COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying the document PROPOSAL FOR A REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL Establishing a multi-annual plan for small pelagic stocks in the Adriatic Sea and the fisheries exploiting those stocks
Date: 2017-02-24
Institutions: Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, European Commission
Subjects: Mediterranean Sea, authorised catch, catch area, catch by species, conservation of fish stocks, fishing controls, fishing rights, sea fishing, sustainable development

EN 

   EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 24.2.2017  SWD(2017) 64 final   COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  IMPACT ASSESSMENT  Accompanying the document PROPOSAL FOR A REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL   Establishing a multi-annual plan for small pelagic stocks in the Adriatic Sea and the fisheries exploiting those stocks   {COM(2017) 97 final} {SWD(2017) 63 final}  
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY SHEET ................................................................................... 5 

GLOSSARY ........................................................................................................................ 8 

LIST OF ACRONYMS ..................................................................................................... 10 

1. 

INTRODUCTION: POLITICAL AND LEGAL CONTEXT ................................... 12 

1.1.  Rationale  of  the  reformed  Common  Fisheries  Policy  and  its  main 

elements ........................................................................................................... 12 
1.2.  Scope of the initiative ...................................................................................... 13 
1.3.  Legal context ................................................................................................... 15 

2.  WHAT IS THE PROBLEM AND WHY IS IT A PROBLEM? ............................... 16 

2.1.  The Problem: Overfishing ............................................................................... 17 
2.1.1.  Underlying drivers of overfishing ..................................................... 18 
2.1.2.  Consequences of the overfishing of anchovy and sardine ................. 19 
2.2.  The Problem: Ineffective governance ............................................................. 21 
2.2.1.  Underlying drivers of ineffective governance ................................... 21 
2.2.2.  Consequences of ineffective governance .......................................... 23 
2.3.  The affected stakeholders ................................................................................ 24 
2.3.1.  Fishing sector ..................................................................................... 25 
2.3.2.  Processing sector ............................................................................... 25 
2.3.3.  Markets .............................................................................................. 26 
2.4.  Evolution of the problem ................................................................................. 26 
2.4.1.  Environmental impacts ...................................................................... 26 
2.4.2.  Socio-economic impacts .................................................................... 27 
2.5.  Retrospective evaluation of the existing policy framework ............................ 27 

3.  WHY SHOULD THE EU ACT? .............................................................................. 29 

4.  WHAT SHOULD BE ACHIEVED? ........................................................................ 29 

4.1.  General objectives ........................................................................................... 30 
4.2.  Specific objectives ........................................................................................... 30 

5.  WHAT  ARE  THE  VARIOUS  OPTIONS  TO  ACHIEVE  THE 

OBJECTIVES ........................................................................................................... 30 

5.1.  Discarded policy option ................................................................................... 30 
5.2.  Retained policy options ................................................................................... 31 
5.2.1. Option 1: No policy change - Status quo (Baseline option) ............................ 32 
5.2.2. Option 2: EU multi-annual plan ...................................................................... 33 
5.2.3. Option 3: Attempt to change the current framework ....................................... 37 

6.  WHAT  ARE  THE  IMPACTS  OF  THE  DIFFERENT  POLICY  OPTIONS 

AND WHO WILL BE AFFECTED? IMPACTS ..................................................... 39 

6.1.  Option 1: Status Quo (Baseline) ...................................................................... 40 
6.2.  Option 2: EU multi-annual plan (including sub-options) ................................ 42 

2 

 
Environmental impacts .................................................................................... 42 
Socio-economic impacts .................................................................................. 42 
Market effects .................................................................................................. 43 
6.3.  Option 3: Attempt to change current framework ............................................ 43 
Environmental impacts .................................................................................... 43 
Socio-economic impacts .................................................................................. 44 
Market effects .................................................................................................. 44 

7.  HOW DO THE OPTIONS COMPARE? .................................................................. 44 

7.1.  Assessment against the objectives: effectiveness ............................................ 44 
To achieve and maintain Maximum Sustainable Yield for anchovy and 

sardine by 2020 at the latest. ............................................................. 44 
To achieve a sustainable fisheries sector ......................................................... 44 
To provide an effective management framework which is simpler and 
more  stable  and  provides  stakeholders  with  greater 
ownership. ......................................................................................... 45 
7.2.  Assessment against the environmental, economic and social impacts ............ 47 
7.3.  Efficiency, coherence and acceptability .......................................................... 48 
7.4.  The preferred option ........................................................................................ 52 
7.5.  Limitations in the impact assessment .............................................................. 53 

8.  HOW  WOULD  ACTUAL 

IMPACTS  BE  MONITORED  AND 

EVALUATED? ......................................................................................................... 54 

8.1.  Monitoring ....................................................................................................... 54 
8.2.  Evaluation ........................................................................................................ 55 
8.3.  Compliance and control ................................................................................... 55 

ANNEX I: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION ................................................................. 57 

ANNEX II: STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION .......................................................... 62 

Experts' advice ................................................................................................. 62 
Consultation with stakeholders ........................................................................ 62 

ANNEX III: WHO IS AFFECTED BY THE INITIATIVE AND HOW ......................... 70 

ANNEX  IV:ANALYTICAL  MODELS  USED  IN  PREPARING  THE  IMPACT 

ASSESSMENT ......................................................................................................... 80 

ANNEX V: MAIN ELEMENTS OF THE COMMON FISHERIES POLICY .............. 115 

ANNEX VI: BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON THE FISHERY AND THE 

STATUS OF ANCHOVY AND SARDINE IN THE ADRIATIC ......................... 119 

ANNEX VII: IMPACTS OF THE DIFFERENT OPTIONS FORECAST UNTIL 

2021 ......................................................................................................................... 128 

ANNEX VIII: OVERVIEW OF FISHERIES MANAGEMENT ................................... 136 

ANNEX  IX:  MEASURES  UNDERTAKEN  OR  PLANNED  BY  CROATIA, 
ITALY AND SLOVENIA TO ADDRESS THE IMBALANCE BETWEEN 
THEIR FISHING CAPACITY AND THE AVAILABLE RESOURCES ............. 139 

3 

 
ANNEX  X:  DETAILED  INFORMATION  ON  DATA  COLLECTION  AND 
MONITORING  PROVISIONS  RELATING  TO  IMPLEMENTATION  OF 
THE COMMON FISHERIES POLICY .................................................................. 141 

ANNEX XI: OVERVIEW OF CURRENT MANAGAEMENT MEASURES AT 
INCLUDING 

NATIONAL,  EU  AND 
RETROSPECTIVE EVALUATION OF THESE MEASURES ............................ 143 

INTERNATIONAL  LEVEL 

TABLE  1  CLOSED  SEASONS  FOR  FISHING  SARDINE  AND  ANCHOVY 

UNDER GFCM AND IN THE THREE ADRIATIC MEMBER STATES ........... 153 

ANNEX  XII:  PAST  TRENDS  IN  SOCIO-ECONOMIC  PERFORMANCE  OF 

THE FISHING SECTOR FOR ANCHOVY AND SARDINE .............................. 156 

ANNEX  XIII:  COHERENCE  BETWEEN  DIFFERENT  EU  MULTI-ANNUAL 
PLANS  AND  OVERVIEW  OF  EU  MULTI-ANNUAL  PLAN  FOR 
BALTIC FISHERIES .............................................................................................. 158 

ANNEX  XIV:  OVERVIEW  OF  THE  PREFERRED  OPTION  –  MAIN 
ELEMENTS  OF  AN  EU  MULTI-ANNUAL  PLAN  FOR  SMALL 
PELAGICS AND THEIR FISHERIES IN THE ADRIATIC ................................. 160 

4 

 
 
 
 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY SHEET 

Impact  assessment  on  a  Proposal  for  a  Regulation  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council 
establishing a multi-annual plan for the small pelagic stocks and their fisheries in the Adriatic Sea. 

A. Need for action 

Why? What is the problem being addressed?  
There  are  two  main  problems  concerning  small  pelagic  fish  (anchovy  and  sardine)  in  the 
Adriatic:  1)  they  are  severely  overfished,  due  to  overcapacity  in  the  fleet,  environmental 
factors  (outside  the  scope),  and  inadequate  management  measures.  2)  The  governance 
framework is ineffective due to the inadequate management measures (limiting the effort that 
goes into the fishery, which is not adapted to the characteristics of these fish and the fishery) 
and the complexity and instability of the current rules. If nothing changes, there is a risk the 
stocks and the fisheries dependent on them will collapse, which will have negative impacts on 
predatory  fish  who  eat  anchovy  and  sardine,  and  negative  socio-economic  impacts  for  the 
fisheries  sector  and  secondary  sectors  such  as  the  processing  industry.  The  most  affected 
stakeholders are the Croatian and Italian fisheries sectors, and to a much smaller extent, those 
of Slovenia. The processing sector is the most important secondary sector, primarily in Croatia 
and Italy. 

What is this initiative expected to achieve 
The objectives, in order to deliver on the EU's Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), are as 

follows: 

-To achieve and maintain maximum sustainable yield for anchovy and sardine by 2020 at the 
latest; 
-To achieve a sustainable fisheries sector; 
-To provide an effective management framework which is simpler and more stable and 
provides stakeholders with greater ownership. 
It will also facilitate the implementation of the landing obligation. 
The initiative is expected to ensure recovery of anchovy and sardine by 2020 and to ensure the 
fisheries sector is sustainable, with improved salaries for fishermen (+4% on average), and 
increased profitability for the fishing sector (+8% on average). 
What is the value added of action at the EU level?  
Both  anchovy  and  sardine  stocks  and  the  fishing  vessels  concerned  move  freely  across 
international  boundaries  so  action  at  Member  State  level  alone  is  unlikely  to  be  effective  in 
achieving the objectives. For measures to be effective, these should be taken in a coordinated 
manner  and  made  applicable  to  the  whole  area  of  distribution  of  the  stock  and  to  all  fleets 
concerned. 

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

B. Solutions 

The policy options considered were: 

- 0. Using non-legislative instruments or "soft law" (discarded early on); 

5 

 
 
- 1. The status quo (Baseline scenario against which other options were compared); 

- 2. The development of an EU Regulation to manage anchovy and sardine, with the objective 
to have stocks sustainably fished by either 2018 or 2020 (two sub-options). Under Option 2, a 
new  management  mechanism  is  proposed,  focusing  on  the  output  of  the  fishery,  by  setting 
catch-limits.  This  approach  has  been  successfully  tested  in  other  EU  waters,  resulting  in 
improved stocks status. 

-  3.  Attempting  to  amend  the  current  management  framework  (national  and  international 
legislation), which could result in a best-case or a worst-case scenario. 

The  preferred  choice  is  sub-Option  2  with  the  2020  deadline  as  it  delivers  on  all  the 
objectives, unlike Options 1 and 3, and is more realistic and more acceptable to stakeholders 
than the sub-Option 2 with a 2018 deadline. 

Who supports which option?  

None of the consulted stakeholders have evoked soft law (Option 0) as a feasible option. Only 
one  stakeholder  (a  national  professional  organization)  responded  that  the  current  framework 
(Option  1)  is  sufficient.  All  respondents  except  Malta  felt  that  amending  the  current 
framework  would  not  be  sufficient  (Option  3).  The  Mediterranean  Advisory  Council 
(consisting of industry and civil-society representatives), NGOs, Public authorities, scientific 
institutes, and Croatia, Italy and Slovenia support Option 2, with a strong preference for the 
sub-option "2020".  

C. Impacts of the preferred option 

What are the benefits of the preferred option (if any, otherwise main ones)?  
The  key  environmental  benefit  would  be  that  anchovy  and  sardine,  after  years  of 
overexploitation,  would  be  fished  sustainably  by  2020  and  the  fishing  sector  would  be 
healthier  and  sustainable.  The  current  management  framework  would  also  be  simpler,  more 
stable and transparent and would provide greater ownership to Member States and fishermen 
as they could be involved in designing some of the management rules. The increase in sardine 
and anchovy is also likely to benefit larger and valuable predators such as blue-fin tuna. 

Concretely, by 2021, an EU multi-annual plan is likely to result in improved stock sizes (by 
around  20%  compared  to  the  status  quo)  and  better  working  conditions  for  fishermen  (an 
increase in salary of +/- 5% and in profitability of +/-10%. 

What are the costs of the preferred option (if any, otherwise main ones)?  
Concretely,  by  2021,  to  ensure  fishing  levels  can  be  sustained  in  the  long-term  and  that  the 
fishing  sector  is  sustainable  and  profitable,  catches  of  anchovy  and  sardine  would  need  to 
decrease (+/- 25-30%), which would result in a lower total revenue to the fishing sector (+/- 
25%)  and  a  decrease  in  employment  (+/-10%).  This  concerns  Croatia,  Italy  and  to  a  minor 
extent Slovenian fishermen fishing with purse seiners or pelagic trawlers. As catches decrease, 
prices at first sale are likely to increase could compensate to some extent the reduced revenues 
of the fishing sector due to a decline in catches, but would be negative for consumers and the 
processing sector (in particular in Croatia and Italy), which may need to increase their imports 
from other countries. 

How will businesses, SMEs and micro-enterprises be affected?  
The  CFP  is  a  policy  specifically  geared  to  deal  with  SMEs,  which  are  the  norm  within  the 
fishing sector, rather than the exception. In the Adriatic anchovy and sardine fishery, almost 

6 

 
all  fishing  firms  and  a  wide  majority  of  companies  in  the  processing  sector  are  micro-
enterprises  or  SMEs.  There  is  therefore  no  basis  to  exclude  them  from  the  scope  of  the 
initiative on the basis of their size or else the vast majority of the sector would be excluded 
rendering  the  initiative  pointless.  The  EU  multi-annual  plan  would  therefore  apply  to  all 
businesses  including  SMEs  and  micro-enterprises.  All  the  impacts  described  above  are 
therefore  likely  to  apply  to  all  enterprises,  to  a  varying  degree  depending  on  how  Member 
States will decide to allocate the necessary reductions in fishing to different fleet segments. 

Will there be significant impacts on national budgets and administrations?  

None  expected  –  relevant  monitoring  and  data  collection  already  takes  place  and  only 
frequency would need to increase. 

Will there be other significant impacts?  

Yes – the improved profitability of the fishing sector in the Adriatic will make the sector more 
competitive  and,  combined  with  improved  salaries,  will  make  the  sector  more  appealing 
(Section 6.2). 

When will the policy be reviewed?  

D. Follow up 

The  Commission  should  report  to  the  European  Parliament  and  to  the  Council  on  the 
implementation of the plan five years after the entry into force of the plan and every five years 
thereafter. 

7 

 
 
 
 
GLOSSARY 

Biomass 

Blim 

Days at sea 

Demersal 

Discard plan 

Discards 

Biomass refers to the size of the stock in unit of weight. Often, biomass 
refers  to  only  one  part  of  the  stock  (e.g.  spawning  biomass,  recruited 
biomass or vulnerable biomass, the latter two of which are  essentially 
equivalent). 
A biological reference point. The stock size below which there is a risk 
of reduced reproduction leading to a reduction in recruitment. 
Allowed maximum time for fishing trips allocated to vessels per year, 
depending on their type of fishing gear. For the purpose of this impact 
assessment it means the same as 'fishing effort' which is the product of 
the capacity and the activity of a fishing vessel. 
Descriptive  of  a  fish  which  lives  at  or  near  the  bottom  of  the  water 
column, e.g. hake or sole. 
A  plan  laying  down  specifications  for  implementation  of  the  landing 
obligation  in  a  given  geographical  area  for  given  fisheries  or  species. 
The proposal for the plan is prepared by the Member States concerned 
and after scientific assessment adopted as Commission delegated act. 
Unwanted  catches  returned  to  the  sea during  fishing  operations either 
dead or alive.  

Exploitation pattern 

How fishing pressure is distributed across the age profile of a stock. 

Fishing mortality (F)  An  expression  of  the  rate  at  which  fish  are  removed  from  the  stock 
from  fishing  operations  (including  fish  subsequently  discarded).  It  is 
approximately the stock annual removal expressed in percentage. 

FMSY 

A  biological  reference  point.  It  is  the  fishing  mortality  rate  that,  if 
applied  constantly,  would result  in  an  average  catch  corresponding  to 
the  Maximum  Sustainable  Yield  (MSY)  and  an  average  biomass 
corresponding to BMSY. 

Fishing opportunities  Fishing  opportunities  or  Total  Allowable  Catches  (TACs)  are  catch 
limits  (expressed  in  tonnes  or  numbers)  that  are  set  for  most 
commercial fish stocks. The Commission prepares the proposal, based 
on  scientific  advice  on  the  stock  status  from  advisory  bodies  such  as 
STECF and ICES. 

Harvest control rules  A  set  of  rules  which  specify  what  the  fishing  opportunity  for  a  given 
stock should be in a given year based on information about the state of 
that stock and its fisheries. 

Landing obligation 

The  obligation  to  land  all  catches  in  the  respective  fishery  in 
accordance with relevant rules in the CFP Basic Regulation.  

Maximum 
Sustainable Yield 
(MSY) 

Theoretically  the  largest  yield  (or  catch)  that  can  be  taken  from  a 
species'  stock  over  an  indefinite  period.  It  is  the  maximum  use  that  a 
renewable  resource  can  sustain  without  impairing  its  renewability 
through natural growth and reproduction. 

Minimum 
Conservation 
Reference Size 
(MCRS) 

The  size  of  living  aquatic  species  taking  into  account  maturity,  as 
established by Union law, below which restrictions or incentives apply 
that aim to avoid capture through fishing activity.  

8 

 
 
Mixed fisheries 

Fisheries in which several species are  likely  to be caught in the same 
fishing operation. 

Overexploitation 

A situation where observed fishing mortality (or exploitation) rates 
exceed targets. 

Pelagic fish 

In  relation  to  fish,  the  term  'pelagic'  refers  to  fish  which  live  in  the 
upper  layers  of  the  water  column,  near  the  surface,  e.g.  sardine, 
anchovy and sprat (which are small pelagics)  

Precautionary 
approach to fisheries 
management 

An  approach  to  managing  fisheries  to  ensure  a  high  probability  of 
avoiding  undesirable  outcomes.  Typically  this  involves  specifying  a 
limit  value  of  spawning  stock  biomass,  then  managing  fisheries  to 
make sure the stock stays above this level. A limit reference point may 
also be specified for fishing mortality, in which case management will 
aim to keep fishing mortality below this level.  

Recruitment 

The number of new fish  added to the exploitable portion  of the stock 
resulting  from  growth  of  juvenile  fish  into  adults,  or  migration  of 
smaller fish. 

Regionalisation 

The process by which the Member States with direct interest for 
fisheries of a given geographical region organize themselves with the 
aim to agree on common management measures. The agreed measures 
as joint recommendation are submitted to the Commission and after 
scientific assessment adopted as Commission delegated acts.    

Safeguard 

A precautionary measure designed to avoid something undesirable 
occurring 

Spawning Stock 
Biomass 

Stock 

TAC 

Numbers (weights) of individual fish which are old enough to 
reproduce. This generally corresponds to the minimum landing size 
and so defines the 'fishable' population. 

The  population  of  a  given  species  that  forms  a  reproductive  unit  and 
spawns little if at all with other units. The “total  stock” refers to both 
juveniles  and  adults  while  “spawning  stock”  refers  to  the  adult 
population (see above).  

Total allowable catch; the maximum biomass of fish that can be caught 
from a given stock in a given year. 

Technical measures  Measure  establishing  conditions  for  the  use  and  structure  of  fishing 
gear and restrictions on access to fishing areas. 

9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
LIST OF ACRONYMS 

AC 

CFP  

DCF 

EESC 

EFCA 

EFF  

EMFF 

EWG 

FMSY 

FTE 

GES 

GFCM 

Advisory Council 

Common Fisheries Policy 

Data Collection Framework 

European Economic and Social Committee 

European Fisheries Control Agency 

European Fisheries Fund 

European Maritime and Fisheries Fund 

Expert Working Group 

Fishing mortality that produces MSY 

Full-Time Equivalent 

Good Environmental Status 

General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean 

GFCM-SAC or SAC 

Scientific  Advisory  Committee  of  the  General  Fisheries 
Commission for the Mediterranean 

GSA 

GVA 

IA 

IAR  

IASG 

ICCAT 

MAP 

MCRS 

MEDAC 

MPA 

MS 

MSFD 

MSY 

Geographical Sub-Area 

Gross Value Added 

Impact Assessment 

Impact Assessment Report 

Impact Assessment Steering Group  

International  Commission  for  the  Conservation  of  Atlantic 
Tunas 

Multi-annual Plan 

Minimum Conservation Reference Size 

Mediterranean Advisory Council 

Marine Protected Area 

Member State 

Marine Strategy Framework Directive 

Maximum Sustainable Yield 

10 

 
 
 
NGO 

PO 

REFIT 

RFMO 

SAC 

SME 

SSB 

STECF 

TAC 

TFEU 

VMS 

Non-governmental Organization 

Producers Organisation 

Regulatory Fitness and Performance Programme 

Regional Fisheries Management Organisation 

See GFCM-SAC 

Small and Medium-Sized Enterprise  

Spawning Stock Biomass 

Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries 

Total Allowable Catch 

Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union 

Vessel Monitoring System 

11 

 
 
 
 
1.  INTRODUCTION: POLITICAL AND LEGAL CONTEXT 

This impact assessment (IA) concerns a proposal for a multi-annual plan to manage the 
small  pelagic  stocks  (fish  that  live  at  the  surface  of  the  sea)  and  their  fisheries  in  the 
Adriatic Sea in the context of the reformed Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) – “the Basic 
Regulationˮ1 – which entered into force in 2014.  

1.1. Rationale of the reformed Common Fisheries Policy and its main elements 

Fisheries  management  is  the  regulation  of  the  activities  of  fishermen.  This  involves 
defining  what  can  and  can't  be  fished  (e.g.  prohibited  species  or  young  fish  under  a 
certain size), how much can be fished (e.g. maximum amount of fish that can be caught 
or maximum number of fishing days); when fishing is authorized or banned (e.g. during 
spawning  seasons)  and  where  fishing  is  authorized  or  banned  (e.g.  in  marine  protected 
areas). 

Fisheries management is an exclusive policy of the European Union and it is regulated by 
the  CFP.  Its  primary  objective  is  that  fishing  and  aquaculture  activities  should  be 
environmentally sustainable and managed in a way that is consistent with the objectives 
of achieving economic, social and employment benefits (see Section 4).  

Fisheries, although accounting for a small segments of the European economy in absolute 
terms, is of crucial importance in relative terms in many coastal regions. Firstly, fishing 
provides a source of jobs and income to communities that have few alternative options. 
Secondly,  in  many  areas  the  importance  of  these  sectors  goes  beyond  pure  economics 
and  touch  upon  the  social  fabric  of  communities,  and  upon  the  preservation  and 
promotion  of  ancient  traditions  and  cultures.  While  improved  fisheries  management  is 
unlikely to contribute to an increase in jobs in the sector, it can stem the decline and with 
more  fish  available,  can  help  to  drive  up  profits  and  provide  better  salaries  and  better 
working conditions for fishers - and a more competitive industry altogether.  
Together with EU funding through the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF)2, 
the  CFP  contributes  to  the  EU’s  growth  and  jobs  agenda  through  an  emphasis  on 
sustainability and economic competitiveness. 

The CFP has the following management toolbox at its disposal: 

  How much to catch? 

o  Total  Allowable  Catch  (TAC)  and  quota  setting  to  define  the  maximum 
allowable catches for individual species. They form the basis for the allocation 
of national fishing quotas among Member States but have traditionally not been 
used in the Mediterranean3. 

o  Discard  plans,  which  lay  out  the  conditions,  including  exemptions  in  well-
defined cases, of which unwanted fish and what quantities can be thrown back 
in the sea. 

o  Fishing effort limitations serve to regulate how much to catch (e.g. how many 
hours  or  days  vessels  can  spend  at  sea)  which  is  the  traditional  way  of 
managing fisheries in the Mediterranean.   

1 

Regulation  (EU)  No  1380/2013  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  11  December 
2013 on the Common Fisheries Policy, amending Council regulations (EC) No 1954/2003 and (EC) 
No  1224/2009  and  repealing  Council  Regulations  (EC)  No  639/2004  and  Council  Decision 
2004/585/EC; OJ L354 of 28.12.2013, p.22.  

2   Regulation (EU) No 508/2014 of the European Parliament ad of the Council of 15 May 2014 on the 

European Maritime and Fisheries Fund; OJ L149 of 20.5.2014, P. 1 

3       With the exception of Bluefin Tuna. 

12 

 
                                                 
  What, how, where and when to fish? 

o  Technical measures to set out rules concerning for example gear use, which aim 
to  protect  fish  stocks  (often  juveniles)  and  their  ecosystems  and  to  avoid 
unwanted catches, and thus reduce discards 

Given  the  large  number  of  tools  that  can  be  combined  to  manage  fish  stocks,  the  CFP 
provides  for  the  adoption  of  multi-annual  plans  which  aim  to  provide  a  dedicated 
framework  to  manage  fish  stocks  in  an  integrated  manner  by  fishery  and  by  sea-basin. 
The  rationale  behind  the  multi-annual  plans  is  to  provide  greater  transparency, 
predictability and stability of the management rules. 
Multi-annual  plans  are  nothing  new  and  have  been  foreseen  by  the  CFP  since  20024.  
However,  while  multi-annual  plans were  an  option  in  the  previous CFP, after the 2013 
reform  they  became  a  priority5.  The  precise  shape  and  content  of  future  multi-annual 
plans  were  the  subject  of  work  by  an  inter-institutional  task  force  involving  the 
Commission, the European Parliament and the Council in order to provide guidelines on 
the structure and content of these multi-annual plans and to solve delicate issues on the 
sharing of competences among those EU Institutions6 (see also Annex V).   

Since the entry into force of the current  Basic Regulation  in 2014, only  one EU  multi-
annual plan has been adopted, concerning the Baltic Sea7. Other multi-annual plans are in 
preparation and the coherence between these initiatives is presented in Annex XIII.   

Greater flexibility and simplification was also included in the new CFP, by introducing 
the  concept  of  regionalisation.  In  essence,  regionalisation  means  involving  Member 
States  around  sea  basins  in  the  conception  and  design  of  management  rules  for  the 
interested  parties,  with  a  view  to  increasing  their  ownership  by  fishing  operators,  and 
thereby their enforcement and, ultimately, their effectiveness. Concretely, Member States 
sharing  a  fishing  area  can  make  joint  recommendations  on  management  measures,  and 
the Commission can adopt these measures as delegated acts if empowered to do so. Such 
empowerment would typically be granted in a multi-annual plan. 

1.2. Scope of the initiative 

The  Adriatic  Sea  (hereafter  referred  to  as  the  Adriatic)  is  an  important  sub-area  within 
the  Mediterranean,  accounting  for  32%  of  the  total  landings  value  and  14%  of  fishing 
vessels in the Mediterranean8. The most valuable and sought-after small pelagic species 
in  the  Adriatic  are  the  European  sardine  Sardina  pilchardus  and  European  anchovy 
Engraulis  encrasicolus  (hereafter  referred  to  as  sardine  and  anchovy),  with  anchovy 
being the more valuable of the two and considered to be driving the fishery. The Adriatic 
small pelagic stocks represent a high economic income for the fisheries sector in that sea 
basin (estimated at 74 million EUR and corresponding to 18% of the total fish production 

4   Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the conservation and sustainable 

exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy 

5   Article 10 of the Basic Regulation states: "Multiannual plans shall be adopted as a priority, based on 
scientific,  technical  and  economic  advice,  and  shall  contain  conservation  measures  to  restore  and 
maintain fish stocks above levels capable of producing maximum sustainable yield" 

6   Council  Document  No  8529-14  PECHE  117  CODEC  1004,  also  published  by  the  European 

Parliament: 
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/pech/dv/taskfor/taskforce.pdf 
7   Regulation  (EU)  No  2016/1139  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  6  July  2016 
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, OJ L 191, 15.7.2016, p. 1–15  

8   GFCM (2016) The State of Mediterranean and Black Sea Fisheries.  

13 

 
                                                 
in the Adriatic in 20139). Anchovy and sardine account for over 97% of catches of small 
pelagic fish in the Adriatic10 (see Annex VI). 

The stocks of anchovy and sardine move between the Northern and Southern Adriatic but 
the vast majority (94%) of landings (in 2013) of these species in the Adriatic take place 
in the Northern part (see Annex IV - Tables A8 and A9). In terms of catches, the share 
caught in the Northern part is considered to be even higher than this given that even some 
of the vessels whose port of registry is located in the Southern Adriatic actually fish and 
land in the Northern Adriatic11.  

Anchovy and  sardine in the Adriatic are part of a mixed fishery with a higher catch of 
sardine in the eastern side (Croatian and Slovenian coasts) and of anchovy in the western 
(Italian coast) side. Mixed fisheries are fisheries in which several species are likely to be 
caught  in  the  same  fishing  operation  (i.e.  using  the  same  vessel  and  gear):  fishers 
unavoidably catch a mixture of species. They cannot control (or only to a limited extent) 
the composition of their catches. This means that fishing effort applied to anchovy cannot 
be separated from that applying to the sardine and accordingly, the two species should be 
managed together.  

Figure 1 Map of the Adriatic Sea.  

GSA = Geographical Sub-Area. GSA17 = Northern Adriatic Sea. GSA18 = Southern Adriatic Sea. Areas 
in blue are covered by national management plans adopted under the Mediterranean Regulation. Areas in 
white are not covered by national management plans.  

9  

Sabatella  E.,  Kolitari  J.,  Markovic  O.,  Sabatella  R.,  Zorica  B.  (2015)  Report  with  a  detailed 
economic  and  structural  overview  of  the  fishing  fleets  and  a  qualitative  economic  performance 
assessments  (for  each  country  and  for  the  whole  Adriatic  Region).  Specific  contract  N°10  : 
Improved knowledge of the main socio-economic aspects related to the most important fisheries in 
the Adriatic Sea (SEDAF). Framework Contract MARE/2009/05-Lot 1 "Scientific advice and other 
services for the implementation of the Common Fisheries Policy in the Mediterranean Sea". Include 
hyperlink when published 

10   FAO catch production statistics, data downloaded on 10 May 2016  
11   STECF (2014) Assessment of Mediterranean Sea stocks - part 1 (STECF-14-17)  

14 

 
 
 
                                                 
 
This  initiative  intends  to  set  the  basis  for  management  of  small  pelagic  fisheries,  in 
particular anchovy and sardine, in the Adriatic Sea (Geographical sub-areas (GSAs) 17 & 
18 of the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean)12 (see Figure 1).  

This  initiative  aims  to  address  the  problem  of  overexploitation  of  small  pelagic  stocks 
due  to  an  unsustainable  fishery  and  ineffective  governance.  The  main  objective  of  the 
initiative is to return the stocks and the fisheries sector to a healthy state by ensuring that 
the fishery is made sustainable and thereby ensuring that the fishing sector can continue 
to rely on this resource in the long-term.  

This impact assessment will focus on assessing the impacts of introducing a multiannual 
management plan for small pelagic stocks in the Adriatic Sea compared with other policy 
options.   

1.3. Legal context 

Council Regulation (EC) No 1967/2006 (the Mediterranean Regulation or MEDREG)13 
is the framework for fisheries management in the Mediterranean. The MEDREG contains 
technical  measures  as  well  as  a  set  of  management  measures  to  be  adopted  by  the 
Member States (e.g. obligation to adopt national management plans for certain fisheries 
or specific gears).  

Currently, anchovy and sardine are managed in the territorial waters of Italy, Croatia and 
Slovenia  by  means  of  three  national  management  plans,  adopted  under  Article  19  of 
the MEDREG: 

  a management plan for surrounding nets and for pelagic trawl nets adopted in 2011 

by means of a Directorial Decree in Italy14;  

  a  management plan covering  different  types of fishing gears, including surrounding 

nets targeting small pelagic, adopted in 2014 in Slovenia15; and 

  a management plan for "Srdelara" purse seine fisheries adopted in 2014 in Croatia16.  

Each national management plan contains different rules to manage anchovy and sardine 
but  they  all  focus  on  limiting  the  input  to  the  fishery,  by  limiting  fishing  effort  with 
specific technical measures (see Annex XI).  

At  EU  level,  following  the  entry  into  force  of  the  new  CFP  Basic  Regulation  and  the 
landing obligation, a discard plan covering notably anchovy and sardine in the Adriatic 
was adopted for the period 2015-201717. This provides for limited quantities of anchovy 
and sardine to be discarded (thrown back into the sea) despite the landing obligation. In 
accordance with the CFP, the provisions of this Discard Plan should be integrated into a 
multi-annual plans for the fisheries concerned if a multi-annual plan is adopted. 

Another  important  tool  to  manage  fisheries  in  the  EU  has  been  to  prescribe  technical 
measures (see Annex XI). So far, the technical measures in place for fisheries exploiting 
stocks in the Mediterranean, including in the Adriatic, are enshrined in the MEDREG.  

12      http://www.fao.org/3/a-ax817e.pdf  
13     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; OJ L36 of 8.2.2007, p.6. 
Italian Directorial Decree No 6 of 20 September 2011.  
Slovenian Decision No 34200-2/2014/4 of 13 February 2014.  

14 
15 
16  Croatian Government Decision, Class 022-03/14-04/49, No 50301-05/25-14-2.  
17     Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1392/2014 of 20 October 2014 establishing a discard 

plan for certain small pelagic fisheries in the Mediterranean Sea. 

15 

 
                                                 
At  international  level,  the  General  Fisheries  Commission  for  the  Mediterranean 
(GFCM) which is the Regional Fisheries Management Organization (RFMO) competent 
for  managing  fisheries  in  the  Mediterranean,  adopted  in  2013  a  management  plan  to 
regulate  the  exploitation  of  sardine  and  anchovy  in  the  Adriatic18.  All  vessels  actively 
fishing for anchovies and sardines in the Northern Adriatic are subject to the provisions 
of  this  plan,  including  in  high  seas  (i.e.  international  waters).  The  plan  manages  the 
fisheries mainly by regulating the fishing effort (e.g. number of vessels, number of days 
they can fish) and by setting a minimum size for catching anchovy and sardine. 

On  top  of  this  management  plan,  the  GFCM  adopted  emergency  measures  for  the  year 
2015 for the Northern Adriatic, whereby the maximum fishing days for vessels targeting 
anchovy  were  reduced  (by  9%)  and  spatiotemporal  closures  were  adopted  to  protect 
nursery  and  spawning  grounds.  For  2016,  GFCM  again  adopted  emergency  measures, 
this  time  for  both  the  Northern  and  Southern  Adriatic.  For  2017  and  2018,  the  GFCM 
adopted further emergency measures which were based on previous emergency measures 
but expanded to include a freeze on catches and on capacity as well as an obligation for 
Parties to close 30% of their nursery area for at least 6 months19. In practice, to date the 
GFCM management plan has not been implemented in full. 

2.  WHAT IS THE PROBLEM AND WHY IS IT A PROBLEM? 

There are two main problems concerning small pelagic fish in the Adriatic: anchovy and 
sardine  stocks  are  overfished,  and  the  governance  framework  is  ineffective  (see  Figure 
2).  Discarding  of  unwanted  catches,  which  was  identified  as  one  of  the  main  problems 
which the reform of the CFP aims to address, is negligible in the Adriatic small pelagic 
fishery,  with  <  1%  of  anchovy  and  sardine  estimated  to  be  discarded  in  the  Croatian, 
Italian and Slovenian fisheries targeting these species in the Adriatic (see Annex IV). 

This  is  because  the  gears  involved  in  the  fisheries  are  fairly  selective  and  because 
anchovy  and  sardine  occur  in  schools  which  make  them  easier  to  catch  without  taking 
other  species  at  the  same  time  (see  Annex  VI).  Stakeholders  in  the  public  consultation 
also noted that for the management of secondary target species such  as horse mackerel 
and sprat, it was considered that the landing obligation provisions are enough (Annex II). 

18  Recommendation  GFCM/37/2013/1  on  a  multiannual  management  plan  for  fisheries  on  small 
pelagic  stocks  in  the  GFCM-GSA  17  (Northern  Adriatic  Sea)  and  on  transitional  conservation 
measures for fisheries on small pelagic stocks in GSA 18 (Southern Adriatic Sea).  

19   Recommendation GFCM/40/2016/3 establishing further emergency measures in 2017 and 2018 for 
small  pelagic  stocks  in  the  Adriatic  Sea  (GSA17  and  GSA18).  update  hyperlink  to  the 
recommendation itself when Recommendation is published 

16 

 
 
                                                 
Figure 2 Problem tree for the small pelagic fisheries in the Adriatic 

2.1. The Problem: Overfishing 

Overfishing is defined in terms of the objectives of the CFP, which is to have stocks at 
maximum  sustainable  yield20.  We  therefore  consider  that  overfishing  takes  place  when 
the  mortality  caused  by  fishing  is  greater  than  the  mortality  compatible  with  MSY. 
According to the most recent data, around 93% of Mediterranean fish stocks assessed are 
overexploited whilst for many other stocks, the status still remains unknown21. In a broad 
stakeholder consultation carried out in 2015 in the context of the retrospective evaluation 
of  the  MEDREG85,  stakeholders  overwhelmingly  agreed  that  fish  stocks  in  the 
Mediterranean  are  severely  overexploited.  Scientific  assessment  of  the  status  of  the 
stocks typically calculate a ratio of current fishing mortality levels compared with MSY 
fishing mortality and if this ratio is above 1 then the stock is considered to be overfished 
(compared to MSY).  

Anchovy and sardine are assessed by both the EU's scientific advisory body for fisheries 
(the  Scientific,  Technical  and  Economic  Committee  for  Fisheries,  STECF)22  and  the 
GFCM's  Scientific  Advisory  Committee  (SAC)23  (see  Box  1  in  Annex  VI).  The  most 

20   The CFP Basic Regulation defines Maximum Sustainable Yield as follows: 'maximum sustainable 
yield'  means  the  highest  theoretical  equilibrium  yield  that  can  be  continuously  taken  on  average 
from  a  stock  under  existing  average  environmental  conditions  without  significantly  affecting  the 
reproduction process; 

21   COM(2015)239  final  Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament  and  the 
Council  concerning  a  consultation  on  the  fishing  opportunities  for  2016  under  the  Common 
Fisheries Policy. 

22      https://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu/  
23   GFCM  (2016)  Report  of  the  seventeenth  session  of  the  Scientific  Advisory  Committee.  FAO  

headquarters, Rome, 24–27 March 2015  

17 

 
 
 
                                                 
recent scientific advice from both of these bodies indicates that anchovy and sardine in 
the  Adriatic  are  still  being  overexploited  beyond  their  reproduction  capacities  and  that 
the  situation  is  getting  worse  as  we  are  moving  further  away  from  sustainable  fishing 
levels. In 2013, anchovy were exploited over 6 times sustainable levels and sardine over 
3 times sustainable levels (See Annex VI). In other words, we are far from the target set 
out in the Basic Regulation, the Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY). 

Both bodies recommended, as recently as 2015, that fishing levels need to be reduced for 
both  species, and that in particular for anchovy this needs  to be done immediately (see 
Annex VI). More specifically, the STECF in 2015 advised that to reach sustainable levels 
of fishing, catches need to be decreased considerably for both species and that to achieve 
this, the relevant  fleets’  effort  should  be  reduced,  in  order to  avoid  future  loss  in  stock 
productivity  and  landings  for  the  sector.  STECF  further  advised  that  this  should  be 
achieved  by  means  of  a  multi-annual  management  plan  taking  into  account  mixed-
fisheries considerations114. 

2.1.1.  Underlying drivers of overfishing 

The key driver for the poor state of anchovy and sardine is overfishing: catches are too 
high compared to what the stocks can sustain in the long-term. Catch levels depend on 
several factors, such as how many boats are fishing the stocks, for how long, using what 
gear etc. (see Annex VIII, Figure 1).  

Overcapacity 

A fishing fleet that is in overcapacity has the ability to fish more than the fishery resource 
can  sustain  or  more  than  a  desired  reference  point  (e.g.  MSY).  Overcapacity  is 
considered as one of the leading causes of overfishing, notably in the Mediterranean Sea. 
Pursuant to Article 22 of the Basic Regulation, Member States are required to carry out 
an assessment of the balance between their capacity and the available resources ("fishing 
opportunities") and to put in place measures to adjust the fishing capacity of their fleet to 
the available resources. According to this self-assessment, and the planned reductions in 
capacity, the main  fleet segments exploiting  anchovy and sardine in  the Adriatic are in 
overcapacity  compared  to  the  available  fish.  Specifically,  Italy  plans  to  reduce  its 
capacity  by  at  least  10  %,  Croatia  by  5-20%  depending  on  the  fleet  segment.  Slovenia 
carried out a large reduction in capacity in 2013, with a reduction of 38 % (expressed in 
GT) and for 20 % (expressed in kW) compared to 201024. 

Environmental factors 

Populations of small pelagic species, such as sardine and anchovy, are characterised by 
short  life  spans  (e.g.  4-5  years  for  anchovy  and  sardine)  tend  to  be  more  sensitive  to 
environmental  variability  than  other  fishes,  and  are  subject  to  substantial  changes  in 
abundance  over  relatively  short  time  periods  –  so  called  “boom  and  bust”  population 
dynamics25. 

The  overexploitation  of  anchovy  and  sardine  stocks  is  compounded  by  environmental 
factors. Environmental conditions (e.g. temperature, salinity, change in nutrients, ocean 
currents)  can  influence  the  survival  and  recruitment  of  fish  stocks  and  can  further 

24    The  ten  fleet  segments  which  account  for  the  greatest  share  of  catches  of  small  pelagics  in  the 
Adriatic (See Annex III), are all included in the relevant Member States Action Plans for the fleet 
segments with identified structural overcapacity 39,40,90 and details on how Member States intend to 
address this overcapacity are provided in Annex IX. 
International  Symposium  Drivers  of  dynamics  of  small  pelagic  fish  resources.  Victoria,  BC, 
Canada, 6-11 March 2017.  

25  

18 

 
                                                 
contribute  to  the  negative  status  of  stocks  caused  by  overfishing.  On  the  other  hand, 
healthier fish stocks are more resilient to environmental fluctuations and thus ensure the 
exploitation  in  the  long-term.  In  the  case  of  anchovy  in  the  Adriatic,  recent  evidence 
suggests  that  in  particular,  oceanographic  conditions  during  winter  influence  anchovy 
abundance26. This is thought to be linked to the salinity of the water entering the Adriatic 
from rivers on land, which affects the abundance of food for anchovy. 

The notorious collapse of the anchovy stock in the Adriatic during the late 1980s when a 
severe  drop  of  anchovy  catches  was  registered  (catches  decreased  from  over  50,000 
tonnes to 7,000 tonnes in 1988), is believed to be related to high levels of fishing during 
the previous decades and a decrease of the sea surface temperature27,28. In fact, the low 
temperatures  during  the  reproductive  period  highly  reduced  the  recruitment  during  the 
following  years,  which  led  to  the  lowest  population  size  ever  observed.  Similarly,  a 
decline in river and land runoff may affect the productivity (i.e. lower concentration of 
nutrient),  reducing  the  primary  production  and  thereby  reduce  also  the  amount  of  food 
for anchovy and sardine. In the long term, the various environmental factors listed above, 
together with high fishing pressure, are likely to increase the vulnerability of the system 
and worsen the state of the fish stocks. 

This driver falls outside the scope of this initiative. 

2.1.2.  Consequences of the overfishing of anchovy and sardine 

Bad state of the anchovy and sardine stocks 
The poor state of anchovy and sardine has been confirmed by both the STECF114 and the 
GFCM  SAC23.  For  both  species,  population  levels  are  currently  much  lower  than  they 
have been in the past: the anchovy stock was at around 400 000 t in 2005 and now it is 
under 100 000 t (2014) whilst the sardine stock fluctuated between 300 00 t and 500 000 
t from 1970-1990 but since then, it has been below 200 000 t for the past 15 years (see 
Annex VI). Based on the most recent data from scientific surveys, the last 3 years (2013-
2015) show a declining trend in abundance and biomass for both anchovy and sardine in 
the  Adriatic,  including  for  juveniles,  with  some  of  the  recent  biomass  levels  being  the 
lowest in the available time series29.  

Recent increases in sardine stock (since 2000), although low in terms of historical levels, 
shows  that  there  is  still  some  potential  for  recovery  for  this  stock.  However,  to  ensure 
such  recovery  takes  place,  exploitation  levels  needs  to  be  reduced  and  brought  in  line 
with maximum sustainable yield.  

In the case of anchovy, as a result of overfishing combined with environmental change, 
the population collapsed in the 1980s. Since then, the recovery of the anchovy stock has 
been  only  partial.  Since  2005,  the  size  of  the  anchovy  stock  appears  to  have  declined 
sharply once again (See Annex VI). Catches are currently mostly dominated by juveniles 
and  small-sized  fish  as  fishing  activity  has  already  removed  many  of  the  large-size 

26   Kraus  &  Supic  (2011)  Impact  of  circulation  on  high  phytoplankton  blooms  and  fish  catch  in  the 

northern Adriatic (1990–2004). Science Direct Vol 91(2), pp.198-210. 

27  Cingolani  N.,  Giannetti  G.  and  Arneri  E.  (1996)  Anchovy  fisheries  in  the  Adriatic  Sea.  Scientia 

Marina 60 (Supl. 2): 269-277. 

28  Gibson  R.N.,  Atkinson  R.J.A,  Gordon  J.D.M.  (2009)  Oceanography  and  Marine  biology:  An 

Annual Review. CRC Press, Volume 47, 360 pages. 

29   Giacomo  Chato  Osio  &  Finlay  Scott  (2016).  Trend  exploration  of  MEDIAS  acoustic  surveys  for 
early warning and prioritization of small pelagics assessments in the Mediterranean. JRC Technical 
Reports   EUR  28018,  DOI  10.2788/331072  update  hyperlink  to  report  itself  when  report  is 
published 

19 

 
                                                 
individuals from the population (See Annex VI). As anchovy stocks continue to decline, 
the  risk  is  that  fishers  focus  more  on  sardine  and  further  compound  the  unsustainable 
fishing of the latter. 

Environmental consequences 

Overall, excessive levels of fishing, as well as damage to fish habitats, have caused major 
losses  of  biodiversity,  changes  in  the  structure  of  fish  populations  (e.g.  fewer  large 
individuals), appearance of invasive species, food web modifications (e.g. decline of top 
predators with cascading effects). Small pelagics in the Adriatic Sea and play an important 
role  in  the  food  web  and  their  abundance  is  likely  to  control  the  abundance  of  larger 
predatory  fish,  marine  mammals  and  seabirds30.  For  example,  the  overexploitation  of 
anchovy  and  sardine,  and  their  historical  declines,  may  cause  knock-on  effects  in  the 
food chain as these stocks serve as food to larger fish such as Blue-fin Tuna which is one 
of  the  most  valuable  fish  species  worldwide.  Another  environmental  consequence  of 
fishing, and overfishing, of fish stocks is the impact on other, non-target species which 
get caught during the fishing activity. Some of the vessels involved in the small pelagic 
fishery,  such  as  pelagic  trawlers,  have  unwanted  catches  of  certain  protected  species 
including bottlenose dolphins, marine turtles, and sharks and rays31. 

Socio-economic consequences: threat to the viability and profitability of the sector 

As  a  consequence  of  this  unsustainable  overexploitation  of  anchovy  and  sardine  in  the 
Adriatic, and the associated decline in resource, the whole catching sector dependent on 
these stocks are at risk of also declining and even collapsing.  

Evidence of a decline in the catching sector is already visible, as witnessed by a decline 
in the salaries and profitability of the catching sector targeting anchovy and sardine in the 
Adriatic.  Employment  in  several  fleet  segments  has  also  been  declining  or  stagnant 
(Annex XII). 

In  addition  the  secondary  sectors  that  rely  on  small  pelagics  such  as  the  processing 
industry (canning and salting) have also been showing worrying signs, including a strong 
decrease  in  production  recent  years  in  Italy  and  Croatia32.  Reduced  availability  of 
anchovy  and  sardine  for  the  fresh  fish  market  in  the  Adriatic  may  be  difficult  to 
compensate  as  these  species  are  too  low  value  and  too  fragile  to  be  transported  by  air 
from other sea basins33.   

Ensuring that fish stocks remain within biological limits is therefore crucial not only for 
the ecological balance of the ecosystems, but also for the social and economic well-being 
of coastal communities. Healthy stocks provide a security to the fishing sector in terms of 
their economic activities and therefore guaranties in socio-economic terms.  

2.2. The Problem: Ineffective governance 

The  second  problem  which  faces  the  anchovy  and  sardine  fisheries  in  the  Adriatic  is 
ineffective  governance,  which  is  defined  as  a  governance  set  up  (in  particular 

30   Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries – 49th plenary meeting report (PLEN-

15-02), 6-10 July 2015, Varese. 

31   Fortuna et al. (2010) By-catch of cetaceans and other species of conservation concern during pair 
trawl  fishing operations  in  the  Adriatic  Sea  (Italy).  Chemistry  and  Ecology, Vol. 26,  Supplement, 
June 2010: pp. 65-76. 

32   DG-MARE-EUMOFA  (2016)  Contribution  to  the  impact  assessment  of  EU  multi-annual  plan  for 
small  pelagics  in  the  Adriatic.  European  Market  Observatory  for  Fisheries  and  Aquaculture 
Products. 

33   Currently  only  frozen  anchovy  and  sardine  are  imported  into  Adriatic  Member  States  for  the 

processing sector – see Annex III. 

20 

 
                                                 
management  measures)  which  is  not  achieving  the  desired  objectives.  The  Basic 
Regulation lays out the principles of good governance which should be followed under 
the CFP (Article 3). This includes: taking into account of regional specificities, through a 
regionalised  approach,  the  establishment  of  measures  in  accordance  with  the  best 
available  scientific  advice,  a  long-term  perspective,  administrative  cost  efficiency, 
appropriate involvement of stakeholders, in particular Advisory Councils, at all stages, 
consistency with other Union policies, the use of impact assessments. 

Despite the numerous management tools that have been adopted for anchovy and sardine 
in the Adriatic (see Section 1.3), all these actions have not been sufficient to ensure the 
sustainable  exploitation  of  these  stocks.  Furthermore,  the  problem  of  ineffective 
governance  for  small  pelagics  in  the  Adriatic  is  getting  more  serious  over  time,  as 
witnessed  by  the  fact  we  are  moving  further away  from  our  objectives as  the  extent  of 
overfishing is getting worse in recent years. There is a need to improve and simplify the 
management  framework  to  ensure  it  effectively  manages  these  shared  resources.  The 
specific drivers of this problem are detailed below. 

2.2.1.  Underlying drivers of ineffective governance 

Inadequate management measures 

Fisheries can be managed in different ways, essentially by managing either the effort that 
goes  into  the  system  (how  much  fishing  takes  place),  which  is  referred  to  an  input 
control,  or  by  managing  what  comes  out  of  the  system  (i.e.  quantity  of  fish  caught  or 
landed), referred to as output control. To date, as presented in Section 1.3, anchovy and 
sardine in the Adriatic, under both the national plans and the GFCM management plan, 
have been managed through input control, and primarily through effort limitation. Given 
the  on-going  overexploitation  of  these  stocks,  it  is  evident  that  this  approach  has  not 
succeeded in restoring stocks to a healthy status. This driver also contributes directly to 
the problem of overexploitation of the anchovy and sardine stocks. 

