6 Fisheries: catch quotas and effort
limitation for 2011
| (32173)
16068/10
COM(10) 658
| Draft Council Regulation fixing for 2011 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable to Community waters and, for Community vessels, in waters where catch limitations are required
|
| Legal base | Article 43(3) TFEU; QMV
|
| Document originated | 10 November 2010
|
| Deposited in Parliament | 15 November 2010
|
| Department | Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
|
| Basis of consideration | EM of 24 November 2010 and SEM of 6 December 2010
|
| Previous Committee Report | None
|
| To be discussed in Council | 13-14 December 2010
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Not cleared; further information awaited
|
Background
6.1 The Total Allowable Catches (TACs) for particular fish stocks
in the following calendar year are based on advice provided by
the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES),
and then by the Commission's Scientific, Technical and Economic
Committee for Fisheries (STECF). In those cases where particular
fisheries are jointly managed with third countries, the Community
share then has to be negotiated with the countries concerned;
and the relevant TACs for the Community as a whole agreed by the
Fisheries Council (and allocated between Member States according
to a predetermined key) on the basis of a proposal put forward
by the Commission.
6.2 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 the need to
take into account the scientific advice means that official texts
have often been available too late for them to be considered properly
beforehand. When this happens, the Government has in recent years
arranged on its own initiative a debate on fisheries on the Floor
of the House in late November/early December, in order to enable
Members to raise points in advance of the Council.
The current proposal
6.3 Notwithstanding the annual nature of this exercise,
the EU's commitment at the World Summit on Sustainable Development
(WSSD) to restoring stocks to levels which achieve the maximum
sustainable yield by 2015 means that the stocks in question have
increasingly been subject to long-term management (and, in some
cases, recovery) plans. In addition, as we noted in our Report
of 8 September 2010, a Commission Communication[36]
has sought to establish a set of general principles for other
stocks, for which there are currently 11 different approaches
according to the scientific assessment of the state of the stock.
In particular, it has suggested that, where a stock is over-fished
but within safe biological limits, the permitted change in TAC
from one year to another should be up to 25%, whilst in the case
of stocks where no scientific advice is available (or the state
of the stock is not known precisely) TACs should be adjusted towards
recent real catch levels.
6.4 Against that background, the Commission has now
produced a set of proposals for catches in 2011 for the majority
of stocks, based on the relevant long-term plans and/or appropriate
management principles. However, as the annual negotiations with
Norway and other third countries are still in progress, the precise
level of quota in some cases will depend upon the agreement reached
on shared TACs and on the balance of fishing opportunities between
the interested parties. It points out that the scientific advice
is that the majority of stocks across the Community continue to
be in a poor state, and that catch reductions are therefore required
in most, though not all, cases in order to move towards the maximum
sustainable yield. In the case of species of principal interest
to the UK, the resultant catches for those stocks for which quotas
have been established are set out in Annex A.
6.5 The proposals do not yet address the effort limitations[37]
needed because the STECF is still considering a number of technical
issues relating to the various management plans: and nor do they
deal with so-called technical measures, such as gear and minimum
landing sizes, and area closures (which, as a result of the Lisbon
Treaty, are now subject to co-decision, whereas the setting of
TACs is still reserved for the Council).
The Government's view
6.6 In his Explanatory Memorandum of 24 November
2010, the Minister for the Natural Environment and Fisheries at
the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Richard
Benyon) says that, whilst TACs must take into account appropriate
scientific advice, and seek to ensure the sustainability of stocks
and the marine environment, it is at the same time important to
maximise the fishing opportunities which can responsibly be taken,
and allow associated stocks to be exploited when the impact on
recovery stocks can be minimised. He adds that this is particularly
necessary in order to protect the viability of vulnerable sectors
of the UK fleet and the interests of fisheries dependent communities,
and that measures must have a clear objective, be well balanced
between Member States and different sectors of the UK fleet, and
be capable of rapid implementation. He also stresses the need
to have regard to the present economic climate.
6.7 The Minister notes that the proposals outlined
by the Commission are consistent with the EU commitment at the
WSSD to achieve maximum sustainable yields by 2015, and he says
that, in the majority of cases, the UK is likely to be able to
accept them. He also highlights the fact that, where recovery
or management plans have been introduced, it has in many cases
produced positive results for the fisheries concerned, but that,
in other areas, — for example, cod in the west of Scotland
and in the Irish Sea — further significant cuts in quota
are proposed in order to rebuild stocks, with significant cuts
also being proposed for Celtic Sea cod, West of Scotland haddock
and whiting and Irish Sea whiting.
