COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 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 Regulation (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 - 52014SC0153 - EN











|



52014SC0153

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 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 Regulation (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/2014/0153 final */









COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT
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 Regulation (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
Disclaimer: This report 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. 
Table of Contents
1............ Procedural issues and
consultation of interested parties. 5
1.1......... Identification. 5
1.2......... Organisation and timing. 5
1.3......... Consultation of
interested parties and expertise. 5
1.3.1...... Introduction. 5
1.3.2...... Consultation of interested
parties. 6
1.3.3...... External expertise. 8
1.3.4...... Dialogue with Member States. 9
1.4......... Impact Assessment Board
review and opinion. 9
2............ Problem Definition. 10
2.1......... Introduction. 10
2.1.1...... Background. 10
2.1.2...... EU Policy context: its
development and link with the international rules. 12
2.1.3...... French and Italian national
measures to comply with ECJ ruling. 15
2.2......... Small-scale driftnet
fisheries in the EU.. 16
2.2.1...... General description. 16
2.2.2...... Mediterranean. 21
2.2.3...... North-East Atlantic, North
Sea, Black Sea, 23
2.2.4...... Baltic. 25
2.2.5...... Economic and social
parameters of driftnet fisheries. 25
2.3......... General and specific
problems. 30
2.3.1...... Control and monitoring
issues. 30
2.3.2...... Environmental  issues. 32
2.4......... EU
right to act, added value, proportionality and subsidiarity. 34
2.4.1...... The right to act - Treaty
basis. 34
2.4.2...... Added value of EU action. 34
2.4.3...... Application of the
principle of subsidiarity. 34
2.4.4...... Consistency with other EU
policies. 34
3............ Objectives. 35
3.1......... General Objectives and
link with the Common Fisheries Policy. 35
3.2......... Specific Objectives. 36
4............ Policy Options. 36
4.1......... Policy option 1:
maintenance of the status quo (baseline scenario) 36
4.2......... Policy option 2:
introduction of technical and control measures. 37
4.3......... Policy option 3:
selected ban of some driftnet fisheries. 38
4.4......... Policy option 4: total
ban of driftnets fisheries. 38
5............ Analysis of Impacts. 39
5.1......... Analysis of social and
economic impacts by policy options. 39
5.2......... Analysis of environmental impacts. 41
5.3......... Assessing administrative
burden. 42
6............ Comparison of the
Policy Options. 43
6.1......... Conclusion on Policy option. 46
6.2......... Support through the
European Maritime Fisheries Fund. 46
7............ Monitoring and
evaluation. 46
8............ Annex 1 Consultations. 48
8.1......... A: Summary Report of the
on-line public consultation. 48
8.2......... B Summary report of the
information provided by Member States on control, monitoring and surveillance  68
9............ Annex 2 Summary of
driftnet fisheries currently operating in EU waters. 76
10.......... Annex 3  Detailed
overview of the small scale driftnet fisheries in the Mediterranean. 80
10.1....... Fiches by fishery. 80
10.2....... Synoptic table: fleets,
gears, catches and economic characteristics. 88
11.......... Annex 4  Interactions
with protected species. 97
11.1....... 4A  Protected species
likely to interact with driftnets. 97
11.2....... 4B Protected species
likely to interact with driftnets Summary of population status and interactions
rates of protected species with driftnet fisheries. 100
 
1.           Procedural
issues and consultation of interested parties
1.1.        Identification
Lead
DG: DG MARE
Other
EC Departments involved: SG, SJ, ENTR, EMPL,
ENV, REGIO, RTD, DEVCO 
Agenda
planning/WP reference: 2013/MARE/107 
1.2.        Organisation
and timing
This
impact assessment concerns a proposal for a Regulation for the prohibition of
the small-scale driftnet fisheries in EU waters and by EU fishing vessels
outside those waters. 
An
impact assessment steering group (IASG) was created in March 2013 which, in
addition to various DG MARE services included representatives from the
following services and Directorates General: SG, SJ, ENTR, EMPL, ENV, REGIO,
RTD, and DEVCO.
The
first meeting was held on 15 March, and subsequent meetings were held on 2
July, 5 September and 4 October. The final meeting was held on 16th
October 2013 to discuss the final draft report of a study in support of the
review of existing EU legislation on regulating driftnet fisheries. This study
provided substantive information for this Impact Assessment. The IASG worked by
correspondence to finalise the draft IA report
1.3.        Consultation
of interested parties and expertise 
1.3.1.     Introduction 
Consultation
with stakeholders, scientific community and Member States has included the
following:
(1)                   
An Interactive Policy Making (IPM) web-based
public consultation. This was undertaken from 27 March until 15 September 2013.
This consultation provided information from relevant stakeholders on the issues
and proposed policy options. The results are summarised in section 1.3.2, 2.2.1
and in more detail in Annex 1A.
(2)                   
Two studies, one describing the small-scale
driftnet fisheries in the Mediterranean[1]
and the other providing a retrospective and prospective evaluation[2] of all
EU driftnet fisheries (section 1.3.3 and Annex 2). 
(3)                   
Specific information requested from Member
States on FIFG/EFF/national funds support and on control, monitoring and
surveillance of driftnets fisheries (section 1.3.4 and Annex 1B)
These
information sources combined have provided an updated overview of the driftnet
fishing fleets in EU waters, their likely environmental, economic and social
impacts as well as an evaluation of the proposed policy options. The outcomes
of all these sources have been duly and timely circulated to the IASG
members.   
The
Regional Advisory Councils (RACs) have been formally informed of the public
consultation and the two scientific studies with a view to elicit their
contributions and to spread the information on the EC initiative to a wider
public through their members. In order to promote the public consultation among
the scientific community also the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee
for Fisheries (STECF) was duly informed.
It
can therefore be considered that the obligation to consult the stakeholders and
Member States is fulfilled.
1.3.2.     Consultation of interested
parties  
On
27 March 2013, a public consultation was launched in support of the Impact
assessment. This public consultation originally was due to be completed by 28
June 2013 but was prolonged until 15 September due to the limited number of
replies received at the time of the first deadline.
Stakeholders
were invited to provide their knowledge of the existing driftnet fisheries, to
appraise possible persisting control and environmental problems and to evaluate
and comment the policy options identified in the roadmap[3]. The
questionnaire was structured accordingly into different sections: 
·                        
presentation of the contributors; 
·                        
description the existing driftnet fisheries; 
·                        
appraisal of possible persisting
environmental/control problems; and 
·                        
perspective of the policy options as indicated
in the roadmap. 
The
IPM online public consultation was widely open to all different kind of
contributions from citizen acting on a personal capacity to people representing
organisation/associations and national administrations.
As
of the 16 September 2013, 41 answers were received from a variety of
stakeholders; only 40 were considered addressing the items of the public
consultation and considered in the analysis. One contribution received from a
respondent acting on a personal capacity went outside the scope of the
consultation (small-scale driftnet fisheries) and did not address the questions
included in the questionnaire; therefore it could not be taken into account for
this assessment.
Responses
were received from 12 EU Member States across sea basins (Italy, Germany, Spain, Belgium, France, Greece, the Netherlands, Portugal, Finland, Ireland, Malta, the United Kingdom) and 1 non-EU country (Switzerland). However, most
responses were received from the Mediterranean and in particular Italy (27.5%).
Most
of the contributors (67.5%, 27 replies) indicated they had a good level of
expertise in the area of driftnets. 
Out
of the 40 replies only 1 came from a Member States administration (NL). NGOs
accounted for 57.5% (23 replies), whilst the fishing sector (either as
associations or individual fishermen) were represented by 20 % (8 replies).
Contributions from scientists amounted to 7 replies (17.5%). Civil society is
represented by 2.5% of the replies.
The
consultation confirmed the existence of a number of small-scale driftnet
fisheries targeting different species (e.g. anchovy, sardine, greater
amberjack, grey mullets, garfishes-needlefishes, lamprey, mackerels, sea bass,
some sea-breams, salmon etc.). In general, these fisheries were reported as
carried out in coastal areas, within 3 NM zone, by a limited number of vessels
mostly less than 10m overall length. Due to the different geographical scope
and precision of the replies, the questionnaire does not allow for obtaining an
estimate of the overall number of vessels actually carrying out these fisheries.

Some
of the respondents provided information on technical and control aspects
relating to the gears and fisheries characteristics, issuing of fishing
authorisations, limiting the gears on board to a single type of drift net (i.e.
a "one net rule") or installing of vessel monitoring equipment on board.
Around 60% of the respondents consider that the establishment of a compulsory
fishing authorisations would play an important role in improving the control of
the small scale driftnet fisheries by identifying the vessels involved,
potentially reducing the risk of by-catches of strictly protected and/or
non-authorised species(i.e. species listed in Annex VIII of Council Regulation
(EC) 1239/98[4]). 

Some
8 replies (20%) provided information on by-catch of non-authorised species
(i.e. tunas and alike). In particular amongst 25 fisheries identified by the
respondents the fishery for greater amberjack seems the most likely to have
by-catch. 4 respondents highlighted this fishery. For each of the other
fisheries the limited number of responses and their lack of convergence did not
allow any conclusions to be drawn.
5
replies (12,5%) indicated possible risk of by-catches of strictly protected
species (i.e. cetaceans, sea turtles, some sea birds) as an issue. 
70%
of the replies (28) are in favour of a ban of driftnets fisheries, of which
52,5% (21 replies) called for a total ban and 17,5 % (7 replies) for a selected
ban excluding some traditional fisheries for small pelagic species in some
Italian areas. The majority (14 participants) of the 21 replies in favour of a
total ban come from NGOs[5],
the rest being spread as follow: 1 control body (NL), 2 fishermen associations
(Spain and Italy), 4 general public and experts/scientists. The 7 replies
favouring a selected ban come from NGOs[6]
and biologists. 14 out of the 28 respondents stressed the need to ban these
fisheries in particular in the Mediterranean.
For
18 respondents the rationale for the ban was to address problems of
controllability and implementation of the EU legislation on driftnets, for 10
respondents it was motivated by the need to address persisting environmental
problems. 
The
30% replies (12 respondents) not in favour of a ban came mostly from
representatives of the fisheries sector (4 French, 1 Italian, 1 Irish), 3 NGOs[7] and 3
Italian experts/scientists.  More detailed information is annexed in the report
summing up the results of the consultation (Annex IA) 
The
participation to the public consultation can be considered as acceptable in
terms of representation of sectoral and environmental interests, accepting that
the number of industry responses is relatively low. 
Notwithstanding
several reminders[8]
and contacts, no Regional Advisory Council (RAC), the main organisations that
represent stakeholders, provided a formal response. They either argued that the
consultations impacted on very few members (North Sea RAC) or that driftnet
fisheries were not covered by their RAC  (Pelagic RAC). The Baltic RAC referred
to the fact that driftnets were prohibited in the Baltic from 1st
January 2008. The Mediterranean RAC received two contributions from its
members, namely Oceana and ACI-Pesca Alleanza Cooperative Italiane, but was not
in a position to reach a common approach although these two entities separately
contributed on an individual basis to the consultation.  
The
Long Distance, South Western Waters and North Western Waters RACs did not
provide any feedback even though driftnets fisheries are known to be carried
out in their area.
As
Member States only the control agency of Netherlands has shared its views. 
1.3.3.     External expertise
In
March 2013 the Commission commissioned two specific studies in support of the
impact assessment, one covering the Mediterranean (DriftMed) and the other
covering both the areas other than the Mediterranean and providing a
retrospective and prospective evaluation of the current  drift net fisheries [9]. The
two studies were carried out in parallel and the results from the Mediterranean
study have feed the retrospective and prospective evaluation. The draft final
reports were submitted  in October 2013 and the revised final reports were
submitted in February 2014.
Information
for these studies was gathered through direct consultation and interviews with
fishermen, fishermen's Associations, as well as from national and EU fisheries
and environment administrations, scientists and representatives of NGOs working
in related fields. Furthermore, in order to collect first-hand data,
investigations of specific logbook data and observations on board fishing
vessels were carried out particularly in the Mediterranean.
The
revised final reports will be published on the DG –MARE website[10] for
studies.
1.3.4.     Dialogue
with Member States
Member
States were officially informed of the Commission's intention to review the
current EU regulations on driftnet fisheries as well as of the abovementioned
two scientific studies. The national administrations were also invited to grant
assistance to the studies and to share their opinion via the online public
consultation.  Member States were, in particular, requested to provide
information on pilot projects, studies and measures concerning driftnet
fisheries that were financially supported with a view to facilitate
diversification and reconversion out of large-scale driftnet fisheries phased
out under current legislation as well as drift net fisheries in the Baltic.
Where applicable, information on assistance to maintain or develop driftnet
fisheries compatible with EU legislation was requested. Only Ireland, Spain and
Sweden answered with some detail concerning the support given for permanent
cessation and/or reconversion of vessels involved in driftnet fisheries; Italy
made reference to the specific measures, without providing details, to
encourages Italian fishermen to diversify out of the large-scale driftnets as
adopted following  two Council Decisions[11].
No MS reported to have supported actions aiming to steer driftnet fishing in
line with EU legislation.
In
line with the cooperative approaches that we have been promoting, and which
have brought to the launch of administrative inquiries on different control
issues with several Member States, a parallel letter was sent to Member States
requesting information on their specific control, monitoring and surveillance
of driftnet fisheries. Responses were received from Belgium, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania Malta, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain and UK. Answers from Bulgaria, Romania, Sweden and The Netherlands were not yet received by the time of submitting the
revised IA report. Only France, Ireland, Italy, Portugal, Slovenia and UK reported to have driftnet fisheries. 
The
responses received show that with the exception of the illegal driftnets
fisheries which have attracted a quite substantial control and inspection
effort in particular by Italy based on a ruling of the European Court of
Justice[12],
most of other driftnets fisheries are not subject to any specific system of
control and scientific monitoring (ANNEX 1 B). 
It
can be considered that the obligation to consult Member States is fulfilled.
1.4.        Impact Assessment Board
review and opinion  
The
draft IA was submitted to the Impact Assessment Board (IAB) on 25th
October 2013 and was discussed at the IAB hearing of 20 November 2013.   The
overall opinion of the Board on the Impact assessment was positive, with some
recommendations for improvement; further remarks for improvements were put
forward during the subsequent inter-service consultation.  
First,
it should provide a clearer policy context and clarify the dimension and scale
of driftnet activities in the EU. The report should then better structure the
problems, and present further evidence demonstrating the existence and scale of
the compliance problem as regards EU driftnet rules.   
Second,
the report should provide further detail on each of the policy options,
including on the use of the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) to
support the reconversion of fishing vessels. It should discuss the
proportionality of an outright ban, with clear reference to the views of the
operators and Member States concerned. 
Third,
the report should provide a more in-depth assessment of the economic and
financial impacts upon operators, including upon jobs and livelihoods, as well
as on local communities, and on the environment.
The
first set of points and part of the third one have been addressed by
restructuring some sections and providing a clearer policy context,
highlighting the links with other relevant initiatives at EU and international
level. The report provides a fuller description of the driftnet fishing sector,
including a realistic assessment of the numbers of vessels and operators
currently using driftnets. The measures have been more clearly related within
the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy, and a brief overview of measures
introduced at national level is reported both in a specific section and in
Annex 1- 8.2.B.  Information on the importance of driftnet fishing for
livelihoods of fishers involved, including an estimate of the economic value of
the activity, is reported in section 2.2.5 and Annexes 9 and 10. The
environmental impact has been further substantiated by restructuring and
expanding section 2.3 and adding Annex 4 to present the current knowledge on
the likely level of interactions of driftnets with protected species. 
The
second set of remarks has been addressed by inserting a specific session on the
EMFF and by highlighting the views of stakeholders in section 1.3.2 and Annex 1
A. 
When
information was available, the recommendations of the Board have been taken
into account and implemented into the revised Impact Assessment report.
2.           Problem
Definition
2.1.        Introduction
2.1.1.     Background
Driftnets
are a specific type of fishing nets that can drift and operate close to or at
the water surface to target fish species that swim in the upper part of the
water column. The current definition of a driftnet for EU fisheries is
contained in Council Regulation (EC) No 809/2007[13]  as
follow:
Drift
net" means: any gillnet held on the sea surface or at a certain distance
below it by floating devices, drifting with the current, either independently
or with the boat to which it may be attached. It may be equipped with devices
aiming to stabilise the net or to limit its drift.
A
schematic view of the net is given in Figure 1.
Driftnet
fisheries traditionally were carried out with nets of limited lengths and
relatively small mesh size to catch different small/medium size pelagic species
mostly living in or migrating through coastal areas. More substantial problems
began in the late 70s-80s when the use of driftnets with much larger mesh sizes
and much bigger, both  in length (up to 50 km in extreme cases) and drop (up to
30-40 m), expanded rapidly in the absence of meaningful control provisions. The
use of these  nets resulted  in significantly increased   environmental impacts
in terms of increased fishing effort on target species and, more important,
numerous and large incidences of unwanted catch of protected species under EU
and international legislation, in particular, cetaceans, sea turtles and
seabirds[14].

Fig. 1  Schematic view of a driftnet. Devices aiming to stabilise the net or to limit its drift are not
shown.
2.1.2.     EU Policy context: its
development and link with the international rules  

In
the early 90s, following specific United Nations General Assembly (UNGA)
Resolutions[15],
which called for a moratorium on these so-called "large-scale pelagic
driftnets"[16]
fishing on the High Seas for highly migratory species such as tunas and swordfish,
the EU introduced strict legislation for these driftnet fisheries to ensure
sustainable exploitation of target resources (mainly tunas and swordfish) as
well as to mitigate or annul the negative impact on protected species. In fact,
since June 1992 the keeping on board or use of driftnets whose individual or
total size is more than 2.5 km is prohibited in EU waters (except in the Baltic
Sea, the Belts and the Sound), and for all EU vessels outside EU waters[17]. 
However,
the implementation of the 2.5 km rule presented many practical implementation
and control problems (e.g. using driftnets under the pretence of them being
bottom set gillnets; high economic incentives to use long driftnet for large
pelagic stocks with an associated low risk to be detected; cooperative
behaviour among vessels, etc.) and did not stop the expansion of
large-scale pelagic driftnet fisheries. In fact the use of illegal driftnets
and incidental catches of protected species (e.g. cetaceans, seabirds and sea
turtles) continued to be reported in different EU regions and particularly in
the Mediterranean and North East Atlantic. 
Therefore,
since 2002, EU has prohibited[18]
the use of all driftnets, regardless of their length, when intended for the
capture of a certain group of highly migratory pelagic species including inter
alia tunas, swordfish, billfish, sharks and cephalopods[19]. This
Regulation was accompanied by several Council Decisions[20] to
encourage diversification away from large-scale pelagic driftnet fishing and to
allow re-conversion of vessels engaged in driftnet fisheries activities to
other fisheries as of 1 January 2002.
Additionally,
recognising the serious threat driftnet fisheries for salmon posed to already
depleted harbour porpoise's populations it has been prohibited, since 1 January
2008, to keep on board or use for fishing any kind of driftnets in the Baltic Sea[21]. 
Harbour porpoises in the Baltic are listed by the IUCN as critically
endangered. The Commission reported on this ban in the Baltic, as well as on
the implementation of broader measures to reduce incidental catches of
cetaceans in EU fisheries, in two Communications to the European Parliament and
the Council adopted on 16 July 2009[22]
and on 21 September 2011[23]
.
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[24] as
amended by Regulation (EC) No 1239/98[25],
and
(c)         
species listed in Annex VIII[26] which
have been caught in driftnets cannot be landed.
Specifically
in the Mediterranean with a view to closing an emerging loophole that could
facilitate the use of illegal driftnets under the pretence of them being
classified as bottom set gillnets, Article 8 (2) of Regulation (EC) 1967/2006[27] has
prohibited the catching of most of the species listed in Annex VIII of
Regulation (EC) No 894/97 with bottom-set nets.  The list of species could not be
equal to that in the Annex VIII since several species, such as cephalopods and
Atlantic bonito, are regularly caught also by bottom-set nets.   The same
regulation has established further technical provisions for different types of
bottom-set gillnets (e.g. maximum length, height and twine thickness) which, in
addition to regulating bottom set gillnet fisheries, were also supposed  to
provide further control of small-scale driftnets still allowed to be used in
the Mediterranean under EU law.
The regional fisheries management organizations
(RFMOs) dealing with highly migratory pelagic species in waters adjacent to the
EU, namely the GFCM- General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean and the
ICCAT-International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas), have
adopted rules on the driftnets while prohibiting the use of driftnets to catch
highly migratory pelagic species (e.g. tunas, swordfish, etc.) in the
Mediterranean[28].
The EU is Contracting Party of both these RFMOs.
It is worth also recalling that at the Third meeting
of the Parties to ACCOBAMS[29]
(Dubrovnik, October 2007) the Parties agreed on an amendment of the Agreement
which includes in the text, particularly in the Annex 2, the prohibition to
keep on board or use any kind driftnets in waters under their sovereignty
and/or jurisdiction and outside those waters in respect of any vessel under
their flag. The revised Agreement entered into force on March 22, 2008. All
Mediterranean and Black Sea EU Member States as well as the Portugal are Contracting Parties of ACCOBAMS whilst the EU is not a Party.    
Notwithstanding
this entire regulatory framework, there has been still evidence of difficulties
in applying the EU driftnets rules for highly migratory pelagic species,
particularly in the Mediterranean for French (thonaille driftnet) and Italian
(spadare driftnets and alike) vessels.
These
issues have also assumed an accrued international dimension. Some NGOs, with a
view to overcome enforcement problems of the ban of large-scale pelagic driftnets
targeting highly migratory stocks, have recurrently advocated the prohibition
of all driftnets fisheries. Moreover the USA has threatened commercial
sanctions against the EU Member States for not complying with the UNGA and
RFMOs rules (e.g. Italy).    
These
compliance problems for lack of control and enforcement of the EU rules on
driftnets have been addressed following rulings by the European Court of
Justice (ECJ) against France (C-556/07
and C-479/07)
and Italy (C-249/08)
for the lack of effective control and enforcement of the EU rules on the
driftnets in the Mediterranean. 
2.1.3.     French and Italian national
measures to comply with ECJ ruling  
Following
the ECJ's judgements and subsequent Commission monitoring, the EU Member States
concerned, namely France and Italy, have introduced modified measures
nationally for the Mediterranean. The new national measures have improved the
situation and set the basis for stepping-up the control and enforcement actions
in addressing this problem for an improved compliance with both EU and Regional
Fisheries Management Organizations rules. For example, France[30]
authorizes the use of driftnets in the Mediterranean only with mesh size
smaller than 50 mm (not adequate for tunas and alike) and within 2 nautical
miles from the coast. Following intensive contacts with the Member State and verification missions conducted, the Commission has taken the view that France has complied with the Court's ruling and closed the case in 2011.
As
far as Italy is concerned, they have adopted[31]
national legislation stipulating a one-net rule (i.e. longlines and driftnets
cannot be taken on board at the same time) and authorising small driftnets with
a maximum mesh size of 100 mm (smaller than before) and only within 3 nautical
miles from the coast (closer than before). These measures combined have
substantially reduced the risk of illegal drift-netting for highly migratory
species. However, considering the huge problem with the illegal driftnets
fishing in Italy over  the last decade before and after the ruling of the ECJ, 
the Commission has kept the possibility of requesting a second referral to the
Court against Italy, for lack of implementation of the Court's ruling despite
the introduction of these national rules. In the meantime, an action plan
stemming from the administrative inquiry on the Italian control system,
conducted in early 2013, on the basis of Article 102 of the Control Regulation[32] has
been established by Italy and adopted  by the Commission[33].  
The
text of this plan and the deadline for its implementation has been agreed
between Commission services and Italian authorities during several technical
meetings. There is a strong focus on measures linked to the control of
driftnets and in general to the fisheries for highly migratory species such as
swordfish and Bluefin tuna.  Italian authorities have already started to work
towards the implementation of the measures agreed. Verification missions
conducted in Italy in early September 2013 did not detect activities of illegal
driftnets as already observed in 2012.
However,
no evidences of illegal activities, in a short period of increased controls,
does not mean that the problem of illegal driftnets has been totally eradicated
in Italy and that the operators will refrain of using illegal driftnets for
highly migratory stocks in the near future, especially after a possible
definitive closure of the Court case against Italy. Moreover, there have been
signals that the illegal driftnets were being "exported" by Italian
operators to Mediterranean third countries. These possible developments will
pose additional challenges in terms of control and enforcement.
With
the exception of the illegal driftnets which have attracted a quite substantial
control and inspection effort in particular by Italy following the ruling of
the ECJ, all other driftnets fisheries are not subject to any specific system
of control and monitoring.  
However,
these recently adopted national measures supplementing EU legislations could be
relaxed and there is still potential in a near future of the same problems
re-emerging.
2.2.         Small-scale driftnet fisheries in the EU
The
information reported in the following sessions provides a description of the
different driftnet fisheries to set the baseline for the impact assessment.
Different sources have been used to feed this impact assessment:
·                        
the EU fleet register  which is a database where
all the fishing vessels flying the flag of a Member State have to be registered
in accordance with Community legislation;
·                        
literature review, interviews and questionnaires
used by the two scientific studies
·                        
field surveys carried out by the two scientific
studies
·                        
information from the public consultation 
The
variety of the sources and the inherent varying imprecision associated to each
one may determine some discrepancies among the figures highlighting the current
difficulties in establishing the exact number of vessels and fishers currently
involved in small-scale driftnet fisheries; nonetheless the grasping of the
overall picture is not affected.
A
brief overview of the national measures regulating driftnets is reported in
Annex 1 8.2.B. 
2.2.1.       General description
2.2.1.1.  Number of vessels  
The
driftnets can be categorized on the basis of the target species and
consequently of their dimensions:
1) large-scale
driftnets (> 2.5 km) with large mesh size targeting highly migratory
species  (e.g. tunas and tuna-like species, swordfish, pelagic sharks, etc),
2) 
small-scale driftnets (≤ 2.5 km) with smaller mesh and targeting species
other than highly migratory species (e.g. anchovy, sardine, sea breams, sea
bass, etc.).
The
taking on board or use of the large scale driftnets in category 1 is prohibited
by EU law.  
Both
the studies and the public consultation have confirmed that a number of small
scale driftnets fisheries exist in EU waters. Many of these are traditional,
artisanal fisheries. However, the knowledge on these fisheries is scarce and
scattered in space and time.
Table
1 provides an overview by Member State of the number of vessels recorded in the
EU fleet register having driftnets recorded as their main or second gears (GND
code); the fleet register has not been conceived to identify fisheries and it
is completely managed by each Member State who is responsible to manage its
fishing fleet capacity within the limits established by the EU conservation
policy[34]. 

