Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the 'Management of fish stocks in the Mediterranean'
Date: 1998-02-25
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: Mediterranean Sea, fishery management, fishery resources, fishing regulations, management of resources

C 129/28

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

27.4.98

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Management of fish stocks in the
Mediterranean’

(98/C 129/07)

On 10 July 1997 the Economic and Social Committee, acting under the third paragraph of
Rule 23 of its Rules of Procedure, decided to draw up an opinion on the ‘Management of fish
stocks in the Mediterranean’.

The Section for Agriculture and Fisheries, which was responsible for preparing the Committee’s
work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 5 February 1998. The rapporteur was Mr Mun˜iz
Guardado.

At its 352nd plenary session of 25 and 26 February 1998 (meeting of 25 February), the
Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 118 votes for with one
abstention.

1.

Introduction

1.1.
The present opinion addresses the management
of fish stocks in the Mediterranean, a clearly complex
and delicate issue of great importance whose particular
features demand a specific approach.

Different fishing fleets operate in the Mediter-
1.2.
ranean: EU vessels, those from the other countries of
the Mediterranean basin, and third country vessels.
While the EU fleet is subject to strict rules (Community
and national, in some cases), arrangements vary for each
of the other Mediterranean countries and third country
fleets, concentrating on migratory species (tuna and
swordfish), operate with virtually unrestricted freedom.
This is creating an increasingly untenable and discrimi-
natory situation for all the Mediterranean countries, the
EU ones in particular.

1.3.
There is a need for real, comprehensive harmon-
ization: it is difficult for EU fishermen to understand
why they must obey (national/EU) laws which are not
harmonized with those of the other fleets present in the
Mediterranean.

EU fishermen acknowledge that fishing grounds
1.4.
which are at risk of being wiped out must be protected
and regulated, but they cannot accept that such protec-
tion should benefit other, unregulated fleets at their
expense.

1.5.
Representatives of the 88 Mediterranean fisher-
men’s associations met in Ibiza (Spain) on 7 and 8 June
1997. The urgent need for comprehensive arrangements,
efficient management and controls on the fleets of other
Mediterranean and third countries, together with vessels
operating under flags of convenience, was once again
emphasized, so as to combat the over-fishing to which
most Mediterranean species are subject.

1.6.
The far-reaching importance of this question has
already given rise to two diplomatic conferences: one in
Crete (Greece) in 1994, the other in Venice (Italy) in
1996. At both conferences aspirations for the future of
the Mediterranean were discussed and numerous

declarations made, but since then the sector has seen
that these intentions have failed to lead to practical
measures going any way towards solving the problems.

1.7.
The competent bodies must make faster and
more effective progress. An extremely serious situation
is being met with rather too much calm, and there is
little sense of realism or ambition in seeking solutions,
although some national measures have been adopted
over recent months (replacement of drifting gill nets in
Italy using EU loans, establishment of a protected zone
in Spain).

1.8. Other widely advocated steps, however, have
not yet been discussed. Among these, the Committee
would highlight trade measures against countries not
complying with rules for conserving resources.

1.9.
Although Community law provides for many of
these restrictions, it also contains derogations for specific
fishing fleets from a number of countries. There are also
specific derogations for other countries.

1.10.
The fact that these restrictions continue to be
flouted contributes to the exhaustion of all resources.
Recovery of fishing grounds should therefore be the
guiding principle of all fishery policies: Council Regu-
lation (EC) No 1626/94 of 27 June 1994 (1) represented
a first step in this direction.

Even Regulation (EC) No 1626/94 lacks realism
1.11.
and ambition in solving the very real problems existing
in the Mediterranean.

The regulation has still failed to produce real,
1.12.
effective harmonization and the Mediterranean con-
tinues to lack a regulation system capable of halting the
deterioration of resources, the crisis affecting fleets, job
losses and market distortion. The Committee therefore
advocates:

— safeguards for the conservation of Mediterranean

fishery resources;

(1) OJ L 171, 6.7.1994, p. 1; ESC opinion: OJ C 201, 26.7.1993.

27.4.98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 129/29

— consideration of the views and advice of those
working in the sector on whatever measures are
adopted, underpinning their implementation;

The following figures outline the make-up of the

2.2.
EU fleets operating in the Mediterranean zone:

— responsible marketing, to make responsible fishing

Country

Vessels

KWt

Personnel

GRT

both possible and sustainable;

— effective checks on third country fleets practising
unregulated industrial fishing at the expense of
traditional fishing.