The current fisheries management system for small pelagics in the Adriatic has problems 
at several levels: 

  The management plan adopted at international level, under the GFCM, has not 
been implemented fully since it was adopted in 2013. The management measures 
under  the  GFCM  have  also  been  modified  annually  since  2013  and  are  not 
sufficient to achieve the CFP targets of sustainable fishing by 2020 at the latest. 
  The  measures  adopted  at  national  level,  to  implement  the  international 
obligations and to implement the obligations under the EU's MEDREG have been 
modified  regularly  in  recent  years,  are  not  sufficient  to  achieve  the  CFP's 
sustainability objectives, and differ between the Adriatic countries rendering them 
in  some cases less effective. 

  At  both  international  and  national  level,  management  measures  focus  on  input 
control  and  the  reductions  in  input  do  not  translate  directly  into  reduced 
catches and fishing mortality, and make it very complicated to determine what a 
sufficient level of input control is to guarantee fishing mortality compatible with 
maximum sustainable yield. In the Adriatic small pelagic fishery, vessels tend to 
make short trips and to fish quite close to the coast, sometimes only fishing a few 
hours per day. If the number of days when fishing is allowed is reduced (as it has 
been  under  international  measures),  the  vessels  could  compensate  this  to  some 
extent by fishing more hours in the given days thus catching as much as they used 
to. 

21 

 
  For  fishing  sector  who  need  to  follow  these  rules,  this  instable  framework  and 
the different rules in the different areas of the Adriatic make it more complicated 
to comply with the rules. 

In  several  other  parts  of  the  European  fishing  sector,  which  were  faced  with  similar 
problems  of  overexploitation  and  stock  declines,  there  have  been  recoveries  in  the  fish 
stocks  and  the  fishing  sectors  following  implementation  of  multi-annual  management 
plans34 and a system of catch-limits (see Annex VIII).  

STECF  has  advised  that  managing  fisheries  targeting  small  pelagics  using  effort 
limitation  implies  a  high  risk  due  to  the  particular  characteristics  of  the  species35  and 
fisheries  targeting  them36  and  has  recommended  that  catch  limits  would  be  a  more 
effective management tool for fisheries of small pelagic species in the Mediterranean37,38.  

Complexity of current rules  

Consultations  have  shown  that,  among  stakeholders,  there  has  been  strong  criticism  of 
the  complexity  of  the  existing  legislation.  Several  stakeholders,  including  the  fishing 
industry,  have  complained  about  the  many  different  management  measures  in  place 
during the public consultation (see Annex II). An additional problem is the fact that the 
management framework is unstable, with management measures changing regularly over 
time (see Annex XI).   

There  is  currently  no  comprehensive  framework  to  manage  small  pelagics  in  the 
Adriatic: these stocks are subject to  management measures at different policy levels. 
Currently,  there  are  three  national  management  plans  in  place,  using  different 
management measures, as well as technical measures established under the MEDREG, a 
GFCM  management  plan,  GFCM  emergency  measures  since  2015,  and  a  discard  plan 
under the CFP.  

there  are 

the  stocks.  However, 

The national plans and the GFCM plan are similar in that they focus on input control to 
manage 
inconsistencies  between  the  existing 
management measures, which add to the complexity (see Annex XI). This is due in part 
to  the  fact  they  have  been  adopted  in  different  contexts  (EU  measures  vs  GFCM 
international agreement) and also due to the fact that the reform of the CFP and adoption 
of the new Basic Regulation, in 2014, took place after both the adoption of the MEDREG 
(and  of  the  national  management  plans  adopted  thereunder)  and  of  the  adoption  of  the 
GFCM plan.  

For  example,  the  periods  when  fishing  is  not  allowed  differ  between the  three  Adriatic 
Member  States.  Therefore,  a  fisherman  moving  from  one  Member  States'  territorial 
waters to another will face different rules about when he can or cannot fish. This makes it 
more  difficult  to  know  and  therefore  to  follow  the  rules,  and  it  also  means  that  closed 
seasons (which are designed to provide the stock with a period of no fishing mortality) 
are less effective, as fishers can go and fish the same stock in a different part of its range, 
where there is no closed season. In addition, the objectives of the national plans and the 

34   These multi-annual management plans were adopted under the previous CFP. 
35  

In particular the fact they occur in groups, of shoals of fish, and that a large number of individual 
can therefore be caught in a short space of time if a fishermen encounters a shoal of fish. 

36   Due to the fact that generally the same fleet segments fish either anchovy or sardine (or other small 
pelagic  species)  and  the  fishermen  can  therefore  adapt  their  target  species  as  available  and 
appropriate ie even if a vessel heads out to target sardine, if they come across a shoal of anchovy 
they may decide to fish the latter. 

37   STECF (2011) Assessment of Mediterranean Sea stocks -part 2 (STECF-11-14). 
38   STECF (2016) 51st Plenary meeting Report (PLEN-16-01) 

22 

 
                                                 
GFCM  plan  are  incompatible:  the  GFCM  plan  is  based  on  the  precautionary  approach 
and, since 2016, includes the objective of sustainable fishing (MSY) by 2020. The Italian 
plan does not include either MSY, or a deadline (2020), or the precautionary approach. 
The  Italian  and  Croatian  plans  have  defined  targets  for  fishing  mortality  and  biomass 
(Italy) as well as biomass safeguards (Italy) which are not compatible with MSY by 2020 
and hence incompatible with the GFCM objective.  

Finally,  the  scope  of  the  different  management  instruments  are  also  different,  with 
national  management  plans  being  adopted  on  the  basis  of  fishing  gears  (e.g.  a  plan  for 
purse  seiners),  whilst  the  GFCM  management  plan  is  developed  on  the  basis  of  stocks 
(anchovy and sardine). 

There has also been a lack of stability in the measures adopted both at international level 
(GFCM  rules)  and  at  national  level  (national  management  plans  adopted  under  the 
Mediterranean Regulation). The international rules have changed on a yearly basis since 
the  GFCM  management  plan  was  adopted  in  2013.  The  national  measures  have  also 
changed  frequently  in  Croatia,  Italy  and  Slovenia  in  particular  spatiotemporal  closures 
(see Annex XI). This instability over time comes on top of the differences in rules set by 
different countries but which add an additional layer of complexity for fishers who may 
fish  in  several  parts  of  the  Adriatic,  and  be  subject  to  several  different  sets  of  national 
rules (and international rules in international waters) 

As  described  in  the  Section  2.5,  the  provisions in  the  three  national  management  plans 
and  the  emergency  measures  currently  implemented  under  the  GFCM  will  not  enable 
sufficient reductions in catches to reach the sustainability targets of the CFP by 2020 at 
the latest.  

the  2020 
Finally,  monitoring  of  whether,  under  the  management  framework, 
sustainability objectives and target would be met is very complicated due to the variety 
of measures in place to reduce fishing mortality, which need to be assessed together to 
determine  overall  mortality.  Indeed,  assessing  whether  the  combination  of  three  sets  of 
(possibly  different)  management  measures,  applied  each  to  only  a  part  of  the  stock  
would  ensure  sustainable  fishing  levels  is  much  more  complicated  and  uncertain 
compared to a single instrument and management approach. 

2.2.2.  Consequences of ineffective governance 

Difficulty to implement the rules 

This constantly evolving, complex, and inconsistent management framework makes 
it  harder  for  the  fishing  industry  to  remain  aware  of  the  rules  currently  in  force  and 
therefore  to  implement  them.  Such  a  situation,  in  which  the  management  measures 
change on a yearly basis also makes it very difficult for the fishing industry to adapt and 
predict  what  the  situation  will  be  like  in  the  coming  years  e.g.  how  much  they  will  be 
able to fish, at which times of year, in which areas, whether to invest in their vessels and 
equipment etc.  

There  have  also  been  shortcomings  in  the  implementation  and  enforcement  of  the 
existing  management  framework.  For  instance,  national  management  plans  were  only 
adopted between 2011 and 2013 (i.e. 4-7 years after the deadline set in Article 19 of the 
MEDREG).  The  GFCM  Management  Plan  is  not  being  fully  implemented  (e.g.  the 
harvest  control  rules  are  not  being  followed,  as  scientists  showed  some  concerns  about 
the  way  reference  points  were  calculated)  and  emergency  measures  –  which  are  less 
comprehensive and far-reaching than application of the plan – have been applied instead.   

23 

 
Difficulties for the sector to plan ahead 

The  lack  of  stability  also  results  in  difficulties  for  the  sector  to  predict  when  and  how 
much they will be able to fish making it more difficult for the sector to carry out business 
planning  such  as  deciding  on  whether  to  carry  bout  investments  in  their  vessels  or 
business.  

Lack of ownership 

Another  consequence  of  the  rules  being  so  complex  and  in  particular,  changing  so 
frequently, is that there is less ownership by stakeholders, in particular those that need to 
comply with the rules governing this fishery.  

Furthermore, Croatia, Italy and Slovenia feel that their regional specificities are not being 
taken into account and they have been urging for the specificities of the Adriatic to be 
taken into account in the management of the fish stocks there, and that this be done on 
the  basis  of  the  new  tool,  regionalisation,  which  was  introduced  by  the  2014  CFP 
reform.  This  position  was  expressed  notably  in  response  to  the  public  consultation 
(Annex II).  

However, implementing regionalisation, is not possible under the current framework that 
regulates anchovy and sardine in the Adriatic, as there is no legal framework to enable 
adoption of regional management plans or measures proposed by regional groupings of 
Member  States  (see  Annex  V).  The  current  management  tools  are  introduced  either  by 
each  Member  State  (national  management  plans)  or  at  international  level  by  the 
competent Regional Fisheries Management Organisation (GFCM management plan).  

2.3. The affected stakeholders  

The primary sector affected by the problems described above is the fishing sector from 
the countries fishing anchovy and sardine in the Adriatic, which is primarily Croatia and 
Italy,  and  to  a  very  limited  extent,  Slovenia,  Albania  and  Montenegro  (together 
accounting  for  under  2%  of  the  total  catches)  (see  Annex  III).  Other  upstream  and 
downstream sectors that are linked to the primary (fishing) sector would also be affected 
by  changes  in  the  catch  sector  e.g.  the  processing  sector  that  relies  on  sardine  and 
anchovy,  as  well  as  the  retail  sector  and  consumers  of  these  fish.  Within  this  impact 
assessment,  the  focus  is  on  the  stakeholders  affected  by  the  problem  in  the  primary 
sector, and in the processing sector which is the most important secondary sector in this 
region in terms of income (see Annex III - Table 1).  
The importance of the different sub-sectors44 as a proportion of the total fisheries sector 
(i.e. not only small pelagics) varies by country: In Croatia, the catching sector is the most 
important  fisheries  sub-sector  in  terms  of  income,  accounting  for  over  60%  of  total 
fisheries income. In the Italian Adriatic and in Slovenia, processing is the most important 
sub-sector, accounting for over 70% (Italy) and 90% (Slovenia) of total fisheries income 
in the area (see Annex III – Table 1).  

The  following  section  focuses  on  the  EU  stakeholders  affected,  on  the  basis  that  this 
impact  assessment  concerns  an  EU  initiative  and  also  given  the  fact  the  role  of  third 
countries is negligible in this fishery. 

2.3.1.  Fishing sector 

Two  types  of  fishing  gears  are  currently  used  to  catch  small  pelagic  species  in  the 
Adriatic: the mid-water pelagic trawl net towed by two vessels, which are used by Italy, 
and the purse seine, which are used in Croatia, Italy and Slovenia. 

24 

 
Italy and Croatia take over 99% of EU catches of anchovy and sardine in the Adriatic (in 
terms both of quantity and value), and Slovenia less than 1%. Landings of anchovy are 
dominated  by  Italy  (70%  of  total  landings)  whilst  those  of  sardine  are  dominated  by 
Croatia (77% of total landings) (see Annex III – Table 2).  
In the Adriatic, around 400 vessels target these stocks11 and just over 2000 employees are 
involved in the fishery (see Annex III  – Table 4). In both Italy and Croatia, there are 
around  200  vessels  fishing  for  pelagics  in  the  Adriatic  and  the  majority  of  vessels 
involved are large (over 18m in length) 90,39. In Slovenia, there are only 4 vessels active 
in  this  fishery  and  these  are  all  over  12m  in  length40.  Overall,  99%  of  landings  of 
anchovy and sardine in the Adriatic are made by vessels over 12m in length41. 

Regarding  the  importance  of  Small  and  Medium  Enterprises  (SMEs)  in  the  fishing 
sector,  data  on  the  number  of  employees  are  only  available  at  the  Member  State  level, 
and not by region (i.e. not for the Adriatic specifically) nor by species or type of fishery 
(i.e. anchovy and sardine). However, if the number of vessels per enterprise is taken as a 
proxy for enterprise size, then the vast majority of enterprises in the catching sector can 
be considered as micro-enterprises42: 

 
 
 

In Croatia, 77% of enterprises have only 1 vessel, and 96% have fewer than 5 vessels; 
In Italy, 87% of enterprises have only 1 vessel, and 97% have fewer than 5 vessels; 
In  Slovenia,  71%  of  enterprises  have  only  1  vessel,  and  99%  have  fewer  than  5 
vessels43  

2.3.2.  Processing sector 

In terms of secondary sectors that are dependent on fisheries, the processing sector is the 
most  important  one,  accounting  for  over  60%  of  total  value  generated  by  all  fisheries 
sectors44 in the Adriatic45 and above 70% and 90% in Slovenia and Italy respectively9.  

Specifically  for  small  pelagics,  the  processing  sector  (canning  and  salting)  generates  a 
significant activity in Italy and Croatia, where it represented around EUR 150 million in 
sales  in  2014.  However,  production  of  canned  anchovy  and  sardine  has  strongly 
decreased in recent years, from 20 500 t in 2009 to 13 000 t in 201432.  

Figures for the numbers of enterprises and employment within the sector in each of the 
Adriatic  Member  States  are  given  in  Annex  III  –  Table  346.  In  terms  of  full  time 
equivalents  (FTE),  the  three  Adriatic  Member  States  have  a  total  of  over  6700  FTEs, 
with the vast majority being situated in Italy (77%) followed by Croatia (18%). 

39   Croatian Annual report on balance between fishing capacity and fishing opportunities for 2014.  
40   Slovenian  Annual  report  on  efforts  to  achieve  a  sustainable  balance  between  fishing  capacity  and 

fishing opportunities for the year 2014.  

41   Based  on  data  collected  by  Croatia,  Italy  and  Slovenia  under  the  Data  Collection  Framework 

Council Regulation (EC) No 199/2008 for the year 2013. 

42   Due  to  the  way  in  which  the  data  are  collected  and  provided  by  Member  States  under  the  DCF 
Regulation  (Council  Regulation  'EC)  No  199/2008)  it  is  not  possible  to  provide  figures  on  the 
fraction of total catches that enterprises of different sizes account for. 
43   The 2015 Annual Economic Report on the EU Fishing Fleet (STECF 15-07) 
44   The  fisheries  sectors  include  the  following  sub-sectors:  fishing,  fish  processing,  aquaculture  and 

ancillary activities (e.g. boat building and repairs, service industry, feed supply etc.). 

45   This refers to all fisheries in the Adriatic, not just small pelagics. 
46   Note that the enterprises may be processing catches (of all species) from other areas as well as the 
Adriatic, this is particularly the case for Italy which fishes in several sea basins. Therefore, the level 
of  employment  in  the  processing  sector  in  the  Adriatic  is  likely  to  be  less  than  the  values  per 
Member State in Annex III – Table 3. 

25 

 
                                                 
In  both  Italy  and  Slovenia,  100%  of  these  enterprises  meet  the  definition  of  SMEs  in 
terms  of  number  of  employees47  (i.e.  <250  employees)  whilst  in  Croatia  this  figure  is 
95% (Annex III – Table 3).  

2.3.3.  Markets  

Fishery and aquaculture products in the Adriatic are distributed by wholesale fish traders 
and  only  a  minor  part  is  sold  directly  by  fishers  or  farmers.  There  are  at  present  28 
Adriatic fish markets, divided into production and mixed markets9. Small pelagics in the 
Adriatic are partly sold to fish processors and fish-farming establishments (e.g. for Blue-
fin tuna farming) or are placed on the fresh fish market9,32.  

Italy is the key market in volume for both anchovy and sardine. Croatia exports most of 
its  production  and  Slovenia  accounts  only  for  negligible  volume  in  landings  and  trade 
flows (below 1000 tonnes)35. Annex III presents greater detail on the trade balance and 
trade partners of these Member States. 

The trends in volumes of anchovy and sardine landed in Italy and of prices of first sale in 
recent year show an inverse correlation between the two: prices decrease when landings 
increase and vice versa (see Annex III – Figure 1 and 2). 

2.4. Evolution of the problem 

How would the problem evolve, all things being equal? This is the situation that would 
occur if sardine and anchovy continue to be managed according to the current regulatory 
structure (presented in Section 1.3) and to be exploited at current levels. 

The  modelling  of  the  evolution  of  the  problem  in  terms  of  environmental  and  socio-
economic impacts by 2021 (as presented in Table 1 and detailed below) is based on the 
study on Management scenarios for the preparation of multi-annual management plans in 
the Mediterranean and the Black Sea"66. This study was conducted by a consortium led 
by  COISPA  Tecnologia  &  Ricerca48  and  is  presented  in  more  detail  in  Annex  IV 
including assumptions of the model and input data.  

In addition, the modelling of the evolution of the problem in terms of stock status, over a 
longer time period, was carried out in a GFCM bioeconomic assessment of management 
measures for sardine and anchovy fisheries in the Adriatic in 201550 (see Section 2.5). 

2.4.1.  Environmental impacts  

Under  these  two  options,  if  current  fishing  levels  are  maintained,  both  stocks  would 
remain  overfished  and  outside  safe  biological  limits.  In  the  medium-term  (2021),  the 
anchovy  stock  would  not  recover  and  would  remain  around  recent  levels  (2014).  For 
sardine the stock would decline slightly in 2021 compared to 2014 (-7%).  

However, if current fishing levels are maintained, simulations over a longer time period 
(until  2030)  have  found  that  current  fishing  mortalities49  are  too  high  and  if  continued, 
anchovy  and  sardine  stocks  could  collapse  between  2020  and  2030,  with  a  47-75%50 
chance  of  sardine  stock  falling  below  the  critical  point  (Blim)  by  2028  and  a  70-75% 

47   Based on data from the Report of the STECF Expert Group on: Economic Performance of the EU 
here: 
(STECF-14-21). 

available 

Industry 

tables 

Data 

Fish 
https://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu/data-reports  

Processing 

48   http://www.sinab.it/istituto-ricerca/coispa-tecnologia-ricerca  
49   Average of 2012-2014 
50   Depending on assumption on stock-recruitment relationship 

26 

 
                                                 
chance for sardine51. Typically, collapses are characterized by a reduction in catch to less 
than  10%  of  the  maximum  and  by  a  long  recovery  time  after  reaching  a  biomass 
minimum52. Such a collapse would have negative knock-on effects for predator species 
which feed on anchovy and sardine. 

2.4.2.  Socio-economic impacts  

If  business  continues  as  usual,  based  on  past  socio-economic  trends  for  the  main  fleet 
segments exploiting small pelagics in the Adriatic, average salaries, profitability, overall 
revenues and employment are expected to decline or remain stable in the majority of fleet 
segments.  Taking  the  fleet  as  a  whole,  in  the medium-term  (2021),  catches  of  anchovy 
are expected to decrease very slightly compared to recent levels (2014), whilst catches of 
sardines are expected to increase by 17%. In 2021, the level of employment in the fishing 
sector, the average salary for an employee, and the total revenue of the fishing sector are 
expected to remain very similar to 2014 levels (between 2-5% increase). The profitability 
of  the  fishing  sector,  and  therefore  its  competiveness,  are  expected  to  increase  by  14% 
between 2014 and 2021.  

In the longer-term, if the Adriatic anchovy and sardine stocks collapse to very low levels, 
as happened e.g. in the 1980s, and as appears highly probable if current fishing levels are 
maintained (see Section 2.4.1) this would have serious consequences in terms of loss of 
employments, revenue and profitability for the sectors and communities depending on it 
(see  Section  2.3  for  the  stakeholders  affected  by  this  problem).  In  terms  of  secondary 
consequences, a reduction or collapse in fish stocks is likely to result in reduced supply 
of  fresh  anchovy  and  sardine  for  consumers  in  the  Adriatic.  It  would  also  result  in  a 
reduction  in  primary  material  for  processing  industries  in  the  Adriatic,  in  particular  in 
Croatia  and  Italy,  which  would  be  required  to  increase  their  imports  of  small  pelagics 
from other areas (and possibly to switch species). Prices for consumers for fresh fish or 
canned products may increase as a result of a decrease in supply but this is unlikely to be 
significant (see Annex III).  

2.5. Retrospective evaluation of the existing policy framework 

An on-going retrospective evaluation of the MEDREG85 found that, despite many of 
the MEDREG measures being implemented, the MEDREG appears to be failing on the 
majority of its objectives in the Northern Adriatic region, or results on effectiveness are 
inconclusive  due  to  limited  supporting  evidence.  For  example,  all  National  Authorities 
that were consulted in the context of this retrospective evaluation perceived little and no 
impacts of the MEDREG in reducing fishing effort in the Northern Adriatic region and 
that  the  MEDREG  has  had  a  limited  impact  on  number  of  vessels  and  employment  in 
Italy and Croatia.  

National  management  plans  adopted  by  Member  States  have  been  thoroughly 
analysed by the STECF30 based on a dedicated study53. STECF concluded that under the 

51   GFCM  (2016)  report  of  the  workshop  on  bioeconomic  assessment  of  management  measures 

(WKMSE), 1-3 February 2016.  

52   There  have  been  several  complete  collapses  of  fish  stocks  resulting  in  the  collapse  of  large, 
profitable  fisheries,  such  as  the  Californian  sardine  fishery  in  the  1950s,  the  Atlanto-Scandian 
herring fishery in the late 1960s, the Peruvian anchovy fishery in 1972, the Northern cod fishery off 
the  East  coast  of  Canada  in  1992  and  the  North  Sea  cod  fishery  (Kjellrun  et  al.  (2009)  Fisheries 
Depletion and Collapse. This case study accompanies the IRGC report “Risk Governance Deficits: 
An analysis and illustration of the most common deficits in risk governance”) 

53  MAREA:  MEDITERRANEAN  HALIEUTIC  RESOURCES  EVALUATION  AND  ADVICE  - 
SPECIFIC CONTRACT n° 9, Task 4 - Ad hoc scientific advice in support of the implementation of 
the Common Fisheries Policy, "Scientific advice on the conformity of management plans with the 

27 

 
                                                 
 
existing national management plans, reductions of the catches are insufficient to reach 
sustainable fishing levels by 2020 and therefore, STECF considers that, unless changes 
in the above aspects are made to the national management plans, it is very unlikely that 
the objectives of the CFP will be achieved.  

The main problems with the national management plans are the following:  

 

 

they do not contain the CFP objective of reaching sustainable fishing levels by 2020 
at the latest;  
they  take  a  national  approach  to  management  (by  definition)  which  means  the 
reference points (eg minimum biomass level) were determined at national rather than 
stock level which makes little sense biologically; 

  different  countries  apply  different  management  measures  so  different  parts  of  the 

 

stock are managed in different ways; 
the  plans  only  cover  national  waters  whereas  the  two  fish  stocks  are  found  also  in 
international  waters:  the  national  plans  therefore  have  gaps  in  their  coverage  and 
don't cover the activities of all fleets exploiting the resources (see Figure 1).  

STECF  considers  that  for  stocks  shared  by  several  countries,  regional  management 
plans  are  more  appropriate  and  that  a  management  plan  which  covers  all  fisheries  for 
sardine and anchovy in the Adriatic should be developed50 (see Annex XI).  

Regarding  the  international  measures  implemented  under  the  GFCM,  a  bioeconomic 
assessment of management measures for sardine and anchovy fisheries in the Adriatic 
was  carried  out  by  the  GFCM  in  201650.  Simulations  show  that  current  fishing 
mortalities54  are  too  high,  including  under  the  emergency  measures  adopted  by  the 
GFCM,  and  if  continued,  anchovy  and  sardine  stocks  would  remain  outside  biological 
safe limits or even collapse between 2020 and 2030 (see Annex XI).  

The reference points in the GFCM Management Plan have also undergone numerous 
reviews by the scientific community since the GFCM management plan was adopted in 
2013 and there is agreement that the values in the plan are not appropriate23.  

The  objectives  of  the  GFCM  plan  are  not  fully  aligned  with  those  of  the  CFP:  the 
GFCM plan is based essentially on biomass levels but CFP focuses on managing fishing 
mortality.  The  GFCM  plan  also  does  not  include  2020  (at  the  latest)  as  a  deadline  to 
achieve sustainable fishing levels, as required under the CFP. 

In  addition,  in  other  parts  of  the  EU,  almost  all  important  stocks  and  fisheries  are 
managed by means of a multi-annual plan, adopted before the latest reform of the CFP. 
Almost  all  these  plans  were  species-specific55.  Key  lessons  learned  from  implementing 
these  plans  include  the  fact  that  long-term  planning  works:  many  stocks  under  multi-
annual plans have recovered including iconic species such as cod (depleted in the 2000s). 
These  plans  have  also  shown  that  managing  a  stock  as  a  whole  (rather  than  different 
measures for different countries fishing a shared stock) makes most biological sense.  

3.  WHY SHOULD THE EU ACT? 

The principle of proportionality requires that the involvement of the institutions must be 
limited to what is necessary to achieve the objectives of the Treaties.  

requirements  of  the  Common  Fisheries  Policy  in  the  Mediterranean  Sea"-  Revised  report 
08.08.2014.  

54      Average of 2012-2014 
55   http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/fishing_rules/multi_annual_plans/index_en.htm  

28 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                 
According  to  Article  3.1(d)  of  the  TFEU106,  the  EU  has  exclusive  competence  for  the 
conservation of the marine biological resources under the CFP, managed directly through 
EU regulations. Furthermore, both the fish stocks and the fishing vessels concerned move 
freely across international boundaries so action at Member State level alone is unlikely to 
be  effective  in  achieving  the  objectives.  For  measures  to  be  effective,  these  should  be 
taken in a coordinated manner and made applicable to the whole area of distribution of 
the stock and to all fleets concerned. The initiative respects the principle of subsidiarity 
and fulfils its requirements. 

In  addition,  most  contributors  to  the  public  consultation  agreed  that  EU  intervention  is 
necessary, in the form of an EU management plan (see Annex II).  

However, it should be noted that one of the objectives of this  proposal is to  strengthen 
the  regional  governance  mechanisms,  as  provided  for  under  Article  18  of  the  Basic 
Regulation.    The  aim  of  Regionalisation  is  to  increase  the  involvement  of  the  Member 
States  affected  by  regulation  and  thus  their  ownership  of  the  measures.  The 
Commission's role is to ensure that the adopted measures fulfil the objectives of the Basic 
Act. Regionalisation thus constitutes an important shift from instrument-based to results-
based management (see Annex V for more details). 

4.  WHAT SHOULD BE ACHIEVED?  

The  general  objective  and  specific  objectives  and  their  relation  to  the  problems  being 
addressed by this initiative are presented in Figure 3 and detailed below. 

Figure 3. Specific and general objectives and their relationship to the problems 

4.1. General objectives 

The main objective is to contribute to the objectives of the common fisheries policy listed 
in Article 2 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013, namely:  

29 

 
 
 
1. The CFP shall ensure that fishing (…) activities are environmentally sustainable in the 
long-term and are managed in a way that is consistent with the objectives of achieving 
economic, social and employment benefits, and of contributing to the availability of food 
supplies.  

2. The CFP shall apply the precautionary approach to fisheries management, and shall 
aim  to  ensure  that  exploitation  of  living  marine  biological  resources  restores  and 
maintains populations of harvested species above levels which can produce the maximum 
sustainable yield (…) by 2015 where possible and, on a progressive, incremental basis at 
the latest by 2020 for all stocks.  

The  CFP  shall  provide  conditions  for  economically  viable  and  competitive  fishing 
capture and processing industry 

4.2. Specific objectives  

Specific objectives are as follows: 

  To achieve and maintain maximum sustainable yield for anchovy and sardine in the 

Adriatic by 2020 at the latest; 

  To achieve a sustainable fisheries sector for small pelagics in the Adriatic; 

  To provide an effective management framework for small pelagics in the Adriatic which 

is simpler and more stable and provides stakeholders with greater ownership. 

The  initiative  will  also  facilitate  implementation  of  the  landing  obligation  established 
under the Basic Regulation, by providing a basis for derogations for small pelagics in the 
Adriatic in certain circumscribed situations. 

The  initiative  shall  be  coherent  with  the  Union  environmental  legislation,  in  particular 
with the objective of achieving a good environmental status by 2020 as set out in Article 
1(1) of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD)56. 

Measures  under  this  initiative  should  be  taken  in  accordance  with  the  best  available 
scientific advice. 

5.  WHAT ARE THE VARIOUS OPTIONS TO ACHIEVE THE OBJECTIVES  

5.1. Discarded policy option  

A potential policy option which was discarded early on was that of using non-legislative 
instruments or "soft law" to address the problems identified in Section 2. Under such an 
option,  the  EU  would  try  to  address  the  problems  of  overfishing  and  ineffective 
governance by using tools such as guidelines, or communication campaigns. These could 
aim for example at promoting better fishing practices or improving awareness regarding 
the  existing  problems,  to  orient  consumer  choice  and  market  demand,  to  improve 
ownership of fishing operators.  

However, such elements of soft law, while they could contribute to the objectives of the 
CFP,  are  by  themselves  insufficient  to  actually  reach  those  ambitious  objectives  of  the 
CFP  and  of  this  initiative.  This  is  due,  in  part,  to  the  specific  nature  of  one  of  the 
problems  this  initiative  aims  to  address,  namely  overfishing.  Overfishing  occurs  in  an 
open, unmanaged fishery as every fisherman tries to maximise his catch without paying 

56   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) (Text with EEA relevance). OJ L 164, 25.6.2008, p. 19–40 

30 

 
                                                 
attention  to  the  long-term  consequences  for  the  state  of  fish  stocks.  An  individual 
fisherman simply does not have an incentive to catch less than he can. In the end, when 
stocks  decline,  the  outcome  is  unsatisfactory  for  all  fishers.  This  situation  is  often 
referred to as "the tragedy of the commons"57. Additionally, without regulation, there is 
no  incentive  for  fishers  to  avoid  the  young  fish  which  have  not  yet  had  the  chance  to 
reproduce;  this  further  deteriorates  the  state  of  the  fish  stock  in  question58.  Given  this 
situation, regulation is needed to prevent overfishing and, for some fisheries, discarding. 

Not a single contribution during the consultation work that took place in the context of 
this  initiative  put  forward  soft  law  as  an  option  to  address  the  problems  faced  by  the 
Adriatic small pelagic fishery (Annex II). 

Another  policy  option  which  was  discarded  was  that  of  managing  the  small  pelagic 
stocks  purely  through  international  measures,  under  the  GFCM.  The  international  level 
would  in  fact  be  the  most  appropriate  given  that  anchovy  and  sardine  stocks  in  the 
Adriatic  are  fished  by  EU  Member  States  but  also  –  to  a  minor  extent  –  by  third 
countries.  In  Regional  Fisheries  Management  Organisations,  such  as  the  GFCM, 
decisions  are  taken  by  the  Contracting  Parties  and  the  EU  therefore  has  no  guarantees 
that the measures which it proposes will be adopted. And even if sufficiently ambitious 
measures  were  adopted  by  the  GFCM,  there  is  always  the  potential  that  another  Party 
could  reopen  these  in  future.  There  is  also  reason  to  doubt  whether  measures  at 
international  level  would  be  properly  implemented,  given  that  in  the  specific  case  of 
anchovy and sardine in the Adriatic, an ambitious management has been adopted under 
the  GFCM,  but  three  years  on  it  has  still  not  been  implemented  in  full.  Therefore,  this 
option was considered to contain too high a risk that the objectives of the CFP would not 
be  met,  in  particular  given  the  urgency  (2020  at  the  latest)  of  having  the  stocks  fished 
sustainably. 

5.2. Retained policy options 

A  screening  of  different  policy  options,  of  the  outcomes  of  consultation  work,  and 
intensive discussion with the Impact Assessment Steering Group (see Annex I) led to the 
retention  of  three  main  policy  options,  including  sub-options  for  one  of  them.  These 
policy  options  aim  to  address  the  problems  identified  in  Section  2  and thereby to  meet 
the policy objectives set out in Section 4. The policy options must also be considered in 
the context of the time limitation set by the CFP: stocks should be fished sustainably by 
2020 at the latest. 

The  Baseline  option  (Option  1),  against  which  the  other  options  are  compared,  is  the 
status quo, in which there is no policy change and management of anchovy and sardine in 
the Adriatic continues as it has in recent years. 

Option 2 involves the development of new EU legislation, in the form of an EU multi-
annual plan to manage small pelagics and their fisheries in the Adriatic. The choice of an 
EU  multi-annual  plan  is  based  on  the  fact  that  the  Basic  Regulation  states  that 
"Multiannual  plans  shall  be  adopted  as  a  priority,  based  on  scientific,  technical  and 
economic  advice,  and  shall  contain  conservation  measures  to  restore  and  maintain  fish 
stocks above levels capable of producing maximum sustainable yield" (Article 10). The 
contents of multi-annual plan is framed in large part by the Basic Regulation as well as 
an inter-institutional agreement and the first such multi-annual plan that has been adopted 

57   Hardin (1968) The Tragedy of the Commons. Science Vol. 162(3859), pp. 1243-1248.  
58   See,  for  example,  Grafton,  R.Q.,  Kirkley,  J.,  Kompass,  T.  &  D.  Squires.  2006.  Economics  for 
Fisheries  Management.  Ashgate  Studies  in  Environmental  and  Natural  Resource  Economics,  176 
pp. 

31 

 
                                                 
(for  the  Baltic)  as  detailed  in  section  5.2.2.  Under  such  a  plan,  the  key  policy  choice 
concerns  the  deadline  for  achieving  sustainable  fishing:  two  sub-options  are  therefore 
compared, with 2018 and 2020 as the deadlines. 

Option  3  involves  an  attempt  to  amend  the  current  management  framework  in  order  to 
ensure that it would enable the stocks to be fished sustainably by 2020 at the latest, and 
thereby  to  ensure  a  sustainable  fisheries  sector  and  to  deliver  on  those  specific  policy 
objectives.  Because  the  current  framework  consists  of  national  and  international 
legislation,  the  EU  cannot  guarantee  the  outcome  of  the  process  and  two  possible 
outcomes are considered: if the EU does not manage to amend the current framework, the 
fisheries will continue to be managed under the current framework (Option 1) whilst if 
the current framework is successfully amended such that the sustainability objectives of 
the  CFP  can  be  achieved,  the  outcomes  would  be  those  expected  under  Option  2  (see 
Figure 4). These policy options are detailed below. 

The modelling of the impacts of the policy options, as presented below, is based on the 
study on Management scenarios for the preparation of multi-annual management plans in 
the Mediterranean and the Black Sea"66 which is presented in more detail in Annex  IV 
including assumptions of the model and input data. 

The  stakeholders  targeted  by  each  policy  option  are  the  same  for  the  different  policy 
options,  namely  Member  States'  authorities  and  the  fisheries  sector  as  the  key 
stakeholders. 

Figure 4. Retained policy options to achieve the objectives of this initiative 

5.2.1.  Option 1: No policy change - Status quo (Baseline option) 

The first Option consists of the situation in which no new EU legislation is introduced 
and management of the stocks is based on existing tools (i.e. Status quo). 

Under  this  Option,  anchovy  and  sardine  in  the  Adriatic  would  continue  to  be  managed 
under the three national management plans adopted under the MEDREG, an EU discard 
plan  covering  small  pelagics  in  the  Adriatic  until  end  of  2017  and  the  management 
measures internationally agreed within GFCM (see Section 1.3). 

32 

 
 
 
Member  States  would  be  subject  to  the  obligations  stemming  directly  from  the  CFP 
Basic Regulation, including the obligation to manage stocks sustainably by 2020 at the 
latest and the obligation to land all catches.  

Regarding the implementation of the landing obligation, under Option 1 – no additional 
EU  legislation  -  it  would  not  be  possible  to  replace  the  discard  plans  after  they  have 
lapsed  i.e.  at  the  end  of  2017.  The  landing  obligation  would  thus  be  applicable  to  the 
whole fishery without the current exceptions65.  

Regarding  the  implementation  of  regionalisation  (see  Annex  V),  as  a  mechanism  to 
adopt  e.g.  conservation  measures,  this  would  not  be  possible  under  Option  1,  as 
regionalisation  for  conservation  measures,  as  for  derogations  to  the  landing  obligation, 
can only take place in the context of EU multi-annual plans59.  

5.2.2.  Option 2: EU multi-annual plan 

Contents of the multi-annual plan 

Under this option, EU fishing activities targeting anchovy and sardine in the Adriatic are 
regulated by a dedicated EU management framework in the form of an EU multi-annual 
plan. The Basic Regulation contains provisions on the objectives and contents of multi-
annual plans (in particular Articles 9 and 10) which therefore frame what can be included 
in  such  a  plan  (see  Annex  V  &  XIV  for  more  details).  Certain  provisions  of  the  EU 
fisheries Control Regulation60 may also be adapted in a multi-annual plan (see Annex XI 
& Annex XIV). Furthermore, the precise shape and content of future multi-annual plans 
were  the  subject  of  work  by  an  inter-institutional  task6  and  the  Adriatic  small  pelagic 
multi-annual plan  should follow this as  well as  follow the approach  taken in  the Baltic 
Sea multi-annual plan (see Annex XIII).  

Each multi-annual plans based on the new Basic Regulation will therefore contains the 
same core elements, but tailored to each particular fishery. Nevertheless, when tailoring a 
multi-annual plan to the specific fishery there are potentially a number of choices to be 
made: 

i)  the scope of the proposal in terms of species and geographical coverage;  
ii) deadline for achieving sustainable fishing;  
iii) conservation reference points including the sustainable fishing mortality range; 
iv) the management measures to ensure the targets are reached; 
v) how to introduce measures in the multi-annual plan relating to the landing obligation. 

In the case of the small pelagic fishery in the Adriatic, the contents of a multi-annual plan 
is presented below, including aspects for which choices need to be made and others for 
which this is not relevant due to the particular nature of this fishery: 

i) Scope of the multi-annual plan in terms of species and geographical coverage 

Which  species  should  be  included?  Anchovy  and  sardine  account  for  over  97%  of 
catches  of  small  pelagic  fish  in  the  Adriatic  and  are  the  only  Adriatic  small  pelagic 
species  which  have  been  assessed  by  scientists  (and  therefore  for  which  conservation 
reference points are available). Furthermore, anchovy and sardine are caught in relatively 
'clean' fisheries, where there is minimal by-catch of other species the level of discarding 
is  considered  to  be  negligible,  because  the  gears  involved  in  the  fisheries  are  fairly 

59   with the exception of one three-year discard plan which can be adopted through regionalisation 
60   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). 

33 

 
                                                 
selective (see  Annex IV).  It is therefore not  relevant  or  possible to  manage  other small 
pelagic species under this multi-annual plan on the basis of conservation reference points 
such  as  fishing  mortality  targets  and  biological  safeguards.  Stakeholders  during  the 
public consultation considered that the measures of a possible multi-annual plan should 
be focused on anchovy and sardine and considered that for the management of secondary 
target  species  the  provisions  of  the  landing  obligation  are  sufficient.  The  scope  of  the 
current  discard  plan  covering  small  pelagics  in  the  Adriatic  covers  anchovy,  sardine  as 
well as mackerel and horse mackerel – these are the small pelagic species for which the 
landing obligation applies and for which specific derogations were considered necessary 
to facilitate the implementation of the landing obligation  

Why not manage anchovy and sardine under separate plans? Anchovy and sardine in 
the  Adriatic  are  part  of  a  mixed  fishery  which  means  that  the  same  fishers  and  vessels 
(and  gear)  are  used  to  catch  both  species  and  to  a  very  limited  extent,  also  secondary 
species  such  as  mackerel  or  horse  mackerel.  It  therefore  makes  sense  to  manage  these 
species together rather than under separate multi-annual plans. Both anchovy and sardine 
are  already  managed  together  under  the  international  GFCM  management  plan  (see 
Section 1.3). This also follows STECF's recommendation, that a management plan which 
covers all fisheries for sardine and anchovy in the Adriatic should be developed for these 
shared stocks30.  

What  should  the  geographical  scope  be?  The  anchovy  and  sardine  that  occur  in  the 
Adriatic are distinct stocks (i.e. populations) which are different to stocks in other parts 
of  the  Mediterranean.  The  anchovy  and  sardine  stock  move  within  the  Northern  and 
Southern  parts  of  the  Adriatic  and  are  caught  by  vessels  fishing  in  both  parts  of  the 
Adriatic. In terms of geographic scope, the most appropriate management unit for these 
stocks  is  the  whole  Adriatic,  to  ensure  the  stocks  are  managed  in  their  entirety. 
Developing a broader plan covering other stocks of anchovy and sardine in neighbouring 
sea basins does not make sense because the fleets targeting these stocks are different, and 
the stocks would have different statuses and biological reference sizes (e.g. target fishing 
mortality levels). 

The  EU  multi-annual  plan  would  cover  all  EU  vessels  fishing  within  and  beyond  EU 
waters hence the full coverage would be ensured in terms of the EU fishing sector. 

ii) Deadline for achieving sustainable fishing levels 

Article 2(2) of the Basic Regulation provides for a binding obligation to reach sustainable 
fishing levels but leaves some flexibility regarding the timeframe for reaching this target 
(by  2015  where  possible  and  […]  at  the  latest  by  2020).  A  multi-annual  plan  should 
specify this deadline for the Adriatic small pelagic stocks.  

This  deadline  may  have  different  impacts  on  the  state  of  the  stocks  and  the  speed  of 
recovery, as well as socio-economic impacts for the sector. The environmental, economic 
and social impacts of different timeframes should therefore be assessed.  

Two main sub-options in terms of deadline under an EU multi-annual plan have therefore 
been  considered:  by  2018  or  by  2020  (see  Figure  4).  These  dates  were  chosen  for  the 
following  reasons:  2018  appears  to  be  the  earliest  date  by  which  the  EU  multi-annual 
plan could be adopted and measures thereunder could be implemented. 2020 if the latest 
date by which sustainable fishing levels need to be reached under the Basic Regulation. 

iii)  Conservation  reference  points  including  the  range  of  sustainable  fishing 
mortality 

34 

 
On the basis of Article 10 of the Basic Regulation, the multi-annual plan would contain 
the following reference points for anchovy and sardine61: 

  A  range  of  target  fishing  mortality  which  is  considered  compatible  with  sustainable 

fishing (FMSY range). 

  Safeguard values in terms of fish biomass which serve as triggers for management action: 
when the stocks concerned fall below these pre-defined sizes, safeguard measures should 
be adopted. 

As the multi-annual plan should be based on the best available science, the conservation 
reference  points  would  be  based  on  the  latest  scientific  advice.  At  the  time  of  drafting 
this  impact  assessment  the  latest  scientific  advice  from  the  STECF,  the  Commission's 
scientific  advisory  body  for  fisheries,  was  that  of  their  September  2015  meeting114  and 
these values were used to model the impacts under Option 2 (Annex IV).  

iv) Management measures to ensure the targets are reached 

As demonstrated by the scientific advice (Annex VI), current fishing mortality and hence 
catch levels will need to be adapted to reach sustainable levels by 2020 at the latest. This 
can  be  achieved  in  several  ways,  of  which  the  main  choice  is  whether  to  use  input  or 
output controls (see Annex VIII).  

Outside the Mediterranean, many EU fish stocks are managed using catch-limits (=output 
control), whereby a total allowable catch (TAC - for the whole stock) and national quotas 
(per Member State) are fixed annually or biennially (see Annex VIII). This allows fishing 
mortality  to  be  controlled  directly,  through  catches,  rather  than  the  current  indirect 
methods based on input controls i.e. effort management. The use of TAC & quota in the 
Atlantic is thought to have contributed to the overall improvement in stock status, with 
an increasing number of stocks being fished sustainably in recent years62. 

Given  that  the  measures  used  to  manage  anchovy  and  sardine  in  the  Adriatic  to  date 
(effort  and  selectivity  =  input  control)  have  not  been  sufficient  to  ensure  sustainable 
exploitation  of  the  fishery  (see  Section  2.4),  it  seems  necessary  to  propose  a  new 
management approach. Stakeholders during the public consultation were quite divided on 
the  subject  of  catch  limits  (Annex  II).  The  STECF,  however,  has  recommended  that 
output controls (catch limits) would be a more effective management tool for fisheries of 
small pelagic species in the Mediterranean37,38.  

For these reasons,  the multi-annual plan would include  catch-limits as the management 
approach. In practice, the plan would set the range of fishing mortality for anchovy and 
for sardine (at stock-level) that needs to be respected to ensure sustainable fishing levels 
are  reached  by  2020.  Each  year  the  Commission  would  adopt  a  proposal  for  TAC  and 
quotas compatible with these target fishing mortality ranges, based on scientific advice. 
The  Council  should  then  adopt  annual  TAC  and  quotas  in  line  with  these  fishing 
mortality ranges.  

The  TAC  and  quota  can  be  considered  as  a  safeguard,  i.e.  a  level  of  catches  not  to  be 
exceeded.  This  approach  would  provide  Member  States  with  the  flexibility,  either 
nationally or on a regional basis, to choose the measures they want to implement to stay 
within their national quotas, such as reducing their fleet or limiting the days vessels will 

61   As these species drive the fishery, and they are the only Adriatic small pelagic stocks for which a 
stock assessment has been carried out and for which conservation reference points are available. 
62   Between 2006 and 2014, the stocks number fished sustainably (at MSY) increased from 2 to 26.   

COM (2015) 239 final - Communication from the Commission to the European parliament and the 
Council. Consultation on the fishing opportunities for 2016 under the Common Fisheries Policy   

35 

 
                                                 
  
fish,  or  allocating  quotas  per  vessel,  or  closing  areas/periods  to  fishing  etc.  If  Member 
States want to make regional decisions, they can do so, in line with the new mechanism 
of  regionalisation  introduced  by  the  CFP,  and  for  which  there  has  been  such  a  strong 
demand from all stakeholders, including Member States.  

The choice of the mechanism to achieve sustainable fishing levels would therefore be set 
in  the  multi-annual  plan  (annual  TAC  and  quota)  but  the  exact  management  tools  to 
deliver on this would be left to Member States. This is in line with the request during the 
public consultation that the multi-annual plan focus on the orientation and determination 
of the objectives.  

v) Choice of how to introduce measures regarding the landing obligation  

As described in Annex V, the Basic Regulation allows the adoption of so-called "discard 
plans"  through  Regionalisation  to  adopt  exemptions  from  the  landing  obligation  for  no 
more  than  three  years. After  the  expiry  of  these  discard  plans,  exemptions  may  still  be 
needed,  in  order  to  allow  for  the  discarding  of  species  that  survive  discarding  (i.e.  it 
makes more sense for them to be thrown back in the sea if they will survive) and to allow 
for exemptions in situations where the landing obligation is a disproportionate  measure 
(e.g. in terms of the cost of implementing the landing obligation). The Basic Regulation 
itself  foresees  in  Article  15(5)  that  such  exemptions  should  be  adopted  as  parts  of  a 
multi-annual plan and could be done on the basis of Regionalisation.  

When drafting a multi-annual plan, the Commission will have to decide which elements 
of the future exemptions from the Basic Regulation will be included in the multi-annual 
plan itself and which elements will be adopted as a part of a Delegated Act to be adopted 
on the basis of Joint Recommendations by Member States.  

However, the option of including exemptions in the plan itself does not make sense, as 
the contents of the discard plans that are adopted on the Basic Regulation may need to 
evolve. So far, Croatia, Italy and Slovenia have brought forward a Joint Recommendation 
concerning  small  pelagic  fisheries  in  the  Adriatic  that  is  in  force  until  end  of  2017. 
Further Joint Recommendations could be submitted by Member States for these fisheries 
on  the  basis  of  new  scientific  research  for  example  on  survivability  of  species  after 
discarding  (something  on  which  there  are  still  large  gaps  in  knowledge).  In  addition, 
respondents during the public consultation expressed a preference for not fixing measures 
in  the  multi-annual  plan  but  leaving  this  to  be  decided  through  regionalisation.  The 
adaptive, flexible approach of regionalisation would therefore be the preferred option for 
this element of the plan rather than having  to  amend the  multi-annual  plan through the 
ordinary legislative proposal.  

The  choice  of  how  to  introduce  provisions  to  implement  the  landing  obligation  is  not 
considered  to  affect  the  possible  environmental,  social  or  economic  impacts  of  an  EU 
multi-annual plan or on the effectiveness in achieving the objectives. It has therefore not 
been considered in the different sub-options. 

Sub-options for an EU multi-annual plan  

On the basis of the section above, the key choice to be made by the legislators concerns 
the  deadline  by  which  stocks  should  be  managed  sustainably.  Two  possible  deadlines 
were  therefore  considered  as  sub-options:  Sub-Option  2  (2018)  and  Sub-Option 
2(2020).  For  both  sub-options,  in  terms  of  modelling  of  the  likely  impacts,  it  was 
assumed that a mixture of reduction in fishing activity and fishing capacity take place to 
ensure the required reduction in catch levels and fishing mortality (to achieve sustainable 
fishing levels)(see Annex IV).  

36 

 
The  way  in  which  Member  States  choose  distribute  the  reductions  in  fishing  effort 
throughout their fleet will result in different impacts on different fleet segments. On this 
basis, for each sub-option, the range of possible impacts has been evaluated, based on the 
manner  in  which  the  reduction  in  activity/capacity  is  distributed  throughout  the  fleets 
concerned. The  reduction  is  either  applied  proportionally  to  the  fleets'  impact  on  the 
stocks  (such  that  fleet  segments  having  a  greater  impact  on  the  stocks  have  to  reduce 
their  activity  and  capacity  more  than  segments  with  a  lower  impact)  or  it  is  applied 
equally across all fleet segments (see Annex IV).  

The  way  in  which  reductions  in  fishing  effort  would  be  shared  between  fleet  segments 
will  not  be  specified  through  an  EU  multi-annual  plan  (and  hence  not  a  choice  for  the 
legislators),  but  is  up  to  the  Member  State  to  decide.  However,  the  information  on  the 
range  of  impacts  of  these  sub-options  may  prove  useful  for  Member  States  in  taking 
decisions on how to allocate reductions in fishing mortality within their fleet. 

Accompanying measures under this option 
The  Commission  would  invite  the  Member  States  concerned  to  repeal  or  adapt63  their 
national management plans given that the provisions on small pelagics therein would be 
superseded by the EU plan. 

Under this Option, the EU would make proposals to amend the GFCM management plan 
to align it with the EU multi-annual plan.  

The  EU  multi-annual  plan,  which  would  be  adopted  under  the  Ordinary  Legislative 
Procedure,  would  translate  the  provisions  of  the  Basic  Regulation  relating  to  the 
maximum sustainable yield objectives, regionalisation and the landing obligation into a 
specific geographically targeted proposal, while taking into account the most up–to–date 
scientific information about the small pelagic fisheries in that area. 

5.2.3.  Option 3: Attempt to change the current framework 

Under  this  option  the  current  management  tools,  namely  the  combination  of  national 
management plans and of GFCM recommendations, would have to be revised in order to 
integrate the objectives of the revised CFP Basic Regulation.  

