DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR FISHERIES AND MARITIME AFFAIRS
Control and Enforcement
Fisheries Inspection
MINUTES OF THE MEETING
Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture
28 + 29.05.2008
A)Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture
- Technical consultation on the ICES advice for the Baltic Stocks.
Following the publication of the scientific advice by ICES on the Baltic fishing opportunities for 2009, the Commission presented a short overview of its first analysis and interpretation of the advice. Member States were subsequently invited to provide technical questions on the advice to be addressed by STECF as part of its review of the ICES advice.
Questions raised focused mainly on the interpretation of the advice for the Eastern Baltic cod stock in light of misreporting and existing policies guiding the setting of the TAC for this stock such as the multi-annual plan for the two Baltic cod stocks and partly on the setting of the TAC for the GoR Herring in light of the exchange between this herring stock and the central Baltic one and the decrease of the sprat stock.
The Commission responded to the questions on the basis of the ICES advice and relevant Community policies. All technical questions were clarified in the meeting.
Personne de contact / Contact person / Kontakt : Jean-Claude CUEFF : +32 2 295 12 92
- (Presentation and vote) Draft Commission Regulation adapting the cod fishing quotas to be allocated to Poland in the Baltic Sea (Subdivision 25-32, EC Waters) from 2008 to 2011 pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 338/2008.
The Commission presented the proposal for a Commission Regulation adapting the cod fishing quotas to be allocated to Poland in the Baltic Sea (Subdivision 25- 32, EC Waters) from 2008 to 2011 pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 338/2008.
Following Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 338/2008 providing for the adaptation of cod fishing quotas to be allocated to Poland in the Baltic Sea (Subdivision 25- 32, EC Waters) from 2008 to 2011, the proposal is specifying the actual amounts to be deducted from the Polish Eastern cod quota during 2008-2011.
The regulation was voted for by qualified majority.
Personne de contact / Contact person / Kontakt : Jean-Claude CUEFF : +32 2 295 12 92
- Draft amended Commission regulation laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1966/2006 of 21 December 2006 on electronic recording and reporting of fishing activities and on means of remote sensing. (Discussion)
COM: informed that amended draft was distributed by fax and e-mail on 22-23 May. Highlighted, that the text of the regulation was amended taking into account Member States positions and COM commitments made on the Management Committee on 5 December 2007. In particular, the proposals improving and strengthening the text and removing ambiguities were taken into account. The data reporting format which appears as technical annex to the regulation was substantially revised following the 6 technical ERS experts working group meetings taken place in February – May 2008. The cross-checking with NAF format was performed to ensure that same definitions and codes are used.
Any issues in the draft, which are not in line with the control regulation, will be addressed in coming months when preparing the new control regulation.
Written comments on draft were asked to submit to the Commission before 11 July in track changes.
COM: expects to receive comments from MS before 11 June, summarize them and send for translation in order to proceed for voting on 3 July Committee.
Personne de contact / Contact person / Kontakt : Valérie LAINE: +32 2 296.53.41
3B)Presentation by the Commission of the non-paper on establishing a specific control and inspection programme related to the cod stocks in the North Sea, the Skagerrak, the Kattegat, the West of Scotland, the Eastern Channel and the Irish Sea.
COM informed the Group that Commission Decision 2007/429/EC of 18 June 2007 amending Decision 2005/429/EC establishing a specific monitoring programme related to the recovery of cod stocks extended the specific monitoring programme established by Commission Decision 2005/429/EC of 2 June 2005 for a period of one year in order to ensure the continued implementation of conservation and control measures.
However, since this extended period is about to be reach its end and pursuant to Article 34c of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 of 12 October 1993 establishing a control system applicable to the common fisheries policy a specific control and inspection programme may not last longer than three years, it is necessary to adopt a new Commission Decision establishing a specific control and inspection programme to ensure the required continuity in the implementation of the conservation and control measures.
The legal basis of the new decision will also be Council Regulation (EC) No 423/2004 of 26 February 2004 establishing measures for the recovery of cod stocks, therefore no major changes are foreseen in the text of this Decision.
This specific control and inspection programme consists of three elements:
•The common inspection and surveillance tasks for inspection and surveillance of fishery activities;
•Control Programmes, to be drawn up by the concerned Member States (Belgium, Denmark, Germany, France, Ireland, Netherlands, Sweden and United Kingdom);
•Inspections carried out by Commission Fisheries Inspectors in order to control the application of the relevant Community legislation by the Member States concerned.
The duration of the programme will be fixed at three years and may be revised in the light of the adoption of new conservation measures or at the request of a MemberState.