However,
this approach only provides a broad estimation of the actual number of vessels
using this type of gear. In fact, a maximum of only two gears per vessel is
recorded in the fleet register, therefore polyvalent vessels having driftnets
as third or further gear in their fishing licence are not included in this
statistic. For example, according to information provided by Italy in the consultation phase they have 819 vessels having the driftnets in their fishing
licence though only 463 are currently reported in the fleet register. 
Moreover,
changes considered as minor by Member State, such as a modification of the gear
type licensed, do not however trigger an update of the register; this may have
effects either upwards or downwards. For example a driftnet fishery may be
completely closed, either at EU (e.g. large-scale driftnets for highly
migratory species in EU; driftnet fishing in the Baltic) or national level
(e.g. salmon  fishery in Ireland), and the information held in the fleet
register may still indicate the gear code GND for years as long as the vessel
remains active in the same fishing port with the same owner; this may explain
the fact that some Member States such as Denmark, The Netherlands, and some
Baltic State still report the GND code attached to several vessels. In the
opposite case, a Member State may authorized a new gear in the fishing licence
without that this is recorded in the fleet register; an example is Slovenia
where 48 vessels have been licensed with driftnets in 2011 whilst only  4 GND
vessels are reported in the fleet register.
The
characteristics of the EU fleet register, the lack of compulsory fishing
authorizations[35],
the fact that most of the vessels are polyvalent and licensed to potentially
use several fishing gears combined with the fact that several vessels operate
in a transitional area moving between inland and marine waters, with the former
not recorded in the fleet register, may determine a certain variability in the
number of vessels reported by different sources. 
On
the basis of the EU fleet register statistics updated to September 2013, 1859
vessels are currently recorded having the driftnets (GND) either as main or
secondary fishing gear. 
Table
2 provides the relative importance of the driftnet vessels with respect to the
EU fishing fleet. The driftnets vessels, including those longer than 12 m as
recorded in the fleet register, are about 2% in number and 0.7% in GT with
respect to the overall EU fleet.  They are about   2,5% in number and 6,5  % in
GT with respect to the EU vessels smaller than 12 m.  
Table
3 reports the breakdown by vessel length categories (LOA length overall);
around 77 %  (1423 out of 1859) are smaller than 10 m  and  90%  (1680) 
smaller than 12 m; the vessels longer than 12 m still in the fleet register are
most probably no longer involved in actual small-scale driftnet fishing.
However,
it is worth recalling that, according to the recent studies, only 840 fishing
vessels have been recorded as actively drift-netting in marine waters outside
the Baltic where a driftnet total ban is in place (Bulgaria 135; France 238; Italy 100; Portugal 112; Slovenia 5; UK 250).  The number of active driftnets vessels in
marine and adjacent waters would actually increase up to 887 if including 47
Polish vessels authorised to carry out a "semi-driftnet" fishing.  
Pulling
together the estimates of vessels driftnetting in marine and estuaries/delta
together with those presumed to fish only in the rivers (e.g. around 250
Bulgarian and 1355 Romanian vessels), which are thus not included in the EC
fleet register,  a total of around 2790 vessels is estimated.
Table
4 shows the variability in the reporting  of vessel statistics at European and
national levels, and highlights the current difficulties in establishing the
exact numbers of vessels currently involved in small-scale driftnet fisheries.
Therefore, the number of active driftnet fishing vessels has the ability to
change and increase or decrease over time depending on various factors. 
A
summary of the current driftnet fisheries as monitored by the two scientific
studies is reported in the Annex 2.
Table
1: Overview by Member State of vessels recorded in the EU fleet register having
the driftnets as main or 2nd gear. 
 Member State** || 1/05/2004 || 1/01/2009 || 1/01/2010 || 1/01/2011 || 1/01/2012 || September 2013 
 BG || NA || 258 || 235 || 217 || 194 || 129 
 DK || 514 || 259 || 247 || 239 || 231 || 220 
 EE || 5 || 4 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 
 ES || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 
 FI || 170 || 0 || 0 || 3 || 3 || 3 
 FR || 212 || 159 || 150 || 134 || 118 || 111  
 FR-Overseas || 108 || 159 || 162 || 175 || 185 || 207 
 GR || 1 || 1 || 5 || 5 || 4 || 1 
 HR || NA || NA || NA || NA || NA || 0 
 IE || 51 || 418 || 387 || 348 || 355 || 357 
 IT || 468 || 490 || 485 || 488 || 470 || 463 
 LT || 15 || 4 || 2 || 1 || 1 || 1 
 LV || 50 || 12 || 8 || 7 || 3 || 0   
 MT || 12 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 
 NL || 12 || 14 || 14 || 11 || 11 || 11 
 PL*** || 189 || 140 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 
 PT || 110 || 0 || 141 || 139 || 140 || 140 
 RO**** || NA || 53 || 52 || 63 || 60 || 2 
 SE || 118 || 63 || 48 || 56 || 57 || 68 
 SI || 3 || 2 || 3 || 4 || 4 || 4 
 UK || 132 || 137 || 143 || 143 || 140 || 142 
 Total || 2170 || 2173 || 2082 || 2033 || 1976 || 1859 
** Cyprus
and Belgium have never had driftnets vessels and for that are not reported in
the table.
***
  Poland: the former semi-driftnets that had been classified as GND (= Gillnet
Driftnets) have been subsequently classified in the category GNS following the
ban to use driftnets in the Baltic since 1 January 2008 
****
 Romania around 1350 vessels using driftnet in the Danube delta ( lower part of
the river and river mouth) are not reported.
Table
2: Relative importance of the driftnets fishing vessels with  respect to the EU
fishing fleet as recorded in the fleet register  
   || Absolute values || % GND EU fleet 
   || N° || GT || kW || N° || GT || kW 
 ALL DRIFTNETS || 1859 || 12101 || 106377 ||   ||   ||   
 ALL EU vessels || 87666 || 1677752 || 6630730 || 2,1% || 0,7% || 1,6% 
 < 12 m ALL GEARS || 74050 || 186001 || 2630151 || 2,5% || 6,5% || 4,0% 
Table
3 : Breakdown by vessel length (LOA) of the number of vessels recorded with
driftnet (GND) in the fleet register.
 Length (LOA) m || <10 || < 12 || LOA       12<-<15 || LOA    15<-<18 || LOA  18<-<24 || LOA 24<-<30 || LOA 30<-<36 || LOA 36<-<45 || total 
  N° of vessels || 1423 || 1680 || 114 || 24 || 35 || 4 || 1 || 1 || 1859 
 %  || 76,5 || 90,4 || 6,1 || 1,3 || 1,9 || 0,2 || 0,1 || 0,1 || 100,0 
Table  4 : Member States monitored by
the two scientific studies. Variation in reported driftnet vessel statistics,
including marine and river fisheries,  from differing official sources  at
September 2013.
 Member State || Total number of driftnet fisheries identified || Total no. of vessels identified as actively using driftnets || Marine fisheries || Estuaries/Delta and river Fisheries   
 EC Fleet register total no.  vessels with GND as 1º/2º gear (Sept. 2013) || No. of vessels  on the basis of fishing licences (source studies + official reporting) || No. of vessels actively driftnetting (source studies) || No. of vessels on the basis of  fishing licences (source studies+ official reporting || No. of vessels  actively driftnetting (source studies) 
 Bulgaria || 2 || 385*** || 129 || --- || 135 || --- || 250*** 
 Denmark || 0 || 0 || 220 || * || 0 || 0 || 0 
 France || 15 || 411 || 318 || 241 || 238 || 70-204 || 173 
 Ireland || 0 || 0 || 357 || * || 0 || 0 || 0 
 Italy || 8 || 100 || 463 || 819 || 100 || 0 || 0 
 Poland** || 1 || (50) || 0 || (47) || (47) || --- || 3 
 Portugal || 4 || 594 || 140 || 150 || 112 || 482 || --- 
 Romania || 1 || 1355*** || 2 || --- || 0 || 1650 || 1355*** 
 Slovenia || 1 || 5 || 4 || 48 || 5 ||   ||   
 Sweden || 0 || 0 || 68 || * || 0 || 0 || 0 
 UK**** || 13 || 250 || 142 || --- || 250 || 52 || --- 
 Total || 45 || 3150***** || 1843 || 1305 (1258) || 887 (840) || 2254-2388 || 1781 
---
No information recorded  by the two studies and/or  pending information from MS
* No
contemporary driftnet fisheries were identified in these member states during
the period of the studies and therefore license information was not gathered. Ireland has notified that driftnetting for salmon is closed since 2006 and that no
authorizations for herring driftnetting have been issued since 2012. From 10 to
50 vessels were involved in the latter driftnet fishery for herring.  
**Poland: the former semi-driftnets had been classified as GND (= Gillnet Driftnets), before
the ban to use driftnets in the Baltic which entered into force from 1 January
2008. They have been subsequently classified in the category GNS (bottom-set
gillnets) .  For the sake of completeness they are reported as GND in the table
above. 50 is an estimate based on 
***  Romania: all the vessels are considered to operate only in the Danube river and are not included in
the EC fleet register
        Bulgaria: around 250 vessels are considered to operate in the Danube river and are not included in
the EC fleet register
**** The number
of UK licenses only includes 250 vessels driftnetting for salmon and seatrout
(sales note MMO data); however around 119 vessels for the other fisheries (source:scientific
survey data and interviews) could be taken into account.   All vessels under 10m in length would have the right  to
use driftnets.
***** including
both marine, estuaries/delta and river fisheries
2.2.2.     Mediterranean
2.2.2.1.  Brief historical overview
In
the Mediterranean Italy, France, Spain, and Malta have reported using driftnets
historically.  Italy is the EU Mediterranean country with the biggest driftnet
fisheries. For the Italian waters, in the Gulf of Trieste and Venice Lagoon
(GFCM-Geographic Subarea17= Adriatic) the use of small scale driftnet named
"menaide" targeting sardine were reported in the 70's (Scaccini
(1974), AA.VV. (1985), Granzotto et al. (2001)) .  Ferretti et al.
(1995) reported a detailed description of the different kind of driftnets
(small driftnets and the driftnets targeting large pelagic species) used along
the Italian coasts which could be categorized as follow: 
–                        
driftnets with small mesh size (from 20 to 40 mm) targeting mainly sardine (Sardina pilchardus)  and anchovies (Engraulis
encrasicholus); 
–                        
driftnets with medium mesh size (from 50 to
100-110mm) targeting saddled sea bream (Oblada melanura), striped sea
bream (Lithognathus mormyrus), mackerel (Scomber scomber), grey mullet
(Mugil spp.), small greater amberjack (Seriola dumerili), pompano (
Trachinotus ovatus) and frigate tuna-mackerel (Auxis spp )
–                        
- driftnets with mesh size (greater than 100 mm)
targeting large pelagic species (i.e.swordfish (Xiphias gladius) Bluefin tuna (Thunnus
thynnus), albacore (T. alalunga), little tunny (Euthynnus
alleterratus),  frigate tuna-mackerel (Auxis spp and Atlantic bonito (Sarda
sarda)).  
Driftnets
targeting large pelagic species were named “spadare" and prohibited by EU
legislation since January 2002 whilst those with smaller mesh size were
categorized under the collective name of “ferrettara” nets. 
The
use of small driftnets for anchovy (Engraulis encrasicolus) has been reported
for a local area (Cilento) situated in the southern mainland of Italy (GFCM GSA 10 =  South-Central Tyrrhenian Sea)  in late spring (Colloca et al. 2002, 2004). 
As
for Malta  the use of small driftnets was reported   mostly from November to
February when saddled sea bream (O.melanura) and mackerels (Scombridae)
aggregate (De Leiva et al., 1998). 
Along
the Spanish Mediterranean coasts, Urbistondo (2001) provided a description of
two types of small driftnets: “bonitera” and “melvera”, both targeting mainly
large pelagic species such A. rochei and S. sarda; the same
author also reported 11 vessels using “bonitera” to catch the greater amberjack
S. dumerili.  Always in Spain, Garcıa-Rodrıguez et al.
(2006) mentioned for the Alicante Gulf (GSA 6), the use of small driftnets to
catch seasonally greater amberjack , dolphinfish (Coryphaena
hippurus), squid (Loligo vulgaris) and different Scombridae species.
De La Serna et al. (2000) confirmed the presence of the two driftnet
gears, “bonitera” or “melvera” mainly directed to fish bonito and frigate tuna.

The catalogue of fishing gears of Cortés and
Manrubia (2003) mentioned the presence of small driftnets named "sardinal"
and "volaera" targeting sardine and flying fishes in Andalucía-Spain,
without providing information of their use.
As
for the French fisheries, the inventory provided
by Guillou and Crespi (1999) of the artisanal fisheries in the Gulf of Lions
(GSA 7) reported, among the gears used in the area, a typology of driftnet
named "thonnaille" that targeted large pelagic species became illegal
since January 2002.  Presence of small scale driftnets for sardine was also
reported.  
2.2.2.2.  Current situation
With
all the limitations abovementioned, on the basis of the EU fleet register as
updated at September 2013, around 476 driftnet fishing vessels are reported for
the Mediterranean; the bulk of the driftnet fleet is concentrated in Italy (463) and the other vessels are in France (8), Greece (1) and Slovenia (4).
A
similar analysis of the fleet register done by the Driftmed study, as updated
at 31 December 2012, provides a repartition of the driftnet vessels by GFCM-
Geographical Subaraes (GSA) which is reported in the table 5 below.   This
analysis gives an idea of the dispersion of the driftnet fishing fleets in a
great number of harbors (130) and of the small scale nature of the vessels
involved which are on average smaller than 12 meters length overall.  The
Italian driftnet vessels are mostly distributed in the southwestern part of Italy, mainly GFCM-GSA10 (South-Central Tyrrhenian sea) and GFCM-GSA19 (western-Ionian Sea), with
264 and 99 vessels, respectively.  
Table
5 - Main characteristics of the vessels associated with the GND fishing type
(both as main and second gear) in the Mediterranean EU waters updated to
December 31st 2012 (DRIFTMED study-data from EU Fleet Register). 
 GFCM-GSA || Country || Harbours || n. vessels || Tonnage GT || Length overall || Engine power kW 
 mean || mean || mean 
 7- Gulf of Lions || France || 8 || 8 || 5,0 || 9,2 || 117,5 
 9 Ligurian- North Tyrrhenian Sea || Italy || 16 || 47 || 7,9 || 11,0 || 96,4 
 10 Central-South Tyrrhenian Sea || Italy || 51 || 264 || 4,9 || 8,9 || 55,8 
 11 Sardinia || Italy || 5 || 13 || 10,5 || 10,8 || 121,5 
 16 South of Sicily || Italy || 7 || 16 || 9,6 || 9,1 || 74,7 
 17 Central-North Adriatic || Italy || 12 || 17 || 4,4 || 8,0 || 87,3 
 Slovenia || 2 || 4 || 4,9 || 8,8 || 65,0 
 18 Southern Adriatic || Italy || 5 || 11 || 3,4 || 8,0 || 63,8 
 19 Western Ionian Sea || Italy || 23 || 99 || 10,4 || 11,3 || 94,2 
 22 Aegean Sea* || Greece || 1 || 1 || 2,9 || 8,3 || 11,0 
   || Total || 130 || 480 ||   ||   ||   
* Greece reports that no driftnet fisheries is authorized and the fleet register has not been
updated
According
to the information provided by Italy a total of 819 vessels are granted with
driftnets in their fishing licences; out of these vessels only 41 and 26
resulted respectively operating with driftnets in 2012 and 2013 (data source:
Centro Nazionale di Controllo Pesca). 
On
the basis of the newly information collected on the ground through field
surveys by the DriftMed study in 2013, around 100 vessels carrying out the
following 9 small-scale driftnet fisheries have been identified in Italy: 
1) “Menaide” for anchovy, Engraulis encrasicolus,
in Catania area (GSA19);
2) “Menaide or menaica” for anchovy, Engraulis
encrasicolus, in the Cilento area (GSA10);
3) “Occhiatara” for saddlled sea bream, Oblada
melanura, in Ligurian Sea (GSA9); 
4) “Sgomberara” for horse mackerel, Trachurus
trachurus, in northern Sicily (GSA10);  
5) “Menaide” for anchovy, Engraulis encrasicolus,
in S. Agata di Militelllo (GSA10);
6) "Riccciolara" for greater amberjack, Seriola
dumerili, in S. Agata di Militello (GSA10);
7)
"Ferrettara" for blue fish, Pomatomus saltatrix, in Gulf of
Naples (GSA10); 
8) "Menaide"
for sardine, Sardina pilchardus, in northern Adriatic (GSA17);
9) "Menaide"
for anchovy Engraulis encrasicolus /sardine Sardina pilchardus in
western Sicily (GSA 16). 
The
fishing fleets carrying out these fisheries are quite different in terms of
number of vessels, fishers and specialization.  For example, the vessels involved
in the fishery n° 1 in Catania are quite specialised and carry out this fishery
for about 88% of their annual fishing days with   about 90% of their annual
catches and revenues from the driftnet fishing; instead fishing fleets involved
in driftnet fishing for anchovy in the Cilento area practices this fishery on a
seasonal basis (around 13% of their annual fishing days) and extract 30 % in
weight and 21% in value of their annual catches. The other fisheries are
between these values.
Annex
3-10.2. reports a synoptic overview of more detailed information of these
Italian fisheries concerning fishing capacity, activity, technical
characteristics of the nets, landing and catch rates, composition of the
catches by species, catches of unauthorized and protected species, size
composition of the catches, socio-economic parameters.
As
for France it seems that only a few 3-4 vessels currently operate in the French
Mediterranean even though no active vessel using small driftnets has been
detected during the period of the study. Official information provided by France indicates around 6 driftnet vessels exploiting sardine, anchovy, horse mackerel and
sea-breams.
 As
for Slovenia a few vessels fish seasonally
(spring-summer) with "menaide" for sardine, Sardina pilchardus;
however around 48 vessels are licensed to carry out driftnet fishing.
Spain,
 Greece, Malta, Cyprus, and Croatia have reported that driftnet fisheries are
prohibited under their national legislation. However, rumors, though not
properly substantiated with evidences, report the use of driftnets also in the
south of Spain and in the Greek islands.
2.2.3.     North-East
Atlantic, North Sea, Black Sea, 
Bulgaria
currently has two small-scale driftnet fisheries: a marine fishery that
operates in the Black Sea (GFCM GSA 29) and an inland fishery in the Bulgarian Danube River. Shad species (Alosa immaculata and Caspialosa
pontica) are exploited in the inland fishery, and Atlantic Bonito (Sarda
sarda), an unauthorized species of  the Annex VIII, is targeted by the marine
fishery. Some 135 vessels have been identified as participating in the marine
fishery for Atlantic Bonito.  
France
has currently 15 small-scale driftnet fisheries targeting both freshwater and
marine species. These fisheries are present across a range of sea basin but are
primarily active in ICES divisions VIIIa and VIIIb,  in the Bay of Biscay, and
VIId in the English Channel. Eleven French driftnet fisheries occur in rivers
and estuaries while four are marine fisheries. The main rivers and estuaries
where driftnet fisheries occur are the Adour, the Loire, and the
Gironde-Garonne. The two fisheries with the most vessels involved target Meagre
(Argyrosomus regius) in the Gironde estuary (ICES division VIIIb) and
for Atlantic herring (Clupea harengus) in the English Channel (ICES
division VIId). Two marine driftnet fisheries exist in the French overseas
territory (French Guiana and Martinique), where around 130 vessels target
flying fish (Exocetidae spp) and Acoupa weakfish (Cynoscion acoupa). In
overall, around 240  vessels have been identified as participating in the
marine fisheries and 173 in the estuaries/delta river fisheries. 
Portugal
has two driftnet
fisheries currently active in ICES division IXa (Portuguese waters-East) - one
targeting sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax) in Rio Tejo  and one targeting
European pilchard (Sardina pilchardus) in the northern part of Portugal.
Some 112 vessels have been identified as participating in these marine
fisheries. However, a much higher number of vessels totalling to 482  is
licensed to fish with driftnets in the estuaries/delta river for sea lampreys
and other brackish and catadromous species.
Romania
has one distinct driftnet fishery active in GFCM area 29 (Black Sea) in the Danube River and Delta targeting mainly species of shad, among which Black Sea Shad (former
Pontic shad) Alosa immaculata. Numerous other fresh-water species are
also captured. Approximately 1,355 vessels out of 1650 licensed with driftnets
are actually involved in these river and estuarine/delta river fisheries and
are considered operating in fresh waters and thus not included in the EU fleet
register. However, it is not yet clear whether and how many of these vessels
are actually operating also in the marine areas or where to put the limit
between the marine and freshwater areas in the  Danube delta.  
The
UK currently has 13 distinct driftnet fisheries exploiting 9 species as
primary or secondary targets: target species include Atlantic herring (Clupea
harengus), Atlantic mackerel (Scomber scombrus), Atlantic salmon (Salmo
Salar), sea trout (Salmo trutta), European sea bass (Dicentrarchus
labrax), mullet (Mugilidae spp.), common sole (Solea solea),
European pilchard (Sardina pilchardus), and Atlantic Cod (Gadus morhua). These fisheries
operate in a number of ICES region including IVb and IVc, in the North Sea, 
VIId, VIIe in the English Channel , and VIIf in the Bristol Channel. Driftnet
fisheries also operate in a number of rivers and estuaries (i.e. herring are
targeted in the Thames estuary (ICES division IVc) , salmon and sea trout are
targeted in the Ribble and Lune estuary (ICES division VIIa), and driftnet
fisheries targeting salmon operate in close proximity to estuaries in ICES
division IVb (North Sea). The number of vessels involved is approximately 250
for approximately 502 fishers accounting for around 4% of employment. 
In France and UK, some driftnet fisheries are actually carried out
with "trammel-driftnets" that is a drifting net composed by more than
one panel of netting attached to the headline. Strictly speaking this gear,
though operating in the same manner of a driftnet, seems to be outside the
scope of the driftnet definition as currently provided by the Council
Regulation (EC) No
809/2007. In fact, that definition identifies the
driftnet as gillnet that is a net made up of a single panel of netting attached
to the headline. 
Notwithstanding
a total driftnet ban is implemented through national legislation in Spain,
unverified rumours from the fishing sector (pers.comm. chair of a fishermen
association) indicate that at least 24 small vessels carry out seasonal fishing
for sardine with a driftnet locally known as "xeito".
2.2.4.     Baltic
The
use of driftnets in the Baltic is prohibited since 1 January 2008[36] and
all the riparian EU Member States bordering the Baltic have declared that no
driftnet fisheries are currently authorized or operating.
Poland
continues authorizing the use of so called "semi-driftnet"
fishery operating in the Baltic sea within ICES division 24- 26 to exploit
salmon (Salmo salar) and sea trout (Salmo trutta).  The
semi-driftnets are drifting gillnets anchored to the bottom at one end of the
net. 
This
"semi-driftnet" vessels had been classified as GND (=gillnet
driftnets) before the ban to use driftnets in the
Baltic entered into force.  Then they have been classified in the category of
bottom-set gillnets (GNS) and no longer considered as driftnets.  Around 50 vessels
are considered currently active;  the majority of
these vessels fish primarily in Puck Bay.
This
issue needs further investigations; in fact on the basis of the agreed EU
driftnets definition as recalled in section 2.1.1 the anchoring on one side should
fall within the different devices aiming to stabilise the net or to limit its
drift.  If this interpretation is correct then this semi-driftnet fishery seems
not complying with the EU driftnet ban.  
2.2.5.       Economic and social parameters
of driftnet fisheries
It
should be noted that economic information is not available at the fishery level
for almost all driftnet fisheries identified by both studies. Although these
vessels may be included in the various programmes under the DCR/DCF[37],
they are mostly not selected by the ranking system established therein or
data are usually aggregated at a higher gear level which encompasses driftnets
and fixed nets within the same gear grouping (DFN). During the last ten years,
driftnet usage has been stable for a few countries or regions (UK[38], Italy[39] and French Guiana[40]) but
mostly declining (all other case studies). Deployed by polyvalent fleets,
national administrations are less inclined to include these driftnet vessels as
a separate grouping within their sampling strategies for the DCF.
Detailed
information on number of vessels and fleet segmentation is reported in  Section
2.2.1  and tables from 2  to 4.
Overall,
around 880 small-scale vessels using driftnet in marine jurisdictions have been
identified. Species targeted are mainly small pelagic (UK, France, Portugal, Italy) and diadromous species (Poland, France, Portugal, Bulgaria, Romania). 
Except
for Italy, it was not possible to assess profit levels of these driftnet
fleets.  Furthermore, some of the case study countries did not provide economic
data for the latest Annual Economic Report (AER). For the purpose of this
evaluation, the conclusions are based on the latest information available for
countries that reported data; proxies will be used for the other Member States
(Table 6).
Table
6: Economic indicators as a percentage of turnover (AER data for 2010)
   || France || Portugal || United Kingdom || Italy 
 DCF reference || DFN 0-10 || DFN 0-10 || DFN 0-10 || PGP 6-12 
 fuel || 7% || 10% || 16% || 13% 
 crew || 47% || 29% || 34% || 14% 
 Gross profit || 14% || 26% || 4% || 35% 
 Gross value added || 60% || 68% || 50% || 66% 
 Net profit || 4% || 8% || -9% || 16% 
For
  Italy, the data collected by the DRIFTMED study allow deriving cost
structures only for the driftnet activities for seven fisheries (Table 7), but
do not allow to detail the overall cost structure of the vessels. Overall, the
level of profit generated by the use of driftnet is highly variable, ranging
from 1% to 54% of the turnover generated by the vessels, with an average of 22%
across all fisheries. However, the various costs reported by the DRIFTMED study
present all a high level of variability from one fishery to the other. It
should be noted that the Menaide” fishery present in Catania is accounting for
almost 76% of the turnover generated by using driftnet among these seven
fisheries.
2.2.5.1.  Economic importance of the gear
The
majority of fisheries identified are seasonal, and the participating fleets are
comprised of polyvalent vessels, totalling at least 840 vessels (excluding the Baltic Sea), dispersed over a wide area.. For most fishers employing driftnets,
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.;  with some
fishers using driftnets for less than a single month (like the herring
fisheries in the English Channel[41]).

