Commission staff working document - Scientific Technical Economic Committee of Fisheries Opinion on evaluation of plans for protection of marine living rersources on the italian mainland, in Sicily and Sardinia  delivered at Plenary Meeting of STECF - 3-7 April 2006
Date: 2007-04-02
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Italy, Sardinia, Sicily, fisheries policy, fishery management, fishery resources, fishing regulations













EUR-Lex - 52007SC0466 - EN






Important legal notice




|



52007SC0466

Commission staff working document - Scientific Technical Economic Committee of Fisheries Opinion on evaluation of plans for protection of marine living rersources on the italian mainland, in Sicily and Sardinia  delivered at Plenary Meeting of STECF - 3-7 April 2006  /* SEC/2007/0466 final */  








SEC(2007) 466COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENTScientific Technical Economic Committee of Fisheries Opinion onEvaluation of Plans for Protection of Marine Living Resources on the Italian M ainland, in Sicily and Sardinia Delivered at Plenary Meeting of STECF 3-7 April 2006This report does not necessarily reflect the view of the European Commission and in no way anticipates the Commission’s future policy in this areaTABLE OF CONTENTS1 BACKGROUND 31.1 CONTEXT 31.2 TERMS OF REFERENCE TO THE SGBRE SUB-GROUP 31.3 PARTICIPANTS 41.3.1 STECF members 41.3.2 Invited Experts 41.3.3 European Commission 52 SUMMARY OF CLOSED AREAS 53 STECF CONSIDERATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON ALL AREAS 8ANNEX 10REPORT OF AD-HOC WORKING GROUP 101 BACKGROUND 101.1 AIDS FOR THE TEMPORARY CESSATION OF FISHING ACTIVITIES 101.2 OVERVIEW OF TEMPORARY CESSATIONS OF FISHING ACTIVITIES IN ITALY 112 OBJECTIVES OF THE MEETING 113 ANSWER TO THE TERMS OF REFERENCES 113.1 APPLICABILITY OF PLAN 113.1.1 ADRIATIC SEA 123.1.2 TYRRHENIAN SEA 133.1.3 SICILIAN WATERS 143.1.4 SARDINIA 153.2 EFFECTIVENESS OF PLAN 153.3 LONG-TERM PROFITABILITY OF FISHERY 163.3.1 Italian mainland 173.3.2 Sardinia 173.3.3 Sicily 173.4 ALTERNATIVE ANALYSES 183.4.1 General considerations 183.4.2 Italian mainland 193.4.3 Sicily 193.4.4 Sardinia 203.5 USE OF DATA 203.5.1 Italian mainland 213.5.2 Sicily 213.5.3 Sardinia 223.6 VALIDITY IN MEDITERRANEAN CONTEXT 223.7 GEOGRAPHICAL RANGE 223.7.1 Italy mainland 233.7.2 Sicily 233.7.3 Sardinia 233.8 COMPLIANCE OF MEASURES WITH PLANS 243.9 CONTRIBUTION TO REDUCTION IN MORTALITY AND EFFORT 243.10 RELEVANCE OF CLOSED AREAS TO STOCKS 253.11 EFFECT ON OPERATION OF FLEETS 253.12 CHANGES IN PLANS 253.13 POSSIBILITY OF EVASION 263.14 CAPACITY REDUCTIONS 273.15 IMPACT OF NO ACTION 274 STECF-SGBRE FINAL CONSIDERATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (ALL AREAS) 275 REFERENCES 305.1 MEMBERS OF THE STECF 305.2 INVITED EXPERTS 305.3 STECF SECRETARIAT: 31BACKGROUNDA meeting of the STECF-SGBRE sub-group (SGBRE 06-01) took place in Brussels from 27-31 March 2006 to examine numerous management plans for the protection of marine living resources in Italy and the autonomous regions of Sardinia and Sicily. The objectives as given by the Commission were as follows:Scientists shall provide advice on the basis of both their expertise, including previous STECF works, and of scientific information attached to the plans for the protection of the resources and shall, in particular, evaluate the reliability of the plans in terms of:-  diagnosis upon which the plan is based (e.g. status of the resources and evolution of main fishery indexes);-  prognosis and expected results (benchmarks, appropriateness of the methodology to evaluate the objectives, reduction in fishing capacity, etc.)-  -congruence of the plan both with the targets (e.g. timeframe, appropriateness of management measures with conservation objectives, effectiveness of proposed measures, etc.) and with ongoing fishing practices as well as with already enforced management measures (e.g. the likely outcomes of the plan can be voided by current fishing practices? etc.)-  added value to ensure higher conservation of the exploited resources targeted by the plan in order to achieve higher long-term yields and better economic performances of the fleets involved. Since the various Italian Administrations (national Ministry, Region of Sicily and Region of Sardinia) have implemented different plans for the protection of the resources and have delivered different type of scientific analysis, STECF is requested to differentiate between Italy mainland, Sicily and Sardinia when delivering its advice.STECF was requested by the Commission to examine the sub-group's analysis and deliver an opinion on the usefulness of the plans in protecting marine resources.ContextAccording to Community rules, a plan for the protection of marine living resources must include additional measures to temporary fishing bans, such as permanent reduction of fishing capacity or by adopting supplementary technical measures. Those are designed to further reduce fishing mortality over and beyond what is already enforced at national or Community level. The plan must be notified to the Commission which submits it to the opinion of the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee (STECF) that must evaluate the scientific basis and likely effectiveness of the plan in terms of pursued conservation results. It is responsibility of a Member State to provide adequate scientific justifications to support the execution of temporary fishing bans under the requirements of the FIFG Regulation.Both Sicily and Sardinia are Regions with autonomous Statute and they can rule on fishery matters with the exception of the fleet policy which is regulated at national level. The annual temporary fishing ban is on of the management measures regularly undertaken in Italy, including also Sicily and Sardinia, during the last 18 years although it has been differently modulated with respect to timing and fisheries in the various Italian seas.Terms of Reference to the SGBRE Sub-group1.  to evaluate whether each plan for the protection of the resources is based on information and sound scientific analysis that allow to establish measurable objectives for each plan as well as to determine a diagnosis of the state of the stocks and of fisheries targeted by each plan;2.  