COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EVALUATION Regulation (EU) 2016/2336 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 December 2016 establishing specific conditions for fishing for deep-sea stocks in the north-east Atlantic and provisions for fishing in international waters of the north-east Atlantic and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 2347/2002
Date: 2021-05-12
Institutions: Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, European Commission
Subjects: Atlantic Ocean, EU waters, catch by species, catch quota, conservation of fish stocks, deep-sea fishing, fishing area, fishing rights, international waters, sea fish

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 12.5.2021  SWD(2021) 110 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  EVALUATION  Regulation (EU) 2016/2336 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 December 2016    establishing specific conditions for fishing for deep-sea stocks in the north-east Atlantic and provisions for fishing in international waters of the north-east Atlantic and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 2347/2002   {SWD(2021) 111 final}  
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. 

2. 

3. 

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 3 

BACKGROUND TO THE INTERVENTION ..................................................................................... 5 

IMPLEMENTATION AND STATE OF PLAY ................................................................................... 7 

4.  METHOD............................................................................................................................................ 12 

5.  ANALYSIS AND ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS .......................................... 14 

A.  Relevance ........................................................................................................................... 14 

B.  Effectiveness ....................................................................................................................... 20 

C.  Efficiency ............................................................................................................................ 29 

D.  Coherence ........................................................................................................................... 34 

E.  EU Added-Value ................................................................................................................. 45 

6. 

CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................................. 48 

ANNEX 1: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION ............................................................................................ 51 

ANNEX 2: CONSULTATIONS – SYNOPSIS REPORT ........................................................................... 52 

ANNEX 3: METHODS AND ANALYTICAL MODELS .......................................................................... 65 

ANNEX 4: SUMMARY OF TRENDS IN ARTICLE 19.2 ......................................................................... 69 

ANNEX 5: LIST OF EU REGULATIONS AND INTERNATIONAL INSTRUMENTS .......................... 75 

ANNEX 6: LITERATURE CITED .............................................................................................................. 79 

1 

 
 
 
GLOSSARY 

Term or acronym 

Meaning or definition 

AC 

CECAF 

CFP 

DCF 

DSAR 

EEZ 

EFCA 

EMFF 

EQM 

EU Advisory Council 

Fishery Committee for the Eastern Central Atlantic 

Common Fisheries Policy 

EU Data Collection Framework 

Deep-Sea Access Regulation (EU) 2016/2336 

Exclusive Economic Zone 

European Fisheries Control Agency 

European Maritime and Fisheries Fund 

Evaluation Question Matrix  

EUMOFA 

European Market Observatory for Fisheries and Aquaculture Products 

FAO 

FDI 

FTE 

GEBCO 

GES 

GT 

HD 

ICCAT 

ICES 

IOTC 

JDP 

kW 

MS 

MSFD 

MSY 

NAFO 

NEAFC 

NGO 

PC 

RA 

RFMO 

SCIP 

STECF 

TAC 

UNGA 

VME 

WCPFC 

WGDEC 

WGDEEP 

Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations 

Fisheries Dependent Information 

Full-Time Equivalent 

General Bathymetric Chart of the Oceans 

Good Environmental Status 

Gross Tonnage 

Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC 

International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas 

International Council for the Exploration of the Sea 

Indian Ocean Tuna Commission 

Joint Deployment Plan 

Kilowatt 

EU Member State 

Marine Strategy Framework Directive 2008/56/EC  

Maximum Sustainable Yield 

Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization 

North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission 

Non-Governmental Organisation 

Public Consultation 

Regulatory Area 

Regional Fisheries Management Organisation 

Specific Control and Inspection Programme  

Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries 

Total Allowable Catch 

United Nations General Assembly 

Vulnerable Marine Ecosystem 

Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission 

ICES working group on deep-water ecology 
ICES working group on biology and assessment of deep-sea fisheries 
resources  

2 

 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

Fishing  for  deep-sea  species  occur  on  deep-water  slopes,  ridges  and  seamounts  with 
gears  that  can  scrape  the  bottom  of  the  seabed.  This  leads  to  important  impacts  on  the 
deep-sea  fauna,  which  is  made  of  slow-growing  and  long-lived  species,  such  as  coral 
reefs  and  garden,  sponges,  anemones  and  sea  pens,  which  compose  the  so-called 
“vulnerable marine ecosystems” (VMEs).   

In  2013,  the  EU  introduced  the  reformed  Common  Fisheries  Policy,  which  brought  an 
increased focus on the ecosystem approach to managing fisheries. This led to a revision 
of  Regulation  (EC)  No  2347/20021  that  regulated  the  access  to  deep-sea  fishing  until 
then.  In  2016,  the  EU  adopted  Regulation  (EU)  2016/23362,  called  the  “Deep-sea 
Access  Regulation”  (DSAR),  governing  access  to  deep-sea  fishing  and  setting 
conditions  for  protecting  VMEs  in  international  and  EU  waters.  The  Deep-sea  Access 
Regulation  aims  to  establish  a  sustainable  exploitation  of  deep-sea  stocks  while 
reducing  the  environmental  impact  of  these  fisheries  and  preventing  significant 
adverse  impacts  on  VMEs,  and  to  improve  the  information  base  for  scientific 
assessment, through data collection.  

Article 19 of the DSAR foresees that by January 2021, the Commission shall evaluate the 
impacts  of  the  measures  laid  down  in  the  Regulation  and  determine  to  what  extent  its 
objectives have been achieved, as well as a series of 11 specific subjects. 

In  compliance  with  the  Better  Regulation  guidelines,  this  evaluation  is  based  on  the 
following five criteria:  

  Relevance:  To  what  extent  was  there  a  need  to  adopt  the  measures  under  the 
DSAR?  /To  what  extend  does  this  need  continue  to  exist?  /To  what  extent  are 
measures  under  the  DSAR  appropriate  to  address  needs,  do  they  continue  to  be 
appropriate to respond to needs?  

  Effectiveness:  To  what  extent  is  the  DSAR  effective  to  protect  deep-sea 
vulnerable ecosystems? /To what extent is the DSAR effective in contributing to 
preserve  deep-sea  fish  stocks?  /To  what  extent  is  the  DSAR  effective  at 
improving scientific knowledge on the deep-sea environment?  

  Efficiency: What are the average DSAR implementation costs? /Is there scope for 

simplification of DSAR design and operation?  

  Coherence:  To  what  extent  is  the  DSAR  coherent  with  EU  international 
commitments  under  UN  Resolutions  61/105  and  64/72?  /To  what  extent  is  the 
DSAR  coherent  with  the  North-East  Atlantic  Fisheries  Commission  (NEAFC) 

1 Council Regulation (EC) No 2347/2002 of 16 December 2002 establishing specific access requirements 
and associated conditions applicable to fishing for deep-sea stocks 
2  Regulation  (EU)  2016/2336  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  14  December  2016 
establishing specific conditions for fishing for deep-sea stocks in the north-east Atlantic and provisions for 
fishing  in  international  waters  of  the  north-east  Atlantic  and  repealing  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No 
2347/2002 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Recommendation 19.2014? /To what extent is the DSAR coherent with the other 
non-CFP  EU  instruments  on  protection  of  the  marine  environment  (MSFD, 
Habitats  Directive)?  /To  what  extent  is  the  DSAR  coherent  with  the  CFP 
Regulation  and  CFP-instruments  in  relation  to  fishing  opportunities,  technical 
measures,  Control  and  Data  collection?  /To  what  extent  is  the  DSAR  coherent 
with other EU measures for VMEs protection? 

  EU  added  value:  What  is  the  additional  value  resulting  from  the  EU  measures 
under  the  Deep-sea  Access  Regulation?  /What  would  be  the  effects  of 
discontinuing the DSAR all other things being equal?  

The  European  Commission  launched  the  evaluation  on  17  September  2019  with  the 
publication of a roadmap, open for feedback3. A public consultation was also open on the 
European  Commission  consultation  website  between  May  and  August  2020,  whose 
results are available online (summary report and all contributions)4. 

To support the evaluation exercise, an external consultant was hired to perform a study5. 
This study was carried out over a period of nine months starting on 10 February 2020. It 
included  data  collection  and  desk  research  on  available  reports  and  statistical  data,  in-
depth  targeted  consultations  of  stakeholders,  including  Member  States’  authorities, 
fishermen associations, research institutions and NGOs. The research covered the DSAR 
implementation period from 2017 to 2020.  

In  this  Staff  Working  Document  (SWD),  the  Commission  presents  and  reflects  on  the 
main outcomes and findings for this evaluation, which provides evidence and data on the 
functioning  of  the  Deep-sea  Access  Regulation.  It  should  be  noted  that  the  evaluation 
takes  place  while  important  features  of  the  Regulation,  i.e.  the  VMEs  closures  and  the 
delimitation  of  the  fishing  footprint,  are  yet  to  be  implemented.  This  SWD  therefore 
outlines conclusions, which are proportionate to the scope of the evaluation.   

The SWD has the following structure. Firstly, it describes the background of the DSAR 
and  summarises  its  state  of  play.  The  SWD  then  provides  an  overview  of  the 
methodology used for the evaluation. The main results of the evaluation are presented in 
the following section according to the five Better Regulation criteria/questions. The last 
section of the SWD offers the evaluation’s conclusions. 

3 EU – Have your say: Roadmap for the Evaluation of access to deep-sea fishing in the NE Atlantic 
4 EU – Have your say: Public Consultation on the Evaluation of deep-sea fishing in the NE Atlantic 
5 European Commission, ‘Study supporting the Evaluation of the Deep-sea Access Regulation’ (2020). 

4 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
2.  BACKGROUND TO THE INTERVENTION 

In  2016,  the  EU  adopted  the  Deep-sea  Access  Regulation  (EU)  2016/2336  to  replace 
Council Regulation (EC) 2347/2002. The DSAR defines specific conditions, which apply 
to deep-sea fishing activities taking place in EU waters and in the international waters of 
the North-East Atlantic6. It pursues three main objectives:  

improving scientific knowledge on deep-sea stocks and habitats,  

i) 
ii)  preventing  significant  adverse  impacts  on  Vulnerable  Marine  Ecosystems 
(VMEs) and ensuring the long-term conservation of stocks of deep-sea species, 
iii) ensuring consistency of EU measures with UN Resolutions 61/105 and 64/727.  

The  overarching  objective  of  the  DSAR  is  to  bring  an  effective  contribution  to  the 
objectives  of  the  Common  Fisheries  Policy  (CFP)  defined  in  Article  2  of  Regulation 
(EU) 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council8 for what concerns deep-
sea fisheries, namely that the CFP shall: 

  ensure  that  fishing  and  aquaculture  activities  are  environmentally  sustainable  in 

the long-term (Article 2.1), 

  apply the precautionary approach to fisheries management (Article 2.2), 
 

implement the ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management so as to ensure 
the negative impacts on the marine ecosystem are minimised (Article 2.3). 

To contribute to these objectives, the DSAR comprises measures including: 

  a  fishing  authorisation  scheme  for  vessels  targeting  deep-sea  species  (‘targeting 
fishing authorisation’) and vessels catching deep-sea species when targeting other 
species (‘by-catch fishing authorisation’), 

  measures  for regulating  the fishing  capacity of fishing vessels  engaged in  deep-

sea fisheries,  

  a  set  of  spatial  measures  designed  to  prevent  the  expansion  of  deep-sea  fishing 
areas, to protect deep-sea vulnerable marine ecosystems (VMEs) from significant 
adverse impacts caused by fishing gears and to prohibit bottom trawling at depths 
below 800m, 

  a  VME  encounter  protocol  prompting  fishing  vessels  to  report  each  encounter 
with a VME and to immediately cease fishing in the area concerned (the “move-
on” rule), 

  specific stringent control and monitoring provisions, and 
  an observer coverage of at least 20% in the case of fishing vessels authorised to 
target deep-sea species with bottom trawls or bottom set gillnets and at least 10% 
for all other vessels authorised to catch deep-sea species as target or by-catch. 

in  conjunction  with  other  EU 

implementing 
The  DSAR  operates 
conservation and management measures for deep-sea fish stocks and their habitats such 
as limits  on fishing opportunities or technical  measures defining how,  when and where 
fishing vessels may exploit the fishing opportunities allocated to them.  

instruments 

6 CECAF areas 34.1.1, 34.1.2 and 34.2. 
7  UN  Resolution  61/105  on  Sustainable  fisheries  (Dec.2006)  and  UN  Resolution  64/72  on  Sustainable 
Fisheries (Dec.2009). 
8 Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 on 
the Common Fisheries Policy, OJ L 354, 28.12.2013, p. 22–61. 

5 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
Figure 1 summarises the DSAR’s intervention logic: the Regulation was built to address 
the impacts of deep-sea fishing, limit bycatches and account for the high vulnerability of 
deep-sea flora and fauna. By contributing to the CFP objectives, the DSAR was expected 
to prevent significant adverse impacts on the deep-sea ecosystem by regulating the use of 
fishing gears and allow the sustainable exploitation of deep-sea stocks. 

Figure 1: Logic of the intervention 

Needs*: based on DSAR Impact Assessment Report - SWD (2012) 202 final 
Objectives**: based on Article 1 of the DSAR 
Source: European Commission ‘Study supporting the Evaluation of the Deep-sea Access Regulation’, 
(2020) 

6 

Needs*•High vulnerability of deep-sea stocks to fishing•Fishing with bottom trawls destroys or risks destroying vulnerable marine ecosystems (VMEs)•Fishing with bottom trawl for deep-sea species produces medium to high levels of unwanted catches•Determining sustainable level of fishing pressure via scientific advice is particularly difficultObjectives**•Contributing to CFP objectives (environmental sustainability, precautionary approach, ecosystem approach) •Improving scientific knowledge on deep-sea species and habitats•Preventing significant adverse impacts on VMEs•Ensuring conservation of deep-sea fish stocks•Ensuring consistency with resolutions adopted by the General Assembly of the United NationsInputs•Administrative resources allocated by MS to national authorities competent for management and control, and to fisheries research institutes•Relevant scientific working groups of international scientific advisory bodies•Commission’s empowerment to adopt implementing acts•Commission’s oversight of DSAR implementationActivities•MS ensure compliance with DSAR rules (capacity management measures, spatial measures incl. 800m bottom trawl prohibition, more stringent control rules, observer coverage)•MS ensure collection of scientific information•MS submit annual reports to the Commission on DSAR implementation•Commission requests scientific advisory body to elaborate advices on existing fishing areas, VMEs areas and levels of observer coverage as appropriateOutputs•Existing fishing areas and areas where VMEs are know or likely to occur defined by Commission’s implementing acts based on scientific advice•Observer coverage percentage adjusted based on scientific advice as appropriate•Availability of adequate scientific information of deep-sea fish stocks and on VMEs indicator species•Impact assessments submitted prior to authorisation of deep-sea fishing operations outside existing fishing areasResults•Deep-sea fishing areas fixed and cannot expand without a prior authorisation based on an impact assessment•Areas below 400m where VMEs are known or likely to occur are closed to bottom gears•Full protection of areas below 800m against impacts from bottom trawls•VMEs encounters are reported and vessels move on•Fishing pressure on deep-sea stocks commensurate with stocks’ reproductive capacity•Levels of unwanted catches decreaseImpacts•Deep-sea ecosystem protected from significant adverse impacts by fishing gears•Deep-sea fishing stocks exploited within sustainable limits Other EU policiesCommon Fisheries Policy•Common Fisheries Policy Regulation•EU Regulations defining conservation objectives (MAPs), fishing opportunities, technical measures, control rules and data collection frameworkEnvironmental Policy•Marine Strategy Framework Directive•Habitat DirectiveExternal factors•Profitability of deep-sea fishing operations•Availability of fishing opportunities on other non deep-sea commercial fish species•MS deploy sufficient resources to ensure compliance with applicable rules•Scientific data on deep-sea fish stocks and VME indictor species are adequately collected and reportedEffects 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3. 

IMPLEMENTATION AND STATE OF PLAY 

3.1. 

Implementation of the DSAR 

At the time of completion of this evaluation, the implementation of the Deep-sea Access 
Regulation  is  not  complete.  Indeed,  the  closure  of  VME  areas  below  400  meters  to 
bottom  gears  and  the  determination  of  the  existing  deep-sea  fishing  areas,  i.e.  “the 
footprint”,  remain  pending  for  adoption,  following  the  release  of  ICES  advice  on  5 
January 20219.  

Upon the Regulation’s entry into force in 2017, measures with immediate effects were:  

 
 
 

the ban on bottom fishing below 800 meters;  
the establishment of fishing authorisations for target and bycatch fisheries;  
the management of capacity aiming to prevent an increase in capacity above the 
highest level achieved by Member States in 2009-2011; 
the obligatory reports of VMEs encounters;  

 
  stricter control provisions;  
  20%  observer  coverage  for  bottom  trawls  and  gillnets  fisheries  (targeting  deep-

sea fish) and 10% for other vessels.  

Following  the  above  considerations,  the  scope  of  the  evaluation  has  been  defined  as 
follows: 

1.  EU  intervention:  the  evaluation  concentrates  on  the  DSAR  and  includes 
considerations  of  other  EU  instruments  relating  to  the  management  of  deep-sea 
fisheries and their impacts on habitats in the scope of the DSAR as defined by its 
Article  210.  For  certain  provisions  of  the  DSAR,  the  geographical  scope  of  the 
evaluation  also  includes  international  waters  of  the  North-East  Atlantic  that 
correspond  to  the  Regulatory  Area  of  the  North-East  Atlantic  Fisheries 
Commission (NEAFC); 

2.  Temporal scope: the evaluation is focused on the period between 2017, the year 
of entry into force of the DSAR, and 2020 (depending on availability of data); 

3.  EU Member States: the evaluation includes all Member States having an interest 
in fisheries in the geographical area of the DSAR as flag State or as coastal State. 
15  Member  States  are  potentially  concerned  by  the  DSAR:  Belgium,  Denmark, 
Germany,  Estonia,  Finland,  France,  Ireland,  Latvia,  Lithuania,  Netherlands, 
Poland, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom11. 

9 ICES. 2021. List of areas where VMEs are known to occur or are likely to occur and existing deep-sea 
fishing areas (ref. (EU)2016/2336.). 
10 Union waters of the North Sea, of the North-Western Waters and of the South Western Waters as well as 
Union waters of ICES division IIa; international waters of the Fishery Committee for the Eastern Central 
Atlantic (CECAF) areas 34.1.1, 34.1.2 and 34.2. 
11  The  United  Kingdom  was  a  Member  State  of  the  European  Union  until  31  January  2020  and  this 
evaluation takes into account the responses and data submitted by the UK until this date. 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
3.2. 

State of play of the DSAR  

3.2.1  Overview of deep-sea catches 

EU fisheries of deep-sea species 
Since  2008,  EU  reported  catches  of  deep-sea  species  listed  in  Annex  I  of  the  DSAR 
follow a decreasing trend of -43%, from 35 000 tonnes per year on average over 2009-
2011 to approximately 21 000 tonnes per year since 2015. 

Figure 2: Evolution of EU reported catches of deep-sea species referred to in Annex I of the DSAR in 
the North-East Atlantic and in CECAF areas 34.1.1, 34.1.2 and 34.2 (except Greenland waters).  

Dotted line: trend - Source: Eurostat data 

Figure 3 shows reported catches of the 12 main deep-sea species by decreasing order of 
importance. The first seven species in the list represent 90% of total reported catches of 
deep-sea species. The 12 species in the table equal 97% of the total reported catches of 
deep-sea species.  

Figure 3: EU reported catches (tonnes) of the twelve main deep-sea species referred to in Annex I of 
the DSAR in the North-East Atlantic and in CECAF areas 34.1.1, 34.1.2 and 34.2 

Common name 

Scientific name 

A. carbo 
A. silus 
M. dypterygia 
R. hippoglossoides 
H. dactilopterus 
C. rupestris 
P. bogaraveo 
A. Bairdii 

Black scabbardfish 
Greater silver smelt 
Blue ling 
Greenland halibut 
Bluemouth (Bluemouth redfish) 
Roundnose grenadier 
Red (blackspot) seabream 
Baird's smoothhead 
Silver scabbardfish (Cutlass fish)  L. caudatus 
Common mora 
Alfonsino 
Wreckfish 
Other deep-sea species 

M. moro 
B. splendens 
P. americanus 

Total 
Source: based on Eurostat data 

8 

2016 

7 167 
2 896 
1 981 
1 998 
1 637 
1 435 
853 
400 
492 
306 
229 
201 
797 

2017 

6 638 
4 091 
2 610 
1 559 
1 821 
1 624 
772 
482 
349 
269 
222 
272 
662 

2018  Average  % total 

6 018 
4 016 
3 094 
2 230 
1 657 
1 399 
693 
400 
138 
237 
227 
185 
604 

6 608 
3 667 
2 562 
1 929 
1 705 
1 486 
773 
427 
326 
271 
226 
219 
688 

32% 
18% 
12% 
9% 
8% 
7% 
4% 
2% 
2% 
1% 
1% 
1% 
3% 

20 391 

21 370 

20 897 

20 886 

100% 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
97% of total deep-sea catches were fished by six EU Member States: Portugal, France, 
Spain, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and Germany. The contribution of deep-sea 
species in total weight of national landings is the highest for Portugal (close to 4%)12, and 
below 1% for all other five Member States. 

Figure 4: % weight of deep-sea catches in total national landings in 2017 for the main Member States 
reporting deep-sea catches 

Source: STECF (2019a) 

At EU level, total landings of deep-sea species in 2017 (31 370 tonnes) represented 0.4% 
of the total EU landing of fisheries products (5.2 million tonnes) (STECF, 2019a). 

NEAFC fisheries and EU share 
According  to  catch  statistics  published  by  NEAFC,  EU  catches  of  deep-sea  species 
referred to in Annex I of the DSAR in the NEAFC Regulatory Area were 3 026 tonnes 
per year on average between 2016-2018, representing 14.5% of the total EU catches of 
deep-sea species reported in Figure 3. The EU is by far the main fishing entity exploiting 
deep-sea species in the NEAFC Regulatory Area with 90% of total catches,  the second 
placed  fishing  entity  is  Faroes  with  8%  of  deep-sea  catches  in  the  NEAFC  Regulatory 
Area. 

Figure 5: Total reported catches (tonnes) of the deep-sea species referred to in Annex I of the DSAR 
in the Regulatory Area of the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission by fishing entity 

Fishing entity 

EU 

Faroes 

Iceland 

Norway 

Russia 

Total 

2016 

2 788 

460 

37 

20 

14 

2017 

3 315 

323 

0 

18 

2 

2018 

2 974 

30 

0 

54 

5 

Average 

3 026 

271 

12 

31 

7 

3 319 

3 658 

3 063 

3 347 

Source: NEAFC Fisheries Statistics (https://www.neafc.org/catch) 

The  main  deep-sea  species  targeted  by  EU  vessels  in  the  NEAFC  Regulatory  Area  is 
roundnose  grenadier  (C.  rupestris)  with  an  average  of  1 370  tonnes  per  year  between 
2016 and 2018 (44% of EU catches in the NEAFC-RA), preceding Greenland halibut (R. 
hippoglossoides)  with  715  tonnes  (23%)  and  black  scabbardfish  (A.  carbo)  with  245 
tonnes (8%).  

12 Mainly black scabbardfish, which represents 70% of reported catches for Portugal (2016-2018). 

9 

0.0%1.0%2.0%3.0%4.0%5.0%PTFRESNLUKDE% deep-sea species in total weight of landings (2017) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Trends over time 
The evolution of catches of deep-sea species over time (Figure 2) show stable landings 
since  2015,  and  no  particular  signal  as  from  2017,  the  year  of  entry  into  force  of  the 
DSAR. 
However,  significant  decreases  in  the  number  of  fleets  targeting  deep-sea  species  were 
observed  up  to  2010,  with  operators  reporting  the  decreasing  amount  of  fishing 
opportunities  being  the  main  driver  for  the  decreasing  fishing  fleet.  For  instance,  the 
Total Allowable Catches (TAC) for black scabbardfish and grenadiers in North Western 
waters was reduced by 40% between 2013 and 2019. 
NGOs  consumers’  campaigns  against  deep-sea  fisheries  might  have  also  resulted  in  a 
decrease in  market  demand for deep-sea fish, which reduced the  economic incentive to 
catch them. 
Over the last three to four years, stability is the main element qualifying deep-sea fishing 
activity.  

3.2.2  Main conservation and management measures for deep-sea in EU waters 

The DSAR is one of EU’s legal instruments to regulate deep-sea fisheries in EU waters, 
ensuring  the  implementation  of  the  Common  Fisheries  Policy  (CFP).  Other  EU  CFP 
instruments having an impact on the conservation and management of deep-sea fisheries 
(deep-sea  stocks  and  their  habitats)  over  the  period  starting  in  2017  considered  by  this 
evaluation include13: 

  The  biennial  deep-sea  TAC  and  quota  Regulation  fixing  fishing  opportunities  for 

certain deep-sea stocks; 

  The annual general TAC and quota Regulation fixing fishing opportunities for certain 

stocks, including some deep-sea stocks; 

  The  Technical  Measures  Regulation  setting  rules  on  how,  where  and  when  fishing 
vessels may exploit fishing opportunities, including fishing opportunities granted for 
the exploitation of deep-sea stocks; 

  The Western Water Multiannual Plan which covers management and conservation of 

some stocks of deep-sea species as from 2019; 

  The  landing  obligation  introduced  through  the  CFP  Regulation  applicable  to  most 

deep-sea fisheries as from 2019; 

  The  Control  Regulation  defining  rules  to  ensure  uniform  control  of  EU  fisheries, 

including deep-sea fisheries; 

  The  Data  Collection  Framework  Regulation  establishing  rules  on  the  collection, 

management and use of technical and scientific data in the fisheries sector 

The  next  figure  shows  the  different  CFP  instruments  listed  above  and  summarises  the 
nature of the main measures which have an impact on the conservation and management 
of deep-sea fisheries.  

13 See Annex 5 for the references of each Regulation.  

10 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Figure 6 

11 

 
 
 
 
 
 
4.  METHOD 

1.  Process 

The  evaluation  is  carried  out  in  line  with  the  principles  commonly  applied  for  the 
evaluation of EU initiatives, as laid down in the Better Regulation guidelines.  
The evaluation has been supported by a study14 undertaken by an external consultant and 
coordinated by the Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries (DG MARE) 
and the Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (EASME), with the 
support of an Inter-Service Steering Group of Commission services.  

The  evaluation  has  followed  three  main  phases:  (1)  the  inception  phase,  in  which  the 
structure  of  the  evaluation  was  defined,  based  on  a  conceptual  framework;  (2)  the  data 
collection  phase,  in  which  the  data  was  collected,  through  desk  research  and 
consultations, and structured based on the evaluation strategy; (3) the feedback phase, in 
which  the  intermediary  and  final  evaluation  results  were  analysed  and  transposed  into 
conclusions.  

2.  Data collection and consultations 

Data collection 
During  the  inception  phase,  data  and  information  stemming  from  Members  States’ 
reporting obligations were collected, such as available Member States annual reports on 
the implementation  of the DSAR, deep-sea species quota uptake, notifications  of VME 
encounters and requests submitted to the International Council for the Exploration of the 
Sea (ICES).  
In view of the numerous interlinkages between the DSAR and other EU and international 
instruments, all relevant legal texts were collected and analysed. The list of instruments 
consulted  and  referenced  for  the  evaluation  is  shown  in  Annex  5.  Relevant  published 
technical  and  scientific  information  (e.g.  reports,  scientific  papers)  were  gathered  and 
analysed. The list of references reviewed and cited in the evaluation is shown in Annex 6. 

Consultations 
A  consultation  strategy  was  established  with  the  following  key  elements:  consultation 
scope  and  objectives,  identification  of  stakeholders,  envisaged  consultation  activities, 
their  timing  and  language  regime.  A  roadmap  indicating  the  main  milestones  of  the 
consultations was published in September 2019, with no comment received.  

