The North Sea Advisory Council
Agenda No. 5
Demersal Working Group Meeting
4th February, 2015
Paper No. 5.1
Paper for Discussion
EU Transparency Register ID – 91682404018-74
Development of a new framework for technical measures in the
reformed CFP
Response by the North Sea Advisory Council to the Commission –
2nd round of consultation
Note this is paper is to prompt discussion only. It is NOT draft NSAC advice.
1.
Introduction
1.1
In the spring of 2014 the Commission launched a public consultation on the development
of a new framework for technical measures in the reformed CFP to which the NSAC
gave a response in May 2014.
1.2
Following this public consultation, the Commission circulated a second note in October
2014 highlighting two issues that required further discussion:


1.3
The development of options for replacing mesh size and catch composition rules
A review of existing closed areas.
After request from several stakeholders, the consultative note on the two issues was
translated to a number of languages. The translated documents were circulated to the
ACs in beginning of January 2015. This paper presents the NSAC response to the two
issues.
1
2.0 Development of options for replacing mesh size and catch composition
rules
2.1
The Commission writes that it is foreseen that a new technical measures framework
regulation is expected to contain:
i. A limited number of general rules.
ii. A section following the reformed CFP’s focus on result-based management in
which objectives and targets would be set for technical measures.
iii. The measures in a fishery/area would be required meet the objectives and
standards; these be identified under regionalisation.
2.2
As stated in our response to the public hearing in 2014, the key to an effective set of
technical conservation measures is to influence the mind-set of the person in the
wheelhouse. That mind-set is often determined by the economic consequences of the
gear used or fishing strategies adopted. The poor economic outcomes inadvertently
created in the past by the imposition of poorly thought-out technical measures have often
been the reason why the measures have failed to achieve the required objectives.
2.3
For many it is still questionable whether there is any need for a common European
framework of technical measures. Under any circumstances, the NSAC strongly
supports a move away from micromanagement and towards a results-based approach,
with scope for measures to be tailored to specific fisheries at regional level through, for
example, fisheries management plans. It is the NSAC view that an adaptable approach
is required through which measures that do prove necessary and are be decided on a
regional level, can be changeable in a relatively fast and efficient way; and must be
arrived at through discussion with stakeholders in the context of fishery management
plans.
2.4
We do understand that for a results-based approach one might need objectives
expressed through baselines. However, it is important to take into account (and it follows
from article 7 in the framework regulation no. 1830/2014) that technical measures are
just one pillar of conservation measures in the common fisheries policy. Therefore, it is
important not to set up new objectives and targets of conservation only for the technical
measures in isolation – that independently come on top of other objectives for the
fisheries policy. That could be an effect of introducing catch metrics.
2.5
The Commission describes catch metrics define an output result, for instance a
(maximum) proportion of the catch below minimum conservation reference sizes (mcrs).
For instance 20 individuals per 10kg or 10kg per 100kg (a proportion of the catch).The
output could be measured per individual fishing trip or overall within a pre-defined
management period/area.
2.6
There could be some potential in catch metrics for some fisheries, but catch metrics is
not just a simple technical measure – it could also have a major influence on fisheries
management etc. The timing is wrong to introduce such a concept at present where the
2
introduction of the discard ban is having a huge impact on the fishing sector.
Furthermore, it is not at all clear how this potentially would affect the mind-set in the
wheelhouse and for many fisheries, the level of monitoring and documentation seems
overwhelmingly and to some degree out of proportion. Full-scale projects are needed to
document the effects and benefits of this type of measure before it should be considered
implemented in the CFP.
2.7
We do see the potential in the selectivity profiles for defining a baseline or default gear
with a specific selectivity profile. This option means that fishermen have the flexibility to
develop alternative gears with demonstrated equivalent selectivity pattern in specific
fisheries from those specified in the Regulation. This is something that is frequently
requested by fishermen and both for administrations and fishermen would be is relatively
simple to work with Of course a “fast” procedure for “certifying” that a modification to a
gear does not jeopardise the selectivity profile of the gear, needs to be an essential part
of the set up. Having said this, a specific challenge here is to what degree this is an
option at all for fishing vessels fishing in Norwegian waters – which is the case for many
of the vessels in the waters of the NSAC. So far EU vessels have been met with plenty
of scepticism and what is worse from the Norwegian authorities if the gear specification
are not in accordance with Norwegian legislation.
3.
Reviewing closed areas
3.1
At present the Technical Conservation Regulation includes a considerable number of
closed and restricted areas for fisheries management purposes along with closures
established with the aim of protecting vulnerable marine ecosystems. A review of these
areas should contribute to simplification and rationalisation of these areas to ensure they
correspond to clear conservation objectives. We also need to consider whether in the
future rationalisation and the creation of new areas should be enacted under the codecided act or through regionalisation.
3.2
The NSAC shares the view that the present closed and restricted areas and closures
within the North Sea, the Skagerrak and the Kattegat should be reviewed to ensure that
they have a sound conservation rationale and clear conservation objectives. These
areas were in general established some time ago and there is only a limited
documentation of any effect – be it positive or negative. For the fishing industries they
should be abolished straight away. Any discussion of their continuation must be based
on a clear scientific documentation of a positive effect in respect of the conservation
objective.
3.3
Marine ecosystems are very dynamic and fish stocks do not tend to remember or
understand that a closed area might have been established to protect them. The
protected species sometimes move out of the closed area – and therefore in some years
there is no effect of a permanent closure to protect juveniles or vulnerable species. In
the worst cases the closed areas might force the fishermen to fish where the juveniles
actually are and thereby increase the fishing mortality as the fishermen are forced to
stay out of the closed areas.
3
3.4
Even in the absence of clear scientific documentation it may sometimes make sense to
establish temporal or spatial closures applicable to certain gears/fishing activities in
certain habitats or targeting certain species. However, for reasons of legitimacy and
effect any closures must be decided on in a regionalised process. Any closing of an area
cannot await the co-decision procedure and should not be subject to political bargains.
3.5
Furthermore, for any temporal or spatial closure in a regionalised process, transparent
rules of procedures are essential. So is of course a close scientific monitoring of the
closure.
4