COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEANPARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Implementation of the Technical Measures Regulation (Article 31 of Regulation (EU) 2019/1241)
Date: 2021-09-23
Institutions: Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, European Commission
Subjects: catch quota, common fisheries policy, conservation of fish stocks, fishery resources, fishing area, fishing regulations, marine ecosystem, protection of animal life, sea fishing

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 23.9.2021  SWD(2021) 268 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEANPARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Implementation of the Technical Measures Regulation (Article 31 of Regulation (EU) 2019/1241)    {COM(2021) 583 final}  
 
 
CONTENTS 

1.  THE OBJECTIVES AND TARGETS OF THE REGULATION .............................. 4 

1.1.  Measuring the progress ...................................................................................... 6 

1.2.  Choosing a selectivity indicator ........................................................................ 8 

1.3.  Considerations for future approaches on selectivity ........................................ 10 

2.  SENSITIVE SPECIES AND HABITATS ................................................................ 12 

2.1.  General Considerations .................................................................................... 12 

2.2.  Sensitive Species ............................................................................................. 13 

2.2.1.  State of knowledge ............................................................................ 13 

2.2.2.  Baltic Sea ........................................................................................... 17 

2.2.3.  North Sea ........................................................................................... 18 

2.2.4.  North-western waters ......................................................................... 19 

2.2.5.  South-western waters ......................................................................... 20 

2.2.6.  Mediterranean and Black Seas .......................................................... 22 

2.2.7.  Macaronesia ....................................................................................... 23 

2.2.8.  Widely distributed species ................................................................. 23 

2.3.  Sensitive habitats ............................................................................................. 26 

2.3.1.  State of knowledge ............................................................................ 26 

2.3.2.  Baltic Sea ........................................................................................... 27 

2.3.3.  North Sea, north western waters and south-western waters .............. 28 

2.3.4.  Mediterranean and Black Seas .......................................................... 29 

2.3.5.  Macaronesia ....................................................................................... 31 

3. 

IMPLEMENTATION  OF  THE  REGULATION  AND  CONSULTATION 
OF  MEMBER 
AND 
ADVISORY 
STAKEHOLDERS .................................................................................................... 31 

COUNCILS 

STATES, 

3.1.  The objectives and the targets ......................................................................... 31 

3.2. 

Implementation of common technical measures ............................................. 32 

3.3.  Protection for sensitive habitats (Article 12) ................................................... 34 

3.4.  Additional measures to protect sensitive species. ........................................... 35 

3.5.  Regionalisation (Article 15) ............................................................................ 37 

3.6.  Regional technical measures concerning selectivity (Articles 16-27). ............ 38 

3.6.1.  Species and size selectivity of fishing gear (Article 16) ................... 38 

3.6.2.  Closed or restricted areas (Article 17) ............................................... 38 

Commission européenne/Europese Commissie, 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIQUE/BELGIË - Tel. +32 22991111 
Office: J-99 01/029 - Tel. direct line +32 229-80613 

 
 
 
3.6.3.  Minimum Conservation Reference Sizes (Article 18)....................... 39 

3.6.4.  Real-time closure and moving-on provisions (Article 19) ................ 40 

3.6.5.  Conditions  for  derogations  to  permitted  minimum  mesh 

sizes (Article 27) ................................................................................ 40 

4. 

IMPLEMENTATION    OF  AND  CONSULTATION  ON  REGIONAL 
TECHNICAL MEASURES ...................................................................................... 41 

4.1.  Baltic Sea ......................................................................................................... 41 

4.1.1.  Minimum conservation reference sizes (Articles 13 and 18) ............ 42 

4.1.2.  Selective gears to reduce unwanted catches ...................................... 43 

4.1.3.  Closed areas and seasons to protect juveniles and spawning 

aggregations (Article 17) ................................................................... 43 

4.1.4.  Real time closures and moving on provisions ................................... 44 

4.1.5.  Sensitive species ................................................................................ 44 

4.1.6.  Sensitive habitats ............................................................................... 45 

4.2.  North  Sea  (including  the  Skagerrak,  Kattegat,  Belt  Sea  and  eastern 

Channel)........................................................................................................... 45 

4.2.1.  Minimum conservation reference sizes (Articles 13 and 18) ............ 47 

4.2.2.  Selective gears to reduce unwanted catches ...................................... 47 

4.2.3.  Closed areas and seasons to protect juveniles (art 17) ...................... 48 

4.2.4.  Real time closures and moving on provisions (Article 19) ............... 49 

4.2.5.  Sensitive species ................................................................................ 50 

4.2.6.  Sensitive habitats ............................................................................... 51 

4.3.  North Western Waters ..................................................................................... 51 

4.3.1.  Minimum conservation reference sizes (Articles 13 and 18) ............ 52 

4.3.2.  Selective gears to reduce unwanted catches ...................................... 53 

4.3.3.  Closed areas and seasons to protect juveniles ................................... 53 

4.3.4.  Real time closures and moving on provisions ................................... 54 

4.3.5.  Sensitive species ................................................................................ 55 

4.3.6.  Sensitive habitats ............................................................................... 55 

4.4.  South Western Waters ..................................................................................... 55 

4.4.1.  Minimum conservation reference sizes (Arts 13 and 18) .................. 56 

4.4.2.  Selective gears to reduce unwanted catches ...................................... 56 

4.4.3.  Closed areas and seasons to protect juveniles (art 17 and Part 

C of Annex VII)) ............................................................................... 57 

4.4.4.  Real time closures and moving on provisions ................................... 58 

4.4.5.  Sensitive species ................................................................................ 58 

4.4.6.  Sensitive habitats ............................................................................... 59 

2 

 
4.5.  Mediterranean and Black Sea. ......................................................................... 59 

4.5.1.  Minimum conservation reference sizes (Articles 13 and 18) ............ 62 

4.5.2.  Selective gears to reduce unwanted catches ...................................... 63 

4.5.3.  Restrictions on the use of fishing gear ( part C of Annex IX)) ......... 64 

4.5.4.  Real time closures and moving on provisions ................................... 65 

4.5.5.  Sensitive species ................................................................................ 65 

4.5.6.  Sensitive habitats ............................................................................... 67 

4.6.  Outermost regions............................................................................................ 67 

5.  PROMOTION OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION ........................................... 68 

5.1.  Pilot projects .................................................................................................... 68 

5.2.  Scientific research (Article 25) ........................................................................ 69 

5.3. 

Innovative fishing gear (Article 20) ................................................................ 70 

6.  SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS. ....................................................................... 73 

APPENDIX I IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SEABIRD ACTION PLAN .................... 75 

APPENDIX II: SYNOPSIS OF THE CONSULTATION. ............................................... 77 

APPENDIX  III:  SUMMARY  TABLE  OF  JOINT  RECOMMENDATIONS 

RECEIVED ............................................................................................................... 79 

3 

 
 
 
 
This  staff  working  document  accompanies  the  ‘Report  from  the  Commission  to  the 
European  Parliament  and  Council  on  the  implementation  of  the  Technical  Measures 
Regulation’. It looks in greater depth at:  

1.  The  objectives  and 

targets  of 

the  Regulation  (EU)  2019/12411  (“the 

Regulation”) and how to measure progress towards these objective and targets;  

2.  General considerations regarding sensitive species and habitats;  
3.  Overview  of  the  implementation  of  the  Regulation  and  the  consultation  of 
Member  States,  Advisory  Councils  and  stakeholders,  looking  with  detail  to 
commonly applicable measures.    

4.  Implementation  and  consultation  on  regional  technical  measures,  by  sea  basin, 

and considering the main findings since the Regulation came into force.  

5.  Research and innovation.  
6.  Final considerations, including some reflections on the implementation.  

1.  THE OBJECTIVES AND TARGETS OF THE REGULATION  

The objectives of the Regulation are to contribute to  protecting juveniles and spawning 
aggregations,  minimising  incidental  catches  of  sensitive  species,  minimising  negative 
impacts  of  fishing  on  marine  habitats  and  to  contribute  to  compliance  with  the  Habitats2, 
Birds3  and  Marine  Strategy  Framework  Directives  (‘MSFD’)4,  in  particular  with  the 
achievement of good environmental status (GES).  

The  Regulation  sets  out  basic  requirements  and  a  regionalised  framework  for 
implementing  technical  measures  provided  by  Article  7(2)  of  Regulation  on  the 
Common Fisheries Policy (‘CFP Regulation’)5 concerning:  

  characteristics of fishing gears and their use,  
  specifications on the construction of fishing gear,  
 

limitations  or  prohibitions  on  the  use  of  certain  fishing  gears  and  fishing 
activities,  

1  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 (OJ L 198, 25.7.2019, p. 
105). 
2 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 
3  Directive  2009/147/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  30  November  2009  on  the 
conservation of wild birds, OJ L 20, 26.1.2010, p. 7–25  

4  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. OJ L 164, 25.6.2008, p. 19–40 

5  Regulation  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 

4 

 
 
 
                                                 
  and  requirements  to  cease  operating  in  defined  areas  in  order  to  protect 
temporary  aggregations  of  endangered  species,  spawning  fish,  fish  under 
minimum conservation reference sizes and other vulnerable resources.  

Article  3  of  the  Regulation  provides  that  technical  measures  must  contribute  to  the 
objectives  of  the  CFP  set  out  in  the  applicable  provisions  of  Article  2  of  the  CFP 
Regulation. Moreover, it has to contribute to achieving the following objectives: 

(a)  optimise  exploitation  patterns  to  provide  protection  for  juveniles  and  spawning 
aggregations of marine biological resources; 

(b)  ensure  that  incidental  catches  of  sensitive  marine  species,  including  those  listed 
under the Birds and Habitats Directives, that are a result of fishing, are minimised and 
where  possible  eliminated  so  that  they  do  not  represent  a  threat  to  the  conservation 
status of these species; 

(c)  ensure,  including  by  using  appropriate  incentives,  that  the  negative  environmental 
impacts of fishing on marine habitats are minimised; 

(d)  have  in  place  fisheries  management  measures  for  the  purposes  of  complying  with 
the  Birds  and  Habitats  Directives,  in  particular  with  a  view  to  achieving  good 
environmental status in line with the MSFD. 

In line with these objectives, Article 4 of the Regulation sets out the concrete targets to 
be achieved:  

(a)  catches  of  marine  species  below  the  minimum  conservation  reference  size  are 
reduced as far as possible. 

(b)  incidental  catches  of  marine  mammals,  marine  reptiles,  seabirds  and  other  non-
commercially exploited species do not exceed levels provided for in  Union legislation 
and international agreements that are binding on the Union. 

(c) the environmental impacts of fishing activities on seabed habitats are coherent with 
the Union environmental legislation, in particular with the objective of achieving a good 
environmental status as set out in Article 1(1) of the MSFD, as well as with other Union 
policies. 

In  order  to  contribute  to  the  target  under  point  (a),  the  Regulation  sets  out  minimum 
mesh sizes and associated conditions for towed nets in Parts B of each of Annexes V to 
X and XII, and Part A of Annex XI. These vary from a basic 120mm in the northeast 
Atlantic,  with  various  alternative  mesh  sizes  permitted  for  fishing  directed  at  various 
species and areas, the smallest being 14mm for surrounding nets in the Mediterranean 
Sea. 

To  achieve  the  targets  set  out  under  points  (b)  and  (c),  the  Regulation  includes  four 
types of environmental protection provisions.  

i.  General  prohibitions  (Article  7)  on  the  use  of  techniques  likely  to  cause 
excessive environmental harm (explosives, poisons, pelagic drift nets etc.) 
Prohibitions  on  catching  (and  associated  handling)  of  marine  mammals, 
seabirds and reptiles (Article 11)  

ii. 

5 

 
iii.  Areas where fishing is restricted in order to protect sensitive habitats (Article 

12 and Annex II) 

iv.  Measures  to  monitor  and  reduce  incidental  catches  of  sensitive  species, 
including  specific  measures  for  harbour  porpoise  (Article  15  and  Annex 
XIII) 

Measures  in  points  iii.  and  iv.  above  may  be  modified  according  to  joint 
recommendations  from  Member  States.  These  provisions  complement  the  specific 
framework provided  under Article 11 of the CFP Regulation that allow Member States, 
acting jointly, to develop conservation measures necessary for the purpose of complying 
with their obligations under the Birds and Habitats Directives and the MSFD related to 
marine protected areas (Natura 2000 sites and spatial measures under the MSFD). 

Specific measures and obligations are discussed in more detail in the following regional 
chapters. 

The Regulation is an important instrument contributing to the sustainable management 
of fisheries resources and contributing to environmental objectives. It is complemented 
by  other  EU  legislation  such  as  for  example  the  Regulation  (EC)  No  1967/20066 
(‘Mediterranean Regulation’) and Regulation  (EC) No 734/2008  (‘VME Regulation’)7 
concerning  the  protection  of  such  “Vulnerable  Marine  Ecosystems”  (VMEs)  and 
Regulation (EU) 2016/2336 (‘Deep Sea Regulation’)8. While those regulations are not 
part  of  this  report,  their  application  is  of  relevance  for  the  overall  assessment  on  the 
overall contribution to and achievement of the CFP objectives.  

The scope and objectives of the Regulation also include actions related to sharks and sea 
birds. Regarding the former, it is particularly relevant to take note of the 2009 EU Plan 
of Action for the Conservation and Management  of Sharks (EUPOA sharks9) inspired 
by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) “IPOA (International Plan of Action) 
Sharks”.  The  EUPOA  aims  at  broadening  the  knowledge  on  shark  fisheries,  on  shark 
species  and  their  role  in  the  ecosystem,  ensuring  that  directed  fisheries  for  shark  are 
sustainable10. As for the seabirds, the Regulation also provides the legal framework to 

6 Council Regulation (EC) No 1967/2006 of 21 December 2006 concerning management measures for 
the sustainable exploitation of fishery resources in the Mediterranean Sea, amending Regulation (EEC) 
No 2847/93 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1626/94. OJ L 409, 30.12.2006, p. 11–85 

7 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 

8  Regulation  (EU)  2016/2336  of  e  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 p.1, 23.12.2016. 

9 Communication with EUPOA  https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:52009DC0040 IA accompanying Communication https://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:52009SC0103   

10 STECF PLEN 19-03 incl. Sharks: https://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu/reports/plenary/-
/asset_publisher/oS6k/document/id/2634955?inheritRedirect=false&redirect=https%3A%2F%2Fstecf.jrc.
ec.europa.eu%3A443%2Freports%2Fplenary%3Fp_p_id%3D101_INSTANCE_oS6k%26p_p_lifecycle%
3D0%26p_p_state%3Dnormal%26p_p_mode%3Dview%26p_p_col_id%3Dcolumn-
2%26p_p_col_pos%3D1%26p_p_col_count%3D2 

6 

 
                                                 
 
follow  up  and  address  problems  still  outstanding  and  as  reported  in  the  2012  Action 
Plan for reducing incidental catches of seabirds in fishing gear11. 

1.1.  Measuring the progress 

Measuring progress is vital to check whether measures put in place are adequate and fit 
for purpose, and consequently, to assess where and how changes should be made. The 
impact  assessment12  preparing  the  Commission’s  proposal13  for  the  Regulation 
confirmed the absence of clear objectives and the absence of a system allowing to assess 
whether  the  measures  put  in  place  were  actually  addressing  the  traditional  collateral 
effects of the harvesting activity.  

Measuring the extent to which the Regulation is reaching the targets requires clarity on 
the  specifics  of  each  target.  Some  targets  are  precisely  defined,  such  as  the  target  of 
Maximum Sustainable Yield (‘MSY14’) as defined under the CFP Regulation. However, 
environmental  targets  under  the  Habitats  and  Birds  Directives  are  in  very  many  cases 
not yet expressed quantitatively. Development of quantified environmental targets, such 
as  threshold  values  for  good  environmental  status,  is  a  work  in  progress  under  the 
MSFD and in most cases such targets are not yet available. 

As  noted  in  the  report  on  the  implementation  of  the  MSFD15,  progress  in  setting 
threshold  values  for  determining  good  environmental  status  has  so  far  been  slow,  and 
there  seems  to  be  a  reluctance  to  set  ambitious  levels,  as  that  would  prevent  Member 
States  from  reaching  good  environmental  status  within  the  deadline  established  in  the 
Directive. 

Member States did not link their targets with their measures, so as to have a measurable 
record of how they are progressing towards achieving good environmental status. 

Technical  measures  help  optimise  exploitation  patterns  by  providing  protection  for 
juveniles  of  fish  using  selective  fishing  gears.  The  objective  of  improving  size-
selectivity  of  fishing  is  to  improve  yield  (or catch).  Improving  selectivity  is  key  to 
reducing the  impact  of  fishing  on  the younger fish,  thus allowing  more  productivity 
from  fish  growth. There  is  a  trade-off  between  F  (fishing  mortality)  and  selectivity; 
catching  larger  fish  generally  allows  stocks  to  sustain  a  higher  F  without  collapsing, 
while catching too many small fish can lead to stock depletion even at moderate levels 

11 COM (2012) 665 final 

12   MRAG  et  al.  (2014).  A  study  in  support  of  the  development  of  a  new  Technical  conservation 
measures framework within a reformed CFP. Lot 2: retrospective and prospective evaluation on the 
Common fisheries policy, excluding its international Dimension. 

13 COM(2016) 134 final 

14  Maximum  Sustainable  Yield,  as  defined  in  Article  4(1)  point  7  of  the  CFP  Regulation:  'maximum 
sustainable yield' means the highest theoretical equilibrium yield that can be continuously taken on 
average from a stock under existing average environmental conditions without significantly affecting 
the reproduction process; 

15 Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the implementation of the 
Marine Strategy Framework Directive (Directive 2008/56/EC). COM(2020) 259 final, 25.06.2020. 

7 

 
                                                                                                                                               
 
16  are  selectivity-dependent;  for  most  exploited  stocks, 
of  F. Both  MSY  and  Fmsy
catching  larger  fish  would  lead  to  a  higher  MSY  attainable  at  higher  F  levels.  The 
biological mechanism through which improved selectivity promotes sustainability is by 
preventing  growth overfishing (i.e. by  allowing  fish to  realise their  growth  potential). 
In mixed fisheries exploiting species of different body sizes it is difficult to select for an 
optimum length for all species using a single mesh size.  

Despite the absence of quantified targets, qualitative assessment can in many cases be 
sufficient to establish whether the environmental objectives referred to in the Regulation 
are  met.  Member  States,  besides  their  reporting  on  the  MSFD,  also  report  every  six 
years  to  the  European  Commission  their  assessments  of  the  conservation  status  of 
marine species and marine habitats according to Article 17 of the Habitats Directive. In 
addition,  assessments  of  species  classed  as  endangered  in  the  European  area  are 
maintained by IUCN under financial support from the EU17 (“European Red List“). 

The state of marine habitats under the Habitats Directive has also been reviewed18 and 
indicates  that  1%  of  habitats  are  critically  endangered,  9%  endangered  and  9%  are 
vulnerable (EU-28 figures). However, 49% are classed as data deficient. Habitats in any 
of  these  classifications  are  not  consistent  with  the  objectives  referred  to  in  the 
Regulation, and urgent measures are needed both to improve knowledge and to protect 
threatened habitats.  

1.2.  Choosing a selectivity indicator 

As expressed in the Regulation, “the indicators and the values used for their application 
should  be  requested  from  appropriate  scientific  bodies  for  a  number  of  key  indicator 
stocks  which  would  also  take  into  account  mixed  fisheries  and  recruitment  spikes”19. 
Likewise,  Article  31(2)  states  that  the  “report  may  include,  inter  alia,  as  a  selectivity 
performance indicator  for the key indicator  stocks for  the species listed  in  Annex XIV 
the length of optimal selectivity (Lopt) compared to the average length of fish caught for 
each year covered”.   

The  Regulation  introduced  “selectivity  performance  indicators”  based  on  the  optimal 
exploitation pattern, a well-established concept in fisheries management. 

Such  an  indicator  should  facilitate  monitoring  progress  towards  minimising  unwanted 
catches. Even though the Regulation refers to length of optimal  selectivity (Lopt) in its 
Recital  39,  it  does  not  prescribe  any  specific  indicator,  and  mentions  that  “those 
indicators are not binding targets, but monitoring tools which may inform deliberations 
or decisions at regional level”.  

16 Fishing mortality rate that, if applied constantly, would result in an average catch corresponding to the 
Maximum  Sustainable  Yield  (MSY)  and  an  average  biomass  corresponding  to  BMSY.  Defined  as 
“FMSY point value’ the value of the estimated fishing mortality that with a given fishing pattern and 
under current average environmental conditions gives the long-term maximum yield as defined in the 
Multiannual Plans for demersal stocks in Western Waters, demersal stocks in western Mediterranean 
Seas, demersal stocks in North Sea and for cod, herring and sprat stock in the Baltic Sea.  

17 https://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/conservation/species/redlist_en.htm 

18 Gubbay, S. et al. (2016). European red list of habitats. Part 1. Marine habitats. Publication Office of the 

European Union, ISBN 978-92-79-61586-3. 

19 Recital 39 of the Regulation.  

8 

 
                                                 
Population  selectivity  describes  the  differential  vulnerability  to  fishing  of  the 
demographic  components  of  an  exploited  fish  population,  as  a  result  of  the  gear  used 
(e.g., choice of mesh size) and availability (e.g., choice of fishing timing and location)20. 
In  age-structured  stock  assessments,  population  selectivity  is  usually  expressed  as  the 
distribution of fishing mortality over the different age-classes of an exploited fish stock 
(Sampson  &  Scott  2012).  Population  selectivity  is  important  because  it  affects  both 
MSY and Fmsy, as well as stock resilience to overfishing (Scott & Sampson, 2011). 

STECF concluded in previous work21 that population independent metrics such as Catch 
and Catch per Unit of Effort (CPUE) at age allow a direct comparison between fleets. It 
is, however, not possible to disentangle whether inter-annual changes in catch or CPUE 
at age are a consequence of changes in population (e.g. weak or strong recruitment) or 
due to changes in technical or tactical strategies of the fleet, including improvements in 
selectivity.  

Population  dependent  metrics  potentially  provide  a  more  robust  means  of  comparing 
changes in exploitation pattern (i.e. using fleet-specific partial fishing mortality vector) 
both between and within fleets over time as they are less susceptible to changes in the 
underlying  population.  They  could  therefore  be  more  useful  to  assess  the  efficacy  of 
technical and/or tactical measures aimed at avoiding certain age groups (e.g. juveniles).  

Based  on  these,  catch-based  and  F-based  indicators  were  further  assessed  (STECF 
EWG 18-15; Vasilakopoulos et al. 2020) to provide managers with a metric describing 
changes in selectivity, in relation to uptake by fleets of various technical measures. The 
ratio Frec/Fbar (where Frec is F on the first recruited age-class and Fbar is the average 
fishing mortality on fully-recruited ages) proved to be an informative selectivity metric 
for  fisheries  management  and  advice22.  It  was  shown  to  be  able  to  track  selectivity 
changes  in  the  fishery  and  was  robust  to  both  recruitment  variability  and  changes  in 
overall fishing pressure. 

However,  STECF  has  also  identified  the  need  for  further  investigation  of  selectivity 
indicators.  Linking  changes  in  technical  measures  to  concurrent  changes  in  Frec/Fbar, 
or any other indicator, is a very challenging task, given that selectivity is variable within 
a  fishery  and  the  result  of  multiple  co-occurring  factors,  such  as  the  gears  used,  the 
fishers’  behaviours,  the  spatio-temporal  distribution  of  both  the  exploited  stock  and 
fishery, and other, variable local factors.  

STECF has provided an analysis of selectivity changes over time for certain stocks but 
only at the level of entire fisheries. It has not been proven possible to assess selectivity 
changes  in  detail  by  individual  fishing  fleet  segments  using  different  gears  within  the 
fishery, due to the scarcity of partial F-at-age data for most fleet segments.  

20 STECF 20-02, (Millar & Fryer, 1999 citation).  

21  STECF  has  discussed  the  weakness  of  catch-based  metrics  (due  to  their  sensitivity  to  population 
structure) and 'pilot' indicators discussed were typically F-based as early as in STECF 12-20, STECF 
13-04.  STECF  18-15  work  illustrated  that  F-based  indicators  were  the  most  informative  of  those 
investigated 

22 Vasilakopoulos, P., Jardim, E., Konrad, C., Rihan, D., Mannini, A., Pinto, C., Casey, J., Mosqueira, I. 
&  O’Neill  F.G.  (2020).  Selectivity  metrics  for  fisheries  management  an  advice.  Fish  and  Fisheries 
21, 621–638. doi: 10.1111/faf.12451 

9 

 
                                                 
STECF tested the selectivity indicator by stock and by fleet segment, where relevant F-
at-age data were available. The fleet segment level analysis was designed to investigate 
the extent to which every fleet is responsible for the variations in selectivity as shown 
by the selectivity indicators applied to the stock level.  

After this test, it was decided to work at stock level taking into consideration the stocks 
listed in the MAPS23; the stocks listed correspond to individual ICES stock assessments 
in the North East Atlantic and STECF stock assessments in the Mediterranean Sea.   

ICES  was  requested  to  provide  F-at-age  data  by  stock  and  by  fleet/fishery.  For  the 
Mediterranean, it was agreed to extract F at age data from the stock assessment done by 
the STECF Expert Working Group (‘EWG’) on Mediterranean stock assessments.  

During the first week of October 2020, the EWG of STECF24 examined the possibilities 
to measure progress in selectivity. The working group considered it impossible either to 
evaluate  the  performance  of  the  Regulation  (in  particular  due  to  its  recent  entry  into 
force)  or  to  clarify  the  contribution  of  technical  measures  towards  achieving  the 
objective  of  the  Regulation.  Nevertheless,  the  working  group  made  progress  in 
developing time-series that allow identifying trends in selectivity.     

The working group provided time-series of trends in selectivity for selected fish stocks 
and  areas.  However,  for  reasons  mentioned  above,  the  results  need  to  be  interpreted 
with caution.  

STECF  pointed  out  that  for  those  stocks  where  no  changes  were  detected  over 
time,  the  absence  of  change  in  indicator  should  not  be  seen  as  proof  that  the 
technical  measures  had  no  effect  at  all,  but  at  least  that  the  effects  were  not  strong 
enough  to  be  detected  at  population  level  by  standard  stock  assessment  procedures 
using  standard  data.  For  the  stocks  where  changes  in  selectivity  of  recruiting  year-
classes appear to be coincidental with the timing of the introduction of certain technical 
measures, STECF noted that it remains difficult to ascertain that this change is caused 
directly by the introduction of the technical measure.  

Additionally, although many technical measures relate to specific gears and/or fisheries, 
no fleet-specific evaluations were undertaken for stocks in different regions. Hence, the 
results presented in the working group report provide an overview of temporal trends in 
relative selectivity for the recruiting year-classes at the population level only. 

1.3.  Considerations for future approaches on selectivity   

The STECF attempted to assess the extent to which technical measures in general, from 
the  former  Technical  Measures  Regulation25, 
the  Baltic  Technical  Measures 

23 Multi annual plans. https://ec.europa.eu/oceans-and-fisheries/fisheries/rules/multiannual-plans_en  

24 EWG 20-02 

25  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). 

10 

 
                                                 
Regulation26 and the Mediterranean Regulation onwards, have contributed to achieving 
the objectives and targets of the Regulation.   

Considering that the next report on the implementation of the Regulation is due in 
three  years,  some  elements  on  how  to  proceed  in  the  future  need  to  be  taken  into 
consideration. 

  Given the complexity of the exercise, it is necessary to adopt a concrete and targeted 
approach regarding what specific aspects of the regulation need to be examined. It 
has been underlined that given the high number of different technical measures that 
may  have  an  impact,  and  the  great  variability  between  fleets  and  areas,  it  is 
impossible to examine and assess each and every measure.  

  Specific adjustments of the Frec/Fbar metric could be explored (e.g. adjusting Frec 

to incorporate all juveniles; link the ratio to Lopt etc.).  

  Relevant  reference  points  for  this  indicator  could  be  also  explored  (analogous  to 
Fmsy;  to  have  an  idea  of  where  selectivity  stands  rather  than  just  saying 
‘improving/deteriorating’).  

  Additionally,  in  order  to  check  the  effect  of  specific  technical  measures,  it  is 
necessary to narrow down the resolution to the specific fleet segment(s) expected to 
be affected; in which case, segment’s partial F-at-age (or at least catch-at-age), are 
needed, which is not always available.  

 

  A way forward could be to assess the extent to which the targets set in the current 
regulation are being achieved, using a gear and area approach. This could provide a 
risk-based  analysis,  highlighting  where  more  detailed  assessment  of  the  effects  of 
the Regulation is a priority. Those species for which the MSY has not been reached 
or  with  high  discard  rates  could  be  an  approach  that  needs  to  be  discussed  with 
experts and Member States. 
In trying to assess the effectiveness of the measures included in the Regulation there 
is  a need to  assess the incentives for  fishers to  adapt,  adopt  and buy-in  to specific 
technical measures.  
In  order  to  develop  the  policy  it  is  crucial  to  have  reliable  information.  In  this 
respect,  a  key  control  component  is  the  system  of  joint  deployment  plans  (JDPs) 
coordinated  by  the  European  Fisheries  Control  Agency  (EFCA),  based  on  the 
relevant  specific  control  and  inspection  programmes  (SCIP).  The  most  significant 
suspected  infringements  found  in  2019  confirm  that  misreporting  of  catches  and 
cases  related  with  technical  measures  remain  the  most  common  non-compliance 
issues. These are generally considered to be the main threats together with possible 
non-compliance  with  the  requirements  of  the  landing  obligation,  which  were 
however very difficult to detect. 

