regional advisory councils - european commission · 2016. 9. 16. · regional advisory councils the...

Regional Advisory Councils

The Regional Advisory Councils (RACs)were created as part of the 2002 reform of the Common Fisheries Policy. They were established to give stakeholders – fishermen, vessel owners, processors, traders, fish farmers, women’s fisheries groups, environmental and consumer organisations and others – a vehiclethrough which to feed recommenda-tions into CFP policy developments.

Their role is to submit opinions to theCommission and Member States on dif-ferent aspects of fisheries management. They are not part of the formal decision-making process, but the quality of their advice, based on practical experience of the local waters and fisheries con-cerned, gives them influence. They also provide useful arenas for bringing to-gether people from different back-grounds and helping to develop a better understanding between the scientificcommunity and the fishing industry.The Commission is not under any legal obligation to consult them, but in prac-tice it does so. Since their start-up in 2004, the RACs have issued some 200 recommendations.

Common features

The seven RACs cover different waters and their structures are adapted to the characteristics of the fisheries concerned.To ensure an overall level of consistency,the legislation adopted in 2004 laid down the following basic ground rules:

Structure (Arts 4 and 5)RACs must include stakeholders from at least two Member States. They each havea general assembly and an executivecommittee. The fisheries sector has two thirds of the representatives on each body, and other interests one third.

Membership (Arts 1 and 5)The ‘fisheries sector’ is defined as includ-ing ship owners, small-scale fishermen, employed fishermen, producer and othermarket organisations, processors, tradersand women’s networks. ‘Other interestgroups’ range from environmental organ-isations, aquaculture producers and consumers to recreational and sport fish-ermen. Non-members (Art 6) such as experts and observers may be invited to participate in a RAC’s work.

Functioning (Art 7)Meetings of the general assembly and the executive committee are open to the public. The latter adopts recommenda-tions on fishery policies in the area theRAC covers, either on its own initiative or when requested, and where possible, by consensus. The Commission and rele-vant Member States should respond toa RAC’s recommendation within threemonths at the latest.

Given the important input RACs make to CFP policy development, EU govern-ments, on the basis of a Commission proposal, agreed on 20 June 2007 to givethem the status of bodies pursuing an aim of general European interest. Thisentitles them to permanent funding of upto 250 000 euros per annum to cover all operating expenditure.

FA

CT

SH

EE

T


Legislation

Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002. Articles 31 and

32 provide the basis for the creation of Regional Advisory Councils.

Council Decision of 19 July 2004 establishing Regional Advisory Councils under

the Common Fisheries Policy (2004/585/EC).

Council Decision of 11 June 2007 amending Decision 2004/585/EC establishing

Regional Advisory Councils under the Common Fisheries Policy.

Document

Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament,

COM(2008) 364 final, 17.6.2008.


1. North Sea RAC Established 1 November 2004. Covers ICES areas IV, IIIa. Members from Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Netherlands, Poland, Spain, Sweden and United Kingdom. Working groups (5): demersal species; flatfish; spatial planning; Kattegat and Skaggerak; socio-economic issues.Website: www.nsrac.org

2. Pelagic stocks RACEstablished 16 August 2005. Focuses on blue whiting, mackerel, horse mackerel and herring in all EU waters except the Baltic Sea and Mediterranean. Members from Denmark, Germany, Spain, France, Ireland, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Sweden and United Kingdom. Working groups (2): herring and mackerel; blue whiting, horse mackerel and other species. Website: www.pelagic-rac.org

3. North-western waters RACEstablished 26 September 2005. Covers ICES V (excluding Va and only EC waters in Vb), VI, VII. Members from Belgium,

Spain, France, Ireland, the Netherlands and the UK.Working groups (4): West of Scotland (ICES areas Vb (EC), VIa, VIb) – Western Approaches; West of Ireland and Celtic Sea (ICES areas VII except d, e & a);English Channel (ICES areas VIId & e); Irish Sea (ICES area VIIa).Website: www.nwwrac.org

4. Baltic Sea RACEstablished 13 March 2006. Covers ICES areas IIIb, IIIc, IIId. Members from Estonia, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Sweden.Working groups (3): demersal; pelagic; salmon and sea trout fisheries.Website: www.bsrac.org

5. Long Distance RACEstablished 30 March 2007. Operational in all non-EU waters. Attracted interest from Denmark, Estonia, Lithuania, Spain, France, Portugal, Poland, the Netherlands, Italy, Germany, Ireland and the UK.Working groups (5): highly migratory fish stocks and related Regional Fisheries Organisations (RFOs); RFOs and Northern

agreements; long distant waters not included in any RFO; bilateral relations with third countries; horizontal issues (such as health and safety, IUU).Website: www.ldrac.eu

6. South-western waters RACEstablished 9 April 2007. Covers ICES areas VIII, IX and X (waters around Azores) and CECAF divisions 34.1.1. 34.1.2 and 34.2.0 (waters around Madeira and the Canary Islands). Members from Belgium, France, Portugal, Netherlands and Spain.Working groups (5): ICES areas VIII and IX (except anchovy and sardine); pelagic stocks (anchovy, sardine and ICCAT species); insular subdivision; traditional fisheries. There is also a focus group on deep water species.Website: www.ccr-s.eu

7. Mediterranean Sea RACThis brings together organisations from Spain, France, Italy, Greece, Malta, Cyprus and Slovenia.The Mediterranean RAC became operational in autumn 2008.

There are seven Regional AdvisoryCouncils under the CFP. Five are based on geographically and biologically coherent zones. The two others are based on the exploitation of certain stocks: pelagic stocks in Community waters (except in the Mediterranean and Baltic Seas), and high-sea fisheries outside Community waters.

Baltic Sea RAC (IIIb, c, d)

Mediterranean RAC

North Sea RAC (IIIa, IV)

North-western Waters RAC (Vb (Community waters), VI, VII)

South-western Waters RAC (VIII, IX, X, 34.1.1, 34.1.2, 34.2)

Pelagic Stocks RAC

High-sea RAC

X

XII

IXb

VIIIe

IXa

VIIIcVIIId

VIIIa VIIIb

VIId

IVc

IVb

VIIf

VIIg

VIIk

VIIc

VIbVIa

VIIb

VIIa

XIVb

Va

Vb2

Vb1IVa

IIa

IIb

XIVa

IIIc

IIIbIIIa IIId

VIIh

VIIeVIIj

TACs and quotas

The setting of annual fishing opportunities in December was traditionally the major event in the CFP calendar. Today, this is less true than in the past. An increasing number of stocks are managed under multi-annu-al plans, making fishing opportunitiesmore predictable from year to year. In ad-dition, the Commission now makes its pro-posals as four separate regulations, rather than one huge compendium. As a result, Baltic and Black Sea quotas are now gen-erally decided in October or November,while those for deep sea species are setonly once every two years. In addition, thepublication each spring of an annual poli-cy statement from the Commission, whichsets out the principles to be used in setting fishing opportunities in advance of the sci-entific data being known, means that a major part of the debate is held in ad-vance of any detailed proposition for TotalAllowable Catches (TACs).

TACs and quotas are decided by theMember States in Council, on the basis of a proposal from the Commission. This pro-posal is based on scientific advice from the Scientific, Technical and EconomicCommittee (STECF), a group of independ-ent scientists established to advise theCommission on all aspects of fisheries policy. In the case of certain regions(Baltic, North Sea, North East Atlantic, …), STECF can in turn draw on the advice pro-vided by the International Council for theExploration of the Sea (ICES). The Commis-sion’s proposal also reflects substantial in-put from stakeholders, particularly throughthe Regional Advisory Councils (RACs),which allows the Commission to take the experience of the fishermen most directly concerned into account.

The European Union is committed to managing its fish stocks for maximum sus-tainable yield. This is an international commitment made by the Member States of the EU, and one of the major outcomesof the Johannesburg World Summit onSustainable Development (2002). Broadlyspeaking, this means not catching fish ata rate which will lead to a reduced pro-ductive potential for the stock in the future(see fact sheet on MSY).

In its 2008 annual policy statement, the Commission defined the conservationstatus of European fish stocks by dividingthem into 11 possible categories, on the basis of the advice it has received (seetable). Fishing opportunities for each cat-egory can then be determined on a fullytransparent basis, which ensures that stocks in similar biological condition aretreated in the same way, wherever they may be located.

The current mandate of the CFP is to ‘ensure exploitation of living aquatic resourcesthat provides sustainable economic, envi-ronmental and social conditions’ (Basic Regulation, 2002). For this reason, the Com-mission may at times depart from scientific advice, in order to provide fishermen withthe minimum level of stability in catchesrequired to ensure the viability of their undertakings in the short term. This needfor balance in decision making is reflectedin a general principle to limit inter-annual variations on TAC to within a certain per-centage range, so as to help the industryplan for the future.

Documents

Communication from the Commission: Fishing

Opportunities for 2009. Policy Statement from the

European Commission. COM(2008) 331 final.

Council Regulation (EC) No 40/2008 of 16 January

2008 fixing for 2008 the fishing opportunities and

associated conditions for certain fish stocks and groups

of fish stocks, applicable in Community waters and,

for Community vessels, in waters where catch

limitations are required.

Council Regulation (EC) No 1139/2008 of 10 November

2008 fixing the fishing opportunities and the conditions

relating thereto for certain fish stocks and groups of fish

stocks applicable in the Black Sea for 2009.


2008 fixing the fishing opportunities and associated

conditions for certain fish stocks and groups of fish

stocks applicable in the Baltic Sea for 2009.


2008 fixing for 2009 and 2010 the fishing opportunities

for Community fishing vessels for certain deep-sea

fish stocks.

© L

ion

el F

lag

eu

l

FA

CT

SH

EE

T

TACs and quotas

Scientific advice

Stock exploited at the maximum sustainable yield rate.

Stock overexploited compared to maximum sustainable yield but

inside safe biological limits.

Stock outside safe biological limits.

Stock is subject to long-term plan and scientists advise on the catch

that corresponds to the plan.

Stock is short-lived and a one-year forecast cannot be provided.

State of the stock not known precisely and STECF advises on an appropriate

catch level.

State of the stock not known precisely and STECF advises to reduce

fishing effort.

State of the stock not known precisely and STECF advises the stock is

increasing.

State of the stock not known precisely and STECF advises

the stock is decreasing.

STECF advises a zero catch, a reduction to the lowest possible level

or similar advice.

There is no STECF advice.

Action to take in setting TAC

Aim to set the TAC to the forecast catch corresponding to the fishing mortality that will deliver the highest yield in the long term, but do not change the TAC

by more than 25 %.

Aim to set the TAC to the higher value of (a) to the forecast catch corresponding

to taking the highest yield in the long term11, or (b) fishing at an unchanged mortality rate, but do not change the

TAC by more than 15 %.

Aim to set the TAC to the forecast catch that will result in a 30 % reduction

in fishing mortality rate, but do not decrease the fishing mortality so far as to

prejudice long-term yields and do not reduce the TAC by more than 20 %.

The TAC must be set by following the relevant plan.

A provisional TAC is set and will be changed when new information is

available during the year.

Aim to set the TAC according to STECF advice but do not change the TAC by

more than 15 %.

The TAC should be reduced by up to 15 % and STECF should

be asked to advise on the appropriate level of effort.

The TAC should be increased by up to 15 %.

The TAC should be decreased by up to 15 %.

The TAC should be reduced by at least 25 %. Recovery measures should be implemented including effort

reductions and introduction of more selective fishing gear.

TACs should be adjusted towards recent real catch levels but should not be

changed by more than 15 % per year or Member States should develop an

implementation plan to provide advice within a short time.

Stock examples

Plaice in VIIa.

Common sole in VIIf and g, haddock in VIb, XII and XIV.

Herring in Vb, VIa and VIb, plaice in VIIf and VIIg.

Blue whiting and cod, saithe, hake in IV.

Anchovy in VIIIbde, Norway pout, sandeel.

Anglerfish, tusk, plaice in IIIa and VIIbcde.

Whiting in VIIb-k.

Haddock in VIIa and sprat in IV.

Haddock in VII, VIII, IX and X.

Cod in VIIa, haddock in Vb and Va, and spurdog.

Megrims in IV and pollack.

Category

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

Rules for setting TACs for 2009

Fisheries research

Solid fisheries policy rests on solid sci-ence. And today, this means science which goes well beyond narrowly target-ed questions about the biology and demographics of specific fish stocks. To understand fisheries, we need to understand the multi-dimensional con-text in which they operate – whether it be local or regional marine ecosystems, wid-er environmental trends such as climatechange or, just as importantly, the social and economic ‘systems’ back on landwhich are the ultimate context of all thedecisions made. To have a global vision of how a fishery has evolved, and will evolvein the future, we need access not only toaccurate data, but also to complex inter-disciplinary research which cuts acrossboth academic and national boundaries.

The EU is not simply a user of fisheriesscience, but a major facilitator and funderof research in all domains connectedwith fisheries and the seas. This funding is provided through two main channels:support for national fisheries data collec-tion programmes, along with associatedstudies (see chapter 5 of the brochure);and financing for advanced EU-levelresearch projects managed under theResearch Framework Programmes.

Marine science in the Research Framework Programmes

To ensure coherent, coordinated action,all EU-funded research initiatives are organised under a single umbrella,known as the EU Research Framework Programmes. These programmes areopen not only to the EU Member States,but also to third countries from around the world. A number of non-EU countriesalso contribute to funding the pro-gramme (‘associated countries’) andenjoy greater access to its benefits inreturn.

As part of these programmes, substantial funding is made available for fisheries and aquaculture research. Under the 6th Frame-work Programme (FP6), which coveredthe period 2002-2006, EUR 160 millionwas used to fund around 50 fisheries-specific research projects (62 M€) and75 aquaculture projects (98 M€), of which30 were funded under the SME pro-gramme. These projects tend to belarge-scale and long-term, often bringingtogether ten or more research instituteslocated in as many Member States. Theprojects funded under FP6 were grouped into a number of priority areas: scientific

basis of fisheries management, environ-mental aspects, control and enforcement, sustainable aquaculture, and the dissem-ination of research results. There were also a number of other large FP6 projects which, while not focused mainly on thisfield, had a fisheries or aquaculture com-ponent.

