This report commits only the Commission departments involved in preparing it and in no way prejudges the final form of any decision to be taken by the Commission

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1........... Procedural issues and consultation of interested parties.................................................... 6

1.1........ Organisation and timing................................................................................................... 6

1.2........ Adaptations to the report in line with the comments of the Impact Assessment Board....... 7

1.3........ Consultation and expertise.............................................................................................. 8

2........... Problem definition......................................................................................................... 11

2.1........ Species Affected and Fisheries Involved........................................................................ 11

2.1.1..... Longlines...................................................................................................................... 12

2.1.2..... Static Nets................................................................................................................... 13

2.1.3..... External Waters............................................................................................................ 14

2.1.4..... Other Gears................................................................................................................. 14

2.2........ Threat posed by bycatch............................................................................................... 15

2.3........ Current Management.................................................................................................... 17

2.3.1..... Fisheries Legislation...................................................................................................... 17

2.3.2..... Environmental Legislation.............................................................................................. 19

2.4........ Existing mitigation measures and devices........................................................................ 21

2.5........ The affected stakeholders............................................................................................. 22

2.6........ Underlying Drivers........................................................................................................ 24

2.7........ Evolution of the problem............................................................................................... 26

2.8........ Necessity and Subsidiarity............................................................................................ 27

3........... Objectives.................................................................................................................... 27

3.1........ General objectives........................................................................................................ 27

3.2........ Specific objectives........................................................................................................ 27

3.3........ Reform of the CFP....................................................................................................... 29

4........... Policy options............................................................................................................... 30

4.1........ Option 1 – Status Quo.................................................................................................. 31

4.2........ Option 2 – EU-POA.................................................................................................... 32

4.3........ Option 3 – Stand-alone Regulation................................................................................ 34

5........... Analysis of impacts....................................................................................................... 36

5.1........ Option 1 – Status Quo.................................................................................................. 36

5.1.1..... Economic impacts......................................................................................................... 36

5.1.2..... Environmental impacts.................................................................................................. 38

5.1.3..... Social impacts.............................................................................................................. 38

5.1.4..... Impact on SMEs.......................................................................................................... 39

5.1.5..... Simplification and administrative burden......................................................................... 39

5.2........ Option 2 – EU-POA.................................................................................................... 39

5.2.1..... Economic Impact.......................................................................................................... 39

5.2.2..... Environmental Impact................................................................................................... 43

5.2.3..... Social Impact............................................................................................................... 45

5.2.4..... Impacts on SMEs......................................................................................................... 46

5.2.5..... Simplification and administrative burden......................................................................... 46

5.3........ Option 3 – Stand-alone regulation................................................................................. 48

5.3.1..... Economic impacts......................................................................................................... 48

5.3.2..... Environmental impacts.................................................................................................. 50

5.3.3..... Social impacts.............................................................................................................. 51

5.3.4..... Impacts on SMEs......................................................................................................... 52

5.3.5..... Simplification and administrative burden......................................................................... 52

5.4........ Summary of impacts..................................................................................................... 54

6........... Comparing the options.................................................................................................. 57

6.1........ Qualitative Assessment by Option................................................................................. 57

6.2........ Ranking the options...................................................................................................... 58

7........... Monitoring and Evaluation............................................................................................. 59

ANNEX I – SUMMARY OF PUBLIC CONSULTATION...................................................... 61

ANNEX II – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FROM MRAG STUDY............................................ 69

ANNEX III – ANNUAL SEABIRD BYCATCH FROM SELECTED EU LONGLINE AND STATIC NET FISHERIES............................................................................................................................... 75

ANNEX IV – CONSERVATION STATUS OF SPECIES OF CONSERVATION CONCERN AND VULNERABLE TO BYCATCH IN EU WATERS.............................................................................................. 76

ANNEX V – DIFFERENT TYPES OF LONGLINES AND STATIC NETS........................... 78

ANNEX VI – DESCRIPTION OF INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS AND CONVENTIONS 79

ANNEX VII NATIONAL MEASURES INTRODUCED INTO CASE STUDY FISHERIES.. 82

ANNEX VIII - MAPS SHOWING THE AREAS MANAGED BY RFMOs............................. 84

ANNEX IX - MITIGATION MEASURES INTRODUCED BY TUNA RFMOS..................... 85

ANNEX X - MAP OF SPAS ESTABLISHED UNDER THE BIRDS DIRECTIVE.................. 89

ANNEX XI – DESCRIPTION OF MITIGATION MEASURES.............................................. 90

ANNEX XII - INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS................................................................. 94

ANNEX XIII - ADMINISTRATIVE AND MANAGEMENT COSTS..................................... 95

LIST OF ACRONYMS

ACAP || Agreement on the Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels

ACFA || Advisory Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture

ATF || Albatross Task Force

BPFG || Best Practice Technical Guidelines

BPUE || Bycatch Per Unit Effort

BSRAC || Baltic Sea Regional Advisory Council

CBD || The United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity

CCAMLR || Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources

CCSBT || Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna

CCTV || Closed Circuit Television

CFP || Common Fisheries Policy

CITES || Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna & Flora

CMS || The Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals

COFI || Committee on Fisheries (FAO)

DCF || Data Collection Framework

DCMAP || EU Multiannual Programme for Data Collection

EC || European Commission

EEZ || Exclusive Economic Zone

EFF || European Fisheries Fund

EMFF || European Maritime and Fisheries Fund

EMPAS || Environmentally Sound Fisheries Management in Marine Protected Areas

EU || European Union

EU-POA || European Union Plan of Action

FAO || Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations

FIMPAS || Fisheries Measures in Protected Areas

FTE || Full-time Equivalent

GES || Good Environmental Status

HELCOM || Helsinki Commission of the Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea Area

IASG || Impact Assessment Steering Group

IATTC || Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission

IBA || Important Bird Area

ICCAT || International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas

ICES || International Council for the Exploration of the Sea

IOTC || Indian Ocean Tuna Commission

IPOA || International Plan of Action

IUCN || International Union for the Conservation of Nature

IUU || Illegal, Unreported and Unreported

MRAG || Marine Resources Assessment Group

MSC || Marine Stewardship Council

MSFD || Marine Strategy Framework Directive

NGO || Non-Governmental Organisation

NPOA || National Plan of Action

NSRAC || North Sea Regional Advisory Council

NWWRAC || North Western Waters Regional Advisory Council

OSPAR || Oslo and Paris Commissions

PBR || Potential Biological Removal

PRAC || Pelagic Stocks Regional Advisory Council

RFMO || Regional Fisheries Management Organisations

RSPB || Royal Society for the Protection of Birds

SAC || Special Area of Conservation

SCM || EU Standard Cost Model

SEAFO || South-East Atlantic Fisheries Organisation

SEO || Sociedad Esapnõla de Ornitologia

SFIA || Sea Fish Industry Authority

SPA || Special Protection Area

SPEA || Portuguese Society for the Study of Birds

TFEU || Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

UNCLOS || United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea

UNCSD || United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development

UNEP || United Nations Environment Programme

UNFSA || United Nations Fish Stock Agreement

VMS || Vessel Monitoring System

WCPFC || Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission

WGCSE || Working Group on Seabird Ecology (ICES)

Lead DG: DG MARE

Other departments involved: SG, DG ENV, DG EMPL, DG REGIO, DG ECFIN, DG TRADE, DG CLIMA, DG RTD, DG ENTR.

Agenda planning/WP reference: 2009/MARE/071

1. Procedural issues and consultation of interested parties

1.1. Organisation and timing

This impact assessment concerns a proposal for the development of a European Union Plan of Action for reducing the incidental catches of seabirds in fishing gears (EU-POA). This is within the framework of an International Plan of Action (IPOA) for Reducing the Incidental Catches of Seabirds in Longline Fisheries[1] adopted in 1999 by the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) Committee on Fisheries (COFI). The European Commission, in fulfilment of its responsibilities as a contracting party of international organisations acting in the context of the IPOA, is committed to developing a Plan of Action for EU vessels fishing in EU and non-EU waters.

The proposal is provided for in ‘Agenda Planning’ (2009/MARE/071), in the 2011 Annual Management Plan of the Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries (DG MARE) and in the Commission Work Programme (CWP) as a policy output under the activity "Conservation, management and exploitation of living aquatic resources", with the specific objective: "To improve fishing methods with a view to reducing incidental and unwanted catches, and the impacts on the marine environment".

In order to support the work an internal DG MARE Working Group was set up in July 2009 by the unit dealing with the Common Fisheries Policy and Aquaculture (A2) and comprising representatives from the Regional units – Atlantic (C2), Mediterranean and Black Sea (D2) and Baltic and North Sea (E2) as well as from the unit dealing with International affairs and Regional Fisheries Organisations (B1).

An Impact Assessment Steering Group (IASG) was formed in January 2010, which in addition to DG MARE was comprised of representatives from nine Directorates-General, namely the Secretariat General, DG ENV, DG EMPL, DG REGIO, DG ECFIN, DG TRADE, DG CLIMA, DG RTD and DG ENTR. The IASG met on the 14 April 2010 and 2 September 2011 and worked on a revised draft of the Impact Assessment by written consultation following the second meeting. Between these meetings regular contact was maintained with the IASG and in addition there were regular written exchanges with DG ENV given their interest in this area.

1.2. Adaptations to the report in line with the comments of the Impact Assessment Board

DG MARE has welcomed the comments, suggestions and questions of the Impact Assessment Board and has adapted the report so as to address these. The report has been re-structured in line with the comments received.

