COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Accompanying the document

Proposal for a

Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down a prohibition on driftnet fisheries, amending Council Regulation (EC) No 850/98, (EC) No 812/2004, (EC) No 2187/2005 and (EC) No 1967/2006 and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 894/97

Disclaimer: This report commits only the Commission's services involved in its preparation and does not prejudge the final form of any decision to be taken by the Commission.

Table of Contents

1............ Procedural issues and consultation of interested parties. 5

1.1......... Identification. 5

1.2......... Organisation and timing. 5

1.3......... Consultation of interested parties and expertise. 5

1.3.1...... Introduction. 5

1.3.2...... Consultation of interested parties. 6

1.3.3...... External expertise. 8

1.3.4...... Dialogue with Member States. 9

1.4......... Impact Assessment Board review and opinion. 9

2............ Problem Definition. 10

2.1......... Introduction. 10

2.1.1...... Background. 10

2.1.2...... EU Policy context: its development and link with the international rules. 12

2.1.3...... French and Italian national measures to comply with ECJ ruling. 15

2.2......... Small-scale driftnet fisheries in the EU.. 16

2.2.1...... General description. 16

2.2.2...... Mediterranean. 21

2.2.3...... North-East Atlantic, North Sea, Black Sea, 23

2.2.4...... Baltic. 25

2.2.5...... Economic and social parameters of driftnet fisheries. 25

2.3......... General and specific problems. 30

2.3.1...... Control and monitoring issues. 30

2.3.2...... Environmental issues. 32

2.4......... EU right to act, added value, proportionality and subsidiarity. 34

2.4.1...... The right to act - Treaty basis. 34

2.4.2...... Added value of EU action. 34

2.4.3...... Application of the principle of subsidiarity. 34

2.4.4...... Consistency with other EU policies. 34

3............ Objectives. 35

3.1......... General Objectives and link with the Common Fisheries Policy. 35

3.2......... Specific Objectives. 36

4............ Policy Options. 36

4.1......... Policy option 1: maintenance of the status quo (baseline scenario) 36

4.2......... Policy option 2: introduction of technical and control measures. 37

4.3......... Policy option 3: selected ban of some driftnet fisheries. 38

4.4......... Policy option 4: total ban of driftnets fisheries. 38

5............ Analysis of Impacts. 39

5.1......... Analysis of social and economic impacts by policy options. 39

5.2......... Analysis of environmental impacts. 41

5.3......... Assessing administrative burden. 42

6............ Comparison of the Policy Options. 43

6.1......... Conclusion on Policy option. 46

6.2......... Support through the European Maritime Fisheries Fund. 46

7............ Monitoring and evaluation. 46

8............ Annex 1 Consultations. 48

8.1......... A: Summary Report of the on-line public consultation. 48

8.2......... B Summary report of the information provided by Member States on control, monitoring and surveillance 68

9............ Annex 2 Summary of driftnet fisheries currently operating in EU waters. 76

10.......... Annex 3 Detailed overview of the small scale driftnet fisheries in the Mediterranean. 80

10.1....... Fiches by fishery. 80

10.2....... Synoptic table: fleets, gears, catches and economic characteristics. 88

11.......... Annex 4 Interactions with protected species. 97

11.1....... 4A Protected species likely to interact with driftnets. 97

11.2....... 4B Protected species likely to interact with driftnets Summary of population status and interactions rates of protected species with driftnet fisheries. 100

1. Procedural issues and consultation of interested parties

1.1. Identification

Lead DG: DG MARE

Other EC Departments involved: SG, SJ, ENTR, EMPL, ENV, REGIO, RTD, DEVCO

Agenda planning/WP reference: 2013/MARE/107

1.2. Organisation and timing

This impact assessment concerns a proposal for a Regulation for the prohibition of the small-scale driftnet fisheries in EU waters and by EU fishing vessels outside those waters.

An impact assessment steering group (IASG) was created in March 2013 which, in addition to various DG MARE services included representatives from the following services and Directorates General: SG, SJ, ENTR, EMPL, ENV, REGIO, RTD, and DEVCO.

The first meeting was held on 15 March, and subsequent meetings were held on 2 July, 5 September and 4 October. The final meeting was held on 16th October 2013 to discuss the final draft report of a study in support of the review of existing EU legislation on regulating driftnet fisheries. This study provided substantive information for this Impact Assessment. The IASG worked by correspondence to finalise the draft IA report

1.3. Consultation of interested parties and expertise

1.3.1. Introduction

Consultation with stakeholders, scientific community and Member States has included the following:

(1) An Interactive Policy Making (IPM) web-based public consultation. This was undertaken from 27 March until 15 September 2013. This consultation provided information from relevant stakeholders on the issues and proposed policy options. The results are summarised in section 1.3.2, 2.2.1 and in more detail in Annex 1A.

(2) Two studies, one describing the small-scale driftnet fisheries in the Mediterranean[1] and the other providing a retrospective and prospective evaluation[2] of all EU driftnet fisheries (section 1.3.3 and Annex 2).

(3) Specific information requested from Member States on FIFG/EFF/national funds support and on control, monitoring and surveillance of driftnets fisheries (section 1.3.4 and Annex 1B)

These information sources combined have provided an updated overview of the driftnet fishing fleets in EU waters, their likely environmental, economic and social impacts as well as an evaluation of the proposed policy options. The outcomes of all these sources have been duly and timely circulated to the IASG members.

The Regional Advisory Councils (RACs) have been formally informed of the public consultation and the two scientific studies with a view to elicit their contributions and to spread the information on the EC initiative to a wider public through their members. In order to promote the public consultation among the scientific community also the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) was duly informed.

It can therefore be considered that the obligation to consult the stakeholders and Member States is fulfilled.

1.3.2. Consultation of interested parties

On 27 March 2013, a public consultation was launched in support of the Impact assessment. This public consultation originally was due to be completed by 28 June 2013 but was prolonged until 15 September due to the limited number of replies received at the time of the first deadline.

Stakeholders were invited to provide their knowledge of the existing driftnet fisheries, to appraise possible persisting control and environmental problems and to evaluate and comment the policy options identified in the roadmap[3]. The questionnaire was structured accordingly into different sections:

· presentation of the contributors;

· description the existing driftnet fisheries;

· appraisal of possible persisting environmental/control problems; and

· perspective of the policy options as indicated in the roadmap.

The IPM online public consultation was widely open to all different kind of contributions from citizen acting on a personal capacity to people representing organisation/associations and national administrations.

As of the 16 September 2013, 41 answers were received from a variety of stakeholders; only 40 were considered addressing the items of the public consultation and considered in the analysis. One contribution received from a respondent acting on a personal capacity went outside the scope of the consultation (small-scale driftnet fisheries) and did not address the questions included in the questionnaire; therefore it could not be taken into account for this assessment.

Responses were received from 12 EU Member States across sea basins (Italy, Germany, Spain, Belgium, France, Greece, the Netherlands, Portugal, Finland, Ireland, Malta, the United Kingdom) and 1 non-EU country (Switzerland). However, most responses were received from the Mediterranean and in particular Italy (27.5%).

Most of the contributors (67.5%, 27 replies) indicated they had a good level of expertise in the area of driftnets.

Out of the 40 replies only 1 came from a Member States administration (NL). NGOs accounted for 57.5% (23 replies), whilst the fishing sector (either as associations or individual fishermen) were represented by 20 % (8 replies). Contributions from scientists amounted to 7 replies (17.5%). Civil society is represented by 2.5% of the replies.

The consultation confirmed the existence of a number of small-scale driftnet fisheries targeting different species (e.g. anchovy, sardine, greater amberjack, grey mullets, garfishes-needlefishes, lamprey, mackerels, sea bass, some sea-breams, salmon etc.). In general, these fisheries were reported as carried out in coastal areas, within 3 NM zone, by a limited number of vessels mostly less than 10m overall length. Due to the different geographical scope and precision of the replies, the questionnaire does not allow for obtaining an estimate of the overall number of vessels actually carrying out these fisheries.

Some of the respondents provided information on technical and control aspects relating to the gears and fisheries characteristics, issuing of fishing authorisations, limiting the gears on board to a single type of drift net (i.e. a "one net rule") or installing of vessel monitoring equipment on board. Around 60% of the respondents consider that the establishment of a compulsory fishing authorisations would play an important role in improving the control of the small scale driftnet fisheries by identifying the vessels involved, potentially reducing the risk of by-catches of strictly protected and/or non-authorised species(i.e. species listed in Annex VIII of Council Regulation (EC) 1239/98[4]).

Some 8 replies (20%) provided information on by-catch of non-authorised species (i.e. tunas and alike). In particular amongst 25 fisheries identified by the respondents the fishery for greater amberjack seems the most likely to have by-catch. 4 respondents highlighted this fishery. For each of the other fisheries the limited number of responses and their lack of convergence did not allow any conclusions to be drawn.

5 replies (12,5%) indicated possible risk of by-catches of strictly protected species (i.e. cetaceans, sea turtles, some sea birds) as an issue.

70% of the replies (28) are in favour of a ban of driftnets fisheries, of which 52,5% (21 replies) called for a total ban and 17,5 % (7 replies) for a selected ban excluding some traditional fisheries for small pelagic species in some Italian areas. The majority (14 participants) of the 21 replies in favour of a total ban come from NGOs[5], the rest being spread as follow: 1 control body (NL), 2 fishermen associations (Spain and Italy), 4 general public and experts/scientists. The 7 replies favouring a selected ban come from NGOs[6] and biologists. 14 out of the 28 respondents stressed the need to ban these fisheries in particular in the Mediterranean.

For 18 respondents the rationale for the ban was to address problems of controllability and implementation of the EU legislation on driftnets, for 10 respondents it was motivated by the need to address persisting environmental problems.

The 30% replies (12 respondents) not in favour of a ban came mostly from representatives of the fisheries sector (4 French, 1 Italian, 1 Irish), 3 NGOs[7] and 3 Italian experts/scientists. More detailed information is annexed in the report summing up the results of the consultation (Annex IA)

The participation to the public consultation can be considered as acceptable in terms of representation of sectoral and environmental interests, accepting that the number of industry responses is relatively low.

