EN    EN EN 
 
EN    EN  COMMISSION OF THE E UROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Brussels, 17.3.2009 
SEC(2009) 300 
  
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
Impact Assessment concerning the Commission' s proposal for a Council Regulation on 
the long-term management of  the Northern hake stock 
  
COM(2009)122 final 
SEC(2009) 301 
 
EN ii   EN COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION 
Impact Assessment concerning the Commission' s proposal for a Council Regulation on 
the long-term management of  the Northern hake stock 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
1. Procedural issues and consulta tion of interested parties.............................................. 4 
1.1. Organisation and Timing.............................................................................................. 4 1.2. Consultation and expertise ........................................................................................... 4 1.3. Dissemination of scientific advice and the re sults of consultations  with stakeholders 5 
2. Problem Definition....................................................................................................... 6 2.1. Issue requiring action ................................................................................................... 6  
2.2. Underlying driving forces ............................................................................................ 6 2.3. Effect on the sector...................................................................................................... .7  
3. Objectives.................................................................................................................. . 10 
4. Policy Options............................................................................................................ 11  
4.1. Option 1 - no policy change....................................................................................... 11 4.2. Option 2 - management plan...................................................................................... 11 4.2.1. Option 2 implementation alternatives ........................................................................ 12 4.3. Option 3 - decommissioning of fleet.......................................................................... 12 5. Analysis of Impacts.................................................................................................... 13 5.1. Environmental impacts............................................................................................... 13 5.2. Economic impacts ...................................................................................................... 13 5.3. Social impacts ............................................................................................................ 14 
5.4. Impacts on international relations .............................................................................. 15 5.5. Impact summary......................................................................................................... 15 6. 6. Comparing the Options .......................................................................................... 16 7. Monitoring and Evaluation ........................................................................................ 19 
ANNEX.......................................................................................................................... .......... 20 
Glossary....................................................................................................................... ............. 25 
 
EN iii   EN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
This Impact Assessment concerns a draft proposal for a Regulation that would replace the 
current recovery plan (EC Reg. No 811/20041) and set long-term management objectives and 
implementing methods concerning a fishery for the northern hake.  
The likely environmental, social and economic im pacts are limited as compared to the current 
Regulation because the changes foreseen are sm all, because it concerns a follow-up of the 
existing recovery plan. This is  a proportionate impact assessment for which no formal inter-
service steering group was set up.  
The proposal is supported by DG MARE as an additional element in implementing 
sustainability in EU fisheries th rough maximum sustainable yield.  
Scientific Committees and Stakeholders have be en consulted. The Com mission has sought the 
opinion of Member States and the Regional A dvisory Councils (RACs) on the basis of a non-
paper.  
The operational elements are: 
• A rule for setting the fishing opportunities each  year in order to achieve sustainable long 
term exploitation of this resource. 
• A rule for improving the exploitation pattern of the northern hake fishery in order to 
increase the benefits of the management plan  in the long term and to reach the target 
fishing mortality sooner. 
• A method for a reduction of overcapacity acco mpanying the options described above. The 
removal of excess fishing capacity would incr ease the economic benefit of each remaining 
vessel by increasing the available fishing oppor tunities per vessel and reducing costs. 
The Impact Assessment considers three main options: 1) Option 1 – no policy change; 2) Option 2 - management plan;  3) 
Option 3 - decommissioning of fleet.  
Details of the consultation processe s, options and impacts are provided. 
                                                 
1 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ 
 
EN 4   EN 1. PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES  
1.1. Organisation and Timing 
This impact assessment concerns a proposal for a Council Regulation esta blishing a long-term 
plan for the stock of no rthern hake distributed mainly to th e west and south of  Ireland, in the 
western Channel and in the Bay of Biscay and the fisheries exploiting that stock. Its 
development is foreseen in Agenda Pla nning (FISH/2008/028) a nd in the 2008 Annual 
Management Plan of the Direct orate-General of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries under the 
specific objective "Conservati on and Management of Fish Resources" (to propose and 
negotiate measures, including multi-annual mana gement plans, for the conservation and 
management of Community fish stocks, join t stocks and stocks partly occurring in 
international waters, with a view to ensuring the exploitation of fish  stocks at maximum 
sustainable yield levels, taki ng into account broader environmental, economic and social 
concerns and making the best use of harvested fish resources, especial ly by avoiding wasteful 
discard practices). 
The 2002 reform of the Common Fisheries Polic y set the basis for management under long-
term plans rather than by annual deci sion-making. In 2006 the Commission made a 
commitment to reach the objective of the declaration made at the World Summit on 
Sustainable Development in Johann esburg, with respect to restori ng stocks to levels that can 
produce maximum sustainable yields (MSY) by 2015.  
The Northern Hake recovery plan was adopted in 2004 (EC Reg. No 811/20042). The 
recovery plan is to be replaced by a manageme nt plan when, in two consecutive years, the 
target level for the stock has been reached. Th e International Council for the Exploration of 
the Sea (ICES), with the agreement of the Sc ientific Technical and Economic Committee for 
Fisheries (STECF), has evaluated and advised that the targets se t in the recove ry plan have 
been reached and therefore a management plan mu st be established to ensure the sustainable 
exploitation of this stock in the long-term.  
The adoption of the proposal is fore seen in the fourth quarter of 2008. 
The future management should be based on sound scientific advice. The Commission has 
asked STECF to provide scientif ic advice regarding several possi ble scenarios for the future 
management plan. The request covered both single-species management and multi-species 
management considerations, as well as socio-economic aspects. 
This is a proportionate impact assessment and no inter-service steering group has been 
convened. The scope of the proposal is lim ited and the impact, in social, economic and 
environmental terms, is modest.  
1.2. Consultation and expertise 
External expertise has been sought from ICES concerning long-term mana gement of fisheries 
resources of interest to the European Commun ity since 2003. This organisation collates the 
expertise of fisheries scientists mostly working in the national fisheries laboratories of Member States and provides a systematic a nd standardised advice to the European 
Community and to Member States.  
Advice on Northern Hake has been sought from relevant scientific organisations since 2001. 
The impact assessment is prepared by DG MARE on the basis of scientific advice concerning 
                                                
 
2 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/L exUriServ.do?uri=COM:2003:0374:FIN:EN:PDF  
 