Regarding  the  national  management  plans:  Under  Article  19(3)  of  the  MEDREG, 
Member  States  should  ensure  adequate  scientific  monitoring  of  the  management  plans 
and should revise management measures when required. Member States should therefore 
update their plans, on the basis of their scientific monitoring as well as the retrospective 
evaluation  that  was  carried  out  by  the  STECF  (see  Section  2.6).  The  plans  should  be 
amended  to  incorporate  the  CFP  sustainability  targets  by  2020  at  the  latest  and  the 
management measures should be adapted to ensure that these targets are met. In practice 
this would mean that fishing levels would need to be reduced and each Member States 
would choose how best to do this under their respective national plan.  

However, in practice the revised CFP and its obligations on Member States entered into 
force  over  2  years  ago,  but  to  date  none  of  the  Member  States  involved  in  this  fishery 
have revised their national plans, despite the fact that they are not fully in line with the 
Member States' obligations under the  new CFP (see  Section 2.5).  Therefore, under this 

63   Some  national  management  plans  cover  other  species  than  small  pelagics  as  the  national 

management plans focus on gears not species. 

37 

 
                                                 
Option, the Commission would most likely need to intervene by asking Member States to 
update their national plans on the basis of Article 19(9) of the MEDREG64.  

Under  this  Option,  it  is  difficult  to  predict  what  the  exact  contents  of  the  updated 
management plans would be and by when they would be adopted, given that these plans 
are  national  legal  acts  adopted  by  Member  States,  and  that  the  exact  content  and  the 
revision process do not depend on the Commission which can only have a steering role. 
Commission  guidelines  could  be  envisaged  to  guide  the  revision  process.  The 
Commission could also recommend that Member States co-ordinate the revisions of their 
plans with one another, to try and ensure that there is regional coherence in the measures 
adopted. The revised plans could be evaluated by STECF to verify that they are fully in 
line with the CFP's sustainability objectives. 

There could be a range of outcomes of the revision process, ranging from a situation  in 
which  the  plans  are  not  updated  in  time,  or  are  not  updated  in  a  sufficiently  ambitious 
manner to achieve sustainable fishing levels by 2020, to a situation in which the plans are 
updated rapidly and fully in line with CFP sustainability objectives.  

Even  in  the  best  case  scenario,  the  geographic  scope  of  the  national  plans  would  not 
cover  the  full  distribution  of  the  fish  stocks,  as  the  plans  only  apply  to  fisheries 
conducted within Member States' territorial waters but not to international waters. 

Therefore, given that the small pelagic stocks move freely within the Adriatic and are not 
limited  to  territorial  waters  of  EU  Member  States,  for  this  option  to  be  effective,  a 
revision  of 
relevant  GFCM 
recommendations)  would  also  be  needed,  as  GFCM  has  jurisdiction  in  international 
waters. Such a revision should aim to fully integrate the objectives of the CFP into the 
GFCM recommendations.  

international  management  plan 

(i.e. 

the 

the 

In terms of process, the EU would need to make a proposal at one of the GFCM Annual 
Sessions  to  amend  the  GFCM  Recommendation  GFCM/37/2013/1  (the  GFCM 
management  plan),  which  would  then  be  open  for  negotiation/modification  and  then 
adopted  or  rejected  by  the  other  GFCM  Contracting  Parties.  It  is  impossible  to  foresee 
which modifications would be introduced into the GFCM management plan and when a 
revised  plan  would  be  adopted.  Ultimately,  if  the  Commission  succeeds  therein  and  a 
proposal  to  amend  the  GFCM  recommendation  was  adopted,  the  revised  GFCM 
recommendations would have to be transposed into EU law, via the ordinary Legislative 
Procedure.  If  the  proposal  is  not  adopted  by  the  GFCM,  then  the  EU  could  make  the 
proposal again the following year.  

As explained above, as the current measures do not depend directly on the Commission, 
but  instead  on  Member  States  (for  the  national  plans)  and  on  an  international 
organization  and  its  Contracting  parties  (the  GFCM  plan).  Therefore,  there  could  be  a 
range of outcomes under Option 1 depending on the extent and timing of the amendment 
of  the  current  framework.  Therefore,  for  the  purpose  of  this  analysis,  two  extreme 
outcomes  are  considered  under  Option  1:  a  best-case  scenario  in  which  all  current 
management  tools  are  updated  rapidly  and  fully  in  line  with  the  CFP  sustainability 
objective,  and  a  worst-case  scenario  in  which  the  national  management  plans  are  not 
updated fully and in time to reach the CFP sustainability objectives of 2020 and in which 
the  EU  would  fail  to  amend  the  GFCM  Recommendation  in  time  to  reach  the  CFP 

64   According to which, if the Commission considers, for example on the basis of new scientific advice, 
that a national management plan  is not sufficient to ensure a high level of protection of resources 
and the environment, it may, after having consulted the Member State, ask that State to amend the 
plan 

38 

 
                                                 
sustainability  objectives  of  2020.  In  such  a  case,  the  small  pelagic  fisheries  would 
continue to be managed under the current framework (Status quo) (see Figure 4). 

Regarding the implementation of the landing obligation, under Option 3 it would not be 
possible to replace the discard plans after they have lapsed i.e. at the end of 2017. The 
landing  obligation  would  thus  be  applicable  to  the  whole  fishery  without  the  current 
exceptions65 (see Annex V).  

Regarding  the  implementation  of  Regionalisation  for  conservation  measures,  and  for 
derogations  to  the  landing  obligation,  this  would  not  be  possible  under  Option  3,  as 
regionalisation, can only take place in the context of EU multi-annual plans59 (see Annex 
V).  

6.  WHAT ARE THE IMPACTS OF THE DIFFERENT POLICY OPTIONS AND WHO WILL BE 

AFFECTED? IMPACTS  

On the basis of the study on Management Scenarios66, the following indicators have been 
used to assess impacts of the different Options and sub-options in 2021 which is the first 
year after the CFP objectives of sustainability should be reached (at the latest – 2020):  

1.  Socio-economic  impacts:  catches  of  sardine  and  anchovy,  the  average  salary  (per 
employee),  total  revenues,  net  profit,  the  ratio  between  current  and  break-even 
revenues (CR/BER)67.  

As  some  of  these  indicators  have  both  economic  and  social  dimensions  (e.g.  salary, 
profits) the social and economic impacts are considered together in one section.  

2. Environmental impacts: The stock size of anchovy and sardine has been used to assess 
quantitatively the impacts of the different sub-options. The knock-on effect of this stock 
size on the broader ecosystem (food chain) is also discussed. 
The socio-economic indicators focus on the fishing sector on the basis that: 
  This is the primary sector that would be affected;  
  The impacts would be more directly relevant to the fishing sector, and therefore the 
outcomes  of  the  modelling  is  more  precise  than  knock-on  effects  on  secondary 
sectors where there is substantially more uncertainty in likely impacts; 

  Detailed data at the required scale (in terms of geographic scope (only the Adriatic) 
and fisheries/species, including by fleet segment) is available through the EU's Data 
Collection Framework129 for the fishing sector only.  

In addition, an assessment of possible knock-on consequences in terms of market effects 
is included based on a report carried out by DG MARE and the EU Market Observatory 
for Fisheries and Aquaculture products (EUMOFA)32. This includes impacts on imports 
and exports, on prices at first sale of anchovy and sardine and on the processing sector 
(see Annex III). This assessment in done on a qualitative basis, based on general trends 
observer  in  the  Adriatic  small  pelagic  fishery  and  markets,  and  based  on  a  comparable 
case study using sardine fisheries off the Spanish and Portuguese coast. Because of the 
uncertainty surrounding the way in which markets could react to changes in availability 

65    Specified in the Discard Plan for certain small pelagic fisheries in the Mediterranean Sea17 
66   Bitetto  I.,  Facchini  M.T.,  Accadia  P.,  Carpi  P.,  Ligas  A.,  Musumeci  C.,  Pinello  D.,  Scarcella  G., 
Lembo G., Spedicato M.T. (2015) Study on the evaluation of specific management scenarios for the 
preparation  of  multiannual  management  plans  in  the  Mediterranean  and  the  Black  Seas.  Include 
hyperlink when published. 

67   This is an indicator of profitability indicating whether current revenues are superior to the variable 

and fixed costs (value > 1) or whether the fleet is operating at a loss (value < 1) 

39 

 
                                                 
of  anchovy  and  sardine  from  the  Adriatic  fisheries  and  the  difficulty  in  modelling  this 
accurately, the information should only be taken as indicative of possible future impacts.  

Small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) 

All the impacts described below are expected to be particularly applicable to SMEs,  as 
almost all fishing firms involved in this fishery and a wide majority of companies in the 
downstream supply chain (processing sector) are in fact micro-enterprises or SMEs:  

In  terms  of  the  fishing  sector  for  small  pelagics  in  the  Adriatic,  enterprises  with  fewer 
than  five  vessels  account  for  96%  of  the  Croatian  fishing  sector,  97%  of  the  Italian 
sector, and 99% of the Slovenian sector. 

In  terms  of  the  processing  sector,  in  both  Italy  and  Slovenia,  100%  of  processing 
enterprises  meet  the  definition  of  SMEs  in  terms  of  number  of  employees68  (i.e.  <250 
employees) whilst in Croatia this figure is 95% (see Section 2.3).  

The CFP is a policy specifically geared to deal with micro-enterprises, as indeed SMEs 
are  the  norm  within  the  fishing  sector,  rather  than  the  exception.  There  is  therefore  no 
basis to exclude from the scope of the CFP firms on the basis of their size or else the vast 
majority of the fishing sector would be excluded and having a CFP would be effectively 
pointless.  

The  environmental  and  socio-economic  impacts  of  the  different  policy  options  are 
presented  below  and  in  Table  1  and  in  Annex  VII  in  graphical  format,  including  past 
trends and prediction of future trends until 2021. 

6.1. Option 1: Status Quo (Baseline)  

The environmental and socio-economic impacts of Option 1 are presented in Section 2.4 
and in Table 1. 

68   Based on data from the Report of the STECF Expert Group on: Economic Performance of the EU 
here: 
(STECF-14-21). 

available 

Industry 

tables 

Data 

Fish 
https://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu/data-reports  

Processing 

40 

 
 
                                                 
Table 1 Overview of the performances of the Options by 2021, in terms of % change with respect to the Baseline. For reference purposes, the 
current situation (in 2014) is also included. 

Option or sub-option 

Scenario  

Current situation 
(2014) 

Option 
(Status quo) 

1:  Baseline 

Option 2 

Sub-option 2 (2018) 

Option 2 

Sub-option 2 (2020) 

Fishing reduction proportional to fleet 
segments' impact 

Equal reduction in fishing for all fleet 
segments 

Fishing reduction proportional to fleet 
segments' impact 

Equal reduction in fishing for all fleet 
segments 

Salary 

(euros) 

Profitability 
(CR/BER 

ratio) 

Rev. 

(million 
euros) 

Empl. 

(units) 

Catch 
Anchovy 

Catch 
Sardine 

Anchovy 
stock size 

Sardine 
stock size 

(tons) 

(tons) 

(tons) 

(tons) 

When will 
FMSY be 
reached for 
both stocks? 

11 727 

0.77 

75.5 

2011 

24 969 

73 423 

68 298 

383 710 

N.A.  

12 146 

0.88 

78.4 

2057 

24 318 

85 789 

68 879 

358 387 

Never  

9.7 

17.1 

-25.4 

-12.8 

-30.1 

-32.2 

24.0 

22.8 

2018 

0.9 

-1.0 

-25.4 

-6.4 

-29.4 

-31.5 

18.8 

19.8 

2018 

6.4 

13.2 

-27.1 

-12.8 

-31.3 

-36.0 

21.2 

22.0 

2020 

-2.1 

-4.7 

-27.2 

-6.4 

-29.8 

-35.2 

22.2 

17.6 

2020 

Option 3 

Worst-case 

Best-case 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Never  

-2.1 to 9.7 

-4.7 to 17.1 

-27.2 to – 
25.4 

-6.4 to 

-29.4 to  

 -12.8 

-31.3 

-32.2 to -
36.0 

18.8 to 24.0 

17.6 to 
22.8 

2018 to 2020 

Key: Rev. = revenues, Empl. = employment, CR/BER = ratio between current and break-even revenues. Fmsy = sustainable fishing levels. The green values are higher than +5%, the 
red ones are smaller than -5% and the yellow ones are between -5% and +5%. 

41 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
6.2. Option 2: EU multi-annual plan (including sub-options) 

Environmental impacts 

Under Option 2 (2018), the anchovy stock size would be between 82 000 t and 85 000 t 
in  2021,  equivalent  to  19-24%  higher  than  under  the  Baseline  Scenario.  The  sardine 
stock size would be around 429 000t to 440 000t in 2021, equivalent to 20-23% higher 
than under the Baseline Scenario (see Table 1 and Annex VII Figures 1 and 2).  

Under Option 2 (2020), the anchovy stock size would be between 83 000 t and 84 000 t 
in  2021,  equivalent  to  21-22%  higher  than  under  the  Baseline  Scenario.  The  sardine 
stock size would be around 437 000t to 422 000t in 2021, equivalent to 18-22% higher 
than under the Baseline Scenario.  

This  increase  in  biomass  of  anchovy  and  sardine  under  Option  2  would  result  in  more 
food  being  available  to  larger  (and  more  valuable)  predatory  fish  such  as  Blue-fin 
tuna, which should have  a positive impact on their stock sizes and hence on the levels of 
catches and the profitability of those fisheries. Increased biomass of anchovy and sardine 
should also benefit the populations of as well as for marine mammals and seabirds which 
predate on them. 

Socio-economic impacts 

Under Option 2 (2018), catches of anchovy that could be sustained would be between 
16  998  t  and  17178  t,  equivalent  to  a  decrease  of  29-30%  compared  to  the  Baseline 
Scenario.  Catches  of  sardines  would  be  between  49  780  t  and  50  294  t,  equivalent  to 
around a 32% decrease compared to the Baseline Scenario (see Table 1 and Annex VII 
Figures 3 and 4).  

The level of employment would be between 1793 and 1924 workers in 2021, equivalent 
to between 6-13% lower than under the Baseline Scenario. The average salary would be 
between  13  318  Euros  and  12  254  Euros  in  2021,  equivalent  to  between  1  and  10% 
higher than under the Baseline Scenario. 

Total  revenue  would  be  around  58.5  million  Euros  in  2021,  equivalent  to  a  level  of 
revenues  25%  lower  than  under the Baseline  Scenario.  Profitability  would  be  between 
1.037 and 0.876 in 2021, equivalent to an increase of 17% or a 1% decrease compared to 
the Baseline Scenario. The increase in profitability is likely to contribute to the improved 
competiveness of the sector. 

Under Option 2 (2020), catches of anchovy would be between 16 706 t and 51 542 t, 
equivalent to catches around 30-31% lower compared to the Baseline Scenario. Catches 
of sardines would be between 46 990 t and 47578 t, equivalent to 35-36% lower levels 
than under the Baseline Scenario (see Table 1 and Annex VII Figures 3 and 4).  

The level of employment would be between 1793 workers and 1924 in 2021, equivalent 
to 6-13% lower than under the Baseline Scenario (see Table 1 and Annex VII Figure 7). 
The  average  salary  would  be  between  12  928  Euros  and  11  987  Euros  in  2021, 
equivalent to between 2 and 10% higher than under the Baseline Scenario  (see Table 1 
and Annex VII Figure 6). 

Total  revenue  would  be  around  57  million  Euros  in  2021,  equivalent  to  a  level  of 
revenues 27% lower than under the Baseline Scenario (see Table 1 and Annex VII Figure 
5). Profitability would be between 1.001 and 0.843 in 2021, equivalent to an increase of 
13%  or  a  5%  decrease compared to  the Baseline Scenario (see Table 1 and  Annex VII 
Figure  6).  The  increase  in  profitability  is  likely  to  contribute  to  the  improved 
competiveness of the sector. 

42 

 
It therefore appears that the year (2018 vs 2020) by which sustainable fishing is achieved 
does not affect employment levels, but rather the important factor is the way in which the 
adaptation of fishing levels will be distributed between the fleet segments. Furthermore, 
the total revenue from this fishery depends more on the year by which sustainable fishing 
levels  would  be  reached  and  not  on  the  way  in  which  the  fishing  level  adaptations  are 
spread throughout the fleet segments. 

Market effects 

The trends in volumes of anchovy and sardine landed in Italy and of prices of first sale in 
recent year show an inverse correlation between the two: prices decrease when landings 
increase and vice versa. Therefore, as catches are predicted to decrease under Option 2 
(both  sub-options),  landings  would  also  decrease  and  prices  at  first  sale  are  likely  to 
increase,  possibly  to  such  an  extent  as  to  mitigate  any  lost  revenue  due  to  decline  in 
landings.  This  was  the  case  in  a  sardine  fishery  in  Portugal  where,  following  the 
introduction  of  catch  limits  and  a  decrease  in  landings,  fishers'  revenues  from  sardine 
increased  by  20%  despite  them  fishing  less  sardine36.  The  retail  price,  however,  is 
unlikely  to  increase,  but  the  profit  margin  for  retailers  is  instead  expected  to  decrease, 
based on a similar situation with anchovy and sardine in the Atlantic (see Annex III). 

However,  for  secondary  sectors  dependent  on  anchovy  and  sardine,  such  as  the 
processing sectors or exporters in Croatia and Italy, an increase in prices and a decrease 
in  their  primary  material  (anchovy  and  sardine)  is  likely  to  have  a  negative  economic 
impact and could result in Croatia and in particular Italy needing to increase their imports 
from other countries (see Annex III).  

6.3. Option 3: Attempt to change current framework  

Under  Option  3,  in  a  worst-case  scenario,  in  which  small  pelagic  fisheries  would 
continue  to  be  managed  under  the  current  framework,  the  environmental  and  socio-
economic  and  market  impacts  would  therefore  be  the  same  as  those  under  Option  1 
(Status quo/Baseline) as presented in Section 2.4.  

In a best case scenario, the stocks would be returned to sustainable levels by 2020 at the 
latest  and  therefore  the  outcomes  in  terms  of  stock  status  would  be  the  same  as  those 
under an EU management plan (Option 2). The catch levels that would be possible under 
Option  3  (best-case),  and  the  associated  socio-economic  and  market  impacts,  would 
therefore  also  be  similar  to  those  forecast  under  Option  2,  with  the  exact  impacts 
depending  both  on  the  timing  at  which  Option  3  (best-case)  would  allow  stocks  to  be 
fished sustainably (e.g. by 2018 or by 2020 or in between) and on how the adaptation of 
fishing  levels  are  spread  throughout  the  fleet  (which  would  be  a  decision  taken  by 
Member States). The range of possible impacts is presented below. 

Environmental impacts 

Under Option 3 (best-case), the anchovy and sardine stock sizes would be around 19-
24% higher than under the Baseline scenario and for sardine around 18-23% higher than 
under the Baseline scenario (see Table 1 and Annex VII Figures 1 and 2). 

This  increase  in  biomass  of  anchovy  and  sardine  under  Option  3  (best-case)  would 
result in more food being available to larger (and more valuable) predatory fish such 
as Blue-fin tuna, which should have  a positive impact on their stock sizes and hence on 
the  levels  of  catches  and  the  profitability  of  those  fisheries.  Increased  biomass  of 
anchovy  and  sardine  should  also  benefit  the  populations  of  as  well  as  for  marine 
mammals and seabirds which predate on them. 

43 

 
Socio-economic impacts  

Under  Option  3  (best-case),  catches  of  anchovy  and  sardine  that  could  be  sustained 
would be around 29-31% lower than under the Baseline scenario and for sardine around 
32-36% lower than the Baseline scenario (see Table 1 and Annex VII Figures 3 and 4).  

The  level  of  employment  in  the  fishing  sector  in  2021  would  be  around  6-13%  lower 
than  under  the  Baseline  scenario  (see  Table  1  and  Annex  VII  Figure  7).  The  average 
salary  in  the  fishing  sector  in  2021  would  be  between  2%  lower  and  10%  higher  than 
under the Baseline scenario (see Table 1 and Annex VII Figure 6). 

The  total  revenue  in  the  fishing  sector  in  2021  would  be  around  25-27%  lower  than 
under the Baseline scenario (see Table 1 and Annex VII Figure 5). The profitability in 
the  fishing  sector  in  2021  would  be between  5%  lower  and 17%  higher than  under  the 
Baseline scenario (see Table 1 and Annex VII Figure 8). 

Market effects 

The trends in volumes of anchovy and sardine landed in Italy and of prices of first sale in 
recent year show an inverse correlation between the two: prices decrease when landings 
increase and prices increase when landings decrease. Therefore, as catches are predicted 
to  decrease  under  Option  3  (best-case),  in  line  with  Option  2,  the  market  effects 
expected would be similar to those described under Option 2 (see Section 6.2).  

7.  HOW DO THE OPTIONS COMPARE?  

7.1. Assessment against the objectives: effectiveness  

The  section  below,  including  Table  2,  provide  a  comparison  of  how  effective  the 
different options are in achieving the objectives identified in Section 4.2. 

To achieve and maintain Maximum Sustainable Yield for anchovy and sardine by 
2020 at the latest. 

This objective would be achieved under both Option 2 (2018) and Option 2 (2020) but 
the  former  has  the  advantage  that  this  objective  would  be  reached  sooner.  The  multi-
annual plan under Option 2 would also introduce biomass safeguards that would require 
action to recover stocks that fall outside safe biological limits and therefore the likelihood 
of staying at sustainable fishing levels is also increased. 

Under  the  current  management  set  up  (Option  1  and  Option  3  (worst-case)),  this 
objective will not be achieved as fishing mortality would remain above sustainable levels 
by 2020 and beyond. Under Option 3 (best-case), this objective would be reached.  

However,  achieving  this  objective  under  Option  3  (best-case)  is  inherently  more  risky 
than Option 2: not only are there far more conditions that need to be met under Option 3 
(best-case)  to  get  to  a  management  framework  that  could  achieve  sustainable  fishing 
levels  by  2020  at  the  latest,  but  even  if  the  EU  succeeded  in  amending  the  current 
framework, there is no guarantee that the GFCM plan would be implemented  – indeed, 
for the past two years the GFCM Contracting Parties have not been implementing in full 
the  existing  plan.  In  addition,  national  plans  could  be  open  to  further  modifications  by 
Member States and the GFCM plan could also potentially be further amended/weakened 
if a non-EU GFCM Party decides to propose this.  

To achieve a sustainable fisheries sector 

This objective is directly related to, and depends on the achievement of the objective of 
having  fish  stocks  exploited  sustainably:  to  have  a  sustainable  fisheries  sector,  the 
resource  needs  to  be  exploited  sustainably.  Therefore,  in  terms  of  achieving  this 

44 

 
objective, Option 2 (both sub-options) and Option 3 (best-case) are more effective than 
Option  1  or  Option  3  (worst-case).  Under  the  latter  two  Options,  the  fisheries  sector 
would remain in the medium term in imbalance compared to the available fish resource, 
and  in  the longer-term,  the  fisheries  sector  would  risk  collapse  along  with  the  resource 
they depend on (see Section 2.4). 

To provide an effective management framework which is simpler and more stable 
and provides stakeholders with greater ownership. 

Simplification 

As described in  the  problem definition,  the current management framework is complex 
and  also  constantly  changing  and  simplification,  as  well  as  increased  stability  and 
transparency  would  therefore  provide  important  improvement  to  the  current  situation. 
Option 1 and Option 3 (worst-case) do not provide any simplification as, by definition, 
they represent the status quo.  

In terms of simplification there is no expected difference between the sub-options under 
Option 2. In the medium term, Option 2 would not lead to simplification, compared to 
the baseline scenario, as the Member States and fisheries sector would need to adapt to a 
new management instrument in the form of the EU multi-annual plan. However, after this 
transition period, Option 2 should provide for simplification compared to the Baseline, as 
the  EU  management  plan  would  replace  provisions  currently  spread  out  between  three 
national  plans  and  a  discard  plan  and  would  ensure  coherence  between  the  different 
management tools used for this fishery.  

Option 2 would also provide for a simpler and more transparent system than the Baseline 
scenario  in  terms  of  translating  scientific  advice  into  management  measures:  scientists 
would provide their scientific advice on a yearly basis, including what the catch limits for 
each  stock  should  be  to  ensure  sustainable  fishing  levels,  and  this  would  then  be 
translated  into  a  yearly  Commission  proposal  for  TAC  and  quotas.  With  an  output-
control  system,  the  required  reduction  in  fishing  mortality  is  directly  translated  into 
reductions in catches (see Annex VIII). 

Option 3 (best-case) does not provide any simplification but rather further complications 
in  the  short-term  as  once  again  the  management  measures,  both  at  national  and 
international level, would need  to  be changed. The revision of the current management 
framework  is  complex  in  terms  of  process  and  could  imply  an  increased  degree  of 
complexity and of administrative burden on both the Commission services and Member 
States' national administrations.  

Even  if  the  current  framework  is  improved,  under  Option  3  (best-case),  the  number  of 
management  instruments  would  still  remain  as  high  as  under  the  Baseline  scenario  (3 
national plans, an international plan and a discard plan until the end of 2017).  

Greater stability  

As  described  in  the  problem  definition,  under  the  current  management  framework 
(Option  1  and  Option  3  (worst  case)  there  is  a  distinct  lack  of  stability  and 
predictability  of  the  management  measures  in  place  at  both  national  and  international 
level  which  is  a  serious  problem  for  the  fishing  sector.  Option  2  would  provide  more 
stability and predictability to the Member States and the industry compared to Option 
1.  With  an  EU  plan,  the  process  would  be  clearer  and  predictable,  through  the  annual 
TAC  and  quota  setting  exercise.  Option  2  would  also  provide  more  transparency 
regarding the respective share of catches that each Member State can fish in a given year.  

45 

 
Under  Option  3  (best-case),  the  national  plans  and  the  GFCM  plan,  even  if  improved, 
would  still  be  open  to  modifications  and  therefore  there  would  be  no  improvement  in 
stability compared to the Baseline. 

Improve ownership  

One of the corner-stones of the new CFP is to enable the process of regionalisation, with 
the aim of improving ownership of the management measures.  

Under the current management framework (Option 1 and Option 3 (worst-case)), even 
if  improved  (Option  3  –  best-case),  regionalisation  cannot  be  achieved:  at  best,  the 
existing  management  plans  adopted  under  the  MEDREG  could  be  updated  based  on 
regional consultation and agreement, pending the goodwill of Member States to take part 
in such a voluntary exercise or regional consultation, and to update their national plans in 
line with regionally agreed measures. Within the GFCM, however, the decision-making 
process is based on agreement with all GFCM Parties, and there is no framework in place 
to enable decisions to be taken solely by regional groups of countries. Therefore, Option 
1 does not provide a basis for regionalisation as it is intended in the CFP, on the basis of 
joint recommendations by Member States that are then enshrined through EU legal acts. 

Option  2  (both  sub-options)  would  enable  Member  States  to  make  full  use  of 
regionalisation within the framework of an EU multi-annual plan, to agree on things such 
as conservation measures for fish stocks, including where to establish fish stock recovery 
areas  (protected  areas),  or  measures  to  gradually  eliminate  discarding.  In  turn,  this  is 
likely  to  result  in  greater  ownership  of  the  adopted  management  measures  as  they  will 
have been developed taking into consideration the regional specifies of the Adriatic. 

Table 2 Comparison of options in terms of effectiveness  

Options 

To achieve and maintain maximum 
sustainable yield for anchovy and 
sardine in the Adriatic by 2020 at the 
latest  

To achieve a sustainable fisheries 
sectorfor small pelagics in the Adriatic 

To provide an effective management 
framework for small pelagics in the 
Adriatic which is:  

-simpler 

-more stable 

- provides greater ownership 

Option 1 – 
Status quo 
(Baseline) 

Option 2 - EU 
multi-annual 
plan  

Option 3 – Change 
current framework 

2018  

2020   Worst-case: 

Status quo 
(Baseline) 

Best-
case 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

++ 

++ 

++ 

++ 

+/- 

+/- 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

++ 

++ 

- 

0 

0 

Key:  0  =  neutral  impact,  +  =  positive  impact,  ++  =  very  positive  impact,  -  =  negative  impact,  --  =  very 
negative impact, +/- = both positive and negative impacts  

Overall, considering effectiveness in achieving the objectives, Option 2 delivers on all 
four  objectives  although  for  the  objective  of  simplification  there  are  both  positive  and 
negative  impacts  compared  to  the  Baseline  (see  Table  2)  Option  2  is  therefore 
considerably more effective than both Option 1 and Option 3 (worst-case), which do not 
deliver on any of the objectives. Option 2 is also more effective than Option 3 (best-case) 

46 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
which  only  delivers  on  the  objectives  of  sustainable  fishing  and  a  sustainable  fisheries 
sector but not on the objectives concerning an effective management framework. 

Within Option 2, both options are equally effective, the only difference being that under 
sub-option  2018  the  sustainability  objective  would  be  reached  sooner  than  under  sub-
option 2020.  

7.2. Assessment against the environmental, economic and social impacts 

Table  3  provides  a  comparison  of  the  options  and  sub-options  in  terms  of  their 
environmental and socio-economic impacts based on the analysis presented in Section 6.  

Option  2  (2018  and  2020)  and  Option  3  (best-case)  will  provide  substantially  higher 
levels  of  stock  biomass  for  both  species  compared  to  Option  1  and  Option  3  (worst-
case).  Option  2  (2018) provides  marginal  advantages  over  Option  2  (2020)  in  terms  of 
stock biomass.  

To  reach  sustainable  fishing  levels  by  2018  or  2020,  however,  will  inevitably  require 
catches  to  decline  substantially  in  the  medium-term  under  Option  2  (2018  and  2020) 
and Option 3 (best-case) compared to Option 1 and Option 3 (worst-case). This is not 
surprising  given  that  current  fishing  mortality  is  considered  to  be  substantially  higher 
than what can be sustained by the stocks in the long-run.  

Given  the  overcapacity  in  the  sector,  it  seems  inevitable  that  capacity  will  need  to  be 
reduced to reach sustainable fishing levels and to ensure a balance between the resource 
and  the  capacity.  This  will  lead  to  reductions  in  employment  and  revenue  in  the 
medium-term (2021) under  Option 2 and Option 3 (best-case) compared  to  Option 1 
and  Option  3  (worst-case).  Indeed,  under  both  Option  2  and  Option  3  (best-case), 
revenue  to  the  fishery  would  decrease  by  around  25%-27%  compared  to  Option  1  and 
Option 3 (worst-case). Employment would decrease by between 6-13% compared to the 
Option 1 and Option 3 (worst-case) depending on how reductions are allocated within the 
fleet  (no  difference  between  2018  vs  2020).  However,  for  the  remaining  87-93%  of 
fishers  who  would  remain  in  the  fishery  under  Option  2  and  Option  3  (best-case), 
conditions are likely to be better on average than under Option 1 and option 3 (worst-
case), in terms both of profitability and salary.  

Table 3 Comparison of options and sub-options in terms of their environmental and 
socio-economic impacts.  

Options 

Option 1 – 
Status quo 
(Baseline) 

Option 2 - EU multi-
annual plan  

Option 3 – Change current 
framework 

2018  

2020  

Best-case 

Worst-case: 
Status quo 
(Baseline) 

Environmental 
impacts  

Socio-economic 
impacts – overall  

       - Salary 

       -Profitability 

       -Revenue 

      -Employment 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

++ 

+/- 

+ 

+ 

- 

 - 

++ 

+/- 

+ 

+ 

- 

- 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

++ 

+/- 

+ 

+ 

- 

- 

Key:  0  =  neutral  impact,  +  =  positive  impact,  ++  =  very  positive  impact,  -  =  negative  impact,  --  =  very 
negative impact, +/- = both positive and negative impacts. 

47 

 
 
Option  2  (2018)  provides  slightly  higher  profitability  and  salary  benefits  compared  to 
Option 2 (2020), and the decreases in overall revenue under Option 2 (2018) are slightly 
lower than under Option 2 (2020).  

In the longer-term, however, given the high risk of stocks collapsing under Option 1 and 
Option 3 (worst-case), it can be considered that Options 2 and Option 3 (best-case) could 
perform better socio-economically than the former. 

Overall, in the medium-term Option 3 (best-case) and Option 2 (both sub-options) have 
positive  environmental  impacts,  but  a  mix  of  positive  and  negative  socio-economic 
impacts compared to the Baseline (see Table 3).  

7.3. Efficiency, coherence and acceptability 

Efficiency 

Efficiency is considered in terms of cost-effectiveness of the different options in terms of 
delivering on the objectives. The effectiveness is based on how well the options deliver 
on  the  objectives  (based  on  the  analysis  above).  The  costs  are  considered  in  terms  of 
socio-economic impacts (discussed above in detail) as well as in terms of administrative 
burden.  In  terms  of  administrative  burden  there  is  no  expected  difference  between  the 
sub-options under Option 2 and hence these are discussed together.  

In  terms  of  effectiveness,  Option  2  is  considerably  more  effective  than  Option  1  or 
Option  3  (worst-case)  with  respect  to  meeting  the  objectives  of  this  intervention  (see 
Section 7.1). 

There is little point in considering the efficiency of Option 1 or 3 (worst-case) as neither 
of  the  sub-options  are  sufficiently  effective  to  be  considered  as  serious  candidates. 
Within  Option  2,  the  more  efficient  sub-option  would  be  Option  2(2018)  as  the  socio-
economic costs are slightly less than Option 2(2020).   

In  terms  of  medium-term  socio-economic  costs,  Option  2  and  Option  3  (best-case) 
appear  to  result  in  overall  greater  costs  than  Option  1  and  Option  3  (worst-case),  in 
particular  in  terms  of  overall  revenue  to  the  sector  and  employment.  Within  Option  2, 
sub-option 2(2018) appears to be slightly better in terms of socio-economic impacts than 
sub-option 2(2020). In the longer-term, on the other-hand, there is a risk of the fisheries 
collapsing under Option 1 and Option 3 (worst-case). 

In  terms  of  administrative  burden,  under  Option  2,  the  Commission  to  develop  and 
adopt a legal proposal for TAC and quota on an annual basis, and would require Member 
States to negotiate this in Council. This will create some additional burden compared to 
option 1 but as this would fit in to the broader annual exercise of TAC and quota setting 
(for dozens of other EU stocks in different sea basins) for which Member States already 
need to meet in Council for negotiations, including two stocks in the process should not 
represent  an  important  additional  burden.  The  Member  States  would  also  need  to 
negotiate the allocation key for their share of the overall TAC at the start of the process 
which may be burdensome depending on how easily an agreement is reached. However, 
as  only  three  Member  States  and  two  stocks  are  concerned,  and  as  historical  data  on 
catches is readily available, this should facilitate the process.  

In  terms  of  compliance  costs,  fishers  who  do  not  yet  have  these  systems  in  place  (e.g. 
those  of  vessels  under  12m  typically)  would  be  required  to  install  and  use  VMS  and 
electronic  logbooks  which  will  create  some  additional  cost  and  burden  (although  costs 
are eligible under the EMFF). Fishers would also be required to land in designated ports 
(when fishing above a certain threshold) to facilitate control. 

48 

 
Member States administrations would need to provide their landing data for anchovy and 
sardine on a monthly basis to the Commission as required under Article 33 of the Control 
Regulation  (for  species  under  a  TAC  and  quota  regime)60  as  opposed  to  on  a  quarterly 
basis as in the Baseline Scenario (see Section 8.1 and Annex XI). However, this would 
only  represent  a  minor  increase  in  administrative  burden  given  that  it  does  not  require 
setting up a new reporting system but rather changing the frequency of reporting. 

In  terms  of  the  management  measures  to  be  implemented,  Option  2  does  not  introduce 
any  substantial  new  administrative  requirements  –  the  EU  plan  would  set  a  target  in 
terms  of  sustainability  by  2020  or  2018  and  the  mechanism  to  reach  this  (annual  TAC 
and quota setting) but Member States could continue to apply the concrete management 
measures  (e.g.  reducing  number  of  vessels,  or  fishing  days)  which  they  consider  most 
appropriate to stay within their quotas.  

In terms of monitoring effectiveness of management measures, under Option 2 (in which 
provisions spread out in three national management plans would be replaced by a single 
EU plan), the three Member States concerned by the fishery would no longer be required 
to ensure adequate scientific monitoring of their management plans (required under the 
MEDREG). Instead, the Commission, with scientific input from the STECF, would be in 
charge  of  monitoring  whether  the  EU  plan  is  delivering  on  its  objectives.  As  STECF 
already  carries  out  annual  assessment  of  the  stock  status,  this  would  not  create  an 
increase  in  burden  for  them,  but  would  reduce  the  Member  States'  burden.  Option  2 
would therefore provide a reduction in administrative burden compared to Option 1 and 
3. 

Under both options 2 and 3, the EU would need to develop a proposal to strengthen the 
measures adopted by the GFCM to either align them to the EU multi-annual plan (under 
Option  2)  or  to  ensure  they  deliver  on  the  CFP  objectives  of  sustainability  by  2020 
(Option 3) 

Option  3  would  require  Member  States  to  amend  their  national  management  plans  and 
improve  their  management  measures  to  ensure  they  deliver  on  the  CFP  objectives  of 
sustainability by 2020. 

Overall,  in  terms  of  administrative  cost  and  burden-  Option  2  and  to  a  lesser  extent 
Option 3 (best-case) create some new administrative burden with also some reductions in 
burden expected under Option 2 compared to the Baseline. 

Coherence 

International measures 

The TAC & quota regime, which is a specific form of output control, which is proposed 
under  Option  2,  would  be  coherent  with  the  recently  adopted  catch  limitations  for 
Adriatic anchovy and sardine (for 2017 and 2018) under the GFCM19. 

EU fisheries policy 

As  the  overarching  policy  for  managing  fisheries  in  the  EU,  the  CFP  is  the  primary 
policy with which the initiative should be coherent. Option 1 and Option 3 (worst-case) 
are not coherent with the overarching objectives of the CFP as they do not ensure long-
term  sustainability  of  small  pelagic  fisheries  in  the  Adriatic  and  do  not  provide  an 
appropriate  legal  framework  for  regionalised  decision-making.  Option  2  (both  sub-
options)  is  fully  coherent  with  the  CFP,  whilst  Option  3  (best-case)  is  coherent  with 
some of the CFP objectives (sustainability) but not all of them (e.g. regionalisation). 

49 

 
 
On  11  March  2016,  the  Commission  adopted  a  proposal  for  a  new  framework  for 
technical measures in line with the logic of the reformed CFP69. This proposal aims to 
bring  together  in  a  single  framework  the  provisions  relating  to  fisheries  technical 
measures  (i.e.  relating  to  use  of  fishing  gear,  mesh  size,  spatiotemporal  closures, 
minimum  conservation  reference  sizes  etc.)  which  are  currently  spread  out  in  many 
pieces of legislation, and to set minimum standards in this respect. The proposal also puts 
in  place  the  process  of  regionalisation  whereby  the  technical  measures  set  out  in  this 
proposal  can  be  modified  on  the  basis  of  joint  recommendations  by  Member  States 
which, if scientifically justified and valid, and in the context of EU multi-annual plans, 
are then adopted through Commission delegated acts. Therefore, given that the technical 
measures  regulation  would  provide  the  basis  for  technical  measures  to  be  adopted 
through  regionalisation,  the  EU  multi-annual  plan  for  small  pelagics  in  the  Adriatic 
would  not  contain  provisions  on  technical  measures,  to  avoid  duplication  and  ensure 
coherence between both instruments.  

Another  relevant  initiative  is  the  on-going  process  to  recast  the  EU's  fisheries  Data 
Collection Framework Regulation (DCF)107, which aims to ensure that the DCF is the 
principle  EU  legislation  under  which  data  for  implementation  of  the  CFP  should  be 
collected,  and  that  the  DCF  covers  all  the  data  needs  relating  to  the  CFP.  To  ensure 
coherence  between  the  multi-annual  plan  for  small  pelagics  in  the  Adriatic  and  the 
Commission  proposal  to  recast  the  DCF,  the  multi-annual  plan  would  not  contain 
additional requirements for Member States to collect data on these stocks, as this will be 
achieved  through  the  recast  DCF  and  the  multi-annual  programme  for  data  collection 
thereunder which will contain details of the exact data to be collected by Member States. 
Both initiatives introduce regionalisation as a new way of making certain decisions under 
the respective frameworks70. 

Other EU policies  

Another important and related EU policy is the Marine Strategy Framework Directive 
(MSFD)56  and  its  objectives  of  reaching  Good  Environmental  Status  of  EU  marine 
waters  by  2020.  In  particular,  the  MSFD  aims  to  ensure,  amongst  other,  that  the 
population of commercial fish species is healthy (Descriptor 3) and that elements of food 
webs ensure long-term abundance and reproduction (Descriptor 4). Option 1 and Option 
3  (worst-case)  would  not  be  coherent  with  these  policy  objectives,  as  they  would  not 
enable  fish  stocks  to  recover  to  a  healthy  state  and  to  be  fished  at  sustainable  levels. 
Option 2 (both sub-options) and Option 3 (best-case) would be fully coherent with the 
objectives of the MSFD. 

A  key  overarching  EU  policy,  of  relevance  to  initiatives  in  all  policy  areas,  is  the 
Charter  of  fundamental  rights  of  the  EU71  and  in  particular  Article  37  according  to 
which a high level of environmental protection and the improvement of the quality of the 
environment must be integrated into the policies of the Union and ensured in accordance 
with  the  principle  of  sustainable  development.  Option  1  and  Option  3  (worst-case) 
would  not  be  coherent  with  this  policy  objective,  whilst  Option  2  (both  sub-options) 
and Option 3 (best-case) and would be fully coherent. 

69   Proposal  for  a  Regulation  of  the  European  parliament  and  of  the  Council  on  the  conservation  of 
technical  measures. 
the  protection  of  marine  ecosystems 

fishery  resources  and 
COM/2016/0134 final - 2016/074 (COD).  
In the case of the DCF, regional groups of Member States would be in charge of agreeing on details 
concerning how data will contribute to the process of deciding what data should be collected 
71   Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.(2012/C 326/02). OJ C 326, 26.10.2012, p. 

through 

70  

391–407   

50 

 
                                                 
Acceptability  

Regarding  acceptability,  it  is  particularly  important  to  consider  the  outcomes  of  the 
public consultation, in addition to other considerations already discussed above such as 
environmental  and  socio-economic  impacts  of  the  different options  and coherence with 
other EU policies.  

In  the  public  consultation,  the  majority  of  stakeholders,  including  the  MEDAC,  the 
three Member States involved in the fishery and the fishing industry, agree that a multi-
annual  plan  (Option  2)  would  be  preferable  to  the  current  management  framework 
(Option 1 and Option 3 (worst-case) (see Annex II). The majority of contributors think 
that modifications to the current management framework would not suffice to attain the 
CFP  objectives.  This  indicates  that  overall  Option  2  would  seem  more  acceptable  than 
the other options.  

In terms of the two sub-options within Option 2 (reaching sustainable fishing levels by 
2018  vs  2020),  the  latter  sub-option  (Option  2  (2020))  seems  by  far  more  acceptable 
based on the results of the public consultation: all the contributions considered 2020 as a 
realistic  target  date  for  reaching  MSY  2020,  with  the  option  of  2018  being  quickly 
dismissed  (Annex  II).  In  all  cases,  respondents  considered  that  the  transition  towards 
sustainable fishing levels should be gradual.  

Shifting from input to output control in this fishery is a paradigm shift. Nevertheless, the 
GFCM  adopted  output  control  for  Adriatic  anchovy  and  sardine  in  2016  (catch  freezes 
for  2017  and  2018)  and  Italy  and  Croatia  also  have  had  several  years  of  experience 
implementing  the  Blue-fin  tuna  TAC  and  quota  system  which  should  facilitate  the 
introduction of a similar system for anchovy and sardine.  

In terms of coherence with other EU policies, Option 2 also provides greater coherence 
than Options 1 or 3 which suggests it would be more acceptable. 

In terms of socio-economic impacts, Option 1 and Option 3 (worst-case) have a risk of 
leading to the collapse of the fishery in the longer-term. Option 2 (both sub-options) and 
Option  3  (best-case)  all  have  substantial  socio-economic  impacts  in  the  medium-term 
compared  to  the  Baseline  scenario.  It  is  also  important  to  consider  possible  mitigation 
measures to address these negative socio-economic impacts. 

The  EU  has,  and  continues  to  provide  financial  assistance  to  Member  States  to  the 
fishing  industry  and  coastal  communities  to  help  them  adapt  to  changing  conditions  in 
the sector and become economically resilient and ecologically sustainable. For the period 
2014-2020, the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF)2 provides funding for the 
EU's fisheries and maritime policies.  

The  EMFF  specifically  provides  the  possibility  for  funding  to  help  fishermen  in  the 
transition  to  sustainable  fishing,  and  contains  provisions  whereby  support  can  be 
provided  to  fishermen  to  stop  fishing  temporarily  or  permanently,  to  retrain  into  a 
different  job,  to  diversify  their  sources  of  income  (away  from  fishing)  and  to  replace 
gears to be more selective. Some of these measures are conditional on the fishery being 
covered by an EU multi-annual plan The EMFF also provides the possibility for funding 
to establish and manage a system of quota allocation for fisheries under TAC and quota 
and to develop or improve equipment and systems for control (Annex XI).  

Croatia,  Italy  and  Slovenia  have  already  taken  measures  to  reduce  their  impacts  on 
anchovy and sardine in the Adriatic, including by reducing the capacity of their fleet, and 

51 

 
 
plan to carry out more measures in this regard in the coming years using EMFF funding 
(see Annex IX).  

However,  the  planned  reductions  alone  may  not  be  sufficient  to  restore  the  stocks  to 
sustainable  levels.  In  addition,  it  is  important  to  note  that  planning  measures  in  the 
context of the EMFF enable such actions to be eligible for financial support (subject to 
the provisions specified in that legislation) but does not bind Member States to carry out 
these planned reductions. As such, therefore, these planned measures can be taken as an 
indication that the Member States are willing to accept certain reductions in their fishing 
levels, but are not a sufficient guarantee, on their own, that the objectives of this initiative 
will be achieved. 

7.4. The preferred option  

Choosing the preferred option 

In order to determine the preferred option, the following process was followed: 

The  options  were  assessed  first  in  terms  of  the  extent  to  which  they  deliver  on  the 
objectives:  only  options  that  deliver  on  all  or  most  of  the  objectives  can  be  considered 
(see Table 2).  

Table 4 Comparison of the options with the Baseline Scenario in terms of effectiveness, 
efficiency, coherence and acceptability in achieving the objectives.  

Options 

Option 1 – 
Status quo 
(Baseline) 

Option 2 - EU multi-
annual plan  

Option 3 – Change current 
framework 

2018  

2020  

Best-case 

Worst-case: 
Status quo 
(Baseline) 

0 

0 

0 

0 

++ 

++ 

++ 

+/- 

++ 

++ 

++ 

+/- 

0 

0 

0 

0 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+/- 

Effectiveness 

Efficiency  

Coherence 

Acceptability 

Key: 0 = neutral impact, + = positive impact, ++ = very positive impact,  - = negative impact, +/- = both 
positive and negative impacts (compared to the Baseline) 

The socio-economic impact analysis and considerations relating to efficiency, coherence 
and  acceptability  can  then  serves  to  choose  between  several  options  (if  several  options 
enable  the  achievement  of  the  objectives)  and  also  serve  to  inform  us  of  the  possible 
impacts of the preferred option so mitigation measures can be considered (Table 4).  

Following  this  step-wise  approach,  Option  1  and  Option  3  (worst-case)  cannot  be 
considered  as  they  do  not  deliver  on  any  of  the  objectives.  Option  2  enables  the 
achievements of all the objectives. Option 3 (best-case) could deliver on the objectives 
relating  to  sustainability  of  stocks  and  of  fisheries  by  2020  at  the  latest,  but  not  the 
objective of improving the effectiveness of the management framework.  

It  is  also important  to  highlight  that  the  effectiveness  of  Option  3  depends  on  whether 
the process of modification of the current legal and management framework is successful 
in  introducing  the  changes  required  to  reach  the  new  CFP  objectives  and  hence  on 
whether we reach a worst-case or best-case scenario (or possibly somewhere in between). 

Broadly speaking, the anticipated impact of Option 2 - implementing the multi-annual 
plan - will be an improved conservation status of anchovy and sardine, as well as larger 

52 

 
 
  
predators  of  these  species,  which  would  ultimately  result  in  a  healthier  and  more 
sustainable fishing  sector  dependent on this resource, with better salaries  for individual 
fishermen and greater profitability overall. The transition to this more sustainable state of 
the  fisheries  is  likely  to  require  a  reduction  in  the  fishing  sector  including  the  level  of 
employment, but there are specific financial instruments and measures available to assist 
the concerned sectors in this transition. 

Option  2(2020)  is  preferable  over  Option  2(2018)  in  terms  of  acceptability  by 
stakeholders, who overwhelmingly expressed a preference for 2020, and is also the more 
realistic  considering  the  likely  timing  of  the  EU  multi-annual  plan  entering  into  force. 
The preferred option would therefore be Option 2 (2020). A more detailed overview 
of  the  main  elements  of  an  EU  multi-annual  plan  for  small  pelagics  in  the  Adriatic  is 
included in Annex XIV.  

Synergies 

The Adriatic multi-annual plan, if adopted, would co-exist with the GFCM Management 
Plan.  The  Commission  would  try  to  align  the  measures  adopted  under  the  EU  multi-
annual  plan  to  the  GFCM  to  ensure  a  level  playing  field  with  third  countries  and  to 
ensure  the  EU  Member  States'  obligations  under  both  instruments  were  aligned. 
However,  until  that  is  possible,  the  GFCM  measures  as  they  currently  stand  contain 
synergies  with  the  proposed  EU  multi-annual  plan:  the  GFCM  management  plan 
specifies  certain  types  of  measures  which  Contracting  Parties  should  apply  eg  closed-
areas,  effort  limits,  capacity  and  catch  freezes.  These  measures  will  all  contribute  to 
member States' efforts to remain within the TAC& quota that would be proposed under 
the EU Multi-annual plan, although Member States would probably need to do more than 
the GFCM measures to stay within their quotas. 

7.5. Limitations in the impact assessment 

There  is  some  uncertainty  in  the  likely  evolution  of  the  stock  status  under  different 
options,  as  stock  evolution  is  harder  to  predict  with  small  pelagics  than  many  other 
stocks as they are short lived and are affected more by recruitment of young fish, which 
in  turn  depend  partly  on  climatic  conditions.  Hence  greater  fluctuations  take  place  in 
stock  sizes  for  small  pelagics  than  for  other  groups  of  fish.  A  big  downturn  in  food 
supply and hence recruitment could increase the chance of collapse 

Forecasting future impacts is not an exact science and the actual impacts of the preferred 
option, in the medium and longer-term are likely to vary to some extent to what can be 
predicted based on the information available today. It is therefore often more meaningful 
to compare likely impacts of different options, rather than to assess the absolute values of 
the  forecasts.  Furthermore,  it  is  important  to  consider  not  only  the  outcomes  of  the 
quantitative  forecasting  but  also  qualitative  aspects  such  as  those  considered  under 
sections 7.3.    

Impacts on secondary sectors also contain more uncertainty that the modelling of impacts 
on the primary (fisheries) sector as impacts are less direct and there are intrinsically more 
uncertainty.   

