# EUR-Lex - 52002DC0535 - EN

*|*

# 52002DC0535

**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/2002/0535 final */**

			*

			*

EN

|| COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

Brussels, 09.10.2002

COM(2002) 535 final

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

1.           Introduction.................................................................................................................... 4

1.1.        The fisheries activity in the
Mediterranean Sea................................................................. 4

1.2.        The Mediterranean specificity.......................................................................................... 4

1.2.1.     Relative extension of national vs.
international waters....................................................... 4

1.2.2.     Shared stocks and fisheries............................................................................................. 5

1.2.3.     Overall characteristics of fishing
activities......................................................................... 5

1.2.4.     Availability of scientific
information.................................................................................. 6

1.2.5.     Competition with other uses............................................................................................ 6

1.3.        State of the resources..................................................................................................... 7

1.4.        Environmental aspects..................................................................................................... 8

1.5.        The CFP applied in the
Mediterranean............................................................................ 9

2.           Objectives...................................................................................................................... 9

2.1.        Community leadership..................................................................................................... 9

2.2.        Management at the appropriate
level............................................................................. 10

2.3.        Integration of environmental
considerations into fisheries management............................. 11

2.4.        Building on experience.................................................................................................. 12

2.5.        A commitment to enforcement....................................................................................... 12

2.6.        Integrated use of various
management measures............................................................ 12

2.7.        A recognition of the social
importance of fishing activities............................................... 12

2.8.        The international dimension:
multilateralism and co-operation.......................................... 13

3.           Required actions at Community
level............................................................................. 13

3.1.        A concerted approach to the
jurisdiction of waters........................................................ 14

3.2.        Managing fishing effort.................................................................................................. 15

3.3.        Catch limitations........................................................................................................... 16

3.4.        Improvement of fishing methods
for conservation purposes............................................ 17

3.4.1.     Revision of current technical
measures for fisheries of Community interest....................... 17

3.4.2.     Discards....................................................................................................................... 19

3.4.3.     Environmental aspects................................................................................................... 19

3.5.        Control and enforcement............................................................................................... 20

3.6.        Improvement of scientific knowledge............................................................................. 21

3.7.        Transparency and stakeholders
involvement.................................................................. 21

3.8.        Relationship with other policies
under the CFP.............................................................. 22

4.           Required actions at
international level............................................................................ 23

4.1.        Co-operation within multilateral
fisheries organisations................................................... 23

4.2.        Harmonisation of measures in the
Mediterranean Basin.................................................. 24

4.3.        Co-operation among States and
among industries.......................................................... 24

5.           Action Plan: actions and
timetable................................................................................. 25

ANNEX 1 Details
on the Member States’ Mediterranean fleets........................ 28

ANNEX II
Production trends by some major species, species group and FAO statistic
divisions         29

ANNEX III Some
shared stocks and fisheries.................................................. 32

ANNEX IV Provisional and non-exhaustive list
of fisheries that might be affected by measures controlling fishing effort..................................................................................................... 37

1. 
Introduction
1.1. 
The fisheries activity in the Mediterranean Sea

Mediterranean fisheries represent an important
and vital sector of the Community fisheries. The Community Mediterranean fleet
represents about 22% of the total Community fleet expressed in tonnage and 34%
expressed in engine power. In numbers, it represents about 46% of Community
fishing vessels. On average, fishing vessels in the Mediterranean are smaller
than in the rest of the Community. More than 32,950 vessels, i.e. around
80% of the Mediterranean vessels, are smaller than 12m in length, giving the
Mediterranean fleet its characteristics of a small scale artisanal fishery,
although a large proportion of the catches is taken by larger, non-artisanal
vessels. Further details on the Mediterranean fleets of the Member States are
given in Annex 1.

The landings in volume in the Mediterranean
represent a relatively modest share of about 12 % of total Community landings.
However, the economic value of landings is much higher. This situation might be
explained by the fact that most of the catches landed in the Mediterranean are
used for human consumption, even catches of small sized fish, which generate
higher market values.

In 1997 the four Mediterranean Member States
generated more than 106,000 jobs, including part time fishermen, or 42% of
total EU jobs in the catching sector.[1]

Concerns have been expressed about the seeming
mismatch between the substantial social and economic importance of
Mediterranean fisheries and the attention given to it within the Common
Fisheries Policy.

1.2. 
The Mediterranean
specificity

The Mediterranean Sea and the fisheries carried
out there are characterised by a number of distinctive features with important
implications for the conservation policy under the Common Fisheries Policy.
These features include: relative extension of national vs. international
waters, straddling and shared stocks, overall characteristics of fishing
activities, availability of scientific information and a number of other
considerations, e.g. leisure fisheries. Some of these features are not
exclusive to the Mediterranean, but they are more pronounced in this region.

1.2.1. 
Relative extension of national vs. international
waters

The continental shelf in the Mediterranean
basin is generally narrow and fishing grounds are usually found close to the
coasts, within territorial waters. This fact, together with various kinds of
political considerations, might explain why Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ’s) so
far have not been established in the Mediterranean. Only Fisheries Protection
Zones have been declared in some cases (Spain: 49 miles and median line) or
fishing exclusive zones as is the case of Malta (25 miles). Therefore, the
extension of waters under national jurisdiction in comparison with
international waters is more limited than elsewhere in the Community.

1.2.2. 
Shared stocks and
fisheries

Because of the limited extent of national
waters and the usually short fishing trips, often of only one or two days,
there are few areas of overlapping of fishing activities of fleets of Community
Member States and among Community and non-EU fleets. Multinational fleets
fishing in the same area are the exception rather than the rule.

However, the perception of shared stocks and
fisheries has been changing rapidly. This is due both to clearer scientific
opinions and to the development of new fisheries extending their operative
ranges outside national waters. The number of shared fisheries has increased in
several areas like the Alboran Sea, the Gulf of Lions, the Northern Tyrrhenian
Sea, the Adriatic Sea, the Ionian Sea, the Aegean Sea, the Sicily Strait and
the Gulf of Gabes. In addition to the highly migratory species, who can be
found in the whole Mediterranean Basin, a minimum list of shared stocks have
been agreed both within the GFCM[2]
framework and FAO sub-regional programmes[3].
The list might be expanded to include other species and fisheries in the
future. However, the number of shared fisheries identified already at this
stage justifies common action to be taken for those fisheries both at Community
and international levels.

1.2.3. 
Overall characteristics of fishing activities

Most Mediterranean fishing vessels, as
previously indicated, are basically artisanal in their nature in terms of scale
(more than 80% of the vessels being smaller than 12 m in length) and,
consequently, also as regards labour and capital investment. Therefore, many
fishing activities are small and carry out different fisheries at different
times in coastal waters throughout the year. Moreover, there is a high
proportion of semi-professional and part-time fishermen in the Mediterranean
and therefore the enterprise structure differs from other Community areas.

In general, both catch rates and total daily
amount of catches per vessels are quite low in comparison with fishing
activities carried out in areas outside the Mediterranean. However, the
economic value of the catches is not exclusively determined by the overall
quantity of landings but also by the diversity of catches, where small
quantities of very valuable small size and short life-span species can lead to
a higher price for the overall catch. Nevertheless, accounting also for changes
in fishing power, catch rates of demersal species in fisheries are still
generally lower than in the past, although present levels of demersal landings
are achieved through a high fishing effort exerted by generally overcapitalized
fleets.

Technological interactions, i.e.
different fishing gears catching the same species, are quite frequent and might
involve small-scale artisan fisheries ( fishing for fry of sardine/anchovy,
hake spawners, red mullet, common pandora, seabass, gilt-head seabream,
blackspot seabream, other sparids, sole, skates-rays, mackerel, horse mackerel,
scad, cuttlefish, other cephalopods, shrimps, tunas, etc.), bottom trawlers and
other towed gears (fishing for hake, red mullet, pandora, seabass, gilt-head
seabream, blackspot seabream, other sparids, sole, skates-rays, mackerel, horse
mackerel, scad, sardine, anchovy, cuttlefish, other cephalopods, shrimps)
andpelagic trawlers and seiners (fishing for sardine/anchovy, cephalopods,
mackerel, horse mackerel, scad, sea-bass and seabreams, tunas etc.).

There are numerous small landing sites, spread
along thousands kilometres of coastline, very often without a market place,
which makes control and enforcement difficult.