Notwithstanding several reminders[8] and contacts, no Regional Advisory Council (RAC), the main organisations that represent stakeholders, provided a formal response. They either argued that the consultations impacted on very few members (North Sea RAC) or that driftnet fisheries were not covered by their RAC (Pelagic RAC). The Baltic RAC referred to the fact that driftnets were prohibited in the Baltic from 1st January 2008. The Mediterranean RAC received two contributions from its members, namely Oceana and ACI-Pesca Alleanza Cooperative Italiane, but was not in a position to reach a common approach although these two entities separately contributed on an individual basis to the consultation.

The Long Distance, South Western Waters and North Western Waters RACs did not provide any feedback even though driftnets fisheries are known to be carried out in their area.

As Member States only the control agency of Netherlands has shared its views.

1.3.3. External expertise

In March 2013 the Commission commissioned two specific studies in support of the impact assessment, one covering the Mediterranean (DriftMed) and the other covering both the areas other than the Mediterranean and providing a retrospective and prospective evaluation of the current drift net fisheries [9]. The two studies were carried out in parallel and the results from the Mediterranean study have feed the retrospective and prospective evaluation. The draft final reports were submitted in October 2013 and the revised final reports were submitted in February 2014.

Information for these studies was gathered through direct consultation and interviews with fishermen, fishermen's Associations, as well as from national and EU fisheries and environment administrations, scientists and representatives of NGOs working in related fields. Furthermore, in order to collect first-hand data, investigations of specific logbook data and observations on board fishing vessels were carried out particularly in the Mediterranean.

The revised final reports will be published on the DG –MARE website[10] for studies.

1.3.4. Dialogue with Member States

Member States were officially informed of the Commission's intention to review the current EU regulations on driftnet fisheries as well as of the abovementioned two scientific studies. The national administrations were also invited to grant assistance to the studies and to share their opinion via the online public consultation. Member States were, in particular, requested to provide information on pilot projects, studies and measures concerning driftnet fisheries that were financially supported with a view to facilitate diversification and reconversion out of large-scale driftnet fisheries phased out under current legislation as well as drift net fisheries in the Baltic. Where applicable, information on assistance to maintain or develop driftnet fisheries compatible with EU legislation was requested. Only Ireland, Spain and Sweden answered with some detail concerning the support given for permanent cessation and/or reconversion of vessels involved in driftnet fisheries; Italy made reference to the specific measures, without providing details, to encourages Italian fishermen to diversify out of the large-scale driftnets as adopted following two Council Decisions[11]. No MS reported to have supported actions aiming to steer driftnet fishing in line with EU legislation.

In line with the cooperative approaches that we have been promoting, and which have brought to the launch of administrative inquiries on different control issues with several Member States, a parallel letter was sent to Member States requesting information on their specific control, monitoring and surveillance of driftnet fisheries. Responses were received from Belgium, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania Malta, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain and UK. Answers from Bulgaria, Romania, Sweden and The Netherlands were not yet received by the time of submitting the revised IA report. Only France, Ireland, Italy, Portugal, Slovenia and UK reported to have driftnet fisheries.

The responses received show that with the exception of the illegal driftnets fisheries which have attracted a quite substantial control and inspection effort in particular by Italy based on a ruling of the European Court of Justice[12], most of other driftnets fisheries are not subject to any specific system of control and scientific monitoring (ANNEX 1 B).

It can be considered that the obligation to consult Member States is fulfilled.

1.4. Impact Assessment Board review and opinion

The draft IA was submitted to the Impact Assessment Board (IAB) on 25th October 2013 and was discussed at the IAB hearing of 20 November 2013. The overall opinion of the Board on the Impact assessment was positive, with some recommendations for improvement; further remarks for improvements were put forward during the subsequent inter-service consultation.

First, it should provide a clearer policy context and clarify the dimension and scale of driftnet activities in the EU. The report should then better structure the problems, and present further evidence demonstrating the existence and scale of the compliance problem as regards EU driftnet rules.

Second, the report should provide further detail on each of the policy options, including on the use of the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) to support the reconversion of fishing vessels. It should discuss the proportionality of an outright ban, with clear reference to the views of the operators and Member States concerned.

Third, the report should provide a more in-depth assessment of the economic and financial impacts upon operators, including upon jobs and livelihoods, as well as on local communities, and on the environment.

The first set of points and part of the third one have been addressed by restructuring some sections and providing a clearer policy context, highlighting the links with other relevant initiatives at EU and international level. The report provides a fuller description of the driftnet fishing sector, including a realistic assessment of the numbers of vessels and operators currently using driftnets. The measures have been more clearly related within the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy, and a brief overview of measures introduced at national level is reported both in a specific section and in Annex 1- 8.2.B. Information on the importance of driftnet fishing for livelihoods of fishers involved, including an estimate of the economic value of the activity, is reported in section 2.2.5 and Annexes 9 and 10. The environmental impact has been further substantiated by restructuring and expanding section 2.3 and adding Annex 4 to present the current knowledge on the likely level of interactions of driftnets with protected species.

The second set of remarks has been addressed by inserting a specific session on the EMFF and by highlighting the views of stakeholders in section 1.3.2 and Annex 1 A.

When information was available, the recommendations of the Board have been taken into account and implemented into the revised Impact Assessment report.

2. Problem Definition

2.1. Introduction

2.1.1. Background

Driftnets are a specific type of fishing nets that can drift and operate close to or at the water surface to target fish species that swim in the upper part of the water column. The current definition of a driftnet for EU fisheries is contained in Council Regulation (EC) No 809/2007[13] as follow:

Drift net" means: any gillnet held on the sea surface or at a certain distance below it by floating devices, drifting with the current, either independently or with the boat to which it may be attached. It may be equipped with devices aiming to stabilise the net or to limit its drift.

A schematic view of the net is given in Figure 1.

Driftnet fisheries traditionally were carried out with nets of limited lengths and relatively small mesh size to catch different small/medium size pelagic species mostly living in or migrating through coastal areas. More substantial problems began in the late 70s-80s when the use of driftnets with much larger mesh sizes and much bigger, both in length (up to 50 km in extreme cases) and drop (up to 30-40 m), expanded rapidly in the absence of meaningful control provisions. The use of these nets resulted in significantly increased environmental impacts in terms of increased fishing effort on target species and, more important, numerous and large incidences of unwanted catch of protected species under EU and international legislation, in particular, cetaceans, sea turtles and seabirds[14].

Fig. 1 Schematic view of a driftnet. Devices aiming to stabilise the net or to limit its drift are not shown.

2.1.2. EU Policy context: its development and link with the international rules

In the early 90s, following specific United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) Resolutions[15], which called for a moratorium on these so-called "large-scale pelagic driftnets"[16] fishing on the High Seas for highly migratory species such as tunas and swordfish, the EU introduced strict legislation for these driftnet fisheries to ensure sustainable exploitation of target resources (mainly tunas and swordfish) as well as to mitigate or annul the negative impact on protected species. In fact, since June 1992 the keeping on board or use of driftnets whose individual or total size is more than 2.5 km is prohibited in EU waters (except in the Baltic Sea, the Belts and the Sound), and for all EU vessels outside EU waters[17].

However, the implementation of the 2.5 km rule presented many practical implementation and control problems (e.g. using driftnets under the pretence of them being bottom set gillnets; high economic incentives to use long driftnet for large pelagic stocks with an associated low risk to be detected; cooperative behaviour among vessels, etc.) and did not stop the expansion of large-scale pelagic driftnet fisheries. In fact the use of illegal driftnets and incidental catches of protected species (e.g. cetaceans, seabirds and sea turtles) continued to be reported in different EU regions and particularly in the Mediterranean and North East Atlantic.

Therefore, since 2002, EU has prohibited[18] the use of all driftnets, regardless of their length, when intended for the capture of a certain group of highly migratory pelagic species including inter alia tunas, swordfish, billfish, sharks and cephalopods[19]. This Regulation was accompanied by several Council Decisions[20] to encourage diversification away from large-scale pelagic driftnet fishing and to allow re-conversion of vessels engaged in driftnet fisheries activities to other fisheries as of 1 January 2002.

Additionally, recognising the serious threat driftnet fisheries for salmon posed to already depleted harbour porpoise's populations it has been prohibited, since 1 January 2008, to keep on board or use for fishing any kind of driftnets in the Baltic Sea[21]. Harbour porpoises in the Baltic are listed by the IUCN as critically endangered. The Commission reported on this ban in the Baltic, as well as on the implementation of broader measures to reduce incidental catches of cetaceans in EU fisheries, in two Communications to the European Parliament and the Council adopted on 16 July 2009[22] and on 21 September 2011[23] .

Currently, EU vessels are allowed to keep on board and use small-scale driftnets, except in the Baltic, provided that:

(a) their individual or total length is equal to or smaller than 2.5 km

(b) their use is not intended for the capture of species listed in Annex VIII of Regulation No 894/97[24] as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1239/98[25], and

(c) species listed in Annex VIII[26] which have been caught in driftnets cannot be landed.

Specifically in the Mediterranean with a view to closing an emerging loophole that could facilitate the use of illegal driftnets under the pretence of them being classified as bottom set gillnets, Article 8 (2) of Regulation (EC) 1967/2006[27] has prohibited the catching of most of the species listed in Annex VIII of Regulation (EC) No 894/97 with bottom-set nets. The list of species could not be equal to that in the Annex VIII since several species, such as cephalopods and Atlantic bonito, are regularly caught also by bottom-set nets. The same regulation has established further technical provisions for different types of bottom-set gillnets (e.g. maximum length, height and twine thickness) which, in addition to regulating bottom set gillnet fisheries, were also supposed to provide further control of small-scale driftnets still allowed to be used in the Mediterranean under EU law.

The regional fisheries management organizations (RFMOs) dealing with highly migratory pelagic species in waters adjacent to the EU, namely the GFCM- General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean and the ICCAT-International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas), have adopted rules on the driftnets while prohibiting the use of driftnets to catch highly migratory pelagic species (e.g. tunas, swordfish, etc.) in the Mediterranean[28]. The EU is Contracting Party of both these RFMOs.

It is worth also recalling that at the Third meeting of the Parties to ACCOBAMS[29] (Dubrovnik, October 2007) the Parties agreed on an amendment of the Agreement which includes in the text, particularly in the Annex 2, the prohibition to keep on board or use any kind driftnets in waters under their sovereignty and/or jurisdiction and outside those waters in respect of any vessel under their flag. The revised Agreement entered into force on March 22, 2008. All Mediterranean and Black Sea EU Member States as well as the Portugal are Contracting Parties of ACCOBAMS whilst the EU is not a Party.