The forecast of possible market effects was carried out on a qualitative basis, based on 
general trends observer in the Adriatic small pelagic fishery and markets, and based on a 
comparable  case  study  using  sardine  fisheries  off  the  Spanish  and  Portuguese  coast. 
Because of the uncertainty surrounding the way in which markets could react to changes 
in  availability  of  anchovy  and  sardine  from  the  Adriatic  fisheries  and  the  difficulty  in 
modelling this accurately, the information should only be taken as indicative of possible 
future  impacts.  The  economic  forecasting  that  was  carried  out  is  based  on  numerous 

53 

 
assumptions,  which  are  presented  in  Annex  IV,  and  the  actual  impacts  that  would  take 
place under the different options are likely to vary to a small or larger degree depending 
on how accurate these assumptions turn out to be. Furthermore, the social and economic 
forecasting cover the ten main fleet segments involved in this fishery, treated as a whole. 
Individual fleet segments and even vessels and fishers will be subject to varying impacts, 
such as future changes in revenues or profitability, but this depends in large part on how 
each  Member  State  will  decide  to  allocate  its  national  quota  within  its  fleet  and  what 
additional  specific  management  measures  each  Member  State  may  adopt,  if  any, 
alongside the catch limits.  

Environmental impacts in terms of changes in stock size are also likely to affect different 
parts of the fleet to a different degree, as the stock not only moves but may also improve 
or decline to different extents in different parts of its range.  

8.  HOW WOULD ACTUAL IMPACTS BE MONITORED AND EVALUATED?  

8.1. Monitoring 

The  Basic  Regulation  anticipates  that  multi-annual  plans  may  be  subject  to  periodic 
monitoring and assessment of progress in achieving the plan's objectives (Article 10(2)).  

The operational objectives and the monitoring indicators would be the following: 

Operational objectives 

Monitoring 
(and frequency) 

indicators 

1. Ensuring that the stock size state for anchovy and sardine 
is  above  the  minimum  levels  (biomass  safeguard  values) 
specified in the plan (which trigger remedial action); 

Anchovy 
stock size (annual) 

and 

sardine 

2. Ensuring that the level of fishing mortality is line with the 
FMSY targets prescribed by the plan; 

Total  catch 
species (annual) 

levels  by 

3.  Ensuring  that  Member  States  catches  remain  within  the 
national quotas they are allocated under the TAC and quota 
system, as set out in a Council decision. 

Catch  levels  by  species, 
by  Member 
State 
(monthly) 

Monitoring of some of the effects of management measures is done as part of the routine 
work  associated  with  the  implementation  of  the  CFP  (see  Annex  X)  and  the  necessary 
data required to monitor the three operational indicators are already collected by Member 
States under other EU legislation129.  

The  Commission's  fisheries  advisory  body,  the  STECF,  already  carries  out  annual 
assessments  of  anchovy  and  sardine  stocks,  including  estimating  their  stock  size 
(operational  objective  1).  The  Commission  determines  the  tasks  of  the  STECF  on  an 
annual basis and would ensure that the STECF work programme continues to include an 
annual stock assessment for sardine and anchovy.  

Member States are required to submit to the Commission on a monthly basis catch data 
for  species  managed  under  a  TAC  and  quota  regime,  which  enables  monitoring  of 
operational objectives 2 and 3 above.  

The  Commission  also  has  procedures  in  place  through  the  EU  fisheries  Control 
Regulation60 and a specific control and inspection programme for anchovy and sardine in 
the Northern Adriatic, which provide information on the extent to which Member States 
comply with the current rules (Annex X).  

54 

 
In  addition,  the  socio-economic  impacts  of  the  plan  should  be  monitored.  Since  2010, 
STECF carries out an annual assessment of the economic performance of the EU fleet72 
on the basis of Member States' data collection under the DCF (including assessment of 
employment, profit, salary). The Commission would ensure that this annual assessment 
continues so that the socio-economic impacts of the plan can be monitored. 

Impacts  of  the  plan  on  markets  (prices,  trade  patterns)  will  also  be  monitored  by  the 
Commission on a biennial basis through EUMOFA73.  

Therefore  baseline  data  are  available  and  a  process  is  in  place  to  monitor  the  three 
operational objectives above as well as socio-economic impacts of the plan.   

There  are  however  some  aspects  whose  monitoring  is  not  done  routinely,  such  as 
administrative  burden,  which  may  need  an  ad-hoc  system.  The  plan  could  include  a 
specific  provision  to  monitor  administrative  burden.  Monitoring  the  satisfaction  of  the 
fishing industry could also be done for example through occasional or recurrent opinion 
polls which may be ad hoc or inserted in other wider polls. 

8.2. Evaluation 

As  far  as  evaluation  is  concerned,  Article  10(3)  of  the  Basic  Regulation  stipulates  that 
multi-annual  plans  shall  provide  for  their  revision  after  an  initial  ex-post  evaluation,  in 
particular to take account of changes in scientific advice.  

The plan, and its impacts, should be evaluated by STECF just under five years after its 
entry  into  force  so  that  the  Commission  can  report  to  the  European  Parliament  and 
Council within five years of the entry into force of the multi-annual plan. Thereafter, the 
Commission  would  report  every  five  years.An  earlier  evaluation  is  not  sensible,  due  to 
fact that there is an important time gap between implementation of the plan and when the 
data required for evaluation are available74.  

Indicators  to  be  used  for  the  evaluation  do  not  need  to  be  specified  in  the  legal  acts 
setting the MAPs; instead, they can be developed subsequently in consultation with the 
relevant  stakeholders  and  scientific  bodies.  They  should  be  environmental  (such  as 
fishing  mortality  and  stock  size  for  all  relevant  stocks),  economic  (such  as  net  profits, 
return  on  investment,  gross  value  added,  etc.),  social  (total  employed  (FTE),  average 
wage,  etc.)  and  cost-efficiency  related  (administrative  burden).  Disaggregated  analysis 
should be preferred in order to find out whether there are fleet segments or fish stocks for 
which specific action would be required.  

8.3. Compliance and control 

Option 2, gives Member States the possibility to develop management and conservation 
measures  regionally.  The  process  of  regionalization  per  se  provides  an  incentive  for 
Member States to take part in regionalisation by submitting joint recommendations and 
for  other  stakeholders  such  as  the  industry  to  contribute  to  this  process  (via  the 

72    https://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu/reports/economic  
73   http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/market/market_observatory/index_en.htm. EUMOFA enables direct 
monitoring of the volume, value and price of fishery and aquaculture products, from the first sale to 
retail stage, including imports and exports. 

74   The STECF recommended that an evaluation of multi-annual plan should be based on 3 years-worth 
of data after implementation of the plan. The timing of evaluations of plans needs to be linked to the 
availability of data, which takes a few years to be available. For example 3 years of biological data 
become available at approximately month 48 and 3 years of economic data at approximately month 
60. Thus a full 3 year evaluation cannot be conducted until 5 years from the commencement of the 
plan. Report of the STECF Study Group on the Evaluation of Fishery Multi-Annual Plans (SGMOS 
09-02). 

55 

 
                                                 
MEDAC).  The  fact  that  the  Commission  is  empowered  to  make  its  own  proposal  in 
certain areas covered by regionalization, if no joint recommendations are proposed also 
provides  an  incentive  for  Member  States  to  agree  amongst  themselves.  And  finally  the 
scope  of  topics  that  can  be  decided  through  regionalization  is  broader  than  those  for 
which the Commission can make proposals: for example in the case of a discard plan: if 
no joint recommendations are received, the Commission may only adopt a discard plan 
containing some de minimis exemptions (cases where small amounts can be discarded on 
the  basis  of  disproportionate  cost  of  handling 
joint 
recommendations  are  made,  these  can  cover  de  minimis  exemptions  but  also  permitted 
discards  on  the  basis  of  survivability,  and  also  provisions  on  minimum  conservation 
reference size.  

the  discards)  whilst 

if 

Regionalization  also  provides  an  incentive  to  comply  given  that  the  stakeholders  who 
will  need  to  apply  the  rules  developed  through  regionalization  will  have  greater 
ownership  of  these.  In  particular,  ownership  comes  from  the  fact  that  under 
regionalization, only the Member States concerned by a measure are involved in agreeing 
on  it  (as  opposed  to  in  Council  where  potentially  28  Member  States  take  decisions). 
Similarly in GFCM, all Contracting parties may have a say in determining measures.  

Given that such measures would be developed regionally, using a bottom-approach, and 
including consultation with the sector and civil society (through the Advisory Council), 
as  required  under  the  Basic  Regulation  (Article  18(2)),  it  is  expected  that  stakeholders 
will  have  greater  ownership  of  these  measures  and  that  compliance  will  improve.  The 
Commission usually attends meetings of the MEDAC and thereby follows developments 
within that forum.   

Furthermore, measures adopted through regionalization are developed regionally but then 
enshrined  in  EU  legislation  (Commission  delegated  acts)  and  as  such  compliance 
mechanisms  stemming  from  EU  obligations  apply.  Furthermore,  the  provisions  of  the 
fisheries  Control  regulation  continue  to  apply,  with  in  some  cases  additional  measures 
being introduced under the multi-annual plan to facilitate control by the Adriatic Member 
States' authorities. This includes, for example, the obligation for vessels fishing anchovy 
and sardine (above a certain threshold) to land only in so-called 'designated port's and to 
issue a priori notification to announce their arrival. 

In  terms of  recording  the catches,  to minor whether the national quotas and the overall 
TAC  is  complied  with,  the  mechanisms  and  obligations  are  already  in  place  in  the 
Adriatic Member States as these stem from the EU fisheries Control Regulation. The vast 
majority of vessels involved in this fishery are not small-scale, and already have the IT 
equipment on board to both record and transmit information on catches electronically to 
their  national  authorities  (electronic  logbooks)  and  vessel  monitoring  system  (VMS)  to 
enable  control  authorities  to  locate  vessels  –  as  required  under  the  fisheries  Control 
Regulation.  Introducing  TAC  &  quota  under  a  multi-annual  plan  will  only  change  the 
frequency  of  reporting  from  quarterly  to  monthly.  Furthermore,  under  the  multi-annual 
plan,  the  obligation  to  have  VMS  and  electronic  logbooks,  to  facilitate  control  for  the 
member States, will be extended to vessels from 8 to 12 m. 

56 

 
 
 
ANNEX I: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION 

Actors involved in the process 

DG MARE is the lead DG for this initiative. Other departments involved are: DG ENV, 
DG GROW, Legal Services and the Secretariat-General 

The proposal for a multi-annual plan for small pelagic stocks in the Adriatic is provided 
for  in  the  "Agenda  Planning"  (2016/MARE/001),  as  well  as  in  the  2015  Management 
Plan of the Directorate General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries (DG MARE).  

Organisation and timing 

The  IA  has  progressed  in  several  steps  following  the  September  2014  High  Level 
Meeting  of  Mediterranean  Member  States  (MSs)  fisheries  administrations  on  the  way 
forward for the implementation of the reformed CFP in the Mediterranean Sea basin. The 
conclusions  of  this  meeting  were  that  EU  multi-annual  plans  should  be  developed  for 
stocks shared among EU countries and the Adriatic was selected as the first priority area.  

An Impact Assessment Steering Group (IASG) covering all the upcoming proposals for 
multi-annual  plans  was  set  up  by  DG  MARE  in  January  2015.  The  following 
Commission  departments  have  been  invited:  Secretariat  General,  Legal  Service,  DG 
Employment,  Social  Affairs  &  Inclusion,  DG  Environment,  DG  Regional  Policy,  DG 
Economic and Financial Affairs and DG Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and 
SMEs. 

The  IASG  were  consulted  in  writing  on  a  draft  Impact  Assessment  on  22/12/2015, 
following which the IASG met again on 17 March 2016 to discuss a second draft Impact 
Assessment. The main discussions within the IASG focused on clearer definition of the 
options,  improving  the  problem  definition,  as  well  as  the  link  between  the  problem 
definition, the objectives and the options. The IASG also identified the need to improve 
the sections on affected stakeholders in order to enlarge the focus to include secondary 
sectors  and  to  simplify  the  language  and  technical  contents  of  the  IA.  The  IASG  were 
consulted  again  in  writing  on  the  final  draft  Impact  Assessment  on  21  April  2016.  In 
between these consultations, regular contacts were maintained with the members of the 
IASG. 

In  addition,  in  February  2016  DG  MARE  set  up  a  working  group  dedicated  to 
coordination of the DG MARE multi-annual plans and Impact Assessments. The group 
contains DG MARE staff working on multi-annual plans in different sea basins, as well 
as DG MARE economists, experts in impact assessments and in markets and trade, and 
representatives from the Commission's Secretariat General. The group has already met 3 
times and has made good progress on topics such as improving the problem definition, 
the choice of the options, what indicators to use in the modelling of impacts etc. We have 
aim to develop some common text for IA on DG MARE MAPs, which could be reused 
in all MAPs, eg describing the CFP, the concept of MAPs. 

57 

 
Consultation of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board 

The  draft  Impact  Assessment  Report  (IAR)  was  submitted  to  the  Regulatory  Scrutiny 
Board  (RSB)  on  17  May  2016.  The  RSB  met  to  consider the  IAR  on 8  June  2016  and 
issued a positive opinion on the draft IAR on 13 June 201675.  

The  final  IAR  was  revised  based  on  the  RSB's  Opinion  as  well  as  their  comments 
provided in the Impact Assessment Quality Checklist (IAQC)76, as follows: 

RSB recommendation 

How this was addressed 

 1)  The  problem  definition 
should 
be  made  more 
specific  to  the  Adriatic  Sea 
and  include  a  broader  time 
perspective.  The 
relations 
the  management 
between 
at  national, 
arrangements 
international 
regional  and 
related 
level 
and 
be 
shortcomings 
further elaborated on. 

should 

The  problem  definition,  for  both 
the  drivers  and 
consequences of the problems, has been quantified where 
possible,  including  definitions  for  the  problems  and 
information  on  how  the  problem  has  evolved  over  time. 
For  example, 
levels  of  overexploitation,  of 
overfishing, of overcapacity and the risk of collapse have 
been  detailed,  and 
the  risk  of  collapse  has  been 
quantified. New information has been included on recent 
trends in stock status of anchovy and sardine.  

the 

the  shortcomings  of 

In  section  2.2.1, 
the  current 
management  measures  have  been  presented  for  each 
management  level  and  clarifying  the  bias  between  input 
and  output control.  More  detail  and  examples  have  been 
provided  regarding  the  instability  of  the  management 
framework.  Text  was  included  to  clarify  why  discarding 
is  not  a  problem  in  this  fishery.  The  synergies  and 
discrepancies between the different instruments has been 
elaborated  on,  and  tables  presenting  the  instability  over 
time  and 
the  different 
instruments have been included in Annex XI. 

the  discrepancies  between 

The policy context has been refined, e.g. information has 
also been included on the preparation of other EU multi-
annual plans under the new CFP, and on lessons learned 
from  implementation  of  pas  multi-annual  plans  adopted 
under the previous CFP. More detailed information on the 
specificities  of  small  pelagics  in  terms  of  lifespan  and 
sensitivity  to  environmental  fluctuations,  and  their  trade 
dynamics and supply issues has also been included in the 
report. 

 2) The policy objectives and 
corresponding options should 
be clarified and better linked, 
underlining  the  Adriatic  Sea 
specificities.  The 
report 
should  make  evident  what 

In Section 4, the specific objectives have been rephrased 
to focus on small pelagics in the Adriatic Sea. In Section 
5.1,  a  section  was  included  to  clarify  why  the  option  of 
managing  small  pelagics  solely  on 
the  basis  of 
international  measures  (GFCM)  was  discarded  early  on, 
as it was considered too risky. In Section 5.2, a stronger 

75   WILL INCLUDE REFERENCE TO OPINION ONCE PUBLISHED 
76   Provided to DG MARE on 3/6/2016 but not published. 

58 

 
                                                 
It 

should 

are  the  limitations  in  the 
options design set out by the 
CFP. 
further 
specify what is the flexibility 
regarding particular elements 
of  MAP  and  what  policy 
decisions  are  to  be  made  on 
the individual elements at the 
EU and Member State level. 

risks 

including 

 3)  The  assessment  of  the 
impacts  should  be  improved, 
of 
by 
incorrect implementation and 
possible  adverse  effects. The 
projected  economic  impacts 
at  the  microeconomic  level 
should be better substantiated 
in 
argumentation, 
including  the  distribution  of 
the  net  benefits.  Possible 
indirect  impacts  –  e.g.  on 
innovation and or on non-EU 
be 
fisheries 
considered  and  elaborated 
on. 

should 

the 

- 

link is made between the retained policy options and the 
policy  objectives,  including  by  clarifying  that  the  CFP 
identified  multi-annual  plans  as  the  priority  tool  to 
achieve  the  objectives  of  the  CFP  and  that  the  CFP 
objective of sustainability is time bound. 

Furthermore, in section 5.2.2.2 (details on Option 2 - EU 
multi-annual  plan),  the  limitations  on  the  policy  choices 
that can be made regarding the contents of a multi-annual 
plan is clarified, in terms of provisions in the CFP, of the 
inter-institutional agreement, and the precedent set by the 
Baltic multi-annual plan. The rest of section 5.2.2.2 then 
presents what policy choices can be made within a multi-
annual  plan,  to  tailor  the  plan  to  the  specific  fishery. 
Furthermore,  the  report  specifies  in  section  5.2.2.2  what 
choices  the  Member  States  can  make  under  a  multi-
annual plan to achieve its targets. 

Information  has  also  been  included  in  section  7.3 
regarding  compliance  cost,  regarding  coherence  with  the 
international  GFCM  measures  (in 
terms  of  catch 
limitations adopted in 2016), regarding acceptability of a 
system  of  output  control  (referring  to  the  experience 
already  available  in  the Adriatic  in  this  respect e.g.  with 
Blue-fin tuna). 

Section  7.4  contains  more  details  on  synergies  between 
the  proposed  EU  multi-annual  plan  and  the  current 
GFCM management measures, which would co-exist if a 
multi-annual plan is adopted. 

A section 7.5 on limitations and uncertainty in the impact 
assessment  was  also  included,  describing  the  sensitivity 
of  the  forecast  for  different  elements  (e.g.  stock  status, 
market effects etc). 

A section 8.3 has been included to present provisions on 
implementing  conditions  in  the  Member  States  in  terms 
specifically  of  compliance  and  control,  including  the 
relationship 
through 
regionalisation.  In  particular,  this  section  also  details 
incentives  which  Member  states  and  other  stake  holders 
have  to  implement  regionalization  and  what  safeguards 
are in place. 

with  measures 

adopted 

Indirect  impacts,  in  particular  regarding  imports  from 
non-EU countries and possible impacts on their fisheries 
resources,  has  been  included  in  the  IAR  and  detailed 
further in Annex III. 

Technical  comments  have 
been  transmitted  directly  to 
the  author  DG  and  are 

The  technical  and  editorial  comments  provided  in  the 
IAQC  have  been  addressed  in  the  revised  Impact 

59 

 
Assessment. The report has been thoroughly copy edited. 

expected  to  be  incorporated 
in  the  final  version  of  the 
impact assessment report. 

Consultation  

In  preparing this  Impact Assessment, consultations have  taken place  at  different levels, 
including stakeholders, scientists, individual citizens, public administations and relevant 
Commission services (see Annex II for more details).  

A public consultation via the internet, that took place in 2015 (see Annex II). The main 
conclusions,  which  will  also  be  reflected  in  the  relevant  parts  of  the  report,  were  as 
follows:  

  Most  contributors  agreed  on  the  need  for  an  EU  multi-annual  plan,  basically 
because  the  current  legal  framework  does  not  duly  take  account  of  the 
specificities of the region’s region/fisheries and it does  not  fully implement, the 
CFP, in particular the regionalisation principle. 

  The current framework is considered to be too complex.  
  The EU’s intervention should  be limited to  the orientation and determination of 

 

the objectives.  
Interactions  between  fisheries  and  environmental  factors  should  be  taken  into 
account.  

  Measures should concern only target species.  
  Technical measures and additional measures on the landing obligation should be 

adopted via regionalisation and not fixed in the plan.  

  Technical  measures  should  focus  on  spatial-temporal  closures  rather  than  on 

increase in selectivity based on mesh size.  

  The  multi-annual  plan  should  have  an  adaptive  approach  and  should  be 

proportionate to the share of catches of the different fleets concerned.  

In addition, certain key studies underpin this Impact Assessment: 

An on-going retrospective evaluation of the MEDREG85 found that, despite many of 
the MEDREG measures being implemented, the MEDREG appears to be failing on the 
majority of its objectives in the Northern Adriatic region, or results on effectiveness are 
inconclusive  due  to  limited  supporting  evidence.  For  example,  all  National  Authorities 
that were consulted in the context of this retrospective evaluation perceived little and no 
impacts of the MEDREG in reducing fishing effort in the Northern Adriatic region and 
that  the  MEDREG  has  had  a  limited  impact  on  number  of  vessels  and  employment  in 
Italy and Croatia.  

National  management  plans  adopted  by  Member  States  have  been  thoroughly 
analysed by the STECF30 based on a dedicated study77. STECF concluded that under the 
existing national management plans, reductions of the catches are insufficient to reach 
sustainable fishing levels by 2020 and therefore, STECF considers that, unless changes 
in the above aspects are made to the national management plans, it is very unlikely that 
the objectives of the CFP will be achieved.  

77  MAREA:  MEDITERRANEAN  HALIEUTIC  RESOURCES  EVALUATION  AND  ADVICE  - 
SPECIFIC CONTRACT n° 9, Task 4 - Ad hoc scientific advice in support of the implementation of 
the Common Fisheries Policy, "Scientific advice on the conformity of management plans with the 
requirements  of  the  Common  Fisheries  Policy  in  the  Mediterranean  Sea"-  Revised  report 
08.08.2014.  

60 

 
                                                 
Regarding  the  international  measures  implemented  under  the  GFCM,  a  bioeconomic 
assessment of management measures for sardine and anchovy fisheries in the Adriatic 
was  carried  out  by  the  GFCM  in  201550.  Simulations  show  that  current  fishing 
mortalities78  are  too  high,  including  under  the  emergency  measures  adopted  by  the 
GFCM,  and  if  continued,  anchovy  and  sardine  stocks  would  remain  outside  biological 
safe limits or even collapse between 2020 and 2030. 

In 2014, the Commission contracted a study entitled "Improved knowledge of the main 
socio-economic  aspects  related  to  the  most  important  fisheries  in  the  Adriatic  Sea" 
aiming  to  identify  the  main  fisheries  in  the  Adriatic,  to  describe  the  state  of  stock 
assessments  and  scientific  advice  for  the  relevant  stocks  and  to  provide  socioeconomic 
information pertaining to the different fisheries undertaken by the coastal countries in the 
Adriatic. The study was finalized in 201579. 

A specific contract was launched by DG MARE in 2014, to assess specific management 
scenarios  for  multi-annual  plans  in  accordance  with  the  CFP  objectives80.  The  study 
envisaged  four  case  studies,  one  of  which  concerned  the  small  pelagic  fisheries  in  the 
Adriatic. The study then used bio-economic modelling to assess the environmental, social 
and economic impacts of different scenarios on the different fleet segments. 

78      Average of 2012-2014 
79    Lembo  (2015)  "Improved  knowledge  of  the  main  socio-economic  aspects  related  to  the  most 
important  fisheries  in  the  Adriatic  Sea  (SEDAF)".  Specific  contract  no.  10  under  the  MAREA 
Framework Contract.  
Service  contract  number:  EASME/EMFF/2014/1.3.2.7/SI2.703  193,  "Study  on  the  evaluation  of 
specific  management  scenarios  for  the  preparation  of  multi-annual  management  plans  in  the 
Mediterranean and the Black Sea" - CALL MARE/2014/27.  

80 

61 

 
 
   
 
 
                                                 
ANNEX II: STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION 

Experts' advice 

Most of the work and consultation necessary to cover all of these aspects of the work has 
been  carried  out  by  scientists  working  through  the  auspices  of  the  STECF  and  of  the 
Scientific Advisory Committee of the GFCM (GFCM-SAC) as well as by a consortium 
of  Mediterranean  Research  Institutes  under  a  framework  contract  with  the  Commission 
(MAREA).  Overall,  5  STECF  Expert  Working  Groups  meetings  and  4  GFCM-SAC 
Sessions have taken place, and 5 scientific studies devoted to multi-annual plans and the 
small pelagic fisheries in the Adriatic have been carried out since 201381. 

Consultation with stakeholders 

Stakeholders were consulted in a targeted manner and in particular through consultation 
with  the  Mediterranean  Sea  Advisory  Council  (MEDAC)82,  the  most  representative 
fisheries stakeholders' organisation in the Mediterranean. The MEDAC represents all the 
parties concerned by this initiative. This comprises the fisheries sector, including small-
scale fisheries, the processing sector and trade unions and other interest groups such as 
environmental  organisations,  consumer  groups  and 
fishery 
associations which operate in the Mediterranean area in the framework of the CFP.  

sports/recreational 

Since 2014 MEDAC has set up a working group specifically devoted to the development 
of the multi-annual plan for the small pelagics in the Adriatic.  The working group held 
six  meetings,  in  which  representatives  of  DG  MARE,  the  European  Fisheries  Control 
Agency,  the  scientific  research  community,  as  well  as  industry  representatives  and 
Member States fisheries administrations took part83. 

In  March  2016,  the  MEDAC  adopted  an  advice  on  the  multi-annual  plan  for  small 
pelagics in the Northern Adriatic84. In this advice the MEDAC proposed a "traffic light" 
approach  to  managing  the  small  pelagics  in  the  Northern  Adriatic,  whereby  stricter 
measures are taken as a function of where the stock is in relation to both fishing mortality 
(FMSY) and biological reference points (SSBPA and SSBLIM). The advice proposes that in 
the worst case, where stocks are fished at fishing levels above MSY and where the size of 
the spawning stock biomass is below a critical point (SSBLIM), emergency measures be 
adopted  by  the  Commission  under  Article  12  of  the  Basic  Regulation.  Other 
recommendations made in this advice include: 

  The  multi-annual  plan  should  have  at  least  a  3  year  duration  to  allow  fishing 
enterprises to plan their investments on the basis of a reasonable timeframe;  
  The measures contained in this plan should be applied as soon as possible, at the 

latest by 1/1/2018;  

  All vessels actively fishing in GSA 17 for anchovies and/or sardines should have 
on board an effective electronic system to control and monitor their position and 

81   STECF  (EWG  13-19,  EWG  14-09,  EWG  14-19,  EWG  15-11,  EWG  15-16);  GFCM  (SAC  15th 
Session,  SAC 16th  Session,  SAC  17th  Session,  SAC  18th  Session);  and  MAREA  Framework 
Contract (MEDISEH, STOCKMED, BEMTOOL, LANDMED, SEDAF). 
http://www.med-ac.eu/  

82 
83   8th  October  2014,  Split  (Croatia);  20th  November  2014,  Rome  (Italy);  11th  March  2015,  Rome 
(Italy);  23rd  April  2015,  Marseille  (France);  11th  June  2015,  Madrid  (Spain);  17th  February  2016, 
Rome (Italy).  

84   MEDAC (2016) MEDAC Advice on LTMP for Small Pelagics in GSA 17 (Northern Adriatic) of 11 

March 2016 (Prot. 94/2016). 

62 

 
                                                 
their  fishing  activity.  In  particular,  electronic  logbook  is  mandatory  for  all 
vessels;  

  Fishing  authorization  mandatory  for  all  vessels  actively  fishing  sardines  and 

anchovies in GSA 17;  

  The multi-annual plan should prolong the  de minimis provisions included in the 
three-year Discard Plan17 for anchovy, sardine, mackerel and horse mackerel.  
  Before  the  adoption  of  the  management  plan  the  impacts  of  the  possible 

 

management measures should be evaluated;  
In  order  to  reduce  the  time  gap  between  data  collection  and  the  measures  to  be 
implemented  according  to  the  traffic  light  approach,  in  addition  to  traditional 
methods, more time-responding systems, such as echo surveys are required;  

a 

and 

also 

organized 

Scientific 

Commission 

The 
technical 
seminar on small pelagic fisheries in the Adriatic Sea on 18 September 2015, bringing 
together  the  scientific  community  (STECF,  GFCM,  ADRIAMED,  national  research 
institutes,  independent  experts,  the  Commission's  Joint  Research  Centre),  the  MEDAC, 
Member  States'  fisheries  administrations.  The  aim  was  to  have  a  discussion  with 
representatives  from  the  different  scientific  communities  that  are  involved  in  stock 
assessments  for  small  pelagics  in  the  Adriatic,  to  have  an  opportunity  to  share 
information, data and methodologies. During the meeting, the main outcomes of the EU 
project  SEDAF9  was  presented,  particularly  the  biological  and  socio-economic 
implications  when  applying  different  management  scenarios  to  reach  MSY.  There  was 
general agreement that sardine and anchovy are over-exploited and that it is time to act. 

This  was  followed  by  a  Workshop  on  the  implementation  of  MSY  in  the  different 
Case Studies, including the small pelagic stocks in the Adriatic on 21-25 September 
2015. This workshop was organized in the context of the Commission-funded project on 
Management  scenarios  for  the  preparation  of  a  multi-annual  management  plans  in  the 
Mediterranean  and  Black  Sea.  This  meeting  enabled  different  actors  (the  Commission, 
MEDAC, independent experts, consultants carrying out the project) to discuss and agree 
on the different management possibilities, criteria and planned scenarios to reach Fmsy in 
the context of this project.  

A consultation of stakeholders involved in Mediterranean fisheries (including 8 Member 
States'  authorities,  research  institutes  from  8  Member  States,  5  NGOs,  industry 
representatives from 8 MS, the MEDAC, STECF) was also carried out in the context of 
the  Retrospective  Evaluation  study  of  the  Mediterranean  Sea  Regulation85,  which 
includes  a  specific  case-study  on  small  pelagics  in  the  Adriatic.  This  provided  relevant 
input  regarding  the  problem  definition  and  the  effectiveness  of  the  current  framework. 
The response from consulted stakeholders overwhelmingly agreed that fish stocks in the 
Mediterranean  were  severely  overexploited  before  2010  (when  all  provisions  of  the 
MEDREG  entered  into  force)  and  the  majority  of  respondents  across  all  stakeholder 
categories  stated  that  no  observed  improvement  in  stock  status  had  occurred.  Another 
critical  issue  identified  included  concerns  about  future  socio-economic  sustainability  in 
Mediterranean fisheries. 

In  addition  to  this,  a  wide-ranging,  internet-based,  public  consultation  on  Northern 
Adriatic small-pelagic fisheries was carried out between 22 May 2015 and 11 September 

85   Wakeford  et  al.(2016)  retrospective  evaluation  study  of  the  Mediterranean  Sea  Regulation.  Draft 

final report (April 2016) 

63 

 
                                                 
201586. The scope of the public consultation covered only the Northern Adriatic as this is 
where the vast majority of fishing activity on small pelagics takes place and initially the 
Commission was considering tabling a proposal for a multi-annual plan for the Northern 
Adriatic, before deciding to expand the scope slightly to cover the whole Adriatic. This 
extension in scope was decided in order to cover the whole area where the stock occurs, 
and to avoid the disproportionate cost of having to develop a separate multi-annual plan 
just  for  the  Southern  Adriatic  in  future,  given  how  minimal  this  fishery  is  (6%  of 
anchovy  and sardine caught  in  the Adriatic (2013)  are landed in  the Southern  Adriatic, 
and  many  of  these  catches  actually  take  place  in  the  Northern  Adriatic.  The  share  of 
landings in  the  Southern  Adriatic  has  been  declining  constantly  since  2008  (see  Annex 
IV - Tables A8 and A9).  

The  public  consultation  was  widely  broadcasted  through  bilateral  contacts,  during  the 
meetings  of  the  MEDAC,  the  General  Fisheries  Commission  for  the  Mediterranean 
(GFCM)87  and  the  Scientific,  Technical  and  Economic  Committee  for  Fisheries 
(STECF)88  and  among  all  the  relevant  stakeholders,  including  national  and  regional 
authorities, the catching sector and NGOs and the social partners. A total of 15 detailed 
contributions  were  received  from  Member  States,  the  MEDAC,  industry  representative 
organisations, NGOs, and individual citizens. Below is a more detailed overview of the 
public consultation:  

Consultation strategy 

The  views  of  stakeholders  including  civil  society  were  sought  through  a  public 
consultation  on  the  best  management  options  and  on  the  possible  ways  to  address  the 
challenges posed by the reformed CFP implementation in the area.  

Contributions received 

A total of 15 written contributions received. Individual contributions are available on the 
dedicated website to this consultation86. Figure 1 and Table 1 provide a summary of the 
submissions by stakeholder grouping. 

The  overview  of  the  contributions  presented  is  based  on  the  written  contributions 
received.  It is  neither  intended  to  draw  conclusions  regarding  the  options  proposed  nor 
does  it  represent  the  position  of  the  Commission.  It  will  support  the  preparation  of  the 
Impact  Assessment  report,  which  in  turn  will  be  the  basis  for  developing  the 
Commission's  proposal  for  a  multi-annual  plan  for  managing  small  pelagic  fisheries  in 
the Adriatic.  

86   http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/maritimeaffairs_fisheries/consultations/northern-adriatic-

multiannual/index_en.htm  

87   www.gfcm.org 
88   Commission  Decision  of  26  August  2005  establishing  a  Scientific,  Technical  and  Economic 

Committee for Fisheries (2005/629/EC). See also https://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ 

64 

 
                                                 
Figure 1 Breakdown of contributions to the Public Consultation  

7% 

13% 

13% 

7% 

13% 

NGOs

Public Authorities

Science/Research

Advisory Councils

47% 

Fishermen
Associations

Citizen

Table 1 Contributors to the Public Consultation  

Stakeholder Group 

Number of contributions  Examples 

Advisory Councils 

1 (7%) 

MEDAC 

Public Authorities 

7 (47%) 

Ministries, Local government 

Civil society 
organisations 

Industry/stakeholder 
organisations 

Scientific/Research 
Institutes 

2 (13%) 

Environmental NGOs 

2 (13%) 

Fishermen's representative organisations 

2 (13%) 

Fisheries research institutes, fisheries consultants 

General Public 

1 (7%) 

Citizens 

General comments 

Most contributors (Advisory council, NGOs, Public authorities, the three Member States 
involved  in  the  fishery)  agreed  on  the  need  for  an  EU  multi-annual  plan,  basically 
because  the  current  legal  framework  does  not  allow  to  duly  take  into  account  the 
specificities of the region and of the relevant fisheries. Moreover, it does not represent a 

65 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
coherent framework to fully implement the challenges posed by the CFP, in particular to 
implement the regionalisation principle.  

Several  stakeholders  (Advisory  council,  fishermen  organizations,  local  government), 
identified  the  fact  that  the  current  management  framework  is  highly  complex  as  a 
problem. 

Despite a general agreement on the need for an EU regulation establishing a multi-annual 
plan,  most  contributors  stressed  that  the  EU  intervention  should  be  limited  to  the 
orientation  and  determination  of  the  objectives.  The  development  of  more  detailed 
implementation  and  technical  measures  should  be  left  to  the  Member  States  and  the 
stakeholders represented in the Advisory Council, via the regionalisation process. 

Conservation and management approach 

All the contributions considered 2020 as a realistic target date for reaching MSY 2020, 
with the option of 2018 being quickly dismissed. Some contributions even suggested that 
the  objective  should  be  delayed  with  respect  to  what  is  established  in  the  CFP  Basic 
Regulation. In all cases, respondents considered that the transition towards MSY should 
be gradual.  

As far as the identification of the target species is concerned, most  of the contributions 
agreed  that sardine and anchovy  are the main target  species and that the measures of a 
possible  multi-annual  plan  should  be  focused  on  those  stocks.  For  the  management  of 
secondary  target  species  such  as  horse  mackerel  and  sprat,  it  was  considered  that  the 
landing obligation provisions are enough.  

Since  sardine  and  anchovy  are  subject  to  a  mixed  fishery,  most  of  the  contributions 
agreed  that  interactions  between  fisheries  and  fleets  should  be  taken  into  account. 
Environmental factors should also be duly considered, given their strong influence in the 
recruitment of the two species under discussions. 

Some  contributions  stressed  that  the  plan  has  to  be  proportionate  to  the  share  of  the 
different fleets and to their impact on the resources. 

An  adaptive  management  approach  was  recommended  by  several  contributions, 
including  from  stakeholders'  organisations.  More  concretely,  it  was  suggested  that  the 
plan could be implemented in two phases: a transitional period until 2017, during which 
basically the status quo is maintained, but the scientific monitoring is improved, and then 
the implementation of new measures as from 2018-2020. 

The  introduction  of  catch  limits  or  Total  Allowable  catches  (TACs)  was  discussed  by 
most  of  the  contributions,  and  stakeholders  are  quite  divided  on  this  subject.  Some 
contributions,  including  from  public  administrations  and  NGOs,  are  in  favour  of 
introducing for  example  daily  catch  limits  per  vessel  or  per fisheries,  in  order  to  better 
manage  the  fishing  effort.  For  some  other  stakeholders,  including  some  fishermen's 
organisations, the introduction of TACs would be unacceptable. However, this position is 
not  strongly  substantiated,  except  for  a  general  comment  that  it  would increase  discard 
levels. Other contributions (Public authorities) stressed that technical measures would be 
more appropriate than catch limits, without properly explaining the rationale behind this 
assumption.  

Regionalised technical measures 

66 

 
As already mentioned above, technical measures and possible measures to implement the 
landing obligation should be adopted via regionalisation and not be fixed in a co-decided 
plan. Stakeholders agree to follow the framework that has been chosen in the Baltic Sea, 
implementing regionalisation, as an example.  

The AC, Member States and the fishing sector suggested a number of technical measures 
but most contributions agreed that they should focus on spatiotemporal closures, also on 
rotational basis, rather than on increases in selectivity based on mesh size requirements. 
More  specifically,  measures  derogating  from  the  MEDREG  provisions  on  the 
characteristics and the use of purse seines fishing gears were recommended.  

Implementation of the landing obligation 

There is a general agreement (except from one professional organisation) that the current 
provisions regulating the implementation of the landing obligation in the Adriatic, which 
for the time being are included in the Mediterranean discard plan, should be integrated in 
the future multi-annual plan.  

Contributions  from  scientific  bodies  stressed  that  the  implementation  of  the  landing 
obligation  should  be  placed  in  the  context  of  the  management  measures  that  will  be 
decided in the plan. For example, if the management measures that will be adopted have 
as a consequence to increase the levels of discards, the de minimis granted so far should 
be reconsidered and possibly withdrawn, with all the catches being consequently landed.  

A  co-management  approach  in  landings  control  system  was  also  suggested  by 
professional  organisation,  especially  when  the  catch  is  entirely  transported  from  the 
landing site to the site of the first sale. The risk of parallel black market for undersized 
individuals was in fact evoked. 

Scientific issues 

A  large  number  of  contributions,  including  from  fishermen's  organisation,  AC  and 
scientific bodies, focused on the scientific aspects. 

Overall, most contributions  (Advisory council, professional organisations and scientific 
bodies)  agreed  that  the  scientific  basis  for  management  decisions    should  be  improved 
and  that  the  time  gaps  between  the  collection  of  the  data  and  their  use  for  scientific 
purposes  (two  years)  should  be  reduced.  Real  time  evaluations  were  recommended  by 
most of the contributions, to properly address the challenges posed by the management of 
the  small  pelagic  stocks.  Some  inputs  (professional  organisations)  suggested  that 
fishermen  observations  should  complement  scientific  data,  while  others  (scientific 
bodies) argued that catch independent methods should be used to strengthen the scientific 
basis. 

Another  reason  that  was  given  for  developing  the  scientific  research  on  the  two  target 
stocks  is  that  they  are  in  a  competitive  relation.  Therefore,  some  respondents  from 
Member  States)  considered  that  further  investigations  would  be  needed  to  determine 
whether both can be maintained at MSY level at the same time, and to determine the best 
ranges of reference points taking into account their mutual interactions. 

The  discrepancies  in  stock  assessments  and  scientific  advice  between  the  two  main 
scientific  bodies  dealing  with  small  pelagic  in  the  Adriatic  (STECF  and  GFCM-SAC) 

67 

 
were  recalled  and  a  general  revision  of  input  data  and  of  the  methodology  for  stock 
assessment was recommended. 

There was support for carrying out joint stock-assessment for GSA 17 and GSA 18, as 
opposed to two separate assessments, but only in the future. Some contributions (from a 
scientific body) argued in fact that for the time being the differences in availability and 
reliability of data between the two GSAs are too important to combine the data.  

Given  the  importance  of  environmental  factors  in  the  dynamics  of  the  small  pelagic 
populations, one contribution (fishermen association) questioned whether it is realistic to 
expect that fishing mortality can regulate the spawning stock biomass in the long term. 
More  generally,  it  was  suggested  that  the  positive  or  negative  changes  to  the  stocks 
biomass  originating  from  climatic  variations  should  be  taken  into  account.  The  link 
between the presence of tunas in the Adriatic, in particular of tuna fattening farms, and 
the decrease of sardine was also raised by one contribution (Advisory council). 

Control 

A  majority  of  the  contributions  raised  the  issue  of  control  measures,  which  should 
somehow  accompany  a  new  management  approach.  For  example,  mandatory  fishing 
authorisations, VMS and logbook obligations should be introduced, to properly monitor 
and control the enforcement of the management measures. On the other hand, a possible 
multi-annual  plan  should  envisage  some  exemptions  from  Council  Regulation  (EC) No 
1224/2009 (the Control regulation)60. This is motivated by the need to take into account 
the specificities of the small pelagic fisheries in the Adriatic (e.g. exemption from the 4 
hours pre-notification requirement before arrival in port). 

Financial support 

According  to  most  contributions  (advisory  council,  Member  States  and  one  NGO), 
EMFF is the most important lever to speed up the process of implementation of a multi-
annual plan. Despite the fact that all contributors recognise the critical role of the fund, 
local  authorities  criticized  its  excessive  bureaucracy  and  complex  procedures,  in 
particular regional authorities.  

Some  contributions,  in  particular  from  stakeholders  (advisory  council)  and  fishermen 
organisations,  wondered  about  the  possibility  to  introduce  a  kind  of  reward  system  to 
access to the EMFF within the multi-annual plan regulation, in particular the possibility 
of relaxing the rules on the inadmissibility of applications to the EMFF (thus derogating 
from Regulation 508/2014). 

One  contribution  from  a  national  administration  (one  Member  State)  stressed  that 
financial  support  to  temporary  cessation  would  not  be  enough  to  cover  the  estimated 
economic losses.  

Some  inputs  concerned  the  need  to  foresee  alternative  incentive  mechanisms  for 
fishermen to comply with newly introduced management measures. Moreover, according 
to  some  stakeholders 
including  fishermen's  organisation,  financial  support  for 
infrastructures should be promoted, in particular landing sites and ports, also to facilitate 
controls. 

Other issues 

68 

 
Many contributions (Advisory council, professional organisations and public authorities) 
stressed  the  important  role  that  co-management  schemes  could  play  within  a  revised 
management framework, for example to reduce the administrative burden. 

Overall,  all  contributors  agreed  that  fishermen's  organisations  should  be  involved  at 
advisory level, to better streamline the procedures. A close cooperation with national and 
local  authorities,  fisheries  organisations  and  scientific  bodies  could  also  contribute  to 
ensure subsidiarity. 

The regulation of the markets was also raised as a critical issue by some contributions, in 
particular  from  local  authorities  and  fishermen's  organisations.  Management  models 
focused  on  Producers  Organisations  should  be  promoted,  including  the  adoption  of 
production and commercialisation plans limiting the catches per vessel and per fishery, in 
order  to  reduce  the  overall  fishing  effort  while  increasing  the  profit  of  the  single 
company. 

Finally,  the  need  to  properly  promote  and  disseminate  information  and  to  raise  the 
awareness of all  stakeholders, including  consumers,  was stressed by some contributors, 
such as Advisory Council and Fishermen's organisations. 

69 

 
ANNEX III: WHO IS AFFECTED BY THE INITIATIVE AND HOW 

This Annex contains two parts:  

In  part  A  it  provides  details  and  figures  underpinning  the  Section  2.4  The  affected 
stakeholders  and  in  Part  B  it  presents  the  immediate  consequences  of  the  proposed 
initiative for those affected stakeholders  

Part A – the affected stakeholders 

Regarding  the  importance  of  the  different  fisheries  sectors  in  the  Member  States 
concerned, Table 1 presents the key figures. 

Table  1  Income  from  the  fisheries  sector  in  Croatia,  Italy  and  Slovenia  in  2012, 
including  four  main  sub-sectors  (in  million Euros  and  as  a  percentage  of  the  total 
fisheries income for each Member State). 

Catching 
(primary 
sector) 

Aquaculture 

Processing 

Ancillary 
activities 

Fisheries 
total 

Croatia 

355.1 (63.5%) 

123.0 (22%) 

80.2 (14.4%) 

8.2 (1.5%)  

558.9 

Italy 
(Adriatic) 

382 (19.8%) 

41.3 (2.1%) 

1390.6 (72.1%)  114.5(5.9%) 

1928.4 

Slovenia 

2.4 (2.9%) 

4.7 (5.7%) 

75.9 (91.4%) 

0.6 (0.7%) 

83.0 

Source: SEDAF study9 

The importance  of each Member States in terms of catches of anchovy and sardine are 
presented in Table 2. 

Table  2  Landings  of  anchovy  and  sardine  by  Croatia,  Italy  and  Slovenia  (2011-
2014).  

Anchovy 
landings (t) 

Croatia 
Italy 
Slovenia 
Total 

2011 

2012 

2013 

2014 

14 260 
29 439 
163 
43 862 

8 290 
27 947 
44 
36 281 

9 233 
18 653 
21 
27 907 

8 594 
19 437 
33 
28 064 

Average 
(2011-
2014) 

10 094 
23 869 
65 
34 029 

Sardine 
landings (t) 
49 604 
Croatia 
15 293 
Italy 
108 
Slovenia 
Total 
65 004 
Source: 2011-2013 data from the SEDAF study9. 2014 data from DG-MARE-EUMOFA32 

43 770 
15 124 
18 
58 912 

45 444 
8 202 
306 
53 952 

53 418 
18 740 
28 
72 186 

55 783 
19 106 
78 
74 967 

of 

% 
region  

29.7 
70.1 
0.2 
100 

76.3 
23.5 
0.2 
100 

In  addition  to  the  three  Member  States  referred  to  above,  Albanian  and  Montenegrin 
vessels  also  catch  anchovy  and  sardine  in  the  Adriatic,  but  their  catches  are  minimal, 
with 505t of sardine and 378t anchovy for Albania in 2014 and 91t of sardine and 37t of 

70 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
anchovy for Montenegro in 201489.  

Fishing sector 

The  majority  of  Italian  catches  of  anchovy  and  sardine  take  place  in  the  Adriatic:  for 
2012 to 2014, Adriatic fisheries accounted for 67% of Italian anchovy catches, and 81% 
of  Italian  sardine  catches90.  In  Italy,  there  were  197  vessels  fishing  for  pelagics  in  the 
Adriatic (in 2007) of which around 140 are pelagic trawlers and the rest are seiners90. 

In Croatia, anchovy and sardine constitute the most important species in terms of value, 
accounting  for  over  52%  of  total  Croatian  landings  by  value  and  83%  by  weight39. 
Sardine  is  the  more  important  of  the  two  species  in  Croatian  landings  (see  Table  2). 
“Srdelara” purse seiners are the main fishing gear intended for small pelagics, accounting 
for  99%  of  catches  of  sardine  and  anchovy  in  Croatia.  In  Croatia  small  pelagics  are 
targeted  using  purse  seiners  of  which  there  were  206  active  vessels  in  2014  in  the 
Croatian fleet91. 

Sardine purse seine fishing represents the most significant part of the Croatian fisheries 
sector.  The  owners  of  trades,  crafts  and  enterprises  owning  a  vessel  with  a  licence  for 
"Srdelara"  purse  seine  fishing  are  uniformly  distributed  along  the  entire  Croatian  coast 
and on the islands, and represent an important economic activity of the rural areas of the 
coastal region and the islands91. 

Smaller  purse  seiners  (of  up  to  18  m)  which  are  mostly  multi-purpose  fishing  vessels, 
participate with only 10% in the total catches employing approximately 700 people. The 
category  of  vessels  of  18-24  m  makes  up  31%  of  the  total  catches,  employing 
approximately 550 people. In the category of vessels over 24 m, somewhat less than 60% 
of the total catches is realized and approximately 650 people are employed91. 

In  Slovenia,  sardine  and  anchovy  together  accounted  for  73.6%  of  the  total  catch  in 
2009.  The  bulk  of  the  marine  catch  is  sold  to  known  buyers  (processing  industry, 
commercial  agents),  with  an  increasing  proportion  of  the  catch  also  being  sold  at  the 
wholesale  fish  market  in  Trieste.  There  are  only  4  vessels  active  in  the  purse  seine 
segment targeting small pelagics92.  

The  ten  main  fleet  segments  operating  in  the  Adriatic,  by  country,  geographical  sub-
areas,  fisheries  and  vessel  length  stratum  are  presented  in  Table  4.  In  Croatia  and 
Slovenia, small pelagics are targeted using purse seiners, while in Italy both purse seiners 
and pelagic trawlers are used. The main fleets involved in the small pelagic fisheries, in 
terms  of  their  impact  on  the  stocks  and  the  number  of  employees,  are  Italian  pelagic 
trawlers (24-40m length, 18-24m and 12-18m) and Croatian purse seiners (24-40m and 
18-24m).  

89   2015  Stock  Assessment  forms  for  Anchovy  and  Sardine,  prepared  for  the  GFCM  Scientific  and 

Advisory Committee. 

90   Annual  report  on  Italy's  efforts  during  2014  to  achieve  an  enduring  balance  between  fishing 

capacity and fishing opportunities 

91   Croatian Annual report on balance between fishing capacity and fishing opportunities for 2014  
92   Slovenian  Annual  report  on  efforts  to  achieve  a  sustainable  balance  between  fishing  capacity  and 

fishing opportunities for the year 2014. 

71 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Processing sector 
In terms of other sectors that are dependent on fisheries, the processing sector is the most 
important one, accounting for over 60% of total value generated by all fisheries sectors93 
in  the  Adriatic  (this  refers  to  all  fisheries  in  the  Adriatic,  not  just  small  pelagics)  and 
above 70% and 90% in Slovenia and Italy respectively9.  

Specifically  for  small  pelagics,  the  processing  sector  (canning  and  salting)  generates  a 
significant activity in Italy and Croatia, where it represented around EUR 150 million in 
sales  in  2014.  However,  production  of  canned  anchovy  and  sardine  has  strongly 
decreased in recent years, from 20 500 t in 2009 to 13 000 t in 201494  

Figures for the numbers of enterprises and employment within the sector in each of the 
Adriatic Member States are given in Table 3. Note that the enterprises may be processing 
catches  (of  all  species)  from  other  areas  as  well  as  the  Adriatic,  this  is  particularly  the 
case for Italy which fishes in several sea basins. Therefore, the level of employment in 
the processing sector in the Adriatic is likely to be less than the values per Member State 
in  Table  3.  In  terms  of  full  time  equivalents  (FTE),  the  three  Adriatic  Member  States 
have  a  total  of  over  6700  FTEs,  with  the  vast  majority  being  situated  in  Italy  (77%) 
followed by Croatia (18%). 

In  both  Italy  and  Slovenia,  100%  of  these  enterprises  meet  the  definition  of  SMEs  in 
terms  of  number  of  employees47  (i.e.  <250  employees)  whilst  in  Croatia  this  figure  is 
95% (Table 3).  

