The implementation of ecosystem-based approaches applied to fisheries management under the CFP : final report.
Date: 2022-09-15
Institutions: European Climate, Infrastructure and Environment Executive Agency
Subjects: Atlantic Ocean, Baltic Sea, North Sea, aquatic ecosystem, common fisheries policy, database, decision-making, fishing grounds, governance, integrated maritime policy, peripheral region, report, scientific report, stock

The implementation of 
ecosystem-based approaches 
applied to fisheries 
management under the CFP 

EASME/EMFF/2018/011 Specific Contract Lot 1 No.1 

EASME/EMFF/2018/011 Specific Contract Lot 2 No.3 

Final Report 

June 2022 

Stichting Wageningen Research (WMR & WEcR), MRAG Europe (in association with MRAG Ltd), Institute of Food Safety, 
Animal Health and Environment (BIOR), Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (Cefas), Danmarks 
Tekniske Universitet (DTU), Eigen Vermogen van het Instituut voor Landbouw- en visserijonderzoek (EVILVO), National 
Marine  Fisheries  Research  Institute  (NMFRI),  Swedish  University  of  Agricultural  Sciences  (SLU),  Johann  Heinrich  von 
Thuenen-Institute, Federal Research Institute of Rural Areas, Forestry and Fisheries (vTI) 
January – 2022 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The implementation of ecosystem-based approaches applied to 
fisheries management under the CFP 

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

European Climate, Infrastructure and Environment Executive Agency 
Unit D.3 — Sustainable Blue Economy 

Contact: CINEA EMFAF CONTRACTS 

E-mail:  cinea-emfaf-contracts@ec.europa.eu

European Commission 
B-1049 Brussels

European Climate, Infrastructure and Environment Executive Agency 

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

The implementation of 
ecosystem-based approaches 
applied to fisheries 
management under the CFP 

EASME/EMFF/2018/011 Specific Contract Lot 1 No.1 

EASME/EMFF/2018/011 Specific Contract Lot 2 No.3 

Final Report 

European Climate, Infrastructure and Environment Executive Agency 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers  
to your questions about the European Union. 

Freephone number (*): 

00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 

(*) 

The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone 

boxes or hotels may charge you). 

LEGAL NOTICE 

This document has been prepared for the European Commission, however it only reflects the views of the 
authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information 
contained therein. 

More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (https://ec.europa.eu). 

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2022 

PDF  

ISBN 978-92-95225-57-2 

doi: 10.2926/57956  

HZ-09-22-512-EN-N 

© European Union, 2022 
Reproduction is authorised provided that the source is acknowledged. 

European Climate, Infrastructure and Environment Executive Agency 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The implementation of ecosystem-based approaches applied to fisheries management under the 
Common Fisheires Policy 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................... IX 

RÉSUMÉ ...................................................................................................................... IX 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................... XI 

RÉSUMÉ EXÉCUTIF .................................................................................................... XVII 

1 

INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1 

1.1  Defining EAFM .............................................................................................. 1 
1.2 
Assessing EAFM ............................................................................................ 3 
1.3  Outline report............................................................................................... 4 

2 

A FIVE-STEP EAFM IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS AND ITS COMPONENTS ....................... 5 

2.3 

2.1 

EAFM Challenges .......................................................................................... 6 
Typology of EAFM challenges .................................................. 7 
2.1.1 
2.1.2  Challenges: implications for EAFM .......................................... 10 
2.2  Characterization of Fisheries ........................................................................ 10 
Typology of commercial fisheries ........................................... 10 
2.2.1 
2.2.2  Relevant recreational fisheries ............................................... 14 
2.2.3 
Fisheries characterization: implications for EAFM ..................... 15 
EAFM measures and policy instruments, their legal setting and implementation .. 16 
Typology of management measures ....................................... 17 
2.3.1 
2.3.2 
Typology of Policy Instruments .............................................. 18 
2.3.3  Matching EAFM challenges, measures and policy instruments .... 19 
Legal basis for management measures ................................... 21 
2.3.4 
2.3.5  Characterizing existing management: implications for EAFM ...... 23 
Best practices to support an EAFM process ..................................................... 24 
2.4.1  Case studies ........................................................................ 25 
2.4.2  Best  practices  to  advance  the  knowledge  base  and  advisory 

2.4 

process ............................................................................... 29 
2.4.3  Best practices to advance the decision-making process ............. 29 
2.4.4  Best practices: implications for EAFM ..................................... 30 
2.5  Relational database and its application as part of the follow-up process ............. 32 
2.5.1  Relational database: implications for EAFM .............................. 33 

3 

SYNTHESIS: AN EAFM PERSPECTIVE ...................................................................... 34 

Assessment of EAFM implementation ............................................................ 34 
3.1 
3.2 
Assessment of operational readiness of EAFM ................................................. 40 
3.3  Conclusions of the synthesis ........................................................................ 42 

4 

ADVANCING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF EAFM .......................................................... 43 

4.1 
4.2 

Analysis ..................................................................................................... 43 
Final Conclusions ........................................................................................ 47 

5 

REFERENCES ....................................................................................................... 49 

ANNEX  1:  TYPOLOGY  FOR  THE  IDENTIFICATION  OF  THE  LEGAL  BASIS  OF  MANAGEMENT 

MEASURES .......................................................................................................... 53 

Measures adopted by the EU ................................................................................. 53 
Measures adopted by a Member State .................................................................... 53 

ANNEX 2: FISHERIES IDENTIFIED FOR EACH GEOGRAPHICAL AREA .................................. 55 

ANNEX 3: TYPOLOGY OF ECOSYSTEM CHALLENGES ADDRESSED BY AN EAFM .................... 79 

i 

 
 
 
The implementation of ecosystem-based approaches applied to fisheries management under the 
Common Fisheires Policy 

ANNEX 4: TYPOLOGY OF MANAGEMENT MEASURES AND POLICY INSTRUMENTS IDENTIFIED 

FROM THE LITERATURE ........................................................................................ 85 

ANNEX 5: SUMMARY OF LESSONS LEARNT FROM THE CASE STUDIES ............................... 87 

ANNEX 6: RESULTS OF RANKING OF ASSESSMENT CRITERIA BY CASE STUDY ................... 95 

ANNEX 7: DATABASE DESIGN AND INFORMATION SOURCES .......................................... 105 

ANNEX 8: STAKEHOLDER FEEDBACK ON THE PRELIMINARY STUDY RESULTS ................... 108 

ii 

 
 
 
 
 
The implementation of ecosystem-based approaches applied to fisheries management under the 
Common Fisheires Policy 

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 1. Hierarchy of EAFM challenges and their relevance to each of the steps of the EAFM 
process.  The  first  major  group  of  challenges  covers  the  potential  impacts  on  the 
ecosystem that may compromise the achievement of the policy objectives; the second 
examines the development of the knowledge base and its use in the advisory process 
and the third looks at the obstacles that hamper the decision-making process. These 
EAFM  challenges  are  based  on  the  ecosystem  challenges  identified  in  the  literature 
review (see Annex 3 and Bastardie et al., 2021). ................................................ 9 

Table 2: Legal basis for measures adopted to address the three types of EAFM challenges 
across all sea basins (for details of the challenge types, see Table 1) ................... 23 

Table 3: Ranking of criteria by Case Study using a traffic-light approach to represent the 
criteria for the two parts of an EAFM process that were previously distinct (see Figure 
9), i.e. developing the knowledge base and provision of advice and decision-making 
process  in  relation  to  the  management  measures  that  were  implemented.  Green 
colourrepresents  high  quality  and  trustworthy  evidence,  based  on  transdisciplinary 
research  with  a  decision  making  process  characterised  by  its  clear  objectives,  high 
transparency, stakeholder involvement and regionalisation. Red colourrepresents poor 
quality, credibility and monodisciplinary based evidence, excluding fishers’ knowledge 
and with a decision-making process characterised by its lack of clarity in the definition 
of objectives, lack of transparency, poor stakeholder involvement and regionalisation. 
Orange  colour  represents  intermediate  values.  Further  detail  on  the  criteria  can  be 
found in Annex 6. .......................................................................................... 27 

iii 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The implementation of ecosystem-based approaches applied to fisheries management under the 
Common Fisheires Policy 

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 1. The five-step adaptive EAFM process embedded in the regional context, including 
its legal setting, governance and institutional set-up (yellow box). Each of the topics 
in the red boxes are explicitly addressed in the project and are covered in more detail 
in the annexes. Note that while each topic predominantly sits in one (or more) specific 
step(s),  the  'best  practices'  potentially  apply  to  the  entire  process  as  well  as  the 
governance and institutional aspects of the context. ........................................... 6 

Figure 2. Conceptual model of fisheries as a component of a social-ecological system with 
the EAFM challenges that emerged from the review considering the Baltic Sea, North 
Sea, Western Atlantic and Outermost Regions (for an explanation of the symbols and 
challenge  IDs,  see  Table  1).  The  EAFM  challenges  are  shown  here  at  their  most 
detailed 
in  table  1. 
Source:(Bastardie et al., 2021). ....................................................................... 8 

into  the  sub-types  shown 

is  combined 

level  which 

Figure  3:  Fisheries  defined  as  the  ensemble  of  similar  métiers  from  national  fleets  that 
have the same (set of) target species. .............................................................. 11 

Figure 4: Recreational vs commercial catch (retained) estimates by country of two stocks, 
North Sea seabass (upper panel) and pollack in the Celtic Seas and English Channel 
(lower panel) NLD = Netherlands. .................................................................... 14 

Figure  5.  Implementation  of  EAFM  through  a  Policy  Instrument  (PI)  and  a  Measure  (M) 
with  the  purpose  of  achieving  specific  policy  objectives  (O).  The  PI  operates  in  the 
social system as the means to get an M implemented, the M operates in the ecological 
system where it mitigates the fishing impact that compromises a specific O. An EAFM 
plan is the combination of all measures and policy instruments that are applied in a 
region. ......................................................................................................... 16 

Figure 6: Management measures typology. .............................................................. 17 

Figure 7: Management measures and Policy Instruments (the far right) to address EAFM 
challenges (left, at different levels of detail) and the specific ecosystem components 
they may involve (2nd from the left). The 3rd column gives the EAFM challenges where 
the first digit corresponds to the main types in Table 1. The column to the right shows 
the observed management interventions. From Bastardie et al. (2021). Note that the 
typology  of  both  the  challenges  as  well  as  the  Management  measures  and  Policy 
Instruments has evolved since this was constructed ........................................... 20 

Figure 8: The Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management (EAFM) in context. .......... 21 

Figure 9: EAFM process and the main governance arrangements (in light blue) for which 
the identified best practices are most applicable. The relevance of specific context is 
reflected in the yellow boxes. Stakeholder involvement applies throughout the EAFM 
process.  The  environmental  context  applies  specifically  to  the  development  of  the 
knowledge base which is at the core of the advisory process. .............................. 25 

Figure 10: North Sea measures implemented to address EAFM challenge subtypes showing 
the application of policy instruments ................................................................ 36 

Figure 11: Baltic Sea measures implemented to address EAFM challenge subtypes showing 
the application of policy instruments ................................................................ 37 

Figure 12: Western Atlantic measures implemented to address EAFM challenge subtypes 
showing the application of policy instruments .................................................... 37 

Figure 13: North Sea measures implemented to address EAFM challenges ................... 38 

iv 

 
The implementation of ecosystem-based approaches applied to fisheries management under the 
Common Fisheires Policy 

Figure 14: Baltic Sea measures implemented to address EAFM challenges ................... 38 

Figure 15: Western Atlantic measures implemented to address EAFM challenges .......... 39 

Figure 16: Outermost Regions measures implemented to address EAFM challenges ...... 39 

Figure  17.  The  role  of  the  adaptive  process  to  advance  EAFM  in  several  adaptive  cycles 
from  conventional  single-species  management  into  increasinly  more  mature 
operational EAFM. It also shows the critical role of the three types of EAFM challenges, 
i.e. type 1 involving the achievement of a wider range of policy objectives, and two 
governance arrangements, i.e. the advisory (type 2) and decision-making processes 
(type 3), that need to be addressed to support this. ........................................... 43 

v 

 
 
 
 
 
 
The implementation of ecosystem-based approaches applied to fisheries management under the 
Common Fisheires Policy 

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 

Term 

Description 

AC 

CBD 

CFP 

CS 

DCF 

EAF 

Advisory Council 

Convention on Biological Diversity 

Common Fisheries Policy 

Case Study 

Data Collection Framework 

Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries 

EAFM 

Ecosystem-based Approach to Fisheries Management 

EASME 

Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises 

EBFM 

Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management 

EBM 

EMFF 

Ecosystem-Based Management 

European Maritime and Fisheries Fund 

eNGO 

Environmental Non-Governmental Organization 

EU 

European Union 

GFCM 

General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean 

ICCAT 

International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas 

ICES 

International Council for the Exploration of the Sea 

ITQ 

JRC 

LO 

MAP 

Individual Transferrable Quota 

Joint Research Centre 

Landing Obligation 

Multi-Annual Plan 

MCRS 

Minimum Conservation Reference Size 

MLS 

MPA 

MRF 

MS 

MSC 

Minimum Landing Size 

Marine Protected Area 

Marine Recreational Fisheries 

Member State (of the European Union) 

Marine Stewardship Council 

MSFD 

Marine Strategy Framework Directive 

OR 

Outermost Region (of the European Union) 

OSPAR 

Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic 

PETS 

RAC 

Protected, Endangered and Threatened Species 

Regional Advisory Council 

RFMO 

Regional Fisheries Management Organization 

STECF 

Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries 

TAC 

TCM 

TMR 

Total Allowable Catch 

Technical Conservation Measures 

Technical Measures Regulation 

TURF 

Territorial Use Rights in Fisheries 

UNCLOS 

United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 

vi 

 
The implementation of ecosystem-based approaches applied to fisheries management under the 
Common Fisheires Policy 

GLOSSARY 

Term 

Description 

EAFM 
challenge 

EAFM challenges hinder the performance of an EAFM process to achieve policy 
objectives  or  societal  goals.  Examples  are  potential  fisheries  impacts  on  the 
ecosystem and fishing opportunities or obstacles that hamper the governance 
of an EAFM process and hence the implementation of appropriate management 
measures.  

Ecosystem 

An  ecological  system  composed  of  biological  communities  of  interacting 
organisms and their physical environment. Humans are an integral part of an 
ecosystem. 

Ecosystem-
based 
Approach  to 
Fisheries 
Management  

Here  we  distinguish  between  the  concept  of  Ecosystem-based  Approach  to 
Fisheries Management (EAFM) and the actual implementation of an Ecosystem-
based  Approach  to  Fisheries  Management,  as  there  can  be  many  different 
configurations  depending  on  the  context.  We  have  not  adopted  any  specific 
definition  but  work  from  a  suite  of  common  principles  that  drive  the 
implementation of an EAFM. 

Fishery 

"A group of vessel voyages targeting the same (assemblage of) species and/or 
stocks, using similar gear, during the same period of the year and within the 
same  area”  (ICES,  2003).  The  commercial  fisheries  correspond  to  a  unity  of 
gear type, target species (group), area and time of the year, and can therefore 
be expected to have the same (or sufficiently similar) impacts on the ecosystem 
and its different components. A fishery is the basic unit to which management 
measures apply. A fishery may consist of several métiers. 

Policy 
instrument  

An  intervention  in  the  governance  arrangements  often  covering  the  advisory 
and decision-making processes intended to facilitate the implementation and/or 
enforcement  of  management  measures.  Policy  instruments  typically  target 
actors in the social system. 

Management 
measure 

“Management measures are the specific elements of fisheries control which are 
embodied in regulations and which become a focus for surveillance activities.”1 
In the context of the social-ecological system that is at the basis of EAFM, we 
define  measures  as  operating  solely  in  the  ecological  system  where  they 
mitigate  the  impact  of  fishing  on  the  ecosystem  including  all  its  relevant 
components and aspects. 

Management 
Strategy 

The  combination  of  a  policy  instrument  and  a  management  measure  (this 
study). The policy instrument is the means to implement the measure. 

Management 
Plan 

An  internally  consistent  combination  of  different  management  measures  and 
policy  instruments  aimed  at  achieving  a  selection  of  policy  objectives  for  a 
specific ecosystem and its socio-economic/institutional context. 

Métier 

Obstacle 

"Part of the activity of a fishing fleet taking place in a given area, with a specific 
gear  and  targeting  a  specific  (assemblage  of)  species”  (ICES,  2003).  For 
practical  reasons,  the  métier  definition  chosen  for  this  work  was  the  Data 
Collection  Framework  (DCF)  métiers  used  by  Member  States  for  reporting 
landings data. 

In  the  context  of  EAFM,  an  obstacle  hampers  the  implementation  process  of 
particular  management  measures,  thereby  compromising  the  achievement  of 
relevant  policy  objectives  or  societal  goals.  An  obstacle  involves  governance 
arrangements  which specifically involve  the advisory process  or  the decision-
making process. 

1 https://www.fao.org/3/v4250e/V4250E05.htm 

vii 

 
 
 
 
 
 
The implementation of ecosystem-based approaches applied to fisheries management under the 
Common Fisheires Policy 

viii 

 
 
 
The implementation of ecosystem-based approaches applied to fisheries management under the 
Common Fisheires Policy 

ABSTRACT 

The  Common  Fisheries  Policy  states  that  an  Ecosystem-Based  Approach  to  Fisheries 
Management (EAFM) needs to be implemented. This study provides a state-of-play of the 
implementation  of  EAFM  in  the  North  and  Baltic  Seas,  Western  Atlantic  and  Outermost 
Regions.  At  the  core  of  this  assessment,  the  study  identified  three  types  of  “EAFM 
challenges” that need to be addressed in order to advance EAFM. In addition, typologies 
were  developed  for  the  main  EAFM  components  (fisheries,  management  measures  and 
policy instruments), and used to assess the available fisheries management information. 
The analyses revealed that existing measures are largely targeting only one type of EAFM 
challenge, i.e. mitigating fishing impacts using both input and output measures. Although 
a lack of consolidated information on existing management measures prevented a full in-
depth  assessment,  some  key  obstacles  were  identified  in  the  governance  arrangements 
that should facilitate an EAFM.  

The  advisory  process  should  build  on  a  transdisciplinary  knowledge  base,  integrating 
various interdisciplinary scientific and local indigenous (e.g. fisher) knowledge to consider 
the full social-ecological system. Including context and stakeholder interests in decision-
making can enhance the  feasibility,  appropriateness and impact  of chosen management 
measures.  The  uptake  of  scientific  advice  beyond  single-species  stock  assessments  into 
decision-making should also be improved. 

RÉSUMÉ 

La  politique  commune  de  la  pêche  (PCP)  prévoit  la  mise  en  œuvre  d'une  approche 
écosystémique de la gestion de la pêche (EAFM). Cette étude fournit un état des lieux clair 
de la mise en œuvre de l'EAFM dans la mer du Nord, la mer Baltique, l'Atlantique Ouest et 
les régions ultrapériphériques. Au cœur de cette évaluation, l'étude a identifié trois types 
de « défis de l'EAFM » qu'il convient de relever pour faire progresser l'EAFM. En outre, des 
typologies  ont  été  développées  pour  les  principales  composantes  de  l'EAFM  (pêcheries, 
mesures de gestion et instruments de politiques), et utilisées pour évaluer les informations 
disponibles sur la gestion des pêches. Les analyses ont révélé que les mesures existantes 
ne ciblent en grande partie qu'un seul type de défi de l'EAFM, à savoir atténuer des impacts 
de la pêche en utilisant à la fois des mesures d'entrée et de sortie. Bien que le manque 
d'informations  consolidées  sur  les  mesures  de  gestion  existantes  ait  empêché  une 
évaluation  complète  et  approfondie,  certains  obstacles  clés  ont  été  identifiés  dans  les 
dispositions de gouvernance qui devraient faciliter une EAFM.  

Afin  de  prendre  en  compte  l'ensemble  du  système  socio-écologique,  le  processus 
consultatif  doit  s'appuyer  sur  une  base  de  connaissances  transdisciplinaires,  intégrant 
diverses connaissances scientifiques interdisciplinaires et natives locales (par exemple, les 
pêcheurs). La prise en compte du contexte et des intérêts des parties prenantes dans le 
processus décisionnel peut améliorer la faisabilité, la pertinence et l'impact des mesures 
de gestion choisies. Il convient également d’améliorer l’intégration des avis scientifiques 
au-delà de l’évaluation des stocks d’une seule espèce dans la prise de décision. 

ix 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The implementation of ecosystem-based approaches applied to fisheries management under the 
Common Fisheires Policy 

x 

 
 
 
 
The implementation of ecosystem-based approaches applied to fisheries management under the 
Common Fisheires Policy 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

The Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), European Union (EU) regulation 1380/2013 states that 
an ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management (EAFM) needs to be implemented. 
While there are various ecosystem approaches or ecosystem-based approaches linked to 
fisheries  management,  they  appear  to  address  similar  or  largely  overlapping  sets  of 
objectives. Therefore, for the purpose of this study, the term ‘Ecosystem-based Approach 
to Fisheries Management (EAFM)’ was assumed to be similar to those other expressions. 
It  was  used  to  represent  a  fisheries  governance  framework  that  takes  its  conceptual 
principles and operational methods from conventional single-species fisheries management 
on the one hand, and ecosystem management on the other. These include accounting for 
the dynamic nature of ecosystems and their ecological integrity and biodiversity, explicit 
consideration  of  sustainability  and  the  recognition  of  fisheries  management  as  part  of  a 
social-ecological system.  

To  address  the  additional  complexity  associated  with  an  EAFM  requires  interdisciplinary 
science and adaptive management, including increased stakeholder involvement. However, 
the difficulty of doing so in practice has resulted in EAFM remaining a largely conceptual 
approach  with  few  operational  examples,  which  often  lacks  appropriate  guidance  to 
advance its implementation. 

Rather than continuing to examine EAFM as a concept, this study sought to provide a clear 
state-of-play of the implementation of EAFM in order to achieve policy objectives beyond 
the  target  species  in  specific  EU  marine  areas,  i.e.  the  North  Sea,  Baltic  Sea,  Western 
Atlantic and Outermost Regions. For these areas, the study provides an inventory of EAFM 
challenges that need to be addressed in order to advance EAFM, a characterization of the 
relevant  types  of  fisheries  and  the  types  of  measures  that  have  been  applied  with  their 
legal and scientific basis. In doing so, the study structured the available information and 
highlighted  local  examples  of  successful  measures  and  policy  instruments  together  with 
the obstacles that have hampered the implementation of an EAFM in practice.  

This study was designed so that it could address two main objectives:  

•  Assess  the  current  state  of  affairs  pertaining  to  the  implementation  of  EAFM,  with  a 
focus  on  measures  and  the  governance  required,  in  terms  of  their  operational 
readiness. 

•  Provide recommendations to advance the implementation of EAFM aimed at addressing 

the identified challenges in order to achieve CFP and other policy objectives.  

To respond to these objectives, a five-step EAFM process inspired by a similar process for 
an ‘Ecosystem-based Approach to Maritime Spatial Planning’: 

1.  Defining the frame for EAFM, starting with its aim to achieve specific policy objectives 
or  societal  goals  within  the  social  and  environmental  context  and  including  the  legal 
setting. We identified a number of EAFM challenges that, if addressed, may contribute 
to achieving these objectives and societal goals. Note that these objectives and societal 
goals  are  often  understood  to  refer  to  the  state  of  the  ecosystem  and  fishing 
opportunities but may also involve social or economic objectives/goals. 

2.  Developing  the  knowledge  base  (which  may  include  scientific  as  well  as  local 
indigenous knowledge) driven by the policy objectives or societal goals to be achieved, 
the  relevant  fisheries  and  potential  EAFM  measures.  We  identified  a  number  of 
challenges that require an understanding of the interaction of specific fisheries with the 
ecosystem and how this may be mitigated through specific measures. Addressing these 
challenges may contribute to achieving these objectives and societal goals. 

xi 

 
 
 
 
The implementation of ecosystem-based approaches applied to fisheries management under the 
Common Fisheires Policy 

3.  Assessing and weighing the EAFM alternative scenarios using the knowledge base and 
appropriate tools. This results in scientific advice that identifies preferred management 
and policy approaches. 

4.  Implementing  a  specific  management  plan  based  on  informed  decision-making 
guided by best practices. This plan is an internally consistent combination of different 
management measures and policy instruments aimed at achieving a selection of policy 
objectives for a specific ecosystem and its socio-economic/institutional context. 

5.  Following-up  with  an  assessment  of  the  state  of  affairs  pertaining  to  the 
implementation of EAFM. This includes both the EAFM process, including the preceding 
steps, as well as its performance in achieving the specific policy objectives or societal 
goals. Addressing EAFM challenges is a way to show advancement. 

These five stages represent one EAFM cycle where the follow-up step provides the basis 
for the advancements in the next EAFM cycle, supporting an adaptive process. 

Based on a review of the literature, it was possible to identify a hierarchical typology of 
EAFM challenges that distinguished three main types of EAFM challenges: 

1.  Challenges  to  mitigate  fishing  impacts  on  fishing  opportunities  and  the  wider 

ecosystem, including by-catch, habitat impacts and impacts on food webs. 

2.  Challenges  to  improve  the  advisory  process  and  its  knowledge  base  by 
incorporating  the  effects  of  the  environmental  (ecological)  context  on  fish,  fishing 
opportunities and fisheries. This includes any environmental effects (e.g. from climate) 
on target and non-target species or habitats affecting their vulnerability and/or spatio-
temporal distribution as well as the effects of other anthropogenic pressures, such as 
the effect of eutrophication or contaminants on productivity.  

3.  Challenges  to  improve  the  decision-making  process.  These  include  all  potential 
effects of the social context on fisheries management and its governance. This, in turn, 
includes economic aspects, such as where short-term profits may be at odds with long-
term sustainability; management aspects, such as a lack of clear policy targets, and 
social aspects, including stakeholder disagreements and low levels of participation. 

Addressing  these  EAFM  challenges  can  advance  an  EAFM  and  ultimately  improve 
performance in terms of achieving the policy objectives and societal goals identified in the 
defining step. To assess the current state of affairs pertaining to the implementation of an 
EAFM it was necessary to identify and define the key EAFM components, i.e. the fisheries 
(both commercial and recreational), the management measures and their legal settings.  

Commercial  fisheries  were  identified  based  on  defining  fisheries  as:  “a  group  of  vessel 
voyages  targeting  the  same  (assemblage  of)  species  and/or  stocks,  using  similar  gear, 
during the same period of the year and within the same area” (ICES, 2003). These fisheries 
could  reasonably  be  expected  to  have  sufficiently  similar  impact  on  the  ecosystem,  and 
could be used as the basic unit for the assessment. Landings and species composition by 
the métiers used by Member States for reporting landing data were analyzed to identify 
227  fisheries  relevant  for  EAFM  from  the  initial  517  métiers  (156  in  European  waters, 
excluding  Mediterranean  and  Black  Seas,  and  71  in  the  Outermost  Regions).  National 
recreational fisheries were also identified where the existing data suggested that they were 
contributing to removals so should be included.  

xii 

 
 
 
The implementation of ecosystem-based approaches applied to fisheries management under the 
Common Fisheires Policy 

A review of existing management measures, which could be applied in order to manage 
fisheries, identified three broad types of measures: 

1.  Input measures, including Technical Conservation Measures (TCM) consisting of gear-
based TCM (e.g. mesh size changes or sorting grids) and spatial/temporal TCM (e.g. 
no-take  zones  or  real-time  closures)  and  capacity  and  effort  controls  (e.g. 
decommissioning or licensing). 

2.  Output  measures,  including  Total  Allowable  Catch  (TAC)  controls,  landing  size 

controls and discard bans. 

3.  Ecosystem  restoration  measures 

including  restocking  schemes  and  stock 

enhancement (e.g. through habitat restoration or artificial reefs). 

The  review  revealed  other  types  of  interventions  that  become  relevant  if  the  full  social-
ecological  system  is  considered  as  an  EAFM  requires.  These  were  identified  as  policy 
instruments which, in contrast to the management measures operating in the ecological 
system,  operate  in  the  social  system.  Examples  of  such  policy  instruments  include 
regulatory  instruments,  such  as  co-management  or  self-management;  economic 
instruments (e.g. tariffs, taxes and charges and, permit or quota trading and subsidies for 
alternative gears); information and public engagement measures such as eco-labelling that 
include  EAFM  objectives;  and  interventions  to  enhance  monitoring  and  research  and 
improve the knowledge base.  

The study also considered the legal basis for the measures implemented, primarily whether 
this was at the EU or Member State level. This suggested that measures to mitigate impacts 
on commercial  stocks  were  often based  on the EU level, through the  Common Fisheries 
Policy (CFP). In contrast, measures to mitigate impacts on the wider ecosystem and policy 
instruments to improve the governance often had their basis in Member State legislation. 

The role of the EAFM context was further explored through 12 in-depth case studies. The 
case studies explored various combinations of measures, EAFM challenges and fisheries, 
and were used to provide insight into the advisory and decision-making process used to 
identify  and  implement  measures.  The  case  studies  were  used  to  identify  potential  best 
practices  that  might  have  wider  applicability  and  highlighted  the  important  roles  of 
uncertainty  and  disagreement  within  these  processes,  drawing  attention  to  the  role  of 
science as well as other knowledge types.  

The case studies also revealed that decision-making processes are also affected by issues 
of institutions, participation and power that both enable and prevent the use of evidence 
and the implementation of measures. Key lessons learned included: 

•  The  development  of  the  knowledge  base  needs  to  move  towards  inter-  and 

transdisciplinarity.  

•  Scientific knowledge is one type of knowledge and it is important to ensure that other 
types of knowledge, including that of fishers and other stakeholders, can contribute to 
the knowledge base. 

•  Development of the knowledge base is important but its uptake in the decision-making 

process is key for a successful EAFM process. 

•  Stakeholder involvement should occur throughout the EAFM process, starting with the 
defining  step,  where  the  relevant  policy  objectives  and  societal  goals  are  being 
identified.An  important  challenge  involves  conflicts  between  different  stakeholder 
groups. 

•  Decision-making should be clearly linked to the advisory process, taking account of the 
knowledge base and stakeholder interests and applying principles of good governance, 
including issues of legitimacy, inclusiveness, fairness, and accountability.  

xiii 

 
 
 
 
 
The implementation of ecosystem-based approaches applied to fisheries management under the 
Common Fisheires Policy 

An  assessment  of  the  performance  of  EAFM  to  date  and  the  extent  to  which  it  was 
‘functioning  properly’  was  outside  the  remit  of  this  study.  Instead  the  focus  was  on  the 
progress  made  from  single-species  management  towards  an  EAFM.  To  assess  such 
progress,  we  assumed  a  continuum  of  increasingly  more  EAFM,  that  progressively 
addresses  a  wider  set  of  EAFM  challenges  starting  from  conventional  single-species 
fisheries management  and moving towards a  more  comprehensive EAFM.  On this basis, 
progress can be made to advance EAFM along this continuum, achieving an increasingly 
wider range of policy objectives by improving the knowledge base, advisory and decision-
making processes.  

In order to ’assess the current state of affairs pertaining to the implementation of EAFM’ it 
was necessary to structure the existing information. A relational database was created that 
played an important role in linking the fisheries and measures/policy instruments with the 
EAFM  challenges.  It  provided  an  overview  of  the  extent  to  which  EAFM  challenges  are 
addressed  by  the  current  state  of  affairs.  This  serves  as  a  basis  to  formulate 
recommendations for the (further) advancement of the implementation of EAFM. The first 
analysis, using the database, indicated that existing measures are mostly mitigating fishing 
impacts using both input and output measures. Therefore, the majority of measures are 
still primarily focused on conventional single-species fisheries management.  

To advance an EAFM it is therefore necessary to address the different EAFM challenges and 
(further)  expand  the  policy  objectives  beyond  the  commercial  species,  improve  the 
knowledge base and seek to address obstacles within the existing advisory and decision-
making  processes.  The  analysis,  however,  was  severely  hampered  by  the  lack  of  a 
comprehensive and consistent overview of the fisheries management measures in place. 
A  key  recommendation  is  therefore  to  start  a  process  for  the  routine  collection  of  such 
information. The findings of this study (e.g. typology of fisheries, management measures 
and proposed policy instruments) can contribute to guide this process. Also, the database 
can provide a tool to monitor further progress in implementing EAFM.  

The  annual  TAC  and  quota  process  could  be  a  relatively  easy  starting  point  for 
implementing a move towards EAFM. Applying the typology of EAFM challenges developed 
in this project could make this more explicit as an important first step. This would require 
the  various  advisory  bodies,  e.g.  ICES  or  STECF,  to  ensure  that  the  knowledge  base  is 
adequate and informed by an inter- and transdisciplinary perspective, thereby increasing 
the credibility of the knowledge base. As a prerequisite, a better understanding of EAFM 
principles and relevant concepts is needed if there is to be more EAFM advice.  

Further improvement can be achieved through stakeholder involvement and a more explicit 
consideration  of  the  context  in  which  the  EAFM  process  occurs.  This  builds  trust  in  the 
EAFM process and increases the legitimacy of its outcome. Importantly, this applies to each 
of  the  steps  in  the  EAFM  process  starting  with  the  defining  step.  Effective  EAFM  also 
requires that decision-making is tightly linked to the advisory process and that it applies 
principles of good governance, including issues of legitimacy, inclusiveness, fairness, and 
accountability. Efforts have been made, through the process of regionalization, to enable 
stakeholders to contribute to policy processes but these could go further. 

The synthesis of all outputs in this project (i.e. EAFM challenges, typologies of fisheries, 
management  measures),  and  its  application  to  assess  the  current  state  of  affairs  in 
fisheries management and the implementation of an EAFM specifically, enabled the study 
to reach the following conclusions: 

1.  The  overall  conclusion  of  the  assessment  was  that  current  fisheries  management  is 
dominated by conventional single-species advice on which the TAC/quota management 
is based. The first step toward more EAFM is through the implementation of TCMs to 
mitigate by-catch. All other EAFM initiatives mainly consist of regulatory or economic 
policy instruments, not measures. 

xiv 

 
The implementation of ecosystem-based approaches applied to fisheries management under the 
Common Fisheires Policy 

2.  Hierarchical typologies of the relevant components (i.e. EAFM challenges, fisheries and 
measures) are appropriate to structure EAFM and assess the state of affairs in relation 
to EAFM.  

3.  The  three  main  categories  of  EAFM  challenges  appear  comprehensive  and  useful  as 
they cover what appear to be the main overall challenges, i.e. (1) mitigating fisheries 
impact  on  the  ecosystem,  (2)  the  advisory  process  and  (3)  decision-making.  While 
these three main categories are not likely to change, some of the more detailed (below 
sub-type) challenges may need to be revisited and, in some cases, combined. 

4.  The  typology  for  the  commercial  fisheries  appears  suitable  in  an  EAFM  context. 
However, it could be expanded to include recreational fisheries to a greater extent. The 
current typology is based on the fisheries' interaction with the ecological system and 
could be further developed to incorporate their link to specific fishing communities to 
encompass the whole social-ecological system as EAFM requires. 

5.  The  hierarchical  typology  of  management  measures  was  essential  to  structure  the 

immense variety of detail that emerged from the review of existing measures.  

6.  Although not specifically requested, we found that EAFM requires the explicit distinction 
between  the  management  measures  and  the  policy  instruments  as  the  means  to 
implement  them.  Separating  them  from  management  measures  is  not  only  an 
improvement from a conceptual perspective but has many practical advantages as the 
two operate in distinct parts of the social-ecological system, require different expertise 
and  scientific  disciplines,  and/or  involve  different  governance  actors.  This  study 
provided  a  first  tentative  typology  of  policy  instruments  but,  considering  their 
importance in EAFM, especially in relation to 'operational readiness', this needs to be 
revisited and improved. 

7.  The application of both measures and policy instruments and their typologies (as part 
of  a  relational  database  to  assess  the  current  state  of  affairs  in  relation  to  EAFM) 
showed  internal  consistency  (e.g.  measures  mainly  link  to  the  type  1  fishing  impact 
challenge,  policy  instruments  to  the  type  2  and  3  EAFM  challenges  that  involve 
respectively the advisory and decision-making processes) and their potential usefulness 
for such assessments. 

8.  The bottleneck for the EAFM assessment was the availability of a comprehensive list of 
management measures, appropriately categorized at an adequate level of detail. As it 
currently stands, only a few rather randomly collected datasets were available, and it 
was  not  always  clear  how  to  categorize  and  assess  them  or  how  they  matched  the 
measures typology presented here. The current typologies of both measures and policy 
instruments should be tested and improved (certainly the policy instruments) so that 
they  can  be  used  to  generate  comprehensive  lists  of  EAFM  measures  and  policy 
instruments for each of the regional seas to be applied in future assessments. 

9.  The two focal points of the 'operational readiness' assessment, i.e. measures and policy 
instruments,  appear  relevant.  However,  the  key  issue  that  determines  ‘operational 
readiness’  is  the  specific  context,  mostly  ecological/environmental  for  the  measures, 
and social/institutional for the governance. In order to advance operational readiness 
of EAFM in its specific context we propose to collate generic information that allows a 
first scrutiny of potential measures or policy instruments that can be considered ready 
for  operation against a  selection of  essential tenets, e.g.  socially desirable/tolerable, 
legally  permissible,  administratively  achievable  and  politically  expedient  and  then 
further  evaluate  this  selection  in  the  specific  context  where  EAFM  is  supposed  to  be 
implemented. 

The  information  and  views  set  out  in  this  report  are  those  of  the  author(s)  and  do  not 
necessarily  reflect  the  official  opinion  of  EASME/CINEA  or  of  the  Commission.  Neither 
EASME/CINEA, nor the Commission can guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this 
study.  Neither  EASME/CINEA,  nor  the  Commission  or  any  person  acting  on  their  behalf 
may  be  held  responsible  for  the  use  which  may  be  made  of  the  information  contained 
therein. 

*** 

xv 

 
 
 
The implementation of ecosystem-based approaches applied to fisheries management under the 
Common Fisheires Policy 

xvi 

 
 
 
 
The implementation of ecosystem-based approaches applied to fisheries management under the 
Common Fisheires Policy 

RÉSUMÉ EXÉCUTIF 

La  politique  commune  de  la  pêche  (PCP),  règlement  1380/2013  de  l'Union  européenne 
(UE)  stipule  qu'une  approche  écosystémique  de  la  gestion  des  pêches  (EAFM)  doit  être 
mise en œuvre. Bien qu'il existe plusieurs approches écosystémiques ou approches fondées 
sur  les  écosystèmes  liées  à  la  gestion  de  la  pêche,  elles  semblent  viser  des  objectifs 
similaires ou pour le moins largement communs. Par conséquent, aux fins de la présente 
étude,  le  terme  «  approche  écosystémique  de  la  gestion  des  pêches  »  (EAFM)  a  été 
considéré comme synonyme de ces autres expressions. Il a été utilisé pour représenter un 
cadre  de  gouvernance  des  pêches  qui  tire  ses  principes  conceptuels  et  ses  méthodes 
opérationnelles de la gestion conventionnelle des pêches monospécifiques, d'une part, et 
de la gestion des écosystèmes, d'autre part. Il s'agit notamment de la prise en compte de 
la nature dynamique des écosystèmes, de leur intégrité écologique et de leur biodiversité, 
de la prise en compte explicite de la durabilité et de la reconnaissance de la gestion de la 
pêche comme faisant partie d'un système socio-écologique.  

Faire face à la complexité supplémentaire associée à une EAFM nécessite la mise en place 
d’une  science  interdisciplinaire  et  d’une  gestion  adaptative  incluant  notamment  une 
participation accrue des parties prenantes. Cependant, à cause de la difficulté à les réaliser, 
l'EAFM  reste  une  approche  largement  conceptuelle  offrant  peu  d'exemples  pratiques  et 
souvent dénuée de conseils appropriés pour faire avancer sa mise en œuvre. 

Plutôt que de continuer à examiner l'EAFM en tant que concept, cette étude a cherché à 
fournir un état des lieux clair sur la mise en œuvre de l'EAFM pour atteindre les objectifs 
de politiques au-delà des espèces cibles dans des zones marines spécifiques de l'UE, par 
exemple  la  mer  du  Nord,  la  mer  Baltique,  l'Atlantique  occidental  et  les  régions 
ultrapériphériques. Pour ces zones, l'étude fournit un inventaire des défis à relever pour 
faire progresser l’EAFM, une caractérisation des types de pêches concernés  et des types 
de  mesures  qui  ont  été  appliquées  avec  leur  base  juridique  et  scientifique.  Ce  faisant, 
l'étude  a  structuré  les  informations  disponibles,  mis  en  lumière  des  exemples  locaux  de 
mesures et d'outils de politiques réussis ainsi que les obstacles qui entravent la mise en 
œuvre d'une EAFM. 

Cette étude a été conçue de manière à pouvoir répondre aux deux principaux objectifs de 
l'étude : 

•  Évaluer l'état actuel de la mise en œuvre de l'EAFM, en mettant l'accent sur les mesures 

et la gouvernance requise en termes d'état de capacité opérationnelle. 

•  Fournir des recommandations pour faire avancer la mise en œuvre de l'EAFM visant à 
relever les défis identifiés afin d'atteindre la PCP et d'autres objectifs de politiques.  

Pour répondre à ces objectifs, il a été établi un processus d’EAFM en cinq étapes inspiré 
d'un processus similaire pour une « approche écosystémique de la planification de l'espace 
maritime » : 

1.  Définir le  cadre  de  l'EAFM,  en  commençant  par  son  but  d’atteindre  des  objectifs  de 
politiques ou des buts sociétaux spécifiques dans le contexte social et environnemental, 
et y inclure le cadre juridique. Nous avons identifié un certain nombre de défis EAFM 
qui,  s'ils  sont  relevés,  peuvent  contribuer  à  la  réalisation  de  ces  objectifs  et  buts 
sociétaux. Il convient de noter que ces objectifs et buts sociétaux sont souvent compris 
comme se référant à l'état de l'écosystème et aux possibilités de pêche, mais peuvent 
également impliquer des objectifs/buts sociaux ou économiques. 

2.  Développer la base de connaissances (qui peut inclure des connaissances scientifiques 
et des connaissances natives locales) en fonction des objectifs politiques ou des buts 
sociétaux à atteindre, des pêcheries concernées et des mesures potentielles de l’EAFM. 
Nous avons identifié un certain nombre de défis qui nécessitent une compréhension de 
l'interaction existante entre des pêcheries spécifiques et l'écosystème et de la manière 

xvii 

 
 
 
The implementation of ecosystem-based approaches applied to fisheries management under the 
Common Fisheires Policy 

dont  cela  peut  être  atténué  par  des  mesures  spécifiques.  Relever  ces  défis  peut 
contribuer à la réalisation de ces objectifs et buts sociétaux. 

3.  Évaluer  et  pondérer  les  scénarios  alternatifs  de  l'EAFM  en  utilisant  une  base  de 
connaissances et les outils appropriés. Il en résulte un avis scientifique qui propose des 
approches privilégiées en matière de gestion et de politique. 

4.  Mettre en œuvre un plan de gestion spécifique basé sur une prise de décision éclairée 
et  guidée  par  les  meilleures  pratiques.  Ce  plan  est  une  combinaison  cohérente  en 
interne  de  différentes  mesures  de  gestion  et  d'instruments  de  politiques  visant  à 
atteindre  une  sélection  d'objectifs  politiques  pour  un  écosystème  spécifique  et  son 
contexte socio-économique/institutionnel. 

