Commission staff working document - Impact Assessment concerning the Commission's proposal for a Council Regulation on the long-term management of the Northern hake stock COM(2009)122 final SEC(2009) 301
Date: 2009-03-17
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: authorised catch, exploitation of resources, fishery management, fishing area, fishing controls, sea fish, sustainable development

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 17.3.2009 
SEC(2009) 300 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

Impact Assessment concerning the Commission's proposal for a Council Regulation on 
the long-term management of the Northern hake stock 

COM(2009)122 final 
SEC(2009) 301 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
 
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION 

Impact Assessment concerning the Commission's proposal for a Council Regulation on 
the long-term management of the Northern hake stock 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. 

1.1. 

1.2. 

1.3. 

2. 

2.1. 

2.2. 

2.3. 

3. 

4. 

4.1. 

4.2. 

Procedural issues and consultation of interested parties .............................................. 4 

Organisation and Timing.............................................................................................. 4 

Consultation and expertise ........................................................................................... 4 

Dissemination of scientific advice and the results of consultations with stakeholders 5 

Problem Definition....................................................................................................... 6 

Issue requiring action ................................................................................................... 6 

Underlying driving forces ............................................................................................ 6 

Effect on the sector....................................................................................................... 7 

Objectives................................................................................................................... 10 

Policy Options............................................................................................................ 11 

Option 1 - no policy change ....................................................................................... 11 

Option 2 - management plan ...................................................................................... 11 

4.2.1.  Option 2 implementation alternatives ........................................................................ 12 

4.3. 

Option 3 - decommissioning of fleet.......................................................................... 12 

5. 

5.1. 

5.2. 

5.3. 

5.4. 

5.5. 

6. 

7. 

Analysis of Impacts.................................................................................................... 13 

Environmental impacts............................................................................................... 13 

Economic impacts ...................................................................................................... 13 

Social impacts ............................................................................................................ 14 

Impacts on international relations .............................................................................. 15 

Impact summary......................................................................................................... 15 

6. Comparing the Options .......................................................................................... 16 

Monitoring and Evaluation ........................................................................................ 19 

ANNEX.................................................................................................................................... 20 

Glossary.................................................................................................................................... 25 

EN 

ii 

   EN 

 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

This  Impact  Assessment  concerns  a  draft  proposal  for  a  Regulation  that  would  replace  the 
current recovery plan (EC Reg. No 811/20041) and set long-term management objectives and 
implementing methods concerning a fishery for the northern hake.  

The likely environmental, social and economic impacts are limited as compared to the current 
Regulation  because  the  changes  foreseen  are  small,  because  it  concerns  a  follow-up  of  the 
existing recovery plan. This is a proportionate impact assessment for which no formal inter-
service steering group was set up.  

The  proposal  is  supported  by  DG  MARE  as  an  additional  element  in  implementing 
sustainability in EU fisheries through maximum sustainable yield.  

Scientific Committees and Stakeholders have been consulted. The Commission has sought the 
opinion of Member States and the Regional Advisory Councils (RACs) on the basis of a non-
paper.  

The operational elements are: 

•  A rule for setting the fishing opportunities each year in order to achieve sustainable long 

term exploitation of this resource. 

•  A  rule  for  improving  the  exploitation  pattern  of  the  northern  hake  fishery  in  order  to 
increase  the  benefits  of  the  management  plan  in  the  long  term  and  to  reach  the  target 
fishing mortality sooner. 

•  A method for a reduction of overcapacity accompanying the options described above. The 
removal of excess fishing capacity would increase the economic benefit of each remaining 
vessel by increasing the available fishing opportunities per vessel and reducing costs. 

The Impact Assessment considers three main options: 

1) Option 1 – no policy change; 

2) Option 2 - management plan;  

3) Option 3 - decommissioning of fleet. 

Details of the consultation processes, options and impacts are provided. 

1 

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ 

EN 

iii 

   EN 

 
                                                 
1. 

PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES 

1.1. 

Organisation and Timing 

This impact assessment concerns a proposal for a Council Regulation establishing a long-term 
plan for the stock of northern hake distributed mainly to the west and south of Ireland, in the 
western  Channel  and  in  the  Bay  of  Biscay  and  the  fisheries  exploiting  that  stock.  Its 
development  is  foreseen  in  Agenda  Planning  (FISH/2008/028)  and  in  the  2008  Annual 
Management  Plan  of  the  Directorate-General  of  Maritime  Affairs  and  Fisheries  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 2002 reform of the Common Fisheries Policy set the basis for management under long-
term  plans  rather  than  by  annual  decision-making.  In  2006  the  Commission  made  a 
commitment  to  reach  the  objective  of  the  declaration  made  at  the  World  Summit  on 
Sustainable Development in Johannesburg, with respect to restoring stocks to levels that can 
produce maximum sustainable yields (MSY) by 2015.  
The  Northern  Hake  recovery  plan  was  adopted  in  2004  (EC  Reg.  No  811/20042).  The 
recovery  plan  is  to  be  replaced  by  a  management  plan  when,  in  two  consecutive  years,  the 
target level for the stock has been reached. The International Council for the Exploration of 
the Sea (ICES), with the agreement of the Scientific Technical and Economic Committee for 
Fisheries  (STECF),  has  evaluated  and  advised  that  the  targets  set  in  the  recovery  plan  have 
been reached and therefore a management plan must be established to ensure the sustainable 
exploitation of this stock in the long-term.  

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

The  future  management  should  be  based  on  sound  scientific  advice.  The  Commission  has 
asked STECF to provide scientific advice regarding several possible scenarios for the future 
management  plan.  The  request  covered  both  single-species  management  and  multi-species 
management considerations, as well as socio-economic aspects. 

This  is  a  proportionate  impact  assessment  and  no  inter-service  steering  group  has  been 
convened.  The  scope  of  the  proposal  is  limited  and  the  impact,  in  social,  economic  and 
environmental terms, is modest.  

1.2. 

Consultation and expertise 

External expertise has been sought from ICES concerning long-term management of fisheries 
resources  of  interest  to  the  European  Community  since  2003.  This  organisation  collates  the 
expertise  of  fisheries  scientists  mostly  working  in  the  national  fisheries  laboratories  of 
Member  States  and  provides  a  systematic  and  standardised  advice  to  the  European 
Community and to Member States.  

Advice on Northern Hake has been sought from relevant scientific organisations since 2001. 
The impact assessment is prepared by DG MARE on the basis of scientific advice concerning 

2 

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2003:0374:FIN:EN:PDF 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
long-term  management3  and  is  complemented  with  further  economic  analysis.  Consultation 
with stakeholders has taken place with the relevant representative body. 

Stakeholders  were  consulted  by  means  of  verbal  and  written  presentations  to  the  North 
Western  Waters  Regional  Advisory  Council  (NWWRAC)  and  South  Western  Waters 
Regional  Advisory  Council  (SWWRAC).  These  RACs  ensure  a  fair  representation  of 
stakeholders as they have been established as the main bodies for consultations with parties 
having an interest in the Common Fisheries Policy in respect of fish stocks in the North and 
South Western Waters. The principal aim of the NWWRAC is to bring together stakeholders 
from across Europe, to advise the Commission on matters of fisheries management in respect 
of  the  waters  covering  ICES  areas  Vb  (EC  waters),  VI,  VII.  The  SWWRAC  covers  the 
Atlantic  area  going  from  the  point  of  Brittany  in  its  North  to  the  Straits  of  Gibraltar  in  its 
South as well as the ultraperipheric regions of Madera, Azores and the Canarias Islands. The 
Advisory  Committee  on  Fisheries  and  Aquaculture  (ACFA)  was  not  consulted  as  that  body 
advises on cross-cutting issues whereas this plan concerns a specific regional issue. 

