Consultation Document Development of a regulation establishing a multiannual plan for the management of Northern Adriatic Sea small pelagic fisheries The sole purpose of this consultation is to collect relevant evidence and information from stakeholders to help the Commission develop its thinking in this area. This document does not necessarily reflect the views of the European Commission and should not be interpreted as a commitment by the Commission to any official initiative in this area. 1
Table of Contents Table of Contents... 2 1. Introduction... 3 2. Context... 3 3. Current management framework of small pelagic in the Northern Adriatic and main challenges... 4 3.i. Problem definition: what are the main challenges?...5 4. Elements that need to be considered for the proper management of small pelagic fisheries in the Northern Adriatic Sea... 6 5. Achieving the objectives: options, additional actions and points for discussion... 7 5.i. How to deal with the objectives for the stocks covered by the plan... 8 5.ii. Ecosystem aspects...8 5.iii. How to manage the regional aspects of small pelagic fisheries... 9 2
1. Introduction 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 1, (CFP "basic regulation") establishes the objectives and means for ensuring sustainable fisheries, including achieving maximum sustainable yield (MSY) with an exploitation rate (F MSY ) consistent with MSY by 2020 at the latest for all stocks. The new common fisheries policy (the "CFP") also introduces a landing obligation, which means that unwanted catches of species that are subject to catch limits and, in the Mediterranean, also catches of species which are subject to minimum sizes as defined in Annex III to the 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 2 (hereafter the "MEDREG"), can no longer be discarded. The entry into force of this obligation is phased in according to a specific calendar but the latest deadline is 1 January 2019. It also pursues coherence with the objective of achieving "good environmental status" (GES) as required by 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 or MSFD) 3. Multiannual plans are a priority instrument in the CFP to address the challenges of fisheries management. For mixed fisheries or where the dynamics of stocks relate to one another, plans should cover fisheries exploiting several stocks in a relevant geographical area, and take into account available knowledge about interactions between stocks, fisheries and marine ecosystems. 2. Context There have already been a number of discussions with stakeholders on the ways to address the challenges to implement the new CFP in the Mediterranean, most notably in the Northern Adriatic Sea. Possible approaches include the revision of current national management plans adopted under the MEDREG 4. The international dimension also needs to be taken into account, namely with regard to the recommendations adopted by the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM). A third possible approach of developing an EU 1 2 3 4 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 L354 of 28.12.2013, p.22. 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 L36 of 8.2.2007, p.6. 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 L164 of 25.6.2008, p.19. Adopted by Member States under the framework of Article 19 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1967/2006 (MEDREG). 3
multiannual plan to properly manage the stocks of small pelagics in the Northern Adriatic has also been discussed. In this context, the services of the Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries (DG MARE) within the European Commission are now launching a public consultation on the management options for the Northern Adriatic Sea. Anyone with an interest in the topic is thus invited to express their views on the questions identified in this document, as well as to present their opinions as to what additional measures could be appropriate to manage small pelagic stocks in the Northern Adriatic Sea. The content of this consultation paper does not prejudge the views, positions or any decision to be taken by the Commission on the subject. The Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which might be made of the information contained therein. Comments should be submitted by 11 September 2015, preferably by e-mail to MARE- ADRIATIC@ec.europa.eu. 3. Current management framework of small pelagic in the Northern Adriatic and main challenges So far Member States have adopted 34 national management plans in the Mediterranean under Article 19 of the MEDREG, for fisheries conducted with trawl nets, purse seiners, shore seines, boat seines and dredges within their territorial waters. In the Northern Adriatic, national management plans covering small pelagic fisheries are currently in force for: surrounding nets and pelagic trawl nets (circuizione e traino pelagico), adopted in Italy in 2011 5 ; different types of fishing gears, including surrounding nets targeting small pelagic, adopted in Slovenia in 2014 6 ; and Srdelara purse seine fisheries, adopted in Croatia in 2014 7. Article 18 of the MEDREG allows for EU management plans for specific fisheries, in areas totally or partially beyond the territorial waters of Member States. To date the Commission has not presented proposals so there are currently no EU plans in force in the Mediterranean. In 2013, at the initiative of the EU, the GFCM adopted a recommendation for a multiannual management plan for fisheries on small pelagic stocks in the Northern Adriatic Sea (GFCMgeographical sub area 17). The recommendation also foresees transitional conservation measures for fisheries on small pelagic stocks in the Southern Adriatic Sea (geographical sub area 18) 8. 5 6 7 8 Directorial Decree No 6 of 20.09.2011. Decision No 34200-2/2014/4 of 13.02.2014. Government Decision, Class 022-03/14-04/49, No 50301-05/25-14-2. Recommendation GFCM 37/2013/1 on a multiannual management plan for fisheries on small pelagic stocks in the GFCM-GSA 17 (Northern Adriatic Sea) and on transitional conservation measures for fisheries on small pelagic stocks in GSA 18 (Southern Adriatic Sea). 4
