doc.1.pdf

EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Ref. Ares(2017)3596477 - 17/07/2017
DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR MARITIME AFFAIRS AND FISHERIES

ATLANTIC, OUTERMOST REGIONS AND ARCTIC
  FISHERIES CONSERVATION AND CONTROL ATLANTIC AND OUTERMOST REGIONS

REPORT OF DISCUSSION IN THE COUNCIL WORKING PARTY REGARDING THE PROPOSAL FOR
FISHING OPPORTUNITIES FOR CERTAIN FISH STOCKS AND GROUPS OF FISH STOCKS
(ATLANTIC) FOR 2017
Two meetings on 4 and 9 November 2016
Brussels,
09/11/2016
C.2
KEY OUTCOMES
  COM presented the proposal and annex for fishing opportunities for 2017.
  MS welcomed the early arrival of the proposal.
  MS  asked  for  the  top-ups  calculation  process  to  be  more  transparent  and
speedier than last year.
  On  sea  bass  fisheries  measures,  MS  considered  that  a  monthly  limit  would  be
difficult to control.
  HR and SI were critical about the implementation of the GFCM Agreement into
EU law through a TAC.
  FR, ES and IE considered the cut for cod in VIIb, VIIc, VIIe-k, VIII, IX and X;
Union waters of CECAF to severe, it would result into a choke species.
1. General comments
MS  welcomed  the  early  arrival  of  the  proposal.  COM  reminded  that  the  proposal  came  out
earlier this year as it does not include the top-ups which are not yet available.

MS  asked  for  the  top-ups  calculation  process  to  be  more  transparent  and  speedier  than  last
year,  and  what  the  basis  of  principle  for  top-ups  calculation  will  be.  DK  asked  if  top-up
calculations would take into account the discard rate.
COM  took  note  and  underlined  the  fact  that  the  top-up  calculation  process  can  only  start
when all necessary data from the MS is received.

FR and IE welcomed the tables from the press-release, showing how many stocks are stable
or increasing. FR would like additional information on complex TACs.

DK expressed the need to address the choke species problem and to come up with a solution
for such stocks. COM provided a general overview of this issue and that the Commission is
looking for solutions.

IE supported the case-by-case approach for data limited stocks, and supported the importance
of reaching MSY by 2020. However, implementing MSY must be done in a rational manner,
taking into account the socio-economic impacts on coastal communities.

1

2. Recitals examination
On  the  fact  that  it  is  appropriate  to  allow  for  the  implementation  of  a  flexible  arrangement
between some of the TAC areas where the same biological stock is concerned, UK asked to
look into appropriate cases.

On the fact that the measures adopted for certain pelagic stocks in for 2017 and 2018 in the
GFCM  Agreement  Area  should  be  implemented  in  the  law  of  the  Union,  HR  and  SI
considered the COM went beyond the measures of the GFCM. They were not in favour of the
concept  of  TAC  being  used  in  this  case.  SI  thanked  the  COM  for  taking  into  account  their
small fishing activity.

On  snow  crab,  LV  and  PL  asked  if  there  would  be  a  proposal.  COM  answered  that  a  non-
paper would be issued by the end of November.

3. Articles examination
COM presented the articles and the changes made from 2 years ago.
FR  expressed  that  mixed  fishing  and  choke  species  are  cross-cutting  issues  that  have  to  be
taken considered together. FR expressed that a lot of efforts have been done by FR fleets on a
number of stocks that they should be taken into account.
On skates and rays, FR is waiting for a TAC proposal. COM answered that a non-paper will
be issued in the coming days.
On art.6 TACs to be determined by the COM through implementing acts for some short lived
species: FR, UK and DE found the article to be appropriate. DK wondered if time could be
saved with this procedure, and if ICES advice could come earlier. ES proposed to re-word the
article  by  dividing  the  TACs  that  are  set  by  the  COM  and  the  ones  set  by  delegations.  BE
placed a reservation for procedure of implementing acts.
DE  expressed  its  concern  that  sprat  in  IIa  and  IV  TAC  was  decreased  in  the  middle  of  last
year. This situation was difficult for the fishermen to adapt to. COM explained that the TAC
is set for the calendar year, but the advice cover the period from July to June. It was looking
into the best way address this.