The issue was first presented by the Commission services to the NWWRAC and SWWRAC 
beginning on 23rd February 2008. The RAC opinions4 indicated: 

•  general  acceptance  of  the  approach  advised  by  STECF  suggesting  a  reduction  in  fishing 

mortality (F); 

•  support for a reduction in F achieved through decommissioning of vessels within national 

schemes; 

•  disinclination  to  accept  effort  reduction  through  limitation  of  KW/days  and  its  potential 

implications for TAC and quota allocations; 

•  possibility  of  harmonization  of  mesh  sizes  to  100mm  for  all  the  hake  gillnet  fishery,  as 

opposed to increasing mesh size for the fishery; 

•  support  to  the  French  initiative  to  increase  selectivity  for  Nephrops  trawlers  through  the 

use of square mesh panels, as opposed to increasing the mesh size;  

•  disinclination  to  accept  an  increase  in  the  mesh  size  of  the  demersal  fishery5  to  improve 

selectivity for hake; 

•  refusal to accept closing areas to fishing to protect juvenile hake. 

The  RAC  representative  from  the  environmental  Non  Governmental  Organisation  (NGO) 
generally supported the improvement of technical conservation measures (leaving the fishing 
industry members to determine the appropriate mesh sizes), and the closed areas proposal as 
suitable for conservation of the hake stocks. 

1.3. 

Dissemination  of  scientific  advice  and  the  results  of  consultations  with 
stakeholders 

The scientific advice from ICES and from STECF and the advice from the RACs are available 
on the websites of the respective committees. 

3 
4 
5 

http://fishnet.jrc.it/web/stecf 
http://www.nwwrac.org/admin/publication 
Term explained in glossary 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
2. 

PROBLEM DEFINITION 

2.1. 

Issue requiring action 

In 2004, a recovery plan for the northern hake stock (EC Reg. No 811/2004) followed up a 
previous emergency plan (EC Reg. No 1162/2001, EC Reg. No 2602/2001 and EC Reg. No 
494/2002).  The  recovery  plan  aimed  at  achieving  a  stock  spawning  biomass  (SSB)  of 
140,000t (precautionary biomass level Bpa), by limiting the proportion of hake removed from 
the stock by fishing (fishing mortality) to 0.25, and with a maximum change in TAC between 
consecutive years of 15%. The objective of a recovery plan was to achieve an increase in the 
quantities  of  hake  stock  threatened  with  collapse  to  a  minimum  safe  level  according  to  the 
precautionary approach. 

The recovery plan should be replaced by a management plan when, in two consecutive years, 
the  target  size  level  for  the  stock  has  been  reached.  ICES,  with  the  agreement  of  STECF, 
should advise when the targets set in the recovery plan have been reached6. 

Recent scientific assessments by ICES and STECF indicate that the objective of the recovery 
plan has been achieved. The increase in spawning stock biomass (SSB) appears to be due to a 
combination  of  good  recruitment  and  moderate  fishing  mortality.  The  recovery  plan  should 
now be replaced to ensure high yields and sustainable exploitation of this stock. 

2.2. 

Underlying driving forces 

The  main  long-term  drivers  of  the  fisheries  system  are  the  biological  limitations  on  the 
productivity of the stock and the catching capacity of the fleet. Reducing the stock size to a 
low  level  will  (while  maintaining  high  catches  for  a  short  period)  lower  the  productive 
potential  of  the  stock.  In  contrast,  in  short-term  perspectives  it  can  often  be  economic  and 
social  pressures  which  predominate  in  the  dynamics  of  the  system  and  lead  to  decisions  on 
fishing opportunities that become unsustainable. 

Although the northern hake stock has recovered, it is still being fished at the rate which is too 
high  for  the  stock  (see  Figure  1  in  Annex).  However  a  spawning  stock  biomass  is  above 
precautionary  levels  (SSB  above  Bpa),  it  is  only  slightly  above  this  precautionary  biomass 
limit,  while  the  fleet  fishing  for  this  stock  still  has  overcapacity  and  experiences  high 

6 

Article 3 in EC Reg. No 811/2004 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
discarding rates, particularly of juvenile hake. STECF advises limiting the proportion of hake 
removed  from  the  stock  by  fishing  from  current  level  of  F=0.25  to  F=0.17,  to  reduce  the 
probability of SSB falling below the precautionary levels while maintaining yield. 

2.3. 

Effect on the sector 

2.3.1 

Identification of the sectors affected 

The sectors affected are fishing vessels from Spain, SW France, SW Ireland and SW UK, and 
associated on-shore processing industries. Spain accounts for the main part (59% in 2006) of 
landings. France was taking 26% of the total, UK 6%, with Ireland and Denmark taking each 
3%. 

Geographical distribution of Northern Hake 

The main fisheries7 identified are: 

•  "Longliners"  fishing  in  ICES  Divisions  VII,  targeting  hake  (mainly  Spain),  with  22%  of 

landings; 

•  "Gillnets" fishing in ICES Divisions VII and VIII, targeting mostly hake and sole (mainly 

France), with 21% of landings; 

•  "Demersal"  trawlers  fishing  in  ICES  Divisions  VII  targeting  anglerfish,  hake,  megrim 

(mainly France, Spain), with 33% of landings; 

•  "Nephrops"  trawlers  fishing  in  ICES  Divisions  VII;  targeting  Nephrops  but  taking  by-

catches of anglerfish, hake and megrim (mainly France). 

Current size of the sectors and economic dependency on hake landings 

As  stated  above,  Spain  and  France  are  the  key  players  in  the  Northern  hake  fishery  being 
responsible for over 85% of landings. As such, those Member States have high dependency 
on hake landings and therefore will be subject to further detailed analysis. 

7 

ICES areas in Figure 9 in Annex or 
http://www.ices.dk/aboutus/icesareas/ICES_areas_Arc9_Weuro_300.pdf 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
Table A – overview of French and Spanish northern hake fleet (source STECF) 

Type of vessel 

FRANCE 

SPAIN 

No. of 
vessels 

Dependency 
on Hake 

Percentage 
of overall 
landings 

No. of 
vessels 

Dependency 
on Hake 

Percentage 
of overall 
landings 

Longliners 

Gillnets 

70% 

5 

78 

Demersal 

160 

<6% 

Nephrops trawlers 

204 

<4% 

7% 

57% 

15% 

10% 

84 

70% 

44% 

113 

20% 

56% 

France had around 650 vessels engaged in fisheries for hake in 2006, while Spain had around 
200 vessels in. Of the main fisheries identified in the previous section, the following have a 
high economic dependency on hake landings: 

•  "Longliners"  depend  strongly  on  hake  landings  (around  70%)  although  in  France  this 
fishery (only 5 vessels) catches low quantities of hake (7% of French landings). In Spain 
the fleet consists of 84 vessels catching 44% of the Spanish landings; 

•  "Gillnets" consist of 78 French vessels catching 57% of the total French landings; 

•  "Demersal"  trawlers  include  160  French  vessels  (corresponding  to  15%  of  French 
landings) with low economic dependency (<6%) on hake. Spain has 113 vessels involved 
in  this  fishery  (with  56%  of  Spanish  landings),  the  majority  of  which  have  a  higher 
dependency (20%) on hake landings. 

•  "Nephrops" trawlers include 204 French vessels (10% of French landings), the majority of 

which have very low economic dependency (<4%) on hake landings. 

On board employment (full time equivalents) in the hake fishery in 2005 is estimated to be: 
2438 people in France and 3077 people in Spain. 

In 2008 a first-sale price value has been between €4.30-5.50. 

Qualitatively,  the  impacts  on  the  fleet  would  be  magnified  on-shore  in  the  processing 
industry.  However,  given  the  low  degree  of  processing  taking  place  in  the  hake  marketing 
chain, this knock-on effect is likely to be of a relatively minor importance. 

2.3.2 

Effect of the regulation 

The proposed legal framework could include the following elements: 

–  Rules  for  setting  TACs  on  the  basis  of  scientific  advice  that  will  lead  to  exploiting  the 
northern hake stock according to MSY within a medium (by 2016) to long-term (by 2021-
2023) timeframe;  

–  Technical measures for special protection of hake juveniles and reducing discards; 

–  Sector  voluntary  decommissioning  targets,  a  possibility  available  in  the  operational 

programmes of each Member State; 

–  Provisions for periodic review and adaptation of the plan. 

