COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying the document PROPOSAL FOR A REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL Establishing a multiannual plan for the fisheries exploiting demersal stocks in the western Mediterranean Sea

EN EN
EUROPEAN
COMMISSION
Brussels, 8.3.2018
SWD(2018) 60 final
PART 1/6
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT
IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Accompanying the document
PROPOSAL FOR A REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF
THE COUNCIL
Establishing a multiannual plan for the fisheries exploiting demersal stocks in the
western Mediterranean Sea
{COM(2018) 115 final} - {SWD(2018) 59 final}
Europaudvalget 2018
KOM (2018) 0115
Offentligt
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
GLOSSARY.......................................................................................................................iii
ACRONYMS .....................................................................................................................vi
1. INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................... 1
1.1. Rationale and main elements of the Common Fisheries Policy........................ 1
1.2. The CFP in the Mediterranean Sea: the ‘Catania process’................................ 2
1.3. Other relevant pieces of legislation................................................................... 3
The Mediterranean Regulation............................................................ 3
1.3.1.
Technical Measures Regulation .......................................................... 4
1.3.2.
Control Regulation .............................................................................. 5
1.3.3.
EU environmental legislation.............................................................. 5
1.3.4.
GFCM decisions.................................................................................. 6
1.3.5.
1.4. Scope of the initiative........................................................................................ 6
2. WHAT IS THE PROBLEM AND WHY IS IT A PROBLEM? ................................ 9
2.1. Nature and drivers of the problem................................................................... 10
Overfishing........................................................................................ 10
2.1.1.
Ineffective regulatory framework...................................................... 14
2.1.2.
2.2. Consequences of the identified problems........................................................ 17
Alarming state of demersal stocks..................................................... 17
2.2.1.
Environmental impacts: trophic interactions & non-target species... 19
2.2.2.
Socio-economic impacts ................................................................... 19
2.2.1.
2.3. Affected stakeholders...................................................................................... 20
Fishing sector .................................................................................... 20
2.3.1.
Processing sector............................................................................... 21
2.3.2.
Public administrations....................................................................... 21
2.3.3.
Others representing society at large .................................................. 21
2.3.4.
2.4. The evolution of the problem (baseline) ......................................................... 23
Overfishing........................................................................................ 23
2.4.1.
Ineffective regulatory framework...................................................... 23
2.4.2.
3. WHY SHOULD THE EU ACT? .............................................................................. 24
4. WHAT SHOULD BE ACHIEVED? ........................................................................ 25
4.1. General objectives........................................................................................... 25
4.2. Specific objectives........................................................................................... 25
ii
5. WHAT ARE THE VARIOUS OPTIONS TO ACHIEVE THE OBJECTIVES? .... 27
5.1. Discarded policy options................................................................................. 27
5.2. Retained policy options................................................................................... 29
Option 1: No policy change (baseline).............................................. 29
5.2.1.
Option 2: Amending the existing management framework .............. 29
5.2.2.
Option 3: Adopting an EU multi-annual plan ................................... 30
5.2.3.
6. WHAT ARE THE IMPACTS OF THE DIFFERENT POLICY OPTIONS AND
WHO WILL BE AFFECTED? ................................................................................. 34
6.1. Option 1: No policy change at EU level (baseline scenario) .......................... 34
6.2. Option 2: Amending the current management framework.............................. 36
Environmental impacts...................................................................... 36
6.2.1.
Socio-economic impacts ................................................................... 36
6.2.1.
6.3. Option 3: Adopting an EU multi-annual plan ................................................. 37
Environmental impacts...................................................................... 37
6.3.1.
Socio-economic impacts ................................................................... 37
6.3.2.
7. HOW DO THE DIFFERENT OPTIONS COMPARE? ........................................... 38
7.1. Effectiveness ................................................................................................... 38
7.2. Efficiency ........................................................................................................ 41
7.3. Coherence........................................................................................................ 41
7.4. Acceptability ................................................................................................... 42
7.5. The preferred option........................................................................................ 43
8. HOW WOULD ACTUAL IMPACTS BE MONITORED AND EVALUATED? .. 44
8.1. Monitoring....................................................................................................... 44
8.2. Evaluation........................................................................................................ 45
ANNEX 1: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION ................................................................ 46
ANNEX 2: STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION.......................................................... 50
ANNEX 3: WHO IS AFFECTED BY THIS INITIATIVE AND HOW ........................ 60
ANNEX 4: ANALYTICAL MODELS USED ................................................................ 62
ANNEX 5: MAIN ELEMENTS OF THE CFP ............................................................... 68
ANNEX 6: OVERVIEW OF THE NATIONAL MANAGEMENT PLANS ................. 71
ANNEX 7: TRANSBOUNDARY NATURE OF THE STOCKS................................... 73
ANNEX 8: ALARMING STATE OF MOST DEMERSAL STOCKS........................... 77
ANNEX 9: IMPACTS OF THE DIFFERENT OPTIONS .............................................. 97
iii
GLOSSARY
Biomass The sum of weights (total mass) of individuals in a stock or
population.
BLIM A biological reference point. The stock size below which there is a
risk of reduced reproduction leading to a reduction in recruitment;
also a benchmark used to indicate when harvests should be
constrained substantially so that the stock remains within safe
biological limits.
Closure Banning of fishing at times or seasons (temporal closures) or in
particular areas (spatial closures), or a combination of both.
Co-management Either informal or legal arrangements between government
representatives, community groups and other user groups to take
responsibility for and manage a fishery resource and its environment
on a cooperative way.
Conservation reference
point
Value of fish stock population parameters (such as biomass or
fishing mortality rate) used in fisheries management, for example to
indicate an acceptable level of biological risk or a desired level of
yield.
Days at sea Allowed maximum time for fishing trips allocated to vessels per
year, depending on their type of fishing gear.
Demersal Living in close relation with the sea bottom and depending on it.
Species such as hake, red mullet, sole and lobsters are demersal
resources.
Discard Legal unwanted catches returned to the sea during fishing
operations, either dead or alive.
Discard plan A plan laying down specifications for implementing the landing
obligation in a given geographical area and fisheries or for a given
species. The proposal stems from the joint recommendation
prepared by the Member States concerned and in line with the
scientific advice. It is then adopted as a Commission delegated act.
Fishing activities Searching for fish, shooting, setting, towing, hauling of fishing
gear, taking catch on board, transhipping, retaining on board,
processing on board, transferring, caging, fattening and landing of
fish and fishery products.
Fishing capacity A vessel’s tonnage in GT (gross tonnage) and its power in kW
(kilowatt) as defined in Articles 4 and 5 of Council Regulation
(EEC) No 2930/86.
Fishing effort The product of the capacity and the activity of a fishing vessel; for a
group of fishing vessels, it is the sum of the fishing effort of all
vessels in the group; also the amount of fishing gear of a specific
type used on the fishing grounds over a given unit of time (e.g.
hours trawled per day, number of hooks set per day, or number of
hauls of a seine per day).
Fishing mortality (F) An expression of the rate at which fish are removed from a stock by
fishing (including fish discarded). It is approximately the stock
annual removal expressed in percentage.
iv
Fish stock A marine biological resource that occurs in a given management
area; also the living resources in the community or population from
which catches are taken in a fishery. Use of the term fish stock
usually implies that the particular population is more or less isolated
from other stocks of the same species and hence self-sustaining.
FMSY The fishing mortality rate that, if applied constantly, would result in
an average catch corresponding to the MSY and an average biomass
corresponding to BMSY.
Fishery restricted area Or ‘fishing protected area’. A geographically defined sea area in
which all or certain fishing activities are temporally or permanently
banned or restricted to improve the exploitation and conservation of
living aquatic resources or the protection of marine ecosystems. See
also ‘closure’.
Gillnets With this type of gear, fish are gilled, entangled or enmeshed in the
netting. These nets can be either alone or, as is more usual, in large
numbers placed in line.
Input controls Limitations on the amount of fishing effort or restrictions on the
number, type and size of fishing vessels or fishing gear in a fishery.
Juvenile A young fish that has not reached sexual maturity.
Landing obligation The obligation to land all catches in the respective fishery in
accordance with Article 15 of Regulation (EU) 1380/2013 on the
Common Fisheries Policy.
Longlines Fishing method using a horizontal mainline to which weights and
baited hooks are attached at regular intervals.
Maximum sustainable
yield (MSY)
The highest theoretical equilibrium yield that can be continuously
taken on average from a stock under existing average environmental
conditions without significantly affecting the reproduction process.
Minimum conservation
reference size (MCRS)
The size of a living marine aquatic species taking into account
maturity, as established by EU law, below which restrictions or
incentives apply that aim to avoid capture through fishing activity.
Multi-species fishery Fishery in which more than one species is caught at the same time.
Output controls Limitations on the weight of the catch (a quota), or the allowable
size, sex or reproductive condition of individuals in the catch.
Overcapacity A level of fishing pressure that threatens to reduce a stock below
the abundance necessary to support the MSY and allow economically
sustainable fishing industry.
Overfishing A situation where a stock is subjected to a rate or level of fishing
mortality that jeopardises the stock’s capacity to produce the MSY
on a continuing basis.
PESCAMED A high-level group consisting of fisheries directors from France,
Italy and Spain and implementing the regionalisation approach in
the western Mediterranean Sea basin.
Polyvalent vessel A vessel carrying out multiple fisheries by using more than one
fishing gear.
v
Pots Trap designed to catch fish or crustaceans, in the form of cages or
baskets made with various materials and with one or more openings
or entrances.
Precautionary approach to
fisheries management
An approach according to which the absence of adequate scientific
information should not justify postponing or failing to take
management measures to conserve target species, associated or
dependent species and non-target species and their environment.
Recruitment The amount of fish added to the exploitable stock each year due to
growth and/or migration into the fishing area. For example, the
number of fish that grow to become vulnerable to the fishing gear in
one year would be the recruitment to the fishable population that
year.
Reference point The value of some indicator (say spawning stock size) which
corresponds to a desirable position (a target reference point) or an
undesirable position (limit reference point, BLIM; or threshold, BPA)
that requires urgent action.
Regionalisation The process by which Member States with a direct management
interest for fisheries in a given geographical region organise
themselves with the aim of agreeing on common measures within
EU waters (Article 18 of the CFP).
Safeguard measures A precautionary measure designed to avoid something undesirable
occurring.
Small-scale coastal fisheries Fishing carried out by fishing vessels of an overall length of less
than 12 metres and not using towed fishing gear as listed in Table 3
of Annex I to Commission Regulation (EC) No 26/2004.
Spawning stock biomass
(SSB)
The total weight of all fish (both males and females) in the
population that contribute to reproduction. Often defined as the
biomass of all individuals beyond ‘age/size at first maturity’.
Stock assessment Quantitative study that leads to predictions of how stocks will
respond under various management actions.
Target species The resource species at which a fishing operation is directed.
Technical measures Measure establishing conditions for the use and structure of fishing
gear and restrictions on access to fishing areas.
Total allowable catch
(TAC)
The maximum catch allowed from a fishery in accordance with a
specified management plan.
Trammel nets Bottom-set net made up of three walls of netting, the two outer
walls being of a larger mesh size than the loosely hung inner netting
panel. The fish get entangled in the inner small meshed wall after
passing through the outer wall.
Trawl nets Towed net consisting of a cone-shaped body closed by a bag or
cod-end and extended at the opening by wings. It can be towed by
one or two boats and, according to the type, used on the bottom
(demersal) or in midwater (pelagic).
vi
ACRONYMS
CFP Common Fisheries Policy
EC European Commission
EMFF European Maritime and Fisheries Fund
EU European Union
EUMOFA European Market Observatory for Fisheries and Aquaculture
DCF Data collection framework
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
FTE Full-time equivalent
GFCM General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean
GFCM-SAC Scientific Advisory Committee of the GFCM
GSA Geographical sub-area
JRC Joint Research Centre
MCRS Minimum Conservation Reference Size
MEDAC Mediterranean Advisory Council
MEDREG Mediterranean Regulation
MSFD Marine Strategy Framework Directive
MSY Maximum sustainable yield
NGO Non-governmental organisation
RMFOs Regional Management Fisheries Organisations
SME Small and medium-sized enterprise
SSB Spawning stock biomass
STECF Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries
TAC Total allowable catch
TFEU Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
1
1. INTRODUCTION
This impact assessment addresses the future framework to manage fisheries exploiting
demersal stocks in the western Mediterranean Sea. It identifies the problems, including their
drivers and consequences, and sets the objectives. It also outlines the main policy options and
examines the potential impacts of these options from an environmental, social and economic
viewpoint. The ultimate goal is to ensure that the policy decision is prepared in an open,
transparent manner and with the best available knowledge. This impact assessment fulfils the
requirements of the Better Regulation Guidelines1
.
1.1. Rationale and main elements of the Common Fisheries Policy
Given their migratory and transboundary nature, European fishery resources must be managed
jointly among the Europeancountries involved, hence the need fora Common Fisheries Policy2
.
The most recent Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) entered into force on 1 January 20143
. Its
main goal is to ensure that fishing activities are environmentally sustainable and managed in a
waythat is consistent with theobjectives of achievingeconomic, socialandemploymentbenefits.
The CFP has in place three main tools for fisheries management:
 Fishing effort regime regulates access to fisheries resources through limitations on the
number, type and size of fishing vessels or fishing gears and on the amount of time
(i.e. these are ‘input controls’). This is the traditional way of managing fisheries in the
Mediterranean Sea. Also in other EU waters, maximum allowable fishing efforts have
been fixed as a complementary measure.
 Total allowable catch (TAC) regulates access to fisheries resources by setting of
maximum allowable catches for an individual species or group of species (this system
is known as ‘output controls’). TAC is the basis for allocating national fishing quotas
among Member States. This management measure has not been implemented for
Mediterranean fisheries, with the exception of Bluefin tuna and swordfish4
.
 Technical measures set out the rules to protect fish stocks (often juveniles) and the
ecosystems in which they live, and to minimise unwanted catches (e.g. the use and
structure of fishing gears and restrictions on access to fishing areas).
The CFP introduces multi-annual plans as the dedicated framework for managing fish stocks
in an integrated manner by fishery and sea basin. The rationale has been to provide greater
transparency, predictabilityand stability of the management rules. Even though this instrument
was introduced into the CFP of 2002, it has never been applied in the Mediterranean Sea at
EU level. Nevertheless, with the current CFP, multi-annual plans have become a priority in all
Union waters given their success in improving the status of stocks and the economic
performance of the fishing sector. To date, one ‘new generation’ multi-annual plan has been
adopted by the European Parliament and Council on the fisheries exploiting cod, herring and
1
SWD(2017)350. Commission staff working document: Better Regulation Guidelines. Brussels, 7.7.2017.
2
Penas Lado (2016). The Common Fisheries Policy: The quest for sustainability. Wiley Blackwell, p. 375.
3
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
2004/585/EC; OJ L 354, 28.12.2013, p. 22–61.
4
As highly migratory species, Bluefin tuna and swordfish are managed within the framework of the
International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT).
2
sprat in the Baltic Sea5
. In addition, two Commission proposals establishing multi-annual plans
in the North Sea6
and in the Adriatic Sea7
are under discussion and an additional proposal on
the western waters of the Atlantic Sea will follow soon.
The CFP introduced for the first time the obligation to land all catches subject to catch limits
and, in the Mediterranean Sea, subject to minimum conservation reference sizes (MCRSs).
This is a measure designed to increase selectivity and gradually eliminate discards. On a
temporary basis, the details on how the landing obligation is to be implemented are laid down
in discard plans.
Another important element introduced by the current CFP is regionalisation. This was
introduced to decentralise the policy to some extent, while enhancing stakeholders’
involvement in the decision-making process through the use of advisory councils. It also
allows for a degree of flexibility to incorporate the specific characteristics of each sub-region.
Regionalisation can be applied in the context of multi-annual plans, discard plans, when
establishing stock recovery areas, or in other conservation measures necessary to comply with
the CFP obligations.
1.2. The CFP in the Mediterranean Sea: the ‘Catania process’
Two aspects of the CFP reform marked a turning point in the Mediterranean Sea: the first was
greater integration of the somewhat neglected Mediterranean fisheries into the policy; the
second was the setting of concrete, quantifiable and time-based targets. These aspects made
more evident the severe overfishing of the large majority of assessed stocks in the sea basin,
the imbalanced economic performance for many fleet segments and the need to take action to
comply with the goals set.
In this context, a high-level seminar on the status of fish stocks held in Catania in February
2016 was the starting point to develop a new strategy for the sustainable exploitation of
Mediterranean fisheries. The seminar acknowledged: (i) the progress made on scientific
advice; (ii) the adoption (to a lesser extent) of management measures for certain fish stocks;
and (iii) the fruitful inter-governmental cooperation under the General Fisheries Commission
for the Mediterranean (GFCM). On the other hand, the meeting also showed that these
positive developments had not translated into an improvement in the status of the fish stocks.
More than 90% of the evaluated commercial stocks are severally overexploited well beyond
safe biological limits, while the state of many other stocks remains unknown8
. To confront
this situation, participants unanimously called for a renewed commitment to take concrete
action to restore Mediterranean fisheries.
Thispositivepoliticalmomentum(the variousevents are detailed in the stakeholder consultation
in Annex 2) has given a clear sign of the EU’s determination to reach the sustainability goals
set in the CFP. This initiative is part of the action taken at EU level to restore fish stocks at
sustainable levels in the western Mediterranean Sea.
5
Regulation (EU) 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; OJ L 191, 15.7.2016, p. 1–15.
6
COM(2016)493. Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a
multi-annual plan for demersal stocks in the North Sea and the fisheries exploiting those stocks and
repealing Council Regulation (EC) 676/2007 and Council Regulation (EC) 1342/2008. Brussels, 3.8.2016.
7
COM(2017)097. Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a
multi-annual plan for small pelagic stocks in the Adriatic Sea and the fisheries exploiting those stocks.
Brussels, 24.2.2017.
8
STECF(2016). EU Science and Fisheries: overview in the Mediterranean basin. February 2016, Catania.
3
The process culminated with the signature of the Ministerial Declaration on the sustainability
of Mediterraneanfisheries (March 2017)9
. The declaration lays down a new strategic framework
for fisheriesgovernance in the region and an ambitious set of concrete actions with measurable
deliverables for the next 10 years. The implementation of this new commitment is expected to
reversethe decline of stocks and lead towards the sustainability of Mediterranean fisheries.
1.3. Other relevant pieces of legislation
The overarching objectives of the CFP are implemented through specific pieces of legislation.
For the purpose of this impact assessment, the most relevant are the Mediterranean Regulation,
the Technical Measures Regulation, the Control Regulation, the various environmental
directives and the international decisions.
The Mediterranean Regulation
1.3.1.
In 2006, the EU established for the first time a dedicated management framework for the
sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources in the Mediterranean Sea, known as the
‘MEDREG’10,11
. The MEDREG applies to the conservation, management and exploitation of
living aquatic resources. Its main elements are as follows:
 It prohibits fishing with certain nets above protected habitats such as seagrass beds
(in particular, Posidonia oceanica), coralligenous habitats and maerl beds.
 It protects coastal zones, allowing towed and surrounding nets to operate only at a
certain distance from the coast and/or at a minimum depth.
 It requires the designation of additional fishing protected areas in the territorial
waters of the Member States.
 It sets the technical characteristics for fishing gears, such as minimum mesh sizes
and minimum distances and depths for the use of fishing gears.
 It prohibits the catching, retention on board, transhipment, landing, storage or sale of
marine organisms smaller than the minimum sizes.
 It prohibits the market and use of towed nets, surrounding nets, purse seines, dredges
gillnets, trammels nets and combined bottom-set net for recreational fisheries.
 It requires Member States to adopt national management plans for fisheries
conducted by trawl nets, boat seines, shore seines, surrounding nets and dredges
within their territorial waters.
Under the MEDREG, national management plans are the key instrument regulating specific
fisheries in territorial waters. This includes fishing by trawl nets, boat seines, shore seines,
surrounding nets and dredges (static gears such as longlines, gillnets or trammel nets are not
covered by the MEDREG). More specifically, demersal fisheries in the western Mediterranean
Sea are covered by three Italian management plans for bottom trawlers (adopted in one single
piece of legislation in 2011)12
, one French management plan for trawlers (adopted in 2013)13
9
Ministerial Conference on the Sustainability of Mediterranean Fisheries; Malta MedFish4Ever Ministerial
Declaration (Malta, 30 March 2017).
10
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; OJ L 36, 8.2.2007, p. 6–30.
11
Before that date, only a set of technical measures were defined under Council Regulation (EC) No 1626/94
of 27 June 1994 laying down certain technical measures for the conservation of fishery resources in the
Mediterranean; OJ L 161, 6.7.1994, p. 1-6.
12
Decreto 20 maggio 2011 relativo all'adozione Piani di gestione della flotta a strascico in sostituzione del
decreto direttoriale n. 44 del 17 giugno 2010; GU Serie Generale n.154 del 5-7-2011; p. 2.
4
and one Spanish management plan for trawlers (entered into force in 2013)14
. The plans are
based on input controls, i.e. limiting the fishing effort. This management approach typically
includes measures such as restrictions on the fishing gear, restrictions on the number of
fishing authorisations and licences, the setting of a maximum number of fishing days, and
permanent/temporary cessations (see Annex 6 for a more detailed description of the three
national management plans, including their synergies and inconsistencies). As will be shown
in Section 2, these measures are not restrictive enough to guide fisheries towards the
conservation objectives set in the MEDREG and the CFP.
Retrospective evaluation of the MEDREG
A retrospective evaluation of the MEDREG was recently undertaken15
, given that eight years
had passed since its adoption. The objectives of the evaluation were to: (i) review Member
States’ implementation of the Regulation; (ii) analyse to what extent the objectives had been
reached; and (iii) examine the extent to which the Regulation was fit to contribute to
delivering the objectives of the CFP. For the purpose of this impact assessment report, we will
present the main conclusions of one of the four case studies dedicated to the Gulf of Lions
(i.e. the northern part of the western Mediterranean Sea).
Overall, the original objectives of the MEDREG remain highly relevant in the Gulf of Lions
today as most stocks remain overfished and overfishing continues. Under the reformed CFP,
this situation has not changed significantly. Even though the MEDREG may have contributed
to some reduction in fishing effort, the evaluation shows that the effectiveness of the
Regulation has been limited. Another relevant finding, which remains a major concern, was
that the MEDREG has not had any significant impact on regulating recreational fisheries.
According to the evaluation, some stakeholders consider that the MEDREG needs to be
widened to include additional measures for small scale and recreational activities.
All in all, the effects of the MEDREG in the Gulf of Lions may be considered mixed. On one
hand, it strengthened the legislative framework and monitoring of several fisheries and
boosted cooperation between research institutes, managing authorities and industry. On the
other hand, the MEDREG has not yet resulted in the sustainable exploitation of fisheries in
the Mediterranean Sea and so its effectiveness and efficiency are considered to be low.
Technical Measures Regulation
1.3.2.
‘Technical measures’ are the 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. Currently there are three specific technical measures
regulations applying in European fisheries: one in the north-east Atlantic Ocean, another in
the Baltic Sea and one in the Mediterranean (i.e. the MEDREG, as described in Section 1.3.1).
Due to the complexity and disjointed regulatory structure, in 2016 the Commission tabled a
proposal for a single and integrated technical measures framework16
. This proposal contains
13
Arrêté du 28 janvier 2013 portant création d’un régime d’effort de pêche pour la pêche professionnelle au
chalut en mer Méditerranée par les navires battant pavillon français; NOR: TRAM1240482A, p. 3275-2378.
14
Orden AAA/2808/2012, de 21 de diciembre, por la que se establece un Plan de Gestión Integral para la
conservación de los recursos pesqueros en el Mediterráneo afectados por las pesquerías realizadas con redes
de cerco, redes de arrastre y artes fijos y menores, para el período 2013-2017; No 313, p. 7.
15
MRAG(2016). Accompanying study: Retrospective evaluation study of the Mediterranean Sea Regulation.
