European Union. Description of detailed assessment of the state of fish stocks

Transcription

1 EUROPEAN UNION 1 European Union Description of detailed assessment of the state of fish stocks Scientific agencies assess each year whether the stocks are at risk of their future reproduction being compromised, i.e. whether they are outside "safe biological limits". Largely because of inaccurate catch reports, the state of some 59% of stocks is unknown (Communication from the Commission: Consultation on Fishing Opportunities for ). Of those stocks for which the state is known 69% are at high risk of depletion, and only some 31% of stocks are known to be fished sustainably. In 86% of the analysed stocks, overfishing is so serious that more fish would be caught if there was less fishing. This number is well above the situation outside the EU where the global average is 28% of stocks being overfished. Some 18% of stocks are in such bad state that scientists advise that there should be no fishing (see Table 1 below). Substantial efforts have been made, although for the time being there are only limited signs of stock recovery or of reductions in overfishing since Legislative and policy framework Legislation specific to fish stock rebuilding, as well as complimentary legislation The Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) of the European Union sets out to ensure exploitation of living aquatic resources that provides sustainable economic, environmental and social conditions. Following the last CFP reform in 2002 a precautionary approach was introduced to protect and conserve living aquatic resources, and to minimise the impact of fishing activities on marine ecosystems. The reform aimed to contribute to efficient fishing activities within an economically viable and competitive fisheries and aquaculture industry, providing a fair standard of living for those who depend on fishing activities and taking into account the interests of consumers. The 2002 reform of the CFP opened for a more long-term approach to fisheries management, involving the establishment of multi-annual recovery plans for stocks outside safe biological limits and of multi-annual management plans for other stocks. It also aimed to progressively implement an ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management In 2008, the Commission launched a review of the CFP which was based on an analysis of the achievements and shortcomings of the current policy, and looked at experiences from other fisheries management systems to identify potential avenues for 1

2 2 EUROPEAN UNION future action. An overall reform of the CFP has been launched with the Green Paper in April 2009 and a new CFP should enter into force in Table 1. Status of Fish Stocks in the European Union In the European Union, the basic regulation establishing the CFP, Council Regulation (EC) No. 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the CFP, enables the Commission to propose measures to rebuild fish stocks to be adopted by the Council of Ministers or establish emergency measures. Most conservation measures mainly aim to ensure that the fishing pressure is not higher than the stocks can sustain. Measures set up rules for total allowable catches, limitation of fishing effort, technical measures (rules in relation to fishing gears and minimum landing sizes), and impose obligations to record and report catches and landings. The CFP includes several measures to limit the environmental impact of fishing. Among them is the protection of non target species such as marine mammals, birds and turtles, juvenile fish and vulnerable fish stocks (e.g. strategy to prevent bycatches and eliminating discards), and the protection of sensitive habitats (e.g. measures to eliminate 2

3 EUROPEAN UNION 3 destructive fishing practices). Specific aid for investments on board fishing vessels is available under the European Fisheries Fund to help improve the selectivity of fishing gears, provided the vessel switches to a more selective fishing method, moves to another fishery to target a resource in a better state of conservation or goes beyond regulatory obligations on selectivity. Since 2002, the concept of multi-annual management plans has been applied to many fisheries. There are different types of "multi-annual plans": long-term measures that are agreed with other fisheries authorities (e.g. Norway), plans agreed in RFMO's and Community plans proper, which can be either recovery plans (art. 5 of 2371/2002), management plans (art. 6 of 2371/2002), or long-term plans on basis of the Treaty (art 37). At Community level as a first priority recovery plans for the most depleted stocks were introduced. The Commission remains committed to setting fishing opportunities that are sustainable according to scientific advice and, for depleted stocks, will allow a high chance of stock recovery. Fishing opportunities are thus set: according to long-term plans; respecting relevant international agreements, including the commitment to rebuild stocks so that they reach their maximum productivity (MSY); and, respecting the objectives of the Common Fisheries Policy, and especially respecting the need to reduce fishing on overexploited stocks and to rebuild depleted stocks. Multi-annual plans have proven to be more effective in managing stocks and have helped to improve the decision making, both in procedural aspects as well as the final outcome. In addition, the Commission is reflecting on a possible different legal structure for the next multi-annual plans, one option under consideration is that many different stocks would be brought under one plan in a single Regulation. Since 2002, management plans have been developed for many stocks: 41% of pelagic stocks (41% of catches) and 29% of demersal stocks (44% of catches) are now under multi-annual plans. Work will continue on bringing more stocks under such plans, including the pelagic stocks in the Baltic Sea and a few Mediterranean fisheries. Specific plans will be proposed in 2009 for northern hake, western horse mackerel, Bay of Biscay anchovy and Baltic salmon. Where, pending adoption of such plans, Council and Commission have declared specific intentions on harvest rules, the declarations will be followed by establishing the 2010 fishing opportunities for the species concerned, and will subsequently be implemented in Commission proposals (e.g. Celtic Sea herring and west Scotland haddock). Related key terminology and definitions Over-fishing is defined as any fishery where the total fishing effort is greater than is required to meet or match a specific management objective, e.g. maximum sustainable yield (MSY). 3 3 Commission Staff Working Document Impact Assessment concerning the Commission's proposal for a Council Regulation on the long-term management of the Northern hake stock COM(2009)122 final, SEC(2009)301.

