COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Review of fishing effort management in western waters
Date: 2010-11-11
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Atlantic Ocean, North Sea, Norwegian Sea, fishery management, fishery resources, fishing area, fishing regulations, fishing rights

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 11.11.2010 
COM(2010) 661 final 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL 

Review of fishing effort management in western waters 

SEC(2010) 1367 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
  
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL 

Review of fishing effort management in western waters 

1. 

INTRODUCTION 

1.1. 

Purpose and basis of the review 

The Commission is held to assess the western waters1 fishing effort regime of 20032 
under three aspects: its implementation by Member States; the access conditions to 
outermost  regions  in  the  North-East  Atlantic;  and  the  effectiveness  of  the  specific 
effort rules for an area west and south of Ireland, the so-called Biologically Sensitive 
Area (BSA).3 

This review is based primarily on the Commission's monitoring of the effort regime 
and changes that took place in the policy context, on Member State contributions to a 
technical  questionnaire,  on  an  evaluation  carried  out  by  the  STECF4,  and  on 
scientific advice given by ICES with regard to the BSA5. 

The  results  of  this  review  will  be  used  when  deciding  on  future  avenues  for  the 
regime,  which  will  depend  on  the  political  orientations  for  the  reform  2012  of  the 
Common Fisheries Policy. 

1.2. 

Effort regulation in western waters 

The western waters regime was established in 1995 with the objective to safeguard 
balances  that  existed  at  the  time  of  full  integration  of  Spain  and  Portugal  into  the 
common  fisheries  policy,  and  to  avoid  an  increase  in  fishing  effort  compared  to 
levels  observed  before  such  integration6.  The  1995  Regulation  was  subsequently 
replaced by Regulation (EC) No 1954/2003. The main features of these consecutive 
regimes are as follows: 

1 

2 

3 
4 
5 
6 

The  western  waters  comprise  the  North-East  Atlantic  west  of  the  North  Sea  and  Norwegian  Sea, 
including the Exclusive Economic zones of Portuguese and Spanish outermost regions. 
Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  1954/2003,  OJ  L  289,  7.11.2003  p.  1;  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No 
1415/2004, OJ L 258, 5.8.2004, p. 1. 
See Articles 3(4), 5(2) and 6(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1954/2003. 
STECF, Report of the SGMOS 09-05 Working Group on Fishing Effort Regimes, part 3 July 2010. 
International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, ICES Advice 2009, book 5, point 5.3.3.1. 
See Recitals 4 and 5 of Regulation (EC) No 685/95, OJ L 71, 31.3.1995, p. 5. 

EN 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Parameter limited 

Area and fishery disaggregation 

Method for initial 
allocation 

number of vessels, 
and of their 
simultaneous presence 

Conditions 
of accession 
for Spain 
and 
Portugal 

Irish box: zone around Ireland where access is 
denied; 

EC waters of ICES zones VI, VII, VIIIabd, 

Spanish waters of ICES zones VIIIc and IXa, 

accession negotiation 
aiming at replacing the 
licensing system for foreign 
vessels by a successor 
formula to avoid disturbance 
in fishing patterns 

Portuguese waters around Azores and Madeira, 

Spanish waters around Canary Islands; 

demersal vessels, specialized fishing (several 
metiers)  

16 areas at the level of ICES division/CECAF 
area7; 

demersal, deep-water, scallops and edible crab/ 
spider crab; 

fixed gear and towed gear, vessel length above 
15m 

1995 effort 
regime 

annual kW-days; 

number of vessels 
only for Spain with 
regard to two subareas 
around Ireland; 

exhaustive allocation 
of effort to Member 
States 

2003 effort 
regime 

annual kW-days; 

nine areas at the level of ICES area/CECAF area; 

exhaustive allocation 
of effort to Member 
States 

demersal except deep-water, scallops and edible 
crab/ spider crab; 

vessel length above 15m and, for an area to the 
South and West of Ireland, above 10m 

 Table 1. Overview of consecutive effort regimes in western waters 

2. 

THE CURRENT REGIME AND RELATED POLICIES 

2.1. 