Final report, pp. 230. (pending publication in the Publication Office of the European Union).
16
COM(2016)134. 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.
Brussels, 11.3.2016.
5
general provisions applicable to all EU fishing vessels and a set of annexes detailing the
specific characteristics of each sub-region. In the case of the Mediterranean Sea, many
technicalmeasuresintroducedinthe MEDREG (such as mesh sizes) will be integrated into this
new framework. The adoption of the technical measures regulation is expected during 2018.
Control Regulation
1.3.3.
The measures establishing a Union control system for ensuring compliance with rules of the
CFP are provided for in the Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/200917
. This regime aims at
ensuring that Member States comply with control obligations and operate an efficient control
system, while ensuring rules are applied in the same harmonised way across the EU. It is also
intended as a means to develop a culture of compliance with the CFP and ensure level playing
field among operators, making more use of modern technologies and implementing a
systematic crosschecking of data to improve its quality.
The first five years evaluation of the Control Regulation was concluded in 201718
. The
European Commission recently launched the initiative for the revision of the Fishery Control
System. The revision aims among others at bridging the gaps with the reformed CFP,
improving availability, reliability and completeness of fisheries data and information and
simplify the current legislative framework. Preparation and consultations on the revision of
the Fishery Control System are taking place in parallel with this initiative.
EU environmental legislation
1.3.4.
Under its Article 2(5), the CFP must be coherent with the Union’s environmental legislation,
in particular with the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) which aims at achieving
good environmental status of the EU’s marine waters by 202019
. Other Union policies also
need to be taken into account, specifically: Directive 2009/147/EC of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds,
including the action plan for reducing incidental catches of seabirds in fishing gears20,21
; and
Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of
wild fauna and flora22
.
The full implementation of those Directives is to be achieved in close cooperation with the
UN Convention on Biological Diversity and the Convention for the Protection of the
Mediterranean Sea Against Pollution (‘the Barcelona Convention’).
17
Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 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.
18
COM(2017)192. Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council: Implementation
and evaluation of Regulation (EC) 1224/2009 establishing a Union control system for ensuring compliance
with the rules of the common fisheries policy as required under Article 118, REFIT Evaluation of the impact
of the fisheries regulation {SWD(2017) 134 final}. Brussels, 24.4.2017.
19
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); OJ L 164, 25.6.2008, p. 19–40.
20
Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the
conservation of wild birds; OJ L 20, 26.1.2010, p. 7–25.
21
COM(2012)665. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council
concerning an Action Plan for reducing incidental catches of seabirds in fishing gears. Brussels, 16.11.2012.
22
Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and
flora; OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7–50.
6
GFCM decisions
1.3.5.
The General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM) is a regional fisheries
management organisation established under the Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations (FAO). Its main objective is to ensure the conservation and sustainable use, at
the environmental, economic and social levels, of living marine resources in the Mediterranean
and Black Seas. To reach this goal, every year the GFCM adopts binding decisions for
fisheries conservation and management in its area of application in accordance with the Mid-
term Strategy23
and the scientific advice. For the western Mediterranean Sea, in 2009 the
GFCM adopted a recommendation establishing a fisheries restricted area in the Gulf of Lions
to protect spawning aggregations (particularly for hake) and deep sea sensitive habitats24
. The
regional cooperation is part of the discussions at the GFCM, whereas at scientific level is
ensured by the FAO sub-regional project COPEMED II25
.
1.4. Scope of the initiative
The European coastline of the western Mediterranean Sea extends along the Alboran Sea and
the Tyrrhenian Sea, covering the Balearic archipelago and the islands of Corsica and Sardinia.
This corresponds to the GFCM geographical sub-areas (GSAs) 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11
(see Figure 1.1). Its geomorphology is characterised by an irregular coastline and a narrow
continental shelf that is almost non-existent in certain areas such as the coast of Andalusia,
but very wide in the areas of Castellon-Valencia, the Gulf of Lions, and between Italy and
northern Corsica. The areas of wide continental shelf are of great importance to fisheries,
particularly to bottom trawlers.
Figure 1.1 Geographical sub-areas (GSAs) in the GFCM area of application, as established in Resolution
GFCM/33/2009/226
. For the purpose of this initiative, the ‘western Mediterranean Sea’ covers GSAs 1, 2, 5, 6, 7,
8, 9, 10, and 11 (blue area).
23
Resolution GFCM/40/2016/2 for a mid-term strategy (2017–2020) towards the sustainability of
Mediterranean and Black Sea fisheries.
24
Recommendation GFCM/33/2009/1 on the establishment of a Fisheries Restricted Area in the Gulf of Lions
to protect spawning aggregations and deep sea sensitive habitats.
25
COPEMED II aims at promoting scientific cooperation among the coastal nations in the western and central
Mediterranean Sea, through coordinated scientific investigations and data-gathering.
26
Resolution GFCM/33/2009/2 on the establishment of Geographical Sub-Areas in the GFCM area amending
the resolution GFCM/31/2007/2.
7
The western Mediterranean Sea is undoubtedly the most developed sub-region in terms of
fisheries. Around 31 % of the Mediterranean Sea’s total landing value comes from this sub-
region (EUR 1.35 billion out of a total of EUR 4.76 billion). In addition, around 19 % of the
officially reported Mediterranean fishing fleet operates in the western Mediterranean Sea27
.
Demersal species do not account for the largest share of the landings, but they are highly
sought after by fishermen due to their high commercial value. The demersal fisheries in the
Mediterranean Sea are highly complex, composed of a large number of species of fish and
crustaceans. The main demersal species caught in the western Mediterranean Sea are hake
(Merlucciusmerluccius), red mullet (Mullus barbatus), anglerfish (Lophius spp.), blue whiting
(Micromesistius poutassou), giant red shrimp (Aristaeomorpha foliacea), deep-water rose
shrimp (Parapenaeus longirostris), blue and red shrimp (Aristeus antennatus) and Norway
lobster (Nephrops norvegicus) (see volume and value of landings in Table 1.1).
A number of the demersal species are coastal, e.g. grey mullet, seabream, seabass. The upper
zones of the continental shelf are inhabited by red mullet, sole, poor cod, whiting, juvenile
hake and octopus. On the slope there are many species of great economic interest. On the
upper part of the slope (200-400 metres) we find adult hake, Norway lobster and various
shrimps. In deeper waters (400 to 800 metres), the dominant species are the greater forkbeard,
blue whiting and red shrimps. Aschematic representation of the exploited fish stocks according
to depth is provided in Figure 1.2.
Many fishing gears are used to exploit these species. Bottom trawl is the main gear and has
the largest catch and fleet power. These are modern fleets operating mainly in the wider
continental shelf and the slopes. Usually vessels leave the port in the morning and return
during the afternoon. French bottom trawlers, for example, often cross the entire continental
shelf of the Gulf of Lions to reach the highly productive submarine canyons. These canyons
are commonly exploited together with Spanish vessels based in the northernmost ports of
Catalonia (e.g. Roses).
Passive gears such as trammel nets, gillnets, traps and longlines are also important in the
exploitation of demersal species. Most species distributed in the continental shelf, particularly
those living close to the bottom, are targeted by trammel nets and gillnets. Longlines are used
to catch mainly adult hake and other species located in deep waters (see Figure 1.2).
Table 1.1 Main demersal species exploited using bottom trawlers (i.e. bottom otter trawls, otter twin trawls,
midwater otter trawls), passive gears (i.e. gillnets, trammel nets and traps) and longlines (set and drifting
longlines) in the western Mediterranean Sea, expressed in volume (tonnes) and value (EUR) in 201428
.
Species
Bottom trawl nets Passive nets Longlines
Volume Value Volume Value Volume Value
European hake 2 909 17 448 739 1 098 10 782 371 286 2 153 627
Giant red shrimp 590 10 370 469 4.5 199 130 n.a. n.a.
Red mullet 1 727 9 901 514 140 1 275 952 n.a. n.a.
Deep-water rose shrimp 1 106 9 157 527 0.32 6 558 n.a. n.a.
Monkfishes 812 4 962 507 67 454 485 0.2 756
Norway lobster 187 4 732 353 3.9 176 490 n.a. n.a.
Blue and red shrimp 181 4 679 079 0.38 11 243 n.a. n.a.
Blue whiting 180 592 091 9.5 45 640 2 2 960
27
FAO(2016). The state of Mediterranean and Black Sea fisheries. General Fisheries Commission for the
Mediterranean. Rome, Italy.
28
STECF(2016). Multiannual plan for demersal fisheries in the western Mediterranean (STECF 16-21).
Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg; EUR 27758 EN, 128 pp.
8
Demersal fisheries in the western Mediterranean Sea:
illustration of a typical case of multi-species and multi-gears fisheries
Figure 1.2 Diagram of exploited fish stocks and fishing gears used by depth: (i) the continental shelf is
characterised by a wide number of species. From left to right, the common pandora (Pagellus erythrinus), red
mullet (Mullus barbatus), juvenile hake (Merluccius merluccius), common sole (Solea vulgaris), common
octopus (Octopus vulgaris), anglerfish (Lophius piscatorius) and Norway lobster (Nephrops norvegicus). These
are mostly caught with bottom trawlers, static nets such as trammel nets or gillnets, longliners and traps; (ii) the
upper slope (200-400 metres) is characterised by the presence of adult hake, anglerfish, Norway lobster, deep-
water rose shrimp (Parapenaeus longirostris), giant red shrimp (Aristaeomorpha foliacea) and blue whiting
(Micromesistius poutassou). These are mostly caught with bottom trawlers, static nets and longlines; (iii) the
deeper waters (400-800 metres) are characterised by blue whiting, greater forkbeard (Phycis blennoides) and
blue and red shrimp (Aristeus antennatus). These are mostly caught with bottom trawlers and traps.
Continental shelf
Upper slope
(200-400 m)
Deeper waters
(400-600 m)
Abyssal plain
Trawl nets
Static nets
Traps
Long lines
Trawl nets
Long lines Static nets
Trawl nets
Traps
Fishing
gears
9
2. WHAT IS THE PROBLEM AND WHY IS IT A PROBLEM?
This section identifies two major problems in the fisheries exploiting demersal stocks in the
western Mediterranean Sea. These are the high levels of overfishing and the ineffective
regulatory framework.The excessive use of fishing capacity (i.e. high amount of vessels and
fishing effort) has been identified as the leading cause of overfishing, even though the
changing environmental conditions may have an influence too. At the same time, the current
regulatory framework is ineffective because of its limited scope of application, the slow and
poor implementation and the lack of stakeholder ownership.
The high levels of overfishing and the ineffective regulatory framework have resulted, directly
or indirectly, in the alarming state of demersal stocks in the western Mediterranean, socio-
economic implications for the fishermen and the fishing sector, and impacts on the marine
environment.
Figure 2.1 Schematic overview of the existing problems (blue boxes), their drivers (yellow boxes)
and consequences (rose boxes) in fisheries exploiting demersal stocks in the western Mediterranean.
10
2.1. Nature and drivers of the problem
Overfishing
2.1.1.
Overfishing is the situation where so many fish are removed from a stock that reproduction
cannot replace the number lost. In the long term, excessive levels of fishing may lead to a
poor condition of fish stocks, destabilise the food web and damage marine habitats.
In 2014, the CFP set a major objective to ensure that exploitation of living marine biological
resources restores and maintains populations of harvested species above levels which can
produce the maximum sustainable yield (MSY)29
. This legal obligation is, in fact, an
instrument to adapt exploitation rates (or fishing mortality, F) to sustainable levels. In order to
achieve these levels, stocks should be fished at FMSY targets30
. Here we consider that any
stock fished at levels above FMSY is classified as overfished.
In the Mediterranean Sea, most commercial stocks are exploited at levels well beyond FMSY
targets: over 90 % of the assessed stocks are overfished31
. Though the status of many other
fish stocks still remains unknown, it is highly probable they are in a similar situation. In the
various consultations carried out in 2015 and 2016, including as part of the ‘Catania process’,
stakeholders overwhelmingly agreed that fish stocks in the Mediterranean Sea are severely
overfished (see Annex 2). In addition, the scientific community at European and international
level has repeatedly stressed the need to take urgent measures to reduce the high levels of
overfishing throughout the entire Mediterranean Sea basin.
Demersal stocks in the western Mediterranean Sea are not an exception: most stocks assessed
are highly overfished too. Furthermore, the biomass (B) of some of these stocks is close to the
limit reference point (BLIM)32,33
, indicating that there is a high probability of collapse. Hake,
red mullet and anglerfish are the most commonly overfished stocks, with current levels of
exploitation reaching up to 10 times the estimated MSY targets. The most recent scientific
advice for all the stocks assessed in the western Mediterranean is provided in Table 2.1 (as
assessed by the scientific advisory body of the EU, the Scientific, Technical and Economic
Committee for Fisheries (STECF)34
, and of the GFCM, the Scientific Advisory Committee
(SAC)35
. The ratios between current fishing mortalities and fishing mortalities at MSY
(F/FMSY) should be seen as indicative of the magnitude of the problem (e.g. anglerfish in
GSA 6 is fished at levels that are 6.5 times higher than its FMSY target).
High levels of overfishing have been observed for nearly the past 15 years (i.e. since scientific
advice started to be delivered on a regular basis). The change in the ratios F/FMSY over time is
provided for most demersal stocks in the western Mediterranean Sea in Annex 8 (see Figure
A8.1). All in all, the large majority of stocks have been continuously exploited well beyond
sustainable levels.
29
'MSY' meansthe highesttheoretical equilibrium yield that can be continuously taken on average from a stock
under existing average environmental conditions without significantly affecting the reproduction process.
30
'FMSY' means the fishing mortality rate that, if applied constantly, would result in an average catch
corresponding to the MSY and an average biomass corresponding to BMSY.
31
STECF(2017). Monitoring the performance of the Common Fisheries Policy (STECF-17-04). Publications
Office of the European Union, Luxembourg; EUR 28359 EN, 91 pp.
32
'BLIM' means a biological reference point. This is the stock size below which there is a risk of reduced
reproduction leading to a reduction in recruitment; it is also a benchmark used to indicate when harvests
should be constrained substantially so that the stock remains within safe biological limits.
33
STECF(2015). Mediterranean assessments part 1 (STECF-15-18). Publications Office of the European
Union, Luxembourg, JRC 98676, p. 410.
34
Gibin et al. (2017). The STECF MED&BS Database Visualisation Dashboard. Scientific Information
system and database, JRC104195.
35
GFCM-SAC. Validated stock assessment forms (SAFs).
11
Table 2.1 Overview of the western Mediterranean demersal stocks assessed.
‘Red’ means stocks assessed as overfished (i.e. current fishing mortality (F) is
greater than FMSY; ‘light red’ means stocks close to the FMSY and ‘bright red’
means stocks well over the FMSY); ‘Green’ means stocks assessed as sustainable
(i.e. current F is lower or equal to FMSY). Source: STECF and GFCM-SAC30, 31
.
GSA Common name Fcurr FMSY F/FMSY
1 Anglerfish 0.25 0.16 1.56
5 Anglerfish 0.84 0.08 10.50
6 Anglerfish 0.91 0.14 6.50
1 Blue and red shrimp 0.9 0.51 1.80
5 Blue and red shrimp 0.32 0.31 1.10
6 Blue and red shrimp 0.86 0.4 2.10
9 Blue and red shrimp 0.42 0.32 1.30
7 Common sole 0.63 0.085 7.41
1 Deep-water rose shrimp 0.78 0.87 0.90
6 Deep-water rose shrimp 1.40 0.50 2.80
9-10-11 Deep-water rose shrimp 0.87 0.91 0.96
7 European seabass 0.46 0.136 3.40
9 Giant red shrimp 0.24 0.59 0.40
10 Giant red shrimp 0.91 0.65 1.40
11 Giant red shrimp 0.50 0.31 1.61
7 Gilthead seabream 0.50 0.19 2.63
1-5-6-7 Hake 1.40 0.39 3.59
9-10-11 Hake 1.10 0.20 5.50
5 Norway lobster 0.29 0.17 1.71
6 Norway lobster 0.59 0.15 3.93
9 Norway lobster 0.34 0.19 1.75
11 Norway lobster 0.39 0.19 2.05
1 Red mullet 1.31 0.27 4.85
6 Red mullet 0.50 0.45 1.10
7 Red mullet 1.13 0.35 3.20
9 Red mullet 0.70 0.60 1.17
10 Red mullet 0.50 0.50 1.00
5 Striped red mullet 0.5 0.13 3.80
9 Striped red mullet 0.49 0.52 0.94
12
A screening of the different underlying factors has led to the identification of the drivers for
overfishing in western Mediterranean demersal fisheries:
Excessive use of fishing capacity
The excessive use of fishing capacity (i.e. high amount of vessels and fishing effort) means
that the fleets have the ability to fish more than the fishery resource can sustain or more than a
desired reference point (e.g. the MSY). As shown in previous work36
, this is the leading driver
for overfishing, particularly in the Mediterranean Sea.
Member States are required to assess and report on the balance between the fishing capacity
of their fleets and the available biological resources (Article 22 of the CFP). These reports are
prepared in accordance with common guidelines in which a set of biological, economic and
social indicators are compared against standardised values37
. On the basis of the latest STECF
assessment38
, the main results for the Mediterranean and Black Sea are as follows:
 The biological indicator ‘sustainable harvest indicator’ (SHI) suggests that 80 % of
fleet segments for which an assessment was possible rely on overfished stocks39
.
 The economic indicator ‘ratio between current revenue and break-even revenue’
(CR/BER) suggests that 56 % of fleet segments are economically unsustainable in the
short-term.
 The economic indicator ‘return on investment’ (ROI) suggests that 47 % of fleet
segments areeconomicallyunsustainable in the long-term.
 The technical indicator ‘vessels utilisation ratio’ (VUR) suggests that, on average,
45 % of fleet segments did not reach the average activity levels40
.
To address imbalances, Member States have to prepare action plans to adjust the fishing
capacity of their fleet segment to the fisheries resources available to them. These plans can
include the use of permanent cessation under the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund
(EMFF) up to 31.12.2017, whereas additional measures (e.g. temporary cessation) could go
beyond this date. More specifically, France plans to carry out permanent cessations for at least
three bottom trawlers between 18 and 40 metres in overall length. Italy plans to scrap, at
national level, approx. 36 bottom trawlers between 12 and 40 metres in overall length,
achieving an 8 % reduction in their capacity. In addition, Spain intends to apply a battery of
36
COM(2011)425. Impact assessment accompanying the document ‘Commission proposal for a Regulation of
the European Parliament and of the Council on the Common Fisheries Policy [repealing Regulation (EC)
No 2371/2002] ’. Brussels, 13.7.2011.
37
COM(2014)545. Guidelines for the analysis of the balance between fishing capacity and fishing
opportunities according to Art 22 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the
Council on the Common Fisheries Policy. Brussels, 2.9.2014.
38
STECF(2016). Assessment of balance indicators for key fleet segments and review of national reports on
Member States efforts to achieve balance between fleet capacity and fishing opportunities (STECF 16-18).
Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg; EUR 27758 EN, 189 pp.
39
The biological indicator ‘stock at risk’ (SAR) was not taken into account in this impact assessment report
due to major problems over the calculation method. As suggested by the STECF 16-18, the SHI was
considered a more reliable biological indicator for the Mediterranean and Black Sea.
40
This indicator concerns the average activity levels of vessels that did fish at least once in the year, taking
into account the seasonality of the fishery and other restrictions. Under normal conditions, it can be expected
that 10 % or less of the vessels in a fleet segment should be inactive, which could be due to major repairs,
refits, conversions or pending sales and transfers. If more than 20 % of the fleet segment is recurrently
inactive or under-utilised, this could indicate technical inefficiency due to the existence of an imbalance
such as an activity that is not economically viable.
13
measures (i.e. spatial/temporal closures, as well as permanent and temporary cessations) to
bottom trawlers between 18 and 40 metres in overall length so as to achieve a 20 % reduction
in their capacity. These measures are in line with the public consultation, where respondents
were highly supportive of the introduction of measures to limit fishing capacity and/or fishing
effort41,42
.
The modernisation of fleets and fishing techniques also plays a major role in the progressive
increase of fishing capacity and the resulting pressure on the biological resources43
.
Technological progress in Mediterranean fleets, such as the improvement of engine power
and electronic equipment, has enabled fishing fleets to extend fishing grounds to new distant
areas and to deeper waters. However, the use of technological advancements should not per se
be regarded as adverse. The problem is rather the lack of effective measures to regulate
fishing activities so that they are in line with the existing marine biological resources.
Given its strong link with overfishing, efforts to tackle the excessive amount of fishing effort
are not only one of the main challenges in fisheries management, they also lie at the core of
this initiative.
Environmental conditions
In recent decades, we have seen that environmental changes such as temperature or water
currents can have an effect on the distribution and abundance of biological resources. For
example, a link has been demonstrated between oceanographic processes and the strength of
recruitment of hake and the blue and red shrimp in the Balearic Islands44
. Generally, colder
winters tend to be more productive in the western Mediterranean Sea, partly because winter
mixing of the water column may reach greater depths. This environmental condition is shown
to be favourable for the recruitment and the abundance of hake and the blue and red shrimp.
On the other hand, persistent warm winters caused by climate change could have the opposite
effect on recruitment and abundance of the stocks, as a result of lower productivity.
While this driver falls outside the scope of the initiative, it is worth mentioning that
environmental conditions (such as those studied in the Balearic Islands) may influence the
state of fish stocks and can further contribute to the undesired situation of overfishing. In
contrast, it seems reasonable to consider that healthier fish stocks might be more resilient to
environmental fluctuations.
41
The public consultation found that 88% of the respondents considered it ‘important’ or ‘very important’ to
introduce measures relating to fishing capacity and/or fishing effort (from a Likert-type scale of five levels).
42
COM(2016). Summary Report of the Public Consultation concerning on a multiannual plan for the fisheries
exploiting demersal stocks in the western Mediterranean sea. Brussels, November 2016.
43
Farrugio et al (1993). An overview of the history, knowledge, recent and future research trends in
Mediterranean fisheries. Scientia Marina 57: 105-119.
44
Massuti et al (2008). The influence of oceanographic scenarios on the population dynamics of demersal
resources in the western Mediterranean: hypothesis for hake and the blue and red shrimp off Balearic
Islands. Journal of Marine Systems 71: 421-438.
14
Ineffective regulatory framework
2.1.2.
This section describes how the current regulatory framework has not been effective in
achieving key objectives of the CFP and the MEDREG, particularly:
 MSY is far from being achieved: The current management framework (i.e. national
management plans under the MEDREG) does not seem to be guiding fishing activity
towards the target FMSY levels45
. Indeed, nearly all commercial stocks assessed in the
western Mediterranean have been under continuous and severe overfishing (see Table
2.1 and Figure A8.1).
 Fishing effort is not restrictive enough: The national management plans have not been
sufficient to adjust the fishing effort of western Mediterranean demersal fleets to the
available fishing opportunities. Member States have adopted measures such as: (i)
temporary cessations; (ii) limiting the number of fishing licences and authorisations;
(iii) fixing a maximum number of fishing days per year or week; and (iv) limiting the
number and size of the fishing gear. However, the continuing overfishing and worrying
state of the stocks suggest that those measures are not restrictive enough to be effective.
 Economic sustainabilityisatrisk:As long as the bad environmental situation continues,
it is expected that the CFP’s goal of ensuring conditions for an economically viable and
competitive fishing industry will not fully succeed. In the Mediterranean Sea, the
fishing sector, which is represented by the Mediterranean Advisory Council (MEDAC),
has repeatedly expressed concerns about the decreasing trend in the number of active
vessels, employment and total income from landings over recent years46,47
. Small-scale
fisheries are particularly suffering because of this. If the deterioration in the status of
many fish stocks continues, the performance of the fishing fleets may soon be seriously
affected.
