Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) : 76th plenary report (STECF-PLEN-24-02).
Date: 2025-01-10
Institutions: Joint Research Centre, Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries
Subjects: Community fisheries, conservation of fish stocks, environmental economics, evaluation of resources, fishery management, research report, technical regulations, territorial waters

ISSN 2467-0715 

Scientific, Technical and Economic 
Committee for Fisheries (STECF)  

76th Plenary report 
(STECF-PLEN-24-02) 

Prellezo, R., Nord, J., Doerner, H. (eds) 

2025 

 
  
  
  
service. It aims to provide evidence-based scientific support to the European policymaking process. The contents of this 
publication do not necessarily reflect the position or opinion of the European Commission. Neither the European 
Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use that might be made of this 
publication. For information on the methodology and quality underlying the data used in this publication for which the 
source is neither Eurostat nor other Commission services, users should contact the referenced source. The designations 
employed and the presentation of material on the maps do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the 
part of the European Union concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or 
concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. 

Contact information 
Name: STECF secretariat 
Address: Unit D.02 Ocean and Water, Via Enrico Fermi 2749, 21027 Ispra VA, Italy 
Email: jrc-stecf-secretariat@ec.europa.eu 
Tel.: +39 0332 789343 

EU Science Hub 
https://joint-research-centre.ec.europa.eu 

JRC140570 

PDF  

ISBN 978-92-68-23030-5   ISSN 2467-0715   doi:10.2760/1035959  

KJ-01-24-218-EN-N 

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2025 

© European Union, 2025 

The reuse policy of the European Commission documents is implemented by the Commission Decision 2011/833/EU of 12 December 2011 
on the reuse of Commission documents (OJ L 330, 14.12.2011, p. 39). Unless otherwise noted, the reuse of this document is authorised 
under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This means that 
reuse is allowed provided appropriate credit is given and any changes are indicated.  

For any use or reproduction of photos or other material that is not owned by the European Union permission must be sought directly from 
the copyright holders. 

How to cite this report: European Commission: Joint Research Centre, Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF)   
76th Plenary report (STECF-PLEN-24-02), Prellezo, R., Nord, J. and Doerner, H. editor(s), Publications Office of the European Union, 
Luxembourg, 2025, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2760/1035959, JRC140570. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CONTENTS 

Abstract……………………………………...…………………………………………………………………….1 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................4 

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS .........................................................................................................4 

INFORMATION TO THE PLENARY .........................................................................................4 

STECF INITIATIVES .................................................................................................................5 

ASSESSMENT OF STECF EWG REPORTS ...........................................................................6 

5.1 EWG 24-02 Methodologies for Mediterranean stock assessments and the estimation of reference 

points .........................................................................................................................................6 

5.2 EWG 24-03 Annual Economic Report on the EU Fishing Fleet I and EWG 24-07 Annual Economic 
Report on the EU Fishing Fleet II ..............................................................................................9 

5.3 EWG 24-05 Social Data in EU fisheries .......................................................................................... 13 

5.4 EWG 24-06 Outermost regions ....................................................................................................... 18 

5.5 EWG 24-08 Evaluation of the Annual Reports for data collection and data transmission issues ... 22 

6. 

ADDITIONAL REQUESTS SUBMITTED TO THE STECF PLENARY BY THE COMMISSION
 ............................................................................................................................................... 28 

6.1 Assessment of the review and analysis of socio-economic data relating to the TACs of pollack in 

ICES divisions 8c, 9-10 .......................................................................................................... 28 

6.2 Assessment of Joint Recommendations on directed fisheries for squid ......................................... 40 

6.3 Evaluation of Joint Recommendation on mitigation measures to reduce incidental catches of 

common dolphin in the Bay of Biscay .................................................................................... 45 

6.4 Future involvement of STECF in the follow-up of the FishGenome Project .................................... 64 

6.5 Review of national management plans for boat seines in the Gulf of Manfredonia (Apulia, Italy) .. 67 

6.6 Review of national management plans for boat seines in the Ligurian Sea (GSA 09) ................... 82 

6.7 Review of the monitoring report for mechanised dredges and the derogation for boat seines in 

certain territorial waters of Spain (Catalunia) ......................................................................... 97 

6.8 Review of the monitoring report of the management plan for transparent goby in certain territorial 

waters of Spain (Murcia) ...................................................................................................... 123 

6.9 Follow-up of EWG 24-01: West Med MAP measures ................................................................... 131 

6.10 Review of the ad-hoc contracts to follow-up on STECF EWG 24-01 concerning quantification of 

aid measures for the fleets fishing under the West Med MAP ............................................. 151 

6.11 Assessing an amended request from Finland for a scientific fishery for Baltic salmon .............. 154 

ITEMS/DISCUSSION POINTS FOR PREPARATION OF EWGS AND OTHER STECF WORK....... 160 

7.1 EWG follow up on the assessment of socio-economic impact of VMEs in Member States ......... 160 

7.2 Preparation of EWG 24-16: implementation of the technical measures regulation ...................... 162 

7.3 Preparation of EWG 24-10: West Med MAP stock assessments ................................................. 166 

7.4 Preparation of EWG 24-12: Fishing Effort Regime for demersal Fisheries in the West Med ....... 167 

7.5. Preparation of Prep Working Group for EWG-24-13 Balance/capacity, EWG-24-17 EWG 

Balance/capacity outermost regions, and mini-plenary to validate results of EWG-24-17 .. 168 

7. 

CONTACT DETAILS OF STECF MEMBERS AND OTHER PARTICIPANTS .................... 172 

1 

 
 
Abstract 

Commission Decision of 25 February 2016 setting up a Scientific, Technical and Economic 
Committee for Fisheries, C(2016) 1084, OJ C 74, 26.2.2016, p. 4–10. The Commission may 
consult the group on any matter relating to marine and fisheries biology, fishing gear 
technology, fisheries economics, fisheries governance, ecosystem effects of fisheries, 
aquaculture or similar disciplines. The Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for 
Fisheries held its 76th plenary from 8 to 12 July 2024.  

3 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
76th PLENARY REPORT OF THE SCIENTIFIC, TECHNICAL AND ECONOMIC 
COMMITTEE FOR FISHERIES (PLEN-24-02) 

8-12 July 2024 

1.  INTRODUCTION 

The STECF held its summer plenary 8-12 July 2024 in the Centre Borschette, Brussels. The 
meeting was held as a hybrid meeting. The meeting was chaired by the STECF vice-
chairperson Raul Prellezo as the Jenny Nord was prevented from travelling.  

2.  LIST OF PARTICIPANTS 

The meeting was attended in person by 19 members of the STECF and three JRC 
personnel. 11 STECF members, one invited expert and six JRC personell attended online. 
Several Directorate General Maritime Affairs and Fisheries (DG MARE) attended parts of the 
meeting physically or online. Section eight of this report provides a detailed participant list 
with contact details. 

The following three STECF members did not attend the plenary meeting: 

Leyre Goti 

Christoph Stransky 

Daniel Valentinsson 

3.  INFORMATION TO THE PLENARY  

STECF membership 

The STECF member Marta Coll took the decision to resign from the committee because her 
my obligations as vice-director of the Institute of Marine Science (ICM-CSIC) in Barcelona 
have not allowed her to participate to the committee sufficiently. 

Update STECF autumn 2024 meeting calendar 

Two additional meetings added: 

  EWG-24-17 Balance/Capacity outermost regions, 11-13 September, virtual meeting, 

chair: J. Casey 

4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  Mini-plenary to validate results of EWG-24-17, 17-18 September, virtual meeting, 

chair: J. Nord 

4.  STECF INITIATIVES  

Numerous frequent and often recurring requests to STECF concern the evaluation of the 
effectiveness and potential adjustments to management plans for fisheries that operate at 
Member States regional or even local level. Furthermore, these requests are repeated 
periodically when their duration expires, with minor changes in the management plans. Such 
requests demand a disproportionate amount of STECF time in an already overloaded 
agenda. STECF considers that these evaluations could be conducted by other qualified 
scientific bodies.  

STECF suggests that this topic is addressed within the bureau and during the November 
plenary meeting with the Commission to identify possible ways forward. 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
5.  ASSESSMENT OF STECF EWG REPORTS 

5.1 EWG 24-02 Methodologies for Mediterranean stock assessments and the 
estimation of reference points 

Request to STECF 

STECF is requested to evaluate the findings of the STECF Expert Working Group meeting 
and make any appropriate comments and recommendations. 

STECF observations  

EWG 24-02 was held 8-12 April 2024 in hybrid form with some participants attending 
physically at the Joint Research Centre (Ispra, Italy) and others attending remotely. The 
meeting was attended by 22 experts in total, including 4 STECF members and 6 JRC 
experts.    

ToR 1 Reference Points West Mediterranean EU MAP  

STECF notes that the EWG delivered the ToR as requested.   

STECF observes that during the EWG the methodology to compute Fmsy targets, or proxies, 
and related ranges was discussed and applied along the lines described by the West Med 
MAP for stocks which had a well-defined production curve, which the EWG classified as type 
1 stocks. For stocks without a well-defined production curve, the EWG suggested a path 
forward to estimate Fmsy proxy targets and ranges. On the one hand, for stocks reaching a 
peak in the production curve but with an almost flat limb curve beyond it, F0.1 was taken as 
the Fmsy proxy and Fmax was taken as the upper bound of the F range (Fupper). On the 
other hand, for the stocks showing a continuously increasing production curve, the methods 
used previously were applied (F0.1 as a proxy for Fmsy and F ranges based on the empirical 
formulas from EWG 15-09).   

STECF observes that in relation to Blim, the EWG used the figures calculated by EWG 23-09 
according to the methodology developed by EWG 22-03. The EWG computed preliminary 
Fmsy proxies and Fmsy ranges for most stocks requested, and analysed the probability of 
SSB to be above Blim when such stocks are exploited at the relevant fishing mortality 
reference points. For the stocks of deep-water rose shrimp in GSA 1 and deep-water rose 
shrimp in GSAs 5, 6 & 7, the stock-recruitment relationship was not considered appropriate, 
and reference points were not estimated.  

STECF notes that due to the challenge of estimating reference points for stocks that are 
heavily exploited and for which only a part of the stock dynamics is observed in the stock 
assessment, only preliminary Fmsy proxies and Fmsy ranges can be computed. In these 
cases, the stocks’ productivity is poorly estimated, but they drive the estimation of stock 
recruitment relationships and reference points. This challenge is visible in the fraction of 

6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
virgin biomass each of these reference points ended up with. For example, Blim is about 10% 
of virgin biomass for most stocks, and in one case as low as 1%, which is not appropriate. 
This situation reflects the complicated process of estimating biomass reference points that 
lay outside the stocks’ historical range of values, including virgin biomass, Bmsy and Blim.  

Additionally, having Blim reference points at such low level of biomass impacts the evaluation 
of the probability of exploitation levels bringing the stock below Blim, which can end up giving 
a false sense of low risk when exploiting these stocks at high exploitation levels as set by 
Fupper. Since Fupper is supposed to be capped by the probability of driving the stock below 
Blim, this situation ends up impacting its estimation since the Blim cap effect is seldomly 
triggered.  

Furthermore, EWG 24-02 noted that applying F ranges calculations to situations for which 
they were not designed for, poses additional challenges and runs the risk that such ranges 
are inappropriate. For example, when the Fmsy proxy reference point is not at the top of a 
well-defined production curve (as for F0.1). In such a case, the exploitation level that 
generates 95% of the catch produced at the proxy’s exploitation level, will lay far away on the 
right side of the production curve, potentially generating a Fupper at a very high level of 
exploitation, occasionally leading the stock to levels of biomass outside safe boundaries. For 
this reason, even though those potential Fupper values were reported in the tables by stocks 
together with other alternative values, they were not included in the final proposal of F 
ranges.    

Nevertheless, STECF recognizes the need to estimate reference points to support the 
implementation of the West Med MAP and therefore looked at the short term needs of the 
MAP. STECF interprets article 6 of the MAP as follows: once one stock is below Bpa, the use 
of Fupper is not permitted for any stock, and Fmsy, or proxies, should be used to set effort 
reduction objectives. Due to the current overexploited situation of the hake stocks in the 
region, it is unlikely the MAP will need to use F ranges. For this reason, STECF suggests the 
Fmsy proxies identified by EWG 24-02 for each stock to be updated during EWG 24-10, and 
used in the MAP as preliminary estimates, setting the stocks on course to reduce 
overexploitation. STECF expects biomasses of the affected stocks to increase with the 
reductions of fishing mortality prescribed according to the MAP. Such trajectory will provide 
information about the stock dynamics outside the current ranges of biomass, allowing a 
better understanding of the stocks’ productivity and, consequently, the estimation of 
reference points.  

ToR 2 evaluation of ‘QualiTrain’ tools  

STECF notes that he EWG delivered the ToR as requested.  

STECF observes that the RDBqc and RoME packages were found to be useful in assisting 
Member States with identifying and reducing data issues. The tools are expected to 
contribute to a significant reduction in data errors and improve the overall quality of data 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
submissions. STECF considers that the documentation provided for both tools is sufficient for 
users with a basic knowledge of R. However, continuous updates and improvements to the 
documentation are necessary to keep it relevant and user-friendly.   

STECF conclusions  

STECF concludes that the EWG 24-10 should estimate the reference points needed for the 
MAP implementation: Fmax for type 1 stocks and F0.1 for all the others. Furthermore, 
STECF concludes that if the 2024 hake stocks assessments performed by the EWG 24-10 
show any of these stocks to be above Bpa, in which case F ranges may be needed, the F 
ranges estimated by the EWG 24-02 could be used preliminarily.  

However, STECF concludes that the current framework to set Blim, Fmsy and Fmsy ranges, 
and the current reference points should be revised in a maximum of 3 years. STECF further 
concludes that if the use of F ranges is required, as per previous paragraph, the revision will 
have to be brought forward.  

STECF concludes that the EWG analysed the Qualitrain tools described by ToR 2 as being 
appropriate and provided relevant feedback.  

8 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
5.2 EWG 24-03 Annual Economic Report on the EU Fishing Fleet I and EWG 24-07 
Annual Economic Report on the EU Fishing Fleet II 

Request to STECF 

STECF is requested to evaluate the findings of the STECF Expert Working Group meeting 
and make any appropriate comments and recommendations. 

STECF observations  

EWG 24-03 took place online 8-12 April 2024 (AER I) and EWG 24-07 took place in Ispra, 
Italy 10-14 June 2024 (AER II). The two EWGs addressed all the ToRs.   

STECF observes that the Annual Economic Report (AER) is structured in four parts with i) a 
structural and economic overview of the EU fishing fleet, ii) a regional analysis of the EU 
fishing fleet by major sea basin, outermost regions and by different Regional Fisheries 
Management Organisations (RFMOs), iii) a detailed structural and economic overview of 
each EU Member State fishing fleet and iv) an assessment of the data quality and 
coverage.   

STECF notes that from next year onwards, the data of the AER will be made available to 
experts in the JRC web dashboard. EWG 24-07 tested the useability of the dashboard but 
the data analysis remained based on the previous approach. The dashboard was considered 
an improvement by the EWG as it allows experts and end-users to directly visualize, analyse 
and download the data (replacing the data visualisations previously provided in annex 2 of 
the report).   

STECF notes that to ensure that the experts, in particular experts new to the AER process, 
understand the data and the workflow during the EWG, more information on the database 
structure, aggregation levels and codes used is needed in addition to a description of the 
tasks performed by the EWG experts.    

STECF observes that all the national, regional and EU overview sections in the AER are 
based on the same reference year (2022). As requested by PLEN 23-02, all time series are 
updated to 2022 real prices, the historic time series provided in the AER is therefore now 
2013-2022 and the nowcast performance estimates are provided for 2023 (t+1) and 2024 
(t+2).    

STECF notes that as in previous years, the AER includes information on the EU fleet’s 
fishing capacity, effort, employment, landings, income, costs and performance indicators. In 
addition, following the so-called special request of the ToRs, the report also includes a 
section on energy use with fuel intensity, fuel efficiency and the calculation of break-even fuel 
price.   

9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
STECF notes that the EWG 24-07 proposed new fleet group definitions for the overview of 
the EU fleet for the 2024 report and onwards. From 2024 onwards, “long distance fisheries” 
(LDF) will be replaced by “Distant Water Fleet” (DWF) as the AER considers fleets 
(aggregation of vessels) and not fishing operations.   

STECF observes that for the AER 2025 and onwards, EWG 24-07 suggested to add a new 
vessel category for vessels under 12 meters that are using active gears. This vessel group 
currently encompasses over 4000 vessels classified under the Large-Scale Fleet (LSF). This 
grouping of vessels creates inconsistencies in the analysis, as it includes vessels that vary 
significantly in size and operation. STECF notes that the Small-Scale Coastal Fleet (SSCF) 
section also presents the economic performance results by length classes (0-6/6-12 meters 
in the Mediterranean Sea, 0-8/8-12 meters in the Baltic Sea and 0-10/10/12 meters in the 
other regions). This is considered an important addition, done with available data, to provide 
a more detailed analysis for an heterogenous group of vessels.  

STECF notes that in the AER 2024, the analysis of the economic performance of the EU 
overview and the national chapters are focused on active vessels only (net profit and related 
indicators). For the capacity and capital value, information is also reported for inactive 
vessels (inactive vessels represent about 25% of the total capacity and approximately 10% of 
the total estimated capital value).  

STECF notes that the EWG estimated Net Profit with opportunity cost based on a fixed rate 
of 3.5% (as requested by PLEN 23-02) instead of the real interest rates. As explained in 
detail in the report, this will not affect the work of the Balance/Capacity EWG, because the 
interest rate is not used to calculate the balance indicators only for the interpretation of 
performance of the return on investment.  

STECF notes that on a voluntary basis Member States should be able to provide data for the 
nowcast t+1 (2023 in the AER 2024). A workshop facilitated by RCGECON could be 
organised to develop a common methodology for this nowcast.   

STECF notes that the possibility to separate less active vessels from other vessels in a fleet 
segment by using the “ACTIVITY” column has been used in the outermost fishing regions in 
two French territories (French Guiana and Guadeloupe). This led to improved assessments 
of the economic performances of those fleets.   

STECF observes that the EWG 24-07 considered the Data Transmission Monitoring Tool 
(DTMT) Guidance, version March 2024 updated by the STECF PLEN 24-01, as a mean for 
tracking data issues. The EWG used the dashboard implemented by the JRC to identify data 
issues and to report any additional data issues detected during the analysis. To this end, the 
EWG defined an internal DTMT workflow (see below) with a clear division of tasks and 
assignment of responsible people to each task during both EWGs.  

10 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
STECF observes that out of the 29 data issues identified (19 related to coverage, 10 related 
to quality), only one was considered of “high severity” (Malta did not provide economic data 
for 2022), four were considered of “medium severity” and 24 of “low severity”. The EWG 
decided to use Malta’s data from 2021 for 2022 in the EU overview and Mediterranean 
chapter, while the National chapter was not updated.   

STECF observes that while new data issues were identified and documented, future EWGs 
related to the AER could also check if issues from previous years have been resolved.  

STECF notes that to facilitate the regional analysis in Outermost regions, landings data could 
be requested by species at least at level 3 (the EUMAP (Commission Delegated Decision 
(EU) 2021/1167) states that: “3.1. Data shall cover variables indicated in Table 6 [Fishing 
activity variables] at the lowest relevant geographic level”), allowing Member States to 
provide data also at level 4.   

STECF conclusions  

STECF concludes that the two EWGs addressed all TORs and STECF endorses the AER 
report.   

11 

 
 
 
 
 
 
   
  
 
STECF concludes that it is currently not possible for Member States to provide economic 
data for the report that is more up to date than is collected currently (i.e., t=2022 in the 2024 
AER). However, a workshop could be facilitated by RCGECON to develop a common method 
for nowcasting for the year t+1. Such a methodology could be applied by Member States to 
provide the nowcast for the year t+1 in the yearly data call.   

STECF concludes that to further improve the reporting by fleet at the EU level, the Small-
Scale Coastal fleet using active gears should be included in the EU overview and separated 
from the Large-Scale Fleet in the future.   

STECF concludes that the text of the official data call could be slightly modified to ask for 
landings data “at least” at level 3. The call now asks “Yearly, by: 1) Fleet segment and Supra-
region, FAO area level 4 (Baltic), GFCM-GSA (Mediterranean & Black Sea), FAO area level 
3 (All other regions)” and it is suggested to be changed to: “Yearly, at least by: ...”  

STECF concludes that checking the data issues of previous years could be carried out by the 
EWG if specified in an additional TOR for the EWG.   

STECF concludes that it is fundamental to provide the EWG experts with a manual on the 
database structure with a description of the different data aggregation and codes that will be 
available to them in the two AER EWGs. This would avoid misinterpretation of datasets and 
facilitate the involvement of new experts. This manual could be prepared before AER I with 
ad-hoc contracts for the chairs and support from the JRC.  

12 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
5.3 EWG 24-05 Social Data in EU fisheries 

Request to STECF 

STECF is requested to evaluate the findings of the STECF Expert Working Group meeting 
and make any appropriate comments and recommendations.  

STECF observations  

EWG 24-05 was held online 13-17 May, 2024. The meeting was attended by 19 independent 
experts, one member of STECF, experts from JRC and 6 observers. The meeting was also 
attended by DG MARE on a regular basis.  

EWG 24-05 produced a report on Social Data in Fisheries. STECF notes that his report is the 
fifth in a series of STECF reports operationalising the social dimension of the CFP and 
providing analytical tools. The EWG report addresses three specific areas: the National 
Fisheries Profiles, Community Profiles and social indicators.   

The first topic concerns the National Fisheries Profiles (NFPs). Following the Dutch profile 
(assessed in EWG 22-04) and the Danish and Spanish profiles (assessed in EWG 23-07) as 
well as experts’ experiences in developing the Greek and German profiles, ten additional 
profiles were developed under ad hoc contracts for Bulgaria, Cyprus, Croatia, Estonia, 
France, Ireland, Italy, Portugal, Slovenia and Sweden. The ten new NFPs were evaluated for 
fitness for purpose. The findings informed the update of the NFPs template to increase 
usefulness and cross-comparison between NFPs.  

The second task for the EWG was to provide an operational definition of fisheries 
communities, a first partial list of such communities in the EU and an updated template for 
developing Fisheries Communities Profiles (FCPs). STECF observes that the EWG proposed 
a definition of Fisheries Community that builds on state-of-the-art research as well as 
empirical work developed in the Member States.   

STECF observes that the heterogeneity and richness of fisheries communities across the EU 
is well known. Using three criteria (contrast, plurality, policy impact), EWG 24-05 developed a 
list of 96 fisheries communities covering 16 Member States, all sea basins, and including the 
Outermost Regions. This list serves as a first selection of communities from which a FCP 
could be developed. The experience gained with the NFPs and insights from former EWGs 
served to explore and update the FCP template developed under an ad hoc contract.   

The third part of the EWG report addresses the development of a set of social indicators, 
pointing out the next methodological steps for their integration in an EU data call and 
providing a list of countries for pilot studies. The indicators have been informed by the policy 

13 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
priorities identified by DG-MARE in 2023 and through stakeholder consultation developed in 
2024.   

National Fisheries Profiles (NFPs)  

STECF notes that EWG 24-05 updated the NFPs template (current version 4) to integrate the 
potential improvements identified in the assessment of the 13 NFPs so far produced. STECF 
observes that the template balances the need for a standardized and systematic approach 
with the capability to accommodate plurality and heterogeneity across and within each MS.   

STECF notes that in order to produce new NFPs and to update the current set of NFPs, EWG 
24-05 advises to formalize this process. For the production of an NFP EWG 24-05 suggests 
that the process includes expert(s) ad hoc contract, a peer review, and ideally, a focus group 
with Member State stakeholders before publishing.   

STECF observes that input data required for the NFP can be difficult to obtain as access to 
non-public data can be restricted and not be accessible for the experts drafting the NFP. 
STECF notes the importance that the (group of) expert(s) that is tasked to develop the NFP 
for a Member States is given sufficient access to relevant data sources. EWG 24-05 notes 
that data sources used in the current NFP did not create confidentiality issues.  

STECF notes that EWG 24-05 suggests that an Annual Social Report should be produced. 
The assessment of the new NFPs and the update of the existing ones would be part of this 
Annual Social Report on the EU fisheries.  

STECF observes that the suggestion of an Annual Social Report is in line with prior 
discussions on the presentation of the Social Dimension of EU fisheries. As suggested by 
EWG 22-14, PLEN 23-01, EWG 23-07 and PLEN 23-03 in the long-term preference would be 
to produce a stand-alone document. However, STECF notes that in the current work 
programme social data are collected once every three years. Although this may change over 
time, for now this three-year period will be adhered to. Based on further developments in the 
NFPs, FCPs and social indicators a structure for a possible Annual Social Report could be 
developed. For the time being social information will be made available on a tri-annual basis  

STECF notes that the issue of publishing the current set of NFPs still needs to be resolved. 
This will on the one hand require a final editing of the 13 profiles. On the other hand, it will 
require the establishment of a channel through which the profiles will be made public. As the 
web-based application, as proposed by STECF, is currently not yet developed, it is suggested 
to include the 13 edited NFPs as Annex to the EWG 24-05 report.  

The potential cross-comparison among NFPs is an asset to support policymaking at multiple 
levels (regional, MS, sea basin, EU). The current set of NFPs do, to an extent, allow for the 
comparison across Member States for example at the level of fleet structure, management 
measures and trends and patterns. However, STECF acknowledges that ensuring cross-
comparison of NFPs should not be accomplished at the expense of being able to reflect the 
plurality and heterogeneity of the national fisheries sector in the EU.  

14 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
Fisheries Community Profile (FCP)  

Concerning the Fisheries Community Profile (FCP) STECF notes that the EWG 24-05 has 
provided an operational definition for fisheries communities that can provide the basis for the 
identification of, and elaboration of, FCPs. The definition is presented in Box 5.3.1 below.  

EWG 24-05 has provided a first partial list of fisheries communities (96 in total) based on 
different criteria (contrast, plurality, policy impact), that can be used to develop a first set of 
FCPs throughout the EU. STECF notes that the FCP will enable the elaboration of social 
impact assessments of measurements and policies in the fisheries sector. Community profiles 
rely on NFPs and complement them in their goals.   

Social indicators  

Concerning the development of Social Indicators, EWG 24-05 identified the five top priority 
areas for developing social indicators. STECF notes that for these five priority areas the 
development of social indicators will best advance if a stepwise multi-level approach is taken. 
STECF notes that a set of social indicators was defined by the EWG, (38 in total) in relation to 
these priority areas, 12 of which can be collected relatively easy. Other indicators need further 
development and operationalisation. Some of these indicators could be developed using pilot 
studies.   

STECF notes that EWG 19-03 suggested that for proper socio-economic impact assessments 
a link should be kept between vessel and social EUMAP variables. Nevertheless, the EWG 
24-05 notes that in developing the FCPs new social indicators, there might be indicators that 
only indirectly can be linked to fleets (via the community).   

The EWG 24-05 suggests the need to have an annual EWG on social indicators, where the 
development of social indicators is the only task on the agenda, allowing for in-depth 
discussion of methodological aspects. However, STECF notes that also other tasks need to 
be addressed, such as the evaluation of NFPs and FCPs produced.  

STECF reiterates its observation that in order to assess and validate any Member State data, 
it is required to have national experts available to implement this context specific evaluation. 
STECF notes that this may be most easily addressed by organising separate EWGs: one 

15 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
EWG for the assessment of data produced, and one EWG for the further development of the 
social indicators.  

STECF conclusions  

STECF concludes that EWG 24-05 has addressed the TORs.  

STECF concludes that the work completed by the EWG provides the tools required to 
progress the implementation of the social dimension of the EU fisheries policy. The available 
NPFs provide for the Member States covered a description of the national fisheries; over time, 
with an update of the NFP, developments can be described. The FCPs to be developed will 
add more detail to this analysis and focus on the community level. And the set of social 
indicators developed so far will allow for an analysis of social impacts of policies and 
developments.  

STECF concludes that version 4 of the National Fisheries Profiles (NFP) template, as 
presented in the report of EWG 24-05, is now robust enough to be used as standard for the 
production of NFPs. Having said this, STECF acknowledges that this template is designed as 
a guiding and living document. It has already been reviewed in previous Social EWGs and is 
expected to evolve through the learning process of developing new NFPs. In addition, the 
template offers needed flexibility to be tailored to national specific circumstances.  

STECF reiterates the need to develop the NFPs as a web-based application (STECF PLEN 
23-01, PLEN 23-03). This would allow for easy reference to further information, such as 
studies and databases. And, in addition, it would facilitate an easier process of updating 
sections of the information in the NFP that need updating.  

STECF concludes that the issue of the development of the web-based application is closely 
related to the overall issue of whom to be the custodian of the process of collecting the social 
data. The Commission, Member States and STECF could play a role in this process. 
However, specific roles and tasks need to be further detailed along the process of shaping the 
procedures of developing and updating NFPs, FCPs and social indicators.  

Noting the findings of EWG 24-05 in evaluating the additional set of 10 NFPs, STECF 
concludes that a peer review of NFPs is required in order to guarantee sufficient robustness 
of the NFPs. This becomes even more important when NFPs are used to implement a cross-
comparison across Member States. This peer review can be undertaken jointly by national 
experts, conversant with the national context, and experts assessing the information with an 
outside perspective.  

STECF concludes that, in line with the findings of EWG 24-05, cross-comparison between 
Member States is possible in terms of fleet structures, management measures and trends and 
patterns.  

STECF concludes that EWG 24-05 has provided a practicable definition of the concept of 
Fisheries Community. STECF concludes that his definition is suitable for the foundation of the 
preparation of a series of Fisheries Community Profiles (FCP).  

16 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
STECF concludes that the concept of FCP, as prepared by EWG 24-05, which builds on 
elements of the NFPs and on an earlier iteration of a FCP, is robust enough to be the basis 
for a first selection of 30 FCPs across the EU.  

STECF concludes that EWG 24-05 has made a step in the process of further developing 
operational social indicators, based on questions and issues raised by the social partners. 
Out of a set of 38 potential indicators 12 have been found to be ready for use.  

STECF concludes that for 2025 the EWG should be established to evaluate available FCPs 
and evaluate the template used. In addition, the EWG should further develop the set of social 
indicators.  

17 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
5.4 EWG 24-06 Outermost regions 

Request to STECF 

STECF is requested to evaluate the findings of the STECF Expert Working Group meeting 
and make any appropriate comments and recommendations.  

Summary of the information provided to STECF  

STECF was provided with the draft report of the EWG. A presentation of the outcomes of the 
EWG and the logistic problems of the EWG was made by the chairs.  

STECF comments  

EWG 24-06 met online 13 to 17 May, 2024. The meeting was attended by 20 experts in total, 
including three STECF members, and five observers.  

STECF notes that the Terms of References (ToRs) were available to the EWG only a few 
days before the start of the meeting. Due to this, the first day of the meeting was used to 
discuss the ToRs, the data needs and availability for the EWG to carry out the analysis. The 
remaining days of the EWG were dedicated to conduct the analysis using available data.   

STECF notes that the EWG 24-06 was tasked to: ToR1) provide guidelines for the 
assessment of balance in the Outermost Regions (ORs); ToR2) discuss the preparation of 
the Member States DCF workplans; and ToR3) to analyse and advise on measures to 
recover the red snapper stock in French Guiana waters.   

ToR1. Guidelines for the assessment of balance in the outermost regions  

STECF notes that the EWG considered the different characteristics of the Outermost 
Regions (OR) fisheries such as, small size fishing vessels, multi-species catches and often 
shared stocks, in the application of balance indicators. The main problem in the application of 
the sustainable harvest indicator (SHI) indicator in ORs is the low number of stocks with 
assessment. STECF considers that the relevance of a particular SHI value as an indicator of 
balance could be better assessed if the SHI is used in combination with the exploratory 
alternative indicator SHI partial indicator and information on fleet coverage.   

STECF notes that no particular issues associated with the stocks at risk indicator (SAR) for 
the fleet segments in ORs were identified. However, the EWG considered that an increase in 
the catch threshold value (from 10% to 20%) for stocks to be considered as a stock at risk in 
order to increase the number of fleet segments for which a SAR value could be computed is 
not desirable. The STECF agrees and reiterates that any level of threshold chosen is 

18 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
  
 
 
arbitrary and the higher the threshold, the less likely it is that a fleet segment would be 
identified as exploiting stocks at risk.  

The EWG identified the low number of stock assessments available for the stocks in the ORs 
as the main limitation to the appropriate applicability of the current balance indicators, SHI 
and SAR. The EWG suggested that to increase the number of stock assessments available 
to calculate balance indicators, a peer-review process of the national stock assessments 
should be carried out.   

STECF notes that additional alternative indicators might be used in the fleet segments of the 
ORs to provide context to the interpretation of the indicators currently used: the Number of 
Overexploited Stocks (NOS) and Economic Dependency Indicator (EDI), Social indicators, 
Secondary indicators (LPUE) and Essential Capacity.   

ToR 2. Preparation of the Member States DCF workplans  

STECF observes that the first task of ToR 2 was dedicated to the analysis of the 
improvement in quality and coverage of the economic data delivered under the 2024 
Economic data call for French ORs. The EWG was only tasked to carry out the analysis for 
France as they recently introduced a new DCF methodology.   

STECF notes that the roadmap defined by EWG 19-19 was reviewed for all ORs. STECF 
observes that France has promoted knowledge in ORs through research projects and 
workshops dedicated to diverse subjects such as recreational fisheries, IUU (Illegal, 
Unreported and Unregulated) catches, increase at-sea monitoring, increase the biological 
sampling, assessment of small-scale fisheries or the social and economic knowledge. 
Portugal has increased the number of sampled species and reinforced the control against the 
IUU, but other aspects including stock assessment, monitoring of recreational fisheries and 
the economic and social data need to be improved. In the case of Spain, the number of 
species with biological sampling and at-sea monitoring has increased, since 2021 exploratory 
stock assessments are available and the knowledge about recreational fisheries and IUU 
fishing must be improved.  

STECF notes that the EWG identified the improvements in ORs that can be made in the 
forthcoming DCF Workplans. Some of the improvement suggested are that the information of 
ORs should be presented separately in DCF Tables and WPs, to increase the sampling at-
sea and the number of species with biological sampling, to increase the monitoring of 
recreational fisheries and check the quality of the social and economic data provided.  

STECF notes that the EWG identified ICES, STECF, RFMO and FAO/CECAF as 
organizations that could peer-review the national stock assessments in ORs.  STECF also 
notes that France has an internal Working Group to validate the stock assessments in ORs 
and 38 stock assessments were validated in 2023 following this process. The methodology 

19 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
(based on SPiCT assessment model) and the results are presented in the EWG 24-06 report. 
STECF was notified that the report of the internal French working group is not available yet 
but is intended to be published by Ifremer during the summer in 2024.    

ToR 3. French Guiana red snapper  

STECF observes that the red snapper is the main snapper species caught in French Guiana 
comprising the 87% of total snapper weight landed in this OR. The 2023 stock assessment 
was reviewed by the EWG and the quality of the data used in the assessment was 
discussed. There are different sources of uncertainties, the IUU being the most important 
one. The EWG also considered that the assessment is sensitive to the model assumptions, in 
particular regarding the IUU level. Although the model results are uncertain, the biomass 
trends and the reduction in average size of catches would indicate a deteriorating stock 
status.   
STECF notes that the management of this stock is only based on the number of licences for 
French Guiana waters, that has remained constant since 2012. To reduce the fishing 
mortality of the stock, derived from legal fisheries and IUU, a set of potential management 
measures were evaluated. However, the EWG did not suggest a specific management 
measure to be applied for the red snapper in French Guiana.  

STECF notes that the previous OR EWG in 2019 (EWG 19-19) concluded that a dedicated 
EWG on ORs to increase knowledge share between ORs experts on data collection and on 
calculation of indicators methodologies should be established. Although not specified at the 
time, these EWGs were intended to be in-person meetings, as the knowledge sharing and 
understanding between experts is significantly hampered by having the EWGs online. 
Nevertheless, the EWG 24-06 was carried out online and associated also to logistic issues, 
this made it difficult for the EWG to respond to the ToRs, but also on the building of the 
experts' network.   

STECF conclusions  

STECF concludes that the EWG addressed the ToRs appropriately in the given time despite 
the difficulties experienced before and during the meeting.   

While the number of fleet segments in the ORs for which a value for the SHI can be 
computed is low, largely due to a paucity of relevant results from fish stock assessments, 38 
new assessments have been provided by France in 2024. At present, such national 
assessments have not been subject to external peer review. According to new guidelines 
from the Commission (COM (2024) 223 final), such assessments will be used to compute 
SHI values by EWG 24-17. Nevertheless, to be consistent with the process adopted in 
previous EWGs to assess balance, STECF considers that as a matter of priority, such 

20 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
 
national assessments need to undergo external peer review. STECF concludes that the 
additional balance indicators proposed by the EWG to provide context to the segments, the 
Number of Overexploited Stocks (NOS) and Economic Dependency Indicator (EDI), social 
indicators, secondary indicators (LPUE) and essential capacity, might be provided by 
Member States.   

STECF concludes that the dedicated research projects and specialized working groups 
conducted by France have significantly contributed to improve the knowledge in its ORs. 
Furthermore, Portugal, France and Spain have realized important advances in the topics 
outlined in the STECF 19-19 roadmap for their outermost regions.   

STECF concludes that recent stock assessments and the analysis of additional information 
suggest a decline in the status of the red snapper stock in French Guiana. In order to restore 
the stock, the implementation of new management measures alongside actions to combat 
Illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing are needed.   

STECF concludes that in order to increase knowledge sharing and understanding between 
experts, it is preferable if any future EWG on ORs is carried out in in-person meetings.  

21 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
5.5 EWG 24-08 Evaluation of the Annual Reports for data collection and data 
transmission issues 

Request to STECF 

STECF is requested to evaluate the findings of the STECF Expert Working Group meeting 
and make any appropriate comments and recommendations.  

Summary of the information provided to STECF  

EWG 24-08 met virtually from 24 to 28 June 2024, with just one week between the end of the 
EWG and the start of STECF PLEN 24-02. Consequently, the following STECF comments 
and suggestions are based on discussions amongst STECF members, on a presentation of 
the outcomes from the EWG 24-08 meeting made by the co-chairs, and a draft version of the 
EWG 24-08 report made available to STECF.  

STECF observations  

STECF notes that EWG 24-08 met virtually to:  

-  Evaluate Member States’ annual reports on the implementation of their Work Plans 

(WPs) in 2023.  

-  Evaluate the “high severity” data transmission issues (DTi) reported by end users 
for data calls launched during the year 2023 and “medium/low” severity DTi from 
2023 Fleet economics data call where MS resubmitted the data.  

-  Approve the final regional Work Plans (RWPs).  
-  Comment on the trial use of the DCF IT platform for WPs and ARs.  

1.  Evaluation of Member States’ Annual reports  

STECF observes that the evaluation of the 2023 Annual Reports (ARs) was based on a 
similar procedure as last year using the outcome of the pre-screening exercise of all AR 
sections and supporting documents, the updated evaluation grid and the revised AR 
assessment guidance.   

STECF observes that following last year's evaluation improvement a two-step pre-screening 
exercise was carried out. Member States were asked to address the issues identified by the 
pre-screeners/EWG and resubmit the ARs before and during the EWG as necessary. In the 
setup of this exercise 26 Member States were contacted prior to the EWG for clarification on 
various AR sections. By the first day of the EWG, 25 Member States responded or confirmed 

22 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
receipt of the feedback. During the EWG, 24 Member States were contacted from which all 
Member States replied, which led to the improvement and finalisation of the assessments. 
The communication with Member States both prior to and during the EWG was documented 
for future reference.  

STECF acknowledges that the two-step approach with early correspondence with Member 
States results in a more efficient evaluation and a reduced workload during the EWG.  

STECF observes an increasing trend in the overall scores of performance levels by Member 
States, with the number of Member States receiving a compliance level score of “YES” 
increasing from 5 in the 2020 AR, to 14 in the 2021 AR, to 19 in the 2022 AR and finally to 23 
in the 2023 AR.   

STECF observes that the EWG noted some general recurrent issues regarding the reporting 
of the AR that are not in line with the requirements of the IT platform and made the evaluation 
difficult:  

-  empty cells in the AR tables,   
-  some AR tables present multiple years instead of only the implementation year of 

- 
- 

the AR,   
text edits of the WP accepted sections (‘white’ parts) in the AR text boxes,  
the reference year mentioned in the AR data availability table is not in line with the 
reference year provided in the other AR tables.  

STECF observes that effort has been made to further refine the AR templates, AR guidelines 
and assessment grid for future AR evaluations and/or submissions, e.g. the EWG agreed to 
put ‘NA’ in the assessment grid for cases where an irrelevant question (‘positive no’) has to 
be assessed  and suggested to add a specific question in the assessment grid on the 
execution of the sampling schemes listed in Table 2.5.   

STECF observes that the EWG reviewed the EWG 23-16 WP assessment grid and proposed 
some adjustments to improve the evaluation efficiency of the new WPs during the EWG 24-
15.  

STECF observes that the EWG proposed some guidelines for the future AR assessment 
traffic light evaluation, in which the reporting and the execution should be separately 
assessed. The execution of the WP’s should get a higher weight in the final judgement, as 
STECF is required to evaluate the implementation of the WP’s.   

STECF observes that the EWG was not able to conduct a thorough analysis of the AR quality 
annexes (annex 1.1 and 1.2) as there are currently no quality criteria defined, the guidelines 
are not clear and the reporting by Member States is not harmonized. STECF notes that 
STECF EWG 23-08 has proposed guidelines to achieve a consistent quality evaluation, 

23 

 
 
 
 
 
 
however a further follow-up on these during 2024 was not done.  STECF observes that the 
EWG suggests a standardised approach on the coding of the sampling scheme identifier to 
create a link between the quality annexes and the information provided in the respective AR 
tables.  

STECF observes that the EWG reiterates the need for a collaborative, regional approach to 
follow-up the recommendations listed in the AR table ‘Follow up of recommendations and 
agreements’. The EWG suggests developing a recommendations data base or web service 
to centralise all the recommendations to assess the follow-up of recommendations  

2. Evaluation of Data Transmission issues (DTi)  

STECF observes that the EWG focussed on the "high severity" issues during the Data 
Transmission issues (DTi) evaluation with 7 issues from the 2023 Mediterranean & Black Sea 
data call (EWG 23-09 and 23-12) and 45 issues raised by the Indian Ocean Tuna 
Commission (IOTC). The issues resulting from the Mediterranean & Black Sea data (call 
related mainly to COVERAGE (5 out of 7, whereas the issues resulting from IOTC were 
almost all RECURRENT issues (40 out of 45). STECF notes the enhanced clarity regarding 
the issues raised by IOTC compared to their first submission last year (STECF EWG 23-08) 
and after the request to express the issues in a clear and common understandable language. 
The assessment resulted in 12 issues with FOLLOW-UP NEEDED, 2 issues as 
SATISFACTORY and 31 issues as UNSATISFACTORY.   

STECF observes that some mismatches in the severity rating of the Mediterranean & Black 
Sea data issues were identified. Because some “high severity” issues had a low impact on 
the objectives of the assessment working groups, those issues should not be rated as ‘high 
severity’. In addition, other issues were reported as RECURRENT when they were reported 
for the first time.  

STECF notes that the EWG drafted a workflow of the new DTMT assessment cycle that will 
be implemented in 2024, clarifying the timeline of the process and the responsibilities of the 
different actors. Following the new DTMT assessment cycle, the high severity DT Issues will 
be assessed by the AR EWG in June so that high impact issues can be flagged in the 
Member States performance reports published in the summer and the low/medium DT issues 
will be assessed in the WP EWG in October to allow time to fix the issues. In this workflow 
the “end user” refers to anybody that is analysing the DCF data (ICES, GFCM, IOTC, other 
RFMOs, some STECF EWGs, etc..), while “STECF” is the actor responsible for the 
assessment of the DTi. During this drafting process, it became apparent to the EWG that the 
following adjustments should be considered:  

-  delete the STECF EWG assessment option “not assessed” from the guidance as 

the other available options already cover all possible cases,  

24 

 
 
 
 
 
 
-  set a maximum life cycle of 2 years for each issue. If the issue has not been solved 

- 

in 2 years, then it should be closed as a data issue,  
the possibility for the end user or the Member State to amend the initial comments 
and tracking the changes over time in the ‘Follow-up needed’ cases. The ‘ping-
pong’ information exchange already used for the AR/WP evaluations, could be a 
sensible approach.  

STECF notes that the EWG was asked to assess issues recorded in the DTMT with 
medium/low severity from 2023 Fleet economics data call, even though those issues were 
already assessed by STECF EWG 23-16.   

STECF notes that the EWG analysed the revised version of the DTMT guidance (DTMT 
Guidance Version 13032024) and acknowledges the improved definitions and further 
streamlining of the decision tree for DTi assessments. However, the addition of the columns 
‘Member States Action Taken’ and ‘Member States Action When’, provided little additional 
information on the actions that MS’ intended to solve the data issues, as not many of the MS 
used this column or used it incorrectly. STECF notes that the EWG emphasizes that DG 
MARE should encourage the Member States to provide the requested information as this 
would benefit the DTi evaluation.  

STECF observes that the EWG provided guidance on the population of the 'Follow up 
responsible' field and adjusted the decision tree in the DTMT guidance document 
accordingly. In the specific case of the tuna commissions (ICCAT and IOTC), it was decided 
to assign the follow-up responsibility to DG MARE, as the European Commission acts as an 
intermediary in the data transfer.  

STECF notes that the lack of feedback from end-users on the responses provided by 
Member States was a recurrent issue up until now, but in the new DTMT assessment cycle 
there is time for the end-users to re-evaluate the data issue and provide feedback.   

STECF notes that the AER EWG has provided guidance to assess the AER DTMT issues 
within their in-year meeting cycle (See ToR 5.2 of PLEN 24-02).  

3. Approve the final regional Work Plans (RWPs)  

STECF notes that the EWG did a final evaluation of the 5 Regional Work Plans (RWPs) 
(Large Pelagics (LP), Economic Issues (ECON), Mediterranean and Black Sea (Med&BS)), 
Baltic and North Atlantic, North Sea & Eastern Arctic (NANSEA)) that were updated by the 
Regional Coordination Groups (RCGs) following the STECF evaluation in October 2023.  

