Commission staff working document - Impact Assessment regarding the Commission's proposal for a Council Regulation concerning the conservation of fisheries resources through technical measures in the Atlantic and the North Sea Lead - DG: DG FISH - Agenda planning: 2006/FISH/004 {COM(2008) 324 final} {SEC(2008) 1977}
Date: 2008-06-04
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: common fisheries policy, conservation of fish stocks, fishery resources, fishing area, fishing net, impact study, protection of animal life

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 4.6.2008 
SEC(2008) 1978 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

Impact Assessment regarding the Commission's proposal for a Council Regulation 
concerning the conservation of fisheries resources through technical measures in the 
Atlantic and the North Sea 

Lead DG: DG FISH 

Agenda planning: 2006/FISH/004 

{COM(2008) 324 final} 
{SEC(2008) 1977} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
1. 

1.1. 

1.2. 

1.3. 

Procedural issues and consultation of interested parties .............................................. 6 

Additional information................................................................................................. 6 

Organisation and timing............................................................................................... 6 

Consultation and expertise ........................................................................................... 7 

1.3.1.  Consultation ................................................................................................................. 7 

1.3.2.  Expertise....................................................................................................................... 8 

2. 

2.1. 

2.2. 

2.3. 

2.4. 

3. 

4. 

4.1. 

4.2. 

4.3. 

5. 

5.1. 

5.2. 

5.3. 

5.4. 

6. 

Problem definition: the current situation.................................................................... 10 

Underlying driving forces .......................................................................................... 13 

Identification of the sectors affected .......................................................................... 13 

Legal basis for Community action ............................................................................. 13 

Necessity and subsidiarity.......................................................................................... 13 

Objectives................................................................................................................... 14 

Policy options............................................................................................................. 14 

Status quo' option ....................................................................................................... 14 

'Simplification only' option ........................................................................................ 14 

'Simplification and regionalisation' option................................................................. 15 

Analysis of impacts .................................................................................................... 15 

Environmental impacts............................................................................................... 16 

Economic impacts ...................................................................................................... 17 

Social impacts ............................................................................................................ 17 

Impacts on international relations .............................................................................. 18 

Comparing the options ............................................................................................... 18 

6.1. 

Benefits of the preferred option ................................................................................. 19 

6.1.1.  Harmonisation and regionalisation ............................................................................ 19 

6.1.2.  Simplification of decision-making............................................................................. 20 

6.2. 

Options for the implementation of the preferred option ............................................ 20 

6.2.1.  Minimum size of marine organisms........................................................................... 21 

6.2.2.  Minimum mesh sizes and target species .................................................................... 22 

6.2.3.  Closed areas ............................................................................................................... 23 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
 
7. 

Monitoring and evaluation ......................................................................................... 23 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
Executive summary 

The  Impact  Assessment  regards  a  draft  proposal  for  the  Regulation  concerning  the 
conservation  of  fisheries  resources  through  technical  measures  in  the  Atlantic  and  the 
North Sea.  

The proposal for a new regulation on technical conservation measures in the Atlantic and 
the North Sea was identified in the Commission Action Plan 2006-2008 on simplification 
of  the  Common  Fisheries  Policy  (CFP)1  legislation  as  a  fundamental  test  case  of 
simplification.  The  proposal  is  also  part  of  the  Commission's  Rolling  Simplification 
Programme. 

Recognising  that  the  technical  measures  legislation  for  the  Atlantic  and  the  North  Sea 
grew too complex and difficult to interpret, control and enforce, the Council invited the 
Commission  to  submit  a  simplified  proposal.  In  its  conclusions  on  promoting  more 
environmentally-friendly  fishing  methods,  the  Council  also  recommended  a  localised 
approach where measures are adapted to regional conditions, when appropriate.  

1 

OJ  L  256,  3.8.2004,  p.  17.  Decision  as  last  amended  by  Council  Decision  of  11  June 
2007(2007/409/EC) 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Simplification is therefore a key objective of the new proposed regulation. The specific 
operational aims are as follows: 

•  to incorporate all revised conditions and amendments in a comprehensive and easy to 

understand, control and enforce package of technical measures; 

•  to  establish  a  balance  between  measures  which  are  generally  applicable  in  all  areas 
and measures which are applicable specifically on a regional basis as defined by the 
Regional Advisory Council (RAC) Areas. 

legislation  but  only 

The  scope  of  the  proposal  is  relatively  small  as  it  does  not  change  the  substance  of 
related 
likely 
environmental, social and economic impacts are modest. This is a proportionate impact 
assessment,  for  which  no  inter-service  steering  group  was  set  up.  Scientific  and 
Stakeholder Committees have been consulted. 

legislative  approach  and 

therefore 

the 

the 

Details of consultation processes, options and impacts are provided. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
1. 

PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES 

1.1. 

Additional information 

Following  on  the  recommendations  made  by  the  Impact  Assessment  Board  in 
their  Quality  Checklist,  regarding  its  opinion  on  the  final  draft  report,  the 
following amendments have been made to the final version of this IA report: 

•  the  link  between  problem  definition  and  the  objectives  of  the  new  proposal 
was  further  discussed,  as  well  as  more  explanation  was  given  on  why 
simplification  of  current  measures  with  a  strong  regional  dimension  was 
required; 

•  the main options were analysed and their possible environmental, social and 

economic impacts were explained; 

•  more  information  on  the  consultation  process  and  the  involvement  of 

stakeholders was added; 

•  the  nature  and  drivers  of  the  existing  problem  were  discussed  in  detail  and 

examples of the specific simplification gains was given; 

•  key technical terms were added as Annex 4. 

1.2. 

Organisation and timing 

This  impact  assessment  regards  a  proposal  for  a  Council  regulation  recasting 
Council  regulation  (EC)  N°  850/98  of  30  March  1998  for  the  conservation  of 
fishery  resources  through  technical  measures  for  the  protection  of  juveniles  of 
marine organisms in the Atlantic and the North Sea waters. 

Its  development  is  foreseen  in  Agenda  Planning  (2006/FISH/004)  and  in  the 
2007  Annual  Management  Plan  of  the  Directorate-General  of  Fisheries  and 
Maritime Affairs under the specific objective "Conservation and Management of 
Fish  Resources"  (to  propose  and  negotiate  measures,  including  multi-annual 
management  plans,  for  the  conservation  and  management  of  Community  fish 
stocks,  joint  stocks  and  stocks  partly  occurring  in  international  waters,  with  a 
view  to  ensuring  the  exploitation  of  fish  stocks  at  maximum  sustainable  yield 
levels, taking into account broader environmental, economic and social concerns 
and  making  the  best  use  of  harvested  fish  resources,  especially  by  avoiding 
wasteful discard practices). 

The  proposal  for  a  new  regulation  on  technical  conservation  measures  in  the 
Atlantic and the North Sea was identified in the Commission Action Plan 2006-
20082 on simplification of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) legislation as a 
fundamental  test  case  of  simplification.  The  proposal  is  also  part  of  the 
Commission's Rolling Simplification Programme. 

2 

COM (2005) 647 final Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament 2006-08 Action 
Plan for Simplifying and Improving the Common Fisheries Policy 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The  Council,  in  its  conclusions  of  June  2004  on  the  promotion  of  more 
environmentally  friendly  fishing  methods3,  recommended  that  the  technical 
measures  for  the  Atlantic  and  the  North  Sea  be  revised  with  the  aim  of 
simplification  and  taking  into  consideration  regional  characteristics.  The 
Council called on the Commission to propose, after consultation with the sector, 
a simplified proposal for technical measures for the area. 