5.  Suivre, c’est à dire essentiellement faire une évaluation de l'état d'avancement de la 
mise en œuvre de l'EAFM. Cela inclut à la fois le processus de l’EAFM, c'est-à-dire les 
étapes  précédentes,  et  sa  performance  dans  la  réalisation  d’objectifs  de  politiques 
spécifiques ou de buts sociétaux. Relever les défis de l'EAFM est un moyen de montrer 
que l'on avance. 

Ces cinq étapes représentent un cycle EAFM où l'étape de suivi fournit la base des avancées 
dans le cycle EAFM suivant de ce qui est essentiellement un processus adaptatif. 

Sur  la  base  d'une  revue  de  la  littérature,  il  a  été  possible  d'identifier  une  typologie 
hiérarchique des défis de l'EAFM qui distingue trois types de défis principaux de l'EAFM : 

1.  Des défis pour atténuer les impacts de la pêche sur les opportunités de pêche et 
sur  l'écosystème  au  sens  large,  notamment  les  prises  accessoires,  les  impacts  sur 
l'habitat et les impacts sur les réseaux alimentaires. 

2.  Des défis pour améliorer le processus consultatif et sa base de connaissances en 
intégrant  les  effets  du  contexte  environnemental  (écologique)  sur  les  poissons,  les 
opportunités  de  pêche  et 
les  effets 
environnementaux (par exemple, ceux du climat) sur les espèces ou les habitats cibles 
et non cibles, qui affectent leur vulnérabilité et/ou leur distribution spatio-temporelle, 
ainsi  que  les  effets  d'autres  pressions  anthropiques  sur  la  productivité,  tels  que 
l'eutrophisation ou les contaminants.  

les  pêcheries.  Cela  comprend 

tous 

3.  Des  défis  pour  améliorer  le  processus  de  prise  de  décision.  Il  s'agit  de  tous  les 
effets potentiels du contexte social sur la gestion de la pêche et sa gouvernance. Cela 
inclut notamment des aspects économiques (par exemple lorsque les bénéfices à court 
terme peuvent être en contradiction avec la durabilité à long terme), des aspects de 
gestion  (comme  l'absence  d'objectifs  de  politiques  clairs)  et  des  aspects  sociaux 
(notamment  les  désaccords  entre  les  parties  prenantes  et  les  faibles  niveaux  de 
participation). 

En  s'attaquant  à  ces  défis,  on  peut  faire  progresser  l’EAFM  et  en  fin  de  compte,  aussi 
améliorer ses performances en termes de réalisation des objectifs de politiques et des buts 
sociétaux identifiés lors de l'étape de définition. Pour  évaluer l'état actuel de la mise en 
œuvre de l'EAFM, il était nécessaire d'identifier et de définir les éléments clés de l'EAFM, 
c'est-à-dire  les  pêcheries  (commerciales  et  récréatives),  les  mesures  de  gestion  et  leur 
cadre juridique.  

Les pêcheries commerciales ont été identifiées sur la base de la définition suivante : « un 
groupe  de  voyages  de  navires  ciblant  les  mêmes  (ensembles  d')  espèces  et/ou  stocks, 
utilisant des engins similaires, pendant la même période de l'année et dans la même zone 
»  (ICES,  2003).  On  peut  raisonnablement  s'attendre  à  ce  que  ces  pêcheries  aient  des 
impacts suffisamment similaires sur l'écosystème, et elles pourraient être utilisées comme 
unité  de  base  pour  l'évaluation.  Les  débarquements  et  la  composition  par  espèce  des 

xviii 

 
The implementation of ecosystem-based approaches applied to fisheries management under the 
Common Fisheires Policy 

métiers utilisés par les États membres pour la déclaration des données de débarquement 
ont  été  analysés  afin  d'identifier  227  pêcheries  pertinentes  pour  l’EAFM  parmi  les  517 
métiers initiaux (156 dans les eaux européennes à l'exclusion de la Méditerranée et de la 
mer Noire et 71 dans les régions ultrapériphériques). Les pêcheries récréatives nationales 
ont  également  été  identifiées  lorsque  les  données  existantes  suggéraient  qu'elles 
contribuaient aux prélèvements et devaient être incluses.  

Un examen des mesures de gestion existantes qui pourraient être appliquées pour gérer 
les pêcheries a permis d'identifier trois grands types de mesures : 

1.  Les  mesures  d'entrée,  y  compris  des  mesures  techniques  de  conservation  (MTC) 
comprenant  des  MTC  basées  sur  l’équipement  (par  exemple,  des  modifications  du 
maillage ou des grilles de tri) et des MTC spatiales/temporelles (par exemple, des zones 
de non-prélèvement ou des fermetures en temps réel) et des contrôles de la capacité 
et de l'effort (par exemple, le déclassement ou l'octroi de licences). 

2.  Les mesures de sortie, y compris les contrôles des Totaux Admissibles de Captures 

(TAC), les contrôles de la taille des débarquements et les interdictions de rejet 

3.  Les  mesures  de  restauration  des  écosystèmes,  y  compris  les  programmes  de 
repeuplement  et  le  renforcement  des  stocks  (par  exemple,  par  la  restauration  de 
l'habitat ou les récifs artificiels). 

L'examen  a  révélé  d'autres  types  d'interventions  qui  deviennent  pertinentes  si  l'on 
considère l'ensemble du système socio-écologique comme une exigence de l'EAFM. Il s'agit 
d'instruments  de  politiques  qui,  contrairement  aux  mesures  de  gestion  utilisées  dans  le 
système écologique, fonctionnent dans le système social. Parmi les exemples de ce type 
d’instruments de politiques, citons les instruments réglementaires tels que la cogestion ou 
l'autogestion  ;  les  instruments  économiques  (par  exemple,  les  tarifs,  les  taxes  et  les 
redevances,  les  échanges  de  permis  ou  de  quotas  et  les  subventions  pour  les  engins 
alternatifs)  ;  les  mesures  d'information  et  d'engagement  du  public  telles  que  l'éco-
étiquetage qui inclut les objectifs de l’EAFM ; et les interventions visant à renforcer le suivi 
et la recherche et à améliorer la base de connaissances.  

L'étude a également examiné la base juridique des mesures mises en œuvre, que ce soit 
au niveau de l'UE ou des États membres. Cela a mis en lumière que les mesures visant à 
atténuer les impacts sur les stocks commerciaux étaient souvent fixées au niveau de l'UE, 
au  moyen  de  la  PCP.  En  revanche,  les  mesures  visant  à  atténuer  les  incidences  sur 
l'écosystème  au  sens  large  et  les  instruments  de  politiques  destinés  à  améliorer  la 
gouvernance trouvent souvent leur fondement dans la législation des États membres. 

Le rôle du contexte de l'EAFM a été exploréau moyen de 12 études de cas approfondies. 
Les  études  de  cas  ont  exploré  diverses  combinaisons  de  mesures,  de  défis  EAFM  et  de 
pêcheries, et ont été utilisées pour donner un aperçu du processus consultatif et décisionnel 
utilisé pour identifier et mettre en œuvre les mesures. Les études de cas ont été utilisées 
pour identifier les meilleures pratiques potentielles qui pourraient être appliquées de façon 
plus large  et  ont souligné les  rôles importants de l'incertitude et du désaccord dans  ces 
processus,  en  attirant  l'attention  sur  le  rôle  de  la  science  ainsi  que  d'autres  types  de 
connaissances.  

Les études de cas ont également révélé que les processus décisionnels sont aussi affectés 
par des questions d'institutions, de participation et de pouvoir qui permettent et empêchent 
à la fois l'utilisation de preuves et la mise en œuvre de mesures. Les principales leçons à 
retenir sont les suivantes : 

•  L'élaboration  de  la  base  de  connaissances  doit  s'orienter  vers  l'inter-  et  la 

transdisciplinarité.  

xix 

 
 
 
The implementation of ecosystem-based approaches applied to fisheries management under the 
Common Fisheires Policy 

•  Les connaissances scientifiques sont un type de connaissances et il est important de 
veiller à ce que d'autres types de connaissances, y compris celles des pêcheurs et des 
autres parties prenantes, puissent contribuer à la base de connaissances. 

•  Le  développement  de  la  base  de  connaissances  est  important,  mais  son  intégration 
dans le processus de prise de décision est la clé de la réussite du processus de l’EAFM. 
•  L'implication des parties prenantes doit se faire tout au long du processus de l’EAFM, 
en  commençant  par  l'étape  de  définition,  où  les  objectifs  de  politiques  et  les  buts 
sociétaux  pertinents  sont  identifiés.  Un  défi  important  concerne  les  conflits  entre  les 
différents groupes de parties prenantes. 

•  La prise de décision doit être clairement liée au processus consultatif, en tenant compte 
de la base de connaissances et des intérêts des parties prenantes et en appliquant les 
principes de bonne gouvernance, notamment les questions de légitimité, d'inclusion, 
d'équité et de responsabilité. 

L'évaluation  des  performances  de  l'EAFM  et  de  son  «  bon  fonctionnement  »  n'entre  pas 
dans le cadre de cette étude. Au lieu de cela, l'accent a été mis sur les progrès réalisés 
pour  passer  d'une  gestion  monospécifique  à  une  EAFM.  Pour  évaluer  ces  progrès,  nous 
avons considéré un continuum de plus en plus EAFM, qui s'attaque progressivement à un 
ensemble  plus  large  de  défis  liés  à  l'EAFM,  en  partant  de  la  gestion  traditionnelle  des 
pêcheries  mono-espèces  pour  arriver  à  une  EAFM  plus  «  mature  ».  Sur  cette  base,  des 
progrès peuvent être faits pour faire avancer l’EAFM le long de ce continuum et atteindre 
un  éventail  de  plus  en  plus  large  d'objectifs  de  politiques  en  améliorant  la  base  de 
connaissances et les processus consultatif et de décision.  

Afin d' « évaluer l'état actuel de la situation relatif à la mise en œuvre de l'EAFM », il est 
nécessaire de structurer les informations pertinentes. À cette fin, a été créée une base de 
données relationnelle qui a joué un rôle important dans la mise en relation des pêcheries 
et des mesures/outils de politiques avec les défis de l’EAFM. Elle fournit une vue d'ensemble 
de la mesure dans laquelle les défis EAFM sont abordés par la situation actuelle. Cela sert 
de base pour formuler des recommandations pour l'avancement (ultérieur) de la mise en 
œuvre  de  l'EAFM.  Cette  première  analyse  utilisant  la  base  de  données  a  indiqué  que  la 
plupart des mesures existantes atténuent les impacts de la pêche en utilisant à la fois des 
mesures d'entrée et de sortie. Ainsi, la majorité des mesures sont encore principalement 
axées sur la gestion conventionnelle des pêcheries mono-espèces.  

Pour faire progresser l'EAFM, il est donc nécessaire de relever les différents défis de l'EAFM 
et d'élargir (encore) les objectifs politiques au-delà des espèces commerciales, améliorer 
la  base  de  connaissances  et  de  chercher  à  lever  les  obstacles  au  sein  des  processus 
consultatifs et décisionnels existants. L'analyse a toutefois été sérieusement entravée par 
l'absence d'une vue d'ensemble complète et cohérente des mesures de gestion de la pêche 
en  place.  Une  recommandation  clé  est  donc  de  lancer  un  processus  de  collecte 
systématique  de  ces  informations.  Les  conclusions  de  cette  étude  (par  exemple,  la 
typologie des pêcheries, les mesures de gestion et les instruments de politiques proposés) 
peuvent contribuer à guider ce processus. De plus, la base de données peut fournir un outil 
pour suivre les progrès futurs de la mise en œuvre de l’EAFM.  

Le  processus  annuel  des  TAC  et  des  quotas  pourrait  constituer  un  point  de  départ 
relativement  facile  pour  mettre  en  œuvre  une  évolution  vers  l'EAFM.  L'application  de  la 
typologie des défis de l'EAFM développée dans ce projet pourrait rendre cela plus explicite, 
ce qui constitue une première étape importante. Ce type de changement exigerait que les 
différents organes consultatifs, par exemple le CIEM ou le CSTEP, veillent à ce que la base 
de  connaissances  soit  adéquate  et  alimentée  par  une  perspective 
inter-  et 
transdisciplinaire, ce qui accroîtrait la crédibilité de la base de connaissances. Une meilleure 
compréhension de l’EAFM, de ses principes et concepts pertinents est indispensable pour 
fournir davantage d'avis sur elle.  

D'autres améliorations  peuvent  être apportées par l'implication des parties prenantes  et 
par une prise en compte plus explicite du contexte dans lequel se déroule le processus de 

xx 

 
 
The implementation of ecosystem-based approaches applied to fisheries management under the 
Common Fisheires Policy 

l'EAFM. Cela renforcerait la confiance dans le processus EAFM et accroîtrait la légitimité de 
ses  résultats.  Il  est  important  de  noter  que  cela  s'applique  à  chacune  des  étapes  du 
processus EAFM, en commençant par l'étape de définition. Une EAFM efficace exige aussi 
que la prise de décision soit étroitement liée au processus consultatif et qu'elle applique 
les  principes  de  bonne  gouvernance,  en  incluant  les  questions  de  légitimité,  d'inclusion, 
d'équité  et  de  responsabilité.  Des  efforts  ont  été  faits,  au  moyen  du  processus  de 
régionalisation,  pour  permettre  aux  parties  prenantes  de  contribuer  aux  processus 
politiques. Pourtant, ces efforts pourraient aller plus loin. 

La synthèse de tous les résultats des tâches individuelles de ce projet (c'est-à-dire les défis 
EAFM, les typologies de pêche et les mesures de gestion), et son application pour évaluer 
l'état  actuel  de  la  gestion  de  la  pêche  et  plus  particulièrement  la  mise  en  œuvre  d'une 
EAFM ont permis de tirer les conclusions suivantes : 

1.  La  conclusion  générale  de  l'évaluation  est  que  la  gestion  actuelle  des  pêches  est 
dominée par des avis conventionnels  se rapportant à une seule  espèce,  sur lesquels 
repose  la  gestion  des  TAC/quotas.  La  première  étape  vers  plus  d’EAFM  passe  par  la 
mise  en  œuvre  de  mesures  MTC  visant  à  atténuer  les  prises  accessoires.  Toutes  les 
autres  initiatives  EAFM  consistent  principalement  en  des  instruments  de  politique 
réglementaires ou économiques, et non en des mesures. 

2.  Les typologies hiérarchiques des composantes pertinentes (c'est-à-dire les défis EAFM, 
les pêcheries et les mesures) sont appropriées pour structurer l’EAFM et évaluer l'état 
de la situation par rapport à l’EAFM.  

3.  Les  trois  principales  catégories  de  défis  EAFM  semblent  complètes  et  utiles  car  elles 
couvrent ce qui semble être les principaux défis généraux, à savoir (1) l'atténuation de 
l'impact  de  la  pêche  sur  l'écosystème,  (2)  le  processus  consultatif  et  (3)  la  prise  de 
décision. Bien que ces trois grandes catégories ne soient pas susceptibles de changer, 
certains  des  défis  plus  détaillés  (ci-dessous  des  sous-types)  devront  peut-être  être 
réexaminés et, dans certains cas, combinés. 

4.  La typologie de la pêche commerciale semble adaptée au contexte de l’EAFM. Toutefois, 
elle  pourrait  être  élargie  pour  inclure  davantage  la  pêche  récréative.  La  typologie 
actuelle  est  entièrement  basée  sur  l'interaction  entre  les  pêcheries  et  le  système 
écologique  et  devra  peut-être  être  révisée  pour  incorporer  leur  lien  avec  des 
communautés  de  pêche  spécifiques  afin  d'englober  l'ensemble  du  système  socio-
écologique, comme l'exige l’EAFM. 

5.  La  typologie  hiérarchique  des  mesures  de  gestion  s'est  avérée  essentielle  pour 
structurer  l'énorme  variété  de  détails  qui  sont  ressortis  de  l'examen  des  mesures 
existantes.  

6.  Bien que cela n'ait pas été spécifiquement demandé, nous avons remarqué que l'EAFM 
exige  la  distinction  explicite  entre  les  mesures  de  gestion  et  des  instruments  de 
politiques comme moyen de mise en œuvre. Les séparer des mesures de gestion n'est 
pas  seulement  une  amélioration  d'un  point  de  vue  conceptuel,  mais  présente  de 
nombreux avantages pratiques, car les deux fonctionnent dans des parties distinctes 
du système socio-écologique, requièrent une expertise et des disciplines scientifiques 
différentes,  et/ou  impliquent  des  acteurs  de  gouvernance  différents.  Cette  étude  a 
fourni une première typologie provisoire des instruments de politiques, mais compte 
tenu  de  leur  importance  dans  l'EAFM,  notamment  en  ce  qui  concerne  l’  «  état  de 
capacité opérationnelle », elle doit être revue et améliorée. 

7.  L'application des mesures et des instruments de politiques et de leurs typologies dans 
le cadre d'une base de données relationnelle pour évaluer l'état actuel de la situation 
en  matière  d’EAFM  a  montré  une  cohérence  interne  (par  exemple,  les  mesures  sont 
principalement  liées  au  défi  de  l'impact  de  la  pêche  de  type  1,  les  instruments  de 
politiques aux défis EAFM de type 2 et 3 qui impliquent respectivement les processus 
de conseil et de prise de décision) et leur utilité potentielle pour de telles évaluations. 
8.  L’obstacle à l'évaluation de l'EAFM était la disponibilité d'une liste complète de mesures 
de gestion, catégorisées de manière appropriée à un niveau adéquat de détail. Dans 
l'état actuel des choses, seuls quelques ensembles de données collectées de manière 
plutôt  aléatoire  étaient  disponibles.  De  plus,  il  n'était  pas  toujours  évident  de  savoir 

xxi 

 
 
 
The implementation of ecosystem-based approaches applied to fisheries management under the 
Common Fisheires Policy 

comment les catégoriser et les évaluer ou comment ils correspondaient à la typologie 
des mesures présentée ici. Les typologies actuelles des mesures et des instruments de 
politiques doivent être mises à l’épreuve et améliorées (certainement les instruments 
de politiques) afin qu'elles puissent être utilisées pour générer des listes complètes de 
mesures et d'instruments de politiques de l'EAFM pour chacune des mers régionales, à 
appliquer dans les évaluations futures. 

9.  Les  deux  axes  de  l'évaluation  de  l’  «  état  de  capacité  opérationnelle  »,  à  savoir  les 
mesures et les instruments de politiques, semblent pertinents. Cependant, la question 
clé  qui  détermine  l’«  état  de  capacité  opérationnelle  »  est  le  contexte  spécifique, 
principalement  écologique/environnemental  pour  les  mesures,  et  social/institutionnel 
pour la gouvernance. Afin de faire avancer l'état de capacité opérationnelle de l'EAFM 
dans  son  contexte  spécifique,  nous  proposons  de  rassembler  des  informations 
génériques permettant un premier examen des mesures ou instruments de politiques 
potentiels pouvant être considérés comme prêts à l'emploi au regard d'une sélection 
de principes essentiels, par exemple : socialement souhaitable/tolérable, juridiquement 
admissible, administrativement réalisable, politiquement opportun, puis d'évaluer cette 
sélection dans le contexte spécifique où l'EAFM est censée être mise en œuvre. 

Les informations et opinions exposées dans le présent rapport sont celles des auteurs et 
ne reflètent pas nécessairement l'opinion officielle d’EASME/CINEA ou de la Commission. 
Ni l’EASME/CINEA, ni la Commission ne peuvent garantir l'exactitude des données incluses 
dans cette  étude. Ni l’EASME/CINEA, ni la Commission, ni  aucune personne  agissant au 
nom  de  la  Commission  ne  peuvent  être  tenus  responsables  de  l'utilisation  qui  peut  être 
faite des informations qui y sont contenues. 

*** 

xxii 

 
 
 
 
The implementation of ecosystem-based approaches applied to fisheries management under the 
Common Fisheires Policy 

1  INTRODUCTION 

Within the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), European Union (EU) regulation (1380/2013) 
states that an ecosystem approach to fisheries management (EAFM) must be implemented. 
This study was therefore requested to:  

•  Assess  the  current  state  of  affairs  pertaining  to  the  implementation  of  EAFM,  with  a 
focus on measures and the governance required, in terms of their operational readiness 
•  Provide recommendations to advance the implementation of EAFM aimed at addressing 

the identified challenges in order to achieve objectives of the CFP and other policies.  

To  that  end,  the  study  first  needed  to  establish  an  operational  definition  of  EAFM  as  a 
process with structural components and criteria that allow it to be assessed. At the start 
of  this  study  EAFM  was  mostly  still  a  concept  that  was  often  used  in  many  EU  policy 
documents and for which many different definitions exist, but none has ever been applied 
to  assess  the  extent  to  which  it  can  be  considered  operational  and/or  how  to  (further) 
advance  its  implementation.  Described  below  is  the  approach  followed  in  this  study, 
starting from the many existing EAFM definitions, developing an operational process and 
its main structural components and identifying so-called EAFM challenges that need to be 
addressed  in  order  to  advance  an  EAFM  which  can  be  used  as  assessment  criteria.  This 
report provides a summary of the study, its key findings on the current state of play and 
conclusions related to advancing an EAFM. This summary is based on an extensive analysis 
structured around nine interlinked tasks: 

Task 1 - Identifying the legal setting for EAFM  
Task 2 - Identifying the relevant fisheries  
Task 3 - Identifying and describing the ecosystem challenges addressed by an EAFM 
Task 4 - Identifying and describing the EAFM measures 
Task 5 - Analysing the scientific underpinning of the EAFM measures 
Task 6 - Identifying best practices for EAFM 
Task 7 - Classifying and categorising management measures 
Task 8 - Organising an expert workshop on EAFM development and implementation 
Task 9 - Synthesis: recommendations for the application of EAFM 

Key  results  are  captured  in  the  annexes  to  this  report  and  are  referred  to  throughout. 
Further  detail  of  the  approach,  methods  and  findings  associated  with  each  task  are 
available  in  the  separate  task  reports.  This  report  completes  the  final  task,  i.e.  the 
synthesis.  Although  the  overall  outline  according  to  the  tasks  is  maintained  there  is  no 
strict  one-to-one match between the  tasks and annexes as  some tasks, i.e. Task 2, are 
split over two annexes while others, i.e. Tasks 5 and 6, are combined in a single annex. 

1.1  Defining EAFM 

The expression 'Ecosystem-based Approach to Fisheries Management (EAFM)', as used in 
the CFP, includes the terms 'ecosystem', 'approach', and 'fisheries management' which are 
defined in the scientific literature (e.g. FAO, 2021; FAO, 2003). Used together, they imply 
a  process  using  specific  means  to  achieve  selected  objectives.  Several  comparable 
expressions  are  used  such  as  an  'Ecosystem  approach',  usually  in  the  form  of  '….to 
fisheries'  (EAF)  or  'to  fisheries  management'  (EAFM)  and  'Ecosystem-Based  Fisheries 
Management'  (EBFM)  where  the  distinctions  between  the  underlying  concepts  may  still 
remain fuzzy and tend to overlap. The review in (FAO, 2003) illustrates the fact that the 
various expressions refer to what appear to be in practice highly convergent, if not entirely 
similar,  processes  which  target  the  same  or  largely  overlapping  sets  of  objectives. 
Therefore,  when  we  use  the  expression  “Ecosystem-based  Approach  to  Fisheries 
Management  (EAFM)”  we  assume  this  to  be  similar  to  the  other  expressions  mentioned 
above. 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
The implementation of ecosystem-based approaches applied to fisheries management under the 
Common Fisheires Policy 

An EAFM is recognized as a form of fisheries governance framework (e.g. Röckmann et al., 
2015; Long et al, 2015), taking its conceptual principles and operational instruments from 
conventional  single-species  fisheries  management  on  the  one  hand,  and  ecosystem 
management on the other. The study adopted the principles used in a review by (Long et 
al., 2015) on ecosystem-based management (EBM, see Box 1), while recognizing that an 
EAFM focuses specifically on the fisheries system, as opposed to EBM, which has a broader 
focus encompassing all human activities. 

Box 1. Principles of an Ecosystem-based Approach 

A review by Long et al. (2015) identifies a set of common principles. The top 15 
principles  –  highlighted  in  bold  –  are  the  main  ones  found  across  different 
sources.  These  principles  also  overlap  with  the  11  principles  that  are  not 
highlighted. 

o  Consider ecosystem connections 
o  Appropriate spatial & temporal scales 
o  Adaptive management 
o  Use of scientific knowledge 
o  Stakeholder involvement 
o  Integrated management 
o  Sustainability 
o  Account for the dynamic nature of ecosystems 
o  Ecological integrity and biodiversity 
o  Recognise coupled social-ecological systems 
o  Decisions reflect societal choice 
o  Distinct boundaries 
o  Interdisciplinarity 
o  Appropriate monitoring 
o  Acknowledge uncertainty 

Acknowledge ecosystem resilience 
Consider economic context 
Apply the precautionary approach 
Consider cumulative impacts 
Organizational change 
Explicitly acknowledge trade-offs 
Consider effects on adjacent ecosystems 
Commit to principles of equity 
Develop long-term objectives 
Use all forms of knowledge 
Use incentives 

EAFM  can  provide  an  integrated  framework  that  addresses  the  three  pillars  of 
sustainability,  i.e.  ecological,  economic  and  social  (including  institutional)  and  thus 
objectives related to both ecosystem conservation as well as the  socio-economics of the 
fishery. As an approach, EAFM is able to capture all the relevant aspects and components 
of  ecosystems,  as  well  as  the  fishery-induced  pressures  that  affect  them  at  appropriate 
levels of detail (e.g. in case of the ecosystem: seafloor as a whole or specific habitats, or 
fish in general, (groups of) species, or stocks) and takes into account the context (both 
environmental and social). Objectives that involve important ecosystem components are 
contained within a range of policies and directives, including the Common Fisheries Policy 
(CFP),  Marine  Strategy  Framework  Directive  (MSFD),  Habitats  Directive  and  Birds 
Directive.  The  wide  range  of  ecosystem  objectives  in  these  policies  contrasts  with  the 
dominant focus on single species approaches in conventional fisheries management. This 

2 

 
 
The implementation of ecosystem-based approaches applied to fisheries management under the 
Common Fisheires Policy 

focus considers only the (few) commercially important species, often in isolation and with 
relatively  modest  requirements  pertaining  to  the  knowledge  base  and  governance 
arrangements that support the implementation of resulting management strategies. The 
overall  objective  to  implement  an  EAFM  within  the  CFP  has  initiated  a  gradual  move 
towards a more sophisticated approach but with increased requirements. 

With the introduction of Multi-Annual management  Plans (MAPs) in the CFP, the EU  has 
made a move towards EAFM given that the currently agreed MAPs allow consideration of 
concepts  such  as  predator-prey  relationships,  the  definition  of  natural  mortality  of  fish 
stocks  and  resource  competition.  The  MAPs  also  allow  for  better  planning  and  thereby 
create more stability for fleets. While the consequences of mixed fisheries considerations 
on the compatibility of catch advice for different stocks are routinely presented by ICES 
and STECF, the extent  to which  this advice is  translated into actual  management is not 
clear.  Furthermore,  information  on  estimated  by-catch  of  protected,  endangered  and 
threatened  species  (PETS)  is  not  routinely  provided  and  the  extent  to  which  food  web 
dynamics  are  included  in  single  species  fisheries  management  has  yet  to  be  fully 
documented.  

Impacts  of  bottom  fishing  fleets  on  seabed  habitats  can  be  calculated  annually  (ICES, 
2019) but are not included in fisheries management advice. Moving beyond single-species 
management  requires  additional  trade-offs  to  be  considered,  such  as  between  the 
requirement of a long-term sustainable exploitation of different fished stocks, the (often 
short-term) yield they can provide and conservation of (non-target) species or habitats. 
Where this translates into potentially smaller allowable catches it can be more challenging 
to adopt due to potential socio-economic consequences. These socio-economic aspects of 
an EAFM have been receiving increased attention and, in the process, recognizes the need 
to  achieve  sustainability  across  the  three  pillars.  Thus,  to  advance  an  EAFM  from 
conventional, single species-focused objectives and measures, there is a need for greater 
consideration of these wider ecosystem effects and their socio-economic consequences as 
well as the social (including institutional) and environmental context in which they occur.  

1.2  Assessing EAFM 

Given the complexity associated with including different ecosystem components and their 
food  web  interactions,  as  well  as  different  social  actors  (including  institutions)  and 
interactions, EAFM remains a largely conceptual paradigm with few operational examples 
and  still  lacks  generic  guides  to  its  implementation  in  EU  marine  waters.  Rather  than 
continuing to examine EAFM as a concept, this study has sought to provide a clear state-
of-play of progress towards operational EAFM in specific EU marine waters. This involved 
the explicit consideration of policy objectives beyond the status and level of exploitation of 
the target species, and the knowledge base and governance arrangements to support this.  

This report is built around a five-step cyclical EAFM process (see Figure 1), adopted from 
a recent study on implementing an Ecosystem-based Approach in Maritime Spatial Planning 
(Piet, 2021). This was deemed relevant as fisheries management is likely to be one of the 
main  actors  in  Maritime  Spatial  Planning  so  that  having  similar  processes  and  a  shared 
understanding  of  an  ecosystem-based  approach  is  likely  to  facilitate  the  integration  of 
fisheries into Maritime Spatial Planning. The requested assessment of the state-of-play fits 
nicely in this cyclical EAFM process as the final step to conclude what we now consider the 
first EAFM cycle for all EU waters except the Mediterranean and Black Seas (input for these 
seas  will  follow  in  the  next  year),  i.e.  the  North  Sea,  Baltic  Sea,  Western  Atlantic  and 
Outermost Regions. To that end this study provides a review of the legal settings that lend 
context  to  an  EAFM,  the  EAFM  challenges  that  must  be  addressed  and  the  (types  of) 
management measures that can be implemented for the different (types of) fisheries under 
the  CFP,  together  with  the  scientific  underpinning  and  best  practices  that  can  advance 
EAFM. This assessment is based on the use of a relational database that uses typologies 
for EAFM challenges, fisheries, measures and policy instruments to structure the available 
information  on  the  operational  EAFM  that  is  in  place.  In  addition  it  seeks  to  advance 

3 

 
 
 
The implementation of ecosystem-based approaches applied to fisheries management under the 
Common Fisheires Policy 

operational EAFM and to that end highlights examples of successful management as well 
as potential governance obstacles that may hamper the implementation of an EAFM.  

1.3  Outline report 

This report further consists of: 

• 

In  chapter  2  we  present  the  cyclical  five-step  EAFM  process  together  with  the  main 
elements  needed  to  address  the  main  objectives  for  this  study.  Firstly,  the  EAFM 
challenges  provide  the  criteria  to  assess  progress  in  the  implementation  of  EAFM. 
Secondly, we provide hierarchical typologies of the main EAFM components, i.e. legal 
setting,  fisheries  and  management  measures.  In  addition  we  provide  operational 
examples of best practices that can be applied to address some of the EAFM challenges. 
Finally we introduce a relational database as the main tool for our assessment. 

•  The outcome of the assessment is presented in chapter 3. Here the relational database 
applies these  typologies  from the previous chapter to  structure the  existing fisheries 
management information in order to provide an assessment of the progress achieved 
to date in implementing EAFM.  

•  Chapter  4  then  builds  on  this,  showing  how  the  implementation  of  EAFM  may  be 

(further) advanced drawing on the lessons from this study.  

•  Finally  we  present  the  relevant  detail  from  the  outputs  of  the  various  tasks  in  the 
project in the Annexes to this report. Note that these outputs have provided the basis 
for the presented approach and assessment, but as several of these took place at the 
beginning of the project their findings may have been reinterpreted in the light of the 
advancing insight over the duration of the project and the specific wording in the main 
report  may  therefore  slightly  deviate  from  (but  never  contradict)  what  is  in  the 
annexes.  

4 

 
 
 
 
The implementation of ecosystem-based approaches applied to fisheries management under the 
Common Fisheires Policy 

2  A  FIVE-STEP  EAFM  IMPLEMENTATION  PROCESS  AND  ITS 

COMPONENTS 

This  assessment  of  the  current  state-of-play  pertaining  to  the  implementation  of  an 
ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management (EAFM) is based on our consideration 
of EAFM as a five-step process (Figure 1). This enabled us to consider the implications for 
EAFM at each step. A summary of these implications is presented in the following sections 
of the report. These implications then provide the basis for a set of recommendations to 
make further progress towards the implementation of EAFM. The five-step process consists 
of the following steps (see Figure 1): 

•  Defining the frame for EAFM, starting with its aim to achieve specific policy objectives 
or societal goals within the social and environmental context, including the legal setting 
and the identification of the fisheries likely to  compromise the achievement of these 
objectives/goals. Note that these objectives and societal goals are often understood to 
refer to the state of the ecosystem and the fishing opportunities but may also involve 
social or economic objectives/goals. 

•  Developing  the  knowledge  base  (which  may  include  scientific  as  well  as  local 
indigenous knowledge) driven by the policy objectives or societal goals to be achieved, 
the relevant fisheries and potential EAFM measures. We have identified a number  of 
challenges that require an understanding of the interaction of specific fisheries with the 
ecosystem and how this may be mitigated through specific measures. Addressing these 
challenges may contribute to achieving these objectives and societal goals. 

•  Assessing and weighing the EAFM alternative scenarios using the knowledge base and 
appropriate  tools.  This  results  in  scientific  advice  involving  one  (or  more)  preferred 
management strategies (=policy instrument and a management measure). 

•  Implementing the measures through specific policy instruments based on informed 

decision-making guided by best practices. 
Follow-up in  which both the EAFM process (i.e. the preceding  steps), as well as its 
performance in terms of addressing the challenge(s) and achieving the specific policy 
objectives  or  societal  goals,  are  evaluated.  The  relational  database  developed  in  the 
project is a tool that  can support this  step and provide guidance  for the subsequent 
EAFM  cycles.  EAFM  should  be  considered  an  adaptive  process  where  the  follow-up 
initiates the next cycle and includes feedback on individual steps. 

Stakeholder  involvement  can  be  part  of  any  step  and  should  take  place  throughout  the 
EAFM process. How the tasks undertaken in the project relate to the process is also shown 
in Figure 1. The process begins by defining the ecosystem and the set of policy objectives 
and societal goals that may be compromised by commercial and recreational fisheries. The 
identification of the relevant fisheries at an appropriate level of detail is supported by our 
fisheries  typology  (Annex  2),  while  the  legal  setting  (Annex  1)  sets  the  basis  for 
management.  

Identifying  and  selecting  the  most  appropriate  management  measures  and  policy 
instruments within that specific context requires a solid knowledge base and is supported 
by the management measures typology (Annex 4) and best practices (Annex 5). The same 
knowledge base is also applied in the assessing step, where one of the challenges (Annex 
3) is to improve the knowledge base and advisory process. The implementation step can 
be improved by addressing the decision-making challenges (Annex 3), for example through 
best practices (Annex 5). Finally the follow-up step determines to what extent the current 
EAFM  (database  tool,  Annex  7)  manages  to  achieve  the  policy  objectives,  i.e.  the 
management performance challenge (Annex 3) and provides recommendations on how to 
advance  in  subsequent  EAFM  cycles.  Again,  the  database  tool  (Annex  7)  can  be 
instrumental in providing this guidance. 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The implementation of ecosystem-based approaches applied to fisheries management under the 
Common Fisheires Policy 

Figure 1. The five-step adaptive EAFM process embedded in the regional context, including 
its legal setting,  governance  and  institutional set-up  (yellow  box).  Each  of  the  topics in 
the red boxes were explicitly addressed in the project and are covered in more detail in 
the  annexes.  Note  that  while  each  topic  predominantly  sits  in  one  (or  more)  specific 
step(s),  the  'best  practices'  potentially  apply  to  the  entire  process  as  well  as  the 
governance and institutional aspects of the context. 

2.1  EAFM Challenges  

An 'EAFM challenge' is any impact on the ecosystem or obstacle in the governance process 
that  compromises  the  achievement  of  the  policy  objectives  or  societal  goals.  An  EAFM 
challenge  (or  challenges)  can  be  addressed  through  the  implementation  of  appropriate 
management measures to mitigate the (potential) fisheries impacts, and/or through policy 
instruments to alleviate the obstacles that hamper the implementation of those measures. 
One  of  the  key  difficulties  lies  in  being  able  to  determine  which  measures  are  most 
appropriate  given  the  context  and  having  the  necessary  institutional  arrangements  and 
resources to implement them.  

EAFM  challenges  ultimately  all  contribute  to  the  achievement  of  one  or  more  policy 
objectives (e.g. Good Environmental Status, Maximum Sustainable Yield). This involves an 
ecosystem  component  potentially  under  threat  (e.g.  commercial  fish  stock,  non-target 
species  or  habitat)  by  a  specific  fishery  (or  fisheries),  thereby  compromising  the 
achievement  of  the  objective(s),  and  the  management  to  mitigate  this  threat.  EAFM 
challenges may therefore act directly on the fisheries and the mitigation of the threat, or 
indirectly through the processes which drive the implementation of the management. The 
former should mostly be considered in their environmental context, the latter in their social 
(including institutional) context. 

6 

 
 
 
The implementation of ecosystem-based approaches applied to fisheries management under the 
Common Fisheires Policy 

2.1.1  Typology of EAFM challenges 

The review of the scientific literature resulted in three main types of EAFM challenges, as 
shown in Figure 2. In the course of this project the EAFM challenges were reinterpreted 
and  slightly  reworded  (but  without  compromising  the  initial  outcome  of  the  literature 
review) to allow a better use of these EAFM challenges as criteria to assess advancement 
of EAFM. These EAFM challenges have been elaborated as a typology consisting of three 
main categories, each with a number of specific sub-challenges (see Table 1): 

1.  Type  1  challenges  to  mitigate  fisheries  impacts  on  the  marine  ecosystem  that 
compromise the achievement of policy objectives. These include all fishing impacts on 
fishing opportunities (e.g. size-selective fishing on the overall biomass of the stock as 
well as its size distribution) as well as the wider ecosystem. This impact may vary in 
space and time. By-catch may affect non-target species and mobile gears may disturb 
habitats which, in turn, may have knock-on effects on both the fishing opportunities 
and the wider ecosystem through food-web interactions. 

2.  Type 2 challenges to improve the advisory process, the underlying knowledge base and 
hence the quality of the advice by including the effects of the environmental (ecological) 
context on fish, fishing opportunities and fisheries. This may include the incorporation 
of  natural  variability  in  stock  assessments,  the  consideration  of  environmental 
effects/trends (e.g. climate) on target and non-target species or habitats affecting their 
vulnerability and/or spatio-temporal distribution or the effects (e.g. on productivity) of 
other anthropogenic pressures such as eutrophication or contaminants.  

3.  Type  3  challenges  to  improve  the  decision-making  processes  by  including  the  social 
context of fisheries and the governance processes that drive management. This may 
involve  economics  where  short-term  profits  may  be  at  odds  with  long-term 
sustainability, or market forces determining which species are targeted. This may also 
involve  management  where  policy  targets  are  left  undefined  or  marine  space  for 
fisheries  becomes  increasingly  limited  (e.g.  due  to  MPAs  or  windfarms)  and  fishing 
effort is displaced. Finally, there are institutional issues at play, such  as  stakeholder 
disagreements, low levels of participation and co-management or poor enforcement.  

Details of the challenges and how they were identified are provided in Annex 3 and were 
separately  published  in  a  peer-reviewed  journal  (Bastardie  et  al.,  2021).  Table  1  shows 
how the different EAFM challenges relate to each of the five-steps in the adaptive EAFM 
process. Here, only two levels of detail were considered, i.e. the three types and relevant 
sub-types. Distinguishing  the most detailed level in the typology  (as shown in Figure 2, 
e.g. 1.1.1) was deemed not relevant. 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
The implementation of ecosystem-based approaches applied to fisheries management under the 
Common Fisheires Policy 

Figure 2. Conceptual model of fisheries as a component of a social-ecological system, with 
the EAFM challenges that emerged from the review considering the Baltic Sea, North Sea, 
Western  Atlantic  and  Outermost  Regions  (for  explanation  of  the  symbols  and  challenge 
IDs, see Table 1). The EAFM challenges are shown here at their most detailed level which 
is combined into the sub-types shown in Table 1. Source: Bastardie et al., 2021. 

8 

 
The implementation of ecosystem-based approaches applied to fisheries management under the Common Fisheires Policy 

Table 1. Hierarchy of EAFM challenges and their relevance to each step of the EAFM process. The first major group of challenges covers the potential 
impacts on the ecosystem that may compromise the achievement of the policy objectives; the second examines the development of the knowledge base 
and its use in the advisory process; the third looks at the obstacles that hamper the decision-making process. These EAFM challenges are based on the 
ecosystem challenges identified in the literature review (see Annex 3 and Bastardie et al., 2021).  

EAFM Challenges typology 
Types 

Developing 

Assessing 

Implementation 

Follow-up 

EAFM process steps 

Type 1: 
How to mitigate 
fisheries impacts on 
the marine 
ecosystem that 
compromise 
achievement of 
selected policy 
objectives 

Type 2: 
How to improve the 
advisory process, the 
underlying 
knowledge base and 
hence the quality of 
the advice 

Type 3: 
How to improve the 
decision-making 
processes by 
including the social 
context on fisheries 
and the governance 
processes that drive 
management 

Sub-types 
Catch and by-catch 
of commercial 
species/stocks 

By-catch of other 
ecosystem 
components and 
habitat disturbance 

Indirect effects 
through the food web 

Inherent “natural” 
variability of the 
fishing opportunities 
Anthropogenic (e.g. 
other sectors) and 
environmental 
changes/trends (e.g. 
climate) interact with 
fishing opportunities 
Socio-economic 
context (including 
institutional set-up). 
influences on the 
exploitation and 
management of 
fishing opportunities 

Governance of the 
EAFM process. 
Conflicting, 
inconsistent or ill-
informed policy goals 
across industries and 
stakeholders 

Defining 
Sustainable 
exploitation of 
fishing opportunities 

Conservation of the 
wider ecosystem 

Sustainable 
exploitation of 
fishing opportunities 

Stock assessment models 

Assessments usually 
provide TAC advice 

Understanding of the direct 
impacts of fisheries on non-
target species and habitats and 
how these can be mitigated 
through different measures. 

Assess the effects of 
management to 
reduce these direct 
ecosystem effects 

Implementation of the preferred 
EAFM-measures based 
transdisciplinary scientific advice 
and taking into account the wider 
context, including the legal setting 
and institutional set-up. This also 
requires a consideration of 
potential policy instruments. 

Follow-up process must 
be in place. This includes 
monitoring of the 
performance of the 
measures as well as 
appropriate follow-up 
compliance. Outcome is 
guidance to improve the 
next adaptive 
management cycle 

Assess indirect effects 

Improved TAC advice 
ICES fisheries 
overviews 

ICES Ecosystem 
overviews 

A consideration of fisheries as part 
of cross-sectoral ecosystem-based 
management 

Develop ecosystem models to 
identify potential indirect 
effects. 

Improved parametrisation of 
stock assessment models 

Understanding effects of 
environmental drivers (e.g. 
climate models) and other 
anthropogenic pressures (e.g. 
Cumulative Impact 
Assessments) 

Achieving 
sustainability across 
all dimensions, i.e. 
environmental, 
social and 
economic. Trade-
offs need to be 
explicitly considered 

A trans-disciplinary knowledge 
base is required as it needs to 
cover the full social-ecological 
system. That is including 
governance and explicitly 
considering all maritime 
activities 

ICES Ecosystem 
overviews extended to 
also consider the 
human dimension 

Implementation of the appropriate 
policy instruments resulting in the 
implementation of the preferred 
management measures. The 
decision-making process is more 
transparent and inclusive and 
improved through a consideration 
of best practices (including good 
governance) and taking account of 
the wider socio-economic context 
including the legal setting and 
institutional set-up. Trade-offs are 
made explicit. 

