Strengthening local resource management.
Date: 2018-07-01
Institutions: Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries
Subjects: fishery management, fishery resources, fishing industry, sustainable fisheries, user guide

ISSN 2363-4030

G U I D E   # 1 6

Strengthening local  
resource management

EN

Authors :

Arthur Rigaud, Benoît Guerin, Gilles van de Walle, Thomas Binet. 

Credits:

(8) Sergi Tudela, (9) Eddie Moore, (9) FARNET Support Unit, (14) Pontevedra FLAG, (20) Comité Départemental des Pêches Maritimes et des Élevages 

Marins du Finistère, (21) Télécapêche, (21) North Kurzeme FLAG, (32) Holderness FLAG.

Production:

DevNet geie (AEIDL/Grupo Alba)/Kaligram.

Contact:  

FARNET Support Unit  

Rue de la Loi 38, boîte 2 I B-1040 Brussels  

+32 2 613 26 50 | info@farnet.eu | www.farnet.eu

Editor: 

European Commission, Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, Director-General. 

Disclaimer: 

Whilst the Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries is responsible for the overall production of this publication, it is not responsible for the 

accuracy, content or views expressed within particular articles. The European Commission has not, save where otherwise stated, adopted or in any way 

approved any view appearing in this publication and statements should not be relied upon as statements of the Commission’s or the Directorate-General 

for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries’ views. The European Commission does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this publication, nor does the 

European Commission or any person acting on its behalf accept responsibility for any use made thereof.

ISBN 978-92-79-90707-4

ISSN 2363-4030

doi:10.2771/450184

© European Union, 2017.

Strengthening local resource management # 2 

Contents

List of acronyms  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Factsheet 1 Local resource co-management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Factsheet 2 Managing Natura 2000 sites and marine protected areas  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Factsheet 3 Monitoring local fisheries resources and fishing activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Factsheet 4 Sustainable fisheries certification  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Factsheet 5 Improving practices and applying the landing obligation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Key concepts and policies governing local resource management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

List of acronyms

MPA 
GES  
AC 
ICES 
STECF 

Marine Protected Area
Good Environmental Status 
Advisory Council 
International Council for the Exploration of the Sea
Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee  
for Fisheries
Birds Directive
Habitats Directive

BD 
HD 
MSFD   Marine Strategy Framework Directive
European Fisheries Fund (2007-2013) 
EFF  

EMFF 
FLAG  
IFCA 
IUU  
ENGO 
CFP 
MSY 
TAC 
SAC 
UEGC 

European Maritime and Fisheries Fund
Fisheries Local Action Group
Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority
Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing 
Environmental Non-governmental Organisation
Common Fisheries Policy
Maximum Sustainable Yield
Total Allowable Catch 
Special Area of Conservation 
Concerted Exploitation and Management Units

Strengthening local resource management # 3 

Foreword

The Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) governs water and fisheries area management in the European Union (EU). As such, it is the 
principal body of law covering fisheries areas and aquaculture. However, there are other EU policies that directly or indirectly affect 
fisheries and aquaculture activities. 

Most notably, these include the EU’s marine and environmental policies, as defined in the Marine Strategy Framework Directive 
(MSFD), the Water Framework Directive (WFD), and the Birds and Habitats Directives. EU Member States are responsible for imple-
menting these directives. They are applied locally in different ways, depending on national and regional institutional arrangements. 

Fisheries Local Action Groups (FLAGs), as development organisations working on the ground, are in a strong position to support 
and encourage more inclusive local resource management processes. 

While FLAGs are not specifically mandated to manage fisheries resources, development can only happen sustainably if the resourc-
es on which it depends are managed properly. For that reason, FLAGs have every reason to be involved in supporting local resource 
management initiatives. 

Ahead of the “FLAGs and local resource management” seminar, held in Vigo, Spain, on 13-15 March 2018, the FARNET Support 
Unit asked FLAG network representatives for information about the extent of their activities on this issue. The following conclusions 
can be drawn from a quick analysis of the feedback received: 

 \ Most FLAGs (almost 70%) have, at some stage, supported projects that aim to foster more sustainable fisheries and aquaculture 
development. In effect, development is a cross-cutting theme that encompasses a wide range of sub-themes, each of varying 
importance  across  different  FLAG  territories.  For  instance,  while  70%  of  FLAGs  are  keen  to  develop  local  co-management 
initiatives, less than half said they have already supported a project that specifically targets this issue. 

 \ The same applies to environmental certification and fishing activity monitoring. Both are topics of particular interest to FLAGs 

(mentioned by 60% of them), but only around one-third have supported local projects that touch on these themes. 

 \ Based on the questionnaire answers, we opted to group fishing gear innovation and landing obligation together. While these are 
seemingly lesser priorities for individual FLAGs, it is nevertheless worth addressing them in this guide. Although these technical 
themes are important for fishing communities, FLAGs themselves probably have limited understanding and interest in them. 
Clarifying what the law says about these subjects, and outlining what role and action FLAGs could take on this front, might well 
help the fisheries sector take greater ownership of these issues.

 \ Lastly, more than 65% of FLAGs stated that the territory they covered contains a marine protected area (MPA), and 9 out of 10 
stated their territory includes a Natura 2000 site. While most FLAGs have limited interest in helping set up an MPA, around half 
mentioned the importance of technical and financial assistance to support fishing activity management in these areas. 

Strengthening local resource management # 4 

This brief overview raises several questions about local resource management: 

 \ How can FLAGs be actively involved in designing and implementing an inclusive local resource management process, and what 

role could they play in this process? 

 \ How can FLAGs help make local activities more sustainable and contribute to protecting the environment?

 \ What is the best way to integrate fisheries and aquaculture activities in protected areas? What can FLAGs do to make these 
activities more socially acceptable and get local people and the fisheries sector involved in supporting their development? 

This guide will seek to answer these questions from both a methodological and practical standpoint. It is divided into five thematic 
factsheets:

Factsheet 1 Local resource co-management

Factsheet 2 Managing Natura 2000 sites and marine protected areas

Factsheet 3 Monitoring local fisheries resources and fishing activities

Factsheet 4 Sustainable fisheries certification

Factsheet 5 Improving practices and applying the landing obligation

Readers are invited to consult the factsheet(s) most relevant to their local circumstances. Each factsheet also features case studies 
of FLAG initiatives and activities, along with references to other sources of information.

In  addition  to  these  five  factsheets,  the  guide  also  contains  a  handy  overview  of  key  laws,  policies  and  concepts  around  local 
resource management. We will refer to this section at regular intervals throughout the guide, whenever we introduce a concept or 
legal aspect in one of the factsheets. 

Strengthening local resource management # 5 

Factsheet 1 
Local resource co-management 

1.1  What is this factsheet about?

Fisheries co-management is a model under which user groups and authorities are jointly involved in regulating fisheries activities. 
Under this arrangement, users manage fisheries resources (and associated activities) as equals alongside “conventional” managing 
entities (such as authorities or national parks). In practice, co-management comes in many different shapes and sizes, depending 
on the extent to which decision-making power is really shared with users. 

Fisheries management in the EU

Technical measure 

Regulated access to fisheries resources 

Conserving productive and reproductive capacity of stock

Allocating limited capacities between operators

Selective  

catches 

Limited total  

allowable catch

Selection of authorised 

Introduction of individual 

operators/vessels

sharing arrangements 

Figure 1 : The two key components of fisheries management (adapted from Boncoeur, 2006)

Co-management is built on three cornerstones – having the right institutional arrangements in place to enable users to participate, 
harnessing all available knowledge, and reforming the existing institutional structure.

Science is vital in this process because scientific knowledge plays a decisive role in fisheries management. Catches and fishing 
methods are strongly influenced by scientific advice. 

Fisheries co-management is part of the global debate around renewable natural resource exploitation, and the use of common 
goods more generally. The model has many benefits, as evidenced in various scientific publications: 

 \ It allows resources to be managed in a way suited to the local context and circumstances / CONTEXT;

 \ It streamlines and shortens the decision-making process / EFFICIENCY;

 \ It includes local knowledge / CREDIBILITY;

 \ It strengthens compliance with the rules / LEGITIMACY;

 \ It strengthens the legitimacy of the rules because users are included in the process / DISPUTE RESOLUTION.

Strengthening local resource management # 6 

Factsheet 1 Local resource co-management 
  A step-by-step guide to introducing fisheries co-management1

1. Demarcate the territory

Wherever  possible,  the  territory  covered 
by  the  co-management  model  should  be 
a  uniform  fisheries  area.  The  definition  of 
“fishery”  is  a  useful  guide  for  determining 
what a uniform area entails. It is defined as 
follows: “A  geographically  delimited  fishing 
capacity management entity where multiple 
fishermen  operate,  catching  species  living 
in  habitats  with  similar  traits.”2 A  fishery  is 
characterised  by  the  fishing  gear  used,  the 
species caught, and the fisheries area.

2. Set up the co-management platform

ENVIRONMENT

UPSTREAM

4. High-quality  

fishery development

1. Demarcation of the 

Concerted Exploitation  

2. Consultation  

and Management Unit’s 

platform

5. Control

(UEGC) territory

3. Identification of target  

markets and sector  

organisational arrangements

MARKET

DOWNSTREAM 

 \ Build a framework for consultation between the upstream and downstream parts of the sector.

 \ Create a management body, led by a coordinator/facilitator, to share information and gather views from all parties.

 \ Carry out a joint assessment of the state of the fishery (economic, social and environmental conditions) – a baseline 

position that all parties agree with.

 \ Agree on a roadmap setting out 10-year targets for managing a sustainable fishery.

 \ Define a list of indicators to measure how the management process drives progress towards the agreed targets.

3. Identify high-value markets and organise the sector accordingly

The challenge is to adjust catches to the right level – and adopt the right fishing methods (boat type and size, gear, etc.) – so 
as to extract maximum economic and social value from local productive capacity and marine resources, in a way that benefits 
the entire sector.

4. Lay down the rules

Fisheries  should  set  a  quota  according  to  the  fisheries  area’s  biological  productivity,  which  in  turn  depends  on  ecosystem 
health. The quota is then shared between users (see Figure 1).
Fishermen can use their own expertise to determine what gear is allowed and what other factors to take into consideration 
(such as seasonal closures).