25 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
STECF notes that the EWG listed some minor inconsistencies/editorial issues in each RWP 
that will be forwarded to the respective RCG for finalising the RWPs by the summer 2024.  

STECF notes that the EWG considers the comprehensive Med&BS RWP with regards to the 
sampling of recreational fisheries well planned and proposes this RWP as a model for the 
others.   

STECF notes the effort made by the RCG LP to provide the requested landing figures to 
update table 2.1. As this quality evaluation will take more time to complete, the EWG 
suggested listing the species/stock relevant to RCG LP without landing figures as an interim 
solution.   

4. Comment on the trial use of the DCF IT platform for WPs and ARs  

STECF notes that the EWG performed an intensive testing of the DCF IT platform consisting 
of the following:   

- 
- 

- 

testing the upload and download phases for both NWPs and Ars,  
testing the ping-pong process between STECF experts and NCs experts when 
adding and replying to comments and/or reporting problems on the online version,  
testing the syntax and validation rules by template.  

STECF notes that the EWG acknowledged the progress made compared to the previous 
testing of the DCF IT platform in October 2023 (EWG 23-16), with some member states able 
to successfully upload their AR to the platform.    

STECF notes that there are still inconsistencies between Member States’ AR and the 
respective Member States’ WP and that it was not possible to respond to the comments 
raised in the online platform during the EWG.  

STECF conclusions  

STECF endorses the outcomes of EWG 24-08 presented during STECF PLEN 24-02 and 
concludes that all ToRs were appropriately addressed.   

STECF acknowledges that considerable effort was made by the EWG to provide suggestions 
for the improvement of future AR and WP submissions and evaluations and to anticipate the 
future use of the DCF IT Platform.  

26 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
STECF concludes that there is currently no feedback/follow-up procedure in place to 
implement the suggested future improvements following the EWG, as some issues are 
recurrent and proposed solutions are repeated in the report. STECF suggests listing all the 
proposed adjustments in an electronic annex to keep track of the changes over time. The 
suggestions related to the AR/WP assessment (guidance document, assessment grid) 
should be addressed during the EWG by the EWG experts and those related to the AR/WP 
official templates should be handled by DG MARE after the EWG.  

STECF concludes that based on a higher overall score of performance level by Member 
State in the traffic light evaluation, there is an overall improvement in data collection and 
reporting over the years.  

27 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
6. ADDITIONAL REQUESTS SUBMITTED TO THE STECF PLENARY BY THE 

COMMISSION 

6.1 Assessment of the review and analysis of socio-economic data relating to the 
TACs of pollack in ICES divisions 8c, 9-10 

Background provided by the Commission 

In June 2024, a political agreement was reached between Member States to set a definitive 
TAC for pollack in ICES division 8abde for 2024 at 959 tonnes, of which up to 500 tonnes 
may be taken in directed fisheries (as previously set in the context of the provisional TAC for 
Jan-June 2024) and the remaining 459 tonnes may exclusively be taken as by-catch and 
reported separately. This TAC is accompanied by a conservation measure whereby the 
minimum conservation reference size for pollack is raised from 30 cm to 42 cm immediately. 

This agreement was largely based on the STECF advice of March 2024 indicating the choke 
phenomenon created by the TAC of pollack when set at the level advised by ICES for 2024 
(698 tonnes, -53% compared to the TAC 2023). The definitive TAC shall be adopted by 
Council at the end of the June 20241. The reasoning of the Commission proposal which 
constitutes the basis for the agreement is enshrined in the explanatory memorandum as 
follows:  

“Regulation (EU) 2024/257 provisionally set the TAC for pollack (Pollachius pollachius) in 
ICES divisions 8a, 8b, 8d and 8e ('Bay of Biscay’) for the period from 1 January to 30 June 
2024 at the level of 500 tonnes. That provisional TAC was set because more time was 
needed to assess the socio-economic impact of setting the definitive TAC for 2024 at the 
level advised by ICES in its scientific advice2 for pollack in ICES subarea 8 and division 9a 
(Bay of Biscay and Iberian waters)3, i.e. 698 tonnes.  

The Commission requested that the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for 
Fisheries (STECF) assess such an impact. The Commission also asked STECF to indicate 
what would be the level of the definitive TAC for pollack in the Bay of Biscay needed to avoid 

1  

2 

3 

Council Regulation (EU) 2024/257 of 10 January 2024 fixing for 2024, 2025 and 2026 the fishing opportunities for 
certain  fish  stocks,  applicable  in  Union  waters  and,  for  Union  fishing  vessels,  in  certain  non-Union  waters,  and 
amending Regulation (EU) 2023/194 (OJ L, 2024/257, 11.01.2024). 

https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.21841014.v1  

Taking into account the distribution of fishing opportunities between the three TACs covered by that advice: (i) TAC 
for pollack in ICES divisions 8a, 8b, 8d and 8e (80%); TAC for pollack in ICES division 8c (9%); and (iii) TAC for 
pollack ICES subareas 9 and 10 and EU waters of CECAF division 34.1.1 (11%). 

28 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
 
the phenomenon of ‘choke species’4 in the targeted fisheries of sole (Solea solea) and 
Norway lobster (Nephrops norvegicus). The Commission provided the STECF with an ad-hoc 
contract report providing an assessment of the socio-economic impact of setting the definitive 
TAC for pollack in the Bay of Biscay at the level advised by ICES compared to setting that 
TAC at other levels, as well as other documents submitted by France in March 2024, 
including a study by the French research institute for exploration of the sea (Ifremer)5. On 28 
March 2024, the STECF published its assessment6 of the socio-economic impact of setting 
the definitive TAC for 2024 at the level advised by ICES in its scientific advice for pollack. In 
that assessment, STECF noted, inter alia, the following.  

First, STECF concludes that “the studies [i.e. the ad-hoc contract report and the Ifremer 
study] are globally consistent in identifying potential choke situation and socioeconomic 
effects if the 53% TAC reduction would be applied to the pollack TAC, assuming full 
implementation of the landing obligation and closing of the fishery after exhaustion of the 
TAC.  

Second, regarding the Ifremer study, STECF refers to the study’s finding that “stopping the 
fishery after the exhaustion of the ICES advised … [TAC for] pollack would result in taking 
43% of the Nephrops … TAC … and 50% of the sole … TAC in 2024. The catches of 
smooth-hound … and seabass also appear impacted, with 41% and 51% of their respective 
TACs”. STECF also considers that the study indicates that, if the definitive TAC for pollack in 
the Bay of Biscay were set at higher levels than that advised by ICES, this would still have a 
limiting effect on the fisheries for common sole (Solea solea) and Norway lobster (Nephrops 
norvegicus) and that “the pollack TAC would potentially choke the fleets fishing on sole and 
Nephrops with any reduction in TAC”. This is consistent with the ICES mixed fisheries 
considerations, which identified pollack as being the most limiting species for demersal 
fisheries in the Bay of Biscay.  

Third, regarding the ad-hoc contract report, STECF refers to the report’s finding that, if the 
definitive TAC for pollack in the Bay of Biscay were set at the level advised by ICES, “the 
choke effect, which is simulated in the scenarios using the Minimum effort deployment level, 
may be very important. The activity of these fleets has been more intense in the first two 
quarters of the year and therefore, choke is simulated to occur in Q2 (TAC=500t), Q3 
(TAC=698t) or Q4 using the lower catchability observed in 2022 and assuming swaps from 
Spain to France.” STECF also refers to the report’s conclusion that “the minimum annual 
TAC required to deploy the total effort simulated (…) ranges from 1209 tonnes ([assuming] 
no swaps and mean catchability) to 824 tonnes ([assuming] swaps and 2022 catchability). 

4 

5 

6 

As recital 8 of Regulation (EU) 2024/257 explains, ‘choke species’ are species with a lack of quota that can cause 
one or more fishing vessels to stop fishing even if they still have quota for other species. 

https://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu/documents/d/stecf/stecf-plen-24-01-background-docs  

https://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu/documents/d/stecf/stecf_plen_24-01  

29 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
 
In addition to STECF’s assessment, the Commission notes that the ad-hoc contract report, 
as reviewed by the STECF, considers that if the definitive TAC for pollack in the Bay of 
Biscay were set at the level advised by ICES, this would lead to a reduction of total income of 
concerned French fleets of EUR 48 million (-37%) compared to the average income in the 
period from 2020 to 2022 (assuming the lowest catchability, 2022). The Commission further 
notes that the ad-hoc contract report indicates that, in order to maintain fisheries at current 
effort until the end of 2024, the definitive TAC for pollack in the Bay of Biscay would need to 
be set at the level of 985 tonnes and that such a level would lead to a small reduction of total 
income of 1,6%. Finally, the Commission notes that France would be disproportionately 
affected by any reduction of that TAC as it currently depends on swaps and year-to-year 
flexibility. The use of those flexibilities would therefore become more difficult. 

Based on the outcome of the STECF’s assessment, the additional elements summarised in 
the previous paragraph and the difficulty of fishing all stocks at MSY at the same time, 
especially in situations where that would lead to a premature closure of one or more fisheries, 
it is proposed, pursuant to Article 5(3) of Regulation (EU) 2019/47210, to: 

– set the definitive TAC for pollack in ICES divisions 8a, 8b, 8d and 8e for 2024 at the 
level of 959 tonnes. According to the ICES advice, that level corresponds to the 
landings of that stock in 2022, i.e. the most recent year for which data is available. 
Setting the definitive TAC at 959 tonnes will ensure that the current fishing pressure 
on pollack in ICES subarea 8 and division 9a does not increase. Scientific advice by 
ICES11 estimates the fishing mortality for that stock to be currently below the level 
that gives the maximum sustainable yield (MSY). In addition, setting the definitive TAC 
at the level of 959 tonnes will, according to the Ifremer study, allow the TACs for 
European seabass (Dicentrarchus labrax), Norway lobster and common sole to be 
fished at respectively 56%, 47% and 55%. Moreover, while that level will decrease the 
total income of fleets, in particular of French fleets, fishers will be able to continue 
fishing the TACs for European seabass, Norway lobster and common sole until the 
fourth quarter of 2024; and 

– increase the minimum conservation reference size for pollack in ICES divisions 8a, 
8b, 8d and 8e for 2024 from 30 cm to 42 cm. According to the 2023 ICES benchmark 
for that stock and the relevant ICES working group report12, 42 cm corresponds to the 
length-at-maturity for that stock. Consequently, this measure will ensure that immature 
individuals are protected to a greater extent and thus contribute to the recovery of the 
biomass of that stock, which scientific advice by ICES estimates to be currently below 
the biomass index trigger value (Itrigger). Moreover, without this measure, the level of 
the definitive TAC for pollack in ICES divisions 8a, 8b, 8d and 8e for 2024 would have 
to be reduced further to allow pollack in ICES subarea 8 and division 9a to recover. 
This measure should apply only until the adoption of a delegated act adopted in 
accordance with Article 15(2) of Regulation (EU) 2019/1241 of the European 
Parliament and of the Council13 and amending Annex VII, part A, of that Regulation 
by introducing a corresponding technical measure.” 

30 

 
 
 
 
 
 
In June 2024, Spain informed that the TACs for pollack in ICES division 8c (Cantabrian Sea) 
and in ICES subareas 9 and 10, CECAF 34.1.1 (Atlantic Iberian waters), which were set for 
2024 and 2025 at the level advised by ICES of 78 tonnes and 96 tonnes (with a footnote of 
98 tonnes) respectively, are leading to a premature closure of mixed fisheries, and submitted 
data regarding the socio-economic impact of those TACs. 

The Commission published a statement indicating that: “The Commission takes note of the 
submission made by Spain on 7 and 10 June 2024 stating that the TACs set by the Council 
for the pollack stock in the Atlantic Iberian waters, in ICES divisions 8.c and 9.a, would result 
in the premature closure of mixed fisheries, leading to potentially serious socio-economic 
consequences. Considering the socio-economic data submitted by Spain to substantiate the 
choke effect for its fleet segments in the Atlantic Iberian waters, the Commission will request 
the STECF in its July plenary to carry out an assessment of the choke phenomenon and, 
based on that assessment, the Commission will consider submitting a proposal for an in-year 
amendment to adjust the TACs for pollack in the Atlantic Iberian waters (POL/08C. and 
POL/9/3411) for 2024.  

The same approach would be considered by the Commission for Portugal should they timely 
provide specific, reliable and verifiable socio-economic data regarding their TAC for pollack in 
the Atlantic Iberian waters (POL/9/3411) set for 2024.” 

Background documents are published on:  

https://stecf.ec.europa.eu/meetings-calendar/past-meetings  

Request to the STECF 

The STECF is requested to: 

  Review the conclusions of the ad-hoc report 2447 of 1 July 2024 and review the 
studies and data submitted by Spain and Portugal for this request, available in the 
background documents. This review should be made in order to present STECF 
opinion on the same questions raised in the March 2024 request (for area 8abde):  
- evaluate if the elements demonstrate that a 53% reduction of the TACs for pollack in 
ICES divisions 8c and 9-10 (compared to the 2023 TAC for those stocks) poses 
significant socio-economic difficulties 
-how and to what extent that difficulty is the result of a premature closure of certain 
fishery(ies) targeted under the Western Water MAP, i.e. choke situation, by 
demonstrating the premature cessation of operations of certain fleet segment(s) 
targeting certain species  
-which fleets in ICES divisions 8c and 9-10 would have to cease their targeted fishing 
and at what point in the year 2024 with a -53% reduction of the TACs for pollack  
-how that cessation of operations of fleet segments could result in significant socio-
economic impacts compared to alternative scenarios of different lower pollack TACs 
decreases. 

31 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  Based on the above, STECF should indicate what is the level of TACs strictly 

needed to avoid that the pollack TACs in ICES divisions 8c and 9-10 would generate 
a choke effect in the relevant targeted fisheries for the last 6 months of 2024, taking 
into account the difficulty of fishing all stocks at MSY at the same time. Indicate if other 
targeted stocks can be chocked by the pollack TACs which are bycaught in targeted 
fisheries of the stocks listed in article 1(1) of the Western Waters Multiannual Plan, 
Regulation (EU) 2019/4727.  

  To carry out such an analysis, STECF is requested to take into account the setting of 
a recreational allocation, in the Fishing Opportunities Regulation for 2024, of a 2 
fish/day bag limit in ICES subareas 8, 9, 10. 

STECF comments   

Summary of the information provided to STECF  

STECF was provided with four supporting documents:    

  An ad-hoc contract report which provides a review and analysis of the socio-economic 
impacts following the outcome of the Fishing Opportunities for 2024, dated the 19th of 
January 2024.   

  A note and data submitted by the Spanish authorities - “COMENTARIOS ESCRITOS 
ABADEJO ZONAS ICES 8 Y 9”, which explains the 2024 situation regarding pollack 
catches, fishing possibilities and management decisions adopted. In addition, a 
dataset of landings of pollack and total landings, both in weight and value, for the 
years 2020-2023.  

  A report prepared by the IEO-CSIC submitted on the 5/07/2024 in where the likely 
effects of a change in the MCRS from 30cm to 42cm for pollack are described 
(regarding the metiers)  

  A note prepared by the Commission, in which the historical catches of pollack by 

Portuguese fleets are described    

Review of the ad-hoc contract supportive study   

The study is based on datasets from the Fisheries Dependent Information (FDI) 2023 
(STECF, 2023) and the Annual Economic Report on the EU Fishing Fleet (AER) 2023 
(STECF, 2023b) and further averaged data over the 2020-2022 period. DG MARE also 

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

32 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
                                           
 
provided the ad-hoc contractor with information on quota swaps between Spain and France 
on pollack (Cantabrian Sea) as well as the flexibilities used by the Member States 
(Cantabrian Sean and Atlantic Iberian waters).   

The study extracted data for pollack catch volume and value and total value for other species 
per FDI DCF Métier. This was subsequently linked to AER fleet segments, with separate 
analyses for ICES Division 8c, and subareas 9, 10 and CECAF 34.1.1, to match the three 
management TACs of this stock (Division 8c, and subareas 9, 10 and CECAF 34.1.1 and -
not included in this study- ICES divisions 8abde).  

The study found 19 different Spanish métiers presenting a dependency in value to pollack in 
the Cantabrian Sea (division 8c) from 2020 to 2022. It also found 14 different Spanish 
métiers presenting a dependency in value to pollack in the Iberian waters (sub areas 9, 10 
and CECAF 34.1.1) in the same period.  

The study estimates what the quota uptake in 2020-2022 would have been if the 2024 TAC 
for pollack was applied to those years. The analysis assumed constant catchability and two 
effort scenarios: the “Status quo” effort and a “Min” scenario, corresponding to the effort up to 
the calendar date where the pollack TAC would be exhausted and would choke the fishery. 
The “min” scenario is not precisely the same as in ICES MIXFISH but follows a similar 
approach. The simulation also accounts for options in quota swapping (in tonnes) between 
France and Spain's putative initial TACs (Cantabrian Sea) and the intertemporal and spatial 
flexibilities applied by the MS (Cantabrian Sea and Iberian waters), and two assumptions for 
catchability (average 2020-22 or 2022 alone). The effect on socio-economic indicators 
(Income, GVA, Gross profit and Net profit) is then deduced from these alternative quota 
uptake scenarios by tabulating the AER data. The “min” assumption means that fleets would 
stop fishing once the first TAC is exhausted, thus simulating a potential choke situation. The 
“Status Quo” assumption means that the fleets are not constrained by the landing 
obligation.   

STECF notes that the work simulates two TAC options for each area (78 and 108 tonnes for 
Cantabrian Sea, and 96 and 132 tonnes for the Atlantic Iberian waters). These two options 
correspond to a TAC set in line with ICES advice and the TAC set at level of recent catches 
(year 2022), respectively. STECF notes that these two options can be interpreted as the 53% 
reduction of the TACs for pollack in ICES divisions 8c and 9-10 (compared to the 2023) and 
as an alternative scenario of different lower pollack TACs decrease, respectively, as 
requested by the TORs.  

STECF notes that according to the results of the ad-hoc contract, only the Spanish fleets, in 
both areas, would potentially be restricted in their activity by the reduction of pollack’s TAC in 
2024. It further notes that for the case of the Atlantic Iberian waters the additional quota of 98 
tonnes (POL/93411P) for Portugal has been considered in the simulations performed.  

STECF observes that the study does not provide elements to indicate if other targeted stocks 
can be chocked by the pollack TACs which are caught as bycatch in targeted fisheries of the 

33 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
stocks listed in article 1(1) of the Western Waters Multiannual Plan, Regulation (EU) 
2019/472. Furthermore, the study only provides elements to determine the level of TAC 
needed to avoid pollack ”choking” for any of the métiers considered.   

STECF observes that the study's main conclusion on the pollack TAC in division 8c 
(Cantabrian Sea) is that “The choke effect, for Spanish fleets, which is simulated in the 
scenarios using the Minimum effort deployment level, may be significant. The activity of the 
Spanish fleets has been more intense in the last and first quarter of the past years. Choke is 
simulated to occur in Q4 (TAC=108 and 78), Q3 (TAC=108 and 78) or even in Q2 (TAC=78) 
using the higher catchability observed in 2022 and assuming no swaps from France to Spain” 
.  

STECF observes that the study further concludes that “The minimum annual TAC in division 
8c (Cantabrian Sea) required to deploy the total effort simulated in the scenarios using the 
Minimum deployment effort option (…) ranges from 150 tonnes (swaps and mean 
catchability) to 169 tonnes (no swaps and 2022 catchability).” This answers the DG MARE 
request to estimate the pollack TAC that would not choke the fleets in division 8c.   

STECF observes that the study's main conclusion on the pollack TAC in 9-10 CECAF 34.1.1 
(Atlantic Iberian waters) is that “The activity of the Spanish fleets has been more intense in 
the last and first quarter of the past years. Choke is simulated to occur in Q4 (TAC=132 and 
96 tonnes) or Q3 (TAC=96 tonnes) assuming that any of the available flexibilities are 
applied”.  

STECF observes that the study further concludes that “The minimum annual TAC in TAC in 
9-10 CECAF 34.1.1 (Atlantic Iberian waters) required to deploy the total effort simulated in 
the scenarios using the Minimum deployment effort option (…) ranges from 129 tonnes 
(swaps, flexibilities and mean catchability) to 142 tonnes (no swaps and 2022 catchability).” 
This answers the DG MARE request to estimate the pollack TAC that would not choke the 
fleets in areas 9-10 CECAF 34.1.1 (Atlantic Iberian waters).   

STECF observes that the ad-hoc study acknowledges uncertainties, including the possibility 
of higher prices due to lower supply (lower TAC) alongside potential price elasticities, likely 
mitigating the total effect of a reduced TAC in all the scenarios.   

Review of the information provided by the Spanish authorities  

The information provided by the Spanish authorities corresponds to the landings (in tonnes 
and value) by vessel of pollack and overall, from 2020 to 2023 for Cantabrian Sea and 
Atlantic Iberian waters. The information provided notes how for 2024 catch limits 
differentiated by modality have been established in Spain and that a swap from France has 
been received for pollack in 8c (8 tonnes). The information also notes how by June 7 of 2024, 
consumption reaches almost 59 tonnes, already finding a consumption level close to 85% of 
the quota assigned to Spain (70 tonnes). Finally, it also notes the dependency on pollack for 
the longline vessels (13% in value in 2023) and for the artisanal vessels (3.5% in value in 
2023).  

34 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
STECF notes that according to the data submitted by Spain, in 2023 two vessels of the 
artisanal fleet have a dependency to pollack above 50% (in value), while 3.2% of the small-
scale vessels (678 vessels) have a dependency in value above 20%.  

STECF notes that on the 5 July 2024 an additional report was submitted by the Spanish 
authorities as background document. This report describes the likely effects of a potential 
change (ICES, 2023d) in the MCRS for pollack from 30cm to 42cm, for Spanish fleets. 
STECF notes that this change in the MCRS responds to the consideration of length at 
maturity (both sexes together) for this species in division 9a and subarea 8 (42.3 cm) (ICES, 
2023d).     

The data description presented in the report shows that the métiers likely to be affected by 
this change in the MCRS is the those using the fishing gear “Beta” (GNS60) and up to a 
lower extent those using “Trasmallo” (GTR) in the division 8c.  

STECF also observes that for “betas” more than the 80% of catches in weight correspond to 
fish below 42 cm. This report also reiterates the seasonality of pollack’s catches by Spanish 
fleets (both in divisions 8c and 9a), with landing’s peaks in Q1 and Q4 of the year. Finally, the 
report also concludes that currently the authors of the report are unable to assess the effect 
the changes in pollack’s TAC in a mixed fisheries bioeconomic model context, because 
pollack is not one of the species included in the Iberian Waters mixed-fisheries 
considerations (ICES, 2023c).  

Review of the information provided for the Portuguese fleets (COM)  

Information on landings in tonnes of Pollack and overall, for the years 2019 to 2023 has been 
provided to the STECF. It is noted how the importance of pollack in Portuguese landings is 
residual and mainly in the polyvalent fisheries. It also notes how Portugal is in the southern 
limit of the distribution of this species.  

Comments on the anticipated quota uptake of Pollack in Cantabrian Sea (Division 8c) 
and Iberian Atlantic waters (Sub-areas 9-10 CECAF 34.1.1) for 2024   

STECF observes that the ad-hoc report has assessed the socio-economic effects of the 
reduction in pollack TAC. The study has used DCF data and approved merging procedures 
(see STECF AER WG) to obtain estimates of catchability, income, GVA, gross and net 
profits, and affected FTE per fleet métier alongside assumptions on quota uptake levels 
changing the effort (if “min” scenario) or not (if “status quo effort” scenario).   

STECF acknowledges that the stock of pollack in ICES areas 8, 9, 10 and CECAF 34.1.1 has 
changed category in the ICES procedure for advice in 2023, from a stock being advised 
following the data poor category 5 “Precautionary approach” to a trends based category 3 
“MSY approach” stock assessment (ICES, 2023d). This has resulted in a change in how the 
Western Waters MAP applies to that stock.   

35 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
STECF notes that in subarea 8 and division 9a, the stock assessments carried out for this 
stock have considered discards to be negligible (ICES, 2023a).  

STECF acknowledges that in recent years, the TAC for the pollack stock has not been 
restrictive, being set largely above the actual catches, and substantially above the ICES 
advice (STECF Plen 24-01).   

STECF acknowledges that setting the TAC in 2024 at the level advised by ICES is consistent 
with the MSY objectives of the CFP. STECF further notes that the future evolution of the 
pollack stock due to an increase in the TAC other than this advised by ICES has not been 
assessed, although it will be detrimental to it.  

STECF observes that, as a general procedure, an estimate of the potential foregone landing 
value can be derived per fleet segment from the gap between the number of days at sea that 
would be required to catch the least restrictive quota (knowing the most recent species 
catchability and the average value per day of this segment for the first two quarters) and the 
days for exhausting the quota of the possible choke species. The savings on operating costs 
could also be deduced from this difference, as well as the resulting part of the affected GVA 
and impacted engaged crew using information from the AER dataset. STECF observes that 
this is the procedure that the ad hoc contractor followed for both areas.   

STECF notes that the ad-hoc study provided as background information estimated the effect 
of a restrictive pollack TAC assuming a strict implementation of the landing obligation, (i.e. 
assuming that the fishery would be closed after the exhaustion of that TAC, i.e. “min”-like 
scenarios). STECF has repeatedly documented in previous advice that such closures and 
choke situations have not yet been observed and that discarding is likely to be still occurring. 
Therefore, STECF underlines that care be taken in the interpretation of the outcomes of the 
studies, which represent the “worst-case” estimates of economic impacts. STECF considers 
that the actual observed impacts may eventually prove to be less than these estimates even 
if the TAC is maintained at the level advised by ICES given discarding of pollack may occur.   

STECF observes that the ad-hoc contract complemented the risk assessment of reducing the 
pollack TAC with some bio-economic estimates based on the AER fleet segment dataset.   

STECF notes that the study and the note from the Spanish administration are globally 
consistent in identifying potential choke situations and socio-economic effects for the Spanish 
fleets if the fishery would close after the exhaustion of the 53% TAC reduction. The ad-hoc 
contract also identifies how using swaps and flexibilities will alleviate this potential choke 
effect, moving further in the year the potential closure of the fishery.  

STECF notes that none of documents provided as a background anticipates impacts on 
neither French fleets (in the Cantabrian Sea) nor on Portuguese fleets (Iberian Atlantic 
waters).   

STECF also notes that the alternative TAC set in accordance with most recent catches has 
the same effect of moving further in the year the potential closure of the fishery and on 
reducing the economic impact on the Spanish fleets.  

36 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
STECF notes how there is not a mixed fisheries bio-economic model in where the pollack 
stock is included. However, the STECF analysed the species composition for the main 
Spanish métiers catching pollack in divisions 8c and 9a based on the in ICES Fisheries 
Overview report (ICES, 2022). This analysis highlights the three métiers which have a 
technical interaction with pollack ("GNS_DEF_60-79_0_0", "GTR_DEF_60-79_0_0" and 
"LLS_DEF_0_0_0") in divisions 8c and 9a, all of which are mixed fisheries. These technical 
interactions may impact landings of hake and common sole which are target species within 
these fisheries that could be choked due to a lower TAC of pollack (Figure 6.1.1). STECF 
further notes that these stocks are listed in article 1(1) of the Western Waters Multiannual 
Plan, Regulation (EU) 2019/472.  

 Figure 6.1.1. Landings by stock in percentage by métier. Division 8c and 9a. Pollack is in dark blue.  

 Source: ICES (2022). 

Other factors affecting the profitability of the Bay of Biscay fleets   

STECF observes that in the Cantabrian Sea and Iberian waters, other factors may affect the 
profitability such as the setting of a recreational allocation, in the Fishing Opportunities 
Regulation for 2024, of a 2 fish/day bag limit in ICES subareas 8, 9, 10. STECF observes that 
Regulation (EU) 2024/257 refers to the recreational fisheries for Pollack and stipulates that: 
"According to scientific advice, recreational catches of pollack in ICES subareas 8, 9, 10 and 
Union waters of CECAF 34.1.1 (Bay of Biscay and Iberian waters) are non-negligible and it is 
therefore appropriate to introduce limits to its recreational fishery in those areas. In order to 
protect the spawning grounds and limit juvenile catches, no specimen of pollack may be 
caught and retained from 1 January to 30 April in recreational fisheries, while the maximum 
of two specimens could be allowed for the remaining part of the year." Considering that 

37 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
  
 
recreational catches are not included in the ICES assessment (ICES, 2023a), STECF is 
unable to estimate the impact of that measure. Furthermore, since these catches are not 
included in the ICES advice for 2024, any changes or restrictions of recreational fisheries will 
not affect the calculation of the advised fishing opportunities for commercial fisheries.   

STECF conclusions  

STECF concludes that the various documents provided to STECF present different ways of 
assessing the expected magnitude of potential choke situations triggered by a reduced 
pollack TAC compared to the 2022 TAC and to the catches of pollack observed in that year. 
Hence, they provide different outcomes in their quantitative estimates of expected impacts.   

STECF concludes that the studies and data provided are globally consistent in identifying 
potential choke situation and socio-economic effects for the Spanish fleets if the 53% TAC 
reduction would be applied to the pollack TAC in both areas (Cantabrian and Iberian Atlantic 
waters), assuming full implementation of the landing obligation and closing of the fishery after 
exhaustion of the TAC. STECF further concludes that this choke situation is unlikely to 
happen neither for French fleets in the Cantabrian Sea nor for Portuguese fleets in the 
Iberian Atlantic waters.  

STECF is not able to quantitatively assess the true scale of impacts that will occur if the 
pollack TAC is maintained at the level advised by ICES. There are several confounding 
factors, such as doubts around the implementation of the landing obligation, no reporting of 
choke cases, and the effectiveness of measures applied in recreational fisheries which limit 
the accuracy of the assessment that can be provided.   

STECF concludes that the ICES single-stock advice is based on the best available biological 
and ecological science and does not directly account for socioeconomic considerations nor 
mixed fisheries issues. However, exceeding the MSY advice in 2024 may lead to a further 
deterioration of this stock in the following years. Therefore, STECF cannot advise a catch 
level for pollack in ICES divisions 8c and 9-10 beyond the maximum fishing opportunities 
level advised by ICES for the full stock and allocated to the relevant management areas by 
the relative stability agreement.   

STECF concludes that there will always be a risk of a choke in mixed fisheries managed by 
single stocks TACs. There are mechanisms within the CFP such as swapping and spatial 
and time flexibilities as well as through improvements in selectivity and reducing effort to 
adapt to changes in TACs that might alleviate some of that risk in the short term, but 
deteriorating conditions of stocks productivity may ultimately require longer term prospective 
to maintain the fisheries sustainable and resilient.   

38 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
 
 
References   

ICES. 2022. Bay of Biscay and the Iberian Coast ecoregion – Fisheries Overview. In Report 

of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2022. ICES Advice 2022, section 6.2. 
https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.21641396.  

ICES. 2023a. Pollack (Pollachius pollachius) in Subarea 8 and Division 9.a (Bay of Biscay 

and Atlantic Iberian waters). In Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2023. ICES 
Advice 2023, pol.27.89a, https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.2184101   

ICES. 2023b. Working Group on Mixed Fisheries Advice (WGMIXFISH-ADVICE). ICES 
Scientific Reports. 5:106. 272 pp. https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.pub.24496237.  

ICES. 2023c. Iberian Waters mixed-fisheries considerations. In Report of the ICES Advisory 

Committee, 2023. ICES Advice 2023, 
https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.24212058    ICES. 2022b. Bay of Biscay mixed-
fisheries considerations. In Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2022.    

ICES. 2023d. Benchmark workshop 2 on the development of MSY advice for category 3 

stocks using SPiCT (WKBMSYSPiCT2). ICES Scientific Reports. 5:65. 
https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.pub.23372990. 

ICES Advice 2022, http://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.21532932  

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

39 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
6.2 Assessment of Joint Recommendations on directed fisheries for squid 

Background provided by the Commission 

These joint recommendations (JRs) submitted by the Scheveningen Group and by the North 
Western Waters Member States Regional Group propose to increase the minimum mesh 
size applicable to vessels engaged in directed fishing for squids (Loliginidae, 
Ommastrephidae) in: 

- 
- 

the North Sea, by amending the Part B (“Mesh sizes”) of Annex V (“North Sea”); and  
the North Western Waters, by amending the Part B (“Mesh sizes”) of Annex VI (“North 
Western Waters”) 

of the Technical Measures Regulation (EU) 2019/1241 that establishes a framework for 
technical measures for the conservation of fisheries resources and the protection of marine 
ecosystems. 
The JR submitted by the Scheveningen Group proposes increasing the current mesh size for 
directed fishing for squid (at least 40 mm in the whole area) to at least 80 mm in the North 
Sea (ICES sub-area 4) and to at least 90 mm in the Skagerrak and Kattegat (ICES division 
3a). 

The JR submitted by the North Western Waters Member States Regional Group proposes 
increasing the current mesh size of towed gear in directed fishing for squid (at least 40 mm in 
the whole area) to at least 80 mm for bottom trawls and seines in ICES divisions 7a-e, 7g-h 
and 7k, while keeping the baseline mesh size of at least 40 mm for towed gear in ICES 
subareas 5 and 6, for pelagic otter trawl within the 12 nautical miles zone in ICES division 7e, 
and for bottom trawls and seines in ICES division 7j 

Background documents are published on: 

https://stecf.ec.europa.eu/meetings-calendar/past-meetings  

Request to the STECF 

The STECF is requested to assess the present JRs submitted by the Scheveningen Group 
and by the North Western Waters Member States Regional Group. Specifically, the STECF is 
requested to: 

  Review and make any appropriate comments and recommendations to the measures 

proposed in the JRs; 

  Assess the potential effects of the proposed increases in mesh sizes for directed 

fisheries targeting squids in the catches of both the target species (squids belonging to 
families Loliginidae and Ommastrephidae) and associated bycatch species.  

40 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Summary of the information provided to STECF  

STECF was provided with two Joint Recommendations (JR):   

1.  Joint recommendation of the Scheveningen Group concerning technical measures for 

the conservation of fishery resources of the North Sea (26-04-2024).   
The JR contains a description of the legal background, objectives and scope of the 
regulation, outcome from the consultations with Advisory Councils, mesh-size 
specification and the request. No scientific studies or data was submitted in support of 
the request.   

2.  Joint Recommendation of the North Western Waters High-Level Group Directed 

Fisheries for squid (28-06-2024).   
The JR includes a description of the legal background, the outcome of the consultation 
with the NWWAC, the proposed measures and current fishing practices. No scientific 
studies or data was submitted in support of the request.  

 STECF comments  

STECF notes that the submitted JR referring to the North Sea proposes to increase the 
minimum mesh size applicable to vessels engaged in a directed fishing for squid from at least 
40 mm to at least 80 mm in ICES sub-area 4 and to at least 90 mm in Skagerrak and 
Kattegat (ICES division 3a).   

STECF notes that the submitted JR regarding the North Western Waters proposes to 
increase the mesh-size to at least 80 mm for bottom trawls and seines in ICES divisions 7a-
e, 7g-h and 7k, while keeping the baseline mesh size of at least 40 mm for towed gear in 
ICES subareas 5 and 6, for pelagic otter trawl within the 12 nautical miles zone in ICES 
division 7e, and for bottom trawls and seines in ICES division 7j.  

STECF notes that the North Sea JR states that the objectives of increasing the mesh size are 
threefold: (1) to enhance enforcement of mesh size specification, (2) to optimise the 
exploitation patterns to provide protection for juveniles and spawning aggregations of marine 
biological resources, and (3) to reduce catches of marine species below the minimum 
conservation reference size (MCRS). STECF further notes that the North Western Waters JR 
states that the proposed modification of the derogation from the baseline mesh-size is 
expected to improve the selectivity in the area and to address control issues.  

STECF notes that both JRs concern proposed measures for directed fishing for squid. 
STECF has previously extensively discussed the issues of directed fishing in its PLEN 20-02 
Plenary (ToR 6.3), highlighting that (i) there is no simple, unique and practical indicator or 
(sets of) metric(s) that can be used to unequivocally define a directed fishery, and that (ii) 
Member States are responsible for providing careful data and information about the 
selectivity of the gears proposed for the directed fishery compared to the baseline and about 

41 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
 
the conditions for granting the derogation to use the proposed gear(s) etc. These are 
conditions necessary to assess whether the derogation for directed fishing further or hinder 
the achievements of the objectives of the CFP and the Technical Measures Regulation No. 
2019/1241 (TM).  

STECF notes that the definition of directed fishing in the TM Regulation states: “fishing effort 
targeted at a specific species or group of species and may be further specified at regional 
level in delegated acts”. As the North Sea JR notes, without a clear definition of directed 
fishery this “potentially facilitates abuse of the derogation from the baseline mesh size. 
Where there are substantial volumes of bycatch (below MCRS) of commercial species by 
fishing vessels availing of this derogation there is no legal basis from a control and 
enforcement perspective to address this”. However, STECF notes that no proposal to further 
define directed fisheries is taken in either of the two JRs submitted. Given the elements 
discussed in PLEN 20-02, STECF reiterates that Member States are responsible to provide 
information on which criteria will be used to define which vessels will be considered to 
operate directed fishing.  

STECF considers that in principle increasing mesh size is one way to improve selectivity of 
the fisheries. However, any assessment of the potential effects of the proposed increases in 
mesh sizes in target and bycatch species catch (as requested by the ToRs) requires specific 
fisheries information: number and characteristics of the vessels, gear description, catch data 
(landings, discards and length distributions) and effort data (fishing intensity and spatial 
distribution). As the JRs were not accompanied with any additional information or data, 
STECF is not able to assess the potential effects of the proposed increases in mesh size.  

In addition, STECF notes that the effect of increasing mesh size is closely linked to towed 
speed, catch size, species composition or seasonal effects and may request additional 
measures such as escapement devices (Glaas et al., 1999; Kings et al. 2009; Manjarrés-
Martínez, 2015; Bayse et al., 2019).  

In order to estimate catches of squid by area and Member State, STECF assessed whether 
landings data available in the Annual Economic Report (AER) 2023 could be used as a 
proxy. STECF notes that although it is not possible to distinguish targeted from bycatch 
landings, for 2022, reported catches of squids from 27.5 and 27.6 were very low (Table 
6.2.1). From the JR it remains unclear to STECF what would be the reason for maintaining 
the derogation for directed fisheries for 40mm mesh size for these specific areas with such 
low catches of squid.  

42 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
Table 6.2.1. Distribution of squid landings per sub area in 2022 for EU fleet segment.  

Source: - AER 2023 Data. 

STECF notes that the United Kingdom has increased the mesh size of the directed fisheries 
targeting squids (belonging to families Loliginidae and Ommastrephidae) from 40 mm to 80 
mm within the English zone of the United Kingdom waters since the 24th of October 2023 
(The Sea Fisheries (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2023). 

STECF conclusions  

STECF concludes that in principle increasing the mesh size is one way to improve selectivity 
of the fisheries. However, STECF is not able to assess the potential effects of the proposed 
increases in mesh size (as requested by the ToRs) as no supporting information was 
provided to STECF.  

STECF reiterates its conclusion from PLEN 20-02 that directed fishing is not and cannot be 
clearly defined scientifically. Member States are responsible to provide detailed justification 
on the underlying objectives and on the criteria used to define which vessels will be granted 
exemption. STECF concludes that the JRs provide insufficient information in this regard.    

STECF concludes that the expected benefits of the North Western Waters in relation to 
optimising the exploitation patterns to protect juveniles and spawning aggregations of marine 

43 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
biological resources and to reduce catches of marine species below the MCRS, are not clear 
in the JR.   

References  

Bayse S., Pol H. , Walsh M., Walsh A., Bendiksen T., He P., 2017.Design and test of a grid to 

reduce bycatch in the longfin inshore squid (Doryteuthis paelii) trawl fishery. 
https://doi.org/10.1111/jai.13381  

Glass, W.; Sarno, B.; Morris, D.; Milliken, O.; Carr, A., 1999. Bycatch Reduction in 

Massachusetts Inshore Squid (Loligo pealeii) Trawl Fisheries. Marine Technology 
Society Journal, Volume 33, Number 2, 1999, pp. 35-42(8). Marine Technology Society. 
doi: https://doi.org/10.4031/MTSJ.33.2.6  

King, S. E., E. N. Powell, and E. A. Bochenek. 2009. Effect of an increase in codend mesh 
size on discarding in the Loligo squid-directed fishery: A commercial-scale test. J. 
Northw. Atl. Fish. Sci., 40:41–58.doi:10.2960/J.v40.m631  

Manjarrés-Martínez L.M., J Gutiérrez-Estrada J.C., Hernando J.A., 2015. Effects of mesh 

size and towing speed on the multispecies catch rates of historical swept area surveys, 
Fisheries Research, Volume 164, Pages 143-152, ISSN 0165-7836, 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2014.11.006.  

44 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
6.3 Evaluation of Joint Recommendation on mitigation measures to reduce incidental 
catches of common dolphin in the Bay of Biscay 

Background provided by the Commission  

Chronology of events: 

  June 2019: The EU adopted Regulation (EU) 2019/1241) on the conservation of 
fisheries resources and the protection of marine ecosystems through technical 
measures. Its Article 3 specifies that technical measures shall contribute to ensure that 
incidental catches of sensitive marine species (including common dolphin) are 
minimised. 

  May 2020: ICES published an evaluation of measures (combination of area closures 
with the use of pingers for certain trawlers in the Bay of Biscay). This evaluation was 
requested by NGOs who were concerned about the high number of stranded dolphins in 
the Bay of Biscay. 

  March 2021: STECF assessed the first joint recommendation (JR) submitted by the 

South-Western Waters Member States Group. STECF considered that the measures 
proposed in the JR were insufficient to reduce incidental catches of common dolphin. 
Therefore, the European Commission (EC) did not adopt any delegated act. 

  February 2023: The EC adopted the EU Action plan, which sets a deadline by end of 

2023 to introduce mitigation measures to protect common dolphin in the Bay of Biscay. 

  June 2023: ICES advised for the common dolphin in the Bay of Biscay and Iberian 

Coast a combination of temporal closures of all métiers of concern and the application 
of pingers on pair trawlers to mitigate bycatch outside of the periods of closure. 
Additionally, ICES recommended enhanced monitoring to assess the effectiveness of 
management measures (including pingers use) and to augment precision in bycatch 
mortality estimates of common dolphin. 

  December 2023: STECF assessed the second JR submitted by the South-Western 

Waters Member States Group. The JR included spatio-temporal closures and technical 
measures to minimise incidental catches of common dolphin in the Bay of Biscay (ICES 
Subarea 8). STECF provided a negative opinion, as measures proposed in the JR were 
not adequate to reduce the by-catches. The EC did not adopt any delegated act. 

  December 2023: Following a judgement from the French High Court, France adopted a 

spatio-temporal closure for 30 days (22/01/2024 to 20/02/2024). 

  January 2024: France activated Article 13 of the CFP on emergency measures and 
extended the spatio-temporal closure for French vessels to all vessels from other 
Member States or third countries fishing with the same gears. 

  June 2024: the South-Western Waters Members States Group submitted a third JR to 

the EC. The JR proposes for 2025 management measures for pelagic trawlers, 
demersal pair trawlers, purse seines, gillnets, trammel nets and set nets in ICES 
subdivision 8. The measures are divided in two types: to improve knowledge on bycatch 
and to reduce bycatch. The JR is complemented with a set of annexes that provide 

45 

 
 
 
 
 
 
results on the socio-economic data, monitoring programmes, outcomes of several 
research projects, technical reports from national research institutes, two poster 
communications and the list of pingers tested and used (see background documents). 

Background documents are published on: 

https://stecf.ec.europa.eu/meetings-calendar/past-meetings  

Request to the STECF 

The STECF is requested to review and make any appropriate comments and 
recommendations to the measures contained in the joint recommendation. 

The STECF is requested to assess: (1) if the proposed mitigation measures would 
contribute to improve the situation with respect to 2023 and with a view to reduce 
incidental catches of common dolphin in the Bay of Biscay and; (2) if they are an 
improvement vis-a-vis previous JR. STECF should consider the socio-economic 
information available. STECF is also requested to analyse the proposed on-board 
observation program and its impact on data collection. 

Summary of the information provided to STECF 

STECF was provided with the SWW joint recommendation (JR) text and background 
documents collated by DG MARE:  

The SWW JR text ("2024.06.20_JR on cetaceans bycatch_SWW HLG_final_rev.pdf")  

The Joint Recommendation is a follow-up of the previous JR (October 2023) evaluated by 
PLEN 23-03 who raised important concerns. This JR aims to establish more stringent 
mitigation measures for 2025 than in the previous JR, after the Commission asked the SWW 
HLG to revise the initial October 2023 JR. The measures proposed in this Joint 
Recommendation would apply in 2025.  

The current JR contains a new proposal regarding management measures to reduce 
incidental bycatches of small cetaceans in the Bay of Biscay (ICES area 8 only), consisting 
of:  

1.  Enforcing measures applicable in ICES subareas 8 including improving knowledge on 

bycatch by recording bycatch, estimating bycatch rates per fishing techniques, 
recording fishing techniques specificities and other environmental variables, and 
conducting scientific investigations to improve knowledge on the drifting of dead 
animals released in the water. At-risk vessels are encouraged to voluntarily equip 
themselves with on-board cameras to improve knowledge on interactions between 
small cetaceans and at-risk gear, conduct experimentation with innovative technical 
measures with the potential to reduce cetaceans’ bycatches and transmit data to ICES 

46 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
and national scientific bodies including camera data, and share data between Member 
States.  

2.  A time area closure with the following specifications: During 30 days, from the 22nd of 
January until the 20th of February 2025, vessels over 8 meters that use pelagic trawls 
(PTM, OTM), demersal pair trawls (PTB), purse seine (PS), gillnets (GNS) and 
trammel nets (GTR) are not allowed to fish within the French waters up to the outer 
limit of the economic exclusive zone within ICES subarea 8.  

A row of annexes was provided alongside the JR, which are described below.  

Annex 1 (in the JR document) providing tables with bycatch estimates   

Tables with bycatch records are provided from observed trips with an observer onboard or 
with Electronic Monitoring in France, Spain, and Portugal. According to the table titles, 
STECF understands that the values given are the total number of bycaught cetaceans 
observed and the total number of trips observed for the three countries. However, STECF 
underlines that these tables are unclear as the tables from France include percentage values 
that do not match with the numbers provided in the table, while the tables from Spain and 
Portugal do not include any percentages or information on total number of trips. In the 
absence of unambiguous information on observation coverage STECF remains cautious in 
its interpretation of these tables.  

