Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament - Review of the management of deep-sea fish stocks
Date: 2007-01-29
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: authorised catch, common fisheries policy, fishery management, fishing area, fishing controls, fishing regulations

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 29.1.2007 
COM(2007) 30 final 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE 
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 

Review of the management of deep-sea fish stocks 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE 
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 

Review of the management of deep-sea fish stocks 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. 

2. 

3. 

Introduction .................................................................................................................. 3 

Overview of Community regulations concerning deep-sea fisheries .......................... 3 

Effectiveness of the Regulations.................................................................................. 5 

3.1. 

Are the measures adopted adequate? ........................................................................... 5 

3.1.1.  TAC levels ................................................................................................................... 5 

3.1.2.  Suitability of TACs for the management of deep-sea stocks....................................... 6 

3.1.3.  Effort management on deep-sea stocks........................................................................ 6 

3.2. 

Implementation of the Regulations: ............................................................................. 7 

3.2.1.  Scientific sampling and observer programmes ............................................................ 7 

3.2.2.  Lists of designated ports............................................................................................... 8 

3.2.3.  Lists of vessels with deep-sea licences ........................................................................ 8 

3.2.4.  Reporting of fishing effort ........................................................................................... 8 

3.2.5.  Monitoring and control ................................................................................................ 9 

4. 

Conclusions ................................................................................................................ 10 

ANNEX.................................................................................................................................... 11 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

The scope of this review is limited to the deep-sea fisheries carried out in Community waters 
and in the regulatory areas of the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC) and the 
Committee for the Eastern Central Atlantic Fisheries (CECAF). It does not therefore consider 
the  fisheries  that  operate  in  other  regulated  areas,  such  as  those  of  the  Northwest  Atlantic 
Fisheries Organisation (NAFO), the South East Atlantic Fisheries Organisation (SEAFO), or 
unregulated areas of the high seas. 

The  review  also  concentrates  more  on  the  management  of  deep-sea  fish  stocks  than  on 
broader ecosystem considerations, such as the protection of vulnerable habitats. This is simply 
a matter of focus, and does not imply that the Commission considers that the impact of deep-
sea fisheries on the ecosystem is of lesser importance. 

Deep-water species are generally considered to be those that live at depths of greater than 400 
metres.  At  those  depths  there  is  very  little  light,  so  the  food  chain  is  dependent  on  detritus 
falling  from  the  upper  layers  of  the  water  column  and  productivity  is  therefore  very  low. 
Deep-water  fish  species  are  typically  long-lived,  slow-growing  and  late-maturing.  They  are 
also generally of low fecundity. All of these characteristics make them particularly vulnerable 
to over-fishing. 

With  some  exceptions,  the  fisheries  on  deepwater  species  have  developed  and  expanded 
before  sufficient  information  was  available  on  which  to  base  management  advice.  This  has 
been particularly true during the last decade, where exploitation has increased on a number of 
species as fishing extended into deeper waters or new areas. Landings and fishing effort data 
are poor, and discards largely unreported even though they may be significant. This has made 
it  difficult  for  the  International  Council  for  the  Exploration  of  the  Sea  (ICES)  to  suggest  a 
level of exploitation that might be sustainable, but it does note that most exploited deepwater 
species were considered to be harvested outside safe biological limits, and that there should be 
immediate  reductions  in  fishing  effort.  New  fisheries  should  be  permitted  only  when  they 
expanded very slowly, and are accompanied by programmes to collect data that would allow 
evaluation of the stock status. 

Most deep-water fisheries take a mixture of species. For example, about 70 deep-sea species 
have  been  recorded  in  the  catches  of  trawlers  targeting  roundnose  grenadier.  Very  little  is 
known about the ecosystem effects of deep-sea fisheries, other than the direct damage that can 
be  caused  to  the  habitat  by  the  fishing  gears  used.  ICES  has  called  for  all  the  relevant 
information  to  be  made  available  to  the  working  group  and  the  development  of  direct 
monitoring programmes, for example using research vessels. 

2. 