 Catches of undersized fish are large: There are large amount of catches of undersized
fish, indicating that the MCRSs set in the MEDREG have not been effectively
implemented and that there is a poor selectivity pattern. This suggests that the technical
measures in place (e.g. minimum mesh sizes) have not delivered any improvements in
selectivity, in particular for bottom trawlers. The limited enforcement and control, and
the scarcity of additional measures such as spatial/temporal closures in nursery areas
have also hampered fulfilment of this objective.
 Protection of nurseries and spawning areas is still scarce: In the Mediterranean Sea,
the coverage of marine protected areas (which includes fishing protected areas) is still
considered low, estimated at around 3.25 % of the total sea basin (or 6.41 % if the
Pelagos sanctuary is included)48
. Moreover, the objectives and measures in place for the
protected areas are not always designed to specifically protect/restore fish stocks, as
such areas have been designated under various legal regimes such as national
provisions, EU legislation (the CFP, the MEDREG, the MSFD, the Birds and Habitats
Directives), and the Barcelona Convention.
45
STECF(2015). 50th Plenary Meeting Report (PLEN-15-03). Publications Office of the European Union,
Luxembourg; EUR 27602 EN, 90 pp.
46
MEDAC(2017). Opinion on the socioeconomic situation of the fisheries sector in the Mediterranean Sea.
Rome, June 2017.
47
D'Alessio M (2017). Socio-economic situation in Mediterranean fisheries sector. MEDAC Working Group
on socio-economic impact. Rome, June 2017.
48
EEA(2015). Marine protected areas in Europe’s seas: an overview and perspectives for the future. European
Environment Agency, Copenhagen, Denmark.
15
This analysis is consistent with the results of the public consultation, which found that 75 %
of respondents disagree or strongly disagree that the current management framework is
sufficient to meet the objectives of the CFP. The main reasons expressed were the difficulties
to: (i) address the objectives and timeframes of the CFP, in particular to achieve MSY by
2020, implement the precautionary and ecosystem-based approaches and gradually eliminate
discards; (ii) develop a single regulatory framework for fisheries, integrating the interactions
between different gears and Member States, as well as the trans-boundary nature of certain
fish stocks; (iii) incorporate recreational fisheries into national management plans; and (iv)
ensure full implementation of the plans.
A screening of the different underlying factors has led to the identification of the drivers for
the ineffective regulatory framework:
Limited scope of application
The scope of the current management framework (i.e. national management plans under the
MEDREG) is considered to be limited, as it partially covers fishing gears exploiting demersal
stocks, the multi-species dimension of the fisheries and does not encompass the distribution of
the stocks.
The existing national management plans, as their name indicates, refer to areas which are
under the competence of one single Member State. They manage the fisheries unilaterally ‘by
fishing gear’, not ‘by species’ or ‘by group of species’. Some fishing gears used in the
western Mediterranean Sea and targeting demersal species are not covered by national
management plans (e.g. for longliners and static nets such as trammel nets and gillnets). The
reason for this gap is the obligation in the MEDREG to have national management plans for a
limited list of fishing gears (for details see Section 1.3).
Mediterranean demersal fisheries are highly multi-species and some of the fish stocks move
across the territorial waters of more than one Member State. Not all of the most important
species are covered by the existing national management plans. Figure 2.3 compares the
current fishing activities of bottom trawlers (the main fishing gear) against: (i) the most
scientifically sound stock boundaries for hake (see stock boundaries for additional species in
Annex 7); and (ii) the actual network of national management plans. The national management
plans cover most areas where their fishing activities take place. However, the stocks of hake,
red mullet, Norway lobster and blue and red shrimp are distributed well beyond the area
covered by each individual national management plan. This indicates that the objectives and
measures established unilaterally by each Member State may not cover the fishing activity in
neighbouring areas. Annex 6 provides a detailed description of the three national management
plans, including their synergies and inconsistencies.
The fourth map below indicates the geographical coverage of a possible EU multi-annual plan
in the western Mediterranean Sea. In this case, most of the exploited stocks appear to be
distributed inside this management framework.
16
Figure 2.3 Spatial comparison of the current fishing activities of bottom trawlers (upper-left graph), the
distribution of the two hake stocks (upper-right graph), the current network of national management plans
(bottom-left graph) and the possible EU multi-annual plan (bottom-right graph). The maps are not precise.
Slow and poor implementation
Although the MEDREG was adopted in 2006, the first national management plans only came
into force in 2011. These were a series of Italian management plans, including for bottom
trawlers in Italy’s western Mediterranean territorial waters (i.e. GSAs 9, 10, 11). The French
and Spanish management plans for bottom trawlers followed in 2013. These plans have been
applied over 6 years in the case of Italy, and 4 years in the case of France and Spain. There
has been relatively little progress in implementing the provisions contained in those plans.
Specific issues include fishing effort restrictions, which have not been adjusted in a manner
compatible with MSY targets (for further details, see current situation in Table 2.1).
A recent report by the European Court of Auditors highlights that fishermen have difficulties
in implementing the existing technical measures as so many rules are applicable in the
Mediterranean Sea49
. For example, MCRSs are far from being well implemented, as can be
seen from the large amount of undersized fish. Similarly, the evaluation of the MEDREG
indicates that technical measures on mesh sizes have been unevenly enforced through the
entire sea basin. The poor implementation of the CFP and the MEDREG is also due to the
lack of control tools for small-scale fisheries.
The Commission is reflecting to address these problems in the context of the revision of the
Control Regulation. In addition, the Commission has adopted action plans to improve the
implementation of the CFP in the Mediterranean Sea.
Lack of stakeholder ownership
Fisheries are the classic example of the tragedy of the commons, where natural renewable
resources could be depleted because of negative externalities (such as insufficient management
and the lack of acceptability by fishermen) inherent to the common-pool goods.
49
European Court of Auditors (2017). EU fisheries controls: more efforts needed. Special Report No 08/2017.
17
Since its conception, the MEDREG was negatively received by stakeholders, mainly due to
limited dialogue at earlier stages. The Regulation is still perceived as a top-down approach
where the specific characteristics of each sub-region are not sufficiently taken into account.
The public consultation stressed notably that stakeholders did not have an active role in
drafting the MEDREG. As a result, the Regulation may be seen as having been ‘imposed’ by
the EU, causing fishermen to be less likely to comply with restrictions they did not support in
the first place. Ultimately, fishermen feel no ownership of the EU Regulation and its
provisions.
Rebuilding stakeholder confidence and trust should be a priority in Mediterranean fisheries.
In this respect, the CFP and its new regionalisation approach would enable greater integration
of, and cooperation with, all stakeholders from the very beginning of the process. Good
evidence of this can already be found in the wide participation received in the overall
stakeholder consultation, including the internet-based public consultation.
2.2. Consequences of the identified problems
Alarming state of demersal stocks
2.2.1.
The alarming state of demersal stocks in the western Mediterranean Sea is shown by three
quantitative indicators: total landings, biomass index and length of the individuals caught. For
simplicity, we present below the iconic species of Mediterranean demersal fisheries, hake.
The total landings of hake in northern Spain (Mediterranean basin) fell by around 42% from
2003 to 2014 (Figure 2.4, upper graph)50
. In addition, based on data from research campaigns,
the biomass index (equivalent to the size of the stock) suggests a similar downward trend
since 2003 (Figure 2.4, middle graph). The length distribution of the total catch of hake is also
shown in the bottom graph. Catches of larger individuals (or adults) are practically non-
existent and the bulk of exploitation is concentrated in juveniles (lengths around 15 cm). This
length is well below the MCRS of 20 cm set in the MEDREG and the estimated length at first
maturity (i.e. 28 and 38 cm for males and females respectively51
). This notorious downward
trend for total landings and biomass index, plus the high exploitation of juveniles, add up to a
high risk of stock collapse. As demonstrated for other species and areas, this can lead to
severe effects on the whole ecosystem (e.g. changes in the food web structure) and on the
fishing sector (e.g. socio-economic instability).
Similar patterns to those experienced with hake in northern Spain can also be observed in
other areas of the western Mediterranean Sea (see Annex 8). The many other finfish stocks
caught together with hake are considered highly overfished too, although in certain cases the
trends are less obvious. In general, crustacean species are closer to sustainable exploitation
levels with better indicators.
Stakeholders, which include the fishing sector, Member State public administrations and
European and international scientific bodies, overwhelmingly agreed on the poor state of
demersal stocks in the Mediterranean Sea.
50
STECF(2015). Mediterranean assessments, part 1 (PLEN-15-18). Publications Office of the European
Union, Luxembourg; EUR 27638 EN, 410 pp.
51
Mellon-Duval et al (2009). Growth of European hake (Merluccius merluccius) in the Gulf of Lions based on
conventional tagging. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 67: 62–70.
18
Alarming state of demersal stocks:
the case of hake in northern Spain (GSA 6)
Figure 2.4 Trend in total landings (upper graph), biomass index (equivalent
to stock size; middle graph) and number of individual of hake caught by
length(bottom graph) in northern Spain (GSA 6). The MCRS is also shown.
2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014
1000
3000
5000
2000
4000
6000
42%
Landings
(tonnes)
5
25
15
35
2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014
50%
Biomass
(Kg/m2)
1
4
3
5
10 20 30 40 70 80
No
Individuals
(x10
3
)
50 60 90
MCRS
Length
(cm)
6
2
19
Environmental impacts: trophic interactions & non-target species
2.2.2.
Overall, excessive levels of fishing and damage to fish habitats have caused major losses of
biodiversity, changes in the structure of fish populations (e.g. fewer large individuals) and
changes in the trophic web52
. For instance, as top predators such as adult hake and anglerfish
play an important role in the food web, their decreasing biomass is likely to cause an increase
in the biomass of other organisms such as shrimps and benthic invertebrates53
. This is
consistent with the status of many crustacean stocks like deep-water rose shrimp, where
current levels of biomass are considered to be high or intermediate with their exploitation
only slightly greater than the desired MSY targets. This increase could also have an effect on
other species, creating a real trophic cascade.
Another environmental consequence of the fishing activities is the capture of non-target
species. This covers: (i) the ‘unwanted’ part of the catch during fishing operations, i.e. non-
commercial species, commercial species not sought (e.g. undersized, damaged individuals);
and (ii) incidental catches of vulnerable and protected species (e.g. sea turtles, sharks, marine
mammals). Bottom trawlers, the main fishing gear covered by this initiative, are responsible
for the bulk of discards in the western Mediterranean Sea (representing from 14 % to 60 % of
the total catches)54
.
Socio-economic impacts
2.2.1.
High levels of overfishing over recent decades have pushed most demersal stocks in the
western Mediterranean Sea into decline. As shown in other sea basins, the associated decrease
in the productivity of the stocks can affect the amount and the quality of landings and,
therefore, the income of fishermen.
The economic and social importance of demersal fisheries in the western Mediterranean Sea
is high. Taken together, the French, Italian and Spanish fleets represent around 13 000 vessels
and near 24 000 jobs. The MEDAC has repeatedly expressed concerns about the decreasing
trend in terms of number of active vessels, employment and total income from landings over
recent years. At present, the economic impact on the western Mediterranean fishing sector is
visible for the largest bottom trawl fleets in France and Italy, where net profits are negative
(see affected stakeholders in Section 2.3). Furthermore, since many fleet segments are highly
dependent on demersal species, they could face a greater economic impact if overfishing
continues.
Hence, ensuring that fish stocks remain within safe biological limits is crucial not only for the
ecological balance of the ecosystems, but also for the social and economic well-being of those
who depend on them.
52
Pauly et al (1998). Fishing down marine food webs. Science 279: 860-863.
53
Coll et al (2008). Food-web dynamics in the South Catalan Sea ecosystem (NW Mediterranean) for 1978 –
2003. Ecological modelling 217: 95-116.
54
FAO(2016). The state of Mediterranean and Black Sea fisheries. General Fisheries Commission for the
Mediterranean. Rome, Italy.
20
2.3. Affected stakeholders
Fishing sector
2.3.1.
The problems described above primarily affect fishermen fishing for demersal stocks in the
western Mediterranean Sea, meaning EU fleets from Italy, France and Spain. According to the
data reported under the EU fisheries data collection framework (DCF), around 13 000 vessels
would be potentially affected by this initiative55,56
.
Table 2.2 provides a detailed overview of the affected fishing sector. It illustrates the number
of vessels, employment rates, the volume and value of landings, and the level of dependency
on the eight most relevant demersal species (i.e. hake, red mullet, anglerfish, blue whiting,
giant red shrimp, deep-water rose shrimp, Norway lobster and blue and red shrimp). All in all,
bottom trawlers account for 21 % of the total fleet operating in the area, with passive gears at
66 %, longliners at 2 %, and another 10 % taken up by polyvalent vessels. About 76 % of the
vessels are Italian, 15 % are Spanish and 9 % are French. Almost all bottom trawlers (around
2 804 in total) are Italian and Spanish. Passive gears are most common in the French and
Italian fleets (for around 846 and 7 821 vessels respectively). As for longliners (260 vessels in
total), almost half are Spanish (46 %), followed by French and Italian in more or less equal
numbers (29 % and 25 % respectively).
As regards fleet segmentation, two main conclusions can be drawn from Table 2.2:
 the smallest fleet segments (0-18 m) are largely passive gears and longliners, equivalent
to small-scale coastal fleets (i.e. nearly 10 400 vessels catching approx. 1 500 tonnes).
 the largest fleet segments (18-40 m) are mostly bottom trawlers, equivalent to large-
scale fleets (i.e. nearly 2 800 vessels catching approx. 13 500 tonnes).
An analysis of the economic dependency on the eight most relevant demersal species in the
western Mediterranean Sea57
suggests high dependency among a relatively low number of
fleet segments and vessels. Indeed, the four fleet segments with the highest dependency make
up only 5 % of the vessels and yet account for 62 % of the total value of the landings
assessed. These fleet segments are French and Spanish bottom trawlers between 12 and 40
metres in length – see the dark blue cells in Table 2.2. They have a significant socio-economic
importance, providing around 2 900 on-board jobs, 1 500 jobs in ancillary activities in coastal
communities and EUR 104 million in income directly generated from the eight demersal
species selected. Moderate dependency is observed in eight fleet segments (mostly additional
bottom trawlers and some longliners – see the mid-blue cells in Table 2.2.). Low dependency
covers around two thirds of the fleet segments (equal to 80 % of the vessels and 11 % of the
value of landings). The predominance of fleet segments with low and moderate dependency
highlights the great diversity of species caught in these fisheries.
55
These values are expected to be lower as Italian official data include the total number of vessels operating in
the Mediterranean Sea (i.e. also includes fleets from the Adriatic Sea, the Strait of Sicily and the Ionian
Sea). According to the STECF 16-11, around 9 000 vessels operate exclusively in the western Mediterranean.
However, in this impact assessment report, we used the official data reported by the Member States under
the data collection framework.
56
STECF(2016). The 2016 Annual Economic Report on the EU Fishing Fleet (STECF 16-11). Publications
Office of the European Union, Luxembourg; ISBN 978-92-79-64633-1, 472 pp.
57
Analysis carried out by the Commission services, May 2017.
21
As far as employment is concerned, the estimated number of jobs generated by demersal
fisheries is near 24 000 full-time equivalent (FTE) jobs, generating about 12 500 ancillary
jobs58
in coastal communities.
The vast majority of enterprises in the fishing sector targeting demersal species in the western
Mediterranean Sea are considered micro-enterprises, as most of them have only one vessel
with less than 10 workers on board and a turnover lower than EUR 2 million. This highlights
the importance small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) for this sector:
 In France, 88 % of enterprises have only 1 vessel and 99 % have fewer than 5 vessels;
 In Italy, 86 % of enterprises have only 1 vessel and 97 % have fewer than 5 vessels;
 In Spain, 93 % of enterprises have only 1 vessel and 99 % have fewer than 5 vessels59
.
Processing sector
2.3.2.
According to the European Market Observatory for Fisheries and Aquaculture (EUMOFA),
the most relevant demersal species are high-value species sold mainly fresh and with a limited
processing phase60
. Therefore, the dependency of the processing sector on demersal species
from the western Mediterranean Sea is considered negligible.
Public administrations
2.3.3.
The European institutions and public administrations in France, Italy and Spain will be
involved at one stage or another in the design, implementation and monitoring of the future
regulatory framework. Some autonomous regions, such as Sardinia, Catalonia and Andalusia,
will be also involved as they share the fisheries remit with their national governments.
Others representing society at large
2.3.4.
Other groups affected by this initiative may include non-governmental organisations such as
BirdLife, Ecologistas en Accion, Medreact, Oceana and the WWF (they already contributed
to the public consultation). The initiative may also affect the general public (chiefly consumers
and the media), the scientific community, particularly universities and research institutions,
and also consultants and fisheries experts. Furthermore, non-EU actors could be indirectly
affected as fish consumption in the western Mediterranean is, as in the entire EU, dependent
on imports.
Further details, including how stakeholders would be affected, are provided in Annex 3.
58
In this impact assessment report, all activities up-to the first point of sale that are directly linked to the
primary sector are considered ancillary activities. For example, activities related to the servicing of
equipment and/or vessels, activities related to the sale of fish, supplies for operations and R+D+I services
(processing industry is not included as it was considered negligible). Therefore, ‘ancillary jobs’ is the
employment generated by the ancillary activities.
59
STECF(2016). The 2016 Annual Economic Report on the EU Fishing Fleet (STECF 16-11). Publications
Office of the European Union, Luxembourg; ISBN 978-92-79-64633-1, 472 pp.
60
Except when prepared as fillets or as cooked products like shrimps.
22
Table 2.2: Number of vessels, employment (as full-time equivalent, or FTE), fishing days, volume and value of landings (in kg and EUR respectively) of the most relevant species (i.e. hake, red
mullet, anglerfish, blue whiting, giant red shrimp, deep-water rose shrimp, Norway lobster and blue and red shrimp) and the economic dependency (%) in the EU fleet targeting demersal stocks in the
western Mediterranean Sea, by fishing gear (i.e. bottom trawlers, passive gears such as gillnets, trammel nets and traps, longlines and polyvalent vessels), by fleet segment (i.e. 0-6 m, 6-12 m, 12-24 m
and 24-40 m in length overall) and by Member State (i.e. France, Italy, Spain). Figures marked ‘*’ denote negative net profit and ‘---’ entries mean that no vessel has been reported under that particular
fleet segment. High dependency (> 25 %) is coloured in dark blue; moderate dependency (10-25 %) in mid-blue; and low dependency (< 10 %) in light blue. Reference year: 2015.
FRANCE ITALY (!) SPAIN
Vessels FTE
Fishing
days
Volume Value Dep’cy Vessels FTE
Fishing
days
Volume Value Dep'cy Vessels FTE
Fishing
days
Volume Value Dep’cy
Bottom
trawlers
0-6 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
6-12 --- --- --- --- --- --- 202 187 12 788 39 108 204 322 2.5% 21 67 3 600 31 512 233 939 23.1%
12-18 --- --- --- --- --- --- 1 159 3 246 172 230 2 165 139 18 539 114 10.5% 152 463 28 308 592 299 5 990 987 30.7%
18-24 31 68 4 950 432 649 2 948 644 28.9% * 610 2 410 97 048 2 649 436 22 716 700 14.0% 307 1486 63 124 4 000 567 61 778 727 62.4%
24-40 32 110 6 120 931 444 5 660 513 34.5% * 218 1 083 30 224 419 485 5 048 604 5.4% * 135 835 28 303 2 249 007 31 199 478 68.8%
Passive
gears
0-6 180 43 7 605 336 2 629 0.1% 2 213 2 167 282 826 102 173 977 197 2.2% --- --- --- --- --- ---
6-12 645 217 27 629 46 222 283 759 2.4% 5 205 7 649 748 088 816 468 8 716 249 5.2% 45 118 6 646 11 417 84 138 4.6%
12-18 21 9 663 6 497 39 707 1.1% 403 1 045 59 254 242 538 2 113 363 5.9% 105 356 15 137 18 200 129 202 1.0% *
18-24 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
24-40 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Long
lines
0-6 19 3 477 6 72 0.0% --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
6-12 56 13 1 610 4 737 34 190 2.9% --- --- --- --- --- --- 42 87 5 168 21 046 162 495 9.9%
12-18 --- --- --- --- --- --- 120 465 16 271 20 373 160 884 1.0% 23 41 2 583 24 378 194 043 14.5%
18-24 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
24-40 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Polyvalent
vessels
0-6 56 20 3 322 178 1 491 0.1% --- --- --- --- --- --- 111 77 7 716 1 627 9 896 0.6%
6-12 110 63 7 494 7 595 45 711 0.9% --- --- --- --- --- --- 1 032 1235 112 568 100 570 658 519 2.2%
12-18 --- --- --- --- --- --- 30 87 4 227 50 338 350 655 9.8% 52 156 7 670 24 143 180 971 7.6%
18-24 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
24-40 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
(!) These values are expected to be lower as Italian official data includes the total number of vessels operating in the entire Mediterranean. According to the STECF 16-1155
, around 9 000 vessels will
operate exclusively in the western Mediterranean. However, in this impact assessment report, we used the official data reported by the Member States under the DCF.
23
2.4. The evolution of the problem (baseline)
This part of the impact assessment report describes how the problems addressed in Section 2.1
are likely to evolve with no new action. In other words, it shows that the need for a policy
change will persist in the future, as the identified problems are likely to remain.
Overfishing
2.4.1.
As described earlier, the large majority of demersal stocks in the western Mediterranean Sea
are severely overfished. Hake, red mullet and anglerfish are the most commonly overfished
stocks, where current levels of exploitation can reach up to 10 times the estimated MSY
targets. The excessive use of fishing capacity (i.e. high amount of vessels and fishing effort) is
seen as the leadingdriver for overfishing.
In view of that, substantial reductions in fishing mortality would be needed to meet the MSY
targets in the western Mediterranean Sea. However, the measures in the national management
plans are not sufficient to cope with the magnitude of the problem. The measures included are
restrictions on the number of fishing authorisations and licences, the setting of a maximum
number of fishing days per year, permanent/temporary cessations and closure areas (see a
more detailed description of the three national management plans in Annex 6).
From an environmental viewpoint, the modelling of the evolution of this problem61
suggests
that the percentage of fish stocks recovered to spawning stock biomass (SSB)62
levels above
the precautionary reference point (BPA) would only be around 12 % by 2020 and 7 % by 2025.
In addition, the probability of reaching fishing mortality targets at MSY would be 0 % in both
years. Indeed, the simulations show that the status quo neither improves the number of stocks
recovered nor the probabilities of achieving fishing mortality targets. Therefore, without
additional measures there is a high risk of stock collapse in the near future.
From a socio-economic viewpoint, nine fleet segments would be at financial risk by 2025, as
they highly depend on overfished stocks. These are the French, Italian and Spanish bottom
trawlers between 18 and 40 metres length overall and some Spanish longliners. This nine fleet
segments consist of 1 438 vessels and 6 234 FTE fishermen. The remaining fleets, including
small-scale fisheries, would also see a deterioration of their economic performance, without
any prospect of improvement.
Ineffective regulatory framework
2.4.2.
Our experience shows that the implementation of the existing policy (i.e. mainly the national
management plans) has not been effective in achieving the objectives introduced in the CFP
and the MEDREG. As already shown, essential goals such as environmental and socio-
economic sustainability in western Mediterranean demersal fisheries are far from being
attained.
As their name indicates, the existing national management plans cover areas which are under
the jurisdiction of a single Member State. They manage the fisheries by ‘fishing gear’ and not
by ‘fisheries’. In addition, not all the relevant species are covered by the existing national
61
STECF(2016). Multiannual plan for demersal fisheries in the western Mediterranean (STECF 16-21).
Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg; EUR 27758 EN, 128 pp.
62
'SSB' means the total weight of all fish (both males and females) in the population that contribute to
reproduction; also the biomass of all individuals beyond "age/size at first maturity". It is an indicator of the
size of the stock.