Table  3  Numbers  of  enterprises  and  employment  in  the  processing  sector  of 
Adriatic EU Member States in 2012.  

Number of enterprises by size (= no. employees) 

No. 
of 
employees:  ≤ 10 

11-49 

50-249 

≥250 

Total 

Croatia 

Italy 

Slovenia 

4  

372 

10 

6 

144 

2 

9 

21 

3 

1 

0 

0 

20 

537 

15 

Total 
number of  
FTEs 

1231 

5223 

306 

Total 
Source: STECF 2014 report on Economic Performance of the EU Fish Processing Industry47. 

386 

572 

152 

33 

1 

6760 

Markets 

Fishery and aquaculture products in the Adriatic are distributed by wholesale fish traders 
and only  a  minor part  is  sold  directly by fishermen or  farmers. There are at present 28 
Adriatic  fish  markets9.  Small  pelagics  in  the  Adriatic  are  partly  sold  to  fish  processors 
and fish-farming establishments (e.g. for Blue-fin tuna farming) and placed on the fresh 
fish market9. 

93   The  fisheries  sectors  include  the  following  sub-sectors:  fishing,  fish  processing,  aquaculture  and 

ancillary activities (e.g. boat building and repairs, service industry, feed supply etc.). 

94   DG-MARE-EUMOFA  (2016)  Contribution  to  the  impact  assessment  of  EU  multi-annual  plan  for 
small  pelagics  in  the  Adriatic.  European  Market  Observatory  for  Fisheries  and  Aquaculture 
Products. 

72 

 
 
 
                                                 
Italy is the key market in volume for both species, Croatia exports most of its production 
and  Slovenia  accounts  only  for  negligible  volume  in  landings  and  trade  flows  (below 
1000 tonnes)32.  

For anchovy, the Italian trade balance is negative in volume (i.e. they import more than 
they export overall) because of processed anchovy (salted and/or prepared/preserved) for 
which  Italian  imports  are  relatively  important  (especially  from  Morocco,  Spain  and 
Tunisia and Croatia but also from Argentina, Albania, Peru…). 

For sardine, the Italian trade balance is positive in volume (i.e. they export more overall 
than  they  import)  because  of  important  exports  of  fresh  and  frozen  sardines,  although 
balance  is  negative  for  canned  sardine  (imports  mostly  from  Morocco).  Fresh  sardine 
exports  go  mainly  to  France  and  Tunisia,  yet  frozen  sardine  exports  go  to  France  and 
Spain.  However,  Italian  imports  of  fresh  and  frozen  sardine  are  mainly  from 
Croatia32Error! Bookmark not defined.. 

For  anchovy,  the  Croatian  trade  balance  is  positive  for  all  types  of  products  (fresh, 
frozen, processed) but especially for salted anchovy. Croatian exports of anchovy go for 
a large variety of countries but main destinations are: 

Italy for fresh anchovy (77% of total);  

- 
-  Spain (39%) and Morocco (34%) for frozen anchovy; 
- 

Italy for processed anchovy (89%). 

For  sardine,  the  Croatian  trade  balance  is  also  significantly  positive  for  all  types  of 
preservation  states,  confirming  Croatia  as  a  net  exporter  of  seafood  products.  Main 
partner countries for Croatian exports of sardines are: 

Italy for fresh sardine (92% of total); 

- 
-  Spain for frozen sardine (60%); 
-  A large variety of destinations in southern and eastern Europe especially32. 

The trends in volumes of anchovy and sardine landed in Italy and of prices of first sale in 
recent year show an inverse correlation between the two: prices decrease when landings 
increase and prices increase when landings decrease (see Figure 1 and 2). 

73 

 
 
Figure 1 Volume and prices of anchovy landed in Italy (Adriatic) 

Source: DG-MARE-EUMOFA32 

Figure 2 Volume and prices of sardine landed in Italy (Adriatic) 

Source: DG MARE-EUMOFA32 

 

 

If catches of Adriatic anchovy and sardine decline in the medium-term, this may 
have  impacts  on  markets.  In  that  respect,  important  factors  to  consider  are  the 
following:  There  is  a  lower  elasticity  of  retail  price  (i.e.  how  much  prices  vary 
inversely to supply) compared to elasticity of first sale prices32. This means that 
only a part of the price increase at first sales is passed on to consumers. 
In a similar situation - the sardine fishery off the Portuguese and Spanish coasts 
(Atlantic) - management measures in the form of catch limits were introduced by 
74 

 
 
 
 
those two Member States, resulting in a decline in landings. The price at first sale 
increased  which  compensated  in  large  part  the  decrease  in  revenues  due  to 
reduced landings for fishermen32 

  The processing sector and retailers currently import frozen products (but not fresh 
products) from outside the Adriatic, mainly from Morocco32. Small pelagics are 
managed in Moroccan waters under Moroccan legislation95. 

  There  are  other  stocks  of  sardine  and  anchovy  in  the  EU  (outside  the  Adriatic) 
both  in  the  Mediterranean  and  the  Atlantic  (and  the  Black  Sea  for  anchovy),  of 
which  the  main  stocks  are  managed  (e.g.  through  catch-limits,  or  minimum 
conservation reference sizes). 

Likely effect of reduced catches in the medium term:  

Prices at first sale are likely to increase as quantities of fish landed decrease. Fishermen 
may therefore expect similar revenues from this fishery for less time spent fishing.  

Consumers  -  potential  impacts  in  terms  of  price  and  availability:  Experience  with  the 
small pelagic fishery in the Atlantic (Portugal/Spain) has shown that the retail price (for 
consumers) have been much smaller than for first-sale prices96 

Retailers simply reduced their profit margins, presumably to keep a more stable price for 
consumers. Availability of fresh anchovy and sardine may reduce slightly for consumers, 
as these species do not tend to be imported in fresh form from other areas (imports from 
outside  the  Adriatic  is  only  in  frozen  or  canned  form)  because  these  species  are  rather  
fragile  and  not  valuable  enough  to  warrant  the  cost  of  importing  them.  Availability  of 
canned anchovy and sardine is unlikely to decrease as imports can compensate this. 

Processing sector: Adriatic Member States' processing sector use either fresh or frozen 
fish (the latter they tend to import from non-Adriatic countries such as Morocco). These 
processing  companies  already  have  trade  connections  with  non-Adriatic  suppliers  of 
anchovy  and  sardine as  they  already  import  a  substantial  share  of  their  raw  material  in 
frozen  form.  So  availability  of  raw  material  should  not  be  a  limiting  factor  –  the 
processing companies are likely to increase their imports from non-Adriatic countries.  

Value of sardine and anchovy from the Adriatic may even increase, leading to increased 
competitiveness, once these stocks are sustainably fished, based on improved marketing 
and adding value to products e.g. by obtaining a sustainability label.  

95   Arrêté du Ministre de l'Agriculture et de la pêche maritime n° 1332-14 du 16 avril 2014 relatif "à la 

pêcheries des petits pélagiques de l'Atlantique Sud".  

96   EUMOFA  (2016)  EUMOFA  Monthly  Highlights  no.  6/2016.  Case  study:  sardine  markets  in  the 

EU. 

75 

 
                                                 
Table  4  Main  fleet  segments  involved  in  the  small  pelagics  fishery  in  the  Adriatic  in  terms  of  contribution  to  fishing  mortality  (F)  of  small 
pelagics. Number of vessels and people employed in each fleet segment are also included.  

Fleet name (and code) 

Relative 
contribution to F 
(%)4 

No. vessels  No. employees2 

Landings (tons) in 
20136 

Landings (M 
Euro) 5 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

Italian GSA17 pelagic trawlers with vessel length 24-40 
m (ITA17_TM_2440)  

Croatia  GSA17  purse  seine  with  vessel  length  24-40  m 
(HRV17_PS_2440) 

Italian GSA18 pelagic trawlers with vessel length 24-40 
m (ITA18_TM_VL_2440) 

Croatian GSA17 purse seine with vessel length 18-24 m 
(HRV17_PS_1824) 
Italian GSA17 pelagic trawlers with vessel length 12-18 
m (ITA17_TM_1218) 
Italian GSA17 pelagic trawlers with vessel length 18-24 
m (ITA17_TM_1824) 
Italian  GSA17  purse  seine  with  vessel  length  24-40  m 
(ITA17_PS_2440)  

Italian  GSA18  purse  seine  with  vessel  length  24-40  m 
(ITA18_PS_VL_2440) 

Croatian GSA17 purse seine with vessel length 12-18 m 
(HRV17_PS_1218) 

10 

Slovenian  GSA17  purse  seine  with  vessel  length  12-18 
m (SVN17_PS_1218) 

24.7 

17.7 

14.7 

10.7 

10.0 

8.0 

6.3 

5.0 

2.7 

0.1 

73 (include 
GSA18) 3 

691 

See under 
(1) 
531 

353 

403 

41 
(includes 
GSA18)3 

See under 
(7) 
411 

41 

264  

505  

181  

497  

124  

153  

142  

82  

47  

16  

17 454 

40 754 

4 567 

19 678 

5 262 

6 469 

955 

1 498 

6 034 

69 

17.4 

17.9 

8.7 

9.2  

6.0 

5.1 

5.2 

           N.A. 

3.3 

0.2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 Sources: Data on number of vessels and employment (1) Based on what Croatia and Slovenia reported in their national fleet balance reports from May 
201539,40Error!  Bookmark  not  defined.  and  (3)  based  on  data  submitted  by  Italy  for  the  2015  Annual  Economic  Report  on  the  EU  Fleet.  Data  on  relative 
contribution  to  Fishing  mortality  (F)(4)  and  on  employment  (in  2013)  (2):Study  on  the  evaluation  of  specific  management  scenarios  for  the 
preparation of multi-annual management plans in the Mediterranean and the Black Sea66. (5) based on SEDAF study9. Data on landings volumes (6) based 
on DCF data, compiled in the Management scenarios study66 

77 

 
Part B – how will stakeholders be affected? 

Once the Regulation setting out the MAP for small pelagic fisheries in the Adriatic is adopted, 
the immediate consequences would be as follows: 

1) For Member States: 

–  The three Member States concerned would need to gather in regional formations in order to 
devise  discard  plans  and  ad  hoc  technical  measures  to  be  adopted  by  the  Commission  via 
delegated acts (regionalisation). 

–  These Member States would be invited by the Commission to repeal or amend their respective 
national  management  plans  as  these  will  be  superseded  by  the  provisions  in  the  EU  multi-
annual plan.  

–  Member  States  would  be  required  to  adopt  Total  Allowable  Catches  (TACs)  through  a 

Council Decision every year in order to reach FMSY by 2020. 

–  The three Member States concerned would need to agree on an allocation key for their catches 
under a TAC system. Each Member States would need to establish a mechanism to allocate its 
national quota within the national fleet. 

–  Member States would need to monitor the quota uptake by their vessels to ensure they remain 

within their national quota. 

–  Member States would also be required to use their competences on surveillance and control 
(Regulation (EC) No 1224/200960 and associated legislation) in order to enforce the landing 
obligation and any new measures adopted within the regionalisation process.  

–  Finally,  these  Member  States  would  need  to  comply  with  the  monitoring  requirements 
specified in the above-mentioned Control Regulation (monthly reporting of landings) and in 
the  Data  Collection  Framework129  as  well  as  new  monitoring  requirement  required  by  the 
multi-annual plans . 

–  This  is  not  expected  to  imply  additional  costs,  but  should  adaptation  to  new  control  and 
monitoring  needs  imply  any  additional  costs,  the  EMFF2  has  a  number  of  possibilities  to 
alleviate or compensate for such costs. 

2) For fishing operators: 

–  The  fishing  industry  is  the  main  source  of  raw  data  to  monitor  the  performance  of  multi-
annual plans.  By providing  accurate catch and effort data and admitting scientific observers 
on board their vessels they play a decisive role in the monitoring process.  

–  Fishermen  would  also  be  required  to  land  all  their  catches  in  designated  ports,  when  they 

catch above a certain threshold of anchovy and sardine. 

–   Fishermen  have  the  skills  and  the  means  to  change  their  behaviour  and  adapt  to  new 
measures and  cope  with  them in  the  most  efficient  way and  they should  make  all  efforts  to 
facilitate  achieving  the  objectives  of  the  CFP  with  minimum  economic  burden.  The  EMFF 
can also contribute to this end by giving financial support to a number initiatives concerning 
market  organisation,  advisory  services,  partnerships  between  scientists  and  fishermen, 

78 

 
diversification of activities, permanent and temporary cessation of fishing activities, purchase 
of selective gear, etc. 

–  Fishermen can also contribute with their skills and knowledge to participate in the conception 
of  measures  under  regionalisation,  either  directly  or  within  their  participation  in  Advisory 
Councils. 

In terms of the exact operators that would be affected by this proposal, the Table below presents 
the ten main fleet segments that currently target anchovy and sardine in the Adriatic.  

3) For the Commission: 

- The Commission would need to adopt annually a proposal for fishing opportunities (TAC and 
quotas) for the following year. 

-  The  Commission  would  need  to  monitor  the  quota  uptake  by  Member  States  to  ensure  they 
remain within their national quotas. 

-The  Commission,  with  the  help  of  its  scientific  advisory  committee  for  fisheries  (STECF), 
would  need  to  monitor  the  state  of  the  anchovy  and  sardine  stocks  and  the  socio-economic 
impacts on the fisheries sector. 

-The Commission would also prepare a proposal for the GFCM Annual Session to introduce a 
catch-limit mechanism to further align the management approaches under international plan with 
the EU plan (i.e. using output rather than input controls). 

-The Commission would need to report to the Parliament and Council on the implementation and 
impacts of the EU plan 5 years after its entry into force and then every 5 years. 

79 

 
 
ANNEX IV:ANALYTICAL MODELS USED IN PREPARING THE IMPACT 
ASSESSMENT  

1 

SUMMARY 

The  "Study  on  the  evaluation  of  specific  management  scenarios  for  the  preparation  of 
multiannual management plans in the Mediterranean and the Black Sea"80 was commissioned by 
the  Commission  in  order  to  assess  specific  management  scenarios  for  multi-annual  plans  in 
accordance with the CFP objectives. The study was carried out by a consortium led by COISPA, 
including  also  the  following  organizations:  CIBM,  CNR  –  ISMAR,  IBER-BAS,  IEO,  IOF, 
NISEA.  

The study models the possible socio-economic and environmental consequences, until 2021, of 
different possible management scenarios. This includes the status quo option, in which anchovy 
and sardine are managed under the current framework (Option 1), as well as two options under 
which the stocks are managed via an EU multi-annual plan, in order to reach sustainable fishing 
levels by 2018 or by 2020 (Option 2). 

Each  of  the  sub-options  under  Option  2  has  been  further  split  into  two  to  show  the  range  of 
possible impacts that would arise depending on how the fishing reductions are spread throughout 
the  fleet  segments  involved:  either  proportionally  to  a  fleet's  impact97  on  the  fish  stocks,  or 
equally for all fleet segments. Table 1 presents these four scenarios in more detail. 

97  

"Fleet segments having a greater impact" means those segments that contribute the most to the total amount 
of landings. 

80 

 
                                                 
Table 1: Scenarios considered to reach the FMSY targets. 

Scenarios  Timing  to 

reach 
FMSY? 

2a  

2018 

Distribution 
of  reduction 
within fleet 

Proportional 
to  impact  of 
fleet 

Full description of sub-option 

Target  is  the  upper  end  of  the  FMSY  range  of 
anchovy (and we apply this range for sardine) in 
2018.  To  achieve  this,  a  reduction  would  be 
applied to both activity and capacity, from 2015 
to 2017, and then to activity only in 2018*. The 
application of the reduction will be higher for the 
fleets with greater impacts on the stocks.  

2b 

2018 

2c 

2020 

Applied 
equally 

Same  strategy  as  for  sub-option  2a,  except  for 
the  fact  that  the  reduction  is  applied  equally 
across all fleet segments.  

Proportional 
to  impact  of 
fleet 

Target  is  the  upper  end  of  the  FMSY  range  of 
anchovy (and we apply this range for sardine) in 
2020.  To  achieve  this,  a  reduction  would  be 
applied  to  activity  from  2015  to  2020  and  to 
capacity  from  2015  until  2017*.  The  activity 
reduction  would  be  higher  for  the  fleets  with 
greater impacts on the stocks. 

2d 

2020 

Applied 
equally 

Same strategy as for sub-option 2c, except for 
the fact that the reduction is applied equally 
across all fleet segments. 

*on  the  basis  that  reducing  capacity,  through  scrapping  of  vessels  (removing  them  from  the 
fleet),  will  no  longer  be  eligible  for  EU  subsidies  under  the  EMFF2  from  2018  onwards  and 
hence is very unlikely to be pursued as a management option thereafter given the cost scrapping. 

The  modelling  was  carried  out  using  BEMTOOL  (see  below)  a  bio-economic  modelling  tool 
which  was  specifically  developed  for  modelling  in  the  context  of  fisheries  management. 
BEMTOOL  has  also  been  used  by  the  General  Fisheries  Commission  for  the  Mediterranean 
(GFCM) for their Management Strategy Evaluation for sardine and anchovy in the Adriatic98.  

1.1 

BIOECONOMIC MODELLING 

BEMTOOL 

The tool used to carry out the projections of the different management scenarios is BEMTOOL 
bioeconomic model.  

BEMTOOL  (Accadia  et  al.,  2013;  Facchini  et  al.,  2014;  Bitetto  et  al.,  2015;  Rossetto  et  al., 
2015)  is  a  bioeconomic  platform  incorporating  6  operational  modules  (Biological,  Pressure, 
Economic,  Behavioural,  Policy/Harvest  Rules  and  Multi-Criteria  Decision  Analysis  –  MCDA) 
characterized by components communicating by means of relationships and equations.  

98   http://www.fao.org/gfcm/reports/technical-meetings/detail/en/c/396403/  

81 

 
                                                 
BEMTOOL v.1 (June, 2013) was developed and released for the first time as an output of the 
BEMTOOL  project,  Specific  Project  N.4  (SI2.613770)  of  MAREA  (Mediterranean  hAlieutic 
Resources Evaluation and Advice) Framework contract (MARE/2009/05_Lot1). 
BEMTOOL v.2 (December, 2014) the model was upgraded in the LANDMED project, Specific 
Project  N.11  (SI2.678902)  of  MAREA  Framework  Contract  with  new  functions  regarding  the 
uncertainty modelling and the relationship between  fishing  mortality by fleet, stock and effort. 
Discard and selectivity modelling were further improved. Some technical aspects to improve the 
user accessibility were also implemented. 
BEMTOOL  v.2.0.6  (current  release)  The  relevant  upgrades  implemented  in  BEMTOOL 
v.2.0.6  in  the  context  of  SEDAF  project,  Specific  Project  N.10  (SI2.666117)  of  MAREA 
Framework Contract regarded the economic module with a more refined association of a price to 
the  discard  (options:  constant  price  or  price  depending  on  the  discard  volume  through  an 
elasticity coefficient), so that the revenues take into account both the income related to the sale 
of landing of the target species and the income from the sale of the discard of the target species, 
if any. 

In ALADYM (Lembo et al., 2009) core a new facility was introduced in order to parameterize 
the biological simulation with entry by F (fishing mortality) in case the F by fleet segment is not 
available. 
Also  a  revision  of  all  the  tables  and  graphs  produced  by  BEMTOOL  and  ALADYM  has  been 
done  in  order  to  avoid  redundancy  in  the  variables  and  graphs  saved  in  BEMTOOL  and 
ALADYM folders. 

BEMTOOL  platform  is  an  application  in  R  language  with  a  GUI  to  ease  the  model  inputs. 
BEMTOOL  app  is  tested  with  2.14.2,  R  3.0.1,  R  3.0.2,  R  3.0.3  versions.  The  model  is  open 
source. 

The requirements to run BEMTOOL application are listed below: 
1.  The  BEMTOOL  application  works  under  Windows  XP  SP3,  Windows  Vista,  Windows  7, 
both  Bit  and  64Bit  versions.  The  correct  functioning  is  not  guarantee  on  Linux-like  Operative 
systems. 
2.  R-CRAN  software  version  >  2.14.2  must  be  installed  on  your  computer.  R  installer  for 
Windows and other OS can be found at http://cran.r-project.org. 
3. In the R-CRAN installation the following R packages must be installed: FLXSA library and 
linked  FLAdvice,  Flash,  FLAssess,  FLBRP,  FLCore  packages;  also  akima,  ggplot2,  ggplotFL, 
plyr,  proto  and  reshape  are  required  to  be  installed;  also  RGtk2  package  is  needed  to  run  R 
graphical interface. 
4.  RGtk2  package  requires  the  installation  of  the  GTK+  Toolkit.  It  can  be  found  at 
http://ftp.gnome.org/pub/GNOME/binaries/win32/gtk+/2.22/gtk+-bundle_2.22.1- 
20101227_win32.zip. 

Characteristics of the BEMTOOL operational modules are summarised below: 

  Biological, which simulates the evolution of the biomass and the demographic structure 
for  each  stock  affected  by  the  fishing  activity  of  single  or  multiple  fleet  segments  or 
metier. 
Impact,  which  simulates  the  evolution  of  fishing  mortality  and  the  related  outputs  in 
terms  of  total  production  (landings  and  discards)  and  production  by  fleet  segment  or 
metier. 

 

  Economic, which simulates the evolution of the economic variables of the fishery. 

82 

 
 
 
 
  Behavioural,  which  simulates  the  dynamic  transformation  of  the  profit  obtained  from 
fishing into the fishing effort through assumptions on fishermen behaviour (investments, 
disinvestments). This includes fleet dynamics like entity-exit decisions of fishing vessels 
and changes due to technological progress. 

  Policy, which core factors are the Harvest rules that simulate the implementation of one 
management  measure  or  a  set  of  management  measures,  as  well  as  the  application  of 
taxes  and  subsidies,  all  of  which  directly  or  indirectly  affecting  the  economic  and 
biological processes. 

  Multi Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) for evaluating the performances of different 
fishery management scenarios from the biological and socioeconomic points of view, 
using a selection of indicators to score management measures against objectives. 

The process of the bio-economic modelling can be summarized in the following steps: 

1.  Case study configuration, including the name of the case study, species, fleet segments, 

simulation and forecast period; 

2.  Parameterization of the biological simulation entering biological parameters by species 
in ALADYM (Lembo et al., 2009) or, optionally, selecting the assessment tool (VIT, 
XSA, SURBA or Report) and importing the results; 

3.  Input of effort and landing data time series; 
4.  Diagnosis to visualize the state of the stocks, the impact, the state of the fleet and the 

economic indicators in the past/present time; 
5.  Parameterization of the economic simulation; 
6.  Selection of the management (harvest) rules for the planning of the forecast scenario 

or, alternatively, the selection of the option for the MEY calculation; 

7.  Implementation of the forecast to predict the state of the stocks, the impact/pressure and 
the state of the fleet and the economic indicators in future after the implementation of 
management trajectories; 

8.  Parameterization of the Multi Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) entering the utility 

parameters and weights for the indicators and estimation of the results. 

The  word  simulation  indicates  the  past  and  current  years,  while  the  word  forecast  the  future 
years. 

BEMTOOL  follows  a  multi-fleet  approach  simulating  the  effects  of  a  number  of  management 
trajectories  on  stocks  and  fisheries  on  a  fine  time  scale  (month).  The  model  accounts  for 
length/age-specific  selection  effects,  discards,  economic  and  social  performances,  effects  of 
compliance  with  landing  obligation  and  reference  points.  The  implementation  of  decision 
modelling  (MCDA  and  Multi-attribute  utility  theory)  allows  that  stakeholder  perception  is 
encompassed  to  weight  model-based  indicators  and  rank  different  management  strategies.  A 
wide set of biological, pressure and economic indicators are the default output. 

The  uncertainty  (process  error)  implemented  in  the  model  following  Monte  Carlo  paradigm 
allows  a  risk  evaluation  in  terms  of  biological  sustainability  of  the  different  management 
strategies. Uncertainty is propagated to all the indicators estimated by the model, thus accounting 
of the economic outputs. 

83 

 
 
 
BEMTOOL is used to assess the consequences of different scenarios from the biological, impact 
and economic point of view. 

METHOD  FOR  CALCULATING  THE  REDUCTION  OF  AN  OVERALL  (ALL  THE 
ASSESSED SPECIES COMBINED) FISHING MORTALITY TOWARDS A COMBINED 
REFERENCE POINT FOR A GIVEN FLEET SEGMENT 

The  reduction  of  an  overall  combined  fishing  mortality  (all  the  assessed  species  combined) 
towards  a  combined  reference  point,  is  estimated  weighing  the  fleet  segments  and  the  species 
caught by each of them as follows: 

𝐹2013,𝑓,𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑏𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑑 =

∑ (𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒𝐿𝑎𝑛𝑑2013,𝑠 ∗

4
𝑠=1

𝐹2013,𝑓,𝑠)

∑

4
𝑠=1

𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒𝐿𝑎𝑛𝑑2013,𝑠

10
𝐹2013,𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑏𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑑 = ∑ 𝐹2013,𝑓,𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑏𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑑
𝑓=1

𝐹𝑀𝑆𝑌,𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑏𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑑 =

∑ (𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒𝐿𝑎𝑛𝑑2013,𝑠 ∗

4
𝑠=1

𝐹𝑀𝑆𝑌,𝑠)

∑

4
𝑠=1

𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒𝐿𝑎𝑛𝑑2013,𝑠

where: 

F2013,f,combined is the fishing mortality combined (taking into account all the target species 
together) for the fleet segment f in 2013; 

F2013,combined  is  the  overall  fishing  mortality  combined  (taking  into  account  all  the  target 
species together and the fleet segments) in 2013; 

FMSY,combined is a combination of the reference points FMSY of all the species; 

ValueLand2013, s is the overall landing value of species s.  

APPROACH BASED ON FMSY RANGES 

The model is based on an approach using a range of target fishing mortalities (FMSY range). The 
upper and lower ends of a range are derived to deliver no more than 5% reduction in long term 
yield compared with the MSY point value. 

At first glance the upper and lower boundaries of the FMSY ranges will be used empirically, i.e 
based on a linear relationship derived for stocks with different life history traits in the ICES area 
(ICES99, 2015). 

The  objective  is  to  get  provisional  estimates  of  FMSY  ranges  for  the  stocks  harvested,  thus 
accounting  for  mixed  fishery  considerations.  Fupper  could  be  used  associated  with  a 

99  

ICES  is the  International  Council for  Exploration  of  the  Seas,  is one  of  the  leading  authorities  in  terms  of 
fisheries management advice and is in charge of providing scientific advice to the European Commission for 
fisheries management in EU waters with the exception of the Mediterranean and Black Sea. 

84 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Management  Strategy  Evaluation  (MSE)  to  test  if  the  upper  levels  of  the  ranges  are 
precautionary (i.e. the risk of the SSB falling below Blim is less than 5%). 

FMSY ranges were computed based on a meta-analysis carried out using the estimates provided by 
ICES for the Baltic and North Sea (STECF 2015a).  

Upper and Lower limit of the FMSY ranges were computed using two linear models: 

Flow (the lower end of the Fmsy range) = 0.00296635 + 0.66021447*F0.1  

Fupp (the upper end of the Fmsy range)= 0.007801555 + 1.349401721*F0.1 

where F0.1 is used as a proxy of FMSY. 

Afterwards, to test if exploiting a stock at the upper limit of the provisional FMSY ranges obtained 
through the predictive linear models a Management Strategy Evaluation (MSE) was developed.  

The  test  included  testing  the  robustness  of  the  upper  limit  to  mis-specifications  of  natural 
mortality and low recruitment levels, with regards to keep the stock below 5% of biological risk.  

Here  we  intended  biorisk  as  the  risk  of  SSB  being  below  the  minimum  historical  Spawning 
Stock Biomass (Blim=Bloss). 

The FLR code distributed at the meeting of the Commission's Scientific Technical and Economic 
Committee for Fisheries (STECF meeting 15-11 (in which small pelagics stocks in the Adriatic 
were assessed)114 was used. 

ASSUMPTIONS 

The following assumptions and information about the stocks should be taken into consideration 
when interpreting the outcomes of this study: 

The  methods  assume  that  present  bioeconomic  conditions  (recruitment,  stock  abundance,  cost 
structure,  fish  and  fuel  prices)  will  not  change  strongly  in  the  period  2015-2020,  except  as  a 
consequence of the management measures considered under the various policy options. 

The  model,  including  in  particular  the  FMSY  ranges,  is  calculated  based  on  current  fishery 
selectivity. Therefore, if selectivity were improved e.g. through changes in gear design, fishing 
area, or season, then possible yields in terms of small pelagics caught would be higher than in the 
simulations. In other words, sustainable levels of catches of small pelagics could be higher than 
in forecasts if selectivity is improved in future. 

Full compliance with the applied management measures is also assumed. 

In general, as the stock assessment were not updated to 2014 (the most recent stock assessments 
at the time of this study was the stock assessment carried out by the STECF in 2015, based on 
2013 data), the study assumed that the state of the stocks in 2014 was equivalent to that in 2013.  

In  the  modelling,  management  measures  were  applied  as  of  2015,  and  under  all  scenarios, 
possible measures planned at national level (e.g. under national management plans) for the small 
pelagics in the Adriatic were taken into account. 

85 

 
 
 
 
 
 
In  the  absence  of  specific  information  on  how  reductions  in  fishing  effort  translate  into 
reductions in fishing mortality for these stocks, the models assumes that the reduction of fishing 
mortality  is  linearly  translated  into  reduction  of  fishing  effort,  under  the  assumption  of  nearly 
constant  or  randomly  varying  catchability  i.e.  reducing  fishing  effort  by  10%  would  equate  to 
fishing mortality declining by 10%. 

To  translate  reduction  of  fishing  mortality  required  to  reach  Fmsy  (65%  reduction)  into  effort 
reduction, the following assumptions were made: 

On the basis of the latest STECF scientific assessment, the level of fishing mortality for anchovy, 
which drives this fishery, should be reduced by 65% to reach sustainable fishing levels114. Under 
the scenarios with an EU multi-annual plan, the tools used to reduce fishing mortality and hence 
catch  levels  are  reductions  in  effort  and  more  specifically,  reductions  in  fishing  capacity 
(typically  achieved  by  scrapping  of  vessels)  and  fishing  activity  (i.e.  time  spent  fishing).  This 
choice is based on the fact that the Member States involved in this fishery currently used these 
methods to manage their fisheries and that they have also carried out reductions in their fishing 
for small pelagics by using these instruments (see section 1.3 of the report). 

Any combination of activity and capacity reductions, which would amount to a 65% reduction in 
overall  fishing  effort  (which  is  assumed  to  translate  linearly  into  a  65%  reduction  in  fishing 
mortality), could  be  considered.  When  carrying out  the  modelling  to  produced  forecasts  of  the 
various impacts under the EU multi-annual plan scenarios, it has been assumed that the required 
65% reduction in fishing mortality would be achieved through a reduction of activity (i.e. fishing 
days)  by  58.5%  and  of  capacity  (i.e.  number  of  vessels)  by  6.5%  (i.e.  90%  of  the  required 
reduction  is  achieved  through  activity  reductions  and  10%  through  capacity  reductions).  This 
90%-10%  split  is  in  line  with  what  Member  States  plans  to  reduce  fishing  mortality  on  these 
stocks  (see  section  1.3  and  Annex  IX)  as  well  as  feedback  from  the  sector  obtained  by  the 
consultants during the study. This split was then agreed during the project Workshop held in Bari 
on September 21-25, 2015 (see next Section). 

The models assumed that after 2017, no reductions in fishing capacity would take place as this 
typically takes places through "scrapping" of vessels, (i.e. removing them from the fishing fleet). 
This  is  based  on  the  fact  that  scrapping  will  no  longer  be  eligible  for  EU  subsidies  under  the 
EMFF2 from 2018 onwards and hence is very unlikely to be pursued thereafter as a management 
option given the high cost scrapping. 

In addition to the assumptions presented above, there are further specific assumptions presented 
in the following sections, in the context of each topic and data set. 

CONSULTATION ON THE MODEL AND ITS ASSUMPTIONS 

A Workshop was organized by the consultants in charge of the modelling above, with scientific 
experts from fisheries institutes in several EU Member States100, as well as the Commission and 
the Mediterranean Advisory Council (MEDAC) in Bari, Italy on 21-25 September 2015 to agree 
on the above approach including the scientific reference points to be used (i.e. the Fmsy targets) 
and the assumptions and management scenarios to be evaluated. In this meeting, for example, it 
was agreed that the reference points of anchovy should be used for sardine (FMSY = 0.36).  

100   Italy, Spain, France, Bulgaria 

86 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
INPUT DATA FOR THE MODELLING 

INPUT OF THE BIOLOGICAL MODULE OF SMALL PELAGIC FISHERIES 

A.1 
IN GSA17 AND GSA18 

The data used for the parameterization of the biological and the pressure modules come from the 
stock  assessment  revised  during  the  STECF  EWG  15-11  held  in  September  2015  provided  by 
European Commission's Joint research Centre (JRC) for the purposes of this project.  

The methodology used is the State-Space Model (SAM, Nielsen A. and Sibert J. R., 2007) for 
both stocks, tuned with fishery independent information from acoustic surveys. The assessment 
covers the GSAs 17 and 18, combining data from Italy, Croatia and Slovenia.  

For anchovy, split year assumption has been used, therefore assuming the birth date at the first of 
June  (Cingolani  et  al.,  1996  and,  respect  to  the  assessment  presented  suring  the  GFCM  small 
pelagic  stock  assessment  working  group  (held  in  November  2014),  the  SSB  has  been  re-
estimated,  after  correcting  the  settings  related  to  maturity  (M  and  F  before  spawning  and  the 
maturity at age 0).  

For sardine the calendar year has been used, assuming the birth day at the first of January and, 
respect  to  the  assessment  presented during  the GFCM  small  pelagic  stock  assessment  working 
group  (held  in  November  2014),  the  SSB  has  been  calculated  at  the  beginning  of  the  year 
(spawning  season),  correcting  the  settings  related  to  maturity  (M  and  F  before  spawning  set 
equal to 0). 

In the tables below, the fleet segment codes are used. Their definition can be found in Table 4 in 
Annex III. 

GROWTH PARAMETERS OF SMALL PELAGICS IN GSA17 AND GSA18  

The growth parameters (Sinovcic, 2000) and the length-weight relationship coefficients for the 
two species are listed in the Table A1 below The growth functions are for sex combined. 

The  life  span  has  been  set  equal  to  5  years  (from  age  0  to  age  4)  for  anchovy,  and  to  7  years 
(from age 0 to 6) for sardine. 

Table A.1 - Growth parameters for anchovy and sardine in GSA 17 and GSA18. 

Parameter 

Linf (cm) 
K 
t0 
a (mm/g) 
b (mm/g) 

Sex combined 
anchovy 
19.4 
0.57 
-0.5 
4.00E-06 
3 

Sex combined 
sardine 
20.5 
0.46 
-0.5 
0.000005 
3.03 

RECRUITMENT OF SMALL PELAGICS IN GSA17 AND GSA18  

Recruitment  vectors  (Table  A2)  have  been  used  for  simulations,  whilst  a  constant  value  for 
projections. The recruitment used in BEMTOOL is the one estimated during the STECF EWG 
15-11. 

87 

 
 
For  sardine  the  recruitment  figures  from  the  STECF  EWG  15-11  stock  assessment114  were 
related  to  age  1,  being  age  0  poorly  represented  in  commercial  catches.  In  order  to  have  an 
estimate  of  the  recruitment  at  age  0.5,  the  recruitment  related  to  age  1  from  SAM  has  been 
projected backward for a half year, assuming a total mortality of 3 (consistent with the value of 
natural mortality at age 0.5) and assuming that a small part of the fishing mortality impact also 
individuals  at  age  0,  being  present  in  the  catches  though  in  small  part.  Input  recruitment  is 
reported in the following table.  

Table  A.2  -  Recruitment  by  year  used  in  simulation  phase  for  anchovy  and  sardine  in  the 

Adriatic (GSA 17 and GSA18). 

Year 
2008 
2009 
2010 
2011 
2012 
2013 
2014* 

R (thousands) 
anchovy 

86 012 225 
83 136 966 
76 286 001 
75 000 100 
60 976 555 
57 771 146 
57 771 146 

R (thousands) 
sardine 

27 646 231 
31 295 975 
43 925 254 
35 819 393 
45 127 391 
56 911 047 
56 911 047 

*The value of 2013 has been used for projections. 

The number of recruits entering in the population has been split by month in order to take into 
account  the  seasonal  recruitment,  according  to  the  characteristics  of  anchovy,  which  recruits 
more  from  May  to  September,  and  sardine  that  recruits  more  from  December  to  April  (Table 
A.3). The age of recruitment has been set at 1 month for anchovy and at 6 months for sardine, 
coherently with the age class used in the assessment. 

The proportion of recruits entering each year by month in the population for both species in GSA 
17 and GSA18 is reported in the table A.3 

Table A.3 Proportion of recruits entering each year in the population for sardine in GSA 17 and 
18. 

Anchovy 
Sardine 

Jan  Feb 
0 
0.2 

0.025 
0.2 

Mar  Apr  May 
0.15 
0.1 
0.05 
0.05 
0.1 
0.2 

Jun 
0.15 
0.025 

Jul 
0.15 
0 

Aug 
0.15 
0 

Sep 
0.15 
0.025 

Oct  Nov 
0.05 
0.05 

0.025 
0.05 

Dec 
0 
0.1 

MATURITY AND SEX RATIO OF SMALL PELAGICS IN GSA17 AND GSA18  

The size at first maturity used for anchovy is 8.14 cm total length (TL) with a maturity range of 6 
mm  TL  (Rampa  et  al.,  2005);  the  size  at  first  maturity  used  for  sardine  is  7.9  cm  TL  with  a 
maturity range of 6 mm TL (Sinovcic et al., 2008). 

NATURAL MORTALITY OF SMALL PELAGICS IN GSA 17 AND GSA18  

According  to  the  assessment,  the  natural  mortality  at  age  was  estimated  using  the  Gislason’s 
methodology (Gislason et al., 2010) with no distinctions between sexes. The vectors by age of 
the two species are reported in the Table A4. 

88 

 
 
 
 
 
Table A.4 Natural mortality for anchovy and sardine in GSA 17 and GSA18. 

Age 
0 
1 
2 
3 
4+ 
5 
6+ 

M anchovy 
2.36 
1.10 
0.81 
0.69 
0.64 
- 

M sardine 
2.51 
1.1 
0.76 
0.62 
0.56 
0.52 
0.5 

INPUT  OF  THE  PRESSURE  MODULE  OF  SMALL  PELAGIC  FISHERIES 

A.2 
IN GSA 17 AND GSA18 

FISHING MORTALITY OF SMALL PELAGICS IN GSA 17 AND GSA18  

E. encrasicolus  

The  F-mode  of  ALADYM  (Lembo  et  al.,  2009)  model  has  been  used  in  BEMTOOL  for  both 
stocks. The overall fishing mortality by year and age from SAM model (STECF EWG 15-11114) 
for  anchovy  and  sardine  have  been  split  among  the  fleet  segments  according  to  the  respective 
proportions in weight in the landings, thus assuming that all the fleets have the same exploitation 
pattern. For 2014 the same fishing mortality of 2013 has been assumed. The age range used for 
anchovy  in  the  output  calculation  of  average  F  was  1-2,  while  for  sardine  was  1-3,  with  no 
distinction between sexes, in agreement with the assessments. Fishing mortality by age and year 
is reported in the Table A.5 for anchovy and in Table A.6 for sardine 

Table A.5 Overall fishing mortality for anchovy (SAM model). 

age 
0 
1 
2 
3 
4 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

0.02 
0.28 
1.29 
2.12 
2.12 

0.01 
0.41 
1.77 
2.11 
2.11 

0.02 
0.55 
1.89 
2.45 
2.45 

0.03 
0.49 
2.34 
2.98 
2.98 

0.03 
0.50 
1.59 
1.82 
1.82 

0.02 
0.37 
1.71 
2.13 
2.13 

Table A.6 Overall fishing mortality for sardine (SAM model). 

Age 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6+ 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

0.00 
0.04 
0.27 
0.63 
0.90 
4.27 

0.00 
0.04 
0.30 
1.27 
0.93 
4.27 

0.00 
0.05 
0.37 
1.22 
0.95 
4.30 

0.00 
0.09 
0.63 
1.45 
0.96 
4.32 

0.00 
0.11 
0.82 
1.68 
0.99 
4.29 

0.00 
0.13 
0.77 
0.70 
0.97 
4.28 

EFFORT OF SMALL PELAGIC FISHERIES IN GSA 17 AND GSA18  

The  monthly  effort  variables  used  to  simulate  the  past  and  current  years  by  fleet  segment  are 
listed in Table A.7. For 2014 the same effort as 2013 has been assumed. 

89 

 
 
 
 
 
Table A.7 Effort for the selected fleet segment in GSA 17 and 18.  

Effort Variable 

ITA17_TM_VL_1218 

ITA17_TM_VL_1824 

2008  2009  2010  2011  2012  2013  2008  2009  2010  2011  2012  2013 

average monthly GT 

23 

24 

22 

29 

23 

28 

67 

81 

73 

71 

72 

81 

average monthly KW 

147 

152 

152 

171 

171 

187 

318 

321 

331 

343 

358 

411 

number of vessels 

annual fishing days 

32 

69 

33 

38 

25 

47 

35 

25 

25 

25 

22 

21 

25 

184 

154 

123 

111 

123 

116 

156 

167 

138 

170 

139 

Effort Variable 

ITA17_TM_VL_2440 

ITA17_PS_VL_2440 

2008  2009  2010  2011  2012  2013  2008  2009  2010  2011  2012  2013 

average monthly GT 

average monthly KW 

number of vessels 

117 

478 

45 

117 

117 

475 

480 

44 

41 

115 

467 

41 

109 

109 

105 

114 

120 

114 

102 

101 

438 

439 

373 

379 

395 

377 

371 

380 

54 

46 

21 

16 

10 

annual fishing days 

158 

169 

167 

142 

150 

167 

105 

111 

150 

15 

93 

15 

108 

14 

77 

Effort Variable 

HRV_PS_VL1218 

HRV_PS_VL1824 

average monthly GT 

average monthly KW 

number of vessels 

annual fishing days 

Effort Variable 

2008  2009  2010  2011  2012  2013  2008  2009  2010  2011  2012  2013 

6 

51 

43 

76 

6 

51 

43 

76 

6 

51 

43 

76 

6 

51 

42 

88 

6 

83 

45 

76 

7 

89 

45 

76 

75 

75 

73 

75 

77 

79 

319 

319 

317 

283 

332 

340 

59 

59 

61 

110 

110 

120 

61 

98 

57 

98 

54 

98 

HRV_PS_VL2440 

SVN_PS_VL1218 

2008  2009  2010  2011  2012  2013  2008  2009  2010  2011  2012  2013 

average monthly GT 

average monthly KW 

number of vessels 

155 

557 

67 

155 

151 

557 

542 

67 

72 

133 

383 

69 

136 

149 

10 

489 

536 

105 

68 

67 

4 

10 

96 

5 

12 

12 

12 

10 

118 

118 

118 

105 

4 

4 

4 

72 

4 

84 

annual fishing days 

110 

110 

132 

110 

110 

110 

96 

108 

120 

108 

Effort Variable 

ITA18_TM_VL_2440 

ITA18_PS_VL_2440 

2008  2009  2010  2011  2012  2013  2008  2009  2010  2011  2012  2013 

average monthly GT 

84 

84 

84 

82 

82 

83 

102 

102 

102 

109 

117 

117 

average monthly KW 

432 

432 

432 

416 

430 

432 

455 

455 

455 

476 

494 

494 

number of vessels 

34 

34 

34 

31 

27 

27 

5 

5 

5 

4 

5 

5 

annual fishing days 

142 

137 

145 

152 

133 

112 

129 

123 

109 

138 

115 

132 

LANDINGS AND DISCARDS OF SMALL PELAGIC FISHERIES IN GSA 17 AND 
18 

Landing data 2008-2013 for Italy and Slovenia were obtained from the National Programs of the 
EU Data Collection Framework and are in line with data collected in the WP2  - Collation and 
review  on  the  main  socio-economic  information  on  the  main  fisheries  of  the  SEDAF  project9. 
Croatian  socio-  economic  data  were  obtained  from  the  data  collected  and  reviewed  by  the 
SEDAF project (SEDAF-D6 Report economic and structural overview).  

90 

 
 
 
E. encrasicolus  

The landing data for anchovy by fleet segment used to parameterize the model are listed in the 
table A.8. For 2014 the same landing as 2013 has been assumed. 

Table  A.8  Landing  for  anchovy  by  fleet  segment  in  the  Northern  Adriatic  (GSA  17)  and 
Southern Adriatic (GSA 18) (tons). 

Fleet segment 

ITA17_TM_VL_1218 

ITA17_TM_VL_1824 

ITA17_TM_VL_2440 

ITA17_PS_VL_2440 

HRV17_PS_VL_1218 

HRV17_PS_VL_1824 

HRV17_PS_VL_2440 

SVN17_PS_VL_1218 

4655 

1083 

3711 

6224 

100 

ITA18_TM_VL_2440 

6870 

ITA18_PS_VL_2440 
Total 

2623 
46188 

2008 

1753 

5794 

2009 

8336 

6317 

2010 

9508 

7498 

13373 

11323 

10168 

3515 

1145 

3711 

6224 

99 

6958 

1768 
49396 

2705 

1139 

3285 

6170 

51 

6736 

1845 
49104 

2011 

4240 

4334 

7976 

2564 

1061 

4722 

7921 

76 

7600 

1881 
42375 

2012 

4498 

2880 

10368 

3214 

564 

2866 

4652 

43 

5180 

1438 
35703 

2013 

2196 

1813 

7737 

789 

883 

3105 

5134 

21 

3714 

1388 
26781 

According to DCF data and the recent results of MAREA LANDMED project101, the discard has 
been considered as negligible both for pelagic trawlers and for purse seine. 

S. pilchardus 

The  landing  data  for  sardine  by  fleet  segment  used  to  parameterize  the  model  are  listed  in  the 
Table A.9. For 2014 the same landing as 2013 has been assumed. 

Table A9 Landing for sardine by fleet segment in GSA 17 and 18 (tons). 

Fleet segment 

ITA17_TM_VL_1218 

ITA17_TM_VL_1824 

ITA17_TM_VL_2440 

ITA17_PS_VL_2440 

HRV_PS_VL_1218 

HRV_PS_VL_1824 

HRV_PS_VL_2440 

2008 

189 

557 

3393 

137 

2240 
10676 

18685 

SVN_PS_VL_1218 

67 

ITA18_TM_VL_2440 

1395 

ITA18_PS_VL_2440 

70 

2009 

137 

1027 

2549 

109 

3042 
10676 

18685 

87 

638 

69 

2010 

312 

2248 

3786 

119 

2821 
9449 

18522 

92 

1428 

59 

2011 

393 

2518 

3733 

69 

4839 
13584 

23779 

60 

701 

58 

2012 

1515 

5138 

7170 

156 

3931 
13069 

24226 

16 

782 

32 

2013 

2151 

4909 

8261 

32 

4780 
15233 

32531 

26 

722 

47 

Total 

37409 

37021 

38835 

49734 

56035 

68693 

According to DCF data and the recent results of MAREA LANDMED project, the discard has 
been considered as negligible both for pelagic trawlers and for purse seine. 

101   http://mareaproject.net/  

91 

 
 
                                                 
Total landing 

The  total  landing  data  by  fleet  segment  used  to  parameterize  the  model  are  listed  in  the  table 
A.10. For 2014 the same landing as 2013 has been assumed. 

Table A.10 Total landing by fleet segment in GSA 17 and 18 (tons). 

Fleet segment 

ITA17_TM_VL_1218 

ITA17_TM_VL_1824 

2008 

2519 

6794 

2009 

8817 

7719 

ITA17_TM_VL_2440 

17516 

14371 

ITA17_PS_VL_2440 

HRV_PS_VL_1218 

HRV_PS_VL_1824 

HRV_PS_VL_2440 

SVN_PS_VL_1218 

ITA18_TM_VL_2440 

ITA18_PS_VL_2440 

Total 

4973 

6240 

15421 

26086 

198 

8405 

2937 
91089 

3710 

6240 

15421 

26086 

235 

7721 

1971 
92292 

2010 

10746 

10470 

14713 

2840 

6240 

13649 

25857 

161 

8464 

2006 
95146 

2011 

5675 

7262 

2012 

7625 

9341 

2013 

5262 

6469 

12392 

18939 

17454 

2695 

6240 

19621 

33196 

185 

8888 

2015 
98170 

3583 

5030 

17261 

30418 

107 

6230 

955 

6034 

19678 

40754 

69 

4567 

1615 
100149 

1498 
102739 

INPUT  OF  THE  ECONOMIC  MODULE  SMALL  PELAGIC  FISHERIES  IN 

A.3 
GSA 17 AND 18 

Data 2008-2013 for the estimation of the socio-economic parameters for Italy and Slovenia were 
obtained from the National Programs of the EU Data Collection Framework and are in line with 
data collected in the WP2 - Collation and review on the main socio-economic information on the 
main fisheries. Taking into account that official Croatian socio- economic data are under revision 
for  the  purpose  of  this  study  scientist  presumed  data  needed  for  this  exercise.  Croatian  socio- 
economic data were obtained from the data collected and reviewed by the SEDAF project9. For 
all fleet segments, 2014 data were assumed equal to 2013. 

The economic data of the selected fleet segments used to parameterize the economic function in 
the projections have been reported in the following paragraphs. 

REVENUES OF SMALL PELAGIC FISHERY IN GSA17 AND GSA18  

The  revenues  by  fleet  segment  for  anchovy,  sardine  and  the  total  revenues  are  reported  in  the 
tables A.11, A.12, A.13, According to the revenues and the landings by fleet segment the prices 
in the projections have been modelled. 

E. encrasicolus 

Table A.11 Revenues (€) of anchovy by fleet segment in GSA 17 and 18. 

Fleet segment 
ITA17_TM_VL_1218 
ITA17_TM_VL_1824 
ITA17_TM_VL_2440 
ITA17_PS_VL_2440 

2008 
1673609 
5351637 
16341141 
10456217 

2009 
7573644 
5632733 
14090618 
7506328 

2010 
7444215 
7118840 
12507196 
4428387 

2011 
3733108 
3896844 
10086650 
4490999 

2012 
4405337 
2557411 
14897657 
5495818 

2013 
3454688 
2125463 
11158593 
3823897 

92 

 
 
HRV_PS_VL1218 
HRV_PS_VL1824 
HRV_PS_VL2440 
SVN_PS_VL1218 
ITA18_TM_VL_2440 
ITA18_PS_VL_2440 
Total 

566716 
2234425 
4094434 
362604 
13073484 
4193597 
58347864 

566716 
2234425 
4094434 
177272 
14555042 
3027368 
59458580 

566716 
2172358 
4042606 
138314 
10697086 
2917341 
52033059 

566716 
3103368 
5182828 
176687 
12904588 
3623140 
47764928 

373517 
2101167 
3386541 
114224 
9432117 
2816154 
45579943 

968445 
2745990 
4122380 
70688 
8138954 
2349163 
38958261 

S. pilchardus 

Table A.12 Revenues (€) of sardine by fleet segment in GSA 17 and 18. 

