COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying the document Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a multiannual plan for the stocks of cod, herring and sprat in the Baltic Sea and the fisheries exploiting those stocks, amending Council Regulation (EC) No 2187/2005 and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1098/2007
Date: 2014-10-06
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Baltic Sea, authorised catch, catch by species, conservation of fish stocks, fishing area, fishing controls, sea fish, sea fishing













EUR-Lex - 52014SC0290 - EN











|



52014SC0290

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying the document Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a multiannual plan for the stocks of cod, herring and sprat in the Baltic Sea and the fisheries exploiting those stocks, amending Council Regulation (EC) No 2187/2005 and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1098/2007 /* SWD/2014/0290 final */









COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Accompanying the document
Proposal for a Regulation of the
European Parliament and of the Council establishing a multiannual plan for the
stocks of cod, herring and sprat in the Baltic Sea and the fisheries exploiting
those stocks, amending Council Regulation (EC) No 2187/2005 and repealing
Council Regulation (EC) No 1098/2007
This document comprises a report of an
impact assessment for a proposal for a multi-annual management plan covering
stocks of cod, herring and sprat in the Baltic Sea. Multi-annual management
plans have shown to be very valuable for the sustainable management of fishery
resources. By establishing rules for the exploitation of the stocks and
associated measures as needed for the management of a fishery with regard to a
specified target, they provide stability and predictability while ensuring that
fish stocks are exploited within the agreed limits.
Fisheries management for European fish
stocks is based on the precautionary approach and on the principle of Maximum
Sustainable yield (MSY). The precautionary approach is intended to ensure that
each fish stock is kept above a minimum stock sizes, known as a precautionary
biomass. If the stock falls below this level there is an increased risk that
the stock's ability to reproduce itself will be affected. Under the
precautionary approach, management can be considered to be about keeping the
stock away from where we don't want it to be. In contrast, the MSY approach is
more about defining where we do want the stock to be and managing accordingly.
In the EU, MSY is normally defined in terms of the proportion of fish removed
by fishing, which is known as fishing mortality or F. By keeping fishing
mortality close to a target value (often known as F-MSY) it is possible to
ensure that the overall average catch taken from the stock is close to the
maximum that is possible without doing any harm to the stock. This is known as
Maximum Sustainable Yield.
The main fisheries in the Baltic are for
cod, herring and sprat. Cod in the Eastern Baltic and Western Baltic are
considered to be separate stocks. There are a number of different herring
stocks in the Baltic, with the main stock being found in the sea's eastern
basin. There are smaller stocks in the Bothnian Sea, the Gulf of Riga and the Western Baltic. The latter stock spawns in the western Baltic, and then migrates
into the Skagerrak and the Eastern North Sea in order to feed. There is one
stock of sprat in the Baltic. Of the seven Baltic stocks considered here, only three
herring stocks: Central Baltic, Gulf of Riga and Bothnian Sea are currently
exploited at levels consistent with MSY. 
Currently the cod stocks are subject to
long term management plan which does not address anymore the reality of the
status of the stocks. The targets established in the plan are not coherent with
the MSY approach. The plan introduced a parallel system of stock management by
limiting the fishing effort which scientists lately concluded as unnecessary.
The main management tool for pelagic stocks is a yearly catch limits
established by the Council. The TACs and quotas are based on yearly political
agreements in the Council and there can be large fluctuations from year to
year. This makes it very difficult to ensure that fishing mortality will be
consistent with MSY by 2015. The unpredictability in the level of future
fishing opportunities makes it difficult for the industry to plan ahead,
risking additional adaptation costs. Too high or exceeded TACs have contributed
to fishing mortality remaining above target values, leading to reduced yields
and income.
To address this problem, three policy
options are considered here. They are the existing management regime, and two
candidate approaches to establishing management plans. The differences between
the approaches involve the main stocks where there are biological interactions,
i.e. the Eastern cod stocks, the sprat stock and the central Baltic herring
stock. The differences involve the target fishing mortalities used for these
stocks; approach A involves relatively low fishing mortalities, close to
existing single species values, while approach B involves slightly higher
fishing mortalities, which can be considered as more consistent with a
multi-species approach. In both cases, options 2 and 3 should be considered as
broad approaches to management plans, rather than specific plans in themselves;
further scientific work and consultation will be required in order to establish
details of any resulting management plans. 
There are clear advantages to bringing all
of the relevant stocks into a management plan through the stability and
predictability it would bring to catches, the increased probability of
achieving the international obligation to achieve MSY by 2015, and the added
value that a management plan can provide. For this reason options 2 and 3 are
favoured over option 1. 
The international obligation of the EU to
ensure sustainable fisheries at MSY level by 2015 for the stocks concerned is
to achieve environmental benefits. The probable reduction in the overall amount
of fishing, which would also imply a reduction in emissions from vessel
engines.
Bringing the herring and sprat stocks under
a management plan would provide a systematic basis for setting annual TACs in a
way which would provide the pelagic sector with predictability of catches which
would help support business planning and stability of supply. It would also add
value, as management plans are usually a prerequisite for a fishery to obtain certification
from, for example, the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC). Fish caught in such
certified fisheries can then attract a higher price in the market. 
Lowering fishing opportunities might
result, in the short term, in slight profit reduction for the fishermen,
processing industry, and it might negatively affect the consumers, but
restoring the status of stocks will ensure long-term benefits in terms of
profit and sustainable fishery. Furthermore, the temporary reduction of quotas
normally results in increasing the price for that stock. 
The abolishment of fishing effort system
and of requirement of single area fishing will simplify the legislative
environment and reduce administrative burden on MS and industry.
In terms of the two management plan options,
Option 2 (Management plan approach A, with lower target fishing mortalities for
some stocks) is preferred over Option 3 (Management plan approach B, with
higher target fishing mortalities for some stocks). While the differences in
the impacts of the two options are relatively small, there is an increased risk
of adverse environmental impacts with option 3. Moreover, STECF have advised
that while the target fishing mortality values used in Option 2 are
sufficiently robust for use in a management plan, but for any higher values
(such as those used in option 3), further work is required in order to evaluate
the associated risks. In effect, Option 2 represents a set of single species
management plans, whereas Option 3 would represent a step towards a multi-species
management plan. At this point, the science to support that step is not yet
available, although scientists have indicated that this could be resolved in
the near future. 
Disclaimer:
This executive summary commits only the Commission's services involved in its
preparation and does not prejudge the final form of any decision to be taken by
the Commission.