EU Commissioner says Minister Campbell got it wrong
12 March 2009
DCAL Minister closes Erne Eel Fishery needlessly because of his misinterpretation of EU Regulation
In December 2008 Gregory Campbell submitted a plan to Brussels to close down the Eel Fishery on Lough Erne. At the time Traditional Unionist MEP Jim Allister challenged the basis and necessity of the Minister's action. At a subsequent meeting between the MEP, the Minister and his officials on 30th January, DCAL maintained it had no option because of an EU Regulation on Eel Management. Jim Allister contended they were wrong, but DCAL insisted that if they hadn't submitted their closure plan the whole eel industry throughout the UK would have been subject to a 50% cut from Brussels and that infraction proceedings would have been taken, something which Minister Campbell reiterated in a letter to Mr Allister on 3 March. The MEP, a QC by profession (who has form for proving departments' interpretation of EU law wrong, as with Lord Rooker in his denial of Tie-Up Aid to fishermen), convinced that DCAL was wrong, sought a ruling from Commissioner Borg in Brussels.
Now, in a letter to the MEP Commissioner Borg has confirmed the accuracy of Mr Allister's interpretation of the regulation.
Commissioner Borg has confirmed that if no plan had been submitted the only penalty would have been a 50% reduction in fishing effort in Lough Erne alone, not across the UK, and that no infraction proceedings would result. So whereas DCAL has imposed a total shutdown of eel fishing on the Lough they could have got away with a 50% reduction and kept many of the fishermen in jobs.
An angry Mr Allister said, "I am appalled not just that DCAL so fundamentally misinterpreted the law, but in consequence they have needlessly embarked upon closing the fishery, placing immense anxiety and loss on the fishermen, and all this done with an arrogance that they knew best what an EU Regulation meant.
This is one of the worst examples of departmental and ministerial blundering I have seen in a long time. Not surprisingly, I have written to Minister Campbell inviting a full explanation. In my letter I have asked:
"How did you allow such a situation to arise? Did DCAL not take legal advice on Regulation 1100/2007? Why were they so adamant and wedded to a patently false interpretation and why, even after I drew it to your attention, has it been persisted with, to the point of your letter of 3 March containing misinformation about possible infraction proceedings?
What do you now intend to do about this situation to salvage something for the Erne fishermen? Would it not be better to withdraw the submitted Plan and submit to the "penalty" of a 50% reduction in effort?"
It really is appalling that DCAL grossly misdirected itself as to the meaning and correct interpretation of Regulation 1100/2007, and that with great detriment to the eel fishermen of Lough Erne. These fishermen could have been permitted to carry on fishing in perpetuity at a level which matched the required 50% cut in effort, but because the Minister and his department bungled implementation and understanding of the Regulation, they are facing total shut down.
I really am most disturbed by how this matter has been handled."
The text of the letter from Commissioner Borg is found below, or can be viewed here:
JOE B0RG
MEMBER OF THE EUROPEAN COMMlSSlON
Dear Mr Allister,
Thank you for your letter of 2 February concerning the Regulation on eel management.
According to Article 2(1) of Regulation 1100/2007 establishing measures for the recovery of the stock of European eel, a Member State may designate the whole of its national territory or an existing regional administrative unit as one eel river basin. In addition, according to Article 2(3) of this Regulation Member States shall prepare an Eel Management Plan for each eel river basin defined under paragraph 1.
The Regulation furthermore says in Article 4(2) that a Member State which has not submitted an Eel Management Plan to the Commiission for approval by 31 December 2008 either has to reduce fishing effort by at least 50% relative to the average effort deployed from 2004 to 2006 or reduce the fishing effort to ensure a reduction in eel catches by at least 50% relative to the average catch from 2004 to 2008. This can either be done by shortening the fishing season for eel or by other means.
For Member States which submitted several Eel Management Plans, each covering distinct FS River Basin Districts, the 50% reduction in fishing effort or catch applies on a plan-by-plan basis. Therefore, in the event that a Member State has submitted two or mare plans, one or more of which cannot be approved by the Commission, the 50% reduction will apply only to the non-approved plans and not to the ones that have been approved.
The penalty described in Article 4(2) is the only penalty foreseen by the Regulation if a Member State fiils to submit asi adeqaate Eel Management Plan. As long as the 50% reduction is maintained, no infringement proceedings will be foreseen.
Yours sincerely,
