COUNCIL OFBrussels, 22 October 2008
THE EUROPEAN UNIONPUBLIC
13896/2/08 REV 2
OUTCOME OF PROCEEDINGS
Working Party on Internal and External Fisheries Policy
dated: 2, 10 and 17 October 2008
No. Cion prop.: 13533/08 PECHE 240 - COM(2008) 595 final
Proposal for a Council Regulation fixing for 2009 and 2010 the fishing opportunities for Community fishing vessels for certain deep-sea fish stocks
Following discussions in the Working Party on Internal Fisheries Policy on 2, 10 and 17 October
2008 and taking into account written comments received so far 1, delegations will please find
attached a revised "bible" presenting the views of delegations and the Commission in footnotes in
ES: does not support the proposal, since it will not lead to an acceptable solution from a biological
point of view. The reduction in TAC will not result in a reduction in fishing mortality, since there
are large amounts of by-catches produced in mixed fisheries. It will have as a consequence a higher
number of discards. Alternative scientific studies are necessary. ES does not carry out directed
fisheries of deep-sea species. They are fished as by-catches in mixed fisheries or in the framework
of small-scale coastal fishing. A reduction in the TACs of these stocks would increase discards,
which is against the commitments made by the EU) Also, the regulation should contemplate only
EC waters and it should be decided on international waters on the basis of NEAFC negotiations.
As regards fishing effort, ES supports that deep sea species are mainly managed on the basis of
fishing effort, since most catches are by-catches which take place in mixed fisheries. It is necessary
to examine the amount of effort addressed to deep-sea species and the parameters used to determine
it before proposing new reductions of the fishing effort of this fisheries.
UK: broadly supports COM proposal and agrees that fishing pressure on these vulnerable stocks
needs to be reduced in nearly all cases. However, the UK has a number of concerns which can be
summarized as follows:
-Since deep sea stocks fisheries are of mixed nature, they should be managed by a combination of
effort and TAC. The COM proposal should include measures on effort management as well as
-COM is proposing to reduce a number of TACs on the basis of ICES advice to limit catches to
the level of recent landing and not to increase effort. Although UK agrees with the principle that
effort should not be allowed to expand in a fishery, it does not agree that TACs should be set in
line with recent average landings. In such cases maintaining the current TAC is entirely
consistent with no increase in effort. There are a variety of reasons for many TACs not being
fully taken up every year (change of fishing patterns, fuel costs, etc). Where TACs are cut year
on year, the result is that the landings also reduce, leading to further cuts. This results in a
downward spiral where the TAC can become out of line with reality. TAC should be treated as a
limit, not as a target. Reducing TACs to the level of recent landings sends the signal to fishermen
that TACs are a target and that it is in their interest to fish up to their quota. We should
encourage fishermen to maximise the value of their catch, not the volume. As effort management
measures already exist in deep sea fisheries the UK believes it is better to use them to control
effort in the fishery rather than to reduce TACs.
-Although understand the COM´s reasoning for moving the Blue Ling area VI and VII and
Greater Silver Smelt TACs to the December Council regulation, thinks it would be simpler to
have them in the Deep Sea regulation. The TACs for third countries to fish in EU waters are set
in the context of wider negotiations and, as there is no agreement on the allocation of deep-sea
stocks, have no impact on the TAC for EU MS.
-0 TACs in case of mixed fisheries will automatically lead to discards. Therefore, in the case of
deep sea sharks the UK could support the setting of very small TACs to allow genuine by-
Also, effort management is the most appropriate tool to manage deep-sea species, since there is a
large amount of by-catches in these fisheries.
EE: in the management of deep-sea fisheries the aspect of mixed fisheries should be taken into
account. The context and definition of directed or target fishery has to be defined as well as the
rates of the by-catch. Technical measures need to be improved in order to decrease the unavoidable
by-catch. For example, roundnose grenadier fishery is a mixed fishery which contains besides the
grenadier also deep-sea sharks, black scabbardfish and blue ling. It is not possible to reduce the
quotas of the deep-sea sharks to zero without increasing the hidden fishing mortality due to
discarded catches. In any case we should avoid the increase of hidden fishing mortality. Therefore
it is imperative to establish quotas for directed species and, separately, quotas for by-catch species
in the form of an amount or a percentage. As a temporary measure for species like deep-sea sharks
and blue ling quotas should be established only for by-catches.
