Explanatory Memorandum to COM(2018)149 - Multiannual plan for fish stocks in the Western Waters and adjacent waters, and for fisheries exploiting those stocks - Main contents
Please note
This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.
| dossier | COM(2018)149 - Multiannual plan for fish stocks in the Western Waters and adjacent waters, and for fisheries exploiting those stocks. |
|---|---|
| source | COM(2018)149  |
| date | 23-03-2018 |
1. CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL
• Reasons for and objectives of the proposal
The fisheries of the Western Waters and adjacent areas are highly complex, involving vessels from at least seven coastal Member States, using a wide variety of different fishing gears to target a wide range of different fish and shellfish species. A key issue is that many of the most important demersal stocks (i.e. those that live on or near the bottom of the sea) are caught in mixed fisheries. In practice, this means that each time a vessel retrieves its fishing gear, its catch will consist of a mix of different species. The composition of that mixture will change depending on the type of fishing gear in use, and on when and where it is used.
For vessels catching fish stocks subject to total allowable catches (TACs) it means that they should stop fishing once their quota for that stock is exhausted. Prior to the adoption of Regulation 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 on the Common Fisheries Policy 1 (Basic Regulation) vessels did not have to stop fishing once their quota for one of these species was exhausted. Instead, they were able to continue fishing for other target species and, as a result, they continued to catch the species for which quotas were already exhausted, even though they could not legally land these catches. These catches in excess of the quota had to be discarded.
With the introduction of the landing obligation by the Basic Regulation, it becomes illegal to discard any catches in excess of the quota, once fully implemented. Accordingly, vessels might have to stop fishing early in the year once their quota for the most limiting stock is exhausted. In this case the most limiting stock would become what is known as a choke-species because, once the quota for that stock was exhausted, it would block the opportunities to continue fishing for other stocks. It is, therefore, desirable to account for the fact that some stocks are caught together in mixed fisheries when setting TACs for these stocks. Such an approach should have advantages for both stock conservation and for exploitation of the stocks. This proposal takes this approach.
The Basic Regulation aims at solving the problems of overfishing and discarding fish more effectively than past legislation. However, without additional legislation the Basic Regulation could lead to under-utilisation of quotas in the Western Waters mixed fisheries and it would not allow any exemptions from the landing obligation to be adopted after discard plans have expired.
In view of the interactions in Western Waters demersal fisheries, it is hence desirable to manage fishing opportunities in a mixed-fisheries perspective, which, given recent scientific advances, is now available. Such an approach would also be consistent with the ecosystem approach to fisheries management. The first step towards such adaptive management would be to incorporate all relevant stocks into a single management plan. This would include target fishing mortalities expressed in ranges for each of the stocks, where available, which would be the basis for setting annual TACs for those stocks. This would allow flexibility in TAC setting which could help reconcile difficulties arising in the mixed fishery context. Additionally, the plan would incorporate safeguard measures to give a framework to restore stocks when they fall below safe biological limits.
The objective of the proposal is to establish a management plan for demersal stocks, including deep-sea stocks, and their fisheries in the Western Waters. The plan will ensure the sustainable exploitation of these stocks, by ensuring that they are exploited according to the principles of maximum sustainable yield (MSY) and of the ecosystem approach to fisheries management as well as the precautionary approach. The plan will provide stability of fishing opportunities, while ensuring that management is based on the most up to date scientific information on stocks, mixed fisheries and other aspects of the ecosystem and environment. The plan will also facilitate the introduction of the landing obligation.
Stocks which determine fishermen's behaviour and are economically important should be managed in line with ranges of Fmsy. As a consequence, around 95% of landings in the Western Waters in terms of volume will be managed in line with the maximum sustainable yield. The remainder, i.e. stocks that are predominantly caught as by-catch, should be managed according to the precautionary approach.
The proposal is not an initiative within the Regulatory Fitness Programme (REFIT). Nevertheless, it would contribute to the simplification of applicable Union legislation. It is proposed to replace the five existing single-species based multi-annual plans adopted by separate regulations by bringing all multi-annual plans for the different demersal stocks into one regulation. The five existing single species plans are the following:
1.The multi-annual plan for the stock of herring distributed to the west of Scotland and the fisheries exploiting that stock (Regulation (EC) No 1300/2008);
2.The multi-annual plan for sole in the western Channel (Regulation (EC) 509/2007);
3.The multi-annual plan for sole in the Bay of Biscay (Regulation (EC) No 388/2006);
4.The recovery plan for the northern stock of hake (Regulation (EC) No 811/2004);
5.The recovery plan for hake and Norway lobster in the Iberian Peninsula (Regulation (EC) No 2166/2005).