EN 5   EN long-term management3 and is complemented with furt her economic analysis. Consultation 
with stakeholders has taken place w ith the relevant representative body. 
Stakeholders were consulted by means of verb al and written presentations to the North 
Western Waters Regional Advisory C ouncil (NWWRAC) and South Western Waters 
Regional Advisory Council (SWWRAC). These RACs ensure a fair representation of 
stakeholders as they have been established as  the main bodies for cons ultations with parties 
having an interest in the Common Fisheries Policy  in respect of fish stocks in the North and 
South Western Waters. The principal aim of the NWWRAC is to bring together stakeholders 
from across Europe, to advise the Commission on matters of fisheries management in respect 
of the waters covering ICES areas Vb (EC waters), VI, VII. The SWWRAC covers the 
Atlantic area going from the point of Brittany in  its North to the Straits of Gibraltar in its 
South as well as the ultraperipheric regions of Madera, Azores and the Canarias Islands.  The 
Advisory Committee on Fisheries and Aquacultu re (ACFA) was not c onsulted as that body 
advises on cross-cutting issues whereas this plan concerns a specific regional issue. 
The issue was first presented by the Commi ssion services to the NWWRAC and SWWRAC 
beginning on 23rd February 2008. The RAC opinions4 indicated: 
• general acceptance of the approach advised by STECF suggesting a reduction in fishing 
mortality (F); 
• support for a reduction in F achieved through decommissioning of vessels within national 
schemes; 
• disinclination to accept effort reduction thr ough limitation of KW/d ays and its potential 
implications for TAC and quota allocations; 
• possibility of harmonization of mesh sizes to  100mm for all the hake gillnet fishery, as 
opposed to increasing mesh size for the fishery; 
• support to the French initiative to increase se lectivity for Nephrops trawlers through the 
use of square mesh panels, as opposed to increasing the mesh size;  
• disinclination to accept an in crease in the mesh size of the demersal fishery5 to improve 
selectivity for hake; 
• refusal to accept closing areas to fishing to protect juvenile hake. 
The RAC representative from the environmen tal Non Governmental Organisation (NGO) 
generally supported the improveme nt of technical conservation measures (leaving the fishing 
industry members to determine the appropriate me sh sizes), and the closed areas proposal as 
suitable for conservation of the hake stocks. 
1.3. Dissemination of scientific advice a nd the results of consultations with 
stakeholders 
The scientific advice from ICES and from STEC F and the advice from the RACs are available 
on the websites of the respective committees. 
                                                 
3 http://fishnet.jrc.it/web/stecf 
4 http://www.nwwrac.or g/admin/publication 
5 Term explained in glossary 
 
EN 6   EN 2. PROBLEM DEFINITION  
2.1. Issue requiring action 
In 2004, a recovery plan for the northern hake stock (E C Reg. No 811/2004) followed up a 
previous emergency plan (EC Reg. No 1162/ 2001, EC Reg. No 2602/2001 and EC Reg. No 
494/2002). The recovery plan aimed at achie ving a stock spawning biomass (SSB) of 
140,000t (precautionary biomass level B pa), by limiting the proportion of hake removed from 
the stock  by fishing (fishing mortality) to 0.25, and with a maximum change in TAC between 
consecutive years of 15%. The objective of a rec overy plan was to achieve an increase in the 
quantities of hake stock threatened with coll apse to a minimum safe level according to the 
precautionary approach. 
 
The recovery plan should be replaced by a manage ment plan when, in two consecutive years, 
the target size level for the stock has been reached. ICES, with the agreement of STECF, 
should advise when the targets set in the recovery plan have been reached6. 
Recent scientific assessments by ICES and STECF indicate that th e objective of the recovery 
plan has been achieved. The increase in spawni ng stock biomass (SSB) appears to be due to a 
combination of good recruitment and moderate fishing mortality. The recovery plan should 
now be replaced to ensure high yields a nd sustainable exploitation of this stock. 
2.2. Underlying driving forces 
The main long-term drivers of the fisheries system are the biological limitations on the 
productivity of the stock and the catching capac ity of the fleet. Reducin g the stock size to a 
low level will (while maintaining high catches for a short period) lower the productive 
potential of the stock. In contrast, in short- term perspectives it can often be economic and 
social pressures which predominate in the dynam ics of the system and lead to decisions on 
fishing opportunities that become unsustainable. 
Although the northern hake stock has recovered, it is  still being fished at the rate which is too 
high for the stock (see Figure 1  in Annex). However a spaw ning stock biomass is above 
precautionary levels (SSB above B pa), it is only slightly above  this precautionary biomass 
limit, while the fleet fishing for this stock still has overcapacity and experiences high 
                                                 
6 Article 3 in EC Reg. No 811/2004 
 
EN 7   EN discarding rates, particularly of juvenile ha ke. STECF advises limiting the proportion of hake 
removed from the stock  by fishing from current level of F=0.25 to F=0.17, to reduce the 
probability of SSB falling below the precautio nary levels while maintaining yield. 
2.3. Effect on the sector 
2.3.1 Identification of the sectors affected  
The sectors affected are fishing vessels from  Spain, SW France, SW Ireland and SW UK, and 
associated on-shore processing industries. Spain accounts for the main part (59% in 2006) of 
landings. France was taking 26% of the total,  UK 6%, with Ireland and Denmark taking each 
3%. 
Geographical distributio n of Northern Hake 
 
The main fisheries7 identified are: 
• "Longliners" fishing in ICES Divisions VII, targeting hake (mainly Spain), with 22% of 
landings; 
• "Gillnets" fishing in ICES Divisions VII and V III, targeting mostly hake and sole (mainly 
France), with 21% of landings; 
• "Demersal" trawlers fishing in ICES Divisi ons VII targeting anglerfish, hake, megrim 
(mainly France, Spain), with 33% of landings; 
• "Nephrops " trawlers fishing in ICES Divisions VII; targeting Nephrops  but taking by-
catches of anglerfish, hake and megrim (mainly France). 
Current size of the sectors and economic dependency on hake landings  
As stated above, Spain and France are the key players in the Northern hake fishery being 
responsible for over 85% of landings. As such , those Member States have high dependency 
on hake landings and therefore will be subject to further detailed analysis. 
                                                 
7 ICES areas in Figure 9 in Annex or 
http://www.ices.dk/aboutus/icesareas /ICES_areas_Arc9_Weuro_300.pdf 
 
EN 8   EN Table A – overview of French and Spanish northern hake fleet (source STECF)  
FRANCE SPAIN Type of vessel 
No. of 
vessels Dependency 
on Hake Percentage 
of overall 
landings No. of 
vessels Dependency 
on Hake Percentage 
of overall 
landings 
Longliners 5 70% 7% 84 70% 44% 
Gillnets 78  57%    
Demersal 160 <6% 15% 113 20% 56% 
Nephrops trawlers 204 <4% 10%    
France had around 650 vessels engaged in fisher ies for hake in 2006, while Spain had around 
200 vessels in. Of the main fisheries identified in the previous section, the following have a 
high economic dependency on hake landings: 
• "Longliners" depend strongly on hake landi ngs (around 70%) although in France this 
fishery (only 5 vessels) catches  low quantities of hake (7% of  French landings). In Spain 
the fleet consists of 84 vessels cat ching 44% of the Spanish landings; 
• "Gillnets" consist of 78 French vessels ca tching 57% of the total French landings; 
• "Demersal" trawlers include 160 French vessels (corresponding to 15% of French 
landings) with low economic dependency (< 6%) on hake. Spain has 113 vessels involved 
in this fishery (with 56% of Spanish landings), the majority of which have a higher dependency (20%) on hake landings. 
• "Nephrops " trawlers include 204 French vessels (10% of French la ndings), the majority of 
which have very low economic de pendency (<4%) on hake landings. 
On board employment (full time equivalents) in the hake fishery in 2005 is estimated to be: 
2438 people in France and 3077 people in Spain. 
In 2008 a first-sale price va lue has been between €4.30-5.50. 
Qualitatively, the impacts on the fleet would be magnified on-shore in the processing 
industry. However, given the low degree of pr ocessing taking place in the hake marketing 
chain, this knock-on effect is likely to  be of a relatively minor importance. 
2.3.2 Effect of the regulation
 
The proposed legal framework coul d include the following elements: 
– Rules for setting TACs on the basis of scientific advice that will lead to exploiting the 
northern hake stock according to MSY within  a medium (by 2016) to long-term (by 2021-
2023) timeframe;  
– Technical measures for special protection of hake juveniles and reducing discards; 
– Sector voluntary decommissioning targets, a possibility available in the operational 
programmes of each Member State; 
– Provisions for periodic review  and adaptation of the plan. 
Scientific evidence shows that maintaining present levels of fishing mortality will deliver less 
than the highest yield in the long term, and will incur unnecessary costs of fishing. 
 
