EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 1.6.2022 SWD(2022) 157 final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the document

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council Towards more sustainable fishing in the EU: state of play and orientations for 2023 {COM(2022) 253 final}



This staff working document accompanies the Communication ‘Towards more sustainable fishing in the EU: state of play and orientations for 2023’. It looks in greater depth at: 1.the state of stocks; 2.the balance between fleet capacity and fishing opportunities; 3.progress in implementing the landing obligation; 4.the functioning and the role of Advisory Councils in EU decision-making; and 5.the actions taken under the EU’s International Ocean Governance Agenda. 1.The state of stocks Monitoring results of the Common Fisheries Policy progress report Each year, the Commission requests the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) to assess the progress in achieving the maximum sustainable yield (MSY) exploitation rate in line with the objectives of the Common Fisheries Policy Regulation (CFP Regulation). The current and historic fishing mortality rates (Fy, F in each year) relative to the fishing mortality rate that would produce the highest long-term yield (Fmsy) have been calculated by two scientific bodies: the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES), and the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM) and have been compiled and tabulated by STECF in their report STECF-22-01. The corresponding biomass value, Bmsy, is the average biomass of fish in the sea that would be expected when a stock is fished at Fmsy for an extended period. Following STECF practice, values of historic and current fishing mortality have been expressed as a ratio with respect to the Fmsy value for each stock. This normalisation calculation allows all stocks to be compared on the same scale where the fishing mortality ratio = 1 for all stocks fished at Fmsy. Therefore, this chapter will focus on the fishing mortality ratio indicator and the biomass indicator. More information or details on other indicators, such as safe biological limits, can be found in the STECF 22-01 ad hoc report ‘Monitoring of the performance of the Common Fisheries Policy’. Regarding the progress made in the achievement of Fmsy in line with the CFP, STECF results indicate a reduction in the average fishing mortality ratio and an increase in biomass of stocks in the north east Atlantic over the period 2003-2020. Nevertheless, many stocks remain either or both overfished and outside safe biological limits. The objective of the CFP to ensure that all stocks are fished at or below Fmsy in 2020 has not yet been achieved. STECF also concludes that the situation with regard to stocks in the Mediterranean and Black Sea remains challenging, with annual fishing mortality estimates around twice Fmsy for the entire time-series (2003-2019). There are however encouraging results for the Mediterranean and Black Sea stocks, as since 2015 the fishing mortality has been constantly decreasing and biomass increasing. For the first time, the average F/Fmsy ratio is below 2 and this is the lowest point on record since 2003. There are indications that fishing mortality has slightly decreased since 2013 to just below that average level in 2019, while biomass shows a slight improvement since 2015. In this section ‘Northeast Atlantic’ refers to stocks in area 27 of the Fisheries and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) and ‘Mediterranean & Black Seas’ refers to stocks in FAO Area 37. 1.1.Trends in fishing pressure (ratio of F/Fmsy) The ratio F/Fmsy is an indicator of the fishing pressure indicating the fishing mortality relative to Fmsy and is used to establish progress in achieving MSY. Please see figure 1 for a visualisation of the overall trend throughout 2003 – 2020. In the Northeast Atlantic EU waters, F/Fmsy based on 52 stocks with appropriate information, shows a gradual downward trend over the period 2003-2020. In the early 2000s, the median of this indicator of fishing mortality was about 1.7 times larger than Fmsy, but this has reduced and stabilised close to 1 (FMSY) over the period 2013-2019. In 2020 for the first time, the overall F/Fmsy is below 1 (0.87). For the Mediterranean and Black Seas, the indicator for fishing pressure has remained at a high level during the whole 2003-2019 period (the data set available to STECF for 2020 was incomplete) STECF notes that while there appears to be a slight downward trend in the median value for F/Fmsy since 2013, the median value remains close to 2 Fmsy. Further progress is therefore needed in order to achieve the objectives of the CFP. However, since 2015 the fishing mortality (F) has been constantly decreasing and for the first time, the overall F/Fmsy is below 2 which is the lowest value on record since 2003.

While these recent trends need confirmation with future data, for the Commission, these time-series further confirm the broad picture of lowered fishing mortality and increasing biomass. For instance, all except four stocks were subject to lower fishing mortality (F) from 2019 to 2020. More in detail, for stocks in EU waters of the western Mediterranean, the second year of implementation of the multiannual management plan (West Mediterranean MAP) has seen a first positive signal with an increase in the number of stocks assessed close to Fmsy (1 in 2019, 4 in 2020 out of 19 stocks) and having started their transition towards Fmsy (2 in 2019 and 3 in 2020). In the Adriatic and Ionian Seas, out of 9 stocks, 3 are below Fmsy, 1 is close and 5 are above, while the biomass is increasing for 6 stocks, fluctuating for 2 and declining for 1. For the 5 stocks under the GFCM Adriatic demersal MAP, 4 out of 5 are transitioning to Fmsy faster than expected. 1.2.Biomass trends In the Northeast Atlantic EU waters, the trend in biomass shows a general increase over time since 2007, both for assessed stocks and for data limited stocks for which only a relative biomass index is available from e.g. scientific survey data. In 2020, biomass was on average around 35%-50% higher than in 2003. In the Mediterranean & Black Seas, the median biomass was higher at the beginning of the time-series, but declined and remained stable from 2006–2015, after which it shows a constant but gradual increase. 1.3.Specific actions for the Mediterranean and Black Seas The Commission concludes that on the basis of the cited report STECF-22-01 , there are encouraging results for the Mediterranean and Black Sea stocks. Since 2015 fishing mortality (F) has been decreasing and biomass increasing. For the first time overall F/Fmsy is below 2 and this is the lowest F on record since 2003. Specific management measures and effort have been put in place in the Mediterranean basin that possibly influenced the slight but encouraging results. In the GFCM, the EU has been actively promoting management actions that would contribute to better management of the stocks, protection of essential fish habitat and vulnerable marine ecosystems, and fight against illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing. Four management plans have been adopted in 2018 and five in 2019. Since 2018, seven research programmes have been initiated, on red coral; European eels; rapana whelk; dolphinfish; picked dogfish; blue crab and sturgeon.