In the light of these discussions, which took place during the rest of 2006, the 
Commission  prepared  its  formal  proposal  to  replace  Council  Regulation  No 
850/98.  

The adoption of the proposal is foreseen in the first quarter of 2008. 

This  is  a  proportionate  impact  assessment  and  no  inter-service  steering  group 
was set up. The scope of the proposal is limited in terms of new regulations and 
therefore the impact in social, economic and environmental terms, is likely to be 
modest.  

1.3. 

Consultation and expertise 

1.3.1.  Consultation 

The Commission asked stakeholders for comments on the basis of non-papers.  

The Commission presented its first non-paper on the new technical measures for 
the Atlantic and the North Sea to the Member States and to the sector, through 
the  relevant  Regional  Advisory  Councils  (RACs),  in  2005.  Three  RACs;  the 
North  Sea  RAC,  the  North  Western  Waters  RAC  and  the  Pelagic  RAC,  were 
contacted and asked to comment. The South Western Waters RAC, which also 
covers part of the discussed area, was not yet operational and therefore could not 
be consulted.  

Generally,  Member  States  and  the  sector  wish  to  see  an  end  to  the  current 
dispersion of measures in different pieces of legislation. They would like to see 
technical  measures  organised  in  a  more  clear  and  consistent  set  of  rules.  They 
expect  the  regulation  to  apply  as  widely  as  possible,  to  ensure  harmonisation, 
but accept that it will have to take account of regional characteristics on a scale 
which has yet to be defined and provided that effective control is put in place in 
these  regions.  They  would  like  to  have  a  considerable  involvement  of 
stakeholders  in  the  development  of  the  regulation,  in  particular  through  the 
Regional  Advisory  Councils  (RACs)  set  up  under  the  CFP.  Lastly,  Member 
States  and  the  sector  stress  the  importance  of  discards  at  sea  which  should  be 
eliminated or greatly decreased in Europe and ask that this subject be addressed 
in these new measures.  

Due to the limited number of replies from the sector, in 2006 the Commission 
presented  a  second  non-paper,  which  was  more  precise  and  presented  specific 
and more detailed questions and possible options.  

3 

INI/2004/2199 : 21/06/2004 - Council: resolution, conclusions 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The  Commission  received  opinions  from  the  Pelagic  Stock  Regional  Advisory 
Council  (PSRAC)  and  the  North  Western  Waters  Regional  Advisory  Council 
(NWWRAC). 

Generally, RACs welcome the initiative for a revision of the technical measures. 
They agree, in principle, to increase selectivity in order to reduce discards and 
wish  a  "fishery"  approach  to  take  into  account  the  regional  characteristics  of 
those fisheries. 

The PSRAC provided specific comments on the closed areas and on selectivity 
of fishing gears. There is a general opinion that closures are an effective way to 
protect  pelagic  species  but  they  have  a  special  request  to  remove  specific 
closures for the protection of herring. The RAC considers that minimum mesh 
size is not an appropriate tool for the conservation of small pelagic species but 
explains that the minimum landing size of fish must stay in the regulations as an 
incentive  for  the  fishermen  to  move  to  other  fishing  areas  when  catching 
juveniles. All those comments have been taken into account by the Commission 
when preparing the new technical measures. 

The  NWWRAC  is  in  general  agreement  with  the  Commission's  approach  but 
their  general  request  is  a  'fisheries-based'  approach.  They  are  in  favour  of 
increasing  selectivity  but  without  giving  details  about  fisheries  that  should  be 
subject  to  those  improvements.  The  Commission  has  taken  into  account  those 
comments  and,  considering  that  a  fishery  is  characterized  by  a  combination  of 
target species, fishing areas and specific fishing gears, has prepared new tables 
for  the  definition  of  mesh  sizes  required  for  a  list  of  target  species  established 
for each RACs area. The Commission has also proposed some improvements of 
the selectivity in specific cases. 

The Commission also attended a Workshop in Dublin in September 20074 and 
presented to stakeholders how the new technical measures had been prepared. In 
general, comments from stakeholders were in agreement with the Commission's 
approach  for  the  new  technical  measures  but  they  are  waiting  for  the  final 
documents and the specific figures before delivering their final comments. 

1.3.2.  Expertise 

In addition to the non-papers, the Commission organised two specific Scientific, 
Technical  and  Economic  Committee  for  Fisheries  (STECF)  working  groups. 
The first one was dedicated to the evaluation of the efficiency of existing closed 
areas  in  the  current  Regulations.  The  second  had  the  objective  to  identify  the 
main factors, in gear construction, which affect selectivity. 

An  expert  meeting  has  been  organized  with  net  makers  to  identify  problems 
encountered  by  them  with  respect  to  EU  regulations  and  possible  ways  to 
improve simplification of the rules. 

4 

http://www.profetpolicy.info/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=73&Itemid=161  

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
                                                 
•  STECF working group on the respective influence of the main factors5 which 

affect codend selectivity, June 2007. 

In order to simplify the technical measures the Commission wishes to focus the 
new technical rules on the main parameters which affect codend selectivity and 
to  give  less  attention  to  the  others.  As  part  of  this  exercise,  an  evaluation  of 
certain  technical  provisions  established  to  improve  codend  selectivity  is 
required,  especially  those  on  mesh  size,  codend  circumference  and  twine 
diameter.  

To achieve this objective, an assessment of the respective influence on codend 
selectivity  of 
the 
circumference (number of meshes round) and twine diameter used in the codend 
in relation to the volume or the weight of the catches is necessary. 

the  mesh  size,  mesh  shape  (diamond  and  square), 

The  meeting  was  convened  to  assess  the  respective  influence  on  codend 
selectivity  of  mesh  size,  mesh  shape,  circumference  and  twine  diameter  in 
relation with the weight of catches (using the predictive model PRESEMO)6. 

•  STECF  working  group  on  the  evaluation  of  closed  areas7,  March  and 

October 2007. 

As  a  part  of  the  exercise  of  simplification  of  the  technical  measures,  an 
evaluation of closed areas laid down in the current Regulation was required. A 
considerable  body  of  material  and  evaluations  has  been  compiled  through  a 
number  of  research  projects  and  study  groups.  A  two  step  approach  has  been 
therefore applied: first an overview was made of the existing closed areas within 
the  EU  waters  and  of  the  existing  material  and  evaluations  and  secondly,  an 
evaluation  of  specific  sets  of  closed  areas  using  the  existing  information  was 
provided.  

A  first  STECF  meeting  held  in  March  2007,  prepared  an  inventory  of  closed 
areas and identified a process and the data requirements for an evaluation of the 
closed areas in the inventory, considering maximum use of existing evaluations 
and  information.  A  second  meeting  was  organized  in  October  2007,  being  the 
second  step  in  this  process  and  it  is  expected  that  the  outcome  will  be  an 
evaluation of closed areas in the Atlantic and the North Sea. The intention is to 
determine  for  each  of  them  its  value  for  conservation,  for  the  Commission  to 
decide  if  the  closed  areas  have  to  be  renewed,  modified  or  deleted  in  the  new 
regulation. If no advice is possible due to a lack of data the group was requested 
to identify material required for evaluate the considered closed areas in the short 
term. 

•  Expert meeting with net makers, July 2007. 

