|
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2434/02
by Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE) to the Commission
(14 August 2002)
Subject: Commission failing to act upon sound and verifiable scientific
advice in fisheries
Why is the Commission proposing measures/agreeing to compromises in the
regulation of fisheries management which are based on scant scientific
advice?
In particular:
1. How can the Commission agree to the
proposed regulation of deep sea stocks through a TACs and quota regime
when there is little scientific evidence upon which to base such
regulation and Member State statistical submissions may be considered
suspect at best? Why has the Commission not considered an effort reduction
scheme as an alternative until clear and unequivocal scientific advice is
available?
2. How can the Commission propose the
regulation of the North Sea purely based upon a TACs and quota regime and
remove the current access restrictions currently in force, when by its own
admission (see written answer P-1902/02(1)), there is no scientific advice
to base this proposal, with the Commission having little knowledge about
non-quota species and admitting that non-quota species would almost
certainly incur by-catches of species subject to quotas, many of which are
already in a dire state?
How can the Commission expect fishermen
to have confidence in and comply with fisheries management measures which
are not based on scientific advice but on what can only be described as
overt political manoeuvres?
E-2434/02EN
Answer given by Mr Fischler
on behalf of the Commission
(22 October 2002)
1. The Commission has proposed two Regulations to manage deep-sea stocks:
one on catch limitations (total allowable catches = TACs) and another one
on effort limitation and data collection. These two proposals constitute a
package of measures that, once adopted, will allow, as a first step, the
preservation of the currently unrestrained development of these fisheries.
The proposal on TACs is based on the scientific advice available on these
stocks, carried out by the International Council for the Exploration of
the Sea (ICES) and reviewed by the Scientific, Technical and Economic
Committee for Fisheries (STECF). While such scientific basis is still
limited, the Commission strongly believes that the precautionary principle
justifies taking action to limit catches of these species on the basis of
the available (however limited) scientific basis. These catch limitations
establish a cap on currently unrestrained catches of the main stocks and
for many species will represent a significant reduction from recent catch
levels.
The Commission has also proposed an effort regulation for these fisheries.
Such proposal for the time being establishes as a first step the
obligation to freeze fishing effort of recent years, therefore stopping
the current (and irresponsible) increase in fishing effort. As more
information is collected on these fisheries, this effort limitation will
evolve to become gradually a much more tailor-made effort management
system for these fisheries.
The lifting of the current limitations of access by Spain and Portugal to
the North Sea was foreseen in the Treaty of Accession of these Member
States and is therefore a direct obligation from these Treaties.
In respect of fisheries management in the North Sea, the Honourable Member
is referred to the reply to his question E-2433/02 on the same subject. |
