COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Brussels, 15.12.1995 
COM(95) 669 final 
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION 
IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNICAL MEASURES 
IN THE COMMON FISHERIES POLICY 

1. INTRODUCTION 
The purpose of this document is to provide a summary of the effectiveness of the current 
package of technical measures, an indication of associated problems and an indication of 
probable future action. 
2. PURPOSE. SCOPE AND CONSEQUENCES OF TECHNICAL MEASURES1 
2.1. Protection of juveniles 
By far the major reason for imposing technical measures is to create conditions such that the 
capture of juvenile fish is minimised. In this context, the major tools comprise the definition 
of various means to improve the selectivity of fishing gear and the definition of areas to be 
closed to fishing either permanently or seasonally to prevent capture of juvenile fish which 
inhabit these areas. In more scientific terminology, technical measures are intended to 
minimise the fishing mortality rate of juveniles. It must be remembered that fishing for 
juveniles contributes to reducing the potential biomass of the stock and the number of 
individuals reaching maturity and reproducing. All other factors being constant, fishing for 
juveniles reduces biomass, potential yield and may affect recruitment of a stock. 
Conditions related to the selectivity of fishing gear are predominantly applied to gears 
intended for the capture of demersal fish species. 
The regulations related to the selectivity of fishing gears are supplemented by regulations 
stipulating the minimum landing size of various species of fish. 
Technical measures also exist for the protection of some species of fish, particularly herring, 
in areas in which they habitually concentrate in high densities to spawn and where fishing on 
such spawning aggregations would lead to extremely high mortality rates. 
Yet other technical measures prohibit the implementation of undesirable fishing methods such 
as the use of explosives and, in some areas, harpoon guns and/or fishing with electrified 
fishing gear and the encirclement of marine mammals by various types of fishing gear. 
In some cases, such as that of Arctic cod in the Barents Sea, the application of technical 
measures (minimum mesh size, discard ban) together with catch limitations and favourable 
environmental conditions have allowed a considerable recovery of the stock, as demonstrated 
by the increase of total stock biomass to the highest level since 1978. 
A detailed presentation of the types of technical measure will be found in Annex 5. 
p:\poolcl\mcslcch\historic\rapport\en 
2.2. Other aspects of technical measures 
As well as ensuring better use of fish stocks, the introduction of technical measures also 
impinges on discussion of interaction between fishing and the environment, especially the 
problem of discards. 
Interaction between the fishing industry and the environment was recently studied by a 
working group on the Commission's initiative (SEC(94) 1453 final). Certain types of towed 
gear (bottom trawls, particularly beam trawls, and dredgers, particularly hydraulic dredgers) 
have a direct impact on the environment. Rules governing the use of this gear necessarily have 
ecological implications. But the attention of public opinion has so far been drawn more 
especially to two other issues: 
by-catch of protected species, 
discards. 
In general, there is no doubt that the environmental lobby will play an ever-increasing role 
in discussions. The scope of concern about by-catch of protected species is steadily widening. 
Anxiety used to be felt only about the survival of a few species of mammals and seabirds; it 
has now spread in two directions: 
even when the species caught is not in danger of extinction, by-catches are criticized 
because of the suffering of the animals killed, or because of indirect ecological 
consequences on the food chain; 
new species are constantly being added to the list of those regarded as endangered. 
The problem of discards is also attracting growing attention, in particular in terms of 
environmental concern as analysed in an earlier Commission communication; the matter is not 
as simple as it looks at first sight. There are many reasons for discards, whether they are due 
to economic considerations or to the regulations; the ecological consequences of discards are 
also varied, and while they are adverse for some species, they may well be favourable for 
others. As Annex 3 shows in detail, relations with technical measures are also very complex. 
But just because this is a complex question is no reason to abandon attempts to find a way 
forward, since progress is vital given the dimensions of the problem, as the recent FAO 
review demonstrates.2 
Discussion of specific problems has highlighted the dearth of available scientific information 
and analysis. It is urgent to fill this gap, especially as certain types of fishing could be very 
seriously restricted if the shortage of relevant data led to an over-cautious approach. That is 
the reason for the high priority the Commission has given to collecting information and 
developing scientific expertise. As several earlier reports have stressed, however, progress will 
not be possible unless the Member States too develop the necessary initiatives. 
FAO Fisheries Technical paper No 339 "A global assessment of fisheries by-catch and discards" 
Rome 1994 
p \poolcl\mt'slech\his(oric\rappon\en 
3. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND TO TECHNICAL CONSERVATION 
MEASURES 
3.1. General history 
The first Regulation introducing technical measures was Regulation (EEC) No 2527/80, 
adopted in September 1980. Regulation (EEC) No 171/833 further developed conservation 
measures, on the basis of recommendations by the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission 
(NEAFC). Regulation 171/83, which covers fishing grounds from the Kattegat to the Bay of 
Biscay, has been amended six times. 
In 1986, Regulation 171/83 was replaced by a new instrument, Regulation (EEC) 
No 3094/86.4 This Regulation extends the scope of the rules to the Atlantic fishing grounds 
opposite the Iberian Peninsula, following the accession of Spain and Portugal, and introduces 
substantial vital amendments, in particular the concept of defining certain fishing grounds. The 
golden opportunity offered by this change in the rules to clear away a large number of out-of-
date provisions and to simplify the new rules was not taken. Various Commission proposals 
(such as increasing certain mesh sizes or applying the "one-net rule") were not adopted by the 
Council, although it was recognized that the one-net rule could ensure effective control of 
mesh sizes. 
Regulation 3094/86 has changed considerably since it was first adopted in October 1986. It 
had been amended eighteen times by October 1995, and a nineteenth amendment, regarding 
passive gear, is under discussion at the Council. In fact, very few of the amendments concern 
matters of substance: most of them (twelve) relate to minor changes or changes of form; 
others were made in response to requests from Member States for more flexibility in certain 
conservation rules. Most of the amendments were adopted under item A; only two (the second 
and the eleventh) involve changes with a major impact on resource conservation. A 
consolidated version of the Regulation is being prepared, but it could not be completed earlier, 
since further amendments were adopted on several occasions during the course of the work. 
3 OJ L 24, 27.1.1983, p.14. 
4 OJ L 288, 11.10.1986 
p:\poolcl\mcstcch\historic\rapport\en 
3.2. 11th amendment to Regulation (EEC) No 3094/86 
The background to what was to become the 11th amendment began when the scientific 
community highlighted the deterioration of North Sea roundfish resources (November 1989 
report by the ACFM and the ICES). The Commission drew the attention of the official 
departments responsible for fisheries in the Member States to these findings. When the 
Council met to discuss fisheries in December 1989, Council and Commission issued a 
statement5 expressing serious concern about the situation of certain stocks, in particular cod 
and haddock in the North Sea. The High-Level Working Party wasisntructed to intensify work 
on amending existing rules, mainly in terms of minimum mesh sizes, minimum size on 
landing and reduction in discards into the sea. In the light of the conclusions of the High-
Level Working Party (Fisheries Directors-General), the Commission was to bring appropriate 
proposals before the Council by 31 July 1990 at the latest. 
The conclusions of the High-Level Working Party were made public on 17 May 1990.6 On 
the basis of those conclusions, the Commission sent the Council a proposal in July 1990 
amending the Regulation for the tenth time, concentrating on increased mesh sizes, net 
geometry and the application of the one-net rule. These proposals were thought very tough, 
and led to deadlock in the Council. The Commission also sent another proposal to the Council 
in 1990, that for an 11th amendment, on driftnets and an increase in mesh size in region 3 
(from 65mm to 80mm). This proposal led to further deadlock in the Council, due to rejection 
of the Commission's proposals and to differences of opinion among the Member States. In 
1991, the Commission presented its 12th proposal to the Council, essentially concerning 
updating and clarification of the large number of conservation standards, several of which had 
been in Regulation 3094/86 since its adoption, and had subsequently lapsed, without being 
removed. The presentation of this proposal set discussions in train once again. After a number 
of Council meetings failed to produce any results, a policy agreement was eventually reached 
in October 1991 on a package grouping the three proposals into a single instrument amending 
Regulation 3094/86 for the 11th time.7 (A minor proposal had meanwhile been adopted as the 
tenth amendment.) 
A compromise was found for driftnets, by authorizing driftnets up to 5 km in length for two 
years (1992 and 1993) for certain netters (France). The technical measures in the body of the 
instrument had been considerably simplified, and the increase in mesh size was smaller than 
originally proposed. In northern waters (region 2, north of the 48th parallel in the North Sea), 
the standard mesh size was increased slightly (from 90 mm to 100 mm), while no immediate 
increase was decided for the southern part, the major argument against an increase being that 
existing rules should first be applied properly (standard mesh size of 65 mm) before 
increasing the size to 80 mm. The Commission's suggestion of accepting the one-net rule, 
which it took from the conclusions of the High-Level Working Party, was not adopted by the 
Council. 
Council doc. 11089/89 PV/CONS 87 PECHE 386. 