Building on the results of the 2017 Jabuka/Pomo Pit fisheries restricted area, which seems to be contributing to the improved state of demersal fish stocks in the Adriatic Sea, the fisheries restricted area became permanent, and reflection was initiated to adopt potential new fisheries restricted areas in the Adriatic. Several new inspection schemes have been adopted. The fishing opportunities Regulation of 2020 was the first in which the new fisheries governance and implementation of the Western Mediterranean Multiannual plan (West Med MAP) addressing both the Mediterranean and the Black Seas was transposed. The year 2020 was the first in which catch and effort limits were implemented, in addition to a cap on fleet capacity for several fisheries. 1.4.Situation in the Baltic Sea In the Baltic Sea, the trend of increasing fishing mortality and reducing biomass over the past years has worsened due to the combination of excessive fishing and unfavourable environmental situation. This has led to a reduction in habitat extent for a number of fish stocks and to decreases in the amount of fish in the sea. Growth of Baltic cod appears also to have slowed, leading to smaller sizes of fish being caught. Since 2020, the fishing opportunities in the Baltic Sea have had to be decreased. Demersal fisheries are limited to targeting flatfish as the directed fisheries for both cod stocks are closed. Many species and habitats of the Baltic Sea are not in good condition due to excessive inflow of nutrients and the greater extent of deep-water areas with low oxygen levels. This is caused by a combination of eutrophication and a reduced frequency of inflows of saline and oxygen-rich water from the North Sea, climate-driven changes in water temperature (including changes in ice cover) and high contaminant levels. The presence of non-indigenous species has more than doubled since 2000. The principal stocks in the Baltic Sea (cod and herring stocks) are either or both depleted or overfished. Moreover, the status of European eel continues to be critical. Finally, the directed salmon fishery is closed in the main basin. 1.5.Number of stock assessments available for the monitoring For the Northeast Atlantic, the number of stocks having reference points (or indicators) has increased compared to last year’s report. The number of TACs for which quantified assessments were available has also increased. The number of stock assessments available in the Mediterranean and Black Sea increased during the period 2003-2009 from 20 up to 34. The number of stock assessments was stable until 2019. The analysis for this sea basin is performed on a limited number of stocks each year and a small proportion of total EU landings across all species and areas. The information is available for 34 stocks in the Mediterranean Sea, and only for one stock in the Black Sea. For many of these stocks though, the shorter time series of assessments (comparatively to the Northeast Atlantic) means that biomass reference points with regards to safe biological limits cannot be calculated. In addition, the different calendar for the provision of advice under the GFCM framework means that the latest stock assessments only become publicly available later in the year. Therefore, the 2021 GFCM stock assessments were unavailable for the present analysis and this is why the Mediterranean indicator is reported only up to 2019. The CFP monitoring indicator for Mediterranean and Black Sea is designed to cover EU and mainly EU stocks, but not other international stocks falling under GFCM competence. For the overall basin, the GFCM indicator in the State of Mediterranean and Black Sea Fisheries (SoMFi publications) gives a more complete overview, although the indicator is not model based like the CFP one. In 2021, GFCM working groups assessed 17 small pelagic and 52 demersal stocks. In addition, 3 stocks were benchmarked. This results in a total of 74 stock assessments, pending other stocks that will be assessed before the Scientific Advisory Committee. The number of stock assessments has significantly increased from 51 in 2019 to 72 in 2021. This high number of GFCM assessments will be available for the next CFP monitoring in 2023. Ongoing developments on monitoring the progress STECF notes that many stocks still lack definition of some key reference points in relation to safe biological limits. Whereas Fmsy and Bmsy serve to identify the state of the stock with respect to its capacity to produce the highest long-term yield, there is also a need to identify reference points that signal high risks of stock collapses. The Commission considers this issue to be a priority, and supports ongoing work in ICES, GFCM and STECF working groups to improve this situation.

2.Report on the balance between fishing capacity and fishing opportunities In line with Article 22(4) of the CFP Regulation, the Commission must report annually to the European Parliament and to the Council on the balance between fishing capacity and fishing opportunities . Member States report annually on potential imbalances, following Commission guidelines, and for the fleet segments for which overcapacity has been identified, they are required, according to Article 22 of the CFP, to put forward an action plan with adjustment targets, tools and a clear implementation time-frame. A detailed analysis of the biological sustainability, economic parameters and vessel usage and the national fleet reports is provided below. The Annex shows for which fleets Member States have assessed that an imbalance between resources and fleet capacity exists, and what targets have been set for addressing this imbalance. It also shows where monitoring and data collection was inadequate to obtain conclusive results. 2.1.Member States' annual reports, action plans and STECF assessment All 22 coastal Member States submitted their reports for 2020 to the Commission . These reports, together with the available information on the sustainability of fisheries resources, economic parameters and vessel activity, have been examined in-depth by STECF in a report according to the Commission guidelines cited above. For details and analysis, reference should be made to that report. A summary of indicators calculated for each fleet segment is given in the Annex indicating also which Member States submitted action plans and which fleet segments have been identified by the Member States as being in overcapacity. While the calculation of the indicators and the corresponding thresholds signalling potential overcapacity are described in full detail in the aforementioned Commission guidelines and in the STECF report, they are also described briefly here for convenience. Information is provided separately by fleet segment. A fleet segment is a group of vessels of a defined length class (e.g. 6 to 12m length overall), operating in a defined areas (e.g. Northeast Atlantic) and using the same principal gear type (e.g. beam trawl). In the Annex, the area code NAO means North Atlantic Ocean, including North Sea, Celtic Seas and Baltic Sea, MBS means Mediterranean and Black Sea, OFR means other fishing regions. Gear codes are as given in Annex XI to the relevant Commission Implementing Regulation . Two biological indicators (Stocks-at-Risk (SAR) and Sustainable Harvest Indicator (SHI)) are defined. The SAR is designed to show whether a fleet segment is catching significant quantities of stocks which are at high biological risk due to being depleted to a low level. In the Annex, a “red” SAR means that at least 10% of the catches of the segment are taken from a stock under high biological risk. The SHI is designed to measure whether a fleet is depending for a significant part of its income on stocks which are overfished with respect to MSY (see Annex). A “red” SHI means that a fleet segment is on average relying for its income on stocks that are fished above MSY rates. Three economic indicators are used.

If the return on investment (RoI) is less than zero and less than the best available long-term risk-free interest rate, this would be flagged as “red” as an indication of long-term economic inefficiency. If data on intangible costs (e.g. quota leasing) are not available, return on fixed and tangible assets (RoFTA) can be used instead. If the current revenue is less than break-even revenue, this would be flagged as “red” as an indication of short-term economic inefficiency. Vessel use indicators would be flagged as “red” if more than 20% of the fleet segment is recurrently less than 70% of the potential, workable activity, as this could reveal an imbalance in capacity. Other reasons could also affect this parameter such as unexpected events and emergencies. In many cases biological information (such as the state of the exploited resource) or economic information was not available for certain fleet segments. These occurences are listed in table 1. Table 1. Instances of fleet segments where lack of biological or economic information has prevented the calculation of biological or economic indicators. Instances where more than 50 vessels are affected by lack of data reporting are highlighted in bold. Fleet segments with no biological indicators Fleet segments with no economic indicators Number of vessels within the fleet segments that do not have biological indicators Number of vessels within the fleet segments that do not have economic indicators BEL 5 5 13 13 BGR 5 7 59 16 CYP 3 1 443 1 DEU 9 9 19 20 DNK 0 0 0 0 ESP 9 33 68 160 EST 1 3 5 14 FIN 3 3 14 14 FRA 37 62 1276 1080 GRC 18 6 4834 23 HRV 3 9 7 25 IRL 6 18 56 1068 ITA 3 5 104 104 LTU 0 6 0 11 LVA 0 0 0 0 MLT 9 8 68 63 NLD 13 13 35 35 POL 7 9 20 22 PRT 18 5 169 13 ROU 0 2 0 35 SVN 7 7 17 17 SWE 1 15 5 415 2.2.The capacity of the EU fishing fleet The number, capacity and power of vessels in the EU fleet declined up to 2021 (Figure 4). In December 2021, the EU fleet register (outermost regions included) contained 74 417 vessels with 1 321 406 gross tons (GT) and 5 305 537 kilowatts (kW) installed power. In December 2021, all coastal Member States’ fleets were compliant with their respective capacity ceilings (figure 5). However, declarations related to engine power are increasingly subject to complaints, allegations or similar correspondence where the Commission’s attention is drawn to potential non-compliance issues, which equally raise concerns about the accuracy and reliability of declarations by coastal Member States. A study was initiated in January 2018 to assess the control systems implemented in coastal Member States regarding engine power. It was completed in June 2019 and the results of the physical verifications that were carried out during the study revealed a widespread non-compliance across coastal Member States, areas and vessel types involved in the study. According to the study, such non-compliance indicated a systematic lack of a culture of compliance at operators’ level with engine power limitations across the fishing sector. The study also indicated that the state of progress and quality of the implementation of the sampling plan to verify engine power, and the systems in place to certify and effectively control engine power through physical verifications, significantly differed among coastal Member States. In addition, the study indicated that certification systems do not always generate reliable engine power figures for registration purposes and that certification does not guarantee that certified engine power is not exceeded. The Commission has initiated various follow-up actions to resolve these non-compliances, and to ensure that coastal Member States improve the engine power verification and certification systems. While the concerned Member States have taken a number of actions to resolve the non-compliances, they have also informed that the whole process will take time to complete, largely because of the highly technical and complex nature of the subject matter and of the physical verifications to perform.