4 4 EUROPEAN UNION A recovery plan is defined as a set of measures aimed at rebuilding depleted stocks. Covering a period of several years, the plan is generally implemented in phases that can begin with emergency measures and the establishment of technical measures, as in the case of the recovery plans for cod and hake. All this is matched with monitoring and control and possibly even financial aid for the stakeholders concerned, to ensure that fishing pressure on the depleted stock is reduced. 4 Related policy and guidance framework; decision making architecture and considerations The European Commission, on the basis of independent scientific advice and after consulting the sector and Member States and possibly the third countries concerned - proposes a plan comprising long-term measures to the Council of the European Union. The European Parliament is consulted for opinion. The final regulation, adopted by the Council, is published in the Official Journal and can then enter into force. Figure 1. Decision-making in the European Union The International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) provides scientific advice for the stocks in the North-east Atlantic (including North Sea and Baltic Sea) by using biological data collected by national research institutes to assess the state of the main commercial stocks (stocks targeted by fishermen). The results of the assessments are examined by ICES' Advisory Committee (ACOM) which is made up of representatives from each member country (i.e. European Union, Norway, Iceland, United States, Canada and Russia) and its findings represent the advice of ICES. 4

5 EUROPEAN UNION 5 Figure 2. ICES areas A different advisory set-up is found for non-ices areas of the Mediterranean and Black Seas and external stocks, where the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM), plays the prominent role in delivering advice. (Figure 8.2)

6 6 EUROPEAN UNION Figure 3. Advisory procedure in the Mediterranean and Black Seas Source: 1. FAO: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations-Subregional programmes (AdriaMed,COPEMED) 2 GFCM: General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean 3 ICCAT: International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas 4 STECF: Scientific,Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries For tuna fisheries, the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) is responsible for the conservation of tunas and tuna-like species in the Atlantic Ocean and its adjacent seas. ICCAT compiles fishery statistics from its members and from all entities fishing for these species in the Atlantic Ocean, coordinates research, including stock assessment, on behalf of its members, develops scientific-based management advice, and provides a mechanism for Contracting Parties (including the European Community) to agree on management measures. Scientific advice provided by the different scientific bodies is reviewed by the Community's Scientific and Technical and Economic Committee on Fisheries (STECF). The European Commission also consults stakeholders on the advice. Negotiations take place with non-community countries and regional fisheries organisations which have an interest in or responsibility over the same fishing grounds or stocks. In the case of joint stocks such as cod in the North Sea, the Commission negotiates with Norway. The Commission then analyses the various options and sets out proposals for the following year's fishing opportunities (total allowable catches and the conditions under

7 EUROPEAN UNION 7 which they should be caught). These proposals are sent to the Council of Ministers which takes the final decision regarding TACs and any related measures. A similar procedure is followed for the establishment of multi-annual plans, although procedures are lengthier and involve a formal Impact Assessment and more elaborate stakeholder consultation. The future Lisbon Treaty will establish co-decision by the Council and the European Parliament as the main decision-making procedure for matters falling under the CFP in the future. An exception is foreseen in Article 43(3) of the Treaty as regards measures "on the fixing and allocation of fishing opportunities". These measures are to be adopted by the Council, on a proposal from the Commission, without the involvement of the Parliament. It therefore become important to distinguish clearly between measures which can be considered to be concerned with the fixing and allocation of fishing opportunities and those which, on the contrary, must be adopted via co-decision. Multi-annual management plans will require co-decision with the Parliament. The decision making framework will also be actively discussed during the ongoing CFP reform consultation, especially in relation to seeking more regional and bottom up approaches to decision making and creating incentives for improved stewardship and industry responsibility. For multi-annual management plans, some specific challenges are apparent: Shared stocks: Should negotiations occur with third countries first or Council first? Is the plan Recovery, Management or Long-term? Lacking economic and social data in support of LT plans. Link to Member States' operational programmes in EFF and fleet capacity development plans. Application of the precautionary approach to fisheries management In 2000, the European Commission issued a Communication on the precautionary principle and adopted a procedure for the application of this concept, but without giving a detailed definition of it. Earlier, the Maastricht Treaty adopted the principle as a fundamental element of environmental policy: Union policy on the environment shall aim at a high level of protection taking into account the diversity of situations in the various regions of the Union. It shall be based on the precautionary principle and on the principles that preventive action should be taken, that environmental damage should as a priority be rectified at source and that the polluter should pay. In this context, a number of steps should be followed: if a preliminary scientific evaluation shows that there are reasonable grounds for concern that a particular activity might lead to damaging effects on the environment, or on human, animal or plant health, which would be inconsistent with the protection normally afforded to these within the European Community, the Precautionary Principle is triggered; decision-makers then have to determine what action to take. They should take account of the potential consequences of taking no action, the uncertainties inherent in the scientific evaluation, and they should consult interested parties on the possible ways of managing the risk. Measures should be proportionate to the level of risk, and to the desired level of protection. They should be provisional in nature pending the availability of more reliable scientific data;

