EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 23.9.2021 SWD(2021) 268 final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEANPARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Implementation of the Technical Measures Regulation (Article 31 of Regulation (EU) 2019/1241)





{COM(2021) 583 final}



Contents 1.The objectives and targets of the Regulation 1.1.Measuring the progress 1.2.Choosing a selectivity indicator 1.3.Considerations for future approaches on selectivity 2.Sensitive species and habitats 2.1.General Considerations 2.2.Sensitive Species 2.2.1.State of knowledge 2.2.2.Baltic Sea 2.2.3.North Sea 2.2.4.North-western waters 2.2.5.South-western waters 2.2.6.Mediterranean and Black Seas 2.2.7.Macaronesia 2.2.8.Widely distributed species 2.3.Sensitive habitats 2.3.1.State of knowledge 2.3.2.Baltic Sea

2.3.3.North Sea, north western waters and south-western waters 2.3.4.Mediterranean and Black Seas 2.3.5.Macaronesia 3.Implementation of the Regulation and consultation of Member States, Advisory Councils and Stakeholders 3.1.The objectives and the targets 3.2.Implementation of common technical measures 3.3.Protection for sensitive habitats (Article 12) 3.4.Additional measures to protect sensitive species. 3.5.Regionalisation (Article 15) 3.6.Regional technical measures concerning selectivity (Articles 16-27). 3.6.1.Species and size selectivity of fishing gear (Article 16) 3.6.2.Closed or restricted areas (Article 17) 3.6.3.Minimum Conservation Reference Sizes (Article 18) 3.6.4.Real-time closure and moving-on provisions (Article 19) 3.6.5.Conditions for derogations to permitted minimum mesh sizes (Article 27) 4.implementation of and consultation on regional technical measures 4.1.Baltic Sea 4.1.1.Minimum conservation reference sizes (Articles 13 and 18) 4.1.2.Selective gears to reduce unwanted catches 4.1.3.Closed areas and seasons to protect juveniles and spawning aggregations (Article 17)

4.1.4.Real time closures and moving on provisions 4.1.5.Sensitive species 4.1.6.Sensitive habitats 4.2.North Sea (including the Skagerrak, Kattegat, Belt Sea and eastern Channel) 4.2.1.Minimum conservation reference sizes (Articles 13 and 18) 4.2.2.Selective gears to reduce unwanted catches 4.2.3.Closed areas and seasons to protect juveniles (art 17) 4.2.4.Real time closures and moving on provisions (Article 19) 4.2.5.Sensitive species 4.2.6.Sensitive habitats 4.3.North Western Waters 4.3.1.Minimum conservation reference sizes (Articles 13 and 18) 4.3.2.Selective gears to reduce unwanted catches 4.3.3.Closed areas and seasons to protect juveniles 4.3.4.Real time closures and moving on provisions 4.3.5.Sensitive species 4.3.6.Sensitive habitats 4.4.South Western Waters 4.4.1.Minimum conservation reference sizes (Arts 13 and 18) 4.4.2.Selective gears to reduce unwanted catches

4.4.3.Closed areas and seasons to protect juveniles (art 17 and Part C of Annex VII)) 4.4.4.Real time closures and moving on provisions 4.4.5.Sensitive species 4.4.6.Sensitive habitats 4.5.Mediterranean and Black Sea. 4.5.1.Minimum conservation reference sizes (Articles 13 and 18) 4.5.2.Selective gears to reduce unwanted catches 4.5.3.Restrictions on the use of fishing gear ( part C of Annex IX)) 4.5.4.Real time closures and moving on provisions 4.5.5.Sensitive species 4.5.6.Sensitive habitats 4.6.Outermost regions 5.promotion of research and Innovation 5.1.Pilot projects 5.2.Scientific research (Article 25) 5.3.Innovative fishing gear (Article 20) 6.Summary and Conclusions. APPENDIX I Implementation of the Seabird Action Plan APPENDIX II: SYNOPSIS OF THE CONSULTATION. APPENDIX III: SUMMARY TABLE OF JOINT RECOMMENDATIONS RECEIVED





This staff working document accompanies the ‘Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and Council on the implementation of the Technical Measures Regulation’. It looks in greater depth at: 1.The objectives and targets of the Regulation (EU) 2019/1241 (“the Regulation”) and how to measure progress towards these objective and targets; 2.General considerations regarding sensitive species and habitats; 3.Overview of the implementation of the Regulation and the consultation of Member States, Advisory Councils and stakeholders, looking with detail to commonly applicable measures. 4.Implementation and consultation on regional technical measures, by sea basin, and considering the main findings since the Regulation came into force. 5.Research and innovation. 6.Final considerations, including some reflections on the implementation. 1.The objectives and targets of the Regulation The objectives of the Regulation are to contribute to protecting juveniles and spawning aggregations, minimising incidental catches of sensitive species, minimising negative impacts of fishing on marine habitats and to contribute to compliance with the Habitats, Birds and Marine Strategy Framework Directives (‘MSFD’), in particular with the achievement of good environmental status (GES). The Regulation sets out basic requirements and a regionalised framework for implementing technical measures provided by Article 7(2) of Regulation on the Common Fisheries Policy (‘CFP Regulation’) concerning: ·characteristics of fishing gears and their use, ·specifications on the construction of fishing gear, ·limitations or prohibitions on the use of certain fishing gears and fishing activities, ·and requirements to cease operating in defined areas in order to protect temporary aggregations of endangered species, spawning fish, fish under minimum conservation reference sizes and other vulnerable resources. Article 3 of the Regulation provides that technical measures must contribute to the objectives of the CFP set out in the applicable provisions of Article 2 of the CFP Regulation. Moreover, it has to contribute to achieving the following objectives: (a) optimise exploitation patterns to provide protection for juveniles and spawning aggregations of marine biological resources;

(b) ensure that incidental catches of sensitive marine species, including those listed under the Birds and Habitats Directives, that are a result of fishing, are minimised and where possible eliminated so that they do not represent a threat to the conservation status of these species; (c) ensure, including by using appropriate incentives, that the negative environmental impacts of fishing on marine habitats are minimised; (d) have in place fisheries management measures for the purposes of complying with the Birds and Habitats Directives, in particular with a view to achieving good environmental status in line with the MSFD. In line with these objectives, Article 4 of the Regulation sets out the concrete targets to be achieved: (a) catches of marine species below the minimum conservation reference size are reduced as far as possible. (b) incidental catches of marine mammals, marine reptiles, seabirds and other non-commercially exploited species do not exceed levels provided for in Union legislation and international agreements that are binding on the Union. (c) the environmental impacts of fishing activities on seabed habitats are coherent with the Union environmental legislation, in particular with the objective of achieving a good environmental status as set out in Article 1(1) of the MSFD, as well as with other Union policies. In order to contribute to the target under point (a), the Regulation sets out minimum mesh sizes and associated conditions for towed nets in Parts B of each of Annexes V to X and XII, and Part A of Annex XI. These vary from a basic 120mm in the northeast Atlantic, with various alternative mesh sizes permitted for fishing directed at various species and areas, the smallest being 14mm for surrounding nets in the Mediterranean Sea. To achieve the targets set out under points (b) and (c), the Regulation includes four types of environmental protection provisions. I.General prohibitions (Article 7) on the use of techniques likely to cause excessive environmental harm (explosives, poisons, pelagic drift nets etc.) II.Prohibitions on catching (and associated handling) of marine mammals, seabirds and reptiles (Article 11) III.Areas where fishing is restricted in order to protect sensitive habitats (Article 12 and Annex II) IV.Measures to monitor and reduce incidental catches of sensitive species, including specific measures for harbour porpoise (Article 15 and Annex XIII) Measures in points iii. and iv. above may be modified according to joint recommendations from Member States. These provisions complement the specific framework provided under Article 11 of the CFP Regulation that allow Member States, acting jointly, to develop conservation measures necessary for the purpose of complying with their obligations under the Birds and Habitats Directives and the MSFD related to marine protected areas (Natura 2000 sites and spatial measures under the MSFD). Specific measures and obligations are discussed in more detail in the following regional chapters. The Regulation is an important instrument contributing to the sustainable management of fisheries resources and contributing to environmental objectives. It is complemented by other EU legislation such as for example the Regulation (EC) No 1967/2006 (‘Mediterranean Regulation’) and Regulation (EC) No 734/2008 (‘VME Regulation’) concerning the protection of such “Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems” (VMEs) and Regulation (EU) 2016/2336 (‘Deep Sea Regulation’). While those regulations are not part of this report, their application is of relevance for the overall assessment on the overall contribution to and achievement of the CFP objectives. The scope and objectives of the Regulation also include actions related to sharks and sea birds. Regarding the former, it is particularly relevant to take note of the 2009 EU Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks (EUPOA sharks) inspired by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) “IPOA (International Plan of Action) Sharks”. The EUPOA aims at broadening the knowledge on shark fisheries, on shark species and their role in the ecosystem, ensuring that directed fisheries for shark are sustainable . As for the seabirds, the Regulation also provides the legal framework to follow up and address problems still outstanding and as reported in the 2012 Action Plan for reducing incidental catches of seabirds in fishing gear. 1.1.Measuring the progress Measuring progress is vital to check whether measures put in place are adequate and fit for purpose, and consequently, to assess where and how changes should be made. The impact assessment preparing the Commission’s proposal for the Regulation confirmed the absence of clear objectives and the absence of a system allowing to assess whether the measures put in place were actually addressing the traditional collateral effects of the harvesting activity. Measuring the extent to which the Regulation is reaching the targets requires clarity on the specifics of each target. Some targets are precisely defined, such as the target of Maximum Sustainable Yield (‘MSY’) as defined under the CFP Regulation. However, environmental targets under the Habitats and Birds Directives are in very many cases not yet expressed quantitatively. Development of quantified environmental targets, such as threshold values for good environmental status, is a work in progress under the MSFD and in most cases such targets are not yet available.