5. Enforce the rules

Fisheries  should  ensure  the  rules  are  strictly  enforced  across  the  sector,  to  prevent  fraud  and  irresponsible  behaviour  by  a 
minority undermining the efforts of the majority.

1 

2 

Pour une pêche durable en France et en Europe, proposal from the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), 2007.

L'approche par pêcherie: definition proposed by the French Research Institute for Exploitation of the Sea (IFREMER), January 2008.

Strengthening local resource management # 7 

Factsheet 1 Local resource co-management1.2  The role of FLAGs: possible options

FLAGs can play a vital role in setting up local fisheries co-management arrangements, for example by: 

 \ Strengthening user involvement (training, attending meetings, etc.);

 \ Acting as a unifying force for all relevant parties (defined in the scientific literature as a “pivot organisation”, Berkes F., 2009) and 

as a facilitator (considering the full breadth of opinion); 

 \ Setting up or strengthening inshore fisheries management organisations to help decentralise fisheries management; 

 \ Taking part in research involving users (“participatory research”) to improve scientific knowledge; 

 \ Helping  to  introduce  self-assessment  procedures  (getting  users  involved  in  monitoring  their  fisheries  areas)  to  strengthen 

compliance with the law.

Below  are  three  examples  of  FLAG-backed  projects  that  perfectly  illustrate  why  co-management  initiatives  are  important,  and 
the impact they can have. Because FLAGs bring together actors such as fishermen, managers, scientists and environmentalists (to 
name but a few), they are well-placed to play their part in developing local co-management models. 

 Sergi Tudela, Director General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries,  

Autonomous Community of Catalonia (Spain) 

We  began  trialling  new  fisheries  co-management  models  in  Catalonia  in  2012, 
with promising results. The Directorate General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries 
therefore  decided  to  write  co-management  into  fisheries  legislation  so  that  the 
model could be applied to all management plans under its responsibility. Special co-
management committees have been set up; with fishermen, managers, scientists 
and environmentalists all having an equal say in the decision-making process.

Because  local,  multi-stakeholder,  committees  act  as  managing  authorities, 
management  decisions  are  taken  much  closer  to  the  action  and  to  coastal  communities. This  arrangement  fosters  greater 
responsibility and strengthens compliance with the rules, as well as making it easier to reach environmentally and economically 
acceptable solutions. Based on our experience, we believe that co-management models are perfectly suited to Mediterranean 
inshore fisheries, which range from small boats catching sand eel with Seine nets (where the initial sale price has increased 
thirty-fold  in  five  years)  to  local  trawler  fleets  (in  areas  where  fishermen  have  voluntarily  set  up  no-fishing  zones  along  the 
Girona coast). This approach also supports local development initiatives in areas that rely on fishing.

The two FLAGs that cover most of Catalonia’s fisheries areas (Mar de l’Ebre, and the Costa Brava to the north)  are chaired by 
representatives of local fishermen’s federations (known as cofradías in Spanish) and often build on the achievements of local 
co-management  initiatives. The  Catalan  government  also  plans  to  expand  the  co-management  model  to  encompass  other 
sectors in particularly sensitive areas (such as the Formigues Islands and the Costa Brava) and has similar plans for Catalonia’s 
maritime policy (having recently created a new Catalan Council for Maritime Co-management). 

Strengthening local resource management # 8 

Factsheet 1 Local resource co-management Eddie Moore, inshore fisherman, chair of the South-West Regional Inshore Fisheries Forum  

and vice-chair of the National Inshore Fisheries Forum (Republic of Ireland) 

Fishermen have long been trying to organise themselves in order to give Ireland’s inshore 
fisheries sector a voice, but they’ve always found it impossible to present a unified front. 
I  think  the  new  National  Inshore  Fisheries  Forum  has  solved  that  problem.  It’s  far  from 
perfect,  but  that  will  come  with  time.  I’ve  been  a  fisherman  for  almost  40  years  now. 
Attending the forum meetings has helped me realise that fishermen aren’t the only ones 
frustrated with the lack of organisation in the inshore sector. 

How can we solve the problems we face without a place that allows managing authorities 
and the inshore sector to communicate? The future of the Inshore Fisheries Forums lies in 
fishermen’s hands. The Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine and Bord Iascaigh 
Mhara  (BIM,  Ireland’s  Seafood  Development  Agency)  have  worked  together  with  the 
European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) and the FLAGs to give us a voice.3 I’d like to see more fishermen – and women – 
attending these forums. There’s a lot of work to do and too few people to do it. We have to build on what we’ve achieved so far and 
keep the momentum. Inshore fisheries need to be managed locally. There’s no one-size-fits-all model. With all the changes that lie 
ahead, it would be a crying shame if the inshore fisheries sector was no longer able to speak with one voice through these forums. 

 Teresa Cruz, scientists, Marine and Environmental Sciences Centre (MARE), Laboratory of Sea Sciences, 

University of Évora, Sines (Portugal)

Al  Percebe  (the  goose  barnacle)  is  a  joint  project  between  the  University  of  Évora,  the 
Littoral Alentejano FLAG, Associação de Mariscadores da Terra do Vasco da Gama (a local 
hand-gatherers’  association)  and  Associação  de  Armadores  da  Pesca  Artesanal  e  do  Cerco 
do Sudoeste Alentejano e Costa Vicentina (a regional fishermen’s association). The project, 
co-financed by EMFF, began in January 2018 and will run until December 2020. 

The  project’s  main  aim  is  to  assess  and  improve  the  current  situation  of  the  goose 
barnacle  (Pollicipes  pollicipes)  stocks  at  Sines  Cape  and  to  change  how  the  resource 
is  managed  locally  by  transferring  knowledge  between  scientists  and  fishermen.  The 
project will involve six activities: 1/ devising and implementing an experimental fisheries 
co-management system at Sines Cape; 2/ monitoring the status of the resource and the 
fishery; 3/ restoring fished areas on a trial basis; 4/ commercialising the species across the 
Alentejo region; 5/ improving scientific research capabilities and strengthening fishermen’s organisations to allow them to play 
a greater management role; and 6/ disseminating co-management best practice and project outcomes. 

3 

The FLAGs helped set up the National Inshore Fisheries Forum.

Strengthening local resource management # 9 

Factsheet 1 Local resource co-management1.3  Key success factors and possible obstacles

 \ Have all FLAG members agree on a shared vision of their marine territory (move away from blinkered view and see the bigger picture);

 \ Harness fishermen’s empirical knowledge through a local management system;

 \ Play a role in local sustainable development;

 \ Set up a flexible, scalable governance system to account for constantly changing circumstances;

 \ Curb illegal practices by getting users involved in, supportive of, and accountable for the success of local management.

1.4  Further information

 \ Co-managing the Coastal Zone: Is the Task too Complex? Jentoft, S. (2000b). Ocean and Coastal Management, 43, 527–535.

 \ Decentralising : The implementation of regionalisation and co-management under the post-2013 Common Fisheries Policy 

(S.Q. Eliasen, T. J. Hegland, J. Raakjær, 2015).

 \ Co-management in fisheries – Experiences and changing approaches in Europe (S. Linke and K. Bruckmeier, 2015).

 \ Evolution of co-management : role of knowledge generation, bridging organizations and social learning. (Berkes, F. 2009) Journal 

of Environmental Management 90(5) : 1692-1702. 

 \ Managing Small-scale fisheries. Alternative Directions and Methods. (Berkes F. & al. 2001). International Development Research 

Centre. ISBN 0-88936-943-7.

 \ Fishery Co-Management. A Practical Handbook. (Pomeroy R.S. & Rivera-Guieb R. 2006). International Development Research. 

Centre. ISBN 1-55250-184-1.

Strengthening local resource management # 10 

Factsheet 1 Local resource co-managementFactsheet 2 
Managing Natura 2000 sites and 
marine protected areas

2.1  What is this factsheet about?

EU marine protected areas (MPAs) come in many shapes and sizes and have different objectives. In recent decades, Member States 
have stepped up their efforts to develop these protected areas. As a consequence of this momentum, and of the Birds and Habitats 
Directives, 4 the Natura 2000 network now covers 18% of the EU’s land mass and 6% of its marine territory. Both Natura 2000 directives 
are designed to restore or maintain favourable conservation status. The Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) has a similar 
aim – reaching or maintaining a good environmental status of marine waters (see “Key concepts” section later in this guide).

Progress towards numerical targets has been hampered by shortcomings in the implementation of MPAs across Europe, especially 
marine Natura 2000 sites. An inability to address environmental changes outside the boundaries of each site, a lack of reliable data, 
and only limited impact on modifying behaviours are just some of the weaknesses from which the network suffers. In addition, the 
entire process includes a lot of red tape and the network is beset by managerial problems. More generally, the Natura 2000 policy 
is considered overly technical and is little-known among the general public.5 

These issues can only be addressed through qualitative improvements to the legal and governance framework, and by ensuring 
that adequate quality and numbers of staff and managers are in place. FLAGs could play a decisive role in MPAs and Natura 2000 
sites because they rely on local knowledge and participation.

2.2  The role of FLAGs: possible options

MPAs have a dedicated management plan, whereas Natura 2000 sites are managed based on documented targets. These MPAs are 
ineffective and fail to achieve the expected outcomes because this system is often described as being “out of touch” with the reality 
on the ground and the people and organisations who live and work there.6 FLAGs are managed differently. They cover many of the 
same broad themes addressed by an MPA and, as such, are well-placed to table innovative proposals to managing authorities and 
stakeholders, thereby helping the MPA achieve its targets. Consequently, they play a vital role in empowering stakeholders in the 
territory or MPA in which they work.

4 

The Birds Directive (Directive 2009/147/EC of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds) sets out the rules governing the protection, 
management and regulation of wild bird species. It applies to birds as well as their eggs, nests and habitats. The Habitats Directive (Directive 92/43/

EEC of 21 May 1992) concerns the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora.