OVERVIEW OF COMMUNITY REGULATIONS CONCERNING DEEP-SEA FISHERIES 

Total  allowable  catches  (TACs)  were  first  introduced  for  some  of  these  species  in  2002 
(Council Regulation (EC) No 2340/2002)1 based on a Commission proposal that took account 
of  a  ten-year  track  record  in  fishing  (1990-1999).  Since  the  scientific  advice  on  deep-sea 

1 

OJ L 356, 31.12.2002, p. 1–11 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
stocks  is  available  every  two  years,  Regulation  2340/2002  fixed  the  deep-water  TACs  for 
2003 and 2004. 

After the enlargement of the Community in 2004, quotas had to be fixed for the new Member 
States according to Article 57 of the Act of Accession. Unless this was done the new Member 
States  would  have  had  to  stop  fishing  on  entry  to  the  Community,  even  though  they  had 
legitimate  fishing  opportunities  beforehand.  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  2269/20042  fixed 
the  quotas  for  accession  states  using  a  similar  method  to  that  used  to  allocate  quotas  in 
Regulation  2340/2002,  but  on  the  basis  of  their  historical  track  record  of  catches  for  1993-
2002 instead of 1990-1999. In Regulation 2269/2004 the quotas for the new Member States 
were  added  to  those  in  Regulation  2340/2002  for  the  existing  Member  States,  resulting  in 
increased Community TACs. The resulting overall allocation keys were used form the basis 
for setting the TACs amongst all Member States in subsequent years. The allocation of TACs 
was a contentious issue, because those with established fisheries were allocated higher shares 
of  the  resources  than  those  with  aspirations  to  develop  alternative  fishing  opportunities  but 
little  track  record,  at  a  time  when  the  traditional  fisheries  centred  on  cod  were  becoming 
severely restricted. 

The  TACs  and  quotas  Regulation  was  complemented  by  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No 
2347/20023 establishing specific access requirements and associated conditions applicable to 
fishing for deep-sea stocks. This Regulation aimed to cap the expansion of fishing effort on 
deep sea species by obliging all vessels that capture more than 10 tonnes deep-sea species in 
year to have a deep sea fishing permit, otherwise their of deep-sea species would be limited to 
100  kg  per  fishing  trip.  Moreover,  the  total  capacity  of  vessels  holding  deep-sea  fishing 
permits was restricted to the aggregate capacity of the vessels that fished more than 10 tonnes 
of  deep-sea  species  in  any  of  the  years  1998  –  2000  inclusive  (2000  –  2003  for  the  new 
Member  States).  Regulation  2347/2002  also  introduced  special  reporting  and  control 
requirements, including agreed sampling schemes, observer coverage and the requirement to 
land  only  to  designated  ports.  Further  requirements  concerning  the  collection  of  data  are 
specified in Commission Regulation (EC) No 1581/20044. 

Regulations  2340/2002  and  2269/2004  were  replaced  by  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No 
2270/20045, which fixed the TACs for deep-water stocks for 2005 and 2006. This Regulation 
also introduced TACs on a number of stocks for which catches were not previously restricted. 
In addition, in the light of scientific advice that the stock of orange roughy in Division VI was 
heavily depleted, this Regulation introduced a closed area for this species to the west of the 
United Kingdom and Ireland. Vessels fishing within the closed area cannot land any orange 
roughy.  Vessels  fishing  for  orange  roughy  that  transit  the  closed  area  must  maintain  their 
speed above 8 knots to ensure that no fishing operations are carried out in the area. 

The main body of scientific advice for deep-sea stocks is issued every two years, but there is 
sometimes specific advice for certain stocks, or decisions taken in the context of the regional 
fisheries  organisations,  that  require  specific  measures  to  be  taken  within  a  relatively  short 
deadline. An example is the recommendation adopted by NEAFC that fishing effort on deep-
sea stocks should be reduced by 30% in 2005 and 2006. Rather than amending Regulations 

2 
3 
4 
5 

OJ L 396, 31.12.2004, p. 1–3 
OJ L 351, 28.12.2002, p. 6–11 
OJ L 289, 10.9.2004, p. 6–53 
OJ L 396, 31.12.2004, p. 4–12 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
2347/2002 and 2270/2004, the Commission included requirements to reduce fishing effort in 
kW days by 30% with respect to 2003 levels in its proposals for the Council Regulation (EC) 
No 27/20056 and Council Regulation (EC) No 51/20067 fixing fishing opportunities for 2005 
and  2006  respectively  in  order  to  comply  with  the  NEAFC  recommendation.  However  the 
Council  of  ministers  accepted  only  two  successive  reductions  of  10%  in  effort  in  2005  and 
2006. 