Characteristics of the current regime 

effort, as declared by 
Member States, which is 
necessary to take up fishing 
opportunities, including 
non-limited species, without 
disturbing existing balances 
in exploitation and relative 
stability.  

average effort declared for 
the five-year period 1998-
2002 

The  2003  effort  regime  showed  overall  significant  decreases  in  the  allocation  of 
maximum allowable effort to Member States. This was due inter alia to a more rigid 
criterion  for  establishing  the  effort  ceiling:  it  was  fixed  at  the  level  of  the  average 
annual  effort  expended  between  1998  and  2002,  a  decision  that  Spain  challenged 
without  success8.  The  regime  was  also  characterised  by  simplification,  as  the  areas 

7 

8 

CECAF:  Committee  for  the  Eastern  Central  Atlantic  Fisheries.  The  western  waters  lie  in  ICES  areas 
(North-East  Atlantic)  and,  with  regard  to  (parts  of)  the  Exclusive  Economic  Zones  around  the 
Portuguese and Spanish outermost regions, in CECAF areas (Eastern Central Atlantic). 
See Court cases C-36/04 and C-442/04. 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
and metiers9 were less detailed. In addition, the fisheries related to deep-sea species 
were  excluded  and  forthwith  regulated  by  a  specific  regime  that  did  not  contain 
regional restrictions.10 The 2003 effort regime shares with its predecessors the main 
feature  that  distinguishes  it  from  effort  regimes  under  multi-annual  management 
plans:  the  effort  allocation  is  fixed  and  does  not  evolve  year-by-year  with 
management targets or quota allocations for underlying stocks. 

The regime's reference to fleet characteristics consists only of defining the minimum 
length  of  the  vessel  (15m;  BSA:  10m).  This  has  two  major  consequences:  Firstly, 
small-scale vessels which rely on daily trips are excluded from management except 
in  the  BSA,  where  in  practice,  because  of  the  low  reach  of  small  vessels,  only 
smaller vessels from Ireland are included in the management. Secondly, control can 
be based on real-time electronic support, as vessels over 15m have to be connected to 
a satellite-based vessel monitoring system (VMS) and will, from July 2011, have to 
report their catches via electronic logbooks on a daily basis.  

reality  very  variable  catch  compositions 

Given  the  large  areas  into  which  the  2003  effort  regime  is  subdivided,  each  area 
comprises a large variety of fishing grounds. Likewise, the differentiation of fishing 
operations  is  limited  to  distinguishing  three  "target  species":  demersal  resources 
excluding  deep-sea  species;  scallops;  and  edible  crab/spider  crab.  This  has  four 
major consequences:  Firstly, for demersal fisheries, no distinction is made between 
in 
(cod/haddock/whiting;  saithe; 
hake/monkfish/megrim;  Norway  lobster).  Secondly,  a  management  line  has  to  be 
established between deep-sea fisheries and the general demersal fisheries; this aspect 
will be further evaluated with the ongoing review of Regulation (EC) No 2347/2002. 
Thirdly,  management  does  not  take  account  of  the  effect  of  different  fishing 
techniques  on  exploited  stocks.  Finally,  pelagic  fisheries  like  mackerel,  herring, 
horse mackerel, albacore or swordfish are not touched upon by the regime. 

The  parameter  to  which  the  activity  restriction  refers  is  the  number  of  days  at  sea 
multiplied by the power of the vessel concerned. This has two major consequences: 
Firstly,  the  parameter  is  linked  to  the  real  activity  of  the  vessel,  but  remains  a 
"nominal"  activity  parameter  in  the  sense  that  no  distinction  is  made  between 
steaming  time  and  fishing  time.  Secondly,  it  takes  account  of  the  vessel's  capacity, 
but only in the sense that a stronger engine means more effort. 

The regime does not relate to third country fishing vessels, which are thus not bound 
by it.  

2.2. 

Related monitoring and control rules 

Member States keep updated lists of vessels that are entitled to fish under the 2003 
effort  regime.  With  the  future  implementing  rules  to  the  new  control  regulation11, 
these  vessels  will  need  a  fishing  authorisation,  and  the  corresponding  list  will  be 

9 

10 
11 

A metier is a group of fishing operations targeting a similar (assemblage of) species, using similar gear, 
during the same period of the year and/or within the same area and which are characterised by a similar 
exploitation pattern. 
Council Regulation (EC) No 2347/2002, OJ L 351, 28.12.2002, p. 6. 
Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009, OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1 (see in particular Articles 7 to 15, 
26 to 32, 39 to 41, 106, 114 to 116, 124); see also Council Regulation (EC) No 2103/2004, OJ L 365, 
10.12.2004, p. 12. 