On the basis of the first opinion received, the report has been adapted in order to provide more evidence regarding the existing problem and the unsustainability of current fishing practices with respect to seabirds. This has involved the inclusion of additional information from a background study[2] prepared to support this impact assessment as well as other sources on the impact of fisheries on seabird populations and the species at most risk into Sections 2.1 and 2.2. The information on the affected sector has been expanded (Section 2.6) as has the section on existing mitigation measures (Section 2.5).

The objectives contained in Section 3.1 and 3.2 have been refined and indicative timelines included although these are very much dependent on the outcome of the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy.

The policy options included in Section 4 have been expanded with the inclusion of an option based on the implementation of the Birds and Habitats Directives. This has been considered and subsequently discarded for the reasons given in Section 4. Under option 3 (Section 4.3), two sub-options (sub-option 3a and 3b) have been considered to make this option more realistic. The rationale for all of the various options has also been expanded upon.

The explanation of the costs for each policy option contained in Sections 5.1.3, 5.2.3 & 5.3.3 and 5.1.4, 5.2.4 and 5.3.4 has been strengthened. However, a more substantive analysis detailing regional and social/employment impacts has not been possible as there is only limited information available. In any case the analysis carried out indicates that the preferred option from this initiative will have only minimal impacts on employment given the measures are largely voluntary and can be tailored to specific fisheries.

The monitoring and evaluation arrangements have been revised in Section 7 to be clearer with indicative timelines and indicators for measuring effectiveness included.

Throughout the text additional indications of the views expressed by stakeholders from the public consultation have been added and the executive summary of the MRAG study has been included as an Annex (Annex II) given it is the primary source of information for this IA. Two new Annexes - Annex III "Annual seabird bycatch from selected EU longline and static net fisheries" and IV "Conservation status of species of conservation concern and vulnerable to bycatch in EU waters"- have also been added to provide additional background information.

On the basis of the second opinion received, the report has been further adapted with refinement to the objectives and the addition of specific actions and timelines. In the problem definition section all relevant data on the incidence of seabird bycatch and seabird population levels has been presented. However, it should be noted the available data is a combination of very detailed for some species and fisheries, sporadic for others and in many cases purely anecdotal.

The options design in Section 4 has been improved and clarifications added to Section 4.2 on the operation of option 2. The views of the stakeholders have also been more transparently presented for each of the policy options.

Further clarification on the impacts on SMEs has been added to Section 5.2.4 and also clarifications on the assumptions for the costs in Sections 5.2.5 and 5.3.5 have been included. Comments on the likely impacts on employment have been added by way of clarification. Table 12 (Summary of impacts) in Section 5.4 has been replaced with a new table.

Further stakeholder views expressed in the public consultation have been incorporated into the text and the justification for not consulting the European Sectoral and Social Dialogue Committee has been expanded.

Finally several sections (2.3 and 2.4) have been shortened and tables 3 and 4 in the original text have been moved to the Annexes (Annex VII and Annex X). An additional annex has been included detailing the international conventions and agreements relevant to this initiative (Annex VI).

1.3. Consultation and expertise

This impact assessment was prepared based on information received from the following sources:

1. Initial advice received from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) in 2008[3] provided a general assessment of the level of incidental catches of seabirds in EU waters, identified the main species affected and the main fisheries responsible for seabird mortality by area and by gear type. This advice has been updated in subsequent years by the ICES Working Group on Seabird Ecology (WGSE)[4]. Information from other countries such as Canada, who have developed National Plans of Action as well as from Regional Fisheries Management Organisations (RFMOs) such as CCAMLR[5] and ICCAT[6] which have successfully implemented mitigation measures were also taken into account in this initial assessment as have the views and information suplied by the NGO Birdlife International given their expertise in this area.

2. A public consultation was launched in June 2010[7]. Stakeholders were invited to comment on the scope and objectives of a proposed EU-Plan of Action for reducing incidental catches of seabirds, as well as on the potential fields of action to be contained in the POA. These were presented in a consultation document[8] prepared by the Commission in support of the process. A total of 215 contributions were received[9] from fisheries and environmental administrations from Member States, key stakeholders from the fishing industry particularly the relevant Regional Advisory Councils (RACs), NGOs, an international fishery management organisation and the general public.

The majority of submissions (87%) came from the general public across a range of Member States. All of them came from members of the civil society rather than individual fishermen and tended to be less technical or detailed in respect of the analysis of each field of action presented in the consultation paper. They were mainly in the form of two "chain e-mails", in response to campaigns launched by environmental NGOs. Given these contributions were not technical they were given less weight in assessing the contributions received.

Of critical importance were the inputs of the relevant RACs (North Western Waters (NWWRAC), North Sea (NSRAC), Baltic (BSRAC) and Pelagic (PRAC)). The RACs were established to give stakeholders – fishermen, vessel owners, processors, traders, fish farmers, environmental and consumer organisations and others – a vehicle through which to feed recommendations into CFP policy developments such as this initiative. Their role is to submit opinions to the Commission and Member States on different aspects of fisheries management and their views reflect the relevant sectors and segments of the catching sector, as well as the interests of important NGOs who are members of the RACs.

Annex I contains a full summary of the findings from the public consultation but the main conclusions that had the general consensus of the stakeholders were as follows:

(a) There was support for the adoption of an EU-POA for seabirds except from a group of fishermen's representative bodies who argued that the measures proposed in the consultation paper are already covered by the EU Birds Directive[10] through the implementation of Special Protection Areas (SPAs).

(b) Measures should apply across the whole EU fishing fleet operating in EU waters and in non-EU waters.

(c) Interactions between seabirds and fishing gears need to be reassessed to identify existing knowledge gaps and make it easier to define suitable and effective management tools.

(d) Longlines and static nets fisheries are the most common causes of incidental mortality in EU waters and should be the focus of any measures. Other fishing gears known to be responsible for incidental catches of seabirds and should not be excluded (e.g. trawls and purse-seines).

(e) The choice and implementation of mitigation measures should follow a step-by-step approach, balanced between the conservation objectives, economic profitability and safe working conditions for fishermen.

(f) Collection of data and reporting on incidental catches of seabirds needs to be mandatory rather than voluntary and continued research into mitigation measures and data collection are needed.

(g) Education, training and outreach should be made available to fishermen and other stakeholders to raise awareness about the problem of seabird bycatch and the practical solutions available.

3. An overview of the issues relating to seabird bycatch was presented to the Advisory Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture (ACFA) on 6 July 2010. ACFA provides a forum for dialogue with the fishing industry on policy issues. An outline of the structure and content of possible measures to reduce seabird bycatch including the adoption of an EU Plan of Action were discussed. During this meeting ten Member States[11] expressed their support for the development of a Plan of Action.

4. In August 2010, under Framework Contract No FISH/2006/09 Lot 2, a background study was externally contracted to a consortium led by MRAG Limited2. The main aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness of mitigation measures being used globally, taking account of ICES advice and also recommendations contained in the FAO Best Practice Technical Guidelines (BPTG) for IPOA/NPOA–seabirds[12] (agreed by FAO-COFI in 2008). It was based on a number of case study fisheries where significant seabird bycatch had been identifed by ICES. The case studies were as follows:

· Demersal longline fisheries in the Grand Sol to the west of Ireland;

· Pelagic and demersal longline fisheries in the western Mediterranean;

· Pelagic and demersal longline fisheries in the eastern Mediterranean (Maltese and Greek waters);

· Static net fisheries in the eastern and western Baltic; and

· Static net fisheries in the eastern North Sea.

Information was gathered through direct consultation and interviews with fishermen operating in these areas as well as from fisheries departments, researchers and NGOs working in related fields. Collection and analysis of information focused on awareness of seabird bycatch, estimate of bycatch levels, current mitigation methods (if any) deployed and reaction of fishermen to the introduction of additional measures. The study also assessed the cost associated with the use of potential mitigation measures and the socio-economic and environmental impacts of their use in the specific fisheries. This study was completed in June 2011 and provides much of the basis for this Impact Assessment. The executive summary is provided in Annex II.

It was not felt necessary to consult other stakeholder groups directly such as the European Sectoral Social Dialogue Committee on the sea fisheries sector specifically on the social impacts of this initiative. The contributions received from the RACs as part of the public consultation were detailed and all of the likely impacts including the social and employment impacts. It is also worth underlining that the European Transport Workers' Federation that represents the employees in the sea fisheries sector social dialogue committee is also a member of the RACs.

Moreover the interviews conducted with individual fishermen as part of the previously mentioned background study2 were very informative and largely supported the views expressed in the public consultation by the RACS on the anticipated impacts. Potential impacts on employment from the introduction of mitigation measures were also briefly discussed at the meeting held with ACFA. Major impacts on employment were not raised as a significant issue in any of these separate consultations.

The Commission’s minimum standards for consultations have been met. The environmental, social and economic advice, the results of the open consultation process (in particular the contributions from the RACs), the conclusions from the consultation meeting, the outcome of the discussions in the IASG and the recommendations from ICES and the MRAG study all significantly contributed to the analysis of the policy options and of the different policy measures discussed in this impact assessment.

