EN    EN EN 
 
EN    EN  COMMISSION OF THE E UROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Brussels, 29.7.2009 
SEC(2009) 1076 final 
  
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
Accompanying document to the 
 
Commission's proposal for a 
 
COUNCIL REGULATION 
 
establishing a long-term plan for the anchovy stock in the Bay of Biscay and the fisheries 
 
exploiting that stock 
  
IMPACT ASSESSMENT
 
  
COM(2009)399 final 
SEC(2009)1077 
 
EN 2   EN Preface: Changes to the working documen t following the IA Board's opinion......................... 4  
Executive Summary .................................................................................................................... 4 
1. Procedural issues and consulta tion of interested parties .................................................... 6  
1.1. Organisation and Timing ............................................................................................. 6 1.2. Consultation and expertise ........................................................................................... 6 1.3. Dissemination of scientific advice and the re sults of consultations  with stakeholders 8 
2. Problem Definition............................................................................................................. 8 
2.1. Issue requiring action ................................................................................................... 8  
2.2. Underlying driving forces .......................................................................................... 10 
2.3. Industry/market management considerations............................................................. 11 
2.4. Effect on the sector..................................................................................................... 1 2 
2.4.1.  Identification of the sectors affected.......................................................................... 12  
2.4.2.  Fleet characteristics.................................................................................................... 12  
2.4.3.  Evolution of the sector ............................................................................................... 13  
2.4.4.  Situation of the fleets before  and after the closure..................................................... 15  
2.4.5.  Legal basis for Community action ............................................................................. 17  
2.4.6.  Necessity and subsidiarity.......................................................................................... 18  
3. Objectives..................................................................................................................... .... 18  
3.1. General objectives...................................................................................................... 18  
3.2. Subsidiary objectives ................................................................................................. 18 4. Policy Options................................................................................................................. .1 9 
4.1. Option 1 - No policy change ...................................................................................... 19 4.2. Option 2 - Long-term plan with three sub-options..................................................... 19 4.2.1.  Rule A – Harvesting a constant propor tion above an escapement Biomass (SSB) 
level.......................................................................................................................... .. 20 
4.2.2.  Rule B – Harvesting a constant proportion of the Biomass SSB............................... 20  
4.2.3.  Rule C – Harvesting a constant short term risk of 15% for Low R ........................... 20  
4.3. Complementary implementation el ements for anchovy management....................... 20 
4.3.1.  Incorporating autumn survey  of juvenile abundance into  anchovy stock assessment20  
5. Analysis of Impacts.......................................................................................................... 21  
 
EN 3   EN 5.1. Environmental impacts .............................................................................................. 21 
5.2. Socio-economic impacts ............................................................................................ 23 5.3. Impacts on international relations .............................................................................. 26 5.4. Impact summary......................................................................................................... 27 6. Comparing the Options .................................................................................................... 29  
6.1. Should a long-term plan be implemented?................................................................. 29 6.2. Which sub-option of the long-term plan  (Option 2) should be retained? .................. 31 
6.3. Should an autumn survey of juvenile a bundance be incorporated into anchovy stock 
assessment? ................................................................................................................ 34 
7. Monitoring and Evaluation............................................................................................... 34  
ANNEX 1 – General information about anchovy stock, fishery and fleet .............................. 36  
ANNEX 2 – Harvest Control Rules tested............................................................................... 39  
ANNEX 3 – Summary of scientific and stakeholder advice.................................................... 53  
Glossary....................................................................................................................... ............. 55  
 
EN 4   EN PREFACE : CHANGES TO THE WORKING DOCUMENT FOLLOWING THE IA BOARD 'S OPINION  
This final version of the Impact Assessment report takes into account the opinion given by the 
Commission's Impact Assessment Board on 4th March, 2009. In particular: 
– the scientific background of the proposal and its repercus sions on the problem definition 
and objectives have been redrafted to make the re port more user friendly; 
– the use of economic instruments has been moved to the problem section and different 
operational elements and implementation measur es, as well as the reasons for choosing the 
Harvest Control Rule based management system have been better explained; 
– the explanation on how the reco mmended risk levels of the l ong-term plan would comply 
with the precautionary approach has been given and the differences between the sub-
options and reasons for selecting the pref erred option have been made clearer;  
– the information on the anchovy fleets and th e processing industry since the ban was 
introduced has been provided and clarity to  the discussion of impacts has been added. 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY  
 
The Impact Assessment concerns a draft propos al that would set long-term management 
objectives and implementing methods concerning a fishery for anchovy ( Engraulis 
encrasicolus ) in the Bay of Biscay. This short-lived pelagic species is of great socioeconomic 
importance for a number of ports and fisherme n on the Cantabrian Coast of Spain and the 
French Atlantic Coast. 
 The scope of the proposal is of medium impor tance, covering up to 50 million EUR in terms 
of catch value. Approximately 300 vessels  and some 3000 at-sea jobs and about 16,000 
tonnes of fish catch for human consumption were involved in fishing for anchovy in 2004 
before the fishery was closed. These figures illustrat e the effect of the proposal, which is 
intended to deliver stability and sustainability to the fishery. Two fleets operating in the area 
are Spanish purse seiners and French pur se seiners and pelagic trawlers.   
 The stock is susceptible to la rge inter-annual fluctuations in  abundance caused mainly by 
variations in recruitmen t, driven by environmental factors.  Recruitment of young fish into the 
fishery has been very low since 2001. Recruitm ent of the 2004 year class was particularly 
low, which resulted in a decline of the stock an d led to the closure of the fishery in the second 
half of 2005. The fishery has remained closed ever since.  
 The proposal covers the conditions for re-opening the fishery, and its subsequent 
management, as a function of the size of the stock. It is intended by DG MARE as a further 
step in steering decision-making under the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) towards a long-
 
EN 5   EN term framework that is compatib le with international obligations and with the CFP objectives 
themselves. In spring 2009 the fishery is closed following scientific advice that estimates the stock's biomass as being below limit values (B
lim). Only when the fishery is safe to re-open, 
could a long-term plan be applicable to determin e the rates of fishing th at can take the stock 
from recovery to maximum sustainable yield. It is, however, important to stress that the 
proposal assessed in this report does not aim at achieving a high level of biomass but rather at 
finding the best way to manage the risk of  the fishery needing to be closed again. 
The impact assessment has been preceded by thorough scientific evaluation by relevant 
scientific and Stakeholder Committees.  
Under the CFP several operational elements can be considered in ach ieving a sustainable 
management of a fishery. These are: 
• setting a fixed TAC; 
• introducing technical measures , including time/area closures  to protect mature fish 
(spawners) and/or juvenile fish; 
• introducing provisions on capaci ty and effort to adapt them to catch possibilities; 
• incorporating economic instrume nts, i.e. market measures; 
• encouraging a better cooperati on between interested parties. 
Due to specific needs of this short-lived specie s and given the fact the fishery has been closed 
for a number of years, putting a management plan  in place was selected as the most feasible 
alternative to the current annual decision-making system. Effort control on pelagic species is 
ineffective and therefore a harv est rate based management approach to setting the TAC was 
selected as preferable in managing anchovy to an effort limiting regime. Complementary 
measures, like those described above, can be us ed to further improve the plan but they will 
not be discussed in this report . In order to include different  components and to take into 
account both technical and capacity issues in  the fishery, two main options and three 
additional sub-options have been tested: 
• Option 1 – No policy change; 
• Option 2 – Long-term plan with  3 alternativ e sub-options; 
2.1. Rule A - a strategy with relatively highe r TAC levels but higher collapse risks; 
2.2. Rule B - a strategy with relatively lowe r TAC levels and lower collapse risks; 
2.3. Rule C - a strategy being a compromise between options A and B. 
Further analysis indicated that a system based on a TAC set mi d-year according to the June 
scientific advice, with a harv est rule establishing the annua l TAC level automatically would 
be the preferred management option for the st ock. The system would also include provisions 
on a closure when biomass is  below a certain threshold. 
Details of consultation processes, options and impacts are provided. 
 
 
EN 6   EN Lead DG:  DG MARE 
Other involved services: DG ENV  
Agenda planning reference : 2008/MARE/021 
 
1. PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES  
1.1. Organisation and Timing 
This impact assessment concerns a proposal fo r a Council Regulation es tablishing a long-term 
plan for the stock of anchovy in the Bay of Biscay3 and the fisheries exploiting that stock. Its 
development is foreseen in Agenda Pl anning (MARE/2008/021) and in the 2008 Annual 
Management Plan of the Directorate-Genera l of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries under the 
specific objective "Conservation and Manageme nt 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 environm ental, economic and social 
concerns and making the best use of harvested fi sh resources, especially  by avoiding wasteful 
discard practices). 
The reform of the Common Fisheries Policy se t the basis in 2002 for implementing long-term 
plans rather than a short- term approach based on openly negotiable annual decisions. 
Management of resources based on long-term pl ans is best geared to ensure that the 
exploitation of living aquatic  resources provides sustainable economic, environmental and 
social conditions.  
The adoption of a proposal concerning a manageme nt plan for anchovy is one of the main 
outputs for 2008 that was planned in respect of  the foregoing objective. The adoption of the 
proposal is foreseen in the first quarter of 2009. 
DG MARE has discussed this legislative initia tive with DG ENV, as the associated service 
primarily concerned. Much progress has b een achieved through these consultations, 
particularly during the summer /autumn months of 2008. The outco me of these discussions has 
provided the essential elements  for the inter-service dialo gue and steering work under the 
formal impact assessment procedure reported he re. The draft report has been endorsed by the 
group. 
1.2. Consultation and expertise  
The Commission has sought advice for the adoption of management measures for the stock 
from relevant scientific or ganisations. The impact assessm ent is prepared by DG MARE on 
the basis of scientific advice concerning l ong-term management, in cluding environmental, 
social and economic analyses of  the possible scenarios. Consu ltation with stak eholders has 
taken place with the relevant representative body, namely the South Western Waters Regional 
                                                 
3 Reference is made to the stock of anchovy distributed in EC waters of ICES Subarea VIII. 
 
EN 7   EN Advisory Council (SWWRAC)4. This process started in 1999, was then set aside before being 
taken up again in 2007. 
As early as in 1999 the Commission request ed the Scientific, Technical and Economic 
Committee for Fisheries (STECF) to produce an extended risk analysis for the stock of 
anchovy taking into account the scien tific analysis carried out by ICES5 i n  r e s p e c t  o f  t h i s  
stock. STECF's risk analysis showed, under diffe rent multi-annual management strategies, the 
consequences on the sustainability of the resour ce expressed in terms of risk of collapse and 
on the total annual yield. The evaluations incl uded a test which looked at how the fishery 
operates under different factors in  order to simulate different re sponses of the fleet to resource 
availability and assess its robu stness (for example, whether the capacity of the fleet is 
adequate to benefit from, or s how resilience to, fluc tuations in the recruitment of young fish 
into the fishery). On that ba sis, the Commission sought to pr omote the idea of a long-term 
management for the stock among stakeholders. The latter, however, rejected this approach at 
that point in time, preferring to stick to  year-to-year management decisions.  
Given the poor situation of the stock, the Commission decided to push for the long term 
approach once again in 2007. In November of that year, DG MARE produced a consultation 
document setting out the possible elements of a Commission proposal . That document was 
then discussed with Member States, th e scientific community and SWWRAC. All 
recommendations that the SWWRAC produced in  this framework were thoroughly analyzed 
before being incorporated into  the Commission's long-term ma nagement plan proposal for 
anchovy.  
Accordingly, STECF provided the necessary scien tific basis for the proposal. Two scientific 
meetings took place in 2008 with the aim to update the ad vice on management provided in 
1999. Assuming the stock's recovery as a work hypothesis, they were to evaluate the economic impact for the fishing sector con cerned stemming from high risk-high yield and 
low-risk lower yield strategies, as well as soci al impacts. The first meeting of the specific 
working group took place on 14-18 April in Ham burg and reported to STECF Spring plenary 
(Report STECF/SGBRE-08-01
6). Managing pelagic species by effort control is generally 
considered ineffective. A management plan based on harvest rate approach to setting TAC 
was therefore considered by scie ntists as an alternative wo rth pursuing. The group evaluated 
two basic harvest control rules (HCR) and set th e basis for an economic evaluation of the two 
management approach scenarios (in terms of the returns of the fisheries to the sector). Given 
                                                 
4 This body has been established as the main body to provide the Commission with feedback and input regarding 
the implementation of the Common Fisheries Policy in respect of south-western waters fish stocks. The 
SWW RAC advises the Commission on a consensus basis between the fisheries sector and the civil 
society organisations that compose its membership. The Commission has a permanent advisory committee in place (ACFA, the Advi sory Committee on Fisheries and A quaculture) dealing with cross-
cutting issues. It was not consulted on this plan sin ce the proposal concerns a specific regional issue for 
which SWW RAC is competent. 
5 ICES stands for International Council for the Exploration of the Sea. Since 1999 this international organisation 
is the main provider of independent scientific advice to the Commission for the development and 
implementation of the Common Fisheries Policy. ICES  collates the expertise of fisheries scientists 
mostly working in the national fisheries laboratories of Member States and provides a systematic and 
standardised advice to the European  Community and to Member States. 
6STECF/SGBRE-08-01 Working Group Report On Long-term Management of Bay of Biscay Anchovy 
https://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu/docs?p_p_id=20&p_p_ lifecycle=0&p_p_state=normal&p_p_mode=view&p_p_col
_id=column-1&p_p_col_count=2&_20_struts_action=%2Fdocument_library%2Fview&_20_folderId=40341   
 
EN 8   EN paucity of data and shortage of time, the economic evaluation perf ormed was considered 
preliminary. A second STECF group met in San Sebastian, Spain on 2–6 June, 2008. The 
group carried out further socio-economi c evaluation of the management plan7.  
On its part, the SWWRAC delivered its vi ews and recommendations on a management 
approach for anchovy by letter in July 20088, indicating 
• a general support for regulating the explo itation rate of the stock and putting a 
management plan based on a harvesting rule in place; 
• a preference for establishing such plan according to the scenario which consists of 
catching a constant proportion of the stoc k spawning biomass (Rule B, details in 
Annex 2), with a maximum TAC9 of 33,000 t and an exploitation rate of 0.4. 
 