Launched in 2007, FP7 will provide fund-ing at a similar level for fisheries-related projects. During 2007-2008, fourteen of the topics which were subject to calls forproposals dealt with fisheries and aqua-culture science. Of these, 11 projects have been selected for funding to a totalvalue of EUR 32 million. In addition, FP7 will also promote cross-sectoral research in the marine sciences (especially underthe themes of Energy, Environment andTransport), so as to make sure that themarine dimension plays a pro-active role in the fields covered by the programme. This represents a major contribution toour knowledge of Europe’s seas andoceans. More than 10 % of the subjectsof calls for proposals in the first two years of FP7 dealt with either marine sciencesor marine-related topics.

FA

CT

SH

EE

T

© S

cie

nce

Ph

oto

Lib

rary

This move towards a more horizontallyintegrated approach is in line not onlywith the ecosystems-based approach tofisheries management, but also with theEU’s new integrated maritime policy. In theshorter term, this will also help prevent thekind of fragmentation of research initia-tives which can all too easily lead to theduplication of effort by different teams in different places. Such fragmentation is in itself an obstacle to more ‘joined-up’ policy making.

Fisheries research

Supporting fisheries and aquaculture research

To give a taste of the diversity of research which the EU funds, here are some examples of projects financed under FP6:

PROTECT (2005-2008): Ecosystem conservation and fisheries management through Marine Protected Areas: improving the tools to identify, design and manage MPAs (17 research institutes from 11 EU Member States and Norway; EUR 3 million budget);INDECO (2004-2006): Developing environmental indicators for assessing fishery management: creating model indicators for the CFP’s implementation of an ecosystem-based management approach (20 research institutes from 11 Member States; EUR 0.5 million budget); NECESSITY: Modified fishing gear and practices to reduce by-catch in trawl fisheries (2004-2007): concrete practical work on trawl design to reduce by-cach of dolphins, porpoises, certain fish species, and juveniles (22 research institutes from 11 EU Member States, Norway and Turkey; EUR 7.7 million budget); WEALTH (2005-2007): Improving the health and welfare of farmed fish: detailed studies of stress-induced infections and guidelines for good practice (11 research institutions from 7 EU Member States and Norway; EUR 5.5 million budget);

CEVIS: Evaluating alternative, participatory management models for EU fisheries (2005-2008): options for implementing cost-effective management systems with stakeholder participation (10 research institutions from 7 Member States and Norway, plus the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre); CEDER: Real-time monitoring of fishing activity (2006-2007): building on vessel monitoring systems (VMS) and electronic logbooks to develop a design for an EU-wide real-time monitoring system (16 research institutions from 7 EU Member States, Greenland, Iceland and Israel, and the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission; EUR 2.4 million budget); ISTAM: Improving fishery data acquisition, management and analysis (2006-2008): developing training systems to strengthen fisheries conservation and management in developing coastal states (12 research institutions from 4 EU Member States, Norway, Senegal, Guinea, Mauritania and Morocco; EUR 0.6 million budget).

The range of the 7th Framework Programme, launched in 2007, should be just as wide, and it is set to make an equally important contribution to the successful implementation of the CFP.

move away from a narrowly sectoral approach to the marine sciences towardsan integrated EU strategy for marine andmaritime research as proposed by the Commission in autumn 2008. The aimof such integration is to facilitate coordi-nation and ensure a multi-dimensional approach to complex problems, not to blur the specificity of the challengesfacing any particular sector. Fisheriesresearch will remain a crucial and dis-tinctive component of the EU’s researchefforts under FP7, and into the future.

© R

EPR

O-D

OT

T

ES DK FR UK NLIT IESE PT PLEL LTFI LV EE BE CZ HU RO BG CY SI LUATSKMTDE

1 005 788

895 750

853 669*

787 629

485 625

473 985

316 721

276 804

263 792

235 875

209 869

158 936

158 934

155 336

140 955

87 605

25 769*

25 077

22 229

15 772

10 802

8 5135 705

2 9812 866

2 5000

EU f isheries in f igures

Production by Member State

The European Union is the world’s third largest producer of fish-eries and aquaculture products, after China and Peru, with 4.4 % of the total. Yet Europe’s production continues to decline, as it has for the last 20 years. Within the EU, the biggest producers interms of volume are Spain and Denmark.

Total catches

Although the EU fleet operates worldwide, most of its catches are taken in the Eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean. Herring, sprat and mackerel make up the greater part of them. Between them, Denmark, Spain, the UK and France account for more than half the catches.

FA

CT

SH

EE

T

Production by Member State (2006)(catches and aquaculture) (volume in tonnes)

NB: * Figures for 2005

,84 324

,4 106 213

186 987

63 341

191 137

483 957

516 086

Atlantic Northeast

Atlantic Eastern Central

Mediterranean and Black Sea

Indian Ocean, Western

Atlantic, Northwest

Atlantic, Southwest

Other areas

Total EU-27 catches by major fishing area (2005) (volume in tonnes)

EU f isheries in f igures

Volume and value of landings in Member States (2006) (volume in tonnes, value in thousands of EUR)

NB: figures were not available for EE, LV, LT, PL and RO, and were not relevant for CZ, LU, HU, AT and SK.

1 679 668

1 518 120

842 042

679 924

445 754

336 186

335 687

314 810

213 021

116 577

113 471

82 910

9 296

ES IT FR UK DK NLEL IE PT SE DE BE FI

5 612

MT

5 463

CY

1 698

BG

1 514

SI

DK NL ES UK FR SEIT IE DE EL FI BE BG

893 954

781 360

777 543

426 049

325 911

299 266

270 170

220 211

136 686

96 016

26 135

18 259

PT

162 526

CY

4 389

MT

1 900

SI

1 298931

BE CZ DK DE EE EL ES FRIE IT CY LV LT HU MT NL AT PL PT SI SK FI SE UK

1 231 - 512**

2 109 - 158

9 294 - 4 766

9 550 - 6 858

5 052 - 1 648***

8 931 - 1 653

33 795 - 3 906

63 948 - 23 362**

45 256 - 19 456

40 610 - 7 347

1 065 - 110

6 390 - 4 190*

4 146 - 2 419

1 510 - 170

1 412 - 30**

6 574 - 2 475

454 - 280

10 220 - 9 703

24 790 - 8 439

518 - 105

595 - 585

1 907 - 833

3 082 - 873*

24 637 - 8 897

Total EU-25: 415 851 (Male: 307 076 – Female: 108 775)

NB: * Figures for 2005, ** Figures for 2004, *** Figures for 2002

Data were not available for LU.

Landings

The value of all fisheries products landed in EU ports (whereverthe vessels landing them come from) showed little change in 2006. A small decline in weight was offset by a slight increasein the average value to EUR 1.50/kg.

Job

Employment in the fisheries sector plays a significant role inthe economies of coastal regions where alternatives are scarce.The figures given below include not only those who go to sea,but also those employed in processing, marketing, distribution and aquaculture. On average, women constitute more than one quarter of those employed in the sector.

Fisheries sector employment by gender (2003)

Total in tonnes: 4 442 604

Total in thousands of EUR: 6 701 754

Multi-annual plans

Multi-annual or long-term plans are one of the great innovations of the 2002reform of the CFP. Initially introduced for stocks which had been depleted to dangerously low levels (‘recovery plans’),they are now being standardised as the method of choice for managing the EU’s major commercial fish stocks. Mul-ti-annual planning with clearly defined biological targets removes uncertaintyfor the industry, and prevents short-term influences from continually getting theupper hand.

The first multi-annual plan which the EUintroduced for its own waters was for the recovery plan for North Sea cod which was agreed by Ministers in 2004. Since then, the formula has been applied to a range of stocks in EU waters, and the Commission intends to progressively introduce multi-

annual planning for all major commercialfish stocks which lend themselves to thisapproach.

The EU has also moved away from the terms ‘recovery plan’ and ‘manage-ment plan’ to distinguish between differ-ent approaches to different phases in a stock’s life. Instead, today we talk about ‘long-term’ or ‘multi-annual plans’, andthe emphasis is on ensuring that fisher-ies are managed sustainably for thelong term, without artificial distinctionsbetween stocks ‘in danger’ and thosewhich are ‘safe’. The definition of targetsin terms of fishing mortality rather thansimply the sheer quantity of fish in the sea (stock biomass) makes it possible toadopt a single biological goal whateverthe condition of the stock. They alsoset maximum limits on the inter-annual

FA

CT

SH

EE

T

© L

ion

el F

lag

eu

l

variation in Total Allowable Catches (TACs) to provide a minimum stability to the fishing industry.

Multi-annual plans do not simply providea mechanism for setting TACs. They laydown a range of measures to supportsustainable management of the fisheryin 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 isabove a certain weight, these must takeplace in specially designated ports. Multi-annual plans have also been one of the main vehicles through which effort man-agement (limits on annual days spent atsea) have been introduced into the CFP(see fact sheet on effort management).

Multi-annual plans

Current multi-annual plans

1. Recovery plan for cod: North Sea, Kattegat, Skagerrak, the eastern Channel, Irish Sea and West of ScotlandAgreed: February 2004, revised November 2008.Areas covered: ICES III, IV, VIa, VIIa and VIId. Target: originally, to increase the quantities of mature fish to sustainable levels; now, to reduce fishing mortality to rate which can maximise long-term sustainable yield. Initial fishing mortality target rate is set at 0.4. Rate of year-on-year changes in TAC varies with level of stock.Special conditions: incentives for Member States to reduce discards and establish cod-avoidance programmes.Council Regulation (EC) No 423/2004 of 26 February 2004.

2. Recovery plan for Northern hakeAgreed: April 2004.Areas covered: Kattegat, Skagerrak, North Sea, the Channel, West of Scotland, all around Ireland and Bay of Biscay.Target: increase the quantities of mature fish in the Northern hake stock to at least 140 000 tonnes. Council Regulation (EC) No 811/2004 of 21 April 2004.

3. Recovery plan for Southern hake and Norway lobsterAgreed: 20 December 2005.Areas covered: Cantabrian Sea and Western Iberian Peninsula.Target: increase the spawning stock biomass of Southern hake to 35 000 tonnes for two consecutive years. For Norway lobster, rebuild stocks to within safe biological limits.Council Regulation (EC) No 2166/2005 of 20 December 2005.

4. Multi-annual plan for sole, Bay of BiscayAgreed: 23 February 2006.Areas covered: Bay of Biscay (ICES VIIIa and VIIIb).

Target: bring spawning stock biomass to above the precautionary level of 13 000 tonnes in 2008.Specific conditions: vessels catching more than 2 000 kg of sole per year will require a special permit. A ceiling is set of 100 kg of sole per sea trip. Council Regulation (EC) No 388/2006 of 23 February 2006.

5. Multi-annual plan for sole, Western ChannelAgreed: 7 May 2007.Areas covered: Western Channel (ICES VIIe).Target: reduce fishing mortality rate by 20 % compared to the average of 2003-2005 or achieve a fishing mortality rate of 0.27 for appropriate age groups – whichever is the higher.Council Regulation (EC) No 509/2007 of 7 May 2007.

6. Multi-annual plan for sole and plaice, North SeaAgreed: 11 June 2007.Area covered: North Sea.Target: ensure precautionary biomass for plaice of 230 000 tonnes and for sole of 35 000 tonnes by gradually reducing fishing mortality on sole from its current level of 0.35 to 0.2 and on plaice from 0.58 to 0.3.Council Regulation (EC) No 676/2007 of 11 June 2007.

7. Measures for the recovery of eelAgreed: 18 September 2007.Area covered: EU estuaries and rivers that flow into seas in ICES areas III, IV, VI, VII, VIII, IX and the Mediterranean.Target: national eel management plans should enable at least 40 % of the level of adult eels, which in the absence of fishing and other human activity would migrate, to be able to escape to the sea to spawn.Council Regulation (EC) No 1100/2007 of 18 September 2007.

8. Multi-annual plan for cod, BalticAgreed: 18 September 2007.Area covered: ICES SD 22-32.Target: ensure sustainable exploitation by gradually reducing and maintaining mortality rates no lower than 0.6 for cod between 3 and 6 years in the Western Baltic and 0.3 for cod between 4 and 7 years in the Eastern Baltic. Special conditions: exclusion of small-scale vessels below 8m. Flexibility for effort management for small-scale vessels between 8 and 12 metres in length. Council Regulation (EC) No 1098/2007 of 8 September 2007.

9. Long-term plan for West of Scotland herringAgreed: December 2008.Area covered: international and EU waters in ICES zones Vb and VIb, and the northern part of ICES zone VIa excluding the Clyde.Target: to reduce fishing mortality to rate which can maximise long-term sustainable yield. Target fishing mortality rate of 0.25 when stock is over 75 000 tonnes, and 0.2 when stock is between 75 000 and 50 000 tonnes. Closure triggered when stock falls below 50 000 tonnes. Rate of year-on-year changes in TAC varies with level of stock.

The following plans are currently in preparation:

northern hake (long-term plan to replace the existing recovery plan)

long-term plan for horse mackerel long-term plan for anchovy multi-annual plan for Baltic Sea salmon long-term management framework for pelagic species in the Baltic Sea

International plans

The EU also implements a number of long-term management plans and arrangements for stocks which are man-aged at international level, bilaterally,or through Regional Fisheries Manage-ment Organisations (RFMOs). These include a number of important commer-cial stocks which the EU shares with

Norway. Perhaps the most important long-term plan with which the EU isinvolved, however, is the 15-year recoveryplan for Eastern Bluefin tuna which was adopted by the International Commissionfor the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna in2006. This plan was revised in November 2008 to accelerate the implementation

of conservation measures and reinforce the control and enforcement frame-work. As a result, the TAC of Bluefin tunawill now be reduced from 32 000 tonnesin 2006 to 19 950 tonnes in 2010. Thisreduction is backed up by substantial reduc tions in fishing seasons for themain fleets concerned.