2. General comments

2.1.
‘Mediterranean’ means ‘surrounded by land’: it
is a small sea compared to others around the world, but
is unique in giving its name to a clearly defined type of
climate. It is home to a wide range of economically
valuable species. Hake, monkfish, mullet, sole, bream,
shrimp and prawn are of particular importance among
demersal species: the pelagic species divide into the
smaller varieties, such as sardine, anchovy, scad and
mackerel, and the larger, which include bluefin tuna
and swordfish.

2.1.1.
These resources basically live and reproduce
within the continental shelf area (to a depth of 180
metres). The shelf is narrow, and distributed unevenly
along its shoreline. This can be seen from the following
table, which also shows territorial waters in nautical
miles.

Country

Albania
Algeria
Cyprus
Egypt
France
Greece
Israel
Italy
Lebanon
Libya
Malta
Morocco
Spain
Syria
Tunisia
Turkey (Mediterranean)
Former Yugoslavia

Total

Territorial
waters
(naut. miles)

15
12 (1)
12
12
12
6
6
12
12
12
12
12
12 (1)
36
12
6-12 (1)
12

Shelf
(km2)

5 450
10 700
2 500
29 200
20 450
57 000
3 250
120 740
1 450
55 000
5 460
4 480
44 100
1 160
77 300
26 100
43 500

511 140

Spain
France
Italy
Greece

EU total

5 668
2 365
16 801
20 792

45 626

477 828
183 000
1 524 977
674 310

15 053
3 611
47 587
39 397

101 256
17 458
270 179
146 147

105 648

2.2.1.
Appendix I describes the characteristics of the
EU Mediterranean fishing fleet, as defined in the 1990
working document on guidelines for a common fisheries
system in the Mediterranean.

2.2.2.
These figures reflect the small size of undertak-
ings, which are of a predominantly non-industrial
character. The proximity of fishing grounds to fishing
communities and ease of access to markets (at least in
the Community countries) have produced a highly
fragmented sector. The size of each country’s fleet
depends chiefly on the size of its continental shelf area.
The following table illustrates the concentration of
fishing vessels in each 1 000 km2 of shelf for each EU
country:

Country

Vessels

KWt

Personnel

GRT

Spain
France
Italy
Greece

129
116
139
365

10 835
8 949
12 630
11 830

341
177
394
691

2 296
854
2 238
2 564

2.3.
The Mediterranean is also a major centre for the
consumption of fisheries products. It has a strong
tradition of seafood consumption, a densely populated
coastline and a fragmented but very fluid market on
which fishery produce prices are often considerably
higher than on other markets. Against this backdrop, it
is difficult to check on the size of catches landed — a
difficulty compounded by at least two further factors:
the geographic dispersal of potential landing places,
and budget constraints preventing the authorities from
stepping up checks (sea and land surveillance).

(1) Algeria extended its territorial waters unilaterally in 1996. Spain
has declared a protected fisheries zone between the Cabo de Gata
and the French border. Both Spain and Algeria have decided to
supervise fishing activities up to the territorial limit permitted by
the Convention of the Sea. Turkey applies a 6 mile limit in the
Aegean and 12 miles along the rest of its coast.

2.4.
Inspection systems, which are the responsibility
of the national authorities, should, as far as possible,
involve fishing communities themselves and their organ-
izations, based on clear, transparent and fair rules.
Fishery resources have long been exploited in the
Mediterranean, sometimes under self-regulating ar-

C 129/30

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

27.4.98

rangements put in place by fishing communities. How-
ever, technological change, the increased mobility of the
world’s fleets, and market globalization have finally
affected the stability of Mediterranean resources.

— ensure improved coordination of scientific and tech-
nical research, so as to obtain optimum use of
specialist bodies’ operating budgets;

2.4.1.
As long ago as 1972, the General Fisheries
Council for the Mediterranean (GFCM) (1) set up a
working party on pollution in the Mediterranean. Due
to the localized nature of many resources, however,
countries have generally made little headway in inter-
national cooperation, the GFCM being restricted to a
basically consultative role.

2.4.2. Nevertheless, the entry of Greece and Spain
into the Community in the 1980s, together with the
weight of the common fisheries policy in the Atlantic
(withdrawal prices, aid for modernization, etc.) led the
member states to begin a joint follow-up effort for
Mediterranean fisheries.