EN 9   EN A legal framework is needed to bring a reducti on in fishing mortality, which in turn would 
bring high economic benefits and more stability  in TACs in the long-term. Reducing fishing 
mortality would increase yields and economic profitability of the industry, albeit with a small 
short term negative transitional impact. This incr ease in profitability is important because of 
the present high fuel costs and lo w profitability of some fleets. 
2.3.3 Magnitude of the effect on the sectors  
Up to 2003, landings of the northern hake ha ve fluctuated around 40 000 t. In 2004 and 2005, 
an important increase in landings had been observed with 47 123 t and 46 300 t of Hake 
landed respectively. In 2006, the total landings decreased to 41,810 t. Recent landings from 
this stock have been around 50,000t according to scientific estimates, with an employment of 
some 6000 people. 
The long-term plan may include the progressive adjustment of TACs that will allow the stock 
to be above B pa at a low risk in the long term. This  is achieved by an annual reduction in 
fishing mortality until reaching the long term fishing mortalit y target. This means reduced 
catches. 
The economic analysis carried out by the STECF concludes that there will be a small impact 
in the short term on the fisheries subjected to  a reduction of fishing mortality. Nevertheless, 
after a period of stability, catch es will increase in the long term , and thus profitability of the 
sector will increase very substa ntially. If the exploitation pattern of the fisheries involved is 
improved the long term benefits are even higher (see section 6). 
STECF also concluded that the impact on the onshore processing sector will be limited since 
most of the hake caught is sold ch illed with very little processing. 
Mixed fisheries considerations  
Hake is caught in mixed fisheries with Nephrops8, megrim and anglerfish. 
A reduction in fishing mortality on hake wi ll also reduce the fishing mortality on these 
species. However, the magnitude of the decrease on megrim and anglerfish  will be lower than 
on hake. The yields of these species will in crease in the long term, although only in one 
species to higher levels than at present. This fact may highlight the n eed for further reduction 
in the fishing mortali ties of these stocks, to enable th em to recover in the long term. 
2.3.4 Legal basis for Community action  
Article 37 of the Treaty establishing the Europe an Community would serve as legal basis for 
the proposal. The proposal would fall under the exclusive competence of the Community and 
therefore the subsidiarity principle would not apply. 
Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the Conservation and 
Sustainable Exploitation of Fisheries Re sources under the Co mmon Fisheries Policy9 provides 
for the establishment of recovery  plans for stocks outside safe biological limits (Article 5) and 
for management plans for fisheries exploiting stoc ks within safe biological limits (Article 6). 
Moreover, the northern hake rec overy plan (EC Reg. No 811/2004)  states that the recovery 
plan is to be replaced by a management plan wh en, in two consecutive years, the target level 
for the stock has been reached, which has been the case.  
2.3.5 Necessity and subsidiarity  
                                                 
8 http://www.fao.org/fishery/species/2647 
9 OJ L 358, 21.12.2002, pp.59-80 
 
EN 10   EN The proposal would fall under th e exclusive competence of the Community and therefore the 
subsidiarity principle would not apply;  
This proposal concerns the annual setting of a TAC for a fish stock th at is shared between 
several Member States: Spain, France, Irelan d and the United Kingdom according to a fixed 
allocation. Management of the shared resource  in those areas theref ore must affect these 
Member States in exactly equal proportion. It is not possible for Member States to do this by 
independent or devolved acti on. Fisheries management is  an exclusive Community 
responsibility and therefore, it is necessary that this manage ment action be implemented in 
Community legislation. 
3. OBJECTIVES  
The general objective of the management plan is to ensure the exploitation of the stock 
consistently with high and sustainable yield.  
Policy coherence concerning sustainability objec tives should be mainta ined. The plan should 
conform to the objectives of the Common Fish eries Policy, as set out in Article 2 of 
Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002. In a ddition, such plans should cont ribute to the aims of the 
Implementation Plan agreed by the World Summit on Sustainable Development at 
Johannesburg in 2002, especially in respect of exploiting stoc ks compatibly with maximum 
sustainable yield (MSY)10. This political objective has been the subject of a separate 
Commission Communication (Imple menting sustainability in EU fisheries through maximum 
sustainable yield (COM (2006)  final) and acco mpanying working document (SEC(2006) 
868)11. 
Specific objectives  
The MSY approach is based on a long-term strategy whereby catch rates are fixed, enabling 
fish stocks to reproduce so that  exploitation can occu r in sustainable economic, environmental 
and social conditions. In order to reach the foregoing objective, it is necessary to reduce 
fishing mortality. 
A reduction of the proportion of hake removed from the stock by fishing (F) from the current 
precautionary level (Fpa) of 0.25 to the optimal  fishing mortality set according to the 
maximum sustainable yield approach at 0.17 (F max) should be achieved. Fpa was set in the 
recovery plan to rebuild the hake stock to safe biomass levels. Fmax of 0.17 has been 
recommended by the scientists12 as a target level to ensure a sustainable yiel d for the stock 
(Annex Figure 1 ). By reducing F pa to F max: 
• SSB would increase to 250 000t, a value well above B pa (140 000t) and then  stabilise at 
that value; 
• yield would increase to the long-term equilibrium value (62 000t), which is above current 
yield (40 000t).  
This would give the stock more stability, reducing the risk of getting back to an unsafe 
situation. Economic efficiency of the fishing industry would also improve. 
                                                 
10 www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/WSSD_POI_DP 
11 www.cc.cec/home/dgser v/sg/sgvista/i/sgv2/repo 
12 report SGBRE-07-03, page 19-20, see footnote 3 
 
EN 11   EN Three measures that contribute to  reducing fishing mortality are: 
(1) establishing Harvest Control Rules (HCR) As in the recovery plan, an annual Total Al lowable Catch (TAC) would be set so as to 
implement an adjustment in fishing mortality towards the rate that will deliver the highest yields Decisions need to be made about the rate of adapta tion, and the extent to which 
variations in TAC can be limited. This woul d maintain a healthy fishing industry and the 
Northern Hake stock.  
(2) introducing technical meas ures to protect juvenile hake and reduce discards 
An improvement in the exploitation pattern
13 of the northern hake fi shery would considerably 
add to the benefits of the ma nagement plan in the long term14. Furthermore, the target fishing 
mortality might be reached sooner by improvi ng the exploitation pattern. This would be 
achieved by improving selectivity through changes to mesh sizes  and type of gear used. 
(3) reducing overcapacity In a situation of low economic profitability, with  a reduction of fishi ng effort and increasing 
fuel costs, a possible economic solution might  be a reduction of overcapacity accompanying 
the options described above. The removal of excess fishing capacity would increase the 
economic benefit of each remaining vessel by increasing the available fishing opportunities 
per vessel and would reduce costs. 
Given the present problems of profitability  in this fleet, options about the pace of 
decommissioning need to be considered, including the possibility of either a substantial one-
off adjustment or a gradual reduction. 
Attaining these measures should ensure that the prin cipal objective is met.  Furthermore, in 
order to improve the st ability of the catches and markets, the TAC should be altered by no 
more than 15% from one year to the next. 
All objectives and measures have been discus sed with stakeholders  in the NWWRAC and 
SWWRAC and are considered realistic.  
4. P
OLICY OPTIONS  
The Impact Assessment has been considering 3 main scenario options. In parallel, a n impact of 
changes in selectivity (i.e. impr oving protection of hake juvenile  by using larger mesh sizes) 
on Option 1 and Option 2 has been examined. Th ese impacts have been analysed as extra 
measures, outside of the scope of the presented options.  
4.1. Option 1 - no policy change 
This option is based on the current fishing mort ality as set in the recovery plan. The option 
implies continuing to fish at the precau tionary level of fi shing mortality (Fpa15) of 0.25.  
4.2. Option 2 - management plan 
This option is based on the approach based on maximum sustainable yield (MSY). It provides 
for gradual adjustments in fish ing mortality to let the stock rebuild towards MSY levels. 
Reducing the current fishing mortality from Fsq=0.25 to Fmax=0.17 (MSY  target level set by 
                                                 