8 8 EUROPEAN UNION action is then undertaken to obtain further information enabling a more objective assessment of the risk. The measures taken to manage the risk should be maintained so long as the scientific information remains inconclusive and the risk unacceptable. After the adoption of the Communication on the precautionary principle, the principle has come to inform much EU policy, including fisheries policy. For the European Union, the precautionary approach to fisheries management has been defined in two international instruments: the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (CCRF); and the Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks (UNIA). Both of these share common wording and ideas. The wording used in the CCRF is: States should apply the precautionary approach widely to conservation, management and exploitation of living aquatic resources in order to protect them and preserve the aquatic environment. The absence of adequate scientific information should not be used as a reason for postponing or failing to take conservation and management measures. The CCRF is a voluntary, non-binding agreement, while the UNIA is now a binding agreement amongst signatory States and entered into force on 11 December The European Community has acceded to both these agreements and is in the process of integrating the approach into the CFP. Further, Regulation 2371/2002 Article 2 stipulates that "For this purpose, the Community shall apply the precautionary approach in taking measures designed to protect and conserve living aquatic resources, to provide for their sustainable exploitation and to minimise the impact of fishing activities on marine eco-system". Following a request from the European Commission, ICES have developed a procedure for implementing a precautionary approach in its advice to the Commission on fish stocks and future catch levels. This is done by setting reference points - in effect trigger levels at which management action should be taken. ICES identify two types of reference points: 'limit' and 'precautionary'. The intention is that fish stocks are managed so they do not exceed the precautionary limit reference point. Fisheries managers can, therefore, be reasonably confident that limit reference points - at which there is a serious risk of stock collapse - are never reached. Scientific Framework Reference points and associated guidelines Different rules apply according to the level of risk concerning each stock 5. Stocks are at high risk when they fall below the "precautionary level (Bpa)"- the level where the future productivity of the stock risks becoming lower. Another marker of high risk is when the fishing mortality rate is higher than the "precautionary rate" (Fpa). Fishing mortality rate is the annual catch divided by the average size of the stock over the year. If 5 See

9 EUROPEAN UNION 9 a stock is smaller than Bpa or is fished at a higher rate than Fpa it is "outside safe biological limits", and vice versa. The following biological reference points currently apply to a range of EU fisheries: Figure 4. Range of EU fisheries TAC decisions are taken on the basis of annual scientific advice from ICES and STECF, the latter including biological as well as socio-economic aspects. Rules have been developed for TAC setting so that fair treatment is assured and as much stability as possible is provided to the industry. The table below outlines the harvest control rules for the calculation of fishing possibilities by the Commission (TAC and effort).

10 10 EUROPEAN UNION Table 2. Harvest Control Rules * This rule may be subject to changes. The Commission has requested ICES to advise on possible new options.

11 EUROPEAN UNION 11 For those stocks, excluding naturally short-lived species, where it is not possible to provide an advice based on a catch forecast in relation to precautionary limits, ICES has been requested to: advise on a TAC corresponding to the application of the rule below; evaluate the consequences of implementing the rule below with respect to the precautionary approach and compatibility with maximum sustainable yield; if necessary, advise on an alternative rule and the corresponding TACs that would improve compatibility with the precautionary approach, with maximum sustainable yield, or with improved stability of TACs. This could be provided on a case-bycase basis. Exogenous factors (e.g. climate change considerations, ecosystem effects) The fisheries sector can no longer be seen in isolation from its broader maritime environment and from other policies dealing with marine activities. Fisheries are heavily dependent on access to maritime space and to healthy marine ecosystems. However, to date, exogenous factors have seen a very limited application in the context of fisheries management. Climate change is already having an impact on Europe s seas and is triggering changes to the abundance and distribution of fish stocks. Competition for maritime space is also on the rise as ever larger parts of our seas and coasts are dedicated to other uses. Fishing economies are heavily influenced by broader trends of employment and development in coastal communities, including the emergence of new sectors offering opportunities for reconversion or income diversification. Rethinking the CFP therefore requires taking a fresh look at the broader maritime picture as advocated by the Integrated Maritime Policy (IMP) and its environmental pillar, the Marine Strategy Framework Directive. Further thoughts are that exogenous factors should be gradually integrated into fisheries management, as and when data and advice becomes available. Rebuilding plans The European Union has moved away from the terms recovery plan and management plan to distinguish between different approaches to different phases in a stock s life. Instead, today we talk about multi-annual plans, and the emphasis is on ensuring that fisheries are managed sustainably for the long term, without artificial distinctions between stocks in danger and those which are safe. The definition of targets in terms of fishing mortality rather than simply the sheer quantity of fish in the sea (stock biomass) makes it possible to adopt a single management goal whatever the condition of the stock. They also set maximum limits on the inter-annual variation in TACs to provide a minimum stability to the fishing industry. Multi-annual plans set up simple rules for setting quotas and effort levels each year according to each year s scientific advice about the state of the stocks. Multi-annual management is appealing because it not only makes the long-term objectives explicit; it also specifies the means by which these objectives are to be achieved. It therefore creates more stability for the industry as well as better conservation prospects. Furthermore, decision making becomes more structured than in the case of last-minute TAC-cuts based