2.5.
In the mid-1990s the European Commission’s
services presented a working document on guidelines
for a common fisheries system for the Mediterranean, a
first step in discussing the problems and solutions to
them. At this stage, it became evident that a Community
policy for the conservation and management of fishery
resources in the region was needed , in order to maintain
fisheries assets and encourage their exploitation for the
benefit of the coastal population. A series of measures
was introduced to achieve these objectives, establishing
a timetable and the means by which a common fisheries
policy for the Mediterranean would be set up. Seven
years after publication of the document, an analysis can
be made of how these guidelines have evolved in
the legislative, political, technical, socio-economic and
international cooperation spheres.

2.5.1.
It was made clear in the legislative sphere that,
although many of the provisions of the common fisheries
policy were fully applicable to Mediterranean fisheries,
they had to be introduced in stages and taking constant
care to protect elements peculiar to Mediterranean
fishing. To this end, it was proposed to:

— establish a Community basis at the highest level,
reflecting the general principles deriving from the
UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and existing
laws on technical conservation and management
standards;

— introduce or strengthen cooperation between Mem-

ber States in the field of scientific research;

— organize systematic dissemination of basic scientific

data and results of work.

The adoption of Council Regulation (EC)
2.5.1.1.
No 1626/94 of 27 June 1994 represented a significant step
forward, harmonizing a number of technical measures in
force in the Mediterranean. The Committee issued an
opinion on this regulation on 6 May 1993, making a
number of general comments which were not, unfortu-
nately, fully taken on board in the regulation as finally
adopted. Appendix II provides a table of the derogations
under Regulation 1626/94, drawn up by the Com-
mission’s DG XIV.

2.5.1.2. Despite the advances made in the legislative
field, real and effective harmonization is far from being
achieved in the Mediterranean. This will only be possible
by gradually removing all current derogations, when not
scientifically justified, and applying the same technical
measures to all fleets. The aim is to ensure a minimum,
non-discriminatory reference framework for all Member
States. If the proposal in its current form should prove
unacceptable to any country, the relevant aspects of the
regulation should be revised so that it is the same for all
the countries upon which it is binding. In this regard, it
is not acceptable for draft regulations to be consolidated
which, even if for a transitional and limited period,
constitute a serious precedent which could jeopardize
efforts to secure a more structured fisheries conservation
policy in the Mediterranean, as argued in the ESC’s
opinion (2).

2.5.1.3.
To summarize, progress is possible in terms
of stricter legislation, based on a Community framework
of minimum requirements which countries, regions or
fishing communities can supplement. However, it will
be equitable to Community fishermen, who are in
constant competition with each other, only if the
framework of minimum obligatory requirements is the
same for all. Clearly, a prerequisite for the social
acceptance of legislation is that it be seen as equitable:
effective enforcement
is impossible without social
acceptance in such a highly dispersed, fluid and complex
environment as the Mediterranean.

(1) An intergovernmental organization set up in 1949 within
the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). The
convention establishing the GFCM came into force on
20 February 1952.

(2) OJ C 30, 30.1.1997.

27.4.98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 129/31

2.5.2.
A series of indicators were laid down in the
political sphere, which may be broadly described as
follows:

— concerted action between the Member States con-
cerned with a view to establishing fishery jurisdiction
zones beyond territorial waters;

— contacts with other Mediterranean countries, also

fostering scientific cooperation;

2.5.3.
In the technical sphere, the need has been
acknowledged for a specific Mediterranean model for
resource conservation. For the reasons listed above, this
model is based on supervising the fishing effort (placing
restrictions on fishing gear, on the number of vessels,
etc.) rather than on limiting catches. Mediterranean
fisheries are such that general application of supervisory
arrangements based on fixing TACs are impracticable,
on account of the multi-species nature of catches and
dispersal of fleets. Special importance has therefore been
given to technical regulations, focusing on the following:

— technical research into selectivity of nets;

— intensified international cooperation within existing

organizations.

— progressive reduction in the use of nets damaging to
the marine environment, especially drifting gill nets;

2.5.2.1. Here, progress has basically been made at
national level. The case of Spain should be noted, with
its recent Royal Decree 1315/97 setting up a protected
fishery zone in the Mediterranean from the Cabo de
Gata to the border with France. Within this zone, Spain
retains sovereign rights for the purposes of conserving
living marine resources and for fishery management and
control (Article 2). All, of course, without prejudice to
any past of future EU measures for the protection and
conservation of resources .

