Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the application of the Community system for fisheries and aquaculture in 1996-1998
Date: 2000-01-24
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: aquaculture, common fisheries policy, conservation of fish stocks, fishery management, report

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

Brussels, 24.1.2000
COM(2000) 15 final

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL
AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

on the application of the Community system for fisheries and aquaculture in 1996-1998

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL
AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

on the application of the Community system for fisheries and aquaculture in 1996-1998

2

Introduction

Table of Contents

1.

MANAGEMENT OF RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES.................. 7

1.1. Effects of conservation measures on the state of stocks in the period 1996-1998. ... 7

1.2. The new management tools .................................................................................... 8

1.3. The TAC regime in 1996-1998............................................................................... 8

1.4. Technical measures................................................................................................ 9

1.5. The conservation of Baltic fishery resources ........................................................ 10

1.6. The conservation of Mediterranean fishery resources ........................................... 10

1.7. Environmental issues ........................................................................................... 10

1.8. The Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries ........................ 11

1.9. Dialogue .............................................................................................................. 11

1.10. Research in support of the Common Fisheries Policy ........................................... 12

2.

RESTRUCTURING THE FISHERIES SECTOR ...................................................... 13

2.1. Reduction of fishing effort ................................................................................... 13

2.2.

Structural aids ...................................................................................................... 14

2.3. Legislative work .................................................................................................. 15

3.

EXTERNAL FISHERIES POLICY ........................................................................... 16

3.1.

Participation in regional fisheries management organisations. .............................. 16

3.2. Bilateral fisheries agreements with third countries................................................ 17

3.3.

International co-operation in the Mediterranean ................................................... 17

3.4.

International agreements and conventions on fisheries ......................................... 18

3

4.

THE MARKETS FOR FISHERY PRODUCTS......................................................... 18

4.1. The Common Market Organisation in fisheries and aquaculture products............. 18

4.2. Compensation scheme for the additional costs incurred in the marketing of certain
fishery products from the Azores, Madeira, the Canary islands and the French
departments of Guyana and Reunion ..................................................................... 19

5.

MONITORING THE COMMON FISHERIES POLICY ........................................... 20

5.1. Establishment of a vessel monitoring system (VMS)............................................ 20

5.2.

Fishing effort regime............................................................................................ 20

5.3. Amendments to the Control Regulation................................................................ 21

5.4. List of types of behaviour which seriously infringe the rules of the Common
Fisheries Policy..................................................................................................... 22

5.5.

Financial participation.......................................................................................... 23

Conclusions

Annexes

4

INTRODUCTION

1.

2.

3.

4.

Article 14(1) of Council Regulation No 3760/92 of 20 December 1992 establishing a
Community system for fisheries and aquaculture provides that the Commission is to
report, at least every three years, to the European Parliament, the Council and the
Community bodies representing the sector, on the implementation of measures
adopted pursuant to this regulation, and in particular Article 8 thereof.

This report reviews the measures adopted and presents developments in the Common
Fisheries Policy (CFP), during the years 1996-1998.

In the field of conservation and management of resources major achievements during
the 1996-1998 period include, among others, the setting up of a regime of flexibility
in the year -to-year management of quotas, the adoption of new TACs in the North
Sea for non-regulated species, the adoption of new TACs in international waters
managed by regional organisations (redfish, atlanto-scandian herring, bluefin tuna,
swordfish), the adoption of a new Council regulation on technical measures, the
revamping of STECF (Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries)
and the initiation of a dialogue mechanism on management of certain fisheries.

There were also areas where the Commission believes that more progress should
have been achieved such as the implementation of the fishing effort arrangements.
Moreover, enforcement of minimum landing sizes for certain species, especially in
the Mediterranean, was not effective during the 1996-1998 period. A proposal by the
Commission to address this issue in the Mediterranean, was not adopted by the
Council.

Regarding structural policy, the Council adopted on 26 June 1997, Decision No
97/413 concerning the objectives and detailed rules for restructuring the Community
fisheries sector for the period 1997-2001 (MAGP IV). The Council however failed to
the more ambitious objectives which were originally proposed by the
accept
Commission.

international co-operation,

In the field of
the major developments are the
organisation by the Commission of the Second Diplomatic Conference on the
fisheries management in the Mediterranean (Venice, December 1996), the accession
of the Community to three regional organisations (ICCAT, IOTC and the GFCM)
and the decision by the Community to ratify the UN Agreement on Straddling Fish
Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks . The latter agreement must also be ratified
by the Member States .

Due to the multiplication of regional organisations and the increasing complexity of
their work, the Commission is facing more and more difficulties in ensuring the
adequate representation and defence of Community interests with no additional
human resources. The Commission is taking initiatives to address this issue in co-
operation with the Member States.

In its conclusions of 30 October 1997, the Council, while reaffirming the role and
place of the agreements in the CFP, asked the Commission to carry out a cost/benefit
analysis of the Community's fisheries agreements with third countries. On the basis
of the conclusions of this study which has now been completed and presented to the
Council and of other ideas, the Commission must define, in the course of the year

5

5.

6.

7.

8.

2000, the main thrust of a possible new policy stance regarding the Community
policy on fisheries agreements. The Commission might also seize this opportunity to
review the future of fisheries outside community waters in general.

There were no new major developments of a legislative nature on the market policy.
In December 1997, the Commission published a communication on the reform of the
Common Market Organisation (CMO), thus launching the debate with the industry
and within the Community institutions on this important subject. The Commission's
proposal on the reform of the CMO was issued in February 1999.

the Community control and enforcement

Finally,
regime was modified and
strengthened with the gradual introduction of a vessel monitoring system (VMS), the
regime and the
adoption of complementary measures to the fishing effort
amendments to the Control Regulation No 2847/93 (reinforcement of controls after
landing, control of third country vessels in community waters, transparency and co-
operation between national
surveillance authorities and the Commission in
monitoring activities).

Less positive was the fact that communications of the deployed fishing efforts were
sometimes delayed and remained imprecise. Moreover, the Council did not adopt
Commission's proposals on the strengthening of the Community's inspectors powers
thus failing to strengthen the transparency of the control regime which is essential for
its credibility.

Article 14(2) of Council Regulation No 3760/92 provides that the Council, on the
basis of a report of the Commission on the fisheries situation in the Community,
shall decide, before 31 December 2002, on any necessary adjustments to be made, in
particular as regards the Shetland Box and the access regime in the 6-12 miles zones.

The 2002 deadline has acquired a special and symbolic value in the minds of many
fishermen and other parties of the fisheries sector and it has triggered a debate on the
future of the CFP much earlier that expected. For example, the European Parliament
issued a resolution on the Common Fisheries Policy after the year 2002,
in
November 1997.

The Commission took the initiative to launch in March 1998 a consultation process
on the future of
the CFP. A questionnaire was addressed to representative
organisations and associations with an interest in fisheries, such as professional
trade unions,
fishermen’s organisations,
environmental NGOs,
and research institutes. The
consultation process continued through mid 1999 with a series of regional meetings
in the Member States.

the processing and marketing sectors,

associations

consumer

The replies to the questionnaire were often critical to the CFP and contained many
demands and proposals for changes and improvements, especially regarding control,
the stakeholders in the fisheries
discards,
management process. However, the majority of those who replied, support the basic
elements of the CFP.

transparency and involvement of

6

1.

MANAGEMENT OF RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES

1.1.

Effects of conservation measures on the state of stocks in the period 1996-1998.

According to scientific reports, and in particular those issued by the ACFM1 and the
STECF2, the state of most fish stocks in Community waters or straddling these and
international or third countries’ waters has been unsatisfactory during all the period
under the CFP conservation regime. This is particularly true for the stocks of the
most prized fish, such as the gadoids (cod, haddock, hake, etc).

Exploitation rates which were very high before the inception of the CFP in 1983
remained high there after. And although the conservation policy within the CFP
stopped the race for fish which may put the stocks in danger of collapse, it did not
succeed in rebuilding the stocks to satisfactory levels. The significant (though still
insufficient) decrease in exploitation rate which has been observed in recent year for
several cod stocks, in particular the emblematic North Sea stock, can nevertheless be
considered as a major achievement.

As far as pelagic (herring, mackerel, sardine) are concerned, they are subject to
natural fluctuations that should be coped with by management in order to minimise
the risk of stock collapse. The sudden drop in abundance of North Sea herring
observed in 1995 was mastered by strong management action in the same and
subsequent years. The danger was in this case averted. Similar situation, although not
so dramatic, was found for mackerel in 1996, when a TAC reduction by 30%
succeeded in reversing the downward trend of the stock. Sardine is not yet subject to
the TAC system or any other Community rule governing exploitation rates, but will
require very strong action if the national (Spanish and Portuguese) measures recently
adopted are not sufficient to reverse the strong decline observed recently.

The state of large migratory fish, and most particularly bluefin tuna, started to be
worrisome in the early nineties, but did not require management measures until 1998,
where significant reductions in the TAC for bluefin tuna in the eastern Mediterranean
and in the Atlantic were adopted. It is still to be seen if this has resulted in a
significant improvement in the state of the stock.

The recent evolution of the state of the fish stocks has been examined by STECF
during its meeting of 26-30 April 1999. The findings of the 8th report of STECF (
SEC( 1999 ) 932 ) are summarised in annex II.

The scientific community, and specially ICES, is in the process of elaborating
management objectives and procedures consistent with the precautionary approach
pursuant to the FAO Code of Conduct for responsible fisheries. Major achievements
in this field have taken place since 1997. In adopting management measures, TACs
in particular, the Community is progressively adhering to this approach both for
autonomous and joint stocks. In this context, an agreement was reached in 1998

1

2

Advisory Committee for Fisheries Management: advisory body in the field of fisheries in the
framework of ICES (International Council for the Exploration of the Sea)
Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries, advisory body created by the Commission
pursuant Article 16 of Council Regulation No 3760/92.