5  Rouveyrol P., 2016. Evaluer l’efficacité de la mise en œuvre des directives Nature en France : synthèse bibliographique et perspectives de travail – 

MNHN-SPN. 52 p.

6  Chaboud C., Galleti F., 2007. Les aires marines protégées, catégorie particulière pour le droit et l’économie ? Monde en développement n°138, p27-42.

Strengthening local resource management # 11 

Factsheet 2 Managing Natura 2000 sites and marine protected areasa.  Contributing to MPA management and design

By virtue of their unifying role, FLAGs can help to ensure that a project is a genuine team effort involving all relevant stakeholders. They 
provide a forum for professionals to state their expectations and share their views about how the MPA should be regulated. Stakeholders 
outline a series of scenarios, both for themselves and for the area in question, before collectively approving the best option.

An example of this process in action is the creation of a wilderness reserve off the coast of Agde, on France’s Mediterranean sea-
board, where fishermen were fully involved in the process (FLAG for the Thau basin and the coastal area from Frontignan to Agde, 
Occitania, France).

This is a prime example of a process where a FLAG has been directly involved in bottom-up management, helping to promote 
ownership of conservation issues by engaging local stakeholders and creating a forum for people and organisations to meet and 
discuss. FLAGs provide a unique opportunity for local members to make their voice heard and to implement effective MPA co-man-
agement models (see Factsheet 1 of this guide).

Two further examples, again from France, clearly show how FLAGs can contribute to setting up protected areas: 

 \ The Marennes Oléron FLAG (Nouvelle Aquitaine) helped recruit a coordinator tasked with involving fishermen in the creation 

of the Gironde Estuary and Pertuis Charentais Marine Natural Park.

 \ As part of the recent expansion of the Belle-Île-en-Mer Natura 2000 special area of conservation (SAC), the island’s inter-municipal 
community asked the Pays d’Auray FLAG (Brittany) to make sure fishermen were involved in the new management plans and 
in achieving the area’s conservation targets. FLAG funds were used to hire an official tasked with consulting fishermen and their 
local representatives about ways to strengthen monitoring of fishing in the SAC and to help develop fishing-related activities, 
including a new fishing tourism industry. 

More generally, both projects helped bring about a step-change in relations between environmental management authorities 
and fishermen.

  Expert advice

 \ Identify and involve, from the outset, all relevant stakeholders in preparing for and implementing the creation process;

 \ Have the process managed locally so that it is appropriate to the situation on the ground and set up a network of local 

coordinators and experts;

 \ Manage interactions between marine and inland sites through effective coordination.

  Tools7

 \ Interactive discussion platforms.

 \ Territorial Use Rights for Fishing (TURF) Reserve7: a special area where a group of fishermen is granted exclusive access 

and is responsible for working together to manage local resources, to counter the impact of overfishing in inshore fisheries.

 \ Co-management tools (see Factsheet 1).

7  Christy, F.T.Jr., Territorial use rights in marine fisheries : definitions and conditions. 1982. FAO Fish.Tech.Pap., (227) : 10 p.

Strengthening local resource management # 12 

Factsheet 2 Managing Natura 2000 sites and marine protected areasb.  Reducing fishing effort in the MPA

FLAGs can suggest ways for fishermen to reducing fishing effort in a newly designated MPA. When an integral protected area is 
created, fishermen can still continue working by focusing on a different area, catching different species, and concentrating their 
activities in a given period. 

The  Litoral  Cadiz  Estrecho  FLAG  (Andalusia,  Spain)  is  currently  pursuing  precisely  this  objective.  Local  fishermen  are  already 
playing an active role in resource preservation and have long worked with the FLAG to reduce fishing effort to allow fish stocks to 
recover – for example by banning fishing at certain times of year and introducing minimum catch sizes. Although there is no MPA 
in the area yet, the FLAG has tabled plans to create one – again with the aim of better managing and reducing fishing effort.

  Expert advice

 \ Carry out inclusive assessments to reach a shared vision of the situation and targets;

 \ Foster more sustainable fishing practices, innovative projects promoted by professional fishermen (such as “sea sentinels” 

initiatives), and protected or vulnerable species counts. 

  Tools

 \ TURF Reserve: a special area where a group of fishermen is granted exclusive access and is responsible for working 

together to manage local resources, to counter the impact of overfishing in inshore fisheries.

 \ Framework for Integrated Stock and Habitat Evaluation (FISHE): a step-by-step process for providing scientific guidance 

for the management of data-limited fisheries.

 \ Improve fishing practices (see Factsheet 5).

c.  Diversifying fishing activities and contributing to local development

One of the core tasks of FLAGs is to promote local value as exemplified in its products and people. Fish caught in an MPA has its own in-
trinsic value. It represents the MPA’s brand image – both as a marketing tool and, more importantly, as a demonstration of sustainable 
fishing. FLAGs therefore play an important role in embedding professional fisheries in the local community, improving local seafood 
consumption habits, promoting local produce, and strengthening local employment conditions, especially for young people.

  Expert advice

 \ Consider different territorial scales when designing practical responses to sectors’ economic needs;

 \ Report on local sector job creation and sustain and promote existing initiatives;

 \ Clarify FLAG funding opportunities in Natura 2000 sites and other MPAs;

 \ Build on the FARNET FLAG network’s experience in supporting diversification activities.

Strengthening local resource management # 13 

Factsheet 2 Managing Natura 2000 sites and marine protected areasd. Monitoring fisheries resources and managing fishing activities

Monitoring marine resources is a vital part of MPAs’ role. FLAGs can play their part in this process to ensure that resources are properly 
monitored in the MPA. For instance, the Iroise Marine Nature Park (Brittany, France) publishes an annual, colour-coded indicator to 
compare performance against targets in the management plan, per species or habitat group.8 FLAGs can also be involved in develop-
ing monitoring tools of this type. The resulting indicators can also be fed into assessment frameworks showing how the conservation 
status of environments has changed over time and, therefore, informing and improving the MPA’s management policy.  

The  GOBPESC  project,  promoted  by  five  cofradías  (fishermen’s  federations) 
in  Galicia,  Spain,  received  support  from  three  FLAGs  (Ria  de  Arousa,  Ria  de 
Pontevedra  and  Ria  de  Vigo-A  Guarda)  to  strengthen  small-scale  fishing 
governance and management in the Atlantic Islands of Galicia National Park. 
One of the project’s main objectives was to actively engage fishermen in park 
water management by involving them in monitoring fisheries resources and 
fishing activities. Management proposals (such as setting up workable surveil-
lance systems as agreed with fishermen) were developed using biological and 
socio-economic data compiled and analysed as part of the project.

  Expert advice

 \ Make sure resources are appropriately, regularly and rigorously monitored in detail;

 \ Assess outcomes to check whether measures have proven genuinely effective and adjust where necessary;

 \ Consider scientific progress when devising the work programme;

 \ Suggest shared methodologies, such as evaluation tools;

 \ Support projects in marine conservation zones and other MPAs.

  Tools

 \ FISHE.

 \ Assessment frameworks with indicators. 

 \ Participatory monitoring and surveillance (see Factsheet 3).

e.  Protecting ecosystems

Environmental protection measures can only be truly effective if they are planned and implemented according to a detailed pro-
gram and accompanied by appropriate technical specifications. FLAGs can play their part in setting conservation targets. These 
targets should be specific to each protected area, since environmental and socio-economic conditions differ from one MPA to the 
next, even if they are home to the same species and/or habitats.  

8 

Iroise Marine Nature Park, 2017.

Strengthening local resource management # 14 

Factsheet 2 Managing Natura 2000 sites and marine protected areasAnother way to protect ecosystems is to set up a participatory surveillance system within the protected area, whereby fishermen 
play a front-line monitoring and enforcement role (such as illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing). FLAGs can also help 
local  people  devise  and  implement  effective  systems  to  protect  habitats  of  community  interest,  along  with  ways  to  work  with 
fishermen on surveillance and enforcement. 

For  example,  the  Slowinska  FLAG  (Pomorskie  Region,  Poland)  backed  a  project  to  create  new  lakes  in  a  Natura  2000  site  to 
promote the growth and breeding of certain aquatic species. The project was directly responsible for increasing the number of 
spawning grounds for Atlantic salmon, salmon larvae, and other protected fish species along the Żelkowa Woda river. In addition 
to financial support, the FLAG has helped the beneficiary overcome some of the bureaucratic obstacles linked with the project 
implementation.

  Expert advice

 \ Work with local stakeholders to set site-specific conservation targets;

 \ Make sure management plans are workable, enforceable and sufficiently rigorous and ambitious;

 \ Help improve understanding of how human activities impact aquatic environments, and of the status of the marine 

environment (in line with the aims of the MSFD).

  Tools

 \ Regulatory tools: MSFD and good environmental status (see “Key concepts” later in this guide).

 \ Assessment frameworks with indicators.

 \ Participatory surveillance and enforcement (see Factsheet 3).

f.  Creating dialogue, education and awareness-raising tools

The best way to tackle a challenge or solve a problem in an MPA is to pool knowledge and skills. For instance, creating a platform where 
stakeholders dealing with a common challenge can discuss the issue is an effective way to help everyone reach a shared solution. 

At the Guadalquivir River Delta Reserve (which adjoins the Doñana National Park), the Noroeste de Cadiz FLAG (Andalusia, Spain) 
helped set up a working group to create a permanent structure for interactive dialogue between fishermen, scientists, authorities 
and non-governmental organisations (NGOs). All stakeholders attend quarterly meetings at the FLAG’s head office. Each meeting 
follows the same agreed structure, and attendees discuss how to go about monitoring the reserve. Consequently, fishing activities 
in the reserve are managed more dynamically and, in a way, more attuned to the evolving situation in this unique ecosystem. 
The dialogue structure set up by the working group fosters knowledge exchange between the fisheries and science sectors. The 
resulting collective intelligence helps to ensure that fishing activities in this protected area are sensibly governed.

At both Natura 2000 sites and MPAs, conservation measures tend to be more effective if they are accompanied by appropriate 
communication and if local stakeholders – and local people more generally – are aware of their importance. As such, one of the 
key  success  factors  is  ensuring  that  local  users  genuinely  understand  the  issues  at  hand.  FLAGs  can  be  instrumental  in  raising 
awareness among fishermen and other local users, for example by holding workshops and panel discussions. Doing so can also 
help FLAGs demonstrate the advantages and benefits of protected areas. 