SE: supports the proposal as a whole and fully supports the reductions in TAC. However, SE is not
convinced that it will result in sufficient protection of the vulnerable resource that the deep-sea
species constitutes. Reductions in TAC will result in increased discards unless they are
accompanied by reductions in effort. Therefore, the proposal should have a clearer reference to how
fishing effort in deep-sea fisheries is being handled, e.g., through annual agreements within NEAFC
but also, how it is dealt with/will be dealt with within Community legislation. Even if the deep-sea
fisheries are mixed fisheries the question concerning fishing effort reductions should be addressed.
PL: accepting this proposal would mean that the by-catch problem will remain, without a decrease
in fishing mortality.
COM: setting of TACs is a way of regulating fishing effort. Effort aspects will be included in
Annex II of the annual TAC and quota regulation. Also, COM is working on a reform as regards
effort limitations applying to deep-sea species. COM is very concerned about the discard problem
from a holistic point of view and therefore also as far as deep-sea species are concerned.
As regards the fishing effort regime for deep-sea species and, in particular, deep-sea effort in EC
waters, a review work of Regulation 2347/2002 in light of the 2007 Communication on deep-sea
effort will be initiated in 2009. As regards deep-sea effort in international waters, the EC is
currently at 75% of its 2003 effort level. COM will propose in its proposal for the 2009 TAC and
Quota Regulation to reduce in 2009 the effort to 65% of its 2003 level. This is to meet the EC´s
international commitment to NEAFC. Also, in its proposal for the 2009 TAC and Quota Regulation,
COM will propose in Annex III two protection areas for adult aggregations of blue ling for the
period March to May.
FR: considers that a 75% reduction of fishing effort compared to 2003 level is in line with the
commitment undertaken by NEAFC to reduce effort by 35% compared to the highest recent level
Proposal for a
fixing for 2009 and 2010 the fishing opportunities for Community fishing vessels
for certain deep-sea fish stocks
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the
conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries
Policy2, and in particular Article 20 thereof,
Having regard to the proposal of the Commission,
(1) Under Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 the Council is to adopt the measures necessary to ensure access to waters and resources and the sustainable pursuit of fishing activities taking into account available scientific advice and any advice received from Regional Advisory Councils.
(2) Under Article 20 of Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002, it is incumbent upon the Council to establish fishing opportunities by fishery or group of fisheries and to allocate them in accordance with prescribed criteria.
(3) The latest scientific advice from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) concerning certain stocks of fish found in the deep sea indicates that those stocks are harvested unsustainably, and that fishing opportunities for those stocks should be reduced in order to assure their sustainability.
(5) In accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 2347/2002 of 16 December 2002 establishing specific access requirements and associated conditions applicable for deep-sea stocks
3, the fishing opportunities for deep sea species, as defined in Annex 1 to that
Regulation, are decided on bi-annual basis. Nevertheless, an exception is made for the stocks of greater silver smelt and blue ling for which the fishing opportunities depend on the outcome of the annual negotiations with Norway. The fishing possibilities for those stocks remain therefore to be established in the annual fishing opportunities regulation decided by the Council in December.
(6) In order to ensure effective management of quotas, the specific conditions under which fishing operations occur should be established.
(7) In accordance with Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 847/96 of 6 May 1996 introducing additional conditions for year to year management of TACs and quotas
4, it is
necessary to indicate which stocks are subject to the various measures fixed therein.