Annex 2. “Summary of measures and available data of Cetacean strandings and interactions  

with the national fleet in the Bay of Biscay and the Iberian Coast”, Secretariat for Fisheries,  

SPAIN  

 In addition to the use of pingers on static net fisheries stated in the Annex to Commission 
Implementing Regulation (EU)2020/967 of 3 July 2020, the document recalls that Article1￼ 
establishes the obligation to use acoustic deterrent devices (pingers) for all Spanish bottom 
trawlers whose fishing activity is conducted in the national Cantabrian and Northwest fishing 
grounds and in the non-Spanish EU waters of the Bay of Biscay.  STECF notes that gear 
codes are not specified in the APA/1200/2020 so it is assumed that both OTB and PTB gears 
are covered.  

The document states that another mitigation measure included in Ministerial Order 
APA/1200/2020 is the “move-on” rule. Article 6 establishes that when more than three 
cetaceans are caught in the same fishing manoeuvre during fishing activities with bottom 
trawl gear, or one cetacean is caught in two consecutive hauls, fishing vessels shall change 
their position a minimum of 5 miles from the initial position to continue their fishing activities, 
at a high navigational speed.  

The document recalls that in 2024, the Ministerial Order APA/1200/2020 was updated to 
include the spatial-temporal closure, in the waters of the French exclusive economic zone of 

47 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
ICES zone 8, for fishing vessels with an overall length of more than 8 metres using bottom 
pair trawls, purse seines, gillnets and/or entangling gears, gillnets and dredges between 22 
January and 20 February 2024.  

Annexe 3, incl. “Annex 3a_Presentatio Mitigation Device trials.pdf”, “Annex 3b_Presentation 
DolphinFree.pdf”   

Various recent scientific investigations report on the efficiency of pingers in mitigating bycatch 
events. STECF PLEN 23-03 had already screened these materials.  

“Annex 3c_Project synthesis note_OBSCAMe2024.pdf”, “Annex 3c_Project synthesis 
note_OBSCAMe2024.pdf”, “Annex 3d_OBSMER_Program,pdf”  

The OBSCAMe report describes a French monitoring program implemented on a voluntary 
basis since February 2024, with 44 gillnetters being equipped and collecting data with 
Electronic Monitoring systems. A tool for the automatic treatment of video sequences is 
currently being developed (Artificial Intelligence algorithm models) by IFREMER. The 
ObsMer report describes the onboard observer program, reporting that since the winter 2018-
2019 the normal DCF onboard observers sampling program (ObsMer) has been increased 
specifically in the Bay of Biscay each winter, with 2 to 15% of the fishing effort of trawlers 
(PTM, OTM) and/or gillnetters (GTR, GNS) observed at sea from December 15 of year n to 
April 30 of year n+1.  

Annex 4_Report Purse Seine Bycatch_IEO.pdf  

The bycatch rate (number of cetacean specimens by observed fishing day) of common 
dolphin resulted from the Spanish dedicated bycatch monitoring program in ICES Division 
27.8.c, for purse seine fishery, between July 2021 and December 2023, was found to be 
0.0488 animals per fishing day with the purse seine. The effort covered by observers was 
<0.5% of fishing days.  

Annex 5_Report Gillnets Bycatch_IEO.pdf  

Bycatch rate (number of cetacean specimens by observed fishing day) of common dolphin 
and harbor porpoise resulted from the Spanish dedicated bycatch monitoring program in 
ICES Divisions 27.8.c and 27.8.d.2 for the gillnet fishery between October 2020 and 
December 2023 was found at maximum 0.0556 specimens per gillnet fishing day. The effort 
covered by observers was between 0.5 to 4% of fishing days depending on the fleet segment 
DCF Level 6.    

Annex 6_Review Basque Purse Seine_AZTI.pdf  

48 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
Sampling coverage of the purse seine fleet in area 8c was 2% in 2024 (up to June), and the 
number of incidental catches of common dolphins was 0 incidental catches in all the fishing 
trips sampled. These zero incidences, based on the sampling carried out by scientific 
observers on these species listed as protected, have allowed this fleet to receive MSC 
certification.  

Annex 7_Project EMS_AZTI.pdf  

The project to install electronic monitoring systems (EM) on board small-scale gillnet vessels 
aims to collect technical information on the operation of commercial fishing in gillnet fisheries 
and to characterise possible associated incidental cetacean capture. the information 
expected to be collected in 2024 is substantially higher than during the previous year, as both 
the time coverage of recordings and the number of vessels involved have been increased.  

Annex 8_Poster_Izquierdo et al. (1).pdf and Annex 9_Poster_Izquierdo et al. (2).pdf  

A study concluded that the technical characteristics of pingers vary, and in practice they may 
fit differently in a gillnet, making the fishing operations technically challenging. NetGuard 
pingers are accepted better by the fishers because they are stronger and easier to attach to 
the fishing net, but no accidental catches in a control experiment have been obtained to 
demonstrate the effectiveness of the pingers tested in mitigating the entanglement of 
dolphins.  

Annex 10: List of pingers tested/use by countries  

There are references to different pinger devices and a statement on their efficiency, including 
deterrent devices designed to scare away harbour porpoises.   

STECF-PLEN 23-03 previously commented on the relative efficiency of the devices listed. 
The LICADO project concluded that using the LICADO prototype pinger is still not easy in 
practice when operating gillnets and that it is still difficult to prove the effectiveness of pinger 
in reducing bycatch events. Such difficulty arises from the low number of recorded bycatch 
events in this study, preventing to provide statistically significant results. With the 
DOLPHINFREE project, the outcome of in-field testing has been published in Lehnhoff et al. 
(2022). Authors state that the DOLPHINFREE V3 pinger could effectively reduce bycatch 
events in gillnet fisheries because it could “provide promising means to signal the presence 
of fishing nets to common dolphins and potentially to limit by-catch”, but the magnitude of this 
reduction has not been robustly estimated yet. The authors also recall that this pinger would 
likely not fit pelagic trawlers since mobile fishing gears require the animals to be quicker to 
detect and avoid the fishing gears in movement.  

49 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
 
“2023_RapportLEMNA_socioeco.pdf (in French)” for a socioeconomic impact assessment of 
closing fishing activities in the BoB for mitigating cetacean bycatches for the French Fleet  

There are socioeconomic impact estimates provided for several hypothetical closure 
scenarios, from one month to several months, with reference years being 2018, 2019 and 
2021 (excluding 2020 year when the COVID pandemic was active). STECF notes that none 
of the scenarios tested corresponds to the actual period of closure suggested in the JR (i.e. 
22-Jan to 20-Feb). The scenarios tested consisted of closing French EEZ in the Bay of 
Biscay fisheries between 15-Jan to 20-Feb, from 15-Jan to 14-Mar, and from 1-Jan to 31-
Mar, and 15-Jul to 14-Aug. The closest scenario, Scenario 5.1, is the one corresponding to 
one month closure (15 Jan 14 Feb) and for the concerned gear types i.e. PS PTM PTB OTM 
GTR GNS.   

Estimates of change in annual income from landings for this scenario is reproduced below, 
for the various fleet segments, estimating a 7% revenue decrease overall. Besides this, the 
study further included possible indirect effects such an economic loss alongside the value 
chain when the fishing activity is limited during a month.  

Informe propuesta cetáceos 3 meses cierre_17-06-2024_VDEF.pdf for a socioeconomic 
impact assessment of closing fishing activities in the BoB for mitigating cetacean bycatches 
for the Spanish Fleet  

The theoretical scenario assessed in the study was a closure of the fleet activity, for the 
gears affected by the 30-day closure in 2024 in French waters, for three months, from 
January to March.   

The study provides estimates on the value of Spanish landings, in euro average of 2022 and 
2023, of the vessels affected by hypothetical closures, which are in Jan, 5.6 million euros in 
8c and 5.7 million Euros in 9a, in Feb, 5,7 million euros in 8c and 5,4 million euros in 9a, in 

50 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
March, 22,5 million euros in 8c and 5.4 million euros in 9a (extracted from Table 11 in the 
document). Hence, the study argues that seasonality likely influences the closure effect given 
the seasonal extraction of fisheries resources, considering that a significant increase in 
catches is observed in the month of March for zone 8c.  

The study also tried to estimate the indirect effects on home harbour municipalities, assuming 
that the number of indirect jobs affected would be considered as a multiplier effect of 4 jobs 
for each job in the extractive sector.   

STECF comments  

In PLEN-23-03, STECF was requested to analyse the SWW JR submitted in 2023 in details, 
and to advise DG MARE on the contribution that the proposed measures to reduce 
accidental catches of the common dolphin in the Bay of Biscay, if implemented, would make 
to the achievement of objectives set out in Article 3, paragraphs 2(b) and 2(d) and the target 
set out in Article 4 Paragraph 1(b) of Regulation (EU) 2019/1241. STECF PLEN 23-03 was 
requested to review the proposed set of measures and their effectiveness to reduce the by-
catch of common dolphins in the Bay of Biscay in line with the recommendations of the latest 
ICES advice. In particular, STECF was requested to assess whether the spatio-temporal 
closures can minimize or reduce by-catch of common dolphins to provide the required level 
of protection of common dolphin in the Bay of Biscay. Finally, STECF PLEN 23-03 was 
requested to comment on the controllability of the measures proposed.  

STECF PLEN 23-03 had thus commented extensively on the 2023 JR. Therefore, in order to 
assess whether the 2024 JR is an improvement from the previous JR, as requested to PLEN 
24-02, STECF comments hereafter on the same observations as PLEN 23-03, updated in the 
context of the present SWW JR. Improvements are to be analysed in the context of (i) 
effective bycatch reduction, (ii) achievements of Regulation (EU) 2019/1241 objectives and 
(iii) improved monitoring and control.  

 As a general comment, STECF acknowledges the level of details and the amount of 
information provided including many annexes, which has significantly increased compared to 
2023.  

1.  Mitigation devices (pingers)  

 STECF acknowledges the extensive ongoing research effort to test the efficiency of existing 
or innovative mitigation devices cited by the supported studies, including, for example, the 
LICADO French project on pingers testing in gillnet fisheries of the Bay of Biscay, or the 
DOLPHINFREE French project that has also developed common dolphin-specific pingers to 
be deployed by netters.   

PLEN 23-03 had earlier commented on the outcomes of the LICADO and DOLPHINFREE 
projects, acknowledging that trials results are still inconclusive on the effectiveness of the 
devices to reduce bycatch. In addition to these two projects, STECF notes that several new 

51 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
   
research projects on mitigation devices projects have been mentioned either in the JR or in 
the ICES WGBYC 2023 report.   

The French project PECHDAUPHIR (Interactions between the common dolphin and fishing 
activity in the Natural Park “Iroise” and the Bay of Audierne; 2021 to end 2023), cited in 
WGBYC 2023, aims to better understand the behaviour of fixed gears beneath the sea 
surface to gain insight into the conditions and/or types of gear most likely to cause accidental 
catches in common dolphins. To achieve this, sensors (pressure, temperature) are integrated 
into several gears for which accidental captures have been recorded (sole trammel nets, 
hake nets, monkfish trammel nets, etc).   

The project DELMOGES (“Delphinus Mouvements Gestion”; 2022 to 2025) will use passive 
acoustic triangulation to track the sub-surface movements of common dolphins around 
different vessels and fishing gears (gillnets) to gain insight into fine-scale interactions 
between dolphins and fisheries.  

The Spanish MITICET project started in 2022, aims to test acoustic active deterrent devices 
(pingers) for dolphins, with the main objective of comparing the incidental bycatch of dolphins 
by implementing an alternate hauls experimental design (with and without pingers) on a pair 
trawl unit. Both vessels were equipped with Electronic Monitoring systems (EM) to record the 
incidental bycatches, which allows for visualising any cetacean bycatch onboard in all fishing 
hauls. Results in 2022 showed a reduction of 92.2% in the proportion of hauls with bycatch of 
common dolphins and 95% in the number of specimens per haul with bycatch.  

ICES WGBYC 2023 reported that, in Portugal, during 2022, mitigation trials using DDD´s and 
DiD´s (Dolphin deterrent devices, STM Industrial Electronics, Italy) continued within one 
specific task in the CetAMBICion project, coordinated by the University of Algarve and the 
Center of Marine Sciences (CCMAR). Testing occurred in gillnets (GNS) and was monitored 
by at-sea observers and vessel crew observers (trained skippers) who filled information in 
paper logbooks. Overall, 107 hauls for DiD testing (61 control and 46 with alarms) and 47 
hauls for DDD-03N testing (24 control and 23 with alarms) were analysed for boats larger or 
smaller than 12 m. The study concluded that the use of acoustic deterrent devices showed a 
significant bycatch reduction, especially in gears targeting European hake and red mullet.  

Several bycatch mitigation studies took place or were completed in the UK during 2022 for a 
range of sensitive taxa. For cetaceans (mainly common dolphins), trials of lights, pingers (two 
models) and combinations of lights and pingers were undertaken in a small-scale inshore net 
fishery under the Clean Catch UK program managed by CEFAS. Results so far are 
inconclusive. Participating fishers found the experimental design challenging to implement in 
the field, and some reliability issues were encountered with the lights and one of the pinger 
models.  

Since 2019, Clean Catch UK has been developing a passive acoustic reflector (PAR) device. 
A prototype that can replace standard gillnet floats has been manufactured. The final PAR 
prototype will be tested by local net riggers to identify best practices for deployment on 
commercial gill nets, after which practicality and efficacy trials will be undertaken.  

52 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 See also literature listed in Table 3.1 Small cetaceans, in ICES WGBYC 2023. Out of this 
list, STECF acknowledges the effort made by the various Member States, and the UK as 
well, to fund mitigation research projects. STECF notes that many projects are still ongoing, 
some results seem promising but obtaining statistically significant results seems to remain a 
hurdle for most projects, due to the variability in the occurrence of bycatch events. STECF 
acknowledges that ICES WGBYC monitors the development of these projects and provides 
updated information on achievements.  

2.  Effectiveness of the 2024 and potential 2025 time-area closure to reduce 

bycatch    

STECF observes that, given that the closure occurred only recently (22 Jan to 20 Feb 2024), there is not yet a 
robust collection of evidence to evaluate its performance in achieving the mitigation of bycatch down to ICES-
advised reference level (number of captured and then dead animals below the PBR). The only information 
publicly available so far relates to stranding events during the closure, which shows that the stranded animals 
marked with signs of capture by fishing gear were significantly less than average (Figure 6.3.1 below).    

 Figure 6.3.1. Rate of stranded small cetaceans showing perceived signs of interactions with fishing 
gears south of 48°N between 22/01 and 22/02 from 2010 to 2024 (provisional data for 2024). 

Source: RNE  at Bilan des échouages durant la fermeture de la pêche à risque – PELAGIS (cnrs.fr) 

In this regard, STECF observes that the achievement of bycatch reduction must be evaluated 
over a longer period (before, during and after the closure), and be put in perspective of the 
entire year (or winter season) of bycatch. As this information is not yet available for 2024, 
STECF notes that while the renewal of this closure for 2025 might help reduce incidental 
catches of common dolphins in the Bay of Biscay during the closed period, STECF is not in a 
position to determine whether the closure is likely to be sufficient to reduce the total annual 
dolphin mortality below the Potential Biomass Removal (PBR) threshold.   

ICES advice (ICES Special Request published on June 2023) for the 'EU request on 
mitigation measures to reduce bycatches of common dolphin (Delphinus delphis) in the Bay 
of Biscay (ICES Subarea 8)' provides an evaluation of a series of management measures to 
reduce bycatch analysed by ICES WGBYC 2022 (ICES 2022). The ICES advice built upon 
the ICES Working Group on Marine Mammal Ecology (WGMME) and the ICES Working 
Group on Bycatch of Protected Species (WGBYC). Based on 2019–2021 bycatch estimates 
derived from either at-sea monitoring programs data or estimates derived from a drift model 

53 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
parameterized on the number of stranded animals, the ICES advice identified Scenario (“L”) 
of a two-month closure [mid-Jan–mid-Mar] for all métiers, with pingers on PTM/PTB the rest 
of the year as the most adequate to meet the objective with a minimal risk of failure.   

The SWW Joint Recommendation partially based its proposal on this ICES Special Request 
Advice. STECF observes, however, that the one-month time-area closure proposed in the 
SWW 2024 JR to reduce the bycatch is still not aligned with any of the six ICES scenarios, 
and the extent to which the bycatch might be reduced cannot be determined at this time.  

STECF observes that the peak of interaction in 2023 could have occurred in March and less 
likely in February (see figure 6.3.2 below). The SWW JR does not comment on such a 
mismatch in setting the closure period for 2024. The observed average time between carcass 
drop-off from the fishing vessel and the date a stranding (based on mark recapture 
experiments) was 12.6 ± 5.3 days, whereas the average drift duration estimated by the 
inverse drift model was 9.7 ± 6.1 days (Peltier et al. 2012). Hence, a delay can be expected 
between strandings peaks and potential bycatch peaks, but that delay can be variable. 
Besides, it is also still unclear whether such a monthly peak is linked to more effort deployed 
during a month or to environmental factors (e.g. westwind intensity). As such, STECF 
observes that some flexibility or an extended period (e.g. 2 months, which would align with 
the ICES advice) may be beneficial to avoid missing the bycatch peak where the interaction 
occurs the most, although it is likely to vary from year to year depending on various 
environmental factors. On the other hand, STECF acknowledges that extending the closure 
period from one to two months will likely significantly affect socioeconomics (see the section 
on socioeconomics below).  

54 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
Figure 6.3.2. The French stranding network (RNE) recorded stranded animals on the French coast in 
the Bay of Biscay since 1969. Here is shown 2023 and 2024 records (data up to July 2024).

Source: http://pelagis.in2p3.fr/public/histo-carto/index.php consulted on the 9 of July 2024).  

STECF observes that unlike bottom pair trawlers (PTB), vessels deploying bottom otter trawl 
nets (OTB) would not be affected by the one-month closure defined in the SWW JR. OTB is 
not generally considered to generate high levels of cetacean bycatch, particularly when 
fishing in deeper water close to the continental slope (Peltier et al. 2020). Nevertheless, 
STECF understands that the bottom trawl gear category includes several types of trawls, 
including High Vertical Opening and Very High Vertical Opening trawls. This method of 
fishing has increased in the Bay of Biscay in recent years (ICES, 2017b). Because the trawl 
operates in contact with the seabed, the gear is classified as otter bottom trawl (OTB). Still, 
the very high vertical opening (VHVO) of the trawl creates a risk of cetacean bycatch, 
particularly when targeting European hake (Peltier et al., 2016)2. Indeed, STECF notes that 
ICES advice (2023) estimates that total bycatches of dolphins by OTB gears in 2019-2021 
were almost the lowest among all gears, but still slightly higher than those estimated for 
PTM_DEF gears (103 [0-256] vs 69 [50-89] animals, respectively), with high uncertainty 
based on few observations. The estimated bycatch rate for OTB is the lowest across all 
gears, but the total fishing effort deployed by OTB remains important.  STECF wonders as 
well whether authorising OTB as the only gear during the closure could trigger an incentive to 
misreport gear declaration in logbook, e.g. from PTB or OTM to OTB.   

55 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
STECF points out that animal strandings records are low on the Spanish coast due to 
geographical features, given that sea currents and wind pushing carcasses toward the 
French coast. However, this does not necessarily mean that the bycatch events induced by 
the Spanish fleet in the Spanish EEZ are also low. Despite this, STECF observes that the 
time-area closure in this 2024 JR targets the French EEZ only.  

3.  Monitoring the effectiveness and controllability of proposed measures  

STECF gathered some information from published reports about time-area closure, deterrent 
devices, and electronic monitoring, to assess the effectiveness and the controllability of the 
measures proposed in the JR.   

From the best available science collected so far on the bycatch issue of marine mammals by 
ICES (ICES WKEMBYC2 2023), STECF observes that associating a seasonal closure 
covering the peak of interaction to the use of pingers over the rest of the season and with EM 
onboard fishing vessels is expected to deliver the best combination of effectiveness and 
controllability, as also as concluded in STECF PLEN-21-01 and the ICES Special request of 
June 2023.   

STECF notes that time-area closures are usually implemented to avoid interactions between 
fishing activities and specific ecosystem components that need to be protected (marine 
mammals, birds, turtles, other sensitive species or certain fish life stages such as juveniles). 
STECF observes that static or flexible area-based management tools and input controls on 
the number and time-of-day of fishing operations can be monitored with a vessel monitoring 
system (VMS, AIS, etc.), provided that the ping frequency is adequate. However, if real-time 
flexible closures (or “move-on” rules) are to be implemented instead of fixed seasonal 
closures, the vessel monitoring system alone is insufficient, and would need to be associated 
with electronic monitoring (including cameras) to effectively adapt to the observed start of a 
peak of interaction. Delay in detecting an increase in bycatch would, however, impair the 
effectiveness of such real-time management.   

Concerning pingers, STECF notes from previous and recent supporting studies that the 
effectiveness of pingers varies for different species (STECF PLEN 21-01). In its review of the 
implementation of the EU Regulation on the incidental catches of cetaceans (STECF 19-07), 
STECF had noted that the specifications for the pingers/acoustic deterrent devices (ADDs) 
prescribed in Reg (EU) 812/2004 mainly mitigate the bycatch of harbour porpoise. For other 
species, including dolphins, results were less conclusive and might depend on the kind of 
ADDs used. Furthermore, using pingers in fishing operations may present significant 
operational problems, with pinger failure rates exceeding 50% in some cases (STECF 20-
02). As already stated in PLEN 23-03, it is not clear to STECF to what extent significant 
technological progress has been achieved to address these operational shortcomings.   

More recently, STECF PLEN 23-03 observed that Puente et al. (2023) have tested fully 
charged dolphin deterrent devices (DDD®03H03H) over 467 hauls of the pair bottom trawl 
fishery in the south Bay of Biscay to assess their effectiveness. Among these hauls, 26 

56 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
common dolphins were caught in 15 hauls, 25 of which were caught in hauls without DDDs 
(1–4 individuals per haul). Results show a statistically significant lower proportion of hauls 
with bycatch and a lower number of individuals bycaught per haul when DDDs are deployed, 
even if the bycatch events captured by the study were rare (26 animals bycaught).  

Finally, STECF observes that besides the use of time-area closure and deterrent acoustic 
devices such as pingers, previous scientific works have reviewed possible changes in gear 
designs and fishing methods with various mechanisms for reducing bycatch, or, if caught, for 
reducing the probability of mortality (e.g., Gilman et al., 2022).  

STECF notes that EM systems have the potential to provide more representative coverage of 
the fleet than observer programs and are generally more cost-efficient, particularly for rare 
events. They also provide continuous coverage of the location and activity of fishing 
operations (see Table 2, Murphy et al., 2022), which can lead to better compliance with 
interaction avoidance and mortality reduction (handling) measures.  

Figure 6.3.3. Number of bycatch incidents recorded by different monitoring methods provided in 2023 
WGBYC data.  

Source: ICES WGBYC 2023 (page 21). 

STECF notes that France has recently experimented with EM onboard gillnetters for 
monitoring cetaceans bycatch in the Bay of Biscay (OBSCAMe program). The final report 
describes that up to 4 times more captures of marine mammals are reported from the EM 
data analysis than with onboard observers. STECF notes that the monitoring program has 
estimated that 20% of bycaught dolphins fall from the gear before reaching the board 
(Cloâtre et al. 2023).).  

Overall, STECF notes that the effectiveness of pingers in reducing bycatch is still uncertain. 
Additionally, it is challenging to regulate the functioning of pingers and to fit them to different 

57 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
fishing techniques. Electronic monitoring is thus the most effective method for the 
controllability of the regulation, as it can enhance coverage and bycatch estimates, thereby 
improving the efficacy of management.  

4.  Socioeconomic analysis  

STECF observes that the assessments of possible economic value and the number of jobs 
and households affected by various settings for time-area closures have been provided for 
French and Spanish cases. France provided estimates relevant to the French EEZ in the Bay 
of Biscay, while Spain provided socioeconomic information relevant to the scale of the entire 
Bay of Biscay and the Iberian Seas.  

Regarding socioeconomic studies, STECF observes a lack of method description in the 
French study, making it difficult to fully assess the representativeness of the results 
presented. In particular, it remains unclear to STECF whether the catch seasonality is 
accounted for in the closure scenarios or not (i.e. considering the differences landings in 
January, February or March respectively, as highlighted in the Spanish economic study, or 
dividing the full year catches in 12 equal months). Given the importance of the LEMNA model 
to support socio-economic analyses provided by France across different ToRs of different 
STECF plenaries, STECF would welcome a proper methodological background document 
describing the key features, assumptions and data behind that model.   

It is stated in the LEMNA report that French data were derived from the economic return loss 
declaration by the sector itself. Hence, STECF understands that these are self-declared data 
which were not audited. As said in the supportive document sent by the French contractor in 
charge of the evaluation,” the economic losses in value and volume have been 
communicated by the professional organisations on the basis of the data submitted by their 
members. [The study participants] do not have much more information on the methodology 
used.”. STECF cannot thus assess to which extent the data used is fully representative of the 
true situation.   

STECF also observes that the French socioeconomic study assumed no effort redistribution; 
the affected vessels were assumed to stay on the quayside during the various closure 
periods tested and there was no assumption of a possible increase of fishing effort before 
and after the closure to compensate for the lost effort during closure has been made. Hence, 
the socioeconomic evaluation is based on the fishing sector´s declaration and has not 
accounted for possible fishing effort redistribution both during the closure (redistribution 
toward other fisheries outside the closed area, or towards other unaffected gears) and 
outside the closure (seasonal effort redistribution toward catching unaffected quotas over the 
opened months before and after the closure). Fisheries limited by TACs could realise the 
exact total allowed catch within the year but outside the closure period as soon as the 
capacity is not physically limited; STECF can thus not fully assess the actual level of 
expected socio-economics impacts, given no documentation on effort allocation, fishing 
opportunities and seasonality is described. As such, STECF notes that the results provided 

58 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
may represent the most pessimistic socio-economic outcomes, disregarding any adaptation 
behaviour from the fishing fleets affected.  

STECF acknowledges the effort to account for socioeconomic effects in the entire value 
chain and not limited to the fishing sector only. However, when evaluating the indirect effect 
on the value chain and processing industry in ports, there was also no information on 
possible product substitution effects or imports that would compensate for the shortage in 
local product delivery to the seafood processing sector and no documentation on how 
important domestic landings are to this sector. These two aspects bear the potential to 
overestimate the possible economic loss for the value chain.   

STECF observes that the period (a 3-month closure) and area extents tested for evaluating 
the socioeconomic impact in Spain are larger than needed to judge the effect of the present 
SWW JR one-month proposal. The areas considered in the Spanish case are Spanish waters 
in 8c and 9a, which do not correspond to the 2024 SWW JR specifications restricted to 
French EEZ in area 8. Furthermore, STECF lacks documentation to judge the importance of 
the three months compared to the entire year's income from landings. Consequently, this 
study cannot inform on the actual impact of the 2024 closure or the expected impact of the 
2025 closure.  

5.  Other considerations on ecological drivers and implications of the unwanted 

interaction  

As stated in STECF PLEN 23-03, STECF recalls that the aerial survey was renewed in 2023 
and showed that common dolphin abundance estimates in the wider area of the European 
Atlantic did not vary much among the three sets of surveys SCANS-II/CODA, SCANS-
III/ObSERVE and SCANS-IV (SCANS-IV 2023). STECF notes that several observations 
would suggest an increase in common dolphin abundance in the Bay of Biscay over recent 
years. However, this increase has likely resulted from an influx of dolphins into the Bay of 
Biscay, potentially from oceanic/southern waters, rather than a population increase in the 
entire North-East Atlantic (the ICES Assessment Unit in SCANS-IV) per se (Murphy et al., 
2022). The distribution of common dolphins appears to be strongly concentrated in shelf 
waters. The common dolphins may prefer shallower waters, as also shown in Lacey et al. 
(2022) where the spatial model for common dolphins estimates a negative relationship with 
increasing depth.   

ICES noted that ongoing issues with data availability and quality, are contributing to high 
levels of uncertainty in estimating population abundance, distribution, bycatch, and other 
major threats for small cetaceans (Murphy et al. 2022). Notably, ICES (2023) showed that the 
percentage of observer coverage has increased in the trawl fisheries between the 2016-2018 
and the 2019-2021 periods; but that the percentage remains nevertheless very low in the 
gillnet and trammel nets fisheries (<3% and <1% respectively). In this regard, STECF 
acknowledges the proposal in the 2023 and 2024 SWW JRs to increase the coverage of 
monitoring of fishing operations.  

59 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
Finally, STECF is aware of and acknowledges the extensive ongoing efforts to understand 
the drivers of the interaction between fishing activities and the common dolphin, which may 
help in the future to design fit-for-purpose management measures that would minimise 
negative economic impacts on fishing operations. In particular, by anticipating, possibly in 
real-time, the period for the peak of interaction between the fisheries activities and the 
dolphins. Such peak likely depends on the distribution and the quality of the fish preyed both 
by the common dolphins and fisher (small pelagic species).  

STECF conclusions 

STECF concludes that compared to the JR submitted in 2023, the measures proposed in the 
2024 SWW JR represent a step forward in attempting to reduce incidental catches of 
common dolphins in fisheries in the Bay of Biscay. Nevertheless, they remain less stringent 
than the measures advised by ICES to reduce bycatches to the level that the Potential 
Biomass Removal threshold (PBR) is unlikely to be exceeded. ICES noted that a two-month 
closure would minimize the risk of missing the peak of interaction, while STECF observed 
such a mismatch would have occurred in 2023, when the peak was recorded in March 2023. 
STECF concludes that the duration of the proposed closure is too short to minimise the risk 
of not covering the peak of bycatch activity.  

STECF concludes that, while the number of strandings of common dolphins with apparent 
mark of capture during the one-month closure of the French EEZ for certain fishing 
operations in 2024 was observed to be much lower than in the same month in 2023, it is too 
early to draw firm conclusions on the effectiveness of the measures implemented in 2024 to 
reduce bycatch over the entire winter season 2023/2024. Full analyses of strandings drift 
models and observers' data will need to be completed before the bycatch estimates for the 
entire winter season can be estimated.    

The JR proposes that fishing with bottom otter trawls (OTB) will be permitted during the 
proposed closure period. STECF concludes that based on by-catch data and the effort 
deployed in the area, including the OTB as a prohibited gear during the closure period may 
further reduce the risk of dolphin bycatch.  

STECF concludes that the socio-economic effect of the 2024 one-month closure still needs to 
be examined in a longer period, to understand how fishers have reacted and potentially 
modified their fishing patterns before, during (if they have moved to a different fishery or 
area) and after the closure. Without such post-hoc evaluation, STECF concludes that the ex-
ante socioeconomic impact provided in support of the 2024 SWW JR, as currently estimated 
based on reference years in the past, may represent a worse case estimate of possible 
economic costs, given the shortcomings raised.  

STECF concludes that including in the socioeconomic evaluation the indirect effects on the 
full value chain for beyond the extractive sector only, is an important step forward to 
understanding the overall socioeconomic impact of the JR. However, indirect effects are by 

60 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
nature difficult to anticipate but larger effects are likely to occur whenever the closure is 
extended to more than one month period.   

STECF acknowledges that extensive ongoing research projects will shortly deliver results on 
the performance of management measures as an alternative to closure, which are monitored 
by ICES WGBYC. Such research project outcomes will hopefully help identifying long-term 
solutions such as pingers, electronic monitoring, spatial or temporal avoidance, modified gear 
geometry, and best practices in handling unwanted catches.   

STECF concludes that the JR suggestion to make mandatory for all mid-water pelagic trawls 
(OTM, PTM, TM) and demersal pair trawls (PTB) active in ICES area 8 to be equipped with 
acoustic deterrent devices is new compared to the 2023 JR. However, since pingers have 
already been made mandatory for several mobile gears in the Bay of Biscay since 2020, the 
JR encouraging the use of pingers for all trawlers all year round would not affect these 
fisheries any more than they already are. As such, it remains unclear to STECF which 
categories of mobile gears will be newly imposed with pingers, or with different categories of 
pingers, in 2025 compared to the current situation. This point could have been made more 
explicit in the JR.   

Regarding the use of pingers with nets encouraged in the JR, STECF concludes that 
investigations must continue before firm outcomes are concludes on their usefulness in 
helping to achieve the mitigation goals.    

STECF concludes that EM is effective for monitoring bycatch events and collecting data that 
will inform the bycatch rates and acknowledges recent monitoring increases in all Member 
States with both EM deployment and increased observers' coverage.  

Finally, STECF concludes that the issue of bycatch of small cetaceans including common 
dolphins needs to be addressed in the long term, as it is likely to continue beyond 2025 while 
the closure is only specified for 2025. STECF concludes that research effort in France, Spain 
and Portugal are ongoing to identify such long-term measures.    

References    

Cloâtre T., Authier M., Brevet M., Dubroca L., Demaneche S. (2023). Analyse des données 
de captures accidentelles de petits cétacés dans le Golfe de Gascogne en période 
hivernale et préparation de la campagne 2023-2024. DGAMPA - Direction Générale des 
Affaires Maritimes, de la Pêche et de l’Aquaculture et DEB - Direction de l’Eau et de la 
Biodiversité, Ref. DG 2023 - 1275 et 1475/ P9-23-052 - Saisine DGAMPA - DEB du 16 
juin 2023, https://archimer.ifremer.fr/doc/00860/97197/  

 EC, 2004. Regulation (EU) 812/2004. Council Regulation (EC) No 812/2004 of 26.4.2004 

laying down measures concerning incidental catches of cetaceans in fisheries and 
amending Regulation (EC) No 88/98  

 Gilman, Eric, Martin Hall, Hollie Booth, Trisha Gupta, Milani Chaloupka, Hannah Fennell, 

Michel J. Kaiser, Divya Karnad, and E. J. Milner-Gulland. “A Decision Support Tool for 

61 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
Integrated Fisheries Bycatch Management.” Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 32, 
no. 2 (June 1, 2022): 441–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11160-021-09693-5.  

 ICES 2020a. EU request on emergency measures to prevent bycatch of common dolphin 
(Delphinus delphis) and Baltic Proper harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) in the 
Northeast Atlantic. ICES Special Request Advice. Published 26 May 202  

 ICES. 2020b. Workshop on fisheries Emergency Measures to minimize BYCatch of short- 
beaked common dolphins in the Bay of Biscay and harbour porpoise in the Baltic Sea 
(WKEMBYC). ICES Scientific Reports. 2:43. 354 pp. 
http://doi.org/10.17895/ices.pub.7472  

 ICES. 2020c. Workshop on fisheries Emergency Measures to minimize BYCatch of short- 
beaked common dolphins in the Bay of Biscay and harbour porpoise in the Baltic Se  

 ICES WKEMBYC 2023. ICES Scientific Reports. 2:43. 354 pp. 

http://doi.org/10.17895/ices.pub.7472  

 ICES. (WKEMBYC2) 2023. Workshop on mitigation measures to reduce bycatch of short-

beaked common dolphins in the Bay of Biscay. ICES Scientific Reports. 5:3. 66 pp. 
https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.pub.2194033  

 ICES. 2020d. Working Group on Marine Mammal Ecology (WGMME). ICES Scientific 

Reports. 2:39. 85 pp. http://doi.org/10.17895/ices.pub.5975  

 ICES. 2023. EU additional request on mitigation measures to reduce by-catches of common 
dolphin (Delphinus delphis) in the Bay of Biscay (ICES Subarea 8). In Report of the 
ICES Advisory Committee, 2023. ICES Advice 2023, sr.2023.01b. 
https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.23515176  

 ICES WGBYC 2023. I Working Group on Bycatch of Protected Species (WGBYC). ICES 
Scientific Reports. 5:111. 334 pp. https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.pub.24659484  

 Murphy, S., Borges, L., Tasker, M. 2022. External report on the review of monitoring PETS 
bycatch of mammals, birds, turtles and fish for ICES under the service of EC DG 
Environment ICES Scientific Reports. 4:17. 69 pp. 
http://doi.org/10.17895/ices.pub.10075  

 Puente, Esteban, Leire Citores, Elsa Cuende, Iñigo Krug, and Mikel Basterretxea. “Bycatch 
of Short-Beaked Common Dolphin (Delphinus Delphis) in the Pair Bottom Trawl Fishery 
of the Bay of Biscay and Its Mitigation with an Active Acoustic Deterrent Device 
(Pinger).” Fisheries Research 267 (November 1, 2023): 106819. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2023.106819.  

 Peltier, H., Dabin, W., Daniel, P., Van Canneyt, O., Dorémus, G., Huon, M., & Ridoux, V. 

(2012). The significance of stranding data as indicators of cetacean populations at sea: 
Modelling the drift of cetacean carcasses. Ecological Indicators, 18, 278-290.  

62 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 Peltier H, Authier M, Deaville R, Dabin W, Jepson PD, Van Canneyt O, Daniel P, Ridoux V. 

(2016). Small cetacean bycatch as estimated from stranding schemes: The common 
dolphin case in the northeast Atlantic. Environmental Science & Policy, 63, 7-18.   

 Peltier, H., Authier, M., Dabin, W., Dars, C., Demaret, F., Doremus, G., Canneyt, O. V., 

Laran, S., Mendez-Fernandez, P., Spitz, J., Daniel, P., & Ridoux, V. (2020). Can 
modelling the drift of bycaught dolphin stranded carcasses help identify involved 
fisheries? An exploratory study. Global Ecology and Conservation, 21, e00843. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2019.e00843  

 SCANS-III. 2017. Estimates of cetacean abundance in European Atlantic waters in summer 

2016 from the SCANS-III aerial and shipboard surveys. https://synergy.st- 
andrews.ac.uk/scans3/2017/05/01/first-results-are-in/  

 SCANS-IV 2023. Gilles, A, Authier, M, Ramirez -Martinez, NC, Araújo, H, Blanchard, A, 

Carlström, J, Eira, C,  Dorémus, G, Fernández-Maldonado, C, Geelhoed, SCV, Kyhn, L, 
Laran, S, Nachtsheim, D, Panigada, S, Pigeault, R,  Sequeira, M, Sveegaard, S, Taylor, 
NL, Owen, K, Saavedra, C, Vázquez-Bonales, JA, Unger, B, Hammond, PS (2023). 
Estimates of cetacean abundance in European Atlantic waters in summer 2022 from the 
SCANS-IV aerial and shipboard surveys. Final report published 29 September 2023. 64 
pp. https://tinyurl.com/3ynt6swa  

 STECF 2019. Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) –Review 
of the implementation of the EU regulation on the incidental catches of cetaceans 
(STECF-19-07). Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2019, ISBN 
978-92-76-11228-0, doi:10.2760/64091JRC117515  

 Wade, P. R., Watters, G. M., Gerrodette, T., and Reilly, S. B. (2007). Depletion of spotted 

and spinner dolphins in the eastern tropical Pacific: modeling hypotheses for their lack 
of recovery. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 343, 1–14. doi: 10.3354/meps07069  

63 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
6.4 Future involvement of STECF in the follow-up of the FishGenome Project 

Background provided by the Commission  

The Tender contract “FishGenome: Improving cost-efficiency of fisheries research surveys 
and fish stocks assessments using next-generation genetic sequencing methods” aimed to 
investigate whether next-generation DNA sequencing methods can: 

1)  Reduce the need for conventional trawl-based fishing surveys for demersal or benthic 

fish stocks in EU waters; 

2)  Support faster and cheaper fish stock’s assessments and biodiversity analyses of 

marine species assemblages. 

FishGenome assessed the suitability of the genomic data to provide key parameters for 
fisheries stock assessment such as: 

o  Stock absolute abundance and survival from Close Kin Mark Recapture (CKMR) data,  
o  Age from epigenetic DNA methylation (DNAm) data,  
o  Biomass (relative abundance) from environmental DNA (eDNA) data,  
o  Stock structure, connectivity and sexing from restriction site Associated DNA 

Sequencing (RAD-Seq) data. 

Accordingly, FishGenome performed six reviews on these genomic tools which were used as 
the foundation to design Pilot studies to test these tools in a relevant context. Following the 
reviews and the pilot studies, a SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats) 
analysis was performed and resulted in a proposed timeline for the short, medium- and long-
term application of these genomic methods, presented in the FishGenome Roadmap. The 
roadmap identifies the implementation needs, actions and objectives, appropriate strategic 
pillars (genomic techniques, survey and logistics, scientific advice and stock assessment, 
financial and economic aspects, governance and other policies), time frame and potential 
outcomes.  

This roadmap provides key information on whether and how genomics could become part of 
the methodological tools applied to samples from regular research surveys, describing the 
potential steps, the pathway and the timeline for a progressive implementation of the genomic 
methods in stock assessment.  

Background documents including the FishGenome report and the roadmap were shared with 
STECF after the STECF PLEN 23-02 and after the STECF PLEN 23-03.  

The outputs and final report of the FishGenome project are published on: Improving the cost-
efficiency of fisheries research surveys and fish stocks assessment using next-generation 
genetic sequencing methods (europa.eu) 

64 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Background documents are published on: 

https://stecf.ec.europa.eu/meetings-calendar/past-meetings  

Request to the STECF 

During the STECF PLEN 23-02, DG MARE presented the FishGenome project results and 
introduced the roadmap to the STECF committee. During the STECF PLEN 23-03, DG 
MARE initiated a discussion on the FishGenome roadmap, presenting those aspects of the 
roadmap of relevance to STECF, and where the consortium considered STECF to play a 
role. Drafting ToR for FishGenome follow up was highlighted as one of the next steps. 

In first instance, STECF is requested to consider and propose possible ways to follow up the 
relevant actions described in the FishGenome Roadmap and the role that STECF would play 
in this process. Based on the actions proposed in the roadmap, this could take the form: 

  of a genomics task force within or including the STECF committee;  
  workshops with other end-users, experts and stakeholders to discuss FishGenome 
outcomes and next steps to better understand the application of genomic tools in 
fisheries stock assessment;  
regular ToRs in certain assessment and/or data collection EWGs, or any other ways 
forward. 

 

Secondly, following the discussion on possible ways to follow up the roadmap, STECF is 
requested to consider if, how and by when an opinion on the following points can be provided. 
More specificallyon the use, benefits and challenges of the genomic data used in 
FishGenome for stock assessment: 

1. Rad-sequencing data for stock structure and connectivity, 

2. CKMR data for absolute abundance and survival estimations, 

3. eDNA data for biomass (relative abundance), 

4. epigenetic data for age estimation. 

In addition, if time allows and/or is considered to be relevant, STECF is requested to provide 
an opinion on the following points, which are taken directly from the Fishgenome roadmap 
mentioning STECF involvement: 

  STECF is requested to review and provide recommendations on the steps that aims to 

test the final results and robustness of the genomic data mentioned above. 

  STECF is requested to review and provide appropriate comments and 

recommendations on implementation guidelines of the four types of genomic data 
based on the impact in assessment and advice of these approaches.  

  STECF is requested to provide appropriate comments and recommendations in the 

protocolization and standardization of methods across laboratories. Recommendations 

65 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
are particularly required on the number of tissue and data Biobanks requires for 
successful implementation in fisheries stock assessment. 

  STECF is requested to provide appropriate comments and recommendations on the 

potential alternative use of genomic data in scientific advice. 

  STECF is requested to provide comments and recommendations on the feasibility and 
assumptions for the analysis, and implementation of these genomics data in the Data 
Collection Framework contract. As an end-user, STECF is requested to participate in 
the setting up of a data policy and data management plan working with the DCF team 
and the Member States. 

STECF discussion and proposals will help shape the follow up of the Fishgenome roadmap, 
which includes many different actors and stakeholders and covers different thematic areas, 
including a governance model that is currently lacking. 

STECF observations  

STECF notes that the overall objective of the FishGenome project is to assess whether the 
cost-efficiency of fisheries research surveys and fish stocks assessments can be improved by 
using next-generation genetic sequencing methods.  

STECF notes that in the first instance, STECF is requested to consider and propose possible 
ways to follow up the relevant actions described in the FishGenome Roadmap and the role 
that STECF would play in this process. Secondly STECF is requested to consider if, how and 
by when an opinion on the use, benefits and challenges of the genomic data used in 
FishGenome for stock assessment can be delivered by STECF.  

STECF conclusions  

STECF currently lacks the expertise to address and respond to the issues raised in the ToRs 
in relation to the FishGenome project. Consequently, STECF proposes that an ad-hoc 
contract is launched prior to PLEN 24-03 under which the potential future role of STECF as 
regards the follow-up of the relevant actions described in the FishGenome Roadmap is 
proposed for further discussion.   

66 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
6.5 Review of national management plans for boat seines in the Gulf of Manfredonia 
(Apulia, Italy) 

Background provided by the Commission 

Background documents are published on: 

https://stecf.ec.europa.eu/meetings-calendar/past-meetings  

Request to the STECF  

TOR 1.  

Advice and assess whether the updated management plan boat seines targeting transparent 
goby in the waters of the Gulf of Manfredonia (Apulia, Italy) contains adequate elements in 
terms of:  

1.1. The description of the fisheries  

- Biological characteristics and state of the exploited resources with reference in particular to 
long-term yields.  

- Description of the fishing pressure and measures to accomplish a sustainable exploitation 
of the main target stocks.  

- Data on catches (landings and discards) of the species concerned, fishing effort and 
abundance indices such as catch-per-unit-effort (or CPUE).  

- Catch composition in terms of size distribution, with particular reference to the percentage 
of catches of species subject to minimum sizes in accordance with Annex IX of Regulation 
(EU) 2019/124113. 

- Information on the social and economic impact of the measures proposed. 

 - Potential impact of the fishing gear on the marine environment with particular interest on 
protected habitats (i.e. seagrass bed, coralligenous habitat and maërl bed);  

1.2. Objectives, safeguards and conservation/technical measures  

- Objectives that are consistent with the objectives set out in Article 2 and with the relevant 
provisions of Articles 6 of CFP14 Regulation and quantifiable targets, such as fishing 
mortality rates and total biomass.  

- Objectives for conservation and technical measures to be taken in order to achieve the 
targets set out in Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013, and measures designed to 
avoid and reduce, as far as possible, unwanted catches.  

- Measures proportionate to the objectives, the targets and the expected time frame.  