The  Commission  organised  on  3rd  July  2007  a  day-long  meeting  in  Brussels 
with  manufacturers  of  fishing  gears  from  Europe,  together  with  one  of  their 

5 
6 
7 

Meeting with the STECF Working Group 11-15 June 2007 
http://www.ifremer.fr/premecs/pages/packages/task6-1.htm 
Meetings with the STECF Working Group 19-23 March 2007 and 15-19 October 2007 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Norwegian counterparts, and a scientific representative from the working group 
on fishing technology from the International Council for the Exploration of the 
Seas (ICES). When revising the regulation on technical measures in the Atlantic 
and the North Sea, the intention of the Commission is to simplify and clarify the 
rules and to focus on the main factors which affect selectivity. The Commission 
is  aware  that  sometimes  provisions  can  create  practical  problems  to  fishermen 
and  net  makers.  One  of  the  intentions  of  this  meeting  was  to  solve  those 
problems before finalizing the legislative proposal which must take into account 
the fishing practices. 

The discussion focused on problems encountered by net makers with respect to 
EU  regulations  when  manufacturing  towed  gear,  and  in  particular  the  codend 
(that  part  of  a  trawl  where  the  fish  accumulate).  Topics  covered  included  the 
definition  of  the  codend,  its  circumference,  acceptable  criteria  for  twine 
thickness, and the use of strengthening bags. Participants also shared their views 
on the problems they encountered in following technical measures laid down by 
the  EU  when  introducing  selective  devices  such  as  square  mesh  windows  or 
grids, which are designed to improve selectivity and reduce discarding. 

•  Other expertise 

Available  scientific  material  has  been  also  used  for  preparing  the  technical 
measures especially the "report on the review of technical measures"8 produced 
by the ICES working group FTFB (Fishing Technology and Fish behaviour) in 
2005.  

2. 

PROBLEM DEFINITION: THE CURRENT SITUATION 

One  of  the  main  goals  of  the  Common  Fisheries  Policy  (CFP)  is  to  take 
conservation  measures  to  prevent  fish  stocks  from  being  overexploited.  These 
measures  aim  to  ensure  that  the  pressure  of  fishing  activities  targeting  certain 
stocks  is not jeopardising the reproductive  capacity  of the stocks concerned  or 
putting them at risk of collapse. 

To  promote  the  sustainability  of  fishing  activities  in  EU  waters  and  protect  a 
specific  stock  or  a  group  of  stocks  the  EU  may  use  a  number  of  conservation 
measures. These measures include:  

•  Total  Allowable  Catches  (TACs)  to  limit  the  maximum  amount  of  fish  that 

can be caught from a specific stock over a given period of time; 

•  Limiting  fishing  effort  by  reducing  the  number  of  fishing  days  at  sea  of 

fishing vessels; 

•  Fixing the number and type of fishing vessels authorised to fish. 

However, reducing fishing effort and controlling the volume of catches cannot 
prevent  the  capture  of  small  fish  and  fish  which  have  no  commercial  value. 

8 

ICES WGFTFB Report 2005 (ICES CM 2005/B:04) 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Additional measures are needed to ensure the selectivity of fishing gear in order 
to leave these fish in the sea. This is the role of technical measures.  

The basic aim of technical measures is to avoid or limit the capture of: 

•  immature fish to allow them to contribute to stock renewal as adults;  

•  unwanted  fish  because  of  their  lack  of  commercial  value  or  fish  for  which 

fishermen have no more quotas;  

•  marine mammals, birds and other species such as turtles.  

Main  technical  measures  are  generally  defined  by  geographical  areas  and 
include  (examples  presented  in  Annexes  of  Commission  Regulations.  See  in 
Annex 5): 

•  minimum net mesh sizes;  

•  the use of selective fishing gear;  

•  closed areas and seasons;  

•  minimum landing sizes for fish and shellfish;  

•  limits on by- or incidental catches.  

Technical  measures  currently  in  force  are  too  complex  and  difficult  to 
understand,  control  and  enforce.  The  regulations  include  a  mixture  of  general 
rules  and  detailed  implementation  rules  and  amendments,  which  adds  to  their 
complexity. Moreover, technical measures have not been adapted to the context 
of  the  establishment,  since  2004,  of  the  RACs  under  the  Common  Fisheries 
Policy.  

Fisheries  in  Community  waters  and  by  Community  vessels  in  international 
waters  are  covered  by  different  technical  Regulations,  one  for  each  of  the 
following  areas:  the  Mediterranean,  the  North  Sea  (including  Kattegat  and 
Skagerrak)  and  the  North-East  Atlantic,  the  Baltic  Sea,  and  the  Antarctic. 
Another Regulation covers technical measures in fisheries for highly migratory 
fish around the world.  

The  new  proposal  concerns  the  technical  measures  for  the  Atlantic  and  the 
North Sea waters. 

Council  Regulation  (EC)  850/1998  for  the  conservation  of  fishery  resources 
through technical measures for the protection of juveniles of marine organisms 
for  the  North  Sea  and  the  Atlantic  was  adopted  by  the  Council  on  30  March 
1998. It has since been amended eight times9. 

9 

Council Regulations (EC) No 308/1999, 1459/1999, 2723/1999, 812/2000, 1298/2000 724/2001, 
973/2001, and 602/2004. 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
                                                 
In  addition  to  Regulation  850/1998  technical  measures  of  relevance  for  the 
North  Sea  and  the  Atlantic  are  also  found  in  a  number  of  other  regulations  as 
listed in Annex 1. 

The  technical  measures  regulations  do  not  serve  a  single  objective  but  a  large 
range  of  objectives.  A  key  objective  is  the  protection  of  juveniles  and  a 
significant  part  of  the  measures  is  introduced  to  limit  catches  of  juvenile  fish. 
Examples  are  the  minimum  landing  size,  rules  for  gear  construction,  target 
species percentages and some of the closed areas/seasons. Other objectives are 
aiming at protecting the ecosystem, protecting certain species by limiting fishing 
mortality in certain areas/seasons and reducing discards. 

The  approach  taken  in  the  Regulation  is  what  could  be  characterised  as  a 
“negative list” approach, i.e. specifying which fishing activities are not allowed 
and implying that all activities not prohibited are allowed.  

A proposal for new technical measures for the Atlantic and the North Sea was 
adopted  by  the  Commission  on  3  December  2002.  After  two  meetings  in  the 
Council  Working  Party  it  became  clear  that  the  proposal  could  not  form  the 
basis  for  a  revision  of  the  current  Regulation  and  it  was  withdrawn  by  the 
Commission in 2004.  

The  withdrawn  proposal  for  the  North  Sea  and  Atlantic  was  basically  a 
consolidation  of  Regulation  850/9810  incorporating  all  amendments  plus  some 
changes reflecting harmonisation between areas.  

The main reasons why this proposal was withdrawn were: 

•  The text had grown too complicated and too difficult to interpret. 

•  The  proposal  did  not  reflect  regional  differences  and  the  advantages  of 

harmonising measures across different areas were questioned. 

•  Stakeholders were not consulted. 

In June 2004 the Council recommended the revision of the technical measures 
for  the  Atlantic  and  the  North  Sea.  The  Council  asked  the  Commission  to 
propose  a  simplified  proposal  for  technical  measures,  which  takes  into 
consideration regional characteristics.  

In that context, the Commission, recognising it was one of the main regulations 
to  be  simplified  urgently,  decided  to  introduce  that  revision  of  the  technical 
measures  in  the  action  plan  2006-2008  for  simplification  of  the  Common 
Fisheries Policy, and in the Commission's Rolling Simplification Programme. 

10 

Council Regulation (EC) No 850/1998 of 30 March 1998 for the conservation of fishery through 
technical measures for the protection of juveniles of marine organisms. 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
                                                 
2.1. 

Underlying driving forces 

Simplification of the existing technical measures legislation is the main driving 
force for the proposed regulation. The revised proposal will combine most of the 
technical  measures,  currently  in  various  Community  regulations,  into  one 
comprehensive  and  simplified  package.  Annex  I  identifies  the  regulations  that 
would be incorporated into the new text, as well as those that would remain as 
separate legal texts. 

