WRITTEN QUESTION E-2434/02

by Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(26 August 2002)

Subject: Commission failing to act upon sound and verifiable scientific advice in fisheries

Why is the Commission proposing measures/agreeing to compromises in the regulation of fisheries management which are based on scant scientific advice?

In particular:

1. How can the Commission agree to the proposed regulation of deep sea stocks through a TACs and quota regime when there is little scientific evidence upon which to base such regulation and Member State statistical submissions may be considered suspect at best? Why has the Commission not considered an effort reduction scheme as an alternative until clear and unequivocal scientific advice is available?

2. How can the Commission propose the regulation of the North Sea purely based upon a TACs and quota regime and remove the current access restrictions currently in force, when by its own admission (see written answer P-1902/02(1)), there is no scientific advice to base this proposal, with the Commission having little knowledge about non-quota species and admitting that non-quota species would almost certainly incur by-catches of species subject to quotas, many of which are already in a dire state?

How can the Commission expect fishermen to have confidence in and comply with fisheries management measures which are not based on scientific advice but on what can only be described as overt political manoeuvres?

(1) OJ C 28 E, 6.2.2003, p. 154.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(22 October 2002)

The Commission has proposed two Regulations(1) to manage deep-sea stocks: one on catch limitations (total allowable catches = TACs) and another one on effort limitation and data collection. These two proposals constitute a package of measures that, once adopted, will allow, as a first step, the preservation of the currently unrestrained development of these fisheries.

The proposal on TACs is based on the scientific advice available on these stocks, carried out by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) and reviewed by the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF). While such scientific basis is still limited, the Commission strongly believes that the precautionary principle justifies taking action to limit catches of these species on the basis of the available (however limited) scientific basis. These catch limitations establish a cap on currently unrestrained catches of the main stocks and for many species will represent a significant reduction from recent catch levels.

The Commission has also proposed an effort regulation for these fisheries. Such proposal for the time being establishes as a first step the obligation to freeze fishing effort of recent years, therefore stopping the current (and irresponsible) increase in fishing effort. As more information is collected on these fisheries, this effort limitation will evolve to become gradually a much more tailor-made effort management system for these fisheries.

The lifting of the current limitations of access by Spain and Portugal to the North Sea was foreseen in the Treaty of Accession of these Member States and is therefore a direct obligation from these Treaties.

In respect of fisheries management in the North Sea, the Honourable Member is referred to the reply to his question E-2433/02(2) on the same subject.

(1) OJ C 151 E, 25.6.2002 and COM(2001) 764 final.

(2) OJ C 92 E, 17.4.2003, p. 169.