COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying the document COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Action Plan for reducing incidental catches of seabirds in fishing gears
Date: 2012-11-16
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: environmental research, international convention, marine ecosystem, marine environment, marine pollution, water protection

EUROPEAN 
COMMISSION 

Brussels, 16.11.2012  
SWD(2012) 370 final 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

Accompanying the document 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL 

Action Plan for reducing incidental catches of seabirds in fishing gears 

{COM(2012) 665 final} 
{SWD(2012) 369 final} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
1. 

PROBLEM DEFINITION 

ICES  estimates  conservatively  that  the  EU  fishing  fleet  is  responsible  for  the  death  of  c.a. 
200,000 seabirds annually in EU and non-EU waters1 but indicates that there is a paucity of 
accurate data on levels of incidental catches. This presents a challenge in assessing the impact 
of  fisheries  on  seabirds  and  reflects  the  lack  of  systematic  monitoring  and  reporting  on 
incidental  catches.  However,  the  ICES  advice  and  the  findings  of  a  study  carried  out  by 
MRAG2  in  support  of  this  IA,  indicate  seabird  mortality  due  to  bycatch  is  substantial  in  a 
number  of  EU  and  non-EU  fisheries  and  for  a  number  of  species,  some  of  which  are 
threatened or endangered. Specifically: 

•  At least 60 of 346 seabird species are known to be incidentally caught in fishing gears in 
EU  and  non-EU  waters.  Of  these  c.  49  (25  in  EU  waters  and  24  in  non-EU  waters)  are 
classified as being of conservation concern either globally or at a local population level. 

•  Six species incidentally caught in fisheries in EU waters and 22 species in non-EU waters 
are of serious conservation concern and are IUCN listed as vulnerable or endangered. 

The problems and underlying drivers leading to seabird bycatch are as follows: 

•  Frequent  interactions  between  fisheries  and  seabirds  are  inevitable  and  result  in  bycatch 
because seabirds have become increasingly dependent on their association with fisheries 
for survival and breeding success. In addition longlines3 and static nets4 that account for a 
large  proportion  of  seabird  bycatch  are  the  most  efficient  methods  for  catching  certain 
high value fish species and therefore are widely used. 

•  Current  management  measures  under  EU  fisheries  (CFP)  and  environmental  legislation 
(Birds and Habitats Directives and the MSFD) and included in international Conventions 
and  Agreements  have  been  largely  ineffective  because  the  measures  are  spread  across 
different regulations and agreements and lack coherence.  

•  A lack of urgency both at EU and internationally to address seabird bycatch, inconsistent 
implementation and a lack of incentive for fishermen to comply with measures in place or 
adopt their own voluntarily. 

•  A  lack  of  knowledge  on  the  scale  of  seabird  bycatch  and  population  data  due  to  the 
sporadic nature of monitoring and no formal obligation to monitor seabird bycatch in EU 
waters. In external waters monitoring is inconsistent in most fisheries as it is voluntarily 
rather than mandatory.  

1 
2 

3 

4 

EN 

to 

the  preparation  of  a  Plan  of  Action 

ICES Advice 2008, Book 1, 1.5.1.3 Interactions between fisheries and seabirds in EU waters 
MRAG.  2011.  Contribution 
http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/documentation/studies/index_en.htm 
Longlines mean a number of connected lines, either set at the bottom or drifting bearing a large number 
of baited hooks. 
Static nets  mean nets for which the catch operation does not require an active  movement of the nets. 
Such nets consist of one or more separate nets which are rigged with top, bottom and connecting ropes, 
and may be equipped with anchoring, floating and navigational gear. 

for  Seabirds 

2 

   EN 

 
                                                 
•  Mitigation  measures  have  been  developed  for  longline  fisheries  but  in  the  absence  of 
regulation uptake is low in EU waters and only sporadic in external fisheries. There has 
been less emphasis on seabird bycatch with other fishing gears (principally static nets) so 
acceptable mitigation measures for these gears remain limited. 

•  A  poor  understanding  and  acceptance  by  fishermen  that  a  problem  of  seabird  bycatch 
exists  or  of  the  benefits  of  adopting  mitigation  measures  to  reduce  bycatch.  At  an 
individual  vessel  level,  recommended  actions  to  mitigate  against  bycatch  are  considered 
disproportionate to the scale of impact on seabird populations.  

•  Research has concentrated on longline fisheries as they have been identified as the biggest 
source of bycatch. Little work to develop measures for other fishing gears (e.g. static nets, 
trawls  and  purse  seines)  has  been  undertaken  and  solutions  appear  more  technically 
challenging to develop.  