It
has not been possible to collect accurate landings data from driftnet fisheries
apart from Italy and UK, which makes it almost impossible to identify the
economic importance of the gear at the European level.
On
the basis of the information collected for the impact assessment the economic
performance and importance of the gear for the vessels and fleets is highly
variable though limited at national level. For the fleets where the data are
available such as the UK vessels the total value of small scale driftnets, for
around 250 vessels, represent 0.14%  (1.3 million €) of the total value of UK landings in 2011 ( 946 million €) and account to 0.1%  of the UK landings.. 
In
Italy, the economic importance of Italian driftnets is low if compared with the
overall small scale fleet at national level (2.456 million € that is 0.8% in
value, and 1.3 % in weight of 36,716 tonnes of small scale fleets landing)
though the value landed ranges from around 20% to 55% (up to 90% in one
fishery) of the turnover generated by the driftnet vessels(table 8). For
around  90 vessels for which data has been made available, the use of driftnet
represents almost 78% of the volume landed and 68 % of the value generated, for
54% of the days at sea spent. When detailing these indicators fishery by
fishery, there is a high variability of dependence. The vessels deploying
“menaide” close to Catania are almost exclusively using driftnet, which
represent 91% of the quantity and the value landed by these vessels. At the
other end of the spectrum, the two other “menaide” fisheries (Cilento and
Sant’Agata di Militello) and the “occhiatara” fishery represent only 20% to 25%
of the value landed by these vessels. For the three remaining fisheries
(“sgomberara”, “ferrettara” and “ricciolara”), the use of driftnet accounts for
close to half of the turnover generated by these vessels. 
It
has been reported on several occasions that landings from driftnet fisheries
were receiving a price premium due to the consumer perception of a high quality
fish, like for example the Sea bass/ seabream fishery in Portugal[42]
or the menaide fishery for anchovy in Italy[43].
In
the English Channel (UK and France), herring festivals are still very popular
with local fleets landing herring caught by driftnet for the occasion.
Fishermen interviewed indicated that the demand associated with these festivals
(and the associated high price) was the only driver to go fishing as it would
otherwise be uneconomical to target herring with driftnet[44].
2.2.5.2.  Number of fishers in small
scale driftnet fisheries  
The
lack of compulsory fishing authorizations35 and the polyvalent
nature of most vessels, which are licensed to potentially use several fishing
gears and carry out different fisheries, makes impossible to define the exact
number of fishers actually involved in small-scale driftnet fisheries.
According
to the latest Annual Economic Report[45]
(2011 data) around 58170 units (46% of all EU fishing sector=127686 units) are
employed in the small scale fishing fleets (i.e. vessels < 12 m and using
passive/static gears). 
A
first estimate of the potential employment in the small-scale driftnet fishing
sector can be drawn on the basis of an average number of  2.5 fishers/vessel,
as estimated from  the outcomes of the two scientific studies,  and the number
of GND-vessels smaller than 10-12 m in the fleet register (table 3), which are
supposed to be less dependent from catches of  highly migratory pelagic
species.. 
Some
1423 GND-vessels smaller than 10 meter are in the fleet register that would
correspond to around 3560 fishers possibly employed in the marine small-scale
driftnets sector, that is 6.1 % of the EU small scale fishing sector. 
Some
1680 GND-vessels smaller than 12 meter are in the fleet register that would
correspond to around 4200 fishers possibly employed in the marine small-scale
driftnets sector, that is 7.2 % of the EU small scale fishing sector. 
If
a different statistic is used and namely the amount of 887 vessels actively
driftnetting in marine areas, as recently monitored by the two scientific
studies (table 4), the number of employees would be 2217 units, that is 3.8% of
the 58,170 employees in the EU small scale fishing sector.
In
conclusion, taking into account the variation of the different sources, the
number of current employees in the marine driftnet fishing sector should range
between 2000 and 4500 units. 
Table 7: Economic indicators for seven
Italian driftnet fisheries
 Fishery || Species targeted || Turnover (driftnet) || Energy costs || Labour costs || Other Variable costs || Fixed costs || Gross profit || GVA 
 Menaide (Catania -GSA19) || Anchovy || 1,869 || 5% || 55% || 9% || 5% || 26% || 81% 
 Sgomberara (Northern Sicily -GSA10) || Mackerel and bogue || 339 || 30% || 41% || 14% || 14% || 1% || 42% 
 Menaide (Cilento -GSA10) || Anchovy || 82 || 6% || 42% || 4% || 21% || 28% || 69% 
 Menaide (Sant'Agata di Militello -GSA10) || Anchovy || 49 || 36% || 41% || 11% || 8% || 4% || 45% 
 Occhiatara (Liguria -GSA9) || Saddled sea bream || 40 || 5% || 33% || 2% || 6% || 54% || 87% 
 Ferrettara (Gulf of Naples -GSA10) || Blue fish || 46 || 7% || 47% || 2% || 13% || 31% || 78% 
 Ricciolara (Sant'Agata di Militello -GSA10) || Greater amberjack || 31 || 20% || 39% || 16% || 8% || 17% || 56% 
 Combination of all fisheries ||   || 2,456 || 10% || 52% || 9% || 7% || 22% || 74% 
Source: Italian case study[46]
Table 8: Relative importance of
the use of driftnet for seven Italian driftnet fisheries
 Fishery || Species targeted || Turnover (total) || Vessels || Days || Volume || Value 
 Menaide (Catania -GSA19) || Anchovy || 2,058 || 28 || 88% || 91% || 91% 
 Sgomberara (Northern Sicily -GSA10) || Mackerel and bogue || 665 || 30 || 58% || 83% || 51% 
 Menaide (Cilento -GSA10) || Anchovy || 384 || 19 || 13% || 30% || 21% 
 Menaide (Sant'Agata di Militello -GSA10) || Anchovy || 195 || 7 || 20% || 38% || 25% 
 Occhiatara (Liguria -GSA9) || Saddled sea bream || 160 || 5 || 12% || 34% || 25% 
 Ferrettara (Gulf of Naples -GSA10) || Blue fish || 84 || 2 || 47% || 47% || 55% 
 Ricciolara (Sant'Agata di Militello -GSA10) || Greater amberjack || 70 || 3 || 49% || 35% || 44% 
 Combination of all fisheries ||   || 3,616 || 94 || 54% || 78% || 68% 
Source: Italian case study[47]
2.3.        General
and specific problems
On
the basis of all available information there are a number of driftnet
fisheries  involving a significant number of EU vessels carrying out small-scale
driftnet fisheries in coastal areas, estuaries and lower part of rivers (around
3150 including both the marine, estuaries/delta and rivers; around 890 strictly
considering only the sea fisheries; around 2000 pooling the marine and
estuaries/delta without the river fisheries). 
This
number could potentially increase since more polyvalent vessels, with respect
to those recorded as GND vessels in the fleet register, have an authorization
to use driftnets in their fishing licence. For example, in Italy around 470 boats with driftnets are registered in the EU fleet register whilst there are 819
boats licensed to use this type of net; analogously for Slovenia where 48 vessels are licensed with driftnets whilst only 5 are reported in the
fleet register. In practice all UK vessels smaller than 10 meter in overall
length could use the driftnets without any further specific authorisation.  
Therefore,
the number of active driftnet fishing vessels has the ability to change and
increase or decrease over time depending on various factors. 
However,
the number of currently active driftnets, as estimated through the scientific
studies, is much smaller than what would be potentially possible and is
reported in Table 4 and Annex 2.  
The
general problem, as emerging from the studies and consultations, indicates the
current EU legal framework on driftnet has shown some weaknesses which have
facilitated the continuation of illegal fishing as well as some evidences of
possible interactions with protected species. 
2.3.1.     Control and monitoring issues
From
a control point of view, the lack of compulsory fishing authorization to
strictly ring-fencing the authorised vessels together with the possibility to
land in several small places in the absence of a mandatory landing obligation
in specifically designated ports could be seen as undermining the controls and
the compliance with the driftnets rules; this characteristic is however common
to several fisheries. Amongst the factors that could facilitate bypassing the
rules it is worth mentioning, the possibility of carrying on board driftnets
together with other fishing gears, thereby creating the possibility to report
falsely that catches of highly migratory species   (Annex VIII species), which
are  not allowed under the EU driftnet regime,  were made with the other gears,
most commonly the bottom set gillnets or longlines. 
Another
weakness which could be mentioned is the unclear language of Article 11a of
Regulation (EC) No 894/97 which prohibits the use driftnets when "intended"
for capture of certain species listed in Annex VIII. The prohibition is
therefore conditioned on a subjective element which could be difficult to prove
unless specific characteristics of the net suitable to catch certain species
are established. In fact there is some kind of relationship between the
dimension of the target species and the mesh size of the gear used; the bigger
the fish the bigger shall be the mesh size and twine thickness and vice-versa. 
The
lack of specifications of the maximum mesh size for small-scale driftnets, thus
makes it more difficult to control and to enforce  the prohibition of using
driftnets for the capture of highly migratory species. 
All
these potential problems facilitate the circumvention of rules and create a
disproportionate burden of proof for the control authorities when trying to
detect offences. 
Such
weaknesses might be the reason for a proliferation of national measures
supplementing the existing EU legal framework. Using the possibilities offered
in Articles 9 and 10 of Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002[48]
corresponding to Article 19 and 20 of the new CFP Regulation[49], some
Member States had over time enacted a series of national/local measures that
have not been very effective in ensuring that those weaknesses are not exploited
and, on the contrary, may have left room to some more abuses and non-compliance
by operators. This resulted in misuse of driftnets, particularly in the
Mediterranean, that technically complied with EU and national legislation but
to all intents and purposes were in fact illegal driftnets by targeting
unauthorized highly migratory species (i.e. tunas etc.) and continuing to cause
incidental takings and death of protected species (e.g. marine mammals, sea
turtles, sea birds, etc.).  
Though
concerned Member States, namely France and Italy, have recently adopted further
national measures to address these issues (section 2.1.3), these national
legislations may not be sufficient to definitively address the problems of
control, proper enforcement and possible persisting environmental problems and
there is still potential in the near future of the same problems re-emerging if
national rules are again changed in the wrong direction. 
Therefore,
also under the new CFP legal framework, the effectiveness of controls against
illegal drift-netting can be negatively affected and highly demanding for
national control bodies, in terms of human and technical resources,
particularly in those countries with a quite big number of small-scale
artisanal fishing vessels distributed along a quite extensive coastline with a
high number of potential landing places, including a lot of islands (e.g.
Greece, France, Italy,, Spain, UK ). In fact, also for countries prohibiting
the use of all kind of driftnets through national law such as Spain there are
indications of fishery using driftnets targeting seasonally sardines (e.g.
"xeito" fishing in Galicia) (pers. comm. of involved fishers).
It
is worth signalling that, although the use of driftnets is prohibited in the
Baltic Sea since 2008, there are evidences that the Polish fishermen, around 50
vessels, have been authorised to use a "semi-driftnet' gear, (i.e. a
driftnet anchored to the bottom at one end) which has been subsequently
categorised as bottom-set gillnet by the Polish authorities (see 2.2.4). This
approach seems a way to circumvent the driftnet ban following a similar
approach developed by France to regulate the "thonaille" in the Mediterranean and that was disallowed following rulings by the ECJ. Also a Bulgarian driftnet
fishery in the Black Sea targets illegally an Annex VIII species (Atlantic
bonito).  
These
problems run the risk of being more exacerbated in those countries with
important small-scale fishing fleets and numerous landing places spread around
the coastline. The resources required to effectively
control these specific and dispersed landing sites could be disproportionate in
comparison to other priorities of control bodies.
2.3.2.     Environmental  issues
On
the basis of the past experience and way of operating, some small-scale
driftnet fisheries might have the potential to interact with strictly protected
(e.g. marine mammals, sea turtles, etc.) or unauthorised species (tunas,
swordfish, tuna-like species, sharks of Annex VIII) while the EU rules may be
relatively easy to circumvent and still pose persisting environmental and
conservation problems in some area. 
In
that respect monitoring and reporting systems established under Council
Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 (Habitats Directive) and Directive 2009/147/EC
of 30 November 2009 (Birds Directive) have proven to be not effective for the
identification and recording of the anthropogenic causes of death of strictly
protected species due to fishing activities.
The
two scientific studies do not provide strong evidences of recurrent incidental
takings of strictly protected species (Annex IV HD; Annex I BD), except for
some French fishery in the outermost regions (sea turtles) and in some French
estuarine waters of the Atlantic façade (e.g. sturgeons). In the latter case,
it seems that sturgeons are returned unharmed and alive because of the limited
soaking time and specific surveillance for bycatch for a restocking programme
of sturgeon.
Annex
4 provides an overview on protected species likely to interact with driftnets
(A) as well as on interactions rates for the protected species along with their
population status based on IUCN criteria and where available estimates of
Potential Biological Removal (B).
Out
of the cetaceans for which interactions with driftnets have been reported,
harbour porpoise in the Baltic Sea are of the greatest conservation concern,
based on their population status in this region; IUCN considers the Baltic Sea populations to be Critically Endangered due to recent sharp declines in abundance[50].
Conflicting information currently exists on the intensity of harbour porpoise
interaction with the Polish semi-driftnet fishery: However, unintended bycatch
of the harbour porpoise in gillnet fisheries is believed to have a growing
impact on the Baltic Sea population50,
and is listed as one of the main threats to their conservation[51],
[52], [53].. 

