FISHERIES COUNCIL
Letter from Ben Bradshaw MP, Minister
for Local Environment, Marine and Animal Welfare, Department for
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to the Chairman
I understand you have asked for an update on
progress with our preparations for the December EU Fisheries Council.
You are aware that we do not expect the formal Commission proposals
for TACs and quotas and related controls to be published until
early next month. In the meantime however, we have prepared the
attached paper which summarises our key objectives in anticipation
of what is likely to surface, which you may find useful.
27 November 2006
Annex A
Initial UK Position for the EU Fisheries
TAC and Quota Regulation for 2007
EFFORT MANAGEMENT
Cod
1. In the light of continuing pessimism
within ICES about the achievements of the cod recovery programme
to date, the Commission will be undertaking a review of the implementing
mechanism next year with a view to making it more effective—any
necessary changes applying from 2008. In the meantime, they are
not proposing any fundamental changes to the structure of the
programme for 2007—although we expect proposals for significant
cuts in cod TACs and effort to ensure the existing momentum is
not lost. We are not however anticipating that they will follow
the ICES advice to the letter and place a moratorium on cod fishing—on
the grounds that to do so would threaten the long-term viability
of the fleets involved.
2. There is some limited good news in relation
to stock recruitment. For the first time in some years there are
signs of more juvenile cod in the North Sea, reflected in an ICES
assessment which suggests that catches are likely to increase
next year if the level of fishing effort remains unchanged. However,
with fleets using smaller mesh nets to target species like sole
and prawns not having reduced by much, it is likely that many
of these fish will be caught (and increasingly discarded) before
they can reach maturity.
3. The Commission believes that despite
the forthcoming review, it is obliged by the cod recovery regulation
to propose cuts in days for the 100mm+ trawl sector (including
the main UK whitefish fleet) because recovery targets have not
been achieved. The Commissioner is particularly concerned that
Member States may see the review as an opportunity to temporarily
pause the recovery mechanism—to the ultimate detriment of
the stock—and will therefore be looking to maintain momentum.
Although we do not support the draconian cuts in TACs and effort
the Commission appear to have in mind, we remain firmly committed
to cod recovery and will need to underline this throughout the
course of the negotiations.
4. In recent years, the UK's position has
been that our whitefish fleet have already met their particular
target. The STECF effort figures, confirm the UK's substantial
(roughly 65%) cut in effort in the 100mm+ mesh sector since 2000.
Total effort by all North Sea fleets in the sector has been reduced
by 47% over this period (the category now accounting for 48% of
cod landings), but some countries—France, Germany and Norway
have <au0,1>increased effort particularly in the predominantly
saithe-based fishery to the west of the West of Scotland. This
was previously considered to be largely cod-free, but the advice
from STECF draws attention to the potential cumulative effect
of such fisheries. We would therefore expect the Commission to
focus their attention on this particular segment rather than the
traditional whitefish fleet.
5. We would also be looking for proportionate
action to be taken on the other gears capable of catching cod
as a bycatch. The beam trawl and 70-99mm trawl sectors (the latter
including the UK's prawn fleet) are estimated to account for respectively
13% and 14% of cod landings. The beam trawl sector can demonstrate
a reduction in effort of 25% since 2000. The equivalent figure
for the smaller mesh demersal trawl fleet however, is a 51% increase
(albeit from a relatively low base). Whilst there is increasing
evidence that the association with cod in the prawn fishery is
very small and localised, the increase in 70-99mm trawl effort
inevitably means that there will be pressure for that fleet to
play its part.
6. The prospective cuts in days at sea for
beam trawlers, would affect a small number of UK vessels from
the Channel ports of Shoreham, Newhaven and Brixham. The North
Sea beam trawl fleet is overwhelmingly Dutch (including some Anglo-Dutch
vessels in English East Coast Producer Organisations) and Belgian.
Of much greater economic interest for the UK however is the prawn
fleet.