The RAC also commented on the possible meas ures to further complement the plan, 
indicating:  
• need for strict and rigorous control of th e fishery, whereby Member States concerned 
would implement a weekly catch reporting sy stem to be integrated into a control 
programme developed and coordinated by th e European Fisheries Control Agency.  
• scrutiny reservation on the issue of adapti ng fishing effort to catch possibilities was 
also expressed. The RAC hopes to be involve d in drawing up adjustment plans with 
the Member States concerned. 
Moreover, the SWWRAC suggested that it is possible that the anchovy biomass could have 
entered a phase of natural decline owing not to the effects of fishing, but rather to a 
combination of environmental factors. They suggested that if this assumption was to prove true, it would be better to conceptualise mana gement of the fishery under a scenario in which 
high levels of biomass and a high level of recr uitment are exceptional events. Such a scenario 
would necessarily imply new work for the sc ientists and would certainly have direct 
consequences for management of the anchovy fishery.  
1.3. Dissemination of scientific advice a nd the results of consultations with 
stakeholders 
The scientific advice from ICES
10 and from STECF11 and the recommendations from the 
SWWRAC12 are available on the websites of the respective committees. Moreover, brief 
summaries of STECF and RAC reco mmendations are given in Annex 3. 
2. PROBLEM DEFINITION  
2.1. Issue requiring action 
Since 1999, ICES and STECF have been regularl y advising the Commissi on that restrictions 
in anchovy fishing were needed in light of the precautionary approach. The Council, however, 
                                                 
7 www.ccr-s.eu/EN/download.asp?../Upload/EN/Agenda/DocsAnnexes/Report_2nd_STECF_Anchovy_Meeting.pdf   
8 http://www.ccr-s.eu/EN/avis.asp?id=17#bottom   
9 Total Allowable Catch. 
10 http://www.ices.dk/committe/acom/comw ork/report/2008/2008/ane-bisc.pdf   
11 https://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu/   
12 http://www.ccr-s.eu   
 
EN 9   EN chose not to follow this scien tific advice and decided on non -restrictive annual TACs. As a 
result the spawning biomass of the stock has gr adually decreased, and with it, the ability of 
the resource to renew itself. Th is process led to the fishery's collapse in 2005, when the lowest 
ever levels of catches were recorded. The fi shery has been closed ever since, which has 
afforded the stock some space to breathe. Ho wever, current levels are still weak and 
recruitment13 of individuals into the fishery is  strongly dependent on environmental 
conditions.  
The graphs below illustrate a general decreasing trend in terms of catches, recruitment, 
spawning stock biomass (SSB) and harvest rate levels for the st ock of anchovy in the Bay of 
Biscay: 
 
     
Catches in tonnes Recruitment in tonnes 
 
 
Spawning stock biomass (SSB) in tonnes Harvest rates (Catch/SSB) 
                                                 
13 Recruitment is the process by which fish enter the exploitable stock and become susceptible to fishing 
(age/growth related). 
 
EN 10   EN 
 
 
Source: ICES - From top left to bottom right  posterior median (solid line) and 95% credible intervals (dotted lines) for the re cruitment series (in tonnes), the 
spawning stock biomass and the harvest rates (Catch/SSB). The horizontal solid lines in the SSB graph correspond to the biologi cal reference points Blim 
(21,000 tonnes) and Bpa (33,000 tonnes).  
The graphs above illustrate the manner in which short-term management has led the stock to 
minimum levels and imposed the closure of the fishery. They demonstrate that the management based on annual TAC is not adequate  to conserve this short-lived stock at 
exploitable levels. Anchovy is a species with a short lifespan and a high natural mortality of 
1.2 (which means that average life expectancy of an anchovy is just 1.2 y ears). It is therefore 
susceptible to considerable fl uctuations. A season of low recr uitment will produce a high risk 
of a fall in the stock's spawning biomass to very low levels. This risk can be mitigated, but only if the rule is to establis h the fishing possibili ties as a set harvesti ng proportion of the 
stock. The rapid dynamics of this short-lived stock impose well-defined criteria to fix the 
formula under which the harvest rate  can be determined so that th e stock is rebu ilt to MSY in 
the long-term. 
Latest surveys indicate that since 2006 recruitment has shown a slightly increasing trend, 
however in 2007 it was still among  the lowest of the historical  series together with 1989, 
2002, 2005 and 2006. 
2.2. Underlying driving forces 
The main long-term drivers of the fisheries ma nagement system are the biological limitations 
on the productivity of the stock. Reducing the stock size to a low level can (while maintaining high catches for a short period) lower the produc tive potential of the stock in the longer term 
or even cause the stock to collapse. In contrast , in short-term perspect ives it can often be 
economic and social pressures which predom inate and lead to decisions on fishing 
opportunities that can ultimately become unsustainable.  
The point at which precautionary action must be taken to safeguard a fish  stock is defined by 
limit reference points. For the stock of anchovy  in the Bay of Biscay ICES estimated two 
important biomass target levels: 
• The minimum acceptable stock biomass (B
lim), was set at 21,000 t. If the biomass falls 
below this level, the stock is in danger of a reduced reproductivity or even a stock collapse.  
• The precautionary biomass level (B
pa) set for the stock at 3 3,000 t. This target level 
tells us where ideally we woul d like the stock levels to be. 
 
EN 11   EN Based on the most recent estimat es of anchovy biomass levels (SSB), ICES classifies the 
stock as being at risk of re duced reproductive capacity. SSB in 2008 was estimated to have a 
23% probability of being below safe target levels for the stock (B lim,=21,000 t). Low 
recruitment since 2002 and almost  complete recruitment failure of the 2004 year class are the 
primary causes of the low stock size. The recruitment at age 1 in 2008 was lower than in 2006 
and 2007, and was the second lowest in the time-se ries. Anchovy is a short- lived species, with 
the fishable stock consisting prim arily of one-year-old fish. The estimate of recruitment at age 
1 is, therefore, a key factor in determining a TAC. 
ICES recommends that the fishery should re main closed until the stock condition has 
improved. The stock condition can be re-evaluated when estimates of the 2009 SSB and 2008 
year class are available base d on the spring 2009 acoustic and egg surveys. This implies a 
closure of the fishery until at least June 2009. Once the fishery re -opens, an effective regime 
based on long-term targets and principles of  sustainability should be put in place.  
2.3. Industry/market manage ment considerations 
In the context of seeking ways to achieve im proved management of fish stocks, the use of 
economic instruments should be considered as a necessary corollary of stock management. 
Under some conditions, such instruments ma y actually become the cornerstone of the 
management system itself. It is recognised that economic instrume nts can increase the 
efficiency and cost-effectiveness of enviro nmental management, create incentives for 
investment and generate financial re sources for preserving biodiversity.  
If well designed and used within the right policy and enforcement framework, economic 
instruments such as fiscal instruments and char ges, financial assistance or the introduction of 
property rights and liability systems can increase returns to activities that conserve valuable 
biological diversity wh ile discouraging behaviour that is detrimental to species and 
ecosystems.  
However, in this particular case, an approach  to managing what represents an essentially 
fragile if not volatile fish stock based solely  on this kind of instrument would not seem 
appropriate. This is a stock that needs a robus t management regarding its harvest. Market 
forces alone, in a context where third-country imports are easily availa ble to the processing 
and canning sector, are not guara nteed to provide the economic re silience that the harvesting 
fleets require. In addition, the current scope of measures taken under the CFP is limited in 
terms of the means of intervention available to th e EU legislator to have  a direct influence of 
the evolution of the markets and the actual re turns of the fleets, focusing instead on fleet 
capacity adjustments through medium term-pr ogrammes with the s upport of structural 
funding available in the framework of  the European Fisheries Fund (EFF)14 .  
To sum up, the use of economic instruments like fiscal incentives, trad e protection measures 
and others could not by itself purport to ensure  an adequate implementation of the Policy's 
management principles. Not least due to the sharing of responsibilities between the 
Community (policy development and general regulatory framew ork) and the Member States 
(implementation, enforcement vis-à-vis individual s), the system is not geared to ensure the 
CFP objectives in respect of the stocks and the fishermen that exploit them through these instruments alone. The Council is required to fix annually the fishing opportunities for this 
stock, even if it is as presently, to fix them at zero. TACs and quotas are thus the result of the 
                                                
 
14 http://europa.eu/scadplus/leg/en/lvb/l66004.htm   
 
EN 12   EN CFP's core business and cannot be dispensed with except where the Council should take a 
specific decision not to regulate this fishery. In such condition s, however, the system results 
in no limits to the freedom to fish.  
2.4. Effect on the sector 
2.4.1.  Identification of the sectors affected 
Presently the fishery is closed. Usually two fl eets operate on anchovy in the Bay of Biscay: 
Spanish purse seiners and a French fleet of both purse seiners and pelagic trawlers. The 
national fleets targeting anchovy are spatially and temporally well separated. The pattern of 
each fishery is considered well established. In  general (1992-2004), most of Spanish landings 
(85 %) are usually caught in divisions VIIIc and VIIIb in spring, whil e 35 % of the French 
landings are caught in divisions VIIIb in the fi rst half of the year and 65% in summer and 
autumn in division VIIIa.  
Figure 1 - Distribution of anchovy in the Bay of Biscay  
(approximate area of distribution marked in black) 
 
 
 
Spain owns 90% of the fishing rights on anc hovy and the remaining 10% belongs to France. 
However, under several bilatera l agreements concluded since 1991 between France and Spain, 
part of the Spanish quota has b een transferred to France. Because  of this and other political 
arrangements the actual catches of both count ries have been quite similar and since the 
beginning of the 90’s the percen tage of catches by country has been almost equal (= 50%)  
(Figure 2)  
2.4.2.  Fleet characteristics 
Spanish purse seine fleet   
The Spanish fleet is composed of purse seiner s (about 200 vessels) that  operate at the south-
eastern corner of the Bay of Biscay (in Divisi ons VIIIc and b), mainly in spring, when usually 
more than 80% of the Spanish annual catches ta ke place. This fleet is composed of vessels 
 