(8) The measures provided for in this Regulation should be fixed by reference to ICES zones as defined in Council Regulation (EEC) No 3880/91 of 17 December 1991 on the submission of nominal catch statistics by Member States fishing in the Northeast Atlantic
5 and to
CECAF zones (Committee for Eastern Central Atlantic Fisheries) as defined in Council Regulation (EC) No 2597/95 of 23 October 1995 on the submission of nominal catch statistics by Member States fishing in certain areas other than those of the North Atlantic
(9) The fishing opportunities should be used in accordance with the Community legislation on the matter, and in particular with Council Regulation (EEC) No 2807/83 of 22 September 1983 laying down detailed rules for recording information on Member States' catches of fish
7, Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1381/87 of 20 May 1987 establishing detailed rules
concerning the marking and documentation of fishing vessels8, Council Regulation (EEC)
No 2847/93 of 12 October 1993 establishing a control system applicable to the common fisheries policy
9, Council Regulation (EC) No 1627/94 of 27 June 1994 laying down general
provisions concerning special fishing permits10, Council Regulation (EC) No 850/98 of 30
March 1998 for the conservation of fishery resources through technical measures for the protection of juveniles of marine organisms
11, Council Regulation (EC) No 2347/2002 and
Council Regulation (EC) No 2187/2005 of 21 December 2005 for the conservation of fishery resources through technical measures in the Baltic Sea, the Belts and the Sound, amending Regulation (EC) No 1434/98 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 88/98
(10) In order to ensure the livelihood of Community fishermen, it is important to open these
fisheries on 1 January 2009. Given the urgency of the matter, it is imperative to grant an exception to the six-week period referred to in Title I, Article 3 of the Protocol on the role of national Parliaments in the European Union, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaties establishing the European Communities,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
This Regulation fixes for the years 2009 and 2010 the annual fishing opportunities available to Community fishing vessels for stocks of deep-sea species in Community waters and in certain non- Community waters where catch limitations are required, and the specific conditions under which such fishing opportunities may be used .
1.For the purposes of this Regulation, "deep-sea fishing permit" means the fishing permit referred to in Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 2347/2002.
2.The definitions of ICES and CECAF zones are those given, respectively, in Regulation (EEC) No 3880/91 and Regulation (EC) No 2597/95.
Fixing of fishing opportunities
Fishing opportunities for stocks of deep-sea species for Community vessels are fixed as set out in the Annex.
Allocation among Member States
The allocation of fishing opportunities among Member States provided for in the Annex shall be without prejudice to:
(a) exchanges made pursuant to Article 20(5) of Regulation (EEC) No 2371/2002;
(b) reallocations made pursuant to Articles 21(4) and 32(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 and Article 23(4) of Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002;
(c) additional landings allowed pursuant to Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 847/96;
(d) quantities withheld pursuant to Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 847/96;
Conditions for landing catch and by-catch
1.Fish from stocks for which fishing opportunities are fixed by this Regulation may be retained on board or landed only if they were taken by vessels of a Member State which has a quota which is not exhausted. All landings shall count against the quota.
2.Paragraph 1 shall not apply to catches taken in the course of scientific investigations carried out in accordance with Article 43 of Regulation (EC) No 850/98. Such catches shall not count against the quota.
1.Fishing for orange roughy shall be prohibited in the following sea areas:
(a) that sea area enclosed by rhumb lines sequentially joining the following positions:
57° 00' N, 11° 00' W
57° 00' N, 8° 30' W
56° 23' N, 8° 30' W
55° 00' N, 8° 30' W
55° 00' N, 11° 00' W
57° 00' N, 11° 00' W
54º 15' N, 10º 37' W
53º 30' N, 11º 50' W
53º 30' N, 13º 51' W
Those positions and the corresponding rhumb lines and vessel positions shall be measured according to the WGS84 standard.
2.Vessels holding a deep-sea fishing permit that have entered the areas defined in paragraph 1 shall not retain on board or tranship any quantity of orange roughy, nor land any quantity of orange roughy at the end of that fishing trip unless:
(a) all gears carried on board are lashed and stowed during the transit in accordance with the conditions laid down in Article 20(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93;
(b) the average speed during transit is not less than 8 knots.
3.Member States shall ensure that vessels holding a deep-sea fishing permit shall be properly monitored by the Fisheries Monitoring Centres (FMC), which shall have a system to detect and record the vessels' entry into, transit through and exit from the areas defined in paragraph
Entry into force
This Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union It shall apply as from 1 January 2009. This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels,
For the Council
Definition of Species and Species Groups
1.In the list set out in part 2 of this Annex, fish stocks are referred to following the alphabetical
order of the Latin names of the species. However, deep-sea sharks are placed at the beginning of that list. A table of correspondences of common names and Latin names is given below for the purposes of this Regulation
Black scabbardfish Aphanopus carbo
Alfonsinos Beryx spp.
Roundnose grenadier Coryphaenoides rupestris
Orange roughy Hoplostethus atlanticus
Blue ling Molva dypterigia
Red seabream Pagellus bogaraveo
2.For the purposes of this Regulation, "deep sea sharks", means the following list of species14:
Iceland catshark (Apristuris spp.)
