WRITTEN QUESTION E-0497/02

by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Council

(22 February 2002)

Subject: Recovery plan for hake

The plan proposed by the Commission for rebuilding stocks of cod and hake in Community waters is being strongly contested by the industry, the Member States affected and Parliament itself, particularly with regard to hake. The reason is the discrepancy between the conclusions of the various scientific reports and the drastic measures being proposed by the Commission.

Firstly, the conclusions of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES), on which the Commission based its proposal, do not tally with those of the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee on Fisheries (STECF). The latter committee is proposing a TAC of 35 000 t for 2002, against figures of between 16 500 and 22 000 t being quoted by the Commission. The committee's assessment is backed up by scientific research carried out in the area, for example by the Spanish oceanographic ship Vizconde de Eza.

Secondly, Parliament, the Member States affected and the industry are advocating a recovery plan for hake which would be implemented step-by-step over a longer period of time, thus cushioning the socio-economic impact and avoiding the irreversible measures of fleet decommissioning and job losses. Specifically, Parliament is calling for the plan to be implemented over a period of at least seven years, rather than the five proposed by the Commission. Moreover, the Commission does not appear to understand that the problems are different for cod and for hake, and that the measures to be taken must therefore also be different.

What is the Council's view of the opposition voiced by Parliament, the countries concerned and the industry with regard to the Commission proposal for hake? Will it take account of the scientific reports on hake stocks which refute the critical state of stocks on which the Commission has based its drastic proposal? Will it ask the Commission to draw up a global socio-economic risk analysis of the plan's implications in the short and medium term, as Parliament has demanded? Is the Council aware of the scientific research conducted in the area which confirms that there has been a substantial deterioration in the state of hake stocks in zone VIII (Bay of Biscay and French coast), but that the situation is better in zones VI and VII (Irish Box)? Has the Council not considered asking the Commission to submit a fresh proposal specifically for hake?

Reply

(22 July 2002)

1. In its October 2001 report, ICES drew attention to the continued decrease in spawning stock biomass (SSB) and very poor recruitment of Northern hake since 1997 and recommended a recovery plan that would ensure a safe and rapid recovery of SSB to a level in excess of 165 000 tonnes. This was considered the precautionary level (Bpa) from which the stock would be likely to recover. The lowest observed biomass in recent years was 120 000 tonnes, which ICES considered the limit below which the stock was likely to collapse (Blim). In November 2001 the STECF considered that report and recommended exploring the various possibilities and options, which is now being done.

2. The Council fixed the overall TAC for Northern hake at 26 960 tonnes in 2002, against an initial Commission proposal of 22 623 tonnes.

3. The purpose of the Commission proposal containing the recovery plan for Northern hake is to reach the Bpa target by setting the TACs at a level that will result in an annual increase of 15 % in biomass. There is no time limit for this recovery; it is, however, expected to last for seven to eight years. The stock would be removed from the list of recovery stocks if the target level has been reached for two consecutive years. For cod, which is treated in a different manner, the increase is 30 % per year with recovery expected within five years. The recovery plans for cod and hake are primarily intended to attain the biological recovery of the stocks. They are accompanied by an effort limitation scheme, monitoring and surveillance measures, various structural and market-related provisions, favouring in particular Community support for scrapping of vessels, and the establishment of temporarily closed fishing grounds.

The Council has not yet taken any decision on these proposals and will not do so until new scientific reports become available in May or June 2002.

4. The Council is still examining the socio-economic side effects of the recovery plans, in order to avoid irreversible job losses; in particular, this means striking a balance between fisheries resources and fishing effort.