COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER 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) 369 final 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER 

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) 370 final} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
  
 
This report commits only the Commission departments involved in preparing it and in no way 
prejudges the final form of any decision to be taken by the Commission

EN 

0 

   EN 

 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. 

1.1. 

1.2. 

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

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

Adaptations to the report in line with the comments of the Impact Assessment Board
...................................................................................................................................... 7 

1.3. 

Consultation and expertise ........................................................................................... 8 

2. 

Problem definition...................................................................................................... 11 

2.1. 

Species Affected and Fisheries Involved ................................................................... 11 

2.1.1.  Longlines.................................................................................................................... 12 

2.1.2.  Static Nets .................................................................................................................. 13 

2.1.3.  External Waters.......................................................................................................... 14 

2.1.4.  Other Gears ................................................................................................................ 14 

2.2. 

2.3. 

Threat posed by bycatch............................................................................................. 15 

Current Management.................................................................................................. 17 

2.3.1.  Fisheries Legislation .................................................................................................. 17 

2.3.2.  Environmental Legislation ......................................................................................... 19 

2.4. 

2.5. 

2.6. 

2.7. 

2.8. 

3. 

3.1. 

3.2. 

3.3. 

4. 

4.1. 

4.2. 

4.3. 

5. 

Existing mitigation measures and devices ................................................................. 21 

The affected stakeholders........................................................................................... 22 

Underlying Drivers..................................................................................................... 24 

Evolution of the problem ........................................................................................... 26 

Necessity and Subsidiarity ......................................................................................... 27 

Objectives................................................................................................................... 27 

General objectives...................................................................................................... 27 

Specific objectives ..................................................................................................... 27 

Reform of the CFP ..................................................................................................... 29 

Policy options............................................................................................................. 30 

Option 1 – Status Quo ................................................................................................ 31 

Option 2 – EU-POA ................................................................................................... 32 

Option 3 – Stand-alone Regulation ............................................................................ 34 

Analysis of impacts .................................................................................................... 36 

5.1. 

Option 1 – Status Quo ................................................................................................ 36 

EN 

1 

   EN 

 
5.1.1.  Economic impacts ...................................................................................................... 36 

5.1.2.  Environmental impacts............................................................................................... 38 

5.1.3.  Social impacts ............................................................................................................ 38 

5.1.4. 

Impact on SMEs......................................................................................................... 39 

5.1.5.  Simplification and administrative burden .................................................................. 39 

5.2. 

Option 2 – EU-POA ................................................................................................... 39 

5.2.1.  Economic Impact ....................................................................................................... 39 

5.2.2.  Environmental Impact................................................................................................ 43 

5.2.3.  Social Impact.............................................................................................................. 45 

5.2.4. 

Impacts on SMEs ....................................................................................................... 46 

5.2.5.  Simplification and administrative burden .................................................................. 46 

5.3. 

Option 3 – Stand-alone regulation ............................................................................. 48 

5.3.1.  Economic impacts ...................................................................................................... 48 

5.3.2.  Environmental impacts............................................................................................... 50 

5.3.3.  Social impacts ............................................................................................................ 51 

5.3.4. 

Impacts on SMEs ....................................................................................................... 52 

5.3.5.  Simplification and administrative burden .................................................................. 52 

5.4. 

Summary of impacts .................................................................................................. 54 

6. 

6.1. 

6.2. 

7. 

Comparing the options ............................................................................................... 57 

Qualitative Assessment by Option ............................................................................. 57 

Ranking the options.................................................................................................... 58 

Monitoring and Evaluation ........................................................................................ 59 

ANNEX I – SUMMARY OF PUBLIC CONSULTATION.................................................... 61 

ANNEX II – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FROM MRAG STUDY ........................................ 69 

ANNEX III – ANNUAL SEABIRD BYCATCH FROM SELECTED EU LONGLINE AND 
STATIC NET FISHERIES ...................................................................................................... 75 

ANNEX IV – CONSERVATION STATUS OF SPECIES OF CONSERVATION 
CONCERN AND VULNERABLE TO BYCATCH IN EU WATERS .................................. 76 

ANNEX V – DIFFERENT TYPES OF LONGLINES AND STATIC NETS ........................ 78 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
ANNEX VI – DESCRIPTION OF INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS AND 
CONVENTIONS ..................................................................................................................... 79 

ANNEX VII NATIONAL MEASURES INTRODUCED INTO CASE STUDY FISHERIES
.................................................................................................................................................. 82 

ANNEX VIII - MAPS SHOWING THE AREAS MANAGED BY RFMOs ......................... 84 

ANNEX IX - MITIGATION MEASURES INTRODUCED BY TUNA RFMOS................. 85 

ANNEX X - MAP OF SPAS ESTABLISHED UNDER THE BIRDS DIRECTIVE ............. 89 

ANNEX XI – DESCRIPTION OF MITIGATION MEASURES ........................................... 90 

ANNEX XII - INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS.............................................................. 94 

ANNEX XIII - ADMINISTRATIVE AND MANAGEMENT COSTS ................................. 95 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
LIST OF ACRONYMS 

Agreement on the Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels 

Advisory Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture 

Albatross Task Force 

Best Practice Technical Guidelines 

Bycatch Per Unit Effort 

ACAP 

ACFA 

ATF 

BPFG 

BPUE 

BSRAC 

Baltic Sea Regional Advisory Council 

CBD 

The United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity 

CCAMLR  Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources 

CCSBT 

Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna 

CCTV 

Closed Circuit Television  

CFP 

Common Fisheries Policy 

CITES 

Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna & Flora 

CMS 

COFI 

DCF 

The Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals 

Committee on Fisheries (FAO) 

Data Collection Framework 

DCMAP 

EU Multiannual Programme for Data Collection 

EC 

EEZ 

EFF 

European Commission 

Exclusive Economic Zone 

European Fisheries Fund 

EMFF 

European Maritime and Fisheries Fund 

EMPAS 

Environmentally Sound Fisheries Management in Marine Protected Areas 

EU 

European Union 

EU-POA 

European Union Plan of Action 

FAO 

Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations 

FIMPAS 

Fisheries Measures in Protected Areas 

FTE 

GES 

Full-time Equivalent 

Good Environmental Status 

HELCOM  Helsinki  Commission  of  the  Convention  on  the  Protection  of  the  Marine 

Environment of the Baltic Sea Area 

IASG 

Impact Assessment Steering Group 

IATTC 

Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission 

IBA 

Important Bird Area 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
ICCAT 

International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas 

ICES 

IOTC 

IPOA 

IUCN 

IUU 

International Council for the Exploration of the Sea 

Indian Ocean Tuna Commission 

International Plan of Action 

International Union for the Conservation of Nature 

Illegal, Unreported and Unreported 

MRAG 

Marine Resources Assessment Group 

MSC 

Marine Stewardship Council 

MSFD 

Marine Strategy Framework Directive 

NGO 

Non-Governmental Organisation 

NPOA 

National Plan of Action 

NSRAC 

North Sea Regional Advisory Council 

NWWRAC  North Western Waters Regional Advisory Council 

OSPAR 

Oslo and Paris Commissions 

PBR 

Potential Biological Removal 

PRAC 

Pelagic Stocks Regional Advisory Council  

RFMO 

Regional Fisheries Management Organisations 

RSPB 

Royal Society for the Protection of Birds 

SAC 

SCM 

Special Area of Conservation 

EU Standard Cost Model 

SEAFO 

South-East Atlantic Fisheries Organisation 

SEO 

SFIA 

SPA 

SPEA 

TFEU 

Sociedad Esapnõla de Ornitologia 

Sea Fish Industry Authority 

Special Protection Area 

Portuguese Society for the Study of Birds 

Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union 

UNCLOS  United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 

UNCSD 

United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development 

UNEP 

United Nations Environment Programme 

UNFSA 

United Nations Fish Stock Agreement 

VMS 

Vessel Monitoring System 

WCPFC 

Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission 

WGCSE  Working Group on Seabird Ecology (ICES) 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
Lead DG: DG MARE 

Other  departments  involved:  SG,  DG  ENV,  DG  EMPL,  DG  REGIO,  DG  ECFIN,  DG 
TRADE, DG CLIMA, DG RTD, DG ENTR. 

Agenda planning/WP reference: 2009/MARE/071 

1. 

PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES 

1.1. 

Organisation and timing 

This impact assessment concerns a proposal for the development of a European Union Plan of 
Action  for  reducing  the  incidental  catches  of  seabirds  in  fishing  gears  (EU-POA).  This  is 
within the framework of an International Plan of Action (IPOA) for Reducing the Incidental 
Catches of Seabirds in Longline Fisheries1 adopted in 1999 by the UN Food and Agriculture 
Organisation  (FAO)  Committee  on  Fisheries  (COFI).  The  European  Commission,  in 
fulfilment of its responsibilities as a contracting party of international organisations acting in 
the context of the IPOA, is committed to developing a Plan of Action for EU vessels fishing 
in EU and non-EU waters.  

The  proposal  is  provided  for  in  ‘Agenda  Planning’  (2009/MARE/071),  in  the  2011  Annual 
Management Plan of the Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries (DG MARE) 
and  in  the  Commission  Work  Programme  (CWP)  as  a  policy  output  under  the  activity 
"Conservation,  management  and  exploitation  of  living  aquatic  resources",  with  the  specific 
objective:  "To  improve  fishing  methods  with  a  view  to  reducing  incidental  and  unwanted 
catches, and the impacts on the marine environment".  

In order to support the work an internal DG MARE Working Group was set up in July 2009 
by the unit dealing with the Common Fisheries Policy and Aquaculture (A2) and comprising 
representatives  from  the  Regional  units  –  Atlantic  (C2),  Mediterranean  and  Black  Sea  (D2) 
and Baltic and North Sea (E2) as well as from the unit dealing with International affairs and 
Regional Fisheries Organisations (B1).  

An  Impact  Assessment  Steering  Group  (IASG)  was  formed  in  January  2010,  which  in 
addition  to  DG  MARE  was  comprised  of  representatives  from  nine  Directorates-General, 
namely the Secretariat General, DG ENV, DG EMPL, DG REGIO, DG ECFIN, DG TRADE, 
DG CLIMA, DG RTD and DG ENTR. The IASG met on the 14 April 2010 and 2 September 
2011  and  worked  on  a  revised  draft  of  the  Impact  Assessment  by  written  consultation 
following the second meeting. Between these meetings regular contact was maintained with 
the  IASG  and  in  addition  there  were  regular  written  exchanges  with  DG  ENV  given  their 
interest in this area. 

1 

FAO.  1999.  International  Plan  of  Action  for  reducing  incidental  catches  of  seabirds  in  longline 
fisheries. Rome, FAO. 1999. pp 1-11.  

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
1.2. 

Adaptations to the report in line with the comments of the Impact Assessment 
Board 

DG  MARE  has  welcomed  the  comments,  suggestions  and  questions  of  the  Impact 
Assessment Board and has adapted the report so as to address these. The report has been re-
structured in line with the comments received.  

On the basis of the first opinion received, the report has been adapted in order to provide more 
evidence regarding the existing problem and the unsustainability of current fishing practices 
with  respect  to  seabirds.  This  has  involved  the  inclusion  of  additional  information  from  a 
background study2 prepared to support this impact assessment as well as other sources on the 
impact of fisheries on seabird populations and the species at most risk into Sections 2.1 and 
2.2. The information on the affected sector has been expanded (Section 2.6) as has the section 
on existing mitigation measures (Section 2.5).  

The  objectives  contained  in  Section  3.1  and  3.2  have  been  refined  and  indicative  timelines 
included  although  these  are  very  much  dependent  on  the  outcome  of  the  reform  of  the 
Common Fisheries Policy.  

The policy options included in Section 4 have been expanded with the inclusion of an option 
based on the implementation of the Birds and Habitats Directives. This has been considered 
and subsequently discarded for the reasons given in Section 4. Under option 3 (Section 4.3), 
two  sub-options  (sub-option  3a  and  3b)  have  been  considered  to  make  this  option  more 
realistic. The rationale for all of the various options has also been expanded upon. 

The explanation of the costs for each policy option contained in Sections 5.1.3, 5.2.3 & 5.3.3 
and  5.1.4,  5.2.4  and  5.3.4  has  been  strengthened.  However,  a  more  substantive  analysis 
detailing  regional  and  social/employment  impacts  has  not  been  possible  as  there  is  only 
limited information available. In any case the analysis carried out indicates that the preferred 
option from this initiative will have only minimal impacts on employment given the measures 
are largely voluntary and can be tailored to specific fisheries.  

The monitoring and evaluation arrangements have been revised in Section 7 to be clearer with 
indicative timelines and indicators for measuring effectiveness included. 

Throughout  the  text  additional  indications  of  the  views  expressed  by  stakeholders  from  the 
public consultation have been added and the executive summary of the MRAG study has been 
included  as  an  Annex  (Annex  II)  given  it  is  the  primary  source  of  information  for  this  IA. 
Two new Annexes - Annex III "Annual seabird bycatch from selected EU longline and static 
net fisheries" and IV "Conservation status of species of conservation concern and vulnerable 
to  bycatch  in  EU  waters"-  have  also  been  added  to  provide  additional  background 
information. 

On  the  basis  of  the  second  opinion  received,  the  report  has  been  further  adapted  with 
refinement to the objectives and the addition of specific actions and timelines. In the problem 
definition section all relevant data on the incidence of seabird bycatch and seabird population 
levels has been presented. However, it should be noted the available data is a combination of 

2 

EN 

MRAG.  2011.  Contribution 
http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/documentation/studies/index_en.htm 

to 

the  preparation  of  a  Plan  of  Action 

7 

for  Seabirds 

   EN 

 
                                                 
very  detailed  for  some  species  and  fisheries,  sporadic  for  others  and  in  many  cases  purely 
anecdotal.  

The options design in Section 4 has been improved and clarifications added to Section 4.2 on 
the  operation  of  option  2.  The  views  of  the  stakeholders  have  also  been  more  transparently 
presented for each of the policy options. 

Further  clarification  on  the  impacts  on  SMEs  has  been  added  to  Section  5.2.4  and  also 
clarifications on the assumptions for the costs in Sections 5.2.5 and 5.3.5 have been included. 
Comments  on  the  likely  impacts  on  employment  have  been  added  by  way  of  clarification. 
Table 12 (Summary of impacts) in Section 5.4 has been replaced with a new table. 

Further  stakeholder  views  expressed  in  the  public  consultation  have  been  incorporated  into 
the  text  and  the  justification  for  not  consulting  the  European  Sectoral  and  Social  Dialogue 
Committee has been expanded.  

Finally several sections (2.3 and 2.4) have been shortened and tables 3 and 4 in the original 
text  have  been  moved  to  the  Annexes  (Annex  VII  and  Annex  X).  An  additional  annex  has 
been included detailing the international conventions and agreements relevant to this initiative 
(Annex VI).  

1.3. 

Consultation and expertise 

This  impact  assessment  was  prepared  based  on  information  received  from  the  following 
sources: 

1. 

2. 

3 
4 

5 
6 
7 
8 

Initial advice received from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea 
(ICES) in 20083 provided a general assessment of the level of incidental catches of 
seabirds  in  EU  waters,  identified  the  main  species  affected  and  the  main  fisheries 
responsible  for  seabird  mortality  by  area  and  by  gear  type.  This  advice  has  been 
updated  in  subsequent  years  by  the  ICES  Working  Group  on  Seabird  Ecology 
(WGSE)4.  Information  from  other  countries  such  as  Canada,  who  have  developed 
National  Plans  of  Action  as  well  as  from  Regional  Fisheries  Management 
Organisations  (RFMOs)  such  as  CCAMLR5  and  ICCAT6  which  have  successfully 
implemented  mitigation  measures  were  also  taken  into  account  in  this  initial 
assessment  as  have  the  views  and  information  suplied  by  the  NGO  Birdlife 
International given their expertise in this area. 

A  public  consultation  was  launched  in  June  20107.  Stakeholders  were  invited  to 
comment on the scope and objectives of a proposed EU-Plan of Action for reducing 
incidental  catches  of  seabirds,  as  well  as  on  the  potential  fields  of  action  to  be 
contained in the POA. These were presented in a consultation document8 prepared by 

ICES Advice 2008, Book 1, 1.5.1.3 Interactions between fisheries and seabirds in EU waters 
ICES. 2009. Report of the Working Group on Seabird Ecology (WGSE), 23-27 March 2009, Bruges, 
Belgium. ICES CM 2009/LRC:10. 91pp. 
ICES.  2010.  Report  of  the  Working  Group  on  Seabird  Ecology  (WGSE),  15–19  March  2010,  ICES 
Headquarters, Copenhagen, Denmark. ICES CM 2010/SSGEF: 10. 77pp.  
Convention on Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources 
International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas 
http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/partners/consultations/seabirds/index_en.htm 
http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/partners/consultations/seabirds/consultation_document_en 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
the  Commission  in  support  of  the  process.  A  total  of  215  contributions  were 
received9 from fisheries and environmental administrations from Member States, key 
stakeholders  from  the  fishing  industry  particularly  the  relevant  Regional  Advisory 
Councils (RACs), NGOs, an international fishery management organisation and the 
general public. 

The majority of submissions (87%) came from the general public across a range of 
Member  States.  All  of  them  came  from  members  of  the  civil  society  rather  than 
individual  fishermen  and  tended  to  be  less  technical  or  detailed  in  respect  of  the 
analysis of each field of action presented in the consultation paper. They were mainly 
in  the  form  of  two  "chain  e-mails",  in  response  to  campaigns  launched  by 
environmental NGOs. Given these contributions were not technical they were given 
less weight in assessing the contributions received.  

Of critical importance were the inputs of the relevant RACs (North Western Waters 
(NWWRAC),  North  Sea  (NSRAC),  Baltic  (BSRAC)  and  Pelagic  (PRAC)).  The 
RACs were established to give stakeholders – fishermen, vessel owners, processors, 
traders,  fish  farmers,  environmental  and  consumer  organisations  and  others  –  a 
vehicle through which to feed recommendations into CFP policy developments such 
as  this  initiative.  Their  role  is  to  submit  opinions  to  the  Commission  and  Member 
States  on  different  aspects  of  fisheries  management  and  their  views  reflect  the 
relevant  sectors  and  segments  of  the  catching  sector,  as  well  as  the  interests  of 
important NGOs who are members of the RACs.  

Annex I contains a full summary of the findings from the public consultation but the 
main conclusions that had the general consensus of the stakeholders were as follows: 

(a)  There was support for the adoption of an EU-POA for seabirds except from a 
group  of  fishermen's  representative  bodies  who  argued  that  the  measures 
proposed  in  the  consultation  paper  are  already  covered  by  the  EU  Birds 
Directive10 through the implementation of Special Protection Areas (SPAs). 

(b)  Measures  should  apply  across  the  whole  EU  fishing  fleet  operating  in  EU 

waters and in non-EU waters.  

(c) 

Interactions  between  seabirds  and  fishing  gears  need  to  be  reassessed  to 
identify  existing  knowledge  gaps  and  make  it  easier  to  define  suitable  and 
effective management tools.  

(d)  Longlines  and  static  nets  fisheries  are  the  most  common  causes  of  incidental 
mortality in EU waters and should be the focus of any measures. Other fishing 
gears known to be responsible for incidental catches of seabirds and should not 
be excluded (e.g. trawls and purse-seines). 

(e)  The  choice  and  implementation  of  mitigation  measures  should  follow  a  step-
by-step  approach,  balanced  between  the  conservation  objectives,  economic 
profitability and safe working conditions for fishermen.  

9 
10 

http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/partners/consultations/seabirds/contributions/index_en.htm 
Council Directive 2009/147/EC on the conservation of wild birds 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
                                                 
3. 

4. 

(f)  Collection of data and reporting on incidental catches of seabirds needs to be 
mandatory  rather  than  voluntary  and  continued  research  into  mitigation 
measures and data collection are needed.  

(g)  Education,  training  and  outreach  should  be  made  available  to  fishermen  and 
other stakeholders to raise awareness about the problem of seabird bycatch and 
the practical solutions available. 

An overview of the issues relating to seabird bycatch was presented to the Advisory 
Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture (ACFA) on 6 July 2010. ACFA provides a 
forum  for  dialogue  with  the  fishing  industry  on  policy  issues.  An  outline  of  the 
structure  and  content  of  possible  measures  to  reduce  seabird  bycatch  including  the 
adoption of an EU Plan of Action were discussed. During this meeting ten Member 
States11 expressed their support for the development of a Plan of Action.  

In August 2010, under Framework Contract No FISH/2006/09 Lot 2, a background 
study was externally contracted to a consortium led by MRAG Limited2. The main 
aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness of mitigation measures being used 
globally, taking account of ICES advice and also recommendations contained in the 
FAO  Best  Practice  Technical  Guidelines  (BPTG)  for  IPOA/NPOA–seabirds12 
(agreed  by  FAO-COFI  in  2008).  It  was  based  on  a  number  of  case  study  fisheries 
where significant seabird bycatch had been identifed by ICES. The case studies were 
as follows: 

•  Demersal longline fisheries in the Grand Sol to the west of Ireland;  

•  Pelagic and demersal longline fisheries in the western Mediterranean; 

•  Pelagic and demersal longline fisheries in the eastern Mediterranean (Maltese and 

Greek waters);  

•  Static net fisheries in the eastern and western Baltic; and  

•  Static net fisheries in the eastern North Sea.  

Information was gathered through direct consultation and interviews with fishermen 
operating in these areas as well as from fisheries departments, researchers and NGOs 
working  in  related  fields.  Collection  and  analysis  of  information  focused  on 
awareness of seabird bycatch, estimate of bycatch levels, current mitigation methods 
(if  any)  deployed  and  reaction  of  fishermen  to  the  introduction  of  additional 
measures.  The  study  also  assessed  the  cost  associated  with  the  use  of  potential 
mitigation measures and the socio-economic and environmental impacts of their use 
in the specific fisheries. This study was completed in June 2011 and provides much 
of  the  basis  for  this  Impact  Assessment.  The  executive  summary  is  provided  in 
Annex II. 

11 
12 

UK, France, Germany, Spain, Netherlands, Sweden, Estonia, Denmark, Portugal, Poland 
FAO. 2008. Report of the Expert Consultation on Best Practice Technical Guidelines for IPOA/NPOA- 
Seabirds. Bergen, Norway, 2-5 September 2008. 46pp.  

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
                                                 
It  was  not  felt  necessary  to  consult  other  stakeholder  groups  directly  such  as  the  European 
Sectoral  Social  Dialogue  Committee  on  the  sea  fisheries  sector  specifically  on  the  social 
impacts  of  this  initiative.  The  contributions  received  from  the  RACs  as  part  of  the  public 
consultation were detailed and all of the likely impacts including the social and employment 
impacts.  It  is  also  worth  underlining  that  the  European  Transport  Workers'  Federation  that 
represents  the  employees  in  the  sea  fisheries  sector  social  dialogue  committee  is  also  a 
member of the RACs.  

Moreover  the  interviews  conducted  with  individual  fishermen  as  part  of  the  previously 
mentioned  background  study2  were  very  informative  and  largely  supported  the  views 
expressed  in  the  public  consultation  by  the  RACS  on  the  anticipated  impacts.  Potential 
impacts  on  employment  from  the  introduction  of  mitigation  measures  were  also  briefly 
discussed at the meeting held with ACFA. Major impacts on employment were not raised as a 
significant issue in any of these separate consultations. 

The Commission’s minimum standards for consultations have been met. The environmental, 
social  and  economic  advice,  the  results  of  the  open  consultation  process  (in  particular  the 
contributions from the RACs), the conclusions from the consultation meeting, the outcome of 
the  discussions  in  the  IASG  and  the  recommendations  from  ICES  and  the  MRAG  study  all 
significantly  contributed  to  the  analysis  of  the  policy  options  and  of  the  different  policy 
measures discussed in this impact assessment.  

2. 

PROBLEM DEFINITION 

2.1. 

Species Affected and Fisheries Involved 

‘Seabirds’ is a term adopted in this report to cover all species that primarily use intertidal (e.g. 
shorebirds),  littoral  (e.g.  sea  ducks)  and  offshore  areas  (e.g.  traditional  ‘seabirds’). 
Interactions  between  fisheries  and  seabirds  can  essentially  be  categorised  in  three  ways. 
Firstly,  and  most  importantly,  seabirds  can  be  killed  accidentally  by  some  kinds  of  fishing 
gears, notably when they predate on baited longlines as they are deployed and when they are 
caught in static nets set near the surface. Secondly, fishing can result in discards of dead fish 
which  can  provide  abundant  food  for  seabirds  in  some  instances,  at  times  leading  to 
substantial increases in the numbers of some bird species in those areas. Thirdly, fishing can 
deplete fish stocks on which seabirds feed. This initiative deals solely with the interaction of 
seabirds with fishing gears leading to incidental bycatch. 

ICES  estimates  conservatively  that  the  EU  fishing  fleet  is  responsible  for  the  death  of  c. 
200,000 seabirds annually in EU and external waters4 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 these species and reflects the lack of systematic monitoring and reporting on 
incidental catches in fisheries. However, based on the ICES advice, the data that is available 
indicates seabird mortality is substantial in a number of areas within EU and non-EU fisheries 
and for a number of species, some of which are classified as being threatened or endangered.  

Seabird species are generally long-lived and their populations are highly sensitive to changes 
in adult survival. Therefore mortality induced by incidental capture in fisheries is a significant 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
danger  to  the  populations  of  these  species13.  Of  346  known  species  of  seabirds,  nearly  half 
(47%;  52%  of  those  with  known  trends)  are  known  or  suspected  to  be  experiencing 
population declines13. All evidence indicates that over the last 20 years, seabirds have had a 
substantially  poorer  conservation  status  than  non-seabirds  and  that  their  populations  have 
deteriorated faster over this period compared to other species13.  

The MRAG study2 indicates that at least 34 of these species are caught incidentally as bycatch 
in EU waters due to the overlap between fishing activity and the spatial distributions of these 
species.  Annex  III  provides  a  detailed  breakdown  of  bycatch  in  the  fisheries  used  as  case 
studies in the study by way of illustration of the extent of the problem.  

All  available  scientific  information  and  also  the  majority  of  stakeholders  in  the  public 
consultation highlight longlines and static nets as the gears with the highest seabird bycatch in 
EU  waters.  Interactions  with  these  gears  mainly  occur  during  foraging  and  this  behaviour 
determines their vulnerability to being caught in these fishing gears.  

In  the  case  of  longline  fisheries,  species  that  plunge  dive  or  pursuit  dive  are  particularly 
vulnerable to being caught during setting or hauling of longlines as they are able to access bait 
even  at  substantial  depths  under  the  surface.  This  behaviour  is  exhibitied  in  particular  by 
shearwaters,  gannets  and  auks.  Surface-seizing  birds  such  as  gulls  and  fulmars  are  also 
vulnerable, as the baited hooks can take some time to sink during setting2. 

In static net fisheries, birds that are most vulnerable are mostly coastal species that dive from 
the  surface  to  either  forage  on  the  bottom  or  pursue  prey  through  the  water  column.  This 
foraging behaviour is common amongst species such as sea ducks, diving ducks, divers/loons, 
grebes, cormorants and auks2. 

Annex IV provides a complete list of the species most at risk and their current conservation 
status in EU waters as well as an indication of the fisheries in which they are reported to be 
incidentally caught. 

2.1.1.  Longlines 

Extensive pelagic and demersal longline fisheries operate in EU waters to the north, west and 
south-west  of  Ireland,  off  Madeira  and  the  Azores,  as  well  as  in  the  eastern  and  western 
Mediterranean.  Pelagic  longlines  are  used  to  target  large  migratory  species  such  as  tunas, 
swordfish and pelagic sharks in waters off the continental shelf. Demersal longlines are used 
to target species such as Greenland halibut, cod, hake, ling, tusk and sea bream in both coastal 
and  offshore  waters.  Even  though  there  are  differences  in  their  operation  and  gear 
configurations,  there  is  evidence  of  incidental  seabird  bycatch  in  both  types  of  longline 
fisheries. Annex V illustrates the different types of longline gears used. 

ICES  reports  that  20  species  of  seabirds  interact  with  longline  fisheries  in  EU  waters, 
principally  in  the  Mediterranean  pelagic  and  demersal  longline  fisheries  and  the  North-east 
Atlantic (Gran Sol) demersal longline fishery, although ICES14 reports bycatch of seabird in 
almost all EU longline fisheries. MRAG2 provide annual estimates of seabird bycatch in the 

13 

14 

Croxall  J.P.  Butchart  S.H.M.  Lascelles  B.  Stattersfield  A.J.  Sullivan  B,  Symes  A.  Taylor  P.  2012, 
Seabird  conservation  status,  threats  and  priority  actions:  a  global  assessment.  Bird  Conservation 
International (2012) 22:1-34. 
ICES. 2010. Report of the Working Group on Seabird Ecology (WGSE), 15-19 March 2010. ICES CM 
2010/SSGEF:10 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
                                                 
case  study  fisheries.  In  the  dermersal  longline  fisheries  in  the  Mediterranean  and  Gran  Sol 
looked at, bycatch is estimated at 44,700 ± 19,373 while for the pelagic longline fisheries in 
the Mediterranean they estimate bycatch at 9,231 ± 4,029.  

Four species are notable for their high conservation status with moderate to high frequency of 
capture  in  longline  gear  relative  to  their  populations.  The  Balearic  Shearwater  (Puffinus 
mauretanicus) is classed by the IUCN as Critically Endangered species, meaning it has been 
evaluated to have a very high risk of extinction in the wild. Three others, the Sooty shearwater 
(Puffinus  griseus),  Yelkouan  shearwater  (Puffinus  yelkouan)  and  Audouin's  gull  (Larus 
audouinii) are classified as Near Threatened meaning the populations are in moderately rapid 
decline globally.  

In  addition  to  these  species  a  further  five  are  listed  in  the  Birds  Directive10  as  having 
unfavourable conservation status requiring "special conservation measures" due to declines in 
localised  populations.  These  include  the  Corys  shearwater  (Calonectris  diomedea)  and 
Mediterranean  gull  (Larus  melanocephalus)  in  the  Mediterranean  and  the  Black-legged 
kittiwake (Rissa tridactyla), Black guillemot (Cepphus grylle) and Manx shearwater (Puffinus 
puffinus) in the NE Atlantic2. For all of these species significant levels of bycatch are reported 
both in the MRAG study2 and by ICES3.  

Several other species - the Yellow-legged gull (Larus michahellis) in the Mediterranean and 
the  Northern  fulmar  (Fulmarus  glacialis),  Great  shearwater  (Puffinus  gravis)  and  Northern 
gannet  (Morus  bassanus)  in  the  NE  Atlantic  have  high  incidental  catches  and  ICES  reports 
that  the  sheer  scale  of  the  numbers  caught  in  longline  fisheries  is  cause  for  concern  even 
though the populations of these species are relatively stable3,4,4. 

2.1.2. 

Static Nets 

Static nets, encompassing gillnets, entangling nets, trammel nets and driftnets are widely used 
in EU fisheries to target a range of demersal species, including cod, hake, turbot, bass, mullet, 
rays  and  shellfish  such  as  crawfish,  as  well  as  pelagic  species  such  as  herring,  sprat  and 
mackerel. They are also used in coastal lakes and estuaries to target freshwater species such as 
perch, zander and bream where there are interactions with certain intertidal and littoral seabird 
species.  A  range  of  static  nets  with  varying  constructions,  mesh  sizes  and  soak  times 
depending on the target species are used. Annex V illustrates the different types of static nets 
commonly deployed.  

Static  net  fisheries  tend  to  be  seasonal  and  interact  with  a  wide  range  of  seabird  species. 
Fisheries  in  the  Baltic  Sea  and  North  Sea  are  considered  to  be  the  biggest  contributors  to 
bycatch in EU waters although bycatch is not confined just too static net fisheries in the Baltic 
and North Sea. ICES14 report bycatch of seabirds in static net fisheries throughout EU waters. 
This  includes  waters  off  the  south-west  England,  off  the  north-west  coast  of  Ireland,  the 
northern  and  western  North  Sea  and  off  northwest  Spain.  All  of  these  fisheries  are 
characterised by comprising large numbers of small vessels. 