Black
Sea harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) populations in the Black Sea,
which are considered to be endangered or threatened by ACCOBAMS and IUCN
respectively, are also considered to potentially interact with Bulgarian
driftnet fisheries targeting Atlantic Bonito.
Moreover,
evidences of cetaceans, pinnipeds and seabirds interacting with driftnets exist
for fisheries monitored in the UK[54].
Of
the species for which data exists on interactions with currently active
driftnet fisheries, the Harbour porpoise in the Baltic Sea warrants most
concern based on the population status of this species and additional threats
from similar gear in the region. 
Harbour
porpoise might also be considered at risk in the North Sea, Northeast Atlantic
and in the Black Sea, based on limited data and perceived impacts of similar
gear types such as static gillnets. 
Review
of literature and other information sources indicates that for many of the
species identified as being at risk of incidental capture in driftnet fisheries
currently active, a paucity of information makes it difficult to determine the
real extent of impact these fisheries might have.
However
such a lack of strong evidences of widespread recurrent incidental takings
cannot be necessarily interpreted as evidence of absence of recurrent
interactions with strictly protected species; in fact the poor monitoring of
these fisheries by MS and the limited sampling effort by the two studies were
most probably not able to detect these unfortunate events.  
Fisheries
operating with nets drifting close to or at sea surface and made by two or more
walls of netting hung jointly on the headline have been detected; strictly
speaking this nets are not covered by the current definition of
"driftnet" which refers to a gillnet that is a net made of one wall
of netting. Since these nets operate in a manner equivalent to the currently
defined driftnets and may cause the same problems, the driftnet definition
should be amended accordingly.   
Many
of the above general problems are driven by a range of specific problems. The
most important specific problems, which may be relevant also for other small scale
fisheries with nets, are the following:
- fisheries with a high risk of incidental takings
of strictly protected species, with nets operating close or at the water
surface which is a sensitive area for several air-breathing animals, such as
the marine mammals, sea turtles and some sea-birds;
-  lack of common standardized technical
specifications in terms of gear characteristics and spatial range of fishing
operation that create different treatments among fishers
- no specific obligations to ensure a proper control
and scientific monitoring of the fisheries concerned (no vessels position
systems; no log-book; no designated ports; no compulsory fishing
authorizations)   
- high-demanding costs, both financially and in
human resources and means, to ensure a proper control and monitoring of these
small-scale atomized and seasonal fisheries,
- high risk of resurgence of problems of
non-compliance with  UNGA resolutions and RFMOs binding obligations with
negative effects on the activities of legal fishing fleets and the image of Europe.
Current EU provisions can be easily circumvented,
for example by linking two regular nets to form an illegal one longer than 2.5
km and by mis-declaring the fishing gear used to catch the unauthorized species
of Annex VIII. This state of play, combined with the high economic profit
derived from the illegal use of driftnets for tunas and alike species, lead to
believe that it is not possible to exclude in the near future a reappearance of
illegal activities, even in areas where they have been temporarily eradicated.
- the current definition of driftnet does not
include newly described drifting nets (e.g. trammel drift-nets) that would
appear to pose similar risks with regards to strictly protected and
unauthorized species.
2.4.        EU right to act, added value,
proportionality and subsidiarity
2.4.1.     The
right to act - Treaty basis
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.    In that respect, the driftnet fisheries exclusively carried out in
the fresh waters of the rivers are out the scope of this initiative.
2.4.2.     Added
value of EU action
The
EU has the possibility to improve EU rules for a more harmonised, stable,
transparent and effective management framework of fisheries and thus overcoming
all the weakness detected which have led to a proliferation of national/local
measures that although supplementing the existing EU legal framework have not
necessarily improved, if not actually weakened, its proper control and
enforcement. 
2.4.3.     Application
of the principle of subsidiarity
EU
action relates to the conservation of marine biological resources, while
integrating environmental concerns into fisheries policy, and falls under the
EU exclusive competence according to Article 3 (1d) of the Treaty on the
Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). Therefore, the subsidiarity principle
does not apply to the matter addressed by this initiative. 
2.4.4.     Consistency
with other EU policies 
The
requirements by the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union (TFEU),
particularly Article 11 therein, to integrate the environmental protection into
the definition and implementation of the Union's policies and activities, together
with the obligations under the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) to apply the
precautionary approach and implement the ecosystem-based approach to fisheries
management, make further EU action to address once and for all possible
persisting environmental, conservation and sustainable fishing problems in
relation to the driftnets necessary and justifiable.   
There
is need for further actions at EU level to address specific issues to enhance
certainty for an improved, stable and controllable legal framework in line with
the TFEU and CFP requirements.  
Furthermore,
the joint reading of first and second paragraphs of Article 11a of Regulation
(EC) No 894/97 may determine discarding at sea which is no longer in line with
the  discard ban policy   promoted by the new Common Fisheries Policy49.
It
is in line with other EU policies, particularly those identified under the EU
Integrated Maritime Policy, namely the Marine Strategy Framework Directive[55]
(MSFD), the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP)49, the Birds and Habitat
Directives[56]
and the Biodiversity Strategy.
3.           Objectives
3.1.        General
Objectives and link with the Common Fisheries
Policy
The
reformed CFP[57]
in pursuing its objectives to provide long-term sustainable environmental,
economic and social conditions and contribute to the availability of food
supplies, shall apply the precautionary approach and implement the
ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management to ensure that negative
impacts of fishing activities on the marine ecosystems are limited and minimised
to the maximum extent possible. 
Article
11 of the TFEU calls for integrated environmental protection requirements into
the implementation of the Union's policies and activities. There is, however,
no effective conservation policy if rules are not properly controlled and
enforced. 
Furthermore,
EU is promoting an integrated approach to maritime policy where the different
sea-users are invited to contribute to the sustainable exploitation and
conservation of goods and services provided by the marine ecosystems[58].
To
comply with EU international obligations vis-à-vis the proper implementation of
rules on driftnet fisheries in particular with the UNGA Resolutions and RFMO
binding obligations as recalled in section 2.1.1.  
The
EU is not a signatory of ACCOBAMS. Nonetheless all EU regional Member States
are members of that Agreement and have agreed a specific provision prohibiting
to take on board or to use any driftnets in the Convention Area (section
2.1.2). We must ask whether and what consequences could reverberate on the
credibility and image of the EU if its member countries would not respect this
collective commitment taken at regional level.   
It
should be noted from the outset that a full assessment of the potential impacts
could not be done given that complete and comprehensive data sets are often not
available or are inconsistent between Member States and over time and a
precautionary perspective to address the problems needs to be taken into
account.
3.2.        Specific
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 in relation in particular to marine mammals, marine reptiles and
seabirds.
·                        
To address and eliminate shortcomings in the EU
legal framework that may undermine implementation and weaken control and
enforcement putting at risk proper implementation by Member States (e.g. scope
including the newly described trammel-driftnets)  and  EU compliance with
international obligations.
·                        
To contribute to the objectives and targets for
"good environmental status" as established under the Marine Strategy
Framework Directive (MSFD)[59]
as well as other conservation legislation such as the Habitats Directive[60].
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.
4.1.        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. 
The
only modification could concern changes in the wording to reconcile the
driftnet regime with the discard ban policy stipulated by the new  Common Fisheries
Policy. 
If
this option is chosen, the implementation weaknesses of the EU framework which
have been detected will not be addressed. The risk that the catching sector and
some Member States will not properly implement the current rules remains high.
The Polish approach to use semi-driftnet fishery in the Baltic and the driftnet
fishery for Atlantic bonito in the Black Sea are clear examples of the
materialisation of this risk. Under this situation there may be emerging
problems related to the conservation of protected species and to the
disproportionate burden of proof for EU and national control authorities when
prosecuting offenders to rules on driftnets. Moreover, the effectiveness and
credibility of the EU action on this issue could  continue to be questioned by
the NGOs and at international level, in particular by the USA, with consequent political and administrative costs. 
The
only conceivable way to mitigate these risks would be to develop a much
stronger control and monitoring effort both at EU and national level with all
consequent costs and reservations in terms of proportionality, efficiency and
effectiveness. 
This
option is not expected to simplify or further complicate the current regulatory
framework. It relies heavily on continuing to keep a close vigilance and
pressure on Member States, particularly in the Mediterranean, the Baltic and
the Black Sea. The goal would be to ensure effective control and enforcement of
existing EU rules and to avoid the introduction of national measures that could
undermine their correct implementation. Specific verification missions by the
Commission service will continue to be carried out. In case of recurrent
non-compliance with the EU legislation, it could be necessary to open new Court
cases against Member States.
4.2.        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. standards
for the rigging of the fishing gears: maximum mesh size and twine thickness;
maximum distance from the coast and depths for the use of fishing gears, drop
of the net, etc.) 
and/or
·                        
Control and monitoring aspects (e.g. one net
rule, compulsory fishing authorisations; vessel monitoring systems or
equivalent for small scale vessels; revised logbook, restrained list of
designated ports/landing places, net attached to the vessel etc.).
This
policy option would allow having a clearer, more stable and standardised EU
legal framework. It should close any implementation loopholes that have
previously been exploited to reduce the effectiveness of the EU driftnet
regime, either by circumventing the rules or by weakening effectiveness of
control activities. Such approach would also tackle the risk that some Member
States could relax  adopted national measures in the future with a resurging of
the compliance problems.  Moreover, enhanced technical measures should further
mitigate the persistent environmental impacts. 
However,
a complicated and costly control system would still be required. Additional
administrative burden will incur at national level by imposing the need of
issuing fishing authorisations for vessels carrying out these fisheries. Member
States will also have to establish substantially improved monitoring systems to
measure the impact of the driftnet activities as regulated by the new regime on
protected species. Additional costs and burden will affect the small and micro
fishing enterprises which will be requested to adapt to the new technical and
control measures.
Moreover,
there is still a risk that environmental problems persist due to the possible
non effectiveness of control measures and to possible new loopholes discovered
when implementing the new regime. 
4.3.        Policy option 3: selected ban of some driftnet fisheries
In
line with this option, 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.
This
would involve as a first step the clear identification and description of
driftnets fisheries across EU waters having leading to incidental catches of
protected and/or unauthorised species.
Furthermore,
no new driftnet fishery, beyond those already described and authorised at the
time of entry into force of the new regime, should be allowed by Member State
unless it is duly certified that it complies with the new rules. 
This
option will entail a very sophisticated control system that would lead to
increased complexity and administrative burden for both the Commission and Member States when it comes to the identification of fisheries that could continue to
operate. The information available at this stage is in fact insufficient to
identify harmful driftnet fisheries to any degree of accuracy although several
specific examples exist. This approach can therefore be challenged as
controversial. It also introduces a risk of discriminatory treatment, since it
will risk not contributing to the creation of a level playing field amongst all
EU fishermen using driftnets due to the likely difficulty of distinguishing
those most harmful from those that are environmentally friendly. 
This
option could entail accompanying financial measures, to support reconversion of
vessels to other fishing methods or different activities particularly for those
fishermen for which driftnets account for a high percentage of their yearly
income. Such reconversion could be covered by the new European Maritime and
Fisheries Fund provisions. It should also be taken into account that the
magnitude of potential costs can be lower than expected since most of the
vessels equipped with driftnets are polyvalent vessels already authorised to
use a pool of different fishing gears. Therefore, they could simply focus on
other fishing methods without additional costs for reconversion.
4.4.        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. 
This
will result in a simplification of the EU driftnet regime, closing any possible
loopholes in interpretation which has made it difficult up to now to properly
implement and control EU rules on driftnets. It 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 of ACCOBAMS) prohibiting the use of
any driftnets.
Any
persisting environmental problem would be addressed, by applying the
precautionary principle. Considering high the risk of incidental takings
despite the uncertainty and the lack of precise data on the impact of driftnet
activities on protected species, all activities will be prohibited. 
The
possible initial socio-economic and administrative costs would be transitional
and could be offset by the simplification introduced at legislative and control
level.  
This
option could entail accompanying financial measures, to support reconversion of
vessels to other fishing methods or different activities particularly for those
fishermen for which driftnets account for a high percentage of their yearly
income. Such reconversion could be covered by the new European Maritime and
Fisheries Fund provisions. It should also be taken into account that the
magnitude of potential costs can be lower than expected since most of the
vessels equipped with driftnets are polyvalent vessels already authorised to
use a pool of different fishing gears. Therefore, they could simply focus on
other fishing methods without additional costs for reconversion. 
5.           Analysis of Impacts
In
this section Policy Options 1, 2, 3 and 4 are assessed in terms of their
socio-economic and environmental impacts. Moreover, an attempt has also been
made to analyse the administrative burden which would result on
the Member States for each one of the options proposed. 
5.1.        Analysis of social and economic impacts by policy
options
Due
to the lack of sound specific data for most fisheries, no concrete estimates on
quantitative impacts for all fisheries are available. Instead, mostly
qualitative comparisons are used, with consideration of the likely magnitude of
impacts where possible. The rationale is based on a SWOT analysis.
The
majority of fisheries identified are seasonal, and the participating fleets are
comprised of polyvalent vessels, totalling at least 840 vessels (excluding the Baltic Sea), dispersed over a wide area. For most fishers employing driftnets, 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
(section 2.2).
Moreover,
due to the polyvalent nature of practically all the vessels carrying out
driftnet fisheries, 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.     
Policy
Options are clearly evaluated through scores (see key below for interpretation)
indicated in the tables below.
  Options || Socio-Economic Impact || Score 
 Policy Option 1 
 Status quo –baseline scenario (no further action at EU level) || Driftnet fishing will continue to be of limited economic importance to Member States at a national level, though with variation between Member States and within Member States.  Driftnet fishermen will remain dependent on driftnet fisheries as their main fishing gear, or as one of many gears that provides flexibility in fishing opportunities. || 0 
 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 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 may be 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. The high risk of misclassification of some fisheries could lead to unjustified social 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).
5.2.        Analysis
of environmental impacts
An indication
of the qualitative environmental impacts has been made on the basis of whether
the measures have a direct impact on fostering greener and environmentally
sustainable fisheries. 
 Options || Environmental Impact || Score 
 Policy Option 1 
 Status quo (no further action at EU level) || The current lack of data about the absence of impact of driftnets on protected species will persist, together with shortcomings in the control of fishing activities and in the enforcement of EU rules. Moreover, in the near future there could be a relaxation of measures taken at national level. There is therefore a high environment risk. || -- 
 Policy Option 2 
 Technical and control measures adopted at EU level || Same 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, mostly already authorised in their fishing licence, is considered minimal considering the marginal importance given to driftnet activities for most of the vessels. Positive indirect effects for better steering other fisheries with likely interaction with protected species. However,  transfer of effort from driftnet fisheries to other metiers should be monitored to avoid unexpected negative impact. || ++ 
(Key:
+ positive impact, ++ substantially positive impact, -negative impact, --
substantially negative impact, 0 no impact, NA not applicable/very difficult to
assess)
5.3.        Assessing administrative burden
An
assessment of the administrative burden on the Member States for each option is
provided in this section. Such assessment 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 operators)
in terms of: a) regulatory requirements (high burdens), b) information
obligations (limited burdens), or c) specific adaptation in processes or
behaviours (medium burdens).
It
should be noted from the outset however that, due to lack of data, it has not
been possible to make an exact or approximate estimation of the administrative
cost for Member State administrations to implement these actions. This is first
and foremost due to lack of disaggregated data by fishery at Member State level. 
In
any case, financial funds will become available to Member States for the
implementation of possible decommissioning or reconversion scheme for those
vessels that decide to exit the fishing activity due to the ban of driftnets
or, in case they are not yet authorised, to switch to more selective fishing
methods. 
 Options || Impact on administrative burden || Score 
 Option 1 Status quo (no further action at EU level) || No additional specific administrative requirement is needed compared to the baseline although a higher  level of correct control and monitoring is needed to avoid the exploitation of loopholes by the sector. || 0/- 
 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 proper monitor the implementation of the new regime (e.g. establish fishing authorization, control plan, v 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. || + 
(Key: + positive
impact, ++ substantially positive impact, -negative impact, -- substantially
negative impact, 0 no impact, NA not applicable/very difficult to assess)
6.           Comparison of the Policy Options
A
summary overview of the impacts of the four policy options from the
socio-economic and environmental point of views, as well as in terms of
administrative burden, is provided in the table below.
   || Option 1 Status quo || Option 2 Technical and control measures || Option 3 Selected ban || Option 4 Total ban 
 Socio-economic impacts || 0 || - || -- || - 
 Environmental impacts || -- || - || + || ++ 
 Administrative burden || 0/- || -- || -- || + 
(Key: + positive
impact, ++ substantially positive impact, -negative impact, -- substantially
negative impact, 0 no impact, NA not applicable/very difficult to assess)
The
performances of the four policy options can also be 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, either those with
strict protection status, e.g. cetaceans and other species listed in Annex IV
of Habitats Directive, or other protected species 
·                        
control problem: some Member States have not
been able to prevent current small-scale driftnet fisheries from targeting
illegally unauthorised species.  
The
effectiveness and efficiency of the options is considered in relation to the
following evaluation objectives:
·                        
Objective 1:  Prevent expansion of large scale
driftnets/targeting Annex VIII species and associated indiscriminate catches
(including of target species/bycatch);
·                        
Objective 2:  Monitoring and Control of
driftnets in relation to objectives of UNGA resolution;
·                        
Objective 3:  Mitigate impacts of driftnets on
species with special conservation and protection needs; and,
·                        
Objective 4:  Mitigate and monitor impacts of
driftnets on cetaceans.
·                        
Objective 5:  Mitigate resulting negative
socio-economic impacts
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).
Under Option 2 fishermen will badly accept
micro-management on technical characteristics of the gear including an accrued
use of logbook and  of vessel positioning systems though simpler than satellite
Vessel Monitoring Systems. Analogously the same explanations would apply also
for option  3 for the authorised vessels while those banned would perceived it
as  unfair treatment.  Option 4, though more radical, will be more acceptable
by fishermen because there will be no discrimination among them and could
entail accompanying measures for the transition.
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 || -- || + || + || ++ 
(Key: + positive
impact, ++ substantially positive impact, -negative impact, -- substantially
negative impact, 0 no impact, NA not applicable/very difficult to assess)
6.1.                  Conclusion
on Policy option
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. This option is supported by 52,5% of the respondents to
the public consultation including fishermen associations and NGOs.
6.2.        Support through the European
Maritime Fisheries Fund
The
European Maritime Fisheries Fund[61],
following the political agreement of January last, is expected to be adopted by
the co-legislators in April/May for publication in the Official Journal
immediately after in May/early June. This Fund, depending on each Member
States' inclination, could be used to support the transition towards a total
ban of the small-scale driftnet fisheries. It is still too early to say how
each and every suitable provision could be used since no Partnership Agreement
and Operational programmes have been adopted so far. However, the following
Articles could provide, under specific conditions, the provisions in support of
the concerned fishing vessels:
–                        
Article 33 Permanent
cessation of fishing activities;
–                        
Article 37 Limiting
the impact of fishing on the marine environment and adapting fishing to the
protection of species;
–                        
Article 38
Innovation linked to the conservation of marine biological resources;
–                        
Article 39 Protection
and restoration of marine biodiversity and ecosystems and compensation regimes
in the framework of sustainable fishing activities.
–                        
Clearly, illegal driftnets fisheries under the
already existing regulatory framework will not be eligible for support under
the EMFF. 
7.           Monitoring and evaluation
The
Commission shall ensure that systems are in place to evaluate proper
enforcement and compliance with the prohibition to take on board and use
driftnets as well as to monitor the effects that the prohibition of driftnets
has had on the diminution of the rate of interactions with fishing activities
of strictly protected species and, in particular, to
measure the conservation benefits and compatibility with respect to the state
of strictly protected species. 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, monitoring,
inspection and enforcement tools together with deterrent measures established,
under the Common Fisheries Policy, by the Council Regulations (EC) No 1224/2009[62] and
No 1005/2008[63]
are effectively and efficiently implemented by Member States. 
Moreover the reformed CFP49
creates a Union framework for an improved control, inspection and enforcement
system by Member States and the Commission based, inter alia,  on a risk
assessment strategy focused on systematic and automated cross check of all
available relevant data. Within that context, an expert group on compliance
will be established by the Commission to assess,
facilitate and strengthen the implementation of, and compliance with, the
obligations under the Union fisheries control system.
The new European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF),
whose formal adoption is expected by May this year, will also support a data
collection system for better fisheries management, including environmental and
by-catch data in support of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive[64]
(MSFD, which will substantially improve the EU fisheries data collection system
in place since 2001.
The new tools and mechanisms established by the
Marine Strategy Framework Directive will
facilitate and improve the monitoring and reporting systems by Member States as
established by the Birds and Habitats Directives[65] 
which have proven so far to be not effective for the identification and
recording of the anthropogenic causes of death of strictly protected species
due to fishing activities.  
8.           Annex
1 Consultations
8.1.        A:
Summary Report of the on-line public consultation
 