An appropriate follow-up 
process must be in 
place. This includes 
monitoring the 
performance of the 
policy instruments. 
Outcome is guidance to 
improve the next 
adaptive management 
cycle 

9 

 
 
 
 
 
The implementation of ecosystem-based approaches applied to fisheries management under the 
Common Fisheires Policy 

2.1.2  Challenges: implications for EAFM  

The three main EAFM challenges identified in our typology (subsection 2.1.1) draw on 
the analysis of EAFM challenges (see Annex 3) to pinpoint the different parts of the five-
step EAFM process step where action is needed to address them:  

•  The type 1 challenges mitigate the (potential) impacts of fishing on the ecosystem. 
These are driven by the policy objectives selected at the defining step and require 
specific  management  interventions.  These  include  the  conventional  fisheries 
management  measures  which  currently  dominate  and  are  aimed  at  commercial 
stocks only but, as part of EAFM, these may also cover the wider ecosystem including 
non-target species or habitats.  

•  The type 2 challenges address the advisory process and knowledge base including 

effects of ecosystem variability, variations in productivity or climate change.  

•  The  type  3  challenges  primarily  address  the  decision-making  process.  The 
implication of the analysis is that progress towards an EAFM requires that  explicit 
attention  is  given  to  moving  beyond  addressing  what  is  effectively  only  a  limited 
subset  of the  type 1 challenges and, to a greater  extent, include the  wider set of 
challenges  associated  with  the  wider  ecosystem  and  consider  management  within 
the  full  social-ecological  system  (e.g.  including  the  institutional  context).  The 
typology  of  challenges  provides  a  means  to  more  explicitly  document  the  EAFM 
challenges that EAFM is intended to address. 

2.2  Characterization of Fisheries 

In order to assess and map the measures applied to address EAFM challenges, it was 
important  to  identify  the  relevant  fisheries  to  which  they  had  been  applied,  including 
both commercial and marine recreational fisheries (MRF). 

2.2.1  Typology of commercial fisheries 

The relevant commercial fisheries under the CFP were identified for each of the regions 
considered  in  the  study.  Within  the  study,  a  fishery  is  defined  as  “a  group  of  vessel 
voyages targeting the same (assemblage of) species and/or stocks, using similar gear, 
during the same period of the year and within the same area” (ICES, 2003). As such, 
they can reasonably be expected to have the same (or sufficiently similar) impact(s) on 
the ecosystem and its different components, and can be used as the basic unit to which 
management measures apply.  

The study used existing métiers as the basis for identifying these groups, where a métier 
is defined as “part of the activity of a fleet taking place in a given area, with a specific 
gear and targeting a specific (ensemble of) species” (ICES, 2003). For practical reasons, 
the  métier  definition  chosen  for  this  work  was  the  Data  Collection  Framework  (DCF) 
métiers  used  by  Member  States  for  reporting  landing  data  collected.  These  métier 
definitions  use  generic  classes  (DEF:  demersal  fish,  SPF:  small  pelagic  fish,  CRU: 
crustaceans), rather than species-specific ones. The advantage of this approach is that 
métiers  can  be  identified  from  fishing  fleet  data  in  the  national  registers  of  fishing 
vessels. Fisheries were constructed by merging the métiers of different fleets operating 
with a similar gear and the same target species, and that are carried out in the same 
area and period of the year (Figure 3 below).  

10 

 
The implementation of ecosystem-based approaches applied to fisheries management under the 
Common Fisheires Policy 

Figure 3: Fisheries defined as the ensemble of similar métiers from national fleets that 
have the same (set of) target species. 

In practice, the identification of the relevant commercial fisheries is based on an analysis 
of the landings and species composition at the métier level 6.  By plotting the species 
composition of landings by métier spatially, different types of fisheries can be identified 
(Box 2).  

Box 2: Distinguishing fisheries in terms of landings composition 

in 

the 

In  the  case  of  the  Danish  OTB_MDC>=120_0_0  métier,  there  is  a  clear  spatial 
gradient 
landing  species  composition,  with  mainly  plaice  (with 
some Nephrops)  in  the  landings  from  central  North  Sea  area,  and  a  mixture  of 
gadoids species, with mainly cod, hake and saithe in the Norwegian trench area. In 
this case, the same métier is clearly involved in two distinct fisheries, one on plaice 
and Nephrops, and the other on gadoids, in different areas of the North Sea.  

Another type of analysis characterized fisheries in terms of their target species. To that 
end, one or more clusters were identified for each métier level 6 per country (See Box 
3).  

11 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
The implementation of ecosystem-based approaches applied to fisheries management under the 
Common Fisheires Policy 

Box 3: Distinguishing fisheries in terms of target species 

(all 

landings 

For  the  Belgian  métier OTB_MDC_80_89,  there  are  five clusters  with  their 
corresponding main  target  species  (or  group  of  species)  identified  by  the  method 
based on total landings over 2014-2016. The bar plot on the right shows the sum of 
the 
units 
in each cluster (identified by its target species). In this  case, most of  the landings 
correspond  to statistical  units  (quarter/year/ICES  rectangle) where  Nephrops  was 
the  target  species.  They  mainly come  from  the  eastern-central  North  Sea. Plaice 
is also identified as the target species in another cluster with landings primarily from 
the  statistical  units located in  the  western  central  North  Sea,  and  another  cluster 
targets  ray species in the Celtic Sea. 

species combined) 

the statistical 

across 

all 

Combining the results of the two types of analysis resulted in a reduction from the initial 
517  métiers  to  156  relevant  fisheries  with  an  additional  71  fisheries  identified  across 
the Outermost Regions (see Annex 2 for details and Box 4 for an example of fisheries 
in the Baltic). 

12 

 
 
 
The implementation of ecosystem-based approaches applied to fisheries management under the 
Common Fisheires Policy 

Box  4.  Example  from  the  Baltic  Sea  with  for  each  gear  type    the  specific  fisheries 
(with specific target species if applicable).  

•  demersal fisheries with otter trawls 

o  cod  targeting  fishery  (possibly  combined  with  flatfish)  in  the  Baltic 

Proper 

o  mixed fisheries on demersal fish in the Skagerrak-Kattegat 
o  plaice fishery in the Skagerrak-Kattegat 
o  nothern prawn fishery in the Skagerrat-Kattegat 

•  pelagic fisheries using otter trawl 

o  monospecific  herring  and    sprat  fisheries  and  mixed  herring/sprat 

fisheries 

•  Danish seine fishery 
•  dredge fisheries 

o  Monospecific cockles, mussels, and oyster fisheries 

fyke net fishery 

• 
•  pelagic fisheries using mid-water trawls 
o  mixed sprat and herring fishery 
o  sprat fishery 
o  sandeel fishery 
o  cod fishery 

•  pots fisheries 

o  herring fisheries mixed with other species 

cod, eel and herring fishery 

▪ 
▪  herring 
▪  herring and perch 
▪  herring, mixed freshwater species fishery and salmon 
▪  herring, round goby 

o  mixed crustaceans fresh water fish fisheries 

▪  Nephrops, edible crab 

o  anadromous/catadromous fish fisheries 

▪  eel, salmon 

•  pelagic fisheries using purse seine 

o  mixed fisheries dominated by herring 

▪  herring and sprat 
▪  herring, freshwater bream and whitefishes nei 

•  gillnet and trammel nets fisheries targeting demersal fish 

o  cod fisheries 
o  mixed cod/flatfish fishery 
o  monospecific flatfish fisheries 

▪  plaice 
▪ 
sole 
▪ 
flounder 
▪ 
turbot 
o  mixed and other fisheries 

▪  mixed demersal fish 
▪ 

round goby 

•  gillnet and trammel nets fisheries targeting pelagic fish 

o  herring fisheries 
o 

lump sucker fishery 

•  Longlines 

o  Mixed demersal fish 

▪  Cod and eel fishery 
▪  Mixed demersal fish 

13 

 
 
 
 
The implementation of ecosystem-based approaches applied to fisheries management under the 
Common Fisheires Policy 

2.2.2  Relevant recreational fisheries 

For  many  of  the  stocks  for  which  information  on  marine  recreational  fisheries  (MRF) 
removals was available, it was found that the total biomass removed was significant. In 
some cases, recreational removals surpassed that of the commercial fisheries targeting 
the same stocks (e.g. Hyder et al., 2017; Radford et al., 2018). For example, Figure 4 
shows the catches per country for seabass in the North Sea and pollack in the Celtic Sea 
and English Channel. Despite frequently being significant, only in case of seabass in the 
North  Sea,  are  removals  by  recreational  fisheries  currently  considered  in  stock 
assessments. 

s
e
n
o
T

1800

1600

1400

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0

 Recreational (Retained)

 Commercial landings

Belgium

France

NLD

UK

Figure  4:  Recreational  vs  commercial  catch  (retained)  estimates  by  country  of  two 
stocks,  North  Sea  seabass  (upper  panel)  and  pollack  in  the  Celtic  Seas  and  English 
Channel (lower panel) NLD = Netherlands. 

Because the majority of marine recreational fishing effort occurs in the coastal areas, 
there can be conflict with coastal or small-scale commercial fishing. However, because 
landings data do not allow the catches of these small-scale commercial fisheries to be 
distinguished  from  the  total  landings,  the  significance  of  these  conflicts  is  difficult  to 
assess.  Given  the  nature  of  the  data  and  data  availability,  for  this  study  marine 
recreational fisheries were considered as unique métiers within each Member State. The 
reason for this decision is due to how MRF is defined in the current DCF regulation, i.e. 
using the REC code. Hence MRF were aggregated to this level. The recreational fisheries 
métier thus comprises the three main MRF types that are considered within the ICES 

14 

 
 
  
The implementation of ecosystem-based approaches applied to fisheries management under the 
Common Fisheires Policy 

recreational  fisheries  expert  group  (fishing  from  shore,  fishing  from  boat  and 
spearfishing), where data was available for them.  

2.2.3  Fisheries characterization: implications for EAFM  

The identification of fisheries at an appropriate level of aggregation is important for two 
reasons. Firstly, from a practical perspective, it can reduce the effort needed to establish 
the knowledge base required to provide advice. From this perspective, the reduction of 
the initial métiers to the final 227 commercial fisheries is useful in assessing the current 
challenges and measures and also has the potential to reduce future effort needed, and 
thus resources required, to develop the knowledge base in order to advance EAFM. The 
analysis of recreational fisheries indicates that there is a need to increase the knowledge 
base related to the impact of this activity as well as conflicts with commercial fishing. 
Secondly, it can enable challenges and measures to be identified at an appropriate scale. 
This second reason draws attention to three issues revealed by the analysis.  

The  analytical  approach  using  the  existing  DCF  and  national  fleet  data  allowed  the 
relevant  commercial  fisheries  to  be  identified  While  these  appear  appropriate  for  our 
purposes,  it  is  also  important  to  acknowledge  that  sometimes  more  detail  may  be 
required. Both EAFM challenges (Chapter 2.1) and management measures (Chapter 2.3) 
may occasionally involve impacts caused by, or measures applied to, fisheries at a more 
detailed  scale  than  proposed  here.  For  example,  a  number  of  single  species  fisheries 
(e.g. mackerel, herring, horse mackerel) appear under the same pelagic DCF métier. 
This is also the case for some demersal fisheries, although they are often more mixed 
by nature. By-catch issues can also be different even within the DCF métiers as vessels 
within the métier may be targeting different assemblages of by-catch species and the 
need for more specific measures within the métier could risk being overlooked (e.g. the 
Belgian métier presented in box 3 targets both plaice and Nephrops for which mitigation 
is likely to require different measures). Thus, our definition of fisheries relevant for EAFM 
may require a more precise description of the target species (groups) than the one used 
to define DCF métiers. Before any recommendations to the DCF can be made it 
would  make  sense  to  engage  in  a  transdisciplinary  process  with  fishers  to 
validate  this  EAFM  fisheries  typology.  Such  validation  could  also  be  used  to 
identify relevant social and economic factors associated with the fisheries that 
might affect fisher behavior (e.g. Schadeberg et al., 2021). 

The  analysis  included  both  commercial  and  recreational  fishing.  However,  fisheries 
management is currently almost exclusively focused on commercial fishing, despite the 
evidence that, for several stocks/species, or specific (often coastal) areas, recreational 
fisheries  may  have  a  significant  impact.  For  this  reason,  it  may  be  necessary  to 
incorporate recreational fishing into assessments under an EAFM, as is the practice in 
other parts of the world. Additionally, the analysis led to the identification of recreational 
fisheries  at  the  Member  State  scale.  The  knowledge  base  is  not  yet  developed 
sufficiently  to  be  able  to  either  define  the  individual  fisheries  and/or  to 
combine the recreational fishing impacts with those of commercial fishing on 
the same stock. 

The final issue is that the fisheries were developed by an aggregation procedure based 
on  their  target  species  and  the  area  they  operate  in,  assuming  that  this  adequately 
represents  the  potential  impacts  of  each  specific  fishery  on  the  ecosystem.  Because 
EAFM requires the consideration of the full social-ecological system there is a need to 
also understand the linkages between the fishery and the wider social system, including 
both the economic and governance arrangements (e.g. Arthur et al., 2011). The extent 
to which the fisheries identified in this study are appropriate to develop this 
understanding  is  currently  unknown,  but  could  be  a  useful  starting  point  in 
identifying fisheries that are relevant in both ecological and social systems. A 
first  exercise  could  be  to  test  how  the  current  typology  can  be  matched  to 
specific fishing communities. 

15 

 
 
 
The implementation of ecosystem-based approaches applied to fisheries management under the 
Common Fisheires Policy 

2.3  EAFM  measures  and  policy  instruments,  their  legal  setting  and 

implementation 

The  primary  goal  of  the  implementation  of  EAFM  measures  is  to  achieve  the  policy 
objectives identified in the defining step (Figure 1) which requires addressing the EAFM 
challenges through the implementation of management measures. Using the concept of 
Social-Ecological  Systems  (e.g.  Berkes,  2011),  we  therefore  distinguish  between  the 
management  measures  affecting  the  ecological  system  and  the  policy  instruments 
required for their implementation, while still targeting specific governance arrangements 
that  lie  within  the  social  system.  As  Figure  5  illustrates,  EAFM  challenges  related  to 
fishing impacts on the ecosystem (i.e. type 1 challenges, see section 2.1) can typically 
be  addressed  through  one  or  more  management  measures  (M)  intended  to  achieve 
specific  policy  objectives  (O)  and  which  require  a  policy  instrument  (I)  for  their 
implementation. Policy instruments  can thus be considered as a means to implement 
the measure and typically involves the advisory and/or decision-making processes (i.e. 
the Governance). The type 2 challenges relate to the scientific advice, while the type 3 
challenges  relate  to  the  decision-making.  We  propose  that  a  management  strategy, 
often  used  in  the  context  of  Management  Strategy  Evaluation,  should  be  the 
combination of a policy instrument with a management measure. This is because, in an 
EAFM context, management strategy evaluation should include the full social-ecological 
system  and  thus  requires  inter-linked  elements  represented  in  the  social  (i.e.  policy 
instrument) and ecological (i.e. management measure) systems. Thus we define a policy 
instrument  as  an  intervention  in  the  governance  arrangements  covering  the  advisory 
and decision-making process, typically through policies,  which is intended to facilitate 
the implementation and/or enforcement of management measures. Measures mitigate 
the  impact  of  fishing  on  the  ecosystem,  including  all  its  relevant  components  and 
aspects. 

Figure 5. Implementation of EAFM through a Policy Instrument (PI) and a Measure (M) 
with  the  purpose  of  achieving  specific  policy  objectives  (O).  The  PI  operates  in  the 
social system as the means to get a M implemented, the M operates in the ecological 
system where it mitigates the fishing impact that compromises a specific  O. An EAFM 
plan  is  the  combination  of  all  measures  and  policy  instruments  that  are  applied  in  a 
region. 

16 

 
 
 
The implementation of ecosystem-based approaches applied to fisheries management under the 
Common Fisheires Policy 

2.3.1  Typology of management measures  

To develop the typology of management measures a review of the scientific and grey 
literature  was  coupled  with  interviews  with  key  stakeholders  in  the  relevant  Member 
States or representing European fisheries (see Annex 4). From this review it was found 
that there was were only a limited set of measures. From the perspective of a measure 
typology,  there  was  no  need  to  differentiate  between  measures  applied  as  part  of 
‘conventional’ fisheries management, i.e. addressing target stocks, and what would be 
termed EAFM measures. There is a limited set of measure types which may be applied 
to  ascertain  a  sustainable  exploitation  of  the  fishing  opportunities,  i.e.  conventional 
single-species  fisheries  management,  but  these  same  types  of  measures  may  be 
implemented to achieve wider ecosystem goals, for example related to conservation. A 
by-catch  reduction  device  may  mitigate  the  by-catch  of  specific  commercial  or  PET 
(Protected, Endangered or Threatened) species. Similarly, a closed area can be applied 
to protect a commercial species or a habitat. Clearly the technical details of the measure 
will differ, as may the uptake within the fishery depending on the purpose and context.  

The  applied  typology  of  management  measures  in  Figure  6  distinguishes  three  main 
types of management measures, i.e. 1. Input measures (i.e. targeting the fishing fleets 
using both active and passive gears), 2. Output measures (i.e. targeting the catches), 
and 3. Measures aimed at active ecosystem restoration (i.e. targeting the ecosystem). 
In  addition  the  figure  shows  different  sub-types  of  Input  measures  (e.g.  Technical 
Conservation  Measures  (TCM),  Capacity  and  Effort  Control  measures),  different  sub-
types of Output measures (e.g. TAC controls, Landing size controls and Discard bans) 
or  sub-types  of  ecosystem  restoration  (e.g.  through  restocking  schemes  or  stock 
enhancement through habitat restoration). And each of these sub-types may be further 
sub-divided (see Annex 4). For example, the gear-based TCMs may consist of mesh size 
changes,  mesh  configuration  changes,  square  mesh  panels  or  cylinders  aimed  at 
improving size-selectivity or various by-catch reduction devices, sorting grids or benthos 
release  panels  to  exclude/reduce  by-catch  of  specific  species  (e.g.  species,  PETs). 
Similarly  the  Spatio-Temporal  TCMs  may  consist  of  strict  nature  reserves,  specific 
habitat-/  or  species  management  areas  or  no-take  zones  sometimes  with  an  added 
temporal component like specific closed seasons or real time closures. 

Figure 6: Management measures typology.  

17 

 
 
 
 
The implementation of ecosystem-based approaches applied to fisheries management under the 
Common Fisheires Policy 

2.3.2  Typology of Policy Instruments 

The  review  also  reveals  management  interventions  that  are  considered  policy 
instruments as these operate in the social system. Here we propose a tentative typology 
for the policy instruments:  

•  Regulatory policy instruments aimed at the governance arrangements. These include 

co-management, self-management or results-based management. 

•  Economic  policy  instruments  such  as  pricing  mechanisms  (e.g.  tariffs,  taxes  and 
charges,  trading  of  permits),  payments,  or  liability  schemes.  These  specifically 
include Individual Tradeable Quota (ITQs) or subsidies for alternative gears. 

•  Policy 

Instruments 

information,  awareness-raising,  and  public 
engagement. Eco-labelling (e.g. Marine Stewardship Council, MSC) would fall under 
this category as it specifically includes EAFM objectives in their certification process.2    

involving 

•  Policy instruments initiating monitoring and research that is aimed at improving the 

knowledge base (e.g. the DCF). 

Note  this  typology  is  not  intended  to  be  exhaustive  as  policy  instruments  are  not 
supposed to be part of this study 

For  an  assessment  of  the  current  state  of  affairs  pertaining  to  the  implementation  of 
EAFM,  the  extent  to  which  measures  and  policy  instruments  have  been  implemented 
across four regions, i.e. Baltic Sea, North Sea, Western Atlantic and Outermost Regions, 
is assessed. EAFM is as much a process as an endpoint (Ramírez-Monsalve et al., 2021). 
Therefore  to  assess  the  progress,  we  propose  a  gradient  of  increasingly  more  EAFM, 
whereby the lowest level consists only of the implementation of management measures 
to  address  the  first  part  of  the  EAFM  challenge  sub-type  “Catch  and  by-catch  of 
commercial species/stocks” (see Table 1), i.e. catch, representing typical conventional 
single-species fisheries management, on which the TAC/quota management is based. 
The  latter  part  of  that  EAFM  challenge  sub-type,  i.e.  by-catch,  advances  along  the 
gradient  but  still  represents  management  typically  aimed  at  CFP  objectives,  as 
represented  by  discards  bans  and  the  landing  obligation.  Then,  there  is  a  further 
fisheries  opportunities 
advancement  corresponding  to  objectives  beyond  the 
(ecosystem)  represented  by  EAFM  challenge  sub-type  “By-catch  of  other  ecosystem 
components and habitat disturbance by-catch” and finally there is the EAFM challenge 
sub-type “Indirect effects through the food web” (see Table 1). Thus, pertaining to the 
mitigation  of  fisheries  impacts,  there  is  a  gradient  in  terms  of  purpose  consisting  of 
measures  aimed  at  mitigating  fishing  impacts  on  target  stocks,  to  by-catch 
considerations that also involve non-target fish species, to fishing impacts on the wider 
ecosystem (both directly as well as indirectly) representing a gradual advancement of 
towards 
management 
increasingly more EAFM.  

from  conventional  single-species 

fisheries  management 

To  assess  progress  towards  more  EAFM,  data  on  management  measures  and  EAFM 
challenges for the relevant fisheries were linked. In fact, the measures only address the 
direct impacts of fishing on the ecosystem (hence covering challenge type 1, see Table 
1). In addition, there are challenges involving the knowledge base and advisory process 
covering  challenge  type  2  and  the  governance  and  social  context  influencing  the 
decision-making process covering challenge type 3 which may both be addressed largely 
through the use of policy instruments. Policy instruments are intended as the primary 
means  to  implement  measure(s)  and  thus  improving  the  knowledge  base  and 

2 The role of the governance system is then to set the regulatory framework in 
whichthe certification process takes place with, for example, a definition of 
minimum standards. 

18 

 
 
 
The implementation of ecosystem-based approaches applied to fisheries management under the 
Common Fisheires Policy 

governance  arrangements  should  enhance  the  EAFM  process  and  its  performance  to 
achieve policy objectives. 

2.3.3  Matching EAFM challenges, measures and policy instruments 

The review of scientific and grey literature coupled with interviews with key stakeholders 
in the relevant Member States also sought to identify the linkages between the EAFM 
challenges on the one hand and some of the possible management measures and policy 
instruments  on  the  other  (Figure  7).  The  results  clearly  support  the  necessity  of 
management measures to address the type 1 EAFM challenges (e.g. Fishing at MSY and 
Habitat  protection).  However,  the  results  also  reinforced  the  point  made  above  that 
identified obstacles in the implementation process of management measures which were 
predominantly  addressed  through  the  use  of  policy  instruments:  (1)  through 
interventions to improve the  knowledge base (i.e. Funding research and monitoring), 
(2)  in  the  governance  arrangements  involving  the  decision-making  processes  to 
facilitate  the  implementation  and/or  enforcement  of  management  measures  (i.e. 
Integrative  management,  Fishing  at  MSY),  (3)  the  stakeholder  processes  that  apply 
throughout  the  EAFM  process  (i.e.  Build  trust  and  participatory  management).  This 
highlights the need to think in terms of management strategies consisting of both the 
measures  and  also  the  policy  instruments  when  assessing  their  effectiveness  and 
transferability  and  how  they  relate  to  the  objective  for  which  the  management 
measure(s) were implemented. 

19 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The implementation of ecosystem-based approaches applied to fisheries management under the Common Fisheires Policy 

Figure 7: Management measures and Policy Instruments (at the far right) to address EAFM challenges (left, at different levels of detail) and the 
specific ecosystem components they may involve (2nd from the left). The 3rd column gives the EAFM challenges where the first digit corresponds 
to the main types in Table 1. The column to the right shows the observed management interventions. From Bastardie et al. (2021). Note that the 
typology of both the challenges as well as the Management measures and Policy Instruments has evolved since this was constructed 

20 

 
 
The implementation of ecosystem-based approaches applied to fisheries management under the 
Common Fisheires Policy 

2.3.4  Legal basis for management measures 

The legal setting of EAFM is mainly defined at the level of European Union legislation, 
with the Basic Regulation of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) of 2013 at the core, and 
its (now repealed) predecessor of 2002. Internationally, an EAFM operates within the 
context of several international and legally binding agreements. This includes the United 
Nations  Convention  on  the  Law  of  the  Sea  (UNCLOS),  the  Convention  of  Biological 
Diversity  (CBD)  and  the  2003  FAO  technical  guidelines  for  responsible  fisheries.  The 
European legislation on the management of ecosystems and fisheries draws from these 
international agreements (Figure 8). 

Figure 8: The Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management (EAFM) in context. 

The environmental legislation with which the CFP must set a coherent standard includes 
the  Marine  Strategy  Framework  Directive3  referred  to  in  Article  2  (5)(j)  of  the  Basic 
Regulation  as  well  as  the  Birds  Directive4,  the  Habitats  Directive5  and  the  Water 
Framework Directive6. 

3 Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 
establishing  a  framework  for  community  action  in  the  field  of  marine  environmental 
policy  (Marine  Strategy  Framework  Directive)  (Text  with  EEA  relevance)  (OJ  L  164, 
25.6.2008, p. 19). 
4 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). 
5 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). 
6  Directive  2000/60/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  23  October 
2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (OJ L 
327, 22.12.2000, p. 1). 

21 

 
 
 
 
 
The implementation of ecosystem-based approaches applied to fisheries management under the 
Common Fisheires Policy 

To  develop  a  typology  for  the  legal  basis  of  management  measures,  the  Common 
Fisheries Policy and relevant and related EU environmental legislation was reviewed (see 
Annex 1). This included the Marine Strategy Framework Directive; the Birds and Habitat 
Directives; the Water Framework Directive and the Maritime Spatial Planning Directive7. 
The review also considered the directions given by the CFP on how to implement EAFM 
and references to it in the CFP legal framework, in particular: the Technical Measures 
Regulation;  the  Data  Collection  Framework  Regulation;  the  Deep  Sea  Stocks  in  the 
North  East  Atlantic  Regulation  and  the  EMFF  Regulation.  A  review  of  these  policies 
highlighted that even though an EAFM is considered or even advocated in most policy 
documents, there is little, if any, direction on how it is to be implemented in practice. 
However, the policies do provide a basis for measures to be developed and this will be 
considered using the legal typology described below. 

Based on the results of the review, EAFM measures  were categorized by reference to 
the final legal basis under which they are adopted, resulting in two basic categories: (a) 
measures  contained  in  legislation  adopted  by  the  EU;  and  (b)  measures  contained  in 
legislation adopted by a Member State in cases where the necessary authority has been 
conferred by EU law (more specifically, by the basic Regulation).  

(a) Measures adopted by the EU included those related to a) regulations adopted by the 
European  Parliament  and  the  Council  in  accordance  with  the  ordinary  legislative 
procedure,  as  in  the  case  of  EAFM  measures  contained  in  the  Technical  Measures 
Regulation (TMR) or the Deep Sea Stocks in the North East Atlantic Regulation; and b) 
regulations adopted by the European Commission as a delegated act or an implementing 
act  (hereafter  a  ‘Commission  Regulation’)  in  cases  where  the  necessary  legal  powers 
are conferred upon the Commission in a policy instrument adopted in accordance with 
the ordinary legislative procedure such as the Basic Regulation or the TMR.  

(b) Measures adopted by a Member State have their basis in legislation adopted by a 
Member State. This needs to be in accordance with the limited scope permitted by the 
Basic  Regulation  regarding  conservation  measures  that  are  necessary  for  compliance 
with  EU  environmental  legislation  (Article  11);  as  emergency  measures  based  on 
evidence of a serious threat to the conservation of marine biological resources or to the 
marine  ecosystem  relating  to  fishing  activities  (Article  13);  or  to  establish  non-
discriminatory measures for the conservation and management of fish stocks and the 
maintenance or improvement of the conservation status of marine ecosystems within 
its  territorial  sea  if  the  EU  has  not  adopted  measures  addressing  conservation  and 
management specifically for that area, or specifically addressing the problem identified 
by the Member State concerned (Article 20). 

While it was not possible to collect information on the full set of measures from both the 
EU and individual MS affecting all the fisheries, the available information still illustrates 
the legal basis of the measures that have been adopted to address the diverse types of 
EAFM challenges based on a count of the different measures (Table 2). Details of the 
available data are provided in Annex 7).  

7 Directive 2014/89/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 2014 
establishing  a  framework  for  maritime  spatial  planning  (OJ  L  257,  28.8.2014,  p. 
135). 

22 

 
 
The implementation of ecosystem-based approaches applied to fisheries management under the 
Common Fisheires Policy 

Table  2:  Legal  basis  for  measures  adopted  to  address  the  three  types  of  EAFM 
challenges across all sea basins (for details of the challenge types, see Table 1) 

EAFM challenges 

Measures 
adopted  by  the 
EU 

Measures 
adopted  by  a 
Member State 

Measures 
adopted 
an RFMO 

by 

Type 1 - challenges to mitigate fisheries 
impacts 

373 

407 

40 

Type  2  -  challenges  to  improve  the 
advisory process and knowledge base 

Type  3  -  challenges  to  improve  the 
decision-making process 

20 

15 

The results indicate that the majority of measures have been introduced to address type 
1 EAFM challenges relating to target stocks and by-catch. These have been introduced 
through  the  CFP,  including  the  TAC  and  quota  process  and  the  landing  obligation. 
Measures  have  also  been  introduced  by  Member  States  to  address  type  1  challenges 
probably relating to impacts on the wider ecosystem beyond target stocks as required 
under  the  MSFD.  Based  on  the  available  data,  the  results  of  the  legal  analysis  also 
suggest that there have been fewer measures introduced to address EAFM challenges 
of types 2 and 3. Furthermore, the legal basis for these is often at Member State level. 
This  may  reflect  the  current  focus  of  the  CFP  on  the  type  1  challenges  and  the 
introduction of measures to address aspects of ecosystem-based management through 
the MSFD which is implemented by the Member States. 

It should be noted however that the reporting of management measures under both the 
CFP  and  the  MSFD  does  not  facilitate  this  kind  of  analysis.  Information  about  the 
measures introduced under the CFP is not systematically collated to allow an 
assessment  of  the  full  set  of  measures  that  apply  to  a  particular  fishery,  or 
across  all  fisheries.  Given  the  need  to  understand  how  measures  interact  with  one 
another and can be used to address the type 2 challenges in particular, this is essential 
information. Under the MSFD, the Member States report shortcomings. For example, a 
number of measures are clearly EU fisheries measures under the CFP, while others seem 
to be part of more general management measures (e.g. closed areas), which may or 
may not have EAFM relevance. There are also a number of references within the MSFD 
reporting  to  measures  adopted  by  Regional  Fisheries  Management  Organizations 
(RFMOs) that are specifically implemented at the EU level through EU legislation, as well 
as  decisions  by  Regional  Seas  bodies  such  as  OSPAR,  which  appear  to  be  primarily 
conservation  measures.  And  this  leads  to  a  decisive  point:  many  Member  State 
measures  listed  are  essentially  conservation  or  environmental  protection  measures 
related  to  the  sea  and  life  in  the  sea  that  may  in  turn  contribute  to  healthier  marine 
ecosystems but which are not fisheries measures as such.   

2.3.5  Characterizing existing management: implications for EAFM  

Within the CFP Multi-Annual management Plans (MAPs) were applied as a first attempt 
to advance towards EAFM. In this study we introduce the EAFM plan (see Figure 5) as a 
further  move  towards  EAFM.  An  EAFM  plan  is  considered  successful  if  appropriate 
management  measures  are  applied  within  the  legal  setting  to  achieve  the  policy 
objectives and  societal  goals identified  at the  defining step  of the EAFM process.  The 
review  of  management  measures  was  useful  in  highlighting  that  there  are  a  limited 
range  of  management  measures  that  can  be  applied  to  mitigate  fishing  impacts, 
including input and output measures, often applied as a way to restrict impact of fishing, 
and measures to actively restore (aspects of) the ecosystem, which may enhance the 
productivity of fish stocks. As the assessment indicates, the majority of the measures 
mitigate the fishing impacts  on target  stocks through catch and by-catch (i.e. type  1 

23 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The implementation of ecosystem-based approaches applied to fisheries management under the 
Common Fisheires Policy 

EAFM  challenges).  There  has  been  relatively  little  effort  to  address  type  2  EAFM 
challenges  which  aim  to  improve  the  advisory  process  and  its  knowledge  base.  The 
assessment also supports the need for policy instruments to alleviate obstacles related 
to the decision-making process leading to the implementation of the measures (i.e. type 
3 EAFM challenges).  

An  inventory  of  measures  was  created  (Annex  4)  and  the  review  of  the  evidence 
indicates  that  the  measures  can  be  applied  to  achieve  the  policy  objectives  of  single 
commercial  stocks  (i.e.  MSY),  which  we  consider  typically  represents  conventional, 
single  species,  fisheries  management,  or  they  can  be  aimed  at  policy  objectives  that 
involve the wider ecosystem (e.g. reduce by-catch or protect seafloor habitats). What 
matters most is how the measure is applied, i.e. the implementation process, including 
the scientific advice and its knowledge base, and the decision-making process based on 
this advice in the context of the full social-ecological system. To that end, we introduced 
policy instruments as interventions that provide the means to implement management 
measures. Thus policy instruments are tightly linked to the governance arrangements 
and  the  social  dimension  of  the  fishery  and  thus  differ  from  management  measures 
which are typically grounded in the ecological system. 

2.4  Best practices to support an EAFM process 

We adopted the following definition for 'best practices' within the context of EAFM: "Best 
practices are the working standards or ethical guidelines that provide the best course(s) 
of action in a given  situation"8. As this is highly context-dependent, the analysis was 
based on a set of Case Studies (CSs), with each CS focused on identifying best practices 
that  could  be  relevant  for  the  EAFM.  These  relate  to  the  overall  process  of  the 
implementation of one or more management measures to address one or more EAFM 
challenges related to particular fisheries operating in that specific context or study area.  

Following  on  from  the  review  of  the  management  measures,  two  parts  of  the  EAFM 
process  were  distinguished  for  which  best  practices  would  be  key  to  advancing  the 
implementation of an EAFM that related to governance arrangements and the ways in 
which  management  measures  were  identified  and  selected  to  address  the  EAFM 
challenges (see Figure 9): 

(1) the knowledge base and how it was used in the advisory process, and  

(2) the decision-making process and how this operated within the social context.  

A  set  of  criteria  that  could  be  used  to  assess  the  potential  for  improvement  in  these 
separate parts of the EAFM process were derived based on this approach:  

•  Advisory process. This critically depends on the knowledge base, how this underpins 
the measure and how this is used to generate the advice. The knowledge base could 
be  scientific  and/or  be  derived  from  expert  knowledge,  including  local  indigenous 
knowledge. The criteria relevant to the knowledge base and advisory process relate 
to  the  quality  of  the  evidence  and  includes:  quality,  trust,  evidence  type 
(monodisciplinary  or  multi/cross-disciplinary  approach)  and  the  extent  to  which 
fishers’ knowledge is used (Mauser et al., 2013; Stephenson et al. 2016; Macher et 
al., 2021).  

•  Decision-making  process.  This  aspect  of  the  analysis  considers  the  way  in  which 
decisions are taken, including the uptake of advice, involvement of stakeholders and 
consideration of the relevant actors and their respective roles (Hegland et al., 2012; 
Röckmann  et  al.,  2017).  The  relevant  criteria  for  decision-making  included: 

8 https://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/best_practices.asp 

24 

 
 
The implementation of ecosystem-based approaches applied to fisheries management under the 
Common Fisheires Policy 

evidence-based  and  with  clear  objectives,  transparency,  stakeholder  involvement 
and  regionalization.  These  criteria  were  based  on  existing  good  governance 
principles. 

Figure 9: EAFM process and the main governance arrangements (in light blue) for which 
the  identified  best  practices  are  most  applicable.  The  relevance  of  specific  context  is 
reflected  in  the  yellow  boxes.  Stakeholder  involvement  applies  throughout  the  EAFM 
process.  The  environmental  context  applies  specifically  to  the  development  of  the 
knowledge base which is at the core of the advisory process. 

2.4.1  Case studies 

A total of twelve CSs were selected (see Table 3 and Annexes 5 and 6), representing 
various  combinations  of  measures,  challenges  and  fisheries.  All  twelve  CS  were 
systematically  assessed  to  identify  potential  best  practices  that  might  have  wider 
applicability,  taking  full  consideration  of  the  context  in  which  the  implementation 
process occurred. It was found that the majority of CSs focused on the implementation 
of  management  measures.  The  remaining  two  CSs  (Sustainability  indicators  BE  and 
Shrimp MSC NL-DE-DK) focused on the use of policy instruments, addressing issues of 
self-management  to  facilitate  the  implementation  of  measures,  rather  than  the 
measures themselves.  

With regard to the type of management measures, the majority of the CSs (seven of 
the ten) focused on input measures. This included gear-based TCM (e.g., pulse trawl NL 

25 

 
 
 
 
 
The implementation of ecosystem-based approaches applied to fisheries management under the 
Common Fisheires Policy 

and  By-catch  ES),  spatial  and  temporal  TCM  (e.g.,  MPA  Baltic  and  spurdog  by-catch 
UK). One CS considered capacity and effort restrictions (Red snapper in French Guiana). 
Other  CSs  concerned  the  use  of  more  than  one  management  measure,  in  each  case 
input TCM measures combined with TAC output measures (CS8 – Gulf of Cadiz Anchovy 
Fishery; CS9 – hunting of grey seals as a management measure in the Baltic Sea; and 
CS10 – effects of density dependent growth of fish on management).  

For the two stages of an EAFM process (i.e. developing the knowledge base for advice 
and  the  decision-making  process)  for  which  best  practices  can  help  to  advance,  the 
above-mentioned criteria, along with other criteria closely related to good governance, 
such as regionalization (Hegland et al., 2012) and transparency (Röckmann et al., 2015) 
were  selected  in  order  to  identify  best  practices  from  the  case  studies  described  in 
previous sections. The criteria used to characterize the Knowledge base supporting the 
advisory process and the decision-making were:  

Knowledge base and advice 

•  Quality: expert opinion, Peer-reviewed literature and regional data available 
•  Trust: level of trust in evidence is low, medium or high 
•  Evidence  type:  monodisciplinary,  multi/cross-disciplinary  or  transdisciplinary 

approach  

•  Fishers’ knowledge: the knowledge base included the use of fishers’ knowledge 

Decision-making 

•  Evidence-based  and  with  clear  objectives:  commitment  evident  in  the  case  study 

documentation.  

•  Transparency: basis for decision-making evident  
•  Stakeholder  involvement  in  decision-making:  degree  of  participation  in  decision-

making from consultative to collaborative co-design 

•  Regionalization: evidence of forms of decentralization and localization of decision-

making 

All criteria were ranked for each of the CSs, using a qualitative approach from ‘high’ for 
possible best practices to ‘low’ for obstacles that could hamper the EAFM process, the 
creation and uptake of the advice and successful implementation of the management 
measures which should ultimately result in the achievement of policy objectives (Table 
3 and Annexes 5 and 6). In most CSs, the quality and credibility of the evidence used 
was  high,  though  all  were  primarily  based  on  scientific  evidence  rather  than  existing 
fisheries knowledge, which was poorly utilized. The N2000 DE and Red snapper French 
Guiana case studies were the only ones ranked with low quality and credibility of the 
evidence used, and Seals Baltic CS was identified as being based on low quality scientific 
underpinning.  

It  is  also  relevant  to  note  that,  pertaining  to  the  use  of  inter-  or  trans-disciplinarity 
approaches deemed key in EAFM, there were only two CSs (Sustainability indicators BE 
and  MPA  Baltic)  and  one  management  measure,  Anchovy  Gulf  of  Cadiz,  that  use  a 
multidisciplinary approach for constructing their knowledge base. With regards to the 
decision-making process and the criteria used to characterize it, regionalization was the 
best applied criterion, since all CSs were using existing information and data at regional 
scale.  In  contrast,  stakeholder  involvement  in  decision  making  was  the  lowest  rated 
criterion, with only six CSs in which their participation was allowed, coinciding with the 
best ranked of the 12 case studies. Transparency was ranked high in most of the CSs, 
except for the N2000 DE, Red snapper French Guiana, Pulse trawl NL and Anchovy Gulf 
of  Cádiz.  It  is  worth  noting  that  for  most  CSs,  the  decision-making  process  was 
evidence-based  and  with  clear  objectives,  except  for  the  N2000  DE  and  Red  snapper 
French Guiana CS. 

26 

 
The implementation of ecosystem-based approaches applied to fisheries management under the Common Fisheires Policy 

Table 3: Ranking of criteria by Case Study using a traffic-light approach to represent the criteria for the two parts of an EAFM process that were 
previously distinguished (see Figure 9), i.e. developing the knowledge base and provision of advice, decision-making process, in relation to the 
management measures that were implemented. Green color represents high quality and trustable evidence, based on transdisciplinary research, 
with a decision-making process characterized by its clear objectives, high transparency, stakeholder involvement and regionalization. Red color 
represents  poor  quality,  credibility  and  monodisciplinary  based  evidence,  excluding  fishers’  knowledge  and  with  a  decision-making  process 
characterized by its lack of clarity in the definition of objectives, lack of transparency, poor stakeholder involvement and regionalization. Orange 
represents intermediate values. Further detail on the criteria can be found in Annex 6. 

Knowledge base and advice 

Decision-Making process 

Quality 

Trust 

Type 

Fishers’ 
knowledge 

Evidence-based 
with clear 
objectives 

Transparency 

Stakeholder 
involvement 

Regionalization 

Case Study 

Implemented  management 
measure 

1.Technical conservation 
measures to protect 
Kattegat cod 

Marine protected areas to 
promote the rebuilding of cod 
population 

2.Sole-directed pulse 
trawling in The 
Netherlands 

Introduction of pulse trawling to 
reduce impact on sea bottom and 
CO2 emissions. 

3.Spanish Bottom 
Trawling in ICES 
subareas 6 and 7 

Use of selective fishing gear to 
reduce discards with the LO 
framework 

4.Designation of Natura 
2000 sites in the German 
EEZ 

5.Bratten Marine 
Protected Area in the 
Baltic Sea 

Protected areas 

Establish no-take zones 

6.Spurdog By-catch 
Avoidance Programme in 
the United Kingdom 

Measures to avoid the by-catch of 
spurdog and thus reduce discards 
and the choke effect under the LO 

7.Territorial User Rights 
in French Guiana 

Granting of fishing opportunities 
in EU waters to fishing vessels 
flying the Venezuela flag in the 
EEZ off the coast of French 
Guiana 

27 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The implementation of ecosystem-based approaches applied to fisheries management under the Common Fisheires Policy 

Knowledge base and advice 

Decision-Making process 

Quality 

Trust 

Type 

Fishers’ 
knowledge 

Evidence-based 
with clear 
objectives 

Transparency 

Stakeholder 
involvement 

Regionalization 

Case Study 

Implemented  management 
measure 

8.Anchovy in the Gulf of 
Cadiz 

Protection of nursery area 
(Guadalquivir) 

TAC control 

SFPA between Spain and Morocco 

Restricted hunting of seals to 
diminish gear damage 

TAC control 

9.Hunting of grey seals 
as a management 
measure in the Baltic 
Sea 

10. Effects of density-
dependent growth of fish 
on management and 
TAC, exemplified on 
Baltic sprat 

11. Fisheries 
sustainability monitoring 
Belgium 

Monitoring instrument to assess 
socio-economic and ecological 
impacts of fleets 

12. Self-regulation of 
brown shrimp fishery in 
the southern North Sea 
via MSC certification 

MSC certification 

28 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The implementation of ecosystem-based approaches applied to fisheries management under the 
Common Fisheires Policy 

Collectively, the case studies provide useful insights into the ways in which measures were 
implemented that relate to the advisory and decision-making processes. 