There were two types of consultations implemented in support of the evaluation: targeted 
consultations and a public consultation. 

Targeted consultations 
The  methodology  included  the  implementation  of  a  targeted  consultation  strategy  to 
reach EU stakeholders that have a high interest and/or a high stake in deep-sea fisheries. 
This  facilitated  the  collection  of  information  in  support  of  the  study,  and  enabled  the 
gathering  of  opinions  and  perceptions  on  the  DSAR  and  on  its  implementation.  Three 
groups of stakeholders were identified during the inception phase of the study: 

  stakeholders  impacted  by  the  provisions  of  the  DSAR  (e.g.  operators  of  the 

fishing industry); 

14 European Commission, ‘Study supporting the Evaluation of the Deep-sea Access Regulation’, (2020). 

12 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
  stakeholders  in  charge  of  the  implementation  of  the  DSAR  (e.g.  relevant 
Commission  services  and  EU  agencies,  MS  authorities,  research  institutes, 
representatives of the Advisory Councils); and  

  stakeholders  of  the  civil  society  having  a  stated  interest  in  the  conservation  of 

deep-sea ecosystem (e.g. environmental NGOs). 

Initially,  the  methodology  considered  direct  contacts  with  the  different  stakeholders 
through face-to-face interviews or telephone calls. However, with the Covid-19 outbreak 
and associated sanitary measures that culminated during the period initially earmarked to 
implement  the  consultations  (April-May  2020),  the  strategy  had  to  be  adapted  to  reach 
stakeholders  using  written  questionnaires,  and  with  follow-up  telephone  calls  or 
videoconferences, as appropriate. The targeted consultation period was also extended to 
June  2020  to  factor  in  the  impacts  of  the  lockdown  on  stakeholders’  ability  to  provide 
feedback. 

Three  different  types  of  questionnaires  were  prepared  during  the  inception  phase  to 
ensure adaptation of the questions to the target audience, as follows: 

  one  questionnaire  for  Member  State  authorities,  with  one  version  for  Member 
States  issuing  fishing  authorisations  to  catch  deep-sea  species  and  an  abridged 
version for Member States not issuing fishing authorisations; 

  one questionnaire for fishermen associations; 
  one questionnaire for Advisory Councils and NGOs. 

Stakeholders  were  contacted  from  early  April  2020.  The  full  list  of  stakeholders 
contacted  is  presented  in  Annex  2.  Concerning  the  four  Advisory  Committees  (AC) 
consulted, two responded (North Western Waters and South Western Waters) but not in 
the form of a formal AC position paper. The two ACs’ contributions consisted mainly of 
feedback on what the ACs had already prepared at the time of negotiation of the DSAR, 
the  dissemination  of  questionnaires  to  all  their  members  and  communication  to  the 
evaluation team of individual responses. 

In total, 73 entities were contacted and 58 responded (79%). 

Overall, the feedback displays the following strengths: 

  All  15 Member States authorities having fishing vessels  operating in  the North-

East Atlantic responded; 

  Fishermen  associations  who  responded  represent  different  types  of  fishing 
interests  in  terms  of  types  of  fisheries  exploited,  categories  of  fishing  vessels 
(large-scale, small-scale) and nationalities; 

  There  was  a  good  level  of  engagement  by  NGOs  having  a  stated  interest  in  the 

management of deep-sea fisheries. 

Public consultation 
The  public  consultation  on  the  DSAR  was  published  on  the  European  Commission 
consultation website15 between 13 May 2020 and 5 August 2020. The public consultation 
was open to  all citizens and the wider stakeholder community. It was promoted on DG 
MARE’s website16 and advertised via stakeholders’ mailing, newsletters and social media 
posts by DG MARE, EASME and DG ENV.  

15 EC - Have Your Say: Deep-sea fishing in the north-east Atlantic – evaluation of EU rules 
16 MARE website: Open public consultation on the deep-sea access regulation 

13 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
The survey questionnaire was divided into two sections:  

  General  Questions  –  to  assess  the  relevance  and  effectiveness  of  the  DSAR, 

aimed at respondents with limited or no knowledge of the Regulation 

  Specialised  Questions  –  to  assess  the  relevance,  effectiveness  and  coherence  of 
the  DSAR,  aimed  at  respondents  with  a  more  in-depth  knowledge  of  the 
Regulation.  

In  total,  156  respondents  participated,  of  whom  112  (72%)  also  responded  to  the 
specialised questions. 

An  overview  and  conclusions  of  the  consultations  activities  is  shown  in  Annex  2 
“Consultations - Synopsis Report”.  

3.  Robustness of the findings and limitations 

The  Commission’s  assessment  of  the  data  and  information  collected  through  desk 
research  and  consultations  is  that  these  are  broadly  adequate  to  inform  the  evaluation. 
The  main  factor  potentially  impacting  the  robustness  of  findings  is  the  relatively  short 
time period (i.e. 3.5 years) between the entry into force of the DSAR and its evaluation. 
Due  to  the  time  lag  for  releasing  certain  data  into  the  public  domain,  such  as  data  on 
catches or on fishing fleet performances, the evaluation could use public data generally 
referring to 2017 or 2018. As a result, trends measured are limited to the short term. In 
addition,  this  evaluation  was  conducted  before  the  adoption  of  the  Commission’s 
implementing act for two DSAR flagship measures (i.e. definition of the existing fishing 
areas and definition of areas where VMEs are known or likely to occur). As a result, the 
evaluation could consider these two measures only on their principles and objectives, but 
could not evaluate their effectiveness in detail, nor could the evaluation identify potential 
unexpected effects stemming from their implementation. 

5.  ANALYSIS AND ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

The evaluation assessed the performance of the DSAR against the following five criteria: 
relevance,  effectiveness,  efficiency,  coherence  and  EU  added-value.  The  evaluation 
developed 13 specific evaluation questions, which are grouped according to their topic. 
The overall analysis is based on evidence from both the study supporting the evaluation 
and the Commission’s own sources. This chapter presents the analysis and provides the 
answers to the general evaluation questions. 

A.  Relevance 

To what extent was there a need to adopt the measures under the DSAR? 

The previous Deep-Sea Access Regulation (EC) 2347/2002 concentrated on measures to 
manage  fishing  pressure  on  certain  deep-sea  fish  stocks  through  capacity  management 
and effort restrictions, but it did not include measures to protect deep-sea habitats from 
significant  adverse  impacts  from  fishing  gear,  in  particular  Vulnerable  Marine 
Ecosystems  (VMEs).  At  the  same  time,  the  previous  Deep-Sea  Access  Regulation  was 
considered by the Commission17 to be broadly ineffective as a means to protect deep-sea 

17 COM(2007) 30 final: Review of the management of deep-sea fish stocks. 

14 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
fish  stocks  from  unsustainable  exploitation  and  to  ensure  provision  of  relevant  data  to 
support scientific advice. 

As  from  2004,  the  United  Nations  General  Assembly  (UNGA)  adopted  three 
resolutions18,  which  address  the  management  of  bottom  deep-sea  fisheries,  including 
their impacts  on VMEs.  UNGA Resolutions  set  out  principles and standards that apply 
primarily in areas beyond national jurisdictions covered or not by a relevant multilateral 
arrangements  like  Regional  Fisheries  Management  Organisations  (RFMOs).  UNGA 
Resolutions are operationalised by FAO International Guidelines for the Management of 
Deep-Sea  Fisheries  in  the  High  Seas19  adopted  in  2008  pursuant  to  paragraph  89  of 
UNGA Resolution 61/105, and published in 2009. EU measures for the management of 
deep-sea  fisheries,  including  their  impacts  on  deep-sea  ecosystems,  were  not  fully 
consistent with UNGA Resolutions at that time. 

The need for enhanced protection of deep-sea fish stocks and of their habitats was further 
underpinned by the adoption of the Common Fisheries Policy implemented as from 2013 
through  Regulation  (EU)  1380/2013,  which  established  as  a  main  objective  an 
ecosystem-based  approach  to  fisheries  management.  The  ecosystem-based  approach  is 
conceived to ensure that negative impacts of fishing activities on the marine ecosystems 
are  minimised.  An  EU  intervention  was  thus  needed  to  better  address  the  four 
fundamental  problems  of  deep-sea  fishing  identified  by  the  Commission’s  impact 
assessment20: 

  The high vulnerability of deep-sea stocks to fishing; 
  Fishing  with  bottom  trawls  destroys  or  risks  destroying  irreplaceable  benthic 
habitats  (VMEs)  which  represent  main  sources  of  biodiversity  in  the  deep  sea. 
The extent of destruction that already occurred is unknown; 

  Fishing with bottom trawls for deep-sea species produces medium to high levels 

of undesired catch of deep-sea species; 

  Determining  the  sustainable  level  of  fishing  pressure  via  scientific  advice  is 

particularly difficult. 

Member  State  authorities  and  NGOs  consulted  through  the  targeted  consultations21 
confirmed  that  in  2016  there  was  a  need  for  a  new  instrument  to  protect  deep-sea 
ecosystems  and  to  bring  EU  legislation  in  line  with  international  commitments.  Most 
fishermen  associations  also  supported  the  need  for  a  revised  regime22  in  view  of  the 
specificities of deep-sea fisheries, but some fishermen associations (Spain, Netherlands, 
Germany) expressed a different view stating that existing measures were sufficient on the 
ground that fishing for deep-sea species did not necessarily mean fishing in VMEs.  
Contributions  to  the  public  consultation  on  the  DSAR  confirmed  the  need  to  protect 
deep-sea VMEs (92% of respondents23) and deep-sea fish stocks (89% of respondents24). 

18 Resolution 59/25 (Nov. 2004), Resolution 61/105 (Dec. 2006) and Resolution 64/72 (Dec. 2009). 
19 International Guidelines for the Management of Deep-sea Fisheries in the High Seas. Rome, FAO. 2009 
20 Commission Staff Working  Document,  IA of 19 July 2012, SWD (2012) 202 final, accompanying the 
Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing specific conditions to 
fishing for deep-sea stocks in the North-East Atlantic and provisions for fishing in international waters of 
the North-East Atlantic and repealing Regulation (EC) No 2347/2002. 
21 See full list in Annex 2: Consultations – Synopsis Report. 
22 compared to the Regulation (EC) No 2347/2002. 
23 144 out of 156 respondents to the public consultation. See the Public Consultation Summary Report. 
24 139 out of 156 respondents. 

15 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
To what extent does this need continue to exist? 

Deep-sea species and ecosystems are particularly vulnerable to depletion and significant 
adverse  impacts  from  bottom  gears,  especially  given  the  longevity  and  slow  recovery 
potential of many deep-sea species and habitats. While other EU fisheries (e.g. TAC and 
quota  Regulations,  Technical  Measures  Regulation)  and  environmental  legislation  (e.g. 
Habitats  Directive,  Marine  Strategy  Framework  Directive)  also  play  an  important  role, 
these  alone  are  not  sufficiently  tailored  to  the  particular  needs  of  vulnerable  deep-sea 
species  and  habitat.  Specific  provisions  are  needed  in  particular  for  regulating  fishing 
capacity exploiting deep-sea stocks, freezing the fishing footprint, protecting the different 
species of the seabed ecosystem forming VME habitats (e.g. cold-water corals, deep-sea 
sponges,  sea  pen  fields),  implementing  more  stringent  control  and  reporting  rules  and 
strengthening  the  enhanced  provision  of  scientific  information  on  deep-sea  stocks  and 
habitats. 

A  widespread  majority  among  the  Member  State  authorities  and  NGOs  consulted 
through the targeted consultations confirmed that the need for a specific deep-sea access 
regime  continues  to  exist  to  ensure  implementation  of  measures  tailored  to  the 
vulnerability  of  the  deep-sea  environment.  Fishermen  associations  also  supported  the 
continued  existence  of  a  specific  framework  for  access  to  deep-sea  fisheries  but  were 
more focused on fishing fleets interacting the most with the deep-sea environment.  

Contributions  to  the  public  consultation  corroborated  these  findings  with  90%  of 
respondents25  indicating  that  there  is  still  a  need  to  prevent  significant  impacts  on 
vulnerable  marine  ecosystems  and  to  ensure  the  long-term  conservation  of  deep-sea 
stocks,  and  85%26  confirming  the  need  to  improve  scientific  knowledge  on  deep-sea 
species and habitats. 

To what extent are measures under the DSAR appropriate to address needs, do they 
continue to be appropriate to respond to needs? 

The DSAR implements the following four main types of interrelated measures: 

  Management of fishing capacity including: 

  Fishing  authorisation  regimes  based  on  quantities  of  deep-sea  species  caught  in 

absolute value or in proportion of total catches. 

  Capacity  ceilings  to  ensure  that  total  fishing  capacity  expressed  in  kW  and  GT 

does not exceed 2009-2011 reference levels. 

  Protection  of  deep-sea  stocks  and  deep-sea  habitats  through  spatial  restrictions 

including: 
  Limitation  of  exploitation  to  defined  existing  deep-sea  fishing  areas  (i.e.  the 
fishing  footprint)  based  on  areas  exploited  in  2009-2011  calendar  years,  with  a 
specific science-based procedure for authorising fishing outside existing deep-sea 
fishing areas. 

25 140 out of 156 respondents to the public consultation (general questions). 
26 95 out of 112 respondents to the public consultation (general and specialised questions). 

16 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
  Closure  of  areas  below  400m  where  VMEs  are  known  or  likely  to  occur  to 

bottom gear. 

  VME encounter protocol, including move-on rule. 
  800m bottom trawl prohibition to ensure full protection of ecosystems and deep-

sea fish stocks beyond this depth. 

  More stringent monitoring and control rules. 

  Enhanced  scientific  data  collection  on  deep-sea  species  and  on  species  belonging  to 

the seabed ecosystem. 

Management of fishing capacity 
The  key  instrument  for  managing  fishing  capacity  engaged  in  deep-sea  fisheries  is  the 
DSAR  fishing  authorisation  regime  as  per  Article  5.  Fishing  authorisation  regimes  are 
commonly  used  in  EU  legislation,  where  access  to  certain  stocks  or  areas  needs  to  be 
managed  and  controlled,  for  example  under  EU  multiannual  management  plans  or  for 
fishing in the waters of third countries. The DSAR fishing authorisation regime provides 
the  legal  basis  for  identifying  fishing  vessels  authorised  to  catch  deep-sea  species  as 
target species (the targeting fishing authorisation) or as by-catches (the by-catch fishing 
authorisation)  under  defined  conditions.  The  two  types  of  authorisations  allow 
application  of  different  treatments  with  the  possibility  to  focus  conservation  and 
management measures on the part of the fleet  presumed to  have the greatest impact  on 
deep-sea stocks and habitats. However, the non-exclusive nature of the targeting and by-
catch  regimes  could  raise  concerns  as  some  Member  States  issue  both  types  of  fishing 
authorisations to the same vessel. 

Fishing authorisation regimes are often used to cap the fishing capacity of fishing vessels 
authorised  to  access  the  fisheries  beyond  certain  reference  levels.  The  DSAR  includes 
such mechanisms through its Article 6 by limiting the fishing capacity (expressed in kW 
and  GT)  of  vessels  eligible  to  targeting  fishing  authorisations  to  2009-2011  levels, 
whichever year provides the higher figure.  

The  DSAR  fishing  authorisation  regime  and  the  associated  limitation  mechanisms  are 
relevant to control and manage the fishing fleet exploiting deep-sea species. None of the 
stakeholders consulted challenged the principle of regulating access to deep-sea fisheries 
through  fishing  authorisations.  However,  fishermen  associations  and  NGOs  indicated 
that the implementation modalities of the DSAR fishing authorisation regime, based on a 
list  of  designated  deep-sea  species,  may  not  be  fully  relevant  to  achieve  DSAR 
objectives. Fishermen associations and NGOs further challenged the relevance of the by-
catch fishing authorisation regime as a mechanism to contribute to the protection of the 
deep-sea  environment  on  the  ground  that  fishing  vessels  issued  with  such  fishing 
authorisation are subject to few DSAR measures and are exempt from limitations of their 
fishing operations within the footprint. The provision on capacity  limitations appears to 
be less relevant now with the reduction of the number of fishing vessels exploiting deep-
sea stocks. This is interpreted by the respondents as a result of increased limitations on 
fishing  opportunities  (TAC  and  quotas),  spatial  restrictions  (800m  bottom  trawl 
prohibition)  and,  as  reported  by  fishermen  associations,  the  decreased  economic 
incentives to catch deep-sea species as a result of NGOs’ campaigns against consumption 
of  deep-sea  fish.  The  forthcoming  implementation  of  the  DSAR  footprint  delimitation 
and  closure  of  VME  areas  will  probably  impose  additional  spatial  restrictions  likely  to 
further limit the fishing capacity deployed in deep-sea fisheries.  

17 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Protection of deep-sea stocks and deep-sea habitats through spatial restrictions 
Three measures recommended by the United Nations General Assembly to protect deep-
sea VMEs from significant adverse impacts caused by fishing gears are reflected in the 
DSAR:  
- 

the limitation of operations of fishing vessels targeting deep-sea fish to existing deep-
sea  fishing  areas  (Article  7  of  the  DSAR),  i.e.  the  fishing  footprint,  with  specific 
procedures for the authorisation to fish outside (Article 8.5) i.e. exploratory fisheries, 
the closure of areas below 400m where VMEs are known, or likely, to occur to fishing 
vessels using bottom gear (Article 9.6),  
the VME encounter protocol including a move-on rule (Article 9.2). 

- 

- 

The three measures have already been implemented in the NEAFC Regulatory Area. The 
implementation  of  these  measures  through  the  DSAR  is  relevant  to  protect  deep-sea 
VMEs in EU waters while ensuring alignment of EU legislation with recommendations 
of  the  United  Nations  General  Assembly.  While  none  of  the  stakeholders  consulted 
through  targeted  consultations  challenged  the  relevance  of  these  three  measures  to 
contribute 
the  forthcoming 
implementation  modalities  will  have  an  effect  on  the  extent  to  which  the  measures 
respond to needs. In addition, NGOs suggested that the application of VMEs protection 
to depths below 400m is not appropriate to protect VMEs present above that depth. 

to  DSAR  stated  objectives, 

they  mentioned 

that 

The 800m bottom trawl prohibition has two main expected effects:  

i) 

ii) 

protection  of  deep-sea  habitats  against  interactions  with  bottom  trawls 
irrespective of the characteristics of the habitats (i.e. VMEs or not) and  
protection from fishing pressure of deep-sea species living mostly below that 
depth like grenadier and orange roughy, and commercial deep-sea species for 
which depths below 800m form a major part of their natural habitat (i.e. black 
scabbardfish). 

This measure also protects non-commercial species often caught as by-catches by bottom 
trawlers  below  800m  like  deep-sea  sharks  or  chimaera.  The  800m  bottom  trawl 
prohibition is appropriate to address the needs for enhanced protection of deep-sea stocks 
and their habitats below that depth. 

Feedback  from  targeted  consultations  on  the  relevance  of  the  800m  bottom  trawl 
prohibition  reveals  two  radically  different  perceptions  of  the  relevance  of  the  measure. 
For NGOs, the measure is the most appropriate way of preventing significant adverse 
impacts on VMEs within the framework of deep-sea fishing and ensuring the long-term 
conservation of deep-sea fish stocks. This view is shared by 88% of contributors27 in the 
public  consultation.  For  fishermen  associations,  the  800m  bottom  trawl  prohibition  is 
irrelevant as fishing below 800m depth does not entail destruction of VMEs if the gear 
is towed over muddy bottoms. According to them, the measure has been adopted without 
reasonable scientific justification. Fishermen associations with fishing interests in South-
Western  Waters  (mainly  from  Spain  and  Portugal)  further  report  that  such  prohibition 
may be counterproductive as waters deeper than 800m are relatively close to the shore, 
forcing vessels to move closer to the coast to deploy their gears with increased risks of 
interactions  for  small-scale  vessels.  Member  State  authorities  did  not  comment  on  the 
relevance of the measure but indicated that it was a reasonable compromise to reconcile 
the opposing positions of civil society and fishing operators.  

27 99 out of 112 respondents. See the Public Consultation Summary Report. 

18 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
More stringent monitoring and control rules 
Article  10  of  the  DSAR  details  specific  control  provisions  of  the  EU  control  system 
applying in the context of stocks subject to the multiannual plans referred to in Article 9 
of  the  CFP  Regulation  and  for  which  compliance  with  existing  rules  is  assessed  as 
essential to reach conservation objectives. In view of the vulnerability of deep-sea stocks 
and VMEs, it was relevant to implement the more stringent control rules applied in the 
context of multiannual plans through the DSAR.  

The main control rule created by the DSAR (Article 13) is an obligation to report catches 
on a haul-by-haul basis when engaging in a deep-sea métier or when fishing below 400m, 
as  opposed  to  on  a  daily  basis  under  the  general  rule.  This  more  stringent  reporting 
obligation is essential to improve monitoring of fishing activities on deep-sea stocks or in 
waters deeper than 400m as fishing vessels may exploit different stocks or areas during 
the  same  day.  The  haul-by-haul  reporting  obligation  generates  specific  monitoring 
information  on  deep-sea  fishing  operations  that  would  otherwise  be  amalgamated  with 
information  on  fishing  vessel  activities  on  other  non-deep-sea  stocks  during  the  same 
day. 

None  of  the  stakeholders  consulted  challenged  the  relevance  of  applying  the  more 
stringent control rules in the context of EU multiannual plans to deep-sea fisheries. The 
haul-by-haul reporting requirement is already imposed on fishing vessels operating in the 
NEAFC Regulatory Area and it was considered logical to apply the same requirement in 
EU  waters.  Contributions  to  the  public  consultation  also  indicated  a  large  majority  of 
respondents  (>80%28)  supporting  more  stringent  control  rules  on  vessels  exploiting 
deep-sea species. 

Enhanced scientific data collection on deep-sea species and on species belonging to 
the seabed ecosystem 
Article 15 of the DSAR foresees that scientific data on deep-sea species, including those 
discarded, and species belonging to the seabed ecosystem are collected by Member States 
under the mechanisms implemented through the EU Data Collection Framework (DCF). 
This provision is appropriate to ensure that scientifically-based sampling strategies with 
data collected are of sufficient quality to be considered for deep-sea fish stock assessment 
purposes  and  for  improved  knowledge  on  areas  where  VMEs  are  known,  or  likely,  to 
occur. 

The DSAR also introduced a specific observer scheme for fishing vessels authorised to 
catch  deep-sea  species,  with  quantitative  coverage  objectives  for  Member  States.  The 
purpose of the DSAR observer scheme was to ensure the collection of data on catches, 
by-catches of deep-sea species, encounters with VMEs and other relevant information for 
the effective implementation of the DSAR. The spirit of the DSAR observer scheme was 
to ensure sufficient scientific monitoring of the activities of the fleet authorised to catch 
deep-sea  species.  Therefore  the  definition  of  a  uniform  observer  coverage,  at  levels 
higher  than  those  generally  implemented  under  the  DCF29,  was  appropriate  to  meet  the 
needs for improved scientific knowledge on deep-sea species and habitats. Contributors 
to  the  public  consultation  widely  supported  the  principle  of  a  specific  observer 
coverage (74% of respondents30). 

28 87%, 97 out of 112 respondents (specialized questions). See the Public Consultation Summary Report. 
29  20%  observer  coverage  for  bottom  trawls  and  gillnets  fisheries  (targeting  deep-sea  fish)  and  10%  for 
other vessels (target or bycatch).  
30 83 out of 112 respondents (specialised questions). See the Public Consultation Summary Report. 

19 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Stakeholders  consulted,  and  a  large  majority  of  contributors  to  the  public  consultation, 
(>80%) confirmed that enhanced data collection of deep-sea species and their habitats is 
needed to better inform decision-making. Some fishermen associations (Spain, Portugal) 
highlighted  that  it  is  not  suitable  for  small-scale  vessels  to  host  an  observer,  and  the 
DSAR provides waivers for such cases31.  

Conclusion on the relevance of the DSAR 

In  conclusion,  the  DSAR  measures  are  relevant  and  appropriate  to  address  the  needs 
identified to i) improve scientific knowledge on deep-sea species and their habitats and 
ii)  prevent  significant  impacts  on  VMEs  within  the  framework  of  deep-sea  fishing  and 
ensuring  long-term  conservation  of  deep-sea  fish  stocks.  Stakeholders  consulted  in  the 
framework  of  the  targeted  consultations  did  not  identify  other  types  of  measures  that 
could  have  been  relevant  to  contribute  to  the  DSAR  objectives  given  other  CFP 
conservation  and  management  measures  (e.g.  Fishing  Opportunities  Regulations, 
Technical Measures) in place. Most measures remain relevant as needs identified ex-ante 
remain the same. 

By  contrast,  the capacity management  measure of the  DSAR Article 6 is probably less 
relevant now than at the time of the adoption of the DSAR. This assessment is based on 
the  decreasing  levels  of  fishing  activities  on  deep-sea  stocks  as  a  result  of  increased 
limitations  on  fishing  opportunities  (TAC  and  quotas),  strengthened  by  the  landing 
obligation  and  spatial  measures  (800m  bottom  trawl  prohibition),  combined  with  the 
decreased  economic  incentive  to  catch  deep-sea  species  as  a  result  of  NGO  campaigns 
targeting  market  outlets  that  offer  deep-sea  species  to  consumers  (as  reported  by 
fishermen  associations).  The  relevance  of  the  by-catch  fishing  authorisation  regime 
remains important as it results in the identification of fishing vessels authorised to catch 
deep-sea species and in the application of the observer coverage.  

B.  Effectiveness 

To what extent is the DSAR effective to protect deep-sea vulnerable ecosystems? 

The  DSAR  includes  four  main  measures  to  protect  the  deep-sea  ecosystems,  including 
VMEs: 

1.  Limitation of deep-sea fishing to defined fishing areas (i.e. the fishing footprint) 
based on areas exploited in 2009-2011, with a specific authorisation procedure for 
fishing outside this footprint; 

2.  Closure  for  bottom  gears  of  areas  where  VMEs  are  present  or  likely  to  occur 

below 400m; 

3.  Protocol to signal encounters with VMEs and a move-on rule; 
4.  Prohibition for bottom trawl to fish below 800 meters to ensure full protection of 

ecosystems and deep-sea fish stocks beyond this depth. 

The first two measures have not yet been implemented (Article 7.2 for the determination 
of  existing  fishing  areas  and  Article  9.6  for  the  closure  of  VME  areas  below  400m  to 

31 Article 15.4, for security reasons.  

20 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
bottom gear). The two other measures (VME encounter protocol and 800m bottom trawl 
prohibition) were immediately applicable as of 2017. 

The  main  reason  for  the  delayed  adoption  of  the  implementing  act  for  the  first  two 
measures is a scientific advisory process that took longer than the single year established 
by the DSAR. The delayed implementation of the two measures can be explained: 

i) 
ii) 

by delayed submission of relevant data by some Member States and  
by  the  relative  complexity  of  the  advice  to  be  provided  by  ICES,  which 
includes new and specific methodologies for the VMEs likelihood, analysis of 
impact on fishing activities and options for closure of areas based on a trade-
off analysis.  

In  the  meantime,  VMEs  areas  are  not  closed  to  bottom  fishing  and  the  footprint  is  not 
defined. However, the DSAR includes a safeguard clause, which limits the issuance of 
targeting  fishing  authorisations  to  areas  previously  exploited  by  fishing  vessels32.  The 
safeguard clause has a different temporal coverage (the last three years as opposed to the 
2009-2011  period),  and  does  not  establish  how past  fishing  areas  should  be  defined.  A 
review of Member States’ annual reports to the Commission suggests that Member States 
identify  authorised  fishing  areas  on  a  statistical  rectangle  basis,  which  may  be 
appropriate, or on an ICES division (e.g. 6a) basis, which is probably too large, or on a 
mix  of  both  spatial  references.  The  effectiveness  of  the  safeguard  clause  may  be 
undermined  by  the  fact  that  Coastal  States  may  not  be  fully  aware  of  the  licensing 
conditions  imposed  by  each  flag  state  for  access  to  certain  areas,  possibly  hindering 
monitoring of compliance. 