Fleet segment 
ITA17_TM_VL_1218 
ITA17_TM_VL_1824 
ITA17_TM_VL_2440 
ITA17_PS_VL_2440 
HRV_PS_VL1218 
HRV_PS_VL1824 
HRV_PS_VL2440 
SVN_PS_VL1218 
ITA18_TM_VL_2440 
ITA18_PS_VL_2440 
Total 

2008 
184366 
403006 
2820477 
125709 
1862814 
4859220 
6662500 
245066 
2436454 
29636 
19629248 

2009 
87462 
762618 
2450474 
109718 
1862814 
4859220 
6662500 
140206 
423960 
35591 
17394563 

2010 
225221 
1253694 
3236267 
91577 
1862814 
4724241 
6578165 
219338 
1198311 
33591 
19423219 

2011 
302917 
1405249 
3123202 
45585 
1862814 
6748916 
8433545 
114100 
472964 
36417 
22545709 

2012 
1232099 
3021998 
4961159 
126849 
1360430 
4931034 
8481631 
29747 
434560 
16623 
24596130 

2013 
1042262 
2563310 
4826675 
138378 
1956088 
6074783 
12713813 
53008 
375893 
24080 
29768290 

Total revenues 

Table A.13 Total Revenues (€) by fleet segment in GSA 17 and 18. 

Fleet segment 
ITA17_TM_VL_1218 
ITA17_TM_VL_1824 
ITA17_TM_VL_2440 
ITA17_PS_VL_2440 
HRV_PS_VL1218 
HRV_PS_VL1824 
HRV_PS_VL2440 
SVN_PS_VL1218 
ITA18_TM_VL_2440 
ITA18_PS_VL_2440 
Total 

2008 
2742110 
6385558 
20084253 
11623294 
2994272 
7437141 
11467596 
792829 
15619100 
4409513 
83555666 

2009 
8113294 
6988394 
17153415 
7934372 
2994272 
7437141 
11467596 
523187 
15079577 
3194496 
80885744 

2010 
8572863 
9086260 
16631584 
4539655 
2994272 
7230554 
11322436 
450725 
12233412 
3075806 
76137567 

2011 
5104098 
5750189 
14039900 
4770133 
2994272 
10329363 
14515944 
456613 
15160005 
3766814 
76887331 

2012 
7183903 
6493183 
21366175 
6963075 
2185184 
7498727 
13420002 
301652 
10149189 
2998762 
78559852 

2013 
6041431 
5117546 
17416791 
5159950 
3279056 
9248474 
17905450 
197824 
8673406 
2449074 
75489002 

COSTS OF SMALL PELAGIC FISHERIES IN GSA17 AND GSA18  

In the following tables from A.14 to A.26 all the data are reported on the costs by fleet segment 
taken into account in the simulation phase (past and present years) of the case study. 

93 

 
 
 
 
Table A.14 Total variable costs (€) by fleet segment in GSA 17 and 18. 

Fleet segment 
ITA17_TM_VL_1218 
ITA17_TM_VL_1824 
ITA17_TM_VL_2440 
ITA17_PS_VL_2440 
HRV_PS_VL1218 
HRV_PS_VL1824 
HRV_PS_VL2440 
SVN_PS_VL1218 
ITA18_TM_VL_2440 
ITA18_PS_VL_2440 
Total 

2008 
1063604 
2145098 
8422323 
2261307 
171866 
3603544 
5418305 
17218 
6928229 
1078932 
31110426 

2009 
2111573 
2240255 
6601622 
1517508 
171866 
3603544 
5418305 
45701 
4982209 
841813 
27534396 

2010 
2449889 
2906459 
7023174 
1302597 
216468 
4194582 
7377074 
32926 
5856128 
806305 
32165602 

2011 
2008785 
2555494 
6963217 
1420774 
171866 
3164251 
5305080 
46456 
7000562 
923737 
29560222 

2012 
2635909 
2733456 
9382573 
1771110 
197281 
3120238 
5385106 
32118 
5725746 
822991 
31806528 

2013 
1491532 
2774383 
8531484 
896806 
214475 
2993959 
5671828 
38320 
3807874 
742982 
27163643 

Table A.15 Other variable costs (€) by fleet segment in GSA 17 and 18. 

Fleet segment 
ITA17_TM_VL_1218 
ITA17_TM_VL_1824 
ITA17_TM_VL_2440 
ITA17_PS_VL_2440 
HRV_PS_VL1218 
HRV_PS_VL1824 
HRV_PS_VL2440 
SVN_PS_VL1218 
ITA18_TM_VL_2440 
ITA18_PS_VL_2440 
Total 

2008 
309852 
718619 
2855522 
1185758 
55214 
2360444 
2056438 
5870 
1804098 
413679 
11765494 

2009 
638229 
903738 
2683153 
942549 
55214 
2360444 
2056438 
4990 
1717080 
393840 
11755675 

2010 
799094 
1086583 
2581270 
716470 
55214 
2747582 
2799860 
5604 
1579482 
347309 
12718468 

2011 
270177 
708015 
2176986 
663265 
55214 
2085451 
2085451 
8763 
1781099 
351999 
10186420 

2012 
565617 
807765 
2849415 
854491 
53460 
2043838 
2043838 
5966 
1419655 
313856 
10957901 

Table A.16 Fuel costs (€) by fleet segment in GSA 17 and 18. 

Fleet segment 
ITA17_TM_VL_1218 
ITA17_TM_VL_1824 
ITA17_TM_VL_2440 
ITA17_PS_VL_2440 
HRV_PS_VL1218 
HRV_PS_VL1824 
HRV_PS_VL2440 
SVN_PS_VL1218 
ITA18_TM_VL_2440 
ITA18_PS_VL_2440 
Total 

2008 
753752 
1426479 
5566801 
1075549 
116652 
1243100 
3361867 
11348 
5124131 
345329 
19025008 

2009 
1473344 
1336517 
3918469 
574959 
116652 
1243100 
3361867 
40711 
3265129 
218440 
15549188 

2010 
1650795 
1819877 
4441903 
586127 
161254 
1447000 
4577214 
27322 
4276646 
237991 
19226129 

2011 
1738608 
1847480 
4786231 
757509 
116652 
1078800 
3219629 
37693 
5219462 
301083 
19103147 

2012 
2070292 
1925691 
6533159 
916619 
143821 
1076400 
3341268 
26152 
4306091 
293667 
20633160 

2013 
443425 
482202 
3402264 
442505 
54337 
1961159 
2152659 
7118 
1101303 
349869 
10396841 

2013 
1048107 
2292180 
5129221 
454301 
160138 
1032800 
3519169 
31202 
2706571 
301082 
16674771 

Table A.17 Maintenance costs (€) by fleet segment in GSA 17 and 18. 

Fleet segment 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

94 

 
 
 
 
ITA17_TM_VL_1218 
ITA17_TM_VL_1824 
ITA17_TM_VL_2440 
ITA17_PS_VL_2440 
HRV_PS_VL1218 
HRV_PS_VL1824 
HRV_PS_VL2440 
SVN_PS_VL1218 
ITA18_TM_VL_2440 
ITA18_PS_VL_2440 
Total 

341451 
301681 
1005118 
842392 
161549 
1409160 
1564184 
9456 
536656 
227536 
6399183 

350543 
313421 
977129 
631301 
161549 
1409160 
1564184 
19470 
536078 
227543 
6190378 

374666 
307028 
905034 
576226 
161549 
1415831 
1645533 
18470 
536078 
227543 
6167958 

256902 
276454 
913492 
619665 
161549 
1250855 
1250855 
9500 
529192 
181384 
5449848 

376229 
272020 
1120897 
662848 
190831 
1397823 
1397823 
17096 
424401 
195037 
6055005 

Table A.18 Total fixed costs (€) by fleet segment in GSA 17 and 18. 

Fleet segment 
ITA17_TM_VL_1218 
ITA17_TM_VL_1824 
ITA17_TM_VL_2440 
ITA17_PS_VL_2440 
HRV_PS_VL1218 
HRV_PS_VL1824 
HRV_PS_VL2440 
SVN_PS_VL1218 
ITA18_TM_VL_2440 
ITA18_PS_VL_2440 
Total 

2008 
664910 
882399 
1937927 
1378301 
197481 
1504923 
1670481 
1982 
895280 
402465 
9536149 

2009 
684024 
923918 
1900959 
1033583 
197481 
1504923 
1670481 
23945 
895382 
402521 
9237217 

2010 
752339 
889490 
1703320 
940049 
197481 
1512047 
1757358 
3373 
895382 
402521 
9053360 

2011 
515218 
823866 
1718504 
1022531 
197481 
1321008 
1321008 
2590 
838650 
320867 
8081723 

Table A.19 Other fixed costs (€) by fleet segment in GSA 17 and 18. 

Fleet segment 
ITA17_TM_VL_1218 
ITA17_TM_VL_1824 
ITA17_TM_VL_2440 
ITA17_PS_VL_2440 
HRV_PS_VL1218 
HRV_PS_VL1824 
HRV_PS_VL2440 
SVN_PS_VL1218 
ITA18_TM_VL_2440 
ITA18_PS_VL_2440 
Total 

2008 
323459 
580718 
932809 
535909 
197481 
1504923 
1670481 
1982 
358624 
174929 
6281315 

2009 
333481 
610497 
923830 
402282 
197481 
1504923 
1670481 
23945 
359304 
174978 
6201202 

2010 
377674 
582462 
798286 
363822 
197481 
1512047 
1757358 
3373 
359304 
174978 
6126785 

2011 
258316 
547411 
805012 
402866 
197481 
1321008 
1321008 
2590 
309458 
139482 
5304632 

2012 
730185 
962336 
2061870 
1137206 
208366 
1492815 
1492815 
1221 
676640 
345018 
9108472 

2012 
353956 
690317 
940974 
474357 
208366 
1492815 
1492815 
1221 
252240 
149981 
6057042 

301166 
392587 
1178246 
18791 
176190 
1358858 
1502183 
13894 
426298 
8065 
5376278 

2013 
587386 
551071 
1801036 
222169 
230772 
1451202 
1604267 
993 
722607 
63453 
7234956 

2013 
286220 
158484 
622790 
203378 
202924 
1451202 
1604267 
993 
296308 
55388 
4881954 

Table A.20 Labour costs (€) by fleet segment in GSA 17 and 18. 

Fleet segment 
ITA17_TM_VL_1218 
ITA17_TM_VL_1824 

2008 
741403 
1878850 

2009 
3183846 
2080624 

2010 
3172628 
2750057 

2011 
1564243 
1356678 

2012 
2423041 
1591379 

2013 
2144702 
1023509 

95 

 
 
 
 
ITA17_TM_VL_2440 
ITA17_PS_VL_2440 
HRV_PS_VL1218 
HRV_PS_VL1824 
HRV_PS_VL2440 
SVN_PS_VL1218 
ITA18_TM_VL_2440 
ITA18_PS_VL_2440 
Total 

4641090 
4174629 
271514 
4927100 
4978100 
71623 
4004666 
1542049 
27231024 

4868782 
2615418 
271514 
4927100 
4978100 
180147 
4770660 
1103086 
28979277 

4430297 
1336184 
271514 
5132300 
5398200 
217697 
3013048 
1064085 
26786010 

3230790 
1338090 
271514 
5262075 
5262075 
197631 
3990086 
1333013 
23806195 

5091402 
2185793 
236871 
5364994 
5364994 
109739 
3287631 
1020138 
26675982 

Table A.21 Depreciation costs (€) by fleet segment in GSA 17 and 18. 

Fleet segment 
ITA17_TM_VL_1218 
ITA17_TM_VL_1824 
ITA17_TM_VL_2440 
ITA17_PS_VL_2440 
HRV_PS_VL1218 
HRV_PS_VL1824 
HRV_PS_VL2440 
SVN_PS_VL1218 
ITA18_TM_VL_2440 
ITA18_PS_VL_2440 
Total 

2008 
295005 
1025203 
3262516 
1679967 
81864 
3212450 
3565857 
33925 
2162529 
344382 
15663698 

2009 
323476 
1193317 
3717053 
2041577 
81864 
3212450 
3565857 
48430 
2209904 
298520 
16692448 

2010 
370691 
1157258 
3522971 
1683911 
81864 
3227658 
3751306 
46281 
2368473 
563050 
16773463 

2011 
413922 
1198260 
3058327 
2278404 
81864 
5242580 
5242580 
35931 
2051983 
748527 
20352378 

2012 
421209 
1246142 
3709252 
1151595 
77858 
3186604 
3186604 
27868 
1406596 
650737 
15064465 

Table A.22 Opportunity costs (€) by fleet segment in GSA 17 and 18. 

Fleet segment 
ITA17_TM_VL_1218 
ITA17_TM_VL_1824 
ITA17_TM_VL_2440 
ITA17_PS_VL_2440 
HRV_PS_VL1218 
HRV_PS_VL1824 
HRV_PS_VL2440 
SVN_PS_VL1218 
ITA18_TM_VL_2440 
ITA18_PS_VL_2440 
Total 

2008 
16996 
51562 
170002 
98554 
103620 
394201 
1555156 
6419 
114176 
20565 
2531250 

2009 
38668 
118685 
441934 
243567 
103620 
394201 
1555156 
11885 
251173 
40991 
3199879 

2010 
41679 
116778 
399659 
176802 
103620 
394201 
1555156 
4744 
249537 
58012 
3100188 

2011 
46258 
124928 
376710 
257899 
103620 
394201 
1555156 
8855 
233048 
72042 
3172716 

2012 
39697 
118427 
394084 
117521 
51418 
203825 
986319 
11712 
142164 
56935 
2122102 

4482947 
1914730 
254192 
5173800 
5250800 
63614 
2423283 
851067 
23582644 

2013 
408646 
1341602 
3356606 
1481809 
79861 
3097777 
3424513 
22649 
1806045 
592890 
15612398 

2013 
53455 
175114 
483730 
196353 
48545 
170151 
856332 
15348 
230258 
73978 
2303265 

Table A.23 Total capital costs (€) by fleet segment in GSA 17 and 18. 

Fleet segment 
ITA17_TM_VL_1218 
ITA17_TM_VL_1824 
ITA17_TM_VL_2440 
ITA17_PS_VL_2440 

2008 
312001 
1076765 
3432518 
1778520 

2009 
362145 
1312003 
4158986 
2285143 

2011 
460180 
1323188 
3435038 
2536304 

2012 
460906 
1364569 
4103336 
1269116 

2013 
462101 
1516716 
3840336 
1678161 

2010 
412370 
1274036 
3922630 
1860713 

96 

 
 
 
 
HRV_PS_VL1218 
HRV_PS_VL1824 
HRV_PS_VL2440 
SVN_PS_VL1218 
ITA18_TM_VL_2440 
ITA18_PS_VL_2440 
Total 

185484 
3606651 
5121013 
40343 
2276705 
364947 
18194947 

185484 
3606651 
5121013 
60315 
2461077 
339510 
19892326 

185484 
3621859 
5306462 
51025 
2618010 
621062 
19873651 

185484 
5636781 
6797736 
44786 
2285031 
820568 
23525095 

129276 
3390429 
4172923 
39580 
1548760 
707672 
17186567 

131964 
3267928 
4280845 
37997 
2036303 
666868 
17919220 

Table A.24 Other income (€) by fleet segment in GSA 17 and 18. 

Fleet segment 
ITA17_TM_VL_1218 
ITA17_TM_VL_1824 
ITA17_TM_VL_2440 
ITA17_PS_VL_2440 
HRV_PS_VL1218 
HRV_PS_VL1824 
HRV_PS_VL2440 
SVN_PS_VL1218 
ITA18_TM_VL_2440 
ITA18_PS_VL_2440 
Total 

2008 
0 
0 
0 
0 
96902 
948600 
0 
0 
0 
0 
1045502 

2009 
0 
0 
0 
0 
96902 
948600 
0 
8570 
0 
0 
1054072 

2010 
0 
0 
0 
0 
96902 
961600 
2025047 
0 
0 
0 
3083549 

2011 
0 
0 
0 
0 
96902 
963695 
4360245 
10466 
0 
0 
5431308 

2012 
0 
0 
0 
0 
64673 
1083010 
3644281 
0 
0 
0 
4791964 

Table A.25 Number of employees by fleet segment in GSA 17 and 18. 

Fleet segment 
ITA17_TM_VL_1218 
ITA17_TM_VL_1824 
ITA17_TM_VL_2440 
ITA17_PS_VL_2440 
HRV_PS_VL1218 
HRV_PS_VL1824 
HRV_PS_VL2440 
SVN_PS_VL1218 
ITA18_TM_VL_2440 
ITA18_PS_VL_2440 
Total 

2008 
83 
110 
262 
224 
45 
473 
478 
7 
238 
97 
2017 

2009 
97 
113 
243 
170 
45 
473 
478 
16 
238 
97 
1970 

2010 
102 
109 
241 
145 
45 
493 
493 
12 
238 
96 
1974 

2011 
92 
135 
246 
152 
45 
493 
529 
18 
205 
80 
1995 

2012 
171 
148 
344 
137 
44 
529 
505 
19 
175 
89 
2161 

2013 
0 
0 
0 
0 
82041 
170300 
0 
0 
0 
0 
252341 

2013 
124 
153 
264 
142 
47 
497 
505 
16 
181 
82 
2011 

Table A.26 Capital value (€) by fleet segment in GSA 17 and 18. 

Fleet segment 
ITA17_TM_VL_1218 
ITA17_TM_VL_1824 
ITA17_TM_VL_2440 
ITA17_PS_VL_2440 
HRV_PS_VL1218 
HRV_PS_VL1824 
HRV_PS_VL2440 

2008 
1490775 
4522628 
14911190 
8644322 
2440073 
7990836 
36807905 

2009 
1568297 
4813618 
17923840 
9878514 
2440073 
7990836 
36807905 

2011 
1886805 
5095653 
15365561 
10519396 
2440073 
9282795 
36621415 

2012 
1870168 
5579240 
18565833 
5536595 
1947497 
7719960 
37357276 

2013 
1795191 
5880899 
16245221 
6594160 
2086604 
7313646 
36807905 

2010 
1738433 
4870786 
16669745 
7374399 
2440073 
8261711 
39554763 

97 

 
 
 
 
SVN_PS_VL1218 
ITA18_TM_VL_2440 
ITA18_PS_VL_2440 
Total 

186100 
10014546 
1803804 
88812179 

344583 
10187012 
1662498 
93617176 

280000 
10408190 
2419674 
94017774 

315000 
9505749 
2938487 
93970934 

400000 
6697527 
2682285 
88356381 

400000 
7732811 
2484410 
87340847 

A.4  FITTING  OF  OBSERVED  LANDING  DATA  AND  COMPARISON  WITH 
ASSESSMENT RESULTS 

The fitting of the model is quite satisfactory for both the species, with an average difference of 
5.7%  by  year  for  anchovy  and  of  1%  for  sardine.  The  differences  between  simulated  and 
observed data by fleet segment and year are reported in the figures A.5 – A.6. 

98 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure A.1. Comparison between simulated and observed landings by fleet segment for anchovy 
in GSA 17 and 18. 

99 

 
 
Figure  A.7.  Comparison  between  simulated  and  observed  landings  by  fleet  segment  for 
sardine in GSA 17 and 18.  

The comparison between the Spawning Stock Biomass (SSB) from the assessment models and 
the BEMTOOL simulation is shown in figure 3. BEMTOOL model estimates for anchovy an 
SSB smaller than the one of the assessment (the difference is about 20%), probably due to the 
hypothesis of split year in the assessment, while in BEMTOOL the calendar year has been used. 
However, the SSB estimated by BEMTOOL and by the assessment are much more similar 
respect to the comparison obtained within SEDAF project9, thanks to the revision of the 
assumptions on maturity in SAM model carried out at STECF EWG 15-11114.  

100 

 
 
 
 
 
For  sardine,  the  fitting  of  the  SSB  is  much  satisfactory  as  it  shows  a  good  level  of  agreement 
between BEMTOOL and the new SAM estimated SSB at the beginning of the year. The average 
difference between BEMTOOL and SAM model is around 5-6%. Some initial shift can be due to 
the fact that BEMTOOL is considering the last 7 years, while the assessment worked on a longer 
time series. 

Figure A.8 Comparison between BEMTOOL and stock assessment SSB by fleet segment for 
anchovy and sardine in GSA 17 and 18.  

A.5  PROJECTIONS  OF 
RECRUITMENT 

STATUS  QUO  WITH  UNCERTAINTY  ON 

A.5.1 INPUT OF THE BIOLOGICAL AND PRESSURE MODULES  

In  order  to  perform  the  projections  of  the  stock  in  the  future,  the  recruitment  of  anchovy  and 
sardine (I.e. the addition of juveniles to the population) at the beginning of the forecast phase has 
been  assumed  equal  to  the  recruitment  in  2013  (respectively  57  771  146  and  56  911  047 
thousand).  

A multiplicative log-normal error with mean 0 and standard deviation 0.3 has been applied to the 
geometric mean of recruitment in order to take into account the uncertainty due to the process 
error that is propagated to all the indicators produced by BEMTOOL.  

Figure A.4 shows the recruitment of anchovy and sardine with confidence interval used in all the 
performed scenarios. 

101 

0200004000060000800001000001200001400001600001800002008200920102011201220132014tonsSSB anchovySTECF EWG 15-11BMT0500001000001500002000002500003000003500004000004500002008200920102011201220132014tonsSSB sardine GSA 17-18BMTSTECF EWG 15-11 
 
 
Figure  A.4  Recruitment  used  for  anchovy  and  sardine  in  the  forecast  scenarios  with 
confidence intervals.  

All the other biological inputs have been maintained unchanged in the projections. 

For  the  status  quo  the  effort  has  been  maintained  constant  and  equal  to  2013  for  all  the  years 
(until 2021). 

A.5.2 INPUT OF THE ECONOMIC MODULE 

Due to the presence of relevant fluctuations in the time series of most fleet segments, the socio 
economic  parameters  to  be  used  in  the  forecast  have  been  estimated  on  the  basis  of  the  most 
recent economic data available, i.e. in 2012 and 2013, as described in the next paragraphs. 

PRICES DYNAMICS  

The price of European anchovy and European sardine were dependent on total landings (L). In 
order to model this type of relationship, option one of BEMTOOL software has been selected. 
This option corresponds to the following equation: 

where: 

 is the price of the target species s, for the fleet segment f at time t; (€) 

is the landings of the target species s, for the fleet segment f at time t (Kg); 

 is the elasticity coefficient price-landings for species s and fleet segment f (€/kg). 

According to this option the ex-vessel mean price of stock s landed by fleet segment f at time t is 
a function of the same price at time t-1 and the relative increase of landings (at the same level of 

102 

1,,1,,,,,,1,,,,1tfstfstfslandingfstfstfsLLLpptfsp,,tfsL,,landingfs,, 
 
 
 
aggregation than price) from time t-1 to time t, given a flexibility coefficient  estimated for that 
stock and fleet segment, which represents the parameter to be estimated. 

Due to the lack of reliable estimations, the flexibility coefficient was computed exogenously on 
the basis the existing literature on seafood demand related to small pelagic species in Northern 
Adriatic (Camanzi et al., 2010). This study estimated price-quantity relationship equal to -0.2 for 
both species considered in the ex-vessel markets of the Emilia Romagna and Veneto Regions in 
Italy. This resulted in the parameterization reported in the table A.27. 

Table A.27 Price parameterization by fleet segment and stock in GSA 17 and 18. 

Fleet segment 
ITA17_TM_VL_1218 
ITA17_TM_VL_1824 
ITA17_TM_VL_2440 
ITA17_PS_VL_2440 
HRV_PS_VL1218 
HRV_PS_VL1824 
HRV_PS_VL2440 
SVN_PS_VL1218 
ITA18_TM_VL_2440 
ITA18_PS_VL_2440 

coeff. price-landings 
European anchovy  
-0.2 
-0.2 
-0.2 
-0.2 
-0.2 
-0.2 
-0.2 
-0.2 
-0.2 
-0.2 

coeff. price-landings 
European sardine 
-0.2 
-0.2 
-0.2 
-0.2 
-0.2 
-0.2 
-0.2 
-0.2 
-0.2 
-0.2 

COSTS DYNAMICS  
Variable costs 

Variable  costs  were  considered  as  a  single  item  (as  sum  of  fuel  and  other  variable  costs)  and 
estimated in a single equation as a linear function of fishing effort EFF and the coefficient 

:  

where: 

 are total variable costs for fleet segment f at time t (€); 

is the effort (in terms of total annual days at sea) of fleet segment f at time t; 

βf is the total variable costs per unit of effort at time t. 

Maintenance costs and fixed costs 

According to option 1 of BEMTOOL model, both fixed costs OFC and maintenance costs MC 
are directly linked to the total annual gross tonnage GT. These functions can be represented as 
follows: 

 where:  

103 

tfftfEFFTVC,,tfTVC,tfEFF,tfftfGTMC,, 
 
 
 
are the maintenance costs for the fleet segment f at time t (€); 

 is the annual gross tonnage; 

αf' is other fixed costs per unit of GT. 

where:  

are the other fixed costs for the fleet segment f at time t (€); 

is the annual gross tonnage for fleet segment f at time t; 

αf'' is the maintenance costs per unit of GT. 

Capital costs 

Depreciation  costs  (DC))  have  been  estimated  as  an  average    of  the  gross  tonnage  of  the  fleet 
segment, corresponding to option one of the BEMTOOL software. 

As suggested in the 2014 Annual Economic Report on the EU Fishing Fleet “(STECF-14-16)102, 
opportunity costs of capital (OC) are calculated by taking into account  the fixed tangible asset 
value (K) and multiplying it by the real interest (r). 

Variable  cost  are  directly  related  to  the  number  of  estimated  days  at  sea.  Similarly,  fixed  and 
capital costs are function of the estimated fleet capacity, expressed in terms of number of vessels 
and gross tonnage. 

Labour costs 

According  to  the  prevalent  income  sharing  system  between  the  ship-owner  and  the  crew,  the 
labour  cost  is  estimated  as  a  percentage  of  the  difference  between  total  revenues  and  total 
variable costs:  

102   https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/publication/eur-scientific-and-technical-research-reports/2014-annual-economic-

report-eu-fishing-fleet-stecf-14-16-scientific-technical-and-economic  

104 

tfMC,tfGT,tfftfGTOFC,,tfOFC,tfGT,tfftfGTDC,,tftftfKrOC,,,tftfftfTVCRcsLC,,, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
                                                 
where: 

is the labour cost of the fleet segment f at t (€); 

are the total revenues (target species+ other species) of the fleet segment f at time t (€); 

are the total variable costs for the fleet segment f at time t (€); 

csf is crew share for the fleet segment f. 

Thus, labour cost are directly related to total revenues and variable cost.  

As highlighted in Table , the crew share ranges from 0.08 of Croatian Purse seiners 12-18 m to 
0.83 of Croatian Purse seine fleet 18-24 m. 

Table A.28 Costs parameterization by fleet segment in GSA 17 and 18 pelagic case study 

Fleet segment 

ITA17_TM_VL_1218 
ITA17_TM_VL_1824 
ITA17_TM_VL_2440 
ITA17_PS_VL_2440 
HRV_PS_VL1218 
HRV_PS_VL1824 
HRV_PS_VL2440 
SVN_PS_VL1218 
ITA18_TM_VL_2440 
ITA18_PS_VL_2440 

Total 
variable 
costs per 
unit of effort  
(sea days) 
347 
804 
1112 
832 
70 
598 
755 
111 
1254 
1255 

Revenues and total landings 

crew share  maintenance 

costs per 
unit of GT 

other fixed 
costs per 
unit of GT 

depreciation 
costs per 
unit of GT 

opportunity 
costs per 
unit of GT 

0.47 
0.44 
0.50 
0.45 
0.08 
0.83 
0.43 
0.4 
0.5 
0.5 

313 
196 
234 
437 
559 
318 
151 
361 
190 
15 

298 
79 
124 
144 
644 
339 
161 
26 
132 
106 

425 
670 
668 
1049 
254 
724 
344 
588 
806 
1129 

56 
87 
96 
139 
154 
40 
86 
398 
103 
141 

Revenues  by  fleet  segment  and species  are calculated  by  multiplying landings  produced  in  the 
biological sub-model by the prices estimated on the basis of the price module.  

As assessed species account for 60-90% of total revenues and production for all fleet segments, 
the remaining part of landings value and weight was assumed to be as a fixed percentage of the 
estimated revenues and production of anchovy and sardine according to BEMTOOL option 1 of 
revenues modelling: 

where: 

105 

tfLC,tfR,tfTVC,nstsfftfRrrR:1,,,nitifftfLllL:1,,, 
 
 
 
 
is the total revenues (target species+ other species) of the fleet segment f at time t (€); 

 is  the revenues of target species s of the fleet segment f at time t (€); 

rrf is correction factor to pass from the revenues of assessed species to the total revenues of the 
fleet segment f. 

is the total landings weight (target species+ other species) of the fleet segment f at time t (€); 

 is  the landings weight of target species s of the fleet segment f at time t (€); 

llf is correction factor to pass from the landings of assessed species to the total landings of the 
fleet segment f. 

Total revenues  and production are thus  function of the estimated landings value and weight of 
the two target assessed species. 

Average employees per vessel 

Employment in the future has been estimated by average number of employees per vessel in the 
fleet segment f (emf) multiplied by the number of vessels for each fleet segment (Nf,t): 

Capital Value 

Capital  value  was  estimated  by  the  average  value  of  a  vessel  for  the  fleet  segment  f  at  time  t. 
Discount  rates  used  are  the  harmonized  long-term  interest  rates  for  convergence  assessment 
calculated 
at 
the 
http://www.ecb.int/stats/money/long/html/index.en.html.  

European 

available 

Central 

Bank, 

by 

Parameterization of socio-economic indicators by fleet segment is reported in the table A.29. 

Table  A.29  Socio-economic  indicators  parameterization  by  fleet  segment  in  GSA  17  and  18 
pelagic case study. 

correction 
factor for 
landings 
1.24 
1.01 
1.01 
1.05 
1.07 
1.07 
1.08 
1.46 
1.1 
1.1 

correction 
factor for 
revenue 
1.33 
1.01 
1.02 
1.32 
1.12 
1.05 
1.06 
1.6 
1.2 
1.1 

average 
employees per 
vessel 
3.5 
6.2 
5.7 
10.2 
1.0 
9.0 
8.0 
4.0 
6.7 
18.2 

value of a 
single vessel 

discount rate 

51291 
237612 
353157 
473018 
46369 
135438 
549372 
100000 
286400 
552091 

4.3% 
4.3% 
4.3% 
4.3% 
4.7% 
4.7% 
4.7% 
5.8% 
4.3% 
4.3% 

ITA17_TM_VL_1218 
ITA17_TM_VL_1824 
ITA17_TM_VL_2440 
ITA17_PS_VL_2440 
HRV_PS_VL1218 
HRV_PS_VL1824 
HRV_PS_VL2440 
SVN_PS_VL1218 
ITA18_TM_VL_2440 
ITA18_PS_VL_2440 

106 

tfR,tsfR,,tfL,tsfL,,tfftfNemEM,, 
 
 
 
 
Socio-economic indicators 

The current revenue to break even revenue ratio and net profit have been estimated  according to 
the  Economic  performance  indicator  calculations  provided  in:  “The  2014  Annual  Economic 
Report on the EU Fishing Fleet“ (STECF-14-16). 

BER is calculated as Current Revenue (CR) divided by the Break Even Revenue (BER), where: 

Current Revenue (CR) = income from landings + other income  

Break Even Revenue (BER) = fixed costs / (1-[variable costs / current revenue]). 

Fixed costs include non-variable costs, annual depreciation, opportunity cost of capital. 

Variable  costs  include  crew  wage,  unpaid  labour,  energy  costs,  repair  costs  and  other  variable 
costs. 

Net profit is the difference between revenue and explicit costs and opportunity costs. It includes 
all operational costs, such as wages, energy, repair, other variable, fixed costs and depreciation 
and  opportunity  costs  of  capital.  It  measures  the  efficiency  of  a  producer  in  society’s  view  by 
evaluating the total costs of inputs (excluding natural resource costs) in comparison to outputs or 
revenue.  Therefore,  economic  profit  is  the  primary  indicator  of  economic  performance  and  is 
often used as a proxy of resource rent in fisheries. The excess of revenue over the opportunity 
cost  of  producing  the  good  is  also  referred  to  as  supernormal  or  abnormal  profits.  Abnormal 
profits in a sector is an incentive for other firms to enter the industry. Zero or a negative profit 
may  indicate  high  competition  in  the  sector  and  can  be  used  as  one  of  the  indicators  of 
overcapacity. 

A.5.3 INPUTS AND DYNAMICS OF EFFORT REDUCTION 

The  Table  A.30  reports  the  dynamics  of  effort  reduction  to  reach  the  reference  point  by  fleet, 
year and scenario, In the status quo scenario the absolute number of average number of annual 
fishing days per vessel and the number of active vessels are reported. 

107 

 
 
 
 
 
Table A. 30 – Dynamics of effort reduction in comparison to the status quo (Option 1). For the status quo absolute number are reported, while for 
the other scenarios percentage to the status quo are reported.  

Scenario 1 – StatusQuo (Baseline) 

2015 

2016 

2017 

2018 

2019 

2020 

2021 

2015 

2016 

2017 

2018 

2019 

2020 

2021 

Average number of annual fishing days per vessel 

Number of active vessels  

ITA17_TM_1218 

ITA17_TM_1824 

ITA17_TM_2440 

ITA17_PS_2440 

HRV17_PS_1218 

HRV17_PS_1824 

HRV17_PS_2440 

ITA18_TM_VL_2440 

ITA18_PS_VL_2440 

SVN17_PS_1218 

Scenario 2 (2018): scenario 2a 

ITA17_TM_1218 

ITA17_TM_1824 

ITA17_TM_2440 

ITA17_PS_2440 

HRV17_PS_1218 

HRV17_PS_1824 

HRV17_PS_2440 

ITA18_TM_VL_2440 

ITA18_PS_VL_2440 

SVN17_PS_1218 

123 

139 

167 

77 

76 

98 

110 

112 

132 

84 

2015 

-7% 

-6% 

-20% 

-3% 

-3% 

-11% 

-19% 

-19% 

-5% 

0% 

123 

139 

167 

77 

76 

98 

110 

112 

132 

84 

2016 

-15% 

-12% 

-40% 

-6% 

-6% 

-22% 

-38% 

-37% 

-11% 

0% 

123 

139 

167 

77 

76 

98 

110 

112 

132 

84 

123 

139 

167 

77 

76 

98 

110 

112 

132 

84 

123 

139 

167 

77 

76 

98 

110 

112 

132 

84 

123 

139 

167 

77 

76 

98 

110 

112 

132 

84 

123 

139 

167 

77 

76 

98 

110 

112 

132 

84 

35 

25 

46 

14 

45 

54 

67 

27 

5 

4 

35 

25 

46 

14 

45 

54 

67 

27 

5 

4 

35 

25 

46 

14 

45 

54 

67 

27 

5 

4 

35 

25 

46 

14 

45 

54 

67 

27 

5 

4 

35 

25 

46 

14 

45 

54 

67 

27 

5 

4 

35 

25 

46 

14 

45 

54 

67 

27 

5 

4 

35 

25 

46 

14 

45 

54 

67 

27 

5 

4 

Reduction on fishing days 

Reduction on vessels 

2020 

-30% 

-23% 

-80% 

-12% 

-12% 

-43% 

-75% 

-75% 

-21% 

0% 

2021 

2015 

2016 

2017 

2018 

2019 

2020 

2021 

-30% 

-23% 

-1% 

-1% 

-2% 

-2% 

-3% 

-3% 

-3% 

-3% 

-3% 

-3% 

-3% 

-3% 

-3% 

-3% 

-80% 

-13% 

-27% 

-40% 

-40% 

-40% 

-40% 

-40% 

-12% 

-12% 

-43% 

-75% 

-75% 

-21% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

-2% 

-1% 

-1% 

-3% 

-1% 

-1% 

-5% 

-1% 

-1% 

-5% 

-1% 

-1% 

-5% 

-1% 

-1% 

-5% 

-1% 

-1% 

-5% 

-7% 

-13% 

-20% 

-20% 

-20% 

-20% 

-20% 

-2% 

-1% 

0% 

-3% 

-1% 

0% 

-5% 

-2% 

0% 

-5% 

-2% 

0% 

-5% 

-2% 

0% 

-5% 

-2% 

0% 

-5% 

-2% 

0% 

2017 

-22% 

-17% 

-60% 

-9% 

-9% 

-32% 

-56% 

-56% 

-16% 

0% 

2018 

-30% 

-23% 

-80% 

-12% 

-12% 

-43% 

-75% 

-75% 

-21% 

0% 

2019 

-30% 

-23% 

-80% 

-12% 

-12% 

-43% 

-75% 

-75% 

-21% 

0% 

108 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Scenario 2 (2018): scenario 2b 

ITA17_TM_1218 

ITA17_TM_1824 

ITA17_TM_2440 

ITA17_PS_2440 

HRV17_PS_1218 

HRV17_PS_1824 

HRV17_PS_2440 

ITA18_TM_VL_2440 

ITA18_PS_VL_2440 

SVN17_PS_1218 

Reduction on fishing days 

Reduction on vessels 

2016 

2017 

2018 

2019 

2020 

2021 

2015 

2016 

2017 

2018 

2019 

2020 

2021 

-29.3% 

-43.9% 

-58.5% 

-58.5% 

-58.5% 

-58.5% 

-2.2% 

-4.3% 

-6.5% 

-6.5% 

-6.5% 

-6.5% 

-6.5% 

-29.3% 

-43.9% 

-58.5% 

-58.5% 

-58.5% 

-58.5% 

-2.2% 

-4.3% 

-6.5% 

-6.5% 

-6.5% 

-6.5% 

-6.5% 

-29.2% 

-43.9% 

-58.5% 

-58.5% 

-58.5% 

-58.5% 

-2.2% 

-4.3% 

-6.5% 

-6.5% 

-6.5% 

-6.5% 

-6.5% 

-29.3% 

-43.9% 

-58.5% 

-58.5% 

-58.5% 

-58.5% 

-2.2% 

-4.3% 

-6.5% 

-6.5% 

-6.5% 

-6.5% 

-6.5% 

-29.3% 

-43.9% 

-58.5% 

-58.5% 

-58.5% 

-58.5% 

-2.2% 

-4.3% 

-6.5% 

-6.5% 

-6.5% 

-6.5% 

-6.5% 

-29.3% 

-43.9% 

-58.5% 

-58.5% 

-58.5% 

-58.5% 

-2.2% 

-4.3% 

-6.5% 

-6.5% 

-6.5% 

-6.5% 

-6.5% 

-29.3% 

-43.9% 

-58.5% 

-58.5% 

-58.5% 

-58.5% 

-2.2% 

-4.3% 

-6.5% 

-6.5% 

-6.5% 

-6.5% 

-6.5% 

-29.3% 

-43.9% 

-58.5% 

-58.5% 

-58.5% 

-58.5% 

-2.2% 

-4.3% 

-6.5% 

-6.5% 

-6.5% 

-6.5% 

-6.5% 

-29.3% 

-43.9% 

-58.5% 

-58.5% 

-58.5% 

-58.5% 

-2.2% 

-4.3% 

-6.5% 

-6.5% 

-6.5% 

-6.5% 

-6.5% 

2015 
-
14.6% 
-
14.6% 
-
14.6% 
-
14.6% 
-
14.6% 
-
14.6% 
-
14.6% 
-
14.6% 
-
14.6% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

109 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Scenario 2 (2020): scenario 2c  

2015 

2016 

2017 

2018 

2019 

2020 

2021 

2015 

2016 

2017 

2018 

2019 

2020 

2021 

Reduction on fishing days 

Reduction on vessels 

-7.5% 

-7.5% 

-12.0% 

-19.2% 

-26.8% 

-30.0% 

-30.0% 

-5.7% 

-9.2% 

-14.7% 

-20.5% 

-23.0% 

-23.0% 

-1% 

-1% 

-2% 

-2% 

-3% 

-3% 

-3% 

-3% 

-3% 

-3% 

-3% 

-3% 

-3% 

-3% 

ITA17_TM_1218 

ITA17_TM_1824 

ITA17_TM_2440 

ITA17_PS_2440 

HRV17_PS_1218 

HRV17_PS_1824 

HRV17_PS_2440 

ITA18_TM_VL_2440 

ITA18_PS_VL_2440 

SVN17_PS_1218 

-5.7% 
-
20.0% 

-3.0% 

-3.0% 
-
10.8% 
-
18.8% 
-
18.7% 

-20.0% 

-32.0% 

-51.2% 

-71.4% 

-80.0% 

-80.0% 

-13% 

-27% 

-40% 

-40% 

-40% 

-40% 

-40% 

-3.0% 

-3.0% 

-4.8% 

-4.8% 

-7.7% 

-10.7% 

-12.0% 

-12.0% 

-7.7% 

-10.7% 

-12.0% 

-12.0% 

0% 

0% 

-1% 

-1% 

-1% 

-1% 

-1% 

-1% 

-1% 

-1% 

-1% 

-1% 

-1% 

-1% 

-10.8% 

-17.2% 

-27.5% 

-38.4% 

-43.0% 

-43.0% 

-2% 

-3% 

-5% 

-5% 

-5% 

-5% 

-5% 

-18.8% 

-30.0% 

-48.0% 

-66.9% 

-75.0% 

-75.0% 

-7% 

-13% 

-20% 

-20% 

-20% 

-20% 

-20% 

-2% 

-1% 

0% 

-3% 

-1% 

0% 

-5% 

-2% 

0% 

-5% 

-2% 

0% 

-5% 

-2% 

0% 

-5% 

-2% 

0% 

-5% 

-2% 

0% 

-18.7% 

-30.0% 

-48.0% 

-66.9% 

-75.0% 

-75.0% 

-5.3% 

-5.3% 

-8.4% 

-13.4% 

-18.7% 

-21.0% 

-21.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

110 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Scenario 2 (2020): scenario 2d 

ITA17_TM_1218 

ITA17_TM_1824 

ITA17_TM_2440 

ITA17_PS_2440 

HRV17_PS_1218 

HRV17_PS_1824 

HRV17_PS_2440 

ITA18_TM_VL_2440 

ITA18_PS_VL_2440 

SVN17_PS_1218 

Reduction on fishing days 

Reduction on vessels 

2016 

2017 

2018 

2019 

2020 

2021 

2015 

2016 

2017 

2018 

2019 

2020 

2021 

-14.6% 

-23.4% 

-32.2% 

-45.3% 

-58.5% 

-58.5% 

-2.2% 

-4.3% 

-6.5% 

-6.5% 

-6.5% 

-6.5% 

-6.5% 

-14.6% 

-23.4% 

-32.2% 

-45.3% 

-58.5% 

-58.5% 

-2.2% 

-4.3% 

-6.5% 

-6.5% 

-6.5% 

-6.5% 

-6.5% 

-14.6% 

-23.4% 

-32.2% 

-45.3% 

-58.5% 

-58.5% 

-2.2% 

-4.3% 

-6.5% 

-6.5% 

-6.5% 

-6.5% 

-6.5% 

-14.6% 

-23.4% 

-32.2% 

-45.3% 

-58.5% 

-58.5% 

-2.2% 

-4.3% 

-6.5% 

-6.5% 

-6.5% 

-6.5% 

-6.5% 

-14.6% 

-23.4% 

-32.2% 

-45.3% 

-58.5% 

-58.5% 

-2.2% 

-4.3% 

-6.5% 

-6.5% 

-6.5% 

-6.5% 

-6.5% 

-14.6% 

-23.4% 

-32.2% 

-45.3% 

-58.5% 

-58.5% 

-2.2% 

-4.3% 

-6.5% 

-6.5% 

-6.5% 

-6.5% 

-6.5% 

-14.6% 

-23.4% 

-32.2% 

-45.3% 

-58.5% 

-58.5% 

-2.2% 

-4.3% 

-6.5% 

-6.5% 

-6.5% 

-6.5% 

-6.5% 

-14.6% 

-23.4% 

-32.2% 

-45.3% 

-58.5% 

-58.5% 

-2.2% 

-4.3% 

-6.5% 

-6.5% 

-6.5% 

-6.5% 

-6.5% 

-14.6% 

-23.4% 

-32.2% 

-45.3% 

-58.5% 

-58.5% 

-2.2% 

-4.3% 

-6.5% 

-6.5% 

-6.5% 

-6.5% 

-6.5% 

2015 
-
14.6% 
-
14.6% 
-
14.6% 
-
14.6% 
-
14.6% 
-
14.6% 
-
14.6% 
-
14.6% 
-
14.6% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

111 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Development of stocks over time and current status 

The assessment of anchovy and sardine was presented during the EWG-15-11 (STECF 15-14)114. 
This assessment used DCF data together with the historical time series available for GSA17 and 
GSA18 from 1975 to 2013 (sardine) and from 1976 to 2013 (anchovy). The year 2014 was not 
included  in  the  assessment  since  problems  were  encountered  with  some  data,  which  were 
inconsistent in respect to the rest of the dataset (e.g. Croatian data for 2013 only). EWG-15-11 
thus used the data of the previous years integrated by expert knowledge. 

Fishing mortality (Fbar1-2) and SSB of anchovy are varying along the time, catch and recruitment 
are decreasing, fishing mortality (Fbar1-2)  is decreasing in the last two years.  

Fishing mortality (Fbar1-3) and SSB of sardine are varying along the time, catch and recruitment 
are recently increasing.  

Table  1.0.3  reports  the  metrics  from  the  last  assessment  available  (STECF  15-14).  Discard  in 
these fisheries is considered negligible.  

Tab. 1.0.3 – Fishing mortality, Spawning Stock Biomass, landings and Recruitment from the last stock assessments.  

Stock 

Fishing 
mortality* 
(Fcurrent) 

Spawning 
Stock  Biomass* 
(tons) 

Landings* 
(tons) 

Recruitment
* 
thousands) 

(in 

Anchovy 
Sardine 

(1-2)= 
(1-3)= 
*estimates refer to assessment EWG 15-11 (STECF 15-14) 

91,679 
336,082 

Fbar 
Fbar 

1.04 
0.54 

32,150 
63,612 

57,771,146 
12,698,571 

A Management Strategy Evaluation (MSE) was performed in line with EWG-15-11 for both 
anchovy  and  sardine  using  a  segmented  stock  recruitment  relationships  together  with  the 
reference points derived.  
Regarding anchovy the findings of the MSE are (according to EWG-15-11): 

1.  moving to MSY will result in considerable decrease in catches in the short-term though they 

increase and stabilise over the longer-term; 

2.  the catches are variable (high CVs) throughout reflecting the variable, autocorrelated nature 

of recruitment in the stock.  

3.  the  probability  of  being  below  Blim  is  initially  very  high  but  decreases  over  the  time  of 

management. 

For sardine, the forward simulation proved very difficult, and the segmented stock recruitment 
relationship resulting in a very low FMSY (<0.1). This is considered erratic, given that the catches 
are  very  variable  (high  CVs)  throughout  reflecting  the  variable,  autocorrelated  nature  of 
recruitment in the stock.  
An attempt to run an MSE on sardine using the geometric mean of the last 3 years and setting 
FMSY  equal  to  the  FMSY  estimated  for  anchovy  (Fupper=0.36)  did  not  give  any  plausible  results, 
being the catches oscillating cyclically between really high and really low values. 

112 

 
 
 
For  sardine  the  lower  level  of  SSB  in  the  time  series  after  which  a  good  recruitment  was 
observed was thus used as a proxy of Blim and Bpa was set as 2*Blim

103. 

REFERENCES 

Accadia P., Bitetto I., Facchini M.T., Gambino M., Kavadas S., Lembo G., Maynou F., Melià P., 
Maravelias C., Rossetto M., Sartor P., Sbrana M., Spedicato M.T., BEMTOOL Deliverable D10: 
BEMTOOL FINAL REPORT. February 2013. 46 pp. 

Camanzi, Mulazzani L., Malorgio G. (2010).  Northern Adriatic ex-vessel markets’ integration: 
an  empirical  investigation  on  small  pelagic  species.  EAFE  Workshop:  “Optimising  Value 
Chains  in  Fisheries”  1-2  June  2010  -  University  of  Helsinki,  Finland  http://www.univ-
brest.fr/gdure/eafe/eafe_events/helsinki2010/Camanzi_Mulazzani_Malorgio_eafe10.pdf 

Cingolani  N.,  Giannetti  G.,  Arneri  E.  (1996).  Anchovy  fisheries  in  the  Adriatic  Sea.  Scientia 
Marina 60 (suppl. 2): 269-277. 

Gislason H., Daan N., Rice J., Pope J. (2010). Does natural mortality depend on individual size? 
Fish and Fisheries, 11(2): 149-158. 

Lembo G., Abella A., Fiorentino F., Martino S., Spedicato M.T. (2009)  ALADYM: an age and 
length-based  single  species  simulator  for  exploring  alternative  management  strategies.  Aquat. 
Living Resour. 22, 233–241. 

Minto C., 2015. Report on ad-hoc contract to support the preparation of a multiannual plan for 
small pelagic species in the Northern Adriatic. DGMARE 

Nielsen  A.,  Sibert  J.  R.  (2007)  State–space  model  for  light-based  tracking  of  marine  animals. 
Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 2007, 64(8): 1055-1068, 10.1139/f07-064 

Patterson  K.  1992.  Fisheries  for  small  pelagic  species:  an  empirical  approach  to  management 
targets. J. Rev. Fish Biol. and Fisheries, Vol. 2, 4:321-338 

Rampa R., Arneri E., Belardinelli A., Caputo E., Cingolani N., Colella S., Donato F., Giannetti 
G.,  Santojanni  A.  (2005).  Length  at  first  maturity  of  the  Adriatic  anchovy  (Engraulis 
encrasicolus, L.). Working paper, meeting of the small pelagic working group, General Fisheries 
Commission  for  the  Mediterranean  of  the  Food  and  Agriculture  Organization.  Roma,  26-30 
September 2005: 10 pp. 

Rossetto M., Bitetto I., Spedicato M. T., Lembo G., Gambino M., Accadia P., Melià P. (2015) 
Multi-criteria  decision-making  for  fisheries  management:  A  case  study  of  Mediterranean 
demersal fisheries. Marine Policy, 53, 83–93. 

Sinovcic  G.  (2000).  Anchovy,  Engraulis  encrasicolus  (Linnaeus,  1758):  biology,  population 
dynamics and fisheries case study. Acta Adriatica, 41(1), v. 41(1): 54 pp. 

103   In order to estimate this reference point, a log-normal distribution of Blim is assumed, with a coefficient of 
variation of 40%. This results in approximately Bpa = 2*Blim (GFCM approach, Report of the Working Group 
on Stock Assessment of Small Pelagic Species (WGSASP) Rome, Italy, 24–27 November 2014. 

113 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Sinovcic G., Cikes Kec V., Zorica B. (2008). Population structure, size at maturity and condition 
of sardine, Sardina pilchardus (Walb., 1792), in the nursery ground of the eastern Adriatic Sea 
(Krka River Estuary, Croatia). Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 76: 739-744. 

114 

 
ANNEX V: MAIN ELEMENTS OF THE COMMON FISHERIES POLICY 

The new CFP, Regulation (EU) 138/2013 entered into force on 1 January 2014. The main 
elements of the new CFP are:  
(1)  Maximum  Sustainable  Yield  is  the  best  possible  objective  for  renewable  and 
profitable fisheries, harvesting the maximum amount of fish on a long term basis. 
The  objective  of  the  CFP  is  to  ensure  that  MSY  is  achieved  by  2015  where 
possible,  and  by  2020  at  the  latest.  Not  all  stocks  in  the  north-east  Atlantic  are 
MSY-assessed  yet.  Of  the  assessed  stocks  60%  of  them  are  fished  at  MSY  (up 
from 6 % only in 2005). In the Mediterranean only around 11% of assessed stocks 
are  within  MSY  and  there  is  little  sign  of  improvement.  For  many  stocks, 
particularly in the Mediterranean, we have no assessment of MSY. 