67 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
- Safeguards to ensure that quantifiable targets are met, as well as remedial actions, where 
needed, including situations where the deteriorating quality of data or nonavailability places 
the sustainability of the main stocks of the fishery at risk.  

- Other conservation measures, in particular measures to gradually eliminate discards, taking 
into account the best available scientific advice or to minimise the negative impact of fishing 
on the ecosystem.  

1.3. Other aspects  

- Quantifiable indicators for periodic monitoring and assessment of progress in achieving the 
objectives of the plan.  

TOR 2.  

Evaluate whether the following conditions set by the MEDREG are fulfilled:  

2.1 Derogation to the distance from the coast (Article 13 – Paragraphs 5, 9 and 10)  

- There are particular geographical constraints, such as the limited size of the continental 
shelf along the entire coastline;  

- The fisheries have any significant impact on the marine environment; - The fisheries involve 
a limited number of vessels and do not contain any increase in the fishing effort;  

- The fisheries cannot be undertaken with another gear;  

- The fisheries are subject to a management plan and carry out a monitoring of catches as 
requested in Article 23;  

- The vessels concerned have a track record of more than 5 years; 

 - The fisheries do not interfere with the activities of vessels using gears other than trawls, 
seines or similar towed nets. 

Summary of the information provided to STECF  

STECF examined the following background documents:   

1.  Joint Recommendation of the Italian Member State Management plan on Transparent 

goby fisheries in certain Italian territorial water, Gulf of Manfredonia.  

2.  National Management Plan for derogation to mesh size and distance from the coast 
(reg EU 1241/2019 annex ix, part b and reg (EC) 1967/2006, art 13) regarding the 
fishing of transparent goby (Aphia minuta) by boat seines in the Manfredonia fishing 
district, June 2024 (Updated management plan).  

In the submitted Joint Recommendation (JR) Italy is proposing a renewal of the management 
plan for transparent goby fisheries (Aphia minuta) in the Gulf of Manfredonia, in accordance 
with Article 18 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 (document 1). The updated management 
plan applies only to the Italian fleet.  

68 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
Document 2 is the updated management plan which is attached as Annex to the JR. This 
specific plan is proposed to have a duration of three years, ending on the 31st of May 2027. 
STECF notes that the current submission is the 6th submission of a Management Plan for 
this fishery. Previous plans were examined by STECF during PLEN-14-03, PLEN-16-02, 
PLEN-21-01, PLEN-21-02 and PLEN-21-03.  

STECF notes that until 2010, fishing for transparent goby was carried out during late autumn 
to spring in coastal waters, including the area within 3 NM from the coast, at depths between 
3 and 40m, using bottom trawl nets with small mesh size. The updated management plan 
contains information related to fishing activities of the trawl fisheries from 1996-2010 (number 
of vessels authorised, fishing days, landings, prices etc.), which has been repeatedly 
reviewed and summarized in previous meetings (e.g., STECF PLEN-16-02, PLEN-21-01).    

Following the implementation of the Med Reg (Regulation (EC) No 1967/2006), fishing of 
transparent goby with bottom trawls was stopped in 2010. This had a large economic impact 
on the small-scale fleet (LOA<15 m) in the Manfredonia area that lost an important source of 
income. Consequently, national pilot projects were initiated 2011-2012 to determine the 
feasibility of using seines as an alternative capture method. Specifically, these trials (2012-
2014) aimed at training the local fishermen (those involved in the previous trawl fisheries) and 
at conducting experimental fishing using boat seine nets like those utilized, under a 
management plan, in GSA 9 (Ligurian Sea and Northern Tyrrhenian Sea). The updated 
management plan contains information related to these training/experimental fishing activities 
of 2012-2014 (number of vessels, fishing days, landings, prices etc.), which has also been 
reviewed and summarized in previous STECF plenary meetings (STECF PLEN-16-02, PLEN-
21-01).   

In 2018-2020, the seine fishery was conducted under an adopted management plan applying 
to 100 vessels. The information presented for the 2018-2020 period has also been reviewed 
in STECF PLEN 21-01, PLEN 21-02 and PLEN 21-03.  

The only new information contained in document 2 (the updated management plan), 
compared to previous submissions, concerns the 2022-2024 fishing seasons. Three tables 
(Tables 35-37) are presented reporting, for each calendar day and vessel, the catch/day of 
transparent goby in the fishing seasons of 2022, 2022-2023 and 2023-2024 (i.e., raw CPUE 
data). The row labels of Tables 35-37 include authorised vessels and the column labels are 
calendar days within the fishing season. According to these tables, the vessels that 
participated in the fishery (i.e., those vessels that used their authorisation and fished for 
transparent goby at least for one day during the fishing season) were 42, 29 and 45 in 2022, 
2022-2023 and 2023-2024. In 2018, 2019, and 2000, the number of participating vessels 
were 23, 34 and 26, respectively (i.e., much lower than in 2022 –2024).  

69 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
The information reported in the updated management plan for the last six fishing seasons 
(2018-2024) regarding catches of transparent goby and fishing effort is summarized in Table 
6.5.1. STECF notes the significant increase in the duration of the fishing season, the fishing 
effort and the landings during the last two fishing seasons, which is accompanied by a large 
increase in average CPUE (kg/day/vessel).  

Table 6.5.1. Summarized effort and catch data reported in the MP for the last six fishing seasons of 
the transparent goby fishery (Table compiled by STECF).   

Number of 
authorized 
vessels 

Fishing season 

Number of 
calendar 
days with 
seine fishing 

Total 
number of 
days -at-
sea 

Mean 
CPUE 

Goby 
landings 
(tonnes) 

Year  

2018  

2019  

2020  

2022  

100 

100 

100 

60 

9 April - 30 May 

29 

18 March - 30 May 

24 

7 January - 20 May  38 

14 February - 18 May 40 

2022-2023  

60 

5 December - 24 May 75 

330 

234 

301 

490 

504 

64.7 

22.065 

57.6 

13.428 

58.2 

15.819 

44.4 

21.754 

105.6 

53.216 

2023-2024  

60 

Source: own elaboration. 

13 November - 20 
May 

102 

520 

87.5 

45.515 

The submitted updated management plan for 2024-2027 contains several measures that are 
essentially the same as those in the previous management plan (2022-2024). Yet, some 
small changes have been introduced. For example, the number of authorized vessels has 
been reduced from 60 to 55. Table 6.5.2 summarizes the effort restriction measures included 
in the two MPs.   

Table 6.5.2. Effort restriction measures contained in the previous and future MP. This table was 
compiled by STECF to facilitate comparisons of the changes made.  

Effort restrictions  

Previous plan 

(2022 - 2024) 

New plan 

(2024 - 2027) 

Number of authorized vessels  

60 

55 

70 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
Maximum number of vessels operating 
daily   

30 

Fishing season  

7 months (November – May) 

Maximum fishing days per vessel per 
season  

60 

Maximum fishing days per season for the 
boat seine fleet  

600 

Weekly limitation   

4 days per week (Monday - Thursday) 

Working time limitation  

06:00 - 18:00 

Source: own elaboration. 

November to February: from 
6.00 to 18:00 

March to May: from 5:00 to 
17:00 

In the previous version of the plan, a Limit Reference Point (LRP) CPUE trigger was set at the 
35-percentile of the raw catch/day/vessel data of the 2018-2000 period. The average CPUE 
for this period was 60 kg/day/vessel. In the updated management plan, an analysis of CPUE 
data from the broader 2018-2024 period (six fishing seasons) shows that the average CPUE 
is higher (72 kg/day/vessel) but the 35-percentile is almost the same (35.1 kg/day/vessel). 
Consequently, the value set as LRP as well as the harvest control rules of the previous plan 
remained unchanged (see below).   

STECF comments in relation to each of the elements outlined in the ToR  

STECF agreed to respond to the ToRs in a point-by-point manner referring to the period 
2018-2024 in which the seine fishery for transparent goby has been carried out under 
management plans. As mentioned above, the information presented in document 2 
concerning the past bottom trawl fishery (until 2010) and the experimental seine fishery of 
2012-2014 (pages 12-84) has been repeatedly reviewed and evaluated in previous STECF 
meetings (e.g., STECF PLEN-16-02, PLEN-21-01).  

TOR 1. Advice and assess whether the updated Management Plan contains adequate 
elements in terms of: 

71 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
1.1. The description of the fisheries  

- Biological characteristics and state of the exploited resources with reference in particular to 
long-term yields.   

STECF notes that there is no information regarding the current stock status or any analysis 
that can be used to determine the long-term yield that would be consistent with CFP 
objectives. STECF also notes that the recent time series of data from the boat seine fishery 
(2018-2024) is short, which represents an impediment to assessing the status of the 
transparent goby stock in the Gulf of Manfredonia.  

- Description of the fishing pressure and measures to accomplish a sustainable exploitation of 
the main target stocks.  

Data provided on fishing effort are tabulated in Table 6.5.1. The effort restriction measures 
contained in the plan are summarized in Table 6.5.2.   

The updated management plan proposes to reduce  the number of boat seines authorizations 
from 60 to 55 in the period 2024-2027. Again, only 30 vessels will be authorised daily, 
through a weekly turnover mechanism. The fishery will be open from 1st November to 31st 
May. Each vessel will operate for a maximum of 60 days during each fishing season. Fishing 
will be allowed up to 4 days per week, from Monday to Thursday, and during daytime (6:00-
18:00 or 5:00-17:00 depending on the season). A ceiling is imposed on the maximum number 
of days-at-sea permitted for the fishing fleet during the fishing season (600 days).  

The updated management plan proposes that a management trigger based on a minimum 
CPUE (35 kg day-1 vessel-1) is used to enact measures to reduce fishing effort (see below).  

- Data on catches (landings and discards) of the species concerned, fishing effort and 
abundance indices such as catch-per-unit-effort (or CPUE).   

Data on transparent goby landings, CPUEs (catch/day/vessel) and fishing effort provided in 
the plan are summarized in Table 6.5.1.   

A detailed analysis is also presented in the updated plan of the daily CPUEs, daily effort 
(number of vessels) and daily landings data for the last six fishing seasons (2018-2024) 
aimed at identifying interannual and seasonal trends. Plots of CPUEs, mean daily CPUE, 
landings and effort are shown in relation to calendar day and the relationships between total 
daily catches against the fishing effort are also provided.   

72 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
For the period 2018-2022, three tables (Tables 29-30-31) showing total by-catch weight (kg) 
per fishing day of each fishing vessel are provided as well as an Annex (Annex 3) with 
numerous Tables showing, for each individual fishing vessel and year, the catch weight (kg) 
of five species, namely, Loligo vulgaris, Trachurus spp., Boops boops, Merluccius merluccius 
and Parapenaeus longirostris.  

For the period 2022-2024, total by-catch weight (kg) per fishing day of each fishing vessel is 
provided in numerous tables in Annexes 4, 5 and 6. By-catch composition (%) for the 
concerned fishing periods are presented in three pie charts and is summarized below:  

Fishing season  Mullidae 

Boops 
boops 

Trisopterus 
minutus 

Alloteuthis sp.  Mugilidae  Trachurus 

Other 

2022  

30% 

16% 

14% 

2022-2023  

28% 

27% 

3% 

2023-2024  

62% 

4% 

7% 

2% 

10% 

7% 

10% 

spp. 

3% 

25% 

15% 

20% 

8% 

9% 

For both the 2018-2020 and 2020-2024 periods, the by-catch was lower than 10% of the 
landed fish. No data on discards is provided.   

- Catch composition in terms of size distribution, with particular reference to the percentage of 
catches of species subject to minimum sizes in accordance with Annex IX of Regulation (EU) 
2019/1241.  

The length frequency distribution of transparent goby is only provided for 2020. No other size 
compositions are provided. The size compositions of by-catches and discards are not 
presented, particularly with regards to species mentioned in Annex IX of Regulation (EU) 
2019/1241.  

For the 2022-2024 period, it is stated (p. 115) that, with regards to by-catch, “the share of 
juveniles is insignificant”.  

- Information on the social and economic impact of the measures proposed.  

No study is presented on the social and economic impact of the updated management plan. It 
is mentioned that it was not possible to conduct a survey in 2018-2020, but that it is planned 
for the next period. STECF notes however that no such study is presented for the 2022-2024 
period.  

For 2018-2020, three tables (tables 32-33-34) are submitted showing the revenue per vessel 
for 2018, 2019 and 2020.   

73 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
For the period 2022-2024, the evolution of daily prices is presented. The price of transparent 
goby ranged from 10-34, 6-26 and 9-20 €/kg during the 2022, 2022-2023 and 2023-2024 
fishing seasons. It is stated that “there is a strong inverse relationship between quantity 
landed and prices”. It is also stated that “the number employees directly involved into the 
fishing operations (from November to May, indeed) is around 160 persons, while the indirect 
activities involve about other 180 people, cooperatives workers, transportation and sales 
staffs etc.”  

- Potential impact of the fishing gear on the marine environment with particular interest on 
protected habitats (i.e., seagrass bed, coralligenous habitat and maërl bed).  

The updated management plan explicitly prohibits to fish above protected habitats. STECF 
recalls that existing scientific information suggests that Posidonia meadows are absent from 
the Gulf of Manfredonia (see STECF PLEN 21-01).  

1.2. Objectives, safeguards and conservation/technical measures   

- Objectives that are consistent with the objectives set out in Article 2 and with the relevant 
provisions of Articles 6 of CFP Regulation and quantifiable targets, such as fishing mortality 
rates and total biomass.   

STECF notes that there are no quantitative stock assessments and thus no quantifiable 
targets, such as fishing mortality rates and total biomass. There are thus no biological or 
exploitation reference points currently available for transparent goby. The proposed 
management plan includes trigger values based on observed CPUE which would be used to 
enact more restrictive management actions, e.g., effort limits (see below).  

- Objectives for conservation and technical measures to be taken in order to achieve the 
targets set out in Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013, and measures designed to 
avoid and reduce, as far as possible, unwanted catches.   

STECF notes that the plan in place for the period 2022-2024 stipulated that the by-catch of 
juveniles of other species should be under 5% of the catches in weight. Furthermore, live 
catches should be released. These requirements are not now included in the plan for 2024-
2027.   

74 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
  
  
The updated management plan only stipulates that the total by-catch shall be under 10% of 
the catches. They shall be reported in the logbook or record form. The species with an 
established minimum size will be landed and not sold for human consumption.  

STECF notes that the updated Managment Plan does not specify what actions will be taken if 
the specified by-catch thresholds would be exceeded.  

- Measures proportionate to the objectives, the targets and the expected time frame.   

A CPUE trigger is proposed that would initiate management responses once the CPUE 
observed in the fishery dropped below 35 kg day-1 vessel-1 (see also below).  

- Safeguards to ensure that quantifiable targets are met, as well as remedial actions, where 
needed, including situations where the deteriorating quality of data or nonavailability places 
the sustainability of the main stocks of the fishery at risk.  

The updated Management Plan  specifies that the appropriate catch and effort data will be 
collected daily and will be continuously monitored by scientists which will immediately 
convene the management committee in case of alarm.  

 Two “alert” situations are defined:  

1. The daily average CPUE falls below 35 kg/vessel/day for 3 consecutive days.  

2. The daily average CPUE falls, four times within 2 consecutive weeks, below 35 
kg/vessel/day.  

As the fishery is allowed from Monday to Thursday, each week’s CPUE data will be 
processed on Friday and:  

-In case 1 (daily average CPUE below the LRP for 3 consecutive days) → the fishery will be 
suspended for one week.  

-In case 2 (daily average CPUE below the LRP for 4 times within 2 consecutive weeks days) 
→ the fishery will be allowed only for 2 days, Monday and Wednesday, in the following 2 
weeks.  

 Additionally, it is mentioned that further corrective actions can be taken, “concerning the 
fishing period, the number of vessels effectively in operation, the value of the daily average 
CPUE recorded, and the other biological parameters considered as important for the general 
evaluation. Where necessary, the Control entity can decide for the temporary suspension of 
the activities or, if necessary, an early closure”.  

75 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
- Other conservation measures, in particular measures to gradually eliminate discards, taking 
into account the best available scientific advice or to minimise the negative impact of fishing 
on the ecosystem.  

The seine net cannot be longer than 300 meters and must be equipped with neutral buoyancy 
in order to avoid or reduce to the minimum level the impact with the seabed.  

1.3. Other aspects  

- Quantifiable indicators for periodic monitoring and assessment of progress in achieving the 
objectives of the plan.   

A CPUE of 35 kg day-1 vessel-1 estimated from the raw CPUE values of 2018-2024 is 
proposed as reference value which will be used to trigger management intervention in 
circumstances when the observed CPUE falls below 35 kg/day/vessel (see above).  

Monitoring of the plan include (a) surveys on board the fishing fleet by scientific personnel; (b) 
Filling a record form or logbook daily with data on all catches (fishing area, number of fishing 
operations, goby catch, bycatch etc), (c) collection of socio-economic data (income, 
employment etc).  

An annual report will be written by the scientific responsible focusing in particular on the catch 
per unit effort statistics, the length frequency distributions, and on all the necessary 
information to assess the exploitation level of the resource.  

ToR 2.1. Derogation to the distance from the coast (Article 13 – Paragraphs 5, 9 and 10)  

- There are particular geographical constraints, such as the limited size of the continental 
shelf along the entire coastline  

There are specific geographical constraints given the spatial distribution of the target species, 
which is mainly found in coastal areas at depths <50 m. The fishing grounds are therefore 
limited.  

- The fisheries have any significant impact on the marine environment  

The updated management plan explicitly prohibits to fish above protected habitats. Existing 
scientific information suggests that Posidonia meadows is absent from the Gulf of 
Manfredonia (see STECF PLEN 21-01).   

76 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
Information provided regarding species/size compositions of by-catches and discards for 
2018-2024 is very limited or is lackingonboard scientific evidence (see above) and STECF is 
therefore unable to assess the full impact of the seine fisheries.   

- The fisheries involve a limited number of vessels and do not contain any increase in the 
fishing effort  

The derogation requested for the updated management plan (2024-2027) affects a total of 55 
vessels (100 vessels were authorised in 2018-2020 and 60 vessels in 2022-2024). Only 30 
vessels will be authorised daily, through a weekly turnover mechanism. Each vessel will 
operate for a maximum of 60 days during each fishing season. Maximum fishing days per 
season is set at 600.  

STECF notes that the fishing effort during 2022-2023 and 2023-2024 has increased 
significantly in comparison to 2018-2020 when the total days-at-sea were about 300 (see 
Table 6.5.1). During the last fishing period (2023-2024) the total number of days-at-sea was 
520 which is close to the maximum fishing days allowed for the boat seine fleet during a 
single fishing period (600). Therefore, there is not much room for much future increase of the 
fishing effort. 

- The fisheries cannot be undertaken with another gear   

 Boat seines fishing for transparent goby is carried out in shallow depths with a small mesh 
size (3-5 mm). The nature of this type of fishery is such that it cannot be undertaken with any 
other gear, except from the previous used bottom trawls which were forbidden.  

- The fisheries are subject to a management plan and carry out a monitoring of catches as 
requested in Article 23;   

The plan includes measures for the monitoring of fishing activities (see above). Although the 
plans in force for 2018-2020 and 2022-2024 stipulated the collection of similar information 
(onboard sampling, catch and bycatch data, socioeconomic), the data reported are very 
limited and restricted to information mainly provided by the skippers (daily catch of 
transparent goby and bycatches of other species, daily prices of transparent goby). No 
onboard samplings or socioeconomic surveys have been conducted during the 2018-2024 
period.   

- The vessels concerned have a track record of more than 5 years;  

Yes. The seine fishery has been operating since 2018.  

77 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
  
  
- The fisheries do not interfere with the activities of vessels using gears other than trawls, 
seines or similar towed nets;  

The fishing activities concerned take place at a short distance from the coast and tow 
durations are very short (e.g., see Table 21 in document 2). Therefore, they are not expected 
to interfere to a large extent with the activities of other vessels.  

Recent increase in fishing effort, catches and CPUEs  

STECF notes that during the recent years the fishing effort of the transparent goby fishery 
increased substantially (from about 300 days-at-sea in 2018-2020 to about 500 in 2022-
2024). STECF recalls that STECF PLEN 21-03 noted that "the ceiling imposed to the days-at-
sea (600) still allows for an increase of fishing effort (theoretically up to two times) in relation 
to the number of fishing days realized in the period 2018-2020 by the authorized fleet 
(approximately 300)”. Furthermore, the CPUE data for 2022-2023 and 2023-2024 show 
numerous, very high values (e.g., 400 kg/day/vessel) and exceptionally high averages 
compared to previous years (Table 6.5.1). The unusually high catch rates of gobies with 
seines by the former small-scale trawlers in the Manfredonia region (when compared to any 
other transparent goby and boat seines fisheries in the Mediterranean, e.g., GSA 9, Murcia, 
Balearic Islands, Catalonia, etc.) has already been pointed out in previous STECF meetings.   

STECF recalls its comments from STECF PLEN 21-01 and PLEN 21-03:   

“…technical changes seem to have been brought to the ‘traditional’ transparent goby seine 
net (used in GSA 9) in order to adapt it to the operational requirements of the trawlers now 
engaged in the seine fishery. These changes are likely to have increased the catch efficiency 
of the net and should be duly documented.” … “no technical specifications regarding changes 
made to the net and to the vessels (e.g., winch, engine, propeller pitch, ecosounder) had 
been provided in the plan”.… “Images and videos recorded during the fishing operations 
(following the example of the Sonsera fishery MP in Catalonia) could provide a helpful picture 
of the transparent goby fishery in the Manfredonia Gulf.” However, in a resubmission of the 
plan to PLEN-21-03, no additional gear information was provided except from simple 
descriptions and explanations supporting that the gear and fishing method used in 
Manfredonia is similar to the one in GSA 9. STECF PLEN 21-03 noted again that “the catch 
rates (CPUEs) of boat seiners in GSA 9 are much lower…For example, in Tuscany, mean 
annual CPUEs for the period 1991-2020 ranged from 9.9 to 35.3 kg/vessel/day with an 
average of 20.3 kg/vessel/day (see ToR 6.10 in STECF PLEN-21-01). In order to fully 
understand the reasons for these differences and distinguish between natural and technical 
factors affecting catch rates, STECF still considers that information regarding the current gear 
and its use in the Manfredonia Gulf shall be updated and detailed. Additional evidence such 
as images and videos recorded during the fishing operations would be highly useful.”   

78 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
CPUE trigger  

STECF notes that average CPUE values lower than the LRP (35 kg/day/vessel) have never 
been recorded either for three consecutive days in the same fishing week or for four days 
during two consecutive weeks (i.e., no “alarm” situations happened) during the 2018-2024 
fishing seasons. Therefore, there was no need to initiate the management responses 
prescribed in the plan during the last six fishing periods.  

STECF reiterates its observation from PLEN 21-03 that “case 1” alarm refers to “consecutive” 
days. Considering that the fishery does not operate every day, STECF considers that the 
meaning of “consecutive” should be fully clarified, i.e., whether it is meant consecutive 
calendar days regardless of the number of vessels fishing, or consecutive fishing days with at 
least one vessel fishing.  

STECF also reiterates another comment from PLEN 21-03: The MP foresees a “real-time” 
data collection. “The Organizzazione dei Produttori Ittici Sud Adriatico (O.P.) shall collect daily 
the logbooks or the record forms compiled by the fishermen and forward them to the scientific 
body, within 48 hours from the landing”. STECF notes though that this time frame (48 hours) 
is not well aligned with the intention to compute alert values every Friday, as it is unclear 
whether CPUE data collected on Wednesday and Thursday will be available to calculate the 
average CPUEs.  

By-catches and discards   

STECF notes that, according to the updated Management Plan, the monitoring of the plan will 
include:  

  surveys on board the fishing fleet by scientific personnel;   

 

filling a catch data form or logbook daily with data on all catches (fishing area, number 
of fishing operations, goby catch, bycatch etc.);  

  spatial monitoring (i.e., vessels equipped with GPS);  

  collection of socio-economic data (income, employment etc.).   

STECF notes that although the plans in force for 2018-2020 and 2022-2024 already 
stipulated the onboard collection of by-catch and discards data as well as the collection of 
socio-economic data, no such surveys have been carried out. Therefore, the monitoring of the 
plan seems to rely exclusively on what is declared by skippers in the catch data forms or 
logbook. STECF reiterates that all catches should be properly monitored, including size 
compositions and discards.  

79 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
STECF notes that the information on bycatch reported in previous submissions (e.g., STECF 
PLEN 21-01, PLEN 21-02, PLEN 21-03), as well as in the present submission, is scarce and 
often contradictory. For example, in the management plan submitted to PLEN-21-02, it was 
stated that, for the period 2018-2020, there was “lack of data on discards and by-catch”. 
However, in subsequent submissions, information on by-catches of 2018-2020 was indeed 
presented, particularly with regards to five species: Loligo vulgaris, Trachurus spp., Boops 
boops, Merluccius merluccius and Parapenaeus longirostris. STECF notes that the by-catch 
composition for the period 2022-2024, which is now presented in the updated plan, is quite 
different from the one reported for 2018-2020, consisting mainly of Mullus spp., Boops boops, 
Trisopterus capelanus, Alloteuthis sp., Mugilidae and Trachurus spp. STECF also notes that 
the species Merluccius merluccius, Parapenaeus longirostris, and Trisopterus capelanus are 
unlikely to consist main by-catch species of the boat seine fishery: These species are typically 
distributed in deeper waters (e.g., see Fishbase) and may rarely be found in the coastal 
fishing grounds of the transparent goby fishery. By-catch and discards information available 
for all other boat seine MPs across the Mediterranean Sea indicates the presence of coastal 
species in the catch (e.g., sparids, labrids, etc.).  

As pointed out above, the size composition of by-catch is not provided in the updated 
Managment Plan, particularly with regards to species mentioned in Annex IX of Regulation 
(EU) 2019/1241 (e.g., red mullets). For the 2022-2024 period, it is stated (p. 115), presumably 
according to fishers’ evaluation, that, with regards to bycatch, “the share of juveniles is 
insignificant”.   

STECF conclusions   

STECF concludes that the updated Management Plan contains several elements necessary 
for limiting the level of exploitation of transparent goby in the Manfredonia Gulf, including 
limits on authorisations, fishing period, fishing effort and a CPUE threshold below which the 
fishery shall be limited following predefined management rules.  

STECF acknowledges the detailed analysis of catch/day data and the updated estimation of 
the Limit Reference Point for the transparent goby fishery.   

STECF however notes that the reported catch rates of transparent goby in the Manfredonia 
Gulf are much higher than those reported in other areas and have increased even more in 
recent years (e.g., average CPUE: 105.6 kg/day/vessel in 2022-2023). In Tuscany and 
Liguria, during the 2020-2024 fishing seasons, the mean CPUE value of the transparent goby 
fishery was 26.4 kg/day/vessel and 5 kg/day/vessel, respectively (see ToR 6.6. Management 
plans for boat seines in the Ligurian Sea -GSA 09). The mean CPUE of the transparent goby 
fishery in Murcia was 27.6 kg/day/vessel during the last fishing season (see ToR 6.8. 
Management plan for transparent goby in certain territorial waters of Spain -Murcia).  

80 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
STECF therefore reiterates its conclusion from PLEN 21-03 that, in order to fully understand 
the reasons for the high catch rates of transparent goby in the Manfredonia Gulf and 
distinguish between natural and technical factors affecting catch rates, information regarding 
the current gear and its use in the Manfredonia Gulf should be updated and detailed. 
Additional evidence such as images and videos recorded during the fishing operations should 
be provided. Information from the spatial monitoring of fishing operations foreseen under the 
previous and updated Management Plan would be also helpful, i.e., maps with locations of 
hauls.  

STECF considers that the implementation of the boat seine management plan in the 
Manfredonia Gulf for the period 2018-2024 does not meet all the conditions upon which the 
derogation regarding minimum distance from the coast and depth has been granted. The 
fishery is subject to a management plan however its monitoring is not adequate as it is only 
based on information declared by the skippers in catch forms or logbooks and there is lack of 
any proper scientific monitoring (on board biological survey, spatial monitoring, socio-
economic survey). Consequently, there is no scientific evidence on where and how the fishing 
operations are carried out, on the actual catch and bycatch volumes and size compositions 
(particularly with regards to species subject to minimum sizes in accordance with Annex IX of 
Regulation (EU) 2019/1241) as well as on discards rates. Therefore, STECF concludes that 
the plan does not contain all elements required to fully assess the fishery and to confirm that 
it does not have any significant impact on the marine environment.  

STECF concludes that there are several cases of transparent goby management plans in the 
Mediterranean which can be considered ‘effective’, as those examined in this Plenary (ToR 
6.6. Management plans for boat seines in the Ligurian Sea (GSA 09) and ToR 6.8. 
Management plan for transparent goby in certain territorial waters of Spain, Murcia). These 
plans collect and provide adequate and up-to-date scientific information to fully assess the 
impact of the respective transparent goby fisheries (including the mapping of fishing locations, 
the onboard enumeration and measurement of catches, bycatches and discards, biological 
sampling for the determination of the reproductive period which is used for the definition of 
seasonal closures/size at maturity, and the collection of socioeconomic data through 
questionnaires). STECF considers that these management plans can be taken as examples 
in order to revise and improve the plan for the transparent goby in the Manfredonia Gulf.   

STECF reiterates its conclusion from PLEN 21-03 that all data foreseen to be collected under 
the Managment Plan (catch of all species, size compositions, discards and socioeconomic 
data) should be clearly described (e.g., the design of the monitoring including the onboard 
sampling), and the data should be consistently collected, analysed and reported in order to 
adequately monitor the effectiveness of the management plan.  

81 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
6.6 Review of national management plans for boat seines in the Ligurian Sea (GSA 09) 

Background provided by the Commission 

Background documents are published on: 

https://stecf.ec.europa.eu/meetings-calendar/past-meetings  

Request to the STECF  

TOR 1. Advice and assess whether the management plan boat seines targeting transparent 
goby in the waters of Tuscany and Liguria contains adequate elements in terms of: 

1.1.    The description of the fisheries 

-  Biological characteristics and state of the exploited resources with reference in 

particular to long-term yields. 

-  Description of the fishing pressure and measures to accomplish a sustainable 

exploitation of the main target stocks. 

-  Data on catches (landings and discards) of the species concerned, fishing effort and 

abundance indices such as catch-per-unit-effort (or CPUE). 

-  Catch composition in terms of size distribution, with particular reference to the 

percentage of catches of species subject to minimum sizes in accordance with Annex 
III of the MEDREG[2]. 
Information on the social and economic impact of the measures proposed. 

- 
-  Potential impact of the fishing gear on the marine environment with particular interest 

on protected habitats (i.e. seagrass bed, coralligenous habitat and maërl bed); 

1.2.  Objectives, safeguards and conservation/technical measures 

-  Objectives that are consistent with the objectives set out in Article 2 and with the 

relevant provisions of Articles 6 of CFP[3] Regulation and quantifiable targets, such as 
fishing mortality rates and total biomass.  

-  Objectives for conservation and technical measures to be taken in order to achieve the 
targets set out in Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013, and measures designed 
to avoid and reduce, as far as possible, unwanted catches. 

-  Measures proportionate to the objectives, the targets and the expected time frame. 
-  Safeguards to ensure that quantifiable targets are met, as well as remedial actions, 
where needed, including situations where the deteriorating quality of data or non-
availability places the sustainability of the main stocks of the fishery at risk. 

82 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
-  Other conservation measures, in particular measures to gradually eliminate discards, 
taking into account the best available scientific advice or to minimise the negative 
impact of fishing on the ecosystem. 

1.3.  Other aspects 

-  Quantifiable indicators for periodic monitoring and assessment of progress in 

achieving the objectives of the plan. 

TOR 2. Evaluate whether the following conditions set by the MEDREG: 

2.1     Derogation to the distance from the coast (Article 13 – Paragraphs 5, 9 and 10) 
-  There are particular geographical constraints, such as the limited size of the 

continental shelf along the entire coastline; 

-  The fisheries have any significant impact on the marine environment; 
-  The fisheries involve a limited number of vessels and do not contain any increase in 

the fishing effort; 

-  The fisheries cannot be undertaken with another gear; 
-  The fisheries are subject to a management plan and carry out a monitoring of catches 

as requested in Article 23; 

-  The vessels concerned have a track record of more than 5 years; 
-  The fisheries do not interfere with the activities of vessels using gears other than 

trawls, seines or similar towed nets; 

-  The fisheries are regulated in order to ensure that catches of species mentioned in 

Annex IX of Regulation (EU) 2019/12418 with the exception of mollusc bivalves, are 
minimal 

[1] Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1634 of 30 October 2018 renewing the derogation from Council Regulation 
(EC)  No  1967/2006  as  regards  the  minimum  distance  from  coast  and  the  minimum  sea  depth  for  boat  seines  fishing  for 
transparent goby (Aphia minuta) in certain territorial waters of Italy 

C/2018/7036  http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2018/1634/oj 

[2]   Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  1967/2006  of  21  December  2006  concerning  management  measures  for  the  sustainable 
exploitation  of  fishery  resources  in  the  Mediterranean  Sea,  amending  Regulation  (EEC)  No  2847/93  and  repealing 
Regulation (EC) No 1626/94. 

[3]   Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 on the Common 
Fisheries  Policy,  amending  Council  Regulations  (EC)  No  1954/2003  and  (EC)  No  1224/2009  and  repealing  Council 
Regulations (EC) No 2371/2002 and (EC) No 639/2004 and Council Decision 2004/585/EC.  

[4] Regulation (EU) 2019/1241 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on the conservation of fisheries 
resources  and  the  protection  of  marine  ecosystems  through  technical  measures,  amending  Council  Regulations  (EC)  No 
1967/2006, (EC) No 1224/2009 and Regulations (EU) No 1380/2013, (EU) 2016/1139, (EU) 2018/973, (EU) 2019/472 and 
(EU) 2019/1022 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Council Regulations (EC) No 894/97, (EC) No 
850/98, (EC) No 2549/2000, (EC) No 254/2002, (EC) No 812/2004 and (EC) No 2187/2005 

83 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
 
-  The fisheries do not target cephalopods. 

2.2  Derogation to the minimum mesh size (Article 9, paragraph 7) 

-  The fisheries are highly selective and have a negligible effect on the marine 

environment; and 

-  The fisheries do not operate above seagrass beds of, in particular, Posidonia oceanica 

or other marine phanerogams. 

Summary of the information provided to STECF 

STECF was provided with the following information:   

  Joint Recommendation of the Italian Member State on the Management plan on 

Transparent goby fisheries in the Italian territorial water (GSA 9).  

This is a joint recommendation (JR) of the Italian Member State for a renewal of the 
Management Plan (MP) on transparent goby fisheries in the Italian territorial water (GSA 9). It 
first recalls that this MP is a renewal which follows previous plans approved and in place over 
the years. Then, it states the objectives, the duration, the geographical scope and the 
fisheries covered in the MP and it lists the management measures included in the MP. These 
consist of measures to limit fishing capacity, measures for the limitation of the fishing activity, 
restrictive technical measures, measures for monitoring catches and species caught and 
other management measures such as limit reference points (LRP) or fishery closures (when 
needed). Finally, the JR contains two annexes. The first one (Annex A) is the management 
plan and the second one (Annex B) is the MEDAC advice (Prot. 138/2024) on the 
management plan answering a request by Italy.   

  National Management Plan regarding the use of boat seines for transparent goby 

(Aphia minuta) fishing in the GSA9 for derogation to mesh size and distance from the 
coast (Reg. (EC) n. 1967/2006, art. 9 and 13) and application of the EC Reg. (EC) n. 
1241/2109 (art. 15 par. 1 letter e) and Annex IX, part B, point 4.  

This is the English version of the MP for the use of boat seines for the fishing of the 
transparent goby (Aphia minuta) in GSA 9 that is referred to as Annex A in the joint 
recommendation. This MP was first adopted by Ministerial Decree in 2011 for a period of 
three years and, since then, it has been reviewed regularly introducing corrective 
mechanisms whenever they were necessary. If approved, the MP will be applied for three 
fishing seasons (2024-2025, 2025-2026 and 2026-27) and it will constitute the fourth update 
of the MP. Previous MPs were implemented for the fishing seasons 2011-12 to 2013-14; 
2015-16 to 2017-18, 2018-19 to 2020-21 and 2021-22 to 2023-24.   

The MP involves only the Liguria region and the Tuscany region. Given that the fishery takes 
place mainly within the 3-miles area off the coast and the gear is a net characterized by a 
very small mesh size, the continuation of the activity requires a derogation to the distance 

84 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
from the coast, and a derogation to the minimum mesh size. Given the high historical value of 
this fishery in these regions, the MP aims at providing significant scientific elements to 
demonstrate that the fishing activity is conducted in a sustainable manner, with a limited 
impact on the coastal marine ecosystem.  

The document provides information on: 1) the most recent Italian legislative measures 
concerning the fishing of transparent goby, 2) biology of the transparent goby (classification, 
geographical distribution, life cycle and growth), 3) description of the transparent goby fishery 
in GSA 09 (gear and fishing techniques, fleet composition, catches, catch per unit effort, by-
catch, exploitation rates, position of fishing hauls in relation to vulnerable habitats) based on 
data for the 2020-21, 2021-22, 2022-23 and 2023-24 fishing seasons for the Liguria and 
Tuscany regions, 4) socio-economic monitoring in 2020-2024 for the Liguria and Tuscany 
regions through a specific questionnaire, 5) management measures of the management plan 
and 6) derogation requests to the distance from the coast and for the minimum mesh size.      

In addition, the MP contains the following annexes:   

  Annex A: List of boats-Liguria Region  
  Annex B: List of boats-Tuscany Region  
  Annex C: Socio-economic monitoring Questionnaire 2021-24  
  Annex D: Geographical localization of the hauls in relation to vulnerable habitat 

(Posidonia oceanica meadows) in the area subject to MP  

  Piano di Gestione Nazionale per la pesca del rossetto (Aphia minuta) con la sciabica 
da natante nella GSA 9 in deroga agli artt. 9 e 13 del Reg. (CE) n. 1967/2006 ed in 
applicazione del Reg. (UE) n. 1241/2019 art. 15 par. 1 lettera e) e relativo allegato IX 
Parte B punto 4.  

This is the Italian version of the MP that is referred to as Annex A in the joint 
recommendation.  

  MEDAC Advice (Prot. 138/2024): “Richiesta di parere in merito alla proposta di Piano 

di gestione per la pesca del “rossetto” (Aphia minuta) nella GSA 9  

In order to involve MEDAC in the MP process, Italy requested MEDAC to evaluate the 
documentation presented to the STECF and provide its advice on the management plan 
(Prot. 0328145 dated 28 May 2024). The document provided as Annex B to the Joint 
Recommendation is the reply letter from MEDAC to Italy (Prot. 138/2024) expressing its 
favorable opinion on the MP.   

STECF comments in relation to each of the elements outlined in the ToRs 

 STECF notes that this MP for the period 2024-2027 constitutes the fourth update of a MP 
first implemented in 2011. Previous MPs have also been assessed by STECF, with the latest 
evaluation being carried out by STECF PLEN 21-01 for the MP for the period 2021-2024. 

85 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
STECF PLEN 21-01 concluded that the MP contained several elements for the monitoring 
and management of activities of the boat seine fishery in Liguria Sea and that included the 
main elements supporting the requests for derogations to the distance from the coast and for 
the minimum mesh size. However, STECF asked for further clarifications on whether Limit 
Reference Points (LRPs) and annual Catch per Unit Effort (CPUE) indices were calculated in 
the same way and suggested to map a larger number of hauls to provide more robust 
evidence on the absence of impact of the fishery on seagrass meadows, especially 
Posidonia oceanica.  

STECF observes that, based on the comments provided by PLEN 21-01, the LRPs 
calculated in 2012 and presented to PLEN 21-01 were updated in the implemented MP 2021-
2024. The LRP was increased from 8.5 to 10 kg/day/boat in Tuscany. The same calculations 
for Liguria suggested that the LRP in this region could be revised to 2 kg/day/boat. However, 
it was decided to maintain the LRP in Liguria at the previous level of 3.6 kg/day/boat.   

STECF notes that the main elements of the MP for 2024-2027 are the same as the MP for 
2021-2024. The main difference is that the updated version contains new data corresponding 
to the previous MP (2021-2024) for the fishing seasons 2021-22, 2022-23, 2023-24 and for 
the fishing season 2020-21 that was not reported in the MP 2018-2021. In addition, the MP 
2024-2027 has a new subsection in the “description of the fishery” section regarding the 
geographic position of the fishing hauls in relation to vulnerable habitats (Posidonia oceanica 
meadows). This information used to be provided as a separate report.   

Below, STECF comments in relation to each of the elements outlined in the ToRs are 
given.    

TOR 1.1. The description of the fisheries  

o  Biological characteristics and state of the exploited resources with reference in 

particular to long-term yields.  

The species biology is well known and described in the MP (geographical and bathymetric 
distribution, life cycle, reproduction, age, growth). The life cycle is short, lasting only one 
year, and ends shortly after reproduction. Transparent goby can grow up to 60 mm TL and 
gonadal maturation takes place at 35-40 mm TL. The species presents different bathymetric 
and spatial distribution according to the lifecycle phases: a planktonic larval phase, an 
aggregate juvenile phase and a benthonic adult phase. The reproduction period lasts around 
6 months (March-April to August-September). Changes in the reproductive peaks result in 
the presence of different cohorts, and consequently, in a variable availability to the fishery 
along the fishing season.   

The success of recruitment and the amount of catches each year do not appear to be 
exclusively dependent on the previous year’s catch and the size of the spawning stock, but 
also linked to other factors, such as environmental conditions. In support of the lack of a 

86 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
direct relationship between the exploitation of the resource and the biomass available in the 
following year, it is shown that after the closure of the 2010-11 fishing season in Tuscany the 
annual CPUE in 2011-12 did not increase but decreased.  

STECF observes that no analytical stock assessment is available. Stock status is based on 
the seasonal CPUE, which is assumed to be an acceptable abundance index according to 
the MP. STECF notes that due to the different recruitment pulses along the fishing season, 
monthly CPUE values are very variable in relation to the annual value of the CPUE. 
Therefore, monthly CPUE values alone are not useful for management purposes.  

o  Description of the fishing pressure and measures to accomplish a sustainable 

exploitation of the main target stocks.  

The number of authorized fishing boats has reduced from 117 (76 boats in Liguria and 41 in 
Tuscany) in the MP 2021-2024 to 116 (75 boats in Liguria and 41 in Tuscany) in the MP 
2024-2027. Fishing effort in terms of gross tonnage (GT) and engine power (kW) has also 
been reduced in both regions. It is noted that if the list of authorized boats changes during the 
2024-2027 period, fishing effort in terms of cumulated number of boats, gross tonnage and 
engine power cannot exceed that authorized in the previous three-year period (MP 2021-
2024). STECF notes that the number of authorizations is higher than the number of active 
boats (<30 in Tuscany and <20 in Liguria in 2020-2024). While in Liguria the gross tonnage 
and engine power of the authorized boats are well below the limits established in the MP 
(boats not exceeding 15 GT and 120 kW), in Tuscany there are a few authorized boats with 
engine power > 120 kW but gross tonnage < 15 GT.     

STECF observes that the MP includes a variety of measures to accomplish a sustainable 
exploitation: a) measures to limit the fishing capacity in terms of number of boats, gross 
tonnage and engine power, b) measures to limit the fishing activity regarding thefishing 
season, the time at sea and prohibition to catch sand eel and sardine juveniles, and c) 
restrictive technical measures regarding the size of the fishing gear, mesh size, fishing areas, 
protected habitats and by-catch and accidental species. These measures are combined with 
corrective measures such as fishery closures when the average CPUEs are below the LRPs 
of each of the regions. In addition, the MP includes data collection and scientific monitoring 
by a scientific committee appointed for each region and a governance system to implement 
measures of control and surveillance.   

o  Data on catches (landings and discards) of the species concerned, fishing effort and 

abundance indices such as catch-per-unit-effort (or CPUE).  

The MP provides detailed data on the fishing seasons in the previous MP (2021-22, 2022-23 
and 2023-24) and the fishing season 2020-21 not reported before. The data consist of 
descriptive statistics of catches, fishing days and CPUEs by month for each fishing season 
and region. In addition, for Tuscany time series of total catches, number of fishing days, 
number of active vessels and seasonal CPUE statistics (average, median, 25% and 75% 

87 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
percentiles and standard error) from 1991-92 to 2023-24 are provided, while for Liguria time 
series of number of fishing days, number of active vessels and seasonal CPUE statistics 
(average and standard error) from 2011-12 to 2023-24 are given. Additional summary 
statistics of the seasonal CPUEs provided for Liguria include data collected in the early 90’s.  

During the 2020-2024 fishing seasons, the fleets operated 3,297 days with an average of 
30.8 days per boat in Tuscany and 471 fishing days with an average of 9 days per boat in 
Liguria. In the same period total catches have been around 86.9 tons with a mean CPUE 
value of 26.4 kg/day/boat in Tuscany and around 2.4 tons with a mean CPUE value of 5 
kg/day/boat in Liguria. During the 2022-2023 fishing season the CPUE in Liguria reached the 
lowest value of the time series (2.8 kg/day/boat), being lower than the LRP (3.6 kg/day/boat). 
This was mainly due to the absence of activity of the Camogli fishing fleet and limited activity 
of other six boats dedicated to the scientific fishing of sardine fry in February-March 2023. A 
preventive check of the CPUE in January 2024 showed an increase of the CPUE again 
above the LRP.   

The analysis of the CPUE time series showed statistically not significant trends in Tuscany 
(1991-92 to 2023-2024) and Liguria (2011-12 to 2023-24). Regarding fishing effort, the 
number of active boats decreased and fishing days increased in Tuscany, although none of 
them being statistically significant. In contrast, the number of active boats and fishing days 
decreased significantly in Liguria. Beyond the influence of the 2022-23 fishing season, this 
decrease can also be attributed to other factors already identified in the previous MP, like the 
high average age of fishers due to a lack of generation renewal, and the ageing of vessels, 
which makes operations at sea more hazardous.      

o  Catch composition in terms of size distribution, with particular reference to the 

percentage of catches of species subject to minimum sizes in accordance with Annex 
III of the MEDREG.  