12 12 EUROPEAN UNION on short term considerations. Finally, the approach allows for up-front evaluation and assessment. The first plan which the European Union introduced for its own waters was the recovery plan for North Sea cod in Since then, the formula has been applied to a range of stocks in EU waters, and the Commission intends to progressively implement similar plans for all major commercial fish stocks over the coming years. Today, ten plans are implemented and another six are in the pipeline for 2009/10. A number of important international plans are also agreed with non-eu countries. The Commission can also take immediate and direct action on a set of emergency measures (not lasting more than six months) if there is evidence of a serious threat to the conservation of a marine resource. The steps of introducing a new plan are as follows: Scientific advice Non-paper from Commission to stakeholders and Member States Consultations with stakeholders Commission prepares an Impact Assessment Commission presents a proposal to Council and Parliament Opinion of Parliament Adoption by Council Member States to implement capacity decisions Structure and composition of rebuilding plans The evolution of multi-annual plans since 2002 has led to important changes in the way plans are constructed: The first Community plans set the objectives and targets in terms of reaching a certain stock size (B pa ) and annual growth of the stocks. With experience, it was found that stock size is too dependent on nature to be controlled directly and it is better to take a reasonable and safe part of the stock each year instead, and let nature take its course. The eventual aim is to obtain the highest yield from the stock. This approach ensures that the stock is exploited to its maximum potential regardless of changes in the environment. Distinction between TAC and effort, and development in the effort concept. Some of the first plans included effort management where vessels received fixed numbers of days according to the type of fishing activity. In the most recent plans, the system was developed into a more flexible kw-days regime in which ceilings are established for each Member State per gear type and area. This allows for more flexibility for the Member States to manage their fisheries. Better methods for defining the required effort adjustments have been developed to allow for a better matching of effort and quotas. The Baltic cod plan for instance has an automatic reduction of days linked to the target fishing rate without any derogations, which makes it into a simply managed system easier to control and monitor. Today, plans in general include the following:

13 EUROPEAN UNION 13 Biological reference points, to identify the markers of success or failure as targets and warning points. Rules for setting TACs as a function of current stock size estimates and fishing mortality rates Limits on TAC changes between years, applicable in some circumstances. Effort management systems Multi-annual plans do not simply provide a mechanism for setting TACs. They lay down a range of measures to support sustainable management of the fishery in question, including closed areas, strict technical measures on mesh sizes and gear, and careful monitoring, inspection and control. For instance, vessels must inform the authorities beforehand of planned landings and if the catch is above a certain weight, these must take place in specially designated ports. Multi-annual plans have also been one of the main vehicles through which effort management (limits on annual days spent at sea) have been introduced into the CFP. It forms part of the plans for cod in the North Sea and Baltic Sea, North Sea plaice and sole, western Channel sole, southern hake and Norway lobster stocks. Impact assessment The Commission is committed to developing a better regulatory environment for businesses, one that is simple, understandable, effective and enforceable. Placing greater emphasis on the use of impact assessments and public consultations, when drafting new rules and regulations, has become a cornerstone of initiatives to rebuild fisheries. An impact assessment is a document that accompanies legislative proposals. Its aim is to support the lawmakers decision-making process, with an in-depth analysis of all legislative options available and possible impacts that may derive from them. Consultation with stakeholders throughout the process is required. Key analytical steps in impact assessment include: Identify the problem Define the objectives Develop main policy options Analyse their impacts (environmental, economic and social) Compare the options Stakeholder consultation Outline policy monitoring and evaluation Formal Impact Assessments that have been finalised in the context of fisheries rebuilding are given below.