EN 

   EN 

 
                                                 
stored  on  centralised  official  websites  of  Member  States.  An  additional  fishing 
authorisation is needed for fishing in international waters.12 

The calculation of the amount of effort used by vessels per area absent from port is 
detailed  in  the  control  regulation.  Data  sourcing  can  be  linked  to  logbooks  and 
identification  of  positions  via  VMS.  The  Commission  can  operate  deductions  from 
future allocations of maximum allowable effort when a Member State has exceeded 
the  effort  limit.  The  engine  power  of  the  vessel  will  be  subject  to  certification  and 
control. 

2.3. 

Related management of fishing opportunities and stocks 

The  effort  allocations  to  Member  States  are  not  directly  related  to  fish  stock 
management.  However,  two  mechanisms  are  foreseen:  When  Member  States 
exchange  fishing  opportunities,  they  may  also  exchange  corresponding  effort;  no 
further guidance is given on how to calculate the effort transferred. In addition, the 
Commission may increase the effort allocation or allow effort transfer across areas so 
that  the  Member  State  can  fully  use  its  quotas  or  explore  non-quota  fisheries  if 
backed  by  scientific  stock  assessment.  No  such  Commission  decisions  have  so  far 
been taken. 

The demersal fisheries subject to the 2003 effort regime are to a large extent subject 
to a parallel management by total allowable catches (TACs). This is in particular true 
for  hake,  monkfish,  megrims,  cod,  haddock,  whiting,  pollack,  saithe,  ling,  sole, 
plaice,  skates  and  rays,  and  Norway  lobster.  While  the  TACs  for  many  of  these 
stocks  have  decreased  during  the  application  of  the  regime,  the  maximum  effort 
levels  did  not  change.  Several  other  species  of  supplementary  commercial  value  in 
the fisheries are not subject to TACs, e.g.  squid, cuttlefish, witch, lemon sole, dab, 
red mullet, pout, sea bass, brill, turbot, gurnards. 

The benthic species that are managed by specific effort allocations, namely scallops 
and  edible  crab/spider  crab,  are  not  subject  to  TACs  either.  They  are  managed 
complementarily at national, regional and local level. The valuable scallop fisheries 
are  more  intensely  regulated  in  terms  of  seasons  and  gear  use,  in  particular  in  the 
Atlantic regions of France and in Wales. Very often, self-management arrangements 
of inshore fisheries are in place which aim at avoiding market oversupply or organise 
restocking of the resource beds. Large parts of both these benthic fisheries fall out of 
the scope of the 2003 effort regime as they are pursued by small vessels.  

Effort  allocations  under  the  2003  effort  regime  are  without  prejudice  to  the  more 
restrictive  effort  rules  under  management  plans.  In  the  western  waters,  three 
management  plans  are  currently  in  force  which  provide  for  effort  limitations  that 
evolve with the stock status: the cod plan concerning waters west of Scotland and in 
the  Irish  Sea,  the  sole  plan  for  the  western  Channel,  and  the  southern  hake  and 
Norway lobster plan for the Iberian waters.13  

12 
13 

See Article 3 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1006/2008, OJ L 286, 29.10.2008, p. 33. 
Council Regulations (EC) No 1342/2008, OJ L 348, 24.12.2008, p. 20, (EC) No 2166/2005, OJ L 345, 
28.12.2005, p. 5, and (EC) No 509/2007, OJ L 122, 11.5.2007, p. 7. 

EN 

   EN 

 
                                                 
3. 

IMPLEMENTATION OF EFFORT MANAGEMENT BY MEMBER STATES 

All  Member  States  concerned  have  developed  data  sourcing,  monitoring  and 
reporting tools for effort management under the 2003 effort regime. Mostly logbook 
sheets together with VMS data (except for the Irish vessels below 15m in the BSA) 
are  used  to  determine  effort  consumption.  The  Commission  receives  the  monthly 
reports  on  effort  consumption  mostly  on  time.  Member  States  close  the  fisheries 
when  effort  allocations  are  exhausted,  and  sometimes  try  to  avoid  or  protract  such 
closures  by  acquiring  additional  effort  from  other  Member  States.  Belgium,  the 
Netherlands and Ireland have been most active in these exchanges. 