7

within IBSFC3 to adopt an Action Plan to restore the wild salmon stocks in the
Baltic, with the objective to reach 50% of the potential wild salmon production in all
salmon rivers by 2010. Rebuilding plans (herring, plaice, mackerel) have also been
agreed or are being discussed in the framework of the annual fisheries consultations
with Norway.

1.2.

The new management tools

The Regulation No 3760/92 stipulates the use of fishing effort management regimes
as a means to control exploitation rates. This, together with the setting up of a multi-
annual
(objectives and strategies),
constituted a novelty at the time of adoption of this basic regulation.

framework for decisions on management

Elaborate regimes of fishing effort were adopted for western Community waters in
the Atlantic and for the Baltic Sea, although these have not been fully successful in
controlling exploitation rates. Multi-Annual Guidance Programmes (MAGPs),
although primarily aiming to reduce fishing capacity, have been oriented to some
extent to reduce fishing effort in some fisheries, in which they have achieved a
certain degree of success.

As far as multi-annual framework for decision-taking is concerned, the Council had
failed to take a decision on the 1993 proposal for management objectives and
strategies. Since then the Commission has not renewed its proposal However, some
progress has been achieved afterwards in that:

–

–

–

rules concerning year-to-year flexibility in quotas have become fully operative
(Council Regulation No 847/96);

MAGPs constitute in themselves a multi-annual approach to management, with
specific targets of reduction of exploitation rates;

mid-term objectives have been adopted and complied with for Baltic salmon,
North Sea herring and plaice and western mackerel.

1.3.

The TAC regime in 1996-1998

The Community continued to adopt annually the regulations setting up, for most
exploited stocks, the TACs, the part of these corresponding to Member States and
third countries, and its allocation to Member States in the form of fish quotas.
Outstanding features of the TAC regime in the period 1996-1998 were:

–

–

Continuation and reinforcement of the policy of diminution of “paper fish4”
(mostly, for some precautionary5 TACs);

Adoption of new TACs in international waters covered by regional fisheries
management organisations (redfish, Atlanto-Scandian herring, bluefin tuna,
swordfish);

3

4

5

International Baltic Sea Fisheries Commission.
This term is applied to TACs and quotas which are well in excess of the real fishing possibilities and
have, therefore, little effect in limiting catch.
“Analytical” TACs are those set for stocks which are subject to a full scientific assessment followed by
a catch forecast under diverse management scenarios. Otherwise, the TACs are called “precautionary”.

8

–

–

–

Adoption of new TACs in the North Sea in order to prevent expansion of
fishing effort on non-regulated species (sandeel, some flatfish, spurdog,
anglerfish and prawn);

Allocation of quotas for some stocks subject to TAC, but not yet distributed
among Member States and therefore prone to overfishing (horse mackerel,
North Sea blue whiting, sprat).

Setting up rules for flexibility in the year-to-year management of quotas
(Council Regulation No 847/96).

This last regulation deserves special attention. Conferring the TAC and quota system
with a certain degree of flexibility was a main requirement of the renewed CFP of
1992, linked to the setting up of objectives and strategies on a multi-annual basis.
Little progress was achieved on the latter proposal, but the flexibility system is
proving to be an effective management tool which, among other objectives, has
contributed to:

–

–

–

–

deterring overfishing of quotes;

a more efficient use of the quotas;

a better monitoring system both by Member States and the Commission (DG
Fisheries);

promote quota exchange between Member States;

1.4.

Technical measures

Following the steps initiated in 1996, a codification of the key technical measures
legislation (Council Regulation No 3094/86 of 7 October 1986) was carried out,
resulting in the adoption of Council Regulation No 894/97 of 29 April 1997. This
significantly facilitated the understanding and enforcement of the legislation, which
had been dispersed over many regulations.

At the same time, the process of revision of this legislation continued as foreseen and
on 25 June 1996 the Commission submitted its proposal for a new Council
Regulation on technical conservation measures. The basic principles of the new
proposal were:

–

–

–

–

harmonisation of mesh sizes over the whole of the area covered by the
Regulation;

significant reduction of the amount of mandatory discarding;

increase of selectivity of fishing gears;

simplification of the rules, making them easier to monitor and control;

The Council formally adopted, on 30 March 1998, Regulation No 850/98 “for the
conservation on fishery resources through technical measures for the protection of
juveniles of marine organisms”. During 1999, two more Council Regulations added
to the set of measures by solving certain technical details such as the setting up the

9

rules applicable when using nets of different mesh sizes during the same trip. The
new legislative framework will become applicable on 1 January 2000.

Although the Council was not able to fully accept all of the changes proposed by the
Commission, the new legal framework constitutes a significant progress towards the
improvement of fishing practices, in particular in the field of protection of young
fish.

In early 1998 the debate on the Commission’s original 1994 proposal for a ban on the
use of drift nets was revived. In June 1998, after prolonged debate, the Council
agreed on a progressive drift net ban, which will come fully into effect as of 1
January 2002 (Council Regulation No 1239/98 of 8 June 1998). This world-wide ban
for Community vessels (except for the Baltic Sea) will have a major beneficial effect
for the conservation of small cetaceans and some species of fish. Up to 1 January
2002 the current maximum drift net length of 2.5 km will remain in force.

1.5.

The conservation of Baltic fishery resources

Council Regulation No 1866/86 laying down certain technical measures for the
conservation of fishery resources in the waters of the Baltic Sea, the Belts and the
Sund was amended several times to incorporate technical rules adopted by IBSFC.
These rules concerned mostly seasonal closures to protect the stocks of cod and
salmon and technical specifications of the fishing gear (mesh sizes, escape windows
in trawls) which are expected to contribute to the rebuilding of Baltic stocks.
Subsequently, Regulation No 1866/86 was codified in order
to improve its
understanding and enforcement. The new codified version is Council Regulation
No 88/98 of 18 December 1997.

1.6.

The conservation of Mediterranean fishery resources

A number of amendments have been introduced to Council Regulation No 1626/94
in order to implement recommendations issued by ICCAT for the management of
bluefin tuna and swordfish. These concerned minimum landing sizes, seasonal
closures and restrictions on the use of aircraft as an aid to fishing operations.

As a consequence of problems encountered in the enforcement of minimum landing
sizes for certain species, the Commission issued a proposal for amending Regulation
No 1626/94 with an aim to introduce a progressive adaptation of fishing practices to
legislation (COM(96)128). Following a negative opinion by the European
Parliament, the Council did not adopt the proposal. The problem of minimum
landing sizes will need to be dealt with in the context of the new GFCM .

1.7.

Environmental issues

In March 1997 a number of Member States and the Commission participated in the
Intermediate Ministerial Meeting on the Integration of Fisheries and Environmental
Issues in Bergen, Norway. This meeting took place in the framework of the North
Sea Conference and resulted in the adoption of a Statement of Conclusions.

The Commission was requested by the Council Presidency to produce a report in the
first half of 1998 on the implementation within the Community of
the
aforementioned Statement of Conclusions. The report was published by the
Commission in May 1998 (Communication from the Commission to the Council and

10

the European Parliament: “Report on the implementation of the ‘Statement of
Conclusions’”, COM(1998) 326 of 19.05.1998) and was generally well received by
both the Council and the Parliament. The Commission was invited to produce a
second report in 1999.

In December 1998 the Commission informed the Council that it had requested ICES
for advice on the issue of the possible adverse effects of fisheries for sandeel in the
western North Sea on food availability for certain species of sea birds. The
Commission announced that it would evaluate the ICES advice upon being made
available and consider whether it would be useful to propose restrictions on the
sandeel fisheries in question.

In October 1998, the EC participated in the FAO Consultation on the Management of
Fishing Capacity, Shark Fisheries and Incidental Catch of Seabirds in Longline
Fisheries. Draft Plans of Action for the conservation and management of sharks and
for reducing incidental catch of seabirds in longline fisheries were adopted. The FAO
Committee on Fisheries scheduled these Plans of Action for formal adoption in 1999.

On 21 June 1998, the Council
endorsed a Community Strategy on Biological
Diversity (COM(1998)42). The Strategy calls for the generation of sector-based
Action Plans, to be completed by early 2000, the subsequent implementation of
which will achieve the biodiversity objectives defined in the Strategy. With regard to
the fisheries sector, the distilled objectives of the Commission Biodiversity Strategy
are twofold:

–

–

to conserve commercially fished species of marine finfish, in order to achieve
sustainability of stocks, fishing opportunities and food supply, and

to reduce the impact of
fishing and aquaculture operations on other
components of the ecosystem i.e. non-target species (at all taxonomic levels)
and marine habitats.

1.8.

The Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries

The Commission gave a new impulse to STECF by reinforcing its membership of
experts having qualification in the fields of fisheries economics and the environment.
In order to facilitate the carrying out of the tasks entrusted to STECF following
Article 16 of Regulation No 3760/92, STECF was restructured in 1997 into four sub-
groups, some of them of a permanent nature, dealing with the annual review of stock
status, economic assessments, environmental issues, and definition of research needs.

At the same time, STECF work was closely linked to a number of Concerted Actions
promoted by the Commission in the framework of the AIR and FAIR research
programmes. The improvements in structure and functioning of STECF resulted in
the production in 1998, for the first time ever, of an evaluation of the economic
consequences of the state of fish stocks and, in early 1999, of the first comprehensive
report on the state of all stocks of Community interest.

1.9.

