Explanatory Memorandum to COM(2016)134 - Conservation of fishery resources and protection of marine ecosystems through technical measures - Main contents
Please note
This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.
| dossier | COM(2016)134 - Conservation of fishery resources and protection of marine ecosystems through technical measures. |
|---|---|
| source | COM(2016)134  |
| date | 11-03-2016 |
1. CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL
• Reasons for and objectives of the proposal
Technical measures are rules governing how and where fishermen may fish. They aim to control the catch that can be taken with a given amount of fishing effort and also to minimise the impacts of fishing on the ecosystem. They form an integral part of the regulatory framework of most fisheries management systems including within Union waters.
Technical measures can be grouped into:
– measures that regulate the operation of the gear;
– measures that regulate the design characteristics of the gears that are deployed;
– minimum sizes below which fish must be returned to the sea;
– measures that set spatial and temporal controls (e.g. closed/limited entry areas and seasonal closures) to protect aggregations of juvenile or spawning fish; and
– measures that mitigate the impacts of fishing gears on sensitive species (e.g. marine mammals, seabirds and turtles) or closed areas to protect sensitive habitats (e.g. coldwater coral reefs).
The history of technical measures applying in European fisheries legislation within the framework of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) is one of numerous regulations, amendments, implementing rules and temporary technical measures introduced as stop-gaps to resolve emerging problems. Across all Union sea basins and non-Union waters in which Union vessels operate there are more than 30 regulations which contain technical measures.
Currently there are three detailed technical measures regulations enacted under the ordinary legislative procedure covering the main sea basins in Union waters – 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 covering the North-east Atlantic (and the Black Sea since 2012); Council Regulation (EC) No 1967/2006 of 21 December 2006 concerning management measures for the sustainable exploitation of fishery resources in the Mediterranean Sea, amending Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1626/94; 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.
In addition to those regulations there are a number of Commission acts which contain detailed rules on the construction of gears (e.g. Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3440/84 of 6 December 1984 on the attachment of devices to trawls, Danish seines and similar nets) or relating to specific area closures (e.g. Commission Regulation (EC) No 1922/1999 of 8 September 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 850/98 as regards conditions under which vessels exceeding eight metres length overall shall be permitted to use beam trawls within certain waters of the Community) as well as technical measures introduced to alleviate immediate threats to conservation following from depletion of certain stocks (e.g. Commission Regulation (EC) No 2056/2001 of 19 October 2001 establishing additional technical measures for the recovery of the stocks of cod in the North Sea and to the west of Scotland). These regulations generally emanate from empowerments contained in the main regulations.
There are also a number of other standalone regulations which contain technical measures. These include Council Regulation (EC) No 812/2004 of 26 April 2004 laying down measures concerning bycatches of cetaceans in fisheries and amending Regulation (EC) No 88/98 and Council Regulation (EC) No 1185/2003 of 26 June 2003 on the removal of fins of sharks on board vessels.
There are several co-decided regulations that transpose technical measures agreed for third-country waters covered under Regional Fisheries Management Organisations (RFMOs) such as the Convention on Conservation on Antarctic Living Marine Resources (CCALMR) and the International Convention for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) among others. These regulations are not covered under the scope of this proposal.
Before the entry into force of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) technical measures were also included in Fishing Opportunities Regulations setting annual TACs and quotas in the Northeast Atlantic, Baltic, and the Black Sea as well as for deep-sea species. These were a mixture of supposedly temporary technical measures with a mixture of regionally specific measures and derogations from general provisions contained in other regulations. Following the adoption of the TFEU such measures could no longer be included in the Fishing Opportunities Regulations except for those measures with a direct functional link to the catch limits for a particular stock or stocks. Therefore only a limited number of such measures are now contained in the Fishing Opportunities Regulations. For example there is a closed area off the west coast of Ireland to protect Norway lobster (Nephrops norvegicus) relating to the TAC for this species in this area. Measures emanating from other RFMOS such as Northeast Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC), Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO) are also still included in the Fishing Opportunities Regulation for the North-east Atlantic as temporary measures.
As this illustrates the regulatory structure for technical measures has become highly complex and somewhat dis-jointed. A retrospective evaluation 1 carried out to support this proposal has shown that the current technical measures have largely not delivered on the objectives of the previous CFP – Council Regulation (EC) 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy. This is more evident in some sea basins than others (e.g. North-east Atlantic) but the general perception is one of multiple complex and ineffective rules contained in an inflexible governance structure.