Notwithstanding this entire regulatory framework, there has been still evidence of difficulties in applying the EU driftnets rules for highly migratory pelagic species, particularly in the Mediterranean for French (thonaille driftnet) and Italian (spadare driftnets and alike) vessels.

These issues have also assumed an accrued international dimension. Some NGOs, with a view to overcome enforcement problems of the ban of large-scale pelagic driftnets targeting highly migratory stocks, have recurrently advocated the prohibition of all driftnets fisheries. Moreover the USA has threatened commercial sanctions against the EU Member States for not complying with the UNGA and RFMOs rules (e.g. Italy).

These compliance problems for lack of control and enforcement of the EU rules on driftnets have been addressed following rulings by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) against France (C-556/07 and C-479/07) and Italy (C-249/08) for the lack of effective control and enforcement of the EU rules on the driftnets in the Mediterranean.

2.1.3. French and Italian national measures to comply with ECJ ruling

Following the ECJ's judgements and subsequent Commission monitoring, the EU Member States concerned, namely France and Italy, have introduced modified measures nationally for the Mediterranean. The new national measures have improved the situation and set the basis for stepping-up the control and enforcement actions in addressing this problem for an improved compliance with both EU and Regional Fisheries Management Organizations rules. For example, France[30] authorizes the use of driftnets in the Mediterranean only with mesh size smaller than 50 mm (not adequate for tunas and alike) and within 2 nautical miles from the coast. Following intensive contacts with the Member State and verification missions conducted, the Commission has taken the view that France has complied with the Court's ruling and closed the case in 2011.

As far as Italy is concerned, they have adopted[31] national legislation stipulating a one-net rule (i.e. longlines and driftnets cannot be taken on board at the same time) and authorising small driftnets with a maximum mesh size of 100 mm (smaller than before) and only within 3 nautical miles from the coast (closer than before). These measures combined have substantially reduced the risk of illegal drift-netting for highly migratory species. However, considering the huge problem with the illegal driftnets fishing in Italy over the last decade before and after the ruling of the ECJ, the Commission has kept the possibility of requesting a second referral to the Court against Italy, for lack of implementation of the Court's ruling despite the introduction of these national rules. In the meantime, an action plan stemming from the administrative inquiry on the Italian control system, conducted in early 2013, on the basis of Article 102 of the Control Regulation[32] has been established by Italy and adopted by the Commission[33].

The text of this plan and the deadline for its implementation has been agreed between Commission services and Italian authorities during several technical meetings. There is a strong focus on measures linked to the control of driftnets and in general to the fisheries for highly migratory species such as swordfish and Bluefin tuna. Italian authorities have already started to work towards the implementation of the measures agreed. Verification missions conducted in Italy in early September 2013 did not detect activities of illegal driftnets as already observed in 2012.

However, no evidences of illegal activities, in a short period of increased controls, does not mean that the problem of illegal driftnets has been totally eradicated in Italy and that the operators will refrain of using illegal driftnets for highly migratory stocks in the near future, especially after a possible definitive closure of the Court case against Italy. Moreover, there have been signals that the illegal driftnets were being "exported" by Italian operators to Mediterranean third countries. These possible developments will pose additional challenges in terms of control and enforcement.

With the exception of the illegal driftnets which have attracted a quite substantial control and inspection effort in particular by Italy following the ruling of the ECJ, all other driftnets fisheries are not subject to any specific system of control and monitoring.

However, these recently adopted national measures supplementing EU legislations could be relaxed and there is still potential in a near future of the same problems re-emerging.

2.2. Small-scale driftnet fisheries in the EU

The information reported in the following sessions provides a description of the different driftnet fisheries to set the baseline for the impact assessment. Different sources have been used to feed this impact assessment:

· the EU fleet register which is a database where all the fishing vessels flying the flag of a Member State have to be registered in accordance with Community legislation;

· literature review, interviews and questionnaires used by the two scientific studies

· field surveys carried out by the two scientific studies

· information from the public consultation

The variety of the sources and the inherent varying imprecision associated to each one may determine some discrepancies among the figures highlighting the current difficulties in establishing the exact number of vessels and fishers currently involved in small-scale driftnet fisheries; nonetheless the grasping of the overall picture is not affected.

A brief overview of the national measures regulating driftnets is reported in Annex 1 8.2.B.

2.2.1. General description

2.2.1.1. Number of vessels

The driftnets can be categorized on the basis of the target species and consequently of their dimensions:

1) large-scale driftnets (> 2.5 km) with large mesh size targeting highly migratory species (e.g. tunas and tuna-like species, swordfish, pelagic sharks, etc),

2) small-scale driftnets (≤ 2.5 km) with smaller mesh and targeting species other than highly migratory species (e.g. anchovy, sardine, sea breams, sea bass, etc.).

The taking on board or use of the large scale driftnets in category 1 is prohibited by EU law.

Both the studies and the public consultation have confirmed that a number of small scale driftnets fisheries exist in EU waters. Many of these are traditional, artisanal fisheries. However, the knowledge on these fisheries is scarce and scattered in space and time.

Table 1 provides an overview by Member State of the number of vessels recorded in the EU fleet register having driftnets recorded as their main or second gears (GND code); the fleet register has not been conceived to identify fisheries and it is completely managed by each Member State who is responsible to manage its fishing fleet capacity within the limits established by the EU conservation policy[34].

However, this approach only provides a broad estimation of the actual number of vessels using this type of gear. In fact, a maximum of only two gears per vessel is recorded in the fleet register, therefore polyvalent vessels having driftnets as third or further gear in their fishing licence are not included in this statistic. For example, according to information provided by Italy in the consultation phase they have 819 vessels having the driftnets in their fishing licence though only 463 are currently reported in the fleet register.

Moreover, changes considered as minor by Member State, such as a modification of the gear type licensed, do not however trigger an update of the register; this may have effects either upwards or downwards. For example a driftnet fishery may be completely closed, either at EU (e.g. large-scale driftnets for highly migratory species in EU; driftnet fishing in the Baltic) or national level (e.g. salmon fishery in Ireland), and the information held in the fleet register may still indicate the gear code GND for years as long as the vessel remains active in the same fishing port with the same owner; this may explain the fact that some Member States such as Denmark, The Netherlands, and some Baltic State still report the GND code attached to several vessels. In the opposite case, a Member State may authorized a new gear in the fishing licence without that this is recorded in the fleet register; an example is Slovenia where 48 vessels have been licensed with driftnets in 2011 whilst only 4 GND vessels are reported in the fleet register.

The characteristics of the EU fleet register, the lack of compulsory fishing authorizations[35], the fact that most of the vessels are polyvalent and licensed to potentially use several fishing gears combined with the fact that several vessels operate in a transitional area moving between inland and marine waters, with the former not recorded in the fleet register, may determine a certain variability in the number of vessels reported by different sources.

On the basis of the EU fleet register statistics updated to September 2013, 1859 vessels are currently recorded having the driftnets (GND) either as main or secondary fishing gear.

Table 2 provides the relative importance of the driftnet vessels with respect to the EU fishing fleet. The driftnets vessels, including those longer than 12 m as recorded in the fleet register, are about 2% in number and 0.7% in GT with respect to the overall EU fleet. They are about 2,5% in number and 6,5 % in GT with respect to the EU vessels smaller than 12 m.

Table 3 reports the breakdown by vessel length categories (LOA length overall); around 77 % (1423 out of 1859) are smaller than 10 m and 90% (1680) smaller than 12 m; the vessels longer than 12 m still in the fleet register are most probably no longer involved in actual small-scale driftnet fishing.

However, it is worth recalling that, according to the recent studies, only 840 fishing vessels have been recorded as actively drift-netting in marine waters outside the Baltic where a driftnet total ban is in place (Bulgaria 135; France 238; Italy 100; Portugal 112; Slovenia 5; UK 250). The number of active driftnets vessels in marine and adjacent waters would actually increase up to 887 if including 47 Polish vessels authorised to carry out a "semi-driftnet" fishing.

Pulling together the estimates of vessels driftnetting in marine and estuaries/delta together with those presumed to fish only in the rivers (e.g. around 250 Bulgarian and 1355 Romanian vessels), which are thus not included in the EC fleet register, a total of around 2790 vessels is estimated.

Table 4 shows the variability in the reporting of vessel statistics at European and national levels, and highlights the current difficulties in establishing the exact numbers of vessels currently involved in small-scale driftnet fisheries. Therefore, the number of active driftnet fishing vessels has the ability to change and increase or decrease over time depending on various factors.

A summary of the current driftnet fisheries as monitored by the two scientific studies is reported in the Annex 2.

Table 1: Overview by Member State of vessels recorded in the EU fleet register having the driftnets as main or 2nd gear.

Member State** || 1/05/2004 || 1/01/2009 || 1/01/2010 || 1/01/2011 || 1/01/2012 || September 2013

BG || NA || 258 || 235 || 217 || 194 || 129

DK || 514 || 259 || 247 || 239 || 231 || 220

EE || 5 || 4 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

ES || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

FI || 170 || 0 || 0 || 3 || 3 || 3

FR || 212 || 159 || 150 || 134 || 118 || 111

FR-Overseas || 108 || 159 || 162 || 175 || 185 || 207

GR || 1 || 1 || 5 || 5 || 4 || 1

HR || NA || NA || NA || NA || NA || 0

IE || 51 || 418 || 387 || 348 || 355 || 357

IT || 468 || 490 || 485 || 488 || 470 || 463

LT || 15 || 4 || 2 || 1 || 1 || 1

LV || 50 || 12 || 8 || 7 || 3 || 0

MT || 12 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

NL || 12 || 14 || 14 || 11 || 11 || 11

PL*** || 189 || 140 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

PT || 110 || 0 || 141 || 139 || 140 || 140

RO**** || NA || 53 || 52 || 63 || 60 || 2

SE || 118 || 63 || 48 || 56 || 57 || 68

SI || 3 || 2 || 3 || 4 || 4 || 4

UK || 132 || 137 || 143 || 143 || 140 || 142

Total || 2170 || 2173 || 2082 || 2033 || 1976 || 1859

** Cyprus and Belgium have never had driftnets vessels and for that are not reported in the table.

*** Poland: the former semi-driftnets that had been classified as GND (= Gillnet Driftnets) have been subsequently classified in the category GNS following the ban to use driftnets in the Baltic since 1 January 2008

**** Romania around 1350 vessels using driftnet in the Danube delta ( lower part of the river and river mouth) are not reported.

