EN Official Journal of the European Union C 389/67

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the conservation of fishery resources and the protection of marine ecosystems through technical measures, amending Council Regulations (EC) No 1967/2006, (EC) No 1098/2007, (EC) No 1224/2009 and Regulations (EU) No 1343/2011 and (EU) No 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Council Regulations (EC) No 894/97, (EC) No 850/98, (EC) No 2549/2000, (EC) No 254/2002, (EC) No 812/2004 and (EC) No 2187/2005

[COM(2016) 134 final — 2016/0074 (COD)]

(2016/C 389/09)

Rapporteur:

Gabriel SARRÓ IPARRAGUIRRE

On 7 April 2016 and 11 April 2016 respectively, the Council and the European Parliament decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Articles 43(2) and 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, on the:

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the conservation of fishery resources and the protection of marine ecosystems through technical measures, amending Council Regulations (EC) No 1967/2006, (EC) No 1098/2007, (EC) No 1224/2009 and Regulations (EU) No 1343/2011 and (EU) No 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Council Regulations (EC) No 894/97, (EC) No 850/98, (EC) No 2549/2000, (EC) No 254/2002, (EC) No 812/2004 and (EC) No 2187/2005

[COM(2016) 134 final — 2016/0074 (COD)].

The Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment, which was responsible for preparing the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 30 June 2016.

At its 518th plenary session, held on 13 and 14 July 2016 (meeting of 13 July 2016), the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 74 votes in favour with one abstention.

1. Conclusions

1.1. The Committee fully supports the Commission’s approach regarding the need to update and simplify how technical measures are currently governed; this governance should be based on a long-term strategy to manage and conserve resources.

1.2. Several of the new elements and changes that are proposed would directly help the fishing fleet to adapt to the landing obligation (LO) and the maximum sustainable yield (MSY). The EESC cannot but welcome this, since these reforms would offer greater operational flexibility and would foster more selectivity of fishing gears.

1.3. However, some of the proposals do not take the practical conditions of fishing activities fully into consideration and do not assess the social and economic impact. The Committee is not convinced that these proposals represent a reasonable compromise between safeguarding the fisheries sector’s short- and medium-term interests and conserving fishery resources. In this connection, the EESC would like to pay particular attention to the following aspects:

1.3.1. The Committee calls on the Commission to review the proposed changes in mesh sizes and to use the baseline meshes that have been employed by the fleet for various fisheries without unjustified or unnecessary increases or decreases.

1.3.2. The Committee reiterates the importance of not using the proposal to modify the minimum sizes that are applied for certain species, without the necessary justification.

1.3.3. The Committee is of the opinion that rules that enable innovation and value creation in relation to unwanted catches should be introduced.

1.3.4. The Committee urges greater flexibility in terms of the caps on fishing capacity measured in gross tonnage (GT) imposed on Member States by the common fisheries policy (CFP) so as to adapt vessels to the LO and to promote the improvement of working conditions on board.

1.4. The Committee asks the Council, the European Parliament and the Commission to establish a genuine dialogue with fishermen and their representatives before taking any decision on the proposals. The tacit agreement and cooperation of fishermen are needed if the rules are to be respected, which is more likely if fishermen are fully involved in the debate.

1.5. The Committee calls for this commitment to dialogue with stakeholders to be upheld throughout the entire regionalisation process.

2. Background

2.1. Technical measures constitute a vast collection of rules governing how, where and when fishing activities may be carried out. There is currently a large number of regulations, amendments, implementing rules and temporary technical measures applicable both in EU waters and to EU vessels operating outside EU waters. In practice, more than 30 regulations contain technical measures; the regulations that apply to the Atlantic (1), the Mediterranean (2) and the Baltic (3) are particularly significant.

2.2. There have been two unsuccessful past attempts to revise and update this complex legal framework of technical measures upon proposals from the Commission.

2.3. There is an urgent need to adapt EU fisheries legislation and policies to the new changes introduced under the CFP, i.e. the LO and the progressive and incremental achievement of the MSY for all stocks by 2020 at the latest. Bringing in these objectives is a major challenge for the EU fishing industry.