Council doc. 6574/90 PECHE 173, 30 May 1990 
Regulation (EEC) No 345/92 of 27 January 1992 
p \poolcl\mestech\historic\rapport\en 
In return, the Commission obtained an undertaking from the Council that it would adopt 
further increases in mesh size in 1994 if resources did not improve in the meantime.8 From 
1991 to 1994, stocks did not recover. In the North Sea, the increase in mesh size to 100 mm 
did not affect catches of juveniles as it was hoped. In region 3, compliance with legal mesh 
sizes was no better than before. Meanwhile the work schedule had been upset by the prospect 
of new accessions (1994), and then by the consequences of changes in the arrangements for 
Spain and Portugal. The adoption of these increases was therefore postponed. 
The December 1994 Council meeting, which adopted the principle of management of fishing 
efforts in the western region absorbing the former arrangements for Spain and Portugal also 
asked the Commission to present proposals to improve the selectivity of fishing for the fishing 
grounds concerned. The results of the Commission's consultations of experts (SEC(95)1599) 
showed that the basic structure of the proposals rejected or postponed by the Council in 
1990/91 should be maintained. It is therefore vital for the Commission to return in 1996 with 
a new overall proposal. The need arises because of the Council's conclusions not only in 
October 1991, but also in December 1994. But whatever the proposals are, the discussions 
will certainly be arduous. 
3.3. Passive gear 
Community rules on technical measures have concentrated on towed gear (trawls, Danish 
seines and the like), while the legislation on static gear was solely a matter for the Member 
States. The recent development of fishing with gillnets and trammel nets has led to a sense 
of injustice between fishermen using towed gear and those using static gear. In 1992, the 
Commission was specifically requested to draft a proposal. This request was considered 
especially suitable when the discussion of the Multi-annual Guidance Programmes in 1992 
showed that it did not seem appropriate in the immediate future to reduce the tonnage and/or 
kW of the fleets using passive gear. The Commission sent the Council a communication on 
the general problem of passive fishing gear in relation to the CFP (COM(94) 235). It has also 
presented a proposal defining the rules on mesh sizes for set nets and trammels (COM(95) 
212). The discussions, which have not been confrontational on the whole, are still going on 
in the Council. There is agreement on the need for new standards for static gear, but each 
Member State concerned would like to bring the new rules, which hinge on mesh sizes, as 
close as possible to its own existing rules. Like Regulation 3094/86, the new rules will not 
cover fishing in the Baltic or the Mediterranean, which is governed by specific rules. 
3.4. The Baltic (Regulation (EEC) No 1866/86) and the Mediterranean (Regulation (EC) 
No 1626/94) 
Technical measures in the Baltic Sea are covered by specific regulations. They are closely 
linked to decisions taken by the International Baltic Sea Fishery Commission. When the 
Commission made a stricter proposal for the length of driftnets than the technical rules of the 
IBSFC, the Member States concerned opposed it, arguing for the existing rules adopted by 
the IBSFC, which were the only ones that could be invoked against the other Member States. 
The technical measures applied in the Baltic Sea are on the whole less elaborate than those 
applied under Regulation 3094/86 from the Kattegat to the Atlantic. But there was a major 
Council doc. 9217/91 PV/CONS91 PECHE 250 
p:\poolcl\mcstech\liistoric\rappoi1\cn 
development at the 1994 meeting of the IBSFC: a set of decisions which led, at Community 
level, to the fifth amendment to the Regulation on technical measures in the Baltic Sea 
(Regulation (EC) No 2250/95) in 1995. This even went so far as to include a one-net rule. 
At technical level, the Regulation on measures in the Baltic Sea would be enhanced by 
improved precision, e.g. clarification of the arrangements for panels to help small cod to 
escape, or precise definitions of fishing directed at flatfish associated with smaller mesh sizes. 
Such improvements are sure to be encouraged by enlargement of the EU to Finland and 
Sweden. Swedish accession should also facilitate the development of specific technical 
measure in the Skagerrak/Kattegat, which is essentially bound in with the Baltic Sea question. 
Discussion of technical measures has also extended to the Mediterranean Sea. A proposal was 
made in 1992, at the request of the Council. Here again, lengthy discussions led to a 
complicated final result, weakened by a whole series of derogations. Yet there is an explicit 
demand for further derogations to authorize catches of small juveniles. Although Regulation 
(EC) No 1626/94 is imperfect, and in need of amendment, it is a first step towards a policy 
of resource management and conservation in the Mediterranean. In a few years, it will be 
possible to assess its impact. 
3.5. Derogations and simplifications 
The rules in the arsenal of the CFP have often been accused of excessive complexity, and the 
strongest criticism has been, aimed at the technical measures. The complexity is partly due to 
combination in a single instrument of provisions applying to a wide variety of regions 
(Regulation 3094/86 applies from the Kattegat to the Straits of Gibraltar), but this does not 
in practice affect the fishermen operating over a limited area. Nevertheless, the Commission 
has tried to reduce geographical disparities. Some progress was made with the 11th 
amendment, and more is foreseeable. In general, however, the major complication is the 
number of derogations to the general rules. Beyond the complexity of the texts themselves, 
the derogations make it much more difficult to monitor compliance, particularly as long as 
provisions like the one-net rule cannot be adopted. Derogations should therefore be limited 
to the necessary minimum. Discussions prior to the 11th amendment of Regulation 3094/86 
showed that what might appear to be a policy requirement for one Member State when a 
technical measures package was adopted did not always correspond later on to actual use. This 
means that any substantive revision of the technical measures regulations must be used as an 
opportunity to eliminate out-of-date or unnecessary derogations. In preparation for these 
discussions, each Member State should be asked to specify which derogations it regards as 
essential, and to establish how these derogations are actually used and monitored. 
4. APPARENT EFFECTS OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNICAL 
MEASURES 
4.1 Historical trends in fishing mortality rates on young fish. 
As indicated in Section 2 of this report, the main intention of the implementation of technical 
measures is to reduce the fishing mortality rate on juvenile fish. 
For many of the most important fish stocks exploited by Community vessels, scientists have 
evaluated the fishing mortality rate for each age group of fish landed or caught, depending 
on the availability of data on quantities of fish discarded. If technical measures had been 
p:\poolcl\mcstcch\historic\rappon\cn 
effective it would be expected that the fishing mortality rate on the younger age groups of fish 
would have declined compared to historical levels. However, the figures of Annex 2.a indicate 
that for the majority of the main fish stocks no such decline is évident. 
Simultaneously, the TAC levels have failed to reduce exploitation rates. This has resulted in 
the key stocks either not recovering from decline, or declining even further, as illustrated by 
figures in Annex 2.b. 
The basic picture, therefore, is that, despite increases in mesh size and application of closed 
areas and closed seasons the intended effects of technical measures do not appear to have been 
realised. At best, it may be believed that the situation would have been worse if the current 
technical measures had not been applied. Nevertheless, catches of young, small fish continue 
to be taken. These are usually discarded since they are predominantly of lengths less than the 
corresponding minimum landing sizes. 
4.2 Why are technical measures less effective than anticipated? 
Results of experiments in controlled conditions, either on research vessels or on commercial 
vessels, indicate that application of appropriately formulated technical measures relating to 
mesh size and/or structure of fishing gears should result in improved selectivity of fish and 
should, thereby, reduce the mortality rate of young fish. 
4.2.1 Response of fishermen 
However, the price to be paid following the application of such technical measures is a short-
term reduction in catches and, probably, landings to levels less than these would otherwise 
be the case. It is the fishermen who must pay this price. Understandably, therefore, fishermen, 
who are subject to immediate considerations such as repayment of loans etc., react adversely 
to proposals for technical measures intended to improve selectivity. 
Fishermen often persuade their national administrations that conditions proposed to improve 
selectivity are too extreme and that the potential loss in landings will be economically 
unsupportable. Negotiations on this topic often result in dilution of the original proposal. 
Requests are also made for derogation from proposals intended to improve selectivity on the 
grounds that, if the proposal is implemented without derogation, it will be impossible to 
conduct fisheries economically for a number of target species. Similar requests for derogations 
are also made with respect to closed areas and/or closed seasons. Derogations are often agreed 
even though it is recognised that by-catches will be made of species other than those for 
which the derogation is requested and for which the derogation is inappropriate. 
It has also become increasingly clear in recent years that specification only of minimum mesh 
size for towed gear is insufficient to guarantee appropriate selectivity. Adjustment of other 
attributes of such gear can and are made such that for any defined minimum mesh size, 
selectivity is poorer than that expected on the basis of results of controlled experimentation. 