Table 2: Relative importance of the driftnets fishing vessels with respect to the EU fishing fleet as recorded in the fleet register

|| Absolute values || % GND EU fleet

|| N° || GT || kW || N° || GT || kW

ALL DRIFTNETS || 1859 || 12101 || 106377 || || ||

ALL EU vessels || 87666 || 1677752 || 6630730 || 2,1% || 0,7% || 1,6%

< 12 m ALL GEARS || 74050 || 186001 || 2630151 || 2,5% || 6,5% || 4,0%

Table 3 : Breakdown by vessel length (LOA) of the number of vessels recorded with driftnet (GND) in the fleet register.

Length (LOA) m || <10 || < 12 || LOA 12<-<15 || LOA 15<-<18 || LOA 18<-<24 || LOA 24<-<30 || LOA 30<-<36 || LOA 36<-<45 || total

N° of vessels || 1423 || 1680 || 114 || 24 || 35 || 4 || 1 || 1 || 1859

% || 76,5 || 90,4 || 6,1 || 1,3 || 1,9 || 0,2 || 0,1 || 0,1 || 100,0

Table 4 : Member States monitored by the two scientific studies. Variation in reported driftnet vessel statistics, including marine and river fisheries, from differing official sources at September 2013.

Member State || Total number of driftnet fisheries identified || Total no. of vessels identified as actively using driftnets || Marine fisheries || Estuaries/Delta and river Fisheries

EC Fleet register total no. vessels with GND as 1º/2º gear (Sept. 2013) || No. of vessels on the basis of fishing licences (source studies + official reporting) || No. of vessels actively driftnetting (source studies) || No. of vessels on the basis of fishing licences (source studies+ official reporting || No. of vessels actively driftnetting (source studies)

Bulgaria || 2 || 385*** || 129 || --- || 135 || --- || 250***

Denmark || 0 || 0 || 220 || * || 0 || 0 || 0

France || 15 || 411 || 318 || 241 || 238 || 70-204 || 173

Ireland || 0 || 0 || 357 || * || 0 || 0 || 0

Italy || 8 || 100 || 463 || 819 || 100 || 0 || 0

Poland** || 1 || (50) || 0 || (47) || (47) || --- || 3

Portugal || 4 || 594 || 140 || 150 || 112 || 482 || ---

Romania || 1 || 1355*** || 2 || --- || 0 || 1650 || 1355***

Slovenia || 1 || 5 || 4 || 48 || 5 || ||

Sweden || 0 || 0 || 68 || * || 0 || 0 || 0

UK**** || 13 || 250 || 142 || --- || 250 || 52 || ---

Total || 45 || 3150***** || 1843 || 1305 (1258) || 887 (840) || 2254-2388 || 1781

--- No information recorded by the two studies and/or pending information from MS

* No contemporary driftnet fisheries were identified in these member states during the period of the studies and therefore license information was not gathered. Ireland has notified that driftnetting for salmon is closed since 2006 and that no authorizations for herring driftnetting have been issued since 2012. From 10 to 50 vessels were involved in the latter driftnet fishery for herring.

**Poland: the former semi-driftnets had been classified as GND (= Gillnet Driftnets), before the ban to use driftnets in the Baltic which entered into force from 1 January 2008. They have been subsequently classified in the category GNS (bottom-set gillnets) . For the sake of completeness they are reported as GND in the table above. 50 is an estimate based on

*** Romania: all the vessels are considered to operate only in the Danube river and are not included in the EC fleet register

Bulgaria: around 250 vessels are considered to operate in the Danube river and are not included in the EC fleet register

**** The number of UK licenses only includes 250 vessels driftnetting for salmon and seatrout (sales note MMO data); however around 119 vessels for the other fisheries (source:scientific survey data and interviews) could be taken into account. All vessels under 10m in length would have the right to use driftnets.

***** including both marine, estuaries/delta and river fisheries

2.2.2. Mediterranean

2.2.2.1. Brief historical overview

In the Mediterranean Italy, France, Spain, and Malta have reported using driftnets historically. Italy is the EU Mediterranean country with the biggest driftnet fisheries. For the Italian waters, in the Gulf of Trieste and Venice Lagoon (GFCM-Geographic Subarea17= Adriatic) the use of small scale driftnet named "menaide" targeting sardine were reported in the 70's (Scaccini (1974), AA.VV. (1985), Granzotto et al. (2001)) . Ferretti et al. (1995) reported a detailed description of the different kind of driftnets (small driftnets and the driftnets targeting large pelagic species) used along the Italian coasts which could be categorized as follow:

– driftnets with small mesh size (from 20 to 40 mm) targeting mainly sardine (Sardina pilchardus) and anchovies (Engraulis encrasicholus);

– driftnets with medium mesh size (from 50 to 100-110mm) targeting saddled sea bream (Oblada melanura), striped sea bream (Lithognathus mormyrus), mackerel (Scomber scomber), grey mullet (Mugil spp.), small greater amberjack (Seriola dumerili), pompano ( Trachinotus ovatus) and frigate tuna-mackerel (Auxis spp )

– - driftnets with mesh size (greater than 100 mm) targeting large pelagic species (i.e.swordfish (Xiphias gladius) Bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus), albacore (T. alalunga), little tunny (Euthynnus alleterratus), frigate tuna-mackerel (Auxis spp and Atlantic bonito (Sarda sarda)).

Driftnets targeting large pelagic species were named “spadare" and prohibited by EU legislation since January 2002 whilst those with smaller mesh size were categorized under the collective name of “ferrettara” nets.

The use of small driftnets for anchovy (Engraulis encrasicolus) has been reported for a local area (Cilento) situated in the southern mainland of Italy (GFCM GSA 10 = South-Central Tyrrhenian Sea) in late spring (Colloca et al. 2002, 2004).

As for Malta the use of small driftnets was reported mostly from November to February when saddled sea bream (O.melanura) and mackerels (Scombridae) aggregate (De Leiva et al., 1998).

Along the Spanish Mediterranean coasts, Urbistondo (2001) provided a description of two types of small driftnets: “bonitera” and “melvera”, both targeting mainly large pelagic species such A. rochei and S. sarda; the same author also reported 11 vessels using “bonitera” to catch the greater amberjack S. dumerili. Always in Spain, Garcıa-Rodrıguez et al. (2006) mentioned for the Alicante Gulf (GSA 6), the use of small driftnets to catch seasonally greater amberjack , dolphinfish (Coryphaena hippurus), squid (Loligo vulgaris) and different Scombridae species. De La Serna et al. (2000) confirmed the presence of the two driftnet gears, “bonitera” or “melvera” mainly directed to fish bonito and frigate tuna.

The catalogue of fishing gears of Cortés and Manrubia (2003) mentioned the presence of small driftnets named "sardinal" and "volaera" targeting sardine and flying fishes in Andalucía-Spain, without providing information of their use.

As for the French fisheries, the inventory provided by Guillou and Crespi (1999) of the artisanal fisheries in the Gulf of Lions (GSA 7) reported, among the gears used in the area, a typology of driftnet named "thonnaille" that targeted large pelagic species became illegal since January 2002. Presence of small scale driftnets for sardine was also reported.

2.2.2.2. Current situation

With all the limitations abovementioned, on the basis of the EU fleet register as updated at September 2013, around 476 driftnet fishing vessels are reported for the Mediterranean; the bulk of the driftnet fleet is concentrated in Italy (463) and the other vessels are in France (8), Greece (1) and Slovenia (4).

A similar analysis of the fleet register done by the Driftmed study, as updated at 31 December 2012, provides a repartition of the driftnet vessels by GFCM- Geographical Subaraes (GSA) which is reported in the table 5 below. This analysis gives an idea of the dispersion of the driftnet fishing fleets in a great number of harbors (130) and of the small scale nature of the vessels involved which are on average smaller than 12 meters length overall. The Italian driftnet vessels are mostly distributed in the southwestern part of Italy, mainly GFCM-GSA10 (South-Central Tyrrhenian sea) and GFCM-GSA19 (western-Ionian Sea), with 264 and 99 vessels, respectively.

Table 5 - Main characteristics of the vessels associated with the GND fishing type (both as main and second gear) in the Mediterranean EU waters updated to December 31st 2012 (DRIFTMED study-data from EU Fleet Register).

GFCM-GSA || Country || Harbours || n. vessels || Tonnage GT || Length overall || Engine power kW

mean || mean || mean

7- Gulf of Lions || France || 8 || 8 || 5,0 || 9,2 || 117,5

9 Ligurian- North Tyrrhenian Sea || Italy || 16 || 47 || 7,9 || 11,0 || 96,4

10 Central-South Tyrrhenian Sea || Italy || 51 || 264 || 4,9 || 8,9 || 55,8

11 Sardinia || Italy || 5 || 13 || 10,5 || 10,8 || 121,5

16 South of Sicily || Italy || 7 || 16 || 9,6 || 9,1 || 74,7

17 Central-North Adriatic || Italy || 12 || 17 || 4,4 || 8,0 || 87,3

Slovenia || 2 || 4 || 4,9 || 8,8 || 65,0

18 Southern Adriatic || Italy || 5 || 11 || 3,4 || 8,0 || 63,8

19 Western Ionian Sea || Italy || 23 || 99 || 10,4 || 11,3 || 94,2

22 Aegean Sea* || Greece || 1 || 1 || 2,9 || 8,3 || 11,0

|| Total || 130 || 480 || || ||

* Greece reports that no driftnet fisheries is authorized and the fleet register has not been updated

According to the information provided by Italy a total of 819 vessels are granted with driftnets in their fishing licences; out of these vessels only 41 and 26 resulted respectively operating with driftnets in 2012 and 2013 (data source: Centro Nazionale di Controllo Pesca).