to evaluate whether the scientific analysis allows to conclude that the exploited resources targeted by the plan have been fishing at sustainable or unsustainable levels and if the changes in fishing mortality, prior and after the execution of the plan, will allow higher yields in the long term as well as a reduced biological risk to the fish stocks;3.  To evaluate whether the plan is able to adjust fishing on the target stocks and main associated species in order to achieve greater caches larger and more stable stocks of fish and more profitable fisheries.4.  to evaluate whether and why other type of analysis could/should have been taken into consideration to set up the basis and to evaluate the appropriateness of the plans;5.  to evaluate whether the scientific basis of the plan has taken stock of and full exploited the monitoring data gathered through the Community data collection programme (Council Regulation (EC) 1543/2000).6.  to advice whether and why there may be scientific analysis in the fisheries science toolbox which are not valid to assess the state of exploited resources in the Mediterranean;7.  to evaluate whether the scientific analysis ensures a full coverage of geographical stocks and fisheries involved in the plan for the protection of the resources and which areas, fisheries and stocks are not covered;8.  to evaluate whether the measures implemented in the legislative acts match with the alternative management measures identified and justified in the various scientific reports. Identify also if an uneven implementation of the temporary fishing ban between areas is justified on the basis of the different conditions of exploited resources targeted by the plan;9.  to evaluate whether and how much the temporary fishing bans and complementary measures, if any, have been contributing to reduce the fishing mortality and the fishing effort as well as to improve sustainable exploitation of targeted resources;10.  To evaluate whether the implemented closed areas, in terms of location and dimensions, are relevant for the concerned stocks;11.  to evaluate whether the closed areas implemented in conjunction with the plan affect and how the operations of fleets involved in the plans.12.  to evaluate whether between year changes in the execution of the plan are scientifically justified and if they may negatively influence the effectiveness of the plan.13.  to evaluate whether the expected results may be voided by alternating temporary fishing bans between adjacent maritime departments taking into consideration the mobility of the fleets, the location of operating fishing grounds and uneven distribution of exploited resources between territorial and international waters;14.  To evaluate whether in conjunction with the plan there has been, for the fleet areas covered by the plan, a permanent reduction of the fishing capacity with respect to the period before the plan;15.  To evaluate whether and why the absence of a recurrent temporary fishing ban concerned fleets may further deteriorate the state of exploited resourcesParticipantsSTECF membersMax Cardinale (chairman)Antonio di NataleGiandomenico ArdizzoneInvited ExpertsArgyris KallianiotisJordi LleonartEuropean CommissionFranco Biagi (DG_FISH)Hendrik Doerner (JRC, secretary)Iain Shepherd (JRC, secretary)SUMMARY OF CLOSED AREASTable 2-1 summary of closed areasGlobal Z | data from trawl surveys | analytical methods |Biomass | data from trawl surveys / fishery | analytical methods |CPUE | data from fishery | statistical methods |Mean size in the catch | data from fishery | statistical methods |Effort | data from fishery | statistical methods |Y/R analysis | data from fishery | analytical methods |Multispecies24.  •Specific composition of the catch. Biodiversity25.  •DiscardsEcosystem26.  Restoration of essential fish habitatsmeasuresThree different kinds of measures are included in the plan presented by the Italian authorities:27.  Seasonal closures28.  Area closures29.  Decommissioning of vesselsItalian mainlandThe data and methods presented are the following: Abundance and biomass, in n·km-2 and kg·km-2, respectively and length distribution by sex for Merluccius merluccius and Nephrops norvegicus based on data collected during the trawl surveys GRUND/MEDITS 2000-2003. Results are disaggregated by depth stratum and for the 7 GSAs of the Italian waters. The documents presented do not include any further analysis or indicators. It is not possible to assess the effectiveness of the plan on the basis of the biological data presented here. There is actually an important amount of information that should be exploited in a more efficient way. From these data estimates of SSB trends could be obtained. After a request for additional information, a time-series of abundance from 1996-2004 for 42 species in GSA 17 (North Adriatic) and a time-series of total abundance were presented. Most of the species show an increasing or not significant trend. However, it is important to highlight that trend in CPUE in number of individuals (abundance) does not mirror trend in the adult biomass of the stock (SSB) but they generally mirror the temporal dynamic of recruitment.SicilyThe establishment of two permanent closed areas (named zone A and zone B) in international waters in GSA 15 and 16 were proposed by the competent authorities. These two zones have been proposed because are considered as important and permanent nurseries for Merluccius merluccius (and probably also for Parapenaeus longirostris ). The data used to identify the areas are based on trawl surveys and were considered reliable. However, the surfaces are too small (approximately 90 km2 and 160 km2; about 11% of the nursery area individuated in the document). Therefore, STECF-SGBRE recommends that the areas should be larger (at least 4 times larger in extension) to be significant for the long term sustainability of the resources. For comparative purposes, the areas approved for protection by the GFCM 2006 in international waters consist of surfaces ranging from 1000 to 10 000 km2.Considering that the areas proposed by the Sicilian authorities are placed in international waters, and that the plan only covers Sicilian vessels, STECF-SGBRE strongly suggests submitting this proposal to the GFCM through SCSA and SCMEE to enforce the protection at the international level.Analysis of the demersal species and small pelagic fish in the Straits of Sicily30.  