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 on the sustainable management of external fishing fleets, repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1006/2008
Date: 2015-12-10
Institutions: Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, EU waters, exchange of information, fishery management, fishing industry, fishing permit, fishing vessel, international waters, ship's flag, third country

EN 

   EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 10.12.2015  SWD(2015) 276 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 on the sustainable management of external fishing fleets, repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1006/2008 {COM(2015) 636 final} {SWD(2015) 279 final}  
 
 
Executive Summary Sheet 

Impact assessment on the possible revision of the Council Regulation (EC) No 1006/2008, concerning authorisations for 
fishing activities of Community fishing vessels outside Community waters and the access of third country vessels to 
Community waters 

Why? What is the problem being addressed? Maximum 11 lines 

A. Need for action  

The current Fishing Authorisations Regulation does not allow for efficient and transparent monitoring of the EU external 
fleet. This situation represents a threat to the sustainable exploitation of fishing resources and could affect the reputation of 
the European Union at international level. 

More  specifically,  many  provisions  of  the  current  Regulation  lack  clarity  and  are  not  consistent  with  other  rules,  in 
particular those related to control and to the fight against illegal, unreported and unregulated fisheries (IUU). There are also 
overlaps  between  different  levels  of  administration  leading  to  inconsistencies  and  cumbersome  processes.  In  the  case  of 
direct  authorisations  granted  by  third  countries  to  EU  vessels,  outside  the  scope  of  a  Sustainable  Fisheries  Partnership 
Agreement (around 150 to 180 per year), there is no authorisation framework and criteria in place with the effect that the 
EU the activity of the EU external fleet remains to a large extent non-transparent. Finally the issues of abusive reflagging 
and chartering are not addressed.  

What is this initiative expected to achieve? Maximum 8 lines 

The main purpose of the proposal is to put in place a consistent regulatory framework to allow the Union to better monitor 
its external fleet - a few hundred vessels - wherever it operates and whatever the framework under which it does so. In this 
context, the objective is twofold:  

(1)  to  clarify  and  simplify  the  current  regulatory  framework  by  removing  inconsistencies  and  legal  uncertainties  and  by 
clarifying the distribution of tasks between the Commission and national administrations;  

(2)  to  introduce  eligibility  criteria  and  authorisation  processes  for  any  situation  where  a  Union  vessel  is  fishing  outside 
Union  waters,  including  for  direct  authorisations  ("private  licences")  and  to  introduce  measures  to  prevent  abusive 
reflagging operations. 

What is the value added of action at the EU level? Maximum 7 lines  

Fisheries  policy  is  an  exclusive  EU  competence  and  the  subsidiarity  principle  does  not  apply  regarding  measures  which 
contribute to the conservation of marine biological resources. In addition, a Regulation would ensure uniform application of 
the rules throughout the European Union. Added value would also result from the introduction of clear rules applicable to 
all  vessels  registered  in  one  of  the  EU  Member  States,  thus  creating  a  level  playing  field  for  the  entire  EU  fleet,  active 
outside EU waters. 

B. Solutions 

What  legislative  and  non-legislative  policy  options  have  been  considered?  Is  there  a  preferred 
choice or not? Why? Maximum 14 lines  

A total of four options have been considered in the Impact Assessment: 
Option 1: A limited amendment to the current Regulation so as to ensure alignment with the Lisbon Treaty provisions. 
Option 2: In addition to option 1, guidelines could be elaborated by the Commission so as to provide interpretation to the 
current FAR provisions which are not clear or precise enough.  

Option  3:  A  limited  amendment  of  the  current  Regulation  to  address  shortcomings,  uncertainties  and  gaps  of  the  current 
legislation, therefore achieving the objective of providing unambiguous provisions to Member States and private operators.   
Option 4: A new Regulation with an enlarged scope would be adopted. It would include eligibility criteria to be associated 
with  the  submission  of  direct  authorisations  and  regulate  chartering.  It  would  also  include  provisions  so  as  to  prevent 
abusive cases of reflagging. 

The  option  4  would  combine  legal  certainty  with  enlarged  scope  thus  leading  to  a  complete  framework  regulating  the 
activity of the EU external fleet worldwide. For that reason, it is been considered as the most effective one, able to achieve 
policy objectives, contributing to the international credibility of the Union and providing long-term benefits for the EU fleet.  