13 Further explanation can be found in section 'E' of glossary 
14 See STECF report, footnote 3 
15 Note that Fsq equals Fpa=0.25 
 
EN 12   EN scientists) would lead to reducti on in both fixed and variable cost s for the fleet while allowing 
similar or better catches to be taken. A gra dual reduction in total al lowable catches (TAC) 
over 10-15 years, overall about 30% decrease in F, would be needed to achieve this 
improvement in economic efficiency. 
4.2.1.  Option 2 implementation alternatives  
The baseline is the scenario for the precautionary fishing mortality rate ( Fpa) i.e. fishing 
mortality rate fixed according to the precautionary principle. The value of Fpa is 0.25.16 This 
value is close to the status quo fishing mortality rate. The base line has been compared to a 
number of scenarios, nine in total: 
• In the first group, F has been reduced annually  from Fsq down to Fmax by decresing TAC 
levels 5%, 10% and 15% respectively. 
• In the second group the same system of gra dual reduction in TACs has been used down to 
80% of Fmax and 120% of Fmax respectively. 
Details of analysed scenarios ar e presented in a table below. 
Table B –Scenarios tested against the baseline scenario (Fsq=0.25) 
Fmax (0.17) 80 % of Fmax (0.136) 120% of Fmax (0.204) 
5% 5% 5% 
10% 10% 10% 
15% 15% 15% 
According to a mandate to come up with a proposal to replace the recovery plan by a 
management plan (in accordance with Articl e 6 of Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002), given to 
the Commission by the Council (EC No 811/200417, Art 3), DG MARE does not consider 
other regulatory techniqu es than a regulation.  
4.3. Option 3 - decommissioning of fleet 
This option is also based on MSY approach but arriving at the Fmax would happen quicker. It 
would involve the capacity re duction of the same order as suggested reduction in fishing 
mortality - from 0.25 to 0.17 . The option  implies a short-term reduction of about 30% in 
northern hake fishing mortality to MSY leve ls by reducing overcapacity of fleet through 
decommissioning. Reducing the number of fishi ng vessels would reduce  the proportion of 
hake removed from the stock by fishing but it would also increase the economic benefit for 
each remaining vessel by permitting higher catc h per unit of effort and hence less running 
costs and higher value of landings.  
Decommissioning of fleet would happen on a voluntary basis and Member States would 
decide the details and extend of the proce ss. The Community would co-fund the initiative 
from the European Fisheries Fund (EFF).  
An emergency package addressing the immediat e situation of socio-economic hardship and 
contributing to tackling systemic overcapac ity has been proposed by the EC. The package 
consists mainly of measures based on tempor ary derogations from rules under the EFF to 
                                                 
16 See footnote 3, Lisbon STECF report page 19 
17 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriSe rv.do?uri=OJ:L:2004:185:0001:0003:EN:PDF 
 
EN 13   EN support a faster adaptati on of the EC fleet to the present situation and to provide temporary 
relief in order to cushion economic and soci al consequences in the transitional phase. 
5. ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS  
5.1. Environmental impacts 
The environmental impact of fishing is related to the amount of fishi ng effort deployed. Two 
broad categories can be defined regarding direct  and indirect impacts: on bycatch species and 
on fishing mortality, respectively. 
In the demersal trawl fishery, bycatch species are mainly non-commercial fish species (e.g. 
boarfish, dragonets, etc.), but al so harbour porpoises and dolphi ns caught in gill nets and a 
variety of benthic i nvertebrates caught in Nephrops  trawls.  
The estimated cetacean bycatch in the hake fish ery is relatively high (i.e. studies have 
estimated that the annual bycatch of harbour por poises in the Celtic Sea ha ke gillnet fishery is 
of the order of 2237 individuals). The Council Regulation (EC No 812/200418) is laying down 
measures concerning incidental ca tches of cetaceans in fisheries. 
The mortality rate of commercial species can be unnecessarily high. For overfished stocks, by 
taking the highest catches, the st ock sizes are brought down to th e levels lower than necessary 
and to levels where their productivity is reduced. This has three indirect environmental 
consequences: 
– species interactions change as prey availabil ity to predator species in the ecosystem is 
reduced by removing biomass (landed fish), while  to other species more food is available 
through discards; 
– more fuel has to be burnt in orde r to maintain commercial catches; 
– more small fish are discarded, because the abundance of larger fish is relatively low. 
It is not normally possible to predict long-term  trends in fisheries productivity. Changes in 
oceanic climate including global warming, and currently unexplained medium-term changes in recruitment can lead to significant trends  in productivity. However, it is known that 
keeping fisheries impacts at levels no higher th an those needed to ta ke high yields improves 
the stability of the stock and improves the robus tness of the fishery to  adverse environmental 
effects. Implementing a plan which will lead to  moderate fishing mortalities will therefore 
lead to improved stability in the industry. 
5.2. Economic impacts 
The cost of the investment of reducing fishi ng mortality to MSY is relatively low, between 
1% and 5% of the GVA, depending on the fleet  and reduction policy. The payback period is 
always between 10 and 15 years, i.e. relatively long. In addition, the sma ll short term impact 
may be further reduced by voluntary decommissi on of vessels belongin g to fleets with low 
profitability due to increasing fuel costs
19. 
After a period of stability, catches will increase in  the long term, and thus profitability of the 
sector will increase very substantially. The Commission believes that landings will increase 
around 48%, to 62 000 tonnes in the long term (sour ce STECF). If the exploitation pattern of 
the fisheries involved is improved (i.e. bigger me sh size used to protect hake juvenile and 
                                                 
18 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/e n/consleg/2004/R/02004R0812-20040701-en.pdf 
19 https://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu/c/document_library/get_file?folderId=2495&name=DLFE-2701.pdf 
 
EN 14   EN reduce discards) the long term benefits are even  higher, increasing up to 60%. A larger stock 
biomass will generate higher catch per unit of effort and hence less running costs and higher value of landings for the fleet. 
Table C - Example of costs of  reducing current fishing mo rtality (baseline scenario 
Fsq=0.25) to MSY (Fmax=0.17) for the aggregated fleet segments of Spain and France 
(source 
STECF) 
TIME HORIZON: short and 
medium term (2008-2016). Costs in absolute terms to move 
to Fmax  from Fsq  
(€ million GVA) Costs in relative terms to move to Fmax  
from Fsq  
(%) 
 POLICY 
OPTIONS Fmax 80% of 
Fmax 120% of 
Fmax Fmax 80% of 
Fmax 120% of Fmax 
5% reduction 24 0 28 8 98 22 % 26 % 09 %
10% reduction 23,8 46,6 6,6 2,2% 4,3% 0,6% French 
fleet 
15% reduction 20,8 46,6 4,0 1,9% 4,3% 0,4% 
        