2.5.2.2.
The Spanish government’s intention with this
measure is basically to protect populations of large
pelagic species (particularly tuna), and to keep a labour-
intensive, non-industrial fleet in the zone, oriented
towards high-quality fishery products.

2.5.2.3.
A significant increase in the fishing effort of
non-Mediterranean industrial vessels has occurred over
recent years (there are estimated to be more than 100
such vessels, some using flags of convenience). These
vessels frequently operate without supervision and
very close to the 12-mile coastal zones, flouting the
recommendations of the International Convention for
the conservation of Atlantic tunas (ICCAT). This
uncontrolled exploitation over the last few years has
reduced fish stocks to critical levels.

2.5.2.4.
Uncontrolled exploitation further highlights
the need to establish effective arrangements for con-
trolling the fishing effort in the Mediterranean. A key
objective in this regard is to strengthen the position of
the GFCM as a major regional fisheries organization.
To this end a number of important decisions (a scientific
committee, autonomous budget, etc.) were taken at the
GFCM’s meeting in Rome on 13-16 October 1997. At
the same time it was decided to amend the GFCM’s
statutes and rules of procedure so as to allow the
Community to become a member which will help to
increase the EU’s importance in the organization.

— drawing up of Community legislation defining
characteristics and conditions for the use of different
types of net;

— conversion of fleets in order to secure systematic use

of selective nets.

2.5.3.1.
Results in this field have also been scarce.
Progress has been made in certain secondary aspects
(establishment of a Community fleet census), but the core
of the problem has only been tackled by Regulation 1626.
However, the adoption of this Council regulation on
27 June 1994, harmonizing a number of technical
measures in force in the Mediterranean, did not represent
a major advance on the points referred to above, since:

— the regulation made no provision for prohibiting

drifting gill nets;

— comparative discrimination is created with respect
to pelagic, semi-pelagic and pair trawling gear, since
it is left to the Member States to establish restrictions
involving technical characteristics (Article 5).

2.5.3.2.
Progress may, however, be made on the
problem of drifting gill nets following the adoption of a
Council Decision on a specific measure to encourage
Italian fishermen to diversity out of certain fishery
activities (1), at the Fisheries Ministers Council held in
Luxembourg on 14 and 15 April 1997.

2.5.3.3.
Various scientific studies have been pro-
duced, but although they have increased knowledge of
the problem, they have not been taken into sufficient
consideration so as to underpin the regulations so far
adopted. They do however represent a considerable step
forward in terms of research, which must be pursued

(1) OJ L 121, 13.5.1997, p. 20-22.

C 129/32

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

27.4.98

in every possible forum, particularly those bringing
together countries whose fleets are active in the Mediter-
ranean.

icy, and the involvement of occupational organ-
izations. A specific point was contacts with third
country fishermen;

2.5.3.4.
The GFCM should be the primary body
involved, without however underestimating the role of
scientific cooperation between countries (such as the
FAO’s COPEMED project, etc.).

— the First meeting of professional fishermen from the
countries of the Mediterranean seaboard, organized
by the Commission, was held in Naples, Italy, on
28 September 1996.

In conclusion, progress is being made in the
2.5.3.5.
technical field, but it is extremely slow. This means it
still has little practical impact in terms of effectively
regulating Community fishing at a stable, non-
conflictual level.

2.5.4.
In the socio-economic sphere, it was necessary
to involve the sector in implementing the common
fisheries policy . In view of the nature of Mediterranean
fisheries (dispersal, small size of vessels, etc.), it was
essential to secure the support of those working in the
sector for the obligations inevitably involved in making
the common fisheries policy viable. It was proposed, in
this connection, to strengthen the sector’s structures so
as to create an active centre of collective responsibility
to be consulted on questions of resource and market
management.

2.5.4.1.
The producers’ organizations targeted in the
common organization of the market have not been
strengthened in the Mediterranean because of the exist-
ing socio-economic structure and the way in which
products are marketed. Regulation of the fishing effort
could be strengthened by introducing mechanisms for
the territorialization of the coastal waters. Official
recognition of fishermen’s organizations in countries
such as France and Spain, where they are firmly
established, could be put on a qualitatively higher
level. The effective supervision exercised by fishing
communities in certain parts of the Mediterranean could
be studied, and should lead to legal recognition and the
delegation of powers by the state, allowing them a
degree of participation in managing the resources of
their local waters. Such recognition already exists for
the coastal fisheries of Japan and the coastal lagoon of
Valencia. The restrictive character of such a scheme
could result in stronger safeguards for resources.