Dialogue

In 1997 the Commission initiated a series of meetings on a regional basis with a view
to exchange ideas on the management of certain fisheries. Participants in these
meetings included national authorities, the industry, scientists and economists. Five

11

such meetings took place in 1997. On the basis of these meetings the Commission
published a report “Examination of the difficulties associated with the management
of single-species fisheries” (COM(1998) 145 of 18.03.1998). Following discussion
in Council of this report, the Commission felt encouraged to continue and further
develop this process. This resulted in another set of five regional meetings being held
up to 1999.

1.10.

Research in support of the Common Fisheries Policy

The management of fisheries resources requires decisions that must be made on the
basis of scientific analyses. Much is thus expected from fisheries research which
must also anticipate and adapt to the evolution of the CFP and changing social
expectations. To promote this research the Commission can allocate some of the
funds made available under the Research Framework Programmes to projects
selected under calls for proposals.

During the 1996-1998 period, the funds of the Fourth Framework Programme were
made available to fisheries and aquaculture research through the FAIR specific
programme (research programme for agriculture and fisheries,
including agro-
industry, forestry, aquaculture and rural development). This programme aimed at
promoting fisheries and aquaculture research to:

–

–

–

–

–

assess the impacts of environmental
reciprocally fisheries and aquaculture ecological impacts;

factors on aquatic resources, and

improve stock assessment and fisheries management techniques as well as the
selectivity of fish harvesting;

analyse the socio-economic aspects of the fisheries industry;

promote aquaculture through the study of fish biology;

increase the value of sea-food products.

Furthermore, during this same period, the Commission has been able to allocate
significant financial resources to the support of scientific and technical studies in
support of the CFP. These studies aimed either at collecting much needed scientific
information to feed into the data bases needed to assess the condition of the stocks, in
particular in relation to fish stocks for which precautionary TACs exist, or at
addressing very specific questions, the answer to which was of direct relevance to the
management of the Community fisheries.6

6

It has to be reminded that there is also a "research component" in the framework of the external
relations of the Community in the field of fisheries. During the period 1996-1998 the commitment
whereas the
credits allocated for research under fisheries agreements amounted to 23.175.498
commitment credits allocated for support
to research projects of regional fisheries management
organisations amounted to 327.341

€
.

€

12

2.

RESTRUCTURING THE FISHERIES SECTOR

Regarding reduction of fishing effort, the period covered by the present report
coincides with the completion of the third Multi-Annual Guidance Programme
(MAGP III, 1994-1997) and the beginning of MAGP IV (1997-2001).

As far as structural policy in general is concerned, the period covered by this report
is included in the programming period 1994-1999 of the Structural Funds.

2.1.

Reduction of fishing effort

The problem of excess fishing capacity is addressed by means of multi-annual
guidance programs (MAGP) for the fishing fleets. These programs set targets for fleet
tonnage and power that must be met before the end of the period of the program.

The third generation of these programs (MAGP III) ran from the period 1 January
1992 to 31 December 1996. A report on the final results of the MAGP III was
submitted to the Council and the European Parliament in July 1997 (COM(1997) 352
final).

This report indicated that during the period 1991 - 1996 the EU fleet was reduced by
approximately 300 000 GRT and by approximately 790 000 kW, or by about 15%
and 9.5% respectively. The capacity of the fleet at 31.12.96 was 11% below the
global objectives for tonnage and 5% below the global objectives for power.

While these global results were satisfactory, they were achieved by some Member
States reaching or exceeding the reductions required to meet their objectives, while
others failed to reach their objectives. Italy, France, the United Kingdom and the
Netherlands failed to reach their global MAGP III objectives. Only Portugal, Spain
and Denmark achieved their objectives globally and in all fleet segments. All other
member States reached their global objectives but failed to meet their objectives on
one or more segments.

In order to prepare the fourth generation of programmes (MAGP IV), a group of
independent experts was convened in 1996 to review the state of the stocks and to
comment on the reductions in fishing effort that were needed. The conclusions of this
group formed the scientific basis for the Commission's proposal for a Council
Decision to fix the guidelines for the MAGP IV for the period 1 January 1997 - 31
December 2001.

The Council did not accept the scale of the effort reductions proposed by the
Commission. In the compromise proposal developed by the Irish presidency, adopted
in June 1997, the reduction rates applied to the segments were weighted according to
the proportion in total catches of depletion risk and over-fished stocks.

This made the MAGP IV objectives very much less ambitious than those proposed
by the Commission, the global objectives for the Community fleet representing a
reduction of approximately 5% over the 5 year period. This is about half the
reduction achieved by the MAGP III. Moreover, six Member States (France,
the Netherlands, Sweden and the United Kingdom) opted to
Germany Ireland,
achieve their objectives in certain segments by adjusting activity as well as capacity.
This means that the objectives of MAGP IV in terms of capacity represent a
reduction of between 2% and 3%.

13

The lack of ambition by the Council explains the results achieved: the results of
MAGP IV at the end of 1997 indicated that the capacity of the Community fleet has
been reduced by 2% in tonnage and 3% in power in the first year of the programme.
At 1 January 1998 the Community fleet was already approximately 16% below the
final MAGP IV objectives in terms of tonnage and 7% below the final objectives in
terms of power.

the Commission's services visited each of

During 1998,
the Member States
concerned in order to verify the accuracy of the information that was used to
establish MAGP IV, such as the catch compositions, and, for the six countries that
opted to reduce activity, to verify that the baseline activity levels were correct and
that the regime to control fishing effort was being properly implemented. On the
basis of the results, revisions to the programmes of France (objectives of the French
overseas departments), Sweden (transfer of capacity from demersal
to pelagic
trawlers), Germany (correction of the baseline activity level for beam trawlers),
Finland (technical corrections concerning the allocation of vessels to segments) and
the Netherlands (revision of historical data) have been proposed.

Also during 1998, a joint working group was set up between the services of the
Commission and those of the Italian administration in order to bring the Italian fleet
register up to date. The work was largely completed by the end of 1998 and has
resulted in a proposed revision of the Italian MAGP.

2.2.

Structural aids

Generally, the implementation of structural aid for the fisheries sector progressed
smoothly after a difficult start due to the passage, in 1994-1995, from a system of
direct management of the projects by the Commission to an overall programme
management system in partnership between the Member States and the Commission,
the management of the projects themselves being transferred to the Member States.

In addition to aid for the reduction of the fishing effort and for the renewal of the
fleet, which has absorbed half of the Community funds, the majority of the remaining
funds were used for the purpose of helping the sector to comply with Community
standards as regards hygiene, public health, working conditions and respect for the
environment. These actions concerned fishing vessels, aquaculture facilities,
establishments for processing fishery and aquaculture products as well as the
equipment intended for storage, for handling and for the sale of these products.

Community aid also contributed to the establishment of joint enterprises, to the
protection and to the development of the fishery resources of the coastal areas, to
measures for temporary cessation of fishing activities for specific cases, to the
construction of collective harbour equipment and to the promotion of the fishery and
aquaculture products. It is regrettable that Member States made limited use of the
possibilities of co-financing socio-economic measures and collective actions
implemented by the fishing industry itself.

In addition to the programmes specifically dedicated to the sector, coastal areas most
dependent on fisheries also benefited from aid available under the Community
initiative PESCA or under the development or regional conversion programmes
(Objectives 1, 2 or 5b of the Structural Funds).

14

2.3.

Legislative work

The Council Decision fixing the guidelines for the MAGP IV was adopted in July
1997 7. This was followed by the adoption of the thirteen Commission Decisions
establishing the MAGPs for each of the Member States concerned 8.

With the adoption of the MAGP IV, and in view of the increasingly important role
the fleet register will play in other aspects of Community fisheries legislation,
Regulation No 109/94 has been replaced by three separate regulations, one dealing
with the communication of data on the physical characteristics of the vessels9,
another dealing with the communication of data concerning the segmentation of the
fleet and fishing effort in the context of the MAGPs 10, and the third dealing with the
in the context of Regulations No 685/95 and
communication of fishing effort
No 779/97 11.

To address the consequences of technical measures restricting then prohibiting the
use of driftnets, the Council decided, on a proposal of the Commission, two specific
measures, respectively in 1997 and 1998, aiming to promote the conversion of the
fishing activities concerned12.

Moreover, the structural "fisheries" regulation into force since 199313 , modified four
times between 1995 and 1997, has been the subject of a consolidated14 version.

Lastly, 1998 saw the adoption by the Commission of the legislative proposals
concerning the 2000-200615 period of programming of the Structural Funds. The
regulations of the "structural package", including the regulation on the FIFG, were
adopted on 21 June 199916.

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

Council Decision 97/413/EC of 26 June 1997 concerning the objectives and detailed rules for
restructuring the Community fisheries sector for the period from 1 January 1997 to 31 December 2001
with a view to achieving a balance on a sustainable basis between resources and their exploitation
(OJ L 175 of 3/7/1997 pp. 27-32)
Commission Decisions 98/119/EC to 98/131/EC inclusive (OJ L39 of 12/2/98, pp. 1-84)
Commission Regulation (EC) No 2090/98 of 30.9.98 (O J L266 of 1.10.98, pp. 27–35)
Commission Regulation (EC) No 2091/98 of 30.9.98 (O J L266 of 1.10.98, pp. 36–46)
Commission Regulation (EC) No 2092/98 of 30.9.98 (O J L266 of 1.10.98, pp. 47–58)
Council Decisions of 28 April 1997 (97/292/EC) [OJ L 121 of 13.5.1997] and of 17 December 1998
(1999/27/EC) [OJ L 8 of 14.1.1999]
Council Regulation (EC) No3699/93, of 21 December 1993, laying down the criteria and arrangements
regarding Community structural assistance in the fisheries and aquaculture sector and the processing
and marketing of its products [OJ L 346 of 31.12.1993]
Council Regulation (EC) No 2468/98, 3 November 1998 [OJ L 312 of 20.11.1998]
In particular: proposal for a Council Regulation carrying general provisions on the Structural Funds and
proposal for a Council Regulation concerning the Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance
[OJ C 176 of 9.6.1988]; proposal for a Council Regulation laying down the procedures and conditions
of the structural measures in the fisheries sector [OJ C 16 of 21.1.1999]
OJ L 161 Of 26.6.1999

15

3.