The fleet in the outermost regions has seen a reduction in the number of vessels and gross tonnage capacity. Between December 2020 and December 2021, the number of vessels decreased by 13 vessels to a total of 3 937. The capacity in GT decreased by 1 167 to a total of 55 647 GT. The capacity in kW increased marginally by 2 125 kW to a total of 394 363 kW. 2.3.Main conclusions by coastal Member State and for the United Kingdom Each year, STECF issues an advice both as regards the balance between the fleet capacity and the fishing opportunities for the different fleet segments, as well as regarding the quality of the assessment provided by the coastal Member States and the United Kingdom in their national fleet reports and, where relevant, action plans. Therefore, the STECF conclusions sometimes differ from those of the coastal Member States and the United Kingdom, as this is summarised in the comparisons below, based on the indicators calculated by STECF. In these comparisons, the Commission has drawn conclusions and inferences from the calculations carried out by STECF. Belgium considers that its fleets are balanced and has not submitted an action plan. Three fleets segments (numbering 51 vessels) have “red” biological indicators and, for one of these fleets, the economic indicators are also “red”, which are an indication of imbalance. Bulgaria has submitted an action plan and has reported that 14 fleet segments containing 627 vessels (out of 1845) are out of balance. Of these 14 segments, 6 are exploiting stocks at risk and 5 are operating unprofitably. Economic information was missing for 7 segments and information about sustainable harvesting was missing for all the fleet except for one vessel. Measures proposed in the action plan were support measures (e.g. investments, marketing, compensation) rather than withdrawal of fleet capacity. Cyprus has submitted an action plan concerning overcapacity in one fleet segment containing 5 vessels (out of 858) to be addressed by 2025, to be addressed by permanent cessation of two vessels or by fishing gear modifications. Four fleets show “red” economic indicators but only one vessel has a “red” biological indicator. Germany has submitted an action plan concerning 10 fleet segments which contain 745 vessels. Seven of these segments have “red” biological indicators and two have “red” economic indicators. For two of the segments, indicators are not available. Denmark has 13 fleet segments with at least one “red” biological indicator and 9 segments with at least one “red” economic indicator. 452 out of 1671 vessels are inactive. Denmark has not yet submitted an action plan to address overcapacity, despite these indications. Spain has submitted an action plan with a target date of 2023 concerning 7 segments in the Mediterranean, 2 in the northeast Atlantic and 3 in other areas, together containing 332 vessels. 50 out of 93 segments had at least one “red” biological indicator. The action plan focuses on a wide variety of technical measures and quota management measures rather than capacity withdrawal.

Estonia has four fleet segments with at least one “red” biological indicator and one segment with three “red” economic indicators. Estonia has a fleet of 1815 vessels of which 605 are inactive. Estonia has not submitted an action plan, despite these indications of overcapacity. Finland has four fleet segments with at least one “red” biological indicator and has three segments which each have three “red” economic indicators. For three segments all biological and economic indicators are missing. Finland has not submitted an action plan, and expects capacity reduction to take place systemically after the introduction of transferable quotas in 2017. It was reported that due to this, catches in 2020 were significantly more evenly spread across the timeframe but it is not clear whether and how it affected the Member State’s capacity. Finland has therefore not fixed objectives and targets for forthcoming capacity reductions. France has presented an action plan concerning 2 fleet segments containing 59 vessels. One of these segments had both biological and economic indicators all “green” while the other had both indicators all “red”. Overall, there were 38 segments with at least one “red” biological indicator and 14 segments with at least one “red” economic indicator. The United Kingdom participation in the European and Maritime Fisheries Fund (EMFF) programme continues until 2023 and therefore it has opportunities for funding of permanent cessation, but has not presented an action plan. There were 19 fleet segments with at least one “red” biological indicator and 6 segments with at least one “red” economic indicator. Greece has 22 fleet segments, of which two segments have at least one “red” biological indicator, but such indicators are only available for four segments. Seven segments had at least one “red” economic indicator. Greece has not presented an action plan despite these indications of overcapacity. Croatia’s action plan is intended to address overcapacity in 14 out of 32 segments by 2023. This concerns 11 segments with at least one “red” biological indicator and 7 segments with at least one “red” economic indicator. These 14 segments contain 594 vessels out of 7829. A further 1613 vessels are inactive. Measures proposed by Croatia include capacity reductions, effort limits, closed areas and decommissioning of certain types of fishing gear. Ireland has 16 (out of 29) segments with at least one “red” biological indicator and at least 5 segments with at least one “red” economic indicator. Five segments have no available biological indicator and 18 segments have no available economic indicator. Ireland has not presented an action plan despite these indications of overcapacity. Italy has presented an action plan covering 14 segments which contain 3102 vessels out of total fleet of 12005 vessels. These 14 segments cover 11 segments which have at least one “red” biological or economic indicator, and 3 segments with low levels of activity. Italy puts forward closed seasons and marine protected areas as means to reduce fishing effort to achieve biological sustainability but does not address structural overcapacity. Lithuania has presented an action plan with a target date of 2023 covering 4 segments, containing 9 vessels out of a total of 144 in the fleet. These cover 4 of the 8 segments which have at least one “red” biological indicator. Latvia has presented an action plan concerning one fleet segment that covers 37 vessels out of a total of 324 in the fleet. That segment had a “red” biological indicator. The other two segments had “red” economic indicators but “green” biological indicators and were not included in the plan. Overcapacity in these two segments is therefore not addressed in the action plan. Malta has presented an action plan concerning 2 segments containing 422 vessels of its total fleet of 911 vessels. Both segments have “green” biological indicators but “red” economic indicators. Four other segments with “red” biological indicators were not included in the action plan. The Netherlands had 6 segments with biological indicators in ”red” and 4 segments with “red” economic indicators, out of a total of 24 segments. Despite these indications of overcapacity, the Netherlands did not present an action plan. Biological and economic indicators were missing for 13 segments. Poland presented an action plan concerning 7 segments containing 767 vessels out of 830 in the fleet. All of these segments had at least one “red” biological indicator and four of them also had “red” economic indicators, both of which suggest overcapacity. Poland’s action plan aims to take tactical measures for three to five years while assessing the biological situation, and to implement temporary reductions in fishing effort with compensation. However, Poland does not foresee any reduction in fleet capacity. Portugal had 16 fleet segments with at least one “red” biological indicators and 7 segments with at least one “red” economic indicator. Portugal did not present an action plan despite these indications of overcapacity. Romania presented an action plan concerning one fleet segment containing 4 vessels for which the available biological and economic indicators were all “green”. The action plan did not cover two segments with “red” biological indicators. Slovenia had ten fleet segments containing 138 vessels, of which one segment had a “red” biological indicator and two segments had at least one “red” economic indicator. For seven segments, neither economic nor biological indicators were available. Despite these indications of overcapacity, Slovenia did not present an action plan. Sweden presented an action plan covering only 17 cod-directed fishing vessels across 5 segments. For 15 segments there was at least one “red” biological indicator. One segment had a “red” economic indicator. There were significant gaps in the provision of biological and economic indicators. Bulgaria, Cyprus, Spain, France, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Malta, Portugal and Sweden all had segments containing 50 or more vessels for which either biological or economic data were not available. For Cyprus, France, Ireland and Sweden the numbers exceeded 200 vessels.