Strengthening local resource management # 15 

Factsheet 2 Managing Natura 2000 sites and marine protected areas  Expert advice

 \ Involve as many stakeholders as possible in the process and hold regular meetings;

 \ Have FLAGs work together on topics of relevance to both professionals and MPAs;

 \ Directly involve all sectors in the joint management of a sea basin;

 \ Conduct awareness-raising and communication activities to draw attention to the issues, especially for MPAs that are open 

to the public;

 \ Create resource centres for each MPA network, along with materials containing feedback and testimony, to further an 

understanding of the territories in question;

 \ Encourage and help maritime stakeholders play their part in improving practices and raising environmental awareness.

  Tools

 \ Interactive discussion platforms.

 \ Governance gap analysis.

 \ Co-management tools (see Factsheet 1).

The figure below (Figure 2) summarises what FLAGs can do to help develop and implement bottom-up governance in a protected area.

Strengthening local governance in a protected area

Protection 
Litoral Cadiz Estrecho FLAG 
Slowinska FLAG

Monitoring 
Ria de Pontevedra FLAG

Economic development 
Ria de Pontevedra FLAG 
Attica Islands FLAG

FLAGs 
key points of contact

Participation, acceptance & 
ownership 
Noroeste de Cadiz FLAG 
Marennes Oléron FLAG

Education & awareness 
Noroeste de Cadiz FLAG

Knowledge 
Ria de Pontevedra FLAG

Figure 2: Possible ways to help develop bottom-up governance in a protected area

Strengthening local resource management # 16 

Factsheet 2 Managing Natura 2000 sites and marine protected areas2.3  What are the benefits for fishermen and for the 

territory covered by the FLAG?

Fisheries sector

FLAG territory

Fishermen/fish farmers have more meaningful and regular 
involvement in stock and activity management

The protected area gains credibility and conditions are right for 
development and job-creation

Mindsets change and a culture of cooperation emerges 
within the fisheries sector

Fishermen/users and scientists across the territory work  
closely together

Fishermen feel empowered and are keen to lead by example

The territory gains prominence nationally and, in some cases, 
internationally

2.4  Key success factors and possible obstacles

 \ FLAGs should view MPAs, Natura 2000 sites and other protected areas as a real opportunity to play their part in managing fishing 
activities sustainably (environmentally and socially) on both the domestic and international stage. They can rise to this challenge 
by connecting coastal stakeholders, teaming up with other FLAGs, and getting involved in local projects. 

 \ FLAGs can also see it as their role to build on knowledge and share experience – in other words, they can take the lead on 

disseminating the data and information needed to improve resource management. 

 \ FLAGs can contribute to vital activities such as strengthening professionals’ involvement, supporting flagship projects, sharing 

knowledge and best practice, and arranging meetings between various groups. 

 \ FLAGs should communicate regularly and directly with fishermen to foster mutual understanding between stakeholders and 

prevent impasses. 

 \ FLAGs should always look to involve and empower professionals and ensure they take responsibility for project development. 
These  professionals  should  be  active,  represent  the  activity  to  which  the  project  relates,  be  recognised  by  their  peers,  and 
communicate  with  the  rest  of  the  profession  on  an  ongoing  basis. This  is  the  best  way  to  ensure  that  the  project  is  widely 
accepted and makes a real difference. 

Strengthening local resource management # 17 

Factsheet 2 Managing Natura 2000 sites and marine protected areas2.5  Further information

 \ Marine protected areas in Europe’s seas, an overview and perspectives for the future (EEA Report N°3/2015).

 \ European Commission, Frequently asked questions on Natura 2000.  Last updated: 18/12/2017.

 \ Parc Naturel Marin d’Iroise, 2017. Comment va l’Iroise? Tableau de bord 2016-2017.

 \ Chaboud  C.,  Galleti  F.,  2007.  Les  aires  marines  protégées,  catégorie  particulière  pour  le  droit  et  l’économie?  Monde  en 

développement n°138, p27-42. 

Strengthening local resource management # 18 

Factsheet 2 Managing Natura 2000 sites and marine protected areasFactsheet 3 
Monitoring local fisheries resources 
and fishing activities

3.1  What is this factsheet about?

By definition (as per Figure 3 and Regulation (EC) No. 1224/2009), monitoring, control and surveillance systems are intended to 
ensure compliance with the management rules and measures set out in the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) (see “Key concepts” 
later in this guide). The purpose of these systems is to: 

1) Allow data collection for managing fishing opportunities; 

2) Monitor that only the allowed quantities of fish are caught; 

3) Ensure harmonised application of rules and sanctions across the EU; 

4) Enable tracing and checking of fisheries products throughout the supply chain, from net to plate. 

MONITORING
The continuous requirement 
for the measurement of 
fishing effort characteristics 
and resource yields

CONTROL
The regulatory conditions 
under which the exploitation 
of the resource may be 
conducted

SURVEILLANCE
The degree and types of 
observations required to 
maintain compliance with the 
regulatory controls imposed 
on fishing activities

Figure 3: The fisheries monitoring, control and surveillance system (according to FAO, 1981)

In 2000, the EU introduced a fisheries data collection framework. Member States are required to make their own data collection 
arrangements  at  the  national  level,  in  accordance  with  the  requirements  of  the  CFP  and  Regulation  (EU)  No.  2017/1004. The 
International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) uses the data collected to issue scientific advice – a vital part of stock and 
fishing activity management.

Strengthening local resource management # 19 

Factsheet 3 Monitoring local fisheries resources and fishing activitiesThis statutory EU-wide monitoring may be supplemented at the local level by so-called “community-based” monitoring – a partic-
ipatory process in which local operators are involved in collecting information with the aim of improving data reliability (Conrad 
and Hilchey, 2011). Initiatives such as these give coastal territory representatives an opportunity to play their part in monitoring 
fisheries  resources,  for  example  by  harnessing  professional  fishermen’s  empirical  knowledge.  Data  gathered  in  this  way  is  also 
vital to assessing how regulations work in practice. Community-based monitoring supports sustainable fisheries management, 
strengthens local adaptability (see Factsheets 1 and 2), and is a prerequisite for fisheries looking to obtain environmental certifi-
cation (see Factsheet 4). 

3.2  The role of FLAGs: possible options

a.  Harnessing professional fishermen’s empirical knowledge

FLAGs could help compile and harness fishermen’s empirical knowledge by funding joint studies between professional fishermen and 
scientists looking at a specific species, stock levels and/or host ecosystems with a view to improving how they are managed or fished. 

The Langouste Rouge Reconquête project is a prime example of this process in action. The project’s aim is to harness fishermen’s 
knowledge and experience to draw up a plan to restore red lobster stocks in Western Europe. Since 2015, fishermen in Finistère 
(Brittany, France) have been using their own knowledge and experience 
to  coordinate  bottom-up  efforts  to  restore  stock  levels  over  a  10-year 
period.  More  than  300  lobsters  have  been  marked  and  recaptured 
as  part  of  the  project,  which  brings  together  fishermen,  professional 
organisations  and  scientists,  helping  to  further  understanding  of  the 
species’  biology  and  ecology.  The  Finistère  Departmental  Committee 
for  Maritime  Fisheries  and  Marine  Fish  Farming,  which  is  a  member  of 
the Cornouaille FLAG, is determined to scale up the project. One way it 
intends to do that is by working with other FLAGs along the Atlantic and 
Western Channel coasts to create the right conditions for a red lobster 
stock restoration plan across the entirety of Europe’s Atlantic seaboard.

Watch a video about the project (in French)

b.  Helping to develop participatory surveillance programmes

In line with their strategic priorities, FLAGs could play a key role in implementing a participatory surveillance programme. One par-
ticular project, promoted by NGO Planète Mer and funded under Axis 4 by the Varois EFF Group (now the Varois Côte d’Azur FLAG, 
France), encouraged fishermen in Cap Roux to work towards a more effective fishing ground surveillance system. The collected 
data were used to verify the impact of conservation measures. Because the project involved other marine area users, it drew public 
attention the region’s assets and the importance of protecting them. 

Strengthening local resource management # 20 

Factsheet 3 Monitoring local fisheries resources and fishing activitiesc.  Using new technologies to improve fisheries management

Giving fishermen a greater role in improving fisheries resource management and developing marine activities is an aim that may 
FLAGs share. Some have even harnessed new technologies to drive innovation in fishing activity monitoring.

Télécapêche is a mobile technology system that provides real-time data to local fisheries and aquaculture committees, helping 
them to monitor fish stocks and adopt suitable management measures. Launched with Axis 4 support in 2014, the system has 
proven a runaway success thanks to the joint efforts of the two organisations behind the project – the Pays d’Auray-Vannes FLAG 
(Brittany, France) and the local fisheries committee. More than 
2 200 professional fishermen across several French departments 
are now using the versatile catch monitoring system and some, 
such  as  hand-gatherers,  are  using  Télécapêche  as  their  main 
catch reporting tool. France’s National Committee for Maritime 
Fisheries and Marine Fish Farming plans to officially roll out the 
system  to  all  fishermen  operating  along  the  country’s  Atlantic 
coast in the near future. 

Through mobile phone messaging 
(SMS)

Online reporting

Fisherman

Through a dedicated website

https://telecapeche.net

Télécapêche  is  a  reliable  and  convenient  sustainable  fisheries 
management  solution  that  has  come  to  symbolise  innovation 
and local creativity. 

FLAGs can also play their part in developing new monitoring methods to improve seafood traceability and help combat illegal, unre-
ported and unregulated (IUU) fishing. The Oeste FLAG (Portugal) supported a project to develop a methodology for tracing the catch 
area of goose barnacles and identifying potential mislabelling or poaching activity. This methodology is based on a “mineral fin-
ger-print catalogue”, which provides the mineral composition of goose barnacles from different areas of Portugal, allowing the origin 
of suspicious products to be identified. The project also demonstrates the benefits of science-fisheries research partnerships.  