Such adjustments are often not in contravention of existing regulations. They include, for 
example, the use of: 
cod-ends of legal minimum mesh size but made of very thick and inflexible netting 
materials, often incorporating double-twine netting, 
7 
p \poolcl\mestcch\historic\rappon\en 
increasing the number of meshes around the diameter of the cod-end, 
increasing the length of various parts of the net immediately anterior to the cod-end, 
the use of hexagonal-mesh netting in the cod-end such that the meshes are almost closed 
under conventional fishing conditions 
It is also clear that illegal activities also take place. These include : 
use of an extra cod end surrounding the conventional cod-end so arranged that the outer 
cod end can be detached if inspection appears imminent. 
deliberate insertion into the cod-end of heavy items such as tyres or mattresses to increase 
the hydrodynamic drag and thereby close the cod-end meshes. 
More detailed reference is made to such illegal activities in the Commission Staff Working 
paper on control on conservation policy. 
4.2.2 Absence of a "one-net" rule 
The difficulties of enforcement of current regulations intended to ensure appropriate selectivity 
in the absence of a "one-net" rule or some effective alternative effective have been debated 
extensively. 
The Community's technical measures regulation contains numerous references to mesh sizes 
which may be used in derogation to the general "reference" mesh size for defined 
geographical areas. Each derogation mesh size is accompanied by conditions defining the 
minimum percentage of the catch which must be comprised of the "target" species for which 
use of the mesh size is allowed and a maximum percentage of "protected" species. On 
inspection, the legality or otherwise of a catch is assessed in relation to the mesh size used 
to take the catch and the associated percentage composition of the catch. 
At present, the presence on board Community fishing vessels of nets of different minimum 
mesh size is permitted. This allows the possibility that fish may be deliberately or otherwise 
caught with a mesh size smaller than that which should be used according to the regulations. 
On inspection, the claim is made that any quantities of fish on board which are in 
contravention of the rules for a permitted derogatory mesh size were caught with a net of 
appropriate mesh size, one or more of which is carried by the vessel. In principle, all mesh 
size and associated by-catch regulations can be avoided simply by always carrying on board 
a net of the general reference mesh size for the geographical area in which the vessel is 
fishing. 
Widespread use of such tactics will lead to the capture and hence death of perhaps large 
quantities of small fish which would not otherwise have been caught and killed. In technical 
terminology, such procedures are contrary to the establishment of a more satisfactory 
exploitation pattern than that evident at present. 
p \poolc)\mfS(ech\historic\rapporl\c 
The Commission is of the opinion that prohibition of the carriage on board of nets of more 
than one minimum mesh size is an obvious means of implementing effective" control leading 
to enhanced conservation benefits. 
However, it has been pointed out to the Commission that it is difficult to anticipate the 
reaction of fishermen to the "one-net rule". It may be the case that discarding would increase. 
If, for example a fisherman uses a derogatory mesh size but few of the target species were 
available he may continue to fish with the derogatory mesh rather than return to port to 
change gear. To remain within existing legislation, fish would be discarded (or, perhaps, 
transshipped) to ensure that the percentage composition of the catch on board is legally 
acceptable if inspected. 
Another possibility is that imposition of the one-net rule might further encourage legal or 
illegal steps to be taken to reduce the selectivity of gears as indicated in Section 4.2.1 of this 
report. 
A further possibility is that fishing effort might be redirected with respect to species so that 
some resources (probably the more valuable ones) may become subject to increased 
exploitation rates. Augmentation of fishing effort may also occur in an attempt to recover 
perceived loss of fishing opportunities. 
Furthermore, the Commission has also been made aware of a number of perceived technical 
and socio-economic problems. 
These can be classified into two major categories: 
(i) Interzonal problems 
A considerable number of boundary lines are defined in Community regulations separating 
geographical areas or boxes in which mesh-size regulations change from those in adjacent 
areas. Fishermen wish to be able to change gear "instantaneously" to allow them to fish 
legally as they cross boundaries. To allow "instantaneous" changes from one mesh size to 
another, gear of more than one mesh size must be simultaneously carried on board. Under the 
one-net rule, return to port, with consequent loss of potential fishing time, is seen as the only 
practical way of changing gear. 
(ii) Intrazonal problems 
Even if fishermen do not require or intend to cross boundaries during a fishing trip, it is 
claimed that they require multiple minimum mesh sizes on board to allow opportunistic 
exploitation of some species which might become available to them in the course of a trip. 
(For example, mackerel/herring becoming available (32mm net) during a trip primarily 
intended to catch demersal species (100 or 80 or 65mm net depending on geographical area). 
5. TECHNICAL MEASURES APPLIED OUTSIDE COMMUNITY WATERS 
5.1 North Atlantic 
Technical measures applied outside Community waters in the North Atlantic are, for the most 
part, very similar in nature to those applied within Community waters and consist of the usual 
9 
p VoalclVmcstccliMii'MoricVrnppoitVcn 
package of minimum mesh sizes, closed areas and/or seasons, minimum landing sizes, etc. 
Given the generally poor or very poor state of the stocks, especially the demersal stocks, 
throughout this area it appears that the contribution of technical measures to the conservation 
of the stocks has not been that expected from theoretical considerations. 
Norway and Iceland apply some technical measures of a different nature to those defined in 
the Community regulations. North of 62 00' N, Norwegian vessels fishing for shrimps are 
obliged to instal a sorting grid into their trawls. The grid is a rigid structure made of metal 
or, more recently, plastic which provides an escape route for small individuals of various 
species which would otherwise be retained as by-catch. A similar measure has also been 
introduced in the NAFO shrimp fishery, in order to avoid the by-catch of juvenile redfish. 
This measure seems to have already produced positive effects on the redfish stock. 
Norway and Iceland also operate a system of real-time closure of fishing in areas and at times 
when catches of small fish are high. The closures are initiated either on the advice of 
inspection services or, on some occasions, on the advice of the fishermen themselves. 
The table in Annex 6 compares mesh sizes for bottom trawls and other technical measures in 
different areas of the North Atlantic and the Mediterranean. 
5.2 International fora 
It should also be recalled that major orientations regarding technical measures are discussed 
within a number of international fora. The fourth International Conference for the Protection 
of the North Sea produced a ministerial declaration in which, with regard to fisheries, 
emphasises the requirement to establish exploitation rates within safe biological limits, to 
promote the rebuilding of depleted stocks and to minimise by-catches and discarding. 
The United Nations Conference on straddling stocks and highly migratory fish stocks, which 
conclude in August 1995, indicates specific provisions for the reinforcement of conservation 
and management measures and the improvement of the selectivity of fishing methods. 
The Code of Conduct for responsible fishing currently being developed within the framework 
of an FAO sponsored conference also indicates similar provisions. The meeting on the 
conservation of cetaceans in the Mediterranean and Black Sea held in Monaco in September 
1995 adopted a resolution for more stringent technical measures to minimise by-catches of 
cetaceans. 
These fora do not go as far as specifying in detail the required technical measures for each 
stock and/or area and the stocks and/or areas dealt with are sometimes different to those to 
which this document is strictly relevant. Nevertheless, the requirement for the application of 
effective technical measures to improve selectivity is clearly indicated. 
10 
p \poolcl\mcstcch\historic\rapport\en 
6. RECENT PROPOSALS ON TECHNICAL MEASURES 
6.1 Technical measures as a substitute for effort regulation. 
6.1.1 Proposals from Member States to the Commission 
In recent years Member States have suggested to the Commission that technical measures may 
be implemented as a substitute for regulation of fishing effort. 
In 1991 and 1992 the respective TAC and quota regulations contained conditions whereby 
vessels targeting cod and haddock in the North Sea, the Skagerrak and Kattegat and to the 
west of Scotland were subject to limitations on days at sea. However, partial or total 
exemption was provided to vessels of some Member States if they used towed gear with mesh 
sizes greater than the reference mesh size then in force. The basis for the exemption was that 
use of larger mesh size would provide conditions such that the spawning stock biomass at the 
end of the year would be the same as that expected by the application of effort restrictions. 
In practice, the intended effects of the exemption conditions were evaded by at least some 
fishermen who used gear in compliance with the exemption conditions but whose technical 
characteristics were such that their selectivity was no better and was probably worse than the 
gears which they replaced. 
Some Member States also suggested the adoption of technical measures as a contribution 
towards the targets of the current Multi-annual Guidance Programme (MAGP). In general, the 
Commission, being aware of factors such as those indicated in Section 2.4.1 of this report and 
also because the MAGP is fundamentally concerned with reducing overall fleet capacity rather 
than controlling fishing mortality rate on juvenile fish, did not accept these suggestions. 
However the Commission accepted the mandatory use under national regulations of square-
mesh panels in Nephrops trawls by United Kingdom and of beam trawls of restricted beam 
length by Netherlands. 
6.L2 Proposals from professional fishermen to Member States 
In February 1992, the United Kingdom government announced a package of measures 
intended to provide legal means to control fishing effort of their fishermen. The United 
Kingdom fishermen reacted to this package by offering proposals on technical measures as 
a substitute to control of fishing effort. It was made clear that the proposed technical measures 
should be considered as a strict alternative and should not be considered as additional to effort 
control. 