2.4. It should also be noted that until recently, fisheries policy decisions were taken exclusively by the Council. This meant that technical measures were adopted in detail as EU regulations, rather than being rules, developed on a regional basis, that took into account the specific characteristics of each basin and fishery. In this regard, the comprehensive micro-managed approach, together with the EU institutions’ desire to list all the technical details in the form of amendments, have given rise to a complex legal system that leaves little room for manoeuvre and that the industry finds difficult to understand and comply with.

2.5. The Commission is now proposing a new framework regulation (4) containing general provisions and common rules as well as baseline standards (by region) to act as default measures until regionally specific measures are drawn up and enshrined in EU law.

3. Summary of the Commission proposal

3.1. The Commission hopes that its proposal will contribute to achieving the key objectives of the new CFP in a flexible and regionally specific way. In particular, it signals the need to reduce catches of juveniles and spawning fish of marine species, increase the selectivity of fishing gears, prevent catches of protected species, reduce discards, and minimise environmental impacts.

3.2. In order to meet these goals, the Committee has put forward a text that aims to simplify the current governance system relating to technical measures; this proposal is based on a long-term strategy to manage and conserve resources. In the proposal for a regulation, the Commission devotes particular attention to the issue of discards, regionalisation, more stakeholder participation and increased responsibility for fishermen.

3.3. The principal new elements and changes are as follows: — Consolidating and updating objectives, targets, thresholds for bycatch of sensitive species, good governance principles, and definitions previously subject to different rules. — Establishing common technical rules and measures applicable to all sea basins and considered to be permanent. These measures include prohibited fishing gears and practices, general conditions and restrictions on the use of towed gears and static nets, protection of sensitive species and habitats, minimum sizes for the purposes of conservation, and common measures to reduce discards. — Developing regionalisation by establishing baseline measures, mainly in the annexes to the proposal, which will apply in the absence of regional measures. In addition, the competences for regionalising technical measures are to be put in place by adopting multiannual plans, temporary discard plans, and conservation measures. A safeguard clause is also included in the event of emergency measures to protect marine species.

4. General comments

4.1. Introductory comments

4.1.1. The current rules on technical measures constitute the most obsolete legal framework that we currently have and as such the EESC believes that it is vitally important that this new simplified regulation is swiftly adopted in order to allow the sector to practically and viably adapt to the challenges that are facing it.

4.1.2. The Committee is of the opinion that technical measures should be adopted after a direct and satisfactory consultation with stakeholders. These technical measures must be more flexible and responsive to specific needs, and the decision-making process to adopt them must be fast and efficient, making it possible to adapt to new developments.

4.1.3. The CFP reform has introduced an innovative strategy regarding fisheries management, which rests on shifting towards an approach based on results and on bringing in regionalisation. The Committee fully agrees with this new approach.

4.2. Conservation

4.2.1. The Committee fully supports the Commission’s strategy of deleting or simplifying (about half of) those areas that are closed or restricted to fishing to protect juveniles and that are no longer operational or are obsolete due to the industry’s efforts, the recovery of stocks, or environmental changes.

4.2.2. The Committee also supports dedicating all efforts to improving technical measures as a way to improve the state of fishing zones and to facilitate their conservation, based on the advice of the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) and taking into account the comments of Member States, the fisheries sector and other stakeholders.

4.3. Economic and social impacts

4.3.1. It is clear that many of the proposed rules will require major changes in fishing methods and gears, which will have a tangible socioeconomic impact. The Commission recognises that the new CFP-related challenges will have a considerable short-term impact on the fisheries sector; nonetheless, this sector will benefit in the long term. To date, however, the Commission has not made any attempt to estimate the short-term social and economic costs that implementing the proposal would entail. The Committee is of the opinion that the lack of this information is standing in the way of determining whether the proposal strikes a reasonable balance between safeguarding the fisheries sector’s short- and medium-term interests and conserving fishery resources.

4.3.2. To counteract the short-term negative effects (e.g. reduction in catches of targeted species and new expenditure to purchase equipment) on both shipowners and fishermen, the Committee considers it appropriate to support the catching sector by means of the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF).