As noted in the report on the implementation of the MSFD, progress in setting threshold values for determining good environmental status has so far been slow, and there seems to be a reluctance to set ambitious levels, as that would prevent Member States from reaching good environmental status within the deadline established in the Directive. Member States did not link their targets with their measures, so as to have a measurable record of how they are progressing towards achieving good environmental status. Technical measures help optimise exploitation patterns by providing protection for juveniles of fish using selective fishing gears. The objective of improving size-selectivity of fishing is to improve yield (or catch). Improving selectivity is key to reducing the impact of fishing on the younger fish, thus allowing more productivity from fish growth. There is a trade-off between F (fishing mortality) and selectivity; catching larger fish generally allows stocks to sustain a higher F without collapsing, while catching too many small fish can lead to stock depletion even at moderate levels of F. Both MSY and Fmsy are selectivity-dependent; for most exploited stocks, catching larger fish would lead to a higher MSY attainable at higher F levels. The biological mechanism through which improved selectivity promotes sustainability is by preventing growth overfishing (i.e. by allowing fish to realise their growth potential). In mixed fisheries exploiting species of different body sizes it is difficult to select for an optimum length for all species using a single mesh size. Despite the absence of quantified targets, qualitative assessment can in many cases be sufficient to establish whether the environmental objectives referred to in the Regulation are met. Member States, besides their reporting on the MSFD, also report every six years to the European Commission their assessments of the conservation status of marine species and marine habitats according to Article 17 of the Habitats Directive. In addition, assessments of species classed as endangered in the European area are maintained by IUCN under financial support from the EU (“European Red List“). The state of marine habitats under the Habitats Directive has also been reviewed and indicates that 1% of habitats are critically endangered, 9% endangered and 9% are vulnerable (EU-28 figures). However, 49% are classed as data deficient. Habitats in any of these classifications are not consistent with the objectives referred to in the Regulation, and urgent measures are needed both to improve knowledge and to protect threatened habitats. 1.2.Choosing a selectivity indicator As expressed in the Regulation, “the indicators and the values used for their application should be requested from appropriate scientific bodies for a number of key indicator stocks which would also take into account mixed fisheries and recruitment spikes”. Likewise, Article 31(2) states that the “report may include, inter alia, as a selectivity performance indicator for the key indicator stocks for the species listed in Annex XIV the length of optimal selectivity (Lopt) compared to the average length of fish caught for each year covered”. The Regulation introduced “selectivity performance indicators” based on the optimal exploitation pattern, a well-established concept in fisheries management. Such an indicator should facilitate monitoring progress towards minimising unwanted catches. Even though the Regulation refers to length of optimal selectivity (Lopt) in its Recital 39, it does not prescribe any specific indicator, and mentions that “those indicators are not binding targets, but monitoring tools which may inform deliberations or decisions at regional level”. Population selectivity describes the differential vulnerability to fishing of the demographic components of an exploited fish population, as a result of the gear used (e.g., choice of mesh size) and availability (e.g., choice of fishing timing and location). In age-structured stock assessments, population selectivity is usually expressed as the distribution of fishing mortality over the different age-classes of an exploited fish stock (Sampson & Scott 2012). Population selectivity is important because it affects both MSY and Fmsy, as well as stock resilience to overfishing (Scott & Sampson, 2011). STECF concluded in previous work that population independent metrics such as Catch and Catch per Unit of Effort (CPUE) at age allow a direct comparison between fleets. It is, however, not possible to disentangle whether inter-annual changes in catch or CPUE at age are a consequence of changes in population (e.g. weak or strong recruitment) or due to changes in technical or tactical strategies of the fleet, including improvements in selectivity. Population dependent metrics potentially provide a more robust means of comparing changes in exploitation pattern (i.e. using fleet-specific partial fishing mortality vector) both between and within fleets over time as they are less susceptible to changes in the underlying population. They could therefore be more useful to assess the efficacy of technical and/or tactical measures aimed at avoiding certain age groups (e.g. juveniles). Based on these, catch-based and F-based indicators were further assessed (STECF EWG 18-15; Vasilakopoulos et al. 2020) to provide managers with a metric describing changes in selectivity, in relation to uptake by fleets of various technical measures. The ratio Frec/Fbar (where Frec is F on the first recruited age-class and Fbar is the average fishing mortality on fully-recruited ages) proved to be an informative selectivity metric for fisheries management and advice. It was shown to be able to track selectivity changes in the fishery and was robust to both recruitment variability and changes in overall fishing pressure. However, STECF has also identified the need for further investigation of selectivity indicators. Linking changes in technical measures to concurrent changes in Frec/Fbar, or any other indicator, is a very challenging task, given that selectivity is variable within a fishery and the result of multiple co-occurring factors, such as the gears used, the fishers’ behaviours, the spatio-temporal distribution of both the exploited stock and fishery, and other, variable local factors. STECF has provided an analysis of selectivity changes over time for certain stocks but only at the level of entire fisheries. It has not been proven possible to assess selectivity changes in detail by individual fishing fleet segments using different gears within the fishery, due to the scarcity of partial F-at-age data for most fleet segments. STECF tested the selectivity indicator by stock and by fleet segment, where relevant F-at-age data were available. The fleet segment level analysis was designed to investigate the extent to which every fleet is responsible for the variations in selectivity as shown by the selectivity indicators applied to the stock level. After this test, it was decided to work at stock level taking into consideration the stocks listed in the MAPS; the stocks listed correspond to individual ICES stock assessments in the North East Atlantic and STECF stock assessments in the Mediterranean Sea. ICES was requested to provide F-at-age data by stock and by fleet/fishery. For the Mediterranean, it was agreed to extract F at age data from the stock assessment done by the STECF Expert Working Group (‘EWG’) on Mediterranean stock assessments. During the first week of October 2020, the EWG of STECF examined the possibilities to measure progress in selectivity. The working group considered it impossible either to evaluate the performance of the Regulation (in particular due to its recent entry into force) or to clarify the contribution of technical measures towards achieving the objective of the Regulation. Nevertheless, the working group made progress in developing time-series that allow identifying trends in selectivity. The working group provided time-series of trends in selectivity for selected fish stocks and areas. However, for reasons mentioned above, the results need to be interpreted with caution.

STECF pointed out that for those stocks where no changes were detected over time, the absence of change in indicator should not be seen as proof that the technical measures had no effect at all, but at least that the effects were not strong enough to be detected at population level by standard stock assessment procedures using standard data. For the stocks where changes in selectivity of recruiting year-classes appear to be coincidental with the timing of the introduction of certain technical measures, STECF noted that it remains difficult to ascertain that this change is caused directly by the introduction of the technical measure. Additionally, although many technical measures relate to specific gears and/or fisheries, no fleet-specific evaluations were undertaken for stocks in different regions. Hence, the results presented in the working group report provide an overview of temporal trends in relative selectivity for the recruiting year-classes at the population level only. 1.3.Considerations for future approaches on selectivity The STECF attempted to assess the extent to which technical measures in general, from the former Technical Measures Regulation, the Baltic Technical Measures Regulation and the Mediterranean Regulation onwards, have contributed to achieving the objectives and targets of the Regulation. Considering that the next report on the implementation of the Regulation is due in three years, some elements on how to proceed in the future need to be taken into consideration. ·Given the complexity of the exercise, it is necessary to adopt a concrete and targeted approach regarding what specific aspects of the regulation need to be examined. It has been underlined that given the high number of different technical measures that may have an impact, and the great variability between fleets and areas, it is impossible to examine and assess each and every measure. ·Specific adjustments of the Frec/Fbar metric could be explored (e.g. adjusting Frec to incorporate all juveniles; link the ratio to Lopt etc.). ·Relevant reference points for this indicator could be also explored (analogous to Fmsy; to have an idea of where selectivity stands rather than just saying ‘improving/deteriorating’). ·Additionally, in order to check the effect of specific technical measures, it is necessary to narrow down the resolution to the specific fleet segment(s) expected to be affected; in which case, segment’s partial F-at-age (or at least catch-at-age), are needed, which is not always available. ·A way forward could be to assess the extent to which the targets set in the current regulation are being achieved, using a gear and area approach. This could provide a risk-based analysis, highlighting where more detailed assessment of the effects of the Regulation is a priority. Those species for which the MSY has not been reached or with high discard rates could be an approach that needs to be discussed with experts and Member States. ·In trying to assess the effectiveness of the measures included in the Regulation there is a need to assess the incentives for fishers to adapt, adopt and buy-in to specific technical measures. ·In order to develop the policy it is crucial to have reliable information. In this respect, a key control component is the system of joint deployment plans (JDPs) coordinated by the European Fisheries Control Agency (EFCA), based on the relevant specific control and inspection programmes (SCIP). The most significant suspected infringements found in 2019 confirm that misreporting of catches and cases related with technical measures remain the most common non-compliance issues. These are generally considered to be the main threats together with possible non-compliance with the requirements of the landing obligation, which were however very difficult to detect. To address these issues, the discussion must now focus on the scope of future assessments, identification of data sets that could be used to carry out these assessments and identification of who should provide this data. For example, F-at-age, data on growth parameters and natural mortality per stock (to calculate Lopt) and the maturity-at-age to put the focus on juveniles. For analysis at the level of fleet segment it would be necessary the respective partial F-at-age or at least catch-at-age. Eliminating discards by reducing and avoiding, as far as possible, unwanted catches is one of the main objectives of the CFP, and as such, improvements of selective fishing techniques and technical measures in place shall be aimed at achieving this objective. Unwanted catches involve fish that either have a low market value or cannot be sold because the CFP rules do not allow their retention or landing: they are below the minimum size, their quota is exhausted, they are damaged, their capture is prohibited. STECF notes that quantitative discard data for EU fishing fleets is provided by EU Member States to ICES and via the STECF Fisheries Dependent Information (FDI) data calls. Currently, there are several sources of data on discards relying on the information that Member States submit to the Commission in the framework of the FDI data call. This information is publicly available in the JRC databases. However, STECF is not able to comment on discard trends arising from FDI. STECF also notes that each year discards under exemptions permitted under the landing obligation (‘LO’) are calculated by the FDI EWGs and the methodology used is considered to be appropriate. However, for some cases, the low level of sampling or the absence of sampling by Member States, can lead to imprecise estimates not fully representative of the actual level of discarding by the relevant fleets, noting that the actual levels of discarding are largely unknown at present. To improve the quality of these estimates, increased monitoring and accurate reporting by Member States is required. STECF notes that the last-haul information compiled by EFCA and the discard information provided to ICES and under the FDI data call represent the best and most detailed information available and highlights the need for Member States to provide data that are representative of the level of discarding and are statistically sound. For stocks with data available on landings and discards, ICES provides catch advice with information on the corresponding landings and discard numbers, assuming an unchanged fishing pattern. For stocks where a discard ban or landing obligation has been introduced recently ICES may use the terminology “wanted” and “unwanted” catch until reliable information on discards and landings becomes available. “Wanted catch” refers to the part of the catch that would be landed in the absence of a discard ban or landing obligation. “Unwanted catch” refers to the part of the catch that would be discarded in the absence of a discard ban or landing obligation. It is worth to note that according to ICES figures, the level of discard/unwanted catches in certain areas and for certain stocks seems to be high. 2.Sensitive species and habitats