The Commission has written to the relevant Member States about the need to improve data collection in order, i.a., to comply with the provisions of Article 22 of the Common Fisheries Policy. 2.4.Financial support from the EMFAF for the structural adaptation of the fishing fleets Certain segments of the fishing fleet are subject to overcapacity, resulting in marine biological resources being overexploited. If there is structural overcapacity, profitability is low because too many vessels are chasing too few fish. Therefore, to prevent this situation from happening, a structural adaptation of the fishing fleets concerned is necessary. In this context, the EMFAF can grant, under specific conditions, financial compensation to fishers if they permanently cease their fishing activities. The fishing capacity eliminated thanks to this support is then permanently removed from the fleet. Permanent cessation can be carried out either by scrapping the fishing vessel or by decommissioning it and retrofitting it for other activities. However, changing over to recreational fishing must not lead to an increased pressure on the marine ecosystem. Member States are currently preparing their EMFAF programmes for 2021-2027. These programmes are multiannual strategic roadmaps for public investment, underpinned by an analysis of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT). They describe tailor-made actions to respond to the specific challenges identified by Member States as regards the common EU priorities for marine biodiversity, maritime policy and sustainable fisheries and aquaculture. The Commission approves them after an in-depth assessment taking into account, inter alia, the balance between the fishing capacity of the fleets and the available fishing opportunities, as reported annually by coastal Member States in accordance with Article 22(2) of the CFP Regulation. 2.5.Conclusions In 2021, all coastal Member States complied with their obligation to report information on the capacity and the balance of their fleet segments with fishing opportunities. However, some of these Member States will need to readjust their reporting to better comply with the Commission’s guidelines (cited above) and address discrepancies between their national reports and the advice of the STECF. Twelve coastal Member States presented a new or revised action plan with a large variety of measures to address overcapacity, but more needs to be done to make the action plans more specific, time bound and objective driven. The overall capacity (in GT and kW) of the EU fleet (outermost regions included) changed but mainly due to the withdrawal of the UK from the EU. The exclusion of the UK vessels brought a change of -8.8%, -15% and -16% in number of vessels, power and tonnage, respectively. However, excluding the UK fleet, the EU fleet (outermost regions included) has hardly changed. The number of vessels, power and tonnage changed only by -0.3%, 0.3% and 0.1%, respectively. Therefore, there was a marginal increase in the power and tonnage of the fleets. The overall capacity of the EU mainland fleet (outermost regions excluded) remained relatively stable with minor changes of -0.3%, 0.3% and 0.1% in the number of vessels, power and tonnage, respectively. In December 2021, the fishing capacity of the EU fleet as a whole (outermost regions included) was 23% below the capacity ceilings for gross tonnage and 15% below the engine power ceilings. Nevertheless, a particular attention needs to be paid to the fleets of some coastal Member States, especially in the Mediterranean and Black Seas, of which the capacity is very close to the ceilings. Capacity measures can be of a particular relevance for countries and regions where conservation and management measures are not (yet) effective enough to regulate input and output measures such as effort limits or TACs. 3.Implementation of the landing obligation The landing obligation has been in place since 2015 and fully applicable since 2019. The following reporting is based on information transmitted by Member States, Advisory Councils and other relevant sources to the Commission. Reports on the implementation of the landing obligation were first produced in 2015. This reporting is included since 2016 in the Commission’s Annual Communication on the CFP. This staff working document covers the implementation of the landing obligation in 2021. The legal obligation of the Commission to annually report on the implementation of the landing obligation does not apply anymore since last year. However, as the landing obligation is a key element contributing to the CFP objectives, it was decided to continue the annual exercise. In 2022, the Commission received reports from 17 Member States, four Advisory Councils (two referring to previous recommendations given) and the European Fisheries and Control Agency (EFCA). No reports were received from Croatia, Cyprus, Portugal nor Slovenia. Since the 2017 report (referring to 2016), there has been a steady decline in the number of reports submitted by Member States (from 21 in 2017 to 17 in 2022). This year, only four out of eight Mediterranean Member States submitted a report. However, 2022 was also the first year in which all Member States with fishing activity in the Baltic and the Black Sea submitted reports. Other sources for this year’s monitoring includes the Commission audits, the initiative report of the European Parliament on securing the objectives of Article 15 of the CFP Regulation, the recent study on the landing obligation contracted by the European Climate, Infrastructure and Environment Executive Agency (CINEA), a recent ancillary task undertaken by FAME (currently FAMENET) on EMFF expenditure, as well as the study published in 2020 by the European Market Observatory for Fisheries and Aquaculture Products (EUMOFA). The Commission requests the STECF in each first plenary of the year to analyse these various sources, as done this year in STECF PLEN 22-01. Table 2 shows the responses received from Member States by sea basin. Generally, Member States that responded followed the questionnaire although the level of detail provided varied widely. Some Member States provided extensive descriptions of the efforts carried out to implement the landing obligation as well as comprehensive data on discard levels, infringements, last haul inspections etc. while others provided repetitive information submitted in previous reports and limited or incomplete data sets. In some cases, Member States provided no data at all.