The Baltic

The Baltic Sea (ICES Subdivisions 22-32) has a number of distinctive features thatdifferentiate it from other European seas. It is a semi-enclosed sea which becomesless salty the further North one goes. As a result, freshwater fish species can befound in the North, sea fish in the South, and a mixture of the two in the central sec-tion. There are a limited number of fish of commercial significance: cod, salmon, her-ring, sprat, pike, perch, plaice and turbot. EU vessels which fish in these waters comefrom Denmark, Germany, Estonia, Finland,Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Sweden. Some 90 % of the Baltic Sea is within the EU’s jurisdiction. The remaining 10 % belong to the Russian Federation.

Responsibility for fisheries managementused to be shared by the countries border-ing the Baltic through the International Baltic Sea Fishery Commission (IBSFC), which had been established by the Gdansk Convention in 1973. The EU joined the IBSFC in 1983, but the organisation becameeffectively obsolete after the enlargementof the EU in 2004, since only two partiesremained: the EU and Russia. The Unionnow manages its Member States’ fishing activities directly, and is in the process of establishing a bilateral framework for joint management and cooperation with the Russian Federation for shared stocks.

Current legislation

The EU is establishing an increasingly comprehensive and consistent system of regional regulations for the Baltic, basedon existing CFP rules. These reflect the EU’s move towards regionally-based man-agement and greater recognition of the specific conditions that exist in individualfisheries. The earlier technical measurescontained in Regulation (EC) No 88/98 for the conservation of fishery resources inthe waters of the Baltic Sea, the Belts and the Sound have undergone a major revi-sion and new rules were established byRegulation 2187/2005. As a result, all technical measures have been brought together in a single legislative document,thus simplifying the previous situation in which they were scattered througha number of different texts.

The new regulation lays down a full range of technical conservation measures forthe Baltic Sea. It specifies the fishing gearand range of mesh sizes which can be used for each target species in the differ-ent subdivisions of the Sea. It alsostipulates what equipment is prohibited, including driftnets, which may no longerin general be kept on board or used for fishing as of 1 January 2008.

The regulation also sets out minimum landing sizes, and lists the areas where fishing is prohibited throughout the year,and the seasons when fishing for salmonand sea trout is not allowed. Specific measures apply to the Gulf of Riga in order to provide an area where the devel-opment of small-scale coastal fishing can be encouraged. Here, operators need to have a special licence for their vessels,and ceilings are set on engine power,both individually and collectively.

Since scientific advice for Baltic stocks is provided by ICES in the spring, theCommission is able to table its proposalsfor Baltic TACs early in the autumn, and they can usually be adopted by fisheriesministers in October.

In June 2006, the Council of Ministers reached a political agreement on a multi-annual plan for cod stocks in the Baltic Sea – the first long-term EU management plan in the Baltic. Further plans for salmonand pelagic stocks are set to follow.

The Regional Advisory Council for the Baltic Sea started operating in March 2006 in line with Council Decision 2004/585 EC.

FA

CT

SH

EE

T

© L

ion

el F

lag

eu

l

Russia

In July 2006, the EU and Russia initialled a bilateral agreement for the Baltic Sea –some 5 % of the catches are by Russianvessels. Its aim is to ensure close cooper-ation between the two parties on theconservation, sustainable exploitation and management of all straddling, asso-ciated and dependent stocks in the area.

This agreement is the culmination of negotiations which first began in 1977with the then Soviet Union. No conclu-sion was reached at that time, and further rounds launched in 1988 and 1997 wereequally unsuccessful.

The agreement, which is now in the proc-ess of ratification, sets out provisions on joint management measures, licensing, compliance, controls and enforcementcooperation, inspections, arrests and detention of vessels and scientific coop-eration. It also provides for the creation of a Joint Baltic Sea Fisheries Commit-tee which will meet at least once a year. The committee will examine the devel-opment and dynamics of straddling, associated and dependent stocks, super-vise the implementation, interpretation and smooth operation of the agreement, ensure necessary liaison between the parties and serve as a forum for settlingdisputes amicably.

The Baltic

Legislation

Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 of 20 December

2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of

fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy

provides the basis for technical measures.

Council Regulation (EC) No 2187/2005 of 21 December

2005 for the conservation of fishery resources through

technical measures n the Baltic Sea, the Belts and the

Sound, amending Regulation (EC) No 1434/98 and

repealing Regulation (EC) No 88/98.

Council Regulation (EC) No 1098/2007 of 18 September

2007 establishing a multiannual plan for the cod stocks

in the Baltic Sea and the fisheries exploiting those stocks,

amending Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 and repealing

Regulation (EC) No 779/97.


2008 fixing the fishing opportunities and associated


stocks applicable in the Baltic Sea for 2009.

Proposal for a Council Regulation on the conclusion

of the Agreement between the European Community

and the Government of the Russian Federation on

co-operation in fisheries and the conservation of the

living marine resources in the Baltic Sea COM(2006)

868 final of 22.12.2006.

TACs

The EU first set independent TACs and quotas for the Baltic Sea in December 2006 and covered all the most important commercial stocks. The TAC for the EU fleet for each stock for 2009 was:

HerringSubdivisions 22-24 27 176 tonnesSubdivisions 30-31 82 669 tonnesSubdivisions 25-27, 28.2, 29, 32 143 609 tonnesSubdivision 28.1 34 892 tonnes

CodEU waters of subdivisions 25-32 44 580 tonnesEU waters of subdivisions 22-24 16 337 tonnes

PlaiceEU waters of subdivisions 22-32 3 041 tonnes

Atlantic salmonEU waters of subdivisions 22-31 309 733 individual fish Subdivision 32 15 419 individual fish

SpratEU waters of subdivisions 22-32 399 953 tonnes

Minimum landing sizes in BalticCod 38 cm

gFlounder 18-23 cm, differs according to stockPlaice 25 cmTurbot 30 cmBrill 30 cmEel 35 cm

gSalmon 50-60 cm, differs according to stockgSea trout 40-50 cm, differs according to stock

© L

ion

el F

lag

eu

l

Maximum sustainable yield

Maximum sustainable yield (MSY) is the optimal catch that may be taken from a fishing stock year after year withoutendangering its capacity to regeneratefor the future. The EU Member States,along with many others, made a political commitment to manage their fish stocks for MSY at the World Summit on Sustain-able Development in Johannesburg in2002. Now, this commitment is being putinto practice.

Under this new approach, the man-agement goal is to produce stable and sustainable catch levels, rather than tomaintain an ideal stock size. After all, thesize of a fish stock is easily influenced byfactors other than fishing, and so can varywidely from year to year. To target a pre-cise stock size is therefore a recipe for creating instability for the fishing sector.

In July 2006 the Commission published a Communication outlining how it pro-posed to move towards managing EU fish stocks for MSY. And indeed, MSY already provides the benchmark used ina number of the EU’s long-term manage-ment plans.

MSY in practice: the role of long-term planning

At present, most EU fish stocks are fishedat levels well above MSY. In these cir-cumstances, to reduce fishing mortality

to MSY levels from one year to the next could bring about a brutal economic and social shock. The Commission has there-fore opted for a gradual approach, based on the introduction of multi-annual plans for particular fish stocks or fish-eries. Each plan aims to reduce fishing mortality progressively over a number of years, without jeopardising the stock’shealth along the way, until a level com-patible with long-term sustainable yields has been achieved.

All such plans are developed on thebasis not only of in-depth scientificadvice, but also detailed consultation with stakeholders. They are subject to rigorous impact assessments to makesure all their social, economic and envi-ronmental implications are taken intoaccount. They are also tailored to takeregional differences into account, such as the composition of the local fleet, the proportion of overfished stocks in the waters concerned, the area’s level of eco-nomic dependency on fisheries and thefinancial health of the sector. As a result, the impact of introducing the conceptof maximum sustainable yield may bevery different from one area to another.Existing plans will be revised as neces-sary to align them more closely with thisapproach.

More information on long-term manage-ment can be found on the separate fact sheet on that subject.

Wide-ranging benefits

There are many advantages of an MSYapproach for both fish and fishermen:

FISH: The gradual reduction of fishing mortality to achieve MSY can prevent vulnerable stocks from collapsing, helpdepleted stocks to rebuild and allow the development of larger fish of all speciesleading to less discarding of juveniles.Lower levels of fishing effort will alsoreduce by-catches of species such as dol-phins, porpoises and seals, since these are directly related to the length of time nets are left in the water or the distance over which a trawl is dragged.

FISHERMEN: More stable catches willreduce operating costs, especially for fuel, while the same or less overall fishinginput will bring greater yields. This should lead to increased productivity and com-petitiveness, more secure employment and a more certain future. In situationswhere quasi-MSY strategies have been followed, fisheries usually become high-ly profitable. This has been the case forNorth Sea herring, mackerel in the North-East Atlantic and, outside the EU, for the sablefish fishery in eastern Canada.

TRADE: Increases in the EU’s fisheriesresource base will help the industryto compete with imports and improvethe EU’s balance of trade. In recent years, some 60 % of fish consumed in

FA

CT

SH

EE

T

the Union is imported – the equivalentof ten million tonnes annually.

Before stocks reach MSY, there will need to be a transition period during which catch levels for certain stocks will decrease. Choices will need to be made and Member States will have to decide the extent to which they will help cush-ion the impact on their fleets. Where theychoose to permanently decommissionvessels, financial assistance is available from the European Fisheries Fund.

Maximum sustainable yield

Documents

Communication from the Commission to the Council

and the European Parliament: Implementing sustainabil-

ity in EU fisheries through maximum sustainable yield,

Brussels, 4.7.2006 COM(2006) 360 final.

Commission staff working document: Implementing

sustainability in EU fisheries through maximum

sustainable yield, Brussels, 4.7.2006 SEC(2006) 868.

Next steps

In implementing the MSY approach, theCommission is giving priority to those fisheries where the industry has sup-ported a specific approach through RACsand to those where the most rapid eco-nomic benefits are to be expected. Asa first step, the Commission believes theUnion should ensure that there is noincrease in the fishing rate for any stock already overfished.

Area

North Sea, eastern

channel, Skagerrak

and Kattegat

West of Scotland

Western waters

Iberian Atlantic

Baltic Sea

Widely distributed

Total

No of stocks

23

10

26

11

13

5

88

No of stocks where an

evaluation was made

12

3

14

7

2

5

43

No of stocks exploited

consistently with MSY

4

1

1

2

0

0

8

No of stocks overfished

with respect to MSY

8

2

13

5

2

5

35

Current levels of overfishing

(ICES) has evaluated the exploitation rate on fish stocks with respect to high long-term yields. The following table summarizes the situation by main fishing area:

Putting a complete set of long-term plansin place will take time. While these arebeing negotiated, the EU’s annual manage-ment decisions will have to take the 2015target into account and, at the very least, not make it more difficult to achieve.

In 2007, the EU stocks that were not beingoverfished with respect to MSY were her-ring in the North Sea and West of Scotland,saithe in the North Sea, West of Scotlandand the Skagerrak, sea bass in the Atlan-tic, haddock in the North Sea, plaice in theIrish Sea, and Iberian megrims.

Fishing eff ort

There are two basic ways of limiting the pressure which fishing places on a stock of fish: by input, and by output. Catch limits– TACs and quotas – are the classic way of limiting output. There are a number of ways of limiting the input to the fishingprocess. One of these which has become increasingly important under the CFP inrecent years is to place limits on the fish-ing effort applied.

Fishing effort is defined in the Basic Reg-ulation of 2002 (Article 3(h)) as fishingcapacity x activity. Both the variables can be defined in a number of ways, which are more or less precise. Capacity can be measured roughly in terms of the number of vessels granted licences, or more pre-cisely in terms of the size of the vessels (gross tonnage) or the power of their engines (kW). Activity can likewise bemeasured in various ways, of which the most common to date has simply beenthe number of days a vessel spends at sea. As a result, the EU now has two ways of measuring fishing effort: either in terms of GT days, or kW days.

Fishing effort management first developed in the mid-1990’s. At that time, the main driver was the need to limit fishing capacity in certain specific fisheries, such as the ben-thic and demersal fisheries in Western

Waters, or those working in the North Sea plaice box. But since the 2002 Reform of the CFP identified the global overcapacity of the EU fleet as a major obstacle to sus-tainable fisheries, the scope of effort management has been expanded. In the absence of any clear political decision at EU level on how and at what rhythm thatcapacity might be reduced, it was decided to introduce measures to limit fishing effort in certain fisheries, so as to ensure that theexcess capacity in the fleet did not place undue pressure on the stocks concerned.

Setting limits

Two kinds of limitation on capacity cur-rently exist under the CFP:

in certain fisheries, the CFP seeks toprevent fishing effort (and/or capacity)from expanding beyond the historic orpresent level. This is the case in the Western Waters (ICES Areas V, VI, VII, VIII, IX and X, CECAF areas 34.1.1,34.1.2 & 34.2.0), and in the Plaice Boxin the North Sea;

in other fisheries, the level of fishing effort is linked to the level of fishingmortality, and the goal is set of reducingboth in tandem until they reach precau-tionary levels, and ultimately those

which will produce a long-term high yield: this is the case for those stocks which are covered by long-term plans, and for fisheries on deep sea species, where TACs and fishing effort are set every two years. In the case of the cod recovery plan, there are also measures to limit effort in fisheries which do nottarget cod but cause significant codmortality (listed in Annex II to the plan).

As the EU moves further towards imple-menting its commitment to manage fisheries for maximum sustainable yield, systems which link fishing effort to fishingmortality are likely to become more com-mon. The increasing role of the ecosystemapproach will also lead to more emphasis on effort management tools, as they areone of the main ways in which it is possi-ble to reduce the pressure exerted byfishing not only on fish stocks, but onmarine ecosystems as a whole.