These proposals included the mandatory use of square-mesh panels, the imposition of 
additional closed areas and seasons (weekends), definition of maximum twine diameters, use 
of separator trawls and revision of mesh sizes for some diamond-mesh gears. The Commission 
is aware that UK authorities are discussing these proposals with appropriate fishermen's 
representatives. 
11 
p:\poolcl\mestech\historic\rapport\en 
6.2 Other proposals 
In a letter of July 1995 to the Commission, the Irish South and West Fishermen's 
Organisation provided a summary of the technical measures which they consider acceptable. 
These included increased mesh sizes in diamond-mesh gear, use of square-mesh panel in 
Nephrops trawls, acceptance of the one-net rule, characteristics of netting materials, boxes for 
protection of hake, increases in minimum landing sizes, amendment to regulations on by-
catches and conditions relating to static gear. 
Danish authorities have often indicated that economic incentives might be offered to induce 
fishermen to accept either appropriate application of existing technical measures or application 
of new and/or additional technical measures. At present, the nature of the economic incentives 
are largely undefined but the Commission would welcome further discussion of this topic with 
Danish authorities and/or with any other Member State(s). 
The Commission has on a number of occasions indicated to its Consultative Committee that 
proposals from them on possible alternative and/or additional technical measures would be 
welcome. There has been no response to this suggestion. 
6.3 Summary of the proposals 
The Member States' proposals to the Commission in 1991 and 1992 entailed the use of mesh 
sizes in towed gear greater than the reference mesh size defined in appropriate regulations. 
Reference was also made to the possibility of defining a maximum diameter of the twine 
employed to construct nets but such considerations were, ultimately, not included in the 
conditions leading to exemption from effort regulation. 
The United Kingdom fishermen's proposals refer to possibilities such as mandatory use of 
square-mesh panels, increase in minimum mesh size in towed gear, definition of maximum 
twine diameter, use of separator trawls, additional closed areas (including real-time) closures. 
In addition, the UK proposals also refer to possible technical measures for passive gear and 
to possible conditions applicable to fisheries for molluscs and crustaceans. The Irish proposals 
are similar in nature. 
6.4 Conclusions 
The Commission does not consider that technical measures should be accepted in future as 
a substitute for effort control. It appears that it is relatively easy to modify gears in such a 
way that it complies with all legal requirements but does not exhibit the expected 
improvement in selectivity. 
In this context it is important to recall that there are, fundamentally, two underlying principles 
for the conservation of fish stocks: 
(i) Do not catch young fish 
and 
(ii) Do not catch too many fish 
12 
p \poolcl\nieMcch\hisloric\inppon\cn 
Technical measures, TACs and control of fishing effort should be used in conjunction with 
each other and should not be perceived as mutually exclusive alternatives. It is for this reason 
that the Commission is attempting to establish a global package incorporating : 
(i) Technical measures, primarily to protect juvenile fish 
(ii) Combined measures to limit exploitation rates, such as input limitations (reduction 
of capacities through Multi-annual Guidance Programmes, effort control) and 
output limitations (Tacs and quotas).Definition of mid-term objectives and 
associated strategies incorporating effort control, TACs and quotas, measures in 
a manner consistent with the MAGP, for the achievement of the objectives. 
There is no possible substitution between effort reduction and the protection of juveniles : 
they must be applied simultaneously in an integrated manner. 
The figure in annex 7 shows the different elements of this integrated package. 
7. THE FUTURE 
The Commission considers the following elements worthy of consideration for the future. 
7.1 Improved enforcement of existing or improved regulations. 
Irrespective of the details of the technical measures package, increased attention must be paid 
to enforcement. In this context, the Commission will return to the question of the one-net rule 
to discuss the ways in which this idea can be applied. One possibility is that only a limited 
number of combinations of mesh sizes may be permitted. In particular, carriage of gear of a 
number of mesh sizes appropriate for catching a range of demersal species might be 
prohibited or limited. However, carriage of a gear of a specified minimum mesh size 
appropriate for catching pelagic fish and a gear of a specified minimum mesh size appropriate 
for catching demersal species might be permitted. 
The Commission also has the intention of discussing with Member States apparent cases of 
misuse of various derogations such that directed fisheries have been conducted for some 
species under totally inappropriate technical conditions. 
7.2 Extension of geographical area to which certain conditions apply 
In principle, it appears desirable to extend conditions relating to minimum mesh sizes similar 
to those pertaining in the North Sea to all waters off the coasts of the British Isles and Ireland 
and perhaps also to the Bay of Biscay. In more southerly waters, higher mesh sizes are 
absolutely necessary for the exploitation of most demersal finfish such as hake, anglers and 
megrim. 
Consideration must also be given to extending to the Skagerrak and Kattegat conditions more 
similar to those prevailing in the North Sea. 
13 
p Apoolc I \mcstccli\histori i:\rapport\cn 
For the Baltic, in parallel to conditions pertaining in other Community waters, consideration 
will be given to defining for each gear operated under derogation, a minimum percentage of 
target species and a maximum percentage of by-catch species. 
7.3 Removal or modification of apparently redundant or unnecessary aspects of the 
regulations 
Certain aspects of current regulations may be redundant. Examples include conditions for 
fishing in the Skagerrak and Kattegat for certain species to be used as bait, conditions in the 
same area for fishing for greater weevers, conditions for fishing for eel in the North Sea. 
In addition, thought might be given to reducing the number of permitted mesh sizes within 
certain areas while maintaining the possibility to pursue viable fisheries. In this context it may 
be appropriate to propose the closure to the use of certain gear of areas uninhabited by the 
species which are the target for such gear. For example, the Commission considers that it 
should not be permitted to deploy gear designed for catching Nephrops in areas where 
Nephrops do not exist. 
7.4 Inclusion in regulations of various additional technical conditions 
Consideration will be given to establishing conditions stipulating the mandatory use of square-
mesh, probably as panels, within appropriate towed gear. The requirement to employ separator 
trawls, to instal rigid grids in towed gear and to define maximum twine diameter will also be 
considered. 
New or augmented conditions relating to closed areas for the protection of juvenile fish, 
especially hake, may also be considered. 
7.5 Other possibilities 
Consideration will be given to possibilities for establishing a system whereby real-time 
closures of fisheries or parts of fisheries can be enacted. 
Consideration will also be given to establishing conditions which permit, under constraints 
such as quotas and penalty coefficients, the capture by specified fisheries of species or size-
groups of species whose capture is theoretically undesirable but is unavoidable and/or 
economically highly desirable. 
7.6 Environmental considerations 
In accordance with the Ministerial Declaration of the North Sea Environmental Conference 
of 1995, the Commission will make a proposal to establish in the North Sea an undisturbed 
area in which scientific investigation of the recovery of the environment will take place. 
14 
p \poolcl\meslech\hisloric\rappon\en 
In addition, the Commission may consider, for the protection and conservation of species 
other than fish, the requirement to establish areas to be closed seasonally to various types of 
fishing. 
7.7 Towards the development of a positive approach to technical measures 
If large numbers of fishermen are not to feel that the technical measures introduced are 
designed to hamper them, discussions between the scientific community, government 
departments and the fishing industry must be as practical as possible, foresee how problems 
will develop, and take action. 
Work on developing incentive measures should continue. To a large extent, it involves 
initiatives that can be taken by the Member States, so that the share-out of the overall fishing 
rights recognized at national level is favourable to those using the most selective techniques. 
This does not preclude the Community from providing stimulus, or even coordination. 
8. CONCLUSIONS 
The introduction of technical measures did not have the hoped-for effects in protecting 
juveniles and the species affected by by-catches. By-catches and discards continue to raise 
considerable problems. 
The problems of translating factual information into effective decisions are illustrated in 
Annexes 1(a) and 1(b). in the cases of hake and haddock respectively. There has, however, 
been a change of attitude on the part of the fishermen's representatives, at least in certain 
Member States. For various reasons (greater awareness, hope of avoiding other types of 
restriction, especially restriction of fishing effort, concern about real or imagined catches of 
juveniles by fishermen from other Member States), calls are now being heard for the 
introduction and reinforcement of technical measures. In the United Kingdom, the trade has 
given a great deal of thought to the matter, which has led to a set of proposals for technical 
measures. It was not possible to meet the UK fishermen's request that these proposals should 
be taken into account as an alternative to limitations on fishing efforts. But the approach 
shows a constructive spirit, and will contribute to the Commission's forthcoming proposals. 
The problem of technical measures goes beyond the framework of fishing alone. For the sake 
of reducing the impact of fishing on ecosystems, the environmental lobby attaches increasing 
importance to the definition of more selective fishing. This is, in the first instance, to prevent 
or limit catches of sensitive species (marine mammals, birds, etc.). But requests are covering 
a steadily widening range: they must be taken into account wherever they are justified, and 
if possible anticipated. There is even a risk, if measures to achieve good fisheries management 
have not been taken in time, that more radical demands will lead to action for the sake of 
environmental conservation. 
Inadequacies in the instruments go some way to explaining their shortcomings; but their 
effects are relatively minor compared to those of two important causes: 
overcapacity leading to very intensive exploitation; 
inadequate monitoring. 