 

To  address  these  issues,  the  discussion  must  now  focus  on  the  scope  of  future 
assessments,  identification  of  data  sets  that  could  be  used  to  carry  out  these 
assessments and identification of who should provide this data.  

For  example,  F-at-age,  data  on  growth  parameters  and  natural  mortality  per  stock  (to 
calculate Lopt) and the maturity-at-age to put the focus on juveniles. For analysis at the 

26 Regulation (EC) No 2187/2005, Council Regulation (EC) No 2187/2005 of 21 December 2005 for the 
conservation of fishery resources through technical measures in the Baltic Sea, the Belts and the Sound, 
amending Regulation (EC) No 1434/98 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 88/98, OJ L 349, 31.12.2005, 
p. 1–23  

11 

 
                                                 
level  of  fleet  segment  it  would  be  necessary  the  respective  partial  F-at-age  or  at  least 
catch-at-age. 

Eliminating discards by reducing and avoiding, as far as possible, unwanted catches is 
one of the main objectives of the CFP, and as such, improvements of selective fishing 
techniques and technical measures in  place shall be  aimed at achieving  this  objective. 
Unwanted  catches  involve  fish  that  either  have  a  low  market  value  or  cannot  be  sold 
because  the  CFP  rules  do  not  allow  their  retention  or  landing:  they  are  below  the 
minimum size, their quota is exhausted, they are damaged, their capture is prohibited. 

STECF27  notes  that  quantitative  discard  data  for  EU  fishing  fleets  is  provided  by  EU 
Member States to ICES and via the STECF Fisheries Dependent Information (FDI) data 
calls. Currently, there are several sources of data on discards relying on the information 
that Member States submit to the Commission in the framework of the FDI data call28. 
This information is publicly available in the JRC databases29. However, STECF is not 
able to comment on discard trends arising from FDI.   

STECF also notes that each year discards under exemptions permitted under the landing 
obligation  (‘LO’)  are  calculated  by  the  FDI  EWGs  and  the  methodology  used  is 
considered to be appropriate. However, for some cases, the low level of sampling or the 
absence  of  sampling  by  Member  States,  can  lead  to  imprecise  estimates  not  fully 
representative  of  the  actual  level  of  discarding  by  the  relevant  fleets,  noting  that  the 
actual  levels  of  discarding  are  largely  unknown  at  present.  To  improve  the  quality  of 
these  estimates,  increased  monitoring  and  accurate  reporting  by  Member  States  is 
required.  

STECF  notes  that  the  last-haul  information  compiled  by  EFCA  and  the  discard 
information provided to ICES and under the FDI data call represent the best and most 
detailed  information  available  and  highlights  the  need  for  Member  States  to  provide 
data that are representative of the level of discarding and are statistically sound. 

For  stocks  with  data  available  on  landings  and  discards,  ICES  provides catch  advice  with 
information  on  the  corresponding  landings  and  discard  numbers,  assuming  an  unchanged 
fishing  pattern.  For  stocks  where  a  discard  ban  or  landing  obligation  has  been  introduced 
recently  ICES  may  use  the  terminology  “wanted”  and  “unwanted”  catch  until  reliable 
information on discards and landings becomes available. “Wanted catch” refers to the part 
of  the  catch  that  would  be  landed  in  the  absence  of  a  discard  ban  or  landing  obligation. 
“Unwanted catch” refers to the part of the catch that would be discarded in the absence of a 
discard  ban  or  landing  obligation.    It  is  worth  to  note  that  according  to  ICES  figures,  the 
level of discard/unwanted catches in certain areas and for certain stocks seems to be high.  

27 STECF 21-01 

28  This  datacall  contains  detailed  information  on  species,  vessel  length,  fishing  techniques,  gear  type, 

mesh size range, supra region, region and EEZ indicator 

29 https://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu/dd/fdi 

12 

 
                                                 
2.  SENSITIVE SPECIES AND HABITATS  

2.1.  General considerations 

All  fisheries  have  the  potential  to  incidentally  catch  protected,  endangered,  or 
threatened species. Under the Treaty, the EU has exclusive competence concerning the 
conservation  of  marine  resources,  which  also  covers  fisheries  management  measures 
aimed  at  reducing  incidental  catches  of  sensitive  species  and  reducing  impacts  on 
marine habitats and particularly on sensitive marine habitats. 

Under the Regulation “sensitive species” means any species whose conservation status, 
including  its  habitat,  distribution,  population  size  or  population  condition  is  adversely 
affected  by  pressures  arising  from  human  activities,  including  fishing  activities.  They 
include  in  particular  the  species  listed  in  Annexes  II  and  IV  of  the  Habitats  Directive 
and those covered by the Birds Directive as well as those whose protection is necessary 
to achieve good environmental status under the MSFD. 

“Sensitive habitats” means habitats whose conservation status is adversely affected by 
human activities including fishing. These include habitat types listed in Annex I of the 
Habitats Directive, the habitats of species listed in Annex II of that Directive, habitats of 
species listed in Annex I to the Birds Directive, habitats whose protection is necessary 
to achieve GES according to the MSFD and vulnerable marine ecosystems as defined in 
the  VME Regulation. 

The  Regulation  sets  out  general  measures  that  will  need  to  be  developed  by  Member 
States to adapt better to the real impact that the different fleets have on these species and 
habitats. The measures set out under the Regulation bring together different regulations 
and  action  plans  previously  in  force,  such  as  for  example  regarding  cetaceans  and 
seabirds.  

Concerning by-catches of cetaceans, the Regulation builds on the measures previously 
set  out  in  Regulation  (EC)  No  812/2004  (hereinafter  referred  to  as  the  Cetaceans 
Regulation).  That  regulation  put  in  place,  for  certain  high-risk  fisheries,  a  system  of 
specialist  on-board  observation  of  cetacean  by-catches  and  required  the  placement  of 
acoustic  deterrent  devices  (ADDs)30  on  demersal  static  nets.  These  devices  deter 
harbour porpoises from approaching static nets and so reduce incidental catches.  

The  Cetaceans  Regulation,  which  contained  detailed  prescriptions  on  observer-based 
sampling was repealed in 2019 and replaced with the provisions in Articles 11 and 12 of 
the Regulation and obligations on Member States to monitor by-catches and implement, 
through  regionalisation  and  on  the  basis  of  science  advice,  mitigation  measures  to 
reduce  incidental  catches  of  all  sensitive  species  (Points  2  and  3  of  Annex  XIII). 
Development  and  modification  of  mitigation  measures  is  to  be  pursued  through 
regionalisation  but  can  also  be  implemented  by  individual  Member  States  concerning 
vessels flying their flag.  

The ADD obligations previously included in the Cetaceans Regulation are now included 
in  Annex  XIII  to  the  Regulation,  to  be  applied  in  certain  areas.  In  addition,  the 
in  Commission 
Commission  established 

technical  specifications 

relevant 

the 

30 As defined in Article 6.44 of the technical measures regulation.  

13 

 
                                                 
Implementing  Regulation  (EU)  2020/96731.  This  implementing  regulation  gives 
Member  States  the  possibility  to  use  alternative  devices,  provided  they  are  at  least 
equally  effective  in  the  reduction  of  incidental  catches  of  cetaceans  and  that  that  had 
been duly documented.  

The use of pelagic gill and trammel nets (drift nets) is already largely prohibited under 
the  Regulation  because  of  important  incidental  catches  of  cetaceans,  seabirds,  large 
pelagic  sharks  and  turtles.  Since  that  prohibition  there  have  been  important  signs  of 
recovery of certain populations such as common dolphin in the Mediterranean Sea, for 
example.  The  use  of  ADDs  is  already  required  in  certain  static  net  fisheries  and  is  a 
useful measure to reduce (but not eliminate) incidental catches of harbour porpoises. 

Certain habitats are known for their uniqueness or rarity, their functional significance in 
ecosystems,  their  fragility,  life-history  traits  of  component  species  that  make  recovery 
slow  or  difficult,  and  structural  complexity.  Examples  of  this  habitat  type  include 
seamounts,  seagrass  beds,  sea-pen  meadows  and  both  warm-water  corals  and  deep-
water cold coral reefs, and hydrothermal vents. Measures to protect such marine habitats 
have been in place under the CFP since at least 2002.  

The  measures  are  necessary  for  Member  States  to  meet  their  obligations  under  the 
Habitats  Directive  (Natura  2000  network,  Article  3  et  seq.  of  Directive  92/43/EC). 
While  the  implementation  of  the  Habitats  Directive  is  a  responsibility  of  the  Member 
States, any fisheries conservation measures form part of the CFP and are thereby under 
EU  competence.  The  CFP  Regulation  provides  that  measures  can  be  decided  by 
individual  Member  States  where  only  the  fisheries  of  that  Member  State  are  affected 
and provided that they are at least as stringent as the measures in EU law.  

The  Regulation  serves,  amongst  others,  to  contribute  to  the  environmental  legislation, 
including  the  protection  of  marine  habitats  (Sections  2.2  and  2.3).  The  Regulation 
provides for protection of sensitive habitats  by specifying a set  of areas where  certain 
kinds of fishing gear are prohibited (Article 12) and by providing for those measures to 
be adapted or amended through regionalisation.  

2.2. 

 Sensitive Species 

2.2.1.  State of knowledge   

While it is well documented that there are shortcomings in the monitoring of incidental 
catches of sensitive species and impacts on sensitive habitats there are several reliable 
sources  of  information  indicating  areas  of  serious  conservation  concern  and  possible 
applicable mitigation measures.  

31 Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/967 of 3 July 2020 laying down the detailed rules on 
the signal and implementation characteristics of acoustic deterrent devices as referred to in Part A of 
Annex XIII of Regulation (EU) 2019/1241 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the 
conservation of fisheries resources and the protection of marine ecosystems through technical measures. 
C/2020/4348. OJ L 213, 6.7.2020, p. 4–6 

14 

 
                                                 
 
STECF-2020-02  (as  updated 
in  STECF-PLEN-21-01)  provides  an  up-to-date 
compendium of knowledge on marine environmental issues in relation to fishing and is 
the basis for the Commission’s assessment of this topic. Highlights from that report are 
presented here, supplemented with some detail from additional sources. 

While substantial knowledge exists about the threats, impacts and interactions of fishing 
gear  and  ecosystems,  the  available  information  on  incidental  catches  of  marine 
mammals,  seabirds,  reptiles  and  non-commercial  fish  species  in  EU  fisheries  is  not 
sufficient  to  calculate  reliable  mortality  estimates  for  a  large  number  of  susceptible 
species32 . For example,  Member States did  not  report any  estimates of incidental  by-
catches  of  cetaceans  by  vessels  under  15m  despite  a  requirement  to  do  so  in  the 
Cetaceans  Regulation33  and  despite  analysis  from  ICES  indicating  that  increased 
sampling  was  required  on  smaller  vessels34.  In  their  reporting  to  ICES  in  2020 
(WGBYC 2020), 6 Member States did not report any observation scheme for sensitive 
species  outside  the  Data  Collection  Framework  (‘DCF’),  whereas  5  others  reported 
having dedicated sampling schemes. For one Member State the distinction between the 
two types of observation was unclear. 

However,  there  are  also  reports  from  Member  States,  scientific  studies  of  a  local  or 
short-term nature and reports of time-limited projects in certain specific areas.  

Monitoring  of  incidental  catches  of  sensitive  species  is  required  under  Annex  XIII 
points  1  to  4  of  the  Regulation.  Current  advice  from  ICES  and  STECF  is  that  such 
monitoring needs to be targeted at those fisheries most likely to make such catches and 
requires  the  deployment  of  observers  trained  for  this  task  and  specifically  assigned  to 
this  task  alone  (at  least  for  defined  periods),  or  the  deployment  of  closed  circuit 
television  (‘CCTV’)  or  remote  electronic  monitoring  (‘REM’)  tools  designed  for  this 
purpose.  However,  many  Member  States  rely  on  incidental  reporting  from  observers 
dedicated  to  sampling  commercial  fish  catches  and  discards.  This  entails  several 
disadvantages.  

Observers  assigned  to  fish  sampling  and  fish  measurement  may  miss  incidental  catch 
events  as  sensitive  species  may  not  be  brought  on  deck  with  other  catches.  It  is  not 
possible to adjust observed by-catch rates for these unknown losses.  

Commercial  fish  observers  may  lack  the  necessary  skills  to  identify  sensitive  species, 
which by their nature can be rare observations.  

Incidental catches may not take place in fisheries taking the largest amounts of fish, and 
so  may  be  under-sampled  in  schemes  designed  to  concentrate  on  commercial  fish 
catches.  

CCTV/REM trials have been carried out by 3 Member States even on smaller vessels. 
Further trials are being started by two other Member States. These show that monitoring 
incidental catches even on smaller vessels is practical and feasible.  

32 STECF-2020-02, p. 179 

33 STECF 19-07 report p. 30 

34 Reports of the ICES working Group on Bycatches of protected species, 2013 to 2020. 

15 

 
                                                 
The marine species in EU waters which are most threatened by incidental bycatch are 
generally those species which are so large-bodied that even in their juvenile stages they 
are easily caught by fishing gear designed to catch the adult stages of common demersal 
fish.  This  includes  the  angel  sharks  (Squatina  spp.),  spiny  butterfly  rays  (Gymnura 
altavela),  skate  (including  Dipturus  batis  and  D.  flossada),  and  manta  rays  (Mobula 
spp.). Also at risk are species that live in the very low energy environment of the deep 
sea  and  therefore  grow  very  slowly  and  produce  few  offspring.  In  addition,  some 
whales, seals, dolphins,  porpoises, turtles and seabirds are threatened by  entanglement 
in fishing gear.  

Some of these species have become functionally extinct where once they were common 
in EU seas. 

STECF  PLEN  20-03  also  notes  that,  as  reported  by  the  EWG,  although  by-catch 
mortality  of  sensitive  species  is  likely  to  have  decreased  in  Atlantic  waters  (including 
Baltic Sea) due to a decrease in fishing pressure (a general reduction in fishing mortality 
rates),  this  does  not  necessarily  relate  to  changes  in  technical  measures.  In  the 
Mediterranean no such effort reduction has been observed. 

STECF  further  notes  that  estimating  by-catch  thresholds  is  not  straightforward  and 
estimates rely on several aspects including i) the conservation objectives and targets for 
the sensitive populations, ii) the timescale over which such objectives and targets are to 
be met and iii) available estimates of population size. 

The report EWG 2020-02 lists sensitive species that are impacted by fisheries, identifies 
problematic  fisheries  and  provides  a  preliminary  assessment  whether  by-catch  rates 
have  changed  over  time.  Nevertheless,  significant  knowledge  gaps  remain,  notably  in 
reliable population estimates for many species and areas. 

A  semi-quantitative  analysis  of  the  impacts  of  fishing  gears  on  different  groups  of 
sensitive species has been prepared by STECF. 

Table  3.1..  Identified  risk  (by  expert  opinion)  for  species  groups  by  each  fishing  gear.  1:  low  risk,  2: 
medium risk, 3: high risk. From STECF EWG 2020-02. 

16 

 
STECF  EWG  2020-02  provides  a  direction  for  future  work,  including  among  others, 
measures  such  as  an  increase  in  monitoring  (métiers,  spatial  and  temporal  coverage), 
species identification, abundance estimation and thresholds. 

Despite  these  deficiencies  in  national  sampling  programmes  and  the  absence  of 
quantitative  analysis,  a  variety  of  historical  studies  provide  compelling  evidence  that 
certain species, once abundant or common in European seas, are critically endangered 
and  are  now  rare,  absent  or  extirpated.  Such  information  has  been  reviewed  and 
compiled in the EU red list, the most relevant elements of which are summarised below 
and in the regional chapters. 

Concerning  seabirds,  in  2019  the  European  Commission  invited  Member  States  to 
review their actions undertaken under this plan to address the concerns and improve the 
implementation (Appendix I). Only ten Member States replied. These replies and other 
scientific  reports  (see  review  in  STECF-20-02)  indicate  that  knowledge  remains  poor 
due to lack of targeted monitoring of these incidental catches, even though a number of 
short-term  studies  indicate  that  large  numbers  are  caught  in  longline  fisheries  and  in 
static  net  fisheries,  particularly  in  the  Baltic  Sea  (e.g.  Žydelis  et  al.  (2009)    estimated 
100  000  to  200  000  seabird  deaths  per  year  in  the  North  Sea  and  Baltic  Seas,  and 
Žydelis et al.(2013) estimated 72 000 deaths per year in the Baltic Sea alone35). Known 

35 Žydelis, R., J. Bellebaum, H.Osterblom, M. Veternaa, B. Schirmeister, A. Stipniece, M. Dagys, M. van 
Eerden  and  S.  Garther  (2009).  Bycatch  in  gillnet  fisheries-  An  overlooked  threat  to  waterbird 
populations. Biological Conservation 142(7): 1269-1281 

Žydelis, R., C. Small, and G. French (2013). The incidental catch of seabirds in gillnet fisheries: a global 

reviex. Biological Conservation 162(2013) 76-88 

17 

 
 
                                                 
mitigation measures exist for longlines but the Commission has not received reports that 
they  are  being  implemented.  STECF-20-02  reports  that  the  use  of  bird-scaring  “tori” 
lines is mandatory in longline fisheries in Spanish national law but no data on such use 
has been provided. Despite a number of trials to reduce incidental catches in static net 
fisheries  in  the  Baltic  Sea,  no  technical  gear-based  solution  has  yet  been  found. 
However, seasonal  closures of fishing in  areas and periods of  high seabird abundance 
have shown success in reducing incidental catches.  

2.2.2.  Baltic Sea 

The  Baltic  Sea  population  of  the  harbour  porpoise  (Phocoena  phocoena),  the  only 
cetacean species to occur regularly in the Baltic Sea, has declined greatly in the past 50–
100 years. With the most recent estimation at around 500 individuals, this population is 
critically endangered. Static-net fisheries in particular create a risk of incidental catches 
that threaten the survival of this population. ICES36 has recommended a set of measures 
to  mitigate  incidental  catches,  including  the  use  of  ADDs  and  closed  areas  to  prevent 
fishing  in  areas  of  high  harbour  porpoise  abundance.  The  Commission  and  Member 
States are currently examining the implementation of those measures.  

It is also required to use ADDs on static nets in sub-division 24 and a sea area near the 
south  coast  of  Sweden  in  order  to  mitigate  harbour  porpoise  by-catches  (Annex  XIII 
Part A of the Regulation).  

The need for more permanent  fisheries closures for sensitive species in  the Baltic and 
more  specifically  for  harbour  porpoise  areas  was  also  raised  by  a  large  number  of 
stakeholders in  the online consultation,  who see  these measures as important tools for 
protection of sensitive species.   

Important  incidental  catches  of  diving  ducks  occur  in  the  shallow-water  static-net 
fisheries of the Baltic Sea and declining population trends have been reported. ICES has 
also  advised  that  diving  waterbirds  are  especially  vulnerable  to  being  entangled  in 
gillnets and other types of static nets. Drowning in fishing gear is a significant source of 
anthropogenic  mortality  for  long-tailed  duck  (Clangula  hyemalis),  scoters  (Melanitta 
spp.), divers (Gavia spp.), and some other waterbirds, especially in wintering areas with 
high  densities  of  waterbirds.  Work  on  technical  mitigation  measures  to  scare  ducks 
away  from  static  nets  has  not  yet  found  a  working  solution  and  so  needs  to  be 
continued. In the absence of a technological solution, the use of closed areas to prevent 
fishing with static gear in the main feeding seasons and grounds for the waterbirds has 
proven  a  useful  solution.  More  survey  work  to  identify  the  right  areas  and  times  for 
such  closures  is  needed,  as  well  as  more  consultation  and  extension  work  with  the 
fishing sector. 

The Baltic Sea is also an important habitat for two particularly sensitive fish species, the 
European eel (Anguilla anguilla) (on its migration out to the Atlantic) and the sturgeons 
(Acipenseridae)  an  iconic  brackish-water  fish.  Sturgeons  became  regionally  extinct  in 
the 1950s but efforts are being made to reintroduce them (HELCOM, 201937). ICES has 

36 https://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2020/Special_Requests/eu.2020.04.pdf 

37  HELCOM/Gessner  et  al.  (2019).  HELCOM  Action  Plan  for  the  protection  and  recovery  of  Baltic 
sturgeon  Acipenser  oxyrinchus  oxyrinchus  in  the  Baltic  Sea  area.  Baltic  Sea  Environment 
Proceedings n°168 

18 

 
                                                 
advised that all anthropogenic impacts on eels should be reduced to as close to zero as 
possible to conserve this critically endangered species. It is prohibited to retain on board 
any  eel  caught  with  active  gear  in  the  Baltic  Sea  (Annex  VIII  Part  C  point  6  of  the 
Regulation)  and  when  accidentally  caught,  eel  shall  not  be  harmed  and  shall  be 
promptly released. 

As  noted  in  the  ICES  Fisheries  Overviews  for  the  Baltic  Sea  Ecoregion  issued  in 
202038, abandoned, lost, or otherwise discarded fishing gear (ALDFG) are an unsolved 
and  “silent”  problem.  Such  gear  may  continuously  catch  fish,  birds,  and  marine 
mammals  for  a  long  time.  It  was  estimated  that  0.1%  of  nets  are  lost  annually  in  the 
Swedish  Baltic  Sea  gillnet  fishery.  The  impact  on  the  environment  is  not  quantified. 
However,  there  is  information  that  fishing  pressure  exerted  by  lost  static  nets  could 
range from 20% of its usual net capacity after three months, down to a maximum of 6% 
after two years. 

Including designated Natura 2000 areas, the Baltic Sea basin is one of the basins with 
the widest coverage of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs). According to the Baltic Marine 
Environment  Protection  Commission  –  Helsinki  Commission  (HELCOM),  there  are 
176  HELCOM  MPAs,  covering  49  016  km²  of  marine  surface,  which  is  roughly 
equivalent to 11.8% of the Baltic Sea marine area. 

The  area  restricted  for  fisheries  in  point  1  of  Part  C  of  Annex  VIII  to  the  Regulation 
contains  all-year  closure  for  towed  gear  to  fish  in  the  “Oderbank  plateau”  in  order  to 
protect spawning turbot and juvenile flatfish nurseries. This was introduced in 1991.  

The closure mentioned in point 4.1 cover parts of the historic main eastern Baltic cod 
spawning  areas  (parts  of  the  Bornholm,  Gdansk  and  Gotland  Deeps)  during  the  main 
spawning period (May to October).  

Disturbance and abrasion of seabed habitats by mobile bottom-contacting fishing gears 
occurs  mostly  in  the  southern  Baltic  Sea  (see  Figure  11  of  the  ICES  Ecosystem 
Overview for the Baltic Sea) and may reduce benthic diversity and biomass. Abrasion 
may  affect  the  surface  (top  2  cm  of  sediments)  or  the  subsurface  (>  2  cm).  Little  is 
known about the sensitivity of different Baltic Sea organisms and communities to these 
fishery-induced  impacts.  From  neighbouring  regions,  such  as  the  North  Sea  and 
Kattegat,  it  is  known  that  frequent  disturbance  by  bottom  trawls  reduces  benthic 
diversity  and  biomass  and  changes  the  composition  of  benthic  species.  Some  of  the 
trawled  parts  of  the  Baltic  Sea  are  also  affected  by  low  oxygen  concentrations  at  the 
seabed (Figure 15). 

2.2.3.  North Sea  

In the North Sea, OSPAR (Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of 
the  North-East  Atlantic)  has  identified  several  species  of  seabirds  as  being  in  low 
conservation  status,  but  knowledge  about  the  state  of  these  populations  is  generally 
poor. Overall, there is a significant need to improve the protection of these species. This 
will require investment in existing and new approaches to monitoring and mitigation of 
by-catches. 

38 ICES Fisheries Overviews - Baltic Sea Ecoregion – Fisheries overview 

19 

 
                                                 
Seabirds  on  the  north-east  coast  of  the  UK  depend  for  their  feed  during  the  breeding 
season  on  banks  of  juvenile  sandeel  (Ammodytes  spp.)  distributed  near  the  UK  coast. 
The breeding success of these seabirds, and notably of kittiwakes (Rissa tridactyla) was 
shown to depend on the average annual abundance of sandeels near the coast. In order 
to safeguard the breeding success of these birds, the fishing of sandeels in the relevant 
area and time period was prohibited (Annex V Part C point 1 of the Regulation). 

Fishing for deep-water sharks is prohibited in areas of the North Sea deeper than 600m 
(Annex V Part C point 6.2 of the Regulation).   

It is required to use ADDs on static nets in the North Sea and Skagerrak from 1 August 
to  31  October,  for  nets  shorter  than  400m  or  using  meshes  over  220mm  in  order  to 
mitigate harbour porpoise by-catches (Annex XIII Part A of the Regulation). 

The  North  Sea  is  a  former  habitat  for  a  number  of  large  fish  species  that  were  once 
widely distributed and abundant but which are now critically endangered, extirpated or 
found  in  very  low  abundance  in  the  North  Sea,  notably  sturgeons,  tope  (Galeorhinus 
galeus), skates and angel sharks.  

In  historical  times,  the  large  whale  populations  of  the  North  Sea  were  depleted  or 
extirpated  by  hunting.  Whilst  the  impact  of  these  removals  on  the  ecosystem 
functioning  is  not  clearly  understood,  it  should  be  assumed  that  the  North  Sea 
ecosystem is currently in a perturbed state. While the presence of large whales remains 
scarce, such whales are frequently reported as entangled or in contact with fishing gear, 
notably buoy ropes of creels and pots. Such events are likely to present a barrier to these 
species re-establishing themselves in this habitat.  

The  seabird  population  showed  an  overall  increasing  trend  until  2000,  after  which  it 
declined.  Recent  changes  in  fisheries  management  policy  (e.g.  reduction  in  effort  and 
the landing obligation) will likely affect seabirds as well as other parts of the ecosystem.  

There have been few significant changes in the cetacean populations of the North Sea. 
The centre of distribution of the harbour porpoise population  moved southwards from 
off the east of Scotland to the southern North Sea between the mid-1990s and the mid-
2000s.  Bycatch  in  bottom-set  gillnets  is  probably  the  greatest  anthropogenic  activity 
affecting population abundance of harbour porpoises in the North Sea, but the status of 
this species, either in the North Sea or in the Kattegat, is not of immediate concern. 

The  abundance  of  grey  seals  (Halichoerus  grypus)  has  been  increasing  for  at  least  30 
years. 

In  2017,  18%  of  the  North  Sea  region  was  covered  by  MPAs.  But  the  key  challenge 
remains that for a number of MPAs, fisheries management measures are still pending. 

2.2.4.  North-western waters  

The abundance of breeding seabirds has shown a broad downward trend since the early 
2000s. Populations of grey seals have also been increasing in this area over at least the 

20 

 
past thirty years, though the populations are becoming more stable now. Trends in the 
abundances of cetaceans and harbour seals are not known39. 

Annual  incidental  catches  of  common  dolphins  (Delphinus  delphis)  and  other  dolphin 
species are frequently taken in winter fisheries in the Bay of Biscay and adjacent seas, 
up to some 8 500 individuals per year. ICES has advised on measures to reduce these, 
and their recommendations are being examined by the Commission and Member States.  

Fisheries  with  high  risk  of  cetacean  bycatch  in  the  Celtic  Sea  are  bottom  set-nets 
(bycatch of harbour porpoises) and pelagic trawls,  particularly those for  bass  (bycatch 
of  common  dolphin).  Modelling  indicates  that  it  is  likely  that  the  bycatch  of  harbour 
porpoises  in  gillnets  on  the  Celtic  shelf  has  affected  population  abundance  at  least  in 
some  past  periods.  Bycatch  in  both  fisheries  may  have  reduced  in  recent  years  due  to 
less fishing activity and the use of ADDs on static nets, as required in areas 7 d,e,f,g,h 
and j (Annex XIII Part A of the Regulation). 

Longline  fisheries  pose  the  greatest  threat  to  seabirds  offshore,  while  inshore  net 
fisheries  may  catch  diving  species.  Largescale  bycatch  of  great  shearwaters  Puffinus 
gravis has been reported from the hake longline fishery on the Great Sole fishing bank, 
and based on information from elsewhere, longline fisheries in waters west of Scotland 
would likely catch northern fulmars Fulmarus glacialis. Knowledge of catches is poor 
due to incomplete reporting but estimates of mortalities of the order of 200 000 per year 
have been reported.   

One  seabird  species 
mauretanicus), three are endangered and three are vulnerable. 

is  critically  endangered 

(Balearic  shearwater,  Puffinus 

Several fish species have been depleted by fishing in the past and are now threatened or 
declining  species,  including  spurdog  (Squalus  acanthias),  the  common  skate,  angel 
shark,  porbeagle  (Lamna  nasus),  mostly  caught  in  static  nets  and  some  deep-water 
sharks. Although there are zero TACs or prohibited listings for these species, several of 
them remain vulnerable to  existing fisheries. Spurdog and the common skate complex 
are caught as bycatch in mixed demersal trawl fisheries and gillnet fisheries, and deep-
water sharks are caught in the mixed deep-water trawl fishery. 

A number of protected areas have been put in place where the use of bottom-contacting 
fishing  gear  has  been  prohibited  in  order  to  protect  sensitive  demersal  and  benthic 
habitats  (Annex  II  Part  A  of  the  Regulation):  the  Belgica  Mound,  Hovland  Mound 
Province,  northwest  Porcupine  Bank  (two  areas),  southwest  Porcupine  bank,  and  the 
Darwin Mounds.  