Member States NWW SWW North Sea Baltic Mediterranean Black Sea Belgium Yes Yes Yes Bulgaria Yes Croatia No Cyprus No Denmark Yes Yes Estonia Yes Finland Yes France Yes, after deadline Yes, after deadline Yes, after deadline Yes, after deadline Germany Yes Yes Greece Yes Ireland Yes, after deadline Italy No Latvia Yes Lithuania Yes Malta Yes, after deadline Netherlands Yes Yes Poland Yes Portugal No No Romania Yes Slovenia No Spain Yes Yes Yes Sweden Yes Yes United Kingdom NA NA NA 3.1.Quota management Member States report that the most important management measures to prevent choke situations and to successfully implement the landing obligation are quota swaps and inter-annual flexibility. The anticipated early closures of fishing activity due to choke issues have not materialised and this has continued to be the case in 2021. Nevertheless, the North-Western-Waters Advisory Council and the North Sea Advisory Council have updated their analyses in which potential choke issues are identified and mapped in their respective sea basins, showing that situations of mismatch between fishing opportunities and actual catch patterns still exist in several fisheries. However, Member States affected by the UK’s withdrawal from the EU pointed out that the reduction in fishing opportunities due to that withdrawal has restricted the ability to swap quotas and the reductions in quota as a result of quota transfers from the EU to the UK have negatively impacted the sector and increased the risk of choke situations. Like in previous years, there is no evidence of any significant increases in quota swapping between Member States, and this is confirmed by the Commission’s QUOTA database (Figures 8a-b and 9a-b). However, it remains an important mechanism, and there are specific cases where Member States report that quota swaps have helped to avoid choke situations. To increase transparency and facilitate swapping, the Commission publishes the quota swaps list per year on a publicly available website. The file for the current year is updated on a weekly basis. Figure 8a: Volume of quota swaps “in” (t) Figure 8b: Volume of quota swaps “in” per MS (t) Figure 9a: Number of quota swaps “in” per MS Figure 9b: Number of quota swaps “in” 3.2.Sea basins implementation

Delegated Regulations specifying the details of implementation of the landing obligation In order to ensure successful and feasible implementation, Member States may develop and submit to the Commission joint recommendations, after consulting the Advisory Councils, with specific implementation provisions to be adopted by the Commission as delegated acts. As the suggested measures within the joint recommendations should take into account the best available scientific advice as well as include scientific evidence as the basis for the exemptions to the landing obligation, the Commission submits the joint recommendations to STECF for assessment. These delegated acts provide some flexibility in cases where unwanted catches are very difficult to avoid, lead to disproportional costs, or species have a high survivability rate. Exemptions from the landing obligation are provided under Article 15(2) and (4) of the CFP Regulation. In addition to prohibited species and predator damage exemptions, the landing obligation does not apply to: (i) high survivability cases, for which scientific evidence demonstrates high survival rates; and (ii) in cases for up to 5% of the total annual catches (de minimis) either because scientific evidence demonstrates that increases in selectivity are difficult to achieve or in order to avoid disproportionate costs for handling unwanted catches. This flexibility has been put in place by the co-legislators to be able to address the specific problems of, mostly, mixed fisheries in relation to the achievements of the objectives of the CFP Regulation and to avoid the phenomenon of choke species. The Western Waters, the North Sea, the Baltic and the western Mediterranean multiannual plans allow adopting delegated regulations specifying the details of implementation of the landing obligation for all species under the landing obligation, including the de minimis and high survivability exemptions and technical measures aimed at increasing gear selectivity and reducing the unwanted catches and eliminating discards. In 2021, the following delegated regulations specifying the details of implementation of the landing obligation were in place: 1.Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/2063 of 25 August 2021 amending and correcting Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/2015 specifying details of the implementation of the landing obligation for certain fisheries in Western Waters for the period 2021-2023; 2.Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/2062 of 23 August 2021 amending Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/2014 specifying details of implementation of the landing obligation for certain fisheries in the North Sea for the period 2021-2023; 3.Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/2065 of 25 August 2021 establishing a discard plan for turbot fisheries in the Black Sea, 1 January to 31 December 2022; 4.Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/2066 of 25 August 2021 supplementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1022 of the European Parliament and of the Council regarding details of implementation of the landing obligation for certain demersal stocks in the western Mediterranean Sea for the period 2022-2024; 5.Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/2064 of 25 August 2021 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the establishment of a de minimis exemption to the landing obligation for certain demersal fisheries in the Adriatic and south-eastern Mediterranean; 6.Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/2237 of 13 August 2020 amending Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/3 as regards the derogation for the minimum conservation reference size of Venus shells (Venus spp.) in certain Italian territorial waters (period of application until 31 December 2022); 7.Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/2012 of 5 August 2020 amending Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/161 establishing a de minimis exemption to the landing obligation for certain small pelagic fisheries in the Mediterranean Sea, as regards its period of application 1 January 2021 until 31 December 2023;

8.Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/306 of 18 December 2017 laying down specifications for the implementation of the landing obligation as regards cod and plaice in Baltic Sea fisheries; and 9.Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/1417 of 22 June 2021 supplementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1139 concerning the specifications for the landing obligation as regards salmon in the Baltic Sea for the period 2021-2023. STECF observes that the impacts of exemptions on fishing mortality is poorly understood given the limited reporting of catches that were discarded under exemptions. The STECF EWG 20-04 had previously advised that it would be appropriate and timely for Member States Regional Groups and the Commission to review existing exemptions to the landing obligation. Anticipating that the majority of the delegated acts will expire by the end of 2023, and the above, the Commission is preparing a review to be carried out in 2023 regarding all existing exemptions to the landing obligation. This has been further discussed and prepared for in STECF PLEN 21-03. 3.3.Control and enforcement The Commission has a responsibility to control and evaluate the application of the rules of the CFP by Member States (Article 96(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009). In fulfilling this role, the Commission launched an audit series in 2020 to evaluate the measures adopted by Spain, France, Belgium, Ireland and the Netherlands to ensure control, enforcement and inspection of activities relevant to the landing obligation and to ensure the full documentation of all fishing trips and relevant data. Member States were selected on the basis of those having access to by-catch quotas. The audits found that the landing obligation is not effectively controlled and enforced and that quantities recorded as discarded and the landed quantities of catches below the Minimum Conservation Reference Sizes (MCRS) are very low. This information differs from scientific data collected and indicates extensive unreported discarding. This latter finding is also supported by various reports mentioned in the chapters above, including three EFCA compliance evaluation reports on the implementation of the landing obligation, which all found that non-compliance with the landing obligation was widespread in specific fisheries during the evaluation periods (2015/2016-2017) in the North Sea and North Western Waters. Therefore, given the importance of monitoring and enforcing the landing obligation for the success of the CFP and considering that monitoring tools currently in place and actions taken in Member States were not fit for this purpose, the Commission launched in the second half of 2021 five infringement procedures against Spain, France, Belgium, Ireland and the Netherlands for failure to take appropriate measures to ensure control, enforcement and inspection of the landing obligation and to ensure detailed and accurate documentation of catches. Based on the audits and the various information sources and reports mentioned in this chapter, the reporting of discards by fishermen continues to be very low and underrepresents the actual quantities discarded. Quantities recorded as discarded under de minimis provisions are in general significantly below permitted thresholds. The registration of landed catches below the MCRS is very low, indicating that such catches are illegally discarded at sea rather than avoided through more selective fishing practices. More Member States (Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Greece, Ireland, the Netherlands, Portugal and Spain) than in previous years provided quite detailed information on below MCRS catches for 2019, while others provided no data, claiming there were still difficulties in recording such catches in the electronic reporting system (ERS). The EUMOFA study also concludes that the available data on landings of catches below MCRS is incomplete and incomparable between Member States. The most comprehensive and comparable dataset is the Aggregated Catch Data Reports (ACDR). However, in the ACDR data, 8 EU Member States report zero landings of unwanted catches. Despite the better reporting of catches discarded under exemptions and landings of catches below MCRS, which is evidenced by the Member States’ reports for 2019 and 2020, it is extremely doubtful that they reflect the true quantities being caught. Observer data from ICES and last-haul analysis by EFCA indicate large discrepancies between what is reported and what is observed. Figures 9 and 10 show the activity of the EFCA on last haul inspections in 2021. Member States should ramp up efforts to ensure better reporting of such catches. The introduction of the landing obligation requires a paradigm shift in terms of control and enforcement and requires the introduction of modern control technologies such as remote electric monitoring (REM) tools incorporating closed circuit television (CCTV) and sensors. The fact that fishing activities by the vast majority of Union fishing vessels currently take place without effective control tools remains a serious issue for the successful implementation of the landing obligation. The ongoing revision of the Control Regulation provides a timely window of opportunity for the introduction of REM tools for the control of the landing obligation During 2021 the COVID-19 affected the control and inspection activities of EFCA and the Member States. This hindered the effective and efficient implementation of the landing obligation. Figure 10: Last haul inspections carried out in 2021