15 
p \poolc l\iiK\,tci.'h,.hislo!it\Mppoi1 en 
The first factor means fewer large fish, which makes fishermen economically dependent on 
continuing to catch small fish. It makes monitoring even more difficult, e'specially in the 
absence of firm determination. 
It is clear from a look at the arrangements adopted outside the Community that there is no 
easy answer the CFP might have overlooked. Continuity is needed. The existing measures 
have to be improved, and the Commission will see to this through the presentation of 
appropriate proposals. These proposals cannot but take account of concurrence among 
scientists that mesh sizes should be further increased. They must also take full account of the 
proposals from the trade, and aim at being innovative. But technical measures will be effective 
only if they are integrated into an overall policy. Rates of exploitation must be cut, which 
means a direct reduction in capacity and in fishing effort. Monitoring arrangements must be 
made much more efficient. 
From this point of view, 1996 will be crucial: decisions are to be taken on the Fourth Multi-
Annual Guidance Programme, which will oblige the Council to decide on the follow-up to 
earlier commitments relating to technical measures. 
16 
p \poolcl\mcstech\historic\rapporl\cn 
ITr 
ANNEX l.a 
Specific measures for contributing to the conservation of hake in the Atlantic 
Hake is one of the stocks for which scientific advice is most alarming. The Atlantic hake 
fishery has consequently been the subject of a number of Commission initiatives. 
On 27 July 1988, when adopting the 5th amendment1 to Regulation (EEC) No 3094/86, the 
Conseil underlined the need to reduce catches of small-sized hake taken in close association 
with Nephrops iin region 3. On 14 to 16 December 1987, as a result of a proposal from the 
Commission based on a report on scientific experiments carried out in the fishery, the Council 
gave an undertaking to adopt by 30 June 1989 minimum mesh size rules to apply from 1 
April 1990 to trawling for Nephrops in region 3. The Commission's proposal to increase the 
mesh size was postponed, however, at the request of the French delegation. A Council 
Decision (on the introduction of a mesh size of 55mm and the possibility of using selective 
trawls in the Nephrops fishery in region 3) was only reached with the adoption of the 9th 
amendment2 and applied from 1 April 1990. 
The protection of juvenile hake was the aim also of the introduction by the 11th amendment3 
of seasonal boxes in the waters opposite the Iberian Peninsula (Spain and Portugal). The 
Council Decision did not cover the whole of the closed period proposed by the Commission. 
The Commission proposal for an 11th amendment included an increase in the standard mesh 
size in region 3 from 65mm to 80mm, which was deemed to be the most appropriate size for 
hake according to scientific advice given on a number of occasions. The Council rejected the 
proposal at its meeting on 28 October 1991 but gave an undertaking "to decide, on a proposal 
from the Commission, on the introduction of 80mm diamond mesh in region 3, while 
standardizing Nephrops mesh at 70mm, with effect from 1 January 1995 at the latest ...". As 
explained in the main Council text, the matter is to be dealt with again in 1996. 
At the Council meeting in December 1994, the Council and the Commission expressed serious 
concern at the state of health of the southern hake stock (in ICES Divisions VIIIc and IXa)4. 
On the setting up of the southern hake task force, both agreed on the need to establish ways 
of achieving a very substantial reduction in the rate of exploitation of the stock, especially of 
juveniles. 
The Commission held a meeting of the relevant experts. Their report has been sent to the 
Member States. On this matter too, decisions have still to be taken. 
1 Regulation (EEC) No 2024/88 of 23 June 1988. 
2 Regulation (EEC) No 4056/89 of 19 December 1989. 
3 Regulation (EEC) No 345/92 of 27 January 1992. 
4 Council document 11486/93 of 18 March 1994. 
p/poolcl/mcstcch/historic ™ 
iX 
ANNEX Lb 
Technical measures related to the management of the mixed fishery for cod, haddock 
and whiting in the North Sea. 
In the North Sea, cod, haddock and whiting are caught predominantly with bottom trawls and 
seines. The vast proportion of the catches taken in each operation of these types of gear 
contains some mixture of the three species in question along with numerous other demersal 
species in lower quantities. 
The major approach to prevention of capture of the juveniles of these species has been to 
implement regulations stipulating the minimum mesh size of the gear predominantly used in 
their capture. In this context, a difficulty is immediately encountered. For any stipulated mesh 
size, and assuming constancy of all other relevant factors, whiting will be retained by the gear 
less easily than haddock which will be retained less easily than cod. The choice of mesh size 
for application within this fishery is, therefore, a compromise. Perfection for whiting will be 
sub-optimal for cod and vice versa. 
Nevertheless, successive increases in the legal minimum mesh size for application in this 
fishery have been implemented. In the 1960's, prior to the adoption of the CFP, the minimum 
mesh size was 65mm whereas it is now 100mm. 
Almost every proposal for increase was opposed by fishermen from at least some Member 
States, and hence by their administrations, on the grounds that the higher mesh size would not 
permit the retention of whiting. In fact, it appears that no such effect is evident and that, 
despite the increases, whiting of small size and low age are still caught by gear of the 100mm 
minimum mesh size and are often discarded in large quantities. 
A specific derogation for fishing for whiting also exists which permits the use of 90mm mesh 
size with associated conditions on minimum percentage of target species, maximum 
percentage of by-catch and other conditions relating to the structure of the gear. The 
Commission is not aware of widespread use of this derogation despite the considerable effort 
made by certain Member States to obtain it and despite the fact that the agreed conditions 
were accepted by Council as an A-point. 
Various other derogations intended to permit the conduct of other fisheries also run counter 
to the adequate management of cod, haddock and whiting. Minimum mesh size of 80mm is 
permitted to facilitate the sole fishery and 70mm is permitted for conduct of fisheries for 
Nephrops. Regrettably these fisheries also catch cod and, depending on their geographical 
location, may also catch haddock and whiting. 
Nets of minimum mesh size 32mm are also permitted for the capture of Norway pout. These 
fisheries take large by-catches of juvenile whiting (xxx tonnes in 1994) and haddock (xxx 
tonnes in 1994). Attempts have been made to reduce the effects of these fisheries on whiting 
and haddock by inplementing the "Norway pout box" in whose geographical area juvenile 
haddock and whiting co-exist with Norway pout and where fishing with nets of 32mm 
minimum mesh size is prohibited. Nevertheless, the large catches of haddock and whiting 
persist. 
p'poolc l/nicstcch/historic 
'1 
Overall, therefore, the expected effects of regulations intended to minimise catches of juvenile 
roundfish have not been as successful as expected. It is, however, probable that exploitation 
of young roundfish would have been greater in the absence of the existing regulations but the 
present situation is far from satisfactory and greater efforts must be made to achieve 
significant improvements. 
p/poolcl/mcslech/historic 
Fishing mortality of non-mature fish expressed as a % of the fishing mortality on adult fish. 
COD: Vila 3> 
Z 
m x 
01 
SOLE: Vila 
60 T 
O CM 
Fjuv/Adult 
Fishing mortality of non-mature fish expressed as a % of the fishing mortality on adult fish. 
COD: Ilia PLAICE: Skagarak and Kattagat WHITING: North Sea 
^ 
Fishing mortality of non-mature fish expressed as a % of the fishing mortality on adult fish. 
SOLE: Vllf.g PLAICE: Vllf,g 
• Fjuv/Adult Fjuv/Adult 
MONK (Piscatorius): Vll.Vllla.b COD: IVa.Vla.VII.VIIIa 
160 
0 -I—l—(—i—i—i—h 
ot o 
CO O) 00 00 
at o CM at at at at 
P Fjuv/Adult 
MONK (Bude): Vll.VIHa.b 
18 -
16 
14 -
12 -
10 
8 
6 
4 
2 
00 
at at eo at o at at 
Fjuv/Adult »- CN m •at at at at at at 
\ Fjuv/Adult~| MEGRIM (Whiffagonis): VII, VII 
• Fjuv/Adult 
Fishing mortality of non-mature fish expressed as a % of the fishing mortality on adult fish. 
WESTERN MACKEREL 
o -l—t—i—H 
1976 1979 1982 1985 1988. 199.1 
I Fjuv/Adult 
HERRING: North Sea HERRING: Vla-Northern Part 
250 
200 
150 -i-
100 ~ 
50 4-700 -
600 
500 
400 
300 HERRING: Vlla(N) - Manx plus Mourne) 
•Fjuv/Adult 
K 
Time series of spawning stock biomass (SSB) estimates for different stocks exploited bv fishermen of the Union. 
COD: Via HADDOCK: Via 
2 20000 -
° 15000 r 
10000 T 
5000 -
0 -WHITING: Via 
Years Years 
SSB time Series •SSB time Series <i> 40000 4-
2 30000 -
m 
% 20000 -
Years 
SSB time Series 
90000 -
60000 -
70000 -
% 60000 -
i 50000 -o 
~ 40000 -
w 30000 -
20000 j 
10000 I SAITHE: VI COD: North Sea Haddock: North Sea rv> 
cr 
180000 y 300000 
£ 100000 + 
50000 + 
H 1 1 1 1 h 
Years Years 
• SSB time Series SSB time Series Years 
SSB time Series 
-£ 
Time series of spawning stock biomass (SSB) estimates for different stocks exploited by fishermen of the Union. 
