At their meeting in Brussels on Monday 14 November, fisheries ministers who took the floor were somewhat critical of the proposal on a multiannual management plan for demersal fish stocks in the North Sea (see EUROPE 11645) but no delegation made any reference to the potential impact on this matter of the United Kingdom’s leaving the EU.
The proposal seeks to implement key aspects of the reformed common fisheries policy (CFP) in this zone (maximum sustainable yield, addressing difficulties on mixed fisheries, implementation of the landing requirement and regionalisation).
At the Council meeting, several countries criticised the complexity and rigidity of the measures in the proposed management plan. Sweden argued that the plan had to be sufficiently flexible to be able to be adapted to new scientific information and the new control provisions must not increase the administrative burden on fishermen or national administrations.
The Netherlands said that, in general terms, it supported the proposed management plan, the main instrument for achieving maximum sustainable yield (MSY). It called for greater flexibility in the proposed mortality ranges per fishery and more frequent, multi-species scientific opinions. Germany said the proposal provided a good starting point but the Council had to be given greater freedom to adapt policies in light of scientific opinion (this point was also made by Belgium). There has to be the possibility of making changes, otherwise some fisheries will have to close before quotas are reached, warned Germany. It also slammed the additional control costs.
Denmark, while declaring itself happy with the proposal, was also rather critical. It complained that the scope seemed too ambitious (the Danish delegation argued that not all demersal stocks should be included) and asked for flexibility, for example, for Kattegat cod. Simple and cost effective control measures were also needed. The country condemned the overly stringent provisions on maintaining a logbook for small vessels and on the landing of small industrial and pelagic species (Denmark does not want the requirement to sort the fish to apply in this case). Like other countries, such as France and Belgium, Denmark called for stocks shared by third countries like Norway to be borne in mind.
France noted the improving state of stocks on the North Sea. The plan should further this development, it said. France, like Denmark, felt that the desire to include all demersal stocks in the North Sea (seven groups of stocks) caused great complexity. Enhancing control provisions (logbook for small vessels) could be considered, so long as they are proportionate and necessary for achieving the goals of the common fisheries policy, France stated. It called for an impact study on possible toughening of control measures.
The United Kingdom warned against provisions that could increase the administrative and financial burden on the industry.
Latvia called for a 10% tolerance margin in the landing of unsorted fish. Spain, though it has no direct interest in this region, expressed concern at some of the provisions. (Original version in French by Lionel Changeur)