EXTERNAL FISHERIES POLICY

3.1.

Participation in regional fisheries management organisations.

The alarming state of the majority of fish stocks has lead to the strengthening of
international co-operation for the management of resources occurring both inside and
outside exclusive economic zones .

This strengthening of co-operation led also to the development of the international
legal order and to the recognition of the fundamental role of the regional fisheries
management organisations as regards management and conservation of the fishery
resources.

The Community takes part in this development and undertook an active policy of
representation and of defence of its interests within the regional organisations. The
Community is a contracting party to ten organisations and has observer status in two
others. It adhered during the last four years to three organisations (ICCAT, IOTC,
GFCM). Moreover, it is particularly involved in the definition and the establishment
of the South East Atlantic Fisheries Organisation and of the arrangement for the
South-Western Atlantic. It has expressed its interest in playing an active role in the
establishment of the organisation relating to the Western and Central Pacific and
asked for its accession to the IATTC.

The Community's increased participation in the work of the regional organisations is
justified by the wish to be active both in the definition of the conservation and
management measures of resources exploited by the Community fishermen and in
the definition of control and enforcement schemes.

To this end, the Community played an active role in the definition of control
arrangements and schemes which were adopted in November 1998 by the NEAFC
and of control measures against
illegal fishing adopted by ICCAT, NAFO and
CCAMLR.

Community fishing vessels are obliged to comply with a constantly increasing
number of
technical measures adopted by the regional organisations. The
Community, as contracting party to these organisations, has the legal responsibility
to ensure the timely incorporation into the Community legal order of binding acts
adopted by regional fisheries bodies.

For this reason, the Commission presented to the Council in 1996 a proposal to
amend Regulation 3760/92, by introducing a delegation of competence from the
Council to the Commission on the incorporation into the Community legal order of
binding acts adopted by international fisheries bodies on technical measures, on
fishing gear and methods of their use. (Proposal for a Council Regulation amending
Regulation No 3760/92/ COM/96/0350 final, 18.09.1996).

the Council did not adopt

the Commission's proposal and the
Unfortunately,
Community runs the risk of not being able to ensure in all cases timely
implementation of international binding acts due to the length of its internal
procedures.

16

3.2.

Bilateral fisheries agreements with third countries.

Council Regulation No 1181/98 of 4 June 1998 amended Regulation 3760/92 by
conferring to the Council the powers to establish on the basis of Article 4 of the latter
regulation, the powers to establish the fishing opportunities for allocation to third
countries in Community waters and to set the technical conditions under which
catches must be made.

During the period 1996-1998, the Community concluded new fisheries agreements
with Lithuania, Estonia ,Latvia, Morocco, Mauritania and Gabon.

At a more general level, while reaffirming the role and the place of the agreements in
the Common Fisheries Policy, the Council in its conclusions of 30 October 1997
requested the Commission to carry out certain adjustments intended to improve their
operation. It in particular asked the Commission to carry out a cost/benefit analysis
of the fisheries agreements concluded by the Community with third countries. On the
basis, on the one hand, of the conclusions of this study, but also of other ideas, the
Commission will during the year 2000 define the broad outlines of a possible
reorientation of Community policy on fisheries agreements. This reorientation is
intended, in particular, to make it possible to modify the framework in which these
agreements are negotiated and are implemented, taking into account the need to
ensure that they are concluded with a positive cost/benefit ratio and that they are
compatible with the other elements of the Common Fisheries Policy and the other
policies of the European Union. The Commission will also take into account the
need to ensure that fisheries agreements are coherent with development policy
objectives. During the preparation of fishery agreements with developing countries,
the Commission will promote a dialogue on how to best ensure implementation of
the Code of Conduct for responsible fisheries by the different partners. These
agreements must be coherent with the necessary contribution of the fisheries sector
to rural development and local industrial development.

3.3.

International co-operation in the Mediterranean

Following the ministerial meeting in Crete in 1994, a second ministerial meeting was
organised by the Commission in Venice in 1996. This latter Conference made it
possible to strengthen co-operation between all the countries whose vessels are
fishing in the Mediterranean. This conference concluded that in order to ensure a
sustainable management of the fishery resources of the Mediterranean basin, it is
essential to strengthen multilateral co-operation, in particular within the framework
of the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM).

Indeed, the Community adhered to the GFCM in 1998 and, at the annual meeting of
this organisation, the Community already took part as a full member, in close co-
operation with the four Member States bordering the Mediterranean, who also
remain as members under the shared competence between the Community and the
Member States in this context.

With its accession, the Commission provided the impetus of a reform of the GFCM
and whose objectives are to bring the GFCM closer to the most performing
multilateral organisations. Thus, a scientific fisheries committee was established, the
periodicity of the meetings became annual and the principle of an autonomous
budget (which is currently in negotiation) was adopted.

17

Moreover, it should be stressed that, following the management recommendations of
the ICCAT as well as of the GFCM, the Community adopted quotas for the bluefin
tuna in the eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean. This means that, for the first time,
and since 1998,
the Community TAC and quota system also applies to the
Mediterranean.

3.4.

International agreements and conventions on fisheries

The Community adhered in 1996 to the Agreement to promote compliance with
international conservation and management measures by fishing vessels on the high
seas17.

This agreement was negotiated under the auspices of FAO and forms part of the
Code of Conduct for responsible fisheries. The Agreement has not entered in force
yet.

In 1998, the Council adopted the decision on the ratification by the Community of
the UN Agreement on Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks18.
The Community will deposit
its ratification instrument simultaneously with the
deposit by the Member States of their national instruments of ratification. This
Agreement has not yet entered in force.

4.

THE MARKETS FOR FISHERY PRODUCTS

4.1.

The Common Market Organisation in fisheries and aquaculture products

Since July 1996, the common market organisation in fisheries and aquaculture
products is being adapted to recent changes in the market. These changes include
increased globalisation of markets, greater dependence on imports, continued
scarcity of resources, changes in consumption patterns, and concentration and
vertical integration within the distribution chain.

Council Regulation No 2406/9619 laying down common marketing standards for
certain fisheries products updated the technical standards to take account of the
evolution in the market and commercial practices. The Regulation also modified the
financial compensation granted for intervention: with effect from 1 January 2000, it
was agreed that withdrawals of lower quality (“B” quality) fish would no longer be
financially supported by the Community.

In December 1997, the Commission published a Communication to the Council and
the Parliament on “The Future for the Market in fisheries products in the European
Union: Responsibility, Partnership and Competitiveness”20. This was the subject of
broad consultation with the industry and of several meetings with the Member States.

The main objectives of the Commission reform discussed in the white paper were:

1)

to reduce waste by encouraging fishermen to fish only what can be sold;

17

18

19

20

Council Decision 96/428/EC of 25 June 1996, OJ L No 177 of 16.07.99, p.24
Council Decision 98/414/EC of 8 june 1998, OJ L No 189 Of 03.07.1998 p.2
OJ L 027 , 30/01/1997 p. 50
COM (97) 719 final.

18

2)

to strengthen producer organisations so that they can become more active and
dynamic players in the market, with stronger links to the rest of the chain;

3)

to protect consumers better, by providing fuller information at the point of sale;

4)

to improve the balance between supply and demand, not only for high quality
fresh fish but for frozen fish for processing, most of which has to be imported.

Possible future initiatives might include:

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

new rules for the minimum sizes of fish marketed within the EU;

adjustments to the conditions for recognition of producers organisations and
the encouragement of inter-branch organisations and trans-national producer
organisations;

stricter conditions for intervention buying of unsold fish, in order to reduce the
amount of destruction of scarce resources;

measures to encourage more contractual sales between producer organisations
and the processing industry;

new initiatives for the provision of information to the consumer about fish
products;

additional measures to strengthen the enforcement of Community rules
concerning the marketing of fish products, whether by Community or third-
country producers;

a package of measures designed to promote a more integrated market based on
quality.

The result of these consultations was a Commission proposal to reform the common
market organisation in fisheries and aquaculture products, published in February
199921.

4.2.

Compensation scheme for the additional costs incurred in the marketing of
certain fishery products from the Azores, Madeira, the Canary islands and the
French departments of Guyana and Reunion

The compensation scheme was renewed by Council Regulation No 1587/98 of 17
July 199822. It was adopted to offset the disadvantages faced by the fishing industry
which is established in certain isolated and geographically remote regions The
fishery products covered by this scheme are tuna and demersal species in the Azores,
tuna, black scabbard-fish and mackerel
tuna, sardines, mackerel,
aquaculture products, cephalopods, sole and seabream in the Canary Islands, shrimps
in Guyana, tuna and swordfish in Reunion.

in Madeira,

21

22

COM(1999) 55 final.
OJ L 208, 24.7.1998, p.1

19

Detailed rules for the application of the compensation scheme were issued by the
Commission (Commission Regulation No 2844/98 of 22 December 199823)

5.

MONITORING THE COMMON FISHERIES POLICY

The control regime established by the Council Regulation No 2847/93 24 has
undergone a number of modifications since 1996.

5.1.

Establishment of a vessel monitoring system (VMS)

the time of

Taking account of
the
the experience gained from 1994, at
implementation of pilot projects on satellite monitoring involving up to 350
Community vessels, Council Regulation No 686/9725 amending Regulation No
2847/93 as well as Commission Regulation No 1489/9726 establishing the detailed
implementing rules, envisage systematic satellite monitoring of Community vessels.
Member States are required to set up such a system aiming to locate fishing vessels
flying their flag and enabling the latter to communicate to the Member States in
whose waters they are carrying out their activities and to indicate their position at
least once every two hours.

