House of Commons - European Scrutiny

Select Committee on European Scrutiny Eighth Report

5 Fisheries: catch quotas and effort limitation 2007

(28147)

16050/06

COM(06) 774

+ ADD 1

Draft Council Regulation fixing for 2007 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 5 December 2006

Deposited in Parliament 12 December 2006

Department Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Basis of consideration EM of 12 December 2006, Minister's letter of 15 January 2007 and Minister's oral evidence on 24 January 2007

Previous Committee Report None

Discussed in Council 19-21 December 2006

Committee's assessment Politically important

Committee's decision Cleared

Background

5.1 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.

5.2 Since these proposals have to be agreed before the start of the calendar year to which they apply, they have habitually presented scrutiny difficulties, in that official texts are usually available too late for us to consider them properly beforehand. Efforts have recently been made to bring forward the scientific advice for certain stocks, but difficulties continue to exist for those of greatest interest to the UK. Thus, the current document, setting out the TACs in 2007 had to be agreed at the meeting of the Council on 19-21 December 2006, but was not deposited in Parliament until 12 December, making it impossible for any debate we chose to recommend to be held before decisions were taken by the Council. However, we have noted that the Government was able on its own initiative to arrange a debate on the floor of the House on 14 December, and the Minister for Nature Conservation and Fisheries at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Ben Bradshaw) wrote to us on 15 January 2007 summarising the outcome of the Council.

5.3 We 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 24 January 2007.

The current proposal

5.4 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.

In putting its proposals forward, the Commission highlights the continuing poor state of many of the Community's stocks, the majority of which it says are exploited at levels beyond the maximum sustainable yield, due to excess fishing and poor enforcement.

TOTAL ALLOWABLE CATCHES (TACS) IN COMMUNITY WATERS

5.5 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. 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, the Community TACs[6] agreed for 2007, the Commission's initial proposal (where this differs), and the UK's share of each TAC. It also sets out, by way of comparison, the equivalent Community figures in 2005 and 2006, and the percentage changes as between 2006 and 2007.

5.6 The Commission's proposals categorise the stocks according to their degree of exploitation, though they 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 exploited at levels consistent with the maximum sustainable yield

The proposal seeks to maintain current levels of fishing where possible, but without adjusting the TAC by more than 15%.

— Stocks over-exploited in relation to the maximum sustainable yield but within safe biological limits

The TACs proposed are in line with the maximum sustainable yield where possible, but (again) are not varied by more than 15%.

— Stocks outside safe limits

The Commission identifies three sub-categories — stocks with short life histories where in-year action is needed to reflect the most up-to-date information; species with long life cycles, which make them especially vulnerable to fishing; and stocks so far outside safe limits that recovery plans are needed. In each case, the Commission proposes that the TAC should not increase fishing mortality or reduce spawning stock biomass: and, if this rule can be met, the aim will be to move the stock towards safe biological limits, whilst not altering the TAC by more than 15%.

— Stocks subject to long-term plans

In such instances, the Commission proposes that recovery plans should be followed, and that, where a proposal for such a plan has been published, but not yet agreed (as with North Sea sole and plaice) the Community should proceed as though it has.

— Stocks whose status is not known, but which are not at high biological risk

The Commission has proposed measures to prevent the expansion of fisheries and to deliver reductions in TACs at a rate of 20%, unless otherwise supported by scientific information.

— Special cases

The Commission will review the existing cod conservation measures next year, and in the meantime will not propose substantive changes to the regime; it will not allow new fisheries to develop for deep sea species; and it will focus on tackling mixed fisheries through more stringent TACs and quotas, by-catch quotas and effort regime rules.

EFFORT RESTRICTIONS

5.7 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 25% cut in the days at sea for cod fishing in the North Sea, with lesser restrictions for stocks such as sole in the Western Channel (in the absence of agreement on a long-term management plan). The Commission also proposed continued restrictions on the North Sea sand eel fishery, and, following the agreement reached on TACs for deep sea species, it is proposed a 5% cut in effort for those stocks.

The Government's view

5.8 In his Explanatory Memorandum of 12 December 2006, 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 continued for cod and hake and proposed for North Sea sole and plaice. However, he adds that, although there is a need for TACs to take into account appropriate scientific advice in order to ensure the sustainability of the fish stocks, it is at the same time important to maximise the fishing opportunities which can be taken responsibly in order to protect the viability of vulnerable sectors of the UK fleet and the interests of communities dependent on fisheries. 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.

5.9 Against that background, he says that the UK would in most cases be able to accept the proposed TACs, but that it had a number of specific concerns. These include:

· the 25% cut proposed under the cod recovery plan in the days at sea, which the UK regarded as excessive, particularly as the whitefish fleet had already delivered a substantial reduction in effort: consequently, the focus should now be on applying pressure on the smaller mesh fisheries to make sure they also contribute their share;

· the TACs for nephrops in the North Sea, the west of Scotland and the western approaches (including the Irish Sea), which the UK believed should be set in line with advice from the STECF, which endorses the methodology approved last year, but apparently now disregarded by the Commission;

· the TACs for Northern shelf anglerfish, where the UK believed the scientific advice supports a more significant increase than that proposed;

· the Commission's attempt to reduce quotas for stocks where the uptake for 2006 was less than 100%, where he pointed out that there are many reasons for such a shortfall, and that encouraging a race to ensure that quota is not subsequently lost sends all the wrong conservation and sustainability signals.