A  recent  review15
  has  been  undertaken  of  30  studies  reporting  seabird  bycatch  in  order  to 
assess the scale of the problem and the potential impacts on bird populations in the Baltic Sea 

15 

Žydelis, R., Bellebaum, J., Österblom, H., Vetemaa, M., Schirmeister, B., Stipniece, A., Dagys, M., van 
Eerden,  M.  and  Garthe,  S.  2009.  Bycatch  in  gillnet  fisheries-  An  overlooked  threat  to  waterbird 
populations. Biological Conservation, 142: 1269-1281.  

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
                                                 
and  North  Sea  (this  included  the  coastal  lakes  Ijsselmeer  and  Markermeerin).  While  the 
cumulative  annual  bycatch  estimate  (made  up  mainly  of  divers,  grebes,  sea  ducks,  diving 
ducks, auks and cormorants) from this survey was 90,000 birds, this was considered to be ‘a 
substantial  underestimate’.  The  authors  conclude  it  more  likely  that  between  100,000  and 
200,000  birds  are  killed  in  static  nets  fisheries  in  the  region  each  year.  MRAG2  estimate 
bycatch in these fisheries at 95,440 ± 19,076.  

Several  species  in  the  region  are  at  immediate  risk  and  subject  to  international  legal 
protection2.  The  Steller’s  eider  (Polysticta  stelleri)  has  a  global  status  of  ‘Vulnerable’, 
meaning it has been evaluated to have a high risk of extinction in the wild. The Black‐throated 
Diver (Gavia arctica) also has a European IUCN Red List category of "Vulnerable" although 
is  listed  as  "Least  Concern"  globally.  The  Common  poachard  (Aythya  farina),  Red-throated 
diver  (Gavia  stellata),  Slavonian  grebe  (Podiceps  auritus),  Long-tailed  duck  (Clangula 
hyemalis), Greater scaup (Aythya marila), Common guillemot (Uria aalge), Black guillemot 
(Cepphus grille), Tufted duck (Aythya fuligula), Black scoter (Melanitta nigra), Velvet scoter 
(Melanitta fusca) and smew (Mergellus albellus) are all listed in the Birds Directive as being 
"species of European concern" with reported bycatch in static net fisheries in the Baltic and 
North Sea.  

2.1.3.  External Waters 

In non-EU waters, bycatch mainly occurs in longline fisheries. According to a recent study on 
global bycatch, 17 of the 22 known species of albatross are threatened with extinction16, with 
the key threat to these species recognised to be longline fisheries. A further 7 species of petrel 
(Procellaria  and  Macronectes  spp.)  listed  under  the  Agreement  on  the  Conservation  of 
Albatrosses  and  Petrels  (ACAP),  face  similar  threats17.  Incidental  mortality  of  these  species 
has been recorded in 28 legal fisheries and from 14 different nations including France, Spain 
and the UK. These Procellariiform species are extremely wide-ranging, and their distributions 
overlap considerably with areas targeted by the world’s fishing fleets18. The populations are 
highly  susceptible  to  increases  in  adult  mortality.  For  already  highly  globally  threatened 
species,  such  as  the  Endangered  Amsterdam  albatross  (Diomedea  amsterdamenis)  and  the 
Critically  Endangered  Tristan  albatross  (Diomedea  dabbenena),  the  impact  of  bycatch  has 
been highlighted as a driving factor in population declines16. A recent review on the threat to 
seabirds puts bycatch firmly as the primary causes of adult mortality and assesses that bycatch 
is a threat to even relatively common species such as black-browed albatross (Thalassarche 
melanophrys) and black-footed albatross (Phoebastria nigripes) 16.  

2.1.4.  Other Gears 

There  are  also  reports  globally  of  incidental  catches  in  trawl  and  purse  seine  fisheries  but 
almost no information is available on the extent in EU waters. ICES report northern gannets 
present as bycatch in pelagic trawl fisheries operating off the north and north-east coasts of 

16 

17 

18 

Anderson  O.R.J,  Small  C.J,  Croxall  J.P,  Dunn  E.K.,  Sullivan  B.J,  Yates  O,  Black  A.  2011.  Global 
seabird bycatch in longline fisheries. Endang Species Res Vol: 14: 91-106, 2011.  
ACAP  (Agreement  on  the  Conservation  of  Albatrosses  and  Petrels)  2009.  Species  Assessments. 
Available at www.acap.aq/acap-species. 
Birdlife  International.  2004.  Tracking  ocean  wanderers:  the  global  distribution  of  albatrosses  and 
petrels.  Results  from  the  Global  Procellariiform  Tracking  Workshop,  1-5  September,  203,  Gordon's 
Bay, South Africa. Birdlife International, Cambridge. 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Scotland4. An extrapolation from one study to total fishing effort in these fisheries estimated 
around 780 gannets may have been caught in that year4.  

Significant  bycatch  events  are  well  documented  in  numerous  trawl  fleets  outside  of  EU 
waters.  For  example,  data  collected  in  the  South  African  hake  (Merluccius  spp.)  fleet  from 
2004–2005, indicated a bycatch of around 18,000 birds4..They reported that 85% of mortality 
resulted  from  birds  being  killed  by  interactions  with  warp  cables  (i.e.  wings  being  wrapped 
around the cable resulting in drowning), with 15% resulting from birds becoming entangled in 
the nets themselves. Given the level of trawling activity within EU waters, it is safe to assume 
there  must  be  some  similar  interactions  particularly  with  the  large  gull  species  that  are 
common in EU waters14. 

Evidence  is  emerging  that  purse  seines  can  also  take  significant  bycatch  of  species  such  as 
shearwaters.  A  questionnaire  survey  carried  out  in  2008/20009  in  Portuguese  ports  showed 
purse seines to have taken the highest proportion (45%) of the Critically Endangered Balearic 
shearwaters  compared  to  any  other  fishing  gears,  including  longlines  and  static  nets  in  this 
region4.  

Bycatch  with  these  gear  types  was  highlighted  in  the  public  consultation  by  a  number  of 
NGOs and national administrations as being an emerging problem. 

2.2. 

Threat posed by bycatch 

The  issue  of  seabird  bycatch  has  only  been  apparent  for  about  two  decades.  Nevertheless, 
seabird  bycatch  is  regarded  by  many,  along  with  the  impacts  of  invasive  alien  species  (e.g. 
rodents), as the most pervasive and immediate threat to many seabird species in both coastal 
waters  and  on  the  High  Seas13.  Other  threats  to  seabird  species  include  human  disturbance, 
commercial development, hunting and pollution but assessing the contribution of the different 
anthropogenic  threats  including  bycatch  to  seabird  mortality  is  a  complex  and  somewhat 
subjective  task  given  the  lack  of  knowledge  on  population  levels,  distribution  of  seabird 
species, threat vulnerability and overall conservation status. 

Bycatch estimates are available for a number of fisheries in both EU and non-EU waters but 
as  MRAG2  point  out,  generating  estimates  of  bycatch  has  limited  application  unless  some 
inference  can  be  made  about  the  impact  of  bycatch  on  the  seabird  populations  involved. 
Currently,  however,  there  are  no  guidelines  defining  bird  bycatch  limits  or  other  mortality 
levels  that  could  be  deemed  as  sustainable  at  either  population  or  geographic  scale  in 
Europe15.  Therefore  while  many  studies  have  established  that  bycatch  mortality  for  some 
seabird species is at levels that have potentially serious impacts, and in some cases are clearly 
unsustainable for known or estimated populations, establishing safe levels of bycatch for most 
species is not possible. 

One approach that has been considered to define such safe levels of incidental catches is using 
Potential Biological Removal or PBR15. PBRs can be used to estimate the additional mortality 
a  population  might  be  able  to  sustain,  over  and  above  natural  mortality  which  includes  the 
relative impact of bycatch on populations19. This approach was first used to assess the impact 
of  fisheries  on  seabirds  using  the  example  of  white-chinned  petrels  which  were  frequently 

19 

Wade,  P.R.  1998.  Calculating  limits  to  the  allowable  human-caused  mortality  of  cetaceans  and 
pinnipeds. Marine Mammal Science 14, 1-37. 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
                                                 
caught in longline fisheries in the Southern Ocean20. It has since been applied to other species 
including some in EU waters. Using this information, MRAG2 provide PBR estimates for five 
species frequently caught in longline and static net fisheries in EU waters and compared these 
with  annual  bycatch  estimates  and  populations  to  provide  proportion  of  mortality  related  to 
bycatch. The results of this analysis are shown in Tables 1 and 2.  

In the case of the Balearic and Cory's shearwater, comparing the PBR estimates with annual 
bycatch  illustrates  the  vulnerability  of  these  species  to  additional  human-induced  mortality. 
For the Balearic shearwater the PBR estimate is very low and therefore even very low levels 
of bycatch are considered a threat to the population. For Cory's shearwater the estimates are 
considerably larger, and although this species is considered to be more abundant, it is likely to 
be impacted across a much wider geographical range than the Balearic shearwater. Therefore 
according  to  the  MRAG  analysis2,  it  is  likely  to  be  vulnerable  when  bycatch  from  all  EU 
longline  fisheries  are  aggregated  together.  Moreover,  in  the  Mediterranean  this  species  is 
reported to suffer additional mortality from predation by rats. It is highly likely that bycatch in 
pelagic and demersal longline fisheries, in combination with this predation, is a serious threat 
to the Cory's shearwater population in the Mediterranean3. 

Table 1 PBR against bycatch for selected species caught in longline fisheries in the Mediterranean and NE 
Atlantic  

Species 

Total population 
estimates 

Potential Biological 
Removal Rate (PBR) 

Annual Bycatch 
estimates 

Balearic shearwater 

25,000 

438 

(406-465 95% CL) 

~250 (57% of PBR) 

Cory's shearwater 

870,000 

31,855 

~20,000 (63% of PBR) 

Source: MRAG study 

In the case of two species considered in the Baltic - Greater scaup and Common guillemot - 
the PBR estimates in table 2 show that the current levels of mortality from static net fisheries 
are significant. When combined with other forms of mortality (e.g. hunting) fishing poses a 
serious threat to the populations. In the case of the common guillemot the estimated bycatch is 
in excess of the PBR by 2.5 times although there are reports that the actual population size of 
this species is much bigger and the actual PBR could be an underestimate, meaning bycatch 
may  not  be  impacting  on  the  population  as  much  as  indicated.  Nevertheless  undoubtedly 
bycatch contributes significantly to the overall anthropogenic mortality for this species. 

For  the  long-tailed  duck  the  bycatch  estimates  represent  only  a  small  proportion  of  total 
mortality  expressed  by  the  PBR.  This  species  faces  threats  from  other  sources  of  mortality, 
such as hunting and oil pollution and fisheries induced mortality may have less of an impact 
on  the  population.  Nonetheless  reports15  suggest  the  population  of  long-tailed  duck  has 
declined in the Baltic in areas where there is high fishing activity and there are concerns that 
the level of bycatch is significantly underestimated15. 

Table 2 PBR against bycatch for selected species caught in static net fisheries in the Baltic  

Species 

Total population 

Potential Biological 

Annual Bycatch 

20 

Dillingham,  P.W.  and  Fletcher,  D.  2008.  Estimating  the  ability  of  birds  to  sustain  human-caused 
mortalities  using  a  simple  decision  rule  and  allometric  relationships.  Biological  Conservation  141: 
1783-1805. 

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
                                                 
estimates 

Removal Rate (PBR) 

estimates 

Long-tailed duck 

3.02 x 106 

Greater scaup 

204,000 

Common guillemot 

36,000 

113,000 

(75,000-136,000 95% CL) 

11,000 

(8,900-13,100 95% CL) 

620 

(520-700 95% CL) 

24,000 (21% of PBR) 

6,500 (59% of PBR) 

1,500 (241% of PBR) 

Source: MRAG & Zydelis et al., 200915 

These are several examples that illustrate the high level of mortality caused by bycatch on the 
species  considered.  Unfortunately  due  to  a  lack  of  accurate  population  and/or  bycatch 
estimates  it  is  not  possible  to  provide  PBR  estimates  for  the  20  or  more  other  species  of 
conservation  concern  that  are  reported  to  have  significant  levels  of  bycatch  in  EU  waters. 
ICES14 have committed to providing such estimates for more seabird species in coming years. 
According to the MRAG study2 it is felt this is the most appropriate method of assessing the 
threat of bycatch on seabird populations currently available although it has limitations and can 
provide  a  misleading  and  understated  measure  of  actual  impact  if  interpreted  wrongly.  This 
has been highlighted by Birdlife as a weakness in using this approach21.  

2.3. 

Current Management 

Management  measures  to  protect  seabirds  are  spread  across  a  wide  range  of  fisheries  and 
environmental legislation as well as being included in a number of international Conventions 
and  Agreements.  There  is  a  combination  of  binding  and  non-binding  measures  specifically 
tailored to reducing seabird bycatch in different fisheries and others where the protection of 
seabirds is included in the context of broader ecosystem management objectives of reducing 
fisheries impacts. A full description of the various international Conventions and Agreements 
is given in Annex VI. 

2.3.1.  Fisheries Legislation 

In  terms  of  fisheries  legislation  the  interaction  of  seabirds  with  fishing  activities  falls  under 
the overarching objectives of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP)22, which points to the need 
to  minimise  the  impacts  of  fishing  activities  on  marine  ecosystems.  However,  other  than  a 
closed area to protect seabirds in the sandeel fishery in the North Sea included in the current 
technical measures regulations23, no other specific legislation to protect seabirds from adverse 
impacts  of  fishing  activities  is  in  place  in  EU  waters.  Furthermore  there  is  no  formal 

21 

22 

23 

BirdLife  International,  2009.  European  Community  Plan  of  Action  (ECPOA)  for  reducing  incidental 
catches of seabirds in fisheries. Proposal by BirdLife International. September 2009. 38pp. 
Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  2371/2002  on  the  conservation  and  sustainable  exploitation  of  fisheries 
resosurces 
Annex III para. 4 of Council Regulation (EC) 43/2009 of 16 January 2009 fixing for 2009 the fishing 
opportunities and associated conditions for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in 
Community  waters,  and  for  Community  vessels,  in  waters  where  catch  limitations  are  required. 
November 2009.  

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
                                                 
obligation for fishermen to report these incidental catches nor a formal obligation for Member 
States to collect this information under the current EU Data Collection Framework (DCF)24.  

At a national level, however, recognising the problem, several Member States have introduced 
measures  or  developed  Codes  of  Conduct  to  reduce  seabird  bycatch  in  specific  areas  or 
fisheries.  These  measures  are  a  mixture  of  gear-based  and  operational  mitigation  measures, 
closed or restricted areas and restrictions on fishing effort. The actual effectiveness of these 
measures is poorly understood as few, if any, have been properly assessed but in at least one 
case  in  the  North  Sea  (i.e.  Ijsselsmeer  and  Markermerrin  lakes)  significant  reductions  in 
bycatch are reported as a result of the measures. Annex VII summarises the national measures 
taken in the case study fisheries used in the MRAG study2. 

The situation in fisheries in non-EU waters in which EU vessels operate is more advanced in 
terms of seabird protection. In these waters the Regional Fisheries Management Organisations 
(RFMOs) are key for the conservation and mangement of seabirds with RFMOs having been 
given  explicit  responsibilities  under  the  UN  Fish  Stocks  Agreement  (UNFSA)25  for 
minimising  bycatch  in  their  fisheries.  To  date,  the  majority  of  RFMOs  have  adopted  some 
form  of  mitigation  measures  aimed  at  avoiding  seabird  mortality  in  longline  fisheries.  As  a 
contracting party to many RFMOs, the EU is bound to implement those measures.  

The  EU  has  also  made  a  number  of  commitments  related  to  the  principles  of  sustainable 
development  and  others  more  specifically  related  to  the  management  of  the  shared  ocean 
resources,  including  species  at  conservation  risk  which  are  relevant  to  seabirds.  These 
include: 

– 

– 

– 

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)26  

The United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)27  

The  Convention  on  the  Conservation  of  Migratory  Species  of  Wild  Animals  (also 
known as CMS or Bonn Convention)28 

Under  the  auspices  of  CMS  there  is  an  Agreement  on  the  Conservation  of  Albatrosses  and 
Petrels (ACAP)29. This is a legally binding international treaty whose objective is to achieve 
and maintain a favourable conservation status for albatrosses and petrels by addressing threats 
on land and at-sea. Bycatch is regarded as the primary threat for this group of species.  

In  line  with  the  ACAP,  measures  adopted  by  the  Commission  for  the  Conservation  of 
Antarctic  Marine  Living  Resources  (CCAMLR)  have  proven  to  be  the  most  comprehensive 
with  the  result  that  incidental  catches  of  seabirds  in  the  Antarctic  in  the  demersal  longline 
fisheries  for  toothfish  have  been  eliminated  to  all  intents  and  purposes.  These  measures  are 

24 

25 
26 
27 
28 
29 

Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  199/2008  of  25  February  2008  concerning  the  establishment  of  a 
Community  framework  for  the  collection,  management  and  use  of  data  in  the  fisheries  sector  and 
support for scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Policy. 
http://www.tuna-org.org/Documents/TRFMO2/19%20ANNEX%205.11%20ENG.pdf 
OJ L 179, 23.6.1998, p. 3-134 
OJ L 309, 13.12.1993, p. 1. 
http://www.cms.int/about/intro.htm 
https://www.acap.aq/ 

EN 

18 

   EN 

 
                                                 
transposed into EU law through Regulation (EC) No 600/200430 and comprise the mandatory 
use of streamer‐lines, prohibition of discharge of waste during setting and hauling operations, 
line  weighting  and  seasonal  closure  of  high  risk  areas.  Recording  bird  bycatch  is  closely 
monitored on each participating vessel by an independent fisheries observer and reviewed on 
an  annual  basis  through  the  CCAMLR  Working  Group  for  Incidental  Mortality  Associated 
with Fishing (WG‐IMAF). As a direct result of implementing these measures, the number of 
incidental  mortality  of  seabirds  with  demersal  longline  vessels  declined  dramatically  from 
approximately 6,500 in 1996 to less than 100 in 2002 and zero in 2007. These measures are 
discussed  in  more  detail  in  Section  5.  Other  RFMOs  have  attempted  to  implement  similar 
measures but with varying degrees of effectiveness. These include: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

The Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC);  

Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna (CCSBT); 

Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC); 

Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC);  

International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT); and  

South-East Atlantic Fisheries Organisation (SEAFO).  

Annex VIII shows the areas covered by the different RFMOs while Annex IX provides a list 
of measures currently implemented within the relevant RFMOs.  

2.3.2.  Environmental Legislation 

Other than fisheries legislation, protection of non-target species such as seabirds is provided 
under EU environmental policy and in particular by the Birds10 and Habitats Directives31 and 
the  Marine  Strategy  Framework  Directive  (MSFD)32.  The  full  implementation  of  these 
Directives  is  part  of  the  EU’s  response  to  its  commitments  under  the  UN  Convention  on 
Biological Diversity33, and is reinforced by the commitment made by EU Heads of State "to 
halt  the  loss  of  biodiversity  [in  the  EU]  by  2010";  it  is  further  reiterated  in  the  EU 
Biodiversity Strategy to 202034. 

The key measure established by the Birds Directive is a general scheme of protection for all 
wild birds prohibiting various acts including, most relevant to fisheries, deliberate killing or 
capture by any method35.  

30 

31 
32 
33 
34 

35 

Council  Regulation  (EC)  No.  600/2004  of  22  March  2004  laying  down  certain  technical  measures 
applicable  to  the  fishing  activities  in  the  area  covered  by  the  Convention  on  the  conservation  of 
Antarctic marine living resources. 
OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, P. 7-50 
OJ L 164, 25.6.2008, p.19-40 
OJ L 309, 13.12.1993, p. 1. 
COM(2011) 244 final. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, 
the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Our life insurance, our natural 
capital: an EU biodiversity strategy to 2020.  
In light of case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, C-221/04, paragraph 71. 

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The Birds and Habitats Directives also establish the Natura 2000 network of protected areas, 
which embraces sites designated under any of the Directives concerned – Special Protection 
Areas  (SPAs)  established  under  the  Birds  Directive  and  Special  Areas  of  Conservation 
(SACs) established under the Habitats Directive.  

SPAs  designated  under  the  Birds  Directive  are  of  most  relevance  in  providing  explicit 
protection  for  seabirds  from  interactions  with  fishing  gears.  SACs  designated  under  the 
Habitats  Directive  are  designed  specifically  to  protect  listed  habitats  and  other  species  of 
conservation  concern  (e.g.  marine  mammals)  rather  than  seabirds  but  as  they  may  overlap 
SPAs  or  cover  areas  where  seabirds  may  forage  for  food  they  also  provide  protection  to 
seabirds indirectly. 

As  of  February  2011,  under  the  Birds  Directive,  a  total  of  936  SPAs  covering  an  area  of 
122,000km²  have  been  established  in  marine  areas.  A  map  showing  the  SPA  network  is 
included in Annex X. Most of these marine SPAs are in inshore waters or mudflats and have 
limited interaction with fisheries. Increasingly, however, coastal and offshore SPAs are also 
being designated and Member States will need to include fisheries management measures to 
ensure  the  favourable  conservation  status  of  protected  birds  in  these  sites.  The  German 
EMPAS36  and  Dutch  FIMPAS37  processes  are  two  such  examples.  The  measures  they  have 
identified are varied and range from temporal to spatial closures to specific measures for gear-
types and fisheries but the process for agreeing these measures given multiple Member States 
and stakeholders can be involved continues to be slow. Nonetheless, the development of such 
management  measures  will  be  a  key  component  in  providing  protection  for  seabirds  in  the 
future  and  should  be  extended  to  Important  Bird  Areas  (IBA)  identified  by  Birdlife 
International38 as well as in SPAs. 

The  Directives  also  have  built-in  reporting  requirements.  Article  12  of  the  Birds  Directive 
requires  Member  States  to  report  every  three  years  on  the  implementation  of  national 
provisions  taken  under  the  Directive.  Under  the  Habitats  Directive,  monitoring  of 
conservation  status  is  an  obligation  arising  from  Article  11  of  the  Habitats  Directive  for  all 
habitats (as listed in Annex I of the Birds Directive) and species (as listed in Annex II, IV and 
V of the Directive) of Union interest; consequently this provision is not restricted to Natura 
2000  sites  and  data  need  to  be  collected  both  in  and  outside  the  Natura  2000  network  to 
achieve a full appreciation of conservation status. The main results of this monitoring, along 
with  progress  made  with  implementation  have  to  be  reported  to  the  Commission  every  six 
years  according  to  Article  17  of  the  Directive.  Similar  data  reporting  requirements  on  the 
status  and  trends  of  bird  populations  are  currently  being  introduced  in  order  to  achieve  a 
streamlined reporting system. Notwithstanding this, reporting under the Directives is not at a 
sufficient  resolution  to  distinguish  the  threats  from  different  anthropogenic  activities  in 
relation to specific populations so the value of these reports in establishing the actual impact 
of bycatch is limited. 

The  MSFD  aims  to  bring  coherence  between  different  policies  and  foster  the  integration  of 
environmental concerns into other policies, such as the CFP. Under the MSFD protection of 
seabirds is recognised as a requirement that will contribute towards the achievement of Good 
Environmental Status (GES). Implementation of the MFSD is a legal requirement under the 
TFEU and dedicated measures to protect seabirds are implicitly required in compliance with 

36 
37 
38 

http://www.ices.dk/projects/empas.asp 
http://noordzee.wordpress.com/2009/11/01/project-fimpas-official-summary/ 
Birdlife International (2011). Important Bird Areas factsheets. http://www.birdlife.org 

EN 

20 

   EN 

 
                                                 
the  Directive.  It  does  not  propose  specific  monitoring  or  mitigation  measures  but  simply 
specifies  long-term  targets  and  indictors  for  measuring  progress  in  achieving  GES.  It's 
relevance is to provide a basis for framing management objectives in fisheries legislation for 
issues such as seabird bycatch.  

In the context of the MFSD, the issue of seabird bycatch is also covered within the framework 
of  Regional  Sea  Conventions  on  marine  environment,  in  particular  OSPAR39,  HELCOM40 
and  the  Barcelona  Convention41.  All  of  this  Conventions  contain  objectives  relating  to  the 
protection  of  biologically  sensitive  species  including  seabirds  although  again  do  not 
necessarily contain specific monitoring requirements or mitigation measures. 

2.4. 

Existing mitigation measures and devices 

There is a range of mitigation measures which have been developed. Some of these have been 
shown to be highly effective at reducing seabird bycatch. Annex XI provides a more detailed 
description of these measures and whether or not they are currently in commercial use.  

They  can  be  split  between  specific  measures  by  fishing  method  and  measures  with  broad 
applicability  across  multiple  fishing  gears.  Most  have  been  developed  to  reduce  bycatch  in 
longline fisheries and these can be divided into four main categories: 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

Avoidance  of  fishing  in  areas  and/or  at  times  when  seabird  interactions  are  most 
likely and intense (night setting, area and seasonal closures). 

Limiting bird access to baited hooks (weighted lines and side-setting). 

Deterring  birds  from  taking  baited  hooks  (streamer  (bird-scaring)  lines,  acoustic 
deterrents, water cannon). 

Reducing  the  attractiveness  or  visibility  of  the  baited  hooks  (dumping  of  offal  and 
artificial baits). 

Mitigation  measures  tested  in  static  net  fisheries  are  fewer  in  number.  Two  methods  have 
been  proposed  and  tested  to  alert  seabirds  to  the  presence  of  static  nets  and  thereby  avoid 
collision42.  One  method  is  to  increase  the  visibility  of  the  net  (visual  alerts),  and  the  other 
method is to attach acoustic deterrents (pingers) to nets. Encounters with static nets may also 
be reduced by setting nets deeper than the diving depth of seabirds. None of these methods are 
widely used currently.  

MRAG2 found that the measures for longline fisheries and the dual measures are effective as 
long  but  fishery  specific.  Experience  in  CCAMLR  and  several  other  longline  fisheries  in 
external waters have shown the effectiveness of these measures is enhanced if several simple 
measures (e.g. bird scarer lines, night setting and line weighting) are used in combination.  

The mitigation measures for static net fisheries are less well developed and tested and doubts 
remain over the effectiveness as acknowledged by MRAG2. None of them are currently used 
commercially in static net fisheries to reduce seabird bycatch. Closed or restricted areas are 
the only effective mitigation measures available in these fisheries at present.  

39 
40 
41 
42 

http://www.ospar.org/ 
http://www.helcom.fi/ 
http://www.unepmap.org/index.php?module=content2&catid=001001004 
Melvin, E.F., Parrish, J.K. and Conquest, L.L. 1999. Novel tools to reduce seabird bycatch in coastal 
gillnet fisheries. Cons. Biol. 13: 1386-1397. 

EN 

21 

   EN 

 
                                                 
It is apparent that the general preference of fishermen is for practical, low-tech measures (i.e. 
offal  discharge,  streamers  for  longlines  and  buoys  with  bird  scarers  for  static  nets).  Such 
measures lend themselves to a Code of Conduct type approach that can be reinforced through 
peer-led example and pressure rather than prescriptive legislation. Less favourable measures 
are  more  costly  and  complex  modifications  such  as  bird-scaring  curtains  for  longlines  and 
acoustic pingers for  static nets.  Not  surprisingly spatial and temporal measures  are  the least 
popular  among  fishermen  given  the  anticipated  loss  of  earnings  from  the  partial  or  total 
closure of fishing grounds although they acknowledge that they are likely to be effective.  

In  the  public  consultation  most  stakeholders  recognised  the  current  suite  of  measures 
available in longline fisheries to be reasonably effective. Line weighting was highlighted by 
the  NGOs  and  at  least  one  national  administration  in  the  public  consultation  as  being  a 
particularly  effective  measure,  although  the  RACs,  fishermen's  organisation  and  other 
national  administrations  contested  this  and  claimed  it  was  dangerous,  particularly  for  small 
vessels.  Also  in  public  consultation  the  Baltic  Sea  RAC  and  several  NGOs  highlighted  the 
ban on drift netting introduced in the Baltic and high seas as being particularly effective.  

2.5. 

The affected stakeholders 

The adoption of new measures and the strengthening of existing measures to protect seabirds 
will  impact  on  a  range  of  stakeholders.  The  choice  of  measures  will  have  implications 
principally  for  the  catching  sector  and  administrators.  Table  3  below  shows  the  main 
stakeholders groups involved. 

Table 3 Key stakeholders in the conservation of seabirds 

Stakeholder Group 

Description 

Key interests 

Catching sector 

EU Vessel owners, operators and 
crew. 

Maintaining profitability and 
livelihoods. 

Fisheries-dependent businesses & 
communities  

Administrators 

Research Sector 

NGOs 

General public 

Business and communities 
dependent upon longline and static 
nets fisheries for their livelihoods. 
Other dependent economic sectors 
involved in ecotourism, bird 
watching etc. 

Maintaining profitability and 
livelihoods. 

Regional, national and provincial 
bodies regulating EC protection of 
seabirds as well as RFMOs in 
external waters. 

Ensuring an efficient, effective and 
practical management framework 
that balances a wide range of 
stakeholder needs. 

Scientific research bodies (ICES) 
contributing to the conservation 
and management of seabirds, and to 
sustainable fishing gears and 
practices. 

Contribution to an effective 
fisheries management regime 
through the timely access to robust 
data from fishery dependent and 
independent sources. 

Non-governmental organisations 
advocating responsible 
management of seabirds. 

To secure effective monitoring and 
mitigation of incidental catches of 
seabirds. 

The wider public with an interest in 
and concern for seabirds in 
particular and the marine 
environment in general. 

Source: Author 

To maintain seabird populations 
and biodiversity. 

EN 

22 

   EN 

 
Of  these  stakeholder  groups,  the  most  affected  by  the  introduction  of  measures  to  protect 
seabirds would be the longline and static net fleets operating in EU fisheries which have been 
highlighted  as  causing  high  levels  of  bycatch  and  where  few  management  measures  are  in 
place.  Apart  from  a  few  specific  fleets  (e.g.  the  Gran  Sol  and  pelagic  longline  fleets  in  the 
western Mediterranean), which are made up of a small number of larger vessels greater than 
24m,  the  rest  are  characterised  by  comprising  large  numbers  of  small  coastal  vessels 
(typically  less  than  12m  in  length).  Estimated  figures  for  the  number  of  vessels  involved  in 
longline and static net fisheries EU-wide are shown in Table 4.  

Table 4 Estimated numbers of EU static net and longline vessels by length class 

Gear Category 

Size Range 

Number of Vessels 

Static nets  

Less than 12m 

Static nets  

Greater than 12m 

Total 

Longlines  

Less than 12m 

Longlines 

Greater than 12m 

Total 

Source: EU Fleet Register 

38,269 

1,808 

40,077 

13,086 

1,170 

14,256 

Table  5  shows  a  breakdown  of  the  fleets  from  the  case  studies  in  the  MRAG  study2  which 
have been identified by ICES3 as having high bycatch. Estimates of employment are inclued 
by way of illustration. 

Table 5 Summary of the estimated number of vessels in the case study fisheries used for the MRAG study 

Area 

Fishing Method 

Member States 

No. of Vessels 

Western 
Mediterranean 

Western 
Mediterranean 

Eastern 
Mediterranean 

Eastern 
Mediterranean 

Pelagic longline 

Spain, Italy, France 

Demersal longline 

Spain, Italy France 

Pelagic longline 

Malta, Greece 

Demersal longline 

Malta, Greece 

Gran Sol 

Demersal longline 

Spain, France 

Eastern Baltic Sea 

Static net 

Western Baltic Sea 

Static net 

Eastern North Sea 

Static net 

Estonia, Latvia, 
Lithuania 

Sweden, denmark, 
Germany 

Netherlands, 
Germany 

Source: MRAG2 

1295 

1320 

2815 

5353 

74 

2692 

1123 

122 

Estimated 
employment 
(FTE) 

~2400 

~2850 

Not known 

Not known 

1,260 

~3,000 

1,600 

~244 
(Netherlands 
only) 

EN 

23 

   EN 

 
It is diffcult to classify these vessels into micro, small or medium-sized enterprises43 because 
accurate  employment  figures  and  average  turnover  for  the  EU  fleet  as  a  whole  are  not 
available  or  reliable.  However,  it  is  apparent  that  the  majority  (more  than  90%)  of  these 
longline  and  static  net  vessels  would  be  classified  as  micro-sized  enterprises  with  1-2  crew 
and a turnover  less than €2  million. Many  of  these vessels operate  on  a  part-time basis and 
regularly  switch  between  fishing  methods.  A  small  number  of  the  larger  longline  vessels 
could be classed as small-sized enterprises with crews of 10-30 and a turnover of close to €10 
million. Several of these larger vessels are owned by companies typically employing 100-250 
people  with  turnover  of  €20-30  m illion  and  could  therefore  be  classed  as  medium-sized 
enterprises.  For  instance  the  Spanish  company  Grupo  Regal  and  Associate  Companies  own 
and manage most of the Spanish longline fleet operating in the Gran Sol fishery2.  

