COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying the document Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL laying down a prohibition on driftnet fisheries, amending Council Regulations (EC) No 850/98, (EC) No 812/2004,(EC) No 2187/2005 and (EC) No 1967/2006 and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 894/97
Date: 2014-05-14
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: conservation of fish stocks, conservation of resources, fishing controls, fishing net, protected species, sea fishing, weight and size













EUR-Lex - 52014SC0154 - EN











|



52014SC0154

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying the document Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL laying down a prohibition on driftnet fisheries, amending Council Regulations (EC) No 850/98, (EC) No 812/2004,(EC) No 2187/2005 and (EC) No 1967/2006 and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 894/97 /* SWD/2014/0154 final */









Disclaimer:
This executive summary commits only the Commission's services involved in its
preparation and does not prejudge the final form of any decision to be taken by
the Commission.
1.         PROBLEM DEFINITION
Driftnets are fishing nets that can
drift and operate close to or at the sea surface to target fish species that
swim in the upper part of the water column.
Following specific United Nations
General Assembly (UNGA) Resolutions[1],
which called for a moratorium on the "large-scale pelagic driftnets"[2], the
EU developed in the 90's a series of provisions to implement such a ban for
large-scale driftnets[3].

Additionally, recognising the serious
threat driftnet fisheries for salmon posed to already depleted harbour
porpoise's populations, since 1 January 2008 it has been prohibited to keep on
board or use for fishing any kind of driftnets in the Baltic Sea[4].
Currently EU vessels are allowed to keep
on board and use small-scale driftnets, except in the Baltic, provided that: 
(a)         
their individual or total length is equal to or
smaller than 2.5 km 
(b)         
their use is not intended for the capture of 
species listed in Annex VIII of Regulation No 894/97 as amended by Regulation
(EC) No 1239/98[5],
and
(c)         
species listed in Annex VIII[6] which
have been caught in driftnets cannot be landed.
Notwithstanding this entire regulatory
framework, there has been still evidence of difficulties in applying the EU
driftnets rules, particularly in the Mediterranean.
Such weaknesses might be the reason for
a proliferation of national measures supplementing the existing EU legal
framework which have not been anyhow very effective in ensuring that those
weaknesses were not exploited and may have left room to some more abuse and
non-compliance by operators.  
Though concerned Member States have recently
adopted further national measures to address these issues there is still
potential in the near future of the same problems re-emerging.
In addition, on the basis of the past
experience and recent information from scientific studies[7], some
small-scale driftnet fisheries might still pose persisting environmental and
conservation problems through interactions with protected species (e.g.
cetaceans, sea turtles, sturgeons  etc.) particularly in some areas.
2.         ANALYSIS OF SUBSIDIARITY
The Commission act on the basis of
Article 3 (1d) and in line with the procedure established by the Article 43(2)
of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.    
Therefore, the subsidiarity principle
does not apply to the matter addressed by this initiative. 
3.         OBJECTIVES
Within this framework the main specific
policy objective are as follows:
·                        
To address and eliminate any possible persisting
environmental and conservation problems related to the use of small-scale
driftnets.
·                        
To address and eliminate shortcomings in the EU
legal framework that may undermine implementation and weaken control and
enforcement.
·                        
To contribute to the objectives and targets for
"good environmental status" as established under the Marine Strategy
Framework Directive (MSFD)[8]
and related Directives.
4.         POLICY OPTIONS
To address these objectives, four policy
options have been considered:
·                        
Policy option 1: maintenance of the status quo
(baseline scenario);
·                        
Policy option 2: introduction of technical and
control measures;
·                        
Policy option 3: selected ban of some driftnet
fisheries;
·                        
Policy option 4: total ban of driftnets
fisheries.
Policy
option 1:
maintenance of the status quo
(baseline scenario)
This approach means taking no specific
steps to modify the  current regulations controlling the use of driftnets
included under Council Regulation (EC) No 894/97 as amended by Regulation (EC)
No 1239/98. 
