Explanatory Memorandum to COM(2014)265 - Prohibition on driftnet fisheries - Main contents
Please note
This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.
| dossier | COM(2014)265 - Prohibition on driftnet fisheries. |
|---|---|
| source | COM(2014)265  |
| date | 14-05-2014 |
Driftnet fishing has traditionally been carried out with nets of limited lengths and relatively small mesh size to catch different small/medium size pelagic species mostly living in or migrating through coastal areas. More substantial problems began in the late 1970s and 1980s, when driftnets with large mesh sizes and net lengths of tens of kilometres began to be used. These large-scale driftnets resulted in significantly increased amounts of incidental mortality of protected species including, in particular, cetaceans, sea turtles and sharks and lead to international concerns about their environmental impacts.
In the early 90s, following specific United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) Resolutions[1], which called for a moratorium on large-scale pelagic driftnet[2] fishing on the High Seas, the EU developed legislation on driftnets fisheries.
Consequently the keeping on board or use of driftnets longer than 2,5 Km is prohibited in the EU since June 1992 (except in the Baltic Sea, the Belts and the Sound). Since 2002 all driftnets, no matter their size, are prohibited when intended for the capture of species listed in Annex VIII of Council Regulation (EC) No 894/97 (unauthorized species).It is also prohibited to land species listed in Annex VIII which have been caught in driftnets. Additionally, since 1 January 2008 it is prohibited to keep on board or use any kind of driftnets in the Baltic Sea, the Belts and the Sound.
The current EU legislative framework on driftnets has however shown weaknesses since existing rules are easy to circumvent. The absence of EU rules on gear characteristics (e.g. maximum mesh size, maximum twine thickness, hanging ratio, etc.) and gear use (e.g. maximum distance from the coast, soaking time, fishing season etc) combined with the possibility to keep on board other fishing gears, made it possible for fishermen to illegally use driftnets to catch species prohibited to be caught with this fishing gear, while declaring that they have been caught for example with another gear (e.g. longlines, etc).
Furthermore despite these provisions on driftnets, the illegal use of driftnets continues to be reported in EU waters. Serious non-compliance by some Member States has also been addressed by two rulings of the European Court of Justice against France (C-556/07; C-479/07) and Italy (C-249/08).
Control and enforcement efforts are not producing the necessary results since the small scale nature of the activity makes it easy to adapt and find strategies to escape controls. Small scale driftnets are still allowed and the loopholes in the EU legislation facilitate their illegal use. This makes it extremely difficult for control authorities to have robust evidences of illegal activities and to finally enforce the rules.
Against this background, it is clear that serious environmental and conservation concerns linked to the use of these fishing gears still persist.
In order to address this situation and to comply with EU international obligations to properly regulate driftnet fisheries, the proposed Regulation, on the basis of a precautionary approach, stipulates a full prohibition to take on board or use any kind of driftnets as off 1 January 2015 in all EU waters. It also introduces a revised and more comprehensive definition of this fishing gear, to close any possible existing loophole.
Contents
An Impact Assessment (IA) has been conducted, taking into account information from different sources: a web-based public consultation, two coordinated studies[3], information provided by Member States and comments from the IA Steering Group (IASG).
The IA has explored the following policy options: 1) status quo; 2) actions on technical and/or control measures to enhance controllability and environmental compatibility; 3) selected ban of driftnet fisheries identified as being still most harmful to the strictly protected species and/or not able to avoid by-catches of unauthorised species; 4) total ban of driftnet fisheries.
However, the lack or poor monitoring of these fisheries by Member States, both for control and scientific purposes, together with the limited sampling effort by the two studies made it extremely difficult to have a comprehensive view on current fishing activities and their actual environmental impact and it was therefore not possible to assess impacts of the different policy options through an indicator led analysis.
Options 4 has been preferred over the options 1, 2 and 3, as it satisfies to the largest extent the relevance, effectiveness, efficiency and coherence criteria while providing the best result in terms of environmental impact and less administrative burden. It is supported by more than 52% of the respondents to the public consultation including fishermen associations and NGOs. Thus option 4 has been retained as the most adequate, based on the application of the precautionary principle towards fisheries which might have a high risk of incidental takings of strictly protected species while being poorly or not at all monitored by Member States.
The majority of the driftnet fisheries identified are seasonal and the participating active fleets are comprised of polyvalent vessels, totalling at least 840 vessels (excluding the Baltic Sea), dispersed over a wide area. For most of the fishers driftnetting represent only a few months of fishing activity in any year with some fishers using driftnets for less than half a month per year. Thus the total prohibition to use driftnets is not expected to result in a corresponding reduction of fishers which will continue to operate with other gears as already authorised in their fishing licence. On the basis of the information collected for the impact assessment the economic performance and importance of the gear for the vessels and fleets is highly variable though limited at national level. For the fleets where the data are available such as the UK vessels the total value of small scale driftnets, for around 250 vessels, represent 0.14% of the total value of UK landings in 2011. For Italy, where a smaller number of around 100 active vessels has been detected, the economic importance of driftnets is low at national level (0.8% in value and 1.3 % in weight of landing) though the value landed ranges from around 20% to 55% (up to 90% in one fishery) of the turnover generated by these vessels; however the profit generated by the use of driftnets is highly variable ranging from 1 % to 54% of the turnover generated by the vessels, with an average of 22% across all Italian driftnet fisheries. While it cannot be excluded that the ban may affect some of the vessels carrying out these fisheries, the overall socio-economic impact of the total ban is therefore considered irrelevant at national and sub-regional level.
· Summary of the proposed action
Introduce a full prohibition to take on board or use any kind of driftnets as off 1 January 2015, in all EU waters and by all EU vessels. Introduce a revised and more comprehensive definition of driftnets, to close any possible loophole in existing legislation.
· Legal basis
Article 43(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
· Subsidiarity principle
The proposal falls under exclusive competence of the European Union.
· Proportionality principle
The proposal is necessary and appropriate for the implementation of the ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management. The proposal does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve the objectives pursued, in accordance with Article 5 i of the Treaty on European Union.
· Choice of instrument
Proposed instrument: Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Other means would not be adequate for the following reason: the act is repealing and amending existing Regulations, which must be amended by another Regulation.
This measure does not involve any additional Union expenditure.