Since 1995 all vessels fishing in European Union waters and EU vessels operatingoutside EU areas are required to carry afishing licence. Fishing effort can there-fore be controlled through the issue of special fishing permits to those vesselsauthorised to take part in the fishery. In some cases, the Council of Ministers set

FA

CT

SH

EE

T

© V

GA

an overall limit on fishing effort, in othersthey may specify the number of vessels authorised to fish, or the number of days which can be spent at sea by vessels using certain kinds of gear.

However, while issuing permits to oper-ators is easy, controlling the actual level of fishing effort exerted in prac-tice is much harder to achieve. Beyond the problems of control and enforce-ment common to fisheries managementin general, fishing effort control is fur-ther complicated by the fact that fishing capacity is difficult to define, and fishing activity difficult to monitor. In February 2007, the Commision pub-lished a Communication on improvingfishing capacity and effort indicatorsunder the Common Fisheries Policy. This document reviewed the common-est problems with existing systems for measuring capacity and effort, and pro-posed a number of solutions. In particular, it looked at the possibilityof methods for measuring capacity based on the type and size of fishinggear, and proposed that, in certain cas-es, the best indicator of fishing activity would be ‘soak time’, or the time actu-ally spent fishing. It then went on to lay down an action plan to come up withconcrete improvements to the currentsystem, including consultations with

Fishing eff ort

Documents


2003 on the management of the fishing effort relating

to certain Community fishing areas and resources and

modifying Regulation (EC) No 2847/93 and repealing

Regulation (EC) No 685/95 and Regulation (EC)

No 2027/95

Communication from the Commission to the Council

and the European Parliament of 5 February 2007 on

improving fishing capacity and effort indicators under

the common fisheries policy – COM(2007) 39 final.

gear manufacturers and pilot projects to test alternative indicators in real-lifesituations.

A first step towards a new approach to effort management was taken with therevision of the cod recovery plan inNovember 2008. The system implement-ed for these fisheries through an annexof the annual TAC and quota regulation had become so complex, notably due tothe accumulation of many derogations to adapt to specific local conditions, that it has become difficult to implement, to monitor and to control. A new systemwas therefore introduced, based oneffort ceilings expressed in kilowatt-daysfor groups of vessels or fleet segments.These ceilings will be managed at nation-al level by the Member States. Reductions in effort will henceforth be proportion-ate to the targeted reductions in fishingmortality for the segments that contrib-ute most to cod or flatfish mortality,whereas for other segments concerned effort will be frozen at the average level for either the 2004-2006 or the 2005-2007 period.

The result is a simpler and more flexiblesystem which it will be easier to imple-ment effectively. While none of the existing methods for measuring and con-trolling fishing effort are perfect, as long

as the EU fleet has substantial excess fish-ing capacity, some form of control of the amount of effort deployed will remain a necessary part of the CFP.

© L

ione

l Fla

geul

© L

ion

el F

lag

eu

l

Discards

Many European fisheries are essentiallymixed fisheries, where several different species are found in the same area in such a way that it makes it almost impossible to target one species to the exclusion of others. The scale of these associated catch-es in EU waters poses a particular challenge for sustainable fisheries management.

Marine organisms which are caught dur-ing a fishing operation, whether theywere targeted or not, may end up being discarded, i.e. returned to the sea, most commonly for reasons connected either with market considerations or with man-agement measures. Every year, this is thefate of a substantial proportion of thecatch taken by European boats – between10 % and 60 %, depending on the fishery. In the North Sea alone, annual discards are estimated at 500 000 to 800 000 tonnes. Nor is the EU unique. Accordingto the FAO, the worldwide discard rate(by weight) is estimated at 8 % of the totalcatch – an average yearly amount of 7.3 million tonnes.

Yet discarding is inherently a waste of resources and of fishers’ effort. It under-mines the future health of stocks, reduces

operators’ potential earnings and disruptsthe balance of the marine eco-system.

In March 2007, the European Commission set out a plan to reduce unwanted catches and eliminate discards in EU fisheries.Discard bans are not new: they havealready been introduced in some fisheriesand species in Norway, Iceland, Canadaand New Zealand. However, existing banstend to be in single species fisheries, andcan be implemented without the compli-cations faced by the EU’s mixed fisheries,especially in the case of demersal stocks.

Why are fish thrown overboard?

There are two main types of driver for discarding: economic, and regulatory.

Economic There may be little or no market forsome species and/or sizes. Some marketable fish are discarded in order to enable the operator tomaximise the quantity of other, more valuable species in the catch, or more valuable specimens of the same species (highgrading).

Regulatory In mixed fisheries when a quota forone species is exhausted or a vessel does not have an allocation for a species caught, it has two ways of proceeding: either it stops fishing altogether, or it continues fishing forother species while discarding those for which it has no quota.

Use of minimum landing sizes can lead to discards, especially in mixed fisheries where species of different adult sizesare caught together.

FA

CT

SH

EE

T

What are discards?

The FAO describes discards as ‘that proportion of the total organic material of animal origin in the catch, which is thrown away, or dumped at sea for whatever reason. It does not include plant material and post harvest waste such as offal. The discards may be dead or alive.’

Negative consequences of discarding

Discarding unwanted catches has manynegative environmental and economicconsequences, especially as very few fish discarded will actually survive.

Discarding juveniles means lowerfuture catch opportunities andreduced spawning biomass. Discarding mature individuals weakensthe stock’s productivity in the short aswell as the long term. Discarding fish, crustaceans, sea birds,sea mammals and non-targetedspecies undermines the balance of the marine ecosystem. Some species can become severelydepleted by being taken as anassociated catch even in the absenceof any directed fishery (e.g. certainsharks and rays). For fishermen, discarding is a waste of time and effort in the present, as well as representing a serious potential lossof future income.

Change of tack

The Commission is at the moment recon-sidering its discard policy. The philosophyunderpinning the Commission’s initiative on discarding represents a major shift inEuropean fisheries management. Insteadof trying to manage what is landed the focus will change to managing what iscaught. When it comes to translating thisapproach into practice, there are severaloptions currently being considered. Theserange from technical measures to improve selectivity to incentives for research on different policy options. Even the possi-bility of a discard ban in the long term is a hypothesis that has not been excluded.

While the Commission sees reducing exces-sive fishing effort as the main way to reduce the level of unwanted catch, other meas-ures should also be considered, such as:

temporary closure of zones where a high proportion of juveniles arefound; moving vessels to another fishingarea once their unwanted catchesexceed a certain level; adapting fishing gear so that threatened species or juveniles can escape from nets; reviewing existing management measures which may lead to discarding.

Discards

Documents

Commission communication: A policy to reduce

unwanted by-catches and eliminate discards in

European fisheries, COM(2007) 136 final, 28.3.2007.

Commission staff working document,

SEC(2007) 380, 28.3.2007.

Northeast Atlantic: 1 332 000 tonnes overall (equivalent to some 13 % of all fish caught in the area).

West of Ireland and Scotland: rates vary between 31 % and 90 % depending on the stock.

Mediterranean and Black Sea: 180 000 tonnes (just below 5 % of total catches).

Data on discards

© L

ion

el F

lag

eu

l

The North Sea

The North Sea is a shallow semi-enclosedsea lying on the western edge of Europe,separated from the Atlantic Ocean by the British Isles. It is connected to theAtlantic at its northern end, as well as to the south via the English Channel, and to the Baltic Sea to the East through theKattegat. It covers a total area of roughly750 000 km², and its depth is mostly be-tween 50 and 100 metres. Although it isquite small, the North Sea is very rich in aquatic life, thanks to the numerous riv-ers that feed it and the exchange of wa-ters with the Atlantic Ocean. Traditionally, it has been one of the richest fishinggrounds in the world: in 1995, it producedsome 5 % of total world fish landings.Since then, catches have fallen dramati-cally from 3.5 million tonnes to less than1.5 million tonnes in 2007.

North Sea fisheries are shared between7 EU Member States (Belgium, France, Denmark, Germany, Netherlands, Swedenand UK) and Norway. Denmark andNorway between them account for morethan 65 % of annual quotas. Catch limitsfor most of the stocks of commercialimportance are laid down in the annual omnibus regulation on fishing opportu-nities voted in December by the Councilof Ministers. Many of the stocks in theNorth Sea are shared stocks between the EU and Norway, and fishing opportunities

on these stocks are the subject of separate negotiations (see fact sheet on Northernagreements). Important fisheries include mackerel, herring, cod, haddock, whiting, saithe, plaice and sole, as well as indus-trial species (Norway pout, sandeel andsprat). The most important fishery in the North Sea has traditionally been the mixed demersal fishery, but this has been under considerable pressure in recent years, following the sharp decline in the emblematic cod stock.

Total Allowable Catches

Among the most important North Seacommercial fish stocks, cod, sole and plaice are now managed under multi-annual plans. These provide a structuredapproach to restoring overfished stocksand achieving high yields which are sus-tainable for the long-term (see fact sheet on long-term plans). There are also long-term management arrangements in place for a number of the stocks shared by the EU and Norway, for example haddock and saithe.

Industrial fisheries, which target speciessuch as sandeel or Norway pout as a source of oil or fishmeal, rather than for human consumption, are also very im-portant. Historically, landings in these

fisheries were of the order of 1 million tonnes per year. But these stocks suf-fered severe depletion, and the fisheries were closed for a period, and have onlyrecently been reopened at much lowercatch levels. These fisheries are an im-portant source of feed for the aquacul-ture sector. But this use of the stocks is controversial because of their impact on the food chain, and thus on other fisheries. Sandeel and Norway pout are important prey species for other fish, and the industrial fisheries can take sig-nificant by-catches of juvenile haddock and whiting, species which are favouredfor human consumption.

Technical measures

Technical measures are the set of condi-tions under which fisheries can beundertaken. The main objectives of suchmeasures are the protection of juveniles, marine habitats and reduction of dis-cards.

Technical measures in the North Sea are gathered in two main pieces of legis-lation. Permanent technical measures are set out in Council Regulation (EC)No 850/98 whereas temporary or transi-tional measures are introduced annuallyin the fishing opportunities regulation.

FA

CT

SH

EE

T

© V

GA

Regulation 850/98 includes general pro-visions for nets and conditions for theiruse, such as minimum mesh sizes, thesetting of minimum landing sizes, andrestrictions on fishing for certain speciesin specified areas. Restrictions on certain types of fishing activities may be regu-lated as well, for example, the prohibitionof gillnets or beam trawlers at certaindepths, or the prohibition of fishingmethods that use explosives, poisonous or stupefying substances or electric cur-rent (though Annex III of Regulation 40/2008 allows a temporary derogation of the use of electric pulse trawl fishing on an experimental basis).

Protected areas also fall under the umbrel-la of technical measures. They may be set up to improve fisheries management,for example by protecting concentrations

The North Sea

of juveniles. They are also used to address environmental concerns, for example topreserve sensitive habitats or ecosys-tems by designating them as part of the Natura 2000 network.

Protected area

There are a number of protected or closed areas in the North Sea, such as:

the Shetland Box, (Article 18 of Regula-tion 2371/2002), which restricts the access of large fishing vessels in orderto protect biologically sensitive species;

the Plaice Box (Article 29 of Regula-tion 850/98), which is an area closedto beam trawlers with engines of more than 300 horse-power in orderto protect juvenile plaice;

the Pout Box (Article 27 of Regulation850/98) where the fishery for Norway pout is restricted to protect juvenilewhitefish like haddock, cod, and whiting which are taken as a by-catch;

the area around Shetland that isclosed to sand eel fisheries in order to protect the food supply of sea bird colonies; and

the Voordelta in the Netherlands,to protected sensitive habitats.

In future, the Commission plans to bringtogether all the technical measures forthe North Sea in a single regulatoryinstrument, so as to simplify their imple-mentation.

In 2008, the TACs for the key North Sea stocks were as follows:

Species TAC (stocks shared with Norway) EU quota

Mackerel 18 149 tonnes

Herring 201 227 tonnes 116 210 tonnes

Cod 22 152 tonnes 18 386 tonnes

Haddock 46 444 tonnes 37 626 tonnes

Whiting 17 850 tonnes 15 012 tonnes

Saithe 135 900 tonnes 65 232 tonnes

Plaice 49 000 tonnes 47 875 tonnes

Sole 12 800 tonnes 12 710 tonnes

Sandeel 20 000 tonnes

Norway pout 36 500 tonnes

Sprat 195 000 tonnes 175 777 tonnes

Documents

Council Regulation (EC) No 40/2008 of 16 January 2008

fixing for 2008 the fishing opportunities and associated


stocks, applicable in Community waters and, for

Community vessels, in waters where catch limitations

are required.

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.

The Mediterranean

The Mediterranean is one of the Europe-an Union’s three most important fisheries regions. The unique biological, social,political and economic characteristics of this semi-enclosed sea set it somewhat apart from the others, and require theirown specific management framework.

The Mediterranean Sea has a very narrow continental shelf which helps explain why coastal fisheries are so important. This, combined with a broad variety of tradi-tions, widely differing socio-economic situations and the seasonal nature of many fisheries, has ensured that small-scale inshore fishing continues to thrive.

A key development in husbanding resources came with the decision in November 2003 to give the General Fish-eries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM), the regional fisheries organisa-tion for the area established 50 years previously, autonomous resources andthe task of developing a conservationpolicy for all exploited marine resources with special emphasis on shared stocks.The EU and its Member States are mem-bers of the GFCM.

In many fisheries in the Mediterranean, catches may contain up to 20 differentspecies and the same stocks are exploited

by a number of different fisheries. A mix-ture of balanced conservation measuresis therefore needed. Catch limits, which are often the tool of choice in other areas, are not suitable for most of the Mediter-ranean fisheries. However, for certainmigratory stocks (swordfish and small tunas), some pelagic species (sardines, anchovies and sprat) and some crusta-ceans (Norway lobsters, red shrimps, squillids) it may be appropriate to set catch limits if adequate scientific advice is available.