24
management plans and most of them do not include measures aiming to achieve MSY. With
no new action, unilateral measures by each Member State would continue in an un-
harmonised and un-coordinated manner. Regionalisation and consultations within the
Mediterranean Advisory Council (MEDAC) could contribute to identifying common
conservation measures. However, a long negotiation process among Member States and
fishing sectors would risk delaying the adoption of such measures and even the setting of
common goals and targets.
Indeed, the current regulatory framework will likely continue being ineffective, as it does not
integrate all the fisheries and the trans-boundary nature of the fish stocks. Besides, its limited
scope of application would persist because it is intrinsic to the current regulatory framework
itself. Given that the general dissatisfaction with the national management plans would hardly
change, the poor implementation and the lack of ownership would likely remain in future too.
3. WHY SHOULD THE EU ACT?
The proportionality principle requires that the involvement of the institutions must be limited
to what is necessary to achieve the objectives of the Treaties.
Under Article 3(1)(d) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU)63
, the
EU has exclusive competence for the conservation of the marine biological resources under
the CFP, managed directly through EU regulations. Furthermore, certain fish stocks and
fishing vessels are trans-boundary, so action at Member State level alone is unlikely to be
effective in achieving the objectives. To be effective, measures should be coordinated and
apply to the whole area of distribution of the stock and to all fleets concerned (see Figure 2.3).
71% of the respondents to the public consultation agreed or strongly agreed that EU
intervention is necessary, in the form of an EU multi-annual plan64
.
This initiative upholds the subsidiarity principle and fulfils its requirements.
However, one of the objectives of this proposal is to strengthen regional governance
mechanisms, as provided for under Article 18 of the CFP. Regionalisation is intended to
increase the involvement of Member States affected by the initiative and thus their ownership
of the measures. The Commission’s role is to ensure that the adopted measures fulfil the
objectives of the CFP. Regionalisation constitutes an important shift from instrument-based to
results-based management.
63
Consolidated version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union of 26 October 2012; OJ C
326, 26.10.2012, p. 47-390.
64
COM(2016). Summary Report of the public consultation on a multiannual plan for the fisheries exploiting
demersal stocks in the western Mediterranean Sea. Brussels, November 2016.
25
4. WHAT SHOULD BE ACHIEVED?
The general and specific objectives and their relation with the identified problems are
presented in Figure 4.1 and detailed below.
4.1. General objectives
The general objectives are as follows:
 To achieve the objectives of the CFP (Article 2 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013) in
the western Mediterranean demersal fisheries, namely with regards to ensuring that
fishing activities are environmentally sustainable in the long-term and are managed in
a way that allow economic, social and employment benefits;
 To improve the regulatory framework of the fisheries exploiting demersal stocks in the
western Mediterranean Sea.
4.2. Specific objectives
The specific objectives are as follows:
 To achieve and maintain fishing mortality at the maximum sustainable yield (FMSY) for
all demersal stocks listed in Table 2.1 by 2020;
 Toincrease the selectivity of bottom trawls, particularly to exclude juvenile individuals;
 To ensure a sustainable fishing sector for the exploitation of demersal stocks in the
western Mediterranean Sea;
 To provide an effective management framework, which is simpler, more stable and
provides stakeholders with greater ownership.
This initiative will be consistent with the EU environmental legislation and in particular with
the objective of achieving good environmental status by 2020, as set out in Article 1(1) of the
MSFD. It will also contribute to ensuring that the conditions described in Descriptor 3 on
healthy populations of commercial fish species are met.
Measures under this initiative would be taken in accordance with the best available scientific
advice.
26
Figure 4.1 Schematic overview of the general objectives (green boxes, double line) and specific objectives (green boxes, single line) and their relationship with the
existing problems (blue boxes), their drivers (yellow boxes)and consequences (rose boxes) in fisheries exploiting demersal fish stocks in the western Mediterranean Sea.
27
5. WHAT ARE THE VARIOUS OPTIONS TO ACHIEVE THE OBJECTIVES?
An assessment of a range of alternatives has revealed the policy options that are most relevant
in achieving the objectives described in Section 4. Overall, four policy options were seriously
considered:(i)no policy change or baseline; (ii) amending the current management framework;
(iii) adopting a multi-annual plan at EU level; and (iv) establishing a multi-annual plan at
international level.
Under the third option (multi-annual plan at EU level), thought has been given as to whether a
management regime based on total allowable catches (TACs) would best achieve the policy
objectives. This sub-option and the fourth option were discarded at an early stage. The reasons
for this are provided below. The two most relevant policy options, together with the baseline,
have been retained for further analysis and comparison.
5.1. Discarded policy options
A potential option that was discarded early on was that of adopting a multi-annual plan at
EU level based on TACs. This regime is meant to impose ceilings on the amount of fish
caught in a certain time period (e.g. a year or a fishing season). It is also the measure most
directly related to fishing mortality, which helps in providing scientific advice. On the other
hand, various aspects of the Mediterranean demersal fisheries are likely to hamper the
implementationof a TAC-based system.
Firstly, how should a TAC for different combinations of target stocks caught with different
gears be set to guarantee the sustainability of all stocks and the profitability of the sector? It is
recognised that using single-species TACs in highly multi-species, multi-gear fisheries is
extremely complex. This is because the different quotas set for the various stocks can be
exhausted at different rates. When this happens, fishermen may stop fishing and underuse the
quota for other stocks, or continue fishing and discard or illegally land the surplus. This is
especially likely to happen in the Mediterranean demersal fisheries, as the catch composition
of a typical fishing day contains a wide number of species (often more than 10) and can
change between and within fishing gears. For example, a bottom trawler could leave port in
the early morning and make various fishing operations on the continental shelf before
reaching its desired fishing ground located on the middle slope. The vessel could spend the
day fishing on the slope and, when returning to port, it could still carry out a last operation on
the continental shelf. On arrival in port, the landings would be the total catches caught in the
various fishing operations in the different fishing grounds (each with different fish
assemblages – see Figure 1.2). Besides, the large number of fishing vessels and landing places
common to demersal fisheries in the western Mediterranean Sea makes for a very large
number of ‘landing events’. When taking into account the various aspects of these fisheries
(i.e. the number of fishing vessels, fishing gears, landing places and events, as well as the
spatial and temporal variability of the catch composition and market fluctuations), it is evident
that the equation becomes extremely complex.
The second reason derives from the substantial unreported catches observed in the
Mediterranean Sea. Since most fisheries are small-scale vessels returning to port every day,
the amount of landings per species is very low compared to other EU fisheries and often
below the 50 kg threshold set in the Control Regulation (i.e. they are not declared catches, as
many fishing vessels are exempt from the completion and submission of the fishing logbook,
Article 14 of the Regulation). The black market is also considered one of the most important
sources of unreported catches. In 2014, a European Parliament study highlighted that
unreported catches in the Mediterranean demersal fisheries were estimated at around 30 to
28
35 % of total landings65
. The limited nature of the official fisheries data therefore seems
inadequate as a basis for eithersetting or enforcing TAC and quotas, at least for the time being.
The respondents to the public consultation showed a preference for managing these fisheries
through spatial/temporal closures, selectivity improvements and fishing capacity/effort ceilings
over the setting of TACs. In their view the multi-species nature of demersal fisheries would
be very difficult to address in a TAC-based system. Doing so might even complicate and delay
management, as new problems such as choke species66
, higher discards or identifying a fair
TAC/quota allocation would appear.
Another policy option initially considered was that of establishing a multi-annual plan at
international level. The relevance of this policy option is similar to the setting of a multi-
annual plan at EU level, since the main elements of the plan could be defined in the same way
(scope in terms of fish stocks, fisheries and area, targets and timeframes, safeguard measures).
However, the multi-annual plan would differ in one respect: it would be almost exclusively
located in the jurisdictional waters of the European Union. This is because the three Member
States concerned have declared contiguous protection zones, either as economic exclusive
zones or ecological protection zones (see bottom-left graph in Figure 2.3)67,68,69
. In addition,
there are no international conservation obligations that extend beyond existing CFP and
MEDREG rules. Therefore, there is no apparent added value in regulating these fisheries
outside an EU framework.
At some point during the impact assessment process, two additional alternatives were very
briefly mentioned. One reflected the fact that three respondents to the public consultation
proposed another approach in which more local management plans would be implemented.
This option was not considered for four reasons: (i) the broader distribution and transboundary
nature of the fish stocks and certain fishing vessels; (ii) the incompatibility with the scientific
advice – provided by GSA or group of GSAs; (iii) the difficulties to set in a coordinated and
timely manner common conservation targets and measures in a coordinated and timely
manner; and (iv) the existence of regionalisation tools incorporating the specificities of each
sub-region.
Inaddition,and dueto the alarming state of most demersal stocks in the western Mediterranean
Sea, a more ambitious option such as the closure of the fisheries for a period of time (e.g. one
year) was also considered. From an environmental viewpoint, this would be somehow
beneficial both for marine biological resources and habitats. However, the associated socio-
economic costs of this option would be enormous and would not find a long-term solution
(such as creating an effective regulatory framework). Besides, this option would clearly fail to
win the necessary political support.
65
European Parliament (2014). The obligation to land all catches – Consequences for the Mediterranean. In
depth analysis. Brussels, March 2014. ISBN: 978-92-823-5604-3. DOI: 10.2861/59268; 46 pp.
66
A choke-species situation occurs when the available quota for a species is exhausted (long) before the
quotas of the other species that are caught together in a fishery.
67
Décret n° 2012-1148 du 12 octobre 2012 portant création d'une zone économique exclusive au large des
côtes du territoire de la République en Méditerranée; MAEJ1109102D, p.3.
68
Decreto No 209 del Presidente della Repubblica, 27 ottobre 2011, relativo all'istituzione di Zone di
protezione ecologica del Mediterraneo nord-occidentale, del Mar Ligure e del Mar Tirreno; GU n. 293,
17.12.2011, p. 6.
69
Real Decreto 236/2013, de 5 de abril, por el que se establece la Zona Económica Exclusiva de España en el
Mediterráneo noroccidental; BOE No 92, p. 3.
29
5.2. Retained policy options
Option 1: No policy change (baseline)
5.2.1.
The first option is the status quo, or no policy change (i.e. the existing regulatory framework
would continue to apply). It is used as a benchmark against which the alternative options will
be compared.
The fisheries exploiting demersal stocks in the western Mediterranean Sea would continue to
be managed through the national management plans adopted by France, Italy and Spain under
the MEDREG (see Section 1.3.1 and Annex 6 for a detailed description). The geographical
scope of the plans, confined to the territorial waters of the Member States, and the partial
coverage of the fishing gears would remain unchanged.
Under this scenario, the CFP objectives (e.g. MSY) would also apply as they entered into
force since 2014. The actions already planned by the Member States through the EMFF to
strike asustainable balance between fishing capacity and available fishing opportunities would
feature as well.
The landing obligation for the demersal species defining the fisheries and subject to MCRSs
has been in force since 1 January 2017. Under this option, the recent discard plan would
remain in place for three years. After that, the landing obligation would apply to the whole
fishery, with no exemptions (i.e. high survival rates)70,71
.
The Commission would continue to monitor the implementation of the national management
plans, including their contribution to the CFP objectives. In the event of non-compliance with
the existing management framework it would take the necessary steps, such as opening
infringement proceedings.
Option 2: Amending the existing management framework
5.2.2.
Under this option the current management tools, namely the national management plans,
would be reviewed to include the CFP objectives.
The main aspects tobe considered in the review would be: amendments to the current scope (in
terms of fish stocks, fisheries and area covered); new conservation objectives such as MSY;
quantifiable targets and timeframes; and new safeguards.
Member States would be in charge of reviewing existing national management plans since, in
line with Article 19 of the MEDREG, they have been approved under their national legislation.
As the plans entered into force at different times, Member States would have to agree on a
mechanism to simultaneously review and adopt them. On the other hand, this option would
not allow for new national management plans for several fishing gears relevant to these
fisheries (e.g. longlines and static nets such as trammel nets and gillnets) because they are not
included in Article 19 of the MEDREG, unless it is on a voluntary basis. Each Member State
would also have to ensure adequate scientific monitoring of the national management plans.
Under Option 2, the Commission would act as a facilitator, steering the process and ensuring
regional coherence in the measures contained in the national management plans. The
70
In August 2017, the EC proposed to amend Article 15(6) of the CFP concerning the duration of discard
plans. The amendment consist of the adoption of discard plans for a further total period of up to three years
to facilitate the implementation of the landing obligation and until multi-annual plans are in place. For the
purpose of this impact assessment report, the policy options have been described according to the current
CFP, since at this stage it is not possible to anticipate the outcomes of the proposed amendment.
71
COM(2017)424. Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending
Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 on the Common Fisheries Policy. Brussels, 11.08.2017.
30
Commission would also consult its scientific advisory body, the STECF, to assess the scientific
basis for the plans.
Under this option it would be difficult to estimate and allocate the contribution of each fishing
gear-based plan to the target FMSY in a mixed fisheries context. In addition, keeping and
amending the existing plans would make it difficult to achieve the objectives of bringing the
landing obligation into effect. Implementation of the landing obligation (by fishery) in the
current management framework (by fishing gears) would be difficult to achieve as it would be
unclear and, in practice, nearly impossible to have different stocks subject to the landing
obligation for each fishing gear-based plan. Furthermore, the recent discard plan would not be
renewed after it expires (on 31 December 2019). The landing obligation would be thus
applicable to the whole fishery, with no exemptions (i.e. high survival rates).
As with the baseline scenario, the Commission would continue to monitor implementation of
the national management plans and, in the event of non-compliance, it would take the
necessary steps, such as opening infringement proceedings.
Option 3: Adopting an EU multi-annual plan
5.2.3.
This option would aim at ensuring that EU fishing fleets targeting demersal stocks in the
western Mediterranean are regulated by a single and integrated regulatory framework at the
EU level. Under this option, the national management plans would no longer be needed, as
the multi-annual plan (together with the Fishing Opportunities Regulation) would cover the
main conservation aspects of the fisheries concerned.
According to the CFP, multi-annual plans should be adopted as a priority and establish a
common framework for the sustainable exploitation of the jointly exploited fish stocks. They
should also contain conservation objectives such as MSY, together with quantifiable targets,
timeframes, safeguard mechanisms, and provisions to implement regionalisation and the
landing obligation. This means that each multi-annual plan should contain the same core
elements, but should be tailored to reflect thespecificities of a given fishery and sub-region.
Five main elements72
to be considered under this multi-annual plan are outlined below:
(i) The scope of the multi-annual plan in terms of fish stocks, fishery and area
Demersal fisheries in the western Mediterranean Sea are known for being highly multi-species
and multi-gear (see Section 1.4). Under this option, a wide range of stocks and fishing gears
would be included to fullycover the main aspects of the fishery.
Two groups of stocks have been identified on the basis of data availability (i.e. data-rich and
data-poor stocks). Group 1 contains those stocks for which there are enough data to provide
scientific advice (including the estimation of FMSY and biological reference points such as
BLIM and BPA). These are the main species driving demersal fisheries in the western
Mediterranean. Depending on the GSA, they are hake (Merluccius merluccius), red mullet
(Mullus barbatus), striped red mullet (Mullus surmuletus), giant red shrimp (Aristaeomorpha
foliacea), deep-water rose shrimp (Parapenaeus longirostris), blue and red shrimp (Aristeus
antennatus), Norway lobster (Nephrops norvegicus), anglerfish (Lophius spp.), common sole
(Solea vulgaris), gilt-head seabream (Sparus aurata) and the European seabass (Dicentrarchus
labrax). The STECF73
and the respondents to the public consultation (see Annex 2) broadly
supported including these stocks in a multi-annual plan.
72
These elements were also agreed in an inter-institutional taskforce agreement (April 2014).
73
STECF(2016). Multiannual plan for demersal fisheries in the Western Mediterranean (STECF 16-21).
Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg; EUR 27758 EN, 130 pp.
31
The EU multi-annual plan would also include a Group 2 consisting of demersal stocks that are
commercially important and/or subject to the landing obligation, but for which data
limitations have prevented the provision of scientific advice. Species such as wreckfish
(Polyprion americanus), lobster (Homarus gammarus), crawfish (Palinuridae), together with
seabreams (Diplodus spp.), pandoras (Pagellus spp.) and groupers (Epinephelus spp.), would
fall into this category. For this group of species, the multi-annual plan would not fix concrete
targets, but it would allow for the adoption of complementary measures such as technical
measures.
The fishing gears included under this option would be bottom trawlers and, unlike for
Option 2, passive gears such as trammel nets, gillnets, longlines and traps. The stakeholder
consultation revealed broad support for including recreational fisheries, as total catches are
considered significant. The multi-annual plan could contain provisions regulating recreational
fisheries beyond those in the MEDREG (see Section 1.3.1). However, cross-cutting legislative
tools providing for a common approach in all EU waters are thought to be more effective in
addressing this issue. For instance, there are ongoing discussions about including some
provisions on recreational fisheries in the future Technical Measures Regulation and, probably
at a later stage, in the revised Control Regulation. Pending adoption of these regulations, the
multi-annual plan would propose applying the regionalisation approach and introducing
concrete measures for those recreational fisheries where the advice from appropriate scientific
bodies indicates that there is a significant amount of catches of a particular stock.
Due to the trans-boundary nature of certain fish stocks (see stocks’ boundaries in Annex 7),
the geographical scope would be the wide area of the EU western Mediterranean Sea (i.e.
GFCM GSAs 1, 2,5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11; see Figure 1.1). This area has similar environmental
features and would cover the distribution of all EU vessels fishing in the western
Mediterranean Sea. Moreover, this is the area covered by the PESCAMED high-level group,
which implements regionalisation in the western Mediterranean basin.
(ii) Quantifiable targets and related timeframes
Quantifiable goals or targets would be used to turn the broad objectives of the multi-annual
plan into practical results. Under the CFP, those targets would be set as the highest theoretical
equilibrium yield that can be continuously taken on average from a stock under existing
average environmental conditions without significantly affecting the reproduction process.
This target is commonly called fishing mortality at MSY levels, or FMSY. Under this option,
some flexibility would be used to reflect the multi-species nature of the fisheries, through the
use of FMSY ranges (i.e. lower and upper values). These ranges would make for greater
consistency in setting the management measures for the different stocks, as the lower and
upper values would provide some room for manoeuvre.
Article 2(2) of the CFP sets the timeframe for achieving the objectives by 2015 where
possible and, on a progressive, incremental basis, by 2020 at the latest for all stocks. In this
case, the multi-annual plan would aim at achieving the goals by 202074
.
(iii) Conservation reference points and safeguard measures
Besides the targets (i.e. FMSY ranges), the multi-annual plan would also contain conservation
reference points in terms of stock size. These points are, in fact, thresholds or limit values that
indicate whether the fishery is in an undesirable situation (e.g. with a dangerously low
spawning biomass). The plan would set for each stock a limit reference point (or biomass
limit, BLIM) indicating that the stock is in serious danger of collapse. To avoid getting too
close to BLIM, the plan would also contain a safety margin by incorporating a precautionary
74
There is a high risk of not achieving the goals of the multi-annual plan in the proposed deadline. However,
the initial goal of the initiative would be the one set by the CFP, so that is by 2020 at the latest.
32
reference point (or biomass precautionary, BPA). This is set at a value that keeps the risk of
falling below BLIM and that takes into account uncertainties about the dynamics of that stock.
When either the precautionary or limit reference points are surpassed, immediate management
action is needed. In this event, the multi-annual plan would contain safeguard measures to
allow the stock to recover. Safeguard measures would be pre-planned and could cover a
variety of steps, such as bringing fishing mortality below the lower value of the FMSY range,
altering the technical characteristics of the fishing gears, setting additional spatial/temporal
closures, or even suspending the fishery for a certain period of time.
(iv) Management instrument to achieve the objectives
Until now, the management regime in the Mediterranean Sea has focused on limiting the
number, type and size of fishing vessels or fishing gears (i.e. input controls) to regulate access
to fisheries resources. The only regulatory tool for this has been the national management
plans adopted under the MEDREG. As described above, this has proven ineffective in
meeting the objectives set in the MEDREG and, subsequently, in the CFP. However, the main
issue for fisheries management in the western Mediterranean Sea is not the effort management
regime per se, but rather the lack of timely and coordinated actions commensurate to deal
with the scale of the problem and follow the scientific recommendations.
As the broad stakeholder consultation suggests and given the difficulties to introduce TAC at
this stage (see explanation in Section 5.1), the multi-annual plan would back a new effort
management regime for demersal fisheries in the western Mediterranean Sea. This regime
would attempt to tackle the challenges of the multi-species nature of the fisheries through a
combination of total allowable effort implemented through days at sea and technical
measures. Unlike the present situation, the Council would set a maximum total effort annually
for each pre-defined effort group (e.g. bottom trawlers above 18 metres in overall length),
possibly capped with weekly or monthly catch limits for the larger fishing vessels and in
accordance with the scientific advice. This mechanism would periodically assess current levels
of fishing mortality and progressively adjust to the point where assessments show that the
stocks are being fished at the FMSY. The benefits of this reformed effort regime compared to
the current national management plans adopted under the MEDREG (also based on effort
limitations) would be the setting of common goals and measures to be jointly implemented by
the Member States concerned; greater transparency among Member States and the Commission;
and closer monitoring of fishing activity, as effort would be regularly adjusted by the Council.
Should the evaluation show that the new fishing effort regime fails, the multi-annual plan
would foresee a possible replacement by output controls such as TAC.
Another important aspect would be a greater use of closures for certain periods of the year,
areas and types of fishing gear, in particular bottom trawlers. These closures would primarily
aim at protecting spawning and nursery grounds within the geographical scope of the plan.
They might take the form of fish stock recovery areas (Article 8 of the CFP), with fishing
activities restricted or prohibited in order to help conserve living aquatic resources and marine
ecosystems, including biologically sensitive areas. Additional technical measures such as
using sorting grids or setting new MCRSs for target and by-catch species would be strongly
encouraged.
(v) Measures to implement the landing obligation
In the Mediterranean Sea the landing obligation for demersal species entered into force in
January 2017 with the adoption of a three-year discard plan. The main elements set out in the
discard plan are a list of vessels, de minimis exemptions and survivability exemptions75
.
75
Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/86 of 20 October 2016 establishing a discard plan for certain
demersal fisheries in the Mediterranean Sea; OJ L 14, 18.1.2017, p. 4–8.
33
Under Article 18 of the CFP, after the discard plans have expired, details on implementing the
landing obligation should be adopted as part of a multi-annual plan and, where relevant,
further specified in accordance with the regionalisation approach. This means that the multi-
annual plan may include an empowerment to adopt delegated acts to enforce the landing
obligation, including for existing and future exemptions.
The option of including exemptions in the plan itself has been discarded for several reasons.
Firstly, the discard plans are constantly evolving. PESCAMED has brought forward two joint
recommendations for demersal fisheries in the western Mediterranean Sea, which cover the
initial stages of the landing obligation only (i.e. 2016/2017). Further joint recommendations
for the subsequent step will follow. In addition, some exemptions might still change because,
following the STECF evaluation, they have been granted on condition that Member States
conduct further scientific studies that justify the exemptions. The adaptive, flexible approach
of regionalisation is therefore clearly the preferred option for this element of the plan.
Lastly, a schematic view of how the multi-annual plan would be implemented, by whom and
over what time line, is provided in Figure 5.1.
Figure 5.1 Diagram of the different stages of the policy cycle. The multi-annual plan, as the main regulatory
framework, would define among others the management objectives, the new effort regime and the safeguard
mechanisms. On an annual basis, the Council Regulation establishing fishing opportunities would set out the
rules for the exploitation of demersal stocks in the western Mediterranean Sea, in line with the policy cycle.
‘Year 0’ corresponds to the year before the adoption of the multi-annual plan; ‘Year 1’ corresponds to the year
the multi-annual plan enters into force and when the Regulation establishing fishing opportunities adjusts fishing
effort levels; and ‘Year 2’ corresponds to year of the implementation of the measures adopted at Member States'
level. During Year 2 a monitoring of the measures will be carried out through the data collection, thereby re-
launching the policy cycle. ‘JRC’ means Joint Research Centre; ‘STECF’ means Scientific, Technical and
Economic Committee for Fisheries; and ‘COMM’ means European Commission.