4.3.3. The EESC finds that the proposal does not provide any kind of impact assessment on safety at sea. The new fishery policies pose potential risks to crew safety (e.g. longer working hours for processing bycatches) and to the safety of vessels (e.g. the stability of boats due to increased bycatches), which should be analysed and taken into account.

4.4. Implementation and compliance

4.4.1. The new basic CFP regulation (5) provides for various technical and conservation measures in order to achieve the abovementioned objectives. The most important measure to achieve this aim would be multiannual plans, which will establish the framework for the sustainable exploitation of the stocks and marine ecosystems concerned and, in particular, should include appropriate technical measures (Article 10(1)(f)).

4.4.2. The Commission believes that the proposal is needed to ensure legal certainty while awaiting the approval of multiannual management plans, thus providing a transitional solution regarding how to adapt the current legal system to the new CFP requirements as regards technical measures. The EESC is of the opinion that this transition is necessary.

4.4.3. The Committee signals that in order to properly develop and implement regionalisation, the EC should put forward both multiannual plans and discard plans based on the Member States’ joint recommendations in order to avoid reverting to micromanagement. The EC should limit its role to monitoring and managing the compatibility of Member States’ proposals with the aim of achieving the CFP objectives. This will ensure that these measures to adapt to the new realities of fishing will be swiftly adopted, by means of a ‘bottom-up’ approach that will gain greater acceptance in the industry.

4.5. Regionalisation and the decision-making process

4.5.1. The Committee agrees that in order to avoid a legal vacuum, it is vital to maintain some basic common measures — limited to setting common definitions, principles and objectives in line with the new CFP — that are applicable to all fisheries and regions.

4.5.2. However, the Committee wishes to emphasise the fact that the current model of fisheries management will change dramatically once all the successive legislative phases of the LO enter into force. The approach will shift its emphasis from landings of fish to focus on catches. Thus it is of the utmost importance that the co-legislators avoid repeating the mistakes of the past; they must accept that prescriptive EU technical measures are decided at regional level, in close consultation with those who must implement and comply with the rules on a daily basis.

4.5.3. In addition, the EESC believes that the Commission should foster a climate of trust, enabling fishermen to exercise the freedom to choose the most appropriate tools to achieve greater selectivity and to reduce incidental catches. It must not be forgotten that fishermen will be fully responsible for the catches made, and not for what they land; thus they must be allowed to decide on the best selective measures.

4.5.4. Unfortunately, the Commission has not applied this approach in a harmonised way when it comes to freely choosing optimal mesh size, and there are differences in the text regarding the mesh size for small pelagic species and demersal species. There has been a drastic reduction in the mesh size for pelagic species, while for demersal species, it has increased. This regulation must not be used to increase the minimum mesh sizes currently used by fishermen without proper justification. We must not forget that fishermen seek the maximum economic benefit from the sale of the species they catch and they will try not to catch non-target species and juvenile fish as they will be deducted from their quotas and may only be sold to produce meal, oil, or similar products with a very low value at first sale.

4.5.5. Regionalisation entails more stakeholder involvement. Legislating in close cooperation with Member States, advisory councils, those working in the fishing industry, scientists, and other stakeholders has many advantages, including: clearer and simpler rules that are better tailored to the specificities of each basin and fishery; high level of compliance among fishermen; easier applicability by inspectors; more credibility and legitimacy for the policies; better alignment with environmental objectives; and increased selectivity of fishing. The Committee therefore recommends that the technical measures regarding fishing gears be developed and adopted at local and regional level.

4.5.6. A good example to demonstrate the negative effects of not complying with the previous approach can be found in the Mediterranean fleet, which has experienced serious difficulties due to the introduction of specific and obligatory rules (6), such as reducing twine thickness. This technical measure has caused problems for the safety and manoeuvrability of boats; significantly more tears in nets due to the fact that the netting is weaker and less resistant; and a reduction in catch price and an unnecessary increase in discards due to the damage caused by using such a fine and sharp thread.

