# EUR-Lex - 52011DC0418 - EN

*|*

# 52011DC0418

**REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS On Reporting Obligations under Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy /* COM/2011/0418 final */**

			*

			*

1.
Introduction

Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 on the
conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the
Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) obliges the Commission to report to the European
Parliament and the Council on the operation of the CFP with respect to chapters
II (Conservation and Sustainability) and III (Adjustment of Fishing
Capacity) of that regulation before the end of 2012[1]. Under the same Regulation, the
Commission is also obliged to report on the arrangements set out in Article 17
paragraph 2 on fishing restrictions in the 12 nautical miles waters by 31
December 2011[2].
This report complements the reporting in the Green Paper on the Reform of the
Common Fisheries Policy[3].

2.
Chapters II and III
2.1.
Chapter II – Conservation and Sustainability

Since 2002, multi-annual recovery and
management plans with clear objectives and harvest rules have become the core of
the conservation policy. They balance ecological requisites (state of the
stocks and exploitation rates) and economic and social considerations (stability
of catches). Effort management and specific inspection and monitoring provisions
were introduced in these plans where relevant. Community plans were adopted for
17 stocks in the EU waters. There is also a plan for recovery of stocks of the
European eel, and additional proposals currently under negotiation or
preparation (see Annex I). By the end of 2010, around 25 % of the stocks
and 80 % of the catches concerned (in tonnes) can be considered under
multi-annual plans and harvest rules (either as Council Regulations,
Commission/Council statements, as Commission proposals or as plans agreed with
third parties, such as Regional Fisheries Management Organisations and Norway).

Council also adopted regulations on
conservation in the Mediterranean Sea, on technical measures for the Baltic
Sea, and on specific fishing effort provisions for the Western Waters. Since
2004, the deep-sea fisheries have been brought under bi-annual management of
fishing opportunities. A high-grading ban was gradually introduced for the
Atlantic, North Sea and Baltic Sea in 2009/2010. No agreement was possible with
Council on a proposal for technical measures for the Atlantic and North Sea
areas that would have allowed for simplification and adjustment to regional
specificities.

The Commission presented Communications on
improving scientific and technical advice; on the ecosystems approach to marine
management; on the implementation of maximum sustainable yields; and on
discards. Regarding integration of environmental considerations in the
fisheries policy, concrete progress was achieved, including the adoption of
legislative measures. An overview of these initiatives is listed in the
Communication on the ecosystem approach to marine management[4]. This includes a number of
Natura 2000 areas where the CFP was asked to provide for the necessary rules on
fishing activities. A limited number of measures were taken under Articles 7, 8
and 9 of the chapter.

Since 2006, the Commission has presented its
working method for proposals for decisions on annual fishing opportunities.
This offers transparency in the way the fishing opportunities are set. The 2010
Communication showed improvements in the situation since 2003: a decrease in
the numbers of stocks outside safe biological limits, as well as in stocks for
which a fishing closure has been advised. However, of the stocks for which
robust data is available, over 60 % is still fished beyond maximum
sustainable yield. Progress has been made as regards the levels of Total
Allowable Catches (TAC) adopted by Council, compared to sustainable catch
levels: on average, Council exceeded advice by 45 %, with peaks as high as
59 % (2005) and 51 % (2008), but the gap between the advice and the
result has narrowed in the last two years, and the 23 % gap in the
decision for 2011 is unprecedented. There has been an increase in the number of
stocks for which no scientific advice is available (see also Annex II)[5].

From this overview it can be confirmed that:

· Multi-annual plans are more effective in taking a long-term
perspective in managing stocks than the annual TAC decision-making, especially
since Council has started to respect the rules of the plans for the TACs.

· Nevertheless, the framework resulting from the 2002 CFP reform has not
curbed overfishing enough, so EU fisheries continue to see declining catches taken
from EU waters.

· The very significant gap between the levels of TACs agreed in
Council and sustainable catches confirms the prevalence of short-term concerns
over long-term sustainability. This continues to put stocks at further risk,
though the recent narrowing of the gap is a significant step forward.

· While vital to sound policy making, the knowledge base is under
constant pressure, impeding progress in the coverage of stocks for which
scientific advice is provided.

· Finally, the new CFP needs to provide the right tools for
integrating the ecosystems approach fully into conservation and sustainability.

2.2.
Chapter III – Adjustment of Fishing Capacity

In 2002, responsibility for adjusting the size
of the fleet was devolved to Member States. From then on, targets for mandatory
cuts to fishing capacity were no longer set. Nevertheless, there were still
global limits on fishing capacity per Member State, and these have been complied
with. However, it is clear that there is still significant over-capacity, and
this is still a serious problem. The devolution of fleet management to Member
States has not led to sufficient cuts in fleet capacity, even if nominal
capacity is within the ceilings set for Member States. Adjustment has been
relatively slow, despite the poor state of stocks throughout the EU. The drop
in fleet capacity decrease is nominal, and has stayed below what is considered
the technological development rate of the fleet. As there are no real yardsticks
for success, it has not been possible to verify what progress has actually been
made. In short, the policy on adjusting the size of the fleet has not delivered
satisfactory results.