2.2.5.  South-western waters 

ICES  (2019)40  reported  that  the  Portuguese  fleet  using  static  gear  (longlines  and 
gillnets) captured 3639 cetaceans per  year (13.24% of the harbour porpoises 7.34% of 
the  common  dolphins  and  5.10%  of  the  bottlenose  dolphins  (Tursiops  truncatus) 
respectively  over  the  period  2010-2015).  These  values  are  well  in  excess  of  simple 

39 https://www.ices.dk/advice/ESD/Pages/Celtic-Seas_description.aspx 
40  P.  42  of  ICES  (2019).  Report  of  the  working  group  on  marine  mammal  ecology.  ICES  Scientific 

Reports 1(22). 

21 

 
                                                 
markers  of  sustainability  (STECF-19-07).  Beach-seine  fisheries  removed  1.4%  of  the 
harbour  porpoise  population.  Purse  seine  fleets,  bottom  trawlers,  deep-sea  longliners 
fisheries  also  caught  cetaceans  but  in  smaller  numbers.  These  results  were  obtained 
from the LIFE+ MarPro project41.  

In recent years, the very high numbers of common dolphin incidental catch in fisheries 
in  the Bay of  Biscay are a cause for concern. Such catches of common dolphins have 
been  recorded  in  several  fisheries  off  France,  Spain,  and  Portugal.  The  mean  annual 
bycatch  of  common  dolphin  across  all  métiers  for  the  period  2016–2018  amounted  to 
3973 individuals. Trammel nets account for the largest bycatch.  

Interactions also occur with gears such as set-net, pelagic trawls, and bottom trawls. It 
was estimated from stranded common dolphin along the French coastlines of the Bay of 
Biscay and the western English Channel that bycatch mortality of the species was 5800–
17  900  individuals  in  2017  and  3400–10  500  individuals  in  2018.  The  available 
incidental  catch  mortality  estimates  for  common  dolphin  in  the  Northeast  Atlantic 
(based on at-sea monitoring and on stranded animals) are either close to or exceed the 
potential biological removal (PBR) threshold (4927 individuals per year).  

The  winter  distribution  of  the  critically  endangered  Balearic  shearwater  (Puffinus 
mauretanicus) extends from Gibraltar to the Celtic Seas and is vulnerable to incidental 
catching in longline fisheries. In addition, several other seabird species have declined in 
abundance.  Kittiwake and Iberian guillemot  Uria aalge ibericus breeding populations 
are  locally  extinct.  Coastal  driftnets  may  have  contributed  to  the  loss  of  other  seabird 
species in areas such as central and northwestern Portugal. Species affected by fishing 
also  include  Cory ́s  shearwater  (Calonectris  borealis),  and  Northern  gannet  (Morus 
bassanus).  The  European  shag  (Phalacrocorax  aristotelis)  is  also  widely  affected, 
particularly by gillnets, in northwest Spain. The mean seabird bycatch in bottom trawl, 
demersal  longline,  purse-seine,  beach  seine,  set-net,  and  trap  fisheries  along  the 
mainland Portuguese coast was estimated at 0.05 individuals per fishing event.42 

Observer programmes in Azorean fisheries have found few or no seabirds as bycatches. 
However, data on the incidental catch of seabirds are lacking for fisheries that use pole 
and  line.  There  are  negligible  effects  on  marine  mammals  from  Azorean  fisheries, 
although  interactions  have  been  reported.  Pelagic  sharks,  toothed  whales,  and 
cephalopods were identified as potential keystone species, highlighting their importance 
in  the  ecosystem  structure.  Angel  shark,  also  critically  endangered,  are  widely 
extirpated  in  EU  waters  but  remaining  populations  exist  in  the  Celtic  Sea  as  well  as 
around  the  Canary  Islands.  In  addition,  sturgeons  European  eel,  gulper  shark 
(Centrophorus granulosus), skates and rays (the common skate complex, thornback ray 
(Raja  montagui),  and  white  skate  (Rostroraja  alba)),  spurdog,  and  salmon  (Salmo 
salar) have been adversely affected by fishing43.  

Common  skate  and  spurdog  are  caught  as  bycatch  in  demersal  trawl  fisheries,  while 
deep-water sharks are caught in the mixed deep-water fishery. Bottom trawls and static 

41 Vingada, J. and Eira, C. 2018. Conservation of cetaceans and seabirds in continental Portugal. Report 

of Project LIFE+ MarPro NAT/PT/00038 

42 ICES Bay of Biscay and Iberian coast ecoregion overview, 10 December 2020 

43 ICES Ecosystem Overview for the Azores ecoregion  

22 

 
                                                 
nets are responsible for bycatch of skate, small-eyed ray (Raja microocellata), sandy ray 
(Leucoraja circularis), undulate ray (Raja undulata), and spurdog, while bluntnose six-
gilled shark (Hexanchus griseus) and basking shark (Cetorhinus maximus) only occur in 
static nets.  

Deep-water  sharks  are  taken  as  bycatch  in  the  bottom  longline  fishery  and  drifting 
longline fishery, accounting for a respective 4.9% and 15.2% of the total catch of those 
fisheries.  Many  of  those  species  are  under  fishing  prohibition  under  EU  regulations 
(Regulation (EU) 2021/9144), and several are listed as threatened under the IUCN Red 
List of Threatened species. The Regulation  includes prohibitions  on deep-sea trawling 
and  gillnetting  though  not  on  longlining.  In  the  pelagic  longline  fisheries  in  which  an 
important part of the catch is composed by blue sharks (Prionace glauca) which can be 
the  target  species,  and  to  a  lesser  extent  shortfin  mako  (Isurus  oxyrinchus)  which 
remains  a  less  abundant  bycatch,  catches  can  also  occasionally  include  species  under 
fishing  prohibition  such  as  bigeye  thresher  (Alopias  superciliosus)  and  smooth 
hammerhead  sharks  (Sphyrna  zygaena),  as  well  as  the  protected  loggerhead  turtle 
(Caretta caretta). 

2.2.6.  Mediterranean and Black Seas  

The  population  of  monk  seal  (Monachus  monachus)  has  been  very  heavily  depleted. 
Once  a  very  common  animal,  it  is  now  critically  endangered  and  very  restricted  in 
distribution. It is subject to entanglement in static fishing gear and has been reported to 
be subject to illegal directed killing. It is also vulnerable to loss of its breeding sites on 
touristic beaches. In 2009, it was estimated that only some 250 individuals remained in 
the Mediterranean Sea, from a single breeding population. This is the most threatened 
seal species in the world. 

Green  turtle  (Chelonia  mydas)  is  endangered  worldwide  and  is  present  in  the  eastern 
Mediterranean  where  it  requires  protection,  notably  around  Cyprus  and  Turkey  and 
some  islands  in  the  Cretan  Sea.  In  contrast  the  population  of  loggerhead  turtle  in  the 
Mediterranean is of least concern. 

The  breeding  sites  of  Balearic  shearwater  are  limited  to  the  islands  of  the  Balearic 
group,  but  these  shearwaters  spread  out  widely  in  the  Mediterranean  and  Atlantic  to 
feed  during  the  winter  months.  They  are  also  critically  endangered  and  are  subject  to 
incidental catches in longline fisheries as well as vulnerable to capture in static nets both 
in the western Mediterranean and in the eastern Atlantic Ocean. 

Harbour  porpoise  in  the  Black  Sea  is  reported  to  experience  incidental  catches  at  an 
unsustainable rate (~208 individuals/year or 2.6% of the population). These incidental-
catches occur in coastal gill-net fisheries. 

Entanglement  of  sperm  whales  (Physeter  microcephalus)  has  been  reported  as  a 
problem,  particularly  in  the  Ligurian  Sea  which  is  problematic  for  this  vulnerable 
species. 

44 Council Regulation (EU) 2021/91 of 28 January 2021 fixing, for the years 2021 and 2022, the fishing 
opportunities for Union fishing vessels for certain deep-sea fish stocks, OJ L 31, 29.1.2021, p. 20–30  

23 

 
                                                 
 
A separate population  of blue shark exists in the  Mediterranean but  its abundance has 
declined by ~78–90% over the past 30 years45.  

Maltese  skate  (Leucoraja  melitensis)  is  an  endemic  Mediterranean  species  that  is 
critically  endangered.  It  used  to  be  distributed  over  one-quarter  of  the  Mediterranean 
Sea but is now restricted to the Sicilian channel around Malta, where it is threatened by 
intensive  demersal  fisheries  in  that  area,  in  which  it  is  taken  as  incidental  by-catch.  
Two species of guitarfish, are also endangered and are vulnerable to catches particularly 
in  bottom  trawls.  The  kitefin  shark  (Dalatias  licha),  the  sandy  ray  (Leucoraja 
circularis), and the gulper shark (Centrophorus granulosus) are all by-caught in bottom 
trawlers (Table 12 in ICES, 2019b). 

Spiny  butterfly  ray  and  large-bodied  rays  and  sharks  are  critically  endangered  in  the 
Mediterranean  Sea,  as  elsewhere  in  their  oceanic  and  coastal  distributions,  e.g.  Angel 
shark, Manta rays, white shark (Carcharodon carcharias). 

STECF PLEN-19-03 notes that in the Mediterranean Sea in particular, the status of the 
elasmobranchs is of particular concern since many sharks populations are considered to 
be severely depleted, and that new efforts are required for shark conservation. STECF 
EWG 19-07 considers that the regional management  plan, including regional  fisheries 
organisation  i.e.  GFCM,  would  offer  management  and  conservation  opportunities  for 
shared stocks, migratory species and species of highest conservation concern.  

2.2.7.  Macaronesia 

Local  impacts  on  marine  mammals  and  seabirds  are  now  believed  to  be  low,  and  in 
consequence  these  island  groups  may  serve  as  refuges  for  widely-distributed  species 
that  are  generally  depleted,  such  as  angel  shark.  A  colony  of  some  30  monk  seal 
individuals  inhabits  Ilhas  desertas  in  the  Madeira  group.  Several  species  of  whale 
including  the  endangered  blue  whale  (Balaenoptera  musculus),  the  loggerhead  and 
leatherback turtles  and  many species not  found  elsewhere may be more  common near 
these island groups. 

There are many species of deep-water sharks, some of which (e.g. Portuguese dogfish 
and  leaf-scale  gulper  shark)  are  severely  depleted.  Amongst  the  pelagic  shark  species 
occurring in the ecoregion, three are considered more vulnerable to fishing: blue shark 
(Prionace  glauca),  shortfin  mako  (Isurus  oxyrinchus),  and  porbeagle  (Lamna  nasus). 
Porbeagle  is  considered  to  be  severely  depleted  and  the  stock  of  northern  mako  is 
considered overfished and subject of overfishing. Discussions are ongoing in ICCAT to 
adopt conservation measures aiming to rebuild the stock. On the other hand, the stocks 
of  northern  and  southern  Atlantic  blue  sharks  are  sustainably  exploited  and  managed 
under  a  TAC  in  ICCAT.  This  TAC  for  northern  blue  sharks  has  been  allocated  to  a 
limited number of fishing countries. 

The  main  fishing  gears  used  are  pelagic  gears  including  purse  seine  and  pelagic 
longlining. Deep-sea longlining has been important and has contributed to the depletion 
of deep-sea sharks around the islands. 

45 From IUCN assessment information: https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/39381/16553182#assessment-

information  

24 

 
                                                 
2.2.8.  Widely distributed species  

Certain  widely  distributed  and  critically  endangered  species  are  faced  with  common 
pressures  across  different  sea  areas.  The  following  critically  endangered  widely 
distributed species have been identified. Further detail is addressed also in the following 
regional chapters.  

2.2.8.1.Cetaceans 

Five species of cetaceans are listed as critically endangered, endangered or vulnerable: 
North  Atlantic  right  whale,  Eubalaena  glacialis  (critically  endangered),  sei  whale 
Balaenoptera borealis, blue whale, harbour porpoise and sperm whale. STECF 2020-02 
notes that insufficient information on incidental catches exists.  

2.2.8.2.Turtles 

Hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) is critically endangered and has a worldwide 
distribution  in  tropical  and  warm  temperate  seas.  Kemp’s  Ridley  turtle  (Lepidochelys 
kempii) is also critically endangered.  

Leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) is globally vulnerable and has a distribution 
that extends to the European Atlantic coast from Gibraltar to the north of Ireland and the 
Mediterranean  Sea.  Green  turtle  (Chelonia  mydas)  has  a  similar  distribution  and  is 
endangered. 

Loggerhead  turtle  is  also  widely  distributed  and  endangered  along  the  European 
Atlantic coastline but  is  classed as “least  concern” in  the Mediterranean  Sea. None of 
these turtles are distributed in the Black Sea. Green turtle are classed as endangered on 
the EU Atlantic coastline due to various anthropogenic impacts including fishing. 

Various threats affect turtles: loss of breeding beaches due to tourism, taking of eggs or 
adult  turtles  for  food,  incidental  catches  in  longline  and  gill-net  fisheries.  STECF  has 
advised  that  current  monitoring  does  not  provide  enough  information  on  sea  turtle 
populations and conservation. 

2.2.8.3.Migratory pelagic species 

Several large pelagic sharks are critically endangered, the main threats being incidental 
catches in pelagic longline fisheries mostly targeting tuna. 

White shark is distributed along the European Atlantic façade from the Bay of Biscay to 
Gibraltar as well as around the Macaronesian Islands. A genetically distinct population 
exists  in  the  Mediterranean  Sea,  especially  in  the  Adriatic  and  Aegean  Seas  and  the 
strait  of  Sicily.  Targeted  killing  by  fishers  has  been  reported  as  this  species  preys  on 
bluefin tuna. Habitat degradation may have also reduced the abundance of another prey, 
the monk seal. 

Porbeagle  are  distributed  from  Greenland  to  Morocco  but  appear  to  have  been 
extirpated from the Mediterranean Sea. Targeted fisheries have ceased and this is now a 
protected species in EU fisheries law, but incidental catches occur in fisheries for large 
pelagic fish using longlines (and previously driftnets). 

25 

 
2.2.8.4.Coastal species 

A  second  group  of  more  sedentary,  inshore  and  coastal  species  that  are  also  critically 
threatened  include  the  sand  tiger  or  grey  nurse  shark  (Carcharias  taurus)  and  the 
smalltooth sand tiger shark (Odontaspis ferox).   

Sand  tiger  shark  are  slow-moving,  slow-growing  and  late-maturing  sharks  with  a  low 
reproductive  rate  (1  or  2  pups  every  2  years)  and  therefore  very  vulnerable.  They  are 
distributed around the Canary Islands but now are extremely rare in the Mediterranean 
Sea  and  may  even  be  extirpated  from  that  area.  Key  pressures  include  a  variety  of 
anthropogenic  disturbances  including  coastal  fishing.  Smalltooth  sand  tiger  shark  is  a 
similar species, distributed from the Bay of Biscay to the Azores and the Mediterranean 
seas.  It  too  is  critically  threatened  by  incidental  catches,  particularly  in  gillnets  and 
longlines set at night over rocky bottoms in depths over 300m. 

Spiny butterfly  ray (Gymnura altavela) is  a large (up to  2m  or even 4m) ray that  was 
once locally abundant in the Mediterranean Sea and off the coasts of Portugal, Madeira 
and  the  Canary  Islands.  It  is  now  close  to  extinction  in  the  Mediterranean.  The  main 
threat to this species is bottom trawling where it is an incidental bycatch. 

Bull ray (Pteromylaeus bovinus) is another large (1.5 to 2.2m) ray distributed in coastal 
waters (shallower than 30m). In European waters its distribution extends from the Bay 
of Biscay to Madeira and the Mediterranean but  not the Black Sea. It too has become 
extremely rare in the Mediterranean though a breeding population is known to exist. Its 
decline is imputed to overfishing in the coastal zone with a variety of artisanal fishing 
gear. 

Two  species  of  sawfish  (Pristis  pectinata  and  Pristis  pristis)  are  widely  distributed  in 
warmer  European  waters.  They  were  previously  caught  in  targeted  fisheries,  but 
abundance is now very low, and information is scarce. Sawfish are easily entangled in 
fishing gear, especially static nets and this gear is considered a threat to them. These are 
now prohibited species in the Regulation. 

The  natural  distribution  of  common  skate  including  blue  skate  and  flapper  skate), 
another  very  large  skate,  extends  from  Iceland  to  the  Mediterranean  Sea,  but  is  now 
highly depleted and is  absent  from  much of that  range.  It  has now been  extirpated by 
fishing from most inshore and coastal areas though some remain on shelf breaks. It is 
threatened by multispecies trawl fisheries in which it is vulnerable due to its large size, 
even as a juvenile. White skate (Rostroraja alba) has a similar distribution and is also 
extirpated in many parts of its distribution. 

Three species of angel shark are critically endangered. S. squatina used to be common 
in  coastal  European  waters  throughout  the  northeast  Atlantic,  Mediterranean  and  the 
Black Sea, but is now close to extinction over most of its previous range and restricted 
to a small population around the Canary Islands. Sawback angel shark S. aculeata is an 
endemic  Mediterranean  species.  Once  an  important  fisheries  resource,  they  have  now 
declined to an extremely low level. 

26 

 
Like  the  skates  and  large  rays,  angel  sharks  are  threatened  by  multispecies  trawl  and 
static  net  fisheries  where  they  are  taken  as  incidental  catches  and  they  are  also  very 
vulnerable due to slow growth, late maturity, infrequent reproduction and small number 
of offspring. Because of the large body size even the youngest fish are caught in fishing 
gear. 

The abundance of gulper shark, distributed in deep waters of the Atlantic, has declined 
by  some  80  to  95%  due  to  fishing.  This  is  a  slow-growing  deep-water  species  that  is 
taken  as  incidental  catch  in  many  kinds  of  deep-sea  fisheries  (trawls,  static  nets, 
longlines  etc.).  Although  deep-sea  fishing  effort  has  declined,  such  incidental  catches 
are  still  of  concern.  Endangered  species  of  deepwater  sharks,  as  defined  under  the 
Council Regulation (EU) 2016/2285 (EU, 2016a) are widespread in incidental-catch in 
the  deep-water  bottom  trawls  in  subareas  6–9,  static  nets  in  Biscay  (Subarea  8),  and 
longlines in the Azores (Subdivision 10.a.2).  

In addition to these critically endangered cases, a further 22 fish species are classed as 
“endangered”:  Roundnose  grenadier  Coryphaenus  rupestris,  northern  wolf-fish 
Anarhichas  denticulatus,    dusky  grouper  Epinephelus  marginatus,    Tortonese’s  goby 
Pomatoschistus  tortonesei,  beaked  redfish  Sebastes  mentella,  oceanic  whitetip  shark 
Carcharhinus longimanus, sandbar shark Carcharinus plumbeus, bigeye thresher shark 
Alopias superciliosus, common thresher shark Alopias vulpinus, whale shark Cetorhinus 
maximus,  giant  devil  ray  Mobula  mobular,  sandy  ray  Leucoraja  circularis,  rough  ray 
Raja  radula,  blackchin  guitarfish  Glaucostegus  cemiculus,  common  guitarfish 
Rhinobatos rhinobatos, lowfin  gulper shark  Centrophorus  lusitanicus, leafscale  gulper 
shark Centrophorus squamosus, birdbeak dogfish Deania calcea, kitefin shark Dalatias 
licha,  bramble  shark    Echinorhinus  brucus,  portuguese  dogfish  Centroscymnus 
coelolepis and spurdog Squalus acanthias. 

2.2.8.5.Seabirds 

Particularly in North-western waters, three species of seabirds are near threatened (Little 
gull,  Larus  minutus,  horned  grebe,  Podiceps  auritus,  Fea’s  petrel,  Pterodroma  feae), 
three  are  listed  as  vulnerable  (common  loon,  Gavia  immer,  Leach’s  storm-petrel 
Hydrobates leucorhous,  Steller’s eider  Polysticta  stelleri), two are endangered  (white-
faced storm petrel, Pelagodroma marina, Zino’s petrel Pterodroma madeira) and one is 
critically  endangered  (Balearic  shearwater).  Of  the  six  red-listed  species  none  has  an 
assessment of either population size or of incidental catch mortality. 

2.3. 

 Sensitive habitats 

2.3.1.  State of knowledge  

Different  fishing  activities  are  appropriate  to  catching  different  species  of  commercial 
fish  and  can  be  appropriate  to  different  social  and  economic  situations.  For  example, 
bottom trawling, demersal seining and dredging is an appropriate method for the capture 
of demersal fish and benthic species such as Nephrops and scallops but also may cause 
disturbance  of  the  seabed,  sediment  and  benthic  species.  It  can  be  very  destructive  to 
certain hard habitats such as shellfish and coral beds, and to most sediment habitats. In 
contrast,  pelagic  and  demersal  gill  and  trammel  netting  has  much  less  seabed 
disturbance  effect,  but  may  cause  significant  incidental  catches  of  large  sharks, 
porpoises, dolphins, seabirds and marine turtles. Fisheries targeting pelagic species such 

27 

 
as  mackerel,  herring  and  sardine  have  much  lower  impacts  on  seabed  but  may  also 
cause incidental catches of seals, porpoises and dolphins and even whales. 

For this reason, consideration must be given when designing measures to protect seabed 
habitats from towed demersal gear that diverting fishing to alternative fishing methods 
or areas can have different but important environmental effects.  

The  Regulation  includes  measures  to  protect  sensitive  habitats  in  its  Article  12  and 
Annex II. Most of these were adopted over a decade ago and originate from decisions 
taken  in  OSPAR  or  on  a  national  basis  and  implemented  into  EU  fisheries  law 
thereafter.  The  main  focus  is  on  the  protection  of  complex  deep-water  seabed 
communities  such  as  deep-water  corals,  sponges  or  the  iconic  Darwin  Mounds.  A 
review and updating of the measures in a regionalised context is now appropriate in the 
light of the most recent information. 

The  EU  red-list  (Gubbay  et  al.,  2016)  covers  the  state  of  European  marine  habitats 
according  to  three  principal  categories.  “Data  deficient”  habitats  are  those  where 
insufficient  information  was  available  to  make  an  assessment.  “Green”  categories  are 
habitats  of  least  concern  or  near  threatened.  The  “Threatened”  category  is  subdivided 
into three: “Critically endangered”, “Endangered” and “Vulnerable”. The assessment of 
which category a habitat is placed depends on the overall trend (declining or stable), the 
current geographic distribution (restricted in occurrence or occupancy, or present in few 
locations), any reduction in biotic or abiotic quality, and an analysis of the probability 
of  collapse.  Extinctions  or  collapses  of  habitats  are  also  recorded.  European  marine 
habitats  were  examined  against  these  criteria  within  10km  x  10km  hydrographic  grid 
squares. Results are summarised in Table 2.4.2.1. 

Overall, 247 habitats  were assessed in  the EU-28 area, of which 19% were  classed in 
the three “threatened” categories. The highest proportion of threatened habitats was in 
the Mediterranean Sea (32%) followed by the Northeast Atlantic (23%), the Black Sea 
(13%) and the Baltic Sea (8%). An EU-27 analysis is not yet available. 

Knowledge  about  habitat  status  is  far  from  complete.  Knowledge  was  insufficient  to 
assess the state of 49% of habitats overall (5% in Baltic Sea, 60% in Northeast Atlantic, 
49% in the Mediterranean Sea and 83% in the Black Sea). Knowledge is therefore good 
in the Baltic Sea and very poor in the Black Sea, but also poor in the Mediterranean and 
North  east  Atlantic.  Outside  the  Baltic  Sea,  improved  knowledge  about  the  state  of 
habitats is clearly necessary in order to achieve nature protection objectives. 

Table 2.4.2.1. Overall EU red list categories for marine habitats in EU28. CR, critically 
endangered. EN, endangered. VU, vulnerable. NT, near threatened.  LC, least  concern. 
DD, data deficient. Source: Gubbay et al. 2016. 

28 

 
2.3.2.  Baltic Sea 

Of 61 habitats assessed, 8% were classed as threatened by Gubbay et al. (2016). These 
were habitats characterised by coarse or muddy sediments with a restricted geographical 
distribution  in  the  western  Baltic  Sea.  The  Baltic  marine  habitats  are  especially 
threatened by eutrophication due to nutrient enrichment, followed by sediment removal 
and disturbance of the seabed by demersal trawl fisheries. The following habitats were 
classed as endangered: 

 

Infaunal communities on infralittoral shell gravel 

  Sparse epibenthic communities of Baltic upper circalittoral muddy sediment 

And the vulnerable habitats were: 

 

 

Infaunal  communities  in  Baltic  upper  circalittoral  coarse  sediment  and  shell 
gravel dominated by bivalves 

Infaunal  communities  of  Baltic  upper  circalittoral  muddy  sediment  dominated 
by bivalves 

  Communities of Baltic lower circalittoral soft sediments (mud and sand) 

Fishing ranked as the  fourth most important  pressure on these habitats  after pollution, 
natural  system  modifications  and  climate  change.  Three  habitats  were  classed  as  data 
deficient: 

  Sparse or no macrocommunities on Baltic infralittoral shell gravel;  

 

 

 Epibenthic macrocommunity on Baltic infralittoral sand;  

 Infaunal communities in Baltic upper circalittoral mixed sediment 

2.3.3.  North Sea, north western waters and south-western waters 

The  extent,  magnitude,  and  impact  of  mobile  bottom-contacting  fishing  gear  on  the 
seabed  and  benthic  habitats  varies  geographically  across  the  North  Sea.  Using  vessel 
monitoring system (VMS) and logbook data ICES estimates that mobile bottom trawls 

29 

 
 
used  by  commercial  fisheries  in  the  12  m+  vessel  category  have  been  deployed  over 
approximately 490 185 km2 of the ecoregion in 2018, corresponding to  ca. 73.1 % of 
the  ecoregion’s  spatial  extent  (Figure  7  of  the  ICES  Ecosystem  Overview  for  Greater 
North Sea issued in 2020). 

The  extent,  magnitude,  and  impact  of  mobile  bottom-contacting  fishing  gear  on  the 
seabed  and  benthic  habitats  varies  geographically  across  the  Celtic  Seas.  Fishing  is 
concentrated along the shelf edge, i.e. around the southern shelf regions and on fishing 
grounds in the Irish Sea and to the west of Scotland but is widespread across the entire 
region where bottom fishing is permitted (i.e. less than 800m depth).  

According  to  the  Oslo  Paris  Convention  for  Protection  of  the  Marine  Environment  of 
the  North-East  Atlantic  (OSPAR),  5.9  %  of  the  Bay  of  Biscay  and  Iberian  Coast  are 
covered by MPAs, a percentage that is close to the European average.   

In the EU red-list, Gubbay et al. (2016) identified seagrass beds on Atlantic infralittoral 
sand as critically endangered habitats. In addition the following habitats were classed as 
endangered: 

  Polychaete/bivalve-dominated mid-estuarine Atlantic littoral mud 

  Polychaete/oligochaete-dominated upper estuarine Atlantic littoral mud 

  Marine Atlantic littoral mud with associated communities 

  Mussel beds in the Atlantic littoral zone 

  Atlantic upper circalittoral fine sand 

  Atlantic upper circalittoral muddy sand 

  Atlantic lower circalittoral sand 

  Atlantic upper circalittoral fine sandy mud 

  Atlantic upper circalittoral fine mud 

  Atlantic lower circalittoral mud 

The following habitats were classed as vulnerable: 

  Faunal communities in marine Atlantic infralittoral coarse sediment 

  Atlantic upper circalittoral coarse sediment 

  Atlantic lower circalittoral coarse sediment 

  Atlantic upper circalittoral mixed sediment 

  Atlantic lower circalittoral mixed sediment 

  Atlantic maerl beds 

30 

 
  Seagrass beds on Atlantic infralittoral sand (Macaronesian) 

The  threats  to  these  habitats  arise  from  various  pressures.  Fishing  is  an  important 
pressure in the circalittoral and infralittoral zones, but less so in the littoral and estuarine 
zones.  Pollution  is  an  important  pressure  on  the  littoral  and  infralittoral  habitats.  In 
general,  the  pressures  resulting  in  threats  to  marine  habitats  are  very  site-specific  and 
habitat-specific. 

2.3.4.  Mediterranean and Black Seas 

The assessment of marine habitats in the Mediterranean Sea was possible only for 51% 
of habitats, the remainder being data deficient. Fifteen out of 23 assessed habitats in EU 
waters were endangered (5) or vulnerable (10). No habitats were critically endangered. 

The endangered habitats are: 

  Communities of Mediterranean mediolittoral estuarine mud  

  Photophilic  communities  with  canopy-forming  algae 

in  Mediterranean 

infralittoral and upper circalittoral rock 

  Algal dominated communities in the Mediterranean infralittoral sediment 

 

 Mediterranean infralittoral mussel beds 

  Mediterranean infralittoral oyster beds 

And the vulnerable habitats: 

 

 Communities of Mediterranean mediolittoral sands  

  Communities of Mediterranean mediolittoral mud  

  Biogenic habitats of Mediterranean mediolittoral rock  

  Photophilic communities dominated by calcareous, habitat-forming algae  

  Communities of Mediterranean infralittoral estuarine rock  

  Communities of Mediterranean soft circalittoral rock  

  Communities of Mediterranean lower circalittoral sand  

  Communities of Mediterranean infralittoral estuarine mud   

  Communities of Mediterranean infralittoral muddy detritic bottoms  

  Posidonia beds in the Mediterranean infralittoral zone 

The principal pressures  on these habitats  are pollution, fishing, aquaculture, coastal 
urbanisation, climate change and invasive non-indigenous species. Eutrophication is 
a  problem  in  heavily  populated  coastal  regions  and  particularly  in  the  northern 
Adriatic. The infralittoral and circalittoral communities are partιcularly vulnerable to 

31 

 
impacts  from  fishing;  25%  of  habitat  types  were  reported  to  be  under  threat  from 
demersal trawling. 