(2) 

Annual legislation on fixing fishing opportunities (TACs and quotas, some are 
set on a two-yearly basis): to fix, based on scientific advice that is consistent with 
MSY and in accordance with multi-annual plans (where they exist), the amount of 
fishing  for  the  stocks  concerned,  and  to  allocate  quotas  to  the  Member  States 
following  the  so-called  relative  stability  key.  In  turn,  Member  States  deal  with 
how  to  distribute  their  national  quotas  to  their  fishermen.  Annually  fishing 
opportunities  are  set  for  the  Baltic,  North  Sea,  Atlantic  and  deep-sea  stock,  by 
Council  only,  to  determine  the  level  of  catches  (before  the  landing  obligation: 
landings), for each stock. The COM outlines its approach for the TAC each spring 
in a Policy Statement. 

The  COM  proposals  are  based  on  existing  multi-annual  plans  (with  certain 
provisions on TAC setting), or on annual biological advice. TACs are shared out 
to  Member  States  following  fixed  allocation  keys  (so-called  relative  stability, 
which  differs  among  stocks).  TACs  (in  tonnes)  are  a  translation  of  fishing 
mortality (F, mortality caused by fishing as a ratio of the stock). In the context of 
multi-annual plans the COM will be seeking advice on MSY expressed in ranges 
of fishing mortality that correspond to sustainable fishing and MSY, for the target 
species. 

Under  certain  multi-annual  plans  TACs  are  accompanied  by  effort  reduction 
schemes  for  certain  fleets.  These  effort  regimes  are  currently  considered 
ineffective,  causing  red  tape,  and  sometimes  creating  conflicts  with  the  TACs. 
They are likely to disappear from future multi-annual plans, but are currently still 
part of the TAC proposals. 

(3) 

The  landing  obligation:  The  new  CFP  includes  a  landing  obligation  for  all 
catches of species subject to catch limits (TACs) and, in the Mediterranean, also 
catches  of  species  which  are  subject  to  minimum  sizes  (only  blue-fin  tuna  is 
under TAC in this sea basin).  

It  applies  to  all  Union  vessels  fishing  in  Union  and  non-Union  waters.  The 
landing  obligation  is  applied  in  a  gradual  way  and  is  fishery  based.  As  of  1 
January  2015  pelagic  fisheries  and  industrial  fisheries  everywhere  in  Union 
waters are under the landing obligation, as are all other fisheries (salmon and cod) 
in the Baltic.  

 
 
 
 
The  landing  obligation  comes  with  a  set  of  potential  measures  and  flexibility 
instruments  to  make  the  transition  and  timely  implementation  possible.  These 
include  quota  flexibilities,  exemptions  for  species  that  have  a  high  survival  rate 
(i.e. it makes sense to return these fish to the sea if they are likely to survive) and 
a de minimis exemption to cater for unwanted catches that are unavoidable. The 
plans  may  also  fix  conservation  reference  sizes  for  fish.  These  measures  should 
be  developed  through  multi-annual  plans,  but  in  the  absence  of  such  plans, 
discard plans can be adopted (with duration of maximum three years). 

(4) 

EU multi-annual plans: they contain the framework for management of a stock 
or a combination of stocks (by fishery). Multi-annual plans are designed to ensure 
effective management of the fisheries and to bring conservation and management 
provisions  for  groups  of  stocks  under  plans.  Plans  contribute  to  stability  and  a 
long-term  security  for  the  industry.  The  elements  that  shall  and  that  may  be 
included in a multi-annual plan are specified in Article 10. The main elements of 
plans are: 

MSY-related targets (per target stock), deadlines for achieving MSY, and fishing 
mortality/exploitation  ranges  that  are  consistent  with  MSY  (FMSY  as  a  range  of 
values),  safeguard  provisions  if  science  indicates  that  stocks  are  in  trouble; 
specific conservation measures for non-target species, so as to keep them within 
sustainable boundaries, mechanisms to allow for regionalisation of implementing 
measures under the plan. 

The precise shape and content of multi-annual plans were subject to work by an 
inter-institutional task force involving the Commission, the European Parliament 
and  the  Council  in  order  to  provide  guidelines  on  the  structure  and  content  of 
these  multi-annual  plans  and  to  solve  delicate  issues  on  the  sharing  of 
competences among those EU Institutions104. 

A  recent  Court  ruling105  complemented  the  conclusions  of  the  Task  Force, 
confirming  that  that  the  adoption  of  measures  necessary  for  the  pursuit  of  the 
objectives of the CFP must be reserved to the EU legislature under Article 43(2) 
of  the  Treaty  on  the  Functioning  of  the  EU  (TFEU)106  as  they  entail  a  policy 
decision.  Measures  on  the  fixing  and  allocation  of  fishing  opportunities  can  be 
adopted by the Council in accordance with Article 43(3) of the TFEU, as they do 
not require such a policy assessment since they are of a primarily technical nature 
and  are  intended  to  be  taken  in  order  to  implement  provisions  adopted  on  the 
basis of Article 43(2) of the TFEU.  

(5) 

Fleet  capacity rules:  these are provisions to  support that the fleet capacity of a 
Member State matches with the fishing opportunities that are allocated to it; fleet 
overcapacity potentially leads to overfishing. Member States cannot increase the 
engine power or storage capacity of their fleets. Each Member State is subject to a 
maximum capacity threshold (in engine power (kW) and in vessel volume (gt)). 

104    Council  Document  No  8529-14  PECHE  117  CODEC  1004,  also  published  by  the  European 

Parliament:  
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/pech/dv/taskfor/taskforce.pdf 
105  Court  ruling  of  1  December  2015  in  joined  cases  C-124/13  –  Parliament/Council  and  C-125/13 

Commission/Council.  
106  Consolidated  version  of 

the  Treaty  on 

the  Functioning  of 

the  European  Union.  

OJ C 326, 26.10.2012, p. 47–390 

116 

 
                                                 
Nominally, all  Member States  fleets are under these ceilings;  however, in  many 
Member  States  the  effective  engine  capacity  may  well  outscore  the  numbers  in 
the  CFP.  Despite  intensified  enforcement,  this  is  a  persistent  and  hard-to-tackle 
issue. 

Annually Member States must report on the balance between capacity and fishing 
opportunities.  Historically  this  has  not  been  linked  to  targeted  actions.  For  the 
first  time,  under  the  new  CFP  Member  States  have  to  give  follow-up  to  the 
identification of overcapacity with an action plan to eliminate it, in order to have 
access  to  funding  for  decommissioning  of  excess  vessels.  The  assessment 
exercise  by  Member  States  on  the  balance  between  capacity  and  fishing 
opportunities is facilitated by common guidelines developed by the Commission. 
It  includes  technical  and  economic  parameters.  Member  States  will  have  to 
include  in  their  reports  an  action  plan  for  the  fleet  segments  with  identified 
imbalance.  In  the  action  plan,  Member  States  have  to  set  out  the  adjustment 
targets  and  tools  to  achieve  the  balance.  The  plan  has  to  include  a  clear  time 
frame for the implementation of the action plan as well. 

The  External  Dimension:  The  CFP  reform  enshrines  for  the  first  time  the 
external dimension of the CFP (Part VI of the Basic Regulation: Articles 28-31). 
It calls for strong external action that follows externally the same  principles and 
standards  as  internally  while  promoting  a  level-playing  field  for  EU  operators. 
Under  the  CFP  new  international  agreements  should  contribute  to  long  term 
sustainability worldwide via stronger bilateral relations and tackling global issues 
such  as  IUU  fishing  and  fishing  overcapacity,  uphold  and  strengthen  the  global 
architecture for fisheries governance (UN, FAO, OECD, etc.), contribute towards 
a more effective functioning of RFMOs, more sustainable Fisheries Agreements 
and better coherence with other EU policies. 

Data  Collection  Framework:  a  set  of  requirements  on  collection  by  fishermen 
and  Member  States  and  management  of  biological  and  other  data  as  input  for 
biological, economic and other knowledge and advice in support of the policy. To 
align  to  the  new  CFP,  the  Commission  made  a  proposal  in  2015  to  Recast  the 
Data  Collection  Framework  Regulation107.  It  will  introduce  simplifications  and 
more  flexibility  and  adaptability,  based  on  an  evaluation  of  the  previous 
framework.  

Advisory Councils: The Advisory Councils (ACs) were established since 2004 to 
advise  the  Commission  on  matters  related  to  fisheries  management  in  their 
respective  areas  of  competence.  Seven  ACs  were  established  for 
the 
Mediterranean  Sea,  the  South  Western  Waters,  the  North  Western  Waters,  the 
North Sea, the Baltic Sea, small pelagic species, and the Long Distance Fleet. 

ACs  are  stakeholders'  organisations  that  bring  together  the  industry  (fishing, 
processing  and  marketing  sectors)  and  other 
interest  groups,  such  as 
environmental and consumers' organisations. They receive an annual grant of up 
to  250.000  euros  from  the  Commission  to  cover  part  of  their  operational  costs. 

(6) 

(7) 

(8) 

107   Proposal  for  a  Regulation  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  concerning  the 
establishment of a Union framework for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries 
sector  and  support  for  scientific  advice  regarding  the  Common  Fisheries  Policy  (recast)  
COM/2015/0294 final - 2015/0133 (COD). 

117 

 
                                                 
The  new  CFP  foresees  the  creation  of  four  new  ACs  for  Aquaculture,  Markets, 
the Black Sea and Outermost Regions. 

ACs  are  expected  to  expand  their  play  in  the  regionalised  CFP  and  are  to  be 
consulted  by  Member  States  when  preparing 
joint  recommendations  on 
conservation measures.  

(9)   Regionalisation:  Another 

important 

innovation 

introduced  by 

the  Basic 
Regulation  (Article  18)  is  "Regionalisation".  The  Basic  Regulation  enables 
Regionalisation  for  a  number  of  instruments  and  measures:  multiannual  plans, 
discard  plans,  establishment  of  fish  stock  recovery  areas  and  conservation 
measures  for  compliance  with  obligations  under  EU  Environmental  legislation. 
Where  regionalisation  applies,  EU  member  States  with  a  direct  management 
interest may agree to submit joint recommendations for achieving the objectives of 
the  above-mentioned  plan  or  measure.  The  recommendations  have  to  be 
compatible  with  the  objectives  of  the  CFP,  with  the  scope  and  objectives  of  the 
measure or plan, and be at least as stringent as measures under EU law. The EU 
countries  have  to  consult  the  relevant  Advisory  Council(s)  on  the  joint 
recommendations  before  submitting  them  to  the  Commission.  If  all  these 
conditions are met, the Commission can then adopt a Delegated Act to transform 
these joint recommendations into EU law applicable to all operators. 

Concretely,  in  most  cases,  regionalisation  may  only  be  used  in  the  context  of 
multi-annual plans. 

The  aim  of  Regionalisation  is  to  increase  the  involvement  of  the  Member  States 
affected  by  regulation  and 
the  measures.  The 
Commission's  role  is  to  ensure  that  the  adopted  measures  fulfil  the  objectives  of 
the Basic Act. Regionalisation thus constitutes an important shift from instrument-
based to results-based management.  

their  ownership  of 

thus 

(10)   Establishment  of  fish  stock  recovery  areas:  Under  Article  8  of  the  Basic 
Regulation,  the  Union  shall  endeavour  to  establish  protected  areas  due  to  their 
biological  sensitivity,  including  areas  where  there  is  clear  evidence  of  heavy 
concentrations  of  fish  below  minimum  conservation  reference  size  and  of 
spawning grounds. In such areas fishing activities may be restricted or prohibited 
in  order  to  contribute  to  the  conservation  of  living  aquatic  resources  and  marine 
ecosystems.  Member  States  shall  identify,  where  possible,  suitable  areas  which 
may  form  part  of  a  coherent  network  and  shall  prepare,  where  appropriate,  joint 
recommendations  (in  line  with  regionalisation)  with  a  view  to  the  Commission 
submitting a proposal. The Commission may be empowered in a multiannual plan 
to establish such biologically sensitive protected areas. 

118 

 
 
 
ANNEX VI: BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON THE FISHERY AND THE STATUS 

OF ANCHOVY AND SARDINE IN THE ADRIATIC 

Anchovy and sardine – a mixed fishery 

The most valuable and sought-after small pelagic species in the Adriatic are sardine and 
anchovy, with anchovy being the more valuable of the two and considered to be driving 
the fishery. The Adriatic small pelagic stocks represent a high economic income for the 
fisheries sector in that sea basin (estimated to 74 million EUR and corresponding to 18% 
of the total production in the Adriatic in 2013108).  

Anchovy and sardine account for over 97% of catches of small pelagics in the Adriatic 
(see Table 1). 

Table 1 Average catches of small pelagics per year, by species, in the Adriatic in 2013-
2014 for all countries involved in the fishery. 

Annual catches (in 
tonnes) 

Species 
Sardine 
Anchovy 
Sub-total for sardine and anchovy 
Jack and horse mackerels nei 
Chub mackerel 
Silversides 
Atlantic mackerel 
European sprat 
Greater amberjack 
Round sardinella 
Atlantic mackerel 
Leerfish 
Atlantic horse mackerel 
Big-scale sand smelt 
European barracuda 
Mediterranean sand smelt 
Garfish 
Common dolphinfish 
Sub-total for other small pelagics 
Total for all catches 
Source:  FAO  catch  production 
production-statistics/en/. Data downloaded on 10 May 2016. 

73057 
25266 
98323 
767 
710 
361 
318 
240 
85 
60 
31 
20 
15 
11 
10 
7 
5 
1 
1874 
100197 

% of total 
catches 

72 
25 
97 
1 
1 
<1 
<1 
<1 
<1 
<1 
<1 
<1 
<1 
<1 
<1 
<1 
<1 
<1 
3 
100 

statistics:  http://www.fao.org/gfcm/data/capture-

108   Sabatella  E.,  Kolitari  J.,  Markovic  O.,  Sabatella  R.,  Zorica  B.  (2015)  Report  with  a  detailed 
economic  and  structural  overview  of  the  fishing  fleets  and  a  qualitative  economic  performance 
assessments  (for  each  country  and  for  the  whole  Adriatic  Region).  Specific  contract  N°10  : 
Improved knowledge of the main socio-economic aspects related to the most important fisheries in 
the Adriatic Sea (SEDAF). Framework Contract MARE/2009/05-Lot 1 "Scientific advice and other 
services for the implementation of the Common Fisheries Policy in the Mediterranean Sea". 

119 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Two  kind  of  fishing  gears  are  currently  used  to  catch  small  pelagic  species  in  the 
Adriatic: the mid-water pelagic trawl net towed by two vessels, mostly operating in the 
northern and central areas. The second gear is purse seine that is the main gear operating 
in Croatia30Error! Bookmark not defined.. 

Anchovy and sardine  in the Adriatic are part of a mixed fishery with a higher catch of 
sardine in the eastern side (Croatian and Slovenian coasts) and of anchovy in the western 
(Italian coast) side. Mixed fisheries are fisheries in which several species are likely to be 
caught  in  the  same  fishing  operation  (i.e.  using  the  same  vessel  and  gear):  fishermen 
unavoidably catch a mixture of species at the same time. They cannot control (or only to 
a limited extent) the composition of their catches. This means that fishing effort applying 
to the anchovy cannot be separated from that applying to the sardine and accordingly, the 
two species should be managed together.  

Anchovy and sardine – status of the stocks 

These two species have been assessed as overfished since at least 2011 (see Table 2). The 
most  recent  scientific  advice  by  the  STECF  (2015)  indicates  that  both  stocks  are  still 
being  overexploited  beyond  their  reproduction  capacities  (See  Table  3).  The  current 
levels of fishing mortality for anchovy is 3.5 times higher than sustainable levels (FMSY)11 
and on average, around 35% of the stock is fished every year (See Table 3). The current 
level of fishing mortality for sardine is 6.75 times higher than which is considered to be 
sustainable  (FMSY)  and  on  average,  around  19%  of  the  stock  is  fished  every  year  (See 
Table 3). 

For both stocks, the ratio of current fishing mortality to sustainable fishing mortality has 
been  increasing  since  2011  i.e.  we  are  moving  further  away  from  FMSY  rather  than 
moving  towards  a  sustainable  level  of  fishing  mortality:  in  2011  levels  of  fishing 
mortality for anchovy were 1.18 times too high (compared to sustainable levels) and in 
2013  this  was  3.43  times  too  high.  For  sardine  we  moved  from  1.43  times  above 
sustainable fishing levels in 2011 to 6.63 times too high (see Table 3) 

Recent  increases  in  sardine  stock  (since  2000),  although  mow  in  terms  of  historical 
levels,  shows  that  there  is  still  some  potential  for  recovery  for  this  stock.  However,  to 
ensure such recovery takes place, exploitation levels needs to be reduced and brought in 
line  with  maximum  sustainable  yield.  In  contrast,  the  size  of  the  anchovy  stock  (SSB) 
appears to have declined sharply since 2005 (Figure 1). 

The  GFCM's  Scientific  Advisory  Committee  advised  in  2015  that  fishing  mortality  for 
anchovy should be reduced immediately, and that fishing mortality for sardine should be 
reduced109. STECF in 2015 advised that to reach FMSY, catches will need to be decreased 
considerably for both species and that to achieve this, the relevant fleets’ effort should be 
reduced  until  fishing  mortality  is  below  or  at  the  proposed  FMSY  level  (i.e.  by  65%  for 
anchovy), in order to avoid future loss in stock productivity and landings. STECF further 
advised that this should be achieved by means of a multi-annual management plan taking 
into account mixed-fisheries considerations114.  

109   Report of the 17th Scientific Advisory Committee to the GFCM.  

120 

 
 
 
                                                 
Table  2  Ratio  between  current  fishing  mortality  (Fcurr)  and  fishing  mortality  at 
MSY  (FMSY)  for  sardine  and  anchovy  in  the  Adriatic,  from  2011  to  2013.  Values 
greater  than  1  indicate  overfishing  and  values  lower  than  1  indicate  sustainable 
fishing. 

Fcurr/Fmsy 

2011 
1,18 
1,43 

2013 
3,43 
Anchovy 
6,63 
Sardine 
Source: STECF 2015 stock assessment for small pelagics in the Adriatic114Error! Bookmark 
not defined.. The stock assessment carried out in 2015 is based on 2013 data hence 2013 is 
the most recent year for which such a ratio is available. 

2012 
2,09 
2,01 

Based on the most recent data from scientific surveys in Italy using acoustic techniques 
(2015),  the  last  3  years  show  a  declining  trend  in  abundance  and  biomass  for  both 
anchovy  and  sardine  in  the  Adriatic,  with  some  of  the  recent  biomass  levels  being  the 
lowest  in  the  available  time  series.  There  also  appear  to  be  declines  in  the  most  recent 
years  for  juveniles  of  both  anchovy  and  sardine,  with  for  example  the  abundance  of 
young anchovy and sardine being at very low or even the lowest point in the historical 
time series. 

Giacomo  Chato  Osio  &  Finlay  Scott  (2016).  Trend  exploration  of  MEDIAS  acoustic 
surveys  for  early  warning  and  prioritization  of  small  pelagics  assessments  in  the 
Mediterranean. JRC Technical Reports EUR 28018, DOI 10.2788/331072 

121 

 
 
 
Table  3  Scientific  advice  and  reference  points  for  anchovy  and  sardine  in  the 
Adriatic based on STECF (2015) advice  

Reference points 

Blim*  Bpa* 

FMSY 
(vs 
Fcurrent) 

Fmsy 
ranges 

99,285 

139,00
0 

0.30 (vs 
1.04) 

Flower  = 
0.23 
Fupper  = 
0.364 

223,00
0 

446,00
0 

0.08 (vs 
0.54) 

Flower  = 
0.065 
Fupper  = 
0.11 

Harvest 
rate ** 

Around 
35% (i.e. 
total 
catches 
of 
32.150 
t/SSB  of 
91.679 
tonnes) 

. 

Around 
19% (i.e. 
total 
catches 
of 
63.612t 
/336.082 
t SSB) 

Scientific advice 

ANCHOVY 

- The 

current 

levels  of 

fishing 
mortality  (Fcurrent)  for  anchovy  is 
3.5 
is 
considered to be sustainable (Fmsy) 

times  higher 

than  which 

- The  stock 

is  considered 

to  be 

overexploited. 

- Moving 

require 
to  MSY  will 
considerable  decrease  in  catches  in 
the  short-term  though  they  increase 
and stabilise over the longer-term. 

SARDINE 

- The 

current 

levels  of 

fishing 
mortality  for  sardine  is  6.75  times 
higher  than  which  is  considered  to 
be sustainable (Fmsy) 

- The  stock 

is  considered 

to  be 

overexploited. 

- The  catches  are  highly  variable 
throughout  reflecting  the  variable, 
auto correlated nature of recruitment 
in the stock. 

- Moving 

to  MSY  will 

require 

considerable decreases in catches. 
* Biomass at the beginning of the year (tonnes); ** Calculated as catches divided by the SSB. 
Source: STECF 2015 assessment of small pelagic stocks in the Adriatic114 

As a result of overfishing, sardine and anchovy stocks may become even less resilient to 
environmental  changes  (such  as  temperature  variations)  and  face  a  higher  risk  of 
population  collapse.  This  happened  in  the  late  1980s  when  a  severe  drop  of  anchovy 
catches  was  registered  (catches  decreased  from  over  50,000  tonnes  to  7,000  tonnes  in 
1988). Since then, the recovery of the anchovy stock has been only partial as the stock 
size is  still at  very low  levels  and  catches  are  mostly  dominated  by juveniles and  small-
sized individuals as fishing activity has already over-exploited large-size individuals11. 

Overall, excessive levels of fishing, as well as damage to fish habitats, have caused major 
losses  of  biodiversity,  changes  in  the  structure  of  fish  populations  (e.g.  fewer  large 
individuals), appearance of invasive species, food web modifications (e.g. decline of top 
predators  with  cascading  effects).  In  addition,  overfishing  can  jeopardise  food  security 

122 

 
 
 
and the livelihood of local people, which is  particularly  important  in the context  of the 
Mediterranean  Sea,  where  there  are  a  large  number  of  small-scale  artisanal  fisheries. 
Ensuring that fish stocks remain within biological limits is therefore crucial not only for 
the ecological balance of the ecosystems, but also for the social and economic well-being 
of coastal communities. 

Figure  1  Historical  evolution  of  the  Spawning  Stock  Biomass  (SSB,  tonnes)  for 
sardine (upper panel) and anchovy (lower panel), from the mid-1970s to 2013.  

Source: Figure based on STECF 2014 stock assessment11  

Discarding 

Wasteful  discarding  of  unwanted  catches  was  identified  as  one  of  the  main  problems 
which  the  reform  of  the  CFP  aimed  to  address.  The  extent  to  which  fishermen  catch 
unwanted species (eg species they are not targeting or individuals that are below the legal 
minimum size) and then discard them varies by fishery – mainly due to the nature of the 
fish stocks and the gear used. For demersal fish110, levels of unwanted catches tend to be 
much  higher  than  for  pelagic  fish  such  as  anchovy  and  sardine  (which  swim  at  the 
surface, and occur in schools of fish ie groups of only that species). For pelagic species 
which school, such as anchovy and sardine, setting a net will catch almost exclusively the 
fish  in  that  school  and  hence  few  other  species  (although  undersized  individuals  of  the 
target species may be caught). Gear selectivity also has an impact on levels of unwanted 
catches – trawlers, for example, tend to catch far more unwanted fish than gears such as 

110   which swim not at the surface of the water but lower down in the water column and which tend not 

to swim in big groups (schools) of fish and to occur in conjunctions with other species. 

123 

200 600 400 400 200 600 1980 2010 2000 1990 Spawning Stock Biomass or SSB  (thousands tons) Sardine Anchovy  
 
 
 
                                                 
purse seiners which consist of a net that is laid around a school of fish and then tighten to 
trap them. 

Discard data on small pelagic fisheries in the Adriatic are available only sporadically for 
a limited proportion of the Italian, Slovenian and Croatian fleets but overall the level of 
discarding is considered to be low, being on average equal to 8.5% for the Italian fleet of 
GSA 17 (average 2011-2013), and to 2.7% for the Slovenian fleet of GSA 17 (average 
2005-2013)11. 

Discards  of  anchovy  and  sardine  in  the  fisheries  targeting  these  species  in  the  Adriatic 
were  <  1  %  for  Croatia,  Italy,  Slovenia,  Albania  and  Montenegro111.  By-catches  have 
been  estimated  in  more  detail  for  certain  fleet  segments,  such  as  the  purse  seiners  in 
Croatia. For this fleet segment in 2011, 7.9% of catches were non-target species, which 
comprised mostly other small pelagic fish species. Chub mackerel (Scomber japonicus) 
prevailed  with  56.8%  followed  by  boque  (Boops  boops,  14.8%)  and  horse  mackerels 
(Trachurus meditereneus and Trachurus trachurus, 10.1% and 9.9%, respectively)16. In 
Slovenian purse-seiners targeting anchovy and sardine, the following non-target species 
are  caught:  mackerel  (Scomber  scombrus),  horse  mackerel  (Trachurus  sp.),  European 
sprat  (Sprattus  sprattus),  round  sardinella  (Sardinella  aurita).  The  level  of  discard  of 
target species caught using purse seines in Slovenia was under 1%15.  

Box 1: Scientific advice mechanism in the Mediterranean  

Scientific  advice  for  demersal  and  small  pelagic  fisheries  management  in  the 
Mediterranean  area  is  delivered  by  the  Scientific  Advisory  Committee  (SAC)  of  the 
General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM).  The SAC was created in 
1999  and  its  advice  comprises  technical  and  scientific  bases  for  decisions  concerning 
fisheries  conservation  and  management,  including  biological,  social  and  economic 
aspects.  

Every  year  a  number  of  thematic  workshops  and  working  groups  are  held  under  the 
umbrella of the SAC. The conclusions and recommendations of these meetings are later 
on adopted by the GFCM. Moreover, two Working Groups for stock assessment (one for 
demersal stocks and one for small pelagic stocks) are held every year. The outcomes of 
these  Working  Groups  constitute  the  basis  for  the  provision  of  scientific  advice  for 
fisheries management in the GFCM region.  

The EU's advisory body on fisheries, the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee 
for  Fisheries  (STECF)112  also  provides  scientific  advice  on  Mediterranean  fisheries. 
Every  year,  a  number  of  STECF  Expert  Working  Groups  (EWGs)  take  place,  which 
carry out stock assessment for priority Mediterranean stocks. These EWGs are based on 
data collected and provided by the Member States under the EU fisheries Data Collection 
Framework129.  

In addition, the ADRIAMED regional project113 under the FAO, established in 1999, has 
provided valuable scientific input on small pelagics in the Adriatic. The Project aims to 
promote  scientific  cooperation  among  the  Adriatic  nations  and  Albania,  Croatia,  Italy, 

111   2015  Stock  Assessment  forms  for  Anchovy  and  Sardine,  prepared  for  the  GFCM  Scientific  and 

Advisory Committee. 

112   https://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu/about-stecf  
113   http://www.faoadriamed.org/  

124 

 
                                                 
Slovenia and Montenegro all participate in ADRIAMED. The outcomes of ADRIAMED 
feed into the work of the STECF and the GFCM.  

Scientific advice about anchovy and sardine and conservation reference points 

In  2015,  the  STECF  was  tasked  by  Commission  services  to  provide  FMSY  ranges  for 
anchovy and sardine in the Adriatic. In September 2015, STECF provided FMSY ranges114 
(Flower, Fupper) that are derived to deliver no more than a 5% difference in long-term yield 
compared with FMSY. This is in line with the way in which the international Council for 
Exploration  of  the  Seas  (ICES)115  provides  FMSY  advice  for  stocks  in  other  sea  basins. 
Additionally, in order to be consistent with the ICES precautionary approach, the value 
for Fupper is capped, so that the probability  of the spawning stock biomass (SSB) being 
below  the  limit  biomass  reference  point  (Blim)  is  no  more  than  5%  (116  and  Figure  
below). 

Theoretically,  wider  (or  narrower)  Fmsy  ranges  could  be  envisaged.  However,  for 
consistency and coherence with the Baltic plan, which has used the ICES definitions for 
the FMSY ranges, the Adriatic plan would also use ICES' definitions.  

STECF provided in 2015 the following FMSY ranges for anchovy and for sardine114: 

  Anchovy: Flower = 0.23, Fupper = 0.36 (and the FMSY point value = 0.30); 
  Sardine: Flower = 0.065, Fupper = 0.11 (and the FMSY point value = 0.08). 

However,  the  stock  assessment  for  sardine  is  considered  as  being  very  uncertain  and 
unstable  by  the  STECF,  meaning  that  the  reference  values  vary  quite  substantially 
depending on the model used or over time117 (when new data are added). In line with the 
precautionary approach, STECF therefore set very conservative values for FMSY

114. 

On this basis, and given that the two species are part of a mixed fishery and should be 
managed  jointly,  in  the sub-options presented  below,  the  anchovy  range  for  FMSY  was 
used  for  both  anchovy  and  sardine.  For  anchovy,  to  get  from  current  levels  of  fishing 
mortality (F) to FMSY, a reduction of 65% in fishing mortality is required. For sardine, 
a reduction of 40% would be sufficient to reach FMSY but as these two species are part of 
a  mixed  fishery  and  are  targeted  by  the  same  fisheries  and  that  anchovy  is  driving  this 

114   Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) – Small pelagic stocks in the 
Adriatic  Sea.  Mediterranean  assessments  part  1  (STECF-15-14).  2015.  Publications  Office  of  the 
European Union, Luxembourg, EUR 27492 EN, JRC 97707, 52 pp. 

115   www.ices.dk  
116   SSB is the spawning stock biomass – the size of the adult part of a stock (in tonnes) that is able to 
contribute  to  reproduction  in  any  given  year;  Blim  and  Bpa  are  conservation  (or  precautionary) 
reference  points  for  any  stock.  The  smaller  the  stock  size,  the  greater  the  likelihood  that 
reproduction will be impaired and the stock will fall below safe biological limits. If the stock size is 
below  Blim  there  is  a  risk  that  the  stock  will  suffer  from  severely  reduced  productivity.  Bpa  is  the 
biomass reference point designed to have a low probability of being below Blim. When the spawning 
stock  size  is  estimated  to  be  above  Bpa,  the  probability  of  impaired  recruitment  is  expected  to  be 
low. 

117   For example, whereas in 2015 STECF estimated the FMSY point value for sardine at 0.08, in 2014 
they estimated FMSY at 0.23. In 2013, it was 0.46. For anchovy, on the other hand, the FMSY point 
value was 0.38 in 2013, 0.5 in 2014 and 0.3 in 2015. 

125 

 
  
 
                                                 
fishery,  the  target  reduction  in  F  for  anchovy  was  used  to  ensure  that  FMSY  would  be 
reached for both species118. 

For the purpose of modelling the impacts of the different sub-options under Option 2, the 
upper  bound  of  the  FMSY  range  for  anchovy  was  used.  The  rationale  for  this  is  the 
following:  by  applying  the  target  reduction  in  fishing  mortality  for  anchovy  (65%)  to 
sardine, we will effectively be exploiting sardine at less than the maximum that could be 
harvested in line with FMSY Therefore, to minimize this under-exploitation of sardine, the 
upper end of the FMSY range of sardine is used.   

In  addition  to  FMSY  ranges,  a  multi-annual  plan  should  contain  safeguard  values  in 
terms of biomass: Blim and Bpa119 (Figure 2). STECF provided in 2015 the following 
Blim and Bpa reference points for anchovy and for sardine: 

1) Anchovy: Bpa = 139 000 t, Blim = 99 285 t   

2) Sardine: Bpa = 446 000 t, Blim = 223 000 t114 

As  for  FMSY  ranges,  the  biomass  safeguard  values  for  sardine  are  considered  to  be 
unstable and more uncertain than those for anchovy.   

118   Applying  the  sardine  target  reduction  in  F  (40%)  would  not  be  sufficient  to  achieve  FMSY  for 

anchovy by 2020 and is therefore not an option. 

119   SSB is the spawning stock biomass – the size of the adult part of a stock (in tonnes) that is able to 
contribute  to  reproduction  in  any  given  year;  Blim  and  Bpa  are  conservation  (or  precautionary) 
reference  points  for  any  stock.  The  smaller  the  stock  size,  the  greater  the  likelihood  that 
reproduction will be impaired and the stock will fall below safe biological limits. If the stock size is 
below  Blim  there  is  a  risk  that  the  stock  will  suffer  from  severely  reduced  productivity.  Bpa  is  the 
biomass reference point designed to have a low probability of being below Blim. When the spawning 
stock  size  is  estimated  to  be  above  Bpa,  the  probability  of  impaired  recruitment  is  expected  to  be 
low. 

126 

 
                                                 
Figure  2  Illustration  of  biomass-based  reference  points.  Blim  and  Bpa  are 
precautionary  reference  points  related  to  the  risk  of  impaired  reproductive 
capacity.  Diamonds  show  the  variable  recruitment  for  different  spawning  stock 
sizes  (SSB)  that  has  been  observed  over  the  years.  Recruitment  can  be  seen  to  be 
generally lower when the SSB is below Blim. 

Bpa 

127 

 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX VII: IMPACTS OF THE DIFFERENT OPTIONS FORECAST UNTIL 2021 

The  environments,  economic  and  social  impacts  of  the  different  Options  were  forecast 
under the Management Scenarios Study66. The outcomes are presented in graphical form 
below, including historical trends, to support the discussion under Section 6 of the report.  

The  figures  below  present  historical  trends  in  environmental  and  socio-economic 
parameters for the anchovy and sardine stocks and fisheries in the Adriatic. The graphs 
also present information about Option 1 (Baseline scenario), and Option 2 including Sub-
options 2 (2018) and Sub-option 2 (2020) with the range of possible impacts depending 
on how Member States will allocate fishing reductions within the fleet (numbered 2a-2d 
for  presentational  purposes,  with  2a  and  2b  representing  the  possible  outcomes  under 
Sub-option 2 (2018) and 2c and 2d representing the possible outcomes under Sub-option 
2 (2020). The impacts of Option 3 (worst case) are equivalent to those under the Baseline 
(Option  1)  whilst  the  impacts  of  Option  3  (best  case)  will  be  in  line  with  the  possible 
range of impacts under Option 2. 

Figure  1 Past  trends and forecasted anchovy stock sizes  in the  Adriatic  until 2021 
under the different Options 

Anchovy stock size 

160000

140000

120000

100000
s
n
o
t

80000

60000

40000

20000

0

Baseline scenario

Option 2a (2018, proportional reduction)

Option 2b (2018, equal reduction)

Option 2c (2020, proportional reduction)

Option 2d (2020, equal reduction)

8
0
0
2

9
0
0
2

0
1
0
2

1
1
0
2

2
1
0
2

3
1
0
2

4
1
0
2

5
1
0
2

6
1
0
2

7
1
0
2

8
1
0
2

9
1
0
2

0
2
0
2

1
2
0
2

128 

 
 
 
Figure  2  Past  trends  and  forecasted  sardine  stock  sizes  in  the  Adriatic  until  2021 
under the different Options 

Sardine stock size 

600000

500000

400000

s
n
o
t

300000

200000

100000

0

Baseline scenario

Option 2a (2018, proportional reduction)

Option 2b (2018, equal reduction)

Option 2c (2020, proportional reduction)

Option 2d (2020, equal reduction)

8
0
0
2

9
0
0
2

0
1
0
2

1
1
0
2

2
1
0
2

3
1
0
2

4
1
0
2

5
1
0
2

6
1
0
2

7
1
0
2

8
1
0
2

9
1
0
2

0
2
0
2

1
2
0
2

129 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure  3  Past  trends  and  forecasted  catches  of  anchovy  in  the  Adriatic  until  2021 
under the different Options 

Catches of anchovy 

60000

50000

40000

s
n
o
t

30000

20000

10000

0

Baseline scenario

Option 2a (2018, proportional reduction)

Option 2b (2018, equal reduction)

Option 2c (2020, proportional reduction)

Option 2d (2020, equal reduction)

8
0
0
2

9
0
0
2

0
1
0
2

1
1
0
2

2
1
0
2

3
1
0
2

4
1
0
2

5
1
0
2

6
1
0
2

7
1
0
2

8
1
0
2

9
1
0
2

0
2
0
2

1
2
0
2

130 

 
 
 
Figure  4  Past  trends  and  forecasted  catches  of  sardine  in  the  Adriatic  until  2021 
under the different Options 

Catches of sardine 

100000

s
n
o
t

90000

80000

70000

60000

50000

40000

30000

20000

10000

0

Baseline scenario
Option 2a (2018, proportional reduction)
Option 2b (2018, equal reduction)
Option 2c (2020, proportional reduction)
Option 2d (2020, equal reduction)

8
0
0
2

9
0
0
2

0
1
0
2

1
1
0
2

2
1
0
2

3
1
0
2

4
1
0
2

5
1
0
2

6
1
0
2

7
1
0
2

8
1
0
2

9
1
0
2

0
2
0
2

1
2
0
2

131 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure  5  Past  trends  and  forecasted  total  revenues  for  the  anchovy  and  sardine 
fisheries in the Adriatic until 2021 under the different Options 

Total revenues 

90000000

80000000

70000000

60000000

50000000

40000000

o
r
u
E

30000000

Baseline scenario

20000000

10000000

0

Option 2a (2018, proportional reduction)

Option 2b (2018, equal reduction)

Option 2c (2020, proportional reduction)

Option 2d (2020, equal reduction)

8
0
0
2

9
0
0
2

0
1
0
2

1
1
0
2

2
1
0
2

3
1
0
2

4
1
0
2

5
1
0
2

6
1
0
2

7
1
0
2

8
1
0
2

9
1
0
2

0
2
0
2

1
2
0
2

132 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure  6  Past  trends  and  forecasted  average  salary  for  fishermen  in  the  anchovy 
and sardine fisheries in the Adriatic until 2021 under the different Options 

Average salary 

16000

14000

12000

10000

8000

6000

4000

2000

0

o
r
u
E

Baseline scenario

Option 2a (2018, proportional reduction)

Option 2b (2018, equal reduction)

Option 2c (2020, proportional reduction)

Option 2d (2020, equal reduction)

8
0
0
2

9
0
0
2

0
1
0
2

1
1
0
2

2
1
0
2

3
1
0
2

4
1
0
2

5
1
0
2

6
1
0
2

7
1
0
2

8
1
0
2

9
1
0
2

0
2
0
2

1
2
0
2

133 

 
 
 
Figure  7  Past  trends  and  forecasted  employment  in  the  anchovy  and  sardine 
fisheries in the Adriatic until 2021 under the different Options 

Employment 

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0

s
r
e
k
r
o
w

f
o
r
e
b
m
u
n

Baseline scenario

Option 2a (2018, proportional reduction)

Option 2b (2018, equal reduction)

Option 2c (2020, proportional reduction)

Option 2d (2020, equal reduction)

8
0
0
2

9
0
0
2

0
1
0
2

1
1
0
2

2
1
0
2

3
1
0
2

4
1
0
2

5
1
0
2

6
1
0
2

7
1
0
2

8
1
0
2

9
1
0
2

0
2
0
2

1
2
0
2

134 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure  8  Past  trends  and  forecasted  levels  of  short-term  profitability  (Current 
revenue/Break  Even  revenue)  in  the  anchovy  and  sardine  fisheries  in  the  Adriatic 
until 2021 under the different Options 

Current Revenues/Break Even Revenues 

1,200

1,000

0,800

R
E
B
/
R
C

0,600

0,400

0,200

0,000

Baseline scenario

Option 2a (2018, proportional reduction)

Option 2b (2018, equal reduction)

Option 2c (2020, proportional reduction)

Option 2d (2020, equal reduction)

8
0
0
2

9
0
0
2

0
1
0
2

1
1
0
2

2
1
0
2

3
1
0
2

4
1
0
2

5
1
0
2

6
1
0
2

7
1
0
2

8
1
0
2

9
1
0
2

0
2
0
2

1
2
0
2

135 

 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX VIII: OVERVIEW OF FISHERIES MANAGEMENT 

In  a  fishery,  fishing  mortality  is  directly  related  to  the  level  of  catches  that  take  place, 
which in turn depend on several factors, such as how many boats are fishing the stocks, 
for how long, using what gear etc. (see Figure 1). Fisheries can be managed in different 
ways,  essentially  by  managing  either  the  effort  that  goes  into  the  system  (how  much 
fishing  takes  place),  which  is  referred  to  an  input  control,  or  what  comes  out  of  the 
system (quantity of fish, or catches), which is referred to as output control. 

Figure 1 Factors affecting stock size in fish and different drivers of fishing mortality 

Essentially,  levels  of  catches  depend  on  both  how  much  fishing  takes  place  (fishing 
effort) and how many fish are caught by boats while they fish (selectivity). Fishing effort 
in  turn  is  determined  by  the  number  of  boats  fishing  (and  their  size/power)  and  how 
much time these boats spend fishing.  

Effort limitation (input controls) 

To  date,  as  presented  in  Section  1.3,  anchovy  and  sardine  in  the  Adriatic  have  been 
managed  through  effort  limitation  (also  referred  to  input  limitations  as  management 
focuses on the input to the system), in the form of limitations on the number of vessels 
authorized to fish, of the number of days that vessels can spend at sea, on closed periods, 
or  areas,  etc.  as  well  as  through  measures  focusing  on  the  selectivity  of  the  gear  (e.g. 
minimum mesh sizes).  

Managing effort and selectivity have an impact on levels of catches, but this is indirect 
i.e. reducing the number of days that vessels can fish by 50% does not necessarily result 
in  a  50%  decrease  in  catch  levels.  In  fact,  this  would  generally  result  in  a  smaller 

136 

Overallstock sizeOthersources of mortalitye.g. naturalmortalityFishingmortalityMortalityRecruitment(=new fish)FishingEffortActivity of fleet(time spentfishing)Capacityof the fleet(No. Vessels, power) Othermeasures(e.g. spatio-temporalclosures)+-MortalityDriversSelectivitye.g. minimum meshsizeCatches 
 
 
 
 
reduction  in  catches  than  50%.  In  the  case  of  pelagic  trawlers,  for  example,  which  are 
one of the fleet segments involved in this fishery, they generally spend only a few hours 
per day at sea fishing for small pelagics, and hence if the number  of days authorized is 
reduced, they could simply increase the number of hours they fish in a day to maintain 
catches  at the  same  level.  Additionally,  small  pelagics  occur  in  shoals  (aggregations  of 
fish which move together) and hence an important part of a vessel's fishing time is spent 
looking for shoals, and only a smaller part translates into actual fishing time and hence 
mortality on the fish. This is another reason why it is difficult to estimate how changes in 
effort will translate into changes in catches.  

Catch limits (output controls) 

There  are  several  other  fishing  areas  where  small  pelagics  are  managed  through  catch 
limitations,  e.g.  in  the  Atlantic  and  North  Sea  through  the  system  of  Total  Allowable 
Catches (TAC) and (national) quotas as well as in other areas of the world (e.g. off West 
Africa, in Australia120).  

Total allowable catches (TACs), also referred to as fishing opportunities, are catch limits 
(expressed  in  tonnes  or  numbers)  that  are  set  for most  commercial  fish  stocks  in  the 
Baltic, North Sea and Atlantic Ocean as well as under many RFMOs (including for Blue-
fin  tuna  under  ICCAT).  The  Commission  prepares  the  proposals,  based  on scientific 
advice on the stock status from advisory bodies such as ICES and STECF. Some multi-
annual  plans contain  rules  for  the  setting  of  the  TACs.  TACs  are  set annually  for most 
stocks (every two years for deep-sea stocks) by the Council of fisheries ministers.  

TACs are shared between EU countries in the form of national quotas.  For each stock a 
different  allocation  percentage  per  EU  country  is  applied  for  the  sharing  out  of  the 
quotas.  This fixed percentage is known as the  relative stability key. EU countries can 
exchange quotas with other EU countries. 

EU  countries  have  to  use  transparent  and  objective  criteria  when  they  distribute  the 
national quota among their fishermen.  They are responsible for ensuring that the quotas 
are not overfished.  When all the available quota of a species is fished, the EU country 
has to close the fishery. 

In several other parts of the European fishing sector, which were faced with problems of 
overexploitation and stock declines, there have been recoveries in the fish stocks and the 
fishing  sectors  following  implementation  of  multi-annual  management  plans121  and  a 
system  of  catch-limits.  In  the  Northeast  Atlantic,  North  Sea  and  Baltic,  between,  2006 
and 2014 the number of stocks fished sustainably increased from 2 to 26. In line with this 
improvement  of  the  state  of  fish  stocks,  there  has  been  a  general  improvement  in  the 
economic  performance  of  the  EU  fleet.  The  economic  performance  of  the  fleets 
dependent  on  plaice,  for  example,  have  improved  significantly  under  the  management 
plan which brought the fishery to a sustainable level21. 

In  the  case  of  the  Blue-fin  Tuna,  one  of  the  most  valuables  species  worldwide,  after  a 
serious decline in stocks, and the near collapse of Blue-fin Tuna as well as the fisheries 
sector  dependent  on  it,  a  15-year  recovery  plan  was  adopted  in  2006  by  the  RFMO  in 
charge of management of this stock (the International Commission for the Conservation 

120   http://www.afma.gov.au/fisheries/small-pelagic-fishery/  
121   These multi-annual management plans were adopted under the previous CFP. 

137 

 
                                                 
of Atlantic Tunas - ICCAT). This recovery plan was based on a system of catch-limits to 
manage  the  Blue-fin  Tuna.    Thanks  to  the  successful  implementation  of  this  recovery 
plan,  which  involved  restricting  catch  limits  for  several  years,  the  stock  has  reached 
record levels and in 2014 the ICCAT endorsed a 20% annual increase of the Bluefin tuna 
(BFT)  TAC  over  the  next  three  years  (including  a  20%  in  catches  for  the  EU  fishing 
sector)122. 

122   https://www.iccat.int/en/  

138 

 
 
 
                                                 
ANNEX IX: MEASURES UNDERTAKEN OR PLANNED BY CROATIA, ITALY 
AND SLOVENIA TO ADDRESS THE IMBALANCE BETWEEN THEIR 
FISHING CAPACITY AND THE AVAILABLE RESOURCES 

Member  States  are  required  under  the  Basic  Regulation  (Article  22)  to  put  in  place 
measures to adjust the fishing capacity of their fleets to their fishing opportunities over 
time. The analysis and evaluation of the balance between the fleets and the resources that 
they  exploit  is  carried  out  by  each  Member  State,  in  accordance  with  the  common 
guidelines developed by the Commission. If the assessment clearly demonstrates that the 
fishing  capacity  is  not  effectively  balanced  with  fishing  opportunities,  Member  States 
must prepare an action plan for the fleet segments with identified structural overcapacity. 
The action plan set out the adjustment targets and tools to achieve a balance and a clear 
time-frame for its implementation123. 

Croatia,  Italy  and  Slovenia  have  already  taken  measures  to  reduce  the  impacts  of  their 
fleet segments involved in the small pelagic fishery in the Adriatic (under the European 
Fisheries  Fund  (EFF)124,  and  that  all  three  Member  States  plan  to  carry  out  more 
measures in this regard in the coming years using the European Maritime and Fisheries 
Fund (EMFF)2 funding.  

Specifically,  the  three  Member  States  have  proposed  the  following  measures  in  their 
Action  Plans125  to  achieve  an  enduring  balance  between  fishing  capacity  and  fishing 
opportunities, established under Article 22(4) of the Basic Regulation: 

  Croatia considers that, in light of the available data on the status of stocks in the 
Adriatic  and  the  indicators  available,  the  capacity  reduction  measures  should 
target  purse  seiners  (and  demersal  trawls).  Therefore,  Croatia  plans  to  reduce 
capacity  and  effort  for  its  purse  seiners  in  the  Adriatic,  and  to  use  technical 
measures.  Scrapping  measures  are  part  of  the  Croatian  Operational  programme 
for the European Fisheries Fund (EFF) as well as for the EMFF, with the target 
date for achieving results by the end of 2017 for the EFF and the end of 2020 for 
EMFF  respectively,  with  the  following  capacity  reduction  targets  (compared  to 
2013): 

Under EFF 

Under EMFF 

Purse seiners of 12-18m 

20% 

Purse seiners of 18-24m 

10% 

Purse seiners of 24-40m 

7% 

20% 

10% 

5% 

By limiting the number of authorizations for purse seiners, Croatia also intends 
to achieve further reductions in fishing effort. Croatia also expects to implement 
additional temporal closures (as of May 2015) in the whole territorial waters of 

123   COM  (2014)  545:  COMMUNICATION  FROM  THE  COMMISSION  TO  THE  EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Guidelines for the analysis of the balance between fishing 
capacity  and  fishing  opportunities  according  to  Art  22  of  Regulation  (EU)  No  1380/2013  of  the 
European Parliament and the Council on the Common Fisheries Policy.  

124   COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 1198/2006 of 27 July 2006 on the European Fisheries Fund; 

OJ L23 of 15.8.2006, p. 1. 

125     http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/fleet/index.cfm?method=FM_Reporting.AnnualReport  

139 

 
 
 
                                                 
Croatia, affecting all vessels targeting small pelagic species. In addition, Croatia 
intends to reduce fishing effort through diversification of activities and possibly 
to reduce the capacity through withdrawal from fishing by way of reassignment 
of the vessels (conversion to other complementary activities)126. 

  Slovenia  includes  its  purse  seiners  12-18m  (4  vessels),  in  their  action  plans  to 
reduce  capacity  for  this  segment  on  the  basis  that  these  vessels  are  already  the 
subject of a GFCM multiannual management plan in the Adriatic. This is to be 
done through reductions in fishing  effort, use  of  temporary  cessation of fishing 
activities,  and  freezing  of  the  number  of  licences  for  purse  seiners  in  the 
Adriatic40. 

 

Italy plans to rebalance the capacity and productivity of the main fish stocks by 
reducing  current  fishing  mortality  by  an  average  of  at  least  20%,  with  a  target 
date  of  2017.  This  is  to  be  done,  amongst  other,  through  a  10%  reduction  in 
capacity  (GT/kW)  of  the  purse-seine  /pair-trawling  fleet  in  GSA  17  &  18  (12-
18m,  18-24m  and  24-40m  segments)  by  the  end  of  2017.  These  capacity 
reductions  are  proposed  in  addition  to  reductions  achieved  under  schemes 
financed  through  the  EFF  that  were  due  to  be  completed  in  2015.  Italy  also 
envisages further reductions in fishing mortality (of at least 10%) to be achieved 
through  future  multi-annual  management  plans  under  the  CFP  and/or  through 
changes  in  the  management  plans  in  force  under  the  MEDREG.  Italian 
authorities  consider  that  this  will  be  achieved  through  a  combination  of 
temporary  cessation,  effort  control,  and  a  ban  on  towed  gear  in  biological 
protection areas. 