4.6. Incentives for fishermen: elimination, reduction and prevention of unwanted catches

4.6.1. The Committee believes that the full participation of the fishing industry in the decision-making process, via its employers’ associations and trade unions, will provide a huge incentive to achieve the highest levels of compliance and better understanding of the rules.

4.6.2. Recital 21 of the proposal stipulates that Member States should put in place measures, such as storage and finding commercial outlets for unwanted species, to assist the catching sector in implementing the LO. However, support for investment in the construction and adaptation of landing sites is the only element that is specifically mentioned. The Committee believes that on-board investments for the storage, processing and added value of unwanted catches should also be mentioned.

4.6.3. Moreover, adapting vessels to the discard ban is hampered by the size limits (GT) imposed by the CFP: irrespective of the greater selectivity of the fishing gears used, the discard ban will lead to more unwanted catches that must be stored and/or processed on board. Given this state of affairs, the Committee suggests making the system more flexible (7). Therefore, it recommends that any renovations or alterations of a vessel that increase its size (due to the installation of additional storage or equipment to process unwanted catches) should be entered in a separate register or on a separate line of the register recording the total tonnage of fishing vessels.

4.6.4. Furthermore, the Committee believes that an increase in size should not be considered as an increase in fishing capacity. Thus the procedure set out in the preceding paragraph should also apply, when a vessel is being renovated, to an increase in size caused by measures to improve crew safety and on-board working conditions and accommodation, provided that this increase in size does not increase the vessel’s capacity to catch fish.

4.6.5. The fishing industry has made enormous efforts in recent years to develop high-tech fishing methods to minimise discards and their potential environmental impact. Indeed, the STECF has repeatedly emphasised that ‘more has been achieved in terms of improved selectivity in the last four years than in the previous twenty years’. However, the Committee insists on the need to dedicate more effort and funding to demersal fisheries in order to promote technological progress in terms of selectivity.

4.6.6. The EESC reiterates the importance of not using this regulation in order to alter — without the necessary justification — the minimum sizes that are applied for certain species. On the one hand, the size is being increased in some cases, such as the Mediterranean red sea bream, while this minimum size is being expanded into areas where there had previously been no plans to apply it (western waters). In the case of bass, the increased size approved in late 2015 for some areas (north western waters) is being expanded into areas that were not included in this rule (south western waters).

5. Specific comments on individual articles

5.1. Article 6

In view of the confusion that many unclear definitions cause in the sector concerned, the EESC believes that when these definitions relate to fishing gear, or a part of fishing gear, they should refer readers to an annex with diagrams that enable the meaning to be understood more easily, a method used by the Commission itself in Figure 2 of Appendix 1 of Regulation (EC) No 2187/2005 of the Council, which is to be repealed by the new regulation on technical measures.

5.2. Article 13

Article 13(2) concludes by stating that ‘the Commission shall give particular attention to the mitigation of negative effects of the displacement of fishing activity to other sensitive areas’, which can be understood in the context of protecting sensitive habitats; thus a map of the areas to be protected would be needed so as to enhance knowledge of the seabed, rather than a blanket prohibition of the fleet’s activities, which are highly dependent on finding new fishing zones for the species that it catches, something which the new LO policy would force it to do. The EESC believes that the Commission should carry out comprehensive mapping of all vulnerable marine areas in order to know exactly what is being protected and to what end. This is also important in terms of mitigating not only the environmental effects but also the socioeconomic effects of the potential closures of fishing zones, with the aim of ensuring full sustainability.

5.3. Article 17

The Committee is concerned about the content of Article 17(2) of the proposal, since the European fleet also catches a number of species that are not subject to the system of TACs and commercial value quotas, species that help businesses realise a financial benefit from the fishing trips carried out by their fishing boats. Thus it would be highly advisable to take into account the fact that these species (8), despite not being subject to TACs, are part of the fleet’s normal catches and are therefore species of interest.