2.4.2  Best practices to advance the knowledge base and advisory process 

Based on the CSs, the following observations could be made about the advisory process 
and its knowledge base: 

•  Overall,  the  CSs  indicated  that  science  was  often,  but  not  always,  the  basis  for  the 
implementation  of  management  measures.  Furthermore,  even  where  scientific 
evidence  was  available,  measures  were  not  always  implemented.  Additionally,  for 
certain measures (e.g. By-catch ES), measures were implemented and then adjusted 
after scientific evidence became available from an initial phase of voluntary adoption.  
In some CSs, decisions to implement measures were based on limited knowledge (e.g. 
MPA  Baltic)  but  legal  requirements  meant  that  the  EU  Commission  or  Member  State 
needed  to  act.  In  the  MPA  Baltic  CS,  designating  Natura  2000  sites  as  required  was 
only the first step and there followed a lengthy process of deciding on the management 
measures to be implemented for the sites.  

• 

•  Several  CSs  describe  the  inclusion  of  stakeholder  knowledge  (especially  the  fishing 
sector)  in  the  process  of  identifying  management  measures,  suggesting  that  it  can 
facilitate the implementation and acceptance of the measure (e.g. TCM Kattegat, MPA 
Baltic and Anchovy Gulf of Cadiz). 

•  Several CSs show that scientific evidence was not always (fully) utilized. Examples were 
the  TURFs  in  French  Guiana  (Red  snapper  French  Guiana)  where  limiting  fishing 
pressure was the objective and Sprat Baltic where the scientific evidence was not used 
due to the nature of the advisory processes within ICES. Anchovy Gulf of Cadiz provided 
an example of where the evidence used was limited to fisheries issues (protection of a 
nursery area from fishing) overlooking evidence of wider interactions due to the effect 
of other human activities (agriculture, shipping, poor sewage treatment) that also may 
impact  the  nursery  area.  This  would  be  an  example  of  addressing  the  type  2  EAFM 
challenge “Anthropogenic (e.g. other sectors) and environmental changes/trends (e.g. 
climate)  interact  with  fishing  opportunities”  but  which  would  require  additional 
measures. 

•  For  some  CSs  there  is  only  scarce  scientific  information  to  support  measures.  For 
example, in Seals Baltic hunting of grey seals in the Baltic Sea was allowed to proceed 
despite evidence of its likely ineffectiveness.  

•  The case studies also show how policy instruments could affect the advisory process. 
The  Sustainability  Indicators  BE  CS  should  provide  additional  information  to  the 
knowledge base. In Shrimp MSC NL-DE-DK, achieving MSC  certification  of the North 
Sea  shrimp  fishery  was  a  driver  for  the  use  of  scientific  evidence  to  determine 
appropriate management measures.  

•  Finally, pulse trawl NL revealed that the link between scientific evidence and whether 
a measure will be implemented may not be straightforward. This highlights the critical 
importance of the context in which the decision is made and how the governance can 
affect the uptake of scientific advice in the decision-making process.  

2.4.3   Best practices to advance the decision-making process 

Based  on  the  CS  the  following  observations  were  made  concerning  the  nature  of  the 
decision-making process: 

•  Disagreement or different interests amongst stakeholders affects the decision-making 
process.  For  example,  where  several  countries  are  involved,  decision-making  can 
become less straightforward due to the diverging interests of the fishing sectors in the 
different countries. Where there was less divergence and measures were beneficial for 
each party, implementation was more straightforward (Anchovy Gulf of Cadiz).  

29 

 
 
 
 
The implementation of ecosystem-based approaches applied to fisheries management under the 
Common Fisheires Policy 

•  Scale can play a key role. While decisions on measures may be made at the regional 
level, they are implemented and have impacts at the local level. Where this is the case, 
there  can  be  a  lack  of  local  stakeholder  involvement  at  the  highest  level  which  can 
mean  that  important  evidence  of  local  concerns  and  impacts  are  overlooked  or 
downplayed, thus affecting the successful implementation of management measures, 
e.g. pulse trawl NL.  

•  Several CSs describe the inclusion of stakeholders (especially the fishing sector) in the 
process of identifying management measures like facilitating the implementation and 
acceptance of the measure (e.g. TCM Kattegat, MPA Baltic and Anchovy Gulf of Cadiz). 
In some CSs, management measures were proposed by the fishing sector, or the sector 
was heavily involved in the development of the measures (e.g. By-catch ES) to achieve 
the management objective. In Sustainability indicators BE and shrimp MSC NL-DE-DK, 
measures  were  even  introduced  by  fishers  on  a  voluntary  basis  indicating  that,  with 
the  right  incentives  and  freedoms,  the  fishing  sector  could  initiate  and  facilitate  the 
implementation of EAFM measures. 

•  Mitigation  of  specific  fishing  impacts  is  not  always  the  initial  driver  for  decisions  on 
management measures. As MPA Baltic illustrated, legal requirements could be the basis 
for implementing measures (a protected area), even where there is limited scientific 
evidence of what these will achieve. Similarly, political pressure could also play a role, 
as  pulse  trawl  NL  illustrated,  and  Seals  Baltic  described  in  the  introduction  of  seal 
hunting. In the seal case potential losses for the fishing sector were addressed despite 
an absence of scientific evidence for the effectiveness of the measure. 
Sprat Baltic highlighted the importance of the connection between the advisory process 
and its uptake in  decision-making. In this case, the scientific  evidence was available 
but  the  absence  of  a  link  between  the  two  processes  appeared  to  prevent  its  use  in 
decisions on introducing or adapting measures.  

In summary, the case studies explore a range of measures and policy instruments applied 
in various contexts. The case studies highlight that both the advisory and decision-making 
processes  experience  different  expressions  of  uncertainty  and  disagreement.  While 
scientific evidence underpinned many measures and policy instruments, there was also a 
role  for  other  knowledge  types  and  in  some  cases  the  measures  were  identified  or 
implemented  by  fishers  (Sustainability  indicators  BE  and  Shrimp  MSC  NL-DE-DK).  The 
decision-making process was also affected by issues within institutions, participation and 
power, with participation of fishers helping to facilitate implementation of measures (MPA 
Baltic and Anchovy Gulf of Cadiz) and stakeholders seeking to use their power to influence 
decision-making (Seals  Baltic). In other cases,  institutional arrangements prevented the 
use of available evidence (Sprat Baltic).  

2.4.4  Best practices: implications for EAFM  

The  case  studies  identified  a  number  of  practices  that  could  assist  with  progressing  an 
EAFM  and  these  concern  both  the  advisory  and  decision-making  processes.  These  are 
discussed in turn: 

Knowledge base and advisory process 

Advancing  an  EAFM  has  recognized  the  need  for  a  policy-driven  process  that  should  be 
evidence-based (e.g. Röckmann et al., 2015; Berghöfer et al., 2008). The feedback at the 
stakeholder workshops (see Annex 8) supported this and indicated that evidence should 
cover  everything  required  to  guide  management  to  achieve  social,  economic  and 
institutional  objectives.  As  the  CSs  indicate,  there  should  also  be  consideration  of  EAFM 
challenges that involve the wider ecosystem or interactions with other sectors and effects 
of climate change. This will further increase the complexity of the analysis and there should 
be  reflection  as  to  whether  the  type  of  science  (quantitative  modelling)  used  for  stock 
assessment to inform Total Allowable Catches (TACs) should dominate EAFM. Related to 
this point, the analysis of the CSs showed that decision-making on the implementation of 
management measures drew on different knowledge types. While measures in general had 

30 

 
 
The implementation of ecosystem-based approaches applied to fisheries management under the 
Common Fisheires Policy 

some  degree  of  scientific  underpinning,  there  were  examples  where  stakeholders 
(especially  the  fishing  sector)  contributed  knowledge,  even  going  as  far  as  to  propose 
management measures that facilitated the implementation and acceptance of the measure. 
Looking  at  ways  to  broaden  the  knowledge  base  and  the  use  of  alternative, 
transdisciplinary  approaches  (e.g.  Mascher  et  al.,  2021)  to  quantitative  modelling  (e.g. 
Bentley et al., 2019) may help address the difficulties in terms of information requirements, 
associated with increasing complexity. There is broad agreement within the literature that 
inclusive  processes  create  trust  and  transparency,  and  can  ultimately  build  consensus 
which, in turn, enhances compliance with the management measures (Chuenpagdee and 
Jentoft, 2019; Röckmann et al., 2015). In contrast, insufficient, or ineffective, engagement 
can lead to evidence being overlooked or excluded. Indeed, an issue highlighted by several 
of the CSs as well as the stakeholder workshops was that evidence was not always (fully) 
utilized or that there were obstacles in the governance arrangement preventing uptake of 
advice in the decision-making process. The main lessons learned are: 

•  The  development  of  the  knowledge  base  requires  inter-  or  transdisciplinarity  and  an 
integrated perspective,  consisting  of not  only  ecological assessments,  but also social 
and economic assessments.  

•  Scientific knowledge is only one type of knowledge and it is important to also ensure 
that other types of knowledge, including that of fishers can contribute to the knowledge 
base9.  This  is  where  there  are  important  insights  from  work  on  local  indigenous 
knowledge  in  the  social  sciences  and  on  collaborative  approaches  such  as  co-design 
(e.g. Bovaird and Loeffler, 2012) and community science (Charles et al., 2020) which 
can make important contributions. 

•  Development of the knowledge base is important but uptake of the scientific advice in 
the decision-making  process is key for  a  successful EAFM process and it is therefore 
critical to raise awareness amongst decision-makers of the benefit and need for other 
knowledge types and alternative advisory processes to support an EAFM. 

Decision-making process 

To  advance  from  current  governance  arrangements  that  primarily  support  conventional 
single-species fisheries management to those that can address (more) EAFM will require 
political will. In the first instance, it is important to recognize that the starting point has to 
be the existing decision-making structures and processes. In this respect, the governance 
arrangements related to decision-making follow two main routes within the context of the 
CFP.  

The  first,  related to  stock assessments and  TAC allocations is  relatively direct: scientific 
advice is provided to the European Commission (Parliament and Council) independently by 
ICES  and  recommendations  are  subsequently  raised  at  the  December  Council  meeting 
where  the  Council  of  Ministers  (AGRIFISH)  make  the  final  decisions.  Further  evidence 
involving socio-economic aspects  or the effectiveness of measures is provided by STECF 
but  this  tends  to  come  late  in  the  process.  The  case  studies  indicated  that  within  this 
process the knowledge base is largely restricted to scientific knowledge, with a limited role 
for  other  knowledge  types.  The  knowledge  base  is  focused  primarily  on  the  EAFM 
challenges related to the commercial stocks, with still little consideration given to the other 
type 1 challenges involving the wider ecosystem, let alone the type 2 challenges related to 
the advisory process or the type 3 challenges in the decision-making. 

The  second  route  involves  the  regional  groups  and  consultations  with  stakeholders, 
primarily through the Regional Advisory Councils (RACs) that were created after the 2002 
reforms and later renamed Advisory Councils (ACs) following the 2013 CFP reforms (e.g. 

9 Fishers knowledge, for example, may currently be included in the advice from advisory 
councils but not systematically in the broader advisory process.  

31 

 
 
 
 
 
The implementation of ecosystem-based approaches applied to fisheries management under the 
Common Fisheires Policy 

Hegland  et  al.,  2012).  This  route  aims  to  incorporate  both  technical  and  non-technical 
advice  in  recommendations  to  the  Commission  and  Member  state  groups  on  the  design 
and  implementation  of  management  measures.  The  introduction  of  the  regional  groups 
and  the  establishment  of  Advisory  Councils  were  supposed  to  add  some  elements  of 
decentralization and regional stakeholder involvement, thereby addressing the criticisms 
of the CFP such as initiating primarily top-down management. However, the analysis of the 
CSs showed that the regional groups may still largely enact top-down decision-making with 
often little bottom-up involvement of stakeholders (such as in case of the implementation 
of the Landings Obligation - Uhlmann et al., 2019; de Vos et al., 2016).  

Both  of  these  routes  have  been  criticized  for  being  hampered  by  relatively  weak 
participation and consequently low buy-in of the measures. This, in turn, can lead to low 
compliance with the measures. The main lessons learned were: 

•  Stakeholder involvement should occur from the start of the EAFM process, i.e. defining 
the steps, where the relevant policy objectives and societal goals are being identified, 
and  an  important  challenge  involves  conflicts  between  different  stakeholder  groups. 
This need not just be between the fishing sector and eNGOs but could also be between 
the  fishing  sector  and  other  sectors  (e.g.  in  a  Marine  Spatial  Planning  context). 
Stakeholder engagement in advisory process helps ensure that outputs remain relevant 
to societal needs; considerations of risk and uncertainty, normative values, and trade-
offs  between  management  objectives  is  not  something  to  be  explored  solely  by 
researchers (Dickey-Collas and Ballesteros, 2019)  

•  Decision-making should be better linked to the advisory process and take account of 
the knowledge base and stakeholder interests and apply principles of good governance, 
including  issues  of  legitimacy,  inclusiveness,  fairness  and  accountability.  As  a  way 
forward  Ramírez-Monsalve  et  al.  (2016)  suggest  that  EAFM  advice  should  make  the 
trade-offs explicit  that determine how the  decisions would create winners and losers 
within the fisheries sector (e.g. targeting the predator fish species or the prey)   

2.5  Relational  database  and  its  application  as  part  of  the  follow-up 

process 

A cycle of an EAFM process is completed in the final Follow-up step in which its performance 
is evaluated in terms of achieving the specific policy objectives or societal goals and the 
extent  to  which  the  different  challenge(s)  have  been  addressed  (Figure  1).  Here,  we 
present a relational database that can support this Follow-up step and which is built on the 
basic  structuring  of  the  relevant  information  (e.g.  fisheries,  management  measures, 
challenges) presented in the previous chapter. This relational database (i.e. a standalone 
offline  Microsoft  Access  database)  enabled  the  structuring  and  collection  of  information 
through a series of  simple user forms that allowed data to be viewed  and updated (see 
Annex  7  for  details).  The  structure  of  the  database  was  based  on  linking  the  following 
typologies: 

•  EAFM challenges (chapter 2.1); 
•  Types of fisheries (chapter 2.2);  
•  Management measures and their legal setting (chapter 2.3); 
•  Best practices and scientific underpinning (chapter 2.4). 

Developing  a  common  structure  for  the  distinct  types  of  information  also  included 
coordination with EASME/EMFF/2018/011 Lot 2: Specific Contract No. 2 - Overview of the 
state of data collection and scientific advice in the EU Outermost Regions, as that project 
was responsible for providing data on the Outermost Regions (ORs). The structure that has 
been  developed  will  also  be  used  in  the  study  on  EAFM  in  the  Mediterranean  and  Black 
Seas  (Service  Contract  No.  EASME-EMFF-2019-1.3.2.6-02-SI2.837773)  to  provide  a 
database that holds information on EAFM challenges and measures for all EU waters. 

32 

 
 
 
The implementation of ecosystem-based approaches applied to fisheries management under the 
Common Fisheires Policy 

The creation of a relational database ensured that the data could be collected, stored and 
maintained in a consistent manner. An important feature of the database, and strength of 
this  approach,  is  that  it  provides  the  possibility  to  link  data  from  various  sources  in  an 
efficient  and  systematic  way.  Thus,  fisheries  can  be  linked  to  EAFM  challenges, 
management measures, sea basins, etc. This underpins potential analysis, for example to 
identify  differences  in  the  types  of  implemented  management  measures  or  EAFM 
challenges addressed by sea basin, fishery or species. The more specified, accurate and 
complete  the  data  is,  the  more  informative  the  outcome  of  the  analysis  in  terms  of 
assessing the current EAFM process as well as guiding the next cycle. For an initial trial of 
the application of the relational database as part of the Follow-up step, requests were made 
to DG MARE to secure data that could be used in combination with the typologies needed 
to populate the database. The list of information discussed and requested included: 

•  Current quota measures (e.g. by species, area, MS, amount); 
•  Closed (or open) season restriction measures (e.g. season only March – April); 
•  Closed area restriction measures (e.g. 7d closed to trawling); 
•  Effort  limitations  (e.g.,  number  of  vessels,  tonnage  limits,  HP  limits  (combined  for 

fleet), number of licences); 

•  Gear-based TCMs (e.g. size limits on mesh size, hook shape and size restrictions); 
•  Selectivity-based  TCMs  (e.g.  Requirements  to  use  streamer  (tori  lines),  by-catch 

reduction devices); 

•  Discard bans (e.g. Landing obligation); and 
•  Landing size controls. 

Where data was available, it was added to the database and the source of the data was 
included as a key field. The structure of the database allows for various queries to be run 
to interrogate the database and provide information on, for example, the measures used 
to  address  challenges,  the  types  of  measures  by  fishery,  types  of  challenges  associated 
with different fishery types etc. 

In developing and populating the database, three key difficulties were encountered. The 
first  was  that  a  wide  variety  of  data  sources  exists  and  this  immediately  created  issues 
with different terminologies and classifications. This was resolved using the typologies that 
had  been  developed  within  Tasks  1-4  and  categorizing  the  data  according  to  them.  A 
second  difficulty  was  if  and  to  what  extent  the  measures  addressed  specific  EAFM 
challenges. To the best of our knowledge, this has not been conducted on this scale before 
and  interpretation  and  identification  of  each  particular  challenge  or  measure  was  not 
always straightforward. The third difficulty was in the linking of measures, challenges and 
fisheries, e.g. as a result of differences in the description of geographical regions (e.g. as 
ICES rectangle or sea basin). 

2.5.1  Relational database: implications for EAFM  

The relational database turned out to be a key requirement for the Follow-up step as this 
provided consistent categories of all the main components, i.e. measures and fisheries, as 
well  as  their  linkages.  This  is  a  necessity  to  allow  any  evaluation  of  current  EAFM  and 
potential progress in subsequent EAFM cycles pinpointing the types of challenges that can 
be addressed to advance this process. With the typologies established, the main difficulty 
appeared to be in getting a comprehensive overview of all the data on the measures applied 
to  a  fishery.  These  were  often  not  comprehensive  in  that  technical  measures  might  be 
recorded separately from TACs and other measures, such that there was no single source 
that captured all measures that applied to a particular fishery. Furthermore, an assumption 
had to be made that implementation dates relate to the date the measure was introduced. 
Yet, as STECF (2020) note, they may be affected by lead-in times and may not be fully 
implemented.  More  consistent  and  comprehensive  documentation  of  the  measures 
introduced  in  the  fisheries  and  the  challenges  they  seek  to  address  is  required  for  any 
future mapping exercise and/or assessment of progress with advancing an EAFM. 

33 

 
 
 
 
 
The implementation of ecosystem-based approaches applied to fisheries management under the 
Common Fisheires Policy 

3  SYNTHESIS: AN EAFM PERSPECTIVE 

This  section  provides  an  overview  of  progress  to  date  with  implementation  of  an  EAFM 
under the CFP, the types of EAFM challenges that are currently being addressed and the 
extent to which EAFM has advanced beyond a focus on the commercial stocks alone across 
the four regions, i.e. the North Sea, Baltic Sea, Western Atlantic and Outermost Regions. 
This is based on data and information collated about measures, challenges and fisheries 
and the linkages between them recorded as entries or links within the database. For data 
sources please refer to Annex 7.  The overview essentially implies that  this study can be 
considered as the follow-up step of a first EAFM cycle (see chapter 2, specifically figures 1 
and 9). As such the recommendations proposed by this study should then be used to inform 
the next EAFM cycle. 

3.1  Assessment of EAFM implementation 

Across all the regional seas, the measures implemented were mostly aimed at the type 1 
challenges, i.e. mitigating fishing impacts, confirming that the measures as defined in this 
study primarily operate in the ecological system (see Figures 10-12) and that conventional 
single-species fisheries management remains the primary focus across all the geographic 
areas considered in this study.  

In the North Sea (Figure 10), these were mostly TAC controls and TCMs (both gear-based 
as well as spatio-temporal) to protect the commercial fish stocks. This typically represents 
conventional  single-species  fisheries  management.  Fisheries  management  in  the  Baltic 
Sea (Figure 11) and in the Western Atlantic (Figure 12) are similar to that in the North 
Sea in terms of its emphasis on conventional fisheries management measures, i.e. aimed 
at the protection of commercial stocks. The Baltic differed from the North Sea and Western 
Atlantic in that there was more emphasis on TCMs, although TACs continued to have a key 
role. In the Outermost Regions the focus was also on target species and by-catch, but 
mainly  through  the  use  of  input  measures  such  as  gear-based  measures  and  spatial 
restrictions. Compared  with the other regions,  there was less  emphasis on TAC controls 
and more on capacity and effort restrictions. There were both similarities and differences 
in the policy instruments that have been introduced across the different regions. Overall 
the  policy  instruments  primarily  targeted  actors  in  the  social  system  but  were  applied 
differently across the regions in terms of the EAFM challenges they addressed.  

In  the  North  Sea,  management  was  found  to  be  primarily  aimed  at  the  sustainable 
exploitation of the commercial stocks (Figure 10). Key measures include TAC controls (29 
measures),  discard  bans  (10  measures)  and  gear-based  (19  measures)  covering  140 
different  fisheries,  including  recreational  fisheries.  Examples  of  some  of  the  measures 
include real time  closures and minimum mesh  sizes in  cod trawl fisheries,  size  selective 
grids for Nephrops trawls and bans on the use of recreational fishing with nets. However, 
next  to  the  conventional  fisheries  management  measures,  there  are  what  can  be 
considered to be more EAFM measures in place to mitigate by-catch of species other than 
the  commercial  stocks  (51  measures),  mostly  through  gear  modifications  and  real-time 
closures  (three  directed  at  demersal  trawl  and  seine  fisheries).  These  measures  include 
species selective gears in the shrimp trawl fishery, sorting grids in mixed demersal trawl 
fisheries and measures to reduce the seabed impacts of otter trawl and beam trawl gears 
in demersal finfish and shrimp fisheries.  

In the North Sea (Figure 13), the policy instruments appeared to be fairly evenly spread 
across  all  three  EAFM  challenge  types:  improving  existing  fisheries  management,  for 
example through voluntary agreements for the protection of species and habitats (21 links 
to type 1 EAFM challenges); improving the knowledge base and advisory process (17 links 
to  type  2  EAFM  challenges)  and  improving  decision-making  processes  through  research 
studies and greater inclusion of social considerations (20 links to type 3 EAFM challenges). 
Policy instruments to improve the governance arrangements of fisheries management and 
facilitate  the  implementation  of  management  measures  included  co-management,  self-

34 

 
The implementation of ecosystem-based approaches applied to fisheries management under the 
Common Fisheires Policy 

management or  results-based management and economic instruments like payments  or 
pricing mechanisms or tradeable fishing concessions (such as ITQs).  

Fisheries  management  in  the  Baltic  Sea  also  mostly  consisted  of  conventional  fisheries 
management measures (Figure 11) aimed at the commercial stocks including TAC controls 
and  recreational  bag  limits  (12  fisheries),  discard  bans  (nine  fisheries)  and  landing  size 
controls (seven fisheries). Spatial and temporal TCMs have also been introduced into seven 
fisheries,  including  spawning  closures  for  the  Baltic  cod  and  closures  to  protect  sandeel 
and  horse  mussels.  The  overall  emphasis  has  been  on  output  measures,  including  size 
limits  for  some  commercial  fish.  Wider  environmental  concerns  in  the  Baltic  include 
invasive  species  and  there  have  been  measures  to  address  some  of  these,  for  example 
through the targeting of the round goby (Neogobius melanostomus). There have also been 
measures introduced to minimize impacts on other species, including protection of harbour 
porpoise and seabirds.  

Fewer policy instruments were identified in the Baltic Sea, with examples introduced into 
only  12  fisheries  (Figure  14)  The  identified  policy  instruments  were  mostly  applied  to 
improve the knowledge base and advisory process. For example by considering the indirect 
effects of fishing and including additional information on anthropogenic and environmental 
changes  (nine  links  to  type  2  EAFM  challenges).  Several  of  the  policy  instruments 
concerned advice on the impacts and management of non-native and introduced species.  

Fisheries  management  in  the  Western  Atlantic  (Figure  12)  also  consists  mostly  of 
conventional management measures addressing target stocks and by-catch with 37 TACs 
and  five  discard  bans.  Output  measures  have  been  introduced  to  42  fisheries.  Input 
measures, including technical control measures have been introduced to 19. Examples of 
input measures include spatial management and real time closures in the Celtic Sea and 
the  use  of  mesh  size  changes  to  alter  selectivity  patterns  in  mixed  demersal  fisheries. 
Measures  to  address  wider  environmental  concerns  associated  with  the  type  1  EAFM 
challenges include combatting invasive species, shifting to low seabed impact gears, e.g. 
in  the  Iberian  otter  trawl  fisheries,  prevention  of  cetacean  by-catch  through  acoustic 
deterrence. The Iberian otter trawl fishery has also seen initiatives that relate to the type 
2 EAFM challenges by increasing stakeholder participation and contribution of knowledge 
to address management issues. 

In  the  Western  Atlantic  (Figure  15),  there  was  a  total  of  53  examples  of  policy 
instruments. Of these, the policy instruments that addressed the type 2 EAFM challenges 
(14) reflected the ecosystem challenges of complex and dynamic multi-species fisheries in 
this  sea  basin,  e.g.  in  the  Celtic  Sea.  This  included  research  on  fishing  patterns  in  the 
demersal  trawl  fisheries  to  inform  fishing  opportunities.  Type  1  EAFM  challenges  were 
addressed  through  11  policy  instruments  and  also  reflected  the  complex  interactions 
between  ecosystem  dynamics  and  fishing  activity  and  supported  the  introduction  of 
measures, including gear-based measures to address the implications of altered food-web 
interactions. 

The situation in the Outermost Regions regarding management measures is similar to 
elsewhere (Figure 16), with the majority of management measures addressing type 1 EAFM 
challenges, target species and by-catch (197 examples of input measures and 78 output). 
Technical  input  measures  were  highly  varied,  reflecting  the  diversity  of  fishing  methods 
and  included  restrictions  on  net  lengths  and  mesh  sizes  (e.g.  Martinique,  Reunion), 
prohibitions  on  respiratory  equipment  in  dive  fisheries  (Guadeloupe),  minimum  longline 
hook sizes (Madeira and Azores). As with other regions, spatial and temporal closures have 
been an important set of management measures, including limits on the depths at which 
gillnets can be used (e.g. Guadeloupe). In contrast with the other regions where TACs have 
had an important role, in the Outermost Regions output measures instead focused on the 
application  of  landing  size  restrictions,  e.g.  for  parrotfish  (Canary  Islands),  urchin 
(Guadeloupe) and lobster (Martinique) fisheries and minimum landed weight restrictions, 
e.g. in octopus (Octopus vulgaris) fisheries. Wider environmental concerns associated with 

35 

 
 
 
The implementation of ecosystem-based approaches applied to fisheries management under the 
Common Fisheires Policy 

the  type  1  EAFM  challenges  have  also  been  addressed  through  both  input  and  output 
management measures, including measures to reduce incidental mortality of seabirds and 
bans on the trade of sharks (e.g. Mayotte).  

In  the  Outermost  Regions  (Figure  16)  the  majority  of  identified  measures  focused  on 
conventional fisheries management challenges (i.e. EAFM challenge type 1). Many of the 
fisheries  were  identified  as  data-poor  (including  both  the  environmental  and  socio-
economic  dimensions)  and  key  challenges  relate  to  the  knowledge  base  (i.e.  EAFM 
challenge type 2) and the key policy instruments used to address this included targeted 
actions to improve data (e.g. through observer programs and sampling schemes for small-
scale  fisheries),  data  analysis  and  identification  of  appropriate  reference  points  and 
management  measures.  In  response  to  this  there  have  been  a  number  of  research 
initiatives and monitoring programs to address existing shortcomings. 

The  analysis  provides  an  initial  indication  of  where  the  emphasis  lies  within  fisheries 
management  across  each  of  the  regional  seas.  However,  the  results  are  based  on  the 
available data and reported in terms of the entries or links as they have been established 
in  the  database.  This  database,  however,  is  not  comprehensive  and  is  based  on  the 
measures provided to date by DGMARE and sourced independently through the interviews 
and data collection activities in the relevant MS and the Outermost Regions (see Annex 7). 
The analysis therefore presents the state of affairs as represented by the sources currently 
included in the database. 

While  the  developed  typologies  and  their  application  in  a  relational  database 
work well to structure and analyze the current state of EAFM as well as any future 
progress, their utility would be improved by the creation of a comprehensive and 
consistent overview of the current and future fisheries management measures. 

Figure 10: North Sea measures implemented to address EAFM challenge subtypes showing 
the application of policy instruments 

36 

 
 
The implementation of ecosystem-based approaches applied to fisheries management under the 
Common Fisheires Policy 

Figure 11: Baltic Sea measures implemented to address EAFM challenge subtypes showing 
the application of policy instruments 

Figure 12: Western Atlantic measures implemented to address EAFM challenge subtypes 
showing the application of policy instruments 

37 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The implementation of ecosystem-based approaches applied to fisheries management under the 
Common Fisheires Policy 

Figure 13: North Sea measures implemented to address EAFM challenges 

Figure 14: Baltic Sea measures implemented to address EAFM challenges 

38 

 
 
 
The implementation of ecosystem-based approaches applied to fisheries management under the 
Common Fisheires Policy 

Figure 15: Western Atlantic measures implemented to address EAFM challenges 

Figure 16: Outermost Regions measures implemented to address EAFM challenges 

39 

 
 
 
 
 
 
The implementation of ecosystem-based approaches applied to fisheries management under the 
Common Fisheires Policy 

3.2  Assessment of operational readiness of EAFM 

As part of this study, an assessment was requested of the operational readiness of (specific 
elements  of)  EAFM  in  place,  including  the  measures,  their  scientific  evidence  and 
governance. This assessment should distinguish between: 

•  EAFM  measures  and  governance  that  have  already  been  implemented  and  are 

functioning properly  

•  EAFM measures and governance that are “close to market”, i.e. required by legislation, 
evidence ready to be provided by the science community and that support measures 
that  could  be  used  by  managers  in  the  near  term.  Where  possible,  we  will  point  to 
existing evidence and/or best practices to ease their implementation.  

•  EAFM measures and governance for which there is a high  demand (whether through 
legislative requirements or demands from stakeholders), but for which obstacles exist 
that prevent their implementation, e.g. lack of data, unclear advice, lack of outreach, 
weak  science  base.  Where  possible,  we  will  point  to  existing  evidence  and/or  best 
practices to ease their implementation.  

•  EAFM  measures  and  governance  for  which  there  is  no  prospect  of  near  or  mid-term 
progress, preferably explaining the reasons for this, e.g. incompatible with entrenched 
legislation  (such  as  relative  stability),  no  scientific  consensus,  or  unrealistic  data 
requirements. Here we  propose recommendations of alternative approaches that can 
support  the  same  measures  or  address  the  same  challenges  but  that  have  better 
operational readiness. 

In order to address this request, some clarification was required. To start with, there was 
no agreed definition or assessment criteria provided for what was meant by “functioning 
properly”.  As  a  way  forward,  we  propose  two  perspectives  that  determine  if  an  EAFM 
process is "functioning properly": 

• 

• 

In  terms  of  its  performance,  a  process  is  perceived  to  be  contributing  to  the 
achievement of policy objectives or societal goals. 
In terms of its process, it fulfils as many of the EAFM principles (see Box 1, section 1.1) 
as possible and takes account of the specific context in which the EAFM process takes 
place.  

At this stage, however, an assessment against policy objectives other than those relating 
to the commercial stocks is not possible. Firstly because assessment of the performance 
of EAFM was not part of the remit of this study and secondly because the few typical EAFM 
measures  already  in  place  were  implemented  fairly  recently  so  any  assessment  of  their 
performance is likely to be premature. 

To arrange EAFM measures and policy instruments in terms of how 'close to market' they 
are, we considered the 10 tenets for successful, sustainable management (see Elliott, 2013 
for a comprehensive list) and applied two criteria which can be assumed to represent some 
of these tenets: 

•  Legislation exists as has been implemented by either the EU or a MS. 
• 

Implementation  was  to  mitigate  the  impacts  of  any  of  the  fisheries  included  in  this 
study. The fact that they were implemented and the number of different fisheries for 
which  they  were  implemented  were  assumed  to  cover  tenets  like  'Ecologically 
sustainable', 'Technologically feasible', 'Socially desirable/tolerable' or 'Administratively 
achievable' and hence provides some indication of operational readiness. 

While this analysis is entirely dependent on the data available it did suggest that in terms 
of  operationalizing  measures,  technical  conservation  measures  and  capacity  and  effort 
restrictions  were  implemented  through  both  EU  (both  Commission  and  Council  and 
Parliament) and national legislation (Table 5). Output measures and TAC controls, which 
tend  to  more  directly  affect  the  target  stock,  were,  on  balance,  more  likely  to  be 

40 

 
 
 
 
The implementation of ecosystem-based approaches applied to fisheries management under the 
Common Fisheires Policy 

implemented through EU legislation, and the CFP in particular. The relatively high figures 
for MS legislation are affected by data from the Outermost Regions, where there are more 
likely to be local regulations introduced. 

Table 5: Indication of operational readiness of EAFM measures for which information on 
the legal basis was also available indicating how close to market they were. The number 
of counts represent how often legislation existed to allow their implementation targeting 
a specific fishery. 

EAFM measure category  Measure type 

Input measures 

Output measures 

Ecosystem 
measures 

restoration 

Technical Control 
Measures 
Capacity and effort 
restrictions 
TAC controls 
Landing size controls 
Discard bans 
Landed species 
restrictions 
FAD management 

U
E

n
o
i
t
a
l
s
i
g
e
L

4 

2 

77 
3 
14 

U
E

n
o
i
t
a
l
s
i
g
e
L

)
n
o
i
s
s
i
m
m
o
C
(

U
E

d
n
a

n
o
i
t
a
l
s
i
g
e
L

l
i
c
n
u
o
C
(

)
t
n
e
m
a

i
l
r
a
P

S
M
n
o
i
t
a
l
s
i
g
e
L

6 

84 

187 

9 

2 

2 

36 

36 
21 
17 

7 
28 

l

i

a
n
o
g
e
R

t
n
e
m
e
g
a
n
a
M

n
o
i
t
a
z
i
n
a
g
r
O

s
e
i
r
e
h
s
i
F

10 

1 

1 
15 

107 

9 

13 

Table  5  provides  a  first  and  rather  crude  indication  of  operational  readiness  of  EAFM 
measures  grouped  by  measure  category  (level  1)  and  type  (level  2)  according  to  the 
typology (see figure 6 and Annex 4), more specifically how close to market they were, in 
terms of the number of different fisheries targeted. From the perspective of advancing an 
EAFM there are two points to make about the introduction of management measures. The 
first is that the MS legislation in Table 5 is biased by the measures that are in place in the 
Outermost regions. The second is that TAC controls are still by far the main management 
measure  in  place  and  for  which  annual  TAC  and  quota  setting  remains  an  important 
decision-making  process  which  would  benefit  from  an  improved  knowledge  base  (by 
addressing  type  2  EAFM  challenges)  and  the  (further)  incorporation  of  socio-economic 
considerations (by addressing type 3 EAFM challenges). The second is that the diversity of 
fisheries  and  fishing  methods  has  meant  that  a  lot  of  measures,  particularly  input 
measures, have had to be developed locally to reflect the context-specific nature of fishing 
activity.  This  flexibility  is  important  and  ways  need  to  be  found  to  also  enable  the 
development of locally-appropriate responses to policy objectives. 

From an operational readiness perspective, the single measure “closest to market” are the 
'conventional' TAC controls, that are mostly based in EU legislation. Other measures that 
can  be  potentially  applied  as  part  of  EAFM  are  the  TCMs,  both  gear-based  as  well  as 
spatial/temporal,  for  which  the  legal  setting  exists  both  at  EU  and  MS  level.  However, 
pertaining to their operational readiness in the context of EAFM, clearly 'the devil is in the 
detail' as there can be many varieties of measures within the broad categories shown in 
Table 5. For example, while specific gear-based TCM may appear to be operationally ready 
because  they  have  been  applied  in  several  fisheries  to  mitigate  by-catch  of  specific 
commercial "choke" species this does not reflect on its readiness to mitigate by-catch of 
sensitive non-target or even non-fish species, let alone disturbance of seafloor habitats. 
Then there is the context in which the measure is implemented and how this is incorporated 
into the implementation process, which ultimately determines if a measure is successful or 
not. 

41 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The implementation of ecosystem-based approaches applied to fisheries management under the 
Common Fisheires Policy 

3.3  Conclusions of the synthesis  

The  synthesis  of  all  outputs  of  the  individual  work  tasks  in  this  project  (i.e.  EAFM 
challenges, typologies of fisheries, management measures), and its application to assess 
the current state of affairs in fisheries management and the implementation of an EAFM 
specifically, rendered the following conclusions: 

1.  The  overall  conclusion  of  the  assessment  is  that  current  fisheries  management  is 
dominated by conventional single-species advice on which the TAC/quota management 
is based. The first step toward more EAFM is through the implementation of TCMs to 
mitigate by-catch. All other EAFM initiatives mainly consist of regulatory or economic 
policy instruments, not measures. 

2.  Hierarchical typologies of the relevant components (i.e. EAFM challenges, fisheries and 
measures) are appropriate to structure EAFM and assess the state of affairs in relation 
to EAFM.  

3.  The  three  main  categories  of  EAFM  challenges  appear  comprehensive  and  useful  as 
they cover what appear to be the main overall challenges, i.e. (1) mitigating fisheries 
impact  on  the  ecosystem,  (2)  the  advisory  process  and  (3)  decision-making.  While 
these three main categories are not likely to change, some of the more detailed (below 
sub-type) challenges may need to be revisited and, in some cases, combined. 

4.  The  typology  for  the  commercial  fisheries  appears  suitable  in  an  EAFM  context. 
However,  it  probably  needs  to  be  expanded  to  include  recreational  fisheries.  The 
current  typology  is  entirely  based  on  the  fisheries'  interaction  with  the  ecological 
system  and  may  need  to  be  revised  to  incorporate  their  link  to  specific  fishing 
communities  so  that  it  encompasses  the  whole  social-ecological  system  as  EAFM 
requires. 

5.  The  hierarchical  typology  of  management  measures  was  found  to  be  essential  to 
structure  the  immense  variety  of  detail  that  emerged  from  the  review  of  existing 
measures.  

6.  Although not specifically requested, we found that EAFM requires the explicit distinction 
between  the  management  measures  and  the  policy  instruments  as  the  means  to 
implement  them.  Separating  them  from  management  measures  is  not  only  an 
improvement from a conceptual perspective but has many practical advantages as the 
two operate in distinct parts of the social-ecological system, require different expertise 
and  scientific  disciplines,  and/or  involve  different  governance  actors.  This  study 
provides  a  first  tentative  typology  of  policy  instruments  but,  considering  their 
importance in EAFM, especially in relation to 'operational readiness', this needs to be 
revisited and improved. 

7.  The application of both measures and policy instruments and their typologies as part 
of a relational database to assess the current state of affairs in relation to EAFM showed 
internal consistency (e.g. measures mainly link to the type 1 fishing impact challenge, 
policy instruments to the type 2 and 3 EAFM challenges that involve respectively the 
advisory  and  decision-making  processes)  and  their  potential  usefulness  for  such 
assessments. 

8.  The bottleneck for the EAFM assessment was the availability of a comprehensive list of 
management measures, appropriately categorized at an adequate level of detail. As it 
currently stands, only a few rather randomly collected datasets were available and for 
which it was not always clear how to categorize and assess them or how these matched 
the measures typology presented here. The current typologies of both measures and 
policy instruments should be tested and improved (certainly the policy instruments) so 
that they can be used to generate comprehensive lists of EAFM measures and policy 
instruments for each of the regional seas to be applied in future assessments. 

9.  The two focal points of the 'operational readiness' assessment, i.e. measures and policy 
instruments, appear relevant but the key issue that determines 'operational readiness' 
is  the  specific  context,  mostly  ecological/environmental  for  the  measures  and 
social/institutional  for  the  governance.  In  order  to  advance  operational  readiness  of 
EAFM in its specific context we propose to collate generic information that allows a first 
scrutiny of potential measures or policy instruments that can be considered ready for 

42 

 
The implementation of ecosystem-based approaches applied to fisheries management under the 
Common Fisheires Policy 

operation  against  a  selection  of  essential  tenets,  e.g.  Socially  desirable/tolerable, 
Legally  permissible,  Administratively  achievable  and  politically  expedient  (Elliott, 
2013), and then further evaluate this selection in the specific context where  EAFM is 
supposed to be implemented. 

4  ADVANCING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF EAFM 

The potential to advance the implementation of EAFM based on the findings from this study 
is shown in Figure 17.  

Figure  17.  The  role  of  the  adaptive  process  to  advance  EAFM  in  several  adaptive  cycles 
from conventional single-species management into increasingly more mature operational 
EAFM.  It  also  shows  the  critical  role  of  the  three  types  of  EAFM  challenges,  i.e.  type  1 
involving  the  achievement  of  a  wider  range  of  policy  objectives,  and  two  governance 
arrangements,  i.e.  the  advisory  (type  2)  and  decision-making  processes  (type  3),  that 
need to be addressed to support this.  

4.1  Analysis 

The analysis of current measures revealed that these mainly address target species and to 
a lesser extent by-catch issues (EAFM challenge Type 1, sub-type “Catch and by-catch of 
commercial  species/stocks”,  see  table  1).  The  typologies  that  have  been  developed  and 
the relational database of measures can potentially assist monitoring the progress of EAFM 
as  more  EAFM  challenges  are  addressed  and  the  database  of  measures  and  policy 
instruments continues to be updated. The case studies show that the measures that have 
often been implemented are mostly supported by science, although the contents and hence 
coverage  of  the  knowledge  base  can  be  limited,  i.e.  focused  on  the  effect  of  fishing  on 
single  stocks  without  consideration  of  the  wider  ecosystem  or  the  social  system.  To 
progress EAFM, the results suggest that the knowledge base and advisory process can be 
improved  by  addressing  type  2  challenges,  but  that  type  3  challenges  involving  the 
decision-making  process  in  the  specific  context  of  that  social-ecological  system  is  more 
likely to determine the successful implementation. While management measures aimed at 
the fishing opportunities are generally well established, there is less certainty about their 
effectiveness  in  addressing  the  type  1  EAFM  challenges  associated  with  the  wider 
ecosystem (i.e. beyond the commercial fish stocks). Feedback from stakeholders obtained 
through  two  workshops  (see  Annex  8)  highlighted  a  need  for  evidence  to  show  which 

43 

 
 
 
 
 
The implementation of ecosystem-based approaches applied to fisheries management under the 
Common Fisheires Policy 

measures  have  been  most  effective  to  address  a  specific  EAFM  challenge  in  a  specific 
context  (i.e.  ecological  and  social).  Related  to  type  3  EAFM  challenges,  there  is  less 
certainty about the precise nature of the possible improvements using policy instruments 
because  even  where  there  are  examples  of  'best  practice'  these  may  not  be  easily 
transferred as they may be very context-specific. The case studies helped to highlight this 
issue.  The  context,  including  issues  of  uncertainty,  different  interests  and  power 
imbalances  between  stakeholders  were  all  shown  to  create  obstacles  hampering  the 
successful implementation of management measures. This could be resolved through the 
application of appropriate policy instruments but few, if any, of the policy instruments could 
be  considered  'close  to  market'.  The  assessment  of  the  case  studies  identified  some 
important  guiding  principles  for  developing  the  knowledge  base  and  for  the  selection  of 
management  measures.  These  included  the  importance  of  participatory  processes, 
integration of different knowledge types, e.g. of social and environmental sciences as well 
as its further extension with local (e.g. fishers) knowledge. A successful implementation 
also requires ensuring accountability through a strong link between the knowledge base, 
its use in the advisory process and subsequent uptake in the decision-making process. This 
was also highlighted in a study on improving EAFM advice in Europe (Ramírez-Monsalve et 
al., 2021). 