With the new challenges of the new CFP 2 , which came into force on 1 January 2014, the retrospective evaluation concluded that the current regulatory structure for technical measures will continue to be sub-optimal. This is because of five identifiable problems:
Sub-optimal performance: Technical measures provide little incentive to fish selectively where there is no cost to discarding, or of catching sensitive species or impacting adversely on the seabed. This has resulted in a failure to control fishing pressure leading to overfishing of a number of stocks and to high levels of discards in some fisheries and limited protection afforded to sensitive habitats and species. Additionally some measures have created legal obstacles or discouraged innovation for the development of more selective fishing practices with the result that circumvention, both legally and illegally, to minimise the economic impacts of measures has been common.
Difficult to measure effectiveness: The current regulations do not contain any defined metrics on which to measure success. This has made it difficult to measure the effectiveness of technical measures in contributing to the achievement of the conservation objectives of the CFP.
Prescriptive and complex rules: Technical measures have become more numerous and complex over time and attempted to control too many technical aspects of fishing operations. Some are difficult for control authorities to enforce, and for fishermen to comply with. They impose high administrative burden and costs on Member States and stakeholders. This has undermined the catching sector's confidence and provided a strong incentive to negate the regulations resulting in the adoption of more legislation to counter negation of the rules.
Lack of flexibility: Technical measures are mostly decided following a complex, inflexible and lengthy politically-driven process which is not well suited to defining detailed technical rules that need frequent updating and periodic review. This has restricted the ability to adjust or revise technical measures to react to changes in fisheries or to take advantage of innovation in gear technology or to react to unexpected events. In addition temporary rules or derogations have remained in place unchanged for long periods further undermining the confidence of the catching sector.
Insufficient involvement of key stakeholders in the decision-making process: Technical measures are based on negative, mostly coercive incentives in a hierarchical governance system (i.e. top-down rather than bottom-up). This has led to the perception by fishermen and stakeholders that they are not part of a participatory process. Fishermen perceive that technical measures are impractical, do not represent current fishing practice and are sometimes contradictory.
During the negotiations of the new CFP there was a general consensus amongst Member States, stakeholders and the European Parliament confirming this rather negative perception of the current technical measures. This was despite the fact that no political agreement for a new package of measures had been reached in the last ten years, previous Commission proposals in 2002 3 and in 2008 4 having failed for a number of reasons. Member States argued that the text had grown too complicated and difficult to interpret and that those proposals did not address the underlying problems sufficiently. Stakeholders argued that they were not properly consulted and the rules went further than simple consolidations of existing measures. Even attempts to align the technical measures regulations in the Northeast Atlantic, Baltic and Mediterranean with the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) have failed because negotiations have tended to move away from alignment to the detailed substance of these regulations.
These repeated failures to reach agreement on a new technical measures regulation clearly highlight the need for a new approach. This should be based on simplification, adaptation of decision-making to the Lisbon Treaty, strengthening the long-term approach to conservation and resource management including tackling the discards problem, regionalisation, further stakeholder involvement and more industry responsibility (i.e. a culture of compliance).
In addressing these problems and recognising these institutional difficulties this proposal aims to:
– Optimise the contribution of technical measures to achieving the key objectives of the new CFP.
– Create the flexibility required to adjust technical measures by facilitating regionalised approaches (consistent with the objectives in Union law).
– Simplify the current rules in line with the Commission's REFIT programme 5 .
While this proposal principally changes the governance structure of technical measures rather than making wholesale changes to the measures themselves, the improved flexibility and incentives for fishing selectivity it introduces will deliver improvements in the effectiveness of technical measures. Over time yields will be optimised through the catching of larger fish and the impacts of fishing on the marine ecosystem will be reduced through the adoption of responsible fishing practices.
• Consistency with existing policy provisions in the policy area
Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 on the Common Fisheries Policy, amending Council Regulations (EC) No 1954/2003 and (EC) No 1224/2009 and repealing Council Regulations (EC) No 2371/2002 and (EC) No 639/2004 and Council Decision 204/585/EC sets the general framework for the CFP. Technical measures sit within this framework as tools for contributing to the achievement of the overall objectives of the CFP as follows:
The attainment of maximum sustainable yield (MSY) will be facilitated by the application of technical measures which regulate exploitation pattern (i.e. how fishing pressure is distributed across the age profile of a stock). Obtaining MSY from a given stock will require that the exploitation pattern avoids fishing on younger age groups. To achieve this will require a combination of effective technical measures (i.e. measures that regulate the operation and design of the gear, minimum conservation reference sizes (mcrs) and spatial/temporal closures) that lead to improvements in exploitation patterns in an adaptive regulatory structure.