This monitoring applies to all fishing vessels exceeding 24m. length overall or 20m.
between perpendiculars. This obligation must be implemented gradually between
1998 and 2000. In fact, since 1 July 1998, only the vessels operating in sensitive
fisheries, such as fishing on the high seas, except for the Mediterranean, and
industrial fishing for fishmeal, have been monitored. As from 1 January 2000, all
Community vessels exceeding the length mentioned above, wherever they operate,
must be equipped with a satellite tracking device. The same goes for the vessels of
third countries operating in Community waters.

5.2.

Fishing effort regime

The fishing effort regime applicable in Western waters (Regulations No 685/95 and
2027/95) had as a primary objective the establishment of the conditions allowing the
full integration of Spain and Portugal in the general arrangement of access to
Community waters. This fixing of fishing effort ceilings for the fisheries targeting
the demersal species also contributed, in synergy with the TAC and quota system, to
the conservation of fish stocks. The arrangement should allow for the detailed
monitoring of fishing effort deployed on all the Western fisheries, thus providing
useful information for management and the scientific evaluation of stocks .

The completion of the fishing effort regime required the adoption of a series of
additional provisions for the period 1996-1998:

Council Regulation No 2205/9727 amending Regulation No 2847/93, which
increased fishermen's obligations operating in "Western waters", by including the

23

24

25

26

27

OJ L 354, 30.12.1998, p.53
OJ L 261, 20.10.1993, p.1
OJ L 102, 19.4.1997, p.1
OJ L 202, 30.7.1997, p. 18
OJ L 304, 07.11.1997, p. 1

20

obligation to communicate the catches retained on board at
communications of entry and of exit of the fishing effort areas ("hail system").

the time of the

Commission Regulation No 1449/98 fixing the detailed rules for the application of
the Council Regulation No 2847/93 with regard to the fishing effort report 28.

Some Regulations introducing minor adaptations to the ceilings of fishing effort
established by Regulation No 2027/95.

Even if the aim of integration of Spain and Portugal in the Community regime of
access to waters was fully achieved,
the fishing effort arrangement has not
functioned fully during the last three years. Communications of the deployed efforts
were delayed and remained imprecise, a fact which did not make it possible to
achieve the other objectives mentioned above. These communications have allowed,
nevertheless, to note that, for certain Member States, the ceilings of fishing effort
fixed by Regulation No 2027/95 were largely over-estimated and consequently, the
arrangement is of limited use for the conservation of the fish stocks.

Within the framework of the full integration of Sweden and Finland to the CFP, an
arrangement for the management of fishing effort was established in the Baltic
(Council Regulation No 779/97 29 ). In substance, this arrangement is similar to that
applicable in Western waters, with two important exceptions: the absence of entry
and exit communication obligations (hail system) and the absence of ceilings on
fishing effort for the demersal fisheries.

this arrangement

The implementation of
required the adoption of additional
legislation, the most important being Council Regulation No 2635/9730 , amending
Regulation No 2847/93. It aims to introduce the rules on the registration of fishing
effort data in the logbook, the gathering of the effort data by the Member States, and
the transmission of those data to the Commission.

5.3.

Amendments to the Control Regulation

Taking account, on the one hand, of important progress made since the adoption of
the "Control" Regulation in 1993, and on the other hand, of the specific gaps noted
by the Communication from the Commission to the Council and to the European
Parliament on fisheries monitoring under the CFP (COM (1998) 92 of 19.02.1998),
the Council adopted, on 17 December 1998, Regulation No 2846/9831 amending
Regulation No 2847/93.

The modifications were mainly centred on three main principles identified as a
priority by the Commission, namely:

• The improvement of monitoring after landing: this involves, in fact, ensuring the
"traceability" of the fishing products from landing throughout the various stages
of the marketing chain. Thus sale notes for the marketed products, transport
documents for the products transported to a place other than that of landing for

28

29

30

31

OJ L 192, 8.7.1998, p. 4
OJ L 113, 30.4.1997, p. 1
OJ L 356, 31.12.1997, p. 14
OJ L 358, 31.12.1998, p. 5

21

later sale and take-over declarations of responsibility for the products which are
not marketed or whose sale is deferred are established and are to be presented by
the holders of the products at the time of controls;

• monitoring of third country fishing vessels operating in Community waters: the
monitoring, inspection and surveillance measures are extended to the fishing
vessels flying the flag of third country and operating in the Community fishing
zone, in order to ensure that these vessels and the Community vessels are treated
in the same manner. This involves, in particular, strengthening the monitoring of
landings carried out by these vessels and to subject them to monitoring by satellite
from the date on which the system will be fully applicable to the Community
vessels;

• co-operation between the Member States and with the Commission : a general
framework aiming to strengthen and facilitate co-operation between all
the
authorities involved is envisaged in the monitoring of fishing activities. This
involves, in particular, facilitating requests for mutual assistance, the exchange of
relevant information and the establishment of specific monitoring programmes.

With a view to a general reinforcement of the monitoring regime, the Commission
had also proposed the strengthening of the Community inspectors’ powers who
should have had access, within the framework of their observation missions, to files
and documents, both in public and private buildings, under the same conditions as
inspectors. By this means they could have evaluated more
those for national
precisely the effectiveness of the monitoring regimes set up by the Member States
and the Commission could have fully guaranteed the transparency recognised by all
as being essential for the credibility of the Common Fisheries Policy. However, all
followed the
the Member States having rejected this proposal,
Commission on this point only partially, by requiring the presence of national
inspectors at the time of the observation missions of the Community inspectors.

the Council

Council Regulation No 2846/98 corresponds to the "legislative" chapter of a
diptyque, the other being an "Action Plan of the Commission for better application of
the CFP" (SEC (98) 949.2 of 03.06.1998).

5.4.

List of types of behaviour which seriously infringe the rules of the Common
Fisheries Policy

Council Regulation No 1447/99 fixing a list of the types of behaviour which
seriously infringe the rules of the Common Fisheries Policy32 follows the last
amendment of the “Control” Regulation. It aims to draw up a list of types of
behaviour for which increased transparency regarding follow-up by the national
authorities, is necessary.

These types of behaviour constitute clear and obvious failures to meet the obligations
imposed by Community legislation. The establishment of such a list does not involve
the harmonisation of penalties at Community level. On the other hand,
the
establishment of this list and the obligation addressed to the Member States to
communicate to the Commission the actions taken in respect of detected illegal
the fishermen's
behaviour, aim to guarantee increased transparency so that

32

OJ L 167, 2.7.1999, p. 5

22

confidence in the supervisory authorities and a comparison of the national systems'
effectiveness are ensured.

5.5.

Financial participation

The exercise of control requires considerable and often disproportionate expenditure
in relation to the budgetary capacity of the Member States. Community support is
organised on the basis of Council Decision 95/527/EC on a Community financial
contribution towards certain expenditure incurred by the Member States for
implementing the monitoring and control systems applicable to the Common
Fisheries Policy33 . This Community participation is endowed with a budget of
205.000.000 EURO for the period 1996-2000.

Since 1996, the Commission has been deciding each year, on the basis of the
investment plans submitted by the Member States, of the eligibility of
the
expenditure envisaged and of the participation rate.

33

OJ L 301, 14.12.1995, p. 30

23

CONCLUSIONS

1.

2.

This is the last report produced by the Commission on the basis of Article 14(1) of
Council Regulation No 3760/92.

The Commission will have to produce a report on the fisheries situation in the
Community in accordance with Article 14(2) of the Regulation. It is the intention of
the Commission to present that report during the first half of 2001 to allow for
sufficient time for discussion with all interested parties, before the possible adoption
by the Council of new measures in December 2002 at the latest.

During the period 1999-2001,
the Commission will continue to manage and
consolidate the existing tools of the CFP. Furthermore, new developments/initiatives
are foreseen for the following areas:

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

adoption of a new FIFG implementing regulation;

reform of the Common Market Organisation;

negotiation of new protocols and agreements and in particular the negotiation
of a new agreement with Morocco;

presentation by the Commission of a proposal for a Council regulation on
collection, analysis and dissemination of essential biological and economic
data;

proposal by the Commission to the Council on new guidelines for Fisheries
Agreements ;

communication to the Council on the role and participation of the Community
in regional fisheries management organisations;

preparation of MAGP V for the years 2002-2006;

implementation of the reform of the Advisory Committee on Fisheries and
actions in favour of strengthening fishermen's organisations and dialogue of the
sector;

simplification of legislation in the field of conservation and management
measures, both internal to the EC and deriving from recommendations adopted
by regional/international organisations .

3.

The debate on the CFP after 2002 creates the opportunity to start addressing the
future challenges that the CFP will face in the coming years and the strategic
priorities that will have to be pursued or reinforced . Among these priorities are the
following :

–

Better coherence between the various objectives pursued by the CFP and the
need to possibly
choose between them: A clearer hierarchy should be
established between potentially conflicting objectives such as the conservation
of resources, the economic efficiency of the fleet and securing employment in
fisheries-dependent areas . In view of the fact that some of these objectives

24

–

–

–

–

tend to converge over the long term, a clearer hierarchy between short and long
term objectives is also required.