2. Problem definition

2.1. Species Affected and Fisheries Involved

‘Seabirds’ is a term adopted in this report to cover all species that primarily use intertidal (e.g. shorebirds), littoral (e.g. sea ducks) and offshore areas (e.g. traditional ‘seabirds’). Interactions between fisheries and seabirds can essentially be categorised in three ways. Firstly, and most importantly, seabirds can be killed accidentally by some kinds of fishing gears, notably when they predate on baited longlines as they are deployed and when they are caught in static nets set near the surface. Secondly, fishing can result in discards of dead fish which can provide abundant food for seabirds in some instances, at times leading to substantial increases in the numbers of some bird species in those areas. Thirdly, fishing can deplete fish stocks on which seabirds feed. This initiative deals solely with the interaction of seabirds with fishing gears leading to incidental bycatch.

ICES estimates conservatively that the EU fishing fleet is responsible for the death of c. 200,000 seabirds annually in EU and external waters4 but indicates that there is a paucity of accurate data on levels of incidental catches. This presents a challenge in assessing the impact of fisheries on these species and reflects the lack of systematic monitoring and reporting on incidental catches in fisheries. However, based on the ICES advice, the data that is available indicates seabird mortality is substantial in a number of areas within EU and non-EU fisheries and for a number of species, some of which are classified as being threatened or endangered.

Seabird species are generally long-lived and their populations are highly sensitive to changes in adult survival. Therefore mortality induced by incidental capture in fisheries is a significant danger to the populations of these species[13]. Of 346 known species of seabirds, nearly half (47%; 52% of those with known trends) are known or suspected to be experiencing population declines13. All evidence indicates that over the last 20 years, seabirds have had a substantially poorer conservation status than non-seabirds and that their populations have deteriorated faster over this period compared to other species13.

The MRAG study2 indicates that at least 34 of these species are caught incidentally as bycatch in EU waters due to the overlap between fishing activity and the spatial distributions of these species. Annex III provides a detailed breakdown of bycatch in the fisheries used as case studies in the study by way of illustration of the extent of the problem.

All available scientific information and also the majority of stakeholders in the public consultation highlight longlines and static nets as the gears with the highest seabird bycatch in EU waters. Interactions with these gears mainly occur during foraging and this behaviour determines their vulnerability to being caught in these fishing gears.

In the case of longline fisheries, species that plunge dive or pursuit dive are particularly vulnerable to being caught during setting or hauling of longlines as they are able to access bait even at substantial depths under the surface. This behaviour is exhibitied in particular by shearwaters, gannets and auks. Surface-seizing birds such as gulls and fulmars are also vulnerable, as the baited hooks can take some time to sink during setting2.

In static net fisheries, birds that are most vulnerable are mostly coastal species that dive from the surface to either forage on the bottom or pursue prey through the water column. This foraging behaviour is common amongst species such as sea ducks, diving ducks, divers/loons, grebes, cormorants and auks2.

Annex IV provides a complete list of the species most at risk and their current conservation status in EU waters as well as an indication of the fisheries in which they are reported to be incidentally caught.

2.1.1. Longlines

Extensive pelagic and demersal longline fisheries operate in EU waters to the north, west and south-west of Ireland, off Madeira and the Azores, as well as in the eastern and western Mediterranean. Pelagic longlines are used to target large migratory species such as tunas, swordfish and pelagic sharks in waters off the continental shelf. Demersal longlines are used to target species such as Greenland halibut, cod, hake, ling, tusk and sea bream in both coastal and offshore waters. Even though there are differences in their operation and gear configurations, there is evidence of incidental seabird bycatch in both types of longline fisheries. Annex V illustrates the different types of longline gears used.

ICES reports that 20 species of seabirds interact with longline fisheries in EU waters, principally in the Mediterranean pelagic and demersal longline fisheries and the North-east Atlantic (Gran Sol) demersal longline fishery, although ICES[14] reports bycatch of seabird in almost all EU longline fisheries. MRAG2 provide annual estimates of seabird bycatch in the case study fisheries. In the dermersal longline fisheries in the Mediterranean and Gran Sol looked at, bycatch is estimated at 44,700 ± 19,373 while for the pelagic longline fisheries in the Mediterranean they estimate bycatch at 9,231 ± 4,029.

Four species are notable for their high conservation status with moderate to high frequency of capture in longline gear relative to their populations. The Balearic Shearwater (Puffinus mauretanicus) is classed by the IUCN as Critically Endangered species, meaning it has been evaluated to have a very high risk of extinction in the wild. Three others, the Sooty shearwater (Puffinus griseus), Yelkouan shearwater (Puffinus yelkouan) and Audouin's gull (Larus audouinii) are classified as Near Threatened meaning the populations are in moderately rapid decline globally.

In addition to these species a further five are listed in the Birds Directive10 as having unfavourable conservation status requiring "special conservation measures" due to declines in localised populations. These include the Corys shearwater (Calonectris diomedea) and Mediterranean gull (Larus melanocephalus) in the Mediterranean and the Black-legged kittiwake (Rissa tridactyla), Black guillemot (Cepphus grylle) and Manx shearwater (Puffinus puffinus) in the NE Atlantic2. For all of these species significant levels of bycatch are reported both in the MRAG study2 and by ICES3.

Several other species - the Yellow-legged gull (Larus michahellis) in the Mediterranean and the Northern fulmar (Fulmarus glacialis), Great shearwater (Puffinus gravis) and Northern gannet (Morus bassanus) in the NE Atlantic have high incidental catches and ICES reports that the sheer scale of the numbers caught in longline fisheries is cause for concern even though the populations of these species are relatively stable3,4,4.

2.1.2. Static Nets

Static nets, encompassing gillnets, entangling nets, trammel nets and driftnets are widely used in EU fisheries to target a range of demersal species, including cod, hake, turbot, bass, mullet, rays and shellfish such as crawfish, as well as pelagic species such as herring, sprat and mackerel. They are also used in coastal lakes and estuaries to target freshwater species such as perch, zander and bream where there are interactions with certain intertidal and littoral seabird species. A range of static nets with varying constructions, mesh sizes and soak times depending on the target species are used. Annex V illustrates the different types of static nets commonly deployed.

Static net fisheries tend to be seasonal and interact with a wide range of seabird species. Fisheries in the Baltic Sea and North Sea are considered to be the biggest contributors to bycatch in EU waters although bycatch is not confined just too static net fisheries in the Baltic and North Sea. ICES14 report bycatch of seabirds in static net fisheries throughout EU waters. This includes waters off the south-west England, off the north-west coast of Ireland, the northern and western North Sea and off northwest Spain. All of these fisheries are characterised by comprising large numbers of small vessels.

A recent review[15] has been undertaken of 30 studies reporting seabird bycatch in order to assess the scale of the problem and the potential impacts on bird populations in the Baltic Sea and North Sea (this included the coastal lakes Ijsselmeer and Markermeerin). While the cumulative annual bycatch estimate (made up mainly of divers, grebes, sea ducks, diving ducks, auks and cormorants) from this survey was 90,000 birds, this was considered to be ‘a substantial underestimate’. The authors conclude it more likely that between 100,000 and 200,000 birds are killed in static nets fisheries in the region each year. MRAG2 estimate bycatch in these fisheries at 95,440 ± 19,076.

Several species in the region are at immediate risk and subject to international legal protection2. The Steller’s eider (Polysticta stelleri) has a global status of ‘Vulnerable’, meaning it has been evaluated to have a high risk of extinction in the wild. The Black‐throated Diver (Gavia arctica) also has a European IUCN Red List category of "Vulnerable" although is listed as "Least Concern" globally. The Common poachard (Aythya farina), Red-throated diver (Gavia stellata), Slavonian grebe (Podiceps auritus), Long-tailed duck (Clangula hyemalis), Greater scaup (Aythya marila), Common guillemot (Uria aalge), Black guillemot (Cepphus grille), Tufted duck (Aythya fuligula), Black scoter (Melanitta nigra), Velvet scoter (Melanitta fusca) and smew (Mergellus albellus) are all listed in the Birds Directive as being "species of European concern" with reported bycatch in static net fisheries in the Baltic and North Sea.

2.1.3. External Waters

In non-EU waters, bycatch mainly occurs in longline fisheries. According to a recent study on global bycatch, 17 of the 22 known species of albatross are threatened with extinction[16], with the key threat to these species recognised to be longline fisheries. A further 7 species of petrel (Procellaria and Macronectes spp.) listed under the Agreement on the Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels (ACAP), face similar threats[17]. Incidental mortality of these species has been recorded in 28 legal fisheries and from 14 different nations including France, Spain and the UK. These Procellariiform species are extremely wide-ranging, and their distributions overlap considerably with areas targeted by the world’s fishing fleets[18]. The populations are highly susceptible to increases in adult mortality. For already highly globally threatened species, such as the Endangered Amsterdam albatross (Diomedea amsterdamenis) and the Critically Endangered Tristan albatross (Diomedea dabbenena), the impact of bycatch has been highlighted as a driving factor in population declines16. A recent review on the threat to seabirds puts bycatch firmly as the primary causes of adult mortality and assesses that bycatch is a threat to even relatively common species such as black-browed albatross (Thalassarche melanophrys) and black-footed albatross (Phoebastria nigripes) 16.

2.1.4. Other Gears

There are also reports globally of incidental catches in trawl and purse seine fisheries but almost no information is available on the extent in EU waters. ICES report northern gannets present as bycatch in pelagic trawl fisheries operating off the north and north-east coasts of Scotland4. An extrapolation from one study to total fishing effort in these fisheries estimated around 780 gannets may have been caught in that year4.