Throughout the year,
experts collect and
treat fisheries data at
national level
June of the next
year, national
correspondents submit
the data to the JRC
Early September,
STECF uses the data to
provide scientific
advice, e.g. update
stock status
October, COMM
consults stakeholders
such as the MEDAC
November,
Council discusses
COMM's proposal
As from 1 January,
Member States
implement the
measures adopted
Multi-annual plan:
Different stages of the policy cycle
Monitoring
YEAR 0
YEAR 2
YEAR 1
End of September,
COMM examines the
scientific advice,
identifies policy line &
launches a socio-
economic analysis
By end of the year,
Council adopts the
Regulation stablishing
fishing opportunities
(in effort)
End of October,
COMM drafts a proposal for
a Council Regulation
establishing Fishing
Opportunities, in line with
the scientific advice
34
6. WHAT ARE THE IMPACTS OF THE DIFFERENT POLICY OPTIONS AND WHO
WILL BE AFFECTED?
This section assesses, for the main target stocks76,77
, the likely environmental, social and
economic impacts of the retained policy options against the baseline. This work was carried
out by the STECF and Commission services78,79,80
.
The following indicators have been identified:
 Environmental: (i) the stock size or SSB; (ii) the percentage of stocks that has
recovered (where recovery means the moment at which a stock shows a less than 5 %
probability of its SSB being below BPA); (iii) the probability of reaching the fishing
mortality targets for all the stocks.
 Economic: the number of fleet segments at financial risk; the number of vessels affected.
 Social: the effect on jobs (as FTEs).
All of the impacts described below are expected to be especially relevant to SMEs, as the
large majority of fishing firms involved in exploiting demersal stocks in the western
Mediterranean Sea are micro-enterprises (see Section 2.3 on the affected stakeholders).
6.1. Option 1: No policy change at EU level (baseline scenario)
The environmental and socio-economic impacts of the baseline scenario are presented in
Section 2.4 (evolution of the problem) and summarised in Table 6.1.
76
For the purpose of assessing environmental impacts, target stocks means: the two stocks of hake
(Merluccius merluccius) in GSAs 1-5-6-7 and GSAs 9-10-11; the five stocks of red mullet (Mullus
barbatus) in GSAs 1, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10; one stock of striped red mullet (Mullus surmuletus) in GSA 5; the two
stocks of anglerfish (Lophius budegassa) in GSAs 5 and 6; the two stocks of blue and red shrimp (Aristeus
antennatus) in GSA 5 and 6; the three stocks of giant red shrimp (Aristeomorpha foliacea) in GSAs 9, 10,
11; and the three stocks of deep-water rose shrimp (Parapenaeus longirostris) in GSAs 1, 5, 6, 9. All in all,
environmental impacts have been assessed for 18 of 29 assessed stocks. The 11 additional stocks listed in
Table 2.1 were not assessed for two main reasons: they are new assessments carried out after the STECF
meeting (e.g. sole and European seabass in GSA 7); and there were constraints on timing and data access.
77
For the purpose of assessing socio-economic impacts, target stocks means: all catches of the eight most
commercially important species in the western Mediterranean Sea, FAO area 37.1.1 (i.e. hake, red mullet,
anglerfish,blue whiting, giant red shrimp, deep-water rose shrimp, Norway lobster and blue and red shrimp).
78
STECF(2016). Multiannual plan for demersal fisheries in the Western Mediterranean (STECF 16-21).
Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg; EUR 27758 EN, 130 pp.
79
JRC(2017). Analysis of success of achieving fishing levels for the western Mediterranean Multi-annual
plan. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg; EUR 28706 EN; 19 pp.
80
The socio-economic analysis was carried out by the Commission services, May 2017.
35
Table 6.1 Results of the analysis of the options, in terms of socio-economic indicators (i.e. number of fleets at financial risk, and number of vessels and jobs affected) and
environmental indicators (i.e. catch and SSB for hake in GSAs 1-5-6-7 and red mullet in GSA 11, in tonnes; percentage of stocks recovered and probability that all stocks will reach
FMSY). Table A provides the short-term results (i.e. by 2020 for the environmental indicators and by 2022 for the socio-economic indicators); Table B provides the medium-term
results (i.e. by 2025 for both the socio-economic and environmental indicators). Source: STECF and Commission services66, 67, 68
.
(A) Impacts in the short-term (i.e. to 2020/22)
No of fleets at
financial risk
No of vessels
affected
Jobs affected
Catch
Hake
GSA 1-5-6-7
Catch
Red mullet
GSA 11
SSB
Hake
GSA 1-5-6-7
SSB
Red mullet
GSA 11
Percentage of
stocks
recovered
Probability of
all stocks
reaching
FMSY
(FTEs) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes)
Current situation
(2015)
4 386 1 617 3 834 262 6 739 133 11 % 0 %
Option 1: Baseline 5 628 2 861 4 897 286 6 662 161 16 % 0 %
Option 2: Amend
current framework
6 538 1 880 3 615 156 10 999 527 33 % 22 %
Option 3: Adopt an
EU multi-annual plan
8 1 415 6 193 3 537 157 11 725 579 36 % 32 %
(B) Impacts in the medium-term (i.e. to 2025)
No of fleets at
financial risk
No of vessels
affected
Jobs affected
Catch
Hake
GSA 1-5-6-7
Catch
Red mullet
GSA 11
SSB
Hake
GSA 1-5-6-7
SSB
Red mullet
GSA 11
Percentage of
stocks
recovered
Probability of
all stocks
reaching
FMSY
(FTEs) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes)
Current situation
(2015)
4 386 1 617 3 834 262 6 739 133 11 % 0 %
Option 1: Baseline 9 1 438 6 234 4 784 315 6 585 172 5 % 0 %
Option 2: Amend
current framework
4 763 3 696 4 600 305 21 048 1 393 72 % 28 %
Option 3: Adopt an
EU multi-annual plan
1 52 156 4 395 312 22 597 1 474 70 % 36 %
36
6.2. Option 2: Amending the current management framework
Under this option, the current management tools, namely the national management plans,
would be reviewed to take on the objectives of the CFP (e.g. MSY).
Management measures would apply exclusively to bottom trawlers (i.e. fishing gear subject to
national management plans) to attain FMSY levels for the assessed stocks. This option includes
the actions already planned in the French, Italian and Spanish EMFF operational programmes.
In addition, it has been assumed that the Member States would adopt additional conservation
measures at national level in response to the commitments undertaken in the ‘Catania
process’. All these actions were translated as a reduction of 20% of the existing fishing effort
compared to the baseline.
For simplification, the following sub-sections will describe the results of the simulations for
hake in the GSAs 1-5-6-7 and red mullet in GSA 11. More detailed information on all
assessed stocks is available in Annex 9.
Environmental impacts
6.2.1.
The STECF analysis suggests that the SSBs of the assessed stocks are expected to recover as
a result of fishing effort reductions:
 Under Option 2, by 2020 the SSB of hake in GSAs 1-5-6-7 would be 10 999 tonnes,
40 % higher than the baseline. A similar pattern was observed for red mullet in
GSA 11, for which the SSB would be 527 tonnes, 70 % higher than the baseline.
 Under Option 2, by 2025 the SSB of hake in GSAs 1-5-6-7 would be 21 048 tonnes,
68 % tonnes than the baseline. The SSB of red mullet in GSA 11 would be 1 393
tonnes, 87 % higher than the baseline.
Two additional indicators were tested to give an overview of the trends in all assessed stocks.
Under Option 2, approximately 72 % of the assessed stocks would recover to SSB levels
above the BPA precautionary reference point by 2025. However, the probability of
achieving fishing mortality targets for all stocks would be only around 28 %. The
simulations suggest that, under Option 2, neither indicator would be fully met. Nevertheless,
this scenario produces more positive results than the baseline (where a mere 5 % of demersal
stocks would recover above BPA levels and 0 % would be exploited at FMSY by 2025).
Socio-economic impacts
6.2.2.
As a consequence of the substantial reductions to meet FMSY targets, this option would put 6
fleet segments at financial risk by 2022 (one fleet segment more than the baseline). They are
the French and Spanish bottom trawlers between 18 and 40 metres in overall length and the
large Italian bottom trawlers of 24 to 40 metres in overall length. The 6 fleet segments have
538 vessels, 1 880 FTE fishermen and 940 jobs in ancillary activities at risk.
The effort reductions are expected to slightly increase the productivity of the stocks and,
consequently, total catches would also increase. Under Option 2, only 4 fleet segments
would be at financial risk by 2025 (five fleet segments fewer than the baseline). The affected
fleet segments have 763 vessels, 3 696 FTE fishermen and 1848 jobs in ancillary activities
at risk.
37
6.3. Option 3: Adopting an EU multi-annual plan
This option aims at ensuring that EU fishing fleets targeting demersal stocks in the western
Mediterranean Sea are regulated by a single, integrated regulatory framework at EU level.
Under this option, management measures would apply to all fishing gears involved in
attaining FMSY levels for the target stocks. As with Option 2, this option includes the measures
already planned in the French, Italian and Spanish EMFF operational programmes and any
possible additional conservation measures adopted at national level in response to the
commitments undertaken in the ‘Catania process’ (i.e. a 20 % reduction in the existing fishing
effort). Besides, under Option 3, additional reductions would be carried out to reach the FMSY
targets set for all stocks.
Environmental impacts
6.3.1.
As with the previous option, the SSBs of the assessed stocks are expected to recover as a
result of the fishing effort reductions:
 Under Option 3, by 2020 the SSB of hake in GSAs 1-5-6-7 would be 11 725 tonnes,
44 % higher than the baseline. The SSB of red mullet in GSA 11 would be 579 tonnes,
72 % higher than the baseline.
 Under Option 3, by 2025 the SSB of hake in GSAs 1-5-6-7 would be 22 597 tonnes,
71 % higher than the baseline. The SSB of red mullet in GSA 11 would be
1 474 tonnes, 88 % higher than the baseline.
In addition, under Option 3, approximately 70 % of the assessed stocks would recover to
SSB levels above the BPA precautionary reference point by 2025. However, the
probability of achieving fishing mortality targets for all stocks would remain low, at
around 36 %. The simulations suggest that, under Option 3, neither indicator would be fully
met. Nevertheless, this scenario produces substantially better results than the baseline and also
than Option 2 in relation to change FMSY.
Socio-economic impacts
6.3.2.
As a consequence of the substantial reductions needed to attain fishing mortality targets, this
option would put 8 fleet segments at financial risk by 2022 (three fleet segments more than
the baseline). They are the French, Spanish and Italian bottom trawlers between 18 and 40
metres in overall length and some Spanish passive gears (e.g. longliners between 6 and 12
metres). The 8 fleet segments have 1 415 vessels, 6 193 FTE fishermen and 3 100 jobs in
ancillary activities at risk.
After the reductions a recovery in the stocks is expected, leading to an increase in catches. By
2025 there would be an improvement in economic performance across all fleets, with
only 1 fleet segment unprofitable (under the baseline scenario nine fleet segments would be
at financial risk). The affected fleet segment (i.e. Spanish netters between 12 and 18
metres in overall length) has 52 vessels, 156 FTE fishermen and 78 jobs in ancillary
activities at risk.
38
7. HOW DO THE DIFFERENT OPTIONS COMPARE?
This section comparesthe different policy options with regard to their effectiveness, efficiency,
coherence and acceptability. The results are presented in summary tables with a comparison of
the relative positive, negative or neutral impacts, compared to the baseline. The preferred
option and the reasons for choosing it are given at the end of this section.
7.1. Effectiveness
This sub-section looks at effectiveness, or how successful the different policy options would
be in achieving the specific objectives set out in Section 4.2 (i.e. MSY by 2020, a sustainable
fishing sector, improved selectivity particularly on juvenile individuals, and an effective
management framework).
(i) To achieve and maintain fishing mortality at the maximum sustainable yield (FMSY)
for all demersal stocks by 2020
Under the baseline (Option 1), this objective will not be achieved at all, as the vast majority of
stocks would fall far short of FMSY by 2020 and even beyond.
Options 2 and 3 would have positive environmental impacts compared with the baseline. In
particular, the ‘Percentage of stocks recovered’ indicator yielded a very positive impact: given
that the baseline would result in a mere 5 % recovery, whereas Options 2 and 3 would result
in 70-72 % by 202581
. The analysis of the ‘Probability of all stocks reaching FMSY’ indicator
gave a positive impact, as options 2 and 3 performed better than the baseline, but it is still not
ideal (28 % - 36 %). Bearing in mind the current bad state of most stocks and the complexity
of the fishery82
, these results allow to strike a satisfactory and realistic balance between the
environmental and socio-economic objectives of the CFP.
The multi-annual plan (Option 3) would also introduce biomass safeguards that would require
action to recover stocks that fall outside safe biological limits and a novel mechanism in
which the Council would adopt for the first time fishing opportunities (in terms of effort) on
annual basis to carry out a real reduction of the fishing mortality in accordance with the
scientific advice. In addition, achieving the FMSY objective under Option 2 is inherently riskier
than under Option 3, for two basic reasons: (i) far more conditions need to be met to deliver an
effective management framework (e.g. greater cooperation, harmonisation, coordination
among Member States); and (ii) even if the current framework is amended, there is no
guarantee that the poor implementation observed until now will end. Hence, assumed
mortality reduction of 20 % may not materialise. Therefore, the likelihood of attaining
sustainable fish stocks is greater for Option 3 (++) than Option 2 (+).
(ii) To increase the selectivity of bottom trawls, particularly on juveniles individuals
Under options 2(amended framework) and 3 (multi-annual plan), additional technical measures
such as spatio/temporal closures for nursery areas would be adopted in order to improve the
81
The comparison of the impacts was made in the medium-term (i.e. to 2025), as it is too early to see any
likely benefit from the different options by 2020. Therefore, the initial goal set in the CFP of reaching Fmsy
by 2020 will most likely not be attained because the policy options would only be implemented for few
years.
82
There are two key aspects to consider; (i) the vast majority of the stocks are overexploited and many of them
at alarming levels; and (ii) the time-frame to reach sustainability (either 2020 or 2025) is too short to
observe a full achievement of FMSY targets. In addition, the multispecies nature of the fisheries (Figure 1.2)
increases the difficulty to set commensurate fishing levels for all of the stocks at once. The inter-species
interactions also play an important role, as the recovery of one species can affect negatively the status of
another species (e.g. predator-prey relationship).
39
fishing pattern and so increase the selectivity of bottom trawls. Therefore, both options would
perform better than Option 1 (baseline). However, under Option 3, technical measures would
play an essential role complementing the new effort management regime. They might take the
form of fish stock recovery areas (Article 8 of the CFP), with fishing activities restricted or
prohibited in order to help conserve living aquatic resources and marine ecosystems, including
biologically sensitive areas. In particular, spatio-temporal closures would also reserve the
coastal zone for more selective gears in order to protect nursery areas and safeguard small-
scale fisheries. Additional technical measures such as using sorting grids or setting new
MCRSs for target and by-catch species would be strongly encouraged.
(iii) To ensure a sustainable fishing sector
A sustainable fishing sector is directly related to, and depends on meeting the objective of
exploiting fish stocks sustainably. To have a sustainable fisheries sector, the resource needs to
be exploited sustainably.
Therefore, in terms of achieving this objective, Option 2 (amended framework) and Option 3
(multi-annual plan) are far more effective than Option 1 (baseline) in the medium term (i.e. by
2025). Moreover, Option 3 would deliver a better socio-economic performance than Option 2,
as the number of fleets at financial risk and the number of vessels and jobs affected would be
minimal. The affected fleet segment (i.e. Spanish netters between 12 and 18 metres in overall
length) has 52 vessels, 156 FTE fishermen and 78 jobs in ancillary activities at risk.
As shown in other sea basins, multi-annual plans have proven effective in increasing the
number of stocks fished at sustainable levels and the economic performance of many fleets in
the long-term, especially for small-scale fisheries83
.
(iv) To provide an effective management framework which is simpler, more stable and
provides stakeholders with greater ownership?
Simplification
As described in the problem definition, the current management framework is complex. A
simpler, more stable and more transparent framework would markedly improve the situation.
By definition, options 1 and 2 do not provide any simplification, as they would not alter the
existing regulatory framework.
In the short term Option 3 would not lead to simplification compared to the baseline, as
Member States and the fishing sector would need to adapt to a new management instrument in
the form of a multi-annual plan. However, simplification could be expected after this
transitional period, because the multi-annual plan would replace provisions currently spread
across national management plans and would make the various management tools used for
this fishery coherent.
Option 3 would also provide for a simpler and more transparent system than the baseline for
translating scientific advice into management measures. Scientists would provide their
scientific advice on a yearly basis, including effort limits to ensure sustainable fishing levels,
and this would then be translated into a yearly Commission proposal in the fishing
opportunities regulation.
Option 2 does not provide any simplification, but instead offers further complications in the
short term, as the national management measures would need to be changed. Revising the
83
COM(2017)368. Communication from the Commission on the State of Play of the Common Fisheries
Policy and Consultation on the Fishing Opportunities for 2018. Brussels, 5.07.2017.
40
current management framework is a complex process and could add complexity and
administrative burden for the Commission and national administrations alike. Even if the
current framework is improved, under Option 2 the number of management instruments (three
national management plans) would still remain as high as under the baseline.
Greater stability
As described in the problem definition, with options 1 and 2 there is a distinct lack of stability
and predictability with the management measures in place, which is a problem for the fishing
sector. Option 3 would provide more stability and predictability to Member States and the
industry compared to Option 1. With a multi-annual plan, the process would be clearer and
predictable, thanks to the yearly setting of fishing opportunities (in terms of fishing effort).
Option 3 would also provide more transparency regarding the respective share of effort that
each Member State can allocate in a given year.
Under Option 2, the national management plans, even if improved, would still be open to
modifications and thus there would be no more stability compared to the baseline.
Better ownership
One of thecornerstones ofthe new CFP is the regionalisation process, as a means of increasing
ownership of management measures by operator and Member States. Under the baseline, and
even if amended (Option 2), regionalisation could not be achieved. At best, the existing
management plans adopted under the MEDREG could be updated after regional consultations
and agreement, provided that Member States were willing to take part in such a voluntary
exercise or regional consultation and to update their national management plans in line with
regionally agreed measures.
However, the multi-annual plan (Option 3) would provide the legal basis for regionalisation,
as intended in the CFP, on the basis of joint recommendations. Under Option 3, Member
States could agree on aspects such as conservation measures for fish stocks, including where
to establish fish stock recovery areas (protected areas), or measures to gradually eliminate
discards. In turn, this is likely to result in greater ownership of the adopted management
measures, which would have been developed with consideration for the regional specificities
of the western Mediterranean Sea.
Table 7.1 Comparison of options for their effectiveness by 2025.
Options
Option 1 –
Baseline
Option 2 – Amended
framework
Option 3 – EU
multi-annual plan
To achieve and maintain fishing
mortality at maximum sustainable yield
(FMSY) for all demersal stocks
0 + + +
To increase selectivity of bottom trawls,
particularly on juveniles individuals
0 + + +
To ensure a sustainable fishing sector 0 + + +
To provide an effective management
framework which is:
− simpler 0 - +/-
− more stable 0 0 +
− provides greater ownership 0 0 +
Key: 0 = neutral impact, + = positive impact, ++ = very positive impact, - = negative impact, -- = very negative
impact, +/- = both positive and negative impacts.
41
7.2. Efficiency
Efficiency evaluates the cost-effectiveness of the different options in delivering the objectives.
The costs are considered as regards socio-economic impacts (e.g. to what extent employment
would be affected) and administrative burden; the benefits are considered as regards
environmental impacts (e.g. percentage of stocks recovered). The results of the comparison
are summarised in Table 7.2.
According to Section 7.1, Option 3 (multi-annual plan) would be more effective than Option 1
(baseline) and Option 2 (amended framework) with respect to meeting the environmental
objectives of this initiative.
As regards the socio-economic costs, options 2 and 3 appear to result in greater costs overall
in the short term than Option 1, in particular in terms of overall numbers of vessels and jobs
affected. However, in the medium term (i.e. 2025), the socio-economic costs are expected to
decrease as stock status improves. Under Option 3, the socio-economic performance (i.e. fleet
at financial risk, number of vessels and jobs affected) is expected to improve across all fleets
by 2025, with only one fleet segment at financial risk. Therefore, Option 3 delivered a very
positive impact (++) and Option 2 a positive impact (+).
As regards administrative burden, under Option 3 the setting of fishing effort levels would
be part of the annual proposal for fishing opportunities and thus would not cause any major
additional burden. As for the Member States, putting in place the new effort management
system may lead to some additional administrative costs, but this could be catered for through
EMFF support (Article 36 of the EMFF). After a transitional period, it is expected that the
administrative costs (equivalent to maintaining the established regulatory framework) would
fall and be more in line with the benefits of achieving the goals set.
Overall, Options 3 deliver more positive environmental and socio-economic impacts than the
baseline and Option 2 by 2025.
Table 7.2 Comparison of options for their environmental and socio-economic costs and administrative burden
by 2025.
Options
Option 1 –
Baseline
Option 2 – Amended
framework
Option 3 – EU
multi-annual plan
Environmental impacts:
− Percentage of stocks recovered 0 ++ ++
− Probability all stocks reach FMSY 0 + ++
Socio-economic impacts:
− Fleets at financial risk 0 + ++
− No of vessels affected 0 + ++
− Jobs affected 0 + ++
Administrative burden 0 0 +/-
Key: 0 = neutral impact, + = positive impact, ++ = very positive impact, - = negative impact, -- = very negative
impact, +/- = both positive and negative impacts.
42
7.3. Coherence
The Common Fisheries Policy is the main policy with which the initiative should be
coherent, as it is the overarching policy for managing fisheries in the EU. Option 1 (baseline)
is not coherent with the CFP’s overall objectives, as it does not provide long-term
sustainability for the western Mediterranean demersal stocks or an appropriate legal
framework for regionalised decision-making. Option 2 (amended framework) is coherent with
some CFP objectives (e.g. sustainability), but not all (e.g. regionalisation). Option 3 (multi-
annual plan) is fully coherent with the CFP, as it is by far the preferred tool for managing the
sustainable exploitation of fish stocks. Besides, the content of the multi-annual plans has
already been agreed and pre-defined in the CFP (Article 10).
Outside fisheries, a closely-related EU policy, the Marine Strategy Framework Directive
(MSFD), seeks to achieve ‘good environmental status’ for EU marine waters by 2020. In
particular, the MSFD aims to ensure that the population of commercial fish species is healthy
(Descriptor 3) and that elements of food webs ensure long-term abundance and reproduction
(Descriptor 4). Option 1 would not be coherent with these policy objectives, because it would
not enable fish stocks to recover to a healthy state and to be fished at sustainable levels.
Options 2 (amended framework) and 3 (multi-annual plan) would be fully coherent with the
MSFD objectives, as both options integrate the objective of sustainable fisheries.
A key overarching document of relevance to initiatives in all policy areas, is the EU Charter
of Fundamental Rights84
, and in particular Article 37, according to which environmental
protection and a better quality of the environment must feature highly in EU policies and be in
line with the sustainable development principle. As for previous policies, Option 1 would not
be coherent with this policy objective, while options 2 and 3 would be fully coherent with it.
7.4. Acceptability
Most stakeholders, including the three Member States concerned, MEDAC and the fishing
sector, agree that a multi-annual plan (Option 3) is preferable to option 2 (amended
framework). More precisely, nearly three quarters of respondents to the public consultation
agreed or strongly agreed that a multi-annual plan would be the best option to manage
demersal fisheries in the western Mediterranean Sea.