Small-scale driftnet fisheries
Summary Report
of the Online Public Consultation 
27 March to 15 September 2013
Results
Commission européenne/Europese Commissie, 1049
Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIQUE/BELGIË - Tel. +32 22991111
Table of Contents
 BACKGROUND || 50 
 SECTION 1: Profile of participants (QA1-QA7) || 52 
 i) Occupational profile of participants || 52 
 ii) Participants' place of residence || 52 
 iii) Participants's level of expertise || 53 
 SECTION 2: Fisheries description (QBA1-QBA30) || 54 
 SECTION 3: Problems appraisal (QBA1-QBA30) || 55 
 i) Eco-labelling || 55 
 ii) EU Directives || 56 
 iii) National system providing for the reporting, recording and monitoring || 56 
 iv) Open question || 58 
 SECTION 4: Evaluation of policy options (QBB1-QBB28) || 58 
 i) Measures to facilitate monitoring and to limit or annul possible persisting impacts on protected species || 58 
 Additional control management measures || 58 
 Additional technical management measures || 60 
 ii) Measures to enhance compliance with EU legislation on driftnet fishing and conservation of non-authorised species as listed in the Annex VIII of Regulation (EC) N° 894/97 || 61 
 Additional control management measures || 61 
 Additional technical management measures || 63 
 iii) Full or partial prohibition of all driftnets fisheries in order to address possible and/ or unavoidable persisting problems with conservation and sustainable fishing. || 64 
BACKGROUND
Environmental
concerns about the impact of driftnet fishing started in the late 70's-80's
with the expanded use of driftnets with much greater overall size and mesh
sizes than the traditional driftnets. This resulted in a higher and more
numerous incidences of unwanted by-catches of protected species.
In
the early 90's, following the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA)
Resolutions[66],
which called for a moratorium on large-scale pelagic driftnet[67]
fishing on the High Seas, the EU developed legislation on driftnet fisheries to
ensure sustainable exploitation of target resources as well as to mitigate or
annul the negative impact on protected species. Since June 1992, keeping on
board or using driftnets whose individual or total size is more than 2.5 km has
been prohibited in EU waters and for all EU vessels outside EU waters[68].
The
implementation of the 2.5 km rule presented many practical problems and did not
stop the expansion of large-scale pelagic driftnets. Therefore, since 2002, EU
has prohibited the use of all driftnets, regardless of their length, when
intended for the capture of a certain group of pelagic species[69].
Moreover, since 1 January 2008 it is prohibited to keep on board or use any
kind of driftnets for fishing in the Baltic Sea, the Belts and the Sound
recognising the serious threat the driftnet fisheries for salmon posed, in
particular, to already depleted harbour porpoises populations.
Under
EU rules, vessels are currently allowed to keep on board and use small-scale
driftnets, except in the Baltic Sea, the Belts and the Sound, 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, and
c)
the species listed in Annex VIII which have been caught in driftnets cannot be
landed.
The
current EU legal framework on driftnet has shown weaknesses that could
facilitate circumvention of the law. With the exception of the Baltic, the
Belts and the Sound[70],
where these fisheries are fully prohibited, there are still a quite important
number of EU vessels, from the Black Sea to the North Sea, carrying out
small-scale driftnet fisheries in coastal areas.
The
lack of EU obligation to issue national fishing authorizations for these
fisheries, does not allow detailed and updated knowledge at EU level about
these activities and the number of fishing vessels actually carrying out
driftnet fishing.
In
the absence of more detailed and updated knowledge, some of these small-scale
driftnet fisheries might be considered susceptible of interacting with protected
or non-authorized species. 
Under
the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU)[71] it is
required to integrate environmental protection into the definition and
implementation of the Union's policies and activities. In addition, the obligations
under the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP)[72]
to apply the precautionary approach and implement the ecosystem-based approach
to fisheries management call for further actions to evaluate and, where
necessary, address possible persisting environmental, conservation and
sustainable fishing problems in relation to the driftnets.
Within
this context, there is a need for an updated overview of the currently active
driftnets fleets, of the various fisheries/metier carried out and of their
impact on resources and the environment including the economic and the social
aspects.
The
aim of the consultation was thus to get an updated overview of the small-scale
driftnet fisheries that are currently active in the EU and on their impact on
non-target species such as marine mammals, turtles, seabirds and others, in
order to assess policy options in this field. These insights will contribute to
determine a possible review of the implementation of the EU regime on the
small-scale driftnet fisheries (i.e. nets equal to or shorter than 2.5 km)
without prejudice to the already established EU regulatory framework on
driftnets which is in line with the United Nations General Assembly resolutions
and with management measures adopted by relevant Regional Fisheries Management
Organizations.
The
consultation process took place over six months (27 March – 15 September 2013)
and with a view to facilitate contributions from the general public the
consultation was translated into the languages of all EU Coastal States.
Moreover, all the Regional Advisory Councils, the Scientific, Technical and
Economic Committee for Fisheries and the national Authorities of the EU Member
States have been duly informed of the public consultation.
As
of the 16 September 2013, 41 answers were received from a variety of
stakeholders; only 40 were considered addressing the items of the public
consultation and considered in the analysis. The contribution not taken into
account for this analysis was essentially arguing against the overall EU
approach for the prohibition of driftnets fisheries for large pelagic stocks
without providing information on the small scale driftnet fisheries which was
the goal of the consultation. The key findings of the public consultation and
the answers received in the functioning mailbox are reported below.
SECTION
1: Profile of participants (QA1-QA7)
The
information analysed in this section has been provided by all 40 respondents.
i)
Occupational profile of participants
The
representatives of NGOs[73]
are well represented among the participants, with 57.5% of the replies. The
fishing sector is represented by 20% of the contributions from either
Representatives of Fishermen's association (17.5%) or individual fisherman
(2.5%). 2.5% of the contributors are Representatives of Fishery Control Body.
Then the scientific contribution represents 17.5% of the replies and is formed
by answers from biologists, ecologist, experts and scientists. Civil society is
represented by 2.5% of the replies.
ii)
Participants' place of residence
Stakeholders
from 12 EU Member States and 1 non-EU country took part in the public
consultation. The largest proportion of the participants are from Italy (27.5%), followed by Germany and Spain (each 12,5%), then by Belgium and France (each 10%). Greece, the Netherlands and Portugal are the place of residence of
residence of 5% of the participants each. Finally, 1 contributor only (2.5%)
for each of the following EU – Member States: Finland, Ireland, Malta, the United Kingdom and Switzerland.
It
is to notice that the majority of the participants (57.5%) come from
Mediterranean coastal countries, namely France, Greece, Italy, Malta and Spain.
iii)
Participants's level of expertise
Most
of the contributors (67.5%) participating in this
survey declare to have a valuable professional level of expertise in the
field of driftnets fisheries. The largest proportion of the participants
(47.5%) considers themselves as expert in the field, while 20% of
the participants deem them as highly expert. A minority of the
participants judges themselves as inexperienced (7.5%) or novice (25%) in
the field of driftnet fisheries.
SECTION 2: Fisheries description
(QBA1-QBA30)
This
section aims at gathering more technical data to feed our analysis on the
driftnet fisheries. Not all participants have answered these technical
questions, which required a good level of expertise and knowledge. Please refer
to the Annex 1 to see the raw data collected in this section. Information was
asked on seasonality, dimension of the fishing fleet, the number of fishermen,
vessel length, mesh size, length of the net, height of the net, maximum
distance from the coast, maximum depth of water column, on the relative
importance compared to other fisheries, risk of by-catch and on the hanging
ratio.
The
consultation has not provided enough data to make robust claims for the
description of driftnet fisheries from this source of information.
Generally
speaking we can however put forward some main outcomes: 
·                        
The respondents have
provided some information on one or more of the 19 driftnet fisheries
identified by the questionnaire[74];
other driftnets fisheries targeting the meagre (Argyrosomus regius), sea
spotted bass, European sea-bass, herring,  sea trout and some sea-breams have
been reported for the French Atlantic facade. The fisheries more frequently
quoted concern: anchovy, sardine, greater amberjack, grey mullets,
garfishes-needlefishes, scads-horse mackerels and saddled bream.
·                        
The majority of vessels
are less than 12 meters length.
·                        
The number of fishermen
operating in a specific area is mainly less than 30; on a wider geographic
perspective, some respondents indicate that the number of fishermen involved in
  Italy is between 200 and 400.
·                        
The fishing fleets
operating in a specific area are mainly composed by few vessels usually not
exceeding the 10 boats.  Due to the different geographical scope and precision
of the replies, the questionnaire does not allow having a precise estimate of
the overall number of vessels actually carrying out these fisheries in each
country; nonetheless, some rough estimate could be provided for Italy, where
the overall amount of active vessels using driftnets should be between 100 and
200, and for France where around 200 vessels, mostly (95%) operating in the
Atlantic-North Sea façade, have been reported. 
·                        
The mesh size varied
according to the specific fishery and mostly ranging between 10 and 90; for the
specific fisheries targeting the greater amberjack or the meagre the mesh size
is usually bigger ranging from 80 up  to 200 mm.
·                        
The length of the net
varied widely according to the specific fishery between less than 49 m to 2500
m.
·                        
The height of the net
is reported ranging between 1 to 20m.
·                        
The maximum distance
from the coast is between 0.1 to 3 NM; though in some cases it is reported up
to 5 NM for the greater amberjack and meagre.
·                        
The maximum depth of
the water column where driftnet operates ranges between less than 9 m to 200 m.
·                        
The relative importance
of driftnet fisheries is considered lower than other kind of fisheries carried
out by the same vessel.
·                        
By-catch of
non-authorised species (i.e. the species reported in the Annex VIII of
Regulation (EC) 1239/98 seems unlikely except for the fishery targeting the
greater amberjack.
·                        
The risk of by-catches
of several protected species (i.e. cetaceans, sea turtles, sea birds) is
reported by 5 answers. An additional answer point out the by-catches of
sturgeons, a group of protected  species, in the estuarine area and coastal
waters of the French Atlantic façade. The specimens caught survive the fishing
operation and are released unharmed and alive (monitoring of the French
National Plan for the recovery of sturgeons).  
SECTION
3: Problems appraisal (QBA1-QBA30)
This
section provides an overview of the replies answered by 37 respondents.
i)
Eco-labelling
59
% of the participants affirm that an eco-labelling certification scheme does
not exist in their country of residence. 
30
% of the participants do not know if there is an eco-labelling certification
scheme which is followed by the driftnet
fisheries.
11
% of the participants know that there is an
eco-labelling in their country.
The
responses indicate that there appears to be a low level of awareness on
eco-labelling certification schemes among the participants.
Participants
could also provide more details regarding the eco-labelling certification
scheme from their country. Two Italian respondents name the food-cultural
praesidium of Slow Food (an Italian NGO), which is a non-governement based
eco-label, aiming to enhance the local culture and economy that does not damage
ecosystems and nature. Two  German participants make reference to a
non-governamental-based eco-label implemented by Marine Stewardship Council
(MSC), SAFE (Earth Institute), EDSMO (European Dolphin Monitoring Organisation)
and FoS (Friends of the Sea).
ii)
EU Directives
Regarding
the level of awareness on the European legislations which provide measures for
biodiversity conservation in the marine environment, 89 % of the
participants are aware of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, the Habitat
Directive and the Birds Directive. However 11 % of them are not aware of
these EU legislations.
The
responses indicate that there appears to be a high level of awareness among the
participants on EU legislations aiming at protecting biodiversity.
In
that regard, 5 participants indicate that all or some of the driftnet fisheries
may have, with high probability, by-catches of marine and seabirds species
subject to a strict protection either under the Habitats Directive or the Birds
Directive.
iii)
National system providing for the reporting, recording and monitoring
The
participants were asked to evaluate the level of awareness regarding the
national system providing for the reporting, recording and monitoring of
incidental capture or killing of specimens of protected marine species as
stipulated by the Habitats Directive and the Birds Directive.
41%
of the participants are fully aware of this system.
27
% of the participants have heard about the national system but do not know it
in details.
32%
of the participants do not know what the national system is.
Among them, one participant suggested to raise public awareness on the national
system as it is, according to their view, a system not known even among
experts.
35.1
% of the participants consider that the national system is not controllable and
properly implemented. For instance, an
Italian participant points out the lack of control and the absence of sanction
to explain the poor result of this national system. A Greek participant underlines
the little support from the responsible Ministry and the little incentive put
in place to implement a systematic reporting moreover most of the stakeholders
might be unaware of the existing system.
While
64.9 % have no opinion on it as they do not know how it works or have never
used it.
8
% of the participants have already used this national system
to communicate incidental capture or killing of protected species. One
participant, whose expertise is high, considers that his national Italian
system is "partly" controllable and properly implemented. According
to this Italian Representative of a Regional Fisheries Management Organisation,
there are some actions already in place, but monitoring is extremely difficult
and expensive, due to the small size neither of the vessels and the fact that
they can operate not only from ports. He regards self-reporting as never
working with the small-scale fisheries. A German participant points out that it
is important to have a system which enables to follow the itinerary of vessels.
Another German participant mentions ASCOBANS (Agreement on the Conservation of
Small Cetaceans of the Baltic and North Seas) which, according to the
participant, lacks almost completely of implementation in almost all EU
countries, except for research in some countries. A Greek participant
underlined that the national system for reporting, recording and monitoring is
non-controllable in his country as it is implemented on an at-will bases.
Moreover, only a few stakeholders are aware of its existence. An Italian
participant, who has already used his national system providing the reporting,
recording and monitoring, underlines that the network TARTANET (whose aim is to
protect turtles) sends on a periodic base a report to the Italian Ministry of
Environment.
iv)
Open question
Under
this open question the participants were entitled to provide further
information on driftnet fisheries other than those mentioned in the previous
question, if they wanted to.
Around
half of the participants (21 exactly)
have answered this open question
More
than half of these answers points out the situation in Italy by recalling the
records of  vessels using driftnets  to target non-authorized species and
causing  high by-catches of protected species essentially in the regions of 
Campania, Calabria and Sicily. One of the contributors mentions the 2010 report
of the General Command of the Italian Guard Coast on the use of driftnet, which
confirms what NGOs have been denouncing.
Two
participants highlight the dangers of implementing a generalist regulation on
artisanal fisheries. A place-based or regional management approach would be
more efficient.
Two
other contributors explain the difficulties and the price of control and
monitoring. According to one of them, self-reporting never worked with the
small scale fisheries. An expert thinks that if driftnet is correctly used
(respecting the mesh size (less than 150 mm), the coast distance (3 NM)), these
fisheries had no impact on protected species. According to this expert, accidental
by-catches of species included in the Annex VIII can happen, but the
probability is not higher than in another kind of fishery. The scope of Annex
VIII should be reviewed to be more realistic, eliminating species of little
size which are not in a recovery plan.
SECTION
4: Evaluation of policy options (QBB1-QBB28)
i)
Measures to facilitate monitoring and to limit or annul possible persisting
impacts on protected species
In
this section participants had the possibility to choose multiple options as
an answer.
Additional
control management measures
The
information analysed in this section has been provided by 37 respondents.
62.5
% of the participants considers that compulsory fishing authorisation
could be a good additional control management measure to implement. A
"fishing authorisation" means a fishing authorisation issued by a EU
Member State in respect of a European Union fishing vessel in addition to its
fishing licence, entitling it to carry out specific fishing activities during a
specified period, in a given area or for a given fishery under specific
conditions.
42.5%
of the contributors consider that the option of installing electronic equipment
to monitor vessel position could be an
interesting option. Several participants underline that electronic equipments
should be compulsory on boats of less than 15 m. Among the devices put forward,
the AIS (Automatic Identification system), VMS (Vessel monitoring system), VDS
(Vessel Detection System) and CCTV on board.
57.5
% of the participant regard the one-net rule option
as a good option. This rule means for instance that a vessel having driftnet on
board is not entitled to take or store on board another fishing gear.
More
than half of the participants choose the option "other".
It gives the possibility for the participants to propose another option than
the one proposed in the questionnaire according to their knowledge and
experience.
Within
this option some respondents advocate for a total and general ban
of driftnet fisheries as being the most efficient manner to avoid by-catches of
protected species.
Some
participants advocate for a better control
and stricter rules. for instance with a weekly declaration of catch and
efforts or by a case by case control. It is also underlined that campaigns of
information and awareness raising should be launch to inform stakeholders on
the measures to take when there are accidental by-catches. Another idea is to
design subtle programme of time/area closures which would enable a reduction of
the environmental impact of driftnet fisheries. One participant underlined the
importance of having independent bodies preparing studies on the different
measures to measure the efficiency, for instance set a limit of the depth of
the nets or the number of fishing trip. Participants propose technical measures
to be implemented. For instance, in the Netherlands, there is a current
investigation on by-catches of harbour porpoises by small-scale bottom-set
nets  which is monitored through  CCTV (REM) on board of vessels (2013-2015).
One participant, a representative of fishery control body, highlights that CCTV
(or REM) can be an effective tool to monitor by-catches of seabirds or easily
recognisable protected fish species. On-board observers can be an asset to make
rules be respected. Deterrents such as UV-illuminated nets and pingers can be
used though the noise pollution is a high risk. But the anthropological factor
should not be underestimated and fishermen should be involved in surveillance
and co-management. The creation of protected areas or no-take zone could also
help. Some replies underline that the new EMFF should invest in ensuring
monitoring and enforcement.
Several
participants mention that any measure should take into account the uniqueness
of local communities and traditional practices.
Additional
technical management measures
The
information analysed in this section has been provided by 15 respondents.
Most of the participants did not answer the question on additional technical
management measures. 
7.5
% of the participants considered that an
additional technical management measure could be to fix a mesh size not
exceeding 100 or 150 mm.
15
% of the participants think that fixing a
maximum operative distance from the coast would be a good option: 7.5%
consider it should not exceed 500 m, 5% consider it should not exceed 2000 m
and 2.5% consider it should not exceed 3000 m.
The
majority of respondents chooses the option "other" and provides
further suggestions  such as  a total and general ban
of driftnet fisheries as being the most efficient option. 
The
participants also propose other technical management measures,
such as the limitation of the drifting time if the net (i.e. between 30 minutes
and 3 jours), the limitation of the length of driftnet, the limitation of the
number of fishing trips, rules on vessel size (i.e. maximim 12 m.) or the
minimum size of the fishes caught, also the use of acoustic devices (pingers)
to avoid cetacean by-catches.
ii)
Measures to enhance compliance with EU legislation on driftnet fishing and
conservation of non-authorised species as listed in the Annex VIII of
Regulation (EC) N° 894/97
In
this section participants had the possibility to choose multiple options as
an answer.
Additional
control management measures
The
information analysed in this section has been provided by 37 respondents.
60%
of the participant considers that compulsory fishing authorisation
could be a good additional control management measure to implement. A
"fishing authorisation" means a fishing authorisation issued by a EU
Member State in respect of a European Union fishing vessel in addition to its
fishing licence, entitling it to carry out specific specific fishing activities
during a specified period, in a given area or for a given fishery under specifici
conditions.
40%
of the participants consider the option of installing electronic equipment to
monitor vessel position as an interesting option. Several participants
underline that electronic equipment should be compulsory on boats of less than
15 m. Among the devices put forward, the AIS (Automatic Identification system),
VMS (Vessel monitoring system), VDS (Vessel Detection System) and CCTV on
board.
47.5%
of the participant regard the one-net rule option
as a good option. This rule means for instance that a vessel having driftnet on
board is no entitled to take or store on board another fishing gear.
47.5
% of the participants choose the option "other".
Within
the option "other"some participants advocate for a total and general
ban of driftnet fisheries as being the most
efficient  manner to avoid by-catches or intentional illegal use to exploit the
non-authorised species (mostly large pelagic).
 A
 better control and stricter rules have been pointed out as well. For
instance with a weekly declaration of catch and efforts or through dedicated
controls on the basis of risk assessment evaluation . It is also underlined
that campaigns of information and awareness on what are the measures to take
when there are accidental by catches should be promoted. Another idea is to
design subtle programme of time/area closures which would enable a reduction of
the environmental impact of driftnet fisheries. One of the participant, a
fishermen, underlines the importance to have independent bodies preparing
studies on the different measures to measure the efficiency, for instance set a
limit of the depth of the nets or the number of fishing trip. Finally in the Netherlands, there is a current investigation on by-catches of harbour porpoises by
small-sclae set net fisherman on board with CCTV (REM) (2013-2015). The
participant, a representative of fishery control body, highlights that CCTV (or
REM) can be an effective tool to monitor by-catches of seabirds or easily
recognisable protected fish species. A participant mention the reverse burden
of the proof, that is to say that it is to the fiherman to demonstrate that
he/she did not catch protected/non-authorised species and that, when there is a
high risk risk, did utmost to avoid by-catches,. On-board observer is also a solution
put forward by a contributor. It is also mention that EU sanction should be
implemented when Member States are not stricter enough in the implementation of
EU rules.
Several
participant mention that any measure should take into account the uniqueness of
local communities and traditional practices. The rules should be the same in
all the EU territory.
Additional
technical management measures
The
information analysed in this section has been provided by 12 respondents.
Most of the participants did not answer the question on additional technical
management measures.
7.5
% of the participants consider that an
additional technical management measure could be to fix a mesh size not
exceeding 100 or 150 mm.
12.5
% of the participants think that fixing a
maximum operative distance from the coast would be a good option, 5%
consider it should not exceed 500 m, 5% consider it should not exceed 2000 m
and 2.5% consider it should not exceed 3000 m.
2.5
% of the participants consider that fixing a maximum drop of the net
is a good option.
2.5
% of the participants consider that fixing a range of values for the hanging
ratio of the net is a good option.
12.5%
of the participants choose the option "other".
It gives the possibility for the participants to propose another option than
the one proposed in the questionnaire according to their knowledge and
experience.
2.5%
of the participant advocate for a total and general ban
of driftnet fisheries as being the most efficient option.
7.5
% of the participants propose other technical management measures,
such as the limitation of the drifting time if the net (i.e. between 30 minutes
and 3 jours), the limitation of the length of driftnet and of the mesh size,
the limitation of the number of fishing trips, rules on vessel size (i.e.
maximim 12 m.) or the minimum size of the fishes caught. Stricter sanction is
also an option proposed by one participant.
iii)
Full or partial prohibition of all driftnets fisheries in order to address
possible and/ or unavoidable persisting problems with conservation and
sustainable fishing.
The
information analysed in this section has been provided by 40 respondents.
28
out of 40 replies are in favour of a ban. 
Amongst
these 28 respondents in favour of a total or partial ban, 14 respondents
stress the need to ban these fisheries in particular in the Mediterranean
 Sea. Amongst them there are 6 respondents resident in Mediterranean
countries: Italy (4), Spain (1) and Greece (1). Then there are 8 respondents
from non-Mediterranean countries, namely Belgium (4), Germany (3) and Switzerland (1)/
Amongst
the 28 respondents in favour of a ban (either total or partial), 64%
indicate that the main rationale for the ban would be to address problems of
controllability and implementation whilst 36 % identify still
persisting environmental problems. 
·                        
Among the total
number of replies, 52% of the participants (21 replies) support a total ban on
driftnet fisheries. More
than half of them (52.4%) declare to have a good or high level expertise in
driftnet fisheries. Then 9.5% consider themselves inexperienced and 38.1% are
novice in the field of driftnets. 
There
are 9 participants from Mediterranean countries: 4 from Italy, 2 from Greece, 2 from Spain and 1 from Malta. There are 7 representatives of NGOs, 1 experts
and 1 representative of fishermen's association. 
There
are 12 participants from non-Mediterranean countries: 5 from Germany (North and Baltic Sea country), 2 from Netherlands (North Sea country), 2 from Portugal (Atlantic sea country), 1 from Spain (from the Atlantic sea regions), 1 from Finland (Baltic Sea country) and 1 from Switzerland (landlocked country). There are 6
representatives of NGO's, 3 experts/biologists, one representative of
fishermen's association, 1 representative of fishery control body and 1
respondent from the general public.
They
considered that the damages done to the ecological system, the fish stocks and
the protected and non-authorised species are too high compared to the possible
socio-economic benefits. For them, control and monitoring are very difficult to
implement and expensive, and as today, have been very inefficient. In many
areas, driftnet fisheries are marginal fishing activity, so they think that its
full prohibition would have a limited economic impact.
Most
respondents indicate that a full prohibition should be implemented through a
phasing out in order to take into account the social and economic impact in
some region and in order to let the fishermen adapt themselves and develop
environmentally friendly fishing solutions. A total ban would facilitate and
simplify monitoring, control, surveillance and sanctioning.
·                        
18% of the
participants (7 replies) support a partial ban. Half of the respondents hold a good expertise in
driftnet fisheries whilst half of them are novice or inexperienced in the
field. 
There
are 3 contributors from Mediterranean countries: 2 from Italy and one from Spain. There are 2 biologists and one NGO. There are 4 non-Mediterranean
contributors all resident of Belgium, a North Sea country. The 4 of them
are representatives of an NGO. 
Several
contributors point out that despite the decrease in the use of large scale
driftnet, smaller driftnet are used to target prohibited species (tuna or
swordfish), even though regulatory measures and controls were implemented. That
is why a full prohibition of all driftnets fisheries is essential with
exception of traditional activities with driftnet exploiting the small pelagic
in the Mediterranean Sea, such as the so-called "menaide" or
"menaica". According to them, it is essential to have a
targeted approach by region on a deep analysis and that for example in the
Mediterranean, there should be an exemption for authorised vessels targeting
small pelagic. A reinforcement of reporting requirement is also an essential
step for contributors.
30%
of the participants (12 replies) are opposed to a ban on driftnet fisheries.
All the participants opposed to the ban declare to have a good or high level of
expertise. 
There
are 10 contributors from Mediterranean countries: mainly from Italy (5 replies) and France (4 replies), and also Spain (1 reply). There are 3 representatives of
fishermen 'association, 1 representative of a regional fisheries management
organisation, 3 experts, 2 representatives of NGO, 1 fisherman. There are 2
non-Mediterranean respondents from United-Kingdom and Ireland and composed by a representative of NGO and a representative of a fisherman
association.
According
to the contributors opposed to the full prohibition, the currently active
driftnet fisheries, if carried out in line with national and EU legislation,
have no major environmental and conservation problems; it is rather a matter of
control and proper enforcement of the rules to curb illegal behaviours.
Stricter and proportionate approach is essential. They highlight that full
prohibition would mainly affect artisanal driftnet fisheries legally behaving
which have never been problematic. They claim that this approach would damage
the small scale fisheries at local level. Some participants claim that
artisanal fisheries are the wrong scapegoat. Participants recommend a field
independent study in order to draw conclusions and smart regulations.
8.2.        B
Summary report of the information provided by Member States on control,
monitoring and surveillance   
 Country || Presence/Absence of driftnet fisheries YES= presence; NO = absence Add some short qualification that may be indicated in the reply (N° of active vessels, N° fishing licences,  target species, seasonality, distance from the coast, area-region, etc.) || Fishing authorisations            (YES/NO) How many? Mechanisms/Conditions to grant the fishing authorization and to control or limit the activities of driftnets vessels? || Additional Technical measures adopted at national/regional level || Monitoring, Control and Surveillance measures on driftnet fisheries including evolution of inspection effort (inspections/number of landings) and compliance (infractions documented by target species) How many controls/inspections/surveillance trips are carried out on a yearly basis? Electronic monitoring of vessels position? Marking of fishing gears? Specific monitoring for protected species ( Habitats Directive, Birds Directive) or unauthorised species (Annex VIII) 
 1.             BELGIUM || NO - Only 2 active fishing vessels use gillnet and trammel nets - Recreational fishing cannot use gillnets, trammel nets and driftnets.   ||   ||   ||   
 2.             BULGARIA || Pending reply ||   ||   ||   
 3.             CYPRUS || NO || NO ||   ||   
 4.             DENMARK || NO (not since 2007, before : driftnet fishing for salmon in the Baltic, sub areas 25 and 26) ||   ||   ||   
 5.             ESTONIA || NO – prohibition since 2008 || NO ||   ||   
 6.             FINLAND || NO || NO ||   ||   
 7.             FRANCE || Oui – pêche professionnelle uniquement. Navires de 8,5 m (1,9 marins à bord) – Environ 241 navires en tout, mais ces navires pratiquent également d'autres types de pêche. Zones concernées : estuaires et/ou bande très proche de la côte, où les conditions de mer ne permettent pas l'emploi d'engins de pêche fixes. Façade Atlantique (bar, mulet, maigre, saumon Atlantique, truite de mer, grande alose, lamproie marine – accessoirement dorade, sar, sole, merlan, alose feinte) - pêche souvent saisonnière. Les filets utilisés et les conditions d'utilisation sont très variables d'un estuaire à l'autre, selon les espèces ciblées, les pratiques locales, la réglementation applicable et les caractéristiques de la zone de pêche. Bassin Arcachon : env. 15 navires pratiquent occasion. cette pêche lors des grandes marées (dorade grise, royale, marbrée, sole. 5 navires pratiquent le filet dérivant en océan, en hiver, dans les brisants (bar, sparidés et maigre) Estuaire de la Gironde : env. 12 navires pêchent au filet dérivant (bar, maigre, sole et raie – licence CMEA). Manche : activité saisonnière et d'appoint par des navires de moins de 12m (hareng, bar, mulets). Nord Pas de Calais : 40 navires (filets de 800 m en moyenne) Normandie : 10 navires. Méditerranée : 6 navires (moins de 12m) utilisent des filets dérivants, en complément d'autres métiers – pêche saisonnière et ciblée (petits pélagiques (sardine, anchois, chinchard), dorades et poissons divers DOM/TOM : env. 83 navires en Guyane (canots créoles et pirogues de moins de12m) et 45 en Martinique (navires de 10 m ou moins . || Soumis à la détention d'une licence – Navire de 12 m et moins, tonnage inférieur ou égal à 10 ou 15 UMS, puissance motrice inférieure ou égale à 110 kW ou 73 kW. Le nombre de licence est contingenté, les contingents étant définis par bassin hydrographique et par ressort de comité régional ou départemental des pêches maritimes et des élevages marins. Des règles locales peuvent être plus restrictives. Egalement des contingents de droit de pêche spécifiques (au total, 618 contingents de licence et 204 droits de pêche) || Encadrement réglementaire : - au niveau national (code de l'environnement – concerne les poissons vivant alternativement dans les eaux douces et dans les eaux salées – période de fermeture pour le saumon et la truite de mer, utilisation de dispositifs d'identification des saumons capturés en amont de la limite transversale de la mer, interdiction d'utiliser des driftnet à moins de 50 m d'une barrage entre la limite de salure des eaux et la limite transversale de la mer - local. Méditerranée : seuls les navires de moins de 10 m peuvent pêcher avec des driftnets d'une longueur inférieure ou égale à 2.5 km (arrêté du 11/7/2011) || Programme en cours d'installation de balises de géolocalisation à bord de navires de moins de 12 m (25 % de la flottille devrait être équipés). Pas d'observateur en mer vu la taille des bateaux. Pas de collecte d'informations pour les captures accidentelles de tortue, de mammifères marins et d'oiseaux prévue dans le Data Framework Collection. Taux réduit de probabilité de captures accidentelles d'espèces protégées en raison usage limité dans le temps et l'espace. Des cas de capture de cétacés et tortues rapportés en Guyane mais pas quantifiés. Les objectifs de contrôle sont fixés par les plans annuels nationaux de contrôle. Pas de contrôle ciblé pour les navires utilisant le filet dérivant. Le recueil des déclarations des navires de moins de 10 m au moyen des fiches de pêche tient lieu de plan d'échantillonnage et de suivi. Obligation de marquage des engins. 
 8.             GERMANY || NO (not since ban on driftnets of more than 2.5 km) || NO ||   ||   
 9.             GREECE || NO (the use of driftnets for fisheries has been totally banned by national legislation since 1993, following the implementation of presidential decree pd40/1993. The ban covers the Greek territorial waters and has been a precautionary measure taken by fisheries authorities due to the recognized environmental impact of the specific fishing practice especially concerning unwanted catch of protected species) || NO ||   || The ban is fully implemented and there is full conformity with the measures, since following communication with Hellenic Coast Guard authority, responsible for fisheries control, during the last 2 years there are no relevant infringement reports recorded 
 10.           IRELAND || Ireland banned the use us of driftnets for salmon fishing in 2006. The sole driftnet fishery remaining in Ireland is an extremely small one that targets herring in the Celtic Sea under specific licence. No such licences have issued since 2011. The open fishery in question is for vessels less than 20m in length and has a 5% allocation of the overall available Celtic Sea Herring quota (approx 800t annually during a 6 week fishing period).  Approximately 50 vessels are involved in this fishery.  Of these, 15 vessels in 2010 and 10 vessels in 2011 were authorised to use driftnets. Each of these vessels would have had an allocation of approximately 2-3 tonnes of herring quota for the 6 weeks in which the fishery was open. ||   ||   || The vessels seeking to access this fishery using these gears did so under application and by issue of a specific authorisation which detailed the conditions under which the authorisation was issued. Celtic Sea Sentinel driftnet Fishery was artisanal / hobby and not of a scale to merit electronic equipment. Celtic Sea Sentinel driftnet Fishery was overseen by its association with the Sentinel Trawl fishery and under industry review under a Ministerial appointed management Advisory committee. The driftnet element was authorised to be operated by a small number of vessels annually. Landings would be generally small scale i.e. less than 250kg per landing with less than 10 such landings by these vessels operating this gear over a 6 week period in any year. No specific additional targeting result was or is considered as being required. Low risk in terms of a requirement to adopt a specific cross check programme for the very small numbers of landings that took place.  The vessels in the fishery operate within the confines of Waterford Harbour estuary and are visible from shore and the participant boats normally operate in the immediate vicinity of their gears. The Sea fisheries Protection Authority make use of the sales notes generated by the buyers of the catches of the driftnet authorised vessels and would use this data to establish for the less than 10 landings annually an analysis of the catches of these vessels. 
 11.           ITALY || YES (ferrettara driftnet – 819 vessels, all fitted with fishing license) - All these vessels are regularly authorized to use other (3/4) gears (especially long-line). 528 units have a LOA (length  overall) less than 12 meters and 618 units have a GT (gross tonnage) less than 10 tons. Almost the half of the fleet (at least 330 vessels) is registered and  operates in Sicily and, in general terms, the great majority of the concerned operators are concentrated in the central/southern Italian regions.   41 and 26 vessels have used the ferrettara driftnet in 2012 and 2013 (October) respectively. || YES 819 fishing licenses || - Ministerial Decree on the 25th July 1995 (as modified by Ministerial Decree on the 26th January 2012), whose provisions define the general rules in order to issue the fishing license; - Ministerial Decree on the 1st July 2011, which establishes the mandatory alternative use between “FERRETTARA” and “PALANGARO (LL)”, in the sense that, during a fishing trip, it’s possible to have on board only one of the above fishing gears; - Ministerial Decree on the 21st September 2011, which establishes relevant limitations to the use of “FERRETTARA” (distance from the coast: no more than 3 nautical miles, full length: no more than 2.500 meters; mesh size: no more than 100 millimetres); Further administrative and technical measures may be adopted in the context of the “Action Plan” which is going to be approved by the EU Commission. || Since 2010, all the control and inspections procedures/measures are included in a National Control Plan properly dedicated to the fight against the illegal driftnets. This Plan is issued, on the basis of specific parameters (as described below), by the General Headquarter of the Italian Coast Guard, in its quality of National Fishing Control Centre. Since 2012, the National Plan was integrated with Local Plans (adopted by the Local Fishing Control Centers) in order to achieve better results, in terms of major dissuasiveness effectiveness, especially in the most risk regional areas. During the period from 2009 to 2013, the control Authorities carried out a total amount of 50.400 inspections, detecting a total number of 237 infringements. In full accordance with the specific provisions of EU Control Regulations (1224/2009 and 404/2011) all the concerned vessel with LOA (length overall) less than 12 meters are exempted from the VMS obligation. Considering that these vessels are very small, and this circumstance may create some technical difficulties in fitting them with the Blue-Box, it would be better to study alternative measures in order to monitor their position during each fishing trip. Specific MCS in relation to protected or non-authorized specifes (National Driftnets Control Plan and BFT National Control Plan = 100% inspection coverage) 
 12.           LATVIA || NO – prohibited in Baltic Sea since 2008 || NO ||   ||   
 13.           LITHUANIA || NO – Driftnet fisheries are forbidden in the Baltic Sea || NO ||   || Since small scale Lithuanian fishing vessels which are engaged in fisheries activities in the Baltic Sea are not using any driftnet gears, consequently in Lithuania there is no national legislation or special mechanisms for control and monitoring for this kind of fishery. 
 14.           MALTA || NO Malta has no vessels that are authorised to fish with driftnets. Use of driftnets is illegal in Malta. || NO ||   || No inspection benchmarks have been set, however, since the use of the said gear is illegal any gears found would be confiscated and the necessary action is taken. 
 15.           NETHERLANDS || Pending reply ||   ||   ||   
 16.           POLAND || NO (a total ban on the use of driftnets in the Sea Baltic has been introduced as from 1 January 2008). To that date, gillnets (driftnets) were the main method for salmon fishing used by Polish fishermen. Currently, catches of this species are carried out mostly by longline drifting. Driftnets have not been replaced by drifting trammels Poland was against a total ban on the use of driftnets in the waters of the Baltic Sea. In their interventions, the representatives of the Ministry of Fisheries indicated the specificity of the Polish salmon fisheries, as well as the shape of the Polish coast, which has a simple coastline, characterized by a lack of bays and islands, which prevents the use of anchored traps (trapnets) instead of driftnets || NO ||   || Fishing with driftnets was not the subject of targeted controls due to the total ban and severe penalties for insubordination of fishermen. No tracking devices have been installed on vessels with an overall length of less than 12 m in view of the above prohibition on the use of driftnets and lack of derogations. Control of documents related to the use of driftnets is not carried out because of the obvious lack of endorsements on their use (with the exception of fishing activities for the purpose of research and development, which are subject to special permits and are monitored both by the presence on board of researchers and to monitoring/control once the vessels participating in such research fisheries return to the designated port)Monitoring Programme on the catch of Cetaceans (carried out by the Sea Fisheries Institute in Gdynia) 
 17.           PORTUGAL || YES low use, targeting small pelagic characterized by the seasonality (approximately 3 months period summer) Vessels are usually small or very small, primarily local fishery (88 vessels - dimensions between 4.7 and 9 meters, with powers between 7 and 44.6 Kw). The remaining vessels (11 coastal fishing), have dimensions between 11 and 16 meters, with powers between 45 and 184 KWG. These vessels are licensed to operate simultaneously with other arts, and the use of this type of art is predominant in the north of Portugal, including the ports of Porto and Braga, which hold about 50 % licensed vessels. In the Lisbon area are also licensed 8 vessels. Use is limited to the Sea Territorial in areas near or very near the coast.   || 99 licenses assigned to vessels that are licensed to this art since 2004 ; no new licenses granted this year. Maintain licenses for "tradition" and not for actual use. No license in the Autonomous Regions of the Azores and Madeira a. Mesh size range: 35-40 mm b. Prohibition of drifting trammel c. Ban on drift net gear in the Autonomous Region of Madeira d. Dimensions: 500 x 10 m e. Requirement to submit catch 70% of species alvo (In the case of drift-arts are Sardinha, Jewish and Boga Sea) f. Capturing prohibition of more than 5% crustaceans g. Prohibition of use between ¼ mile and 1 mile     ||   || There is no requirement to install VMS for vessels less than cff 12 meters (limited fishing with this type of gear). In most licensed vessels it would become physically impossible to install any such equipment due to the paucity of vessels, absence of mast antenna installation, lack of power supply, etc. Regarding the activity of Inspectors, due to the characteristics of the national ports and the fishing fleet, we have sought to privilege one mode of action seeks to cover all types of vessels, fishing gear and catches. Not the main objective of inspection because of the small size of the fleet, its seasonality and greatly reduced expression. Mechanisms are ensured for necessary control, eliminating thus the need for another type of crossing information. The use of driftnet is not subject to any specific system of monitoring, control and surveillance. The fishing gear drift-are identified with a buoy equipped with flag or radar reflector, also with a headlamp, as referred to in DR 43/87 of 17 July, is amended by conferred by DR 7/2000, of 30 May 
 18.           ROMANIA || Pending reply ||   ||   ||   
 19.           SLOVENIA || YES (small scale, targets only sardines – limited from April to June, vessels ranging from 6.25 to 13.60 meters – fishing trips decreasing from 54 in 2005 to 4 in 2012, limited to territorial sea of SL) || No particular mechanisms to control specifically driftnet fisheries – || No additional technical measures || No electronic equipment – no specific inspections – fishing logbooks filled in for quantities and species fished 
 20.           SPAIN || NO (not allowed in "aguas exteriors" i.e. beyond the baseline). It is not clear whether it is not prohibited in  "aguas interiors" || NO ||   ||   
 21.           SWEDEN || Pending reply ||   ||   ||   
 22.           UK || YES but very limited (see attached table) – 2012 : 250 registered vessels using driftnets, landing a total catch of 914 tonnes. N0 of vessels involved in the fishery : 94 (English channel - Pilchards, Bass, Herring, Mackerel) – 4 (Central North Sea - Sea trout, Salmon), 88 (Southern North Sea - Bass, Cod, Herring, Sole, Skates and Rays) || All UK fishing vessels must hold a current valid license issued by a UK Fisheries Administration. They do not specifically authorise the use of driftnets within vessel licenses, but any vessel targeting those species listed in Council Regulation (EC) n°894/97 would require authorisation. No such authorisations are currently in force. ||   || Vessels are not required to operate VMS – There is a project to develop an inshore vessel monitoring system that would involve 12m boats, but most driftnet fisheries are carried out beyond the inshore zone, so these boats would not be capture by this system. Inspection objectives over last 5 years did not target driftnet fisheries – not identified as a high risk objective. 7 inspections carried out on driftnet vessels in 2012. No infrigements detected, but may be difficult to detect as the gear inspected at sea will be only that which the vessel's master chooses to haul during an inspection. Landings of catches from driftnet fisheries (boats under 10m length) are monitored on the basis of sales note information (re. Art 16-4 of Council Regulation (EC) 1224/2009 – Given the size and risk profile of driftnet fisheries, UK does not operate specific additional monitoring. 
9.           Annex
2 Summary of driftnet fisheries currently operating in EU waters 
 # || Species (common name) || Species (binomial) || Fishery Area || Stock || Gear || Net length m || Mesh size mm || No. of vessels || MS || Region || Marine || Estuarine || River 
 1 || Atlantic herring || Clupea harengus || ICES VIId || North Sea Autumn spawning || Driftnet || 150-400 || 42-54 || 25 || France || NE Atlantic || X ||   ||   
 2 || Atlantic herring/mackerel || Clupea harengus, Scomber scombrus || ICES VIId & f || Herring - North Sea Autumn spawning Mackerel - Western component of NE Atlantic || Driftnet || 350-450 || 55-65 || < 30 || UK || NE Atlantic || X ||   ||   
 3 || Atlantic herring || Clupea harengus || ICES IVc || North Sea Autumn spawning || Driftnet || Unknown || 55-65 || < 50 || UK || N Sea || X ||   ||   
 5 || Shad spp || Alosa spp. || ICES VIIIa || Loire || Drifting trammel net || < 500 || 60 (400) || 15 || France || NE Atlantic ||   || X || X 
 5.2 || Shad spp || Alosa spp. || ICES VIIIb || Adour || Drifting trammel net || < 180 || 110-120 (540) || ref #9 || France || NE Atlantic ||   || X || X 
 6 || Shad spp || Alosa spp. || GFCM GSA 29 || Rivers & Danube delta || Driftnets || 200-300 || 70-120 ||  1355 total in Romania || Romania || Black Sea ||   || X || X 
 8 || Lamprey spp || Petromyzon spp. || ICES VIIIa || Loire || Drifting trammel net || < 500 || 120 (400) || ref #5 || France || NE Atlantic ||   || X || X 
 8.2 || Lamprey spp || Petromyzon spp. || ICES VIIIb || Gironde- Garonne || Drifting trammel net || 200-300m || 70 (variable) || ref #15 || France || NE Atlantic ||   || X || X 
 8.3 || Lamprey spp || Petromyzon spp. || ICES VIIIb || Adour || Drifting trammel net || <600m || 68 (540) || ref #9 || France || NE Atlantic ||   || X || X 
 9 || Salmon & sea trout || Salmo salmar || ICES VIIIb || Adour || Drifting trammel net || < 180 || 110-120 (540) || 15 || France || NE Atlantic ||   || X || X 
 10 || Salmon/sea trout || Salmo salmar || ICES IVb || Multi-stock fishery || Driftnet || <550 || 100-120 || 14+ || UK || N Sea || X || X ||   
 12 || Sea trout || Salmo trutta || ICES IVc || Unknown || Driftnet || <550 || 100-120 || 27 || UK || N Sea || X || X ||   
 13 || Salmon/Sea trout || Salmo salmar/Salmo trutta || ICES 24-26 (and 22-32) || Baltic salmon and sea trout || Semi-driftnet || 400+ || 65-70, > 80 || 50 || Poland || Baltic Sea || X || X ||   
 14 || Salmon/Sea trout || Salmo salmar/Salmo trutta || ICES VIIa || Lune and Ribble River || Driftnet || < 300 || NA || 11 || UK || NE Atlantic || X || X ||   
 15 || Meagre || Argyrosomus regius || ICES VIIIb || Gironde - Garonne || Driftnet || 300-400 || 90 || 45 || France || NE Atlantic ||   || X || X 
 15.2 || Meagre || Argyrosomus regius || ICES VIIIb || Gironde - Garonne || Drifting trammel net || 300-400 || 130 (800-1000) || ref #15 || France || NE Atlantic ||   || X || X 
 16 || Sea bream spp || Sparidae spp. || ICES VIIIb || Arcachon || Driftnet || 300 || 100 || 5 || France || NE Atlantic ||   || X ||   
 16.2 || Sea bream spp || Sparidae spp. || ICES VIIIb || Adour || Driftnet || 300 || 100 || ref #9 || France || NE Atlantic ||   || X ||   
 17 || Sea bass spp. || Dicentrarchus spp. || ICES VIIIb || Adour || Drifting trammel net || < 180 || 100 (540) || ref #9 || France || NE Atlantic ||   || X ||   
 18 || Sea bass spp. || Dicentrarchus spp. || ICES VIId || English Channel || Driftnet || 200-300 || 90-120 || < 5 || France || NE Atlantic || X ||   ||   
 19 || European sea bass || Dicentrarchus labrax || ICES VIId || English Channel || Driftnet || < 2,300 || 150 || ~ 6 || UK || NE Atlantic || X (offshore) ||   ||   
 20 || European sea bass/mullet || Dicentrarchus labrax/Mugilidae || ICES VIId,e & f || English Channel & West coast of UK || Driftnet || 400 || 90, 112-127 || < 70 || UK || NE Atlantic || X (inshore) ||   ||   
 21 || European sea bass/mullet || Dicentrarchus labrax/Mugilidae || ICES VIId & e || English Channel || Driftnet || Unknown || 112 || < 6 || UK || NE Atlantic || X || X ||   
 22 || European sea bass || Dicentrarchus labrax || ICES IVc || North Sea (IVb & c) || Driftnet || Unknown || 90-220 || < 40 || UK || N Sea || X ||   ||   
 23 || Sea bass/Sea bream/Meagre || Dicentrarchus labrax/Sparus aurata/Argyrosomus Regius || ICES IXa || Unkown || Driftnet || 40 || 60 || 50 || Portugal || NE Atlantic ||   || X ||   
 24 || Common sole || Solea solea || ICES IVc || North Sea (IV) || Drifting trammel || 400 || 100 (1200) || ~10 || UK || N Sea || X ||   ||   
 25 || Common sole || Solea solea || ICES VIId || Eastern channel (VIId) || Drifting trammel/driftnet? || Unknown || 100-120 || < 30 || UK || NE Atlantic || X ||   ||   
 26 || European pilchard || Sardina pilchardus || ICES VIIe & f || Not known (perhaps migrating part of Bay of Biscay stock) || Driftnet || 450 || 45 || ~ 30 || UK || NE Atlantic || X ||   ||   
 27 || European pilchard || Sardina pilchardus || ICES IXa || VIIIc and IXa || Driftnet || 400-600 || 35-60 || 62 || Portugal || NE Atlantic || X ||   ||   
 28 || Atlantic cod || Gadus morhua || ICES IVc || IV, VIId & IIIa || Driftnet || Unknown || 120-220 || < 20 || UK || N Sea || X ||   ||   
 29 || Altantic bonito || Sarda sarda || GFCM GSA 29 || Stock structure unknown, migratory || Driftnet || 500, 1000 & 1500 || 36, 48 || 135 || Bulgaria || Black Sea || X ||   ||   
 30 || Exocetidae || Exocetidae spp || FAO 31 || Martinique || Driftnet || Unknown || Unknown || 45 || France || Outermost || X ||   ||   
 31 || Acoupa weakfish || Cynoscion acoupa || FAO 31 || Guiana || Driftnet || 100 - 2500 || 140, 120, 160, 180 || 83 || France || Outermost || X ||   ||   
 32 || Saddled sea bream || Oblada melanura || GFCM GSA 9 || Unknown -Liguria || Driftnet (occhiatara) || 1200-1800 || 70-90 || < 10 || Italy || Mediterranean || X ||   ||   
 33 || Anchovy || Engraulis encrasicolus || GFCM GSA 10 || Unknown -Cilento || Driftnet (menaide) || 300 || 19-28 || 20 || Italy || Mediterranean || X ||   ||   
 34 || Atlantic mackerel/chub mackerel/bogue || Scomber scombrus, Scomber colias, Boops boops || GFCM GSA 10 || Unknown - Milazzo Patti || Driftnet (sgomberara & bogara) || Unknown || Unknown || 25 || Italy || Mediterranean || X ||   ||   
 35 || Amberjack || Seriola dumerili || GFCM GSA 10 || Unknown - Palermo area || Driftnet (ricciolara) || 100-150 || 74-100 || 25 || Italy || Mediterranean || X ||   ||   
 36 || Anchovy/European pilchard/amberjack || Engraulis encrasicolus, Sardina pilchardus, Seriola dumerili || GFCM GSA 10 || Unknown - Sant'Agata di Militello || Driftnet (ricciolara) || 100-150 || 74-100 || 7 || Italy || Mediterranean || X ||   ||   
 37 || Anchovy || Engraulis encrasicolus || GFCM GSA 10 || Unknown - Gulf of Naples || Driftnet (menaide) || 300 || 19-28 || 90 || Italy || Mediterranean || X ||   ||   
 37.2 || European pilchard || Sardina pilchardus || GFCM GSA 10 || Unknown - Gulf of Naples || Driftnet (menaide) || 300 || 34 || ref #37 || Italy || Mediterranean || X ||   ||   
 38 || Anchovy/European pilchard || Engraulis encrasicolus, Sardina pilchardus || GFCM GSA 19 || Unknown - Catania || Driftnet (menaide) || 300 || 20 || 30 || Italy || Mediterranean || X ||   ||   
 39 || Scomber spp || Scomber spp || GFCM GSA 19 || Unknown || Driftnet (sgomberara) || Unknown || Unknown || 4 || Italy || Mediterranean || X ||   ||   
 41 || Shad spp || Alosa immaculata, Caspialosa kessleri pontica || GFCM GSA 29 || Black Sea || Drifting trammel nets || 400-500 || 25-34 || Unknown || Bulgaria || Black Sea ||   ||   || X 
#
code number as reported in the study "Study in support of the review of
the EU regime on the small-scale driftnet fisheries (Specific contract 5
(SI2.650655)).
10.         Annex
3  Detailed overview of the small scale driftnet fisheries in the Mediterranean  
10.1.      Fiches by fishery
1) "Menaide" for anchovy, Engraulis
encrasicolus, in Catania area (GSA19) 
In the eastern Sicily (GSA19) a fleet using small
scale driftnets for small pelagics is present and
mainly concentrated in the Catania area (Catania, Ognina and Aci Castello
ports). 
It is a specialized for a traditional fishery using
"menaide" driftnets for anchovy, E. encrasicolus. 
Since 2007, under the EU DCF framework, this fishery
is monitored also by means of onboard observations, though the monitoring can
be irregular, depending on the sorting of the métier by the ranking system. 
This fishery is performed all year round. The
monthly landings in tons, averaged over 2007-2012, highlighted certain
variability and a peak in mid-spring early summer months, reaching a value of
about 35 tons. The production raised from about
200 tons in 2007-2009 to 450 in 2010, then it gradually decreased to 300 tons
in 2012. The GND production of anchovy represented a fraction not negligible
and ranged between the 22% in the 2007 and 44% in the 2010 of the total
anchovies landing in the GSA 19.
The most important species belonging to the
commercial by catch of this fishery is sardine, S. pilchardus; the
contribution of this species to the landings is much lower and has a more
variable pattern compared to anchovy. Anchovy
represented a share from 80 (in 2008) to 98% (in 2010) in the landings of this
fishery.
As concerns the characteristics of this fleet, the
LOA segment that contributes more to the landings and accounts for a remarkable
number of active vessels and fishing days is the LOA 6-12 m. 
Regarding fishing activity, the mean monthly number
of vessels using "menaide" is rather variable along the time and the
seasons. Peaks are observed in spring-early summer and then in
October-November. 
About 30 vessels are currently involved in this
fishery with "menaide"; the size of this fleet decreased in the last
years, being represented by about 60 vessels in 2007. Most of the activity
(approximately 80%) of these vessels is based on menaide fishery.
In the recent years, the anchovies of Catania caught
by menaide have obtained a brand  for the typicality of the product (“Slow
food” presidium “Masculine da maghia", www.fondazioneslowfood.it).  
In the investigated year, 2013, the SSD fleet in the
ports of Catania, Ognina and Aci Castello has been represented by 28 vessels.
The LOA of the boats in Catania port is included between 9.3 and 13.1, in Ognina
between 10.8 and 11.8 m and in Aci Castello between 8.2 and 12.8 m. 
The fishing activity of driftnets for anchovies
requires good sea conditions. In the investigated period (end of May – end of
July), on average, each boat realised 5 fishing days per week with “menaide”;
it was estimated an annual value per vessel of 145 of fishing days.
The fishing operations start in the last hours of
the night with the search of the fishing’s shoal through the eco-sounder. The
net (average length 280 m, drop 25 m, mesh size 20.5 mm) is deployed at sea close to the shoal and is hauled during the sunrise about 1 hour and a
half later. 
Fishing grounds are located in areas close to the
fishing arbour (max 6.6 km) with depths ranging from 35 to 135 m and characterized by sandy-muddy bottoms. 
The crew of the vessels involved in “menaide”
fishing ranged between 4 and 6 persons (mean 4). 
The average CPUEs of anchovy in the investigated
period was 44 kg/fishing day and 0.68 kg/100m2 of net/fishing hour.
The peak was registered in the last week of May; a similar value was observed
in the second week of June with a decrease starting from the following weeks.
The target species, E. encrasicolus,
represented the 91.5% of the total catch in weight. By catch was made only by
sardines. Discard was negligible, 0.4% of the total catch and represented by
specimens of sardine, depending on the size of the specimens and the market
demand. Catches of protected/vulnerable species were never recorded, as well as
those of a species included in the Annex VIII. 
It was approximately estimated, for the year 2013, a value of total annual landings of 206,131 kg, corresponding nearly to 1,869 Keuro.
The modal size of the anchovies caught was 11.5 cm on the whole sampled period. Only 0.7% of the specimens of anchovy measured were lower than
the Minimum Conservation Size (9 cm TL, EC Reg. 1967/2006), and only 1.1% of
the specimens was lower than the size at first maturity (9.7 cm TL, www.fishbase.org). 
2) “Menaide
or menaica” for anchovy, Engaulis encrasicolus, in the Cilento area
(GSA10)
The area of Cilento is located in Campania
administrative Region, Salerno Province. It spreads for over than 140 km in the southern Tyrrhenian Sea (GSA10). Several fishing ports and mooring places are present,
hosting principally small scale fleets: the most important are Acciaroli,
Marina di Casal Velino, Marina di Pisciotta, Palinuro and Marina di Camerota.
Among the small scale vessels, there are several
boats using small driftnets targeting anchovy, Engraulis encrasicolus, with
a specific gear called "meanaide" or “menaica”. The presence of this
fishery was noticed since at least the last century. The fishing practices are
made according to ancient traditions, the catch of anchovy was commercialized
fresh or was subjected to a preparation (“alici di menaica”) made according to
an ancient recipe. 
The commercial value and the organoleptic values of “menaica”
anchovies are higher than those of the
anchovies usually caught with other systems, like purse seine or pelagic trawl.
In the recent years the anchovies of Cilento have obtained a brand  for the
typicality of the product (“Slow food” presidium “alici di menaica" , www.alicidimenaica.it; www.slowfood.it). This significantly
increased the knowledge and the price of the product with consequent benefits
on all the local fisheries. 
The fleet involved in the “menaide” fishery
increased in the last years; according to the interviews carried out in the
framework of DRIFTMED, 19 vessels used this gear in 2013; these
vessels have similar technical characteristics: LOA of about 9 m, GT of about 2.8 and engine power of about 50 kW.
In 2013 the fishing season with driftnets for anchovy
lasts three months (April-June). 
Fishing trips lasted from sunset to first hours of
the night; fishing time varied from 50 minutes to about 2 hours. Nets were
hauled by hand. The fishing operation requires good sea and weather conditions;
from the interviews an average of 30 fishing trips for each vessel in the whole
fishing period has been collected. In this period, these vessels alternate the
use of driftnets with trammel nets and gillnets.
The average length of the nets used was 425 m, the drop 24 m, the mesh size 27 mm. Fishing grounds are located in areas close to the mooring
harbors, characterized by muddy bottoms and depths ranging from 80 to 150 m.