Significant bycatch events are well documented in numerous trawl fleets outside of EU waters. For example, data collected in the South African hake (Merluccius spp.) fleet from 2004–2005, indicated a bycatch of around 18,000 birds4..They reported that 85% of mortality resulted from birds being killed by interactions with warp cables (i.e. wings being wrapped around the cable resulting in drowning), with 15% resulting from birds becoming entangled in the nets themselves. Given the level of trawling activity within EU waters, it is safe to assume there must be some similar interactions particularly with the large gull species that are common in EU waters14.

Evidence is emerging that purse seines can also take significant bycatch of species such as shearwaters. A questionnaire survey carried out in 2008/20009 in Portuguese ports showed purse seines to have taken the highest proportion (45%) of the Critically Endangered Balearic shearwaters compared to any other fishing gears, including longlines and static nets in this region4.

Bycatch with these gear types was highlighted in the public consultation by a number of NGOs and national administrations as being an emerging problem.

2.2. Threat posed by bycatch

The issue of seabird bycatch has only been apparent for about two decades. Nevertheless, seabird bycatch is regarded by many, along with the impacts of invasive alien species (e.g. rodents), as the most pervasive and immediate threat to many seabird species in both coastal waters and on the High Seas13. Other threats to seabird species include human disturbance, commercial development, hunting and pollution but assessing the contribution of the different anthropogenic threats including bycatch to seabird mortality is a complex and somewhat subjective task given the lack of knowledge on population levels, distribution of seabird species, threat vulnerability and overall conservation status.

Bycatch estimates are available for a number of fisheries in both EU and non-EU waters but as MRAG2 point out, generating estimates of bycatch has limited application unless some inference can be made about the impact of bycatch on the seabird populations involved. Currently, however, there are no guidelines defining bird bycatch limits or other mortality levels that could be deemed as sustainable at either population or geographic scale in Europe15. Therefore while many studies have established that bycatch mortality for some seabird species is at levels that have potentially serious impacts, and in some cases are clearly unsustainable for known or estimated populations, establishing safe levels of bycatch for most species is not possible.

One approach that has been considered to define such safe levels of incidental catches is using Potential Biological Removal or PBR15. PBRs can be used to estimate the additional mortality a population might be able to sustain, over and above natural mortality which includes the relative impact of bycatch on populations[19]. This approach was first used to assess the impact of fisheries on seabirds using the example of white-chinned petrels which were frequently caught in longline fisheries in the Southern Ocean[20]. It has since been applied to other species including some in EU waters. Using this information, MRAG2 provide PBR estimates for five species frequently caught in longline and static net fisheries in EU waters and compared these with annual bycatch estimates and populations to provide proportion of mortality related to bycatch. The results of this analysis are shown in Tables 1 and 2.

In the case of the Balearic and Cory's shearwater, comparing the PBR estimates with annual bycatch illustrates the vulnerability of these species to additional human-induced mortality. For the Balearic shearwater the PBR estimate is very low and therefore even very low levels of bycatch are considered a threat to the population. For Cory's shearwater the estimates are considerably larger, and although this species is considered to be more abundant, it is likely to be impacted across a much wider geographical range than the Balearic shearwater. Therefore according to the MRAG analysis2, it is likely to be vulnerable when bycatch from all EU longline fisheries are aggregated together. Moreover, in the Mediterranean this species is reported to suffer additional mortality from predation by rats. It is highly likely that bycatch in pelagic and demersal longline fisheries, in combination with this predation, is a serious threat to the Cory's shearwater population in the Mediterranean3.

Table 1 PBR against bycatch for selected species caught in longline fisheries in the Mediterranean and NE Atlantic

Species || Total population estimates || Potential Biological Removal Rate (PBR) || Annual Bycatch estimates

Balearic shearwater || 25,000 || 438 (406-465 95% CL) || ~250 (57% of PBR)

Cory's shearwater || 870,000 || 31,855 || ~20,000 (63% of PBR)

Source: MRAG study

In the case of two species considered in the Baltic - Greater scaup and Common guillemot - the PBR estimates in table 2 show that the current levels of mortality from static net fisheries are significant. When combined with other forms of mortality (e.g. hunting) fishing poses a serious threat to the populations. In the case of the common guillemot the estimated bycatch is in excess of the PBR by 2.5 times although there are reports that the actual population size of this species is much bigger and the actual PBR could be an underestimate, meaning bycatch may not be impacting on the population as much as indicated. Nevertheless undoubtedly bycatch contributes significantly to the overall anthropogenic mortality for this species.

For the long-tailed duck the bycatch estimates represent only a small proportion of total mortality expressed by the PBR. This species faces threats from other sources of mortality, such as hunting and oil pollution and fisheries induced mortality may have less of an impact on the population. Nonetheless reports15 suggest the population of long-tailed duck has declined in the Baltic in areas where there is high fishing activity and there are concerns that the level of bycatch is significantly underestimated15.

Table 2 PBR against bycatch for selected species caught in static net fisheries in the Baltic

Species || Total population estimates || Potential Biological Removal Rate (PBR) || Annual Bycatch estimates

Long-tailed duck || 3.02 x 106 || 113,000 (75,000-136,000 95% CL) || 24,000 (21% of PBR)

Greater scaup || 204,000 || 11,000 (8,900-13,100 95% CL) || 6,500 (59% of PBR)

Common guillemot || 36,000 || 620 (520-700 95% CL) || 1,500 (241% of PBR)

Source: MRAG & Zydelis et al., 200915

These are several examples that illustrate the high level of mortality caused by bycatch on the species considered. Unfortunately due to a lack of accurate population and/or bycatch estimates it is not possible to provide PBR estimates for the 20 or more other species of conservation concern that are reported to have significant levels of bycatch in EU waters. ICES14 have committed to providing such estimates for more seabird species in coming years. According to the MRAG study2 it is felt this is the most appropriate method of assessing the threat of bycatch on seabird populations currently available although it has limitations and can provide a misleading and understated measure of actual impact if interpreted wrongly. This has been highlighted by Birdlife as a weakness in using this approach[21].

2.3. Current Management

Management measures to protect seabirds are spread across a wide range of fisheries and environmental legislation as well as being included in a number of international Conventions and Agreements. There is a combination of binding and non-binding measures specifically tailored to reducing seabird bycatch in different fisheries and others where the protection of seabirds is included in the context of broader ecosystem management objectives of reducing fisheries impacts. A full description of the various international Conventions and Agreements is given in Annex VI.

2.3.1. Fisheries Legislation

In terms of fisheries legislation the interaction of seabirds with fishing activities falls under the overarching objectives of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP)[22], which points to the need to minimise the impacts of fishing activities on marine ecosystems. However, other than a closed area to protect seabirds in the sandeel fishery in the North Sea included in the current technical measures regulations[23], no other specific legislation to protect seabirds from adverse impacts of fishing activities is in place in EU waters. Furthermore there is no formal obligation for fishermen to report these incidental catches nor a formal obligation for Member States to collect this information under the current EU Data Collection Framework (DCF)[24].

At a national level, however, recognising the problem, several Member States have introduced measures or developed Codes of Conduct to reduce seabird bycatch in specific areas or fisheries. These measures are a mixture of gear-based and operational mitigation measures, closed or restricted areas and restrictions on fishing effort. The actual effectiveness of these measures is poorly understood as few, if any, have been properly assessed but in at least one case in the North Sea (i.e. Ijsselsmeer and Markermerrin lakes) significant reductions in bycatch are reported as a result of the measures. Annex VII summarises the national measures taken in the case study fisheries used in the MRAG study2.

The situation in fisheries in non-EU waters in which EU vessels operate is more advanced in terms of seabird protection. In these waters the Regional Fisheries Management Organisations (RFMOs) are key for the conservation and mangement of seabirds with RFMOs having been given explicit responsibilities under the UN Fish Stocks Agreement (UNFSA)[25] for minimising bycatch in their fisheries. To date, the majority of RFMOs have adopted some form of mitigation measures aimed at avoiding seabird mortality in longline fisheries. As a contracting party to many RFMOs, the EU is bound to implement those measures.

The EU has also made a number of commitments related to the principles of sustainable development and others more specifically related to the management of the shared ocean resources, including species at conservation risk which are relevant to seabirds. These include:

– The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)[26]

– The United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)[27]

– The Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (also known as CMS or Bonn Convention)[28]

Under the auspices of CMS there is an Agreement on the Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels (ACAP)[29]. This is a legally binding international treaty whose objective is to achieve and maintain a favourable conservation status for albatrosses and petrels by addressing threats on land and at-sea. Bycatch is regarded as the primary threat for this group of species.

In line with the ACAP, measures adopted by the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) have proven to be the most comprehensive with the result that incidental catches of seabirds in the Antarctic in the demersal longline fisheries for toothfish have been eliminated to all intents and purposes. These measures are transposed into EU law through Regulation (EC) No 600/2004[30] and comprise the mandatory use of streamer‐lines, prohibition of discharge of waste during setting and hauling operations, line weighting and seasonal closure of high risk areas. Recording bird bycatch is closely monitored on each participating vessel by an independent fisheries observer and reviewed on an annual basis through the CCAMLR Working Group for Incidental Mortality Associated with Fishing (WG‐IMAF). As a direct result of implementing these measures, the number of incidental mortality of seabirds with demersal longline vessels declined dramatically from approximately 6,500 in 1996 to less than 100 in 2002 and zero in 2007. These measures are discussed in more detail in Section 5. Other RFMOs have attempted to implement similar measures but with varying degrees of effectiveness. These include:

· The Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC);

· Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna (CCSBT);

· Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC);

· Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC);

· International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT); and

· South-East Atlantic Fisheries Organisation (SEAFO).