Knowledge of Black Sea habitats is very poor. 83% of habitat types were classed as 
data  deficient  and  could  not  be  assessed.  Of  the  17%  that  could  be  assessed,  one 
habitat  was  critically  endangered:  the  Pontic  circalittoral  biogenic  detritic  bottoms 
with  dead  or  alive  mussel  beds,  shell  deposits,  with  encrusting  corallines 
(Phymatolithon, Lithothamnion) and attached foliose sciaphilic macroalgae. 

Five habitat types are endangered in the Black Sea: 

  Turf algae on Pontic moderately exposed lower mediolittoral rock  

 

 Pontic mediolittoral caves and overhangs  

  Fucales  and  other  algae  on  Pontic  sheltered  upper  infralittoral  rock,  well 

illuminated  

  Seagrass meadows in Pontic lower infralittoral sands  

  Mussel beds on Pontic circalittoral terrigenous muds 

And one was classed as vulnerable: 

 

Invertebrate-dominated Pontic circalittoral rock 

In  the  Black  Sea,  pollution  was  classed  as  affecting  the  most  habitats,  followed  by 
urbanisation  (in  the  littoral  and  infralittoral  zones)  and  fishing  (in  the  infralittoral  and 
circalittoral zones). 

2.3.5.  Macaronesia 

The  Azores,  Canaries  and  Madeira  island  groups  are  volcanic  islands  surrounded  by 
narrow bands of upper bathyal sediment of upper bathyal rock and biogenic reefs, with 
occasional  small  patches  of  sand.  Gubbay  et  al.  (2016)  classed  Macaronesian 
communities  of  eulittoral  rock  moderately  exposed  to  wave  action  and  Macaronesian 
communities of lower eulittoral rock sheltered from wave action as vulnerable.  

The key habitats in these areas are deep-sea habitats (lower bathyal sediment, rock and 
biogenic  reefs)  constituting  the  steep  volcanic  slopes,  and  large  expanses  of  abyssal 
mud. Cold corals form important habitats. Seabed impacts from trawling are limited or 
absent  because  the  extremely  rocky  and  irregular  volcanic  seabeds  make  trawling 
impactical. Below 800m trawling is prohibited. Impacts on marine demersal habitats are 
therefore likely to be limited.  

Maerl beds and meadows of Avrainvillea canariensis are atypical habitats of particular 
interest  in  the  Canaries  and  Madeira  group.  Molluscs  (Patella  spp.  and  Megabalanus 
azoricus)  have  been  heavily  exploited  commercially  in  the  Azores  ecoregion,  and  are 
now on the OSPAR list of threatened and declining species46. 

46 https://www.ospar.org/work-areas/bdc/species-habitats/list-of-threatened-declining-species-habitats 

32 

 
                                                 
In the Azores ecoregion, abrasion pressure is low because bottom trawling is banned, as 
is also the case around Madeira and the Canary Islands.  

The  Azores  ecoregion  is  known  as  a  hotspot  for  cold-water  corals.  Mostly  medium-
sized,  three-dimensional,  and  branched  colonies  of  coral  often  occur  as  bycatch  in 
bottom  longlining  fisheries,  with  Leiopathes  spp.,  Errina  dabneyi,  and  Dendrophyllia 
sp.  most  frequently  encountered.  Given  the  high  incidence  of  coral  bycatch  in  bottom 
longline  fisheries  around  the  Azores  and  the  decrease  in  corals  bycatch  in  traditional 
fishing grounds, conservation measures may be required47. 

A decline in habitat-forming macroalgae has been observed in the north-western Iberian 
Peninsula. ICES Fisheries Overview for Bay of Biscay and the Iberian Coast ecoregion 
informs that protected areas have been designated for habitats and species listed by EU 
Nature Directives. Fishery regulations are in place to restrict certain fisheries that may 
affect vulnerable habitats. 

3. 

IMPLEMENTATION  OF  THE  REGULATION  AND  CONSULTATION  OF  MEMBER 
STATES, ADVISORY COUNCILS AND STAKEHOLDERS 

The  European  Commission  consulted  Member  States,  Advisory  Councils  and 
stakeholders by means of a specific questionnaire (‘the questionnaire’). Further 
details on the consultation process are explained in Appendix II (Synopsis).  

3.1.  The objectives and the targets 

Regarding the general assessment of the achievement of the objectives and targets of 
the  Regulation,  the  scientists  as  well  as  most  contributions  from  Member  States  and 
Advisory Councils underlined the fact that the recent entry of the Regulation into force 
does not allow to come to a measurement of its impact in the light of these objectives 
and targets.  

Member  States  also  pointed  out 
incorporate  the 
environmental  objectives  when  drafting  joint  recommendations  under  the 
Regulation.  

to  difficulties 

in  how 

to 

Other Member States felt that the Regulation had not achieved its goal in streamlining 
and simplifying legislation in the area of technical measures, with provisions contained 
in  multiannual  plans,  fishing  opportunities  legislation  and  the  landing  obligation  also 
imposing certain technical measures.  

Member States  and Advisory Councils from the Mediterranean Sea basin also pointed 
out that given the particular situation of shared stocks and the close relation with non-
EU countries, technical measures should be adopted at international level, thus avoiding 
duplicating efforts.  

At the same time, most of the stakeholders who participated in the online consultation 
consider  that  the  measures  adopted  under  the  Regulation  have  not  contributed  to  the 
objectives and targets set out. Some pleaded for the adoption of a result-based approach 

47https://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2020/2020/FisheriesOverview_Azores_2

020.pdf 

33 

 
                                                 
from  an  environmental  point  of  view  rather  than  focusing  on  gears.  It  seems  to  be  a 
common view that technical measures fail to prevent negative environmental impacts of 
fishing  and  that  there  is  a  need  to  align  the  technical  measures  adopted  under  the 
Regulation  with  the  ambitions  of  the  European  Green  Deal  and  the  EU  Biodiversity 
Strategy  2030.  A  small  majority  of  stakeholders  call  for  ban  of  bottom  trawl  and 
dredges.  Similarly,  several  stakeholders  in  the  online  consultation  consider  that  the 
Regulation  fails  to  protect  juveniles  and  does  not  contribute  to  decreasing  incidental 
catches  of  sensitive  species.  Stakeholders  also  criticized  the  insufficient  monitoring, 
control and enforcement of the measures.   

Some Advisory Councils refer to the importance of data collection, which is necessary 
in order to evaluate the contribution of the Regulation in the future. 

3.2. 

Implementation of common technical measures  

Articles 7 to 9 of the Regulation set out general restrictions on the use of fishing gear. 
Articles 10 to 11 set out measures to protect sensitive species. These measures apply to 
all EU waters and EU fishermen.  

Regarding  the  fishing  activity  carried  out  by  the  trawlers  using  electric  pulse,  the 
Commission’s  proposal,  allowing  this  fishing  technique  subject  to  specific  control 
requirements, was based on both the 2006 ICES and 2012 STECF advice48 .  

However,  this  proposal  was  not  retained  in  the  Regulation  as  adopted  by  the  co-
legislators and the Regulation now prohibits electric pulse fishing as from 1 July 2021.   

The  prohibition  introduced  by  the  Regulation  has  been  contested  by  the  Netherlands 
before the European Court of Justice, which dismissed the action on 15 April 202149.    

Since  the  entry  into  force  of  the  Regulation,  ICES  at  the  request  of  the  Netherlands, 
issued  a  new  advice  in  May  202050,  specifically  addressing  the  impacts  on  the 
ecosystem and environment in the sole (Solea solea) fishery.   

In this advice, ICES underlines several positive effects as for the use of this technique, 
and  some  remaining  uncertainties  regarding  the  physiological  impacts  to  marine 
organisms not caught in the fishery, however not expected to affect the potential of the 
populations under study, give the low probability of exposure to pulse stimuli.   

However,  currently  the  prohibition  applies  and  the  Regulation  does  not  foresee  a 
possibility for amendment through regionalisation on the proposal of Member States.   

Some  stakeholders  that  replied  to  the  online  consultation  were  opposed  to  the  general 
prohibition of the use of electric pulse trawling, and in particular to the fact that it was 
not  possible  to  allow  wider  use  of  this  fishing  method  through  regionalisation.  They 
referred to the ICES advice of May 2020, in answer to a request from the Netherlands, 
which stated that the change from conventional  beam trawling to pulse trawling when 

48 https://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu/documents/43805/319250/PLEN+12-01.pdf. Page 74.  

49  Judgment  of  15  April  2021,  The  Netherlands  v  Council  and  Parliament,  C-733/19, 

ECLI:EU:C:2021:272 

50 ICES, 2020. https://www.ices.dk/news-and-events/news-archive/news/Pages/PulseTrawlAdvice.aspx  

34 

 
                                                 
exploiting  the  total  allowable  catch  of  North  Sea  sole  contributes  to  reducing  the 
ecosystem/environmental impacts of the sole fishery. Another contributor supported the 
maintenance of the restrictions on electric fishing. 

Article  8  of  the  Regulation  sets  out  the  general  restrictions  for  towed  gears.  In 
particular,  Article  8(5)  provides  that  the  Commission  may  adopt,  by  means  of 
implementing  regulation,  detailed  rules  for  some  technical  specifications  that  have 
direct  impact  in  the size-selectivity  for example  those affecting cod-end  specifications 
(twine thickness, cod-end circumference) and escape panels design. These measures are 
intended  to  be  incorporated  into  the  future  implementing  regulation,  which  is  under 
discussion with Member States.   

Regarding  Article  10  (Prohibited  fish  and  shellfish),  no  major  problems  have  been 
reported by  Member States. All  Member States  consider the Annex  I list  as  adequate, 
although  other  species  listed  in  CITES  which  could  be  included  in  this  Annex  if 
scientific advice demonstrates a conservation benefit.  

Several  Member  States  called  for  better  alignment  of  the  Regulation  with  the  CFP 
Regulation  and  with  the  Birds  and  Habitats  Directives  as  well  as  the  MSFD,  in 
particular  the  alignment  of  the  list  of  protected  species  in  Annex  I  with  the  annual 
“Fishing Opportunities” Regulations. Some Member States suggested the development 
of criteria by EU scientific bodies to justify the choice of species to be protected. Some 
regional groups have suggested the addition of more species to the list.  

Some Advisory Councils who participated in the consultation suggested to split the list 
into two, with a fixed part in the Regulation and a variable part fixed each year in the 
annual  Fishing  Opportunities  Regulations  in  order  to  provide  flexibility.  As  for  some 
Member  States,  some  of  the  Advisory  Councils  also  considered  that  there  should  be 
defined scientific criteria for inclusion in the Prohibited Species list.  

MEDAC members suggested including 18 additional species (sharks and rays) to ensure 
compatibility with recommendations of GFCM, ICCAT and the Barcelona Convention. 
Furthermore,  they  also  suggested  to  add  some  other  species  on  the  basis  of  updated 
stock assessments.   

In reply to the online consultation, half of respondents thought that the list of species in 
Annex I is not complete. Many stakeholders suggested adding the critically endangered 
European  eel  (Anguilla  anguilla)  to  the  list.  It  was  also  suggested  to  include  18 
additional  species  (sharks  and  rays)  in  the  Mediterranean  Sea  in  order  to  align  with 
Recommendations 36/2012/3, 42/2018/242/2018/2 and Article 11 (2) of the Protocol to 
the Barcelona Convention, because of their conservation status as listed on the EU Red 
List as endangered or critically endangered and for alignment with ICCAT regulations. 

Article  11:  In  relation  to  catches  of  marine  mammals,  seabirds  and  marine  reptiles, 
Member  States  did  not  report  any  overall  difficulty  in  the  implementation  of  its 
provisions.  

A majority of stakeholders in the consultation consider that the measures which are in 
place  to  ensure  that  species  in  Article  11  of  the  Regulation  are  not  harmed  and  are 
promptly  released  when  they  are  caught  are  not  adequate.  Most  of  these  see  as  a 
problem  that  the  measures  applied  through  this  article  are  decided  per  Member  States 
for  their  own  vessels.  However,  some  measures  should  apply  regionally/  union  wide. 

35 

 
Most  of  these  stakeholders  also  agree  that  providing  fishers  with  training  in  safe 
handling practices and useful general principles can significantly improve post-capture 
survival of the species. 

3.3. 

Protection for sensitive habitats (Article 12)  

Where  several  Member  States  have  interests  in  fishing  in  an  area,  they  should 
coordinate using regionalisation in order to design common measures to protect certain 
species and habitats (Article 21 and Annex XIII to the Regulation).  

Regarding Article 12 and Annex II to the Regulation, which concern the protection of 
sensitive  habitats,  no  Member  State  has  reported  any  problem  or  infringement.  Two 
Member  States  informed  that  following  the  conditions  of  Regulation  (EC)  No 
1224/2009 (‘Control regulation’51), some vessels have been allowed to operate in these 
areas and have been constantly monitored. Member States also provided information on 
protected areas set in their national legislation. 

Member States were asked whether they intend to take additional habitat conservation 
measures in the coming three years. A majority of Member States intended to increase 
the  extent  of  the  protected  areas.  Some  of  them  commented  that  they  are  starting  to 
work regionally to propose protection areas beyond national jurisdiction.   

The  views  of  Advisory  Councils  differ  regarding  additional 
technical  nature 
conservation measures for the protection of sensitive habitats.  A majority  of Advisory 
Councils  either  do  not  see  the  need  for  these  additional  technical  nature  conservation 
measures or do not consider it relevant. On the other hand, some Advisory Councils see 
the  need  to  link  technical  measures  with  efforts  to  protect  and  restore  habitats  and 
species. Weak salmon stocks need further protection and technical measures in line with 
ICES recommendations, such as moving the fishery closer to rivers of origin, and more 
protection of sensitive coastal habitats by prohibiting bottom trawling in these areas was 
suggested.  

Regarding  the  Annex  II  to  the  Regulation,  most  of  stakeholders  in  the  online 
consultation  think that measures  in  this  Annex are  not  adequate.  Stakeholders  suggest 
much broader application of spatial gear restrictions. More specifically, a majority call 
for a general prohibition of the most destructive fishing gear including bottom trawling 
and  dredging,  in  all  European  MPAs;  and  the  creation  of  an  EU-wide  ban  of  bottom-
trawling in coastal areas. 

3.4.  Additional measures to protect sensitive species. 

Regarding  the  measures  to  ensure  that  incidental  catches  of  marine  mammals,  marine 
reptiles,  seabirds  and  other  non-commercially  exploited  species  do  not  exceed  levels 
provided for in EU legislation and international agreements that are binding on the EU, 
a clear majority of Member States commented that they follow current measures of the 

51  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).  

36 

 
                                                 
legislation. Those Member States operating in sea basins where the most of impact on 
certain  species  of  cetaceans  occur  have  offered  more  detailed  information  on  their 
national programmes and measures.  

A majority of ACs reported that they are aware of mitigation measures or restrictions on 
certain  gears  that  Member  States  have  put  in  place  to  minimise  or  where  possible 
eliminate the catches of mammals, seabirds and marine turtles, for example the use of 
ADDs in the Bay of Biscay by French trawlers since 2019. A majority of ACs suggest 
to provide fishermen with a training on how to manage and release captured individuals 
to increase their chances of post-release survival. Others see the possibility to improve 
this  issue  by  better  use  of  electronic  devices,  such  as  ADD  or  pingers.  A  majority  of 
ACs (6 out of 8) considered that additional technical nature conservation measures for 
the protection of sensitive species are needed. Better monitoring and control in marine 
protected  areas  is  needed.  More  control  over  the  placement  of  fixed  nets  in  the  Black 
Sea is needed to reduce the incidence of marine mammal capture. The use of FAD (Fish 
Aggregating Devices) needs to be reduced and controlled, as these put at risk juveniles 
of  several  sensitive  species  and  of  species  of  high  commercial  value.  Careful 
consideration may be given to spatial and temporal closures for dolphin populations on 
scientific evidence. 

Member States were invited to comment on measures to protect sensitive species as set 
out in Annex XIII to the Regulation, and inform  whether, following point 3 of Annex 
XIII,  any  corresponding  joint  recommendations  setting  out  additional  mitigation 
measures were under preparation. 

Concerning monitoring of sensitive species incidental catches and their reduction most 
Member States referred to the current provisions of the data collection framework. Most 
of them described additional measures such as trials with REM to improve control and 
good practice guides for fishers. 

Annex  XIII  of  the  Regulation  requires  in  points  2  and  3,  to  collect  scientific  data  on 
incidental  catches  and  to  submit  joint  recommendations  for  additional  mitigation 
measures for the reduction of incidental catches when as a result of scientific evidence 
validated,  amongst  others,  by  GFCM  so  indicates.  However,  when  asked  on  the 
implementation  of  Annex  XIII,  some  Member  States  considered  that  this  Annex  does 
not apply in the Mediterranean Sea.  

ACs  considered  that  additional  regional  mitigation  measures  for  the  reduction  of 
incidental catches of sensitive species are currently not required. They emphasized that 
existing measures need to be fully monitored and evaluated before additional measures 
are adopted. There is however, a proposal for mitigation measures for harbour porpoise 
in  the  Baltic  Sea  (BSAC)  and  on  spatial/temporal  closures  for  cetaceans  in  the  north 
western waters and in Bay of Biscay (NWWAC, MEDAC). 

As  for  increasing  knowledge  and  improving  monitoring,  a  majority  of  Member  States 
referred to current DCF, although some also recognized that this might not be enough. 
As in  previous questions, some Mediterranean Member States  commented that Annex 
XIII does not apply in that sea.  

There  are  mixed  views  among  ACs  as  to  whether  the  additional  steps  to  collect 
scientific data on incidental catches of sensitive species as required in Annex XIII are 
needed.  Some  of  them  suggest  replacing  sampling  effort  on  incidental  catches  for 

37 

 
example through self-reporting using the electronic reporting in logbooks, use of smart-
phone apps or SMS.  

Regarding  the  need  for  additional  steps  to  sufficiently  monitor  and  assess  the 
effectiveness  of mitigation measures as set  out  in  Annex XIII,  a majority  of Advisory 
Councils did not respond this question or did not see any need for such steps.  

Regarding  the  mitigation  measures  or  restrictions  on  certain  gear  that  Member  States 
have  put  in  place  to  minimise  or  where  possible  eliminate  the  catches  of  mammals, 
seabirds and marine turtles, most of stakeholders are aware of such measures.  

Regarding  the  nature  conservation  technical  measures  for  the  protection  of  sensitive 
species, most of the stakeholders think the additional measures are needed. Stakeholders 
here refer to different kinds of practices that should be applied. In this regard, they also 
widely support the EU Biodiversity Strategy target to allocate 30% of the sea areas as 
MPAs and to strictly protect 10% of those areas.  

A  large  majority  of  stakeholders  in  the  online  consultation  share  the  opinion  that  the 
collection of scientific data on incidental catches of sensitive species as set out in Annex 
XIII should be improved. Many of these stakeholders could support two suggestions  – 
all  vessel  sizes  should  be  monitored,  not  just  those  over  15  m  and  that  available 
techniques such as automatic identification system (‘AIS’) and REM including cameras 
(e.g. CCTV) have to be implemented to achieve high enough coverage of monitoring in 
all marine areas of the EU.  

3.5.  Regionalisation (Article 15) 

The  main  objective  of  regionalising  the  technical  measures  Regulation  is  to  bring 
decision-making process closer to fishers and coastal communities in the respective sea 
basins.  Instead  of  detailed  and  overly  prescriptive  top-down  rules,  Article  15  of  the 
Regulation  allows  Member  States  together  with  stakeholders  can,  by  means  of  joint 
recommendations, develop and identify the rules and provisions that are necessary and 
adequate  to  the  local  or  regional  situation.  These  rules  and  provisions  can  amend, 
supplement,  repeal  or  derogate  from  the  technical  measures  set  out  in  the  Annexes 
containing regional technical measures listed in Article 15(1) of the Regulation. 

This change in  governance means in particular that, through the possibility to propose 
joint  recommendations,  Member  States  and  stakeholders  also  have  a  responsibility  to 
contribute  to  achieving  the  objectives  and  targets  set  out  in  Articles  3  and  4  of  the 
Regulation  (Article  15(4)(a)).  This  is  also  a  means  for  Member  States  to  fulfil  their 
obligations in respect of the Habitats, Birds and Marine Strategy Framework Directives. 

Member States have already made use of this possibility to address some issues and to 
better align measures to regional conditions (for example, measures concerning gillnets 
in north-western waters, the plaice box52 and the Baltic fishery for turbot and flounder).  

To the date of publication of this document, there have been 21 joint recommendations 
agreed and submitted to the Commission (see list in Annex III). Article 15(7) provides 

52 Part C, point 4 of Annex V.  

38 

 
                                                 
for  the  possibility  of  the  Commission  to  ask  the  STECF  to  assess  the  joint 
recommendations submitted by Member States, which has been relevant for most cases. 

Measures in  joint  recommendations must contribute to  the  achievement of targets  and 
objectives of the Regulation, but in any case must not hinder the achievement of those 
objectives, either in size-selectivity or in the protection of sensitive species and habitats. 
In  particular,  the  measures  proposed  in  these  joint  recommendations  ‘should,  as  a 
minimum lead to such benefits for the conservation of marine biological resources that 
are at least equivalent to the ones provided by the baseline standards, in particular in 
terms of exploitation patterns and the level of protection provided for sensitive species 
and habitats’53 with respect to the conditions existing on 14 August 2019 (date of entry 
into force of the Regulation) is permitted.  

Some Member States and Advisory Councils expressed concerns as to how to quantify 
or  demonstrate  how  a  Joint  Recommendation  would  contribute  to  environmental 
objectives,  such  as  achieving  GES  or  reducing  impacts  on  the  environment  or  on 
sensitive species.  

The  online  stakeholders  considered  that  the  regionalisation  process  was  not  working 
adequately.  Member  States  often  did  not  propose  measures  that  were  sufficiently 
effective and often failed to reach agreement on appropriate and adequate measures. 

3.6.  Regional technical measures concerning selectivity (Articles 16-27).  

3.6.1.  Species and size selectivity of fishing gear (Article 16) 

The Regulation sets the baseline mesh size for each of the regions.  

The  purpose  of  regulating  mesh  size  is  to  reduce  the  proportion  of  smaller  fish  in  the 
catches  in  order  to  increase  long-term  yields,  decrease  incentives  to  discard  fish,  and 
improve the short-term value of the catch. Use of appropriate mesh sizes in each fishery 
is linked to the body sizes of the fish being caught which can span a wide spectrum in 
mixed fisheries. 

The elimination of discards by avoiding and reducing, as far as possible, unwanted 
catches remain challenging.  

Since  the  introduction  of  the  landing  obligation,  some  positive  impacts  on  selectivity 
have been occurring. Some fishers have taken up more size-selective fishing gears, for 
instance the ‘Flemish panel’, which reduces unwanted catches of sole smaller than the 
MCRS by the beam trawl fleet. 

Several  contributions  received  within  the  online  stakeholder  consultation  emphasized 
that  as  for  the  implementation  of  measures  related  to  size  selectivity  and  mesh  size 
specification,  if  specifically  related  to  avoid  and  reduce,  as  far  as  possible,  unwanted 
catches  and  eliminate  discards  further  measures  are  required  to  properly  enforce  the 
landing  obligation  and  eliminate  the  practice  of  discarding.  In  particular,  as  they  note 
that  most  vessels  are  not  properly  controlled,  neither  at  sea  nor  at  ports  to  properly 
monitor all catches. It was also pointed out that sorting grids or other similar physical 

53 Recital 25 of the Regulation.  

39 

 
                                                 
sorting  devices  should  be  applied  EU-wide  to  pelagic  trawling  where  there  are  issues 
regarding by-catches, mixed catches and landing reporting, especially for salmon, cod, 
and  flatfish.  These  devices  can  reduce  fish  by-catch  and  are,  for  example,  already 
mandatory 
that  effective 
enforcement  of  the  landing  obligation  was  a  prerequisite  to  creating  an  incentive  for 
fishers  to  develop  more  selective  fishing  gear  which  would  take  less  unwanted  catch. 
They noted that catches on most vessels are not properly controlled, neither at sea nor in 
port. 

in  Norway.  Several  online  stakeholders  considered 

Included  in  the  replies  to  the  consultation,  it  was  stated  that  sorting  grids  should  be 
applied EU-wide to pelagic trawling where there are issues regarding by-catches, mixed 
catches  and  landing  reporting,  especially  for  salmon,  cod,  and  flatfish.  These  devices 
can reduce fish by-catch and are, for example, already mandatory in Norway. 

3.6.2.  Closed or restricted areas (Article 17) 

Article  17  provides  the  possibility  for  Member  States,  though  regionalisation,  to 
introduce additional closed areas, provided that there is a potential benefit.  

Several  respondents  to  the online consultation  pointed out  that the Regulation  and the 
regionalised approach it contains have not resulted in sufficiently improved protection 
of juveniles and spawning aggregations through area closures or other restrictions.  

3.6.3.  Minimum Conservation Reference Sizes (Article 18) 

One of the key provisions regarding regional technical measures concerns the setting of 
MCRS  to  ensure  that  juveniles  are  not  targeted.  Where  amendments  to  MCRS  are 
proposed  through  joint  recommendations,  these  need  to  be  supported  with  a  scientific 
justification that confirms that the adjustment conforms to the objective (Articles 13 and 
18). The scientific justification should provide data on the length at first maturity. 

Most respondents indicate that the current MCRS set by the Regulation are appropriate. 
The views of Member States as to whether the MCRS for commercial and recreational 
fisheries should be aligned are mixed. Some Member States consider that the alignment 
is needed. Others reported that they are applying the same MCRS for commercial and 
recreational  fisheries  through  national  legislation.  Recreational  fisheries  can  have  a 
significant impact on fish resources and Member States are required to ensure that they 
are conducted in a manner that is compatible with the objectives of the CFP (Article 55 
of  the  Control  Regulation).  Various  measures  relating  to  recreational  fisheries  are 
already foreseen in several EU legislative acts and continue to apply together with the 
measures  specifically  foreseen  in  the  new  Technical  Measures  Regulation.  In  cases 
where  recreational  fishing  has  a  significant  impact  in  a  particular  region,  the 
Commission  has  the  power  to  adopt  delegated  acts  to  provide  that  the  relevant 
provisions of Article 13 (Minimum conservation reference sizes) or parts A (Minimum 
conservation reference sizes) or C (Closed or restricted areas) of Annexes V to X also 
apply to recreational fishing.  

There  is  no  clear  opinion  on  this  issue  among  the  Advisory  Councils.  While  some 
Advisory  Councils  think  the  MCRS  should  be  aligned,  others  imply  that  there  is  no 
need for alignment and for the rest of the Advisory Councils this is currently not subject 
of discussions. 

40 

 
Stakeholders  replying  to  the  online  consultation  criticize  the  concept  of  MCRS.  They 
point out that the MCRS are not functional or useful as management tools. First, MCRS 
should be adapted to size at maturity. According to these respondents, there are several 
examples  where  this  is  not  happening  (European  sardine,  European  anchovy,  horse 
mackerel,  red  mullet,  hake,  swordfish,  Norway  lobster  and  gilt-head  sea  bream).  For 
some  species  (e.g.  salmon),  the  MCRS  is  considered  counterproductive,  as  it  may  be 
more important to protect large females to improve spawning and recruitment. For such 
species it was recommended to create a “catch window”, which would allow not only 
landing of fish above a certain minimum size but also below a maximum size.  

3.6.4.  Real-time closure and moving-on provisions (Article 19)  

Article  19  allows  the  temporary  closing  of  fishery  if  a  trigger  catch  level  has  been 
reached.  This  measure  is  aimed  at  protecting  the  spawning  aggregations  and  sensitive 
species.  

When addressing this, it is necessary to consider that effects are very difficult to predict. 
Therefore,  it  is  important  that  STECF  would  also  assess  the  potential  negative 
consequences associated with effort displacement caused by closures.  

Some more specific comments are added under the regional chapters.  

3.6.5.  Conditions  for  derogations  to  permitted  minimum  mesh  sizes 

(Article 27)  

The Regulation provides for the use of smaller mesh sizes to be used than the “baseline” 
mesh size for each area if fishing is directed at smaller-bodied fish, but Member States 
considered  this  to  be  complex  to  implement  because  it  is  difficult  to  define  “directed 
fishing”. Article 6(3) of the Regulation defines directed fishing as fishing effort targeted 
at a specific species or group of species and which may be further specified at regional 
level  in  delegated  acts  adopted  pursuant  to  Article  27(7)  of  the  Regulation.    Article 
27(7) provides for further definition of ‘directed fishing’ to  be fixed in  a Commission 
delegated  act  following  a  joint  recommendation  from  the  relevant  Member  States. 
Additional conditions could apply to the use of certain mesh sizes, notably those smaller 
than the baseline mesh sizes for each area.  

Some  Member  States  considered  that  further  work  is  needed  first  to  identify  which 
fisheries  needs  to  be  defined,  to  ensure  that  the  conditions  associated  with  each  mesh 
size can be monitored and controlled. 

STECF  has  examined  this  issue  and  concluded  that  it  is  necessary  to  define  ‘directed 
fishing’ for each exception from the baseline mesh sizes in  each region to ensure that 
the conditions associated with each mesh size in use can be monitored and controlled. 
Without such a definition, permissible exception54 from the base line mesh sizes cannot 
be defined.55 

55 STECF PLEN 20-02. 

41 

 
                                                 
 
STECF identified three elements to be considered: 

i) the selectivity of the gears proposed for the directed fishery compared to the baseline 
gear in the Regulation, both for the targeted species and for the species to be avoided;  

ii)  the  conditions  for  granting  the  derogation  to  use  the  proposed  gear(s),  and  the 
proportion  of  the  fleet  that  will  be  entitled  to  use  them  depending  on  catch  threshold, 
and 

iii)  whether  the  combination  of  i)  and  ii)  will  help  to  achieve  the  MSY  objectives, 
minimize unwanted catches and avoid discarding, and reduce the fishing impact on the 
seafloor habitats and the ecosystem. 