The VME encounter protocol, including the move-on rule, was applicable as from 2017 
but  only  to  bottom  trawls  and  longlines  (Annex  IV  of  the  DSAR).  However,  no  VME 
encounter  has  been  reported  to  date.  This  possibly  reflects  a  combination  of  a  general 
decline in bottom fishing activity in EU waters and an enhanced awareness and capability 
of  vessels  to  avoid  coral  and  sponge  areas.  It  is  also  known  that  bottom  trawls  are 
designed  to  catch  fish  which  makes  them  poor  sampling  tools  for  most  sessile  benthic 
organisms  while  the  catchability  of  VME  indicator  species  is  unknown  (Auster  et  al., 
2011).  Additionally,  the  sampling  effectiveness  is  likely  to  be  species-specific  and  for 
some  species  the  trawl  may  only  retain  a  very  small  proportion  of  the  VME  species 
actually impacted (Parker et al., 2009).  
It cannot be excluded however that the lack of reports also reflects failure to report actual 
encounters.  This  may  not  be  intentional  as  fishermen  associations  reported  that  the 
identification  of  VME  indicator  species  by  masters  of  fishing  vessels  is  beyond  their 
technical  capacity  (determination  of  the  dead  or  live  status  of  coral  and/or  sponge  taxa 
brought on-board in the net). Scientific observers considered by Article 16 of the DSAR 
may  support  through  their  expertise,  but  i)  their  primary  task  is  to  collect  data  without 
interfering  with  vessel  operations,  and  ii)  they  cover  10%  or  20%  of  fishing  activities, 
depending on the nature of the fishing authorisation held. 
NGOs consulted indicated that the VME encounter protocol should be considered only as 
a  backup/safeguard  measure  to  ensure  the  protection  of  undiscovered  VMEs  that  could 
not  be  included  in  stronger  spatial  protection  measures  like  the  footprint  or  closures  of 
VMEs areas. As a result, the VME encounter protocol seems a useful safeguard measure 
but  it  cannot  be  considered  as  an  effective  conservation  measure  on  its  own  given  the 
poor sampling effectiveness of VME indicator species by commercial fishing gears and 

32 Upon evidence of fishing activities for at least three years before lodging the application (art. 8.3).  

21 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
the lack of adequate resources on-board to analyse catches of VME indicator species and 
qualify them as an encounter with a VME.  

The prohibition to fish below 800 meters with bottom trawl was applicable immediately 
at the entry into force of the Regulation. The measure is effective to protect any type of 
ecosystem  below  800m  irrespective  of  their  attributes  in  relation  to  determination  of 
VME status. Obviously, the measure does not address the protection of VMEs above that 
depth or protection from significant adverse impacts on VMEs caused by other types of 
bottom  contacting  fishing  gear  (e.g.  longlines)  below  800m.  While  it  is  not  within  the 
DSAR’s remit to address the effective protection of VMEs located above 400m depth, it 
is  to  note  that  scientific  evidence  compiled  for  this  evaluation  suggests  that  VMEs  are 
present in EU waters in the 200 – 400m depth band33.  

As a result of the delayed implementation of two of its key measures (i.e. the definition 
of the fishing footprint and the closure of  areas below 400m for VMEs protection), the 
DSAR  has  not  been  effective  to  date  in  protecting  deep-sea  vulnerable  marine 
ecosystems from significant adverse impacts caused by bottom fishing gear between 400-
800m  depths.  This  view  was  shared  by  more  than  70%34  of  respondents  to  the  public 
consultation with some feedback highlighting that no VME area has been closed so far 
despite  DSAR  commitments.  Whilst  the  delayed  implementation  of  two  DSAR  key 
measures for protection of VMEs may be explained by the complexity of the underlying 
scientific advisory process and associated data requirements, NGOs reported that there is 
a discrepancy between the Union’s pledges for protection of the deep-sea ecosystems and 
actual advancement in terms of achievements. 

To what extent is the DSAR effective in contributing to preserve deep-sea fish stocks? 

The  main  measures  for  conservation  and  management  of  deep-sea  fish  stocks  are 
implemented through other EU CFP-related regulations, in particular the TAC and quota 
Regulations  (fixing  levels  of  fishing  opportunities)  and  the  Technical  Measures 
Regulation (defining how, when and where fishing vessels may exploit available fishing 
opportunities).  The  DSAR  does  not  include  conservation  and  management  measures, 
which aim to regulate the level of fishing mortality of deep-sea fish stocks. 

However, two DSAR measures could be expected to contribute to preservation of deep-
sea  stocks:  the  capacity  management  measures  (Article  6)  and  the  800m  bottom  trawl 
prohibition (Article 8.4). 

Capacity management 
The  capacity  management  measures  enacted  through  Article  6  of  the  DSAR  seek  to 
ensure  that  the  aggregate  fishing  capacity  of  fishing  vessels  issued  with  a  targeting 
fishing  authorisation  does  not  exceed  2009-2011  levels,  whichever  year  provides  the 
highest figure. Although limits to fishing capacity are frequently enforced to contribute to 
the management of fisheries in EU waters and in waters under the management mandate 
of  RFMOs,  the  design  of  the  DSAR  measures  raises  doubts  regarding  the  potential 
effectiveness of the measure: 

33  European  Commission  ‘Study  supporting  the  Evaluation  of  the  Deep-sea  Access  Regulation’,  (2020): 
analysis  of  the  ICES  VME  database  and  GEBCO  database  shows  that  42%  of  available  VMEs  records 
concern observations between 200 and 400m (2004-2018).  
34 78 out of 112 respondents (specialised questions). 

22 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
  The  criteria  defined  by  the  DSAR  to  establish  capacity  levels  applicable  to 
vessels  having  been  issued  a  targeting  fishing  authorisation  leave  room  for 
interpretation by Member States. For instance, capacity ceilings are unspecific on 
gear  used.  For  some  Member  States,  the  national  capacity  ceiling  can  include 
capacity of different fishing fleet segments such as large-scale bottom trawlers or 
pelagic trawlers and small-scale vessels using hooks. As a result, it is likely that 
capacity limits established by Member States are not defined on a uniform basis, 
with the consequence that limits might not correspond to the assumed ambition of 
the  DSAR  to  cap  deep-sea  fishing  capacity  levels  in  EU  waters  at  the  levels  of 
fishing capacity deployed in the same waters in 2009-2011. 

  The  capacity  limits  defined  at  Member  State  levels  include  all  types  of  vessels. 
They do not make a distinction regarding the ability of the vessels to catch deep-
sea species and the extent of significant adverse impacts on VMEs that the vessels 
could generate. 

It  is  to  note  that  information  on  the  fishing  capacity  of  vessels  with  a  targeting  fishing 
authorisation is not available, nor is the capacity ceiling that the current fishing capacity 
should not exceed. The evolution of catches of deep-sea species since 2009-2011 follows 
a  decreasing  trend  (-43%  since  the  reference  period),  suggesting  a  corresponding 
decrease in fishing effort. However, the decreasing trend in catches, and possibly effort, 
does not provide information on the evolution of the fishing capacity deployed on deep-
sea stocks. It may be the result of the deployment of the same amount of fishing capacity, 
but  for  fewer  days  in  the  year  compared  to  the  reference  period.  However,  in  practice, 
contributions  from  consulted Member States  and fishermen associations confirmed that 
the number of vessels exploiting deep-sea species decreased significantly  as  a result of 
decreasing fishing and market opportunities. 

Other  considerations  suggest  that  capacity  management  regimes  may  not  be  fully 
effective instruments to support fisheries management: 

  The European Commission recently raised concerns that capacity management as 
a whole is undermined due to the lack of compliance by Member States that do 
not  generate  reliable  capacity  indicators  for  registration  and  certification 
purposes35. 

  Effort  management  does  not  equal  capacity  management.   Both  can  be 
categorised  as  input  management  (as  opposed  to  output  management  such  as 
quotas),  but  the  two  are  different  in  nature.  Effort  management  assumes  the 
existence  of  capacity,  and  then  limits  the  use  of  the  available  capacity  through 
specific measures, such as technical measures. 

Overall, it is likely that the effectiveness of the capacity management measures enacted 
through Article 6 of the DSAR has a somewhat limited contribution to the preservation 
of deep-sea fish stocks.  

The prohibition for bottom trawl below 800 meters  
The 800 meters bottom trawl prohibition36 had the immediate effect of preventing bottom 
trawlers  from  accessing  fishing  areas  where  some  commercial  deep-sea  species  are 
abundant.  According  to  ICES  scientific  reports  and  as  confirmed  by  fishermen 
associations,  the  800m  bottom  trawl  ban  effectively  protects  deep-sea  species  with 

35 Commission Staff Working Document, SWD(2019) 311 final, Evaluation of the Entry/Exit scheme in 
accordance with Article 23.3 of Regulation (EU) 1380/2013 on the Common Fisheries Policy.  
36 Art. 8.4. of the DSAR. 

23 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
habitats  below  that  depth,  such  as  orange  roughy  and  grenadiers,  and  decreases  the 
availability of deep-sea species with the majority of biomass below 800m, such as black 
scabbardfish. ICES has indeed stated that “fishing effort on black scabbardfish has been 
decreasing  probably  associated  with  the  ban  of  trawling  in  deeper  area”37,  “before  the 
ban  on  trawling  deeper  than  800m,  some  spatial  overlap  between  orange  roughy  and 
fisheries  remained  […].  Following  the  application  [of  the  ban],  this  bycatch  might  be 
minor because the fraction of orange roughy biomass occurring shallower than 800m is 
minor or inexistent38” and that “as a consequence of the ban of fishing deeper than 800m, 
the core depth range of the roundnose grenadier is no longer accessible to trawlers” 39. 
Figure  7  shows  the  evolution  of  catches  of  these  species  and  a  clear  decrease  starting 
from 2016.   

Figure 7: Evolution of catches of grenadiers (left) and black scabbardfish (right) in ICES subarea 6 

Source : catch data published in ICES (2020a) 
Note: 2016 is the last year before prohibition of bottom trawling below 800m 

A  comparison  of  the  results  of  catch  sampling  by  scientific  observers  on-board  French 
deep-sea trawlers in 201340 and in 2018 indicates that the 800m trawl prohibition has 
been  effective  in  reducing  discards  with  a  drop  from  22.1%  to  4.8%  (see  figure  8 
below). The measure also led to  a decreased abundance of deep-sea sharks  in  discards, 
both in quantity and in the number of species caught, as noted by ICES “the ban in 2016 
of  trawling  deeper  than  800m  in  EU  waters  might  have  resulted  in  reduction  of  deep-
water sharks bycatch to low levels in trawl fisheries” 41. 

37 ICES (2020a) Exec. Summary. 
38 ICES (2020a) Page 365 
39 ICES (2020a) Page 657 
40 Prior to the 800m bottom trawl prohibition. 
41 ICES (2020a) 

24 

02004006008001 0001 200201420152016201720182019(tonnes)Catches of grenadiers in ICES subarea 65001 0001 5002 0002 5003 000201420152016201720182019(tonnes)Catches of black scabbardfish in ICES subarea 6 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Figure 8: Evolution of proportion of total weigh of discards / total weight of catches by French 
trawlers targeting deep-sea species in the West of Scotland and in the West of Ireland 

Source: IFREMER – programme OBSMER. Data for métier OTB/OTT_DWS in the West of Scotland and 
in the West of Ireland 

The positive effect of the 800m bottom trawl prohibition of 2017 is to be distinguished 
from the landing obligation, which entered into force for most deep-sea species in 2019 
only.  Despite  the  landing  obligation  applying  to  greater  silver  smelt  caught  in  small 
pelagic fisheries  since 1  January  2015,  all other  deep-sea species are under the landing 
obligation since 1 January 2019. The only known exemption running until 2021 concerns 
black scabbardfish caught by longlines in South-Western Waters42. 

Nevertheless, the 800m bottom trawl prohibition does not yet have a visible effect on the 
status of all exploited stocks. According to published ICES advice, the exploitation status 
of deep-sea stocks reviewed has been stable over the past periods (2015-2017 or 2016-
2018).  There  are  no  stocks  exploited  sustainably  that  transitioned  to  being  exploited 
unsustainably  or  vice-versa.  It  will  probably  take  another  couple  of  years  to  detect  any 
impacts  of  the  measure  on  deep-sea  fish  stocks  providing  it  is  possible  to  disaggregate 
the effects of fishing pressure from the effects of natural variations (i.e. recruitment) on 
biomass  variations.  However,  information  on  catches43  shows  that  catches  of  the  main 
deep-sea  species  remain  consistently  well  below  the  TACs  allocated  (figure  9  below) 
which may suggest that the current fishing pressure is low or very low on certain stocks.  

Figure 9: Ratio reported catches / available TACs (%) for the main stocks of deep-sea species over 
the 2017-2019 period 

Species 

Black scabbardfish 
(A. carbo) 

Alfonsinos 
(Beryx spp.) 

Roudnose grenadier 
(C. rupestris) 

Stock  
(TAC code) 
BSF/56712 
BSF/8910 
BSF/C3412 
ALF/3X14 

RNG/03 
RNG/5B67 
RNG/8X14 

2017 

2018 

2019 

TAC 2019* 
(tonnes) 

64% 
63% 
75% 
94% 

0% 
10% 
47% 

66% 
57% 
77% 
96% 

0% 
14% 
39% 

49% 
67% 
67% 
102%44 

0% 
9% 
28% 

2 470 
2 832 
2 189 
252 

50 
2 558 
2 281 

42 Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/2167 of 5 July 2017 amending Delegated Regulation (EU) 
2016/2374 establishing a discard plan for certain demersal fisheries in South-Western waters.  
43 Information from the FIsheries Data Exchange System (FIDES) of the European Commission. 
44 Fishery was closed on 03/10/2019 and deduction made in Reg. (EU)2020/1247, September 2020.  

25 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Red seabream 
(P. bogaraveo) 

Deep-sea sharks 

Greater silver smelt 
(A. silus) 

Blue ling 
(M. dypterygia) 

SBR/678 
SBR/9 
SBR/10 
DWS/56789 
DWS/10 
DWS/F3412C 
ARU/3A4-C 
ARU/567 
BLI/5B67 
BLI/24 
GHL/2A-C46 
GHL/1/2/INT 

85% 
65% 
94% 
16% 
0% 
5% 
30% 
92% 
15% 
32% 
27% 
66% 

92% 
64% 
83% 
15% 
3% 
1% 
18% 
75% 
19% 
20% 
18% 
94% 

88% 
35% 
65% 
4% 
2% 
0% 
7% 
95% 
19% 
35% 
18% 
121%45 

117 
149 
576 
7 
7 
7 
1 234 
4 661 
11 378 
53 
1 250 
900 

Greenland halibut 
(R. hippogloides) 
Source: DG MARE 
Note: TAC 2019 is as published in the relevant Regulations. It does not take into account possible 
exchanges with third countries for shared stocks. 

Whilst  capacity  management  measures  introduced  by  the  DSAR  are  unlikely  to 
effectively contribute to the preservation of deep-sea fish stocks, the 800m bottom trawl 
ban has been effective in reducing the availability of some key commercial deep-sea 
species  to  the  reach  of  bottom  trawlers,  leading  to  an  effective  decrease  of  the 
quantities of deep-sea species discarded, in particular deep-sea sharks. 

The  DSAR  does  not  include  other  main  conservation  and  management  measures  for 
exploited deep-sea stocks. Results achieved in conserving deep-sea stocks depend largely 
on the effectiveness of other EU conservation and management measures, including the 
TAC  and  quota  Regulations  and  the  Technical  Measures  Regulation.  In  some  cases, 
results  on  conservation  of  deep-sea  stocks  extending  beyond  EU  waters  are  also 
dependent on measures implemented by third countries in their waters. Examples include 
stocks  of  greater  silver  smelt,  blue  ling  or  Greenland  halibut  in  North  Western  Waters 
shared  with  Northern  third  countries  (e.g.  Norway  and  Faroes)  or  stocks  of  black 
scabbardfish and red seabream in South Western Waters shared with Morocco. 

To what extent is the DSAR effective at improving scientific knowledge on the deep-
sea environment? 

The  DSAR  included  two  main  measures  to  improve  scientific  knowledge  on  deep-sea 
fish  stocks  and  deep-sea  habitats:  a  scientific  data  collection  scheme  placed  under  the 
umbrella  of  the  broader  EU  Data  Collection  Framework  (Article  15)  and  a  specific 
observer coverage (Article 16). 

Scientific data collection scheme 
The  DSAR  measure  ensuring  data  collection  under  the  overarching  framework  of  the 
Data Collection Framework (DCF) supported the collection of scientific information on 
to  scientific  methodologies  sufficiently  robust  and 
exploited  species  according 
representative for stock assessment purpose. The inclusion of deep-sea species in the list 
of  species  subject  to  collection  of  biological  data  by  Member  States  under  the  DCF 
ensures  the operationalisation of the DSAR measure. As a result of increased scientific 

45 EU fishery was closed on 30/09/2019 in the NEAFC-RA.  

26 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
data  and  according  to  ICES  feedback,  two  deep-sea  stocks  (black  scabbardfish  and 
greater silver smelt) are likely to move from the ICES category 3 that comprises stocks 
for  which  MSY  reference  points  are  not  available,  to  ICES  category  1  that  includes 
stocks  subject  to  full  analytical  assessment  with  MSY  reference  points  available. 
Availability of data was further underpinned by the DSAR obligation to report catches on 
a  haul-by-haul  basis  when  engaged  in  a  deep-sea  métiers  or  when  fishing  below  400m 
(Article 13). Without this DSAR requirement, catch data would have been reported on a 
fishing  day  basis,  amalgamating  hauls  targeting  deep-sea  species  and  hauls  targeting 
other species. Feedback from scientists through the targeted consultations confirmed the 
positive contribution of the haul-by-haul reporting to scientific knowledge. 

However, scientific information for most deep-sea species stocks remain insufficient for 
stock  assessment  purposes.  According  to  feedback  from  scientists,  and  confirmed  by 
fishermen associations, the relatively low catch levels of most deep-sea species prevents 
any  further  improvement  as  the  amount  of  available  data  will  remain  insufficient  for 
stock  assessment  purposes,  even  if  sampling  rates  are  increased.  In  fact,  the  DSAR 
measures resulted in  lower catches of some species thus  decreasing the  amount of data 
available  for  stock  assessment  purposes.  ICES  noted  the  example  of  the  stock  of 
grenadiers  in  subareas  6  and  7  and  divisions  5.b  and  12.b  for  which  catches  decreased 
significantly as a result of the 800m trawl ban enforced by the DSAR46. The stock was 
downgraded from data-rich category 1 to data-poor category 5 when it was last assessed 
in 2018. 

In  addition,  the  DCF  exempts  Member  States  from  collecting  biological  data  on  fish 
stocks when Member States catches are less than 200 tonnes per year. This is the case for 
most deep-sea species caught as by-catches or deep-sea species targeted by small fleets, 
like  for  deep-sea  crabs,  which  are  targeted  by  German  vessels  in  quantities  below  that 
threshold and thus exempted from data collection obligations. 

Observer coverage 
The  observer  coverage  mandated  through  Article  16  was  designed  to  ensure  sufficient 
coverage of fishing vessels activities by on-board scientific observers to sample landings 
and discards of deep-sea species as well as species belonging to the seabed ecosystem, in 
particular  VME  indicator  species.  Although  the  measure  was  fully  relevant  to  increase 
amount of data available, its design probably hindered its potential effectiveness. 

The DSAR sets quantitative targets for observer coverage: 20% for vessels using bottom 
trawls and bottom set gillnets with a targeting fishing authorisation and 10% for all other 
vessels with a targeting or bycatch fishing authorisation. But the DSAR does not define 
the reference for calculating the percentage (e.g. % number of vessels, % number of trips, 
% number of fishing operations). 

According  to  information  collected  during  the  targeted  consultations,  Member  States 
applied  the  DSAR  observer  coverage  differently,  resulting  in  some  Member  States 
applying a higher observer coverage to vessels when their fishing operations target deep-
sea species (e.g. 20% or 10% of the number of vessels having a fishing authorisation, or 
20% or 10% of the number of trips of the fleet concerned), and the commonly reported 
national  DCF  observer  coverage  (≈  1%  of  fishing  trips)  in  other  cases.  ICES  was  also 
unable to provide the advice foreseen by January 2018 mostly because of the difficulty to 

46 ICES (2018) Roundnose grenadier (Coryphaenoides rupestris) in subareas 6 and 7 and divisions 5.b and 
12.b (Celtic Seas and the English Channel, Faroes grounds, and western Hatton Bank). 

27 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
collect  relevant  quantitative  information  on  Member  States’  implementation  of  the 
observer  coverage.  The  diverging  implementation  of  the  observer  coverage  among 
Member  States  makes  the  establishment  of  quantitative  targets,  their  assessment  and 
comparison,  very  complex  in  practice.  Nevertheless,  all  fishing  operators  boarded 
scientific observers as evidenced by the absence of sanctions foreseen in Article 14b of 
the DSAR in case of refusal to board an observer. Thus, potential shortcomings cannot be 
attributed to a lack of cooperation from fishing operators. 

The DSAR observer scheme is defined47 as a scientific observer scheme, as opposed to a 
control observer scheme in the sense of the Control Regulation (EU) 1224/2009. Member 
States  implemented  it  as  such  via  observations  on  vessels  authorised  to  catch  deep-sea 
fish under the overarching rules foreseen by the Data Collection Framework. The DSAR 
observer scheme as applied by Member States did therefore not monitor compliance with 
DSAR rules, such as the control of the 800 meters limit and the adherence to the VME 
encounter protocol by fishing masters, although Article 16.1 of the Regulation states that 
the observer coverage is expected to also provide “relevant information for the effective 
implementation of this Regulation”. 

In terms of data collected, scientific observations on-board vessels have been reported by 
scientists  as  effective  to  collect  data  on  total  catches  and  discards  of  deep-sea  species 
useful to support stock assessment. Concerning the collection of scientific data on species 
belonging  to  the  seabed  ecosystem,  in  particular  VME  indicator  species,  the  DSAR 
observer scheme has been ineffective as evidenced by the absence of records collected on 
EU commercial vessels included in the ICES VME database, which provides ICES with 
an  essential  resource  for  some  core  work,  including  advice  in  relation  to  the 
implementation  of  the  DSAR.  In  fact,  all  VMEs  records  shared  by  EU  Member  States 
with ICES are coming from scientific surveys. The reason for the lack of effectiveness of 
the  DSAR  observer  scheme  to  collect  scientific  information  on  VMEs  may  be 
attributable to an absence of VMEs indicator species in vessels’ catches while observers 
where on-board, but may also be attributable to inadequate implementation of the scheme 
by  Member  States  with  scientific  observers  not  being  trained  for  the  identification  of 
VME indicator species at the required taxonomic levels.  

Article 16.3 of the DSAR introduced an obligation for the Commission to seek scientific 
advice on whether the observer coverage is sufficient to achieve the collection of data on 
catches and by-catches of deep-sea species and encounters with VMEs and other relevant 
information  for 
the 
implementation  of 
Commission  made  a  request  to  ICES,  ICES  declined  and  indicated  that  it  was  firstly 
necessary  to  assess  Member  States’  compliance  with  DSAR  observer  coverage  before 
considering  reviewing  its  functioning.  In  view  of  the  diverging  implementations  of 
Article 16.1 of the DSAR, an assessment of compliance with the DSAR rules is difficult. 

the  Regulation.  Although 

the  effective 

Conclusion on the effectiveness of the DSAR 

The  DSAR  has  contributed  to  the  preservation  of  deep-sea  fish  stocks  through  the 
prohibition  to  fish  below  800  meters  with  bottom  trawls.  The  prohibition  decreased 
accessibility  of  some  key  commercial  deep-sea  species  to  bottom  trawlers,  such  as 
grenadiers,  orange  roughy  and  black  scabbardfish.  This  contributed  to  a  decrease  in 
catches of other deep-sea species caught as by-catches, in particular deep-sea sharks.  

47 Articles 14b and 15. 

28 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
The  DSAR,  in  conjunction  with  the  EU  DCF,  has  effectively  improved  scientific 
knowledge  on  the  main  commercial  deep-sea  stocks.  Biological  data  collected  by 
Member States, including data on catches and discards collected by scientific observers 
on-board fishing vessels, have been adequate to upgrade the quality of the assessment of 
the status of at least two deep-sea species (three stocks of greater silver smelt and black 
scabbardfish).  However,  the  relatively  small  catches  of  most  other  deep-sea  species 
prevent  any  further  improvement  of  their  stock  status,  even  if  the  sampling  rate  is 
increased.  Data  available  for  stock  assessments  depend  on  the  amount  of  catches,  and 
measures  to  reduce  fishing  pressure,  such  as  the  800m  bottom  trawl  ban,  can  limit  the 
quality of stock assessments as evidenced in the case of grenadiers. Contributions to the 
public  consultation  acknowledged  that  scientific  knowledge  has  improved  overall, 
notably as a result of deep-sea research projects co-funded by the EU48. 

The  DSAR  observer  coverage  probably  has  had  limited  influence  on  improving  the 
scientific knowledge on VMEs. Observations on commercial vessels authorised to catch 
deep-sea  species  did  not  result  in  new  information  being  recorded  in  the  ICES  VME 
database.  The  reason  for  the  lack  of  contribution  of  the  DSAR  observer  scheme  to 
knowledge  of  VMEs  may  be  attributable  to  an  absence  of  VME  indicator  species  in 
vessels’  catches,  but  may  also  be  attributable  to  an  uneven  implementation  of  the 
coverage by Member States and a lack of training among observers deployed to identify 
VMEs indicator species.  

C.  Efficiency 

What are the average DSAR implementation costs? 

No  Member  State  authority  could  provide  detailed  quantitative  information  on  the 
implementation costs of the DSAR. The fishing authorisation regime is the main driver 
for  administrative  cost  for  Member  States.  Other  costs  related  to  the  DSAR  are  a 
relatively small part of the monitoring, control and surveillance of fishing vessels under 
Member  States  competence  or  of  the  collection  of  scientific  data  under  the  EU  Data 
Collection Framework. In view of the relatively low share of deep-sea species catches in 
total  national  catches  (Figure  11),  the  fraction  is  likely  to  be  small,  and  probably  too 
small to support an analytical identification of costs. 

Based on the number of fishing  authorisations  issued under the scope of  the DSAR by 
the Member States (Figure 10), the implementation costs of the DSAR are likely to  be 
the highest for the three Member States (Portugal, Spain and France) issuing the largest 
number  of  targeting  and  by-catch  fishing  authorisations.  By  contrast,  implementation 
costs  are  comparatively  lower  for  Member  States  issuing  limited  numbers  of  fishing 
authorisations (Germany, Estonia, Lithuania, Netherlands, Poland and the UK). There are 
no  DSAR  implementation  costs  for  Member  States  not  issuing  deep-sea  fishing 
authorisations (Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Ireland, Latvia and Sweden). 

Figure 10: Number of targeting and by-catch deep-sea fishing authorisations issued by Member 
States between 2017 and 2020 

48 Replies referred to research projects such as ATLAS, SponGES and Merces co-funded by the EU under 
the Horizon2020 framework programme. 