3. 

EFFECTIVENESS OF THE REGULATIONS 

There  are  two  aspects  to  be  considered  when  assessing  the  effectiveness  of  the  regulations. 
The first is whether the measures adopted are adequate to protect deep-sea stocks. The second 
is whether those measures have been properly implemented and have therefore achieved the 
results intended. 

3.1. 

Are the measures adopted adequate? 

3.1.1.  TAC levels 

Attempts  to  regulate  deep-sea  fisheries  are  relatively  recent.  Moreover  they  were 
motivated  by  the  need  to  stop  or  slow  the  rapid  expansion  of  fisheries  on  species 
about which very little was known. The lack of basic knowledge on the biology of 
deep-sea  species  and  of  the  deep-sea  ecosystem  means  that  the  TAC  and  effort 
limitations  that  were  fixed  were  somewhat  arbitrary.  Full  compliance  with  the 
precautionary  approach  would  have  required  the  setting  of  much  lower  TACs  and 
effort limits, or even the closure of the fisheries. 

The TACs set for 2003 and 2004 were a step in the right direction but in most cases 
too high for the stocks to sustain. Moreover, the declared catches of most stocks were 
considerably lower than the TACs, suggesting that the TACs were not restricting the 
fisheries.  In  proposing  TAC  levels  for  deep  sea  stocks  for  2005  and  2006  the 
Commission therefore attempted to make sure that they were genuinely restrictive by 
using  the  real  level  of  catches,  not  the  existing  TACs,  as  the  baseline.  Where 
scientific  advice  indicated  a  need  for  a  significant  reduction  in  fishing  effort  or 
catches but did not specify a particular figure, a 30% reduction in catch opportunities 
was  proposed.  Where  scientific  advice  indicated  a  need  to  reduce  fishing  effort  or 
catches by a specific figure, then that figure was used to calculate the proposed TAC. 
However,  in  order  to  mitigate  social  and  economic  impact,  the  proposed  TAC  was 
never less than 50% of the catch in 2003.  

The  Council  of  ministers  was  unable  to  accept  the  Commission's  methodology, 
adopting instead more modest reductions of a maximum of 15% with respect to the 
existing  TACs  rather  than  the  declared  catches.  This  was  because  of  the  political 
difficulties  of  presenting  apparently  large  reductions  in  fishing  opportunities  on 
deep-sea stocks when these were seen as alternatives to the declining shelf fisheries. 
However,  for  the  stocks  for  which  TACs  were  proposed  for  the  first  time  in 
Regulation  2270/2004,  the  Council  accepted  the  Commission's  proposal  for 
reductions of between 30% and 50% of the real level of declared catches. 

6 
7 

OJ L 12, 14.1.2005, p. 1–151 
OJ L 16, 20.1.2006, p. 1–183 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The table in the Annex compares the resulting TACs for the 2005 and 2006 with the 
declared catches for 2005. In most cases, the catches were considerably less than the 
TACs, suggesting that the TACs are still not restrictive. 

3.1.2. 

Suitability of TACs for the management of deep-sea stocks 

With a few exceptions, deep-sea fisheries catch a mixture of species, though only one 
or  two  of  them  may  be  deliberately  targeted.  Some  deep-water  species  with  ranges 
that extend to the slopes of the continental shelf, such as ling and tusk, may also be 
taken as by-catches in shallow-water demersal fisheries. 