WHITING: North Sea COD: Skagerrak 
700000 -
500000 
- 500000 
V) 
{= 400000 -o 
Q 300000 -
to 
w 200000 -
100000 -
0 SAITHE: North Sea Ilia 
n 15000 t 
00 j 
00 10000 { 
5000 -I 
Years Years 300000 
250000 
«>. 200000 + 
2 150000 4-
£ 100000 4-
50000 4-
SSB time Series SSB time Series Years 
•SSB time Series 
PLAICE: North Sea COD: Vila 
450000 -
400000 -
350000 -
300000 -
250000 -
200000 -
150000 -
100000 -
50000 ~ 
0 — 
1975 2000 
0 4 •+—I 1—I 1—I 1—I 
1979 1962 1955 
Years 1988 1991 
Years 
SSB time Series SSB time Series COD: Vlld 
25000 T 
20000 I 
Years 
•SSB time Series 
Time series of spawning stock biomass (SSB) estimates for different stocks exploited bv fishermen of the Union. 
45000 -
0' -WHITING: Vlld 
12000 T 
I 
10000 I 
8000 4 
2 6000 -f 
CÛ 
$ 4000 t 
2000 + SOLE: Vlld 
Years Years O •- CM 
<T> CD O) 
0)0)0 
•SSB time Series •SSB time Series 
PLAICE: Vlld 
0 
u~> to r^- co en 
COCOCOCOCOOOCOCOCOCO 
cn<j)C">cr>cr>o")c7)(DCT>cn O -r-
Years 
SSB time Series ÏÎ 40000 
2 30000 
£ 20000 + HAKE: Southern Stock 
Years 
SSB time Series 
fc 
ZT 
ANNEXE 3 
TECHNICAL MEASURES AND DISCARDS 
The seriousness of the problem of discards within the CFP has been underlined and examined 
by the Commission at an earlier date (SEC(92)423). More recently an FAO report1 has given 
an update on the situation at world level. 
Technical measures are neither the main cause, nor an easy answer to the problem of discards. 
As the Commission indicates in detail in the Communication on the subject, discards have 
many causes, which vary according to the fishery involved. The links between technical 
measures and discards vary too, depending on the type of measure. 
- The introduction of permanent or temporary boxes in waters where by-catches of species 
that are not marketed, or are even protected, or the proportion of very small fish are 
excessive, can only reduce the quantity of discards while providing other direct benefits. 
- The limiting or banning of non-selective fisheries and measures to increase mesh sizes in 
the same way together provide direct protection for juveniles and certain species and the 
retention of discards. 
- The matter becomes more sensitive when the question of minimum sizes is broached. It is 
technically possible to reduce the selectivity of fishing gear, particularly trawls, in such a way 
that an increase in mesh sizes does not result in the desired reduction in catches of small fish. 
To achieve a dissuasive effect, therefore, it has to be arranged that fishermen taking this 
approach do not gain a commercial advantage from such practices. That is why there are 
frequently rules banning the marketing of very small fish, so that they have no commercial 
value. To reduce the scope for fraud, the simplest solution is to prohibit fishermen from 
keeping such fish on board, otherwise if they do keep them the risk of fraudulent marketing 
is great. 
Fixing minimum mesh sizes has one drawback therefore: the fish caught cannot be sold 
commercially and often have to be thrown into the sea although most of them are dead. This 
drawback is regularly cited as an illustration of the "absurdity" of the rules. Certainly it is true 
that it is a drawback which has become tolerated, but to avoid another more serious one: the 
continued taking of large amounts of small fish. The need to arrive at a relative weighting for 
the two drawbacks shows that the choice can only result from a compromise. Even in a 
single-species fishery the selectivity of particular fishing gear is necessarily imperfect: the 
retention rate develops progressively with the size of the fish and not according to a simple 
threshold effect. Therefore, the problem of discards cannot be avoided. To reduce it as much 
as possible it would be necessary to choose a very low legal minimum size so that very few 
fish which are too small can be caught by gear being operated according to the rules. But in 
that case it would not be possible to achieve the desired dissuasive effect and it would be 
economically attractive for fishermen to continue to direct their activities towards small fish 
whose size is just above the legal minimum. On the other hand, if the minimum size was very 
large, equivalent to a length where three-quarters of all fish are retained by the trawl, for 
example, the number of discards would be large. The minimum size should be defined 
FAO fisheries technical paper No 339 "A global assessment of fisheries by-catch and discards" Rome 
1994. 
p/poolcl/mcstcch/hisloric 
if 
according to the specific characteristics of each fishery. Thus, when small fish are fished in 
areas different from those where fish "normally" retained by a legal trawl are found, a higher 
minimum size is more justified than where there is no geographical segregation, allowing 
fishermen who wish to do so to avoid catching fry. However, taking account of specific 
characteristics has its own drawback: the need for simple rules. It is very difficult to ensure 
that minimum sizes for a species are complied with when they vary according to fishery. The 
final compromise is made even more difficult by the fact that most fisheries are multi-species. 
The problem of discards cannot be resolved overall without an across-the-board improvement 
in the management of fisheries. Overfishing, improper fishing and discards are inseparable. 
The existence of overcapacity leads to a high rate of exploitation meaning fewer large fish, 
making it economically impossible for fishermen to avoid taking large quantities of small fish. 
Mesh sizes cannot be regulated therefore unless additional measures are taken to fix minimum 
sizes, which lead to discards. 
The vicious circle cannot be broken simply by putting in place technical measures. It is 
necessary to go back to the source of the problems, meaning excess effort and overcapacity 
p/poolc I /mestcch/hislor 
21 
ANNEX 4 
UNDERTAKINGS BY THE COUNCIL REGARDING TECHNICALMEASURES 
On a number of occasions the Council has considered that while immediate decisions were 
not necessarily relevant, improvement in the selectivity of fishing techniques required a 
timetable of specific decisions. Precise undertakings to that effect have been given, consisting 
of the statements below. 
Doc. 11089/89 PV/CONS 87 PECHE 386 
"The Council and the Commission agree that the disturbing situation of certain demersal 
stocks, particularly in the North Sea, requires conservation measures appropriate to the 
circumstances. They consider that amendments to existing rules should be implemented in a 
global context, in particular as regards minimum mesh size, minimum size on landing and 
discards. In this connection they hereby instruct the High Level Working Party to intensify 
the detailed discussions already started in this area and to report back before 1 June 1990." 
Doc. 9217/91 PV/CONS91 PECHE 250 
Decision on : 
1. minimum mesh size in region 3 : 
"The Council undertakes to decide, on a proposal from the Commission, on the 
introduction of 80mm diamond mesh in region 3, while standardizing Nephrops mesh at 
70mm, with effect from 1 January 1995 at the latest, provided that scientific analysis 
recognized by the ICES and STCF confirms that the measures in force at the time have 
not resulted in the restoration of stocks." 
2. minimum mesh size in region 2 : : 
"The Council undertakes to decide, on a proposal from the Commission, on the 
introduction of 110mm diamond mesh, with optional panels of 100mm square mesh, in 
region 2 (the whole of the North Sea and the West of Scotland, north of latitude 56) as 
from 1 January 1995 at the latest, provided that scientific analysis recognized by the 
ICES and STCF confirms that the measures in force at the time have not resulted in the 
restoration of stocks." 
Doc. 11486/93 PV/CONS93 PECHE 544 
Hake in ICES divisions VIIIc and IXa 
"The Commission and the Council agree on the need to establish, before September 1994, a 
task force to further investigate the state of the spawning stock of hake in ICES divisions 
VIIIc and IXa and, if required, to define means by which a rapid and large reduction in the 
exploitation rate of this stock, particularly of juveniles, can be achieved." 
p/poolcl/mcsitch/liistoiic 
Su 
North Sea cod 
"The Commission and the Council note that the North Sea cod task force of 1993 was unable 
to recommend conservation measures specific to the North Sea stock of cod. Therefore, and 
in the light of the particularly serious situation of the stock of cod in the North Sea and in the 
context of its responsibilities with respect to control, the Commission will assign priority to 
the respecting of quotas and technical measures associated with this stock. 
The Commission declares that in collaboration with the Member States concerned and by 
application of the new control regulation, it will propose the establishment of a specific 
programme of control in the immediate future." 
Doc. 12404/94 PV/CONS93 PECHE 488 
V. Amendments to be made to the Regulation laying down certain technical conservation 
measures: 
(b) The Commission will make proposals by 30 June 1995 to improve technical 
conservation measures (in particular in respect of the selectivity of fishing gear) in 
western waters. The Council will decide on these proposals before 31 December 
1995. 
p/poolcl/mestech/historic 
3} 
ANNEXE 5 
TECHNICAL MEASURES AND PROTECTION OF JUVENILES 
1 The various technical measures 
1.1 Selectivity of trawls and minimum mesh sizes 
The most important fishing technique by far is trawling. It is also the most efficient technique 
for catching juveniles as small mesh sizes are authorized. 