Figure 11: Number of LH by JDPs Member States still rely on conventional and traditional controls such as inspections at sea, inspections at landing, data analysis and aerial surveillance which are ineffective at ensuring control and enforcement of the landing obligation at sea and have limited effect in promoting a culture of compliance among all operators and fishermen. The essential role of effective enforcement should be acknowledged in light of the strong incentives for non-compliance and the generally poor levels of ‘buy in’ by the fishing industry. Traditional controls cannot reliably detect illegal and unreported discarding and cannot ensure compliance with the conditions and thresholds associated with exemptions such as the survivability and de minimis exemptions. This deficiency is very serious in the context of monitoring compliance with the landing obligation and for ensuring that all catches are documented in accordance with European Union legislative requirements. This deficiency poses a significant risk to the long-term sustainability objectives of the CFP, especially when the capacity of the Member States’ fleets and the biological status of certain stocks are taken into consideration. Effective control and enforcement are essential to the success of the landing obligation. The Commission supported the use of the REM tools, incorporating closed-circuit television and sensor data, in its proposal for a revised Fisheries Control System. In recognition of the value of REM controls, in 2019 EFCA published their Technical guidelines and specifications for the implementation of (REM in EU fisheries to facilitate the harmonised adoption of REM controls by Member States. Some Member States have also explored the use of REM for the control of the landing obligation. For instance, in 2021 Denmark finalised the first phase of a project to monitor discards with CCTVs backed by artificial intelligence in the Danish Kattegat (3AS) Nephrops fishery. The project’s findings demonstrated that such systems can reliably document compliance or lack of compliance with the landing obligation. Furthermore, the STECF notes that several Member States are testing innovative control tools for monitoring and control of the landing obligation, over and above what is used traditionally. Denmark and the Netherlands have equipped vessels with REM or electronic monitoring (EM) as part of national pilot projects specifically geared for control purposes, and Sweden and Spain report that national EM pilot projects for monitoring & control have been initiated. Many Member States in the North Sea and the Baltic reported that they intend to participate in the regional pilot projects on the use of REM as supported by EFCA. In this context, STECF notes that there has been some progress regarding the initiation and implementation of EM pilots specific for monitoring and control of the landing obligation. However, the absence of meaningful control measures and their uptake in 2021 remains disappointing, considering the time afforded to Member States’ control authorities to apply effective controls since the phasing-in period of the landing obligation that started in January 2015. As a result of not adopting the necessary means, such as REM, to ensure control and enforcement of the landing obligation, there are indications of widespread non-compliance and prolific, undocumented illegal discarding of catches. This represents a significant risk which is emphasized by the STECF as it is vital to maintain and improve the collection and reporting of catch (landings, unwanted catch and discards) data. If the data reported do not reflect the actual removals, this will have a significant impact on the quality of scientific advice and may compromise the achievement of the MSY objective. 3.4.Social and economic effects and safety issues Member States have continued to provide very limited information on the social and economic impacts of the landing obligation in their reports. They report that it remains difficult to assess the social and economic impacts of the landing obligation, indicating that problems remain minimal across sea basins. This is mainly due to the exemptions in place mitigating these problems and the funding available (see 3.5), which is also highlighted by various Advisory Councils their advices on this topic. STECF concludes that it is not possible currently to assess information on social and economic impacts of implementation of the landing obligation as, for 2021, only two Member States have reported on such impacts. STECF (STECF 21-03) reviewed the data collection (e.g. DCF data used under the data calls for the Annual Economic Report and the Fisheries-Dependent Information database) and advised that no conclusions could be drawn on the social and economic impacts of the landing obligation. This is coherent with the findings from the CINEA study that there are no clear trends in discard rates. These studies concur that, at least until 2019 where all data are available, there is a lack of evidence of changes in discarding practice in the fisheries, and as such this does not translate in any changes in the economic indicators. STECF discussed with the Commission how STECF may be able to, for example, provide some updated literature review of reports and publications of the social and economic impacts of the landing obligation, as well as to provide a comprehensive overview of model-based conclusions from different scenarios and fisheries of implementing the landing obligation. This will be carried out in 2022. 3.5.European Maritime and Fisheries Fund The EMFF has general and specific measures designed to support the implementation of the landing obligation. The EMFF introduced, among other measures, a focus on increased gear selectivity, with gear technology development and sea trials continuing the work started under the European Fisheries Fund in 2007-2013. In 2017, DG MARE requested FAME to undertake an Ancillary Task (AT) exploring mainly how EMFF, and to a lesser extent EFF and other (EU and national) funding had been used to date by Member States to support the implementation of the landing obligation. A more recent report undertaken by FAME is a follow-up to this task. Table 3 shows the Member States that were selected as case studies for this follow up report.





Table 3: Member States selected as case studies based on number of operations under potentially LO-relevant measures based on the FAME methodology Source: Infosys 2020, FAME compilation, 2021 No MS EMFF committed (EUR) EMFF spent (EUR) No. operations EMFF committed/EMFF OP total allocation (%) 1 PL 13,889,418.50 7,199,804.84 476 2.61 2 DE 12,818,264.32 8,475,783.43 175 5.84 3 DK 12,625,787.05 7,070,298.10 243 6.06 4 LV 9,349,857.41 6,288,972.29 20 6.69 5 ES 6,680,351.04 3,618,088.82 206 0.60 6 FR 5,500,668.00 739,340.26 35 0.94 7 SE 5,213,461.41 2,457,629.00 106 4.34 8 PT 5,094,271.81 2,680,859.78 19 1.30 9 IT 4,553,369.48 432,927.58 190 0.85 10 NL 4,121,296.03 2,269,061.93 82 4.06 11 IE 4,055,626.56 3,382,878.96 215 2.75 12 LT 3,725,862.75 1,082,483.81 43 5.87 13 EE 3,321,468.84 2,220,952.42 120 3.29 14 FI 1,194,367.87 882,165.68 265 1.61 15 HR 1,111,330.40 700,915.17 90 0.44 EL 477,830.86 220,740.76 24 0.12 BE 341,629.33 184,819.72 13 0.82 16 BG 179,636.66 90,652.36 6 0.22 MT 150,000.00 144,795.96 1 0.66 RO 99,638.43 52,694.23 2 0.06 This report concluded that for Member States that experience significant impact of the landing obligation, the EMFF measures certainly helped, both directly through operations under the landing obligation related measures and indirectly through support for fisheries management more generally. The funding allowed the sector to be more proactive to avoid negative impacts, rather than reactive to those impacts. By the end of 2017, Member States had committed just over €30 million to the measures under the articles potentially relevant for the landing obligation. The commitment levels under these articles grew by nearly three times between 2017 and 2018 and have then grown year on year by 33% and 27% to the end of 2020, reaching €147.7 million. However, by contrast, total expenditure by end of 2020 was at 59% with only €86.5 million reported. What could be concluded based on the qualitative information used in the report is that landing obligation relevant funds committed and spent are related to operations on (i) gear selectivity and technical measures, (ii) capital investments in handling facilities and (iii) support to control and enforcement as well as data collection efforts. 3.6.Conclusions The support to technical measures to help improve selectivity has continued to grow. However, the detailed analysis also shows that most of the financial support has been dedicated to research supporting exemptions. Support has often been for research to support adoption of exemptions on de minimis and high survivability or to IT system upgrades to facilitate more effective quota use, and to a lesser extent to technical measures resulting in the direct reduction of unwanted catches. There are many examples of gear innovation projects and trials, but in many instances the uptake by fleets is less than may have been expected, due to the regulatory measures limiting the scope of implementation of the landing obligation. The EMFF supported improved quota management systems to ensure that fisheries could continue to operate with available quotas for the fisheries and sea basins with catch limits. The phased nature of the landing obligation implementation helped in this regard as Member States had more time to develop systems for the most problematic mixed demersal fisheries. Many of the efforts to facilitate the implementation of the landing obligation were regulatory in nature, with the EMFF providing support for research that gave the evidence base needed to justify exemptions, e.g. for high survivability, and funding improvements to quota management systems. In summary, Member States should be encouraged to make better use of the funds to also ensure further innovation and actual uptake of more selective fishing gear or fishing methods, to improve control, and to valorise unwanted catches. 4.The functioning and the role of Advisory Councils in 2021 4.1.Introduction