On art.8 – Fishing effort limits, BE, UK and DK asked if the article would be deleted when
the cod plan is amended. DE proposed to create an Annex IIA for this topic. COM answered
that the article will be modified when the cod plan is voted by the Parliament.

On  art.9  –  Catch  and  effort  limits  for  deep-sea  fisheries,  UK  asked  if  the  article  would  be
deleted  after  the  deep-sea  access  regulation  is  adopted.  COM  confirmed  that  it  would  be
modified in line with the new regulation.

On  art.10  -  Measures  on  Sea  bass  fisheries,  UK  placed  a  scrutiny  reservation.  FR  placed  a
reservation as the proposal is excluding the net vessels. FR underlined that trawlers have large
discards rates of sea bass due to by-catches and this issue cannot be ignored.
On  recreational  fisheries  of  sea  bass,  DE,  BE,  UK  and  FR  found  that  10
fish/fisherman/month limit is difficult to control. IE expressed that they already have a daily
2

limit established, and found that the proposal could be confusing for them. COM took note of
the comments.
UK added that commercial ban only applies for Union vessels and does not limit commercial
fisheries from the shore.
DE placed a reservation on allowing catch-and-release fishing for sea bass.

On art. 24 – Drifting fish aggregating devices (FADs) in IOTC, FR and ES placed a scrutiny
reservation.

On art. 37 - GFCM Agreement Area, and to response to HR and SI, COM underlined that the
proposal is to implement only in 2017 and not in 2018. COM expressed that the proposal is a
simple implementation of a part of the recommendation. Furthermore, COM did not mention
TACs in the proposal but is opened to do so if MS are willing to. The current formulation is
not acceptable for IT, HR, SI.

4. Annex IA examination
The comments made by each country are provided in the table below.
ES asked to explain the reasoning behind footnotes allowing by-catches to be counted against
the main quota. COM will be sending written explanations.
NL asked to add hake on both footnotes.

5. Annex IC – NAFO Convention Area examination
On redfish in NAFO 3LN, ES placed a reservation.

6. Annex VI – IOTC – examination
ES placed a reservation.
3

Annex IA examination
TAC change
Common
TAC
TAC 2017
proposal
TAC Unit
MS comments
name
2016
proposal
(2016-2017)
(%)
Boarfish
Union and
42637
27288
-36.0%
DE: It is a by-catch for them.
international
waters of VI,
VII and VIII
Anchovy
IX and X; Union
10622
10622
0.0%
PT  and  ES:  The  TAC  is  too  tight  and  ANE  is  increasing  in  their  waters.
waters of
Asked for a TAC of 15000t.
CECAF 34.1.1
Cod
Kattegat
370
370
0.0%
DK:  The  TAC  should  take  into  account  accidental  by-catches.  A  lot  of
discards  happen.  Last  year,  a  model  was  used  to  establish  the  TAC.  DK
asked  to  use  that  same  model  this  year  so  that  the  methodology  stays  the
same. DK will be sending more information on this to the COM.
Cod
VIa; Union and
0
0
0.0%
IE: A 0 TAC does not help in case of a choke species, so have to take it into
international
consideration. Maybe should be managed through technical measures.
waters of Vb
east of 12º 00'
W
Cod
VIIb, VIIc,
4565
1447
-68.3%
FR: The cut in TAC is not acceptable. FR understands it is a choke species
VIIe-k, VIII, IX
and  that  we  need  to  tackle  them,  but  this  is  a  major  fisheries  and  the  cut
and X; Union
would  have  a  big  socio-economic  impact.  FR  asked  to  take  a  different
waters of
approach for this stock. Plus, FR underlined that there is a problem with the
CECAF
estimates for cod (recruitment). The biomass is now improving and the TAC
proposed is lower than what it should be.  Mortality ranges should be used.
ES: Formal request will come.
IE:  This  is  a  huge  priority  for  them.  This  cut  can  have  devastating  socio-
economic impacts.
4