The selectivity of a trawl depends firstly on the width of the mesh used in the terminal part, 
i.e. cod-end and bow cod-end. It is also linked to other factors, such as the number of meshes 
appearing on the circumference of this terminal part. It is therefore possible by increasing this 
number to reduce the selectivity and to cancel out the benefits expected from an increase in 
mesh sizes. The method of rigging can also play an essential role. Traditional rigging involves 
the mesh being not in the intended form of squares, but as diamonds with varying degrees of 
taper (cf. figure 3). This reduces the possibility of fish escaping because they have to slip 
through a sometimes excessively narrow diamond. The so-called "square mesh" method of 
rigging is more reliable in this respect. A more regular performance can be expected of it, 
thus increasing the chances of survival of the fish which escape, reducing "selectivity failures" 
which result in a trawl catching fish which, because of their small size, should have been 
allowed to escape (cf. figure 4). Scientific experiments, then numerous tests carried out by 
members of the industry have shown the advantage of this type of rigging. At the same time 
it has been revealed that a problem regularly cited (fragility of the rig) could be resolved by 
using panels. Even if some initial enthusiasm now seems exaggerated, and even if in certain 
cases (flatfish) one cannot hope for much improvement, the square mesh rig opens the way 
to definite progress. 
1.2 Fixing minimum mesh sizes 
It is technically quite possible to so reduce the selectivity of fishing gear, especially trawls, 
that an increase in mesh sizes does not bring about the desired reduction in catches of small-
sized fish. To achieve a dissuasive effect, therefore, it has to be arranged that fishermen taking 
this approach do not gain a commercial advantage from such practices. This is why there are 
frequently rules banning the marketing of very small fish, so that they have no commercial 
value. To reduce the scope for fraud, the simplest solution is to prohibit fishermen from 
keeping such fish on board, otherwise if they do keep them the risk of fraudulent marketing 
is great. 
Fixing minimum mesh sizes has one drawback: the fish caught cannot be sold commercially 
and often have to be thrown into the sea although most of them are dead. This drawback is 
regularly cited as an illustration of the "absurdity" of the rules. Certainly it is true that it is 
a drawback which has become tolerated, but to avoid another more serious one: the continued 
taking of large amounts of small fish. 
The need to arrive at a relative weighting for the two drawbacks shows that the choice can 
only result from an imperfect compromise. Even in a single-species fishery the selectivity of 
particular fishing gear is necessarily imperfect (see Figure 3): the retention rate develops 
progressively with the size of the fish and not according to a simple threshold effect. 
Therefore, the problem of discards cannot be avoided. To reduce it as much as possible it 
would be necessary to choose a very low legal minimum size so that very few fish which are 
p/poolcl/mcslech/hisloric ^g 
<7 -) 
too small can be caught by gear being operated according to the rules. But in that case it 
would not be possible to achieve the desired dissuasive effect and it would be economically 
attractive for fishermen to continue to direct their activities towards small fish whose size is 
just above the legal minimum. On the other hand, if the minimum size was very large, 
equivalent to a length where three-quarters of all fish are retained by the trawl, for example, 
the number of discards would be large. The minimum size should be defined according to the 
specific characteristics of each fishery; Thus, when small fish are fished in areas different 
from those where fish "normally" retained by a legal trawl are found, a higher minimum size 
is more justifed than where there is no geographical segregation, allowing fishermen who wish 
to do so to avoid catching fry. However, taking account of specific characteristics has its own 
drawback: the need for simple rules. It is very difficult to ensure that minimum sizes for a 
species are complied with when they vary according to fishery. The final compromise is made 
even more difficult by the fact that most fisheries are multi-species. 
1.3 Boxes 
The idea of protecting certain zones linked to particular stages in the life-cycle of fish is a 
very widespread one. Among laypersons it often leads to confusion, between spawning ground 
and nursery, for instance. For most species fished, the locations where broodstock congregate 
for fertilisation and spawning (spawning grounds) are generally different from the locations 
where the smallest fish come together (nurseries). The hake case illustrated in Figure 5 is, 
generally speaking, a classic one, the spawning grounds being far out to sea by comparison 
with the nurseries. 
Contrary to what beginners in matters of resource conservation tend to believe, the principal 
measure for guaranteeing the correct exploitation and sustainability of resources is, very 
generally, protection of the nurseries. 
It is difficult to ascribe stable geographical boundaries to certain species. Thus, small juvenile 
North Sea cod extend over vast areas and concentrations are not in the same place each year. 
On the other hand, it is easier to delimit the nurseries for other species. Community legislation 
includes a set of boxes, in particular in the North Sea for flat fish and off the Iberian 
Peninsula for hake. 
p/poolc I /rneslech/historic 
3J 
Retention rate for 
trawling (as %) 8° -f 3-0-0-00 
0 CK><W-crCR>0-<><H>V I f M M M M M < M t l » > I M < 
U 1û 20 Zl 14 26 2ô 30 3Z 34 36 38 40 4Z <M 46 48 50 
Length of fish 
Fig. 1 : Rate of retention of fish in cod-end of trawl as a function 
of the length of the fish 
Q-O- improved selectivity 
*f 
Cod-end of trawl with 
traditional rigging (diamond mesh) 
, 1 
Cod-end of trawl with 
square-mesh rigging 
Figure 2 : mesh shapes of cod-end of trawl with traditional and square-mesh 
rigging 
3f 
2 Biological consequences of technical measures 
2.1. Single-species arguments 
General problems 
Technical measures are designed to protect young individuals. The result of this is an 
immediate loss of earnings potential, corresponding to the commercial value of the fish which 
are not taken. 
Medium- and long-term benefits can be offset against this loss: 
The clearest benefit corresponds to the subsequent catching of spared animals. Only part 
will be taken by fishermen, the rest dying naturally, but growth in size will, by way of 
compensation, increase the individual weights. The weight balance will be positive as 
long as the growth potentials are increased, and the re-catch rates are sufficient, i.e. 
mortality due to fishing is high vis-à-vis natural mortality. 
Sparing the young individuals also eventually increases the abundance of the breeding 
stock. Scientific analyses even show that this is often the most effective measure in this 
respect, even more so than others that one may consider more spontaneously (stoppage 
of fishing during the breeding season). The increase in breeding stock constitutes the sole 
guarantee against the risks of biological collapse which arise when the renewal of the 
generations is not ensured (see also 1.1.3). 
Avoiding catching fish as soon as they are available for fishing also provides fishery 
managers with time for reaction: it becomes possible to assess the abundance of an age 
group before it enters en masse into catches. This is an approach to determining TACs 
which is regaining credibility. 
The problem of discards constitutes in itself an argument for increases in mesh sizes and 
protectionof nurseries. An important part of the fish spared by increasing mesh sizes are 
fish which have not reached the minimum size, which are normally discarded. An ICES 
working group indicates a band of 40 to 130 million individuals for the annual discards 
of Atlantic hake. It is usual in the North Sea for the number of discarded haddock to 
exceed in one haul the number of fish which will be sold. 
The situation of roundfish stocks 
The state of Community resources varies according to species and zone. If some stocks are 
"in good health" (mackerel of the so-called western stock, various stocks of herring), the other 
extreme corresponds to large size roundfish, which have an essential position in the economy 
of demersal fish. In the North Sea, in western Scotland, cod occupies first place accompanied 
by haddock and saithe. Cod is found in the Irish Sea, the Celtic Sea and the eastern English 
Channel, and has a crucial place due to not being preponderant. More to the south, it is hake 
which forms the backbone of a lot of fisheries, combined with cod in the Celtic Sea. It is 
precisely for these stocks that the scientific analyses are the most alarming. 
For certain stocks the scientific assessments are more precise than for others. It would be 
wrong to think therefore that, in the second case, the dangers are less. A close examination 
of the studies shows that, on the contrary, while in the Irish Sea or along the Iberian Peninsula 
certain information is lacking, all the accessible data converges to indicate a very serious 
situation. 
p/poolcl/mestech/hisloric f| 
% 
Decisions are urgently required. For cod and haddock, and for hake, stocks are in serious 
danger of collapsing. For cod, many of the stocks have recently experienced a catastrophic 
development starting with those in the north-western Atlantic. Haddock, in the Ban Georges 
(north-western Atlantic) has been reduced to the state of residual stock without economic 
interest due to overfishing in the 1970s. 
2.2. Multispecies aspects 
These are of two types. Technical interactions are talked about to designate the fact that 
fisheries target not one but several species. Biological interactions correspond especially to 
prédation relationships existing between the various fish. 
Technical interactions 
Where it is not possible to prevent the simultaneous catching of species presenting very 
different growth potentials, compromises must be accepted with the resulting mesh size being 
too large, for "small" species and too small for large species. 