Technical measures (e.g. spatial/temporal closures) combined with fishing effort limitations,
such as limitations on the number of fishing days, enjoyed the broadest support. The option
expressed by the respondents is in line with the management measures proposed in the multi-
annual plan (Option 3), which will certainly be widely accepted – more so than if the plan had
proposed TACs. On the other hand, stakeholders might be dissatisfied with the fact that there
are no additional provisions on control. However, given the likely upcoming revision of the
Control Regulation, it would have been counterproductive to anticipate new control measures.
The EU has provided, and continues to provide financial assistance to Member States, to the
fishing industry and to coastal communities to help them adapt to changing conditions in the
sector and become economically resilient and ecologically sustainable. The EMFF specifically
provides funding tools to help fishermen to transit to sustainable fishing. It contains provisions
for offering support to fishermen to stop fishing temporarily or permanently, to retrain for a
different career, to diversify their sources of income (away from fishing) and to replace gears
to be more selective. Some of these measures are conditional on the fishery being covered by
an EU multi-annual plan.
84
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (2012/C 326/02); OJ C 326, 26.10.2012, p. 391–407.
43
All in all, the multi-annual plan is seen as an opportunity to improve the current ineffective
regulatoryframework forthe fisheries exploiting demersal stocks in the western Mediterranean
Sea.The broadconsultations and public campaigns (see MEDFISH4EVER declaration) carried
out so far as part of the ‘Catania process’ have created a very positive momentum in which
stakeholders are ready to take action, mainly in the form of multi-annual plans.
7.5. The preferred option
Taking into account all the evidences collected and analysed through the Impact Assessment
process, the preferred option is Option 3: a multi-annual plan at EU level. The reasons for
this are listed below:
o As shown in Section 2, the vast majority of demersalstocks in thewestern Mediterranean
Sea are in an alarming state. Besides, the current regulatory framework (i.e. national
management plans) is ineffective due to its limited scope (e.g. some fishing gears are
not covered), poor implementation (e.g. fishing effort has not been adapted to
sustainable levels) and widespread low uptake from stakeholders.
o Given the trans-boundary nature of certain fish stocks and fleets, European fisheries
must be managed jointly among the Member States involved; hence the need for a
multi-annual plan at EU level (Section 3).
o The broad consultation indicates that most stakeholders (public administrations, fishing
sector, NGOs and general public) consider an EU multi-annual plan as the best option to
manage demersal fisheries in the western Mediterranean Sea.
o The multi-annual plan is more coherent with the reformed CFP, particularly with the
objectives defined in Section 4, as it is by far the preferred tool for managing the
sustainable exploitation of fish stocks.
o As indicates sections 6 and 7, the likelihood of attaining sustainable fish stocks is
greater for the multi-annual plan (Option 3) than the amended framework (Option 2). In
addition, achieving the FMSY objective under Option 2 is inherently much riskier than
under Option 3, as: (i) far more conditions need to be met to deliver an effective
management framework; and (ii) even if the current framework is amended, there is no
guarantee that the poor implementation observed until now will end.
o Section 7 also shows that the multi-annual plan is streamlined (one main regulatory
framework), more stable (it considers the long-term perspective) and more transparent
(as the three Member States concerned would jointly adapt current fishing mortalities to
sustainable levels through a Council Regulation) than the amended framework.
o Multi-annual plans have proven effective in boosting the number of stocks fished at
sustainable levels and the economic profitability of the fishing sector in other sea basins.
o As will be shown in Section 8, the multi-annual and annual adjustment of fishing effort
to the target MSY will allow for closer monitoring by the Commission, while ensuring
better enforcement of the measures adopted.
44
8. HOW WOULD ACTUAL IMPACTS BE MONITORED AND EVALUATED?
This section identifies the monitoring and evaluation arrangements neededto track the intended
results of this initiative. In addition, a set of core indicators has been defined for the preferred
option, the multi-annual plan.
8.1. Monitoring
UnderArticle 10(2) of the CFP, quantifiable indicators can be used for the periodic monitoring
and assessment of progress in achieving the targets of the multi-annual plans. The operational
objectives and the monitoring indicators would be the following:
Operational objectives Monitoring indicators (and frequency)
1. Ensuring that the Spawning Stock Biomass
(SSB) of the demersal stocks is above the
precautionary levels (BPA) specified in the plan
SSB (tonnes) | Annually
2. Ensuring that the level of fishing mortality is
in line with the FMSY targets defined in the plan
Total catch (tonnes) | Annually
3. Ensuring that Member States effort levels
remain within the effort levels, as set out in a
Council decision
Fishing days | Quarterly
Monitoring of some of the effects of management measures is part of the routine work
associated with the implementation of the CFP. The data required to monitor the three
operational indicators are already collected by MemberStatesunder the DCF.
The Commission’s fisheries advisory body, the STECF, already provides regular scientific
advice on all the demersal stocks concerned (i.e. hake, red mullet, striped red mullet,
monkfish, sole, European seabass, gilthead seabream, blue and red shrimp, deep-water rose
shrimp, giant red shrimp and Norway lobster), including estimating their stock size
(operational objective 1). The Commission would ensure that the STECF work programme
continues to include providing scientific advice for these stocks every year.
Member States are required to submit to the Commission quarterly catch and effort data for
species managed under effort regimes. This would allow for the monitoring of operational
objectives 2 and 3 above.
In addition, the socio-economic impacts of the plan should be monitored. Every year since
2010 the STECF has assessed the EU fleet’s economic performance on the basis of Member
States’ data collection under the DCF (including an assessment of employment, profit and
salary levels). The Commission would ensure that this annual assessment continues so that the
socio-economic impacts of the multi-annual plan can be monitored.
In short, the reference data are available and a process is in place to monitor the three
operational objectives above, along with the socio-economic impacts of the multi-annual plan.
There are, however, some aspects, such as administrative burden, whose monitoring is not
performed routinely and which may need an ad hoc system. Monitoring the satisfaction of
the fishing industry could also be carried out – for example through regular participation at
the focus groups of the Mediterranean Advisory Council.
45
8.2. Evaluation
As far as evaluation is concerned, Article 10(3) of the CFP stipulates that multi-annual plans
must provide for their revision after an initial ex-post evaluation, in particular to take account
of changes in scientific advice.
The plan, and its impacts, should be assessed by the STECF five years after its entry into
force. The Commission would then report to the European Parliament and Council on the
results. An earlier evaluation is not workable, due to fact that there is a significant time lapse
between implementation of the multi-annual plan and when the data required for evaluation
would be available.
Indicators to be used for the assessment do not need to be specified in the legal acts setting the
multi-annual plans; instead, they can be developed subsequently in consultation with the
relevant stakeholders and scientific bodies. They should be environmental (such as fishing
mortality and stock size for all relevant stocks), economic (such as net profits, return on
investment, gross value added), social (total jobs in FTE terms, average wage) and cost
efficiency-related (administrative burden). Disaggregated analysis should be preferred in
order to find out whether there are fleet segments or fish stocks for which specific action
would be required.


EN EN
EUROPEAN
COMMISSION
Brussels, 8.3.2018
SWD(2018) 60 final
PART 2/6
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT
IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Accompanying the document
PROPOSAL FOR A REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF
THE COUNCIL
Establishing a multiannual plan for the fisheries exploiting demersal stocks in the
western Mediterranean Sea
{COM(2018) 115 final} - {SWD(2018) 59 final}
Europaudvalget 2018
KOM (2018) 0115
Offentligt
46
ANNEX 1:
PROCEDURAL INFORMATION
Actors involved in the process
The Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries (DG MARE) led the preparation
of this initiative and the work on the impact assessment. Other Commission departments
involved are: DG Environment (DG ENV), DG Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship
and SMEs (DG GROW), the Legal Services and the Secretariat-General.
The proposal establishing a multi-annual plan for the fisheries exploiting demersal stocks in
the western Mediterranean Sea is provided for in the 'Agenda Planning' (2016/MARE/021)
and in the DG MARE's 2017 Management Plan.
Organisation and timing
The impact assessment has progressed in several steps since Mediterranean Member States'
fisheries administrations met in September 2014 to discuss the way forward on how to
implement the reformed CFP in the Mediterranean Sea basin. The meeting concluded that EU
multi-annual plans should be developed for stocks shared among EU countries, with the
Adriatic and western Mediterranean Sea selected as the first priority areas. Since then,
numerous meetings have been organised to collect as many views as possible from the various
stakeholders (see Annex 2 for more details).
An Impact Assessment Inter-Service Steering Group (IA-ISSG) covering all the upcoming
proposals for multi-annual plans was set up by DG MARE in January 2015. The following
Commission departments were invited to take part: the Secretariat-General, the Legal Service,
DG ENV and DG GROW.
The IA-ISSG was consulted four times to discuss the following issues:
 the draft inception impact assessment (27 October 2015);
 the draft public consultation and its consultation strategy (22 December 2015);
 concrete aspects of the impact assessment such as defining the problem and the policy
options (17 March 2016);
 the draft impact assessment report (23 May 2017).
The IA-ISSG was consulted again in writing on the final draft impact assessment on 30 June
2017. In between these consultations, informal contacts were held with the members of the
steering group.
In addition, in February 2016 DG MARE set up a working group to coordinate the
DG MARE multi-annual plans and impact assessments. The group comprises DG MARE
staff working on multi-annual plans in different sea basins, DG MARE economists, experts in
impact assessments and in markets and trade, and representatives from the Commission's
Secretariat-General. The group has made good progress on topics such as better defining the
nature of the problem definition, choosing the best options and determining what indicators to
use in the modelling of impacts.
47
Consultation of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board
The draft impact assessment report was submitted to the Regulatory Scrutiny Board on 26
September 2017 for quality review. The Board analysed the draft report and issued a positive
Opinion accompanied with its recommendations for improvement on 27 October 201785
.
An overview of the Board's recommendations and the changes made compared to the earlier
draft is provided below:
Board's recommendations Changes made compared to the earlier draft
1.1. The report could clarify the international
and regional cooperation dimension of the
proposal and the surrounding political
expectations.
1.2. It could better explain the relationship
with other MAPs (i.e. Adriatic Sea, North
Sea) and specify the changes the MAP would
bring for the existing regulatory framework.
1.3. The report could be more specific on
which pieces of thee framework would be
replaced, amended or discontinued, e.g.
regarding the MEDREG.
1.1. The international dimension has been
further explained in Section 1 (page 6), in
particular the GFCM mid-term strategy and
the role of the FAO regional project
COPEMED II.
1.2. In order to clarify the relationship with
other MAPs, a new section called ‘Similarities
and differences between multi-annual plans’
has been integrated in Annex 5 (page 69).
1.3. It has been clarified in Section 5 (page 30)
that the national management plans would no
longer be needed, as the future Regulation
establishing the multi-annual plan (together
with the Fishing Opportunities Reg.) would
cover the main conservation aspects of the
fisheries concerned.
2.1. The report could better explain the
geographical scope of the initiative, i.e. why
it covers only the western part of the
Mediterranean, why not other parts around
Sicily, and whether migration of fish outside
of the EU waters is a problem.
2.1. The rationale of the geographical scope
has been clarified in Section 5 (page 31). The
scope has been confined to the western
Mediterranean Sea for the following reasons:
(i) it has similar environmental features, such
as oceanographic conditions; (ii) it covers the
most scientifically sound distribution of the
stocks (see stocks' boundaries in Annex 7)
and the fishing fleet of the Member States
concerned; (iii) it facilitates regionalisation,
since Member States have set up a High-
Level Group for the adoption of regional
measures in the same area.
None of the areas of the strait of Sicily (i.e.
sub-areas 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16) have been
included in this initiative as they are part of a
different management unit where the stocks
are shared and jointly exploited with non-EU
countries. In this area, a multi-annual plan
and a joint inspection scheme were adopted at
international level in 2016 and 2017.
85
The Opinion of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board will be published with the impact assessment report and the
Commission proposal in the online Register of Commission documents (available here).
48
2.2. The analysis could assess why the
current implementation of CFP has been slow
and inefficient.
2.2. The driver ‘slow & poor implementation
of the CFP and MEDREG’ has been further
explained in Section 2 (page 16). It has been
specified that the poor implementation of the
CFP and the MEDREG is also due to the
lack of control tools for small-scale fisheries,
being the reason why actions plans have
been undertaken in each Member State.
3.1. The report should better explain why a
more ambitious policy option, reaching
potentially higher Fmsy target levels, has not
been considered. It should indicate the
reasons for not taking such an option into
consideration (e.g. too high economic and
social aspects).
3.2. The report could better describe the long-
term expected impacts of the proposal,
especially on the sustainability of the fishing
sector. This should include the foreseen
socio-economic impacts other than only
changes in employment level.
3.3. Also, the report could clarify whether
any territorial impacts are expected.
3.1. Section 5 (page 28) contains more details
on the reasons why a more ambitious option
(such as the closure of the fishery) has been
discarded early on, namely due to the
enormous associated socio-economic costs,
the lack of political support and the absence
of a long-term solution (such as creating an
effective regulatory framework).
In addition, it has been clarified in Section 7
(page 28) the reasons why the results obtained
under the MAP should be seen as a
satisfactory and realistic balance between the
environmental and socio-economic objectives
of the CFP (i.e. in relation to high levels of
overfishing, short timeframe to reach FMSY
and the complex multispecies nature of the
fisheries).
3.2. The long-term expected impacts for the
fishing sector have been included in Section 7
(page 39). This part arises from the
experienced observed in other sea basins
where the implementation of multi-annual
plans has improved the economic performance
of many fishing fleets in EU.
3.3. As included in Section 7 (page 39),
potential territorial impacts would be
minimised by the introduction of spatio-
temporal closures in which the coastal zones
would be reserved for more selective gears in
order to protect nursery areas and safeguard
small-scale fisheries.
49
Evidence and external expertise used
The scientific and technical aspects of this impact assessment report were primarily carried
out under the auspices of the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries
(STECF), DG MARE and the European Market Observatory for fisheries and aquaculture
(EUMOFA). More precisely, the STECF provided the biological assessment of the different
policy options, as well as advice on various elements of the multi-annual plan. This work took
place within two expert working groups in 2015 and 2016 (where over 15 fisheries experts
met during 5 working days in each meeting). The mapping of the affected stakeholders and
the socio-economic analysis were carried out in 2017 by European Commission services on
economic analysis, market and impact assessments. EUMOFA provided supplementary data
on market dynamics in the western Mediterranean.
The status of the demersal stocks in the western Mediterranean Sea comes from the most
recent work carried out by the Scientific Advisory Committee (SAC) of the GFCM and the
STECF.
In addition, three studies fed into this impact assessment:
 The study on the Retrospective Evaluation of the MEDREG86
was used in particular
for the review of Member States' implementation of the Regulation and the assessment
of the extent to which the Regulation was fit to contribute to delivering the objectives
of the CFP. The case study for the Gulf of Lions (the northern part of the western
Mediterranean Sea)playedan essential role in helping define the nature of the problem.
 National management plans adopted by Member States were thoroughly analysed by
the STECF based on a dedicated study87,88
. The study and its STECF's opinion
contributed to the definition of the problem, particularly in which regards the raisons
why the existing national management plans were considered insufficient to reach
sustainable fishing levels by 2020. All in all, both works considered that without
changes to the regulatory framework, it is unlikely that the CFP's objectives will be
achieved.
 The study 'Stock units: identification of distinct biological units (stock units) for
different fish and shellfish species and among different GFCM-GSA' or
STOCKMED89
also contributed in the preparation of this impact assessment. The
most scientifically sound stock units and their boundaries for 8 demersal species was
used to illustrate thetransboundary nature of many stock under this initiativeand so the
need to act at EU level. The main results are presented in Annex 7.
Finally, additional supporting material was collected through extensive bibliographic research
of scientific publications, technical reports and books on this matter.
86
MRAG(2016). Retrospective evaluation study of the Mediterranean Sea Regulation. Final report, p. 230.
(Report pending publication by the Publications Office of the European Union).
87
MAREA(2014). Scientific advice on the conformity of management plans with the requirements of the
Common Fisheries Policy in the Mediterranean Sea. Specific Contract N°9, Task 4, Ad hoc scientific advice
in support of the implementation of the Common Fisheries Policy - Revised report 08.08.2014.
88
STECF(2015). 49th Plenary Meeting Report (PLEN-15-02). 2015. Publications Office of the European
Union, Luxembourg, EUR 27404 EN, JRC 97003, 127 pp.
89
MAREA(2014). Stock units: Identification of distinct biological units (stock units) for different fish and
shellfish species and among different GFCM-GSA. STOCKMED Deliverable 03: FINAL REPORT.
September 2014, 310 pp.
50
ANNEX 2:
STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION
Intense consultation with stakeholders started in 2014 and continued through 2015, 2016 and
2017 (for details of the consultation meetings see Figure A1.1). The aims were to: (i) raise
awareness aboutthe alarming situation of the large majority of fish stocks in the Mediterranean
Sea; (ii) agree on the need for urgent action at national, European and international levels; and
(iii) collect input and views from as many stakeholders as possible on the best possible ways
to address this situation.
For simplification, we have grouped the various activities under three types of consultation:
the Mediterranean Advisory Council, the so-called 'Catania process' and the internet-based
public consultation.
Figure A1.1 Overview of the main stakeholder consultation activities (from 2014-2017)
51
 Mediterranean Sea Advisory Council (MEDAC)
The MEDACis themostrepresentative fisheriesstakeholders'organisationfor the Mediterranean
Sea region. It represents all the parties concerned by this initiative: the fisheries sector
(including small-scale fisheries), trade unions and other interest groups such as environmental
organisations, consumer groups and sports/recreational fishery associations which operate in
the Mediterranean area under the CFP.
Since 2015, the MEDAC has in place a focus group specifically devoted to addressing the
worrying state of demersal fisheries in the Gulf of Lions, and which now also covers the
entire western Mediterranean. The focus group has held nine meetings with the participation
of DG MARE, the European Fisheries Control Agency, the scientific research community,
industry representatives and Member States fisheries administrations90
.
The MEDAC is currently preparing a recommendation on the management of the fisheries
exploiting western Mediterranean demersal stocks. The impact assessment report has been
enriched with the MEDAC's contribution to the public consultation and the Commission's
participation to the various MEDAC focus groups.
 Consultations through the 'Catania Process'
InSeptember2014, a high-level meeting with the Mediterranean Member States was convened
to discuss a strategy on the way forward for the implementation of the recently adopted CFP in
the Mediterranean Sea basin. The main conclusion of that meeting was that EU multi-annual
plans should be developed as soon as possible for those shared stocks. The Adriatic and
western Mediterranean Sea were selected as the first priority areas. The meeting was followed
by a seminar to evaluate the national management plans adopted under the MEDREG. The
objective was to assess whether the national management plans were in line with the CFP and
whether they were suitable to achieve the new goals. The year 2015 was a transitional period,
during which the Commission participated in the various MEDAC meetings and started
preparing what is known as the 'Catania Process'.
A high-level meeting on the status of the stocks held in Catania was the official starting point
for the development of a new strategy for the sustainable exploitation of Mediterranean
fisheries (February 2016). The seminar acknowledged the progress made with regards to
scientific advice, the adoption (to a lesser extent) of management measures for certain fish
stocks, and the fruitful inter-governmental cooperation via the GFCM. On the other hand,
Catania also showed that these positive developments had not been translated into an
improvement in the status of fish stocks. More than 90% of the evaluated commercial fish
stocks are exploited well-beyond safe biological limits, while the state of many stocks
remains unknown. To confront this situation, participants unanimously called for a renewed
commitment on specific measures to restore Mediterranean fisheries.
Just after Catania, a ministerial conference took place in Brussels, involving fisheries
ministers from EU and non-EU countries bordering the Mediterranean Sea. Some 19 out of 22
riparian countries were represented, as well as the GFCM, FAO and MEDAC. Discussions
led to the identification of strong converging views in several key areas:
- the need to focus efforts on the stocks that are important for the sector's viability and
to apply targeted and proportionate measures;
90
Since 2015, the MEDAC has organised 9 focus groups on the demersal fisheries in the western
Mediterranean Sea: Valletta, 28.03.2017; Rome, 21.02.2017; Ajaccio, 13.10.2016, Split, 20.04.2016; Rome,
17.02.2016; Saint Julian's, 10.11.2015; Madrid, 10.06.2015; Marseille, 23.04.2015 and; Rome, 1.03.2015.
52
- the need to improve scientific cooperation, support small-scale fisheries and fight
together against illegal fishing;
- the need for solidarity between countries to shoulder the additional burden of
modernisation and control.
As a follow-up to this political momentum, a meeting with the fisheries directors of the eight
Mediterranean Member States was held in June 2016. The idea was to make sure the general
commitments became more than just paper commitments and that for the EU to turn its
responsibilities into concrete actions. The meeting highlighted the priority areas for the
adoption of additional national measures. For the western Mediterranean Sea, France and
Spain proposed to establish a joint spatial/temporal closure in the Gulf of Lions to reduce the
fishing effort and improve selectivity for hake. More concrete proposals from each Member
State were discussed during the October meeting. However, these proposals and additional
discussions within the MEDAC are yet to deliver specific measures to be implemented by the
fishing fleets concerned.
The consultation process concluded with the signature of the Ministerial Declaration on the
sustainability of Mediterranean fisheries (March 201791
). The Declaration lays down a new
strategic framework for fisheries governance in the region and a set of five actions with
measurable deliverables for the next 10 years. In other words, 15 Ministers of the
Mediterranean and Black Sea and the EU Commissioner for Environment and Maritime
Affairs and Fisheries committed to implement the following actions:
 Enhance data collection and scientific evaluation
 Establish an ecosystem-based fisheries management framework
 Developa culture of compliance and eliminate IUU fishing
 Support sustainable small-scale fisheries and aquaculture
 Greater solidarity and coordination in the Mediterranean
These new commitments should reverse the decline of stocks and strive for sustainability in
Mediterranean fisheries. As a follow-up, the GFCM will prepare an annual report on the
implementation of these actions, reflecting the reports provided by riparian countries.
91
Ministerial Conference on the Sustainability of Mediterranean Fisheries; Malta MedFish4Ever Ministerial
Declaration (Malta, 30 March 2017).
53
 Public Consultation
In May 2016, DG MARE launched an internet-based public consultation for the preparation
of a 'multi-annual plan for the fisheries exploitingdemersal stocksin the western Mediterranean
Sea'. The overall objective was to gather inputs and views from stakeholders, particularly at
the initial design of this policy initiative.
The consultation took place over 18 weeks from 30 May to 30 September 2016. The
questionnaire consisted of open and closed format questions, of which six related to the
respondents and 18 to the biological, technical and socio-economic aspects of fisheries
exploiting demersal stocks in the western Mediterranean. Topics included the perception of
the problem, management options and the scope and content of a possible multi-annual plan.
2.3.1 Profile of respondents
The consultation gathered a total of 24 replies from stakeholders residing or based in France,
Italy or Spain and also from outside the Mediterranean Sea (i.e. Austria, the Netherlands and
UK92
). The most active category was fishermen's associations, followed by the non-
governmental organisations, citizens, public administrations, advisory councils,and recreational
fishing associations. Contributions were missing from two categories, namely research or
academic institutions and the processing sector (Figure A1.2).
11 Spain
5 Italy
4 France
4 Outside the
Mediterranean Sea
Answers Ratio
Government institutions/public
administrations
2 8.3 %
Research institutes/academic institutions 0 0 %
Advisory councils 1 4.2 %
Fishermen's associations 9 37.5 %
Recreational fishing associations 1 4.2 %
Processing sector 0 0 %
Non-governmental organisation 8 33.3 %
Citizens 3 12.5 %
Figure A1.2 Respondents by Member State (upper part) and by stakeholder category (lower part).
2.3.2 Main findings of the public consultation
92
Individual contributions are available on the website of DG MARE and can be downloaded at this link.
54
The main findings of the public consultation have been grouped in three topics: the perception
of the problem; towards an EU multi-annual plan; and technical/conservation measures most
supported.