In another example, this time in Latvia’s Ventspils region, an anglers’ club 
known for its aquatic biodiversity conservation work developed a video 
surveillance  system  to  monitor  local  fishing  activity  and  combat  illegal 
and  unreported  fishing.  The  club  received  assistance  from  the  North 
Kurzeme  FLAG  and  teamed  up  with  an  inland  fishermen’s  organisation 
to install several video surveillance cameras to monitor recreational and 
professional  fishing  in  key  spots  across  the  region  where  illegal  fishing 
had  previously  been  observed.  The  project  also  involved  training  and 
certifying public fisheries inspectors, as well as workshops to educate local 
fishermen about environmental and regulatory issues.

Strengthening local resource management # 21 

Factsheet 3 Monitoring local fisheries resources and fishing activities3.3  What are the benefits for fishermen and for the 

territory covered by the FLAG?

Fisheries sector

FLAG territory 

Fishermen’s empirical knowledge is put to good use

New partnerships emerge between fishermen, managing authorities 
and scientists

Appropriate management (decision-making) meas-
ures are adopted

The sector presents a more unified front and engages in dialogue 
with other stakeholders (managing authorities, scientists, NGOs, etc.)

Local stakeholders take greater responsibility for their 
actions

Fishermen play a greater role in governance and a positive signal is 
sent out

The traceability of local produce is improved

Consumers get greater peace of mind and local produce receives an 
image boost

3.4  Key success factors and possible obstacles

New technologies could help to solve many of the long-standing problems faced by the fisheries sector. However, the viability of 
projects like these demands advanced technology, which requires input from specialist technical (or IT) experts. 

The table below provides an outline view of the main phases of a participatory monitoring project, and key aspects to consider in 
advance of each phase. 

Phase 

Questions, success factors and risks 

Identify the problems/topics/activities in conjunction with 
fishermen/stakeholders 

State what information is needed, and in what unit of 
measure (€, kg, hour, etc.)

Draw up a sampling plan, stating what monitoring effort 
will be needed to achieve a given degree of accuracy, and 
specify what evaluation tool(s) will be used

Develop the monitoring tool (smartphone app, website, 
paper forms)

Is this a real problem facing the territory?
Will fishermen engage with the project? 
Is there anyone who might be reluctant about being 
transparent? 

Can the information be measured quantitatively? 

Are you certain that this monitoring strategy will address the 
problem directly? 

Are future users willing and able to use this tool? 

Prepare a test version and trial it with a small group of 
users

Find motivated users and involve them as project “promoters”, 
ideally from the outset

Carry out the monitoring work

Evaluation

Hold regular progress updates to check that data is being 
recorded and is available and consistent

Check that the resulting data addresses the problem. Consider 
what could be improved, where needless costs could be cut, 
how the process could be simplified, etc.

Strengthening local resource management # 22 

Factsheet 3 Monitoring local fisheries resources and fishing activities3.5  Further information

 \ Report on an expert consultation on monitoring, control and surveillance systems for fisheries management (FAO. 1981).

 \ The EU’s fisheries control system.

 \ Data collection in the EU. 

 \ Second Symposium on Fishery-Dependent Information (Rome, Italy, 3-6 March 2014). Presentations on data collection, and 

on participatory and partnership methods with small-scale fishing.

 \ An inventory of new technologies in fisheries (OECD, 2017).

 \ Marins Chercheurs programme by Planète Mer. Making recreational fishing more sustainable by encouraging fishermen to 

play their part in producing knowledge about species and the marine environment.

 \ Abalobi initiative (South Africa) and introductory video.

Strengthening local resource management # 23 

Factsheet 3 Monitoring local fisheries resources and fishing activitiesFactsheet 4 
Sustainable fisheries certification 

4.1  What is this factsheet about?

The EU is the world’s biggest market for certified seafood, with a growing number of fisheries moving towards more sustainable 
practices. While  most  fisheries  pursue  environmental  certification  for  commercial  purposes,  the  process  itself  requires  them  to 
make lasting improvements to the way they fish and how they manage the resources they utilise. Achieving certification demands 
a rethink of practices right across the supply chain, from net to plate. 

The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) produced an internationally recognised set of voluntary guide-
lines in 2005 for the ecolabelling of sustainably managed fisheries. 

Figure 4: Fisheries and aquaculture ecolabels

Many  fisheries  ecolabels  (Figure  4)  focus  on  the  overall  environmental  sustainability  of  a  given  fishing  system.  The  Global 
Sustainable Seafood Initiative (GSSI) recognises several certifications, including the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC), Iceland 
Responsible Fisheries and Best Aquacultures Practices. 

Fisheries wishing to obtain a certification are assessed against a set of pre-defined criteria, including aspects such as the fishery’s 
impact on target species stocks, its impact on the wider ecosystem (including endangered species and marine habitats), the fisher-
ies management process in its entirety, ethical and well-being criteria, and others. 

Strengthening local resource management # 24 

Factsheet 4 Sustainable fisheries certificationFisheries Improvement Projects (FIPs)

A Fisheries Improvement Project (FIP) is a concept devised by the Conservation Alliance for Seafood Solutions (a group of envi-
ronmental NGOs) to address current and future challenges in the fisheries sector. 

Fisheries that have yet to achieve an assessable level of sustainability, but wish to do so, can embark on an FIP. In many cases, FIPs 
are run by small-scale fisheries that possess limited scientific data and struggle with the certification process because of manage-
ment problems or a shortage of resources. To address these shortcomings, the fishery joins forces with management organisations, 
scientists, NGOs, industry partners or other private financial backers (see Figure 5), all of whom have a shared interest in helping 
the fishery become more sustainable. Many fisheries embark on an FIP because the distributors they supply are committed to sus-
tainable sourcing, recognise the importance of FIPs, and are increasingly buying produce from fisheries that have taken this step. 

FLAG

Seafood industry

Managing  
authorities

Fishing  
community

FIP

NGOs

Fisheries  
experts

A tool for developing local sustainable fisheries

Figure 5: The concept behind Fisheries Improvement Projects

FIPs are open to all fisheries, whether their aim is to obtain certification or not. However, the process is also used to earn credibility and 
to allow an increasing number of distributors to use the target certification criteria for comparison purposes across their suppliers.

Strengthening local resource management # 25 

Factsheet 4 Sustainable fisheries certification4.2  The role of FLAGs: possible options

a.  Helping a fishery gain environmental certification

FLAGs can assist a fishery looking to obtain environmental certification or an ecolabel by coordinating and co-financing various activities:

 \ Characterising  local  fisheries  interested  in  embarking  on  a  certification  process  (mapping  the  characteristics,  strengths  and 

weaknesses of local fisheries);

 \ Educating fishery stakeholders about the certification process and creating tools to help them play their part in it;

 \ Working with stakeholders to determine the most appropriate ecolabel or certification for the target market;

 \ Preparing the fishery to extract maximum economic value from the certification, i.e. (1) determining whether the fishery is ready 
to obtain certification (through a pre-assessment); (2) analysing market demand for the target species; and (3) demonstrating 
the local fishery’s know-how (arranging buyer tours of the fishery).

In Spain’s western Asturias, the Navia-Porcía FLAG provided technical and financial support under EFF Axis 4 to help the Cofradía 
de Pescadores Nuestra Señora de la Atalaya,  a  common  octopus  (Octopus  vulgaris)  trap  fishery,  obtain  MSC  certification. The 
project, which ran from three years between 2014 and 2016, is an excellent example of this process in action. The FLAG first funded 
a pre-assessment of the fishery, where scientists and fishermen were involved in gathering and analysing the data. The pre-assess-
ment showed that local octopus stocks were in good health and that the fishery was well-managed. In view of these promising 
findings, the cofradía asked the FLAG to co-finance the full assessment and the fishery was rewarded MSC certification as a result. 
The certification opened new commercial opportunities and pushed up the sale price by €1.50 per kilo (an increase of 29%).

In addition to providing funds, the FLAG’s role in coordinating the certification process and providing technical assistance through-
out made a real difference to the final outcome. It has also been heavily involved in promoting and marketing the fishery’s produce, 
having set up an association (known as Arpesos) in May 2017 and developed a marketing strategy. 

Further information 

Another interesting example comes from the Blekinge FLAG (Blekinge County, Sweden), which supported FiskOnline, a project 
that aims to help fishermen navigate the process of achieving KRAV sustainability certification for several species including cod, 
perch and pike. The project also includes an innovative marketing component, helping fishermen sell their catch online. 

  Expert advice

 \ Build the certification project around the most highly motivated professionals. They will likely become more than mere 

ambassadors, and will get other stakeholders on board, or at the very least persuade them that the process is worthwhile.

Strengthening local resource management # 26 

Factsheet 4 Sustainable fisheries certificationb.  Promoting FIPs

FLAGs  have  an  important  role  to  play  in  engaging  and  persuading  local  fisheries  sector  stakeholders  (processors,  fish  traders, 
fishermen’s organisations, etc.) and implementing an FIP. 

For example, the Orkney FLAG (Scotland, UK) has supported an FIP for local scallop and whelk fisheries. Two researchers coor-
dinate the project on a day-to-day basis, and it has already fostered plenty of discussion between scientists and local fishermen. 
In time, the project is expected to bring about an improved management framework for local inshore fishery stock. The FLAG has 
been heavily involved in working with fishermen to get them on-board with the FIP and the research project. The data gathered 
throughout the process (stock analysis, MSC pre-assessment, etc.), along with the new management framework, will help sustain 
the jobs of 297 inshore fishermen and a further 130 staff employed at processing factories.

Further information 

Following the five key phases below will help to ensure that your FIP is a success.

  The five key phases for a successful FIP

1.  Talk about the FIP: identify the stakeholders who will need to work together to improve the fishery in question. 

2.  Put it in writing: agree on the project’s objectives and what needs to be done to make the FIP credible, set deadlines, and 
have the partners sign a memorandum of understanding. Once these first two phases are complete, a technical partner will 
need to be brought on board to coordinate the process and keep things moving forward.