Instead, fisheries management in theMediterranean focuses on technical measures (mesh sizes, minimum sizes,protected areas) and on the control and reduction of fishing capacity and effort.The CFP’s structural and market policiesare also applied and enforced.

The Mediterranean is one of the last mar-itime regions where Exclusive EconomicZones (EEZ) of 200 nautical miles (nm) have not been fully established. Several coastal states have declared or claimedvarious types of exclusive zone of differ-ent geographical extent beyond their territorial waters of 12 nm (six in the caseof Greece and Turkey). Malta has a 25 nm zone, while Spain has a Fisheries Protec-tion Zone, and France an ‘Ecological’

zone. A large part of the Mediterranean is therefore under the high seas regime– a factor which makes the challenge of tackling illegal fishing all the harder. Nonetheless, the prompt implementa-tion of the GFCM port State measures and the new measures laid down in theEU’s 2007 regulation on the fight againstIllegal, Unregulated and Unreported(IUU) fishing should help address thisproblem.

In January 2007, Romania and Bulgaria became EU members, thus extending the CFP’s reach to the Black Sea for the first time. In 2008, the Union set TACs and quotas for two stocks – turbot and sprat. It fixed a closed fishing season, minimum size and minimum mesh size for turbot and agreed operational fisheries programmes for the two countries.

Black Sea

© L

ion

el F

lag

eu

l

FA

CT

SH

EE

T

Special characteristics, similar problems

The Mediterranean’s distinctive featureshave not prevented it from experiencing many of the problems encountered inother EU waters. Its overall catch has fall-en continuously during the past 20 years,due mainly to the decline in catches by EU vessels (catches by North African countries are still increasing). Between 1995 and 2006, catches by the present 27 EU countries fell from 718 000 tonnes to 564 000 tonnes. Stocks of sole, hake, red mullet, Norway lobster, spiny lobster, sardine, anchovy and many other species are considered to be overexploited, and some may even be depleted.

In October 2002, the Commission published its Action Plan for the Medi-terranean – the first time the EU hadestablished a comprehensive approachto the sea as a whole. In December 2006,the Council of Ministers adopted thedraft regulation the Commission had tabled three years earlier to tackle the root causes of over-exploitation of stocks. This text provides the legal basisfor comprehensive conservation meas-ures in the Mediterranean.

The Mediterranean

Documents

Communication from the Commission to the

Council and the European Parliament, laying down

a Community Action Plan for the conservation and

sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources in the

Mediterranean Sea under the Common Fisheries

Policy, COM(2002) 535 final of 09.10.2002.

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.

The EU’s ‘Mediterranean Regulation’ is designed to elicit a bottom-up man-agement framework which is also ableto integrate environmental concerns. It improves selectivity, limits the sizeof gears, ensures control of their use, establishes minimum sizes and providesfurther protection for coastal zones thathost vulnerable habitats and are impor-tant breeding and nursery grounds forseveral species. It requires Member States to create new protected areas in their national waters. Above all, though, itdecentralises important aspects of policy, and requests EU governments to set up management plans for specific Medi-terranean fisheries in their territorialwaters.

The result is a coherent and comprehen-sive framework that will underpin a more sustainable approach to managing Medi-terranean fisheries in the future.

Greece: 92 000 tonnesSpain: 131 000 tonnesFrance: 32 000 tonnesItaly: 297 000 tonnesCyprus: 2 000 tonnesMalta: 1 000 tonnesSlovenia: 1 000 tonnesBulgaria: 6 000 tonnesRomania: 1 000 tonnes

Candidate countries (2005)

Croatia: 35 000 tonnesTurkey: 380 000 tonnes

Source: Eurostat

EU catches in the Mediterranean and Black Sea (2006)

© L

ion

el F

lag

eu

l

Entry-exit: preventing f leet expansion

Since January 2003, Member States have had to respect a very strict entry-exit regime for the capacity of their fleet,measured in terms of both tonnage andpower. This ensures that the capacity of national fleets can never be any greater than it was on that date. In fact, the sizeof the EU fleet is being reduced at a fairly constant rate of some 2 % a year. Succes-sive EU enlargements have led to moder-ate increases in overall fishing capacity, but the global trend to reduction hasremained unchanged.

Under the CFP, any new capacity entering a Member State’s fleet must be matched by the withdrawal of capacity of at least the same amount. At the same time,as a general rule, capacity leaving thefleet with public aid cannot be replaced. This ensures that the capacity reductionsbrought about through decommissioning programmes are definitive. However, it ispermitted for Member States to rebuild 4 % of the tonnage that had been decom-missioned with public aid if the increase is designed to improve on-board safety, working conditions, hygiene or product quality. Member States have to give prior-ity to small-scale fishing vessels when applying this derogation.

The implementing rules for the fleet policy allow for the adjustment of theseinitial capacity levels to take account of the entries of vessels into the fleet thatwere decided between January 1998 and31 December 2002. These entries have to comply with the rules already cited. A sim-ilar provision relating to the capacity of their fishing fleet on the date of accessionapplies to the Member States that joined the Union in May 2004 and January 2007.

Another concept used in fleet manage-ment under the CFP is that of reference levels. These are calculated on the basis of the global final objectives of the FourthMulti-annual Guidance Programme (MAGPIV) as established by Article 12 of CouncilRegulation (EC) No 2371/2002. The total capacity of the fleet expressed in terms of either tonnage or power may not exceed these levels. However, this condition hashad little effect in practice, since the size of the majority of Member State fleets sincethe last reform was already significantlybelow those final objectives.

The implementation of these provisionsresults in a maximum capacity for each Member State fleet expressed in terms of both tonnage and power.

Community Fishing Fleet Register

In 2004, the new Community Fleet Reg-ister (CFR) was established. It is the main tool for monitoring the size of the EU fishing fleet. Member States are obliged to transmit electronically on a quarterly basis all the relevant information on thecharacteristics of the EU’s 88 236 commer-cial fishing vessels (as of December 2007), together with information on entries to, and exits from the fleet. The data is avail-able for public consultation via a website called the Community Fleet RegisterOn the Net (Front). It may be found at:ec.europa.eu/fisheries/fleet/index.cfm

The legal basis for the entry-exit regime is Article 13 of Council Regulation 2371/2002 and Articles 6 and 7 of Commission Regulation 1438/2003.

FA

CT

SH

EE

T

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

1.1.921.7.92

1.1.931.7.93

1.1.941.7.94

1.1.951.7.95

1.1.961.7.96

1.1.971.7.97

1.1.981.7.98

1.1.991.7.99

1.1.001.7.00

1.1.011.7.01

1.1.021.7.02

1.1.031.7.03

1.1.041.7.04

1.1.051.7.05

1.1.061.7.06

1.1.071.7.07

1.1.081.7.08

EU 12

EU 15EU 25EU 27

MAGP III

1992-1996

MAGP IV

1997-2002Entry exit regime

Figure 1

Trend in the number of EU fishing vessels between 1992 and 2007

Nu

mb

er

of

ve

sse

ls 1

/10

00

MAGP III1992-1996

MAGP IV1997-2002

Entry-exit regime

NB: The increase in the number of vessels shown in 1998 is due to the inclusion in the Community Fishing Fleetregister of the vessels registered in the French Outermost Regions.

NB: The increase in power shown in 1998 is due to the inclusion in the Community Fishing Fleet register of the vessels registered in the French Outermost Regions.

NB: The increase in tonnage shown between 1999 and 2001 is only apparent; it is due to the transition from the national tonnage measurement systems.

Entry-exit: preventing f leet expansion

0

200

400

600

800

1 000

1 200

1 400

1 600

1 800

2 000

2 200

2 400

1.1.921.7.92

1.1.931.7.93

1.1.941.7.94

1.1.951.7.95

1.1.961.7.96

1.1.971.7.97

1.1.981.7.98

1.1.991.7.99

1.1.001.7.00

1.1.011.7.01

1.1.021.7.02

1.1.031.7.03

1.1.041.7.04

1.1.051.7.05

1.1.061.7.06

1.1.071.7.07

1.1.081.7.08

EU 12

EU 15

EU 25

EU 27

MAGP III

1992-1996MAGP IV


0

1 000

2 000

3 000

4 000

5 000

6 000

7 000

8 000

9 000

1.1.921.7.92

1.1.931.7.93

1.1.941.7.94

1.1.951.7.95

1.1.961.7.96

1.1.971.7.97

1.1.981.7.98

1.1.991.7.99

1.1.001.7.00

1.1.011.7.01

1.1.021.7.02

1.1.031.7.03

1.1.041.7.04

1.1.051.7.05

1.1.061.7.06

1.1.071.7.07

1.1.081.7.08

EU 12EU 15EU 25EU 27

MAGP III

1992-1996MAGP IV


Trend in the EU fishing fleet capacity in terms of tonnage between 1992 and 2007

Tota

l fle

et

ton

na

ge

in G

T/1

00

0

Trend in the EU fishing fleet capacity in terms of power (kW) between 1992 and 2007

Tota

l fle

et

po

we

r in

kW

/10

00

Figure 2

Figure 3

MAGP III1992-1996

MAGP IV1997-2002

Entry-exit regime

MAGP III1992-1996

MAGP IV1997-2002

Entry-exit regime

How regulations are made F

AC

T S

HE

ET

Throughout the legislative process, the Commission works closely with all itspartners – scientists, stakeholders, Member State authorities and govern-ments – to ensure that the proposals presented to the European Parliament and the Council of Fisheries Ministers:

are based on the best possible data and advice (biological, economicand social);

reflect the concerns of the fishing industry and others who live from and with the sea; and

represent a reasonable attempt toreconcile divergent national posi-tions and interests.

In addition, since 1 January 2007, all the Commission’s major legislative propos-als which impact the lives of European citizens are subject to comprehensive impact assessments which evaluate the likely environmental, economic and social impacts of different legislative options. These are prepared by the Commission’s services, with supportfrom the Scientific, Technical and Eco-nomic Committee on Fisheries (STECF) and other experts.

The exact procedures vary accordingto the subject of the proposal, and the different factors which need to be taken into account. On these pages, we present

a model sequence of events leading up to the adoption of a new conservationregulation. Many small variations are pos-sible – but most of these steps are now required for all new European fisheries legislation.

© E

uro

pe

an

Co

mm

issi

on

How regulations are made

SectorMember States

& European Parliament

Identification of an issue or a problem requiring attention

Non paper

ACFA

Stakeholders workshop

RACs

Scientists (ICES, STECF, etc.)

Adoption by the Council of Ministers

Member States implement, control and enforce the CFP rules

Impact assessment

+ Draft proposal

Consultation among Commission’s services

Proposal adopted by Commission

Councilof Ministers

Commitee of the Regions

Economic and Social Committee

National ParliamentsNegotiationby Ministers

EuropeanParliament

Negotiation (4-12 months)

Preparation (9-12 months)

Implementation (2-5 years)

Community Fisheries Control Agency

The Community Fisheries Control Agency(CFCA) was established as part of the2002 reform of the CFP in order to instila culture of compliance within the fisher-ies sector across Europe and ensure that the rules of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) are fully respected. The necessary legislation was adopted in April 2005 andthe Agency began operating in January 2007. Its headquarters are in the Galicianport of Vigo in North West Spain.

The mandate of the Agency is to:

coordinate operational cooperationbetween Member States for controland inspection activities within theirland territory and in EU and interna-tional waters; assist, at the request of the Commis-sion, the EU and Member States in their relations with third countriesand/or Regional Fisheries Manage-ment Organizations (RFMOs); and ensure close cooperation with stake-holders, in particular representativesof the Regional Advisory Councils.

Adding value to CFP control

The Agency’s special value lies in the contribution it can make to establishinga level playing-field for the fishing indus-try, and thus promoting better compli-ance with conservation and management measures, for the benefit of present andfuture generations.

As an independent executive body, the Agency works closely with the European Commission, EU Member States, the Regional Advisory Councils (RACs) and,where appropriate, third parties such asRFMOs. Each of these bodies has its ownparticular role to play within the frame-work of the CFP.

The CFCA’s coordination activities includeoperations on land and at sea in EU, inter-national and, where appropriate, thirdcountry waters. The Agency’s remit coversall European waters, and its international obligations stretch as far afield as thePacific and the South Atlantic.

The controls the Agency coordinates cover every stage of fishing activity: from the moment fish are caught to when they are bought for the first time. Inspections cantake place at sea, or on shore when fish arebeing landed, imported or transported.

The Agency aims to ensure systematiccoordination of the surveillance and in-spection measures which Member Statescarry out on their own territory, in watersunder their jurisdiction and for fishing ves-sels flying their flag, irrespective of where they may be operating.

By pooling the efforts of different authori-ties, the Agency directly counteracts those shortcomings caused by the differences between national authorities in how they allocate resources and decide control and inspection priorities.

The Agency’s activities

The Agency draws up an annual work programme every autumn setting out its priorities for the coming 12 months. During its first two years it concentratedon coordinating national control and inspection activities in order to protect stocks managed under EU recovery plans, combat illegal, unreported and unregu-lated (IUU) fishing and reduce the impact of destructive fishing practices and dis-carding. It focused particularly on areas fished by vessels from a number of differ-ent countries and where several MemberStates have responsibilities for controland inspection.

FA

CT

SH

EE

T

© L

ion

el F

lag

eu

l

Joint Deployment Plans (JDPs), which poolthe material and human resources of a number of Member States, are one of the Agency’s main methods of ensuringeffective enforcement. JDPs focus on fish stocks which are covered by a long-termrecovery plan or multi-annual mana ge-ment plan, and for which a specific controland enforcement plan has been put in place.

The first JDP was drawn up in 2007, and cov-ered cod stocks in the North Sea, Kattegat, Skagerrak and Eastern Channel. The fol-lowing year a plan was introduced for theEastern Atlantic bluefin tuna stock in the Mediterranean. This was an unprecedented

undertaking at EU level, deploying some49 fishery patrol vessels, 16 aircraft and scores of inspectors, and involving over 200 inspections at sea. This JDP uncovered 46 apparent infringements, the majority of them involving irregularities in report-ing documents, which have since beenfollowed up by the national authorities concerned. Other plans have also been put in place for cod stocks in the Baltic Seaand regulated stocks under the manage-ment of the Northwest Atlantic FisheriesOrganisation.