If other fishing gears such as trawls and purse seines, potentially causing seabird bycatch, are 
included, then almost the entire EU fleet of around 84,000 vessels, employing around 141,000 
could potentially be impacted. According to the estimation made for the CFP reform impact 
assessment44 around 90% of the total EU fleet would be classified as micro-sized enterprises. 

In external waters there are approximately 400-500 EU licences available for longline vessels, 
predominantly for tuna, swordfish and Patagonian toothfish. Most of these vessels would be 
classed as small or medium-sized enterprises with between 10-30 crew on board and turnover 
less  than  €10  million  although  as  in  EU  waters   many  of  these  vessels  are  owned  by  larger 
companies of 100-250 employees with a larger annual turnover (e.g. Grupo Regal operate a 
number of vessels in  the longline  fishery in the Antarctic). A breakdown of the numbers of 
vessels by agreement is given in Annex XII. 

2.6. 

Underlying Drivers 

The problems and underlying drivers leading to incidental seabird bycatch are summarised in 
Table 6 below: 

Table 6 Problems and underlying drivers 

Problems 

Drivers 

Frequent  interactions  between  fisheries  and  seabirds 
are  inevitable  and  result  in  incidental  catches  of 
seabirds. 

Seabirds have become increasingly dependent on their 
association  with  fisheries  for  survival  and  breeding 
success. In so doing, they are augmenting the risk that 
they  become 
their 
populations decrease as a result 

injured  and/or  die  and 

that 

Longline  and  static  nets  that  account  for  a  large 
proportion of the incidental catches of seabirds are the 
most efficient methods for catching certain fish species 
many of which are of high value. Therefore these gears 
are widely used.  

Current management measures under EU fisheries and 
environmental legislation and measures included under 
international  Conventions  and  Agreements  have  been 
largely  ineffective  in  reducing  seabird  bycatch  except 

Management  measures  are  contained  in  a  number  of 
different  regulations  both  fisheries  and  environmental 
as  well  as 
international  conventions  and 
Agreements. 

in 

43 
44 

http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/sme/facts-figures-analysis/sme-definition/index_en.htm 
SEC(2011) 891. Impact Assessment concerning the Commission's proposal for the 2012 reform of the 
Common Fisheries Policy 

EN 

24 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
in some longline fisheries in external waters.  

There  is  a  general  lack  of  knowledge  on  the  actual 
scale of incidental catches due to the sporadic nature of 
monitoring.  

Proven  mitigation  measures  have  been  developed  for 
longline fisheries but uptake remains low in EU waters 
and only sporadic in no-EU fisheries. For other fishing 
gears few, if any proven mitigation measures currently 
exist. 

There  is  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.  This  is  particularly  apparent  in  EU 
waters.  

A  lack  of  urgency  both  at  EU  and  internationally  to 
address  the  issue  of  seabird  bycatch  and  poor  and 
inconsistent 
implementation  of  existing  measures 
despite  a  number  of  indications  by  the  EU  to  take 
action.45 46 47 48 

A lack of incentive for fishermen to comply with these 
measures  or  adopt  measures  voluntarily  even  though 
the  interactions  with  seabirds  are  known  to  have  an 
impact on fishing productivity and profitability. 

No formal obligation to monitor seabird bycatch in EU 
waters  so  monitoring  is  at  low  levels  and  sporadic. 
Data  on  seabird  populations  and  distributions  is 
incomplete.  

Monitoring under the Birds and Habitats Directive are 
not  specifically  geared  to  bycatch  in  fisheries  and 
therefore monitoring is not at a sufficient resolution to 
estimate the extent of bycatch. 

In  external  waters  monitoring  is  required  in  most 
fisheries  but  normally  on  a  voluntarily  rather  than 
mandatory basis so is inconsistent. 

Effective mitigation measures are well documented for 
longline  fisheries  but  in  the  absence  of  regulation 
uptake of such measures is low in EU waters. They are 
more  widely  used 
in  external  waters  although 
implementation is inconsistent and ineffective in many 
fisheries  

There has been less emphasis on seabird bycatch with 
other  fishing  gears  so  mitigation  measures  for  these 
remain  unproven  and  not  commercially 
gears 
acceptable. 

Lack of awareness raising and training of fishermen in 
the  use  and  benefits  of  mitigation  measures  and 
identification  of  seabirds  for  reporting 
accurate 
purposes. 

At an individual vessel level, recommended actions to 
mitigate  against  seabird  bycatch  are  considered  dis-
proportionate  to  the  scale  of  impact  on  seabird 
populations.  

Fishermen believe that using mitigation measures will 
result  in  capital  outlay  and  loss  of  earnings  from 
reduced catches. 

Research  into  mitigating  seabird  bycatch  has  been 
concentrated  on  longline  fisheries  with  little  work  to 

Longline  fisheries  have  been  identified  as  the  biggest 
source of seabird bycatch. 

45 

46 

47 

48 

COM(2002) 186 final. Communication from the Commission setting out a Community Action Plan to 
integrate environmental protection requirements into the Common Fisheries Policy 
COM(2006) 216 final. Communication from the Commission. Halting the Loss of Biodiversity by 2010 
– and beyond. Sustaining ecosystem services for human well-being. 22 May 2006. 
COM(2008)  187  final.  Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  Council  and  the  European 
Parliament. The role of the CFP in implementing an ecosystem approach to marine management. 
COM(2011) 244 final. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, The Council, 
The Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Our life insurance, our natural 
capital: an EU biodiversity strategy to 2020.  

EN 

25 

   EN 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                         
develop  measures  for  other  fishing  gears  (e.g.  static 
nets, trawls and purse seines). 

Reducing bycatch in other fishing gears is technically 
more challenging than for longlines.  

2.7. 

Evolution of the problem 

Source: Author 

Based on the available scientific advice from ICES3,4 and the findings of MRAG2 and other 
recent studies15&16, at least 60 of 346 seabird species are known to be incidentally caught in 
fishing gears in EU and non-EU waters. Of these 60 species around 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. In EU waters 6 species and in non-EU waters 22 species with reported 
high levels of bycatch are IUCN listed as being at high risk. ICES concludes that there is a 
seabird bycatch problem in EU fisheries and that measures should be developed to tackle this 
problem.  The  majority  of  the  contributions  from  the  general  public,  RACs,  NGOs  and 
national administrations to the public consultation concur with this conclusion. 

In a worst case scenario incidental seabird bycatch will remain unsustainable in EU waters for 
the threatened species indicated in Section 2.1 in the short to mid-term and have the potential 
to lead to further declines in the population of these species. In the best case scenario existing 
levels of seabird mortality may reduce through the voluntary use of adapted gears and fishing 
techniques  by  fishermen.  MRAG2  indicates  that  this  has  occurred  sporadically  in  several 
fisheries  implicated  as  having  high  bycatch  (e.g.  Western  Mediterranean  longline  fisheries 
and  the  Gran  Sol  longline  fishery)  and  where  there  is  an  economic  incentive  to  adopt  such 
measures to minimise bait loss, catch and gear damage and catches foregone. However, in the 
absence  of  campaigns  to  increase  awarence  of  the  problem  and  the  benefits  of  adopting 
mitigation measures this is likely to be on a limited scale. No such incentives exist for static 
net fisheries, the other main source of bycatch in EU waters, and without proven mitigation 
measures  other  than  closed  or  restricted  areas,  bycatch  would  be  expected  to  continue  at 
current levels. SPAs and SACs created under the Birds and Habitats Directives which contain 
fishery management measures to reduce seabird bycatch may help to improve the situation in 
the longer-term but are currently ineffective on their own. 

Monitoring of seabird bycatch would continue to be sporadic without any action. Monitoring 
of seabird bycatch is not explicitly required under the Data Collection Framework (DCF) as 
part  of  the  current  CFP,  while  monitoring  under  the  Birds  and  Habitats  Directive  is  not  at 
sufficient  resolution  to  allow  an  accurate  assessment  of  the  level  and  impact  of  bycatch  on 
populations. Some evidence of voluntary reporting under the current DCF is reported but is 
restricted  to  a  few  Member  States.  Therefore  knowledge  on  the  level  of  incidental  catches, 
species,  areas  and  fisheries  affected  would  remain  incomplete  making  the  framing  of 
management decisions problematic. 

In external waters, seabird bycatch would be expected to remain at current levels as existing 
mitigation and monitoring measures would remain in place, albeit inconsistently implemented 
across  regions.  This  inconsistency  was  highlighted  by  several  NGOs  in  the  public 
consultation as a major problem. If no action is taken to improve the implementation of these 
measures and reduce bycatch, then evidence would suggest that the populations of albatross 
and  petrels  under  threat  could  further  decline.  In  a  worst  case  scenario  bycatch  could 
significantly contribute to extinction of a species. This has already been the case for the now 
extinct  Large  St  Helena  Petrel  (Bulweria  bifax),  which  was  reportedly  caught  in  significant 
numbers in several longline fisheries13. In the best case scenario bycatch could be stabilised at 

EN 

26 

   EN 

 
current level, reduced or as evidenced by the fisheries in the Antarctic managed by CCAMLR 
almost eliminated. 

2.8. 

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 including seabirds. The relevant Articles of the TFEU are Article 3(1d) which covers 
"the  conservation  of  marine  biological  resources  under  the  common  fisheries  policy"  and 
Articles 38 to 44 that relate specifically to the CFP.  

Member  States  are  able  to  develop  measures  for  their  own  fleets  that  lead  to  a  more 
sustainable protection of seabirds and this is particularly the case in waters inside 12 nautical 
miles.  However,  some  fisheries,  which  impact  with  seabirds,  are  shared  between  Member 
States  (and  sometimes  the  fleet  of  one  Member  State  are  mostly  present  in  the  waters  of 
another Member State), and this makes Member States reluctant to submit their own fleets to 
constraining measures unless the same or equivalent rules will apply to neighbouring fleets, in 
view of maintaining an economic level playing field. In addition, the scientific knowledge on 
seabird  bycatch  can  only  improve  when  common  standards  for  data  sourcing  are  followed, 
otherwise scientists will not be able to compare data stemming from various Member States. 

3. 

OBJECTIVES 

3.1. 

General objectives 

Given  the  lack  of  accurate  data  on  populations  and  estimates  of  bycatch  for  all  seabird 
species,  it  is  difficult  to  set  absolute  targets  for  the  reduction  of  seabird  bycatch.  Therefore 
this  proposed  initiative  has  the  objective:  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.  

This should be achieved at the latest by 2020 in line with the objective of the MSFD to reach 
GES  for  the  marine  ecosystem  by  this  date.  It  is  also  in  line  with  one  of  the  overarching 
objectives of the CFP of moving to an ecosystem approach to fisheries management. 

3.2. 

Specific objectives 

The specific operational objectives to support this general objective are: 

(1) 

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

•  Defining clear management targets for seabird species under threat from bycatch. 

Targets should be defined at the latest by the end of 2013.  

•  Progressing  the  development  of  fisheries  management  measures  in  SPAs  to 

protect seabirds on a continual basis in line with the reform of the CFP. 

•  Reviewing current measures in place in RFMOs at the latest by the end of 2013 

and thereafter assessing compliance and effectiveness on a continual basis. 

EN 

27 

   EN 

 
•  Coming  forward  with  recommendations  to  monitor  and  introduce  mitigation 
measures  (on  a  voluntary  basis)  to  reduce  seabird  bycatch  for  non-EU  vessels 
operating in EU waters as part of Coastal State Agreements (e.g. Norway) at the 
latest by the end of 2013. 

(2) 

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 by: 

•  Reviewing  available  bycatch  data,  validating  sources  of  information  and 
identifying fisheries where further monitoring is required at the latest by the end 
of 2013. 

•  Collecting bycatch data on these fisheries either on a volunatary basis through the 
current  DCF,  under  the  Birds  and  Habitats  Directive,  through  pilot  projects  and 
self-sampling  by  industry  or  national  monitoring  programmes.  Alternatively  this 
law. 
could  be  done  under  mandatory  monitoring 
Implementation should begin immediately. 

required  under  EU 

•  Creating a standard reporting format for recording seabird bycatch at the latest by 

mid-2013. 

•  Ensuring  observers  deployed  on  vessels  in  external  waters  routinely  record 
seabird bycatch data and submit it to the respective RFMOs and the Commission 
on a continual basis. 

•  Considering the feasibility of incorporating the monitoring of seabirds under the 

new DCF due to be introduced in 2014 as a mandatory requirement. 

•  Assessing  whether  the  management  targets  set  under  objective  1  are  being  met 
using  suitable  indicators  (e.g.  PBRs).  Assessment  of  existing  data  should  begin 
immediately and continue as knowledge increases. 

(3) 

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 by:  

•  Implementing  measures  in  high-risk  longline  fisheries  both  in  EU  and  non-EU 
waters  through  national  measures,  voluntary  uptake  by  industry  or  through  a 
specific  regulation  detailing  mandatory  mitigation  measures.  Implementation 
should begin immediately and continue in this format up until the introduction of 
a new technical measures framework to be developed post-CFP reform (expected 
early  2016)  whereafter  necessary  measures  would  be  incorporated  under  the 
framework. 

•  Assessing  and  implementing  mitgation  measures  for  static  net  fisheries  in  EU 
waters where bycatch is reported to be high. This is dependent on such measures 
being  further  researched  and 
tested  but  should  be  a  priority  action. 
Implementation of mitigation measures in these fisheries should continue until the 
new techncial measures framework is implemented and measures are incorporated 
into this framework. 

EN 

28 

   EN 

 
•  Bringing  forward  proposals  for  additional  mitigation  measures  in  RFMOs  on  a 

continual basis as and when required. 

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

(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. Critical to 
achieving  this  will  be  the  allocation  of  funding  by  Member  States  under  the  EFF 
(until the end of 2013) and the new EMFF (in the period 2014-2020). 

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. As with objective 4, EFF and EMFF funding will be 
critical to achieving this objective. 

3.3. 

Reform of the CFP 

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. Such 
an approach will contribute to the protection and preservation of the marine environment and 
be compatible  with  current environmental  legislation (i.e. Birds and Habitats Directive) and 
the  requirement  to  reach  Good  Environmental  Status  (GES)  for  the  marine  ecosystem 
contained in the MFSD.  

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 approach to technical measures which for seabirds will contain limits for levels of 
bycatch along with a tool box of mitigation measures that could be used to achieve these 
targets.  Member  States  could  then  develop  "regionalised"  technical  measures  using  this 
toolbox  and  demonstrate  the  measures  implemented  are  being  effective.  This  approach 
will take time to be developed and the final content is dependent on the outcome of the 
reform. Realistically it will not be in place before 2016. 

•  The  new  EU  Multiannual  Programme  for  Data  Collection  (DCMAP)  planned  to  be 
introduced in 2014. Discussions are currently on-going regarding whether to include the 
monitoring of other ecosystem components including seabirds.  Input from experts and a 
costing of such an extension of the current Data Collection Framework are still needed.  

•  Financial support for new measures provided under the current European Fisheries Fund 
(EFF) and the new European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF)49. The new EMFF is 
scheduled to be introduced in 2014 and would provide aid for the development and use of 
environmentally friendly fishing methods and gears, pilot projects aiming at experimental 
use  of  more  responsible  fishing  gears  and  the  testing  of  alternative  monitoring 
technologies such as CCTV.  

49 

COM(2011)804.  Proposal  for  a  Regulation  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  on  the 
European Maritime and Fisheries Fund 

EN 

29 

   EN 

 
                                                 
•  The Commission to take a more pro-active role in the RFMOs to try to remedy the current 
situation  of  poor  compliance  of  some  Member  States  with  RFMOs'  conservation  and 
management  measures.  This  commitment  is  given  in  the  recent  Communication  on  the 
External Dimension of the CFP50.  

4. 

POLICY OPTIONS  

Three policy options to address these objectives are considered: 

• 

• 

• 

Option 1: Status quo: Baseline scenario (hereafter "Status Quo") 

Option  2  :  Development  of  an  EU  Plan  of  Action  for  reducing  seabird  bycatch 
(hereafter "EU-POA”) 

Option  3  :  The  adoption  of  a  stand-alone  Regulation  (hereafter  "Stand-alone 
Regulation") 

For options 2 and 3 the actions are largely as outlined but they differ from each other in the 
legal format. 

A fourth option relying on the implementation of mitigation and monitoring measures under 
the Birds and Habitats Directive was also considered. This option was referred to in the public 
consultation  by  several  fishermen's  representative  organisations  who  felt  no  additional 
measures  were  needed  if  appropriate  fisheries  management  measures  were  properly 
implemented within SPAs. However, this was rejected on the grounds that: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

50 

Evidence  to  date  suggests  that  the  primary  measure  contained  in  the  Birds  and 
Habitats  Directives  i.e.  SPAs  and  SACs  are  not  the  most  effective  means  of 
protecting seabirds from fisheries interactions. Most seabird species often forage for 
food  far  from  their  breeding  sites  for  which  such  sites  are  best  able  to  protect  and 
even though there is a commitment within the Birds Directive to protect seabirds as 
much outside SPAs as inside, so far this has not resulted in measurable reductions in 
bycatch. 

The monitoring required under the Birds and Habitats Directive is not at a sufficient 
resolution or frequency to provide an accurate estimate of bycatch levels.  

The  development  of  effective  fishery  management  measures  in  offshore  SPAs  and 
SACs is still a work in progress as evidenced by the FIMPAS and EMPAS projects. 
Such measures are currently difficult to agree given they often straddle the territorial 
waters of a number of Member States. 

The Birds and Habitats Directives will not address the issues of seabird bird bycatch 
in non-EU waters. 

COM(2011)424. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, The Council, The 
European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on External Dimensions 
of the Common Fisheries Policy. 

EN 

30 

   EN 

 
                                                 
A  fifth  option  of  a  complete  prohibition  of  fishing  with  longlines  and  static  nets  within  EU 
waters where seabird bycatch has been identified as being problematic was considered on the 
basis that this was proposed by several NGOs and members of the general public. However, 
this was also rejected on the grounds that: 

• 

• 

• 

This is disproportionate to the scale of the problem and would lead to major impacts 
on  longline  and  static  net  vessels  EU-wide.  An  estimated  54,000  vessels,  landing 
~30% of the total EU catch would be affected; 

Simple and effective mitigation measures are available in many cases; and 

These  gear  types  are  recognised  as  being  environmentally  friendly  compared  to 
towed gears in that they are size-selective, fuel-efficient and have a lower impact on 
the seabed. Prohibiting them would force fishermen to adopt or revert back to other 
fishing methods with higher environmental impacts. 

4.1. 

Option 1 – Status Quo 

This  first  policy  option  would  be  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  (including  legislation  adopted  by  RFMOs  and  tranposed  into  EU  law).  This  would 
mean  seabirds  continuing  to  be  protected  under  a  range  of  diverse,  mainly  voluntary  and 
largely  incoherent  management  measures,  which  other  than  a  few  isolated  cases  in  external 
waters (e.g. CCALMR) seem to have been ineffective. This was highlighted by the majority 
of contributors to the public consultation as a non-option as there is compelling evidence that 
current management measures have failed and that a significant problem exists.  

Essentially uptake of mitigation measures in EU waters would continue to be left to voluntary 
actions  taken  by  fishermen  or  through  national  measures  and  in  external  waters  as  non-
binding measures (e.g. resolutions or recommendations) in RFMOs. MRAG2 supported by the 
findings  of  several  other  studies15,  16  conclude  this  uncoordinated  approach  has  not  worked 
and  the  uptake  of  effective  measures  on  a  voluntary  basis,  without  supporting  awareness 
raising campaigns has been limited and sporadic. Therefore without any improvement in the 
effectiveness and implementation of mitigation measures, seabird bycatch would be expected 
to remain at unsustainable levels in the short to medium term. 

Monitoring  of  bycatch  would  continue  to  be  only  broadly  covered  under  the  Birds  and 
Habitats Directive, supplemented with voluntary observations at national level, either as pilot 
studies  or  under  the  existing  and  new  DCF.  This  would  be  insufficient  to  provide  a  clear 
picture  of  bycatch  levels  as  highlighted  by  a  the  majority  of  stakeholders  in  the  public 
consultation.  In  external  waters  monitoring  carried  under  the  RFMOs  would  continue  to  be 
variable and sporadic. 

There  would  also  be  no  attempt  to  raise  awareness  of  the  problem  of  seabird  bycatch  to 
fishermen other than existing campaigns coordinated by NGOs or any incentive for fishermen 
to  adopt  measures  voluntarily  other  than  for  operational  reasons.  There  would  also  be  no 
incentive  for  Member  States  to  instigate  research  into  solutions  to  the  problem  of  seabird 
bycatch.  

EN 

31 

   EN 

 
4.2. 

Option 2 – EU-POA 

This second option is based on the adoption of an EU-POA, which would follow an adaptive 
management approach. This approach was endorsed by the majority of the stakeholders in the 
public  consultation  (most  NGOs,  RACs  and  national  administrations)  and  also  by  ACFA. 
Adaptive, regionalised management is advocated in the CFP reform.  

The POA would contain voluntary measures supported by regulatory instruments within the 
CFP,  environmental  legislation,  international  fishery  legislation  as  well  as  the  Conventions 
and Agreements detailed in Section 2.4. The POA would provide an overarching framework 
encompassing  monitoring  and  mitigation  measures  with  links  to  flanking  measures 
(EFF/EMFF) that would provide financial support across fisheries. It would seek to provide a 
more structured approach than the current situation where the catching sector are largely left 
to adopt their own measures without any guidance or real incentives. 

The  measures  envisaged  under  this  option  would  be  applicable  to  all  vessels  operating  in 
Union waters and to EU flagged vessels in external waters. This was the scope advocated by 
the majority of stakeholders, including the RACs in the public consultation. Furthermore, in 
order to ensure a coherent approach between the internal and external EU fisheries policy, the 
Union would seek that the relevant international bodies enhance measures to protect seabirds 
by  facilitating  their  adoption  by  fishermen,  integrating  seabird  bycatch  monitoring  into 
observer programmes (where this has not already been achieved) and promoting best practice 
to non-EU fleets.  

The POA would contain a combination of existing legally binding elements, future measures 
introduced  under  the  regulatory  instruments  of  the  reformed  CFP  as  well  as  non-
binding/voluntary measures. These are summarised in table 7. 

Table 7 Binding and non-binding measures under the POA 

Existing and Future Legally Binding Measures 

Non-Binding/Voluntary Measures 

Fishery Management measures in SPAs created under 
the Birds Directive  

Monitoring of seabird bycatch under the DCF 
(currently voluntary with the intention of possibly 
making it mandatory under the new DCF) 

Reporting and targets defined under the Birds 
Directive, MSFD, RFMO agreements and under 
International Conventions 

Voluntary mitigation measures adopted by the fishing 
industry  

Existing Mitigation Measures (EU legislation in EU 
and non-EU waters) 

Enhanced observer coverage by Member States in 
areas where bycatch is highest 

Regionally specific technical Measures implemented 
under the new technical conservation measures 
framework in the context of the CFP reform 

Non-binding resolutions and recommendations under 
RFMO Agreements and International Conventions 

National mitigation measures (e.g. Spain) 

Financial support for adoption of mitigation measures, 
research and education awareness under the EFF and 
EMFF 

Source: Author 

To  address  specific  objective  1  it  would  aim  to  provide  a  consistent  approach  between 
fisheries and environment policies, recommending actions in areas and fisheries in EU waters 

EN 

32 

   EN 

 
identified as having high levels of incidental catches of seabirds with direct consultation with 
stakeholders.  In  external  waters  it  would  provide  a  mechanism  to  ensure  coherence  and 
complementarities between RFMOs, fisheries agreements and environment conventions, such 
as CITES, CMS, Regional Seas Conventions and UNSDC (Rio+20) and help to ensure better 
implementation of existing measures.  

To meet specific objective 2 in addition to national monitoring programmes, under the POA 
Member States would be encouraged to extend monitoring under the DCF to include seabird 
bycatch  in  fisheies  known  to  or  suspected  of  having  a  bycatch  problem.  This  would  be  a 
voluntary action but it should be noted that some Member States, notably UK, France, Poland, 
Ireland and the Netherlands already monitor bycatch of protected species including seabirds 
under their DCF programmes. 

In  identified  high-risk  fisheries,  Member  States  would  also  be  encouraged  to  implement 
enhanced observer programmes in line with a precautionary approach to establish the extent 
of the problem. Financial support for such programmes would be provided through the EFF 
and the new EMFF. After 2014 the intention would be to make reporting of seabird bycatch a 
mandatory requirement in all fisheries covered under the new DCF and for Member States to 
report regularly on seabird bycatch in the relevant fisheries. The need for mandatory reporting 
for seabird bycatch in the longer term was advocated by NGOs and the RACs in the public 
consultation.  

Specific  bycatch  monitoring  would  be  supported  by  separate  monitoring  required  under  the 
Birds and Habitats Directive on the implementation of national provisions taken under these 
Directives.  Combining  data  from  these  sources  would  allow  the  development  of  PBR 
estimates  for  a  range  of  seabird  species  allowing  assessment  of  the  relative  contribution  of 
bycatch to overall mortality and the setting of concrete management objectives.  

To  achieve  objective  3,  in  the  short-term,  implementation  of  mitigation  measures  in  EU 
waters under the POA would be essentially voluntary or through national measures. The POA 
would recommend fisheries where actions should be prioritised based on known information, 
conservation  threat  and  the  appropriate  mitigation  measures  available.  MRAG2  and  ICES3 
indicates that priorty should be given to: 

• 

• 

• 

longline fisheries in the eastern and western Mediterranean and the Gran Sol fishery 
in the NE Atlantic;  

in external waters where the use of mitigation measures should be consolidated;  

and  static  net  fisheries  in  the  Baltic  and  eastern  North  Sea  noting  that  mitigation 
measures other than closed or restricted areas are less well developed.  

In  the  longer-term  the  aim  is  to  incorporate  mitigation  measures  under  the  new  regional 
approach  to  technical  measures  to  be  developed  under  the  reform  of  the  CFP  outlined  in 
Section 3.3. The extent to which regionally specific mitigation measures will be needed under 
this approach will depend largely on the uptake and effectiveness of measures introduced in 
the  short-term.  If  there  is  verifiable  adoption  of  measures  and  management  targets  set  are 
being met then there will be less of a need for mandatory measures to be introduced. If there 
is no evidence of significant reductions in bycatch or uptake of mitigation measures is poor, 
then  the  Commission  could  step-in  and  implement  mandatory  measures.  This  in  itself  is  an 

EN 

33 

   EN 

 
incentive for the catching sector to volunatrily adopt mitigation measures to avoid potentially 
more stringent requirements in the future. 

In  line  with  objective  4  and  to  support  objectives  2  and  3,  the  POA  would  recommend 
Member  States  implement  education  and  training  programmes  for  fishermen  to  raise 
awareness  of  the  problem,  to  demonstrate  the  benefits  of  using  of  mitigation  measures  and 
also in the identification of seabirds for reporting purposes. In addition Member States would 
be encouraged to instigate research to develop and test practical mitigation measures in line 
with  objective  5.  These  measures  along  with  funding  to  offset  the  costs  of  using  mitigation 
measures would be facilitated through the EFF and the new EMFF as outlined in Section 3.3. 
Funding may also be available for targeted research through the EU LIFE51 programme and 
FP7 programme52.  

In  external  waters,  the  issue  of  seabird  bycatch  is  more  about  the  consolidation  and 
implementation of exisiting monitoring and mitigation as the problems are better documented 
in line with objective 1. The main function of the POA in these fisheries would be to provide 
a vehicle to propose the strengthening of existing measures and implement awareness raising 
measures  to  improve  compliance.  The  POA  would  also  provide  a  mechanism  to  encourage 
RFMOs, both through direct request and via the FAO, to develop their own National/Regional 
Plans of Action, consistent with the FAO Best Practice Technical Guidelines12. In the longer-
term, under the reform of the CFP, evidence of compliance with conservation measures such 
as mitigation and monitoring of seabird bycatch could be made a condition of the licence of 
particpating  vessels.  Such  a  requirement  is  already  implemented  as  part  of  the  measures  in 
place in CCAMLR. 

The approach described under this option would not require a separate impact assessment as 
the  measures  would  be  implemented  through  existing  measures  or  by  voluntary  or  national 
measures  in  the  first  instance.  In  the  longer-term  an  impact  assessment  will  be  required  to 
support the new technical measures framework but this regulation will not specifically contain 
detailed  measures  for  seabirds  which  should  be  regionalised  and  implemented  at  a  Member 
State level. 

4.3. 

Option 3 – Stand-alone Regulation 

Option  3  takes  a  stricter  precautionary  approach  than  option  2  and  was  advocated  by  one 
particular NGO and members of the general public in the public consultation but rejected by 
the  RACs  and  fishermen's  organisations  as  being  dis-proportionate  to  the  scale  of  the 
problem.  It  assumes  that  the  new  approach  to  technical  measures  will  not  be  in  place  until 
2016 and the new DCF until 2014 at the earliest. Therefore based on the current conservation 
status  of  at  least  25  seabird  species  in  EU  waters  (either  listed  by  IUCN  or  in  the  Birds 
Directive),  regulatory  measures  to  protect  these  species  need  to  be  put  into  place  more 
expediently.  

Essentially,  it  seeks  the  adoption  of  prescriptive  mitigation  measures  and  monitoring  of 
identified  fisheries  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  RFMOs.  It  would  be  based  on 

51 
52 

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/ 
http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/home_en.html 

EN 

34 

   EN 

 
                                                 
existing knowledge of fisheries which have reported bycatch of threatened seabird species and 
the use of proven mitigation measures to address this bycatch.  

The Regulation would build on the experiences of Regulation (EC) No 600/2004 which sets 
out  monitoring  and  mitigation  measures  in  the  Antarctic  fisheries  manged  by  CCAMLR. 
These measures are relatively simple and have been successful in almost eliminating bycatch 
in the longline fisheries in this region. It would also follow a similar approach to Regulation 
(EC)  812/200453  which  contains  specific  monitoring  and  mitigation  measures  for  cetacean 
bycatch across different fisheries and areas within in EU waters.  

Under this option two sub-options could be foreseen: 

• 

• 

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

Sub-option  3b:  including  only  mitigation  measures  with  monitoring  incorporated 
under the new DCF as per option 2. 

Under  sub-option  3a,  the  fisheries  to  be  monitored  would  be  defined  based  on  known 
information  and  level  of  conservation  threat.  Monitoring  would  be  in  parallel  with  the 
introduction  of  mitigation  measures  and  extended  to  cover  other  fisheries  where  a  bycatch 
problem is suspected. As per Regulation (EC) 812/2004 it would contained defined levels of 
monitoring for different fisheries based on the level of observation thought likely to detect a 
conservation  threat.  Implementation  of  a  separate  monitoring  programme  was  advocated  by 
the NGOs but rejected by the RACs.  

Under  sub-option  3b,  monitoring  of  seabird  bycatch  would  be  addressed  as  under  option  2 
and over-time it would be incorporated under the new DCF planned to be introduced in 2014 
if this proves feasible.  

Under both sub-options, mitigation measures would be defined for the high-risk longline and 
static net fisheries as identified under option 2. In the longline fisheries this would equate to 
the mandatory use of proven gear modifications and changes to fishing practice which have 
been  effective  in  CCAMLR  and  in  other  fisheries  globally.  These  include  the  use  of  bird 
scarer lines, offal discharge management measures, line weighting and night setting. For these 
measures  defined  standards  and  specifications  would  be  set  out  as  in  the  CCAMLR 
Regulation. All of these measures were deemed effective in the public consultation although 
the RACs and fishermen's organisations highlighted line weighting as potentially dangerous.  