Taking account of the economic dimension of fisheries management: The
Community has the opportunity now to address issues like the future of
subsidies and other forms of government support, the various options for
alternative fisheries management and the consequences of such options.

level

towards stronger

Better integration of environmental and fisheries policies: Since the Earth
Summit in Rio in 1992, a lot of initiatives and measures have been adopted at
integration of the two policies.
the international
Resolutions and conclusions adopted by international
fora such as the
Commission on Sustainable Development of the UN and the North Sea
Conference will have to be followed up by the Community. The Commission
Communication on a European Community Biodiversity Strategy (COM
(1998)42), adopted in February 1998, announces the development of an Action
Plan for the integration of biodiversity and fisheries policy by early 2000. The
Commission presented on 14.07.1999 a Communication to the Council and the
European Parliament on fisheries management and nature conservation in the
marine environment.34

Internally, at the Cologne Summit the European Council identified fisheries as
a policy area singled out for special attention as regards the integration of
is
environmental considerations into other policies. The Fisheries Council
expected to report on this issue to the European Council in 2000.

There is a need therefore for the Community to review the mechanisms of the
the environmental
CFP to ensure that
considerations.

they can sufficiently address

Improvement of management tools : The previous reform initiated in 1992 has
such as multi-annual
not been completed on many important
management objectives and strategies, management of fishing effort and full
integration of the Mediterranean into the Community management regime.

issues,

Moreover we may need to review our discard policy in the light of
international developments,
the
Community to address the concerns expressed by the sector, environmental
groups and international organisations on the current high level of discards.

and experience gained inside

studies

Existing control arrangements could also be reviewed on the occasion of the
2002 debate.

A more accountable decision-making process: The fishing sector is asking for
greater transparency and involvement in the fisheries management process. The
terms "subsidiarity", "decentralisation" and "regionalisation" have been used to
express such demands. A relevant resolution was also adopted by the European
Parliament in February 1999.

34

COM(1999) 363 final

25

The stakeholders would like to participate in all the three phases of the
management process i.e. consultation, decision-taking and implementation of
decisions taken. Since the latter phase is largely the responsibility of the
Member States, the 2002 debate could focus on the other two phases of the
process, taking into account the current institutional framework of the Treaty.

In the same context, the 2002 debate could also focus on ways to ensure greater
flexibility in management to deal with specific local problems, simplification
of Community legislation and promotion and encouragement of co-operation
mechanisms to improve research and to facilitate closer
links between
fishermen and scientists.

–

Maintaining the external dimension of the CFP: The Community will have to
adjust its agreements policy in accordance with the Council's conclusions of
1997 towards cooperation agreements in the fishery sector, enabling stable
partnership relationships between operators of the sector of both sides and a
better implementation of the Code of Conduct for responsible fisheries.
Moreover the Commission will have to strengthen its role in the international
fisheries bodies, to ensure the implementation of multilateral agreements to
which it has subscribed to and to foster international co-operation in the
sensitive area of the Mediterranean.

4.

It should not be forgotten of course that the 2002 deadline concerns also a series of
issues identified by the regulation No 3760/92 and the Acts of Accession of 1985 and
1994. The situation with regards to those issues can be described as follows:

–

–

–

Access regime to waters inside the 6-12 mile limit: According to Article 6 of
the Regulation No 3760/92 if there is no Council decision before 31 December
2002, the rule restricting access to those waters will disappear.

It appears from the consultation with the interested parties that the need to
maintain restricted access to coastal waters will not be put into question.
However, many demands were voiced in support of strengthening the current
regime in favour of coastal fishermen, either by extending the restricted zone,
or by making the present derogation a permanent feature of the CFP.

Access to the Shetland Box : According to Article 7 of Regulation No 3760/92,
the absence of a Commission proposal or a Council decision before 31
December 2002, will lead to a roll-forward of the existing arrangements. It
appears from the consultation process that this is a divisive issue.

Rules of access to the North Sea for vessels from Spain and Portugal (1985 Act
of Accession) and from Sweden and Finland ( 1994 Act of Accession) : The
absence of a decision will lead to the application of the acquis communautaire
as it currently exists, i.e. free access to waters on a non-discriminatory basis for
all Member State fleets, access to resources being based on the principle of
relative stability for regulated species and unrestricted access for the few
remaining non-regulated species.

The 2002 debate needs to address the issue of the possible increase of fishing
effort and by-catches resulting from an increase in access to North Sea waters.

26

–

Relative stability:
this
fundamental principle of the CFP is widely approved and that it should not be
called into question.

from the consultation process

It appears

that

5.

The Commission believes that the CFP after 2002 should:

–

–

–

–

–

ensure the necessary coherence between its various objectives;

have a strong and complete management regime;

be able to integrate and anticipate environmental considerations and concerns;

involve the stakeholders in the fisheries management process and ensure
transparency, in a manner compatible with the Treaty requirements.

encourage the development of an efficient and competitive fish industry in
Europe.

The Commission will prepare its 2002 report with these five suggestions in mind.

27

ANNEX I

GLOSSARY OF ABBREVIATIONS USED

CFP:

Common Fisheries Policy

MAGP:

Multi-Annual Guidance Programme

FIFG:

Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance

NGOs:

Non-Governmental Organisations

CMO:

Common Market Organisation

VMS

EEZ:

Vessel Monitoring System

Exclusive Economic Zone

WTO:

World Trade Organisation

GFCM:

General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean

ICCAT:

International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas

IOTC:

Indian Ocean Tuna Commission

IATTC:

Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission

NEAFC:

North -East Atlantic Fisheries Commission

NAFO:

Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organisation

CCAMLR:

Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources

28

ANNEX II

LIST OF FISHERIES AGREEMENTS IN FORCE

FISHERIES AGREEMENTS

COUNTRY

Valid until :

Angola

Cape Verde

Comoros

Ivory Coast

Estonia

Gabon

Gambia

Greenland

Guinea Bissau

Equatorial Guinea

Faroes

Iceland

Latvia

Lithuania

Madagascar

Morocco

Mauritius

Mauritania

Norway

Poland (bilateral agreement with Sweden)

Guinea

Russia (bilateral agreement with Finland and
Sweden)

São Tomé

Senegal

Seychelles

29

02/05/00

05/09/00

27/02/01

30/06/00

31/12/06

03/12/01

30/06/96

31/12/00

15/06/01

30/06/00

12/03/03

11/01/04

05/02/03

12/10/03

20/05/01

30/11/99

30/11/99

31/07/01

16/06/03

31/12/05

31/12/99

31/12/02

31/05/02

30/04/01

17/01/02

ANNEX III

Extracts from the 8th Report of STECF

Review of stock status

Annex 1 of Council Decision 97/413 of 26 June 1997 presents a table of stocks that are
classified as depletion risk (DR), over-fished (OF) or fully exploited (FE). The advisory body
for the majority of these stocks is ICES. Advice on Bluefin tuna and swordfish in the North-
east Atlantic and Mediterranean is provided by ICCAT.

The classification in Annex 1 of Council Decision 97/413 was based on the following
definitions:

DR = Spawning stock biomass presently below Minimum Biological Acceptable
Levels or likely to be in that position in the short term at the current levels of fishing
mortality.

OF = Moderate to substantial gains in long-term yield if effort is decreased; if
heavily overfished, medium term risk of spawning stock biomass falling below
Minimum Biological Acceptable Levels.

FE = No substantial long-term gains or losses if effort is moderately increased or
reduced.

Since the adoption of the Precautionary Approach, ICES has changed the form of its advice,
which is now based on limit and precautionary reference points for biomass (Blim, Bpa) and
fishing mortality (Flim, Fpa). Precautionary management should maintain F below Fpa, and
SSB above Bpa. Fpa and Bpa have been proposed by ICES in order to avoid with a high
probability the limit reference points for F (Flim) and SSB (Blim) respectively.

STECF, in revising the list of stocks classed either as DR, OF or FE, has as far as possible,
adopted new definitions, which are based on a simple set of rules according to the state of the
stock in relation to precautionary reference points where these are available. STECF
recognises that the precautionary reference points given by ICES in 1998 are at present
proposals and that they may change for some stocks. The definitions adopted by STECF are
as follows:

DR = if SSB is less than Bpa, then the stock is classed as in risk of depletion. In all
cases where current SSB and Bpa are available, this is the primary criterion for
classifying a stock as DR.

OF = if SSB is greater or equal to Bpa, and F is greater than Fpa, then the stock is
considered to be over-fished, since fishing at a level greater than Fpa, gives an
increased risk of the stock becoming depletion risk.

FE = if F is less than or equal to Fpa and SSB is greater than or equal to Bpa, and
there are no substantial gains or losses if effort is moderately increased or reduced,
then the stock is considered to be fully exploited.

If a stock is not given one of the above classifications the stock either can not be classified as
DR, OF or FE or STECF had insufficient information about the stock on which to base an
evaluation of it’s status.

30

STECF notes that Article 2.4 of Council Decision 97/413, indicates that for all other stocks
that are not referred to in Annex 1 of 97/413, including those for which the situation is
insufficiently known, there shall be no increase in fishing effort on such stocks for the period
1997-2001. STECF fully supports the Council in this Decision and wishes to stress, that in
specific cases where Member States can identify additional fishing opportunities, it should be
the responsibility of the Member State or States to demonstrate that the taking up of such
opportunities is fully in keeping with the precautionary approach.

STECF has examined the most recent advice from the relevant advisory bodies. It has used
this information to update the status reports for the stocks in Annex 1 of Council Decision
97/413. This is presented as Table 2.2.1.1 and is referred to hereafter as the 1999
classification. The status reports from the original Annex 1 of Council decision 97/413 and
from the 1999 classification are given in Table 2.2.1.2 along with current estimates of F, SSB
and the corresponding precautionary reference points.

STECF wishes to point out that revised classifications have only been undertaken for stocks
that were identified in Annex 1 of Council Decision 97/413 but notes that there are other
stocks for which classifications could be made. Furthermore, a revised classification of
Nephrops stocks has not been undertaken, since ICES has not yet revised its advice on
Nephrops in accordance with the precautionary approach.