Fleet capacity index (1996-2004)31.  Biomass indices (1994-2004)32.  For the species: Merluccius merluccius, Mullus barbatus, Mullus surmuletus, Pagellus erythrinus, Parapenaeus longirostris, Aristeomorpha foliacea, Illex coindetii, Eledone moschata, Eledone cirrhosa, Engraulis encrasicolus and Sardina pilchardus , the following data and indicators were presented (generally 1994-2004):33.  abundance and biomass in n·km-2, kg·km-2, respectively34.  mean length35.  sex ratio36.  adult ratio37.  length at first maturity38.  reproductive season39.  nursery areas40.  area stock distribution41.  Stock-recruitment relationships (for some species)42.  Y/R analysis (for some species)43.  short-medium term analysis of stock trend and simulations (for some species)The methods used in Sicily are appropriate, although most of them are merely descriptive. All these analyses are useful to evaluate the appropriateness of the plans, but may be not sufficient. STECF-SGBRE considers that other kind of indicators such as trends in F and SSB should and could have been estimated to allow a more comprehensive evaluation of the appropriateness of the plans.SardiniaMethods used:44.  Global Z estimates (1995-2004) from trawl surveys, for Merluccius merluccius, Mullus surmuletus, Aristeus antennatus and Parapenaeus logirostris45.  Growth parameters for the above mentioned species46.  CPUE series (1995-2004), from trawl surveys for the above mentioned species47.  VPA for Mullus barbatus and Aristeomorpha foliacea using data from 1994-2002 and 7 zones48.  M estimates using Pauly’s method49.  Tuning not specified50.  Reference points for F from yield per recruit analysis (Y/R; equation of Beverton and Holt)51.  Analysis of the biodiversity (1994-2003)52.  Analysis of commercial catch (1998-2005)53.  Landings54.  CPUE (yield by boat and month)55.  Analysis of Merluccius merluccius, Mullus surmuletus, Aristeus antennatus, Parapenaeus longirostris and Eledone cirrhosa. Z values were obtained analyzing trawl surveys data and to perform Y/R analyses.Sardinia presents a satisfactory set of analysis and stock indicators (including a multi-species approach). The methods are adequate taking into account the data available and the results are useful for evaluation of the appropriateness of the plans. However some of the analysis (i.e. Y/R form trawl surveys) may go beyond the possibility of the method. Input data of the Y/R are fishing mortality at age and weight at age. Those derived from survey are obviously different from those estimated from the different fleets. On the other hand some information about SSB trends and target reference points (i.e. fishing mortality) would be very useful.Use of datato evaluate whether the scientific basis of the plan has taken stock of and full exploited the monitoring data gathered through the Community data collection programme (Council Regulation (EC) 1543/2000).STECF considers that according to the documents available at the meeting, the Italian national Plan 2004-2006 is essentially devoted to only two fishing segments (bottom and pelagic trawlers), while no data are available on other segments (e.g. netters) of the fleet fishing on the same resources. At the same time, although the plan stressed the multi-species target of the Italian fishing fleet, it is limited to only four species, divided in two groups: hake and Norwegian lobster in offshore waters, and red mullet and cuttlefish in coastal waters. These four species have been chosen due to the base of the “high fishing pressure” existing on them.Italian mainlandAccording to the plan for the protection of aquatic resources in 2004 (Decree 2 July 2004) and in 2005 (Decree 14 July 2005), it is clear from the preamble that the plans, besides of the socio-economical data and considerations, is based on some basic biological information concerning all Italian seas. This biological information is attached to the plan and available at the meeting but limited to four years data (2000-2003) of GRUND and MEDITS surveys. However, those data are restricted to only two species (hake and Norway lobster), while no reference is available for the other two species included in the plan (red mullet and cuttlefish) nor to any other species or stock reported in Annex 12 of Council Regulation (EC) 1543/2000. Data up to 2005 were available in the beginning of 2006 and could have been included in additional documents.According to the plan, no fishery dependent data coming from the DCR have been used. However, it is important to consider that those data series available at the beginning of 2004 were only limited to the years 2001 and 2002, while data for 2003 have been made available in the late 2004.According to the scientific documents attached to the Italian Government letter no. 2005/24867 dated 1 September 2005 (Annex 1), fishery dependent data collected within the DCR were included. Anyhow, how and which those have been used is not clearly specified in the documents presented by the Italian Authorities.SicilyThe documents provided by the Sicilian authorities in response to the EC request no. D01474 provides a series of information and scientific data not mentioned in the Sicilian Decree, with a broad overview of the fishing activity. This document provides data from GRUND and MEDITS surveys on Merluccius merluccius, Mullus barbatus, Mullus surmuletus, Parapenaeus longirostris, Aristaemorpha foliacea and Nephrops norvegicus. Basic information from other sources is provided on Engraulis encrasiculos, Sardina pilchardus, Thunnus thynnus, Thunnus alalunga, Sarda sarda, Euthynnus alletteratus, Tetrapturus belone, Xiphias gladius, Seriola dumerili, Coryphaena hippurus, with several suggestions on their management. No reference is made about specific stocks or fishery dependent data collected within the DCR.The plan for the protection of aquatic resources adopted by the Region of Sicily in 2005 (Decree 5 August 2005), in addition to the previous synergy with the Italian national plan, reports a clear reference to a scientific study by