29 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
2017 

2018 

2019 

2020**** 

MS 

Target  By-catch  Total 

Target  By-catch  Total  Target  By-catch  Total  Target  By-catch  Total 

BE 

DE 

DK 

EE** 

ES 

FI 

FR 

IE 

LT** 

LV 

NL 

PL** 

0 

2 

0 

0 

69 

0 

0 

0 

1 

PT*** 

624 

SE 

UK 

0 

6 

Total 

702 

0 

2 

0 

1 

2 

0 

51 

75 

0 

11 

0 

3 

0 

13 

0 

3 

0 

3 

0 

0 

0 

12 

0 

3 

0 

14 

0 

0 

0 

2 

0 

0 

0 

10 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

8 

0 

0 

0 

9 

0 

0 

5  +599* 

184 

275 

459 

198 

201 

399 

196 

192 

388 

0 

42* 

12* 

2 

0 

8 

2 

0 

17 

0 

0 

7 

1 

0 

71 

0 

88 

5 

1 

8 

1 

0 

1 

8 

2 

0 

19 

0 

0 

0 

6 

1 

0 

0 

89 

108 

0 

16 

0 

79 

0 

95 

0 

3 

0 

6 

1 

0 

3 

0 

6 

2 

0 

0 

0 

6 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

6 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

6 

2 

0 

626 

324 

150 

434 

429 

125 

0 

57 

0 

6 

0 

45 

0 

51 

763 

542 

571  1 057 

0 

0 

0 

Source: Member States report to the Commission (Article 15 of the DSAR) for 2017 and 2018; consultant’s 
survey for 2019 and 2020 
Note:   * fishing authorisations issued according to criteria set out by the previous deep-sea Regulation 

2347/2002. 
** Information reviewed, slightly different from information submitted to the Commission 
*** For Portugal, numbers of targeting fishing authorisations reported for 2019 include 127 for 
mainland, 280 for Azores and 22 for Madeira. Number of by-catches authorisations provided only 
for mainland 
**** Data collected until April 2020 

Anecdotal qualitative information on likely recurring and one-off administrative costs is 
presented below: 

Recurring administrative costs 

  Two  Member  States  (Germany  and  Portugal)  raised  the  issue  that  the 
management of fishing authorisations entails significant administrative costs but 
did  not  provide  an  estimate  of  these  costs.  Other  Member  States  issuing  large 
numbers  of  fishing  authorisations  (Spain  and  France)  did  not  specify  this 
administrative  task  as  entailing  significant  administrative  costs.  Note  that  the 
DSAR  fishing  authorisation  regime  is  one  of  the  fishing  authorisation  regimes 
implemented  through  CFP-related  regulations.  There  are  several  comparable 
fishing  authorisation  regimes  for  access  to  EU  fisheries  subject  to  multiannual 
plans  and  for  access  to  waters  under  third  countries’  jurisdictions  and 
international waters under RFMOs’ management mandate.  

30 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  No  Member  State  reported  specific  administrative  costs  for  monitoring,  control 
and  surveillance  of  fishing  vessels  whose  activities  fall  under  the  scope  of  the 
DSAR.  According  to  feedback  received,  control  of  the  national  fishing  vessels 
authorised to catch deep-sea species is part of the national control strategies with 
no  possibility  to  separate  actions  and  associated  administrative  costs  stemming 
from DSAR provisions. 

  Two  Member  States  (Germany  and  Netherlands)  highlighted  that  the  annual 
reports  to  the  Commission  pursuant  to  Article  15.5  of  the  DSAR  entail 
administrative  costs  that  could  be  reduced  given  that  part  of  the  information 
requested  by  the  Commission  is  already  reported  or  accessible  under  the 
provisions  of  the  Control  Regulation  (EU)  1224/2009  (e.g.  catches  of  deep-sea 
species against quotas, fishing authorisations issued).  

One-off implementation costs 

  One Member State (France) reported relatively  high deployment of resources  to 
define depth contours considered by the DSAR and to introduce them in the VMS 
software to monitor compliance. 

  One  Member  State  (Netherlands)  mentioned  that  the  identification  of  capacity 

limits considered under Article 6 of the DSAR has been time-consuming. 

  One  Member  State  (Netherlands)  noted  that  communication  with  owners  of 
fishing  vessels  falling  under  the  scope  of  the  DSAR  to  explain  what  the  DSAR 
would require for them mobilised some administrative resources. 

The  implementation  cost  of  the  DSAR  observer  programme  was  not  reported  to  entail 
significant administrative costs by and from Member States. The main reasons being:  

i) 

implementation  of 

the  DSAR  observer  programme 

the 
the 
implementation  of the broader  DCF observer scheme, with  a likely share of the 
DSAR observer scheme  commensurate with  the relative importance of deep-sea 
fisheries  compared  to  all  national  fisheries  (i.e.  often  less  than  1%  for  most 
Member States, except 4% for Portugal, see figure 11 below) 

is  part  of 

Figure 11: % weight of deep-sea catches in total national landings in 2017 for the main Member 
States reporting deep-sea catches. 

Source: STECF (2019a) for weight of total landings 

ii)  costs of implementation of data collection schemes by Member States, including 
DCF  observer  schemes,  are  80%  covered  by  the  EU  through  the  European 
Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF), with new EMFAF post 2020 carrying over 
EU support for data collection. However, Member States reported that the DCF 
budget to support scientific observer programmes is limited with some difficulties 

31 

0.0%1.0%2.0%3.0%4.0%5.0%PTFRESNLUKDE% deep-sea species in total weight of landings (2017) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
encountered  to  ensure  adequate  sampling  rates  of  all  national  fishing  fleet 
segments included in the scope of the DCF. In this respect, Member States raised 
concerns  that  if  the  DSAR  observer  coverage  was  to  be  increased,  this  would 
mean fewer resources being deployed on other fishing fleet segments, if the DCF 
budget is not increased accordingly. 

Fishermen  associations  were  not  concerned  about 
the  administrative  costs  of 
implementing  the  DSAR.  Feedback  received,  in  particular  from  fishermen  associations 
representing small-scale vessels (Spain and Portugal) and pelagic vessels (Germany and 
Netherlands), was more on the relevance of these administrative costs considering their 
assumed low or insignificant impacts on deep-sea ecosystems (no bottom gear, deep-sea 
species taken as bycatches). 

Is there scope for simplification of the DSAR design and operation? 

Analysis  and  feedback  from  consultations  supported  the  identification  of  scope  for 
possible simplification of the DSAR in relation to:  

i) 
the criteria for issuing fishing authorisation 
ii) 
the by-catch fishing authorisation regime 
iii) 
the geographical scope of application of the DSAR  
iv)  Member States’ annual reports to the Commission. 

The criteria for issuing fishing authorisation 
The DSAR fishing authorisation regime is based on a list of designated deep-sea species 
and it had the likely unexpected effect of bringing under the scope of the DSAR types of 
fishing vessels not using bottom gears and hence unlikely to generate significant adverse 
impacts on VMEs. For instance, pelagic trawls are catching greater silver smelt (A. silus), 
and small-scale fleets are exploiting deep-sea species when they are available in shallow 
waters  (i.e.  red  seabream,  P.  bogaraveo)  or  close  to  the  coast49,  with  in  this  case  also 
unmonitored  recreational  fisheries  contributing  to  fishing  mortality.  According  to 
feedback from many Member States’ authorities, fishermen associations and NGOs, the 
fishing authorisation regime could be simplified so as to concentrate the implementation 
of the DSAR on vessels likely to generate significant adverse impacts on VMEs in deep-
waters,  which  suggests  the  importance  to  consider  the  type  of  fishing  gear  used  and 
depths  exploited  in  any  simplified  fishing  authorisation  regime.  However,  this  would 
leave fleet segments out of the scope of the DSAR (footprint, observer coverage, control 
provisions) and reduce the overview over the EU fleet exploiting deep-sea species. 

The by-catch fishing authorisation regime 
There  are  few specific  measures imposed by the DSAR on fishing vessels, which have 
been issued a by-catch fishing authorisation.  

Figure 12: DSAR main measures in relation to the types of fishing authorisations held by the vessels 

DSAR main rules 

Capacity ceiling (Art. 6) 

Targeting fishing 
authorisation (art. 5.2) 
Included 

By-catch fishing authorisation 
(art. 5.3) 
Not included 

Existing fishing areas (Art. 7) 

Included 

Not included 

49  In  some  regions  (Southern  Bay  of  Biscay,  Iberian  Peninsula,  Azores  and  Madeira),  areas  deeper  than 
400m may be found at 1 to 2 km from the coast. 

32 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
800m depth bottom trawl prohibition (Art. 8.4) 

Included 

VME encounter protocol (Art. 9.2) 

VMEs closure to bottom gears (Art. 9.6) 

Control provisions (Art. 10-13) 

Data collection and reporting (Art. 15) 

Irrespective 

Irrespective 

Irrespective 

Irrespective 

Included 

Irrespective 

Irrespective 

Irrespective 

Irrespective 

Observer coverage (Art. 16) 

20% bottom trawl and gillnet 
10% other gear 
Source: own analysis of the DSAR / Note: “irrespective” means that DSAR do not refer to the types of 
fishing authorisations issued for the scope of application of the measure. 

10% any gear 

As detailed in the table above, the two main DSAR measures applying to fishing vessels 
issued  with  a  by-catch  fishing  authorisation  is  the  10%  observer  coverage,  with  no 
further  specifications  on  the  reference  for  calculation  of  this  percentage  and  the 
operational conditions to which it applies (i.e. any time or only when the vessel catches 
deep-sea species), and the 800 meters bottom  trawl prohibition. Other DSAR measures 
apply only to vessels issued with a targeting fishing authorisation (existing fishing areas, 
capacity ceiling), or apply to any vessel either targeting or catching deep-sea species as 
by-catches  (800m  bottom  trawl  prohibition,  VMEs  area  closure,  VME  encounter 
protocol, more stringent control rules, data collection and reporting).  

The  by-catch  fishing  authorisation  also  results  in  the  official  identification  of  the  fleet 
authorised to catch deep-sea species in small quantities outside the limits of the footprint.  

According  to  many  fishermen  associations  consulted  (Spain,  Portugal,  Netherlands, 
Germany),  the  by-catch  fishing  authorisation  could  be  removed.  However,  some 
fishermen  associations  (France)  reported  that  the  issuance  of  by-catch  fishing 
authorisations  provides  a  vehicle  to  inform  relevant  fishermen  of  the  DSAR  rules.  For 
Member  States,  the  by-catch  fishing  authorisation  contributes  to  narrowing  down  the 
number  of  vessels  that  should  be  subject  to  closer  monitoring  in  view  of  the  potential 
involvement in deep-water fisheries. 

Concentration of DSAR measures on EU waters 
The  DSAR  introduces  references  to  the  NEAFC  Regulatory  Area  through  Article  16.5 
applying  mutatis  mutandis  the  observer  coverage  defined  for  EU  waters  to  NEAFC 
waters  for  EU  vessels.  According  to  Member  States  concerned,  Article  16.5  led  to  the 
perception  of  a  need  to  issue  the  two  types  of  fishing  authorisations  to  their  fishing 
vessels exploiting NEAFC international waters, namely those foreseen under Article 5 of 
the DSAR to manage deep-sea fishing activities in EU waters, in addition to the NEAFC 
deep-sea fishing authorisation foreseen by Article 20.3 of the DSAR. Issuance of DSAR 
fishing authorisations foreseen under Article 5 further creates uncertainty on the extent to 
which  other  DSAR  provisions  apply  to  their  vessels  while  fishing  in  the  NEAFC 
Regulatory Area (e.g. capacity management, rules for data collection and reporting, and 
800m bottom trawl ban). Member State authorities and fishermen associations suggested 
that any such  references to  fishing  activities in  the NEAFC Regulatory  Area should be 
clarified to streamline and simplify the scope of the DSAR application.  

The  inclusion  of  international  waters  of  CECAF  areas  34.1.1,  34.1.2  and  34.2  in  the 
scope of application might not be necessary as a dedicated EU instrument designed for 
protection  of  VMEs,  i.e.  Regulation  (EC)  734/2008  on  the  protection  of  vulnerable 
marine ecosystems in the high seas, already applies in these international waters.  

Member States annual reports to the Commission 

33 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
One  Member  State  (Netherlands)  pointed  out  that  some  of  the  information  required  by 
the Commission is already made available by Member States, as a result of the Control 
Regulation.  This  includes,  in  particular,  data  on  deep-sea  species  quota  uptake  already 
submitted  to  the  Commission  on  a  regular  basis  through  the  Aggregated  Catch  Data 
Reporting (ACDR) database. However, information required from Member States by the 
Commission  in  the annual  reports  corresponds  to the information  requirements decided 
by the co-legislators through Article 15.6 of the DSAR. 

Conclusion on the efficiency of the DSAR 

Considering  the  balance  between  the  resources  used  for  the  DSAR  and  the  results 
generated,  the  DSAR  and  its  fishing  authorisation  regime  appear  to  be  efficient.  The 
implementation  and  management  of  the  fishing  authorisation  regime  are  the  main  cost 
drivers  for  some  Member  States  (notably  for  Portugal,  Spain  and  France  issuing  most 
fishing  authorisations).  Other  DSAR-related  administrative  costs  are  borne  within 
Member States’ programmes for monitoring, control and surveillance of fishing vessels, 
as well as in the collection of scientific data under the EU Data Collection Framework. 
Given the relatively small share of deep-sea species in the total national landings, these 
costs represent small amounts in relative terms and there is no reliable method for their 
identification  and  analysis.  Based  on  the  contributions  from  the  targeted  and  public 
the  DSAR  fishing  authorisation  regime  could  be  simplified  by 
consultations, 
concentrating on fishing vessels likely to generate significant adverse impacts on VMEs 
below 400m  depth  (i.e.  vessels using bottom  gears). However, this would leave certain 
fishing fleet segments out of the scope of the DSAR and, thus, reduce the overview and 
control  over  the  EU  fleet  catching  deep-sea  species.  The  rules  applicable  to  deep-sea 
fishing  operations  in  the  NEAFC  Regulatory  Area  could  also  be  made  clearer  for 
Member States, and avoid duplicating with Regulation (EC) 734/2008 the rules applying 
in  the  international  waters  of  CECAF  areas  34.1.1,  34.1.2  and  34.2.  Some  Member 
States’ authorities also suggested the simplification of information to be reported to the 
Commission,  noting  however  that  the  information  requested  is  in  line  with  the  legal 
reporting obligations of the Regulation. 

D.  Coherence 

To what extent is the DSAR coherent with EU international commitments under UN 
Resolutions 61/105 and 64/72? 

The United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) has adopted three resolutions since 2004 
in  which  the  management  of  bottom  deep-sea  fisheries  and  impacts  on  VMEs  are 
addressed. The three resolutions  are Resolution 59/25  (17 November 2004), Resolution 
61/105  (8  December  2006)  and  Resolution  64/72  (4  December  2009).  UNGA 
Resolutions set out principles and standards that apply primarily in areas beyond national 
jurisdictions,  covered  (or  not)  by  relevant  multilateral  arrangements,  such  as  Regional 
Fisheries Management  Organisations (RFMOs). UNGA Resolutions  are  operationalised 
by the “FAO International Guidelines for the Management of Deep-Sea Fisheries in the 
High Seas” adopted in 2008. 

One  of  the  main  objectives  of  the  DSAR  is  to  ensure  that  EU  measures  for  the 
management of deep-sea fish stocks are consistent with UNGA Resolutions, in particular 
Resolutions  61/105  and  64/72.  The  next  paragraphs  discuss  the  coherence  between  the 
main relevant UNGA Resolutions and DSAR measures. 

34 

 
 
 
 
 
 
UNGA  61/105  §  86  (management  of  high  seas  areas  where  there  is  no  RFMO  with 
competence to manage deep-sea fisheries) 

The DSAR includes international waters of CECAF 34.1.1, 34.1.2 and 34.2 in its scope. 
This inclusion is consistent with UNGA Resolution 61/105 § 86, which calls upon states 
to implement measures in areas beyond national jurisdiction to manage deep-sea bottom 
fisheries where there is no RFMO with competence to regulate such fisheries, which is 
the case for the CECAF areas covered by the DSAR. Regulation (EC) 734/2008, which 
also  includes  CECAF  34.1.1,  34.1.2  and  34.2  in  its  scope,  is  also  consistent  with  the 
UNGA resolution. 

UNGA  64/72  §  119.a  (assess  whether  bottom  fishing  activities  should  have  significant 
adverse  impacts,  and  ensure  that  vessels  do  not  engage  in  bottom  fishing  until  such 
assessment have been carried out) 

Article  7  of  the  DSAR  sets  the  legal  basis  for  the  determination  of  existing  deep-sea 
fishing areas exploited in 2009-2011. 

Article  8.2  of  the  DSAR  prescribes  that  targeting  fishing  authorisations  shall  be  issued 
only for fishing activities within existing deep-sea fishing areas. Modification of existing 
deep-sea fishing areas can be considered by the Commission, on the basis of the results 
of  a  science-based  impact  assessment  conducted  in  accordance  with  FAO  Guidelines 
(Article 8.8), with specific provisions for authorising and conducting exploratory fishing 
outside existing fishing areas (Articles 8.5 to 8.7).  

The  limitation  to  the  footprint  areas  applies  only  to  vessels  with  a  targeting  fishing 
authorisation.  The  limitation  to  the  footprint  for  all  fishing  vessels  with  a  targeting 
fishing  authorisation  (i.e.  midwater  trawling  that  do  not  interact  with  the  seabed)  goes 
beyond UNGA resolutions which consider only bottom fishing activities. Fishing vessels 
with  a  by-catch  fishing  authorisation  are  however  not  bound  by  the  footprint.  These 
fishing vessels may exploit new deep-sea fishing areas with bottom gears, without prior 
impact assessment, but for catches of less than 10 tonnes per year.  

The  limitation  of  activities  within  the  footprint  for  all  fishing  vessels,  not  only  bottom 
gears,  broadens  the  DSAR’s  ambition  and  reach  by  comparison  with  the  UNGA 
Resolution. However, the DSAR exempts fishing vessels with by-catch authorisation of 
the obligation to carry out an impact assessment before exploiting new fishing areas but 
those vessels remain limited to a maximum of 10t of annual catches.  

UNGA  64/72  §  119.b  (identify  where  VMEs  are  known  or  likely  to  occur  and  adopt 
conservation and management measures to prevent significant adverse impacts on such 
ecosystems, or close such areas until conservation and management measures have been 
established) 

In  the  DSAR,  EU  Member  States  and  the  Commission  are  prompted  to  use  the  best 
scientific  and  technical  information  to  identify  where  VMEs  are  known,  or  likely,  to 
occur below a depth of 400m. In addition, a competent advisory body shall be asked by 
the Commission to carry out an annual assessment of VMEs areas. 

The Commission shall then adopt an implementing act for the purpose of establishing a 
list of areas where VMEs are known, or likely, to occur (Article 9.6) which will lead to 

35 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
fishing with bottom gears being prohibited in all those areas below a depth of 400m. The 
list of VME areas may be amended, if impact assessments suggest that there is sufficient 
evidence  to  indicate  that  VMEs  are  not  present,  or  that  appropriate  conservation  and 
management measures have been adopted which ensure that significant adverse impacts 
on VMEs in the area are prevented. 

The DSAR is fully consistent with this UNGA resolution for waters below 400m depth in 
its objective. Full consistency will depend, however, on the extent to which areas where 
VMEs are “likely to occur” will be included in the forthcoming implementing act. Also, 
it  may  be  noted  that  UNGA  does  not  define  a  depth  range  in  which  VME  protection 
measures  should  be  implemented.  The  400m  depth  limit  is  the  reference  unilaterally 
adopted by the DSAR. 

UNGA  64/72  §  119.c  (establish  and  implement  appropriate  protocols  to  cease  bottom 
fishing  activities in  case  VMEs  are  encountered  and  to  report  the  encounter,  including 
what constitutes an evidence of an encounter with a VME, in particular threshold levels 
and indicator species) 

The DSAR defines what constitutes the evidence of an encounter by providing a list of 
indicator  species  (Annex  III)  and  setting  thresholds  levels  (Annex  IV)  applicable  to 
bottom  trawlers  and  longliners.  If  the  encounter  is  considered  to  have  taken  place,  the 
vessel  shall  cease  fishing  operations  and  resume  operations  only  when  reaching  an 
alternative area at  least  five nautical  miles from  the encounter. The  fishing vessel  shall 
immediately report each VME encounter to the national competent authority which shall 
notify the Commission without delay. 

The DSAR is fully consistent with this UNGA resolution. 

UNGA  64/72  §  119.d  (adopt  conservation  and  management  measures  on  the  basis  of 
stock  assessment,  including  monitoring,  control  and  surveillance  measures,  to  ensure 
long-term sustainability of deep-sea fish stocks) 

The DSAR supports stock assessments of deep-sea species through specific rules on data 
collection  and  reporting50  and  through  a  mandated  scientific  observer  coverage  of  20% 
(bottom trawls and bottom set gillnets with a targeting fishing authorisation) or 10% (all 
other  vessels  authorised  to  catch  deep-sea  species)  that  applies  also  in  the  NEAFC 
Regulatory area51. Measures for the conservation and the management of deep-sea stocks 
fall under the scope of the EU Common Fisheries Policy Regulation  and other specific 
Regulations, namely the TAC and quota Regulations, the Technical Measures Regulation 
and the Western Waters Multiannual Plan Regulation. 

The DSAR foresees monitoring and control measures that are more stringent than those 
applying  in  the  general  case  (Articles  10,  11,  12  and  13),  with  provisions  for 
administrative sanctions in case of non-compliance with DSAR rules (Article 14).  

The DSAR is fully consistent with this UNGA resolution. 

The  DSAR  ensures  the  application  into  EU  law  of  measures  to  protect  deep-sea 
ecosystems  aligned  on  initiatives  recommended  by  the  United  Nations  General 

50 Art.15.  
51 Art.16. 

36 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Assembly,  in  particular  through  Resolutions  61/105  and  64/72.  The  exemption  for  by-
catch  vessels  to  carry  out  an  impact  assessment  for  fishing  in  new  areas  could  be  of 
concern  but  the  limitation  of  by-catches  allowed  and  the  compulsory  10%  observer 
coverage those vessels constitute a safety net, which is supported by the contributors to 
the  public  consultation  at  74%52.  Some  contributors  to  the  public  consultation  also 
underlined that the extent to which UN resolutions are taken on-board will also depend 
on  relevant  consideration  of  areas  where  VMEs  are  likely  to  occur  in  the  forthcoming 
implementing acts. 

To what extent is the DSAR coherent with NEAFC Recommendation 19.2014? 

NEAFC recommendation 19.2014 on the protection of vulnerable marine ecosystems in 
the NEAFC Regulatory Area is a binding instrument adopted by all NEAFC contracting 
parties,  including  the  EU,  to  implement  measures  ensuring  prevention  of  significant 
adverse impacts of bottom fishing activities in areas where VMEs are known or likely to 
occur.  The  NEAFC  recommendation  applies  in  the  NEAFC  Regulatory  Area  (i.e.  the 
high  sea  areas  of  the  North-East  Atlantic),  while  the  DSAR  applies  in  EU  waters  and 
some  CECAF  international  waters.  In  addition,  the  DSAR  foresees  that  its  observer 
coverage (article 16.5) and provisions on fishing permits, designated ports and reporting 
(article 20.3) apply to  EU vessels operating in  NEAFC waters.  Importantly, the ban on 
bottom trawling below 800 meters, established by the DSAR, is the only measure of this 
type in the Atlantic Ocean: neither NEAFC, nor NAFO have established such restrictions 
on  bottom  trawling.  The  next  table  compares  the  main  provisions  of  NEAFC 
Recommendation 19.2014 and of the DSAR. 

Figure 13: Comparison between VME protection measures implemented under NEAFC 
Recommendation 19.2014 and VME Protection measures implemented under the DSAR 

Existing bottom fishing areas 

NEAFC Rec. 19.2014 
Existing  bottom  fishing  areas  are 
defined 
(reference  period  1987-
2007). 

Depth limit for bottom trawling  

No limit 

DSAR 
Existing  deep-sea  fishing  areas  still 
to be defined (reference period 2009-
2011) but no specification on types of 
vessels concerned for definition (any 
gear). 
Bottom trawling banned below 800m 

Areas  closures  for  protection  of 
VMEs 
Impact assessment 

VME encounter 

Observer 

13 VME areas closed to bottom gear 
so far. No specification of depth. 
Deep-sea  fishing  with  bottom  gears 
outside  existing  areas  may  be 
permitted  only  on  the  basis  of  the 
result of an impact assessment 
Impact  assessment  promoted  by 
NEAFC  (Annex  4)  largely  consistent 
with FAO Guidelines. 
Define evidence of a VME encounter 
incl.  VME  indicator  species  (both 
similar to DSAR) 
Move-on rule 2 nm 
Mandatory reporting of encounter 
No  observer  requirement  for  bottom 
fishing within existing fishing areas. 

Ongoing  for  depth  below  400m  with 
closures targeting bottom gears. 
Deep-sea  fishing  with  bottom  gears 
outside  existing  areas  may  be 
permitted  only  on  basis  of  the  result 
of 
in 
assessment 
accordance with FAO Guidelines. 

impact 

an 

Define evidence of a VME encounter 
incl.  VME  indicator  species  (both 
similar to NEAFC) 
Move-on rule 5 nm 
Mandatory reporting of encounter 
Observer coverage 20% for targeting 
fishing  authorisations,  10%  for  by-
catches fishing authorisations 

52  83  out  of  112  respondents  support  the  observer  coverage  for  by-catch  vessels.  See  the  Public 

Consultation Summary Report. 

37 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Source: own analysis of the DSAR 

100%  coverage 
for  exploratory 
fishing outside existing bottom fishing 
areas. 

coverage 

100% 
for  exploratory 
fishing outside existing bottom fishing 
areas during first 12 months 

The  DSAR  is  consistent  with  NEAFC  recommendation  19.2014  and  the  DSAR  even 
goes beyond NEAFC minimal requirements. The DSAR sets a ban on bottom trawling 
below 800 meters while NEAFC does not, the DSAR defines existing fishing areas based 
on historical records of all vessels having caught deep-sea species (irrespective of gear) 
whereas NEAFC existing  fishing  areas are defined on the basis of historical  records of 
vessels using bottom gear and the DSAR provides a move-on rule of five nautical miles 
as  opposed  to  two  nautical  miles  for  NEAFC.  The  implementation  of  NEAFC 
Recommendation 19.2014 into EU law is considered partial at this stage. Annex XII of 
the  Technical  Measures  Regulation  (EU)  2019/1241  implements  some  measures  of 
NEAFC  Recommendation  (such  as  VME  areas  closed  to  bottom  fishing  and  the  VME 
encounter  protocol,  although  in  an  outdated  version  for  the  latter  and  without 
specification of what defines a VME encounter).  

To  what  extent  is  the  DSAR  coherent  with  other  non-CFP  EU  instruments  on 
protection of the marine environment (MSFD, Habitats Directive)? 

The  DSAR  focusses  on  sustainable  management  of  deep-sea  resources  and  it  foresees 
measures to  protect  related marine environments.  It  allows targeted fishing activities in 
areas where deep-sea fishing activity occurred during the reference period 2009-2011 and 
pledges  to  avoid  negative  impact  on  vulnerable  marine  ecosystems  (VMEs).  The 
environmental  component  of  the  DSAR  is  related  to  broader  EU  environmental 
legislation,  in  particular  the  Marine  Strategy  Framework  Directive53  and  the  Habitats 
Directive54.  Below  the  main  purpose  of  these  two  directives  and  their  relation  to  the 
DSAR are summarised. 

The Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) 
The  Marine  Strategy  Framework  Directive  (MSFD)  is  a  ‘horizontal’  directive,  which: 
“shall  contribute  to  coherence  between,  and  aim  to  ensure  the  integration  of 
environmental concerns into, the different policies, agreements and legislative measures 
which  have  an  impact  on  the  marine  environment”  55.  The  main  aim  is  to  “achieve  or 
maintain good environmental status in the marine environment by the year 2020 at the 
latest”56. 

