WRITTEN QUESTION P-3756/02

by Herman Vermeer (ELDR) to the Commission

(16 December 2002)

Subject: Separation of the TACs for sole and plaice from the cod problem, dealing with the cod crisis and the TACS for sole and plaice

How will the Commission tackle illegal landing of cod, which is far more damaging to cod stocks than the by-catches which occur in fishing for flatfish, and what quantitative targets has the Commission set itself for reducing illegal landing of cod?

As an alternative to its proposals regarding cod stocks and the simultaneous reduction of TACs (Total Allowable Catches) for sole and plaice, will the Commission allow flatfish fishermen to adopt more stringent technical measures to prevent by-catches of cod while in addition reducing the fishing effort during the spawning season and adopting measures for specific areas?

How will the Commission compensate the fishermen who suffer from the proposed measures, bearing in mind that not every Member State can make budget funds available for this?

In view of the seriousness of the situation and the Council's timetable of meetings, I would request an answer to my question as soon as possible.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(22 January 2003)

Given the difficulty of ensuring accurate catch reporting in relation to fish quota management, the Commission considers that the management of fishing effort is an essential instrument to control the fishing mortality rate experienced by the cod stocks that are under threat. Management of effort is needed for all fisheries that catch cod, though the extent to which effort should be reduced needs to be in proportion to the amount of cod caught in each fishery.

The Commission has not specified any permissible level of illegal cod landings nor does it intend to so. The Commission encourages all Member States that participate in fisheries to put in place effective and appropriate control, inspection and sanction régimes to reduce illegal landings to the lowest possible value.

The Commission will assist this process according to its responsibilities. Where evidence of unreported cod landings comes to the Commission's attention, it will review all available information and may issue requests for administrative enquiries to investigate the extent and importance of such problems in specific cases. If the evidence so justifies, the Commission will initiate legal procedures against Member States (possibly resulting in a procedure before the European Court of Justice). Furthermore, the Commission intends to elaborate specific monitoring programmes to monitor closely certain sensitive fisheries and to establish benchmarks for inspection procedures.

Experience with seasonal protected areas or closed areas for cod conservation has shown very limited benefit because as soon as a seasonal area is re-opened, intense fishing activity can restart and many of the fish from within the area can be caught. The important measure that needs to be introduced is, therefore, a limitation on effective fishing effort. The Commission does not support seasonal closed areas as an alternative to reduced fishing effort.

The co-financed measures of the Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance (FIFG) are intended to assist in achieving a better balance between the fishing effort employed and the resources available. This should happen by a permanent reduction in surplus fishing capacity within national programmes. Such measures could be combined with social and economic measures such as early retirement schemes and individual compensatory payments for fishermen. Member States that do not dispose of adequate financial flexibility because they had not earmarked sufficient financial resources for social and economic measures have the possibility to reprogramme their expenditures in order to do this if they so decide.