14 14 EUROPEAN UNION Table3. Dates and References for commission Proposals Adoption date Commission proposal IA final report + summary Proposal reference 2008/04/02 Proposal for a Regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 423/004 as regards the recovery of cod stocks and amending Regulation (EEC) No 2847/ /05/06 Proposal for a Regulation establishing a multi-annual plan for the stock of herring distributed to the West of Scotland and the fisheries exploiting that stock 2009/03/17 Proposal for a Regulation establishing a long-term plan for the nothern stock of hake and the fisheries exploiting that stock 2009/04/21 Proposal for a Regulation establishing a multi-annual plan for the western stock of Atlantic horse mackerel and the fisheries exploiting that stock SEC(2008)386 SEC(2008)389 Impact assessment Executive summary SEC(2009)300 SEC(2009)301 SEC(2009)524 SEC(2009)525 COM(2008)162 COM(2008)240 COM(2009)122 COM(2009)189 Source: Stakeholder consultation and engagement The European Commission believes that it is essential to engage in dialogue with the fisheries industry and other groups affected by the CFP. Real dialogue is a prerequisite for successful policies as it generates an exchange of views with fishermen and other stakeholders and provides the Commission with better knowledge about their problems and expectations which in turn can be taken into consideration when proposals for fisheries rules are drafted by the Commission. The industry is also more likely to accept and implement CFP rules if it has been involved in the formulation of these rules. This is why the European Commission throughout the years has taken a series of measures to strengthen the dialogue with the fisheries sector and other interested parties. One of the first measures was to set up the Advisory Committee on Fisheries at the beginning of the 1970s. The Committee was reformed in 2000 to make it more efficient and to broaden the dialogue with the industry and other stakeholders. New interest groups (aquaculture, Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) and scientists) became involved in the committee which was baptised Advisory Committee on Fisheries and Aquaculture (ACFA). ACFA is made up of 21 members representing different interests including vessel owners, fishermen, fish farmers, the processing industry and NGOs. It is consulted by the Commission on measures related to the CFP and can issue opinions on its own initiative. An evaluation of ACFA was carried out in

15 EUROPEAN UNION 15 Despite the progress achieved in terms of strengthening the dialogue with stakeholders, the consultation of the fisheries industry in the framework of the 2002 reform of the CFP clearly showed that there was a need to do more. Stakeholders did not feel sufficiently involved in some important aspects of the CFP, such as, for example, the provision of scientific advice and the adoption of technical measures. Many fishermen, in particular, believed that their views and knowledge were not sufficiently taken into account by managers and scientists. To address this shortcoming, the Commission proposed a network of Regional Advisory Councils (RACs) involving fishermen, scientists and other stakeholders on a regional level. On the basis of the Commission proposal, the Council adopted in July 2004 a common framework for RACs which foresaw the establishment of 7 RACs covering 5 geographical areas as well as pelagic stocks and the highs seas fleet. They now enable the fishing sector to work more closely with scientists in collating reliable data and discussing ways of improving scientific advice. RACs submit recommendations and suggestions on any aspects of the fisheries they cover to the Commission and the Member States concerned. Each multi-annual plan is drawn up in close collaboration with the RAC concerned, both for the technical content and the evaluation of the socio-economic impact. Review and evaluation processes As expressed in Council Regulation 2371/2002 (articles 5 and 6), "the Commission shall report on the effectiveness of the management plans in achieving the targets". The 2008 Impact Assessment Regarding the Commission s proposal establishing revised measures for the recovery of cod stocks indicated recognition that the initial strategy to rebuild cod stocks was insufficient and did not meet its intended goals. In the development of an updated rebuilding plan, the EU revised long term objectives from targeting specific biomass measures towards an approach of striving to achieve an optimum exploitation rate to lead to the highest sustainable yield. In response to comments from member states, the complexity of the management system was reduced while at the same time bestowing flexibility for countries in terms of implementation. Finally, the updated plan should also deal more directly with the issue of discards and benefit from the development of clearer harvest rules so as to lessen the amount of impromptu decisions. To analyse the results of the plans, a very simple comparison of the following parameters between the year of the start of implementation and 2007 was made in respect of stock size, fishing mortality and catches. We can count as improvements or successes: an increase in the size of the stock; a decrease in the rate of fishing, since the stocks have been overfished; an increase in the catches. In the following table, the number of "successes" has been tallied:

16 16 EUROPEAN UNION Table 4. Successes in increasing fish stocks Most Community plans have been successful in reducing fishing mortality, except for southern hake and Irish Sea cod (where an important part of catches are not counted under quotas). For mackerel the catches exceeded the TACs during the mid-1990s and the stock declined but it is now recovering. The haddock stock size is increasing and fishing mortality decreasing, but catch varies according to recruitment, which is highly variable for this stock. At this stage it is not yet possible to assess the rate of success for cod in the Baltic Sea or North Sea flatfish (sole and plaice), but recent assessments show good status for flatfish. This preliminary analysis of the plans and their results along the lines of the simple scoring method mentioned earlier may indicate that the benefits of plans may take a relatively long time to develop, ranging from between 5 to 15 years. Where plans have not been successful, this may be attributable to the lack of scientific data that allows for certain rules to be applied and not just to negligence in implementation of the rules. This is worrying where the deterioration of scientific knowledge is linked to the deterioration of the stock. In order to cater for these conditions, rules have been developed in the most recent plans that apply in "data-poor conditions". In addition, as was the case in the 2004 cod plan, rules may not be well enough specified when the size of the spawning stock is below a biological threshold. More recent plans provide unambiguous rules for action in such cases. Following the request of the Commission, the STECF has outlined a proposal for a framework to undertake future evaluations of existing plans, in particular for North Sea sole and plaice, Baltic cod, hake, nephrops, Bay of Biscay sole and Western channel sole in The format of this evaluation is: 1. Background Information and data historical background, objectives and reference points, provide up to date fishery/fleet data

17 EUROPEAN UNION Elements to be reviewed a. Implementation: design issues, enforcement and compliance b. Environmental effects: fishery and stock response and impact of management measures, consistency of targets and reference points c. Ecosystem effects: discarding practices, by-catch rates, habitat degradation 3. Social and economic effects - data and calculation of indicators for fleets concerned (or general socio-economic CFP objectives if no specific objectives are defined), cost effectiveness (e.g do the benefits outweigh the cost of implementation and enforcement). 4. Added value of the plan - what is likely to have happened if the management plan had not been put in place, costs/benefits of plan in environmental and socio-economic terms. 5. Performance evaluation of the plan (based on the above) - effectiveness, utility, efficiency (cost-effectiveness), appropriateness of indicators, sustainability of plan 6. Conclusions global judgment of plan and recommendations for future revisions and evaluations (data, indicators, objectives) The table below shows the list of plans currently implemented in EC waters under Community legislation, and their expected evaluation procedure. Application of an ecosystem approach to fisheries An ecosystem approach to marine management, covering all sectors, is being implemented through the Marine Strategy Framework Directive and sets the obligation for Member States to achieve Good Environmental Status in The future CFP must be set up to provide the right instruments to support this ecosystem approach. This is also in the interest of the fishing sector because this approach will address the impacts of other sectors on fisheries resources in a proportionate and coherent way. This gradual approach will be discussed in the context of the CFP reform. Climate change will impact severely on the marine environment. Marine ecosystems and biodiversity, already under pressure from pollution and overfishing, will be further affected by warmer temperatures and acidification, with changes in species reproduction and abundance, changes in distributions of marine organisms and shifts in plankton communities. A new CFP has to play a role in facilitating climate change adaptation efforts concerning impacts in the marine environment. Climate change is an added stress on marine ecosystems which makes a reduction of fishing pressure to sustainable level even more urgent. Sustainable fishing therefore has to replace overfishing which has rendered marine ecosystems more vulnerable to climate change and thus less capable of adapting.

18 18 EUROPEAN UNION Table 5. List of Plans Implemented in EC waters under Community legislation and probable evaluation procedure Name/Regulation Objective(s) (ex-post) evaluation Northern hake recovery plan 811/2004 Southern hake/norway lobster recovery plan 2166/2005 Bay of Biscay sole multi-annual plan 388/2006 Western Channel sole multi-annual plan 509/2007 North Sea plaice & sole multi-annual plan 676/2007 Baltic Sea cod multiannual plan 1098/2007 Western waters & North Sea cod stock multi-annual plan 1342/2008 West of Scotland herring 1300/2008 SSB > Bpa during 2 years at least SSB > Bpa during 2 years at least SSB > Bpa F Ftarget 1 st steo SSB > Bpa & F Fpa, 2 nd step F Fmsy F Ftarget F Ftarget F Ftarget at latest (COM) After 2 years of implementation (ICES & STECF) & bio- & socio-econ report before (COM) After 3 years of implementation, each 3 years afterwards (STECF) After 3 years of implementation, each 3 years afterwards (STECF) After 3 years of implementation, each year afterwards (COM), and idem STECF After 3 years of implementation, each year afterwards (COM), and idem STECF After 3 years of implementation at the latest (STECF) Every 4 years at least (STECF) Future long term CFP-oriented research programmes must tackle new challenges such as the need to promote synergy at European, national and regional level, to integrate fisheries policy with other maritime issues, (especially the ecosystem approach and climate change) and further development of policy instruments and governance. In the process, ecosystem factors should be integrated into fisheries management incrementally, as and when reliable data and advice become available. Monitoring and compliance regime under rebuilding plans It is the responsibility of the EU Member States to make sure that the rules agreed under the CFP are respected. Fisheries controls play a central role in encouraging compliance, deterring fraud and ensuring sustainable fishing. To make sure that all national enforcement authorities apply the same standards of quality and fairness in their enforcement, there is also an EU Inspectorate. To strengthen controls, it was decided in the 2002 reform to set up an EU fisheries control agency. The Community Fisheries Control Agency (CFCA) became operational in It will strengthen the uniformity and effectiveness of enforcement by pooling EU and national means of inspection and control, and will coordinate enforcement activities.