The analyses indicate that advancing the implementation of EAFM requires attention to the 
key areas of the governance arrangements, i.e. advisory processes and decision-making. 
In  that  respect,  it  should  be  recognized  that  modifying  current  management  and 
governance arrangements must start with what is already in place in the specific context 
in which EAFM is supposed to operate, together with the opportunities and constraints that 
this  represents.  This  applies  for  the  management  measures  (and  their  acceptability  and 
performance), the knowledge base (in terms of contents and quality) and the governance 
arrangements  (who  decides  and  how  and  what  ecosystem  aspects  are  addressed). 
Furthermore,  EAFM  processes  are,  and  will  remain  dynamic,  with  multiple  objectives, 
multiple stakeholders and a wide array of social, economic and environmental conditions 
all subject to change over time. For these reasons, it is less appropriate to talk of adopting 
best practices aimed at fixed solutions than to recognize that it is possible to move towards 
increasingly better practices by using the current state of play as a baseline and applying 
EAFM principles (see Box 1, section 1.1) as part of a gradual and adaptive process to guide 
the  advancement  of  EAFM.  This  study  has  identified  two  main  avenues  through  which 
progress can be advanced: (1) the advisory process and its knowledge base and (2) the 
decision-making process, each elaborated in more detail below. 

Improving the advisory process and its knowledge base 

For the advisory process there is a need to improve the  knowledge base. There are two 
elements to this. Firstly, there is the more general point of ensuring that science is inter- 
and transdisciplinary to be able to consider the whole range of policy objectives and societal 
goals as these should also include the social and/or economic dimensions of sustainability 
that includes institutional aspects. Secondly, the knowledge base should be expanded to 
cover  more  of  the  ecosystem  than  the  commercial  stocks  (e.g.  seabed  habitats,  PET 
species) as well as  socio-economic information.  Pertaining to the commercial  stocks  the 
scientific stock assessments will need to include a wider range of ecosystem aspects and 
their effects on fisheries' resources and opportunities, including natural variability, long-
term trends or the (cumulative) impacts of other anthropogenic activities.  

This can probably best be illustrated using the three main components of the ICES advice: 
(1) the annual stock assessments and fishing opportunities advice to inform the TAC and 
quota  process,  (2)  the  fisheries  overviews  and  (3)  the  ecosystem  overviews.  In  recent 
years there has been a gradual process of incorporating ecosystem trends and variability 
into the stock assessments to improve fishing opportunities advice. A recent audit among 
ICES  stock  assessment  working  groups  showed  that  just  under  50%  of  all  stock 
assessments had some consideration of ecosystem trends and variability and the majority 
of management  strategy  evaluations had at least  one  element  of ecosystem trends and 

44 

 
The implementation of ecosystem-based approaches applied to fisheries management under the 
Common Fisheires Policy 

variability  incorporated.  Almost  73%  of  the  stock  assessments  of  the  data  rich  stocks 
incorporate at least one element of ecosystem trends and variability, and almost 55% of 
forecasts (Dickey-Collas et al., 2022). This provides clear evidence of advances in ICES to 
address  EAFM  challenge  type  2  that  directly  affect  science  advice.  Additionally,  ICES 
fisheries overviews provide information on the commercial fish stocks and their exploitation 
not only from a single species perspective but now also include mixed fisheries advice (thus 
addressing EAFM challenge type 2) and information on the effects of fisheries on the wider 
ecosystem,  i.e.  beyond  the  target  stocks.  Specifically  two  effects  are  described,  i.e. 
Physical disturbance of benthic habitats by bottom trawl fishing gear and fisheries by-catch 
of PETS (thus contributing to advance on EAFM challenge type 1). To what extent this is 
taken up in the decision-making process, however, is unclear. 

A next step towards interdisciplinarity and broadening the fisheries knowledge base would 
be to better contextualize the fisheries, including from a socio-economic perspective. The 
ecosystem overviews provide key signals within the environment and the main pressures 
acting  on  the  ecosystem  thereby  providing  context  to  interpret  the  regular  fishing 
opportunities advice which, albeit not incorporated in the advice, does help in advancing 
against challenge type  2.  The initiative to  extend the ecosystem overviews  so that they 
also include the human dimension is a first step to address EAFM challenge type 3 in the 
ICES advisory process but does not guarantee uptake in the decision-making process. For 
example,  in  the  Celtic  Seas  ecosystem  overview  fishing  ports  were  used  as  a  proxy  for 
fishing communities and thus directly linked to fisheries (next up to make this linkage is 
the  North  Sea  ecosystem  overview).  These  examples  clearly  illustrate  how  the  ICES 
advisory process is gradually advancing notably with the type 2 EAFM challenges where its 
competence lies. While this is exemplary for advancements in the advisory process, there 
are more advisory bodies in addition to ICES that deliver advice on a range of elements 
with EAFM relevance. Advice on the status of fishery resources is also provided by JRC and 
the  Scientific  Committees  of  GFCM  and  ICCAT;  status  of  the  ecosystems  where  fishing 
activities  are  taking  place  is  also  provided  by  JRC  in  cooperation  with  European 
Environment  Agency  and  Regional  Sea  Conventions  (e.g.  OSPAR,  HELCOM)  and 
information on impacts of human activities is also provided by STECF (Ramírez-Monsalve 
et al., 2021). For all these advisory bodies it applies that a better understanding of EAFM 
principles and concepts is a prerequisite to advance EAFM.  

It is also important to consider alternative knowledge types in an EAFM. Inclusivity should 
thus  also  extend  to  the  integration  of  different  scientific  disciplines  of  other  knowledge 
types associated with fishers and other (non-science) stakeholders. To be effective, inter- 
and  transdisciplinary  teams  will  require  a  high-level  mutual  understanding  between 
disciplines and with other stakeholders of EAFM principles and concepts (e.g. sustainable, 
healthy,  good  environmental  status).  As  well  as  quantitative  information,  qualitative 
information (both observational and experiential) has value and can support the knowledge 
base (e.g. Johannes and Nelis, 2007; Moon et al. 2014, 2021). Scientific knowledge is one 
form of knowledge and other experiences and understandings amongst stakeholders can 
also  be  important  and  provide  different  insights  and  information  (e.g.  Long  and  Long, 
1992).  The  inclusion  of  these  types  of  knowledge  can  be  facilitated  by  forms  of 
transdisciplinary science (e.g. Macher et al., 2021; Klein, 2004; Chuenpagdee and Jentoft, 
2019). Addressing this element presents a strong argument for increased contributions of 
social  scientists  to  advance  EAFM.  This  comes  with  a  requirement  for  the  non-social 
scientists  to  learn  how  to  work  with  these  other  knowledge  types.  Macher  et  al.  (2021) 
argue that this requires capacity development to help to develop new skill sets, methods 
and professionals to support the process.  

There is also a need to consider decision-makers or managers in the advisory process. As 
Macher  et  al.  (2021)  identify,  more  engagement  of  decision-makers  and  managers  is 
necessary  to  increase  the  interactions  with  scientists  and  other  stakeholders  (e.g. 
Röckmann et al., 2015). This has the potential to reveal the opportunities and constraints 
related  to  the  advisory  process,  enabling  decision-makers  and  managers  to  explicitly 
request  advice  which  would  require  such  transdisciplinary  science.  This  would  be  an 

45 

 
 
 
The implementation of ecosystem-based approaches applied to fisheries management under the 
Common Fisheires Policy 

example of a pulling mechanism which is distinguished from pushing mechanisms where 
advice suppliers provide EAFM advice which may or may not be used in the decision-making 
processes (Ramírez-Monsalve et al., 2021). In relation to those mechanisms they mention 
obstacles  that  may  hamper  the  connection  between  the  advisory  and  decision-making 
processes which prevent the uptake of salient advice: (1) pulling mechanisms enabled by 
the  policy  framework  but  where  the  advisory  bodies’  capacity  to  inform  actual  policy 
decisions is limited. (2) pushing mechanisms where advice suppliers are providing EAFM 
advice, but advice recipients do not have a clear path to use it. Overall, decision-makers 
are reluctant to receive advice that does not link directly to their current list of tactical and 
strategical  management  decisions  which,  in  turn,  follow  from  the  selection  of  policy 
objectives EAFM strives to achieve. 

An  example  of  a  potential  pulling  mechanism  that  would  result  in  a  broadening  of 
knowledge base by bringing in more inter- or transdisciplinary science would be the explicit 
incorporation  of  social  and/or  economic  policy  objectives.  This  would  then  also  create  a 
need for policy instruments that can enable appropriate and equitable allocations of fishing 
opportunities  and  may  also  require  alternatives  to  quantitative  modelling.  The  EAFM 
challenges identified in this study potentially provide an entry point for various groups of 
people (within the fisheries and other sectors and across disciplines) to agree on sets of 
common concerns and begin to work together to address them. This can provide the basis 
for  co-design  that  enables  different  knowledge  types  to  be  integrated.  Mackinson  and 
Middleton (2018) propose a systematic move towards institutionalization of co-design and 
co-delivery processes as opposed to the current  ad-hoc collaborative research initiatives 
seeking to fill evidence gaps and promote shared learning and problem solving.  

The three types of ICES advice, i.e. stock assessment, fisheries overviews and ecosystem 
overviews,  may  help  illustrate  how  EAFM  can  be  advanced  in  the  advisory  process.  As 
stated previously, any improvement of the stock assessments has immediate management 
consequences  (i.e.  often  a  change  in  TAC).  In  contrast  there  is  no  formal  procedure  to 
incorporate  information  from  the  fisheries  overviews  or  ecosystem  overviews  in  the 
decision-making process (but feedback was received that, for the fisheries overviews, this 
may occur). As a way forward an option would be to explore if, and to what extent, such 
a procedure could improve the saliency, credibility and legitimacy of advice and improve 
the decision-making process.   

By  identifying  the  challenges  and  mapping  the  current  state  of  play  and  necessary 
subsequent steps, this study can contribute to developing this understanding. Progress will 
also  require  greater  coordination  within  and  across  fisheries.  Currently  fisheries 
management  is  almost  exclusively  focused  on  commercial  fishing,  despite  the  evidence 
that for several stocks/species, recreational fisheries may have a significant impact. EAFM 
provides an opportunity to incorporate recreational fishing into stock assessments and the 
advisory process, as is the practice in other parts of the world.  

The  typologies  in  combination  with  the  relational  database  can  facilitate  the  process  by 
providing a common structure for the many different components, with often varied levels 
of detail interacting with one another. The case studies provide context-specific examples 
and illustrate how integration of different knowledge types can be beneficial. For example, 
the  By-catch  ES  CS  described  how  research  institutes  in  Spain  worked  with  fishers  to 
develop selectivity technologies that were incorporated into the fisheries regulations. While 
there is often a willingness to collaborate between fishers and scientists, unfamiliarity with 
working  together  can  make  this  difficult  in  practice.  Yet  the  risk  is  that  without  such 
collaboration, the results may be inaccurate and/or legitimacy may be undermined. There 
is a significant role here for social scientists to facilitate these co-design processes that are 
often  value  laden,  providing  a  basis  for  cooperative  research  based  on  deliberation  and 
dialogue  rather  than  confrontation,  resulting  in  more  inclusive  advisory  processes.  The 
Spurdog by-catch UK CS provided an example of a transdisciplinary research partnership 
between  a  Producer  Organization,  policy  makers,  government  scientists  and  an  NGO  to 
develop and implement a real-time by-catch reporting system. Such inclusive approaches 

46 

 
The implementation of ecosystem-based approaches applied to fisheries management under the 
Common Fisheires Policy 

that provide opportunities to contribute evidence and to collectively assess the evidence 
can enhance acceptability of management measures and increase compliance. 

Improving the decision-making process  

A key improvement could be achieved through (more) explicit consideration of the context 
in which the decision-making occurs. This may be jurisdictional where implementation may 
be decided by both Member States (or  sometimes  even non-Member  States) or the EU. 
This  can  involve  the  economic  context  where  the  market  determines  which  species  to 
target  or  where  it  may  prevent  a  level  playing  field.  Alternatively,  it  can  be  the  social-
ecological  context  where  other  sectors  may  compete  for  limited  marine  space  and 
resources, or climate change influencing the spatial distribution of stocks. Such changes in 
spatial distribution may, in turn, interact with the jurisdictional considerations mentioned 
earlier. Making explicit which part(s) of the context will be explicitly considered in the EAFM 
process should already occur in the defining step of the process as this has consequences 
for every subsequent step in the EAFM process, notably that of developing the knowledge 
base. 

In the previous section on the advisory process it was established that the type 2 EAFM 
challenges that relate directly to the advice on fishing opportunities and feed into the stock 
assessment process are immediately taken up in the decision-making with consequences 
on  management  (usually  TAC  changes).  For  the  type  2  EAFM  challenges  that  would 
enhance advice on the wider ecosystem (i.e. beyond the fishing opportunities) there is no 
such  process  and  hence  there  is  no  uptake  in  the  decision-making  process.  As  a  way 
forward to enhance uptake of advice beyond the stock assessments, one option would be 
to  assess  how  this  additional  advice  might  improve  management.  If  there  is  scope  for 
improvement, options for formalizing this can be explored together with decision-makers.  

To improve decision-making, this study found that stakeholder involvement is important 
in building trust in the EAFM process and the legitimacy of its outcome. Involvement should 
begin  from  the  defining  step  where  this  contributes  to  saliency  in  terms  of  the  policy 
objectives that are selected and including the credibility in the knowledge base. It is also 
important  that  decision-making  is  tightly  linked  to  the  advisory  process  and  that  its 
knowledge base is supported by a stakeholder involvement process and applies principles 
of  good  governance,  including  issues  of  legitimacy,  inclusiveness,  fairness  and 
accountability. Efforts have been made, through the process of regionalization, to enable 
stakeholders to contribute to policy processes but these could go further. Indeed, Jones 
and  Seara  (2020)  found  that  in  relation  to  ecosystem  approaches,  when  asked,  fishers 
identified  aspects  of  social  impacts  and  fishers’  participation  in  decision-making  as 
important considerations for them. However, given vested interests and situations where 
there may be winners and losers, it should not be assumed that this will be straightforward 
or that consensus can be readily achieved.  

4.2  Final Conclusions 

The  findings  from  this  study  to  advance  EAFM  beyond  conventional  single-species 
management rendered the following conclusions: 

•  The hierarchical typologies of the relevant components (i.e. EAFM challenges, fisheries, 
measures  and  policy  instruments)  are  appropriate  to  assess  progress  in  the 
implementation of EAFM. Advancement should occur as part of adaptive iterative cycles 
such as the proposed five-step EAFM process. 

•  Many  of  the  identified  management  measures  are  operationally  ready  and  can  be 
implemented  to  mitigate  fisheries  impacts  beyond  those  on  the  commercial  species. 
Obstacles  for  their  implementation  primarily  arise  from  deficits  in  the  governance 
arrangements which are very context-specific.  

47 

 
 
 
The implementation of ecosystem-based approaches applied to fisheries management under the 
Common Fisheires Policy 

•  Some general guidance is provided on how to advance EAFM, focusing on two of the 
most  relevant  governance  arrangements:  the  advisory  and  the  decision-making 
processes. 

•  The stepwise EAFM process, hierarchical typologies and relational database provide a 
framework  that  should  facilitate  the  communication  between  the  many  EAFM  actors 
and  allow  an  increased  exchange  of  knowledge  and  best  practices  from  other  EAFM 
initiatives to further advance the EAFM implementation in EU waters. 

48 

 
 
 
The implementation of ecosystem-based approaches applied to fisheries management under the 
Common Fisheires Policy 

5  REFERENCES 

Arthur, R.I., MacFadyen, G., Cappell, R., Delaney, A., Triantaphyllides, G., Caillart, B. and 
Agnew,  D.  2011.  Regional  social  and  economic  impacts  of  change  in  fisheries-
dependent  communities.  Impact  Assessment  Studies  Related  to  the  CFP. 
Fish/2006/06 

Bastardie, F., Brown, E.J., Andonegi, E., Arthur, R., Beukhof, E., Depestele, J., Döring, R., 
et  al.  2021.  A  Review  Characterizing  25  EAFM  challenges  to  Be  Addressed  by  an 
Ecosystem  Approach  to  Fisheries  Management  in  Europe.  Frontiers  in  Marine 
Science 7 (2021); ISSN: 2296-7745. 2021. 

Bentley, J.W., Serpetti, N., Fox, C., Heymans, J.J. and Reid, D.G. 2019. Fishers' knowledge 
improves  the  accuracy  of  food  web  model  predictions.  ICES  Journal  of  Marine 
Science 76(4): 897-912 

Berghöfer,  A.,  Wittmer,  H.  and  Rauschmayer,  F.  2008.  Stakeholder  participation  in 
ecosystem-based approaches to fisheries management: a synthesis from European 
research projects. Marine Policy 32(2): 243-253 

Berkes, F. 2011. Restoring unity: the concept of marine social-ecological systems. p9-28 
in: R.E. Ommer, R.I. Perry, K. Cochrane and P. Cury (eds.) World fisheries: a social-
ecological analysis. Blackwell Publishing 

Bovaird, T., and Loeffler, E. 2012. From Engagement to Co-production: The Contribution 
of Users and Communities to Outcomes and Public Value. Voluntas, 23: 1119-1138. 

Charles, A., Loucks, L., Berkes, F., and Armitage, D. 2020. Community science: A typology 
and  its  implications  for  governance  of  social-ecological  systems.  Environmental 
Science & Policy, 106: 77-86. 

Chuenpagdee,  R.  and  Jentoft,  S.  2019.  Transdisciplinarity  for  Small-Scale  Fisheries 

Governance: analysis and practice. Springer 

De Vos, B.I., Döring, R., Aranda, M., Buisman, F.C., Frangoudes, K., Goti, L., Macher, C., 
Maravelias,  C.D.,  Murillas-Maza,  A.,  van  der  Valk,  O.  and  Vasilakopoulos,  P. 
2016. et  al  2016.  New  modes  of  fisheries  governance:  Implementation  of  the 
landing obligation in four European countries. Marine Policy 64: 1-8 

Dickey-Collas, M., Ballesteros, M., 2019. Swinging back? Science ethos and stakeholders’ 
engagement in ICES advisory processes. (Fishing industry as authors of ICES expert 
group 
https://www.ices.dk/news-and-events/news-
archive/news/Pages/Science-ethos-and-stakeholders-engagement-in-ICES-
advisory-processes.aspx. 

reports). 

In: 

Dickey-Collas, M., Trenkel, V., Ojaveer, H. & Miller, D. 2022. ACOM sanctioned analysis of 
ICES  produc-tivity  questionnaire  (Ad  Hoc).  ICES  Scientific  Reports.  4:12.  12  pp. 
http://doi.org/10.17895/ices.pub.10037 

Elliott,  M.  2013.  The  10-tenets  for  integrated,  successful  and  sustainable  marine 

management. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 74: 1-5. 

FAO. 2021. Legislating for an ecosystem approach to fisheries – Revisited – An update of 
the  2011  legal  study  on  the  ecosystem  approach  to  fisheries.  FAO  EAF-Nansen 
Programme Report No. 36. Rome 

FAO 2003. Fisheries management. 2. The ecosystem approach to fisheries. FAO Technical 

Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries No. 4: 112. 

Hegland,  T.J.,  Ounanian,  K.,  and  Raakjær,  J.  2012.  Why  and  how  to  regionalise  the 

Common Fisheries Policy. Maritime Studies, 11: 1-21. 

49 

 
 
 
 
The implementation of ecosystem-based approaches applied to fisheries management under the 
Common Fisheires Policy 

ICES, 2003. Report of the study group on the development of fishery‐based forecasts. CM 

2003/ACFM: 08 

ICES. 2019. EU request to advise on a seafloor assessment process for physical loss (D6C1, 
D6C4)  and  physical  disturbance  (D6C2)  on  benthic  habitats.  ICES  Document 
sr.2019.25 – https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.5742. 

Johannes R.E. and Neis, B. 2007. The value of anecdote. In: Haggan N., Neis B. and Baird 
I.G.  eds.  Fishers’  Knowledge  in  Fisheries  Science  and  Management.  UNESCO 
Publishing.  

Klein, J.T. 2004. Prospects for transdisciplinarity. Futures 36(4): 515-526 

Long, N. and Long, A. (eds.) 1992. Battlefields of knowledge: interlocking of theory and 

practice in social research and development. Routledge 

Long, R.D., Charles, A. and Stephenson, R.L. 2015. Key principles of marine ecosystem-

based management. Marine Policy, 57: 53-60. 

Macher, C., Steins, N.A., Ballesteros, M., Kraan, M., Frangoudes, K., Bailly, D., Bertignac, 
M.,  Colloca,  F.,  Fitzpatrick,  M.,  Garcia,  D.,  Little,  R.,  Mardle,  S.,  Murillas,  A., 
Pawlowski,  L.,  Phillipe,  M.,  Prellezo,  R.,  Sabatella,  E.,  Thébaud,  O.  and  Ulrich,  C. 
fisheries: 
2021.  Towards 
experiences  and  recommendations 
from  a  multidisciplinary  collective  of 
researchers. Aquatic Living Resources 34(13) 

transdisciplinary  decision-support  processes 

in 

Mackinson, S. and Middleton, D.A.J., 2018. Evolving the ecosystem approach in European 
fisheries :  Transferable  lessons from New Zealand’ s experience in strengthening 
stakeholder 
194–202. 
involvement. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2017.12.001.  

Marine 

Policy 

90, 

p. 

Mauser, W., Klepper, G., Rice, M., Schmalzbauer, B.S., Hackmann, H., Leemans, R., Moore, 
H. 2013. Transdisciplinary global change research: the co-creation of knowledge for 
sustainability. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 5: 420–431. 

Moon K., Cvitanovic C., Blackman D.A., Scales I.R. and Browne, N.K. 2021. Five Questions 
to Understand Epistemology and Its Influence on Integrative Marine Research. Front 
Mar Sci. 2021;8:1-9. doi:10.3389/fmars.2021.574158 

Moon K, Blackman D.A. 2014. Guide to Understanding Social Science Research for Natural 

Scientists. Conserv Biol. 28(5):1167-1177. doi:10.1111/cobi.12326 

Piet,  G.J.,  Strosser,  P.,  Zamparutti,  T.,  Ruskule,  A.,  Veidemane,  K.,  Dworak,  T., 
Lieberknecht, L., Gea, G., Oulès, L., Besançon, M., Loudin, S. and Milkova, T. 2021. 
A  practical  approach  toward  an  Ecosystem-based  Approach  in  Maritime  Spatial 
Planning.  European  Climate,  Infrastructure  and  Environment  Executive  Agency 
(CINEA). European Commission 

Radford,  Z.,  Hyder,  K.,  Zarauz,  L.,  Mugerza,  E.,  Ferter,  K.,  Prellezo,  R.,  Strehlow,  H.V., 
Townhill,  B.,  Lewin,  W.-C.  and  Weltersbach,  M.S.  2018.  The  impact  of  marine 
recreational fishing on key fish stocks in European waters. PLOS One 

Ramírez-Monsalve,  P.,  Nielsen,  K.N.,  Ballesteros,  M.,  Kirkfeldt,  T.S.,  Dickey-Collas,  M., 
Delaney, A., Hegland, T.J., et al. 2021. Pulling mechanisms and pushing strategies: 
How  to  improve  Ecosystem  Approach  Fisheries  Management  advice  within  the 
European Union’s Common Fisheries Policy. Fisheries Research, 233. 

Röckmann,  C.,  van  Leeuwen,  J.,  Goldsborough,  D.,  Kraan,  M.  and  Piet,  G.  2015.  The 
interaction triangle as a tool for understanding stakeholder interactions in marine 
ecosystem-based management. Marine  Policy  52:155-162STECF 2020. Review  of 
technical  measures  (part  1)  (STECF-20-02).  Scientific,  Technical  and  Economic 
Committee for Fisheries, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg 

50 

 
The implementation of ecosystem-based approaches applied to fisheries management under the 
Common Fisheires Policy 

Röckmann,  C.,  Kraan,  M.,  Goldsborough,  D.  and  van  Hoof,  L.  2017.  Stakeholder 
participation in marine management: the importance of transparency and rules for 
participation.  p289-306  In:  P.S.  Levin  and  M.R.  Poe  (eds.)  Conservation  for  the 
anthropocene  ocean:  interdisciplinary  science  in  support  of  nature  and  people. 
Academic Press 

Stephenson, R.L., Paul, S., Pastoors, M.A., Kraan, M., Holm, P., Wiber, M., Mackinson, S., 
et al. 2016. Integrating fishers’ knowledge research in science and management. 
ICES Journal of Marine Science, 73: 1459-1465. 

Uhlmann,  S.S.,  Ulrich,  C.,  and  Kennelly,  S.J.  2019.  The  European  landing  obligation  : 
reducing  discards  in  complex,  multi-species  and  multi-jurisdictional  fisheries. 
Springer Open, Cham, Switzerland. 

51 

 
 
 
 
 
The implementation of ecosystem-based approaches applied to fisheries management under the 
Common Fisheires Policy 

52 

 
 
 
The implementation of ecosystem-based approaches applied to fisheries management under the 
Common Fisheires Policy 

ANNEX 1: TYPOLOGY FOR THE IDENTIFICATION OF THE LEGAL 
BASIS OF MANAGEMENT MEASURES 

Given that the measures themselves are specified in legal instruments one approach would 
be  to  characterise  them  all  as  individual  legal  measures  and  to  prepare  the  typology 
accordingly. Such an approach would not, though, be coherent with the requirements of 
Task  4  and  or  serve  much  purpose  given  that  there  are  few  if  any  substantive  legal 
differences between one measure and another: a measure is a measure. 

A  potentially  more  useful  approach  is  to  categorize  EAFM  measures  by  reference  to  the 
final legal basis under which they are adopted.  

This results in two basic categories: (a) measures contained in legislation adopted by the 
EU; and (b) measures contained in legislation adopted by a Member State in cases whereby 
the  necessary  authority  has  been  conferred  by  EU  law  (more  specifically,  by  the  basic 
Regulation). 

Measures adopted by the EU 

In terms of legislation adopted by the EU it is possible to further distinguish between:  

(a)  legislation  in  the  form  of  a  regulation  adopted  by  the  European  Parliament  and  the 
Council in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, as in the case of EAFM 
measures  contained  in  the  TMR  or  the  Deep  Sea  Stocks  in  the  North  East  Atlantic 
Regulation; or  

(b)  legislation  in  the  form  of  a  regulation  adopted  by  the  European  Commission  as  a 
delegated act or an implementing act (hereafter a ‘Commission Regulation’) in cases 
where the necessary legal powers are conferred upon the Commission in an instrument 
adopted  in  accordance  with  the  ordinary  legislative  procedure  such  as  the  Basic 
Regulation or the TMR.  

It  is  also  possible  to  further  distinguish  between  Commission  acts  (in  the  form  of 
regulations or decisions) that are adopted to give effect to the EAFM in accordance with 
the CFP in terms of:  

(a)  minimising  impacts  on  non-target  fish  species  (in  connection  for  example  with  the 

landing obligation); and  

(b)  those that are adopted to minimise broader ecosystem effects including measures to 
give  effect  to  EU  environmental  law  (such  as  the  declaration  of  closed  or  restricted 
areas to protect habitats, cetaceans or other non-fish species).  

It  is  also  possible  to  distinguish  between  measures  contained  in  Commission  acts 
(regulations or decisions) by reference to the actors involved in the initiation of the process.  

These could include:  

(a)  measures adopted on the initiative of the EC;  
(b)  measures adopted on the initiative of a single Member State; 
(c)  measures adopted on the joint recommendation of two or more Member States (and 
which  might  include  recommendations  made  on  the  basis  of  regionalisation  in 
accordance  with  article  18,  such  as  the  Scheveningen  Group  or  by  a  regional  seas 
convention). 

Measures adopted by a Member State 

As outlined above, the other major type of EAFM measure will be contained in legislation 
adopted by a Member State in accordance with the limited scope permitted by the Basic 
Regulation namely:  

53 

 
 
 
The implementation of ecosystem-based approaches applied to fisheries management under the 
Common Fisheires Policy 

(a)  to  establish  conservation  measures  that  are  necessary  for  compliance  with  EU 
environmental legislation in accordance with the article 11 of the Basic Regulation. As 
noted above such measures can only be adopted within part of the territorial sea in 
which the fishing vessels of other Member States do not have access;  

(b)  as emergency measures on evidence of a serious threat to the conservation of marine 
biological  resources  or  to  the  marine  ecosystem  relating  to  fishing  activities  in 
accordance with article 13 of the Basic Regulation; or  

(c)  to establish non-discriminatory measures for the conservation and management of fish 
stocks  and  the  maintenance  or  improvement  of  the  conservation  status  of  marine 
ecosystems within its territorial sea if the EU  has not adopted measures addressing 
conservation and management specifically for that area or specifically addressing the 
problem identified by the Member State concerned in accordance with article 20.  

54 

 
 
 
The implementation of ecosystem-based approaches applied to fisheries management under the 
Common Fisheires Policy 

ANNEX  2:  FISHERIES  IDENTIFIED  FOR  EACH  GEOGRAPHICAL 
AREA 

Below are listed the fisheries identified in Task 2 (highlighted in blue) for each gear type 
(highlighted in green) in each geographical area (highlighted in yellow). The métiers level 
6  involved  in  each  fishery  are  identified  by  the  code  combining  the  country,  the  métier 
level 6 code (or gear description when not available), the part of the area where the fishery 
is conducted and the quarters of the year. 

Baltic Sea 
demersal fisheries with otter trawls 
cod targeting fishery (possibly combined with flatfish) in the Baltic Proper 

Cod 

cod and flounder 

SWE_OTB_DEF_>=105_Baltic_Q1-Q4 
DNK_OTB_DEF_>=105_1_120_Baltic_ 
FIN_OTB_DEF_>105_Southern Baltic_Q1-4 
DNK_OTB_MCD_90-119_0_0_Skagerrak-
Kattegat_ 
EST_OTTER >=105_Baltic Proper_Q1-2 
GER_Otter  mesh  >90mm_Western  and  central 
Baltic_ 
LVA_OTB_DEF_>=105_1_120_Baltic 
Proper_Q1-4 
POL_OTB_DEF_>=105_1_120_Baltic_Q1-Q4 

mixed fisheries on demersal fish in the Skagerrak-Kattegat 
plaice dab and flounder 

plaice sole brill 

saithe witch haddock 

witch monkfish hake 
Demersal fish (saithe,  haddock, witch 
flounder, cod) 

Mixed Nephrops and demersal fish 
plaice fishery in the Skagerrak-Kattegat 

DNK_OTB_DEF_>=105_1_120_Baltic_ 
DNK_OTB_MCD_90-119_0_0_Skagerrak-
Kattegat_ 
DNK_OTB_MCD_90-119_0_0_Skagerrak-
Kattegat_ 
DNK_OTB_MCD_90-119_0_0_Skagerrak-
Kattegat_ 
SWE_OTB_DEF_>=120_0_0_Skagerrak, 
Kattegat_Q1-Q4 
SWE_OTB_MCD_90-119_Skagerrak, 
Kattegat_Q1-Q4 

Nephrops fishery in the Skagerrak-Kattegat 

DNK_OTB_MCD_90-119_0_0_Skagerrak-
Kattegat_ 

SWE_OTB_CRU_70-89_2_35_Skagerrak, 
Kattegat_Q1-Q4 
DNK_OTB_MCD_90-119_0_0_Skagerrak-
Kattegat_ 

northern prawn fishery in the Skagerrak-Kattegat 

prawn  

SWE_OTB_CRU_32-69_0_0_Skagerrak, 
Kattegat_Q1-Q4 
SWE_OTB_CRU_32-69_2_22_Skagerrak, 
Kattegat_Q1-Q4 

pelagic fisheries using otter trawl 

monospecific herring and sprat fisheries and mixed herring/sprat fisheries 

herring 

POL_OTB_SPF_32-104_0_0_Baltic_Q1-Q4 
EST_OTTER 16-31_Gulf of Finland_Q1, Q4 

55 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The implementation of ecosystem-based approaches applied to fisheries management under the 
Common Fisheires Policy 

Herring and sprat 

sprat 
Danish seine fishery 
flounder fisheries 

SWE_OTB_SPF_16-104_0_0_Baltic_Q1-Q4 

GER_Otter mesh <90mm_Western Baltic_ 
POL_OTB_SPF_16-31_0_0_Baltic_Q1-Q4 

LVA_SDN_DEF_>=105_1_110_Latvian 
coast_Q2-4 
EST_DEM_SEINE >=105_Estonian coast_Q2-3 

dredge fisheries 
monospecific cockles, mussels, and oysters fisheries 

Cockles 
Mussels 
oysters 

fyke net fishery 
eelpout, round goby 

DNK_DRB_MOL_0_0_0_Baltic_ 
DNK_DRB_MOL_0_0_0_Baltic_ 
DNK_DRB_MOL_0_0_0_Baltic_ 

LVA_FYK_FWS_>0_0_0_Latvian coast_Q2-3 

pelagic fisheries using mid-water trawls 
herring fishery 

FIN_OTM_<16_0_0_SD 29-30_Q1-4 
POL_OTM_SPF_32-104_0_0_Baltic_Q1-Q4 
GER_OTM_SPF_32-54_0_0_Western  Baltic_Q1 
and Q4 
FIN_OTM_SPF_16-104_Bothnian 
Bothnian Bay_Q1-4 

Sea 

and 

mixed sprat and herring fishery 

sprat fishery 

sandeel fishery 

DNK_PTM_SPF_16-104_0_0_Baltic_ 
FIN_OTM_<16_0_0_Gulf of Finland_Q1-4 
SWE_OTM_SPF_16-104_0_0_Baltic_Q1-Q4 
GER_OTM_SPF_16-31_0_0_Western and central 
Baltic_Q1 
LVA_OTM_SPF_16-31_0_0_Baltic  Proper  and 
Gulf of Riga_Q1-4 
SWE_OTM_SPF_16-31_0_0_Skagerrak, 
Kattegat_Q1-Q4 
DNK_OTM_SPF_16-31_0_0_Skagerrak-
Kattegat_ 
SWE_OTM_SPF_32-69_0_0_Skagerrak, 
Kattegat_Q1-Q4 
EST_PEL_TRAWL <16_Gulf of Finland_Q4 

EST_PEL_TRAWL 16-31_Estonian EEZ_Q1-4 

FIN_OTM_<16_0_0_Bothnian Bay_Q1-4 

DNK_PTM_SPF_16-104_0_0_Baltic Sea_ 

DNK_PTM_SPF_32-89_0_0_Baltic Sea_ 

FIN_OTM_SPF_16-104_Gulf of Finland _Q1-4 

POL_OTM_SPF_16-31_0_0_Baltic_Q1-Q4 

POL_OTM_DEF_<16_0_0_Baltic_Q1-Q4 

56 

 
 
 
  
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The implementation of ecosystem-based approaches applied to fisheries management under the 
Common Fisheires Policy 

cod fishery 

LVA_OTM_DEF_>=105_1_120_Baltic_Q2, Q4 

pots fisheries 
herring fisheries mixed with other species 
Cod, eel and herring fishery 

herring 

Herring and perch 
herring,  mixed 
fishery and salmon 
Herring, round goby 

freshwater  species 

GER_pots_Western Baltic_ 
EST_POTS 31-49_Estonian coast_Q2 

EST_POTS NONE_Estonian coast_Q2 

FIN_Pots_SD 29-31_Q1-4 
LVA_FPO_FWS_>0_0_0_Latvian coast_Q1-4 

mixed crustaceans fresh water fish fisheries 

Nephrops, edible crab 

ana/catadromous fish fisheries 
eel, salmon 

pelagic fisheries using purse seine 
mixed fisheries dominated by herring 

Herring and sprat 
herring, 
whitefishes nei 

freshwater 

bream 

and 

SWE_Pots_and_traps_Skagerrak,  Kattegat_Q1-
Q4 

SWE_Pots_and_traps_Baltic_Q1-Q4 

SWE_PS_SPF_16-69_Skagerrak,  Kattegat_Q1-
Q4 

FIN_Purse seines_SD 29 and 32_Q1-4 

gillnet and trammel nets fisheries targeting demersal fish 
cod fisheries 

Mixed cod/flatfish fishery 

Monospecific flatfish fisheries 

plaice 
sole 

flounder 
turbot 
mixed and other fisheries 

mixed demersal fish 
round goby 

DNK_GNS_DEF_110-156_0_0_Baltic_ 
LVA_GNS_DEF_110-156_0_0_Baltic  Proper  and 
Latvian coast_Q1-4 
LVA_GNS_FWS_>0_0_0_Latvian coast_Q1-4 

GER_Trammel  net  mesh  >90mm_Western 
Baltic_ 
GER_Gillnet mesh >90mm_Western Baltic_ 
SWE_GNS_GTR_DEF_Skagerrak, 
Baltic Sea_Q1-Q4 

Kattegat, 

DNK_GNS_DEF_110-156_0_0_Baltic_ 
DNK_GNS_DEF_110-156_0_0_Baltic_ 

DNK_GNS_DEF_110-156_0_0_Baltic_ 
LVA_GNS_DEF_>=157_0_0_Latvian coast_Q2 

POL_GNS_DEF_110-156_0_0_Baltic_Q1-Q4 
LVA_GNS_DEF_60-70_0_0_Latvian coast_Q2 

gillnet and trammel nets fisheries targeting pelagic fish 
herring fisheries 

EST_GILL 31-49_Estonian coast_Q2-3 

GER_Gillnet mesh <90mm_Western Baltic_ 

57 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The implementation of ecosystem-based approaches applied to fisheries management under the 
Common Fisheires Policy 

GER_Trammel  net  mesh  <90mm_Western 
Baltic_ 
FIN_GNS_10-30_Bothnian_Q1-4 
SWE_GNS_SPF_Skagerrak, Kattegat, Baltic_Q1-
Q4 
LVA_GNS_SPF_16-109_0_0_Latvian coast_Q1-2 
POL_GNS_SPF_32-109_0_0_Baltic_Q1-Q4 
FIN_GNS_10-30_Gulf of Finland_Q1-4 

DNK_GNS_DEF_110-156_0_0_Baltic_ 

GER_longlines_Western Baltic_ 

POL_LLS_DEF_0_0_0_Baltic_Q1-Q4 

lump sucker fishery 

longlines 
mixed demersal fish 
Cod and eel fishery 

mixed demersal fish 

North Sea 
beam trawlers 
plaice, sole and mixed plaice and sole fisheries 

plaice 

plaice and sole 

sole  
shrimp fishery 

BEL_TBB_DEF_>=120_Central_Q3, 
Q4 
SCO_TBB_DEF_>=120_0_0_Central_
Q2, Q3, Q4 
UK(Eng+Whl)_TBB_DEF_>=120_0_0
 _central, eastern and 
southern_Q2+3 
NLD_TBB_DEF_>120_0_0_Northeast
ern_Q1-4 
SCO_TBB_DEF_100-
119_0_0_central_Q2, Q3, Q4 
UK(Eng+Whl)_TBB_DEF_100-
119_0_0 _central and southern_all Q 
SCO_TBB_DEF_80-
89_0_0_central_Q1, Q2, Q4 
NLD_TBB_DEF_90-
119_0_0_central_Q2-4 
UK(Eng+Whl)_TBB_MCF_70-
99_0_0 _central and southern_Q1,4 
GER_Beam trawl mesh > 120 
mm_central_ 
GER_Beam trawl mesh 100-
119mm_central_ 
NLD_TBB_DEF_80-89_0_0_central 
and southern_Q1-4 
GER_TBB_DEF_80-90_0_0_central 
and southern_ 
BEL_TBB_DEF_70-99_southern_all Q 

UK(Eng+Whl)_TBB_CRU_<16_0_0 _
southern_all Q 
NLD_TBB_CRU_13-
31_0_0_southern_Q1-4 

58 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The implementation of ecosystem-based approaches applied to fisheries management under the 
Common Fisheires Policy 

mussels fishery 

BEL_TBB_CRU_14-31_southern_Q3, 
Q4 
UK(Eng+Whl)_TBB_CRU_16-
31_0_0 _southern_all Q 
GER_TBB_CRU_16-32_0_0_eastern_ 

GER_Beam trawl mesh 33-
70mm_eastern_ 

otter trawl fisheries 
mixed demersal fish fisheries targeting gadoids and anglerfish 
cod saithe monkfish hake 
mixed Demersal fish (saithe, haddock, witch 
flounder, cod) 
mixed demersal fish fishery targeting whiting 
and cod 
mixed demersal fish species (cod/whiting, 
saithe, haddock, hake) 
mixed demersal including anglerfish haddock 
and whiting 
mixed demersal including whiting, haddock and 
anglerfish 
mixed demersal species including cod, pollock, 
whiting, haddock, anglerfish, ling, megrims 
Nephrops 

DNK_OTB_MCD_>=120_0_0__ 
SWE_OTB_DEF_>=120_0_0_Kattega
t, North Sea_Q1-Q4 
UK(Eng+Whl)_OTB_MCD_80-
99_0_0 _central_all Q 
UK(Eng+Whl)_OTB_DEF_>=120_0_0
 _northern_all Q 
SCO_OTB_MCD_70-
99_0_0_northern_all Q 
SCO_OTB_MCD_100-
119_0_0_northern_all Q 

mixed fishery 

witch monkfish hake 

saithe witch haddock 

Mixed Nephrops and demersal fish 
targeted cod and saithe fisheries 

Cod 

saithe 

Nephrops fisheries 

Northern prawn fisheries 

59 

SCO_OTB_DEF_>=120_0_0_norther
n_all Q 
UK(Eng+Whl)_OTB_MCF_32-
54_0_0 _northern_Q2-3 
DNK_OTB_MCD_90-
119_0_0_Kattegat_ 
DNK_OTB_MCD_90-
119_0_0_Kattegat_ 
SWE_OTB_MCD_90-
119_Kattegat_Q1-Q4 

NLD_Otter trawl mesh 
>120mm_southern_Q1-2 
GER_Otter trawl mesh 
>120mm_northern_ 

SWE_OTB_CRU_70-
89_2_35_Kattegat_Q1-Q4 

NIR_OTB_CRU_70-99_0_0__all Q 
DNK_OTB_MCD_>=120_0_0__ 
NIR_OTB_MCD_100-119_0_0__all Q 
SCO_OTB_MCD_100-
119_0_0_northern_all Q 
SCO_OTB_MCD_70-
99_0_0_northern_all Q 
DNK_OTB_MCD_90-
119_0_0_Kattegat_ 
BEL_OTB_MD_70-99_central_Q2-3 
NLD_Otter trawl 80-
89mm_central_Q2-3 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The implementation of ecosystem-based approaches applied to fisheries management under the 
Common Fisheires Policy 