The fact that fishing grounds usually are quite
close to the coast where the highest biodiversity of bottom fish is located,
results in a high degree of competition for space among fishermen, as well as
strong interaction of fishing activities with coastal benthic environments
which, in turn, represent essential fish habitats.

1.2.4. 
Availability of scientific information

A large proportion of the fishing grounds
remains within national waters. This has encouraged the view that management
measures can be achieved separately and has reduced the geographical
perspective within which national administrations have considered management
issues.

This fact, together with a certain orientation
of scientific community to prefer more marine ecology and biology research, has
led to a discontinuity between the scientific work carried out and management
actions. The level of application of research recommendations in fisheries
management has been generally low and approaches to management, such as effort
limitation regimes, have generally not been based on scientific advice.

Moreover, despite the fact that there is a lot
of scientific research and knowledge on fisheries and resources in the Mediterranean,
there is no overarching scientific forum, comparable to the role played by ICES[4] in other Community waters, to
promote and co-ordinate scientific activities and findings, to scrutinise
scientific advice as well as to present it in a suitable format as a basis for
fisheries management. With the establishment of the GFCM Scientific Advisory
Committee (SAC) in 1999 this weakness is being addressed. There is, however,
still much to be done and the Community will support the SAC in its endeavours.

1.2.5. 
Competition with other uses

Perhaps more than in other Community areas,
there is a very high pressure from tourism on Mediterranean coastal areas and
thereby competition between various activities in those areas.

The coastal nature of some fisheries targeting
shared stocks, as well as the seasonal movements of some highly migratory
species into littoral waters, lead to interactions and competition between
professional and leisure fishermen. The latter sometimes have a significant
influence on the use of resources, in the order of more than 10 % of the total
fisheries production. Therefore, due account should also be taken of sport and
part-time fisheries especially when catching shared stocks or when competing
with commercial fisheries submitted to more stringent management rules.

1.3. 
State of the resources

Most of Mediterranean fishery resources, be
they demersal, small pelagic or highly migratory species, have long been
considered overexploited.

In regard to highly migratory species, the
Eastern bluefin tuna stock has been assessed in the past by the ICCAT[5], which has indicated heavy
over-exploitation. Although the thoroughness of these evaluations is arguable,
due to considerable uncertainties resulting from the lack of key data, there is
little doubt that the stock is overexploited. The level of bluefin tuna being
caught and put in cages in the Mediterranean area for rearing purposes and,
often, outside a framework of regulated and reported catches, also rises
serious questions. This fishing activity is believed to increase the pressure
on the stocks[6].
Similar considerations on over-exploitation apply to swordfish in the
Mediterranean where there is evidence of an exploitation pattern, which results
in large quantities of juveniles and recruits of the year, present in the
catches. Major efforts in data collection are required to get a clear picture
of the status of the key stocks, although indications based on current data
paint an extremely negative picture.

Catch statistics on demersal and small pelagics
species show a negative trend in the 1990’s for the most important species or
groups of species (see figures in Annex 2). Daily catch rates per vessel
have fallen dramatically when compared to catch rates of some decades ago,
despite the fact that the power and efficiency of fishing vessels has increased
in recent times. Also the catch quality, both in terms of species and size
composition, have been changing over time. Long life-span species and bigger
size specimens have practically disappeared from demersal catches in several
areas and fisheries.

The current evaluations of demersal, small and
large pelagic fisheries, carried out within the GFCM and ICCAT frameworks,
confirm this picture of overexploitation of several resources and highlights
the need to reduce the mortality on juveniles and to reduce the overall current
fishing effort by about 15-30% for those fisheries catching some overexploited
stocks.

Despite the recognised over-exploitation of
several resources, there are few scientifically reported cases of stocks at
risk of collapse. Anchovy in the Northern Spanish coast, black spot seabream in
the Alboran Sea and hake in the Gulf of Lions are among those, however. This
long-term resilience of Mediterranean fisheries, without so far detected
dramatic collapses of target resources, except for anchovy in the mid-1980’s,
is usually explained by the fact that some proportion of the adult stocks have
most probably remained consistently unavailable to small mesh trawling. This
feature of the Mediterranean fisheries, as determined by fishing practices,
gear and vessel characteristics and by the presence of several untrawlable
bottoms, has led to the creation of spatial/temporal enclaves within the normal
range of distribution of several species which allow a proportion of the stock
to survive to maturity, thus preventing the collapse of the population.

However, the situation has changed rapidly in
the last decade, with the increasing efficiency of fishing methods, both in
terms of vessel engine power and the size of fishing gears, greater use of
improved electronic positioning systems and, above all, the development of
fixed gear fisheries targeting spawners of several long-lived species in so far
untrawlable areas. Furthermore, widespread illegal trawl fisheries in coastal
areas have reduced the ”refuge” effect, resulting from the poor enforcement of
the current regulation limiting the use of the towed gears at depth greater
than 50 metres or at distance from the coast greater than 3 miles if depth is
less than 50metres.

This shows the need for management measures to
bring exploitation to a sustainable level and to avoid stocks being pushed
outside safe biological limits.

Current levels of fishing effort and the use of
small mesh size towed gears, together with the utilisation of a variety of
fishing gears exploiting all the life spans of a resource, are incompatible
with sustainable and profitable fisheries.

1.4. 
Environmental aspects

In the Mediterranean, fishing grounds are
usually found quite close to the coast where the highest biodiversity is
located and there is an increasing awareness and concern about fishing impact
both on habitats and non-commercial resources.

Apart from legal obligations concerning
environmental protection, there is a clear interest for a responsible fishing
industry to ensure not only the conservation of the target species but also of
species belonging to the same ecosystem or associated with or dependent upon
the target species. This approach is basic to preserve the bio-diversity and
integrity of marine ecosystems and, hence, the production features of the
essential fish habitats with positive effects also for fishery resources and
fishing activities.

The main environmental threats posed by
fisheries in the Mediterranean can be divided into two major groups: damages to
biodiversity and damages to habitats.

To the first group belongs the widespread use
of small mesh size fishing gears as well as excessive fishing of commercial
species. As for other Community fisheries, it is believed that if fishing on
commercial species were reduced to sustainable levels, this will have
beneficial effect on the environment. In any case, sustainability of commercial
fish stocks does not imply necessarily sustainability of biodiversity in the
broad sense, and hence environmentally oriented measures will always be
required. Nowadays many non-target species are under threat, such as sea
mammals, birds and reptiles. If in some cases the main threats come from
non-fishing activities, such as the reduction of nesting sites of sea turtles
and birds, fishing may increase the danger for these populations.

The widespread use of dredges and bottom trawl
gears, often rigged with chains or other rock-hopper devices, have been
identified as the main causes both of the decline of shallow meadows of marine
phanerogames and deterioration of benthic communities in rocky areas.

High-impact techniques such as the St. Andrews'
cross for red coral (Corallium rubrum) extraction or the exploitation of
European date mussel (Lithophaga lithophaga) and common piddock (Pholas
dactylus) by destroying the rocks inhabited by these bivalves have long
been forbidden, but there are indications that the prohibition is not well
enforced. Furthermore, there are warning signals that the illegal use of explosive
and poisonings is still taking place.

At regional/international level, several
processes in the field of environmental protection in relation to fishing are
worth mentioning briefly. On the one hand, the GFCM includes environmental
protection among its general objectives and there has been established a
sub-committee to the Scientific Advisory Committee of the GFCM to deal with
environmental matters. Similarly ICCAT dedicates increasing efforts to include
environmental protection in its management recommendations. On the other hand,
multilateral environmental agreements such as the Barcelona Convention and the
Bern Convention also have implications for the environmental protection in the
Mediterranean from the field of fishing .

1.5. 
The CFP applied in the Mediterranean

Within the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), the
structure and market policies have been applied and enforced in
the Mediterranean in an equivalent manner to other Community areas. This is
also the case for control policy, although the implementation of some aspects
of the control policy has been delayed in the Mediterranean. However, the
conservation policy has traditionally been carried out differently than in
other areas. For example, in the Mediterranean basin the CFP’s main conservation
instrument, the total allowable catches (TACs) and quota system, was not
applied. Only since 1998 has a fish stock been subject to such a system in the
Mediterranean: bluefin tuna. In addition, certain elements of the CFP, such as
the logbook, have been introduced in the Mediterranean later than in the
Atlantic.

This is largely a result of the Mediterranean
specificity referred to above, but in some cases this specificity may have
become an excuse to fail to apply measures that are just as important and necessary
as in other parts of the Community. It is clear that the commitment of the
Community to regulate fisheries in the Mediterranean is no less than for other
fisheries. The regulation of Mediterranean fisheries should be upgraded to the
same degree of development and priority as other Community areas, albeit with
certain specific instruments where necessary.

