Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament - Review of certain access restrictions in the Common Fisheries Policy (Shetland Box and Plaice Box)
Date: 2005-09-13
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Scotland, common fisheries policy, conservation of fish stocks, fishery management, fishery resources, fishing area, fishing rights, sea fish

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 13.09.2005 
COM(2005) 422 final 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL 
AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 

Review of certain access restrictions in the Common Fisheries Policy (Shetland Box and 
Plaice Box) 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL 
AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 

Review of certain access restrictions in the Common Fisheries Policy Shetland Box and 
Plaice Box) 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Background ................................................................................................................................ 3 

Scope of the review .................................................................................................................... 3 

Shetland Box .............................................................................................................................. 3 

Plaice Box .................................................................................................................................. 4 

Evaluation of the boxes .............................................................................................................. 4 

Shetland Box .............................................................................................................................. 4 

Plaice Box .................................................................................................................................. 5 

The future of the Shetland and Plaice Boxes ............................................................................. 6 

Results of the consultation ......................................................................................................... 6 

Shetland Box .............................................................................................................................. 6 

Plaice Box .................................................................................................................................. 7 

Position of the Commission ....................................................................................................... 7 

Shetland Box .............................................................................................................................. 7 

Plaice Box .................................................................................................................................. 8 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
BACKGROUND 

Article  19  of  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  2371/20021  requires  an  assessment  of  the 
justification  for  restrictions  on  access  to  waters  and  resources  outside  of  the  12  mile  zone. 
According to Article 19, the Commission should have submitted its report to the Parliament 
and  the  Council  by  31  December  2003  and  proposals  for  any  adjustments  to  those  access 
restrictions should have been tabled by 31 December 2004. 

The process was delayed for a number of reasons. One was that the work commitments of the 
scientists involved made it difficult to convene an expert working group of the Commission’s 
Scientific,  Technical  and  Economic  Committee  for  Fisheries  (STECF)  to  advise  the 
Commission. The working group eventually met in February and May 2004. Another reason 
for the delay is that the Commission decided that there should be a wide consultation with the 
industry and with the Member States before forming an opinion on this important topic. 

SCOPE OF THE REVIEW 

The scope of such a review is potentially very large. Following discussions with the Member 
States in 2003, it was decided for practical reasons to limit this exercise to a consideration of 
access rules that aim to limit the fishing effort of certain categories of vessels. This excludes 
such measures as closed areas to protect juveniles, or areas where fisheries on certain species 
are  prohibited  (for  example,  the  Norway  pout  box  or  areas  where  fishing  for  sandeel  is 
prohibited).  Also  excluded  are  rules  of  access  that  have  recently  been  revised  under  the 
western waters Regulation, such as those relating to the Irish Box. The scope of the review is 
therefore restricted to a consideration of the Shetland Box and the Plaice Box. 

Shetland Box 

The Shetland Box was introduced on July 31 1983 by Article 7 of Council Regulation (EEC) 
No 170/832, managed by a special licensing system for “species of special importance in the 
region  ...  which  are  biologically  sensitive  because  of  their  exploitation  characteristics”.  The 
licensing  system  restricts  access  to  fish  for  demersal  species  (other  than  Norway  pout  and 
blue  whiting)  by  vessels  over  26m  in  length  between  perpendiculars.  Only  vessels  from  the 
UK, France, Germany and Belgium may fish in the Box, with the number of vessels fishing at 
any one time restricted to 62 UK, 52 French, 12 German and 2 Belgian. This allocation was 
based  on  the  track  records  of  fishing  activity  in  this  area,  by  Member  State.  Article  7  of 
Regulation  170/83  also  contained  a  clause  that  would  allow  the  licensing  system  to  be 
extended to other classes of vessels if any increase in fishing effort was observed following 
the introduction of the box. 

1 

2 

Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  2371/2002  of  20  December  2002  on  the  conservation  and  sustainable 
exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy OJ L 358 , 31.12.2002 P. 59 - 80 
Council  Regulation  (EEC)  No  170/83  of  25  January  1983  establishing  a  Community  system  for  the 
conservation and management of fishery resources OJ L 024 , 27.01.1983 P. 1 - 13 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The  provisions  of  Article  7  of  170/83  were  carried  over  largely  unchanged  as  Article  7  in 
Regulation 3760/923, except that the clause allowing for the extension of the licensing system 
to other classes of vessels was removed, and were once again carried forward as Article 18 of 
Regulation 2371/2002. 

Plaice Box 

The  North  Sea  flatfish  fisheries  generate  considerable  numbers  of  discards,  especially  of 
plaice in coastal waters. In 1987, the ICES North Sea Flatfish Working Group advised that by 
closing a coastal area between 53°N and 57°N, the discard rate would decrease substantially.  