Calculation of fishing effort is not fully harmonised in practice. The more consistent 
the  method,  the  more  easy  will  it  also  be  to  exploit  scientific  analysis  of  effort 
development, as the latter is based on harmonised methods under the data collection 
framework14 of the Common Fisheries Policy.  

4. 

ASSESSMENT 

In its current set-up, the effort regime has the advantage that it works as a safeguard 
against  effort  dislocation  from  one  area  to  another  and  against  exploring  new 
fisheries without scientific advice. The restricted application to larger vessels only is 
driven  by  the  principle  of  proportionality  and  feasibility  of  control.  Control  rules 
have evolved: From 2012, vessels from 12 meter length will have to carry VMS on 
board. The exclusion of smaller vessels has a factual impact on the spatial reach of 
the regime, as smaller vessels will presumably operate within the 12 nautical miles 
most  of  the  year.  Within  these  spatial  limits,  the  coastal  state  can  regulate  the 
fisheries  in  principle  on  its  own15,  but  no  clear  spatial  delimitation  between  the 
international and local regimes exists. 

The  spatial  approach  has  merits  in  its  simplicity  and  in  its  consistence  with  the 
concept of ecoregions, except for the eastern Channel, which nowadays is considered 
belonging to the North Sea ecoregion rather than to the Celtic Sea region. 

Due to its static nature, the 2003 effort regime cannot be used for stock management 
or management of multi-species fisheries; it was not conceived for that purpose. The 
definition  of  only  one  unique  demersal  fishery,  together  with  the  broad  spatial 
granulation, makes the current regime too bulky for developing a direct link to stock 
management  or  management  by  metiers.  Neither  do  the  effort  management  areas 
always  coincide  with  the  most  important  TAC  management  areas.16  However,  a 
general effort regime might have a potential to be linked to biological parameters and 
thus  to  future  management  considerations,  provided  that  those  parameters  will  be 
able to reflect the status of a variety of stocks at the same time. 

The regime could be more significant for managing scallop and crab fisheries, given 
that  those  are  not  subject  to  TACs.  However,  for  the  management  of  crabs,  the 

14 
15 
16 

Council Regulation (EC) No 199/2008, OJ L 60, 5.3.2008, p. 1. 
See Articles 9 and 17 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002, OJ L 358, 31.12.2002, p. 59. 
In  particular,  the  effort  management  area  ICES  VIII  includes  the  Cantabrian  waters,  while  these  are 
managed  together  with  Portuguese  coastal  waters  concerning  the  TACs  for  hake,  anglerfish  and 
megrims. 

EN 

   EN 

 
                                                 
management parameter "kW-days" is not meaningful enough, as the fishing pressure 
largely depends on the number of pots hauled17, and this parameter does not correlate 
significantly with engine power. Furthermore, the regime does not take advantage of 
local  and  regional  management  approaches  that  might  relate  to  both  smaller  and 
larger  vessels.  Local  policy  development,  in  turn,  is  sometimes  frustrated  if  it 
depends on cooperation with neighbouring fleets which exploit the same stocks. 

The availability of VMS data and of daily catch records through electronic logbooks 
should  guarantee  an  increase  in  transparency  to  the  application  of  the  regime.  The 
sourcing  of  VMS-data  per  management  area  is  an  operation  that  can  now  also  be 
achieved by coastal states with regard to vessels from other Member States operating 
in their waters, and a similar mechanism is planned for logbook information with the 
implementation of the control reform. 

Checking  of  effort  data  is  less  obvious  than  monitoring  of  catches,  as  there  is  no 
cross-checking with market-data possible. This argues for taking VMS-information, 
which  becomes  more  reliable  and  precise  with  evolving  technical  standards,  as  a 
starting point of management, and providing for a mechanism of transparency with 
regard to national calculation of fishing effort thereafter. 

Improving  the  transparency  in  effort  calculation  is  also  a  side-effect  of  scientific 
analysis of effort data collected under the data collection framework, which is being 
undertaken for the western waters since 2009. 

With the certification and control of engine power, misreporting of engine power will 
be reduced in the future and thus the parameter kW made more reliable. 

5. 

EFFORT REGIME IN NORTH-WESTERN WATERS AND SOUTH-WESTERN WATERS 

5.1. 