In the investigated period, according to the fishing
trips monitored by logbooks, the catches were composed entirely by the two
target species of this fishery, the anchovy and sardine. The average catch
rates of anchovy were 28 kg/fishing day and 0.537 kg/100m2
of net/fishing h. By catch was about 25% of the total catch and was represented
by sardine. No discard was observed, nor the catch of unauthorized and
protected species. 
The peak of catches was registered in April, while
the values of May and June were lower and similar.
The size structure of the specimens caught of E.
encrasicolus was very similar in the different monitored hauls: the modal
size was 14.5 cm TL, with minimum and maximum sizes at 13 cm TL. No specimens were under the Minimum Conservation Size of 9 cm TL (EC Reg. 1967/2006) nor under the size at first maturity of 9.7 cm TL (www.fishbase.org). 
The crew of the vessels involved in “menaide”
fishing was on average 3 persons. The fishing days performed by the vessels
involved in this fishery are approximately the 13% of the yearly fishing days
carried out by these vessels; this contribution increased to 21% if the value
(in euro) of landings is considered. 
3) “Occhiatara” for saddlled sea bream, Oblada
melanura, in Ligurian Sea (GSA9).
During the period monitored by DRIFTMED 6 vessels (5 in the Marine District of Imperia and one in Savona) were identified in Ligurian Sea (GSA9) using
small scale driftnets.  
In the past years, the
artisanal fleet employing driftnets in Liguria was more numerous; most of the
vessels licensed with the so called “ferrettara” net, employed a net with 160-180 mm mesh size to exploit Atlantic bonitos, albacore and also, even though more rarely, swordfish
and bluefin tuna. 
In 2013, the vessels used
small driftnets to exploit the saddled sea bream, O.
melanura, as target species. The local name of these small driftnets is “occhiatara”.
According to the interviews made with the fishermen,
this gear is used seasonally, in a short period
of time, no more than about 40 days, between May and June. In
the investigated period of 2013 the number of fishing days realised with
driftnets for each vessel was on average 19. The
average number of fishermen per vessels was two.
The "occhiatara" fishing activity is
carried out during the night. The employed net was divided in 3-4 sets, each
measuring about 450 m in length, for an overall length of about 1200m. 
Nets were deployed in coastal areas close to the
coast on sandy bottoms. The maximum distance from the coastline was 500 m, the depth ranged from 12 to 45 m. Sea grass beds were avoided by fishermen, considering the
high risk that a net, drifting close to the bottom, could be “entangled” on sea
grass plants, with consequent damages to the gear. 
The first set of net was deployed after sunset; the
deploying of the entire gear lasted about one hour and half. Depending on the intensity
of the current, nets were left at sea up to 4 hours and then hauled. The
hauling operations lasted at least 2 hours or more, depending on the abundance
of catches.
The average catch rates (total species) in the
monitored period were 83 kg/fishing day and 0.101 kg/100m2
of net/fishing h. By catch was about 29% of the total catch. By
catch species were mainly constituted by the chub mackerel, Scomber colias,
and the Mediterranean mackerel, Trachurus mediterraneus.
Some species included in the Annex VIII of the EU
Council Regulation 894/97 were found in the catches, two cephalopods and one
fish: Todarodes sagittatus (less than 1% in weight), Ommastrephes
bartrami (only one specimen recorded) and Sarda sarda (it was caught
only one time). 
Discards were negligible, only 0.7% of the total
catch. 
The measured specimens of the target species (O.
melanura) ranged from 21 to 36 cm TL and the most represented size class
was 27 cm TL. All the specimens were greater than 17.5 cm (size at maturity, according to Cetinic et al., 2002). No Minimum Conservation Size
has been established for the saddled sea bream in Mediterranean.
The catches of O. melanura are generally
divided into three commercial categories of different economic value, according
to the size: in the investigated period the price ranged between 5 and 12
Euro/kg. 
Even performed in a short time period (approximately
the  12% of the yearly fishing activity of
the involved fleet), this fishery contributed for roughly  25% of the total
yearly economic value and for approximately  34% of the total yearly biomass
landed. 
4) “Sgomberara or sgombetara” for horse
mackerel, Trachurus trachurus, in northern Sicily (GSA10) 
In a wide area of northern Sicily several vessel
using a similar typology of small scale driftnet locally called
"sgomberara or sgombetara" were detected during the DRIFTMED
investigations. They belong to the artisanal fleets of several little mooring
places, the most important of them are S. Agata di Militello, Milazzo and Porticello.
This fishery is targeted mainly to the horse mackerel, Trachurus trachurus
and, according to the interviews, performed mainly in summer-autumn period.
On yearly basis, an average of 60 days of fishing
days per vessels was estimated for this fishery, which involved, in the current
year, at least 22 artisanal vessels, all of them lower than 12 m overall length. The average crew is 2 fishermen.
The small driftnets used had an average mesh size of
 80.2 mm, average overall length of 920 m and average drop of 35 m; they were used from 2.6 to 14.2 km offshore and on depths ranging from 30 to 400 m.
In the monitored period the target species
represented only 1% of the total catch; by catch was dominated by the bullet
tuna, Auxis rochei, species included in the Annex VIII. Discards
were not observed, as well as the presence of sensitive or protected species.
The average catch rates (total species) in the
monitored period were 142 kg/fishing day and 0.092 kg/100m2
of net/fishing h. On the basis of the sampled data, it was approximately
evaluated a total annual landing of 187 tons corresponding to barely 288 Keuro.