2.5.4.2.
Action in this sphere has so far been restricted
to consultation initiatives, including two in which the
sector participated:

— the seminar held by the Commission and the Euro-
pean Parliament in Ancona, Italy, on 22 and 23 June
1995 discussed Mediterranean resource conservation
policy. Following the seminar, a meeting was held
on 24 June attended by representatives of fishermen’s
organizations. The meeting tackled questions con-
cerning harmonization, Community-level technical
measures, international cooperation, structural pol-

Lastly, the international cooperation sphere
2.5.5.
was considered to constitute the second stage in con-
structing a comprehensive policy for the conservation
and rational management of resources. After Com-
munity harmonization, fishing in the Mediterranean as
a whole would need to be tackled: measures agreed with
the coastal states should be binding upon all.

2.5.5.1.
The most appropriate way proposed was to
hold a diplomatic conference charged with laying the
foundations for an international coordinating structure.
The assumption was that such coordination should
safeguard the common policy’s successes in resource
management and conservation, secured during the first
stage, and should be underpinned by an independent
scientific body which would do the groundwork for an
evaluation of the state of stocks.

2.5.5.2. Matters have not yet moved beyond consul-
tation in this area. Two diplomatic conferences have
been held (Crete, Greece, 1994 and Venice, Italy, 1996)
but no operational measures have yet been adopted to
provide a practical solution to the problems.

2.5.5.3.
A further major issue raised since 1990 has
been the revitalization of the GFCM as an institutional
framework which brings together all the Mediterranean
countries. No substantial progress has been made here
either. The GFCM’s work has not been significantly
stepped up (this may be assumed to be due to lack of
resources, which should basically be provided by the
EU). The EU’s membership has been approved (although
it awaits Council ratification in order to take legal
effect). The CGPM’s activity may change in view of the
results obtained at its most recent meeting, held in Rome
in October 1997.

2.5.5.4. Many EU and non-EU countries — such as
Spain, Greece, Morocco, Algeria, etc. — are generally
involved in small-scale, non-industrial fishing. In con-
trast, an industrial-type fleet, flying the Japanese or
Korean flag, or flags of convenience (Panama, Honduras,
Belize, etc.), continues to operate, unsupervised, outside
the 12-mile limit. This fleet consists of over 100 large
vessels, fishing industrially with large-scale gear, concen-
trating on massive catches of bluefin tuna and swordfish.

27.4.98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 129/33

2.5.5.5.
The state of stocks is such that they cannot
withstand pressure of this kind indefinitely. The situ-
ation must be regulated and brought under control in
the near future. Small-scale fishing should, in any event,
always have priority over industrial fishing, and the
interests of Mediterranean countries over those of
outside countries.

3. Conclusions

The Mediterranean displays a number of specific
3.1.
features to which management systems must be geared
if they are to be effective.

3.2.
The efficacy of management systems will also
depend on their fairness, thus preventing discrimination.

3.3.
Scientific research funding must be stepped up
still further, giving greater dynamism to the GFCM and
making it the leading body, but without neglecting
scientific cooperation through joint studies by Mediter-
ranean countries.

justified, with the same technical measures applying to
all fleets.

The Committee would urge that fishermen be
3.5.
consulted on the proposed legislation, thereby involving
them in its application. This would give greater force to
the proposal made by the EU within the GFCM
concerning the creation of a committee on which
fishermen would be directly represented.

3.6.
Appropriate steps must be taken against pro-
ducers who infringe resource conservation rules.
Responsible trade must be encouraged so as to prevent
the current unfair competition, particularly with regard
to third country fleets.

3.7.
The establishment of protected fishery zones in
the Mediterranean is the type of measure capable of
ensuring that resource protection and conservation
measures are effective.

3.8.
The diplomatic conferences must do more than
issue declarations of intent. There must be closer
cooperation between all the countries, working together
at an early stage to prepare conclusions which can be
put into practice immediately.

Situations clearly differ, requiring real and com-
3.4.
prehensive harmonization of Mediterranean fisheries.
Harmonization will only be possible following the
gradual removal of all the derogations contained in
Regulation (EC) No 1626/94, when not scientifically

Small-scale fishing must have priority over its
3.9.
industrial counterpart in the transition to sustainable
fishing in the Mediterranean. The interests of the
Mediterranean countries should come before those of
other countries.