3.  Draw up a work plan: the improvements, and associated measures, should generally cover a five-year period.

4.  Kick off the project: publish the work plan and begin implementing the actions.

5.  Monitor progress: give partners and the general public progress updates at the end of each phase, and demonstrate what 

outcomes the FIP has delivered and how it has been successful.

  Expert advice

 \ By supporting FIPs, FLAGs can encourage other seafood companies to engage with existing projects, as well as spur 

demand among buyers and suppliers for new FIPs targeting other fisheries with environmental problems.

  Tools

 \ FLAGs could also take the lead on setting up a consultation platform to serve as the main vehicle for the project (see 

Factsheet 1).

Strengthening local resource management # 27 

Factsheet 4 Sustainable fisheries certification4.3  What are the benefits for fishermen and for the 

territory covered by the FLAG?

Fisheries sector

FLAG territory 

Safeguards production and improves sector organisation

Maintains long-term job growth and boosts the territory’s appeal

Demonstrates sustainable development best practice  
and responsibilities

Improves the traceability of local produce and builds partner 
and consumer confidence

Opens up access to new markets where there is demand for 
sustainably and responsibly caught seafood

Raises the territory’s profile

Gives local businesses and sectors an image and reputation boost

Positively impacts public opinion around local produce

Sets local produce apart from competitors

Showcases local know-how and identity

4.4  Points to consider in advance

In many cases, fisheries cannot pursue environmental certification – and, more importantly, better evaluate stocks and improve 
resource management plans – without first introducing effective monitoring tools (and implementing these tools on the ground). 
These tools can be used to gather data (mark and recapture campaign, on-board observation programme), monitor marine activi-
ties and assess how they impact the environment. 

For more information about monitoring fisheries resources and local fishing activities, refer to Factsheet 3. 

4.5  Key success factors and possible obstacles

For certification processes:

 \ It is vital that fishermen are heavily involved in the process from the outset, especially when it comes to deciding what type of 

certification to pursue. 

 \ It is essential to gather as much information about the fishery as possible (study, mapping exercise, stock analysis, etc.) before 
embarking on a certification process. An FIP is a useful way to pre-assess the fishery, improve technical or governance aspects 
before applying for certification, and gradually bring stakeholders around to understanding the importance of sustainability.

  Important 
Obtaining certification is a costly process. Consequently, failure to fully appreciate market demand can undermine the project 
or even jeopardise the potential economic benefits of the label. Having a solid marketing plan is critical to the certified fishery’s 
long-term viability. 

Strengthening local resource management # 28 

Factsheet 4 Sustainable fisheries certification \ In most cases, a certification process for a single fishery should be combined with a promotional campaign or marketing strategy 
to showcase how the certification adds value to its produce. The resulting higher sale price will enable the fishery to become 
financially self-sufficient and gave it the funds it needs to maintain its certification.

  Important 
Because financial support from a FLAG is time-limited, the entity promoting the certification project will need to explore ways 
to continue funding the certification in the future (including annual audit costs and any additional expenses incurred by draw-
ing up a multi-year action plan to meet the standard’s minimum requirements). 

 \ When pursuing chain of custody certification, make sure the entire upstream sector is involved from the outset of the project. 
Data  confidentiality  issues  should  be  pinpointed  as  early  as  possible  so  that  compromises  can  be  reached  or  data  owners 
(industrial seafood firms) can be persuaded to release their data.

 \ FLAGs should also consider working with other FLAGs on fisheries certification, for two reasons: 1) some Member States share 
stocks of certain species; and 2) having several fisheries (from different FLAGs) cooperate is an effective way to share the cost 
burden of certification. 

  Important 
In a highly competitive market (as is the case for several species), cooperation arrangements such as these are harder to achieve. 
It is therefore vital that fisheries engage in dialogue with one another.

For FIPs:

 \ Make  sure  sector  professionals  are  aware  that  FIPs  exist.  Holding  information  meetings  (for  the  entire  sector)  or  printing 
brochures and flyers explaining how to run an FIP can prove decisive, in some cases encouraging people and organisations 
working in the fisheries sector to connect and work together.

  Important 
One of the problems facing many FIPs is finding the right lead organisation or entity – with connections in other sectors and 
industries – to drive the project forward. Teaming up with other entities (notably research organisations) can also have other 
benefits, such as ensuring that the project is underpinned by robust scientific methods.

Strengthening local resource management # 29 

Factsheet 4 Sustainable fisheries certification4.6  Further information

 \ Certification and sustainable fisheries (UNEP, 2009). 

 \ Feasibility report on options for an EU ecolabel scheme for fishery and aquaculture products (European Commission, 2016).

 \ FIP HANDBOOK: Guidelines for Developing Fishery Improvement Projects (WWF, 2013). 

 \ Fishery Improvement Action Plans – Guidance Document (MSC, 2013).

 \ Guidelines for Supporting Fishery Improvement Projects (Conservation Alliance for Seafood Solutions, 2015).

FAO publications:

 \ Guidelines for the Ecolabelling of Fish and Fishery Products from Marine Capture Fisheries (Marine Guidelines). 2005, 2009. 

 \ Guidelines for the Ecolabelling of Fish and Fishery Products from Inland Capture Fisheries (Inland Guidelines). 2011. 

 \ Guidelines on Aquaculture Certification (Aquaculture Guidelines). 2011. 

 \ Report of the Expert Consultation to Develop an FAO Evaluation Framework to Assess the Conformity of Public and Private 
Ecolabelling  Schemes  with  the  FAO  Guidelines  for  the  Ecolabelling  of  Fish  and  Fishery  Products  from  Marine  Capture 
Fisheries. Rome, 24–26 November 2010. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Report. No. 958. Rome, FAO. 2011. 51 p. 

Strengthening local resource management # 30 

Factsheet 4 Sustainable fisheries certificationFactsheet 5 
Improving practices and applying 
the landing obligation

5.1  What is this factsheet about?

The world’s seas and oceans can only be productive if they are in a good state of environmental health, if they are able to regenerate, 
and if they can continue to provide the resources than human beings need to survive and thrive. Fishing, as an extractive activity, 
has always had an environmental impact. That will never change. So, it is important to consider how best to limit this impact. 

The EU has a range of tools at its disposal to regulate fishing practices, including so-called “technical measures” governing how, 
where  and  when  fishing  is  permitted  (see “Key  concepts”  later  in  this  guide).  Preparatory  work  for  the  new  EU  Regulation 
recognised that stakeholders were not sufficiently involved in the decision-making process around these measures. Having local 
stakeholders develop appropriate measures is a vital part of improving practices. 

It is also important to realise that innovation in areas such as fishing gear cannot address all environmental impacts alone, and that 
practices need to change as well. 

Moreover, while some fishing gear and methods (such as passive gear) are less harmful to the ecosystem than others (such as 
towed nets), there is still scope to improve even the most environmentally friendly methods. In other words, all fishing vessels have 
room to improve. 

The landing obligation, introduced by the EU as part of reforms of the CFP (Art. 15, Regulation (EU) No. 1380/2013), is yet another 
reason for fisheries to improve their fishing practices. Although by-catch tends to be less of an issue with passive gear, unwanted 
catches (also known as “choke species”) can still reach a level where they impede fishing activities because they push total volumes 
above catch limits. The landing obligation is being phased in gradually, for different species and fisheries, between 2015 and 2019 
(see “Key concepts” later in this guide).

5.2  The role of FLAGs: possible options

a.  Supporting local innovation

Local problems and circumstances call for local solutions. Innovation often happens locally, but a catalyst is needed to help turn 
initiatives such as these into fully-fledged projects. FLAGs are ideally placed to fulfil this role because they are in direct contact with 
fishermen and are sufficiently well-resourced. 

The East Finland FLAG did precisely this by backing the development of a system to reduce salmon by-catch in a vendace fishery. 
The FLAG’s support proved vital in preparing for the project, which later received funding under EFF Axis 3 (measures of common 
interest). Watch this video about the project for more information. 

Business incubators are another way to foster innovation by helping project promoters turn their ideas into action. For instance, the 
Cornouaille FLAG (Brittany, France) has helped set up an incubator for biotechnology businesses at a fish hatchery. The incubator is 
the ideal place for local business owners to trial new technologies, with support from Agrocampus Ouest’s biotechnology department. 

Strengthening local resource management # 31 

Factsheet 5 Improving practices and applying the landing obligationb.  Teaming up with academic researchers

Some coastal territories are fortunate enough to have a local branch of a university or research centre on their doorstep. But that 
is not always the case. FLAGs can, therefore, connect research centres specialising in relevant fields with fishermen/fish farmers 
looking for assistance with technical issues.

Aside from identifying the right expertise, FLAGs are sufficiently well-resourced to help fund the associated research and/or de-
velopments, whether in whole or in part. It is important to bear in mind, however, that most FLAGs have limited budgets and it is 
always worthwhile exploring alternative funding sources for these research and innovation programmes.

For example, Wageningen University (Netherlands) has developed a special programme for the fisheries sector. The programme, 
known as “knowledge circles”, 9 aims to bring fishermen together and help them develop practical solutions to the problems they 
face. Fishermen play the lead role in the process, with researchers on-hand to facilitate discussions and identify solutions. Nine 
“knowledge circles” were created in 2014-2016, focusing on three broad themes: reducing environmental impact, increasing reve-
nue and cutting costs. 

FARNET guide 12, p. 30 “innovating with the help of science and research”

c.  Working with local resource management entities

As explained in the foreword, FLAGs are not specifically mandated to manage local resources and are not destined to fulfil that role. 
Instead, FLAGs focus on development issues and on integrating fisheries and aquaculture sectors into local development processes. 
However, sustainable development cannot happen without considering the resources on which a territory is dependent. For that 
reason, FLAGs are right to be involved in supporting local resource management initiatives and working closely with the entities re-
sponsible  for  managing  these  resources  –  especially,  as  mentioned  in  the  foreword,  when  it  comes  to  developing  technical 
measures.  