5.10 More generally, the Minister suggested 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 or 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 is an essential element 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.

5.11 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 he adds that there should be an incentive for vessels to adopt more selective gear which avoids catching juvenile fish.

Minister's letter of 15 January 2007

5.12 We subsequently received from the Minister a letter of 15 January 2007 summarising the outcome of the December Council. He says that the UK had been able to obtain virtually all its key objectives, reiterating that its aim had been to follow the scientific advice, whilst seeking to provide adequate fishing opportunities to ensure the long-term viability of the fishing fleet — a process which inevitably involved a number of difficult balances.

5.13 More specifically, he indicates:

· that significant increases were agreed for nephrops of 17% in the western approaches (including the Irish Sea) and of 10% west of Scotland, in line with scientific advice, and that a proposed cut of 15% in the North Sea had been reduced to a "more realistic" 6%;

· that a 10% increase had been obtained in the TAC for monkfish in the combined North Sea and west of Scotland area;

· that the UK had successfully pointed out that simply cutting a TAC on the basis of historic under-utilisation would penalise the UK (which had taken its quota) as a consequence of a lack of uptake by others, and that there were also other valid reasons for a low uptake: as a result, existing TACs are to be maintained for a number of stocks, including sole and megrim in the western approaches and to the west of Scotland, haddock and pollack in the western approaches, and Clyde herring;

· that the TAC was also maintained for herring in the west of Scotland, in line with the science and the emerging management plan for this stock, as well as for turbot, brill, lemon sole, and dab and flounder in the North Sea.

5.14 As regards days at sea, the Minister says that the UK was successful in limiting cuts for its own whitefish fleet throughout the cod recovery zone to between 4% and 5%, thus reflecting the considerable contribution it has already made to effort reduction on cod: at the same time, there were cuts of up to 7% for the beam trawl sector and of up to 10% for the smaller mesh demersal trawl fisheries, the Minister pointing out that, since these together account for 65% of effort in the North Sea, it is important that they should contribute their fair share in reducing the effort on cod (though there was little support from other Member States for the UK's wish to constrain these sectors further).

5.15 The Minister also points out that, in order to encourage a more sustainable approach to these fisheries, the UK was successful in gaining a series of concessions to the application of selected gear and improved data collection. Thus, fishermen participating in the pilot Irish Sea enhanced data project (where the aim includes obtaining more accurate information of discards) will benefit from extra days,[7] whilst extra days are also available to those using more selective gear in nephrops fisheries. The UK also expects to gain a further 3 days credit for the more widespread application of scientific observers to monitor fishing activity throughout the cod recovery zone.

Minister's oral evidence

5.16 When we took oral evidence from the Minister on 24 January 2007,[8] we first considered the timing of the TAC proposals. The Minister told us[9] that, although improvements had been possible in some instances, notably for deep sea species and stocks in the Baltic Sea, the availability of the necessary scientific data, particularly on the spawning mass, meant that proposals on the stocks of greatest interest to the UK were likely to continue to be delayed until early December.

5.17 On the outcome of the Council, the Minister said[10] that, although now only fifth[11] in terms of its economic significance, cod had been the main problem area, partly because of its iconic status. He describes it[12] as "disappointing" that further differentiation was not made between the situation of the UK white fish fleet, which generally uses a larger mesh size, and the smaller-mesh fleet, including Dutch beam trawlers, which use a smaller mesh and take significant amounts of white fish, including cod as a by-catch, but points out that the original proposal for a smaller cut in the latter case was reversed. He also suggested[13] that the eventual outcome was "responsible" in terms of both the environmental interest and that of the fishing industry, and welcomed[14] the greater cooperation and collaboration now being seen between fishermen, scientists and environmentalists, pointing out[15] that this process had been facilitated by the fact that the UK was one of the few countries in the Community where Government responsibilities for fisheries and the environment were exercised by a single Minister.

5.18 On other aspects of the proposals, the Minister agreed[16] that discards remained a particular challenge, given the "almost uniquely-mixed" fishery around our coasts, and said that one way of tackling this was to use technical measures, for example by giving extra days at sea where a particular gear is used; that enforcement had been improved by the introduction of the first Buyers and Sellers Registration Requirement, which provided full traceability;[17] and that Regional Advisory Councils had made a useful contribution to the discussions, which he thought would grow in line with their "reputation for responsible and sound investigations".[18]

Conclusion

5.19 We recognise that, as in previous years, the situation which has arisen here is outside the Government's control, and, whilst we remain concerned that the Commission's proposals should have been deposited in the House such a short time before the start of the crucial Council meeting, we are pleased that the Government was able to arrange a debate on the Floor of the House before decisions were taken. In view of this, and of the Minister's recent oral evidence — when we were able to put to him a number of questions both on the outcome of the Council and of more general interest — we have concluded that further consideration of this document by the House would not be justified. We are therefore clearing it.