Brussels, 25 February 1998.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Tom JENKINS

C 129/34

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

27.4.98

APPENDIX I

to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee

Characteristics of the EU Mediterranean fishing fleet

The EU Mediterranean fishing fleet may be described in general terms as follows:

— it comprises a large number of vessels (some 47 000), which are small in size and underpowered;

— both the vessels and their on-board fishing, conservation and processing equipment are out-dated;

— on-board health and safety standards are often low.

Following an analysis of the socio-economics models for the exploitation of fishery resources, the
situation in the four Member States concerned may be summarized as follows:

— Non-industrial coastalfishing is carried out using vessels with no superstructure, less than nine metres
in length between perpendiculars and usually with no engine. Most vessels are family-operated and
fishing provides many but low-paid jobs. Moreover, given its traditional social structures, the sector
is somewhat resistant to outside obligations (legislation, supervision) and technological progress.
This is compounded by socio-economic structures encouraging individualism.

— The medium-sized non-industrial fishing fleet comprises vessels of between 9 and 18 metres in length
between perpendiculars, which are generally out-dated and obsolete. Their activities are easier to
supervise as there are fewer of them than of the above type, and because their size obliges them to
land their catches in port. Some of the activities of this part of the Mediterranean fleet are subject to
strict regulation, such as bans on fishing or building new vessels, aimed at controlling access to
resources (advance authorization for construction, commissioning permits, licences, etc.).

— Deep-sea fishing is carried out by relatively modern and efficient vessels, operating in zones generally
lying outside territorial waters. Of particular note here is the fleet specializing in tuna and other
large migratory species, which competes directly the fleets of non-Mediterranean countries.

Source: COM(90) 1136 fin — Annex I — pp.13-14

27.4.98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 129/35

APPENDIX II

to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee

Exceptions under Regulation (EC) No 1626/94

Country

Fishery

Accepted exceptions

Trawling for restocking fish Exceptions to 40 mm mesh size
(Gobiidae, Atherinidae)
for
human consumption (Upper
Adriatic)

(Article 6, Annex III)

Trawling (Mugilidae, Spari- Exceptions to 40 mm mesh size
dae) for aquaculture (Upper
Adriatic)

(Article 6, Annex III)

Time limit
and conditions

31.12.1998
Authorized
2 months
per annum

31.12.1998

Restocking fish for consump- Exceptions to 14 mm mesh size
for encircling nets (Article 6,
tion or aquaculture (Tyrrhen-
Annex III)
ian Sea)

31.12.1998

Italy

Italy

Italy

Italy

Trawls and seines for Atherini- Use within 3 nautical miles or
dae in the coastal zone

the 50 m isobath

31.12.1998

Italy

Dredges for shellfish

Dredging within 3 nautical
miles or the 50 m isobath

France

Pair trawls (above the Posidon- Exceptions to 40 mm mesh size
ian beds)

(Article 6, Annex III)

Permanent,
if > 90 %
shellfish

31.12.1998

France

Shore seines

Greece

Shore seines

Use tolerated (with minimum
mesh size)

Use tolerated (with minimum
mesh size)

1.1.2002

1.1.2002

Greece

Seines and trawls in the coastal Use within 3 nautical miles or
zone

the 50 m isobath

31.12.1998

Comments

in

Exceptions granted for meshes
used
accordance with
national law at 1.1.1994.
Possible extension after 1998 if
scientifically justified

in

Exceptions granted for meshes
used
accordance with
national law at 1.1.1994.
Possible extension after 1998 if
scientifically justified

in

Exceptions granted for meshes
used
accordance with
national law at 1.1.1994.
Possible extension after 1998 if
scientifically justified

in

Exceptions granted for meshes
used
accordance with
national law at 1.1.1994.
Possible extension after 1998 if
scientifically justified

in

Exceptions granted for meshes
used
accordance with
national law at 1.1.1994.
Possible extension after 1998 if
scientifically justified

Possible extension after 2002, if
scientifically justified

Possible extension after 2002, if
scientifically justified

in

Exceptions granted for meshes
used
accordance with
national law at 1.1.1994.
Possible extension after 1998 if
scientifically justified

Source: table prepared by the Commission for the ‘Mediterranean’ working party of the Advisory Committee on Fisheries, 1 March 1995 (agenda

item 2.2).