Based on this advice, the Commission established in 1989 an area closed to beam trawlers of 
more  than  300  horsepower  (hp),  or  221  kW,  during  the  2nd  and  3rd  quarter.  This  area  has 
become  known  as  the  Plaice  Box.  In  1994  the  closure  was  extended  to  the  4th  quarter,  and 
since 1995 the box has been closed to those vessels during the whole year. 

The  provisions  concerning  the  Plaice  Box  are  currently  laid  down  in  Article  29  of  Council 
Regulation (EC) No 850/984. 

EVALUATION OF THE BOXES 

The boxes were not set up with pre-established criteria to assess their effectiveness, nor with 
control  areas  against  which  to  judge  their  effectiveness.  It  is  therefore  impossible  to  assess 
what  the  current  situation  would  have  been  had  they  not  been  established.  This  made  it 
difficult for the working group to give any definitive assessment of the impact of the boxes. 
The approach taken was therefore to look at trends in stock parameters before and during the 
existence  of  the  boxes,  and  inside  and  outside  the  areas  covered  by  the  boxes.  The  main 
results are summarised below. 

Shetland Box 

There are five main commercially important demersal species exploited in the Shetland Box 
and  surrounding  area,  namely  haddock,  cod,  whiting,  saithe  and  monkfish.  There  is  a 
disproportionate  abundance  of  mature  haddock  and  whiting  in  the  box  compared  to  the 
surrounding  areas,  and  also  a  disproportionate  concentration  of  juvenile  haddock  and 
monkfish.  

The working group could not demonstrate any positive effects of the box on the development 
of these stocks, which have generally declined in abundance since the box was introduced in 
1983.  Nor  could  the  working  group  find  clear  evidence  that  the  access  restrictions  were 
effective in limiting fishing effort. Most of the analysis was based on UK vessels, for which 
disaggregated fleet data were available. The activity of larger UK demersal fishing vessels in 
the Shetland Box declined in the late 1970s, before the introduction of the Shetland Box, and 
again  immediately  following  the  its  introduction,  and  has  been  maintained  at  relatively  low 
levels  since.  There  is  some  evidence  of  displacement  of  fishing  effort  into  the  area  in  the 

3 

4 

Council  Regulation  (EEC)  No  3760/92  of  20  December  1992  establishing  a  Community  system  for 
fisheries and aquaculture OJ L 389 , 31.12.1992 P. 1 - 14 
Council Regulation (EC) No 850/98 of 30 March 1998 for the conservation of fishery resources through 
technical measures for the protection of juveniles of marine organisms OJ L 125 , 27.04.1998 P. 1 - 36 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
immediate vicinity of the Shetland Box, but it is not possible to conclude that these changes 
occurred as a direct result of the Box. Moreover, the working group found no evidence of any 
frustrated demand to fish in the Box on the part of Member States eligible to fish under the 
licensing scheme, at least in recent years. 

Between 1974 and 1995 there have been changes in the activity of other components of the 
UK  fleet  both  inside  and  outside  the  Box.  In  particular,  fishing  effort  by  light  trawlers  has 
increased  in  the  Box,  such  that  total  UK  fishing  effort  (measured  as  days  absent)  in  the 
Shetland Box has remained relatively constant since 1974. For these light trawlers, the annual 
landings per unit effort (LPUE) when fishing in the Shetland Box are consistently higher than 
when fishing outside the box.  

The  majority  of  these  smaller  vessels  are  Scottish,  but  this  cannot  be  interpreted  as  a 
beneficial effect of the box for the local fleet for two reasons. One is that there is no evidence 
that the increase in effort by the smaller boats was facilitated by the reduction in effort of the 
larger boats; it seems that the increase would have happened in any case. Secondly, there are 
no particular access restrictions on the smaller vessels from other countries that have quotas 
on  the  same  stocks,  so  the  predominance  of  Scottish  vessels  seems  to  be  purely  for 
geographical reasons. 

This does imply, however, that if the licensing system for vessels of greater than 26 metres in 
length were now to be relaxed, there could be an increase in their activities to their pre-Box 
levels,  even  though  for  the  last  few  years  there  has  been  no  frustrated  demand  for  licences. 
The VMS data analysed by the working group show that there is much activity of these larger 
vessels  on  the  shelf  edge  at  the  periphery  of  the  Box,  and  in  the  absence  of  any  access 
restriction they could divert their effort to the relatively rich fishing grounds around Shetland. 
Even if many of these vessels had no quotas for the key stocks, allowing them to fish freely 
for non-quota species could lead to the problem of by-catches and discards. 