2.1.General considerations All fisheries have the potential to incidentally catch protected, endangered, or threatened species. Under the Treaty, the EU has exclusive competence concerning the conservation of marine resources, which also covers fisheries management measures aimed at reducing incidental catches of sensitive species and reducing impacts on marine habitats and particularly on sensitive marine habitats. Under the Regulation “sensitive species” means any species whose conservation status, including its habitat, distribution, population size or population condition is adversely affected by pressures arising from human activities, including fishing activities. They include in particular the species listed in Annexes II and IV of the Habitats Directive and those covered by the Birds Directive as well as those whose protection is necessary to achieve good environmental status under the MSFD. “Sensitive habitats” means habitats whose conservation status is adversely affected by human activities including fishing. These include habitat types listed in Annex I of the Habitats Directive, the habitats of species listed in Annex II of that Directive, habitats of species listed in Annex I to the Birds Directive, habitats whose protection is necessary to achieve GES according to the MSFD and vulnerable marine ecosystems as defined in the VME Regulation. The Regulation sets out general measures that will need to be developed by Member States to adapt better to the real impact that the different fleets have on these species and habitats. The measures set out under the Regulation bring together different regulations and action plans previously in force, such as for example regarding cetaceans and seabirds. Concerning by-catches of cetaceans, the Regulation builds on the measures previously set out in Regulation (EC) No 812/2004 (hereinafter referred to as the Cetaceans Regulation). That regulation put in place, for certain high-risk fisheries, a system of specialist on-board observation of cetacean by-catches and required the placement of acoustic deterrent devices (ADDs) on demersal static nets. These devices deter harbour porpoises from approaching static nets and so reduce incidental catches. The Cetaceans Regulation, which contained detailed prescriptions on observer-based sampling was repealed in 2019 and replaced with the provisions in Articles 11 and 12 of the Regulation and obligations on Member States to monitor by-catches and implement, through regionalisation and on the basis of science advice, mitigation measures to reduce incidental catches of all sensitive species (Points 2 and 3 of Annex XIII). Development and modification of mitigation measures is to be pursued through regionalisation but can also be implemented by individual Member States concerning vessels flying their flag. The ADD obligations previously included in the Cetaceans Regulation are now included in Annex XIII to the Regulation, to be applied in certain areas. In addition, the Commission established the relevant technical specifications in Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/967. This implementing regulation gives Member States the possibility to use alternative devices, provided they are at least equally effective in the reduction of incidental catches of cetaceans and that that had been duly documented. The use of pelagic gill and trammel nets (drift nets) is already largely prohibited under the Regulation because of important incidental catches of cetaceans, seabirds, large pelagic sharks and turtles. Since that prohibition there have been important signs of recovery of certain populations such as common dolphin in the Mediterranean Sea, for example. The use of ADDs is already required in certain static net fisheries and is a useful measure to reduce (but not eliminate) incidental catches of harbour porpoises. Certain habitats are known for their uniqueness or rarity, their functional significance in ecosystems, their fragility, life-history traits of component species that make recovery slow or difficult, and structural complexity. Examples of this habitat type include seamounts, seagrass beds, sea-pen meadows and both warm-water corals and deep-water cold coral reefs, and hydrothermal vents. Measures to protect such marine habitats have been in place under the CFP since at least 2002. The measures are necessary for Member States to meet their obligations under the Habitats Directive (Natura 2000 network, Article 3 et seq. of Directive 92/43/EC). While the implementation of the Habitats Directive is a responsibility of the Member States, any fisheries conservation measures form part of the CFP and are thereby under EU competence. The CFP Regulation provides that measures can be decided by individual Member States where only the fisheries of that Member State are affected and provided that they are at least as stringent as the measures in EU law. The Regulation serves, amongst others, to contribute to the environmental legislation, including the protection of marine habitats (Sections 2.2 and 2.3). The Regulation provides for protection of sensitive habitats by specifying a set of areas where certain kinds of fishing gear are prohibited (Article 12) and by providing for those measures to be adapted or amended through regionalisation. 2.2. Sensitive Species 2.2.1.State of knowledge While it is well documented that there are shortcomings in the monitoring of incidental catches of sensitive species and impacts on sensitive habitats there are several reliable sources of information indicating areas of serious conservation concern and possible applicable mitigation measures. STECF-2020-02 (as updated in STECF-PLEN-21-01) provides an up-to-date compendium of knowledge on marine environmental issues in relation to fishing and is the basis for the Commission’s assessment of this topic. Highlights from that report are presented here, supplemented with some detail from additional sources. While substantial knowledge exists about the threats, impacts and interactions of fishing gear and ecosystems, the available information on incidental catches of marine mammals, seabirds, reptiles and non-commercial fish species in EU fisheries is not sufficient to calculate reliable mortality estimates for a large number of susceptible species . For example, Member States did not report any estimates of incidental by-catches of cetaceans by vessels under 15m despite a requirement to do so in the Cetaceans Regulation and despite analysis from ICES indicating that increased sampling was required on smaller vessels. In their reporting to ICES in 2020 (WGBYC 2020), 6 Member States did not report any observation scheme for sensitive species outside the Data Collection Framework (‘DCF’), whereas 5 others reported having dedicated sampling schemes. For one Member State the distinction between the two types of observation was unclear. However, there are also reports from Member States, scientific studies of a local or short-term nature and reports of time-limited projects in certain specific areas. Monitoring of incidental catches of sensitive species is required under Annex XIII points 1 to 4 of the Regulation. Current advice from ICES and STECF is that such monitoring needs to be targeted at those fisheries most likely to make such catches and requires the deployment of observers trained for this task and specifically assigned to this task alone (at least for defined periods), or the deployment of closed circuit television (‘CCTV’) or remote electronic monitoring (‘REM’) tools designed for this purpose. However, many Member States rely on incidental reporting from observers dedicated to sampling commercial fish catches and discards. This entails several disadvantages. Observers assigned to fish sampling and fish measurement may miss incidental catch events as sensitive species may not be brought on deck with other catches. It is not possible to adjust observed by-catch rates for these unknown losses.