the CNR. The report provides a good overview of the various gear and fleet segments and very detailed scientific data on Merluccius merluccius, Mullus barbatus, Mullus surmuletus, Phycis blennoides, Engraulis encrasiculos, Sardina pilchardus, Spicara flexuosa, Micromesistius potassou, Parapenaeus longirostris, Aristaemorpha foliacea, Nephrops norvegicus, Aristeus antennatus, Eledone cirrhosa, Illex coindeti, Octopus vulgaris and Sepia elegans from the Strait of Sicily and the Tyrrhenian coast; basic information is provided on Thunnus thynnus, Thunnus alalunga, Sarda sarda, Euthynnus alletteratus, Tetrapturus belone, Xiphias gladius, Seriola dumeril and Coryphaena hippurus; no info is available for the Ionian coast. Most of the stocks included are in the Annex 12 of the DCR, but the list presented in the scientific documents is not complete. In this case, the data are from GRUND, MEDITS, CAMPBIOL and DISCARD surveys and these projects are carried out within the DCR. Although a sound scientific background of the stock status was available, the Sicilian Decree followed the same approach of the previous year, focusing generally on fleets more than on stocks or species.The draft Plan for the protection of aquatic resources proposed by the Sicily Region in 2006 makes again a clear reference to scientific studies provided by the CNR, ICRAM and CONISMA. Only the 2005 CNR reports were provided by Sicilian authorities and made available at the meeting.SardiniaAccording to the Plan for the protection of aquatic resources adopted by the Sardinia Region in 2003 (Decree 20 February 2003 and Decree 24 July 2003) and in 2004 (Decree 18 February 2004 and Decree 18 August 2004) it appears that these regulations have been adopted on the basis of the Italian national Plan, without any specific reference to additional scientific background. However, reading the Decrees, it appears quite clear that there is at least a good knowledge of the fleet segmentation.The Sardinia Region had provided two scientific documents that are considered as the scientific base for the Regional Protection Plan. These documents, produced by the University of Cagliari in 2004, contain a considerable amount of information, data and analysis, concerning Mullus surmuletus, Merluccius merluccius, Aristeus antennatus, Aristaeomorpha folòiacea, Parpenaeus longirostris and Eledone cirrhosa . These stocks are all included in Annex 12 of the DCR, but the list presented in the scientific documents is not complete. No specific references have been made to the DCR within the two documents, but it is likely that fishery independent data collected within the DCR framework (i.e. GRUND, MEDITS and CAMPBIOL surveys) have been used.Validity in Mediterranean contextto advise whether and why there may be scientific analysis in the fisheries science toolbox which are not valid to assess the state of exploited resources in the Mediterranean;The well-known “specificity” of the Mediterranean fisheries does not impede the use of any standard stock assessment method. Often such specificity, in particular the number of species and gears, has been used as an excuse for not applying such methods. Complexity should not be a justification to avoid analysis.Any stock assessment method is based on some assumptions and constraints. In many cases such assumptions are not completely fulfilled by the data, but even in such instances the results can be valuable. It is up to scientist to interpret correctly the results and estimate their potential biases on the basis of careful methodological considerations. Quite simple methods can allow detecting overexploitation, and although the precise value of the indicator could be inaccurate, this is sufficient to give a warning advice and to trigger the implementation of management measures. In some cases, some models are actually too much simple (i.e. steady state assumption) to provide reliable results. Thus, alternative, but more complex, models exist (i.e. dynamic models) and should be used.Many fisheries models are available for stock assessment. These models differ greatly in their mathematical structure, assumptions, data requirement, biological and ecological implications, and output. The choice of a model for a given fishery is often decided by the quantity of the information available to stock assessment (Chen et al., 2003). Data availability is a real problem in the Mediterranean, and effort should be addressed to remedy it. The classic single-species stock assessment methods can be applied to the Mediterranean resources, as well as more complex and realistic approaches such as, multispecies, bio-economic and ecological models, which constitute the future methodology of the ecosystem approach to fisheries (EAF). Therefore, STECF-SGBRE concludes that there are no stock assessment methods exclusively applicable, or not applicable, to the Mediterranean resources.Geographical rangeto evaluate whether the scientific analysis ensures a full coverage of geographical stocks and fisheries involved in the plan for the protection of the resources and which areas, fisheries and stocks are not covered;As a general statement, according to the documents available at the meeting and the plans concerned, it is quite evident that the existing regulation is trying to manage some fleet segments without a specific reference to single stock. Such regulation could be regarded as an indirect way to manage several species harvest together by the same fleet.Italy mainlandAccording to the Italian national plan for the protection of aquatic resources 2004-2006 concerning the bottom and pelagic trawlers, the plan target only two groups of species (hake and Norway lobster and red mullet and cuttlefish). Obviously, the plan, covering entire fleet segments, protects other species (i.e. seasonal extension of the trawl fishing ban and the pelagic trawl seasonal closure) though those are not specifically identified in the plan. Nothing is mentioned about segment of fleet targeting large pelagic species and several other gears as gill nets, pots, traps, dredges, hydraulic dredges, purse-seines, long-lines, hand-lines and tuna seines. Also, recreational fishery is not included. The Italian national Plan covers all the seas, excluding