Consistency  with  the  other  policies  and  objectives  of  the  Union  is  also  an 
important  factor.  Stakeholders  must  play  a  key  role  in  defining  technical 
measures. Beyond the targeted consultation process, notably through RACs, it is 
important  to  favour  the  direct  involvement  of  the  industry  in  preparing 
alternative  or  improved  methods  to  conduct  their  fisheries  with  a  better 
selectivity of fishing gear and lower incidental catches., .  

2.2. 

Identification of the sectors affected 

Fisheries  in  Community  waters  and  by  Community  vessels  in  international 
waters  are  covered  by  different  technical  Regulations  and  the  principal  sectors 
affected are the owners, operators and crews of fishing vessels operating in these 
waters. They include: 

•  Community waters in the North East Atlantic; 

•  international waters of the North East Atlantic; 

•  waters of the French departments of Guyana, Martinique and Guadeloupe. 

When 850/1998 was adopted fishing activities conducted by Member States in 
the  North  East  Atlantic  Fisheries  Commission  (NEAFC)  regulatory  area  were 
limited. Since then Member States have expanded their fisheries in international 
waters mainly for deep-sea species and small pelagic species. There is therefore 
a need to ensure that appropriate technical measures are in place for the fisheries 
in the regulatory area of NEAFC.  

2.3. 

Legal basis for Community action 

The  structure  of  the  proposed  Regulation  provides  for  a  Council  Regulation 
based  on  Article  37  of  the  EC  Treaty,  which  includes  all  common  permanent 
measures for all areas, i.e. the guiding principles.  

The measures applicable in each of the RAC areas, i.e. purely technical aspects 
of a regional nature, should then be implemented through separate Commission 
Regulations by Management Committee procedure, on the basis of the Council 
Regulation. 

2.4. 

Necessity and subsidiarity 

The  proposal  forms  part  of  the  CFP  legislation  and,  as  such,  concerns  all 
Member States. Management in Community Waters must affect Member States 
in  exactly  equal  terms  in  order  to  ensure  a  level-playing  field  across  the 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
European  Union.  It  is  not  possible  for  Member  States  to  achieve  this  by 
independent  or  devolved  action.  It  is,  therefore  necessary  that  technical 
conservation measures are implemented through Community legislation. 

3. 

OBJECTIVES 

The  general  objective  of  the  proposed  regulation  is  to  simplify  legislation 
concerning  measures  for  the  conservation  of  fish  stocks  through  technical 
measures for the protection of juveniles of marine organisms in the Atlantic and 
the  North  Sea.  This  takes  into  account  the  recommendations  of  the  Council, 
European  Parliament,  the  European  Economic  and  Social  Committee  and  the 
stakeholders  like  the  Advisory  Committee  for  Fisheries  and  Aquaculture 
(ACFA) and the RACs.  

The operational objectives of this exercise are as follows:  

•  to  simplify  and  bring  together  but  also,  where  appropriate,  improve  the 
effectiveness of existing technical measures, in particular those laid down in 
Regulation 850/98 and its different amendments, in Regulation 51/2006 and 
in the regulations for the recovery of the stocks of cod and hake; 

•  to  adapt  the  technical  measures  to  the  context  of  the  reformed  Common 
Fisheries  Policy,  in  particular  regarding  the  establishment  of  the  Regional 
Advisory  Councils  and  the  consideration  of  environmental  aspects,  such  as 
the protection of marine habitats and the reduction of discards; 

•  to implement the commitment to develop non-destructive fishing practices, as 
the  World  Summit  on  Sustainable  Development 

recommended  by 
(Johannesburg, 2002). 

4. 

POLICY OPTIONS 

4.1. 

Status quo' option 

This approach means taking no specific steps to simplify or modify the technical 
measures legislation for Atlantic and the North Sea at this stage and continuing 
with  fisheries  management  in  its  current  form.  The  option  had  already  been 
debated in the Council, which concluded that a new proposal was necessary and 
called on the Commission to propose, after consultation with the stakeholders, a 
new regulation for technical conservation measures. 

4.2. 

'Simplification only' option 

By doing this we would simplify technical measures and harmonise them across 
the  board,  without  taking  into  account  the  regional  or  other  specific 
considerations. By not adapting the measures to the specific local needs and the 
bottom-up approach, we would achieve no improvement of effectiveness of the 
technical  measures.  By  not  promoting  more  environmentally-friendly  fishing 
methods  i.e.  discards  policy,  the  proposal  would  go  against  the  Commission 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
action plan 2006-2008 for improvement of the CFP. This is the reason why this 
option has been discarded from the outset and has not been analysed further. 

4.3. 

'Simplification and regionalisation' option  

This  option  proposes  a  new  legislative  package,  which  not  only  simplifies 
current  complex  rules  but  also  introduces  specific  provisions  for  each  'RAC 
area', reflecting regional differences. Such legislative proposal is a reply to the 
request from the Council to review the technical measures rules with a view to 
their  simplification  and  adopting  a  more  regionalised  approach  in  order  to 
improve their effectiveness. We propose a comprehensive and coherent package 
with  the  right  balance  between  measures  generally  applicable  in  all  areas  and 
those  specific  to  the  localised  RAC  areas,  namely  one  "mother"  Council 
Regulation  with  general  principles  and  provisions,  and 
the  "daughter" 
Commission  Regulations  with  specific  technical  rules  for  each  'RAC  area'  as 
described in Annex 5. Such a revision of technical measures will comply with 
the Commission action plan 2006-08 for simplification and improvement of the 
CFP. 

The  main  tools  used  for  technical  measures  are  the  minimum  landing  size  of 
species,  the  minimum  mesh  size  of  fishing  gears  in  relation  to  percentage  of 
target species and the closed areas for the protection of juveniles, spawners and 
marine habitats. These rules are simplified and adapted to the specific regional 
needs. 

5. 

ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS 

In  April  2006, 
the  Council  endorsed  a  Commission  Action  Plan  on 
Simplification of Community legislation. The proposal for a new regulation on 
technical  conservation  measures  in  the  Atlantic  was  identified  in  the  Plan  as  a 
fundamental test case of simplification.  

the  Commission  considers 

The objective here is not, for the time being, to change the level of ambition of 
these  conservation  measures.  Although 
that 
sustainable  fishing,  particularly  for  demersal  fisheries,  calls  for  a  substantial 
increase in the selectivity of fishing gear, the priority is to establish a new set of 
simpler,  clearer  rules.  Improvements  in  selectivity  will  then  be  brought  about 
gradually through future amendments of these rules, in parallel with the general 
improvement in the conservation status of Community fish stocks to be achieved 
through other elements of conservation policy, such as long-term recovery and 
management plans. 

In the future regulation to replace Regulation 850/98, all rules must be simple, 
understandable,  and  controllable  and  must  have  a  positive  effect  on  the 
conservation  of  the  species,  on  the  protection  of  the  marine  habitats  or  on  the 
reduction of discards. 

The regulation will apply to commercial and recreational fishing in all European 
waters  except  for  the  Mediterranean  Sea,  the  Baltic  Sea  and  in  fisheries  for 
highly  migratory  fish  stocks,  which  have  specific  regulations.  It  will  bring 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
together  most  of  the  existing  technical  measures  in  various  Community 
regulations for the Atlantic and the North Sea, although a few measures that are 
currently in separate regulations will remain separate.  

