doc.4.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
Meeting of 30 November 2016
Brussels,
01/12/2016
C.2
KEY OUTCOMES
  COM  presented  the  6th  non-paper  on  ICCAT,  updated  top-ups  and  some
corrections.
  MS clarified their comments on the "bible"
  The  Council  Legal  Service  pointed  out  that  the  use  of  implementing  acts  for
short-lived species should be legally framed. Another option would be to continue
as  before.  COM  underlined  the  difficulties  with  the  current  procedural  setting.
DK,  which  is  the  mostly  concerned  MS,  strongly  supported  the  measures
proposed by the Commission.
2. Short-lived species – Implementing act
The Council's Legal Service presented their views on the use of implementing acts in Art.6
paragraph  1  of  the  proposal,  specifically  by  which  "the  TACs  of  the  following  fish  stocks
shall be determined by the COM by means of implementing acts. The Council LS explained
the difference between delegated acts, which can be amend or supplement the main act, and
implementing  acts,  which  cannot  do  so.  It  pointed  out  that the  use  of  implementing  acts  for
effort is framed with a number of conditions.
Two  options  were  given  by  the  Council  LS:  either  to  take  the  TACs  concerned  from  the
Annex  IA  and  to  establish  them  through  implementing  acts,  also  by  framing  the  use  of
implementing acts or to continue with the same procedures as until now.
COM  pointed  out  that  it  shared  the  Council  LS  views  to  a  great  extent,  however,  saw  the
second option as not viable and leading to risk that decisions would not be taken before the
start  of  the  fishery.  COM  could  not  run  its  legislative  work  properly.  It  was  not  possible  to
explain neither at the political level nor to the central level that short-lived species require the
use of emergency procedures every year for the same stocks. Therefore, this should be put on
a more sustainable basis.
DK  intervened  at  a  later  stage  strong  supporting  the  approach  of  the  Commission  and
underlined that DK was the Member State mostly concerned by short-lived species fishery.
3. Examination of the 6th non-paper
  Amendments to COM proposal regarding ICCAT
1

ES pointed out an error in the carry-over percentage for bigeye tuna.
IT  asked  why  the  ICCAT  recommendation  for  Mediterranean  swordfish  were  already
included  in  the  proposal  as  the  ICCAT  recommendation  applies  only  6  months  from  now.
COM  answered  that  a  commitment  was  made  by  the  MS  at  the  annual  meeting  which
justifies the inclusion of ICCAT recommendations in the proposal.
FR  placed  a  scrutiny  reservation  and  expressed  that  they  will  be  asking  for  a  compensation
for blue marlin that is used to cover the overfishing by Spain. However, FR needs more time
to look into it.
  Amendments to COM proposal regarding top-up calculations
SE asked to get the calculation sheets for the corrections made to the top-up calculations.
  Amendments to COM proposal regarding certain stocks in Annex IA
ES placed a scrutiny reservation on megrims in VIIIabde.
  Amendments to COM proposal regarding CCAMLR
No comments.
  Amendments to COM proposal regarding Article 8 and Annex IIA
COM presented the changes to Article 8 and Annex IIA. It explained that the modifications to
Annex IIA at this stage do not include the effort figures, as they depend on the TAC changes
for sole and plaice, which are part of the negotiations with Norway.
DK, NL and UK placed a scrutiny reservation. DK asked for the calculations of effort limits
to be made available to the Member States.

4. Examination of the top-ups calculations
COM presented the top-ups calculations
  General comments
FR  pointed  out  that  a  change  of  methodology  was  made  compared  to  last  year's  top-up
calculation  methodology.  COM  answered  that  no  changes  have  been  done  in  the
methodology. Top-ups are proportionate to the number of vessels that fall under the landing
obligation.
ES underlined that the COM has to be sensitive to the fishing industry sector, and that lower
top-ups with higher number of vessels would be impossible to explain. ES explained that they
would be providing their own top-up calculations to the Commission.
  Stock by stock examination
The comments made by each member state are provided in the table below.
2

Common
TAC Unit
MS comments
name
Haddock
VII
FR  asked  why  a  specific  methodology  was  used  for  this  stock.
COM  explained  that  this  methodology  was  a  midway  solution
between 2 extremes that were given very different results.
Hake
VI, VIII
Based  on  the  methodology  and  the  calculations  spread  sheet
given by the COM, ES explained that it should have a top-up of
5% instead of 0.71%.
FR  explained  the  use  of  the  proportion  of  landings  would  be
better than the number of vessels.
Hake
VIIIabde
ES explained the need to use the same methodology, basing the
calculation on landings and not on the number of vessels.
FR  pointed  out  an  error  in  the  de  minimis  figure:  it  should  be
623t instead of 745t.
Hake
VIIIc, IX
Based  on  the  methodology  and  calculations  spread  sheet  given
and X,
by  the  COM,  ES  said  that  it  should  have  a  top-up  of  7.9%
CECAF
instead of 4.58%.
34.1.1
Megrims
VI
FR  pointed  out  that  this  stock  is  not  under  the  landing
obligation.  COM  explained  that  certain  by-catches  of  megrims
in the gadoid fishery fall under the landing obligation.
Plaice
IIIa
DK and SE asked for an explanation on the reasons for changing
Kattegat
the last top-up figure. COM explained this bilaterally.
Common
VIId
FR  underlined  that  this  stock  is  a  high  priority  for  them.  FR
sole
explained  that  it  should  have  a  top-up  of  7%  instead  of  4.35%.
FR  felt  that  the  proxy  used  last  year  was  appropriate,  and
approved  by  COM,  so  did  not  want  to  see  a  change  in  the
methodology for this year's calculation. COM answered that the
methodology  used  was  not  changed  from  last  year,  it  just  took
into account the approach that was closest to the reality.
Common
VIIfg
The same comments as for VIId
sole
Common
IIIa
NL asked how the top-up figures for the shared stocks would be
sole
presented.  COM  clarified  that  this  was  part  of  the  process  of
Norway consultations.

5. Examination of the "bible"
The draft version of the "bible" was examined and MS made some additional comments or
modifications of their previous comments.

3