The  MSFD  obliges  Member  States  to  formulate  marine  strategies  and  action  plans, 
following an ecosystem-based approach, which allow sustainable use of marine resources 
and  ensures  achievement  of  good  environmental  status  (GES).  GES  is  assessed  on  the 
basis of 11 qualitative descriptors (Annex I of the MSFD Directive) of which three are 
relevant for fisheries: 

  GES descriptor 1: Biological diversity; 

53  Directive  2008/56/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  17  June  2008  establishing  a 
framework for community action in the field of marine environmental policy (Marine Strategy Framework 
Directive) (Text with EEA relevance). OJ L 164, 25.6.2008, p. 19–40 
54 Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna 
and flora. OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7–50 
55 MSFD, article 1.4 
56 MSFD Article 1.1 

38 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
  GES descriptor 3: Status of populations of commercially exploited species; 
  GES descriptor 6: Sea-floor integrity. 

The DSAR is coherent with the EU objective of achieving good environmental status in 
European  seas  by  2020  and  of  minimising  the  negative  impact  of  fishing  activities  on 
marine  ecosystems.  The  DSAR  implements  capacity  management  measures  and  spatial 
measures  (the  800m  bottom  trawl  ban)  that  contributes  with  other  CFP  management 
measures  (e.g.  TAC  and  quota  Regulations,  Technical  Measures  Regulation)  to  the 
conservation of deep-sea stocks with contribution to GES descriptors 1 and 3. 
The  DSAR  also  implements  a  set  of  spatial  measures  aiming  at  ensuring  protection  of 
deep-sea  habitats  (e.g.  limitation  of  exploitation  to  existing  fishing  areas,  closures  of 
areas  below  400m  where  VMEs  are  known  or  likely  to  occur  to  bottom  gears,  800m 
bottom trawl ban) that contribute to the achievements of MSFD GES descriptors 1 and 6.  

The Habitats Directive 
The aim of the Habitats Directive is “to contribute towards ensuring biodiversity through 
the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora in the European territory 
of  the  Member  States  to  which  the  Treaty  applies”  (Article  2.1),  taking  into  account 
“economic,  social  and  cultural  requirements  and  regional  and  local  characteristics” 
(Article 2.3). 

The  Habitats  Directive  pursues  the  establishment  of  a  network  of  special  areas  of 
conservation  (Natura  2000)  to  protect  certain  habitat  types  (listed  in  Annex  I57)  and 
species (listed in Annex II58 and Annex IV59). The selection of the Natura 2000 areas is 
the  responsibility  of  the  Member  States.  The  criteria  to  be  used  for  this  selection  are 
listed in Annex III of Directive. 

Annex  I  of  the  Habitats  Directive  considers  reefs  in  the  open  sea  and  tidal  areas  (code 
1170) as natural habitat types of EU interest whose conservation requires the designation 
of  special  areas  of  conservation.  The  opportunities  provided  by  the  Habitats  Directive 
have  been  taken  up  by  some  countries  (Ireland,  Spain  and  United  Kingdom)  to  define 
Special Areas for Conservation based on the presence of deep-water coral reefs outside 
their territorial waters with some of the areas designated60 subsequently closed to fishing 
with  bottom  gears  through  the  Technical  Measures  Regulation  to  ensure  uniform 
application to all Member States’ fishing fleets. Since deep-water coral reefs areas closed 
to  bottom  fishing  under  the  Habitats  Directive  are  likely  to  have  the  attributes  of 
vulnerable  marine  ecosystems  as  defined  by  FAO  (2009)  (i.e.  uniqueness  or  rarity  / 
functional  significance  of  the  habitat  /  fragility  /  life  history  traits  of  the  components 
species  that  make  recovery  difficult,  and  structural  complexity),  there  are  synergies 
between  the  DSAR  and  the  Habitats  Directive  to  protect  VMEs,  in  particular  VME 
habitat types, including coral reefs.  

The  DSAR  is  fully  coherent  with  other  non-CFP  EU  instruments  considering 
protection  of  the  marine  environment  under  their  scope.  The  DSAR  objective  of 
preventing  significant  impacts  on  VMEs  and  ensuring  long-term  conservation  of  deep-

57 Natural habitat types of community interest whose conservation requires the designation of special areas 
of conservation. 
58 Animal and plant species of community interest whose conservation requires the designation of special 
areas of conservation. 
59 Animal and plant species of community interest in need of strict protection. 
60 Inter alia Belgica Mound Province, Hovland Mound province, North-West Porcupine Bank Area, South-
West Porcupine Bank (IE), Darwin Mounds (UK), El Cachucho (ES). 

39 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
sea  fish  stocks  supports  the  objectives  of  the  Marine  Strategy  Framework  Directive,  in 
particular for descriptors 1, 3 and 6 of the Good Environmental Status promoted by the 
MSFD. DSAR measures supporting protection of the deep-sea ecosystems  also  support 
the  broader  ecosystem  protection  objective  of  natural  habitats  set  out  by  the  Habitats 
Directive,  with  the  latter  providing  opportunities  for  Member  States  to  designate  deep-
water  coral  reefs  as  Special  Areas  of  Conservation  in  synergy  with  DSAR  measures 
targeting protection of similar habitat types. 

To what extent is the DSAR coherent with the CFP Regulation and CFP-instruments 
in relation to fishing opportunities, technical measures, Control and Data collection? 

As  shown  in  Figure  6,  the  DSAR  is  one  of  the  EU  instruments  adopted  under  the 
Common  Fisheries  Policy  (CFP)  for  the  conservation  and  management  of  deep-sea 
fisheries. The relevant EU instruments applicable at the time of drafting this evaluation 
were: 

  The biennial deep-sea TAC and quota Regulation fixing fishing opportunities for 
certain  deep-sea  stocks  with  the  most  recent  act  Regulation  (EU)  2018/2025 
applicable for 2019 and 2020; 

  The  annual  general  TAC  and  quota  Regulation  fixing  fishing  opportunities  for 
certain  stocks,  including  some  deep-sea  stocks,  with  the  most  recent  act 
Regulation (EU) 2020/123 applicable for 2020; 

  The  Technical  Measures  Regulation  (EU)  2019/1241  and  its  predecessor 
Regulation  (EC)  850/98  setting  rules  on  how,  where  and  when  fishing  vessels 
may  exploit  fishing  opportunities,  including  those  granted  for  exploitation  of 
deep-sea stocks; 

  The  Western  Water  Multiannual  Plan  enforced  through  Regulation  (EU) 
2019/472 which covers management and conservation objectives of some stocks 
of deep-sea species; 

  The  landing  obligation  enacted  by  the  CFP  Regulation  1380/2013  applicable  to 

most deep-sea fisheries as from 2019; 

  The  Control  Regulation  (EC)  1224/2009  defining  rules  to  ensure  control  of  EU 

fisheries, including deep-sea fisheries; 

  The Data Collection Framework Regulation (EU) 2017/1004 establishing rules on 
the collection, management and use of technical and scientific data in the fisheries 
sector with provisions for deep-sea species. 

All EU instruments listed above have clear interlinkages with the DSAR at the level of 
their objectives.  In the case of the Control Regulation  (EC) 1224/2009  and of the  Data 
Collection Framework Regulation (EU) 2017/1004, interlinkages are also at the level of 
measures,  with  the  DSAR  building  its  provisions  on  the  provisions  of  the  two 
instruments ensuring full coherence and complementarities. 

The  review  of  the  different  EU  instruments  with  an  impact  on  the  conservation  and 
management  of  deep-sea  stocks  shows  that  there  is  no  contradiction,  duplication  or 
overlap with DSAR measures: 

  The TAC and quota Regulations define fishing opportunities for 27% of deep-sea 
species listed in Annex I to the DSAR but the TAC Regulations cover 84% of the 
total  catches  of  these  designated  deep-sea  species.  Precautionary  TACs  are  set 

40 

 
 
 
 
 
 
when there is not sufficient scientific information to define analytical TACs (i.e. 
TAC  having  an  MSY  assessment),  consistent  with  DSAR  and  overarching  CFP 
objectives. The DSAR does not address levels of fishing opportunities nor harvest 
control rules. 

  The  Technical  Measures  Regulation  enforces  several  measures  of  interest  for 
conservation of deep-sea stocks including inter alia i) a prohibition to set bottom 
gillnets beyond 200m depth, with derogations until 600m depth to target hake and 
anglerfish, ii) closure to bottom fishing of offshore areas designated by Member 
States  under  the  Habitats  Directive  to  protect  deep-sea  coral  reefs,  iii)  bottom 
trawl ban in the waters of outermost regions of Portugal and Spain and iv) special 
rules  for  protection  of  blue  ling  during  its  spawning  season  in  North-Western 
Waters. The DSAR does not consider similar measures. 

  The Western Water Multiannual Plan defines target MSY fishing mortality levels 
for  certain  stocks  of  deep-sea  species,  with  application  of  the  precautionary 
approach  when  MSY 
indicators  are  not  available.  The  Western  Water 
Multiannual  Plan  operationalise  the  long-term  conservation  objective  of  certain 
deep-sea fish stocks foreseen by the DSAR. 

  The landing obligation enacted by the CFP Regulation provides a relevant tool to 
ensure  that  discarding  of  catches  of  deep-sea  species  subject  to  catch  limits  is 
prohibited. 

  The DSAR builds on measures enacted through the Control Regulation for more 
stringent control rules applicable to deep-sea fisheries, and on measures enacted 
through  the  DCF  to  ensure  mandatory  collection  of  scientific  information  on 
deep-sea  fisheries  according  to  scientific  methodologies  aiming  at  providing 
robust and representative data in support to stock assessment. 

However,  whilst  CFP  instruments  adequately  support  DSAR  achievements  by  enacting 
complementary  measures  for  the  conservation  of  deep-sea  stocks  and  ecosystems,  the 
review suggests that there is a potential gap for adequate protection of deep-sea sharks, 
including those identified as ‘Most Vulnerable’ by the DSAR. The two applicable TAC 
and quota Regulations (the biennial deep-sea TAC and quota Regulation and the annual 
general  TAC  and  quota  Regulation)  both  introduce  measures  for  the  conservation  of 
some  deep-sea  sharks  species  by  placing  these  species  under  a  status  of  ‘prohibited 
species’,  meaning  that  the  deep-sea  sharks  species  concerned  must  be  discarded  with 
catches not counted against quotas. This is the reason why NGOs consulted warn that the 
prohibited  species  status  granted  to  some  deep-sea  shark  species  does  not  incentivise 
fishing  vessels  enough,  in  particular  bottom  trawlers,  to  make  the  necessary  efforts  to 
avoid  sharks  by-catches.  The  Technical  Measures  Regulation  could  also  ensure  better 
protection  of  deep-sea  sharks  by  reducing  or  clarifying  the  catch  threshold  defined  to 
avail  the  derogations  for  fishing  with  gillnets  between  200m  and  600m  depth.  The 
consistency between TAC and quota Regulations and the Technical Measures Regulation 
could  also  be  improved  in  relation  to  by-catches  of  deep-sea  sharks  by  vessels  using 
bottom  set  gillnets.  Enhancement  of  the  protection  regime  of  deep-sea  sharks  in  EU 
waters  in  support  of  DSAR  objectives  could  thus  require  adjustments  to  the  three 
regulations  cited  (the  biennial  deep-sea  TAC  and  quota  Regulation,  the  annual  general 
TAC  and  quota  Regulation  and  the  Technical  Measures  Regulation),  but  not  of  the 
DSAR itself. 

At  a  broader  level,  the  DSAR  is  fully  consistent  with  CFP  overarching  objectives, 
with the DSAR contributing to conservation of deep-sea fish stocks and of their habitats 
under  an  ecosystem-based  approach  seeking  to  reduce  significant  adverse  impacts  on 
VMEs.  The  DSAR  also  applies  the  precautionary  approach  to  fisheries  management 

41 

 
 
 
promoted by the CFP through protection of waters below 800m and areas where VMEs 
are known but also likely to occur from adverse impacts. 

The  DSAR  is  coherent  with  the  CFP  Regulation  and  EU  CFP-instruments  in 
relation  to  fishing  opportunities,  technical  measures,  control  and  data  collection 
with the different EU instruments showing no  contradiction, duplication or overlapping 
at  the level  of objectives or measures.  At a broader level,  the  DSAR contributes to  the 
overarching  objectives  of  the  CFP  by  ensuring  integration  of  the  ecosystem-based  and 
precautionary approaches to the management of deep-sea fisheries.  

To what extent is the DSAR coherent with other EU measures for VMEs protection? 

Council  Regulation  (EC)  734/200861  applies  to  vessels  carrying  out  fishing  activities 
with bottom gears in the high seas where no relevant organisation or arrangement exists 
with  the  competence  to  regulate  bottom  fisheries  and  the  impacts  of  fishing  on  VMEs. 
For  EU  waters  covered  by  the  DSAR,  Regulation  (EC)  734/2008  does  not  apply. 
Regulation  (EC)  734/2008  does  not  apply  either  to  the  NEAFC  Regulatory  Area  as 
NEAFC  is  a  RFMO  with  a  mandate  to  regulate  bottom  fisheries  and  the  impacts  of 
fishing on VMEs in its Regulatory Area. However, there is no such relevant organisation 
or  arrangement  covering  international  waters  of  CECAF  areas  34.1.1,  34.1.2  and  34.2. 
Therefore, Regulation (EC) 734/2008 applies in these CECAF areas with the DSAR also 
applying by virtue of its Article 2.1.b. 

Figure 14: Comparison between VME protection measures implemented under Regulation (EC) 
734/2008 and VME Protection measures implemented under the DSAR 

Fishing authorisations 

Reg. (EU) 734/2008 
In relation to gear used irrespective of 
deep-sea species caught 

DSAR 
In relation to deep-sea species caught 
irrespective of gear used 

No limitation 

Does  not  define  evidence  of  an 
encounter 
Move-on rule 5 nautical miles 

Limited to 2009-2011 levels 

Define evidence of an encounter 
Move-on rule 5 nautical miles 

Identification  of  areas  where  VMEs 
are  known  or  are  likely  to  occur 
without specification of depth 
Closure of VME areas to bottom gears 

Identification  of  areas  where  VMEs 
are known or are likely to occur below 
a depth of 400m 
Closure of VME areas to bottom gears 

Fishing capacity 

VME encounter 

VMEs area closure 

Impact assessment 

Deep-sea  fishing  may  be  permitted 
only  on 
impact 
the  basis  of  an 
assessment 
No 
specification 
assessment methodology 

impact 

on 

bottom 

800m 
prohibition 
Observer coverage 

trawl 

No 

100% for any fishing operation 
Observer mandate include control 

Deep-sea 
fishing  outside  existing 
fishing  areas  may  be  permitted  only 
on  basis  of  the  result  of  an  impact 
assessment 
Impact 
should 
assessment 
consistent with FAO Guidelines 
Yes 

be 

targeting 

20% 
for 
authorisations,  10% 
fishing authorisations 
Scientific mandate for observer 

fishing 
for  by-catches 

61  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No 734/2008  on  the  protection  of  vulnerable  marine  ecosystems  in  the  high 
seas from the adverse impacts of bottom fishing gears. OJ L 201, 30.7.2008, p. 8–13 

42 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Monitoring,  control  and 
surveillance 

Mandatory Vessel Monitoring System  More stringent rules including, but not 
limited to, landing in designated ports, 
prior  notifications,  logbook  entries  in 
deep waters 

Source: own analysis of the DSAR 

Overall, the DSAR ensures better integration of international standards recommended by 
the  United  Nations  General  Assembly  into  EU  law  compared  to  Regulation  (EC) 
734/2008.  This  could  be  expected  as  Regulation  (EC)  734/2008  has  been  prepared  and 
adopted  before  adoption  of  UNGA  Resolution  64/72  in  2009,  which  provided  more 
detailed  guidance  and  higher  levels  of  expectations  on  the  type  of  measures 
recommended,  compared  to  Resolution  61/105,  with  FAO  guidelines  providing  further 
operational  specifications  (FAO,  2009).  The  2010  evaluation62  of  Regulation  (EC) 
734/2008  already  identified  the  poor  level  of  alignment  of  the  Regulation  with  UNGA 
Resolutions. Meanwhile, the two EU Regulations enact complementary measures for the 
protection of VMEs from harmful gears applicable to EU vessels in international waters 
of CECAF areas 34.1.1, 34.1.2 and 34.2, but there is no evidence of EU fishing vessels 
deploying  bottom  gears  in  those  international  waters  according  to  FAO  (2017)63  and 
CEFAS et al. (2018)64.  

Conclusion on the Coherence of the DSAR 

The DSAR is broadly coherent with Resolutions 61/105 and 64/72 of the United Nations 
General Assembly on the protection of deep-sea ecosystems. The main potential issue is 
the  non-application  of  the  fishing  footprint  to  vessels  being  issued  a  by-catch  fishing 
authorisation.  However,  the  DSAR  ambition  and  reach  for  the  limitation  of  activities 
within the footprint is broader as it includes all vessels targeting deep-sea species and not 
only  bottom  gears.  The  level  of  coherence  between  the  DSAR  and  Resolutions  of  the 
United Nations General Assembly will also depend on the extent to which DSAR VMEs 
closures  include  areas  where  VMEs  are  “likely”  to  occur  in  the  forthcoming 
implementing act. 

The  DSAR  is  aligned  with  NEAFC  Recommendation  19.2014  on  the  protection  of 
vulnerable marine ecosystems in the NEAFC Regulatory Area. DSAR measures are more 
stringent  than  NEAFC  measures  in  relation  to  types  of  gear  covered  and  rules  to  be 
followed in case of an encounter with a VME, but this does not affect coherence between 
the two instruments. 

There are no issues of coherence between the DSAR and EU environmental legislation 
enacted  through  the  Marine  Strategy  Framework  Directive  and  through  the  Habitats 
Directive, with the latter providing additional tools for Member States to protect deep-sea 
ecosystems  in  synergy  with  the  DSAR.  Analysis  of  the  coherence  between  the  DSAR 
and  other  CFP-related  instruments,  which  include  conservation  and  management 
measures  for  deep-sea  fisheries  under  their  scope,  suggested  clear  complementarities. 

62 COM/2010/0651 final, Report from the Commission on the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) 
No734/2008 on the protection of vulnerable marine ecosystems in the high seas from the adverse impacts 
of bottom fishing gears.  
63  FAO  (2017)  Report  of  the  Technical  Workshop  on  Deep-sea  Fisheries  and  Vulnerable  Marine 
Ecosystems  of  the  Eastern  Central  Atlantic,  Dakar,  Senegal,  8–10  November  2016.  FAO  Fisheries  and 
Aquaculture Report. 1184, Rome, Italy. 142 pp. 
64  CEFAS,  AZTI  Tecnalia,  MRAG,  IEO,  IMPA  (2018)  Scientific  approaches  for  the  assessment  and 
management  of  deep-sea  fisheries  and  ecosystems  in  RFMOs  and  RFBs  Specific  Contract  N°8  - 
EASME/EMFF/2016/008. 

43 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
The main issue of coherence relates to the TAC and quota Regulations and the Technical 
Measures  Regulation  which  do  not  incentivise  fishing  vessels  enough  to  reduce  their 
catches  of  certain  deep-sea  shark  species,  some  of  those  being  designated  as  ‘Most 
Vulnerable’ by the DSAR.  

The  DSAR  and  Regulation  (EC)  734/2008  on  the  protection  of  vulnerable  marine 
ecosystems in the high seas have complementary provisions for the protection of VMEs 
from the adverse impacts of bottom fishing gears.  

44 

 
 
 
 
E.  EU Added-Value 

What is the additional value resulting from the EU measures under the DSAR? 

Based on Article 3.1(d) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (TFEU), the Union 
has  an  exclusive  competence  for  the  conservation  of  marine  biological  resources  under 
the common fisheries policy. The EU intervention through the DSAR was justified by the 
scale of the action, which encompasses all EU waters of the North-East Atlantic and any 
EU  fishing  vessel  operating  in  international  waters  covered  by  the  NEAFC  and 
international  waters  of  CECAF  areas  34.1.1,  34.1.2  and  34.2.  The  DSAR  ensures  that 
measures implemented are applicable to any EU or third country fishing vessel exploiting 
deep-sea  species  in  EU  waters,  ensuring  a  level  playing  field  for  concerned  fishing 
operators.  The  EU  intervention  is  largely  supported  by  contributors  to  the  public 
consultation with 90% of respondents65 agreeing that an EU regulatory framework is 
essential  to  ensure  consistency  in  the  protection  of  the  deep-sea  environment  by  the 
Member States. 

According  to  the  feedback  received  and  the  Commission’s  analysis  of  the  relevance, 
effectiveness  and  coherence  criteria,  the  design  of  certain  DSAR  measures  add  value 
through: 

  Alignment  of  EU  measures  to  international  standards  for  deep-sea  fishing  and 
VMEs  protection  set  out  by  the  UN  Resolutions  such  as  the  ban  for  bottom 
trawling  below  800  meters  in  EU  and  CECAF  waters,  and  going  beyond  UN 
requirements,  such  as  the  footprint  encompassing  all  vessels  targeting  deep-sea 
species (not only bottom fishing vessels). 

  The  recourse  to  independent  scientific  advice  for  identification  of  VMEs  areas, 
which  ensures  a  transparent  and  science-based  implementation  of  the  measure 
likely  to  foster  adherence  by  fishing  operators.  A  similar  result  would  not  have 
been  obtained  if  the  identification  of  VME  areas  was  left  to  coastal  Member 
States. 

  The haul-by-haul reporting obligation, which provides added-value for scientific 

data for stock assessment purpose. 

  The  observer  coverage,  which  obliges  Member  States  to  ensure  a  mandatory 
minimum level of observer coverage of deep-sea fisheries. In the absence of such 
a clause, activities of deep-sea fishing vessels would have probably been given a 
low priority for resource allocation in view of their small contribution to national 
fishing fleet activities in most Member States. 

  At least one Member State (France) also mentioned that the obligation for fishing 
vessel  to  board  an  observer  upon  request,  with  specific  administrative  sanctions 
for failure to do so, helps to ensure deployment of scientific personnel on-board 
the vessels. Under the broader DCF observer scheme, boarding of observers is on 
a voluntary basis for fishing operators and hence may be refused66. 

The added-value of the EU intervention through the DSAR is to ensure a level playing 
field for all concerned fishing operators by making the measures compulsory for any EU 
or third country fishing vessel exploiting deep-sea species in EU waters. 

65 140 out of 156 respondents (general questions). 
66 Refusal rates from the at-sea DCF observer programme are monitored by STECF, but information is not 
public (STECF, 2019b). 

45 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
What would be the effects of discontinuing the DSAR all other things being equal? 

Under  this  scenario,  the  DSAR  would  be  discontinued  (i.e.  repealed),  as  would  the 
forthcoming  Commission  implementing  act  for  the  footprint  and  the  location  of  VME 
areas  under  the  legal  basis  of  the  DSAR.  Discontinuation  of  the  DSAR  and  associated 
implementing instruments would have the following main effects: 

  The  deep-sea  fishing  authorisation  regime  would  no  longer  be  available  to 
identify  those  EU  vessels  authorised  to  exploit  deep-sea  fisheries  and  to  define 
the specific conservation and management rules to be applied. 

  The legal basis for the definition of existing fishing areas and definition of VME 

encounter protocol would no longer be available. 

  The process for identification of areas where VMEs are known or likely to occur 
would be left to Member States’ initiatives according to the procedures set out by 
Article 12 of the Technical Measures Regulation (EU) 2019/1241 and Article 11 
of  the  CFP  Regulation  (EU)  1380/2013.  This  process  would  certainly  entail 
considerable  scientific  work  for  the  Member  States  to  identify  VME  areas  in 
waters under their sovereignty, lead Member States to conduct consultations with 
other  Member  States  having  a  direct  management  interest  in  the  fisheries 
concerned,  before  submitting  the  area  for  closure.  Ultimately,  there  is  no 
guarantee  that  the  best  available  scientific  advice  would  be  either  used  or 
followed.  

  The 800m bottom trawl prohibition would no longer apply (unless it is included 

in the Technical Measures Regulation by way of an amendment). 

  EU  vessels  exploiting  deep-sea  fisheries  would  no  longer  be  subject  to  a 
dedicated  observer  coverage.  Collection  of  scientific  data  on-board  deep-sea 
fishing  vessels  would  be  implemented  according  to  the  rules  governing  the  EU 
Data  Collection  Framework  without  specific  quantitative  sampling  targets  and 
without obligation for fishing masters to board scientific observers. 

The  discontinuation  of  the  DSAR  would  have  a  limited  effect  on  specific  control 
provisions as deep-sea species are subject to the Western Waters Multiannual Plan since 
2019  triggering  application  of  the  specific  control  rules  foreseen  by  Article  10  of  the 
DSAR. The haul-by-haul reporting obligation would cease to apply unless co-legislators 
accept  the  Commission’s  proposal67  to  apply  this  obligation  to  all  EU  vessels  through 
adoption of a revised Union control system. 

Conclusion on the EU Added-Value of the DSAR 

The DSAR ensures a level playing field for all fishing operators from EU or third country 
vessel exploiting deep-sea species. The DSAR added-value results from the alignment of 
the EU management of  deep-sea fisheries with  UN standards, from  the  transparent  and 
science-based identification of VMEs areas, from the haul-by-haul reporting of deep-sea 
fishing  activities  and  from  the  compulsory  observer  coverage  whose  coverage  is 
significantly  higher  than  the  one  implemented  by  Member  States  under  the  EU  Data 
Collection Framework. 
The  discontinuation  of  the  DSAR  would  deprive  the  EU  of  an  instrument  designed  for 
the management of the impacts of fishing gear on deep-sea vulnerable marine ecosystems 

67 COM(2018) 368 final, Proposal of the European Commission as regards fisheries control, May 2018. 

46 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
in EU waters aligned with the Resolutions of the United Nations General Assembly. The 
absence  of  a  dedicated  instrument  would  undermine  CFP  achievements  for  what 
concerns  deep-sea  fisheries.  A  large  majority  of  respondents  to  the  public  consultation 
(80%68)  agreed  that  discontinuing  the  DSAR  would  have  an  adverse  effect  on  the 
protection of the deep-sea environment in EU waters. 

68 125 out of 156 respondents (general questions). 

47 

 
 
                                                           
6.  CONCLUSIONS 

The overarching conclusion of this evaluation is that the DSAR is fit for purpose in its 
contributions  to  the  objectives  of  i)  improving  scientific  knowledge  on  deep-sea 
species  and  their  habitats,  ii)  preventing  significant  impacts  on  VMEs  within  the 
framework of deep-sea fishing and ensuring long-term conservation of deep-sea fish 
stocks,  while  iii)  ensuring  consistency  of  EU  deep-sea  conservation  scheme  with 
resolutions adopted by the United Nations General Assembly. In addition, the review 
of trends on the different subjects listed in Article 19 of the DSAR does not suggest that 
the objectives of the DSAR are not complied with by fishing vessels using bottom gears 
(see  Annex  4).  However,  this  overarching  conclusion  is  drawn  after  a  relatively  short 
time  period  of  implementation  of  the  DSAR  (3.5  years)  and  the  implementing  act 
deriving from the regulation is not in force69. 

Regarding  the  relevance  of  the  DSAR,  it  was  necessary  to  reform  the  deep-sea  access 
management  regime  adopted  in  2002  through  Regulation  (EC)  2347/2002  to  ensure 
better  alignment  of  EU  legislation  with  international  standards  set  out  by  the  United 
Nations  General  Assembly  in  relation  to  protection  of  deep-sea  ecosystems,  and  to 
include  the  ecosystem-based  and  precautionary  approaches  to  management  of  deep-sea 
fisheries  enshrined  in  the  overarching  objectives  and  principles  of  the  CFP  Regulation 
adopted  in  2013.  The  design  of  the  DSAR  is  appropriate  to  address  the  need  for  an 
improved  scientific  knowledge  on  deep-sea  species  and  their  habitats  and  for  the 
prevention of significant adverse impacts on VMEs and long-term conservation of deep-
sea  fish  stocks.  The  evaluation  did  not  identify  any  gap  in  the  measures  in  place,  but 
showed  that  the  capacity  management  regime  has  become  less  relevant  in  view  of  the 
decreasing  levels  of  fishing  activities  on  deep-sea  stocks  since  2017,  due  to  increased 
limitations  on  fishing  opportunities  (TAC  and  quotas)  reinforced  by  the  landing 
obligation,  spatial  measures  (800m  bottom  trawl  prohibition)  and  to  the  decreased 
economic incentives to catch deep-sea species, as reported by fishermen associations.  