The introduction of this new approach would allow achievement of the conservation objectives while, at the same time, permitting elimination of fishing effort limitations meaning that numerous reporting and control obligations would not be required. This results in a significant reduction of the administrative burden.
The plan will apply to all Union fishing vessels irrespective of their overall length fishing in the Western Waters as this is in conformity with the rules of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) and is in line with the effect of the vessels on the fish stocks concerned.
As of 1 January 2014 the Basic Regulation sets out the rules of the CFP, including the provisions on multi-annual plans, establishing the landing obligation for stocks subject to TACs and the so-called regionalisation. These provisions are reflected in the plan as follows:
·In line with the principles and objectives of multi-annual plans set out in Article 9 of the Basic Regulation the plan is a mixed fisheries plan, primarily based on the MSY objective;
·Article 10 of the Basic Regulation lists the content of multi-annual plans, which refers to the quantifiable targets. In this plan these targets, corresponding to maximum sustainable yield, are expressed as range values advised by ICES. These ranges allow for a maximum sustainable yield-based management for these stocks, while at the same time preserving a high level of predictability. Such targets are supplemented with safeguard provisions linked to a trigger conservation reference point. For fish stocks for which they are available, these reference points are expressed as a spawning stock biomass, which is obtained from ICES, usually through their benchmarking exercise. Similarly, for certain functional units of Norway lobster such reference points are expressed as abundance, where available. In the absence of advice on spawning biomass or abundance level, the trigger should be when scientific advice states that a stock is under threat. The same approach was followed to determine the objectives, targets and safeguards of the plan and for the implementation of the landing obligation as it is in the recently adopted Regulation (EU) No 2016/1139 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 2016 establishing a multiannual plan for the stocks of cod, herring and sprat in the Baltic Sea and the fisheries exploiting those stocks, amending Council Regulation (EC) No 2187/2005 and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1098/2007 2 ;
·Pursuant to Article 15 of the Basic Regulation the landing obligation in the Western Waters applies to pelagic species as from 2015, to certain demersal fisheries and species that define the fishery from 2016, and will apply to all other species subject to catch limits from 1 January 2019. In line with Article 16(7) of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013, Member States are required to allocate the TACs to vessels flying their flag taking into account the likely composition of the catch and the obligation to land all catches. In order to achieve this, Member States may adopt national measures, such as retaining certain reserves of the national TAC available for quota swaps with other Member States;
·In accordance with Article 18 of the Basic Regulation, Member States having a direct management interest may submit joint recommendations for, amongst others, certain measures to be adopted, where the Commission has been granted power to adopt implementing or delegated acts for achieving the objectives of a multi-annual plan. To this end, the plan establishes regional cooperation among Member States in respect of adopting provisions for the landing obligation and specific conservation measures for certain stocks.
In line with scientific advice from STECF, the plan does not include annual limits on fishing effort (the numbers of days at sea). However, Member States may establish capacity ceilings at national level.
• Consistency with existing policy provisions in the policy area
The Commission Proposal is consistent with the existing legal framework in the fisheries management in the Western Waters:
·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/EC1 sets the general framework for the CFP and identifies the situations in which the European Parliament and the Council shall adopt multi-annual plans.
·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 3 outlines technical conservation measures, i.e. catch composition rules, minimum mesh size, minimum landing size, closed areas and closed seasons for certain fisheries. It also establishes a limitation on drift netting. It is currently under review and will be replaced if the Commission Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the conservation of fishery resources and the protection of marine ecosystems through technical measures, amending Council Regulations (EC) No 1967/2006, (EC) No 1098/2007, (EC) No 1224/2009 and Regulations (EU) No 1343/2011 and (EU) No 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Council Regulations (EC) No 894/97, (EC) No 850/98, (EC) No 2549/2000, (EC) No 254/2002, (EC) No 812/2004 and (EC) No 2187/2005 4 is adopted.
·The annual Council Regulations fixing the fishing opportunities and associated conditions for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks applicable in the Western Waters set the TAC levels for the stocks concerned (most recent and currently binding is Council Regulation (EU) 2018/120 of 23 January 2018 fixing for 2018 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Union waters and, for Union fishing vessels, in certain non-Union waters 5 ).
·Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy, amending Regulations (EC) No 847/96, (EC) No 2371/2002, (EC) No 811/2004, (EC) No 768/2005, (EC) No 2115/2005, (EC) No 2166/2005, (EC) No 388/2006, (EC) No 509/2007, (EC) No 676/2007, (EC) No 1098/2007, (EC) No 1300/2008, (EC) No 1342/2008 and repealing Regulations (EEC) No 2847/93, (EC) No 1627/94 and (EC) No 1966/2006 6 (hereafter Council Regulation 1224/2009) sets the general control requirements for fisheries as well as specific control requirements for multi-annual plans.
·The Commission is proposing to apply dynamic references to ranges of FMSY and to conservation reference points. That approach guarantees that these parameters, which are essential for setting fishing opportunities, do not become outdated and the Council is always able to use the best available scientific advice. Moreover, the same approach providing dynamic references to the best available scientific advice should be followed for managing stocks in the Baltic Sea. Regulation (EU) 2016/1139 should therefore be modified.
·Consistency with other Union policies
The proposal and its objectives are consistent with the Union's policies, especially environmental, social, market and trade policies.
2. LEGAL BASIS, SUBSIDIARITY AND PROPORTIONALITY
·Legal basis
Article 43(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
·Subsidiarity principle
Provisions of the proposal relate to the conservation of marine biological resources, measures that fall under the exclusive competence of the Union. Consequently the subsidiarity principle does not apply.
·Proportionality principle
The proposed measures comply with the proportionality principle as they are appropriate, necessary and no other less restrictive measures are available to obtain the desired policy objectives.
·Choice of instrument
Proposed instrument: Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council.
3. RESULTS OF EX-POST EVALUATIONS, STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATIONS AND IMPACT ASSESSMENTS
Consultation has taken place at different levels, including stakeholders, scientists, public (including public administrations) and Commission services. It has followed a full evaluation process, set-up so that the initial tasks and questions to be addressed have been specified by the Commission, but the key inputs at all steps have come from scientists and other experts, and from stakeholders who have been fully involved throughout the process.
·Stakeholder consultations
Stakeholders have been consulted in a targeted manner through consultations with the North Western Waters Advisory Council and South Western Waters Advisory Council. Advisory Councils are stakeholder organisations, established by the previous CFP reform in 2002, that bring together the industry (fishing, processing and marketing sectors) and other interest groups, such as environmental and consumers' organisations. Advisory Councils are organised by sea basins and the above Advisory Councils provide advice on the fisheries within the geographical area covered by this Proposal.
A wide ranging, internet-based, public consultation was carried out from 22 May to 15 September 2015 7 . A total of 28 detailed contributions were received from Member States, the Advisory Councils, industry representative organisations, NGOs, and the general public. The main conclusions were as follows:
·The main problem was the fact that the stocks are not yet at MSY and hence the industry cannot fully enjoy benefits of sustainable fishing and the fact that the current multi-annual plans are inadequate to use the management measure of the new CFP;
·There is a need for the European Union to take action, which is also an obligation under the Treaty, but it should be done in collaboration with the fishing sector;
·There is strong preference to a multi-annual, proactive approach rather than an annual, reactive one. However, a reactive approach might still be needed in changing circumstances;
·There is a need for a transparent and stable framework to achieve MSY and for a legal framework for the long-term implementation of the landing obligation and the regional approach to fisheries management. Some comments pointed out that the scope should be wider and include environmental objectives;
·It is appropriate to establish a framework for managing the main species consistently within a multiannual management plan. It should reflect catch composition and quota allocation and be based on multi-species considerations. The framework should cover more species than only the main ones. Consistence should be sought with geographical distribution in biological and fishery terms;
·As it comes to the species to be covered by the plan, there was an evident division between professional organisations, preferring the plan to focus on the species leading the main fisheries, as covered by the discard plans in place from 2016 (e.g. cod, hake, megrims, anglerfish), while non-governmental organisations preferred the plan to cover a wider range of species that are caught as either main species or as by-catch.
·Fisheries management should take into account regional specificities and better involvement of stakeholders; precautionary approach should be applied.
Parallel to this public consultation, a targeted survey was done with more precise and technical questions. It was addressed to the Advisory Councils, to Member States authorities, to the PECH Committee of the European Parliament and to the NAT Committee of the European Economic and Social Committee.
·Collection and use of expertise
Most of the work and consultation necessary to cover the evaluation of the existing legislation has been carried out by scientists working through the auspices of the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee on Fisheries (STECF) and the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) as well as by the Marine Resources Assessment Group (MRAG) under a framework contract with the Commission.