126   Annual report on balance between fishing capacity and fishing opportunities for 2014 – Croatia. 

140 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
ANNEX X: DETAILED INFORMATION ON DATA COLLECTION AND 
MONITORING PROVISIONS RELATING TO IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 
COMMON FISHERIES POLICY 

Monitoring of some of the effects of management measures is done as part of the routine 
work associated with the implementation of the CFP: 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

(6) 

(7) 

(8) 

The EU fisheries Control Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009)60 
contains  provisions  that  oblige  Member  States  to  control  whether  fishermen 
respect the CFP rules. Among other  rules, Member States are obliged to  carry 
out landing inspections and cross check whether fishermen correctly record their 
catches  in  order  to,  amongst  other,  ensure  that  no  fish  caught  illegally  enter 
markets (see Annex XI for further details). 
Specifically  for  sardine  and  anchovy  in  the  Northern  Adriatic  (where  the  vast 
majority of fishing for these species takes place in the Adriatic), the Commission 
has  adopted  in  2014  a  Specific  Control  and  Inspection  programme  (SCIP)127, 
which is implemented through Joint Deployment Plans (JDPs). Joint control and 
inspection activities conducted under the JDP are exhaustive and based on a risk 
assessment  approach.  They  cover  fishing  and  fishing-related  activities  including 
farming,  weighing,  processing,  marketing,  transport  and  storage  of  fisheries 
products and sport and recreational fisheries128.   
Under the EU Data Collection Framework (DCF)129, Member States are required 
to  collect  detailed  data  on  catch  (e.g.  size  and  age  of  the  fish  caught)  and  to 
provide it to scientific bodies for stock assessment purposes.  
Under the DCF, Member States must also collect annually  data on their fleets, 
allowing  estimates  of  number  of  vessels  by  fleet  segment,  their  fishing  capacity 
and fishing effort, as well as social and economic data allowing an assessment of 
inculdes,  for  example,  measures  of 
their  economic  performance.  This 
employment and of profitability of the sectors.  
Under  the  DCF,  Member  States  must  also  collect  socio-economic  data  on  the 
aquaculture  and  processing  sectors.  This  inculdes,  for  example,  measures  of 
employment and of profitability of the sectors.  
These  DCF  data  are  analysed  annually  or  bi-ennially  by  the  STECF  to  identify 
trends in the fisheries, aquaculture and processing sectors.  
Every  year,  at  the  request  of  the  Commission,  STECF  assesses  the  status  of 
certain  fish  stocks  in  the  Mediterranean  against  MSY  and  other  benchmarks 
related to sustainability. Historical values for F (fishing mortality) and spawning 
stock biomass (SSB) are estimated and catch projections are conducted showing 
how different catch levels in the coming year would affect F and SSB relative to 
chosen  benchmarks  (FMSY,  BMSY,  Bpa,  etc).  Sardine  and  anchovy  in  the  Adriatic 
have been assessed regularly in recent years. 
In  addition,  under  the  GFCM  Management  Plan,  GFCM  Parties  are  required  to 
ensure  scientific  monitoring  of  the  status  of  the  small  pelagic  stocks  in  the 

127   Commission Implementing Decision 2014/156/EU of 19 March 2014 which establishes a SCIP for 
fisheries exploiting stocks of bluefin tuna in the eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean, swordfish 
in the Mediterranean and stocks of sardine and anchovy in the northern Adriatic Sea 

128   http://www.efca.europa.eu/en/content/mediterranean  
129   Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  199/2008  of  25  February  2008  concerning  the  establishment  of  a 
Community framework for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector and 
support  for  scientific  advice  regarding  the  Common  Fisheries  Policy  framework  for  fisheries.  OJ 
L60, 5.3.2008, p.1-12.   

141 

 
                                                 
 
(9) 

Adriatic as well as monitoring of the fisheries concerned. The GFCM SAC will 
provide on an annual basis advice on the status of these stocks. 
The  markets  are  also  a  valuable  source  of  information.  The  EU  Market 
Observatory for Fisheries and Aquaculture products (EUMOFA73) enables direct 
monitoring  of  the  volume,  value  and  price  of  fishery  and  aquaculture  products, 
from the first sale to retail stage, including imports and exports. 

(10)  Progress toward MSFD Good Environmental Status is already an obligation for 

Member States under that Directive. 

142 

 
 
 
ANNEX XI: OVERVIEW OF CURRENT MANAGAEMENT MEASURES AT 
NATIONAL, EU AND INTERNATIONAL LEVEL INCLUDING 
RETROSPECTIVE EVALUATION OF THESE MEASURES 

I. Management at national level 

Council Regulation (EC) No 1967/2006 (the Mediterranean Regulation or MEDREG)13 
is the framework for fisheries management in the Mediterranean. Adopted by the Council 
in  2006,  it  entered  into  force  in  January  2007,  with  a  transitional  period  until  31  May 
2010 for some provisions. The MEDREG contains technical measures as well as a set of 
management  measures  to  be  adopted  by  the  Member  States  (e.g.  obligation  to  adopt 
national  management  plans  for  certain  fisheries  or  specific  gears).  It  also  encompasses 
rules for the protection of sensitive habitats (e.g. obligation to adopt Fisheries Protected 
Areas, protection of Posidonia beds, etc.). 

Currently, small pelagic species (anchovy and sardine) in the Adriatic are managed in the 
territorial waters of Italy, Croatia & Slovenia by means of three  national management 
plans,  adopted  under  Article  19  of  the  MEDREG.  These  combine  in  particular  effort 
management  with  specific  technical  measures.  In  addition,  several  additional  measures 
have been adopted in recent years in these Member States, as detailed below. 

Croatia  

A  management  plan  for  Srdelara  purse  seine  fisheries  was  adopted  in  2014  in 
Croatia16. This plan is applicable for 3 years. Its aim is to maintain the stocks within safe 
biological  limits  which  is  primarily  reflected  in  the  retention  of  the  current  trends  of 
biomass and recruitment of the species targeted with this fishing gear. The plan does not 
contain an MSY target or a date by which to reach this.  

The measures to be implemented to achieve the aims are the following 

  Permanent cessation in order to reduce capacity (through buy-off of the licences, 

transfer into another type of fisheries or leaving fisheries entirely). 

  Temporary cessation in special situations affecting the biomass but the plan does 
not include specific measures in this regard, only examples of possible measures 
such as monthly closures during spawning periods)  

  Freezing the issuance of fishing licenses to prevent new vessels entering the fleet 
  Prohibiting purse seine net fishing two days prior and two days after the dark 

moon period. 

  Minimum mesh size (14mm) and minimum catch size (11cm for sardines and 

9cm for anchovies) set in accordance with the MEDREG 

  A  closure  period  is  observed  from  15th  December  to  15th  January  from  the 

Croatian purse seiners.  

In  addition,  since  then,  Croatia  has  adopted  additional  measures  in  order  to  implement 
the GFCM Recommendations: 

143 

 
 
 
 
First,  an  Ordinance  on  commercial  fishing  using  purse  seine  net  –  srdelara130  was 
adopted  in  2014,  under  which  criteria  for  obtaining  the  authorisation  for  fishing  with 
purse seine net – srdelara were modified.  

Another Ordinance on spatial and temporal restrictions regarding the commercial fishing 
using  purse  seine  net  –  srdelara  was  also  adopted  in  2014131.  It  includes  provisions  on 
temporal closure of fishing  using purse seine net - srdelara in the entire Croatian fishing 
sea during the period from 1 to 31 December with the interruption during the period from 
14 to 24 December 2014 in such a way that during this period each vessel could have had 
maximum 5 fishing days. It also implements a temporal closure of fishing using the purse 
seine net – srdelara for vessels larger than 12 m during the period from 21 August till 24 
December 2014 in the part of channel area, covering around 28% of the Croatian inner 
fishing  sea.  These  measures  continued  also  in  2015  starting  from  1  January  to  31 
January. The Ordinance also introduced the temporal restriction on using the purse seine 
net – srdelara in the entire Croatian fishing sea during the warm part of the year in period 
from  1  May  to  31  May  for  the  purpose  of  protection  of  anchovy  during  its  spawning 
season. 

Slovenia 

A management plan covering different types of fishing gears, including surrounding 
nets  targeting  small  pelagic,  was  adopted  in  2014  in  Slovenia15.  The  aim  of  the 
management  plan  is  to  adjust  the  fishing  effort  is  to  adjust  the  fishing  capacities  and 
fishing opportunities for that segment of fisheries that uses purse seines. To achieve this, 
the following measures are included: 

  Temporary  suspension  of  the  granting  of  commercial  fishing  licences  for  purse 

seines 

  Review  of  commercial  fishing  licences  to  remove  inactive  vessels  from  the 

register. 

  Reduction in the fishing effort of vessels that use purse seines through permanent 
cessation (scrapping of vessels or their reallocation to activities outside fisheries) 
and temporary cessation. A reduction in the capacity of the active fleet of at least 
5%  (expressed  in  gross  tonnage)  is  expected  compared  to  the  active  fleet  in 
2010). 

The plan does not contain an MSY target or a date by which to reach this. 

In addition to this management plan, Slovenia has adopted additional national technical 
measures. First, fishing logbooks are required for all vessels with purse seines and for all 
quantities  and  species  of  fish  caught.  Furthermore,  all  Slovenian  fishing  vessels  active 
with  purse  seines  have  VMS  installed  although  they  are  all  under  15  m  of  length 
overall132. 

130   The  Ordinance  on  commercial  fishing  using  purse  seine  net  –  srdelara  (“Official  gazette”  No 

101/2014, 106/2014, 125/2014, 140/2014, 147/2014, 2/2015, 37/2015 and 44/2015) 

131   Ordinance  on  spatial  and  temporal  closures  regarding  commercial  fishing  at  sea  by  using  purse 

seine net – srdelara in 2014 („Official gazette“ No. 101/2014, 106/2014 and 132/2014) 
132   Regulation on the traceability of catches, Official Journal of the Republic of Slovenia No 2/13 

144 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Italy 

1. A management plan for surrounding nets and for pelagic trawl nets (circuizione e 
traino pelagico) was adopted in 2011 by means of a Directorial Decree in Italy14. The 
aim  of  the  management  plan  is  the  recovery  or  the  maintenance  of  stocks  within  safe 
biological limits. It intends to achieve this by controlling the rate of exploitation and the 
continuous  monitoring  of  the  available  biomass.  The  plan  does  not  contain  an  MSY 
target or a date by which to reach this. 

The management plan includes the following measures: 
-a 15% reduction in fishing effort via a reduction of 3% in fishing capacity through 
permanent cessation and via a reduction of 12% in fishing activity through a reduction 
in fishing days from 5 to 4 per week for certain periods and through temporary cessation. 
-setting of catch limits  
-making  fishing  on  these  stocks  conditional  on  the  vessel  being  issued  with  a  fishing 
permit under certain conditions. The number of licenses may vary from year to year only 
on the basis of scientific monitoring of the results. 
-  setting  up a  system  to  regulate  the  removal  of  biomass  from  the  sea  according  to  the 
market needs. 

Besides,  Italy  has  been  enforcing  for  years  a  general  regulation  concerning  the  fishing 
gears and since 1988 a suspension (of around one month) of fishing activity of pelagic 
trawlers in summer11.  

A  closure  period  of  60  days  (August  and  September)  and  a  closure  period  of  42  days 
were endorsed respectively in 2011-2012 and in 2013 by the Italian fleet11. 

In addition to the management plan adopted in 2011, new decrees were adopted in Italy 
in 2014 and 2015:  

  A  Ministerial  decree  from  2014133  modify  the  closure  period  of  42  consecutive 
days  for  vessels  registered  the  maritime  districts  from  Trieste  to  Rimini.  This 
temporary suspension is enforced from 28th of July to 7th September 2014 instead 
of 11th August to 21st August for the other vessels. 

  A  ministerial  decree  was  adopted 

implementing  GFCM 
recommendations. This sets a limit of 144 days at sea for active vessels targeting 
anchovy resources and introduces a 30-day period in which pelagic fisheries are 
prohibited (from July 1 to July 30, 2015) in the Adriatic Sea between Monfalcone 
and Termoli, within six miles from the coast. 

in  2015134 

133   Italian Ministerial Decree 23/7/2014 
134   Italian Ministerial Decree 16/3/2015 

145 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
2. Management at EU level 

At  EU  level,  the  landing  obligation  is  applicable  since  2015  in  the  Mediterranean  for 
small  pelagic fisheries and the first Discard  Plan entered  into  force on 1 January  2015, 
until  end  2017,  covering  notably  anchovy  and  sardine  in  the  Northern  and  Southern 
Adriatic  fished  with  mid-water  pelagic  trawls  and  purse  seines17.  This  Discard  Plan 
provides  for  certain  derogations  from  the  landing  obligation  for  small  pelagic  in  the 
Adriatic:   

 

 

in  the  Northern  Adriatic,  up  to  5  %  of  the  total  annual  catches  of  anchovy  and 
sardine  in  the  small  pelagic  mid-water  trawl  and  purse  seines  fisheries  may  be 
discarded;  
in the Southern Adriatic: (i) up to 3 % of the total annual catches of anchovy and 
sardine in the small pelagic purse seines fisheries; and (ii) up to 7 % in 2015 and 
2016 and up to 6 % in 2017 of the total annual catches of anchovy and sardine in 
the small pelagic mid-water trawl fisheries; 

In accordance with the CFP, the provisions of this Discard Plan must be integrated into 
the future multi-annual plans for the fisheries concerned if such a plan is adopted. 

Another  important  tool  to  manage  fisheries  in  the  EU  has  been  to  prescribe  technical 
measures, i.e. measures establishing conditions for the use and structure of fishing gear 
and  restrictions  on  access  to  fishing  areas.  So  far,  the  technical  measures  in  place  for 
fisheries exploiting stocks in the Mediterranean, including in the Adriatic, are enshrined 
in  the  MEDREG.  The  measures  include  gear  specifications,  minimum  conservation 
reference sizes for certain species, conditions for the use of certain gears (e.g. minimum 
distance from the coast and/or depth for deployment) as well as a number of provisions 
for the protection of sensitive habitats. The reasons for the technical measures vary but 
very often they are in place to protect juveniles and to avoid unwanted catches, and thus 
reduce discards. 

On  11  March  2016,  the  Commission  adopted  a  proposal  for  a  new  framework  for 
technical measures in line with the logic of the reformed CFP69. This proposal aims to 
bring  together  in  a  single  framework  the  provisions  relating  to  fisheries  technical 
measures  (i.e.  relating  to  use  of  fishing  gear,  mesh  size,  spatio-temporal  closures, 
minimum conservation reference sizes etc) which are currently spread out in many pieces 
of  legislation,  and  to  set  minimum  standards  in  this  respect.  The  proposal  also  puts  in 
place  the  process  of  regionalisation  whereby  the  technical  measures  set  out  in  this 
proposal  can  be  modified  on  the  basis  of  joint  recommendations  by  Member  States 
which, if scientifically justified and valid, and in the context of EU multi-annual plans, 
are then adopted through Commission delegated acts. Annex IX of the proposal includes 
the  following  technical  measures  specifically  for  the  Mediterranean:  Minimum 
conservation  reference  sizes,  minimum  mesh  sizes,  restrictions  on  the  use  of  fishing 
gears, mitigation measures for sensitive species.   

Data collection is part of the core functioning of the CFP. Reliable and complete data are 
central  to  well-functioning  fisheries  management  as  they  provide  the  basic  information 
for  scientific  advice  and  for  the  monitoring  of  the  European  fisheries  sector.  For  this 
reason,  an  EU  framework  for  the  collection  and  management  of  fisheries  data  was 

146 

 
established  in  2000135,  and  then  reformed  in  2008  resulting  in  the  Data  Collection 
Framework (DCF)129. The DCF establishes a harmonized set of EU rules governing the 
collection of biological, environmental, technical, and socio-economic data on the fishing 
sector, the aquaculture and processing sector striving for better availability of data to the 
scientists resulting in improved advice to data users including the Commission. In order 
to align the DCF to the reformed CFP, the Commission made a proposal in 2015 to recast 
the DCF Regulation107.  

The  fisheries  Control  Regulation60  establishes  a  framework  for  the  control  of  fishing 
activities,  which  apply  to  all  EU  fisheries.  Under  this  Regulation,  some  of  the  key 
provisions of relevance to the Adriatic small pelagic fisheries are the following: 

  An  EU  fishing  vessel  operating  in  EU  waters  shall  be  authorised  to  carry  out 
specific  fishing  activities  only  insofar  as  they  are  indicated  in  a  valid  fishing 
authorisation (Article 7); 

  Without prejudice to specific provisions contained in multiannual plans, a fishing 
vessel of 12 metres’ length overall or more shall have installed on board a fully 
functioning  device  which  allows  that  vessel  to  be  automatically  located  and 
identified through the vessel monitoring system (VMS) by transmitting position 
data at regular intervals (Article 9); 

  A  fishing  vessel  exceeding  15  metres’  length  overall  shall  be  fitted  with  and 
maintain in operation an automatic identification system (AIS) (Article 10); 

135   Council Regulation (EC) No 1543/2000 of 29 June 2000 establishing a Community framework for 

the collection and management of the data needed to conduct the common fisheries policy   

147 

 
 
                                                 
  Without prejudice to specific provisions contained in multiannual plans, masters 
of EU fishing vessels of 10 metres’ length overall or more  shall keep a fishing 
logbook of their operations, indicating specifically all quantities of each species 
caught and kept on board above 50 kg of live-weight equivalent (Article 14); 
  Masters  of  EU  fishing  vessels  of  12  metres’  length  overall  or  more  shall  use 
electronic  logbooks  and  shall  send  it  by  electronic  means  to  the  competent 
authority of the flag Member State at least once a day (Article 15); 

  Each  Member  State  shall  monitor,  on  the  basis  of  sampling,  the  activities  of 
fishing  vessels  which  are  not  subject  to  logbook  requirements  (i.e.  vessels 
under 10 m) in order to ensure compliance by these vessels with the rules of the 
common fisheries policy (Article 16); 

  Member  States  must  provide  to  the  Commission  on  a  monthly  basis  and 
electronically data on the quantities of each stock or group of stocks subject 
to TACs or quotas landed during the preceding month. For species not subject to 
TAC  and  quota  Member  States  must  report  data  on  their  catches  on  a  quarterly 
basis (Article 33). 

  When adopting a multiannual plan, a threshold may be established, applicable 
to the live weight of species subject to a multiannual plan, above which a fishing 
vessel shall be required to land its catches in a designated port or a place close 
to the shore (Article 43). 

The  financial  instrument  to  support  the  implementation  of  the  CFP  is  the  European 
Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF)2 2014-2020. The bulk of the funds are managed 
jointly with the Member States (shared management) and are destined to support: 
  CFP implementation, aquaculture and bottom-up local development; 
  Mmarketing  and  processing,  producer  organisations,  production  sectors,  and 

compensation for operators in the outermost regions; 

  Control, inspection and enforcement;  
  Fisheries-related data collection; 
  A  number  of  key  pan-European  objectives  such  as  marine  knowledge  and 

integrated maritime surveillance. 

Each  Member  State  details  the  use  of  the  funds  received  in  shared  management  in  an 
operational programme, covering the period 2014-2020, which has to contribute to four 
of  the  eleven  thematic  objectives136  of  the  ESI  funds  and  translate  the  Europe  2020 
strategic objectives into investment priorities. The EMFF is not only directed to fisheries 
and innovation in fisheries, aquaculture and processing but also to support diversification 
and promote the economic development of fisheries dependent areas.  
The  EU  has,  and  continues  to  provide  financial  assistance  to  Member  States  to  the 
fishing  industry  and  coastal  communities  to  help  them  adapt  to  changing  conditions  in 
the sector and become economically resilient and ecologically sustainable. For the period 
2014-2020, the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF)2 provides funding for the 
EU's fisheries and maritime policies. This includes 537 million Euros allocated to Italy, 
253 million Euro for Croatia and 25 million Euro for Slovenia137. 

The EMFF specifically provides funding to help fishermen in the transition to sustainable 
fishing,  to  support  coastal  communities  in  diversifying  their  economies  and  to  finance 

136    Thematic objectives (TO): TO 3: competitiveness of SMEs in the fisheries sector; TO 4: supporting 
the  shift  towards  a  carbon-free  economy;  TO  6:  preserving  and  protecting  the  environment  and 
promoting resources efficiency; TO 8: promoting sustainable and quality employment. 

137   http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/emff/index_en.htm  

148 

 
 
 
                                                 
projects  that  create  new  jobs  in  coastal  communities.  Specifically,  the  EMFF  contains 
provisions whereby support can be provided to fishermen for:  

  Temporary  cessation  of  fishing,  when  based  on  scientific  advice,  and  under  a 
Multiannual Plan, a reduction of fishing effort is needed in order to achieve MSY.   
  Permanent  cessation  (scrapping  of  vessels  or  removing  them  from  the  fishing 
fleet for other purposes) in cases where a fleet segment is not effectively balanced 
with fishing opportunities available to that segment138. 

  Diversifying their sources of income e.g. by carrying out touristic activities with 

their boats, 

  Retraining into a new job. 
  Replacement of gears (e.g. to be more selective) 
  Measures to reduce the impact on the environment. 

The EMFF also contains provisions covering the design and maintenance of systems for 
allocating  fishing  opportunities  (i.e.  national  quotas  under  a  TAC  &  quota  system) 
(Article 36) and relating to the development of Control systems such as the installation of 
electronic logbooks or VMS (Article 76). 

3. Management at international level 

At  international  level,  the  General  Fisheries  Commission  for  the  Mediterranean 
(GFCM) adopted in 2013, on the basis of an EU proposal, a management plan to regulate 
the exploitation of the small pelagic stocks, sardine and anchovy, in the Adriatic139
, which 
was  amended  in  2014143.  The  GFCM  management  plan  sets  specific  objectives  for  the 
Northern Adriatic (GSA17). It fixes a maximum exploitation rate (E)140, a precautionary 
level  of  spawning  stock  biomass  (SSB),  a  maximum  fishing  fleet  capacity,  maximum 
fishing  days  per  year  and  safeguard  rules  (i.e.  a  pre-agreed  plan  for  adjusting 
management of the fish stocks based on its perceived status). All vessels actively fishing 
for anchovies and sardines in GSA17 are subject to the provisions of this plan.  

For  the  Southern  Adriatic  (GSA18),  transitional  conservation  measures  are  applied 
because the Scientific Advisory Committee (SAC) of the GFCM was not in a position to 
establish a formal assessment (see Annex VI  - Box 1). The objective of the transitional 
measures for the small pelagic fishery in GSA 18 is to start preparing the ground for a 
future management plan while reducing the risk that, in the absence of relevant scientific 
assessment,  the  biomass  level  of  the  stock  could  drop  below  undesirable  levels. 
Therefore,  the  specific  objectives  are  set  provisionally  until  identification  of  reference 
points141 in line with MSY by the SAC.  

138   STECF  (2015)  Assessment  of  balance  indicators  for  key  fleet  segments  and  review  of  national 
reports on member States efforts to achieve balance between fleet capacity and fishing opportunities 
(STECF-15-15)  

139  Recommendation  GFCM/37/2013/1  on  a  multiannual  management  plan  for  fisheries  on  small 
pelagic  stocks  in  the  GFCM-GSA  17  (Northern  Adriatic  Sea)  and  on  transitional  conservation 
measures for fisheries on small pelagic stocks in GSA 18 (Southern Adriatic Sea). 

140   E (exploitation rate) = F (Fishing mortality)/Z (total mortality) ie the exploitation rate is the fraction 

of the total mortality that is due to fishing. 

141   In order to define long-term objectives in fisheries management, one has to consider the values of 
the fishing level, which allow bigger catches in weight, whilst also ensuring the conservation of the 
stocks. The extreme values of the biomass or the fishing level, which might seriously affect the self-
renovation  of  the  stocks,  also  have  to  be  considered.  These  fishing  level  values,  of  catch  and 
biomass are designated as biological reference points (BRP). 

149 

 
 
 
                                                 
In terms of effort management, the vessels fishing actively for small pelagics have a limit 
of activity of 20 days per month with a total maximum of 180 days per year. The GFCM 
recommendation also includes  fish capacity control as well as national programmes for 
control,  monitoring  and  surveillance  of  the  fishing  activities  are  also  part  of  this 
recommendation. 

Furthermore,  some  technical  measures  were  established  under  this  management  plan, 
including  inter  alia  the  prohibition  of  fishing  for  individuals  below  the  minimum 
conservation reference size (9 cm and 11 cm, respectively for anchovy and sardine) and 
the prohibition of using certain fishing gears within 3 nautical miles of the coast or 50 m 
depths.  

The  management  plan  also  provides  for  situations  in  which  the  GFCM  should  adopt 
emergency measures (when the size of the stock of either anchovy or sardine is below a 
pre-defined reference point).  

In 2014, the SAC established that the stock of anchovy was over-exploited and advised 
to decrease fishing mortality. 

the  management  plan 

(recommendation  GFCM/37/2013/1) 

In addition, the scientific revision of the assessment models and reference points included 
revealed  some 
in 
uncertainties  and  potential  biases8.  For  this  reason,  the  original  recommendation  was 
slightly revised, and the GFCM adopted emergency measures for the year 2015 for the 
Northern Adriatic142. Maximum fishing days for vessels targeting anchovy were reduced 
to  144  per  year.  In  addition,  in  order  to  protect  nursery  and  spawning  grounds,  the 
countries  active  in  this  fishery  in  the  Northern  Adriatic  had  to  apply  spatio-temporal 
closures of no less than 15 continuous days between 1 April and 31 August.  

In  2015, the SAC found  that the  anchovy stock continued to show a declining  trend of 
SSB,  while  the  stock  of  sardine  was  over-exploited.  The  GFCM  adopted  emergency 
measures  for  2016  (a  roll-over  of  the  measures  adopted  for  2015),  but  this  time  the 
spatio-temporal closures were applied for both the Northern and Southern Adriatic143.  

In 2016, the GFCM adopted further emergency measures for 2017 and 2018. These were 
based on previous emergency measures but expanded to include a freeze on catches (at 
2014 levels) and a freeze on capacity (above a certain threshold) as well as an obligation 
for Parties to close 30% of their nursery area for at least 6 months (for vessels over 
12m).19 

(Recommendations 
Certain  provisions 
GFCM/37/2013/1  and  GFCM/38/2014/1)  have  been  transposed  into  EU  law  through 
Regulation (EU) 2015/2102144

the  GFCM  management  plan 

from 

. 

Retrospective evaluation of the national management plans adopted under the 
MEDREG 

142  Recommendation  GFCM/38/2014/1  amending  Recommendation  GFCM/37/2013/1  and  on 
precautionary and emergency measures for 2015 on small pelagic stocks in the GFCM GSA 17. 
143   Recommendation GFCM/39/2015/1 establishing further precautionary and emergency measures in 

2016 for small pelagic stocks in the Adriatic Sea (GSA 17 and GSA 18) 

144   Regulation  (EU)  2015/2102  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  28  October  2015 
amending Regulation (EU) No 1343/2011 on certain provisions for fishing in the GFCM (General 
Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean) Agreement area 

150 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
National management plans adopted by Member States under the MEDREG have been 
thoroughly  analysed  by  the  STECF30  based  on  a  dedicated  study145.  The  conclusions 
were that despite the fact that sardine and anchovy are covered by national plans adopted 
by the relevant Member States,  they are not  currently  exploited at  sustainable levels as 
required under the new CFP. The plans were in fact developed and implemented prior to 
the reform of the CFP and therefore are not in line with the objectives of the new Basic 
Regulation.  

The main problems with the national management plans is the following:  

  Targets: they are not ambitious enough in their targets to ensure that the stocks will be 
fished sustainably as required under the CFP: the target dates laid down in the plan are 
outdated  with  respect  to  the  CFP  objectives  and  need  to  be  updated  to  ensure 
achieving the maximum sustainable exploitation rate by 2020 at the latest. 

  The approach is, by definition, national, which means that: 

-  these  national  management  plans  include  a  number  of  biological  limit  and  target 
reference  points  for  anchovy  and  sardine  that  were  determined  at  a  national  level 
rather than for the stock (region) as a whole. 

-  there  are  different  measures  in  each  of  the  three  Member  States,  whereas  the  two 
stocks are a shared resource fished throughout the Adriatic. Management of the stocks 
therefore needs to take place at a regional level to be effective and to ensure that the 
stock, as a whole can reach sustainable levels.  

-  the  plans  only  cover national  waters  whereas  the  two  fish  stocks  are  found  also in 
international waters: the national plans therefore have gaps in their coverage and don't 
cover the activities of all fleets exploiting the resources (see Figure 1).  

  The plans need to be updated and improved in terms of their management measures to 

align them to international standards for fisheries management. 

As  a  general  remark,  STECF  considers  that  for  shared  stocks,  fisheries’  management 
plans  need  to  take  into  account  the  impacts  of  all  fleets  and  countries  involved  in  the 
fisheries  exploiting  such  stocks  rather  than  just  a  national/fishery-specific  approach. 
Therefore,  STECF  considers  that  in  general,  broader  scale  regional  management  plans, 
which  encapsulate  all  fleets  exploiting  the  stocks  identified  within  the  plans,  would  be 
more appropriate. STECF concludes that a management plan, which covers all fisheries 
for sardine and anchovy in the Adriatic, should be developed for these shared stocks30.  

STECF concludes that under the existing national management  plans, reductions of the 
catches  are  insufficient  to  reach  sustainable  fishing  levels  by  2020  and  therefore, 
STECF  considers  that,  unless  changes  in  the  above  aspects  are  made  to  the  national 
management plans, it is very unlikely that the objectives of the CFP will be achieved30.  

Retrospective evaluation of the GFCM management plan for small pelagics 

145  MAREA:  MEDITERRANEAN  HALIEUTIC  RESOURCES  EVALUATION  AND  ADVICE  - 
SPECIFIC CONTRACT n° 9, Task 4 - Ad hoc scientific advice in support of the implementation of 
the Common Fisheries Policy, "Scientific advice on the conformity of management plans with the 
requirements  of  the  Common  Fisheries  Policy  in  the  Mediterranean  Sea"-  Revised  report 
08.08.2014.  

151 

 
 
                                                 
A  workshop  on  bioeconomic  assessment  of  management  measures  (WKMSE)  was 
held  at  the  GFCM  headquarters,  Rome,  Italy,  from  1  to  3  February  201550.  The  key 
objectives  of  the  meeting  were  to:  i)  review  the  existing  methodologies  to  perform 
Management  Strategy  Evaluation  (MSE)  simulations  and  the  different  harvest  control 
rules  used  in  the  GFCM  and  other  RFMOs  and  ii)  assess  the  biological,  economic  and 
social implications of alternative management scenarios for the small pelagic fishery in 
the Adriatic Sea.  

Simulations  showed  that  under  current  fishing  mortality,  anchovy  and  sardine  in  the 
Adriatic  remained  outside  safe  biological  limits.  Simulations  show  that  current  fishing 
mortalities (F is maintained at the current level (average of last 3 years – 2012-2014) are 
too high and if continued, stocks would remain outside biological safe limits, remaining 
at stable levels without signs of improvement, or even collapse between 2020 and 2030 
(depending on the assumptions regarding recruitment of young fish). 

The  emergency  measures  adopted  under  the  GFCM  for  2015,  which  consist  of  a 
reduction of catches and of fishing mortality by 9%, did not seem to have any positive 
effect  on  the  stocks  status,  and  the  outcomes  in  terms  of  risk  of  stock  collapsing  were 
similar to the status quo (no management measure at all). 

The reference points in the GFCM Management Plan have also undergone numerous 
reviews by the scientific community since the GFCM management plan was adopted in 
2013 and there is agreement that the values in the plan are not appropriate23. During the 
2014 SAC, scientists concluded that the reference points established in the management 
plan needed to be revised; they were, however, not in a position to propose new reference 
points  in  line  with  MSY.  In  2015,  the  SAC  was  again  unable  to  propose  suitable 
reference points and considered that a comprehensive revision of the scientific analysis 
should be carried out. In 2016, the SAC published the new reference points based on the 
updated scientific assessment of both stocks which could for the basis for an update of 
the GFCM management plan. 

Complexity of the current management framework 

Tables  1  and  2  below  present  an  overview  of  the  management  measures  adopted  at 
national and international level, illustrating how these change between countries and also 
how they have changed over time. 

152 

 
 
 
Table  1  Closed  seasons  for  fishing  sardine  and  anchovy  under  GFCM  and  in  the 
three Adriatic Member States 

GFCM 

Croatia 

Italy 
60 day closure period 

Slovenia 

60 day closure period 

Spatio-temporal 
closures for nursery 
areas to be 
implemented. 

15th December to 
15th January 

42 day closure period  

2011 

2012 

2013 

2014 

1 to 31 December 
with the interruption 
during the period 
from 14 to 24 
December 2014. 
Also for vessels 
larger than 12 m 
during the period 
from 21 August till 
24 December 2014 in 
the part of channel 
area, covering 
around 28% of the 
Croatian inner 
fishing sea. 

Closure from 28th of July 
to 7th September 2014 for  
vessels registered the 
maritime districts from 
Trieste to Rimini. Closure 
from 11th August to 21st 
September for the other 
vessels. In addition, from 
28th July 2014 to 31st 
October 2014 in the 
maritime waters of the 
Adriatic, except those of 
Monfalcone and Trieste 
and in the Ionian sea, 
bottom trawl and pelagic 
trawl fisheries are banned 
within 6 miles from the 
coast or at depths of less 
than 60 meters. 
Exemption: From July 
28th to October 31st 2014, 
vessels registered in 
category IV licenced for 
local coastal fisheries 
within six miles of the 
coast and fishing vessels 
with an overall length of 
up to 15 meters, are 
authorized to fish from 4 
miles offshore 
July 1 to July 30 in the 
Adriatic Sea between 
Monfalcone and Termoli, 
within six miles from the 
coast." 

153 

1-15 April 2015 closure 
all waters 

2015 

15-30 days 
continuous closure 
between 1 April – 
31 August in 
GSA17 

1 January to 31 
January for vessels 
larger than 12 m 
during the period 
from 21 August till 
24 December 2014 in 
the part of channel 
area, covering 
around 28% of the 
Croatian inner 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
GFCM 

Croatia 
fishing sea. And 
closure in all 
Croatian sea from 1 
May to 31 May. 

Italy 

Slovenia 

2016 

2017 

15-30 days 
continuous closure 
between 1 April – 
31 August in 
GSA17 & GSA18 
15-30 days 
continuous closure 
between 1 Oct – 31 
March for sardine 
& 1 Apr – 30 Sept 
for anchovy in 
GSA17 & GSA18 
and close 30% 
nursery area for > 6 
months (for vessels 
> 12m) 

Table 2 Measures adopted under the GFCM relating to fishing effort, capacity and 
to catches 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

2017 

2018 

Fishing capacity and catches 
Freeze capacity at 2011 levels. Ban 
fishing for juveniles. Min. catch size 
9cm (anchovy) and 11cm (sardine) 

Fishing effort 
Freezing effort at 2011 levels & 180 fishing days/year 
& 5 fishing days/week in GSA17 

180 fishing days/year & 20 fishing days/month in 
GSA17 

144 fishing days/year if targeting anchovy in GSA17 

144 fishing days/year if targeting anchovy in GSA17 

180 fishing days/year for fleet with max 144 fishing 
days if targeting anchovy or sardine in GSA17 & 18 

180 fishing days/year for fleet with max 144 fishing 
days if targeting anchovy or sardine in GSA17 & 18 

Freeze catches at 2014 level. 
Freeze capacity at 2014 level (except 
SI). 
Freeze catches at 2014 level. 
Freeze capacity at 2014 level (above 
a threshold). 

As demonstrated above, there has been a lack of stability in the measures adopted both 
at  international  level  (GFCM  rules)  and  at  national  level  (national  management  plans 
adopted under the Mediterranean Regulation). 

The international rules have changed on a yearly basis since the GFCM management plan 
was adopted in 2013:  

154 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

 

In  2014  this  management  plan  was  amended,  inter  alia  to  change  the  effort 
limitation  of  5  fishing  days/week  to  20  fishing  days/months,  and  additional 
emergency measures were adopted (reducing annual fishing effort from 180 days 
to 144 days for vessels targeting anchovy and the obligation for Partoes to adopt 
spatiotemporal closures of 15-30 days/year for the Northern Adriatic).  
In 2015 new emergency measures were adopted and the spatiotemporal closures 
were extended to the Southern Adriatic.  
In 2016, the GFCM just adopted further emergency measures, extending the 144 
fishing  day  limit  to  vessels  targeting  sardine,  and  introducing  a  freeze  in  catch 
and capacity levels (at 2014 levels) for the years 2017-2018, changing the periods 
of the year during which spatiotemporal closures should take place, introducing a 
further obligation to close 30% of nursery areas to fishing.  

The national measures have also changed frequently in Croatia, Italy and Slovenia:  

  A  management  plan  was  adopted  in  Croatia  in  2014  and  since  then  the 
management  rules  for  this  fishery  have  been  changed  through  two  additional 
pieces of national legislation.  

  A  management  plan  was  adopted  in  Slovenia  in  2014  and  since  then  the 
management rules for this fishery have been changed through an additional pieces 
of national legislation. 

  A management plan was adopted in Italy in 2011 and since then the management 
rules for this fishery have been changed through four additional pieces of national 
legislation. 

155 

 
 
 
ANNEX XII: PAST TRENDS IN SOCIO-ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE OF THE 
FISHING SECTOR FOR ANCHOVY AND SARDINE 

Table 1 presents recent trends in key economic and social parameters for the main fleet 
segments exploiting the anchovy and sardine fishery between 2008 and 2014. Across all 
fleet segments, on average, salaries have declined or remained stable over that period. In 
all  but  two  fleet  segments,  both  short-term  profitability  (=Current  revenue/Break-even 
revenue - CR/BER) and long-term profitability (=Return on Investments - ROI) as well 
as overall revenues (for anchovy and sardine) have declined or remained stable over the 
period. In 7 out of 11 fleet segments, employment has declined or remained stable. The 
only positive trend has been for revenues specifically from sardines which have increased 
in  recent  years  for  5  out  of  11  fleet  segments.  If  nothing  changes,  then  on  the  basis  of 
recent trends, the overall outlook does not appear positive in either biological or socio-
economic terms. 

156 

 
Table  1  Traffic  light  table  on  the  socio-economic  performance  of  the  fleets  targeting  small  pelagics  (red=recent  negative  trend;  green=recent 
positive trend; yellow=stable situation or variable but without any trend).  

% of total 
fishing 
pressure 

Salary 

CR/BER 

ROI 

Overall 
Revenues 

Revenues 
anchovy 

Revenues 
sardine 

(euro) 

(thousand 
euros) 

(thousand 
euros) 

(thousand 
euros) 

Employment 

(number of 
units) 

All fleets 

ITA17_TM_1218 

ITA17_TM_1824 

ITA17_TM_2440 

ITA17_PS_2440 

HRV17_PS_1218 

HRV17_PS_1824 

HRV17_PS_2440 

SVN17_PS_1218 

10.0 

8.0 

24.7 

6.3 

2.7 

10.7 

17.7 

0.1 

ITA18_TM_VL_2440 

14.7 

ITA18_PS_VL_2440 

5.0 

Key: CR/BER = ratio between current and break-even revenues. ROI = Return on Investment. The green values represent a trend > +5%, the red ones represent a decline > 5% and the 
yellow ones represent a trend of between -5% and + 5%. For fleet segment codes, see Annex III - Table 4.  

Source:  Management  scenarios  study66  –  the  tables  with  detailed  values  for  the  socio-economic  parametres  above,  by  fleet  segment,  can  be  found  in  Annex  IV. 

157 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX XIII: COHERENCE BETWEEN DIFFERENT EU MULTI-ANNUAL 
PLANS AND OVERVIEW OF EU MULTI-ANNUAL PLAN FOR BALTIC 
FISHERIES  

Coherence between EU multi-annual plans for fisheries 

One of the key tools provided by the CFP is the EU multi-annual plan. Since the entry 
into  force  of  the  current  Basic  Regulation  in  2014,  only  one  EU  multi-annual  plan  has 
been adopted, concerning the Baltic Sea7.   

At the time of submission of this Impact Assessment, the Commission was also finalising 
its proposal for the multi-annual plan for fisheries concerning demersal fish (who live at 
or near the bottom of the sea) in the North Sea, and work is ongoing on the proposals for 
multi-annual  plans  for  fisheries  in  the  western  EU  waters  and  in  the  Western 
Mediterranean.  

The coherence between the multi-annual plan for small pelagics in the Adriatic and the 
other  multi-annual  plans  referred  to  above  relate  to  their  shared  objectives  of  reaching 
sustainable  fishing  levels  by  2020  at  the  latest.  The  multi-annual  plans  also  all  include 
provisions  to  facilitate  the  implementation  of  the  landing  obligation,  and  to  enable  the 
process  of  regional  decision  making  for  concrete  management  and  conservation 
measures.  Within  this  shared  framework,  each  multi-annual  plan  retains  specificities 
stemming from the particular characteristics and problems faced by the fisheries and sea 
basins concerned.  In the small pelagic fishery in the Adriatic, for example, by-catch and 
discarding  is  not  an  important  problem  whereas  it  may  be  a  key  problem  for  other 
fisheries or sea basins.  

Baltic Multi-annual plan 

In July 2016, the multi-annual plan for Baltic fisheries was adopted. The main elements 
are presented below. 

The Regulation establishes a multiannual plan for stocks of cod, herring and sprat in the 
Union  waters  of  the  Baltic  Sea  and for  the  fisheries  exploiting  the stocks  concerned.  It 
also contains measures concerning plaice, flounder, turbot and brill caught as by-catch in 
the Baltic Sea. 

Fishing mortality ranges 
The plan will include fishing mortality targets in the form of FMSY ranges, which will be 
stipulated in an annex  to the plan, for the stocks covered by the plan. The FMSY ranges 
will be split into two parts and the use of the upper part of the ranges will be conditioned 
as follows: the upper part of the range may only be used due to mixed-fisheries issues, to 
avoid serious harm to a stock caused by intra- or inter-species stock dynamics, or to limit 
variations in fishing opportunities between consecutive years to not more than 20%. 

The  plan  does  not  include  an  empowerment  to  the  Commission  to  update  the  ranges 
when scientific advice changes. 

158 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Safeguards 
The  plan  stipulates  biomass  safeguards  for  the  main  targeted  stocks.  Whenever  the 
biomass  of  a  stock  falls  below  a  certain  threshold,  stipulated  in  an  Annex  to  the  plan, 
remedial  action  shall  be  taken.  This  includes  setting  a  TAC  at a  fishing  mortality  level 
below  the  FMSY  ranges  if  the  biomass  falls  below  the  respective  triggers,  and  taking 
further measures, including a suspension of the targeted fishery for the stock in question, 
if the biomass falls below the respective limit reference point. 

Regionalised measures 
The  plan  empowers  the  Commission  to  adopt  specific  conservations  measures  when 
scientific  advice  states  that  remedial  action  is  required  to  protect  any  of  the  stocks 
covered by this regulation. The plan also empowers the Commission to adopt follow-up 
measures of the current "discard plans", i.e. exemptions from the landing obligation. As 
established in Art. 18 of the Basic Regulation, both kind of regionalised measures will be 
based on Joint Recommendations from the Member States concerned and will be adopted 
as delegated acts. 

Control measures 
The plan sets out additional control measures, such as the use of prior notifications and 
logbooks  and  establishing  thresholds  for  the  obligation  to  land  catches  in  designated 
ports as required by the fisheries Control Regulation Regulation (EC)60. 

Evaluation of the plan 
The  Commission  shall  report  to  the  European  Parliament  and  to  the  Council  on  the 
results and impact of the plan on the stocks covered by this Regulation three years after 
the date of entry into force of the Regulation and every five years thereafter. 

159 

 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX XIV: OVERVIEW OF THE PREFERRED OPTION – MAIN ELEMENTS 
OF AN EU MULTI-ANNUAL PLAN FOR SMALL PELAGICS AND THEIR 
FISHERIES IN THE ADRIATIC 

Context 

The following provisions of the Basic regulation are of relevance to the plan: 

 

 

 

 

Article 9 and 10 of the Basic Regulation contains provisions on the  objectives 
and contents of multi-annual plans. In accordance with Article 10 of the Basic 
Regulation multi-annual plans should contain quantifiable targets. Such targets 
should  be  supplemented  with  safeguard  provisions  linked  to  a  trigger 
conservation reference point.  

Pursuant to Article 15 of the Basic Regulation the landing obligation applies to 
small pelagic fisheries (i.e. fisheries for mackerel, herring, horse mackerel, blue 
whiting,  boarfish,  anchovy,  argentine,  sardine,  sprat),  anywhere  in  EU  waters, 
since 1 January 2015. In accordance with Article 15(5) of the Basic Regulation, 
Details  of  the  implementation  of  the  landing  obligation  shall  be  specified  in 
multiannual plans, including:  

(a) 

specific  provisions  regarding  fisheries  or  species  covered  by  the  landing 
obligation;  

(b) 

the specification of exemptions to the landing obligation;  

(c)  provisions for de minimis exemptions of up to 5 % of total annual catches 
of  all  species  subject  to  the  landing  obligation,  in  order  to  avoid 
disproportionate costs of handling unwanted catches 

According  to  Article  16(7)  of  the  Basic  Regulation,  when  allocating  fishing 
opportunities  pertaining  to  mixed  fisheries,  Member  States  should  take 
account of the likely catch composition of vessels participating in such fisheries. 
In  order  to  achieve  this,  Member  States  may  adopt  national  measures,  such  as 
retaining  certain  reserves  of  the  national  quota  available  or  carrying  out  quota 
swaps with other Member States.  

In  accordance  with  Article  18  of  the  Basic  Regulation,  Member  States  having 
direct  management  interest  may  submit  joint  recommendations  for,  amongst 
others, certain measures to be adopted, where the Commission has been granted 
power to adopt implementing or delegated acts for achieving the objectives of a 
multi-annual plan.  

The  plan  also  contains  specific  control  provisions  destined  to  adapt  to  the  specific 
context of the Adriatic small pelagic fisheries, the general control measures established in 
Regulation  1224/200960,  which  provides  for  the  legislative  framework  of  control, 
inspection and enforcement to ensure compliance with the rules of the CFP. The relevant 
provisions of Regulation 1224/2009 are the following:  

 

According  to  Article  9,  a  fishing  vessel  of  12  metres’  length  overall  or  more 
shall have installed on board a fully functioning device which allows that vessel 
to  be  automatically  located  and  identified  through  the  vessel  monitoring 
system by transmitting position data at regular intervals. It shall also allow the 
fisheries monitoring centre of the flag Member State to poll the fishing vessel. 

160 

 
 
 

 

According  to  Article  15,  masters  of  EU  fishing  vessels  of  12  metres’  length 
overall  or  more  shall  use  electronic  logbooks  and  shall  send  it  by  electronic 
means to the competent authority of the flag Member State at least once a day.  

According to Article 17 of this Regulation, masters of EU fishing vessels of 12 
metres’  length  overall  or  more  engaged  in  fisheries  on  stocks  subject  to  a 
multiannual plan, which are under the obligation to record fishing logbook data 
electronically,  must  notify  the  competent  authorities  of  their  flag  Member 
State  at  least  four  hours  before  the  estimated  time  of  arrival  at  port  a  set  of 
information about the vessel and catches.  

It  may  be  appropriate  to  adapt  both  these  provisions  to  the  specific  nature  of  a  given 
fishery via a multi-annual plan.  

 

In line with Article 43 of this Regulation multi-annual plans may determine the 
thresholds  above  which  catches  of  stocks  subject  to  multi-annual  plans  be 
landed in designated ports. 

Contents 

In  accordance  with  the  overall  ambition  of  the  CFP  on  the  conservation  of  fisheries 
resources and with specific regards to Articles 9 and 10 of the Basic Regulation, the main 
elements of the plan would be: 

 

 

 

 

 

The  scope  of  the  plan  is  small  pelagic  stocks,  specifically  anchovy, 
sardine  as  primary  species,  as  well  as  mackerel  and  horse  mackerel,  and 
the fisheries exploiting those stocks in the Adriatic Sea.  

The  objectives  of  the  plan  are  to  contribute  to  the  achievement  of  the 
objectives of the CFP, and especially reaching and maintaining MSY for 
the  stocks  concerned,  achieving  a  sustainable  fisheries  sector  and 
providing an effective management framework. The plan also contributes 
to facilitate the implementation of the landing obligation. 

The  proposed  targets  are  expressed  as  fishing  mortality  ranges  around 
FMSY  as  advised  by  STECF  with  a  deadline  of  2020  at  the  latest.  These 
FMSY  ranges  allow  for  a  maximum  sustainable  yield-based  management 
for the stocks concerned and provide a high  level of predictability to the 
sector. Targets in terms of fishing mortality ranges would be included for 
anchovy  and  sardine  and  the  ranges  were  advised  by  the  STECF11Error! 
Bookmark  not  defined..  These  ranges  allow  for  a  MSY-based  management  for 
these stocks, and appear to allow for adaptations in case of changes in the 
scientific  advice,  while  at  the  same  time  preserving  a  high  level  of 
predictability.  For  fish  stocks  for  which  available  (anchovy  and  sardine), 
these reference points are expressed as a spawning stock biomass. 

The  conservation  reference  points,  expressed  in  tonnes  of  spawning 
stock  biomass  or  abundance  in  numbers,  included  in  the  plan  are 
determined by STECF. 

Safeguards  and  specific  conservation  measures  are  linked  to  the 
conservation reference points. When scientific advice states that any of the 
stocks  concerned  is  below  that  point,  the  TAC  for  that  stock  should  be 
reduced.  This  measure  may  be  complemented  as  necessary  by  measures 
such  as  technical  measures,  Commission  or  Member  State  emergency 

161 

 
 
 

 

 

 

 

measures.  Some  of 
regionalisation.  

these  measures  may  be  adopted 

through 

Total allowable catches the plan includes a provision requiring Member 
States to ensure that the national quota is allocated within the national fleet 
in  accordance  with  the  composition  of  the  catches  that  the  vessels  are 
likely to take, to reduce the risks that quotas are exceeded. 

Provisions  linked  to  the  landing  obligation  to  be  adopted  under 
regionalisation are necessary to prolong (and/or amend) exemptions from 
the 
landing  obligation  for  species  for  which  scientific  evidence 
demonstrates  high  survival  rates,  and  "de  minimis"  exemptions,  in  line 
with  the  development  of  scientific  advice.  Currently  such  exemptions, 
adopted under the Discard Plan for the Mediterranean17, have a three year 
lifespan. 

The  plan  establishes  regional  cooperation  among  Member  States  in 
respect  of  adopting  provisions  for  the  landing  obligation  and  specific 
conservation measures, including technical measures, for certain stocks. 

Control  provisions  are  provided  on  vessel  monitoring  system  (VMS), 
prior  notification,  logbooks  and  designated  ports.  Regarding  prior 
notification,  it  is  necessary  to  adapt  the  general  rules  of  Regulation 
1224/2009  to  the  particularities  of  the  Adriatic  Sea  and  its  small  pelagic 
fisheries.  Regarding  logbooks  and  VMS,  the  provisions  included  in 
Regulation  1224/2009  are  expanded  to  cover  all  vessels  above  8  metres 
length  overall  to  improve  control  of  the  fisheries  covered  by  the  plan. 
Regarding designated ports, a threshold is provided in the proposal above 
which anchovy and sardine should only be landed in ports with enhanced 
control.  

Periodic evaluation of the plan based on scientific advice: the plan should 
be  evaluated  every  five  years.  This  period  allows,  initially,  for  the  full 
implementation of the landing obligation and for regionalised measures to 
be  adopted,  implemented  and  to  show  effects  on  the  stocks  and  fishery. 
This is also a minimum required period by scientific bodies37. 

162