The gradual elimination of discards and minimisation of unwanted catches will require the application of technical (gear operation and design) as well as tactical changes (closed or restricted areas) to drive increased selectivity and avoidance of unwanted catches (i.e. fish below mcrs). The landing obligation introduced to achieve this objective will require a rethink on the current governance structure of technical measures to allow for more flexibility to achieve this goal.
Ensuring fishing activities are consistent with wider ecological considerations will depend on the application of technical measures that minimise the impacts of fishing gears on the ecosystem (e.g. mitigation measures or closed areas). Specifically technical measures must contribute to the attainment of good environmental status with respect to 4 out of the 11 descriptors included under Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 establishing a framework for community action in the field of marine environmental policy (Marine Strategy Framework Directive)- Maintaining biological diversity (Descriptor 1); Maintaining commercially-exploited populations of fish and shellfish within safe biological limits and with a healthy age and size distribution (Descriptor 3); Maintaining all elements of marine food webs at normal abundance and diversity (Descriptor 4); and Maintaining sea-floor integrity (Descriptor 6). The key challenge will be creating a framework for implementing such measures in such a way as they most effectively protect the species most at risk and sensitive habitats and areas in need of protection.
In addition to these objectives the new CFP promotes regionalisation as a new governance approach. Regionalisation provides an important opportunity to introduce simplification of the rules set by the legislator and particularly relevant for the future use of technical measures as management tools, since part of the problem of the effectiveness of the technical measures is related to the governance structure they operate in. Regionalisation will allow the development of technical measures at regional level (i.e. ultimately under the umbrella of multiannual plans or in the short-term through other Union measures). Regionalisation also gives scope to limit the need for detailed technical measures adopted by the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers under co-decision. Within a simplified legal framework defined by the legislator, measures can be regionally devised and tailor-made to the specificities of different fisheries. Regionalisation also provides an opportunity to utilise technical measures much more as a driver for the achievement of sustainable fisheries rather than simply as restrictive and coercive measures complementing fishing opportunities and effort restrictions. Regionalised decision-making also avoids having to make frequent changes to the substance of technical measures contained in co-decided acts.
• Consistency with other Union policies
The proposal and its objectives are consistent with Union policy. In particular with legal obligations contained in the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD), Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds and Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora and Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (Water Framework Directive). The full implementation of these Directives is part of the EU’s response to its commitments under the UN Convention on Biological Diversity and is reinforced by the commitment made by EU Heads of State "to halt the loss of biodiversity [in the EU] by 2010"; it is further reiterated in the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 6 .
Technical measures have also the potential to contribute to the Europe 2020 strategy 7 , in particular its resource efficiency flagship initiative through better use of fish stocks. In addition, the reform of technical measures will contribute to the REFIT programme through the simplification and deletion of a number of existing regulations and specific measures.
2. LEGAL BASIS, SUBSIDIARITY AND PROPORTIONALITY
• Legal basis
The legal basis is Article 43(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
• Subsidiarity (for non-exclusive competence)
The provisions of this proposal relate to the conservation of marine biological resources that falls under the exclusive competence of the Union. Consequently the subsidiarity principle does not apply.
• Proportionality
This proposal is amending measures which already exist; therefore no concern on the proportionality principle arises. The proposed measures comply with the proportionality principle as they are appropriate and necessary. No other less restrictive measures are available to obtain the desired policy objectives.
• Choice of the instrument
Proposed instrument: Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Other means would not be adequate for the following reason: Regulations must be amended by a Regulation.
3. RESULTS OF EX-POST EVALUATIONS, STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATIONS AND IMPACT ASSESSMENTS
• Ex-post evaluations/fitness checks of existing legislation
In December 2012, an evaluation of technical measures was carried out. This consisted of a retrospective evaluation1 of the existing technical measures regulations in place in terms of their relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, coherence and acceptance. During the course of this evaluation extensive consultations were held with representatives of the fishing industry, national administrations and the research agencies of Member States. This was completed in June 2013. It was followed by a prospective evaluation1 of the likely economic, social and environmental impacts as well as the effectiveness, efficiency, coherence and acceptability of different defined policy options. This study was completed in July 2014.