EN 13   EN from different Autonomous Communities of the North of Spain (Galicia, Asturias, Cantabria 
and Basque Country). However, most of the anchovy catches made by th is fleet (about 90%) 
are landed in Basque Country ports due to their proximity to the anchovy fishing grounds. 
The bulk of this fleet switches to tuna fisher ies during summer and then uses small anchovies 
as live bait. These catches are not landed but  the observations collected from logbooks and 
fisherman interviews (up to 1999) indicate that th ey are supposed to be  less than 5 % of the 
total Spanish catches. The Spanish fleet has not  been active in subarea VIIIa since 2002.  
French pelagic trawlers 
The French anchovy fishery is mainly conducted by pair trawlers (72 vessels in 2004). The 
fishery normally starts at the beginning of th e year in the centre of the Bay of Biscay. 
Progressively, the fishery moves south (general ly in April). After a voluntary break of the 
pelagic fishery (bilateral agreement) in Apr il and May, the fishery moves back north, and may 
reach the northern part of VIIIa in August or September. Later, the fishery returns to the 
centre of the bay. The major fishing areas are the nor th of the VIIIb in the first half of the year 
and VIIIa, mainly, during the second half. The Fren ch pelagic fleet does not fish in area VIIIc. 
A specific characteristic of this fishery is it s variability, meaning that  many pelagic trawlers 
can catch a small amount of anchovy at least once a year. Therefore, the number of vessels 
that fish anchovy with a pelagi c trawl can be very variable. A threshold of 50 tons is the 
consensus criterion to distinguish vessels that ta rget anchovy from those that enter this fishery 
occasionally on an opportunistic basis. 
French purse seiners 
French purse seiners (24 vessels in 2004) targ et mainly sardine and catch anchovy on an 
opportunistic basis. They operate  around their home harbour, in coastal waters. Some French 
purse seiners located in the Bas que country fish mainly in spring in VIIIb and the ones from 
Brittany fish occasionally for anchovy during autumn in the north of the Bay of Biscay.  
2.4.3.  Evolution of the sector 
Figure 2 - Historical evolution of the anchovy fishery since 1960 
010 00020 00030 00040 00050 00060 00070 00080 00090 000
1960
1962
1964
1966196819701972
1974
1976
1978
19801982198419861988
1990
19921994199619982000
2002
2004
2006TonnesFrance Spain 
 
 
EN 14   EN Source: STECF  
The stock of anchovy in the Bay of Biscay  has followed a downward trend since 1999. In 
2005, spawning stock biomass and recruitment hit cr itical levels and the fishery was closed. 
As a result, catches and harvest rate levels followed the similar pattern.  
The volume of landings has followed a d ecreasing trend from 37,000 tonnes in 2000 to 
16,000 tonnes in 2004. During the same period the pri ce increased with the effect of a relative 
constant landing value of around 50 million Euros. Apart from 2000 and 2001, the French 
pelagic trawlers and purse seines accounted for the biggest share of th e landing value. The 
largest difference is evident in 2003 when the Fr ench landings amounted to 71 % of the total 
value of anchovy (Figure 2 and Table 2).  
Table 2 - Anchovy landings and value  
Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 
Spain      
Landings (tons)  19230 23052 6519 3002 7580 
Value (1000 E) 30768 36883 19557 14109 23725 
France      
Landings (tons)  17765 17097 10988 7593 8781 
Value (1000 E) 28424 27355 32964 35687 27485 
Total       
Landings (tons)  36995 40149 17507 10595 16361 
Value (1000 E) 59192 64238 52521 49796 51210 
Source: ICES. Average yearly prices 
The market for anchovy is mainly concentrated in the Basque country. Even though the TAC 
is split between France and Spain, approximately  95 % of the French landings are sold on the 
Basque market. The Basque market is therefore considered to be representative of the whole 
market for anchovy.  
The effect of decreasing volum e of landings on the average price of anchovy is clearly 
evident. In 2005 the co llapse of the anchovy fishery determ ined the highest prices per kg 
(Figure 3). 
Figure 3 - Anchovy landings in Bay of Biscay: quantity, constant value and price  
 
EN 15   EN 01020304050607080
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006Landings in 1000 tons and Value in Mi llions Euros
012345678910
Average constant price (base 100:2006)Value
Quantity
Price
 
Source: STECF 
As regards the processing industry, in the absenc e of a supply of anchovies from a local fleet, 
the sector relies on imports from Europe (Croa tia, Italy) and other no n-European countries 
(Peru, Chile, and China). Good supply and availabili ty of fish from those countries means that 
the sector does not appear to be negative ly affected by the closure of the fishery. 
2.4.4.  Situation of the fleets be fore and after the closure 
Spain 
In spring, the economic value of the total landing s of purse seines was historically linked to 
anchovy landings, with other species like sardin es and horse mackerel representing lower 
economic value. A decreasing trend in total la ndings value can be seen in the period 2000-
2005 (Figure 4). In 2005 the collapse of the an chovy fishery determined the lowest value of 
landings. 
Figure 4 - Historical evolution of total land ings and value of landings (data comprises 
landings from Cantabrian and Basque purse seines in spring seasons of the period 2000-
2005) 
Landings and value of the Cantabrian and Basque pelagic fishery: 
Spring seasons 2000-2005
05000100001500020000250003000035000400004500050000
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005tons, 1000 eTons
Thousand €
 
 
EN 16   EN Source: IEO & AZTI`s CAFE Project database (EU contract no 022644). 
The above graph illustrates the downward trend in the economic performance of the fleet in 
recent years, even before the closure of the fi shery as of 2006. However, it was observed that 
on average, the loss of gross revenues cause d by the closure of the anchovy fishery was 
partially covered by a raise of the gross re venues made from other species (i.e. bonito) 
targeted by the fleet. Between 2007 and 2008 the s ituation in the fleet worsened resulting in 
some loss of vessels particular ly in the Basque Country of Spain, largely due  to the very 
strong increase of the fuel costs.  
France 
Panels, defined as constant sets of vessels  operating each year from 2000 to 2006 in the 
anchovy fishery, were examined taking into cons ideration their average degree of dependence 
of vessels on anchovy (defined as  the percentage of anchovy gr oss revenues in the total gross 
revenues over the 2000-2004 period ). 19 and 66 vessels belonging to the active purse-seiners 
and trawlers fleets respectively were selected in 2007. These ve ssels landed 66% and 93% of 
the anchovy total landings per categories (accord ing to the gear used to harvest anchovy and 
their length size) over the 2000-2004 period respec tively. As shown on Fi gure 5, the total of 
the landings of these two categories represents  between 72% and 82% of the French landings. 
 
 
 
Figure 5 - Percentage of panel landings and fleet landings relative to the total French 
anchovy landings  
50%55%60%65%70%75%80%85%90%95%100%
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004Percentage of landingsPurse-seiners [11-17[m active Trawlers [14-25[m active
Total panel / total anchovy landings
 
Source: DPMA-Ifremer 
The catches of anchovy compared to the total catches for both fleets were estimated according 
to different degrees of dependence on anchovy. The main trend observed was a decrease in 
the total gross revenues for pe lagic trawlers and purse sein ers from 2002. A part of this 
decrease was due to the very low level of gr oss revenues made on anchovy (no catches for the 
 
EN 17   EN purse seiners from 2004). The general trend observed15 was that on average, the loss of gross 
revenues due to the anchovy closure was partia lly covered by a raise of the gross revenues 
made from the fleets' other species (i.e . sea bass, albacore, horse mackerel).  
The evolution of average gross revenues per ve ssel varied according on their dependence on 
anchovy expressed in shares of the gross reve nue. These dependency levels were: less than 
1/3, between 1/3 and 2/3 and more than 2/3, re spectively. For the active French trawlers with 
a dependence on anchovy representi ng more than 1/3 of the landings  in value, th e reduction in 
gross revenues in 2005 and 2006 compared to 2000 is around 25%. The decr ease in value is 
more significant if compared to 2003 levels when it rises up to 40%. For vessels with a 
dependence on anchovy representing  less than 1/3, the gross revenues did not decrease over 
the 2005-2006 period. The gross revenue tends to be homogenized for the whole fleet in 2005 
and 2006 with a decrease of the vessel highly dependent on anchovy. The total decrease is 
around 15% compared to 2000 and 25% while comparing to 2003.  
For French purse seiners, no vessel was depende nt on anchovy at a level higher than 2/3 of 
the total gross revenues on the period 2000-2004. The mean gross revenues per vessel are 
quite different depending on the degree of depe ndence on anchovy. In that  respect, there is a 
clear difference between the fleets operating in the Basque fishery in the first part of the year 
and a southern Brittany fishery conducted mainly in the second semester. A decrease in mean 
gross revenues can be identified between th e period 2002 and 2006 but looking at the index, 
none of these categories faced a critical drop in gross revenues after the anchovy closure 
compared to 2000. The drop is significant in 2005 and 2006 compared to the period 2002-
2004, especially for the less than 1/3 dependant vessels.  
As regards landings composition evolution expre ssed in terms of gross revenue for the most 
important species it was evaluated by the STECF anchovy group according to fleets and 
degree of dependence to anchovy. The most dependa nt trawlers fleets partially compensated 
the decline in anchovy landings by  a significant increase in sea bass landings and to a less 
extent by albacore and other species. The same  trends on sea bass can be seen for the less 
dependant vessels (less than 1/3 of anchovy landings over the 2000-2004 period). For the 
purse-seiners, especially the less dependant vess els, the targeting of other species is less 
evident as no significant increase in other species landings was identified. 
The years 2007 and 2008 registered a reduction in th e number of pair trawlers (particularly in 
Saint Gilles Croix de Ville), largely due to the very strong increase of the fuel costs. 
2.4.5.  Legal basis for Community action 
Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 of 20  December 2002 on the Conservation and 
Sustainable Exploitation of Fisheries Re sources under the Common Fisheries Policy16 
provides for the establishment of recovery pl ans for stocks outside safe biological limits 
(Article 5) and for management plans for fish eries exploiting stocks within safe biological 
limits (Article 6).  
                                                 
15 Refer to report section 2.3.1,  figures 2.1.33 – 2.1.3.5. 
16OJ L 358, 21.12.2002, pp. 59-80. 
  
 
EN 18   EN 2.4.6.  Necessity and subsidiarity 
The proposal would fall under th e exclusive competen ce of the Community  and therefore the 
subsidiarity principle would not apply.  
With regard to necessity, this proposal concer ns the annual setting of TAC for a fish stock 
that is shared between two Member States, Sp ain and France, according to a fixed allocation. 
It is not possible for Member States to mana ge this issue by independent or devolved action. 
Fisheries management is an exclusive Community  responsibility and therefore, it is necessary 
that this management action be im plemented in Community legislation. 
3. OBJECTIVES  
3.1. General objectives 
The closure of the fishery presently in force aims at protecting the remaining stock until a 
strong year class, or possibly a series of them , recruits to the stock. The recommendation of a 
closure consistently made by STECF since 2005 has implied in practice not allowing any 
catches until the stock recovers to  levels above the limit Biomass (B lim) of 21,000 t.  
The Commission intends to make a proposal fo r a long-term plan for the anchovy to be 
implemented when the stock recovers to safe biological limits. The objective would be to 
establish the management framework for this stoc k, and fix targets so as to reach exploitation 
at high yields consistent with maximum sustainable yield (MSY). 
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 addition, such plan should contribute to the aims of the 
Implementation Plan agreed by the World Summit on Sustainable Development at 
Johannesburg in 2002, especially in respect of exploiting fish  stocks according to their 
maximum sustainable yield17. This political objective has been the subject of a separate 
Commission Communication (Implem enting sustainability in EU  fisheries through maximum 
sustainable yield (COM (2006) final) a nd accompanying working document (SEC(2006) 
868)18.  
3.2. Subsidiary objectives 
As an ancillary objective the Co mmission should aim to establish,  for the sector concerned, 
predictability for the annual legi slative decisions on total allowa ble catch for the stock, and to 
provide stability to su ch decision-making. This objective is linked to the general objective of 
economic and social sustainability under the CFP.  
Moreover the Commission should en sure that the decision-maki ng on fishing possibilities for 
anchovy is based on best possibl e biological assessment of the stock. Such assessment would 
allow for a good forecast of the abundance of the fishery and therefore contribute to the general objective. Both operational object ives are considered realistic.  
                                                
 
17 www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents /WSSD_POI_PD/English/POIToc.htm  
18 www.cc.cec/home/dgserv/sg/sgvista/i/sgv2/repo/repo .cfm?institution=COMM&doc_t o_browse=SEC/ 2006/0868  
 
