TOTAL ALLOWABLE CATCH (TACS) AND QUOTAS
FOR 2007 (12518/06, 16050/06)
Letter from Ben Bradshaw MP, Minister
for Local Environment, Marine and Animal Welfare, Department for
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to the Chairman
We have now received the Commission's proposals
for the 2007 total allowable catch (TACs) and national quota allocations
for certain commercial fish stocks in Community waters and for
community vessels in waters where limitations in catch are required—and
related measures. These will be discussed and agreed at the forthcoming
December Agriculture and Fisheries Council. I submitted an Explanatory
Memorandum (16050/06) on the proposals on 12 December.
Agreement has already been reached on two related
dossiers. At the November Agriculture and Fisheries Council there
was unanimous adoption of a Council Regulation setting quota limits
for deep sea species for 2007 and 2008. These were based on cuts
of between 15 and 25% to reflect the very poor scientific prognosis
of these vulnerable stocks.
In addition, there was political agreement on
TACs and quotas for the Baltic (EM 12518/06 of 11 October 2006)
at the October Agriculture and Fisheries Council. A full text
was ultimately agreed as an A point earlier this week during Transport
Council.
As far as the December Agriculture and Fisheries
Council preparations are concerned, the Government has and is
continuing to be in close touch with fishermen's representatives,
other interested parties, and with the Commission and other Member
States with the aim of developing effective measures to deliver
a balance between achieving sustainable fish stocks in the long-term
and providing a viable future for the fishing industry.
I very much regret that the proposals are likely
to be adopted without prior scrutiny clearance. The Committee
is aware of the difficulties caused by the late publication of
the annual TAC proposals. I hope the Committee understand the
reasons for us taking this course and hope they will accept my
apologies for any appearance of discourtesy.
13 December 2006
Letter from Ben Bradshaw MP to the Chairman
I thought you would appreciate a more detailed
summary of the outcome of the December Council negotiations from
a fisheries perspective.
I am delighted to say that the UK was able to
achieve virtually all its key objectives. As far as possible,
our line was to follow the advice of ICES and the Commission's
STECF. However, at the same time we sought to provide adequate
fishing opportunities to ensure the long-term viability of our
own fishing fleet. This process invariably involved a number of
difficult balances.
We succeeded in obtaining significant TAC increases
for Nephrops in Area VII (including the Irish Sea) and in the
West of Scotland of 17% and 10% respectively. These were in line
with the advice of STECF and compared with original Commission
proposals of no increase and an 8% cut for the two stocks. We
were also able to reduce the cut for the North Sea to a more realistic
6% (original Commission proposal—15%).
In addition, we obtained a 10% increase in the
Northern shelf (North Sea and West of Scotland combined) monkfish
TAC and a sizeable (six-fold) increase in the Rockall haddock
TAC in line with the scientific advice.
The Commission had originally proposed that
a number of TACs be cut simply on the basis of historic underutilisation
(implying that the stocks were not there to be caught). We argued
that in some cases, the UK had fished its full quota for a particular
stock and should not be penalised for a lack of uptake by others.
In addition, we explained that there were a number of other reasons
for low uptake, including price differentials and the availability
of alternative fishing opportunities which would vary from year
to year. The Commission accepted our arguments and thus we were
able to maintain the existing TACs for a number of stocks including
sale in Area Vllh,j,k, megrim in Area VII and the West of Scotland,
pollack and haddock in Area VII and Clyde herring.
We also maintained the 2006 TACs for West of
Scotland herring in line with the science and the emerging management
plan for this stock and for North Sea turbot & brill, lemon
sole and dab & flounder to reflect the relative strength of
these flatfish fisheries.
In line with our desire to improve the management
of elasmobranch species, we supported the setting of reduced TACs
for skates and rays and spurdog in the North Sea and their restriction
to bycatch fisheries—to prevent the targeting of these vulnerable,
slow maturing and low fecundity species. We also approved the
introduction of a new bycatch quota for spurdog in other EU waters.
In addition, we obtained a Council statement committing the Commission
to consider other possible management measures to improve the
conservation of these stocks for the future.