STECF notes that monthly size distribution of the catches of the target species have been 
collected in each region for the fishing seasons 2020-21, 2021-22, 2022-23 and 2023-24. 
The average size of the catches in this period was 27.9 mm in Liguria and 27.0 mm in 
Tuscany. For illustrative purposes, the MP shows monthly size distribution plots for the 
fishing season 2020-21 in Tuscany and the fishing season 2021-22 in Liguria. These size 
distributions show that the fishing activity impacts almost exclusively on the juvenile phase of 
the species, when it has a gregarious and demersal behavior.  

The MP provides information on the by-catch species collected in each fishing season and 
region. In Tuscany, the presence of other species is occasional. According to the logbooks, 
by-catch is only 0.1% in weight of the total catches. The composition of the by-catch changes 
substantially from year to year. The most important by-catch species by weight were the 
common octopus, Octopus vulgaris (17%), the common dentex, Dentex dentex (16%), the 
Mediterranean starry ray Raja asterias (14%), the European squid Loligo vulgaris (11%), the 

88 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
red mullet Mullus barbatus (10%), the king bream Diplodus sargus (7%), the common 
cuttlefish Sepia officinalis (5%) and the sea bream Serranus scriba (4%). In Tuscany, by-
catch analysis is based on data collected onboard. The percentage by-catch was about 
10.8% of the total catch in weight. The most important by-catch species was the common 
dentex (Dentex dentex) representing almost 50% of the by-catch. The other species, in order 
of importance, were red mullet (M. barbatus), the European squid (L. vulgaris), the flying 
gurnard (Dactylopterus volitans), the common cuttlefish (S. officinalis) and the starry weever 
(T. radiatus). Catches of juveniles were not recorded for any of the species. From the by-
species found in both regions only red mullet and king bream are included in Annex IX of the 
technical measures regulation, being thus subject to minimum sizes. According to the 
descriptions in the MP for both regions, most part of individuals arrive on board alive and can 
be released without apparent damage. 

o 

Information on the social and economic impact of the measures proposed.  

The indicators used to assess the economic and social impact are income variation of 
fishermen involved by the MP; profitability variation of small enterprises affected by the MP; 
impact of the MP on employment; and improvement of competition conditions emerging from 
the implementation of the MP. More specifically, the economic indicators were gross 
profit/boat and added value/employee and the social indicators were production 
value/employee, total number of employees and average salary per employee. A specific 
questionnaire (annex C) was designed to collect this information.  

Information for the socio-economic monitoring of the MP in Tuscany was obtained by the 
survey carried out in April-May 2024. In Tuscany, the activity of transparent goby fishing is 
practiced mainly by fishers who are members of cooperatives, and use other fishing gear 
when not using boat seines for transparent goby. Transparent goby fishing accounts for 60% 
of the income from fishing. Fishers have an average age of 61 years and have been fishing 
for 38 years. The average gross profit per vessel is 26,019€, with an incidence of 
intermediate costs and maintenance costs of 19% and 9.5% respectively. The gross profit 
per employee amounts to 11,827€ and the added value to 9,590€. Fishers highlighted a drop 
in prices in the 2023-24 fishing season, that resulted in a decline in the profitability.     

In Liguria, data collection through the dedicated questionnaire was temporarily suspended. 
Information was based on logbook submitted to the Port Authorities and supplemented where 
necessary with information from MASAF. The 2022-23 fishing season recorded the worst 
values across all parameters for the entire period. Revenue, value added and profit were 
significantly negatively affected by the decline in catch. While the price of the catch was 
maintained, fuel prices increased progressively. In addition, the fleet faced a decline of the 
fishing industry due to the ageing of active fishermen (66% of fisher in the over-65 range) and 
the lack of substantial demographic renewal. In 2022-2023, the cooperative in Camogli went 
into voluntary liquidation and the fishing activity was stopped. In 2024, fishers were able to 
resume fishing activity as new individual firms or merged into other enterprises. However, this 

89 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
supposed a major change in the region, as the Camogli fishing fleet is particularly 
representative of the transparent goby fisheries.    

o  Potential impact of the fishing gear on the marine environment with particular interest 

on protected habitats (i.e. seagrass bed, coralligenous habitat and maërl bed);  

The MP contains maps of hauls’ distribution in relation to Posidonia oceanica meadows in 15 
fishing areas in the Ligurian side and 5 on the Tuscan side. Georeferenced hauls were 
obtained from official logbooks in 2021-2024, from on-board observations during scientific 
monitoring of the fishery and from questionnaires and interviews to fishers. To estimate the 
area of overlap with the Posidonia oceanica meadows, a buffer zone of 100 m radius around 
each haul was implemented.   

In Liguria Posidonia oceanica meadows cover an area of 49.2 km2 and the area of overlap 
from 252 geolocated fishing hauls was estimated at 4.9 km2. In Tuscany Posidonia oceanica 
meadows cover an area of 269.24 km2 and the area of overlap from 903 geolocated fishing 
hauls was estimated at 16 km2. Overall, the area overlap is 20.9 km2, which represents 6.6% 
of the whole area covered by Posidonia oceanica.   

STECF notes that the number of geolocated fishing hauls has increased significantly with 
respect to the hauls provided to PLEN 21-01 and considers that 903 hauls in 2563 fishing 
days in Tuscany and 252 hauls in 314 fishing days in Liguria in the period 2021-2024 may 
constitute a good sample size. However, no explanation is provided on the procedure for the 
selection of the hauls that are shown in the maps, and therefore, STECF reiterates that it 
cannot fully assess whether the spatial data presented are representative of the distribution 
of the entire fishery.   

STECF observes that the MP now includes a recommendation to implement a monitoring 
plan for the verification and update of the existing mapping of Posidonia oceanica beds and 
for a detailed mapping to verify the effective overlap of the fishing activity with the Posidonia 
oceanica beds.  

TOR 1.2. Objectives, safeguards and conservation/technical measures  

o  Objectives that are consistent with the objectives set out in Article 2 and with the 

relevant provisions of Articles 6 of CFP Regulation and quantifiable targets, such as 
fishing mortality rates and total biomass.   

The objectives stated in the MP are the same as in previous plans: to maintain the historic 
artisanal fishing activity and to adopt appropriate management measures to ensure its 
continuation; to monitor the exploitation status and the respect of fishery parameters through 
the collection of data of catches, fishing effort, impact on the ecosystem and the monitoring of 

90 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
    
  
 
  
biological and economic parameters; to identify the necessary indicators to verify the 
exploitation status and the effectiveness of adopted management measures.  

Since no analytical assessment is available and quantifiable targets such as fishing mortality 
rates and total biomass are not defined, STECF cannot assess whether The MP objectives 
are consistent with the objectives stated in Articles 2 and 6 of Regulation (EU) 1342/2013.  

STECF notes that the MP uses commercial CPUEs time series as an indicator for stock 
biomass and have defined CPUEs thresholds under which management actions are 
triggered. In this case the LRPs in each region are based on the 25% percentile of historical 
CPUEs, which is a common used threshold in several MPs in the Mediterranean Sea. There 
is usually not enough independent information available to monitor the actual trends in the 
biomass and fully assess the robustness of the CPUE threshold to guarantee the sustainable 
use of these resources in the long term; but based on generic knowledge on stock 
assessment and seine fishery dynamics, STECF reiterates that a 25% quantile threshold is 
unlikely to be fully in line with the MSY objective of the CFP. A more detailed discussion is 
given in section 4.1 in the STECF PLEN 21-01 report.   

STECF notes that the LRPs currently in force are lower than the annual CPUEs values 
observed both in Tuscany and Liguria and therefore, do not match with the 25% percentile of 
the annual CPUEs calculated by STECF according to the data provided in the MP. STECF 
reiterates that clarification is needed on how LRP and annual CPUEs were calculated. 
Should these not have been calculated in the same way, the values cannot be compared and 
the given LRP should not be used as a basis for management.    

o  Objectives for conservation and technical measures to be taken in order to achieve the 
targets set out in Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013, and measures designed 
to avoid and reduce, as far as possible, unwanted catches.  

Restrictive measures combined with the limit expressed as a CPUE index are foreseen. 
These include: no increase in the number of vessels authorized under the MP; limitation of 
fishing season (November - March); limitation of fishing time (daytime); maximum number of 
fishing days per vessel (60 days); limitation of gear usage and features; limitation of fishing 
area (marine compartment and protected habitats); limitation of fishing capacity (vessels 
<15GT and/or <120 kW).  

o  Measures proportionate to the objectives, the targets and the expected time frame.  

The management plan is based on annual CPUE that has to be maintained above the LRPs 
set for Tuscany and Liguria. STECF notes that to address all the objectives, the MP also 
includes measures for monitoring the fishery, assessing its impact on the ecosystem and 
evaluating the effectiveness of the management measures.  

91 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
 
  
  
 
  
  
o  Safeguards to ensure that quantifiable targets are met, as well as remedial actions, 
where needed, including situations where the deteriorating quality of data or non-
availability places the sustainability of the main stocks of the fishery at risk.  

The LRP set for each single fishing season is 8.5 kg/day/boat for Tuscany and 3.65 
kg/day/boat for Liguria. When the seasonal CPUEs drop below the LRPs, the MP includes 
the following pre-negotiated management measures:  

a) Early closure of the fishing season: In the event that the annual average CPUE drop below 
the LRPs, during the following fishing season the average CPUE is checked by February at 
the latest to ensure that it remains above the limit values and, where appropriate, 
consideration is given to the early closure of the fishing season by one month.  
b) Corrective measures: If the annual average CPUE drops below the LRPs for two 
consecutive fishing seasons, before the beginning of the following season, measures must 
be adopted. These measures include a reduction of the duration of the fishing season. 
STECF notes that this reduction is not pre-specified.  
c) Suspension of transparent goby fishery: If the annual average CPUE remains below the 
LRPs for three consecutive years, the fishery is closed for the entire fishing season.  

o  Other conservation measures, in particular measures to gradually eliminate discards, 
taking into account the best available scientific advice or to minimise the negative 
impact of fishing on the ecosystem.  

According to the monitoring carried out in the recent period, the fishery is quite selective. In 
Tuscany the target species represented 99% in weight of the whole catches, while in Liguria 
by-catch was about 10.8% of the total catch.  

According to the information provided in the MP, this fishery does not generally operate over 
Posidonia oceanica meadows. The area overlap between the fishing hauls and Posidonia 
oceanica meadows is 20.9 km2, which represents 6.6% of the whole area covered by P. 
oceanica. As explained above, the number of geolocated fishing hauls has increased 
significantly and may constitute a sufficient sample size, STECF is unable to fully assess 
their representativeness.  

TOR 1.3. Other aspects  

o  Quantifiable indicators for periodic monitoring and assessment of progress in 

achieving the objectives of the plan.  

CPUE are monitored during the fishing season and compared to the Limit Reference Point.   

92 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
TOR 2.1 Derogation to the distance from the coast (Article 13 – Paragraphs 5, 9 and 
10)  

o  There are particular geographical constraints, such as the limited size of the 

continental shelf along the entire coastline;  

The continental shelf is limited in width, particularly in the Central-Western Ligurian Sea and 
the fishery is carried out mainly within a short distance from the coast (10-100 meters), where 
the transparent goby is more concentrated during the winter season. Therefore, STECF 
observes the fishery is geographical constrained.  

o  The fisheries have any significant impact on the marine environment;  

The fishing gear is very selective and transparent goby fishing is forbidden over P. oceanica 
meadows.  The area overlap between the fishing hauls and P. oceanica meadows is 
estimated at 20.9 km2, which represents 6.6% of the whole area covered by P. oceanica.   

o  The fisheries involve a limited number of vessels and do not contain any increase in 

the fishing effort;  

The MP does not allow to increase the number of authorized vessels. However, STECF 
notes that the number of authorized vessels is much higher than that of active vessels, and 
this measure is currently not restrictive. The maximum number of fishing days per vessel is 
60.  

o  The fisheries cannot be undertaken with another gear;  

The fishing gear is specific for fishing transparent goby. This fishing takes place very close to 
the shore and cannot be undertaken with another gear. In addition, the MP includes a 
limitation on the fishing gear: during the transparent goby fishing activity it is forbidden to 
maintain on board gears other than the one authorized for transparent goby fishing.  

o  The fisheries are subject to a management plan and carry out a monitoring of catches 

as requested in Article 23;  

In 2021 a management plan for the transparent goby fishery was adopted (M.D. of 
14/10/2021 – Adoption of a management plan on the fishing of the transparent goby (Aphia 
minuta) using boat seines in the GSA9 by derogation from art 9 (minimum mesh size) and 

93 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
 
  
 
  
  
 
  
  
 
  
  
 
  
  
art.13 (distance from the coast) of the Reg. EC n.1967/2006. Published on Gazzetta Ufficiale 
della Repubblica Italiana 297, 15.12.2021.  

o  The vessels concerned have a track record of more than 5 years;  

The fleet is limited to a total of 116 vessels, with a track record of more than five years. 
STECF notes this is included in the MP.  

o  The fisheries do not interfere with the activities of vessels using gears other than 

trawls, seines or similar towed nets;  

Fishing is carried out at very short distance from the coast and therefore do not interfere with 
the activities with vessels using gears other than trawls, seines or similar towed nets. STECF 
notes there is no evidence of the fishery conflicting with other fisheries.  

o  The fisheries are regulated in order to ensure that catches of species mentioned in 
Annex IX of Regulation (EU) 2019/1241 with the exception of mollusc bivalves, are 
minimal  

The fishing gear is very selective, and the catch of species mentioned in Annex IX of 
Regulation (EU) 2019/1241 are minimal. Therefore, based on the information provided 
STECF agrees that the catches of species of species mentioned in Annex IX of Regulation 
(EU) 2019/1241 with the exception of mollusc bivalves, are minimal.  

o  The fisheries do not target cephalopods.  

Based on the information provided, the transparent goby fishery does not target 
cephalopods.   

TOR 2.2 

Derogation to the minimum mesh size (Article 9, paragraph 7)  

o  The fisheries are highly selective and have a negligible effect on the marine 

environment;  

STECF agrees that the boat-seine fishing targeting transparent goby is highly selective.  

o  The fisheries do not operate above seagrass beds of, in particular, Posidonia oceanica 

or other marine phanerogams.  

94 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
  
  
 
  
  
 
  
  
 
  
 
  
 
  
This fishery does not generally operate over P.oceanica meadows. The area overlap 
between the fishing hauls and P. oceanica meadows is estimated at 20.9 km2, which 
represents 6.6% of the whole area covered by P. oceanica. In spite of the fact that the 
number of fishing hauls geolocated has increased significantly, STECF is unable to fully 
assess their representativeness.  

STECF conclusions 

STECF concludes that the MP for boat seines targeting transparent goby in the waters of 
Tuscany and Liguria contains adequate elements in terms of the description of the fisheries, 
objectives, safeguards and conservation/technical measures and quantifiable indicators for 
periodic monitoring and assessment. Since no analytical assessment is available, STECF 
concludes that it is not possible to assess if the MP objectives are aligned with the CFP 
objectives.   

STECF concludes that the MP meets the conditions set by the MEDREG for the derogations 
to the distance from the coast and to the minimum mesh size.  

STECF concludes that the number of authorizations for the fishing of transparent goby is 
much higher than the number of active vessels and is therefore not restrictive.   

STECF concludes that the observed CPUE time series, both in Tuscany and Liguria, do not 
display any significant trends and are well above the LRPs, the only exception being the 
CPUE in Liguria for the fishing season 2022-23, after which the preventive checks described 
in the MP were applied.   

STECF observes that the LRP used for Tuscany is much lower than the 25% percentile 
calculated based on data provided in the MP. STECF reiterates the conclusion from PLEN 
21-01 that a clarification is needed on whether LRPs and annual CPUEs were calculated in 
the same way. If this is not the case, then the values cannot be compared.   

STECF concludes that the data and maps provided show that the fishery does not generally 
operate on protected habitats (6.6% of the Posidonia oceanica distribution overlap with 
fishing hauls). While the number of hauls being mapped may be sufficiently large, their 
representativeness cannot be fully assessed. STECF acknowledges that the MP now 
includes further recommendations to implement a monitoring plan to confirm the overlap of 
the fishing activity with the Posidonia oceanica meadows and evaluate their condition.   

STECF recalls the generic considerations on the use of CPUE 25th percentile as limit 
reference point provided in PLEN 21-01 and suggests that in the absence of additional 

95 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
fishery-independent information, a higher threshold would be considered more precautionary 
and more in line with the CFP objectives.  

96 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
6.7 Review of the monitoring report for mechanised dredges and the derogation for 
boat seines in certain territorial waters of Spain (Catalunia) 

Background provided by the Commission 

In accordance with Article 13(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1967/2006 (henceforth the Med Reg), 
the use of towed gears is prohibited within 3 nautical miles of the coast or within the 50 m 
isobath where that depth is reached at a shorter distance from the coast. At a request of a 
Member State, derogation from Article 13(1) shall be granted, provided that the conditions set 
in Article 13(5) and (9) are fulfilled. 

A general condition for all derogations is that the fishing activities concerned are regulated by 
a management plan in accordance with Article 19 of the Med Reg. According to paragraph 5 
of Article 19, the measures to be included in the management plan shall be proportionate to 
the objectives, the targets and the expected time frame and shall consider: 

− 
− 
− 
− 

the conservation status of the stock or stocks; 
the biological characteristics of the stock or stocks; 
the characteristics of the fisheries in which the stocks are caught; 
the economic impact of the measures on the fisheries concerned. 

On 24 September 2021, the Commission adopted Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1713 
establishing a derogation from Article 13 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1967/2006 as 
regards the minimum distance from coast and depth for shore seines fishing in certain 
territorial waters of Spain (Catalonia).  

This derogation is established in the framework of the management plan for sand eels 
(Gymnammodytes cicerelus and G. semisquamatus) and gobies (Aphia minuta and 
Crystalogobius linearis) adopted by Catalonia[1], which is in force until July 2026.  

In February 2024, the Spanish Administration has expressed its intention to renew the 
derogation from EC 1967/2006 article 9/13 in terms of distance and minimum depth from the 
coast in waters of Spain (Catalonia). The current derogation will expire on 2 July 2024. 

In addition, in January 2024, the Spanish Administration provided elements on the monitoring 
of the management plan for mechanised dredges in the Mediterranean Coast of the 
Autonomous Community of Catalonia, that was adopted by the regional Order ARP/122/2020. 
The management plan concerns fishing activity targeting bivalves using mechanised dredges 
in the framework of the provisions of Article 19 of the Mediterranean Regulation (EU Reg 
1967/2006). Point 14.8 of the management plan establishes that 3 years after entry into force, 
the results of the monitoring should be evaluated.  

Background documents are published on: 

https://stecf.ec.europa.eu/meetings-calendar/past-meetings  

97 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Request to the STECF 

ToR 1: The STECF is requested to review the implementation report of the boat seines 
fishery provided to support the Spanish request to renew the derogation. The STECF is also 
requested to present its findings and make appropriate comments with respect to the 
conservation and management requirements/objectives stipulated by Council Regulation (EC) 
No 1967/2006 ("MedReg") and by the Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013. 

STECF is requested to: 

-  Advise and assess whether the documents transmitted by Spain contain adequate 

elements in terms of: 

o  The description of the fisheries  

  Biological characteristics and state of the exploited resources with 

reference in particular to long-term yields.  

  Description of the fishing pressure and measures to accomplish a 

sustainable exploitation of the main target stocks.  

  Data on catches (landings and discards) of the species concerned, 

fishing effort and abundance indices such as catch-per-unit-effort (or 
CPUE).  

  Catch composition in terms of size distribution, with particular reference 
to the percentage of catches of species subject to minimum sizes in 
accordance with Annex IX of Regulation (EU) 2019/1241.  
Information on the social and economic impact of the measures 
proposed.  

 

  Potential impact of the fishing gear on the marine environment with 

particular interest on protected habitats (i.e., seagrass bed, coralligenous 
habitat and maërl bed). 

o  Objectives, safeguards and conservation/technical measures 

  Objectives that are consistent with the objectives set out in Article 2 and 

with the relevant provisions of Articles 6 of Regulation (EU) No 
1380/2013 and quantifiable targets, such as fishing mortality rates and 
total biomass.  

  Objectives for conservation and technical measures to be taken in order 

to achieve the targets set out in Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 
1380/2013, and measures designed to avoid and reduce, as far as 
possible, unwanted catches.  

  Measures proportionate to the objectives, the targets and the expected 

time frame.  

  Safeguards to ensure that quantifiable targets are met, as well as 
remedial actions, where needed, including situations where the 
deteriorating quality of data or non-availability places the sustainability of 
the main stocks of the fishery at risk.  

98 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  Other conservation measures, in particular measures to gradually 

eliminate discards, taking into account the best available scientific advice 
or to minimise the negative impact of fishing on the ecosystem. 

o  Other aspects 

  Quantifiable indicators for periodic monitoring and assessment of 
progress in achieving the objectives of a management plan. 

-  Suggest additional recommendation to improve the monitoring of this fishery. 

More specifically, STECF is requested to advise and comment on whether the documents 
provided contain adequate and up-to date scientific and technical justifications ensuring that 
the conditions of the MedReg are still fulfilled, in particular that:  

−  There are particular geographical constraints, such as the limited size of the 

continental shelf along the entire coastline; 

−  The fishery has no significant impact on the marine environment; 
−  The fishery involves a limited number of vessels and does not contain any increase in 

the fishing effort with respect to what is already authorized by Member States; 

−  The  fishery cannot be undertaken with another gear; 
−  The fishery is subject to a management plan and carry out a monitoring of catches as 

requested in Article 23; 

−  The  vessels concerned have a track record of more than 5 years; 
−  The  fishery does not interfere with the activities of vessels using gears other than 

trawls, seines or similar towed nets; 

−  The fishery is regulated in order to ensure that catches of species mentioned in Annex 
IX of Regulation (EU) 2019/1241 with the exception of mollusc bivalves, are minimal 

−  The fishery does not target cephalopods. 
−  The fisheries are highly selective and have a negligible effect on the marine 

environment; and  

−  The fisheries do not operate above seagrass beds of, in particular, Posidonia oceanica 

or other marine phanerograms 

ToR 2: STECF is requested to review the monitoring elements provided and, if necessary, 
advise and assess whether the management plan for mechanised dredges catching bivalves 
in the waters of Catalonia contains adequate elements in terms of: 

The description of the fisheries 

-  Biological characteristics and state of the exploited resources with reference in 

particular to long-term yields. 

-  Description of the fishing pressure and measures to accomplish a sustainable 

exploitation of the main target stocks. 

-  Data on catches (landings and discards) of the species concerned, fishing effort and 

abundance indices such as catch-per-unit-effort (or CPUE). 

99 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
-  Catch composition in terms of size distribution, with particular reference to the 

percentage of catches of species subject to minimum sizes in accordance with Annex 
III of the MEDREG[2]. 
Information on the social and economic impact of the measures proposed. 

- 
-  Potential impact of the fishing gear on the marine environment with particular interest 

on protected habitats (i.e. seagrass bed, coralligenous habitat and maërl bed); 

Objectives, safeguards and conservation/technical measures 

-  Objectives that are consistent with the objectives set out in Article 2 and with the 

relevant provisions of Articles 6 of CFP[3] Regulation and quantifiable targets, such as 
fishing mortality rates and total biomass.  

-  Objectives for conservation and technical measures to be taken in order to achieve the 
targets set out in Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013, and measures designed 
to avoid and reduce, as far as possible, unwanted catches. 

-  Measures proportionate to the objectives, the targets and the expected time frame. 
-  Safeguards to ensure that quantifiable targets are met, as well as remedial actions, 
where needed, including situations where the deteriorating quality of data or non-
availability places the sustainability of the main stocks of the fishery at risk. 

-  Other conservation measures, in particular measures to gradually eliminate discards, 
taking into account the best available scientific advice or to minimise the negative 
impact of fishing on the ecosystem. 

Other aspects 

-  Quantifiable indicators for periodic monitoring and assessment of progress in 

achieving the objectives of the plan. 

Summary of the information provided to STECF  

TOR 1. Review the implementation report of the boat seines fishery provided to support the 
Spanish request to renew the derogation. 

The information submitted by Spain consists of a technical and scientific report on the third 
year of implementation of the management plan for the “sonsera” including two Annexes:  

  Annex I is a Scientific Report supporting the management plan for boat seine  

The report by the Catalan Research Institute for Marine Governance (ICATMAR) outlines the 
implementation of the management plan for artisanal fishing with boat seines, known locally 
as "sonsera," in Catalonia from 2020 to 2023.  

The plan, including contributions from by ICATMAR, fishers, scientists, NGOs, and the 
fisheries administration, was monitored using data from official statistics, fishermen's daily 
reports, and monthly onboard sampling. The fishery, which involves 26 boats and is operating 

100 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
from 6 ports, targets sand eels and gobids. Landings from this fishery are used for direct 
human consumption.  

The report focuses on the biology of targeted species such as sand eels (Gymnammodytes 
cicerelus and G. semisquamatus) and gobids (Aphia minuta, Crystallogobius linearis). It notes 
that fishing over Posidonia meadows is prohibited. The current strategy of the management 
plan will continue for the next two years.  

The report indicates that the fishing for crystal goby has been minimal or non-existent since 
2019, reinforcing the decision to suspend this activity. Overall, the report details the adaptive 
management and continuous monitoring efforts to ensure the sustainability of the artisanal 
fishery and its environmental impact.  

  Annex II is the Order ACC/155/2021 of 20 July approving the management plan for the 

mode of sonsera on the Catalan coast (2021-2026)  

This is an order that approves the management plan for boat seines, known as “sonsera” 
fishing, conducted in the coastal waters of the Catalan Sea. The fishing resource managed 
under this order adheres to an ecosystem approach and Fmsy principles.  

The species authorized for this fishery include sand eels (G. cicerelus and G. 
semisquamatus) and two gobids (A. minuta and C. linearis). The use of the “sonsera” must 
exclusively target these species, allowing a discharge tolerance of about 3% by weight of 
non-target species, not exceeding 5 kg. For species subject to MCRS listed in Annex IX to 
Regulation (EU) 2019/1241, the tolerance is limited to 1% of the catch weight.  

Fishing with “sonsera” cannot be conducted alongside any other fishing activity during the 
special fishing permit's validity. Annual quotas are set at 819 tonnes for sand eels, 1.8 tonnes 
for A. minuta, and 3.8 tonnes for C. linearis. At the end of each fishing season, assessments 
will determine biomass, catch per unit effort (CPUE), fishing mortality, and stock exploitation 
status relative to F0.1 (as a proxy of FMSY). Based on these results, the total quota, fishing 
period, and monthly quota distribution for the next season are set by the Directorate-General 
for Marine and Sustainable Fisheries Policy.  

TOR 2. Review of the monitoring report for mechanised dredges management plan catching 
bivalves in the waters of Catalonia   

The information submitted by Spain consists of a Monitoring Report assessing the 
implementation of the Management plan (MP) for mechanised dredges catching bivalves in 
the waters of Catalonia: Evaluation report on the implementation of the plan for the 
management of mechanised dredges (“gabies”) on the Catalan coast, including five 
Annexes.  

The Directorate-General for Maritime Policy and Sustainable Fisheries (DGMPSF) has drawn 
up this report. It recalls that from the original four fishing areas of clams with mechanised 
dredges in Catalonia, the two northern zonas are closed to fishing (the Northern Catalonia-

101 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
Rosas Bay- and the Central north-north of Barcelona or Meresme area), while the Central 
South (south of Barcelona) and southern zone (the Ebro delta zone) remain open to the 
fishing but only of Wedge clam (coquina, Donax spp.). Other main commercial species which 
used to be target by this fishery are currently banned to fishing because of the poor status: 
stripped Venus clams (chirla) (Chamelea gallina) & smooth clams (almejón, Callista chione).   

The report contains the main results of technical/administrative monitoring. This includes the 
details of the fleet activity (number of boats, fishing days, catches and CPUEs) by regions 
and years (2021-23); evolution of prizes; monthly activity of the fleet by regions and 
description of the share of different fishing activities of the boats dedicated to mechanised 
dredges in the Ebro delta, with short description of this different fisheries they are involved 
with. Besides this, the report summaries a sampling campaign carried out in 2023 in the in the 
Central South area to assess the recovery of the C. gallina which have pointed out by fishers. 
The recovery shown by the study make the DGMPSF to set up a pilot exploitation plan 
(detailed in Annex 5).  

In addition, the report contains a summary of four of the studies launched to make the 
Monitoring and scientific studies associated with the Management Plan which were 
contracted by the Directorate-General for Maritime Policy and Sustainable Fisheries with the 
University of Barcelona. The first (BIVALCAT) focused on continuing the regular monitoring of 
the Management Plan, with biomass and density analysis as the main parameters for defining 
the conservation status of the natural bank. The others expand the studies as detailed below 
for every Annex.  

  Annex 1 is the Assessment of the clam dredge fisheries on the Catalan coast 

BIVALCAT 2019-2021    

The primary goals of the project were to assess the health and status of commercially 
exploited sea clams on the Catalan coast (wedge clam, venus clam, smooth clam) and to 
enhance the understanding of their ecology. Historical data from 1989 to 2020 shows a 
significant decline in clam landings, with wedge clam peaking in 1993 but dropping to a 
historical minimum by 2020. Quarterly sampling from winter 2019 to spring 2021 in open 
fishing areas studied the smooth clam, revealing overexploitation and the presence of a 
parasitic organism impacting wedge clam populations.  

The only commercially viable stock, wedge clam (D. trunculus), showed low densities but a 
notable increase in 2021, especially in the Ebro Delta. A specific management plan is 
suggested for this species, considering both mechanized and hand-operated dredge fishers 
in that area. A study on the effect of a fishing closure in North Barcelona indicated no 
recovery for the smooth clam stock, with a significant density decrease between 2005 and 
2020. The project also included a genetic study of wedge clams from various regions.  

Overall, the BIVALCAT project highlighted the critical status of Catalan shellfish fisheries, 
similar to other Mediterranean regions in Spain. Continuous monitoring is essential for 

102 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
sustainable management, particularly for wedge clams, to avoid collapse and ensure future 
commercial exploitation.  

  Annex 2 is the REINVENTA’T project to relaunch and revitalising economic activity of 

artisanal fishing with “gàbies” in Catalonia (2020-2021)  

The project aims to revive small-scale fishing with ‘gàbies’ in Catalonia, restoring economic 
activity and jobs lost in recent years. The primary objectives include detecting and assessing 
commercial bivalve banks, providing scientific knowledge on potentially exploitable species, 
mainly white clam (Mactra stultorum), conducting a feasibility study for ‘gàbies’ fishing along 
the Catalan coast, and promoting this fishing method to recover employment.  

Quarterly sampling was conducted in three shellfishing zones, targeting each species with 
four samples. Two transects, each with two stations, were defined in the Delta Ebro, Central 
South, and Central North areas. Studies focused on densities, size distributions, growth, and 
biometry.  

The results showed high densities of white clam in the Ebro Delta and Central South areas, 
indicating viable commercial exploitation with potential prices around 5-6 euro/kg. In the 
Central South, white clam accompanies the coquina (wedge clam) bench, while in the Ebro 
Delta, it could be the primary catch at certain depths. The average size of the white clam 
exceeded 25 mm. Although there is no current legislation on the legal minimum size or 
literature on the size of first sexual maturity, the minimum legal size for coquina and Venus 
shells is 25 mm.  

  Annex 3 is the DELTA-VIU: Advice to promote the sustainable development of 

cochinella fisheries (Donax trunculus) in the Ebre Delta (2021)  

This project was aimed to improve the competitiveness of fishers using hand (foot based) and 
mechanized (vessel-based) dredges ("gàbies") to catch coquina (wedge clam) (Donax 
trunculus) in the Ebro Delta area and to promote sustainable fishing for this species. The 
method involved closing two areas within the bivalve production area of the Ebro Delta to 
assess the impact of the shellfish farm on the clam bank. Pre-closure sampling was 
conducted using both foot and vessel-based mechanised dredging, determining densities, 
size structure, sex, and the presence of the trematode parasite Bacciger bacciger. 
Granulometry and recruitment were also analyzed using Van Veen dredger sampling.  

During the closure period, three additional samplings were conducted using the same 
methodology and compared with results from the two actively exploited areas. The main 
results showed that larger individuals were found at greater depths, and the density and 
biomass of coquina per square meter were inversely proportional to depth. Higher densities 
and smaller specimens were found in shallow areas between 0.2 and 0.7 meters, indicating 
that any fisheries management improvements should focus on this bathymetric strip.  

103 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
Both density and biomass decreased in all areas, closed or open to fishing, due to the natural 
coquina cycle. However, the decrease was significantly less in shallow, closed areas. Larger 
individuals, about 0.5 cm longer on average, were found in these closed areas, along with 
greater density and abundance. These findings support the usefulness of closures as a tool 
for improving coquina management in the Ebro Delta, particularly in areas where hand 
dredges operate.  

The results demonstrate the effectiveness of spatial and temporal biological closures in 
enhancing coquina fisheries management in the Ebro Delta, improving both catch volume and 
fish size.  

  Annex 4 is Donax project: coquine bank assessment (Donax trunculus) of the southern 

hemidelta of the Ebro Delta  

The objective of this study was to assess the commercial bivalve shellfish (coquina, wedge 
clam) banks in the southern hemidelta of the Ebro Delta. It focused on evaluating the state of 
the natural coquina bank at various depths and mapping the density and abundance in the 
region, which is the largest production area for the species. To achieve this, 36 transects 
parallel to the coast were designed, and sediment samples and the total catch of shellfish 
gatherers on foot were analyzed.  

Results showed that the size of the specimens, the density of individuals, and the biomass 
caught exhibited a marked spatial distribution, with smaller parameters observed in the 
northern and eastern areas. The average density was 4.3 individuals per square meter, but 
there was high variability, with the maximum density recorded at 55.4 individuals per square 
meter. Depth influenced density, with an average of 6.50 individuals per square meter at 0.2 
meters depth and 1.63 individuals per square meter at 0.5 meters depth. The density and 
biomass of coquina declined towards the north (Latitude) and east (Longitude) in the southern 
hemidelta area. The average total length of the coquina caught was 22.83 mm.  

The coquina-associated community had low species diversity, with crayfish P. latipes 
(59.91%) and the lesser measure L. depurator (5.99%) being the most common, both 
potential predators of coquina. The impact of hand-tracked fishing on the Ebro Delta was low, 
with 61.93% of captured specimens showing no impact. This percentage is much lower than 
that of mechanised dredges. Species most affected by severe or fatal impacts included the 
bivalve M. sultorum (48.01%), hermit crab (33.33%), purifying crab L. depurator (28.60%), 
and P. latipes (15.74%).  

The presence of the trematode parasite Bacciger bacciger in the coquina population of the 
Ebro Delta was 21.33%. No spatial pattern was found in the incidence of this parasite on the 
coquina bank of the southern hemidelta of the Ebro Delta.  

  Annex 5 is the Proposal to reopen the banks of chirla (Chamelea gallina) in the 

Catalan litoral  

104 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
The annex details recent developments concerning the Venus clam (Chamelea gallina) 
fishery. On March 30, 2023, operators using dredges and mechanised dredges requested 
that the Directorate-General for Maritime Policy and Sustainable Fisheries (DGPMPS) 
implement a monitoring program to confirm their observations of a significant increase in 
Venus clam density. This increase was leading to a high number of discards, despite the 
current ban on fishing for this species. In response, the DGPMPS organized a sampling 
campaign in areas where recovery had been detected, specifically the Delta del Ebro, where 
the Venus clam is caught with boat dredges, and the Southern Central Coast of Catalonia, 
where mechanised dredging is used. The results from 2023 were compared to monitoring 
studies from 2017 and 2018, conducted before the fishery was closed.  

The data from the Ebro delta in 2023 showed abundances over 100 times higher than in 
2017. Similarly, an increase in abundance was observed on the central coast of Catalonia, 
with figures five times higher than those recorded in 2018. As a result of these findings, and in 
accordance with Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No. 1224/2009, which allows for scientific 
activities by Community vessels operating in Community waters, the DGPMPS initiated two 
pilot exploitation programs: 1) Pilot exploitation of the natural bank of Venus clam (Chamelea 
gallina) in the Ebro Delta using boat dredges, and 2) Pilot exploitation of the natural bank of 
Venus clam (C. gallina) on the Southern Central Coast of Catalonia using mechanised 
dredges. These pilot exploitation plans are detailed in Annex 5.  

STECF comments in relation to each of the elements outlined in the ToRs     

TOR 1. Review the implementation report of the boat seines fishery provided to support the 
Spanish request to renew the derogation  

The description of the fishery:  

  Biological characteristics and state of the exploited resources with reference in 

particular to long-term yields.  

The scientific report produced by ICATMAR provides exhaustive information on the taxonomy 
and biology of sand eels, Gymnammodytes cicerelus and G. semisquamatus, and gobids, 
Aphia minuta, Crystallogobius linearis, and Pseudaphya ferreri including length-weight 
relationship and length frequency distributions.  

A study on the reproductive biology (i.e., analysis of gonads, size at first maturity and 
spawning season through Gonadosomatic Index, GSI) has been carried out for G. cicerelus 
and G. semisquamatus. The highest values of GSI were found between December and 
March for G. cicerelus and between December and April for G. semisquamatus. Size at first 
maturity ranged between 7.9 cm (2020) and 10.0 cm (2021) Total Length (TL) for G. cicerelus 
and between 6.4 cm (2020) and 8.7 cm (2021) TL for G. semisquamatus.  

An assessment of G. cicerelus stock was performed using a Multi-Annual Generalized 
Depletion (MAGD) model (Maynou et al., 2021). Analysis shows a strong fluctuating pattern 
of recruitment, with the lowest values in the period 2015-2017, which were followed by an 
increase in 2019 and by a decrease in 2021 (Figure 6.7.1.A). Considering the overall data 

105 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
series (2012-2023), the last two values (2022 and 2023) represent a slight increase. The 
results of this assessment suggest that the exploitation of the sand eel stock could continue 
to be carried out sustainably if fishing mortality is kept at low levels (instantaneous 
exploitation rate <0.04 or annual harvest rates not exceeding 60% of the unfished population) 
because natural mortality is very high (estimated here at M = 1.73 yr-1). Figure 6.7.1.B shows 
that the escapement rates (i.e., cumulative proportion of removals from fishing) has been 
achieved in most years. The fluctuating population dynamics of this stock, whose year class 
strength depends mostly on recruitment, might explain the alternation of periods of high 
abundance followed by similar periods of very low abundance, when fishing mortality (or 
harvest rate) should be kept to a minimum. Moreover, Maynou et al. (2021) found that the 
sand eel fishery is characterized by hyperstability of CPUEs, i.e. catches can be maintained 
at high levels despite shrinking stock. That is, relatively small increases of fishing effort (i.e. 
fishing days or high increase of catches) could rapidly increase the rate of removals from the 
fishery, but the corresponding decrease in population numbers would be difficult to detect 
from CPUE statistics due to hyperstability. 

 Figure 6.7.1 – A: annual recruitment estimated by the Multi-Annual General Depletion model for the 
sand eel fishery with upper 95% confidence interval. B: escapement rates (cumulative proportion of 
removals from fishing).  

 Source: own elaboration. 

No assessment is available for G. semisquamatus and for gobids. For gobids, depletion 
models could not be applied as in most years the largest landings and CPUEs were observed 
at the end of the fishing season (March-April).   

  Description of the fishing pressure and measures to accomplish a sustainable 

exploitation of the main target stocks.  

106 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
The description of the fishing fleet includes the number of vessels involved, their daily, 
weekly, and annual activity, as well as changes over time and throughout the year. Currently, 
a maximum of 26 vessels are involved in the fishery, operating out of six fishing ports. The 
MP permits the use of Sonsera vessels smaller than 10 meters in length overall (LOA) and 
with engine power less than 75 kW. Fishing activity regulated by this MP is confined to the 
Catalan coastline, between the coast off Barcelona and the northern Gulf of Roses. The 
Sonsera fishery primarily targets sand eel for most of the year, with a smaller number of 
vessels targeting gobies, mainly in winter.  

 The MP sets catch quotas aimed at ensuring the sustainable exploitation of the fishery's 
target stocks, based on historical landings that have not shown significant declines over the 
available time series. While this can be considered an indicator of sustainability, it is not 
backed by robust scientific evidence for all target stocks.  An assessment has been 
performed only for the Mediterranean sand eel (G. cicerelus), based on a multi-annual 
generalized depletion model.  

  Data on catches (landings and discards) of the species concerned, fishing effort and 

abundance indices such as catch-per-unit-effort (or CPUE).  

For sand eels, data on yearly catches (in tons), fishing days, and CPUE (kg/day/vessel) are 
provided for the period 2002-2023. Additionally, monthly catch data (in tons) and CPUE are 
available for the period 2020-2023. The CPUE shows a fluctuating trend; however, in the last 
three years (2021-2023), it has decreased to the lowest levels in the entire data series (2002-
2023).  

For gobies, data refer exclusively to A. minuta. Yearly catches (in tons), fishing days, and 
CPUE (kg/day/vessel) are provided for the period 2001-2023. Additionally, monthly catch data 
(in kg) and CPUE are available for the period 2019-2023. The CPUE fluctuates significantly 
without showing any particular trend.  

  Catch composition in terms of size distribution, with particular reference to the 

percentage of catches of species subject to minimum sizes in accordance with Annex 
IX of Regulation (EU) 2019/1241.   

For sand eels, monthly length-frequency distributions (LFDs) are provided for the period 
2020-2023. It can be observed that the mean size increases throughout the fishing season. 
However, in some months, a portion of the catches includes specimens below the size at first 
maturity.  

For A. minuta and P. ferreri annual LFDs are available for the period 2020-2023 and no 
evident trend can be observed.  

 

Information on the social and economic impact of the measures proposed.  

107 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
Annual income for this fishery and the average price of sand eel (euro per kg) have been 
provided for the period 2002-2023. Additionally, monthly income data are available for the 
period 2020-2023. No data are available for the gobies. The Management Plan does not 
include other quantitative information on the social and economic characteristics of the fishery 
or the likely socio-economic impact of the new measures.  

  Potential impact of the fishing gear on the marine environment with particular interest 

on protected habitats (i.e. seagrass bed, coralligenous habitat and maërl bed).  

The maps comparing the spatial distribution of fishing activity (geographical position of 1,108 
hauls from logbooks during 2020-2022) and seagrass meadows locations along the coast 
indicate that the “Sonsera” fishery does not significantly impact seagrass meadows, 
particularly Posidonia oceanica, and other vulnerable habitats such as coralligenous habitats 
and maërl beds. According to the scientific report by ICATMAR, the hauls performed by the 
vessels involved in the “Sonsera” fishery occur in very shallow waters near the coast (from 4 
m to 15 m for the fleets of Arenys de Mar and Blanes, and from 5 m to 30 m for the fleets of 
Sant Feliu de Guíxols, Palamós, and L’Estartit), on sandy bottoms. In some cases, hauls are 
conducted close to seagrass meadows but not directly over them.  

Objectives, safeguards and conservation/technical measures:  

  Objectives that are consistent with the objectives set out in Article 2 and with the 

relevant provisions of Articles 6 of CFP Regulation and quantifiable targets, such as 
fishing mortality rates and total biomass.  

The management plan aims to ensure the conservation and sustainable exploitation of target 
stocks. TACs for sand eels and gobies are established at the start of each season based on 
the results from the previous fishing season. At the end of each fishing season, assessments 
are conducted to estimate population biomass, trends in CPUEs, fishing mortality, and the 
stock's exploitation status relative to reference points. Based on these evaluations, the MP 
Committee sets the TACs for the following year. The annual TACs are then divided into 
monthly quotas, which are allocated equally among the authorized boats.  

  Objectives for conservation and technical measures to be taken in order to achieve the 
targets set out in Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013, and measures designed 
to avoid and reduce, as far as possible, unwanted catches.  

Article 5.3 of the management plan stipulates that bycatch of species other than the targets of 
the “Sonsera” fisheries must be less than 3% of the total catch by weight (1% for species with 
a minimum conservation reference size (MCRS) listed in Annex IX to Regulation (EU) 
2019/1241), and in any case, bycatch shall not exceed 5 kg per fishing trip.  

During the period from 2020 to 2023, bycatch in the fishery targeting sand eels ranged from 
0.55% (2023) to 3.13% (2022). The number of bycatch species per haul was generally low, 

108 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
typically below five species. Overall, nearly 50 species/taxa were recorded in the bycatch, 
including several species listed in Annex IX of Regulation (EU) 2019/1241.  

Analysis of the average biomass of bycatch species from 2020 to 2023 showed the highest 
contributions in biomass were from Pagellus erythrinus (18%), followed by Scomber colias 
(13%) and Trachurus spp. (10%). Cephalopods were represented by Loligo vulgaris (0.24%), 
Octopus vulgaris (0.3%), Sepia officinalis (2%), and some species from the Sepiolidae family 
(0.003%).  

For the following bycatch species, the fraction of individuals below the MCRS has been also 
provided: Scomber spp., Trachurus spp., Engraulis encrasicolus, Pagellus erythrinus, 
Pagellus acarne, and Mullus spp. For these species the individuals caught were mostly below 
MCRS, with the exception of Scombrus spp, which consisted almost exclusively of specimens 
larger than 18 cm TL.  

The bycatch from the fishery targeting transparent goby, A. minuta, represents 6.6% of the 
catches by weight. The most abundant bycatch species include Mullus barbatus (29%), 
Sphyraena sphyraena (20%), Trachurus spp. (18%), Pagellus erythrinus (9%), and Engraulis 
encrasicolus (6%). LFDs of regulated species (M. barbatus, Trachurus spp., P. erythrinus, 
and E. encrasicolus) caught as bycatch in the transparent goby fishery are provided.   

No data on bycatch has been provided for crystal goby fishery.  

STECF notes that transparent goby and crystal goby fisheries have marginal interest in the 
MP as the TACs set up are less than 2 and 4 tonnes per fishing season, respectively, against 
around 800 tonnes for sand eels. Therefore, also the contribution on by catch is lower in 
absolute values.  

  Measures proportionate to the objectives, the targets and the expected time frame.  

The management plan establishes catch quotas aimed at achieving sustainable exploitation 
of the fishery's target stocks, relying on historical landings that have shown no significant 
declines over the available time series. This can be viewed as an indicator aligned with the 
plans' objectives and targets. However, robust scientific evidence supporting sustainability is 
only available for sand eel, G. cicerelus. For this species, STECF has observed declining 
CPUEs in the last three years (2021-2023), which necessitates ongoing monitoring in the 
coming years.  