7. Prawns are the single most valuable catch
of the English North Sea fleet. It is even more important for
the Scottish fleet, both in the North Sea and the West of Scotland
(supporting amongst other things up to 1000 jobs in the processing
sector). And it is most vital of all to the Northern Irish fleet,
accounting for something close to 90% of their entire catch.
8. Although the 100mm+ trawl fleet still
catches twice as much as cod as any other sector, there is an
increasing focus on the small mesh fisheries. This is partly because
there is increasing evidence of the important contribution of
discards to cod mortality. It is also because—the two main
sectors—the beam trawlers and smaller mesh demersal trawlers—depend
on a bycatch of other species including whitefish to supplement
their income. It is the logical consequence of our argument that
the UK whitefish fleet has delivered its part of the cod recovery
deal, that any additional reductions should be targeted elsewhere.
While overall cod by-catches by the smaller mesh demersal trawlers
are low in percentage terms, given the large number of these vessels
and a low cod stock, this still amounts to a significant contribution
to cod mortality across the fleet, especially when allowance is
made for estimated discards. (The position is broadly the same
in relation to beam trawlers.) The Scottish Executive last year
put forward—through the North Sea Regional Advisory Council—some
proposals for a possible package involving some reduction in days,
coupled with possible offsetting incentives for use of more selective
gears within our prawn fleet (designed to reduce whitefish bycatch).
We have since done a significant amount of further work on improving
selectivity. Whilst therefore we accept the logic of a cut in
"basic" 70-99mm trawl days, we will be looking to recoup
some of that cut in return for the application of further technical
measures to improve selectivity for cod, specifically in the prawn
fishery. We have submitted reports of sea trials of more selective
gear undertaken by our fisheries research laboratories for evaluation
by STECF.
9. In the Irish Sea we are in the process
of setting up a pilot scheme, jointly with the Irish Government
and with fishing industry representatives from Ireland and the
UK, to dramatically improve the available data on catches and
discarding by involving fishermen in a scientifically controlled
self-sampling scheme. The aim of this is to provide better data
for the scientists to use in future stock assessments and to pilot
ways of tackling discards. We shall want to seek a bonus in terms
of additional days at sea (or a lesser cut) for individual vessels
participating in this scheme. This would act as an incentive to
vessels to take part in the scheme.
10. For the last couple of years, the Commission
has been prepared to accept a spring spawning closure of the Celtic
Sea to assist the recovery of the cod stock there, without requiring
a fully-fledged effort control mechanism. The latest scientific
advice suggests that this has proved inadequate and that the fishery
should be closed. We anticipate the Commission will stop short
of a full closure, but nonetheless propose extending the remit
of the existing cod recovery plan to include the Celtic Sea.
WESTERN CHANNEL
SOLE
11. This is a very important part of the
mixed fishery in south west England, particularly for the Devon
beam trawl fleet. A Commission proposal for a recovery plan for
this stock has been on the table since January 2004 and an interim
days at sea scheme has been in place since 2005. There has been
significant misreporting of UK catches in this fishery over a
number of years, suggesting the stock is more robust than the
science indicates.
As well as introducing days at sea and tighter enforcement
measures therefore, the Council agreed a large increase in the
Total Allowable Catch in 2005 and a further increase in 2006,
to put it at a level closer to that of real catches.
12. We are currently working with the industry
on a long-term management plan for this stock (using the Commission
framework), based on a target fishing mortality well below the
current level, but above the very severe target originally proposed
by the Commission. Our objective remains to avoid getting locked
into an annual ratcheting downwards of the effort limits. This
would have a disproportionate impact on the ability of this fleet
to catch the wide range of other species it targets, many of them
non-pressure stocks not covered by quotas eg cuttlefish.
MAIN TAC ISSUES
13. Our starting point should be that we
would generally follow the science on the setting of TAC levels.