For  TACs  to  be  effective  in  mixed  fisheries,  the  TACs  for  the  individual  stocks 
should  be  fixed  relatively  to  one  another  at  levels  that  minimise  discards  and  by-
catches. This is extremely difficult to achieve, even in shallow-water mixed fisheries 
where there is much more information available on catch and discard rates. For deep-
water  stocks,  the  individual  TACs  have  been  set  only  on  the  basis  of  officially 
reported  catches  from  all  fisheries  combined,  with  hardly  any  information  on  the 
catch  composition  for  each  of  the  distinct  fisheries  involved  or  on  discard  rates. 
Moreover,  of  the  48  species  listed  in  Annexes  I  and  II  of  Regulation  2347/2002, 
TACs are set for only 9 of them. Most of the other species are taken too sporadically 
or  in  quantities  too  small  to  make  it  feasible  to  set  TACs.  Unfortunately,  the 
restricted number of species managed by TACs has encouraged the misreporting of 
the species in the catches to avoid counting them against the quotas. 

Another problem of trying to manage deep-sea stocks using TACs is that relatively 
little is known about the geographical stock structure of deep-sea species. The TACs 
are  therefore  often  set  over  huge  management  areas,  partly  to  prevent  the 
misreporting that could occur if TAC areas were defined more narrowly. The danger 
of  inadvertently  excluding  an  area  from  the  TAC  regime  was  illustrated  by  the 
development  of  a  targeted  roundnose  grenadier  fishery  in  the  Norwegian  waters  of 
ICES Area III. Regulation 2270/2004 fixed a TAC of 1590 tonnes for ICES III, but 
specified that this applied to Community and International waters. The TAC did not 
therefore cover Norwegian waters, even though the track records of catches on which 
it  was  based  included  catches  taken  in  Norwegian  waters.  This  loophole  was 
exploited  by  a  number  of  Danish  vessels  that  were  legally  fishing  under  historical 
rights recognised by Norway, which increased their catches of roundnose grenadier 
to more than 14,000 tonnes in 2005.  

Despite the difficulties and shortcomings, the TACs have probably had some effect 
in  curbing  fishing  mortality  on  some  of  the  main  targeted  species.  However,  it  is 
clear that the long-term management of deep-sea stocks must complement the TACs 
with other measures, in particular the restriction of fishing effort. 

3.1.3.  Effort management on deep-sea stocks 

Under  Article  4  of  Regulation  2347/2002,  the  capacity  of  vessels  with  deep-sea 
fishing permits is limited to the aggregate capacity of all the vessels that caught more 
than 10 tonnes of any mixture of deep-sea species in any of the years 1998, 1999 or 
2000. This capacity ceiling was intended to limit the expansion of deep-sea fisheries, 
but in practice has probably had no effect. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
One reason is that some deep-sea stocks are taken as a by-catch in fisheries targeting 
shallow-water species. The examples of ling and tusk have already been mentioned. 
Another  example  is  that  of  argentines,  which  are  listed  as  deep-water  species  in 
Regulation  2347/2002  but  which  are  taken  as  a  by-catch  in  blue  whiting  fisheries. 
This means that the capacity ceilings include vessels that are not targeting deep-sea 
stocks, and represent a much larger proportion of total fleet capacity than the relative 
importance of deep-sea fisheries would suggest. 

A second problem is that Article 4 requires the cumulative capacity of all vessels that 
caught more than 10 tonnes in any one of the years from 1998 to 2000 to be included 
in  the  ceiling.  If  one  vessel  caught  10  tonnes  of  deep-water  species  in  only  one  of 
those years, and another vessel caught 10 tonnes in only another of those years, the 
capacity of both vessels would be included in the capacity ceiling. The result is that 
the ceilings are unrealistically high and do not restrict the number of vessels targeting 
deep-sea species. 

This  shortcoming  has  also  undermined  the  effectiveness  of  the  effort  reductions 
imposed  by  Regulations  27/2005  and  51/2006,  which  require  10%  and  20% 
reductions respectively in the number of kW-days deployed by vessels holding deep-
sea  licences  with  respect  to  the  levels  deployed  in  2003  (the  year  in  which 
Regulation 2347/2002 came into force and therefore the first year for which reliable 
effort data are available). Since many of the vessels holding deep-sea licences are not 
targeting  deep-sea  stocks,  the  effort  reductions  do  not  necessarily  reduce  the 
exploitation  rate  on  them,  and  may  even  unnecessarily  restrict  the  fishing  effort  of 
some other fisheries. Indeed, to avoid that the nominal reduction in effort on deep-
sea species is dominated by effort reductions in the blue whiting fishery, which take 
a  by-catch  of  argentines,  Regulation  51/2006  excludes  argentines  from  the  list  of 
deep-sea species for the purposes of the effort calculations. 