The restrospective evaluation confirmed that the current technical measures are overly complex and have been largely ineffective. They do not have clear, well-defined objectives and targets nor do they provide positive incentives which reward responsible practices and incentivise compliance. Control of the measures is costly and the governance structure they operate in currently is inflexible and very much top-down with limited consultation with stakeholders.
The prospective evaluation concluded that results-based management may be the best approach for future technical measures if control and enforcement problems can be solved. In such an approach, there should be less of a need for multiple prescriptive technical measures regulations.
• Stakeholder consultations
An internet-based public consultation was held from January to May 2014 8 . Detailed contributions were received from the key stakeholders ((i.e. Member States, the European Parliament, Advisory Councils, the catching sector and NGOs) 9 . The main conclusions, which largely concurred with the findings of the retrospective and prospective evaluation were as follows:
Any new technical measures regulation(s) should move away from micro-management towards a results-based management approach.
Fishermen should become more accountable for what they catch rather than the construction and operation of the fishing gears they deploy.
Simplification of the rules is a fundamental objective but simplification should not create inequalities in the management systems across Member States (“maintaining a level playing field”).
Regionalisation is seen as an important opportunity to introduce simplification of technical measures regulations.
A framework approach is preferred. This should contain overarching objectives and minimum common standards to be applied across the EU. It should also contain safeguards to ensure action can be taken if problems in fisheries emerge.
Improvements in selectivity have been achieved in the past when incentive structures have been aligned with management objectives. Such structures need to be built-in to any new regulatory framework for technical measures.
Apart from the public consultation, numerous workshops, consultations and meetings were held during the period from 2011 to early 2015 with the key stakeholders. The combination of the public consultation and the extensive follow-up dialogue with the key stakeholders (i.e. the catching sector, NGOs and Member States) have ensured that the views expressed fully represent the different stakeholder groups.
• Collection and use of expertise
Three meetings of an Expert Working Group (EWG) of the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) were convened in October 2012 10 , March 2013 11 and March 2015 12 . These meetings explored the potential of technical measures as a management tool in the context of the CFP. The findings of these reports helped to define the options that were considered in the prospective evaluation carried out as well as providing information for the development of the proposal.
In addition to these meetings, several ad-hoc requests were made to STECF and also the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) on specific issues relating to fishing gear selectivity; replacing mesh size and catch composition rules; bycatch of marine mammals and other protected species; and on existing closed and restricted areas. These also provided guidance in the drafting of the proposal.
• Impact assessment
An Impact Assessment (IA) has been conducted, taking account of the information from the public and follow-up targeted consultations, retrospective and prospective evaluations, expert advice, comments from the Impact Assessment Steering Group (IASG) set up to support this initiative and the Regulatory Scrutiny Board (RSB).
For the IA, three policy options and one sub-option were considered against the baseline scenario as those most likely to achieve the objectives and address the problems identified.
– Baseline situation: The current regulations with the CFP as the central element remain in place, elaborated in a series of technical and other conservation regulations surrounding the CFP The baseline would take account of recent adjustments that remove legal contradictions with new obligations under the CFP (the landing obligation, and alignment with the TFEU concerning establishment of current Commission empowerments). Regionalisation of technical measures would take place through discard plans or multiannual plans, expanding the web of regulations further and adding on new rules that derogate from or amend existing technical rules.
– Consolidation: A new regulation with a limited scope consolidating in one Regulation the common rules for all fisheries in all areas (e.g. generic prohibitions on certain fishing methods). Common rules (under co-decision) would be separated from rules with potential for regionalisation. The latter technical rules would remain in place in the existing regulations (co-decision and Commission acts). Any recent amendments or changes to the regulations and alignment of the regulations with the TFEU would be included. Regionalisation of technical measures would be through discard plans adopted by the Commission as Delegated Acts, and through Delegated Acts adopted by the Commission on the basis of the new, co-decided multiannual plans. These Delegated Acts would introduce (temporary) derogations from and amendments to the existing rules. Regionalisation would happen if and where the Member States submit joint recommendations for discard plans on a temporary basis for a maximum duration of 3 years. After that period, maintaining these derogations in place would require the adoption of Delegated Acts that are adopted by virtue of an empowerment in an EU multiannual plan.