TAC change
Common
TAC
TAC 2017
proposal
TAC Unit
MS comments
name
2016
proposal
(2016-2017)
(%)
Megrims
Union and
5214
4900
-6.0%
COM: Will be modifying the TAC value to add the Porcupine bank section.
international
waters of Vb;
VI; VII and
XIV.
Megrims
VII
18254
13099
-28.2%
ES  and  FR:  Difficult  to  follow  the  scientific  advice  because  there  are
different  species  of  megrims.  ICES  assessed  the  stock  in  a  different  way
than the COM. ES asked the COM to explain how it fixed that TAC in that
regard. COM will be giving more information to ES bilaterally.
FR welcomed the fact that the stock is now analytical, but placed a negative
reservation on this stock.
FR  and  IE  asked  the  COM  for  a  written  note  on  what  the  calculation
method  is  for  this  TAC  as  there  are  2  species  of  megrims.  COM  will  be
providing an explanation.
Megrims
VIIIabde
1802
1513
-16.0%
ES: Same as above. Asked for a smaller cut.
Megrims
VIIIc, IX and X;
1363
1013
-25.7%
ES:  2  stocks  in  1  zone.  ES  scientists  say  the  TAC  could  result  in  choke
Union waters of
species. ES said a -10% cut would be better. ES asked for a written note.
CECAF 34.1.1
PT: Placed a reservation on the cut. Asked for a status quo by working with
the existing TAC.
COM explained that the calculation is different from above. For this stock,
the values for landings should be used instead of catches.
Dab and
Union waters of
18434
pm

DK: It is a by-catch, the stock is doing well, no landing obligation and a lot
flounder
IIa and IV
of discards for this stock.
COM: it is now in ‘pm’, will be included in a non-paper.
BE was interested in the outcome of the experts consultation.
Anglerfish  VII
33516
29534
-11.9%
FR asked for a roll-over as there are no new assessments.
Anglerfish  VIIIabde
8980
7914
-11.9%
ES asked for a roll-over.
IE asked for the decision to be the same as last year.
5

TAC change
Common
TAC
TAC 2017
proposal
TAC Unit
MS comments
name
2016
proposal
(2016-2017)
(%)
Anglerfish  VIIIc,IX,X,CEC
2569
3955
54.0%
ES welcomed the TAC increase.
AF 34.1.1
Haddock
Union and
3225
4130
28.1%
DE placed a reservation.
international
waters of VIb,
XII and XIV
Haddock
VIIb-k, VIII, IX
7258
7751
6.8%
FR  was  happy  to  see  an  increase  in  TAC.  Reflects  the  abundance  of  this
and X; Union
stock.
waters of
CECAF 34.1.1
Whiting
VI; Union and
213
0
-100.0%
IE:  The  stock  is  recovering.  A  0  TAC  does  not  help,  it  will  be  a  choke
international
species.
waters of Vb;
international
waters of XII
and XIV
Whiting
VIII
2540
2032
-20.0%
FR disagreed with the reasoning. This stock is very important for them. FR
is  against  a  -20%  cut  only  based  on  precautionary  approach.  There  was
already a 20% cut last year.
ES supports FR, and asked for a roll over.
COM responded that they welcome any data that MS have on this stock.
Hake
overall northern
108784
111865
2.8%
ES  was  expecting  a  higher  increase  in  TAC,  i.e.  +10%,  on  the  basis  of
(overall  N.  TACs (IIIa / IIa
scientific advice. ES asked for the COM to do a written note on this subject.
TAC)
and IV / Vb, VI,
COM responded that no top-ups figures were available for now.
VII, XII and
UK asked how did the COM reach this TAC as there is 1 advice for 4 TACs
XIV / VIIIabde)
COM answered that the usual calculation method was used.
6

TAC change
Common
TAC
TAC 2017
proposal
TAC Unit
MS comments
name
2016
proposal
(2016-2017)
(%)
Hake
VIIIc, IX and X;
10674
6838
-35.9%
PT and ES do not agree with this big cut.
Union waters of
ES: Already had a -25% cut last year and the stock is recovering. ES asked
CECAF 34.1.1
for more flexibility and a smaller cut.
FR placed a scrutiny reservation on hake.
Blue ling
Int waters of XII
446
357
-20.0%
ES asked for a roll over.
Norway
IX and X; Union
320
336
5.0%
ES welcomed the proposal.
lobster
waters of
CECAF 34.1.1
Plaice
Skagerrak
11531
pm