There are two pillars to the fleet capacity
management measures. One is the entry-exit regime, which requires new capacity
to be balanced by withdrawing an equivalent amount, both in terms of tonnage
and power. The other is a bar on replacing capacity withdrawn with public aid.
These provisions were developed in implementing rules combining both pillars
(with provisions allowing for a tonnage increase for safety reasons), so as to
calculate fleet capacity ceilings for each Member State’s fleet. Additional
provisions were developed to manage the transition between the old and the new
regimes. This is positive, as it prevents aggravation of the problem.

All Member States have complied with legal
fishing capacity limitations. Though some had difficulties when the new rules came
into force, today most Member States have fleets with capacity under the ceilings
they are allowed. This margin averages 10 % in tonnage and 8 % in
power. This means that reductions in the size of the fleet were partly achieved
without public aid.

Specific treatment was introduced for fleets
registered in the outermost regions of the European Union by means of Council
Regulation (EC) No 639/2004[6].
This excluded fleets in these regions from the general fleet management rules, and
set limits on capacity per fleet segment defined for Azores, Madeira, the
French overseas departments and the Canary Islands. The regime has worked
satisfactorily, although increases to capacity limitations for some segments
were required.

Given that Member States have complied with
fishing capacity management rules, Article 16 on the conditionality EU funds
for the fleet has never been applied.

The reference levels under Article 12 are
additional limits to fishing capacity, both in terms of tonnage and power. They
do not apply to the Member States which joined the EU after 2003, and represent
no additional constraint in relation to the capacity ceilings resulting from
the entry-exit regime. The EU Fleet Register has performed well as a tool to
monitor compliance with fishing capacity management rules.

Finally, Member States are obliged to report on
fleet capacity, and this is an essential component of the policy. The results assessed
are not satisfactory. Member States have reported to the Commission annually,
providing information for the Commission's annual report on the state of the fleet.
However, the reports might have been expected to show an excess of fishing
capacity, the most important issue at stake, and the data available is
inconclusive. The reporting tool has not enabled precise estimates of excess
fishing capacity per segment or fishery.

In view of the above, some conclusions can be
drawn concerning the performance of the fishing capacity management provisions:

· Despite compliance with the fishing capacity management rules
defined at EU level, there are still clear indications of over-capacity in the
EU fleet, namely: excess of fishing mortality in some stocks, low profitability
and low capacity utilisation.

· While tonnage is a reliable fishing capacity indicator, the
Commission has serious concerns about the reported power of fishing vessels, as
the data suggest under-declaration, making it extremely difficult to estimate fleet
capacity accurately.

· The policy is static, in that it only establishes a ceiling, with no
specific objectives for reduction. Compliance with nominal capacity limits
under these ceilings does not mean that there is no persistent overcapacity. The
system does not integrate technical progress into the management measures.
However, due to technological progress, a static capacity ceiling leads to
overcapacity.

· It has proven very difficult to set clear objectives for the size of
the fleet and to monitor the balance between fishing capacity and fishing
opportunities due to the complexity inherent in quantifying over-capacity.
Determining an adequate level for the size of the fleet given a certain amount
of fishing possibilities needs to take into account factors other than the biological
and economic.

3.
Article 17.2 – Fishing restrictions in the 12
nautical miles waters

The authorisation for specific fishing
restrictions under article 17 paragraph 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002
expires on 31 December 2012 with an obligation for the Commission to report to
the European Parliament and the Council on the arrangements set out in the
paragraph.

The objectives related to introduction (before
entry into force of the CFP) of specific arrangements in the waters up to 12
nautical miles as formulated in Article 17(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002
were:

·
conservation of fish resources through allowing
only small-scale coastal fleets into the area. These fleets generally exert
less fishing pressure in areas which may include the most sensitive EU waters,
and include spawning areas, and

·
preservation of coastal fleets' traditional fishing
activities to maintain the social and economic infrastructure of these areas.

These specific restriction provisions were
introduced in the CFP in 1983 and have been extended with every reform of the
policy since.

Since 2002, the EU has taken in new members on
two occasions. The Acts of Accession in 2004 (10 Member States) and 2007 (two
Member States) make no specific reference to the 12 nautical miles regime, and
no amendments were proposed or made to Annex I of Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002.

Commission services surveyed the Member States
concerned and affected by the regime. In addition to the arrangements listed in
Annex I, eight Member States reported on the presence of arrangements under
existing neighbourhood relations outside Annex I, most of which are reciprocal,
although this is not a legal prerequisite. No requests were made to include
these or other arrangements into Annex I of Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002
(Denmark and Germany have requested a corrigendum in 2008). Most of the new
Member States plus Greece have not had specific reciprocal access arrangements
in place. They restrict fishing in the 12 nautical miles area to their national
fleets, and have no fishing activities in the 12 nautical miles area of other
Member States. A number of Member States introduced specific (technical)
conservation measures for vessels fishing within these areas, contributing to
conservation as referred to in recital 11 in Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002.