– Framework Approach: A new framework Regulation containing a) general provisions (scope, objectives, guiding principles) and definition of the expected results and corresponding standards; b) common rules and technical provisions (as in option 1); and c) baseline standards (by region) corresponding to identified results which would function as default measures in the context of regionalisation. The baseline standards would be based on the substance of the existing rules and would principally replace the current mesh size and catch composition rules, convert the current minimum sizes into minimum conservation reference sizes, maintain closures needed to protect aggregations of juveniles and spawning fish as well as any other regionally specific technical rules. The structure would be recast (one single regulation instead of the numerous regulations in place). Many existing regulations would be repealed and integrated and/or rationalized in the new framework. The baselines and default technical measures that correspond to these objectives would be applicable unless and until regionalised measures are designed and introduced into Union law (through Delegated Acts). Where no regionalised action is developed, the baselines would continue to function as default rules. Member States would have options to move further away from more rigid technical rules (the default measures) towards a more flexible, results-based management approach under regionalisation to meet the projected results and objectives of a plan.
– Framework without baselines: The main elements of the framework would be maintained except for the baseline measures. An empowerment would be included for the development of specific measures under regionalisation. This empowerment would allow for the establishment of measures required regionally to meet the objective of the CFP through Delegated Acts as part of the discard and multiannual plans.
– Elimination of the existing rules: Most of the existing technical measures regulations would be repealed immediately, with an exception for essential nature conservation measures which would remain in place. Any technical measures necessary in the longer term would be developed regionally under multiannual plans (with the possibility of temporarily incorporating technical measures into discard plans in the short term). There would be no framework regulation under this option.
Contents
The framework approach with baseline standards was evaluated to best meet the objectives set and provide a level of security that conservation objectives will continue to be met while regionalisation develops. In the longer-term (at the latest by 2022) it aims to have any technical measures required included under regional plans. It is best geared to managing this transition to regionalisation in the period up to 2022.
The framework without baselines and the elimination of technical measures would bring about simplification of technical measures immediately which would find favour with the catching sector but are both riskier options. They represent a drastic change in governance implying a shift in the burden of proof to all fishermen (and Member States). They would rely on fishermen documenting and demonstrating transparently that they are meeting the general objectives and agreed results (under the CFP) and the specific objectives and results identified in multiannual plans. They rely on immediate behavioural change of fishermen and on peer-pressure and self-regulation to ensure unselective fishing practices do not prevail. Member States, some sections of the catching sector and NGOs seem reluctant to move in this direction at least in the short-term.
Consolidation of technical measures was the least favoured option. It essentially maintains the current complex regulatory structure in place and does not provide any clear incentives for stakeholders over and above the baseline scenario. It is also not fully coherent with the spirit of regionalisation as envisaged under the CFP.
The preferred option largely presents changes to the regulatory structure and governance of technical measures. Few new measures are introduced and any changes to the substance are very much about deletion of rules in order to simplify and lessen administrative burden, improve controllability or consolidate nature conservation measures. Therefore the analysis of impacts in the IA was based on a qualitative assessment supported with specific examples or case studies. The main impacts are as follows:
The economic impacts of the framework approach would be positive. The framework approach would drive regionalisation. The increased flexibility and greater stakeholder participation in developing technical measures afforded by regionalisation should incentivise the adoption of selective gears more rapidly than other policy options. This will help to deliver MSY and reductions in unwanted catches with corresponding benefits in economic terms from increased fishing opportunities. This would steadily improve over time, particularly if selective fishing is rewarded by Member States with increased fishing opportunities allowed for under the CFP.
Employment in the catching sector is likely to reduce in the short-term as the catching sector adjusts to the challenges of moving to MSY and the landing obligation. However, assuming that regionalisation is accelerated and the most concerned fleet segments notably those targeting mixed demersal species would strive to improve selectivity quickly, any negative impacts would be counteracted more quickly. Employment levels would stabilise. In the longer-term once sustainable fishing is achieved, fishing opportunities will increase (by at least 20% by 2020). Such significant increase has the potential to create new jobs in the catching sector. Fishing sustainably will lead to increase income and wages and therefore job attractiveness.
Any negative, short-term impacts are likely to be negated quicker than under the other options considered. The framework would manage the transition to regionalisation and, through the inclusion of baseline standards and retention of existing technical measures that are still necessary, ensure that the environmental sustainability objectives of the CFP are not jeopardised. In the longer-term regionalisation should lead to the development of measures within an adaptive governance framework that will be more responsive and anticipatory to threats to marine ecosystems and allow the taking of protective measures expediently.