Gulper shark (Centrophorus granulosus)
Leafscale gulper shark (Centrophorus squamosus)
Portuguese dogfish (Centroscymnus coelolepis)
Longnose velvet dogfish (Centrocymmus crepidater)
Birdbeak dogfish (Deania calceus)
Black dogfish (Centroscyllium fabricii)
Kitefin shark (Dalatias licha)
Greater lanternshark (Etmopterus princeps)
Velvet belly (Etmopterus spinax)
Blackmouth dogfish (Galeus melastomus)
Mouse catshark (Galeus murinus)
Annual fishing opportunities applicable for Community vessels in areas where catch
limitations exist by species and by area (in tonnes live weight).
All references are to ICES sub-areas unless otherwise stated.
Species: Deep Sea Sharks Zone: Community waters and waters not under the sovereignty or jurisdiction of third countries of V, VI, VII, VIII and IX (DWS/56789-)
2009 2010 COM: scientific advice recommends 0 TAC. Since it was agreed in Dec 2006 to reach a 0 TAC in 4 years, the TAC proposed for 2010 is 0.
PT: the scientific advice relates to only three out of the 13 species and the data available hardly serve to provide solidly underpinned advice enabling decisions to be taken on a sure basis, PT proposes a 0 TAC for all deep-sea shark species, while allowing the retention and landing of up to 10% of daily by- catches of deep-sea species kept on board. Discards of those species would be prohibited and their catches would have to be recorded in the usual way or, if need be, in some special way established with the assistance of the relevant researchers, so as to maximise the quantity and quality of information available. This would allow to protect the stock and, at the same time, to have the necessary data to assess its status.
ES: a O TAC for 2010 is not consistent with the reality of these fisheries. Scientists confirm that it is caught together with roundnose grenadier. There will inevitably be involuntary catches that will have to be discarded. Only by-catches should be allowed and a TAC should be kept to take account of this
United Kingdom 187
EE: since deep-sea sharks are caught in mixed fisheries (ex: when fishing for roundnose grenadier), reducing the quota to 0 will increase discards, while fishing mortality will stay at the same level. The quota should be set only for by- catches.
UK: difficult to agree on TACs without an indication on effort measures for sharks. In any case, since this is a mixed fishery, a 0 TAC will inevitably lead to discards. A small TAC (less than 10 t) should be allowed to allow unavoidable by- catch to be landed.
FR: Agrees with a prohibition of directed fisheries, but would like to see up to 15% reduction of TAC in 2009 and a second reduction of up to 15% in 2010, in order to take account of discards.
COM: it was agreed that 0 TAC would be the ultimate goal and 25% annual reductions have been applied so far.
Species: Deep Sea Sharks Zone: Community waters and waters not under the sovereignty or jurisdiction of third countries of X (DWS/10-)
2009 2010 Same comments as in previous table.
PT: Would like to see a roll-over. Why is COM now so keen in having the same applied to all deep sea sharks when this has not previously been the case?.
COM: we need to ensure consistency for the 3 stocks where most by-catches take place. COM is working on an action plan on sharks where this consistency policy will apply.
Species: Deep Sea Sharks and Deania histricosa and Deania profondorum Zone: Community waters and waters not under the sovereignty or jurisdiction of third countries of XII (DWS/12-)
2009 2010 Same comments as in previous table.
United Kingdom 1
Species: Black scabbardfish Aphanopus carbo Zone: Community waters and waters not under the sovereignty or jurisdiction of third countries of I, II, III and IV (BSF/1234-)
2009 2010 COM: scientific advice recommends that the fishery should not be allowed to expand. 15% reduction applied for 2009 from 2008 TAC level and roll-over for 2010.
FR: would like to see a roll-over for 2009 and 2010.
It should however be clearly stated that this TAC can only be fished at less than 1,300 metres deep.
Germany 4 4
France 4 4
United Kingdom 4 4
EC 12 12
Species: Black scabbardfish Aphanopus carbo Zone: Community waters and waters not under the sovereignty or jurisdiction of third countries of VIII, IX and X (BSF/8910-)
2009 2010 COM: advice recommends that catches should be limited to 2800 t (average of catches of 2003-2007).