Commercial fish observers may lack the necessary skills to identify sensitive species, which by their nature can be rare observations. Incidental catches may not take place in fisheries taking the largest amounts of fish, and so may be under-sampled in schemes designed to concentrate on commercial fish catches. CCTV/REM trials have been carried out by 3 Member States even on smaller vessels. Further trials are being started by two other Member States. These show that monitoring incidental catches even on smaller vessels is practical and feasible. The marine species in EU waters which are most threatened by incidental bycatch are generally those species which are so large-bodied that even in their juvenile stages they are easily caught by fishing gear designed to catch the adult stages of common demersal fish. This includes the angel sharks (Squatina spp.), spiny butterfly rays (Gymnura altavela), skate (including Dipturus batis and D. flossada), and manta rays (Mobula spp.). Also at risk are species that live in the very low energy environment of the deep sea and therefore grow very slowly and produce few offspring. In addition, some whales, seals, dolphins, porpoises, turtles and seabirds are threatened by entanglement in fishing gear. Some of these species have become functionally extinct where once they were common in EU seas. STECF PLEN 20-03 also notes that, as reported by the EWG, although by-catch mortality of sensitive species is likely to have decreased in Atlantic waters (including Baltic Sea) due to a decrease in fishing pressure (a general reduction in fishing mortality rates), this does not necessarily relate to changes in technical measures. In the Mediterranean no such effort reduction has been observed. STECF further notes that estimating by-catch thresholds is not straightforward and estimates rely on several aspects including i) the conservation objectives and targets for the sensitive populations, ii) the timescale over which such objectives and targets are to be met and iii) available estimates of population size. The report EWG 2020-02 lists sensitive species that are impacted by fisheries, identifies problematic fisheries and provides a preliminary assessment whether by-catch rates have changed over time. Nevertheless, significant knowledge gaps remain, notably in reliable population estimates for many species and areas. A semi-quantitative analysis of the impacts of fishing gears on different groups of sensitive species has been prepared by STECF. Table 3.1.. Identified risk (by expert opinion) for species groups by each fishing gear. 1: low risk, 2: medium risk, 3: high risk. From STECF EWG 2020-02. STECF EWG 2020-02 provides a direction for future work, including among others, measures such as an increase in monitoring (métiers, spatial and temporal coverage), species identification, abundance estimation and thresholds. Despite these deficiencies in national sampling programmes and the absence of quantitative analysis, a variety of historical studies provide compelling evidence that certain species, once abundant or common in European seas, are critically endangered and are now rare, absent or extirpated. Such information has been reviewed and compiled in the EU red list, the most relevant elements of which are summarised below and in the regional chapters. Concerning seabirds, in 2019 the European Commission invited Member States to review their actions undertaken under this plan to address the concerns and improve the implementation (Appendix I). Only ten Member States replied. These replies and other scientific reports (see review in STECF-20-02) indicate that knowledge remains poor due to lack of targeted monitoring of these incidental catches, even though a number of short-term studies indicate that large numbers are caught in longline fisheries and in static net fisheries, particularly in the Baltic Sea (e.g. Žydelis et al. (2009) estimated 100 000 to 200 000 seabird deaths per year in the North Sea and Baltic Seas, and Žydelis et al.(2013) estimated 72 000 deaths per year in the Baltic Sea alone). Known mitigation measures exist for longlines but the Commission has not received reports that they are being implemented. STECF-20-02 reports that the use of bird-scaring “tori” lines is mandatory in longline fisheries in Spanish national law but no data on such use has been provided. Despite a number of trials to reduce incidental catches in static net fisheries in the Baltic Sea, no technical gear-based solution has yet been found. However, seasonal closures of fishing in areas and periods of high seabird abundance have shown success in reducing incidental catches. 2.2.2.Baltic Sea The Baltic Sea population of the harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena), the only cetacean species to occur regularly in the Baltic Sea, has declined greatly in the past 50–100 years. With the most recent estimation at around 500 individuals, this population is critically endangered. Static-net fisheries in particular create a risk of incidental catches that threaten the survival of this population. ICES has recommended a set of measures to mitigate incidental catches, including the use of ADDs and closed areas to prevent fishing in areas of high harbour porpoise abundance. The Commission and Member States are currently examining the implementation of those measures. It is also required to use ADDs on static nets in sub-division 24 and a sea area near the south coast of Sweden in order to mitigate harbour porpoise by-catches (Annex XIII Part A of the Regulation). The need for more permanent fisheries closures for sensitive species in the Baltic and more specifically for harbour porpoise areas was also raised by a large number of stakeholders in the online consultation, who see these measures as important tools for protection of sensitive species. Important incidental catches of diving ducks occur in the shallow-water static-net fisheries of the Baltic Sea and declining population trends have been reported. ICES has also advised that diving waterbirds are especially vulnerable to being entangled in gillnets and other types of static nets. Drowning in fishing gear is a significant source of anthropogenic mortality for long-tailed duck (Clangula hyemalis), scoters (Melanitta spp.), divers (Gavia spp.), and some other waterbirds, especially in wintering areas with high densities of waterbirds. Work on technical mitigation measures to scare ducks away from static nets has not yet found a working solution and so needs to be continued. In the absence of a technological solution, the use of closed areas to prevent fishing with static gear in the main feeding seasons and grounds for the waterbirds has proven a useful solution. More survey work to identify the right areas and times for such closures is needed, as well as more consultation and extension work with the fishing sector. The Baltic Sea is also an important habitat for two particularly sensitive fish species, the European eel (Anguilla anguilla) (on its migration out to the Atlantic) and the sturgeons (Acipenseridae) an iconic brackish-water fish. Sturgeons became regionally extinct in the 1950s but efforts are being made to reintroduce them (HELCOM, 2019). ICES has advised that all anthropogenic impacts on eels should be reduced to as close to zero as possible to conserve this critically endangered species. It is prohibited to retain on board any eel caught with active gear in the Baltic Sea (Annex VIII Part C point 6 of the Regulation) and when accidentally caught, eel shall not be harmed and shall be promptly released.

As noted in the ICES Fisheries Overviews for the Baltic Sea Ecoregion issued in 2020 , abandoned, lost, or otherwise discarded fishing gear (ALDFG) are an unsolved and “silent” problem. Such gear may continuously catch fish, birds, and marine mammals for a long time. It was estimated that 0.1% of nets are lost annually in the Swedish Baltic Sea gillnet fishery. The impact on the environment is not quantified. However, there is information that fishing pressure exerted by lost static nets could range from 20% of its usual net capacity after three months, down to a maximum of 6% after two years. Including designated Natura 2000 areas, the Baltic Sea basin is one of the basins with the widest coverage of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs). According to the Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission – Helsinki Commission (HELCOM), there are 176 HELCOM MPAs, covering 49 016 km² of marine surface, which is roughly equivalent to 11.8% of the Baltic Sea marine area. The area restricted for fisheries in point 1 of Part C of Annex VIII to the Regulation contains all-year closure for towed gear to fish in the “Oderbank plateau” in order to protect spawning turbot and juvenile flatfish nurseries. This was introduced in 1991. The closure mentioned in point 4.1 cover parts of the historic main eastern Baltic cod spawning areas (parts of the Bornholm, Gdansk and Gotland Deeps) during the main spawning period (May to October). Disturbance and abrasion of seabed habitats by mobile bottom-contacting fishing gears occurs mostly in the southern Baltic Sea (see Figure 11 of the ICES Ecosystem Overview for the Baltic Sea) and may reduce benthic diversity and biomass. Abrasion may affect the surface (top 2 cm of sediments) or the subsurface (> 2 cm). Little is known about the sensitivity of different Baltic Sea organisms and communities to these fishery-induced impacts. From neighbouring regions, such as the North Sea and Kattegat, it is known that frequent disturbance by bottom trawls reduces benthic diversity and biomass and changes the composition of benthic species. Some of the trawled parts of the Baltic Sea are also affected by low oxygen concentrations at the seabed (Figure 15). 2.2.3.North Sea In the North Sea, OSPAR (Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic) has identified several species of seabirds as being in low conservation status, but knowledge about the state of these populations is generally poor. Overall, there is a significant need to improve the protection of these species. This will require investment in existing and new approaches to monitoring and mitigation of by-catches. Seabirds on the north-east coast of the UK depend for their feed during the breeding season on banks of juvenile sandeel (Ammodytes spp.) distributed near the UK coast. The breeding success of these seabirds, and notably of kittiwakes (Rissa tridactyla) was shown to depend on the average annual abundance of sandeels near the coast. In order to safeguard the breeding success of these birds, the fishing of sandeels in the relevant area and time period was prohibited (Annex V Part C point 1 of the Regulation). Fishing for deep-water sharks is prohibited in areas of the North Sea deeper than 600m (Annex V Part C point 6.2 of the Regulation). It is required to use ADDs on static nets in the North Sea and Skagerrak from 1 August to 31 October, for nets shorter than 400m or using meshes over 220mm in order to mitigate harbour porpoise by-catches (Annex XIII Part A of the Regulation). The North Sea is a former habitat for a number of large fish species that were once widely distributed and abundant but which are now critically endangered, extirpated or found in very low abundance in the North Sea, notably sturgeons, tope (Galeorhinus galeus), skates and angel sharks. In historical times, the large whale populations of the North Sea were depleted or extirpated by hunting. Whilst the impact of these removals on the ecosystem functioning is not clearly understood, it should be assumed that the North Sea ecosystem is currently in a perturbed state. While the presence of large whales remains scarce, such whales are frequently reported as entangled or in contact with fishing gear, notably buoy ropes of creels and pots. Such events are likely to present a barrier to these species re-establishing themselves in this habitat. The seabird population showed an overall increasing trend until 2000, after which it declined. Recent changes in fisheries management policy (e.g. reduction in effort and the landing obligation) will likely affect seabirds as well as other parts of the ecosystem. There have been few significant changes in the cetacean populations of the North Sea. The centre of distribution of the harbour porpoise population moved southwards from off the east of Scotland to the southern North Sea between the mid-1990s and the mid-2000s. Bycatch in bottom-set gillnets is probably the greatest anthropogenic activity affecting population abundance of harbour porpoises in the North Sea, but the status of this species, either in the North Sea or in the Kattegat, is not of immediate concern. The abundance of grey seals (Halichoerus grypus) has been increasing for at least 30 years. In 2017, 18% of the North Sea region was covered by MPAs. But the key challenge remains that for a number of MPAs, fisheries management measures are still pending. 2.2.4.North-western waters The abundance of breeding seabirds has shown a broad downward trend since the early 2000s. Populations of grey seals have also been increasing in this area over at least the past thirty years, though the populations are becoming more stable now. Trends in the abundances of cetaceans and harbour seals are not known. Annual incidental catches of common dolphins (Delphinus delphis) and other dolphin species are frequently taken in winter fisheries in the Bay of Biscay and adjacent seas, up to some 8 500 individuals per year. ICES has advised on measures to reduce these, and their recommendations are being examined by the Commission and Member States. Fisheries with high risk of cetacean bycatch in the Celtic Sea are bottom set-nets (bycatch of harbour porpoises) and pelagic trawls, particularly those for bass (bycatch of common dolphin). Modelling indicates that it is likely that the bycatch of harbour porpoises in gillnets on the Celtic shelf has affected population abundance at least in some past periods. Bycatch in both fisheries may have reduced in recent years due to less fishing activity and the use of ADDs on static nets, as required in areas 7 d,e,f,g,h and j (Annex XIII Part A of the Regulation).