The measured specimens of T. trachurus showed
a modal size at 23 cm TL; all the specimens caught were greater than the
Minimum Conservation Size of this species for the Mediterranean (15 cm TL, EC reg. 1967/2006) and also greater than the size at maturity (18.5 cm TL; Carbonara et al., 2012).
The socio economic analyses performed for this
fishery highlighted that the approximated contributions of this fishery to the
annual fishing days (58%) and the annual incomes of the involved vessels (55%)
are similar, while in terms of landed biomass the "sgomberara"
fishery contributed for about 85% of the annual landings.
The results provided for this fisheries are however
not final, due that some data collected in the last week have not been
considered in this analysis. In the draft final report the complete outcomes of
this fishery will be presented.
5) “Menaide” for anchovy, Engraulis
encrasicolus, in S. Agata di Militelllo (GSA16)
In northern Sicily, in the port of S. Agata di
Militello, a local fishery using small driftnets (local name
"menaide") was identified. This fishery is carried out in a
restricted period of the year (from June to August), targeting anchovies, E.
encrasicolus. During the investigations made in the framework of this
project, 7 artisanal vessels were identified; a total of 15 fishermen were
involved in this fishery, on average 2 per vessel. A fishing activity of 20
days per vessel was approximately evaluated in 2013. The characteristics of the
employed small driftnets, as well the fishing practices and the typology of
fishing grounds were similar to those of the "menaide" fishery of
Catania.
The average CPUEs of anchovy in the investigated
period was 86 kg/fishing day and 0.61 kg/100m2 of net/fishing h. 
The target species, E. encrasicolus,
represented practically 100% of the total catch in weight. Discard was
negligible, 0.6% of the total catch, and was represented by damaged specimens
of anchovy. Catches of protected/vulnerable species were never recorded, as
well as those of a species included in the Annex VIII. 
For the year 2013, a total annual landing of 12,081 kg, corresponding to about 49 keuro, was guess estimated.
6) “Ricciolara” for the greater amberjack, Seriola
dumerili, in S. Agata di Militello (GSA10)
In S. Agata di Militello (northern Sicily), a
fishery using small driftnets locally called “ricciolara” was identified. The
target species is the greater amberjack, Seriola dumerili.
This is a strictly seasonal fishery, performed from
September to October, when the target species is closer to the coasts; the
sampling activities of DRIFTMED could monitor only the beginning period of this
fishery.
Three vessels were identified and followed for catch
and effort. It is likely the presence of other vessels involved in this fishery
both in S. Agata di Militello as in other ports of Sicily.
The interviewed fishermen declared to perform, on
average, 40 fishing days per year targeting greater amberjacks with
“ricciolara”. The average length of the used nets was 900 m, the drop 21 m, the mesh size 70 mm. Fishing grounds are located in areas close to the mooring
harbor (average distance 2.8 km), characterized by depths ranging from 18 to 30 m.

In the investigated period, according to the
monitored fishing trips, the average catch rates of S. dumerili were 9.3
kg/fishing day and 0.011 kg/100m2 of
net/fishing h. By catch was about 42% of the total catch and represented mostly
by the Mediterranean mackerel, Trachurus mediterraneus, the common
Pandora, Pagellus erythrinus and by the striped sea bream, Lithognathus
mormyrus.
No discard was observed, nor the catch of
unauthorized and protected species. 
From the sampling data it was approximately
evaluated an annual landing of the target species of 8,488 kg corresponding to about 78 keuro.
The size structure of the specimens measured of S.
dumerili was characterized by a modal class of 27.5 cm TL; this size is lower that the size at maturity reported for the species, 80 cm of Standard Length (Andaloro et al., 1998). For this species there isn’t a Minimum
Conservation Size. 
7)
"Ferrettara" for blue fish, Pomatomus saltatrix, in Gulf of
Naples, GSA10 
A
specialized fishery with small driftnets “ferrettara” was identified in the
Gulf of Naples, namely in the artisanal fleet of Torre Annunziata. This fishery
is targeted to the bluefish, Pomatomus saltatrix. According to the
interviews, it resulted that the use of “ferrettara” for bluefish was recently
introduced in this fleet, due to the increase in abundance of the target
species occurred since the last ten years. During the DRIFTMED investigations,
two vessels carrying out this fishery were identified an monitored for catches
and effort, even though the presence of at least four more vessels (two in
Castellammare di Stabia and two in Pozzuoli) performing this same fishery was
noticed from the interviews. 
This
fishery is practiced on seasonal basis, from June to September; 70 average
fishing days were approximately estimated for each vessel. The small driftnets
used were characterized by an average mesh size of 88 mm, average length of 2400 m and average drop of 26 m. Fishing grounds were on average situated 3.7 km from the harbor and around 40 m depth.
The
average catch rates of the target species in the monitored period were 44.7
kg/fishing day and 0.028 kg/100m2 of
net/fishing h. The target species represented
around 94% of the total catches; by catch was mainly represented (90%) by Trachinotus
ovatus. In the by catch the presence of two species included in the Annex
VIII (Sarda sarda and Euthynnus alletteratus) was observed, even
though the two species accounted only 9.6% of the by catch. No sensitive or
protected species were observed during the samplings, nor reported from the
interviews.
The
measured specimens of P. saltatrix showed a modal size of 44 cm TL; all the specimens measured were grater than the size at first maturity reported for this
species (25 cm TL, www.fishbase.org); no Minimum
Conservation Size has been established for this species. 
This
fishery, even though represented approximately the 47% of the annual fishing
days performed by  the vessels involved, contributed for barely the 67% of the
total yearly incomes.
8)
"Menaide" for sardine, Sardina pilchardus, in northern
Adriatic (GSA17) 
A
little number of vessels using since many years a “menaide” small driftnet,
with sardine, Sardina pilchardus, as the main target species is present
in Slovenia. This fleet was monitored since 2005 under the DCF framework.
Thanks to the availability of the colleagues of the Fishery Research Institute
of Slovenia, information from this fishery was collected. In addition, during
DRIFTMED contract, direct measurements of nets were made. The collection of
information for this fishery is still in progress; therefore the data presented
in this document are not final. 
The
number of vessels involved in this fishery ranged from 1 to 7 in the period 2005-2012. This fishery is practised in a restricted period of the year, essentially
in April and May. 
In
addition to the vessels in Slovenia, the presence of two more vessels in
Trieste (Italy), performing the same fishery, was noticed from the interviews.
The
small driftnets used were characterized by an average mesh size of 34.4 mm, average length of 418 m and average drop of 21 m. The catches are
dominated by the sardine that, in the period of highest activity (April-May)
accounted for 90-95% of the total caught biomass; by catch is composed by
several species, with Spicara flexuosa and Merlangius merlangus
the most represented ones.
The
presence of discard is negligible. Specimens of sensitive/endangered species or
species included in the Annex VIII were not reported. 
9)
"Menaide" for anchovy Engraulis encrasicolus /sardine
Sardina pilchardus in western Sicily (GSA 16)
A
small SSD fishery has been detected in the south-western coast of Sicily,
namely in Selinunte harbour (GSA16); information on the fishery have been
collected through fishers interviews. Some 5 vessels carry out driftnet fishing
for anchovy and sardine. This fishery is strictly seasonal from May to
September. 
The
fishing gears used have characteristics rather similar to the
"menaide" fisheries identified in other areas, as in GSAs 10 and 19.
The nets employed had an average length of 200 m, and an average drop of 21 m;
the average mesh size was 20 mm. 
According
to the interviews realised, 33 fishing days per vessel were on average carried
out in 2013. All the 5 vessels are small-scale, with LOA less than 10 m.
The
fishing activity is performed during the night, on a fishing ground close to
the harbour of Selinunte, having an average depth of 20 m; the average soaking
time is of approximately 2 hours.
The
interviewed fishermen reported that the catch is almost entirely composed by
anchovies and sardines, by catch and discards were noticed as negligible. No
catches of specimens of sensitive/protected species were declared, as well as
of unauthorized species included in the Annex VIII.
10.2.      Synoptic table: fleets, gears,
catches and economic characteristics 
Detailed
description of the Mediterranean small scale driftnet fisheries 1)
“Menaide” for anchovy, Engraulis encrasicolus, in Catania area (GSA19); 2)
“Menaide or menaica” for anchovy, Engraulis encrasicolus, in the Cilento
area (GSA10); 3) “Occhiatara” for saddlled sea bream, Oblada melanura,
in Ligurian Sea (GSA9); 4) “Sgomberara” for horse mackerel, Trachurus
trachurus, in northern Sicily (GSA10);  5) “Menaide” for anchovy, Engraulis
encrasicolus, in S. Agata di Militelllo (GSA10); 6) "Riccciolara"
for greater amberjack, Seriola dumerili, in S. Agata di Militello
(GSA10);
7) "Ferrettara" for blue fish, Pomatomus
saltatrix, in Gulf of Naples (GSA10); 
8) "Menaide" for sardine, Sardina
pilchardus, in northern Adriatic (GSA17). 
9)
"Menaide" for anchovy Engraulis encrasicolus /sardine
Sardina pilchardus in western Sicily (GSA 16)
 Fisheries || 1 || 2 || 3 || 4 (*) || 5 || 6 
 General characteristics (1) ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 Country || ITALY || ITALY || ITALY || ITALY || ITALY || ITALY 
 GFCM - GSA where fishery takes place || 19 || 10 || 9 || 10 || 10 || 10 
 Area || Catania || Cilento || Liguria || Northen Sicily || S. Agata di Militello || S. Agata di Militello 
 Local denomination of the fishery || "menaide" || "menaide" || "occhiatara" || "sgomberara" || "menaide" || "ricciolara" 
 List of target species   || Engraulis encrasicolus || Engraulis encrasicolus || Oblada melanura || Trachurus trachurus || Engraulis encrasicolus || Seriola dumerilii 
 Fishing period (months of occurrence) || All year || April- June || May-June || All year || June-August || September-October 
 Annual fishing days (average by boat) (1), (5) || 145.0 || 30.0 || 14.5 || 60.0 || 30.0 || 40.0 
 Number and size of vessels involved Total ||   28 ||   19 ||   5 ||   22 ||   7 ||   3 
 Gear configuration (1), (2), (3), (4) ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 Mesh sizes (min-max, average) || min-max: 19-22  mm, avg:  20.53 mm || min-max: 26-29  mm, avg:  27 mm || min-max: 70-90 mm, avg: 79.4mm || min-max: 70.5-85 mm, avg:  80.17 mm || NA || 70 mm 
 Length of the nets employed (min-max,  average) || min-max: 240-300  m, avg:  280 m || min-max: 300-500  m, avg:  425 m || min-max: 375-500  m, avg:  412.5 m || min-max: 500-1500  m, avg:  921 m || NA || min-max: 800-1000  m, avg:  900 m 
 Fully extended net drop (min-max, average) || min-max: 23-26  m, avg:  25 m || min-max: 21-26  m, avg:  24 m || min-max: 11-36  m, avg: 18m || min-max: 28-43  m, avg:  35 m || NA || 21 m 
 Hanging ratio || min-max: 0.74 - 1, avg: 0.87 || min-max: 0.72–0.85, avg: 0.81 || min-max: 0.62–0.83, avg: 0.70 || NA || NA || NA 
 Twine tickness || 0.24 mm || 0.24 mm || min-max: 0.25–0.35 mm, avg: 0.26 mm || 0.30 mm || NA || 0.30 mm 
   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 Fishing grounds: distance offshore (min- max, average)   Depth (min-max, average) || Distance min-max: 0.585 km - 6.592 km; avg: 4.337 km   Depth min-max: 35 - 135 m; avg: 84.0 m || Distance: max 3 nautical miles from the coast   Depth min-max: 80 - 150 m; avg: 120.0 m || Distance min-max: 0.050 km – 0.500 km; avg: 0.275 km   Depth min-max: 12 - 45 m; avg: 23.8 m || Distance min-max: 2.633 km – 14.208 km; avg: 9.068 km   Depth min-max: 30 - 400 m; avg: 194.0 m || Distance min-max: 3.568 km – 8.480 km; avg: 4.641 km   Depth min-max: 40 - 150 m; avg: 70.0 m || Distance min-max: 2.252 km – 3.100 km; avg: 2.805 km   Depth min-max: 18 - 30 m; avg: 26.0 m 
 Soak time of the nets (min-max, average) || Soak time min-max: 1h – 5h; avg: 1h 36’ || Soak time min-max: 48’ – 1h 30’; avg: 1h 06’ || Soak time min-max: 3h– 7h; avg: 4h 30’ || Soak time min-max: 1h 30’ – 6h 30’; avg: 3h 36’ || Soak time min-max: 1h – 6h; avg: 2h 6’ || Soak time min-max: 3h – 5h; avg: 4h 
 Do the vessels of this fishery ever target the same species with a different gear type? if yes please give details || No || No || No || No || No || No 
 Socio-economic characteristics ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 Total number of fishermen involved in this fishery (5) || 115 || 57 || 10 || 46 || 15 || 6 
 Average number of fishermen per vessel || 4 || 3 || 2 || 2 || 2 || 2 
 Incomes (all fishery) Mean price of the targets species Average price of the target species caught with other gears || 9.44 €   6.00 € || 7.00 €   2.00 € || 13.00 €     || 6.22 €   1.58 € || 4.50 €   1.77 € || 15.00 €   12.80 € 
 Total annual landings from driftnet /total landings   || In weight || In value || In weight || In value || In weight || In value || In weight || In value || In weight || In value || In weight || In value 
 90.7 % || 90.8 % || 29.8 % || 21.4 % || 34.2 % || 24.8 % || 83.0 % || 51.0 % || 37.6 % || 25.1 % || 35.0 % || 44.0 % 
 Total number of days spent with driftnets/total number of fishing days     || 88.4 % || 13.4 % || 12.3 % || 58.3 % || 19.6 % || 39.0 % 
 Social and cultural aspects (traditional fishery) Typicality of the product || Yes ; Presidium Slow food “Masculine da Magghia” || Yes; Presidium Slow food “Alici di Menaica” || No || No || No || No 
 Sustainability (1), (3), (4), (6) ||   
 CATCH RATES a) Total catches (irrespective of the target species) Kg/fishing days (min-max average)     Kg/100 m2 net/h of fishing (average value)   b) Only target species  Kg/fishing days (min-max average)     Kg/100 m2 net/h of fishing (average value)     LFD of the catch of the target  species: Average and modal length   Minimum Conservation Size (from Ec Reg. 1967/2006)   Proportion (in number) of specimens under the MCS   Length at first maturity (7)   Proportion in number of specimens under the length at first maturity ||     min 0.1 kg/day - max 160.0 kg/day - avg 48.0 kg/day       0.738 kg/100m2/h               min 0.1 kg/day - max 160.0 kg/day - avg 44.0 kg/day   0.678 kg/100m2/h       Aavg: 11.5 cm Modal: 11.0 cm     9 cm       16/2301 (0.7 %)     9.7 cm TL     (25/2301) 1.1 % ||     min 6.0 kg/day - max 215.0 kg/day - avg 37.0 kg/day       0.664  kg/100m2/h       min 6.0 kg/day - max 200.0 kg/day - avg 28.0 kg/day   0.537 kg/100m2/h       Avg: 14.3 cm Modal: 14.5 cm     9 cm       (0/178) 0%     9.7 cm TL     (0/178) 0% ||     min 17.5 kg/day - max 315.2 kg/day - avg 88.3 kg/day       0.101 kg/100m2/h       min 8.0 kg/day - max 247.0 kg/day - avg 62.9 kg/day   0.072 kg/100m2/h       Avg: 27.0 cm Modal: 27.0 cm     NA       NA     17.5 cm TL     (0/1185) 0%     ||     min 0.3 kg/day - max 1000.0 kg/day - avg 142.0 kg/day       0.092 kg/100m2/h       min 5.0 kg/day - max 20.0 kg/day - avg 11.3 kg/day   0.019 kg/100m2/h       Avg: 24.7 cm Modal: 23.0 cm     15 cm       (0/50) 0%     18.5 cm TL     (0/50) 0 % ||     min 15.0 kg/day - max 250.0 kg/day - avg 86.0 kg/day       0.61 kg/100m2/h       min 15.0 kg/day - max 250.0 kg/day - avg 86.0 kg/day   0.610 kg/100m2/h       Avg: NA Modal: NA     9 cm       NA     9.7 cm TL     NA ||     min 14.0 kg/day - max 18.0 kg/day - avg 16.0 kg/day       0.019 kg/100m2/h       min 1.4 kg/day – max 15.0 kg/day - avg 9.3 kg/day   0.011 kg/100m2/h       Avg: 29.1 cm Modal 27.5 cm     NA       NA     80 cm SL     (43/43) 100.0 % 
 Are unauthorised species (e.g. those listed in the Annex VIII) caught? || No   || No   || Yes. Cepahalopods (T. sagittatus, O. bartramii) 3.9% of total by-catch. S. sarda 1.5% of the total by catch || Yes (Atlantic bonito). || No || No 
 Are protected species caught? || No || No || No || No || No || No 
SOURCE
OF INFORMATION:
(1) from interviews with
fishermen;
(2) from direct measurements of
nets;
(3) from logbooks;
(4) from embarks;
(5) the information from the
whole fisheries were obtained raising the information coming from the sampling
(logbooks, embarks, interviews) to the total number of the vessels involved in
the fishery;
(6) estimates refer to the
period sampled in the DRIFTMED contract; 
(7) from literature;
Table:Continuation: detailed description of
the following fisheries 7) "Ferrettara" for
blue fish, Pomatomus saltatrix, in Gulf of Naples (GSA10);  8)
"Menaide" for sardine, Sardina pilchardus, in northern
Adriatic (GSA17); 9) "Menaide" for anchovy Engraulis encrasicolus
/sardine Sardina pilchardus in western Sicily (GSA 16)
 Fisheries || 7 || 8 || 9 
 General characteristics (1) ||   ||   ||   
 Country || ITALY || SLOVENIA-ITALY || ITALY 
 GFCM - GSA where the fishery takes place || 10 || 17 || 16 
 Area || Gulf of Naples || Northern Adriatic || Western Sicily 
 Local denomination of the fishery || "ferrettara" || "menaide" || “menaide” or "tratta" 
 List of the target species   || Pomatomus saltatrix || Sardina pilchardus || Engraulis encrasicolus; Sardina pilchardus 
 Main landing port(s) || Torre Annunziata || Izola, Koper, Trieste || Selinunte 
 Fishing period (months of occurrence) || June-October || April-May || May-September 
 Annual fishing days (average by boat)  (1), (5) || 70 || n.a. || 33 
 Number and size of vessels involved - Total || 2 || 1 || 5 
 Gear configuration (1), (2), (3), (4) ||   ||   ||   
 Mesh sizes (min-max, average) || 88 mm || min-max: 34-35 mm, avg: 34.4 mm || 20 mm 
 Length of the nets employed (min-max, average) || avg: 2400 m || min-max: 85-1050 m, avg: 418 m || min-max: 200-210 m, avg: 202 m 
 Fully extended net drop (min-max, average) || 26 m || min-max: 20-21 m, avg: 21 m || min-max: 20-24 m, avg: 21.2 m 
 Hanging ratio || - || min-max: 0.84–0.90, avg: 0.86 || NA 
 Twine thickness || 0.54 mm || 0.24 mm || 0.20 mm 
 Fishing grounds: distance offshore (min- max, average)   Depth (min-max, average) ||   Distance min-max: 1.353 km – 12.100 km; avg: 3.673 km   Depth min-max: 15 - 120 m; avg: 40 m   ||   ||   NA       Depth min-max: 18 - 45 m; avg: 31.5 m   
 Soak time of the nets (min-max, average) || Soak time min-max: 2h – 3h 18’; avg: 2h 36’ ||   || 2h 
 Do the vessels of this fishery ever target the same species with a different gear type? if yes please give details || No || No || No 
 Socio-economic characteristics ||   ||   ||   
 Total number of fishermen involved in this fishery (5) || 4 ||   ||   
 Average number of fishermen per vessel || 2 ||   ||   
 Total annual landings from this fishery/total annual landings of this fleet irrespective of the gear used (5) || In weight || In value || In weight || In value || In weight || In value 
 47.0 % || 55.0 % ||   ||   ||   ||   
 Total number of days spent when using driftnets/total number of days at sea irrespectively of the gear used (5) || 47 % ||   ||   
 Social and cultural aspects (traditional fishery) Typicality of the product   Other || No ||   ||   
 Sustainability(1), (3), (4), (6) ||   ||   ||   
 CATCH RATES a) Total catches (irrespective of the target species) Kg/fishing days (min-max average)     Kg/100 m2 net/h of fishing (average value)   b) Only target species Kg/fishing days (min-max average)     Kg/100 m2 net/h of fishing (average value)     LFD of the catch of the target species: average and modal length   Minimum Conservation Size (from EC Reg. n. 1967/2006)   Proportion (in number) of specimens under the MCS   Length at first maturity (7)   Proportion in number of specimens under the length at first maturity   ||     min 12.0 kg/day - max 80.0 kg/day - avg 48.0 kg/day       0.03 kg/100m2/h       min 10.0 kg/day - max 80.0 kg/day - avg 44.7 kg/day   0.028 kg/100m2/h       Avg: 44.3 cm Modal: 44.0 cm     NA       NA     25.0 cm     (0/51) 0.0 % ||                                           11 cm         12.4 cm       NA ||                                         Sardine 11 cm Anchovy  9 cm         Sardine 12.4 cm Anchovy 9.7 cm     NA 
 Are unauthorized species (e.g. those listed in the Annex VIII) caught? || Yes, only in September. The main important aspect are the Fishery location and time of year || NA || NA 
 Are protected species caught?   || No || No || NA 
11.         Annex 4  Interactions with
protected species
11.1.      4A  Protected species likely
to interact with driftnets
 Species || Potential Interaction || Confirmed Interaction || Region || Habitats Dir. Annex II || Habitats Dir. Annex IV || Habitats Dir. Annex V || Birds Dir. Annex I 
 Sea Lamprey || Petromyzon marinus ||   || X || Northeast Atlantic || X ||   ||   ||   
 Sturgeon || Acipenseridae ||   || X || Northeast Atlantic || X ||   || X ||   
 Atlantic Salmon || Salmo salar ||   || X || Baltic, North Sea, Northeast Atlantic || X ||   ||   ||   
 Shad spp. || Alosa alosa, Alosa fallax ||   || X || Northeast Atlantic || X ||   || X ||   
 Pontic shad || Alosa immaculata ||   || X || Black Sea || X ||   || X ||   
 Harbour porpoise || Phocoena phocoena ||   || X || Baltic, Northeast Atlantic, North Sea  || X || X ||   ||   
 Harbour Porpoise || Phocoena phocoena. ssp. relicta || X ||   || Black Sea || X || X ||   ||   
 Harbour Porpoise || Phocoena phocoena ssp.  phocoena || X ||   || Mediterranean || X || X ||   ||   
 Common dolphin  || Delphinus delphis ssp. ponticus || X ||   || Black Sea ||   || X ||   ||   
 Common dolphin  || Delphinus delphis || X ||   || Mediterranean ||   || X ||   ||   
 Bottle-nosed dolphin || Tursiops truncatus ssp. ponticus || X ||   || Black Sea || X || X ||   ||   
 Bottle-nosed dolphin || Tursiops truncatus || X ||   || Mediterranean || X || X ||   ||   
 Baltic ringed seals || Pusa hispida || X ||   || Baltic ||   ||   ||   ||   
 Common/harbour seals || Phoca vitulina ||   || X || Northeast Atlantic, North Sea || X ||   ||   ||   
 Grey seals || Halichoerus grypus || X || X || Baltic, Northeast Atlantic, North Sea || X ||   ||   ||   
 Black throated loon/ diver || Gavia arctica || X ||   || Northeast Atlantic ||   ||   ||   || X 
 Great northern loon/ diver  || Gavia immer || X ||   || Northeast Atlantic ||   ||   ||   || X 
 Red-throated loon/ diver || Gavia stellata || X ||   || Northeast Atlantic ||   ||   ||   || X 
 Pygmy coromorant || Phalacrocorax pygmeus || X ||   || Northeast Atlantic ||   ||   ||   || X 
 European shag || Phalacrocorax aristotelis || X ||   || Mediterranean ||   ||   ||   || X 
 Yelkouan shearwater || Puffinus yelkouan || X ||   || Mediterranean ||   ||   ||   || X 
 Manx shearwater || Puffinus puffinus || X ||   || Mediterranean ||   ||   ||   || X 
 Cory’s shearwater || Calonectris diomedea || X ||   || Northeast Atlantic ||   ||   ||   || X 
 Slavonian grebe || Podiceps auritus || X ||   || Baltic ||   ||   ||   || X 
 Long tailed duck || Clangula hyemalis || X ||   || Baltic ||   ||   ||   || X 
 Smew  || Mergellus albellus || X ||   || Baltic ||   ||   ||   || X 
 Guillemot || Uria aalge || X || X || Northeast Atlantic, North Sea ||   ||   ||   || X 
 Razorbills || Alca torda || X ||   || Northeast Atlantic ||   ||   ||   || X 
 Loggerhead turtle || Caretta caretta || X ||   || Mediterranean || X || X ||   ||   
 Leatherback turtle || Dermochelys coriacea ||   || X || Northwest Atlantic [75] ||   || X ||   ||   
 Green turtle || Chelonia mydas ||   || X || Northwest Atlantic ||   || X ||   ||   
11.2.      4B Protected species likely to
interact with driftnets Summary of population status and interactions rates of
protected species with driftnet fisheries
 