5% reduction 42 7 44 1 26 1 35 % 36 % 22 %
10% reduction 56,8 86,6 26,4 4,7% 7,2% 2,2%  
Spanish 
fleet 15% reduction 57,9 97,7 26,0 4,8% 8,1% 2,1% 
The impact on the onshore processing sectors will  be minor since most of the hake caught is 
sold chilled with very little processing.  
A decrease in the short term of hake landings will not have a major impact on the market.  
There will be no shortage of supply as a major sh are of the hake market is supplied by imports 
(frozen hake). 
5.3. Social impacts 
In the long term perspective, economic gain s will likely benefit employment in fisheries 
dependent regions (see table 2  in Annex).  
In order to offset the high fuel costs in overf ished situations, employment at sea is often 
reduced to the lowest feasible crewing levels on each vessel. 
Low net revenues can result in limited resources available for vessel maintenance and 
investment in safety. Also, the need to fish in tensively in a situation of low net revenue means 
that working hours are extremely long and fatigue levels are often danger ous. There is also a 
pressure to continue working even in unsaf e weather conditions. The combination of these 
factors results in very high accident rates: this is by far one of the most dangerous 
occupations. 
After a transitional phase, the industry could move  to a situation of higher revenues with more 
possibilities for investment in safer vessels, shorter working hours, better pay and a lesser 
need to work in poor weather conditions. Ho wever, an overall reduction in employment 
would be needed, which may impact disp roportionately on immi grant seafarers. 
Changing to larger mesh sizes and less intens ive fishing will reduce the on-board workload 
due to the lower time spent discarding small fi sh and in handling and processing equivalent 
volumes of larger fish. 
 
EN 15   EN Since no new procedures would be introduced, no significant impact on administrative burden 
would take place. 
5.4. Impacts on international relations 
The stock is distributed entirely within EC  waters and is not su bject to unregulated 
exploitation by third-country vessel s. The stock is not subject to  any third-country agreements 
either. Catches and fish stock management will not be affected by such third-country 
activities. 
5.5. Impact summary 
Table D – Comparison of options agai nst the baseline s cenario (Fsq=0.25) 
 Option 1: 
No change in 
policy  Option 2:  
Management Plan  Option 3: 
Decommissioning 
Positive impacts No change, the 
current rules remain ineffective to achieve long-term stock sustainability but allow fishing at unchanged levels. Stock long-term 
sustainability achieved as objective. Reduced F leading to long-
term stock stability and improved economic situation of fishing industry. 
Negative impacts Long-term 
sustainability not assured as an objective. Short-term reduction in 
direct Northern Hake fishing. Short-term reduction in 
employment. 
Direct impacts Management plan 
based on current F levels not efficient enough to achieve long-term stock sustainability. A risk of stock going back to an unsafe situation. Likely to result in a 
sustainable and stable fishery in the long term. Reduction in F and fishing 
overcapacity benefiting both the stock and the remaining fishing industry. 
Indirect 
impacts Negative 
economic, social 
and environmental impacts due to the possible stock reduction to unsafe levels and greatly reduced fishing opportunities in the long-term. Positive economic, 
social and 
environmental impacts due to improved efficiency of management plan leading to long-term sustainability of the stock and improved fishing opportunities. Positive economic, social 
and environmental impacts 
due to reduced fishing capacity leading to an increase in a stock biomass. 
 
EN 16   EN Economic 
impacts  Short-term:  No 
change in catches and profits. 
Long-term:
 
Negative impacts due to the possible stock collapse resulting in loss of profitability of the fishing industry. Short-term
: Small 
decrease in catches – small reduction in sector's profitability. 
Long-term
: Positive 
impacts due to achieving long-term stock stability and improved profitability of the industry. Short-term:
 Reduction in 
catches and higher profits for the remaining vessels. 
Long-term:
 Increased 
economic benefit for the remaining vessels due to higher SSB generating higher catch per unit of effort and hence less running costs and higher value of landings for the industry. 
Social  
impacts  Short-term : No 
change. 
Long-term : 
Possible stock collapse resulting in drastic decline of employment in the fishing sector. Short-term
: Small 
negative impact on employment. 
Long-term
: Substantial 
positive impact due to achieving a much higher stable stock and maintained employment in the sector. Short-term
: Reduced 
employment. 
Long-term : Substantial 
positive impact due to achieving a much higher stable stock and maintained employment in the sector.  
Environmental impacts  Short-term
: 
Negative impact on the conservation of species due to fishing at unsafe levels.  
Long-term
: 
Decrease in stock biomass to unsafe levels, risk of the stock getting back to unsafe levels. Short-term
: Gradual 
positive impact on the stock biomass due to reduced fishing mortality. 
Long-term
: 
Improvement in the conservation of stocks resulting in a sustainable stock. Short-term
: Positive impact 
on the stock biomass due to reduced fishing overcapacity and fishing mortality. 
Long-term: 
Improvement 
in the conservation of stocks resulting in a sustainable stock. 
6. 6. COMPARING THE OPTIONS  
Comparison of options shows that the ranking of the selected scenarios in terms of the socio-
economic benefit generated depends strongly on the length of the time period considered. The 
inclusion of selectivity improve ments and discard estimates, analysed outside of the scope of 
options, also makes a diffe rence to the end results. 
Current (baseline) approach - Option 1  
Comparing Option 1 with Option 2 and Option 3, as logically expected, in the short and 
medium term Option 1 yields higher economic results, although with th e biological cost of 
putting the stock at a higher risk of  returning to an unsafe situation.  
 
EN 17   EN In a sufficiently long time horizon of the ma nagement plan, i.e. around 2020, short-term 
economic losses due to the reduction in fishing mortality to be achieved under the remaining 
options, will be overcome by the long term gains obtained from the northern hake stock biomass exploited at maximum sustainable yield.  A larger stock biomass will generate higher 
catch per unit of effort and hence less running costs and higher value of landings
20.  
MSY approach - Option 2 and Option 3  
In the long-term, from an economic point of vi ew, Option 2 and, in particular, the scenario 
which considers a 15% yearly reduction from F sq (0.25) to reach F max (0.17), is the best policy 
option. The longer the time period, the larger th e net gains provided by the Option 2 strategy. 
Table 2 in the annex shows the potential net gains of the Option 2 objective compared to 
Option 1. Taking Spanish long-liners as an exam ple, Option 2 would generate 8 million euros 
of extra rent compared with Option 1 in 2021, and 15 million euros of extra rent in 2029, 
(assuming a 15% yearly reduction pattern). 
Irrespective of whether selectivity improvements a nd discards estimates are considered or not, 
it can be concluded that  the cost of the investment of moving to MSY is relatively low, 
between 1% and 5% of the GVA, depending on  the fleet and reducti on policy. The payback 
period of Option 2 is 10 and 15 years, i.e. re latively long. The short- term losses of Option 3 
could be mitigated with the Community financial assistance. 
From the perspective of the society and from an  economic viewpoint, it is useful to regard the 
option of moving to MSY (Option 2 and Option 3) as an investment choice, with an initial 
cost, a payback period (i.e. the period necessary to recover the initial cost) and a stream of 
benefits in the longer tem. The opportunity of  such an investment has to be assessed in 
relation to these parameters. Th e initial 67-81 millions costs (loss of GVA) resulting from 
moving to MSY are not extremely high21: in percentage they repres ent between 2% and 5% of 
the total Gross Value Added (GVA) generated pe r country for the analysed fleets over 9 years 
by the fishery, depending on the fleet and policy option. The payback period of implementing Option 2 under this scen ario is 2021 for the Spanish fleets an d 2023 for the French fleets, i.e. 
a relatively long period. As mentioned  earlier, the longer term bene fits from the investment 
(after the payback period) are es timated to produce e.g. for Spanis h long-liners a total gain of 
15 million euros in 2029 (i.e. 2% of the GVA generated over the same period) and 22 million euros in 2046. 
If discard estimates are included in the anal ysis, benefits are greatly enhanced. Improving 
selectivity and hence reducing F on younger ages produces positive benefits on yield and SSB 
of similar magnitude to reductions in overall F
22. In the short and medium term (2008 to 
2016), the difference between Net Present Values NPVs23 generated by Option 1 and Option 2 
respectively is substantially re duced (around 50% lo wer compared with the “no changes in 
selectivity” scenario), and in the longer  term the benefits of moving to MSY  are greater. 
Table E - Comparison of options for Spanish and French fleet in short and medium term 
(2008-2016). Net present value (NPV), million €. Baseline scenario Fsq=0.25  (source STECF)  
                                                 