North-western waters 

France  and  the  United  Kingdom  receive  by  far  the  largest  effort  allocation  for 
demersal  fisheries  in  ICES  areas  V-VI  (West  of  Scotland)  and  VII  (Celtic  Sea), 
followed  by  Spain  and  Ireland  (see  table  1a  of  the  Commission  staff  working 
document accompanying this Communication). When it comes to effort consumption 
notified  by  Member  States,  only  Germany,  Spain  and  the  Netherlands  seem  to  use 
more  than  half  of  the  yearly  allocation,  whereby  Spain  (West  of  Scotland)  and  the 
Netherlands  (Celtic  Sea)  have  come  to  full  use  of  the  maximum  amount  in  some 
years. 

As  an  example,  the  following  figures  show  the  development  of  effort  in  demersal 
fisheries and catches of related key species under quota by Spanish vessels in areas 
V-VI and VII, and by British vessels in area V-VI. While the relation between effort 
and  quota  catches  is  quite  different  from  one  Member  State  to  the  other,  it  can  be 
seen  that  effort  use  has  been  stable  since  years,  in  the  case  of  Spain  even  when 
available quota species show a downward trend.  

17 

Other  gears  of  some  importance:  netters  and  trawlers  for  edible  crabs  in  France  (by-catch),  netters 
targeting spider crab in France and the United Kingdom. 

EN 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Comparison of effort and quota catches for ES  in V-VII

30.000.000

25.000.000

s
y
a
d
W
k

20.000.000

15.000.000

10.000.000

5.000.000

0

30.000

25.000

20.000

15.000

10.000

5.000

0

s
e
n
n
o
t

Effort allocation (kW days)

Effort comsumption (kW days)

Catches (tonnes)

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

Figure 1. Comparison of reported effort and quota catches18 for Spain in V-VI and VII combined 

Comparison of effort and quota catches for UK in V-VI

s
y
a
d
W
k

30.000.000

25.000.000

20.000.000

15.000.000

10.000.000

5.000.000

0

30.000

25.000

20.000

15.000

10.000

5.000

0

s
e
n
n
o
t

Effort allocation (kW days)

Effort comsumption (kW days)

Catches (tonnes)

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

Figure 2. Comparison of reported effort and quota catches19 for the United Kingdom in V-VI 

Vessels  operating  in  the  west  of  Scotland  on  demersal  species  are  currently  much 
more affected by the cod plan. This is particularly the case for Ireland and the United 
Kingdom.  The  following  table  compares,  as  an  example,  the  respective  effort 
regimes for these Member States. It should be noted that the spatial scope and fleet 
scope of both regimes are not identical, but do largely overlap: 

Entity 

Ireland, kW-days in 
year 2009 west of 
Scotland 

United Kingdom, kW-
days in year 2009 
west of Scotland 

western 
waters' effort 
allocation 

western waters' 
effort use 
notified 

cod plan's initial 
effort 
allocation20 

cod plan's effort 
use notified  

2.324.932 

818.595 (35%) 

826.543 

636.462 (77%) 

24.017.229 

6.209.268 (26%)

7.140.713 

8.208.153 (115%) 

Table  2:  Effort  regimes  in  the  west  of  Scotland  for  the  United  Kingdom  and  Ireland  demersal 
fisheries. 

18 

19 
20 

Taken into account: Hake, anglerfish, megrim, Norway lobster. The likewise important species ling and 
rays could not be taken into account due to area mismatch or absence of time series. 
Taken into account: Cod, haddock, whiting, saithe, anglerfish, Norway lobster. 
This  initial  allocation  is  subject  to  in-year adjustments,  in  particular  effort  increases  in  return  for  cod 
avoidance measures. 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
Inasmuch  as  the  cod  plan  allows  for  the  exclusion  from  its  effort  regime  of  vessel 
groups that do not catch cod, the western waters regime keeps having a function as a 
general framework. 

For  the  scallop  and  crab  fisheries  (see  table  1b  of  the  Commission  staff  working 
document),  Ireland  decommissioned  vessels  in  order  to  guarantee  the  continuous 
observance of the scallop effort ceiling. 

5.2. 