The  DSAR  has  proven  its  effectiveness  in  contributing  to  the  preservation  of  deep-sea 
fish stocks mainly  through the 800m  bottom  trawl prohibition. The 800m  bottom  trawl 
prohibition decreased  accessibility of some key  commercial deep-sea species to  bottom 
trawlers,  with  effective  protection  of  species  living  below  that  depth  (grenadiers  and 
orange  roughy)  and  of  species  with  the  majority  of  their  biomass  below  800m  (black 
scabbardfish).  The  measure  also  contributed  to  a  decrease  in  catches  of  other  deep-sea 
species  caught  as  by-catches,  when  fishing  under  these  depths,  in  particular  deep-sea 
sharks,  as  evidenced  by  the  results  of  scientific  sampling  programmes  on-board  the 
vessels subject to the prohibition. The DSAR, in conjunction with the EU data collection 
Regulation  (EU)  2017/1004,  has  been  effective  in  improving  scientific  knowledge  of 
certain  deep-sea  fish  stocks.  The  forthcoming  upgrade  of  the  quality  of  the  stock 
assessment  for  three  stocks  of  deep-sea  species  supports  this  finding70.  The  uneven 
application  of  the  DSAR  observer  programme  coverage  by  EU  Member  States  and  the 
absence  of  VME  records  collected  on-board  EU  commercial  vessels  shared  with  ICES 
have  led  to  a  reduced  effectiveness  in  improving  scientific  knowledge  on  deep-sea 
habitats.  As  a  result  of  the  delayed  implementation  of  two  of  its  key  measures71,  the 
DSAR has not been effective so far to ensure protection of vulnerable marine ecosystems 
(VMEs) in EU waters of the North-East Atlantic, in particular those located between 400 

69 Implementing act foreseen under Article 7 definition of existing fishing areas (i.e. the fishing footprint) 
and under Article 9 closures for bottom gears of areas below 400 m for VMEs protection. 
70 Two stocks of greater silver smelt and one stock of black scabbardfish. 
71 The definition of existing fishing areas and the closures of areas below 400m for VMEs protection. 

48 

 
 
 
                                                           
and  800m  depth,  a  view  that  is  shared  by  more  than  70%72  of  the  respondents  to  the 
public consultation.  

As  regards  the  efficiency  of  the  DSAR,  findings  from  this  evaluation  show  that  the 
management  regime  for  fishing  authorisation  is  efficient  so  far.  Qualitatively,  the 
implementation  and  the  management  of  the  fishing  authorisation  regime  is  the  main 
administrative  cost  impacting  factors  for  Member  States  issuing  the  largest  number  of 
fishing authorisations to their vessels (i.e. Portugal, Spain and France to a lesser extent). 
Other  administrative  costs  stemming  from  DSAR  implementation  are  a  fraction  of 
administrative costs borne by Member States for monitoring, control and surveillance of 
fishing  vessels  under  their  competence  or  for  implementation  of  the  broader  DCF 
multiannual plans for collection of scientific data. In view of the relatively low share of 
deep-sea  species  catches  in  total  national  catches,  the  fraction  is  likely  to  be  small. 
Feedback from stakeholders suggest some scope for simplification of the DSAR, such as 
reviewing  the  criteria  for  issuing  the  fishing  authorisations  to  focus  on  fishing  vessels 
interacting the most with the deep-sea ecosystem, notably bottom contacting gears. Some 
Member  States’  authorities  suggested  that  reference  to  NEAFC  Regulatory  Area  on 
observer  coverage  should  be  clarified,  due  to  the  additional  administrative  work  it 
generates.  Finally,  some  Member  States  noted  that  information  required  in  Member 
States  annual  reports  to  the  Commission  could  be  simplified  to  exclude  information 
already shared with the Commission under the Control Regulation (EC) 1224/2009. 

The coherence of the DSAR with Resolutions 61/105 and 64/72 of the United Nations 
General  Assembly  on  the  protection  of  deep-sea  ecosystems  is  broadly  acknowledged. 
The  level  of  consistency  between  the  DSAR  and  Resolutions  of  the  United  Nations 
General Assembly will depend on the extent to which DSAR VME closures include areas 
where VMEs are likely to occur in the forthcoming implementing act. The DSAR is also 
aligned  with  NEAFC Recommendation 19.2014 on the protection of vulnerable marine 
ecosystems  in  the  NEAFC  Regulatory  Area.  DSAR  measures  are  even  more  stringent 
than NEAFC measures  in relation  to  types of  gear covered and rules to  be followed in 
case  of  an  encounter  with  a  VME,  but  this  does  not  affect  coherence  between  the  two 
instruments.  
The  DSAR  and  EU  environmental  legislation  are  in  coherence  through  the  Marine 
Strategy  Framework  Directive  and  the  Habitats  Directive,  with  the  latter  providing 
additional  tools  for  Member  States  to  protect  deep-sea  ecosystems  in  synergy  with  the 
DSAR. Analysis of the coherence between the DSAR and other CFP-related instruments, 
which include conservation and management measures for deep-sea fisheries under their 
scope,  suggested  clear  complementarities.  The  main  issue  of  coherence  relates  to  the 
TAC  and  quota  Regulations  and  the  Technical  Measures  Regulation  where  the  DSAR 
goes  further  on  the  protection  of  deep-sea  shark  species  by  designating  many  as  ‘Most 
Vulnerable’.  
The  DSAR  and  Regulation  (EC)  734/2008  on  the  protection  of  vulnerable  marine 
ecosystems in the high seas have complementary provisions for the protection of VMEs 
from the adverse impacts of bottom fishing gears in international waters of CECAF areas 
34.1.1, 34.1.2 and 34.2.  

The added-value of the EU intervention through the DSAR is to ensure application of 
its measures to any EU or third country fishing vessel exploiting deep-sea species in EU 
waters, to ensure a level playing field for relevant fishing operators. The design of certain 

72 See Annex 2: Consultations – Synopsis Report 

49 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
DSAR  measures  provides  some  added-value  to  ensure  contribution  to  the  objectives  of 
the  Regulation.  The  additional  added-value  results  from  i)  alignment  of  the  EU 
framework for management of deep-sea fisheries with international standards set out by 
the United Nations, ii) transparent and science-based identification of areas where VMEs 
are  known  or  likely  to  occur  by  an  independent  scientific  body,  iii)  haul-by-haul 
reporting  of  deep-sea  fishing  activities,  iv)  a  mandatory  minimum  level  of  coverage  of 
fishing operations by observers significantly higher than the observer coverage achieved 
by  Member  States  when  implementing  the  observer  scheme  foreseen  by  the  EU  Data 
Collection  Framework  and  v)  the  obligation  for  fishing  masters  to  board  an  observer 
upon request with a specific sanction scheme for failure to do so, with justified waivers 
for security reasons. 

50 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex 1: Procedural information 

1.  LEAD DG, DeCIDE PLANNING/CWP REFERENCES 

Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries.  

Decide planning reference: PLAN/2019/5337. 

2.  ORGANISATION AND TIMING 

The initiation of the evaluation of the DSAR was approved by MARE management and 
the  Cabinet  in  May  2019.  On  13  June  2019,  the  Inter-service  Steering  Group  (ISSG) 
members were appointed. The evaluation roadmap was published on 17 September 2019, 
marking  the  official  starting  date  of  the  evaluation.  The  procurement  procedure  for  the 
supporting study was initiated in May 2019 and the contract with the external consultant 
was subsequently signed on 10 February 2020, with a kick-off meeting on 18 February 
2020. The external study lasted nine months. The public consultation through the website 
of the European Commission took place from 13 May until 5 August 2020.  

DG MARE chaired the ISSG, which comprised representatives of the Secretary General, 
MARE, ENV, EASME and the Legal Service. The ISSG held three meetings and due to 
the Covid pandemic, many exchanges and consultations took place in writing.  

3.  EXCEPTIONS TO THE BETTER REGULATION GUIDELINES 
N/A 
4.  CONSULTATION OF THE RSB (IF APPLICABLE) 
N/A 

5.  EVIDENCE, SOURCES AND QUALITY 

The external study served as a basis for the evaluation of the DSAR.  

The consultant used a variety of research methods and sources, including: desk research, 
data  extracts  of  the  Commission  internal  IT  system,  scoping  interviews,  targeted 
interviews,  online  targeted  consultation  and  case  studies.  In  line  with  the  Better 
Regulation guidelines, the evaluation also included a public consultation exercise.  

The  most  important  constraint  to  the  robustness  of  the  findings  was  the  fact  that  the 
DSAR  was  not  fully  implemented  at  the  time  of  the  evaluation.  The  fact  that  two 
important  features  of  the  Regulation,  i.e.  the  list  of  VMEs  and  the  delimitation  of  the 
footprint, are still pending for adoption confines the extent to which fixed conclusions on 
the success of the DSAR can be drawn.  

Despite this limitation, the quality and the representativeness of the collected evidence is 
considered satisfactory. The consultant was able to collect extensive and meaningful data 
that allowed drawing conclusions.  

51 

 
 
Annex 2: Consultations – Synopsis Report 

Consultations activities included i) targeted consultations of stakeholders having a stake 
or a stated interest in the management of deep-sea fisheries through the DSAR and ii) a 
public  consultation  to  gather  opinions  on  the  DSAR  from  any  citizen  or  stakeholder 
wishing to provide feedback on the DSAR.  

The targeted consultations have been implemented between March and June 2020, and 
the public consultation was open for feedback between 13 May and 5 August 2020. All 
conclusions stemming from the consultation activities are elaborated in the main text. 

Before  the  consultation  activities,  the  Commission  published  the  roadmap  to  inform 
citizens  and  stakeholders  about  its  initiative  to  evaluate  the  DSAR.  The  roadmap  was 
published  on  17  September  2019  on  the  Commission’s  Have  Your  Say  portal73.  The 
roadmap  was  open  for  four  weeks  for  providing  feedback;  however,  no  feedback  was 
received before closing date of 15 October 2019. 

Targeted consultations 

Targeted consultation strategy 
The targeted consultation strategy aimed at contacting EU stakeholders that have a high 
interest and/or a high stake in deep-sea fisheries to collect technical information and to 
gather  opinions  and  perceptions  on  the  DSAR  and  on  its  implementation.  The 
consultation  strategy  has  been  tailored  to  the  groups  of  stakeholders  concerned  by  the 
DSAR: 

  stakeholders  in  charge  of  the  implementation  of  the  DSAR  (e.g.  relevant 

Commission services and EU agencies, MS authorities, science providers);  

  stakeholders  impacted  by  the  provisions  of  the  DSAR  (e.g.  operators  of  the 

fishing industry); 

  stakeholders having a stated interest in the DSAR (e.g. NGOs). 

A preliminary list of stakeholders was prepared and approved by the Inter-Service Group 
during  the  inception  phase.  The  initial  list  was  extended  during  the  research  phase  to 
include other entities having an interest in deep-sea fisheries based on recommendations 
from certain stakeholders and from the Commission. 

In  total,  73  entities  were  approached  between  April  and  June  2020,  with  59  of  them 
answering (81%). The list of targeted entities is shown below. 

The next figure shows details of targeted consultation outcomes for the main groups of 
stakeholders approached. 

73 EU Have your Say – Deep-sea fishing in the NE Atlantic 

52 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
  Member  States’  authorities:  all  15  Member  States  having  some  of  their  flag 
vessels active in the North East Atlantic74 contributed to the evaluation, plus the 
authorities of the two autonomous regions of Portugal (Azores and Madeira) 
  Professional  associations:  feedback  was  provided  by  associations  representing 
fishing  operators  involved  in  deep-sea  fisheries  in  South  Western  waters  and 
North  Western  waters  (including  NEAFC  Regulatory  Area),  and  representing 
large-scale and small-scale fleets. By Member State, feedback has been received 
from professional associations representing fishing operators from DE (2), ES (8), 
FR (5),  IE (1), NL (1),  PT (3) and UK (3).  In the case of ES  and PT, feedback 
received  included  contributions  from  fishing  operators  based  in  the  outermost 
regions. 

  Research:  feedback  has  been  received  from  ICES  (Secretariat  and  chairs  of 
WGDEEP  and  WGDEC),  and  from  research  institutes  of  DE,  ES,  FR,  NL  and 
UK. 

  NGOs:  feedback  was  provided  by  the  Deep-Sea  Coalition  as  a  group,  and 

individually by some of its members. 

  Other:  none  of  the  four  Advisory  Councils75  contacted  submitted  an  official 
position  paper  in  response  to  the  consultation  proposal.  However,  two  of  them 
confirmed  dissemination  of  the  questionnaire  to  their  members,  and  transmitted 
individual contributions received. Other entities of this group providing feedback 
include the European Fisheries Control Agency and the NEAFC Secretariat. 

Targeted consultation tools 
The  initially  planned  consultation  methodology  privileged  direct  consultations  through 
face-to-face  interviews.  However,  as  a  result  of  the  Covid-19  outbreak  and  resulting 
social  distancing  measures  that  culminated  during  the  research  phase  of  the  study 
(March-June  2020),  consultations  took  place  remotely  through  submission  of  written 
questionnaires, with follow-up discussions though telephone or videoconference systems 
as appropriate. 

Three different types of questionnaires have been prepared during the inception phase to 
ensure adaptation of the questions to the targeted audience: 

74 BE, DE, DK, EE, ES, FI, FR, IE, LV, LT, NL, PL, PT, UK and SE. 
75 NWW-AC, SWW-AC, LD-AC and PEL-AC. 

53 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
  one  questionnaire  for  Member  State  authorities,  with  one  version  for  Member 
States  issuing  deep-sea  fishing  authorisations  and  an  abridged  version  for 
Member States not issuing deep-sea fishing authorisations; 

  one questionnaire for fishermen associations; 
  one questionnaire for Advisory Councils and NGOs. 

The  different  questionnaires  were  included  in  the  inception  report  submitted  to  the 
Steering Committee for review prior to their dissemination to targeted entities. 

In view of the important involvement of certain Member States in deep-sea fisheries, the 
questionnaires for Member States and for fishermen associations were translated into DE, 
ES, FR and PT to improve their accessibility. 

Summary of feedback received 

Member States and NGOs consulted acknowledged a need for a revision of the previous 
to  ensure  better  alignment  with 
Deep-sea  Access  Regulation  (EC)  2347/2002 
recommendations of the United Nations General Assembly on the protection of deep-sea 
stocks  and  their  habitats,  in  particular  the  VMEs  that  were  left  unprotected  from 
damaging  bottom  gear  under  the  previous  regulation.  However,  this  opinion  was  not 
shared  by  certain  fishermen  associations  (Germany,  Spain  and  Netherlands)  on  the 
ground that existing conservation and management measures were sufficient to regulate 
fishing in deep waters,  and that fishing  for deep-sea species does not necessarily  mean 
generating significant adverse impacts on VMEs. 

Many stakeholders consulted confirmed the need for a specific management scheme of 
deep-sea  fisheries  in  view  of  their  particularities  underpinning  design  of  dedicated 
measures  for  protection  of  deep-sea  habitats,  management  of  fishing  capacities  and 
monitoring  and  control.  However,  stakeholders  based  in  outermost  regions  of  Azores, 
Madeira and Canary Islands reported that management of deep-sea fisheries should take 
into  account  the  specificities  of  their  regions  through  the  CFP  regionalisation  process, 
instead of being centralised and uniform across the EU. 

Among  the  different  provisions  of  the  DSAR,  the  fishing  authorisation  regime  and  the 
800m bottom trawl ban concentrated most of the feedback received from stakeholders: 

  For  certain  Member  States  (Germany  and  Netherlands)  and  professional 
association  (Germany,  Spain,  Netherlands  and  Portugal),  while  in  principle  a 
fishing  authorisation  regime  is  a  relevant  tool  to  identify  and  manage  fishing 
fleet exploiting deep-sea fisheries, the DSAR fishing authorisation regime based 
on  a  list  of  designated  deep-sea  species  had  the  unexpected  effect  of  bringing 
under the scope of the regulation fishing vessels using gear unlikely to  generate 
significant adverse impacts on VMEs (midwater trawls and handlines) and fishing 
vessels,  mostly  small-scale  fishing  vessels,  catching  deep-sea  species  in  waters 
shallower  than  400m  with  the  example  of  red  seabream  frequently  reported.  In 
this  latter  case,  fishermen  associations  (Spain)  questions  the  relevance  of  the 
deep-sea access  regime in view of the unregulated fishing pressure deployed by 
recreational  fishermen  on  this  species  on  the  same  fishing  grounds.  In  addition, 
certain fishermen associations and NGOs put forward that a fishing authorisation 
regime  should  include  components  related  to  the  gear  used  and  the  depth 
exploited rather than being based solely on a list of designated deep-sea species. 

54 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  The  800m  bottom  trawl  ban  is  supported  by  NGOs  in  view  of  the  likely 
effectiveness  of  the  measure  to  protect  deep-sea  species  and  VMEs  beyond  that 
depth. However, NGOs support the establishment of further restrictions in the use 
of  fishing  gears  which  have  a  negative  impact  on  unwanted  species  and  VMEs 
(like the ban of bottom trawling in shallower depths or restrictions in the use of 
bottom gillnets). For fishermen associations representing fishing operators in the 
EU, the 800m bottom trawl ban is felt as an arbitrary measure not supported by 
scientific  evidence.  According  to  them,  fishing  bans  must  be  specific  in  space, 
and created with adequate scientific justification, otherwise they are illegitimate. 
From an operational perspective, fishermen associations confirmed that the main 
effect of the 800m trawl ban is to decrease accessibility to deep-sea species such 
as  grenadiers  in  North  Western  Waters.  In  South  Western  Waters,  the  800m 
bottom  trawl  prohibition  may  force  fishing  vessels  to  operate  closer  from  the 
coast  as  a  result  of  the  narrower  continental  shelf  compared  to  North  Western 
Waters.  Fishermen  associations  in  outermost  regions  recall  that  bottom  trawling 
has  been  phased  out  from  their  waters  since  several  years.  Member  States’ 
authorities did not comment on the relevance or effectiveness of the measure, but 
indicated  that  it  was  seen  as  a  reasonable  compromise  to  reconcile  opposite 
positions of the civil society and of fishermen associations. 

Concerning two other flagship measures of the DSAR (i.e. the footprint by Article 7 and 
the VMEs spatial protection by Article 9), some fishermen associations (Germany, Spain 
and  UK)  support  the  measures  replicating  the  NEAFC  ones,  and  other  (France, 
Netherlands  and  Portugal)  raised  that  they  could  lead  to  unjustified  further  restrictions, 
with in particular, the relevance of the historical reference period (2009-2011) to define 
the  footprint  being  challenged.  NGOs  support  the  two  measures  but  raised  that  their 
delayed  implementation  promised  for  early  2018  casts  doubts  on  the  willingness  of 
Member  States  and  of  the  Commission  to  ensure  protection  of  deep-sea  ecosystems. 
NGOs doubts are said to be underpinned by delayed materialisation of other time-bound 
DSAR measures, such as scientific advice on the observer coverage foreseen in Article 
16.3. 

According to stakeholders, the VME encounter protocol makes sense as this is a measure 
already implemented in  international  waters. For NGOs, the evidence to define a VME 
encounter are somewhat arbitrary and should be defined based on scientific advice. They 
suggest  that  a  buffer  area  where  the  VME  encounter  has  happened  should  be  closed 
immediately  to  all  bottom  contacting  fishing  practices  until  there  is  scientific  evidence 
that  these  type  of  fishing  activity  does  not  represent  a  risk  for  the  conservation  of  the 
encountered VME. Fishermen associations (Spain and Portugal) raised that identification 
of VME species up to taxonomic levels required by the DSAR is beyond the competence 
of the fishing master suggesting that his/her responsibility should be nuanced in case of 
an encounter, and also that catchability of VME indicators by bottom trawls or longlines 
is probably very low. 

DSAR  measures  on  more  stringent  control  rules  and  observer  coverage  are  understood 
and  did  not  attract  particular  comments.  However,  fishermen  associations  and  science 
providers recall that the amount of scientific information for stock assessment is strongly 
dependant on amount of catches. If DSAR measures or other EU conservation measures 
such  as  quotas  contribute  to  decrease  amount  of  catches  of  certain  deep-sea  species, 
fisheries dependent  information  for stock assessment will become insufficient  for stock 
assessment purpose. 

55 

 
 
 
 
 
List of entities subject to targeted consultations with indication on feedback provided 

Responded 

Group* 

MS 

BE 

DE 

DE 

DE 

DE 

DK 

EE 

ES 

ES 

ES 

ES 

ES 

ES 

ES 

ES 

ES 

ES 

ES 

ES 

ES 

FI 

FR 

FR 

FR 

FR 

FR 

FR 

FR 

FR 

FR 

IE 

IE 

Name entity 

BE Fisheries 

Deutsche Fischfang-Union GmbH & Co. KG, Cuxhaven 

Federal Ministry for Food and Agriculture (BMEL) 

Deutscher Hochseefischerei-Verband 

Thünen-Institut für Seefischerei 

DK Fisheries 

EE Directorate for Fisheries 

General Secretary for Fisheires 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Cooperativa de Armadores de Pesca del Puerto de Vigo (ARVI)  

Yes 

PescaGalicia – Arpeca - Obarco (Grandsol)  

Puerto de Celeiro / OPP 77 

Organización de Productores Pesqueros de Lugo (OPP Lugo) 

AGARBA  

FECOPPAS - Asturias 

OP Conil  

Federacion de cofradias de la provincia de Cadiz  

Federacion de cofradias de la provincia de Las Palmas  

Federacion de cofradias de la provincia de Tenerife  

Cofradia de Pesacdores El Hierro (Canary Isl.) 

Instituto Español de Oceanografía 

FI Fisheries 

Scapêche 

DPMA 

Bloom Association 

Pêcheurs de Bretagne 

UAPF 

FROM Nord 

CNPMEM 

IFREMER (ICES WGDEEP) 

IFREMER Obsmer 

DAFM 

Killybegs Fishermen's Organisation 

56 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

MSA 

FC 

MSA 

FA 

RSC 

MSA 

MSA 

MSA 

FA 

FA 

FA 

FA 

FA 

FA 

FA 

FA 

FA 

FA 

FA 

RSC 

MSA 

FC 

MSA 

NGO 

FA 

FA 

FA 

FA 

RSC 

RSC 

MSA 

FA 

 
MS 

Name entity 

Responded 

Group* 

IE 

LT 

LV 

NL 

NL 

NL 

PL 

PT 

PT 

PT 

PT 

PT 

PT 

PT 

PT 

PT 

PT 

PT 

PT 

PT 

PT 

SE 

UK 

UK 

UK 

UK 

UK 

UK 

EU 

Irish South and West PO 

LT Directorate for Fisheries 

LV Directorate for Fisheries 

NL Director of fisheries 

PFA 

Wageningen University & Research 

PL Directorate for Fisheries 

Direcção Geral de Recursos Marinhos - DRGM 

Direção Regional Pescas - Azores 

Direcção Regional Pescas - Madeira 

VianaPesca - Cooperative of fisherman and ship-owners from the 
north of Portugal  

OPCentro - Cooperative of fisherman and ship-owners from the 
Center of Portugal   

Anopcerco – Associação Nacional das Organizações de 
Produtores da Pesca do Cerco  

No 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

No 

No 

ADAPI - Association of industrial fisheries ship-owners – trawlers   Yes 

OlhãoPesca - Association of fisherman and ship-owners from the 
Algarve 

APEDA (association of demersal fishers) Azores  

APASA (association of tuna fishers) Azores  

Federation of Fisheries of the Azores (based in S. Miguel) 

Porto de Abrigo 

Assoc Graciosa 

CoopescaMadeira (cooperative of fisherman and ship-owners 
from Madeira)  

Division for Fisheries 

Defra 

Lunar Fish Producers Organisation / Lunar Fishing Company 
Limited 

Scottish Fishermen’s Organisation / SFO LTD 

National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations (NFFO) 

Scottish White Fish Producers Association (SWFPA) 

Marine Scotland 

Deep-Sea Coalition 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

No 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

57 

FA 

MSA 

MSA 

MSA 

FA 

RSC 

MSA 

MSA 

MSA 

MSA 

FA 

FA 

FA 

FA 

FA 

FA 

FA 

FA 

FA 

FA 

FA 

MSA 

MSA 

FA 

FA 

FA 

FA 

RSC 

NGO 

 
MS 

Name entity 

Responded 

Group* 

EU 

EU 

EU 

EU 

EU 

EU 

EU 

EU 

EU 

EU 

EU 

EU 

WWF 

Oceana 

Client Earth 

Dutch Elasmobranch Society 

Sciaena 

EFCA 

North Western Waters AC 

South Western Waters AC 

Pelagic AC 

Long Distance AC 

NEAFC 

ICES WGDEC 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

NGO 

NGO 

NGO 

NGO 

NGO 

OTH 

OTH 

OTH 

OTH 

OTH 

OTH 

RSC 

Note: Group*: FA: fishermen association, FC: fishing company, MSA Member State authority, NGO: Non-
governmental association, OTH: other, RSC: Research institution 

58 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Public Consultation 

Implementation of the public consultation 

The public consultation (PC) on the DSAR ran from 13 May 2020 until 5 August 2020, 
according  to  the  obligatory  12-week  consultation  period  as  stated  in  the  Better 
Regulation Guidelines. It was open to all citizens and the wider stakeholder community, 
and  translated  into  all  EU  languages.  A  detailed  summary  report  is  available  on  the 
Commission’s Have Your Say portal. 

The PC questionnaire was developed during the inception phase of the evaluation using a 
two-pronged  approach  and  approved  by  the  Inter-Service  Group.  It  aimed  to  collect 
feedback organised in two sections: 

  4  general  questions  (3  closed  and  1  open)  –  to  assess  the  relevance  and 
effectiveness of the DSAR, aimed at respondents with limited or no knowledge of 
the Regulation; 

  13  specialised  questions  (9  closed  and  4  open)  –  to  assess  the  relevance, 
effectiveness and coherence of the DSAR, aimed at respondents with a more in-
depth knowledge of the Regulation. 

Identified campaign: 
In open comments of this public consultation, a “campaign” was identified (as specified 
in the Better Regulation - TOOL #54), meaning where organisations call their members 
to participate in the consultation with suggested responses, and more than 10 responses 
are  identical.  Their  share  of  contributions  and  their  viewpoints  are  presented  in  this 
Annex.  The  campaign  did  not  extend  to  closed  questions,  where  responses  within  the 
campaign group varied. 

Fifty contributions have been identified as originating from a campaign. They were from 
respondents based in  France (n=32), Belgium and United Kingdom (n=4, respectively), 
Portugal  (n=3)  Netherlands  and  Spain  (n=2,  respectively)  and  Germany,  Ireland  and 
Sweden (n=1, respectively). 37 respondents gave their contribution as EU citizens, 12 as 
non-governmental organisations, and 1 as “other”. 

Main issues raised and suggestions by the campaign were:  

-  VME encounter: a buffer area surrounding encountered VMEs should be closed 
to  bottom  fishing  immediately  and  criteria  for  identifying  deep-sea  fishing 
activity and for granting fishing authorisations should be improved by i) assessing 
whether the current catch amount thresholds are appropriate; ii) assessing whether 
there is a need to expand the list of species; iii) recognizing that the Regulation is 
largely  designed  to  manage  fisheries  to  prevent  damage  to  deep-sea  ecosystems 
and  should  apply  to  any  bottom  contact  fisheries  operating  below  400m, 
irrespective of the catch. 

-  Knowledge  on  deep-sea  species  and  habitats:  implementation  of  fully-
documented  fisheries  provisions  (incl.  mandatory  use  of  Remote  Electronic 
Monitoring  Systems)  in  vessels  targeting  deep-sea  species;  publication  of 
information  on  the  observer  programme  and  its  evaluation;  and  mandatory 
observer coverage. 