  Safeguards to ensure that quantifiable targets are met, as well as remedial actions, 
where needed, including situations where the deteriorating quality of data or non- 
availability places the sustainability of the main stocks of the fishery at risk.  

 Landings are monitored monthly, analyzing the daily landings of each vessel. If the monthly 
landings of the fleet fall below 75% of the defined quota, the collective quota for the following 
month is reduced by 50%. Failure to meet this threshold results in the closure of the fishery 
for the following month.  

109 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  Other conservation measures, in particular measures to gradually eliminate discards, 
taking into account the best available scientific advice or to minimise the negative 
impact of fishing on the ecosystem.  

STECF observes that the management plan prohibits fishing over seagrass meadows and 
rocky bottoms, restricting the use of "Sonsera" to sandy and muddy bottoms exclusively. The 
plan does not include any additional conservation measures aimed at progressively reducing 
discards.  

Other aspects:  

  Quantifiable indicators for periodic monitoring and assessment of progress in 

achieving the objectives of the plan.  

The landings are monitored on a monthly basis analysing information of landings per boat per 
day. If the monthly landings of the fleet are less than 75% of the defined quota, the collective 
quota for the following month is reduced by 50%. If the threshold is not reached in that 
following month, the fishery is closed.  

In its previous assessment (STECF 21-01), STECF raised concerns that implementing a 
target threshold per vessel could incentivize increased fishing intensity and efficiency to 
maintain high catches and avoid reductions even when stock biomass is low. Moreover, as 
only the most efficient vessels might remain in the fishery, their catch rates would no longer 
be directly comparable to the historical baseline used for setting TAC thresholds. It is 
suggested that the baseline should be defined individually for each vessel to account for 
these efficiency differences.   

STECF observes that the MP does not specifically address this concern. However, Maynou et 
al. (2021) emphasize that the fishing capacity of this fishery remains high and that stringent 
controls on fishing effort must continue under the MP. Additionally, STECF acknowledges that 
the primary target stock (G. cicerelus) is now monitored through scientific stock assessments, 
which enhances the management's resilience against biases in fisheries CPUEs.  

Suggestions for additional recommendation to improve the monitoring of this fishery  

STECF recommends extending the assessment and monitoring efforts currently applied to 
the Mediterranean sand eel, G. cicerelus, to include other target species, despite these 
species being caught in lower quantities.  

STECF recommends maintaining control of fishing efforts and strictly monitoring of CPUE 
trend to ensure sustainable harvesting and prevent undetected declines in population.  

Derogation to the distance from the coast (Article 13, Paragraphs 5, 9 and 10): 

110 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  There are particular geographical constraints, such as the limited size of the 

continental shelf along the entire coastline  

The species targeted by the “Sonsera” fishery exclusively inhabit shallow waters, typically 
within 3 nautical miles from the coast. Vessels belonging to this fishery must operate within 
this distance when targeting G. cicerelus and A. minuta. Sand eel species inhabit sandy 
habitats along the Catalan coast at depths ranging from 6 to 16 meters, where they are 
typically fished. Gobies species are found over muddy-sandy bottoms, with A. minuta 
primarily exploited at depths between 7 and 12 meters in the Southern fishing grounds.  

  The fishery has no significant impact on the marine environment  

The evidence provided (fishing activity maps vs seagrass meadows) supports the fact that the 
“Sonsera” fishery does not impact seagrass meadows, in particular Posidonia oceanica, and 
other vulnerable habitat, such as coralligenous habitat and maërl bed.  

The evidence presented in the ICATMAR report, by comparing fishing activity maps with the 
locations of seagrass meadows, indicates that the "Sonsera" fishery does not adversely 
impact seagrass meadows, particularly P. oceanica, nor other vulnerable habitats such as 
coralligenous habitats and maërl beds.  

  The fishery involves a limited number of vessels and does not contain any increase in 

the fishing effort with respect to what is already authorized by Member States  

The maximum number of authorized vessels using Sonsera is 26. This limit and the list of 
authorized vessels are included in the MP.  

  The fishery cannot be undertaken with another gear  

The fisheries cannot be undertaken with another gear and operations need to be carried out 
very close to the coast, in shallow waters within the 3 nm distance from the coastline.  

  The fishery is subject to a management plan and carry out a monitoring of catches as 

requested in Article 23  

The MP adheres to standard monitoring practices and the precautionary approach. This 
includes daily reporting of catches to the co-management committee, exclusive sale of 
catches through official auction channels at home ports, and adjusting quotas or closing the 
fishery during the season if CPUEs decline excessively.  

The co-management committee, consisting of representatives from industry, scientists, 
NGOs, and fisheries administrations of both the Autonomous and Central Governments, 
manages fishing activities. This committee is responsible for monitoring the sustainability and 
profitability of the fishery by implementing effort limitations on the number of authorized boats, 

111 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
fleet activity, and setting annual catch limits. It also reviews TAC levels annually based on the 
previous season's results and imposes new TACs as necessary at the start of the following 
season.  

Additionally, the committee coordinates scientific monitoring and assesses compliance with 
management measures, suggesting appropriate sanctions in cases of non-compliance. It 
defines the schedule and locations for sampling, both on board boat seiners and upon vessel 
arrival at port. The committee also organizes regular inspections at sea, fish auctions, and 
retail markets, and checks all landings against the recorded daily catches.  

  The vessels concerned have a track record of more than 5 years  

To be authorized for this fishery, vessels had to demonstrate that they had operated with this 
gear for more than five years during the period from 2000 to 2010.  

  The fishery does not interfere with the activities of vessels using gears other than 

trawls, seines or similar towed nets  

The operation area of the “Sonsera” fishery can overlap with those of other small-scale 
fisheries using passive gears. However, interactions between “Sonsera” vessels and other 
fleets are limited due to the lack of competition for target species. Additionally, the use of 
“Sonsera” does not damage other gears set in the same area.  

STECF notes that bycatch of “Sonsera” fishery may include some species (e.g., sparids, red 
mullet) that are generally targeted by set trammel nets, gill nets, or longlines. Nevertheless, 
the impact of the “Sonsera” fishery on the abundance of these resources is considered 
negligible due to the small number of individuals caught per fishing operation and the limited 
number of vessels involved in this fishery.  

  The fishery is regulated in order to ensure that catches of species mentioned in Annex 
IX of Regulation (EU) 2019/1241 with the exception of mollusc bivalves, are minimal  

The Art. 5.3 of the MP establishes that the by catch of species other than the targets of the 
Sonsera fisheries shall be less than 3% of the total catch in weight (1% in the case of 
regulated species), and in any case they shall not be larger than 5 kg for fishing trip.  

As described above, in the period 2020-2023 the overall bycatch fraction represented less 
than 3.2% in weight of the total catches in the fishery targeting sand eels, and 6.6% in the 
bycatch targeting transparent goby.  

STECF notes that no experiments were conducted to assess post-release survival rates on 
bycatch species.  

  The fishery does not target cephalopods  

112 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
A few cephalopod species have been observed as bycatch in the sand eel fishery: Loligo 
vulgaris (0.24% in weight), Octopus vulgaris (0.30%), Sepia officinalis (2.00%), and some 
species from the Sepiolidae family (0.003%).  

No cephalopod species were reported as a by catch in the transparent goby fishery.  

Considering the limited by catch of cephalopods species and the generally low quantity of 
bycatch overall, it can be concluded that the Sonsera fishery does not target cephalopods.  

Derogation to the minimum mesh size (Article 9, Paragraph 7)  

  The fishery is highly selective and have a negligible effect on the marine environment  

As previously mentioned, the bycatch in the "Sonsera" fishery is very low, accounting for less 
than 6% of the total catch in weight.  

Additionally, no other adverse effects on the marine environment have been reported for this 
fishery. It operates in sandy and muddy bottoms, avoiding sensitive habitats such as 
seagrass meadows, coralligenous habitats, and maërl beds, which further minimizes 
environmental impact.  

  The fishery does not operate above seagrass beds of, in particular, Posidonia 

oceanica or other marine phanerogams  

The MP prohibits conducting the “Sonsera” fishery over seagrass meadows. As demonstrated 
by maps generated from logbook data, this fishery is not carried out on sea bottoms 
characterized by the presence of seagrass meadows, particularly Posidonia oceanica.  

TOR 2. Review of the monitoring report for mechanised dredges management plan catching 
bivalves in the waters of Catalonia   

Description of the fisheries: 

The monitoring report contains main elements to assess the evolution of the fishery and the 
monitoring requested for the management:   

  Biological characteristics and state of the exploited resources with reference in 

particular to long-term yields.  

The project BIVALCAT 2019-2021 (in Annex 1 of the report) describes two studies reporting 
on the recent status of the main target stocks of the mechanized dredge fisheries. The first 
one analysed the status of mechanized clam fisheries, in each fishing area (only in open 
areas Ebro Delta area and South Barcelona area) through a quarterly sampling conducted 
from winter 2019 to spring 2021. In each clam fishing area, two transects perpendicular to the 
coastline were defined. Each transect had two stations: 1) at 1 meter depth (to target the 

113 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
 
wedge clam) and 2) at 3 meters depth (to target the striped venus clam). The results have 
determined the size distribution, growth, abundance and recruitment processes of the target 
species, their state of sexual maturity, the presence of parasites and the presence or 
otherwise of different populations. The total composition of the catch has also been 
determined, characterised by taxonomic groups. Bivalve species were the most abundant 
taxonomic group in discards from the wedge clam fisheries in both clam fishing areas. Finally, 
some assessment of exploitation rates based on length methods is also presented, indicating 
some overexploitation.   

In the Ebro delta zone, the commercial fraction of the total catch (while targeting Donax 
Trunculus) was 42.81% at 1 m, while it was only 4.92% at 3 m. This fraction was highly 
variable depending on the season. The most abundant clam species at 1 m depth were the 
bivalves D. trunculus and Mactra stultorum, while at 3 m were M. stultorum, Acanthocardia 
tuberculata, and D. trunculus. South of Barcelona, the commercial catch (while targetting D. 
trunculus) was 57.80% at 1 m depth, while it was the 4.92% at 3 m. In this zone the most 
abundant species at 1 m depth were the bivalves D. trunculus and M. stultorum, whereas at 3 
m were D. trunculus, M. stultorum, Ensis. minor and A. tuberculata. In the two areas, the 
abundance of venus clam C. gallina was very low, close to 0.  

Those results confirm that wedge clam (D. trunculus) is the most abundant clam allowing 
commercial exploitation. While densities of commercial individuals of D. trunculus were low 
during the study period, however, in 2021, there was a significant increase in densities 
particularly in the Ebro Delta. The commercial catch in the D. trunculus fisheries was 58.8 % 
of the total catch in each Tow in South Barcelona and the 42.8 % in the Ebro Delta. The 
authors suggest a specific management plan for D. trunculus in Ebro Delta including the 
mechanized clam dredge fleet and the hand-operated dredge fishers, as both target on the 
same stock. STECF endorses such a suggestion.   

Currently, a complementary study based on the project DONAX in 2022 (Annex 4) further 
assessed the abundances of the wedge clam (D. trunculus, coquina) in the Ebro delta 
particularly at depths between 0.2 m and 1m, showing that the density and biomass is 
inversely proportional to the depth, the slightly smaller individuals are located in the 
northwards and east areas.  

Another study analyses the effect of fishing closure in the North Barcelona fishing (Baeta et 
al., 2021). The study was based on experimental design of samplings conducted in July, 
October and December during two different survey periods (2005 and 2020) in this region (2 
parallel transects separated by 6 km, perpendicular to the coastline were made using 
commercial clam dredges). Abundances, densities and sizes distributions of the smooth clam 
are reported, including the study of the accompanying Benthic community. The study 
concludes that the closure of the clam fishing has not helped in the recovery of the smooth 
clam (C. chione) stock. The density of the smooth clam decreased considerably between 
2005 and 2020 (T(17)=4.15 P < 0.001). The maximum density recorded in 2005 was 10.07 
ind/m2; while in 2020, it was 0.71 ind/m2. The authors suggested that active management 
could be essayed (restocking) to recover the smooth clam. STECF notes that this is a 

114 

 
 
 
 
 
 
practice already applied in other areas of the Mediterranean Sea (in the Italian hydraulic 
dredge venus clam fishery for instance).   

The high occurrence of the white clam (M. stultorum) has been the object of a more recent 
study in the project REINVENTAT (2020-2021) (Annex 2) aiming at restoring the economic 
activity of the fishery by studying the commercial bivalve banks and to provide scientific 
knowledge of the species that may potentially be commercially exploited. This was made by 
quarterly sampling and carried out in three shellfishing zones and for each target species (4 
samples). Two transects were defined, with two stations each in Delta Ebro, Central South & 
Central North. The main result was that high densities of white clam were found, both in the 
Ebro Delta and in the Central South area, which could make their commercial exploitation 
viable, special given the potential price of white clam of around 5-6 euro/kg. Even though in 
the Central South area, white clam could be an accompanying species while fishing for 
wedge clam, in the Ebro Delta area, it could be caught as a primary species in certain depths. 
There is no legislation in force on the legal minimum size and there is also no literature on the 
size of first sex maturity. The average size of the white clam was greater than 25 mm, which 
is the minimum (landing?) legal size of the coquina and the Venus shells.  

STECF notes that all these studies provided a systematic evaluation of the most common 
clam resources in the fishing areas (except for the Northern Zone). Confirm the poor situation 
of the venus and smooth clam in these regions, and the healthier situation of the wedge clam 
(D. trunculus). In addition, the relevant densities of white clam (M. stultorum) as for 
commercial exploitation. This information constitutes valuable references for assessing the 
evolution of these resources in the future.   

Despite the little occurrence of stripped venus clam (C. gallina) being detected in the project 
BIVALCAT 2019-2021, a new sampling campaign was carried out during May, June and July 
2023 in the Delta del Ebro and southern central coast area to assess the potential recovery of 
the species which was noted by fishermen. The remarkable recovery shown by the study 
push the DGMPSF to set up a pilot exploitation plans for the two fishing zones (detailed in 
Annex 5). In the Ebro delta the Pilot plan affects to 14 vessels with a special permit for 
shellfishing with dredging for boats, allowing just fishing a single day per week to each vessel 
(as a single dredge haul of 20 mn), while the Pilot plan for the central southern zone affects to 
the single boat permit for shellfishing with mechanised dredging, with has maximum weekly 
catch of 50 kg. Both plans stablished a closure during the breeding period of the species, 
corresponding to the months of March – April – May. The results of the Pilot plans were not 
yet available. STECF note that these pilot fishing plans are designed for allowing specific 
direct fishing, which for the mechanized dredge allows daily quotas very similar to those 
permitted for the fishing of wedge clam (D. trunculus) in the same area (which at the 
beginning of the MP 2020 were set at 9kg per day).    

Overall, the monitoring report argues that stocks have been subject to low fishing pressure in 
both clam fishing areas during the 2019-2020 period. This low fishing pressure was due to 
two different factors: 1) the low productivity of the fishing stocks did not affect the price of the 
wedge clam in the fish markets (the price remained low due to imports from other countries); 
2) targeting other species with other fishing gears was more profitable, i.e., blue crab 

115 

 
 
 
 
 
 
(Callinectes sapidus) in the Ebro Delta and common octopus (Octopus vulgaris) in South 
Barcelona. STECF notes that beyond the reduced fishing effort there are other undetermined 
factors which can have been affecting the wedge clam stocks for decades (environmental and 
anthropogenic factors, such as sand extraction or reduction of flow of nutrients towards the 
sea, etc.). In addition, the project highlights the presence of a parasitic organism, which was 
detected in the collected samples of D. trunculus. Sporocysts of the trematode from the family 
Fellodistomidae Bacciger bacciger were identified. The presence of B. bacciger was detected 
in 51.79% of the population in South Barcelona clam fishing area, while in 24.18% of the Ebro 
Delta clam fishing area. The infected individuals were slightly larger than the uninfected in 
both fishing areas. This parasite has had a negative impact on the recovery of the species in 
both areas.  

  Description of the fishing pressure and measures to accomplish a sustainable 

exploitation of the main target stocks. Data on catches (landings and discards) of the 
species concerned, fishing effort and abundance indices such as catch-per-unit-effort 
(or CPUE).  

Table 6.7.1. The results of technical/administrative monitoring include the details of the fleet activity 
(number of boats, fishing days, catches of wedge clam and CPUEs) by regions and years (2021-
2023).  

Source: Backgroud documentation provided by the Commission. 

The plan allows a total fleet of 19 vessels, but there is a reduction of the active fleet from 8 
boats in 2018 to 6 in 2021 and to 3 in 2023 (2 in Delta Ebro and 1 in Central Southern Zone). 
There has been a reduction of 58% of landed catches (2016-18 compared to 2021-23) and a 
similar reduction of effort (fishing days). This implies a rather similar CPUEs (around 28-33 
kg/day) in the Ebro Delta. The CPUE of the only fishing vessel operating in the Central South 
reduced between 2021 and 2023 from 9 kg/day/vessel to 6 kg/day/vessel. The reason is 

116 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
  
reported to be related to the Venus clam Pilot Plan and to a larger focus on the octopus 
fishery in comparison with the 2016-2018monitoring period.   

The descriptions about the monthly activity of the fleets by regions allows understanding the 
reduction in the active number of boats involved in this fishery occurring in the Ebro delta. 
The report stays that the parallel reduction of effort and catches in not due to poor state of the 
Wedge clams, but to alternate this fishery with more profitable ones during the cold months in 
the delta area, particularly with the fishing of gilt-head bream (Sparus aurata) with trammels in 
October November and to fishing for shrimps with dredge for boats from December to mid 
spring period. Some of the vessels in the Ebro delta which have ceased their activity with 
mechanized dredge have moved to the exploitation of the non-indigenous species blue crab 
(Callinectes sapidus) particularly in the summer autumn periods. In the Central South area, 
however, shellfish harvesting with ‘gàbies’ does not alternate, but coincides with the octopus 
fishery and is practiced continuously throughout the year, using pots.  

STECF notes that the decrease of the fishing fleet actively engaged in this fishery has been 
parallel to the general decrease of the abundance of the resources available, the closures of 
areas and exploitable stocks. Therefore, the depleted condition of some of the resources 
explains partly why the current fishery is being carried out by only three vessels (over the 16 
allowed by the MP), but as explained in the BIVALCAT project many boats have shifted to 
more profitable targets like the invasive blue crab fishery (Callinectes sapidus) in the Ebro 
delta and to octopus using other gears. This adaptation reflects a strategic response to the 
changing availability and economic viability of different marine resources.  

  Catch composition in terms of size distribution, with particular reference to the 

percentage of catches of species subject to minimum sizes in accordance with Annex 
IX of Regulation (EU) 2019/1241.   

While for the previous revision made by STECF of the former MP (STECF PLEN 19-01) the 
data on length-frequency distribution of the catches was presented for each year of the 
monitoring period (2016-2018), such information was not available to STECF for the current 
report, neither a direct table with estimates of the percentages of catches of wedge clam 
below the Minimum Legal Size; MLS (25 mm). Although, description of the catches by size 
classes was not made available, information coming from the ad hoc surveys for the Projects 
allowed monitoring of the length distributions of recruits (for Venus and wedge clam from 
samples from the sediment taken using a Van Veen dredge) and for commercial wedge 
clams throughout the sampling months between February 2020 and May 2021 in BIVALCAT 
2019-2021, using the standard vessels with the mechanized dredges. This also allowed to 
study the Growth Biology for wedge clam (D. trunculus).   

STECF notes, however, that the exact number of discards corresponding to the catches 
below minimum conservation size (of 25 mm for wedge clam) is not clarified in the reports, 
though might be inferred from commercial catch size distributions obtained the mechanized 
dredges.  

117 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 

  Information on the social and economic impact of the measures proposed.  

STECF notes that the report contains information on the prizes of the landings. Concerning 
the wedge clam (D. trunculus) the average sale price of were 15.6 euro/kg during the former 
MP and during the current MP have risen to about 21.5 euro/kg. The highest price recorded 
during the years of validity of the Management Plan was 33 euro/kg in August, while the 
lowest price was 10 euro/kg in March 2023. Even though explanation on the sharing of fishing 
effort with other fishing activities is described (as mentioned above), a quantification of the 
economic dependency of the fleet on the target species is not presented. A similar remark 
was made by STECF 19-01.  

  Potential impact of the fishing gear on the marine environment with particular interest 

on protected habitats (i.e. seagrass bed, coralligenous habitat and maërl bed).  

The MP prohibits the operation of mechanized dredges over Posidonia meadows.  Even 
though this was not flagged as a problem in previous examinations of this plan by STECF, the 
documents provided by Spain supporting this MP do not contain any information related to 
the potential impact of this fishery on protected habitats.  

Objectives, safeguards and conservation/technical measures and implementation:   

 

Implementation of the management plan   

The co-management committee met 15 times to monitor the CPUE, fishing days, sale prizes, 
over the last 3 years of MP. The committee has three members: Administration/Fishermen, 
scientists and an optional one from environment NGO. It has the role to fix fishing hours/daily 
quotas/ closing periods or areas, and economic issues. However, the monitoring report do not 
mention any decision or actions undertaken during the management period. The MP (ORDEN 
ARP/122/2020) established that the maximum number of fishing days per year and fishing 
zone will be established by the committee according to the scientific sampling. But if any 
decision was undertaken, they are not mentioned in the monitoring report provided to the 
STECF. It is acknowledged, as mentioned above, that there has been a reduction in the 
number of boat and fishing day in comparison with previous periods.   

The MP followed the former suggestion of STECF 19-01 of setting maximum daily quotas at 
the levels of mean catches (because former daily catch limits were far above average 
observed CPUE). Now they were set at 32 kg/vessel for the Ebro delta region and at 9 
kg/vessel in the central south zone. It is uncertain to the STECF whether they have been 
revised annually afterwards, as this is not reported.  

STECF agrees with the suggestion made by the BIVALCAT project of maintaining the 
monitoring of clam stocks by the surveying methodology and strategy applied by the project 
to have a regular monitoring that allows having long series of data allowing future 
comparisons.  

118 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  Objectives that are consistent with the objectives set out in Article 2 and with the 

relevant provisions of Articles 6 of CFP Regulation and quantifiable targets, such as 
fishing mortality rates and total biomass.  

STECF 19-01 noted the lack of fishing mortality or biomass reference points that are 
consistent with Article 2 of CFP. The lack of quality of the historical data was said to prevent 
reliable calculation of the CPUE at MSY levels. For this reason, the MP suggested a 
protective reduction of 20% of the fishing days set out in the MP previously approved by the 
EU in 2015, until the F can be calculated, which would allow the restoration and maintenance 
of exploited stocks. The current monitoring report has provided a first analysis of current 
exploitation as inferred from the direct samplings carried out in the project BIVALCAT, based 
on an assumption on the natural mortality for data limited stocks (Then et al., 2014). The very 
high total Z resulting from the length distribution in the surveys compared to M in the two 
fishing areas indicates a big F value, higher than optimal F. Parallel analysis based on Yield 
per recruit supported those results. STECF acknowledges the effort made to carry the 
analysis, however they rely on having a good understanding of the natural mortality by sizes 
and of the fishery selectivity which may be not sufficiently understood yet given the spatial 
structuring of the population. As currently the effort carried out by this mechanized dredge 
fleet is so low, and other fleets as the dredge boat interact with the current fishery, the wedge 
clam (D. trunculus), a proper allocation of fishing mortality across fleets is also required.  

STECF 2019-01 noted “Catch limits for the next year fishing season should rather be set on 
the basis of on an assessment of the recruitment success estimated through scientific 
surveys carried out following a well defined sampling protocol”. Such suggestion is probably 
optimal, however STECF notes that is debatable whether it is too demanding for this small 
fishery.   

STECF notes that the management plan lacks fishing mortality or biomass (densities) or 
CPUEs targets or thresholds upon which to take decision other than the one based on the 
maximum daily catch per boats indicator. In STECF 2019-01, when assessing the proposal of 
the current management plan, it was stated that “management decisions will be taken in 
agreement with the Technical Committee. As defined in previous MP, changes in biomass 
(CPUE) will be used as a metric for assessing progress towards management measures.” For 
the renovation of the management plan further elaboration of management targets and CPUE 
reference levels would be convenient.  

STECF supports the suggestion of BIVALCAT project of developing a specific management 
plan for D. trunculus in Ebro Delta including the mechanized clam dredge fleet and the hand-
operated dredge fishers, as both target on the same stock.  

  Measures proportionate to the objectives, the targets and the expected time frame.  

119 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
During the evaluation of the proposal of the current MP, STECF 19-01 noted that the 
proposed maximum catch limits were not in accordance with the average observed CPUE for 
these areas which were considerably lower.  

Now, STECF notes that the maximum daily catch per boats and areas defined in the current 
MP (ORDEN ARP/122/2020) were aligned with the observed daily CPUEs of the boats per 
areas.  

According to the MP, the seasonality of the fishery or the annual maximum number of fishing 
days is competence of the co-management committee. However, the monitoring report does 
not inform on any decisions taken by the committee on those subjects.   

  Safeguards to ensure that quantifiable targets are met, as well as remedial actions, 
where needed, including situations where the deteriorating quality of data or non- 
availability places the sustainability of the main stocks of the fishery at risk.  

The current MP specifies that catch limits will be based on quarterly averages. There are no 
predetermined thresholds to prompt management responses in case of resource deterioration 
as indicated by CPUE. According to the MP, management decisions will be made in 
consultation with the Technical Committee. No such management reaction is reported in the 
monitoring report.   

  Other conservation measures, in particular measures to gradually eliminate discards, 
taking into account the best available scientific advice or to minimise the negative 
impact of fishing on the ecosystem.  

The provided information does not enable an evaluation of the effects of fishing with 
mechanized dredges on the seafloor and on the associated benthic communities. This 
limitation was previously highlighted in the assessment of the current management plan 
proposal.  

STECF conclusions   

TOR 1 Review the implementation report of the boat seines fishery provided to support the 
Spanish request to renew the derogation  

STECF concludes that the management plan includes appropriate elements for monitoring 
and managing the activities of the "Sonsera" fishery in Catalan waters.  

STECF concludes that the conditions for granting derogations from EC Regulation 
1967/2006, Articles 9 and 13, regarding minimum mesh size, distance from the coast, and 
minimum depth in Spanish (Catalan) waters, are met.  

120 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
 
STECF recognizes the innovative approach undertaken to assess and monitor the stock 
status of the Mediterranean sand eel, G. cicerelus, the primary target of this fishery. STECF 
encourages similar efforts to enhance the scientific monitoring of other target species, 
proposing options for conducting scientific surveys in the region to establish fishery-
independent abundance indices for stock assessments.  

STECF acknowledges that even small increases in fishing effort could significantly intensify 
removal rates from the fishery, posing challenges in detecting corresponding declines in 
population numbers through CPUE statistics due to hyperstability (Maynou et al., 2021). 
Therefore, STECF concludes that Spain should continue monitoring the fishing effort, 
ensuring it remains at minimal levels without any increase.  

TOR 2 Review of the monitoring report for mechanised dredges management plan catching 
bivalves in the waters of Catalonia  

STECF acknowledges Spain's efforts in effectively monitoring clam resources across current 
and historical fishing grounds in Catalonia through dedicated projects linked to the monitoring 
report of the MP.  

STECF concludes that, given the low biomass levels of Venus clam and smooth clam, 
Spain's 2019 decision to close these fisheries was justified and appropriate. Subsequently, 
reopening this fishery as a pilot study in 2023, for a single vessel using mechanized dredges 
in the central south zone, might provide valuable data for assessing the evolution of these 
resources over time.   

STECF endorses the BIVALCAT suggestion of development of a unified management plan 
for the wedge clam population in the Ebro Delta fishing area, which is commercially exploited 
by both mechanized dredges and hand-operated dredges. This approach aims to ensure 
effective management of this resource under a cohesive strategy.  

STECF concludes that the monitoring program to report the monthly size distributions and the 
proportion of discards corresponding to the catches below MCRS for the wedge clam (of 25 
mm) fishery using the mechanized dredges should be improved.  

STECF also concludes that additional studies should be valuable for understanding the 
potential impact of mechanized dredges on the benthic communities associated to the fishing 
grounds  

STECF reiterates its suggestion from STECF 19-01 to include an evaluation of the fleet's 
economic dependency on the target clam species. This should encompass the relative 
contribution of clam catches to the total annual income per boat, generated by the potential 
use of fishing gears targeting species other than bivalves.  

STECF endorses the suggestion made by the BIVALCAT project of maintaining the 
monitoring of clam stocks by the surveying methodology and strategy applied by the project 
to have a regular monitoring. It allows having long time series of data that will support 
comparisons between current and future status.  

121 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
STECF concludes that reporting the decisions undertaken by the co-management committee 
in the monitoring report of the MP are convenient.   

STECF concludes that in any update of this management plan a further elaboration of 
management targets and CPUE reference levels would be an improvement.    

References    

Baeta, M., Solís, M., Ramón, M., & Ballesteros, M. (2021). Effects of fishing closure and 

mechanized clam dredging on a Callista chione bed in the western Mediterranean Sea. 
Regional Studies in Marine Science, 48, 102063.  

Maynou F., Demestre M., Martín P., Sanchez P. (2021). Application of a multi-annual 

generalized depletion model to the Mediterranean sand eel fishery in Catalonia. Fish. 
Res., 234, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2020.105814  

Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) – 60th Plenary Meeting 

Report (PLEN-19-01). Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2019, 
ISBN 978-92-76-02904-5, doi:10.2760/56785, JRC116423  

Then A.Y., Hoenig J.M., Hall N.G., Hewitt D.A. and Jardim H.e.E. (2014) Evaluating the 

predictive performance of empirical estimators of natural mortality rate using information 
on over 200 fish species. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 72(1), 82-92.  

122 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
 
6.8 Review of the monitoring report of the management plan for transparent goby in 
certain territorial waters of Spain (Murcia) 

Background provided by the Commission 

As established in Article 2 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/2230 of 25 
October 2023 extending the derogation from Council Regulation (EC) No 1967/2006 as 
regards the minimum distance from the coast and depth granted to boat seines fishing for 
transparent goby (Aphia minuta) within the Spanish territorial waters of the Autonomous 
Community of the Region of Murcia, the Spanish administration has to provide scientific 
monitoring reports. 

In June 2024, the Spanish Administration provided the Scientific Monitoring Report 
elaborated by the Autonomous Community of the Region of Murcia so it can be evaluated by 
STECF. This report describes the administrative controls and scientific monitoring carried out 
by the General Directorate of Production Agricultural, Livestock and Fishing of the Region of 
Murcia for the fishing campaign 2023-2024, as well as an evaluation of the results obtained. 

Background documents are published on: 

https://stecf.ec.europa.eu/meetings-calendar/past-meetings  

Request to the STECF  

The STECF is requested to: 

-  Advise and assess whether the documents transmitted by Spain contain adequate 

elements in terms of: 

o  The description of the fisheries  

  Biological characteristics and state of the exploited resources with 

reference in particular to long-term yields.  

  Description of the fishing pressure and measures to accomplish a 

sustainable exploitation of the main target stocks.  

  Data on catches (landings and discards) of the species concerned, 

fishing effort and abundance indices such as catch-per-unit-effort (or 
CPUE).  

  Catch composition in terms of size distribution, with particular reference 
to the percentage of catches of species subject to minimum sizes in 
accordance with Annex IX of Regulation (EU) 2019/1241.  
Information on the social and economic impact of the measures 
proposed.  

 

123 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  Potential impact of the fishing gear on the marine environment with 

particular interest on protected habitats (i.e., seagrass bed, coralligenous 
habitat and maërl bed). 

o  Objectives, safeguards and conservation/technical measures 

  Objectives that are consistent with the objectives set out in Article 2 and 

with the relevant provisions of Articles 6 of Regulation (EU) No 
1380/2013 and quantifiable targets, such as fishing mortality rates and 
total biomass.  

  Objectives for conservation and technical measures to be taken in order 

to achieve the targets set out in Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 
1380/2013, and measures designed to avoid and reduce, as far as 
possible, unwanted catches.  

  Measures proportionate to the objectives, the targets and the expected 

time frame.  

  Safeguards to ensure that quantifiable targets are met, as well as 
remedial actions, where needed, including situations where the 
deteriorating quality of data or non-availability places the sustainability of 
the main stocks of the fishery at risk.  

  Other conservation measures, in particular measures to gradually 

eliminate discards, taking into account the best available scientific advice 
or to minimise the negative impact of fishing on the ecosystem. 

o  Other aspects 

  Quantifiable indicators for periodic monitoring and assessment of 
progress in achieving the objectives of a management plan. 

-  Suggest additional recommendation to improve the monitoring of this fishery. 

Previous review by STECF  

STECF assessed the request for extending the derogation regarding the minimum distance 
from the coast and depth to boat seines fishing transparent goby in its plenary meeting PLEN 
23-01. The conclusions were the following: 

- The implementation of the boat seine management plan in the Murcia Region in the period 
2021/2022 meets the conditions upon which the derogation regarding minimum distance from 
the coast and depth was granted in 2020. 

- The Plan contains the elements necessary for limiting the level of exploitation of transparent 
goby in the Murcia region, including limits on licenses, fishing periods, fishing effort, 
maximum yearly catches, HCRs and monthly CPUE thresholds below which the fishery 
should be limited or closed. 

124 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
- In the 2021/2022 fishing season the above management mechanisms were applied. In 
December, the CPUE value was below the reference level and the weekly fishing day 
reduction (from 4 to 5 days) was adopted in January. Subsequently, as the January CPUE 
value was still below the reference value, the fishery was closed early. The above-mentioned 
management mechanisms were similarly applied in the 2022/2023 fishing season. 

- The adaptive management measures in place may need to be strengthened if the signs of 
degradation in the stock observed in the last two fishing seasons continue to be seen in the 
next 2-3 years. 

Information provided to the STECF 

One document was provided to PLEN 24-02: "Scientific Monitoring Report. Management plan 
for the traditional fishery of Aphia minuta in waters of the Region of Murcia, Spain. Fishing 
season 2023-2024" (original in Spanish "Informe de Seguimiento Científico. Plan de Gestión 
para la pesca tradicional del chanquete (Aphia minuta) en aguas de la Región de Murcia, 
España. Campaña 2023-2024"). 

The extension of the derogation as regards the minimum distance from the coast and depth 
to boat seines fishing for transparent goby (Aphia minuta) was granted in October 2023 
(Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/2230). It is indicated, among other 
obligations, that Spain shall communicate a report drawn in accordance with the monitoring 
plan, for the first time by 1 June 2024 and, thereafter, every 12 months. The provided 
document corresponds to this first monitoring report. 

The report describes the administrative controls and the scientific monitoring carried out 
during the fishing season 2023-2024 (catches, CPUEs, LFDs, activity of the fleet, economic 
value of catches, control inspections on board, maps with the haul position and catch). 
Results of the monitoring are also presented for the period 2001-2002 to 2023-2024, which 
provides an overview of the performance of this fishery and allows comparison of the current 
situation with previous fishing seasons.  

STECF comments 

In response to the ToRs, STECF has the following comments: 

Advise and assess whether the documents transmitted by Spain contain adequate elements 
in terms of: 

-  The description of the fisheries  

  Biological characteristics and state of the exploited resources with reference in 

particular to long-term yields.  

125 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The target species are transparent goby (Aphia minuta), Ferrer's goby (Pseudoaphia ferreri) 
and crystal goby (Cristalogobius linearis). By far, the main target species is transparent goby 
(around 80% of individuals). A total of 2 460 individuals from 41 samplings on board and port 
sampling were examined. Information on sizes, weight, life cycle and maturity are presented 
for the three species.  

  Description of the fishing pressure and measures to accomplish a sustainable 

exploitation of the main target stocks.  

STECF notes that no standard analytical stock assessment is available for gobies. 
Management is based on TACs (for fishing season and daily by vessel) and monthly CPUE 
threshold. The fishing season TAC (percentile 75%) was updated using all available data 
(2001-2023) and set to 18.0 tonnes, slightly lower than the previous one (18.2 tonnes). 

  Data on catches (landings and discards) of the species concerned, fishing effort 

and abundance indices such as catch-per-unit-effort (or CPUE).  

The fishing season of transparent goby lasts three months. Until 2023 the fishing season 
spanned from December to February; in the last fishing season 2023-2024 this period was 
slightly modified, from mid-December to mid-March. The target species is not discarded. By-
catch species are immediately returned to the sea and survival is reported to be high 
according to visual observations.  

Catch and CPUE (daily catch by vessel) data are presented for transparent goby by season 
and month from 2001-2002 to 2023-2024; and by individual vessel and month for the fishing 
season 2023-2024. CPUE (kg per haul) is also presented, by individual vessel, for the fishing 
season 2023-2024. 

The number of fishing licenses were 27 and of these, 23 vessels were active during 2023-
2024. Fishing can be carried out from Monday to Friday. These data allowed the comparison 
between the potential fishing days authorized and those effectively used, which was lower 
(the ratio fishing days/potential fishing days was 75% and 54% in months 1 and 2 of the 
fishing season, respectively). Fishing effort in March, the last month of the fishing season, 
was only 64 days because of the advancement of the closure when the season TAC was 
exhausted.   

  Catch composition in terms of size distribution, with particular reference to the 
percentage of catches of species subject to minimum sizes in accordance with 
Annex IX of Regulation (EU) 2019/1241.  

126 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Size distributions are presented for the three gobid species, for the fishing season 2023-2024 
and by month. 

The catch of species below minimum landing size is anecdotical (estimated to be in the 
fishing season 2023-2024 0.5% in weight) and most individuals are returned to sea alive. 

 

Information on the social and economic impact of the measures proposed.  

Information is provided in terms of catch and income for the fleet and by individual vessel. 
The income from landings in 2023-2024 was EUR 314 800 and the mean price was 17.6 
euro/kg. The mean price was lower than in previous years because of high catch of 
transparent goby and the higher presence of Ferrer's goby, which makes the price decrease 
(e.g. the previous season 2022-2023, with 8.14 tonnes landed, the mean price was 37.7 
euro/kg) The mean income by vessel was ca. EUR 13 500, and income from landings by 
fishing day was estimated at 648 euro/vessel. The income from transparent goby represents 
25% of the total income of the vessels that fish transparent goby.  

  Potential impact of the fishing gear on the marine environment with particular 
interest on protected habitats (i.e., seagrass bed, coralligenous habitat and 
maërl bed). 

A total of 14 hauls were examined to assess the impact of the gear on the bottom. The 
presence of sediment, stones, algae, Posidonia oceanica and sessile organisms was 
checked. Sessile and benthic organisms, as well as sediments remains or stones were not 
observed. Dead Posidonia leaves, with signs that they were dead days in advance the fishing 
operation (black, in state of decomposition) appeared in two hauls, its presence reported to 
be consequence of currents during the sampling, not of the fishing operation. According to 
these results, the impact on the bottom is minimal, in particular over Posidonia oceanica 
meadows. 

-  Objectives, safeguards and conservation/technical measures 

  Objectives that are consistent with the objectives set out in Article 2 and with 
the relevant provisions of Articles 6 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 and 
quantifiable targets, such as fishing mortality rates and total biomass.  

127 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The fishery is managed by TACs, for the season (18.0 tonnes until 1st March 2026), and daily 
TACs by vessel (40 kg for vessels with two fishers and 50 kg for vessels with three fishers). 
STECF notes that the daily TAC by vessel was increased at the request of the fishing sector, 
due to the increase in costs (previous daily limits were 35 and 45 kg for vessels with 2 and 3 
fishers, respectively). 

The percentile 25% of the CPUE (kg/day/vessel) calculated over 2013-2014 to 2022-2023 is 
taken as indicator of the status of the resource. It has been set to 18.5 kg/day/vessel. In case 
this threshold is not reached the fishing activity during the week will be reduced by one day 
the following month. In case this minimum threshold is not reached, the fishery will close. In 
2023-2024 mean CPUE was 27.6 (kg/fishing days). 

Two main reproduction periods have been observed, in spring and autumn. The timing of the 
fishing season, three months from mid-December to mid-March, allows transparent goby to 
reproduce without fishing activity part of spring and in autumn. 

In addition, a new safeguard measure has been introduced. When transparent goby mature 
females with eggs represent more than 50% of adult females the fishery will close.  

  Objectives for conservation and technical measures to be taken in order to 

achieve the targets set out in Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013, and 
measures designed to avoid and reduce, as far as possible, unwanted catches.  

The fishing gear is very selective. Good practices on board allow high survival of by-catch 
species. By-catch species with MCRS represented 0.003% in number and 0.52% in weight. 

  Measures proportionate to the objectives, the targets and the expected time 

frame. 

The fishery is managed at a monthly scale. Fishing effort reduction and closure of the fishery 
are foreseen when the defined CPUE thresholds are not met. The fishery is also closed when 
the season TAC has been exhausted, as it was the case in the season 2023-2024.  

  Safeguards to ensure that quantifiable targets are met, as well as remedial 

actions, where needed, including situations where the deteriorating quality of 
data or non-availability places the sustainability of the main stocks of the fishery 
at risk.  

When the safeguards thresholds are not reached (CPUE 18.5 kg/day/vessel) fishing effort 
reduction will be implemented the following month (fishing 4 days a week); and in case the 
threshold is still not reached, the fishery will close. When the season TAC (18.0 tonnes) is 
exhausted, the fishery will close. This measure was applied in 2023-2024. The quality of data 
is good. 

128 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  Other conservation measures, in particular measures to gradually eliminate 

discards, taking into account the best available scientific advice or to minimise 
the negative impact of fishing on the ecosystem. 

STECF notes that discards are very low.According to the sampling of 14 hauls examined to 
estimate by-catch and discards, discards represented 1.16 % of the catch in weight and 
0.007 in number. The fishing gear is very selective, gobies represented 95% of the catch in 
2023-2024, and its impact on the bottom is negligible.  

-  Other aspects 

  Quantifiable indicators for periodic monitoring and assessment of progress in 

achieving the objectives of a management plan. 

As noted by STECF-PLEN-23-01, because of the very short life span of transparent goby, 
empirical in-season management measures are used to set catch limits, which are set based 
on a catch per unit effort (CPUE) index. This CPUE index is considered to be influenced by 
environmental conditions which are likely to drive fluctuations in CPUE. It is shown in the 
information provided to STECF that high temperature in December (start of the fishing 
season) condition low recruitment or, at least, temporal variation of recruitment. STECF-
PLEN-23-01 suggested a periodic revision of this CPUE index. STECF notes that CPUE 
were updated with the available data series, from 2001 to 2023.  

-  Suggest additional recommendation to improve the monitoring of this fishery. 

STECF conclusions 

STECF concludes that the documentation provided reports appropriately on the fishing 
activity during the fishing season 2023-2024, control measures in force, characteristics of 
catches, income and impact on the environment. 

In the fishing season 2023-2024 the mean CPUE 27.6 kg/day/vessel was higher than the 
safeguard threshold (18.5 kg/day/vessel) and the fishery was closed in advance when the 
season TAC (18.0 tonnes) was exhausted, which would point to higher abundance of the 
resource in relation to the two previous seasons, when the fishery was closed in advance 
because the monthly CPUE was below the reference level. Therefore, STECF concludes that 
the management mechanisms have thus been applied appropriately, as agreed in the plan. 

129 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
References  

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/2230 of 25 October 2023 extending the 
derogation from Council Regulation (EC) No 1967/2006 as regards the minimum 
distance from the coast and depth granted to boat seines fishing for transparent goby 
(Aphia minuta) within the Spanish territorial waters of the Autonomous Community of the 
Region of Murcia. 

130 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
6.9 Follow-up of EWG 24-01: West Med MAP measures 

Background provided by the Commission:  

In adopting the Western Mediterranean Multiannual Management Plan (West Med MAP), 
Member States agreed to its objective of achieving Fmsy for all demersal stocks by 1 
January 2025 at the latest as well as to Article 11 that aims at protecting, in particular 
juveniles and spawners hake, via the adoption of closure areas on the basis of the best 
available scientific advice, where there is evidence of a high concentration of juvenile fish, 
below the minimum conservation reference size, and of spawning grounds of demersal 
stocks. STECF PLEN 23-01, STECF EWG 23-01 and STECF PLEN 23-02 are the latest 
reviews of the proposals of closures (placement and period) submitted by western 
Mediterranean Member States and looked at their efficiency to protect juveniles and 
spawners of hake.  

Since 2022, a compensation mechanism has been added to the trawling effort regime in the 
western Mediterranean multiannual plan. It rewards trawling vessels with additional fishing 
days when they adopt more sustainable fishing practices, such as efficient closure areas, 
change fishing gear for increased selectivity. STECF PLEN 23-01 looked at the information 
available during the first year of implementation of the compensation mechanism to review 
the mechanism’s criteria and their use by the concerned Member States.  

Background documents are published on: https://stecf.ec.europa.eu/meetings-calendar/past-
meetings  

Request to the STECF 

ToR1: Hake management measures to achieve and maintain MSY  

In view of the latest STECF assessments in particular on the state of hake stocks and of 
previous STECF analyses on closure areas, STECF is requested to review and identify 
possible new management measures that would be applicable to hake stocks in the western 
Mediterranean to support a rapid achievement of MSY.  These measures, should include, 
inter alia:  

a)  Management of the fishing mortality stemming from fixed gear (GNS, GTR, LLS) 

targeting adults of hake via either effort control or a catch limit. Due consideration and 
advice should be provided to improve the partial F estimation in EMU 1 in particular. 
b)  Identification of clear bathymetries and periods where targeted closures would ensure 
a decrease in fishing mortality and/or catches of age class 0-1 in the order of 15%. 

c)  Increase in mesh size to 45mm square in the codend or other gear technical 

measures. 

d)  Other management measures to be identified by STECF. 

131 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Along the same lines, STECF is requested to identify possible remedial measures for 
situations where the hake stock requires the activation of safeguard measures stemming 
from Art 6 of the West Med MAP.  

ToR2: STECF is requested to identify possible remedial measures for stocks currently 
assessed having an SSB below Blim or Bpa and thus requiring the activation of safeguard 
measures stemming from Art 6 of the West Med MAP.   

Some measures identified under ToR 1-2 could be candidates for further quantitative testing 
in EWG 24-12. 

ToR3: Assessment of the compensation mechanism  

STECF is requested to review all the criteria used under the compensation mechanism since 
2022, evaluate the potential impact/effectiveness.  The Mediterranean Fishing Opportunities 
for 2024 includes a fully-fledge article with 12 criteria for the compensation criteria. Building 
on the evaluation from STECF EWG 23-01, STECF could provide insight on all the existing 
criteria. 