2. 
Objectives

The objectives of the Common Fisheries Policy
are the same in the Mediterranean as in other Community waters, namely, to
ensure the exploitation of living aquatic resources that provides sustainable
environmental, economic and social conditions.

In addition to the general objectives of the
future Common Fisheries Policy however, there are a number of specific
objectives for a sustainable management of Mediterranean fisheries.

2.1. 
Community leadership

The Community must continue to take the lead in
implementing an effective conservation and management system for Mediterranean
fisheries. The Community should continue to promote fisheries management within
GFCM, while at the same time acting at Community level without waiting for
decisions within GFCM when that is found necessary. Community leadership in
this area does not mean working in isolation. There is a need to co-operate
with non EU Countries, but this will require technical assistance and financial
resources from the Community to non-EU countries bordering the Mediterranean,
notably through existing Community and Member State bilateral and regional
co-operation programmes.

2.2. 
Management at the appropriate level

The relative weight and importance of coastal fisheries is much
higher in the Mediterranean than anywhere else in the Community’s maritime
façade. It is necessary to re-evaluate the level at which the different
activities must be dealt with: local/national or Community/ international
level. Coastal fishing activities might be better managed at local or national
level, due to the proximity to the problems and the capacity for local
authorities to act more quickly together with local fishermen’s organisations.
However, if fishermen organizations do not actually embrace responsible
fisheries, such proximity might enhance the risk that the highest priority of
biologically sustainable fisheries could be abandoned in favour of
socio-economic considerations. Community intervention will be necessary and
opportune when and where fisheries have a transnational dimension, either for
conservation, environmental or market reasons, this is the case in the
Atlantic. There is a need for the Community to define clearly which are these
fisheries and to concentrate Community measures on these. However, concerning
the management of coastal resources, the Community, while allowing Member State
management, must set common standards on conservation and environmental
protection.

It is to be noted that the number of identified
fisheries exploiting straddling or shared stocks is increasing, due both to
changing fishing patterns and greater knowledge of fishing activities (cf. Annex
3), while there continues to be numerous small-scale coastal fishing
activities.

Three categories of fisheries, with a different
degree of Community involvement, can be distinguished:

1.       Fisheries
targeting highly migratory fish. These must be managed at Community level
notably in the framework of the relevant regional fisheries organisations,
namely the International Commission for the Conservation of the Atlantic Tunas
(ICCAT) and the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM); the
Community will actively promote multilateral management of these stocks,
including as necessary catch limitations, technical measures and effort
limitations (see Annex 3).

2.       Fisheries
targeting shared demersal and small pelagic stocks or operating in shared areas
(e.g. Alboran Sea, Valencian coast, Gulf of Lions, Ligurian Sea,
Thyrrenian Sea, Corsica and Sardinia Seas, Adriatic Sea, Ionian Sea, Aegean
Sea, Strait of Sicily etc.) where two or more Countries are involved. These
should be subject to a Community/international regulatory framework, including
effort limitation, technical measures and, where necessary, catch limitations.
This could be agreed at GFCM level and possibly applied at sub-regional level
on the basis of the Scientific Advisory Committee (SAC) recommendations. SAC
has so far identified only 10 stocks within this category and recommended its
subsidiary bodies to identify more shared stocks. Other shared stocks and
fisheries can be included, thanks also to the work done within the FAO
sub-regional programmes. Scientific information may not yet allow to precisely
identify shared stocks in some areas, however ancillary information and
geographic contiguity could suggest likely shared stocks. A more extensive list
is shown in Annex 3.

3.       Fisheries
targeting stocks primarily distributed in national waters and caught only by
one Member State. These should continue to be managed at national level,
provided that there are no significant by-catches of fish stocks in category 1
or 2 above.

2.3. 
Integration of environmental considerations into fisheries management

The general Community commitment to integrating
environmental concerns into Community policies, as stipulated into Article 6 of
the Treaty establishing the European Community, requires the Community to take
adequate actions to protect habitats and species from negative effects of
fisheries.

The integration of environmental concerns into
the CFP and the means to achieve it are described in Communication COM(2002)186
setting out an Action Plan to integrate environmental protection requirements
into the CFP. This action plan is intended to apply to all Community fisheries,
including those of the Mediterranean.

As far as the by-catch of protected species is
concerned, special care should be taken of the few remaining populations of
monk seals. Protection of turtles and seabirds from longlining may in some
cases be of special concern. Cetacean by-catch will be of less importance
following the recent ban of driftnets, although action at the international
level would be beneficial to extend the protection to all Mediterranean
fisheries. However, the interaction between cetaceans and fishing activities,
beyond the by-catch phenomenon, is a problem of growing concern that deserves
careful consideration.

As far as damage to habitats is concerned, there
is a special need to protect sea-grass beds (Phanerogams such as Posidonia
sp., Zoostera spp. and Cymodocea sp.), ham mussel beds,
deep water white corals and hard bottom biocenosis in coastal areas,
irrespective of depth, from the effects of trawling, dredging and similar
activities. The impact of dredges fishing for bivalves must also be kept under
control, since it may reduce the capacity of soft bottoms to maintain diversity
of benthos.

The other side of the coin concerns the impact
of environment hazards on fishing. Although these cannot be controlled by the
Common Fisheries Policy, they constitute a problem and solutions must be
sought. One of the most striking problems is the periodic, although not fully
predictable appearance of blooms of mucilaginous algae that stick to fishing
gear and make it non-operational. This phenomenon, which might be related to
eutrophication due to excessive nitrate and phosphorus supply, can cause
important losses to the fishing industry. It would be legitimate that the
Commission, in co-operation with Member States, investigate the causes and
establish, the adequate liability and compensation schemes.

Good liaison between the competent authorities
in environmental protection and fisheries matters is necessary, both within
national and Community administrations, in order to take efficient and
synergetic action in these two fields. The Commission is at present designing a
comprehensive strategy for the protection of the marine environment that will
guide this co-ordination.

2.4. 
Building on experience

In the Mediterranean there are several valuable
management measures in place, particularly in the management of fishing effort,
either agreed by fishermen’s organisations or enforced through regional or
national measures. Examples regarding the control of fishing days and/or hours
out of the port are well known. Limitation of daily landings per vessel is
another example of measure agreed at local level. Some of these schemes are
widely accepted by the fishermen. The Community will build on these experiences
for the future, notably through the consultation process in the future Regional
Advisory Committes.

2.5. 
A commitment to enforcement

Enforcement is far from perfect in all
Community fishing areas. In the Mediterranean, like everywhere else, it is
necessary that the future CFP will include a commitment to improve control and
enforcement.

To ensure this commitment, the full involvement
of fishermen’s organisations and other stakeholders is essential. For this
reason, improved participation of fishermen in the development of this policy
is of particular relevance to assure better comprehension and improved
compliance with management measures.

2.6. 
Integrated use of various management measures

The complexity of the Mediterranean fisheries,
in terms of species richness and diversity of fishing gears and practices,
together with its economic structure, enables fishermen to be flexible, adapt
quickly and to counteract undesired effects of external factors, including
management measures.

Therefore a global and coherent management
approach is needed which will make use of the various available tools in an
integrated way. Some measures can be used jointly for mutual reinforcement and
to allow for more flexibility in the fishing system.

In this system of integrated regulatory
measures, there should be a certain degree of overlapping of measures having
the same purpose. If the primary management system, e.g. effort control,
fails for one reason or another, there should be a second level of management working
as a safety mechanism. This second level may be catch limitation or certain
technical measures such as closed areas/seasons, or the interplay of other
technical measures and characteristics of fishing method and/or gear that
prevent full exploitation of the different demographic components of a stock.

2.7. 
A recognition of the social importance of
fishing activities

The average age of the fishing vessels in the
Mediterranean fishing industry is quite old, varying between 23 (Greece) and 29
years (Spain). This makes working, living, health and safety conditions on
board far from optimal. Moreover, it makes the fleet less adapted to properly
handle the catches, waste management and problems of noise and oil pollution.

There is also growing concern that fishing
activities, which have represented traditional working opportunities in
fisheries dependent areas, are not attracting young generations anymore. This
lack of recruitment, in addition to loss of jobs for more aged fshermen, in
areas with few or no alternative options will create social problems. This
trend will also affect negatively the transmission of cultural heritage related
with fishing activities.