6.8 As regards other aspects of the proposals, the
Minister says that:
- for species which are vulnerable
to overexploitation due to slow growth and low reproductive potential,
the scientific advice continues to be that there should be no
targeted fisheries or by-catch quotas — a course which the
Government supports until more bespoke management measures are
out in place, despite having some concerns about discarding;
- in a number of cases, where a quantitative catch
forecast is not available or no advice given by scientists, the
"use it or lose it" principle has been applied, which
implies an automatic 15% cut in quota: the Government's view remains
that, whilst it is unfortunate that scientific advice on which
to base a proposal is unavailable, automatic reductions in TACs
are not an appropriate policy, and that catch levels should be
maintained until more detailed advice is available, as long as
this does not increase fishing mortality;
- it is disappointing that more progress has not
been made on managing stocks where the scientific status is uncertain,
given that the Commission had undertaken to devise a new approach
where information was not sufficient for ICES to undertake a quantitative
forecast, and he notes that the proposals for next year continue,
in many cases, to be for 15% cuts.
6.9 The Minister also notes that, as it did for 2010,
the Commission has proposed an additional 5% quota for North Sea
cod for Member States participating in catch quota[38]
trials. He acknowledges that, since living within such a quota
requires significant behavioural change, has some costs in terms
of the market value of landings, and could result in inability
to catch other quota species, an increase in quota is needed to
encourage vessels to move to this new management system, which
will remain voluntary in 2011. He also says that this system offers
the prospect of removing excessive regulation and control by putting
the emphasis on fishermen to use their skills and knowledge to
fish more selectively in order to optimise the value of their
catch, and that it offers as well the prospect of greatly improving
scientific data.
6.10 However, he says that, instead of an artificial
cap on the amount of additional quota, the UK will be pushing
for any vessel or group which agrees to participate in a fully
documented fishery to receive a significant quota increase, in
line with already estimated and anticipated levels of discards
in the absence of a catch quota system. He also believes that
expanding the scheme to include a wider variety of species and
vessel types is essential in order to understand how it can work
in a mixed fishery and to obtain the necessary evidence to assess
its feasibility in advance of CFP reform. The UK will therefore
be seeking a larger amount of additional quota for North Sea cod,
haddock, whiting and plaice. (In the meantime, together with Denmark
and Norway, it has recently declared support for further trials
in 2011 through the Ardoe declaration.)
6.11 We have since received from the Minister a supplementary
Explanatory Memorandum of 6 December 2010, enclosing a partial
Impact Assessment. However, the latter does not cover those stocks
which are still subject to negotiation with third countries, or
the pelagic sector (which accounted for 28% of landings in 2009)
and the inshore fleet. To the extent it contains any meaningful
information, it suggests that one fleet segment (beam trawlers
in the south west) might directly benefit from the level of TACs
already proposed, but that the other sectors might suffer a reduction
in earnings of nearly £16 million: the Assessment does not,
however, quantify the benefits, which it says are essentially
long term, and where it not possible at this stage to say when
the stocks in question will be restored to levels consistent with
the maximum sustainable yield.
Conclusion
6.12 We understand that the production of annual
catch quota proposals depends upon the availability of up to date
scientific advice, and in the case of many important stocks is
subject to the outcome of discussions with third countries. Nevertheless,
it is disturbing that, having produced its proposals for 2010
by the middle of October, the Commission has once more reverted
to a timetable which leaves very little time for us to consider
the issues involved before decisions are taken by the Council.
Also, although we were pleased that there has again been a three
hour general debate on fisheries in advance of the Council, that
debate took place this year in Westminster Hall,[39]
rather than the Floor of the House, thus inevitably lowering its
profile.
6.13 Given this background, we have considered
carefully how best to proceed. Whilst we believe that it would
premature to clear the document, we also recognise that the Council
will, for good practical reasons, be seeking to adopt the proposals
on 13-14 December, and, in view of the Westminster Hall debate,
we would not want to prevent the Government from agreeing to this,
if it is otherwise minded to do so. We would, however, like to
receive as soon as possible after any such agreement has been
reached an account of the outcome, with an indication of those
areas where significant changes have been made to the Commission's
proposals. At that stage, we will consider whether to release
the document from scrutiny or recommend it for further debate
in European Committee.