EN 19   EN 4. POLICY OPTIONS  
In order to effectively pursue the above objectives, the followi ng options have been analysed 
and considered by DG MARE: 
4.1. Option 1 - No policy change 
This option implies keeping the current system  as it stands, without defined management 
objectives, targets of criteria. Anchovy in the Bay of Biscay has been traditionally managed through annual TACs fixed by the Council of Mi nisters in December for the following year. 
Since 1989, the stock is annually assessed by ICES, based on direct surveying of the 
population conducted by Spain and France. Si nce 2005, the annual TAC includes a revision 
clause in July, after the spring surveys and the provision of scie ntific advice provided in June. 
This system allows for an in-year revision in order to tune-up catches for the second half of 
the year after the spring assessment; however  it does not follow the defined longer term 
management objectives. Moreover, under presen t conditions, there is no legal framework 
establishing guidelines or re strictions on the annual sett ing of fishing opportunities 
concerning this stock and the risk of the stoc k being fished out again remains very high.  
4.2. Option 2 - Long-term plan  with three sub-options 
This option involves setting annual TAC deci sions by the Council under a precise discipline 
whereby the TAC levels are calculated according to a fixed formula, taking into account the state of the stock through its bi ological indicators. DG MARE ag rees with scientific advice 
and stakeholders that in order to re-open the fishery, an estab lishment of a consistent, long-
term strategy based on an appropriate ha rvesting rule should be considered.  
Management through the establishment of TACs  was selected by scientists at STECF for 
evaluation, as for pelagic species  such systems have proven much preferable to regimes based 
on fishing effort limits (e.g. limiting the number of days a vessel is authorised to spend on the grounds). Moreover, a TAC based system woul d be embodied in the current management 
regime, and is thought to offer the best means to regulate fishing mortality.  
Based on the above, the STECF working gr oup on anchovy management considered the 
implications for the stock and the fishery of two main strategies: 
• A strategy with relatively higher TAC le vels but higher collapse risks and; 
• A strategy with relatively lower TAC levels and less frequent collapse risks. 
According to these strategies two basic harv est control rules (HCR), Rules A and B, were 
evaluated with respect to what proportion of the available stock could be harvested. Third 
HCR (Rule C) was then added by stakeholders as a compromise between the first two rules.  
The anchovy group evaluated the im pact of all three HCRs by si mulation of the sustainability 
of the stock, catches, economic balance and so cial impact. The approach followed was such 
that, as far as evaluation of MSY is concerned, catches of around 23,000 tonnes are 
sustainable in the long-term. The socio-economic  analysis was performed taking into account 
the biological uncertainty resulting from the stochastic 10-year projections of the stock and fishery. All rules were tested for harvest rates ( γ values) in range between 0 and 1 (in steps of 
0.1). They were also tested ag ainst the following constraints: 
• with and without a TAC ceiling (TAC
max) of 33,000 tonnes, which is the historically 
fixed level of TAC set to this fishery; and 
 
EN 20   EN • with and without a minimum guaranteed TAC (TAC min) of 7,000 tonnes, which 
corresponds to the smallest catch that allows the fishery to remain economically 
viable, as identified by the SWWRAC. 
The following sub-option alternatives of a long-term plan were tested: 
4.2.1.  Rule A – Harvesting a constant proportion above an escapement Biomass (SSB) level  
The first rule was based on catching a constant proportion ( γ values) above an escapement 
stock spawning biomass level (i.e. anything above 33,000 t), according to a given formula 
(details, Annex 2). This strategy implies relativel y higher TAC levels but also higher risks of 
stock and fishery collapse.  
4.2.2.  Rule B – Harvesting a constant proportion of the Biomass SSB 
The second rule was based on ca tching a constant proportion ( γ values) of the stock spawning 
biomass, which is all fish old enough to re produce, according to a given formula (details, 
Annex 2). This strategy implies relatively lowe r TAC levels and less frequent risk of stock 
and fishery collapse. 
In both cases TAC is applied from subsequent Ju ly to June next year. The biological reference 
points B lim and B pa correspond to 21,000 and 33,000 tones respectively. 
4.2.3.  Rule C – Harvesting a constant short term risk of 15% for Low R 
A third possible rule identified by stakeholders was based on a constant short-term risk of 
15% for low recruitment of new individuals to the stock (formula details, Annex 2). 
This rule was proposed by the SWW RAC at a March 2008 meeti ng. It was seen at the time, 
as a compromise between short term risk and the ha rvest interests of the fleet. This rule can be 
considered a special case of rule A, where the threshold is 26,500 tonnes and the harvest rate  
γ = 0.766. Given the Sector interest, th is rule was evaluated separately. 
4.3. Complementary implementation el ements for anchovy management  
4.3.1.  Incorporating autumn survey of juvenile  abundance into anchovy stock assessment 
Since 1989, the stock is annually assessed by the International C ouncil for the Exploration of 
the Sea (ICES), based on direct surveying of  the population conducted by Spain and France. 
Current ICES assessment covers the period from 1987 onwards. 
The scientific monitoring of the population is based on two annual su rveys carried out in 
spring on the spawning  stock, namely, the Daily Egg Pr oduction Method (s ince 1987 with a 
gap in 1993) and the Acoustics surveys (regul arly since 1989, although some surveys were 
also conducted in 1983, 1984 and some in the se venties). Both surveys provide spawning 
biomass and population at age estimates. The surveys have shown pr onounced inter-annual 
variability of biomass according to  the pulse of recruitments, since one year old anchovies can 
conform up to more than 75% of the spawning population. This has served to assess the level 
of the population during the major spring fish ery and therefore to assess the level of 
exploitation. However, it has also showed th at invariantly, the fishable anchovy stock 
predominantly consists of one-year-old fish wi th few exceptions in some years when 2 year 
old fish predominate. Accordingly, the estimate of recruitment at age 1 is a key factor in 
determining a TAC for the next year. 
 
EN 21   EN Since 2005, the annual fishing opportunities regul ation includes a revision clause of the 
anchovy TAC that applies in Ju ly, after the spring surveys a nd the provision of scientific 
advice in June. The system thus allows for an in -year revision in order to tune-up catches for 
the second half of the year after the spring assessment. Th is system, however, lacks an 
estimation of juvenile numbers during the autu mn which would allow for a forecast of the 
abundance of the fishery during the first semest er (winter-spring) of the following year.  
The lack of a recruitment index before it enters  the fishery has prevented ICES for all these 
years to produce projections of the population an d catches for the anchovy fishery in the Bay 
of Biscay on which to base its advice. To overcome this situation several environmental 
recruitment indices have been explored an d various acoustic surv eys on juveniles in 
September-October have been started. The form er are not used by ICES given their poor 
forecasting power, whereas the later (mainly J UVENA) is still too short and it is being 
currently tested about its predictive performance for the incoming recruitment.  
5. ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS  
5.1. Environmental impacts 
Anchovy's short-lived life cycle iden tifies it as a specie s that can provide an  indicator of the 
productivity of its medium; it flourishes on productive, upwelling areas where plankton 
abounds. Anchovy is a prey species for other pe lagic and demersal species, as well as for 
cetaceans and birds. It is also a major s ource of food for ecologically and economically 
important predatory species such as tunas. A lthough the management considerations applied 
to this stock are quite focused on the species alone (since it is caught in a single-species 
fishery), anchovy's management is heavily depe ndent on environmental factors. The impact of 
the stock's status and evolution on the rest of  the food chain and the status of the pelagic 
habitat as such are not analysed here. Th e following paragraphs are presented in the 
understanding that all environmental impacts must be approached with precautionary 
principles in mind, whereby a healthy stock will be a contributor to a healthy larger 
environment, but the discussion emphasises the analysis of the options' potential impacts on 
the stock. 
Option 1 - No policy change  
This report has already described how the current system of annual TAC decisions has 
resulted in harvesting rates that are too high a nd led to the depletion of the anchovy stock in 
the Bay of Biscay. Short-term economic c onsiderations result in setting aside the 
precautionary approach that must apply to compensate uncertainty in the assessment. Accordingly, the stock is overfished, the spawning stock biomass falls well below 
precautionary levels and the stock collapse s, entailing the fishery's closure.  
In 2000 an STECF group evaluated long-te rm management approaches for anchovy
19 and 
indicated that under the current harvesting behaviour the risk that the stock biomass would 
fall under safe limits was of the order of 72%  to 100% (probability of falling under B lim at 
least once in 20 years). The report was based on the assumption that the current management 
                                                 
19 Report of the Meeting to provide the Commission with scientific background in order to define a management 
strategy for the stock of anchovy in the Bay of Biscay (ICES Sub-area VIII) held in Brussels, 21-25 
February 2000. 
 
EN 22   EN regime would continue, whereby an initial TAC is set on 1 January, and an in-year adjustment 
is made according to the results of the surveys available on 1 May.  
In the absence of timely management decisions that reflect the state of the anchovy stock, the 
risk that the stock will decline to below the limit biomass value has been validated by experience.  
Option 2 - Long-term plan 
 
Bringing stocks under long-term plans approach  remains at the core of the Commission's 
policy. Implementing such a plan would offer be tter protection to this vulnerable stock and 
bring catches in line with MSY. The basic feature of this option is to establish a harvest rule 
which determines the annual TAC automaticall y. In December, a provisional TAC would be 
set according to the chosen formula, then a mid- year revision according to the June scientific 
advice would further fine tune the TAC. 
Two population models were implemented to test  the HCRs under the three formulas tested. 
The biomass model that forms the basis for IC ES advice was implemented as the base case.   
The analysis was based on the probability of stock biomass falling below B lim and the 
probability of having to close the fisher y within a ten years simulation model.  
Performance of rules A and B (see annex 3 for formulas) 
In summary, the evaluation made by STECF of the possible harvest control rules for this 
fishery showed that rules A and B behave in a closely similar way in terms of management 
results for the stock. In both cases, there is a direct correlation betw een catch levels and 
biological risk for the stock. Setting limits to th e extent to which TACs may change from one 
year to the other carries different  levels of risk since these constraints limit the response of the 
system to a change in stock status (where the scientific advice would plead for a 25% TAC 
cut, but the TAC constraint w ould only authorise a maximum cu t of 15%, for example). In 
this sense, both rules perf ormed similarly. Setting a mini mum guaranteed TAC (of 7,000 t) 
increased the risks of fishery closure, wher eas imposing a maximum TAC – in any event –of 
33,000 tonnes results in lower catches, lower catch  variability and lower probability of SSB 
falling below B lim than the case where no ceiling was imposed (see Fig. AB.1, Annex 2).  
Performance of Rule C 
The essential difference in this rule compared to the previous two is the inclusion of a 15% 
risk factor for low recruitment. When running sc enarios for various recr uitment levels for the 
stock, this rule proved less efficient to ma intain adequate exploitation levels when 
environmental factors play against the productivity  of the stock. In simple terms, the rule does 
not provide sufficient guarantees when recruitmen t is poor that the harves ting is sustainable or 
can lead to recovery when needed. If a low r ecruitment scenario persists over a number of 
years, then catches would be on average less th an 10,000 t while the associated risk of closure 
would be higher than 10%. Due to the high envir onmental risk associated with this scenario, 
Rule C was discarded at this stage. 
The following conclusions can be  drawn from looking at the environmental impact of the 
tested sub-options:  
• The higher the exploitation rate the higher the catch, its variability and associated risk. 
• Setting a maximum TAC reduces maximum atta inable catch and d ecreases inter-annual 
variability in TACs (figur e A.1 and B.1, Annex 2).  
 
EN 23   EN • For a given harvest rate a TAC ceiling of 33,00 0 t reduces catches, th eir variability and 
the associated risks. Setting a minimum TA C of 7,000 t does not alter mean catch or 
associated risk but increases the probability of closures. 
• For the same risk level, expected catches are higher for the options where there is no 
upper TAC constraint (f igure AB.1, Annex 2).  
• Both rules A & B imply similar risk at eq ual mean annual catch (figure AB.2, Annex 2). 
However, Rule B may result in  higher stability in TACs. 
Moreover, the difference in estimated risk be tween models used in assessment suggests a 
need for some flexibility in the interpretation of the test results. Levels of less than 5% are normally considered precautionar y. However, given the uncertainty  in the estimates of risk, 
that threshold should not be considered an absolute, but rather a region around which the 
specific situation of the stock and the trends in its evoluti on should be considered when 
determining appropriate harvest levels. Due to the above, risks at and slightly above 5% are 
considered acceptable by STEC F for this particular stock. 
5.2. Socio-economic impacts 
Option 1 - No policy change
 
Table below summarises the economic figures de scribing the current situation in socio-
economic terms. The figures correspond to year 2004, before the closure of fishery, and relate 
to the three fleets involved in the Bay of Bis cay anchovy fishery (i.e. Spanish purse seiners 
(SPS), French purse seiners (FPS) and French pe lagic trawlers (FPT)). These were the basis 
for the socio-economic Status Quo. 
Table 3 - Socio-Economic Status Quo (2004)  
 SPS FPS FPT TOTAL 
Price of Anchovy /per ton 2,391 
Catches (tons) 7,580 1,756 7,025 16,361 Income per fleet (000 €) 18,123.28 4,198.96 16,795.84 39,118.08 Costs/ton harvested (ex. 
capital cost, 000 €) 8,409.10 1,948.29 14,351.66 24,709.06 
Profits from fishing (000 
€) 9,714.18 2,250.66 2,444.174 14,409.029 
Number of vessels 211 31 54 296 
Number of fishermen in 
fishery 2,954 186 313 3,453 
Source: STECF anchovy working group 
Putting aside the fact that the fishery remains closed for the time being, this zero option 
merely purports to continue managing this fish ery on a contingent basis year after year. In 
these conditions, the fleet's economy cannot be ade quately adapted to the trends of the stock. 
There is no predictability, except to assess a high risk of overfis hing as decisions are taken on 
a short-term basis, thus leading to persistent or frequent closures. With a system like that in 
 