Summary of the information provided to STECF  

STECF was not provided with any specific background documents for this ToR. Instead, DG 
MARE proposed STECF to use the backgrounds documents provided for STECF PLEN-23-
02. These include:  

  Background documents for ToR 6.5: the reports of the ad-hoc contracts STECF 2301 
and STECF 2302 and the report of STECF ref STECF2345_STECF2346 (two reports 
based on four ad-hoc contracts) that describe the production of maps of densities for 
different species targeted by the WestMed MAP. Those maps were based on species 
distribution models fitted on MEDITS survey data, consistently with the MediSeH 
project.  

  Background documents for ToR 6.6: these include 4 reports detailing protocols to 
monitor the effect of closure areas as well as first results on the recovery of the 
benthic community, spill-over effect, fishing effort redistribution. A report entitled 
“Establishment of reference conditions” that summarises an underwater video survey 
carried out in the context of the ECOREST project.  

  Background documents for ToR 6.7: Fishing effort data per year, GSA, country, gear 

and vessel-length.  

132 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
STECF comments   

ToR1: Hake management measures to achieve and maintain MSY  

a) Management of the fishing mortality stemming from fixed gear (GNS, GTR, LLS) targeting 
adults of hake via either effort control or a catch limit. Due consideration and advice should 
be provided to improve the partial F estimation in EMU 1 in particular.  

STECF observes that fixed gears account for a small proportion of total hake landings 
compared to other gears for the hake stock HKE_1_5_6_7 in EMU1 (Fig 6.9.1 - Tab 6.9.1). 
As such STECF considers that, while any measures to reduce fishing mortality is positive 
given the critical status of the two European hake stocks, their impacts would be limited in 
EMU1. STECF further notes that the contribution of fixed gears in total landings is much 
more important for the hake stock in EMU 2 (Figure 6.9.2) and that, in this context, remedial 
measures related to fixed gears are likely to have more effect.   

STECF reiterates that STECF PLEN 23-02 highlighted the difficulty to determine a fishing 
effort baseline for those fishing gears as the available fishing effort data are not necessarily 
good indicators of the effective fishing pressure generated by those gears. This has already 
been highlighted for longliners during STECF PLEN 22-03. This is visible in the absence of 
relationship in almost all GSA between partial fishing mortality and fishing effort (STECF 
EWG 23-11). Given these difficulties in effort measurement and given that fixed gear 
fisheries are more selective than active gears, catch limits could be an option for those 
fisheries to reduce the overall fishing pressure on hake stocks. This would imply 
implementing two different systems (effort limit and catch limit) for the same species 
depending on the fishing gear used. STECF considers that a possible solution could be to 
carry out short-term forecasts at target fishing mortality, estimate corresponding catch and 
then use partial fishing mortality to estimate catch for fixed gears and suitable level of fishing 
effort for trawlers.  

Regarding the estimation of partial fishing mortality, STECF observes that length frequency 
data of landings are not available for set nets and demersal longlines in GSA 1 and 5, 
impairing the reconstruction of landings-at-age and subsequently of partial fishing mortality 
(see section 3.1.2 in STECF EWG 23-11) in those two GSA. STECF also observes that fixed 
gears have a very different selection pattern (e.g. in GSA 6 in 2021, mean length of landings 
was 23.4 cm for OTB, 50.3 cm for LLS, 38.5 cm for GNS and 37.8 cm for GTR, based on 
data used by STECF EWG 23-09), and that the length classes targeted by fixed gears are 
poorly monitored by the MEDITS survey. As such, STECF considers that while some 
assumptions can be made with respect to the selectivity to reconstruct catch-at-age matrices 
for those gears in those two GSAs, there will be few data to check their reliability.   

STECF notes that length-frequency data for those gears are available in the other two GSAs 
of EMU 1, namely GSA 6 and 7. With those data, STECF EWG 24-12 could estimate partial 

133 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
fishing mortality related to fixed gears in those two GSAs (see section 3.2.2.1 in STECF 
EWG 23-11). As the landings in GSA 1 and 5 are small compared to landings in GSA 6 and 7 
(figure 6.9.1), and as landings by fixed gears are very small in those two GSAs (1 and 5), 
STECF considers that missing partial fishing mortality in GSA 1 and 5 is not an issue when 
assessing the mortality due to fixed gears in EMU1.   

Figure 6.9.1. Reported hake landings per gear and GSA (FDI landings data).  

 Source: EWG-24-01, FDI data calls and own elaboration. 

134 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
   
 
 
Table 6.9.1. Minimum and maximum yearly percentage of hake total landings harvested by fixed nets 
over the period 2013-2022 according to FDI landings data.  

stock  

GNS  

GTR  

LLS  

HKE_1_5_6_7  

3.1%-9.1%  

0.7%-3.4%  

0.5%-3.5%  

HKE_8_9_10_11  

16.5%-30.8%  

5.6%-19.2%  

5.5%-15.5%  

 Source: EWG-24-01, FDI data calls and own elaboration. 

Figure 6.9.2. Partial fishing mortality of hakes in EMU 2 estimated by STECF EWG 23-11.  

 Source: EWG-23-11. 

135 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
b) Identification of clear bathymetries and periods where targeted closures would ensure a 
decrease in fishing mortality and/or catches of age class 0-1 in the order of 15%.  

STECF observes that the species distribution models developed by ad-hoc contracts STECF 
2301, STECF 2302 and STECF 2345_STECF 2346, included a depth effect as predictors of 
hake juvenile density. However, while the depth effect was significant in both delta 
(probability of presence/absence) and positive (density in case of presence) submodels in the 
Sardinian area, it was kept only in the presence/absence model in EMU 1 and in the 
Tyrrhenian area. STECF notes that those models also include a slope effect that was 
significant in both delta and positive submodels in EMU1 and Tyrrhenian Sea and in the 
presence/absence submodel in Sardinia area. The models allowed to identify hotspots that 
can be used to propose closure areas (figure 6.9.3), as done by STECF EWG 23-01, or in a 
similar approach by Ortega et al. (2023).  

Figure 6.9.3. Hot spot (defined as zone of high concentration that are persistent through years) of 
hake juveniles density.   

 Source: ad-hoc contract (Ref STECF 23-01 and STECF 23-02). 

The SDM model can be used to have a more precise view of the relationship between depth 
and hake density (figure 6.9.4). It shows that highest densities are found between 50 m and 
300 m. STECF reminds that slope was another important complementary predictor of density, 
and that therefore, it might be an additional criterion to look at when proposing closure area.  

136 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
  
  
 
 
Figure 6.9.4. Marginal effects of depth of the SDM models that show how probability of presence (left 
column) and density in case of presence (right column) vary with depth when all other predictors are 
kept at their mean values in Sardinia (first row), Tyrrhenian area (second row) and EMU 1 (third row).  

137 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
 Source: EWG-24-01 and own elaboration. 

However, STECF observes that those models and maps were based on MEDITS data which 
are collected during a single season, as such they cannot necessarily be used for other 
seasons. An analysis of length-frequency composition of landings of commercial landings 
might be relevant to detect the most critical seasons.  

STECF observes that Blanco et al. (2023) have analysed how discard rates and length 
frequency of catches vary among bathymetry strata and seasons in the bottom trawl fishery 
in GSA6. They do not display species specific variations in discard rate in their article, 
however, it shows that while the European hake was an important contributor of total 
discards in spring and summer in shallow waters (20-70m) and in spring, summer and fall on 
the continental shelf (70-200m), it was not an important part of the discarded fraction in the 
upper slope (200-400) and lower slope (400-700). It also shows that the L50 of discard 
probability (i.e. length at which there is a 50% probability of being discarded by commercial 
fishermen) is 17 cm, below the MCRS (20 cm).  

Also, in GSA6, ICATMAR have analysed the spatial distribution of commercial LPUE of hake 
in the bottom trawl fishery and the length frequency of landings and discards at different 
depth strata (Institut Català de Recerca per a la Governança del Mar (ICATMAR), 2023a). 
There is no obvious bathymetric pattern in LPUE across the continental shelf (Figure 21 in 
(Institut Català de Recerca per a la Governança del Mar (ICATMAR), 2023a)). However, 
analysis of length frequency of landings in discards per strata and month (Annex 11 in 
(Institut Català de Recerca per a la Governança del Mar (ICATMAR), 2023a)) suggests that 
most discards arise from bathymetry between 0 and 200 m from May to September. In this 
context, STECF considers that some closures at those bathymetries and over this period 
might be candidates for further remedial measures. Nevertheless, STECF considers that 
such fine scale measures can be difficult to test with a bioeconomic spatial simulation model, 
since results will be sensitive to assumptions regarding fish behaviour affecting spillover, and 
fishing activity redistribution.  

138 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
  
c) Increase in mesh size to 45 mm square in the codend or other gear technical measures.  
STECF reminds that a review of recent selectivity trials and length-at-maturity estimations for 
hake was carried out during STECF PLEN 22-03, but that no experiments had tested the 
45 mm mesh size at that time. ICATMAR (2021) tested such mesh size, showing a reduction 
of the retention in the codend of undersized hake (fig 3.6.5) and an increase of the L50 (Tab 
2) but that it remains below the MCRS (20 cm). They estimated that the negative impact of 
such a change on fleets’ valuable catches would be limited (short-term loss of income 
typically less than 4% for the coastal OTB fishery in GSA 6).  

Figure 3.6.5. Retention of hakes (retention is defined as the percentage of hakes that remain in the 
codend and is not able to escape). 

 Source: ICATMAR (2021).  

139 

 
 
 
 
 
 
   
 
 
 
  
Table 3.6.2. Selectivity parameters estimated by ICATMAR (2021).  

Codend mesh size (mm)  
40  

45  

All hauls  
Hauls < 150 m  
Hauls in recruitment depth range (<150-250m)  
All hauls  
Hauls < 150 m  
Hauls in recruitment depth range (<150-250m)  

L50 (cm)   SR (cm)  
13.6  
14.3  
13  
16.8  
16.9  
16.6  

1.9  
1.6  
2.8  
1.8  
1.8  
1.6  

Source: ICATMAR (2021). 

Those results have recently been confirmed by Bahamon et al. (2024) in GSA 5 and GSA 6. 
Overall, it suggests that an increase in mesh size could lead to a significant reduction of 
discards. However, STECF also reminds that under scenarios tested by STECF EWG 23-11, 
MSY for all species was not achieved with selectivity improvement only.  

d) Other management measures to be identified by STECF.  

STECF observes that bottom trawlers account for the largest part of hake catches; given the 
critical status of the stocks, reducing the fishing mortality due to those gears would be 
required to achieve Fmsy in the short term. Scenarios tested during STECF EWG 23-11 
showed that a large decrease of fishing effort was required to achieve Fmsy in the short term, 
but with drastic socio-economic consequences. While changes in selectivity (e.g. SM45mm) 
could effectively reduce discard of juveniles (Institut Català de Recerca per a la Governança 
del Mar (ICATMAR), 2021; Bahamon et al., 2024), they would not allow reaching Fmsy 
according to STECF EWG 23-11 on their own. Recently, additional gear modifications have 
been tested (rigid device in the gear, T90 mesh) but with limited effect on the selectivity 
(Sbrana et al., 2022; Herrmann et al., 2024). Potentially, closures areas from May to 
September in depth from 0-200m could also be a way to reduce the catch of undersized 
hakes.  

ToR2: STECF is requested to identify possible remedial measures for stocks currently 
assessed having an SSB below Blim or Bpa and thus requiring the activation of safeguard 
measures stemming from Art 6 of the West Med MAP.   

STECF observes that the following stocks would require the activation of safeguard 
measures according to latest stock assessments (STECF EWG 23-09):  

  below Blim: hake in GSA 1_5_6_7, Norway lobster in GSA 6, hake in GSA 

8_9_10_11  

  below Bpa: red mullet in GSA 1, red mullet in GSA 6, blue and red shrimps in GSA 5, 

blue and red shrimps in GSA 6_7  

140 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
STECF notes that Article 6 of the West Med MAP states that for stocks below Bpa: “In 
particular, notwithstanding Article 4(3), maximum allowable fishing effort shall be set at levels 
consistent with a fishing mortality that is reduced within the range of FMSY”, while for stock 
below Blim: “In particular, notwithstanding Article 4(3), such remedial measures may include 
suspending the targeted fishery for the stocks concerned and the adequate reduction of the 
maximum allowable fishing effort”. STECF further notes that the West Med MAP also lists 
possible remedial measures in articles 7, 8, 11 and 14, consisting in further fishing effort 
regulation, measures on recreational fisheries, closure areas as well as measures related to 
the landing obligation. The West Med MAP also states that “emergency measures in 
accordance with Articles 12 and 13 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013” could be taken. Those 
two articles state that emergency measures should be taken in “on duly justified imperative 
grounds of emergency relating to a serious threat to the conservation of marine biological 
resources or to the marine ecosystem based on evidence”.   

Regarding the European hake, different measures have been explored and tested in different 
STECF EWGs, including different set of closures, compensation mechanism or selectivity 
improvements. STECF notes that the tests carried out during STECF EWG 23-11 showed 
that Fmsy was achieved only with scenarios that included a drastic reduction of fishing effort. 
STECF also reminds that in EMU2, fixed gears account for a significant part of the landings 
and that catch limits can be seen as an option, and that closures from May to September in 
depth below 200 m can potentially reduce the catch of undersized hakes. The use of 
SM50mm codend could also be a method to reduce discards of undersized hakes. See 
previous section for further details.  

Regarding Norway lobster, STECF notes that the current MCRS is below length-at-first 
maturity (STECF PLEN 22-02), that discard survival of the species is rather good though 
variable among seasons (García-De-Vinuesa et al., 2020 – 74% in winter and only 6% in 
summer) and can be optimised with good practices (Mérillet et al., 2018). As such, STECF 
suggests that increasing the MCRS to 25mm CL (20mmCL now), even with no change in the 
gear, could be a remedial measure to test since it will have a limited impacts on other species 
provided that undersized Norway lobsters are discarded (the stock is under a survivability 
exemption to the landing obligation all year round for pots and traps, from January to June 
and September to December for trawlers – Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 
2021/2066).  

Regarding red mullets, the species is harvested by a mixed fishery that also target hake. 
Since hake stocks are in a worse condition, any effort reduction to protect hakes should 
deliver positive outcomes for red mullet as demonstrated by scenario tested during STECF 
EWG 23-11.  

Regarding blue and red shrimp, STECF 23-01 has shown that the use of a 50mm codend 
would significantly reduce the catch of shrimps under 25mm, but a quantification of the final 
effect on the stock still needs to be carried out. The implementation of MCRS might be tested 

141 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
but would result in economic loss for the fisheries and possibly side effects for other species. 
STECF observes that the distribution of the species extends to 3000m depth, areas for which 
data are scarce. As such, STECF considers that modelling and simulating the dynamics of 
the species is complex and uncertain.  

More generally, STECF points out that biological knowledge (displacement of fishes, 
migration) and fishery data with appropriate temporal and spatial coverage and resolution are 
missing which prevents proposing and designing new remedial measures. In that sense, the 
availability of VMS data would be a valuable addition.  

ToR3: Assessment of the compensation mechanism   

STECF observes that seven criteria defined in the Council Regulation (EU) 2024/259 are 
strictly similar to the ones defined in the Council Regulation (EU) EU) 2023/195 which were 
reviewed by STECF EWG 23-01. STECF did not find any new scientific information related to 
those criteria, except for criterion “a) vessel uses a trawl net with a 45 mm square mesh 
codend in order to reduce by at least 25 % catches of the juveniles of hake” for which more 
recent studies in GSA 6 have highlighted possible positive outcomes (Bahamon et al., 2024).  

STECF observes that criterion “(e) the Member State concerned has adopted a new 
minimum conservation reference size for hake of at least 26 cm, and has secured the 
enforcement of appropriate technical measures to comply with this minimum conservation 
reference size, in order to progressively reach the length at first maturity and improve hake 
stocks status” is a revised version of previous criterion, with the addition of the italicised part. 
This addition answers to the concerns of STECF EWG 23-01 which had noted that the 
previous version was missing a reference to any technical measures and therefore, would 
have only led to an increase of the discarded fraction.  

STECF notes that the Regulation defines six new criteria:  

 

(f) the Member State concerned has adopted a new minimum conservation reference 
size for blue and red shrimp of at least 25 mm CL and for giant red shrimp of at least 
35 mm CL, and has secured the enforcement of appropriate technical measures to 
comply with those minimum conservation reference sizes, in order to progressively 
reach the length at first maturity and improve stock status;  

STECF observes that the proposed MCRS are in line with the L50 of the maturity ogive 
estimated by the ad-hoc contract in support of STECF PLEN 22-02. Indeed, while there is 
currently no MCRS enforced for blue and red shrimp and giant red shrimp, the ad-hoc 
contract suggested L50 between respectively 25-30mm CL and 35-40 mm CL.  

However, STECF notes that ICATMAR (2021) has assessed the impact of the use of SM50 
on blue and red shrimps. Results show that while such a gear would decrease the retention 

142 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
and had limited economic impact (less than 5%), but the L50 would remain below the 25 mm 
MCRS except during the recruitment season (23.4 mm all hauls, 26.2 mm during the 
recruitment season). STECF EWG 23-01 had simulated the effect of the use of such a gear, 
showing a significant reduction of catch of shrimp below 25 mm. STECF has not found any 
selectivity trials for the giant red shrimp. In view of this, STECF is not sure that the 
implementation of an MCRS would not lead to an increase of the discard fraction. Moreover, 
STECF supports the concern of STECF EWG 23-01, i.e shrimp fishery in EMU2 is a mixed 
fishery where vessels targeting blue and red shrimp also target giant red shrimp so that, in 
practice, it does not justified to have two different MCRS.   

 

(h) the Member State concerned has set a closure for fishing activities using twin 
trawlers;  

STECF observes that twin trawlers are mostly limited to the French fleet in GSA 7 where it 
accounts for 22% landings of hake (yearly average based on FDI data from 2013 to 2022). 
As such, STECF considers that a possible effect of this criteria is limited to this GSA. STECF 
observes that the criterion does not specify the type of closures (temporal or temporary) nor 
any objectives, and as such Member States could potentially propose ineffective measures. 
STECF also observes that this criterion could be analysed using the bio-economic simulation 
models. STECF EWG 23-01 reminded that EWG 22-01 had estimated that closure areas in 
GSA 7 already cover about 30% of overall trawlable area, that if further reductions in F are 
needed this would be better addressed with other management measures.  

 

(i) the Member State concerned has set a closure for fishing activity with trawlers at a 
depth higher than 800 m;  

STECF observes that such closure would affect deep-water trawling. STECF notes that this 
fishery is mainly occurring in depth lower than 800m (FAO, 2016; Maiorano et al., 2022) 
though it can extend till 900m (STECF EWG 22-09). ICATMAR (2023c) has discussed the 
potential impact of an extension of the 1000-m FRA to 800 m in GSA 6. It concluded that 
impact on landings would be limited and should rather be seen as “a precautionary measure 
to deter eventual advances in fishing technology to fish deeper”. STECF suspects that the 
same conclusion would also apply to other GSAs.  

STECF also notes that data below 800m are scarce (for example, MEDITS do not cover area 
below 800 m), likely impairing an assessment of the measures (typically, the SMART model 
used by STECF EWG 23-11 does not cover areas below 800m).  

STECF observes that, as currently written, the criterion does not specify any duration, 
minimum surface or objectives and that, as such ineffective measures could potentially be 
proposed .  

143 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 

(j) the Member State concerned has established permanent closure areas in order to 
reduce by at least 25 % catches of juveniles of all demersal species or by at least 20 
% catches of spawners of all demersal species;  

This criterion is similar to criterion d) except that it refers to “permanent closures” instead of 
“temporary closures” and is hence less constraining.  As such, STECF notes that there is no 
need to implement a permanent closure to be granted with the compensatory fishing days 
and this criterion can be seen as a specific subcase of criterion d). STECF also reminds that 
the report of ICATMAR (2023b) showed that permanent closures can have more impact than 
seasonal closures to reduce total fishing effort in the closure area. This was also highlighted 
by STECF 23-01.  

 

(k) the vessel uses a trawl with flying or mid-waters doors or other doors which reduce 
the contact of the doors and the gear with the seabed, to preserve the essential fish 
habitats of the demersal species;  

STECF observes that this criterion has another objective (i.e. protection of habitats) 
compared to other criteria, which is not consistent with the initial aim of compensation 
mechanism which according to the point 29 in Council Regulation (EU) 2024/259 is “to 
promote the use of selective gears and to establish efficient closure areas to protect juveniles 
and spawners”.  STECF notes that it might be difficult to monitor and assess the relative 
contribution of such a large diversity of criteria with respect to the achievement of the West 
Med MAP target of an exploitation of stocks within the range of FMSY.  

STECF reminds that the negative impact of trawl doors on benthic habitat is well documented 
(Hiddink et al., 2006; Juan et al., 2007; Hinz et al., 2009). Some technical modifications have 
been proposed to reduce the contact and impact of doors on ground (Rijnsdorp et al., 2020; 
Sala et al., 2023; Bastardie, 2024). STECF notes that modified doors have been tested in the 
Catalan bottom trawl fishery and that video monitoring suggest an effective reduction of 
impacts (Institut Català de Recerca per a la Governança del Mar (ICATMAR), 2023c). 
However, STECF is not able to assess the potential effects of generalising the use of such 
gears on the different stocks. Moreover, those effects are likely to depend on the biology of 
the species.   

 

(l) the Member State concerned has set a closure period of at least four continuous 
weeks for fishing activities with trawlers in the areas and periods recognised as 
important, on the basis of the best available scientific advice, for the protection of blue 
and red shrimp and/or giant red shrimp.  

STECF observes that there is no strong seasonality in the landings of blue and red shrimp 
(Table 6.9.3) and as such, it might be difficult to find an appropriate season for closures.  

144 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Table 6.9.3. Average percentages of total yearly landings arising from the different quarters. The 
average was computed based on FDI data over the period 2013-2022.  

stock  

ARA_1_2  

ARA_5  

ARA_6_7  

ARA_8_9_10_11  

Quarter 1   Quarter 2   Quarter 3   Quarter 4  

13.3  

21.2  

18.2  

19.5  

26.1  

30.5  

29.4  

31.8  

42.2  

29.2  

32  

34  

18.4  

19  

20.3  

14.7  

Source: FDI data and own elaboration.  

STECF observes that France and Spain used the compensation mechanism in 2022 and 
2023 while Italy made a request for it in 2023 but did not use the additional days (European 
Commission 2024a,b).   

Criterion d) (“the Member State concerned has established temporary closure areas in order 
to reduce by at least 25 % catches of juveniles of all demersal species or by at least 20 % 
catches of spawners of all demersal species”) was the most frequently used criterion 
(European Commission 2024a,b). Regarding this specific criterion, STECF EWG 23-01 
pointed out that currently available data does not allow to assess whether implemented 
closure areas have achieved their objectives of catch reduction. However, STECF EWG 23-
01 observed an effective modification in the spatial distribution of fishing effort and Certain 
and Billet (2023) observed an effective reduction of the capture of juveniles following the 
implementation of two closures in the Gulf of Lion.   

Criteria b) (“the vessel uses a trawl net with a 50 mm square-mesh codend for deep-water 
fisheries in order to reduce by at least 25 % catches of blue and red shrimps with a carapace 
length (CL) of less than 25 mm in geographical subareas 1, 2, 5, 6,7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 and to 
reduce by at least 25 % catches of giant red shrimps with a CL of less than 35 mm in the 
geographical subareas 8, 9, 10 and 11”) and criterion f) (“the Member State concerned has 
set a closure of at least four continuous weeks for fishing activities with trawlers in the areas 
and periods recognised as important, on the basis of the best available scientific advice, for 
the protection of spawners of hake stocks. Such areas shall also account for spatial patterns 
of spawners’ distribution, including depths from 150 m to 500 m. The periods of the 
temporary fishing closure shall be from February to March and from October to November.”) 
have also been used by Spain in 2023 and 2024 (European Commission 2024a,b). While for 
criterion b), STECF EWG 23-01 was in position to simulate and to validate that the change in 
mesh size is likely to achieve the objective of catch reduction of small shrimps, it was not 
possible to assess the overall effect on the stock dynamics. For criterion f), STECF reiterates 
the concern of STECF EWG 23-01 that the design of implemented closures (closure areas 
alternate spatially) is likely to limit the total effort reduction. Moreover, those implemented 
closures areas covered periods not covered by MEDITS limiting the data to assess their 
potential effects.   

145 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
  
  
  
In 2024, criteria a) (“vessel uses a trawl net with a 45 mm square-mesh codend in order to 
reduce by at least 25 % catches of the juveniles of hake”), b), d), g) (same as previous 
criterion f), i) and k) have been used by Spain (European Commission 2024a,b). STECF 
considers that the results provided by Bahamon et al. (2024) suggests that criterion a is likely 
to achieve its objective of catch of undersized hake reduction, but that the effect on stock 
dynamics still needs to be tested. On the other hand, STECF observes that it is not possible 
to assess the effect of criterion i) (see previous comment) and that criterion k) is not directly 
related to the protection of species.   

STECF also observes that the number of compensated days has progressively increased 
through years (244 days in EMU1 in 2022, 4724 in EMU1 in 2023, 6688 in EMU1 in 2024, 
Italy has requested but not used compensation mechanism only in 2023 - European 
Commission 2024a,b). Those compensated days can significantly increase the total amount 
of effective fishing days. For example, French trawlers in fishing effort group 
EFF1/MED1_TR3 and EFF1/MED1_TR4 had an initial quota of 7602 fishing days in 2024 
(Council Regulation (EU) 2024/259) and received 770 (i.e. 7% increase compared to the 
2024 7602-days quota) in compensation. STECF stress that compensation mechanism might 
impair the general objective of fishing effort reduction while delivering effects that cannot be 
assessed.  

STECF conclusions   

ToR1: Hake management measures to achieve and maintain MSY  

STECF concludes that, considering the status of hake stocks, any reductions of fishing 
mortality are positive, additional remedial measures on fixed gears are more likely to have an 
effect in EMU2 than in EMU1. STECF considers that catch limits might be better suited than 
effort limits for fixed gears.  

STECF concludes that the lack of length-frequency data from gillnets and longlines in GSA1 
and GSA5 does not impair the estimation of partial fishing mortality at the stock level given 
their very limited contribution to total catches.  

STECF concludes that the effect of closure areas below 200m from May to September to 
protect age 0 and 1 hake could be tested as eventhough hake are widespread along the 
whole continental shelf, discards in GSA 6 seem to mainly occur in those period and 
bathymetries.  

STECF concludes that the use of 45mm SM codend could reduce the catch of undersized 
juveniles of hake.  

146 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
  
ToR2: STECF is requested to identify possible remedial measures for stocks currently 
assessed having an SSB below Blim or Bpa and thus requiring the activation of safeguard 
measures stemming from Art 6 of the West Med MAP.  

For hake, STECF concludes that many measures have been proposed and tested and that 
only a strong reduction in fishing effort would ensure achieving the West Med MAP objective. 
This fishing effort reduction would also benefit red mullet stocks that are under safeguards 
measures conditions.  

STECF concludes that increasing the MCRS for Norway lobster could be tested. Considering 
that the species is under a landing obligation exemption, discarded individuals could benefit 
the stock given their high survivability.  

The lack of biological knowledge and fishery data with sufficient temporal and spatial 
coverage and resolution prevents STECF to propose, design and test new remedial 
measures.  

ToR3: Assessment of the compensation mechanism  

STECF concludes that the modification made to “criterion e” clarifies its objective.  

STECF concludes that ideally, the effect of any compensation measures on stock biomasses 
and landings should be tested with simulation models. Such simulations critically depend on 
the availability of data with appropriate spatial and temporal resolution (e.g. VMS data 
alongside landings, survey data below 800m) consistent with fine spatio-temporal closures to 
be tested. Moreover, STECF reminds that the smaller the spatial and/or temporal coverage of 
closure areas, the more sensitive the results become to model assumptions about the 
redistribution of species and fishing effort.  

Table 6.9.4 summarises STECF comments and conclusions on each compensation 
mechanism.  

Table 6.9.4. Main STECF comments for each compensation mechanism criterion defined in Council 
Regulation (EU) 2024/259.  

criterion   STECF conclusions/comments  

(a)  

(b)  

(c)  

Evidence suggests that the reduction of catches might be achieved (Bahamon et al., 2024), effect 
on the stock could be tested by simulations.  
Evidence suggests that the reduction of catches might be achieved (STECF EWG 23-01), effect 
on the stock could be tested by simulations. Effect of selectivity improvement on deep-water 
trawler was tested by STECF EWG 23-11, with limited outcomes compared to effort reduction.  
Evidence suggests that it would have effects mainly on European hake (STECF PLEN 22-03). 
Effects on stock biomass and catches can potentially be simulated provided selection curves data 
are available.  

147 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
  
  
(d)  

(e)  
(f)  

(g)  

(h)  

(i)  

(j)  

(k)  
(l)  

Theoretically, the effects can be tested with spatial simulation models (currently ISIS-Fish in 
EMU1 but only for hake, SMART in EMU 2 though parametrisation might take time). Scenario 
already tested in previous EWG had never achieved the criterion objective. The smaller the spatial 
and/or temporal coverage of closure areas, the more sensitive the results become to model 
assumptions about the redistribution of species and fishing effort.  
see criterion a  
Having two different MCRS for the two species might be difficult to implement. Effect of selectivity 
improvement on deep-water trawler was tested by STECF EWG 23-11, with limited outcomes 
compared to effort reduction.  
There is no evidence of hake spawner aggregation (STECF PLEN 22-03). STECF EWG 23-01 
noted about the closure areas implemented in Spain that “the closed period alternate spatially so 
that effort reallocation is likely to occur from closed towards adjacent open areas, at least partially 
limiting the total effort reduction”. Effect can theoretically be simulated with spatial models, but 
results will likely be sensitive to assumptions on fish movement and effort redistribution  
Possible effects are expected mostly in GSA7 where 30% of trawlable area is already closed. The 
effect of such measure on stock biomass and catches could be tested by simulation however, the 
smaller the spatial and/or temporal coverage of closure areas, the more sensitive the results 
become to model assumptions about the redistribution of species and fishing effort. The criterion 
is not precise enough leaving to much flexibility to Member States.  
Data are scare in those areas (i.e. no MEDITS below 800m) impairing simulation of the effects. 
Given the limited fishing activity below 800m, this is more likely a safeguard to future technical. 
The criterion is not precise enough leaving to much flexibility to Member States.  
The achievement of the objective of the criterion and its impact on stock biomasses and catches 
could be tested by simulation, the smaller closure areas are, the more sensitive the results are to 
assumptions on fish movements and effort redistribution. This criterion is similar to criterion b, but 
more constraining for MS.  
The effect cannot be predicted and tested.  
The distribution areas of those species extend far beyond 800m, in depth where data are very 
scarce, and fishing activity limited. Implemented new closures areas below 800m is unlikely to 
have major effect. The effects will be difficult to predict  

Source: own elaborations. 

References  

Bahamon, N., Recasens, L., Sala-Coromina, J., Calero, B., Garcia, J. A., Rotllant, G., 

Maurer, A., et al. 2024. Selectivity-based management for reversing overexploitation of 
demersal fisheries in North-western Mediterranean Sea. Marine Policy, 165: 106185.  

Bastardie, F. 2024. Exploring the viability of innovative fishing technologies as an alternative 
to bottom trawling in European marine protected areas, an environmental and socio-
economic analysis. Panel for the Future of Science and Technology, PE 762.843. 
European Parliamentary Research Service.  

Blanco, M., Nos, D., Lombarte, A., Recasens, L., Company, J. B., and Galimany, E. 2023. 

Characterization of discards along a wide bathymetric range from a trawl fishery in the 
NW Mediterranean. Fisheries Research, 258: 106552.  

Certain, G., and Billet, N. 2023. Évaluation biologique et socio-économique du plan de 

gestion WestMed dans le Golfe du Lion. Rapport d’expertise Ifremer.  

148 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
European Commission. 2024a. Report from the Commission to the European Parliamant and 

the Council. First report on the implementation of the Multiannual Plan for the fisheries 
exploiting demersal stocks in the Western Mediterranean Sea. COM/2024/322 final  
European Commission. 2024b. Commission staff working document - Details of the report 

Accompanying the document Report from the Commission to the European Parliament 
and the Council First report on the implementation of the Multiannual Plan for the 
fisheries exploiting demersal stocks in the Western Mediterranean Sea. SWD/2024/195 
final  

FAO. 2016. FAO workshop on the management of deep-sea fisheries and vulnerable marine 

ecosystems in the Mediterranean. FIAF/ R1183. Rome.  

García-De-Vinuesa, A., Breen, M., Benoît, H. P., Maynou, F., and Demestre, M. 2020. 
Seasonal variation in the survival of discarded Nephrops norvegicus in a NW 
Mediterranean bottom-trawl fishery. Fisheries Research, 230: 105671.  

Herrmann, B., Bak-Jensen, Z., Sistiaga, M., Brinkhof, J., Larsen, R. B., Grimaldo, E., 

Cerbule, K., et al. 2024. Are rigid sorting devices necessary to control size selectivity in 
demersal trawl fisheries? Regional Studies in Marine Science, 72: 103445.  

Hiddink, J. G., Jennings, S., Kaiser, M. J., Queirós, A. M., Duplisea, D. E., and Piet, G. J. 

2006. Cumulative impacts of seabed trawl disturbance on benthic biomass, production, 
and species richness in different habitats. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic 
Sciences, 63: 721–736. NRC Research Press.  

Hinz, H., Prieto, V., and Kaiser, M. J. 2009. Trawl disturbance on benthic communities: 

chronic effects and experimental predictions. Ecological Applications, 19: 761–773.  

Institut Català de Recerca per a la Governança del Mar (ICATMAR). 2021. Size selectivity 

trials and the economic impact in GSA6 of increasing square mesh codend size from the 
actual 40mm to 45- and 50mm for coastal and deep-sea otter trawl fisheries, 
respectively. ICATMAR, 21-05.  

Institut Català de Recerca per a la Governança del Mar (ICATMAR). 2023a. State of fisheries 
in Catalonia 2022, Part 1: report on the monitoring of the commercial fishing fleet. 
ICATMAR, 23-07. Barcelona.  

Institut Català de Recerca per a la Governança del Mar (ICATMAR). 2023b. Fisheries 

advisory report for the Northern GSA 6. ICATMAR, 23-09. Barcelona.  

Institut Català de Recerca per a la Governança del Mar (ICATMAR). 2023c. Spatial WMMAP 
fishing closures effectiveness in GSA 6, Effort reduction, redistribution and spillover 
effect. ICATMAR, 23-06.  

Juan, S. de, Thrush, S. F., and Demestre, M. 2007. Functional changes as indicators of 
trawling disturbance on a benthic community located in a fishing ground (NW 
Mediterranean Sea). Marine Ecology Progress Series, 334: 117–129.  

Maiorano, P., Capezzuto, F., Carluccio, A., Calculli, C., Cipriano, G., Carlucci, R., Ricci, P., et 
al. 2022. Food from the Depths of the Mediterranean: The Role of Habitats, Changes in 
the Sea-Bottom Temperature and Fishing Pressure. Foods, 11: 1420. Multidisciplinary 
Digital Publishing Institute.  

Mérillet, L., Méhault, S., Rimaud, T., Piton, C., Morandeau, F., Morfin, M., and Kopp, D. 2018. 
Survivability of discarded Norway lobster in the bottom trawl fishery of the Bay of Biscay. 
Fisheries Research, 198: 24–30.  

149 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Ortega, M., Castro-Cadenas, M. D., Steenbeek, J., and Coll, M. 2023. Identifying and 
prioritizing demersal fisheries restricted areas based on combined ecological and 
fisheries criteria: The western Mediterranean. Marine Policy, 157: 105850.  

Rijnsdorp, A. D., Depestele, J., Eigaard, O. R., Hintzen, N. T., Ivanovic, A., Molenaar, P., 
O’Neill, F. G., et al. 2020. Mitigating seafloor disturbance of bottom trawl fisheries for 
North Sea sole Solea solea by replacing mechanical with electrical stimulation. PLOS 
ONE, 15: e0228528. Public Library of Science.  

Sala, A., Depestele, J., Gümüş, A., Laffargue, P., Nielsen, J. R., Polet, H., Smith, C. J., et al. 

2023. Technological innovations to reduce the impact of bottom gears on the seabed. 
Marine Policy, 157: 105861.  

Sbrana, M., De Carlo, F., Ligas, A., Massaro, A., Musumeci, C., Rossetti, I., Sartini, M., et al. 
2022. Testing experimental devices in the extension piece to increase the selectivity of 
bottom trawl in the Nw Mediterranean. Frontiers in Marine Science, 9. Frontiers. 
https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/marine-
science/articles/10.3389/fmars.2022.1017766/full (Accessed 2 July 2024). 

150 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
6.10 Review of the ad-hoc contracts to follow-up on STECF EWG 24-01 concerning 
quantification of aid measures for the fleets fishing under the West Med MAP 

Background provided by the Commission:  

Background documents are published on: https://stecf.ec.europa.eu/meetings-calendar/past-meetings  

Request to the STECF 

The STECF is requested to evaluate the results of the ad-hoc contract for EMU 2 -Italy and assess if the below 
TORs should be adjusted for EMU-1. 

TORs for this ad hoc contract:  

TOR 1: Provide an overview on the implementation of the crisis mechanism in the respective Member State. 
This should include the legal framework.  

TOR 2: Develop and populate a database with the available data on paid subsidies in the MS regarding the fleet 
segments used in the bio-economic models of the West Med Map evaluations (economic fleet segments, 
specific fleet segments in Italy).  

TOR 3: Provide an overview on the measures of temporal and permanent cessations in the MS. This should 
include an overview on payments already issued and planned funding in the future.  

TOR 4: Analyse AER data regarding operational subsidies for the time period 2012- 2022 in France, Italy and 
Spain. This information should reveal how the last years may have been different from the years before the 
COVID-19 crisis. This provided data overview should be specified by countries and fleet segments. 

STECF comments  

STECF observes that the results of the ad-hoc contract include: a) a report, b) an excel file 
with the subsidies paid from 2019 to 2024, by fleet segment, GSA and type of measure for 
the Italian fishing fleet and c) a folder with the legal acts reporting the list of beneficiaries for 
each administrative body and by type of measure.  

STECF notes that, as requested by TOR1, a detailed description of the different types of 
financial support measures is included in the report. In particular, STECF observes that in the 
period 2019-2024, the Italian fleet segments operating in the West Mediterranean Sea 
received operating subsidies in relation to: a) Mandatory temporary cessation of fishing 
activities funds (MTC), b) Temporary Cessation of fishing activities funds to mitigate the 
impact of the COVID‐19, outbreak (TC_Covid_19), c) Emergency Fund for Fishery and 
Aquaculture_Covid-19 (Fund_Covid-19), d) One-off compensation for measures to alleviate 
the consequences of Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine on fishing activities (Fund_ 
EU Ukraine crisis).  

STECF observes that for each type of measure, a summary sheet is presented to describe 
the measure, the financial support, the payment year and the calculation of the subsidy for 
each vessel. STECF notes that each type of financial support has different and very 

151 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
complicated eligibility requirements and procedures. Due to a lack of minimum requirements, 
some vessels may not be eligible to receive financial support. STECF also notes that 
different administrative bodies are involved in the verification of the eligibility criteria and in 
the payment process and that there is no centralized national database listing all the 
beneficiaries. In addition, the information available in the official documents is not reported by 
fleet segment, therefore it is necessary to associate to the beneficiary the identification 
number of the vessel (that is the Common Fleet Register (CFR) number) and then 
toassociate to each identified vessel the fleet segment, as defined in the DCF (prevalent 
fishing technique and vessel length).  

STECF observes that the contractor addressed TOR 2 by providing an excel spreadsheet 
with the list of payments made by year, fleet segments, GSA and type of measures. STECF 
also notes that this list has to be considered as partial because, for some administrative 
regions, data on the subsidies related to the Emergency Fund for Fishery and 
Aquaculture_Ukraine crisis are not yet available. Also, the year of payments is not available 
for all the interventions, therefore for certain type of subsidies and administrative regions 
some assumptions have been made to assign the payment year. Finally, STECF notes that 
data on fuel tax credits, established within the Fund_ EU Ukraine crisis, are not available and 
therefore they have not been included in the database.  

STECF notes that the contractor also provides an analysis of the available data on paid 
subsidies by fleet segments in the West Med area and type of measure. Form this analysis, 
STECF observes that in 2019-2024, operating subsidies for the fleet operating in GSA9, 10 
and 11 show a highly variable trend. STECF notes that a low incidence of operating 
subsidies on the total income is reported, but this incidence is calculated on the whole fleet, 
therefore including also vessels that did not receive any aid, because they did not fulfil the 
requirements or because the payment has not been finalized yet. The actual incidence of 
subsidies on individual vessels may therefore greatly.  

STECF observes that TOR 3 of the ad-hoc contract required to provide an overview on the 
measures of temporal and permanent cessations in the Member State. STECF observes that 
the permanent cessation of fishing activities was implemented in 2017 and payments were 
made in 2018 for a total of about EUR 70 million.  In 2024, a new permanent cessation 
measure will be launched under the new EMFAF. Temporary cessation of fishing activities is 
implemented year by year on the basis of the Italian National Management Plans drawn up 
on the basis of Article 19 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1967/2006.   

Finally, STECF observes that, in addition to the analysis of the 2019-2024 data provided, an 
additional analysis of operational subsidies data available in the AER database is presented 
by the contractor. STECF observes that the analysis covered the period 2013-2021, in line 
with the data available in the STECF dissemination page. STECF also observes that data 
presented in this TOR are not comparable with those presented in previous TORs because 
AER data refer to the whole Italian fleet and not to specific GSAs. From the analysis 
presented in the ad-hoc contract STECF notes that the trend of the operating subsidies is 
quite cyclical because the payment year is not the year of implementation of the measures 
implemented.This is particularly evident for the temporary cessation measure  where as the 

152 

 
 
 
 
 
 
deadline for structural funds approaches, there is an acceleration of payments (2007-2013 
EFF, 2014-2020 EMFF).  

STECF conclusions  

STECF concludes that the ad-hoc contract addressed all the TORs for the Italian fleet.  

STECF concludes that similar studies are required for other Member States (Spain and 
France) in EMU 1, to make the results by Member States fishing fleet comparable. STECF 
concludes that overall, the TORs adressed for the Italian fleet in EMU_2 are clear and could 
be applied also for a similar study in EMU_1. However, the TORs could be slightly improved 
by adding the periods to be covered that should be 2019-2024 in TORs 1 and 2, in line with 
the approach used in the ad-hoc contract for Italy. In addition, TOR 1 should include an 
overview of all the operating subsidies implemented and not only on the implementation of 
the crisis mechanism.  

STECF concludes that the same structure of the database should be used in any forthcoming 
ad-hoc contracts in order to facilitate the use of such data.  

STECF concludes that the complex eligibility requirements and procedures, along with a lack 
of comprehensive administrative process, hinder the proper and complete tracking of 
payments. STECF concludes that the database provided in the ad-hoc contract only includes 
payments already incurred, while financial supports that have been already assigned but not 
paid are not included yet. This may be relevant because, as reported in the report from the 
ad-hoc contract, there is an acceleration of payments as the deadline for structural funds 
approach.   

STECF concludes that incorporation of subsidies into predictive models is challenging 
because of two major exogenous events (COVID-19 and Ukraine war) that complicates 
predictability and effectiveness and also because of the high year-to-year variability of 
subsidies and related payments.   

STECF concludes that the qualitative and quantitative information provided by the ad-hoc 
contract should be scrutinized by the forthcoming EWG 24-12. This scrutiny should saim to 
identify specific types of financial support measures that could be included in the models, 
particularly those that are not linked to specific exogenous crises but are stable over time, 
such as payments for mandatory temporary cessation of fishing activities. Additionally, the 
results may be used to assess the actual impact of these subsidsies on the profitability and 
future economic viability of the fishing fleets.  

STECF concludes that if predictive models incorporate a component on fleet dynamic that 
allows to simulate investment/disinvestment functions, the different foreseen financial support 
measures (including permanent cessation that will be launched under the new EMFAF) 
should also be considered in the decision function of the model (as this one is usually based 
on past profitability).   

153 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
6.11 Assessing an amended request from Finland for a scientific fishery for Baltic 
salmon 

Background provided by the Commission 

STECF PLEN 24-01 assessed a project from Finland for a scientific fishery for Baltic salmon in ICES 
subdivisions 29 North and 30. Following the STECF assessment Finland notified an amended project on 30 
April 2024 and a slightly revised amended project on 24 May 2024. Since the amended project continues to 
involve more than 6 vessels and the quantity of wild salmon expected to be caught still seems to be significant, 
the Commission in accordance with article 25 of the Technical Measures Regulation (EU) 2019/1241 seeks the 
STECF’s advice if the level of participation is justified on scientific grounds. To be noted that despite the 
Commission’s request to Finland to wait for the STECF’s assessment of the amended project, Finland 
announced that the fishery would start on 27 May 2024 as initially planned. 

Background documents are published on: https://stecf.ec.europa.eu/meetings-calendar/past-meetings  

Request to the STECF 

The STECF is requested to assess if the level of participation of commercial fishermen in the amended scientific 
project is justified on scientific grounds. If this was not the case, the STECF is requested to estimate, to the 
extent possible, what a justified level of participation would be. 

Summary of previous STECF advice   

STECF PLEN 24-01 evaluated the first version of the request for the scientific salmon fishery in Subdivisions 
29N and 30 submitted by Finland.    

STECF PLEN 24-01 concluded that the objective of the proposed scientific fishery was unclear. STECF noted 
that specifying this objective was essential to developing an appropriate sampling protocol. The sampling 
strategy depends on the question raised, and in many cases could target certain areas or time periods, 
decreasing the number of salmon potentially caught and the number of vessels required.    

STECF PLEN 24-01 further concluded that the added value of the proposed scientific fishery was unclear in that 
the number of vessels was not justified on scientific grounds. If such a fishery was to be allowed, once the 
objective is clearly specified, STECF had suggested that the number of salmons to be caught and the number of 
vessels could be determined by the Finnish authorities using pre-existing knowledge on the spatial and temporal 
distribution of salmon.   