On days at sea, we were successful in limiting
cuts for our own whitefish fleet throughout the cod recovery zone
to between 4% and 5%—thus reflecting the considerable contribution
they had already made to effort reduction on cod. At the same
time, there were cuts of up to 7% for the beam trawl sector and
up to 10% for the smaller mesh demersal trawl fisheries. With
these latter two fleet segments now accounting for 65% of effort
in the North Sea, it is important that they contribute their fair
share to reducing pressure on cod. I would have preferred to go
further in constraining these gear categories, but unfortunately
there was little support for such a robust approach from other
Member States.
To further encourage a more sustainable approach
to these fisheries, we were successful in gaining a series of
concessions linked to the application of selective gear and improved
data collection. Those fishermen participating in the pilot Irish
Sea enhanced data project—which seeks to obtain, amongst
other things, more accurate information on levels of discarding
and which has been developed in collaboration between the North
Western Waters RAC and the UK and Irish Fisheries Departments—will
benefit from extra days (six days for whitefish boats and 12 days
for others). Additional days are also available to those using
more selective trawl gear in Nephrops fisheries (as developed
by the UK). We also expect to gain a further 3 days credit for
the more widespread application of scientific observers to monitor
fishing activity throughout the cod recovery zone.
Finally, we had hoped to agree a long-term management
plan for Western Channel sole, to give the fishermen concerned
a stable platform on which to plan for the future. Although this
was not possible, we were able to agree a Council statement accepting
the principles of such a plan and enshrining a number of key elements—on
which we will build this year. In the meantime, the TAC and day
limitations set for 2007, were consistent with what we would have
expected under the plan.
The Council also included discussion of a possible
management plan for plaice and sole stocks in the North Sea. I
underlined our commitment to such a plan, but indicated that it
was important that its operation did not jeopardise the application
of the equivalent plan for cod. The Commission took these comments
on board, along with those from other interested Member States
and will produce a further revise of the text, incorporating the
necessary safeguards, in due course.
The new EU/Greenland Fisheries Partnership Agreement
was adopted as an `A' point with
no discussion.
15 January 2007
Letter from the Chairman to Ben Bradshaw
MP
Sub-Committee D considered, at its meeting on
31 January, your letters of 13 December and 15 January on this
subject.
We note your view that almost all your key objectives
have been agreed. But we are concerned that the system in place
for enabling Parliament to conduct adequate scrutiny is not working
as it should. We recognise the difficulties which your Department
faces, in receiving detailed proposals from the Commission at
very short notice before the December Council. But, as you are
well aware, this is a problem which has persisted for some years.
Indeed, in our report of July 2005 on European Union Fisheries
Legislation we drew attention to the matter and urged the Government
to take forward the improvement of the decision-making process
as a matter of urgency, and you yourself subsequently wrote to
us to say that you were about to submit proposals to the Commission.
Yet here we are again with another end-of-year scrutiny override.
We recognise that the situation is not entirely
under your control, but I think you will agree that the matter
cannot be allowed to continue without improvement. We would be
interested therefore to hear what steps you propose to take in
this direction.
31 January 2007
Letter from Ben Bradshaw MP to the Chairman
Thank you for your letter of 31 January expressing
concern about the continuing inadequacy of the scrutiny surrounding
the Commission's annual proposals for catch limits and related
controls.
Given the significant impetus provided by the
UK during its Presidency (and thereafter) to improve the Brussels
decision-making process in this area, I too was disappointed that,
in the event, we did not have sufficient time for more measured
consideration of the proposals. We had however provided you with
an earlier analysis of what was expected, following the issue
of the Commission's first "strategy paper" last autumn—and
this proved to be quite a good measure of what was ultimately
proposed. This year, this document should be available even earlier
(possibly in April) and ICES are also piloting the release of
the science on the various demersal stocks (of particular interest
to the UK) in June rather than the traditional October. If the
latter is successful, the plan will be to bring forward the science
on a number of other "October stocks" in the same way
in 2008. This should, in turn, mean that the RACS (which the Commission
rightly consider to be an integral part of the consultation process)
have more time to provide their reactions to the Commission ideas
(and earlier) and that the Commission will in turn, be able to
submit their proposals (at least for certain key species) that
much more promptly. This should mean that there is more time for
their consideration within Member States—including their
scrutiny by Parliament and, as I indicated previously, we will
be doing what we can to impress upon the Commission, the importance
of this process. I hope that, in the event, this will go a considerable
way to avoiding, once and for all, the problems that your letter
identifies.
23 February 2007
| 