The  'simplification  and  regionalisation'  option  is  not  proposing  a  general 
increase  in  mesh  sizes  at  this  stage.  However,  the  possibilities  of  improving 
selectivity  and  reducing  discards  through  mesh  size  increases  should  be 
explored  to  the  full.  The  Council  and  RACs  have  also  indicated  clearly  that 
measures to improve selectivity should be evaluated first and then applied after 
a certain transitional period. Consequently, this option will not plan to introduce 
large changes in mesh sizes but will establish the conditions for the discussion 
and adoption of possible improvements in selectivity over the coming years.  

On the other hand, some of the existing provisions under Regulation 850/98 and 
its  different  amendments,  in  Regulation  41/2007  and  in  the  regulations  for  the 
recovery  of  the  stocks  of  cod  and  hake  can  be  considered  as  an  asset  to  be 
consolidated  for  clarification  purpose.  In  such  cases,  the  proposal  is  simply  to 
include these provisions to ensure the consistency of the package, but it is clear 
that such measures will not be open for discussion.  

To  sum  up,  the  new  proposal  will  introduce  changes  to  a  regulatory  approach 
but  not  to  its  substance  and  therefore  the  socio-economic  impact  will  remain 
greatly unchanged. 

5.1. 

Environmental impacts 

Technical  measures  are  one  of  the  tools  contributing  to  the  conservation  of 
stocks.  Whilst  simplification  and  clarification  of  that  Regulation  will  have  no 
substantial  economic  impact,  the  few  improvements  proposed  will  greatly 
contribute  towards  increasing  the  level  of  stocks  by  reducing  the  catches  of 
juvenile fish as well as the harmful discards practices. 

Currently many species have to respect a minimum landing size and if the fish 
are smaller than that size they have to be discarded immediately at sea. In order 
to  reduce  discards,  the  list  of  species  subject  to  a  minimum  size  should  be 
reduced from 36 to 16 by focussing only on the main target species, according to 
the 'simplification and regionalisation' option.  

The new regulation will also improve the dialogue with the RACs for the future 
adaptations  and  modifications  of  the  technical  measures.  Such  a  dialogue  will 
indirectly  improve  the  efficiency  of  the  technical  measures  on  conservation  of 
marine resources, since it will increase ownership by stakeholders. 

Another element is the introduction of closed areas dedicated to the protection 
of  sensitive  marine  habitats,  which  are  currently  in  separate  regulations.  That 
new position will improve the future developments of such areas. 

Going with the status quo option would retain the high amounts of discards and 
as such go against the CFP conservation rules. The dialogue with RACs will not 
improve either, giving stakeholders a limited involvement in technical measures 
decision-making process resulting in a top-down management of fisheries. 

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
5.2. 

Economic impacts 

The new simplified proposal will generally not change the economic impact. A 
few  improvements  will  not  require  substantial  direct  investments,  such  as  new 
and expensive type of netting of devices like grids, etc.  

The  new  regulation  may  initially  have  a  low  short-term  negative  economic 
impact  in  certain  fisheries  but  this will  be  compensated  by  significant  positive 
impact in the medium/long term due to the recovery of stocks. Harmonisation is 
an  advantage  from  the  perspective  of  fishermen,  who  will  not  have  to  change 
gear when changing fishing grounds. 

On the other hand, a greater degree of regionalisation of measures in the RACs 
competence  areas  will  benefit  the  natural  resources  there  and  also  encourage 
stakeholders  to  get  involved  in  fisheries  management  in  their  area  by  devising 
and  proposing  adequate  measures  to  the  Commission  through  RACs.  When 
technical measures are more efficient, they contribute to the recovery of stocks 
and  therefore,  indirectly,  such  improvements  will  increase  the  profitability  for 
the sector. 

A  status  quo  option  would  contribute  to  the  decline  of  stocks,  which  would 
negatively affect the profitability of the sector.  

5.3. 

Social impacts 

The  new  simplified  proposal  will  not  have  significant  social  impacts  on  the 
sector.  The  only  new  element  will  be  an  increased  dialogue  and  exchange  of 
views with the RACs for the future improvements of the technical measures, and 
therefore,  an  increased  involvement  of  the  industry  in  the  decision  making 
process.  

Moreover,  the  administrative  burden  for  both  Member  States  and  the 
Commission  will  be  reduced  due  to  simplification  of  provisions,  especially  as 
regards  controls.  The  new  proposal  will  make  certain  controls  by  fisheries 
inspectors less necessary, which will make inspections less complex and time-
consuming,  with  less  paperwork  and  reporting  required.  A  proposed  'one-gear 
rule'  i.e.  will  remove  the  need  to  calculate  the  catch  composition,  making  the 
vessel  crew's  and  the  inspectors'  work  much  easier.  Simpler  and  much  clearer 
rules will also ensure legal clarity. 

The quantitative gains of the new proposal will be as follows: 

•  Reducing  the  overall  complexity  of  the  technical  measures  regulation  will 

result in rules that are easier to understand and grasp immediately; 

•  Less time required for the minimum landing size controls (a reduced list of 
species subject to a minimum landing size; down from 36 to 16 species); 

•  Less time for checking the legality of gear (thanks to the 'one-gear' rule); 

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
•  Less  work  for  the  vessel  crew  members  thanks  to  much  simpler  catch 
composition  rules  and  less  time  for  inspectors  to  calculate  the  catch 
composition. 

Moreover, the closed areas can in the future be controlled via Vessel Monitoring 
System (VMS) and therefore fewer controls will be required as a result. 

A  status  quo  option  would,  by  contributing  to  the  decline  of  stocks,  affect  the 
profitability  of  the  fishing  sector  and,  as  a  result,  have  adverse  impact  on 
employment. 

5.4. 

Impacts on international relations 

The  international  impact  concerns  the  minimum  landing  size  of  species. 
Minimum  sizes  will  apply  to  all  the  European  market.  They  will  apply  to 
marketing  and  to  imports,  for  the  species  concerned,  in  order  to  avoid  non-
Community  fishermen  undermining  the  conservation  efforts  of  Community 
fishermen. 

6. 

COMPARING THE OPTIONS 

The following table summarizes the comparison of the impacts of the two options. 

Comparison table 

Impacts 

'Status quo' option 

Positive 
impacts 

No change, the rules stay 
complex but are known by 
administrations and 
stakeholders. 

Negative 
impacts 

Too complex; 
Too difficult to adapt for 
evolutions;  
No improvement of stocks; No 
involvement of RACs; 
No reply to the Council; 
No respect of the 
Commission's Action Plan on 
simplification and 

'Simplification and regionalisation' 
option 

Simplification, clarification, better 
understanding for MSs and 
stakeholders, reduction of 
administrative burden and costs, 
harmonization; 
Regionalization; 
Involvement of RACs, bottom-up 
management approach; 
Easier and better implementation and 
control; 
Much improved efficiency for fisheries 
conservation and reducing discards; 
Short list of species subject to a 
minimum landing size (16 species). 
Some changes, an adaptation to the 
revised measures will be needed for 
Administrations and stakeholders. 

EN 

18 

   EN 

 
improvement of the CFP; 
Long list of species subject to a 
minimum landing size (36 
species) 
No decrease of discards. 
Technical measures not clear 
and not efficient enough for the 
protection of juveniles and 
reduction of discarding. 
Negative economic, social and 
environmental impacts due to 
the non efficiency of current 
technical measures and the 
large amount of discards. 
Negative impact on the 
conservation of species 
resulting in decrease of 
profitability for the sector 

Direct  

impacts 

Indirect 
impacts 

Economic 
impacts 

Social  

impacts 

Indirect negative impact on 
conservation resulting in 
decline of employment in the 
fishing sector 

Environmental 
impacts 

Negative impact on the 
conservation of species 
resulting in increase in catch of 
juveniles and amount of 
discarding 

6.1. 