The Commission considers that these trends can
only be reversed by a transition towards sustainable fishing, in which not only
fisheries resources will be better maintained, but fishing enterprises will be
more profitable and economically viable.

The roadmap on the reform of the Common
Fisheries Policy (COM(2002) 181 final) indicates measures to address the social
implications of the application of the reform in the Mediterranean.

2.8. 
The international dimension: multilateralism and
co-operation

The extent of international waters in the
Mediterranean makes it inevitable and essential to address fisheries management
also through international co-operation, at least in the field of fisheries for
highly migratory stocks. This task is more difficult in the Mediterranean than
in other Community waters, as there are a number of non-EU countries bordering
the Mediterranean with few means and/or little tradition of fisheries
management; multilateral fisheries management has little or no tradition.
Future progress by the Community in terms of fisheries management may therefore
be hampered by different approaches being taken by other countries of the
region. Consequently, the development of a multilateral dimension to fisheries
management in this region will require an important element of co-operation,
aimed at making it easier for non-EU countries to devote more attention to
fisheries management.

This is clearly an area where the principle of
Community leadership is of particular relevance. Such co-operation will require
technical assistance and financial resources from the Community to non-EU
countries and should benefit as much as possible from existing Community and
Member State aid schemes.

Furthermore, initiatives need to be taken to
foster and facilitate co-operation among Community and non-EU fishing industry
both in the capture and aquaculture sectors.

3. 
Required actions at Community level

On the basis of the guiding principles and
objectives outlined in the previous sections, the Commission considers that a
number of actions at Community level should be taken in order to achieve the
objectives of the Common Fisheries Policy in the Mediterranean Sea. In this
Action Plan, the following specific fields of actions are foreseen at Community
level and described below:

-        establishing a
concerted approach over the jurisdiction of maritime waters,

-        reducing overall
fishing pressure,

-        applying catch
limitations where possible,

-        improving the current
exploitation pattern and reducing negative effects on stocks and the
environment,

-        improving control and
enforcement,

-        strengthening
scientific structures and improving scientific knowledge,

-        greater stakeholders'
involvement in the consultation process.

Finally, the links to other aspects of CFP than
conservation policy are also briefly commented upon.

3.1. 
A concerted approach to the jurisdiction of
waters

At present, the situation as regards declarations of EEZs or
Fisheries Protection Zones (FPZs) in the Mediterranean is very inconsistent.
One Member State (Spain) has declared a Fishery Protection Zone of 49 miles, a
candidate country for accession (Malta) has declared, since 1971, a 25-miles
Exclusive Fishing Zone. France and Italy have declared 12-miles territorial
waters and Greece 6-miles territorial waters.

The declaration of FPZs, of up to 200 miles
from baselines, could be an important contribution to improving fisheries
management, given that about 95% of Community catches are taken within 50 miles
of the coast in the Mediterranean. These FPZs would certainly facilitate
control and contribute significantly to fighting against illegal, unreported
and unregulated (IUU) fishing. However, such a declaration of FPZs would be
much more effective if carried out through concertation among all the countries
involved. A common approach to FPZs among Community Member States and,
subsequently, among all the countries in the region would therefore be
desirable.

It is to be borne in mind that FPZs, unlike
EEZs, refer exclusively to the jurisdiction over fishery resources. Other
questions of jurisdiction (mineral resources, navigation rights, etc.) remain
unaffected by the establishment of FPZs. With the declaration of a FPZ, it is
possible to set up a wide range of measures which restrict the free access of
fishing vessels from third countries or simply to establish these zones for the
purpose of controlling foreign vessels.

A possible concerted declaration of FPZs would
have advantages and disadvantages. Among the advantages are:

– 
the ability to apply fisheries management
measures over a much wider area

– 
a substantial improvement of control and
enforcement;

– 
the exclusion or, at least, the control of
certain fleets (from the Far East) currently fishing in the Mediterranean’s
international waters;

– 
easier restriction of IUU fishing.

Among the inconveniences are:

– 
the risk of loss of access to certain fishing
grounds for Community vessels, if non-EU countries were to follow the Community
example, such as Croatia and Tunisia (this difficulty could, however, be
overcome through the establishment of bilateral fisheries agreements);

– 
significant political difficulties in certain
areas;

– 
difficulties to establish median lines in the
narrower Mediterranean areas.

The Commission considers that an initiative in
this field should consist of inviting Member States to debate at Community
level the desirability of a common approach to this matter and whether any
establishment of FPZs should include the limitation of access for third
parties, or simply have as the main purpose an adequate control of fishing
activities. Such a debate would also be extended to the negotiating candidate
Countries concerned.

If this debate results in a clear Community
position on the issue, the next step should be to convene a conference among
coastal states of the Mediterranean in view of exploring a common
Mediterranean-wide approach in this matter.

3.2. 
Managing fishing effort

From what has been said earlier on the state of
the resources, there is a widely recognised need to reduce fishing mortality
significantly.

The high diversity of catches of many
fisheries, the technological interactions and the dispersion of landing sites
generally make single species approaches and output measures, such as current
TACs and quota management systems, often inappropriate for Mediterranean
fisheries. The only exceptions are the highly migratory species and, perhaps,
some small pelagic stocks and some crustaceans (cf. section 4.3. below).

Measures designed to reduce and control the
fishing effort, either on a permanent or temporary basis, must be one of the
basic tools for the management of Mediterranean fisheries. There seems little
choice in most cases but to introduce and/or extend some kind of limited entry,
associated with an adequate licensing and fishing permits scheme, with
reduction in fleet size and time fished. Major fisheries that will be affected
by these measures are those catching shared or straddling stocks. A
provisional, non-exhaustive list of those fisheries is given in Annex 4.

It should be pointed out that the work
currently underway at GFCM, largely as result of Community initiative, is
concentrating on identifying fishing effort on the different Mediterranean
stocks. It is understood within GFCM that the application of the TAC approach
would be largely inoperable in fisheries for mixed species.

Fishing effort management should as far as
possible take into consideration proposals, recommendations and advice at GFCM
level and considering Mediterranean geographical sub-areas as currently defined
by the Scientific Advisory Committee of GFCM. In that regard, the GFCM approach
to fisheries management through the identification of management areas and
operational units, goes in the direction advocated in this section.

Fishing effort management must build upon
experience already made at local or national level, with the enforcement of
simple rules such as the maximum allowable annual fishing days, the short week,
a fishing ban during national holidays and the fixing of a maximum allowable
daily time out of port or, in case of longer than daily fishing trips,
limitations of daily fishing hours. The recently introduced vessel monitoring system
(VMS), and its extension to fishing vessels smaller than 24m overall length,
will assist in properly enforcing fishing effort management.

Fishing effort will be decided to match the
sustainable exploitation of the groups of stocks concerned. To this end, in
addition to gross tonnage and engine power, it may be necessary in some
fisheries to define other effort criteria, such as overall length and fishing
gear. Member States will be given flexibility in implementing these effort
limits (limitation of days at sea, number of vessels, maximum overall dimension
of fishing vessels, etc.). To this end, it is fundamental to know who is
catching what, where, and by which method. Therefore a more close matching
among fishing activity, fleet segmentation, vessels characteristics, navigation
certificate, fishing licence and fishing permits is needed.

In some cases, fishing effort limitation
schemes at Community level must take into account gear dimension insofar as it
has an impact on fishing effort.

3.3. 
Catch limitations

Notwithstanding catch limitations already set
up in some regions, mainly for economic and market price control purposes, it
has already been mentioned that some features of the Mediterranean fisheries
might make management by catch restrictions and quotas less effective in this
area. However, although the most important management instrument to be
introduced in the Mediterranean is the management of effort at Community level,
the application of Total Allowable Catches (TACs) may still be an appropriate instrument
in some cases. In addition to bluefin tuna, the only Mediterranean stock
currently subject to TAC and quota management, certain other stocks will be
made subject to TACs and quotas as soon as scientific advice becomes available:

-        Mediterranean swordfish
is an obvious candidate for future TACs and quotas, to be agreed in ICCAT and
GFCM.

-        Other highly migratory
fish, such as albacore, some small tunas, and even dolphinfish (Coryphaena spp.)
could in the mid term be regulated by way of TACs and quotas, in the
appropriate multilateral bodies. In the case of highly migratory fish, the
emphasis should be placed in working with existing multilateral fishery
organisations.