These  measures  would  be  supported  with  the  establishment  of  spatial/temporal  closures  or 
gear restrictions where appropriate. Such areas would be established on the basis that inaction 
or using mitigation measures alone could cause serious and potentially irreversible damage to 
threatened  seabird  populations.  They  would  complement  SPAs  and  SACs  established  under 
the Birds and Habitats Directive.  

For  static  net  fisheries,  as  under  option  2,  initially  measures  would  have  to  be  restricted  to 
spatial  or  temporal  closures  and  simple  operational  changes  such  as  offal  discharge 
management  given  that  other  mitigation  measures  for  static  net  are  not  well  developed  or 

53 

Council Regulation (EC) 812/2004 laying down measures concerning incidental catches of cetaceans in 
fisheries and amending Regulation (EC) No 88/98 

EN 

35 

   EN 

 
                                                 
tested  currently.  As  new  mitigation  techniques  are  developed  then  these  would  be 
incorporated into the Regulation.  

In the longer-term for both sub-options, these mitigation measures could be incoporated under 
the new approach to techncial measures proposed under the CFP reform and the relevant parts 
of the Regulation could be repealed. 

This regulatory approach (either sub-option 3a or 3b) would address specific objectives 2 and 
3 and also objective 1 within EU waters. It would not specifically deal with objectives 4 and 5 
in that it would not contain specific provisions for research, training or education. Funding for 
such  initiatives  would  still  be  available  under  the  EFF/EMFF  if  Member  States  wished  to 
include measures to protect seabirds as part of their Operational Programmes. The Regulation 
would  be  based  on  the  assumption  that  a  problem  exists  and  measures  to  mitigate  this 
problem  are  available  so  there  would  be  no  explicit  need  for  further  research,  training  or 
awareness raising measures.  

In the case of both sub-options as there would be economic, environmental and social impacts 
a separate impact assessment is likely to be required to support the Regulation although much 
of  the  background  information  for  this  impact  assessment  may  already  be  included  in  the 
MRAG study. 

5. 

ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS  

The  main  outcome  from  the  different  policy  options  are  analysed  against  their  economic, 
environmental  and  social  impacts.  The  options  are  also  asssessed  against  the  Commission's 
Action  Plan  for  simplfying  and  improving  the  Common  Fisheries  Policy54  as  well  as  the 
administrative burden on the main actors as a result of introducing new measures. 

5.1. 

Option 1 – Status Quo 

5.1.1.  Economic impacts 

Mitigation 

The main sector affected economically under this option would be the catching sector. There 
would  be  no  direct  costs  for  adopting  new  mitigation  measures  as  none  would  be  required, 
although  individual  vessel  owners  may  adopt  voluntary  measures  in  certain  circumstances. 
Negative  impacts  from  a  reduction  in  fishing  productivity  and  profitability  through 
interactions  with  seabirds  may  result.  In  longline  fisheries,  this  negative  economic  impact 
would be in the form of direct costs incurred by bait loss to seabirds. Bait costs for longline 
vessels are currently high and MRAG2 estimate they may make up c. 15%-20% of the total 
operating costs of a longline vessel. These costs are dependent on the size of vessel, number 
of hooks being fished and type of bait used. Although these losses have not been accurately 
estimated  directly  for  EU  fisheries,  several  studies  have  been  carried  out  in  international 
longline fisheries that illustrate the scale of such losses typically incurred. These range from a 
Norwegian study55 that showed losses to Northern fulmars in unmitigated demersal longline 

54 

55 

COM(2004)  820  Communication  on  Perspectives  for  simplifying  and  improving  the  regulatory 
environment of the Common Fisheries Policy  
Løkkeborg, S and Bjordal, Å. 1992. Reduced bait loss and bycatch of seabirds in longlining by using a 
bird scarer. Document to Working Group FSA-92 CCAMLR, Hobart, Australia Pp 5.  

EN 

36 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
fisheries to be as high as 70%, to a Japenese study56 that observed bait losses of betweeen 15-
16%  in  pelagic  longline  fisheries  for  bluefin  tuna  off  New  Zealand's  EEZ.  Assuming  these 
rates are equivalent to EU fisheries then the losses are significant and conservatively would be 
c.20%. 

There  would  be  additional  direct  losses  incurred  through  damage  to  fish  catches  from 
depredation by seabirds, as well as direct gear damage caused by seabirds. These costs have 
not  been  estimated  accurately  but  according  to  MRAG2,  based  on  the  interviews  conducted 
with fishermen, they are marginal compared to the cost of bait losses. No fishermen reported 
them as being problematic although all reported that they did occur quite regularly. 

There will also continue to be indirect costs from catches foregone from seabirds being caught 
on baited hooks that could have yielded catch. These losses have been estimated directly in 
non-EU longline fisheries and shown to be substantial, particularly in low volume/high value 
fisheries.  For  example,  data  from  longline  vessels  targeting  Patagonian  toothfish  over  a  ten 
year  period  from  1994-2003,  estimated  losses  of  c.  $2  million  (€1.36  million  euro)  in 
foregone catch from seabirds. Based on the MRAG analysis2, the estimated losses in similar 
large-scale longline fisheries in EU waters are comparable although would depend primarily 
on the value of the species targeted and the seabird species interacting with the gear. In small-
scale longline fisheries, the scale of these losses is less clear but in proportion to landed catch 
is still likely to be significant based on all known information. 

In  situations,  where  losses  are  particularly  acute,  some  fishermen  may  instigate  their  own 
mitigation  measures  voluntarily,  which  need  to  be  factored  into  this  analysis.  There  is 
evidence from the MRAG study2 of fishermen operating in the Mediterranean and Gran Sol 
adopting  simple  operational  changes  and  using  mitigation  devices  in  an  attempt  to  reduce 
seabird  bycatch  to  counter  these  economic  losses.  There  are  no  accurate  estimates  of  how 
effective  these  measures  are  or  of  uptake  by  fishermen  but  continued  adoption  of  voluntary 
measures  in  such  circumstances  will  lead  to  some  reductions  in  seabird  bycatch  (c.  5-10% 
based  on  anecdotal  evidence  contained  in  the  MRAG  study2).  Whether  the  use  of  these 
mitigation  measures  will  be  maintained  in  the  longer-term  will  very  much  depend  on  the 
problem continuing to exist at a level that provides a sufficiently strong economic driver for 
fishermen to react to the problem.  

In  static  net  fisheries  (and  other  fisheries  such  as  trawl  and  purse  seine  fisheries)  economic 
losses from the direct and indirect effects are much lower as losses are restricted to catch and 
gear  damage  and  downtime  from  removing  bycaught  seabirds  from  nets.  The  scale  of  such 
losses  have  not  been  quantified  although  based  on  the  MRAG  analysis2,  the  costs  are 
marginal  except  in  exceptional  circumstances  where  seabird  bycatch  in  individual  hauls  are 
large, resulting in significant downtime. Overall none of these were seen as particularly major 
issues  by  static  net  fishermen  interviewed  during  the  MRAG  study2,  although  the  majority 
reported  that  catch  loss,  gear  damage  and  downtime  occurred  regularly  during  fishing 
operations. There was little evidence of fishermen adopting voluntary mitigation measures in 
static net fisheries,which would support the view that the economic losses caused by seabirds 
in these fisheries are not significant. 

Other Users 

56 

Melvin,  E.F.  and  Walker,  N.  2008.  Optimising  tori  line  designs  for  pelagic  tuna  longline  fisheries. 
Report of work under New Zealand Ministry of Fisheries Special Permit 335. Pp8. 

EN 

37 

   EN 

 
                                                 
There would potentially be economic impacts on fisheries dependent businesses such as the 
processing sector and ancillary industries but these impacts are expected to be marginal. 

For  NGOs,  there  are  now  a  number  of  groups/organisations  actively  involved  in  trying  to 
protect seabirds. Their activities require financial and human resources. A continuation of the 
status quo would result in them continuing in both the short and long-term to spend money 
and time researching seabird issues and lobbying for protection of seabirds.  

For the general public the need to halt biodiversity loss is of increasing importance and this 
has created a demand for sustainably and responsibly caught fish products. This was apparent 
from  some  of  the  submissions  from  the  general  public  in  the  public  consultation.  Failure  to 
take measures to reduce seabird bycatch could lead to increasing difficulties for the catching 
sector to sell products in the market because of reduced demand for products not considered 
to be caught in an environmentally friendly manner.  

There  could  also  potentially  be  economic  impacts  on  tourism  operators  through  loss  of 
opportunities for eco-tourism and bird-watching. Without measures to protect and rebuild bird 
populations  to  previous  levels,  these  services  will  not  be  available  to  future  generations. 
Several studies have looked at the value of iconic species such as cetaceans and sharks that 
could  be  equated  to  seabirds.  These  studies  have  concluded  that  certain  species  (e.g. 
albatrosses,  gannets  and  auks)  have  significant  value  when  alive  as  a  tourist  attraction. 
However, putting an actual value on this for seabirds is very difficult in practice57.  

5.1.2.  Environmental impacts 

As  outlined  in  sections  2.4  and  2.5,  in  all  probability,  incidental  seabird  bycatch  would 
continue at the current unsustainable levels in EU waters and have the potential to influence 
the population status of at least 49 seabird species.  

Monitoring  of  seabird  bycatch  would  continue to  be  low  with  no  legal  obligation  under  the 
DCF and therefore there is unlikely to be any improvement in the current knowledge on the 
level of incidental catches, species, areas and fisheries affected. Monitoring obligations under 
the Birds Directive alone are currently not targeted enough to provide a clear picture of the 
extent of the problem. 

In  external  waters,  seabird  bycatch  would  be  expected  to  remain  at  current  levels  with  the 
existing  mitigation  and  monitoring  measures  in  place.  If  no  action  is  taken  to  improve  the 
implementation of these measures then in the worst case scenario certain species of albatross 
and petrels could become extinct if current levels of bycatch were to continue. In the best case 
scenario, bycatch would be stabilised, reduced or, as shown by the experiences in CCALMR, 
eliminated almost completely21. 

5.1.3. 

Social impacts 

Media  campaigns  by  NGOs  have  undoubtedly  raised  awareness  on  bycatch  issues  and  the 
environmental impacts of fishing in general. Therefore failure to introduce any new measures, 
as  under  option  1,  would  meet  with  a  negative reaction from the general public and NGOs. 
This is exacerbated by the fact that seabirds are some of the most visible and iconic indicators 

57 

TEEB – The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity for National and International Policy Makers – 
Summary: Responding to the Value of Nature 2009. 

EN 

38 

   EN 

 
                                                 
of ocean health (particularly albatrosses) and that a number of species are listed as threatened 
or endangered. This is evidenced by the public consultation where all of the submissions from 
the  general  public  stressed  the  need  to  address  the  problem  of  seabird  bycatch.  Pressure  on 
national  administrations,  the  Union  and  the  RFMOs  is  therefore  likely  to  increase 
significantly if no action is taken. 

There are unlikely to be any impacts on employment as there would be little change in costs 
or profitabilityfrom the current situation. A report from BirdLife21 would also suggest that in 
external  waters,  even  where  mandatory  mitgation  emasures  have  been  introduced  there  has 
been  no  impact  on  employment  with  any  additional  costs  absorbed  under  the  vessels 
operating costs and offset by the benefits outlined. 

The other main social impact of making no policy changes would be on the credibility of the 
Commission since it would be seen as renaging on an international commitment given to the 
FAO to develop a Plan of Action for seabirds and to implement the globally recognised FAO 
Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. The commitment to developing a POA dates back 
to  2001  when  the  EU  first  became  a  signatory  to  the  FAO  Plan  of  Action.  It  would  also 
amount to failure by the Union to implement measures to reach favourable conservation status 
for several seabird species as required under the Birds Directive or GES as required under the 
MSFD  as  well  as  respecting  several  international  conventions  to  which  the  EU  is  a 
contracting party.  

5.1.4. 

Impact on SMEs 

No direct impacts on SMEs are foreseen. 

5.1.5. 

Simplification and administrative burden 

As  no  new  legislation  would  be  introduced  under  this  policy  option  there  would  be  no 
implications  with  respect  to  simplification  of  regulations  or  any  additional  administrative 
burden.  The  current  complex  mixture  of  binding  and  non-binding  rules  would  continue  to 
apply.  

5.2. 

Option 2 – EU-POA 

5.2.1.  Economic Impact 

Mitigation 

As  with  option  1,  the  main  sector  affected  economically  would  be  the  catching  sector.  To 
assess these impacts fishermen's perceptions to a range of mitigation measures were assessed 
by MRAG2. This assessment was based on information on direct (capital) costs for mitigation 
measures  as  well  as  from  interviews  with  151  fishermen  or  groups  of  fishermen  across  the 
case  study  fisheries  on  their  estimates  of  the  impacts  of  introducing  different  mitigation 
measures.  It  should  be  stressed  this  analysis  took  no  account  of  the  potential  economic 
benefits mitigation measures might elicit, in terms of reductions in bait loss, catch and gear 
damage and catches foregone as indicated under option 1. This somewhat skews the analyses 
as  a  result  and  therefore  in  assessing  the  overall  impact  these  positive  benefits  have  been 
included in the final projections.  

EN 

39 

   EN 

 
Tables  8  summarise  the  results  for  the  longline  fisheries.  They  show  estimated  cost 
effectiveness  of  these  mitigation  measures  in  terms  of  loss  of  income,  costs  and  profit 
loss/gain58.  

Table 8 Cost Effectiveness of various mitigation measures for longlines  

Mitigation Type 

Estimated average change 

Income  Cost 

Profit 

Offal discharge different times 

Faster bait sinking 

Offal discharge opposite side 

Bird scaring curtain 

Streamer Lines 

Side-setting 

Dyed bait 

Increase weight of line 

Change bait type 

0% 

0% 

-3% 

-3% 

-2% 

-5% 

-8% 

-15% 

-16% 

0% 

1% 

0% 

2% 

2% 

5% 

4% 

5% 

3% 

0% 

-1% 

-3% 

-6% 

-5% 

-10% 

-12% 

-19% 

-19% 

Closed areas/seasons 

-28% 

-8% 

-20% 

Night setting 

Circle hooks 

-35% 

-40% 

0% 

4% 

-35% 

-43% 

Source: MRAG2 

According to the fishermen interviewed most mitigation measures in longline fisheries would 
result in negative economic impacts or at best would be cost neutral. The direct (capital) costs 
for  mitigation  measures  ranged  from  zero  for  operational  measures  such  as  night  setting  or 
offal management measures, to minimal costs for measures such as bird scaring lines that can 
be  bought  commercially  for  around  €200-250  per  pair  of   lines  to  more  complex  measures 
such  as  integrated  weighted  lines  which  would  have  much  higher  direct  costs  being  c.  5% 
more expensive than standard longlines. Birdlife estimate the capital costs for line weighting 
to be more in the region of 14-23%21. 

In  addition  to  the  capital  costs,  fishermen  also  highlighted  loss  of  earnings  and  operational 
efficiency. Loss of catch caused by the use of measures predicted by fishermen ranged from 
0% for offal management to -43% for the use of circle hooks, which were unpopular and felt 
by fishermen not to be an appropriate measure. Those deemed most effective both by MRAG2 
and  also  by  ICES4,  FAO12  and  in  the  public  consultation,  namely  bird  scarer  lines,  line 
weighting and night setting were estimated to result in loss of earnings of 5%, 15% and 35%). 
Taking  account  of  the  benefits  of  reduced  bait  loss,  gear  damage  and  catches  foregone  it  is 
estimated that the actual losses with these measures are considerably less than anticipated by 
fishermen.  A  comparable  study  of  longline  vessels  in  the  Falkland  Islands  reported  by 
BirdLife21 showed that for each 1 million hooks set; a reduction in seabird mortality rate of 
0.1  birds/1000  hooks  due  to  the  adoption  of  mitigation  measures  would  raise  an  additional 
US$5,025 (€3,400) of revenue. This would indi cate that fishermen in the MRAG study2 over-

58 

For each mitigation measure, the average impact on income, costs and profit in relation to the status quo 
is presented. All figures are rounded up. 

EN 

40 

   EN 

 
                                                 
estimate the impact of mitigation measures and at worst it is more likely that their use would 
result in loss of earnings of less than 10% when taking account likely economic gains. 

Tables 9 summarise the results for the static net fisheries.  

Table 9 Cost Effectiveness of various mitigation measures for static nets 

Mitigation Type 

Estimated average change 

Income 

Cost 

Profit 

Buoys with visual deterrents 

Red corks 

Multi-coloured twine 

Acoustic Deterrent Devices 

Spatial restrictions 

Temporal restrictions 

Use of alternative gears 

Increase net setting depth 

Set nets only at > 20m depth 

-6% 

-14% 

-16% 

-10% 

-29% 

-49% 

-26% 

-40% 

-67% 

3% 

5% 

5% 

-9% 

-19% 

-20% 

10% 

-21% 

6% 

-35% 

-11% 

-38% 

18% 

-43% 

4% 

6% 

-44% 

-73% 

Source: MRAG2 

Based  on  the  fishermen's  responses,  most  measures  have  only  marginal  capital  costs  except 
for the diversification to alternative gears where capital costs are estimated at 18%. However, 
all  measures  were  assessed  by  fishermen  to  result  in  comparatively  higher  profit  loss 
compared  to  longline  fisheries.  The  benefits  for  adopting  these  measures  are  limited  to 
reduced downtime yielding only marginal benefits so these estimated losses are more realistic 
in this case. Therefore the introduction of measures into static net fisheries is likely to cause 
much more disruption to the catching sector than measures in longline fisheries. This reflects 
that measures for static gears are less well developed. The scale of these costs would depend 
on  the  measures  adopted  with  the  lowest  estimated  at  9%  for  buoys  marked  with  visual 
deterrents to 73% for restrictions on setting nets in less than 20m depth. All similar measures 
that  resulted  in  restrictions  temporally  or  spatially  including  areas  totally  closed  were 
estimated as having the biggest impact on earnings. All things considered it is estimated that 
the introduction of any measures into static net fisheries will result in reductions in profit of 
more than 25%. 

MRAG2  notes  that  some  voluntary  actions  have  been  taken  to  reduce  bycatch  in  static  net 
fisheries. For example Danish vessels in the Baltic voluntarily avoid dense concentrations of 
sea ducks to minimise interactions. This is an easy and low cost approach with no impact on 
the catch and only a small amount of additional steaming time to work around the sea duck 
aggregations. Similar avoidance measures are advocated in other fisheries anecdotally by the 
fishermen interviewed in the MRAG study2 and also alluded to in the public consultation by 
NGOs, fishermen's organisations, RACs and national administrations. 

No assessment has been carried out for other fisheries such as trawl and purse seine fisheries 
but  the  economic  costs  and  marginal  benefits  would  most  likely  be  similar  to  static  net 
fisheries given effective measures are not well-developed. 

EN 

41 

   EN 

 
Taking  cognisance  of  the  weaknesses  of  the  MRAG  analysis2,  it  is  clear  there  are  costs  for 
implementing  mitigation  measures  to  reduce  seabird  bycatch  but  there  are  benefits  that  can 
offset these costs in longline fisheries. In static net fisheries it is more difficult as the range of 
measures  available  is  narrower  and  the  economic  impacts  are  potentially  higher.  This 
highlights  the  need  for  tailored  mitigation  measures  for  specific  fisheries.  Where  possible 
combinations  of  simple  gear  modifications,  changes  to  operations  or  voluntary  avoidance 
should be adopted rather than large-scale spatial or temporal measures or more expensive gear 
modifications such as circle hooks with less proven efficiency and the costs and/or potential 
losses from reduced catches are higher. This fishery/regionally based approach was strongly 
advocated by the RACs in the public consultation and is supported by the NGOs and national 
administrations.  

External waters 

In  external  waters  direct  costs  for  the  catching  sector  for  adoption  of  new  measures  or  the 
strengthening of existing measures are likely to be marginal given such measures already exist 
within most RFMOs. In addition, the vessels involved are generally large and the direct cost 
of adopting these measures is modest compared to the overall operating costs of these vessels. 
These costs have not been directly assessed for these fleets but in fisheries where they have 
been  implemented  the  costs  or  associated  catch  losses  have  not  been  an  issue  for  the  fleets 
involved21. 

Additional elements 

There are other potential economic benefits for the fishing industry in adopting the POA. To 
satisfy  consumer  demand  markets  are  increasingly  seeking  to  source  fish  from  sustainable 
fisheries  that  meet  the  standards  provided  in  the  FAO  International  Guidelines  on  fisheries 
eco-labelling  and  the  Code  of  Conduct  for  Responsible  Fisheries.  Reducing  or  maintaining 
low  seabird  bycatch  levels  can  be  an  important  requirement  to  meet  these  standards  in 
fisheries  identified  with  such  problems.  Cases  in  point  are  the  Gran  Sol  longline  fishery59 
which  is  currently  undergoing  assessment  for  Marine  Stewardship  Certification  (MSC)  and 
the  Patagonian  Toothfish  fishery  in  CCALMR  waters60,  which  has  achieved  accreditation 
under  MSC.  In  both  fisheries  seabird  bycatch  and  the  adoption  of  mitigation  measures  are 
important issues in achieving and maintaining certification. Ensuring continued market access 
and possible higher prices for certified fish products are strong drivers for industry. However, 
it is difficult to quantify the actual monetary benefits. 

Based on  the FAO model12, in addition to monitoring and mitigation measures, an essential 
element of the POA is delivering adequate training of fishermen as well as awareness-raising 
about the rationale and justification for adopting such measures. This was also highlighted by 
the NGOs and RACs in the public consultation as crucial to the success of a POA. The NGOs 
pointed to the experiences in CCAMLR as an example of the benefits of such programmes.  

To develop such programmes implies an economic cost. As an illustration of the level of costs 
involved, an Albatross Task Force (ATF) operated by Birdlife across seven countries operates 
on a budget of c. €500,000 per year for 15 ATF inst ructors, funded from donations to Birdlife 
from  a  variety  of  sources  (e.g.  governments,  general  public)21.  These  instructors  train 

59 

60 

http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/in-assessment/north-east-atlantic/grupo-regal-spain-hake-
longline/grupo-regal-spain-hake-longline 
http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/in-assessment/southern-ocean/SARPC-toothfish/SARPC-toothfish 

EN 

42 

   EN 

 
                                                 
fishermen in the use of mitigation measures. They also have a role in strengthening national 
observer programmes through developing at-sea observer protocols and seabird identification 
guides  while  also  providing  workshops  and  provision  of  training  materials.  The  NGOs  are 
best place to continue and expand this work into other regions but the scale will depend on 
their ability to fund such programmes or finding alternative funding sources (e.g. EFF/EMFF 
or national funding). 

In addition to awareness-raising measures, there is undoubtedly a need for applied research to 
improve  the  knowledge  of  seabird  behaviour  and  fishing  practices  for  refining  mitigation 
measures.  While  mitigation  measures  for  longline  fisheries  are  fairly  well  proven,  for  other 
gear  types  (e.g.  static  nets,  trawls  or  purse  seines)  appropriate  measures  are  less  well 
developed. 

The  direct  economic  costs  of  these  awareness  raising,  education  measures  and  applied 
research in the case of the POA would depend to a large extent on the importance given by 
Member States to such measures. However, given the potential integration into other relevant 
regulations,  the  magnitude  of  these  costs  could  be  shared  across  a  number  of  conservation 
areas (i.e. combine training on a range of non-target species). The number of NGOs involved 
would  also  increase,  given  the  wider  range  of  species  covered  (e.g.  cetaceans).  Costs  for 
research  along  with  the  awareness-raising  and  training  could  be  offset  potentially  with 
funding through the EFF and the new EMFF. Additionally funding through FP7 and the EU's 
LIFE programme, may also be sources of funding for research into the mitigation of seabird 
bycatch in the future. Such studies have been funded under the LIFE programme in the past. 

Other Users 

There would potentially be economic impacts on fisheries dependent businesses such as the 
processing sector and ancillary industries but these impacts would be dependent on the extent 
of the measures taken.  

There  would  be  some  economic  impacts  envisaged  for  the  NGOs  for  the  provision  of 
awareness-raising measures as described. 

There  could  potentially  be  positive  economic  impacts  on  tourism  operators  through  the 
protection of opportunities for eco-tourism and bird-watching as result of increasing seabird 
populations.  However,  this  is  difficult  to  quantify  and  is  dependent  on  any  measures 
introduced being effective.  

5.2.2.  Environmental Impact 

Mitigation 

Under option 2, based on experiences globally, adoption of simple mitigation measures will 
potentially lead to significant reductions in seabird bycatch, particularly in longline fisheries. 
This is predicated on implementation of the measures. Published results for mitigation trials 
illustrate  appropriate  measures  can  reduce  or  even  eliminate  seabird  bycatch  when  a 
combination  of  measures  is  applied.  For  instance  in  CCAMLR,  measures  required  are  split 
between  gear-based  measures  (e.g.  weighting  of  lines  and  bird  scarer  lines)  and  operational 
measures (e.g. night setting and offal discharge management).  

Results  vary  greatly  between  fisheries,  regions  and  bird  species  but  examples  of  the 
effectiveness of mitigation measures in several international fisheries include: 

EN 

43 

   EN 

 
• 

• 

• 

The seabird bycatch in the Chilean pelagic longline fleet dropped from an estimated 
550+ birds in 2007 to 22 in 2009, a reduction of ~96% in two years16. 

In the Falkland Islands Patagonian toothfish longline fishery seabird bycatch fell by 
99% over the period 1994-200361. 

In the New Zealand longline fishery for ling following the introduction of weighted 
longlines seabird bycatch was reduced by more than 90%62. 

These  results  are  felt  comparable  with  EU  fisheries, particularly for the large-scale  longline 
fisheries  (e.g.  Gran  Sol  and  Mediterranean  surface  longline  fisheries).  In  the  short-term 
incremental reductions of between 20-30% annually are achievable based on experiences in 
fisheries internationally16.  

In  addition  to  gear-based  or  operational  mitigation  measures,  restricted  or  closed  areas  can 
also be used to mitigate against seabird bycatch in longline fisheries. One example of this is a 
temporal closure directly in place in the CCAMLR toothfish fishery aimed at reducing seabird 
bycatch,  with  summer  restrictions  meaning  vessels  can  only  operate  in  the  winter  months. 
This  led  to  a  reduction  in  birds  per  thousand  hooks;  from  0.2  in  1995  to  0.025  in  19972. 
Provided  they  are  well  defined  similar  closed  or  restricted  areas  in  combination  with  other 
measures could be used to reduce bycatch in certain EU longline fisheries. 

Reductions in bycatch in static net fisheries are much more difficult to predict and there are 
no clear examples of reductions being achieved in static net fisheries with gear modifications 
or operational changes. The MRAG report2 does provide an example of the driftnet fishery for 
salmon in Puget Sound, US, where fishing was limited to periods of peak salmon abundance 
and closed the rest of the year. This reduction in fishing activity led to a 43% decline in bird 
bycatch63.  The  effectiveness  in  EU  fisheries  would  depend  on  the  characteristics  of  the 
fisheries involved and the information available to define the extent of areas appropriately. 

For other gears such as trawls and purse seines there are few examples of mitigation measures 
reducing seabird bycatch. One study64 shows that following the introduction of streamer lines 
to  the  demersal  trawl  fisheries  of  the  Falkland  Islands,  observed  seabird  mortality  was 
reduced by 90%. Similar results have been found in the South African hake trawl fishery. 

Monitoring 

Over-time  monitoring  both  direct  (dedicated  seabird  bycatch  programmes)  or  indirect 
monitoring  as  part  of  other  programmes  (e.g.  DCF)  would  improve  the  knowledge  of 
incidental  seabird  bycatch  in  EU  and  non-EU  waters  and  increase  the  number  of  fisheries 
covered. This is important in the identification of emerging bycatch problems (e.g. in trawl or 
purse seine fisheries) The weakness in the approach is that in the short-term monitoring in EU 

61 

62 

63 

64 

Munro,  G  (2003)  The  potential  economic  benefit  to  fishermen  of  using  mitigation  measures  to 
reducebait loss. Presentation to Futruno/Valdivia workshop, Chile, 2-6 Dec 2003.  
Robertson,  G.,  McNeill,  M.,  Smith,  N.,  Wienecke,  B.,  Candy,  S.  and  Oliver,  F.  (2006)  Fast  sinking 
(integrated weight) longlines reduce mortality of white-chinned petrels (Procellaria aequinoctialis) and 
sooty shearwaters (Puffinus griseus) in demersal longline fisheries. Biol. Conserv. 132, 458-471. 
Melvin, E.F., Parrish, J.K. and Conquest, L.L. 1999. Novel tools to reduce seabird bycatch in coastal 
gillnet fisheries. Cons. Biol. 13: 1386-1397. 
Reid T.A. and Edwards, M. 2005. Consequences of the introduction of Tori Lines in relation to seabird 
mortality in the Falkland Islands trawl fishery, 2004/05. Unpublished Falklands Conservation Report. 

EN 

44 

   EN 

 
                                                 
waters  would  be  largely  voluntary  and  may  be  at  an  insufficient  level  in  some  fisheries  to 
detect a bycatch problem. 

Additional elements  

Awareness-raising and training would result in positive environmental benefits as awareness 
and  understanding  of  the  problem  by  fishermen  increases.  Based  on  the  Birdlife  ATP 
programme21  such  measures  can  improve  the  robustness  of  bycatch  data,  encourage 
experimental trials to support the development of mitigation measures and promote the use of 
mitigation measures to fishermen.  

The  testing  of  new  mitigation  techniques  for  longlines,  static  nets  and  other  gear  types  and 
improving knowledge of seabird distributions and their overlap with fisheries would be highly 
beneficial  in  developing  future  management  strategies.  The  development  of  such  measures 
through applied research, particularly in static net, trawl and purse seine fisheries will clearly 
have  positive  impacts  in  terms  of  reducing  seabird  bycatch  although  the  actual  benefits  are 
hard to quantify.  

International elements 

In  external  waters  the  POA  would  primarily  be  a  mechanism  to  enhance  measures  already 
adopted  by  RFMOs  and  encourage  a  culture  of  compliance  among  EU  vessels  operating  in 
these fisheries. The POA would provide a basis for negotiating future measures (both binding 
and  non-binding)  included  in  RFMO  agreements.  It  would  also  provide  a  platform  for  the 
promotion  of  best  practice  among  EU  vessels  operating  in  external  waters.  Increasing 
compliance  and  enhancing  existing  measures  will  result  in  significant  reductions  in  seabird 
bycatch in external waters as evidenced by the experiences in CCAMLR and other fisheries in 
non-EU waters. 

5.2.3. 

Social Impact 

There would undoubtedly be a positive reaction to the introduction of a POA by the general 
public and most NGOs, given in the public consultation they were the main advocators of a 
POA. It was, however, criticised by one NGOs as being inadequate given the measures would 
be largely voluntary. 

As evidenced by the public consultation, the adaptive approach proposed would be supported 
by  the  catching  sector  and  national  administrations  given  it  is  non-prescriptive  with 
opportunities for regionally based management measures. It allows time to gather information 
leading to a better understanding of the problem and for the development of measures for the 
relevant fisheries to solve the problem.  

The certification of fisheries under this option may also lead to an improved perception by the 
general public as a result of demonstrating responsible fishing practices. 

As with option 1 no significant impact on employment is anticipated. The majority of vessels 
involved in EU waters are small vessels with 1-2 crew. Any changes in costs and profitability 
are  marginal  and  offset  against  benefits  outlined  so  it  is  unlikely  that  this  initiative  would 
result  in  a  creation  or  reduction  in  employment.  For  the  fleets  with  larger  vessels  involved, 
experience globally21 has shown that any extra costs for mitigation measures or absorbed into 
the operating costs of the vessels with no impact on employment. 

EN 

45 

   EN 

 
5.2.4. 