Policy
option 2:
introduction of technical and control
measures
This option seeks to remove
misinterpretation and poor implementation of the existing rules on driftnets by
introducing specific provision on: 
·                        
Additional technical measures (e.g. rigging of
the fishing gears: mesh size and twine thickness; distance from the coast,
etc.) 
·                        
Control and monitoring aspects (e.g. one net
rule, compulsory fishing authorisations, etc.). 
Policy
option 3:
selected ban of some driftnet fisheries
Only the driftnet fisheries identified
as being the most harmful to strictly protected species and/or not able to
avoid unwanted by-catches of unauthorised species (Annex VIII species) would be
discontinued.
The information available so far
available is not sufficient to identify harmful driftnet fisheries to any
degree of accuracy although several specific examples exist and more field work
would be needed.
Policy
option 4:
total ban of driftnets fisheries
This option would mean eliminating de
facto any driftnet fishery, by introducing a total prohibition to keep on board
and/or use this type of fishing gear. Any persisting control and environmental
problems would be addressed, by applying the precautionary principle. 
This option will also match with the
preference showed by some Member States because either they have never
developed such a type of fisheries (e.g. The Netherlands, Belgium etc.) or they
have adopted national measures (e.g. Spain, Greece, Cyprus, Malta etc) or have
signed international obligations (e.g. Mediterranean and Black Sea Member
States together with Portugal as Parties to ACCOBAMS) prohibiting the use of
any driftnets though in most case without implementing it.
5.         ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS
 The evaluation of policy options is
based on a SWOT analysis. For the sake of brevity, considerations on the
status-quo-baseline scenario (Option 1) are not reported hereby. 
The majority of fisheries identified are
seasonal, and the participating fleets are comprised of polyvalent vessels. For
most fishers driftnetting represents only a few months of fishing activity in
any year with some fishers using driftnets for less than half a month per
year.  Nonetheless this type of fishery may represent a significant source of
income integration for some local community of fishers though, during the past
years, the numbers of vessels as well as the number of employees have been
substantially decreasing. While it cannot be excluded that the ban may affect
some of the vessels carrying out these fisheries, the overall socio-economic
impact of the total ban is therefore considered irrelevant at national and
sub-regional level. The total prohibition to use driftnets according to option
4  is not expected to result in a corresponding reduction of fishers which will
continue to operate with other gears as already authorised in their fishing
licence.
 Option || Socio-Economic Impact || Score 
 Policy Option 2 
 Technical and control measures adopted at EU level || Economic and financial costs are expected to adapt the fleet to the new technical requirements and to develop appropriate control tools. Accrued technical measures on the driftnet sectors could determine ceasing of some fishing activities   || - 
 Policy Option 3 
 Selected ban on some driftnet fisheries || Social and economic impacts on driftnet fishermen affected by the implementation of the ban. Although these costs can be mitigated by carrying out other type of fisheries already authorised in their fishing licence and, where necessary, through accompanying financial measures. They are aggravated by the potential risk of discriminatory treatment amongst driftnet fisheries. Furthermore, in order to get more reliable data for proper classification also the sector should participate in the scientific surveys with additional costs. || -- 
 Policy Option 4 
 Total ban on driftnet fisheries || Social and economic impacts for affected fishermen, although they will be mitigated by carrying out other type of fisheries already authorised in their fishing licence and, where necessary, through accompanying measures to support adaptation (switch to other fishing methods, differentiation of activity, phasing out). || - 
(Key: + positive impact, ++
substantially positive impact, -negative impact, -- substantially negative
impact, 0 no impact, NA not applicable/very difficult to assess)
 Option || Environmental Impact || Score 
 Policy Option 2 
 Technical and control measures adopted at EU level || Similar environmental impacts as the status quo, though it removes the possibility for future relaxation of national legislation to adversely impact unauthorised species. || - 
 Policy Option 3 
 Selected ban on some driftnet fisheries || This option aims to address the persisting environmental problem, including the collection of the evidences needed to support decision. However, it should be noted that the information available in the short term is limited and not enough robust to identify the most harmful fisheries to be prohibited. In this context there is a risk that the most harmful fisheries are not covered by the ban with persisting environmental concerns. The possible transfer of effort from prohibited driftnet fisheries to other metiers should be monitored to avoid negative impact. || + 
 Policy Option 4 ||   ||   
 Total ban on driftnet fisheries || Positive impact since this option will address all possible environmental concerns, by prohibiting any activity. The displacement of activity towards other gears already authorised in their fishing licence is considered minimal considering the marginal importance given to driftnet activities for most of the vessels. However, transfer of effort from driftnet fisheries to other metiers should be monitored to avoid unexpected negative impact. Positive indirect effects for better steering other fisheries with likely interaction with protected species. || ++ 
An assessment of the administrative
burden on the Member States is based on the potential requirements of the main
measures suggested for each Policy option and the implications for the involved
stakeholders (i.e. public bodies and businesses) in terms of: a) regulatory
requirements (high burdens), b) information obligations (limited burdens), or
c) specific adaptation in processes or behaviours (medium burdens).