The Agency can also help Member States and the Commission in other ways, in both their international and domestic activities.

In the case of third countries and RFMOs,this assistance can involve:

inspection and surveillance activities under joint schemes adopted by the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC), and the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organisation (NAFO);

coordination of national operationsto combat IUU fishing; and

organisation of EU involvement in jointpilot projects with third countries.

Within the EU, the Agency may provide con-tractual services to Member States, such as observers for joint operations, and thechartering, operation and staffing of con-trol and inspection platforms. It may also:

develop and organise training courses for instructors of fisheries inspectors;

carry out joint procurement of goodsand services for control activities;

draw up joint operational procedures for inspection activities; and

devise criteria for exchanging meansof control and inspection between Member States and third countries.

Community Fisheries Control Agency

Legislation

Council Regulation (EC) No 768/2005 of 26 April 2005

establishing a Community Fisheries Control Agency and

amending Regulation No 2847/93 establishing a control

system applicable to the Common Fisheries Policy.

The Agency’s mission is to:

1. coordinate Member States’ control and inspection activities;2. organise deployment of pooled national control and inspection resources;3. assist Member States in exchanging information and reporting to the

Commission and third parties;4. help Member States to apply CFP rules in a uniform and effective manner;5. contribute to common research and development of new control and

inspection techniques;6. contribute to coordination of inspector training and exchange of best practice;7. coordinate operations to combat illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU)

fishing.

Headquarters: Vigo, Spain.Executive Director: Harm Koster.Budget (2008): EUR 8.5 million.Staff (2008): 49 full members of staff. In addition, the CFCA employs a number of national officials seconded by Member States as well as contractual agents. Website: www.cfca.europa.eu/

CFCA: Facts and figures

© L

ion

el F

lag

eu

l

© L

au

ra F

ren

kel

Northern agreements F

AC

T S

HE

ET

To the North of the EU lie three nations – Norway, Iceland and the Faeroe Islands– for whom fishing and processing are key features of their economies. Their are-as of fisheries jurisdiction are adjacent to the EU’s own fishing grounds. The com-plementarity of the fleets concerned, andthe fact that many of the stocks targeted are effectively shared across boundaries, means that it makes both commercialand environmental sense for all parties to enter into reciprocal agreements for managing stocks and exchanging quotas.

However, these relationships are notsimply bilateral; they can also be multi-lateral. At the end of 2007, the EU agreed fishing opportunities for 2008 in cooper-ation with the relevant Coastal States(Faeroe Islands, Iceland, Norway as well as the Russia Federation). These covered Atlanto-Scandian (Norwegian spring-

spawning) herring (1 266 000 tonnes),mackerel (385 366 tonnes) and blue whit-ing (1 250 000 tonnes).

These Coastal State arrangements, whichthe Commission negotiates on behalf of the European Union in the autumn, are then supplemented by compatible arrangements within the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC)which manages the same fisheries out-side areas of national jurisdictions.Coastal States have a priority call on fish stocks in the high seas, but certain other fleets may also enjoy historical right.

Norway

This is the most significant fisheriesagreement the EU has with any third coun-try. It has been in force since 1981, and

extends to cover the whole of the North Sea and the Norwegian Sea. The agree-ment covers nearly 750 000 tonnes of fishwhose estimated value is well in excessof EUR 2 billion. The initial agreement ranfor ten years, and is now renewable eve-ry six years. The current extension of theagreement is valid until 2009.

Quotas

Towards the end of every year, the Euro-pean Union and Norway consult with oneanother, on the basis of scientific advice,on the quantities and distribution of fish which may be caught in the following year. These discussions cover not just themanagement of quotas from shared stocks, and the sharing of common stocks which are not jointly managed, but alsothe exchange of additional quotas from exclusive stocks.

Joint stock quotas in the North Sea cover seven main species – cod, haddock,saithe, whiting, plaice, mackerel and her-ring. Each party is allocated quotas from the TAC according to long-establishedpractice.

A second category of quotas is for stocks which are shared, but not jointly managed. These range from Norway pout and blue whiting to shrimps and anglerfish. The EU also has access, through exchanges, tocod, haddock and saithe in Norwegian

Species TACs 2008 Norway European Union

Cod 22 152 3 766 18 386

Haddock 46 444 8 082 38 362

Saithe 135 900 70 668 65 232

Whiting 17 850 1 785 16 065

Plaice 49 000 1 105 47 875

Mackerel 48 566 31 134 17 432

Herring 201 227 58 356 142 871

TACs and quotas for the main joint EU-Norway stocks for 2008

Northern agreements

waters in the Barents Sea, whilst Norway has access to sprat in the North Sea as wellas to Greenland halibut, shrimp, Atlantic halibut and redfish from EU quotas in Greenland waters.

Parallel negotiations focus on sharing outthe TACs between Norway and the EU for eight species in the Skagerrak andKattegat: cod, haddock, whiting, plaice,mackerel, shrimps, herring and sprat. In addition, Norway allocates bilateral quo-tas to Sweden, which has historic rightsin its waters, for various species of fish.

Managing resources

The EU and Norway are working closelytogether on long-term managementplans for the following species:

cod: aim to maintain a minimumlevel of Spawning Stock Biomass (SSB)greater than 70 000 tonnes. Norway is very much associated with discus-sions on cod recovery in the NorthSea and the subsequent long-termmanagement arrangements;

haddock: aim to maintain a minimum SSB greater than 100 000 tonnes.Review no later than end of December 2009;

saithe: aim to maintain minimum level of SSB greater than 106 000 tonnes.Review due at the end of 2008;

herring: aim to maintain minimum level of SSB greater than 800 000 tonnes. Review due at the end of 2008;

plaice: the EU and Norway aim to reachagreement on a common long-termmanagement plan.

In addition, both parties place increasingattention on control and enforcement.

The arrangement for 2008 emphasises the need to improve and strengthen controls to combat IUU fishing and acknowledges the contribution measures on Port State Control could play.

Iceland

Whilst the EU and Iceland have a bilat-eral agreement on the lines of the one between the EU and Norway, currentlythe main relations are based on a sepa-rate agreement in the framework of the EEA Agreement from 1993 and are con-siderably less extensive than those withNorway and the Faeroe Islands. Underthis agreement, Iceland allocates a quo-ta of 3 000 tonnes of redfish to EU vessels.In exchange, the Union provides Iceland with a quota of up to 30 000 tonnes of capelin to be fished in Greenlandic or Icelandic waters. These capelin quotas are available through the EU’s fisheries agreement with Denmark and the local government of Greenland. However,

several restrictions on when and where EU vessels may fish in Icelandic waters make it difficult for them to catch their full quota.

The two parties have agreed to consult annually on a range of other fishery relat-ed issues which fall outside the remit of the agreement and each provides infor-mation to the other on landings of anyfish caught under the agreement.

Faeroe Islands

The agreement with the Faeroes is based on the same principles as those contained in the EU’s agreement withNorway. In force since 1981, it also ran ini-tially for a decade and is renewable everysix years. However, the relationship is considerably less extensive than that with Norway, the arrangements less com-plex and stocks fewer.

Cooperation also includes discussions oncontrol and monitoring and regular exchange of statistics. In 2006, the twoagreed to establish an expert working group, along with Norway, to address issues on landings of pelagic fish.

© A

nd

rea

s G

rad

in

Fisheries Partnership Agreements F

AC

T S

HE

ET

Bilateral fisheries agreements between the EU and third countries have long been a feature of the Common Fisheries Policy.The 2002 reform of the CFP introduced the concept of ‘partnership’, to emphasisethe EU’s intention to support the devel-opment of the national fisheries sectorin its partner countries. As a result, since2004 they have been known as Fisheriespartnership agreements (FPAs).

There are currently 16 FPAs in force. Through them, the European fleet has access to surplus resources which its part-ners cannot, or do not wish to fish. Where the agreements involve countries in Africa and the Pacific, a substantial partof the EU’s financial contribution is ear-marked specifically to support national fisheries policy based on the principle of sustainability. The allocation and man-agement of this funding is jointly agreedbetween the partner country and the EU.

Underpinning the partnership approach is the EU’s commitment to promote responsible and sustainable fisherieswherever European vessels fish through-out the world. That is why each FPA is based on a comprehensive assessmentcarried out in advance. In this way, the EU

can be sure, among other things, that thefishing opportunities it can use are in line with the best available scientific advice,and will neither deplete fragile stocks, nor put its boats in competition withlocal artisanal fishers who depend uponcoastal fisheries for their livelihoods and sustenance. (As a rule, FPAs never author-ise EU vessels to fish within 12 miles of the shore).

The FPAs have introduced many new ele-ments compared to their predecessors, including:

improved policy dialogue withpartner countries;

emphasis on impact assessments,control and implementation, sustain-able and effective management of fishing activities;

obligations for EU vessels to employlocal fishermen;

emphasis on fishing opportunitieswhich encourage EU vessels to landtheir catch for processing in the partner country;

a legal framework designed to ensurethat all measures are consistent withsustainable fisheries and promote good governance; and

greater flexibility in the way EU finance can be used for particular priorities, such as scientific researchand monitoring, control and surveil-lance activities.

There are two main forms of FPAs.The first is made up of the 11 bilateral tuna agreements. The second is repre-sented by the multi-species accords withGreenland, Mauritania, Guinea Bissau,Guinea Conakry and Morocco.

Three distinct tuna networks stretch from the north Atlantic down the west coast of Africa. Agreements between the Union and individual countries are important tothe EU vessels which fish these stocks.Tuna is a highly migratory species, andthe tuna FPAs enable European boats toobtain a licence under each agreementso they can follow the stocks from one jurisdiction to another without having to interrupt their activity. In most cases,the quota concerned is actually set by the relevant RFMO (e.g. ICCAT for the Atlantic,IOTC for the Indian Ocean) based on sci-entific advice on the biological conditionof the stock. The agreements then serve to provide a legal framework for access-ing these resources which have already

© S

ocr

ates

Fisheries Partnership Agreements

been allocated at international level. It is in this context that each agreement stipulates what tonnage of tuna may becaught in the waters of the country con-cerned in a particular year and the number of boats that will receive a licence for that fishery.

In multi-species agreements, the best available scientific data provides the

basis for negotiating fishing rights for Member States, with a view to ensuringthat resources are conserved and effec-tively managed, in cooperation with theThird countries’ authorities.

Each FPA is an exclusive agreement: once in place, EU vessels can only fish under the FPA, and cannot enter into privatePPagreements with the partner country.

This ensures total transparency of the activities of EU operators in the area. This is a point to which the EU attachesgreat importance. Many nations enterinto fisheries agreements with develop-ing countries around the world, but onlythe EU publishes all the details of itsagreements, thus opening them to pub-lic scrutiny.

Period

2007-2010

2005-2011

2007-2013

2005-2011

2007-2012

2004-2008

2007-2011

2006-2012

2007-2012

2008-2012

2007-2011

2007-2011

2006-2009

2006-2010

2005-2011

2007-2010

Fishing opportunities

Tuna: 25 seiners, 48 surface longliners,

11 pole-and-line tuna vessels

Tuna: 40 seiners, 17 surface longliners



Cod: 3 500 t, redfish: 8 000 t, Greenland

halibut: 10 000 t, shrimp: 11 000 t,

Atlantic halibut: 1 400 t, capelin: 55 000 t,

snowcrab: 500 t, by-catches: 2 300 t

2 500 grt/month for fish and

cephalopods, 1 500 grt/month

for shrimps; tuna: 34 seiners,

14 pole-and-line vessels, 9 longliners

4 400 grt for shrimps and 4 400 grt

for fish and cephalopods;

tuna: 23 seiners, 14 pole-and-line vessels

Tuna: 4 seiners, 12 longliners


(> 100 GT), 26 longliners (< 100 GT),

5 demersal

Tuna: 22 seiners,

22 surface longliners and

pole-and-liners; various crustaceans

and demersal species

20 small-scale pelagic seiners North,

30 small-scale longliners North,

20 small-scale fishing south, 22 demersal

fishing, 27 tuna pole-and-liners, 60 000

tonnes small pelagics (max 18 vessels)

Tuna: 44 purse seiners, 45 longliners





Reference

tonnage

(tuna – per year)

5 000 tonnes

6 000 tonnes

7 000 tonnes

11 000 tonnes

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

6 400 tonnes

13 300 tonnes

n.a.

10 000 tonnes

6 000 tonnes

8 500 tonnes

63 000 tonnes

8 600 tonnes

Total EU finance

(per year)

€ 385 000

€ 390 000

€ 595 000

€ 860 000

€ 15 847 244

€ 3 400 000

This may be increased gradually to

€3 995 000 depending on fishing

possibilities

€ 7 500 000

€ 478 400

€ 1 197 000

€ 86 000 000 (1st year)

€ 76 000 000 (2nd year)

€ 73 000 000 (3rd year)

€ 70 000 000 (4th year)

€ 36 100 000

€ 900 000

€ 400 000

€ 663 000

€ 5 355 000

€ 559 000

Country

Cape-Verde

Comoros

Ivory Coast

Gabon

Greenland

Guinea Conakry

Guinea-Bissau

Kiribati

Madagascar

Mauritania

Morocco

Mozambique

Solomon Islands

Sao Tomé

e Principe

Seychelles

Micronesia

Details of individuals FPAs

Regional Fisheries Management Organisations

FA

CT

SH

EE

T

Regional Fisheries Management Organ-isations (RFMOs) are international organ-isations dedicated to the sustainablemanagement of fishery resources in inter-national waters, or of highly migratoryspecies, such as tuna. The statutes andoperational modes of each RFMO are adapted to its specific geographical cir-cumstances and priorities. They typicallybring together coastal states with other parties who have an interest in the fisher-ies concerned.