In 2021, all the 11 Advisory Councils were fully operational. In 2021 an amendment to the existing Delegated Regulation on the functioning of the Advisory Councils was prepared and adopted. This amendment was part of the work undertaken by the Commission in order to facilitate the functioning of the Advisory Councils and to improve the representation of the various groups of interest in these fora. The amendment to the existing Delegated Regulation was adopted in February 2022 and contains the following elements: ·the requirement to have at least one vice-Chair from the category to which the Chair does not belong; ·the requirement for the General Assembly and the Executive Committee to ensure a balanced representation of all stakeholders, with emphasis on other interest groups and, where appropriate, small-scale fleets; ·a reminder that recommendations shall comply with CFP rules and objectives, be prepared in a transparent way and adopted, where possible, by consensus; and

·the obligation to carry out an independent performance review every 5 years. In addition, an annex with criteria for classifying members of the Advisory Councils under the categories “sector organisations” and “other interest groups” was added in order to address classification issues. In 2021, the Advisory Councils submitted 109 recommendations to the Commission, less than in 2020 with 128 advices, but more than in 2019, with 72 advices. As in 2020, these recommendations were related to a range of subjects such as access to Union waters, the Biodiversity Strategy, Brexit consequences, the Covid pandemic, climate change, scientific advice, fisheries control, fishing opportunities or specific fish species. For the first time, recommendations on the social dimension of the CFP were also received. Eight recommendations were sent in view of the Technical Measures implementation report and 7 on the Delegated Regulation on the functioning of the Advisory Councils. Figure 12: Number of recommendations submitted by the Advisory Councils in 2021 by subject Each Advisory Council produced between 2 to 12 individual recommendations, to which should be added 4 joint recommendations. Around 5 additional recommendations were received by DG MARE, which were not directly related to CFP issues. Below is a description of how the recommendations were taken on board by the Commission. 4.2.Contribution of the Advisory Councils in the context of fishing opportunities Recommendations on fishing opportunities for 2022 as well as on specific species of fish represent more than 20% of the total number of recommendations received. These recommendations are always useful and kept in mind in the preparation and negotiation of the annual Fishing Opportunities Regulations. The recommendations are however one of the numerous factors contributing to the setting of fishing opportunities, for which final decisions are in the hands of the Council. 4.3.Recommendations on IUU On IUU fishing and the implementation of the IUU Regulation in 2021, it is clear that the recommendations raised some relevant and important points. The Commission took note of them in the context of the ongoing discussions on the revision of the Control Regulation related to the introduction of mandatory use of the IT CATCH system. In addition, the Commission focused its attention on the issues raised (e.g. effective implementation of the catch certification scheme) and informed the Advisory Councils of which measures were already in place or planned.

4.4.Recommendations on the landing obligation On the landing obligation, recommendations were sent by both NWWAC and NSAC on choke risks and major challenges in the landing obligation. These recommendations were useful in the context of discussions on fishing opportunities, for upcoming discussions on multiannual plans and discard plans, and for discussions about other technical measures in those areas after exemptions. These elements are part of the information provided to STECF for analysis, which is then part of the Annual Communication on Fishing Opportunities. 4.5.Recommendations on aquaculture In 2021, the Aquaculture Advisory Council submitted 9 recommendations. Most dealt with issues which have been addressed in the new strategic guidelines for a more sustainable and competitive EU aquaculture for the period 2021 to 2030. The Commission will put them in practice more concretely in the course of the implementation of the actions resulting from the guidelines in 2022 and the years to come. 4.6.Recommendations on the market policy In 2021, the Commission implemented some recommendations received from the Market Advisory Council (MAC) in 2020. In particular, a series of ad-hoc studies of interest for the MAC was integrated in the 2021 and 2022 EUMOFA work programmes. MAC recommendations were sent in 2020 on necessary adaptations of CFP rules (including CMO and EMFF) to face consequences of the Covid crisis. These were also implemented by the Commission in 2021. 4.7.Recommendations on RFMOs The Commission received recommendations from the Long-Distance Advisory Council and the Mediterranean Advisory Council in the context of its relations with Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMOs). The recommendations are taken into consideration in the preparation of EU proposals presented at RFMOs meetings. The Commission presents its proposals to relevant advisory councils (MEDAC and Black Sea Advisory Council (BlSAC)) ahead of the annual GFCM meetings, and to the extent possible takes into account their recommendations. The Commission coordinates the MEDAC and BlSAC work programmes so that they mirror the work of GFCM and the Commission. 4.8.Consultations initiated by the Commission