Impacts on SMEs 

In  EU  waters,  of  the  approximate  54,000  vessels  that  fish  with  longlines  and  gillnets  that 
would  be  most  affected  by  this  initiative,  almost  96%  of  them  would  be  less  than  12m  in 
length  and  would  be  classified  as  micro-sized  enterprises.  Therefore  the  proportionality 
principle would apply in this case in implementing the POA. The conservation of biologically 
sensitive  species  including  seabirds  falls  under  the  exclusive  competence  of  the  Union  and 
exempting all of these micro-sized enterprises would undermine the conservation objective of 
minimising  seabird  bycatch  given  the  collective  impacts  of  all  of  these  vessels  on  seabird 
populations. If micro-sized enterprises were exempted then the measures would only apply to 
around 2,000 larger vessels plus an additional 400-500 vessel in non-EU waters, which would 
be classified as small to medium sized enterprises. It is interesting to note that in the public 
consultation,  the  NGOs  and  two  of  the  RACs  advocated  that  the  scope  of  any  measures 
should  include  artisanal  vessels,  as  the  level  of  incidental  catches  in  these  fisheries  goes 
largely undetected and unreported. This supports the inclusion of all vessels regardless of size 
under a POA.  

Even though the majority of vessels involved are classed as micro-sized enterprises, in reality 
any impacts can be minimised in most cases because: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

The measures are largely voluntary and can therefore be tailored to the vessels and 
fisheries involved.  

Grant aid under the EFF and EMFF would most likely be available to offset capital 
costs. 

Costs and loss in catch can be offset in longline fisheries against the benefits of using 
these measures in reduced bait loss and catches foregone. 

Any costs for monitoring would be borne by the national administrations and not the 
vessel owners. 

No additional reporting requirements are envisaged under this option.  

5.2.5. 

Simplification and administrative burden 

The  adoption  of  an  EU-POA  would  result  in  some  additional  administrative  costs  and 
obligations  for  Member  States  over  about  existing  monitoring  measures.  However,  the 
integration of monitoring measures over-time into the new DCF regulation would most likely 
lead to reductions in these costs. The avoidance of duplication of measures was highlighted by 
the RACs and national administration in the public consultation as important to keeping the 
costs for additional administration to a minimum. 

Cost  for  national  administrations, 
Organisations would include: 

the  Commission  and  Fishermens  Representative 

• 

• 

• 

EN 

Costs for dissemination of information to MS and industry;  

Additional monitoring costs over and above existing observer programmes; 

The possible use of alternative monitoring technologies (e.g. CCTV); and 

46 

   EN 

 
• 

Reporting obligations by the Commission and Member States  

In terms of monitoring, under the POA, Member States would not necessarily be required to 
introduce specific monitoring programmes for seabird bycatch in the first instance. The POA 
would merely recommend levels of monitoring that would be commensurate with the level of 
bycatch  and  risk  to  seabird  species  and  also  reinforce  existing  commitments  under 
environmental legislation. It would be up to Member States to decide how best to monitor the 
relevant fisheries cost effectively. In this respect, monitoring of seabird bycatch could, as far 
as  practically  possible,  be  incorporated  into  the  current  DCF  and  under  the  Birds  Directive 
and  in  conjunction  with  current  monitoring  obligations  required  under  Regulation  (EC) 
812/2004  for  cetaceans  at  zero  cost.  Other  mandatory  observer  programmes  under 
management and recovery plans could also be utilised. In the longer-term monitoring the aim 
would be to incorporate into the new DCF due to be implemented in 2014. The addition of 
seabird monitoring under the existing and new DCF is unlikely to increase monitoring costs 
given  it  is  merely  an  added  task  of  observers  placed  on  board  vessels.  DCF  is  already  an 
accepted cost for Member States and is 50% funded by the EU. 

New  technologies  such  as  CCTV  and  self-sampling  programmes  could  also  be  used  to 
supplement  observer  coverage.  In  this  case,  these  technologies  would  be  used  as  scientific 
monitoring tools rather than for direct control and enforcement purposes. The use of CCTV 
has other applications (e.g. discard monitoring) other than just monitoring seabird bycatch and 
this must be factored in when assessing any costs. A Danish study65 using CCTV found that 
capital  costs  for  installation  and  maintenance  of  an  individual  system  were  in  the  region  of 
€10,200  with  costs  for  monitoring  500  hauls  a nnually  estimated  at  €5,000  (Anderson  pers. 
comment). On this basis compared to observer programmes, it is a reasonably cost effective 
monitoring  tool.  Self-sampling  programmes  have  been  widely  used  to  provide  enhanced 
discard data collected under the DCF. Such schemes are cost-effective and useful if there are 
incentives  for  fishermen  to  record  the  data  (e.g.  as  a  requirement  under  a  certification 
scheme).  However,  the  quality  of  the  data  can  be  variable  due  to  sporadic  and  often  biased 
recording of data by fishermen.  

The monitoring of fishing activity within closed or restricted areas including SPAs or SACs in 
which  the  majority  of  vessels  are  less  than  12m  in  length  and  do  not  have  to  carry  Vessel 
Monitoring  Systems  (VMS)  would  also  potentially  represent  a  cost  for  national 
administrations.  The  actual  magnitude  of  these  costs  is  not  quantifiable  without  a  detailed 
assessment of the likely extent of areas and the number of vessels involved but VMS systems 
specifically designed for small vessels have been tested extensively by the Sea Fish Industry 
Authority  (SFIA)  in  the  UK  to  monitor  fishing  activity  in  an  SAC  off  the  south-west  of 
England66. The systems tested cost around STG £1,000-2,500 (€1,225-3,000) per vessel. Such 
systems could be used to monitor fishing activity for a number of purposes and would potentially 
be eligible for funding under the EMFF so the costs would not be excessive and as with CCTV 
would  have  multiple  monitoring  applications.  Such  monitoring  has  potential  benefits  for  the 
catching sector in that it demonstrates responsible practice. 

Based  on  the  assumptions  described  above  the  administrative  and  monitoring  costs  in  EU 
waters  for  option  2  have  been  estimated  using  the  EU  Standard  Cost  Model  (SCM)  at 
approximately  €5.2  million  annually  until  2014   (the  detailed  calculations  are  contained  in 

65 

66 

Kindt-Larsen, L., Kirkegaard, E., and Dalskov, J. 2011. Fully documented fishery: a tool to support a 
catch quota management system. – ICES Journal of Marine Science, doi:10.1093/icesjms/fsr065.  
Caslake R., 2009. SR617. Seafish inshore VMS pilot project. SFA 03. July 2009. 18pp. 

EN 

47 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Annex  XIII).  After  2014  with  the  potential  integration  of  observation  of  bycatch  under  the 
DCF, the monitoring costs would be expected to reduce further.  

Around  95%  of  these  costs  (i.e.  €4.9  million)  are  related  to  additional  monitoring  and 
inspection  by  Member  States  to  ensure  measures  are  being  applied.  This  is  on  the  basis  of 
Member States placing observers on a sample of 50 vessels for 100 days per year. This level 
of  coverage  is  in  line  with  recommendations  by  ICES  on  sampling  of  bycatch67  of 
biologically sensitive species such as seabirds or cetaceans. Monitoring uptake of voluntary or 
national measures, through inspections by national control authorities are calculated at a level 
of  10%  of  the  static  net  and  longline  fleet  at  least  once  a  year.  This  is  considered  an 
acceptable level of coverage based on the guidelines for inspections of sampling of landings 
and  catches  contained  in  the  basic  control  regulation  for  EU  fisheries,  Regulation  (EC)  No. 
1224/200968,  The  remaining  costs  relate  to  the  dissemination  of  information  to  the  fishing 
industry by DG MARE assisted by the national administrations and RACs as well as collation 
and reporting of information to DG MARE by the national administrations. It is assumed that 
costs for any monitoring of seabird bycatch under the existing DCF are cost neutral. The costs 
for using CCTV, VMS for small vessels or other alternative means of monitoring would be 
spread across a range of applications and not just seabird bycatch and are also taken as cost 
neutral.  Costs  for  research  and  education  and  outreach  would  largely  be  covered  under  the 
EFF and EMFF. 

There are existing monitoring programmes in most of the longline fisheries managed by the 
RFMOs in external waters. The level of coverage provided by these schemes currently varies 
considerably between RFMOs. In some cases the monitoring of seabird bycatch is specifically 
mentioned,  while  in  others  recording  of  bycatch  is  encouraged  but  remains  voluntary.  This 
variability  implies  some  level  of  direct  costs  to  RFMOs  administrations  and  Union  third 
country  contracting  parties  to  improve  the  consistency  and  coverage  of  monitoring.  These 
costs, however, are not deemed to be significant as these schemes already exist.  

As with option 1, no new legislation would be specifically introduced under this policy option 
so there would  be no increased complexity in  the  management  system.  The  approach  under 
the POA is very much designed to be non-prescriptive and flexible leaving the development 
of  appropriate  measures  to  the  Member  States  in  consultation  with  stakeholders.  The 
integration of these measures over-time into other regulations also represents simplification. 
The POA is in line with the regional approach with scope for extensive industry consultation 
envisaged under the reform of the CFP. 

5.3. 

Option 3 – Stand-alone regulation 

5.3.1.  Economic impacts 

Sub-options 3a and 3b – stand-alone regulation - would be in the form of binding rules under 
ordinary legislative procedure. In the case of sub-option 3a this would be for both monitoring 
and mitigation and for sub-option 3b purely for mitigation measures.  

The choice of mitigation measures for both sub-options would be similar to those described 
under  policy  option  2  with  a  combination  of  gear  modifications,  operational  changes  and 

67 

68 

ICES.  2009.  Report  of  the  Study  Group  for  Bycatch  of  Protected  Species  (SGBYC),  19-22  January 
2009, Copenhagen, Denmark ICES CM 2009/ACOM:22. 
OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p.1 

EN 

48 

   EN 

 
                                                 
restricted  or  closed  areas.  Therefore  the  economic  impacts  would  be  broadly  similar.  The 
difference  would  be  they  would  be  mandatory  with  less  flexibility  to  tailor  measures  to 
particular fisheries.  

As  with  option  2  the  impacts  on  earnings  would  vary  between  the  mitigation  measures 
adopted.  MRAG2  shows  many  are  of  low  capital  cost  and  have  little  or  no  impact  on  catch 
rates  (e.g.  streamer  lines,  offal  discharge)  while  others  such  as  night  setting  and  weighted 
lines could reduce income by up to 35%. These losses should be balanced against the benefits 
in terms of reduced bait loss, gear and catch damage and catch foregone in longline fisheries 
as described in Section 5.2.1.  

For  static  net  fisheries  as  with  option  2  the  only  available  mitigation  measures  currently 
would limited to simple operational measures (e.g. offal discharge management) and closed or 
restricted areas. Under this regulatory approach mandatory restricted or closed areas could be 
introduced for specific gear types on the grounds of serious conservation threat within SPAs 
or SACs or in other areas identified.  

Based  on  available  information  on  levels  of  seabird  catch,  species  under  most  threat  and 
fisheries  and  gear  types  leading  to  the  greatest  threats,  this  would  imply  closures  or 
restrictions  could  be  introduced  for  longline  fisheries  in  the  eastern  and  western 
Mediterranean and in the Gran Sol area in the NE Atlantic as well as static net fisheries in the 
Baltic and eastern North Sea. 

Without carrying out a much detailed analysis of such closures it is not possible to estimate 
the  impacts  on  the  fleets  but  they  could  be  significant  if  the  closures  cause  widespread 
displacement of fishing effort. As a worst case scenario, if we look at the example of the Gran 
Sol longline fishery, it currently involves 75 vessels, landing approximately 12,400 tonnes of 
mainly  hake  with  a  landed  value  in  excess  of  €30  million.  Assuming  that  only  those  areas 
where seabird interactions are known to be high were closed (mainly off the west of Scotland 
area), then the vessels would have to concentrate activity in less productive fishing areas (Bay 
of  Biscay).  They  would  suffer  directly  in  terms  of  lost  income  from  fishing  less  productive 
grounds,  but  also  could  run  out  of  quota  or  effort  allocation  early  in  the  year,  making  their 
activity unviable or force them to shift into other fisheries.  

In static net fisheries, particularly in the Baltic Sea, closures or restrictions would impact on a 
larger numbers of smaller vessels. The interviews conducted in the MRAG study2 showed that 
the fishermen in this area agreed that closures could be effective but would reduce incomes by 
between  30-70%  depending  on  the  nature  of  the  restrictions.  Particularly  unpopular  were 
winter closures which would coincide with the cod season in the Baltic. These losses could be 
partially  offset.  In  this  case  by  moving  fishing  grounds  or  diversifying  to  alternative  gears 
(e.g.  fish  traps  or  longlines).  According  to  MRAG2  there  are  serious  doubts  concerning  the 
catch  efficiency  of  such  alternative  gears.  Without  more  research  it  is  difficult  to  see 
fishermen  adopting  such  gears  as  this  would  result  in  significant  investment  costs  for 
fishermen with associated economic losses in the short-term from reduced catches. This view 
was also expressed by the RACs in the public consultation who felt that voluntary avoidance 
measures  or  short,  targeted  closures  would  be  as  effective  with  less  disruption  to  fishing 
operations. 

As  with  option  2  there  would  also  be  potential  economic  benefits  for  the  catching  sector  in 
adopting a stand-alone regulation in achieving certification.  

EN 

49 

   EN 

 
Other users  

The impacts on other users with either of these two sub-options would be broadly similar to 
those under option 2. 

5.3.2.  Environmental impacts 

Mitigation 

The likely environmental impacts for sub-options 3a and 3b 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.  

The  provision  for  mandatory  seasonal/temporal  closures  or  restrictions  on  certain  fishing 
activities  would  provide  extra  protection  for  seabird  species  of  particular  conservation 
concern  although  their  effectiveness  would  depend  on  them  being  in  the  right  location  and 
with adequate control measures in place.  

The experience in the CCAMLR region and in other fisheries globally, where the introduction 
of  a  combination  of  measures  into  the  fisheries  resulted  in  seabird  bycatch  being  virtually 
eliminated  in  3-5  years,  demonstrates  that  the  implementation  of  strict  measures  can  be 
effective when there are strong drivers for compliance. In the case of CCAMLR the costs for 
using mitigation measures are minimal compared to the overall operating costs of the vessels 
but the costs for not complying with the measures are high as non-compliance will result in 
loss  of  access  to  a  highly-lucrative  fishery.  In  EU  fisheries,  particularly  the  small-scale 
longline and static net fleets, this driver is not as apparent as the margins are much tighter and 
this is a weakness in this approach in these fisheries. Transposing measures from other areas 
or  fisheries  into  small-scale  EU  fisheries  was  considered  bad  practice  by  the  RACs  in  the 
public consultation.  

Monitoring 

Monitoring under sub-option 3a would improve the knowledge of incidental seabird bycatch 
but only in those fisheries where monitoring would be required. For instance there would be 
no obligation for Member States to monitor interactions of seabirds in trawl or purse fisheries 
as  there  is  no  scientific  data  in  EU  waters  to  suggest  a  problem  exists.  This  is  despite 
anecdotal  reports  in  similar  fisheries  in  non-EU  waters  which  indicate  seabird  bycatch  is 
likely.  As  a  result  there  would  be  little  scope  to  adapt  monitoring  strategies  quickly  to  deal 
with  emerging  bycatch  problems  identified  in  other  fisheries.  Any  amendment  to  address 
potential  shortcomings  would  require  changes  to  the  legislation  under  co-decision  during 
which time the problem could conceivably increase. According to ICES this has been one of 
the failings of Regulation (EC) 812/2004. Under this Regulation after six years of monitoring 
there is still not a clear picture of levels of cetacean bycatch and ICES have concluded that 
monitoring  has  been  a  patchwork  of  relevant  and  irrelevant  monitoring.  A  similar  problem 
could well arise with a dedicated seabird bycatch monitoring programme, whereby coverage 
is targeted to the wrong fisheries or areas with limited flexibility to adapt these areas quickly. 
There are also question as to whether such extensive monitoring is cost-effective in the case 
of monitoring the bycatch of species such as seabirds that are sporadic. 

Monitoring  under  sub-option  3b  would  be  identically  to  option  2  and  so  the  environmental 
impacts would be as reported in section 5.2.2. 

EN 

50 

   EN 

 
External waters 

In external waters, seabird bycatch would remain at current levels as existing measures would 
remain in place. The environmental impacts on seabird populations would be the same as per 
option 1 with no added protection or monitoring over and above what already is in place.  

5.3.3. 

Social impacts 

As  for  policy  option  2  the  social  impacts  would  be  largely  positive  with  support  from  the 
NGOs  and  the  general  public  for  either  sub-option.  However,  all  NGOs  and  the  RACs 
expressed the view that measures should cover gear types other than longline and static nets 
and  should  cover  both  EU  and  no-EU  waters.  Not  including  measures  for  other  gear  types 
(trawls and purse seines) or the lack of any specific measures in external waters to address the 
variability in implementation of measures across the RFMOs may lead to criticism. 

The catching sector and the administrations of some Member States would likely to consider 
either sub-option as disproportionate to the extent of the problem. Effectively they would see 
it  as  a  "broad-brush"  approach  to  what  essentially  are  regional  issues.  It  would  be  seen  as 
prescriptive and potential give rise to increased costs for mitigation measures and dedicated 
monitoring schemes. This view was expressed by the RACs and fishermen representatives in 
the public consultation who stressed the need for a "bottom-up" approach to manage bycatch. 

Some Member States with large numbers of static net or longline vessels operating in areas 
identified  with  high  bycatch  may  also  claim  the  measures  under  either  sub-option  are 
inequitable given their fleets would be impacted more than others. This is evidenced by the 
reaction  to  Commission  proposals  to  introduce  mandatory  mitigation  measures  with  limited 
monitoring  requirements  for  longline  fisheries  in  EU  waters  in  2009  under  the  transitional 
technical measures Regulation (EC) No 1288/200969. This proposal was vehemently opposed 
by several Member States most affected and it was quickly withdrawn. Sub-option 3b would 
therefore  probably  be  more  favourably  received  as  the  monitoring  element  would  be  less 
onerous. 

The catching sector would be affected by the introduction of widespread closures or restricted 
areas  under  both  of  these  sub-options.  Closing  or  restricting  fisheries,  even  temporarily, 
would have a socio-economic impact on fishermen but also on ancillary industries and local 
communities.  In  the  example  of  the  Estonian,  Lithuanian  and  Latvian  static  net  fleets 
operating in the Baltic, the dependency on the local community on these fleets is high from a 
social and ecnomic point of view, with employment estimated at ~3,000 fishermen2. Without 
a more detailed assessment it is not possible to estimate the scale of the impact of closing or 
restricting fishing but from an economic perspective in a worse case scenario this could result 
in  decreased  profitability  for  vessels  that  would  lead  to  decreased  turnover  for  ancillary 
industries and less money put back into the local community. From a social perspective there 
could be a reduction in fishermen employed and also employment in ancillary business. This 
highlights  the  need  to  ensure  any  such  closures  should  be  balanced  between  conservation 
needs and socio-economic impacts on fishermen. 

69 

Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  1288/2009  of  27  November  2009  establishing  transitional  technical 
measures from 1 January 2010 to 30 June 2011 

EN 

51 

   EN 

 
                                                 
5.3.4. 

Impacts on SMEs 

The  impact  on  SMEs  would  be  similar  to  option  2  for  both  sub-options  as  reported  under 
Section 5.2.3 except that the measures would be mandatory with less scope for vessels owners 
to  tailor  mitigation  measures  to  the  fisheries.  This  implies  a  marginal  increase  in  costs  for 
micro-SMEs but this would be dependent on the measures enacted. 

5.3.5. 

Simplification and administrative burden 

Sub-options  3a  and  3b  would  lead  to  detailed  rules,  applied  over  specific  fisheries.  This  is 
contrary to the objectives being proposed under the reformed CFP, which points out the need 
to avoid "top-down micro-management at EU level, lacking flexibility and adaptation to local 
and regional conditions" but can be justified on the basis of threats to species of conservation 
concern being serious and with no action populations would continue to decline. 

The  introduction  of  dedicated  monitoring  programmes  under  sub-option  3a  for  seabird 
bycatch  would  entail  an  increase  in  administrative  burden  on  national  administrations, 
industry  representative  organisations  and  to  a  limited  extent  DG  MARE.  This  has  been  a 
major  criticism  levelled  at  the  cetacean  bycatch  regulation53.  Member  States  claim  that  the 
cost  of  monitoring  is  disproportionate  to  the  scale  of  the  problem  with  the  result  that  the 
effectiveness of the monitoring actually achieved has been sporadic and of limited utility in 
understanding the extent of cetacean bycatch. 

The main costs associated with the monitoring of seabird bycatch under sub-option 3 would 
be: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Set-up costs to facilitate legislative change;  

Observer costs for monitoring;  

Enforcement costs to ensure measures are being applied including the use of CCTV; 
and 

Reporting costs of the outcome of the measures.  

Based  on  experiences  with  monitoring  programmes  in  external  waters,  typically  observers 
would  need  to  be  placed  on  a  sufficiently  representative  sample  of  vessels,  and  observe 
sufficient percentages of hooks or nets being set, to achieve a realistic assessment of seabird 
bycatch. According to ICES3 and Birdlife21, experience elsewhere in the world demonstrates 
that observing at least 10% of hooks or nets set will enable detection of (a) whether a bycatch 
problem exists, (b) sea areas where more data are needed. Once a problem is detected, they 
suggest that observers are needed on at least 20-30% of vessels in order to monitor bycatch 
accurately. These levels of coverage may be attainable when the fleets involved have a small 
number of relatively large vessels but are definitely not achievable without substantial costs in 
situations  where  there  are  large  numbers  of  small  vessels  or  Member  States  have  multiple 
fleets to monitor. This has been a problem with the monitoring of cetacean bycatch where the 
targets are overly ambitious and require a very high level of observer coverage to attain them. 
Therefore a compromise is required between costs for monitoring and level of coverage likely 
to provide reasonable estimates of bycatch level.  

As with option 2, the monitoring of fishing activity in closed or restricted areas including in 
SPAs or SACs in fisheries where the majority of vessels are less than 12m in length and are 

EN 

52 

   EN 

 
not  required  currently  to  install  Vessel  Monitoring  Systems  (VMS)  would  potentially  be  a 
cost for monitoring. The difference for sub-option 3a compared to option 2 and sub-option 3b 
is  that  VMS  in  this  case  would  be  very  much  a  control  tool  rather  than  simply  a  tool  for 
monitoring activity to complement observer coverage and other monitoring carried out.  

Based on the assumptions described above the administrative costs for sub-option 3a has been 
estimated at approximately €14.4 million  annually (the detailed calculations are contained in 
Annex XIII). As with option 2 the majority of these costs (90% i.e. €12.96 million) are related 
to  additional  monitoring  and  inspection  by  control  authorities  to  ensure  measures  are  being 
applied. This is on the basis of Member States observing 1% of the total longline and static 
net fleets for 30%  of their  total operating time, estimated  at 220 days/year (i.e. 66 days per 
vessel). The total cost of such observer programmes is estimated at €10.5 million. Control and 
enforcement costs would be as for option 2 with costs based on inspecting 10% of the static 
net  and  longline  fleet  at  least  once  a  year  specifically  for  seabird  bycatch.  These  would  be 
recurring  costs.  The  costs  for  using  control  tools  such  as  CCTV,  VMS  for  small  vessels  or 
other alternative means of monitoring would be spread across a range of applications and not 
just seabird bycatch and would be eligible under the EMFF and therefore potentially would be 
minimal.  These  costs  are  not  included  in  the  analysis.  There  would  be  minimal  costs  for 
research and education and outreach as these would be eligible for funding under the EMFF 
as under option 2.  

For sub-option 3b the costs would be significantly less without the requirement for dedicated 
monitoring programmes as under sub-option 3a.  

On this basis the costs would be similar to option 2 at €5.2 million annually until 2014  (the 
detailed calculations are contained in Annex XIII). Around 95% of these costs (€4.9 million) 
are related to additional monitoring and inspection by Member States to ensure measures are 
being applied. This is on the basis of Member States of observing 50 vessels for 100 days per 
year and inspecting 10% of the static net and longline fleet at least once a year specifically for 
seabird  bycatch  as  per  option  2.  The  remaining  costs  relate  to  the  dissemination  of 
information to the fishing industry and collation and reporting of information to DG MARE. 
Under  sub-option  3b  these  costs  would  be  slightly  reduced  as  there  would  be  no  costs 
incurred by the RFMOs. It is assumed that costs for any monitoring of seabird bycatch under 
the existing DCF are cost neutral and costs for CCTV, VMS and other alternative monitoring 
technologies would largely be covered under the EMFF.  

In  terms  of  simplification,  many  of  the  mitigation  measures  that  would  be  included  in  any 
regulation  under  these  sub-options,  (e.g.  bird-scaring  curtains  or  weighted  swivels)  may  be 
difficult to define in legislation to ensure vessels implement measures in an effective manner. 
This would therefore require the development of very  detailed  descriptions.  Some  measures 
such as streamer lines, dyed bait and offal discharge, are simpler to define, but more difficult 
to enforce as observation at sea would be required. Others, such as circle hooks and weighting 
of longlines, would be comparatively simple to define, introduce and enforce if these were the 
only permitted gears allowed. More generally defining positive lists of gears and their use in 
legislation  could  hamper  the  development  and  uptake  of  innovative  technical  solutions,  as 
their use would not be foreseen. 

EN 

53 

   EN 

 
5.4. 

Summary of impacts 

Table  10  summarises  the  three  options  proposed  with  regard  to  their  positive  and  negative 
economic, social and environmental impacts as well as the impacts on SMES and in terms of 
simplification and administrative burden.  

EN 

54 

   EN 

 
Options 

Economic 

Environmental 

Social 

SMEs 

Simplification 
Administrative Burden 

& 

Table 10: Summary of impacts for policy options 

IMPACTS 

Option 1- Status Quo  Largely neutral but 

Option 2 – EU POA 

possible negative impacts on 
NGOs and tourism operators 
through loss of potential of 
opportunities for eco-
tourism and bird-watching. 

Positive – Reduced 
operating costs from 
reduced bait loss, catch 
damage and catch foregone 
in longline fisheries. Short-
term costs for adoption of 
mitigation measures. 
Measures to protect seabirds 
could also lead to fisheries 
meeting pre-requisites for 
certification schemes 
ensuring and possibly 
enhancing market access for 
products 

Negative - gaps in 
knowledge on extent of 
bycatch remain and bycatch 
continues at existing levels  

Largely negative - a lack of 
action will lead to negative 
reaction from NGOs and the 
general public. Failure of 
EU to meet obligations 
under international 
agreement and Conventions. 

Neutral 

Neutral 

Largely positive – 
Acceptance by the catching 
sector. Positive reaction 
from NGOs and general 
public Certification of 
fisheries. No impact on 
employment anticipated. 

Largely neutral on SMEs -
from adoption of mitigation 
measures although on a 
voluntary basis so can be 
offset by tailoring measures 
to particular fisheries and 
using EMFF funding. 

Largely positive – 
Predicted reductions in 
bycatch of 20-30% annually 
following introduction of 
measures in longline 
fisheries. More difficult to 
predict in static net fisheries 
as measures are less well 
developed. Improved 
knowledge on level of 
seabird bycatch across a 
range of fisheries. Increased 
awareness & understanding 
of fishermen on avioidance 
of seabird bycatch. 
Enhancement of measures in 
RFMOs.  

Sub-Option 
Stand-alone 
regulation 
(mandatory 

3a- 

Largely negative – 
Reduced operating costs 
from reduced bait loss, catch 
damage and catch foregone 

Positive – Reductions in 
bycatch in fisheries where 
measures are introduced. 
Reductions are likely to be 

Largely positive – 
Acceptance by the NGOs 
and general public and will 
aid in fisheries attaining 

Largely negative with some 
impacts on SMEs from the 
imposition of mandatory 
measures. The introduction 

Largely negative – Short-
term increased 
administration costs for 
national administrations, 
COM, RACs, and RFMOS 
stimated at €5.2 million.  
Offset in the longer-term 
through integration of 
measures into new DCF and 
technical measures 
framework post- CFP 
reform. Represents 
simplification and in line 
with the CFP reform in 
regionalising measures. 

Negative with increased 
administration and 
associated costs estimated at 
€ 14.4 million annually 
mainly incurred by national 

EN 

55 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
monitoring 
& 
mitigation measures) 

– 

3b 

Sub-Option 
Stand-alone 
regulation 
(mandatory 
mitigation  measures 
only)  

in longline fisheries. Short-
term costs for adoption of 
mitigation measures and 
possible loss of earnings. 
Introduction of mandatory 
closed or restricted areas 
may have a significant 
impact on static net 
fisheries. Positive impacts in 
that measures to protect 
seabirds could also lead to 
fisheries meeting pre-
requisites for certification 
schemes ensuring and 
possibly enhancing market 
access. 

Largely negative – 
Reduced operating costs for 
bait loss, catch damage and 
catch foregone in longline 
fisheries. Short-term capital 
costs for adoption of 
mitigation measures and 
possible loss of earnings. 
Introduction of mandatory 
closed or restricted areas 
may have a significant 
impact. Positive impacts 
from fisheries meeting pre-
requisites for certification 
schemes ensuring and 
possibly enhancing market 
access  

accelarated compared to 
option 2 as measures are 
mandatory. Positive benefits 
in improved knowledge on 
level of bycatch in fisheries 
where monitoring is 
mandatory. Negatives due to 
a reliance on current 
information to identify 
fisheries to monitor & 
mitigation measures & a 
concentration on longline 
and static nets fisheries. No 
added protection in non-EU 
waters. 

Positive – Reductions in 
bycatch in fisheries where 
measures are introduced. 
Reductions likely to be 
accelarated compared to 
option 2 as measures are 
mandatory. Positive benefits 
in improved knowledge on 
level of bycatch in fisheries 
where monitoring is 
mandatory. Negatives due to 
a reliance on current 
information to identify 
fisheries to monitor & 
mitigation measures & a 
concentration on longline 
and static nets fisheries. No 
added protection in non-EU 
waters. 

of mandatory closed or 
restricted areas has the 
potential to increase impacts 
on SMEs 

administrations, COM and 
RACs. Does not represent 
simplification and regulation 
approach would be 
inflexible and out of lien the 
regionalised approach 
advocated in the reform of 
the CFP. 

certification. However, the 
prescriptive approach would 
not be supported by the 
catching sector and national 
administrations as they 
would consider it 
disproportionate to the scale 
of the problem. The 
imposition of widespread 
closed or restricted areas has 
the ability to impact on 
employment. 

Largely negative with some 
impacts on SMEs from the 
imposition of mandatory 
measures. The introduction 
of mandatory closed or 
restricted areas has the 
potential to increase impacts 
on SMEs 

Largely positive – 
Acceptance by the NGOs 
and general public and will 
aid in fisheries attaining 
certification. However, the 
presceriptive approach 
would not be supported by 
the catching sector and 
national administrations as 
they would consider it 
disproportionate to the scale 
of the problem. 

Largely negative – Short-
term increased 
administration costs for 
national administrations, 
COM, RACs, and RFMOS 
stimated at €5.2 million.  
Offset in the longer-term 
through integration of 
monitoring into new DCF 
post-CFP reform. 
Represents simplification 
and in line with the CFP 
reform in regionlisaing 
measures. 

EN 

Source: Author

56 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
Table  11  below  summarises  the  annual  estimated  administrative  and  management  costs  for 
options 2 and sub-options 3a and 3b. The costs for option 1 - status quo - are assumed to be 
neutral.  The  costs  for  option  2  and  sub-option  3b  are  expected  to  reduce  after  2014  when 
monitoring is incorporated under the new DCF. The costs for option 3a are considered to be 
recurring costs. No costs for research, education awareness or training measures are included 
as  these  are  difficult  to  estimate  and  in  any  case  would  be  eligible  for  funding  under  the 
EMFF  or  other  funding  mechanisms  (e.g.  EU  LIFE  programme),  meaning  the  overall  costs 
would be greatly reduced. 