Plaice Box 

The  parameters  that  were  examined  to  assess  the  effectiveness  of  the  Plaice  Box  were 
landings  and  effort,  discard  rates,  growth  rates  and  spatial  distribution  of  juveniles,  and 
environmental parameters such as water temperature and productivity.  

Fishing  effort  was  significantly  reduced  in  the  Plaice  Box  following  its  closure  to  beam 
trawlers  of  more  than  300  hp.  When  the  Plaice  Box  was  partially  closed  in  1989,  the  total 
effort (in hp days at sea) from the international otter and beam trawl fleet decreased to 69% of 
the pre-box level. After the complete closure, effort decreased further to 23% of the pre-Box 
level. However, the fishing activity by beam trawlers of less than 300 hp and by other fleets 
(otter  trawls,  shrimp  fleet)  has  increased  in  the  Plaice  Box.  And  many  of  the  vessels 
concerned may have an engine power that is significantly higher than the normal amount. The 
extent of this problem is difficult to estimate, because the engines can usually be very easily 
tuned or detuned to adjust the power rating. 

The percentage of plaice discards (as a percentage of the numbers caught) in the beam trawl 
fishery  increased  from  77%  between  1976  and  1990,  to  93-96%  in  2003.  Percentages  of 
plaice  discarded  outside  the  Box  also  increased,  from  31%  in  1976-1990  to  84%  in  2003. 
Both in terms of numbers and in biomass, plaice discard percentages in the 80 mm beam trawl 
fishery are higher inside the Box than outside. One explanation could be that the growth rate 
in the area started to decrease around 1980. A similar trend has been observed for sole, and 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
may therefore reflect changes in growth conditions in the coastal waters of the south-eastern 
North  Sea.  The  lower  growth  rate  in  the  Plaice  Box  means  that  plaice  are  susceptible  to 
discarding for a longer period. In the 100 mm fishery, discard percentages are lower inside the 
Box  than  outside,  which  may  be  partly  explained  by  the  smaller  sizes  that  are  caught  and 
discarded inside the Box.  

The  working  group  found  clear  evidence  that  the  spatial  distribution  of  juvenile  plaice  has 
changed such that the importance of the Plaice Box for juvenile plaice has decreased. When 
the Plaice Box was established about 90% of all undersized plaice were found inside the Box 
but due to the changed spatial distribution this has recently decreased to less than 70%.  

The change in spatial distribution was clearest in 1-group plaice, which seem to have moved 
to deeper areas further offshore. Although the change in spatial distribution of this group had 
started  around  1997,  it  was  most  pronounced  from  2000-2003.  This  percentage  decreased 
most dramatically for Plaice of 15-20 cm, the sizes that are vulnerable to discarding. For this 
length class, the importance of the Box decreased rapidly from 1995.  

One  possibility  is  that  the  distribution  has  changed  as  a  result  of  increasing  seawater 
temperature,  causing  juvenile  plaice  to  move  out  of  the  Box.  Since  the  1950s,  water 
temperature  in  and  around  the  Box  has  increased  by  0.5-1°C,  with  the  years  2000  -  2003 
inclusive unusually warm, especially in winter.  

While it is clear that the Plaice Box remains an important nursery area for juvenile plaice, it is 
less  clear  that  the  present  arrangements  are  the  most  effective  means  of  reducing  juvenile 
mortality, especially given the partial nature of the closure and the very high level of discards 
inside the Box. The effort restrictions apply only to beam trawlers of more than 300 hp, while 
the  effort  of  smaller  beam  trawlers  and  demersal  trawlers  has  increased,  therefore 
undermining the conservation benefits.  

THE FUTURE OF THE SHETLAND AND PLAICE BOXES 

Given  the  importance  of  the  issue,  the  Commission  decided  that  there  should  be  a  wide 
consultation of the fishing industry and the Member States before forming an opinion on the 
future  of  the  boxes.  A  non-paper  outlining  the  results  of  the  expert  working  group  was 
circulated  as  the  basis  for  the  consultation  to  all  interested  parties,  including  the  North  Sea 
Regional Advisory Council (NSRAC), in March 2005. 

Results of the consultation 

Comments  on  the  non-paper  were  received  from  two  Member  States,  namely  the  United 
Kingdom and Germany, and from the NSRAC. 