Annex 1: Comparative Tables of Community TACs 2005, 2006 and 2007 (tonnes)

2005 2006 2007¹ % ch 2007/06¹ UK share UK
quota

Herring

IVa, b 305,557 272,851 204,638 -35 24% 50,279

IVc, VIId 74,293 50,023 37,517 -25 8% 3,424

Vb, VIaN, VIb 29,440 33,340 (28,839) 33,340 (-15) 0 60% 20,145

VIa (Clyde) 1,000 800 (600) 800 (-25) 0 100% 800

VIIa 4,800 4,800 4,800 0 74% 3,550

VIIe,f 1,000 1,000 1,000 0 50% 500

Cod

IIa, IV 22,659 19,260 16,563 -14 47% 7,773

Vb, VI, XII, XIV 721 613 (460) 490 (-25) -20 60% 357

VIIa 2,150 1,828 (1,371) 1,462 (-25) -20 43% 624

VIIb-k, VIII, IX, X 6,200 5,580 (3,634) 4,185 (-35) -25 8% 347

Megrim

IIa, IV 1,740 1,740 1,479 -15 96% 1,424

Vb, VI, XII, XIV 2,880 2,880 (2,448) 2,880 (-15) 0 31% 903

VII 19,263 18,300 (15,555) 18,300 (-15) 0 14% 2,624

Anglerfish

IIa, IV 10,314 10,314 (10,314) 11,345 (0) 10 81% 9,232

Vb, VI, XII, XIV 4,686 4,686 (4,686) 5,155 (0) 10 31% 1,586

VII 25,082 26,456 28,080 6 18% 5,050

Haddock

IIa, IV 51,321 44,546 46,98 5 78% 36,466

Vb, VI, XII, XIV 7,600 7,810 7,200 -8 81% 5,392

VII, VIII, IX, X 11,520 11,520 (9,792) 11,520 (-15) 0 10% 1,152

Whiting

IIa, IV 19,800 21,420 21,420 0 53% 11,297

Vb, VI, XII, XIV 1,600 1,360 (300) 1,020 (-78) -25 57% 585

VIIa 514 437 (139) 371 (-68) -15 53% 144

VIIb-k 21,600 19,940 19,940 0 11% 2,140

Hake

IIa, IV 1,496 1,541 (1,773) 1,850 (15) 20 18% 333

Vb, VI, VII, XII, XIV 23,888 24,617 (28,318) 29,541 (15) 20 18% 5,309

Blue whiting

I-XIV 539,306 344,063 279,058 -19 20% 55,283

Lemon sole

IIa, IV 6,500 6,175 (5,558) 6,175 (-10) 0 61% 3,773

Nephrops

IIa, IV 21,350 28,147 (23,925) 26,144 (-15) -7 87% 22,644

Vb, VI 12,700 17,675 (16,300) 19,885 (-8) 12 98% 19,414

VII 19,544 21,498 (21,498) 25,153 (0) 17 33% 8,251

Northern prawn

IIa, IV 4,880 4,980 (4,980) 3,984 (0) -20 22% 877

Plaice

IIa, IV 57,370 55,820 49,143 -12 28% 13,987

Vb, VI, XII, XIV 982 786 (629) 786 (-20) 0 61% 478

VIIa 1,608 1,608 1,849 15 30% 558

VIId,e 5,151 5,151 5,050 -2 29% 1,469

VIIf,g 476 476 (405) 417 (-15) -12 23% 54

VIIh-k 466 396 337 -15 13% 42

Pollack

Vb, VI, XII, XIV 563 450 (360) 450 (-20) 0 37% 165

VII 17,000 15,300 (12,240) 15,300 (-20) 0 17% 2,668

Saithe

IIa, IIIb-d, IV 69,600 59,160 59,160 0 17% 9,897

Vb, VI, XII, XIV 15,044 12,787 12,787 0 18% 3,592

VII, VIII, IX, X 5,574 4,738 3,790 -20 15% 582

Mackerel

IIa, IIIa-d, IV 17,067 17,621 19,677 11 5% 1,092

IIa, Vb, VI, VII, VIIIa,b,d,e,, XII, XIV 217,477 225,837 256,363 13 58% 149,519

Sole

II, IV 18,320 17,470 14,930 -15 4% 639

Vb, VI, XII, XIV 68 68 (54) 68 (-21) 0 20% 14

VIIa 960 960 816 -15 22% 181

VIId 5,700 5,720 6,220 9 19% 1,196

VIIe 865 940 900 -4 59% 529

VIIfg 1,000 950 (840) 893 (-12) -6 28% 251

VIIh,j,k 650 650 (553) 650 (-15) 0 17% 108

Sprat

IIa, IV 250,000 263,540 147,028 -45 4% 5,562

VIId,e 7,680 6,144 (4,915) 6,144 (-20) 0 53% 3,226