Annex VIII shows the areas covered by the different RFMOs while Annex IX provides a list of measures currently implemented within the relevant RFMOs.

2.3.2. Environmental Legislation

Other than fisheries legislation, protection of non-target species such as seabirds is provided under EU environmental policy and in particular by the Birds10 and Habitats Directives[31] and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD)[32]. The full implementation of these Directives is part of the EU’s response to its commitments under the UN Convention on Biological Diversity[33], and is reinforced by the commitment made by EU Heads of State "to halt the loss of biodiversity [in the EU] by 2010"; it is further reiterated in the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020[34].

The key measure established by the Birds Directive is a general scheme of protection for all wild birds prohibiting various acts including, most relevant to fisheries, deliberate killing or capture by any method[35].

The Birds and Habitats Directives also establish the Natura 2000 network of protected areas, which embraces sites designated under any of the Directives concerned – Special Protection Areas (SPAs) established under the Birds Directive and Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) established under the Habitats Directive.

SPAs designated under the Birds Directive are of most relevance in providing explicit protection for seabirds from interactions with fishing gears. SACs designated under the Habitats Directive are designed specifically to protect listed habitats and other species of conservation concern (e.g. marine mammals) rather than seabirds but as they may overlap SPAs or cover areas where seabirds may forage for food they also provide protection to seabirds indirectly.

As of February 2011, under the Birds Directive, a total of 936 SPAs covering an area of 122,000km² have been established in marine areas. A map showing the SPA network is included in Annex X. Most of these marine SPAs are in inshore waters or mudflats and have limited interaction with fisheries. Increasingly, however, coastal and offshore SPAs are also being designated and Member States will need to include fisheries management measures to ensure the favourable conservation status of protected birds in these sites. The German EMPAS[36] and Dutch FIMPAS[37] processes are two such examples. The measures they have identified are varied and range from temporal to spatial closures to specific measures for gear-types and fisheries but the process for agreeing these measures given multiple Member States and stakeholders can be involved continues to be slow. Nonetheless, the development of such management measures will be a key component in providing protection for seabirds in the future and should be extended to Important Bird Areas (IBA) identified by Birdlife International[38] as well as in SPAs.

The Directives also have built-in reporting requirements. Article 12 of the Birds Directive requires Member States to report every three years on the implementation of national provisions taken under the Directive. Under the Habitats Directive, monitoring of conservation status is an obligation arising from Article 11 of the Habitats Directive for all habitats (as listed in Annex I of the Birds Directive) and species (as listed in Annex II, IV and V of the Directive) of Union interest; consequently this provision is not restricted to Natura 2000 sites and data need to be collected both in and outside the Natura 2000 network to achieve a full appreciation of conservation status. The main results of this monitoring, along with progress made with implementation have to be reported to the Commission every six years according to Article 17 of the Directive. Similar data reporting requirements on the status and trends of bird populations are currently being introduced in order to achieve a streamlined reporting system. Notwithstanding this, reporting under the Directives is not at a sufficient resolution to distinguish the threats from different anthropogenic activities in relation to specific populations so the value of these reports in establishing the actual impact of bycatch is limited.

The MSFD aims to bring coherence between different policies and foster the integration of environmental concerns into other policies, such as the CFP. Under the MSFD protection of seabirds is recognised as a requirement that will contribute towards the achievement of Good Environmental Status (GES). Implementation of the MFSD is a legal requirement under the TFEU and dedicated measures to protect seabirds are implicitly required in compliance with the Directive. It does not propose specific monitoring or mitigation measures but simply specifies long-term targets and indictors for measuring progress in achieving GES. It's relevance is to provide a basis for framing management objectives in fisheries legislation for issues such as seabird bycatch.

In the context of the MFSD, the issue of seabird bycatch is also covered within the framework of Regional Sea Conventions on marine environment, in particular OSPAR[39], HELCOM[40] and the Barcelona Convention[41]. All of this Conventions contain objectives relating to the protection of biologically sensitive species including seabirds although again do not necessarily contain specific monitoring requirements or mitigation measures.

2.4. Existing mitigation measures and devices

There is a range of mitigation measures which have been developed. Some of these have been shown to be highly effective at reducing seabird bycatch. Annex XI provides a more detailed description of these measures and whether or not they are currently in commercial use.

They can be split between specific measures by fishing method and measures with broad applicability across multiple fishing gears. Most have been developed to reduce bycatch in longline fisheries and these can be divided into four main categories:

(2) Avoidance of fishing in areas and/or at times when seabird interactions are most likely and intense (night setting, area and seasonal closures).

(3) Limiting bird access to baited hooks (weighted lines and side-setting).

(4) Deterring birds from taking baited hooks (streamer (bird-scaring) lines, acoustic deterrents, water cannon).

(5) Reducing the attractiveness or visibility of the baited hooks (dumping of offal and artificial baits).

Mitigation measures tested in static net fisheries are fewer in number. Two methods have been proposed and tested to alert seabirds to the presence of static nets and thereby avoid collision[42]. One method is to increase the visibility of the net (visual alerts), and the other method is to attach acoustic deterrents (pingers) to nets. Encounters with static nets may also be reduced by setting nets deeper than the diving depth of seabirds. None of these methods are widely used currently.

MRAG2 found that the measures for longline fisheries and the dual measures are effective as long but fishery specific. Experience in CCAMLR and several other longline fisheries in external waters have shown the effectiveness of these measures is enhanced if several simple measures (e.g. bird scarer lines, night setting and line weighting) are used in combination.

The mitigation measures for static net fisheries are less well developed and tested and doubts remain over the effectiveness as acknowledged by MRAG2. None of them are currently used commercially in static net fisheries to reduce seabird bycatch. Closed or restricted areas are the only effective mitigation measures available in these fisheries at present.

It is apparent that the general preference of fishermen is for practical, low-tech measures (i.e. offal discharge, streamers for longlines and buoys with bird scarers for static nets). Such measures lend themselves to a Code of Conduct type approach that can be reinforced through peer-led example and pressure rather than prescriptive legislation. Less favourable measures are more costly and complex modifications such as bird-scaring curtains for longlines and acoustic pingers for static nets. Not surprisingly spatial and temporal measures are the least popular among fishermen given the anticipated loss of earnings from the partial or total closure of fishing grounds although they acknowledge that they are likely to be effective.

In the public consultation most stakeholders recognised the current suite of measures available in longline fisheries to be reasonably effective. Line weighting was highlighted by the NGOs and at least one national administration in the public consultation as being a particularly effective measure, although the RACs, fishermen's organisation and other national administrations contested this and claimed it was dangerous, particularly for small vessels. Also in public consultation the Baltic Sea RAC and several NGOs highlighted the ban on drift netting introduced in the Baltic and high seas as being particularly effective.

2.5. The affected stakeholders

The adoption of new measures and the strengthening of existing measures to protect seabirds will impact on a range of stakeholders. The choice of measures will have implications principally for the catching sector and administrators. Table 3 below shows the main stakeholders groups involved.

Table 3 Key stakeholders in the conservation of seabirds

Stakeholder Group || Description || Key interests

Catching sector || EU Vessel owners, operators and crew. || Maintaining profitability and livelihoods.

Fisheries-dependent businesses & communities || Business and communities dependent upon longline and static nets fisheries for their livelihoods. Other dependent economic sectors involved in ecotourism, bird watching etc. || Maintaining profitability and livelihoods.

Administrators || Regional, national and provincial bodies regulating EC protection of seabirds as well as RFMOs in external waters. || Ensuring an efficient, effective and practical management framework that balances a wide range of stakeholder needs.

Research Sector || Scientific research bodies (ICES) contributing to the conservation and management of seabirds, and to sustainable fishing gears and practices. || Contribution to an effective fisheries management regime through the timely access to robust data from fishery dependent and independent sources.

NGOs || Non-governmental organisations advocating responsible management of seabirds. || To secure effective monitoring and mitigation of incidental catches of seabirds.

General public || The wider public with an interest in and concern for seabirds in particular and the marine environment in general. || To maintain seabird populations and biodiversity.

Source: Author

Of these stakeholder groups, the most affected by the introduction of measures to protect seabirds would be the longline and static net fleets operating in EU fisheries which have been highlighted as causing high levels of bycatch and where few management measures are in place. Apart from a few specific fleets (e.g. the Gran Sol and pelagic longline fleets in the western Mediterranean), which are made up of a small number of larger vessels greater than 24m, the rest are characterised by comprising large numbers of small coastal vessels (typically less than 12m in length). Estimated figures for the number of vessels involved in longline and static net fisheries EU-wide are shown in Table 4.

Table 4 Estimated numbers of EU static net and longline vessels by length class

Gear Category || Size Range || Number of Vessels

Static nets || Less than 12m || 38,269

Static nets || Greater than 12m || 1,808

Total || 40,077

Longlines || Less than 12m || 13,086

Longlines || Greater than 12m || 1,170

Total || 14,256

Source: EU Fleet Register

Table 5 shows a breakdown of the fleets from the case studies in the MRAG study2 which have been identified by ICES3 as having high bycatch. Estimates of employment are inclued by way of illustration.