-        Certain stocks of small
pelagics (sardine, anchovy) as well as certain stocks of crustaceans such as
Norway lobster and red shrimps might also be subject to a TAC and quota system,
as these stocks are fished in clearly targeted fisheries where they dominate
the catch composition.

In this context, it is also
worth noting the international commitments and responsibility of the European
Community with regards the enforcement of, and compliance with, international
TACs. Recreational fisheries targeting stocks under a quota system should also
be submitted to quotas, control and a reporting system and, in a more general
manner, be subject to limitations of the same order as those applying to
commercial fisheries.

3.4. 
Improvement of fishing methods for conservation
purposes
3.4.1. 
Revision of current technical measures for
fisheries of Community interest

Beyond limitations in fishing intensity, based
on effort or catch restrictions, there is a need to address the way fishing is
conducted in order to contribute to the objectives of the Common Fisheries
Policy in the Mediterranean.

Regulation 1626/94 has been an important first
step to harmonise technical measures among Member States in the Mediterranean.
This regulation, however, has become outdated and should therefore be
overhauled on the basis of the principles and objectives established in this
document.

In accordance with the principle specified in
section 2.2, technical measures applied to purely coastal fisheries, not
catching shared or straddling stocks, will fall under Member States
responsibility; in these cases the Community will only establish standards on
conservation of stocks and the environment. These standards could take the form
of provisions establishing the objectives to achieve and fishing behaviours to
be avoided. Member States must follow these standards in their national
management of these fisheries.

Technical measures for fisheries with a
transnational dimension will be regulated and harmonised at Community level.
Those fisheries are to be identified using the following criteria:

1.       Conservation
considerations: Technical conservation measures regarding the fisheries
managed at Community level, that is, those fisheries for which effort
limitations and/or TACs are deemed to be appropriate, according to the
principles defined in sections 4.2 and 4.3.

2.       Environmental
considerations: Technical measures to address transnational environmental
concerns, such as by-catches of non-target migratory or wide-ranging species,
as well as the protection of essential fish habitats in coastal areas and
offshore outcrops.

3.       Market
considerations: Minimum landing sizes, applicable to the most important
species. These landing sizes must be applicable regardless of whether their
respective fisheries are managed at Community or national level in order not to
distort the single market for fisheries products.

The main fields of action, with regard to
technical measures, foreseen by the Commission at this stage are given below,
following the criteria mentioned above.

1.       The main aim of technical
conservation measures will be to improve the exploitation pattern of
commercial species as much as possible, in order to have a higher selectivity
and fewer juveniles in the catch. To this end, several measures will be
necessary:

-        For bottom trawlers and
other towed gears, a general revision of technical conditions to improve
selectivity, while taking into account the diversity of species caught. Given
the mixed fishery and the small size of some Mediterranean species even when
fully grown, it is clear that any general increase in mesh size from 40 mm
would lead to substantial economical losses, at least in the short term, and is
therefore difficult to achieve. Therefore, particular attention should be given
to improve gear design (windows, selection/separator panels, hanging ratio
between cod-end and lengthening piece, etc.), and mesh shapes and, furthermore,
to review devices that may be attached to the towed gears;

-        Gear specifications,
such as hanging ratios and minimum mesh sizes, for trammel and gill-nets, hook
sizes for longliners and possibly other measures for other gears. Measures
concerning the numbers and overall dimensions of these gears will also be
necessary, in connection with the management of effort referred to in section
4.2 above;

-        The development, as
much as possible, of closed areas/seasons to protect high concentrations of
juveniles or spawners.

2.       On technical
measures with environmental purposes, the new regulation will include
measures to implement the ideas specified in section 4.4.3 below, including
measures to reduce by-catches of non-target species and the possible
establishment of sanctuaries to protect essential fish habitats (closed areas
to fishing).

3.       On minimum landing
sizes, a general revision should be carried out on the basis of the
following considerations:

-        The need to take into
account, as much as possible, of the selectivity of the gear legally used to
catch the species in question;

-        For species occurring
both in the Mediterranean and the Atlantic, harmonisation of minimum landing
sizes as far as possible. However, in some cases the different biology of the
species can justify different minimum landing sizes. It is therefore important
to ensure through adequate labelling that the catch area of the products can be
unambiguously identified.

On fisheries to be managed by Member States,
the new technical measures regulation should include minimum requirements for
Member States to ensure the sustainability of the resources in question, the
conservation of essential benthic communities as well as to ensure full respect
of Community legislation on environmental protection. Member States should
report periodically to the Commission on the measures taken at national level
and the results achieved by their management.

The large number of recreational fishermen, as
well as the type and dimension of fishing gears used, justify the wish to
include this sector within fisheries management, both for reasons of
conservation and fair application of management rules.

The current derogations in Regulation 1626/94
will be reviewed by the Commission in the light of the principle specified in
section 2.2. Following this evaluation, the Commission will propose which of
the derogations should be prolonged at Community level and which derogations
can be left to be decided at national level. The bans on certain gears and
fishing practice, such as beach seines, should be considered an “acquis”
and be maintained unless otherwise suggested by more recent scientific
evidence. However, the possibility of retaining certain types of gears, insofar
as these gears are used to catch fish other than shared or straddling stocks in
coastal fisheries, will be left to Member States to regulate, under the general
conditions stated above.

3.4.2. 
Discards

There is a significant problem
of discards, due to both the low selectivity of small mesh size trawl gears and
to mismatching between legal mesh size and minimum landing size. According to estimates computed in
recent years about 50% of discarded biomass consists of edible species with
commercial value. Furthermore, on average more than 60% of all caught species,
both commercial and not commercial ones, are regularly discarded. Estimates
computed in the Aegean and Greek Ionian Seas pointed out that bottom trawl
discards range between 39 and 49% of total catch. On average the total
discarded quantities from bottom trawl range from 13000 to 22000 tons annually,
that is about 12% of the total landings.

Therefore, the problem of
discards needs to be thoroughly analysed on the basis of updated scientific
evidence also in the Mediterranean. Possible solutions to the problem will be
addressed in the Commission’s Action Plan on discards.

3.4.3. 
Environmental aspects

The Community Strategy to integrate
environmental protection requirements into the CFP and the Action Plan on
biodiversity are both as important in the Mediterranean as in any other area of
Community waters. However, this dimension maybe particularly relevant in
coastal areas of the Mediterranean, highly populated and already subject to
very high rates of utilisation: tourism, aquaculture, coastal fisheries, sport
fishing, industry, etc.

The need for integrated coastal zone management
is therefore of particular relevance. And, although the principle specified in
section 2.2 would generally exclude direct Community intervention in these
matters, there should be high Community-wide environmental quality standards.
The fact that fisheries not only has impacts on the environment but also is
affected upon by other human activities such as sand extraction and pollution,
particularly in coastal areas, contributes to the need for this approach.

Particular attention will be devoted to
mitigate possible incidental catches of protected species and to implement
Community Action Plans for elasmobranch and birds as requested by the FAO
International Plan of Actions.

Furthermore, special attention should also be
given to control, to gear characteristics and, perhaps, the banning of trawl
gears operating on hard bottom fishing grounds (e.g. inshore rocky areas,
offshore rocky outcrops, deep sea white coral, etc.) irrespective of depths
and distance from the coast.

Fishing vessels may, directly or indirectly,
contribute to the pollution of the marine environment through domestic wastes
discarded at sea, fuel and oil refilling operations and, finally, re-suspension
of pollutants contained in sea bed littoral sediments. Actions should be
identified to allow the fishing industry to fulfil its obligations to respect
air and water quality standards and, foremost, to avoid mechanical disturbance
of sediments enhancing the release of entrapped contaminants.

3.5. 
Control and
enforcement

The control of fishing in the Mediterranean
entails a deep knowledge of local fisheries and a high level of co-operation
between fishermen at local, national and international levels.

The landing sites are numerous, dispersed along
a very long coastline and on several islands, and catches are for the most part
marketed by direct sale, i.e. not passing through a market.

Despite this, the control of Community fishing
activities in the Mediterranean Sea has to be based on principles and measures
similar to those retained for other fishing areas, but adapted to local
circumstances. They should also always be adaptable to the development of the fisheries and management rules.

Generally, the Community has to define the
objectives of control as well as the guidelines for their attainment, with the
Member States having the responsibility of implementing them according to local
circumstances. The common provisions have to include the point of first sale,
and to be equally applicable to similar imported products.

More specific control programmes can, however,
be defined for individual fisheries.