5.4. Article 37

The European Commission does not make any reference to on-board investments for the storage, processing and added value of unwanted fish; moreover, it actually rules out any opportunity of physical or chemical processing in order to produce fish meal or fish oil on board. There is little incentive for fishermen to keep unwanted fish on board when the sale price for non-human consumption is around one euro cent per kilogram. For this reason, the Committee would support the deletion of Article 54a proposed as part of this Article.

6. Specific comments on the annexes

6.1. North western waters (part B of Annex VI)

6.1.1. The EU should foster a climate of trust, enabling fishermen to exercise the freedom to choose the most appropriate tools to achieve greater selectivity and to reduce bycatches. It must not be forgotten that fishermen will be fully responsible for the catches made, and not for what they land; thus they must be allowed to decide on the best selective measures.

6.1.2. In the annex, the European Commission expects trawlers to start using towed gears with 120 mm codends, which will undoubtedly lead to the disappearance of this fleet, since using a mesh size of 100 mm (which is used in the biologically sensitive area) reduces catches by 35 % compared to using an 80 mm mesh.

6.1.3. The Committee cannot agree with the introduction, without any justification, of new areas for the use of mitigation measures for cetaceans, nor with the inclusion, with no further discussion, of measures to avoid incidental catches of seabirds, as this requires further analysis and scientific justification.

6.2. South western waters (part B of Annex VII)

6.2.1. The Committee does not agree with increasing the minimum mesh size for codends designed to catch all demersal species. Increasing mesh size from 70 mm to 100 mm amounts to sending boats out to fish for water and will cause them to disappear entirely. The working method, the scarcity of discards in these fisheries, and the variety of target species are all arguments in favour of retaining the 70 mm mesh.

6.2.2. In terms of the measures aimed at reducing incidental catches of cetaceans and seabirds in the ICES subareas VIII and IXa, the Committee feels that the Commission should provide the necessary scientific justification before approving them, since these measures were previously rejected due to the absence or limited presence of cetaceans and seabirds in these waters.

6.3. Mediterranean Sea (part B of Annex IX)

6.3.1. With regard to prohibiting the use of nets with a twine thickness of more than 3 mm, the Committee believes that, in line with the scientific study carried out by the Spanish Oceanographic Institute (IEO), this thickness should be changed to 5 mm, since retaining this thickness is not justified in terms of conservation and will only cause economic damage, as nets will tear more frequently.

6.3.2. Regarding the ban on having on board or setting more than 250 pots or creels per vessel to catch deepwater crustaceans (including Plesionika spp.), the Committee believes that, in the case of this species of shrimp, it should be possible to maintain the number of pots or creels currently authorised, i.e. 1 500 pots or creels. Existing scientific studies indicate that the current level of catches allows for a total biomass which is above the biomass maximum sustainable yield and demonstrate that, under current conditions, the activity is sustainable and is being performed responsibly.

Brussels, 13 July 2016. The President of the European Economic and Social Committee Georges DASSIS

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 850/98 of 30 March 1998 for the conservation of fishery resources through technical measures for the protection of juveniles of marine organisms, which covers the northeast Atlantic (and, from 2012, the Black Sea) (OJ L 125, 27.4.1998, p. 1).

(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 1967/2006 of 21 December 2006 concerning management measures for the sustainable exploitation of fishery resources in the Mediterranean Sea (OJ L 409, 30.12.2006, p. 9).

(3) Council Regulation (EC) No 2187/2005 of 21 December 2005 for the conservation of fishery resources through technical measures in the Baltic Sea, the Belts and the Sound (OJ L 349, 31.12.2005, p. 1).

(4) COM(2016) 134 final.

(5) Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013, Article 7.

(6) Regulation (EC) No 1967/2006.

(7) In line with the proposal for a recommendation of the Pelagic Advisory Council V1 2015 04 18.

(8) We refer, for example, to gurnards (Triglidae), common squid (Loligo spp.), conger (Conger conger), common cuttlefish (Sepia officinalis), John Dory (Zeus faber) witch flounder (Glyptocephalus cynoglossus), Atlantic pomfret (Brama brama), shortfin squid (Illex spp.), black scabbardfish (Aphanopus carbo), and even great scallops (Pecten maximus).