-  Action  plan  /  EU  Biodiversity  Strategy  2030:  specific  measures  could  be 

59 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
implemented as part of the action plan to conserve fisheries resources and protect 
marine ecosystems EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 (20 May 2020). Provisions 
related  to  the  setting  of  fishing  opportunities  should  be  tailored  to  scientific 
uncertainties and the life history characteristics of deep-sea species, and explicit 
requirements to assess, minimize and prevent bycatch and other impacts on non-
target deep-sea species and the vulnerability of the habitats where the species live 
are important for the long-term conservation of deep-sea stocks.  

-  Achievements:  1)  scientific  knowledge  has  improved,  due  to  independent 
scientific  research,  surveys  and  expeditions  (incl.  through  EU  funded  deep-sea 
research  projects  such  as  the  Atlas,  SponGES,  and  Merces  Projects),  but  still 
remains insufficient; 2) the 800m trawl ban is effective in protecting VMEs, but 
needs to be enforced, as no VME areas have been closed to date and the trawl ban 
has not been effectively complied with and enforced. 

-  UN Resolutions: DSAR takes into account the UN recommendations, but not the 
most  recent  recommendations  adopted  by  the  UN  following  reviews  of  the 
implementation of resolutions 61/105 and 64/72, namely resolution 66/68 adopted 
in  2011  and,  more  recently,  resolution  71/123  adopted  in  2016.  Respondents 
noted 
the 
implementation  of  the  DSAR,  for  example,  with  regards  to  the  use  of  “benthic 
ecosystem  modelling,  comparative  benthic  studies  and  predictive  modelling”  to 
identify areas in which VMEs are known or likely to exist. 

these  additional  elements  should  be 

incorporated 

into 

that 

-  Additional  comments:  need  for  measures  of  the  Regulation  to  be  rigorously 
enforced  and  monitored,  rather  than  the  Regulation  being  revised.  Respondents 
also  suggested  that  other  tools  for  the  conservation  of  deep-sea  stocks  and 
habitats  are  explored,  such  as  CFP,  the  Technical  Measures  Regulation,  or  the 
upcoming  Action  Plan  of  the  Biodiversity  Strategy.  Campaign  respondents  also 
cited  an  ICES  report  of  the  Working  Group  on  the  Biology  and  Assessment  of 
Deep-Sea  Fisheries  Resources,  which  shows  that  the  highest  biodiversity  of 
species  can  be  found  in  depth  between  1000  and  1500m,  and  that  these  species 
are particularly vulnerable to overexploitation due to their life history traits. 

Contributions submitted 

Overall, 156 respondents participated in the PC76, of whom 112 also responded to the 
specialised questions. 

The  respondents  represented  14  EU  Member  States  and  3  non-EU  countries  (New 
Zealand,  United  Kingdom,  United  States).  Half  of  all  respondents  were  from  France 
(n=78), followed by Spain (n=14) and Belgium (n=11). There were no contributions from 
Bulgaria,  Croatia,  Cyprus,  Czechia,  Finland,  Hungary,  Latvia,  Lithuania,  Luxembourg, 
Poland, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia. 

Sixty-nine  percent  of  respondents  (n=107)  gave  their  contribution  as  EU  citizens.  The 
rest  constituted  representatives  of  non-governmental  organisations  (14%),  academic  / 
research institutions and public authorities (4%, respectively) non-EU citizens, company 
/ business organisations and environmental organisations (3%, respectively).  

Three position papers from the following organisations have been submitted: 

76 Including the 50 campaign contributions. 

60 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
-  European Association of Fish Producers Organisations (EAPO) 
-  Association  of  National  Organisations  of  Fishing  Enterprises  in  the  EU 

(Europêche) 

-  Coalition  of  French  fishermen  (CNPMEM-UAPF-ANOP-FROM  NORD–Les 

Pêcheurs de Bretagne) 

Summary of feedback received 

In  the  general  part  of  the  survey,  the  DSAR  appears  to  be  highly  relevant.  The  vast 
majority of respondents strongly agreed that: 

-  “deep-sea  vulnerable  marine  ecosystems  should  be  protected  from 
damages caused by fishing gear” (92%, 144 out of 156 respondents);  
-  “an  EU  regulatory  framework  is  essential  to  ensure  consistency  in  the 
the  deep-sea  environment  by  different  national 

protection  of 
governments” (90%, 140 out of 156 respondents);  
 “stocks of deep-sea species are very vulnerable to overfishing” (89%, 139 
out of 156 respondents);  

- 

-  “discontinuation  of  the  Deep-sea  Access  Regulation  would  have  an 
adverse effect on the protection of the deep-sea environment” (80%, 125 
out of 156 respondents);  

-  “there  is  not  enough  scientific  knowledge  on  deep-sea  species  and  their 

habitats” (69%, 108 out of 156 respondents).  

90% (140 out of 156 respondents) also indicated that they considered that deep-sea fish 
stocks  and  deep-sea  vulnerable  marine  ecosystems  were  not  adequately  protected  from 
impacts  of  fishing  activities,  and  suggested  in  open  comments  that  in  order  to  ensure 
better  protection,  more  restrictions  and  a  more  punitive  system  should  be  in  place  for 
bottom trawling, areas with VME encounters should be closed,  a better understanding of 
the  deep-sea  environment  through  scientific  research  should  be  gained,  and  the  criteria 
for  identifying  deep-sea  fishing  activity  and  granting  fishing  authorisations  should  be 
improved.  

In the specialised part of the survey, the vast  majority of respondents  (over 85%, more 
than  95  out  of  112  respondents)  strongly  agreed  that  the  needs  that  underpinned  the 
adoption of the DSAR were still relevant today, and that the measures of the Regulation 
to prevent significant adverse impacts on VMEs and to ensure the long-term conservation 
of  deep-sea  fish  stocks  were  relevant.  Respondents  who  worked  in  fisheries  rated  the 
extent to which the needs and measures were relevant significantly lower than those who 
worked  in  the  field  of  environment  or  participated  as  EU  citizens.  In  open  comments, 
respondents  suggested  additional  measures  to  prevent  significant  adverse  impacts  on 
VMEs,  which  included  impact  assessments  prior  to  granting  fishing  authorisations, 
restricting  fishing  gear  with  known  negative  impact  on  VMEs,  and  tailoring  evidence-
based provisions for setting of fishing opportunities. 

Over  70%  (more  than  78  out  of  112  respondents)  rated  the  measures  to  achieve  the 
objective  to  improve  scientific  knowledge  on  deep-sea  species  and  their  habitats  as 
relevant to a great extent. In open comments, respondents proposed additional measures 
that would be relevant to achieve this objective, namely to increase funding for deep-sea 
research,  increase  the  coverage  of  observers  (and  make  information  that  they  obtain 

61 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
publicly  available),  and  make  the  use  of  remote  electronic  monitoring  systems 
mandatory.  

Most respondents strongly disagreed that the stocks of deep-sea fish species are exploited 
sustainably  (68%,  76  out  of  112  respondents)  and  that  VMEs  are  adequality  protected 
from  adverse  impacts  generated  by  bottom  fishing  activities  (71%,  80  out  of  112 
respondents).  Fifty-five  percent  of  respondents  (62  out  of  112  respondents)  also 
disagreed  that  scientific  knowledge  on  deep-sea  species  and  on  their  habitats  has 
improved  (18%,  20  out  of  112  respondents,  agreed  with  this  statement).  In  open 
comments, respondents stated that scientific knowledge had improved, but not due to the 
Regulation, and still remained insufficient, and that the 800m trawl ban was effective, but 
needed to be enforced.  

Finally, most respondents (76%, 85 out of 112 respondents) found that the DSAR does 
not  take  onboard  UN  recommendations  on  protection  of  VMEs  (17%,  19  out  of  112 
respondents,  indicated  that  they  “did  not  know”,  and  5%,  6  out  of  112  respondents, 
agreed that it took the recommendations onboard). In open comments, many respondents 
quoted a document published by the Bloom Association, which compares the DSAR with 
the UN recommendations on protection of VMEs77 as a result of i) lack of measures in 
the  DSAR  to  preserve  fish  stocks  and  ii)  non-application  of  existing  fishing  areas  to 
vessels having been issued a by-catch fishing authorisation. Other contributors stated that 
while the DSAR takes on board many of the recommendations, it does not do so to the 
full extent possible. They suggested that additional elements should be incorporated into 
the  DSAR,  for  example,  with  regards  to  the  use  of  “benthic  ecosystem  modelling, 
comparative benthic studies and predictive modelling” to identify areas in which VMEs 
are likely to exist.  

Respondents  also  provided  final  remarks  in  open  comments,  which  predominantly 
focussed on the need for measures of the DSAR to be rigorously enforced and monitored 
(rather  than  the  Regulation  being  revised),  and  the  suggestion  that  other  tools  for  the 
conservation of deep-sea stocks and habitats (e.g. Technical Measures Regulation, Action 
Plan of the Biodiversity Strategy) are explored.  

Feedback received from the three position papers notes the following: 

The  European  Association  of  Fish  Producers  Organisations  (EAPO)  in  their 
“feedback on the evaluation  of the Deep-Sea Access  Regulation” noted that  the DSAR 
was  relevant  to  the  EAPO,  that  the  authorisation  system  was  efficient  and  that  the 
protection of VMEs was effective. The Association emphasised that scientific knowledge 
needed to be developed, and that the Regulation should ensure sustainable exploitation of 
deep-sea stocks while reducing the impact of deep-sea fisheries. However, it also noted 
that  the  ban  to  fish  below  800m  was  an  arbitrary  limit  and  more  restrictive  than  the 
international one, and hinders data collection on species below 800m.  
The Association also provided specific remarks on: 

  Article 5 on fishing authorisations – finding it to be relevant and effective; 
  Article  7  on  existing  deep-sea  fishing  areas  –  finding  it  unclear  who  this  will 

apply to; 

  Article  9  on  specific  requirements  for  the  protection  of  VMEs  –  finding  it  to 

potentially impact regular fisheries operations. 

77 Table established in 2017 by Bloom and the DSCC (NGOs). 

62 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
The  Association  of  National  Organisations  of  Fishing  Enterprises  in  the  EU 
(Europêche), in their response to the consultation, noted that deep-sea fishing should be 
soundly managed rather than further prohibited, and that the fishing sector is committed 
to  research and innovation to  ensure sustainable  deep-sea fishing. The Association also 
noted that scientific knowledge on vulnerable habitats and species had improved due to 
collaboration  between  observers  and  the  scientific  community,  and  that  good  scientific 
knowledge  on  the  deep-sea  fish  stocks  together  with  fisheries  management  measures 
based  on  scientific  advice  can  benefit  fish  populations,  the  ecosystem  and  the  fishing 
community.  The  Association  found  that  the  Regulation  did  not  need  a  revision  at  this 
stage, as it was on track to achieving its objectives, however, the list of species could be 
adapted, and the 800m depth ban – which the Association found to be arbitrary – deleted.  

A  Coalition  of  French  fishermen  (CNPMEM-UAPF-ANOP-FROM  NORD  –  Les 
Pêcheurs de Bretagne) echoed in their position paper the last two points of Europeche. 
They also found that the 800m depth ban was arbitrary and negatively impacted scientific 
knowledge  on  deep-sea  species,  and  suggested  that  the  list  of  species  is  reconsidered. 
They also found that prohibiting fishing in areas with a likely presence of VMEs beyond 
400m could negatively impact fleets that do not fish deep-sea species, and that a traffic 
light system should be put in place in consultation with stakeholders to create maps that 
show the probability of VME presence and define adequate protection measures. Finally, 
the Coalition noted a sharp decrease in deep-sea fishing in France since 2015.  

Summary of main outcomes from the consultations 

  There  is  a  consensus  among  the  different  stakeholders  consulted  through  the 
targeted and public consultations to confirm there was a need to adopt a specific 
revised  conservation  and  management  framework  for  deep-sea  fisheries  in  EU 
waters in view of the vulnerability of deep-sea stocks and deep-sea ecosystems to 
fishing  pressure.  This  need  was  largely  underpinned  by  the  perceived  lack  of 
efficiency of the previous deep-sea  access  regulation (EC) 2347/2002  to  protect 
deep-sea vulnerable marine ecosystems (VMEs) along the lines promoted by the 
resolutions  adopted  by  the  United  Nations  General  Assembly.  However,  a 
minority  of  respondents  representing  some  fishermen  associations  believed  that 
existing  rules  enforced  through  limits  on  fishing  opportunity  and  technical 
measures were sufficient to ensure sustainable management of deep-sea fisheries. 

  A  large  majority  of  respondents  to  the  targeted  and  public  consultations  shared 
the  opinion  that  DSAR  conservation  and  management  measures  are  broadly 
relevant  and  potentially  effective  to  contribute  to  prevention  of  significant 
impacts  on  VMEs  while  outlining  that  implementation  of  the  spatial  protection 
measures  foreseen  by  the  DSAR  is  still  outstanding.  However,  while  a  large 
majority  of  the  civil  society  supported  the  800m  bottom  trawl  prohibition 
providing  it  is  properly  enforced,  most  fishermen  associations  raised  that  the 
prohibition is not supported by scientific evidence and hence felt arbitrary. 

  Stakeholders  consulted  confirmed  that  more  scientific  data  on  deep-sea  stocks 
and  their  habitats  are  needed  to  support  management.  Contributions  received 
confirmed that the amount of data available increased somehow over the last few 
years  with  a  significant  contribution  from  EU-funded  research  project  on  deep-
sea  ecosystems  to  scientific  knowledge.  However,  fishermen  associations  and 

63 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
scientists outlined that low and/or decreasing catches of certain deep-sea species 
impact availability of fisheries dependent data used to support stock assessment. 

  Most  contributors  to  the  public  consultation  are  of  the  opinion  that  the  DSAR 
does not fully take on-board resolutions of the United Nations General Assembly. 
Main shortcomings mentioned are the lack of measures in the DSAR to preserve 
deep-sea fish stocks and non-application of limitation to existing fishing areas for 
fishing  vessels  having  been  issued  a  by-catch  fishing  authorisation.  In  addition, 
level  of  alignment  with  resolutions  of  the  United  Nations  will  depend  on  the 
extent  to  which  areas  where  VMEs  are  likely  to  occur  are  protected  by  DSAR 
forthcoming spatial measures. 

64 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex 3: Methods and analytical models 

Evaluation Question Matrix used to assess the performances of the DSAR 

Evaluation question 

Sub-question 

Judgment criteria 

Indicators 

Sources of evidences 

RELEVANCE 
To what extent are the 
existing measures under the 
DSAR still relevant? 

To what extent was there a 
need to adopt the measures 
under the DSAR? 

Adoption of the DSAR corresponded to 
the needs and EU objectives at the time 
of its adoption 

To what extent does this 
need continue to exist? 

Measures under the DSAR continue to 
respond to current needs and EU 
objectives 

To what extent were 
measures under the DSAR 
appropriate to address the 
needs, do they continue to be 
appropriate to respond to the 
needs? 

The design of measures under the DSAR 
were suitable to address the identified 
needs originally and continue to respond 
to current needs. 

65 

Identification of the needs at 
the time of the set-up of the 
DSAR 
Views of Citizens and 
stakeholders 

Citizens and stakeholders 
confirm current needs 
Identification of evolving 
challenges and changing 
needs of the fishing industry 

Stakeholders views and 
documentary review confirm 
that the measures of the 
DSAR are relevant to 
address the needs identified 

DSAR Impact assessment 
(COM(2012) 371 final / 
SWD(2012) 203 final) 
Views of citizens and stakeholders 
(PC) 
Feedback from stakeholders 
(targeted consultations) 
Views of citizens and stakeholders 
(PC) 
Feedback from stakeholders 
(targeted consultations) 
State of play of EU deep-sea 
fishing industry (task 1) 
Views of citizens and stakeholders 
(PC) 
Feedback from stakeholders 
(targeted consultations) 
ICES publications on status of 
deep-sea stocks (WGDEEP and 
WGEF) and on VMEs (WGDEC) 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EFFECTIVENESS 
To what extent was the 
DSAR effective to protect 
the deep-sea biological 
environment? 

To what extent was the 
DSAR effective to protect 
deep-sea vulnerable 
ecosystems? 

Extent that the DSAR has led to the 
protection of VMEs in the area of 
application of the DSAR. 

Number of VME encounters 
reported 
Number of VMEs protected, 
or proposed for closure 
based on information from 
DSAR measures 

To what extent was the 
DSAR effective to preserve 
deep-sea fish stocks? 

Extent that stocks of deep-sea species (as 
defined by the DSAR) are exploited 
sustainably in the area of application of 
the DSAR. 

Stock status of deep-sea 
species 

To what extent was the 
DSAR effective at 
improving scientific 
knowledge on the deep-sea 
environment? 

DSAR supported a flow of good quality 
scientific data for use by providers of 
scientific advices 

Number of VMEs protected, 
or proposed for protection, 
based on information 
collected under the DSAR 
Number of stocks for which 
scientific advice could be 
obtained  
Peer review / scientific 
quality control systems were 
in place to validate scientific 
data collected by MS under 
the DSAR 

NEAFC recommendations 
Scientific rationale for closures of 
VMEs in EU waters 
Results of DSAR observer scheme 
in relation to reporting of VMEs 
species 
Feedback from targeted 
consultations (e.g. science 
providers, Commission) 
ICES advices on status of deep-
sea-stocks 
Feedback from targeted 
consultations (e.g. science 
providers, Commission) 
Scientific rationale for existing or 
proposed VMEs closures 
ICES advices on status of deep-
sea-stocks 
Reports of ICES WGDEEP / 
WKREG 
Feedback from targeted 
consultations (e.g. science 
providers, Commission) 

66 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EFFICIENCY 
To what extent is the DSAR 
cost-effective? 

What are the average DSAR 
implementation costs for 
MS? 

Extent that it is possible to identify 
implementation costs for the concerned 
Member States 

Is there scope for 
simplification of DSAR 
design and operation? 

COHERENCE 
To what extent is the DSAR 
externally coherent? 

What are the average DSAR 
implementation costs for 
fishing operators? 

Same as above but for fishing operators 

What are the items which 
have the most cost-
generating impact? 

None (supporting evidence) 

None (supporting evidence) 

To what extent is DSAR 
coherent with EU 
international commitments 
under UN Resolutions 
61/105 and 64/72 

The DSAR provides measures to fully 
enforce UN resolutions in the waters 
falling under its scope 

To what extent is the DSAR 
coherent with its obligations 
under NEAFC 
Recommendation 19 2014 

There is no 
contradiction/duplication/overlapping 
and there are synergies between the 
DSAR and NEAFC recommendation 

Administrative costs calculation 
(sub-task 1.4) 
Assessment of socio-economic 
impacts of deep-sea fisheries 
(sub-task 1.1) 
Administrative costs calculation 
(sub-task 1.4) 
Profit estimates from exploitation 
of deep-sea species 
(sub-task 1.1) 
Administrative costs calculation 
(sub-task 1.4) 

Administrative costs calculation 
(sub-task 1.4) 
Feedback from stakeholders (e.g. 
Commission, ME authorities, 
deep-sea fishing operators) 

Analysis of relevant instruments 
Feedback from citizens and 
stakeholders (PC and targeted 
consultations) 

Same as above 

MS Administrative costs 
compared to socio-economic 
benefits of DSAR 
Benchmarking of 
administrative costs 
Administrative costs 
compared to profits 

Identification of 
administrative costs 
stemming solely from the 
DSAR implementation 

Documentary review and 
stakeholders’ feedback 
confirm that there are no 
contradictions but synergies 
between the DSAR and 
other EU international 
commitments 
Documentary review and 
stakeholders’ feedback 
confirm that there are no 
contradictions but synergies 
between the DSAR and 
NEAFC obligations 

67 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
To what extent is DSAR 
coherent with other non-CFP 
EU instruments on 
protection of the marine 
environment (MSFD, 
Habitats Directive) 
To what extent is DSAR 
coherent with the CFP 
Regulation and CFP-
instruments in relation to 
Control, Data collection and 
VMEs protection 

What is the additional value 
resulting from the EU 
measures under the Deep-sea 
Access Regulation? 

To what extent is the DSAR 
internally coherent? 

EU ADDED VALUE 
To what extent does EU 
intervention through the 
DSAR add value to the 
objective of protecting the 
deep-sea environment? 

There is no 
contradiction/duplication/overlapping 
and there are synergies between the 
DSAR and relevant EU instruments 

There is no 
contradiction/duplication/overlapping 
and there are synergies between the 
DSAR and other CFP instruments 

Same as above 

Same as above 

Documentary review and 
stakeholders’ feedback 
confirm that there are no 
contradictions but synergies 
between the DSAR and 
other non-CFP instruments 
Documentary review and 
stakeholders’ feedback 
confirm that there are no 
contradictions but synergies 
between the DSAR and 
other CFP instruments 

Objectives of the DSAR could not be 
achieved solely by actions from MS 

Expert judgment. 

Results of evaluation of relevance, 
effectiveness and coherence 
Feedback from citizens and 
stakeholders (PC and targeted 
consultations) 
Results of evaluation of relevance, 
effectiveness and coherence 
Feedback from citizens and 
stakeholders (PC and targeted 
consultations) 

What would be the effects of 
discontinuing the DSAR all 
other things being equal? 

Discontinuation of the DSAR does not 
provide for a similar level of protection 
of the deep-sea environment 

Expert judgment 

68 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex 4 
Summary of trends on subjects listed in Article 19.2 of the DSAR 

(a) The use of all types of fishing gear when targeting deep-sea species, with a particular emphasis on the 
impact on the most vulnerable species and on VMEs 

At the time of preparation of  this evaluation, data by fishing fleet segments were available only up to 2017, 
the first year of implementation of the DSAR. 

As  shown  in  the  following  graph,  demersal  trawlers,  which  have  the  largest  potential  impacts  on  deep-sea 
habitats, represented between 40% (2017) and 45% (2016) of total EU catches of deep-sea species. Fishing 
vessels using hooks (longline and handline) which are known to have moderate impacts on deep-sea habitats, 
represented around 33% in both years of total EU catches of deep-sea species. Pelagic trawlers, assumed to 
have no impacts on deep-sea habitats, represented between 15% (2016) and 20% (2017) of the total EU catch 
of deep-sea species.  

Reported catches of all deep-sea species listed in Annex I of the DSAR by type of gear used 
Source: based on data published by STECF (2019a) 

There are no clear trends between 2016, the last year before implementation of the DSAR, and 2017, its  first 
year  of  implementation.  With  regards  to  2018  and  beyond,  data  on  catches  of  deep-sea  species  by  fishing 
gears have not yet been published. 

(b) The vessels that have changed to using gears with a reduced impact on the sea bottom, and progress as 
regards the prevention, minimisation and, where possible, the elimination of unintended catches 

Available information suggests that bottom trawlers targeting deep-sea species before adoption of the DSAR 
did not modify their fishing techniques used to catch deep-sea species. Instead, bottom trawlers decreased the 
levels of their activity on deep-sea species in EU waters to exploit other stocks available in shallower waters 
(e.g. saithe, hake) taking advantage of increased fishing opportunities underpinned by effective conservation 
and management measures. 

For fleet segments using hooks (longline, handlines) which have lower impacts on the sea bottom compared 
to bottom trawlers, there is no information suggesting changes in fishing techniques or strategies. Most of the 
vessels concerned are small-scale vessels operating in South Western Waters with few opportunities, if any, to 
exploit alternative fisheries. 

Pelagic  trawlers  do  not  interact  with  the  sea  bottom  when  exploiting  deep-sea  species  (principally  greater 
silver smelt). Fishing vessels using bottom-set gillnets are prohibited by EU Technical Measures Regulations 
from targeting deep-sea species available up to 600m depth, as well as from deploying their gears below that 
depth in EU waters.  
(c) The range of operation of vessels engaging in each deep-sea métier 

69 

01 0002 0003 0004 0005 0006 0007 0008 0009 000Pelagic trawlersDemersal trawlersVessels usinghooksVessels usingpolyvalent passivegearsOther (mostlyvessels using nets)TonnesCatch of deep-species by type of gear used in 2016 and  201720162017 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
At  fishing  fleet  segment  level,  information  published  by  STECF  could  support  identification  of  the  fishing 
fleet segments which are the most dependent on deep-sea species. Based on information available for 2017, 
the fleet segments that are the most dependent on deep-sea species are all from Portugal. They include vessels 
using hooks (longline, handline) based in mainland Portugal, the Azores and Madeira, with deep-sea species 
representing around 50% of their total catch. By contrast, the share of deep-sea species in the total catch of 
large-scale  bottom  trawlers  flagged  to  France  and  Spain  is  now  less  than  10%  while  it  was  approximately 
40% by 2010. 

Overall, there was a significant decrease in catches of deep-sea species by EU vessels over the last ten years, 
from approximately 35 000 tonnes per year on average between 2009-2011 to 21 000 tonnes between 2017-
2018 (-40%). 

Evolution of EU reported catches of deep-sea species referred to in Annex I of the DSAR in the North-
East Atlantic and in CECAF areas 34.1.1, 34.1.2 and 34.2 (except Greenland waters). Dotted line: trend 
Source: based on Eurostat data 

Based  on  information  collected  during  the  evaluation,  an  upturn  in  deep-sea  fishing  activities  by  bottom 
trawlers in EU waters is unlikely due to i) the 800m bottom trawl ban enforced by the DSAR, which reduced 
accessibility  to  certain  commercial  deep-sea  species  like  grenadiers  and  black  scabbardfish,  and  ii)  the 
reduced  economic  incentives  to  commercialise  deep-sea  species  due  to  negative  consumer  perceptions. 
Although implementation details are still unknown, the forthcoming act on the definition of existing fishing 
areas  (Article  7.2  of  the  DSAR)  and  on  identification  of  areas  where  VMEs  are  known  or  likely  to  occur 
(Article  9.6)  is  likely  to  introduce  further  spatial  restrictions  impacting  the  operational  range  of  deep-sea 
fishing vessels. 

(d) The completeness and reliability of data that Member States provide to scientific bodies for the purpose of 
stock assessment, or to the Commission in case of specific data calls 

According to feedback from scientists working on stock assessment of deep-sea species, biological data and 
fisheries-dependent  information  collected  by  Member  States  are  broadly  adequate  to  support  the  scientific 
assessment  of  the  status  of  stock  of  the  main  commercial  deep-sea  species  (i.e.  black  scabbardfish,  greater 
silver smelt, blue ling, Greenland halibut and grenadiers). As shown in the following figure (left), out of 22 
deep-sea stocks reviewed by ICES, 14% are in category 1 for which analytical assessment is possible, 41% 
are in category 3 for which survey-based assessment indicate trends, and 45% are in ICES categories 5 and 6 
for  which  the  available  data  may  just  suggest  trends  at  best.  In  terms  of  landings  (right),  55%  of  deep-sea 
catches are obtained from stocks in category 1 and 43% obtained from stocks in category 3, with 2% of deep-
sea catches obtained from stocks in categories 5 and 6.   

70 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Number of deep-sea stocks (left) and catches on deep-sea stocks (right) by ICES advice category 
Source: own review of ICES advices 

However,  for  deep-sea  species  caught  in  small  quantities  mostly  as  by-catches  in  different  mixed  fisheries, 
biological and fisheries dependent / independent data remain insufficient for the purpose of stock assessment. 
In fact, 36 of the 49 species (73%) which are identified as deep-sea species by the DSAR are not subject to 
ICES  periodic  scientific  stock  assessment.  The  reported  catch  of  these  unassessed  deep-sea  species  is  low 
(less than 500 tonnes per year) to negligible. 

Neither the DSAR nor the EU Data Collection Framework could improve the situation, because i) the DSAR 
results in the reduction of catches of some commercial species (i.e. grenadiers) and associated by-catches with 
less fisheries dependent data  available for stock assessment purposes, and because ii) the EU DCF exempts 
Member States from the collection of biological data in support of stock assessments for stocks where annual 
national catches are less than 200 tonnes, which is the case for most deep-sea species identified by the DSAR.  