Scientific evidence shows that maintaining present levels of fishing mortality will deliver less 
than the highest yield in the long term, and will incur unnecessary costs of fishing. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
A  legal  framework  is  needed  to  bring  a  reduction  in  fishing  mortality,  which  in  turn  would 
bring high economic benefits and more stability in TACs in the long-term. Reducing fishing 
mortality would increase yields and economic profitability of the industry, albeit with a small 
short term negative transitional impact. This increase in profitability is important because of 
the present high fuel costs and low profitability of some fleets. 

2.3.3  Magnitude of the effect on the sectors 

Up to 2003, landings of the northern hake have fluctuated around 40 000 t. In 2004 and 2005, 
an  important  increase  in  landings  had  been  observed  with  47  123  t  and  46  300  t  of  Hake 
landed respectively. In 2006, the total landings decreased to 41,810 t. Recent landings from 
this stock have been around 50,000t according to scientific estimates, with an employment of 
some 6000 people. 

The long-term plan may include the progressive adjustment of TACs that will allow the stock 
to  be  above  Bpa  at  a  low  risk  in  the  long  term.  This  is  achieved  by  an  annual  reduction  in 
fishing  mortality  until  reaching  the  long  term  fishing  mortality  target.  This  means  reduced 
catches. 

The economic analysis carried out by the STECF concludes that there will be a small impact 
in the short term on the fisheries subjected to a reduction of fishing mortality. Nevertheless, 
after a period of stability, catches will increase in the long term, and thus profitability of the 
sector will increase very substantially. If the exploitation pattern of the fisheries involved is 
improved the long term benefits are even higher (see section 6). 

STECF also concluded that the impact on the onshore processing sector will be limited since 
most of the hake caught is sold chilled with very little processing. 

Mixed fisheries considerations 
Hake is caught in mixed fisheries with Nephrops8, megrim and anglerfish. 

A  reduction  in  fishing  mortality  on  hake  will  also  reduce  the  fishing  mortality  on  these 
species. However, the magnitude of the decrease on megrim and anglerfish will be lower than 
on  hake.  The  yields  of  these  species  will  increase  in  the  long  term,  although  only  in  one 
species to higher levels than at present. This fact may highlight the need for further reduction 
in the fishing mortalities of these stocks, to enable them to recover in the long term. 

2.3.4 

Legal basis for Community action 

Article 37 of the Treaty establishing the European Community would serve as legal basis for 
the proposal. The proposal would fall under the exclusive competence of the Community and 
therefore the subsidiarity principle would not apply. 

Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  2371/2002  of  20  December  2002  on  the  Conservation  and 
Sustainable Exploitation of Fisheries Resources under the Common Fisheries Policy9 provides 
for the establishment of recovery plans for stocks outside safe biological limits (Article 5) and 
for management plans for fisheries exploiting stocks within safe biological limits (Article 6). 
Moreover,  the  northern  hake  recovery  plan  (EC  Reg.  No  811/2004)  states  that  the  recovery 
plan is to be replaced by a management plan when, in two consecutive years, the target level 
for the stock has been reached, which has been the case.  

2.3.5  Necessity and subsidiarity 

8 
9 

http://www.fao.org/fishery/species/2647 
OJ L 358, 21.12.2002, pp.59-80 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The proposal would fall under the exclusive competence of the Community and therefore the 
subsidiarity principle would not apply;  

This  proposal  concerns  the  annual  setting  of  a  TAC  for  a  fish  stock  that  is  shared  between 
several Member States: Spain, France, Ireland and the United Kingdom according to a fixed 
allocation.  Management  of  the  shared  resource  in  those  areas  therefore  must  affect  these 
Member States in exactly equal proportion. It is not possible for Member States to do this by 
independent  or  devolved  action.  Fisheries  management  is  an  exclusive  Community 
responsibility  and  therefore,  it  is  necessary  that  this  management  action  be  implemented  in 
Community legislation. 

3. 

OBJECTIVES 

The  general  objective  of  the  management  plan  is  to  ensure  the  exploitation  of  the  stock 
consistently with high and sustainable yield.  

Policy coherence concerning sustainability objectives should be maintained. The plan should 
conform  to  the  objectives  of  the  Common  Fisheries  Policy,  as  set  out  in  Article  2  of 
Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002. In addition, such plans should contribute to the aims of the 
Implementation  Plan  agreed  by  the  World  Summit  on  Sustainable  Development  at 
Johannesburg  in  2002,  especially  in  respect  of  exploiting  stocks  compatibly  with  maximum 
sustainable  yield  (MSY)10.  This  political  objective  has  been  the  subject  of  a  separate 
Commission Communication (Implementing sustainability in EU fisheries through maximum 
sustainable  yield  (COM  (2006)  final)  and  accompanying  working  document  (SEC(2006) 
868)11. 

Specific objectives 

The MSY approach is based on a long-term strategy whereby catch rates are fixed, enabling 
fish stocks to reproduce so that exploitation can occur in sustainable economic, environmental 
and  social  conditions.  In  order  to  reach  the  foregoing  objective,  it  is  necessary  to  reduce 
fishing mortality. 

A reduction of the proportion of hake removed from the stock by fishing (F) from the current 
precautionary  level  (Fpa)  of  0.25  to  the  optimal  fishing  mortality  set  according  to  the 
maximum sustainable yield approach at 0.17 (Fmax) should be achieved. Fpa was set in the 
recovery  plan  to  rebuild  the  hake  stock  to  safe  biomass  levels.  Fmax  of  0.17  has  been 
recommended  by  the  scientists12  as  a  target  level  to  ensure  a  sustainable  yield  for  the  stock 
(Annex Figure 1). By reducing Fpa to Fmax: 

•  SSB  would  increase  to  250  000t,  a  value  well  above  Bpa  (140  000t)  and  then  stabilise  at 

that value; 

•  yield would increase to the long-term equilibrium value (62 000t), which is above current 

yield (40 000t).  

This  would  give  the  stock  more  stability,  reducing  the  risk  of  getting  back  to  an  unsafe 
situation. Economic efficiency of the fishing industry would also improve. 

10 
11 
12 

www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/WSSD_POI_DP 
www.cc.cec/home/dgserv/sg/sgvista/i/sgv2/repo 
report SGBRE-07-03, page 19-20, see footnote 3 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Three measures that contribute to reducing fishing mortality are: 

(1) establishing Harvest Control Rules (HCR) 

As  in  the  recovery  plan,  an  annual  Total  Allowable  Catch  (TAC)  would  be  set  so  as  to 
implement  an  adjustment  in  fishing  mortality  towards  the  rate  that  will  deliver  the  highest 
yields  Decisions  need  to  be  made  about  the  rate  of  adaptation,  and  the  extent  to  which 
variations  in  TAC  can  be  limited.  This  would  maintain  a  healthy  fishing  industry  and  the 
Northern Hake stock.  

(2) introducing technical measures to protect juvenile hake and reduce discards 
An improvement in the exploitation pattern13 of the northern hake fishery would considerably 
add to the benefits of the management plan in the long term14. Furthermore, the target fishing 
mortality  might  be  reached  sooner  by  improving  the  exploitation  pattern.  This  would  be 
achieved by improving selectivity through changes to mesh sizes and type of gear used. 

(3) reducing overcapacity 

In a situation of low economic profitability, with a reduction of fishing effort and increasing 
fuel costs, a possible economic solution might be a reduction of overcapacity accompanying 
the  options  described  above.  The  removal  of  excess  fishing  capacity  would  increase  the 
economic  benefit  of  each  remaining  vessel  by  increasing  the  available  fishing  opportunities 
per vessel and would reduce costs. 

Given  the  present  problems  of  profitability  in  this  fleet,  options  about  the  pace  of 
decommissioning need to be considered, including the possibility of either a substantial one-
off adjustment or a gradual reduction. 

Attaining  these  measures  should  ensure  that  the  principal  objective  is  met.  Furthermore,  in 
order  to  improve  the  stability  of  the  catches  and  markets,  the  TAC  should  be  altered  by  no 
more than 15% from one year to the next. 

All  objectives  and  measures  have  been  discussed  with  stakeholders  in  the  NWWRAC  and 
SWWRAC and are considered realistic.  

4. 

