council, the Minister
said (Q.4) that, although the Commission's proposal for a 15%
cut in the TAC for North Sea cod had been maintained, there had
been a reduction (from 15 days to 5 days) in the cut in effort
proposed for the white fish fleet, and for beam trawlers and the
nephrops fleet which use smaller nets, but which take a substantial
proportion of cod as a by-catch. He also highlighted both the
"enormous" increases of 39%, 32% and 10% respectively
in the TACs for nephrops for the west of Scotland, North Sea and
Irish Sea, and the importance of these catches in money terms
for the UK fleet, with the value of UK landings this year likely
to increase by 2.5%, as compared with the 1% which would have
resulted from the Commission's initial proposals.
10.26 We also sought to pursue a number of more general
issues. On the comparisons to be made between the Common Fisheries
Policy and the approach to conservation adopted by other countries,
the Minister suggested (Q.13) that most governments face an enormous
challenge in managing their fisheries in a sustainable way, and
that, although some do this better than others, the task is easier
where, example, there is an exclusive limit. He also pointed out
that the north western edge of Europe had probably the most complex
mixed fishery anywhere in the world in terms of the number of
stocks and different nations with an interest in fishing them.
On the implications of global warming, he said (Q.20) that there
was still quite a bit of uncertainty about the possible effect
on fish stocks, but that most scientists would agree that fishing
levels still had the biggest impact.
10.27 On the relationship between catch quotas and
effort controls, the Minister said (Q.23) that the need for these
to be used in conjunction with each other arose because of the
complex nature of the mixed fisheries. In particular, whilst a
greater emphasis on effort control would reduce discards as compared
with a continuing reduction in quotas, to concentrate exclusively
on such an approach would imply a huge reduction in fishing days
in the North Sea in order to protect cod, which would be "absolutely
devastating" for those fishermen, particularly in Scotland,
catching haddock, prawns and other species currently in plentiful
supply. Finally, we noted the extent to which there had been a
large reduction in the UK's catching capacity as compared with
other Member States, and asked (Q.29) whether the Commission should
have done more to force those Member States to make similar adjustments.
The Minister pointed out that the Commission has no powers to
compel the scrapping of vessels, and that, although the UK had
not for some time spent taxpayers' money on building new boats,
this had not been the case in other Member States. However, a
number had now announced significant decommissioning programmes,
partly because of the high price of fuel, and he said that the
commissioner had indicated his intention to use this as a means
of persuading some of those Member States to address the continuing
serious over-capacity in their fleets.
Conclusion
10.28 We recognise that the situation faced here
has arisen for reasons outside the Government's control, and we
commend the Government for the initiative it has taken within
the Council in an attempt to address this problem in future. In
the meantime, however, we must again voice our concern that the
Commission's proposals were 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 were therefore not able to consider
them before their adoption.
10.29 In view of this, we have considered whether
any further consideration by the House is called for. In doing
so, we recognise that, in arranging a debate on the floor of the
House on 7 December, the Government did its best in the circumstances
to allow Members to express a view prior to the crucial discussion
in the Council, and we have of course been able during the Minister's
recent oral evidence session to put to him a number of questions
both on the outcome of the Council and of more general interest.
In view of this, we have concluded on balance that further consideration
of these two documents by the House would not at this stage be
justified, and we are therefore clearing them.
33 In the cases of those North Sea stocks shared with
Norway, the scientific advice relates to the whole TAC (including
any share due to Norway), whereas we have thought it better look
at the quantities available to Community fishermen. Back
34
Those of direct interest to the UK include cod in the North Sea,
the Eastern Channel, the West of Scotland and the Irish Sea, and
Northern hake. Back
35
To be published separately as HC 838-i (2005-06). Back
|