Longline fisheries pose the greatest threat to seabirds offshore, while inshore net fisheries may catch diving species. Largescale bycatch of great shearwaters Puffinus gravis has been reported from the hake longline fishery on the Great Sole fishing bank, and based on information from elsewhere, longline fisheries in waters west of Scotland would likely catch northern fulmars Fulmarus glacialis. Knowledge of catches is poor due to incomplete reporting but estimates of mortalities of the order of 200 000 per year have been reported. One seabird species is critically endangered (Balearic shearwater, Puffinus mauretanicus), three are endangered and three are vulnerable. Several fish species have been depleted by fishing in the past and are now threatened or declining species, including spurdog (Squalus acanthias), the common skate, angel shark, porbeagle (Lamna nasus), mostly caught in static nets and some deep-water sharks. Although there are zero TACs or prohibited listings for these species, several of them remain vulnerable to existing fisheries. Spurdog and the common skate complex are caught as bycatch in mixed demersal trawl fisheries and gillnet fisheries, and deep-water sharks are caught in the mixed deep-water trawl fishery. A number of protected areas have been put in place where the use of bottom-contacting fishing gear has been prohibited in order to protect sensitive demersal and benthic habitats (Annex II Part A of the Regulation): the Belgica Mound, Hovland Mound Province, northwest Porcupine Bank (two areas), southwest Porcupine bank, and the Darwin Mounds. 2.2.5.South-western waters ICES (2019) reported that the Portuguese fleet using static gear (longlines and gillnets) captured 3639 cetaceans per year (13.24% of the harbour porpoises 7.34% of the common dolphins and 5.10% of the bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) respectively over the period 2010-2015). These values are well in excess of simple markers of sustainability (STECF-19-07). Beach-seine fisheries removed 1.4% of the harbour porpoise population. Purse seine fleets, bottom trawlers, deep-sea longliners fisheries also caught cetaceans but in smaller numbers. These results were obtained from the LIFE+ MarPro project. In recent years, the very high numbers of common dolphin incidental catch in fisheries in the Bay of Biscay are a cause for concern. Such catches of common dolphins have been recorded in several fisheries off France, Spain, and Portugal. The mean annual bycatch of common dolphin across all métiers for the period 2016–2018 amounted to 3973 individuals. Trammel nets account for the largest bycatch. Interactions also occur with gears such as set-net, pelagic trawls, and bottom trawls. It was estimated from stranded common dolphin along the French coastlines of the Bay of Biscay and the western English Channel that bycatch mortality of the species was 5800–17 900 individuals in 2017 and 3400–10 500 individuals in 2018. The available incidental catch mortality estimates for common dolphin in the Northeast Atlantic (based on at-sea monitoring and on stranded animals) are either close to or exceed the potential biological removal (PBR) threshold (4927 individuals per year). The winter distribution of the critically endangered Balearic shearwater (Puffinus mauretanicus) extends from Gibraltar to the Celtic Seas and is vulnerable to incidental catching in longline fisheries. In addition, several other seabird species have declined in abundance. Kittiwake and Iberian guillemot Uria aalge ibericus breeding populations are locally extinct. Coastal driftnets may have contributed to the loss of other seabird species in areas such as central and northwestern Portugal. Species affected by fishing also include Cory ́s shearwater (Calonectris borealis), and Northern gannet (Morus bassanus). The European shag (Phalacrocorax aristotelis) is also widely affected, particularly by gillnets, in northwest Spain. The mean seabird bycatch in bottom trawl, demersal longline, purse-seine, beach seine, set-net, and trap fisheries along the mainland Portuguese coast was estimated at 0.05 individuals per fishing event. Observer programmes in Azorean fisheries have found few or no seabirds as bycatches. However, data on the incidental catch of seabirds are lacking for fisheries that use pole and line. There are negligible effects on marine mammals from Azorean fisheries, although interactions have been reported. Pelagic sharks, toothed whales, and cephalopods were identified as potential keystone species, highlighting their importance in the ecosystem structure. Angel shark, also critically endangered, are widely extirpated in EU waters but remaining populations exist in the Celtic Sea as well as around the Canary Islands. In addition, sturgeons European eel, gulper shark (Centrophorus granulosus), skates and rays (the common skate complex, thornback ray (Raja montagui), and white skate (Rostroraja alba)), spurdog, and salmon (Salmo salar) have been adversely affected by fishing. Common skate and spurdog are caught as bycatch in demersal trawl fisheries, while deep-water sharks are caught in the mixed deep-water fishery. Bottom trawls and static nets are responsible for bycatch of skate, small-eyed ray (Raja microocellata), sandy ray (Leucoraja circularis), undulate ray (Raja undulata), and spurdog, while bluntnose six-gilled shark (Hexanchus griseus) and basking shark (Cetorhinus maximus) only occur in static nets. Deep-water sharks are taken as bycatch in the bottom longline fishery and drifting longline fishery, accounting for a respective 4.9% and 15.2% of the total catch of those fisheries. Many of those species are under fishing prohibition under EU regulations (Regulation (EU) 2021/91), and several are listed as threatened under the IUCN Red List of Threatened species. The Regulation includes prohibitions on deep-sea trawling and gillnetting though not on longlining. In the pelagic longline fisheries in which an important part of the catch is composed by blue sharks (Prionace glauca) which can be the target species, and to a lesser extent shortfin mako (Isurus oxyrinchus) which remains a less abundant bycatch, catches can also occasionally include species under fishing prohibition such as bigeye thresher (Alopias superciliosus) and smooth hammerhead sharks (Sphyrna zygaena), as well as the protected loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta). 2.2.6.Mediterranean and Black Seas The population of monk seal (Monachus monachus) has been very heavily depleted. Once a very common animal, it is now critically endangered and very restricted in distribution. It is subject to entanglement in static fishing gear and has been reported to be subject to illegal directed killing. It is also vulnerable to loss of its breeding sites on touristic beaches. In 2009, it was estimated that only some 250 individuals remained in the Mediterranean Sea, from a single breeding population. This is the most threatened seal species in the world. Green turtle (Chelonia mydas) is endangered worldwide and is present in the eastern Mediterranean where it requires protection, notably around Cyprus and Turkey and some islands in the Cretan Sea. In contrast the population of loggerhead turtle in the Mediterranean is of least concern. The breeding sites of Balearic shearwater are limited to the islands of the Balearic group, but these shearwaters spread out widely in the Mediterranean and Atlantic to feed during the winter months. They are also critically endangered and are subject to incidental catches in longline fisheries as well as vulnerable to capture in static nets both in the western Mediterranean and in the eastern Atlantic Ocean. Harbour porpoise in the Black Sea is reported to experience incidental catches at an unsustainable rate (~208 individuals/year or 2.6% of the population). These incidental-catches occur in coastal gill-net fisheries. Entanglement of sperm whales (Physeter microcephalus) has been reported as a problem, particularly in the Ligurian Sea which is problematic for this vulnerable species. A separate population of blue shark exists in the Mediterranean but its abundance has declined by ~78–90% over the past 30 years. Maltese skate (Leucoraja melitensis) is an endemic Mediterranean species that is critically endangered. It used to be distributed over one-quarter of the Mediterranean Sea but is now restricted to the Sicilian channel around Malta, where it is threatened by intensive demersal fisheries in that area, in which it is taken as incidental by-catch. Two species of guitarfish, are also endangered and are vulnerable to catches particularly in bottom trawls. The kitefin shark (Dalatias licha), the sandy ray (Leucoraja circularis), and the gulper shark (Centrophorus granulosus) are all by-caught in bottom trawlers (Table 12 in ICES, 2019b).

Spiny butterfly ray and large-bodied rays and sharks are critically endangered in the Mediterranean Sea, as elsewhere in their oceanic and coastal distributions, e.g. Angel shark, Manta rays, white shark (Carcharodon carcharias). STECF PLEN-19-03 notes that in the Mediterranean Sea in particular, the status of the elasmobranchs is of particular concern since many sharks populations are considered to be severely depleted, and that new efforts are required for shark conservation. STECF EWG 19-07 considers that the regional management plan, including regional fisheries organisation i.e. GFCM, would offer management and conservation opportunities for shared stocks, migratory species and species of highest conservation concern. 2.2.7.Macaronesia Local impacts on marine mammals and seabirds are now believed to be low, and in consequence these island groups may serve as refuges for widely-distributed species that are generally depleted, such as angel shark. A colony of some 30 monk seal individuals inhabits Ilhas desertas in the Madeira group. Several species of whale including the endangered blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus), the loggerhead and leatherback turtles and many species not found elsewhere may be more common near these island groups. There are many species of deep-water sharks, some of which (e.g. Portuguese dogfish and leaf-scale gulper shark) are severely depleted. Amongst the pelagic shark species occurring in the ecoregion, three are considered more vulnerable to fishing: blue shark (Prionace glauca), shortfin mako (Isurus oxyrinchus), and porbeagle (Lamna nasus). Porbeagle is considered to be severely depleted and the stock of northern mako is considered overfished and subject of overfishing. Discussions are ongoing in ICCAT to adopt conservation measures aiming to rebuild the stock. On the other hand, the stocks of northern and southern Atlantic blue sharks are sustainably exploited and managed under a TAC in ICCAT. This TAC for northern blue sharks has been allocated to a limited number of fishing countries. The main fishing gears used are pelagic gears including purse seine and pelagic longlining. Deep-sea longlining has been important and has contributed to the depletion of deep-sea sharks around the islands. 2.2.8.Widely distributed species Certain widely distributed and critically endangered species are faced with common pressures across different sea areas. The following critically endangered widely distributed species have been identified. Further detail is addressed also in the following regional chapters. 2.2.8.1.Cetaceans Five species of cetaceans are listed as critically endangered, endangered or vulnerable: North Atlantic right whale, Eubalaena glacialis (critically endangered), sei whale Balaenoptera borealis, blue whale, harbour porpoise and sperm whale. STECF 2020-02 notes that insufficient information on incidental catches exists. 2.2.8.2.Turtles Hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) is critically endangered and has a worldwide distribution in tropical and warm temperate seas. Kemp’s Ridley turtle (Lepidochelys kempii) is also critically endangered. Leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) is globally vulnerable and has a distribution that extends to the European Atlantic coast from Gibraltar to the north of Ireland and the Mediterranean Sea. Green turtle (Chelonia mydas) has a similar distribution and is endangered. Loggerhead turtle is also widely distributed and endangered along the European Atlantic coastline but is classed as “least concern” in the Mediterranean Sea. None of these turtles are distributed in the Black Sea. Green turtle are classed as endangered on the EU Atlantic coastline due to various anthropogenic impacts including fishing. Various threats affect turtles: loss of breeding beaches due to tourism, taking of eggs or adult turtles for food, incidental catches in longline and gill-net fisheries. STECF has advised that current monitoring does not provide enough information on sea turtle populations and conservation. 2.2.8.3.Migratory pelagic species Several large pelagic sharks are critically endangered, the main threats being incidental catches in pelagic longline fisheries mostly targeting tuna. White shark is distributed along the European Atlantic façade from the Bay of Biscay to Gibraltar as well as around the Macaronesian Islands. A genetically distinct population exists in the Mediterranean Sea, especially in the Adriatic and Aegean Seas and the strait of Sicily. Targeted killing by fishers has been reported as this species preys on bluefin tuna. Habitat degradation may have also reduced the abundance of another prey, the monk seal. Porbeagle are distributed from Greenland to Morocco but appear to have been extirpated from the Mediterranean Sea. Targeted fisheries have ceased and this is now a protected species in EU fisheries law, but incidental catches occur in fisheries for large pelagic fish using longlines (and previously driftnets). 2.2.8.4.Coastal species