Norway pout fishery 

plaice fishery 

plaice 

Plaice and Nephrops 

plaice sole brill 
sandeel fishery 

Shrimp fishery 

squid fisheries 

monospecific herring and mackerel fisheries 

herring 

mackerel 

SWE_OTB_CRU_32-
69_0_0_Kattegat_Q1-Q4 
SWE_OTB_CRU_32-
69_2_22_Kattegat_Q1-Q4 

DNK_OTB_DEF_<16_0_0__ 
DNK_OTB_DEF_16-31_0_0__ 

SCO_OTB_DEF_>=120_0_0_central 
and southern_All 
UK(Eng+Whl)_OTB_DEF_100-
119_0_0 _southern and central_all Q 
DNK_OTB_MCD_>=120_0_0__ 
DNK_OTB_MCD_90-
119_0_0_Kattegat_ 
NLD_Otter trawl 80-
89mm_central_Q1 and Q4 
NLD_Otter trawl 90-
119mm_central_Q2-3 
NLD_Otter trawl mesh 
>120mm_Central Eastern_Q2-4 
GER_Otter trawl mesh 100-
119mm_central_ 
GER_Otter trawl mesh 80-
99mm_central_ 
DNK_OTB_MCD_90-
119_0_0_Kattegat_ 

DNK_OTB_DEF_<16_0_0__ 

SWE_OTB_DEF_<16_0_0__Q2 
DNK_OTB_DEF_16-31_0_0__ 
SCO_OTB_MPD_<16_0_0_central_Q
2 

DNK_OTB_SPF_<16_0_0__ 
GER_Otter trawl mesh 
<16mm_central_ 

UK(Eng+Whl)_OTB_CRU_16-
31_0_0 _southern_all Q 
NLD_Otter trawl mesh 16-
31_southern_Q3-4 

SCO_OTB_SPF_32-
54_0_0_Northern_Q3, Q4 

SCO_OTB_SPF_32-
54_0_0_Northern_Q3, Q4 
DNK_OTB_SPF_32-69_0_0__ 
SCO_OTB_SPF_32-
54_0_0_Northern_Q1, Q4 
DNK_OTB_SPF_32-69_0_0__ 

Danish seine fisheries 
monospecific plaice and haddock fisheries and mixed gadoid and flatfish fisheries 

60 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The implementation of ecosystem-based approaches applied to fisheries management under the 
Common Fisheires Policy 

haddock 

haddock, whiting and plaice fishery 

whiting, cod, haddock hake, megrim and pollock 

plaice 

demersal seine fisheries 

demersal fish fisheries 

NIR_SDN_DEF_>=120_0_0_Norther
n_Q1, Q3, Q4 
UK(Eng+Whl)_SDN_DEF_>=120_0_
0 _Northern_Q2,3 
SCO_SDN_DEF_>=120_0_0_Norther
n_All 
UK(Eng+Whl)_SDN_DEF_100-
119_0_0 _Northern_Q2,3 

Saithe 

Cod and plaice 

NLD_Demersal seine mesh 
120mm_Northern_Q1-4 
GER_Demersal seine mesh 
>120mm__ 
mixed small pelagic and demersal fish and cephalopods fishery 
Mixed fishery (pelagic and demersal fish and 
cephalopods) 
Mixed fishery (pelagic and demersal fish and 
squids) 

NLD_Demersal seine mesh 90-
119mm_eastern_Q1-4 
NLD_Demersal seine mesh 80-
89mm_southern_Q1-4 

dredge fisheries 
diverse shellfish fisheries 
great Atlantic scallop 

great Atlantic scallop 
Mussels 
Razor shell fishery 

mid-water trawling fisheries 
herring fishery 

mackerel fishery 

SCO_DRB_MOL_0_0_0_northern_All 
UK(Eng+Whl)_DRB_MOL_0_0_0 _so
uthern_allQ 
GER_dredge_eastern_ 
NLD_Dredge_southeast_Q1-4 

FRA_OTM_SPF_32-
54_0_0_northern_Q23 
GER_OTM_SPF_32-
54_0_0_northern_Q3 
NIR_OTM_SPF_32-
54_0_0_northern_Q3 
NLD_OTM_SPF_32-
54_0_0_northern_Q3 
SCO_OTM_SPF_32-
54_0_0_northern_Q2, Q3 
UK(Eng+Whl)_OTM_SPF_32-
54_0_0_northern_Q3 
SWE_OTM_SPF_16-
31_0_0_Kattegat_Q1-Q4 
SWE_OTM_SPF_32-
69_0_0_Kattegat_Q1-Q4 

IRL_PTM_SPF_32-54_0_0 and 
/PTM_SPF_100-
119_0_0_northern_Q1 and Q4 
NIR_OTM_SPF_32-
54_0_0_northern_Q1, Q4 

61 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The implementation of ecosystem-based approaches applied to fisheries management under the 
Common Fisheires Policy 

sandeel fishery 

sprat fishery 

pots fisheries 
crustaceans and molluscs fisheries 
Edible Crab and lobster 

Edible Crab and lobster 

Edible crabs and whelks  

edible crabs, Nephrops and European lobsters 

edible crab and Nephrops 

whelks 

purse seine fisheries 
small pelagic fish fisheries 

Herring, mackerel, sprat 

mackerel 

Scottish seine fisheries 
mixed demersal fish fisheries  

gadoids 

plaice 
mackerel fishery 

NLD_OTM_SPF_32-
54_0_0_northern_Q1 and Q4 
SCO_OTM_SPF_32-
54_0_0_northern_Q1, Q4 
UK(Eng+Whl)_OTM_SPF_32-
54_0_0_northern_Q1 and Q4 
FRA_OTM_SPF_80-
89_0_0_northern_Q2-3 

DNK_PTM_SPF_16-31_0_0__ 

SWE_OTM_SPF_16-31_0_0__Q1-Q4 

DNK_PTM_SPF_16-31_0_0__ 

GER_OTM_SPF_16-31_0_0__Q3 
NLD_OTM_SPF_16-
31_0_0_Southern_Q3-4 
DNK_OTM_SPF_16-31_0_0   
_Kattegat_ 

GER_pots_eastern_ 

NLD_Pots_Southeastern_Q1-3 
UK(Eng+Whl)_FPO_CRU_0_0_0 __All 
Q 
SCO_FPO_CRU_0_0_0_northern_All 
Q 
SWE_Pots_and_traps_Kattegat_Q1-
Q4 
SCO_FPO_CRU_0_0_0_southern_All 
Q 

SWE_PS_SPF_16-69_Kattegat, North 
Sea_Q1-Q4 
SCO_PS_SPF_32-
54_0_0_northern_Q3, Q4 

DNK_SSC_DEF_>=120_0_0__ 

DNK_SSC_DEF_>=120_0_0__ 

BEL_SSC_DEF_70-99_southern_Q2 
and Q3 

gillnet and trammel net fisheries 
monospecific gillnet fisheries on anglerfish, cod and sole 

Anglerfish 

SCO_GNS_DEF_>=220_0_0_norther
n_All 

GER_Gillnet_northern_ 

62 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
 
The implementation of ecosystem-based approaches applied to fisheries management under the 
Common Fisheires Policy 

Cod 

Sole 

mixed demersal fish fisheries  

Mixed demersal fish (cod and flatfish) 

mixed Demersal fish (cod, flatfish) 

Mixed demersal fishery 
mixed demersal fish fisheries and crustaceans of cephalopods 
mixed fishery dominated by sole/thornback ray 
and cuttlefish 
mixed fishery for flatfish and demersal 
elasmobranchs 

Mixed lobster and demersal fish 

small pelagic fish fisheries 
Herring, mackerel 

longline fisheries 
hake fishery 

mackerel fishery 

hooks and lines fishery 

cod and mackerel fisheries 

Cod, mackerel 

West of Scotland 
otter trawl fisheries 
deep sea fishery 

Deep sea species 
mixed demersal fish fisheries 

haddock, hake, anglerfish 

Pollock hake 
Mixed demersal 
fishery/80%/ANF/HAD/HKE/LEZ/NEP/WHG 

63 

GER_Gillnet _northern_ 
SCO_GNS_DEF_150-
219_0_0_northern_Q2 
GER_Gillnet_southern_ 
NLD_Gillnet mesh 100-
109_southern_Q2-3 
NLD_Gillnet mesh 90-
99_southern_Q1-3 

NLD_Trammel net 110-
149mm_southern_Q1-4 
SWE_GNS_GTR_DEF_Kattegat_Q1-
Q4 
NLD_Gillnet mesh 110-
149_southern_Q1-4 

UK(Eng+Whl)_GNS_DEF_80-
89_0_0 _southern_allQ 
UK(Eng+Whl)_GNS_DEF_100-
109_0_0 _central and southern_All Q 
NLD_Gillnet mesh 
>150_souhtern_Q1-2 

SWE_GNS_SPF_Kattegat_Q1-Q4 

FRA_O15M_LLS_DEF_NONE_0_0_nor
thern_Q1-4 
SCO_LLS_FIF_0_0_0_nothern_All 

SCO_LLS_FIF_0_0_0_northern_Q1, 
Q2, Q4 

SWE_Hook_and_lines_Kattegat_Q1-
Q4 

FRA_OTB_DEF_sup100_0_0__Q1-
4 

NIR_OTB_DEF_>=120_0_0__Q1, 
Q4 
FRA_OTB_DEF_sup100_0_0__Q1-
4 

IRL_OTTER-100-119__Q1-4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The implementation of ecosystem-based approaches applied to fisheries management under the 
Common Fisheires Policy 

Mixed demersal 
fishery/89%/ANF/HAD/HKE/LEZ/NEP/WHG 
mixed demersal species including cod, pollock, 
whiting, haddock, anglerfish, ling, megrims 
Nephrops 
Nephrops (and crab) fisheries 

Nephrops 

Edible crab 
Cephalopods fishery 

squid 
Small pelagic fish fisheries 
sprat 

mackerel 

Blue whiting 

Danish seine fishery 
haddock 

Dredge fishery 
Scallops 

great Atlantic scallop 

mid-water trawling fisheries 
monospecific small pelagic fish fisheries 

Blue whiting 

herring 
horse mackerel 

Mackerel 

64 

IRL_OTTER-70-99__Q1-4 

SCO_OTB_DEF_>=120_0_0__All 

SCO_OTB_CRU_70-99_0_0__All 
NIR_OTB_MCD_100-119_0_0__All 

SCO_OTB_MCD_100-119_0_0__All 
SCO_OTB_MCD_70-99_0_0__All 
SCO_OTB_CRU_0_0_0__Q3, Q4 

SCO_OTB_CRU_55-69_0_0__Q2, 
Q3 

SCO_OTB_MPD_16-31_0_0__Q4 
SCO_OTB_SPF_32-54_0_0__Q1, 
Q4 
SCO_OTB_SPF_32-54_0_0__Q1, 
Q2 

NIR_SDN_DEF_>=120_0_0__Q1, 
Q3, Q4 

SCO_DRB_MOL_0_0_0__All 

FRA_OTM_SPF_32-54_0_0__Q1 
(WI), Q2 (WS) 
GER_OTM_SPF_32-54_0_0__Q2 
NLD_OTM_SPF_32-54_0_0__Q2 
SCO_OTM_SPF_55-69_0_0__Q3 
NIR_OTM_SPF_32-54_0_0__Q1 
IRL_PTM_SPF_32-54_0_0 and 
/PTM_SPF_100-119_0_0__Q1 and 
Q4 
FRA_OTM_SPF_32-54_0_0__ 
Q1&4  
GER_OTM_SPF_32-54_0_0__Q1 
and 4 
NIR_OTM_SPF_32-54_0_0__Q1, 
Q4 
NLD_OTM_SPF_32-54_0_0__Q1 
and Q4 
SCO_OTM_SPF_32-54_0_0__Q1, 
Q4 
UK(Eng+Whl)_OTM_SPF_32-
54_0_0__Q1 and Q4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The implementation of ecosystem-based approaches applied to fisheries management under the 
Common Fisheires Policy 

sprat 

Pots Fishery 
whelks 
Edible crab 

Edible crabs and whelks  
edible crabs, Nephrops and European lobsters 
whelks 

gilnets fishery 
Anglerfish fishery 

longline fishery 
hake fishery 

SCO_OTM_SPF_55-69_0_0__Q1, 
Q4 
SCO_OTM_SPF_<16_0_0__Q4 
SCO_OTM_SPF_16-31_0_0__Q4 

NIR_FPO_CRU_0_0_0__All 
UK(Eng+Whl)_FPO_CRU_0_0_0 __
All Q 
SCO_FPO_CRU_0_0_0__All 

NIR_FPO_CRU_0_0_0__Q1, Q2 

SCO_GNS_DEF_>=220_0_0__All 
SCO_GNS_DEF_100-
109_0_0__Q2, Q3 
SCO_GNS_DEF_80-89_0_0__Q2 
UK(Eng+Whl)_GNS_MCD_>=220_
0_0 __all Q 

ESP_LLS_DEF_0_0_0__Q1, Q2, 
Q3, Q4 
UK(Eng+Whl)_LLS_FIF_0_0_0 __a
ll Q 

SCO_LLS_FIF_0_0_0__All 

Rockall 
otter trawl fisheries 

mixed demersal fish fisheries with anglerfish haddock hake and megrims 

IRL_OTTER-100-119__Q1-4 
IRL_OTTER-70-99__Q1-4 

gillnet fishery 
anglerfish fishery 

UK(Eng+Whl)_GNS_MCD_>=220_0_0 __all Q 

West of Ireland 
otter trawl fisheries 
mixed demersal fisheries targeting mainly anglerfish, haddock, megrim and hake 

SCO_OTB_MCF_80-99_0_0__Q1, Q2, Q4 
SCO_OTB_MCF_100-119_0_0__all Q 
IRL_OTTER>=120__Q1-4 
IRL_OTTER-100-119__Q1-4 

65 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The implementation of ecosystem-based approaches applied to fisheries management under the 
Common Fisheires Policy 

Nephrops fisheries 

squid fisheries 

mackerel fishery 

Danish Seine fisheries 
gadoid fisheries 
haddock 

whiting 

IRL_OTTER-70-99__Q1-4 

ESP_OTB_DEF_70-99_0_0__all Q 

NIR_OTB_MCD_100-119_0_0__all Q 
SCO_OTB_MCF_100-119_0_0__Q2, Q3 

SCO_OTB_MCF_100-119_0_0__Q1, Q4 

SCO_OTB_SPF_32-54_0_0__Q1, Q4 

NIR_SDN_DEF_100-119_0_0__all Q 

NIR_SDN_DEF_100-119_0_0__all Q 

Demersal Seine fisheries 
gadoid fisheries with cod haddock hake megrim whiting 

IRL_DEM_SEINE-100-119__Q1-4 
IRL_DEM_SEINE->=120__Q1 & 4 

Dredge fishery 
scallops fishery 
great Atlantic scallop 

NIR_DRB_MOL_0_0_0__all Q 

mid-water trawling fisheries 

tuna fishery 
Albacore 
monospecific small pelagic fish fisheries 
Boarfish 

IRL_PTM_LPF_?120_0_0__Q3 

IRL_PTM_SPF_32-54_0_0__Q3-Q4 
IRL_PTM_SPF_32-54_0_0__Q1-2 
FRA_OTM_SPF_32-54_0_0__Q2 

Blue whiting 

Herring 

Horse mackerel 

Mackerel 

GER_OTM_SPF_32-54_0_0__Q2 
NIR_OTM_SPF_32-54_0_0__Q1 
NLD_OTM_SPF_32-54_0_0__Q2 
SCO_OTM_SPF_32-54_0_0__Q1 
IRL_PTM_SPF_32-54_0_0__Q4 
IRL_PTM_SPF_32-54_0_0__Q1 

NLD_OTM_SPF_32-54_0_0__Q1 and Q4 
UK(Eng+Whl)_OTM_SPF_32-54_0_0__Q1 and Q4 
FRA_OTM_SPF_32-54_0_0__Q1&4 
GER_OTM_SPF_32-54_0_0__Q1 and 4 
NIR_OTM_SPF_32-54_0_0__Q1, Q4 
SCO_OTM_SPF_32-54_0_0__Q1, Q4 

SCO_OTM_SPF_55-69_0_0__Q1, Q4 

pots fisheries 
crabs and whelks fishery 

66 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The implementation of ecosystem-based approaches applied to fisheries management under the 
Common Fisheires Policy 

IRL_POTS-NONE__ 

gillnet fisheries 
monospecific fisheries on anglerfish and on hake 

Anglerfish 

Hake 

SCO_GNS_DEF_>=220_0_0__All 
SCO_GNS_DEF_80-89_0_0__Q2 
SCO_GNS_DEF_100-109_0_0__Q1, Q4 

FRA_GNS_DEM_110-149_0_0__Q1 Q4 

mixed fishery on gadoids 
Mixed demersal  

IRL_GILL-120-219__Q1-2 

longline fishery 
hake fisheries 

Irish Sea 
beam trawlers 
sole and skate fisheries 
skates 
sole  

otter trawl fisheries 
Nephrops fisheries 

ESP_LLS_DEF_0_0_0__Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4 
UK(Eng+Whl)_LLS_FIF_0_0_0 __all Q 
SCO_LLS_FIF_0_0_0__All 

BEL_TBB_DEF_70-99__all Q 
BEL_TBB_DEF_70-99__all Q 

NIR_OTB_CRU_<55_0_0__Q1,2,4 
UK(Eng+Whl)_OTB_CRU_70-79_0_0 __all Q 
NIR_OTB_CRU_70-99_0_0__all Q 
SCO_OTB_CRU_70-99_0_0__all Q 

mixed demersal fish fisheries dominated by hake haddock and anglerfish 
haddock, hake, anglerfish  NIR_OTB_DEF_>=120_0_0__Q1, Q4 
hake and pollack 
Mixed demersal fishery 
Mixed demersal fishery 
haddock 

NIR_OTB_MCD_100-119_0_0__Q2, Q3, Q4 
IRL_OTTER-100-119__Q1-4 
IRL_OTTER-70-99__Q1-4 
NIR_OTB_MCD_100-119_0_0__all Q 

danish seine fisheries 
haddock fisheries 

dredge fisheries 
diverse shellfish fisheries 
great Atlantic scallop 
Mussels 

queen scallop 

NIR_SDN_DEF_>=120_0_0__Q1, Q3, Q4 
NIR_SDN_DEF_100-119_0_0__all Q 

NIR_DRB_MOL_0_0_0__all Q 
NIR_DRB_MOL_0_0_0__Q3 
NIR_DRB_MOL_0_0_0__all Q 
SCO_DRB_MOL_0_0_0__all Q 

67 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The implementation of ecosystem-based approaches applied to fisheries management under the 
Common Fisheires Policy 

IRL_DREDGE-NONE__Q1-2 

mid-water trawling fisheries 
herring fisheries 

NIR_OTM_SPF_32-54_0_0__Q3, Q4 

pot fisheries 

crab and whelk 
Edible crab 
Edible crabs and whelks  
Edible crabs and whelks   UK(Eng+Whl)_FPO_CRU_0_0_0 __All Q 

NIR_FPO_CRU_0_0_0__all Q 
SCO_FPO_CRU_0_0_0__all Q 

set gillnet fisheries 

herring fishery 

mixed fishery for flatfish and demersal elasmobranchs 

NIR_GNS_SPF_50-59_0_0__Q4 

UK(Eng+Whl)_GNS_DEF_100-109_0_0 __All Q 

English Channel 
beam trawl fisheries 
diverse monospecific and mixed demersal fish fisheries 
Anglerfish 
mixed fishery 

BEL_TBB_DEF_70-99__all Q 
UK(Eng+Whl)_TBB_MCF_<16_0_0 __all Q 

mixed fishery 
sole  

otter trawler fisheries 
cuttlefish fishery 

cuttlefish 

Cuttlefish, gurnard, rays 

cuttlefish, sharks, plaice 
mixed demersal fish fisheries 
mixed demersal species  

mixed demersal species  
mixed pelagic fish fisheries 

Mackerel and sardine 

sardine and sprat 

Danish seine fisheries 
mixed demersal fisheries 

UK(Eng+Whl)_TBB_MCF_70-99_0_0 __all Q 
BEL_TBB_DEF_70-99__all Q 

SCO_OTB_MCF_100-119_0_0_Western 
channel_Q1, Q3, Q4 
UK(Eng+Whl)_OTB_MCF_70-99_0_0 _Western 
channel_all Q 
SCO_OTB_MCF_80-99_0_0_Western 
channel_Q1, Q3, Q4 
FRA_OTB_DEF_80-89_0_0_Western 
channel_Q1-4 
FRA_OTB_DEF_80-89_0_0_Estearn 
Channel_Q1-4 

SCO_OTB_MCF_100-119_0_0__All 
UK(Eng+Whl)_OTB_MCF_<16_0_0 _western 
English_all Q 

FRA_OTB_DEF_inf70_0_0_English 
Channel_Q1-4 
UK(Eng+Whl)_OTB_SPF_16-31_0_0 _western 
Channel_Q4 

68 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The implementation of ecosystem-based approaches applied to fisheries management under the 
Common Fisheires Policy 

Mixed fishery  
mixed pelagic fisheries 

Sardine anchovy 

UK(Eng+Whl)_SDN_MCF_80-89_0_0 _Eastern 
channel_Q2,3 

UK(Eng+Whl)_SDN_MPD_<16_0_0 _Western 
Channel_Q4,1 

demersal seine fisheries 
Mixed fishery (pelagic and demersal fish and cephalopods) 

NLD_Dem 
channel_Q1-4 
NLD_Dem 
channel_Q1-4 

seine 

90-119mm_Eastern 

seine 

80-89mm_Eastern 

dredge fisheries 
scallops fisheries 

other bivals fisheries 
Cockles 

Mussels 
seaweed fisheries 

mid-water trawling fisheries 

herring fisheries 

sardine fishery 

Sardine  

sardine and sprat 

anchovy and sardine 
other mixed small pelagic fish fisheries 

Mackerel, whiting 

mixed fishery 

mixed fishery 

SCO_DRB_MOL_0_0_0__All 

FRA_DRB_MOL_80-99_0_0__Q1 Q4 
FRA_DRB_MOL_inf32_0_0__Q1 Q4 
IRL_DREDGE-NONE__Q1-2 
BEL_DRB_MOL__All year 

FRA_DRB_MOL_inf32_0_0__Q1-4 

FRA_DRB_MOL_80-99_0_0__Q2 Q3 

FRA_DRB_MOL_32-54_0_0__Q2-3 
FRA_DRB_MOL_80-99_0_0__Q2 Q3 

FRA_OTM_SPF_32-54_0_0__Q4 
GER_OTM_SPF_32-54_0_0_eastern 
Channel_Q4 
NLD_OTM_SPF_32-54_0_0_eastern 
Channel_Q4 
UK(Eng+Whl)_OTM_SPF_32-54_0_0_eastern 
Channel_Q4 

GER_OTM_SPF_16-31_0_0_Western 
Channel_Q4 
NLD_OTM_SPF_16-31_0_0_Western 
Channel_Q3-4 
UK(Eng+Whl)_OTM_SPF_16-31_0_0 _Western 
Channel_all Q 
UK(Eng+Whl)_OTM_SPF_16-31_0_0 _Western 
Channel_all Q 

FRA_OTM_SPF_80-89_0_0_Western 
Channel_all Q 
UK(Eng+Whl)_OTM_SPF_<16_0_0 _Western 
Channel_all Q 
UK(Eng+Whl)_OTM_SPF_55-69_0_0 _Western 
Channel_all Q 

69 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The implementation of ecosystem-based approaches applied to fisheries management under the 
Common Fisheires Policy 

other  

Seabreams, sharks 

FRA_OTM_SPF_80-89_0_0__Q2-3 

purse seine 
mixed pelagic fish 

pots fisheries 
crabs and whelks fisheries 
edible crab 

Edible crabs and whelks  
Spider crab 

scottish seine fisheries 
mullet fisheries 

gillnets fisheries 

monospecific demersal fish fisheries  

Anglerfish 

seabass 

mixed demersal fish fisheries  

fishery 

mixed fishery dominated by pollack 
mixed 
dominated 
sole/thornback ray and cuttlefish 
mixed fishery for demersal fish  
mixed fishery for flatfish and demersal 
elasmobranchs 

by 

pollack/ling/saithe 

sole / smoothhound 
monospecific pelagic fish fisheries  

Sardine  
mixed small pelagic fish fisheries  
mixed pelagic fish fishery dominated by 
pilchard 
mixed  pelagic  fishery  dominated  by 
herring 
crab fishery 
Spider crab 

set longlines fisheries 
monospecific fisheries  

UK(Eng+Whl)_PS_SPF_16-31_0_0 _western 
Channel_Q3 and 4 

FRA_FPO_CRU_NON_0_0__Q1-4 

UK(Eng+Whl)_FPO_CRU_0_0_0 __All Q 
FRA_FPO_CRU_NON_0_0__Q1-4 

BEL_SSC_DEF_70-99_Eastern Channel_Q1 and 
Q4 

SCO_GNS_DEF_100-109_0_0_western  
Channel_Q2, Q3 
UK(Eng+Whl)_GNS_MPD_60-69_0_0 _eastern 
Channel_Q4 and 1 
UK(Eng+Whl)_GNS_DEF_90-99_0_0 _eastern 
Channel_Q1,4 

UK(Eng+Whl)_GNS_DEF_150-
219_0_0 _western Channel (7e)_Q1 mainly 
UK(Eng+Whl)_GNS_DEF_80-89_0_0 _western 
Channel_all Q 
UK(Eng+Whl)_GNS_DEF_110-149_0_0 __all Q 

UK(Eng+Whl)_GNS_DEF_100-109_0_0 __All Q 
UK(Eng+Whl)_GNS_MPD_50-59_0_0 _western 
Channel_Q1 
UK(Eng+Whl)_GNS_DEF_90-99_0_0 _eastern 
Channel_Q2,3 

UK(Eng+Whl)_GNS_SPF_10-30_0_0 _western  
Channel_Q3,4 

UK(Eng+Whl)_GNS_SPF_31-49_0_0 _western 
Channel_all Q 
UK(Eng+Whl)_GNS_MPD_70-79_0_0 _eastern  
Channel_Q4 

FRA_GNS_CRU_sup110_0_0__Q1-4 

70 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The implementation of ecosystem-based approaches applied to fisheries management under the 
Common Fisheires Policy 

mackerel 
Sharks 

trammel nets fisheries 

monospecific fisheries  

plaice 

sharks 
mixed demersal fish fisheries 

anglerfish and hake fishery 

mixed demersal fishery 
mixed demersal fishery 

Plaice, sharks, cod 

Plaice, sharks, cod 
Rays, sharks, pollack 

seabass and smoothhound fishery 
Sole, plaice 

UK(Eng+Whl)_LLS_FIF_0_0_0 _western  
Channel_all Q 
FRA_U15M_LLS_DEF_NONE_0_0__Q1-4 

UK(Eng+Whl)_GTR_DEF_90-99_0_0 _eastern  
Channel_all Q 

FRA_GTR_DEM_90-99-0-0__Q1-4 

UK(Eng+Whl)_GTR_DEF_>=220_0_0 _ 
western Channel_all Q 
UK(Eng+Whl)_GTR_DEF_110-
149_0_0 _eastern Channel_all Q 
UK(Eng+Whl)_GTR_DEF_150-219_0_0 __all Q 
FRA_GTR_DEM_100-109-0-0_eastern 
Channel_Q2-3 
FRA_GTR_DEM_110-149_0_0_eastern 
Channel_Q2-3 
FRA_GTR_DEM_110-149_0_0__Q1-4 
UK(Eng+Whl)_GTR_DEF_100-
109_0_0 _eastern Channel_all Q 
FRA_GTR_DEM_90-99-0-0__Q1-4 

Celtic Sea  

beam trawl fisheries 
diverse demersal fish fisheries 
Anglerfish 
sole  
Mixed demersal fishery 

BEL_TBB_DEF_70-99_Celtic_Q1-4 
BEL_TBB_DEF_70-99_Celtic_Q2, Q4 
IRL_BEAM-70-99_North Celtic_Q1-4 

otter trawler fisheries 
mixed demersal fisheries targeting mainly anglerfish, megrim and hake 
Anglerfish, megrim, hake  UK(Eng+Whl)_OTB_DEF_100-119_0_0 _Celtic_all Q 
Anglerfish, megrim, hake  FRA_OTB_DEF_80-89_0_0_Celtic_Q1-4 
Anglerfish, megrim, hake  FRA_OTB_DEF_inf70_0_0_Celtic_Q1-4 
Anglerfish, megrim, hake  FRA_OTB_DEF_sup100_0_0_Celtic_Q1-4 

Anglerfish, rays, sharks 
Mixed demersal fishery  
Mixed demersal  
Mixed demersal  
Haddock, whiting, cod 
mixed fishery 

Nephrops fisheries 

FRA_OTB_DEF_sup100_0_0_Celtic_Q1-4 
IRL_OTTER>=120_North Celtic_Q1-4 
IRL_OTTER-100-119_Celtic_Q1-4 
IRL_OTTER-70-99_Celtic_Q1-4 
FRA_OTB_DEF_sup100_0_0_Celtic_Q1-4 
UK(Eng+Whl)_OTB_MCF_32-54_0_0 _Bristol Channel_Q2-3 

NIR_OTB_CRU_70-99_0_0_Celtic_All 
SCO_OTB_MCF_80-99_0_0_northern Celtic Sea_Q2-3 

Danish seine fisheries 
whitefish fisheries 

71 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The implementation of ecosystem-based approaches applied to fisheries management under the 
Common Fisheires Policy 

haddock 

whiting 

NIR_SDN_DEF_>=120_0_0_Celtic_Q1,3-4 

NIR_SDN_DEF_100-119_0_0_notrh celtic_Q1-4 

demersal seine fisheries 
mixed fisheries 
Mixed demersal fishery 
Mixed demersal fishery 

dredge fishery 
shellfish fishery 
Shellfish 

IRL_DEM_SEINE-100-119_North Celtic_Q1-4 
IRL_DEM_SEINE->=120_North Celtic_Q1 & 4 

IRL_DREDGE-NONE_North Celtic_Q1-2 

mid-water trawling fisheries 

monospecific herring and sprat fisheries 
Herring 
Sprat 

IRL_PTM_SPF_32-54_0_0_Celtic_Q3-4 
IRL_PTM_SPF_16-31_0_0_Celtic_Q1,4 

pots 
crab and whelk fishery 

Edible crabs and whelks   UK(Eng+Whl)_FPO_CRU_0_0_0 _Coastal fishery_All Q 
Edible crabs 

IRL_POTS-NONE_Celtic_ 

gillnet fisheries 
mixed demersal fish fisheries 
Anglerfish 

UK(Eng+Whl)_GNS_MCD_>=220_0_0 _shelf edge_all Q 

Mixed demersal fishery 
Mixed demersal fishery 

IRL_GILL-120-219_North Celtic_Q1-2 
UK(Eng+Whl)_GNS_DEF_110-149_0_0 _western Celtic_Q2-3 

Bay of Biscay 

beam trawl fishery 
sole 

BEL_TBB_DEF_70-99_Biscay_Q3 

otter trawler fisheries 
Mixed demersal fish with cephalopods fisheries 

FRA_OTB_DEF_70-79_0_0_Biscay_Q1-4 
FRA_OTB_DEF_inf70_0_0_Biscay_Q1-4 

Cephalopods and mullet 
Flatfish and squid 
Mixed demersal fish fisheries 
hake, megrim, anglerfish, 
pout etc. 
Mixed Nephrops and demersal fish fisheries 
Nephrops, hake 
Nephrops, hake 
hake fishery 
Hake 

ESP_OTB_DEF=>70_0_0_Biscay_Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4 

FRA_OTB_DEF_70-79_0_0_Biscay_Q2-3 
FRA_OTB_DEF_80-89_0_0_Biscay_Q1-4 

ESP_PTB_DEF=>70_0_0_Biscay_Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4 

mid-water trawling fisheries 

72 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The implementation of ecosystem-based approaches applied to fisheries management under the 
Common Fisheires Policy 

albacore tuna 

IRL_PTM_LPF_?120_0_0_Biscay_Q3 
FRA_OTM_LPF_100-119_0_0_Biscay_Q3-4 
FRA_OTM_LPF_100-119_0_0_Biscay_Q3-4 

small pelagics monospecific fisheries 
Anchovy 

FRA_OTM_SPF_16-31_0_0_Biscay_Q2-4 
FRA_OTM_SPF_32-54_0_0_Biscay_Q1-2 

mackerel 

Sardine  

GER_OTM_SPF_32-54_0_0_Biscay_Q1 and 4 
FRA_OTM_SPF_70-79_0_0_Biscay_Q3-4 
FRA_OTM_SPF_16-31_0_0_Biscay_Q2-4 
FRA_OTM_SPF_80-89_0_0_Biscay_Q2-3 

other fisheries mid-water trawling fisheries 

Hake 
Seabreams, mullets and 
jack mackerel 
Whiting, meagre 
cephalopods 

FRA_OTM_SPF_100-119_0_0_Biscay_Q1-4 

FRA_OTM_SPF_70-79_0_0_Biscay_Q3-4 

FRA_OTM_SPF_70-79_0_0_Biscay_Q3-4 

purse seine fisheries 
small pelagic fish monospecific fisheries 

Anchovy 

Sardine  
Sardine and Horse mackerel  ESP_PS_SPF_0_0_0_Biscay_Q1-4 

ESP_PS_SPF_0_0_0_Biscay_Q2 
FRA_PS_SPF_16-31_0_0_Biscay_Q1-4 
FRA_PS_SPF_16-31_0_0_Biscay_Q1-4 

gillnets and trammel nets fisheries 

anglerfish fisheries 

hake fisheries 

SCO_GNS_DEF_>=220_0_0_Biscay_All 
FRA_GTR_DEM_110-149_0_0_Western part of 
Brittany_Q2-3 
FRA_GTR_DEM_sup220_0_0_Western part of Brittany 
and Bay of Biscay_Q1-4 
FRA_GTR_DEM_100-109-0-0_South Bretagne_Q2-3 

SCO_GNS_DEF_100-109_0_0_Biscay_Q1, Q4 
ESP_GNS_DEF=>100_0_0_Biscay_Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4 
FRA_GNS_DEM_100-109_0_0_Biscay_Q1-4 
FRA_GNS_DEM_110-149_0_0_Biscay_Q2-3 
FRA_GTR_DEM_100-109-0-0_Southern part of the Bay of 
Biscay_Q1-4 

mixed fisheries 
Pollack, seabass, seabreams  FRA_GNS_DEM_110-149_0_0_Biscay_Q1 Q4 
Rays, sharks, pollack 

FRA_GTR_DEM_110-149_0_0_Biscay_Q1-4 

Sole and seabass 

Sole, seabass and hake 

FRA_GTR_DEM_100-109-0-0_Biscay_Q1-4 
FRA_GTR_DEM_110-149_0_0_Southern part of the Bay 
of Biscay_Q1 Q4 

longlines fisheries 
hake fisheries 

73 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The implementation of ecosystem-based approaches applied to fisheries management under the 
Common Fisheires Policy 

FRA_O15M_LLS_DEF_NONE_0_0_cont. slopes_Q1-4 

FRA_U15M_LLS_DEF_NONE_0_0_Biscay_Q1-4 
ESP_LLS_DEF_0_0_0_Biscay_Q1-4 

other demersal fish fisheries 
Conger eel 
Conger eel 

FRA_O15M_LLS_DEF_NONE_0_0_Biscay_Q1-4 
FRA_U15M_LLS_DEF_NONE_0_0_Biscay_Q1-4 

pots fisheries 
crustaceans 
Edible crab 
Spider crab 

FRA_FPO_CRU_NON_0_0_Biscay_Q1-4 
FRA_FPO_CRU_NON_0_0_South Bretagne_Q1-4 

Iberian Sea 
otter trawl fisheries 
small pelagic fish monospecific fisheries 

Horse Mackerel 

Mackerel 

Blue whiting 
Mackerel 
mixed demersal fish fisheries 

Mixed demersal species  

PRT_OTB_DEF_>=70_0_0_Portugal _Q1-Q4 
PRT_OTB_DEF_55-69_0_0_Portugal _Q1-Q4 
ESP_OTB_MPD=>55_0_0_Iberian  coast_Q1,  Q3, 
Q4 
ESP_OTB_MPD=>55_0_0_Iberian coast_Q1, Q2 
ESP_PTB_MPD=>55_0_0_Iberian  coast_Q1,  Q3, 
Q4 
ESP_PTB_MPD=>55_0_0_Iberian coast_Q1, Q2 

PRT_OTB_DEF_<16_0_0**(i)_Western central_Q1-
Q4 
ESP_OTB_DEF=>55_0_0_Iberian  coast_Q1,  Q2, 
Q3, Q4 

Mixed demersal species 
mixed Nephrops and pelagic fish fisheries 

Nephrops, blue whiting, hake 

Nephrops, Trachurus spp. 

drifting longlines fishery 
Black scabbard fish fishery 

handlines fishery 
mackerel fishery 

PRT_OTB_CRU_>=70_0_0_Southwest/South 
PRT_Q1-Q4 
PRT_OTB_CRU_55-69_0_0_Southwest/South 
PRT_Q1-Q4 

PRT_LLD_DWS_0_0_0_West 
PRT_Q1-Q4 

central 

offshore 

ESP_LHM_SPF_0_0_0_Iberian coast_Q2 

Purse seine fisheries 
targeted monospecific small pelagic fish fisheries 
Anchovy 
Sardine 
Horse mackerel 
Sardine 

ESP_PS_SPF_0_0_0_Iberian coast_Q2 
ESP_PS_SPF_0_0_0_Iberian coast_Q1-4 
ESP_PS_SPF_0_0_0_Iberian coast_Q1-4 
PRT_PS_SPF_16_0_0_All PRT continental_Q1-Q4 

74 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The implementation of ecosystem-based approaches applied to fisheries management under the 
Common Fisheires Policy 

anchovy 

horse mackerel 
chub mackerel 

PRT_PS_SPF_16_0_0_All PRT continental_Q1-Q4 

PRT_PS_SPF_16_0_0_All PRT continental_Q1-Q4 
PRT_PS_SPF_16_0_0_All PRT continental_Q1-Q4 

set gillnets fisheries 
monospecific demersal fish fisheries 
Anglerfish 

Hake 
mixed demersal and small pelagic fish fisheries 

ESP_GNS_DEF=>100_0_0_Iberian coast_Q1, Q4 
ESP_GNS_DEF=>100_0_0_Iberian  coast_Q1,  Q2, 
Q3, Q4 

PRT_GNS_DEF_80-99_0_0**(ii)_All 
continental_Q1-Q4 
ESP_GNS_DEF_80-99_0_0_Iberian  coast_Q1,  Q2, 
Q3, Q4 

PRT 

PRT_LLS_DWS_0_0_0_West 
PRT_Q1-Q4 
ESP_LLS_DEF_0_0_0_Iberian  coast_Q1,  Q2,  Q3, 
Q4 
PRT_LLS_DEF_0_0_0_All PRT continental_Q1-Q4 

offshore 

central 

Hake, Trachurus spp. 

longlines fisheries 
Mixed demersal species 

Black scabbard fish 

Hake, conger  
Mixed demersal species 

trammel net fisheries 
Mixed demersal species 

Mixed fishery 
Rays  and  skate,  anglerfish,  sole,  
seabass 

ESP_GTR_DEF_60-70_0_0_Iberian  coast_Q1,  Q2, 
Q3, Q4 
PRT_GTR_DEF_>=100_0_0**(ii)_All 
continental_Q1-Q4 

PRT 

the Azores 

Blackspot seabream 

PRT_LLS_DEF_0_0_0_Azo***_Azores seamounts_Q1-Q4 

Canary Islands 
Tuna species 

ESP_LHP_LPF_0_0_0__Q2, Q3 

Small pelagic species 

ESP_PS_SPF_0_0_0__Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4 

Off shore areas 
Albacore 

ESP_LLS_DEF_0_0_0_Wide range following species migratory pattern. _Q3 

In addition to the fisheries identified within the Baltic Sea, North Sea and Atlantic Western 
Waters, the following commercial and artisanal fisheries were identified in the Outermost 
Regions 

75 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
The implementation of ecosystem-based approaches applied to fisheries management under the 
Common Fisheires Policy 

Location and description of the fishery 

AZORES 

Azores - Deepwater demersal (bottom longline) 

Azores - Small pelagic (purse seine) 

Azores - Deepwater demersal (drifting longlines) 

Azores - Demersal (artisanal handline) 

Azores - Inshore demersal (artisanal gillnets) 

Azores - Inshore demersal (artisanal pots and traps) 

Azores - Large pelagic (pelagic longline) 

Azores - Large pelagic (pole and line) 

CANARY ISLANDS 

Canary Islands - Artisanal inshore demersal (nets/traps/hand lines) 

Canary Islands - Artisanal large pelagic (handline, longline and pole & line) 

Canary Islands - Artisanal small pelagic (purse seine) 

Canary Islands - Deepwater demersal 

GUADELOUPE 

Guadeloupe - Bottom longline 

Guadeloupe - Hand line (with or without pole) 

Guadeloupe - Large pelagic lines and longlines 

Guadeloupe - Lobster net 

Guadeloupe - Lobster pots 

Guadeloupe - Miscellaneous fish pots 

Guadeloupe - Seines  

Guadeloupe - Trammel 

Guadeloupe - Trolling line 

Guadeloupe - Urchin and echinoderms free diving 

Guadeloupe - Circling driftnet 

Guadeloupe - Conch free diving 

Guadeloupe - Deep longline 

76 

 
The implementation of ecosystem-based approaches applied to fisheries management under the 
Common Fisheires Policy 

Location and description of the fishery 

Guadeloupe - Deep nets 

Guadeloupe - Deep pots 

Guadeloupe - Fixed driftnet 

Guadeloupe - Free diving 

Guadeloupe - Gillnet 

MADEIRA 

Madeira - Artisanal demersal (handline, longlines) 

Madeira - Artisanal hand harvesting 

Madeira - Deepwater demersal (drifting longlines) 

Madeira - Large pelagic (handline, pole and line, baitboat) 

Madeira - Small pelagic (purse seine) 

MARTINIQUE 

Martinique - Bottom gillnet 

Martinique - Handline (with or without pole) 

Martinique - Longline 

Martinique - Offshore trolling lines 

Martinique – Pots 

Martinique - Seines 

Martinique - Surface nets 

Martinique - Trammel net 

Martinique - Bottom longline 

Martinique - Circling gillnet 

Martinique - Coastal trolling line 

Martinique - Conch net 

Martinique - Drifting longline 

Martinique - Fish aggregating device (FAD) 

Martinique - Fixed driftnet 

Martinique - Free diving 

77 

 
 
 
The implementation of ecosystem-based approaches applied to fisheries management under the 
Common Fisheires Policy 

Location and description of the fishery 

MAYOTTE 

Mayotte - Encircling gillnets 

Mayotte - handlines and pole and lines  

Mayotte - Non mechanised handlines and pole and lines  

Mayotte - Non mechanised handlines and pole and lines  

Mayotte - Set gillnets  

Mayotte - Troll line for large pelagic fish  

REUNION 

Reunion - Beach seine  

Reunion - Set nets  

Reunion - Troll lines  

Reunion - Cales  

Reunion - Drifting longlines  

Reunion - Pole and line  

Reunion - Pole and line, manual  

Reunion - Pole and line, manual  

Reunion - Pole and line, mechanised  

Reunion - Set longline  

FRENCH GUIANA 

French Guiana - Artisanal demersal set gillnets weakfish 

French Guiana - Artisanal drifting pelagic gillnet  

French Guiana - Bottom trawl shrimp 

French Guiana - Longline snapper  

78 

 
 
 
 
The implementation of ecosystem-based approaches applied to fisheries management under the 
Common Fisheires Policy 

ANNEX 3: TYPOLOGY OF ECOSYSTEM CHALLENGES ADDRESSED 
BY AN EAFM  

The table below summarizes the ecosystem challenges addressed by an EAFM that were 
identified through the literature review undertaken in Task 3 of the study. Within each of 
the three key literature reviews (fishing impacts, environmental context, society context), 
we sub-categorized articles and reports based on the type of challenge (a combination of 
pressure and ecosystem component), to give a three-character "challenge ID". Additional, 
fisheries  specific,  challenges  were  identified  through  consultations  undertaken  by  local 
partners and these are included in the supplementary Material of Bastardie, F., Brown, E. 
J., Andonegi, E., Arthur, R., Beukhof, E., Depestele, J., Döring, R., Eigaard, O. R., García-
Barón, I., Llope, M., Mendes, H., Piet, G., & Reid, D. (2021). A Review Characterizing 25 
Ecosystem  Challenges  to  Be  Addressed  by  an  Ecosystem  Approach  to  Fisheries 
Management 
[629186]. 
https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2020.629186 

in  Marine 

Frontiers 

Science, 

Europe. 

