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 conservation of fishery resources and the protection of marine ecosystems through technical measures, amending Council Regulations (EC) No 1967/2006, (EC) No 1098/2007, (EC) No 1224/2009 and Regulations (EU) No 1343/2011 and (EU) No 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Council Regulations (EC) No 894/97, (EC) No 850/98, (EC) No 2549/2000, (EC) No 254/2002, (EC) No 812/2004 and (EC) No 2187/2005
Date: 2016-03-11
Institutions: Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, European Commission
Subjects: catch quota, common fisheries policy, conservation of fish stocks, fishery resources, fishing area, fishing regulations, marine ecosystem, protection of animal life, sea fishing

EN 

   EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 11.3.2016  SWD(2016) 56 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 conservation of fishery resources and the protection of marine ecosystems through technical measures, amending Council Regulations (EC) No 1967/2006, (EC) No 1098/2007, (EC) No 1224/2009 and Regulations (EU) No 1343/2011 and (EU) No 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Council Regulations (EC) No 894/97, (EC) No 850/98, (EC) No 2549/2000, (EC) No 254/2002, (EC) No 812/2004 and (EC) No 2187/2005 {COM(2016) 134 final} {SWD(2016) 57 final}  
 
 
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 

 
 
 
Executive Summary Sheet 

Impact  assessment  on  a  proposal  for  a  regulation  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  for  the 
conservation of fishery resources and for the protection of marine organisms through technical measures   

A. Need for action 

Why? What is the problem being addressed? 
The current technical measures regime (31 regulations) is no longer fit for achieving the sustainability objectives 
of the new CFP. Specifically the current measures are: 

  based on negative, mostly coercive incentives in a top-down governance system creating mistrust 

amongst stakeholders as measures are seen as inequitable, leading to non-compliance; 
 impossible to measure their impact on the achievement of the conservation objectives of the CFP; 

 
  numerous and overly complex making compliance and control more difficult;  
  controlling too many aspects of fishing operations undermining the sector's confidence in the measures; 
  providing little incentive to fish selectively where there is no cost to discarding, or of catching vulnerable 

species or impacting adversely on the seabed; and 

  sub-optimal in respect of achieving broader environmental and ecological policy objectives 

The catching sector (around 82,000 vessels, employing 98,500 FTE) is most affected.  
What is this initiative expected to achieve? 
This initiative aims to: 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

Optimise  the  contribution  of  technical  measures  to  achieving  the  key  objectives  of  the  new  CFP  that 
came into force on 1 January 2014. 
Create  the  flexibility  required  to  adjust  technical  measures  by  facilitating  regionalised  approaches 
(consistent with the objectives in EU law). 
Simplify  the  current  rules  in  line  with  Commission's  REFIT  programme.  The  current  rules  are  overly 
complex  and  difficult  to  enforce,  and  simplification  will  lead  to  reductions  in  administrative  costs  and 
burden.  It  also  addresses  the  need  for  simplification  of  technical  measures  outlined  in  an  earlier 
Commission Communication on the implementation of the CFP.  

What is the value added of action at the EU level?  
Provisions  on  conservation  of  marine  biological  resources  falls  under  the  exclusive  competence  of  the  EU 
according to Article 3(1d) of the Treaty on  the Functioning  of the European Union). Therefore, the subsidiarity 
principle  does  not  apply  for  those  provisions.  However,  at  the  heart  of  this  proposal  is  the  concept  of 
regionalisation whereby MS should cooperate regionally to develop and implement conservation measures. 

B. Solutions 

What  legislative  and  non-legislative  policy  options  have  been  considered?  Is  there  a  preferred 
choice or not? Why? 
The baseline scenario maintains the existing set of 31 Regulations. 

Option 1: Consolidation – A new regulation with a limited scope which would bring together and consolidate in 
one  Regulation  for  common  rules  with  regionally  specific  rules  remaining  in  the  existing  regulations. 
Regionalisation would happen if and where Member States submit joint recommendations for multiannual plans. 

Option  2:  Framework  –  A  framework  regulation  containing  general  provisions  and  corresponding  standards; 
common  rules  and  technical  provisions;  and  baseline  standards  by  region  corresponding  to  identified  results 
which would function as a default measures in the context of regionalisation. The baselines and default technical 
measures  that  correspond  to  the  objectives  would  be  applicable  unless  and  until  regionalised  measures  are 
designed and introduced into Union law. A sub-option (2.1) is a framework regulation without defined baselines. 