In Table 2.2.1.1, the management areas (columns) sometimes encompass more than one
stock, which may have different classifications. In such circumstances, the classification for
that management area is based on a worst case scenario.

The status reports in many cases have changed between the original Annex 1 and the 1999
classification. However, this may not reflect a true change in stock status, but arise as an
artefact due to the revised method of classification. Because STECF was not involved in the
establishment of the original Annex 1 of Council decision 97/413 and a degree of subjective
interpretation was involved in its formulation, it has not proven possible for STECF to apply
the original Annex 1 classification criteria to current estimates of F and SSB

Effect of MAGPs on status of stocks

In an attempt to evaluate whether the current status of the stocks in Table 2.2.1.1(1999
classification) has changed since 1994, STECF has applied the 1999 classification criteria to
the data used to generate the original status report in Annex 1 of Council Decision 97/413
(referred to as “New Annex 1, Council Decision 97/413”). In this way STECF can directly
contrast stock status in 1997 with that in 1994, using a consistent method of classification.

In practice, to produce the new Annex 1, the Committee used the fishing mortality rates as
given in the Report of the Group of Independent Experts to Advise the Commission on the
Fourth Generation of Multi-Annual Guidance programmes (the Lassen Report), together with
estimates of spawning stock biomass for 1994 from the 1995 ICES Reports. Usually, the
fishing mortality rates were averages over the period 1990-1994. The results of the New
Annex 1 classification are presented in Table 2.2.2.1, together with the results obtained using
the most recent advice from ICES.

Note that it was not possible to provide a comparison for all stocks of interest, since the
relevant information on F and SSB was not available for both points in time. Also note that in
some instances, comparisons have been drawn when the classifications are not strictly
comparable e.g. for North Sea cod, in 1995, advice on cod in Divisions IIIa (Skagerrak) and

31

VIId was given separately to that for Sub-area IV, whereas the 1998 advice is for these three
areas combined.

The information in Table 2.2.2.1 is summarized in the text table below.

Comparison of the 1999
classification and the
NEW Annex I
classification. Both based
on the precautionary
reference points

Comparison of

Comparison of

Fcurrent from ICES (1998)
and mean F90-94 * from
ICES (1995)

SSB97 from ICES (1998)
with SSB94 from ICES (1995)

5 improved status

19 lower fishing mortalities

15 higher SSB values

4 worsened

13 higher fishing
mortalities

19 lower SSB values

23 no change in status

22 no comparisons possible

20 no comparisons possible

22 no comparisons possible

* F90-94 – for some stocks mean F
was based on a shorter time period

within the period 90-94.

11 decrease in fishing mortality and increase in SSB

7 increase in fishing mortality and decrease in SSB

14 fishing mortality and SSB both decreasing or both
increasing

22 no comparison possible

The text table indicates that in terms of stock classification, the majority of stocks would be
classified as they are now i.e. no deterioration and no improvement. Comparing the values of
F and SSB separately shows a different picture. STECF wishes to stress however, that any
change in the estimates of these values is recorded as being higher or lower irrespective of the
magnitude of the change. A change in F of 0.01 for example is treated in exactly the same
way as a change of 0.5.

When the direction of change in F and SSB are considered together, 11 stocks show a
reduction in F together with an increase in SSB and 7 stocks indicate an increase in F and a
reduction in SSB.

It appears therefore that for those stocks for which a comparison can be made, their status has
not changed significantly over the period 1994-1997. For those stocks that have shown a
change in status, STECF is unable at present to identify the causes of the change, and is
unable to comment on whether MAGPs have influenced the status of these stocks.

32

Table 2.2.1.1.

1999 classification of stocks in relation to precautionary reference points

Zone

Species

Baltic Sea
III bcd

Skagerrak
Kattegat
IIIa

North Sea
IV

West
Scotland
VI

Irish Sea
VIIa

West
Ireland
VII b, c

DR

DR

DR

OF

DR

OF

DR

OF

DR

Celtic Sea
W.
Channel
VIIefghjk
OF

OF

DR

DR

OF

Eastern
Channel
VIId

Bay of
Biscay
VIIIabd

Iberian
Peninsula
VIIIc
IXa

Mediterrane
an Sea

DR

OF

DR

DR

DR

OF

DR

DR

OF

DR

DR

DR

DR

DR

FE

DR

DR

DR

FE

DR

DR

DR

DR

DR

DR

OF

DR

DR

DR

DR

DR

DR

DR

FE

DR

OF

FE

DR

DR

OF

OF

DR

DR

DR

OF

OF

DR

FE

OF

OF

DR

DR

OF

OF

OF

DR

DR

33

DR

DR

DR

Herring
(Clupea harengus)
Mackerel
(Scomber scombrus)
Sardine
(Sardina pilchardus)
Salmon
(Salmo salar)
Bluefin Tuna
(Thunnus thynnus)
Swordfish
(Xiphias gladius)
Cod
(Gadus morhua)
Haddock
(Melanogrammus
aeglefinus)
Whiting
(Merlangius merlangus)
Saithe
(Pollachius virens)
Hake
(Merluccius merluccius)
Plaice
(Pleuronectes platessa)
Sole
(Solea spp.)
Anglerfish
(Lophius spp.)
Megrim
(Lepidorhombus spp.)

F
E

O
F

D
R

l

D
e
p
e
t
i
o
n
R
s
k
:

i

i

S
p
a
w
n
n
g
s
t
o
c
k

i

b
o
m
a
s
s

p
r
e
s
e
n
t
l
y
b
e
o
w
B
p
a

l

N
o
t

l

c
a
s
s
i
f
i
e
d

N
o
s
t
o
c
k

i

n
t
h
s

i

a
r
e
a

g
a
n
s

i

o
r

l

o
s
s
e
s

i
f

e
f
f
o
r
t

i

s
m
o
d
e
r
a
t
e
y

l

3
4

i

n
c
r
e
a
s
e
d

o
r

r
e
d
u
c
e
d
.

F
u

l
l

y

l

e
x
p
o
i
t
e
d
:

i

S
p
a
w
n
g
s
t
o
c
k

i

i

b
o
m
a
s
s

i

s

a
t

o
r

a
b
o
v
e
B
p
a
;

i

f
i
s
h
n
g
m
o
r
t
a

l
i
t
y

i

s
a
t

o
r

O
v
e
r
f
i
s
h
e
d
:

i

S
p
a
w
n
n
g
s
t
o
c
k

i

b
o
m
a
s
s

i

s

a
b
o
v
e
B
p
a
,

F

i

s

a
b
o
v
e
F
p
a

l

b
e
o
w
F
p
a

.

N
o

s
u
b
s
t

a
n

t
i

a

l

l

o
n
g
-
t

e
r
m

Table 2.2.1.2. Current fishing mortality and biomass estimates in relation to precautionary reference points and the 1999 classification of stocks.

1999 classifi-
cation

1997 SSB ('000
t)

Proposed Bpa
('000 t)

STOCK

(spring

IV, VIId (autumn

Herring Baltic Sea IIIbcd
Herring
sd22-24
IIIa,
spawners)
Herring IIIa,
spawners)
Herring VIa north
Herring VIIa
Herring VIa south, VIIbc
Herring Celtic Sea W, channel
VIIe,f,g,h,j,k
Mackerel North sea*
Mackerel (other areas)
Sardine VIIIc, IXa
Salmon IIIb,c,d
Bluefin Tuna (Thunnus thynnus)
Swordfish Mediterranean
Swordfish North Atlantic
Cod Baltic Sea IIIbcd (sd25-32)
Cod Baltic Sea IIIbcd (sd22-24)
Cod, Kattegat IIIa
Cod
North
IIIaSkagerrak,IV,VIId
Cod West Scotland
Cod Irish Sea VIIa
Cod Celtic sea W. Channel VIIe-k
Haddock IIIa,IV
Haddock West Scotland
Haddock Irish sea
Whiting North Sea IV+VIId

Sea

Whiting west of Scotland Via
Whiting Irish sea
Whiting Celtic sea ,W Channel
VIIe-k

Classifi-cation,
Annex I, Council
decision 97/413
none
FE

DR

none
none
none
FE

DR
OF
DR
DR
OF
OF
OF
DR
DR
DR
DR

DR
DR
OF
OF
OF
FE
OF

OF
FE
FE

DR
none

DR

OF
DR
DR
OF

DR
OF
DR
DR
DR
none
DR
DR
OF
OF
DR

DR
DR
OF
FE
OF
none
DR

DR
DR
FE

718
na

745

135,8
6
59
69

na
2530
220
na
na
na
na
176
43
12,8
110

12
7,7
10,8
211
42
na
197

19,9
5,1
34,7

na = not available

Fcurrent
from ICES
(1998)
0,28
na

0,257

0,369
0,4
0,58
0,4

na
0,230
0,7
na
na
na
na
0,72
1,13
1,2
0,67

0,81
0,84
0,83
0,68
0,57
na
0,65

0,87
0,82
0,59

Proposed Fpa % reduction in

Remarks

F to achieve
Fpa
39%
na

na

na
10%
62%
33%

na
26%
na
na
35%
na
na
17%
38%
50%
3%

26%
14%
18%

12%
na
0%

31%
21%
na

0,17
na

na

na
0,36
0,22
0,27

na
0,17
na
na
na
na
na
0,6
0,7
0,6
0,65

0,6
0,72
0,68
0,7
0,5
na
0,65

0,6
0,65
na

ICES advice for 99 was 0.2
Based on status of wild stock only
based on Fmsy

note DR although F=Fpa, no implied
reduction

1000
na

1300

na
9,5
110
44

na
2300
300
na
na
na
na
240
23
10,5
150

22
10
8
140
30
na
315

22
7
18

35

Table 2.2.1.2. Current fishing mortality and biomass estimates in relation to precautionary reference points and the 1999 classification of stocks.