Table 11 A Summary of estimated annual administration and monitoring costs 

Costs 

Option 2 
(EU-PoA) 

Sub-Option 3a 
(Stand-alone 
Regulation)  
Monitoring and 
mitigation 

Sub-Option 3b (Stand-
alone Regulation) 
Mitigation only 

Administration 

€273,540 

€262,731 

Monitoring/Observing 

€1,500,000 

€10,771,200 

Inspection  by  Control 
Authorities 

€3,408,121 

€3,408,121 

€262,731 

€1,500,000 

€3,408,121 

Total Costs 

€5,181,661 

€14,442,052 

€5,170,852 

 Source: Author 

6. 

COMPARING THE OPTIONS 

6.1. 

Qualitative Assessment by Option 

The  effectiveness  of  each  option  in  terms  of  the  general  and  specific  operational  objectives 
(sections  3.1  &  3.2)  has  been  assessed  as  shown  below  in  table  12  where  effectiveness  is 
defined "as the extent to which options achieve the objectives of the proposal". 

Table 12 Comparison of the two options with regard to effectiveness compared to the status quo option  

Option 

General 
Objective 

Specific 
Objective 
(1) Current 
management 
measures 

Specific 
Objective (2) 
Data 
collection 

Specific 
Objective 
(3)Mitigation 
measures 

Specific 
Objective 
(4)Education 
& training 

Specific 
Objective 
(5)Research 

-- 

++ 

+ 

Option  1  – 
Staus Quo 

-- 

Option  2  - 
EU-PoA 

++ 

Sub-option 
3a  -  Stand-
alone 
regulation 
with 
monitoring 

+ 
(++ 
in 
areas/fisheries 
covered 
by 
the 
regulation) 

o 

++ 

++ 

- 

++ 

+ 
(++ 
in 
areas/fisheries 
covered 
by 
the 
regulation) 

57 

EN 

o 

++ 

o 

o 

++ 

o 

   EN 

 
and 
mitigation 
measures 

Sub-option 
3b - Stand-
alone 
regulation 
with  only 
mitigation 
measures  

+ 
(++ 
in 
areas/fisheries 
covered 
by 
the 
regulation) 

+ 

++ 

++ 

o 

o 

o = neutral impact, + = positive impact, ++ = very positive impact (relative to other options), - = negative 
impact, -- = very negative impact (relative to other options), n.a. = not applicable as the options does not 
cover this aspect 

Source: Author 

Option 2 is considered the most effective option. 

Efficiency and coherence of each proposal has been compared to the status quo (option 1) as 
shown  in  table  13  where  efficiency  is  defined  as  "the  extent  to  which  objectives  can  be 
achieved for a given level of resources/at least cost"; and coherence is defined as "the extent 
to which options are coherent with the overarching objectives of EU policy, and the extent to 
which they are likely to limit trade-offs across economic, social and environmental domain". 
In  this  particular  case  the  overarching  environmental  objectives  are  laid  down  in  the  CFP, 
Birds Directive, MSFD and the EU's Biodiversity Strategy. 

Table 13 Comparison with regard to efficiency and coherence compared to the status quo option 

Option 

Efficiency 

Coherence  

Option 1 – Status Quo 

Option 2 - EU-POA 

Sub-option  3a  -  Stand-alone 
regulation with monitoring and 
mitigation measures 

Sub-option  3b  -  Stand-alone 
regulation with only mitigation 
measures  

- 

++  

+  

++ 

Source: Author 

Option 2 is the most efficient and coherent policy option. 

6.2. 

Ranking 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 sub-options 3a 
and 3b (stand-alone regulation).  

The  second  preferred  option  is  sub-option  3b  which  would  be  a  stand-alone  regulation 
containing  mitigation  measures  with  monitoring  carried  out  as  per  option  2  (i.e.  DCF  and 

EN 

58 

   EN 

 
Birds and Habitats Directive). This option 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 having 
the same weaknesses as have been identified with Regulation (EC) 812/2004, which sets out 
mitigation measures to protect cetaceans.  

The  third  preferred  option  is  sub-option  3a.  While  this  option  should  result  in  benefits  in 
reducing  seabird  bycatch,  as  with  sub-option  3b  it  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,  as  found  with  Regulation  (EC)  812/2004,  that  monitoring  would  be  targeted  in  the 
wrong areas or at the wrong gear types. 

Option  1  (no  change)  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 this bycatch 
in  relation  to  seabird  populations  and  conservation  threat  posed  by  fishing  to  seabirds  will 
remain  low.  There  will  also  be  no  enhancement  of  measures  already  adopted  in  external 
waters.  

7. 

MONITORING AND EVALUATION 

According  to  the  FAO  Best  Practice  Technical  Guidelines  there  are  a  number  of  evaluation 
procedures that are needed to ensure the effective operation of a Plan of Action, the preferred 
policy option. These include the following elements:  

• 

• 

Regular review of information about seabird incidental catch is necessary to enable 
fisheries  and  fishery  managers  to  improve  performance  with  respect  to  incidental 
catch of seabirds.  

Annual  review  of  data  on  captures  and  of  the  effectiveness  and  implementation  of 
mitigation  to  ensure  specifications  for  mitigation  devices  are  current  best-practice 
and are appropriately deployed. 

Taking this approach, under an EU-POA, the intention would be that Member States would 
report bi-annually 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 format to facilitate Member States and data access to the wider public.  

On the basis of these reports, the Commission would carry out an interim assessment of the 
EU-POA after the second of these reports and then report to the Parliament and Council on 
the success of the Plan of Action in the form of a Communication to Council and Parliament. 
This report would provide the basis for evaluating:  

– 

– 

EN 

The  current  status  of  seabird  mortality  caused  by  interactions  with  fisheries  and  its 
likely impact on populations measured against biological indicators such as Potential 
Biological Removal Rates (PBR);  

The effectiveness of mitigation measures measured in terms of observed reductions 
in By Catch Per Unit Effort (BPUE); and  

59 

   EN 

 
– 

The  success  of  any  education  awareness  measures  and  new  research  developments 
based on uptake of measures.  

ICES,  STECF  and  other  expert  bodies  as  appropriate  would  be  requested  to  input  into  this 
review. In particular ICES will be asked to supply bycatch and population estimates for the 
species of concern. Such data is reviewed routinely by the ICES WGSE. This would provide a 
benchmark of bycatch levels with populations and provide a basis for defining management 
objectives. 

The  Commission  would  carry  out  a  full  review  and  evaluation  of  the  POA  after  the  fourth 
report (eight years) of implementation and update the POA accordingly. This review would be 
timed to coincide with the obligation under the MFSD to reach GES 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. Where relevant, 
Member  States  should  also  use  the  data  collected  under  the  EU-POA  to  inform  this  report, 
particularly data on seabird populations.  

EN 

60 

   EN 

 
ANNEX I – SUMMARY OF PUBLIC CONSULTATION 

Consultation Summary 

Reporting on the results of the public consultation for an EU Action Plan for reducing 
incidental catches of seabirds in fishing gears 

Introduction 

Within  the  framework  of  the  FAO  Code  of  Conduct  for  responsible  fisheries  (in  particular 
Articles  7.6.9  and  8.5),  in  1999  the  FAO  Committee  on  Fisheries  (COFI)  adopted  an 
International  Plan  of  Action  (IPOA)70  for  reducing  the  incidental  catches  of  seabirds  in 
longline  fisheries  (IPOA-Seabirds).  The  European  Commission  (EC)  has  indicated  its 
intention  to  develop  a  similar  European  Union  Action  Plan  based  on  these  guidelines  and 
taking from the experiences of Regional Fisheries Management Organisations (RFMOs) such 
as CCALMR71 and countries such as Canada.  

In developing a proposal for a European Plan of Action for reducing the incidental catch of 
seabirds  in  fisheries  (EU-POA  Seabirds)  the  first  step  is  to  carry  out  an  impact  assessment 
which will analyse:  

•  the nature and scale of the problem; 

•  who/what is affected;  

•  the views of stakeholders concerned;  

•  problem resolution' objectives; 

•  proposed actions to reach those objectives; and  

•  likely  economic,  social  and  environmental  impacts  of  the  management  options 

and targets proposed. 

The  first  two  steps  in  this  process  have  been  completed  based  on  scientific  information 
provided by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) and other bodies 
such as CCAMLR. 

This documents reports on the results of the public consultation that aimed to address step 3 
and gather the views of different stakeholders on the initiative proposed by the Commission. 
Stakeholders were invited to comment on the scope and objectives of an EU PoA Seabirds, as 
well as on the potential fields of action which the Commission presented in its consultation 
document.  

This summary document is based on the written contributions received. It does not draw any 
conclusions  regarding  the  options  proposed  nor  does  it  represent  the  formal  position  of  the 

70 

71 

FAO, 1999. International Plan of Action for reducing incidental catch of seabirds in longline fisheries. 
Rome, FAO, 10p. 
Convention on Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources 

EN 

61 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Commission.  This  document  will  support  the  preparation  of  the  Impact  Assessment  report, 
which in turn will be the basis for developing the Commission's proposal for an EU-PoA.  

Contributions received 

The public consultation took place between 11 June and 9 August 2010, with a total of 215 
contributions received. Individual contributions are available on the dedicated website to this 
consultation72. Table 1 provides a summary of the submissions by stakeholder grouping. 

Table 1 - Breakdown of contributions 

Stakeholder Group 

Number of contributions 

Examples 

Registered organisation 

12 (6%) 

Public authorities 

15 (7%) 

General public 

31 chain e-mails 

136 chain e-mails 

19 individual submissions 

Total: 215 (86%) 

Industry and fishers associations (Fishermen, fish and 
shellfish farmers, fish processors, wholesalers and 
retailers); Environmental NGOs 

Regional Advisory Councils; national 
administrations; Members of the EP 

Wide ranging 

Unregistered organisations 

2 (1%) 

Fishermen's Association; Environmental NGO 

Source: Author 

The  majority  of  submissions  (87%)  were  received  from  the  general  public.  These 
contributions tended to be less technical or detailed in respect of the analysis of each field of 
action  presented  in  the  consultation  paper.  They  were  mainly  in  the  form  of  two  "chain  e-
mails", in response to campaigns launched by environmental NGOs. These e-mails came from 
the  general  public  across  a  range  of  Member  States  and  indicated  general  support  for  the 
introduction of a PoA. Some were more forthright and requested the immediate adoption of an 
EU PoA covering all relevant fisheries and gears and for EU vessels operating in and outside 
EU waters. In some cases these submissions also called for restrictions on or the banning of 
certain fishing methods. 

In addition to these e-mails there was also a small group of individual contributions from the 
general public. Most of these expressed concern at the level of seabird mortality in fisheries 
and the risk of loss of biodiversity.  

There were nine submissions from NGOs (eight from registered organisations and one from 
an  unregistered  source),  several  of  which  were  joint  submissions  from  two  or  more 
organisations.  These  submissions  were  more  detailed  and  the  main  points  are  summarized 
under the relevant fields of action.  

Eight  submissions  were  received  from  national  administrations  within  the  EU,  with  one 
submission from an international organisation dealing directly with incidental seabird catches. 
These submissions were generally quite detailed. Three individual submissions were received 
from  MEPs.  Two  of  these  submissions  took  the  form  of  short  letters  supporting  the 

72 

http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/partners/consultations/seabirds/index_en.htm 

EN 

62 

   EN 

 
                                                 
introduction  of  a  PoA,  while  one  provided  more  detailed  comments  relating  to  the  fields  of 
action.  

Four  of  the  Regional  Advisory  Councils  (RACs),  the  North  Western  Waters  (NWWRAC), 
North Sea (NSRAC), Baltic (BSRAC) and Pelagic (PRAC) RACs submitted comments. All 
of  these  contributions  were  detailed  and  made  recommendations  on  the  most  appropriate 
actions to be taken.  

There  were  a  further  three  submissions  from  fishermen's  representative  bodies  and  the 
processing sector.  

Scope and objectives of the EU-PoA Seabirds 

the  contributions  received  from 

Most  of 
the  general  public,  NGOs  and  national 
administrations emphasised the need for protection for endangered species and many pointed 
to adoption of the precautionary approach to seabird protection where information is lacking 
or disparate in EU waters. All of these contributions supported the adoption of an EU-PoA for 
seabirds  and  agreed  that  it  should  apply  across  the  whole  EU  fishing  fleet  operating  in  EU 
waters and in non-EU waters. 

There  was  general  consensus  that  longlines  and  static  nets  fisheries  are  the  most  common 
causes  of  incidental  mortality  in  EU  waters  and  should  be  the  focus  of  the  PoA.  However, 
contributors  also  stressed  that  other  fishing  gears  should  not  be  excluded  from  the  PoA, 
namely  those  gears  known  to  be  responsible  for  incidental  catches  of  seabirds  (e.g.  trawls, 
drift-nets, purse-seines).  

The NGOs and two of the RACs advocated that the scope of the EU-PoA should include the 
artisanal  and  semi-professional  fisheries,  as  the  level  of  incidental  catches  in  these  fisheries 
currently  goes  largely  undetected  and  unreported,  and  should  be  integrated  into  the  wider 
control  regime  (including  CFP  reform).  One  NGO  considered  that  in  line  with  the  Birds 
Directive,  the  EU-PoA  should  ensure  the  creation  of  protection  zones  prioritising  areas 
accordingly to the level of risk to seabird populations 

There was general consensus that priority should be given to threatened or endangered species 
of  seabirds  and  also  to  areas/fishing  gears  where  current  evidence  shows  the  existence  of  a 
problem. Two of the NGOs also highlighted that incidental  seabird  catches  were  not only a 
nature conservation problem but also an issue of animal welfare. They referred to Article 13 
of  the  Lisbon  Treaty  where  there  is  also  an  obligation  to  integrate  animal  welfare 
considerations into EU policymaking, including fisheries policy. 

Respondents from the fishermen's representative bodies argued that the measures proposed in 
the consultation paper are already covered by the Birds Directive through the implementation 
of  Special  Protection  Areas  (SPAs)  so  there  is  no  need  for  further  measures.  They  are 
concerned that such measures taken in areas outside SPAs, which are of no special importance 
for  the  seabirds,  would  lead  to  high  costs  for  implementation  with  few  benefits  and  at  the 
detriment of proper and concentrated management in the SPAs.  

Proposed fields of action 

In the public consultation a number of specific fields of action were identified as follows: 

(1) 

Assessing the interactions between seabirds and fishing gears in EU waters 

EN 

63 

   EN 

 
(2) 

(3) 

Identification and implementation of mitigation measures in EU waters 

Actions in International waters 

(4)  Mitigation Research 

(5) 

Education, training and outreach 

(6) 

Reporting of all the actions 

Under  each  of  these  fields  of  action,  stakeholders  were  requested  to  comment  on  the 
appropriateness  of  the  actions;  on  actions  already  being  applied  either  voluntarily  or 
nationally;  the  level  of  investment  needed  for  each  action;  indicate  who  is  to  take 
responsibility  for  the  action;  and  what  are  the  likely  economic,  social  and  environmental 
impacts. 

The comments received under each field of action are summarised below.  

Field of Action 1 - Assessing the interactions between seabirds and fishing gears in EU 
waters 

All stakeholders groups agreed that the interactions between seabirds and fishing gears need 
to be reassessed to identify existing knowledge gaps and make it easier to define suitable and 
effective management tools. Contributors also stressed that based on this detailed assessment, 
it  was  essential  that  resulting  measures  should  be  put  in  place  in  an  adequate  and 
proportionate way (e.g. priority should be given to threatened species and fisheries identified 
as having a high bycatch). Such an approach would allow the adoption of measures to match 
the  local/regional  situations  rather  than  a  "broad  brush  approach".  To  achieve  this  aim,  a 
group comprising some of the NGOs, national governments, RACs, MEPs and a fisherman's 
organisation recommended that the collection of data and implementation of measures should 
follow a local or regionalized approach. This  should take into account the  specificity  of the 
fishing gear and practices, fishing season, distribution of seabird population and their state of 
conservation.  

There  was  general  agreement  that  collection  of  data  and  reporting  on  incidental  catches  of 
seabirds  needs  to  be  mandatory  rather  than  voluntary.  Data  collection  through  on-board 
observer programs, remote recording (e.g. CCTV) and logbook recording in the case of small-
scale  fisheries  were  highlighted  as  the  most  appropriate  means  of  monitoring.  One  national 
government  pointed  out  that  the  collection  of  data  can  be  costly  and  encouraged  the 
Commission  to  assess  the  impact  of  these  monitoring  options  carefully  in  its  impact 
assessment before introducing new monitoring measures. 

The  NGOs,  two  of  the  RACs  and  one  national  government  focused  on  existing  monitoring 
under  the  Data  Collection  Framework  (DCF73).  Monitoring  requirements  under  the  Marine 
Strategy  Framework  Directive  (MFSD74)  and  the  Control  Regulation75  could  also  be 

73 

74 

Council  Regulation  (EC)  No.  199/2008  of  25  February  2008  concerning  the  establishment  of  a 
Community  framework  for  the  collection,  management  and  use  of  data  in  the  fisheries  sector  and 
support for scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Policy. 
Directive  2008/56/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  17  June  2008  establishing  a 
framework for Community action in the field of marine environmental policy. 

EN 

64 

   EN 

 
                                                 
broadened to cover the monitoring of seabird incidental catches (no details of how this could 
be achieved were given). Using existing monitoring programmes would avoid duplication and 
reduce the burden on industry and national administrations.  

Many  of  the  NGOs  advocated  the  implementation  of  observer  programmes.  Two  of  the 
RACs,  however,  expressed  concern  that  introducing  additional  extensive  monitoring 
programmes would not necessarily be practical and capable of delivering detailed information 
on the level of incidental catches, given that such catches can be occasional and unpredictable 
events.  One  RAC  suggested  concentrating  efforts  initially  through  pilot  studies  in  known 
“hot-spots”  or  existing  Natura  2000  sites,  with  the  objective  of  establishing  the  scale  of  the 
problem in these high risk areas.  

Other contributors (two NGOs and a national government) highlighted the fact that there are 
several existing projects in EU waters under the LIFE and Natura 2000 programmes that are 
collecting data and developing management recommendations for reducing incidental catches 
of seabirds.  

Field  of  Action  2  -  Identification  and  implementation  of  mitigation  measures  in  EU 
Waters 

It  is  generally  understood  that  all  mitigation  measures  will  have  some  impacts  on  fishing 
activities. The choice and implementation of measures should follow a step by step approach, 
balanced  between  the  conservation  objectives,  economic  profitability  and  safe  working 
conditions  as  presented  in  the  consultation  paper.  There  is  general  understanding  that  a 
detailed  assessment  of  the  interactions  between  seabirds  and  fishing  activities  is  essential 
before  agreeing  on  mitigation  measures  which  may  have  a  significant  socio-economic  and 
environmental impact. For situations where the information available shows the existence of a 
serious problem76, measures to limit incidental catches of seabirds should be put in place as 
soon as possible, particularly in areas designated under Natura 2000. Such sites should also be 
used as areas for testing the efficacy of mitigation measures. 

NGOs and one RAC call for the application of measures that can simultaneously mitigate the 
incidental catch of other animal groups in general, where appropriate.  

Opinions  on  the  implementation  of  measures  were  varied.  Several  members  of  the  general 
public sought restrictions or even the banning of longline and static nets fisheries, whereas the 
majority of the NGOs, RACs and national administrations recommended that these measures 
be incorporated into the current EU technical measures legislation as part of the reform of the 
CFP.  One  national  government  suggested  that  the  PoA  should  be  on  a  voluntary/non 
regulatory  basis  as  it  was  felt  that  this  may  be  more  effective  and  would  achieve  better 
industry buy-in. One of the fishermen's representative organisations was directly opposed to 
any  additional  measures  with  particular  reference  to  the  static  nets  fisheries.  Several 
submissions pointed to the fact that since drift netting was banned in the Baltic and in the high 
seas,  the  problem  of  seabird  incidental  catches  had  reduced  significantly  without  additional 
measures. 

75 

76 

Council  Regulation  (EC)  No.  1224/2009  of  20  November  2009  establishing  a  Community  control 
system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy. 
Some  NGOs  urge  for  the  inclusion  of  purse  seine  and  trawl  fisheries  in  the  impact  assessment 
conducted by the European Commission. 

EN 

65 

   EN 

 
                                                                                                                                                         
Concerning mitigation measures, there was general agreement that a combination of measures 
of  proven  efficacy  and  cost-effectiveness  should  be  implemented  to  fishing  gears.  For 
longlines, NGOs and one national government identified line weighting as the most effective 
and  practicable  measure.  One  fishermen's  organisation  contested  the  use  of  this  method  on 
safety grounds, backed up by comments from the RACs, national governments and the other 
fishermen's organisations.  

NGOs  and  one  of  the  RACs  highlighted  that  along  with  the  application  of  mitigation 
measures  there  should  be  regular  monitoring  and  review  of  their  implementation  and 
performance through the control agencies in conjunction with scientific studies and possibly 
self-reporting  by  fishermen.  An  adaptive  management  approach  would  allow 
the 
improvement  of  practices  over-time  in  light  of  experience,  dedicated  research  was  favoured 
by the majority of respondents.  

NGOs,  Fisherman's  organisations,  the  RACs,  national  and  regional  governments  and  the 
international organisation all provided information on avoidance measures already in place at 
local, regional and international level, and also to other fishing gears in addition to demersal 
longlines and static nets. A few contributors added that input from commercial fishermen to 
determine the best practice for their respective fisheries should be sought. 

Field of Action 3 – Actions in International waters 

There were only limited comments on actions in international waters. Of those received most 
advocated that measures introduced in EU waters should also apply to EU vessels operating in 
international  waters.  Several  NGOs  commented  that  implementation  and  compliance  with 
mitigation measures adopted by a number of RFMOs remained low.  

The  measures  adopted  by  CCALMR  were  highlighted  by  several  contributors  as  being  the 
most effective, achieving significant reductions in seabird mortality. However, the success in 
CCLMAR should not be considered a panacea for all fisheries. The measures were designed 
specifically  for  large-scale  demersal  longline  fisheries  in  one  particular  fishery  and  maybe 
wholly unsuitable for other areas. 

Field of Action 4 – Mitigation Research  

Continuing  research  into  mitigation  measures  and  data  collection  were  seen  as  essential  by 
many  of  the  respondents.  Several  submissions  indicated  that  future  research  should  focus 
more on testing the efficacy of mitigation in static nets fisheries rather than longlines given 
that  many  mitigation  measures  already  were  well  tested  and  have  been  adopted  in  longline 
fisheries.  Research  into  the  level  of  incidental  catches  and  the  development  of  mitigation 
measures  for  other  fishing  methods  (e.g.  trawls  and  purse  seines)  was  also  highlighted  as  a 
priority. 

One NGO highlighted the need to capture socio-economic data when researching mitigation 
measures.  It  was  highlighted  that  there  are  potential  benefits  for  fishers  for  adopting  such 
measures, particularly in gaining accreditation on the basis of best practice. This was seen as a 
strong driver in longline fisheries rather than static nets fisheries. 

Field of Action 5 – Education, training and outreach  

EN 

66 

   EN 

 
Many submissions pointed out that it was important that the necessary education, training and 
outreach  are  made  available  to  fishers  and  other  stakeholders  to  raise  awareness  about  the 
problem of seabird bycatch and its practical solutions.  

Several of the NGOs pointed out that education of fishers in the safe handling and release of 
seabirds caught alive was necessary. 

Several submissions pointed to the development of fact sheets assessing the effectiveness of 
mitigation measures, the strengths and limitations of these measures. 

One NGO highlighted the need for sharing experiences, skills and knowledge and the need for 
technology  transfer.  Cooperation  between  the  RACs  and  also  between  Member  States  was 
seen as essential in achieving this.  

Field of Action 6 – Reporting of all actions  

One of the national administrations agreed with the Commission that reporting of each of the 
actions is necessary in order to assess progress and effectiveness. Reporting should be simple 
without creating any additional burden on national administrations.  

One of the NGO's highlighted the FAO Best Practice guidelines and the need to establish a 
framework including indicators to monitor implementation.  

Several submissions refer to stakeholder workshops as a good assessment mechanism.  

Cross-Cutting Issues 

Two issues arose as being common to all of the fields of action: responsibility and investment.  

(a) 

(b) 

The majority of contributors agreed that the Commission is the main player but 
that  the  Member  States,  the  RACs,  RFMOs  (where  appropriate)  and  NGOs 
have  a  vital  role  to  play  in  developing  and  implementing  co-management 
measures.  

In general, contributors did not provide information on the level of investment 
required under the different Fields of Action. Many contributors agreed that a 
better  understanding  of  the  interactions  between  seabirds  and  fishing  gears 
would  enable  targeted  and  efficient  action  that  would  minimise  costs  to 
stakeholders.  

There  was  also  a  general  understanding  that  there  are  mitigation  measures  of  relatively  low 
cost  that  can  be  effectively  applied  in  many  fisheries.  Nevertheless,  additional  financial 
resources were foreseen by a number of contributors to support the cost of different mitigation 
actions to be applied in different fishing gears.  

It was suggested in a number of submissions that the European Fisheries Fund (EFF) was the 
most  appropriate  mechanism.  Funding  could,  also,  be  made  available  through  the  Seventh 
Framework Programme (FP7) – or, its successor. 

Additional fields of actions 

EN 

67 

   EN 

 
One  NGO  made  a  detailed  submission  on  an  additional  field  of  action  regarding  the 
establishment  of  seabird  incidental  catch  reduction  objectives  i.e.  the  setting  of  attainable 
goals  for  the  reduction  of  incidental  mortality,  in  terms  of  either  bycatch  rate  and/or  the 
numbers of seabirds caught over a measured time period. They point out this is included in 
the FAO best practice guidelines. 

One  of  the  public  authorities  and  one  of  the  NGOs  advocated  the  addition  of  observer 
programmes  as  a  new  field  of  action,  pointing  to  the  recommendation  by  ICES  for  the 
development  of  systems  for  monitoring  incidental  catches  and  implementing  a  coordinated 
and  standardised  at-sea  observer  programme.  Again  they  pointed  to  the  FAO  best  practice 
guidelines. 

Timelines  

A number of submissions point to the lack of urgency on the Commissions behalf in moving 
this issue forward and delays in producing an EU-PoA. Several highlight that the consultation 
document lacks timelines for its objectives and point out that nine years have elapsed  since 
this initiative was first discussed. 

EN 

68 

   EN 

 
ANNEX II – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FROM MRAG STUDY 

Background 

In 1999, the FAO Committee on Fisheries adopted an International Plan of Action (IPOA) for 
reducing  the  Incidental  Catches  of  Seabirds  in  Longline  Fisheries  and  called  for  States  to 
begin its implementation no later than 2001. The European Commission, in fulfilment of its 
responsibilities as a contracting party of international organisations acting in the context of the 
IPOA, is committed to developing a plan of action to reduce the incidental catches of seabirds 
in fishing gear.  

This  report  presents  the  findings  of  research  carried  out  by  MRAG  Ltd  and  its  partners, 
Poseidon  Aquatic  Resources  Management  Ltd  and  Lamans  Management  Services  s.a.,  to 
contribute to the development of a European Community Plan of Action for Seabirds. 

Objectives & Methodology 

The main aim of this study was to assess existing mitigation measures and their effectiveness 
in key areas where incidental catches of seabirds have been identified as occurring, based on a 
study  by  the  Working  Group  on  Seabird  Ecology  of  the  International  Council  for  the 
Exploration of the Sea. Six case study fisheries were used to explore the scale and extent of 
seabird  bycatch,  assess  fishers’  perception  of  the  issue,  identify  existing  and  potential 
mitigation measures, and assess their cost-effectiveness.  

The following case studies were covered:  

For longline fisheries: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

the Gran Sol (demersal) (ICES area VIIj); 

the western Mediterranean (pelagic and demersal) (Spain) (GSA 5 & 6); 

Maltese and Greek waters (pelagic and demersal) (GSA 15, 20, 21, 22, 23); 

For gillnet fisheries: 

the ‘eastern’ Baltic Sea (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania) (ICES area IIId);  

The ‘western’ Baltic Sea (Germany, Denmark, Sweden) (ICES area IIIb, c, d); and  

The eastern North Sea (Netherlands) (ICES area IV). 

The study was based on direct consultation with the fleets operating in the case study areas, as 
well  as  data  and  information  from  fisheries  departments,  researchers  and  NGOs  working  in 
related fields.  

Existing information on the case study fisheries, seabird populations in the case study areas, 
fishery-seabird  interactions  and  mitigation  measures  were  compiled.  A  questionnaire  was 
developed  and  implemented  as  a  small  scale  survey  of  between  10-52  respondents  per  case 
study  fishery  in  order  to  explore  fishers’  usual  gear  deployment  and  fishing  patterns, 
experiences  of  interactions  with  seabirds,  their  use  of  and  opinions  on  a  selection  of 

EN 

69 

   EN 

 
mitigation measures, the costs and benefits associated with different mitigation measures, and 
their general opinions on fishery-seabird interactions.  

A cost-effectiveness score and ranking for the various mitigation measures was estimated for 
each case study, based on cost impact scores and estimates of effectiveness (based on fisher 
perception) as well as across fleets incorporating estimates of public sector costs. 

The  potential  impacts  of  bycatch  levels  reported  by  fishers  interviewed  for  the  case  study 
fisheries on seabird populations were explored by comparing estimates of total annual bycatch 
across  fleets  and  regions  with  estimates  of  Potential  Biological  Removal  (PBR)  where 
possible. 

Seabird-fishery interactions  

Seabirds  primarily  interact  with  fisheries  as  they  forage,  and  therefore  foraging  behaviour 
often  determines  their  vulnerability  to  being  caught  in  fishing  gear.  In  the  case  of  longline 
fisheries, species that plunge dive or pursuit dive are particularly vulnerable to being caught 
during setting or hauling of longlines (both demersal and pelagic) as they are able to access 
bait even at substantial depths under the surface. This behaviour is exhibited in particular by 
shearwaters,  gannets  and  auks.  Surface-seizing  birds  such  as  gulls  and  fulmars  are  also 
vulnerable, as the baited hooks can take a while to sink below the surface when setting. 

In gillnet fisheries birds that are likely to get entangled in nets are mostly birds that dive from 
the surface near to the coast to either forage on the bottom or pursue prey through the water 
column. This foraging behaviour is common amongst species such as sea ducks, diving ducks, 
divers/loons, grebes, cormorants and auks.  

A  number  of  the  seabird  species  that  are  vulnerable  to  bycatch  in  the  Mediterranean,  Gran 
Sol,  Baltic  and  the  North  Sea  case  study  fisheries  are  of  global  or  European  conservation 
concern.  Five  species  have  a  global  IUCN  redlist  status  of  ‘Near  Threatened’  or  higher: 
Balearic  shearwater  (Puffinus  mauretanicus)  (Critically  Endangered),  Steller’s  eider 
(Polysticta  stelleri)  (Vulnerable),  Audouin’s  gull  (Larus  audouinii),  Sooty  shearwater 
(Puffinus  griseus),  and  Yelkouan  shearwater  (Puffinus  yelkouan)  (Near  Threatened).  An 
additional  four  species  have  a  Species  of  European  Concern  (SPEC)  status  of  ‘2’  (global 
population  is  concentrated  in  Europe,  where  it  faces  unfavourable  conservation  status):  the 
Common  pochard  (Aythya  farina),  Cory’s  shearwater  (Calonectris  diomedea),  Black 
guillemot (Cepphus grylle) and Manx shearwater (Puffinus puffinus). 

Case study results - Longline fisheries 

The Mediterranean demersal longline fisheries operate using small vessels (under 12m), close 
to the coast, targeting predominantly hake and breams, and often use longlining as one of a 
number  of  different  fishing  methods.  The  Mediterranean  pelagic  longline  fisheries  target 
swordfish  and  mainly  albacore  as  well  as  other  tuna  species  and  use  larger  vessels,  ranging 
more  widely,  but  the  vessels  are  still  relatively  small  compared  to  other  longline  fleets, 
generally under 24m in length.  

The  key  seabird  species  in  the  region  that  either  interact  with  fisheries  commonly,  or  are 
species  of  conservation  concern  with  important  breeding  or  wintering  areas  are  Cory’s 
shearwater,  Yelkouan  shearwater,  Balearic  shearwater,  Audouin’s  gull  and  Yellow-legged 
gull. These species are present in the Mediterranean predominantly in the breeding season, but 
many  individual  birds  also  winter  in  the  area.  Previously  reported  bycatch  rates  have 

EN 

70 

   EN 

 
generally  been  higher  for  these  species  in  the  demersal  longline  fishery  than  in  the  pelagic 
longline  fisheries.  Some  factors  considered  to  influence  bycatch  in  Mediterranean  longline 
fisheries  include  fleet  type,  season,  setting  time,  geographical  location  and  presence  or 
absence of trawlers. 