A second group of more sedentary, inshore and coastal species that are also critically threatened include the sand tiger or grey nurse shark (Carcharias taurus) and the smalltooth sand tiger shark (Odontaspis ferox). Sand tiger shark are slow-moving, slow-growing and late-maturing sharks with a low reproductive rate (1 or 2 pups every 2 years) and therefore very vulnerable. They are distributed around the Canary Islands but now are extremely rare in the Mediterranean Sea and may even be extirpated from that area. Key pressures include a variety of anthropogenic disturbances including coastal fishing. Smalltooth sand tiger shark is a similar species, distributed from the Bay of Biscay to the Azores and the Mediterranean seas. It too is critically threatened by incidental catches, particularly in gillnets and longlines set at night over rocky bottoms in depths over 300m. Spiny butterfly ray (Gymnura altavela) is a large (up to 2m or even 4m) ray that was once locally abundant in the Mediterranean Sea and off the coasts of Portugal, Madeira and the Canary Islands. It is now close to extinction in the Mediterranean. The main threat to this species is bottom trawling where it is an incidental bycatch. Bull ray (Pteromylaeus bovinus) is another large (1.5 to 2.2m) ray distributed in coastal waters (shallower than 30m). In European waters its distribution extends from the Bay of Biscay to Madeira and the Mediterranean but not the Black Sea. It too has become extremely rare in the Mediterranean though a breeding population is known to exist. Its decline is imputed to overfishing in the coastal zone with a variety of artisanal fishing gear. Two species of sawfish (Pristis pectinata and Pristis pristis) are widely distributed in warmer European waters. They were previously caught in targeted fisheries, but abundance is now very low, and information is scarce. Sawfish are easily entangled in fishing gear, especially static nets and this gear is considered a threat to them. These are now prohibited species in the Regulation. The natural distribution of common skate including blue skate and flapper skate), another very large skate, extends from Iceland to the Mediterranean Sea, but is now highly depleted and is absent from much of that range. It has now been extirpated by fishing from most inshore and coastal areas though some remain on shelf breaks. It is threatened by multispecies trawl fisheries in which it is vulnerable due to its large size, even as a juvenile. White skate (Rostroraja alba) has a similar distribution and is also extirpated in many parts of its distribution. Three species of angel shark are critically endangered. S. squatina used to be common in coastal European waters throughout the northeast Atlantic, Mediterranean and the Black Sea, but is now close to extinction over most of its previous range and restricted to a small population around the Canary Islands. Sawback angel shark S. aculeata is an endemic Mediterranean species. Once an important fisheries resource, they have now declined to an extremely low level. Like the skates and large rays, angel sharks are threatened by multispecies trawl and static net fisheries where they are taken as incidental catches and they are also very vulnerable due to slow growth, late maturity, infrequent reproduction and small number of offspring. Because of the large body size even the youngest fish are caught in fishing gear. The abundance of gulper shark, distributed in deep waters of the Atlantic, has declined by some 80 to 95% due to fishing. This is a slow-growing deep-water species that is taken as incidental catch in many kinds of deep-sea fisheries (trawls, static nets, longlines etc.). Although deep-sea fishing effort has declined, such incidental catches are still of concern. Endangered species of deepwater sharks, as defined under the Council Regulation (EU) 2016/2285 (EU, 2016a) are widespread in incidental-catch in the deep-water bottom trawls in subareas 6–9, static nets in Biscay (Subarea 8), and longlines in the Azores (Subdivision 10.a.2). In addition to these critically endangered cases, a further 22 fish species are classed as “endangered”: Roundnose grenadier Coryphaenus rupestris, northern wolf-fish Anarhichas denticulatus, dusky grouper Epinephelus marginatus, Tortonese’s goby Pomatoschistus tortonesei, beaked redfish Sebastes mentella, oceanic whitetip shark Carcharhinus longimanus, sandbar shark Carcharinus plumbeus, bigeye thresher shark Alopias superciliosus, common thresher shark Alopias vulpinus, whale shark Cetorhinus maximus, giant devil ray Mobula mobular, sandy ray Leucoraja circularis, rough ray Raja radula, blackchin guitarfish Glaucostegus cemiculus, common guitarfish Rhinobatos rhinobatos, lowfin gulper shark Centrophorus lusitanicus, leafscale gulper shark Centrophorus squamosus, birdbeak dogfish Deania calcea, kitefin shark Dalatias licha, bramble shark Echinorhinus brucus, portuguese dogfish Centroscymnus coelolepis and spurdog Squalus acanthias. 2.2.8.5.Seabirds Particularly in North-western waters, three species of seabirds are near threatened (Little gull, Larus minutus, horned grebe, Podiceps auritus, Fea’s petrel, Pterodroma feae), three are listed as vulnerable (common loon, Gavia immer, Leach’s storm-petrel Hydrobates leucorhous, Steller’s eider Polysticta stelleri), two are endangered (white-faced storm petrel, Pelagodroma marina, Zino’s petrel Pterodroma madeira) and one is critically endangered (Balearic shearwater). Of the six red-listed species none has an assessment of either population size or of incidental catch mortality. 2.3. Sensitive habitats 2.3.1.State of knowledge Different fishing activities are appropriate to catching different species of commercial fish and can be appropriate to different social and economic situations. For example, bottom trawling, demersal seining and dredging is an appropriate method for the capture of demersal fish and benthic species such as Nephrops and scallops but also may cause disturbance of the seabed, sediment and benthic species. It can be very destructive to certain hard habitats such as shellfish and coral beds, and to most sediment habitats. In contrast, pelagic and demersal gill and trammel netting has much less seabed disturbance effect, but may cause significant incidental catches of large sharks, porpoises, dolphins, seabirds and marine turtles. Fisheries targeting pelagic species such as mackerel, herring and sardine have much lower impacts on seabed but may also cause incidental catches of seals, porpoises and dolphins and even whales. For this reason, consideration must be given when designing measures to protect seabed habitats from towed demersal gear that diverting fishing to alternative fishing methods or areas can have different but important environmental effects. The Regulation includes measures to protect sensitive habitats in its Article 12 and Annex II. Most of these were adopted over a decade ago and originate from decisions taken in OSPAR or on a national basis and implemented into EU fisheries law thereafter. The main focus is on the protection of complex deep-water seabed communities such as deep-water corals, sponges or the iconic Darwin Mounds. A review and updating of the measures in a regionalised context is now appropriate in the light of the most recent information. The EU red-list (Gubbay et al., 2016) covers the state of European marine habitats according to three principal categories. “Data deficient” habitats are those where insufficient information was available to make an assessment. “Green” categories are habitats of least concern or near threatened. The “Threatened” category is subdivided into three: “Critically endangered”, “Endangered” and “Vulnerable”. The assessment of which category a habitat is placed depends on the overall trend (declining or stable), the current geographic distribution (restricted in occurrence or occupancy, or present in few locations), any reduction in biotic or abiotic quality, and an analysis of the probability of collapse. Extinctions or collapses of habitats are also recorded. European marine habitats were examined against these criteria within 10km x 10km hydrographic grid squares. Results are summarised in Table 2.4.2.1. Overall, 247 habitats were assessed in the EU-28 area, of which 19% were classed in the three “threatened” categories. The highest proportion of threatened habitats was in the Mediterranean Sea (32%) followed by the Northeast Atlantic (23%), the Black Sea (13%) and the Baltic Sea (8%). An EU-27 analysis is not yet available. Knowledge about habitat status is far from complete. Knowledge was insufficient to assess the state of 49% of habitats overall (5% in Baltic Sea, 60% in Northeast Atlantic, 49% in the Mediterranean Sea and 83% in the Black Sea). Knowledge is therefore good in the Baltic Sea and very poor in the Black Sea, but also poor in the Mediterranean and North east Atlantic. Outside the Baltic Sea, improved knowledge about the state of habitats is clearly necessary in order to achieve nature protection objectives.

Table 2.4.2.1. Overall EU red list categories for marine habitats in EU28. CR, critically endangered. EN, endangered. VU, vulnerable. NT, near threatened. LC, least concern. DD, data deficient. Source: Gubbay et al. 2016. 2.3.2.Baltic Sea Of 61 habitats assessed, 8% were classed as threatened by Gubbay et al. (2016). These were habitats characterised by coarse or muddy sediments with a restricted geographical distribution in the western Baltic Sea. The Baltic marine habitats are especially threatened by eutrophication due to nutrient enrichment, followed by sediment removal and disturbance of the seabed by demersal trawl fisheries. The following habitats were classed as endangered: ·Infaunal communities on infralittoral shell gravel ·Sparse epibenthic communities of Baltic upper circalittoral muddy sediment And the vulnerable habitats were: ·Infaunal communities in Baltic upper circalittoral coarse sediment and shell gravel dominated by bivalves ·Infaunal communities of Baltic upper circalittoral muddy sediment dominated by bivalves ·Communities of Baltic lower circalittoral soft sediments (mud and sand) Fishing ranked as the fourth most important pressure on these habitats after pollution, natural system modifications and climate change. Three habitats were classed as data deficient: ·Sparse or no macrocommunities on Baltic infralittoral shell gravel; · Epibenthic macrocommunity on Baltic infralittoral sand; · Infaunal communities in Baltic upper circalittoral mixed sediment 2.3.3.North Sea, north western waters and south-western waters The extent, magnitude, and impact of mobile bottom-contacting fishing gear on the seabed and benthic habitats varies geographically across the North Sea. Using vessel monitoring system (VMS) and logbook data ICES estimates that mobile bottom trawls used by commercial fisheries in the 12 m+ vessel category have been deployed over approximately 490 185 km2 of the ecoregion in 2018, corresponding to ca. 73.1 % of the ecoregion’s spatial extent (Figure 7 of the ICES Ecosystem Overview for Greater North Sea issued in 2020). The extent, magnitude, and impact of mobile bottom-contacting fishing gear on the seabed and benthic habitats varies geographically across the Celtic Seas. Fishing is concentrated along the shelf edge, i.e. around the southern shelf regions and on fishing grounds in the Irish Sea and to the west of Scotland but is widespread across the entire region where bottom fishing is permitted (i.e. less than 800m depth). According to the Oslo Paris Convention for Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic (OSPAR), 5.9 % of the Bay of Biscay and Iberian Coast are covered by MPAs, a percentage that is close to the European average. In the EU red-list, Gubbay et al. (2016) identified seagrass beds on Atlantic infralittoral sand as critically endangered habitats. In addition the following habitats were classed as endangered: ·Polychaete/bivalve-dominated mid-estuarine Atlantic littoral mud