POLICY OPTIONS 

The Impact Assessment has been considering 3 main scenario options. In parallel, an impact of 
changes in selectivity (i.e. improving protection of hake juvenile by using larger mesh sizes) 
on  Option  1  and  Option  2  has  been  examined.  These  impacts  have  been  analysed  as  extra 
measures, outside of the scope of the presented options.  

4.1. 

Option 1 - no policy change 

This option is based on the current fishing mortality as set in the recovery plan. The option 
implies continuing to fish at the precautionary level of fishing mortality (Fpa15) of 0.25.  

4.2. 

Option 2 - management plan 

This option is based on the approach based on maximum sustainable yield (MSY). It provides 
for  gradual  adjustments  in  fishing  mortality  to  let  the  stock  rebuild  towards  MSY  levels. 
Reducing the current fishing mortality from Fsq=0.25 to Fmax=0.17 (MSY target level set by 

13 
14 
15 

Further explanation can be found in section 'E' of glossary 
See STECF report, footnote 3 
Note that Fsq equals Fpa=0.25 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
                                                 
scientists) would lead to reduction in both fixed and variable costs for the fleet while allowing 
similar  or  better  catches  to  be  taken.  A  gradual  reduction  in  total  allowable  catches  (TAC) 
over  10-15  years,  overall  about  30%  decrease  in  F,  would  be  needed  to  achieve  this 
improvement in economic efficiency. 

4.2.1.  Option 2 implementation alternatives  

The  baseline  is  the  scenario  for  the  precautionary  fishing  mortality  rate  (Fpa)  i.e.  fishing 
mortality rate fixed according to the precautionary principle. The value of Fpa is 0.25.16 This 
value  is  close  to  the  status  quo  fishing  mortality  rate.  The  baseline  has  been  compared  to  a 
number of scenarios, nine in total: 

•  In the first group, F has been reduced annually from Fsq down to Fmax by decresing TAC 

levels 5%, 10% and 15% respectively. 

•  In the second group the same system of gradual reduction in TACs has been used down to 

80% of Fmax and 120% of Fmax respectively. 

Details of analysed scenarios are presented in a table below. 

Table B –Scenarios tested against the baseline scenario (Fsq=0.25) 

Fmax (0.17) 

80 % of Fmax (0.136) 

120% of Fmax (0.204) 

5% 

10% 

15% 

5% 

10% 

15% 

5% 

10% 

15% 

According  to  a  mandate  to  come  up  with  a  proposal  to  replace  the  recovery  plan  by  a 
management plan (in accordance with Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002), given to 
the  Commission  by  the  Council  (EC  No  811/200417,  Art  3),  DG  MARE  does  not  consider 
other regulatory techniques than a regulation.  

4.3. 

Option 3 - decommissioning of fleet 

This option is also based on MSY approach but arriving at the Fmax would happen quicker. It 
would  involve  the  capacity  reduction  of  the  same  order  as  suggested  reduction  in  fishing 
mortality  -  from  0.25  to  0.17.  The  option  implies  a  short-term  reduction  of  about  30%  in 
northern  hake  fishing  mortality  to  MSY  levels  by  reducing  overcapacity  of  fleet  through 
decommissioning.  Reducing  the  number  of  fishing  vessels  would  reduce  the  proportion  of 
hake removed from the stock by fishing but it would also increase the economic benefit for 
each  remaining  vessel  by  permitting  higher  catch  per  unit  of  effort  and  hence  less  running 
costs and higher value of landings.  

Decommissioning  of  fleet  would  happen  on  a  voluntary  basis  and  Member  States  would 
decide  the  details  and  extend  of  the  process.  The  Community  would  co-fund  the  initiative 
from the European Fisheries Fund (EFF).  

An  emergency  package  addressing  the  immediate  situation  of  socio-economic  hardship  and 
contributing  to  tackling  systemic  overcapacity  has  been  proposed  by  the  EC.  The  package 
consists  mainly  of  measures  based  on  temporary  derogations  from  rules  under  the  EFF  to 

16 
17 

See footnote 3, Lisbon STECF report page 19 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2004:185:0001:0003:EN:PDF 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
                                                 
support a faster adaptation of the EC fleet to the present situation and to provide temporary 
relief in order to cushion economic and social consequences in the transitional phase. 

5. 

ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS 

5.1. 

Environmental impacts 

The environmental impact of fishing is related to the amount of fishing effort deployed. Two 
broad categories can be defined regarding direct and indirect impacts: on bycatch species and 
on fishing mortality, respectively. 

In  the  demersal  trawl  fishery,  bycatch  species  are  mainly  non-commercial  fish  species  (e.g. 
boarfish,  dragonets,  etc.),  but  also  harbour  porpoises  and  dolphins  caught  in  gill  nets  and  a 
variety of benthic invertebrates caught in Nephrops trawls.  

The  estimated  cetacean  bycatch  in  the  hake  fishery  is  relatively  high  (i.e.  studies  have 
estimated that the annual bycatch of harbour porpoises in the Celtic Sea hake gillnet fishery is 
of the order of 2237 individuals). The Council Regulation (EC No 812/200418) is laying down 
measures concerning incidental catches of cetaceans in fisheries. 

The mortality rate of commercial species can be unnecessarily high. For overfished stocks, by 
taking the highest catches, the stock sizes are brought down to the levels lower than necessary 
and  to  levels  where  their  productivity  is  reduced.  This  has  three  indirect  environmental 
consequences: 

–  species  interactions  change  as  prey  availability  to  predator  species  in  the  ecosystem  is 
reduced by removing biomass (landed fish), while to other species more food is available 
through discards; 

–  more fuel has to be burnt in order to maintain commercial catches; 

–  more small fish are discarded, because the abundance of larger fish is relatively low. 

It  is  not  normally  possible  to  predict  long-term  trends  in  fisheries  productivity.  Changes  in 
oceanic climate including global warming, and currently unexplained medium-term changes 
in  recruitment  can  lead  to  significant  trends  in  productivity.  However,  it  is  known  that 
keeping fisheries impacts at levels no higher than those needed to take high yields improves 
the stability of the stock and improves the robustness of the fishery to adverse environmental 
effects.  Implementing  a  plan  which  will  lead  to  moderate  fishing  mortalities  will  therefore 
lead to improved stability in the industry. 

5.2. 

Economic impacts 

The  cost  of  the  investment  of  reducing  fishing  mortality  to  MSY  is  relatively  low,  between 
1% and 5% of the GVA, depending on the fleet and reduction policy. The payback period is 
always between 10 and 15 years, i.e. relatively long. In addition, the small short term impact 
may  be  further  reduced  by  voluntary  decommission  of  vessels  belonging  to  fleets  with  low 
profitability due to increasing fuel costs19. 

After a period of stability, catches will increase in the long term, and thus profitability of the 
sector  will  increase  very  substantially.  The  Commission  believes  that landings  will  increase 
around 48%, to 62 000 tonnes in the long term (source STECF). If the exploitation pattern of 
the  fisheries  involved  is  improved  (i.e.  bigger  mesh  size  used  to  protect  hake  juvenile  and 

18 
19 

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/consleg/2004/R/02004R0812-20040701-en.pdf 
https://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu/c/document_library/get_file?folderId=2495&name=DLFE-2701.pdf 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
                                                 
reduce discards) the long term benefits are even higher, increasing up to 60%. A larger stock 
biomass will generate higher catch per unit of effort and hence less running costs and higher 
value of landings for the fleet. 

Table  C  -  Example  of  costs  of  reducing  current  fishing  mortality  (baseline  scenario 
Fsq=0.25) to MSY (Fmax=0.17) for the aggregated fleet segments of Spain and France (source 
STECF) 

TIME HORIZON: short and 
medium term (2008-2016). 

(€ million GVA) 

Costs in absolute terms to move 
to Fmax from Fsq  

Costs in relative terms to move to Fmax 
from Fsq  

POLICY 
OPTIONS 

Fmax 

80% of 
Fmax 

120% of 
Fmax 

French 
fleet 

5% reduction
10% reduction 

24 0
23,8 

15% reduction 

20,8 

Spanish 
fleet 

5% reduction
10% reduction 

42 7
56,8 

15% reduction 

57,9 

28 8
46,6 

46,6 

44 1
86,6 

97,7 

9 8
6,6 

4,0 

26 1
26,4 

26,0 

(%) 

80% of 
Fmax 

2 6%
4,3% 

Fmax 

2 2%
2,2% 

1,9% 

4,3% 

3 5%
4,7% 

3 6%
7,2% 

4,8% 

8,1% 

120% of Fmax 

0 9%
0,6% 

0,4% 

2 2%
2,2% 

2,1% 

The impact on the onshore processing sectors will be minor since most of the hake caught is 
sold chilled with very little processing.  