EN 24   EN place, the business objectives of the opera tors cannot be adequately programmed and 
economies of scale cannot be implemented, nor a healthy integration between the harvesting 
and transformation sectors. 
Option 2 - Long-term plan  
Option 2 aims at ensuring long-term stability and profitability in the sect or, with less risk of 
stock collapse and smaller TAC fluctuations between  years.  It is worth highlighting that this 
sector achieves good returns when they fish le ss (Figure 1.2, Annex 2) and the fact that the 
reduction in earnings happens much slow er than reduction in catch quantity. 
It is not possible to forecast economic impacts in absolute terms. Market prices for anchovy 
can fluctuate widely in response to variations in demand. Howeve r, the plan should, by setting 
well defined long-term targets and contributing to the stability of anchovy supplies, also 
contribute to the stability  of the anchovy fishing i ndustry and its markets.  
For Rule A:  If no upper TAC ceiling is imposed, risks between 5 - 10% of the stock falling 
below B lim, which indicates low biomass and serious  risk to stock's reproductive capacity, 
correspond to harvest rates γ =  0.4 to 0.5 (with average catc hes between 19,000 and 22,000 t). 
When an upper TAC ceiling of 33,000 tonnes is  imposed, similar risk s are calculated if γ  lies 
between 0.5 and 0.7, with average catches lower than 19,200 t. Thus, a wider range of harvest 
rates is available, but lower catches are to  be expected if th e ceiling is imposed.  
For Rule B: The risk of the stock falli ng to low biomass levels lies between 5 and 10% in the 
absence of an upper TAC ceiling, when harvest rates are around γ =0.3. Average catches are 
then estimated at around 19,500 t. Where the upper TAC ceili ng of 33,000 t applies, similar 
risks are estimated, with cat ch levels around 17,200 t.  
The approach followed by scientists incorporated in  the risk analysis not only the returns from 
the anchovy harvest, but the overall activity of the fleet. To do so, one  estimate of returns 
from anchovy and other for the “rest” of the species was made. The estimate has been made by fleet and by semester (4 produc tion function for each fleet). 
The STECF anchovy working group attempted a socio-economic evaluation of different 
management strategies. To do so, results obtaine d from the biological side were analyzed in 
terms of the overall performance of the fishery, as well as the perfor mance of each of the 
fleets involved in it. The parameters used in the analysis are descri bed in Table 1.2, Annex 1. 
The group also looked at the relationship betw een prices for anchovy and the set TAC levels 
for the stock. The analysis showed that the maximum value was obtained at a TAC level of 
32,000 tonnes (Figure 1.2, Annex 1). 
Detailed socio-economic impact assessment of the sub-options tested shows that:
 
• Overall discounted gross revenue is maximized  when the harvest ra te is increased. 
This is clearly so when a maximum TAC of 33,000 tonnes is set. This maximum TAC 
allows a better overall result compared to th e cases where there is not such maximum. 
• The highest overall discounted cash flow is maximized for low harvest rates but this 
could be a consequence of the “optimistic” e xpected availability of other species and 
that the price for them was kept constant. This “optimistic” assumption is especially important for Spain, given that it has not  been possible to estimate a production 
function of other species by semester, which makes that the alternatives in the first 
semester are over estimated. 
 
EN 25   EN • The highest overall discounted cash flow d ecreases with the harv est rate, but this 
decrease is less pronounced when a maximu m TAC of 33,000 tonnes is applied (see 
Annex 2). 
• The economic risk is much lower when a TAC ceiling of 33,000 tonnes is applied, and 
also the risk increase is less marked in these two cases. 
• The social indicator reflects the relationshi p between the average wage observed in the 
member state concerned and th ose observed in the fleets. Given that the capacity in 
this fishery in terms of number of vessels that operate in it is taken as fixed, the indicator only reflects the social conseque nces in this scenario. If the number of 
vessels changes, the social cons equences may also be different. 
• Social consequences are not taking into  consideration empl oyment other than 
employment as crew on-board. Employment dire ctly or indirectly linked to the fishing 
activity was not taken into account. 
• Deterministic and stochastic runs perform si milarly in terms of income, even if the 
price function may apply to values outside  the observed range of TAC used for its 
estimation. This is especially true  when there is no maximum TAC.  
• Cost parameters as well as production function for anchovy and other species has been 
estimated, but further work should be done on this basis to refine the estimations. 
• Evolution of cost is a key factor in the ec onomic performance of the fleets, but even if 
in the simulations we have tried to use the last available data, they have remained constant for simulation purposes. 
• There are factors which could not  be considered in this analysis but are likely to have 
influence in the economic performance of  the HCR. Anchovy processing industry 
(which represents the most important demand for these fleets) could change their purchasing patterns as they have done wh ile the fishery was closed, changing 
dramatically the price function structure. 
• The processing industry is asking for a we ll supplied market (high TAC) and low 
prices. In that sense low TACs create a risk  to the fleets of loosing their buyers. But 
high TACs also increase the risk  of closing the fishery, an d this discontinuity in the 
supply could also result in the proces sing industry turning to other markets. 
• The effect of the allocation method of TA C into quota by countries on the national 
fleets was tested. Obviously the higher the allocation to Spain the lower the 
probability of negative cash flow for Spain an d the higher for France. However, this is 
not an entirely straightforward conclusion, given the effect of other species on the 
economy of the fishery which can counter  the effects of these changes.  
The model assumption that the to tal TAC will always be caught is probably unrealistic. It 
would be more appropriate to take into ac count the economic incentives for vessels to 
reallocate effort between  species. However, to achieve this aim, a full feedback bio-economic 
model, which takes into account both the econo mic behaviour of vessels and the biological 
consequences, is required. It should be noted th at, at present, such a model is unavailable. 
Since the management plan would not introduce new procedures, an administrative burden for 
both the sector and national administrations, is  likely to remain unchanged. The proposal has 
therefore no implication for the Community bu dget. Moreover, a long-term plan with clear 
sustainability criteria may allow the fishery,  if effectively implemented, to qualify for 
certification under independent "eco-label" cr iteria. This could be helpful in product 
marketing terms, and in impr oving the perception of the sect or as a responsible industry. 
 
EN 26   EN 5.3. Impacts on international relations 
The stock is distributed almost wholly within EC waters and is not subject to unregulated 
exploitation by third-country vessels. Catches and fish stock management will not be affected 
by such third-country activities.  
 
EN 27   EN 5.4. Impact summary 
 Option 1 – no policy change Option 3 - long-term plan 
Positive impacts Greater flexibility in decision-
making. Decision-making constrained to result in 
attainment of sustainability objectives. Increased TAC stability. 
Negative impacts Long-term sustainability not assured 
as an objective. TAC variation constrains may in some 
circumstances, not allow sufficiently rigorous measures to be adopted, in others, 
will not allow the industry to reap 
full/immediate benefit from a surge in the stock. 
Direct impacts Unknown, but likely to result in 
higher-risk management approaches. Reduction in estimated risks of closure. 
Existence of a predictable management 
regime with identified targets allows the 
industry to adapt its strategies to become profitable.  
Indirect impacts Negative economic, social and 
environmental impacts due to possible reduction of stocks' biomass 
to unsafe levels leading to reduced 
fishing opportunities in the long-term. Longer-term approaches in harvesting 
strategies spread stability in associated processing sector, with economic and 
social gains. 
Economic impacts Short-term:
 No change in catches and 
profits. 
 
 
Long-term:  Possible negative impacts 
due to increased risk of fishing above safe levels which may again lead to closing the fishery. This would result 
in loss of profitability of the fishing 
industry. Short-term
: If the plan applies, it will be on 
a re-opened fishery for a stock that is in a recovery phase. Initial gains will be small 
and will need to be kept low throughout the 
recovery phase. Increases will likely be gradual. However, the operation of the plan may reactivate investments. 
Long-term
: Achieving the targets means 
rebuilding the stock to Maximum 
sustainable yield, ie the level at which the industry is the most profitable and the stock in the healthiest state. 
Social impacts Short-term
: No change. 
 
Long-term : Possible stock collapse 
following TAC allocations based on ad hoc  decisions resulting in cuts in 
employment in the sector. Short-term
: No change expected during 
stock recovery phase. 
Long-term : Job creation and stable 
employment can be expected from profitable fishing activities if the stock is managed according to MSY. 
Environmental 
impacts Short-term
 Continued management 
based on short-term interests may 
finish off a stock which is such vulnerable state. It may not recover Short-term
: Positive impact on the 
conservation of species due to improved 
decision making on management.  
 
EN 28   EN (the anchoveta stocks in South 
America, which collapsed in the 70s 
took about 20 years to come back).  
Long-term : Even if the stock did not 
collapse completely, this short-term approach carries an inherent high risk that the stock biomass will fall below 
safe levels again, thus adverse effect 
on biodiversity.  
 
Long-term
: Improved management of the 
stock leading to improved state of the stock benefiting biodiversity. 
 
 
EN 29   EN 6. COMPARING THE OPTIONS  
6.1. Should a long-term plan be implemented? 
Various options have been c onsidered internally by scientific agencies. The resulting 
scientific advice, and stakeholde r contributions agreed that imp lementing a long-term strategy 
based on a harvesting rule according to a formula that depends on survey results and is arithmetically calculated seems the best soluti on for anchovy. A similar approach was taken 
for sandeel in the North Sea in 2005, and ther e are also precedents in capelin management. 
Rule B, which implies harvesting a constant proportion of the anchovy biomass, has been 
selected as appropriate and beneficial by both DG MARE and stakeholders. This rule is 
consistent with the objectives of the Comm on Fisheries Policy and the Johannesburg World 
Summit on Sustainable Developmen t to rebuild fish stocks to MSY by 2015. In any event, 
long-term plans must be regularly reviewed and if appropriate revised in light of an 
assessment of their effectiveness and in light of the evolution of th e scientific knowledge 
relevant for the management of the fishery in question. 
The choice to implement such a plan can be compared with continuing under present 
conditions. 
Comparing Option 1 and Option 2 
Option 1: No policy change - annual ad-hoc decision making 
 Qualitative description Quantitative description 
Economic impact Short-term costs to relevant 
enterprises Unknown, not predictable. 
Likely pressure to set fishing 
opportunities above sustainable 
levels.  Ad hoc  decisions affecting 
entire catches from the stock 
affect the resilience of the 
fishing companies by forcing them to contingency management. 
Long-term costs to relevant 
enterprises Unknown, not predictable. 
Likely that pressure to set 
fishing opportunities above sustainable levels can result in stock depletion below maximum sustainable yield levels.  Ad hoc  decisions affecting 
long-term productivity of the 
whole stock, i.e. up to ca. 50M€/yr. 
Social impact 
 Unknown, not predictable. 
Flexibility is retained at a decision-making level. No set long-term 
management targets lead to high risks with regards to employment and profitability 
in a sector. 
Environmental impact 
 
EN 30   EN  Unknown, not predictable. 
Pressures to increase catches in 
the short term tend to lead to stock depletions. TAC decisions under the CFP 
have been taken on average at 
about 40% above sustainable levels.  
 
 
EN 31   EN  
Option 2: Implementation of long-term plan 
 Qualitative description Quantitative description 
Economic impact Short-term costs to relevant 
enterprises Short-term impacts can be 
mitigated by a limit on changes to TACs so long as stock levels remain good.  Not quantified, but should be 
low. 
Long-term costs to relevant 
enterprises Long-term costs should be kept 
at a low level by maintaining stocks and catches at high and stable levels. By exploiting the stock at 
maximum sustainable yield, costs should be low and the economic resource rent kept at a high level, close to 
current values. 
Social impact  The long-term plan should 
minimise short-term disruptions and ensure high and stable incomes and employment for 
the long-term. Maintenance of employment 
and incomes at close to current levels (in proportion to a Bay of Biscay stock). 
Environmental impact 
 The plan should lead to safe 
and near-optimal exploitation of the stock, with a small risk of 
stock collapse and including 
precautionary elements. Exploitation of the stock in 
conformity with the precautionary approach and 
MSY objectives in the 
Johannesburg Implementation Plan. 
DG MARE considers that retaining an annua l decision-making system unconstrained by 
considerations of sustainability  would be a high-risk approach for the sector in the longer 
term. It is consistent with the precautionary  approach to implement a sound management 
practice in advance to ensure th at once the stock has recovered, th e conditions will not change 
for the worse again (in this fish stock, or in  others nearby). Therefore DG MARE considers 
the implementation of a long-term plan to be desirable. 
6.2. Which sub-option of the long-term pl an (Option 2) should be retained? 
In order to evaluate different harvest co ntrol rules for risks between 0.05 and 0.1, an 
assessment with two scenarios was carried out: 
1) scenario with a maximum TAC ceiling (TAC max) at 33,000 t; and  
2) scenario without  a maximum TAC ceiling. 
 