When considering the adequacy of the measures adopted, it should be noted that it is 
not immediately clear whether or not the two successive 10% reductions in effort for 
2005 and 2006 with respect to the effort levels in 2003 are sufficient to comply with 
the  NEAFC  Recommendation  that  fishing  effort  on  deep-sea  stocks  should  be 
reduced  by  30%  from  recent  high  levels.  This  issue  is  discussed  further  in  section 
4.2.4 on the reporting of fishing effort levels by the Member States. 

3.2. 

Implementation of the Regulations: 

3.2.1. 

Scientific sampling and observer programmes 

Article  8  of  Regulation  2347/2002  required  Member  States  to  set  up  an  observer 
programme to collect information on the activities of vessels with deep-sea licences. 
These were to have been evaluated by the Commission within 6 months of the entry 
into force of the Regulation. 

This  deadline  could  not  be  met.  When  Regulation  2347/2002  was  adopted,  the 
Member  states  with  allocations  for  deep  sea  resources  were  Belgium,  Denmark, 
France,  Germany,  Ireland,  Netherlands,  Portugal,  Spain,  Sweden,  and  the  United 
Kingdom.  By  the  end  of  March  2003,  three  months  after  the  entry  into  force  of 
Regulation  2347/2002,  a  sampling  plan  had  been  received  only  from  Germany. 
Sweden informed the Commission that it considered its catches of deep-sea species 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
too  small  to  warrant  a  sampling  plan.  Following  written  reminders,  sampling  plans 
were provided by France, Germany, Ireland, Portugal, Spain and UK. No sampling 
plans  were  submitted  by  Belgium,  Denmark,  Netherlands  and  Sweden,  though 
STECF  noted  that  the  deep-sea  quotas  for  all  those  countries  are  very  small. 
Following enlargement, the new Member States should also have submitted sampling 
plans, though none were received. 

A  major  shortcoming  Regulation  2347/2002  is  that  there  is  no  clearly  defined 
sampling  strategy,  which  means  that  even  if  the  requirement  to  implement  a 
sampling plan is fulfilled the quality of the data that are obtained may be poor, or it 
may  be  difficult  to  pool  the  data  from  different  Member  States.  The  report  of  the 
ICES  deep-sea  working  group  refers  to  the  use  of  data  collected  as  part  of  an 
observer  programmes  in  the  case  of  only  a  few  stocks,  for  example  roundnose 
grenadier in Vb, XII, VI and VII. 

3.2.2.  Lists of designated ports 

According  to  Article  7  of  Regulation  2347/2002,  landings  of  deep-sea  species  in 
excess  of  100kg  can  be  made  only  at  designated  ports,  a  list  of  which  should  have 
been  transmitted  to  the  Commission  within  60  days  of  the  entry  into  force  of  the 
Regulation. Within 30 days thereafter, the associated inspection and surveillance for 
deep-sea species at those ports should be communicated. 

Lists  of  designated  ports  were  submitted  by  all  Member  States,  but  the  associated 
inspection and surveillance procedures were received from only Belgium, Denmark, 
France, Germany, Ireland, Latvia, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Sweden 
and the United Kingdom. 

Once again, it is a shortcoming of Regulation 2347/2002 that no guidelines are given 
for the inspection and surveillance procedures. Moreover, the inspection of landings 
of  deep-sea  species  are  usually  carried  out  alongside  the  inspection  of  much  larger 
quantities  of  demersal  landings,  and  are  sometimes  considered  to  be  of  lower 
priority. 

3.2.3.  Lists of vessels with deep-sea licences 

Only  Portugal  and  Spain  have  complied  with  the  requirement  under  Article  7  of 
Council Regulation (EC) No 1627/948 to submit a list of vessels that are issued with 
deep-sea fishing licences. 