The programme will lay down benchmarks of inspection and surveillance, common priorities for inspection as well as certain verifications to be carried out and by inspectors. Furthermore, in order to strengthen and facilitate co-operation between all authorities involved in the monitoring, inspection and surveillance of the above cod fisheries referred above, a general framework is to be implemented under which all the authorities concerned can request mutual assistance and exchange relevant information in accordance with Article 34a and Article 34b of Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 and Article 28 of Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy . This framework will include exchanges of national inspectors between Member States in the context of the Joint Deployment Plans (JDP) established in accordance with Article 12 of Council Regulation 768/2005 of 26 April 2005 establishing a Community Fisheries Control Agency and amending Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 establishing a control system applicable to the common fisheries policy.
COM further explained that pending the adoption of the Commission Decision establishing a specific control and inspection program the Commission, in accordance with Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 768/2005, was of the view that the Community Fisheries Control Agency (CFCA) should be encouraged to continue to coordinate the Joint Deployment Plan (JDP) from the 2nd June onwards until such time as the new Commission Decision establishing a specific control and inspection programme is adopted.
COMopened the floor for Member States to make observations.
Certain Member States questioned on the one hand the need for the MS to submit a request to the CFCA to continue the cooperation between MS and the CFCA and on the other hand the legal probity of using Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 768/2005 in these current circumstances.
The CFCA advised that in the current circumstances the 'Agency' requires a legal basis to continue after the 2 June with the current JDP. To meet this requirement it requires in the framework of Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 768/2005 that MS request the Agency to coordinate the deployment of their means of control and inspection in relation to the cod stocks in the North Sea, the Skagerrak, the Kattegat the West of Scotland the Eastern Channel and the Irish Sea not subject to a control and inspection programme.
Following this exchange, COM in cooperation with the CFCA circulated a document with the following content to be included in the minutes of the meeting:
"Pending the adoption of the Commission Decision establishing a specific control and inspection program for cod in the North Sea, the Skagerrak, the Kattegat and the Eastern Channel the Member States concerned and the Commission, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 768/2005, in particular Article 15, invites the 'Agency' to coordinate deployment of their means of control and inspection in the period, as agreed among them until a specific control and inspection programme has been adopted."
One MemberState inquired why COM had not addressed the issue earlier and circulated the text prior to the meeting.
A certain MemberStateindicated that it was uncomfortable with COM interpretation and use of Article 15 and that the gap in the JDP was as a result of COM failing to bring forward a JDP on time. Nonetheless, they considered that national authorities would continue to conduct control and inspection despite the gap in the implementation of a JDP.
Taking the above arguments into accountCOM explained that the delay with delivering the Commission Decision establishing a specific control and inspection program was due to the current progress being made with the proposal in the Council providing for a Council Regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 423/2004 as regards the recovery of cod stocks.
Without any other comments from the MS, COM closed this agenda point specifying that the concerns of the MS would be reflected in the minutes.
Personne de contact / Contact person / Kontakt : Jean-Claude CUEFF : +32 2 295 12 92
B)Expert Group on Fisheries Control
- Discussion on conversion factors (CF)
COM after detecting methodology problems in the first exercise, presented Impact assessment, version number two, where landed presentation percentage was included in the assessment, as well as the reference column on which the impact is calculated, which has been replaced by 3year landing data (instead of 2006 quota or 3-year quota after swaps).
A synthesis of the MS opinion previously transmitted regarding the harmonisation of fresh fish Conversion factors was presented. At present, eight MS have sent a reply; of which six are in favour of harmonising CF, one is against the proposal and one has not been able to officially formulate an opinion. From the MS that agree with the proposal two prefer option a) (based on 2006 quota allocation), one prefers option b) (based on 3year quota after swaps) and two prefer option c) (based on 3year landings). Regarding their opinion on the best methodology to harmonised CF of mixed quotas (ex. L/W LEM+WIT), three MS stated that CF should be by species and not by mixed quota; two MS stated that they would agree with majority, and two remaining MS have made no comment on this specific issue.
COM expressed the intention of presenting a draft for a COM regulation regarding harmonised CF in the EGFC of September and requested MS to make necessary comments on the harmonisation proposal until the 30 June.
Two MS showed concern regarding specific stocks percentage of presentation landings described in the impact exercise (HER/COD). One MS demonstrated concern regarding the impact that the whole proposal will have on national fleets and inquired if any increase in the quota was foreseen. Regarding the mixed quota species, the most accurate would be to consider the species individually. Clarification was requested regarding the procedure for following months. One MS called the attention that the legislation on CF should also try to harmonise the codes used between different institutions (Eurostat uses numbered codes and COM letter codes for presentations) and questioned when the legislation would enter into force. Two MS stated their choice in methodology, one preferring option b) quota after swaps and another preferring option c) based on 3year landings. One MS showed concerns regarding differences of value of CF for same species and presentation between MS that have different quota uptakes for same species.