only the autonomous Regions of Sicily and Sardinia, because those regions have a specific competence on fishery issues. But, looking at the measures in the plan, some areas have a mandatory fishing ban while others (Tyrrhenian Sea and Ligurian Sea) have only a facultative closure. This is not coherent with the overexploitation status of the resources in the Tyrrhenian and Ligurian Sea as indicated by the scientific community. The scientific data provided with the letter no. 2005524867 (1st September 2005) include several technical and economic data about some fisheries, but not the biological data for all stocks from the Adriatic Sea. According to the scientific expertise available at the meeting, Italy has the scientific knowledge and data to cover all fisheries, areas and stocks.SicilyThe Sicilian Plan in 2004 covers all the seas around Sicily, it has different time closure for the various Maritime Compartments and a subsequent partial overlapping of the periods. The plan covers all the fisheries but the fishing ban is mandatory only for bottom and pelagic trawlers while it does not cover the recreational fishery. The 2004 Sicilian plan has no specific reference to single stocks or species.In the 2005 Sicilian plan the coverage of the fisheries is complete, with the exception of fishing vessels engaged in “pescaturismo”. Again, recreational fishery is excluded from the plan. In 2005 plan, the closures were implemented at the same time in the various seas around Sicily.The draft Plan for 2006 has a more detailed list of fisheries, with various time closures according to each fishing gear (or aggregation of different fisheries). In this draft plan, all the fisheries are included, except for the troll recreational fishing (usually targeting juveniles of large pelagic in autumn) that is allowed to operate during the same period when a closure is established for surface gear to protect juvenile swordfish.The identification of two areas in the Strait of Sicily for protection of hake recruitment is included in the most recent scientific documents and in the draft Plan for 2006 and it is considered useful but not sufficient to improve the stock status of species covered in the Sicilian plan. For the stocks covered by the scientific papers provided by the Italian Government and concerning the Sicilian area, there is detailed information in the point 5 of this report. However, information on the status of the stock and fisheries for the Ionian Sea and for stocks target in the small scale artisanal fisheries are not included in the plan.SardiniaThe Sardinian plans show some slight differences from year to year. All the Plans cover the entire area.The plan adopted by Sardinia in 2003 includes all the fishing vessels registered in Sardinia. Then, in theory, all the stocks should be included, but this is not the case. The fishing ban is facultative for purse-seiners fishing for small pelagic species, for surface long-liners fishing for swordfish and for the small bottom trawlers between 15 to 30 GRT; furthermore, trawlers having also the long-line licence have the possibility to chose to continue the fishing activity with swordfish long-lines even during the fishing ban for trawlers, but outside the territorial waters. Some fisheries or fishing activities are excluded from the time closure: the sport game fishery, the professional dive fishery, the coral fishery, while most of the recreational fishery is not included in the fishing ban.The plan adopted by Sardinia in 2004 contains the same rules as in the previous year, with the exclusion from the fishing ban for the small bottom trawlers below 15 GRT registered in the Maritime Compartment of Cagliari and operating in the southern part of Sardinia.The stocks covered by the scientific papers provided by the Italian Government and concerning the Sardinian area are detailed in point 5 of this report.Compliance of measures with plansto evaluate whether the measures implemented in the legislative acts match with the alternative management measures identified and justified in the various scientific reports. Identify also if an uneven implementation of the temporary fishing ban between areas is justified on the basis of the different conditions of exploited resources targeted by the plan;STECF-SGBRE consider that the measures implemented in the legislative acts match only partially with the management measures identified and justified in the various scientific reports (SEC 2002 (1374)) and documents attached to the plans. As recommended by STECF (SEC 2002 (1374)), effective management measures for the protection of the marine resources should not only include a compulsory fishing ban, which, provided that it reduces substantially the yearly total number of days at sea of the fleet, is considered as an effective way to reduce fishing effort but also:56.  a progressive reduction of the effective fleet capacity57.  the establishment of permanent closed areas to all fishing activity where both recruitment but also spawning aggregation and concentration of adult individuals of the exploited species are located58.  an increase in selectivity of the gears in order to decrease F on the juveniles and reduce discardHowever, the implementation of those measures must be proven to be effective to reduce F, increase SSB, R and mean age and size of the stocks, maintain biodiversity and improve the status of essential fish habitats (as identified in the STECF-SGMED report) in the time frame established by the plan. STECF-SGBRE consider that the plans have not clear measurable objectives, in terms of targets to achieve (i.e. level of F and SSB, mean size/age of the stock, biodiversity, etc) as well as a time frame for achieving and a set of complementary measures if the objectives are not met (see general guidelines established by the Commission in EC 2792/1999). Management measures, as indicated by STECF (SEC 2002 (1374)), including a compulsory fishing ban, should be extended also to the entire Ligurian and Tyrrhenian Sea, where a condition of overexploitation has been shown for several target species (see point 1 and SEC 2002 (1374)).Contribution to reduction in mortality and effortto evaluate whether and how much the temporary fishing bans and