EN 32   EN  
Rule A Rule B 
TAC max of 33,000t 
No TAC min With TAC min 
7,000 t No TAC min With TAC min 
7,000 t 
Harvest rate 0.5 – 0.7 0.5 – 0.7 0.3-0.4 0.3 – 0.4 
P(SSB < B lim) 0.06 - 0.10 0.05 - 0.08 0.07-0.10 0.06 - 0.098 
P(closure) 0.08 – 0.11 0.24 0.08-0.11 0.18 – 0.21 
Catch 17,700 – 19,400 17,200 – 19,400 17,400-19,100 17,000 -19,200 Variation in Catch 11,000 – 11,700 11,800 – 12,400 9,600-10,600 10,000 – 11,200 Optimum harvest 
rate (HR) for income 0.6-1
 0.6-1  0.4-1  0.4-1  
Optimum HR for 
cash flow 0.1-0.3 0.1 -0.3 0.1 -0.2 0.1 -0.2 
 
Rule A Rule B 
No TAC max 
No TAC min With TAC min 
7,000 t No TAC min With TAC min 
7,000 t 
Harvest rate 0.4 – 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.3 
P(SSB < B lim) 0.05 - 0.08 0.08 0.06 0.06 
P(closure) 0.07 – 0.10 0.29 0.08 0.19 
Catch 19,000 – 22,500 21,700 19,000- 19,400 19,200 Variation in Catch 18,000 – 22,500 23,700-23,400 14,800 15,100- 5,400 Optimum HR for GR 0.4-0.5
-0.6 0.4-0.5 -0.6 0.4-0.5 -0.6 0.4-0.5 -0.6 
Optimum HR for 
cash flow 0.1-0.3 0.1 -0.3 0.1 -0.2 0.1 -0.2 
 
Rule A : Risks between 5% than 10% for the stock to fall below B lim in any year of the 10 
years projected population were found for ha rvest rates of around 0.4 and 0.5 for cases 
without a maximum TAC ceiling. For those cases  the average catches were estimated at 
 
EN 33   EN between 18,500 and 22,000 t. The similar risks are found for harvest rates between 0.5 and 
0.7 for cases with 33,000 t maximum TAC ceiling. These cases come with average catches estimated at lower than 19,200 t).  
Rule B : Risks between 5% than 10% for the stock to fall below B
lim in any year of the 10 
years projected population were found at harv est rate of around 0.3, with average catches 
around 19,500 t for those cases without maxi mum TAC ceiling, while catches are around 
17,500 t for those cases with maximum TAC ceiling of 33,000 t. 
A comparison of Rule A and B sh ows that both rules imply quite similar biological risk at 
equal mean annual catch. However, Rule B is lik ely to result in more stability in TACs and 
therefore was selected by both stakeholders and DG MA RE as a preferred option.  
As a general rule, ICES and STECF seek management to keep fish stocks above B pa, which 
according to their definition corresponds to reduce the probability of a stock falling below 
Blim below 5%. Given high annual variability a nd low recruitment of the stock of anchovy, 
the scientists believe that this target cannot  be achieved for this particular stock and 
recommend that risk of stock biomass falling to unsafe levels of or slightly above 5% is acceptable. A harvest rate of 0.4 as suggest ed by SWWRAC, which would generate risks 
reaching 10% and above, was considered by DG MARE not precautionary enough for the 
stock. The scientific evaluati on (details Annex 2)  indicates that ap plying Rule B with 
maximum TAC set at 33,000 t and harvest rate of 0.3 would keep risk of stock biomass 
falling below unsafe levels (SSB below B
lim) and the danger of a fishery closure below the 
recommended 10%. The Rule is believed to en sure an average annua l catch of around 17,200 
t which would guarantee a viable and stable income for the sector in a long-term.   
 Rule A Rule B 
Economic impact 
Short-term costs to relevant 
enterprises Comparable average annual 
catch likely above levels from 
2004. Comparable average annual 
catch likely above levels from 
2004. 
Long-term costs to relevant 
enterprises Higher TAC fluctuations 
between years causing variable profitability in the sector. Lower TAC fluctuations between 
years resulting in constant profitability for the sector. 
Social impact 
 Short-term
: No negative impact 
on employment. New rules are clear and easy to follow. 
Long-term
: Higher TAC 
fluctuations leading to possible 
changes in employment and 
greater uncertainty in the sector. Short-term : No negative impact 
on employment. New rules are clear and easy to follow. 
Long-term
: Lower TAC 
fluctuations assuring stable 
employment in the sector. 
Environmental impact 
 Similar risk of stock collapse Similar risk of stock collapse and 
 
EN 34   EN and closure of fishery. closure of fishery. 
 
Should an autumn survey of juvenile abundance be incorporated into anchovy stock 
assessment? 
DG MARE supports the views expressed by the S WWRAC and believes that the results of 
the autumn recruitment survey should be inco rporated into the deci sion-making process to 
ensure that TAC set in early winter takes in to account the natural mo rtality exerted on the 
newly recruits during the rest of  the season and thus, can predict the available biomass for the 
next year. The proposal for a long-term plan would set the rule whereby fishing would be 
permitted from July of year N to June of the year N+1 depending on the biomass available in June, which is estimated following the spring scientific research trips. Once the JUVENA 
survey of juvenile fish commences, the TA C would once again be set every year, for a 
calendar year (from January to December).  
7. M
ONITORING AND EVALUATION  
The indicators of successful operation of this plan are that: 
Biologically  
• Stock biomass is maintained at a level that  allows its sustainable exploitation (SSB 
above B lim with low risk of it falling below that  level), on the basi s of scientific 
advice;  
• Stock is managed in accordance with the principle of MSY aiming at a long-term 
stability of resources.  
Socio-economically  
• Catch levels, as measured by ICES and STEC F, remain close to the target values 
established in the plan, while aiming at stabil ity and profitability for the fishing sector; 
• TACs and quotas established according to the plan are respected and area-
misreporting is eliminated; 
• Discarding and misreporting do not increase in a period of increased stock abundance 
and is taken into account in  the TAC-setting process. 
Further evaluation criteria: are that: 
• Uncertainties and bias in the fishery and bi ological system remain within the bounds 
of those tested; and 
• Assumptions made in the simulation testing phase are still valid. 
A harvest control rule-based system designed in such a way and applied rigorously should 
safeguard against stock depleti on. However as simulations are based on past stock dynamics, 
and cannot guarantee future developments, it is a normal condition of most management plans 
that harvest rates be re-evaluated on a regular basis. Moreover, the prop osed plan would set a 
minimum spawning biomass level based on scien tific advice from STECF and ICES, below 
which the fishery should remain closed. An evaluation clause would be included in the proposal to ensure that this value can be amende d, if appropriate in the light of new scientific 
information and advice. 
 
EN 35   EN The indicators should be monito red annually in order to dete ct any deficiencies in the 
operation of the plan. At three-y early intervals, a comprehensive review of the plan should be 
implemented. 
The monitoring arrangements concerning the state of the stock are common for this and other 
stocks in the area. Collection of  scientific data as regards 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 would be initiated by DG MARE. 
The proposal would interlink with the provisi ons of the new Control Regulation, which is 
planned to be adopted by the Commission later this year.  
The fishery would be subject to cross-nati onal coordination of inspection activities 
established by the Community Fisheries Contro l Agency (CFCA). Regional control measures 
established by the Member States concerned, i. e. a weekly catch repor ting system, should be 
integrated into a control programme coordi nated by the Agency. Additionally, inspectors 
from DG MARE will follow-up and review the implementation of fisheries control measures by the relevant Member States. Any detect ed overshooting of the TAC and subsequent 
remedial action would be subject to the general provisions applicable in  this case, including 
deductions from next year's TAC. The problem of  discards in the fisher y will be subject to 
provisions of the new Discards Regulati on; DG MARE is currently working on.  
 
 
EN 36   EN ANNEX  1 – GENERAL INFORMATION ABOUT ANCHOVY STOCK , FISHERY AND FLEET  
Table 1.1 - Biological reference point s for anchovy in Bay of Biscay 
Current biological reference points for the st ock were defined by ICES ACFM in October 
2003 and have been unchanged ever since:  
 Type Value Technical basis 
Blim 21 000 t Blim: Bloss = 21 000 t (1989 SSB) 
Bpa 33 000 t Bpa = Bloss x exp(1.645 σ) 
Flim - Not defined. Precautionary 
approach Fpa 1.0–1.2     Fpa: = F for 50% spawning potential ratio, i.e. the F at which the 
SSB/R is half of what it would have been in the absence of 
fishing. 
Targets Fy - Not defined. 
Source: STECF 2008 
Figure 1.1 - Diagram representing the annual TAC allocation process by Country and 
Semester 
 
         
Table 1.2 - Economic mode l: parameter estimates  
NAME Comments SPS FPS FPT 
r Discount rate 0,05 0,05 0,05 
E Maximum time per year 1 1 1 
POR_MS_1 Percentage of the anchovy quota by fleet 1 0,058113357 0,941886643
Fuel Cost Fuel Expenditure in a by year and vessel 82000 22539,43073 98478,29681
Bait Cost Bait Expenditure in a by year and vessel 0 0 0 
Ice Cost Ice Expenditure in a by year and vessel 0 0 0 
Food Cost Food Expenditure in a by year and vessel 0 0 0  
C
 
Spain 
France
 
1stSemester 
2ndSemester 
1stSemester 
2ndSemester
 
EN 37   EN Gear Cost Gear Expenditure in a by year and vessel 6046 0 0 
SS Cost SS Expenditure in a by year and vessel 35867 0 0 
Other Variable Costs Other Expenditure in a by year and vessel 2068 9 9431,266669 11194,12629
Landing Cost % of Income 0,025 0,061548167 0,051355711
Fixed Costs Fixed Costs 56753 73101,28468 121511,7238
qa1 Catchability first semester anc hovy 0,0024505 0, 0008672 0,0026516 
αa1 Elasticity of Number of vessels Sem1 1 1 1 
βa1 Elasticity of SSB Sem1 1 1 1 
γa1 Elasticity of Time to anchovy Sem1 1 1 1 
qa2 Catchability second semester anc hovy 0,0038713 0, 005077 0,008321 
αa2 Elasticity of Number of vessels Sem2 1 1 1 
βa2 Elasticity of SSB Sem2 1 1 1 
γa2 Elasticity of Time to anchovy Sem2 1 1 1 
NB 1 Number of vessels sem 1 200 31 71 
NB 2 Number of vessels sem 2 200 31 71 
ko Catchability other species 253,11 NA NA 
α0 Elasticity  Number of vessels others 1 1 1 
γ0 Elasticity of Time to others 1 1 1 
P0 Price of other species 2,35 NA NA 
FTE Average Full time employmet 13 5,886027507 5,554762189
W Alternative wage 19802 20600 20600 
E1 Maximum Time Semester 1 (months) 0,5 0,5 0,5 
Vessel Share % of RTBS 0,5 0,499550603 0,518781068
% Quota by fleet Percentage of the MS Quota by fleet 1 0,101527086 0,898472914
SSV SS Paid by the vessel in Ä by year and 
vessel 0 22310,42551 21054,79593
SSC SS Paid by the vessel in Ä by year and 
vessel 0 19982,47262 18857,86011
k01 Catchability “other species” 1st sem NA 281,745 271,221 
k02 Catchability “other specie” 2nd sem NA 704,406 293,877 
P01 Price of “other species” 1st sem NA 0,98 2 
P02 Price of “other species” 2nd sem NA 0,61 2,18 
Source: STECF  
 
EN 38   EN  
Figure 1.2 - Estimated prices and the corresponding value of the TAC 
Based on data from France and Spain, an annual price for anchovy according to fishing 
semester for the international fishery, as estimated by STECF working group is as follows:  
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 500000 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000
TAC (1000 tonnes)Value of TAC (1000 Euros) 31932Value of the TAC 
Source: STECF  
 
The highest catch value was at TAC levels of around 23,000 tonnes.  
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 5000051 0 1 5
TAC (1000 tonnes)Price/kgTAC and expected prices for Sem 1 & 2 
1st Semester
2nd Semester
 
EN 39   EN ANNEX  2 – HARVEST CONTROL RULES TESTED  
The following Harvest Control Rules (HCR) we re tested by the anchovy working group: 
Rule A: constant proportion above an escapement Biomass (SSB) level   
 
  
 