Table 5 Summary of the estimated number of vessels in the case study fisheries used for the MRAG study

Area || Fishing Method || Member States || No. of Vessels || Estimated employment (FTE)

Western Mediterranean || Pelagic longline || Spain, Italy, France || 1295 || ~2400

Western Mediterranean || Demersal longline || Spain, Italy France || 1320 || ~2850

Eastern Mediterranean || Pelagic longline || Malta, Greece || 2815 || Not known

Eastern Mediterranean || Demersal longline || Malta, Greece || 5353 || Not known

Gran Sol || Demersal longline || Spain, France || 74 || 1,260

Eastern Baltic Sea || Static net || Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania || 2692 || ~3,000

Western Baltic Sea || Static net || Sweden, denmark, Germany || 1123 || 1,600

Eastern North Sea || Static net || Netherlands, Germany || 122 || ~244 (Netherlands only)

Source: MRAG2

It is diffcult to classify these vessels into micro, small or medium-sized enterprises[43] because accurate employment figures and average turnover for the EU fleet as a whole are not available or reliable. However, it is apparent that the majority (more than 90%) of these longline and static net vessels would be classified as micro-sized enterprises with 1-2 crew and a turnover less than €2 million. Many of these vessels operate on a part-time basis and regularly switch between fishing methods. A small number of the larger longline vessels could be classed as small-sized enterprises with crews of 10-30 and a turnover of close to €10 million. Several of these larger vessels are owned by companies typically employing 100-250 people with turnover of €20-30 million and could therefore be classed as medium-sized enterprises. For instance the Spanish company Grupo Regal and Associate Companies own and manage most of the Spanish longline fleet operating in the Gran Sol fishery2.

If other fishing gears such as trawls and purse seines, potentially causing seabird bycatch, are included, then almost the entire EU fleet of around 84,000 vessels, employing around 141,000 could potentially be impacted. According to the estimation made for the CFP reform impact assessment[44] around 90% of the total EU fleet would be classified as micro-sized enterprises.

In external waters there are approximately 400-500 EU licences available for longline vessels, predominantly for tuna, swordfish and Patagonian toothfish. Most of these vessels would be classed as small or medium-sized enterprises with between 10-30 crew on board and turnover less than €10 million although as in EU waters many of these vessels are owned by larger companies of 100-250 employees with a larger annual turnover (e.g. Grupo Regal operate a number of vessels in the longline fishery in the Antarctic). A breakdown of the numbers of vessels by agreement is given in Annex XII.

2.6. Underlying Drivers

The problems and underlying drivers leading to incidental seabird bycatch are summarised in Table 6 below:

Table 6 Problems and underlying drivers

Problems || Drivers

Frequent interactions between fisheries and seabirds are inevitable and result in incidental catches of seabirds. || Seabirds have become increasingly dependent on their association with fisheries for survival and breeding success. In so doing, they are augmenting the risk that they become injured and/or die and that their populations decrease as a result Longline and static nets that account for a large proportion of the incidental catches of seabirds are the most efficient methods for catching certain fish species many of which are of high value. Therefore these gears are widely used.

Current management measures under EU fisheries and environmental legislation and measures included under international Conventions and Agreements have been largely ineffective in reducing seabird bycatch except in some longline fisheries in external waters. || Management measures are contained in a number of different regulations both fisheries and environmental as well as in international conventions and Agreements. A lack of urgency both at EU and internationally to address the issue of seabird bycatch and poor and inconsistent implementation of existing measures despite a number of indications by the EU to take action.[45] [46] [47] [48] A lack of incentive for fishermen to comply with these measures or adopt measures voluntarily even though the interactions with seabirds are known to have an impact on fishing productivity and profitability.

There is a general lack of knowledge on the actual scale of incidental catches due to the sporadic nature of monitoring. || No formal obligation to monitor seabird bycatch in EU waters so monitoring is at low levels and sporadic. Data on seabird populations and distributions is incomplete. Monitoring under the Birds and Habitats Directive are not specifically geared to bycatch in fisheries and therefore monitoring is not at a sufficient resolution to estimate the extent of bycatch. In external waters monitoring is required in most fisheries but normally on a voluntarily rather than mandatory basis so is inconsistent.

Proven mitigation measures have been developed for longline fisheries but uptake remains low in EU waters and only sporadic in no-EU fisheries. For other fishing gears few, if any proven mitigation measures currently exist. || Effective mitigation measures are well documented for longline fisheries but in the absence of regulation uptake of such measures is low in EU waters. They are more widely used in external waters although implementation is inconsistent and ineffective in many fisheries There has been less emphasis on seabird bycatch with other fishing gears so mitigation measures for these gears remain unproven and not commercially acceptable.

There is a poor understanding and acceptance by fishermen that a problem of seabird bycatch exists or of the benefits of adopting mitigation measures to reduce bycatch. This is particularly apparent in EU waters. || Lack of awareness raising and training of fishermen in the use and benefits of mitigation measures and accurate identification of seabirds for reporting purposes. At an individual vessel level, recommended actions to mitigate against seabird bycatch are considered dis-proportionate to the scale of impact on seabird populations. Fishermen believe that using mitigation measures will result in capital outlay and loss of earnings from reduced catches.

Research into mitigating seabird bycatch has been concentrated on longline fisheries with little work to develop measures for other fishing gears (e.g. static nets, trawls and purse seines). || Longline fisheries have been identified as the biggest source of seabird bycatch. Reducing bycatch in other fishing gears is technically more challenging than for longlines.

Source: Author

2.7. Evolution of the problem

Based on the available scientific advice from ICES3,4 and the findings of MRAG2 and other recent studies15&16, at least 60 of 346 seabird species are known to be incidentally caught in fishing gears in EU and non-EU waters. Of these 60 species around 49 (25 in EU waters and 24 in non-EU waters) are classified as being of conservation concern either globally or at a local population level. In EU waters 6 species and in non-EU waters 22 species with reported high levels of bycatch are IUCN listed as being at high risk. ICES concludes that there is a seabird bycatch problem in EU fisheries and that measures should be developed to tackle this problem. The majority of the contributions from the general public, RACs, NGOs and national administrations to the public consultation concur with this conclusion.

In a worst case scenario incidental seabird bycatch will remain unsustainable in EU waters for the threatened species indicated in Section 2.1 in the short to mid-term and have the potential to lead to further declines in the population of these species. In the best case scenario existing levels of seabird mortality may reduce through the voluntary use of adapted gears and fishing techniques by fishermen. MRAG2 indicates that this has occurred sporadically in several fisheries implicated as having high bycatch (e.g. Western Mediterranean longline fisheries and the Gran Sol longline fishery) and where there is an economic incentive to adopt such measures to minimise bait loss, catch and gear damage and catches foregone. However, in the absence of campaigns to increase awarence of the problem and the benefits of adopting mitigation measures this is likely to be on a limited scale. No such incentives exist for static net fisheries, the other main source of bycatch in EU waters, and without proven mitigation measures other than closed or restricted areas, bycatch would be expected to continue at current levels. SPAs and SACs created under the Birds and Habitats Directives which contain fishery management measures to reduce seabird bycatch may help to improve the situation in the longer-term but are currently ineffective on their own.

Monitoring of seabird bycatch would continue to be sporadic without any action. Monitoring of seabird bycatch is not explicitly required under the Data Collection Framework (DCF) as part of the current CFP, while monitoring under the Birds and Habitats Directive is not at sufficient resolution to allow an accurate assessment of the level and impact of bycatch on populations. Some evidence of voluntary reporting under the current DCF is reported but is restricted to a few Member States. Therefore knowledge on the level of incidental catches, species, areas and fisheries affected would remain incomplete making the framing of management decisions problematic.

In external waters, seabird bycatch would be expected to remain at current levels as existing mitigation and monitoring measures would remain in place, albeit inconsistently implemented across regions. This inconsistency was highlighted by several NGOs in the public consultation as a major problem. If no action is taken to improve the implementation of these measures and reduce bycatch, then evidence would suggest that the populations of albatross and petrels under threat could further decline. In a worst case scenario bycatch could significantly contribute to extinction of a species. This has already been the case for the now extinct Large St Helena Petrel (Bulweria bifax), which was reportedly caught in significant numbers in several longline fisheries13. In the best case scenario bycatch could be stabilised at current level, reduced or as evidenced by the fisheries in the Antarctic managed by CCAMLR almost eliminated.

2.8. Necessity and Subsidiarity

This proposal concerns a field of exclusive Union competence and therefore subsidiarity does not apply. Under the Treaty, the EU has exclusive competence to manage fishing activities for conservation purposes, which would include the reduction of bycatch of biologically sensitive species including seabirds. The relevant Articles of the TFEU are Article 3(1d) which covers "the conservation of marine biological resources under the common fisheries policy" and Articles 38 to 44 that relate specifically to the CFP.

Member States are able to develop measures for their own fleets that lead to a more sustainable protection of seabirds and this is particularly the case in waters inside 12 nautical miles. However, some fisheries, which impact with seabirds, are shared between Member States (and sometimes the fleet of one Member State are mostly present in the waters of another Member State), and this makes Member States reluctant to submit their own fleets to constraining measures unless the same or equivalent rules will apply to neighbouring fleets, in view of maintaining an economic level playing field. In addition, the scientific knowledge on seabird bycatch can only improve when common standards for data sourcing are followed, otherwise scientists will not be able to compare data stemming from various Member States.