STECF also noted that Member States should establish a definition of directed fisheries 
that is measurable and controllable. This presents a number of practical difficulties on 
controlling  either  the  intention  to  capture  a  particular  species,  or  the  result  of  a 
particular fishing operation. 

Member States should substantiate these elements when drafting the definitions.  

While none of the regional groups managed to meet the deadline as set in Article 27(7) 
of the Regulation, to date four joint recommendations have been submitted:  

- 

-  ADRIAMED,  SUDESMED 

the  South-Western  Waters  Regional  Group  submitted  a  joint  recommendation  in 
which  similar  catch  composition  percentages  to  those  included  in  the  previous 
“Technical Measures” Regulation No 850/98 were presented 
each 

joint 
and  PESCAMED 
recommendation  in  August  2020  on  definition  of  directed  fishing  for  sardines  and 
anchovies  using  trawl  nets  and  a  definition  of  directed  fishing  for  red  seabream 
(Pagellus bogaraveo). 

submitted 

a 

Based upon the joint recommendations already submitted, STECF advised on the need 
for data supporting any proposed catch threshold, as well as information on monitoring 
and  control  measures,  and  information  on  how  these  thresholds  would  apply  in  the 
context of the landing obligation. The data needed by STECF are datasets of individual 
logbook and sea-sampling trip data to allow assessment of the robustness and the impact 
of  the  catch  composition  threshold.  Information  on  the  likely  numbers  of  vessels  that 
avail of these exemptions would also be required. 

Half  of  the  Member  States  who  replied  to  the  consultation  on  this  issue  reported  that 
they  are  currently  not  involved  in  the  preparation  of  a  joint  recommendation  on 
‘directed  fishing’.  However,  at  the  same  time  they  stress  that  it  is  a  matter  of  critical 
importance.  

Even  those  Member  States  who  reported  that  they  are  working  on  the  joint 
recommendations,  were  not  able,  at  this  stage  to  indicate  when  these  joint 
recommendations will be ready due to complexity of the task.   

4. 

IMPLEMENTATION OF AND CONSULTATION ON REGIONAL TECHNICAL MEASURES 

This  chapter  presents  the  general  implementation  for  each  of  the  sea  basins.  In  each 
subchapter,  it  will  be  briefly  explained  the  situation  of  most  important  technical 

42 

 
measures  and  a  summary  of  the  status  of  the  most  important  stocks,  followed  by  the 
comments and contributions received as a result of the ad hoc consultation.  

4.1.  Baltic Sea 

Eight  Member  States  have  fleet  segments  in  the  basin:  Denmark,  Estonia,  Finland, 
Germany,  Latvia,  Lithuania,  Poland  and  Sweden.  The  most  important  species  (in 
volume and in terms of value) are herring, sprat, cod and flounder. 

The stocks of herring in the Gulf of Riga, plaice in subdivisions 24-32 and sole are in 
good  state  (i.e.  fished  below  Fmsy  and  having  a  healthy  biomass  above  MSY  Btrigger).  
Eastern and western cod, central and western herring are exploited above the Fmsy and 
have  a  low  biomass,  while  sprat  and  plaice  in  subdivisions  21  to  23  have  a  healthy 
biomass but are exploited above Fmsy. Finally, flounder and dab seem to be exploited at 
sustainable  levels,  but  the  status  of  their  biomass  is  unknown.  The  status  of  brill  and 
turbot are unknown. 

The  STECF  size-selectivity  indicator  shows  a  selectivity  improvement  for  western 
Baltic cod, eastern Baltic cod, and plaice but no trend has been observed for plaice in 
the Kattegat, Belts and the Sound.  

Numerous  changes  in  technical  measures  were  implemented  between  2010  and  2019, 
but some of these appeared to be conflicting and the extent of enforcement is uncertain. 
It  was  not  possible  for  STECF  to  identify  causal  relationships  between  changes  in 
technical measures and changes in the selectivity indicator.  

Since the entry into force of the Regulation, Member States in Baltfish have submitted 
the joint recommendation with measures to protect Baltic harbour porpoise, which has 
been assessed by STECF Spring plenary 2021.  

The  technical  correction  of  Delegated  Regulation  (EU)  2018/4756  allowing  the  use  of 
alternative  115mm  mesh  size  for  demersal  trawlers,  received  in  February  2019.    This 
joint  recommendation  was  rejected  in  April  2020  as  STECF  recalled  its  previous 
assessment that the gear changes would be expected to decrease selectivity, and hence 
further  testing  would  be  required  to  demonstrate  concretely  that  the  study  results  are 
valid. This should also be seen in the context of the severely deteriorated condition of 
the eastern Baltic cod stock and the struggling western Baltic cod stock.   

4.1.1.  Minimum conservation reference sizes (Articles 13 and 18) 

In 2015, the MCRS changed for both Baltic cod stocks from 38 cm to 35 cm. Together 
with the introduction of the landing obligation for cod from 1 January 2015, this change 
should have reduced the amount of cod catches below the MCRS, though the effect on 
overall  catches  of  small  cod  has  not  been  reported.  There  has  been  no  change  in  the 
MCRS for plaice. 

56 Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/47 of 30 October 2017 authorising the use of alternative 
T90  trawls  in  Baltic  Sea  fisheries,  by  way  of  derogation  from  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  2187/2005 
C/2017/7101 OJ L 7, 12.1.2018, p. 21–22 

43 

 
                                                 
 
Member States considered that current MCRS set for the Baltic are fit for purpose. This 
opinion  is  not  fully  shared  by  the  industry,  which  does  not  seem  to  appreciate  any 
benefit of having these MCRS, although they did not express strong opposition. Some 
Member  States  and  some  fisheries  representatives  in  the  Baltic  Sea  Advisory  Council 
(BSAC) called for harmonization of the MCRS for sea trout (Salmo trutta) and salmon 
(Salmo salar). This issue of harmonization was also raised by other stakeholders in the 
online consultation. 

Several respondents in the online consultation also pleaded for an increase of the MCRS 
for the most exploited species in the Baltic Sea (cod, plaice and flounder), as the current 
sizes were considered too low from an environmental point of view.  

4.1.2.  Selective gears to reduce unwanted catches 

During  the  period  2010  to  2019,  the  most  important  gear  related  changes  in  technical 
measures  with  little  influence  on  the  size  selectivity  of  cod  were  implemented 
(introduction of Swedish T90 codend or BACOMA gear).  

In  general,  Member  States  indicated  that  they  would  work  on  additional  selectivity 
measures  if  there  was  a  proper  scientific  justification  and  recommendations  to 
implement such measures.  

As reported by Member States, the joint recommendation on a new type of gear (Nemos 
+  ROOFLESS)  is  being  developed  under  BALTFISH  to  tackle  the  current  serious 
situation  of  both  Baltic  cod  stocks  and  to  reduce  unwanted  catches  of  cod  while 
preserving  the  possibility  to  catch  flatfish.  The  use  of  this  selective  device  could 
contribute to  the sustainable exploitation  of Baltic fish stocks while protecting  eastern 
cod stocks.  

In  the  BSAC,  a  majority  of  members  considers  that  there  is  no  need  for  additional 
measures  in  relation  to  species  and  size  selectivity  of  fishing  gear  and  mesh  size 
specifications. Rather they believe that fewer measures should be in place, thus allowing 
fishers  to  adapt  to  current  conditions  such  as  natural  variations,  climatic  as  well  as 
distributional  changes,  and  management  decisions  on  TACs  and  by-catch  rules.  The 
fisheries  representatives  within  the  BSAC  recall  the  need  to  delete  or  merge  specific 
mesh sizes in pelagic fisheries in view of poor selectivity and high mortality of pelagic 
fish after being released from the gear. 

Both  Member  States  and  BSAC  have  considered  the  possible  use  of  Article  4(1)a  of 
Regulation  (EU)  2018/4757,  which  stipulates  the  use  of  mesh  size  of  the  codend  of  at 
least 115 mm in T90 trawls, as a derogation from the current baseline. They considered 
that, due to errors in the text, the gear as it is described cannot be used.    

On  the  other  hand,  a  large  number  of  stakeholders  who  participated  in  the  online 
consultation  (mainly  NGOs)  thought  that  there  is  a  need  for  additional  measures  in 
relation  to  species  and  size  selectivity  of  fishing  gear.  They  propose  to  consider  the 

57 Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/47 of 30 October 2017 authorising the use of alternative 
T90 trawls in Baltic Sea fisheries, by way of derogation from Council Regulation (EC) No 2187/2005. 
C/2017/7101, OJ L 7, 12.1.2018, p. 21–22 

44 

 
                                                 
 
introduction  of  sorting  grids  or  similar  physical  devices  in  pelagic  fleets  to  avoid  by-
catches of eastern cod and salmon.  

4.1.3.  Closed  areas  and  seasons  to  protect  juveniles  and  spawning 

aggregations (Article 17)  

Spawning  closures  for  Baltic  cod  stocks  (potentially  relevant  also  for  plaice)  were 
already implemented since the late 1990s, but with varying spatial and temporal extent.  

Most  of  the  Member  States  considered  that  there  is  no  need  for  additional  closed  or 
restricted areas. Member States rather pointed out that updates of existing closed areas 
and establishment of new areas need to be based on scientific advice. That opinion was 
shared  by  the  BSAC.  Most  of  its  members  think  that  these  closed  areas  should  be 
flexible and adapt to the dynamic changes of the environment.  

Some  respondents  to  the  online  consultation  expressed  the  opinion  that  the  closed  or 
restricted  areas  to  protect  juveniles  and  spawning  aggregations  in  the  Baltic  Sea  are 
inadequate to protect Baltic cod.   

4.1.4.  Real time closures and moving on provisions 

To date, no regional real time closures or moving-on provisions have been set  for the 
Baltic Sea.  

The majority of the Member States as well as the BSAC do not  consider that there is 
any immediate need to establish such measures 

However, some contributions by Member States indicated that closing areas with a high 
number  of  spawning  cod  for  a  limited  period  of  time  would  be  useful  to  achieve 
sustainable  cod  fisheries  in  the  Baltic  Sea  and  to  protect  spawning  aggregations.  The 
provisions concerning site closures in the Skagerrak could serve as a reference. In this 
respect, some Member States have informed of national measures.  

On the other hand, a number of stakeholders in the online consultation (mainly NGOs) 
refer  specifically  to  situation  in  the  Baltic  Sea,  where  the  real  time  closures  could  be 
useful for sensitive species and in a coastal salmon fishery, where there is a set salmon 
migration  target  for  a  specific  river.  Fishing  outside  the  river  mouth  should  not  be 
allowed until the required number of returning spawners has been reached.  

4.1.5.  Sensitive species 

The replies to the questionnaire indicate that a majority of Member States foresee taking 
additional measures to protect sensitive species. Some joint recommendations have been 
already submitted to the Commission and others are under development. Member States 
referred  to  the  joint  recommendation  on  the  reduction  of  incidental  catches  of  Baltic 
Harbour Porpoise that was developed at BALTFISH and submitted to the Commission 
joint 
on  22  December  2020.  BALTFISH  has 
recommendation  with  a  second  joint  recommendation  covering  additional  mitigation 
measures  (including  where  appropriate  the  use  of  ADDs)  outside  Natura  2000  sites. 
Work on a second joint recommendation will continue in the months to come.    

intention  supplement 

this 

the 

According to BSAC there is still scope for improving the protection of sensitive species. 
As expressed by fisheries representatives in BSAC there is a need to link the technical 

45 

 
measures  with  efforts  to  protect  and  restore  habitats  and  species.  In  case  of  regional 
mitigation measures, BSAC refers to joint recommendation on the mitigation measures 
for harbour porpoise, when their recommendation was sent to BALTFISH.  

As regards to steps taken by Member States to monitor and reduce incidental catches of 
sensitive  species,  several  Member  States  reported  that  monitoring  is  carried  out  by 
onboard  observers  and  that  fishermen  provide  information  on  incidental  catches  of 
marine mammals and seabirds in the logbooks.  

As reported by Member States, the collection of data on incidental catches of sensitive 
species  is  mainly  conducted  within  the  EU  Data  Collection  Framework.  According  to 
BSAC,  this  issue  is  not  directly  relevant  to  the  implementation  of  the  Regulation  but 
said that fishermen are willing to collect data on incidental catches of sensitive species, 
provided such an obligation does not create an additional workload for them. 

Similarly,  a  majority  of  Member  States  reported  that  monitoring  and  assessing  the 
effectiveness  of  mitigation  measures  is  carried  out  within  Data  Collection  Framework 
by  providing  onboard  observers  and  also  based  on  information  in  logbooks.  BSAC 
considers that monitoring and assessing the effectiveness of mitigation measures set out 
in Annex XIII is a control issue, outside the scope of technical measures. 

4.1.6.  Sensitive habitats 

A majority of Member States in the Baltic Sea consider that Annex II – Closed areas for 
protection  of  sensitive  species  is  adequate.  BSAC  is  not  involved  in  any  proposal  to 
amend  Annex  II.  On  the  other  hand,  in  general  a  majority  of  stakeholders  who 
participated  in  the  online  consultation  think  that  the  measures  in  the  Annex  II  are  not 
adequate. Annex II does not currently include any measures concerning the Baltic Sea.  

Regarding  the  technical  nature  conservation  measures  for  the  protection  of  sensitive 
habitats,  some  Member  States  in  the  area  reported  that  in  the  next  three  years  they 
foresee  the  identification  and  development  of  potential  marine  protected  areas.  As 
reported  by  Member  States,  such  discussion  is  already  taking  place  in  BALTFISH. 
Also, HELCOM is involved in developing strategies and guidelines for such activities.  

BSAC  in  this  regard  consider  that  there  is  still  scope  for  improving  the  protection  of 
sensitive habitats and there is a need to link technical measures with efforts to protect 
and restore habitats and species.  

In general, a majority of stakeholders in the online consultation think that there is a need 
for additional technical nature conservation measures to protect sensitive habitats. More 
specifically,  a  number  of  stakeholders  (mainly  NGOs)  pointed  out  that  the  evidence 
shows  that,  bottom  contacting  gears  create  a  range  of  problems  and  that  MPAs  are 
failing  to  curb  the  impact  of  damaging  fishing  gears  on  protected  habitats.  Also,  the 
protection of the EU coastal areas from destructive fishing is critical to protect sensitive 
habitats  and  essential  fish  habitats  (e.g.  spawning  and  nursery  grounds)  of  many 
commercial species.  

46 

 
4.2.  North  Sea  (including  the  Skagerrak,  Kattegat,  Belt  Sea  and  eastern 

Channel) 

The  most  important  species  for  fleets  operating  in  the  sea  basin  in  terms  of  value 
include  Norway  lobster,  herring,  mackerel,  cod,  haddock,  common  shrimp,  common 
sole and plaice.  

Most  North  Sea  stocks  are  currently  managed  sustainably  –  herring,  Norway  lobster, 
sole,  plaice,  haddock  and  saithe.  The  sustainable  management  of  the  stocks  is  further 
facilitated by the North Sea multiannual management plan, which covers about 70% of 
North Sea stocks. This introduced additional biomass safeguards that are not provided 
for in the CFP Regulation.  

ICES  (2020)58  assessed  that  the  fishing  mortality  for  North  Sea  cod  in  2019  was  just 
over twice FMSY and SSB is below Blim.   

STECF reviewed selectivity changes in the fisheries for North Sea cod, haddock, saithe, 
whiting  and  plaice.  Selectivity  improved  in  North  Sea  cod  and  saithe  (which  is  also 
distributed  in  north-western  waters),  and  to  a  less  clear  extent  for  North  Sea  plaice  in 
recent  years. STECF could  not  conclude whether these selectivity improvements were 
linked to changes in technical measures regulations. 

No selectivity trend could be detected for North Sea haddock and North Sea whiting, as 
they show a variable indicator track over the span of the time series. For haddock the 
indicator  has  risen  over  the  last  few  years  and  ends  up  at  a  relatively  high  level 
compared to the mean of the time series. For this species it cannot be concluded that the 
objective  to  protect  juveniles  has  be  reached.  For  whiting,  on  the  other  hand,  the 
indicator is close to an all-time low during the most recent years indicating protection of 
juveniles.  No  correlations  between  the  indicator  and  technical  measures  could  be 
established  

As  the  majority  of  the  stocks  in  this  area  are  shared  with  third  countries  (United 
Kingdom and Norway), the contribution of the Regulation to the exploitation pattern is 
important but is shared with that of the measures established by those countries as well 
as those agreed between the EU and the United Kingdom, the EU and Norway and/or 
trilaterally.  

Since the entry into force of the Regulation,  Member States have submitted nine joint 
recommendations.  One  has  been  adopted  as  a  delegated  act,  concerning  several 
measures  concerning  the  discard  plan  for  the  North  Sea59.  One  concerned  the 
amendment  of  Delegated  Regulation  2019/2201  regarding  real  time  closures,  and  the 
rest  of  them  dealt  with  several  measures  that  Member  States  wished  to  modify  as 
regards the plaice and sprat boxes, and additional gear specifications. These have been 
assessed by STECF and are scheduled for adoption as delegated acts. Lastly, it has been 

58 https://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2020/2020/cod.27.47d20.pdf 
59  COMMISSION  DELEGATED  REGULATION  (EU)  2020/2013  of  21  August  2020  amending 
Regulation (EU) 2019/1241 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards technical measures 
for certain demersal and pelagic fisheries in the North Sea and in the South Western Waters. C/2020/5641 
OJ L 415, 10.12.2020, p. 3–9 

47 

 
                                                 
assessed by STECF60 during the expert group on evaluation of joint recommendations 
on the Landing Obligation and Technical Measures, a joint recommendation concerning 
technical measures for conservation of fishery resources of the North Sea (Skagerrak).  

4.2.1.  Minimum conservation reference sizes (Articles 13 and 18) 

Many  Members  States  found  the  current  MCRS  appropriate,  but  some  of  them  had 
adopted  national  measures  to  increase  in  MCRS  for  some  species.  For  example, 
Belgium  increased  the  MCRS  for  sole  from  24  cm  to  25  cm  and  for  turbot  and  brill 
from 30 cm to 32 cm. Sweden increased the MCRS for European lobster in division 3a 
(Skagerrak and Kattegat), in order to protect juveniles for the benefit of rebuilding and 
long-term management of the stock. 

At  regional  level,  the  Scheveningen  Group  submitted  a  joint  recommendation61  to 
increase  the  MCRS  for  European  lobster  in  ICES  division  3a  and  on  harmonising  the 
MCRS for seabass caught in recreational fisheries, which was approved by STECF.  

Stakeholders  who  participated  in  the  online  consultation  did  not  raise  any  specific 
suggestions  for  the  MCRS  in  the  North  Sea,  besides  the  general  remarks  about  the 
concept of the MCRS (already described in section 4.4). 

4.2.2.  Selective gears to reduce unwanted catches 

STECF  experts  signalled  several  events  having  an  impact  on  selectivity.  In  2009,  the 
cod  effort  management  plan  was  introduced  to  incentivise  the  use  of  more  selective 
fishing gears. In 2015, an increase in the minimum mesh size to 120 mm (with specific 
derogations  for  mixed  demersal  fisheries  including  Norway  lobster,  and  for  northern 
prawn    fisheries)  was  introduced  in  the  Skagerrak.  Selective  devices  (e.g.  Seltra  and 
sorting  grids)  were  made  mandatory  in  these  fisheries.  In  2019,  the  new  technical 
measures regulation introduced 120 mm as baseline. 

Electric  pulse  trawl  fishing  started  in  2009  and  the  use  of  pulse  trawls  in  the  main 
fishery  operating  in  the  North  Sea  made  it  possible  to  fish  on  softer  grounds  and  the 
spatial distribution of the main fisheries had shifted to the southern part of Division 4.c. 

As is the case for the other sea basins, an important element of debate was the definition 
of  directed  fishing  for  the  species  that  will  use  smaller  mesh  sizes  than  the  baseline.  
From the consultation, it seems to be a widely-held view that the definition of a fishery 
is necessary in order not to undermine current standards, and also to grant a harmonised 
implementation of this provisions by all Member States. The Scheveningen Group has 
been  working  on  the  matter  in  an  attempt  to  identify  the  fisheries  in  which  a  shift  of 
effort  may  occur  and  proposes  to  continue  working  on  the  topic.  Member  States  will 
need to deploy more control and monitoring assets to assess whether this is happening.   

As for new selective measures, the North Sea Advisory Council (NSAC) believes that 
current measures are adequate.  

60 Final report STECF EWG 21-05 published at https://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ewg2105 

61 Measures adopted in the Regulation (EU) 2020/2013.  

48 

 
                                                 
In  the  Scheveningen  Group  there  have  been  discussions  during  2019  and  2020 
concerning increased selectivity  for cod in  order to  rebuild the stock of the North  Sea 
and Skagerrak. Consensus has not yet been reached.  

Member  States  considered  that  there  is  still  room  to  increase  selectivity,  and  to 
harmonise  better  the  measures  in  different  areas  of  the  North  Sea.  Member  States 
anticipate that more joint recommendations will be tabled in the future.  

The outcomes of the targeted online consultation did not include any specific suggestion 
for the North Sea in terms of selectivity of gears for specific species. 

4.2.3.  Closed areas and seasons to protect juveniles (art 17)  

The current areas that this Regulation sets are the same as in the previous legislation.  

The  2020  Fishing  Opportunities  Regulation62  introduced  the  remedial  measures  to 
protect spawning cod in the form of seasonal closures introduced into the North Sea.   

In  this  respect,  Denmark  has  closed  the  area  in  Skagerrak  ‘Revet’  for  a  period  in  the 
second half of the year, as part of their national cod plan provided for under Article 14 
of the 2020 Fishing Opportunities Regulation.   

One Member State stresses that there is a need to increase restrictions for beam trawl in 
the North Sea, including the Skagerrak. This concerns restrictions on the areas (e.g. to 
protect reefs), where beam trawl can be used, and restrictions on the gear specifications, 
e.g. restricting the use of chain mats. 

Some Member States with fishing interests in the area do not see the need for additional 
closed  or  restricted  areas  but  would  welcome  Commission’s  evaluation  of  the 
effectiveness of the established closed/restricted areas in achieving their objectives. 

The  NSAC  is  of  the  opinion  that  at  present,  there  is  no  need  for  additional  area 
restrictions.  On  the  contrary,  fewer  closures  would  be  preferred  until  more  scientific 
documentation about the positive effects of closures is available. In this regard, NSAC 
asked the Commission  to carry out  a scientific evaluation  of the plaice box closure in 
the North Sea.  

One of the most discussed topics was the provisions of the plaice box (point 2 of part C 
of the Regulation). An issue which has been addressed by the concerned regional group 
by way of a joint recommendation. The NSAC supports the reintroduction of the use of 
the Danish Seine in the plaice box as suggested in the Joint Recommendation submitted 
by the Scheveningen Group. This joint recommendation intends to correct a procedural 
error in the Regulation. This joint recommendation was assessed by STECF in the last 
Plenary  of  2020,  and  will  soon  be  used  as  a  basis  for  the  adoption  of  a  Commission 
delegated act, provided that it meets all the relevant requirements set out in accordance 
with Article 18 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 and in accordance with the relevant 
Articles of Chapter III of the Regulation.  

62  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, J L 25, 30.1.2020, p. 1–156  

49 

 
                                                 
 
The number of stakeholders (mainly NGOs) in the online consultation pointed out that 
in the North Sea, sandeel has been declining dramatically due to overfishing and climate 
change. Yet the only measures for these fisheries are based on catch limits decided on 
annual  basis.  Sandeel  are  important  food  for  the  Atlantic  Puffin  and  Black-legged 
Kittiwakes who have seen sharp declines as a result of a lack of sandeel. They see the 
need to assess how further closures of sandeel fisheries can help increase populations of 
seabirds  and  apply  them.  In  particular,  sandeel  fishing  in  the  Doggerbank  should  be 
restricted. 

4.2.4.  Real time closures and moving on provisions (Article 19) 

The NSAC considers that the real-time closures and moving-on provisions are useful to 
serve  a  single  objective  –  e.g.  rebuilding  of  a  stock  (e.g.  cod),  and  that  the  measures 
should not be applied in general terms but rather used on a case-by-case basis, with the 
objective to avoid unwanted catches. 

After  consulting  the  NSAC,  the  Scheveningen  group  prepared  in  2019  a  joint 
recommendation  on  the  implementation  of  real-time  closures  for  Northern  prawn 
fisheries  in  the  Skagerrak,  which  was  adopted  through  Commission  Delegated 
Regulation 2019/220163. 

In  Denmark’s  national  cod  plan,  adopted  in  accordance  with  Article  14  of  the  2020 
Fishing Opportunities Regulation, real-time closure-inspections are part of the primary 
control  tools.  This  has  led  to  three  real-time  closures  since  the  entry  into  force  of  the 
cod plan on 15 August 2020. 

In light of the landing obligation, Denmark considers move-on provisions as a relevant 
control  tool,  if  the  level  of  unwanted  catches  or  undersized  fish  is  high.  Therefore, 
Denmark  has  implemented  a  requirement  for  haul-by-haul  recording  in  the  logbook, 
which  is  necessary  to  be  able  to  enforce  move-on  provisions.  As  the  rules  are  today, 
inspectors can only recommend to the fishermen to move fishing ground.  

In  2020,  Belgium  introduced  for  the  year  2021  temporary  additional  measures  in  the 
form  of  moving-on  provisions  in  order  to  protect  juveniles  of  certain  stocks  and  to 
ensure that the allocated quotas of these stocks are not exceeded in certain ICES areas. 
Among others, such provision is included for sole in the North Sea.  

According  to  another  Member  State,  real-time  closures  and  move-on  rules  are  in 
principle suitable to support, for example, the implementation of the landing obligation 
or to reduce the incidental catch of certain species or communities in general. In 2020, 
the protection measures for North  Sea cod included real-time closures (including with 
Norway). 

Some other Member States have not at this stage identified the need for any further real-
time closures or moving-on provisions the North Sea.  

63 Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/2201 of 1 October 2019 supplementing Regulation (EU) 
2019/1241 of the European Parliament and of the Council with detailed rules for the implementation 
of real-time closures for Northern prawn fisheries in the Skagerrak. OJ L 332, 23.12.2019, p. 3–11 

50 

 
                                                 
Some  stakeholders  in  the  online  consultation  stressed  that  moving-on  provisions  and 
real  time  closures  are  only  workable  when  they  are  based  on  real  time  scientific 
evidence, which is not currently available. With correct implementation, they could be 
effective  to  protect  cod  in  the  North  Sea,  Skagerrak  and  Kattegat  and  also  for  other 
species that are vulnerable or on the prohibited list).  

4.2.5.  Sensitive species 

The  replies  received  to  the  questionnaire  launched  regarding  the  technical  nature 
conservation  measures  for  the  protection  of  sensitive  species,  several  Member  States 
foresee  taking  additional  measures.  In  this  regard,  the  joint  recommendation  with 
proposed management measures in accordance with Article 11 of Regulation (EU) No 
1380/2013  in  Natura  2000  areas  in  North  Sea  EEZ  was  submitted  by  Scheveningen 
Group  to  the  Commission.  Following  evaluation  by  STECF,  the  Commission  has 
proposed amendments to ensure the achievement of the protection objectives. Following 
the  completion  of 
joint 
recommendation  is  now  being  discussed  in  a  Scheveningen  Ad  Hoc  Working  Group 
with other Member States having a direct management interest in the fisheries affected 
by the measures. The measures aim not only to  protect the habitat types  of sandbanks 
(H1110)  and  reefs  (H1170),  but  also  to  protect  sensitive  species  such  as  porpoise  and 
seabird species.  

the  national  consultation  process, 

the  revised  draft 

Also, the joint recommendation on fisheries conservation measures in four MPAs in the 
Kattegat was submitted to the Commission in February 2020. These recommendations 
include mitigation measures aimed to protect Harbour porpoise and seabirds.   

It has also been reported that some measures are proposed in several Natura 2000 areas 
and MSFD areas. These proposals are part of draft Joint Recommendations which will 
be submitted to the European Commission in the first half of 2021. One of these joint 
recommendation focuses specifically on the reduction of bycatches of seabirds in static 
nets on the Frisian Front.  

In a similar manner as in the Baltic, Member States individually and in the waters under 
their jurisdiction are working to enhance the protection of sensitive species in their EEZ 
covering Natura 2000 sites.    

The  NSAC  members  generally  agree  that  nature  conservation  measures  should  focus 
holistically on the ecosystem approach, and that any additional measures should be dealt 
with on a case-by-case basis. As for the regional mitigation measures for the reduction 
of incidental catches of sensitive species, the NSAC notes that any new measures would 
need  to  be  fully  evaluated  prior  to  inclusion  in  the  regulation.  Currently,  additional 
regional  mitigation  measures  are  not  required,  but  wishes  to  be  involved  in  the 
consultation process should they become necessary in future.  

As regards to steps taken by Member States to monitor and reduce incidental catches of 
sensitive species, some Member States claimed that fishermen provide information  on 
incidental  catches  of  marine  mammals  and  seabirds  in  the  logbooks.  Also,  some 
Member States claimed to have stepped up controls on the use of ADDs.  

With  regard  to  the  scientific  data  the  NSAC  notes  that  the  industry  is  willing  to 
contribute to the collection of scientific data. 

51 

 
Similarly,  majority  of  Member  States  reported  that  monitoring  and  assessing  the 
effectiveness  of  mitigation  measures  is  carried  out  within  Data  Collection  Framework 
by  providing  onboard  observers  and  also  based  on  information  in  logbooks.  The 
industry representatives  of the NSAC believe that  the measures  set  out  in Annex XIII 
are adequate and no additional steps are necessary. 