It would be conceivable to envisage mesh sizes a good deal larger than those proposed to 
optimize the exploitation of cod, saithe or hake. There are in fact very large fish, such as ling 
or anglerfish, halibut, turbot or skate and rays, which would justify very large mesh sizes. 
Where there is a very small size species, and where it is possible to catch this species without 
taking fish en masse belonging to larger species, the most straightforward solution is to 
provide for a derogation, linked to a target species, or to a group of target species. In essence 
it is the pelagic or semi-pelagic species (herring, mackerel, horse mackerel, anchovy, sardine, 
blue whiting) and the crustaceans (Norway lobster, shrimps and prawns) which pose a 
problem. But any derogation, even where it corresponds to a real technical possibility, 
introduces a risk. The species targeted by fishing subject to a derogation can become just an 
excuse. The risks must therefore be measured, the mesh size subject to a derogation adapted 
to the target species, by avoiding any laxness, and the fishing activity subject to a derogation 
subjected to conditions which limit the dangers therein. It must also be ensured that these 
conditions are controllable. All this, unfortunately, leads to complex regulations. 
Biological interactions 
Natural mortality negatively affects the consequences of increases in mesh size. This can be 
complicated where the species protected exerts in return a predatory role on other stocks. The 
phenomenon is difficult to quantify, but is qualitatively unquestionable. It depends, among 
other things, on the relative distribution of the predators and prey, for ranges of precise sizes. 
It can therefore vary for the same species from one sea to another. The case of North Sea 
whiting has been much studied and discussed. 
3. The economic and social consequences 
3.1. General comments 
Whatever the information gaps may be, nothing justifies bringing economics into conflict with 
biology in terms of technical measures. These measures have consequences, and reasons for 
being, which are both economic and social, and biological. A deep-rooted tradition means that 
restrictions, such as technical measures and fishing effort restrictions, would no longer be 
justified when the analysis is extended from the biological field to the economic domain. In 
p/poulc I /incstech/hisioric • 
3? 
reality, where bio-economic studies have been carried out, they have very generally led to 
stricter conclusions than those arising from biological points of view. It is not therefore 
reasonable to postpone increases in mesh size while awaiting additional economic studies 
which one hopes would allow the conclusions to be reversed. 
To clarify the debate, the increase in mesh size must be considered, in any case, as one 
possible decision, the other being the continuance of the rules currently in force. Each of these 
has its socio-economic advantages and disadvantages, whose assessment is marred by 
uncertainties. The essential debate must revolve around the distinction between the long term, 
where the increases in mesh size will bring biological, economic and social gains, and the 
short term, where difficulties may exist. It is important, in the same way, to analyse the 
proportion of profits and losses. 
3.2. Evaluation in the medium and long term 
To increase the mesh sizes would allow production to be increased for a lot of stocks. Not 
only can taking into account the economic phenomena not contradict these conclusions, but 
the integration of price variations according to the size of the fish can increase the gains. If 
between two and six years, the weight of a hake is multiplied by more than six, the price per 
kilogram is, at the same time, multiplied by nearly two for the trawlers in the Atlantic. If the 
same six-year-old hake is taken by a lining vessel, its price will again be multiplied by two. 
The same fish can therefore see its selling price multiplied by practically twenty-five 
depending on whether it is taken by a trawler with a small mesh size or by some longlining 
vessels. Even if a flexibility of price can intervene to complicate the estimates, there are no 
results which suggest that it can cancel out the benefit of the weight increase of catches. In 
the North Sea, the estimated flexibilities indicate at most a reduction of 20% in the long-term 
gains caused by increases in mesh size. Furthermore, these flexibilities would imply not an 
economic cancellation of the benefit of the increase in production, but would allow consumers 
to benefit by a reduction in prices through better use of resources. 
At the social level, it is more difficult to forecast the benefits to be expected from increases 
in mesh size. But it is certainly not by wasting potential income through misuse of resources 
that one creates viable jobs. This is indeed one of the clearest results of the scientific research 
which shows that the more one is imprudent by exposing very young fish to being caught, the 
more it is necessary to be prudent in terms of fishing intensity. 
3.3. Short-term losses 
An increase in mesh size is an investment whose dividends can only be reaped after the fish 
have grown sufficiently. The necessary delay corresponds in the practical context of 
Community waters to a transitory period of several months to two or three years as 
appropriate. 
The losses can, moreover, be limited for two reasons: 
the flexibility of prices mentioned can absorb the consequences of a decrease in supply; 
the estimates are made "all things being equal", i.e. without integrating the ability of 
fishermen to adapt their practices and tactics, to give up fishing methods which would 
be more directly affected by increases in mesh size. The clearest example of this is given 
by the distribution of fishing effort. With small mesh sizes, it is economically attractive 
to concentrate effort in areas which are rich in juveniles. As soon as the increases in mesh 
p/poolcl/meslech/hisloric I 
55 
size enter into effect, interest increases in those sectors where the largest fish are to be 
found. 
The flexibilities mentioned are not purely theoretical. Various increases in mesh size have 
already occurred. Short-term losses had, for example, been announced in the Celtic Sea, which 
have never been noticed, the prices and the fishermen having developed. Vessels having opted 
for a mesh size of 110 mm in region 2 have immediately adapted their practices to this new 
rule. This experience can also be seen in other fisheries and it can even be said that, to date, 
the increases in mesh size which have occurred in the Community have never caused real 
economic difficulties, even temporary ones, to appear. It is true that these increases were of 
a moderate extent. But when organizing the phases it is always possible to reduce the 
immediate losses at each step. A rapid increase will allow the full benefits of rational mesh 
sizes to be reaped quickly, but will increase the difficulties of adaptation. 
3.4. Sharing of benefits and sacrifices 
The diversity of fisheries creates disparities in connection with technical measures. Those 
which catch large fish have everything to gain and will not even suffer a notable short-term 
loss. This is the case with vessels which already use large mesh sizes or different flotillas of 
lining vessels. Conversely, the short-term losses affect more particularly the flotillas dedicated 
to fishing with small mesh sizes. This is the case with various specialized fishing activities 
subject to a derogation. Even if the flotillas concerned often have a limited number of crew, 
the problem is real. But, in a context of limitation of resources, even of biological risk for 
stocks, dangerous practices cannot be perpetuated. Furthermore, the statutory status quo also 
implies arbitration between methods. It leads to the priority disappearance of flotillas fishing 
for the largest fish. The intensification of fishing for juveniles has, furthermore, already led 
to the disappearance of certain fisheries, such as those fishing for adult hake in the Bay of 
Biscay. 
Whatever the decision may be, it implies a heterogeneity in the distribution of profits and 
losses, in the short and long term. It is not the easy solution which lets the juvenile fisheries 
wear down the others which is necessarily the most fair. The only fairness in the matter 
corresponds to the risk of collapse of stocks which would make everyone a loser. 
p/poolc I /mcslcch/historic 
^ 
ANNEX 6 
Technical measures in force in different areas of the North Atlantic and the 
Mediterranean 
Zone 
Baltic 
Norway 
EU - Regions 1 & 2 
EU - Skagerrat/Katt. 
EU - Region 3 
EU - Region 5 
EU - Region 6 
EU - Mediterranean 
EU - Gulf of Cadiz 
Iceland 
NAFO 
Canada Minimum mesh 
size of bottom 
trawl 
70 -105 mm 
135 mm 
80 -100 mm 
90 mm 
65 mm 
65 mm 
100 mm 
40 mm 
40 mm 
155 mm 
130 mm 
? -160 mm Discard ban 
no 
yes 
no 
no 
no 
no 
no 
no 
no 
yes 
no 
yes One-net rule 
no 
no 
no 
no 
no 
no 
no 
no 
no 
no 
yes 
no Real-time stoppage 
of fishing 
no 
yes 
no 
no 
no 
no 
no 
no 
no 
yes 
no 
no 
p/poolc 1 /meMech/historic 
ANNEXE 7 
FLEET MULTI ANNUAL GUIDANCE PROGRAMME 
Adaptation of the size of the fleets 
FISH STOCK FISHING ACTIVITY EFFORT CONTROL 
Direct limitation of the fishing activity 
TECHNICAL MEASURES : to avoid the catch of juvenile. 
<ZX! <XX: 
<0< KEXJ 
<r>i <£>< 
<zM 
<q_Xf i 
i 
C&4 Of ck 
<zx <zx <D4 ^3* œ*} 
©4 
<r>4 ex 
4 Ctf GX <3W 
OW o4 CX 
e* °< ~' *>4 ** 
04 
TACs & QUOTAS : limitation of the amount of resource removed > 
X 

4-1 
ISSN 0254-1475 
COM(95) 669 final 
DOCUMENTS 
EN 03 
Catalogue number : CB-CO-95-709-EN-C 
ISBN 92-77-97872-4 
Office for Official Publications of the European Communities 
L-2985 Luxembourg