On the basis of the newly information collected on the ground through field surveys by the DriftMed study in 2013, around 100 vessels carrying out the following 9 small-scale driftnet fisheries have been identified in Italy:

1) “Menaide” for anchovy, Engraulis encrasicolus, in Catania area (GSA19);

2) “Menaide or menaica” for anchovy, Engraulis encrasicolus, in the Cilento area (GSA10);

3) “Occhiatara” for saddlled sea bream, Oblada melanura, in Ligurian Sea (GSA9);

4) “Sgomberara” for horse mackerel, Trachurus trachurus, in northern Sicily (GSA10);

5) “Menaide” for anchovy, Engraulis encrasicolus, in S. Agata di Militelllo (GSA10);

6) "Riccciolara" for greater amberjack, Seriola dumerili, in S. Agata di Militello (GSA10);

7) "Ferrettara" for blue fish, Pomatomus saltatrix, in Gulf of Naples (GSA10);

8) "Menaide" for sardine, Sardina pilchardus, in northern Adriatic (GSA17);

9) "Menaide" for anchovy Engraulis encrasicolus /sardine Sardina pilchardus in western Sicily (GSA 16).

The fishing fleets carrying out these fisheries are quite different in terms of number of vessels, fishers and specialization. For example, the vessels involved in the fishery n° 1 in Catania are quite specialised and carry out this fishery for about 88% of their annual fishing days with about 90% of their annual catches and revenues from the driftnet fishing; instead fishing fleets involved in driftnet fishing for anchovy in the Cilento area practices this fishery on a seasonal basis (around 13% of their annual fishing days) and extract 30 % in weight and 21% in value of their annual catches. The other fisheries are between these values.

Annex 3-10.2. reports a synoptic overview of more detailed information of these Italian fisheries concerning fishing capacity, activity, technical characteristics of the nets, landing and catch rates, composition of the catches by species, catches of unauthorized and protected species, size composition of the catches, socio-economic parameters.

As for France it seems that only a few 3-4 vessels currently operate in the French Mediterranean even though no active vessel using small driftnets has been detected during the period of the study. Official information provided by France indicates around 6 driftnet vessels exploiting sardine, anchovy, horse mackerel and sea-breams.

As for Slovenia a few vessels fish seasonally (spring-summer) with "menaide" for sardine, Sardina pilchardus; however around 48 vessels are licensed to carry out driftnet fishing.

Spain, Greece, Malta, Cyprus, and Croatia have reported that driftnet fisheries are prohibited under their national legislation. However, rumors, though not properly substantiated with evidences, report the use of driftnets also in the south of Spain and in the Greek islands.

2.2.3. North-East Atlantic, North Sea, Black Sea,

Bulgaria currently has two small-scale driftnet fisheries: a marine fishery that operates in the Black Sea (GFCM GSA 29) and an inland fishery in the Bulgarian Danube River. Shad species (Alosa immaculata and Caspialosa pontica) are exploited in the inland fishery, and Atlantic Bonito (Sarda sarda), an unauthorized species of the Annex VIII, is targeted by the marine fishery. Some 135 vessels have been identified as participating in the marine fishery for Atlantic Bonito.

France has currently 15 small-scale driftnet fisheries targeting both freshwater and marine species. These fisheries are present across a range of sea basin but are primarily active in ICES divisions VIIIa and VIIIb, in the Bay of Biscay, and VIId in the English Channel. Eleven French driftnet fisheries occur in rivers and estuaries while four are marine fisheries. The main rivers and estuaries where driftnet fisheries occur are the Adour, the Loire, and the Gironde-Garonne. The two fisheries with the most vessels involved target Meagre (Argyrosomus regius) in the Gironde estuary (ICES division VIIIb) and for Atlantic herring (Clupea harengus) in the English Channel (ICES division VIId). Two marine driftnet fisheries exist in the French overseas territory (French Guiana and Martinique), where around 130 vessels target flying fish (Exocetidae spp) and Acoupa weakfish (Cynoscion acoupa). In overall, around 240 vessels have been identified as participating in the marine fisheries and 173 in the estuaries/delta river fisheries.

Portugal has two driftnet fisheries currently active in ICES division IXa (Portuguese waters-East) - one targeting sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax) in Rio Tejo and one targeting European pilchard (Sardina pilchardus) in the northern part of Portugal. Some 112 vessels have been identified as participating in these marine fisheries. However, a much higher number of vessels totalling to 482 is licensed to fish with driftnets in the estuaries/delta river for sea lampreys and other brackish and catadromous species.

Romania has one distinct driftnet fishery active in GFCM area 29 (Black Sea) in the Danube River and Delta targeting mainly species of shad, among which Black Sea Shad (former Pontic shad) Alosa immaculata. Numerous other fresh-water species are also captured. Approximately 1,355 vessels out of 1650 licensed with driftnets are actually involved in these river and estuarine/delta river fisheries and are considered operating in fresh waters and thus not included in the EU fleet register. However, it is not yet clear whether and how many of these vessels are actually operating also in the marine areas or where to put the limit between the marine and freshwater areas in the Danube delta.

The UK currently has 13 distinct driftnet fisheries exploiting 9 species as primary or secondary targets: target species include Atlantic herring (Clupea harengus), Atlantic mackerel (Scomber scombrus), Atlantic salmon (Salmo Salar), sea trout (Salmo trutta), European sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax), mullet (Mugilidae spp.), common sole (Solea solea), European pilchard (Sardina pilchardus), and Atlantic Cod (Gadus morhua). These fisheries operate in a number of ICES region including IVb and IVc, in the North Sea, VIId, VIIe in the English Channel , and VIIf in the Bristol Channel. Driftnet fisheries also operate in a number of rivers and estuaries (i.e. herring are targeted in the Thames estuary (ICES division IVc) , salmon and sea trout are targeted in the Ribble and Lune estuary (ICES division VIIa), and driftnet fisheries targeting salmon operate in close proximity to estuaries in ICES division IVb (North Sea). The number of vessels involved is approximately 250 for approximately 502 fishers accounting for around 4% of employment.

In France and UK, some driftnet fisheries are actually carried out with "trammel-driftnets" that is a drifting net composed by more than one panel of netting attached to the headline. Strictly speaking this gear, though operating in the same manner of a driftnet, seems to be outside the scope of the driftnet definition as currently provided by the Council Regulation (EC) No 809/2007. In fact, that definition identifies the driftnet as gillnet that is a net made up of a single panel of netting attached to the headline.

Notwithstanding a total driftnet ban is implemented through national legislation in Spain, unverified rumours from the fishing sector (pers.comm. chair of a fishermen association) indicate that at least 24 small vessels carry out seasonal fishing for sardine with a driftnet locally known as "xeito".

2.2.4. Baltic

The use of driftnets in the Baltic is prohibited since 1 January 2008[36] and all the riparian EU Member States bordering the Baltic have declared that no driftnet fisheries are currently authorized or operating.

Poland continues authorizing the use of so called "semi-driftnet" fishery operating in the Baltic sea within ICES division 24- 26 to exploit salmon (Salmo salar) and sea trout (Salmo trutta). The semi-driftnets are drifting gillnets anchored to the bottom at one end of the net.

This "semi-driftnet" vessels had been classified as GND (=gillnet driftnets) before the ban to use driftnets in the Baltic entered into force. Then they have been classified in the category of bottom-set gillnets (GNS) and no longer considered as driftnets. Around 50 vessels are considered currently active; the majority of these vessels fish primarily in Puck Bay.

This issue needs further investigations; in fact on the basis of the agreed EU driftnets definition as recalled in section 2.1.1 the anchoring on one side should fall within the different devices aiming to stabilise the net or to limit its drift. If this interpretation is correct then this semi-driftnet fishery seems not complying with the EU driftnet ban.

2.2.5. Economic and social parameters of driftnet fisheries

It should be noted that economic information is not available at the fishery level for almost all driftnet fisheries identified by both studies. Although these vessels may be included in the various programmes under the DCR/DCF[37], they are mostly not selected by the ranking system established therein or data are usually aggregated at a higher gear level which encompasses driftnets and fixed nets within the same gear grouping (DFN). During the last ten years, driftnet usage has been stable for a few countries or regions (UK[38], Italy[39] and French Guiana[40]) but mostly declining (all other case studies). Deployed by polyvalent fleets, national administrations are less inclined to include these driftnet vessels as a separate grouping within their sampling strategies for the DCF.

Detailed information on number of vessels and fleet segmentation is reported in Section 2.2.1 and tables from 2 to 4.

Overall, around 880 small-scale vessels using driftnet in marine jurisdictions have been identified. Species targeted are mainly small pelagic (UK, France, Portugal, Italy) and diadromous species (Poland, France, Portugal, Bulgaria, Romania).

Except for Italy, it was not possible to assess profit levels of these driftnet fleets. Furthermore, some of the case study countries did not provide economic data for the latest Annual Economic Report (AER). For the purpose of this evaluation, the conclusions are based on the latest information available for countries that reported data; proxies will be used for the other Member States (Table 6).

Table 6: Economic indicators as a percentage of turnover (AER data for 2010)

|| France || Portugal || United Kingdom || Italy

DCF reference || DFN 0-10 || DFN 0-10 || DFN 0-10 || PGP 6-12

fuel || 7% || 10% || 16% || 13%

crew || 47% || 29% || 34% || 14%

Gross profit || 14% || 26% || 4% || 35%

Gross value added || 60% || 68% || 50% || 66%

Net profit || 4% || 8% || -9% || 16%

For Italy, the data collected by the DRIFTMED study allow deriving cost structures only for the driftnet activities for seven fisheries (Table 7), but do not allow to detail the overall cost structure of the vessels. Overall, the level of profit generated by the use of driftnet is highly variable, ranging from 1% to 54% of the turnover generated by the vessels, with an average of 22% across all fisheries. However, the various costs reported by the DRIFTMED study present all a high level of variability from one fishery to the other. It should be noted that the Menaide” fishery present in Catania is accounting for almost 76% of the turnover generated by using driftnet among these seven fisheries.

2.2.5.1. Economic importance of the gear

The majority of fisheries identified are seasonal, and the participating fleets are comprised of polyvalent vessels, totalling at least 840 vessels (excluding the Baltic Sea), dispersed over a wide area.. For most fishers employing driftnets, driftnetting represents only a few months of fishing activity in any year with some fishers using driftnets for less than half a month per year.; with some fishers using driftnets for less than a single month (like the herring fisheries in the English Channel[41]).

