16 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 limitations 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 37 EC; consultation; QMV
|
| Department | Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
|
| Basis of consideration | Minister's letters of 18 November 2009 and 6 December 2010
|
| Previous Committee Report | HC 19-xxviii (2008-09), chapter 3 (21 October 2009)
|
| Discussed in Council | 19-20 October 2009
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Cleared
|
Background
16.1 Regulation (EC) No 1342/2008,[123]
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 to exclude certain groups of vessels, 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 to the likelihood that there would be a disproportionate administrative
burden.
16.2 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.[124]
At the same time, it also noted that similar requests had been
submitted by a number of other Member States, and it subsequently
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 in Council Regulation (EC) No 43/2009,[125]
which established the fishing opportunities in EU waters for 2009.
However, the Commission said that, for all other requests —
including those put forward by the UK — the information
submitted was insufficient to establish compliance with the necessary
conditions.
16.3 Our predecessors were told by the then Government
that, although the Commission might be prepared to exclude a group
of Queen Scallop vessels, the UK believed that further consideration
should be given to other groups of vessels for which it had sought
a similar exemption. It added that that the UK's request fitted
squarely within the terms of the exemption, since cod catches
of its vessels were considerably less than 1.5%: and that it considered
that the fair and reasonable application of the cod recovery plan
was being put into question by what appeared to be an over-rigid
interpretation of the relevant provision.
16.4 In their Report of 21 October 2009, our predecessors
commented that it was not entirely clear exactly what exemptions
had been requested by the UK, and precisely why these had been
rejected (or what steps might now be necessary to persuade the
Commission to take a more favourable view). However, they said
that, either way, it was disturbing that a request from the UK
should have been rejected, whilst those from other Member States
appeared to have been accepted, and they therefore sought further
clarification from the Government as to why this was so. In the
meantime, they decided to hold these two documents under scrutiny.
Minister's letter of 18 November 2009
16.5 Our predecessors subsequently
received a letter of 18 November 2009 from the then Minister for
the Natural and Marine Environment, Wildlife and Rural Affairs
at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr
Huw Irranca-Davies), which said that the UK had submitted comprehensive
data to exempt a number of Nephrops vessels in the west
of Scotland and Irish Sea, and beam trawls in the English Channel,
but that the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for
Fisheries (STECF) had rejected these because — unlike the
successful Swedish and Spanish applications — they asserted
that, should the cod stocks in question recover, it could not
be proved that the vessels' cod catches would remain below the
threshold level. He added that the UK had made clear to the Commission
that it believed this to be disproportionate, and that a more
risk-based approach was appropriate, given the low impact which
these vessels would have had on cod, but he said that the Commission
had yet to respond formally. However, he said that, at the Commission's
request, the UK had re-submitted its applications.
Minister's letter of 6 December 2010
16.6 Our then Chairman replied
to this letter on 25 November 2009, indicating that the Committee
would report further to the House when the Government had had
a response from the Commission. However, this letter appears not
to have reached the Department, and we have only now received
a letter of 6 December 2010 from the present Minister (Mr Richard
Benyon). He says that, after the further submission of data, the
Commission did in fact exempt from the days at sea limits a number
of Nephrops trawlers fishing west of Scotland, but that
the request for a number of other fisheries, where the UK felt
there was a similarly strong case, had been denied.
16.7 The Minister adds that demonstrating categorically
the vessels do not take cod as a by-catch is very challenging,
because it implies near total observer coverage on board, which
is prohibitively expensive, whereas the UK's discard sampling
currently covers 1-2% of fishing trips annually. He says that
this is why the UK feels it important to pursue exemptions where
vessels can demonstrate categorically, through Remote Electronic
Monitoring under a catch quota system, that their removals of
cod are accounted for: and he adds that this is being addressed
in current "catch quota" trials, which the UK will use
to seek exemptions from days at sea limitations for vessels which
take part in that scheme in 2011. He adds that, whilst the Government
cannot guarantee to persuade the Commission of the benefits of
this approach, it believes that it makes a strong case for changing
the approach to fisheries management in this way.
Conclusion
16.8 We are grateful to the
Minister for this, albeit belated, explanation, and, whilst it
remains something of a mystery how some Member States have managed
to persuade the Commission to grant exemptions, whilst others
— including the UK — were less successful, it is clear
that there is nothing further which can be done at this stage
about the arrangements to which these documents relate. We are
therefore releasing them from scrutiny, coupled with the hope
that the UK will indeed persuade the Commission to take a more
favourable view of any application it puts forward for exemptions
in relation to 2011.
123 OJ No. L 348, 24.12.08, p.20. Back
124
OJ No. L 214, 19.8.09, p.16. Back
125
OJ No. L.22, 26.1.09, p.1. Back
|