20 The report also observes that economic gains from choosing an optimal policy would be magnified on shore due to 
the multiplier effect. This would benefit employment and economic activity in harbours and fishing communities.  
21 See Table 3 in Annex 
22 Pages 8 and 17 of the report “Northern Hake Long-Ter m Management Plan Impact Assessment (SGBRE-07-05)”.  
23 Net Present Values (NPVs) 
 
EN 18   EN 
 
(*Exploitation pattern H2 assumes no catch at age 0 and 1, 10% at age 2, 50% at age 3 and 90% at age 4, compared to the 
current one). 
The analyses in the report are based on pre liminary and incomplete estimates of discard 
quantities. In spite of that, th e report concludes that any long term management plan should 
consider that the more the exploitation pattern is improved, the greater the yield would be and 
the less the necessary reduction in overall effort24. 
Option 3 offers a possibility of achieving the same  adaptation of F to MSY levels as Option 2 
but over short-term period. Given the fact that over the past few years the economic situation 
of many fishing industries has de teriorated due to re duced fishing opport unities, such short-
term solutions may be a better way to restore ba lance between a fishing capacity and available 
resources than a long-term plan.  
Conclusions  
The analysis has proven the benefits of an approach based on MSY represented by Option 2 
and Option 3. Fishing at MSY levels would help reverse the trend of a llowing aquatic stocks 
to run out. This approach would benefit the sea environment as a whole, since it would lead to 
an increase in available resources an d renewed balance within ecosystems. 
The approach represented by those two options would also bring economic benefits, since it 
would allow for a reduction in the cost of fishing activity. Exploitation of stocks would 
become less problematic once the availability  of resources becomes more stable again. 
Fishing within MSY limits would mean that the number of large-scale and high-value catches 
will increase while the proportion of discards would decrease.  
In recent years, over 10 million tonnes of fish have been imported each year, which represents 
60% of European fish consumption. An MSY approach to fisheries management would 
increase the European fisheries industry's competitive edge by ensuring stable and high-
quality supply.  
Option 2 offers a possibility of achieving the ad aptation of fishing mortality to MSY levels 
over longer timeframe. Option 3 su ggests the same adaptation to MSY but in a much shorter 
time.  
In the past the Commission tended to centre on providing for gradual adjustments in fishing 
mortality through long-term management plans to  avoid social disrup tions. Given a current 
situation, where operational costs in the fishing industry have si gnificantly incr eased leading 
to increased pressure to adopt  the fleet capacity, th e stakeholders themselves request more 
opportunities to allow for accelerated adaptations of the EU fleet.  
                                                 
24 Page 80 of the report “Northern Hake Long-Term Ma nagement Plan Impact Assessment (SGBRE-07-05)”.  
 
EN 19   EN Stakeholder consultation reveal ed that a short-term decomm issioning of fleet would be a 
preferred option in the Northern hake fisher y. Option 3 would bring the necessary short-time 
adjustment in F while allowing for a development of a smaller but more efficient and more profitable fishing sector.  
Answering the demand expressed by stakeholders , DG MARE is therefore inclined to follow 
Option 3 and work on the basis of a short-te rm voluntary decommissioning of fleet, followed 
by fishing at a stable rate thereafter.  
7. M
ONITORING AND EVALUATION  
The indicators of successful operation of this plan are that: 
• fishing mortality, as measured by ICES and STECF, should decrease and move towards 
the target values established in the plan; 
• the size of the spawning stock should increase to 250 000t and then stab ilise at that value;  
• yield should increase to the long-term equilibrium value of 60 000t; 
• TACs and quotas established according to the plan are respected and area-misreporting is 
eliminated. 
It is necessary to keep under review (accordi ng to scientific advice ) both the objectives and 
the efficiency of the plan. These are likely to  need adaptation as ecosystems change and as 
changes to environment and c limate affect fish populations. 
Attainment of specific objective to reduce fishing mortality of Northern hake25 will be 
measured according to the annual evaluations of  the state of the stoc k as assessed by ICES 
and STECF. Attainment of additional measures (2 ) and (3) will be monitored in the course of 
the evaluation of national inspection and c ontrol systems by the inspection team of DG 
MARE. Attainment of measure (1) will be proposed by the Commissi on for inclusion in 
annual regulations concerning the setting of fishing opportunities. 
These indicators will be monitored annually in  order to detect any deficiencies in the 
operation of the plan. At four-yearly intervals, a comprehensive review of the plan will be implemented. 
The monitoring arrangements concerning the state of the stock are common to those for other 
stocks in the North-East Atlant ic area. Collection of scientific  data concerning landings and 
survey data from research vessels are co -funded by the European Community. Data are 
collected, analysed and evaluated by the ICES  and formal advice is provided by STECF. 
Should advice from STECF and ICES indicate that  the plan is not reaching its objectives, a 
review process will be started by DG MARE. 
Concerning control issues, cross-national coor dination of inspection activities is to be 
established by the new CFC agency which is now being established. Additionally, the inspectors of DG MARE will follow-up and revi ew the implementation of fisheries control 
measures by the relevant Member States. 
                                                
 
25 Refer to section 3.1 
 
EN 20   EN ANNEX  
Figure 1 –Fishing mortality ta rget levels for northern hake 
Figure 2 - Summary plots for Northern Hake stock 
 