The use of the VMS system for the monitoring of
fishing effort proves to be suitable for certain fleets and fisheries; its
extension to vessels of more than 10 metres overall length, as already proposed
by the Commission in the context of CFP reform, is also relevant to the
Mediterranean. Furthermore a revision of the current logbook system is needed.

To improve control and enforcement, a better
matching between vessel characteristics, fishing licences and fishing permits
is needed; in particular fishing vessels lacking adequate rigging and equipment
to haul a certain gear should not have on the fishing licence the authorisation
to use that specific gear. In certain fisheries the single net rule might prove
to be useful.

Particular attention should be given to set up
a control and reporting framework for recreational fisheries either targeting
shared and straddling stocks or competing with commercial fisheries which are
submitted to strict technical rules.

At the international level, even in the event
of an extension of fisheries jurisdiction, the Community should seek to

– strengthen the role of the GFCM, in order to
promote a harmonisation of control rules of fishing activities within a
multilateral framework. It is a short to medium term objective for the
Community to develop a commonly agreed control scheme at GFCM level applicable
to highly migratory fish,

– develop regional co-operation for resources
shared with certain non-EU countries (in the Adriatic sea, Aegean sea, Strait
of Sicily and Alboran Sea),

– fight against IUU fishing .

3.6. 
Improvement of scientific knowledge

Action to maintain and further develop high
standard fishery science is essential to support rational decision-making
procedures. Although improvement of scientific advice is subject to a separate
Communication from the Commission, there are some aspects in the specific
context of the Mediterranean worth highlighting.

Several EC- and nationally-funded research
projects carried out in the Mediterranean during the last twelve years have
permitted an enormous increase of scientific knowledge both of fisheries and
resources. In addition, these research activities have fostered collaboration
among different research institutions, enlarging the geographical scope of the
research and, first and foremost, the creation of a scientific network among
Mediterranean scientists.

The new Community framework of data collection,
laid down in Council Regulation (EC) No 1543/2000, will allow for substantial
improvements of the availability of scientific data about fishery resources and
Community Mediterranean fisheries. Hopefully, this will have positive effects
on the entire process of delivering fishery scientific advice. In 2004, after
two full years of application, the data collection Regulation could be revised
in order to make it more adapted to the needs of the Mediterranean scientific
community and fisheries.

However, scientific and technical literature on
fisheries and stock status still remains widely dispersed. Furthermore, it is
often in a format not yet suitable to provide advice for enforceable fishery
management actions at Community level.

For the fishery-related problems that are
predominantly of Community relevance, the Scientific, Technical and Economic
Committee for Fisheries of the Commission (STECF) might play an important role
to fill this gap and to provide relevant scientific advice. To this end a
specific STECF subgroup, namely SGMED, has been already set up. The
organisation of the STECF needs to be strengthened, both in terms of dedicated
human resources and financial and technical support. This issue is addressed in
a separate Commission Communication on the improvement of scientific advice for
fisheries management.

Scientific research must be assisted to set up
an adequate monitoring system, both through direct and indirect survey methods.
Moreover, it should be stimulated to set up a suitable precautionary framework,
providing both target and limit reference points, and identification of
appropriate harvesting rules also on a multi-annual basis.

3.7. 
Transparency and stakeholders involvement

The setting up of a Regional Advisory Council
for the Mediterranean, as envisaged in the new framework Regulation, should be
an important tool to improve the involvement of stakeholders in fisheries
policy development for this area. However, still more is needed in the
Mediterranean.

In the Mediterranean there is no tradition of
international fisheries management. Introducing a fully-fledged conservation
policy will require also the active involvement and participation of
stakeholders, particularly fishermen themselves, in the consultation process.
Even though there are important professional organisations in the Member States
concerned, there is less participation of fishermen in international fora.
However, as indicated by the “building on experience” principle (cf. section
2.4. above), there is much to be gained by improving stakeholders involvement
in this region.

At international level, the establishment of a
Mediterranean-wide fishermen’s association could provide the necessary boost to
enhanced co-operation and awareness about management issues. Bringing fishermen
together at international level should foster a similar process at national
level that will benefit those non-EU countries where fishermen are not yet
organised, thereby contributing to the development of responsible fisheries
throughout the Mediterranean. The Commission proposes to organise a Conference
to that effect in the course of 2003.

3.8. 
Relationship with other policies under the CFP

The Action Plan for the Mediterranean will also
have a bearing on other policies within the CFP:

-        Structual policy. Implementing an effort management
system will have obvious implications for the fisheries sector whose short term
economic impacts the FIFG could help mitigate. Simultaneously, support from the
FIFG must contribute to adapt fishing effort and capacity levels to the
biological potential of the groups of stocks concerned. Furthermore, structural
policy should also support the development of concentrating the first sale
market structure, i.e. reducing the effects of dispersion of landing sites, in
order to improve marketing. This might channel and concentrate the local
production at the most appropriate geographical scale, with fishermen
benefiting from a greater control of and closeness to market price formation
mechanisms. At the same time it would be extremely useful for other management
purposes, most notably data collection and a better control of landings.

-        Markets.
The minimum landing sizes should take into account the need to ensure, as much
as possible, similar conditions for different areas of the Community.
Otherwise, lower minimum landing sizes in some areas may undermine conservation
efforts in other Community areas.

-        Certain
aquaculture-type activities, such as tuna fattening, are new form of
exploitation of the wild bluefin tuna stock. This issue should therefore be
treated largely as a fisheries management question. The practice, developed
very quickly over the last few years in several Mediterranean countries (both
Community Member States and non EU Countries) is not under control at present,
and has raised a number of problems, identified by a joint ICCAT/GFCM working
group. The Community should promote, notably in the framework of international
organisations, a number of measures to ensure that this practice be developed
in a way that does not increase the fishing pressure on the wild stock,
particularly on juveniles, and that does not degrade the marine environment. In
this respect, measures to improve control and statistical data collection will
be necessary, and the limitation of the amount and the size of tuna used for
fattening also seem opportune.

Social consequences of the application of the
reform in the Mediterranean will be counteracted by adequate measures as
indicated in the roadmap on the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy
(COM(2002) 181 final).

4. 
Required actions at international level
4.1. 
Co-operation within multilateral fisheries organisations

The two regional fisheries organisations in the
Mediterranean (ICCAT and GFCM) have different degrees of development and
activity. ICCAT plays and should maintain an essential role in the management
of highly migratory species in the region. EC is committed to this organisation
at both management and scientific level, and it has been to the forefront in
pressing the on-going work within that organisation for the establishment of a
control and enforcement scheme.

GFCM, which is the most appropriate forum for
the management of demersal and small pelagic fisheries in the Mediterranean,
has made considerable strides in recent years, essentially due to initiatives
which have been taken by the Commission and Member States. Such improvement,
however, would not have been possible without the willingness and active
contribution of several Mediterranean scientists.

On its accession to the organisation in 1997,
the Community started an exercise to re-invigorate the operation of GFCM by
introducing changes in the Convention to permit a more modern working
environment and establish an operational, rather than a consultative,
organisation.

During these recent years, its Scientific
Advisory Committee (SAC) has constantly expanded its work, and after an initial
period of organisation, it produced at the last GFCM Plenary Session a number
of management recommendations on specific stocks (anchovy, hake, red mullet,
red shrimps,).

A further important development, resulting from
the joint work of SAC’s subsidiary bodies and FAO regional programmes, has been
the provisional definition of geographical areas in Mediterranean with the aim
to move towards a common definition of management areas. In addition, SAC has,
so far, identified 13 shared stocks in Mediterranean for purpose of common
management and additional shared stocks have been proposed within the framework
of the FAO regional programmes (cf. Annex 3).

The Community should actively support the
implementation, proposed by SAC and endorsed by GFCM Plenary Session in
September 2001, of the MedFISIS project whose goal is to build a regional
fishery statistics and information system that would allow the creation of a
common fisheries statistics database to be managed by the GFCM Secretariat. The
main impediment now within GFCM is at the financial level in that the
autonomous budget, has still not been ratified by the necessary number of
Parties. It is on this issue that the Commission should continue its efforts to
achieve speedy implementation.

Once the autonomous budget is in place, the
GFCM will have its necessary independence, and it is then the appropriate
timing for a political initiative to boost effective multilateral co-operation.
The international conferences of Crete in 1994 and Venice in 1996 set the
scenario to launch the reinforcement of the co-operation in fisheries
management in the region, and notably contributed to the parallel exercise to strengthen
GFCM through a revised Convention.