DK place a scrutiny reservation.
Plaice
VIIde
12446
10022
-19.5%
BE: A decrease of 20% will only increase the problems with this stock.
Plaice
VIIfg
420
405
-3.6%
BE, FR and IE: A decrease in TAC will only lead to an increase in discards
as this species is a by-catch.
FR  proposed  a  rollover  as  it  is  not  a  targeted  species  and  the  biomass  is
increasing.
IE proposed a rollover and asked for more information on the stock.
Plaice
VIIhjk
135
108
-20.0%
COM explained that this was taken out from the list of the statement stocks
as advice was indicating the deterioration in the stock.
UK  would  prefer  to  keep  is  a  statement  stock.  COM  answered  that  if  the
perception of the stock changes, the COM is allowed to propose a different
TAC.
IE asked for a rollover.
Pollack
VII
13495
10796
-20.0%
FR  asked  for  a  rollover.  Landings  are  very  close  to  ICES  advice,  so  FR
asked for a degree of flexibility.
Pollack
VIIIabde
1482
1186
-20.0%
FR,  ES  and  EI  asked  for  a  rollover.  It  is  an  important  fishery  for  small
coastal communities  in  FR. EI underlined that this  stock is fished  in  shore
so does not see why there is a decrease.
Pollack
IX ans X;
282
282
0.0%
ES  placed  a  scrutiny  reservation  on  the  footnote  allowing  PT  to  fish  a
CECAF 34.1.1
maximum of 98 tonnes in addition to the TAC.
7

TAC change
Common
TAC
TAC 2017
proposal
TAC Unit
MS comments
name
2016
proposal
(2016-2017)
(%)
Saithe
IIIa and IV;
31284
pm
/
DK:  Reference  should  be  added  that  the  stock  is  within  safe  biological
Union waters of
limits.
IIa, IIIb, IIIc and
subdivisions 22-
32
Turbot and  Union waters of
4488
4488
0.0%
BE,  NL  and  DE:  There  has  been  a  quick  take  up  for  this  stock,  and  it  has
Brill
IIa and IV
been a problem this year. A rollover next year will only make the problem
greater.  Scientists  are  meeting  this  week  for  this  stock  and  will  hopefully
come up with a figure.
Common
IIIa; Union
391
534
36.6%
DK:  Reference  should  be  added  that  the  stock  is  within  safe  biological
sole
waters of
limits.
subdivisions 22-
32
Common
VIIa
40
0
-100.0%
BE  thanked  the  COM  for  including  the  footnote  on  allocating  an  overall
sole
total  of  7  tonnes  to  vessels  carrying  out  scientific  research.  BE  will  be
sending  the  results  of  the  investigation  on  common  sole  briefly.  BE
mentioned that last year a TAC by-catches was established.
IE asked for a rollover.
Common
VIId
3258
2257
-30.7%
FR was preoccupied by the variation of the TAC between years and to keep
sole
that  variation  at  a  maximum  of  15%.  Plus,  FR  has  already  implemented
management  plan,  and  a  minimum  reference  size  of  25cm  will  be
implemented.
BE expressed that a minimum size of 25cm is not a proper solution for this
stock and it will lead to inspection and control problems. BE took measures
on mesh size.
UK placed a reservation as a management plan is in place.
Common
VIIIab
3420
3420
0.0%
FR expressed that it counts on roll-over.
sole
8

TAC change
Common
TAC
TAC 2017
proposal
TAC Unit
MS comments
name
2016
proposal
(2016-2017)
(%)
Sprat
VIIde
5150
4120
-20.0%
UK was concerned about having exceptions from the list of statement stock.
Picked
Union waters of
0
pm
/
DK expressed that frequently a 0 TAC is given to this stock, but it is a by-
dogfish
IIIa
catch for them so a more feasible solution has to be found.
Horse
Western stock
combin
pm
pm
NL asked for hake to be added in the footnotes allowing for by-catches to be
Mackerel
ed
counted against the quota.
Horse
IX
68583
73349
6.9%
ES welcomed the proposal and asked for more information for the other
Mackerel
stocks still under pm.

9