3. Objectives

3.1. General objectives

Given the lack of accurate data on populations and estimates of bycatch for all seabird species, it is difficult to set absolute targets for the reduction of seabird bycatch. Therefore this proposed initiative has the objective: to minimise and where possible eliminate the incidental catches of at least 49 threatened seabird populations by EU vessels operating in EU and non-EU waters and reduce bycatch for other seabird species where the populations are stable but bycatch is at levels that are cause for concern.

This should be achieved at the latest by 2020 in line with the objective of the MSFD to reach GES for the marine ecosystem by this date. It is also in line with one of the overarching objectives of the CFP of moving to an ecosystem approach to fisheries management.

3.2. Specific objectives

The specific operational objectives to support this general objective are:

(1) Identify and rectify weaknesses and incoherencies in current management measures both in EU and non-EU waters by:

· Defining clear management targets for seabird species under threat from bycatch. Targets should be defined at the latest by the end of 2013.

· Progressing the development of fisheries management measures in SPAs to protect seabirds on a continual basis in line with the reform of the CFP.

· Reviewing current measures in place in RFMOs at the latest by the end of 2013 and thereafter assessing compliance and effectiveness on a continual basis.

· Coming forward with recommendations to monitor and introduce mitigation measures (on a voluntary basis) to reduce seabird bycatch for non-EU vessels operating in EU waters as part of Coastal State Agreements (e.g. Norway) at the latest by the end of 2013.

(2) Consolidate and collect data critical to establish the extent and threat posed by seabird bycatch particularly to the populations of species identified as being of conservation concern by:

· Reviewing available bycatch data, validating sources of information and identifying fisheries where further monitoring is required at the latest by the end of 2013.

· Collecting bycatch data on these fisheries either on a volunatary basis through the current DCF, under the Birds and Habitats Directive, through pilot projects and self-sampling by industry or national monitoring programmes. Alternatively this could be done under mandatory monitoring required under EU law. Implementation should begin immediately.

· Creating a standard reporting format for recording seabird bycatch at the latest by mid-2013.

· Ensuring observers deployed on vessels in external waters routinely record seabird bycatch data and submit it to the respective RFMOs and the Commission on a continual basis.

· Considering the feasibility of incorporating the monitoring of seabirds under the new DCF due to be introduced in 2014 as a mandatory requirement.

· Assessing whether the management targets set under objective 1 are being met using suitable indicators (e.g. PBRs). Assessment of existing data should begin immediately and continue as knowledge increases.

(3) Minimise bycatch of seabird species of conservation concern to levels that eliminate the threat to the populations of these species through the implementation of appropriate mitigation measures by:

· Implementing measures in high-risk longline fisheries both in EU and non-EU waters through national measures, voluntary uptake by industry or through a specific regulation detailing mandatory mitigation measures. Implementation should begin immediately and continue in this format up until the introduction of a new technical measures framework to be developed post-CFP reform (expected early 2016) whereafter necessary measures would be incorporated under the framework.

· Assessing and implementing mitgation measures for static net fisheries in EU waters where bycatch is reported to be high. This is dependent on such measures being further researched and tested but should be a priority action. Implementation of mitigation measures in these fisheries should continue until the new techncial measures framework is implemented and measures are incorporated into this framework.

· Bringing forward proposals for additional mitigation measures in RFMOs on a continual basis as and when required.

Crucial to a better understanding of the problem and the development of practical solutions two further supporting objectives are foreseen:

(4) Address the lack of acceptance by fishermen that seabird bycatch is a problem as well as the lack of incentive for fishermen to adopt mitigation measures. Critical to achieving this will be the allocation of funding by Member States under the EFF (until the end of 2013) and the new EMFF (in the period 2014-2020).

(5) Resolve outstanding difficulties with existing mitigation used in longline fisheries and address the absence of effective mitigation measures for other fishing gears, particularly static net fisheries. As with objective 4, EFF and EMFF funding will be critical to achieving this objective.

3.3. Reform of the CFP

The reform of the CFP, which is currently under negotiation, is crucial to achieving the objectives of this initiative as part of an ecosystem approach to fisheries management. Such an approach will contribute to the protection and preservation of the marine environment and be compatible with current environmental legislation (i.e. Birds and Habitats Directive) and the requirement to reach Good Environmental Status (GES) for the marine ecosystem contained in the MFSD.

Regardless of the actions taken, achieving this will require improvements in the coherence between regulatory instruments and a more holistic approach to fisheries management that takes account of the regional specificities of fisheries. For bycatch issues including seabirds this will involve several important elements:

· A new approach to technical measures which for seabirds will contain limits for levels of bycatch along with a tool box of mitigation measures that could be used to achieve these targets. Member States could then develop "regionalised" technical measures using this toolbox and demonstrate the measures implemented are being effective. This approach will take time to be developed and the final content is dependent on the outcome of the reform. Realistically it will not be in place before 2016.

· The new EU Multiannual Programme for Data Collection (DCMAP) planned to be introduced in 2014. Discussions are currently on-going regarding whether to include the monitoring of other ecosystem components including seabirds. Input from experts and a costing of such an extension of the current Data Collection Framework are still needed.

· Financial support for new measures provided under the current European Fisheries Fund (EFF) and the new European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF)[49]. The new EMFF is scheduled to be introduced in 2014 and would provide aid for the development and use of environmentally friendly fishing methods and gears, pilot projects aiming at experimental use of more responsible fishing gears and the testing of alternative monitoring technologies such as CCTV.

· The Commission to take a more pro-active role in the RFMOs to try to remedy the current situation of poor compliance of some Member States with RFMOs' conservation and management measures. This commitment is given in the recent Communication on the External Dimension of the CFP[50].

4. Policy options

Three policy options to address these objectives are considered:

· Option 1: Status quo: Baseline scenario (hereafter "Status Quo")

· Option 2 : Development of an EU Plan of Action for reducing seabird bycatch (hereafter "EU-POA”)

· Option 3 : The adoption of a stand-alone Regulation (hereafter "Stand-alone Regulation")

For options 2 and 3 the actions are largely as outlined but they differ from each other in the legal format.

A fourth option relying on the implementation of mitigation and monitoring measures under the Birds and Habitats Directive was also considered. This option was referred to in the public consultation by several fishermen's representative organisations who felt no additional measures were needed if appropriate fisheries management measures were properly implemented within SPAs. However, this was rejected on the grounds that:

· Evidence to date suggests that the primary measure contained in the Birds and Habitats Directives i.e. SPAs and SACs are not the most effective means of protecting seabirds from fisheries interactions. Most seabird species often forage for food far from their breeding sites for which such sites are best able to protect and even though there is a commitment within the Birds Directive to protect seabirds as much outside SPAs as inside, so far this has not resulted in measurable reductions in bycatch.

· The monitoring required under the Birds and Habitats Directive is not at a sufficient resolution or frequency to provide an accurate estimate of bycatch levels.

· The development of effective fishery management measures in offshore SPAs and SACs is still a work in progress as evidenced by the FIMPAS and EMPAS projects. Such measures are currently difficult to agree given they often straddle the territorial waters of a number of Member States.

· The Birds and Habitats Directives will not address the issues of seabird bird bycatch in non-EU waters.

A fifth option of a complete prohibition of fishing with longlines and static nets within EU waters where seabird bycatch has been identified as being problematic was considered on the basis that this was proposed by several NGOs and members of the general public. However, this was also rejected on the grounds that:

· This is disproportionate to the scale of the problem and would lead to major impacts on longline and static net vessels EU-wide. An estimated 54,000 vessels, landing ~30% of the total EU catch would be affected;

· Simple and effective mitigation measures are available in many cases; and

· These gear types are recognised as being environmentally friendly compared to towed gears in that they are size-selective, fuel-efficient and have a lower impact on the seabed. Prohibiting them would force fishermen to adopt or revert back to other fishing methods with higher environmental impacts.

4.1. Option 1 – Status Quo

This first policy option would be a continuation of the current status quo taking no further action that would go beyond what already exists in current EU fisheries and environmental policies (including legislation adopted by RFMOs and tranposed into EU law). This would mean seabirds continuing to be protected under a range of diverse, mainly voluntary and largely incoherent management measures, which other than a few isolated cases in external waters (e.g. CCALMR) seem to have been ineffective. This was highlighted by the majority of contributors to the public consultation as a non-option as there is compelling evidence that current management measures have failed and that a significant problem exists.

Essentially uptake of mitigation measures in EU waters would continue to be left to voluntary actions taken by fishermen or through national measures and in external waters as non-binding measures (e.g. resolutions or recommendations) in RFMOs. MRAG2 supported by the findings of several other studies15, 16 conclude this uncoordinated approach has not worked and the uptake of effective measures on a voluntary basis, without supporting awareness raising campaigns has been limited and sporadic. Therefore without any improvement in the effectiveness and implementation of mitigation measures, seabird bycatch would be expected to remain at unsustainable levels in the short to medium term.

Monitoring of bycatch would continue to be only broadly covered under the Birds and Habitats Directive, supplemented with voluntary observations at national level, either as pilot studies or under the existing and new DCF. This would be insufficient to provide a clear picture of bycatch levels as highlighted by a the majority of stakeholders in the public consultation. In external waters monitoring carried under the RFMOs would continue to be variable and sporadic.

There would also be no attempt to raise awareness of the problem of seabird bycatch to fishermen other than existing campaigns coordinated by NGOs or any incentive for fishermen to adopt measures voluntarily other than for operational reasons. There would also be no incentive for Member States to instigate research into solutions to the problem of seabird bycatch.