Pelagic  longline  fishers  interviewed  in  Spain  suggested  that  the  albacore  fishery  had  more 
significant interactions with seabirds than the swordfish fishery, as the lines are set closer to 
the surface of the water and smaller hooks are used.  

In general the longline fishers surveyed in the Mediterranean did not view seabird bycatch as 
a  problem,  as  individual  experiences  of  bycatches  of  seabirds  were  rare  occurrences  (e.g. 
around 5 birds per fisher per year).  

The  potential  mitigation  measures  that  were  considered  acceptable  by  the  fishers  in  the 
Mediterranean  longline  fisheries,  and  that  were  most  cost-effective,  were  the  use  of 
offal/excess  bait  management,  ensuring  bait  is  thawed  before  use,  and  the  use  of  streamer 
lines.  Setting  lines  at  night  is  potentially  one  of  the  most  effective  mitigation  measures  for 
avoiding  seabird  interactions,  but,  many  of  the  fishers  expected  this  to  have  significant 
negative  impacts  on  their  catches  and  revenue.  However,  some  demersal  fishers  in  Spain, 
Greece  and  Malta,  and  some  pelagic  fishers  in  Greece  and  Malta,  already  practise  night-
setting  and  the  potential  for  implementing  this  across  the  fleets  as  a  requirement  should  be 
explored. 

The Gran Sol demersal longline fleet operates in Gran Sol and the Porcupine Bank, moving 
further north in summer to the fishing grounds West of Scotland, and then move further south 
in winter. The vessels are 24–40m in length and stay at sea for 2–3 weeks at a time. The key 
seabird  species  in  the  region  that  either  interact  with  fisheries  commonly  or  are  species  of 
particular  conservation  concern  with  important  breeding  or  non-breeding  areas  include 
Northern  fulmar,  Nothern  gannet,  Great  shearwater,  Sooty  shearwater,  Manx  shearwater, 
Cory’s  shearwater  and  Black-legged  kittiwake.  The  Gran  Sol  fleet  has  previously  been 
identified as having significant seabird bycatches. However, fishers interviewed for this study 
suggest that since these previous studies were carried out, the fleet has adopted night-setting 
with  reduced  deck  lighting,  and  use  of  streamer  lines,  as  general  practice,  which  has 
reportedly  reduced  seabird  bycatches  significantly.  There  is  a  need,  however  for  the  lower 
bycatch  rates  reported  by  Gran  Sol  fishers  in  this  study  to  be  verified,  and  for  potential 
interactions with seabirds in the northern part of their area of operation to be further explored.  

Case study results - gillnet fisheries 

For the gillnet fisheries studied, the recent ban on driftnet fishing in the Baltic due to potential 
interactions with harbour porpoise has caused some suspicion amongst the fishing community 
and some were reluctant to take part in the current study as a result. 

In  the  eastern  Baltic  countries  (Estonia,  Latvia  and  Lithuania)  large  numbers  of  small-scale 
coastal  gillnetters  operate  throughout  the  coastal  area  and  often  in  shallow  water,  targeting 
cod, flounder, bream, herring and smelt, and sometimes turbot. The Baltic is generally more 
important  for  wintering  birds  than  breeding  birds  in  terms  of  numbers.  Birds  in  the  eastern 
Baltic  that  interact  with  fisheries  commonly  or  are  species  of  conservation  concern  with 
important wintering areas in the region are Black guillemot, Black-throated and Red-throated 
divers,  Velvet  scoter,  Steller’s  eider  and  Long-tailed  duck.  Based  on  the  latest  published 
population  estimates,  the  greatest  proportion  of  wintering  populations  of  seabirds  in  the 

EN 

71 

   EN 

 
eastern Baltic occurs in the Gulf of Riga-Irbe Strait (Estonia and Latvia) and Saaremaa and 
Hiirumaa  west  coasts  (Estonia).  Seabird  bycatch  rates  estimated  from  fisher  questionnaires 
were  similar  to  previous  studies  in  Estonia,  but  significantly  lower  in  Latvia  and  Lithuania. 
Most fishers interviewed did not consider seabird bycatch to be a problem in the region and 
did not believe it impacts on bird populations, particularly as some seabird species are hunted. 
As a result many of the potential mitigation measures were not considered to be acceptable or 
necessary; those considered acceptable to some fishers included spatial and temporal closure 
of which they already have experience and setting nets deeper where practical. 

In  the  western  Baltic  countries  covered  (Denmark  and  Sweden),  the  gillnet  fisheries  are  in 
decline  due  to  lower  cod  quotas  in  recent  years  and  the  increasing  age  of  gillnet  fishers. 
Seabird  species  that  either  interact  with  fisheries  commonly,  or  are  species  of  conservation 
concern with important breeding or wintering areas in this case study region include Tufted 
duck, Common scoter, Common pochard, Greater scaup, Red-breasted merganser, Slavonian 
grebe, Velvet scoter, Common eider, Black guillemot, Long-tailed duck, Common guillemot. 
Based  on  the  latest  published  population  estimates,  the  greatest  proportions  of  wintering 
populations for these species occur in the Szczecin and Vorpommen lagoons and Pomeranian 
Bay  (Germany/Poland),  north-west  Kattegat  (Denmark/Sweden)  and  Hoburgs  Bank 
(Sweden). In Denmark, questionnaire responses indicated that the lower number of fishers has 
reduced  competition  for  space  and  facilitated  voluntary  avoidance  of  areas  with  high 
concentrations of seabirds by fishers. In Sweden, bycatch rates are relatively low because the 
nets  are  set  in  much  deeper  waters.  Part  of  the  Swedish  gillnet  fleet  has  also  switched  to 
longlines  for  cod  in  the  winter  months,  but  unfortunately  assessing  the  implications  of  this 
with  respect  to  seabird  bycatch  was  not  within  the  scope  of  this  study.  As  with  the  eastern 
Baltic,  potential  mitigation  measures  such  as  spatial  and  temporal  closures  were  not 
considered to be acceptable to the majority of fishers interviewed. 

Seabird  species  in  Dutch  waters  of  the  Eastern  North  Sea  that  are  reported  to  interact  with 
fisheries  and/or  are  of  conservation  concern  include  the  Red-throated  diver,  Tufted  duck, 
Greater scaup, Goosander, Great-crested grebe, Red-breasted merganser, Great cormorant and 
Common eider. Additionally, the Common guillemot was a key species in the designation of 
the  Natura  2000  site  Frisian  Front  under  the  EU  Birds  Directive.  The  Dutch  Ministry  of 
Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality recently signed an agreement with Dutch environmental 
NGOs  and  the  Dutch  industry  to  work  together  to  achieve  sustainable  fishing  with  the 
framework  of  the  Fisheries  Measures  in  Protected  Areas  (FIMPAS)  project,  through  which 
fisheries measures are currently being developed for Natura 2000 sites including the Frisian 
Front. In the Frisian Front, the main objective is to maintain current population sizes of key 
seabird species, such as the Common guillemot, and despite lack of hard evidence of bycatch 
of  seabirds  in  this  area  fisheries  measures  will  be  implemented  based  on  the  precautionary 
approach.  In  the  wider  Dutch  gillnet  fisheries,  a  reduction  in  effort,  coupled  with  voluntary 
avoidance measures and visual deterrents (bird-scaring ribbons), appear to have been effective 
at reducing seabird bycatch. 

Cost and effectiveness of mitigation measures 

All mitigation measures were assessed by fishers as resulting in a negative economic impact 
or  at  best  neutral;  there  was  no  consideration  by  fishers  of  the  potential  economic  benefits 
some  of  the  mitigation  measures  might  elicit.  The  latest  AER  data  at  the  time  of  the  report 
shows that gill netters make a loss of 13% and long lines a profit of 4.3%; therefore mitigation 
measures  mainly  increase  fleet  losses  and  for a few  reduce profits.  Fishers primary concern 

EN 

72 

   EN 

 
was  of  loss  to  catch  caused  by  use  of  mitigation  measures  rather  than  increased  operating 
costs. 

Estimated  cost  effectiveness  ranks  for  mitigation  measures  were  highly  fishery  specific. 
Therefore when cost effectiveness rankings were pooled and assessed across fleets, economic 
impacts  were  likely  to  have  been  overestimated.  However,  the  results  were  sufficient  for 
broadscale comparative analysis. Cost-effectiveness of spatial and temporal restrictions could 
not be estimated as they depend greatly on specific cases so fisher estimates were worst case. 

Generally  fisher  preference  was  for  practical,  low-tech  measures  i.e  offal  discharge, 
streamers, thawing bait for longlines and buoys with bird scarers and other visual deterrents 
for gillnets. Least cost-effective measures were estimated to be circle hooks and bird-scaring 
curtains for longlines and setting nets deeper and acoustic pingers for gillnets. 

Potential impacts of bycatch on seabird populations 

Annual estimates of seabird bycatch across fleets and regions illustrate a different outlook to 
individual fishers’ opinions on the significance of seabird bycatch due to cumulative effects of 
low levels of bycatch experienced locally. Scaled up to take account of the total effort in the 
fishery, bycatch estimates from the surveys indicated that substantial numbers of seabirds are 
potentially being caught annually in some of these fisheries. Comparison of annual estimates 
by  species  groups  with  species  specific  estimates  of  incidental  take  that  would  not  pose  a 
threat to populations involved (PBR), suggest that the levels of bycatch reported by Spanish 
demersal  longline  fleets  (in  the  Mediterranean  and  the  Gran  Sol)  and  Greek  demersal  and 
pelagic  longline  fishers  interviewed,  have  the  potential  to  influence  population  status  of  at 
least  two  seabird  species  that  occur  in  the  Mediterranean.  These  include  the  threatened 
Balearic shearwater and the more abundant Cory’s shearwater which also occurs more widely 
throughout  the  Mediterranean  and  the  Atlantic  and  is  therefore  likely  to  be  impacted  by 
fisheries elsewhere (e.g. Gran Sol). Relating bycatch estimates of seabirds from the surveys in 
the Baltic to species specific PBR estimates published previously, was not possible due to the 
number  of  different  species  involved  and  the  non-species  specific  resolution  of  bycatch 
estimates generated by the questionnaire. 

Bycatch  estimates  generated  from  the  fisher  surveys  varied  greatly  for  both  gillnets  and 
longlines  and  highlight  the  urgent  need  for  data  collection  to  enable  impacts  to  be  assessed 
more accurately than was possible in this study. 

Conclusions 

Scientific  literature  indicates  levels  of  seabird  bycatch  are  significant  within  case  study 
regions  with  the  potential  to  impact  bird  populations;  bycatch  levels  reported  by  fishers 
surveyed were broadly similar. Both vulnerable and common bird species are impacted in all 
case study regions and results from this study suggest that at least two shearwater species in 
the Mediterranean are potentially impacted at unsustainable levels by longline fisheries in the 
region.  

Published  results  for  longline  bycatch  mitigation  trials  illustrate  that  simple  measures  can 
greatly reduce seabird bycatch (up to 100% when a combination of measures is applied) but 
results  do  vary  greatly  between  fisheries,  regions  and  bird  species.  Potential  mitigation 
measures  (based  on  fishery  characteristics  and  bird  species  present)  were  broadly  similar 
across longline case studies and included those that have been proven to be effective, such as 
offal management, thawing bait prior to use, streamer lines, night-setting with reduced deck 

EN 

73 

   EN 

 
lighting  and  increasing  line  weight.  Application  of  some  or  all  of  these  measures  should  be 
implemented in fisheries where problems have been highlighted. However some flexibility in 
the  selection  of  measures  might  be  warranted,  as  fishery  specific  characteristics  (e.g.  most 
vulnerable  species  present  and  gear  configuration  and  deployment  patterns)  suggest  that 
practicalities or refinements of measures need to be assessed or developed on a case-by-case 
basis. 

In  general,  there  has  been  much  less  research  carried  out  on  seabird  bycatch  mitigation 
measures  for  gillnet  fisheries  than  for  longline  fisheries.  Visual  cues  and  deterrents  may  be 
cost-effective,  but  pilot  studies  in  the  region  are  required  to  test  their  effectiveness.  This 
would  also  help  raise  the  awareness  of  the  fishing  community  about  the  potential  for  their 
application, as many fishers were not aware of many of the potential mitigation measures, or 
did  not  believe  they  would  be  effective,  particularly  in  the  Baltic  Sea.  Spatial  and  temporal 
restrictions may be the only possible way of ensuring no seabird bycatch in certain important 
areas and times, but would encounter strong resistance from the fishers. 

Recommendations 

In  European  fisheries  for  which  there  is  a  likelihood  that  seabird  populations,  particularly 
threatened species, are currently being affected by incidental catches at unsustainable levels, 
mitigation  measures  should  be  introduced  and  enforced  as  soon  as  possible.  Management 
measures should also be developed for fisheries within Natura 2000 sites. In order to balance 
conservation  concerns  with  the  needs  of  fishers  in  these  areas,  consideration  of  incentive-
based implementation and adaptive management frameworks should be considered to increase 
levels  of  compliance  over  the  longterm.  In  line  with  the  precautionary  approach,  measures 
might  also  be  warranted  in  fisheries  for  which  the  extent  of  seabird  bycatch  is  currently 
unknown. 

Ideally, a results based management approach is recommended, whereby fisheries in general 
should reduce their seabird bycatch by, or to, a specified level. Currently, however, the data 
available do not easily allow for bycatch limits or thresholds to be set; therefore there is an 
urgent  need  to  develop  effective  data  collection  methods  for  seabird  bycatch  data  across  all 
EU fisheries to enable cumulative bycatch estimates to be assessed. There is also currently no 
means by which bycatch levels could be monitored against management thresholds and this 
needs to be addressed. 

Further research is required to assist the process of determining acceptable levels of additional 
mortality that populations can withstand, from fisheries and other human-induced mortalities 
such as hunting that are under the jurisdiction of the Commission. Additional research testing, 
of both established and new mitigation measures should also be prioritized and may provide a 
means  of  engaging  industry  in  the  management  process  as  well  as  contributing  information 
for setting bycatch reduction targets. 

The  fact  that  most  of  the  fishers  interviewed  in  all  case  studies  did  not  consider  seabird 
bycatch to be  a problem indicates that  further outreach work with  the fishing community is 
necessary  in  order  to  build  their  understanding  and  support  for  the  need  for  mitigation 
measures, if implementation of a Community Plan of Action for Seabirds is to be successful. 

EN 

74 

   EN 

 
ANNEX III – ANNUAL SEABIRD BYCATCH FROM SELECTED EU LONGLINE 
AND STATIC NET FISHERIES 

Published estimates of annual seabird bycatch in the case study longline fisheries 
(the number in brackets are the estimates from the questionnaires carried out as part of the MRAG study) 

Fishery 

Estimates of total annual 
seabird bycatch 

Main Species 

Western Mediterranean Pelagic Longlines 
(Spanish vessels) 

Western Mediterranean Demersal 
Longlines (Spanish vessels) 

Eastern Mediterranean Pelagic 
Longlines(Maltese, Greek vessels) 

Eastern mediterranean Demersal 
Longlines (Malteste, Greek vessels) 

Gran Sol Demersal Longlines (Spanish 
Vessels) 

300-700 (329±176) 

656-2829 (8620±4579) 

Cory's shearwater and Balearic 
shearwater 

Cory's shearwater, Balearic 
shearwater and Yelkouan shearwater 

n/a (4615±3876) 

Cory's shearwaters 

1,231 (6846±4006) 

56,307 (2620±139) 

Cory's shearwater and Yelkouan 
Sheartwater 

Shearwaters, Northern Fulmars and 
Northern Gannets 

Source: MRAG Study 

Published estimates of annual seabird bycatch in the case study static net fisheries  
(the number in brackets are the estimates from the questionnaires carried out as part of the MRAG study) 

Fishery 

Published estimate of total annual 
seabird bycatch 

Main Species 

Eastern North Sea static nets 
(Netherlands vessels) 

Eastern Baltic (Estonian, Latvian, 
Lithuanian) 

Western Baltic (Swedish, Danish, 
German) 

~12,000 (611±239) 

~16,500 (35,400±10063) 

~18,000 (60,039±8774) 

Source: MRAG Study 

Tufted duck, Greater scaup, Great-
crested grebe 

Long-tailed ducks, Velvet scoter, 
divers, Steller's eider 

Common eider, Common 
guillemot, Great cormorant 

EN 

75 

   EN 

 
 
ANNEX IV – CONSERVATION STATUS OF SPECIES OF CONSERVATION 
CONCERN AND VULNERABLE TO BYCATCH IN EU WATERS 

Common Name 

Scientific Name 

IUCN 
Redlist 
status77 

SPEC 
status78 

Red-throated 
diver 

Black-throated 
diver 

Gavia stellata 

LC 

SPEC 3 

Gavia arctica 

LC 

SPEC 3 

Slavonian grebe 

Podiceps auritus 

LC 

SPEC 3 

Cory's 
shearwater 

Calonectris 
diomedea 

LC 

SPEC 2 

Sooty shearwater 

Puffinus griseus 

Manx shearwater 

Puffinus puffinus 

Balearic 
shearwater 

Puffinus 
mauretanicus 

NT 

LC 

CE 

SPEC 1 

SPEC 2 

SPEC 1 

Birds 
Directive 
Listing 

Yes, 
including 
Annex I 

Yes, 
including 
Annex I 

Yes, 
including 
Annex I 

Yes, 
including 
Annex I 

Areas  

Fishing 
Gears 

Eastern North 
Sea & Eastern 
Baltic 

Static Nets 

Eastern Baltic   Static Nets 

Western & 
Southern 
Baltic 

Widespread in 
Mediterranean 
& NE Atlantic 

Static Nets 

Longlines 

Yes 

Yes 

NE Atlantic 

Longlines 

NE Atlantic 

Longlines 

Yes, 
including 
Annex I 

Western & 
Eastern 
Mediterranean 

Yelkouan 
shearwater 

Shag 

Common 
pochard 

Puffinus yelkouan 

NT 

Phalacrocorax 
aristotelis 

LC 

Non 
SPEC_E 

Non 
SPEC_E 

Yes, 
including 
Annex I 

Yes, 
including 
Annex I 
(Med spp) 

Aythya ferina 

LC 

SPEC 2 

Yes 

Tufted duck 

Aythya fuligula 

LC 

SPEC 3 

Yes 

Greater scaup 

Aythya marila 

LC 

SPEC 3W 

Yes 

Western & 
Eastern 
Mediterranean 

Western & 
Eastern 
Mediterranean 

Western 
Baltic & 
Eastern North 
Sea 

Easten North 
Sea (coastal 
lakes) 

Western 
Baltic Eastern 
North Sea 

Longlines, 
Purse 
Seines & 
Static Nets 

Longlines, 
& Static 
Nets 

Longlines 
& Static 
Nets  

Static Nets 

Static Nets  

Static Nets 

Common Eider 

Somateria 
mollissima 

Yes 

Widespread 

Static Nets 

77 

78 

IUCN Status: CE – Critically Endangered; EN – Endangered; VU – Vulnerable; NT – Near Threatened; 
LC‐Least Concern 
SPEC  Status:  SPEC  1  –  Global  conservation  concern;  SPEC  2  –  Global  population  concentrated  in 
Europe, where it faces unfavourable conservation status; SPEC 3 – Global population not concentrated 
in  Europe,  but  unfavourable  conservation  status  in  Europe;  Non  Spec_E  –  Global  population 
concentrated  in  Europe,  where  it  faces  favourable  conservation  status;  Non‐Spec_  Global  population 
not concentrated in Europe; favourable conservation status in Europe. Species highlighted in blue are of 
global conservation concern (IUCN status of NT or higher)  

EN 

76 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
Steller's eider 

Polysticta stelleri 

VU 

SPEC 3W 

Long-tailed duck 

Clangula 
hyernalis 

Yes, 
including 
Annex I 

Yes 

Black scoter 

Melanitta nigra 

Yes 

Velvet scooter 

Melanitta fusca 

LC 

SPEC 3 

Yes 

Smew 

Mergellus albellus 

Mediterranean 
gull 

Larus 
melanocephalus 

LC 

Non 
SPEC_E 

Audouin's gull 

Larus audouinii 

NT 

SPEC 1 

Yes, 
including 
Annex I 

Yes, 
including 
Annex I 

Yes, 
including 
Annex I 

Eastern Baltic 

Static Nets 

Static Nets 

Static Nets 

Static Nets 

Static Nets 

Eastern & 
Western 
Baltic & 
North Sea 

Western & 
Southern 
Baltic 

Western & 
Southern 
Baltic 

Western & 
Southern 
Baltic 

Mediterranean 

Longlines 

Western & 
eastern 
Mediterranean 

Longlines 

Rissa tridactyla 

LC 

Non 
SPEC 

Yes 

NE Atlantic 

Black-legged 
kittiwake 

Common 
guillemot 

Uria aalge 

Brünnich's 
guillemot 

Uria lomvia 

Yes, 
including 
Annex I 
(ssp. 
Ibericus) 

Yes 

Longlines 
& Static 
Nets 

Static Nets 

Caught 
occasionally 
in static nets 

Static Nets 

Static Nets 

Western & 
southern 
Baltic, North 
Sea & NE 
Atlantic 

Western & 
southern 
Baltic & 
North Sea 

North Sea & 
NE Atlantic 

Western & 
Southern 
Baltic 

Razorbill 

Alca torda 

Yes 

Black guillemot 

Cepphus grille 

LC 

SPEC 2 

Yes 

Sources: Birdlife International, 2004, Birdlife International, 2011: EU Birds Directive, 2009 

EN 

77 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX V – DIFFERENT TYPES OF LONGLINES AND STATIC NETS 

Longlines 

Pelagic Longline 

Demersal Longline 

Static Nets 

Drift net 

Set Gillnet 

Source: www.fish.org 

EN 

78 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX VI – DESCRIPTION OF INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS AND 
CONVENTIONS 

The OSPAR Convention 

The Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic (the 
"OSPAR  Convention")79,  provides  a  mechanism  by  which  governments80,  together  with  the 
European  Union,  cooperate  to  protect  the  marine  environment  of  the  North-East  Atlantic. 
Work  to  implement  the  OSPAR  Convention  and  its  strategies  is  taken  forward  through  the 
adoption of decisions, which are legally binding on the contracting parties, recommendations 
and  other  agreements.  Decisions  and  recommendations set  out  actions  to  be  taken  by  the 
contracting parties. Of most relevance to seabirds are the OSPAR List of Threatened and/or 
Declining  Species  and  Habitats,  which  include  a  number  of  species  of  seabirds  which  are 
caught  as  bycatch  in  fishing  gears.  OSPAR  examines  data  with  a  view  to  make 
recommendations for future assessment and monitoring. 

HELCOM 

The  Helsinki  Commission,  or  HELCOM,  works  to  protect  the  marine  environment  of  the 
Baltic  Sea  from  all  sources  of  pollution  through  intergovernmental  co-operation  between 
Denmark,  Estonia,  the  European  Community,  Finland,  Germany,  Latvia,  Lithuania,  Poland, 
Russia and Sweden. HELCOM is the governing body of the Convention on the Protection of 
the  Marine  Environment  of  the  Baltic  Sea  Area,  more  usually  known  as  the  Helsinki 
Convention.  HELCOM’s  vision  for  the  future  is  a  healthy  Baltic  Sea  environment  with 
diverse  biological  components  functioning  in  balance,  resulting  in  a  good  ecological  status 
and  supporting  a  wide  range  of  sustainable  economic  and  social  activities.  HELCOM 
encourages contracting parties to carry out research on seabird bycatch, as well as monitoring 
and reporting. 

Barcelona Convention 

The  Barcelona  Convention  of  197681,  amended  in  1995,  aims  to  reduce  pollution  in  the 
Mediterranean  Sea  and  to  protect  and  improve  the  marine  environment  in  the  area,  thereby 
contributing to its sustainable development. Of particular relevant is the Protocol concerning 
specially  protected  areas  in  the  Mediterranean,  to  which  the  Community  acceded  in  199882. 
This requires the protection of natural resources in the Mediterranean region, preservation of 
the diversity of the gene pool and protection of certain natural sites through the creation of a 
series of specially preserved areas. It introduces national or local measures which the Parties 
must take in order to protect animal and plant species throughout the Mediterranean area. The 
annexes to the Protocol include a list of common criteria which the Parties must respect when 
choosing  which  marine  and  coastal  areas  are  to  be  protected  under  the  system  of  specially 
protected  areas  of  Mediterranean  importance  (SPAMI).  The  annexes  also  list  threatened  or 
endangered species as well as a list of species whose exploitation is regulated. The Barcelona 
Convention has also drafted guidelines for reducing bycatch of seabirds in the Mediterranean 

79 
80 

81 
82 

http://www.ospar.org/ 
Belgium,  Denmark,  Finland,  France,  Germany,  Iceland,  Ireland,  Luxembourg,  The  Netherlands, 
Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and United Kingdom 
http://www.unepmap.org/index.php?module=content2&catid=001001004 
Council Decision 1999/800/EC 

EN 

79 

   EN 

 
                                                 
region.  These  guidelines  assess  seabird-fishery  interactions  and  provide  information  about 
mitigation tools and techniques. 

The Bonn Convention 

The Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (also known as 
CMS or Bonn Convention)83 aims to conserve terrestrial, marine and avian migratory species 
throughout  their  range.  It  is  an  intergovernmental  treaty,  concluded  under  the  aegis  of  the 
United  Nations  Environment  Programme  (UNEP),  concerned  with  the  conservation  of 
wildlife  and  habitats  on  a  global  scale.  Since  the  Convention's  entry  into  force,  its 
membership has grown steadily to include 116 (as of 1 July 2011) parties from Africa, Central 
and South America, Asia, Oceania and Europe. The Convention acknowledges the importance 
of protecting migratory species being endangered including seabirds. Species are included in 
Appendix I (for immediate protection) or Appendix II (to conclude international agreement), 
as for example Southern Hemisphere albatrosses and several petrel species. A resolution on 
bycatch  was  adopted  at  the  Sixth  Meeting  of  the  Parties  of  the  Bonn  Convention,  which 
reaffirms the obligation on all Parties to protect migratory species against bycatch, including 
seabirds (Resolution 6, November 1999)84. 

One multilateral Agreement that has been concluded to date under the auspices of CMS is the 
Agreement  on  the  Conservation  of  Albatrosses  and  Petrels  (ACAP)85.  This  is  a  legally 
binding  international  treaty  whose  objective  is  to  achieve  and  maintain  a  favourable 
conservation  status  for  albatrosses  and  petrels  through  mitigation  measures  to  reduce 
incidental  bycatches  of  these  species  in  fisheries.  This  agreement  aims  to  tackle,  through 
international  cooperative  action,  the  incidental  catch  of  seabirds  during  longline  and  trawl 
fishing  operations,  which  is  considered  the  most  significant  threat  to  albatrosses.  It  entered 
into  force  on  1  February  2004  and  has  13  member  countries  and  covers  29  species  of 
albatrosses and petrels. Among EU Member States, France, Spain and the UK are signatories 
to this agreement. This Agreement is relevant for the EU Member States long-distance fishing 
vessels and is key to biodiversity strategies in some of the Overseas Countries and Territories 
of the EU Member States. 

The Convention on Biological Diversity 

For  reasons  of  consistency  between  its  internal  and  external  action,  the  EU  is  committed  to 
international cooperation for the protection of biodiversity in accordance with Article 5 of the 
United  Nations  Convention  on  Biological  Diversity  (CBD)86  and  decisions  taken  at  the 
Conference  of  the  Parties.  Of  particular  relevance  for  seabirds  is  the  global  target  agreed  at 
the Tenth meeting that envisages that by 2020 the extinction of known threatened species has 
been prevented and their conservation status, particularly of those most in decline, has been 
improved  and  sustained.  In  addition,  the  fisheries  target  envisages  that  by  2020  all  fish  and 
invertebrate  stocks  and  aquatic  plants  are  managed  and  harvested  sustainably,  legally  and 
applying  ecosystem  based  approaches,  so  that  overfishing  is  avoided,  recovery  plans  and 
measures are in place for all depleted species, fisheries have no significant adverse impacts on 

83 
84 
85 
86 

http://www.cms.int/about/intro.htm 
http://www.cms.int/documents/appendix/Appendices_COP9_E.pdf 
http://www.cms.int/pdf/en/summary_sheets/acap.pdf 
Council  Decision  93/626/EEC  of  25  October  1993  concerning  the  conclusion  of  the  Convention  on 
Biological Diversity, OJ L 309, 13.12.1993, p. 1. 

EN 

80 

   EN 

 
                                                 
threatened species and vulnerable ecosystems and the impacts of fisheries on stocks, species 
and ecosystems are within safe ecological limits. 

A consistent approach between fisheries and environment external policies is needed in order 
to develop adequate measures that require engagement pursuant to the CBD targets agreed in 
Nagoya.  Successful  marine  conservation  and  management  at  international  level  require 
sustained  actions  in  different  bodies,  in  line  with  EU  action  plans  and  strategies,  to  ensure 
coherence  and  complementarities  between  RFMOs,  fisheries  agreements  and  environment 
conventions, such as CITES, CMS, Regional Seas Conventions, UNSDC (Rio+20), as well as 
support to ongoing work on the conservation of marine biodiversity in areas beyond national 
jurisdiction. 

International Agreements 

The  United  Nations  Convention  on  the  Law  of  the  Sea  (UNCLOS)87  is  the  comprehensive 
regime  of  law  and  order  covering  the  world's  oceans  and  seas.  Within  UNCLOS  are  rules 
governing  all  uses  of  the  oceans  and  their  resources.  The  Convention  establishes  the 
requirements  for  signatories  to  conserve  and  manage  targeted  and  associated  species  within 
EEZ waters and to cooperate with other States in the conservation and management of living 
resources in the areas of the high seas. 

International-level action is also taking place under the UN framework to promote and to put 
into place new implementing measures to cover marine biodiversity in areas beyond national 
jurisdiction (such as the high seas and the deep sea bed),  aiming  to create  marine protected 
areas,  environment  impact  assessment  and  strategic  environment  assessment  of  human 
activities and fair and equitable sharing of genetic and biological resources. 

The  United  Nations  Fish  Stock  Agreement  (UNFSA)88  is  an  implementing  agreement  for 
provisions of UNCLOS regarding the conservation and management of straddling stocks and 
highly  migratory  fish  stocks.  UNFSA  carries  an  obligation  to  apply  the  precautionary 
approach and ecosystem-based management when managing fisheries on the high seas and in 
waters under the jurisdiction of coastal states. 

87 
88 

http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/convention_historical_perspective.htm 
http://www.tuna-org.org/Documents/TRFMO2/19%20ANNEX%205.11%20ENG.pdf 

EN 

81 

   EN 

 
                                                 
ANNEX VII NATIONAL MEASURES INTRODUCED INTO CASE STUDY 
FISHERIES 

Area 

Gear Type  Member 

Measures Introduced 

Effectiveness 

Western 
Mediterranean  

Pelagic & 
Demersal 
Longlines 

States 
Involved 

Spain, Italy, 
France 

No mandatory fisheries 
measures except for fishing 
effort restrictions.  

No impact on seabird 
bycatch 

Evidence of voluntary use of 
line weighting, thawing bait, 
offal & night-setting  

Not know although night 
setting thought to be 
somewhat effective. 

Spain has 14 marine protected 
areas to protect breeding 
colonies of several seabird 
species 

Not know although 
fishermen believe them to 
be ineffective as seabirds 
often forage for food far 
from their breeding colonies 

Malta, Greece  No mandatory fisheries 

Not known 

measures but evidence of 
some limited voluntary use of  

Mitigation measures e.g. line 
weighting, night setting, offal 
discharge management 

Spain, France  National legislation 

Eastern 
Mediterranean 

Pelagic & 
Demersal 
Longlines 

Gran Sol in 
North-east 
Atlantic 

Demersal 
longlines 

Eastern Baltic 

Static Nets 

Latvia, 
Estonia, 
Lithuania 

Not known  

Measures reported to be 
effective by fishermen but 
this has not been fully 
corroborated  

Some evidence of measures 
being effective but no 
formal assessment carried 
out 

No assessment 

Unknown 

introduced in Spain as well as 
a Code of Conduct adopted 
for longline vessels 

Estonia: At least two of 
Estonia’s national parks 
(Matsalu and Vilsandi) have 
fishing regulations in certain 
areas or times established, at 
least in part, for protection of 
bird populations. Some 
evidence of the use of 
alternative gears (longlines 
and pots). 