Another Multilateral Conference with the
adoption of a further General Declaration, whilst of general political
interest, would add little to the management process in the Mediterranean. For
these reasons, a Multilateral Conference at Ministers’ level with a well
targeted agenda should be organised. Such a conference should be launched under
the auspices of GFCM with an agenda devoted to two issues:

(a) the control and enforcement and the fight
against IUU activities, and

(b) the improvement of the scientific basis for
management, with emphasis on helping non-EU Parties to participate more
actively on scientific advice and management .

As regards scientific research in general, most
of the findings of the research projects in recent years have proved to be
useful to support scientific work within the scientific bodies of the Regional
Fisheries Organisations (RFOs) and of the FAO sub-regional projects[7]. However, initiatives still
need to be taken by the Community to support the scientific work carried out
within the Mediterranean RFOs and to strengthen their role to stimulate
scientific and technical activities among their Parties. The dispersal of
scientific information together with the absence of a unique scientific forum
where Mediterranean issues could be properly addressed, has so far weakened the
scientific advice provided by the Mediterranean scientific community and has
made it less operational for management purposes.

4.2. 
Harmonisation of measures in the Mediterranean
Basin

Although the Community should take the
initiative on fisheries management regardless of whether other countries of the
region follow, it is obvious that there is an interest in ensuring
harmonisation of the management measures applied in the region. The Community
should pursue the discussion and adoption of Mediterranean-wide management
measures, particularly within GFCM, to ensure as much consistency as possible
between the Community initiative and the management carried out by other
countries of the Mediterranean basin.

4.3. 
Co-operation among
States and among industries.

The Mediterranean basin is characterised by a
high number of coastal States with little tradition and means to ensure
fisheries management. A multilateral fisheries policy in this region should
have an active co-operation policy as a fundamental element. This co-operation
should be focused, most notably, on enhancing coastal States’ capability to
carry out their international obligations. Data collection, basic research and
monitoring and control of fishing activities are some of the possible actions
to be favoured in this context.

The current experience of co-operation at
sub-regional level is very encouraging. Participants have improved their
respective co-ordination with full exchange of information and participation
among the three projects. The Community could take the initiative to promote a
similar action in the Eastern Mediterranean, to complete the coverage of
sub-regional actions, which constitute the best basis on which the GFCM
Scientific Committee can build its work.

These actions are temporary, so the main
problem will be to insure their continuity in time and to encourage a very
strict co-ordination between these projects and the GFCM Scientific Committee
which should inherit their results notably in terms of research co-ordination,
data collection and data bases.

Therefore the Community should promote the
development of a Mediterranean-wide co-operation programme, using existing
financial frameworks as much as possible. The programme should address the need
for permanent data collection, for scientific research and for capacity
building in formulating scientific advice in fishery. Such a programme should
build upon existing sub-regional projects, but should ensure Mediterranean wide
coverage and permanence.

Furthermore, initiatives need to be taken to
foster and facilitate co-operation among Community and non-EU fishing
industries both in the capture and aquaculture sectors.

5. 
Action Plan: actions and timetable

Actions taken in the context of this Action
Plan should include the widest possible consultation with stakeholders, the
scientific community and national administrations at the earliest stages of the
process. This orientation should allow exchange of opinions, debate and final
agreement within the framework of ACFA, Advisory Committee for Fisheries and
Aquaculture, the STECF and the Council.

The Action Plan is presented as relevant
priority initiatives for the next 3 years.

Section || Actions || Observations || Timing

3.1 || A concerted approach to the jurisdiction of waters || Debate among the Member States involved || ad hoc meetings || 2003

Multilateral initiative || Conference of Ministers || 2003

3.2 || Reduction of overall fishing pressure: fishing effort regime and fleet policy || Legislation addressing the general framework for the management of Community fishing capacity || New Regulation for Community fleet policy || By the end of 2002

Legislation addressing fishing effort regime in the Mediterranean || New Regulation setting up annual fishing days ceiling, hours out of the port etc. || By the end of 2003

Specific provisions within the revision of technical measures regulation to reduce the fishing effort (see 3.4) || Dimension of fishing gears; maximum number of fishing gears by vessels, closed season, || By the first half of 2003

3.3 || Catch limitations || New TACs and quotas || || When scientific advice is available

3.4 || Improve fishing methods for conservation purposes || Revision of technical measures: Council Regulation No 1626/94 || Mesh sizes, mesh shape, rigging of gears, selection devices, minimum landing sizes, closed areas and seasons, authorised fishing gears, maximum dimensions of fishing gears || By the first half of 2003

New set of technical measures specifically addressing discard reduction in Community waters || - Communication on discards - Amendments to existing legislation || - Third quarter of 2002 - Starting in 2003

Actions to be taken within the framework of integration of environmental protection requirements into the CFP || - Communication with an Action Plan on integration of environmental protection requirements into the Common Fisheries Policy || - Second quarter of 2002

Review of derogations expiring by the end of 2002 || || By the end of 2002

4.5 || Improving control and enforcement || New specific legislation addressing control issues at Community level || || By the end of 2002

Control of fishing activities on the high seas and fishing activities by non-Mediterranean flag States || Ad-hoc conference involving all States whose fleets operate in the Mediterranean || 2003

Programme devising specific control campaigns for the Mediterranean || || 2002

Proposing the preparation of an international control system in GFCM || || 2004

4.6 || Improvement of scientific knowledge || Collection of biological, effort, economic and research survey data || Revision of Commission Regulation implementing Council Regulation 1543/2000 || End of 2003

Improvement of STECF organisation || - Communication on scientific advice - Revision of Commission Decision which set up the STECF, by including also financial provision || - Third quarter of 2002 - First quarter of 2003

Improvement of scientific base for management within GFCM || Multilateral conference || 2003

4.7 || Transparency and stakeholders involvement || Legal basis within the new framework legislation of CFP to establish Community Regional Advisory Committees || New basic Regulation || 2002

Support initiatives for the establishment of supranational coordination entity among Mediterranean fishermen Associations || Representatives of this supranational fishermen’s association might attend as observers to the meeting of RFOs || 2002 and 2003

Conference of Mediterranean fishermen’s associations || || 2003

Regional workshops || || 2002 and until RAC for Mediterranean is in place

5.1-5.3 || Strengthening of multilateral co-operation || Reinforcement and support to the Regional Fisheries Organizations, including scientific work || || Permanent

Multilateral Conference within GFCM || - Control and enforcement - Scientific advice || 2003

Support to the current FAO sub-regional projects || - COPEMED, ADRIAMED, MEDSUDMED - launch of initiatives for a possible programme in the Eastern-levantine basin || - 2003-2007 - 2004-2005

Continuation of FAO subregional projects || Follow up to ensure the continuity of the projects || As from where current projects end

ANNEX 1
Details on the Member States’ Mediterranean fleets

M.S. || Number of vessels || Share of EC fleet (Number of vessels) || Share of EC fleet (capacity) || Number of vessels smaller than 12m in length || Share of national Mediterranean fleet consisting of vessels smaller than 12m in length

GR || 20,157 || 22.1% || GT/GRT: 5.5% kW: 8.5% || 18,837 || 93.5%

I || 16,384 || 17.9% || GT/GRT: 11% kW: 17.8% || 11,412 || 69.7%

F || 1,658 || 1.8% || GT/GRT: 1.0% kW: 2.1% || 1,442 || 87%

E || 4,155 || 4.5% || GT/GRT: 4.9% kW: 5.1% || 2,251 || 54.2%

Total || 42,354 || || || 33,954 || 80.2%

(source: EC
fleet register, July 2002)

ANNEX II
Production trends by some major species, species group and FAO statistic
divisions

ANNEX III Some shared stocks and fisheries

The table has been constructed taking into
consideration deliberations of RFOs, FAO subregional programmes as well as
other source of information.