·Polychaete/oligochaete-dominated upper estuarine Atlantic littoral mud ·Marine Atlantic littoral mud with associated communities ·Mussel beds in the Atlantic littoral zone ·Atlantic upper circalittoral fine sand ·Atlantic upper circalittoral muddy sand ·Atlantic lower circalittoral sand ·Atlantic upper circalittoral fine sandy mud ·Atlantic upper circalittoral fine mud ·Atlantic lower circalittoral mud The following habitats were classed as vulnerable: ·Faunal communities in marine Atlantic infralittoral coarse sediment ·Atlantic upper circalittoral coarse sediment ·Atlantic lower circalittoral coarse sediment ·Atlantic upper circalittoral mixed sediment ·Atlantic lower circalittoral mixed sediment ·Atlantic maerl beds ·Seagrass beds on Atlantic infralittoral sand (Macaronesian) The threats to these habitats arise from various pressures. Fishing is an important pressure in the circalittoral and infralittoral zones, but less so in the littoral and estuarine zones. Pollution is an important pressure on the littoral and infralittoral habitats. In general, the pressures resulting in threats to marine habitats are very site-specific and habitat-specific. 2.3.4.Mediterranean and Black Seas The assessment of marine habitats in the Mediterranean Sea was possible only for 51% of habitats, the remainder being data deficient. Fifteen out of 23 assessed habitats in EU waters were endangered (5) or vulnerable (10). No habitats were critically endangered.

The endangered habitats are: ·Communities of Mediterranean mediolittoral estuarine mud ·Photophilic communities with canopy-forming algae in Mediterranean infralittoral and upper circalittoral rock ·Algal dominated communities in the Mediterranean infralittoral sediment · Mediterranean infralittoral mussel beds ·Mediterranean infralittoral oyster beds And the vulnerable habitats: · Communities of Mediterranean mediolittoral sands ·Communities of Mediterranean mediolittoral mud ·Biogenic habitats of Mediterranean mediolittoral rock ·Photophilic communities dominated by calcareous, habitat-forming algae ·Communities of Mediterranean infralittoral estuarine rock ·Communities of Mediterranean soft circalittoral rock ·Communities of Mediterranean lower circalittoral sand ·Communities of Mediterranean infralittoral estuarine mud ·Communities of Mediterranean infralittoral muddy detritic bottoms ·Posidonia beds in the Mediterranean infralittoral zone The principal pressures on these habitats are pollution, fishing, aquaculture, coastal urbanisation, climate change and invasive non-indigenous species. Eutrophication is a problem in heavily populated coastal regions and particularly in the northern Adriatic. The infralittoral and circalittoral communities are partιcularly vulnerable to impacts from fishing; 25% of habitat types were reported to be under threat from demersal trawling. Knowledge of Black Sea habitats is very poor. 83% of habitat types were classed as data deficient and could not be assessed. Of the 17% that could be assessed, one habitat was critically endangered: the Pontic circalittoral biogenic detritic bottoms with dead or alive mussel beds, shell deposits, with encrusting corallines (Phymatolithon, Lithothamnion) and attached foliose sciaphilic macroalgae. Five habitat types are endangered in the Black Sea:

·Turf algae on Pontic moderately exposed lower mediolittoral rock · Pontic mediolittoral caves and overhangs ·Fucales and other algae on Pontic sheltered upper infralittoral rock, well illuminated ·Seagrass meadows in Pontic lower infralittoral sands ·Mussel beds on Pontic circalittoral terrigenous muds And one was classed as vulnerable: ·Invertebrate-dominated Pontic circalittoral rock In the Black Sea, pollution was classed as affecting the most habitats, followed by urbanisation (in the littoral and infralittoral zones) and fishing (in the infralittoral and circalittoral zones). 2.3.5.Macaronesia The Azores, Canaries and Madeira island groups are volcanic islands surrounded by narrow bands of upper bathyal sediment of upper bathyal rock and biogenic reefs, with occasional small patches of sand. Gubbay et al. (2016) classed Macaronesian communities of eulittoral rock moderately exposed to wave action and Macaronesian communities of lower eulittoral rock sheltered from wave action as vulnerable. The key habitats in these areas are deep-sea habitats (lower bathyal sediment, rock and biogenic reefs) constituting the steep volcanic slopes, and large expanses of abyssal mud. Cold corals form important habitats. Seabed impacts from trawling are limited or absent because the extremely rocky and irregular volcanic seabeds make trawling impactical. Below 800m trawling is prohibited. Impacts on marine demersal habitats are therefore likely to be limited. Maerl beds and meadows of Avrainvillea canariensis are atypical habitats of particular interest in the Canaries and Madeira group. Molluscs (Patella spp. and Megabalanus azoricus) have been heavily exploited commercially in the Azores ecoregion, and are now on the OSPAR list of threatened and declining species. In the Azores ecoregion, abrasion pressure is low because bottom trawling is banned, as is also the case around Madeira and the Canary Islands. The Azores ecoregion is known as a hotspot for cold-water corals. Mostly medium-sized, three-dimensional, and branched colonies of coral often occur as bycatch in bottom longlining fisheries, with Leiopathes spp., Errina dabneyi, and Dendrophyllia sp. most frequently encountered. Given the high incidence of coral bycatch in bottom longline fisheries around the Azores and the decrease in corals bycatch in traditional fishing grounds, conservation measures may be required. A decline in habitat-forming macroalgae has been observed in the north-western Iberian Peninsula. ICES Fisheries Overview for Bay of Biscay and the Iberian Coast ecoregion informs that protected areas have been designated for habitats and species listed by EU Nature Directives. Fishery regulations are in place to restrict certain fisheries that may affect vulnerable habitats. 3.Implementation of the Regulation and consultation of Member States, Advisory Councils and Stakeholders The European Commission consulted Member States, Advisory Councils and stakeholders by means of a specific questionnaire (‘the questionnaire’). Further details on the consultation process are explained in Appendix II (Synopsis). 3.1.The objectives and the targets Regarding the general assessment of the achievement of the objectives and targets of the Regulation, the scientists as well as most contributions from Member States and Advisory Councils underlined the fact that the recent entry of the Regulation into force does not allow to come to a measurement of its impact in the light of these objectives and targets. Member States also pointed out to difficulties in how to incorporate the environmental objectives when drafting joint recommendations under the Regulation.

Other Member States felt that the Regulation had not achieved its goal in streamlining and simplifying legislation in the area of technical measures, with provisions contained in multiannual plans, fishing opportunities legislation and the landing obligation also imposing certain technical measures. Member States and Advisory Councils from the Mediterranean Sea basin also pointed out that given the particular situation of shared stocks and the close relation with non-EU countries, technical measures should be adopted at international level, thus avoiding duplicating efforts. At the same time, most of the stakeholders who participated in the online consultation consider that the measures adopted under the Regulation have not contributed to the objectives and targets set out. Some pleaded for the adoption of a result-based approach from an environmental point of view rather than focusing on gears. It seems to be a common view that technical measures fail to prevent negative environmental impacts of fishing and that there is a need to align the technical measures adopted under the Regulation with the ambitions of the European Green Deal and the EU Biodiversity Strategy 2030. A small majority of stakeholders call for ban of bottom trawl and dredges. Similarly, several stakeholders in the online consultation consider that the Regulation fails to protect juveniles and does not contribute to decreasing incidental catches of sensitive species. Stakeholders also criticized the insufficient monitoring, control and enforcement of the measures. Some Advisory Councils refer to the importance of data collection, which is necessary in order to evaluate the contribution of the Regulation in the future. 3.2.Implementation of common technical measures Articles 7 to 9 of the Regulation set out general restrictions on the use of fishing gear. Articles 10 to 11 set out measures to protect sensitive species. These measures apply to all EU waters and EU fishermen. Regarding the fishing activity carried out by the trawlers using electric pulse, the Commission’s proposal, allowing this fishing technique subject to specific control requirements, was based on both the 2006 ICES and 2012 STECF advice . However, this proposal was not retained in the Regulation as adopted by the co-legislators and the Regulation now prohibits electric pulse fishing as from 1 July 2021. The prohibition introduced by the Regulation has been contested by the Netherlands before the European Court of Justice, which dismissed the action on 15 April 2021. Since the entry into force of the Regulation, ICES at the request of the Netherlands, issued a new advice in May 2020, specifically addressing the impacts on the ecosystem and environment in the sole (Solea solea) fishery. In this advice, ICES underlines several positive effects as for the use of this technique, and some remaining uncertainties regarding the physiological impacts to marine organisms not caught in the fishery, however not expected to affect the potential of the populations under study, give the low probability of exposure to pulse stimuli. However, currently the prohibition applies and the Regulation does not foresee a possibility for amendment through regionalisation on the proposal of Member States. Some stakeholders that replied to the online consultation were opposed to the general prohibition of the use of electric pulse trawling, and in particular to the fact that it was not possible to allow wider use of this fishing method through regionalisation. They referred to the ICES advice of May 2020, in answer to a request from the Netherlands, which stated that the change from conventional beam trawling to pulse trawling when exploiting the total allowable catch of North Sea sole contributes to reducing the ecosystem/environmental impacts of the sole fishery. Another contributor supported the maintenance of the restrictions on electric fishing. Article 8 of the Regulation sets out the general restrictions for towed gears. In particular, Article 8(5) provides that the Commission may adopt, by means of implementing regulation, detailed rules for some technical specifications that have direct impact in the size-selectivity for example those affecting cod-end specifications (twine thickness, cod-end circumference) and escape panels design. These measures are intended to be incorporated into the future implementing regulation, which is under discussion with Member States. Regarding Article 10 (Prohibited fish and shellfish), no major problems have been reported by Member States. All Member States consider the Annex I list as adequate, although other species listed in CITES which could be included in this Annex if scientific advice demonstrates a conservation benefit. Several Member States called for better alignment of the Regulation with the CFP Regulation and with the Birds and Habitats Directives as well as the MSFD, in particular the alignment of the list of protected species in Annex I with the annual “Fishing Opportunities” Regulations. Some Member States suggested the development of criteria by EU scientific bodies to justify the choice of species to be protected. Some regional groups have suggested the addition of more species to the list. Some Advisory Councils who participated in the consultation suggested to split the list into two, with a fixed part in the Regulation and a variable part fixed each year in the annual Fishing Opportunities Regulations in order to provide flexibility. As for some Member States, some of the Advisory Councils also considered that there should be defined scientific criteria for inclusion in the Prohibited Species list. MEDAC members suggested including 18 additional species (sharks and rays) to ensure compatibility with recommendations of GFCM, ICCAT and the Barcelona Convention. Furthermore, they also suggested to add some other species on the basis of updated stock assessments. In reply to the online consultation, half of respondents thought that the list of species in Annex I is not complete. Many stakeholders suggested adding the critically endangered European eel (Anguilla anguilla) to the list. It was also suggested to include 18 additional species (sharks and rays) in the Mediterranean Sea in order to align with Recommendations 36/2012/3, 42/2018/242/2018/2 and Article 11 (2) of the Protocol to the Barcelona Convention, because of their conservation status as listed on the EU Red List as endangered or critically endangered and for alignment with ICCAT regulations. Article 11: In relation to catches of marine mammals, seabirds and marine reptiles, Member States did not report any overall difficulty in the implementation of its provisions.