2 Successive reductions of 15% in years 2009 and 2010 applied.
FR: same comments as in previous table.
PT: does not agree with proposed TAC, since ICES
Spain 10 9
France 27 23
Portugal 3 363 2 858
EC 3 400 2 890
advice clearly states that the cpue in this area is not in decline and fishing appears not to be having any adverse impact on the stock. The advice in fact states that recent catches, closer to the quota level set in 2004 and so far left unchanged, seem not to have adversely affected the stock. Asks for a roll- over. This is a very important stock for one particular Portuguese fleet segment (bottom-set longlining) and region (Sesimbra). In area X the stock is beginning to be exploited by the Azores fleet and it is regarded as a future alternative.
Species: Black scabbardfish Aphanopus carbo Zone: Community waters and waters not under the sovereignty or jurisdiction of third countries of CECAF 34.1.2. (BSF/C3412-)
2009 2010 COM: there is no advice from ICES. 15% reduction applied for 2009 and roll-over for 2010.
PT: does not agree, since there is no scientific advice to support COM proposal, which is based on recorded catches falling short of the TAC set. Such a measure could only be considered after scientific study. A roll-over for next two years should apply.
Portugal 3 642 3 642
EC 3 642 3 642
Species: Roundnose grenadier Zone: Community waters and waters not under the sovereignty or jurisdiction of third countries of I, II, IV and Va (RNG/1245A-)
Year 2009 2010 COM: 15% TAC reduction proposed for 2009 and
roll-over for 2010.
FR: would like a TAC of 22 t for 2009 and 22 t for 2010
Denmark 2 2
Germany 2 2
France 11 11
United Kingdom 2 2
EC 17 17
Species: Roundnose grenadier Zone: Community waters and waters not under the sovereignty or jurisdiction of third countries of III (RNG/03-)
2009 2010 COM: proposes 15% reduction of TAC for 2009 and roll-over for 2010. Low quota utilisation and low catch levels.
Denmark 804 804
Germany 5 5
Sweden 41 41
EC 850 850
Species: Roundnose grenadier Zone: Community waters and waters not under the sovereignty or jurisdiction of third countries of Vb, VI, VII (RNG/5B67-)
2009 2010 COM: 2 successive 15% reductions for 2009 and 2010.
LT: landings were 3162 t in 2007, so too close to the TAC level for 2010.
EE: according to 2008 ICES advice "the catches of the roundnose grenadier should be constrained to 6000 t", which is basically the same advice as in 2006. Therefore, no need to decrease the TAC.
FR: It is also not justified to apply a 15% reduction two years. Would like to see a TAC of 4599 t for 2009 and 4599 t for 2010.
Germany 7 6
Estonia 57 49
Spain 63 54
France 3 222 2 738
Ireland 254 216
Lithuania 74 63
Poland 37 32
United Kingdom 189 160
Others (1) 7 6
Species: Roundnose grenadier Zone: Community waters and waters not under the sovereignty or jurisdiction of third countries of VIII, IX, X, XII and XIV (RNG/8X14-)
Year 2009 2010 COM: 15% reduction in 2009 and roll-over for 2010.
ES: the need for a 15% reduction does not come out so clearly from the scientific advice. The TAC reduction could be less. Also, the TAC for this stock should be higher since the one proposed by COM in the ICES evaluation of this stock the Spanish catches in 2007 are missing. ICES recommends to unify a part of the area Vi with area XII. Therefore, more flexibility is asked between this stock and that of area VI. A footnote allowing this would be desirable.
PL: agrees with Spain on the need for flexibility and would like to see applied a lower reduction of TAC.
Germany 34 34
Spain 3 734 3 734
France 172 172
Ireland 7 7
United Kingdom 15 15
Latvia 60 60
Lithuania 7 7
Poland 1 168 1 168
5 197 5 197
Species: Orange roughy Zone: Community waters and waters not under the sovereignty or jurisdiction of third countries of VI (ORY/06-C.)
2009 2010 COM: there are no directed fisheries here. 2 successive reductions of 50% applied.
ES: for year 2010 at least 1 t should be included to absorb discard catches. UK, EE: does not believe that this stock is part of a mixed fishery. Therefore, supports a 0 TAC.
FR: asks for a TAC of 23 t for 2009 and 23 t for 2010 to take account of by-cacthes.
