This report commits only the Commission's services involved in its preparation and does not prejudge the final form of any decision to be taken by the Commission

Executive Summary Sheet

Impact assessment on a proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council for the conservation of fishery resources and for the protection of marine organisms through technical measures

A. Need for action

Why? What is the problem being addressed?

The current technical measures regime (31 regulations) is no longer fit for achieving the sustainability objectives of the new CFP. Specifically the current measures are: based on negative, mostly coercive incentives in a top-down governance system creating mistrust amongst stakeholders as measures are seen as inequitable, leading to non-compliance;  impossible to measure their impact on the achievement of the conservation objectives of the CFP; numerous and overly complex making compliance and control more difficult; controlling too many aspects of fishing operations undermining the sector's confidence in the measures; providing little incentive to fish selectively where there is no cost to discarding, or of catching vulnerable species or impacting adversely on the seabed; and sub-optimal in respect of achieving broader environmental and ecological policy objectives The catching sector (around 82,000 vessels, employing 98,500 FTE) is most affected.

What is this initiative expected to achieve?

This initiative aims to: (1)Optimise the contribution of technical measures to achieving the key objectives of the new CFP that came into force on 1 January 2014. (2)Create the flexibility required to adjust technical measures by facilitating regionalised approaches (consistent with the objectives in EU law). (3)Simplify the current rules in line with Commission's REFIT programme. The current rules are overly complex and difficult to enforce, and simplification will lead to reductions in administrative costs and burden. It also addresses the need for simplification of technical measures outlined in an earlier Commission Communication on the implementation of the CFP.

What is the value added of action at the EU level?

Provisions on conservation of marine biological resources falls under the exclusive competence of the EU according to Article 3(1d) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union). Therefore, the subsidiarity principle does not apply for those provisions. However, at the heart of this proposal is the concept of regionalisation whereby MS should cooperate regionally to develop and implement conservation measures.

B. Solutions

What legislative and non-legislative policy options have been considered? Is there a preferred choice or not? Why?

The baseline scenario maintains the existing set of 31 Regulations. Option 1: Consolidation – A new regulation with a limited scope which would bring together and consolidate in one Regulation for common rules with regionally specific rules remaining in the existing regulations. Regionalisation would happen if and where Member States submit joint recommendations for multiannual plans. Option 2: Framework – A framework regulation containing general provisions and corresponding standards; common rules and technical provisions; and baseline standards by region corresponding to identified results which would function as a default measures in the context of regionalisation. The baselines and default technical measures that correspond to the objectives would be applicable unless and until regionalised measures are designed and introduced into Union law. A sub-option (2.1) is a framework regulation without defined baselines. Option 3: Elimination of existing rules – Repeal of the majority of the existing regulations (except for essential nature conservation measures). Any necessary technical measures in the longer term would be developed regionally under multiannual plans. This option assumes that the landing obligation is a result-driven measure in itself and will lead to clean fisheries. Option 2 best meets the objectives set and provides a level of security that conservation objectives will continue to be met while regionalisation develops.

Who supports which option?