3 COD RECOVERY PLAN: EFFORT
LIMITATION RESTRICTIONS
(a)
(30944)
13632/09
COM(09) 505
|
Draft Council Regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 754/2009 excluding certain groups of vessels from the fishing effort regime laid down in Chapter III of Regulation (EC) No. 1342/2008
|
(b)
(30945)
13633/09
COM(09) 506
|
Draft Council Regulation amending Regulation (EC) No. 43/2009 as regards fishing opportunities and associated conditions for certain fish stocks
|
| Legal base | Article 37EC; consultation; QMV
|
| Documents originated | 23 September 2009
|
| Deposited in Parliament | 28 September 2009
|
| Department | Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
|
| Basis of consideration | EMs of 13 October 2009
|
| Previous Committee Report | None
|
| To be discussed in Council
| 19-20 October 2009 |
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Not cleared; further information requested
|
Background
3.1 Regulation (EC) No 1342/2008,[15]
which establishes a long-term plan for cod stocks, allocates fishing
effort to Member States on an annual basis, but it also enables
the Council, on the basis of a proposal from the Commission and
the advice of the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee
for Fisheries (STECF), to exclude certain groups of vessels from
the application of the effort regime. Such an exclusion is subject
to the provision of data on cod catches and discards, to cod catches
not exceeding 1.5% of the total catches of the vessels concerned,
and the likelihood that there would be a disproportionate administrative
burden. In August 2009, the Commission put forward a proposal
recommending that vessels from Sweden and Spain should be subject
to this exemption, and this amendment was subsequently incorporated
into Council Regulation (EC) No 754/2009.[16]
The current proposals
3.2 At the same time, it also noted that similar requests had
been submitted by France, Germany, Ireland, Poland and the UK,
and the Commission has now proposed in document (a) that further
changes should be made to accommodate requests from Germany, France
and Poland (and Spain), with corresponding changes being made
(document (b)) to the effort limits set out Council Regulation
(EC) No 43/2009,[17]
which established the fishing opportunities in Community waters
for 2009. However, the Commission says that, for all other requests
— including those put forward by the UK — the information
submitted was considered as insufficient to establish compliance
with the necessary conditions.
The Government's view
3.3 In his Explanatory Memoranda of 13 October 2009, the Minister
for the Natural and Marine Environment, Wildlife and Rural Affairs
at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr
Huw Irranca-Davies) says that, although it is encouraging that
the Commission may be prepared to exclude a group of Queen Scallop
vessels, the UK is very much of the view that it should ensure
that it has fully considered the other groups of UK vessels for
which a similar exemption was sought. He also says that the UK's
request fits squarely within the terms of the exemption, since
the data shows that the cod catches of its vessels was considerably
less than 1.5%: and he adds that the UK is looking for a fair
and reasonable application of the cod recovery plan, with this
being put into question by what appears to be an over-rigid interpretation
of the relevant provision.
Conclusion
3.4 It is not entirely clear from the information provided
by the Government exactly what exemptions were requested by the
UK, whether the request from Ireland has run into similar difficulties,
and whether the requests from the Member States to which this
proposal applies were granted in their entirety. Nor, since the
Minister appears to be confident that the information provided
in support of the UK request was robust, is it clear why that
request was rejected — or indeed what steps may now be necessary
to persuade the Commission to take a more favourable view.
3.5 Either way, it is disturbing that a request
from the UK should have been rejected in this way, whilst those
from other Member States appear to have been accepted, and we
would therefore welcome further clarification from the Government
as to why this was so, as well as information on the points we
have raised above. In the meantime, we are holding these two documents
under scrutiny.
15 OJ No. L.348, 24.12.08, p.20. Back
16
OJ No. L 214, 19.8.09, p.16. Back
17
OJ No. L.22, 26.1.09, p.1. Back
|