With the integration of Croatia into the EU, the GFCM multiannual plan now mainly applies to EU fisheries since both small pelagic species are primarily exploited by EU fishing vessels. The measures introduced have slightly improved the biomass level for sardine, but they have not fully delivered the intended results (i.e. to provide high long-term yields consistent with the maximum sustainable yield and to guarantee a low risk of stock collapse while maintaining sustainable and relatively stable fisheries). It is also noteworthy that the landing obligation for small pelagic stocks in the Mediterranean already entered into force, on 1 January 2015. Its implementation is currently regulated by a discard plan 9 on a temporary basis (three years), following which the discard plan will have to be included in the proposed multi-annual plan and should include the species covered, provisions on catch documentation, minimum conservation reference sizes and exemptions (for fish that may survive after returning them to the sea and/or a specific de minimis discard allowance under certain conditions). 3.i. Problem definition: what are the main challenges? The latest assessments for the main small pelagic stocks in the area indicate that they are exploited unsustainably. For sardine, current F (0.53) is larger than F MSY (0.23). The same applies to anchovy, with a current F (1.04) again larger than F MSY (0.50) 10. It is also noteworthy that the current management tools (national management plans and GFCM recommendations) do not include the specific measures necessary for the implementation of the landing obligation. These measures are for the time being contained in a specific legal instrument, but only on a temporary basis 11. The need to effectively pursue two of the main objectives of the reformed CFP (MSY target and landing obligation) may require a review of the current approach in the management framework that governs the Northern Adriatic Sea small pelagic fisheries. 9 10 11 Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1392/2014 of 20 October 2014 establishing a discard plan for certain small pelagic fisheries in the Mediterranean Sea; OJ L370 of 30.12.2014, p.21. Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) Assessment of Mediterranean Sea stocks - part 1 (STECF-14-17. 2014). Note that the scope of the assessment for these stocks is the whole Adriatic Sea (Northern and Southern). Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1392/2014 of 20 October 2014 establishing a discard plan for certain small pelagic fisheries in the Mediterranean Sea; OJ L370 of 30.12.2014, p.21. 5
Q1. Is the existing legislative framework sufficient to meet the objectives of the CFP in the Northern Adriatic Sea? Q2. Does it need to be complemented by an additional fisheries management framework? Q3. Would amendments to the abovementioned existing plans (national and GFCM) suffice to accommodate the objectives of the new CFP in the Northern Adriatic Sea? Q4: Do you consider that small pelagic fisheries in the Northern Adriatic would be better managed under a single and consistent EU management framework? 4. Elements that need to be considered for the proper management of small pelagic fisheries in the Northern Adriatic Sea Under the CFP, and to the extent possible, multiannual plans should become the main repository for the objectives and instruments necessary for the management of fisheries and stocks covered by them. They should take account of the landing obligation and the review of the technical conservation measures 12 and the control Regulation 13 which are underway. It could be envisaged that recommended measures or approaches resulting from those reviews would be incorporated into any multiannual plan. New plans also provide an opportunity to move to a results-based approach and allow for the development of tailor-made management and/or technical measures under "regionalisation" process, as outlined in article 18 of the basic regulation. Under regionalisation EU Member States (and stakeholders) cooperate to jointly recommend management measures that are tailored to the particular needs of the sea basin, introducing flexibility into the management strategy as circumstances change. They should also contribute to the achievement of the objectives of the MSFD, maintaining productive and healthy fish stocks within functioning marine ecosystems. The adoption of an EU multiannual plan would ensure that EU fishing activities targeting the same small pelagic stocks in the Northern Adriatic are regulated by a single, integrated management framework. In light of the CFP objectives the basic elements of such a plan would encompass: a defined scope in terms of stocks, fisheries, area; MSY targets and descriptors (in principle, FMSY-ranges, but also other descriptors recommended by science and applicable when FMSY estimates are not available); timeframe to reach MSY; 12 13 Council Regulation (EC) No 850/98 of 30 March 1998 for the conservation of fishery resources through technical measures for the protection of juveniles of marine organisms; OJ L121 of 27.4.1998, p.1. 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; OJ L343 of 22.12.2009, p.1. 6