Who supports which option? Maximum 7 lines  

2 

 
                                                                    
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Options  1  and  2  are  not  supported  by  any  significant  group  of  stakeholders,  with  the  exception  of  some  fisheries 
associations active in the non-tuna segment which are considering the current framework as satisfactory. Option 3 would 
only meet partly stakeholders' expectations which are in favour, in their majority, of a fully-fledged revision of the fishing 
authorisation  Regulation.  Option  4  can  therefore  be  considered  as  the  one  getting  the  largest  support,  including  from  the 
Member States having a large external fleet such as Spain, France, Portugal, Poland and the Netherlands, most ship-owner 
associations and several NGOs active in the conservation of natural resources. 

What are the benefits of the preferred option (if any, otherwise main ones)? Maximum 12 lines                                       

C. Impacts of the preferred option 

In  the  preferred  option  (option  4),  economic  impact  is  assessed  as  positive  considering  the  benefits  of  increased  legal 
certainty for both the economic operators and public administrations.  

Rules  would  become  clearer  and  more  comprehensive  and  the  whole  process  should  be  simplified  as  the  role  of  each 
administration would be clearly defined, thus eliminating overlaps and streamlining the process of authorisation of fishing 
activities. Environmental benefits linked to the protection of living marine would  be optimal as stricter monitoring of the 
EU fleet outside EU waters will contribute to improve fisheries governance and to ensure enhanced sustainability of fishing 
resources. It would supplement positive economic impact for the operators referred to above.  

A more precise quantification of the benefits expected is however not possible because of insufficient data currently existing 
on the EU external fleet and on the cost of managing fishing fleet in national administrations. Finally, the social impact of 
this option can be considered as neutral.  

What are the costs of the preferred option (if any, otherwise main ones)? Maximum 12 lines                                       

In the preferred option (option 4), the treatment of fishing authorisations for all types of fishing activities outside EU waters 
(implying  an  additional  number  of  fishing  authorisations)  together  with  the  application  of  more  comprehensive  criteria 
might imply  additional  workload  in national and  European  administrations.  However experience with  the  Member  States 
where this system already exists indicates that it can be done with constant levels of human and financial resources, thus 
with  no  additional  costs.  In  addition,  the  possibility  to  use  improved  and  standardised  IT  tools  should  facilitate  the 
accomplishment of these additional tasks and simplify the process.  

As  for  economic  operators  they  would  have  to  provide  more  comprehensive  information  when  requesting  a  fishing 
authorisation,  but  on  the  basis  of  information  that  they  already  have  in  their  possession  and  through  clarified  and 
standardised  procedures,  thus  mitigating  any  possible  additional  burden.  Finally  this option  entails  no  negative  impact  in 
social or environment terms and also has no impact in terms of competitiveness of EU operators or international trade. 

How will businesses, SMEs and micro-enterprises be affected? Maximum 8 lines 

Most of the fleet concerned is made of industrial fishing vessels fishing outside EU waters. Ship-owners of these vessels 
usually own a fleet made up of several entities and normally would not fall under the SME definition criteria. Considering 
also the absence of cost for private operators, no specific measures for this category of economic entities is foreseen.  

Will there be significant impacts on national budgets and administrations? Maximum 4 lines 

There would be no significant impact on national budgets and administrations, only a minor impact for the administration in 
charge  of  fisheries,  mostly  of  organisational  nature.  However,  a  limited  IT  management  cost  for  the  Commission  can  be 
foreseen. 

Will there be other significant impacts? Max 6 lines  

The only other significant impact would be on third countries granting fishing licences to EU vessels. This impact shall be 
positive as an improved framework for the management of the EU external fleet may result in additional benefits for them 
(better management of fisheries resources, increased transparency, and fight against corruption). By improving control on 
Union  vessels,  the  proposed  Regulation  will  also  contribute  to  creating  a  benchmark  at  international  level  regarding 
management and control of external fleets, and therefore participate to better global fisheries governance. 

D. Follow up 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
When will the policy be reviewed? Maximum 4 lines  

The Commission envisages setting up a group of experts from national administrations to monitor the implementation of the 
Regulation. Furthermore an evaluation shall take place 5 years following its entry into force.  

4