South-western waters except outermost regions 

Spain and France receive by far the largest effort allocation for demersal fisheries in 
ICES areas VIII and IX, followed by Belgium (see table 2 of the Commission staff 
working  document).  When  it  comes  to  effort  consumption  notified  by  Member 
States, Spanish and Belgian vessels seem to operate at their limits, while the French 
effort would appear to have decreased remarkably. In ICES area IX, from Southern 
Galicia to the Golf of Cádiz, only Spanish and Portuguese vessels are allowed to fish 
for  demersal  species.  Spanish  vessels  appear  to  operate  close  to  the  limit,  while 
Portuguese vessels seem to have decreased their effort. 

Effort towards scallops and crabs in these areas is reserved for France (area VIII) and 
Spain  (areas  VIII  and  IX).  Again,  only  Spanish  vessels  would  appear  to  operate  in 
the vicinity of the limits.  

6. 

EFFORT AND CONDITIONS FOR FISHING ACTIVITIES AROUND THE AZORES, CANARY 
ISLANDS AND MADEIRA 

6.1. 

Background 

The  1985  Treaty  of  Accession  of  Spain  and  Portugal  introduced  a  mechanism  of 
yearly Council decisions for regulating reciprocal access to the exclusive economic 
zones  around  Azores,  Madeira  and  Canary  Islands.  The  ensuing  Council  decisions 
preserved an exclusive access of national vessels to each area, with a few exceptions 
concerning  certain  tuna  fisheries.  The  succeeding  effort  regime  of  1995,  by 
prohibiting  the  access  of  modern  tuna  vessels  and  by  fixing  exhaustively  the 
allowable  effort  at  the  level  of  the  outermost  region,  worked  in  practice  as  a 
continuation of that regime. The 2003 effort regime reduced the level of exclusivity 
in  view  of  the  principle  of  free  access  to  Community  waters:  first,  by  creating  a 
specific access regime in favour of local fleets within the islands' waters up to 100 
nautical  miles,  and  second  by  taking  out  the  deep-sea  fisheries  from  the  island-
related  effort  regulation.  These  decisions  were  later  challenged  without  success  by 
the Azorean government.21  

The  2003  regime  stipulates  that,  in  the  waters  up  to  100  nautical  miles  from  the 
baselines of the Azores, Madeira and Canary Islands, the Member States concerned 
may  restrict  fishing  to  vessels  registered  in  the  ports  of  these  islands,  except  for 
vessels that traditionally fished in these waters. The Commission is not aware of any 
national  legislation  implementing  this  limitation  of  access  for  non-local  vessels. 
However,  it  appears  that  the  said  limitation  is  acknowledged  as  a  fact.  Moreover, 

21 

See Court cases T-37/04 and C-444/08. 

EN 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Spain and Portugal signed, in 2008, a bilateral agreement22 that limits the reciprocal 
access  of  island  fleets  to  a  total  of  38  vessels,  with  a  number  of  technical 
specifications. 

6.2. 

Effort management 

The  effort  allocations  under  the  2003  effort  regime  for  demersal  fisheries  are 
reserved  for  Portugal  in  the  Azorean  areas  and  for  Spain  and  Portugal  in  the 
management  areas  that  concern  both  Madeira  and  the  Canary  Islands.  Only  the 
demersal  fishery  around  the  Canary  Islands  is  of  continuous  significance.  Scallop 
fishing is not possible in neither of those areas, and a crab fishery is only allowed for 
Spain  around  the  Canary  Islands  (see  table  4  of  the  Commission  staff  working 
document). Given that the most important fisheries are deep-sea species and highly 
migratory  large  pelagic  species,  both  of  which  are  no  longer  concerned  by  this 
regime, the effort regime is of very limited effect and importance. Both the Azorean 
and the government of the Canary Island have highlighted their interest to revisit the 
content  of  the  access  regime  including  its  spatial  scope  in  the  context  of  the  CFP 
reform. 

7. 

EFFORT REGIME IN THE BIOLOGICALLY SENSITIVE AREA 

7.1. 

Background 

The  BSA  is  a  sub-area  of  the  Celtic  Sea  within  the  exclusive  economic  zones  of 
Ireland  and  the  United  Kingdom,  designed  uniquely  for  a  separate  effort 
management since 2004. The borders of this area were identified following scientific 
information  on  high  concentration  of  juvenile  hake.  The  BSA  overlaps  with  a 
technical  measures  area  that  requests  using  larger  mesh  sizes  in  the  context  of 
recovery  measures23  for  the  northern  hake  stock;  the  Commission  staff  working 
document  illustrates  the  boundaries.  The  creation  of  this  box  was  challenged  by 
Spain without success.24 

7.2. 