Benefits of the preferred option 

6.1.1.  Harmonisation and regionalisation 

Technical measures more clear and 
efficient for improving conservation 
and reducing discards. 

Positive economic, social and 
environmental impacts due to improved 
efficiency of technical measures. 

Positive impact due to faster procedure 
to increase conservation and so 
profitability for the sector; 
Generally no negative impact in the 
short term, few low impacts in specific 
fisheries. Significant positive impact in 
medium/long term.  
Low negative impact in the short term, 
positive impact in medium/long term; 
Better integration of RACs in the future 
evolution/adaptations of technical 
measures. 
Improvement on the conservation of 
stocks, decrease of catch of juveniles, 
reduction of discards; 
Easier and faster evolution of 
Regulations, decrease in time needed to 
improve the measures dedicated to 
conservation of species. 

Certain measures must clearly be common for all areas concerned: for example, 
minimum  landing  sizes  or  the  prohibition  of  certain  fishing  methods.  Others 
would  be  clearly  area-specific,  such  as  closed  areas/seasons.  With  respect  to 
other  measures,  such  as  mesh  sizes,  a  balance  will  have  to  be  struck  between 
harmonisation and the need to take account of regional differences, particularly 
in the combination of species in mixed fisheries.  

Harmonisation  is  an  advantage  in  terms  of  simplification,  both  in  terms  of  the 
complexity of the regulation and from the perspective of fishermen, who would 
not  have  to  change  gear  when  changing  fishing  grounds.  On  the  other  hand,  a 
greater degree of regionalisation (primarily based on the three areas covered by 

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
 
the  North  Atlantic  RACs:  the  North  Sea,  North  Western  Waters  and  South 
Western  Waters)  is  better  adapted  to  specific  local  conditions  and  would  also 
encourage  RACs  to  devise  and  propose  to  the  Commission  measures  in  their 
own areas of competence.  

Overall,  and  subject  to  the  above  constraints,  the  Commission  believes  that  a 
regional approach should be favoured, since this would be more amenable to the 
involvement of the stakeholders in the process. Such regionalisation is not mean 
re-nationalisation of the technical measures. The involvement of stakeholders is 
essential  because  it  leads  to  commitment  to  the  measures  and  ensure  a  greater 
likelihood of compliance of the adopted measures.  

The  regulation  will  not  alter  the  balance  of  competences  between  the 
Community and Member States as laid down in Regulation 2371/2002.  

The option retained is a harmonisation of the main rules such as the mesh size 
for  fisheries  targeting  cod,  hake,  sole  or  nephrops  but  taking  into  account  the 
regional characteristics especially when establishing the list of target species and 
bycatch  allowed  for  each  RAC  area.  The  proposal  has  also  been  prepared  to 
easily take into account the future RACs opinion for the future evolutions of that 
Regulation. 

6.1.2. 

Simplification of decision-making 

The  regulation  concentrates  on  measures  that  would  be  expected  to  be 
permanent.  It  also,  however,  lays  down  the  procedures  to  be  applied  when 
dealing with measures that would be expected to evolve rather quickly and with 
measures  that  are  very  technical.  For  the  latter,  the  regulation  is  favouring  the 
application  of  a  fast-track  procedure  for  adoption  of  new  rules  (through 
Management Committee). This seems to be the only way to meet the concern of 
Member  States  to  reduce  or  eliminate  interim  technical  measures  from  the 
annual TAC and quota regulation.  

6.2. 

Options for the implementation of the preferred option 

In order to contribute to the conservation of species, the rules defined for fishing 
gear  will  concern  their  selectivity.  They  will  only  deal  with  those  fishing 
practices  where  the  selectivity  of  the  fishing  gear  contributes  to  a  significant 
degree to the management of resources. To this end, only trawls, Danish seines, 
and  similar  gears  for  the  active  gears  and  gill  nets,  tangling  nets,  and  trammel 
nets for the passive gears will be regulated. 

The  main  tools  used  for  technical  measures  are  the  minimum  landing  size  of 
species (which have to be discarded if undersized), the minimum mesh size of 
fishing gears in relation with percentages of target species and the closed areas 
for the protection of juveniles or spawners. 

EN 

20 

   EN 

 
It is proposed  to  review the  current regulations and adapt to the new CFP and 
the new Discards Policy11.  

6.2.1.  Minimum size of marine organisms 

For  the  purpose  of  simplification,  an  option  would  be  to  eliminate  from  this 
technical  regulation  minimum  landing  sizes  altogether,  on  the  assumption  that 
only selective gear is used. This would simplify the rules, reduce control costs 
and reduce discards.  

This  radical  option  would  have  drawbacks,  such  as  giving  rise  to  the  possible 
development  of  certain  fisheries  directed  at  juvenile  fish.  However,  it  must  be 
borne in mind that the main species in Community fisheries are subject to rules 
applicable  to  the  marketing  of  fishery  products,  which  ban  the  marketing  of 
those species (both from Community production and from imports) outside the 
size  categories  regulated.  If  properly  applied  this  rule  could  prevent  the 
development  of  fisheries  targeting  small  individuals  even  in  the  absence  of 
conservation minimum landing sizes. 

The  Commission  would  prefer  to  follow  the  “no  rule”  approach  in  the  new 
technical measures. In the short term, if this proves to be unrealistic and against 
the RACs opinions, then the Commission will propose to reduce their number, 
according to the following criteria:  

•  Only  the  principal  target  species  of  fish  (i.e.,  those  related  to  the  different 
categories  of  mesh  sizes)  should  have  a  minimum  landing  size.  For  other 
species  the  minimum  landing  size  contributes  little  to  conservation,  makes 
the regulation more complex and increases discards.  

•  For molluscs and crustaceans, minimum landing sizes are more effective for 
conservation since many species survive discarding. However, on grounds of 
simplification,  it  is  desirable  to  reduce  the  number  of  species  subject  to 
minimum landing size to those species caught all around the Atlantic or those 
subject to intensive trade in the Community, with a view to ensuring a level 
playing  field  for  Community  fishermen.  For  species  of  only  local  interest, 
Member States should be left to legislate.  

•  Minimum landing sizes must be harmonised for the whole Atlantic area, for 
reasons  of  simplification  and  controllability.  However,  harmonisation  with 
the  Baltic  and  Mediterranean,  although  desirable,  does  not  seem  realistic, 
because of differences in growth rates for the same species and differences in 
selectivity  of  trawl  gear  used  in  these  areas,  particularly  in  the  case  of  the 
Mediterranean. 

The  approachability  of  those  criteria  must  be  studied  case-by-case.  Some 
shellfish,  such  as  nephrops,  show  a  low  rate  of  survival  when  discarded  and 
some fish like spurdog can survive discarding. 

11 

COM(2007)136 

EN 

21 

   EN 

 
                                                 
This approach is not coinciding with that being promoted in the context of the 
regulation  on  technical  and  management  measures  for  the  Mediterranean.  The 
reason  is  that  Mediterranean  fisheries  are  conducted  with  much  smaller  mesh 
sizes,  particularly  for  trawling,  and  therefore  the  issue  of  avoiding  catches  of 
juvenile fish has a much more relevant dimension than in the Atlantic. 

The need for these minimum sizes has been re-examined because they have to 
be included in this regulation only if they contribute to the conservation of the 
species.  Aiming  to  reduce  discards  would  argue  for  the  suppression  of  these 
minimum  sizes.  But  conservation  policy  can  justify  their  existence  when  such 
rules  make  it  possible  to  influence  the  fishermen's  strategy,  by,  for  instance, 
moving away from areas where the concentration of non-marketable juveniles is 
too important. They may also be important if the species concerned can survive 
being discarded. 