3.2.4.  Reporting of fishing effort 

Article  9  of  Council  Regulation  2347/2002  states  that  Member  States  must 
communicate  for  each  half  calendar-year  the  information  on  catches  of  deep-sea 
species  and  the  fishing  effort  deployed,  expressed  as  kilowatt  fishing  days,  broken 
down  by  quarter  of  the  year,  by  type  of  gear,  by  species,  as  well  as  information 
concerning  the  catches  of  the  additional  species  listed  in  Annex  II  of  the  same 
Regulation. 

8 

OJ L 171, 6.7.1994, p. 7–13 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The half-yearly reports were to have been used to provide detailed information on the 
fishing effort levels by gear type to enable the more precise identification of deep-sea 
fisheries in order to better target the effort reductions. The Community has strongly 
advocated such an approach at successive NEAFC annual meetings. However, none 
of  the  Member  States  routinely  reported  this  effort  information,  though  a  few 
provided  more  detailed  information  for  the  most  recent  years  following  a  request 
from the Commission. 

However, information was provided by some, but not all, Member States in response 
to a request from the Commission to provide aggregate fishing effort levels for the 
years  1998  –  2004.  This  request  was  made  in  order  to  evaluate  whether  or  not  the 
10%  reduction  in  fishing  effort  for  2005  with  respect  to  the  effort  levels  in  2003 
required by Regulation 27/2005 was likely to be enough to comply with the NEAFC 
recommendation to reduce fishing effort by 30% from recent high levels. 

Aggregated effort data for the years 2000 – 2005 (or estimates of fishing effort for 
the  years  prior  to  2003  when  Regulation  2347/2002  entered  into  force)  have  been 
supplied  by  Denmark,  France,  Ireland,  the  Netherlands,  Portugal,  Spain,  Sweden, 
Germany and the United Kingdom. These data indicate that the fishing effort in 2005 
was at most 65% of the effort deployed in 2000, suggesting that the Community has 
indeed complied with the NEAFC recommendation. 

3.2.5.  Monitoring and control 

Article  7  of  Regulation  2270/2004  introduced  an  orange  roughy  protection  area. 
Vessels with a deep-sea fishing licence that enter the area are not allowed to retain on 
board,  land  or  tranship  any  quantity  of  orange  roughy,  nor  land  any  quantities  of 
orange  roughy  at  the  end  of  their  fishing  trip  unless  all  gears  carried  on  board  are 
lashed and stowed during the time in the area and the average speed during transit is 
at least 8 knots. 

The  implementation  of  these  measures  requires  close  monitoring  of  the  VMS  data, 
and in particular that an alert is triggered when the speed of one of the vessels drops 
below  8  knots.  This  does  not  appear  to  have  been  effectively  implemented  in  any 
Member  State.  In  particular,  alarms  at the  Fisheries  Monitoring  Centres  (FMC)  are 
generally not set to give an automatic warning when a fishing vessel is fishing or is 
in transit in regulated areas. This means that although technically possible, the FMCs 
do  not  keep  the  local  inspectors  informed  of  any  suspicious  activities  by  specific 
vessels  on  the  fishing  ground.  If  this  was  done,  it  would  allow  such  vessels  to  be 
targeted by inspectors when they arrived in port. 

In section 4.1.3 it was noted that the definition of vessels requiring deep-sea fishing 
licences was too broad, including many vessels with only marginal catches of deep-
sea  stocks.  As  well  as  limiting  the  effectiveness  of  deep-sea  effort  limitations,  this 
can  also  lead  to  control  problems  for  non  deep-sea  stocks.  This  is  because  as  the 
holder of a deep-sea fishing licence, a vessel can legitimately fish in areas where a 
Member  State  has  deep-sea  quotas.  However,  this  does  not  mean  that  the  vessel 
necessarily targets deep-sea stocks in those areas. The deep-sea licence has, in some 
cases, provided legitimacy for fishing activities in areas where the vessel has no right 
to fish the species actually being targeted. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
4. 