It has not been possible to collect accurate landings data from driftnet fisheries apart from Italy and UK, which makes it almost impossible to identify the economic importance of the gear at the European level.

On the basis of the information collected for the impact assessment the economic performance and importance of the gear for the vessels and fleets is highly variable though limited at national level. For the fleets where the data are available such as the UK vessels the total value of small scale driftnets, for around 250 vessels, represent 0.14% (1.3 million €) of the total value of UK landings in 2011 ( 946 million €) and account to 0.1% of the UK landings..

In Italy, the economic importance of Italian driftnets is low if compared with the overall small scale fleet at national level (2.456 million € that is 0.8% in value, and 1.3 % in weight of 36,716 tonnes of small scale fleets landing) though the value landed ranges from around 20% to 55% (up to 90% in one fishery) of the turnover generated by the driftnet vessels(table 8). For around 90 vessels for which data has been made available, the use of driftnet represents almost 78% of the volume landed and 68 % of the value generated, for 54% of the days at sea spent. When detailing these indicators fishery by fishery, there is a high variability of dependence. The vessels deploying “menaide” close to Catania are almost exclusively using driftnet, which represent 91% of the quantity and the value landed by these vessels. At the other end of the spectrum, the two other “menaide” fisheries (Cilento and Sant’Agata di Militello) and the “occhiatara” fishery represent only 20% to 25% of the value landed by these vessels. For the three remaining fisheries (“sgomberara”, “ferrettara” and “ricciolara”), the use of driftnet accounts for close to half of the turnover generated by these vessels.

It has been reported on several occasions that landings from driftnet fisheries were receiving a price premium due to the consumer perception of a high quality fish, like for example the Sea bass/ seabream fishery in Portugal[42] or the menaide fishery for anchovy in Italy[43].

In the English Channel (UK and France), herring festivals are still very popular with local fleets landing herring caught by driftnet for the occasion. Fishermen interviewed indicated that the demand associated with these festivals (and the associated high price) was the only driver to go fishing as it would otherwise be uneconomical to target herring with driftnet[44].

2.2.5.2. Number of fishers in small scale driftnet fisheries

The lack of compulsory fishing authorizations35 and the polyvalent nature of most vessels, which are licensed to potentially use several fishing gears and carry out different fisheries, makes impossible to define the exact number of fishers actually involved in small-scale driftnet fisheries.

According to the latest Annual Economic Report[45] (2011 data) around 58170 units (46% of all EU fishing sector=127686 units) are employed in the small scale fishing fleets (i.e. vessels < 12 m and using passive/static gears).

A first estimate of the potential employment in the small-scale driftnet fishing sector can be drawn on the basis of an average number of 2.5 fishers/vessel, as estimated from the outcomes of the two scientific studies, and the number of GND-vessels smaller than 10-12 m in the fleet register (table 3), which are supposed to be less dependent from catches of highly migratory pelagic species..

Some 1423 GND-vessels smaller than 10 meter are in the fleet register that would correspond to around 3560 fishers possibly employed in the marine small-scale driftnets sector, that is 6.1 % of the EU small scale fishing sector.

Some 1680 GND-vessels smaller than 12 meter are in the fleet register that would correspond to around 4200 fishers possibly employed in the marine small-scale driftnets sector, that is 7.2 % of the EU small scale fishing sector.

If a different statistic is used and namely the amount of 887 vessels actively driftnetting in marine areas, as recently monitored by the two scientific studies (table 4), the number of employees would be 2217 units, that is 3.8% of the 58,170 employees in the EU small scale fishing sector.

In conclusion, taking into account the variation of the different sources, the number of current employees in the marine driftnet fishing sector should range between 2000 and 4500 units.

Table 7: Economic indicators for seven Italian driftnet fisheries

Fishery || Species targeted || Turnover (driftnet) || Energy costs || Labour costs || Other Variable costs || Fixed costs || Gross profit || GVA

Menaide (Catania -GSA19) || Anchovy || 1,869 || 5% || 55% || 9% || 5% || 26% || 81%

Sgomberara (Northern Sicily -GSA10) || Mackerel and bogue || 339 || 30% || 41% || 14% || 14% || 1% || 42%

Menaide (Cilento -GSA10) || Anchovy || 82 || 6% || 42% || 4% || 21% || 28% || 69%

Menaide (Sant'Agata di Militello -GSA10) || Anchovy || 49 || 36% || 41% || 11% || 8% || 4% || 45%

Occhiatara (Liguria -GSA9) || Saddled sea bream || 40 || 5% || 33% || 2% || 6% || 54% || 87%

Ferrettara (Gulf of Naples -GSA10) || Blue fish || 46 || 7% || 47% || 2% || 13% || 31% || 78%

Ricciolara (Sant'Agata di Militello -GSA10) || Greater amberjack || 31 || 20% || 39% || 16% || 8% || 17% || 56%

Combination of all fisheries || || 2,456 || 10% || 52% || 9% || 7% || 22% || 74%

Source: Italian case study[46]

Table 8: Relative importance of the use of driftnet for seven Italian driftnet fisheries

Fishery || Species targeted || Turnover (total) || Vessels || Days || Volume || Value

Menaide (Catania -GSA19) || Anchovy || 2,058 || 28 || 88% || 91% || 91%

Sgomberara (Northern Sicily -GSA10) || Mackerel and bogue || 665 || 30 || 58% || 83% || 51%

Menaide (Cilento -GSA10) || Anchovy || 384 || 19 || 13% || 30% || 21%

Menaide (Sant'Agata di Militello -GSA10) || Anchovy || 195 || 7 || 20% || 38% || 25%

Occhiatara (Liguria -GSA9) || Saddled sea bream || 160 || 5 || 12% || 34% || 25%

Ferrettara (Gulf of Naples -GSA10) || Blue fish || 84 || 2 || 47% || 47% || 55%

Ricciolara (Sant'Agata di Militello -GSA10) || Greater amberjack || 70 || 3 || 49% || 35% || 44%

Combination of all fisheries || || 3,616 || 94 || 54% || 78% || 68%

Source: Italian case study[47]

2.3. General and specific problems

On the basis of all available information there are a number of driftnet fisheries involving a significant number of EU vessels carrying out small-scale driftnet fisheries in coastal areas, estuaries and lower part of rivers (around 3150 including both the marine, estuaries/delta and rivers; around 890 strictly considering only the sea fisheries; around 2000 pooling the marine and estuaries/delta without the river fisheries).

This number could potentially increase since more polyvalent vessels, with respect to those recorded as GND vessels in the fleet register, have an authorization to use driftnets in their fishing licence. For example, in Italy around 470 boats with driftnets are registered in the EU fleet register whilst there are 819 boats licensed to use this type of net; analogously for Slovenia where 48 vessels are licensed with driftnets whilst only 5 are reported in the fleet register. In practice all UK vessels smaller than 10 meter in overall length could use the driftnets without any further specific authorisation.

Therefore, the number of active driftnet fishing vessels has the ability to change and increase or decrease over time depending on various factors.

However, the number of currently active driftnets, as estimated through the scientific studies, is much smaller than what would be potentially possible and is reported in Table 4 and Annex 2.

The general problem, as emerging from the studies and consultations, indicates the current EU legal framework on driftnet has shown some weaknesses which have facilitated the continuation of illegal fishing as well as some evidences of possible interactions with protected species.

2.3.1. Control and monitoring issues

From a control point of view, the lack of compulsory fishing authorization to strictly ring-fencing the authorised vessels together with the possibility to land in several small places in the absence of a mandatory landing obligation in specifically designated ports could be seen as undermining the controls and the compliance with the driftnets rules; this characteristic is however common to several fisheries. Amongst the factors that could facilitate bypassing the rules it is worth mentioning, the possibility of carrying on board driftnets together with other fishing gears, thereby creating the possibility to report falsely that catches of highly migratory species (Annex VIII species), which are not allowed under the EU driftnet regime, were made with the other gears, most commonly the bottom set gillnets or longlines.

Another weakness which could be mentioned is the unclear language of Article 11a of Regulation (EC) No 894/97 which prohibits the use driftnets when "intended" for capture of certain species listed in Annex VIII. The prohibition is therefore conditioned on a subjective element which could be difficult to prove unless specific characteristics of the net suitable to catch certain species are established. In fact there is some kind of relationship between the dimension of the target species and the mesh size of the gear used; the bigger the fish the bigger shall be the mesh size and twine thickness and vice-versa.

The lack of specifications of the maximum mesh size for small-scale driftnets, thus makes it more difficult to control and to enforce the prohibition of using driftnets for the capture of highly migratory species.

All these potential problems facilitate the circumvention of rules and create a disproportionate burden of proof for the control authorities when trying to detect offences.

Such weaknesses might be the reason for a proliferation of national measures supplementing the existing EU legal framework. Using the possibilities offered in Articles 9 and 10 of Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002[48] corresponding to Article 19 and 20 of the new CFP Regulation[49], some Member States had over time enacted a series of national/local measures that have not been very effective in ensuring that those weaknesses are not exploited and, on the contrary, may have left room to some more abuses and non-compliance by operators. This resulted in misuse of driftnets, particularly in the Mediterranean, that technically complied with EU and national legislation but to all intents and purposes were in fact illegal driftnets by targeting unauthorized highly migratory species (i.e. tunas etc.) and continuing to cause incidental takings and death of protected species (e.g. marine mammals, sea turtles, sea birds, etc.).

Though concerned Member States, namely France and Italy, have recently adopted further national measures to address these issues (section 2.1.3), these national legislations may not be sufficient to definitively address the problems of control, proper enforcement and possible persisting environmental problems and there is still potential in the near future of the same problems re-emerging if national rules are again changed in the wrong direction.

Therefore, also under the new CFP legal framework, the effectiveness of controls against illegal drift-netting can be negatively affected and highly demanding for national control bodies, in terms of human and technical resources, particularly in those countries with a quite big number of small-scale artisanal fishing vessels distributed along a quite extensive coastline with a high number of potential landing places, including a lot of islands (e.g. Greece, France, Italy,, Spain, UK ). In fact, also for countries prohibiting the use of all kind of driftnets through national law such as Spain there are indications of fishery using driftnets targeting seasonally sardines (e.g. "xeito" fishing in Galicia) (pers. comm. of involved fishers).