7, 

in 

Challenges  
id  

Specific 
Challenges 

Ecosystem 

Supporting References  

Fisheries impacts on the structure and functioning of marine ecosystems 

Fishing alters exploited stocks' resilience 

1.1.1  

Altered stock size or stock size 
from  selective 
composition 
far-
fishing  might 
in 
reaching 
altering 
the 
exploited populations  

resilience  of 

consequences 

have 

1.1.2  

Time  and  space  translocation 
of the effects  

1.1.3 

Long-term  change  in  species 
vital rates  

Aranda et al. (2019), Dickey-Collas et al. (2014), 
Lindegren  et  al.  (2014),  Ravard  et  al.  (2014), 
STECF  (2018a),  Ter  Hofstede  et  al.  (2011), 
Vinther and Eero (2013)  

Bastardie  et  al.  (2017),  Bell  et  al.  (2015), 
(2001),  Estrella-
Blanchard  and  Bouncher 
Martínez  et  al.  (2019),  Isomaa  et  al.  (2013),  
Ferro et al. (2008), Harma et al. (2012), Hüssy et 
al.  (2016),  Lindegren  et  al.  (2014),  STECF 
(2018a)  

Andersen  and  Brander  (2009),  Estrella-Martínez 
et al. (2019), Hidalgo et al. (2017), Isomaa et al. 
(2013), , Lindegren et al. (2013), Kokkonen et al. 
(2019), Moritz et al. (2015), Ostman et al. (2014) 
STECF (2018a), STECF (2019a) 

Fishing results in by-catch or habitat degradation  

1.2.1  

1.2.2  

ecosystem 
Degrading 
components  with  by-catch  or 
incidental catch induced by the 
exploitation  of 
commercial 
species,  possibly  up  to  the 
extinction point   

Lucena Frédou et al. (2016), Maes et al. (2018), 
Milessi  et  al.  (2002),  Milessi  et  al.  (2002), 
Ramírez-Monsalve et al. (2016), STECF (2017b), 
STECF  (2020),  Torres-Irineo  et  al.  (2014), 
Torres-Irineo et al. (2014)  

Disturbance 
marine seabed habitats  

of 

exploited 

Asch and Collie (2008), Asci et al. (2018),  Allen 
and  Clarke  (2007),  Bradshaw  et  al.  (2001), 
Coates  et  al.  (2016),  Dinmore  et  al.  (2003), 
Duplisea  et  al.  (2002),  Duineveld  et  al.  (2007), 
Diesing et al. (2013), EP (2014), Greenstreet et 
al.  (2007),  Hélias  et  al.  (2018),  Hermsen  et  al. 
(2003),  Hiddink  et  al.  (2007),  Hiddink  et  al. 
(2006b),  Josefson  et  al.  (2018),  Kenchington  et 
al.  (2007),  Nilsson  et  al.  (2003),  Mendez  et  al. 
(2017),  Merillet  et  al.  (2018),  Oberle  et  al. 
(2016),  Ramalho  et  al.  (2018),  Ramos  et  al. 
(2011),  Reiss  et  al.  (2009),  Robinson  et  al. 
(2008),  Szostek  et  al.  (2016),  Trimmer  et  al. 
(2005),  Tulp  et  al.  (2020),  van  Denderen  et  al. 

79 

 
 
 
 
 
 
The implementation of ecosystem-based approaches applied to fisheries management under the 
Common Fisheires Policy 

Fishing alters food-web interactions 

1.3.1  

effects 

Ramification 
or 
cumulated pressure effects on 
seabed  habitats  vulnerable 
habitats,  and  essential  fish 
habitats  

1.3.2  

Changing  trophic  interactions 
in  the  bentho-pelagic  system 
with 
far-reaching 
indirect changes  

possible 

(2015),  van  Denderen  et  al.  (2014),  van  der 
Reijden  et  al.  (2018),  Varisco  and  Vinuesa 
(2007), Ward and Larcombe (2008)  

Allen and Clarke (2007), Daly et al. (2018), Bailey 
et  al.  (2019),  Bennecke  and  Metaxas  (2017), 
Callaway  et  al.  (2007), Dannheim  et  al. (2014), 
Duineveld  et  al.  (2007),  EP  (2014),  Frid  et  al. 
(2001),  Fock  (2011),  Godbold  et  al.  (2013), 
Hawkins  and  Robert  (2004),  Hiddink  et  al. 
(2006b), Hiddink et al. (2016), Hinz et al. (2017), 
Hourigan  et  al.  (2009),  ICES  (2019),  Jenkins  et 
al.  (2004),  Jennings  et  al.  (2001b),  Jennings  et 
al.  (2001),  Johnson  et  al.  (2015),  Kaiser  et  al. 
(2002),  Kraufvelin  et  al.  (2018),  Mellet  et  al. 
(2011), Nilsson et al. (2003), Schratzberger and 
Jennings (2002), Shepard et al. (2010), Simpson 
et al. (2006), Sköld et al. (2018), Simpson et al. 
(2006), STECF  (2019a),  Tillin  et  al. (2006), van 
der  Molen  et  al.  (2013),  Vergon  and  Blanchard 
(2006), Wienberg et al. (2013) 

Bell  et  al.  (2018),  Blanchard  and  Bouncher, 
(2001),  Blanchard  et  al.  (2004),  Boyd  et  al. 
(2018),  Costalago  et  al.  (2019),  Daewel  et  al. 
(2011), Datta and Blanchard (2016), Daan et al. 
(2005), Dickey-Collas et al. (2014), Engelhard et 
al.  (2014),  Engelhard  et  al.  (2008),  Erauskin-
Extramiana  et  al.  (2019),  González-Irusta  et  al. 
(2017),  Harma  et  al.  (2012),  Hidalgo  et  al. 
(2017),  Hiddink  et  al.  (2016),  Hiddink  et  al. 
(2012),  Kraufvelin  et  al.  (2018),  Jennings  et  al. 
(2002),  Jennings  et  al.  (2001b),  Jennings  et  al. 
(2002),  Link  and  Garrison  (2002),  Lynam  et  al. 
(2017),  MacKenzie  et  al.  (2011),  Myers  et  al. 
(2007),  Meier  et  al.  (2012),  Niiranen  et  al. 
(2012), TerHofstede et al. (2011), Niiranen et al. 
(2012),  Martins  et  al.  (2012),  Perkins  et  al. 
(2018),  Ravard  et  al.  (2014),  Ramalho  et  al. 
(2018),  Shepard  et  al.  (2010),  Sguotti  et  al. 
(2016),  Shin  et  al.  (2005),  Smith  et  al.  (2014), 
Sánchez  and  Olaso  (2004),  Tomczak  et  al. 
(2009), Vergon and Blanchard (2006)  

Ecosystem effects on fisheries' resources opportunities 

Inherent  ecosystem  variability  and  ecosystem  component  attributes  interact  with 
fishing impacts to affect fishing opportunities 

2.1.1 

combines 

with 
Fishing 
environmental  conditions  on 
seabed habitats  

2.1.2  

Fishing  combines  with  natural 
variability  to  impact  resource 
availability / productivity 

Callaway et al. (2002), Drabble (2012), Frid et al. 
(2001), Hiddink et al. (2012), Kirby et al. (2007), 
Lindley  et  al.  (2010),  Oberle  et  al.  (2016), 
Pecuchet  et  al.  (2016),  Rijnsdorp  et  al.  (2018), 
Szostek et al. (2016), Trimmer et al. (2005), van 
der Molen et al. (2013)  

Bell  et  al.  (2018),  Blanchard  and  Bouncher 
(2001),  Dos  Santos  Schmidt  et  al.  (2017), 
Embling  et  al.  (2012),  Estrella-Martínez  et  al. 
(2019),  Frederiksen  et  al.  (2004),  Gasche  et  al. 
(2013), Goñi et al. (2015), Hawkins et al. (2017), 
Hernvann  and  Gascuel  (2020),  Planque  et  al. 
(2010),  Rochet  et  al.  (2010),  Rochet  et  al. 
(2013), Rouyer et al. (2014), Olsen et al. (2011), 

80 

 
 
 
 
  
 
The implementation of ecosystem-based approaches applied to fisheries management under the 
Common Fisheires Policy 

2.1.3  

Fishing  combines  with  varying 
species 
susceptibility, 
vulnerability or responsiveness  

Ter  Hofstede  et  al.  (2011),  Trifonova  et  al. 
(2015),  Vilela  and  Bellido  (2015),Voss  et  al. 
(2019),  Wikström  et  al.  (2016),  Wright  et  al. 
(2014), Zimmermann et al. (2019)  

Bastardie  et  al.  (2020),  Beukhof  et  al.  (2019), 
Elliott  et  al.  (2018),  EP  (2014),  McLean  et  al. 
(2019),  Pecuchet  et  al.  (2018),  Pennino  et  al. 
(2019), Stallings (2009), Ramalho et al. (2018), 
von Nordheim et al. (2018)  

Anthropogenic  and  environmental  changes 
individually and cumulatively 

interact  with  fishing  opportunities 

2.2.1 

Fishing  combines  with  climate 
change  to  impact  fisheries  via 
changes 
in  ecosystem-wide 
productivity  and  changes  in 
resource distribution 

2.2.2 

2.2.3 

combines 

Fishing 
eutrophication 
fisheries  via  a  change 
ecosystem-wide productivity 

with 
impact 
in 

to 

combines 

with 
Fishing 
other 
combinations 
pressures 
the 
productivity  of  a  subset  of 
ecosystem components 

of 
impact 

to 

Auber  et  al.  (2015),  Aranda  et  al.  (2019), 
Bartolino  et  al.  (2014),  Church  et  al.  (2019), 
Daewel et al. (2011), Engelhard et al. (2014), EP 
(2014), Furness (2002), Goikoetxea et al. (2013), 
Gacutan et al. (2019), Gatti et al. (2018), Hedd 
et al. (2009), Hiddink et al. (2012), Holmgren et 
al. (2012), Hawkins et al. (2017), Jansen (2014), 
Jennings et al. (2001), Kadin et al. (2019), Kirby 
et al. (2007), Le Bris et al. (2018), Lindegren et 
al.  (2014),  Meier  et  al.  (2012),  Pitois  et  al. 
(2012),  Rouyer  et  al.  (2014),  Sguotti  et  al. 
(2018),  Selim  et  al.  (2016),  Svedäng  and 
Hornborg  (2015),  Mackinson  (2014),  Mérillet  et 
al.  (2020),  Murillo  et  al.  (2020),  Sguotti  et  al. 
(2016),  Shepard  et  al.  (2010),  Shepard  et  al. 
(2012),  STECF  (2018a),  Tillin  et  al.  (2006), 
Tomczak et al. (2013), Thøgersen et al. (2015), 
Trifonova et al. (2017),Véron et al. (2020), Voss 
et al. (2019), Voerman et al. (2013)  

Bossier  et  al.  (2018),  Bergström  et  al.  (2018), 
Fock (2011), González-Irusta et al. (2014)  

Aas et al. (2018), Anderson et al. (2014), Burthe 
et al. (2014), Christensen t al. (2015), Costalago 
et al. (2019), Engelhard et al. (2014)., Faulks et 
al. (2016), Fujii (2015), Furness (2002), Hawkins 
et al. (2017), Königson et al. (2015), Kabat et al. 
(2012), Kaplan et al. (2018), Maes et al. (2018), 
Pita et al. (2017), STECF (2020)  

Influence of social, economic and governance aspects on fishing opportunities 

Social and governance constraints on fishing opportunities  

3.1.1  

and 

fisheries 
Fisheries 
management  embarked 
in 
short  term  profit  leading  to 
suboptimal 
from 
overfishing or underfishing  

fishing 

3.1.2  

A  market  demand  influencing 
what  species  assemblages  to 
target  

Aranda  et  al.  (2019),  Borges  et  al.  (2018),  EEA 
(2016),  EP  (2014),  Dickey-Collas  et  al.  (2014), 
Ferro  et  al.  (2008),  Fock  et  al.  (2014),  Furness 
(2002) Goti-Aralucea et al. (2018), Hiddink et al. 
(2006b),  ICES  (2020b),  ICES  (2018a),  ICES 
(2018b),  Mellet  et  al.  (2011),  Mullon  et  al. 
(2016), O'Higgins and Roth (2011), Rindorf et al. 
(2017),  STECF  (2018a),  STECF  (2017b),  STECF 
(2017c), STECF (2018a), Svedäng and Hornborg 
(2015),  Pita  et  al.  (2017),  Thøgersen  et  al. 
(2015),  Torres  et  al.  (2013),  Ziegler  and 
Hornborg (2014) 

Aranda  et  al.  (2019),  EP  (2014),  Ferro  et  al. 
(2008),  Floc´h  et  al.  (2008),  Graziano  et  al. 
(2018),  Morgan  (2016),  Mullon  et  al.  (2016), 
Rochet et al. (2013), Seara et al. (2017), STECF 

81 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The implementation of ecosystem-based approaches applied to fisheries management under the 
Common Fisheires Policy 

3.1.3  

3.1.4  

(2018a),  STECF  (2020),  Papaioannou  et  al. 
(2014), Voss et al. (2014)  

A  competition  with  market 
fair 
places 
competition  

overruling 

Aranda  et  al.  (2019),  EEA  (2016),  Floc´h  et  al. 
(2008), Goti-Aralucea et al. (2018), Mullon et al. 
(2016), Morgan (2016)  

Competition 
marine space  

for  a 

limited 

3.1.5  

Changing  opportunities  from 
stock spatial distribution shift  

Christensen et al. (2015), EP (2014), Girardin et 
al.  (2015),  Hatchard  et  al.  (2014),  Jentoft  and 
Knol  (2014),  Mackenzie  et  al.  (2013),  ORFISH 
(2019), Papaioannou et  al.  (2014),  Raoux  et al. 
(2018),  Sánchez  and  Olaso  (2004),  STECF 
(2018a)  

Aranda  et  al.  2019,  Bastardie  et  al.  (2017), 
Bjørndal et al. (2014), Bossier et al. 2018, Brown 
et  al.  (2018),  Costalago  et  al.  (2019),  Jansen 
(2014),  Leitão  et  al.  (2018),  Pennino  et  al. 
(2019),  Gacutan  et  al.  (2019),  Graziano  et  al. 
(2018), Henriques et al. (2016), Morgan (2016), 
Ramírez-Monsalve  et  al.  (2016),  Rubio  et  al. 
(2020),  STECF  (2017c),  STECF  (2019a),  STECF 
(2020), Tidd et al. (2015)   

Conflicting, inconsistent or ill-informed policy goals across industries and stakeholders 

3.2.1  

Policy  targets  for  EAFM  not 
defined, or loosely defined  

3.2.2  

3.2.3 

Risk  of  mismanagement  from 
unfit 
reference 
points  

biological 

not 

Management  options  or  policy 
addressing 
goals 
or 
conservation 
issues, 
possible 
incompatible  policy 
goals  among  the  economic, 
social, 
environmental 
dimensions  

and 

3.2.4  

Mismanagement 
from 
unforeseen  and  unintended 
socio-economic consequences  

Beare  et  al.  (2013),  Cheung  et  al.  (2018),  von 
Schuckmann  et  al.  (2019) 
,  EEA  (2016), 
Frederiksen  et  al.  (2004),  Goti-Aralucea  et  al. 
(2018),  Gröger  et  al.  (2014),  ICES  (2020a), 
Ojaveer  et  al.  (2018),  Ramírez-Monsalve  et  al. 
(2016),  Soma  et  al.  (2014),  STECF  (2019b), 
STECF (2019c), Rijnsdorp et al. (2016)  

Aranda et al. (2019), Brunel and Boucher (2007), 
Casini et al. (2011), Dickey-Collas et al. (2014), 
Froese et al. (2008), Goti-Aralucea et al. (2018), 
Kempf  et  al.  (2016),  Luzenczyk  et  al.  (2017), 
Mackinson et al. (2018)  

Alzorriz  et  al.  (2016),  Aranda  et  al.  (2019), 
Bastardie  et  al.  (2020),  Bellanger  et  al.  (2018), 
Borges et al. (2018), Burgess et al. (2018) Casini 
et  al.  (2011),  Crilly  and  Esteban  (2013),  EEA 
(2016),  Eero  et  al.  (2012),  Goti-Aralucea  et  al. 
(2018),  ICES  (2016),  Kraufvelin  et  al.  (2018), 
O’Higgins  and  Roth  (2011),  Mackinson  et  al. 
(2018), Meek et al. (2011), Mellet et al. (2011), 
Ramírez-Monsalve  et  al.  (2016),  Reiss  et  al. 
(2010),  STECF  (2017c),  STECF  (2018a),  STECF 
(2019a), STECF (2019b), STECF (2019c), , STECF 
(2020), Voss et al. (2014), Ziegler and Hornborg 
(2014)  

Alzorriz  et  al.  (2016),  Aranda  et  al.  (2019), 
Batsleer  et  al.  (2018),  Beare  et  al.  (2013), 
Bellanger  et  al.  (2018),  Chagaris  et  al.  (2019), 
Dickey-Collas et al. (2014), Girardin et al. (2015), 
Goti-Aralucea  (2019),  Graziano  et  al.  (2018), 
Kokkonen  et  al.  (2019),  Krag  et  al.  (2016), 
Mackinson  et  al.  (2018),  Morgan  (2016), 
Ramírez-Monsalve  et  al.  (2016),  Sangil  et  al. 
(2012),  STECF  2017a),  STECF  (2017b),  STECF 
(2017c)STECF  (2018a),  STECF  (2018b),  STECF 

82 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The implementation of ecosystem-based approaches applied to fisheries management under the 
Common Fisheires Policy 

3.2.5  

Unintended  effects  from  time 
lags,  spatial  ecology,  and 
spatial 
effort 
fishing 
displacement  

3.2.6  

Stakeholders 
disagreement, 
low  level  of  co-management 
and  inefficient  translation  of 
science  

3.2.7 

Perfectible science, control and 
monitoring: a demanding data 
monitoring, 
collection, 
surveillance, 
and 
enforcement  

control 

(2019a), STECF (2019b), STECF (2019c), STECF 
(2020), Villasante et al. (2019)  

Aranda  et  al.  (2019),  Bartolino  et  al.  (2014), 
Bastardie  et  al.  (2020),  Batsleer  et  al.  (2018), 
Beare  et  al.  (2013),  Bradshaw  et  al.  (2001), 
Burthe  et  al.  (2014),  Bigné  et  al  (2019), 
Costalago  et  al.  (2019),  Dickey-Collas  et  al. 
(2014),  Dinmore  et  al.  (2003),  Duplisea  et  al. 
(2002),  Erauskin-Extramiana  et  al.  (2019),  EP 
(2014), Frelat et al. (2018), Froese et al. (2008), 
Greenstreet  et  al.  (2007),  Greenstreet  et  al. 
(2011), Goti-Aralucea et al. (2018), Goti-Aralucea 
(2019),  Hélias  et  al.  (2018),  Heikinheimo  et  al. 
(2011),  Hiddink  et  al.  (2006b),  Hiddink  et  al. 
(2012),  Hinz  et  al.  (2017),  Holmgren  et  al. 
(2012),  ICES  (2016),  Kabat  et  al.  (2012), 
Lindegren et al. (2014) Baltic Sea, Mackenzie et 
al.  (2013),  Mellet  et  al.  (2011),  Niiranen  et  al. 
(2012),  Reiss  et  al.  (2009),  Robinson  et  al. 
(2008),  Sangil  et  al.  (2012),  Simpson  et  al. 
(2006), Szostek et al. (2016), Tidd et al. (2015), 
van Denderen et al. (2015b)  

Aas et al. 2018, Aranda et al. 2019, Beare et al. 
(2013),  Borges  et  al.  (2018),  Christou  et  al. 
(2017), Floor et al. (2013), Froese et al. (2008), 
Goti-Aralucea  et  al.  (2018),  Haapasaari  et  al. 
(2007),  Hatchard  et  al.  (2014),  Krag  et  al. 
(2016), Maya Jariego et al. (2018), Mellet et al. 
(2011),  Milessi  et  al.  (2002),  Morgan  (2016), 
O'Higgins and Roth (2011), Ojaveer et al. (2018), 
Ramírez-Monsalve  et  al.  (2016),  Seara  et  al. 
(2017),  Soma  et  al.  (2018),  STECF  (2017c), 
STECF (2018a), STECF (2019b), STECF (2019a), 
STECF  (2020),  Varela-Lafuente  et  al.  (2019), 
Verschueren et al. (2019)  

Aranda  et  al.  (2019),  Bartolino  et  al.  (2014), 
Callaway  et  al.  (2002),  Chagaris  et  al.  (2019), 
Christensen-Dalsgaard  et  al.  (2019),  Dickey-
Collas  et  al.  (2014),  Diesing  et  al.  (2013),  EMB 
(2019),  Elliott  et  al.  (2018),  Embling  et  al. 
(2012), Frederiksen et al. (2004), Gerritsen et al. 
(2013),  González-Irusta  et  al.  (2017),  Goti-
Aralucea  (2019),  Greenstreet  et  al.  (2011), 
Haapasaari et al. (2007), Hiddink et al. (2006a), 
Jennings  and  Blanchard  (2004),  Johnson  et  al. 
(2015),  Luzenczyk  et  al.  (2017),  Marshall  et  al. 
(2016),  McLaverty  et  al.  (2020),  McLean  et  al. 
(2018),  Nicholson  and  Jennings  (2004)  Lot  1 
North  Sea,  ORFISH  (2019),  Pecuchet  et  al. 
(2016),  Reiss  et  al.  (2009),  Reiss  et  al.  (2010), 
Rijnsdorp  et  al.  (2016),  Shepard  et  al.  (2012), 
Sköld  et  al.  (2018),  Svedäng  and  Hornborg 
(2015),  STECF  (2017c),  STECF  (2018a),  STECF 
(2019a), STECF (2019b), STECF (2020), Szostek 
et  al.  (2016),  Tidd  et  al.  (2015),  Torres  et  al. 
(2013), Varela-Lafuente et al. (2019), Vergon and 
Blanchard  (2006),  van  Denderen  et  al.  (2014), 
van der Reijden et al. (2018), von Schuckmann et 
al. (2019)  

83 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
The implementation of ecosystem-based approaches applied to fisheries management under the 
Common Fisheires Policy 

84 

 
 
 
The implementation of ecosystem-based approaches applied to fisheries management under the 
Common Fisheires Policy 

ANNEX 4: TYPOLOGY OF MANAGEMENT MEASURES AND POLICY 
INSTRUMENTS IDENTIFIED FROM THE LITERATURE 

85 

 
 
 
 
The implementation of ecosystem-based approaches applied to fisheries management under the 
Common Fisheires Policy 

86 

 
 
 
The implementation of ecosystem-based approaches applied to fisheries management under the 
Common Fisheires Policy 

ANNEX 5: SUMMARY OF LESSONS LEARNT FROM THE CASE STUDIES 

The results from the case studies are presented in relation to the broad categories of the 
management  measures  typology  (see  Annex  4):  input  measures,  output  measures  and 
policy instruments.  

Input measures 

" Input controls are restrictions put on the intensity of use of gear that fishers use to catch 
fish (FAO) These are measures that aim to change the “effort” involved in fishing in the 
broadest sense. They are very broadly divided into “Technical measures” either gear based 
or  area/time  based.  But  would  also  include  straight  forward  effort  restrictions,  fleet 
reduction measures etc.” (from Task 4 draft) 

Case 1) Technical conservation measures to protect Kattegat cod 

The  case study describes a  suite of technical  conservation  measures, which  were put in 
place in 2009, with the aim of reducing the impact of fishing on the Kattegat cod stock to 
help stock recovery. A joint Danish and Swedish scientific expert group was first tasked by 
the  ministries  to  propose  suitable  technical  conservation  measures.  The  measures  that 
were  implemented  through  the  establishment  of  four  different  zones,  together  covering 
over 3000 km2 in the south-eastern Kattegat. Different measures were implemented across 
these  zones  ranging  from  mandatory  use  of  species  selective  demersal  trawls  during 
spawning  season  in  the  less  stringently  regulated  zone  to  a  complete  ban  of  all  fishing 
activities in the most regulated zone (647 km2).  

As  these  measures  were  implemented  before  the  introduction  of  the  regionalisation 
procedures introduced with the last reform of the CFP, the measures were not implemented 
through  EU-legislation  but  instead  in  mirrored  national  Swedish  and  Danish  regulations. 
Stakeholders were consulted before the implementation and soon after the introduction of 
the  measures,  a  discussion  about  a  gradual  broadening  of  objectives  of  the  measures 
emerged,  particularly  in  Sweden.  The  broadening  of  objectives  coincided  with  the 
introduction of the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive. Thus, compared to the initial 
aims of the measures, that were solely intended to help rebuilding the local Kattegat cod 
stock, the focus shifted to discussions about the potential additional value of the fully closed 
area for reaching broader objectives. These included preserving ecosystem functions and 
the contribution of the area closure to achieving good environmental status. The technical 
conservation  measures  to  protect  the  Kattegat  cod  stock  have  subsequently  been 
evaluated several times and are still in place. 

Case 2) Sole-directed pulse trawling in the Netherlands 

The case study of the Dutch sole-directed pulse trawl fishery in the North Sea examines 
the  transition  of  the  conventional  beam  trawler  fleet  to  a  fleet  using  an  innovative 
alternative fishing gear, the pulse trawl. The development of this gear was initiated by a 
taskforce on ‘Sustainable North Sea fisheries’, which was tasked to develop an economic 
and  ecologically  sustainable  future  perspective  for  the  Dutch  North  Sea  demersal  fleet. 
Pulse  trawling  was  one  of  the  elements  put  forward  in  the  transition  towards  a  more 
economic and ecologically sustainable fishery.  

The first trials of the gear on a commercial vessel started in 2004. As electric fishing was 
banned in the EU, commercial fishing with the gear would require a change in policy. The 
EU saw potential in this development and in 2006 a derogation was granted. A further five 
commercial fishing vessels followed in 2008 with the support of an investment scheme that 
the  Dutch  Ministry  had  arranged  with  the  European  Commission.  These  five  vessels 
eventually demonstrated the reliability and profitability of the technique, after which more 
Dutch demersal fishers decided to invest and adopt the gear. The experiences during the 
fuel price crisis in 2008 highlighted the need for fleets to transition to less fuel dependent 

87 

 
 
 
The implementation of ecosystem-based approaches applied to fisheries management under the 
Common Fisheires Policy 

gears for the long-term viability of the sole fishery. In 2010 the limit of licenses allowed 
under the derogation (5% of the fleet) was reached. The Dutch Ministry and the Producer 
Organisations with the support of Dutch eNGO’s agreed to seek expansion of the number 
of licences. This was agreed with the EU commission based on EU Council regulation on 
conservation  of  fishery  resources  through  technical  measures  (Article  43  of  Council 
Regulation (EC) No 850/98, referring to fishing operations conducted solely for the purpose 
of  scientific investigations). These 42 licences  were  soon also  fully in  use,  resulting in a 
request  to  further  increase  these  to  a  total  of  84  licences  in  2014.  These  were  granted 
based on the regulation “avoidance and minimisation of unwanted catches” (Article 14 in 
CFP Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013, referring to pilot projects). The process taken by the 
Dutch government to  continuously  expand the number  of licenses lead to irritation with 
the other Member States. In addition, with the expanding pulse fleet, stakeholders from 
neighbouring countries expressed concern about this process as well as the impact of pulse 
fishing  on  the  environment  and  on  the  profitability  of  competing  fleets.  This  lead  to 
increasingly  stronger  protests  from  various  societal  groups  (e.g.  French  fishers  and 
eNGO’s) up to the point, on 16 January 2018 following political debate, that the European 
Parliament voted on the ban of electrified fishing gear. It furthermore decided that the use 
of the pulse technique would be prohibited from July 2021 onwards. 

Case 3) Spanish Bottom Trawling in ICES SubAreas 6 and 7 

The  case  study  describes  how  the  problem  of  unwanted  catches  is  being  addressed  by 
employing the best available science to improve the selectivity of the trawl gear and how 
subsequent  regulations  are  based  on  science.  Spanish  bottom  trawlers  operating  in 
subareas 6 and 7 face problems with unwanted catches of species for which Spain has little 
or  no  quotas  e.g.,  haddock,  pollock,  boarfish,  greater  silver  smelt,  etc.  Within  the 
framework of the Landing Obligation, this situation leads to the so called choke effect and 
risks  the  closure  of  fisheries  as  vessels  lack  quotas  or  exceed  the  available  quotas.  The 
obligation to land fish with little market value, or fish which cannot be traded for human 
consumption  (below  Maximum  Conservation  Reference  Size  -  MCRS),  compromises  the 
economic viability of the fleets. This requires  effective selectivity to avoid the unwanted 
catches while maintaining catches  of the target species (e.g., megrim, anglerfish, hake, 
nephrops and ling).    

Selectivity improvement is also  required to  contribute to a successful implementation of 
the  landing  obligation  since  it  reduces  the  incentive  to  discard  unwanted  fish  with  low 
economic value and that requires extra work onboard to sort and store. Mesh sizes, mesh 
configurations  and  devices  have  been  tested  with  the  support  and  experience  of 
boatowners and skippers to improve selectivity. Between 2017 and 2018, research trials 
were  conducted  in  subareas  6  and  7  onboard  commercial  vessels  based  in  Basque  and 
Galician ports. Experiments in these ICES subareas were designed and conducted by two 
Spanish  research  institutes  with  the  support  of  regional  skippers  and  other  technicians. 
The technological improvements resulting from the trials have shown promising results and 
have been incorporated into the Spanish fisheries regulatory body. It is worth pointing out 
that further research is required to continue improving selectivity to minimize the by-catch 
of unwanted species, recognised as particularly difficult to achieve in mixed fisheries. 

Case 4) Designation of NATURA 2000 sites in the German EEZ 

NATURA 2000 is a network of nature conservation areas in the European Union, which aims 
to protect Europe’s rich but vulnerable habitats and species. The network contains more 
than  20,000  sites  from  all  EU  Member  States  and  includes  both  terrestrial  and  marine 
protected areas, including the EEZ. The legal background for the NATURA 2000 network is 
the Habitats Directive (HD, entered into force 1992) and the Birds Directive (BD, entered 
into force 1979). The selection procedure for identification and nomination of Special Areas 
of Conservation (SACs) and Special Protection Areas (SPAs) are laid down in Annex III of 
the HD and in Article 4 of the BD. This case study focuses on the identification of protected 
areas in the German EEZ in the North Sea and Baltic Sea. 

88 

 
The implementation of ecosystem-based approaches applied to fisheries management under the 
Common Fisheires Policy 

NATURA  2000  was  established  in  1992,  but  for  legal  reasons  the  selection  and 
establishment of NATURA 2000 sites were initially only possible in the Territorial Waters 
and  not  in  the  EEZ.  After  the  publication  of  the  EU  Commission  opinion  (1998)  and  the 
London High Court decision (LO 1336/1999), the German Federal Natural Conservation Act 
was  amended  in  2002  and  the  statutory  basis  for  the  implementation  of  NATURA  2000 
sites  in  the  EEZ  was  established.  Information  on  the  occurrence  of  habitat  types  and 
species  to  be  protected  in  the  offshore  areas  was  lacking.  Therefore,  several  scientific 
projects  were  carried  out  or  commissioned  by  the  BfN  under  the  umbrella  of  the 
HabitatMareNATURA2000 project. This survey program commenced in 2002 with the aim 
of identifying, locating and assessing habitats and species which fulfil the requirement of 
the  HD  and  the  BD.  After  two  years  of  intensive  research  (around  20  projects),  these 
results, together with the output of the project MINOS were used to map the habitat types 
and  species  relevant  for  the  HD  and  the  bird  species  and  regularly  occurring  migratory 
birds relevant for the BD. Based on these maps, eight SACs and two SPAs (three SACs and 
one SPA in the North Sea and five SACs and one SPA in the Baltic Sea) were nominated in 
May 2002 to the European Commission, this covers 31% of the German EEZ. However, the 
overall conservation value of these MPAs depends on the collective  effort  of all involved 
Member States. This is illustrated by the case of the NATURA 2000 sites in Germany, where 
the legal basis for sites was extablished and scientific studies undertaken but the resulting 
management plans have not been fully implemented. 

Case 5) Bratten MPA in the Baltic Sea 

Bratten  is  an  area  with  species  and  habitats  of  high  conservation  value  due  to  the 
bathymetry characterised by steep rock walls, canyons and pockmarks on the slope (100 
– 500 m) towards the Norwegian Deep in the Skagerrak. The exposed rock walls host deep 
water Coral gardens, sponge communities, large predatory fish, and dense seapen fields 
in the surrounding soft bottoms. The area was designated as a NATURA 2000 site for reef 
structures and is part of OSPAR’s network of marine protected areas. A major challenge 
for the management and conservation of the area concerns the location of Bratten MPA 
within  one  of  the  most  important  fishing  grounds  in  the  Skagerrak  for  Northern  shrimp 
Pandalus  borealis  and  demersal  fish.  These  fishing  grounds,  located  outside  territorial 
waters in in the Swedish EEZ, are intensively fished by bottom trawlers from both Sweden 
and  Denmark.  In  addition,  the  integration  of  EU  nature  conservation  policy  and  the 
Common  Fisheries  Policy  (CFP)  was  poorly  developed  during  the  early  phases  of  the 
process.  This  made  the  application  of  an  Ecosystem  Approach  to  Fisheries  Management 
slow and difficult in practice. The aim of the measures finally established, was to ensure 
adequate protection from harmful fishing activities interacting with designated habitats and 
species  in  the  marine  protected  area  (MPA)  Bratten  in  the  Swedish  EEZ.  The  measures 
include  the  establishment  of  no-take  zones  where  all  fisheries  are  prohibited,  and  for 
control purposes compulsory use of Automatic Identification System (AIS) for all vessels 
fishing  in  the  area.  Scientific  activities  supported  the  establishment  of  the  Bratten  area 
stepwise by: (1) mapping habitats, (2) characterising biodiversity, (3) assessing the use 
by  fishing  activities,  (4)  identifying  threats  to  habitats  and  species,  (5)  evaluating  the 
effects  of  alternative  management  scenarios  on  fisheries.  Throughout  the  process 
stakeholders were involved and consulted. 

89 

 
 
 
 
 
The implementation of ecosystem-based approaches applied to fisheries management under the 
Common Fisheires Policy 

Case 6) Spurdog By-catch Avoidance Programme  

The spurdog (Squalus acanthias) by-catch avoidance programme was a trial of a fisheries 
management measure designed to reduce the early closure of fisheries, which could occur 
due  to  high  catches  of  species  with  low  or  zero  Total  Allowable  Catch  (TAC).  The 
programme  design  was  based  on  knowledge  gathered  during  a  pilot  study  and  during 
workshops  that  included  the  local  fishing  industry,  relevant  agencies,  and  NGOs.  The 
programme  itself  was  a  transdisciplinary  research  partnership  between  the  Cornish  Fish 
Producers Organisation (CFPO), Defra, Cefas, the Marine Management Organisation (MMO) 
and the Shark Trust. It involved the development and use of a real-time reporting system, 
that would indicate the risk of spurdog by-catch. This would allow fishers to avoid spurdog 
aggregations and reduce incidents  of by-catch. The overarching aims of the programme 
were  to  reduce  fishing  pressure  on  spurdog,  aid  stock  recovery  and  reduce  wasteful 
discards. 

The  programme  was  reviewed  by  the  Scientific,  Technical  and  Economic  Committee  for 
Fisheries  (STECF)  in  2014,  2015  and  2016.  It  noted  that  the  programme  incentivised 
movement of fishing away from spurdog aggregations, that it had the potential to rebuild 
the  stock  by  promoting  a  reduction  in  fishing  mortality,  and  that  it  provided  useful 
information on abundance and distribution of spurdog. What was particularly useful was 
the data on seasonal movement, distribution, by-catch, and discard survival of spurdog in 
the Celtic Sea, Bristol  Channel and western English Channel  – which was lacking before 
this programme began. The effectiveness of the measure cannot be fully assessed as the 
participating vessels still had the option to continue fishing whilst discarding spurdog by-
catch after their TAC had been met.  

It  was  mentioned  that  in  the  future,  consideration  needs  to  be  given  to  the  long-term 
development  of  the  technology  required  for  the  deployment  of  a  real-time  spatial 
management  and  avoidance  system,  the  possibilities  of  multi-species  by-catch 
programmes and the potential to mitigate unwanted catches of other species. 

Case 7) TURFs in French Guiana  

The case study describes how the Red snapper fishery in the water of French Guiana would 
benefit from a more ecosystem-based management. Liners from the Bolivarian Republic of 
Venezuela have been fishing in the EEZ of French Guiana since at least 1986. Since 2006 
this fishing has been regulated through a formal agreement based on Territorial Use Rights 
for  Fisheries  (TURFs).  The  latest  iteration  of  this  agreement  is  the  "European  Council, 
COUNCIL DECISION (EU) 015/1565 of 14 September 2015". 

Under the terms of the agreement, the EU issues fishing authorisations to a limited number 
of  fishing  vessels  flying  the  flag  of  the  Bolivarian  Republic  of  Venezuela.  These 
authorisations allow the vessels to fish in the part of the EEZ that lies more than 12 nautical 
miles  from  the  base  lines.  The  measure  allocates  around  45  licences  each  year  to 
Venezuelan vessels and requires the shipowners holding a licence to land at least 75% of 
the snapper catch in ports of French Guiana (the remaining 25% being only subject to a 
ban on landing then in neighbouring Martinique), and 50% of shark catches to be processed 
in the facilities of the local processing company with which it has signed a contract. 

To  underpin  the  measure,  stock  assessments  are  carried  out  on  a  semi-regular  basis 
(annually  since  2016),  based  on  requests  by  the  French  authorities  (DPMA).  These 
assessments, though subject to a high level of uncertainty affecting the input data, have 
highlighted year after year the need to reduce fishing pressure, particularly on the juvenile 
fraction of the Red Snapper population that is subject to growth overfishing. Moving away 
from a management system based on the number of licenses is suggested, with measures 
proposed such as: limitation of overall fishing effort (number of days at sea), adoption of 
a TAC (as successfully implemented in the South Atlantic) and/or technical measures to 

90 

 
The implementation of ecosystem-based approaches applied to fisheries management under the 
Common Fisheires Policy 

reduce catches of juveniles. A clear priority identified is to improve the quality of data used 
in the stock assessments, through scientific surveys, but also possibly through a change 
in the regulation that would facilitate biological sampling. 

The current management measure has not been amended yet, but the stock assessment 
results have nonetheless been used as a basis for rejecting requests from the industry to 
increase  the  number  of  authorised  vessels.  Some  contestation  of  the  management 
measures also occurs on the basis of the socio-economic arrangements. This is related to 
the fact that the rights to purchase catches from Venezuelan vessels are held by just two 
companies. Other economic actors have asked to be allowed to participate but these issues 
have not been solved yet. Currently it is evident that neither the existing science nor the 
reactions  of  local  economic  actors  are  fully  taken  into  account  in  the  management 
measures. 

Case 8) Gulf of Cadiz Anchovy Fishery 

The  anchovy  (Engraulis  encrasicolus)  fishery  is  considered  to  be  the  most  emblematic 
Spanish fishery in the Gulf of Cadiz (GoC) due to its economic and cultural relevance. This 
fishery is carried out by purse seiners that operate in the Gulf of Cadiz and Moroccan fishing 
grounds.  

A  key  consideration  for  management  is  whether  or  not  the  GoC  and  Moroccan  anchovy 
populations are part of the same stock is still a matter of scientific debate. 

• 

In the GoC the anchovy stock and its fishery is probably the best monitored as it is 
covered by (1) assessment with two dedicated acoustic surveys per year (summer and 
autumn)  and  one  Daily  Egg  Production  Method  (DEPM)  every  other  year  and  (2) 
fishery-dependent  information  (landing  statistics  and  biological  sampling).  The 
southern  component  of  the  stock  (division  9a)  is  annually  assessed  within  ICES 
WGHANSA as category 3 (ICES advice 2020) and monitored within the Data Collection 
Framework (DCF). Fishing opportunities advice is given by ICES and a TAC is agreed 
by the EU, Spain and Portugal and shared between Span and Portugal though assigned 
national quotas. The ecology of this species is also well known as it has received much 
attention during the last decades (references below). 

•  Off  the  coast  of  Morocco,  the  stock  is  assessed  by  the  Fishery  Committee  for  the 
Eastern Central Atlantic (CECAF) working group on assessment of pelagic resources – 
north.  There  is  also  a  Moroccan  national  assessment  carried  out  by  the  Moroccan 
National  Institute  of  Fisheries  Research  (INRH).  The  fishery  is  regulated  by  the 
corresponding EU-Morocco Sustainable Fisheries Partnership Agreement (SFPA) while 
the  fishing  opportunities  advice  is  provided  by  the  EU-Morocco  Joint  Scientific 
Committee (JSC) based on the previous stock assessments. Fleet characteristics and 
fishery  statistics  (species  composition,  landings,  effort,  length  distributions  of 
landings)  are  monitored  by  Instituto  Español  de  Oceanografía  (IEO).  The  question 
arises whether this SFPA has consequences for the Gulf of Cadiz fishery/stock and vice 
versa. 

Output measures 

“Output controls are direct limits on the amount and sizes of fish coming out of a fishery, 
and are standard management measures in the EU and worldwide.” (from Task 4 draft). 
These CS consider the implementation and scientific basis for various output measures. 

Case 9) Hunting of grey seals as a management measure in the Baltic Sea 

Following  successful  protection  measures  and  improved  environmental  conditions,  the 
population of grey seals in the Baltic Sea has increased in size and distribution since the 

91 

 
 
 
 
The implementation of ecosystem-based approaches applied to fisheries management under the 
Common Fisheires Policy 

1980s.  As  a  consequence,  conflicts  with  fisheries  have  increased.  Rising  financial  losses 
due  to  seal-induced  damage  to  fishermen’s  gear  and  catch,  parallel  with  stakeholder 
lobbying,  and  motions  to  the  Government  lead  to  a  reintroduction  of  seal  hunting,  as  a 
mitigation  measure  to  reduce  damage  to  catch  and  gear,  in  the  Baltic  Sea  in  the  late 
1990s/early2000s. 