 Options || Impact on administrative burden || Score 
 Option 2 Technical and control measures adopted at EU level || Important administrative burden, to follow the adaptation process towards new requirement (e.g. changes to mesh size) and to correctly monitor the implementation of the new regime (e.g. establish fishing authorization, control plan etc.) || -- 
 Option 3 Selected ban on some driftnet fisheries || Important administrative burden to collect the information needed to decide on possible ban of certain fisheries. Difficulties to manage and control two parallel systems: driftnet fisheries possibly banned and driftnet fisheries possibly authorised. || -- 
 Option 4 Total ban on driftnet fisheries || Administrative burden in the short term, to manage and control the transition. In the medium and long term the burden will be largely reduced thanks to simplified legislative framework and control needs. This simplified regime would require a less demanding control and monitoring targeting the driftnets and less fishing gears to administer. || + 
6.         COMPARISON OF OPTIONS
In addition to the comparison above
reported, the performances of the four policy options are compared against each
other using the evaluation criteria of relevance, effectiveness, efficiency,
coherence and acceptability.  
The relevance of the options is
considered in the light of persisting environmental and control problems
identified, namely:
·                        
environmental problem: insufficient monitoring
of driftnet fisheries to assess impacts on protected species 
·                        
control problem: some Member States have not
been able to prevent current small-scale driftnet fisheries from targeting
unauthorised species.  
The effectiveness and efficiency of the
options is considered, inter alia, in relation to prevent expansion of large
scale driftnets/targeting Annex VIII species and associated indiscriminate
catches (including of target species/bycatch) as well on mitigating impacts of
driftnets on species with special protection needs.
The coherence of the policy options was
considered in relation to overarching EU objectives, strategies and priorities.
The acceptability of the policy options
was considered in relation to better control and enforcement, the environmental
dimension, commensurate administrative burden (i.e. taking account of the
proportionality principle) including also the output of the public
consultation.
The comparison between the four policy
options is summarised in the table below. 
 Evaluation criteria || Option 1 Satus quo || Option 2 Technical and control measures || Option 3 Selected ban || Option 4 Total ban 
 Relevance || Environmental || -- || + || + || ++ 
 Control || - || - || -- || ++ 
 Effectiveness || Objective 1 || -- || + || + || ++ 
 Objective 2 || -- || + || + || ++ 
 Objective 3 || -- || + || + || ++ 
 Objective 4 || -- || + || + || ++ 
 Objective 5 || 0 || 0 || - || - 
 Efficiency || Objective 1 || -- || + || + || ++ 
 Objective 2 || -- || + || + || ++ 
 Objective 3 || -- || + || + || ++ 
 Objective 4 || -- || + || + || ++ 
 Objective 5 || 0 || 0 || - || - 
 Coherence || Proportionality principle || + || + || - || - 
 Precautionary principle || - || + || + || ++ 
 Ecosystem based management || - || + || + || ++ 
 Acceptability || Member States || 0 || - || -- || +/- 
 Fishermen || 0 || -- || -- || - 
 NGOs || -- || + || + || ++ 
Based on the above considerations,
policy option 4 concerning a total ban of all kind of driftnet fisheries seems
to be the preferred option as it satisfies mostly the effectiveness,
efficiency, coherence and acceptability parameters while providing the best
results in terms of environmental impact and less administrative burden.