Annex: Commission proposals for
TACs in 2011 (tonnes)
| | 2010
| UK quota
| Policy category
|
2011
| % change
|
North Sea
| | | |
| |
| Cod | 33,552
| 13,067 | 4
| tbc |
|
| Haddock | 35,794
| 22,698 | 4
| tbc |
|
| Saithe | 107,044
| 8,435 | 4
| tbc |
|
| Whiting | 12,897
| 7,391 | 6
| tbc |
|
| Sole | 14,100
| 602 | 4
| 13,600 | -3,5
|
| Plaice | 63,825
| 16,951 | 4
| tbc |
|
| Hake | 1,935
| 348 | 4
| tbc |
|
| Monkfish | 11,345
| 9,233 | 9
| 9,643 | -15.0
|
| Megrim | 1,757
| 1,690 | 9
| 1,757 | 0
|
| Nephrops | 24,688
| 21,384 | 6
| 22,580 | -8.5
|
| Eastern Channel |
| | |
| |
| Cod | 1,955
| 181 | 4
| tbc |
|
| Plaice | 4,274
| 1,243 | 6
| 4,018 | -9.0
|
| Sole | 4,219
| 811 | 3
| 4,156 | -1.5
|
| Western Channel |
| | |
| |
| Cod | 4,023
| 293 | 7
| 3,420 | -15.0
|
| Haddock | 11,579
| 1,158 | 8
| 11,579 | 0
|
| | 2010
| UK quota
| Policy category
|
2011
| % change
|
| Whiting | 14,407
| 1,463 | 8
| 14,407 | 0
|
| Hake | 30,900
| 5,553 | 8
| 30,900 | 0
|
| Sole (English Channel) |
618 | 363
| 4 | 710
| +15.0 |
| Sole (Bristol channel) |
993 | 279
| 1 | 1,241
| +25.0 |
| Sole (Western approaches)
| 498 | 83
| 6 | 423
| -15.0 |
| Plaice (Bristol Channel)
| 451 | 63
| 3 | 410
| -9.0 |
| Plaice (Western approaches)
| 218 | 14
| 7 | 185
| -15.0 |
| Monkfish | 32,292
| 5,807 | 6
| 27,448 | -15.0
|
| Megrim | 18,300
| 2,624 | 6
| 15,555 | -15.0
|
| Irish Sea |
| | | |
|
| Cod | 674
| 194 | 4
| 337 | -5.0
|
| Haddock | 1,424
| 681 | 9
| 1,210 | -15.0
|
| Whiting | 157
| 61 | 10
| 118 | -25.0
|
| Plaice | 1,627
| 491 | 8
| 1,627 | 0
|
| Sole | 402
| 83 | 3
| 320 | -20.0
| |
| Nephrops | 22,432
| 7,358 | 6
| | |
| West of Scotland
| | | |
| |
| Cod | 240
| 145 | 4
| 120 | -50.0
|
| Whiting | 431
| 246 | 10
| 216 | -50.0
|
| Haddock | 2,673
| 2,081 | 4
| 2,005 | -25.0
|
| Monkfish | 5,567
| 1,713 | 1
| 3,748 | -25.0
|
| Megrim | 3,079
| 966 | 9
| 3,079 | 0
|
| Nephrops | 16,057
| 15,677 | 6
| 13,681 | -15.0
|
| | 2010
| UK quota
| Policy category
|
2011
| % change
|
| Pelagic stocks |
| | |
| |
| North Sea herring | 164,300
| 24,223 | 4
| tbc |
|
| Irish Sea herring | 4,800
| 3,550 | 8
| 4,800 | 0
|
| Clyde herring | 720
| 720 | 11
| Not set |
|
| West of Scotland herring
| 24,240 | 14,356
| 4 | 22,481
| -8.0 |
| Mackerel | 295,366
| 172,268 | 4
| tbc |
|
tbc: Agreement to be reached with third countries
| Category | Scientific advice
|
| 1 | Stock exploited at MSY
|
| 2 | Stock over-exploited, but inside safe biological limits
|
| 3 | Stock outside safe biological limits
|
| 4 | Stock subject to long-term plan, and scientists advise on corresponding catch
|
| 5 | Stock is short-lived, and one-year forecast cannot be provided
|
| 6 | State of stock not known precisely, and STECF advises on appropriate catch level
|
| 7 | State of stock not known precisely, and STECF advises to reduce fishing effort
|
| 8 | State of stock not known precisely, and STECF advises it is increasing
|
| 9 | State of stock not known precisely, and STECF advises it is decreasing
|
| 10 | STECF advises a zero catch, a reduction to lowest possible level, or similar advice
|
| 11 | No STECF advice
|
36 (31624) 9888/10: see HC 428-i (2010-11), chapter
36 (8 September 2010). Back
37
However, the Government has told us that informal indications
are that the Commission will propose a reduction of 15% in the
permitted days at sea under the Sole Management Plan, and in the
North Sea and Eastern Channel under the Cod Recovery Plan, plus
in the latter case reductions of 25% in the Irish Sea and west
of Scotland. Back
38
Catch quotas are a new way of managing fisheries, based on absolute
mortality, under which all fish caught (including juveniles) count
against a fisherman's quota, and he has to stop fishing, once
this quota is reached. The UK has run trials in England (with
6 vessels) and Scotland (with 17 vessels), and interim results
are positive, with a reduction in discards and fishermen operating
more selectively in order to maximise the value of their catches.
Back
39
HC Deb, 2 December 2010,
cols 341WH-386WH. Back
|