19 EUROPEAN UNION 19 The Commission in 2008 proposed a reform of the EU fisheries control system as well as new measures to deal with IUU fishing, to foster a culture of compliance with fisheries rules and create a level playing field for Europe's fishermen 7. Post-rebuilding management & maintenance approaches, policies, guidelines There are currently no specific policies or guidelines associated with post-rebuilding and maintenance approaches at EC level. Addressing Economic and Social Aspects Integration of socio-economic analysis, issues and methodology into rebuilding plans The main way by which economic analysis is built into rebuilding plans is through STECF evaluations and Impact Assessments. As economic and social data become more reliable and compatible with biological data, socio-economic analysis is beginning to play a bigger role in the design of plans. A recent study examines all the available bioeconomic models that can be used for a range of fisheries management purposes 8. Although the progress in this area is steady, the incorporation of socio-economic data (e.g. revenue, costs, gross value added, profits, employment) and analysis at the early design stage of plans is limited. Application of market based measures or incentives The area of market based measures or incentives remain the competence of the member states. That is, it is up to each individual member state to decide how fleets should be structured adjusted to assist efforts to rebuild fisheries under multi-annual plans, which will in turn determine the way economic and social aspects are incorporated in management. This is particularly true for the possible application of rights based management systems (RBM). The trade in fishing rights was first addressed in the context of the 2002 reform of the CFP, when the Commission committed itself to producing a report on the scope for provisions within EU and/or national fisheries management systems for a system of tradable fishing rights, which can be individual or collective. In February 2007, the Commission adopted a communication on RBM tools in fisheries, which found that markets in fishing rights exist in most member states. In some, national regimes specify that days at sea or part of the catch quota can be sold or leased. In others, those who wish to acquire more fishing rights have to buy a fishing vessel. The degree of transparency or openness of these transactions may vary greatly depending on how the system is formalised. Even when they are not specified by national law, in most member states such markets exist de facto. A recent study in 2009 gives an overview of RBM application in EU member states 9. The study has identified 63 different RBM systems in marine fisheries. Of these, 47 (75%) are classified as having weak property rights, three fisheries (5%) have strong nontransferable property rights, and 13 fisheries (20%) have RBM systems with strong

20 20 EUROPEAN UNION tradable rights, the latter found in Spain, Portugal, The Netherlands, Denmark, Estonia and the UK. However, the development in this area is still rather modest and ad hoc. The European Commission states that it believes that the debate on RBM should explore ways to facilitate greater transparency, improve legal certainty and security, and ultimately achieve greater economic efficiency for fishermen, which will also mean minimising costs to the rest of society. The debate also needs to address the potential negative effects of such systems - such as the risk that rights are concentrated in the hands of a few large companies to the detriment of small coastal fishing communities - and the way they could be addressed. The potential role of RBM in EU fisheries management is being discussed in the current CFP reform consultation, especially in relation to how RBM can be used to help restructure the fishing fleet and reduce overcapacity, and give incentives for greater stewardship. This is deemed especially important in the context of fisheries rebuilding. Compensation mechanisms, government support programs and financial or other instruments used to support rebuilding The European Fisheries Fund (EFF) is the financial component of the CFP. The EFF will run for seven years ( ) with a total budget of around EUR 3.8 billion. The EFF aims to support the objectives of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) by: supporting sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources and a stable balance between these resources and the capacity of Community fishing fleet; strengthening the competitiveness and the viability of operators in the sector; promoting environmentally-friendly fishing and production methods; providing adequate support to people employed in the sector; fostering the sustainable development of fisheries areas. The EU has developed compensation programs to ease some of the underlying issues associated with overfishing. The EFF allows members to finance the gradual restructuring of the sector which currently suffers from overcapacity and includes the decommissioning and re-categorisation of vessels, training, and the development of alternative economic activities. In the context of the CFP Green Paper, this is seen as the main alternative approach to the more extensive use of RBM. The member states choose the projects that are granted EFF co-funding. Due to the limited budget, however, each Member State had to set priorities in partnership with representatives of the sector and the regional authorities. In the national strategic plan, the member state presents a state of play of the sector and describes its objectives and priorities. This strategic plan serves as the basis for the development of the operational programme in which the member state describes in detail the measures to be co-financed by the EFF during the seven-year programming period. These programmes were subject to a dialogue with the European Commission before being approved. To guarantee the sustainability of fish stocks and allow long-term exploitation, a reduction of fishing effort can be decided by the European Union, international bodies, states or the fishing zone management authorities. These measures create adjustments to the power and capacity of the fishing fleet, i.e. changes that can range from a recommendation for the use of more selective gear, the obligation to change certain gears or the permanent cessation of activity. The EFF can finance public aid for the vessel