Since 2002, the Commission was not informed of
(real) problems or conflicts on specific restrictions, whether on setting them,
or on their management and functioning. Member States were able to resolve
problems without having to refer any of them to the Commission. The regime is
very stable, and the rules have continued to operate satisfactorily. All Member
States stressed the importance of the specific restrictions in the light of
their original objectives in their reactions to the Green Paper on CFP reform. One
Member State suggested extending the 6-12 miles regime to 10-20 miles to achieve
the regime’s objectives more effectively.

Considering the current conservation state of
many stocks, and the continued sensitivity of coastal waters for conservation,
as well as ongoing difficulties in coastal areas highly dependent on fisheries and
unlikely to benefit from other economic development, the objectives for the
specific regime appear to remain as valid as they were in 2002. Modifying
current arrangements might disrupt the current balance that has developed since
the introduction of the special regime.

Annex I – Recovery and/or Management
Plans adopted by Council since 2003

Council Regulation (EC) No. || Type of plan || Species (number of stocks) || Areas

423/2004 || Recovery || Cod (4) || Kattegat, Skagerrak, North Sea, Eastern Channel, West of Scotland, Irish Sea

811/2004 || Recovery || Northern hake (1) || Kattegat, Skagerrak, North Sea, Channel, West of Scotland, around Ireland, Bay of Biscay

2115/2005 || Recovery || Greenland Halibut (1) || Northwest Atlantic

2166/2005 || Recovery || Southern Hake (2) & Norway Lobster (1) || Cantabrian Sea, Western Iberian peninsula waters

388/2006 || Management || Sole (1) || Bay of Biscay

509/2007 || Recovery & Management || Sole (1) || Western Channel

676/2007 || Recovery & Management || Plaice (1) & Sole (1) || North Sea

1098/2007 || Recovery || Cod (2) || Baltic Sea

1100/2007 || Recovery || European eel (1) || MS estuaries/rivers into ICES areas III-IX and Mediterranean

1559/2007 || Recovery || Bluefin tuna (1) || Eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean

1300/2008 || Recovery & Management || Herring (1) || West of Scotland

1342/2008 || Recovery & Management || Cod (4) || Kattegat, Skagerrak, North Sea, Eastern Channel, West of Scotland, Irish Sea

Annex
II - Stocks under annual fishing opportunities in the North-East Atlantic and
adjacent waters – 2003 - 2011

Scientific advice about the state of the stock || No. of fish stocks

|| 2003 || 2004 || 2005 || 2006 || 2007 || 2008 || 2009 || 2010 || 2011 || Average

Outside safe biological limits || 30 || 29 || 26 || 26 || 26 || 28 || 27 || 22 || 19 || 26

Inside safe biological limits || 12 || 10 || 14 || 11 || 12 || 13 || 12 || 15 || 15 || 13

The state of the stock is unknown due to poor data || 48 || 53 || 53 || 57 || 58 || 55 || 57 || 60 || 61 || 56

Scientific advice about overfishing || 2003 || 2004 || 2005 || 2006 || 2007 || 2008 || 2009 || 2010 || 2011 || Average

The rate of fishing on the stock is known compared to maximum sustainable yield rate || || || 34 || 23 || 32 || 33 || 35 || 39 || 35 || 33

The stock is overfished || || || 32 || 21 || 30 || 29 || 30 || 28 || 22 || 27

The stock is fished at the maximum sustainable yield rate || || || 2 || 2 || 2 || 4 || 5 || 11 || 13 || 6

Difference between TACs and sustainable catches || 2003 || 2004 || 2005 || 2006 || 2007 || 2008 || 2009 || 2010 || 2011 || Average

Excess of TAC over sustainable catch (as advised by ICES/STECF according to the precautionary approach) in percentage of fish stocks || 46% || 49% || 59% || 47% || 45% || 51% || 48% || 34% || 23% || 45%

Summary of the scientific advice about fishing opportunities || 2003 || 2004 || 2005 || 2006 || 2007 || 2008 || 2009 || 2010 || 2011 || Average

Stocks where stock size and fishing mortality can be forecast || 40 || 34 || 40 || 31 || 29 || 30 || 34 || 36 || 36 || 34

Stocks where a scientific advice concerning fishing opportunities is available || 59 || 52 || 54 || 65 || 61 || 62 || 63 || 55 || 55 || 58

Stocks where no scientific advice is available || 31 || 40 || 39 || 29 || 35 || 34 || 33 || 42 || 40 || 36

[1]               In accordance with article 35 of Council Regulation
(EC) No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the conservation and sustainable
exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy .

[2]               In accordance with article 17 paragraph 2 of Council
Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002.

[3]               Communication from the Commission on the Reform of
the Common Fisheries Policy - COM(2009) 163, 22.4.2009.

[4]               Communication from the Commission to the Council and
the European Parliament — The role of the CFP in implementing an ecosystem
approach to marine management - COM(2008) 187, 11.4.2008.

[5]               Communication from the Commission — Consultation on
Fishing Opportunities - COM(2010) 241, 17.5.2010 -, and internal Commission
figures for 2011.

[6]               Council Regulation (EC) No 639/2004 of 30 March 2004
on the management of fishing fleets in the Community outermost regions.