Most  affected  are  the  catching  sector,  ancillary  industries,  national  and  EU  administrations, 
RFMOs  (in  external  waters),  the  research  sector,  NGOs  and  the  general  public.  Of  these, 
implementation of any measures will primarily impact on the c.a. 54,000 longline and static 
net vessels in the EU.  

2. 

NECESSITY AND SUBSIDIARITY 

This proposal concerns a field of exclusive Union competence and therefore subsidiarity does 
not apply. Under the Treaty, the EU has exclusive competence to manage fishing activities for 
conservation purposes, which would include the reduction of bycatch of biologically sensitive 
species such as seabirds and cetaceans. 

3. 

OBJECTIVES 

The  objective  of  this  initiative  is  to  minimise  and  where  possible  eliminate  the  incidental 
catches  of  at  least  49  threatened  seabird  populations  by  EU  vessels  operating  in  EU  and 
non-EU  waters  and  reduce  bycatch  for  other  seabird  species  where  the  populations  are 
stable but bycatch is at levels that are cause for concern.  

The specific operational objectives to support this general objective are: 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

Identify and rectify weaknesses and incoherencies in current management measures 
both in EU and non-EU waters. 

Consolidate  and  collect  data  critical  to  establish  the  extent  and  threat  posed  by 
seabird  bycatch  particularly  to  the  populations  of  species  identified  as  being  of 
conservation concern. 

Minimise bycatch of seabird species of conservation concern to levels that eliminate 
the  threat  to  the  populations  of  these  species  through  the  implementation  of 
appropriate mitigation measures. 

Crucial  to  a  better  understanding  of  the  problem  and  the  development  of  practical  solutions 
two supporting objectives are foreseen: 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
(4) 

(5) 

Address  the  lack  of  acceptance  by  fishermen  that  seabird  bycatch  is  a  problem  as 
well as the lack of incentive for fishermen to adopt mitigation measures. 

Resolve  outstanding  difficulties  with  existing  mitigation  used  in  longline  fisheries 
and  address  the  absence  of  effective  mitigation  measures  for  other  fishing  gears, 
particularly static net fisheries. 

The  reform  of  the  CFP,  which  is  currently  under  negotiation,  is  crucial  to  achieving  the 
objectives  of  this  initiative  as  part  of  an  ecosystem  approach  to  fisheries  management. 
Regardless  of  the  actions  taken,  achieving  this  will  require  improvements  in  the  coherence 
between  regulatory  instruments  and  a  more  holistic  approach  to  fisheries  management  that 
takes account of the regional specificities of fisheries. For bycatch issues including seabirds 
this will involve several important elements:  

• 

• 

• 

• 

A new regionalised approach to technical measures to allow mitigation measures to 
be tailored to specific fisheries likely to be in place by 2016.  

A  new  EU  Multiannual  Programme  for  Data  Collection  (DCMAP)  planned  to  be 
introduced in 2014 under which the monitoring of seabird bycatch may be included.  

Financial  support  for  new  measures  provided  under  the  current  European  Fisheries 
Fund (EFF) and the new European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) scheduled 
to be introduced in 2014.  

The Commission taking a more pro-active role in the RFMOs to remedy the current 
situation of poor compliance with RFMOs' conservation and management measures.  

4. 

POLICY OPTIONS 

Three main options to address these objectives are considered: 

Option  1:  Status  quo:  A  continuation  of  the  current  status  quo  taking  no  further  action  that 
would go beyond what already exists in current EU fisheries and environmental policies.  

Option  2:  Development  of  an  EU-PoA:  Voluntary  measures  supported  by  regulatory 
instruments  within  the  reformed  CFP,  environmental  legislation  (Birds  and  Habitats 
Directive), international fishery legislation as well as the Conventions and Agreements. The 
PoA  would  provide  an  overarching  framework  encompassing  monitoring  and  mitigation 
measures across fisheries,with flanking measures to provide financial support (under the EFF 
and EMFF). Over-time the intention would be to incorporate mitigation measures under the 
new  technical  measures  framework  with  specific  measures  developed  regionally.  The 
monitoring  of  bycatch  would  be  incorporated  under  the  new  DCF.  The  PoA  would  also 
recommend the implementation of education and training programmes for fishermen to raise 
awareness of the problem and to demonstrate the benefits of using of mitigation measures. As 
well  as  encouraging  research  to  develop  and  test  practical  mitigation  measures,  particularly 
for static net fisheries.  

Option  3:  Stand-alone  regulation:  This  option  takes  a  stricter  precautionary  approach  than 
option 2. It seeks the adoption of prescriptive measures under ordinary legislative procedure. 
It would apply principally in EU waters with provisions for EU vessels operating in external 
waters  continuing  to  be  covered  under  the  legislative  frameworks  already  adopted  by  the 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
RFMOs.  It  assumes  that  the  regionalisation  of  technical  measures  will  not  be  in  place  until 
2016  and  the  new  DCF  until  2014  at  the  earliest  and  therefore  based  on  the  current 
conservation status of at least 25 seabird species in EU waters regulatory measures to protect 
these species need to be put into place more expediently.  