A majority of stakeholders in the consultation consider that the measures which are in place to ensure that species in Article 11 of the Regulation are not harmed and are promptly released when they are caught are not adequate. Most of these see as a problem that the measures applied through this article are decided per Member States for their own vessels. However, some measures should apply regionally/ union wide. Most of these stakeholders also agree that providing fishers with training in safe handling practices and useful general principles can significantly improve post-capture survival of the species. 3.3.Protection for sensitive habitats (Article 12) Where several Member States have interests in fishing in an area, they should coordinate using regionalisation in order to design common measures to protect certain species and habitats (Article 21 and Annex XIII to the Regulation). Regarding Article 12 and Annex II to the Regulation, which concern the protection of sensitive habitats, no Member State has reported any problem or infringement. Two Member States informed that following the conditions of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 (‘Control regulation’), some vessels have been allowed to operate in these areas and have been constantly monitored. Member States also provided information on protected areas set in their national legislation. Member States were asked whether they intend to take additional habitat conservation measures in the coming three years. A majority of Member States intended to increase the extent of the protected areas. Some of them commented that they are starting to work regionally to propose protection areas beyond national jurisdiction. The views of Advisory Councils differ regarding additional technical nature conservation measures for the protection of sensitive habitats. A majority of Advisory Councils either do not see the need for these additional technical nature conservation measures or do not consider it relevant. On the other hand, some Advisory Councils see the need to link technical measures with efforts to protect and restore habitats and species. Weak salmon stocks need further protection and technical measures in line with ICES recommendations, such as moving the fishery closer to rivers of origin, and more protection of sensitive coastal habitats by prohibiting bottom trawling in these areas was suggested. Regarding the Annex II to the Regulation, most of stakeholders in the online consultation think that measures in this Annex are not adequate. Stakeholders suggest much broader application of spatial gear restrictions. More specifically, a majority call for a general prohibition of the most destructive fishing gear including bottom trawling and dredging, in all European MPAs; and the creation of an EU-wide ban of bottom-trawling in coastal areas. 3.4.Additional measures to protect sensitive species. Regarding the measures to ensure that incidental catches of marine mammals, marine reptiles, seabirds and other non-commercially exploited species do not exceed levels provided for in EU legislation and international agreements that are binding on the EU, a clear majority of Member States commented that they follow current measures of the legislation. Those Member States operating in sea basins where the most of impact on certain species of cetaceans occur have offered more detailed information on their national programmes and measures. A majority of ACs reported that they are aware of mitigation measures or restrictions on certain gears that Member States have put in place to minimise or where possible eliminate the catches of mammals, seabirds and marine turtles, for example the use of ADDs in the Bay of Biscay by French trawlers since 2019. A majority of ACs suggest to provide fishermen with a training on how to manage and release captured individuals to increase their chances of post-release survival. Others see the possibility to improve this issue by better use of electronic devices, such as ADD or pingers. A majority of ACs (6 out of 8) considered that additional technical nature conservation measures for the protection of sensitive species are needed. Better monitoring and control in marine protected areas is needed. More control over the placement of fixed nets in the Black Sea is needed to reduce the incidence of marine mammal capture. The use of FAD (Fish Aggregating Devices) needs to be reduced and controlled, as these put at risk juveniles of several sensitive species and of species of high commercial value. Careful consideration may be given to spatial and temporal closures for dolphin populations on scientific evidence. Member States were invited to comment on measures to protect sensitive species as set out in Annex XIII to the Regulation, and inform whether, following point 3 of Annex XIII, any corresponding joint recommendations setting out additional mitigation measures were under preparation. Concerning monitoring of sensitive species incidental catches and their reduction most Member States referred to the current provisions of the data collection framework. Most of them described additional measures such as trials with REM to improve control and good practice guides for fishers. Annex XIII of the Regulation requires in points 2 and 3, to collect scientific data on incidental catches and to submit joint recommendations for additional mitigation measures for the reduction of incidental catches when as a result of scientific evidence validated, amongst others, by GFCM so indicates. However, when asked on the implementation of Annex XIII, some Member States considered that this Annex does not apply in the Mediterranean Sea. ACs considered that additional regional mitigation measures for the reduction of incidental catches of sensitive species are currently not required. They emphasized that existing measures need to be fully monitored and evaluated before additional measures are adopted. There is however, a proposal for mitigation measures for harbour porpoise in the Baltic Sea (BSAC) and on spatial/temporal closures for cetaceans in the north western waters and in Bay of Biscay (NWWAC, MEDAC). As for increasing knowledge and improving monitoring, a majority of Member States referred to current DCF, although some also recognized that this might not be enough. As in previous questions, some Mediterranean Member States commented that Annex XIII does not apply in that sea. There are mixed views among ACs as to whether the additional steps to collect scientific data on incidental catches of sensitive species as required in Annex XIII are needed. Some of them suggest replacing sampling effort on incidental catches for example through self-reporting using the electronic reporting in logbooks, use of smart-phone apps or SMS. Regarding the need for additional steps to sufficiently monitor and assess the effectiveness of mitigation measures as set out in Annex XIII, a majority of Advisory Councils did not respond this question or did not see any need for such steps. Regarding the mitigation measures or restrictions on certain gear that Member States have put in place to minimise or where possible eliminate the catches of mammals, seabirds and marine turtles, most of stakeholders are aware of such measures. Regarding the nature conservation technical measures for the protection of sensitive species, most of the stakeholders think the additional measures are needed. Stakeholders here refer to different kinds of practices that should be applied. In this regard, they also widely support the EU Biodiversity Strategy target to allocate 30% of the sea areas as MPAs and to strictly protect 10% of those areas. A large majority of stakeholders in the online consultation share the opinion that the collection of scientific data on incidental catches of sensitive species as set out in Annex XIII should be improved. Many of these stakeholders could support two suggestions – all vessel sizes should be monitored, not just those over 15 m and that available techniques such as automatic identification system (‘AIS’) and REM including cameras (e.g. CCTV) have to be implemented to achieve high enough coverage of monitoring in all marine areas of the EU.

3.5.Regionalisation (Article 15) The main objective of regionalising the technical measures Regulation is to bring decision-making process closer to fishers and coastal communities in the respective sea basins. Instead of detailed and overly prescriptive top-down rules, Article 15 of the Regulation allows Member States together with stakeholders can, by means of joint recommendations, develop and identify the rules and provisions that are necessary and adequate to the local or regional situation. These rules and provisions can amend, supplement, repeal or derogate from the technical measures set out in the Annexes containing regional technical measures listed in Article 15(1) of the Regulation. This change in governance means in particular that, through the possibility to propose joint recommendations, Member States and stakeholders also have a responsibility to contribute to achieving the objectives and targets set out in Articles 3 and 4 of the Regulation (Article 15(4)(a)). This is also a means for Member States to fulfil their obligations in respect of the Habitats, Birds and Marine Strategy Framework Directives. Member States have already made use of this possibility to address some issues and to better align measures to regional conditions (for example, measures concerning gillnets in north-western waters, the plaice box and the Baltic fishery for turbot and flounder). To the date of publication of this document, there have been 21 joint recommendations agreed and submitted to the Commission (see list in Annex III). Article 15(7) provides for the possibility of the Commission to ask the STECF to assess the joint recommendations submitted by Member States, which has been relevant for most cases. Measures in joint recommendations must contribute to the achievement of targets and objectives of the Regulation, but in any case must not hinder the achievement of those objectives, either in size-selectivity or in the protection of sensitive species and habitats. In particular, the measures proposed in these joint recommendations ‘should, as a minimum lead to such benefits for the conservation of marine biological resources that are at least equivalent to the ones provided by the baseline standards, in particular in terms of exploitation patterns and the level of protection provided for sensitive species and habitats’ with respect to the conditions existing on 14 August 2019 (date of entry into force of the Regulation) is permitted. Some Member States and Advisory Councils expressed concerns as to how to quantify or demonstrate how a Joint Recommendation would contribute to environmental objectives, such as achieving GES or reducing impacts on the environment or on sensitive species. The online stakeholders considered that the regionalisation process was not working adequately. Member States often did not propose measures that were sufficiently effective and often failed to reach agreement on appropriate and adequate measures. 3.6.Regional technical measures concerning selec