HELCOM Recommendations have been a key tool in the conservation and management of 
seals in the Baltic Sea since the 1980s, and national management plans for grey seals have 
been  developed  in  Sweden,  Finland,  Åland,  Denmark  and  Estonia.  Prior  to  the 
implementation of the hunting measures, and after the first two years of protective hunting 
in Sweden, evaluations of the measure could not find any strong evidence that restricted 
hunting  decreased  seal-induced  damage  to  fishing  gear.  However,  other  studies  have 
indicated  that  there  are  certain  seals  that  have  adapted  their  behavior  and  thus  it  is  a 
limited part of the seal population that is responsible for the majority of the damage. What 
has been driving the implementation of the hunting measure is the assumed link between 
growing  aggregate  seal  population  and  increasing  damage  and  economic  losses  for  the 
commercial  fisheries,  rather  than  scientific  evidence  showing  statistically  significant 
decreases  in  damage  to  fishing  gear  following  protective  hunting.  No  comprehensive 
evaluation of the mitigative effects of two decades of grey seal hunting in the Baltic Sea 
has  yet  been  carried  out.  The  possible  psychological  effects  of  the  measure,  whereby 
hunting seals provides  fishermen with the ability to take action and defend their fishing 
gear and/or fishing grounds, could also be an important factor. 

From the review of the measure, we could not find a clear scientific underpinning for the 
setting of national hunting quotas, or for how total seal quotas at the Baltic Sea level relate 
to the general long-term management principles. In the case of Sweden, which was object 
of a more in-depth review, we also could not find mechanisms to allocate quotas across 
the different regions to avoid the risk of locally unprecautionary hunting pressure.  

Case 10) Effects of density dependent growth of fish on management and TAC, 
exemplified on Baltic sprat 

The aim of the measure is exploitation of the Baltic sprat at sustainable fishing mortalities, 
Fmsy  (MSY  approach),  which  should  enable  high  long-term  yields.  The  basis  of  the  ICES 
estimate of sprat Fmsy uses long-term stochastic simulations in which only recruitment is 
considered density dependent, as it is related to stock biomass through stock-recruitment 
relationship. Other basic data and parameters such as growth rate, maturity and natural 
mortality  have  been  assumed  constant  in  the  simulations,  thus  are  treated  as  density 
independent. However, it was demonstrated, that sprat growth is density dependent and 
neglecting  this  phenomenon  may  lead  to  biased  and  underestimated  Fmsy  and  thus 
underestimation of catches consistent with MSY. The CS summarises evidence for density 
dependence  of  sprat  growth  and  presents  effects  of  density  dependent  growth  on  the 
estimate of Fmsy and related catches. It is expected that exploitation of sprat at Fmsy which 
considers density dependence would give approximately 25% higher catches than catches 
advised with current non-density-dependent Fmsy. 

Alternative policy instruments 

These  measures  include  decentralisation  measures,  certification  schemes  and  the 
development of co-management arrangements. 

Case 11) Belgium: Fisheries on sustainability track 

The measure ‘Fisheries  on sustainability track’ (FoST) is a collaborative effort of various 
Belgian stakeholders to (1) track sustainability of the Belgian fisheries, to (2) set targets 
to improve sustainability and to (3) formulate actions to realise these targets.  

92 

 
The implementation of ecosystem-based approaches applied to fisheries management under the 
Common Fisheires Policy 

The  first  objective,  i.e.  to  track  sustainability  of  Belgian  fisheries,  is  based  on  the 
scientific underpinning using the FoST tool. The FoST tool defines sustainability according 
to scientific input from ILVO, the Flanders Research Institute for Agriculture, fisheries and 
food.  Sustainability  was  defined  through  social  (n=3),  economic  (n=3)  and  ecological 
(n=5) indicators which are jointly assessed for each individual fishing vessel. The ecological 
indicator  (1)  stock  status,  (2)  the  spawning  season,  (3)  the  benthic  impact,  (4)  fuel 
efficiency and (5) adaptations for a low-impact fishery. Some of the indicators are conform 
international standards, such as the ICES stock assessments, while others are tuned to the 
Belgian fishing industry. The fifth indicator for instance is a flexible category where fishers 
who, for instance, investigate in improved size-selectivity, are rewarded by a better score. 
The ‘benthic impact’ assessment aligns with the ongoing initiatives of the MSFD Descriptor 
6 on ‘seafloor integrity’. Fishers that have lower penetration depth or who avoid sensitive 
benthic  habitats  get  a  better  score.  The  economic  indicators  include  (6)  the  return  on 
assets, (7) revenues per unit of fishing effort, (8) financial stability. Social indicators are 
(9)  safety,  (10)  animal  welfare  and  (11)  remuneration.  Computation  of  the  indicators 
requires  direct  input  from  individual  fishing  vessels,  of  which  about  75%  participate 
voluntarily. 

The second and third objectives of the measure, i.e. to set sustainability targets and to 
formulate  concrete  actions  to  move  towards  these  targets,  are  realised  through  the 
formal  ratification  of  the  multi-stakeholder  engagement  in  the  ‘Convenant’.  The  FoST 
sustainability  assessment  is  presented  in  the  Convenant,  implying  that  all  relevant 
stakeholders are informed of the monitoring of the sustainability of Belgian fisheries. The 
Convenant  then  sets  targets  to  improve  fisheries  sustainability  and  discusses  concrete 
actions  to  move  towards  these  targets.  The  Belgian  PO  and  fishers  are  motivated  to 
participate  as  the  FoST  sustainability  assessment  fosters  market  access  and  market 
visibility.  The  Ministry  responsible  for  fisheries  policy  and  its  management  body 
‘Department  of  Agriculture  and  Fisheries’  are  motivated  to  align  these  actions  with  its 
national policy and, as such, also facilitate the compliance to management measures. The 
eNGO recognises that the improvement  of Belgian fisheries  sustainability is  a long-term 
process which requires incremental steps that fishers comply to, and is motivated to keep 
track of this improvement process and to help setting ambitious but realistic  standards. 
The scientific research institute ILVO (Flanders Research institute for Agriculture, Fisheries 
and  Food)  is  motivated  as  science-industry  collaborations  provides  several  benefits, 
including improved insights in the industry activities as well as improved data access. 

Case 12) Self-regulation of brown shrimp fishery via MSC certification 

The North Sea shrimp (Crangon crangon) is a short-living species and are mainly caught 
by Dutch, German or Danish beam trawls in the ICES Area IVb and IVc of the North Sea. 
The fishery operates within the 12 nautical miles (coastal region) as well as the EEZ. The 
North  Sea  brown  shrimp  fishery  is  currently  subject  to  some  technical  regulations  and 
national measures but is neither regulated with quotas nor fishing effort limitations.  

The  shrimp  fishery  is  an  example  of  a  fishery  regulated  voluntarily  through  certification 
according to MSC standards. This has two main effects. On the one hand, certification was 
intended to secure access to wholesalers and retailers, who have increasingly announced 
that they should source only certified fish and  seafood in the longer term. On the  other 
hand,  it  was  important  to  counteract  the  increasing  criticism  from  eNGOs,  about  the 
negative impacts of shrimp fishing on the seabed. In this way, certification of the shrimp 
fishery would verify it as sustainable. 

The Dutch shrimp fishers entered the MSC certification scheme in 2007, followed by the 
German  fishers  in  2009.  In  December  2015,  the  Dutch,  Danish  and  German  Producer 
Organisations (POs) adopted a shared Brown Shrimp Management Plan, which has been 
under development for several years by the POs and came into force on the 1st January 
2016. This management plan was the first in the century-long history of shrimp fishing and 

93 

 
 
 
The implementation of ecosystem-based approaches applied to fisheries management under the 
Common Fisheires Policy 

was an essential requirement for MSC certification procedure. The main measures within 
the management plans are technical regulations, such as a gradual increase in mesh size 
and weight and size limits of fishing gear as well as the implementation of a harvest control 
rule.  The  harvest  control  role  comes  into  force  if  the  LPUE  measured  at  the  end  of  the 
month drops below the precautionary reference point. This triggers a reduction in fishing 
effort for the next two weeks. If this measure does not work, fishing effort will continue to 
be gradually reduced. The aim of reducing fishing effort is to allow smaller shrimp to grow 
to a larger size during the season before capture.  

The  MSC  assessment  process  began  on  28th  January  2016  and  in  December  2017,  the 
fishery  was  certified  as  sustainable.  Thus,  the  self-imposed  comprehensive  rules  and 
control  mechanisms  in  their  fishing  activities  can  create  the  basis  for  the  long-term 
protection of the North Sea shrimp stock and the careful management of the Wadden Sea 
ecosystem. 

94 

 
The implementation of ecosystem-based approaches applied to fisheries management under the Common Fisheires Policy 

ANNEX 6: RESULTS OF RANKING OF ASSESSMENT CRITERIA BY CASE STUDY  

Evidence 

Decision-Making 

Follow-up 

CS 

Management 
measure 

Quality 

Trust 

Type 

Fishers’ 
knowledge 

Evidence-
based  with 
clear 
objectives 

Transparency 

Stakeholders 
involvement  

Regionalizatio
n 

Monitoring 

Marine  protected 
areas  to  promote 
the  rebuilding  of 
cod population 

1.Technical 
conservatio
n measures 
to  protect 
Kattegat 
cod 

High.    The 
analysis  and 
proposal 
were 
conducted by 
two  national 
research 
institutes. 

joint 

High.  A 
memorandum 
was produced by 
research 
two 
institutes  upon 
national 
governments 
The 
request. 
analysis 
was 
based  on  best 
available science 
and data. 

Low. 
Existing 
fisheries 
(expert) 
knowledge 
poorly  used 
in the CS. 

The 

High. 
objective 
was clear: to 
promote  the 
rebuilding  of 
the 
cod 
population 

The 

High. 
memorandum 
was  subject  to 
the  revision  by 
the fishing sector 
and 
other 
stakeholders. 

The 
study 

High. 
Case 
was 
addressing 
regional 
challenges  and 
measures.  

involved 
the 

High. 
Stakeholders 
were 
after 
memorandum 
by  the  research 
institutes  was 
made produced. 
It was contested 
by  the  fishing 
sector  and  the 
original 
proposal  had  to 
change. 

been 

High.  Since  the 
MPAs 
implantation 
(2009),  several 
evaluations 
have 
conducted 
concerning  the 
original 
objectives  and 
potential 
changes  in  the 
original 
measures. 
Some  analyse 
the 
economic 
impacts. 

The  analysis 
was 
monodiscip
linary 
focusing  on 
biological 
and 
ecological 
impacts.  An 
ex-ante 
evaluation 
considering 
social 
economic 
scientists 
would  have 
been  useful 
to  envisage 
potential 
fishers’ 
distress  and 
provide 
alternative 
options. 

and 

Introduction 
of 
pulse  trawling  to 
reduce  impact  on 
sea  bottom  and 
CO2 emissions. 

2.Sole-
directed 
pulse 
trawling  in 
the 
Netherland
s 

High.  National 
Researchers  and 
ICES  conducted 
research  on  the 
technical 
viability  of  the 
and 
technique 
on 
low 
the 
ecological 
implications 

of 

High. 
The 
trials  at  sea 
and  analysis 
were 
conducted by 
research 
institutes 
which 
employ 
best 

the 

95 

Monodiscip
linary.  The 
process  was 
basically 
conducted 
by 
scientists.  

natural 

Low. 
Existing 
fisheries 
(expert) 
knowledge 
poorly  used 
in the CS. 

The 

High. 
objective 
was clear: to 
diminish  the 
on 
impact 
the  bottom 
and 
emissions.  

No  ex-ante 
impact 

Low.  It  is  not 
what 
clear 
factors 
and 
actors led the EU 
to 
Parliament 
ban  the  use  of 
pulse 
trawling 
and  on  which 
scientific 
evidence 

the 

Medium-high.  

Diverse 
stakeholders 
were involved in 
the  debate  on 
the 
implementation 
of 
the 
technique. 

The 
study 

High. 
Case 
was 
addressing 
regional 
challenges  and 
measures. 
Good  regional 

Low. 
After 
implementation 
there was a race 
for 
fishing 
licences  (given 
technical 
the 
and 
economic 
viability  of  the 
technique) 
led 
which 
concerns 

to 
on 

 
 
 
The implementation of ecosystem-based approaches applied to fisheries management under the Common Fisheires Policy 

Evidence 

Decision-Making 

Follow-up 

CS 

Management 
measure 

Quality 

Trust 

Type 

Fishers’ 
knowledge 

Evidence-
based  with 
clear 
objectives 

Transparency 

Stakeholders 
involvement  

Regionalizatio
n 

Monitoring 

the  use  of  this 
technique. 

available 
science 

assessment 
was 
conducted to 
assess 
the 
socio-
economic 
impacts 

decision 
based. 

was 

3.Spanish 
Bottom 
Trawling  in 
ICES 
SubAreas  6 
and 7 

Use  of  selective 
to 
fishing  gear 
discards 
reduce 
with 
LO 
the 
framework 

High.  Scientific 
trials at sea were 
conducted 
by 
research 
institutes  

Low. 
Existing 
fisheries 
(expert) 
knowledge 
poorly  used 
in the CS. 

The 

High. 
objective 
was clear: to 
reduce 
bycatch  and 
the  risk  of 
choke 
species.  

The 
High. 
and 
process 
are 
outcomes 
described 
in 
research reports. 

High. 
The 
trials  at  sea 
and  analysis 
were 
conducted by 
research 
institutes 
which 
employ 
best 
available 
science  

the 

Monodiscip
linary.  The 
process 
is 
conducted 
by 
scientists.  

natural 

Nonetheless, 
technical 
inputs  were 
suggested 
by 
fishers. 

the 

Protected areas 

of 

4.Designati
on 
NATURA 
2000  sites 
the 
in 

Low.  A  limited 
availability 
of 
scientific 
information  on 
species 
and 
habitats  in  the 
EEZ 

Low. A lot of 
criticism  of 
the  selected 
areas  (from 
too  much  to 
not enough) 

Monodiscip
linary. 
Limited 
scientific 
information 

The 
Low. 
objective 
is 
not based on 
solid 
scientific 
evidence  

Low.  Due  to  the 
legal 
requirement 
designate 
area 
a 
process 

to 
the 
short 
with 

Low. 
Existing 
fisheries 
(expert) 
knowledge 
poorly  used 
in the CS. 

96 

However, 
it 
seems  that  the 
vision  of  other 
fleets) 
fishing 
was 
not 
incorporated  in 
process, 
the 
would 
which 
have 
been 
valuable 
provided 
side 
potential 
effects  on  other 
fleets.  

High.  
Stakeholders 
led the initiative 
to 
a 
find 
solution  for  the 
problem 
of 
discards and the 
risk  of  choke 
species. 
Contributed 
with 
empirical 
knowledge. 

their 

Low. There was 
a 
limited 
involvement  of 
stakeholders 
with  ability  to 
comment  on  a 
first draft of the 

data  available 
and used. 

overfishing, spill 
over  effects  on 
other  grounds 
and 
unfair 
competition 
with 
fleets. 

other 

High. 
of 
Monitoring 
the  activities  of 
fleets 
the 
employing 
the 
selectivity 
improvements 
is  conducted  in 
the 
framework 
of  the  DCF  and 
control 
regulation. 

A 
Low. 
monitoring 
of 
the  areas  just 
started 

The 
study 

High. 
Case 
was 
addressing 
regional 
challenges  and 
measures. 
Good  regional 
data  available 
and used. 

The 
study 

High. 
Case 
was 
addressing 
regional 
challenges  and 
measures. 
Good  regional 

 
 
The implementation of ecosystem-based approaches applied to fisheries management under the Common Fisheires Policy 

Evidence 

Decision-Making 

Follow-up 

CS 

Management 
measure 

Quality 

Trust 

Type 

German 
EEZ 

5.Bratten 
Marine 
Protected 
Area  in  the 
Baltic Sea 

Establish  no-take 
zones 

6.Spurdog 
Bycatch 
Avoidance 
Programme 

Measures to avoid 
the  bycatch  of 
spurdog  and  thus 
discards 
reduce 
and 
choke 
effect  under  the 
LO 

the 

in 

High.  Scientific 
departments  at 
Swedish 
universities 
participated 
the 
characterization 
of  the  ecological 
the 
values  of 
on 
area 
and 
impacts 
of 
fishing  on 
the 
ecosystems  and 
economic 
importance 
of 
the  area.  The 
scientific  results 
backed  up  a 
Joint 
Recommendatio
n by Sweden and 
Denmark 
and 
was  scrutinized 
by STECF. 

High.  Evidence 
been 
has 
provided 
by 
research 
institutes  trough 
a  pilot  program 
with 
participation  of 
fishermen.  The 
was 
program 

Fishers’ 
knowledge 

Evidence-
based  with 
clear 
objectives 

Transparency 

Stakeholders 
involvement  

Regionalizatio
n 

Monitoring 

limited 
information 

public 

areas 
to 
designated 

be 

data  available 
and used.  

The 

in 
of 

High. 
evaluations 
were 
hands 
specialised 
departments 
at 
universities 
the 
and 
process  was 
peer-
reviewed  by 
a 
third 
scientific 
party 
Denmark. 

in 

Multidiscipl
inary.  The 
process 
included 
natural  and 
economic 
researchers.  

Low. 
Existing 
fisheries 
(expert) 
knowledge 
poorly  used 
in the CS. 

High. 
The 
objective  to 
establish  the 
no-take zone 
was 
clear. 
Nonetheless 
it 
was 
contested  by 
part  of  the 
fishing 
industry. 

The 
study 

High. 
Case 
was 
addressing 
regional 
challenges  and 
measures. 
Good  regional 
data  available 
and used. 

No 

Low. 
systematic 
monitoring 
of 
the  effects  was 
put 
in  place 
after 
implementation 
(2017) 

High. 

Fishing  sector, 
eNGOs,  anglers 
and  authorities 
participated 
in 
the 
process. 
Although  there 
tensions 
were 
between 
the 
eNGOs 
objectives  and 
the 
industry 
interests. 

High. 
The 
process has been 
transparent 
all 
involving 
parties  and  even 
has  gained  and 
international 
dimension  since 
it became a Joint 
Recommendatio
n  Moreover,  the 
was 
research 
partially 
funded 
by Interreg’s and 
thus 
its 
outcomes 
subject 
to 
revision  by  third 
parties. 

High. 
The 
design of the 
trials  at  sea 
and  analysis 
were 
conducted by 
a 
research 
institute 
which 
employ 
97 

the 

Monodiscip
linary.  The 
scientific 
process  was 
conducted 
by 
scientists. 
Nonetheless, 
fishers 
cooperated 

natural 

Low. 
Existing 
fisheries 
(expert) 
knowledge 
poorly  used 
in the CS. 

High.   
Objectives 
clear 
were 
reduce 
i.e., 
bycatch  and 
let  spurdog 
survive 
to 

The 
High. 
process 
was 
made  public  and 
interested 
were 
parties 
invited 
to 
participate.  The 
outcomes  of  the 
pilot studies were 

High.  The  pilot 
study 
design 
was  based  on 
knowledge, 
collated  during 
workshops  with 
participation  of 
fishing 
local 
and 
industry 
relevant 

The 
study 

High. 
Case 
was 
addressing 
regional 
challenges  and 
measures. 
Good  regional 

Not  applicable, 
since 
the 
measure  in  not 
in place yet.  

 
 
 
The implementation of ecosystem-based approaches applied to fisheries management under the Common Fisheires Policy 

Evidence 

Decision-Making 

Follow-up 

CS 

Management 
measure 

Quality 

Trust 

Type 

Fishers’ 
knowledge 

Evidence-
based  with 
clear 
objectives 

Transparency 

Stakeholders 
involvement  

Regionalizatio
n 

Monitoring 

no 

evaluated 
by 
which 
STECF 
concluded that it 
provided  useful 
evidence 
on 
spurdog 
fisheries, 
although 
conclusive. 
Nevertheless, 
STECF  considers 
that the initiative 
motivates 
positive 
change 
fishers’ 
behaviour. 

a 
in 

User 
in 

7.Territoria
l 
Rights 
French 
Guiana 

Granting of fishing 
in 
opportunities 
to 
EU  waters 
vessels 
fishing 
flying 
the 
Venezuela  in  the 
EEZ  off  the  coast 
of French Guiana 

The 
Low. 
is 
measure 
based 
on 
Territorial  Users 
(TURFs) 
Rights 
in 
Fishers 
establishing  45 
for 
licenses 
to 
vessels 
in  the 
operate 
area. 
No 
scientific basis is 
provided for that 
decision. 

best 
available 
science 

with 
scientists. 

after 
catching.  

assessed 
STECF. 

by 

agencies 
NGOs 

and 

data  available 
and used. 

No 

Low. 
science 
the 
behind 
to 
decision 
grant 
these 
licences  just 
historical 
presence 
the waters. 

in 

Low. 
Existing 
fisheries 
(expert) 
knowledge 
poorly  used 
in the CS. 

Low. 
The 
objective  of 
providing 
opportunities 
for 
vessels 
with  TURFs 
in  Guiana`s 
waters 
is 
clear,  but  it 
is  not  based 
on science. 

Low. There is an 
agreement 
to 
land  75%  of  the 
catches in French 
Guiana  but  data 
the 
about 
in 
landings 
Venezuela 
are 
not available.  

Monodiscip
linary. 
Science used 
in relation to 
this measure 
is 
mostly 
technical 
grey 
literature, 
published  by 
the  national 
institute 
in 
the  context 
their 
of 
monitoring 
of 
in 
Guiana.  

fisheries 
French 

The 
study 

High. 
Case 
was 
addressing 
regional 
challenges  and 
measures. 
Good  regional 
data  available 
and used. 

Low.  It  seems 
that  when  the 
agreement  was 
it  was 
signed 
not 
a 
consultation 
process. 
the 
Currently 
is 
agreement 
being  contested 
since 
two 
factories  have 
exclusive  rights 
to  buy  the  fish 
and 
other 
parties  wish  to 
participate. 

Low.  The  stock 
is  assessed  by 
the 
national 
institute,  being 
its 
state 
overexploited. 
the 
However, 
is 
agreement 
being 
not 
revised  neither 
the  effort 
is 
restricted, 
which maintains 
the 
almost 
same level since 
1980s.  There  is 
no monitoring of 
the 
catches 
landed  outside 
French  Guiana. 

98 

 
 
 
The implementation of ecosystem-based approaches applied to fisheries management under the Common Fisheires Policy 

Evidence 

Decision-Making 

Follow-up 

CS 

Management 
measure 

Quality 

Trust 

Type 

Fishers’ 
knowledge 

Evidence-
based  with 
clear 
objectives 

Transparency 

Stakeholders 
involvement  

Regionalizatio
n 

Monitoring 

8.Anchovy 
in  the  Gulf 
of Cadiz 

Protection 
nursery 
(Guadalquivir) 

of 
area 

The 

High. 
scientific 
underpinning 
was  provided  by 
national 
the 
research 
institute  based 
on data collected 
and 
research 
conducted in the 
area. 

The 

High. 
regional 
government 
requested 
the  scientific 
of 
the 
national 
research 
institute 
provide 
scientific 
justification 
of 
measure.  

to 
the 

the 

Low. 
Existing 
fisheries 
(expert) 
knowledge 
poorly  used 
in the CS.  

The 

High. 
objective 
was clear: to 
protect 
a 
nursery  area 
from  fishing 
activities. 

High.  Decisions 
are  baked  up  by 
a 
scientific 
process.  Results 
were  discussed 
with 
stakeholders. 

Medium-high. 
and 
Fishers 
eNGOs 
were 
involved  in  the 
of 
process 
setting 
the 
protected area. 

The 
study 

High. 
Case 
was 
addressing 
regional 
challenges  and 
measures. 
Good  regional 
data  available 
and used.  

Monodiscip
linary. 

Research 
was  led  by 
natural 
scientists. 
Decisions 
were  based 
on  scientific 
outputs. 
Empirical 
knowledge 
that  argues 
the 
against 
creation  of 
the 
protection 
areas  were 
assessed  by 
scientists 
and 
dismissed. 
Socioecono
mic  analysis 
was 
not 
employed  to 
assess 
the 
impact of the 
measure. 

99 

by 

Catches 
vessels 
targeting  other 
resources 
are 
not 
sampled 
either. 

stock 

Low-medium. 
The 
is 
monitored  and 
state 
its 
by 
assessed 
ICES. 

is 

There 
a 
Commission  for 
the  monitoring 
of  the  reserve 
but  is  regarded 
as  not  including 
all  the  sectors 
the 
affecting 
quality  of  the 
the 
water 
reserve 
e.g. 
agriculture 
sector 

in 

 
 
 
 
 
 
The implementation of ecosystem-based approaches applied to fisheries management under the Common Fisheires Policy 

Evidence 

Decision-Making 

Follow-up 

CS 

Management 
measure 

Quality 

Trust 

Type 

Fishers’ 
knowledge 

TAC 

High. The TAC is 
recommended 
by 
ICES.  The 
process  of  TAC 
setting  is  sound 
on 
and 
lies 
data 
acoustic 
and  other  data 
collected  under 
the DCF. 

ICES 
the 

High. 
employ 
best 
available 
science  and 
data 
to 
determine 
the TAC. 

Monodiscip
linary.  The 
process 
is 
conducted 
by 
scientist. 

natural 

Low. 
Existing 
fisheries 
(expert) 
knowledge 
poorly  used 
in the CS. 

SFPA 
Spain 
Morocco 

between 
and 

The 

High. 
scientific 
background 
is 
provided  by  the 
CECAF  and  by 
the  EU-Morocco 
joint 
scientific 
commission 

High.  Both 
countries 
trust  in  the 
scientific 
underpinning 
the 
of 
agreement 
and 
levels 
effort 
allowed  are 
based 
on 
that advice 

the 
of 

Multidiscipl
inary.  The 
agreement 
was  based 
not  only  on 
natural 
scientific 
aspects  but 
also 
on 
socioeconom
ic aspects for 
estimating 
the 
payment 
and  support 
fisheries 
to 
institutional 
capacity 
building 
Morocco 

EU 

in 

100 

Evidence-
based  with 
clear 
objectives 

High. 
TAC 
was  adopted 
to  establish 
managemen
t  measures 
for  a  stock 
shared  with 
Portugal 

The 

High. 
objective 
was 
clearly 
set up, which 
is  to  provide 
alternative 
economic 
opportunities 
for  Spanish 
fishing  fleets 
e.g.,  for  the 
fleet  based 
on 
Andalusia.  

Transparency 

Stakeholders 
involvement  

Regionalizatio
n 

Monitoring 

No 
stakeholder 
involvement 
occurs 
establishment 
of the TAC  

in 

the 

High. The stock 
is  monitored 
its  state 
and 
assessed 
by 
ICES. 

The 
study 

High. 
Case 
was 
addressing 
regional 
challenges  and 
measures. 
Good  regional 
data  available 
and used. 

Low.  Although 
scientific 
the 
process 
is 
transparent,  the 
TAC 
setting 
differs  from  that 
recommended by 
the  ICES.  Thus, 
TAC  does  not 
strictly 
follow 
scientific  advice 
and  seems  to  be 
driven 
by 
political 
decisions. 

High.  There  is  a 
protocol between 
both 
parties 
where  conditions 
are  detailed.  The 
scientific 
committee 
in 
turn  guarantee 
the  transparency 
of  the  scientific 
process. 

The  agreement 
is  a  political 
process 
between  the  EU 
third 
and 
a 
and 
country 
involving 
scientist 
for 
advice,  but  no 
stakeholders 
are involved. 

The 
study 

High. 
Case 
was 
addressing 
regional 
challenges  and 
measures. 
Good  regional 
data  available 
and used. 

High. Follow up 
of  the  state  of 
the 
resources, 
compliance with 
the conditions is 
the 
of 
part 
commitments of 
the EU 

 
 
 
 
The implementation of ecosystem-based approaches applied to fisheries management under the Common Fisheires Policy 

Evidence 

Decision-Making 

Follow-up 

Fishers’ 
knowledge 

Low. 
Existing 
fisheries 
(expert) 
knowledge 
poorly  used 
in the CS. 

Evidence-
based  with 
clear 
objectives 

Medium. 
Although  the 
objective 
clear 
was 
there 
was 
not based on 
strong 
evidence 
about 
effect 
allowed 
hunting  on 
conflicts with 
fishers.  

the 
of 

Transparency 

Stakeholders 
involvement  

Regionalizatio
n 

Monitoring 

The 
High. 
was 
process 
the 
transparent 
results  of 
the 
research  were 
discussed  with 
and 
HELCOM 
backed 
up 
legislative 
decisions.  

The 
study 

High. 
Case 
was 
addressing 
regional 
challenges  and 
measures. 
Good  regional 
data  available 
and used. 

Medium.  Lack 
systematic 
of 
up 
follow 
studies 
to 
accomplish such 
evaluation. 
Nonetheless, 
questionaries 
were distributed 
amongst  fishers 
to  identify  the 
the 
effects  of 
implementation
. 

Medium. 
and 
Fishers 
other 
interest 
groups were not 
actively 
engaged  during 
process 
the 
their  inputs  on 
the  results  of 
the 
implementation 
been 
have 
to 
requested 
observe 
the 
results  of  the 
implementation
. 

CS 

Management 
measure 

Quality 

Trust 

Type 

Monodiscip
linary. 

a 

The  process 
basically 
included 
natural 
scientists, 
although this 
could  have 
been 
approached 
from 
multidiscipli
nary 
perspective 
including 
social 
economic 
sciences 
understand 
the  effect  of 
hunting 
in 
the 
reduction  of 
conflicts 
between 
fishers  and 
seals. 

and 

to 

Restricted hunting 
to 
seals 
of 
diminish 
gear 
damage 

9.Hunting 
grey 
of 
seals  as  a 
manageme
nt  measure 
in the Baltic 
Sea 

High.    The 
analyses 
were 
conducted by 
research 
institutes. 

Low-Medium. 
Different  studies 
were  conducted 
but  could  not 
strong 
found 
evidence 
that 
restricted 
hunting 
has 
effects  on  grey-
seal  damage  in 
Baltic 
Sea 
fisheries 

the 

other 

In 
hand, 
of 
assessment 
seal 
the 
population  and 
data 
collection 
appears  as  a 
valid  approach 
estimate 
to 
population 
abundance  

10.Effects 
of  density 
dependent 
growth  of 
fish 
on 
manageme
nt and TAC, 

101 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The implementation of ecosystem-based approaches applied to fisheries management under the Common Fisheires Policy 

Evidence 

Decision-Making 

Follow-up 

CS 

Management 
measure 

Quality 

Trust 

Type 

Fishers’ 
knowledge 

Evidence-
based  with 
clear 
objectives 

Transparency 

Stakeholders 
involvement  

Regionalizatio
n 

Monitoring 

exemplified 
Baltic 
on 
sprat 

on 

11.Fisherie
s 
sustainabili
ty  track  in 
Belgium 

Monitoring 
to 
instrument 
socio-
assess 
economic 
and 
ecological  impacts 
of fleets 

High. 
The 
research was led 
by  the  national 
research 
institute  in  the 
framework 
of 
one 
scientific 
research project. 

MSC certification 

brown 

12.Self-
regulation 
of 
shrimp 
fishery  via 
MSC 
certification 

High. 
Certification 
are 
criteria 
based  on  time 
series 
of 
fisheries 
data 
and  data  from 
regular  scientific 
research 
activities 

High. 
The 
wide arrange 
parties 
of 
involved 
in 
the 
development 
of  the  tool 
trusted in the 
quality of the 
research 
underpinning 
the  tool  and, 
versa, 
vice 
researchers 
trust 
stakeholders
’  knowledge 
an 
information. 

on 

High. 
Specific  data 
collection  by 
the 
fishers 
and 
cooperation 
of 
science 
fishers 
and 
with trials on 
commercial 
vessels 

Low. 
Existing 
fisheries 
(expert) 
knowledge 
poorly  used 
in the CS. 

The tool was 
produced  by 
a 
multidiscip
linary  team 
involving 
natural, 
social,  and 
economic 
scientists. 

Low. 
Existing 
fisheries 
(expert) 
knowledge 
poorly  used 
in the CS. 

Monodiscip
linary 

Data 
collection for 
scientific 
purposes, no 
socio-
economic 
impact 
assessment 
as 

not 

102 

The 

High. 
objective 
was clear: to 
evaluate 
socio-
economic 
and 
ecological 
impacts 
fishing.  

of 

The 

High. 
objective 
was clear: to 
initiate 
the 
eco 
certification 
process 
obtain 
price 
premium and 
conservation 

to 
a 

The 
High. 
was 
process 
the 
open 
diverse 
parties 
for  contribution 
and revision.  

to 

High.  A  wide 
of 
arrange 
stakeholders 
such  as  fishers, 
eNGOs 
and 
administration 
have 
to 
contributed 
the  process  and 
benefited 
from 
the  use  of  the 
tool. 

The 
study 

High. 
Case 
was 
addressing 
regional 
challenges  and 
measures. 
Good  regional 
data  available 
and used. 

The 
management 
measure  is  per 
se  a  monitoring 
instrument, 
a 
although 
voluntary 
one 
and  may  even 
require  more 
vessels 
to 
participate. 

High. 
by 
the 
sector itself 

Initiative 
fishing 

High.  Initiative 
by  the  fishing 
sector itself  

High.  Regular 
monitoring 
of 
fishery  to 
the 
assess 
the 
fulfilment of the 
criteria 

The 
study 

High. 
Case 
was 
addressing 
regional 
challenges  and 
measures. 
Good  regional 
data  available 
and used.  

 
 
 
The implementation of ecosystem-based approaches applied to fisheries management under the Common Fisheires Policy 

Evidence 

Decision-Making 

Follow-up 

CS 

Management 
measure 

Quality 

Trust 

Type 

Fishers’ 
knowledge 

required  for 
certification 

Transparency 

Stakeholders 
involvement  

Regionalizatio
n 

Monitoring 

Evidence-
based  with 
clear 
objectives 

of 
resource 

the 

103 

 
 
 
 
 
 
The implementation of ecosystem-based approaches applied to fisheries management under the 
Common Fisheires Policy 

104 

 
 
 
The implementation of ecosystem-based approaches applied to fisheries management under the 
Common Fisheires Policy 

ANNEX 7: DATABASE DESIGN AND INFORMATION SOURCES 

The basic structuring for the analysis and data collection was through the use of a relational 
database in the form of a standalone offline Microsoft Access database  that enabled the 
collection  of  information  through  a  series  of  simple  user  forms  that  allowed  data  to  be 
viewed and updated. 

Database entity relationship diagram 

Data Sources 

EAFM Database Table 

Sources  

EAFM_Main_Data_table 

Task 5 Case study templates 

EU MSC Fisheries 

EU Quotas 2019 

MSFD information from DG ENV 

Hyder,  K,  Radford,  Z,  Prellezo,  R, 
Weltersbach,  MS,  Lewin,  WC,  Zarauz,  L, 
Ferter, K, Ruiz, J, Townhill, B, Mugerza, E, 
& Strehlow, HV, 2017. Research for PECH 

105 

 
 
 
 
 
The implementation of ecosystem-based approaches applied to fisheries management under the 
Common Fisheires Policy 

EAFM Database Table 

Sources  

Committee - Marine recreational and semi-
subsistence  fishing  -  its  value  and  its 
European 
impact 
Parliament, 
for 
Structural and Cohesion Policies, Brussels 

fish 
stocks, 
Policy  Department 

on 

ANNEX  IV  INVENTORY  OF  EU  TECHNICAL 
MEASURES REGULATIONS 

REGIONALISATION STUDY templates 

Task 3 Partner Templates 

Report 
on 
EASME/EMFF/2018/1.3.2.4-Lot2-02 

OR 

for 

and 

Technical 

Scientific, 
Economic 
Committee  for  Fisheries  (STECF)  2021. 
the  Technical  Measures 
Review  of 
Regulation  (STECF-21-07).  Publications 
Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 
EUR 28359 EN, ISBN 978-92-76-45890-6, 
doi:10.2760/790781, JRC127718 

and 

Technical 

Scientific, 
Economic 
Committee  for  Fisheries  (STECF)  2020 
Review  of  technical  measures  (part  1) 
(STECF-20-02). 
EN, 
EUR 
Publications Office of the European Union, 
Luxembourg,  ISBN  978-92-76-27161-1, 
doi:10.2760/734593, JRC123092. 

28359 

EU_Legal_Initiating_Actors 

Task 1 report 

Fishery_Groups 

Task 2 Report 

Fishery_Groups_Quarters 

Task 2 Report 

Fishery_Groups_Target_Species 

Task 2 Report 

Lookup_Challenge_Types 

Task 3 Report 

Lookup_Fishing_Regions 

Lookup_Gear_Codes 

Task  2  Report  combined  with  additional 
regions from task 4 report  

international  standard  statistical 

The 
classification of fishing gear (ISSCFG) 

Lookup_Measure_Types 

Task 4 report  

Lookup_Species_Codes 

FAO  ASFIS  List  of  Species  for  Fishery 
Statistics Purposes 

106 

 
 
The implementation of ecosystem-based approaches applied to fisheries management under the 
Common Fisheires Policy 

107 

 
 
 
 
 
The implementation of ecosystem-based approaches applied to fisheries management under the 
Common Fisheires Policy 

ANNEX  8:  STAKEHOLDER  FEEDBACK  ON  THE  PRELIMINARY 
STUDY RESULTS 

Workshop 1 

The governance aspects that workshop participants wanted to be considered were related 
to: 

•  Make sure that management applies also for the longer term and can be adaptive. 
•  Make sure that there is coherence between the different policy objectives (different 
legislations at EU level: Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) and Common 
Fisheries Policy (CFP) as well as between different jurisdictional levels: national vs 
EU or EU vs non-EU). 

•  Make sure the EAFM measures as operationalized contribute to the achievement of 
policy objectives or societal goals and that their performance can be assessed. This 
also requires good monitoring of compliance to measures (thus have a good follow-
up after implementation including feedback loop). There is however a challenge in 
aiming to achieve multiple objectives, e.g. multispecies MSY versus socio-economic 
objectives as well as the selection of the objectives themselves – are all objectives 
considered equal? If not, then how to prioritize? 

•  Make sure that a precautionary approach is considered. 
•  Make sure that there is political commitment to reach policy objectives.  
•  Stakeholders  point  out  that  difficult  trade-offs  need  to  be  made;  EAFM  is  about 
taking measures that affect the social-ecological system, thus policy objectives can 
be in conflict with interests of specific sectors. Some stakeholders emphasize that 
there are critical ecological limits that should be adhered to and not overridden by 
politics (i.e. fish more than advised).  Others emphasize that the  ecological limits 
depend on policy objectives (i.e. a precautionary approach vs MSY). 

The skills required to implement an EAFM that participants highlighted included: 

•  Skills  to  perform  scenario-studies,  skills  to  understand  cumulative  effects  and 

understand the concept of impacts in both ecological and social dimensions.  

•  A  need  to  have  a  better  understanding  of  EAFM  and  more  EAFM  advice  from 

scientific bodies. 

•  More multi- and inter-disciplinary teams and access to the required data (based on 
adequate  monitoring).  For  scientists  to  effectively  work  together 
in  an 
interdisciplinary manner a high-level understanding between disciplines is needed 
(i.e. common understanding of specific concepts). 

•  Need for skills to understand how people can and do respond to the measures that 

are introduced and how this relates to ‘success’?.  

In  relation  to  the  right  place  to  implement  new  management  measures,  participants 
highlighted: 

•  The  Advisory  Councils  (ACs),  the  EU  Commission,  ICES,  Member  States  (often 

together),  Regional Sea Conventions depending upon scale  

•  The existing advisory process to set the annual TAC-quota as a good starting point 

to move towards an EAFM.  

Workshop 2 

The  workshop  focused  on  enhancing  the  utility  of  the  database  as  a  tool  to  support  an 
EAFM. Types of questions (queries) that participants thought relevant included: 

108 

 
 
The implementation of ecosystem-based approaches applied to fisheries management under the 
Common Fisheires Policy

• How  to  apply  the  tool  to  assess  the  implementation  of  EAFM?  [i.e.  as  part  of  a

decision tree where the tool provides guidance for each decision]

• Which EAFM measures were effective?
• With  which  health  warnings,  and  risks  does  the  tool  come?  Are  there  any  gaps,

conflicting interests?

• A key challenge to EAFM is cross sectoral cooperation. Can the tool take this into

account?

Is there a way to connect to, incorporate local knowledge?

• How are the governance instruments embedded in the social system?
• Does the tool link the measures to different policy objectives (i.e. CFP or MSFD)
•
• Can we see whether measures have been top-down or participatory?
• How may climate affect the planning and outcome of EAFM?
• Can it warn against choke risk in mixed fisheries?

Participants also suggested data sets that could help to increase the information within the 
database: 

• Reporting by member states for other directives with relevance for fisheries, e.g.
the birds and habitats directive and the marine strategy framework directive.

• National data from reporting on MPAs and recreational fisheries,
• Also  highlighted  were  potential  gaps  including  human  interactions  and  other

impacts for which data may be lacking, e.g. pollution and offshore energy.

Finally  participants  considered  the  wider  challenges  with  operationalizing  an  EAFM. 
Important challenges identified included: 

• Uncertainty  (lack  of  data,  quality  of  data)  can  be  an  obstacle  in  operationalizing
EAFM  but  can  also  be  used  as  an  excuse  for  inaction,  which  should  be  critically
examined.

• Complexity is another potential obstacle: there might be reluctance because doing
EAFM  is  seen  as  too  complex.  Yet  the  participants  agreed  that  although  EAFM  is
complex, that is not a reason not to do it.

• As well as inaction, ‘panic’ actions can compromise the chance of success and this
may  be  related  to  the  advice  process,  including  ability  to  move  beyond  single
species and (lack of) evidence of effectiveness.

• Greater coordination needed at MS level notably in terms of cooperation between

stakeholders.

109 

The implementation of ecosystem-based approaches applied to fisheries management under the 
Common Fisheires Policy

110 

. 

GETTING IN TOUCH WITH THE EU 

In person 

All over the European Union there are hundreds of Europe Direct information centres. You 
can find the address of the centre nearest you at: 

https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en  

On the phone or by email 

Europe Direct is a service that answers your questions about the European Union. You can 
contact this service: 

– by freephone: 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (certain operators may charge for these calls), 

– at the following standard number: +32 22999696, or 

– by email via: https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en  

FINDING INFORMATION ABOUT THE EU 

Online 

Information about the European Union in all the official languages of the EU is available on 
the Europa website at: https://europa.eu/european-union/index_en  

EU publications 

You can download or order free and priced EU publications from: 

https://publications.europa.eu/en/publications  

Multiple copies of free publications may be obtained by contacting Europe Direct or your 
local information centre (see https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en). 

EU law and related documents 

For access to legal information from the EU, including all EU law since 1952 in all the official 
language versions, go to EUR-Lex at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu 

Open data from the EU 

The  EU  Open  Data  Portal  (http://data.europa.eu/euodp/en)  provides  access  to  datasets 
from the EU. Data can be downloaded and reused for free, for both commercial and non-
commercial purposes. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
H
Z
-
0
9
-
2
2
-
5
1
2
-
E
N
-
N

       doi: 10.2926/57956 
       ISBN 978-92-95225-57-2