Under this option two sub-options are foreseen: 

•  Sub-option 3a: including both monitoring and mitigation measures; 

•  Sub-option 3b: including only mitigation measures with monitoring as per option 2. 

There would be no implicit need for further research, training or awareness raising measures. 
The possibility for financial aid for such measures would still remain under the EFF/EMFF. 

5. 

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS 

The  impacts  of  each  policy  option  were  assessed  to  the  greatest  extent  possible.  However, 
given  the  lack  of  relevant  data,  particularly  economic  data,  it  has  not  been  possible  to 
accurately quantify some of these impacts. 

Economic:  

Under option 1 in longline fisheries there would continue to be negative impacts in the form 
of direct costs incurred by bait loss and through damage to fish catches and gear caused by 
seabirds. There will also be indirect costs from catches foregone from seabirds being caught 
on baited hooks that could have yielded catch. Based on experiences globally these costs can 
be  significant.  The  impacts  are  much  less  for  static  net  and  other  fisheries  (trawl  and  purse 
seine) as these direct and indirect costs would be lower.  

Under  option  2  and  sub-options  3a  and  3b  there  would  be  short-term  direct  costs  for  the 
adoption  of  mitigation  measures  although  these  can  be  offset  in  longline  fisheries  through 
likely reductions in bait loss, gear and catch damage and catches foregone as a result of the 
use  of  mitigation  measures.  Impacts  on  static  net  fisheries  under  both  options  are  harder  to 
predict  as  the  available  mitigation  measures  are  limited  to  closed  or  restricted  areas.  Such 
closures could result in loss of earnings depending on their location, extent and potential for 
alternative  fishing  opportunities.  This  is  more  apparent  under  sub-options  3a  and  3b  where 
measures would be mandatory.  

In non-EU waters only marginal impacts are anticipated under option 2 as the focus would be 
on  consolidation  and  improved  implementation  of  existing  measures  rather  than  the 
introduction of new measures. There would be no additional impact on external waters under 
sub-options  3a  and  3b  as  these  fisheries  would  continue  to  be  covered  under  the  legislative 
frameworks  already  adopted  by  the  RFMOs  and  not  by  any  new  regulation.  Both  options  2 
and  3  would  have  potential  positive  benefits  in  aiding  fishermen  to  meet  conservation  pre-
requisites as part of certification schemes. There are also potential positive benefits for eco-
tourism  operators  under  these  options  from  new  opportunities  for  bird  watching  resulting 
from larger populations of seabirds.  

Environmental:  

Under option 1 seabird bycatch is likely to remain at the current unsustainable levels in, with 
the potential to influence the population status of at least 49 seabird species.  

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
Under  the  EU-PoA,  in  the  short-term,  incremental  reductions  in  bycatch  of  20-30%  are 
achievable in longline fisheries based on experiences globally. In the longer term elimination 
of bycatch is possible. Reductions in the bycatch in static net fisheries are more difficult to 
predict given available mitigation measures are limited to closed or restricted areas. There are 
some examples of seasonal closures in static net fisheries reducing bycatch substantially.  

Integration of monitoring of seabird bycatch into the new Data Collection Framework (DCF) 
will  provide  more  comprehensive  coverage  of  relevant  fisheries  and  also  include  trawl  and 
purse seine fisheries where bycatch is suspected.  

In external waters the PoA would provide a mechanism to enhance compliance with existing 
measures. Awareness raising, training and research foreseen under this option would provide 
the  catching  sector  with  a  better  understanding  of  the  problem  and  the  potential  solutions 
available.  

Impacts for sub-options 3a and b are similar to those described in option 2, although given the 
measures will be mandatory, the speed of seabird bycatch reduction could potentially be faster 
in fisheries where measures are introduced. Monitoring under sub-option 3a would improve 
the  knowledge  of  incidental  seabird  bycatch  but  only  in  those  fisheries  where  monitoring 
would be required. Monitoring under sub-option 3b would be identical to option 2.  

As no specific measures are foreseen in external waters under this option, the environmental 
impacts in these fisheries are likely to be similar to option 1. 

Social:  

Option 1 would be negatively received by NGOs and general public and seen as a failure by 
the Commission to meet obligations under international agreements and Conventions. Options 
2 and 3 would meet with a positive reaction from NGOs and general public. Option 2 would 
also  be  favoured  by  the  catching  sector  and  national  administration  as  it  is  a  bottom-up 
approach and measures regionally focused. Options 3a and 3b would be negatively perceived 
by the catching sector and the administrations as being disproportionate to the extent of the 
problem. The imposition of closed or restricted areas under these sub-options has the abiltity 
to impact on employment if overly restrictive.  