It is worth signalling that, although the use of driftnets is prohibited in the Baltic Sea since 2008, there are evidences that the Polish fishermen, around 50 vessels, have been authorised to use a "semi-driftnet' gear, (i.e. a driftnet anchored to the bottom at one end) which has been subsequently categorised as bottom-set gillnet by the Polish authorities (see 2.2.4). This approach seems a way to circumvent the driftnet ban following a similar approach developed by France to regulate the "thonaille" in the Mediterranean and that was disallowed following rulings by the ECJ. Also a Bulgarian driftnet fishery in the Black Sea targets illegally an Annex VIII species (Atlantic bonito).

These problems run the risk of being more exacerbated in those countries with important small-scale fishing fleets and numerous landing places spread around the coastline. The resources required to effectively control these specific and dispersed landing sites could be disproportionate in comparison to other priorities of control bodies.

2.3.2. Environmental issues

On the basis of the past experience and way of operating, some small-scale driftnet fisheries might have the potential to interact with strictly protected (e.g. marine mammals, sea turtles, etc.) or unauthorised species (tunas, swordfish, tuna-like species, sharks of Annex VIII) while the EU rules may be relatively easy to circumvent and still pose persisting environmental and conservation problems in some area.

In that respect monitoring and reporting systems established under Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 (Habitats Directive) and Directive 2009/147/EC of 30 November 2009 (Birds Directive) have proven to be not effective for the identification and recording of the anthropogenic causes of death of strictly protected species due to fishing activities.

The two scientific studies do not provide strong evidences of recurrent incidental takings of strictly protected species (Annex IV HD; Annex I BD), except for some French fishery in the outermost regions (sea turtles) and in some French estuarine waters of the Atlantic façade (e.g. sturgeons). In the latter case, it seems that sturgeons are returned unharmed and alive because of the limited soaking time and specific surveillance for bycatch for a restocking programme of sturgeon.

Annex 4 provides an overview on protected species likely to interact with driftnets (A) as well as on interactions rates for the protected species along with their population status based on IUCN criteria and where available estimates of Potential Biological Removal (B).

Out of the cetaceans for which interactions with driftnets have been reported, harbour porpoise in the Baltic Sea are of the greatest conservation concern, based on their population status in this region; IUCN considers the Baltic Sea populations to be Critically Endangered due to recent sharp declines in abundance[50]. Conflicting information currently exists on the intensity of harbour porpoise interaction with the Polish semi-driftnet fishery: However, unintended bycatch of the harbour porpoise in gillnet fisheries is believed to have a growing impact on the Baltic Sea population50, and is listed as one of the main threats to their conservation[51], [52], [53]..

Black Sea harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) populations in the Black Sea, which are considered to be endangered or threatened by ACCOBAMS and IUCN respectively, are also considered to potentially interact with Bulgarian driftnet fisheries targeting Atlantic Bonito.

Moreover, evidences of cetaceans, pinnipeds and seabirds interacting with driftnets exist for fisheries monitored in the UK[54].

Of the species for which data exists on interactions with currently active driftnet fisheries, the Harbour porpoise in the Baltic Sea warrants most concern based on the population status of this species and additional threats from similar gear in the region.

Harbour porpoise might also be considered at risk in the North Sea, Northeast Atlantic and in the Black Sea, based on limited data and perceived impacts of similar gear types such as static gillnets.

Review of literature and other information sources indicates that for many of the species identified as being at risk of incidental capture in driftnet fisheries currently active, a paucity of information makes it difficult to determine the real extent of impact these fisheries might have.

However such a lack of strong evidences of widespread recurrent incidental takings cannot be necessarily interpreted as evidence of absence of recurrent interactions with strictly protected species; in fact the poor monitoring of these fisheries by MS and the limited sampling effort by the two studies were most probably not able to detect these unfortunate events.

Fisheries operating with nets drifting close to or at sea surface and made by two or more walls of netting hung jointly on the headline have been detected; strictly speaking this nets are not covered by the current definition of "driftnet" which refers to a gillnet that is a net made of one wall of netting. Since these nets operate in a manner equivalent to the currently defined driftnets and may cause the same problems, the driftnet definition should be amended accordingly.

Many of the above general problems are driven by a range of specific problems. The most important specific problems, which may be relevant also for other small scale fisheries with nets, are the following:

- fisheries with a high risk of incidental takings of strictly protected species, with nets operating close or at the water surface which is a sensitive area for several air-breathing animals, such as the marine mammals, sea turtles and some sea-birds;

- lack of common standardized technical specifications in terms of gear characteristics and spatial range of fishing operation that create different treatments among fishers

- no specific obligations to ensure a proper control and scientific monitoring of the fisheries concerned (no vessels position systems; no log-book; no designated ports; no compulsory fishing authorizations)

- high-demanding costs, both financially and in human resources and means, to ensure a proper control and monitoring of these small-scale atomized and seasonal fisheries,

- high risk of resurgence of problems of non-compliance with UNGA resolutions and RFMOs binding obligations with negative effects on the activities of legal fishing fleets and the image of Europe.

Current EU provisions can be easily circumvented, for example by linking two regular nets to form an illegal one longer than 2.5 km and by mis-declaring the fishing gear used to catch the unauthorized species of Annex VIII. This state of play, combined with the high economic profit derived from the illegal use of driftnets for tunas and alike species, lead to believe that it is not possible to exclude in the near future a reappearance of illegal activities, even in areas where they have been temporarily eradicated.

- the current definition of driftnet does not include newly described drifting nets (e.g. trammel drift-nets) that would appear to pose similar risks with regards to strictly protected and unauthorized species.

2.4. EU right to act, added value, proportionality and subsidiarity

2.4.1. The right to act - Treaty basis

The Commission act on the basis of Article 3 (1d) and in line with the procedure established by the Article 43(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. In that respect, the driftnet fisheries exclusively carried out in the fresh waters of the rivers are out the scope of this initiative.

2.4.2. Added value of EU action

The EU has the possibility to improve EU rules for a more harmonised, stable, transparent and effective management framework of fisheries and thus overcoming all the weakness detected which have led to a proliferation of national/local measures that although supplementing the existing EU legal framework have not necessarily improved, if not actually weakened, its proper control and enforcement.

2.4.3. Application of the principle of subsidiarity

EU action relates to the conservation of marine biological resources, while integrating environmental concerns into fisheries policy, and falls under the EU exclusive competence according to Article 3 (1d) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). Therefore, the subsidiarity principle does not apply to the matter addressed by this initiative.

2.4.4. Consistency with other EU policies

The requirements by the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union (TFEU), particularly Article 11 therein, to integrate the environmental protection into the definition and implementation of the Union's policies and activities, together with the obligations under the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) to apply the precautionary approach and implement the ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management, make further EU action to address once and for all possible persisting environmental, conservation and sustainable fishing problems in relation to the driftnets necessary and justifiable.

There is need for further actions at EU level to address specific issues to enhance certainty for an improved, stable and controllable legal framework in line with the TFEU and CFP requirements.

Furthermore, the joint reading of first and second paragraphs of Article 11a of Regulation (EC) No 894/97 may determine discarding at sea which is no longer in line with the discard ban policy promoted by the new Common Fisheries Policy49.

It is in line with other EU policies, particularly those identified under the EU Integrated Maritime Policy, namely the Marine Strategy Framework Directive[55] (MSFD), the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP)49, the Birds and Habitat Directives[56] and the Biodiversity Strategy.

3. Objectives

3.1. General Objectives and link with the Common Fisheries Policy

The reformed CFP[57] in pursuing its objectives to provide long-term sustainable environmental, economic and social conditions and contribute to the availability of food supplies, shall apply the precautionary approach and implement the ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management to ensure that negative impacts of fishing activities on the marine ecosystems are limited and minimised to the maximum extent possible.

Article 11 of the TFEU calls for integrated environmental protection requirements into the implementation of the Union's policies and activities. There is, however, no effective conservation policy if rules are not properly controlled and enforced.

Furthermore, EU is promoting an integrated approach to maritime policy where the different sea-users are invited to contribute to the sustainable exploitation and conservation of goods and services provided by the marine ecosystems[58].

To comply with EU international obligations vis-à-vis the proper implementation of rules on driftnet fisheries in particular with the UNGA Resolutions and RFMO binding obligations as recalled in section 2.1.1.

The EU is not a signatory of ACCOBAMS. Nonetheless all EU regional Member States are members of that Agreement and have agreed a specific provision prohibiting to take on board or to use any driftnets in the Convention Area (section 2.1.2). We must ask whether and what consequences could reverberate on the credibility and image of the EU if its member countries would not respect this collective commitment taken at regional level.

It should be noted from the outset that a full assessment of the potential impacts could not be done given that complete and comprehensive data sets are often not available or are inconsistent between Member States and over time and a precautionary perspective to address the problems needs to be taken into account.

3.2. Specific Objectives

Within this framework the main specific policy objective are as follows:

· To address and eliminate any possible persisting environmental and conservation problems related to the use of small-scale driftnets in relation in particular to marine mammals, marine reptiles and seabirds.

· To address and eliminate shortcomings in the EU legal framework that may undermine implementation and weaken control and enforcement putting at risk proper implementation by Member States (e.g. scope including the newly described trammel-driftnets) and EU compliance with international obligations.

· To contribute to the objectives and targets for "good environmental status" as established under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD)[59] as well as other conservation legislation such as the Habitats Directive[60].

4. Policy Options

To address these objectives, four policy options have been considered:

· Policy option 1: maintenance of the status quo (baseline scenario);

· Policy option 2: introduction of technical and control measures;

· Policy option 3: selected ban of some driftnet fisheries;

· Policy option 4: total ban of driftnets fisheries.

4.1. Policy option 1: maintenance of the status quo (baseline scenario)

This approach means taking no specific steps to modify the current regulations controlling the use of driftnets included under Council Regulation (EC) No 894/97 as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1239/98.

The only modification could concern changes in the wording to reconcile the driftnet regime with the discard ban policy stipulated by the new Common Fisheries Policy.