A decrease in the short term of hake landings will not have a major impact on the market.  

There will be no shortage of supply as a major share of the hake market is supplied by imports 
(frozen hake). 

5.3. 

Social impacts 

In  the  long  term  perspective,  economic  gains  will  likely  benefit  employment  in  fisheries 
dependent regions (see table 2 in Annex).  

In  order  to  offset  the  high  fuel  costs  in  overfished  situations,  employment  at  sea  is  often 
reduced to the lowest feasible crewing levels on each vessel. 

Low  net  revenues  can  result  in  limited  resources  available  for  vessel  maintenance  and 
investment in safety. Also, the need to fish intensively in a situation of low net revenue means 
that working hours are extremely long and fatigue levels are often dangerous. There is also a 
pressure  to  continue  working  even  in  unsafe  weather  conditions.  The  combination  of  these 
factors  results  in  very  high  accident  rates:  this  is  by  far  one  of  the  most  dangerous 
occupations. 

After a transitional phase, the industry could move to a situation of higher revenues with more 
possibilities  for  investment  in  safer  vessels,  shorter  working  hours,  better  pay  and  a  lesser 
need  to  work  in  poor  weather  conditions.  However,  an  overall  reduction  in  employment 
would be needed, which may impact disproportionately on immigrant seafarers. 

Changing  to  larger  mesh  sizes  and  less  intensive  fishing  will  reduce  the  on-board  workload 
due to the lower time spent discarding small fish and in handling and processing equivalent 
volumes of larger fish. 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Since no new procedures would be introduced, no significant impact on administrative burden 
would take place. 

5.4. 

Impacts on international relations 

The  stock  is  distributed  entirely  within  EC  waters  and  is  not  subject  to  unregulated 
exploitation by third-country vessels. The stock is not subject to any third-country agreements 
either.  Catches  and  fish  stock  management  will  not  be  affected  by  such  third-country 
activities. 

5.5. 

Impact summary 

Table D – Comparison of options against the baseline scenario (Fsq=0.25) 

Option 2:  

Management Plan  

Option 3: 
Decommissioning 

Stock long-term 
sustainability achieved 
as objective. 

Reduced F leading to long-
term stock stability and 
improved economic 
situation of fishing 
industry. 

Short-term reduction in 
direct Northern Hake 
fishing. 

Short-term reduction in 
employment. 

Likely to result in a 
sustainable and stable 
fishery in the long 
term. 

Reduction in F and fishing 
overcapacity benefiting 
both the stock and the 
remaining fishing industry. 

Option 1: 

No change in 
policy  

No change, the 
current rules 
remain ineffective 
to achieve long-
term stock 
sustainability but 
allow fishing at 
unchanged levels. 

Long-term 
sustainability not 
assured as an 
objective. 

Positive 
impacts 

Negative 
impacts 

Direct impacts  Management plan 
based on current F 
levels not efficient 
enough to achieve 
long-term stock 
sustainability. A 
risk of stock going 
back to an unsafe 
situation. 

Indirect 
impacts 

Negative 
economic, social 
and environmental 
impacts due to the 
possible stock 
reduction to unsafe 
levels and greatly 
reduced fishing 
opportunities in the 
long-term. 

Positive economic, 
social and 
environmental impacts 
due to improved 
efficiency of 
management plan 
leading to long-term 
sustainability of the 
stock and improved 
fishing opportunities. 

Positive economic, social 
and environmental impacts 
due to reduced fishing 
capacity leading to an 
increase in a stock 
biomass. 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
 
Economic 
impacts 

Social  

impacts 

Environmental 
impacts 

Short-term: No 
change in catches 
and profits. 

Long-term: 
Negative impacts 
due to the possible 
stock collapse 
resulting in loss of 
profitability of the 
fishing industry. 

Short-term: Small 
decrease in catches – 
small reduction in 
sector's profitability. 

Long-term: Positive 
impacts due to 
achieving long-term 
stock stability and 
improved profitability 
of the industry. 

Short-term: No 
change. 

Long-term: 
Possible stock 
collapse resulting 
in drastic decline of 
employment in the 
fishing sector. 

Short-term: 
Negative impact on 
the conservation of 
species due to 
fishing at unsafe 
levels.  

Long-term: 
Decrease in stock 
biomass to unsafe 
levels, risk of the 
stock getting back 
to unsafe levels. 

Short-term: Small 
negative impact on 
employment. 

Long-term: Substantial 
positive impact due to 
achieving a much 
higher stable stock and 
maintained 
employment in the 
sector. 

Short-term: Gradual 
positive impact on the 
stock biomass due to 
reduced fishing 
mortality. 

Long-term: 
Improvement in the 
conservation of stocks 
resulting in a 
sustainable stock. 

Short-term: Reduction in 
catches and higher profits 
for the remaining vessels. 

Long-term: Increased 
economic benefit for the 
remaining vessels due to 
higher SSB generating 
higher catch per unit of 
effort and hence less 
running costs and higher 
value of landings for the 
industry. 

Short-term: Reduced 
employment. 

Long-term: Substantial 
positive impact due to 
achieving a much higher 
stable stock and maintained 
employment in the sector.  

Short-term: Positive impact 
on the stock biomass due to 
reduced fishing 
overcapacity and fishing 
mortality. 

Long-term: Improvement 
in the conservation of 
stocks resulting in a 
sustainable stock. 

6. 

6. COMPARING THE OPTIONS 

Comparison of options shows that the ranking of the selected scenarios in terms of the socio-
economic benefit generated depends strongly on the length of the time period considered. The 
inclusion of selectivity improvements and discard estimates, analysed outside of the scope of 
options, also makes a difference to the end results. 

Current (baseline) approach - Option 1 

Comparing  Option  1  with  Option  2  and  Option  3,  as  logically  expected,  in  the  short  and 
medium  term  Option  1  yields  higher  economic  results,  although  with  the  biological  cost  of 
putting the stock at a higher risk of returning to an unsafe situation.  

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
In  a  sufficiently  long  time  horizon  of  the  management  plan,  i.e.  around  2020,  short-term 
economic losses due to the reduction in fishing mortality to be achieved under the remaining 
options,  will  be  overcome  by  the  long  term  gains  obtained  from  the  northern  hake  stock 
biomass exploited at maximum sustainable yield. A larger stock biomass will generate higher 
catch per unit of effort and hence less running costs and higher value of landings20.  

MSY approach - Option 2 and Option 3 

In  the  long-term,  from  an  economic  point  of  view,  Option  2  and,  in  particular,  the  scenario 
which considers a 15% yearly reduction from Fsq (0.25) to reach Fmax (0.17), is the best policy 
option. The longer the time period, the larger the net gains provided by the Option 2 strategy. 

Table  2  in  the  annex  shows  the  potential  net  gains  of  the  Option  2  objective  compared  to 
Option 1. Taking Spanish long-liners as an example, Option 2 would generate 8 million euros 
of  extra  rent  compared  with  Option  1  in  2021,  and  15  million  euros  of  extra  rent  in  2029, 
(assuming a 15% yearly reduction pattern). 

Irrespective of whether selectivity improvements and discards estimates are considered or not, 
it  can  be  concluded  that  the  cost  of  the  investment  of  moving  to  MSY  is  relatively  low, 
between 1% and 5% of the GVA, depending on the fleet and reduction policy. The payback 
period of Option 2 is 10 and 15 years, i.e. relatively long. The short-term losses of Option 3 
could be mitigated with the Community financial assistance. 