 
EN 21   EN Graph 1: Projected yield (landing) for all options 
 
Graph 2: Projected stock biomass for all options 
 
 
EN 22   EN Graph 3: Comparison of differen t management scenarios per flee 
FRANCE 
NETTERS DEMERSAL TRAWLERS 
Netters 12-24m - Gross Value Added (m€)
0.010.020.030.040.050.060.070.0
2004-
20062007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016Status quo
10% decrease in F down
to Fmax
H2 at status quo
H2 + 10% decrease in Fto Fmax
 Demersal trawl 12-24m targetting nephrops
 - Gross Value Added (m€)
0.010.020.030.040.050.060.070.0
2004-
20062007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016Status quo
10% decrease in F down
to Fmax
H2 at status quo
H2 + 10% decrease in Fto Fmax
Netters 24-40m - Gross Value Added  (m€)
0.010.020.030.040.050.060.070.0
2004-
20062007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016Status quo
10% decrease in F down
to Fmax
H2 at status quo
H2 + 10% decrease in Fto Fmax
 Demersal trawl 24-40m - Gross Value Added (m€)
0.010.020.030.040.050.060.070.0
97.2 104.4 99.2 108.7 108.4 108.3 108.1 108.1 108.2 108.9 109.7Status quo
10% decrease in F down
to Fmax
H2 at status quo
H2 + 10% decrease in Fto Fmax
SPAIN 
LONGLINERS  DEMERSAL TRAWLERS 
50.060.070.080.090.0100.0110.0120.0130.0140.0150.0
2002-20042005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
YearMl n  E uroBaseline
5% reduction Fmax 
10% reduction Fmax
15% reduction Fmax
Baseline with discards
10% reduction Fmax with discards
H2 at statu quo
H2 + 10% reduction Fmax
 8.08.59.09.510.010.511.011.512.012.513.0
2002-20042005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
YearMl n Eur oBaseline
5% reduction Fmax 
10% reduction Fmax
15% reduction Fmax
Baseline with discards
10% reduction Fmax with discards
H2 at statu quo
H2 + 10% reduction Fmax
 
EN 23   EN Table1: Net present value at 5% and 10% di scount rate for Spanish and French fleet 
segments. Million € 
 Spain France 
 5% 10% 5% 10% 
 2006-2014 2006-2014 2008-2016 2008-2016 
Status quo     
Value of landings 1737 1404 2017 1628 
Crew share 792 640 676 546 
Gross cash flow 335 271 362 292 
Net profit 788 638 175 140 
Gross value added 971 785 1038 837 
H226 at status quo     
Value of landings 1843 1473 2158 1730 
Crew share 850 679 732 587 
Gross cash flow 390 309 443 350 
Net profit 199 154 255 199 
Gross value added 1241 987 1175 937 
H2 + 10% decrease in F to F max   
Value of landings 1807 1444 2140 1714 
Crew share 833 665 727 582 
Gross cash flow 383 303 439 347 
Net profit 191 148 251 195 
Gross value added 1217 968 1166 929 
                                                 
26 H2 implies a policy scenario that changes the selection pattern reducing fishing mortality in smaller 
sizes 
 
EN 24   EN Table 2. Net present value of  GVA difference between 15% Fmax reduction and F status 
quo. Million € 
France Netters 12-24m  TIME HORIZON 
Time period - 2007 to 2023 2031 2046 
NPV difference between Fmax and Fsq 3 6 9 
NPV Fsq 83.2 83.2 83.2 
NPV Fmax 15% red. 83.0 85.6 88.4 
Spanish Longlines 24-40m  
Time period - 2005 to 2021 2029 2044 
NPV difference between Fmax and Fsq 8 15 22 
NPV Fsq 116.3 116.3 116.3 
NPV Fmax 15% red. 113.6 120.2 127.4 
Table 3. Cost of initial investment in th e "no change in selectivity" scenario 
TIME HORIZON: short and 
medium term (2008-2016). ∆ absolute (Fmax, Fsq) : costs in 
absolute terms to move to Fmax  
from Fsq (€ million GVA) ∆ relative (Fmax, Fsq) : costs in 
relative terms to status quoto move to 
Fmax  from Fsq (%) 
 POLICY 
OPTIONS Fmax 80% of 
Fmax 120% of 
Fmax Fmax 80% of 
Fmax 120% of 
Fmax 
5% reduction 24,0 28,8 9,8 2,2% 2,6% 0,9% 
10% reduction 23,8 46,6 6,6 2,2% 4,3% 0,6% French 
fleet 
15% reduction 20,8 46,6 4,0 1,9% 4,3% 0,4% 
        
5% reduction 42,7 44,1 26,1 3,5% 3,6% 2,2% 
10% reduction 56,8 86,6 26,4 4,7% 7,2% 2,2%  
Spanish 
fleet 
15% reduction 57,9 97,7 26,0 4,8% 8,1% 2,1% 
Table 4. Cost of initial investment in the "changes in  selectivity" scenario 
Comparison of options of Fsq 
and Fmax  under significant 
improvement in selectivity (H2)  Cost in absolute terms to move to 
FmaxH2  from FsqH2  (€ million) Cost in relative terms to move to 
FmaxH2  from FsqH2  (%) 
POLICY OPTIONS Spanish fleet French  fleet Spanish fleet French fleet 
∆ (FsqH2, FmaxH2)  24 9 2% 1% 
 
EN 25   EN Glossary  
B 
biomass – the total weight of living matter, either  by species or all sp ecies combined. Also 
referred to as the standing stock. 
Blim  – see limit reference points. 
Bmsy  – the spawning stock biomass (SSB) necessary  to support a fisher y that would produce 
the maximum sustainable yield (MSY). 
Bpa – see limit reference points. 
by-catch  – the catch of non-target species and undersiz ed fish of the target species. By-catch 
of commercial species may be retained or  discarded along with non-commercial by-catch. 
C 
catch (C)  – the total quantity of fish that is retain ed by fishing gear and brought onto the deck 
or fishing station, ie la ndings plus discards. 
CFP – the Common Fisheries Policy of the European Union (as revised in: Council 
Regulation 3760/92). It provides th e framework for the management  of the EU fishery sector, 
including all marine fisheries within 200 miles of member states’baselines. 
collapsed stock  – the decline in spawning stock biom ass (SSB), through sustained fishing 
pressure or natural causes, to the point wher e it no longer generates sufficient recruits to 
support a fishery. 
D 
demersal  – species of fish that live  on, or in close proximity to, the seabed, eg flatfish, cod, 
haddock. The term also applies to fishi ng gear that is worked on the seabed. 
depleted stock  – the decline in spawning stock biomass (SSB) to a level that is approaching, 
or is below, the lowest histor ic record but has not necessarily  reached the point of collapse. 
(See also limit reference points and safe biological limits.) 
discards  – any fish, or other livin g matter caught when fishing, that is not retained but 
returned to the sea – alive or dead. 
effort (f)  – the total quantity of fishing gear in use for a specific period of time (Ricker 1975). 
Effort can be expressed in a multitude of ways : days away from port, hours trawling, length of 
drift net, number of hooks used, and so on. At its  most basic, it is the total number of boats 
engaged in a fishery and/or the number of days they were fishing. 
environmentally sustainable fisheries  – fisheries that safeguard th e requirements of all animals 
and plants within an ecosystem or habitat and do not cause irreversible or other significant, 
long-term change to the environment or the communities of species that live within that 
environment. 
exploitation pattern  - the distribution of fish ing mortality over the ag e composition of the fish 
population, determined by the type of fishing g ear, area and seasonal dist ribution of fishing, 
and the growth and migration of the fish. Th e pattern can be change d by modifications to 
fishing gear, for example, increasing mesh or hook size, or by changing th e ratio of harvest by 
gears exploiting the fish (e.g., gill ne t, trawl, hook and line, etc.).  
 