Continued

STOCK

Saithe North sea IIIa IV
Saithe West of Scotland VI
Hake, northern stock (IIIa, IV VI,
VII, VIIIa,b)
Hake Southern stock VIIIc, IXa
Plaice Skagerrak,Kattegat IIIa
Plaice North Sea IV
Plaice Irish sea VIIa
Plaice Celtic sea VIIf,g
Plaice western channel VIIe
Plaice eastern channel VIId
Sole Skagerrak, Kattegat
Sole North Sea
Sole Irish Sea VIIa
Sole Celtic Sea VIIf,g
Sole western channel VIIe
Sole VIId
Sole bay of Biscay VIIIa,b
Anglerfish West Scotland VI
Anglerfish
piscatorius)
Anglerfish
budegassa
Anglerfish
piscatorius)
Anglerfish VIIIc,IXa (L. budegassa)
Megrim west Scotland VI
Megrim VII, VIIIa,b,d,e
Megrim VIIIc,IXa (L. boscii)
Megrim VIIIc,IXa (L. whiffiagonis)

VIIIa,b(L.

VIIIa,b(L.

VIIIc,IXa

VIIb-k,

VIIb-k,

(L.

Proposed Fpa % reduction in

Remarks

F to achieve
Fpa
20%
48%
26%

23%
na
30%

14%
34%
0%

22%
40%
23%
21%
11%
11%
na
4%

42%

50%

30%
na
6%
39%
na

0,4
0,25
0,2

0,2
na
0,3
0,45
0,6
0,45
0,45
0,3
0,4
0,3
0,37
0,26
0,4
0,4
na
0,24

0,11

0,66

0,57
na
0,3
0,2
na

advised reduction to Fpa

advised reduction to Fpa

Classifi-cation,
Annex I, Council
decision 97/413
OF
DR
OF

DR
OF
DR
FE
DR
DR
FE
none
DR
OF
DR
DR
OF
OF
OF
OF

OF

OF

OF
FE
FE
FE
FE
na = not available

Fcurrent
from ICES
(1998)
0,5
0,48
0,27

0,26
0,69
0,43
0,38
0,7
0,68
0,45
0,16
0,51
0,5
0,48
0,33
0,45
0,45
na
0,25

0,19

na

na
na
0,32
0,33
0,25

1999 classifi-
cation

1997 SSB ('000
t)

Proposed Bpa
('000 t)

DR
DR
DR

DR
none
DR
FE
DR
DR
FE
none
DR
DR
OF
DR
OF
OF
DR
OF

OF

DR

DR
none
OF
DR
DR

135
10,7
118

12,3
41
212
4,7
1,73
1,87
9,3
5,6
33
2,8
2,35
2,1
9,5
14,9
na
44,6

20,4

na

na
na
64
4,7
1,3

150
35
165

18,5
24
300
3,1
1,8
2,5
8
1,06
35
3,8
2,2
2,5
8
11,3
na
27

13,3

7,3

3,7
na
55
6,5
1,5

36

Table 2.2.2.1.

Comparison between the 1999 classification applied to the mean fishing mortality and SSB from: (i) Annex I, (ii) ICES, 1998.

STOCK

NEW
classification
Annex I,
Council
Decision 97/413

1999 classifi-
cation

1994 SSB
('000t)

1997 SSB
('000t)

**Mean F90-94
from ICES
(1995)

Fcurrent from
ICES (1998)

Proposed Bpa
('000t)

Proposed Fpa

Herring Baltic Sea IIIbcd

None

Herring IIIa, sd22-24 (spring spawners)

none

Herring IIIa, IV, VIId (autumn spawners) DR

Herring VIa north

Herring VIIa

Herring VIa south, VIIbc

Herring Celtic Sea W, channel
VIIe,f,g,h,j,k
Mackerel North sea*

Mackerel (other areas)

Sardine VIIIc, IXa

Salmon IIIb,c,d

Bluefin Tuna (Thunnus thynnus)

Swordfish Mediterranean

Swordfish North Atlantic

Cod Baltic Sea IIIbcd (sd25-32)

Cod Baltic Sea IIIbcd (sd22-24)

Cod, Kattegat IIIa

Cod North Sea IIIaSkagerrak,IV,VIId

Cod West Scotland

Cod Irish Sea VIIa

Cod Celtic sea W. Channel VIIe-k

Haddock IIIa,IV

Haddock West Scotland

Haddock Irish sea

Whiting North Sea IV+VIId

none

none

none

DR

na

OF

none

na

na

na

na

DR

DR

na

DR

DR

DR

OF

OF

OF

na

OF

Whiting west of Scotland Via

at least OF

Whiting Irish sea

Whiting Celtic sea ,W Channel VIIe-k

OF

na

DR

none

DR

OF

DR

DR

OF

DR

OF

DR

DR

DR

OF

DR

DR

OF

OF

DR

DR

DR

OF

FE

OF

none

DR

DR

DR

FE

na

na

790

331

na

na

43

na

2357

320

na

na

na

na

228

16

na

67

15

4

10,7

158*

49

na

365

na

8,5

na

718

na

745

135,8

6

59

69

na

2530

220

na

na

na

na

188

43

12,8

110

12

7,7

10,8

211

42

na

197

19,9

5,1

34,7

0,24

na

0,53

0,18

0,21

0,32

0,08

na

0,26

na

na

na

na

na

1,11

1,65

na

0,88

0,83

1,04

0.96 (1.13 jk)

0,85

0,595

na

0,67

0,67

1,23

0.96(1.46jk)

0,28

na

0,257

0,369

0,4

0,58

0,4

na

0,230

0,7

na

na

na

na

0,72

1,13

1,2

0,67

0,81

0,84

0,83

0,68

0,57

na

0,65

0,87

0,82

0,59

1000

na

1300

na

9,5

110

44

na

2300

300

na

na

na

na

240

23

10,5

150

22

10

8

140

30

na

315

22

7

21

0,17

na

na

na

0,36

0,22

0,27

na

0,17

na

na

na

na

na

0,6

0,7

0,6

0,65

0,6

0,72

0,68

0,7

0,5

na

0,65

0,6

0,65

na

na = not available

* excludes IIIa

** For some stocks mean F was based on a shorter time period within the period 90-94

Table 2.2.2.1.

Comparison between the 1999 classification applied to the mean fishing mortality and SSB from: (i) Annex I, (ii) ICES, 1998.

STOCK

continued

Saithe North sea IIIa IV

Saithe West of Scotland VI
Hake, northern stock (IIIa, IV VI, VII,
VIIIa,b)
Hake Southern stock VIIIc, IXa

Plaice Skagerrak,Kattegat IIIa

Plaice North Sea IV

Plaice Irish sea VIIa

Plaice Celtic sea VIIf,g

Plaice western channel VIIe

Plaice eastern channel VIId

Sole Skagerrak, Kattegat

Sole North Sea

Sole Irish Sea VIIa

Sole Celtic Sea VIIf,g

Sole western channel VIIe
Sole VIId
Sole bay of Biscay VIIIa,b
Anglerfish West Scotland VI
Anglerfish VIIb-k, VIIIa,b(L. piscatorius)

Anglerfish VIIb-k, VIIIa,b(L. budegassa

Anglerfish VIIIc,IXa (L. piscatorius)

Anglerfish VIIIc,IXa (L. budegassa)

Megrim west Scotland VI

Megrim VII, VIIIa,b,d,e

Megrim VIIIc,IXa (L. boscii)

Megrim VIIIc,IXa (L. whiffiagonis)

NEW
classification
Annex I,
Council
Decision 97/413
DR

DR
DR

DR

none

DR

OF

DR

DR

OF

none

OF

DR

OF

FE
OF
OF
none
OF

OF

none

none

none

OF

DR

none

1999 classifi-
cation

1994 SSB
('000t)

1997 SSB
('000t)

**Mean F90-94
from ICES
(1995)

Fcurrent from
ICES (1998)

Proposed Bpa
('000t)

Proposed Fpa

DR

DR
DR

DR

none

DR

FE

DR

DR

FE

none

DR

DR

OF

DR
OF
OF
DR
OF

OF

DR

DR

none

OF

DR

DR

99

16,3
123

16,6

na

252

4,3

1,31

1,68

10,2

na

82

3,7

2,23

3
11,5
14,4
na
30

32,3

na

na

na

81

4,3

na

135

10,7
118

12,3

41

212

4,7

1,73

1,87

9,3

5,6

33

2,8

2,35

2,1
9,5
14,9
na
44,6

20,4

na

na

na

64

4,7

1,3

0,59

0,55
0,31

0,29

0,7

0,42

0,55

0,7

0,72

0,56

na

0,47

0,43

0,45

0,21
0,41
0,49
0,68
0,36

0,18

na

na

0,14

0,33

0,3

na

0,5

0,48
0,27

0,26

0,69

0,43

0,38

0,7

0,68

0,45

0,16

0,51

0,5

0,48

0,33
0,45
0,45
na
0,25

0,19

na

na

na

0,32

0,33

0,25

150

35
165

18,5

24

300

3,1

1,8

2,5

8

1,06

35

3,8

2,2

2,5
8
11,3
na
27

13,3

7,3

3,7

na

55

6,5

1,5

0,4

0,25
0,2

0,2

na

0,3

0,45

0,6

0,45

0,45

0,3

0,4

0,3

0,37

0,26
0,4
0,4
na
0,24

0,11

0,66

0,57

na

0,3

0,2

na

na = not available

* excludes IIIa

** For some stocks mean F was based on a shorter time period within the period 90-94

38