From the perspective of the society and from an economic viewpoint, it is useful to regard the 
option  of  moving  to  MSY  (Option  2  and  Option  3)  as  an  investment  choice,  with  an  initial 
cost,  a  payback  period  (i.e.  the  period  necessary  to  recover  the  initial  cost)  and  a  stream  of 
benefits  in  the  longer  tem.  The  opportunity  of  such  an  investment  has  to  be  assessed  in 
relation  to  these  parameters.  The  initial  67-81  millions  costs  (loss  of  GVA)  resulting  from 
moving to MSY are not extremely high21: in percentage they represent between 2% and 5% of 
the total Gross Value Added (GVA) generated per country for the analysed fleets over 9 years 
by the fishery, depending on the fleet and policy option. The payback period of implementing 
Option 2 under this scenario is 2021 for the Spanish fleets and 2023 for the French fleets, i.e. 
a relatively long period. As mentioned earlier, the  longer term benefits from the investment 
(after the payback period) are estimated to produce e.g. for Spanish long-liners a total gain of 
15 million euros in 2029 (i.e. 2% of the GVA generated over the same period) and 22 million 
euros in 2046. 

If  discard  estimates  are  included  in  the  analysis,  benefits  are  greatly  enhanced.  Improving 
selectivity and hence reducing F on younger ages produces positive benefits on yield and SSB 
of  similar  magnitude  to  reductions  in  overall  F22.  In  the  short  and  medium  term  (2008  to 
2016), the difference between Net Present Values NPVs23 generated by Option 1 and Option 2 
respectively  is  substantially  reduced  (around  50%  lower  compared  with  the  “no  changes  in 
selectivity” scenario), and in the longer term the benefits of moving to MSY are greater. 

Table  E  -  Comparison  of  options  for  Spanish  and  French  fleet  in  short  and  medium  term 
(2008-2016). Net present value (NPV), million €. Baseline scenario Fsq=0.25 (source STECF) 

20 

21 
22 
23 

The report also observes that economic gains from choosing an optimal policy would be magnified on shore due to 
the multiplier effect. This would benefit employment and economic activity in harbours and fishing communities. 
See Table 3 in Annex 
Pages 8 and 17 of the report “Northern Hake Long-Term Management Plan Impact Assessment (SGBRE-07-05)”. 
Net Present Values (NPVs) 

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(*Exploitation pattern H2 assumes no catch at age 0 and 1, 10% at age 2, 50% at age 3 and 90% at age 4, compared to the 
current one). 

The  analyses  in  the  report  are  based  on  preliminary  and  incomplete  estimates  of  discard 
quantities. In spite of that, the report concludes that any long term management plan should 
consider that the more the exploitation pattern is improved, the greater the yield would be and 
the less the necessary reduction in overall effort24. 

Option 3 offers a possibility of achieving the same adaptation of F to MSY levels as Option 2 
but over short-term period. Given the fact that over the past few years the economic situation 
of many fishing industries has deteriorated due to reduced fishing opportunities, such short-
term solutions may be a better way to restore balance between a fishing capacity and available 
resources than a long-term plan.  

Conclusions 

The analysis has proven the benefits of an approach based on MSY represented by Option 2 
and Option 3. Fishing at MSY levels would help reverse the trend of allowing aquatic stocks 
to run out. This approach would benefit the sea environment as a whole, since it would lead to 
an increase in available resources and renewed balance within ecosystems. 

The approach represented by those two options would also bring economic benefits, since it 
would  allow  for  a  reduction  in  the  cost  of  fishing  activity.  Exploitation  of  stocks  would 
become less problematic once the availability of resources becomes more stable again. 

Fishing within MSY limits would mean that the number of large-scale and high-value catches 
will increase while the proportion of discards would decrease.  

In recent years, over 10 million tonnes of fish have been imported each year, which represents 
60%  of  European  fish  consumption.  An  MSY  approach  to  fisheries  management  would 
increase  the  European  fisheries  industry's  competitive  edge  by  ensuring  stable  and  high-
quality supply.  

Option 2  offers  a possibility of achieving the adaptation  of  fishing  mortality  to  MSY  levels 
over longer timeframe. Option 3 suggests the same adaptation to MSY but in a much shorter 
time.  

In the past the Commission tended to centre on providing for gradual adjustments in fishing 
mortality  through  long-term  management  plans  to  avoid  social  disruptions.  Given  a  current 
situation, where operational costs in the fishing industry have significantly increased leading 
to  increased  pressure  to  adopt  the  fleet  capacity,  the  stakeholders  themselves  request  more 
opportunities to allow for accelerated adaptations of the EU fleet.  

24 

Page 80 of the report “Northern Hake Long-Term Management Plan Impact Assessment (SGBRE-07-05)”. 

EN 

18 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
Stakeholder  consultation  revealed  that  a  short-term  decommissioning  of  fleet  would  be  a 
preferred option in the Northern hake fishery. Option 3 would bring the necessary short-time 
adjustment in F while allowing for a development of a smaller but more efficient and more 
profitable fishing sector.  

Answering the demand expressed by stakeholders, DG MARE is therefore inclined to follow 
Option 3 and work on the basis of a short-term voluntary decommissioning of fleet, followed 
by fishing at a stable rate thereafter.  

7. 

MONITORING AND EVALUATION 

The indicators of successful operation of this plan are that: 

•  fishing  mortality,  as  measured  by  ICES  and  STECF,  should  decrease  and  move  towards 

the target values established in the plan; 

•  the size of the spawning stock should increase to 250 000t and then stabilise at that value; 

•  yield should increase to the long-term equilibrium value of 60 000t; 

•  TACs and quotas established according to the plan are respected and area-misreporting is 

eliminated. 

It is necessary to keep under review (according to scientific advice) both the objectives and 
the  efficiency  of  the  plan.  These  are  likely  to  need  adaptation  as  ecosystems  change  and  as 
changes to environment and climate affect fish populations. 
Attainment  of  specific  objective  to  reduce  fishing  mortality  of  Northern  hake25  will  be 
measured  according  to  the  annual  evaluations  of  the  state  of  the  stock  as  assessed  by  ICES 
and STECF. Attainment of additional measures (2) and (3) will be monitored in the course of 
the  evaluation  of  national  inspection  and  control  systems  by  the  inspection  team  of  DG 
MARE.  Attainment  of  measure  (1)  will  be  proposed  by  the  Commission  for  inclusion  in 
annual regulations concerning the setting of fishing opportunities. 

These  indicators  will  be  monitored  annually  in  order  to  detect  any  deficiencies  in  the 
operation  of  the  plan.  At  four-yearly  intervals,  a  comprehensive  review  of  the  plan  will  be 
implemented. 

The monitoring arrangements concerning the state of the stock are common to those for other 
stocks in the North-East Atlantic area. Collection of scientific data concerning landings and 
survey  data  from  research  vessels  are  co-funded  by  the  European  Community.  Data  are 
collected, analysed and evaluated by the ICES and formal advice is provided by STECF. 

Should advice from STECF and ICES indicate that the plan is not reaching its objectives, a 
review process will be started by DG MARE. 

Concerning  control  issues,  cross-national  coordination  of  inspection  activities  is  to  be 
established  by  the  new  CFC  agency  which  is  now  being  established.  Additionally,  the 
inspectors  of  DG  MARE  will  follow-up  and  review  the  implementation  of  fisheries  control 
measures by the relevant Member States. 