Perception of the problem
The general problem, as set out in the background document i.e. 'high levels of overfishing
and limitations of the current management framework' was very well known to the
respondents. Most respondents acknowledged the identified problems, although some
fishermen's associations disagreed or remained neutral on this issue (Figure A1.3). According
to them, other aspects such as anthropogenic impacts (e.g. industrial and urban wastewaters,
oil spills, etc.) and climate change are equally important issues to be considered when
defining the overall problem. It was also recognised that despite scientists' claims that 97 % of
the assessed stocks are overfished, this percentage only represents a limited fraction of the
total number of existing stocks in the Mediterranean Sea.
The large majority of respondents agreed that the current management framework,
meaning the national management plans adopted under the MEDREG, would not be sufficient
to meet the objectives of the CFP. The main reasons highlighted were:
 The National management plans have not been successful at reducing fishing mortality
to sustainable levels. The plans still only address a limited number of types of fishing
gear and do not contain common measures for shared stocks.
 The plans do not have the necessary provisions to achieve the following: the maximum
sustainable yield (MSY) by 2020, biological reference points, safeguard measures, an
ecosystem-based approach to fisheries, and the landing obligation.
 The plans manage fisheries by fishing gear, but as Mediterranean demersal fisheries
are highly multi-species, it would be more effective to have an approach by species or
group of species.
 The plans do not include any measures on recreational fisheries.
 The plans are not properly monitored and enforced by the Member State authorities.
 The plans should better reflect the specific characteristics of each fishery and actively
involve the stakeholders from the beginning of the process.
 The plans do not sufficiently incorporate existing environmental legislation, such as
the Marine Strategy Framework Directive.
Furthermore, 67% of the respondents considered that complementing the current management
framework with short-term measures at national or EU level would not be sufficient to meet
the CFP objectives. The consultation suggests that emergency measures are not the solution to
solve the identified problems in the long run. According to some respondents, emergency
measures should be only used as a last resort, when objectives cannot be achieved any other
way.
Another solution would be to amend the current management framework, but the
consultation found that most stakeholders do not agree with this alternative. Respondents took
the view that amending the current framework would not produce the desired results because
the problems previously described would still persist. Besides, it would be very complex to
adjust the different national management plans to common CFP goals, such as the MSY. In
addition, the CFP's long-term approach would not be supported by the current national
management plans, even once amended.
55
Most respondents took the view that the current management framework has been poorly
implemented in many aspects and unequally in the different countries and fishing fleets. Two
factors that have especially contributed to the framework’s ineffectiveness are: (i) the lack of
involvement of stakeholders (including the fishing sector) in designing the measures; and (ii)
the lack of proper and effective controls. According to the consultation, increased surveillance
would make it easier to enforce the rules and would in particular reduce illegal, undeclared
and unreported catches.
Figure A1.3 Perception of the problem (as described in the questionnaire) and of the current
management framework (CMF)
Towards an EU multi-annual plan
Taking an overall view of the contributions to the consultation, we can see that most
respondents regard an EU multi-annual plan for fisheries exploiting demersal stocks in the
western Mediterranean Sea as the best possible long-term solution (see Figure A1.4). In the
respondents' view, this approach is justified by the multi-species nature of the fisheries, the
various Member States involved and the interactions between the different gears and types of
fisheries. Only three respondents disagreed with this option, opting instead for a management
framework for specific areas at local level.
The large majority of respondents supported the introduction of the following objectives in
the multi-annual plan:
 attaining maximum sustainable yields (MSY);
 adopting an effective and transparent management framework;
 strengthening control, monitoring and surveillance systems;
 ensuringthe socio-economic stability of the fishing sector (detailed results are provided
in Table A1).
It was also considered important to include additional objectives such as: (i) ensuring an
ecosystem-based approach to fisheries and contributing to the achievement of good
Strongly
disagree
Disagree Neutral
Strongly
agree
Agree
0 25 50 75 100%
25
50
75
100%
Q1. Perception
of the problem
Q3. The CMF is sufficient
Q4. Complementing the CMF
with additional measures
Q5. Amending the
CMF would suffice
Q6. The CMF is fully
implemented
Disagreement Agreement
56
environmental status; (ii) addressing incidental catches of vulnerable species; (iii) stablishing
co-management schemes.
According to the respondents, the multi-annual plan should contain the following elements, in
order of importance: the scope in terms of stocks, fisheries and area; quantifiable targets and
timeframe;safeguardsandremedial actions, emergency measures; and provisions to implement
the landing obligation (detailed results are provided in Table A1.1).
Figure A1.4 Respondents’ opinion of the policy option of establishing an EU multi-annual plan (MAP).
Another important aspect is which species are to be included in the multi-annual plan. The
public consultation showed that hake is the most emblematic species defining demersal
fisheries in the western Mediterranean Sea. This species was followed by red mullet, blue and
red shrimp, monkfishes and octopus and, to a lesser extent, blue whiting, giant red shrimp and
deep-water rose shrimp. Respondents also suggested additional species such as striped red
mullet (Mullus surmuletus), seabass (Dicentrarchus labrax), blackspot seabream (Pagellus
bogaraveo), common pandora (Pagellus erythrinus), spiny lobster (Palinurus elephas), and
mantis shrimp (Squilla mantis).
One important part of the multi-annual plan which is repeatedly mentioned is the need to
reduce the impact on juvenile individuals. 92% of respondents considered it important or
very important to include measures addressing this problem. In the respondents’ view, the
most effective ways to achieve sustainability and increase the selectivity of fishing gear are:
spatial-temporal closures, real-time closures (i.e. the fishery in a particular area stops when a
threshold or percentage of juveniles is reached in the catch) and the protection of essential fish
habitats. Respondents also agreed on the need to include provisions in the multi-annual plan
to strengthen control, monitoring and surveillance systems.
All in all, the respondents to the public consultation see the multi-annual plan as an adaptive
and transparent management framework which integrates co-management principles,
as well as the socio-economic and ecosystem dimensions.
Technical/conservation measures most supported
Nearly all respondents at one stage or another of the public consultation supported the
combination of several technical/conservation measures as the best way to manage western
Mediterranean demersal fisheries (see Table A1.2). The measures most widely supported
were:
 Spatial/temporal closures for the protection of juveniles and spawners. This is
considered the most relevant measure by all stakeholder categories, including
fishermen's associations, public administrations and NGOs.
Strongly
disagree
Disagree Neutral
Strongly
agree
Agree
0 25 50 75 100%
25
50
75
100%
Q7. An EU MAP would
be the best option
Disagreement Agreement
57
 Having a list of authorised fishing vessels, which would make it possible to set effort
ceilings.
 Fishing effort limitations, such as limitations on the number of fishing days. For
example, a reduction of one fishing day per week during 6 months (equivalent to a
10 % reduction in fishing effort) has been tested in the Balearic Islands. According to
the respondent, the measure yielded positive results and was well received by the
fishing sector.
 Total daily catch limits, as an alternative to the setting of total allowable catches
(TACs) for single species. This has been applied by Spain in some fisheries (e.g.
dolphinfish), although no fishermen's association put forward this type of measure.
 Technical modifications to improve the selectivity of the fishing gear, such as having
sorting grids, banning the use of diamond meshed nets of 50 mm or increasing twine
thickness.
 Adjust the minimum conservation reference sizes to the most scientifically sound size
at first maturity, in particular for hake.
 Regulate recreational fisheries, initially by introducing a list of authorised vessels and
a maximum number of fishing days.
 Introduce co-management schemes to involve all stakeholders from the beginning of
the process.
The public consultation also looked into the question of identifying alternative measures for
Mediterranean demersal fisheries, such as the setting of fishing opportunities or TACs. This
measure was mostly supported by NGOs and citizens. However, none fishermen's associations
or public administrations supported it, due to the complex implementation of TACs in highly
multi-species and multi-gear fisheries. Respondents also stressed that an increase in discards
would be likely if TACs were ever applied.
The landing obligation was introduced in the CFP to improve the selectivity of fishing
techniques. On this issue, the public consultation shows that the most important aspect in the
western Mediterranean Sea is to reduce as much as possible catches below the minimum
conservation reference sizes set in Annex III to the MEDREG. To achieve this, the large
majority of the respondents supported the use of spatial/temporal closures and gear
modifications. Respondents also recommended strengthening control measures to discourage
black market for undersized individuals. On the other hand, respondents considered less
effective the introduction of 'de minimis' or market incentives as a solution for the landing
obligation.
The public consultation also made it possible to identify the best ways to mitigate socio-
economic impacts on fishing fleets and coastal communities that depend on demersal
fisheries. On top of the support from the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF),
respondents considered it very important to increase the added value of fish products by
improving their quality, presentation and labelling. Respondents also suggested prioritising
the promotion of local, fresh fish over imported products. Several respondents also highlighted
that ecolabelling is essential for small-scale fleets.
58
Table A1.1 Respondents' opinion of the possible objectives, elements and species to be included in a multi-
annual plan. The bars indicate the proportion of the combined percentages of the replies "very important" and
"important".
Q8. Objectives Answers Ratio
To attain sustainable exploitation of the stocks
driving demersal fisheries
23 96%
To adopt an effective and transparent
management framework
23 96%
To ensure socio-economic stability of the
fishing sector
19 80%
To strengthen control, monitoring and
surveillance systems
21 87%
Q9. Elements
Scope in terms of stocks, fisheries, area 23 96%
Quantifiable targets with timeframe for
achieving them
23 96%
Safeguards and remedial actions 21 88%
Provisions to implement the landing obligation 14 58%
Emergency measures 16 77%
Q10. Species
Red mullet 19 80%
Deep-water rose shrimp 14 58%
Giant red shrimp 15 63%
Hake 22 92%
Blue whiting 16 67%
Monkfish 17 71%
Blue and red shrimp 18 76%
Norway lobster 16 67%
Octopus 17 71%
59
Table A1.2 Respondents’ opinion of the possible technical/conservation measures to be included in a multi-
annual plan. The bars indicate the proportion of the combined percentages of the replies "very important" and
"important".
Q11. Measures to manage the fishery
Answers Ratio
To establish spatial/temporal closures 23 96%
To establish seasonal or daily catch limits 15 63%
To set ceilings for fishing capacity and/or
fishing effort
21 88%
To address the selectivity of fishing gear 23 96%
Q12. Measures to implement the landing obligation
"De minimis" exemptions 11 46%
Measures designed to minimise unwanted
catches by modifying the gear structure
20 84%
Measures designed to minimise unwanted
catches by spatial/temporal closures
21 87%
Market incentives 7 29%
Q13. Measures to minimise socio-economic impacts
To improve the added value of fish products,
including the use of 'ecolabelling
18 75%
To promote the setting of new/support existing
producer organisations
16 67%
To provide public support under the European
Maritime and Fisheries Fund
20 84%
Q14. Other measures not yet applied
To establish fishing opportunities (output
quotas)
10 42%
To increase the mesh size to avoid catches of
juvenile fish
18 75%
To establish new Minimum Conservation
Reference Sizes
18 75%
60
ANNEX 3:
WHO IS AFFECTED BY THIS INITIATIVE AND HOW
The objective of this annex is to set out the practical implications of the initiative for the
various parties who will be affected by the preferred option (i.e. multi-annual plan).
Stakeholders' category Who is affected and how?
Member States public
administrations
The French, Italian and Spanish national public administrations.
Autonomous regions, such as Sardinia, Catalonia or Andalusia,
would be also involved as they share the fisheries remit with their
national governments.
The practical implications would be as follows:
– The three Member States concerned would be required to
adopt effort levels through a Council Decision every year
in order to adjust the current fishing mortality to FMSY
targets.
– They would need to agree on an effort allocation key.
Then each Member State would need to establish a
mechanism to allocate its national effort quota within
national fleets.
– They would need to monitor the effort quota by their
vessels to ensure compliance at national level.
– They would need to gather in sub-regional groups to
develop ad-hoc technical measures to be adopted by the
Commission via delegated acts (regionalisation).
– They would also be required to use their competences on
surveillance and control (Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009
and associated legislation) in order to enforce the landing
obligation and any new measures adopted within the
regionalisation process.
– Finally, they would need to comply with the monitoring
requirements specified in the above-mentioned Control
Regulation and in the Data Collection Framework, as well
as any new monitoring requirement adopted in the multi-
annual plan.
The multi-annual plan would create some new administrative
costs during the first years of implementation of the policy (e.g.
setting the effort regime), compared to the current situation. After
this transitional period, it is expected that the administrative costs
will reduce, stabilise and be more proportionate with the benefits
of achieving the goals set.
61
Stakeholders' category Who is affected and how?
Fishing sector This initiative would affect primarily fishermen fishing for
demersal stocks in the western Mediterranean Sea, meaning round
13 000 vessels. A detailed description of the affected stakeholders
is provided for in Table 2.2 (Chapter 2).
The practical implications would be:
– The fishing sector would have to comply with the rules set
in the multi-annual plan, in particular, the fishing effort
levels.
– They would need to provide accurate catch and effort data
and have a closer relation with scientists, as this will play a
decisive role in the monitoring process.
– They would also contribute with their skills and knowledge
in the conception of measures under regionalisation, either
directly or within their participation in Advisory Councils.
– Since the fishing sector has the skills and the means to
change their behaviour and adapt to new measures and cope
with them in the most efficient way, they should make
efforts to facilitate achieving the objectives of the CFP with
minimum economic burden. The EMFF would also
contribute to this end by giving financial support to a
number of initiatives concerning market organisation,
advisory services, partnerships between scientists and
fishermen, diversification of activities, permanent and
temporary cessation of fishing activities, purchase of
selective gear.
European Commission The practical implications would be:
– With the support of its scientific, technical and economic
advisory committee for fisheries (STECF), EC would need
to monitor the state of demersal stocks and the socio-
economic impacts on the fishing sector.
– EC would need to adopt annually a proposal setting
adequate fishing effort levels for the following year.
– EC would need to monitor the amount of fishing effort
uptake by Member States to ensure they remain within their
national levels.
– EC would need to adopt delegating acts, either setting
provisions of the landing obligations or establishing
additional conservation or technical measures within the
framework of the multi-annual plan.
– EC would need to report to the Parliament and Council on
the implementation and impacts of the multi-annual plan
five years after its entry into force and then every five years.


EN EN
EUROPEAN
COMMISSION
Brussels, 8.3.2018
SWD(2018) 60 final
PART 3/6
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT
IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Accompanying the document
PROPOSAL FOR A REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF
THE COUNCIL
Establishing a multiannual plan for the fisheries exploiting demersal stocks in the
western Mediterranean Sea
{COM(2018) 115 final} - {SWD(2018) 59 final}
Europaudvalget 2018
KOM (2018) 0115
Offentligt
62
ANNEX 4:
ANALYTICAL MODELS USED
Environmental impacts of the different policy option were modelled by the STECF. The
analysis was based on management strategies evaluation (MSE) and on the JRC's a4a
Initiative, using FLR framework.
A4a Management Strategy Evaluation algorithm, by Jardim et al (2016)93
1. METHODS
1.1 Notation and definition of variables
The following notation will be used for the defined variables, functions and indices. Variables
in the Operating Model (OM) are always uppercase, whiles variables in the Management
Procedure (MP) are lowercase, e.g. catch C in OM c in the MP. Quantities estimated within
the MP, e.g. fishing mortality by a stock assessment model, will use the uppercase with a hat,
e.g. ^F. The same will apply to functions which are estimated within the MP, e.g. the stock-
recruitment function. The target value that results from a decision process, e.g. the application
of a harvest control rule, is identified by a tilde, ~F. Indices will always use lowercase, with
their maximum value represented by the corresponding uppercase letter, e.g. ages as a = 1...A.
Table 1 presents the variables used in this document.
Indices
a = 1…A
t = 1…T
i = 1…N
trg
age
years
iterations
target
Variables
N
R
F
M
B
W
P
C
Y
Q
S
E
population abundance in number of individuals
recruitment in number of individuals
fishing mortality rate
natural mortality rate
mature biomass in weight
individual mean weight
percentage of mature fish
catch in number of individuals
yield in weight
feet catchability
feet selectivity
feet effort
Functions
G
J
H
K
W
LN
stock-recruitment function
hyper(hypo)stability function
management decision function (aka harvest control rule)
implementation function
technical measures function
lognormal probability density distribution
Other
Ѳ
ϕ
σ2
set of parameters
median
variance
Table A41 Variables, indices and function, and the notation used to refer to them in the text.
93
Jardim et al (2016). A4a Management Strategy Evaluation algorithm. In Annex 3 of STECF – Multinnual
plan for demersal fisheries in the western Mediterranean (STECF 16-21). Publications Office of the
European Union, Luxembourg; EUR 27758 EN, 128 pp.
63
1.2 Operating model
The operating model includes the population dynamics at age (a) of the stock
while for the first age, recruitment is estimated following some function of the adult biomass
G(B)
which is in turn dependent on the proportion mature at age (Pa)
Calculation of catch at age in numbers follows the standard Baranov equation
while total yield in weight is calculated as
Fishing mortality at age is related to effort through selectivity-at-age, catchability and a
(possibly non-linear) function (J)
1.3 Observation error model
1.3.1 Catch in number of individuals, Ca,t
Catch in numbers-at-age, generally derived from sampling of numbers-at-length and a growth
model or age-length key, are observed with error,
where Ec is log-normally distributed
1.3.2 Index of abundance, da,t
The relationship between the observed index of abundance and the stock abundance-at-age
64
includes a log-normal error
1.4 Assessment/Estimator of stock statistics
Input into the decision rule includes some indicator of current status (^V), given the available
information, in this case catches (c) and an index of abundance (d)
transformed through some suitable function (f), for example an stock assessment. The precise
inputs and the elements in θ will depend on the precise form of the HCR. In an age based
system, for example, these would be estimates of Ft, Bt and Ct.
The stock assessment component of the status estimator might include a stock-recruitment
relationship
G is the stock recruitment relationship estimated within the MP and represents the perceived
dynamics, which differs from that one (G) included in the OM.
1.5 Management decision/Harvest control rule
In this code it is assumed that management is carried out through changes in F, although the
implementation of those changes can be done through a combination of systems: input
control, output control and/or technical measures. A first decision is made about the target
fishing mortality for next year. The result for this decision is afterwards translated into an
implementation variable.
1.6 Implementation
This process translates the management decision into a regulation, for example fishing
opportunities, or days at sea. It mimics the process used to formulate the advice from the
scientific estimates of likely effects of different fishing mortality levels.
1.6.1 Input/effort management


EN EN
EUROPEAN
COMMISSION
Brussels, 8.3.2018
SWD(2018) 60 final
PART 6/6
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT
IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Accompanying the document
PROPOSAL FOR A REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF
THE COUNCIL
Establishing a multiannual plan for the fisheries exploiting demersal stocks in the
western Mediterranean Sea
{COM(2018) 115 final} - {SWD(2018) 59 final}
Europaudvalget 2018
KOM (2018) 0115
Offentligt
97
ANNEX 9:
IMPACTS OF THE DIFFERENT OPTIONS
This work was carried out by the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries
(STECF) in 2016. Ref: STECF(2016). Multiannual plan for demersal fisheries in the western
Mediterranean (STECF 16-21). Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg;
EUR 27758 EN, 128 pp.
98
Hake in GSAs 1-5-6-7
Merluccius merluccius
OPTION 1 (baseline) OPTION 2 (amended framework) OPTION 3 (multi-annual plan)
99
Hake in GSAs 9-10-11
Merluccius merluccius
OPTION 1 (baseline) OPTION 2 (amended framework) OPTION 3 (multi-annual plan)
100
Red mulets in GSA 1
Mullus spp.
OPTION 1 (baseline) OPTION 2 (amended framework) OPTION 3 (multi-annual plan)
101
Red mulets in GSA 5
Mullus spp.
OPTION 1 (baseline) OPTION 2 (amended framework) OPTION 3 (multi-annual plan)
102
Red mulets in GSA 6
Mullus spp.
OPTION 2 (amended framework) OPTION 2 (amended framework) OPTION 2 (amended framework)
103
Red mulets in GSA 7
Mullus spp.
OPTION 1 (baseline) OPTION 2 (amended framework) OPTION 3 (multi-annual plan)
104
Red mulets in GSA 9
Mullus spp.
OPTION 1 (baseline) OPTION 2 (amended framework) OPTION 3 (multi-annual plan)
105
Red mulets in GSA 11
Mullus spp.
OPTION 1 (baseline) OPTION 2 (amended framework) OPTION 3 (multi-annual plan)
106
Anglerfish in GSA 5
Lophius spp.
OPTION 1 (baseline) OPTION 2 (amended framework) OPTION 3 (multi-annual plan)
107
Anglerfish in GSA 6
Lophius spp.
OPTION 1 (baseline) OPTION 2 (amended framework) OPTION 3 (multi-annual plan)
108
Deep-water rose shrimp in GSA 1
Parapenaeus longirostris
OPTION 1 (baseline) OPTION 2 (amended framework) OPTION 3 (multi-annual plan)
109
Deep-water rose shrimp in GSA 5
Parapenaeus longirostris
OPTION 1 (baseline) OPTION 2 (amended framework) OPTION 3 (multi-annual plan)
110
Deep-water rose shrimp in GSA 6
Parapenaeus longirostris
OPTION 1 (baseline) OPTION 2 (amended framework) OPTION 3 (multi-annual plan)
111
Deep-water rose shrimp in GSA 9
Parapenaeus longirostris
OPTION 1 (baseline) OPTION 2 (amended framework) OPTION 3 (multi-annual plan)
112
Blue and red shrimp GSA 1
Aristeus antennatus
OPTION 1 (baseline) OPTION 2 (amended framework) OPTION 3 (multi-annual plan)
113
Blue and red shrimp GSA 6
Aristeus antennatus
OPTION 1 (baseline) OPTION 2 (amended framework) OPTION 3 (multi-annual plan)
114
Giant red shrimp GSA 9
Aristaeomorpha foliacea
OPTION 1 (baseline) OPTION 2 (amended framework) OPTION 3 (multi-annual plan)
115
Giant red shrimp GSA 10
Aristaeomorpha foliacea
OPTION 1 (baseline) OPTION 2 (amended framework) OPTION 3 (multi-annual plan)
116
Giant red shrimp GSA 11
Aristaeomorpha foliacea
OPTION 1 (baseline) OPTION 2 (amended framework) OPTION 3 (multi-annual plan)


EN EN
EUROPEAN
COMMISSION
Brussels, 8.3.2018
SWD(2018) 60 final
PART 4/6
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT
IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Accompanying the document
PROPOSAL FOR A REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF
THE COUNCIL
Establishing a multiannual plan for the fisheries exploiting demersal stocks in the
western Mediterranean Sea
{COM(2018) 115 final} - {SWD(2018) 59 final}
Europaudvalget 2018
KOM (2018) 0115
Offentligt
65
1.6.2 Output/TAC management
1.6.3 Technical measures
Technical measures affect the exploitation by imposing a shift in the age structure of the
catch. Both gear selectivity and availability can be mimicked using shifts in the age structure
of the exploitation. The overall level of exploitation is dealt by the input or output controls
and technical measures are seen as a complement.
2. CONDITIONING
Models
G
J
f
^G
H
K
w
Beverton & Holt or geometric mean
Et= αFt
β
where α = … and beta = 0.7; 1.0
a4a model with F as a tensor product of thin plate splines
geometric mean
h (see section 2.1)
k (see section 2.1
w (see section 2.1)
Uncertainty
σ2
r
μc
σ2
c
μd
σ2
d
μF
σ2
F
μS
σ2
S
fit's residuals with auto-correlation or fit's residual
0
0
0
empirical (computed from time series of observations)
0
modelled (computed from time series of estimations)
fixed at 0.01
fixed at 0.1
66
2.1 Management decision/Harvest control rule
where
and ^t is the empirical variance of Ft
2.2 Input/effort management
2.2.1 Intermediate year correction
An alternative h is to include a correction to account for differences between the intermediate
year Ft decrease, estimated based on t assessment results, and the ~Ft which was set on t – 1.
This method is appropriate for an effort plan that requires yearly, or periodic, adjustments.
The downside is that it reacts to stock assessment results, which may cause instability in the
trajectory to the target.