Effort management 

France  receives  the  largest  effort  allocation  for  demersal  fisheries  in  the  BSA, 
followed by Ireland, Spain and the United Kingdom (see table 3 of the Commission 
staff working document). When it comes to effort consumption notified by Member 
States,  Spanish  vessels  appear  to  be  most  active  in  this  area,  followed  by  Ireland. 
Accordingly, only Spain operates close to the effort limits.  

The scallop fishery is currently only pursued by Irish vessels, although France also 
has  an  effort  allowance.  Concerning  the  crab  fishery,  Ireland  appears  to  be  most 
active  and  operating  close  to  its  effort  limits,  while  France  appears  to  maintain  a 
huge effort reserve.  

22 

23 
24 

Agreement  on  the  operations  of  the  traditional  fishing  fleet  of  the  Azores,  Madeira  and  the  Canary 
Islands, signed in Braga on 21.1.2008. 
Commission Regulation (EC) No 494/2002, OJ L 77, 20.3.2002, p. 8. 
See Court cases C-36/04 and C-442/04. 

EN 

   EN 

 
                                                 
7.3. 

Biological assessment 

The  Commission  has  asked  ICES  for  scientific  advice  on  the  impact  of  effort 
regulation in the BSA in the context of other conservation measures. ICES advised 
that  the  boundaries  of  the  BSA  coincide  with  the  main  nursery  area  of  hake  and 
anglerfish, and with the spawning area of megrim, and of hake to a lesser extent. In 
addition,  the  boundaries  overlap  with  important  spawning  and  nursery  areas  for 
haddock  and  whiting,  although  this  concerns  more  coastal  areas  and  thus  less  the 
international fleets which operate more in the southern and western pat of the BSA. 
ICES  considers  the  impact  of  the  BSA  on  the  improving  status  of  hake  as  unclear, 
but  opines  that,  seen  in  conjunction  with  the  technical  measures,  megrim  and 
anglerfish may have benefited from the presence of the BSA. ICES stresses that the 
effort  limitations  seem  not  to  be  restrictive  for  most  countries,  but  is  in  favour  of 
maintaining the measure in order to avoid undesired changes in fishing patterns; in 
doing  so,  the  Union  should  set  clear  conservation  objectives  for  the  BSA  which 
should receive a close and transparent follow-up. 

8. 

CONCLUSIONS 

The 2003 effort regime has succeeded in creating the conditions for a full integration 
of Spain and Portugal into the main CFP rules. In view of its static character, it is no 
longer  constraining  the  fleet  activity  for  most  Member  States  in  a  considerable 
number of areas, given the continuous contraction of overall fleet capacity25 and the 
decrease  in  fishing  opportunities  for  quota  species.  By  contrast,  fishery-specific 
effort regimes that are connected to yearly stock advice were subsequently developed 
in several of the areas. A future link of a large-scale effort regime to recurrent stock 
advice  in  mixed  fisheries  might  be  possible;  this  would  nevertheless  require 
increasing the detail of the fishery definitions. With regard to the BSA, the regime is 
embedded  in  a  context  of  technical  measures  which  together  have  shown  to  be 
conducive  to  the  improved  status  of  some  important  stocks.  Scientific  advice 
suggests  that  future  restrictions  should  be  more  clearly  linked  to  resource 
management objectives. 

The  management  by  fishing  effort  could  represent  an  important  tool  in  the  scallop 
and  crab  fisheries,  as  those  are  not  limited  by  TACs.  However,  the  parameter 
currently  used  for  management  is  not  precise  enough,  especially  for  crab  fisheries, 
and  the  regime  should  be  able  to  react  to  management  initiatives  of  stakeholders, 
which is currently not the case. 

For  the  outermost  regions  of  the  eastern  Atlantic,  the  regime  presents  a  broad 
framework,  which  has  only  partly  been  complemented  by  national  legislation.  The 
most  important  fisheries  (large  pelagic  species  and  deep-sea  species)  are  not 
regulated down to the regional level. 

25 

See  the  Commission's  annual  report  on  Member  States'  efforts  during  2008  to  achieve  a  sustainable 
balance between fishing capacity and fishing opportunities, COM(2010)60 final. 

EN 

   EN