Lithuania: a State Reserve 
was created in 2005 with a 
purpose to safeguard their 
wintering and migratory 
aggregations of several 
species. In the coastal zone of 
this area, fishers are 
prohibited from using gillnets 
with a mesh size greater than 
55 mm from 16 November – 
15 April. Some evidence of 
the sue of alternative gears 
(longlines and pots) 

Latvia – no measures reported 

No mandatory fisheries 
measures in place except for 
fishing effort restrictions and 
use of alternative gears 

Western Baltic 

Static Nets 

Sweden, 
Denmark, 
Germany 

EN 

82 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Eastern North 
Sea 

Static Nets  Netherlands, 

Germany 

(longlines) in Sweden 

Development underway to 
develop fisheries management 
measures in the Pomeranian 
Bay SPA (EMPAS project) 

Management plan is in place 
for the SAC Voordelta with 
measures limiting the use of 
static nets within the area 

Development of fisheries 
management measures in 
several NATURA 2000 sites 
in Netherlands, notably the 
Frisian Front SPA  

Permit scheme in the Wadden 
Sea to reduce effort by static 
net vessels 

Code of Conduct for net 
fisheries operating in the 
IJsselmeer and the 
Markermeer Lakes 

Measures not in place yet 

No assessment for seabirds 

Measures not in place yet 

Unknown 

Effective overall reduction 
in bird bycatch of 87% 
reported 

 Source: MRAG study & BirdLife International89 

89 

BirdLife International.  2009.  European  Community  Plan  of Actrion  (ECPOA) for reducing  incidental 
catches of seabirds in fisheries. Proposal by BirdLife International. September 2009. 28pp. 

EN 

83 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
ANNEX VIII - MAPS SHOWING THE AREAS MANAGED BY RFMOs 

Source: COM(2011) 424 final 

EN 

84 

   EN 

 
 
 
ANNEX IX - MITIGATION MEASURES INTRODUCED BY TUNA RFMOS 

CCBST 

IATTC 

ICCAT 

IOTC 

WCPFC 

Tori line decision (1997) and CCBST 
Recommendation to Mitigate the Impact 
on Ecologically Related Species of 
Fishing for Southern Bluefin Tuna 
(2008) 

Resolution C-
05-01 

Recommendation 07/0790 

Resolution 10/10 

Conservation and Management 
Measure 2007-04 

Key Provisions 

4.1 Binding 

Yes & No 

4.2 Stated 
Management objective 

Mitigate harm to ecologically related 
species 

4.3 Implementation of 
IPOA 

Yes 

No 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

Seek to achieve reductions in 
all seabird bycatch 

Seek to achieve 
reductions in all seabird 
bycatch 

Yes 

No 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

4.4 Prescribed vessel 
applicability and area 
of application 

Yes, within IOTC and WCPFC areas 

No 

Yes, based on distribution of 
seabirds 

Yes, based on distribution 
of seabirds 

Yes,  based  on  distribution  of 
seabirds 

4.5 Use of multiple 
mitigation measures 

Yes, IOTC and WCPFC measures when 
within IOTC and WCPFC waters 

No 

Required use of one or two 
measures 

Required use of two 
measures and sinking of 
hooklines 

Required use of two measures 

4.6 Standards for 
mitigation measures 

Yes, IOTC and WCPFC measures when 
within IOTC and WCPFC waters 

No 

Required use of specifications  Required use of minimum 

4.7 Reporting on 
implementation and 

Yes, collect and report 

Yes, collect 

Required to develop 
mechanisms to record and 

technical standards 

Required annually 

Required  use  of  minimum 
technical standards 

Required  annually  on  which 
required, 
measures  will  be 

90 

EN 

A supplemental recommendation was made by ICCAT at the meeting of 9 December 2011 requiring longline vessels to use a minimum of two mitigation measures south of 
25 degrees. 

85 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
information sharing 

and provide 

required to report 

4.8 Research and 
review of mitigation 
measures 

Encouraged 

No 

Yes 

Not explicit 

including 
technical 
specifications  to  be  used  and 
any changes in use 

Encouraged for the purposes of 
refining 
developing 
measures 

and 

4.9 Estimate bycatch 
and/or assess impacts 

Yes 

4.10 Review for 
effectiveness and 
revision 

Yes 

4.11 Safe handling and 
live release 

Yes, IOTC and WCPFC measures when 
within IOTC and WCPFC waters 

4.12 Collection and 
use of observer data 

Not explicit 

4.13 Phased-in 
implementation 

No 

4.14 Compliance 
requirements 

Yes, IOTC and WCPFC measures when 
within IOTC and WCPFC waters 

4.15 Consultation or 
cooperation w/other 
RFMOs and IGOs 

Yes, IOTC and WCPFC measures when 
within IOTC and WCPFC waters 

Yes, when 
appropriate 
and feasible 

Yes, required to collect and 
provide all information 

Yes, required for annual 
analysis 

reporting 

Yes, 
information 
estimate bycatch 

of 
available 

all 
to 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

Yes, required with respect to 
area of application and other 
provisions in light of future 
information 

Yes, review of impact of 
measures required by 
2011, including based on 
international research 

Yes,  annual  review  of  new 
information, including observer 
data  and  revision  of  measures, 
including 
technical 
specifications 

No 

No  

Encouraged 

Not explicit 

Not explicit 

Regional observer program will 
consider 
for 
analyses  of  impacts  and  on 
effectiveness of measures 

needs 

data 

No 

No 

No  

No 

No 

No 

Yes,  for  different  sized  vessels 
in different areas 

Yes,  requirement  specific  to 
compliance 

No 

Source: KOBE II Bycatch Workshop Background Paper 

EN 

86 

EN 

 
  
MITIGATION MEASURES INTRODUCED BY OTHER RFMOS 

CCAMLR 

SEAFO 

GFCM 

Resolution 22/XXV & Conservation Measures 
24-02 (2008), 25-02 (2009) & 25-03 (2009)  

Conservation Measure 15/09 

 Recommendation GFCM/35/2011/ to 
adopt ICCAT Recommendation 07/07 

Key Provisions 

4.1 Binding 

Yes  

Yes 

Yes 

4.2 Stated Management 
objective 

Minimisation of the incidental mortality of 
seabirds  

Seek to achieve reductions in all seabird bycatch 

Seek to achieve reductions in all seabird 
bycatch 

4.3 Implementation of IPOA 

Yes 

In the process 

No 

4.4 Prescribed vessel 
applicability and area of 
application 

Yes, within Convention Area 

Yes, within Convention Area 

Yes, based on distribution of seabirds 

4.5 Use of multiple mitigation 
measures 

Required use of multiple measures e.g. tori lines, 
weighted lines, offal discharge (also includes 
measures for trawl fisheries) 

Required use of multiple measures e.g. tori lines, 
weighted lines, offal discharge (also includes 
measures for trawl fisheries) 

Required use of one or two measures 

4.6 Standards for mitigation 
measures 

Required use of specifications 

Guidelines for design and deployment of Tori 
Lines and line weighting 

Required use of specifications 

4.7 Reporting on 
implementation and 
information sharing 

Yes, collect and report 

Yes, collect and provide 

Required to develop mechanisms to record 
and required to report 

4.8 Research and review of 
mitigation measures 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

4.9 Estimate bycatch and/or 
assess impacts 

Yes, required for annual analysis 

Yes, when appropriate and feasible 

Yes, required to collect and provide all 
information 

4.10 Review for effectiveness  Yes, reviewed annually 

No 

Yes, required with respect to area of 

EN 

87 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
and revision 

4.11 Safe handling and live 
release 

4.12 Collection and use of 
observer data 

4.13 Phased-in 
implementation 

4.14 Compliance 
requirements 

4.15 Consultation or 
cooperation w/other RFMOs 
and IGOs 

Yes  

Yes  

No 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

No 

Yes 

application and other provisions in light of 
future information 

No 

Not explicit 

No 

No 

No  

EN 

88 

EN 

 
  
ANNEX X - MAP OF SPAS ESTABLISHED UNDER THE BIRDS DIRECTIVE 

Source: DG ENV 

EN 

89 

   EN 

 
 
 
ANNEX XI – DESCRIPTION OF MITIGATION MEASURES  

(Taken from the FAO review by Lokkeborg, 200891) 

Description of mitigation measures in longline fisheries 

This annex gives a description of different mitigation measures. Only measures that have been 
developed, tested and proved to have potential in reducing incidental capture of seabirds are 
included. 

Avoid fishing in areas and at times when seabird interactions are most intense – As seabird 
mortality in longline fisheries is related to the feeding activity of the birds, mortality rates will 
vary with area and season, and have been shown to be higher close to breeding colonies92
 and 
during breeding seasons93,94. Avoiding fishing activities close to breeding colonies during the 
breeding  season,  i.e.  area  and  seasonal  closures,  therefore  reduces  the  number  of  foraging 
seabirds congregating around the fishing vessels. 

Night setting – Most seabirds are visual feeders and forage during daylight hours. Therefore, 
setting  longlines  at  night  reduces  the  number  of  birds  attacking  baited  hooks.  Night  setting 
also reduces the ability of seabirds to see and seize baits. 

Streamer line (bird-scaring line, tori line) – A line attached to a high point at the stern and 
towed behind the vessel while longlines are being set. The end of the line has a towed device 
(e.g. buoys) to create tension and streamers are attached to its aerial portion above the sinking 
longline. The movements of the streamers deter seabirds from attacking baited hooks. 

Weighted  lines  –  Longlines  with  added  weights  sink  faster  and  thus  reduce  the  time  they 
remain close to the surface and are available for seabirds to seize baits. Extra weight can be 
added  to  longlines  either  by  attaching  (i.e.  tying)  external  weights  to  the  mainline,  or  by 
including strands of lead inside each of the strands of the mainline (integrated weight line). 

Underwater setting funnel (chute) – A stern-mounted tube through which the baited hooks are 
set (Figure 2). This device delivers baited hooks underwater, thereby reducing the time they 
remain close to the surface and are visible and within the reach of seabirds. Both the mainline 
and  the  branchline  are  set  through  the  underwater  setting  funnel  developed  for  demersal 
longlining, whereas in pelagic whereas in pelagic longlining, only the branchline and the hook 
are  fed  through  the  device  (named  the  “chute”).  The  chute  designed  for  pelagic  longline 
vessels deliver baited hooks deeper (4–5 m) than the funnel used by demersal vessels (1–2 m). 
A second emerging method for setting pelagic longlines is the underwater setting capsule. The 

91 

92 

93 

94 

Løkkeborg, S. Review and assessment of mitigation measures to reduce incidental catch of seabirds in 
longline, trawl and gillnet fisheries. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Circular. No. 1040. Rome, FAO. 
2008. 24p. 
Moreno,  C.A.,  Rubilar,  P.S.,  Marschoff,  E.  and  Benzaquen,  L.  1996.  Factors  affecting  the  incidental 
mortality  of  seabirds  in  the  Dissostichus  eleginoides  fishery  in  the  southwest  Atlantic  (Subarea  48.3, 
1995 season). CCAMLR Sci. 3: 79-91. 
Ashford,  J.R.  and  Croxall,  J.P.  1998.  An  assessment  of  CCAMLR  measures  employed  to  mitigate 
seabird mortality in longlining operations for Dissosticus eleginoides around South Georgia. CCAMLR 
Sci. 5: 217-230. 
Reid,  T.A.,  Sullivan,  B.J.,  Pompert,  J.,  Enticott,  J.W.  and  Black,  A.D.  2004.  Seabird  mortality 
associated with Patagonian Toothfish (Dissostichus eleginoides) longliners in Falkland Islands waters. 
Emu 104: 317-325. 

EN 

90 

   EN 

 
                                                 
baited hook is placed in a capsule that carries it underwater where it is released. The capsule 
is then returned on board to be loaded with the next hook. 

Line  shooter  –  This  device  is  designed  to  set  longlines  without  tension.  During  traditional 
setting,  lines  are  set  with  tension,  which  is  believed  to  delay  line  sinking  and  keep  baits 
available  to  birds  for  longer  compared  to  lines  set  with  slack.  A  line  shooter  consists  of 
opposing  rubber  and  metal  sheaves  through  which  the  line  is  pulled  at  a  constant  speed 
slightly faster than the vessel speed during line setting. 

Bait-casting  machine  (bait  thrower)  –  This  device  is  used  only  in  pelagic  longlining  to 
prevent  entangling  of  the  long  branchlines  with  the  mainline.  Bait-casting  machines  throw 
baited hooks to the side far outside propeller wash and hull turbulence. Throwing baits into 
the propeller wash is likely to cause delayed line sinking. 

Side  setting  –  Side  setting,  as  opposed  to  traditional  stern  setting,  reduces  the  time  baited 
hooks remain within the reach of seabirds due to two factors. First, side-set longlines are set 
to the side of the propeller wash thereby increasing the sink rate. Second, lines set at the side 
of the vessel enter the water several meters in front of the stern and thus commence sinking 
sooner and are deeper when they emerge clear of the vessel. 

Strategic offal discharge – Homogenized offal is more easily accessible and thus attractive to 
seabirds  than  baits.  Dumping  of  offal  may  therefore  reduce  incidental  bird  capture  by 
attracting birds away from the baited longline to the area to the side of the vessel where the 
dumping occurs.Blue-dyed bait – Baits dyed blue are less visible to seabirds with blue ocean 
as background. These baits will become invisible to seabirds at shallower depth and therefore 
sooner than baits with clearer contrast. 

Closure  of  areas  and  fishing  time  limitation  –  May  affect  the  efficiency  of  the  fishing 
operation.  Therefore  it  is  recommended  that  both,  management  mitigation  measures  and 
technical mitigation measures are introduced in a balanced matter. This mitigation method is 
only  applicable  in  fisheries  where  line  setting  is  short  and  allows  dumping  throughout  the 
setting operation. 

Description of mitigation measures in trawl fisheries 

Studies  to  determine  the  effectiveness  of  seabird  mitigation  measures  in  trawl  fisheries  are 
scarce, and accordingly few mitigation devices have been developed and tested. This review 
has identified only three such devices, which all have been described and tested95. 

Streamer line – This mitigation method is similar to the streamer lines used on longliners. To 
adapt  these  for  use  on  trawlers  and  deter  seabirds  from  collision  with  the  warp  cables, 
streamer lines are suspended on each side of the warps. 

Warp scarer – This device consists of a series of rings joined by a length of netting forming a 
hose  around  the  aerial  part  of  the  warp.  Streamers  hang  from  each  ring  to  the  sea  surface, 
deterring seabirds from colliding with the warp. 

95 

Sullivan,  B.J., Brickle,  P.,  Reid, T.A.,  Bone,  D.G.  and  Middleton, D.A.J.  2006.  Mitigation  of  seabird 
mortality on factory trawlers: trials of three devices to reduce warp cable strikes. Polar Biol. 29: 745-
753.  

EN 

91 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Brady  baffler  –  The  baffler  is  design  to  prevent  seabirds  scavenging  for  offal  from 
congregating at the stern where the warp cables enter the water. It is attached to each of the 
two quarters of the stern gantry and consists of two horizontal steel arms, one aft of the stern 
and one outboard. Ropes with plastic cones at the seaward end hang from the arms. 

Description of mitigation measures in gillnet fisheries 

Very few mitigation measures have been tested in gillnet fisheries. This review identified only 
two  technological  solutions  and  one  case  where  gear  operation  was  altered  in  an  effort  to 
reduce seabird bycatch63,96. 

Visual alerts – Traditional gillnets are modified with visual alerts to increase their visibility, 
e.g. by dying the nets with an opaque colour. Seabirds should be able to detect these nets at 
longer distances and may thus avoid collision and entanglement however, increased visibility 
of gillnets may also lead to reduced catches. 

Acoustic  alerts  –  Acoustic  pingers  that  emit  a  sound  signal  within  the  hearing  frequency  of 
seabirds are attached to traditional gillnets. The sound signal serves to scare off seabirds from 
gillnets. 

Subsurface  setting  –  Setting  gillnets  at  greater  depth  could  potentially  reduce  seabird 
interactions and bycatch. 

Table  1  below  gives  an  overview  of  the  measures  available  and  indicates  whether  they  are 
currently in commercial usage or not. 

Table 1 Mitigation measures available and their current commercial usage 

Longlines 

Static nets 

Both Gear Types 

Measure 

Commercially 
used 

Measure 

Commercially 
used 

Measure 

Increase weight 
of lines 

Yes – used 
extensively in 
external waters 
& in some EU 
fisheries 
voluntarily in the 
Mediterranean 

Multifilament 
coloured twine in 
top 20 meshes 

No evidence of use 
in any fisheries 

Offal 
discharge 

Circle Hooks 

Yes - used 
extensively in 
external waters 
but mainly to 
protect turtles 

Buoys with 
visual bird-
scaring 
deterrents 

No evidence of use 
in any fisheries 

Closed areas 
or seasons 

Commercially 
used 

Yes used 
extensively in 
both EU and 
external 
fisheries. 
Defined 
measures in 
external waters 

Yes used in 
some EU 
fisheries 
mainly as 
closed areas or 
fishing 
restrictions in 
SPAs or SACs 

Make bait sink 
quicker (thaw 

Yes – used in 
many longline 

Red corks spaced 
throughout 

No evidence of use 
in any fisheries 

Spatial 
fishing 

Yes but IBAs 
generally used 

96 

Trippel,  E.,  Holy,  N.L.,  Palka,  D.L.,  Shepherd,  T.D.,  Melvin,  G.D.  and  Terhune,  J.M.  2003.  Nylon 
barium sulphate gillnet reduces porpoise and seabird mortality. Mar. Mam. Sci. 19: 240-243.  

EN 

92 

   EN 

 
                                                 
netting 

restrictions 
(IBA) 

to define SPAs 
or SACs  

Acoustic pingers 

Yes (but mainly to 
protect cetaceans 
in EU fisheries) 

Increase setting 
depth of nets 

No evidence of use 
in any fisheries 

Set nets only in 
waters > 20m 

No evidence of use 
in any fisheries 

bait, puncture 
swim bladder) 

Dyed bait 

Streamer lines 

Side-setting 

Bird scaring 
curtain (used 
during hauling) 

Night-setting 
with reduced 
deck lighting 

Underwater 
setting devices 

fisheries in 
external waters 
and voluntarily in 
fisheries in the 
Mediterranean 

No used only in 
trials  

Yes – used 
extensively in 
external waters 
to agreed 
specifications & 
cruder versions 
used voluntarily 
in some EU 
fisheries 
(Mediterranena 
and Gran Sol) 

No – not often 
used in any 
fishery 

No – not often 
used except in 
CCALMR where 
specifications are 
defined 

Yes – used 
extensively in 
external waters 
to defined 
standards & in 
some EU 
fisheries 
voluntarily 
(Mediterranean 
and Gran Sol – 
reduced deck 
lighting) 

Yes in some 
external fisheries 
although no 
requirement in 
legislation and 
line weighting 
preferred as a 
better and 
cheaper option 

Source: MRAG Study (The measures are italics are currently included in Regulations. All other measures 
are used voluntarily) 

EN 

93 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX XII - INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS 

Agreement 

Number of longline licences 

Cape Verde 

Cote d'Ivoire 

Faroe Islands 

Gabon 

48 

15 

10 

16 

Greeenland 

Not specified 

Guinea-Bissou 

Kiribati 

23 

12 

Madagascar 

76 + 5 exploratory licences 

Mauritania 

Morocco (pending agreement) 

Mozambique 

22 

61 

45 

Norway 

Not specified 

Source: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/international/agreements/index_en.htm 

EN 

94 

   EN 

 
ANNEX XIII - ADMINISTRATIVE AND MANAGEMENT COSTS 

Administrative  costs  are  those  that  are  defined  as  "the  costs  incurred  by  enterprises,  the 
voluntary  sector,  public  authorities  and  citizens  in  meeting  legal  obligations  to  provide 
information on their action or production, either to public authorities or to private parties" (EC 
Impact Assessment Guidelines, 2009 update). Management costs essentially cover the cost of 
implementation or research. 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

As  option  1  relates  to  the  "status  quo",  no  net  change  to  administrative  or 
management costs are anticipated. 

For option 2, the "Plan of Action", there will be some additional administrative costs 
for  reporting  and  education  and  awareness  raising  and  management  costs  for 
additional monitoring. 

For  sub-option  3a,  "stand-alone  regulation",  there  will  be  increased  administration 
costs for reporting and management costs for monitoring and enforcing the measures.  

For  sub-option  3b,  "stand-alone"  regulation",  as  per  option  2,  there  will  be  some 
additional administrative costs for reporting and education and awareness raising and 
management costs for additional monitoring. 

The  management  and  administrative  costs  were  estimated  using  the  EU  Standard 
Cost Model for options 2 and sub-option 3a and 3b and the results of the analysis are 
shown in Tables 1-3. 

The following data from EUROSTAT97 was used as the basis for calculations: 

Hourly tariff  

Eurostat  data  on  EU  27  labour  costs  (excluding  apprentices)  per  employee  per  hour  were 
collated using the following categories to distinguish costs for target groups:  

Labour  costs  for  the  private  sector  (industry  organisation)  were  based  on  category  K-N 
(administrative and support services).  

Labour costs for the public sector (member state fishery departments, RFMO secretariats and 
RAC secretariats) were based on category O-J (public administration) 

Labour  costs  for  DG  MARE  were  based  on  the  figures  included  in  table  tps  00175  (public 
administration) for Belgium. 

Labour costs data were from 2008. To bring these up to date an annual inflation rate of 1.55% 
was applied based on the Harmonised Indices of Consumer Prices (HICPs) for EU27. 

A 25% overhead figure was applied across all groups to derive the following hourly tariffs: 
private sector: €32.79/hour; public se ctor €27.88/hour; DG MARE €43.35/hour. 

97 

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/eurostat/home/ 

EN 

95 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
In assessing the magnitude of observer costs on EU vessels, for the purpose of this assessment 
an  average  of  €300/day  is  estimated  per  observer 98.  This  includes  all  overheads  such  as 
insurance, training, travel and equipment 

Time 

The number of hours spent on a specific action is estimated based on expert assessment. The 
most  significant  time  costs  are  assumed  for  observer  programmes  and  for  Member  State 
fishery departments for additional collation and reporting in excess of requirements under the 
DCF and Regulation 812/2004.  

Once-off administration costs are assumed for RFMO (only option 2), RAC secretariats and 
industry representatives in setting up meetings and providing information to fishermen on the 
new regulations. 

Administrative  costs  for  DGMARE  for  disseminating  information  on  the  new  measures,  as 
well  as  annual  costs  for  collating  and  analysing  reports  received  from  Member  States  are 
assumed. This is estimated at 30 days per year. 

Equipment costs 

No additional equipment costs are expected as a result of the proposed measures as any new 
monitoring equipment would be funded under the EMFF. 

Frequency of Actions 

Private  sector  reporting  for  the  Producer  Organisations  was  assumed  to  be  a  once  off  cost. 
This was assumed constant for both options 2 and sub-options 3a and b.  

For additional administration costs for Member State fishery departments are associated with 
costs for dissemination  of information to the fishing industry  and  collation and reporting of 
information for DGMARE. The initial dissemination would be on a once-off basis, while the 
reporting  would  an  annual  requirement.  Costs  for  inspections  were  estimated  at  10%  of  the 
longline  and  static  net  fleet  being  monitored  at  least  once  a  year  specifically  in  relation  to 
seabird bycatch. Given inspections would also cover a range of measures, 25% of these costs 
have been estimated as being solely in relation to seabird bycatch. These costs would be the 
same for options 2 and sub-options 3a and 3b.  

For  option  2  additional  observers  coverage  over  and  above  that  carried  out  under  existing 
monitoring programmes required for option 2 and sub-option 3b were estimated at a rate of 
100 days per year covering 50 individual vessels. For sub-option 3a observer costs were based 
on 1% of the total longline and static net fleets for 30% of their total operating time, estimated 
at 220 days/year (i.e. 66 days per vessel per year).  

Number of entities 

The  number  of  vessels  was  derived  from  data  within 
(http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/fleet/index.cfm) for all gear types. 

the  EC  Fleet  Register 

98 

Based on a range of observer costs in other fisheries 

EN 

96 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The number of Producer Organisations (214) was taken from the list of recognised Producers 
Organisations  in  the  fishery  and  aquaculture  sector  (2008/C  163/05)  based  on  Article  6  of 
Council Regulation (EC) 104/2000 (situation on 26 June 2008). 

The number of RFMO secretariats (13) relates to the marine RFMOs where EU vessels may 
operate,  namely:  APFC,  CCAMLR,  CCSBT,  CECAF,  GFCM,  IATTC,  ICCAT,  NEAFC, 
NAFO, SEAFO, SWIOFC, WECAFC, and WCPFC. 

There  are  currently  seven  RACs,  each  of  relevance  to  the  proposed  measures:  Baltic, 
Mediterranean,  North  Sea,  NW  Waters,  SW  Waters,  Pelagic  Stocks  and  Distant  Waters

EN 

97 

   EN 

 
Table 1: Administrative and Management Costs associated with option 2 using the EU Standard Cost Model 

EU-Plan of Action – Option 2 

Tariff 
(€ per 
hour) 

TIme  
(minutes) 

Price 
(per 
action) 

Freq  
(per year) 

Nbr  
of  
entities 

Total number 
of actions 

Total 
Administrative 
Costs 

No. 

Description of required 
action(s) 

Target group 

Business 
As Usual 
Costs 
(% of 
AC) 

Total 
Administrative 
Burdens 
(AC - BAU) 

Regulatory origin 
(%) 

Int 

EU 

Nat 

Reg 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

Designing 
material  

information 

DGMARE 

43 

450,00 

325 

Familiarising  with 
information obligation 

the 

MS 
Departments 

Fishery 

28 

210,00 

98 

Familiarising  with 
information obligation 

the 

Industry 
Organisations 

33 

210,00 

115 

Familiarising  with 
information obligation 

the 

RAC 
secretariats 

Familiarising  with 
information obligation 

the 

RFMO 
secretariats 

28 

210,00 

28 

210,00 

98 

98 

1 

4 

4 

4 

4 

6 

Inspecting and checking  

MS 
Department 

Fishery 

40 

450,00 

300 

100 

1 

27 

1 

325 

0% 

325 

100% 

108 

10.539 

0% 

10.539 

100% 

214 

856 

98.239 

0% 

98.239 

100% 

7 

13 

50 

28 

52 

2.732 

0% 

2.732 

100% 

5.074 

0% 

5.074 

100% 

5.000 

1.500.000 

0% 

1.500.000 

100% 

7 

Inspecting and checking  

MS 
Departments 

Fishery 

28 

450,00 

209 

12 

5.433 

65.196 

13.632.484 

75% 

3.408.121 

100% 

8  Submitting information  

MS 
Departments 

Fishery 

28 

450,00 

209 

9  Submitting information  

RFMO 
secretariats 

28 

210,00 

98 

10 

Filing forms and tables 

DGMARE 

43 

450,00 

325 

25 

4 

30 

27 

13 

1 

675 

141.143 

0% 

141.143 

100% 

52 

30 

5.074 

0% 

5.074 

100% 

9.754 

0% 

9.754 

100% 

Total Administrative Costs €15.456.363 

Total Administrative Burden €5.181.661  

EN 

98 

EN 

 
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 2: Administrative and Management Costs associated with sub-option 3a using the EU Standard Cost Model 

Stand-Alone Regulation – Option 3 

Tariff 
(€ per 
hour) 

TIme  
(minutes) 

Price 
(per 
action) 

Freq  
(per year) 

Nbr  
of  
entities 

Total number 
of actions 

Total 
Administrative 
Costs 

Business 
As Usual 
Costs 
(% of 
AC) 

Total 
Administrative 
Burdens 
(AC - BAU) 

Regulatory origin 
(%) 

Int 

EU 

Nat 

Reg 

No. 

Description of required 
action(s) 

Target group 

1 

Information material  

DGMARE 

43 

450,00 

2  Dissemination 

MS 
Departments 

Fishery 

28 

210,00 

32 

98 

3  Dissemination 

Industry 
Organisations 

33 

210,00 

115 

4  Dissemination 

RAC  

28 

210,00 

98 

5  Producing new data 

6  Producing new data 

7  Producing new data 

8  Producing new data 

9 

Inspecting and checking  

11  Submitting information  

MS Fishery 
departments  

MS Fishery 
departments  

MS Fishery 
departments  

MS Fishery 
departments  

MS Fishery 
Departments 

MS Fishery 
Departments 

40 

450,00 

300 

40 

450,00 

300 

40 

450,00 

300 

40 

450,00 

300 

28 

450,00 

209 

12 

Filing forms and tables 

DGMARE 

43 

450,00 

325 

1 

4 

4 

4 

66 

66 

66 

66 

1 

27 

1 

325 

0% 

325 

100% 

108 

10.539 

0% 

10.539 

100% 

214 

856 

98.239. 

0% 

98.239 

100% 

7 

28 

2.732 

0% 

2.732 

100% 

383 

25.258 

7.583.400 

0% 

7.583.400 

100% 

18 

1.193 

356.400 

0% 

356.400 

100% 

131 

8.637 

2.593.800 

0% 

2.593.800 

100% 

12 

772 

237.600 

0% 

237.600 

100% 

25 

30 

27 

1 

675 

141.143 

0% 

141.143 

100% 

30 

9.754 

0% 

9.754 

100% 

Total Administrative Costs €24.666.415 
Total Administrative Burden €14.442.052 

28 

450,00 

209 

12 

5.433 

65.196 

13.632.484 

75% 

3.408.121 

100% 

EN 

99 

EN 

 
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 3: Administrative and Management Costs associated with sub-option 3a using the EU Standard Cost Model 

Stand-Alone Regulation – Option 3 

Tariff 
(€ per 
hour) 

TIme  
(minutes) 

Price 
(per 
action) 

Freq  
(per year) 

Nbr  
of  
entities 

Total number 
of actions 

Total 
Administrative 
Costs 

Business 
As Usual 
Costs 
(% of 
AC) 

Total 
Administrative 
Burdens 
(AC - BAU) 

Regulatory origin 
(%) 

No. 

Description of required 
action(s) 

Target group 

Int 

EU 

Nat 

Reg 

1 

Information  

DGMARE 

43 

450,00 

325 

2 

3 

4 

Familiarising  with 
information obligation 

the 

MS 
Departments 

Fishery 

28 

210,00 

98 

Familiarising  with 
information obligation 

the 

Industry 
Organisations 

33 

210,00 

115 

Familiarising  with 
information obligation 

the 

RAC 
secretariats 

28 

210,00 

98 

1 

4 

4 

4 

40 

450,00 

300 

100 

1 

27 

1 

325 

0% 

325 

100% 

108 

10.539 

0% 

10.539 

100% 

214 

856 

98.239 

0% 

98.239 

100% 

7 

50 

28 

2.732 

0% 

2.732 

100% 

5.000 

1.500.000 

0% 

1.500.000 

100% 

28 

450,00 

209 

12 

5.433 

65.196 

13.632.484 

75% 

3.408.121 

100% 

5 

Inspecting and checking  

6 

Inspecting and checking  

7  Submitting information  

8  Submitting information  

MS 
Department 

Fishery 

MS 
Departments 

Fishery 

MS 
Departments 

Fishery 

RFMO 
secretariats 

DGMARE 

28 

450,00 

209 

28 

210,00 

98 

9 

Filing forms and tables 

43 

450,00 

325 

25 

4 

30 

27 

13 

1 

675 

141.143 

0% 

141.143 

100% 

52 

30 

5.074 

0% 

5.074 

100% 

9.754 

0% 

9.754 

100% 

Total Administrative Costs €15.456.363 
Total Administrative Burden €5.176.587  

EN 

100 

EN