Explanatory Memorandum to COM(2012)498 - Amendment of Council Regulation 1342/2008 establishing a long-term plan for cod stocks and the fisheries exploiting those stocks - Main contents
Please note
This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.
| dossier | COM(2012)498 - Amendment of Council Regulation 1342/2008 establishing a long-term plan for cod stocks and the fisheries exploiting those ... |
|---|---|
| source | COM(2012)498  |
| date | 12-09-2012 |
Council Regulation (EC) No 1342/2008 of 18 December 2008 establishing a long-term plan for cod stocks and the fisheries exploiting those stocks calls for the performance of the management measures to be evaluated in the third year of implementation of the plan. The Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) evaluated the plan in 2011. The STECF report stated that the cod plan has not achieved its objectives and that they are unlikely to be achieved by 2015. Furthermore, the report revealed that there are flaws in the design of the Regulation and problems with its implementation. In the light of this advice and of the opinions received from RACs and the Member States, the Commission is proposing an amendment to the Regulation. The proposal for the amendment of the Regulation does not cover all the problems identified since this amendment is intended as an interim solution pending the development and implementation of a mixed-fishery plan for North Sea fisheries as anticipated in the reform. Mixed-fishery plans represent a novel approach and the scientific tools required to develop, evaluate and assess the impact of such plans are not yet fully developed. At present, it is anticipated that these tools will become available later this year. This will then permit the start of the development and impact assessment process, through a series of meetings involving scientists and stakeholders during 2013. Given that mixed-fishery plans will involve trade-offs between fishing opportunities for different stocks caught in the same fisheries, it is likely that further consultation will be required to determine the final configuration of a North Sea plan. This means that it will not be possible to table a North Sea mixed fishery plan before 2014. The development of mixed-fishery plans for the other areas where there are cod stocks covered by the current cod plan will take longer, thus reinforcing the need for an amendment of the current cod plan which will address the most pressing needs as an interim solution.
- The need to limit the scope in order to avoid increasing the effort by using different calculation methods
By applying different methodologies for calculating fishing effort when setting national baselines and when calculating annual effort usage, some Member States have benefitted from higher levels of fishing effort than the plan is meant to allow.
The amendment clarifies that whilst different calculation methods are available, Member States must use the same method to calculate their annual effort usage as the method they applied when setting national effort baselines.
The proposed amendment is, therefore, necessary to ensure that the plan works as intended. This will lead to an improved management of the cod stocks and their long-term sustainability.
The TAC setting rules of the plan require estimates of certain parameters describing the state of the stock, in particular estimates of fishing mortality rates and stock biomass. In some geographical areas there is insufficient information to apply those rules, so the plan foresees automatic reductions of 25% in the TAC and effort in such circumstances. What was intended to be a rule to be applied in exceptional circumstances has proved to have become the norm in certain areas, which would lead within a few years to the effective closure not just of the cod fisheries but also of the other fisheries using the same gears in these areas. In some cases this is not an appropriate response to the scientific advice. It is therefore important to modify the rule about what to do in circumstances where the normal harvest rule cannot be applied, allowing more flexibility to reflect the scientific advice on a case by case basis.
Additionally, Member States and stakeholders have expressed serious concerns about further effort reductions and their social and economic impacts on the industry.
The amendment proposes a procedure for TAC and effort setting in the absence of the necessary information to apply the normal harvest rule. It proposes to take a case-by-case, and therefore a more flexible, approach though remaining firmly based on available scientific advice. This will ensure the possibility to pursue the fisheries whilst maintaining a precautionary approach.
The amendment also proposes to allow Council to decide each year whether or not to apply further annual fishing effort reductions, once the fishing-effort baseline has been reduced for four consecutive years. This aims to address concerns on the on-going nature of effort reductions in light of its social and economic impact on industry.
- The need to clarify and to simplify the procedure for applying Articles 11 and 13.
The procedure for excluding from the fishing-effort regime those fishing activities that catch insignificant quantities of cod has proved to be extremely cumbersome, creating a considerable administrative burden and requiring constant recalculations of the total allocated effort in order to avoid an increase in fishing effort by the vessels that remain included in the effort regime. The amendment seeks to simplify the procedure, first by fixing the final date for the submission of any request to amend the effort baseline and secondly by making successful requests generally applicable to all vessels satisfying the same criteria without requiring Member States to submit separate requests. Some fleets that are excluded would not qualify for exclusion in accordance with proposed amendment therefore transitional measures are introduced.
A further simplification is proposed, drawing from the enhanced accountability possible through the use of fully documented fisheries, where all catches are counted against quota. The proposal is to exempt vessels participating in fully documented fisheries trials from the effort regime. The STECF has assessed this as an acceptable management option.
The French version of Article 13(2)(b) reads differently from other languages, causing different implementation of the regulation. To ensure uniform implementation of this regulation, this provision should be clarified and amended. The proposed version corresponds to the French version, which is less restrictive in terms of implementation. Only vessels that do not target cod and that comply with the 5 % catch composition rule throughout the management period should be eligible for this derogation.
One of the main concerns with the current regulation is that TACs have not constrained cod catches. This has resulted in a considerable proportion of over-quota catches being discarded. In some fisheries, Member State cod-avoidance and discard-reduction measures have been partly successful in addressing this problem. But there is evidence of considerable levels of discards in some fisheries where the Member States concerned have not acted, even if action was suggested by the plan.
In the light of the Commission's proposals to eliminate discards under a reformed CFP, and the large support for this expressed both by Member States and many stakeholders, there is a need to ensure that all EU legislation supports discards elimination rather than de facto allowing it.