 
 Example of Harvest Control Rules
05,00010,00015,00020,00025,00030,00035,00040,00045,00050,000
0
6000
12000
18000
24000
30000
36000
42000
48000
54000
60000
66000
72000
78000
8400090000
96000Spawning BiomassCatchGamma= 0.1 to 1 TAC capped⎪⎩⎪⎨⎧
> −≤=
− lim 1 lim 1lim 1
 ˆ if) ˆ( ˆ if 0
B BSS B BSSB BSSTAC
y- yy-
yγ
 
EN 40   EN  
       Rule B - Harvesting a constant proportion of the Biomass SSB 
 
 
  
 
  
 
   ⎪⎪⎪⎪
⎩⎪⎪⎪⎪
⎨⎧
≥< <−−≤
=
−−−
pa y- ypa y- lim y
lim palim ylim y-
y
B BSS BSSB BSS B BSSB BB BSSB BSS
TAC
 ˆ if ˆ  ˆ  if ˆ
) () ˆ( ˆ if 0
1 11 111
γγ
 
EN 41   EN  
 
       Rule C: Fishermen election: Constant  short term risk of 15% for Low R  
      Example of Harvest Control Rules
05,00010,00015,00020,00025,00030,00035,00040,00045,00050,000
0
6000
12000
18000
24000
30000
36000
42000
48000
54000
60000
66000
72000
78000
8400090000
96000Spawning BiomassCatchExploitations= 0.1. to 1
⎪⎩⎪⎨⎧
> −≤=
− 26500 ˆ if) 26500 ˆ(766.026500 ˆ if 0
1 11
y- yy-
yBSS BSSBSSTAC
 
EN 42   EN  
 Rule C: Short term risk of 15% for a Low Recruitment
050001000015000200002500030000350004000045000
0
4000
8000
12000 16000
20000 24000
28000
32000 36000
40000 44000
48000 52000
56000 60000
64000 68000
72000 76000
80000
84000
88000
92000 96000
1E+05
Spawning BiomassCatchShort Term Risk 15%
Fitting capped to a max
TAC of 33000 t
 
EN 43   EN Tables of performance statistics for the different harvest control rules (HCR) and by population models 
Table A.1 - Summary results  of the performance of Harvest Control Rule A 
 
EN 44   EN HCRAllocat  % 
SpainSR HR TACmax TACminMedian 
SSBlastP(SSB<Blim)P(SSB<Blim 
once)P(closure)P(closure 
once)Average 
catchAverage sd 
catch
Rule A cte ricker 0.1 no no 81911 0.009 0.055 0.021 0.157 6762 5081
Rule A cte ricker 0.2 no no 70772 0.017 0.115 0.029 0.205 12049 9929
Rule A cte ricker 0.3 no no 61088 0.029 0.186 0.047 0.303 16057 14640
Rule A cte ricker 0.4 no no 55529 0.052 0.293 0.066 0.402 18998 18075Rule A cte ricker 0.5 no no 48509 0.082 0.446 0.102 0.552 22230 22847Rule A cte ricker 0.6 no no 44332 0.137 0.631 0.146 0.698 23193 25740Rule A cte ricker 0.7 no no 39955 0.174 0.722 0.179 0.765 24845 28996Rule A cte ricker 0.8 no no 35967 0.236 0.819 0.230 0.854 24265 30160
Rule A cte ricker 0.9 no no 32033 0.293 0.890 0.278 0.913 24592 31107
Rule A cte ricker 1 no no 28303 0.331 0.932 0.315 0.935 24854 32952
Rule A cte ricker 0.1 33000 no 80266 0.010 0.068 0.023 0.173 6416 4745
Rule A cte ricker 0.2 33000 no 70658 0.013 0.090 0.029 0.216 11313 7935Rule A cte ricker 0.3 33000 no 64181 0.026 0.178 0.042 0.293 14294 9617
Rule A cte ricker 0.4 33000 no 60222 0.043 0.252 0.060 0.371 16241 10563
Rule A cte ricker 0.5 33000 no 56348 0.058 0.337 0.073 0.432 17684 11032Rule A cte ricker 0.6 33000 no 53779 0.075 0.422 0.087 0.500 18747 11532Rule A cte ricker 0.7 33000 no 49222 0.093 0.475 0.104 0.552 19106 11625Rule A cte ricker 0.8 33000 no 47626 0.113 0.546 0.122 0.627 19675 11829Rule A cte ricker 0.9 33000 no 47818 0.132 0.580 0.138 0.640 20242 11945
Rule A cte ricker 1 33000 no 45672 0.141 0.614 0.146 0.657 20896 11865
Rule A cte ricker 0.1 no 7000 84366 0.008 0.057 0.635 0.999 4622 6339
Rule A cte ricker 0.2 no 7000 73316 0.007 0.055 0.377 0.961 10960 11224Rule A cte ricker 0.3 no 7000 63224 0.021 0.134 0.302 0.942 15537 15585Rule A cte ricker 0.4 no 7000 56574 0.040 0.246 0.289 0.922 18850 19285
Rule A cte ricker 0.5 no 7000 48899 0.075 0.406 0.292 0.928 21733 23680
Rule A cte ricker 0.6 no 7000 43466 0.131 0.603 0.323 0.942 22743 26451Rule A cte ricker 0.7 no 7000 38374 0.172 0.710 0.346 0.967 23819 28816Rule A cte ricker 0.8 no 7000 37158 0.224 0.819 0.368 0.980 24249 30606Rule A cte ricker 0.9 no 7000 31354 0.274 0.862 0.391 0.980 24954 32187
Rule A cte ricker 1 no 7000 27677 0.337 0.925 0.435 0.987 24701 34065
Rule A cte ricker 0.1 33000 7000 80138 0.007 0.052 0.627 1.000 4599 6052
Rule A cte ricker 0.2 33000 7000 72941 0.010 0.070 0.372 0.967 10347 9331Rule A cte ricker 0.3 33000 7000 65856 0.019 0.123 0.296 0.926 13480 10729Rule A cte ricker 0.4 33000 7000 61434 0.032 0.211 0.262 0.893 15718 11462Rule A cte ricker 0.5 33000 7000 56776 0.049 0.295 0.247 0.880 17250 11822
Rule A cte ricker 0.6 33000 7000 56767 0.066 0.378 0.242 0.877 18333 12051
Rule A cte ricker 0.7 33000 7000 53738 0.083 0.454 0.246 0.881 18907 12414Rule A cte ricker 0.8 33000 7000 48437 0.107 0.535 0.241 0.879 19591 12487Rule A cte ricker 0.9 33000 7000 47285 0.119 0.553 0.242 0.848 20040 12351
Rule A cte ricker 1 33000 7000 47769 0.143 0.618 0.242 0.857 20437 12481
 
Source: STECF  
 
EN 45   EN Figure A.1 - Performance statistics for Ru le A (probability of SSB falling below Blim, 
probability of closing the fishery, the average catch and average sd in catch) depending on 
the harvest rate in the biomass model (u sing BBM) with the Ricker SR model. 
(Solid, dashed, dotted and dot-dashed lines repr esent the case without any restriction on the 
TAC, with a maximum TAC restriction of 33,00 0t, with a minimum viab le TAC of 7000t and 
with a maximum TAC restriction of 33, 000t and a minimum viable TAC of 7000t 
respectively). 
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.00.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Harvest rateP(SSB <Blim)
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.00.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Harvest rateP(closure)
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.05000 10000 20000
Harvest rateAverage Catch
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.05000 15000 25000 35000
Harvest rateSd Catch
 
Source: STECF  
 
 
EN 46   EN Table B.1 - Summary results of the performance of Harvest Control Rule B 
HCRAllocat  % 
SpainSR HR TACmax TACminMedian 
SSBlastP(SSB<Blim)P(SSB<Blim 
once)P(closure)P(closure 
once)Average 
catchAverage sd 
catch
Rule B cte ricker 0.1 no no 74742 0.017 0.109 0.033 0.217 8145 5132
Rule B cte ricker 0.2 no no 66586 0.033 0.188 0.047 0.297 14791 10115Rule B cte ricker 0.3 no no 52052 0.068 0.373 0.081 0.461 19423 14776Rule B cte ricker 0.4 no no 46756 0.124 0.586 0.134 0.666 22681 19557
Rule B cte ricker 0.5 no no 36970 0.206 0.774 0.205 0.820 24106 22717
Rule B cte ricker 0.6 no no 32361 0.263 0.854 0.255 0.880 25718 26215Rule B cte ricker 0.7 no no 26132 0.353 0.952 0.331 0.948 25600 28724Rule B cte ricker 0.8 no no 22891 0.438 0.977 0.403 0.986 25024 31364Rule B cte ricker 0.9 no no 20482 0.493 0.991 0.451 0.993 24775 32497
Rule B cte ricker 1 no no 16997 0.544 0.996 0.497 0.997 23850 33112
Rule B cte ricker 0.1 33000 no 79634 0.013 0.090 0.026 0.192 8339 5047
Rule B cte ricker 0.2 33000 no 64231 0.033 0.191 0.048 0.300 13961 7995Rule B cte ricker 0.3 33000 no 56043 0.063 0.360 0.078 0.462 17218 9503
Rule B cte ricker 0.4 33000 no 49525 0.107 0.516 0.117 0.584 19164 10574
Rule B cte ricker 0.5 33000 no 47530 0.145 0.607 0.156 0.677 20384 11309Rule B cte ricker 0.6 33000 no 43325 0.172 0.668 0.172 0.709 21423 11745Rule B cte ricker 0.7 33000 no 40997 0.204 0.738 0.194 0.748 21629 12220Rule B cte ricker 0.8 33000 no 37040 0.236 0.769 0.228 0.797 21352 12665Rule B cte ricker 0.9 33000 no 39843 0.242 0.776 0.234 0.807 21582 12792
Rule B cte ricker 1 33000 no 36248 0.268 0.800 0.252 0.822 21345 12973
Rule B cte ricker 0.1 no 7000 79209 0.008 0.054 0.479 0.994 6551 6911
Rule B cte ricker 0.2 no 7000 66498 0.023 0.156 0.188 0.779 14219 10553
Rule B cte ricker 0.3 no 7000 54622 0.061 0.343 0.196 0.790 19204 15429
Rule B cte ricker 0.4 no 7000 45459 0.108 0.531 0.227 0.854 22947 19962Rule B cte ricker 0.5 no 7000 37439 0.202 0.761 0.300 0.940 24029 23085Rule B cte ricker 0.6 no 7000 32910 0.276 0.891 0.350 0.961 25283 26622Rule B cte ricker 0.7 no 7000 27644 0.356 0.946 0.411 0.984 25790 29732Rule B cte ricker 0.8 no 7000 24286 0.420 0.973 0.466 0.995 24771 31354
Rule B cte ricker 0.9 no 7000 19245 0.493 0.989 0.512 0.998 24628 32537
Rule B cte ricker 1 no 7000 20094 0.533 0.990 0.546 0.998 24151 33630
Rule B cte ricker 0.1 33000 7000 83760 0.007 0.048 0.479 0.992 6480 6681
Rule B cte ricker 0.2 33000 7000 68240 0.022 0.145 0.187 0.782 13524 8626
Rule B cte ricker 0.3 33000 7000 57626 0.060 0.334 0.182 0.750 17268 10121
Rule B cte ricker 0.4 33000 7000 52933 0.093 0.488 0.211 0.825 19191 11224Rule B cte ricker 0.5 33000 7000 44863 0.138 0.624 0.241 0.857 19877 11661Rule B cte ricker 0.6 33000 7000 40147 0.181 0.690 0.264 0.857 20596 12284Rule B cte ricker 0.7 33000 7000 41276 0.203 0.743 0.274 0.881 21069 12799
Rule B cte ricker 0.8 33000 7000 38213 0.244 0.792 0.297 0.877 20935 12923
Rule B cte ricker 0.9 33000 7000 34291 0.244 0.775 0.286 0.872 21515 12908
Rule B cte ricker 1 33000 7000 35121 0.267 0.803 0.306 0.887 21164 13291
Source: STECF  
 
EN 47   EN Figure B.1 - Performance statistics for Ru le B (probability of SSB falling below Blim, 
probability of closing the fishery, the average catch and average sd in catch) depending on 
the harvest rate in the biomass model (u sing BBM) with the Ricker SR model. 
(Solid, dashed, dotted and dot-dashed lines repr esent the case without any restriction on the 
TAC, with a maximum TAC restriction of 33,00 0t, with a minimum viab le TAC of 7000t and 
with a maximum TAC restricti on of 33,000t and a minimum viabl e TAC of 7000t respectively) 
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.00.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Harvest rateP(SSB <Blim)
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.00.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Harvest rateP(closure)
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.010000 15000 20000 25000
Harvest rateAverage Catch
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.05000 15000 25000
Harvest rateSd Catch
 
Source: STECF  
 
 
EN 48   EN Figure AB.1 - Catches versus Risks for both H CR A and B according to the different TAC 
constraints  
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 300000.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4Rule A
Average CatchP(SSB <Blim)no TACmax, no TACmin
TACmax, no TACmin
no TACmax, TACminTACmax, TACmin
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 300000.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4Rule B
Average CatchP(SSB <Blim)
 
 
In terms of risks, if a target level of catches was selected by managers above 15,000 t, setting 
a maximum TAC implies higher risks than the cases when no maximum TAC is set. This is 
true for both (A and B) Harvest Control Rules.  
 