complementary measures, if any, have been contributing to reduce the fishing mortality and the fishing effort as well as to improve sustainable exploitation of targeted resources;Taking into consideration the status of some stocks as briefly summarized at point 1 of this report, STECF-SGBRE considers as very urgent the implementation of efficient protection measures for most of the stocks. According to the available documents, a general reduction of the fishing mortality on the main target species cannot be demonstrated. As an example, series of estimated fishing mortality for two species Mullus barbatus and Aristeomorpha foliaciea , in Sardinia (disaggregated in 7 zones) from 1994 to 2002 showed that fishing mortality has been fluctuating in the last decade in the different areas. The fishing ban was in place since 1988, but the observed trends do not show any clear change in F regime after 1998. Also, from Z estimated for a number of species in the entire area, it is evident that fishing mortality has generally remained stable after the execution of the plan. However, the Y/R analysis showed a situation of overexploitation with current E larger than Emsy for most of the stocks included in the plan.On basis of the documents provided, STECF is not able to assert if the fishing bans contributed to the changes in fishing mortality. STECF considers also that it is not possible to disentangle (i.e. partial F from the different measures) the effect of different measures since those have been in force at the same time in the Sardinian waters. STECF-SGBRE recognize that if the management plans will continue to include a temporary fishing ban, then a strictly compulsory, continuous and extended ban should properly cover all fishing areas and fleets in terms of time and space. However, the design in terms of period of closure must be revisited and planned to match with the period of recruitment of the target species included in the plan.Regarding the fishing effort, (estimated as number of boats * fishing days at sea) and assuming that the ban has been fully enforced, the data shows a decrease since 1998 in the Sardinian waters.Relevance of closed areas to stocksTo evaluate whether the implemented closed areas, in terms of location and dimensions, are relevant for the concerned stocks;There is not enough information to evaluate in details if the implemented closed areas are relevant for the concerned stocks. One of the three Sicilian closed areas (i.e. Golfo di Castellamare; GSA 10) has been proved to be effective and therefore is considered as a reference case study, but otherwise not much is available for the other areas.STECF-SGBRE considers that in general the surface of closed areas is too small compared to the total distribution area of the stock and often covers only partially essential fish habitats. Therefore, STECF-SGBRE recommends that the areas should be larger (at least 4 times larger in extension than the actual areas) to be significant for the long term sustainability of the resources. For comparative purposes, the areas approved for protection by the GFCM 2006 in international waters consist of surfaces ranging from 1000 to 10 000 km2.Therefore, although those areas might have a positive effect in terms of F and biomass at the local level, they are likely to be inefficient to significantly decrease F and increase SSB at the stock level. The correct location and extension of protected areas should be given a priority selecting significant areas where essential habitats for the most important marine living resources are persistent in time. No information has been made available at the meeting for the importance of the areas as essential fish habitats and the distribution of the fishing effort prior the adoption of the closed area.Effect on operation of fleetsto evaluate whether the closed areas implemented in conjunction with the plan affect and how the operations of fleets involved in the plans.The lack on information on the spatial distribution of the fishing effort (i.e. VMS data) does not allow STECF-SGBRE to evaluate whether and how the closed areas affect the operations of fleets involved in the plans.Changes in plansto evaluate whether between year changes in the execution of the plan are scientifically justified and if they may negatively influence the effectiveness of the plan.The main measure of the proposed protection plans is the temporal fishing ban, aiming to reduce the fishing mortality exerted mostly on the recruits of demersal species, especially for spring spawners. The recruitment of these species starts in autumn and depends on the drastic oceanographic changes observed every year during this period. The changes of the hydrographic dynamics during the autumn period could be the signal to start the migration toward deeper waters. These changes are unlikely to come at the same period each year, but according to the general climate conditions usually appear during October or shift later in the autumn. For this reason the establishment of a too short closed season, aiming to preserve recruits, could fail to coincide with the peak of recruitment but a larger period should cover more efficiently the extension of recruit’s movement. A period of 45 days starting at 15 of September each year could cover efficiently the recruitment period of spring spawners species in most of the Italian marine regions. On the other hand, a different seasonality, the partition of the ban in two separate periods and a voluntary ban for some areas will result in the ban not be able to cover effectively the migration period and thus achieve the desirable objectives in terms of reducing F and protect the recruitment. As a matter of fact, a ban designed in the way described above will increase the risk of a mismatch of the period of the ban with the peak in recruitment of the spring spawner species in the area. Therefore, in an optimal plan aiming to protect the recruits, the closed period should be related with the regional oceanographic changes. However, due to the existing difficulties to detect on time the start of the migration, a minimum continuous period of 45 days should secure the coverage of the main part of the recruits.Regarding Sicily, the closed season during