The amendment proposes to strengthen the obligation on Member State to take action where data confirms high level of discards in certain fisheries.
The derogations from the plan provided for by Articles 11 and 13 represent a risk if not properly implemented. Poor implementation could undermine the success of the plan. STECF assessed the implementation of these derogations and pointed out the need to strengthen the monitoring, and control as well as the requirement for full documentation as basic justification for the derogation.
The proposal addresses this risk by requiring Member States to assign a ‘very high risk’ level, as described in the control framework of the CFP, to those vessels benefiting from the derogations. The proposal also requires Member States to include adequate measures in their national control action programmes to ensure compliance with the required conditions. These modifications specify existing requirements and are applicable only if Member States use the derogation.
The cod plan pre-dates the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty. Given its continued application until it is replaced by a new mixed-fisheries plan, its procedures need to be brought in line with the decision-making provisions applicable since the entry into force of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU. The proposed amendment aligns the plan with the new comitology procedures.
Accordingly, a draft proposal for amending Regulation (EC) No 1342/2008 has been prepared.
The Commission is asked to adopt this proposal as soon as possible, and to forward it to the Council and the European Parliament.
Contents
- RESULTS OF CONSULTATIONS WITH THE INTERESTED PARTIES AND IMPACT ASSESSMENTS
- LEGAL ELEMENTS OF THE PROPOSAL
- BUDGETARY IMPLICATION
- -The need to reduce cod discards
- The main considerations justifying this amendment are the following:
- - The need to limit the scope in order to avoid increasing the effort by using different calculation methods
- - The need to introduce flexibility
- - The need to specify the level of required monitoring and control
- - The need to align with the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
- The proposal has been drafted after consultations with Member States and stakeholders. These consultations are summarised in the table below:
- The main legal action is as far as possible to improve and clarify the provisions of the Regulation (EC) No 1342/2008 that were identified in the evaluation as problematic, in particular:
The changes introduced by the amendment are essentially those deemed necessary to implement the plan as originally intended. The changes will reduce the administrative burden for the Member States, the Commission and the scientific bodies charged with providing appropriate advice.
The proposal has been drafted after consultations with Member States and stakeholders. These consultations are summarised in the table below:
STECF/ICES| Evaluation of the plan (open to stakeholders) Endorsed by the plenary| June 2011 July 2011
Commissions| Meeting with stakeholders on results of the evaluation and possible option for Impact Assessment| October 2011
Council| Member States strongly request to freeze the fishing effort and exclude vessels involved in fully documented fishery project from effort regime| December 2011
Commission| Meeting with stakeholders on possible improvements of implementation of the cod plan| March 2012
STECF plenary| Assessment of the preliminary options| April 2012
Bilateral meeting s with Member States| Attempt identify the specific problems of Member States| May/June 2012
STECF effort working group| Review of the functioning of the effort regime| June 11-15 2012
STECF working group on multiannual plan (with stakeholder participation)| Assessed modified options and advice on what would be needed to address the shortcomings indicated in the evaluation report to improve the performance of the plan.| 18-22 June 2012
COM workshop on fishing effort management| General| July 5 2012
· Summary of the proposed action
The main legal action is as far as possible to improve and clarify the provisions of the Regulation (EC) No 1342/2008 that were identified in the evaluation as problematic, in particular:
– Changes to Article 4 aims at closing the unintended possibility for Member States to deploy higher levels of effort than the plan was meant to allow simply by changing the methods used for the calculation of effort when establishing the baselines and when calculating usage.
– In Article 9 a procedure for TAC setting in the absence of the necessary information to apply Article 7 or 8. Instead of automatic reductions of 25% it is proposed to take a case-by-case, and therefore a more flexible, approach though remaining firmly based on available scientific advice.
– The former Article 11 is split into Article 11, Article 11a and 11b. Instead of exempting groups of vessels specified by each Member State, exemptions are now based on criteria that would be generally applicable for any vessels that meet them, regardless of the Member State to which they belong. The amended Article also avoids the need for constant adjustments of the baseline by Council.
– Transitional measures will ensure that vessels groups already excluded will be subject to the criteria in force at the time of exclusion.
– A new Article 11c is introduced. Vessels involved in the fully documented fishery trials, where all catches are counted against quota, are exempted from fishing effort regime.
– In Article 12 i the changes are made on the same grounds as for Article 9.
– New paragraph 6 is introduced in Article 12. This paragraph foresees the possibility for the Council to decide not to apply further fishing effort reductions, once the fishing-effort ceiling has been reduced for four consecutive years.
– In Article 13 a rewording is made in order to remove differences in interpretation between language versions. It is now made clear that the condition that cod catch are less than 5 % of the total refers to the catch composition over the management period, not per trip.
– In Article 14 the Member State obligation to address the discard issue is strengthened since it is not the case under the current ruling, and level of control and monitoring is specified according to risk based management.
– Changes to Article 32 bring the Committee procedure in to line with the rules of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and regulation (EU) No 182/2011.
· Legal basis
Article 43(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
· Subsidiarity principle
The proposal falls under the exclusive competence of the European Union.
· Proportionality principle
The proposal amends measures which already exist in Council Regulation (EC) No 1342/2008; accordingly, no concern with regard to the principle of proportionality arises.
· Choice of instrument
Proposed instrument: Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Other means would not be adequate for the following reason: a Regulation must be amended by a Regulation.
This measure does not involve any additional Union expenditure.