·Ex-post evaluations/fitness checks of existing legislation
STECF, ICES and MRAG had conducted a number of evaluations of the current management plans for single species prior to the reform of the CFP. In addition, there is constant scientific review of the management measures in place.
The five existing management plans do not meet the requirements of the CFP nor of the conclusions of the Inter-institutional Task Force 8 and do not perform to achieve the objectives of the CFP. Reviews of current Multi-Annual Plans by the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee of Fisheries (STECF) and the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) 9 , concluded as follows:
·On the plan for herring in the West of Scotland, the 2015 ICES benchmark concluded that: 'there was no precautionary plan applied for the combined stocks. Combined assessment of 6aN and of 6aS/7bc herring was benchmarked in 2015. The stocks are combined because it is not possible to segregate them in commercial catches or surveys' 10 ;
·On the plan for Western Channel sole (Regulation (EC) 509/2007), STECF explained in 2014 that, the TAC restriction is the only effective element of the plan. Furthermore STECF concluded that: Given the multispecies nature of all the fisheries in the area, STECF considers that efficient management of the fisheries would best be achieved through the development and implementation of a regional multi-annual fishery management plan, as this would: make management more efficient and avoid problems of TAC unbalance. As regards the effort limitations, the STECF pointed out that the majority of fishing effort (expressed as kW days fishing) deployed in the Western Channel is effort that is not being regulated by the Management plan for sole and effort prescribed under the plan has not been restrictive for any fleets. If the effort is restricted, it is possible that vessels will return inshore where fuel costs are lower and sole abundance is higher. If this were to occur, catches of undersize plaice may also increase due to increased effort in nursery areas 11 ;
·The Bay of Biscay sole plan (Regulation (EC) No 388/2006) has the objective to rebuild the stock but no target has been set under the plan for reaching MSY; In 2011 STECF commented that, the plan requires that new biological targets be fixed once the stock has recovered to its precautionary biomass level 12 . Even if the stock reached this level in 2010, no revision has taken place;
·In the Northern hake plan (Regulation (EC) No 811/2004), the objective is considered to be achieved when the size of the spawning stock is kept above safe biological limits for two consecutive years. It is therefore not specifically designed to achieve MSY. Besides, ICES has reported that 'the current recovery plan (EC Reg. No. 811/2004) is based on precautionary reference points that are no longer appropriate' 13 ;
·Similar comments apply to the Southern hake and Norway lobster plan (Regulation (EC) No 2166/2005): it is not designed to achieve MSY and, according to ICES, it uses 'precautionary reference points that are no longer appropriate'. In 2010, STECF assessed that 'the F reduction from 2006 expected from the plan has not been achieved', while regulated fishing effort has declined, operative effort (catch weighted effort) has increased as effort transferred to gears that catch more hake with the same effort, and "Fmsy will probably not be reached by the intended date of 2015. In consequence the plan is not succeeding in achieving its stated objectives" 14 ;
The days at sea regime has also been criticised by some stakeholders for having perverse effects that damage the environment rather than preserving fish stocks, for instance because vessels with a limited budget of fishing days have to fish close to shore where juvenile fish concentrates.
·Impact assessment
The impact assessment for a Western Waters multi-annual plan has taken place in the context of the new CFP and the redrafting of the Technical Measures regulations. The new CFP includes, inter alia, a new landing obligation, a timeline to reach maximum sustainable yield (MSY) and regionalisation. Against this background, a number of reports, studies and contracts have provided background on these issues. The background includes:
·the reform of the CFP;
· impacts of the introduction of the landing obligation;
· socio-economic dimensions of the CFP;
· the development of a new technical measures regulation;
· mixed fisheries issues in the EU, including dealing with choke effects;
· considerations on management areas for the new multi-annual plans;
· considerations of managing using MSY.
Three legislative options were examined in detail in the impact assessment: Option 1 - to use existing relevant rules of the CFP, Option 2 - to establish a single mixed-fishery multi-annual plan, Option 3 – to replace the existing plans with several mixed-fisheries multi-annual plans.
Option 1 reflects the status quo which does not effectively address the problems of overfishing and ineffective governance (see sections 1.4 and 3). The problems of the status quo are instead precisely what the initiative intends to address. Due to the contradictory provisions that would hence remain in force, this option clearly does not reach the specific objectives.
Option 2 would imply one plan, covering all of Western Waters. This option would thereby take into account that many of the same Member States fish in both North and South Western Waters, and furthermore that several fleets fish in both Waters.