There are two types of RFMOs. One deals with highly migratory species (tuna andswordfish), the other with pelagic anddemersal species. While a few are purelyadvisory, most RFMOs have management powers. They tend to take three kinds of regulatory decisions, determining:

fishing limits (total allowable catches, maximum number of vessels, duration and location of fishing);

technical measures (definition of howfishing activities must be carried out, permitted gear and technical controlof vessels and equipment); and

control measures (monitoring andsurveillance of fishing activities).

These decisions are binding on theirmembers and, in the case of the EU, mustbe enacted into European law. RFMOs also carry out scientific research, and canassist their members with such issues ascapacity building, external cooperation,and/or fisheries development.

The European Commission representsthe EU in six tuna RFMOs and 11 non-tuna

ones where the EU fleet either operatesalready or has an interest in doing so inthe future. It is keen to promote better governance of international fisheries bystrengthening existing RFMOs and ensur-ing they have the necessary powers and resources to regulate and conserve fish-eries in their area, including the power to act against illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing. It also shares its experience in RFMOs where the Union does not have a direct fishing interest and encourages their creation for areas and fisheries that remain unregulated.

Regional Fisheries Management Organisations

Tuna organisations

International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT)Area: Atlantic Ocean and adjacent seas, including the Mediterranean.Main EU presence: France, Italy, Spain, UK, Portugal, Greece, Ireland, Netherlands, Malta, Cyprus. Some 2 000 vessels.www.iccat.org

Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC)Area: Indian Ocean and adjacent waters.Main EU presence: Spain, France, Portugal and, to a lesser extent, Italy. About 100 vessels. www.iotc.org

Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC)Area: Western and Central Pacific.Main EU presence: Spain and France. Around a dozen vessels. www.wcpfc.int

Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC)Area: Eastern Pacific Ocean, USA to Chile.Main EU presence: Spain with 30 vessels.www.iattc.org

Agreement on the International Dolphin Conservation Programme (AIDCP)(sister organisation to IATTC) Same Area of competence, same fishing interests.www.iattc.org/IDCPENG.htm

Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna (CCSBT)Area: Southern hemisphere. EC is a cooperating non contracting partyMain EU presence: Spain and Portugal (4 vessels, just catching small by-catch quantities).www.ccsbt.org

Non-tuna organisations

North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC)Area: North-East Atlantic.Main species: blue whiting, haddock, herring, mackerel, redfish, deep sea species.

Main EU presence: Belgium, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Ireland, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, UK.www.neafc.org

Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organisation (NAFO)Area: North West Atlantic Ocean, outside Canadian and Greenland waters.Main stocks: halibut, redfish, shrimp.Main EU presence: Spain (36 vessels) and Portugal (12), mainly fishing halibut. Total EU vessels: approx 60. www.nafo.int

North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation (NASCO)Area: North Atlantic.Main stock: wild salmon.Main EU presence: UK, Ireland, Sweden, Finland, Germany, France, Spain and Portugal. A ban applies to fishing for salmon in international waters.www.nasco.int

South-East Atlantic Fisheries Organisation (SEAFO)Area: South-East Atlantic waters, from Angola to South Africa.Main stocks: all marine resources, apart from highly migratory species.Main EU presence: Spain and Portugal. www.seafo.org

South Indian Ocean Fisheries Agreement (SIOFA)Area: Southern Indian Ocean.Main stocks: deep demersal species (orange roughy, alfonsinos, oreos, toothfish)Main EU presence : Spain, Portugal (3 vessels in total).

South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organisation (SPRFMO)Area: high seas of the South Pacific.Main stocks: demersals (orange roughby, alfonsinos, oreos, bluenose), pelagics (jack mackerel, squid).Main EU presence: Netherlands, Germany, Lithuania; eight vessels.www.southpacificrfmo.org

Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR)Area: Antarctic waters.Main stocks: toothfish, icefish and krill.EU fishing presence: 2 Spanish vessels (toothfish), one Polish vessel (krill).www.ccamlr.org

General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM)Area: Mediterranean, Black Sea and connecting waters.Main stocks: all fishery resources.www.gfcm.org

Convention on the Conservation and Management of Pollock Resources in the Central Bering SeaArea: Central Bering sea (Donut Hole).A moratorium on fishing the stock (pollock) has been in place since 1993.www.afsc.noaa.gov/refm/cbs/default.htm

Advisory RFMOs

Western Central Atlantic Fishery Commission (WECAFC)Area: Western Central Atlantic Ocean.EU fishing presence: Spain, France, UK.www.fao.org/fishery/rfb/wecafc

Fishery Committee for the Eastern Central Atlantic (CECAF), operational 1967Area: Eastern Central Atlantic between Cape Spartel and the Congo river.www.fao.org/fishery/rfb/cecaf

Both advisory bodies are integrated into the FAO organisation and have no specific administration or budget.

A good overview of existing RFMOs, including those in which the EU does not participate, can be found on the FAO website: www.fao.org/fishery/rfb/search

© K

rist

iaa

n d

e P

au

w

Aquaculture

FA

CT

SH

EE

T

EU aquaculture is an important business. Current output is around 1.3 million tonnes a year, with a value of some EUR 2.9 billion. It contributes over 18 % of EU fish produc-tion – yet represents only 2 % of world aquaculture production. And the sector directly employs some 65 000 people.

Yet, as aquaculture continues to expandacross the world, the EU industry has stag-nated in recent years. While the farming of

sea fish continues to grow (largely thanks to three species – salmon, sea bass and seabream), production of molluscs and fresh-water fish has shown a steady decline over recent years.

In 2007, the Commission launched a major consultation exercise on the futureof aquaculture in Europe, and what role public authorities could play in stimulat-ing its sustainable growth, whether at

Top ten species produced in aquaculture in the European Union (2005)

Species

Blue mussel

Rainbow trout

Salmon

Cupped oyster

Mediterranean mussel

Gilthead seabream

Common carp

Manila clam

Seabass

Eel

...................................................................... 361 399

............................................................................................................................................................... 202 900

.................................................................................................................................................................................................. 144 801

................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 127 150

................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 108 522

...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 71 475

............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 69 557

.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 68 006

.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 49 202

.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 8 202

local, national, or EU level. On the basis of the information received, the Commis-sion plans to publish a new EU Strategy for aquaculture in 2009.

European aquaculture can be dividedinto three main sectors: marine fishfarming, shellfish and freshwater fish. Crustaceans and algae are also cultivatedin the EU, but their production is, for the moment, marginal.

© L

ion

el F

lag

eu

l

Aquaculture

Documents

European Commission, Consultation Document:

Opportunities for the development of Community

aquaculture, May 2007.

European Commission, Communication, A strategy

for the sustainable development of European

aquaculture, COM(2002) 511 final, 19.9.2002.

BE

1 200

BG

3 145

CZ

20 455

DK

39 012

DE

44 685

EE

555

IE

60 050

EL

106 208

ES

221 927

FR

258 480

IT

180 943

CY

2 333

LV

542

LT

2 013

HU

13 661

MT

736

NL

68 175

AT

2 420

PL

36 607

PT

6 485

RO

7 284

SI

1 536

SK

955

FI

14 355

SE

5 880

UK

172 813

EU-27

1 272 455

Total aquaculture production by Member State (2005)(volume in tonnes)

HR

13 782

MK

868

TR

119 177

Total aquaculture production by candidate country (2005)(volume in tonnes)

Total aquaculture production of other important producers (2005)(volume in tonnes)

Norway

656 636

United States

471 958

China

43 269 413

Japan

1 253 963

Indonesia

2 124 093

South Korea

1 057 386

North Korea

507 995

Philippines

1 895 848

Thailand

1 144 011

Bangladesh

882 091

India

2 842 419

European Fisheries Fund

FA

CT

SH

EE

T

The European Fisheries Fund (EFF) began operating in January 2007. Its aim is to improve the sector’s competitivenessand help it become environmentally,economically and socially sustainable.To achieve this, it has a budget of EUR 3.8 billion (or EUR 4.3 billion in currentprices) for the seven-year period 2007-2013. Funding is available for all sectors of the industry: sea and inland fishing, aquaculture, and processing and market-ing of fisheries products. Particularattention is given to fishing communities most affected by recent changes.

The EFF is designed to be simpler to manage and implement than its prede-cessor, the Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance (FIFG). Alongside itsgreater flexibility, the EFF contains sev-eral innovations. These include assistance to fishermen to move towards moreselective fishing methods, increased emphasis on sustainable fishing and measures of common interest, includingpilot projects, finance for local devel-opment strategies and support for aqua-environmental measures. As under the FIFG, no funding is available for the construction of new vessels or to increasethe size of their holds. In common withthe other EU structural funds, EU financ-ing cannot be used alone, but only tocomplement national, regional or local expenditure.

A further novelty is the fact that funding isnow heavily geared towards the ‘conver-gence’ regions, i.e. those whose economicwelfare is below the EU average.

How it works

National authorities draw up a strategicplan giving a long-term view of how theysee the development of their fisheriesand aquaculture policy between 2007and 2013, and explaining how this meets the CFP’s objectives. The plan must definepriorities, objectives, public spending estimates and deadlines. This is then fol-lowed by an operational programme describing in more detail the way the national authorities intend to translatethe opportunities offered by the EFF intopractice. Both are prepared in close con-sultation with regional and local economic and social partners.

Funding opportunities

The EFF targets five priority areas. Many of its activities continue the practices of the FIFG, but some are new.

Adjustment of the fleet (axis 1)If a Member State decides to cut fishing opportunities, aid may be available forvessels permanently or temporarily ceas-ing their activities. Aid can also be givenfor a range of other operations: on-board

safety and working improvements, moreselective gear, small-scale coastal fisher-ies, socio-economic measures includingearly retirement, and retraining.

Vessels in certain fleet segments may receive aid to replace their engines to make them more energy efficient, butnot more powerful.

Aquaculture, processing and market-ing, inland fishing (axis 2)Aid is available for diversification into new aquaculture species and specieswith good market prospects, environ-mentally-friendly aquaculture, publicand animal health measures, processingand marketing of fisheries and aquacul-ture products, and lifelong learning.

Special provisions exist for inland fishing,reflecting its importance in central andEastern Europe.

Measures of common interest (axis 3)These are activities not normally support-ed by the private sector and whose overall importance goes beyond the com-mercial interests of individual companies. They can include protection and develop-ment of aquatic fauna and flora, ports,shelters and landing sites, development of new marketing and promotional cam-paigns, pilot projects and other collective actions.

© L

ion

el F

lag

eu

l

European Fisheries Fund

Sustainable development of fisheriesareas (axis 4) Funding in this category is based on localdevelopment strategies, reflecting a bot-tom-up approach. It aims to help localcommunities reduce their economicdependency on fish catches.

Coastal communities, and those nearlakes and ponds with a significant levelof employment in the fisheries sector, are eligible for EU aid to strengthentheir general competitiveness, add value to fisheries products, develop tourisminfrastructure and services, protect the environment, and encourage inter-regional and transnational cooperation.

Technical assistance (axis 5)This category covers items such as studies, reports, information activities and other actions relating to the implementation of the operational programmes.

Regulatory framework

There are three elements: a Council regu-lation setting out basic principles; aCommission implementing regulation lay-ing down detailed procedures that Member States must follow; and a vade mecum of practical advice for nationalauthorities on how to draft and implementtheir programmes.

Emergency regime

In July 2008, the Council adopted sometemporary derogations to the EFF rules, tomake it easier for Member States to accom-pany the process of fleet restructuring in response to the serious economic crisisthat was sweeping through the industry. These included the creation of Fleet Adap-tation Schemes, which provide additionalsupport to encourage substantial capacity

reductions in those fleet segments whichare most fuel-intensive. These derogationswill last for two years, and will be subject to ongoing monitoring and assessment. Fulldetails can be found in Council Regulation(EC) No 744/2008 of 24 July 2008 institut-ing a temporary specific action aiming to promote the restructuring of the European Community fishing fleets affected by the economic crisis.

Allocation of EFF aid from 1 January 2007 to 31 December 2013

* Amounts in EUR, current prices

© L

ion

el F

lag

eu

l

Documents

Council Regulation (EC) No 1198/2006 of 27 July 2006

on the European Fisheries Fund.

Commission Regulation (EC) No 498/2007 of 26 March

2007 laying down detailed rules for the implementation

of Council Regulation (EC) No 198/2006 on the

European Fisheries Fund.

Member State Convergence Non convergence Total

Belgium 26 261 648 26 261 648

Bulgaria 80 009 708 80 009 708

Czech Republic 27 106 675 27 106 675

Denmark 133 675 169 133 675 169

Germany 96 861 240 59 004 177 155 865 417

Estonia 84 568 039 84 568 039

Ireland 42 266 603 42 266 603

Greece 176 836 728 30 995 509 207 832 237

Spain 945 692 445 186 198 467 1 131 890 912

France 34 250 343 181 802 741 216 053 084

Italy 318 281 864 106 060 990 424 342 854

Cyprus 19 724 418 19 724 418

Latvia 125 015 563 125 015 563

Lithuania 54 713 408 54 713 408

Hungary 34 291 357 559 503 34 850 860

Malta 8 372 329 8 372 329

Netherlands 48 578 417 48 578 417

Austria 187 326 5 071 992 5 259 318

Poland 734 092 574 734 092 574

Portugal 223 943 059 22 542 190 246 485 249

Romania 230 714 207 230 714 207

Slovenia 21 640 283 21 640 283

Slovakia 12 681 459 1 007 069 13 688 528

Finland 39 448 827 39 448 827

Sweden 54 664 803 54 664 803

United Kingdom 43 150 701 94 677 188 137 827 889

Total 3 252 409 308 1 052 539 711 4 304 949 019

Common organisation of the market F

AC

T S

HE

ET

The common organisation of the markets (COM) in fishery and aquaculture prod-ucts has existed since 1970. It is the oldest element of the Common Fisheries Policy. Originally designed to guarantee the free movement of goods and ensure price stability for producers, it has steadi-ly evolved over the years in response to major changes in both the general andinstitutional context. Further innovations should be expected in the future to meet emerging challenges, ranging fromincreasingly scarce resources and the growing power of big buyers, to changes in consumer habits and rising levels of imports.