25 

Refer to section 3.1 

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Figure 1 –Fishing mortality target levels for northern hake 

ANNEX 

Figure 2 - Summary plots for Northern Hake stock 

EN 

20 

   EN 

 
 
Graph 1: Projected yield (landing) for all options 

Graph 2: Projected stock biomass for all options 

EN 

21 

   EN 

 
 
 
Graph 3: Comparison of different management scenarios per flee 

FRANCE 

NETTERS 

DEMERSAL TRAWLERS 

Netters 12-24m - Gross Value Added (m€)

Demersal trawl 12-24m targetting nephrops
 - Gross Value Added (m€)

70.0

60.0

50.0

40.0

30.0

20.0

10.0

0.0

70.0

60.0

50.0

40.0

30.0

20.0

10.0

0.0

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

2004-
2006

Netters 24-40m - Gross Value Added  (m€)

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

2004-
2006

Status quo

10% decrease in F down
to Fmax

H2 at status quo

H2 + 10% decrease in F
to Fmax

Status quo

10% decrease in F down
to Fmax

H2 at status quo

H2 + 10% decrease in F
to Fmax

70.0

60.0

50.0

40.0

30.0

20.0

10.0

0.0

70.0

60.0

50.0

40.0

30.0

20.0

10.0

0.0

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

2004-
2006

Demersal trawl 24-40m - Gross Value Added (m€)

Status quo

10% decrease in F down
to Fmax

H2 at status quo

H2 + 10% decrease in F
to Fmax

Status quo

10% decrease in F down
to Fmax

H2 at status quo

H2 + 10% decrease in F
to Fmax

97.2 104.4 99.2 108.7 108.4 108.3 108.1 108.1 108.2 108.9 109.7

SPAIN 

LONGLINERS  

DEMERSAL TRAWLERS 

150.0

140.0

130.0

120.0

110.0

o
r

u

E

100.0

n

l

M

90.0

80.0

70.0

60.0

50.0

Baseline

5% reduction Fmax 

10% reduction Fmax

15% reduction Fmax

Baseline with discards

10% reduction Fmax with discards

H2 at statu quo

H2 + 10% reduction Fmax

o
r

u

E

n

l

M

13.0

12.5

12.0

11.5

11.0

10.5

10.0

9.5

9.0

8.5

8.0

Baseline

5% reduction Fmax 

10% reduction Fmax

15% reduction Fmax

Baseline with discards

10% reduction Fmax with discards

H2 at statu quo

H2 + 10% reduction Fmax

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2005
2002-2004

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2005
2002-2004

Year

Year

EN 

22 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Table1:  Net  present  value  at  5%  and  10%  discount  rate  for  Spanish  and  French  fleet 
segments. Million € 

Spain 

France 

5% 

10% 

5% 

10% 

2006-2014 

2006-2014 

2008-2016  2008-2016 

Status quo 

Value of landings 

1737 

1404 

2017 

1628 

Crew share 

Gross cash flow 

Net profit 

Gross value added 

H226 at status quo 

792 

335 

788 

971 

640 

271 

638 

785 

676 

362 

175 

1038 

546 

292 

140 

837 

Value of landings 

1843 

1473 

2158 

1730 

Crew share 

Gross cash flow 

Net profit 

850 

390 

199 

Gross value added 

1241 

679 

309 

154 

987 

732 

443 

255 

1175 

587 

350 

199 

937 

H2 + 10% decrease in F to Fmax 

Value of landings 

1807 

1444 

2140 

1714 

Crew share 

Gross cash flow 

Net profit 

833 

383 

191 

Gross value added 

1217 

665 

303 

148 

968 

727 

439 

251 

1166 

582 

347 

195 

929 

26 

H2  implies  a  policy  scenario  that  changes  the  selection  pattern  reducing  fishing  mortality  in  smaller 
sizes 

EN 

23 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Table 2. Net present value of GVA difference between 15% Fmax reduction and F status 
quo. Million € 

France Netters 12-24m 

TIME HORIZON 

Time period - 2007 to 

2023 

2031 

2046 

NPV difference between Fmax and Fsq 

NPV Fsq 

NPV Fmax 15% red. 

Spanish Longlines 24-40m 

3 

83.2 

83.0 

Time period - 2005 to 

2021 

NPV difference between Fmax and Fsq 

8 

NPV Fsq 

NPV Fmax 15% red. 

116.3 

113.6 

6 

83.2 

85.6 

2029 

15 

116.3 

120.2 

9 

83.2 

88.4 

2044 

22 

116.3 

127.4 

Table 3. Cost of initial investment in the "no change in selectivity" scenario 

TIME HORIZON: short and 
medium term (2008-2016). 

∆ absolute (Fmax, Fsq): costs in 
absolute terms to move to Fmax 
from Fsq (€ million GVA) 

∆ relative (Fmax, Fsq): costs in 
relative terms to status quoto move to 
Fmax from Fsq (%) 

POLICY 
OPTIONS 

Fmax 

80% of 
Fmax 

120% of 
Fmax 

French 
fleet 

5% reduction 

24,0 

28,8 

10% reduction 

23,8 

46,6 

15% reduction 

20,8 

46,6 

9,8 

6,6 

4,0 

Fmax 

2,2% 

2,2% 

1,9% 

5% reduction 

42,7 

44,1 

26,1 

3,5% 

Spanish 
fleet 

10% reduction 

56,8 

86,6 

26,4 

4,7% 

15% reduction 

57,9 

97,7 

26,0 

4,8% 

80% of 
Fmax 

120% of 
Fmax 

2,6% 

4,3% 

4,3% 

3,6% 

7,2% 

8,1% 

0,9% 

0,6% 

0,4% 

2,2% 

2,2% 

2,1% 

Table 4. Cost of initial investment in the "changes in selectivity" scenario 

Comparison of options of Fsq 
and Fmax under significant 
improvement in selectivity (H2)  

Cost in absolute terms to move to 
FmaxH2 from FsqH2 (€ million) 

Cost in relative terms to move to 
FmaxH2 from FsqH2 (%) 

POLICY OPTIONS 

Spanish fleet 

French fleet 

Spanish fleet 

French fleet 

∆ (FsqH2, FmaxH2) 

24 

9 

2% 

1% 

EN 

24 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
B 

Glossary 

biomass–  the  total  weight  of  living  matter,  either  by  species  or  all  species  combined.  Also 
referred to as the standing stock. 

Blim – see limit reference points. 

Bmsy – the spawning stock biomass (SSB) necessary to support a fishery that would produce 
the maximum sustainable yield (MSY). 

Bpa – see limit reference points. 

by-catch – the catch of non-target species and undersized fish of the target species. By-catch 
of commercial species may be retained or discarded along with non-commercial by-catch. 

C 

catch (C) – the total quantity of fish that is retained by fishing gear and brought onto the deck 
or fishing station, ie landings plus discards. 

CFP  –  the  Common  Fisheries  Policy  of  the  European  Union  (as  revised  in:  Council 
Regulation 3760/92). It provides the framework for the management of the EU fishery sector, 
including all marine fisheries within 200 miles of member states’baselines. 

collapsed  stock  –  the  decline  in  spawning  stock  biomass  (SSB),  through  sustained  fishing 
pressure  or  natural  causes,  to  the  point  where  it  no  longer  generates  sufficient  recruits  to 
support a fishery. 

D 

demersal – species of fish that live on, or in close proximity to, the seabed, eg flatfish, cod, 
haddock. The term also applies to fishing gear that is worked on the seabed. 

depleted stock – the decline in spawning stock biomass (SSB) to a level that is approaching, 
or is below, the lowest historic record but has not necessarily reached the point of collapse. 
(See also limit reference points and safe biological limits.) 

discards  –  any  fish,  or  other  living  matter  caught  when  fishing,  that  is  not  retained  but 
returned to the sea – alive or dead. 

effort (f) – the total quantity of fishing gear in use for a specific period of time (Ricker 1975). 
Effort can be expressed in a multitude of ways: days away from port, hours trawling, length of 
drift net, number of hooks used, and so on. At its most basic, it is the total number of boats 
engaged in a fishery and/or the number of days they were fishing. 

environmentally sustainable fisheries – fisheries that safeguard the requirements of all animals 
and plants within an ecosystem or habitat and do not cause irreversible  or other significant, 
long-term  change  to  the  environment  or  the  communities  of  species  that  live  within  that 
environment. 

exploitation pattern - the distribution of fishing mortality over the age composition of the fish 
population, determined by the type of fishing gear, area and seasonal distribution of fishing, 
and  the  growth  and  migration  of  the  fish.  The  pattern  can  be  changed  by  modifications  to 
fishing gear, for example, increasing mesh or hook size, or by changing the ratio of harvest by 
gears exploiting the fish (e.g., gill net, trawl, hook and line, etc.).  

EN 

25 

   EN 

 
F 

F  –  formally,  the  instantaneous  rate  of 
fishing mortality (the natural logarithm of the 
change  in  abundance  due  to  fishing  per  unit 
of  time),  but  more  simply,  the  proportion  of 
the population killed each year by fishing. 