Shetland Box 

The United Kingdom was strongly in favour of the retention of the Shetland Box, considering 
that the report of the scientific working group demonstrated that it was an area of importance 
for haddock, whiting and monkfish. The United Kingdom considered that any changes to the 
Shetland Box should be subject to a quantitative evaluation of the likely effects before they 
are  proposed.  Germany  considered  that  the  Shetland  Box  should  be  retained  for  at  least 
another three years until better data became available. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
The  NSRAC  considered  that  the  evaluation  by  the  scientific  working  group  of  the 
conservation benefits of the Shetland Box was inconclusive, but that as an important zone for 
juvenile cod and haddock the area may justify additional protection. 

The  advice  from  the  NSRAC  was  that  the  Shetland  Box  should  be  retained  pending  closer 
examination of its conservation benefits. The purpose of the box should be clearly set out and 
criteria  for  determining  its  success  should  be  applied.  If  clear  conservation  benefits  were 
demonstrated, the retention of the box should be considered for a further period. 

Plaice Box 

The United Kingdom had no firm position on the future of the plaice box, other than to note 
that  any  decision  should  be  taken  in  the  context  of  future  flatfish  management  and  after 
receiving  the  advice  of  the  NSRAC.  Germany  was  strongly  in  favour  of  retaining  the  box, 
possibly  extending  its  coverage  further  west  in  order  to  protect  the  juvenile  plaice  that  are 
now found in that area. Germany also advocates greater enforcement of the 300 hp (221 kW) 
limit on the power of beam trawlers operating within the plaice box, and an evaluation of the 
impact of twin trawling in the area. 

The NSRAC noted that juvenile plaice were abundant in the area of the box, and that these 
should be protected. However, the NSRAC acknowledged that there was little evidence that 
the plaice box had been effective in enhancing recruitment. It was also acknowledged that one 
of the reasons for this may have been the failure to properly limit the engine power of beam 
trawlers having access to the plaice box. 

The advice from the NSRAC is that the plaice box should be maintained, but modified on an 
experimental basis. To do this, the NSRAC suggests that the experimental studies should be 
designed  with  close  co-operation  between  fisheries  scientists,  the  fishing  industry  and 
conservation organisations, with the participation of the Commission and the Member States. 
However, the position of the German industry was that the current access regime should be 
maintained in the German EEZ even if other arrangements were introduced elsewhere on an 
experimental basis. 

Position of the Commission 

Shetland Box 

Whereas  in  the  case  of  the  Plaice  Box  the  conservation  objective  is  clear,  namely  the 
protection of juvenile plaice, the conservation objectives of the Shetland Box are much more 
general. The scientific working group could not demonstrate any clear conservation benefit of 
the Shetland Box and the NSRAC has also failed to put forward convincing reasons why the 
area covered by the Shetland Box should be treated more favourably than other areas. 

Nevertheless,  the  NSRAC  recommended  that  the  Shetland  Box  be  continued  while  further 
evaluation of its effect is carried out. The United Kingdom and German authorities have also 
requested  that  the  Shetland  Box  be  maintained.  The  STECF  also  suggested  that  eliminating 
the Shetland Box might result in some increase of fishing effort in the area. Given this weight 
of  opinion,  the  Commission  considers  that  the  Shetland  Box  should  be  maintained  for  a 
further period of three years, while further evaluations are undertaken. The STECF should be 
asked to recommend how such an evaluation could be done, and whether any changes to the 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
access regime in certain areas analogous to those being suggested for the plaice box could be 
considered.  

Plaice Box 

Although  the  NSRAC  would  like  to  modify  the  plaice  box  on  an  experimental  basis,  the 
consultations necessary to establish the objectives of the box, design the experimental studies 
to evaluate its effectiveness and then to implement the new measures would take considerable 
time. The early objection of the German fishing industry to any change in the access regime in 
their waters demonstrates the difficulty of the exercise that the NSRAC seeks to undertake. 

The Commission is therefore of the view that the proposal to study the issue further should be 
accepted in principle, but that in the meantime the existing Plaice Box and associated access 
restrictions  should  be  maintained.  However,  it  is  essential  that  those  access  restrictions  are 
properly applied, notably by a strict control of engine power to ensure that it is consistent with 
licensed  power.  This  would  be  coherent  with  the  NSRAC  advice  on  plaice  management  in 
general,  where  a  regularisation  of  engine  power  to  bring  it  into  line  with  licensed  power 
would contribute to the overall effort reduction required for a recovery plan. 

The provisions concerning the Plaice Box are currently laid down in Article 29 of Regulation 
850/98  (the  “technical  measures”  regulation).  Given  that  a  consultation  process  has  been 
launched with a view to replacing this Regulation with a new, simpler regulation, it would be 
an opportunity to propose revisions to the plaice box, which should be fully integrated with 
the plaice recovery plan, as part of the same exercise. 

EN 

8 

   EN