Option 3: Elimination of existing  rules  – Repeal  of the majority of the existing regulations (except for essential 
nature  conservation  measures).  Any  necessary  technical  measures  in  the  longer  term  would  be  developed 
regionally under multiannual plans. This option assumes that the landing obligation is a result-driven measure in 
itself and will lead to clean fisheries. 

Option 2 best meets the objectives set and provides a level of security that conservation objectives will continue 
to be met while regionalisation develops. 

1 

 
Who supports which option?  
Retaining the baseline scenario was not considered an acceptable option by any of the stakeholders 

Option 1 received very little support from any of the key stakeholders. 

Option 2 was supported by some of the catching sector, Member States and NGOs. They were divergent views 
in  the  content  of  the  framework  amongst  stakeholders.  The  catching  sector  argued  for  a  framework  without 
baselines (sub-option 2.1) but Member States, NGOs and some of the Advisory Councils argued against this. 

Option 3 was favoured by certain sections of the catching sector but was rejected by Member States, NGOs and 
other parts of the catching sector who considered it a high-risk strategy. 

C. Impacts of the preferred option 

What are the benefits of the preferred option (if any, otherwise main ones)? 
The economic impacts would be positive as the framework approach would drive regionalisation, contributing to 
the  delivery  of  MSY  for  all  stocks,  reductions  in  unwanted  catches  and  good  environmental  status  under  the 
Marine Strategy Framework Directive. This would lead to increased fishing opportunities and increase revenues 
from landing bigger more valuable fish (estimated at 10-40%). This would steadily improve over time. 

Employment  levels  should  stabilise  quickly  under  this  option  and  there  is  potential  for  increased  employment. 
Once MSY levels are achieved, fishing opportunities will increase (by at least 20% by 2020). Such a significant 
increase  has  a  potential  to  create  new  jobs  in  the  catching  sector.  Fishing  on  sustainable  stocks  would  also 
increase  income  and  wages  and  therefore  job  attractiveness.  Average  wages  will  nearly  double  as  a  result  of 
fishing sustainably. 

Environmental  impacts  would  be  positive.  The  framework  would  manage  the  transition  to  regionalisation  and 
ensure that the environmental sustainability objectives of the CFP are not jeopardised. In the longer-term there 
would be positive benefits to fish stocks and better protection for sensitive species and habitats. 

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

There will be some costs associated with the move to regionalisation for Member States and the Advisory 
Councils as key stakeholders as described below. Any other costs would be eligible for financing under the 
European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF).  

How will businesses, SMEs and micro-enterprises be affected? 
Administrative costs and burden would be reduced in that there would be immediate simplification of the current 
regulations  and  a  greater  role  for  the  catching  sector  through  the  Advisory  Councils  in  the  development  of 
technical  measures.  In  addition  the  potential  move  to  a results-based system in  the  longer-term would  lead  to 
further simplification of the technical rules albeit implies a shift in the burden of proof onto the catching sector. 

Will there be significant impacts on national budgets and administrations? 
The  move  to  regionalisation  will  lead  to  increased  costs  for  national  administrations  (estimated  at  €80,000-
120,000)  for  the  development  of  a  single  multiannual  plan.  Not  all  of  these  costs  are  directly  associated  with 
technical  measures  which  form  only  part  of  such  plans.  These  costs  would  be  largely  front-loaded  during  the 
development of these plans. In the short-term costs for control will reduce as a result of simplification although 
there  will  be  some  extra  costs  for  implementation  of  the  landing  obligation.  In  the  longer-term  control  costs 
should diminish considerably particularly if regions move towards results-based management where the need for 
enforcing prescriptive rules at sea diminishes. Currently costs for enforcing technical measures at sea are very 
high. 

Will there be other significant impacts? 
The approach simplifies the structure: One regulation will replace 6 Regulations, partially replace 3 Regulations 
and repeal 10 Commission Regulations. It provides a direct route to regionalisation in line with the CFP. 

D. Follow up 

When will the policy be reviewed?  
An ex-post evaluation should be carried out before 2020 when the landing obligation should be fully operational, 
MSY achieved for all stocks and Good Environmental Status achieved for marine ecosystems. This evaluation 
would directly feed into the retrospective evaluation of the CFP scheduled to begin in 2022. 

2