STECF PLEN 24-01 concluded that, if a scientific fishery is allowed, it would be worthwhile specifying the 
measures put in place to ensure that commercial fishermen comply with the scientific protocol.   

STECF PLEN 24-01 also concluded that to reduce the potential impact of the sampling programme, 
consideration could be given to releasing wild salmon to deliver the same scientific results while limiting the risk 
of detrimental impacts on the depleted population. This is justified given the survivability of salmon from trap 
nets has been shown to be greater than 70%. 

Summary of the information provided to STECF  

154 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
 
  
STECF was provided with two letters from the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry of Finland as background 
documents:  

1.  Letter from the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry of Finland (30.04.2024), on amending the conditions 

of the scientific fisheries for salmon in Finnish waters of subdivisions 29N and 30 in 2024 following the 
advice of STECF.  

This letter submitted to the Commission 30 April 2024, notifies on amendments to the proposed scientific fishery 
following to the STECF PLEN 24-01 assessment.  
According to the document, the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry of Finland will in accordance with Article 
25(1)point e) of Regulation 1241/2019 supplement the objective and conditions of the scientific salmon fisheries 
for 2024 as follows:  

 

"The scientific salmon fisheries will be conducted with the necessary number of fishing vessels needed 
and salmon caught to achieve a representative sample of salmon populations in the fishing areas and 
time periods within four nautical miles along the Finnish coastline in SDs 29N and 30 that in 2024 are 
closed to directed salmon fishing due to possible occurrence of Ljungan salmon. The scientific fisheries 
will not simulate a full fishery”.  

  Following the conclusion of STECF that it could be worthwhile specifying the measures put in place to 
ensure that commercial fishermen comply with the scientific protocol, the Ministry informs that all 
applicable inspection and control provisions and measures will also apply to the scientific salmon 
fisheries.   

  On the STECF consideration of releasing of wild salmon the document concludes that this is not an 

alternative since taking the samples from the scales of wild salmon individuals is crucial for collecting 
relevant information on the river origin of wild salmon individuals. The scale samples cannot be taken 
without harming the wild salmon individuals and raising the risk of causing a high mortality of the 
released individuals.  

Furthermore, Finland states that the incoming Delegated Regulation 2024/1296 on an exemption for salmon 
from the landing obligation when fishing with trapnets requires that when discarding salmon caught with trapnets 
and fyke nets, the salmon shall be released immediately back into the sea, which does not allow a weighing, 
measurements of length, sex identification and especially scale sampling of live salmon before release, as the 
data sampling in the scientific fisheries requires. In the Åland Islands the scientific salmon fisheries are 
conducted with fixed nets, which do not allow for a release of wild salmon due to the landing obligation and 
since the fish are damaged in the netting.  

The document also states that the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, in accordance with Article 25(1) of 
Regulation (EU) 2019/1241, will run the scientific salmon fisheries in 2024, as amended above following the 
STECF advice.  
The document also includes a list of the 32 Finnish commercial fishing vessels that will be authorized for 
scientific salmon fisheries in SD 29N and 30 in 2024.   

2.  Letter from the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry of Finland (25.05.2024) on scientific fisheries for 

salmon in Finnish waters of subdivisions 29N and 30 in 2024.  

This letter, submitted to the Commission 25 April 2024, summarises the information of the document described 
above, providing also information on changes in the provisional list of vessels participating in scientific fishery in 
2024.  

155 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
The letter also suggests that the further assessment of the request would be unnecessary “since the setup with 
32 vessels and an estimated catch of 2550 wild salmon does not simulate a full fishery but ensures a 
representative sample of the salmon populations caught in our coastal fisheries with the necessary spatio-
temporal coverage as mentioned in the information of 30 April. We have therefore designed the scientific 
salmon fisheries based on the STECF plenary report 24-01 and the need for a representative sample and we 
have carried out the process in full compliance with article 25 of Regulation 1241/2019”.The letter also reiterates 
that measuring length and weight and determining the sex of live wild salmon and especially taking a sufficient 
amount of scales from them and thereafter releasing them, would seem to be a violation of Article 3(3) of the 
Commission Delegated Regulation 2024/1296 requiring immediate release of salmon to be discarded (released) 
and would not be in accordance with Finnish legislation on animal welfare. The document also states that “since 
the salmon individuals are strong it is likely that taking the scale samples would in practice cause them serious 
wounds and lower significantly also their survivability”.   

The letter emphasizes the importance of expected new scientific information on the salmon populations present 
in subdivisions 29N and 30 to relevant institutions as well as ICES.   

STECF comments   

STECF observes that the overall status of the Atlantic salmon in the Baltic Sea is poor. Wild smolt production in 
Assessment Unit (AU) 3 (Sub-divisions 29N and 30), relevant to the proposed scientific fishery, has been low 
compared to the other AUs since the beginning of observations in 1997.  There was also a decline in AU 3 smolt 
production during 2019–2023 as a result of disease, especially severe in the Ljungan River, and therefore 
closing the fisheries in SD 30 is not expected to immediately increase the recovery rate “more than marginally” 
(ICES 2023, 2024a, 2024b). However, STECF notes that the most recent assessment indicates a slight 
improvement of the situation with smolt production in the Ljungan River (ICES 2024a). 

STECF observes that the objective of the trial fishery: "to verify if a delayed start of the coastal salmon fisheries 
together with effort restrictions can be conducted without or with negligible catches of salmon from the Ljungan 
stock, and thereby be comparable and an alternative to a closure of directed salmon fisheries, which is based 
on a zero tolerance advice and policy", has been further specified by adding a sentence: "The scientific salmon 
fisheries will be conducted with the necessary number of fishing vessels needed and salmon caught to achieve 
a representative sample of salmon populations in the fishing areas and time periods within four nautical miles 
along the Finnish coastline in SDs 29N and 30 that in 2024 are closed to directed salmon fishing due to possible 
occurrence of Ljungan salmon. The scientific fisheries will not simulate a full fishery” as a response to first 
evaluation of the proposal by STECF PLEN 24-01. 

STECF further observes that the amended version of the project envisages the reduction of participating 
fishers/vessels from 45 to 32, based on increasing the minimum catch threshold for fishermen from 20 to 64 
salmon taken either in 2022 or 2023 in order to participate in the requested fisheries. STECF observes that this 
is still approximately 50% of all vessels used in commercial salmon fishery in the area in 2022-2023. STECF 
further observes a 15% decrease of the expected salmon catch during the scientific fishery compared to the 
earlier proposal (from 4300 to 3650 salmon, incl. app. 2550 of wild origin), following the planned reduction in 
effort. In spite of this reduction, STECF notes that the total catch would still be  close to 70% of the catch of 
5300 salmon reported from the area during the fishing season of 2022.  

STECF notes that the revised plan assures that “the scientific salmon fisheries would thereby collect a 
representative sample of the salmon populations in the applicable waters with sufficient spatio-temporal 
coverage, while still not simulating the full fishery”.   

STECF acknowledges that the reduction in the number of participating fishers and expected catches will slightly 
decrease the amount of additional negative effect on Ljungan population, but expresses concern on the fact 
that, when expected catches are as high as 70% of commercial catches in the previous years, the Member 

156 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
    
 
 
State considers this “not to simulate the full fishery”. STECF remains of the opinion that a scientific sampling 
shall be in orders of magnitude smaller than commercial fishing.   

Furthermore, STECF, notes that it is unclear which scientific evidence served as a basis for the changes 
described in the amended conditions for scientific fisheries. Therefore, STECF is not in the position to evaluate 
if the amended setup of the scientific fishery would be optimal with respect to the future outlook of the salmon 
stocks involved. STECF also notes that under the EU-MAP the Member State sampled just 394 individuals in 
AU 3 in 2023 (99 in Sd 29 and 295 in Sd 30- ICES 2024a).   

STECF reminds that according to recent modelling results (Whitlock et al. 2017, 2021), the risk of catching 
salmon of Ljungan River is not spatially homogeneous, with higher risk around Åland islands and near southern 
coasts of SD 30. If the biological objective is to demonstrate that there is no risk of catching any salmon from 
the Ljungan river in SD30 (following the ICES comment that fishery restrictions in SD 30 are not expected to 
increase significantly the recovery rate of the stock), then sampling could be limited to SD30. On the other hand, 
if the objective is to demonstrate that there is a limited risk of catching any salmon from the Ljungan River in 
both SD29N and SD30, then STECF considers that sampling effort should primarily focus on the zone where 
the risk of catching salmon from the Ljungan river is the highest (ref. Whitlock et al. 2021). In view of this, 
STECF reiterates its previous conclusion (PLEN 24-01), that the objectives of the requested scientific fishery 
are still unclear.   

STECF further notes that STECF previously evaluated similar requests from other Member States regarding the 
implementation of scientific fisheries involving more than 6 fishing vessels in accordance with Article 25 of the 
Technical Measures Regulation (EU) 2019/1241. Regarding the request from Croatia for scientific research in 
West coast of Istria, STECF PLEN 19-03 concluded that in order to evaluate whether a request is justified on 
scientific grounds some minimum information is required, such as:  

  Scientific question/questions asked, i.e. aim of the study.  
  Design of the study, i.e. how these scientific questions will be addressed.  
  Analysis to define the number of participating vessels.  
  Outline of new information required in order to translate a scientific trial fishery into a regular fishery fully 

managed.  

STECF further observes that the amended request from Finland states that only limited knowledge available on 
the spatial and temporal distribution of salmon stocks in the area would not allow further reduction of the 
number of vessels and salmon catch or spatio-temporal coverage of the scientific salmon fisheries, without 
risking its representativeness and value as evidence in further scientific work and decision making. The request 
states that samples need to give a conclusive picture of the salmon populations in the Finnish coastal salmon 
fisheries in SDs 29N and 30. STECF notes that ICES WGBAST has made an extensive review of genetic 
assignment experiments based on substantial number of analysed salmon. Additionally, the results in  Whitlock 
at al. (2018, 2021) provides some information on the possible spatial risks of catching the Ljungan salmon in the 
area.  

STECF acknowledges that the delayed start of the scientific fishery can to some extent be a protective 
measure, with part of the wild Ljungan salmons already close to the native river before the scientific fisheries at 
the Finnish coast commence. However, STECF notes that the results from the available migration model 
(Whitlock et al. 2018) indicate that the onset of the spawning migration of wild Atlantic salmon from the Ljungan 
river is rather late compared to many other wild stocks in the Gulf of Bothnia, and with a significant temporal 
overlap with reared Atlantic salmon stocks as estimated for the seasons 2013 and 2014 (Whitlock et al. 2021).  

STECF also notes that the onset of spawning migration of Ljungan salmon may vary substantially from year to 
year (e.g. from 15 May in 2014 to 15 June in 2013; ICES 2024c).  

157 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
  
 
The recent ICES advice (ICES 2024c), also suggests that the salmon from the Ljungan river are migrating 
relatively late, a delayed fishing start until 27 May is not expected to be an effective protection measure, 
primarily because only a small part of the current catches in the Finnish and Swedish SDs 29N–30 coastal 
fisheries are taken in May. However, ICES has no possibility to quantify the effect of this measure on the 
recovery of the Ljungan stock (ICES 2024c).  

STECF further observes that the number of salmon spawning stock in Ljungan river is very low. Despite 
uncertainties, it is estimated to be around 100 individuals according to the ICES assessment (ICES, 2024b). 
This further implies that the proportion of salmon from the Ljungan River in the expected catches of mixed stock 
at sea is likely to be extremely low. While that could indeed call for the need of a larger sampling effort to 
estimate catch proportions, STECF reiterates that even harvesting a few salmon is likely to have a very 
significant negative impact on the Ljungan River population.    

STECF acknowledges that following the STECF PLEN 24-01 conclusion that measures should be specified to 
ensure that commercial fishermen participating in trial fisheries comply with the scientific protocol, the Ministry of 
Agriculture and Forestry assures that all applicable inspection and control provisions and measures will also 
apply to the scientific salmon fisheries and they will be reinforced with an immediate loss of the special fishing 
authorisation for the scientific fisheries if the conditions and requirements of the permit or data sampling are 
breached. Data sampling, effort restrictions and delayed starting dates will be specific requirements for 
participating in the scientific fisheries. STECF however cannot evaluate if the control provisions and measures 
are sufficient.  

STECF observes that on the STECF proposal for considering of releasing of wild salmon to reduce the potential 
impact of the sampling programme, the Ministry states that this is not an alternative since mandatory sampling 
of the scales of wild salmon individuals raise the risk of increased mortality of released individuals. STECF 
notes that recent tagging experiments that included also sampling of scales of salmon from trapnet fishery 
performed in the AU 3 during the fishing season, resulted in post-release mortality up to 24% (for one-sea-
winter fish) and 25-31% for multi-sea-winter salmon (Roukonen et al., 2022). This demonstrates that the 
possible post-release mortality due to sampling procedures is essentially lower than the 100% mortality of 
retained onboard and landed catch.   

STECF conclusions   

STECF acknowledges that the amended proposal for scientific salmon fishery in SD 29N and 30 mitigates the 
planned sampling effort compared to the previous version of the request. STECF however concludes that the 
proposed level of participation in the fishery is still not justified on scientific grounds and most of conclusions of 
STECF 24-01 (on clarity of the objectives, possibility to release fish after sampling procedures), remain valid.    

STECF concludes that, once the objective of such a scientific fishery is clarified, the available modelling e.g. the 
outcomes of Whitlock et al. (2018) could be used to better allocate the sampling effort.  

References   

ICES. 2023. Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) in subdivisions 22–31 (Baltic Sea, excluding the Gulf of Finland). 

Replacing advice provided in May 2023. ICES Advice 2023 – sal.27.22– 31.   

ICES. 2024a. Baltic Salmon and Trout Assessment Working Group (WGBAST). ICES Scientific Reports. 6:42. 

425 pp. https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.pub.25868665  

ICES. 2024b. Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) in subdivisions 22–31 (Baltic Sea, excluding the Gulf of Finland). In 

Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2024. ICES Advice 2024, sal.27.22-31, 
https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.25019630 

158 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
  
ICES. 2024c. EU request for assessing remedial measures in subdivisions 29N and 30 to protect the Atlantic 
salmon stock from the Ljungan river in Sweden. In Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2024. ICES 
Advice 2024, sr.2024.08.https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.25908916  

 Roukonen, T.J., Suuronen, P., Pulkkinen, H.,Erkinaro, J. 2022.  Release mortality of wild Atlantic salmon in 
coastal pontoon-trap fishery in the northern Baltic Sea. Fisheries Research 252 (2022) 106336.  
Whitlock, R., Mäntyniemi, S., Palm, S., Koljonen, M.-L., Dannewitz, J., and Östergren, J. 2018. Integrating 
genetic analysis of mixed populations with a spatially explicit population dynamics model. Methods in 
Ecology and Evolution, 9: 1017–1035.   

Whitlock, R. E., Pakarinen, T., Palm, S., Koljonen, M. L., Östergren, J., and Dannewitz, J. 2021. Trade-offs 
among spatio-temporal management actions for a mixed-stock fishery revealed by Bayesian decision 
analysis. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 78: 3625–3638.   

159 

 
 
 
 
 
 
   
 
ITEMS/DISCUSSION POINTS FOR PREPARATION OF EWGS AND OTHER STECF WORK  

7.1 EWG follow up on the assessment of socio-economic impact of VMEs in Member 
States 

Request to the STECF  

STECF is requested to discuss the organisation of this EWG, which must include a planning 
for: 

1.  Date(s) of the EWG meeting(s) 
2.  Timeline for actions including the feedback-loop exercise, Plenary Nov. 2024 and 

Plenary March 2025  

3.  Detailed planning of the feedback-loop exercise (outreach to Advisory Councils, 

processing of results and analysis) 

4.  Provisional needs for ad hoc contracts supporting the feedback-loop exercise 

(including outreach to Advisory Councils with compilation of mailing lists, structured 
interviews templates, language issues solutions, transparency and confidentiality 
clauses for interviewees, analysing results and drawing conclusions) 

5.  Repository of background documents (STECF sharepoint) regularly updated, incl. 

study from the Principado de Asturias (transmitted June 2024) and all other relevant 
documents with a view to create a list of reference documents for the final advice 

In doing so, STECF should consider and summarise the results of the previous STECF 
advices (PLEN 23-02, PLEN 23-03 and PLEN 24-01), of the scoping meeting (Feb. 2024) 
and other conclusions of the EWG previous meeting(s). 

STECF observations  

STECF provided DG Mare with a separate document with a detailed updated planning of the 
additional socio-economic assessment regarding the closures of the VMEs.   

The EWG meeting is proposed to be held 17-21 February 2025. The feedback-loop exercise 
with Advisory Councils (ACs) will start in October 2024 after the ACs have received a 
description of the process, and how STECF will use the response from the ACs in the 
assessments.   

In addition to the ad-hoc contract to run the DISPLACE model, STECF notes that two ad-hoc 
contracts will be needed; one to support the feedback-loop exercise and one to summaries 
additional information such as scientific papers.   

STECF notes that the documents from the ad-hoc contracts and other documents regarding 
the assessment of the socio-economic impacts of VME closures will be put into the STECF 
file workspace, hosted by JRC.  

160 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
References 

Bastardie, F., Nielsen, J. R., & Miethe, T. 2014. DISPLACE: a dynamic, individual-based 

model for spatial fishing planning and effort displacement—integrating underlying fish 
population models. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 71(3), 366-
386. 

Biseau Alain, Begot Eric (2023). Evaluation de l’impact de deux scénarios de fermeture aux 
engins de fond des zones susceptibles d’abriter des écosystèmes marins vulnérables 
(EMV). DGAMPA - Direction Générale des Affaires Maritimes, de la Pêche et de 
l’Aquaculture, Ref. Saisine P9 23-050 du 19 juin 2023, 
14p.https://archimer.ifremer.fr/doc/00853/96517/ 

Fernández-Arcaya U., Rodríguez-Basalo A., Verísimo P., Rodriguez J., Ceballos E., 

González-Irusta J.M., García-Alegre A., Plaza-Morlote M., Serrano A., Punzón A. 2023. 
Bottom fishing beyond trawling. Spatio-temporal trends of mobile and static bottom 
fisheries on benthic habitats. Marine Policy, 159. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2023.105805. 

161 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
7.2 Preparation of EWG 24-16: implementation of the technical measures regulation 

Request to the STECF  

The STECF is requested to discuss the organisation (including dates and venue) of this 
EWG, clarify the workflow and discuss the draft ToRs. The discussion will consider the 
conclusions on the matter of PLEN 24-01.  

STECF comments 

STECF notes that EWG 23-15 outlined the pathways and tools required to develop a 
modelling framework to assess the biological and economic impact of technical measures. 
Building on this work, EWG 24-16 will be requested to apply the proposed framework to two 
case studies, discuss the findings, and identify additional requirements to operationalise this 
framework. This multidisciplinary work will require expertise in economics, mixed fisheries 
modelling, gear technologists, and social scientists. The outcomes of EWG 24-16 will feed 
into further technical measures expert working groups, progressing towards longer term 
goals such as (but not limited too):   

1)  Explore how increased yields can be achieved, what long-term benefits and costs 

could be attained,  

2)  Identifying alternative pathways of gears changes to increase the size-selectivity of 

mixed fisheries and impacts of fishing gear diversification,  

3)  Assess, for each fishery, likely costs and benefits associated with the progressive 

changes over time.  

STECF notes that EWG 24-16 will be divided into three sections: tool preparation (data and 
code); framework application (two case studies); and framework development to identify 
additional aspects required to fully operationalise the bio-economic and social assessment of 
the impact of technical measures.   

STECF notes that an ad-hoc contract could be used to prepare the tools required by EWG 
24-16. This contract should cover the collection, compilation and quality control of the data 
and code required for the two case studies. The requirements for each study are outline in 
(Table 7.2.1).   

STECF notes that during EWG 24-16 these tools will be applied to two case studies: hake in 
Bay of Biscay mixed fishery; hake in a Western Mediterranean mixed fishery currently 
included in the West Med Map (STECF 2024). Each case study will provide an opportunity to 
explore the impact of technical measures implementation on target and non-target species 

162 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
within a mixed fishery. This also includes the assessment of biological and economic 
impacts. Each case study will progress at a different pace, progressing the development of 
an operational model as far as is feasible during the EWG.   

STECF notes that EWG 24-16 will also discuss recent developments in the field of integrated 
ecological-economic fisheries models, and identify additional needs and tools required to 
describe the potential biological, economic and social impacts of technical measures. This 
work will include advances in gear trails and their application in fisheries forecasting; social 
data pipelines and indicators; and stakeholder input and scenario development. Focusing on 
the long-term goal of developing tools to support transparent discussions around trade-offs in 
the short to long term and provide accessible and meaningful advice.  

STECF notes that EWG 24-16 is planned to be held as a hybrid meeting 21-25 October, 
2024.  The proposed ToRs below were discussed with DG MARE at PLEN 24-02 and will be 
published on the STECF meeting webpage once finalised.    

ToR 1 – Review the outputs of ad hoc contract to determine suitability of data and code for 
use by the EWG.   

ToR 2 – Apply the framework identified in EWG 23-15 to two case studies:  hake in Bay of 
Biscay mixed fisheries and hake in the Western Mediterranean mixed fisheries. Each case 
study will where possible assess in the short term:    

a.  the impacts of increasing the size-selectivity of gears on the species caught in 
mixed fisheries in terms of catch, effort, fishing mortality and recruitment.  

b.  the likely costs and potential benefits associated with gear changes for fleets on 

the short-term (1 year) forecast.  

c.   

ToR 3 – Identify meaningful management scenarios that could be tested with these models, 
and the additional information/data/models that would be required to produce additional 
scenarios.   

ToR 4 - Discuss direction of future work, additional needs, stakeholder engagement, and 
advice needs. These discussions will include the development of longer-term forecasts; 
assessments on the impacts of spatial and temporal closures, and inclusion of social data. 

163 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 7.2.1 Summary of the tools required to conduct a bio-economic assessment of the impact of 
technical measures in the two proposed case studies.  

Case study 1: Bay of Biscay Hake Mixed Fisheries  

Type  

Description 

Coverage 

Owner 

Purpose 

‘Accessions’ Fleet 
data: Catch and 
effort 

All stocks 

2009 - 2023 

ICES - WGMIXFISH 

Describe the fishing 
footprint of fleet, and merge 
with AER data. This highly 
aggregated data will provide 
an initial tool. However, it 
will not facilitate alignment 
with AER and economic 
indicators as there is no 
vessel-based information. 

FLFleet object 

All fleets 

2023 advice year 

Data  

ICES - WGMIXFISH 

Describe selectivity 

FLStock objects 
(with forecast) 

All stocks in model 

2023 advice year 

ICES – WGCSE, 
WGBIE, 

Describe stock dynamics 

Community Profiles 

4 harbours within Bay of 
Biscay 

Individual Institutes and 
member states 

Describe social impacts 

FDI data 

AER data 

All species, all tables, 
all years 

EU 

All fleets, all species, all 
tables, all years 

EU 

WGMIXFISH advice 
repo 

2023 advice year 

ICES - WGMIXFISH 

FLSelex code 

Newest version 

BIM 

Code  

BIOECON 

Newest version 

BIM 

Build EU based fleet objects 

Build EU based fleet and 
economic objects 

Template for modelling 
stock dynamics 

Plugin template for 
modelling selectivity 

Plugin template for model 
visualisation and 
dissemination 

FDI ~ AER code to 
merge 

FDI methodology group  EU 

Template for data merging 

164 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
Case study 2: Western Mediterranean Hake Mixed Fisheries  

Type  

Description 

Coverage 

Owner 

Purpose 

Stock assessment 
outputs 

All stocks in model2023 
advice year 

GFCM 

Describe stock dynamics 

Community Profiles 

4 harbours within West 
Med 

Individual Institutes and 
member states 

Describe social impacts 

Data  

FDI data 

All species, all tables, 
all years 

EU 

Describe the fishing footprint 
of fleet, and merge with AER 
data. This highly aggregated 
data will provide an initial 
tool. However, it will not 
facilitate alignment with AER 
and economic indicators as 
there is no vessel-based 
information. 

AER data 

All fleets, all species, all 
tables, all years 

EU 

Build EU based fleet and 
economic objects 

2023 advice year 

EU 

Template for modelling stock 
dynamics and economic 
inputs 

Code  

All code developed by 
EWG 24-01 and 
previous West Med 
map meetings to 
develop and apply 
mixed fisheries and bio-
economic models. 

 Source: own elaborations. 

References:   

STECF (2024). Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) – 

Fishing effort regime for demersal fisheries in West Med - advancement to a unified bio-
economic model (STECF-24- 01). Publications Office of the European Union, 
Luxembourg, 2024 https://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu/documents/d/stecf/stecf_24-01_fisheff-
demersal-in-west-med  

165 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
7.3 Preparation of EWG 24-10: West Med MAP stock assessments 

Request to the STECF 

The STECF is requested to discuss the organisation of this EWG, clarify the workflow and 
discuss the draft ToRs. As in last year, the EWG report would be adopted during a mini-
plenary on 17-18 October 2024 for a publication at the latest by 31 October 2024.  

STECF comments   

STECF discussed draft ToRs for EWG 24-10. The draft ToRs are based on ToRs for the 
EWG on West Med MAP stock assessments in previous years, as well as on the outcomes of 
other related EWGs (e.g., EWG 24-02).   

STECF notes that the ToRs should give particular attention to hake stocks partial fishing 
mortality estimation in EMU 1 and 2 to precisely quantify the partial-F by gear and GSA over 
time, in particular if updated length based landings have been made available via the 2024 
Med&BS data call and these data incorporated into the updated assessments. STECF notes 
that in addition to the formal three yearly evaluation proposed by PLEN 22-03, the EWG 
should update the F reference points (Fmsy) produced by EWG 24-02, needed for the MAP 
implementation: Fmax for type 1 stocks and F0.1 for all the others. If the 2024 hake 
assessments show any of these stocks to be above Bpa, then ranges of F may be needed: 
STECF suggests using the FMSY ranges estimated by EWG 24-02.  

DG MARE informed STECF of its requirement to have a published STECF report by the end 
of October 2024 to conform with its legislative timescale. This implies that the EWG 24-10 
report will need to be reviewed and adopted by the STECF during a mini-plenary on 17-18 
October 2024 for a publication at the latest by 31 October 2024.  

The ToRs for EWG 24-10 are still under discussion and will be published on the STECF 
meeting webpage once finalised.   

166 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
7.4 Preparation of EWG 24-12: Fishing Effort Regime for demersal Fisheries in the 
West Med 

Request to the STECF 

STECF is requested to discuss the organisation of this EWG, clarify the workflow and discuss 
the draft ToRs. The discussion should be conducted having in mind the preparatory 
discussions conducted since STECF PLEN 22-03 on the short- and long-term steps to 
secure best available scientific advice for the West Med MAP implementation. The EWG 
should develop the modelling frameworks to be able to account for the estimated Fmsy 
ranges stemming from EWG 24-02 and advance on the methodology to synthetize the 
different models outputs. 

STECF comments 

STECF notes that following EWG 24-01 the Commission decided to go forward in the 
evaluation of the West Med MAP with the IBIS approach keeping four mixed fisheries models 
to run scenarios requested.  

STECF discussed the TORs for EWG 24-12 which report the final scenarios that will be run 
during the EWG, the table of Fmsy ranges that will be used as F levels during the simulation 
and the table of remedial measures to be applied when one or more stocks are under Bpa 
from EWG 24-10 assessments.   

STECF observes that seven (A-G) scenarios are requested, alternative to the Status Quo 
scenario. Across all scenarios (A-G) it is requested to implement the level of trawling effort 
that would secure the stocks to be at Fmsy by 2025 and the level of Maximum Catch Limits 
(MCL) that would secure blue and red shrimp and giant red shrimp stocks to be at Fmsy by 
2025. Effort and MCL reduction should change between scenarios depending on the 
presence of additional measures such as MCL of hake for set nets or fishing days limitations 
for set longlines.  

STECF notes that EWG 24-12 will need to receive from EWG 24-10 the complete set of input 
stock and index objects and the output stock objects, a set of catch at age matrices per gear 
and GSA for all stocks to estimate partial fishing mortalities and a table reporting the Fmsy 
ranges per stock.  

The ToRs for EWG 24-12 are still under discussion and will be published on the STECF 
meeting webpage once finalised.    

167 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
7.5. Preparation of Prep Working Group for EWG-24-13 Balance/capacity, EWG-24-17 
EWG Balance/capacity outermost regions, and mini-plenary to validate results of 
EWG-24-17 

Background provided by the Commission 

The Commission will request the STECF’s advice on the assessment of balance indicators 
for fleet segments in the outermost regions prior to the already planned EWG-24-13 
Balance/capacity. The Commission requests that an analysis of balance between fleet 
capacity and fishing opportunity be made using a standard approach across all EU fleet 
segments, based on DCF information and in line with the Commission Guidelines 
COM(2014) 545 final  and COM(2024) 223 final. Where possible, evaluation should use data 
reference years 2011 to 2023. This analysis shall cover all EU fleet segments in the 
outermost regions. 

The Commission will make the OR relevant MSs national reports i.e. FR, ES, PT available to 
the STECF at the PLEN-24-02 plenary meeting. 

Request to the STECF 

STECF is requested to discuss the organisation of preparatory work, the EWG-24-17 and 
related mini-plenary organisation and set-up, clarify the workflow and discuss and agree the 
respective ToRs with the Commission. 

STECF comments   

Schedule of STECF meetings and EWGs   

Changes to the timing of requests from the Commission for advice on the balance between 
fishing Capacity and Fishing mortality for fleet segments in operating in the Outermost 
Regions of Member States (ORs), has necessitated in some rescheduling of the STECF 
calendar for the second half of 2024.    

Specifically, the Commission has requested STECF to plan for an additional Expert Working 
group (EWG) in 2024 to provide a stand-alone report on the balance between fishing 
capacity and fishing opportunities for the ORs before the end of September.    

The Committee discussed the above with the DG MARE focal point and it was agreed that an 
expert group (EWG 24-17) will take place online from 11-13 September and the EWG 24-17 
report will be issued as a separate stand-alone report for review by the STECF by Friday 20 
September.    

The Terms of Reference for the EWG 24-17 will remain essentially the same as those given 
to the 2023 EWG on Balance (EWG 23-13) but will be tailored specifically to address fleet 

168 

 
 
 
 
 
 
segments operating in the in the ORs.  Hence the format of the EWG 24-17 report will remain 
principally the same as the section dealing with fleet segments in the ORs in the 2023 
Balance Report (STECF 23-13).    

The EWG 24-17 report will take into account the provisions of the 2014 Commission 
guidelines for the assessment of Balance (COM(2014) 545 final) together with supplementary 
guidelines specific to certain fleet segments in the OMRs (COM(2024) 223 final).   

 As a result of the above agreement, the section dealing with fleet segments operating in the 
ORs will not be included in the report of the EWG 24-13 meeting, which is scheduled for 7-11 
October.   

The Terms of reference for EWG 24-17 and EWG 24-13 and the request to the STECF will 
be available at th respective meetings’ webpages.   

In summary the agreed schedule of meetings in 2024 is as follows:   

  3-5 September – EWG 24-13: Preparatory working group to assemble relevant data 

and compute indicator values for use by EWG 24-17 and EWG 24-13.   

  11-13 September – EWG 24-17: Expert Working group to prepare a stand-alone 

report to the STECF on the balance between fishing capacity and fishing opportunities 
for the ORs.   

  18 September – online Plenary meeting to review the EWG 24-17 report   

  By 20 September – STECF Review and opinion on the EWG 24-17 Report to DG 

MARE.   

  7-11 October – EWG 24-13: Expert Working group to prepare a stand-alone report to 
the STECF on the balance between fishing capacity and fishing opportunities for 
regions other than the ORs.   

  11-15 November – PLEN 23-03: Review and opinion on the EWG 24-13 Report by the 

STECF.   

Guidelines for the assessment of balance for fleet segments in the ORs (COM (2024) 
223 final).   

The STECF sought clarification from the Commission on a number of points relating to 
vessels less than 12 metres in length in outermost regions. The specific points concerned in 
the text of the guidelines are reproduced below (in italics):   

Assessing balance   

  The balance assessment for those fleet segments in the outermost regions should 

remain based on the biological, economic and vessel use indicators set out in COM 
(2014) 545 final. Specifically, both biological indicators (SHI and SAR), both economic 

169 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
indicators (RoI, CR/BER), and one of the vessel use indicators (either VUR, VUR220, 
or a Member State defined VURnn) should be in balance.    

Clarification from the Commission: For a given fleet segment, if one or more of the 
indicators mentioned above indicates imbalance, the Guidelines specify that the 
segment is deemed to be out of balance with its fishing opportunities.   

Biological indicators   

 

In line with COM(2014) 545 final, both biological indicators (sustainable harvest 
indicator and stocks at risk indicator) should be in balance as part of demonstrating 
the balance of a fleet segment.   

Clarification from the Commission:  If one or both biological indicator values for a fleet 
segment indicate imbalance, the Guidelines specify that the segment is deemed to be 
out of balance with its fishing opportunities.    

Sustainable Harvest indicator   

For fleet segments concerning vessels of less than 12 metres in length in the outermost 
regions, the calculation for the sustainable harvest indicator (SHI) as explained in section 
10.1 of COM(2014)545 final may be simplified in one of the following ways:   

  F and Fmsy values may be derived, in order of priority, from: (a) national assessments 
subjected to peer review, where the peer reviews are either publicly accessible or are 
provided as an annex to the fleet report; (b) national assessments not (yet) subjected 
to peer review, where the national assessments are provided as an annex to the fleet 
report, for peer review;    

Clarification from the Commission: There is no requirement for the EWGs 24-17 or the 
STECF PLEN 24-03 to provide a peer review of any National stock assessments used 
by any Member State. STECF may be requested to comment on the suitability of any 
data and assessments used to derive the F and Fmsy values re derived.   

  Estimates of F and Fmsy from one or more representative target species in the fishery 

can be used; in this context, assessments based on the productivity of species 
groupings may also be presented and used.   

Clarification from the Commission: The above point is a provision for Member States 
to be selective as to which species they use to provide F/FMSY. If they do so, Member 

170 

 
 
 
 
 
 
   
   
  
  
States must justify their choice. STECF may be requested to comment on such 
justifications.   

  Regardless of the simplification applied by the Member State, all necessary data 
should be provided in annex to the fleet report to allow for further scrutiny by the 
STECF.   

Clarification from the Commission: The STECF may be requested to comment on 
whether the information submitted by Member States is complete and sufficient to 
justify the calculations presented by the MS.  

171 

 
 
 
 
 
 
   
 
 
 
 
7. CONTACT DETAILS OF STECF MEMBERS AND OTHER PARTICIPANTS 

1 - Information on STECF members and invited experts’ affiliations is displayed for 
information only. In any case, Members of the STECF, invited experts, and JRC experts shall 
act independently. In the context of the STECF work, the committee members and other 
experts do not represent the institutions/bodies they are affiliated to in their daily jobs. STECF 
members and experts also declare at each meeting of the STECF and of its Expert Working 
Groups any specific interest which might be considered prejudicial to their independence in 
relation to specific items on the agenda. These declarations are displayed on the public 
meeting’s website if experts explicitly authorized the JRC to do so in accordance with EU 
legislation on the protection of personnel data. For more information: 
http://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu/adm-declarations 

*STECF members marked with an asterix did not attend the meeting. 

Name 

Affiliation1 

Email 

Bastardie, Francois 
(rapporteur) 

Technical University of Denmark, 
National Institute of Aquatic 
Resources (DTU-AQUA), Kemitorvet, 
2800 Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark 

fba@aqua.dtu.dk  

Borges, Lisa (rapporteur) 

FishFix, Lisbon, Portugal 

info@fishfix.eu 

Casey, John (rapporteur) 

Independent consultant 

blindlemoncasey@gmail.com  

Daskalov, Georgi 

Döring, Ralf (rapporteur) 

Drouineau, Hilaire 
(rapporteur) 

*Goti Aralucea, Leyre  

Laboratory of Marine Ecology, 
Institute of Biodiversity and 
Ecosystem Research, Bulgarian 
Academy of Sciences 

Thünen Institute [TI-SF] Federal 
Research Institute for Rural Areas, 
Forestry and Fisheries, Institute of 
Sea Fisheries, Economic analyses 
Herwigstrasse 31, D-27572 
Bremerhaven, Germany 

Georgi.m.daskalov@gmail.co
m 

ralf.doering@thuenen.de 

Inrae, France 

hilaire.drouineau@inrae.fr  

Thünen Institute of Sea Fisheries - 
Research Unit Fisheries Economics, 
Herwigstrasse 31, D-27572 
Bremerhaven, Germany 

leyre.goti@thuenen.de 

172 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Name 

Affiliation1 

Email 

Grati, Fabio (rapporteur) 

National Research Council (CNR) – 
Institute for Biological Resources and 
Marine Biotechnologies (IRBIM), L.go 
Fiera della Pesca, 2, 60125, Ancona, 
Italy  

fabio.grati@cnr.it 

Hamon, Katell (rapporteur) 

Wageningen Economic Research, 
The Netherlands 

katell.hamon@wur.nl 

Ibaibarriaga, Leire 
(rapporteur) 

AZTI. Marine Research Unit. 
Txatxarramendi Ugartea z/g. E-48395 
Sukarrieta, Bizkaia. Spain. 

libaibarriaga@azti.es  

Jardim, Ernesto (rapporteur)  Marine Stewartship Council MSC, 
Fisheries Standard Director FSD, 
London 

ernesto.jardim@msc.org  

Jung, Armelle (rapporteur) 

DRDH, Techonopôle Brest-Iroise, BLP 
15 rue Dumont d’Urville, Plouzane, 
France 

armelle.jung@desrequinsetde
shommes.org  

Ligas, Alessandro 
(rapporteur) 

CIBM Consorzio per il Centro 
Interuniversitario di Biologia Marina ed 
Ecologia Applicata “G. Bacci”, Viale N. 
Sauro 4, 57128 Livorno, Italy 

ligas@cibm.it; 
ale.ligas76@gmail.com  

Mannini, Alessandro 

CNR IRBIM Ancona, Largo Fiera della 
Pesca, 260125 Ancona ITALY 

alessandro.mannini@irbim.cn
r.it  

Martin, Paloma (rapporteur) 

Motova -Surmava, Arina 

CSIC Instituto de Ciencias del Mar 
Passeig Marítim, 37-49, 08003 
Barcelona, Spain 

Sea Fish Industry Authority, 18 Logie 
Mill, Logie Green Road, Edinburgh 
EH7 4HS, UK 

paloma@icm.csic.es 

arina.motova@seafish.co.uk 

Moore, Claire (rapporteur) 

Marine Institute, Ireland 

claire.moore@marine.ie  

Nielsen, Rasmus 

University of Copenhagen, Section for 
Environment and Natural Resources, 
Rolighedsvej 23, 1958 Frederiksberg 
C, Denmark 

rn@ifro.ku.dk  

Nimmegeers, Sofie 
(rapporteur) 

Flanders research institute for 
agriculture, fisheries and food, 
Belgium 

Sofie.Nimmegeers@ilvo.vlaan
deren.be  

173 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Name 

Affiliation1 

Email 

Nord, Jenny (chair) 

Independent 

jennymnord@gmail.com 

Pinto, Cecilia (vice-chair, 
rapporteur) 

Università di Genova, DISTAV - 
Dipartimento di Scienze della Terra, 
dell'Ambiente e della Vita, Corso 
Europa 26, 16132 Genova, Italy 

cecilia.pinto@edu.unige.it  

Prellezo, Raúl (vice-chair, 
rapporteur) 

AZTI -Unidad de Investigación Marina, 
Txatxarramendi Ugartea z/g 48395 
Sukarrieta (Bizkaia), Spain 

rprellezo@azti.es 

Raid, Tiit (rapporteur) 

Estonian Marine Institute, University of 
Tartu, Mäealuse 14, Tallin, EE-126, 
Estonia 

Tiit.raid@gmail.com  

Sabatella, Evelina Carmen 
(rapporteur) 

Sampedro, Paz (rapporteur) 

Somarakis, Stylianos 
(rapporteur) 

*Stransky, Christoph 

National Research Council (CNR) – 
Institute for Research on Population 
and Social Policies (IRPPS), Corso S. 
Vincenzo Ferreri, 12, 84084 Fisciano, 
Salerno, Italy 

Spanish Institute of Oceanography, 
Center of A Coruña, Paseo Alcalde 
Francisco Vázquez, 10, 15001 A 
Coruña, Spain 

Institute of Marine Biological 
Resources and Inland Waters 
(IMBRIW), Hellenic Centre of Marine 
Research (HCMR), Thalassocosmos 
Gournes, P.O. Box 2214, Heraklion 
71003, Crete, Greece 

Thünen Institute [TI-SF] Federal 
Research Institute for Rural Areas, 
Forestry and Fisheries, Institute of 
Sea Fisheries, Herwigstrasse 31, D-
27572 Bremerhaven, Germany 

evelina.sabatella@cnr.it  

paz.sampedro@ieo.csic.es  

somarak@hcmr.gr 

christoph.stransky@thuenen.
de 

Ulrich, Clara 

IFREMER, France 

Clara.Ulrich@ifremer.fr  

Uriarte, Andres (rapporteur) 

AZTI. Gestión pesquera sostenible. 
Sustainable fisheries management. 
Arrantza kudeaketa jasangarria, 
Herrera Kaia - Portualdea z/g. E-
20110 Pasaia – GIPUZKOA (Spain) 

auriarte@azti.es 

174 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Name 

Affiliation1 

Email 

*Valentinsson, Daniel 

van Hoof, Luc (rapporteur) 

Swedish University of Agricultural 
Sciences (SLU), Department of 
Aquatic Resources, Turistgatan 5, SE-
45330, Lysekil, Sweden 

Wageningen Marine Research 
Haringkade 1, Ijmuiden, The 
Netherlands 

daniel.valentinsson@slu.se 

Luc.vanhoof@wur.nl 

Velasco Guevara, Francisco 
(rapporteur) 

Spanish Insitute of Oceanography - 
National Research Council, Spain 

francisco.velasco@ieo.csic.es  

Vrgoc, Nedo  

JRC experts 

Institute of Oceanography and 
Fisheries, Split, Setaliste Ivana 
Mestrovica 63, 21000 Split, Croatia 

vrgoc@izor.hr 

Name 

Address 

Email 

Hekim, Zeynep 

DG Joint Research Centre JRC 

hekim.zeynep@ec.europa.eu  

Virtanen, Jarno 

DG Joint Research Centre JRC 

Jarno.virtanen@ec.europa.e
u 

European Commission 

Name 

Address 

Email 

Alibert-Deprez, Caroline  

DG MARE, C1 

Calvo Santos, Angel Andres  DG MARE, A4 

Caroline.alibert-
deprez@ec.europa.eu 

Angel.calvo-
santod@ec.europa.eu 

Doerner, Hendrik 

DG Joint Research Centre JRC, 
STECF secretariat 

Stecf-
secretariat@jrc.ec.europa.eu  

Dragon, Anne-Cecile 

DG MARE, D1 

Anne-
cecile.dargon@ec.europa.eu  

175 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Duflot, Melissa 

DG MARE, C3 

Melissa.duflot@ec.europa.eu 

Kopp, Antoine 

DG MARE, C1 

Antoine.kopp@ec.europa.eu  

Kostopoulou Venetia 

DG MARE, C3 

Moset, Maria 

DG MARE, D3 

venetia.kostopoulou@ec.europ
a.eu  

Maria.moset-
martinez@ec.europa.eu 

O’Dowd, Leonie 

DG MARE, C3 

Leonie.ODowd@ec.europa.eu 

Osio, Chato 

DG MARE, D1 

Chato.osio@ec.europa.eu 

Perez Perera, Amanda 

DG MARE, C1 

Petrucco, Giacomo 

DG MARE, A4 

Peyronnet, Arnaud 

DG MARE, C3 

Ranshuysen Evelien 

DG MARE, D.3 

Roussouliere-Azzam Joan 

DG MARE, D.3 

Sadowska Agnieszka 

DG MARE, C.3 

176 

Amanda.perez-
perera@ec.europa.eu 

Giacomo.petrucco@ec.europa.
eu 

Arnaud.PEYRONNET@ec.euro
pa.eu 

Evelien.RANSHUYSEN@ec.eu
ropa.eu 

Joan.ROUSSOULIERE-
AZZAM@ec.europa.eu 

Agnieszka.Sadowska@ec.euro
pa.eu 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Stamoulis, Antonios 

DG MARE, D.3 

Sterczewska, Monika 

DG MARE, C.3 

Vasconcelos, Paolo 

DG MARE, C5 

Antonios.STAMOULIS@ec.eur
opa.eu 

Monika.STERCZEWSKA@ec.e
uropa.eu 

Paolo.vasconcelos@ec.europa.
eu  

177 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Getting in touch with the EU 

In person 

All over the European Union there are hundreds of Europe Direct centres. You can find the address of the 
centre nearest you online (european-union.europa.eu/contact-eu/meet-us_en). 

On the phone or in writing 

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, 

 via the following form: european-union.europa.eu/contact-eu/write-us_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 (european-union.europa.eu). 

EU publications 

You  can  view  or  order  EU  publications  at  op.europa.eu/en/publications.  Multiple  copies  of  free 
publications can be obtained by contacting Europe Direct or your local documentation centre (european-
union.europa.eu/contact-eu/meet-us_en). 

EU law and related documents 

For access to legal information from the EU, including all EU law since 1951 in all the official language 
versions, go to EUR-Lex (eur-lex.europa.eu). 

EU open data 

The  portal  data.europa.eu  provides  access  to  open  datasets  from  the  EU  institutions,  bodies  and 
agencies.  These  can  be  downloaded  and  reused  for  free,  for  both  commercial  and  non-commercial 
purposes. The portal also provides access to a wealth of datasets from European countries. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
STECF 

The Scientific, Technical and Economic 
Committee for Fisheries (STECF) has 
been established by the European 
Commission. The STECF is being 
consulted at regular intervals on 
matters pertaining to the conservation 
and management of living aquatic 
resources, including biological, 
economic, environmental, social and 
technical considerations. 

The Joint Research Centre (JRC) provides 
independent, evidence-based knowledge and 
science, supporting EU policies to positively 
impact society 

EU Science Hub 
Joint-research-centre.ec.europa.eu