 Common Name || Latin Name || IUCN Status || Fishery ID# || HD/ BD[76] || Region || Bycatch or target || Stock or subpopulation || PBR || Interaction/catch rate 
 Sea Lamprey || Petromyzon marinus || LC || #8/ #8.2/ #8.3/ #44 || HD II || NE Atlantic || Target || Loire/Gironde-Garonne/Adour/ Portugal || - || No catch data available 
 Pontic shad || Alosa immaculata || VU || #6/ #41 || HD II || Black Sea || Target || Danube/ Black Sea || - || Fishery #6 28.66 tonnes caught by driftnets in the Danube during 2012[77] No catch data for fishery #41. 
 Shad spp. || Alosa alosa Alosa fallax Alosa Maeotica || LC || #5/ #5.2/ #45 #6 || HD II || NE Atlantic   Black Sea || Target || Loire/Adour/ Portugal/ Danube/ Black Sea || - || No catch data for fisheries #5 /#5.2 /#6/ #45 Fishery #6 46 tonnes caught in 2011 in marine waters. 
 Atlantic Salmon || Salmo salar || LC || #9/#12 || HD II || NE Atlantic North Sea || Target #9  Bycatch #12 || Mixed Stock || - || No catch data available for fishery #9/ #12 
 Sturgeon || Acipenseridae || CR || #8/ #8.2/ #8.3 || HD II || NE Atlantic || Bycatch || Loire/Gironde-Garonne/Adour || - || No catch data available 
 Allis shad || Alosa alosa || LC || #26 || HD II || NE Atlantic || Bycatch || Plymouth sound & estuaries || - || Bycatch levels not available 
 Harbour porpoise || Phocoena phocoena || CR || #13 || HD II HD IV || Baltic, North Sea, NE Atlantic || Bycatch || Baltic || <2 individuals per year (ASCOABANS, 2009)[78] 84 individuals per year[79] || 2.1 per year reported in the Polish Baltic[80] Overall rates in the Baltic unknown bycatch events are rare and unreported (ICES, 2011[81]) Low numbers caught by drifting gillnets and drifting trammel nets in North Sea and off the southwest coast of the UK[82] 
 Harbour porpoise || Phocoena phocoena ssp. relicta || EN || #9 || HD II HD IV || Black Sea || Bycatch || Black Sea || ≈ 510 (ICES,2011) || High incidental catches reported in bottom set gillnets: 1000s per year estimated to have been taken during 1990-2000 (Birkun et al., 2009[83])    
 Common dolphin  || Delphinus delphis  ssp. ponticus || VU || #9 || HD IV || Black Sea || Bycatch || Black Sea || ≈ 1700 (ICES,2011) || Unknown (ICES,2011) 
 Common dolphin  || Delphinus delphis || EN || #32/#33/#34/#35/#36/#37/#38/#43 || HD IV || Med || Bycatch || Mediterranean || - || Interaction with Moroccan driftnet fishery in the Alboran Sea (Tudela et al. 2005[84]) Interaction with Turkish driftnet fishery in the Aegean Sea (Akyol et al. 2009[85]) 
 Bottle nosed dolphin || Tursiops truncatus ssp. ponticus || EN || #9 || HD I HD IV || Black Sea || Bycatch || Black Sea || 50 (ICES, 2010[86]) || Incidental catches reported in bottom set gillnets; two dolphins per 100km of Turbot nets (Birkun et al 2009) 
 Bottle nosed dolphin || Tursiops truncatus || VU || #32/#33/#34/#35/#36/#37/#38/#43 || HD I HD IV || Med || Bycatch || Mediterranean || -850 (ICES,2011) || 9700 individuals  per year for set nets (ICES,2011)   
 Baltic ringed seals || Pusa hispida || VU || #13 || - || Baltic || Bycatch || Baltic || - || Lake Saimaa ringed seal subpopulation known to interact with gillnets (ICES 2010) 
 Common/ Harbour seals || Phoca vitulina || LC ||  #10 || HD II || North Sea || Bycatch || P.v.vitulina (Eastern Atlantic) || Scotland-617[87]   || Estimate of 2 seals per 100 hauls with driftnets in UK North Sea fisheries (species not specified) (Northridge et al., 2012[88])   
 Grey seals || Halichoerus grypus || LC || #10/#12/#13/#20/ #21 || HD II || North Sea NE Atlantic || Bycatch || H. grypus grypus (Atlantic) & H. g. macrorynchus (Baltic) || Scotland- 3002   
 Black-throated loon/diver || Gavia arctica || LC || #1/#8/#16 || BD I || NE Atlantic North Sea || Bycatch || European || Estimate of 1,935 for red and black throated divers in North Sea (Northridge et al., 2012)   || No information available for case study MS fisheries   Estimate of 483± 385 total annual bycatch of loon/diver species in the Baltic Sea for all gillnets (MRAG et al., 2011[89])   
 Red-throated loon/diver || Gavia stellata || LC || #1/#8/#9/#16 || BD I || NE Atlantic North Sea || Bycatch || European 
 Great northern loon/diver  || Gavia immer || LC || #1/#8/#9/#16 || BD I || NE Atlantic North Sea || Bycatch || European || - 
 Pygmy cormorant || Phalacrocorax pygmeus || LC || #9 || BD I || NE Atlantic || Bycatch || European || Estimate of between 202 – 422 for Cormorant species in the North Sea (Northridge et al., 2012) || No information available for case study MS fisheries Estimate of 148± 71 total annual bycatch of cormorant species in the Eastern North Sea for all gillnets (MRAG et al., 2011)   Estimate of 17,779± 7,227 total annual bycatch of cormorant species in the Baltic Sea for all gillnets (MRAG et al., 2011) 
 European shag || Phalacrocorax aristotelis || LC || #32/#33/#34/#35/#36/ #37//#38 || BD I || Mediterranean || Bycatch || European || Estimate of between 925-1852 in the North Sea (Northridge et al., 2012) || No reported interactions rates 
 Yelkouan shearwater || Puffinus yelkouan || LC || #32/#33/#34/#35/#36/ #37//#38 || BD I || Mediterranean || Bycatch || European || - || No reported interactions rates 
 Manx shearwater || Puffinus puffinus || LC || #32/#33/#34/#35/#36/ #37/#38/#41 || BD I || Mediterranean || Bycatch || European || - || No reported interactions rates 
 Cory’s shearwater || Calonectris diomedea || LC || #16/#27 || BD I || NE Atlantic || Bycatch || European || Estimates of between 10,897 and 31,855 for the European Population (MRAG et al., 2011) || No reported interactions rates 
 Slavonian grebe || Podiceps auritus || LC || #13 || BD I || NE Atlantic || Bycatch || European || - || No information available for case study MS Estimate of 219 ± 190 total annual bycatch of grebe species in the Baltic Sea for all gillnets (MRAG et al., 2011) 
 Long tailed duck || Clangula hyemalis || VU || #13 || BD I || Baltic || Bycatch || Western Siberian European || Estimate for western Palearctic populations of 189,000 birds (Žydelis et al 2009)   Estimate of 2325 in the North Sea (Northridge et al., 2012) || No information available for case study MS Estimate of 234 ± 213 total annual bycatch of sea duck species in the Eastern North Sea for all gillnets  (MRAG et al., 2011)   Estimate of 63,418 ± 10,075 total annual bycatch of sea duck species in the Baltic Sea for all gillnets  (MRAG et al., 2011)   
 Smew  || Mergellus albellus || LC || #13 || BD I || Baltic || Bycatch || European || - || No reported interactions rates 
 Guillemot || Uria aalge || LC || #20/21/#26 || BD I || NE Atlantic || Bycatch || European || Estimate of between 15,733-28,110  in the North Sea (Northridge et al., 2012) || No reported interaction rates for case study MS Estimate of 474 ± 327 total annual bycatch of auk species in the Baltic Sea for all gillnets (MRAG, 2011)   Estimate of 43/1000 hauls for driftnets in the North Sea, based on observation of 93 hauls (Northridge et al., 2012) 
 Razorbills || Alca torda || LC || #20/21/#27 || BD I || NE Atlantic || Bycatch || European || Estimate of between 3,754 -6,422 in the North Sea (Northridge et al., 2012) || No reported interactions rates 
 Loggerhead turtle || Caretta caretta || EN || #32/#33/#34/#35/#36 /#37/#38/#41 || HD II HD IV || Mediterranean || Bycatch || Mediterranean || - || No reported interactions rates 
 Leatherback turtle || Dermochelys coriacea || CR || #31 || HD IV || W Atlantic || Bycatch || Atlantic || - || No reported interactions rates 
 Green turtle || Chelonia mydas || EN || #31 || HD IV || W Atlantic || Bycatch || Atlantic || - || No reported interactions rates 
[1]               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)..
[2]               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".
[3]               Driftnet roadmap  
[4]              Species
listed in Annex VIII of Council Regulation (EC) 1239/98: Albacore; Bluefin
tuna; Bigeye tuna; Skipjack; Atlantic Bonito; Yellowfin tuna; Blackfin tuna;
Little tunny; Southern  bluefin tuna; Frigate tuna; Oceanic sea breams;
Marlins; Sailfishes; Swordfishe; Sauries; Dolphinfishes; Sharks: Hexanchus
griseus; Cetorhinus maximus; Alopiidae; Carcharhinidae; Sphyrnidae; Isuridae;
Lamnidae; Cephalopods: all species 
[5]               International Forum for sustainable underwater
activities, Finnish Association for Nature Conservation Fish4Tomorrow, MEER eV's,
WWF, Oceancare,  Archipelagos Institute of marine conservation,  BlackFish
Foundation, DeepWave, Lega Ambiente, Soc. Dolphin Conservation, Lega
Antivivisezione, MEDASSET, PONG-Pesca, 
[6]               Greenpeace, Seas at Risk, NatuurPunt, Ecologistas en
Accion, MareVivo, PEW Environment Group
[7]               Oceana, Slow Food and Birdlife International
[8]               25 March, 14 June, 17 July 
[9]               MAREA-Specific contract 8 (SI2.646130).
"Identification and characterization of the small scale driftnet fisheries
in the Mediterranean (DriftMed). 
   Specific contract 5
(SI2.650655). "Study in support of the review of the EU regime on the
small-scale driftnet fisheries". 
[10]             http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/documentation/studies/index_en.htm
[11]             97/292/EC : Council Decision of
28 April 1997 on a specific measure to encourage Italian fishermen to diversify
out of certain fishing activities 
    1999/27/EC: Council Decision of 17
December 1998 on a specific measure to encourage diversification out of certain
fishing activities and amending Decision 97/292/EC  
[12]             Against
France (C-556/07 and C-479/07) and Italy (C-249/08) for the lack of effective
control and enforcement of the EU rules on the driftnets. 
[13]             Council
Regulation (EC) No 809/2007 of 28 June 2007 amending
Regulations (EC) No 894/97, (EC) No 812/2004 and (EC) No 2187/2005 as concerns
drift nets.
[14]             Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the
conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (HABITATS
Directive);  
 Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds (BIRDS Directive); this Directive has repealed the Directive
79/409/EEC,
 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)
[15]             United Nations General Assembly Resolutions:  44/225
of 22 December 1989;  45/197
of  21 December 1990; 46/215
of 20 December 1991
[16]             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); Wellington, 24 November
1989) which entered into force on the 17th May 1991.   http://www.mfe.govt.nz/laws/meas/wellington.html;
http://www.jus.uio.no/english/
services/library/treaties/08/8-02/large-driftnets.xml. 
[17]             A) Council Regulation (EEC)
No 345/92  of 27 January 1992 amending
for the eleventh time Regulation (EEC) No 3094/86 laying down certain technical
measures for the conservation of fishery resources.
   
B) Council Regulation (EC)  No
894/97 of 29 April 1997 laying down certain technical measures for the conservation
of fishery resources
[18]             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.
[19]             The highly migratory species listed in the Annex I to
the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea were the  reference coupled
with other species (e.g. Atlantic bonito) or group of species (e.g.
cephalopods) with a view to avoid circumvention of the law. All these species
constitute the Annex VIII of Council Regulation (EC) No 847/97 as amended by
Council Regulation (EC) No 1239/98.
[20]             97/292/EC  
: Council Decision of 28 April 1997 on a specific measure to encourage Italian
fishermen to diversify out of certain fishing activities and   1999/27/EC:
Council Decision of 17 December 1998 on a specific measure to encourage
diversification out of certain fishing activities and amending Decision
97/292/EC . OJ L 121, 13.5.1997, 
[21]             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. Provisions
included in this Regulation were based on the previous Council Regulation (EC)
No 812/2004 of 26.4.2004 laying down measures concerning incidental catches of
cetaceans in fisheries and amending Regulation (EC) No 88/98.
[22]             COM/2009/0368; Communication from the Commission to the
European Parliament and the Council - Cetacean incidental catches in Fisheries:
report on the implementation of certain provisions of Council Regulation (EC)
No 812/2004 and on a scientific assessment of the effects of using in
particular gillnets, trammel nets and entangling nets on cetaceans in the
Baltic Sea as requested through Council Regulation (EC) No 2187/2005;
16/07/2009.
[23]             COM(2011) 578 final of  21.9.2011 Communication from
the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the implementation
of certain provisions of Council Regulation (EC) No 812/2004 laying down
measures concerning incidental catches of cetaceans in fisheries and amending
Regulation (EC) No 88/98 
[24]             Council
Regulation (EC) No
894/97 of 29 April 1997 laying down certain technical measures for the
conservation of fishery resources
[25]             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
[26]             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.
[27]             Council
Regulation (EC) No 1967/2006
of 21 December 2006 concerning management measures for the sustainable
exploitation of fishery resources in the Mediterranean Sea, amending Regulation
(EEC) No 2847/93 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1626/94
[28]             REC.CM-GFCM/22/1997/1 Limitation of the use of
driftnets in the Mediterranean; GFCM/2005/3 (A); ICCAT REC. [03-04] relating to
Mediterranean swordfish
[29]             ACCOBAMS:
Agreements on the Conservation of Cetaceans of the Black Sea, Mediterranean Sea
and Contiguous Atlantic Area
[30]             Arrêté
du 11 juillet 2011 relatif à l'interdiction de pêche à l'aide de filets
maillants dérivants; JORF n° 0169 du 23 juillet 2011; texte n° 37.
[31]             Ministerial Decree 1st  July 2011 and
Ministerial Decree 21st  September 2011
[32]             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.
[33]             Commission Decision No C(2013)8635 of 6 December 2013
(restricted so far)
[34]             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
[35]            fishing
authorisation’ means a fishing authorisation issued in respect of a Community
fishing vessel in addition to its fishing licence, entitling it to carry out
specific fishing activities during a specified period, in a given area or for a
given fishery under specific conditions;
[36]             Council Regulation (EC) No
2187/2005  of 21 December 2005
[37]             Commission decision of 18 December 2009 (C(2009)10121)
[38]             Appendix 4.10: UK case study Report, Section 1.1
[39]             Appendix
4.5: Italy case study Report, Section 1.1
[40]             Appendix
4.3: France Case Study Report, section 3.1.1.5
[41]             Appendix
4.10: UK Case Study
[42]             Appendix 4.7: Portugal Case Study Report, Section 3.1.2.1
[43]             Appendix 4.5: Italy case study Report, Section 2.1.2
[44]             Appendix 4.3: France case study Report, Section 3.1.2.1
and Appendix 4.10: UK case study Report, Section 2.3.1.3
[45]          http://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu/reports/economic
[46]             Appendix 4.5: Italy case study Report, Section 2.1.2
[47]             Appendix 4.5: Italy case study Report, Section 2.1.2
[48]             Member States may take, under specific conditions,
non-discriminatory measures for the conservation and management of fisheries
resources and to minimise the effect of fishing on the conservation of marine
eco-systems within 12 nautical miles of its baselines provided that the EU has
not adopted measures addressing conservation and management specifically for
this area. Furthermore, Member States may take measures for the conservation
and management of stocks in waters under its sovereignty or jurisdiction
provided that they apply solely to fishing vessels flying its flag and are no
less stringent than existing EU legislation. In both cases, the Member State
measures shall be compatible with the CFP objectives.
[49]             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.
[50]             Benke, H., Bräger, S., Dähne, M., Gallus, A., Hansen,
S., Honnef, C.G., Jabbusch, M., Koblitz, J.C., Krügel, K., Liebschner, A.,
Narberhaus, I., and U.K. Verfuß. 2014. Baltic Sea harbour porpoise populations:
status and conservation needs derived from recent survey results. Mar Ecol Prog
Ser 495: 275-290
[51]             Koschinski, S. 2001. Current knowledge on harbour
porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) in the Baltic Sea. Ophelia, 55(3), 167-197
[52]             ASCOBANS 2001 ASCOBANS Recovery Plan for Baltic Harbour
Porpoises (Jastarnia Plan). Available at www.bfn.de/fileadmin/MDB/documents/themen/artenschutz/pdf/Jastarnia_Plan.pdf

[53]             ASCOBANS 2009 ASCOBANS Recovery Plan for Baltic Harbour
Porpoises-Jastarnia Plan (2009 Revision). Available at http://www.ascobans.org/pdf/mops/docs/MOP6_7-01_RevisionJastarniaPlan.pdf

[54]             Northridge,
SP, Coram, AJ & Kingston, AR 2012, The susceptibility of sensitive species
through analysis of their distribution and the overlap with relevant fishing
effort distribution: SMRU Contribution to the DefineIt Final Report . DEFRA.
[55]             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.
[56]          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.
[57]             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.
[58]             http://ec.europa.eu/maritimeaffairs/policy/index_en.htm 
[59]             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)
[60]             Council
Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural
habitats and of wild fauna and flora
[61]             Consolidated version of the amended proposal for a Regulation
of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Maritime and
Fisheries Fund. Council 6152/14 ADD1Rev1 of 10 February 2014
[62]             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.
[63]             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.
[64]             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.
[65]          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.
[66]             United Nations General Assembly Resolutions:   44/225
of 22 December 1989
,   45/197 of  21 December 1990;    46/215 of 20 December 1991
[67]             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);
Wellington, 24 November 1989) which entered into force on the 17th May 1991.   http://www.mfe.govt.nz/laws/meas/wellington.html;   http://www.jus.uio.no/english/services/library/treaties/08/8-02/large-driftnets.xml
[68]             A) Council Regulation (EEC) No 345/92  of 27 January 1992 amending for the eleventh time
Regulation (EEC) No 3094/86 laying down certain technical measures for the
conservation of fishery resources.
    B)
Council Regulation (EC)  No 894/97 of 29 April 1997 laying down certain technical
measures for the conservation of fishery resources
[69]             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.
[70]             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. Provisions included in this Regulation were based on the previous
Council Regulation (EC) No 812/2004 of 26.4.2004 laying down measures
concerning incidental catches of cetaceans in fisheries and amending Regulation
(EC) No 88/98.
[71]             Consolidated version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union  
[72]             Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the conservation and
sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries
Policy;
Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council
on the common fisheries policy (New Regulation following the reform of the CFP)
[73]             NGOs have been assigned to their place of location.
[74]             Allis shad, Anchovy, Barracudas,  Bogue,
Garfishes-needlefishes , Greater amberjack, Grey mullets, Mackerels, Picarels,
River lamprey, Round sardinella, Saddled bream, Salmon, Sandsmelts, Sardine,
Sargo breams, Saupe, Scads- jack and horse mackerels, Striped sea bream.
[75]             French Outermost territories: driftnet fisheries in
French Guiana
[76]             HD refers to Habitats Directive and BD refers to Bird
Directive. Accompanying numbers refer to the annex of the relevant directive
the species are listed on. 
[77]             Appendix 4.8: Romania Case Study 
[78]             Extraction rate estimated for surveyed subarea of the
Baltic from ASCOBANS 2009. Recovery Plan for the Baltic Harbour Porpoises
(Jastarnia Plan). ASCOBANS, Bonn
[79]             This figure is based on the assumption that there could
be more than four thousand porpoises in Subdivision 24 in the western Baltic.
This was derived from the SCANS II survey that covered this area as part of the
whole of the Belt Seas. In reality porpoise densities are probably lower in
Subdivision 24 than in other parts of this survey block, so this number
represents a likely overestimate of the 1.7% limit for the wider Baltic.  
[80]             Bycatch rates of harbour porpoise in polish waters
2000-2009(K. Skóra & I. Pawliczka, unpubl. data).
[81]             ICES. 2011. Report of the ICES Advisory Committee,
2011. ICES Advice, 2011. Book 1, 31 pp
[82]             SMRU, pers. comm, 2014
[83]             Birkun, A., Krivokhizhin, S., Masberg, I., &
Radygin, G. 2009. Cetacean by-catches in the course of turbot and spiny dogfish
fisheries in the Northwestern Black Sea. In 23rd Annual Conference of the
European Cetacean Society Istanbul, Turkey.
[84]             Tudela, S., Kai Kai, A.,
Maynou, F., El Andalossi, M., & Guglielmi, P. 2005. Driftnet fishing and
biodiversity conservation: the case study of the large-scale Moroccan driftnet
fleet operating in the Alboran Sea (SW Mediterranean).Biological
Conservation, 121(1), 65-78.
[85]             Akyol, O., Erdem, M., Ünal, V., & Ceyhan, T.
(2009). Investigations on drift-net fishery for swordfish (Xiphias gladius L.)
in the Aegean Sea. Turkish Journal of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, 29(6),
1225-1231.
[86]             ICES. 2010. Report of the ICES Advisory Committee,
2010. ICES Advice, 2010. Book 1, 47pp
[87]          http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/marine/Licensing/SealLicensing
[88]          Northridge, S., Coram, A., and
Kingston, A. 2012. The susceptibility of sensitive species through analysis
of their distribution and the overlap with relevant fishing effort
distribution. Contribution to the DefineIt Final Report: Task 3.2.2:
by Sea Mammal Research Unit, St Andrews, UK. 
http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Document.aspx?Document=10254_MF1206parttwo.pdf
[89]             MRAG Ltd. Poseidon, Lamans (2011) Contribution to the
preparation of a Plan of Action for Seabirds. Final Report to EC DG-MARE,
Framework Contract No FISH/2006/09 - Lot 2 (SI2.571135) 290 pp. June 2011
http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/documentation/studies/seabirds_2011_en.pdf