4.2. Option 2 – EU-POA

This second option is based on the adoption of an EU-POA, which would follow an adaptive management approach. This approach was endorsed by the majority of the stakeholders in the public consultation (most NGOs, RACs and national administrations) and also by ACFA. Adaptive, regionalised management is advocated in the CFP reform.

The POA would contain voluntary measures supported by regulatory instruments within the CFP, environmental legislation, international fishery legislation as well as the Conventions and Agreements detailed in Section 2.4. The POA would provide an overarching framework encompassing monitoring and mitigation measures with links to flanking measures (EFF/EMFF) that would provide financial support across fisheries. It would seek to provide a more structured approach than the current situation where the catching sector are largely left to adopt their own measures without any guidance or real incentives.

The measures envisaged under this option would be applicable to all vessels operating in Union waters and to EU flagged vessels in external waters. This was the scope advocated by the majority of stakeholders, including the RACs in the public consultation. Furthermore, in order to ensure a coherent approach between the internal and external EU fisheries policy, the Union would seek that the relevant international bodies enhance measures to protect seabirds by facilitating their adoption by fishermen, integrating seabird bycatch monitoring into observer programmes (where this has not already been achieved) and promoting best practice to non-EU fleets.

The POA would contain a combination of existing legally binding elements, future measures introduced under the regulatory instruments of the reformed CFP as well as non-binding/voluntary measures. These are summarised in table 7.

Table 7 Binding and non-binding measures under the POA

Existing and Future Legally Binding Measures || Non-Binding/Voluntary Measures

Fishery Management measures in SPAs created under the Birds Directive || Monitoring of seabird bycatch under the DCF (currently voluntary with the intention of possibly making it mandatory under the new DCF)

Reporting and targets defined under the Birds Directive, MSFD, RFMO agreements and under International Conventions || Voluntary mitigation measures adopted by the fishing industry

Existing Mitigation Measures (EU legislation in EU and non-EU waters) || Enhanced observer coverage by Member States in areas where bycatch is highest

Regionally specific technical Measures implemented under the new technical conservation measures framework in the context of the CFP reform || Non-binding resolutions and recommendations under RFMO Agreements and International Conventions

National mitigation measures (e.g. Spain) || Financial support for adoption of mitigation measures, research and education awareness under the EFF and EMFF

Source: Author

To address specific objective 1 it would aim to provide a consistent approach between fisheries and environment policies, recommending actions in areas and fisheries in EU waters identified as having high levels of incidental catches of seabirds with direct consultation with stakeholders. In external waters it would provide a mechanism to ensure coherence and complementarities between RFMOs, fisheries agreements and environment conventions, such as CITES, CMS, Regional Seas Conventions and UNSDC (Rio+20) and help to ensure better implementation of existing measures.

To meet specific objective 2 in addition to national monitoring programmes, under the POA Member States would be encouraged to extend monitoring under the DCF to include seabird bycatch in fisheies known to or suspected of having a bycatch problem. This would be a voluntary action but it should be noted that some Member States, notably UK, France, Poland, Ireland and the Netherlands already monitor bycatch of protected species including seabirds under their DCF programmes.

In identified high-risk fisheries, Member States would also be encouraged to implement enhanced observer programmes in line with a precautionary approach to establish the extent of the problem. Financial support for such programmes would be provided through the EFF and the new EMFF. After 2014 the intention would be to make reporting of seabird bycatch a mandatory requirement in all fisheries covered under the new DCF and for Member States to report regularly on seabird bycatch in the relevant fisheries. The need for mandatory reporting for seabird bycatch in the longer term was advocated by NGOs and the RACs in the public consultation.

Specific bycatch monitoring would be supported by separate monitoring required under the Birds and Habitats Directive on the implementation of national provisions taken under these Directives. Combining data from these sources would allow the development of PBR estimates for a range of seabird species allowing assessment of the relative contribution of bycatch to overall mortality and the setting of concrete management objectives.

To achieve objective 3, in the short-term, implementation of mitigation measures in EU waters under the POA would be essentially voluntary or through national measures. The POA would recommend fisheries where actions should be prioritised based on known information, conservation threat and the appropriate mitigation measures available. MRAG2 and ICES3 indicates that priorty should be given to:

· longline fisheries in the eastern and western Mediterranean and the Gran Sol fishery in the NE Atlantic;

· in external waters where the use of mitigation measures should be consolidated;

· and static net fisheries in the Baltic and eastern North Sea noting that mitigation measures other than closed or restricted areas are less well developed.

In the longer-term the aim is to incorporate mitigation measures under the new regional approach to technical measures to be developed under the reform of the CFP outlined in Section 3.3. The extent to which regionally specific mitigation measures will be needed under this approach will depend largely on the uptake and effectiveness of measures introduced in the short-term. If there is verifiable adoption of measures and management targets set are being met then there will be less of a need for mandatory measures to be introduced. If there is no evidence of significant reductions in bycatch or uptake of mitigation measures is poor, then the Commission could step-in and implement mandatory measures. This in itself is an incentive for the catching sector to volunatrily adopt mitigation measures to avoid potentially more stringent requirements in the future.

In line with objective 4 and to support objectives 2 and 3, the POA would recommend Member States implement education and training programmes for fishermen to raise awareness of the problem, to demonstrate the benefits of using of mitigation measures and also in the identification of seabirds for reporting purposes. In addition Member States would be encouraged to instigate research to develop and test practical mitigation measures in line with objective 5. These measures along with funding to offset the costs of using mitigation measures would be facilitated through the EFF and the new EMFF as outlined in Section 3.3. Funding may also be available for targeted research through the EU LIFE[51] programme and FP7 programme[52].

In external waters, the issue of seabird bycatch is more about the consolidation and implementation of exisiting monitoring and mitigation as the problems are better documented in line with objective 1. The main function of the POA in these fisheries would be to provide a vehicle to propose the strengthening of existing measures and implement awareness raising measures to improve compliance. The POA would also provide a mechanism to encourage RFMOs, both through direct request and via the FAO, to develop their own National/Regional Plans of Action, consistent with the FAO Best Practice Technical Guidelines12. In the longer-term, under the reform of the CFP, evidence of compliance with conservation measures such as mitigation and monitoring of seabird bycatch could be made a condition of the licence of particpating vessels. Such a requirement is already implemented as part of the measures in place in CCAMLR.

The approach described under this option would not require a separate impact assessment as the measures would be implemented through existing measures or by voluntary or national measures in the first instance. In the longer-term an impact assessment will be required to support the new technical measures framework but this regulation will not specifically contain detailed measures for seabirds which should be regionalised and implemented at a Member State level.

4.3. Option 3 – Stand-alone Regulation

Option 3 takes a stricter precautionary approach than option 2 and was advocated by one particular NGO and members of the general public in the public consultation but rejected by the RACs and fishermen's organisations as being dis-proportionate to the scale of the problem. It assumes that the new approach to technical measures will not be in place until 2016 and the new DCF until 2014 at the earliest. Therefore based on the current conservation status of at least 25 seabird species in EU waters (either listed by IUCN or in the Birds Directive), regulatory measures to protect these species need to be put into place more expediently.

Essentially, it seeks the adoption of prescriptive mitigation measures and monitoring of identified fisheries under ordinary legislative procedure. It would apply principally in EU waters with provisions for EU vessels operating in external waters continuing to be covered under the legislative frameworks already adopted by the RFMOs. It would be based on existing knowledge of fisheries which have reported bycatch of threatened seabird species and the use of proven mitigation measures to address this bycatch.

The Regulation would build on the experiences of Regulation (EC) No 600/2004 which sets out monitoring and mitigation measures in the Antarctic fisheries manged by CCAMLR. These measures are relatively simple and have been successful in almost eliminating bycatch in the longline fisheries in this region. It would also follow a similar approach to Regulation (EC) 812/2004[53] which contains specific monitoring and mitigation measures for cetacean bycatch across different fisheries and areas within in EU waters.

Under this option two sub-options could be foreseen:

· Sub-option 3a: including both monitoring and mitigation measures;

· Sub-option 3b: including only mitigation measures with monitoring incorporated under the new DCF as per option 2.

Under sub-option 3a, the fisheries to be monitored would be defined based on known information and level of conservation threat. Monitoring would be in parallel with the introduction of mitigation measures and extended to cover other fisheries where a bycatch problem is suspected. As per Regulation (EC) 812/2004 it would contained defined levels of monitoring for different fisheries based on the level of observation thought likely to detect a conservation threat. Implementation of a separate monitoring programme was advocated by the NGOs but rejected by the RACs.

Under sub-option 3b, monitoring of seabird bycatch would be addressed as under option 2 and over-time it would be incorporated under the new DCF planned to be introduced in 2014 if this proves feasible.

Under both sub-options, mitigation measures would be defined for the high-risk longline and static net fisheries as identified under option 2. In the longline fisheries this would equate to the mandatory use of proven gear modifications and changes to fishing practice which have been effective in CCAMLR and in other fisheries globally. These include the use of bird scarer lines, offal discharge management measures, line weighting and night setting. For these measures defined standards and specifications would be set out as in the CCAMLR Regulation. All of these measures were deemed effective in the public consultation although the RACs and fishermen's organisations highlighted line weighting as potentially dangerous.

These measures would be supported with the establishment of spatial/temporal closures or gear restrictions where appropriate. Such areas would be established on the basis that inaction or using mitigation measures alone could cause serious and potentially irreversible damage to threaten