Figure  8:  A  generalised  yield-per-recruit 
(YPR) curve showing the point at which the 
fishing mortality rate (F) is equivalent to the 
maximum  sustainable  yield  (Fmsy)  and  the 
point  at  which  the  slope  of  the  curve  is 
approximately  10%  the  slope  of  F=0,  ie  F 
0.1.  

fish stock – scientifically, a population of a species of fish that is isolated from other stocks of 
the  same  species  and  does  not  interbreed  with  them  and  can,  therefore,  be  managed 
independently of other stocks (cf gene pool). However, in EU legislation the term ‘stock’ is 
used to mean a species of fish living in a defined sea area, the two are not always synonymous 
(Holden 1994). 

fishery conservation – the conservation and sustainable use of exploited fish stocks. It is the 
principal  objective  of  UK  and  EU  fisheries  legislation;  fishery  management  is  the  primary 
method through which the objective is pursued. 

fishing effort – see effort. 

fishing mortality rate – see F.  

Flim – see limit reference points. 

FMSY – the level of fishing mortality (F) that corresponds to the peak value on a dome-shaped 
yield-per-recruit curve and the value that will produce the maximum sustainable yield (MSY) 
from a fish stock (Fig. 8 & 10). 

Fpa – see limit reference points. 

I 

ICES – the International Council for encourages research into commercial the Exploration of 
the  Sea,  an  fish  stocks,  their  biology  and  all  factors  independent  scientific  advisory  body 
(natural and man made) that may founded in 1902. It is funded by 19 affect their abundance. 
It does not member states’ governments from undertake research in its own right but around 
the North Atlantic (including has a secretariat (in Copenhagen) to Canada and the USA) and 
Baltic  Sea.  It  facilitate  and  co-ordinate  collaboration,  including  fishery  stockassessments, 
between  member  states.  Work  is  carried  out  through  numerous  working  groups  convened 
under the remit of one or more standing committees: 

Advisory Committee of Fisheries Management (ACFM), Advisory Committee for the Marine 
Environment  (ACME),  Baltic  Committee,  Fisheries  Technology  Committee,  Living 
Resources  Committee,  Mariculture  Committee,  Marine  Habitat  Committee,  Oceanography 
Committee, Resource Management Committee. 

EN 

26 

   EN 

 
J 

juvenile–  an  immature  fish,  ie  one  that  has  not  reached  sexual  maturity  (but  could  still  be 
larger than the minimum landing size – MLS). 

L 

landings  –  that  part  of  the  catch  which  is  put  ashore.  Frequently,  landings  provide  the  only 
record of total catch; ie the landings plus discards. 

limit reference points – are biological or fishery management indicators that define the point 
at which precautionary action must be taken to safeguard a fish stock. In order for stocks and 
fisheries exploiting them to be within safe biological limits, there should be a high probability 
that: 1 – the spawning stock biomass (SSB = B) is above the threshold where recruitment is 
impaired; 2 - the fishing mortality (F) is below that which will drive the spawning stock to the 
biomass  threshold,  a  condition  that  must  be  avoided.  Thus:  Blim  =  minimum  acceptable 
biomass Flim  =  maximum acceptable  fishing mortality (lim stands for ‘limit’).The certainty 
with which these points can be identified varies with the quality of assessment data available. 
Therefore,  ICES  has  also  identified  precautionary  reference  points  that  identify  higher 
biomass thresholds than Blim and lower fishing mortality thresholds than Flim: 

Bpa = precautionary minimum biomass  

Fpa = precautionary maximum fishing mortality (pa stands for precautionary approach). 

In many instances, the value for Bpa will be the same as the value previously identified as the 
minimum  biologically  acceptable  limit  –  MBAL  (ICES  1998a  and  ICES  Current).  In 
circumstances where the relationship between the exploited stock and the spawning stock is 
not clear, as is the case with some of the deep-water species of fish, limit reference points may 
be expressed with respect to the ‘unexploited stock’: 

M 

EN 

27 

   EN 

 
 
MSY - Maximum Sustainable Yield: the largest average catch that can bet taken continuously 
from a stock under  existing  environmental  conditions (Fig. 8). (For species with fluctuating 
recruitment,  the  maximum  might  be  obtained  by  taking  fewer  fish  in  some  years  than  in 
others). Also known as maximum equilibrium catch (Ricker 1975). (see also Figure 8). 

misreporting  –  the  inaccurate  recording  of  catches  in  EU  fishing  log  books  or  comparable 
reporting systems. Among the more common practices are under-reporting the quantity of fish 
caught or reporting the catch as being taken in a different area from the one in which it was 
actually  made.  The  latter  example  is  most  widespread  when  the  quota  for  a  species  in  one 
ICES  Division  has  been  taken  but  quota  is  still  available  in  an  adjacent  Division.  (See  also 
under-reporting and black-fish.) 

mixed  fishery  –  a  fishery  that  takes  multi-species  catches.  Pelagic  fisheries  tend  to  take 
relatively  ‘clean’single  species  catches  whereas  multi-species  catches  are  more  frequent  in 
demersal fisheries.  

monitoring  –  the  regular  and  systematic  collection  of  environmental  and  biological  data  by 
agreed methods and to agreed standards. Monitoring provides information on current status, 
trends  and  compliance  with  respect  to  declared  standards  and  objectives.  (See  also 
surveillance.)  

mortality – the death of organisms through natural causes (M), eg predation, or fishing (F) etc. 
It is usually expressed as an instantaneous rate: the natural logarithm (with sign changed) of 
the ratio of number of animals surviving to the end of the year and the number at the start of 
the year (Ricker 1975). 

O 

over-fishing – any fishery where the total fishing effort is greater than is required to meet or 
match  a  specific  management  objective,  eg  maximum  sustainable  yield  (MSY).  (See  also 
growth overfishing and recruitment overfishing.) 

P 

precautionary  approach  –  a  decision  to  take  avoiding  action  based  on  the  possibility  of 
significant environmental damage, even before there is conclusive evidence that damage will 
occur  (DOE  1992).  This  approach  requires  fishery  managers  to  pay  due  regard  to  the 
uncertainties  of  stock  assessment  and  management.  They  must  implement  the  appropriate 
precautionary action if limit reference points are reached. 

S 

Spawning Stock Biomass – see SSB. 

SSB– spawning stock biomass: the total weight of all sexually mature fish in a population or 
stock. It is the sexually mature part of an exploited population upon which the future survival 
of the stock, and its fishery, depends. 

STECF  –  the  Scientific,  Technical  and  Economic  Committee  on  Fisheries  of  the  EC,  DG 
Fisheries (Fig. 2). Unlike ICES working groups and ACFM (Fig. 3) which only consider stock 
assessments  and  management  from  a  scientific  perspective,  the  STEFC  is  expected  to 
consider the socio- economic implications of modifying or varying scientific, including ICES’ 
advice. 

stock biomass – the total weight of all fish of all ages in a given population or stock. 

sustainability – meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future 
generations to meet their own needs (WCED 1987 – the Brundtland Report).  

EN 

28 

   EN 

 
sustainable fisheries – fisheries with an annual catch, including discards, that does not exceed 
the surplus production of the stock (ie annual growth plus recruitment less the annual natural 
mortality  –  M).  Fisheries  can  be  sustainable  at  levels  of  stock  significantly  below  the  stock 
that  would  support  MSY  or  MEY  but  only  if  managers  pay  full  regard  to  limit  reference 
points. (See also environmentally sustainable fisheries .) 

T 

TAC – total allowable catch, the quantity of fish that can be taken from each stock each year. 
The figure is agreed by the Fisheries Council of Ministers each December for the following 
year. EU member states are allocated a fixed proportion of the TAC as their national quota. 
(See also relative stability and track record.)  

target species – the primary species of fish that a fishing vessel aims to catch during a given 
fishing operation. In pelagic fisheries this can be a single species, eg herring or mackerel, but 
it is usually a group of species in demersal fisheries, eg cod and whiting or plaice and sole. 

U 

under-reporting  –  failure  to  meet  the  legal  requirement  under  the  CFP  to  report  fully  and 
accurately all the fish that have been caught and landed. (MLS). It is an offence for anyone to 
(See also misreporting) retain or offer for sale undersize fish. 

EN 

29 

   EN