• Regulatory fitness and simplification
Simplification of the existing regulations is a primary objective of this proposal. The new framework will replace 6 co-decided regulations by one regulation with 3 other Regulations being partially repealed or amended. It also will lead to the repealing of up to 10 supporting Commission Regulations. Certain elements of these regulations will be brought under the framework proposal pending regionalisation. This allows for a second level of simplification in two main areas. Firstly almost half of the 40 existing closed or restricted areas relating to the protection of juveniles and spawning aggregations are deleted or simplified. This is based on advice from STECF, taking account of comments received by Member States and stakeholders. The second area of simplification is in the complex mesh size and catch composition tables in the existing regulations for the northeast Atlantic and Baltic. In each region these have been simplified into a default baseline mesh size for towed and static gears based on existing exploitation patterns with several derogations allowing the use of smaller mesh size gears to maintain important fisheries.
The catching sector comprising around 82,000 vessels and employing 98,500 Full-time equivalents (FTE) is the most affected by potential changes to the technical measures regulations. Of these approximate 82,000 fishing vessels, almost 98% of them would be classified as micro-enterprises employing fewer than 10 persons and whose annual turnover and/or annual balance sheet total does not exceed €2 million. With such a high proportion of the sector being micro-enterprises exempting them from this proposal would undermine the conservation objectives of the CFP as few fishing enterprises would be governed by the general rules.
The impacts on SMEs in terms of administrative costs and burden would be positive in that there would be immediate simplification of the current regulations and a greater role for the catching sector through the Advisory Councils in the development of technical measures going forward. In addition the potential move to a results-based system in the longer-term would lead to further simplification of the technical rules. This implies a shift in the burden of proof onto the catching sector and put onus on them to demonstrate and document catches accurately. Potentially this may increase costs associated with documentation of catches although the costs incurred would depend on the approach of the Member States to “regionalised control” and offset against the greater flexibility such an approach would afford.
• Fundamental rights
This proposal has no consequences for the protection of fundamental rights.
4. BUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS
This measure does not involve any additional Union expenditure.
5. OTHER ELEMENTS
• Implementation plans and monitoring, evaluation and reporting arrangements
Under the preferred option clear targets would be established for the reduction and as far as possible elimination of unwanted catches by 2019 and fishing at MSY for all stocks by 2020. Targets for the reduction of the negative impacts of fishing on marine ecosystems would also be established to contribute to the achievement of good environmental status by 2020. In order to measure achievement of these targets the following environmental, economic, social and compliance indicators for monitoring technical measures are proposed:
Environmental: evolution of catch profiles, number of stocks at MSY and evolution of bycatches of sensitive species and protection of sensitive habitats
Economic: income, Gross Value Added (GVA), revenue/breakeven revenue and net profit margins
Social: employment and crew wages
Compliance: number of infringements related to technical rules and at-sea patrol days.
Data for monitoring would be available under the existing Data Collection Framework (DCF) 13 , from advice from the STECF and ICES as well as from annual reports from the European Fisheries Control Agency (EFCA).
An ex-post evaluation discussing the key evaluation questions of technical measures should be carried out before 2022 when the landing obligation should be fully operational, MSY achieved for all stocks and good environmental status achieved for marine ecosystems. This evaluation would directly feed into the retrospective evaluation of the CFP scheduled to begin in 2022.
The new multiannual plans will periodically be assessed by STECF and ICES to measure whether sustainability objectives are being achieved. These evaluations will provide indications of whether technical measures included as part of these plans are effective.
Reporting requirements under Articles 49 (functioning of the CFP) and Article 50 (progress on achieving MSY) of the CFP, while not directly related to technical measures, will also provide insight into the effectiveness of technical measures.
Measures developed regionally will also have to be evaluated on a regular basis by STECF or ICES to ensure such measures are consistent with objectives of the CFP.
Annual Reports of the EFCA in relation to Joint Deployment Programmes (JDPs) document the number and reasons for infringements detected compared to the number and nature of inspections carried out. These provide an indication of the level of compliance with the technical measures regulations.
By the end of 2020 and every third year thereafter, the Commission will report to the European Parliament and to the Council on the implementation of this Regulation including an assessment of the impact of technical measures on the conservation of fisheries resources and on the environmental impacts of fisheries on marine ecosystems. On the basis of that report, the Commission will propose any necessary amendments.