Impacts on SMEs:  

Under option 1 there would be no impacts on SMEs. Under options 2 and 3 there would be 
impacts  but  in  the  case  of  option  2,  as  the  measures would be largely voluntary, tailored to 
specific fisheries, integrated into other regulations and have benefits to offset associated costs, 
any impacts could be minimised. For sub-options 3a and 3b the impacts would be similar to 
option 2 except that the measures will be mandatory meaning less opportunity for tailoring the 
measures  to  the  specificities  of  different  fisheries.  Under  both  options  2  and  3,  exempting 
micro  SMEs  from  any  actions  taken  would  undermine  the  conservation  objectives  of  this 
initiative  as  over  90%  of  small  vessels  would  be  effectively  excluded  so  on  the  grounds  of 
proportionality is not an option. 

Simplification and administrative burden:  

Fo  option  1  the  administrative  costs  are  assumed  to  be  neutral.  For  option  2  administrative 
and monitoring costs are estimated at c. €5.2  million annually. After 2014 with the integration 
of  monitoring  of  bycatch  under  the  DCF,  these  costs  would  be  reduced.  For  sub-option  3a 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
administraive costs have been estimated at c. €14.4  million annually. The increased costs are a 
result of additional  monitoring  and  control.  For sub-option 3b the costs would be similar to 
option  2  at  c.  €5.2   million  annually.  In  all  cases  more  than  90%  of  the  costs  incurred  are 
related to monitoring and inspection. National administrations are most affected.  

6. 

COMPARING THE OPTIONS 

On the basis of the analysis carried out option 2 (EU-PoA) is preferred in that it should lead to 
a reduction in seabird bycatch across a range of fisheries and should achieve these reductions 
at less cost to the fishing industry and national administrations than the other options.  

The second preferred option is sub-option 3b (mandatory mitigation measures) which has the 
advantage  of  dealing  more  expediently  with  seabird  bycatch  for  species  under  threat  than 
option 2 given the likely time frame for introduction of a new technical measures framework. 
It  does,  however,  run  the  risk  of  introducing  inappropriate  or  poorly  tested  mitigation 
measures and also has a lack of flexibility to adapt these measures to areas or fisheries over-
time as more information becomes available.  

The third preferred option is sub-option 3a (mandatory monitoring and mitigation measures) 
which  also  runs  the  risk  of  having  the  same  weaknesses  regarding  the  requirement  to  use 
mitigation  measures  in  specific  fisheries.  The  inclusion  of  specific  monitoring  requirements 
compounds  these  problems  and  there  is  a  danger  that  monitoring  would  be  targeted  in  the 
wrong areas or at the wrong gear types.  

Neither sub-options 3a or 3b contain any provision for awareness raising or research. 

Option  1  (status-quo)  is  the  least  desirable  option.  In  the  short-term,  there  are  economic 
advantages but it will not achieve the specific objectives set. Current levels of seabird bycatch 
will continue to be unacceptably high and the level of knowledge on the scale of bycatch in 
relation to populations and conservation threat posed by fishing to seabirds will remain low.  

7. 

MONITORING AND EVALUATION 

Under  the  preferred  option,  the  adoption  of  a  Plan  of  Action,  Member  States  would  report 
biennially  to  the  Commission  on  the  level  of  seabird  bycatch  observed  by  fishery  and  gear 
type, the implementation of any mitigation measures and the effectiveness of these mitigation 
measures.  The  Commission  working  with  ICES  and  STECF  would  develop  a  standard 
reporting for Member States to submit information to the Commission and which could also 
be used to facilitate data access to the wider public.  

On the basis of these reports, the Commission would carry out an interim assessment of the 
POA after the second of these reports and then produce a Communication for the Parliament 
and Council on the implementation of the PoA based on this information.  

ICES,  STECF  and  other  expert  bodies  as  appropriate  would  be  requested  to  input  into  this 
review. In particular ICES would be asked to supply population and bycatch estimates for the 
species of concern to benchmark the extent of the problem.  

The  Commission  would  carry  out  a  full  review  and  evaluation  of  the  PoA  after  the  fourth 
report (eight years) of implementation and update it accordingly. This review would be timed 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
to  coincide  with  the  obligation  under  the  MSFD  to  reach  Good  Environmental  Status  for 
marine ecosystems by 2020.  

In  parallel,  under  Article  12  of  the  Birds  Directive  Member  States  must  report  every  three 
years  on  the  implementation  of  national  provisions  taken  under  the  Directive  which  may 
provide additional information.  

EN 

8 

   EN