21 EUROPEAN UNION 21 owners and fishermen who have to implement such changes and cope with their financial and social repercussions. Following the hike in oil prices in 2008, a specific Fuel Regulation was put in place to allow for a more responsive use of funds to help structurally adjust the fishing fleet 10 Aid for permanent cessation Vessel owners who permanently cease the fishing activities of their vessel(s) may receive a premium co-financed by the EFF. The permanent cessation must form part of a fishing effort adjustment plan or a national fleet decommissioning scheme of no more than two years. For permanent cessation to be recognised, the vessel must be struck from the fishing fleet register and its licence permanently cancelled. This does not necessarily require scrapping of the vessel. Under certain conditions, it can be reassigned to other activities or transformed into an artificial reef, a museum piece or a training vessel. It is the member state that estimates the amount of the premium based on objective criteria such as the market value of the vessel, its turnover, age, power and tonnage. The premium is obviously lower when the vessel is given a new use, since it retains a residual value. Aid for temporary cessation Vessel owners and/or their crew members who must temporarily suspend their activities are eligible for a premium co-financed by the EFF. However, seasonal cessations corresponding to a fishing calendar or best practice are not covered by this intervention. Only cessations made necessary by resource management measures, nonrenewal of a fisheries agreement or a rescue and restructuring plan are eligible. The premium may also be granted while engines are being replaced or in connection with an exceptional event (natural disaster, public health measures, etc.). The duration of aid is necessarily limited in time. Socio-economic compensation The Member States may benefit from EFF financing to implement socio-economic measures designed to help fishermen who are victims of resource depletion or of the sector s poor economic situation. Such measures may include training or conversion programmes, the financing of early retirement, etc. Specific Actions by EC Member States Bulgaria a) Fishing effort adjustment plans in relation to rebuilding plans Bulgaria has not yet prepared a national plan for the adaptation of fishing effort, or elaborated plans for stock management. The Bulgarian fishing fleet is concentrated only in the Black Sea, where there are still no plans for management of the species. For the immediate future the implementation of recovery plans are not foreseen. Bulgaria intends to set up a Fishing Effort Adjustment Plan (FEAP), which will be adopted after consultation with the relevant bodies. Bulgaria is seeking to adapt its fishing fleet in order to create a stable and sustainable balance between the fishing capacity and 10 Council Regulation (EC) No 744/2008 of 24 July 2008 instituting a temporary specific action aiming to promote the restructuring of the European Community fishing fleets affected by the economic crisis

22 22 EUROPEAN UNION the resources available. Bulgaria will draft conservation measures for two of the main species existing in the Bulgarian waters, turbot and possibly sprat. A scientific survey will be undertaken in order to assess the situation of the fisheries stocks and the need to adopt conservation measures. b) Fleet management and economic incentives The measures for the adaptation of the Bulgarian Fishing Fleet will be implemented in the framework of a FEAP following the adoption of conservation measures for the fisheries stocks in the Black Sea (sprat, turbot, etc.). A FEAP related with such conservation measures will allow the granting of premiums to vessels exiting from the fishing fleet. Measure 1.1 from the Operational Program for Fisheries sector development is Public aid for permanent cessation of fishing activities The cessation of activity of a fishing vessel can take three different forms: the scrapping of the fishing vessel; the reassignment of the fishing vessel for activities outside fishing, for example for educational purposes; The reassignment of the fishing vessel for the purpose of the creation of artificial reefs. The co-financed actions will be carried out in order to: adapt the fishing fleet activities to the available and accessible resources; increase qualification level of future professional fishers by reassignment of fishing vessels for educational purposes; improve the habitats of the species in deep sea regions and increase the biodiversity by the creation of artificial reefs with reassigned fishing vessels. Financial support for the measure is 100% public financing. The level of public support will be established taking into account the best cost-effectiveness ratio based on objective criteria such as the value of the fishing vessel and its licence, its age and its tonnage expressed in GT. Measure 1.2 from the Operational Program for Fisheries sector development is Temporary cessation of fishing activities The level of public support will take into account the best cost-effectiveness ratio based on objective criteria such as: the fixed cost incurred by the vessel owners when the vessel is tied-up in the port (port charges, insurance cost, maintenance costs); whenever appropriate, the financial costs related to loans from financial institutions covering the period of the temporary cessation; part of the loss of revenue incurred by the fishers on board and the vessel owners; part of the basic salary currently received by the fishers. Financial support for the measure is 100% public financing. The premium for fishers will be a percentage of the basic net income currently received by the fishers.