EN 26   EN F 
F – formally, the inst antaneous rate of 
fishing mortality (the na tural logarithm of the 
change in abundance due to fishing per unit of time), but more simply, the proportion of the population killed each year by fishing. 
Figure 8 : A generalised yield-per-recruit 
(YPR) curve showing the point at which the fishing mortality rate (F) is equivalent to the maximum sustainable yi eld (Fmsy) and the 
point at which the slope of the curve is approximately 10% the slope of F=0, ie F 0.1.  
fish stock
 – scientifically, a population of a species of fish that is is olated from other stocks of 
the same species and does not interbreed w ith them and can, therefore, be managed 
independently of other stocks (cf gene pool). Ho wever, in EU legislation the term ‘stock’ is 
used to mean a species of fish living in a defi ned sea area, the two are not always synonymous 
(Holden 1994). 
fishery conservation  – the conservation and sustainable use of exploited fish stocks. It is the 
principal objective of UK and EU fisheries le gislation; fishery management is the primary 
method through which the objective is pursued. 
fishing effort  – see effort. 
fishing mortality rate  – see F.  
Flim  – see limit reference points. 
FMSY – the level of fishing mortality (F) that corresponds to the peak value on a dome-shaped 
yield-per-recruit curve and the value that wi ll produce the maximum sustainable yield (MSY) 
from a fish stock (Fig. 8 & 10). 
Fpa – see limit reference points. 
I 
ICES  – the International Council for encourages re search into commercial the Exploration of 
the Sea, an fish stocks, their biology and al l factors independent scientific advisory body 
(natural and man made) that may founded in 1902. It is funded by 19 affect their abundance. 
It does not member states’ governments from u ndertake research in its own right but around 
the North Atlantic (including has a secretariat (in Copenhagen) to Canada and the USA) and 
Baltic Sea. It facilitate and co-ordinate collaboration, includ ing fishery stockassessments, 
between member states. Work is carried out through numerous working groups convened 
under the remit of one or more standing committees: 
Advisory Committee of Fisheries Management (ACFM), Advisory Committee for the Marine 
Environment (ACME), Baltic Committee, Fisheries Technology Committee, Living 
Resources Committee, Maricultu re Committee, Marine Hab itat Committee, Oceanography 
Committee, Resource Management Committee. 

 
EN 27   EN 
 
J 
juvenile – an immature fish, ie one that has not reached sexual maturity (but could still be 
larger than the minimum landing size – MLS). 
L 
landings  – that part of the catch which is put as hore. Frequently, landings provide the only 
record of total catch; ie the landings plus discards. 
limit reference points  – are biological or fish ery management i ndicators that define the point 
at which precautionary action must be taken to safeguard a fish stock. In  order for stocks and 
fisheries exploiting them to be within safe bi ological limits, there should be a high probability 
that: 1 – the spawning stock biomass (SSB = B) is above the threshold where recruitment is 
impaired; 2 - the fishing mortality (F) is below that which will drive the spawning stock to the 
biomass threshold, a condition that must be  avoided. Thus: Blim = minimum acceptable 
biomass Flim = maximum acceptable fishing mortal ity (lim stands for ‘limit’).The certainty 
with which these points can be identified varies with the quality of assessment data available. 
Therefore, ICES has also identified precautio nary reference points that identify higher 
biomass thresholds than Blim and lower fishing mortality thre sholds than Flim: 
Bpa = precautionary minimum biomass  Fpa = precautionary maximum fishing mortalit y (pa stands for precautionary approach). 
In many instances, the value for Bpa will be the sa me as the value previously identified as the 
minimum biologically acceptable limit – MB AL (ICES 1998a and ICES Current). In 
circumstances where the relationship between th e exploited stock and the spawning stock is 
not clear, as is the case with some of the d eep-water species of fish, limit reference points may 
be expressed with respect to the ‘unexploited stock’: 
M 
 
EN 28   EN MSY  - Maximum Sustainable Yield: the largest av erage catch that can bet taken continuously 
from a stock under existing environmental conditi ons (Fig. 8). (For species with fluctuating 
recruitment, the maximum might be obtained by taking fewer fish in some years than in 
others). Also known as maximum equilibrium  catch (Ricker 1975). (see also Figure 8). 
misreporting  – the inaccurate recordi ng of catches in EU fishi ng log books or comparable 
reporting systems. Among the more common prac tices are under-reporting the quantity of fish 
caught or reporting the catch as being taken in a different area from the one in which it was 
actually made. The latter example is most wi despread when the quota for a species in one 
ICES Division has been taken but quota is still available in an  adjacent Division. (See also 
under-reporting and black-fish.) 
mixed fishery  – a fishery that takes multi-species catches. Pelagic fisheries tend to take 
relatively ‘clean’single species catches whereas  multi-species catches are more frequent in 
demersal fisheries.  
monitoring  – the regular and systematic collection of environmental and biological data by 
agreed methods and to agreed standards. M onitoring provides informa tion on current status, 
trends and compliance with respect to de clared standards and objectives. (See also 
surveillance.)  
mortality  – the death of organisms through natural cause s (M), eg predation, or fishing (F) etc. 
It is usually expressed as an instantaneous ra te: the natural logarithm (with sign changed) of 
the ratio of number of animals surviving to the end of the year and the number at the start of 
the year (Ricker 1975). 
O 
over-fishing  – any fishery where the total fishing effort is greater than is required to meet or 
match a specific management objective, eg maximum sustainable yi eld (MSY). (See also 
growth overfishing and recruitment overfishing.) 
P 
precautionary approach  – a decision to take avoiding ac tion based on the possibility of 
significant environmental damage, even before ther e is conclusive evidence that damage will 
occur (DOE 1992). This approach requires fi shery managers to pay due regard to the 
uncertainties of stock assessment and manage ment. They must implement the appropriate 
precautionary action if limit reference points are reached. 
S 
Spawning Stock Biomass  – see SSB. 
SSB– spawning stock biomass: the total weight of  all sexually mature fish in a population or 
stock. It is the sexually mature part of an exploited population upon which the future survival 
of the stock, and its fishery, depends. 
STECF  – the Scientific, Technical and Economic  Committee on Fisheries of the EC, DG 
Fisheries (Fig. 2). Unlike ICES working groups and ACFM (Fig. 3) which only consider stock 
assessments and management from a scientific  perspective, the STEFC is expected to 
consider the socio- economic implications of mo difying or varying scie ntific, including ICES’ 
advice. 
stock biomass  – the total weight of all fish of all ages in a given population or stock. 
sustainability  – meeting the needs of the present wit hout compromising the ability of future 
generations to meet their own needs (WCED 1987 – the Brundtland Report).  
 
EN 29   EN sustainable fisheries  – fisheries with an annual catch, in cluding discards, that does not exceed 
the surplus production of the stoc k (ie annual growth plus recr uitment less the annual natural 
mortality – M). Fisheries can be sustainable at levels of stock significantly below the stock 
that would support MSY or MEY but only if ma nagers pay full regard to limit reference 
points. (See also environmentally sustainable fisheries .) 
T 
TAC  – total allowable catch, the quantity of fish  that can be taken from each stock each year. 
The figure is agreed by the Fisheries Council of Ministers each December for the following 
year. EU member states are allocated a fixe d proportion of the TAC as their national quota. 
(See also relative stability and track record.)  
target species  – the primary species of fish that a fi shing vessel aims to catch during a given 
fishing operation. In pelagic fisheries this can be  a single species, eg herring or mackerel, but 
it is usually a group of species in demersal fi sheries, eg cod and whiting or plaice and sole. 
U 
under-reporting  – failure to meet the legal requirement under the CFP to report fully and 
accurately all the fish that have been caught an d landed. (MLS). It is an offence for anyone to 
(See also misreporting) retain or  offer for sale undersize fish.