4.2.6.  Sensitive habitats  

Regarding  the  technical  nature  conservation  measures  for  the  protection  of  sensitive 
habitats, almost all Member States in the area reported that in the upcoming three years 
they  foresee  taking  additional  measures.  Member  States  are  mainly  considering 
measures  in  the  MPAs  and  Natura  2000.  Assessments  are  currently  under  way  to 
estimate the impacts of fishing activities on protected habitats and species for regulatory 
action. 

In this regard, a Joint Recommendation for protection of the remaining reef structures in 
the designated Natura 2000 sites (5 areas), located in the North Sea is currently being 
prepared.  Focus  has  been  on  protecting  the  habitats  with  highest  risk  of  irreversible 
damages  –  e.g.  reefs  (habitats  code  1170)  and  bubbling  reefs  (habitat  code  1180). 
Furthermore, a Joint Recommendation is expected during 2021, for the protection of a 
large  area  located  in  the  Kattegat,  combined  of  both  a  MSFD  designated  area  and  a 
Natura  2000  designated  site  (reefs  1170).  The  Joint  Recommendation  on  fisheries 
conservation  measures  in  four  MPAs  in  the  Kattegat  was  recently  submitted  to  the 
Commission. 

Also,  the  North  Sea  Regional  Group  (Scheveningen  Group)  submitted  the  joint 
recommendation on additional  technical  measure in  accordance with  Article 11 of the 
CFP Regulation to the Commission. Following evaluation by STECF, the Commission 
has proposed amendments to ensure the achievement of  the protection objectives. The 
revised  draft  joint  recommendation  will  be  discussed  in  a  Scheveningen  Ad  Hoc 
Working  Group  with  Member  States  having  a  direct  management  interest  in  the 
fisheries  affected  by  the  measures.  The  measures  aim  not  only  to  protect  the  habitat 
types  of  sandbanks  (H1110)  and  reefs  (H1170),  but  also  to  protect  sensitive  species 
such as porpoise and seabird species.  

As  regard  to  additional  measures,  the  NSAC  members  generally  agree  that  nature 
conservation  measures  should  focus  holistically  on  the  ecosystem  approach,  and  that 
any additional measures should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. 

In general, majority of stakeholders in the online consultation think that there is a need 
for additional technical nature conservation measures to protect sensitive habitats. More 
specifically  for  the  North  Sea,  number  of  stakeholders  pointed  out  that  sensitive 
habitats, especially the seafloor need better protection against destructive fishing gears, 
in  particularly  bottom-trawling  (in  particular  three  Danish  marine  Natura  2000  sites 
have been mentioned in this regard).  

4.3.  North Western Waters   

The  main  Member  States  operating  in  the  sea  basin  are  Spain,  France,  Portugal  and 
Ireland. Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Lithuania, the Netherlands also have some fleet 
segments active in area.   

52 

 
The  most  important  species  in  the  North  Western  Waters  include  Atlantic  mackerel, 
blue whiting, horse mackerel, hake, Norway lobster and monkfish. 

Some stocks in the basin remain outside safe biological limits and additional measures 
need  to  be  taken  for  their  recovery.  Recent  advice  from  ICES  also  shows  worrying 
decreases in key gadoid stocks such as the Celtic Sea cod and whiting in the Irish Sea 
and  in  the  west  of  Scotland.  This  worrying  situation  led  to  the  adoption  of  several 
measures  functionally linked to  and allowing setting of TACS below Fmsy  and to  aid 
the  recovery.  These  measures  have  been  taken  within  2020  fishing  opportunities,  in 
order to bring the stocks above the level capable of producing MSY, in accordance with 
Article 8(2) of the Western Waters multiannual plan64. Such measures would improve 
selectivity  by  making  use  of  gear  that  have  lower  levels  of  incidental  catches  of  cod 
mandatory  in  the  areas  where  cod  catches  are  significant,  thus  decreasing  the  fishing 
mortality of this stock in mixed fisheries.  

The diversity of catches, especially of demersal non-TAC species, presents a challenge 
to both mixed fisheries management and the implementation of the landing obligation in 
this region.  

According  to  STECF  20-02,  the  species  for  which  the  selectivity  indicator  was  tested 
were cod in ICES division 6a, whiting in ICES division 6a, west of Scotland haddock, 
west of Scotland saithe, Rockall haddock and Irish Sea cod. 

The stocks for which the experts consider that fishing mortality on juveniles has been 
reduced  are  cod  in  ICES  division  6a,  west  of  Scotland  saithe,  Rockall  haddock,  Irish 
Sea  haddock,  Irish  Sea  whiting,  Irish  Sea  plaice,  Celtic  Sea  megrim  and  western 
Channel plaice. However, the experts found it difficult to link any of these changes to 
the technical measures that have been implemented.  

For whiting in 6a, the indicator shows a steady deterioration in selectivity with respect 
to juveniles which corresponds to significantly reduced fishing effort and catches in the 
gadoid fisheries for whiting (with more selective gears) and increase catches and effort 
in the small mesh, less selective Nephrops fishery. In this fishery, unwanted catches of 
small whiting have continued at high levels for many years without any improvement in 
gear  selectivity.  This  led  to  the  experts  to  conclude  that  that  the  objective  of  the 
regulation is not being met and the exploitation pattern in the Nephrops fishery is sub-
optimal. 

For West of Scotland haddock, and Irish Sea cod, no indicator was produced due to the 
lack of data necessary.  

Member  States  have  submitted  one  joint  recommendation,  concerning  remedial 
measures for cod. This is scheduled for adoption after assessment by STECF.    

64  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 OJ L 83, 25.3.2019, p. 1–17. This multiannual plan covers North 
Western and South Western waters.  

53 

 
                                                 
4.3.1.  Minimum conservation reference sizes (Articles 13 and 18) 

Part  A  of  annex  VII  sets  the  MCRS  for  the  most  important  species  in  North  Western 
Waters, which were the same as in previous technical measures legislation.  

In  principle,  the  MCRS  are  considered  by  the  Member  States  in  the  North  Western 
Waters to be appropriate.   

The joint recommendation has been developed in the framework of the North and South 
Western  Waters  Regional  Groups  to  increase  the  MCRS  of  red  seabream  to  36  cm 
instead  of  33  cm  in  the  Regulation.  The  joint  recommendation  on  the  Celtic  Sea, 
adopted  for  2021,  specified  minimum  sizes  for  almost  twenty  species  for  recreational 
fisheries. 

One Member State thinks that harmonisation of the MCRS for mackerel between NWW 
(20cm),  SWW  (20cm)  and  North  Sea  (30cm)  would  be  sensible,  given  this  MCRS 
applies to the same stock. 

In  its  advice  on  fishing  opportunities  for  2021,  the  NWWAC  suggest  increasing  the 
MCRS for sole to 25 cm, since the discard rate continues to be high in English Channel 
(ICES  division  7d).  This  request  by  NWWAC  to  increase  MCRS  for  sole  was  also 
supported by one stakeholder (business organization) in the online consultation.  

Stakeholders  who  participated  in  the  targeted  online  consultation  did  not  raise  any 
specific suggestions for MCRS in the NWW. 

4.3.2.  Selective gears to reduce unwanted catches 

As in other sea basins, one of the most controversial topics has been the definition of a 
directed fishery, as described in the tables of the mentioned Annex. Likewise, to date, 
no  joint  recommendation  has  been  submitted,  and  the  discussions  are  ongoing  within 
the  NWW  Member  States  group.  In  a  similar  manner  as  in  the  rest  of  sea  basins,  all 
Member States and the advisory councils concluded that this is a complicated topic that 
needs to be dealt with to avoid misuse of mesh sizes and to grant harmonised approach 
amongst Member States.  

Regarding the species and size selectivity of fishing gear the NWWAC recommends to 
first assess the results of the current technical measures in place and their effectiveness 
in  improving  selectivity  prior  to  considering  additional  measures.  In  this  regard,  the 
NWWAC asked for STECF evaluation of the current technical measures in place in the 
Irish  Sea  taking  into  account  the  results  from  the  BIM  and  the  Northern  Ireland  gear 
trials and to identify those gears which are most successful at eliminating whiting below 
MCRS in the Nephrops fisheries in the Irish Sea (Area 7a).  

Regarding  the  actions  of  Member  States  in  relation  to  species  and  size  selectivity  of 
fishing gear, some Member States have been working on the joint recommendations in 
this regard.  

Discussions  on  the  issue  of  Danish  seine  in  the  Eastern  Channel  have  started  in  the 
North Western Waters Group. A future joint recommendation could contain provisions 
on the framework for seine fishing effort in the area, as well as provisions related to the 
minimum mesh size for directed squid fishing. 

54 

 
Member  States  Groups  are  working  on  the  Joint  Recommendation  of  technical 
measures, which affects for example the Celtic Sea, where some measures related to the 
mesh size specifications for year 2021 are applied in order to protect whiting and cod in 
this zone. 

Another  joint  recommendation  that  is  currently  being  prepared  by  Member  States  is 
related to plaice survivability in the Celtic Sea seine-net fishery and use of 100 mm T90 
mesh in the Irish Sea haddock fishery.  

In the online consultation, some contributions (from the fisheries sector) recommend to 
first assess the results of the current technical measures in place and their effectiveness 
in improving selectivity prior to considering additional measures. They consider that in 
the Celtic Sea, the remedial measures taken are overly prescriptive and do not represent 
a  balanced  or  proportionate  management  response  to  the  challenge  of  applying 
necessary rebuilding measures.  

4.3.3.  Closed areas and seasons to protect juveniles  

Part  C  of  Annex  VI  depicts  these  areas  aimed  at  granting  special  protection  for  the 
resources;  the  intention  was  to  preserve  the  status  quo  and  take  over  the  technical 
measures that were in force. These areas can be modified by joint recommendations if 
can be demonstrated that the results in selectivity characteristics are at least similar.  

In  the  case  of  the  Northern  hake  stock,  the  relevant  applicable  technical  measures  are 
currently included in parts B and, for some specific closed or restricted areas also in Part 
C, of Annexes VI (covering North Western Waters) and VII (covering South Western 
Waters)  of  the  Regulation.  In  addition,  the  Regulation  specifically  refers  to  certain 
provisions of Commission Regulation (EC) 494/200265 that is still applicable. However, 
not all provisions of Commission Regulation (EC) 494/2002 that were applicable before 
the  Regulation  entered  into  force  are  explicitly  referred  to,  as  is  the  case  of  the  mesh 
size applicable set by Regulation 494/2002 in 102 mm.  

France, as one of the main Member States whose vessels target hake in the area covered 
by  Annex  VI  of  the  Regulation,  sought  clarification  on  the  currently  applicable  legal 
framework  and  rules  to  be  applied  for  this  hake  fishery,  specifically  for  the  use  of 
gillnets.   

In  general,  most  Member  States  in  the  area  do  not  see  the  need  for  additional  closed 
areas. 

there  are  some  suggestions 

However, 
joint 
recommendation on scallops in the Eastern Channel, which provides in particular for the 
establishment of a fish stock recovery area (cf. Article 8 of the CFP Regulation) in the 
intermediate  zone  in  the  Eastern  Channel  was  submitted.  It  also  provides  for 
prohibitions  on  fishing  for  dredges  between  15  May  and  30  September  in  Divisions 
VIId and in part of VIIe. This was assessed by STECF Summer Plenary 2021.  

for  additional  measures.  The 

65  Commission  Regulation  (EC)  No  494/2002  of  19  March  2002  establishing  additional  technical 
measures for the recovery of the stock of hake in ICES sub-areas III, IV, V, VI and VII and ICES 
divisions VIII a, b, d, e OJ L 77, 20.3.2002, p. 8–10  

55 

 
                                                 
Member  States  in  the  NWW  group  are  also  currently  examining  the  possible 
introduction of closed/restricted areas in relation to scallops in the western Channel.  

The  NWWAC  has  not  identified  a  need  for  additions  to  the  closed  or  restricted  areas 
included in Part C of Annex VI. However, in respect of other regulations containing to 
such  areas,  the  NWWAC  2020  Fishing  Opportunities  2021  advice  contains  a 
recommendation to  consider measures to  protect nursery  areas in  ICES  division  7d as 
implemented by France elsewhere in ICES division 7d. 

Stakeholders  in  the  online  consultation  did  not  raise  any  suggestions  for  additional 
closed or restricted area in the NWW.  

4.3.4.  Real time closures and moving on provisions 

Regarding the real time closures and moving on provisions, the NWWAC recommends 
in its 2020 advice on choke risk that the priority should be given to measures that aim at 
unwanted fish not entering the gear in the first place. This could include measures like 
spatial  closures,  real-time  closures,  mandatory  move-on  rules  and  gear  modifications, 
which allow unwanted fish to escape as early as possible throughout the capture process 
to  maximise  survival.  The  same  advice,  additional  measures  for  contributing  to 
mitigating  choke  for  cod  and  whiting  in  6a  includes  accelerating  the  introduction  of 
technical  measures  in  directed  demersal  fisheries  including  spatial  and  temporal 
closures. 

Some Member States have introduced this kind of measures at national level.  

Spain  laid  down  in  its  national  Regulation  (Order  514/2019)  a  mandatory  moving-on 
rule  in  order  to  comply  with  catch  composition  rules  established  at  EU  level  and  the 
landing obligation. On this provision after a haul not pursuant to the catch composition 
rules  or  where  there  was  presence  of  a  high  concentration  of  limiting  species  (i.e. 
prohibited species or undersized and juvenile fish) the vessel must change its location, 
moving  away  at  least  3  miles  from  the  point  where  the  fishing  activities  were  carried 
out.  Also,  a  move  on  rule  was  implemented  in  relation  to  the  incidental  bycatches  of 
cetaceans. 

Belgium introduced move-on provisions in its Ministerial Order of 24 December 2020 
laying  down  temporary  additional  measures  for  the  year  2021  in  order  to  protect 
juveniles of certain stocks and to ensure that the allocated quotas of these stocks are not 
exceeded in certain ICES areas. This Ministerial Order states: “If a certain threshold is 
likely  to  be  exceeded  during  a  sea  trip,  the  fishing  activity  shall  be  immediately 
suspended  and  the  activities  shall  be  redirected  at  least  ten  nautical  miles.”  This 
provision  is  among  others  included  cod  in  the  Eastern  English  Channel,  plaice  and 
whiting in the Irish Sea. 

Other Member States in the area do not see a need for additional closures and real-time 
provisions.  

Stakeholders in the online consultation did not raise any suggestions for additional real-
time closures or moving on provisions in the NWW.  

56 

 
4.3.5.  Sensitive species 

From  the  replies  received  to  the  consultation,  Member  States  in  this  area  are 
implementing measures individually in areas under their national jurisdiction.   

The  NWWAC  advice  on  incidental  cetaceans  bycatch  in  the  North  Western  Waters 
suggests  considering  spatial/temporal  closures,  assuming  that  the  responsible  fleets 
could be identified reliably and that the state of common dolphin population needs such 
drastic measures. These must be based on scientific evidence.  

4.3.6.  Sensitive habitats 

From the replies received to  the  consultation,  MS in  this area implementing measures 
individually in areas under its national jurisdiction.   

No joint recommendation is under preparation to adopt transnational measures 

4.4. 

South Western waters 

The  main  Member  States  operating  in  this  area  are  Belgium,  France,  Portugal, 
Netherlands and Spain. 

Many  stocks  in  the  basin  are  fished  inside  safe  biological  limits  and  have  generally 
progressed  towards  MSY.  As  from  2020,  for  all  target  stocks,  listed  as  such  in  the 
Western  Waters  Multiannual  Plan66  fishing  opportunities  are  established  in  line  with 
MSY ranges.  

Some stocks in the basin remain outside safe biological limits and additional measures 
need to be taken for their recovery. In south western waters, examples of stocks outside 
safe biological limits are sardines and Norway lobster in the south of the Bay of Biscay. 
Stocks in the south western waters tend to have precautionary scientific advice (as is the 
case  of  southern  hake  since  2020).  This,  coupled  with  the  high  species  richness  and 
diversity of non-TAC catches, has made mixed fisheries management challenging. 

Evaluation  of  STECF  EWG  in  the  south  western  waters  focused  on  six  stocks  of  the 
geographical  area  of  south  western  waters  (SWW)  –  two  stocks  of  hake,  three  of 
megrim and one of whiting.  

However,  for  southern  hake  and  due  to  absence  of  F  at  age  data,  no  assessment  of 
selectivity indicator could be made for the hake stocks.  

For  megrim  (Lepidorhombus  whiffiagonis)  and  four-spot  megrim  (Lepidorhombus 
boscii) the selectivity indicators (Frec/Fbar) have been highly volatile along the  years, 
which  indicates  a  relatively  unstable  situation.  Since  2010/2011,  there  has  been  a 
gradual improvement for these species, but there are no technical measures specifically 
focused  on  the  protection  of  megrim,  so  the  reason  behind  the  improvement  remains 
unclear. In case of whiting (Merlangius merlangus) no data was available to  calculate 
selectivity indicator. 

66 Western Waters multiannual plan also includes north western waters.  

57 

 
                                                 
4.4.1.  Minimum conservation reference sizes (Arts 13 and 18) 

The MCRS set in the Regulation are the same as in the previous set of legislation.  

As  expressed  in  other  sea  basins,  in  general,  Member  States  consider  adequate  the 
current MCRS.  

However, to satisfy regional specificities, some the SWW regional group tabled a joint 
recommendation to change the MCRS of short necked clams (V. philippinarum) in the 
French  waters  of  Bassin  d’Arcachon.  This  joint  recommendation  was  sent  early  2021 
and  assessed  by  STECF  in  the  first  plenary  meeting  of  2021.  The  assessment  was 
negative. The experts considered that more scientific information needs to be presented 
to justify the measures    

This  proposal  was  supported  by  the  SWWAC,  which  also  thinks  that  measures  with 
recreational fisheries should be aligned.  

For  red  seabream,  a  joint  recommendation67  has  been  developed  by  North  and  South 
Western  Waters  Regional  Groups  to  increase  the  MCRS  to  36  cm  instead  of  33  cm 
currently applicable.  

4.4.2.  Selective gears to reduce unwanted catches 

The  STECF  experts  considered  that  the  major  technical  measure  implemented  in  this 
area (ICES 8abd) was the square mesh panel of 100 mm in the upper plan of the codend 
to reduce gadoids’ discards. 

The SWWAC stress that with the landing obligation being in force, it is necessary for 
the industry to work on selectivity in order to avoid unwanted catches that could lead to 
choke species.  

Member States share the opinion that currently there is no need for additional measures 
but agree that more discussion is needed on the “directed fishing”.   

In this context, in summer 2020 the SWW group submitted a joint recommendation on 
directed fisheries, which has been sent to STECF in order to  evaluate if they consider 
that  the  mesh  size  specifications  and  the  improvements  in  selectivity  of  the  gears 
proposed are enough for the sustainability of some species. However, considering that 
what  was proposed followed similar catch  composition  percentages as included in  the 
annexes  of  the  former  Technical  Measures  Regulation,  and  with  no  additional 
information that supported these suggestions, STECF concluded that it was not possible 
to assess the joint recommendation submitted and if it would serve to the consecution of 
objectives and targets. SWW group is working on a new joint recommendation, trying 
to take on board the comments by STECF.  

This regional group is also preparing a joint recommendation specifying the details of 
implementation  of  the  landing  obligation  in  which  Member  States  try  to  justify  the 
adoption of some exemptions to the landing obligation related to some stocks fished by 
specific gears with particular mesh size specifications. 

67 This JR was sent to be assessed by STECF EWG 21-05. Conclusions have not been published  when 

this report was drafted.  

58 

 
                                                 
Stakeholders in the targeted consultation did not raise any suggestion specific for South 
Western Waters in terms of selectivity. However, the majority of them share the opinion 
that in general, additional selectivity measures are needed.  

4.4.3.  Closed areas and seasons to protect juveniles (art 17 and Part C of 

Annex VII))  

The  current  areas  closed  to  fishing  are  not  new,  they  are  the  same  as  in  previous 
legislation. 

The SWWAC does not consider that there is currently a need for additional closed areas 
or  seasons  in  the  south western  waters,  since  they  have  no  new  information  revealing 
such aggregations in area not already covered. Some members of the Advisory Council 
suggest  permitting  to  fish  anglerfish  with  scraps  in  waters  of  VIIIc  with  depths  from 
600 m to 850 m, bearing in mind that studies show that shark catches at these depths are 
relatively small. 

To improve the biological situation of Red Seabream stock, SWW and NWW Member 
States have submitted joint recommendation68 that includes some restricted areas for the 
fishing of Red Seabream. The closures affect both longliners (LLS) and bottom trawlers 
(OTB)  and  are  in  place  from  1  of  February  to  30  of  September.  These  closures  are 
located in the very western area of Cantabrian Sea opposite Asturias and Galicia. The 
aim of these closures is mainly to protect spawners.  

In  the  online  consultation,  some  stakeholders  call  for  modification  of  the  closure  in 
Annex  VII  –  south  western  waters,  Part  C.1.  (a),  both  in  space  (recruitment  seems  to 
occur  predominantly  in  areas  where  trawler  with  net,  Danish  nets  or  similar  nets  are 
forbidden) as well as in time (large part of the year 10-11 months in a 12-month period, 
there are no specimen of juvenile size in the nets). Stakeholders refer here to the latest 
official research data on recruitment and observations made by official bodies and the 
fishing industry itself. 

4.4.4.  Real time closures and moving on provisions 

Currently, there are no specific rules regarding this technical measure at regional level 
in the area.  

In order to comply with catch composition rules established at EU level and the landing 
obligation,  Spain  laid  down  in  national  Regulation  (Order  514/2019)  a  mandatory 
moving-on rule, as mentioned in NWW.  

The  other  Member  States  in  the  area  think  there  is  no  need  for  additional  real-time 
closures and moving on provisions to be established in the south western waters.  

In contrast, the majority of stakeholders in the online consultation are of the opinion that 
additional real  time closures and moving on provisions are needed. More specifically, 
they  point  to  the  Bay  of  Biscay,  for  which  they  consider  that  except  for  spatial  and 
temporal fisheries closures, there are currently no other proven measures that effectively 

68 This JR was sent to be assessed by STECF EWG 21-05. Conclusions have not been published  when 

this report was drafted.  

59 

 
                                                 
reduce bycatch of common dolphin. In this case, providing a requirement for real-time 
closures  and  trailing  innovative  measures,  such  as  moving-on  provisions  might  be  an 
effective although time-limited bycatch prevention method. 

Some members of the SWWAC point to the Bay of Biscay, where there are currently no 
proven  measures  that  are  effective  to  adequately  reduce  common  dolphin  bycatch  – 
other than spatial  and temporal fisheries closures which are recommended by  ICES in 
their Advice on emergency measures. 

4.4.5.  Sensitive species 

The  South  Western  Waters  regional  group 
joint 
recommendation that was sent on October 2020 and that has been evaluated by STECF.   

in  2020,  prepared  a  draft 

Some of MS with importance presence in the area, such as France and Spain have also 
taken actions.   

France has taken several regulatory measures since 2018:  

- 

- 

- 

the  compulsory  fitting  of  pingers  throughout  the  year  for  all  trawlers  interacting 
with  cetaceans  (pelagic  trawlers  and  demersal  trawlers  in  pairs)  by  order  of  27 
November 2020;  
the  obligation  to  report  incidental  catches  of  marine  mammals  by  all  French 
fishermen since 1 January 2019.  
setting  a  threshold  of  good  environmental  status  for  common  dolphin  and  harbour 
porpoise species. The incidental catch mortality by fishing gear shall not exceed 1 % 
of the best available estimate of population abundance. This threshold relied on the 
work of ASCOBANS in the second round of the MSFD for the period 2020-2026. 
The review will be carried out in 2026.  

Spain has adopted national regulation (Orden APA 1200/202054) for the establishment 
of  mitigation  measures  and  the  improvement  of  scientific  knowledge  to  reduce 
incidental  catches  of  cetaceans  during  fishing  activities  according  to  the  SWW  Joint 
Recommendation  compromise  of  reducing  incidental  catches  of  cetaceans.  These 
measures can be summarised as follows:   

-  Collection of scientific information in relation with incidental catches of cetaceans 
in order to know if the measures in force are enough or not to meet the objectives of 
the  national  and  EU  regulation.  Establishment  of  a  specific  annual  program  of 
onboard  observers  in  order  to  improve  the  scientific  information  available  on 
incidental  catches  of  cetaceans  by  the  Spanish  fishing  fleet  in  the  Cantabrian 
Northwest  national  fishing  grounds  and  in  non-Spanish  European  Union  waters  of 
the  Gulf  of  Biscay.  The  monitoring  system  must  record  at  least  the  activities  of 
trawlers  with  a  large  vertical  opening  and  vessels  using  bottom  gillnets  or 
entanglement nets, with a mesh size equal to or greater than 80 mm, according to the 
indications of scientific institutes.  
carry  out  an  experimental  project  to  check  the  suitability  of  using  monitoring 
cameras on board in order to monitor the use of acoustic deterrent devices (pingers) 
in fishing gears to avoid catches of these cetaceans; assess the effectiveness of the 
move on rules; To carry out a pilot project with closed circuit television cameras on 
board  fishing  vessels  to  complete  the  information  collected  with  the  specific 
observer program.  

- 

60 

 
-  Data  collection  of  the  incidental  catches  in  monitoring  systems  to  grant  access  to 

- 

accurate information about incidental catches of cetaceans.  
Incidental  catch  reduction  measures:  Spanish  vessels  operating  with  bottom  trawls 
in  area  8c  and  under  special  authorization  in  EU  waters  of  the  Bay  of  Biscay,  are 
required  to  use  acoustic  deterrent  devices  during  their  fishing  activities  in  these 
areas.  The  acoustic  deterrent  devices  required,  have  to  be  in  accordance  with  the 
provisions of the Commission's Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/96769, of July 
3, 2020.  

-  Management of incidental catches of cetaceans: When an incidental capture of any 
species of cetacean occurred, and the individual remains alive, the members of the 
crew will, in the most careful way possible, avoiding its suffering and further stress, 
immediately release the individual or individuals from the fishing gear. If possible, 
pictures have to be taken to be reported to the Administration. In case the cetacean 
arrives dead or dies during releasing, they will endeavour to keep it on board, so that 
it can be delivered for scientific analysis once landed. The Ministry of Agriculture, 
Fisheries and Food will prepare and make available to the fishing sector guidelines 
of good practices for the management of these incidental catches.   

-  Move-on  rule:  When,  during  fishing  activities  with  bottom  trawl  gears,  more  than 
three specimens of cetaceans in the same fishing haul appear among the captures, or 
they  capture  a  specimen  of  cetacean  in  two  consecutive  hauls,  the  fishing  vessels 
will  move  a  minimum  of  5  miles  from  the  relevant  point  before  continuing  their 
fishing activities.  

4.4.6.  Sensitive habitats 

From the replies received to the consultation, Member States in this area implementing 
measures individually in areas under its national jurisdiction.   

No joint recommendation is under preparation to adopt transnational measures. 

4.5.  Mediterranean and Black Sea.  

The Mediterranean comprises the maritime waters of the Mediterranean to the East of 
line  5o  36’  W.  Eight70  out  of  its  25  coastal  countries  are  EU  Member  States:  Croatia, 
Cyprus,  France,  Greece,  Italy,  Malta,  Portugal,  Slovenia  and  Spain,  all  of  them  but 
Portugal, Spain and France completely reliant on this sea basin.  

The Black Sea region covers FAO fishing area 37.4. Two EU Member States, Bulgaria 
and Romania, are coastal states.  

Over 70% of the vessels belong to small-scale coastal fleets, with a strong imbrication 
in  the  social  and  cultural  tissue  of  coastal  areas.  Overall  reported  landings  oscillate 
around 800 000 tonnes, mostly concentrated in the western Mediterranean and Adriatic 
Sea.  

69 Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/967 of 3 July 2020 laying down the detailed rules on 
the signal and implementation characteristics of acoustic deterrent devices as referred to in Part A of 
Annex  XIII  of  Regulation  (EU)  2019/1241  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  on  the 
conservation  of  fisheries  resources  and  the  protection  of  marine  ecosystems  through  technical 
measures OJ L 213, 6.7.2020, p. 4–6 

70 While not a coastal Mediterranean Member State, Portugal has few fishing vessels in the Mediterranean 

61 

 
                                                 
Concerning  the  situation  of  the  stocks,  according  to  a  recent  report  on  the  State  of 
Mediterranean and Black Sea Fisheries (SoMFi  2020), while 75 percent  of fish stocks 
remain  subject  to  overfishing,  this  percentage  fell  by  more  than  10  percent  between 
2014  and  2018.  Exploitation  ratios  are  down  by  a  similar  proportion.  Taking  into 
account newly assessed stocks, the number of fish stocks with high relative biomass has 
doubled since the last edition published in 2018. 

Some of the most important stocks, such as hake and Norway lobster, are declining in 
several  geographical  sub-areas  and  are  overfished.  Stocks  of  deep-water  rose  shrimp, 
sole, spot tail mantis shrimp and red mullet have increased in recent years, but fishing 
mortality is still above sustainable mortality levels. Although the European anchovy is 
not overfished in the Aegean Sea, small pelagic species (anchovies and sardines) show a 
negative trend in all the geographic sub-areas assessed. Even if Bluefin tuna appears to 
be recovering, swordfish is overfished and the stock of Mediterranean albacore is also 
considered to be in a precarious state. 

Many assessed stocks are fished considerably above the Fmsy target estimates. Overall, 
17% of the assessed stocks are fished sustainably. They include red mullet in the South 
Tyrrhenian Sea, Adriatic Sea, and Aegean Sea, striped red mullet in the Balearic islands 
along with deep-water rose shrimp in the Ligurian and North Tyrrhenian Seas, and the 
common cuttlefish in the northern Adriatic.  