EN 49   EN Figure AB.2 - Comparison of the Performance of Rule A (solid line) and Rule B (dashed 
line) 
(for the biomass model with the Ricker SR model and no minimum or maximum TAC 
constraint (SSB is the median SSB at the end of the period) 
 
0 . 20 . 40 . 60 . 81 . 020000 40000 60000 80000
Harvest RateSSB
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.00 . 00 . 10 . 20 . 30 . 40 . 5
Harvest RateP(SSB <Blim)
0 . 20 . 40 . 60 . 81 . 010000 15000 20000 25000
Harvest RateAverage Catch
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.05000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000
Harvest RateSd Catch
0 . 20 . 40 . 60 . 81 . 00.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Harvest RateP(closure)
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 300000.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Average CatchP(SSB <Blim)
 
Source: STECF  
 
EN 50   EN Table C.1 - Summary results of the performance of Harvest Control Rule C 
 
 
    
Source: STECF  HCR Allocat SR TACmax TACminMedian 
SSBlastP(SSB<Blim)P(SSB<Blim 
once)P(closure)P(closure 
once)Average 
catchAverage sd 
catch
Rule C cte ricker no no 41354 0.160 0.676 0.257 0.894 24240 31089
Rule C cte ricker 33000 no 53456 0.076 0.418 0.164 0.741 18586 12376
Rule C cte ricker no 7000 40920 0.164 0.667 0.398 0.984 24145 31691Rule C cte ricker 33000 7000 52095 0.063 0.363 0.279 0.922 18471 12873Rule C cte qhstk no no 39992 0.167 0.672 0.258 0.896 23755 29981Rule C cte qhstk 33000 no 53692 0.071 0.382 0.157 0.714 18708 12355Rule C cte qhstk no 7000 42098 0.143 0.610 0.379 0.980 25292 32124Rule C cte qhstk 33000 7000 53954 0.065 0.367 0.272 0.892 18858 12626
Rule C cte low no no 25907 0.255 0.903 0.517 0.999 3533 5429
Rule C cte low 33000 no 25778 0.254 0.920 0.517 1.000 3519 5336Rule C cte low no 7000 26892 0.240 0.873 0.786 1.000 2843 5570
Rule C cte low 33000 7000 26369 0.225 0.872 0.776 1.000 2945 5718
Rule C var ricker no no 38423 0.169 0.702 0.264 0.904 23450 30079
Rule C var ricker 33000 no 53563 0.075 0.398 0.159 0.714 18418 12191
Rule C var ricker no 7000 42540 0.157 0.658 0.397 0.989 23684 30418
Rule C var ricker 33000 7000 55220 0.070 0.364 0.274 0.917 18629 12950Rule C var qhstk no no 41660 0.167 0.671 0.254 0.880 24510 30556Rule C var qhstk 33000 no 53276 0.077 0.408 0.164 0.722 18604 12187Rule C var qhstk no 7000 42881 0.154 0.627 0.396 0.982 23873 30746Rule C var qhstk 33000 7000 54539 0.067 0.356 0.274 0.898 18761 12749Rule C var low no no 25202 0.269 0.922 0.527 1.000 3515 5448
Rule C var low 33000 no 26134 0.266 0.905 0.526 1.000 3486 5401
Rule C var low no 7000 26753 0.230 0.867 0.783 1.000 2918 5771
Rule C var low 33000 7000 26816 0.233 0.861 0.781 1.000 2912 5699
 
EN 51   EN Detailed summary of scient ific assessment carried out by the Anchovy Working Group:  
The performance of each rule was tested for values between 0 and 1 by steps of 0.1. For each 
of the strategies outlined, th e HCR with and without a ceil ing equal to 33,000 tonnes, (the 
historically fixed level of TAC set to this fi shery) and, with and w ithout a minimum TAC as 
corresponding to the smallest catc h that allows the fishery to remain economically viable (at 
7,000 tonnes, as pointed out by th e SWW RAC), were constructed. 
In the fishery model, the simulation was pe rformed using two operating models: an age- 
structured and a two-stage biomass fishery mo del. The model was conditioned on the results 
from the stock assessment corresponding to ICES  advice 2007. An age-st ructured model used 
for verification, was based on a seasonal multi-fleet  integrated catch at age assessment as the 
one used in ICES 2005. This model was update d up to 2007 in order to provide starting 
conditions for the current simulations. 
Catches were allocated to countries on a half -year basis, as shown in Figure 1.1 (Annex 1). 
The allocation was based on the mean fraction of the catch taken by each Country during the 
period 1992-2004 (constant allocatio n). However, some other possible allocations were tested, 
90% (Sp)-10% (Fr) to 60% (Sp)-40% (Fr). Furt hermore a likely projection of the allocation of 
catches to countries (variable a llocation relative to the TAC level)  was subject to discussion at 
the pelagic committee of the SWW RAC. 
The socio-economic impact of the options wa s evaluated by means of algorithms developed 
during the meeting. It performe d a stochastic socio-economi c analysis considering the 
biological outcome as an input. It was base d on estimations of pr oduction functions for 
anchovy by semester and by fleet, considering th e SSB of anchovy, the number of vessels in 
the fishery of anchovy and the time devoted to it . A production function for the rest of target 
species was also estimated, in this  case without c onsidering any SSB. 
A price function for anchovy, based on French and Spanish data was also estimated. Price for 
other species was considered as  fixed. The time of data series used came from 2000-2005, and 
2000-2006, respectively. 
The indicators presented were: 
• Biological risk measured in terms of nu mber of the likelihood of SSB being below 
Blim. 
• The number of years in which the fishery should be closed. 
• The total expected match of anchovy. 
• The variation of this catch. 
• The Gross revenue obtained from anchovy (discounted 5%) for each fleet. 
• Gross Cash Flow (discounted 5%) for each fleet. 
• Economic risk as the likelihood of  having a negative cash flow. 
• A social indicator as the relative wage to the averag e of the country by FTE. 
As regards the management calendar for the plan in Option 2, the approach that the harvest 
control rules define the allowable catches from July to June according to the biomass levels 
estimates from surveys in May of the first year has been adopted (please see the graph below).  
 
EN 52   EN  
 
The plan would contain provisions  for periodic reviews such th at policy amendments can be 
introduced if further developments warrant this . Periodic reviews are a standard feature of 
Community long-term plans. 
 010002000300040005000600070008000
123456789 1 0 1 1 1 2SSB surveys
DEPM & AcousticRecruitment
acoustic surveys
 
EN 53   EN ANNEX  3 – SUMMARY OF SCIENTIFIC AND STAKEHOLDER ADVICE   
Scientific and stakeholder bodies consulted  
The Commission requested the Scientific, T echnical and Economic Committee for Fisheries 
(STECF) to provide scientific advice on the long-term management of  anchovy. Two meetings 
were organised for an ad hoc  group; the first one took place in Hamburg 14th to 18th April 
2008, and the second one in San Sebastian 2nd to 6th June 2008. STECF expressed its opinion 
at the plenary meeting of 2nd to 4th July, 2008.  
Advice was also sought from the South West ern Waters Regional Advisory Council (SWW 
RAC). This body was established by the European  Community to allow representatives of 
catching and processing indus try sectors, environmental non-governmental organisations, 
recreational fishermen and variou s other interest groups to pr ovide advice to the European 
Commission on Common Fisheries Po licy in respect of south-we stern waters fish stocks. 
SWWRAC delivered its views and recommendations on a management approach for anchovy 
by letter in July 2008.  
Advice received and used  
 
• Summary of recommendations  received from STECF 
 
STECF advised that there were substantial benefi ts in moving from the current system based 
on ad hoc annual measures into a long-term plan. It provided the results of different harvest 
control rules through a risk analysis under the following scenarios of exploitation:  
Option A: Harvesting a constant proportion above an escapement Biomass (SSB) level; 
Option B: Harvesting a constant pr oportion of the Biomass SSB level; 
Option C: Harvesting a constant short term ri sk of 15% for low recruitments scenarios. 
The probability of having stock biomass falling below B lim and the probability of having to 
close the fishery within the ten years simula tion model is the basis for the analysis.  
The full advice from STECF is publicly availabl e on its website (fishnet.jrc.it/web/stecf). 
 
• Summary of recommenda tions from SWWRAC 
 
The SWW RAC agreed with a need  to have a long-term plan to  manage anchovy in the Bay of 
Biscay. The RAC also selected Option B as a pr eferred harvest control rule for setting TAC. 
The stakeholders, however, opted for the higher e xploitation factor  (gamma) of 0.4 instead of 
the 0.3 suggested in the Commissi on proposal. This rate would sign ificantly increase the level 
 
EN 54   EN of risks in terms on probability  of the stock falling below B lim and a fishery closure. 
The advice from SWW RAC is publicly av ailable on its website (www.ccr-s.eu). 
 The Commission proposal for the long-term pl an is based on the advice received by both 
bodies. 
 
 
 
EN 55   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. 
 B
lim – see limit reference points. 
 B
msy – the spawning stock biomass (SSB) necessary  to support a fishery that would produce 
the maximum sustainable yield (MSY). 
 B
pa – 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 
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. 
 
EN 56   EN E 
effort (f)  – the total quantity of fishing gear in use for a specific period of time. Effort can be 
expressed in a multitude of ways: days away fr om port, hours trawling, length of drift net, 
number of hooks used, and so on. At its most ba sic, 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.).  
F 
F – formally, the instantaneous ra te 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. 
A generalised yield-per-recruit (YPR) curve 
showing the point at which the fishing mortality rate (F) is equivalent to the maximum sustainable yield (F
msy) 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 defined sea area, th e two are not always 
synonymous. 
 

 
EN 57   EN 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.  
 F
lim – see limit reference points. 
 F
MSY – 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. 
 F
pa – see limit reference points. 
H 
HCR — harvest control rule describes how harvest is intended to be controlled by 
management in relation to the state of some i ndicator of stock status. For example, a harvest 
control rule can describe the various values of fishing mortality which will be aimed at for various values of the stock abundance. It fo rmalizes and summarizes a management strategy. 
Constant catch and constant fish ing mortality are two types of simple harvest control rules. 
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 facilita te and co-ordinate collaboration, incl uding fishery stock assessments, 
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 fo r the Marine Environment (ACME), Baltic 
Committee, Fisheries Technol ogy Committee, Living Resour ces Committee, Mariculture 
Committee, Marine Habitat Committee, O ceanography Committee, Resource Management 
Committee. 
 
EN 58   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: B lim = minimum acceptable 
biomass F lim = maximum acceptable fishing mortality ( 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 B lim and lower fishing mortality thresholds than F lim: 
 
EN 59   EN  
Bpa = precautionary minimum biomass  
Fpa = precautionary maximum fishing mort ality (pa stands for precautionary 
approach). 
 
In many instances, the value for B pa will be the same as the value previously identified 
as the minimum biologically acceptable lim it – MBAL. In circumstances where the 
relationship between the exploited stock and the spawning stock is not clear, as is the 
case with some of the deep-water species  of fish, limit reference points may be 
expressed with respect to the ‘unexploited stock’: 
M 
MSY  - Maximum Sustainable Yield: the largest av erage catch that can bet taken continuously 
from a stock under existing environmental c onditions. (For specie s with fluctuating 
recruitment, the maximum might be obtained by taking fewer fish in some years than in 
others). Also known as maximum equilibrium catch. 
 mixed fishery
 – a fishery that takes multi-species catches. Pelagic fisheries tend to take 
relatively ‘clean’ single species catches wher eas 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. 
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. This approach requires fishery managers to  pay due regard to the uncertainties of stock 
 
EN 60   EN assessment and management. They must implem ent the appropriate precautionary action if 
limit reference points are reached. 
R 
recruitment – a process by which fish enter the exploitable stock and become susceptible to 
fishing (age/growth related). 
S 
SSB – spawning stock biomass is the total weight of  all sexually mature fish in a population 
or stock. It is the sexually mature part of an exploite d 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. Unlike ICES working groups and ACFM which only consider stock assessments 
and management from a scientific perspective, the STEFC is expected to consider the socio- 
economic implications of modifying or va rying scientific, 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.  
 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.)