United Kingdom 2
Species: Orange roughy Zone: Community waters and waters not under the sovereignty or jurisdiction of third countries of VII (ORY/07-C.)
2009 2010 COM: 2 successive reductions of 50% applied.
ES: same comments as in previous table.
Species: Blue ling Zone: Community waters and waters not under the sovereignty or jurisdiction of third countries of II, IV and V (BLI/245-)
2009 2010 COM: 2 successive reductions of 15%. TACs for areas VI and VII will be included in TAC and quota Regulation since the stock is concerned by negotiations with orway and Faeroe Islands.
ES: does this mean that this stock will not be managed as a deep-sea specie anymore? If it is to be managed as a deep-sea stock, then it should be included in this Regulation.
FR: Asks for a roll-over for 2009 and 2010. TAC for blue ling for areas VI and VII should be included in this Regulation and a roll-over should also apply here. A separate note will be sent regarding blue ling in areas VI and VII, in the context of the annual TAC and Quota Regulation. Also, the current level of effort for blue ling should be kept.
COM: the fact that the TAC for this stock will be included in the annual TAC and quota regulation does not change its treatment as deep-sea specie. It seems more consistent to have TAC and technical measures for one stock in the same regulation than in different regulations. TAC and quota regulation will establish maximum catches and will also introduce measures to protect aggregations of mature fish.
Denmark 5 4
France 28 25
Ireland 5 4
United Kingdom 18 15
Others 5 4 (1)
EC 66 56
(1) Exclusively for by-catches. No directed fisheries are permitted under this quota.
Species: Red seabream Zone: Community waters and waters not under the sovereignty or jurisdiction of third countries of VI, VII and VIII (SBR/678-) (1)
2009 2010 COM: 2 successive reductions of 15%.
FR: would like to see a roll-over for 2009 and 2010. This stock is caught by small-scale fisheries.
Spain 204 172
France 10 9
Ireland 7 6
United Kingdom 25 22
Others 7 6 (2)
EC 253 215
(1) A minimum landing size of 35 cm (total length) shall be respected
(2) Exclusively for by-catches. No directed fisheries are permitted under this quota
Species: Red seabream Zone: Community waters and waters not under the sovereignty or jurisdiction of third countries of IX (SBR/09-) (1)
2009 2010 COM: 2 successive reductions of 15%.
Spain 722 614
Portugal 196 166
EC 918 780
(1) A minimum landing size of 35 cm (total length) shall be respected
PT: In Portugal, the minimum size for the species has been set at 25 cm since 2001. Are there any scientific data to support the change of the minimum landing size to 35 cm? If so, would like to be provided with this data.
COM: 35 cm is in conformity with ICES scientific advice
Species: Red seabream Zone: Community waters and waters not under the sovereignty or jurisdiction of third countries of X (SBR/10-) (1)
2009 2010 COM:8% reduction of the TAC applied for 2009 and roll-over for 2010.
PT: would like to see roll-over. This is a first priority for the Azores where management measures are in force for this stock which should ensure its sustainability.
Spain 9 9 (2)
Portugal 1 032 1 032 (2)
United Kingdom 9 9 (2)
Species Forkbeards Zone: Community waters and waters not under the sovereignty or jurisdiction of third countries of I, II, III and IV (GFB/1234-)
2009 2010 COM: 15% reduction applied for 2009 and roll-over for 2010. Low quota utilisation.
Germany 9 9
France 9 9
United Kingdom 13 13
EC 31 31
Species Forkbeards Zone: Community waters and waters not under the sovereignty or jurisdiction of third countries of V, VI and VII (GFB/567-)
2009 2010 COM: roll-over proposed for 2009 and 2010. High quota utilisation, particularly in 2007.
Germany 10 10
Spain 588 588
France 356 356
Ireland 260 260
United Kingdom 814 814
EC 2 028 2 028
Species Forkbeards Zone: Community waters and waters not under the sovereignty or jurisdiction of third countries of VIII and IX (GFB/89-)
2009 2010 COM: roll-over proposed for 2009 and 2010.
Spain 242 242
France 15 15
Portugal 10 10
EC 267 267
Species Forkbeards Zone: Community waters and waters not under the sovereignty or jurisdiction of third countries of X and XII (GFB/1012-)