After the peak in 2011-2013, the EU stocks and EU shared stocks in the Mediterranean 
and  Black  Seas  have  seen  the  fishing  mortality  indicator  decreased  to  around  2.1  in 
recent  years. Although the stocks remain exploited on average at rates well above the 
CFP  management  objectives,  there  has  been  slight  improvement  in  terms  of  fishing 
pressure and stock biomass. Working to strengthen this positive trend became a priority 
in the agendas of all involved countries.  

The  shared  nature  of  the  stocks  makes  it  indispensable  to  coordinate  with  non-EU 
countries  and  with  international  regional  fisheries  management  organisations  such  as 
the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM) and the International 
Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT).  

An  important  milestone  was  the  adoption  of  the  MedFish4Ever  declaration  in  201771, 
which sets out a number of actions in order to rebuild Mediterranean fish stocks, protect 
the region’s ecological and economic wealth and boost the sustainable development of 
aquaculture through a wide range of measures. These commitments were renewed at the 
High-Level Conference held in Marrakech in June 2019. 

The fisheries management is focused on the implementation of the technical measures 
laid  down  by  EU  law,  by  the  GFCM  and  ICCAT  and  on  the  implementation  of 
management  measures,  including  management  plans  adopted  at  EU  level,  by  Member 
States, under regionalisation or nationally, and by the GFCM. However, in line with the 
objective  of  the  MedFish4Ever  declaration  and  the  GFCM  mid-term  strategy,  further 
measures will need to be developed with the aim of reducing over-exploitation levels, 
including measures to fight against IUU (such as traceability schemes) and establishing 
a regional capacity plan ensuring a good balance between resources and fleet capacity 
of all Mediterranean riparian countries, including EU Member States. 

71 https://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/sites/fisheries/files/2017-03-30-declaration-malta.pdf 

62 

 
                                                 
At EU level, the Mediterranean Regulation (1967/2006) contains specific management 
measures  for  the  exploitation  of  fishery  resources,  and  some  of  them  have  been 
incorporated into the Regulation. However, measures such as the obligation for Member 
States to establish national management plans or the possibility for the Commission to 
grant derogations to certain rules have remained within the remit of the Mediterranean 
Regulation. 

Under  the  Mediterranean  Regulation,  Member  States  have  adopted  more  than  40 
national management plans. Those management plans are always reviewed by STECF 
to  ensure  that  they  are  in  line  with  the  CFP  principles.  Furthermore,  they  have  been 
including  technical  measures,  in  line  with  the  Technical  Measures  Regulation 
objectives.   

The national management plans aim at  regulating certain fisheries (in particular: trawl 
nets,  boat  seines,  shore  seines,  surrounding  nets  and  dredges)  in  the  Member  States' 
territorial waters. They shall be based on scientific, technical and economic advice, and 
shall  contain  conservation  measures  to  restore  and  maintain  fish  stocks  above  levels 
capable of producing MSY. The plans shall also contain specific conservation measures 
based on the ecosystem approach to achieve the objectives set. In particular, they may 
incorporate any conservation and technical measure, such as limiting catches, fixing the 
number and type of fishing vessels authorised to  fish, limiting fishing effort, adopting 
technical measures, establishing incentives to promote more selective fisheries, conduct 
pilot projects on alternative types of fishing management techniques. 

The  Mediterranean  Regulation  also  provides  for  fisheries  restrictions  in  coastal  areas 
(ban on trawling within 3 nm from the coast / 50m isobath) and above certain habitats 
(e.g. Posidonia beds, maërl, coralligenous).   

The  adoption  of  further  technical  measures  shall  be  based  on  the  Technical  Measures 
Regulation, which needs to be applied along with the Mediterranean Regulation.72  

The  adoption  of  the  Western  Mediterranean  Multiannual  Plan  (‘West  Med  MAP’73), 
and its entry into force in 2019, meant an important milestone towards more sustainable 
management of resources. 

The  West  Med  MAP  provides  that  Fmsy  should  be  achieved  on  a  progressive, 
incremental  basis  by  2020  where  possible,  and  by  1  January  2025  at  the  latest,  and 
establishes fisheries closure areas. Continued efforts are needed to achieve the goal of a 
total  reduction  of  up  to  40%  of  the  fishing  effort  within  5  years,  with  a  mandatory 
reduction  of  10%  in  the  first  year  of  implementation  (2020).  Effort  reductions  can  be 
supplemented by technical or other conservation measures in order to reach Fmsy.  

The West Med MAP establishes in its Article 11 a temporary closure to trawling within 
6  nm  from  the  coast  or  100  m  deep,  for  3  months  every  year  in  the  coastal  areas  of 
Spain, France and Italy. The STECF has assessed those closure areas and concluded that 

72  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No 1967/2006  of  21 December  2006  concerning  management  measures  for 

the 129-142.No 2847/93 and repealing Regulation (EC) 

73  Regulation  (EU)  2019/1022  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  20  June  2019 
establishing  a  multiannual  plan  for  the  fisheries  exploiting  demersal  stocks  in  the  western 
Mediterranean Sea and amending Regulation (EU) No 508/2014  OJ L 172, 26.6.2019, p. 1–17  

63 

 
                                                 
Member  States  should  adopt  additional  measures.  Furthermore,  Member  States  may 
establish, under certain conditions and on the basis of the STECF’s advice, other closure 
areas,  provided  that  a  reduction  of  at  least  20  %  of  catches  of  juvenile  hake  in  each 
Geographical  Statistical  Area  (‘GSA’)  is  achieved.  By  17  July  2021,  Member  States 
have  the  obligation  to  establish  additional  closure  areas  where  there  is  evidence  of  a 
high  concentration  of  juvenile  fish,  below  the  MCRS,  and  of  spawning  grounds  of 
demersal  stocks.  It  should  be  noted  that,  under  the  impulsion  of  the  Commission,  an 
inventory  of  the  fisheries  closures  in  the  Western  Mediterranean  is  ongoing,  that  will 
contribute to the ongoing GFCM work on this issue. 

As  regards  the  indicators,  STECF  20-0274  pointed  at  2010  as  a  milestone  in  the 
introduction  of  technical  measures,  meaning  a  change  in  selectivity  in  all  fisheries.  In 
bottom trawl fisheries, for example, the diamond 40 mm codend mesh was replaced by 
a square-meshed net of 40 mm at the codend or, at the duly justified request of the ship-
owner, by a diamond meshed net of 50 mm. 

The  results  presented  by  the  experts  suggest  that  the  indicator  have  the  capacity  to 
detect  changes in  population selectivity showing  improvement for hake in GSAs, 5, 6 
and  7  and  red  mullet  in  GSAs  17  and  18.  For  this  specie,  the  experts  consider  that 
further follow up shall be done, considering the remarkable increase of the indicator in 
the last couple of years.  

For stripped mullet in GSA 5 and hake in GSAs 9, 10, 11 the indicator didn’t show any 
clear trend. For deep water rose shrimp in GSAs 9, 10, 11, the time series for the study 
starts in 2009, therefore the impact of the changes introduced in 2010 need to be taken 
with caution and further studies are needed.   

4.5.1.  Minimum conservation reference sizes (Articles 13 and 18) 

No  specific  issues  were  raised  regarding  the  application  of  these  provisions  to  the 
Mediterranean from Member States’ point of view.   

Several  members  of  the  MEDAC  raised  different  suggestions  regarding  the  current 
MCRS.  Some  of  its  members  do  not  agree  with  MCRS  implying  that  multispecies 
fishery does not  allow an effective selectivity in the whole Mediterranean Sea. Others 
think MCRS should be adapted to size at first maturity. On the other hand, majority of 
Member  States  in  the  Mediterranean  consider  the  current  MCRS  adequate.  Only  one 
Member State suggests that Annex IX includes some species, which could be removed 
from the list since they are mainly by-catch with very low economic value, such as the 
Trachurus spp. 

At the request made by Italy, and subsequent to the joint recommendation submitted on 
the basis of the STECF in 2019, and subsequent in 2020, the derogation on MCRS (now 
set on 22 mm) was granted for Venus spp, until the end of 2022.  

Stakeholders in the online consultation suggested that sizes should be adapted to size at 
maturity.   

74 STECF 20-02, p. 129-142. 

64 

 
                                                 
In the Black Sea, neither Member States nor the BlSAC raised any issues towards the 
current MCRS. Two contributions in the online consultation (from research institutions) 
point  to  the  fact  that  except  for  the  turbot,  no  MCRS  are  amended  for  the  rest  of  the 
exploited species in the Black Sea.   

Recreational  fisheries  form  an  integral  part  of  Mediterranean  coastal  life  and 
communities  and  could  have  an  impact  on  coastal  species.  The  majority  of  MEDAC 
members (67%) consider that there is  a need to  align the MCRS between recreational 
and commercial fisheries, on some specific species. There are also ongoing discussions 
in  other  fora  whether  technical  measures,  including  MCRS  should  be  applied  to  this 
activity.  Within  the  West  Med  MAP  implementation,  the  STECF  has  evaluated  the 
impact of the recreational fisheries for stocks under management to be negligible. 

4.5.2.  Selective gears to reduce unwanted catches 

In 2010, there was a change in selectivity in all fisheries. In bottom trawl fisheries, for 
example, the diamond 40 mm codend mesh was replaced by a square-meshed net of 40 
mm  at  the  codend  or,  at  the  duly  justified  request  of  the  ship-owner,  by  a  diamond 
meshed net of 50 mm. After 2010, and until the entry into force of the Regulation, no 
changes in technical measures influencing selectivity have been introduced.  

STECF  advice  for  202175  recommended,  in  the  context  of  gear  selectivity  within  the 
West  Med  MAP,    significant  and  urgent  effort  reduction  combined  with  additional 
measures such as changes in mesh sizes for certain species. Further scientific effort will 
continue in  order to  identify other technical  measures which could  be implemented in 
the future. In order to allow the stocks listed in the MAP to recover, two Member States 
acknowledged,  under  the  “Fishing  Opportunities  Regulation”  for  202176,  that  it  was 
urgent to improve the selectivity of the gear. For one Member State, additional trials are 
planned for Summer 2021 with  vessels equipped with two different mesh sizes (50mm 
for deeper waters and 45mm for coastal areas). The final report is expected in October 
2021,  which  will  specify  the  catch  composition  and  take  into  account  the  socio-
economic  impact  of  such  further  selectivity.  For  the  other  Member  State,  discussions 
are ongoing on the possibility to launch a pilot-project on trawlers selectivity. 

At  GFCM  level,  a  working  group  gathered  numerous  stakeholders  and  officials  to 
discuss  and  agree  on  concrete  and  directly  implementable  selectivity  measures.  This 
working  group  proposed  among  other  measures  the  implementation  of  a  multiannual 
pilot  study for bottom  trawl fisheries exploiting demersal  stocks in  the Strait of Sicily 
that will compare the efficiency of trawl nets with T90 mesh codend and with G1SM40. 

Several  GFCM  projects  are  also  on-going,  to  notably  continue  the  development  and 
adoption of more selective fishing gear in both sea basins. As an example, the project 
Implementation  is  building  on  previous  results  of  the  Minouw  project  to  improve  the 
selectivity  of  trawl  gears  and  advance  the  sustainable  exploitation  pattern  of  trawl 
fisheries in the Mediterranean Sea.  

75 STECF 20-03, p. 41-46 

76 COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) 2021/90 of 28 January 2021 fixing for 2021 the fishing opportunities 
for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks applicable in the Mediterranean and Black Seas. OJ L 
31, 29.1.2021, p. 1–19 

65 

 
                                                 
Other  projects  are  also  of  importance  in  this  context.  The  Project  MedBLand  is  a 
synthesis  study  on  the  landing  obligation  measures  and  discard  rates  for  the 
Mediterranean  and  Black  Seas.  It  will  inter  alia  identify  fishing  gear  improving  the 
selectivity  of  several  fisheries  in  the  Mediterranean  Sea.  In  parallel  to  region-wide 
studies, a project such as the Galion Project has also focused on fisheries in one specific 
area to integrate the local stakeholders knowledge in scientific models of the local stock 
dynamics,  such  as  hake,  and  to  understand  the  combined  consequences  of  spatial 
structuration  of  hake,  environment,  fishing  exploitation  and  management  on  hake 
population and the fleets harvesting the stock. 

The MEDAC considered that the current measures on species and size selectivity were 
already  adequate,  however  more  controls  should  be  carried  out  in  order  to  ensure 
compliance. The same opinion was shared by all Member States in the area. The online 
consultation did not raise anything specific for the Mediterranean.  

Regarding the additional measures in relation to species and size selectivity of  fishing 
gear  and  mesh  size  specifications,  the  BlSAC  believed  that  Union  legislation  had 
chosen the right direction for greater selectivity of fishing gear and considers necessary 
specifications for nets, not only for the type of fibre, but also for its thickness. Black Sea 
Member States in the area currently do not consider any supplementary measures. In the 
online consultation, one contribution (from research institution) suggests that the current 
list needs to be enlarged with the Black Sea fishes. 

4.5.3.  Restrictions on the use of fishing gear (part C of Annex IX))  

The current technical measures Regulation has inherited the previous restriction to the 
use of fishing gear that the MEDREG had.  

Regarding the measures to be taken to protect sensitive areas, the current provisions of 
the MEDREG apply.  

In  relation  to  additional  closed  or  restricted  areas  some  members  of  the  MEDAC 
suggest  that  the  success  of  the  already  existing  Fisheries  Restricted  Areas  (FRAs) 
underpins the replication of this measure in other areas of the Mediterranean. However, 
new  scientific  information  on  the  relevant  areas  is  needed  before  the  establishment  of 
new  FRAs,  both  onshore  and  offshore.  The  spatio-temporal  closures  of  nursery  areas 
can  provide  better  results  than  the  reduction  of  fishing  days  in  protecting  natural 
resources. Some members also suggested the extension of the fishing ban in the coastal 
strip where the bathymetry allows it, especially to the most impacting gears. 

Member States have no suggestions in this regard. The online consultation did not raise 
any suggestions.   

Neither  the  BlSAC  nor  Member  States  in  the  Black  Sea  have  currently  any  proposals 
for additional closed or restricted areas other than those defined in the Regulation. In the 
online consultation, two contributions (from research institutions) point to the fact that 
there are no restricted areas for the Black Sea.  

4.5.4.  Real time closures and moving on provisions 

Majority  of  the  MEDAC  members  think  that  there  is  currently  no  need  for  additional 
real time closures and moving on provisions. This opinion is shared by the majority of 
Member States in the area.  

66 

 
Spain refers to its national Regulation (Order 514/2019) as was the case for NWW and 
SWW, includes a mandatory moving-on rule in order to comply with catch composition 
rules stablished at EU level and the landing obligation.  Malta has been proactive on this 
front and have enacted real-time closures such as the fishing period for Dolphinfish and 
Swordfish that have been enacted in the past and maintained up to present times. Malta 
also  endorsed  temporal  closures  (Recommendation  GFCM/42/2018/5)  for  bottom 
trawlers between the coast and the 200 metres depth isobath in GSA 14 (Gulf of Gabès). 
This closure is applicable every year from 1 July until 30 September. 

Stakeholders in the online consultation did not raise any suggestion in this regard. 

In regard to additional real time closures and moving on provisions in the Black Sea, the 
BlSAC  considers  that  detailed  studies  are  needed  to  justify  such  measures  and  adapt 
them to the current situation. Romania suggests that modifications need to be made in 
this  regard,  at  least  for  some  stocks.  To  this  extent,  Black  Sea  Member  States  are 
cooperating within the WGBS GFCM. In the online consultations, the stakeholders did 
not raise any suggestion in this regard.  

4.5.5.  Sensitive species 

As in  the rest  of the sea basins, Member States  were  asked on the set  up measures to 
ensure  that  incidental  catches  of  marine  mammals,  marine  reptiles,  seabirds  and  other 
non-commercially  exploited  species  do  not  exceed  levels  provided  for  in  Union 
legislation and international agreements that are binding on the Union. 

All  Member  States  coincide  mentioning  that  current  EU  legislation  as  well  as  GFCM 
and  ICCAT  are  followed.  Some  Member  States  mention  partnerships  with  NGOs  to 
investigate problems of by catch.  

MEDAC  suggest  that  taking  measures  for  the  protection  of  sensitive  species  needs  to 
take into account the anthropogenic demographical pressure, water pollution, the alien 
species and maritime traffic, along with fishing activities. This AC suggests additional 
measures to protect sharks, while encouraging further research for future technological 
solutions,  including  pingers,  to  avoid  incidental  bycatches  of  cetaceans.  Additional 
consideration to spatial/temporal closures should be assessed, considering the poor state 
of the common dolphin population. 

Regarding  the  situation  in  the  Black  Sea,  the  BlSAC  recommend  greater  control  over 
the placement of fixed nets; with better management technique. This Advisory Council 
is  of  the  opinion  that  nets  properly  spaced  will  create  a  passable  corridor  and  thus 
reduce the incidence of marine mammal capture. 

Several contributions received from stakeholders in the online consultation specifically 
pointed out that as a priority, management plans and measures are urgently required for 
the  following  cetacean  populations:  i)  Harbour  porpoise  in  gillnets:  Baltic  Proper, 
Iberian  Peninsula,  Celtic  Sea,  English  Channel,  Black  Sea;  ii)  Common  dolphin  in 
gillnets and trawls: Bay of Biscay and Celtic Sea; iii) Bottlenose dolphin: Andalucia; iv) 
Strait of Gibraltar orca; v)  Mediterranean sperm whale. 

As regards to steps taken by Member States to monitor and reduce incidental catches of 
sensitive species: 

67 

 
Member  States  in  general,  are  stimulating  the  installation  of  active  ADDs  to  repel 
cetaceans on the marked static gillnets used to target for turbot, stepped up controls with 
observers on board and require electronic logbooks related to cetaceans. As reported by 
Romania, for the species concerning the Black Sea there is national legislation in place, 
based on EU legislation on protected species. However, this Annex (species and areas) 
is not applicable in the GSA 29.  

Regarding regional mitigation measures  needed for the reduction of incidental catches 
of  sensitive  species,  majority  of  Member  States  in  the  region  do  not  intend  to  take 
additional measures at the moment.  

Majority of MEDAC members think that no additional regional mitigation measures is 
currently needed as the effects of the measures already in place have not been evaluated. 
In  the  Black  Sea,  BlSAC  has  a  similar  opinion.  According  to  BlSAC,  first  it  is 
necessary to carry out a pilot project in the Black Sea and to clearly define which are the 
sensitive  species  concerned  and  which  are  exactly  their  habitats  and  only  then, 
implement the measures.  

On  the  other  hand,  a  number  of  stakeholders  in  the  online  consultation  consider  that 
additional  regional  measures  in  this  regard  are  needed.  More  specifically  for  the 
Mediterranean, the fishing effort is too high in general. Fish sizes of landed fish are way 
too  small  to  sustain  fish stocks.  Less  fish seems to  result in  more  effort  per  yield and 
this increases incidental catches of sensitive species. Also, a set of regional measures to 
tackle bycatch of shearwaters in the Mediterranean is needed, particular focus should be 
on the critically endangered Balearic Shearwater, and on other endemic breeders of the 
Mediterranean,  such  as  the  vulnerable  Yelkouan  shearwater  and  the  Scopoli’s 
shearwater. Measures should include already known gear modifications as well as other 
changes  to  the vessels  for longlines, as well as spatial  measures for  gillnets and purse 
seiners. 

At  GFCM  level,  a  working  group  gathered  numerous  stakeholders  and  officials  to 
discuss  and  agree  on  concrete  and  directly  implementable  selectivity  measures.  This 
working group proposed among other measures:  

The  development  and  implementation  of  a  pilot  project  to  test  mitigation 

- 
measures for the incidental catch of cetaceans in Black Sea turbot fisheries; 

- 
The preparation of a regional repository of measures to share experiences on the 
mitigation of  adverse impacts  of fisheries on juvenile fish, discards  and the incidental 
catch of vulnerable species (i.e. sea turtles, marine mammals, seabirds, sharks and rays). 
This follows the findings that in the case of mitigation measures to reduce the incidental 
catch of vulnerable species (i.e. sea turtles, marine mammals, seabirds, sharks and rays), 
measures could be fisheries- and area-specific. This repository could then be used as a 
toolbox for fisheries managers and decision-makers. 

The expansion of testing of fishing gear tagging with electronic sensors, in the 

- 
context of a pilot project, to other Mediterranean countries. 

Also  at  GFCM  level,  the  GFCM  has  launched  a  number  of  initiatives  to  improve 
knowledge  on  bycatch:  The  participation  in  the  MedBycatch  project  «Understanding 
Mediterranean  multi-taxa  bycatch  of  vulnerable  species  and  testing  mitigation  –  a 
collaborative  approach»  and  the  participation  in  the  project  «Mitigating  dolphin 

68 

 
depredation  in  Mediterranean  fisheries  –  Joining  efforts  for  strengthening  cetacean 
conservation  and  sustainable  fisheries»,  aiming  to  reduce  depredation  by  dolphins  in 
fishing gear. 

For  the  Black  Sea,  stakeholders  called  for  more  attention  to  the  turbot.  Stakeholders 
pointed  out  to  Black  Sea  harbour  porpoise,  which  deserves  a  toolbox  of  effective 
mitigation approaches. 

In the field of data collection, as reported by Member States, the collection of data on 
incidental  catches  of  sensitive  species  is  mainly  conducted  within  the  Union  Data 
Collection Framework. Some Member States are of the opinion that Annex XIII and its 
provisions do not apply to the Mediterranean and Black Sea.  

In  order  to  improve  the  collection  of  data  on  incidental  catches  of  sensitive  species, 
some MEDAC members suggest that to do adjustments of the selected areas in ANNEX 
XIII to the range of distribution of cetaceans, by adding restrictions and monitoring on 
vessels  smaller  than  12  m,  by  AIS  and  camera  monitoring,  by  monitoring  and 
developing bycatch mitigation measures especially to longline fisheries in general, but 
specifically in areas 8,9 and 10 both pelagic and demersal, namely deep sea. A common 
data  collection  protocol  should  be  followed,  an  example  is  the  methodology  for  data 
collection  for  Monitoring  incidental  catch  of  vulnerable  species  in  the  Mediterranean 
and the Black Sea.  

Regarding  the  monitoring  and  assessing  the  effectiveness  of  mitigation  measures, 
Member States mainly refer to Data Collection Framework, otherwise they do not take 
any  specific  actions.  MEDAC  and  BLSAC  did  not  provide  any  view  whether  the 
additional steps to sufficiently monitor and assess the measures are needed. On the other 
hand, majority of stakeholders in the online consultation think that the monitoring and 
assessment  of  mitigation  measures  from  Annex  XIII  could  be  improved.  More 
specifically,  regarding  the  incidental  catch,  monitoring  programmes  for  vulnerable 
species, bycatch by all member states in areas such as the Mediterranean, could be set 
and implemented following the pilot one set by the GFCM UNEP/MAP-SPA/RAC and 
other partners through the Project MedByCatch. 

4.5.6.  Sensitive habitats 

From the replies received to the consultation, Majority of Member States in this area do 
not  foresee additional conservation measures and at  the moment  they  are not  working 
on joint recommendations in this regard. 

4.6.  Outermost regions 

The  replies  received  to  the  consultation  included  under  this  chapter  come  from  the 
Conseil Consultatif pour les Regions Ultrapériphériques (‘CC-RUP’).    

This  Advisory  Council  is  of  the  opinion  that  sensitive  habitats  must  take  additional 
measures,  for  example  by  increasing  the  protection  of  sensitive  coastal  habitats  by 
prohibiting bottom trawling in these areas. Similarly, the Advisory Council thinks that it 
is necessary to reduce and control exhaustively and transparently the use of FAD (Fish 
Aggregating Devices), as well as the implementation of MCRS for these species would 
help to its conservation.   

69 

 
It has also been suggested to ban on trap fishing in the Guyana EEZ because the loss of 
these gear is destructive and causes ghost fishing.  

This  Advisory  Council  do  not  think  that  additional  regional  mitigation  measures  are 
needed but believes that more detailed data on incidental catches of sensitive species in 
the  outermost  regions  are  needed  in  order  to  establish  whether  or  not  additional 
measures are necessary.  

Additional  steps  to  collect  scientific  data  on  incidental  catches  of  sensitive  species  is 
necessary  and  where  possible,  animals  should  be  preserved  for  scientific  sampling, 
although  we  understand  the  impediment  that  may  arise  in  certain  fisheries  with  small 
scale vessels.   

This  Advisory  Council  supports  the  implementation  of  observation  programs  for  all 
fisheries  that  have  a  high  probability  of  accidentally  catching  mammals,  reptiles  and 
seabirds  in  order  to  obtain  more  detailed  scientific  data  that  will  allow  appropriate 
measures to be taken in the regions where they are needed and based on hard data.  

Lastly, this Advisory Council wishes to draw attention to current situation of sharks. It 
pledges for more measures to gather knowledge of these species as well as conservation 
measures for species in a weaker conservation status. 

5. 

PROMOTION OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION  

Along  with  measures  aimed  at  promoting  fishing  practices  that  help  rebuilding  stocks 
and  minimise  their  negative  effects,  the  regulation  contains  provisions  to  facilitate 
scientific  research,  and  most  importantly,  involvement  of  the  industry  in  the  research 
that will bring along results that will revert to its own benefit.  

The  Regulation  includes  provisions  to  encourage  and  facilitate  scientific  research  in 
particular through pilot projects and its provisions on scientific research and innovative 
gear, described in the following sections. 

5.1. 

Pilot projects  

Pilot projects to reduce unwanted catches (Article 14)  

The aim of Article 14 of the Regulation  is  to  encourage Member States  to move with 
projects aiming at reducing discards and thus improving the selectivity of the gears. It 
needs  to  be  seen  as  a  complement  of  Article  14  of  the  CFP  Regulation.  No  specific 
derogations  from  the  Regulation  are  foreseen  for  the  implementation  of  this  Article. 
Therefore,  these  projects  can  be  implemented  at  any  time  and  with  no  specific 
conditions.  

If,  as  a  consequence  of  these  pilots  the  unwanted  catches  are  of  significance,  the 
Member  State  concerned  must  “endeavour  to  establish  technical  measures  to  reduce 
those unwanted catches”.  

As a result of the consultation,  13 Member States have informed on different  projects 
involving commercial vessels aimed at the avoidance or reducing the unwanted catches 
of commercial species and sensitive species (up to 40 projects were informed).  

70 

 
All  Advisory  Councils  reported  that  they  are  not  directly  involved  in  these  pilot 
projects,  but  they  usually  get  information  about  the  projects  through  the  relevant 
stakeholders that are members of the Advisory Council. 

Pilot projects on full documentation of catches and discards (Article 23)  

Article  23  of  the  Regulation  provides  for  the  adoption  of  delegated  acts  by  the 
Commission  that  supplement  the  Regulation  and  define  pilot  projects  to  develop  a 
system  of  full documentation of catches and discards based on measurable objectives. 
These pilot projects may enjoy a derogation of Part B of the regional annexes (the mesh 
sizes)  but  are  limited  in  time  and  up  to  a  maximum  of  vessels  involved  and  shall  be 
assessed by STECF. 

When the specific projects involve the use of any means to achieve a full documented 
fishery,  commercial  vessels  may  participate,  more  than  7  but  no  more  than  5%  of  a 
given metier per Member States. This part of the fleet may enjoy a derogation of mesh 
sizes. But in this case, in order to allow a relatively high number of vessels to derogate 
from mesh size, it has to be first, assessed by STECF and then, granted via a delegated 
act.  

Member  States  have  presented  a  wide  variety  of  foreseen  projects  (up  to  8  project 
carried  out  by  7  Member  States),  but  have  not  submitted  a  joint  recommendation  as 
foreseen  under  Article  23(3).  All  Advisory  Councils  agree  that  development  of  these 
pilot projects can be beneficial, but some share the opinion that full documentation of 
catches is a control issue and does not need to be dealt within the Regulation.  

5.2. 

Scientific research (Article 25) 

Under this Article the regulation  provides for  a  derogation of the measures applicable 
for commercial vessels if these are participating  in  research surveys, hence organised, 
carried out and concluded by a scientific institution of the Member States. The research 
may be aimed at finding new gear or modifications of the existing ones. The outcome of 
the research could be implemented by means of a joint recommendation on innovative 
gear, based on Article 20 (see 6.3).  

Even  before  the  entry  into  force  of  the  Regulation,  the  Commission  informed  all 
Member  States  on  the  new  conditions  under  which  the  scientific  research  would  take 
place and how Member States intended to adapt to these conditions.  

One  of  the  provisions  of  Article  25  has  raised  some  concerns  of  interpretation.  Art 
25(1)(e)  sets  out  that  the  fishing  operation  carried  out  by  commercial  vessels  shall  be 
limited  in  time,  and  when  the  particular  project  involves  more  than  six  commercial 
vessels,  the  Commission  may  decide  to  consult  STECF  to  assess  if  the  level  of 
participation  is  justified  on  scientific  grounds.  These  strict  conditions  in  terms  of 
number  of  vessels  and  time  limitation  aim  at  avoiding  the  misuse  of  the  derogations 
from the technical measures, granted by Article 25.  

Following the provisions of this article, several Member States have prepared research 
projects that were sent to STECF to seek from this scientific body the confirmation that 
the level of participation was justified according to scientific grounds:   

71 

 
Croatia  request  for  scientific  fishing  authorisation  of  more  than  6  volantina 

• 
vessels in Western Istria waters (2019)77 

• 
Italy  request  for  scientific  fishing  authorization  of  more  than  6  vessels  beach 
seines  in  Italian  territorial  waters  targeting  (Italy  request  of  scientific  research  on 
“SARDELLA” (S. pilchardus) in Liguria (GSA 9) (2020)78  

In both cases, STECF concluded that it is not justified, on scientific grounds the number 
of vessels and that other options should be sought for the scientific purposes.  