The  Holderness  FLAG,  on  the  north-east  coast  of  England,  worked  with  the  area’s 
Inshore  Fisheries  and  Conservation  Authority  (IFCA)  to  improve  local  lobster  pot 
practices across the fleet. Juvenile lobsters come under attack from larger individuals 
when trapped in the same pot (causing injury or death). To combat this issue, pots 
with “escape gaps” were developed to allow smaller lobsters to escape. The research 
and trials were funded by the FLAG and coordinated by the local managing authority. 
The success of the trial prompted the authority to approve a local by-law requiring 
the inshore fleet to fit escape gaps to all lobster pots. In addition, 42 000 escape gap 
systems were distributed free of charge to local fishermen (funded by the FLAG).

9 

In English and Dutch. 

Strengthening local resource management # 32 

Factsheet 5 Improving practices and applying the landing obligationd. Fostering discussion and exchange between territories

Community-led local development (CLLD) is an effective way to develop solutions that address local issues and circumstances. 
There is still a risk, however, that territories might spend their limited resources (time, energy and budget) on developing solutions 
to problems that are similar to issues faced elsewhere. FLAGs are part of FARNET, a 350-strong network of coastal communities with 
a considerable body of knowledge and experience. FLAGs are a way for communities to access this body of knowledge and tap 
into the experiences of other territories. 

The “seals and cormorants” project – a joint effort involving 14 FLAGs covering the Baltic Sea – is a prime example of how territories 
facing similar issues can compare experiences and share knowledge. Fishermen operating in the territories covered by these 14 
FLAGs face a threat to their livelihoods from rising grey seal and great cormorant populations. Both species feed exclusively on fish, 
and grey seals cause extensive damage to fishing gear. The FLAGs decided to share research findings from specialist local natural 
resource management institutes and collate these outcomes with hands-on experience from professional fishermen, to identify 
new ways for professional fishermen and wildlife to coexist. 

Fishermen from the Emilia Romagna Coast FLAG (Italy) and the Camargue FLAG (Occitanie, France) are also sharing knowledge 
about  fishing,  management  and  marketing  of  the  sea  snail  (Nassarius  mutabilis),  a  marine  gastropod  mollusc  fished  in  both 
Mediterranean territories. 

e.  Liaising with environmental NGOs

The fisheries sector and environmental NGOs (ENGOs) are still not on good terms. Yet they often have similar aims and there is 
plenty of scope for finding solutions that keep both sides happy. A prime example is the “Hookpod” project, an initiative by sus-
tainable fishing and bird protection enthusiasts connected to the UK’s Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB). Hookpod is a 
protection system used in longline fishing to stop seabirds and other marine animals (albatrosses, northern gannets, tortoises, etc.) 
becoming snagged when lines are cast into the water. The project was funded entirely by the ENGO (via crowdfunding and public 
donations) and developed in conjunction with fishermen around the world to end seabird by-catch. In addition to its environmen-
tal benefits, the system is also good news for fishermen because it saves them time they would otherwise spend untangling their 
lines, and prevents them losing their fishing gear – and, therefore, losing money. FLAGs can act as intermediaries, bringing together 
parties often locked in unproductive conflict.

f.  Sharing information to get the sector prepared for the new landing obligation

The landing obligation is certainly the most challenging aspect of the new CFP for Europe’s fisheries sector. Although directly fund-
ing implementation of this new requirement is not part of FLAGs’ mandate, they undoubtedly have a part to play in facilitating its 
application locally, by sharing information with professional fishermen and working with them to better understand and mitigate 
the consequences.

The cofradía of small-scale fishermen operating out of San Martiño de Bueu harbour has done precisely this, with support from the 
Pontevedra FLAG (Galicia, Spain), which aims to characterise discards of the local small-scale fishing fleet. The collected data will 
be analysed to evaluate the impact of managing discards both on-board fishing boats and post-landing. The findings will be shared 
with local fishermen’s federations.

Strengthening local resource management # 33 

Factsheet 5 Improving practices and applying the landing obligationThe table below outlines, in summary form, how FLAGs can play their part in this preparation process, what sector partners they 
will need to work with, and what success factors they will need to consider. 

Key questions

Next steps according to the answer

Possible partners

1.  Is this a genuine problem for the 

 \ Yes: continue

fishermen you work with? (scale of 
the issue) 

 \ No: stop at this stage

Fishermen 
Scientists, etc.

2.  Are they aware of the problem and 
do they know the exact wording of 
the regulation? 

 \ Yes: continue

 \ No: inform them, make them aware and, if 

they are supportive, continue

Fishermen 
Managing authorities, etc. 

 Expert advice:
FLAGs can play their part by bridging the gap between fishermen and researchers to 
foster innovation;
The landing obligation implies behaviour change. However, it is hard to change habits 
and mindsets, and those with extensive experience will need to share their insights with 
the outside world.

3.  Could they easily adapt their 

 \ Yes: mark out spatial and temporal zones 

fishing practices to comply with 
the regulation? 

on a map

 \ No: continue

Fishermen
Scientists, etc. 

Possible options for FLAGs:
Monitoring and mapping discards are two vital first steps, since they help to identify 
where discards are happening and in what quantities.

4.  Can existing fishing gear feasibly 
be adapted to bring about a 
material reduction in discards? 

 \ Yes: suggest trialling alternative gear

 \ No…

Fishermen 
Scientists (fishing technology 
experts), etc.

 \ Conduct a literature review, and arrange a 
study visit to see if the same problem has 
been addressed elsewhere

 \ No: continue

 Expert advice:
Taking fishermen to see innovative gear being used in practice is a useful way to encour-
age them to change their habits (it is better to observe how something works first-hand, 
since it is harder to see the benefits on paper).

5.  Is there a way to improve the 

 \ Yes: suggest a harmonised approach to 

survival rate among unavoidable 
by-catches? 

handling catches on-board

 \ No: continue

Fishermen 
Scientists,
NGOs, etc.

Strengthening local resource management # 34 

Factsheet 5 Improving practices and applying the landing obligationKey questions

Next steps according to the answer

Possible partners

6.  For species that are caught and 
must be landed, but where the 
survival rate does not justify 
releasing them back into the water, 
are there alternative uses other 
than direct human consumption? 

 \ Yes: trial new uses for these catches (create 

new product(s))

 \ No: use the above as a basis for an 

exemption request, etc.

Processors 
Scientists (agricultural engineering 
experts), etc.

 Expert advice:
Discards are not waste. Consider other possible outlets;
Remember that other Member States may have very different culinary traditions and 
practices, and that some species that are of little commercial value in your region might 
be considered much more valuable somewhere else.

5.3  What are the benefits for fishermen  

and for the territory covered by the FLAG?

Fisheries sector

FLAG territory 

Harnesses fishermen’s creativity to devise innovative techni-
cal solutions (selective gear and improved by-catch survival 
rates)

Showcases how the sector is investing in modernising its 
production methods while upholding quality and traceability 
standards

Provides alternative outlets for otherwise discarded species 
in other markets (e.g. animal feed, fish oil, pet food, food 
additives, drugs, cosmetics)

Demonstrates local support for innovation and new 
technologies

Builds partner and consumer confidence in local produce

Generates wealth for the territory and helps new sectors 
emerge

5.4  Further information

 \ International Guidelines on Bycatch Management and Reduction of Discards, FAO, 2011.

 \ Landing obligation in practice (list of EU landing obligation projects). European Commission.

 \ Technical measures and innovative fishing gears (ClientEarth, 2016).

Strengthening local resource management # 35 

Factsheet 5 Improving practices and applying the landing obligationKey concepts and policies governing local 
resource management

A. Promoting a bottom-up approach to local resource management

The Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) was introduced in 1983, bringing in fishing quotas and setting out common principles around 
access to marine areas. The CFP underwent reform in 2002, then again in 2013 (Regulation (EU) No. 1380/2013). In its current, 
simplified guise, it emphasises the importance of regional features, includes regionalisation measures (long-term management 
plans and landing obligation), and encourages stakeholders to play a more active role through Advisory Councils (ACs). 

The CFP enshrines the fundamental principles and objectives of fisheries management such as maximum sustainable yield (MSY) 
(via multi-annual plans, Art. 9) and the landing obligation (Art. 15). However, these principles are transposed into regional reg-
ulations that apply to specific regional seas. This regionalisation model implies close cooperation between Member States sharing 
a regional sea (e.g. Portugal, Spain and France for the South-Western waters).

Each of the EU’s regional seas (see the European Atlas of the Seas) corresponds to an area falling under the responsibility of an AC. 
This same concept is used in the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD). ACs bring together representatives of the fisheries 
sector (fisheries, processors and unions) and other interest groups (recreational fishing, environmental organisations). Their role is 
to advise the European Commission when drafting a proposal for a regulation. Similarly, Member States (national governments) 
and scientific bodies (the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) and the Scientific, Technical and Economic 
Committee for Fisheries (STECF)) are involved at this stage of the process. 

Strengthening local resource management # 36 

 TACs and quotas10 

Total allowable catches (TACs), or fishing opportunities, are catch limits (expressed in tonnes or numbers) that are set for most 
commercial fish stocks. These limits are set so that stocks can be fished at the MSY, i.e. the maximum quantity of a marine 
resource that can be extracted, year on year, without jeopardising its natural regeneration capacity.

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. For stocks that are shared and jointly managed with non-EU 
countries, the TACs are agreed with those (groups of ) non-EU countries. 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. 
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 the Mediterranean Sea basin most fisheries are managed by input controls only.

The way quotas are allocated to fishing fleets varies from one Member State to the next. As a rule, producer organisations (POs) 
are allocated quotas by the government (based primarily on past fishing volumes among their members). POs then decide, 
internally, how to allocate these fishing opportunities. In other Member States, quotas are allocated individually (individual 
quotas). These quotas may be transferable (individual transferable quotas, e.g. for offshore fisheries in Denmark and Spain) or 
not (e.g. Bluefin Tuna fisheries in France). In Spain, small-scale inshore fishery quotas are allocated to the regions. 