COM thanked MS for their comments. COM will re-check percentages for all species. The COM agreed with comments on the methodology to deal with mixed quotas, which species should be dealt with individually. COM stated that discrepancies between national CFs should be clarified between the concerned countries, because the COM considers both CF to have the same scientific support. Regarding the July EGFC the COM clarified that a point on CF would only be discussed if MS requested clarifications on the proposal.
Personne de contact / Contact person / Kontakt : Valérie LAINE : +32 2 296 53.41
- Harmonised procedures for inspection at sea and on land / Definition of standards of control.
COM presented the non-paper regarding Harmonisation of inspection standards and control standard that was distributed the day after the previous meeting of the Group on April. At that time the date limit for sending written comments to the paper was set at 20 May. Unfortunately, for various reason some MS representatives, have claimed they have not received the non-paper, despite the fact that the mail was addressed to the same general distribution list as ever.
That circumstance hampers the intensity of the discussion. COM asked MS that have sent written commentsto explain their comments regarding the content of the non-paper.
Personne de contact / Contact person / Kontakt : Valérie LAINE: +32 2 296.53.41
C)Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture
- Discussion on Eel Management Plans
The following points were discussed:
1.The MS were asked how many EMP's they planned to submit for their territory.
2.The MS intending to submit a request for exemption from the obligation to draft EMP's were requested to do so as soon as possible.
3.MS were kindly asked to submit their EMP's in English in order to facilitate evaluation by ICES/EIFAC.
4.MS were asked to list the main difficulties they had encountered in the preparation of EMP's so far.
The MS made the following comments/questions:
Several MS expressed difficulties in calculating the biomass of silver eel that would escape toward marine spawning grounds under pristine conditions – hence it is difficult to determine whether the 40% escapement target for silver eel will be met and when.
COM: We are aware that the relevant data are limited throughout the EU. Nonetheless we expect MS to submit their EMP's based on the available data. The EMP's will be rolling/living documents which should be improved as relevant data become available in the coming years.
When will the requests for exemption be evaluated and an answer delivered?
COM: As soon as possible.
Why does the COM intend to ask ICES/EIFAC and not STECF to evaluate EMP's?
COM: ICES/EIFAC is the group with the most eel expertise in Europe. STECF has a full working program and cannot accept this task.
Some MS stated that EMP preparation is challenging and time consuming due to the coordination needed between local/regional authorities and other stakeholders.
What are the criteria making restocking eligible for EFF funding?
COM: ICES/EIFAC will be asked to determine whether a proposed restocking plan is likely to contribute to the attainment of the 40% escapement target. In such cases, restocking may be eligible for funding by the EFF.
ICES/EIFAC should establish common criteria for the evaluation of EMP's. Can the COM communicate these criteria to the MS?
COM: We will look into this as soon as possible.
ICES should begin evaluation before 31 December 2008.
COM: If possible, yes.
How does the DCR relate to eel?
CON: The DCR includes eel and its can be a complementary instrument to the eel regulation.
Several MS concur that trans-boundary EMP preparation is complex and time-consuming, but they will endeavor to complete such plans as of 2009.
COM: MS should submit EMP's for their territory by the deadline which is 31 December 2008. As of 2009 they should begin submitting trans-boundary plans.
Several MS have problems with hydroelectric power plants.
How will the market for glass eel for restocking purposes evolve? How will we be able to know the demand and supply dynamics?
COM: The demand for glass eel for restocking will become clear as soon as the EMP's are submitted. The COM will be flexible so as to prevent the waste of glass eel. Only time will reveal the dynamics of the supply/demand chain.
We need a common traceability system in the EU - what is the link of CITES with the eel regulation?
COM: There is ongoing work by the CITES Scientific Review Group in order to set the criteria for issuing a non-detriment finding (NDF). This group should complete their work by September. However, it’s difficult to set common criteria for a NDF as the situation varies in each MS.
We are concerned about the amount and prices of glass eel that will be available for restocking as we plan to rely heavily on this measure to attain the 40% target.
COM: Restocking can be funded under the EFF provided that it is scientifically demonstrated to contribute to the escapement target.
Can maritime waters be included in the geographical area covered by the EMP?
COM: Yes, the geographical coverage of an EMP may extend into marine waters, river deltas, lagoons etc.