2.2.2 Implementation correction
Another alternative, which corrects ~Ft+1 using cumulative knowledge on the deviance
between the objective and the perception obtained by stock assessment is:
Appropriate for effort plan that sets the effort trajectory in an initial moment and keeps it for a
period. During that period data about the deviance between the objectives and the realised
fishing mortalities,or effort, are collected and that information is used to correct the trajectory.
2.3 Output/TAC management
67
2.4 Technical measures
The code implementation used assumes that the effort which is reduced by the technical
measure is relocated, increasing the fishing mortality on the ages not affected by the technical
measure. It comes closer to mimic a situation where the bulk of the measures are the
implementation of protected areas.
68
ANNEX 5:
MAIN ELEMENTS OF THE CFP
The reformed CFP, Regulation (EU) 1380/2013 entered into force on 1 January 2014. Its
main elements are:
(1) Maximum Sustainable Yield is the best possible objective for renewable and
profitable fisheries, harvesting the maximum amount of fish on a long term basis. The
objective of the CFP is to ensure that MSY is achieved by 2020 at the latest. In the
Mediterranean less than 10% of assessed stocks are within MSY and there is little sign
of improvement. Besides, for many stocks, we have no assessment of MSY.
(2) Annual legislation on fixing fishing opportunities: to fix, based on scientific advice
that is consistent with MSY and in accordance with multi-annual plans (where they
exist), the amount of fishing (catches and/or effort) for the stocks concerned, and to
allocate quotas to the Member States following the so-called relative stability key. In
turn, Member States deal with how to distribute their national quotas (catches and/or
effort) to their fishermen. Annually fishing opportunities are set for the Baltic, North
Sea, Atlantic and deep-sea stock, by Council only, to determine the level of catches,
for each stock. The COM outlines its approach for the TAC each spring in a Policy
Statement.
(3) The landing obligation: The new CFP includes a landing obligation for all catches of
species subject to catch limits (TACs) and, in the Mediterranean, also catches of
species which are subject to minimum sizes (only blue-fin tuna and swordfish are
under TAC in this sea basin).
The landing obligation comes with a set of potential measures and flexibility
instruments to make the transition and timely implementation possible. These include
quota flexibilities, exemptions for species that have a high survival rate (i.e. it makes
sense to return these fish to the sea if they are likely to survive) and a de minimis
exemption to cater for unwanted catches that are unavoidable. The plans may also fix
conservation reference sizes for fish. These measures should be developed through
multi-annual plans, but in the absence of such plans, discard plans can be adopted
(with duration of maximum three years).
(4) EU multi-annual plans: they contain the framework for management of a stock or a
combination of stocks (by fishery). Multi-annual plans are designed to ensure effective
management of the fisheries and to bring conservation and management provisions for
groups of stocks under plans. Plans contribute to stability and a long-term security for
the industry. The elements that shall and that may be included in a multi-annual plan
are specified in Article 10. The main elements of plans are:
MSY-related targets (per target stock), deadlines for achieving MSY, and fishing
mortality/exploitation ranges that are consistent with MSY (FMSY as a range of values),
safeguard provisions if science indicates that stocks are in trouble; specific
conservation measures for non-target species, so as to keep them within sustainable
boundaries, mechanisms to allow for regionalisation of implementing measures under
the plan.
The precise shape and content of multi-annual plans were subject to work by an inter-
institutional task force involving the Commission, the European Parliament and the
Council in order to provide guidelines on the structure and content of these multi-
69
annual plans and to solve delicate issues on the sharing of competences among those
EU Institutions.
Similarities and differences between multi-annual plans
At present, the only plan adopted since the entry into force of the new CFP in 2014 is
the multiannual plan for the stocks of cod, herring and sprat in the Baltic Sea, whereas
Commission proposals for a multiannual plan for demersal stocks in the North Sea and
a multiannual plan for small pelagic stocks in the Adriatic are still under negotiation
by the co-legislators.
All these plans contain the elements listed in Article 10 of the CFP, in particular: MSY
by 2020; the fishing mortality targets in the form of FMSY ranges and biomass
safeguards for the main targeted stocks; specific conservation measures to be
introduced through Regionalisation; provisions linked to the landing obligation; and
evaluation of the plan.
The western Mediterranean plan differs from the only yet adopted multi-annual plan in
the Baltic Sea in the following elements: (i) recreational fisheries have been included
in the western Mediterranean plan due to their importance for demersal stocks; and (ii)
control and enforcement aspects have been removed in the western Mediterranean
plan given the upcoming revision of the Fisheries Control System.
(5) Fleet capacity rules: these are provisions to support that the fleet capacity of a
Member State matches with the fishing opportunities that are allocated to it; fleet
overcapacity potentially leads to overfishing. Member States cannot increase the
engine power or storage capacity of their fleets. Each Member State is subject to a
maximum capacity threshold (in engine power (kW) and in vessel volume (GT)).
Nominally, all Member States fleets are under these ceilings; however, in many
Member States the effective engine capacity may well outscore the numbers in the
CFP. Despite intensified enforcement, this is a persistent and hard-to-tackle issue.
Annually Member States must report on the balance between capacity and fishing
opportunities. Historically this has not been linked to targeted actions. For the first
time, under the new CFP Member States have to give follow-up to the identification of
overcapacity with an action plan to eliminate it, in order to have access to funding for
decommissioning of excess vessels. The assessment exercise by Member States on the
balance between capacity and fishing opportunities is facilitated by common
guidelines developed by the Commission. It includes technical and economic
parameters. Member States will have to include in their reports an action plan for the
fleet segments with identified imbalance. In the action plan, Member States have to set
out the adjustment targets and tools to achieve the balance. The plan has to include a
clear time frame for the implementation of the action plan as well.
(6) The External Dimension: The CFP reform enshrines for the first time the external
dimension of the CFP (Part VI of the Basic Regulation: Articles 28-31). It calls for
strong external action that follows externally the same principles and standards as
internally while promoting a level-playing field for EU operators. Under the CFP new
international agreements should contribute to long term sustainability worldwide via
stronger bilateral relations and tackling global issues such as IUU fishing and fishing
overcapacity, uphold and strengthen the global architecture for fisheries governance
(UN, FAO, OECD, etc.), contribute towards a more effective functioning of RFMOs,
more sustainable Fisheries Agreements and better coherence with other EU policies.
70
(7) Advisory Councils: The Advisory Councils (ACs) were established since 2004 to
advise the Commission on matters related to fisheries management in their respective
areas of competence. Ten ACs were established for the Mediterranean Sea, the Black
Sea, the Baltic Sea, the North Sea, the North Western Waters, the South Western
Waters, Pelagic stocks, the Long Distance Fleet, Aquaculture and Market.
ACs are stakeholders' organisations that bring together the industry (fishing,
processing and marketing sectors) and other interest groups, such as environmental
and consumers' organisations. They receive an annual grant from the Commission to
cover part of their operational costs.
ACs are expected to expand their play in the regionalised CFP and are to be consulted
by Member States when preparing joint recommendations on conservation measures.
(8) Regionalisation: Another important innovation introduced by the Basic Regulation
(Article 18) is 'Regionalisation'. The Basic Regulation enables Regionalisation for a
number of instruments and measures: multi-annual plans, discard plans, establishment
of fish stock recovery areas and conservation measures for compliance with obligations
under EU Environmental legislation. Where regionalisation applies, EU member States
with a direct management interest may agree to submit joint recommendations for
achieving the objectivesof the above-mentioned plan or measure. The recommendations
have to be compatible with the objectives of the CFP, with the scope and objectives of
the measure or plan, and be at least as stringent as measures under EU law. The EU
countries have toconsultthe relevant Advisory Council(s) on the joint recommendations
before submitting them to the Commission. If all these conditions are met, the
Commission can then adopt a Delegated Act to transform these joint recommendations
into EU law applicable to all operators.
The aim of Regionalisation is to increase the involvement of the Member States
affected by regulation and thus their ownership of the measures. The Commission's
role is to ensure that the adopted measures fulfil the objectives of the Basic Act.
Regionalisation thus constitutes an important shift from instrument-based to results-
based management.
(9) Establishment of fish stock recovery areas: Under Article 8 of the Basic Regulation,
the Union shall endeavour to establish protected areas due to their biological
sensitivity, including areas where there is clear evidence of heavy concentrations of
fish below minimum conservation reference size and of spawning grounds. In such
areas fishing activities may be restricted or prohibited in order to contribute to the
conservation of living aquatic resources and marine ecosystems. Member States shall
identify, where possible, suitable areas which may form part of a coherent network and
shall prepare, where appropriate, joint recommendations (in line with regionalisation)
with a view to the Commission submitting a proposal. The Commission may be
empowered in a multi-annual plan to establish such biologically sensitive protected
areas.
71
ANNEX 6:
OVERVIEW OF THE NATIONAL MANAGEMENT PLANS
"Synergies and inconsistencies"
The summary table below provides an overview of the main elements of the French, Italian
and Spanish national management plans (NMP) regulating demersal fisheries in the western
Mediterranean Sea. The synergies and inconsistencies between these plans can be identified.
French NMP1
Italian NMP2
Spanish NMP3
Scope Trawls flying the French
flag operating in the
Mediterranean Sea
Trawls operating in the
GSAs 9, 10 and 11
Trawls, longliners and
small scale fisheries
flying the Spanish flag
operating in the EEZ and
high seas
Objectives Not defined in the NMP (i) To bring fish stocks
within the biological
referent points; (ii) To
improve Spawning Stock
biomass (SSB) of hake,
red mullet and giant red
shrimp; (iii) To improve
the economic condition
of the fishing sector; and
(iv) To maximise
employment
opportunities in the
sector
(i) To ensure that the
reference points for
demersal stocks are
attained and; (ii) To
maintain exploitation
levels in a sustainable
manner.
Timeframe to
reach the
objectives
Not defined in the NMP Not defined in the NMP At the latest by 2020
Biological
reference points
Not defined in the NMP Biological RP
Target RP: Reproductive
potential or ESSB/USSB
= 0.35 ‖ Limit RP:
ESSB/USSB = 0.2
Economic RP
Gross profit per vessel =
+58% ‖ Added value per
employee = +46% from
the baseline
Social RP
Number fishermen = -8%
‖ Labour cost per
employee = +25% from
the baseline
Same objectives are
provided for GSA 10 and
11 (although the specific
values are different).
Proxy FMSY (F0.1):
Red mullet in GSA5 =
0.33; in GSA6 = 0.17 |
Striped red mullet in
GSA5 = 0.20; in GSA6 =
0.15 | Red shrimp in
GSA5 = 0.33; in GSA6 =
0.24 | Deep-water rose
shrimp in GSA5 = 0.31;
in GSA6 = 0.30 |
Norway lobster in GSA5
= 0.30
72
French NMP1
Italian NMP2
Spanish NMP3
Management
measures
- Fishing authorisation
- Fishing effort regime
expressed as the total
allowable fishing days
per year (equal to 14 726
fishing days for the
whole trawl fleet).
- Permanent/temporal
cessations
- Fishing authorisations
- Fishing protected areas
- MEDREG provisions
such as MCRS, minimum
mesh sizes, distance from
the coast and protected
habitats
- Fishing licences
- Limitations in the
number and technical
characteristics of the
vessels
- Effort limitations,
through fishing seasons
and permanent cessations
- Fishing protected areas
and closure periods
- MEDREG provisions
such as MCRS, distance
from the coast and
protected habitats
Safeguard
measures
Not defined in the NMP Not defined in the NMP - Adjust fishing effort
levels, in terms of
number of vessels,
tonnage or engine power
- Additional technical
measures
- Additional fishing
protected zones or
temporal closures
Monitoring Not defined in the NMP Monitoring aspects are
included
Monitoring aspects are
included
Note: it should be taken into account that additional measures (such as fishing protected areas) could
have been adopted outside these national management plans.
REFERENCES:
1
Arrêté du 28 janvier 2013 portant création d’un régime d’effort de pêche pour la pêche professionnelle au
chalut en mer Méditerranée par les navires battant pavillon français; NOR: TRAM1240482A, p. 3275-2378.
2
Decreto 20 maggio 2011 relativo all'adozione Piani di gestione della flotta a strascico in sostituzione del
decreto direttoriale n. 44 del 17 giugno 2010; GU Serie Generale n.154 del 5-7-2011; p. 2.
3
Orden AAA/2808/2012, de 21 de diciembre, por la que se establece un Plan de Gestión Integral para la
conservación de los recursos pesqueros en el Mediterráneo afectados por las pesquerías realizadas con redes
de cerco, redes de arrastre y artes fijos y menores, para el período 2013-2017; No 313, p. 7.
73
ANNEX 7:
TRANSBOUNDARY NATURE OF THE STOCKS
The most scientifically sound stock units and their transboundary nature of 8 demersal species
under this initiative is shown below (STOCKMED94
). In all cases, the stocks are distributed
beyond the single GFCM-GSAs.
Hake
Merluccius merluccius
Red mullet
Mullus barbatus
94
MAREA(2014). Stock units: Identification of distinct biological units (stock units) for different fish and
shellfish species and among different GFCM-GSA. STOCKMED Deliverable 03: FINAL REPORT.
September 2014, 310 pp.
74
Stripped red mullet
Mullus surmuletus
Anglerfish
Lophius budegassa
75
Deep-water rose shrimp
Parapenaeus longirostris
Norway lobster
Nephrops norvegicus
76
Blue and red shrimp
Aristeus antennatus
Giant red shrimp
Aristaeomorpha foliacea


EN EN
EUROPEAN
COMMISSION
Brussels, 8.3.2018
SWD(2018) 60 final
PART 5/6
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT
IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Accompanying the document
PROPOSAL FOR A REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF
THE COUNCIL
Establishing a multiannual plan for the fisheries exploiting demersal stocks in the
western Mediterranean Sea
{COM(2018) 115 final} - {SWD(2018) 59 final}
Europaudvalget 2018
KOM (2018) 0115
Offentligt
77
ANNEX 8:
ALARMING STATE OF MOST DEMERSAL STOCKS
This annex provides an overview of the state of most demersal stocks in the western
Mediterranean Sea. It also shows the evolution of the problem over time.
Source: Gibin et al. (2017). The STECF MED&BS Database Visualisation Dashboard.
Scientific Information system and database, JRC104195.
Evolution of the problem of overfishing for demersal stocks exploited
in the western Mediterranean Sea
Figure A8.1 Evolution of the problem of overfishing for most demersal stocks exploited in the
western Mediterranean Sea (from 2000 to 2014). Overfishing is expressed as the ratio between
current fishing mortality and the target fishing mortality at MSY levels (i.e. F/FMSY). The red
area indicates overfishing (i.e. F > FMSY) and the green area indicates sustainable fishing activity
(i.e. F < FMSY). This figure indicates that the large majority of stocks have been continuously
exploited well beyond sustainable levels.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014
F/Fmsy
78
Anglerfish in GSA 1
Lophius budegassa
Figure A8.2 Trend in total landings (top graph), SSB (middle graph) and evolution of
the ratio F/FMSY over time (bottom graph; red area means overfishing as current F >
FMSY and green area means sustainable as F < FMSY) for Anglerfish in GSA 1 (Alboran
Sea).
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
F/Fmsy
0
5
10
15
20
25
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Landings
(tonnes)
31%
0
5
10
15
20
25
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
SSB
(tonnes)
34%
79
Blue and red shrimp in GSA 1
Aristeus antennatus
Figure A8.3 Trend in total landings (top graph), SSB (middle graph) and evolution of
the ratio F/FMSY over time (bottom graph; red area means overfishing as current F >
FMSY and green area means sustainable as F < FMSY) for Blue and red shrimp in GSA 1
(Alboran Sea).
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Landings
(metric
tonnes)
SSB
(metric
tonnes)
F/Fmsy
24%
19%
80
Blue and red shrimp in GSA 6
Aristeus antennatus
Figure A8.4 Trend in total landings (top graph), SSB (middle graph) and evolution of
the ratio F/FMSY over time (bottom graph; red area means overfishing as current F >
FMSY and green area means sustainable as F < FMSY) for Blue and red shrimp in GSA 6
(Northern Spain).
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Landings
(metric
tonnes)
SSB
(metric
tonnes)
F/Fmsy
24%
66%
81
Deep-water rose shrimp in GSA 1
Parapenaeus longirostris
Figure A8.5 Trend in total landings (top graph), SSB (middle graph) and evolution of
the ratio F/FMSY over time (bottom graph; red area means overfishing as current F >
FMSY and green area means sustainable as F < FMSY) for Deep-water rose shrimp in GSA
1 (Alboran Sea).
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
0
1
2
3
4
5
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Landings
(metric
tonnes)
SSB
(metric
tonnes)
F/Fmsy
164%
13%
82
Deep-water rose shrimp in GSA 6
Parapenaeus longirostris
Figure A8.6 Trend in total landings (top graph), SSB (middle graph) and evolution of
the ratio F/FMSY over time (bottom graph; red area means overfishing as current F >
FMSY and green area means sustainable as F < FMSY) for Deep-water rose shrimp in GSA
6 (Northern Spain).
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Landings
(metric
tonnes)
SSB
(metric
tonnes)
F/Fmsy
64%
43%
83
Deep-water rose shrimp in GSA 9
Parapenaeus longirostris
Figure A8.7 Trend in total landings (top graph), SSB (middle graph) and evolution of
the ratio F/FMSY over time (bottom graph; red area means overfishing as current F >
FMSY and green area means sustainable as F < FMSY) for Deep-water rose shrimp in GSA
9 (Ligurian and North Tyrrhenian Sea).
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
0
1
2
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Landings
(metric
tonnes)
SSB
(metric
tonnes)
F/Fmsy
17%
22%
84
Deep-water rose shrimp in GSA 10
Parapenaeus longirostris
Figure A8.8 Trend in total landings (top graph), SSB (middle graph) and evolution of
the ratio F/FMSY over time (bottom graph; red area means overfishing as current F >
FMSY and green area means sustainable as F < FMSY) for Deep-water rose shrimp in GSA
10 (South Tyrrhenian Sea).
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
0
1
2
3
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Landings
(metric
tonnes)
SSB
(metric
tonnes)
F/Fmsy
58%
13%
85
Giant red shrimp in GSA 9
Aristeomorpha foliacea
Figure A8.9 Trend in total landings (top graph), SSB (middle graph) and evolution of
the ratio F/FMSY over time (bottom graph; red area means overfishing as current F >
FMSY and green area means sustainable as F < FMSY) for Giant red shrimp in GSA 9
(Ligurian and North Tyrrhenian Sea).
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
0
1
2
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Landings
(metric
tonnes)
SSB
(metric
tonnes)
F/Fmsy
73%
42%
86
Giant red shrimp in GSA 10
Aristeomorpha foliacea
Figure A8.10 Trend in total landings (top graph), SSB (middle graph) and evolution of
the ratio F/FMSY over time (bottom graph; red area means overfishing as current F >
FMSY and green area means sustainable as F < FMSY) for Giant red shrimp in GSA 10
(South Tyrrhenian Sea).
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
0
1
2
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Landings
(metric
tonnes)
SSB
(metric
tonnes)
F/Fmsy
52%
8%
87
Giant red shrimp in GSA 11
Aristeomorpha foliacea
Figure A8.11 Trend in total landings (top graph), SSB (middle graph) and evolution of
the ratio F/FMSY over time (bottom graph; red area means overfishing as current F >
FMSY and green area means sustainable as F < FMSY) for Giant red shrimp in GSA 11
(Sardinia).
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
0
1
2
3
4
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Landings
(metric
tonnes)
SSB
(metric
tonnes)
F/Fmsy
15%
43%
88
Hake in GSAs 1-5-6-7
Merluccius merluccius
Figure A8.12 Trend in total landings (top graph), SSB (middle graph) and evolution of
the ratio F/FMSY over time (bottom graph; red area means overfishing as current F >
FMSY and green area means sustainable as F < FMSY) for Hake in GSA 1-5-6-7 (stock
distributed in the Alboran Sea, Northern Spain, Balearic Islands and Gulf of Lion).
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
0
1
2
3
4
5
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Landings
(metric
tonnes)
SSB
(metric
tonnes)
F/Fmsy
35%
30%
89
Hake in GSAs 9-10-11
Merluccius merluccius
Figure A8.13 Trend in total landings (top graph), SSB (middle graph) and evolution of
the ratio F/FMSY over time (bottom graph; red area means overfishing as current F >
FMSY and green area means sustainable as F < FMSY) for Hake in GSA 9-10-11 (stock
distributed in the Ligurian and Tyrrhenian Seas, including in the island of Sardinia).
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Landings
(metric
tonnes)
SSB
(metric
tonnes)
F/Fmsy
34%
22%
90
Norway lobster in GSA 5
Nephrops norvegicus
Figure A8.14 Trend in total landings (top graph), SSB (middle graph) and evolution of
the ratio F/FMSY over time (bottom graph; red area means overfishing as current F >
FMSY and green area means sustainable as F < FMSY) for Norway lobster in GSA 5
(Balearic Islands).
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
0
1
2
3
4
5
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Landings
(metric
tonnes)
SSB
(metric
tonnes)
F/Fmsy
44%
25%
91
Norway lobster in GSA 9
Nephrops norvegicus
Figure A8.15 Trend in total landings (top graph), SSB (middle graph) and evolution of
the ratio F/FMSY over time (bottom graph; red area means overfishing as current F >
FMSY and green area means sustainable as F < FMSY) for Norway lobster in GSA 9
(Ligurian and North Tyrrhenian Seas).
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
0
1
2
3
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Landings
(metric
tonnes)
SSB
(metric
tonnes)
F/Fmsy
40%
51%
92
Red mullet in GSA 1
Mullus barbatus
Figure A8.16 Trend in total landings (top graph), SSB (middle graph) and evolution of
the ratio F/FMSY over time (bottom graph; red area means overfishing as current F >
FMSY and green area means sustainable as F < FMSY) for Red mullet in GSA 1 (Alboran
Sea).
0
50
100
150
200
250
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Landings
(metric
tonnes)
SSB
(metric
tonnes)
F/Fmsy
7%
33%
93
Red mullet in GSA 6
Mullus barbatus
Figure A8.17 Trend in total landings (top graph), SSB (middle graph) and evolution of
the ratio F/FMSY over time (bottom graph; red area means overfishing as current F >
FMSY and green area means sustainable as F < FMSY) for Red mullet in GSA 6 (Northern
Spain).
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
0
1
2
3
4
5
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Landings
(metric
tonnes)
SSB
(metric
tonnes)
F/Fmsy
219%
308%
94
Red mullet in GSA 7
Mullus barbatus
Figure A8.18 Trend in total landings (top graph), SSB (middle graph) and evolution of
the ratio F/FMSY over time (bottom graph; red area means overfishing as current F >
FMSY and green area means sustainable as F < FMSY) for Red mullet in GSA 7 (Gulf of
Lion).
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Landings
(metric
tonnes)
SSB
(metric
tonnes)
F/Fmsy
201%
68%
95
Red mullet in GSA 9
Mullus barbatus
Figure A8.19 Trend in total landings (top graph), SSB (middle graph) and evolution of
the ratio F/FMSY over time (bottom graph; red area means overfishing as current F >
FMSY and green area means sustainable as F < FMSY) for Red mullet in GSA 9 (Ligurian
and North Tyrrhenian Seas).
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
0
1
2
3
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Landings
(metric
tonnes)
SSB
(metric
tonnes)
F/Fmsy
33%
21%
96
Striped red mullet in GSA 5
Mullus surmuletus
Figure A8.20 Trend in total landings (top graph), SSB (middle graph) and evolution of
the ratio F/FMSY over time (bottom graph; red area means overfishing as current F >
FMSY and green area means sustainable as F < FMSY) for Stripped red mullet in GSA 5
(Balearic Islands).
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
0
50
100
150
200
250
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
0
1
2
3
4
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Landings
(metric
tonnes)
SSB
(metric
tonnes)
F/Fmsy
36%
37%