 Advisory Councils (ACs)

The  Advisory  Councils  (ACs)  are  stakeholder-led  organisations  that  provide  the  Commission  and  EU  countries  with  recom-
mendations on fisheries management matters. This may include advice on conservation and socio-economic aspects of man-
agement, and on simplification of rules. Advisory Councils are consulted in the context of regionalisation. Advisory Councils 
should  also  contribute  to  data  for  fisheries  management  and  conservation  measures.  Advisory  Councils  are  composed  of 
representatives from the industry and from other interest groups (with a 60% – 40% allocation of the seats in the general 
assembly and the executive committee). Their primary objective is to involve stakeholders in the fisheries sector more closely 
in the decision-making process. They consist of management units based on biological criteria. There are 11 such units across 
the EU (see the European Atlas of the Seas).

The Advisory Councils have no regulatory powers (their recommendations are non-binding). They cover a vast area and are more 
accustomed to working on large, shared commercial fisheries (i.e. operated by fleets from more than one Member State) than in-
shore fisheries (with the notable exception of transboundary fisheries). Despite this, they represent a first step towards bottom-up 
fishing activity management (see Figure 6). 

10  Source : European Commission website.

Strengthening local resource management # 37 

(2) Stakeholder 
interaction 

Stakeholders  
(via Advisory  
Councils)

(1) Stakeholder consultation

Science 
(International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES))

CIEM

Opinion

European Commission

Proposal

Council of the  
European Union

Joint 
decision

European  
Parliament

Policies and 
Regulations  
(TACs/quotas)

Figure 6: Positioning of the Advisory Councils in the European decision-making process of fisheries management

While circumstances at the national level vary from one country to the next, several Member States have opted to embrace sharing 
responsibility for managing coastal marine resources with local professional organisations. In the United Kingdom, for example, the 
government has delegated responsibility for managing local fishing activities to coastal managing authorities (IFCA). In France, 
meanwhile,  professional  organisations  (Regional  Committees  for  Maritime  Fisheries  and  Marine  Fish  Farming)  are  tasked  with 
managing fishing activities along the coast.

B. Making local activities more sustainable

As stated in Art. 2, Regulation (EU) No. 1380/2013, the CFP “shall ensure that fishing and aquaculture 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”. In addition to quotas – resource management tools 
– the CFP and the EMFF, its financial instrument, support efforts to promote sustainable fishing and aquaculture activities through 
other instruments such as technical measures and the landing obligation. 

1.  Technical measures11 

Technical measures are a broad set of rules which govern how, where and when fishermen may fish. They are established for 
all European sea basins, but they differ considerably from one basin to another, in accordance with the regional conditions. The 
measures may include:

 \ Minimum landing sizes and minimum conservation sizes;

 \ Specifications for design and use of gears;

 \ Minimum mesh sizes for nets;

 \ Requirement of selective gears to reduce unwanted catches;

 \ Closed areas and seasons;

 \ Limitations on by-catches (catches of unwanted or non-target species);

 \ Measures to minimise the impact of fishing on the marine ecosystem and environment.

11  Source : European Commission website.

Strengthening local resource management # 38 

The technical measures regulations in the EU need to be modernised in light of the reformed CFP. To this effect, the European 
Commission has put forward a new framework proposal for technical conservation measures. 

2.  The landing obligation12 

The landing obligation (as provided for by Art. 15, Regulation (EU) No. 1380/2013) states that all catches of commercial species 
which are subject to catch limits and/or catches of species which are subject to minimum sizes must be brought and retained 
on board the fishing vessels and counted against the quotas where applicable. Catches of species below the minimum conserva-
tion reference size and restricted to purposes other than direct human consumption must not be retained on board but must be 
returned immediately to the sea. Discards of prohibited species must be recorded in the ship’s log and form an important body of 
scientific knowledge for monitoring these species. The landing obligation is being phased in gradually, for different species and 
fisheries, between 2015 and 2019. In 2019, the obligation will apply to all species subject to quotas and minimum conservation 
reference sizes for the Mediterranean. 

This obligation, and the associated exemptions, are applied based on joint recommendations of regional Member State groups. 
The STECF conducts an assessment and, if the results are positive, the recommendations are transformed into temporary “discard” 
plans via European Commission delegated acts. These plans outline the relevant species, documentation requirements, minimum 
conservation sizes and exemptions (for species with a high survival rate, along with a de minimis percentage of permitted 
discards under certain conditions). These plans run for three years and should ultimately be included in multi-annual plans. 

Over the last few years, governments, scientific institutions, industry, fishermen and other stakeholders have worked to develop 
trials and solutions. Some examples of projects co-funded by the EU (such as the DiscardLess programme) can be found on the 
European Commission’s dedicated web page.

C.  Supporting aquatic ecosystem conservation

The main goal of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) is to achieve good environmental status (GES) of EU marine 
waters by 2020 (see box) by placing fishing activities within the wider context of sustainable development.

The Directive requires Member States to develop a marine strategy for its marine waters, in conjunction with other Member States 
sharing the same marine region, and to review the strategy every six years. The strategy involves a five-step process: (1) an initial 
assessment of the marine waters; (2) a determination of GES for the marine waters; (3) establishment of environmental targets; (4) 
establishment and implementation of coordinated monitoring programmes; and (5) development of a programme of measures 
designed to achieve or maintain GES.

In addition, the MSFD requires Member States to adopt the precautionary principle with regard to fisheries management so as to 
ensure that fish stocks are brought to, or maintained at, levels above those capable of producing the maximum sustainable yield, 
and to implement the ecosystem approach to fisheries management so as to limit, as far as possible, the negative impacts of fishing 
activities on the marine ecosystem. 

12  Source : European Commission website.

Strengthening local resource management # 39 

 Good Environmental Status (GES)

Marine waters are considered as being in good environmental status (GES) when marine ecosystems are functioning correctly, 
the environment is in good health, and human activities are environmentally sustainable. “Good ecosystem functioning” is a 
scientific concept that, ultimately, will need to be quantified. It takes account of pressure from water- or land-based human 
activities that have an impact on the environment. GES is not about restoring the environmental to the condition it would 
be in without human activity, but rather striking an acceptable, sustainable balance between human activities and marine 
ecosystem health. Annex I of the MSFD sets out the 11 qualitative descriptors of GES.

How we are making it easier to achieve the good 
environmental status of marine waters

More flexibility 
to concentrate on 
problem areas

More accurate 
way to measure 
achievement of 
environmental goals

Increased regional 
and sub-regional 
cooperation

Enhanced synergy 
with existing EU 
nature, water and 
fisheries legislation

Better  
understanding of 
human impacts  
on marine 
environment

The MSFD also requires Member States to take spatial protection measures, contributing to coherent and representative networks 
of marine protected areas, by 2016. In addition, the EU is committed to achieving Aichi target 11 (conserving at least 10% of coastal 
and marine areas by 2020), notably by creating marine protected areas (MPAs).13 MPAs are increasingly recognised as important 
fisheries area management tools, and are one of the practical measures set out in the MSFD. Moreover, both the Birds and Habitats 
Directives specifically mention the creation of protected areas. Further effort is therefore needed in the coming years to create 
more MPAs and Natura 2000 sites.

13  Aichi Biodiversity Targets. 

Strengthening local resource management # 40 

 The EU Birds and Habitats Directives

The Birds Directive (Directive 2009/147/EC on the conservation of wild birds) and the Habitats Directive (Directive 92/43/
EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora) are the cornerstones of European biodiversity policy. 

The Birds Directive defines the guidelines at the European level for the protection and management of bird species living in the 
wild, focusing first and foremost on the impact of human activities (hunting, disturbance, etc.).

The Habitats Directive is the second directive for nature conservation in the EU. Among other things, it requires Member States to:

 \ Maintain or re-establish protected habitats and species (Annexes I and II) at a “favourable conservation status”;

 \ Establish special areas of conservation (“Habitat Directive areas”) for the species and habitats (Annexes I and II, Art. 3); 

 \ Implement measures to maintain or re-establish the species and habitats listed in Annexes I and II and occurring in these 

areas of conservation at a “favourable conservation status” (Art. 6).

Consequently, there are two complementary principles underpinning the Birds and Habitats Directives: a species conservation 
system, and a network of representative sites (the Natura 2000 network) consisting of special areas of conservation (SACs) and 
special protection areas (SPAs). 

In order to strengthen application of these biodiversity conservation measures, the MSFD requires Member States to devise 
and implement a programme of measures, as a vehicle for community action for the marine environment in “European waters”.

Further information:

 \ State of Europe’s seas (European Environment Agency, 2015).

 \ The EU Birds and Habitats Directives (European Commission, 2014).

 \ Protecting aquatic biodiversity in Europe: How much do EU environmental policies support ecosystem-based management? 

(Rouilliard et al., 2017). 

 \ Presentation by Carlos Romão: “Protected Areas. Isn’t that old-fashioned?” (Europarc Conference 2016, EAA).

Strengthening local resource management # 41 

For further information, ideas and examples, 
more FARNET Guides are available

K
L
-
A
L
-
1
8
-
0
0
3
-
E
N

-

N

FARNET Guide #15:  
Evaluating CLLD - Handbook for LAGs and FLAGs

This handbook is for LAGs and FLAGs funded from one or several of the four ESI Funds as well as 
external evaluators carrying out LAG evaluations. It aims to provide easy-to-use tools and methods, 
along with examples from different LAGs and FLAGs, that can serve as guidance and inspiration for 
evaluating CLLD.

FARNET Guide #14:  
Integrating aquaculture within local communities

This  guide  is  designed  mainly  for  FLAGs  seeking  to  improve  linkages  between  aquaculture  pro-
ducers and other actors in their territories in an effort to boost societal acceptance and consumer 
perceptions of aquaculture, while also bearing in mind, and responding to, the great diversity of the 
aquaculture sector.

FARNET Guide #13:  
Social inclusion for vibrant fishing communities

Helping FLAGs identify different types of social inclusion issues, providing recommendations and 
tips on how FLAGs could address them and find solutions in their areas.

FARNET Guide #12:  
Boosting business along the fisheries value chain

Encouraging FLAGs to strengthen the value chains in their area and ensure that local businesses, 
and especially fishermen and local aquaculture producers, capture as big a portion of that value as 
possible.

FARNET Guide #11:  
Results-oriented CLLD in fisheries areas

Providing FLAGs the tools to reinforce their focus on results through the design and implementation 
of their local development strategies.