However, there are likely to be a limited number of cases where
(a) the scientific advice is sufficiently uncertain to allow for
a range of possible outcomes and (b) there is a significant UK
interest in seeking a particular outcome within that range:
Prawns
14. Prawn quota is tight in the Irish Sea
and we were hoping to use the additional scientific data we now
have to support a significant TAC increase of some 17-20%. This
would put the stock on a par with those in the North Sea and West
of Scotland (where quota increases of 32 and 39% respectively
were achieved last year—the increase in the Irish Sea TAC
was limited to 10% in the absence of equivalent data). Unfortunately,
a difference of opinion this year between ICES scientists and
those of STECF, over the appropriate use of the new data, has
led to similar advice to last year from ICES; namely that effort
in this fishery should not be allowed to increase. STECF has endorsed
the assessment methodology agreed last year.
15. The concerns about the data from the
TV camera surveys apply equally to the North Sea and West of Scotland,
where the scientific advice might be interpreted as suggesting
a TAC cut (on the basis that last year's increase was unjustified).
STECF's endorsement of the assessment methodology suggests it
should be possible to sustain roughly status quo TACs for the
two stocks.
Northern Sheff Monkfish
16. At last December's Council, it was agreed
that the Commission would consider a possible in-year quota increase
on the basis of advice from STECF, in the light of information
provided by the UK on catches and effort in the fishery in the
first quarter of 2006 (to supplement the data available for what
is otherwise a poorly studied stock). However, although this data
supported a 10% increase, STECF were not convinced that the stock
would remain sustainable at this increased level of exploitation
and no change was therefore made. The Commission were however
sympathetic to our position, recognising that failure to achieve
an enhancement to the quota would act as a disincentive for further
industry co-operation in the science. We anticipate they will
propose an equivalent increase for 2007. The difficulty is that
the ICES advice stems from the scientists' lack of confidence
in the landings data, as a result of assumed misreporting and
in addition, all the signs are that the French remain opposed
to a further TAC increase, essentially for market reasons. If
the Commission express concern about the scope for increased effort,
our aim would be to seek to reassure them that this is unlikely
to occur, so as to avoid being held hostage by any French refusal
to agree an effort cap mechanism.
Elasmobranches
17. The ICES advice is for zero catches
for spurdog, porbeagle, thornback ray and skate to reflect the
increasing threat to these slow maturing, low fecundity species.
The UK supports action to protect them. However, skates and rays,
and to an extent spurdog, tend to be taken as bycatch and a cut
in the TACs is unlikely to deliver stock recovery on the basis
that it will simply increase discards. We will however be exploring
with the Commission a range of other more balanced management
measures. In particular,given the absence of detailed scientific
data on these stocks, the priority must be to obtain species specific
information at EU level.
TECHNICAL ISSUES
18. There are a number of more detailed
technical issues, which, while not key UK priorities, we should
register with the Commission. These include:
— Management measures for deep water
fixed net fisheries—where we are looking for some flexibility
in the Commission's proposals to allow certain fisheries with
little or no impact on deep sea species to continue to operate,
whilst not wishing to undermine the measures' overall conservation
objectives.
— Further increase in the North Sea
whiting TAC—where we would be looking to use even more of
the (otherwise unused) industrial fisheries allocation for human
consumption purposes (having secured a switch of 2,050 tonnes
this year).
EXTERNAL NEGOTIATIONS
19. The external negotiations between the
EU and third countries such as Norway, are of increasing importance
to the UK fishing industry. They cover in particular, mackerel
and key North Sea stocks such as cod, haddock, whiting and herring.
In these negotiations we are pursuing the following key objectives:
— No reduction in the TAC for North
Sea cod.
— The EU receives its full allocation
of North Norway cod and that mackerel quota should not be offered
to the Norwegians to pay for it.
— If the TAC for Arctic cod is reduced,
we should look to increase our share of the Arctic haddock and
saithe TACs to compensate.
— To achieve a level playing field
with regard to the application of control measures in the EU and
Norway.
— To obtain a modest increase in the
TAC for North Sea haddock in line with the scientific advice and
no reduction in the North Sea whiting TAC.
— To achieve a reduction in the amount
of blue whiting that needs to be transferred to Norway as part
of the deal.
— International agreement on a management
regime for the Atlanto-Scandian herring fishery. Failing that,
bilateral agreement with Norway (the major player) to limit catches.
| 