CONCLUSIONS 

•  Many deep-sea stocks have such low productivity that sustainable levels of exploitation are 
probably too low to support an economically viable fishery. It must therefore be recognised 
that  current  levels  of  exploitation  on  those  stocks  must  inevitably  be  reduced,  either  by 
choice  in  order  to  conserve  the  stocks  or  else  because  the  stocks  become  fished  to 
depletion.  Moreover,  stock  recovery  times  are  so  long  that  the  reductions  in  exploitation 
must  be  regarded  as  permanent,  not  as  a  means  to  rebuild  stocks  to  allow  higher 
exploitation rates in the longer term.  

•  In any case, the measures currently in force have been too poorly implemented to protect 

deep-sea stocks. 

•  Current  effort  controls  apply  to  all  fisheries  combined,  yet  some  are  likely  to  be  more 
sustainable  than  others.  The  most  pressing  need  is  for  better  information  on  the  distinct 
fisheries that are catching deep-sea species so that the fishing effort levels can be adjusted 
in each of them individually according to the target species and by-catch species. Licences 
to  take  part  in  each  of  the  fisheries  should  be  dependent  on  the  vessel  having  a  suitable 
track record. 

•  The  sampling  schemes  to  collect  scientific  information  should  be  decided  after 
consultation both at Community level and with other NEAFC contracting parties. One of 
the  major  criticisms  that  could  be  levelled  at  the  existing  legislation  is  that  despite  the 
obligation to collect and report data there was little or no guidance on how to  do  it.  The 
sampling  schemes  therefore  differed  in  content  and  quality  between  Member  States. 
Moreover,  since  there  was  no  agreed  reporting  format  the  data  that  were  collected  were 
difficult to aggregate. Reporting formats should therefore be clearly specified and the data 
made more easily available to scientific working groups. 

•  Monitoring  and  control  procedures  must  be  made  more  rigorous,  including  clear 

procedures for reporting VMS data. 

•  There  should  be  a  greater  emphasis  on  collecting  relevant  data  to  assess  the  ecosystem 
impact of deep-sea fisheries, both from commercial fishing vessels and from co-ordinated 
research vessel surveys. 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
Utilisation rates of quotas 2005 

ANNEX 

Species: 

Zone 

TAC 2005-2006  Catches 2005 

 Utilisation 

Deep Sea Sharks  
Deep Sea Sharks  

Deep Sea Sharks and 
Deania histricosa and 
Deania profondorum 
Black scabbardfish 
Black scabbardfish 
Black scabbardfish 
Black scabbardfish 

Alfonsinos 
Tusk 
Tusk 
Tusk 
Tusk 
Roundnose grenadier 
Roundnose grenadier 
Roundnose grenadier 
Roundnose grenadier 
Orange roughy 
Orange roughy 

Orange roughy 
Blue ling 
Blue ling 
Blue ling 
Red seabream 
Red seabream 
Red seabream 
Forkbeards 
Forkbeards 
Forkbeards 
Forkbeards 

V, VI, VII, VIII, IX  
X 

XII 
I, II, III, IV  
V, VI, VII, XII  
VIII, IX, X  
CECAF 34.1.2.  
I, II, III, IV, V, VI, 
VII, VIII, IX, X, XII, 
XIV  
I, II, XIV  
III  
IV  
V, VI, VII  
I, II, IV, Va  
III  
Vb, VI, VII 
VIII, IX, X, XII, XIV  
VI  
VII  
I, II, III, IV, V, VIII, 
IX, X, XI, XII, XIV  
 II, IV, V  
III  
VI, VII  
VI, VII, VIII 
IX  
X  
I, II, III, IV  
V, VI, VII  
VIII, IX  
X, XII  

6763
120

243
30
3042
4000
4285

328
35
40
317
604
20
1590
5253
7190
88
1148

102
119
25
3137
298
1080
1136
36
2028
267
63

3294 
16 

148 
3 
2977 
3389 
3195 

302 
5 
7 
115 
452 
2 
881 
3388 
5683 
67 
260 

60 
27 
1 
3066 
223 
430 
1119 
5 
1545 
269 
36 

49%
13%

61%
10%
98%
85%
75%

92%
13%
18%
36%
75%
8%
55%
64%
79%
76%
23%

59%
22%
5%
98%
75%
40%
98%
14%
76%
101%
57%

EN 

11 

   EN