Common name || Scientific name || Areas || Some interested Countries || Fisheries || Some associated species*

Albacore || Thunnus alalunga || All Mediterranean || Several countries || Purse seine, drift longliners, || swordfish and other highly migratory species

Anchovy || Engraulis encrasicholus || Adriatic || Albania, Croatia, Fed. Rep. Yugoslavia, Italy, Slovenia, || Purse seine, Pelagic trawl, boat seine, bottom trawl || Sardine, sprat, horse mackerel, Mediterranean scad, mackerel, blue whiting, Broad-tail short fin squid, Common squid,

Gulf of Lions || Spain, France

Aegean Sea || Greece, Turkey

Blackspot seabrem || Pagellus bogaraveo || Alboran Sea || Spain, Morocco || Bottom trawlers, fixed gears || Blue-mouth rosefish

Bluefin tuna || Thunnus thynnus || All Mediterranean || Several countries || Purse seine, drift longliners || other highly migratory species

Blue whiting || Micromesistous poutassou || Adriatic || Albania, Croatia, Italy, Fed. Rep. Yugoslavia, || Bottom trawlers, purse seines || European hake, greater forkbeard, anglerfishes, John Dory, mackerel, Mediterranean poor cod, conger, horse mackerel, blue mouth rosefish, whiting, small spotted dog-fish, deepwater rose shrimp, Norway lobster, broad-tail short fin squid, curled octopus

Common pandora || Pagellus erythrinus || Tyrrhenian, Corsican and Sardinian seas || France Italy || Bottom trawlers, fixed gears || European hake, red mullet, Tub gurnard, curled octopus, musky octopus, cuttlefish, spot-tail mantis shrimps

Adriatic || Albania, Croatia, Italy, Fed Rep. Yugoslavia, Slovenia

Common name || Scientific name || Area || Some interested Countries || Fisheries || Some associated species

Common spiny lobster || Palinurus elephas || Tyrrhenian, Corsican and Sardinian seas || France Italy || Fixed gears, pots || conger, skates and rays, commomn octopus, sparids, wreckfish, groupers, Tub gurnard

Deepwater rose shrimp || Parapenaeus longirostris || Adriatic || Albania, Croatia, Fed. Rep. Yugoslavia, Italy, || Bottom trawlers || European hake, anglerfishes, mackerel, Mediterranean poor cod, blue whiting, horse mackerel, John Dory, Tub gurnard

Strait of Sicily || Italy, Libya Malta, Tunisia,

Dolphinfish || Coryphaena spp. || All Mediterranean || Several countries || FAD’s and purse seine || other highly migratory species, wreckfish

Eel || Anguilla anguilla || All Mediterranean || Several countries || traps, pots, fixed gears ||

European hake || Merluccius merluccius || Adriatic || Albania, Croatia, Fed. Rep. Yugoslavia, Italy || Bottom trawlers, fixed gears, longliners || red mullet, flounder, anglerfishes, John Dory, mackerel, Mediterranean poor cod, blue whiting, greater forkbeard horse mackerel, whiting, conger, scabbardfish, small spotted dog-fish, deepwater rose shrimp, Norway lobster, broad-tail short fin squid, common squid, common pandora, cuttlefish, common octopus, blue mouth rosefish, musky octopus, curled octopus, wreckfish, Tub gurnard

Aegean Sea || Greece, Turkey

Gulf of Lions || Spain, France

Strait of Sicily || Italy, Libya, Malta, Tunisia,

Tyrrhenian, Corsican and Sardinian seas || France, Italy

Common name || Scientific name || Area || Some interested Countries || Fisheries || Some associated species

Flounder || Platichthys flesus italicus || Adriatic || Croatia, Italy, Slovenia, || Bottom trawlers, “rapido” dredges || other flatfishes and benthic organisms, red mullet, hake

Great scallop || Pecten jacobeus || Adriatic || Croatia, Italy, Slovenia, || Dredges, Bottom trawlers || flounder and other flatfishes

Large pelagic elasmobranchs || Isurus oxyrhinchus, Lamna nasus, Prionace glauca, etc. || All Mediterranean || Several Countries || Longliners, lines, fixed gears, purse seine || other highly migratory species

Norway lobster || Nephrops norvegicuss || Adriatic || Albania, Croatia, Italy, Fed. Rep. Yugoslavia, || Bottom trawlers || European hake, greater forkbeard, anglerfishes, John Dory, small spotted dog-fish, conger, blue whiting deepwater rose shrimp, broad-tail short fin squid, blue mouth rosefish, wreckfish

Strait of Sicily || Italy, Libya, Malta, Tunisia

Tyrrhenian, Corsican and Sardinian seas || France, Italy

Red mullet || Mullus barbatus || Adriatic || Albania, Croatia, Fed. Rep. Yugoslavia, Italy, Slovenia, || Bottom trawlers, fixed gears || common sole, common pandora, seabreams, seabass, mackerel, flounder, Mediterranean scad, spurdog, anglerfish, smooth-hound, cuttlefish, musky octopus, curled octopus, common squid, common octopus, spot-tail mantis shrimps, Tub gurnard

Red mullets || Mullus barbatus Mullus surmuletus || Tyrrhenian, Corsican and Sardinian seas || France, Italy || Bottom trawlers, fixed gears || common sole, common pandora, seabreams, seabass, mackerel, Mediterranean scad, spurdog, anglerfish, smooth-hound, cuttlefish, musky octopus, curled octopus, common squid, common octopus, Tub gurnard

Common name || Scientific name || Area || Some interested Countries || Fisheries || Some associated species

Red shrimps || Aristeus antennatus Aristeomorpha foliacea || Alboran Sea ||  Morocco, Spain || Bottom trawlers, pots || hake, anglerfish, conger, greater forkbeard, black-mouthed dogfish, scabbardfish, cephalopods, Norway lobster, blue mouth rosefish, wreckfish

Ionian Sea || Greece, Italy, non EU countries

Strait of Sicily || Italy, Libya, Malta, Spain, Tunisia,

Tyrrhenian, Corsican and Sardinian seas || France, Italy, Spain

Sardine || Sardina pilchardus || Adriatic || Albania, Croatia, Fed. Rep. Yugoslavia, Italy, Slovenia, || Pelagic trawl, purse seine, boat seine, bottom trawl || Anchovy, sprat, horse mackerel, Mediterranean scad, mackerel, blue whiting, Broad-tail short fin squid, Common squid

Gulf of Lions || Spain, France

Aegean Sea || Greece, Turkey

Sparids || Several species || Tyrrhenian, Corsican and Sardinian seas || France Italy || Bottom trawlers, other towed gears, Fixed gears, longliners || Scorpionfishes, seabass, picarels, common octopus, wreckfish, groupers, Tub gurnard, common spiny lobster

Sprat || Sprattus sprattus || Adriatic || Croatia, Italy, Slovenia || Pelagic trawl, bottom trawl || Anchovy, Sardine, horse mackerel, Mediterranean scad, mackerel, Broad-tail short fin squid, Common squid

Sturgeons || Acipenser spp. Huso huso || Adriatic, Ionian and Aegean seas || Albania, Croatia, Fed. Rep. Yugoslavia,Greece, Italy, Slovenia, Turkey, || Bottom trawlers, fixed gears, longliners ||

Common name || Scientific name || Area || Some interested Countries || Fisheries || Some associated species

Swordfish || Xiphias gladius || All Mediterranean || Several countries || Drift longliners || other highly migratory species

- Species are not listed in order of
importance and not all species are present in all of the listed areas.

ANNEX IV
Provisional and non-exhaustive list of fisheries that might be affected by
measures controlling fishing effort

1.       Otter bottom trawlers
targeting a mixed of species

2.       Otter bottom trawlers
targeting deep water crustaceans

3.       Towed gears targeting
selective species (Aphia minuta, fries of Sardine, etc.)

4.       High opening bottom
trawl and pelagic trawlers targeting demersal and benthopelagic species

5.       Pelagic trawlers
targeting small pelagic species

6.       Purse seines targeting
small pelagic species

7.       Purse seiners targeting
highly migratory species

8.       Gillnet and longline
fisheries targeting hake

9.       Longline and entangling
fixed gears fisheries targeting blackspot seabream and/or other hermaphroditic
species

10.     Longline fisheries
targeting highly migratory species

11.     Dredges for scallops

12.     Fixed gears targeting
other shared stocks

[1]               Data Source: “Regional socio-economic studies on
employment and the level of dependency on fishing” (1999).

[2]               General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean

[3]               COPEMED, ADRIAMED and MEDSUDMED

[4]               International Council for the Exploration of the Sea

[5]               Internationl Commission for the Conservation of
Atlantic Tunas

[6]               Cf. Report of the sixth GFCM-ICCAT meeting on stocks
of large pelagic fishes in the Mediterranean, section 5 p.13, on potential
management effects of bluefin tuna fattening: “General increase in fishing
effort of PS and, in near future, probable increase towards small to medium
size bluefin tuna”.

[7]               ADRIAMED, COPEMED, MEDSUDMED