The Advisory Councils are invited to provide regularly their contributions to public consultations launched by the Commission . In 2021, there were 3 initiatives by the Commission for which contributions were received. These initiatives are the following: a)Report on the implemention of the Technical Measures Regulation The Advisory Councils were consulted in 2021 on the Report on Implementation of the Technical Measures Regulation pursuant to Article 31 of Regulation (EU) 2019/1241 on Technical Measures. A letter was sent to all of them at the end of 2020 with specific questions. Eight Advisory Councils provided an answer. Whereever possible, the contribution received was directly inserted in the relevant Staff Working Document. b)Secondary legislation of the EMFAF In the context of the public consultation on the draft Commission Implementing Regulation implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1139 establishing the European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund (EMFAF) as regards the identification of energy efficient technologies and the specification of methodology elements to determine the normal fishing effort of fishing vessels, 1 joint and 1 individual recommendation from ACs were received. The comment in the joint recommendation from the NWWAC, CC SUD, CC SUD and MEDAC, supported by the NSAC, on energy-efficient technologies used by new engines led to a modification of the final act and the addition of a reference to internal combustion and fuel cell hybrid in the final text of the implementing act. c)Recommendations on the delegated act on the functioning of the ACs The Advisory Councils were active in the preparation of the delegated act, which was largely discussed with them. Seven contributions were received during the public consultation period and led to several modifications in the final version of the delegated act 2022/204. 4.9.Conclusion While conditions were still challenging in 2021, Advisory Councils continued to function as key stakeholder consultation bodies. They contributed to all aspects of the CFP, including the market pillar, social aspects, food supply and security, or the incidence of climate change on state of stocks. Some recommendations were also received in relation to the implementation of the European Green Deal, the Biodiversity Strategy or the Farm to Fork Strategy, raising very relevant concerns or issues. The Advisory Councils were also active in response to public consultations, in particular in the preparation of the “Technical Measures” implementation report, on which they were specifically consulted, and in the preparation of the delegated act on the functioning of the Advisory Councils. The Advisory Councils’ recommendations are considered in the context of preparations for new legislation. While the impact of a recommendation may not always be immediately or directly visible, it has always an incidence on the preparatory work and discussions. Given the large number of files under development in the fisheries domain, a challenge in the future will be for the Advisory Councils to be able to stay within the remit of their mandate, and carefully assess and prioritise their tasks, taking into account the direct relevance under the CFP. 5.International ocean governance

In 2016, the EU launched its International Ocean Governance Agenda, committing to a safe, secure, clean, healthy and sustainably managed ocean. Several developments lead us to update this Joint Communication. First, the EU political priorities are refocused around the fight against climate change and environmental degradation with the ambition to lead the transition to a healthy planet. Second, the ocean has gained traction politically with 2022 becoming a super year for the ocean. Third, the decline of the ocean is accelerating as some unsustainable human activities and their harmful impacts continue to degrade the ocean leading to profound changes. And fourth, the ocean is amongst the world’s foremost geopolitical arenas as shown by the recent increase in tensions in the Eastern Mediterranean and South China Sea. Considering these developments, it is essential for the EU and its Member States to reaffirm their commitment towards ocean governance. Building on its 2016 International Ocean Governance Agenda and the consultation process of ocean stakeholders, the EU will reinforce its active role in international ocean governance and in implementing the UN 2030 Agenda and its SDG 14 through: ·strengthening the international ocean governance framework at global, regional and bilateral levels; ·making ocean sustainability a reality by 2030 through a coordinated and complementary approach in response to common challenges and cumulative impacts; ·making the ocean a safe and secure space as competition in international waters and challenges to the rules-based multilateral order are growing; ·strengthening international ocean knowledge for evidence-based decision-making to deliver action to efficiently protect and sustainably manage the ocean. During the second semester 2021 and the first semester 2022, the Commission participated in the Aquatic/Blue Food Coalition launched at the United Nations Food System Summit in September 2021. The Coalition aims to integrate blue foods into decision-making and policies that can sustain a growing population in a changing climate and contribute to a thriving blue economy and resilient communities. It is also an opportunity for the EU to promote globally the blue dimension of its Farm to Fork Strategy and to emphasise the key role that food from sustainable fisheries and aquaculture can play in food security and nutrition and, more generally, in the transformation of food systems towards more sustainability and resilience. The Commission actively participated, on behalf of the EU, in the preparation of FAO Voluntary Guidelines on Transhipment to be endorsed at the 35th meeting of the FAO Committee on Fisheries (COFI 35). The decision to elaborate these guidelines results from a study funded by the EU and presented to COFI 34 (February 2021), which concluded that transhipment, if insufficiently regulated, monitored and controlled, can increase the risk of IUU caught fish entering the food supply chain, thus undermining sustainable and responsible fisheries. These guidelines will supplement conservation and management measures, in particular international instruments to combat IUU fishing such as the FAO Agreement on Port State Measures to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate IUU Fishing, and traceability schemes. The Commission participated in the FAO Working Group in charge of elaborating a proposal for a new COFI sub-committee on fisheries management. If established, this sub-committee could contribute to substantially improve the working method of the FAO-COFI, allowing a better preparation of COFI’s decision on fisheries management. Another important ongoing work is the preparation of FAO Voluntary Guidelines on Sustainable Aquaculture. The Commission has continued to push for further developing this work, based on its own strategic guidelines for a more sustainable and competitive EU aquaculture that offer a common vision to develop the sector and improve its environmental and climate performance. After three years of continuous efforts, the EU acceded to the North Pacific Fisheries Commission in 2022. This will allow the EU to support sustainable fisheries in the region and brought the current EU Membership to 5 tuna RFMOs and 10 non-tuna RFMOs as well as of 2 Regional Fisheries Bodies (RFB) without decision making power. The COVID-19 pandemic continued to impact the work of RFMOs in 2021 as in 2020. All but one RFMO annual meetings were held in a virtual format, through videoconferences. Their agendas were, for the most part, still scaled back and mostly focused on the essential items/issues. This included: (j) fishery management measures expiring in 2021/early 2022 or requiring adjustment in light of the latest scientific advice; (ii) housekeeping matters such as the approval of the budget and the election of officers; and (iii) other matters such as compliance or the adoption of the IUU Vessel lists. Nevertheless, some RFMOs were more successful than others in achieving results, notwithstanding the virtual format of the meetings. For example, the Northwest Atlantic Fishery Organisation (NAFO) adopted a new agreement on cod 3M, which was reached after lengthy and difficult discussions and an improvement of the vulnerable marine ecosystem (VME) regime through a joint EU, USA, Canada and UK proposal. The majority of stocks managed by RFMOs are generally in good shape. Of the total commercial tuna catch worldwide, 87.7 % came from stocks at healthy levels of abundance. As far as fishing mortality levels are concerned, 86.5% of the total tuna catches came from stocks that are not experiencing overfishing. As regards tropical tuna, all skipjack are at sustainable levels. By contrast, the stocks of Atlantic Ocean bigeye, managed by the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), and Indian Ocean yellowfin, managed by the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC), are currently overfished (biomass is below Bmsy), although for Atlantic Ocean bigeye overfishing ended in 2019 (fishing mortality is below Fmsy). Due to the virtual format and the complexity of the discussions, the 2021 annual meeting of ICCAT could not agree to the EU proposal for a regular review process to better manage fishing capacity for tropical tuna. Moreover, in 2021, ICCAT adopted a recovery plan for shortfin mako shark. It aims to end overfishing immediately and to gradually achieve biomass levels sufficient to support maximum sustainable yield by 2070 with a probability ranging between 60 and 70%. The plan also foresees the entry into force of a two-year prohibition on retention of shortfin mako sharks on board beginning of 2022, as well as complementary conservation measures. IOTC was also able to agree on a new rebuilding plan for yellowfin tuna which, if properly implemented, should reduce catches to the level indicated as sustainable by the IOTC Scientific Committee. The EU has continued to make progress in 2021 in the implementation of RFMO decisions into Union law with the advancement of the legislative work for several RFMOs. In 2022, the activities aiming to fight illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing continued to be disrupted by COVID-19 and the related travelling restrictions impeding fieldwork. Work continued to ensure an effective implementation of the catch certification schemes of the EU and UK in their respective trade flows.