(e) The deep-sea stocks for which the scientific advice has improved 

According to ICES, two stocks of greater silver smelt  (ARU.27.5b6a and ARU.27.123a4) and the stock of 
black  scabbardfish  (BSF.27.NEA)  are  candidates  for  upgrade  to  the  category  of  stocks  with  full  analytical 
assessments and forecasts that are either age-/length structured or based on production models (ICES category 
1). For category 1 stocks, ICES may provide advices on the basis of the MSY approach.  

These three stocks are currently  in the category of stocks  for which only survey-based assessments provide 
trends (ICES category 3) triggering application of the ICES precautionary approach.  

(f) The effectiveness of accompanying measures to eliminate discards and reduce catches of the most 
vulnerable species 

The landing obligation that entered into force in 2019 for deep-sea fisheries will probably incentivise fishing 
vessels to reduce their amounts of  unwanted catch as  such  unwanted catch are counted against quotas. The 
scope  of  application  of  the  landing  obligation  to  deep-sea  species,  including  most  vulnerable  species  (i.e. 
identification  of  species  subject  to  landing  obligation)  falls  under  the  remit  of  other  EU  instruments,  in 
particular i) the annual general TAC and quota regulation, ii) the biennial deep-sea specific TAC and quota 
regulation and iii) the Technical Measures Regulation (EU) 2019/2014. 

(g) The quality of the impact assessments carried out pursuant to Article 8 

To date, there has been no impact assessment submitted in relation to Article 8 of the DSAR. This is due to 
the delayed implementation of the definition of existing fishing areas foreseen in Article 7 of the DSAR. 
(N.B.: impact assessments are required by the DSAR for vessels wishing to engage in exploratory fishing 
outside defined existing fishing areas). 

(h) The number of vessels and ports in the Union directly affected by the implementation of this Regulation 

71 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Based  on  Member  States’  annual  reports  to  the  Commission,  Member  States  issued  1 113  fishing 
authorisations  to  catch  deep-sea  species  in  2018.  Of  these,  542  (49%)  were  targeting  fishing  authorisations 
and  571  (51%)  were  by-catch  fishing  authorisations.  Spain  issued  43%  of  total  number  of  both  types  of 
fishing authorisations in 2018 followed by Portugal which issued 41%, France 8% and the United Kingdom 
5%.  Ninety-four  percent  of  the  542  targeting  fishing  authorisations  issued  in  2018  were  by  Portugal  (60%) 
and Spain (34%). 

Based  on  data  collected  from  Member  States  in  the  frame  of  this  evaluation,  the  numbers  of  fishing 
authorisations issued each year between 2017 and 2020 appear to be rather stable. The consulted EU Member 
State authorities and fishermen associations also confirmed that there are no significant trends to be reported 
in relation to the number of fishing vessels catching deep-sea species as target species or as by-catch. 

The main fishing ports in the Union through which some catches of deep-sea species are landed is shown in 
the following table. However, the relative importance of deep-sea species in total landings transiting through 
these  ports  could  not  be  assessed.  Yet,  since  catches  of  deep-sea  species  represent  less  than  1%  of  total 
catches  in  the  Member  States  (except  Portugal  4%),  it  is  likely  that  most  EU  ports  do  not  have  a  socio-
economic  dependence  on  landings  of  deep-sea  species.  Nonetheless,  landings  of  deep-sea  species  are 
probably critical in some specific regional contexts, such as the outermost regions of Portugal (the Azores and 
Madeira).  This  is  due  to  the  specialisation  of  local  fishing  fleets,  including  small-scale  fleets,  on  the 
exploitation of deep-sea species, in the absence of other alternatives. 

Member State  Main fishing ports in relation to deep-sea fisheries 
DE 
ES 

Rostock, Bremerhaven 
Mugia, Burela, La Coruña, Cedeira, Santa Eugenia de Riveira, Cangas Aviles, 
Ondarroa Camariñas, Vigo, Marin, Cariño, Lastres, Gijon, Cillero, Santander, 
Castletownbere (IE), Killybegs (IE), Tromsø (NO) 
Boulogne s/Mer, Lorient, Concarneau, Lochinver (UK), Peterhead (UK) 
IJmuiden, Scheveningen, Amsterdam 
Matosinhos Nazaré, Peniche, Sesimbra, Olhão (Mainland) 
Ponta Delgada, São Mateus, Praia da Vitória and Horta (Azores) 
Funchal (Madeira) 
Grimsby, Macduff, Marin, Peterhead, Lochinver, North Shields 

FR 
NL 
PT 

UK 

Source: Member States reports and feedback from stakeholders 

(i) The effectiveness of measures established to ensure the long-term sustainability of deep-sea fish stocks and 
to prevent by-catch of non-target species, in particular by-catch of the most vulnerable species 

The 800m bottom trawl prohibition (Article 8.4 of the DSAR) is the main measure implemented by the DSAR 
with an effect on environmental sustainability of the exploitation of deep-sea fish stocks. The 800m bottom 
trawl  prohibition  has  been  effective  at  protecting  deep-sea  commercial  species  with  a  majority  of  their 
biomass below that depth, like grenadiers and black scabbardfish, from fishing pressure by bottom trawlers. 
As  shown  in  the  following  graph,  EU  catches  of  these  two  commercial  deep-sea  species  in  the  West  of 
Scotland and Rockall (ICES subarea 6) decreased by a factor of 4 for grenadiers, and by a factor of 2 for black 
scabbardfish between 2016 and 2019, with a clear decreasing trend from 2017. The impact of the 800m trawl 
prohibition on the accessibility of these two commercial deep-sea species was confirmed by fishing operators 
and scientists. 

72 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evolution of EU catches of grenadiers and black scabbardfish in ICES subarea 6 
Source: based on data published in ICES WGDEEP report (2020) 

According to available scientific information, the restriction of bottom trawlers operations to waters shallower 
than 800m was effective at reducing the amount of by-catch, and in particular by-catch of deep-sea sharks and 
orange roughy, which the DSAR designates as “Most Vulnerable Species”. As shown in the next figure, the 
discard  rate  of  French  bottom  trawlers  fishing  for  deep-sea  species  in  the  West  of  Scotland  and  West  of 
Ireland  decreased  from  about  20%  in  2013  to  less  than  5%  in  2018,  based  on  data  collected  by  scientific 
observers.  

Evolution of proportion of total weigh of discards / total weight of catches by French trawlers targeting 
deep-sea species in the West of Scotland and in the West of Ireland 
Source: IFREMER – programme OBSMER. Data for métier OTB/OTT_DWS (demersal trawlers targeting 
deep-water species) 
Note: the French bottom trawler fleet unilaterally committed to stop fishing operations below 800m starting 
in 2014 

(j) the extent to which VMEs have been effectively protected through the restriction of authorised fishing 
activities to existing deep-sea fishing areas, the move-on rule and/or by other measures 

At the time of drafting this evaluation, two DSAR flagship measures for the protection of VMEs could not be 
implemented (i.e. limiting deep-sea fishing activities to existing fishing areas, and the closures of areas where 
VMEs are known or likely to occur). As a result, VMEs located in EU waters below 400m and 800m depth 
are  not  yet  fully  protected  from  any  significant  adverse  impacts  caused  by  fishing  gears  through  spatial 
closure measures. The 800m bottom trawl prohibition resulted in the protection of VMEs below 800m depth, 
but only from significant adverse impacts generated by the gear subject to prohibition. 

The VME encounter protocol, including the move-on rule has been in force since 2017, but since then, no EU 

73 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
vessels have reported a VME encounter to their flag Member States. This possibly reflects a combination of a 
general decline in bottom fishing activity in EU waters and an enhanced awareness and capability of vessels 
to avoid coral and sponge areas. It is also known that bottom trawls are designed to catch fish and are poor 
sampling tools for most sessile benthic organisms and in general the catchability of VME indicator species by 
commercial fishing vessels is unknown. It cannot be excluded, however, that the lack of reports also reflects 
some failure by fishing masters to report actual encounters.  

Overall, the DSAR has  not been effective so  far in protecting deep-sea vulnerable  marine ecosystems  from 
significant adverse impacts caused by fishing gear as a result of the delayed implementation of two of its key 
spatial measures. Independently of the effectiveness of the DSAR measures yet to be implemented, the DSAR 
will  not  address  effective  protection  of  VMEs  located  above  400m  depth  although  available  scientific 
evidences suggest that VMEs are present in EU waters in the 200 – 400m depth band. 

(k) the application of the depth limitation of 800 metres 

According to feedback from the Member States, the application of the depth limitation of 800m is controlled 
mostly through the vessel monitoring system (VMS) requiring any EU fishing vessel of length greater than 12 
meters overall to transmit its  position at least once every 2 hours according to the Control Regulation (EC) 
1224/2009. The Control Regulation (EC) 1224/2009 provides other tools for enforcing the measure, including 
a capacity of polling the actual position of each vessel by Member States’ Fisheries Monitoring Centres, the 
possibility  to  require  VMS  information  at  shorter  time  intervals,  and  to  cross-check  VMS  positions  with 
positions  transmitted  by  the  Automatic  Identification  System  (AIS)  mandatory  for  any  EU  vessel  of  length 
greater than 15 m overall. The haul-by-haul reporting obligation enforced by the DSAR (Article 13) provides 
an additional effective tool for enhancing the monitoring of activities deployed by fishing vessels engaged in a 
deep-sea métier or fishing at depths below 400m. 

Feedback from Member State authorities confirmed that the 800m bottom trawl prohibition is complied with 
by their flag vessels as confirmed by the absence of infringements since 2017.  

74 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex 5 
List of EU Regulations and international instruments in relation to the 
DSAR applicable over the evaluation period 

Deep-sea Access Regulation 
Regulation (EU) 2016/2336 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 December 2016 
establishing  specific  conditions  for  fishing  for  deep-sea  stocks  in  the  north-east  Atlantic  and 
provisions  for  fishing  in  international  waters  of  the  north-east  Atlantic  and  repealing  Council 
Regulation (EC) No 2347/2002. OJ L 354, 23.12.2016, p. 1–19  

VME Regulation (international waters) 
Council  Regulation  (EC)  No 734/2008  of  15 July  2008  on  the  protection  of  vulnerable  marine 
ecosystems in the high seas from the adverse impacts of bottom fishing gears. OJ L 201, 30.7.2008, 
p. 8–13 

Technical measures Regulations 
Until June 2019 
Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  850/98  of  30  March  1998  for  the  conservation  of  fishery  resources 
through  technical  measures  for  the  protection  of  juveniles  of  marine  organisms.  OJ  L  125, 
27.4.1998, p. 1–36 

As from June 2019 
Regulation (EU) 2019/1241 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on the 
conservation  of  fisheries  resources  and  the  protection  of  marine  ecosystems  through  technical 
measures, amending Council Regulations (EC) No 1967/2006, (EC) No 1224/2009 and Regulations 
(EU) No 1380/2013, (EU) 2016/1139, (EU) 2018/973, (EU) 2019/472 and (EU) 2019/1022 of the 
European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Council Regulations (EC) No 894/97, (EC) 
No 850/98,  (EC)  No 2549/2000,  (EC) No 254/2002, (EC) No 812/2004  and (EC)  No 2187/2005. 
PE/59/2019/REV/1. OJ L 198, 25.7.2019, p. 105–201  

Control Regulation and its implementing Regulation 
Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  1224/2009  of  20 November  2009  establishing  a  Community  control 
system  for  ensuring  compliance  with  the  rules  of  the  common  fisheries  policy,  amending 
Regulations  (EC)  No 847/96,  (EC)  No 2371/2002,  (EC)  No 811/2004,  (EC)  No 768/2005,  (EC) 
No 2115/2005,  (EC)  No 2166/2005,  (EC)  No 388/2006,  (EC)  No 509/2007,  (EC)  No 676/2007, 
(EC)  No 1098/2007,  (EC)  No 1300/2008,  (EC)  No 1342/2008  and  repealing  Regulations  (EEC) 
No 2847/93, (EC) No 1627/94 and (EC) No 1966/2006. OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1–50.  

Commission  Implementing  Regulation  (EU)  No 404/2011  of  8 April  2011  laying  down  detailed 
rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 establishing a Community 
control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the Common Fisheries Policy.  OJ L 112, 
30.4.2011, p. 1–153.  

Proposal  for  a  Regulation  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  amending  Council 
Regulation  (EC)  No  1224/2009,  and  amending  Council  Regulations  (EC)  No  768/2005,  (EC)  No 
1967/2006,  (EC)  No  1005/2008,  and  Regulation  (EU)  No  2016/1139  of  the  European  Parliament 
and of the Council as regards fisheries control, COM/2018/368 final.  

Specific Control and Inspection Programmes 
Commission  Implementing  Decision  (EU)  2018/1986  of  13  December  2018  establishing  specific 
control  and  inspection  programmes  for  certain  fisheries  and  repealing  Implementing  Decisions 

75 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2012/807/EU, 2013/328/EU, 2013/305/EU and 2014/156/EU. C/2018/8461 OJ L 317, 14.12.2018, 
p. 29–46  

Deep-Sea species TAC and quota Regulation (biennial) applicable as from 2017 and until 2020 
Council  Regulation  (EU)  2018/2025  of  17  December  2018  fixing  for  2019  and  2020  the  fishing 
opportunities for Union fishing vessels for certain deep-sea fish stocks. ST/14418/2018/INIT. OJ L 
325, 20.12.2018, p. 7–17  

Council  Regulation  (EU)  2016/2285  of  12  December  2016  fixing  for  2017  and  2018  the  fishing 
opportunities  for  Union  fishing  vessels  for  certain  deep-sea  fish  stocks  and  amending  Council 
Regulation (EU) 2016/72. OJ L 344, 17.12.2016, p. 32–45  

General TAC and Quota Regulation (annual – incl. certain deep-sea species) applicable as from 
2017 and until 2020 
Council Regulation (EU) 2020/123 of 27 January 2020 fixing for 2020 the fishing opportunities for 
certain  fish  stocks  and  groups  of  fish  stocks,  applicable  in  Union  waters  and,  for  Union  fishing 
vessels, in certain non-Union waters. ST/15319/2019/INIT. OJ L 25, 30.1.2020, p. 1–156  

Council Regulation (EU) 2019/124 of 30 January 2019 fixing for 2019 the fishing opportunities for 
certain  fish  stocks  and  groups  of  fish  stocks,  applicable  in  Union  waters  and,  for  Union  fishing 
vessels, in certain non-Union waters. OJ L 29, 31.1.2019, p. 1–166 

Council Regulation (EU) 2018/120 of 23 January 2018 fixing for 2018 the fishing opportunities for 
certain  fish  stocks  and  groups  of  fish  stocks,  applicable  in  Union  waters  and,  for  Union  fishing 
vessels, in certain non-Union waters, and amending Regulation (EU) 2017/127. OJ L 27, 31.1.2018, 
p. 1–168 

Council Regulation (EU) 2017/127 of 20 January 2017 fixing for 2017 the fishing opportunities for 
certain  fish  stocks  and  groups  of  fish  stocks,  applicable  in  Union  waters  and,  for  Union  fishing 
vessels, in certain non-Union waters OJ L 24, 28.1.2017, p. 1–172 

Data Collection Regulation and implementing instruments 
Until May 2017 
Council  Regulation  (EC)  No 199/2008  of  25  February  2008  concerning  the  establishment  of  a 
Community framework for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector and 
support for scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Policy OJ L 60, 5.3.2008, p. 1–12.  

Commission  Regulation  (EC)  No 665/2008  of  14 July  2008  laying  down  detailed  rules  for  the 
application of Council Regulation (EC) No 199/2008 concerning the establishment of a Community 
framework  for  the  collection,  management  and  use  of  data  in  the  fisheries  sector  and  support  for 
scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Policy. OJ L 186, 15.7.2008, p. 3–5   

As from May 2017  
Regulation (EU) 2017/1004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2017 on the 
establishment of a Union framework for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries 
sector  and  support  for  scientific  advice  regarding  the  common  fisheries  policy  and  repealing 
Council Regulation (EC) No 199/2008. OJ L 157, 20.6.2017, p. 1–21 

Applicable for the period 2017-2019 
Commission  Implementing  Decision  (EU)  2016/1251  of  12  July  2016  adopting  a  multiannual 
Union programme for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries and aquaculture 

76 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
sectors for the period 2017-2019 (notified under document C(2016) 4329). C/2016/4329. OJ L 207, 
1.8.2016, p. 113–177  

Applicable as from 2020 
Commission Delegated Decision (EU) 2019/910 of 13 March 2019 establishing the multiannual 
Union programme for the collection and management of biological, environmental, technical and 
socioeconomic data in the fisheries and aquaculture sectors.  C/2019/1848. OJ L 145, 4.6.2019, p. 
27–84  

Commission  Implementing  Decision  (EU)  2019/909  of  18  February  2019  establishing  the  list  of 
mandatory research surveys  and thresholds for the purposes of the multiannual Union programme 
for the collection and management of data in the fisheries and aquaculture sectors. C/2019/1001. OJ 
L 145, 4.6.2019, p. 21–26  

Western Waters Multiannual Plan 
Regulation  (EU)  2019/472  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  19  March  2019 
establishing a multiannual plan for stocks fished in the Western Waters and adjacent waters, and for 
fisheries  exploiting  those  stocks,  amending  Regulations  (EU)  2016/1139  and  (EU)  2018/973,  and 
repealing  Council  Regulations  (EC)  No  811/2004,  (EC)  No  2166/2005,  (EC)  No  388/2006,  (EC) 
No 509/2007 and (EC) No 1300/2008. PE/78/2018/REV/1. JO L 83 du 25.3.2019, p. 1–17  

Basic CFP Regulation 
Regulation  (EU)  No 1380/2013  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  11 December 
2013  on  the  Common  Fisheries  Policy,  amending  Council  Regulations  (EC)  No 1954/2003  and 
(EC) No 1224/2009 and repealing Council Regulations (EC) No 2371/2002 and (EC) No 639/2004 
and Council Decision 2004/585/EC. OJ L 354, 28.12.2013, p. 22–61  

NEAFC regulation 
Regulation  (EU)  No 1236/2010  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  15 December 
2010  laying  down  a  scheme  of  control  and  enforcement  applicable  in  the  area  covered  by  the 
Convention  on  future  multilateral  cooperation  in  the  North-East  Atlantic  fisheries  and  repealing 
Council Regulation (EC) No 2791/1999. OJ L 348, 31.12.2010, p. 17–33.  

MSFD Directive 
Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 establishing a 
framework  for  community  action  in  the  field  of  marine  environmental  policy  (Marine  Strategy 
Framework Directive) (Text with EEA relevance). OJ L 164, 25.6.2008, p. 19–40  

Commission Decision (EU) 2017/848 of 17 May 2017 laying down criteria and methodological 
standards on good environmental status of marine waters and specifications and standardised 
methods for monitoring and assessment, and repealing Decision 2010/477/EU (Text with EEA 
relevance). C/2017/2901 OJ L 125, 18.5.2017, p. 43–74  

Habitats Directive 
Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild 
fauna and flora. OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7–50 

International obligations 

UN  Resolution  59/25.  Sustainable  fisheries,  including  through  the  1995  Agreement  for  the 
Implementation of the Provisions of the  United  Nations Convention on the  Law of the Sea of 10 

77 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
December 1982 relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly 
Migratory Fish Stocks, and related instruments (November 2004)  

UN  Resolution  61/105.  Sustainable  fisheries,  including  through  the  1995  Agreement  for  the 
Implementation of the Provisions of the  United  Nations Convention on the  Law of the Sea of 10 
December 1982 relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly 
Migratory Fish Stocks, and related instruments (December 2006)  

UN  Resolution  64/72.  Sustainable  fisheries,  including  through  the  1995  Agreement  for  the 
Implementation of the Provisions of the  United  Nations Convention on the  Law of the Sea of 10 
December 1982 relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly 
Migratory Fish Stocks, and related instruments (December 2009)  

NEAFC  Recommendation  19.2014  on  the  protection  of  vulnerable  marine  ecosystems  in  the 
NEAFC Regulatory Area (2014) 

78 

 
 
 
 
 
Annex 6  
Literature cited 

Auster,  P.J.,  Gjerde,  K.,  Heupel,  E.,  Watling,  L.,  Grehan,  A.,  Rogers,  A.D.  (2011) 
Definition  and  detection  of  vulnerable  marine  ecosystems  on  the  high  seas: 
problems with the “move-on” rule. ICES Journal of Marine Science: Journal du 
Conseil 68, 254-264.  10.1093/icesjms/fsq074. 

Bensch, A., Gianni, M., Gréboval, D., Sanders, J.S., Hjort, A. (2009) Worldwide review 
of  bottom  fisheries  in  the  high  seas.  FAO  Fisheries  and  Aquaculture  Technical 
Paper. N° 522, Rev. 1 Rome, FAO. 2009., 145 p. 

Bueno-Pardo,  J.,  Ramalho,  S.P.,  García-Alegre,  A.,  et  al.  (2017)  Deep-sea  crustacean 
trawling fisheries in Portugal: quantification of effort and assessment of landings 
per  unit  effort  using  a  Vessel  Monitoring  System  (VMS).  Scientific  Reports  7, 
40795.  10.1038/srep40795. 

CEFAS,  AZTI  Tecnalia,  MRAG,  IEO,  IMPA  (2018)  Scientific  approaches  for  the 
assessment and management of deep-sea fisheries and ecosystems in RFMOs and 
RFBs Specific Contract N°8 - EASME/EMFF/2016/008. 

COFREPECHE,  MRAG,  NFDS,  POSEIDON  (2014)  Analyse  économique  de  la  flotte 
thonière  de  l'UE  –  Note  de  méthode.  Contrat  cadre  MARE/2011/01  -Lot  3, 
contrat spécifique n°09. Bruxelles, 32p  

EUROPEAN  COMMISSION  Staff  Working  Document  (SWD/2012/202  final):  Impact 
Assessment  Accompanying  the  document  Proposal  for  a  Regulation  of  the 
European Parliament and of the Council establishing specific conditions to fishing 
for  deep-sea  stocks  in  the  North-East  Atlantic  and  provisions  for  fishing  in 
international waters of the North-East Atlantic and repealing Regulation (EC) No 
2347/2002 

FAO  (2009)  International  Guidelines  for  the  Management  of  Deep-sea  Fisheries  in  the 

High Seas. Rome. 73 pp. 

FAO  (2017)  Report  of  the  Technical  Workshop  on  Deep-sea  Fisheries  and  Vulnerable 
Marine  Ecosystems  of  the  Eastern  Central  Atlantic,  Dakar,  Senegal,  8–10 
November 2016. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Report. 1184, Rome, Italy. 142 
pp. 

FAO (2018) Report of the FAO/CECAF Working Group on the Assessment of Demersal 
Resources –Subgroup North. Tenerife, Spain, from 6 to 15 June 2017/Rapport du 
Groupe  de  travail  FAO/COPACE  sur  l’évaluation  des  ressources  démersales  –
Sous-groupe  Nord.  Tenerife,  Espagne,  du  6  au  15  juin  2017.  CECAF/ECAF 
Series/COPACE/PACE  Séries.  .  No.  18/78,  Rome,  FAO.  Licence:  CC  BY-NC-
SA 3.0 IGO. 

Farias,  I.,  Morales-Nin,  B.,  Lorance,  P.,  Figueiredo,  I.  (2013)  Black  scabbardfish, 
Aphanopus  carbo,  in  the  northeast  Atlantic:  Distribution  and  hypothetical 
migratory cycle. Aquatic Living Resources.  10.1051/alr/2013061. 

79 

 
 
 
Gauduchon, T., Cornou, A.-S., Quinio-Scavinner, M., Goascoz, N., Dubroca, L., Billet, 
N.  (2020)  Captures  et  rejets  des  métiers  de  pêche  françcais  -  Résultats  des 
observations  à  bord  des  navires  de  pêche  professionnelle  en  2018.  OBSMER. 
https://doi.org/10.13155/73122, 444 p. 

Goujon, M. (2003) Informations sur les captures accessoires des thoniers senneurs gérés 
par  les  armements  français  d'après  les  observations  faites  par  les  observateurs 
embarqués  pendant  le  plan  de  protection  des  thonidés  de  l'atlantique  de  1997  à 
2002. Col. Vol. Sci. Pap. ICCAT. 414-431. 

ICES  (2018)  Report  of  the  Working  Group  on  Elasmobranch  Fishes  (WGEF),  19–28 

June 2018, Lisbon, Portugal. ICES CM 2018/ACOM:16., 1306 pp. 

ICES  (2019a)  ICES/NAFO  Joint  Working  Group  on  Deep-water  Ecology  (WGDEC). 

ICES Scientific Reports. 

ICES (2019b) Stakeholder workshop to disseminate the ICES deep-sea access regulation 
technical service, and scope the required steps for regulatory purposes (WKREG). 
ICES Scientific Reports. 1:79. 34 pp. 

ICES  (2019c)  Working  Group  on  Elasmobranch  Fishes  (WGEF).  ICES  scientific 

Reports. 964 pp. http://doi.org/910.17895/ices.pub.15594. 

ICES  (2019d)  Working  Group  on  the  Biology  and  Assessment  of  Deep-sea  Fisheries 
1:21., 
ICES 

Scientific 

Reports. 

Resources 
988pp.http://doi.org/910.17895/ices.pub.15262. 

(WGDEEP). 

ICES  (2020a)  Working  Group  on  the  Biology  and  Assessment  of  Deep-sea  Fisheries 
928pp. 

Scientific 

Reports. 

2:38, 

Resources 
(WGDEEP). 
http://doi.org/910.17895/ices.pub.16015. 

ICES 

ICES (2020b) Working Group on the Ecosystem Effects of Fishing Activities (WGECO). 

ICES Scientific Reports. 2:26, 43 pp. http://doi.org/10.17895/ices.pub.16005  

Lorance,  P.  (2012)  Répartition  bathymétrique  des  espèces  dites  profondes.  IFREMER 

RBE/EDERU/12-3822. 23 p. 

Morato, T., Pham, C.K., Pinto, C., et al. (2018) A Multi Criteria Assessment Method for 
Identifying Vulnerable  Marine Ecosystems  in  the North-East  Atlantic.  Frontiers 
in Marine Science 5. [In English] 10.3389/fmars.2018.00460. 

Parker,  S.J.,  Penney,  A.J.,  Clark,  M.R.  (2009)  Detection  criteria  for  managing  trawl 
impacts  on  vulnerable  marine  ecosystems  in  high  seas  fisheries  of  the  South 
Pacific Ocean. Marine Ecology Progress Series 397, 309-317.   

Prellezo,  R.,  Iriondo,  A.,  Santurtún,  M.,  Valeiras,  J.  (2018)  Research  for  the  PECH 
Committee  -  Landing  obligation  and  choke  species  in  multispecies  and  mixed 
fisheries  -  the  South  Western  Waters.  European  Parliament,  Policy  Department 
for Structural and Cohesion Policies, Brussels. 65 pp 

Rihan,  D.  (2018)  Research  for  the  PECH  Committee  -  Landing  obligation  and  choke 
species in multispecies and mixed fisheries - the North Western Waters. European 
Parliament,  Policy  Department  for  Structural  and  Cohesion  Policies,  Brussels. 
124 p. 

Roos Diesel Analysis BV (2019) Study on engine power verification by Member States. 

European Commission - DG MARE. 

80 

 
STECF (2019a) The 2019 Annual Economic Report on the EU Fishing Fleet (STECF 19-
06). Carvalho, N., Keatinge, M. and Guillen Garcia, J. editor(s), EUR 28359 EN, 
Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2019. ISBN 978-92-76-
09517-0, doi:10.2760/911768, JRC117567, 496 p. 

STECF  (2019b)  Fisheries  Dependent  -Information  –  FDI  (STECF-19-11).  Publications 

Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2020. 

81