In  the  proposal,  the  number  of  species  which  have  to  respect  a  minimum  size 
will be reduced from 36 to 16. 

To  be  consistent  with  the  new  discard  policy,  provisions  are  proposed  for  a 
prohibition  of  catching  undersized  fish  by  an  obligation  of  moving  to  another 
fishing area when significant small fish are caught during fishing operations. 

6.2.2.  Minimum mesh sizes and target species  

One objective of simplification is to reduce the complexity of current definitions 
of target species and/or the number of target species. The ideal option would be 
to suppress the list of target species and to define the mesh size by fishery, i.e. 
by  type  of  vessel,  by  area  or  by  referring  to  a  target  species.  Under  this 
approach, vessels would be licensed by the Member State to use one given mesh 
size  as  a  function  of  the  main  target  species.  That  would  make  it  possible  to 
simplify legislation considerably. 

However,  it  may  not  be  possible  to  eliminate  the  existence  of  a  list  of  target 
species at Community level. In this case, the alternative retained is to focus, by 
area, on one or two major target species for that area. In other words, mesh sizes 
would  be  defined  by  the  principal  target  species,  and  no  longer  by  a  complex 
mix of species. That should simplify considerably the tables of Annexes I to VII 
in Regulation 850/98 and would also make it possible to reduce discards. In any 
case, the old formula of vessels “fishing for…” has been avoided: references to 
the main target species will inevitably have to be expressed in terms that can be 
controlled,  such  as  minimum  and  or  maximum  percentages  of  the  concerned 
target species in the catch. 

For simplification, the number of target species will be reduced from 51 to 7, 9 
or 11 (depending on the RACs areas) 

To  be  consistent  with  the  new  discard  policy  provisions  are  proposed  for  a 
prohibition  of  catching  fish  which  are  not  in  agreement  with  the  minimum  or 
maximum  percentages  of  target  species  required  for  the  gear  used  by  an 
obligation  of  moving  to  another  fishing  area  when  significant  differences  with 

EN 

22 

   EN 

 
those  percentages  appear  during  fishing  operations.  This  part  you  add  to  the 
description of your preferred option 

6.2.3.  Closed areas 

In the framework of technical measures, the closed areas are generally intended 
to protect juvenile concentrations or spawning areas.  

A  closure  has  to  be  justified  from  a  conservation  point-of-view;  otherwise,  it 
should be suppressed with a view to simplification. STECF have carried out an 
evaluation, in 2007, on the value of maintaining many closures which appear in 
the current regulation.  

In respect of the Plaice Box in the North Sea, although this issue is dealt with in 
Article 19 of the basic Regulation, the Commission will seek to simplify it, in 
particular  by  removing  exemptions.  However,  it  will  be  taken  into  account  of 
the  North  Sea  RAC  proposition,  which  is  to  maintain  this  Box  as  it  is  until  a 
complete evaluation is carried out in 2009. 

The  Commission  has  collated  the  complementary  technical  measures  in  this 
section, which concern closures, existing in other regulations like, for example, 
the  management  and/or  recovery  plans  and  the  annual  TAC  and  quota 
regulation.  

The  complete  list  of  closures  have  been  established  on  the  understanding  that 
each  closure  has  to  have  a  clear  and  simple  objective  (i.e.  protection  of  the 
juveniles, protection of spawners, etc) described in the title of the Article.  

It  must  be  avoided  that  closures  adopted  under  certain  conditions  remain  in 
force  independently  of  their  conservation value.  The  regulation  will,  therefore, 
provide  for  the  periodic  evaluation  of  the  effects  of  each  closure,  in  order  to 
allow the need for it to be reviewed and to avoid an accumulation of measures 
making the regulation complex and for which the conservation value would be 
questionable.  

7. 

MONITORING AND EVALUATION 

A  common  priority  for  the  Member  States,  the  European  Parliament  and 
stakeholders is the need to evaluate,  before and after their implementation, the 
consequences  of  technical  measures.  The  effectiveness  of  many  of  the 
provisions  under  Regulation  850/98  has  never  been  evaluated,  and  those 
measures have remained in force regardless of their value for conservation. 

A fundamental principle for that proposal is that all measures that are not clearly 
of  a  permanent  nature  (such  as  certain  closed  areas  to  protect  juveniles  or 
spawners) have to be evaluated after a certain time to reassess the need for them. 
Another  guiding  principle  is  that,  when  new  and  substantial  measures  are 
proposed  (such  as  significant  increases  in  mesh  sizes),  the  Commission  will 
carry  out,  if  the  data  available  allow  it,  a  previous  evaluation  of  their  likely 
effects. 

EN 

23 

   EN 

 
In  the  proposal,  the  Commission  is  establishing  an  obligation  of  periodic 
scientific evaluation of technical measures every 5 years, in order to avoid the 
accumulation  of  measures  which  effectiveness  is  uncertain.  These  evaluations 
will  cover  the  effectiveness  of  closures  and  of  rules  on  fishing  gears,  in 
particular as regards selectivity. 

Complementary  evaluations  will  be  carried  out  to  measure  the  degree  of 
attainment of the objectives laid down for the reduction of discards.  

For this purpose it would be useful to identify simple indicators of the apparent 
survival of the regulated species by size categories. STECF will be requested to 
identify those indicators for the main fisheries. Scientists should produce in the 
short  term  those  indicators  regularly  during  surveys  and  sampling  of  the 
commercial catches. However, it would be necessary to involve the stakeholders 
in the choice of the indicators and in their production during commercial fishing 
trips. Once identified, those indicators could be used, for example, to follow and 
measure the efficiency of pilot projects.  

EN 

24 

   EN 

 
ANNEXES 

Annex 1 

Regulations including technical measures concerning 

the North Sea and the North Atlantic. 

•  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  850/1998  of  30  March  1998  for  the  conservation  of 
fishery  through  technical  measures  for  the  protection  of  juveniles  of  marine 
organisms.  

•  Council  Regulation  (EC)  1434/1998  of  29  June  1998  specifying  conditions  under 
which  herring  may  be  landed  for  industrial  purposes  other  than  direct  human 
consumption. 

•  Council  Regulation  (EC)  2549/2000  of  17  November  2000  establishing  additional 

technical measures for the recovery of the stock of cod in the Irish Sea. 

•  Council  Regulation  (EC)  973/2001  of  14  May  2001  laying  down  certain  technical 

measures for the conservation of certain stocks of highly migratory species.  

•  Council  Regulation  (EC)  2056/2001  of  19  October  2001  establishing  additional 
technical measures for the recovery of the stocks of cod in the North Sea and to the 
west of Scotland. 

•  Council Regulation (EC) 494/2002 of 19 March 2002 establishing additional technical 
measures for the recovery of the stock of hake in ICES sub-areas III, IV, V, VI and 
VII and ICES divisions VIIIa,b,d,e. 

•  Council Regulation (EC) 1185/2003 of 26 June 2003 on the removal of fins of sharks 

on board vessels. 

•  Council Regulation (EC) 423/2004 of 26 February 2004 establishing measures for the 

recovery of cod stocks 

•  Council  Regulation  (EC)  811/2004  of  21  April  2004  establishing  measures  for  the 

recovery of the Northern hake stock. 

•  Council  Regulation  (EC)  812/2004  of  26  April  2004  laying  down  measures 
concerning incidental catches of cetaceans in fisheries and amending Regulation (EC) 
No 88/1998. 