safeguards reference values associated with undesirable stock developments below which specific and strong management action would be required (normally, these would be measured in terms of spawning stock biomass but again, science could indicate possible safeguards other than biomass); objectives for conservation and technical measures to be taken, together with their timeframe; provisions for the proper implementation of the landing obligation; adaptations and review clause. Q5. Do you consider an EU multiannual plan for the small pelagic fisheries in the Northern Adriatic Sea that takes account of interactions between the fisheries, a good approach? Q6. With regard to the list outlined above, which elements should be included in a possible EU multiannual management plan for fisheries in the Northern Adriatic Sea in light of the objectives and challenges of the new CFP? Q7. Do you think that the plan should include elements to ensure that the landing obligation is properly implemented? If yes, which elements do you consider should be introduced, in line with Article 15 of the CFP basic regulation? Q8. What combination of tools (including public support under the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund) is to be preferred to achieve the environmental objectives of the CFP in the Northern Adriatic Sea minimising at the same time short-term economic and social impacts on the fishing fleet and the coastal communities depending on these fisheries? Q9. What combination of tools is to be preferred with a view to minimise administrative burden on fishermen and management costs of fisheries administrations? 5. Achieving the objectives: options, additional actions and points for discussion The current management of Northern Adriatic Sea fisheries does not address specifically the inter-dependency of the different small pelagic stocks. Management plans adopted at national level are based on gear (e.g. purse seiners, trawl nets, etc.) and not necessarily on species/fisheries. The GFCM multiannual management plan for small pelagic stocks is species-oriented (sardine and anchovy), but considers them independently. This may no longer be appropriate considering the interrelationships and interactions between different fish stocks, the fleets and fishing gears used to target them and environmental factors. A more coherent and efficient approach would instead focus on fisheries. Fisheries management in the Northern Adriatic, as in the rest of the Mediterranean, is primarily by effort control, minimum conservation reference sizes, closed areas (to protect sensitive habitats) or closed seasons (to protect juveniles or spawning stocks) and restrictions on gear construction (mesh size, gear dimensions, etc.). 7
In this context a number of issues need to be considered: 5.i. How to deal with the objectives for the stocks covered by the plan For the species driving the fisheries MSY should be achieved as soon as possible. Currently the main species that define small pelagic fisheries in the Northern Adriatic Sea are sardine and anchovy. According to the latest scientific data, sardine and anchovy in the Northern Adriatic are in overfishing (above F MSY ) 14. Other small pelagic species should be considered as secondary target, for instance mackerel, horse mackerel and sprat, as they are also caught in these fisheries. Measures to manage these species could also be incorporated under the plan. While progress is underway, it should also be noted that F MSY is not defined for all of the species under consideration. The plan should set out the timetable for achieving F MSY, once it is defined. Further sub-options are considered according to alternative time horizons i.e. speed with which the target is achieved for all concerned stocks. For example, to achieve MSY level by 2018 or 2020 at the latest (variable by stock), and to rebuild a stock that is outside safe biological limits in short/medium/long term. Finally, one should consider the possible advantages and disadvantages of introducing other management measures intended to limit catches and/or fishing effort. Q10. Which species can be identified as defining the fisheries and which other (secondary) species should also be covered by the plan? Q11. Which management approach, tools and safeguards could be used for the management of secondary target species under the plan? Q12. Within the timeframe of 2020 at the latest, which deadline do you consider more appropriate for achieving MSY for small pelagic stocks in the Northern Adriatic Sea? And which one more realistic? Q13. What other possible management measures, not yet applied in the Mediterranean, do you consider more appropriate in view of further limiting catches and/or fishing effort? 5.ii. Ecosystem aspects The new CFP has confirmed the importance of the ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management and mandated the inclusion of ecosystem protection measures in multiannual plans. The plan should ensure that the negative impacts of fishing activities on the marine ecosystem are minimised. 14 Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) Assessment of Mediterranean Sea stocks - part 1 (STECF-14-17. 2014). Note that the scope of the assessment for these stocks is the whole Adriatic Sea (Northern and Southern). 8
Q14. Which ecosystem-related issues could be considered in the context of the plan, and what measures would be appropriate to minimise these impacts? 5.iii. How to manage the regional aspects of small pelagic fisheries The new CFP has introduced the possibility for regionalisation, in particular under multiannual plans 15. The experience gained so far in the implementation of this regionalisation mechanism shows that in the Mediterranean the main forum for regional cooperation has been represented by the Mediterranean Advisory Council (MEDAC) 16. Q15. Are there specific measures (such as minimum mesh sizes, permanent or seasonal closures, etc.) that merit increased flexibility under multiannual management and which could be introduced at a regional level to help achieve the objectives of the plan? 15 16 See Article 18 of Regulation (EU) 1380/2013 on the Common Fisheries Policy. http://en.med-ac.eu/index.php 9