spring starting at 1st of April according to the decree of 2006, aiming to protect the spawners is probable to match better with the spawning period of red mullet and other demersal species, even if this period might be postponed in some years during early summer. The Sardinian plan in 2003-2004 adopted a closure starting at 1st of March, which could be valid only if the time of spawning of the target stocks in the area would suggest an earlier application of the ban.Generally, the plans are not strictly based on the main biological features of the stocks, such as peak in spawning season and time of recruitment.Possibility of evasionto evaluate whether the expected results may be voided by alternating temporary fishing bans between adjacent maritime departments taking into consideration the mobility of the fleets, the location of operating fishing grounds and uneven distribution of exploited resources between territorial and international waters;As currently enforced by the Italian Authorities, the fishing ban are, in the last years, organized alternating bans between adjacent maritime departments. The fishing bans are limited in both the spatial and temporal extension and alternating limited areas in time would reduce the positive effects of the plan for the protection of the stocks. STECF-SGBRE considers that, for the specific cases of temporary fishing bans, they should be compulsory and extended to large areas (at least to the GSA level), in order to reduce the movement of effort (i.e. fishing vessels) between adjacent areas outside the 12 miles that would vanish the positive effect (i.e. reducing the fishing mortality) expected by the ban. Moreover, in the period (at least 3 months) following the end of the fishing ban, STECF-SGBRE suggest that the fishing pressure should be limited over and beyond what is already enforced at national or Community level further restricting the time at sea. This could be achieved, for example in the demersal fisheries, limiting the fishing operations to the daylight hours only. The ban should target the main period of juvenile concentrations, the adult spawning aggregation and concentrations and all the other essential fish habitats. The temporal extension of the ban must be established in order to bring the average yearly F on target stocks below between F01 and Fmax.Capacity reductionsTo evaluate whether in conjunction with the plan there has been, for the fleet areas covered by the plan, a permanent reduction of the fishing capacity with respect to the period before the plan;The available information gives a picture of a general reduction of the fishing capacity in the different areas covered by the plans in the period 1999-2003. However, a reduced fishing capacity does not necessarily imply a reduced fishing effort and fishing mortality exerted on the stocks. As a matter of fact, the observed reduction in fishing capacity has not resulted in a reduction of fishing mortality in the period of the plan (see point 1). The problems of separating the different effects (in terms of partial F) of positive measures (fishing bans, closed areas, etc) with negative effects contemporary present (increase of engine power and fishing gear efficiency, damage of important fish habitats, etc) has been previously discussed in point 9 of this report.Impact of no actionTo evaluate whether and why the absence of a recurrent temporary fishing ban concerned fleets may further deteriorate the state of exploited resources;The evident overfishing condition observed for most of the stocks in the areas involved by the plans, can clearly be further deteriorate by the total absence of the currently implemented management measures. Nevertheless, the management measures included in the plans are among those indicated by the scientific community but the manner those measures are designed is not sufficient for the protection of the target stocks. Also, the implementation and enforcement of the measures should be improved. The main topic evidenced from the large amount of documents evaluated is a need for a better design of the measures applied in order to obtain a significant effect for the long-term sustainability of exploited living marine resources along the Italian coasts, in Sicily and Sardinia. Finally, a standardized way to present scientific information used to justify management measures implemented in the plan is advisable.STECF-SGBRE final considerations and recommendations (all areas)59.  STECF has revised the report of SGBRE and provided an opinion on the major considerations and recommendations. Detailed answers to each of the TORS are given in the SGBRE report. Due to time constraints and lack of expertise and information available at the meeting, STECF-SGBRE was unable to answer in full details to some of the TORS, especially those related to the full evaluation of the closed areas as effective to purse long term sustainability of the resources.60.  STECF-SGBRE recognizes that, nonetheless the implementation of different management measures in the last 18 years, several important marine living resources (i.e. hake, red mullet, deepwater rose shrimp) around Italian coasts are overexploited (see SEC 2002 [1374] on Mediterranean shared stocks, SEC 2004 [772] on Mediterranean fleets, SEC 2005 [266] on the state of the stocks and GFCM-SAC reports).61.  STECF-SGBRE considers that the measures currently included in the Italian plans are among those indicated by the scientific community.62.  STECF-SGBRE considers that in accordance with Community rules, plans for the protection of marine living resources must include additional and supplementary technical measures designed to further reduce fishing mortality over and beyond what is already enforced at national or Community level.63.  STECF-SGBRE considers that the scientific information used to establish the guidelines of the plans are not exhaustive. However, STECF-SGBRE recognizes that a significant difference exists in the information and the analysis presented by Sicily and Sardinia compared to Italian mainland. Italian mainland has presented incomplete information for areas and species, limiting stock trends to abundance and not biomass of the species and without a full analysis of the actual level of exploitation in respect to the long-term sustainability of the stocks.64.  