•  Council  Regulation  (EC)  41/2007  of  21  December  2006  fixing  opportunities  and 
associated  conditions  for  certain  stocks  and  groups  of  fish  stocks,  applicable  in 
Community waters and, for Community vessels, in waters where catch limitations are 
required. 

EN 

25 

   EN 

 
Subject 

Type  of 
technical  measures 
included  in  Council  Regulation 
(EC) 850/1998 

the 
for 
Technical  measures 
North 
and  Atlantic 
Sea 
established  in  regulations  other 
than  Council  Regulation  (EC) 
850/1998 

Provisions 
active gears 

for 

Restrictions  on  use  of  certain 
combination of mesh sizes. 

Council 
494/2002: 

Regulation 

(EC) 

Restrictions  on  use  of  gears  with 
small mesh sizes. 

By-catch  rules  when  fishing  with 
mesh sizes <99 mm. 

Rules  on  minimum  percentage  of 
target  species  by  mesh  size  range 
(Annexes I-V). 

Technical  specification  of  towed 
nets. 

Rules  for  construction  of  towed 
nets. 

Specific  rules  for  construction  of 
beam trawls. 

Council 
2549/2000: 

Regulation 

(EC) 

Technical  specification  of  towed 
nets in the Irish Sea. 

Council 
2056/2001: 

Regulation 

(EC) 

Rules on minimum percentages of 
species  and  maximum 
target 
percentages of by-catch species. 

Technical  specification  of  towed 
nets. 

Provisions 
passive gears 

for 

Rules  on  minimum  percentage  of 
target species by mesh size range. 

EN 

26 

   EN 

 
 
 
Subject 

Type  of 
technical  measures 
included  in  Council  Regulation 
(EC) 850/1998 

the 
for 
Technical  measures 
North 
and  Atlantic 
Sea 
established  in  regulations  other 
than  Council  Regulation  (EC) 
850/1998 

General  provisions 
on  nets  and  their 
use 

rule 

all 
Discard 
organisms  caught  in  excess  of 
permitted percentages. 

covering 

Provision  prohibiting  measures 
that diminish mesh size. 

Minimum sizes 

Minimum landings sizes. 

Discard  rule  covering  organisms 
below minimum landing size. 

Council 
973/2001: 

Regulation 

(EC) 

Minimum  landing  size  swordfish, 
bluefin  tuna,  yellowfin  tuna  and 
bigeye tuna 

Council 
41/2007: 

Regulation 

(EC) 

Minimum size for bluefin tuna and 
bigeye tuna. 

EN 

27 

   EN 

 
 
 
Subject 

Type  of 
technical  measures 
included  in  Council  Regulation 
(EC) 850/1998 

on 
Restrictions 
fishing  for  certain 
species 

Restrictions on fishing for: 

–  herring, 

–  sprat 

–  mackerel 

–  anchovy 

–  common shrimp 

–  salmon and sea trout 

–  Norway pout 

–  hake 

–  plaice 

–  sandeel 

the 
for 
Technical  measures 
North 
and  Atlantic 
Sea 
established  in  regulations  other 
than  Council  Regulation  (EC) 
850/1998 

Council 
973/2001: 

Regulation 

(EC) 

Restrictions on fishing for: 

–  skipjack tuna, 

–  bigeye tuna, 

–  yellowfin tuna, 

–  tuna 

Council 
1185/2003: 

Regulation 

(EC) 

Restrictions on handling of sharks 
on board vessels. 

Council 
1434/1998: 

Regulation 

(EC) 

Restrictions 
of 
on 
herring  when  fishing  with  small-
meshed gears.  

by-catch 

Council 
41/2007: 

Regulation 

(EC) 

Restrictions on fishing for: 

–  herring in IIa. 

–  cod west of Scotland 

–  cod in Celtic Sea 

–  sandeel in the North Sea 

EN 

28 

   EN 

 
 
Subject 

of 

Type 
technical  measures 
included  in  Council  Regulation 
(EC) 850/1998 

Restrictions  on  use 
of  certain  types  of 
fishing 

Restrictions on use of: 

–  demersal towed gears 

–  unconventional methods 

–  automatic grading equipment 

–  anchovy 

–  common shrimp 

–  bottom trawl 

–  driftnets 

Restrictions  on  fishing  activities  in 
the 12-mile zone of UK and Ireland 

Sea 

Technical  measures  for  the 
and  Atlantic 
North 
regulations 
in 
established 
other  than  Council  Regulation 
(EC) 850/1998 

Council  Regulation 
494/2002: 

(EC) 

Areas  closed  to  certain  towed 
net. 

Council  Regulation 
973/2001: 

(EC) 

Restrictions  on  use  of 
aggregating devices. 

fish 

Council  Regulation 
812/2004: 

(EC) 

Restrictions  on  use  of  gillnets 
and entangling nets 

Council  Regulation 
41/2007: 

(EC) 

Ban  on  all  fishing  at  Rockall 
except longliners. 

Closed season in the Irish Sea 

Trawling  ban  in  waters  around 
the  Azores,  The  Canary  Islands 
and Madeira. 

Restrictions  on  use  of  purse 
seiners  and  baitboats  to  protect 
bigeye tuna. 

fishing  with 
Restrictions  on 
bottom  gears  to  protect  deep-
water habitats. 

EN 

29 

   EN 

 
 
Subject 

Type  of 
technical  measures 
included  in  Council  Regulation 
(EC) 850/1998 

the 
for 
Technical  measures 
North 
and  Atlantic 
Sea 
established  in  regulations  other 
than  Council  Regulation  (EC) 
850/1998 

Specific  provisions 
for  Skagerrak  and 
Kattegat. 

Undersized  organisms  up  to  10% 
can be landed. 

Council 
41/2007: 

Regulation 

(EC) 

Restrictions on landings of salmon 
and sea trout. 

Rules  on  minimum  percentage  of 
target species by mesh size range. 

Seasonal  restriction  on  use  of  <32 
mm mesh size 

Technical  specification  of  towed 
nets. 

Restrictions  on  fishing  for  herring, 
mackerel or sprat. 

Ban on beam trawl in Kattegat 

Other provisions 

Ban on producing fish meal and oil 
on board a fishing vessel. 

Council 
811/2004: 

Regulation 

(EC) 

Scientific  research,  restocking  and 
transplantation  not  covered  by  the 
regulation. 

Member 
States  may 
conservation  measures 
certain conditions. 

take 
under 

Rule for separate stowage of hake. 

Council 
423/2004:  

Regulation 

(EC) 

Rule for separate stowage of cod. 

Council 
1434/1998: 

Regulation 

(EC) 

Restriction  on  use  of  herring 
caught with towed nets with mesh 
sizes above a certain size.  

Council 
41/2007: 

Regulation 

(EC) 

Conditions 
species and by-catches. 

for 

landing 

target 

EN 

30 

   EN 

 
 
 
Annex 2 

Letter from the PSRAC to the Commission Non-Paper 

Annex 3 

Letter from the NWWRAC to the Commission Non-Paper 

Annex 4 

Technical terminology 

Landing size 

The  EU  minimum  landing  sizes  are  set  out  in  Annex  XII  of  Regulation  850/98).  For  both 
finfish and shellfish undersized animals are not to be retained on board, transhipped, landed, 
transported, stored, sold, displayed or offered for sale. Undersized animals must be returned 
immediately to the sea. 

Mesh size 

According to the desired size of fish, the mesh size is varied. Fish with a smaller girth than 
that of the mesh opening are able to swim through. A large mesh size can be used for larger 
fish, such as sharks or tuna, and a small mesh size can be used for smaller fish. The size of the 
mesh opening determines the size and species of fish captured. 

Annex 5 

Proposed Regulation for new technical measures 

EN 

31 

   EN