Four key features

The present structure of the commonorganisation of the markets is laid downin legislation in force since 2000. It con-sists of four basic elements:

common marketing standards for fresh products;

producer organisations (PO), which are voluntary associations of fisher-men formed to help stabilise markets and cushion sudden fluctuations indemand;

a price support scheme setting minimum sale prices for fishery products. A PO may then receivefinancial aid if it has to take fishery

products off the market and storethem for later use or processing; and

rules on trade with third countries.

Marketing standards

EU marketing standards define harmo-nised commercial characteristics, especiallyfor the first sale of fresh fish and aquacul-ture products. These features include freshness, size and presentation. The stan-dards facilitate marketing operationsby setting common prices for each cate-gory of products and defining quality levels. They are complemented by label-ling obligations which keep consumersbetter informed by showing the commer-cial designation of the species, production method (inland, sea fishing or farming) and catch area.

Producer organisations

A key idea of the COM is that it is the pro-ducers themselves who are best placed to solve the problems facing the sector, by organising themselves and coordinatemeasures for the rational managementof resources, to provide added value to fishery products and to help stabilisethe market. The 2000 reform of the COM therefore gave more responsibility to pro-ducer organisations and granted themfinancial support.

In practical terms, POs may take collectivemeasures to ensure the sustainability of fish stocks, to avoid catches of fish forwhich demand is low or nonexistent, and to anticipate market needs in terms notonly of quantity, but also quality and fre-quency of delivery. To achieve these aims,POs must draw up and implement opera-tional programmes for the fishing year that contain measures to adapt catches to market requirements. An operational programme must contain a marketingstrategy, a catch plan for fishing or a pro-duction plan for aquaculture, anticipa-tory measures for species that habituallypresent marketing difficulties, and aninternal penalty system.

Price support

This comes into play when the price for a species drops below a minimum level. Known as the withdrawal price, the level is set on the basis of guide prices whichare fixed annually by the Council of Min-isters. When prices drop low enough for intervention mechanisms to be triggered, PO members receive compensation fromtheir organisation. The EU finances thisaid, which acts as a safety net, not a pricesupport system, to the annual tune of some EUR 10 million.

© L

ion

el F

lag

eu

l

Nevertheless, generalised overfishing has inevitably led to stricter managementof this aid in order to prevent a waste of resources. Aid may now only be used forexcess supplies that local markets cannotabsorb. To encourage anticipatory meas-ures to adapt catches to market needs,interventions are only possible for smallvolumes. They are also calculated on a tapering basis: the higher the quantitieswithdrawn, the lower the interventionrate (see box).

In addition, to reduce wastage to the minimum, carry-over aid is now available. This is financial support for processingand storage to allow products to be putback on the market later, at a time when prices are more attractive. This aid is lim-ited to 18 % of the quantities put up for sale each year, minus the quantities forwhich withdrawal aid has been granted.

Aid for private storage also exists for cer-tain products frozen at sea.

Trade with non-EU countries

It is essential that the EU’s processingindustry can source supplies on a stable and reliable basis at competitive prices.This means having access to both domes-tic production and imports. The COM includes a scheme whereby customs duties are suspended on certain importsfrom non-EU countries earmarked for theprocessing industry. In parallel, refer-ence prices are set, and customs tariffswill not be suspended or reduced if pric-es drop below these levels. The systemis meant to provide protection againstabnormally low pricing of imports and serve both as an indicator of changes in import prices and as an early warning

system. In addition, safeguard and anti-dumping measures in conformity withWorld Trade Organisation (WTO) rules may be implemented if imports of fishery products lead to serious market disrup-tions. This has happened in the past withNorwegian salmon, for which a minimum import price was imposed.

The first 4 % of a PO’s production of a species receives compensation equivalent to 85 % of the withdrawal price. Between 4 % and 8 % (10 % for pelagic species), the rate is 55 %. Above these levels, there is no compensation available.

Withdrawal aid

POs in figures

2005: 203 recognised POs in 16 Member States (BE, DK, DE, EL, ES, FI, FR, IE, IT, LV, LT, NL, PL, PT, SE, UK).

Spain, France, Italy, Germany and the United Kingdom accounted for 74 % of all the POs.

In some Member States, over 50 % of fishermen belong to a PO (BE, DK, DE, ES, FR, LT, NL, PT, SE, UK). In three (LV, PL, FI), membership is as low as 12 % to 23 %.

For aquaculture, the percentage of producers belonging to a PO is over 75 % in three Member States (ES, LT, UK) and less than 10 % in two (DK, FR).

Common organisation of the market

Market trends F

AC

T S

HE

ET

RO BG HU SK SI PL CZ AT LV DE IE EE EL NL DK CY BE IT LU SE MT FI FR LT ES PTEU-27UK

3.9 4.6 4.7 7.6 8.3 8.6 10.111.9

12.114.4

16.717.7

20.022.0

22.623.1

24.225.1

29.729.9

30.832.7

33.639.7

44.756.9

21.4

23.2

Exports and imports of crustaceans and molluscs (2006)(volume in tonnes and value in thousands of EUR)

804 574 3 138 015 1 819 657 7 079 469

169 048 947 898 280 233 1 424 873

621 393 522 556 972 492 813 527

Fresh, chilled, frozen, dried, salted

Preparations and preserves

Exports and imports of meals and solubles (2006) (volume in tonnes and value in thousands of EUR)

Exports and imports of fisheries products (2006) (volume in tonnes and value in thousands of EUR)

3 403 786 8 356 071 4 905 530 14 513 063

213 797 1 441 483 330 038 1 970 428

768 460 2 250 380 1 280 557 3 720 685

Fresh, chilled or frozen

Salted, smoked or dried

Preparations and preserves

Exports Imports

Consumption

Fisheries and aquaculture products play an important role in theEuropean diet, as elsewhere in the world. In the EU, average fish consumption is 21.4 kg/head/year, compared to 16.1 kg glob-ally. Yet this figure masks considerable differences from one Member State to another – from 3.9kg/head/year in Romania,to 56.9kg/head/year in Portugal.

Per capita consumption* of fishery products (2003) Supply (kg/head/year)* Available supply per head

by Member State

External trade

The EU is the world’s largest importer of fisheries products. Butit is also a major player when it comes to exporting high-value fisheries products. Denmark and the Netherlands are the main exporters, while Spain and France are the main importers. Exports Imports

Exports Imports

ESUKFRDEITDKPLNLPTBESEIELTLVFIELEECZ EU-27ROSKHU BGSI AT

1 50015 400***

17 000

33 000

34 900

35 000

40 300***

93 700

100 200

105 100*

145 400

194 900

323 500

383 900**

499 800

628 800

643 100

878 300

1 286 700

1 742 700**

2 017 300

2 866 100

3 154 900

3 704 900

18 937

700

Value of the output of the processing sector (2005)(in thousands of EUR)

* Figures for 2003** Figures for 2002*** Figures for 1999

BEAT ITHU SK CZBG ROEL EEIE LT LVNL DKFI PT DE SE UK FRPL ES EU-27

75 267692*

917972

979***

1 2891 519

1 6441 998

2 265**

2 5943 375

4 8055 362

6 1496 233**

7 8469 531

15 114

15 473

18 406

22 352

129 500

Processing sector

The European processing sector generates three times the turnover of the catching sector, with production amounting toa total of around EUR 18 billion.

NB: data were not available for CY and MT; not relevant for LU.

Number of persons employed by the processing sector (2005)

* Figures for 2003, ** Figures for 2002, *** Figures for 1999 NB: data were not available for CY, MT and SI; not relevant for LU.

CZHUSKSIAT BG RO EE LTBE IE NLLV PT DEEL FI SE UK ITPL FR ES EU-27DK

2 5* NA 11*12 13 18 28 9 35 22 60 30 54 69 8 63 21 141

99 57**143

2501157

5 5 8 11 30*35 41 62 65 65 70 83 116

120125

150160

190211

388419

451**492

7454 035

Number of fish processing and marketing firms (2005)Number of companies with 20+ employees

Total number of companies

* Figures for 2004, ** Figures for 2003, NA: data not available NB: data were not available for CY and MT; not relevant for LU.

Market trends

The ecosystem approach to fisheries

In April 2008, the European Commission published a Communication on the roleof fisheries management in implementing an ecosystem approach to marine manage-ment. In this text, the Commission out-lined how the CFP can form part of a morejoined-up approach to protect the ecolog-ical balance of our oceans as a sustainablesource of wealth and well-being for future generations. The basic objectives of the CFP include the application of the ‘pre-cautionary principle’ to fisheries manage-ment, and the progressive implementationof an ecosystem approach. On this basis, the Commission defined two key objec-tives for CFP management decisions:

to ensure that decisions are based on the best available knowledgeabout the interactions between fishing and ecosystems, and that both direct and indirect impacts onthe marine environment are mini-mised, in particular by reducing theoverall fishing pressure; and

to ensure that fisheries measuresare used fully to support the cross-sectoral approach defined by theEU’s Marine Strategy and by theHabitats and Birds Directives.

These three Directives are not themselvespart of the Common Fisheries Policy, butthey play an increasingly important rolein the integrated approach to manage-ment of our marine resources to which theEU is committed under its new IntegratedMaritime Policy.

The Marine Strategy Framework Directive

The ecosystem approach lies at the heartof the EU’s Marine Strategy Framework Directive, which identifies four marine regions in Europe – the Baltic, the North-East Atlantic, the Mediterranean and theBlack Sea. The objective is to return eachof these regional seas to, or maintain themin, ‘good environmental status’.

Each Member State concerned will be required to develop a strategy for its own marine waters, in close cooperation with their neighbours (both EU and non-EU)with whom they share a regional sea. (In the case of the North-East Atlantic andthe Mediterranean, the regions are fur-ther divided into four sub-regions each).This will involve identifying the charac-teristics which will be held to define ‘good

environmental status’ for each region, and assessing the current status of thewaters.

Once targets have been set, each MemberState will decide which measures it needsto take, and how it intends to monitor its progress. Member States must ensure that the measures are cost-effective and technically feasible, and carry out impact assessments, including cost-benefit ana-lyses. They will also have to submit key steps in developing their strategies to the Commission for assessment.

The Marine Strategy Framework Directive adopts a results-based approach, encour-aging regional cooperation, and leaving the Member States and their non-EU neigh-bours to decide between them how to reach the overall objective set at EU level.The Marine Strategy is the environmental pillar of the EU’s new Maritime Policy.

The Habitats and Birds Directives

The EU’s other main tools for applyingthe ecosystem approach to fisheries are the Directives on the Conservation of

FA

CT

SH

EE

T

© J

uan

Car

los

Cal

vin

natural habitats and of wild flora and fauna of 1992 (Habitats Directive) and on the Conservation of Wild Birds of 1979 (Birds Directive). The full implementa-tion of these Directives is part of the EU’s response to its commitments under theUN Convention on Biological Diversity, and is reinforced by the commitment made by EU Heads of state and govern-ment ‘to halt the loss of biodiversity [in the EU] by 2010’. Under the Habitats and Birds Directives, Member States are required to introduce measures to main-tain or restore vulnerable habitats and spe-cies to favourable conservation status.

The best-known measure establishedby the Habitats Directive is the Natura 2000 network of protected areas, which embraces sites designated under any of the directives concerned. The HabitatsDirective in particular identifies 189 typesof habitats along with 788 species whichare to be protected. Each Member State is required to submit a list of potential national sites for evaluation. Those which are approved at EU level then join the Natura 2000 network. Member States are under an obligation to ensure that theirsites are properly managed: positive meas-ures should be taken, damaging activitieshave to be avoided and new develop-ments are only authorised if it can beshown in advance that they do notadversely affect the integrity of the sitesconcerned. The aim is to create and main-tain an ecologically coherent system of representative sites spanning the lengthand breadth of Europe.

The Habitats Directive identifies 9 typesof marine habitat which need to be protected:

subtidal sandbanks; estuaries; intertidal mud- and sandflats; coastal lagoons; large shallow inlets and bays; reefs; Posidonia beds; submarine structures made byleaking gases; and

submerged or partially submergedsea caves.

It also identifies 18 marine species forwhich site designation is required.

Relatively few Natura 2000 sites have so far been identified in offshore waters, and this represents the largest single gap in the network. In May 2007 the Commission published comprehensive guidelines to encourage and help national authoritiesestablish marine protected sites under theHabitats and Birds Directives.

While fishing is not the only human activ-ity which can damage vulnerable marine habitats and species, it is one of the mostimportant. The CFP therefore has a major role to play in ensuring that the HabitatsDirective succeeds in achieving its aims.Where there is an urgent need for protec-tion, CFP measures can be taken quickly,either as emergency measures, or in the context of the annual TAC and quotas reg-ulation, to ensure that no further damageis caused by fisheries while the process of site approval is underway.

The ecosystem approach to fisheries

Legislation

Council Directive 1979/409/EEC of 2 April 1979

on the conservation of wild birds.

Council Directive 1992/43/EEC of 21 May 1992

on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild

fauna and flora.

Council Directive 2008/56/CE of 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).

Documents

Guidelines for the establishment of the Natura 2000

network in the marine environment. Application

of the Habitats and Birds Directives (European

Commission, May 2007).

Guidance on introducing fisheries measures for

Natura 2000 areas (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/

nature/natura2000/marine/docs/fish_measures.pdf).

Communication from the Commission to the

Council and the European Parliament: The role of the

CFP in implementing an ecosystem approach to

marine management [SEC(2008) 449].

ICES. 2005. Guidance on the Application of the

Ecosystem Approach to Management of Human

Activities in the European Marine Environment,

ICES Cooperative Research Report, No 273. 22 pp.

© L

ion

el F

lag

eu

l