If this option is chosen, the implementation weaknesses of the EU framework which have been detected will not be addressed. The risk that the catching sector and some Member States will not properly implement the current rules remains high. The Polish approach to use semi-driftnet fishery in the Baltic and the driftnet fishery for Atlantic bonito in the Black Sea are clear examples of the materialisation of this risk. Under this situation there may be emerging problems related to the conservation of protected species and to the disproportionate burden of proof for EU and national control authorities when prosecuting offenders to rules on driftnets. Moreover, the effectiveness and credibility of the EU action on this issue could continue to be questioned by the NGOs and at international level, in particular by the USA, with consequent political and administrative costs.

The only conceivable way to mitigate these risks would be to develop a much stronger control and monitoring effort both at EU and national level with all consequent costs and reservations in terms of proportionality, efficiency and effectiveness.

This option is not expected to simplify or further complicate the current regulatory framework. It relies heavily on continuing to keep a close vigilance and pressure on Member States, particularly in the Mediterranean, the Baltic and the Black Sea. The goal would be to ensure effective control and enforcement of existing EU rules and to avoid the introduction of national measures that could undermine their correct implementation. Specific verification missions by the Commission service will continue to be carried out. In case of recurrent non-compliance with the EU legislation, it could be necessary to open new Court cases against Member States.

4.2. Policy option 2: introduction of technical and control measures

This option seeks to remove misinterpretation and poor implementation of the existing rules on driftnets by introducing specific provision on:

· Additional technical measures (e.g. standards for the rigging of the fishing gears: maximum mesh size and twine thickness; maximum distance from the coast and depths for the use of fishing gears, drop of the net, etc.)

and/or

· Control and monitoring aspects (e.g. one net rule, compulsory fishing authorisations; vessel monitoring systems or equivalent for small scale vessels; revised logbook, restrained list of designated ports/landing places, net attached to the vessel etc.).

This policy option would allow having a clearer, more stable and standardised EU legal framework. It should close any implementation loopholes that have previously been exploited to reduce the effectiveness of the EU driftnet regime, either by circumventing the rules or by weakening effectiveness of control activities. Such approach would also tackle the risk that some Member States could relax adopted national measures in the future with a resurging of the compliance problems. Moreover, enhanced technical measures should further mitigate the persistent environmental impacts.

However, a complicated and costly control system would still be required. Additional administrative burden will incur at national level by imposing the need of issuing fishing authorisations for vessels carrying out these fisheries. Member States will also have to establish substantially improved monitoring systems to measure the impact of the driftnet activities as regulated by the new regime on protected species. Additional costs and burden will affect the small and micro fishing enterprises which will be requested to adapt to the new technical and control measures.

Moreover, there is still a risk that environmental problems persist due to the possible non effectiveness of control measures and to possible new loopholes discovered when implementing the new regime.

4.3. Policy option 3: selected ban of some driftnet fisheries

In line with this option, only the driftnet fisheries identified as being the most harmful to strictly protected species and/or not able to avoid unwanted by-catches of unauthorised species (Annex VIII species) would be discontinued.

This would involve as a first step the clear identification and description of driftnets fisheries across EU waters having leading to incidental catches of protected and/or unauthorised species.

Furthermore, no new driftnet fishery, beyond those already described and authorised at the time of entry into force of the new regime, should be allowed by Member State unless it is duly certified that it complies with the new rules.

This option will entail a very sophisticated control system that would lead to increased complexity and administrative burden for both the Commission and Member States when it comes to the identification of fisheries that could continue to operate. The information available at this stage is in fact insufficient to identify harmful driftnet fisheries to any degree of accuracy although several specific examples exist. This approach can therefore be challenged as controversial. It also introduces a risk of discriminatory treatment, since it will risk not contributing to the creation of a level playing field amongst all EU fishermen using driftnets due to the likely difficulty of distinguishing those most harmful from those that are environmentally friendly.

This option could entail accompanying financial measures, to support reconversion of vessels to other fishing methods or different activities particularly for those fishermen for which driftnets account for a high percentage of their yearly income. Such reconversion could be covered by the new European Maritime and Fisheries Fund provisions. It should also be taken into account that the magnitude of potential costs can be lower than expected since most of the vessels equipped with driftnets are polyvalent vessels already authorised to use a pool of different fishing gears. Therefore, they could simply focus on other fishing methods without additional costs for reconversion.

4.4. Policy option 4: total ban of driftnets fisheries

This option would mean eliminating de facto any driftnet fishery, by introducing a total prohibition to keep on board and/or use this type of fishing gear.

This will result in a simplification of the EU driftnet regime, closing any possible loopholes in interpretation which has made it difficult up to now to properly implement and control EU rules on driftnets. It will also match with the preference showed by some Member States because either they have never developed such a type of fisheries (e.g. The Netherlands, Belgium etc.) or they have adopted national measures (e.g. Spain, Greece, Cyprus, Malta etc) or have signed international obligations (e.g. Mediterranean and Black Sea Member States together with Portugal as Parties of ACCOBAMS) prohibiting the use of any driftnets.

Any persisting environmental problem would be addressed, by applying the precautionary principle. Considering high the risk of incidental takings despite the uncertainty and the lack of precise data on the impact of driftnet activities on protected species, all activities will be prohibited.

The possible initial socio-economic and administrative costs would be transitional and could be offset by the simplification introduced at legislative and control level.

This option could entail accompanying financial measures, to support reconversion of vessels to other fishing methods or different activities particularly for those fishermen for which driftnets account for a high percentage of their yearly income. Such reconversion could be covered by the new European Maritime and Fisheries Fund provisions. It should also be taken into account that the magnitude of potential costs can be lower than expected since most of the vessels equipped with driftnets are polyvalent vessels already authorised to use a pool of different fishing gears. Therefore, they could simply focus on other fishing methods without additional costs for reconversion.

5. Analysis of Impacts

In this section Policy Options 1, 2, 3 and 4 are assessed in terms of their socio-economic and environmental impacts. Moreover, an attempt has also been made to analyse the administrative burden which would result on the Member States for each one of the options proposed.

5.1. Analysis of social and economic impacts by policy options

Due to the lack of sound specific data for most fisheries, no concrete estimates on quantitative impacts for all fisheries are available. Instead, mostly qualitative comparisons are used, with consideration of the likely magnitude of impacts where possible. The rationale is based on a SWOT analysis.

The majority of fisheries identified are seasonal, and the participating fleets are comprised of polyvalent vessels, totalling at least 840 vessels (excluding the Baltic Sea), dispersed over a wide area. For most fishers employing driftnets, driftnetting represents only a few months of fishing activity in any year with some fishers using driftnets for less than half a month per year.

Nonetheless this type of fishery may represent a significant source of income integration for some local community of fishers though, during the past years, the numbers of vessels as well as the number of employees have been substantially decreasing. While it cannot be excluded that the ban may affect some of the vessels carrying out these fisheries, the overall socio-economic impact of the total ban is therefore considered irrelevant at national and sub-regional level (section 2.2).

Moreover, due to the polyvalent nature of practically all the vessels carrying out driftnet fisheries, the total prohibition to use driftnets according to option 4 is not expected to result in a corresponding reduction of fishers which will continue to operate with other gears as already authorised in their fishing licence.

Policy Options are clearly evaluated through scores (see key below for interpretation) indicated in the tables below.

Options || Socio-Economic Impact || Score

Policy Option 1

Status quo –baseline scenario (no further action at EU level) || Driftnet fishing will continue to be of limited economic importance to Member States at a national level, though with variation between Member States and within Member States. Driftnet fishermen will remain dependent on driftnet fisheries as their main fishing gear, or as one of many gears that provides flexibility in fishing opportunities. || 0

Policy Option 2

Technical and control measures adopted at EU level || Economic and financial costs are expected to adapt the fleet to the new technical requirements and to develop appropriate control tools. Accrued technical measures on the driftnet sectors could determine ceasing of fishing activities || -

Policy Option 3

Selected ban on some driftnet fisheries || Social and economic impacts on driftnet fishermen affected by the implementation of the ban. Although these costs can be mitigated by carrying out other type of fisheries already authorised in their fishing licence and, where necessary, through accompanying financial measures. They may be aggravated by the potential risk of discriminatory treatment amongst driftnet fisheries. Furthermore, in order to get more reliable data for proper classification also the sector should participate in the scientific surveys with additional costs. The high risk of misclassification of some fisheries could lead to unjustified social costs. || --

Policy Option 4

Total ban on driftnet fisheries || Social and economic impacts for affected fishermen, although they will be mitigated by carrying out other type of fisheries already authorised in their fishing licence and, where necessary, through accompanying measures to support adaptation (switch to other fishing methods, differentiation of activity, phasing out). || -

(Key: + positive impact, ++ substantially positive impact, -negative impact, -- substantially negative impact, 0 no impact, NA not applicable/very difficult to assess).

5.2. Analysis of environmental impacts

An indication of the qualitative environmental impacts has been made on the basis of whether the measures have a direct impact on fostering greener and environmentally sustainable fisheries.

Options || Environmental Impact || Score

Policy Option 1

Status quo (no further action at EU level) || The current lack of data about the absence of impact of driftnets on protected species will persist, together with shortcomings in the control of fishing activities and in the enforcement of EU rules. Moreover, in the near future there could be a relaxation of measures taken at national level. There is therefore a high environment risk. || --

Policy Option 2

Technical and control measures adopted at EU level || Same environmental impacts as the Status quo, though it removes the possibility for future relaxation of national legislation to adversely impact unauthorised species. || -

Policy Option 3

Selected ban on some driftnet fisheries || This option aims to address the persisting environmental problem, including the collection of the evidences needed to support decision. However, it should be noted that the information available in the short term is limited and not enough robust to identify the most harmful fisheries to be prohibited. In this context there is a risk that the most harmful fisheries are not covered by the ban with persisting environmental concerns. The possible transfer of effort from prohibited driftnet fisheries to other metiers should be monitored to avoid negative impact. || +

Policy Option 4 || ||

Total ban on driftnet fisheries || Positive impact since this option will address all possible environmental concerns, by prohibiting any activity. The displacement of activity towards other gears, mostly already authorised in their fishing licence, is considered minimal considering the marginal importance given to driftnet activities for most of the vessels. Positive indirect effects for better steering other fisheries with likely interaction with protected species. However, transfer of effort from driftnet fisheries to other metiers should be monitored to avoid unexpected negative impact. || ++

(Key: + positive impact, ++ substantially positive impact, -negative impact, -- su