STECF-SGBRE considers that the plans have not clear measurable objectives, in terms of targets to achieve (i.e. level of F and SSB, mean size/age of the stock, biodiversity, etc) as well as a time frame for achieving and a set of complementary measures if the objectives are not met (see guiding principle established by the Commission in EC 2792/1999). STECF-SGBRE also reiterates that protections plans should follow the general guidelines delineated by STECF in the report of the November 2005 plenary session.65.  STECF-SGBRE considers that the expected positive effect of the management measures, included in the plan could have been counteracted by several negative factors. Among those, an increase in the fishing power of the fleet, increase in gear catchability, technical creeping, the implementation of the measures, inadequacy in the design of the management measures included in the plan (i.e. extension and period of the fishing ban, extension and location of the closed areas), deterioration of essential fish habitats, low selectivity of the fishing gears, etc might represent the most plausible ones. Also, it is impossible to disentangle the effects of different factors and management actions on the fishing mortality of the exploited stocks in the last decade.66.  STECF-SGBRE considers that management measures of the plans are useful but not sufficient and appropriately designed to ensure the long term sustainability of exploited stocks. Also, the implementation and enforcement of the measures should be improved.67.  STECF-SGBRE, noting that most of the stocks are currently overfished, considers that the situation can be further deteriorated if the currently implemented management measures are completely eliminated.68.  STECF-SGBRE recommends that if the management plans will continue to include a temporary fishing ban, then a strictly compulsory, continuous and extended ban should properly cover all fishing areas and fleets in terms of time and space. The ban should be extended to large areas (at least to the GSA level), in order to reduce the movement of effort (i.e. fishing vessels) between adjacent areas outside the 12 miles that would vanish the positive effect (i.e. reducing the fishing mortality) expected by the ban. Moreover, in the period (at least 3 months) following the end of the fishing ban, STECF-SGBRE suggest that the fishing pressure should be limited over and beyond what is already enforced at national or Community level further restricting the time at sea. This could be achieved, for example in the demersal fisheries, limiting the fishing operations to the daylight hours only. Also, the design in terms of period of closure must be revisited and planned to match the period of recruitment of the target species included in the plan.69.  STECF-SGBRE recommends that the correct location and extension of closed areas should be given a priority in order to select areas where sensitive and essential fish habitats for the most important marine living resources are persistent in time. STECF-SGBRE recommends that the areas should be larger (at least 4 times larger in extension than the actual areas) to be significant for the long term sustainability of the resources. For comparative purposes, the areas approved for protection by the GFCM 2006 in international waters consist of surfaces ranging from 1000 to 10 000 km2.70.  Those areas should be aimed to protect sensitive and essential fish habitats as well as important areas of concentration of adults of the target species included in the plan.71.  STECF-SGBRE recommends effective management measures for the protection of the marine resources should not only include a compulsory fishing ban, which, provided that it reduces substantially the yearly total number of days at sea of the fleet, is considered as an effective way to reduce fishing effort but also:72.  a progressive reduction of the effective fleet capacity73.  the establishment of permanent closed areas to all fishing activity where both recruitment but also spawning aggregation and concentration of adult individuals of the exploited species are located74.  an increase in selectivity of the gears in order to decrease F on the juveniles and reduce discardThe implementation of those measures must be proven to be effective to reduce F, increase SSB, R and mean age and size of the stocks, maintain biodiversity and improve the status of essential fish habitats (as identified in the STECF-SGMED report) in the time frame established by the plan75.  STECF-SGBRE recommends that indicators of the status of the main target stocks (i.e. F, SSB, mean size, etc) prior to the inception of the plans should be provided.REFERENCESChen, Y., L. Chen, L. & K. I. Stergiou. 2003. Aquat. Sci . 65:1–7.APPENDIX – NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF PARTICIPANTSMembers of the STECFArdizzone GiandomenicoDip. Biologia Animale e dell'UomoUniversità di Roma "La sapienza"Viale dell 'Università 32I-00185 Roma, ItalyTel: +39-06-49914773Fax: +39-06-49914773E-mail: ardiz@pan.bio.uniroma1.itCardinale MassimilianoHavsfiskelaboratorietBox 4DK-453 21 Lysekil, DenmarkTel: +46 523 187 00Fax: +46 523 139 77E-mail: massimiliano.cardinale@fiskeriverket.seDi Natale AntonioAquastudioVia Trapani 6I-98121 Messina, ItalyTel: +39 090 34 64 08Fax: +39 090 36 45 60E-mail: Adinatale@acquariodigenova.itInvited ExpertsKallianiotis ArgyrisFRI (Greece)Nea Peramos640 07 Kavala (Greece)Tel: +30.594.22691.3Fax: +30.594.22222E.mail: fri@otenet.grLleonart JordiICM-CSIC P.Joan de Borbó s/n08039 Barcelona, SpainTel: 34-93-2216416Fax: 34-93-2217340E-mail: Lleonart@icm.csic.esSTECF Secretariat:Doerner, HendrikEC Joint Research Centre (JRC)TP 266, Via Fermi 1,21020 Ispra (VA), ItaliaPhone: +39-0332-78 9343Fax: +39-0332-78 9658E-mail: hendrik.doerner@jrc.itShepherd, IainEC Joint Research Centre (JRC)TP 266, Via Fermi 1,21020 Ispra (VA), ItaliaE-mail: iain.shepherd@jrc.itDG Fisheries and Maritime Affairs:Biagi, FrancoEuropean CommissionDirectorate General for Fisheries and Maritime AffairsDirectorate for Conservation Policy99 rue Joseph IIB-1049 BrusselsTel: +32(0)2 2994104Fax:+32(0)2 2994802E-mail: Franco.Biagi@cec.eu.int