Furthermore one plan would still allow presenting joint recommendations covering specific fisheries in either the North Western Waters or South Western Waters respectively. In addition the proposals will follow exactly the same model for the North and South Western Waters, as adopted in the Multi-Annual Plan for the Baltic Sea, and awaiting the expected refinement brought about by the Multi-Annual Plan for the North Sea.
Option 3 would imply two plans, covering North Western Waters and South Western Waters respectively. The difference between this and option 2 would thereby be that this option would reflect the current set-up for regionalisation, as these two areas are covered by the Advisory Councils for the North Western Waters and the Advisory Council for the South Western Waters respectively. These are the areas which have been used by the North Western Waters MS Group and the South Western Waters MS Group to produce Joint Recommendation for the discard plans.
Two plans would thereby work as a natural prolongation of the work done through the discard plans in assessing the management requirements in the fisheries, in order to meet the objectives of the CFP (i.e. implement the landing obligation and reach MSY).
Whilst Options 2 and 3 both scored higher than the baseline Option 1, the preceding analyses demonstrated that the Option 2: a single mixed fisheries multiannual plan for all Western Waters scored best on the following criteria:
·Effectiveness and efficiency;
·Reducing administrative burden;
·Achieving the overall main objectives of the CFP;
·Providing a management framework facilitating stability and predictability.
Additionally, a single management plan will simplify the legal framework and reduce the administrative burden on Member States and industry.
·Regulatory fitness and simplification
Although this plan is not linked to REFIT, it reduces the regulatory burdens as it would replace five regulations to be merged in this plan. In addition, it would abolish the complex days-at-sea schemes, which required additional administrative resources to manage and monitor.
The current system imposes important economic cost on businesses and especially SMEs; those losses are being caused by complex regulation and will be avoided in future (direct benefits of simplification). Sustainable exploitation will give higher profitability leading to improved economic performance. Fishermen will have more liberty to decide where and when to fish. The elimination of the fishing effort regime not only reduces the administrative burden, including heavy reporting, for the industry, but also the burden of the national administrations in processing and monitoring such reports.
The management plan for herring in the West of Scotland, laid down in the Council Regulation (EC) No 1300/2008 would be repealed. The plan has become obsolete due to the change in the scientific perception of the stocks involved.
·Fundamental rights
4. BUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS
No
Contents
5. OTHER ELEMENTS
·Implementation plans and monitoring, evaluation and reporting arrangements
The plan foresees the periodic evaluation of its impact on the stocks concerned based on scientific advice. It is paramount to identify an appropriate period for such evaluation: a period that allows for regionalised measures to be adopted, implemented and to show effects on the stocks and fishery. It should also take account of the working method of scientific bodies, including their regular benchmarking. Recently, scientific advice could not be delivered due to insufficient data or trends to be evaluated, when the evaluation concerned a period of three years. Accordingly, the plan should be evaluated every five years.
In this respect it has to be noted that the periodic evaluation of the impact of the plan does not prevent the legislators from amending the plan, should it be required by new developments.
·Detailed explanation of the specific provisions of the proposal
In accordance with the overall ambition of the CFP on the conservation of fisheries resources and with specific regards to Articles 9 and 10 of the Basic Regulation which require the development of multi-annual plans, the main elements of the plan are:
·The scope of the plan is demersal stocks, including deep-sea stocks, in the Western Waters and the fisheries exploiting those stocks. The plan also covers implementation of the landing obligation and technical measures for all stocks and the fisheries exploiting those stocks in the Western Waters.
·Objectives and targets (achieve levels of fishing mortality consistent with the principle of maximum sustainable yield). In accordance with Article 10 of the Basic Regulation the targets should be quantifiable. The proposed targets are expressed as fishing mortality ranges around FMSY as advised by ICES. These FMSY ranges allow for a maximum sustainable yield-based management for the stocks concerned, and appear to allow for adaptations in case of changes in the scientific advice, while at the same time preserving a high level of predictability;
·Conservation reference points, expressed in tonnes of spawning stock biomass or abundance in numbers, included in the plan are determined by ICES, usually through their benchmarking exercise. In the absence of advice on spawning stock biomass or abundance reference points, action should be taken when scientific advice states that a stock is under threat.
·Safeguards and specific conservation measures are linked to the conservation reference points. When scientific advice states that any of the stocks concerned is below that point, the TAC for that stock should be reduced This measure may be complemented as necessary by measures such as technical measures, Commission or Member State emergency measures.
·Provisions related to the landing obligation to be adopted under regionalisation, which are necessary for full implementation of the landing obligation. They will also provide for a legal basis for any possible future high survivability or de minimis exemptions, in line with scientific advice.