• Explanatory documents (for directives)
Not applicable.
• Detailed explanation of the specific provisions of the proposal
The proposal has the following structure:
General Provisions – contains the scope, overarching and specific objectives, targets linked to the general and specific objectives expressed in terms of levels of unwanted catches; thresholds for bycatches of sensitive species; and reduction in the extent of the seabed significantly affected by fishing; principles of good governance and definitions. The definitions relate primarily to the definition of fishing gears and fishing operations and are common to all regions. They consolidate and update the existing definitions contained in the existing Regulations.
Common Technical Measures – contains common rules currently contained in all of the primary technical measures regulations but applicable to all sea basins and considered as de facto permanent as there is no need or justification for changing them. The provisions included under this part are
– prohibited gears and practices including prohibition on the sale of marine species caught using certain gear types,
– measures to protect sensitive species (e.g. marine mammals, reptiles and seabirds) and habitats (e.g. coldwater corals) including those listed in the Habitats and Birds Directives;
– general restrictions on the use of towed gears and conditions for their use (covers basic codend construction and permissible attachments to fishing gears);
– restrictions on the use of static nets. This includes the consolidation of the existing restrictions on the use of driftnets (i.e. prohibition to use drift nets above 2.5km, prohibition on using such gears to target highly migratory species and the total prohibition on the use of driftnets in the Baltic). Under regionalisation Member States should strengthen these provisions up to and including the introduction of a total prohibition on the use of such gears where there is scientific evidence that shows the continued use of driftnets constitutes a threat to the conservation status of sensitive species in that region;
– minimum conservation reference sizes (definition, measurement, use of fish below mcrs);
– common measures to reduce discarding (highgrading, slipping, protection for species not under catch limits).
Regionalisation – sets the general principles for regionalisation with reference to baseline measures which will apply where no regional measures are in places and establishes the empowerments needed for regionalisation of technical measures through multiannual plans, temporary discard plans and conservation measures necessary for compliance with obligations under environmental legislation. The empowerments allow the development of regional measures based on joint recommendations submitted by regional groups of Member States that amend/derogate from the existing baseline measures, establish new measures or derogate measures provided that it can be demonstrated such measures have no conservation benefit or that alternative measures have been put in place. These empowerments emanate from the CFP. The regional measures that can be taken under temporary discard plans are also defined, as well as safeguards that will be taken if scientific evidence shows that the conservation objectives are not being met by the regional measures. To this effect, a safeguard clause is included that allows the Commission to act where available scientific advice indicates that immediate action is required to protect marine species. This allows the Commission to establish technical measures to alleviate such threats, in addition to or by way of derogation to this Regulation or technical measures otherwise fixed in accordance with Union law. Such measures could include restrictions on the use fishing gears or on fishing activities in certain areas or during certain periods.
Technical Measures in non-Union waters: contains an empowerment for the Commission to adopt delegated acts in respect of existing detailed rules concerning lists of vulnerable marine ecosystems and also specific technical measures related to defined fisheries for blue ling and redfish agreed by the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC). It further allows, through amendment of the corresponding Regulation, the Commission to adopt delegated acts in respect of existing technical measures in Regulation (EU) No 1343/2011 14 on the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM). It also allows the Commission to incorporate into Union law future amendments of those measures adopted by NEAFC and also measures adopted by the GFCM. Currently no such empowerments exist.
Technical Provisions - contains common provisions for conducting scientific research and also for the artificial restocking and transplantation of marine species.
Procedural Provisions - contains the exercise of delegation with respect to the delegated acts contained in the proposal and also the committee procedure in respect of implementing acts.
Final Provisions – contains the repeals and amendments to the relevant regulations as well as the review and reporting process.
Annexes – The Annexes contain baseline measures by sea basin (i.e. North Sea, Baltic, Northwestern waters, Southwestern waters, Mediterranean, Black Sea and the outermost regions). These baseline measures will apply in the absence of measures being put in place regionally. They include baseline mesh sizes, minimum conservation reference sizes, closed or restricted areas to protect juveniles and spawning fish and any other regionally specific measures. There are also annexes containing a list of prohibited species that if caught as bycatches must be returned immediately to the sea; closed areas established for the protection of sensitive habitats and a list of species that are prohibited for capture with driftnets.