Despite  the  possibilities  offered  by  Article  25,  most  Member  States  and  industry  still 
consider  that  these  provisions  are  not  enough  to  encourage  the  involvement  of  the 
industry in scientific research.  

Many  Member  States  provided  a  list  of  scientific  research  they  have  been  conducting 
recently. It has to be noted, that most Member States are using the functional mailbox to 
(MARE-TECHNICAL-
this 
notifications 
send 
MEASURES@ec.europa.eu). 

research 

the 

of 

5.3. 

Innovative fishing gear (Article 20) 

Any  proposal  for  adoption  of  innovative  gear  presented  in  a  joint  recommendation 
should  contain  an  assessment  (conducted  by  the  Member  State  concerned)  of  the 
potential  impacts  of  the  targeted  species  and  on  sensitive  species  and  habitats.  This 
should ensure that any new gear does not have any detrimental qualities in comparison 
to the gear that it is intended to replace. Preferably, the innovative gear performs better 
than the gear it is intended to replace.  

The use of innovative fishing gear should not be permitted where scientific assessment 
indicates that their use would lead to significant negative impacts on sensitive habitats 
and non-target species and shall consider the potential impact on other fisheries where 
the  introduction  of  such  a  technique  may  result  in  spatial  movement  into  areas  fished 
traditionally with other gears. 

It should be noted however, that provided the new gear does not contradict any of the 
restrictions  or  prohibitions  contained  in  the  regulation  (Article  7),  there  are  no  legal 
barriers to its introduction.  

As specified in Article 31 of the Regulation, advice should be obtained from  ICES on 
the  progress  made  or  impact  of  innovative  gear.  The  report  should  draw  conclusions 
about the benefits for, or negative effects on, marine ecosystems, sensitive habitats and 
selectivity. 

The Commission requested ICES to prepare such advice and also specifically requested 
to the extent possible to provide information on what kind of innovative gears are being 
used, their objective, their technical specificities and the impact on both target species, 
non-target species and the environment in which they had been deployed.  

77 STECF PLEN 19-03 

78 STECF PLEN 20-02 

72 

 
                                                 
An  innovative  gear  is  defined  by  the  experts/by  ICES  as  a  gear  or  a  significant 
component  of  the gear  that  has not  been used commercially and/or that is  sufficiently 
different  from  the  baseline  in  the  current  European  Regulations,  or  in  the  absence  of 
them,  different  from  the  commonly  used  gear  in  the  specific  sea  basin  (area)  in  EU 
waters. 

In response to the request by the Commission, ICES prepared a report from Workshop 
on innovative fishing gears (WKING)79 in which it presented a catalogue of fishing gear 
innovations for EU fisheries. The catalogue provides an overview of relevant state-of-
the-art  technologies,  innovations  and  their  expected  impact.  It  contains  33  example 
factsheets  that  are  indicative  of  gear  innovations  in  the  sea  basins  as  identified  in  the 
Regulation:  North  Sea  (nine  innovative  gears),  North  western  waters  (six),  South 
western waters (two), Baltic Sea (seven), and the Mediterranean Sea (nine). In addition, 
ICES  also  identified  nine  gear  innovations  outside  of  the  EU  area  that  may  be 
potentially relevant for EU fisheries.  

ICES introduced three criteria of assessment (CA):  (a) catch efficiency, (b) selectivity 
on  target  species  and  reduction  of  catch  of  unwanted  and  incidental  species,  and  (c) 
impacts  on  marine  ecosystems,  which  include  impacts  on  the  seabed  and  benthic 
ecosystem,  risk  of  gear  loss,  ghost  fishing,  and  marine  plastic  pollution,  as  well  as 
impacts on protected, endangered, and threatened species. 

Changes in the catch efficiency and selectivity of a fishing gear can imply an impact in 
the  structure  of  a  target  and  non-target  fish  stocks.  The  innovations  implemented  can 
lead to the exploitation of larger or smaller quantities of some species and the extraction 
of  new  species  that  were  not  previously  extracted  from  the  ecosystem.  Therefore, 
considering  the  impact  of  an  innovation  on  the  different  stocks  and/or  the  entire 
ecosystem is of high relevance. 

Two  additional  criteria  –  the  “complexity”  and  “technological  readiness  level”  were 
used  to  evaluate  the  suitability,  readiness  and  potential  adoption  of  innovative  fishing 
gear in a specific EU fishery.  

For  each criterion of assessment,  ICES created an innovation  matrix, which evaluated 
incremental, 
the  potential  performance 
transformative,  and  disruptive),  and  the  technological  readiness  level  (low,  moderate, 
high) compared to the baseline (conventional fishing gear).  

improvement  (no  effect  or  negative, 

Based on the results of this analysis, ICES concludes that high technological readiness 
exist for most innovative gears for all three criteria assessed. Technological readiness is 
important  metrics  in  the  process  of  transitioning  of  technology  and  therefore  the  high 
score may indicate candidacy for “speedy adoption” of the innovative gears.  

In  case  of  flying  drones,  echo-sensor  detectors,  controllable  doors,  electro-razors, 
crustacean  BRDs,  ADD,  pontoon  traps  and  PingMe  the  technological  readiness  was 
assessed as moderate.  

79 ICES Workshop on Innovative Fishing Gears (WKING) 

https://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Expert%20Group%20Report/EOSG/2020/WK
ING%20Report%202020.pdf 

73 

 
                                                 
From the perspective of the performance improvement, the most relevant innovative 
gears  are  those  that  have  transformative  or  disruptive  effect  on  performance 
improvement.  “No  effect  or  negative  effect”  was  not  found  in  any  factsheet  on 
innovative gear.  

The report by  ICES provided examples of innovative fishing gear at  various stages of 
development and an assessment of those innovations according to a set of criteria. The 
created catalogue of innovative fishing gear also provides an assessment of the benefits 
and potential negative impacts of these innovations.  

On the basis of an assessment of the impacts of innovative gear, the use, or extending 
the use, of such innovative gear can be included as an option in joint recommendations 
from regional groups of Member States. However, as the Article 20 of the Regulation 
states,  the  use  of  innovative  fishing  gear  should  not  be  permitted  where  scientific 
assessment  indicates  that  their  use  would  lead  to  significant  negative  impacts  on 
sensitive habitats and non-target species. 

However,  the  report  did  not  fully  meet  the  Terms  of  Reference  given  by  the 
Commission.  One  of  the  main  drawbacks  of  ICES  advice  is  too  much  focus  on 
definition  of  “innovation”  and  missing  comprehensive  evaluation  of  uptake  of 
innovative  gears  by  fishers  in  European  waters.  The  report  focused  on  innovative 
fishing  gear  currently  being  developed  rather  than  being  used  in  EU  waters.  This  is 
mainly  caused  by  resource  and  time  frame  constraints.  Moreover,  evaluation  of  the 
impacts of gear innovations should include also socioeconomic aspects associated with 
innovations,  such  as  financial  aspects  (investments,  cost  reductions),  user  friendliness 
and health and safety. 

STECF  considers  the  framework  developed  by  ICES  appropriate  to  assess  the 
performance of innovative fishing gear, but also notes that current advice is only a first 
step into a longer time-frame process. In order to provide a more comprehensive review 
of gear innovations, the further work should include the level of gear uptake by fishers, 
since the extent to which innovative gears can contribute to reaching the objectives of 
the  Regulation  depends  on  these  being  first  taken  up  by  fishers  and  adequately 
monitored during a sufficient time before they can be evaluated. ICES itself considers 
the  current  advice  a  first  step  into  a  long-term  process,  where  a  more  comprehensive 
review of gear innovations and their impacts could be provided to the EU on a triennial 
basis.  Such  review  will  require  the  involvement  of  experts  with  a  broader  array  of 
competence.  

A  majority  of  Member  States  considered  that  the  advice  produced  by  ICES  is 
comprehensive  and  contains  a  good  catalogue  of  innovations.  There  is  also  consensus 
on the fact that further works needs to be done. It was in particular underlined that socio 
economic factors need to be better taken into account in order to ensure the final uptake 
of innovative gear by the industry.   

Most  Member  States  also  sent  relatively  detailed  information  on  their  projects  in  the 
near future, most of them focusing on the implementation of the landing obligation, but 
some of them, will also include the situation of sensitive species.   

All the Advisory Council consider that innovation should be encouraged, and that it has 
to  be  seen  as  a  means  to  increase  new  more  selective  gears  as  well  as  to  reduce  the 
impact on the environment. The Advisory Council also consider that needs to be science 

74 

 
based,  and  that  the  process  to  have  this  innovations  implemented  should  be  shorten. 
Often, the way from a proposal tabled until it becomes a reality is too lengthy.  

A vast majority of stakeholders that responded to the online targeted consultation think 
that this advice is a good starting point. However, some of them, also added that social 
and economic criteria should also be considered for future work. There’s also a general 
thinking  that  the  process  should  be  encouraged  and  speeded;  it  is  underlined  that  in 
general much time is needed for proposals to reach implementation.  

6.  SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS.  

The  Regulation  was  intended  to  provide  a  framework  for  Member  States  to  make 
adjustments  to  permitted  fishing  gears  and  closed  areas  and  seasons  for  several 
purposes.  These  adjustments,  or  introduction  of  new  measures,  can  be  carried  out 
through the regionalisation arrangements of the CFP. Adjustments are possible in order 
to  improve selectivity  by  size and by species in  order to  improve the  yields  from  fish 
stocks and to reduce catches of unwanted fish that would have to be discarded or landed 
for purposes other than for human consumption. Adjustments are also possible in order 
to  reduce  incidental  catches  of  sensitive  species  and  to  reduce  impacts  on  sensitive 
habitats  in  order  that  Member  States  may  comply  with  their  obligations  under 
environmental  legislation.  Such  adjustments  can  be  made  starting  from  the  legislative 
baseline in the Regulation, but only if it can be demonstrated that they will contribute to 
(or at least not prejudice) the attainment of the Regulation’s objectives and targets. 

In  consultation,  it  has  been  recognised  that  the  underlying  legal  mechanism  for 
operating  regionalisation  is  effective.  It  has  been  used  extensively  in  particular  in  the 
design of exemptions from the landing obligation. However, it was also  notes that the 
arrangements  have  not  yet  been  used  widely  for  the  purpose  of  increasing  yield  (by 
reducing catches of juveniles) or for environmental protection (by reducing catches of 
sensitive species or impacts on sensitive habitats). No objectives have yet been set for 
size-selectivity  for  that  purpose.  Historical  analysis  indicates  that  some  increases  in 
size-selectivity has occurred over the medium term but these cannot be directly linked 
to  changes  in  gear  or  in  fishing  practices  driven  by  changes  in  legislation.  Fishing 
practices  and  operation  of  fishing  gear  are  believed  to  be  instrumental  in  managing 
selectivity.  

Under the 2013 reform of the CFP, it was recognised that changes to fishing gear driven 
by detailed technical legislation was not appropriate given the highly variable selectivity 
of fishing gear according to the operational choices made by the fishing master, and the 
need to make fishers active players in planning their activities including ending discards 
and  optimising  their  quota  uptake  (section  2.5  of  COM/2011/0417/final).  Recognising 
these characteristics, the 2013 reform of the CFP instituted a results-based approach to 
selectivity improvement. By requiring all fish to be landed and counted against quotas, 
fishers  would  be  incentivised  to  improve  their  selectivity  in  order  to  obtain  the 
maximum economic benefit from the quotas allocated to them. This analysis confirms 
that view. 

Levels  of  discards  or  unwanted  catches  remain  high  according  to  latest  data  used  by 
ICES in its stock assessment analysis, specifically in many mixed demersal fisheries in 
EU waters. Member States have worked on submitting requests to allow the discarding 
of  certain  levels  of  unwanted  catches  but  have  not  yet  developed  significant  new 

75 

 
initiatives to improving selectivity. The uptake of more selective gears is increasing but 
still at very moderate pace.  The progression from trialling selective gears to adoption 
into legislation remains a lengthy process, though it can be much accelerated by use of 
the regionalisation provisions. 

The  EU  has  already  taken  significant  steps  to  protect  marine  habitats  and  species. 
Fishing  with  drift  nets  has  been  largely  prohibited  by  EU  vessels.  Deep-sea  fishing  is 
very  restricted  with  prohibitions  on  trawling  and  gillnetting  in  the  deepest  waters. 
Fishing  with  very  high-impact  methods  such  as  explosives  and  poisons  is  prohibited. 
Numerous  protected  areas  have  already  been  adopted  in  order  to  conserve  deep-sea 
corals, sea-grass beds and some other habitats. The catching and marketing of a range of 
sensitive species is prohibited. 

However,  there  is  still  a  substantial  need  for  new  measures  to  improve  protection  of 
sensitive  species  and  habitats.  Despite  large  shortcomings  in  monitoring  of  fisheries 
impacts,  it  is  known  reliably  that  many  species  of  large  fish  have  disappeared  from 
much  of  Europe’s  seas.  Some  populations  of  cetaceans  are  endangered  or  critically 
endangered. Large incidental mortalities of seabirds and large catches of turtles occur. 
While  the  development  of  more  marine  protected  areas  is  being  actively  pursued  by 
Member States  in  some areas (e.g. the North  Sea), this is not generally the case in  all 
EU waters, despite significant concerns about the survival of some seabed habitats.  

Evidence from a variety of sources indicates that monitoring, control and enforcement, 
especially the monitoring of unwanted catches such as small fish, sensitive species and 
the monitoring of impacts on sensitive habitats remains inadequate.  

Close  cooperation  and  follow  up  is  necessary  to  further  common  understanding, 
especially in those cases where several relevant regulations apply, as is the case of the 
Mediterranean.  As  an  example,  some  Member  States  are  of  the  opinion  that  the 
provisions for sensitive species described in Annex XIII are not applicable, because the 
fisheries described in the annex are not affecting them.  

Overall,  this  review  exercise  has  indicated  that  the  legislative  structure  of  the 
Regulation is in general appropriate and fit for purpose. However, Member States have 
so far made relatively little use of the regionalisation possibilities in  order to  increase 
size-selectivity  by  reducing  catches  of  juveniles,  to  reduce  unwanted  catches  by 
improving species-selectivity, and by introducing measures to protect sensitive species 
and sensitive habitats.   In consultation, few initiatives or intentions to these ends were 
announced.  Substantial  challenges  exist  in  the  protection  of  sensitive  species  and 
sensitive habitats, with some species being now wholly absent from areas that once they 
inhabited.  

76 

 
APPENDIX I Implementation of the Seabird Action Plan80  

The  objective  of  the  Action  Plan  was  to  minimise  and,  where  possible,  eliminate  the 
incidental catches of seabirds, with priority action focussing on individuals belonging to 
at  least  49 threatened seabird populations  by EU vessels operating in  EU and non-EU 
waters, as well as by non-EU vessels operating in EU waters. For other seabirds where 
the  populations  were  stable  but  bycatch  was  at  levels  that  were  a  cause  for  concern, 
bycatch should be reduced as a first step towards bycatch elimination.  

The Action plan set out 30 specific actions to be undertaken by Member States, NGOs, 
Advisory Councils and the European Commission. 

Following the presentation of this Communication, no conclusions were drawn by either 
the Presidency or Member States. 

In 2019 the European Commission invited Member States to provide information on the 
implementation  of  the  Seabird  Action  Plan.  Ten  Member  States  provided  no 
information. One further Member State provided information concerning only a part of 
its territory. The information made available is summarised below.  

Two  Member  States  reported  making  no  implementation  of  the  Seabird  Action  Plan 
because none was required in law, as the Seabird Action Plan was a voluntary approach. 
One further Member State reported without informing of any specific actions. 

Monitoring: Very few Member States could provide estimates of numbers of seabirds 
taken  by  their  fleets.  Even  where  DCF  coverage  was  implemented  it  was  not  found 
adequate due to the lack of a requirement to sample under-8m vessels and the lack of 
effort  data  specific  to  static  gear.  Overall  DCF  reports  submitted  under  a  data  call  to 
ICES  in  2018  totalled  53  birds.    One  Member  State  reported  efforts  to  implement 
seabird bycatch self-reporting as part of an electronic logbook system. 

Three  Baltic  Member  States  reported  a  total  of  some  1400  seabirds  per  year  in 
incidental catches from the Baltic Sea. One Member State estimated overall incidental 
catches in the North Sea and Baltic Sea at some 100 000 to 150 000 per year. Incidental 
catches in longlines were estimated at some 56 300 per year. 

Mitigation: No new technical mitigation devices have been developed that are proven 
to  reduce  incidental  catches  in  gillnet  fisheries.  Three  Member  States  reported  having 
proposed  or  implemented  some  closures  or  voluntary  closures  of  gillnet  fisheries  in 
areas and times of high abundances of diving ducks in certain areas of the Baltic Sea. 

Legislative  transposition:  No  Member  State  had  reported  transposing  the  Seabird 
Action plan into national legislation. 

80 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council. Action Plan for 
reducing incidental catches of seabirds in fishing gears. COM/2012/0665 final  

77 

 
                                                 
 
Electronic  monitoring:  Studies  by  three  Member  States  indicated  that  electronic 
monitoring on small vessels is feasible, but there was strong resistance from the fishing 
sector. A fourth Member State supported this approach.  

Outreach:  Voluntary  closures  were  trialled  in  three  Baltic  Member  States  with  good 
participation  by  fishers.  Another  Member  State  had  attempted  to  institute  voluntary 
reporting of seabird incidental catches but none had been recorded. 

Financial  support:  A  significant  EU-funded  project  with  NGO  involvement  operated 
in two Member States and involved self-reporting by fishermen and other activities. 

As no appropriate technical measures had been identified to mitigate seabird bycatches 
in  gillnet  fisheries,  issues  of  financial  support  were  not  applicable.  However,  one 
Member State reported using a conditionality incentive to respect closed areas: vessels 
not  respecting  closures  to  protect  seabirds  were  deemed  ineligible  for  compensation 
payments in respect of seal predation.  

Research: Despite some trials in an EU-funded project with the participation of NGOs 
to  find  methods  to  reduce  bycatches  of  diving  ducks  in  gillnets  by  various  means,  no 
effective technical  measure could  be identified. One fisheries institute is still pursuing 
work on this topic. No research or testing of measures to deter seabirds from longlines 
(which are widely used elsewhere) was reported. 

78 

 
 
 
APPENDIX II: SYNOPSIS OF THE CONSULTATION.  

1. Consultation strategy 

The objective of the consultation was to gather the opinion of interested stakeholders in 
the Technical Measures Regulation (hereinafter, the TMR), Regulation EU 2019/1241.  

Following the provisions of Article 31 of TMR, a necessary step to prepare the report 
mentioned in this article was to consult Member States and relevant Advisory Councils. 
Given  the  overall  importance  of  the  regulation  also  for  other  stakeholders,  this 
consultation was complemented by an online targeted stakeholder consultation. 

Therefore,  the  interested  stakeholders  identified  where  all  Member  States  and  all  AC. 
As for the online consultation, it was intended to organizations with interest in fisheries 
management  (environmental  organisations,  NGOs,  academic,  scientific,  social  and 
economic partners). 

2. Methodology and tools to process the data.  

The methodology used varied depending of the specific targeted group. Given that the 
Member  States  are  the  final  authorities  in  charge  of  the  enforcement  of  the  TMR,  a 
dedicated questionnaire was sent, attached to this note.  

Likewise,  considering  the  role  of  the  AC  a  slightly  different  questionnaire  (also 
attached) was prepared.  

Lastly,  for  the  online  consultation,  it  was  decided  that  another  questionnaire  was 
necessary to gather all the views of these interested parties.  

In all cases, the possibility of including supporting documentation was provided.  

In  all  cases,  all  the  receptors  of  the  consultations  were  informed  on  the  launching  of 
similar procedure to gather all opinions.  

On 10 December 2020, two letters were sent to all Member States and AC, informing 
them  of  this  procedure,  and  offering  a  deadline  to  receive  the  replies  by15  February 
2021.  

In these two letters, it was requested to send all the replies to the functional mail box: 
MARE-TECHNICAL-MEASURES@ec.europa.eu.  

In a similar manner, and helped by the Commission online tool “EUSurvey”, the online 
consultation was launched, offering the same deadline to send the replies. In this case, 
publicity  was  made  through  DGMARE  website,  newsletter  and  all  DGMARE  social 
networks, such as Twitter and Facebook.  

3. Results.  

The results of this consultation have been processed and analysed by the corresponding 
DGMARE services.  

79 

 
Due to the amount of work involved, it took considerably longer for some consultees to 
respond and the initial deadline was extended by two weeks – until the end of February. 
Overall, we received replies from 23 Member States and from 8 Advisory Councils.   

Considering  that  the  ultimate  objective  of  this  reporting  obligation  is  to  present  the 
implementation  of  this  legal  text,  the  replies  received  have  been  summarised  and 
included  in  the  report  itself,  to  the  extent  possible.  Given  that  it  was  not  specifically 
indicated in the letters sent to both Member States and Advisory Councils, the specific 
replies will not be displayed.  

In any case, when a specific topic for which replies have been received is presented in 
the SWD/report, at the end of that particular chapter, all replies have been added.  

Replies  from  Member  States  and  Advisory  Councils  are  presented  with  the  specific 
mention  of  “MS”  /  “AC”.  When  the  comments  come  from  the  targeted  online 
consultation, they are referred to as “stakeholders”.  

In total 37 responses were received in the online stakeholder consultation.  

Table  1:  Replies  received  in  the  targeted  stakeholder  consultation  by  the  type  of  the 
stakeholders. 

Type of stakeholder 

Number of answers 

Ratio 

Non-governmental organization (NGO) 

23 

62.17% 

Academic/research institution 

Business association 

EU citizen 

Company/business organization 

Non-EU citizen 

Public authority 

Other 

Total 

3 

3 

3 

2 

1 

1 

1 

37 

8.11% 

8.11% 

8.11% 

5.41% 

2.7% 

2.7% 

2.7% 

100% 

80 

 
 
 
 
APPENDIX III: SUMMARY TABLE OF JOINT RECOMMENDATIONS RECEIVED 

JOINT RECOMMENDATION  

AREA  TM 

ASSESSED 

JR for Venus spp derogation for MCRS until end of 2022 
Directed fishing 

Joint recommendation submitted before the entry into force of Regulation by the MED. 
However, the proposed technical measures would not fail to comply with the 
requirements established for technical measures in Article 15 of Regulation (EU) 
2019/1241 
Baltic proper harbor porpoise, introduce regional mitigation measures to reduce 
incidental catches of Baltic Proper harbour porpoise 

MED 
MED 

MED 

AFFECTED 
MCRS 
Directed 
Fishing 
MCRS 

Baltfish  Protection of 

sensitive 
species 

Assessed by STECF 20-01 
Assessed by STECF 20-03 

Assessed by STECF 19-02, adopted by Commission 
Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/3 of 28 August 
2019 establishing a discard plan for Venus shells 
(Venus spp.) in certain Italian territorial waters 

Assessed by STECF 21-01 

Commission européenne/Europese Commissie, 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIQUE/BELGIË - Tel. +32 22991111 
Office: J-99 01/029 - Tel. direct line +32 229-80613 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
JOINT RECOMMENDATION  
Joint recommendation for the protection on cetaceans in the Bay of Biscay  SWW 

AREA  TM AFFECTED 

Protection of sensitive 
species 
SWW  MCRS, change  the 

Joint recommendation on short-necked clam (Venus philipinarum).  

Joint recommendation on directed fisheries.  

SWW 

Joint recommendation submitted by the SWW concerning several TM 

SWW 

Joint recommendation on scallops in the Eastern Channel.                                        NWW 

82 

minimum size from 35mm 
to 32mm  
Directed Fisheries 
Maintain the MCRS of the 
horse mackerel caught by 
a small artisanal fishery in 
Xávega region in ICES 
division 8c and subarea 9 
Harmonize the MRCS in 
recreational fisheries with 
the one applicable to 
commercial fisheries: 
haddock, saithe, pollack, 
hake, megrim, sole, plaice, 
whiting, ling, blue ling, 
mackerel, herring, horse 
mackerel, anchovy and 
sardine. Increase MCRS 
for cod, red seabream and 
seabass for recreational 
fisheries 
Closed or restricted areas, 
the establishment of a fish 
stock recovery area in the 
intermediate zone in the 
Eastern Channel and for 
prohibitions on fishing for 
dredges between 15 May 

ASSESSED 

Assessed by STECF 21-01 

Assessed by STECF 21-02 

Assessed by STECF 21-05 (EWG LO) 

Assessed by STECF 20-04 and adopted by  
COMMISSION DELEGATED REGULATION 
(EU) 2020/2013 of 21 August 2020 amending 
Regulation (EU) 2019/1241 of the European 
Parliament and of the Council as regards technical 
measures for certain demersal and pelagic fisheries 
in the North Sea and in the South Western Waters 

Assessed by STECF 21-05 (EWG LO) 

 
Joint recommendation on technical measures for the Celtic Sea, Irish Sea 
and West of Scotland. Including T90 100 mm on the basis of equivalent 
selectivity than T0 120mm. minimum sizes were specified for almost 
twenty species for recreational fisheries  

SWW and NWW Member States have submitted a Joint for the fishing of 
SBR/678 

Joint recommendation submitted by the North Western Waters Group on 
the reintroduction of a 20% haddock catch threshold for the mixed 
demersal fishing gears in the Celtic Sea 7b to 7k 
Joint recommendation by the NWW assessed by STECF before the new 
technical measures regulation was adopted.  

NWW  

SWW 
and 
NWW 

NWW 
NWW 

JR submitted by the NS regional group concerning several TM 

NS 

83 

and 30 September in 
Divisions VIId and in part 
of VIIe.                                                                    

Specific technical 
measures for the Celtic 
Sea, Irish Sea and West of 
Scotland. MCRS 
Closed or restricted areas 

MCRS 

Last STECF assessment 21-05 (EWG LO) 

Assessed by STECF 21-05 (EWG LO) 

Fishing gear restrictions 

Assessed by STEC 21-02 

Assessed by STECF 19-02, implemented by 
Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/2239 
of 1 October 2019 specifying details of the landing 
obligation for certain demersal fisheries in North-
Western waters for the period 2020-2021 

Assessed by STECF 20-04 (EWG LO), and adopted 
by COMMISSION DELEGATED REGULATION 
(EU) 2020/2013 of 21 August 2020 amending 
Regulation (EU) 2019/1241 of the European 
Parliament and of the Council as regards technical 
measures for certain demersal and pelagic fisheries 
in the North Sea and in the South Western Waters 

Gear specifications 

Inclusion of berried 
lobster in Annex I 
(prohibited species) 
Increasing the MCRS for 
European lobster in the 
Swedish exclusive 
economic zone (EEZ) in 
ICES division 3a 
Harmonize the MCRS for 
seabass caught in 
recreational fisheries in 
ICES division 3a and 

 
ICES subarea 4 with the 
MCRS of seabass for 
commercial fisheries 

Several gear modifications 
aimed at increasing  
selectivity and reduce 
unwanted catches (Annex 
V) 
Allow the use of SepNep 
Seasonal closure for 
commercial and 
recreational fishery for 
European lobster in the 
Swedish exclusive 
economic zone (EEZ) in 
ICES division 3a 
Prohibition to fish lobster 
with gears other than 
lobster pots in the Swedish 
exclusive economic zone 
(EEZ) in ICES division 3a 
Closed or restricted areas  Assessed by STECF PLEN 20-03 
Closed or restricted areas 
RTC 

Assessed by STECF PLEN 19-02 (before entry into 
force TMR; posterior JR with some modifications 
assessed by STECF 20-3) 

Gear selectivity 

Fishing gear restrictions 

First time assessed by STECF 20-02. Posterior 
assessment by STECF 20-03 
Assessed by STEC 21-02 

Plaice Box additional measures, Inclusion of Danish seiners 100 mm 
Sprat box (keep previous status of sprat box) 
RTC for Northen prawn Amendment to Delegated Regulation (EU) 
2019/2201 to ensure a correct implementation of real-time closures in the 
Skagerrak.  

JR to introduce the Excluder in the Norway pout fishery 

Joint recommendation submitted by the Scheveningen Group on the 
reintroduction of restrictions of the length of the beam in the beam trawl 
fishery in the North Sea  

NS 
NS 
NS 

NS 

NS 

84 

 
 Joint recommendation to equates to an amendment to the mesh sizes for 
the North Sea contained in point 1.1, Part B (Mesh Sizes), Annex V 
(North Sea) where a derogation from the baseline mesh size for towed 
gears of 120 mm to 90 mm is provided for vessels operating in the 
Skagerrak and Kattegat under specified conditions  

This joint recommendation was developed and submitted by the NS and 
assessed by STECF before the new technical measures regulation was 
adopted.  

NS 

Gear specifications 

NS 

Fishing gear restrictions 

Assessed by STECF 21-05 (EWG LO) 

Assessed by STECF 19-03, adopted by 
Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 
2019/2238,  specifying details of implementation of 
the landing obligation for certain demersal fisheries 
in the North Sea for the period 2020-2021 

Assessed by STECF 19-02, adopted by 
Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/2201 
of 1 October 2019 supplementing Regulation (EU) 
2019/1241 of the European Parliament and of the 
Council with detailed rules for the implementation 
of real-time closures for Northern prawn fisheries 
in the Skagerrak 

Joint Recommendation on RTC on Skagerrak, developed and submitted 
by the NS before the entry into force of Regulation (EU) 2019/1241.  

NS 

RTC 

85