7          MONITORING AND
EVALUATION
New monitoring and evaluation systems
other than those already existing shall not be created; it is a matter to make
them properly functioning.  
In that respect, the Commission shall
closely verify and cooperate with Member States to ensure that the control,
inspection and enforcement tools together with scientific monitoring, risk
assessment strategies and deterrent measures established under the Common
Fisheries Policy[9]
[10] [11] are
effectively and efficiently implemented by Member States
In addition, the new mechanisms
established by the Marine Strategy Framework Directive[12]
(MSFD) should facilitate and improve the monitoring and reporting systems by
Member States as established by the Birds and Habitats Directives[13].
[1]               United Nations General Assembly Resolutions:  44/225
of 22 December 1989;  45/197
of  21 December 1990; 46/215
of 20 December 1991
[2]               Large-scale driftnets were defined as nets over 2.5
Km in length under the Convention for the prohibition of fishing with long
driftnets in the South Pacific (Wellington Convention).   . 
[3]               Council Regulation (EC) No
894/97 of 29 April 1997 laying down certain technical measures for the
conservation of fishery resources
[4]               Council Regulation (EC) No
2187/2005  of 21 December 2005 for the conservation of fishery resources
through technical measures in the Baltic Sea, the Belts and the Sound, amending
Regulation (EC) No 1434/98 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 88/98..
[5]               Council Regulation (EC) No 1239/98
of 8 June 1998 amending Regulation (EC) No 894/97 laying down certain technical
measures for the conservation of fishery resources
[6]               List of species (Annex VIII): Albacore: Thunnus
alalunga; Bluefin tuna: Thunnus thynnus; Bigeye tuna: Thunnus
obesus; Skipjack: Katsuwonus pelamis; Atlantic Bonito: Sarda
sarda; Yellowfin tuna: Thunnus albacares; Blackfin tuna: Thunnus
atlanticus; Little tuna: Euthynnus spp.; Southern bluefin tuna: Thunnus
maccoyii; Frigate tuna: Auxis spp.; Oceanic sea breams: Brama
rayi; Marlins: Tetrapturus spp.; Makaira spp.; Sailfishes: Istiophorus
spp.; Swordfishes: Xiphias gladius; Sauries: Scomberesox spp.;
Cololabis spp.; Dolphinfishes: Coryphaena spp.; Sharks: Hexanchus
griseus; Cetorhinus maximus; Alopiidae; Carcharhinidae; Sphyrnidae; Isuridae;
Lamnidae; Cephalopods: all species.
[7]               MAREA Framework Contract MARE
2009/05 Lot. 1 SI2.651082 - Specific contract 8
(SI2.646130). "Identification and characterization of the small scale
driftnet fisheries in the Mediterranean (DriftMed) and Framework Contract No
MARE/2011/01 Lot2 - Specific contract 5 (SI2.650655). "Study in support of
the review of the EU regime on the small-scale driftnet fisheries".
[8]               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
(Marine Strategy Framework Directive)
[9]               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. OJ L 343, 22.12.2009,
p.1.
[10]             Council Regulation (EC) No 1005/2008
of 29 September 2008 establishing a Community system to prevent, deter and
eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, OJ L286, 29.10.2008,
p.1.
[11]             Regulation
(EU) No 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11
December 2013 on the Common Fisheries Policy.  OJ L 354, 28.12.2013, p.22.
[12]             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.
[13]             Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild
birds. Council Directive 92/43/EEC of
21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and
flora.