WRITTEN QUESTION E-0404/01

by Johannes Blokland (EDD), Michiel van Hulten (PSE) and Albert Maat (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(15 February 2001)

Subject: European decision on an emergency recovery plan for cod stocks in the North Sea (14 February 1 May)

Is the Commission aware that, in view of the opinion of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, the proposed measure will result not in a reduction in the pressure from fishing but only in a shift? Has the Commission carried out an estimate of the damage that will be done to fish stocks and ecosystems in the regions which will have to cope with greater pressure? If so, what will the damage be? If not, why not?

Was the Commission's choice of protection zone determined solely by the reported cod catches of a number of fishing fleets in 1999? Did the Commission also take account of the fact that this measure will protect only a small part of the historical spawning areas of cod? If so, why is the emergency measure limited only to the proposed fishing grounds? If not, why not?

The spawning season of cod in the Southern North Sea is between January and March (information from CEFAS). Does the Commission not think that the emergency plan for this zone is starting too late (14 February 2001) and going on too long (1 May 2001)?

The Dutch deputy minister, Mrs G.H. Faber, has put forward two alternatives: a temporary suspension of all cod-related fishing and a temporary halt to Dutch fishing, both of which would significantly reduce the pressure. Both alternatives have been rejected by the Commission. Why?

Does the Commission expect the emergency plan to form a key element in its long-term recovery plan?

Does the Commission regard it as politically acceptable for the fishing fleet of one Member State to be substantially disadvantaged compared with the fishing fleets of other Member States which, in terms of their quota, bear a greater responsibility for the cod catch?

Does the Commission believe that the Dutch fisheries sector should be eligible for compensatory measures, now that estimates of its losses are running at 40 million? If so, in what way? If not, why not?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(21 March 2001)

The emergency plan to restore cod stocks ultimately put in place was agreed between the Commission and Member States following discussion of other possible alternatives. The Commission and Member States were always aware of the possibility of redistribution of fishing effort. There has been no scientific evaluation of the possible effects of such redistribution. This task was beyond the capability of the scientists within the time available and it is doubtful that it could have been completed in a satisfactory manner even if more time had been given to it.

The closure was enacted with two objectives in mind. Firstly, protection should be given to adult cod during their spawning period. Secondly, the closure should contribute to reduction in the rate of uptake of the cod quota and thereby assist in ensuring that the cod quotas are not overshot during the year.

Areas in which cod have spawned historically are reasonably well known but spawning has not occurred in all these areas in all years and the definition of spawning areas is more a matter of conventional wisdom than of scientific mapping. Furthermore, it is possible that some previous spawning areas no longer act as such. Neither science nor the fishing industry could inform the Commission and Member States of the probable spawning areas of cod in 2001. Against this background, the Commission would have wished to have closed the whole North Sea, at least during the spawning season of cod, to all methods of fishing likely to catch cod. Member States were unable to accept this idea. Therefore, it was agreed with Member States and ultimately with Norway, which are joint managers of this stock, that an area would be closed during the cod spawning season. This area was determined on the basis of data indicating the origin from 30 × 30-mile rectangles within the North Sea of the highest catches of cod during the period 1997-1999. The data covered approximately 85 % of the recorded landings of cod. The other 15 % of the data could not be assigned to 30 × 30-mile rectangles. Even in this case, the Commission would have wished for a wider-scale closure. However, a number of rectangles of high cod catches were left unclosed to allow fishing for, inter alia, flatfish.

While the Commission agrees that the available scientific advice indicates that spawning of cod in the Southern Bight finishes earlier than spawning in more northerly areas, the closure in the Southern Bight was not shortened because this closure also contributes to reduction in the rate of uptake of quotas.

The suggestion of the Netherlands to close the North Sea either to all demersal fishing or, perhaps, to fishing with beam trawls was not acceptable to other Member States. Furthermore, the suggestion was to close such fishing for four weeks. The Commission would have wished for a longer period.

For the future, the emergency conditions will be reviewed during 2001 in the light of experience.

Given the biological background to the current closure, it is virtually impossible to achieve complete and demonstrable proportionality of treatment. However, the Commission does not consider that any Member State has been penalised in a grossly disproportionate manner.

The Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance allows Member States to compensate the fisheries sector following the introduction of stock recovery plans, provided that there is suitable scientific and economic justification. Article 16(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2792/1999 of 17 December 1999 laying down the detailed rules and arrangements regarding Community structural assistance in the fisheries sector(1) provides for the granting of compensation for the temporary cessation of fishing activities resulting from the introduction of such plans as well as compensation to the processing industry where it depends for its supply on a resource covered by the plans.

(1) OJ L 337, 30.12.1999.