52006SC0868

[pic] | COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES |

Brussels, 4.7.2006

SEC(2006) 868

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

Accompanying the COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT Implementing sustainability in EU fisheries through maximum sustainable yield Technical Background to the Commission's Communication "Implementing sustainability in EU fisheries through maximum sustainable yield: a strategy for growth and employment"

{COM(2006) 360 final}

Technical Background to the Commission's Communication "Implementing sustainability in EU fisheries through maximum sustainable yield: a strategy for growth and employment."

1. Introduction 3

2. Current situation with respect to achieving the MSY target 3

2.1. Technical background 3

2.2. Current levels of overfishing 4

2.3. Further data needs 6

2.4. Legislative Aspects 6

3. consequences of implementing an MSY strategy for Fisheries and the Environment 7

3.1. Yields 7

3.2. Discards 10

3.3. Cetaceans and non-target species 10

3.4. Ecosystem considerations and technical interactions in mixed fisheries 11

4. Social and economic consequences of implementing an MSY strategy 12

4.1. Assessment of impacts 12

4.2. Long-term and short-term effects 14

4.3. Examining trade-offs over time 14

1. INTRODUCTION

This Working Paper accompanies and provides the technical background for the Commission's Communication "Implementing sustainability in EU fisheries through maximum sustainable yield: a strategy for growth and employment". The key points for action which are identified in the Communication are taken up in more depth, and a working method for putting the Johannesburg Implementation Plan into effect is indicated in detail. The issues addressed here are those relevant to paragraph 31 (a), of that plan, with respect to restoring stocks to levels that can produce maximum sustainable yields (MSY) by 2015[1] (see Annex A).

2. CURRENT SITUATION WITH RESPECT TO ACHIEVING THE MSY TARGET

2.1. Technical background

In the short term, more fishing means more catch. Catches of fish are a simple function of the amount of fish in the sea and the rate at which they are fished.

In the longer term, more fishing means less catch. The level of catch which is sustainable (where the amount of fish caught annually is balanced by the annual production of the stock) depends on the size of the stock. When a stock is very small the annual production of the fishable stock ( i.e. those fish that are big enough to be caught by the fishing gear in use) is small because there are few fish growing in the sea, and they lay too few eggs to ensure that the young fish can populate the usable habitat and contribute to production. Conversely, when a fish stock is too large, the annual production is low as growth slows down due to lack of food and the ingress of younger fish may decrease due to competition in the juvenile phase of life.

Between these extremes is a stock size at which the sustainable catch is at the highest practicable level. This is the stock size that can produce the maximum sustainable yield. This quantity is often difficult to measure because of the variability of the marine environment. Reliable estimates of yield can be calculated only for a few of the most well-studied stocks.

In the long term, stock size depends on fishing mortality rate (F). This rate is a measure of the intensity of fishing on a fish stock, and represents the amount of fish that are caught in a year divided by the average amount of fish in the sea that are available to the fishery. Counter-intuitively, the value can be higher than one because fish can join the fishable stock during the year: it is possible for a fish stock - like grass in a field - to produce more in the course of a year than the size of the stock at any particular moment in the year.

If the fishing mortality rate is high then in the long term the fish stock will be small and its productive potential correspondingly low. If the fishing mortality rate is very low then the stock may be larger than the stock size that can produce the maximum sustainable yield.

Between these levels of fishing mortality rate is a fishing mortality rate, known as Fmsy, that will, on average, result in a stock size that produces the maximum sustainable yield. This quantity is easier to measure than the stock size that produces maximum sustainable yield, because it is less dependent on the marine environment and ecosystem effects and on catch data of uncertain accuracy. Most stocks in the Community are overfished with respect to Fmsy, which means that more fish can be caught with less fishing and, paradoxically, that fishing more will mean catching less in the long term.

Scientific estimates of Fmsy rely on proxies: fishing mortality rates that approximate to Fmsy under assumed conditions. Two widely-used proxies are Fmax (this is the fishing mortality rate that would produce the highest catch under the assumption that adequate recruitment of juvenile fish is maintained) and F0.1 (this is a fishing mortality rate where a yield close to the maximum sustainable yield can be taken and where the costs of fishing are lower and the risk of depleting the stock is lower; F0.1 is used as a target fishing mortality rate in a number of fisheries). These parameters can be evaluated with good precision for many stocks. A technical explanation of the calculation of these parameters is given in Annex B.

Due to the high uncertainty associated with estimating the stock size that will produce the maximum sustainable yield, the Commission's starting-point for discussion about the Community’s MSY strategy is that the F0.1 will probably be the most useful proxy for Fmsy. (For stocks where recruitment has been stable in the long term at Fmax, and the yield-per-recruit[2] curve has a clear maximum, the Fmax could be a preferred proxy, however).

Some resources e.g. anchovy and sandeel, have such a short life-cycle that simple strategies based on yield-per-recruit considerations may not be appropriate. In these cases an escapement target approach may be applicable, whereby a fixed percentage of the stock is left in the sea to spawn.

In some cases where stocks are not only overfished with respect to Fmsy but where the stock is also depleted in abundance, it may be necessary to reduce fishing mortality below the Fmsy during a recovery period. As foreseen in the basic regulation of the Common Fisheries Policy, more specific measures may be needed during a recovery phase than in a normal management phase.

2.2. Current levels of overfishing

For the North-East Atlantic and adjacent waters, the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) has evaluated the exploitation rate on fish stocks with respect to high long-term yields. ICES' conclusions for each stock are indicated in Annex B, together with an evaluation of whether the fishing mortality rates (measured in 2004) are above F0.1 and Fmax.

The following table summarizes the situation by main fishing area:

Area | No. of stocks | No. of stocks where an evaluation was made | No. of stocks exploited consistently with MSY | No. of stocks overfished with respect to MSY | For overfished stocks, where estimates are available (n.b. data availability is different in the two columns, which are not therefore directly comparable) |

Fishing mortality rate relative to F0.1 | Fishing mortality rate relative to Fmax |

North Sea, eastern channel, Skagerrak and Kattegat | 23 | 12 | 4 | 8 | 480 %[3] | 270 % |

West of Scotland | 10 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 490 % | 310 % |

Western waters | 26 | 14 | 1 | 13 | 390 % | 210 % |

Iberian Atlantic | 11 | 7 | 2 | 5 | 170 % | 200 % |

Baltic Sea | 13 | 2 | 0[4] | 2 | 540 % | 360 % |

Widely distributed[5] | 5 | 5 | 0 | 59 | 220 % | 110 % |

Total | 91 | 43 | 8 | 35 | 380 % | 220 % |

Of 43 assessed stocks, 35 ( i.e. 81%) are overfished and 8 are fished at levels corresponding to the highest yields. The extent of overfishing is on average from two to five times the level of fishing mortality needed to take the highest yields. The table also indicates relatively little regional variation: overfishing occurs in all areas to a similar extent. This does not imply that TACs should be reduced from two to five times: it will most often be possible to manage a gradual decrease in fishing mortality in such a way that only a small and temporary reduction in TACs is required. In some cases where good recruitments appear, a fishing mortality reduction may be achievable without reducing TACs.

The stocks that are reported by ICES as not being overfished with respect to maximum sustainable yield and, therefore, fished at levels consistent with Agenda 21 and the Johannesburg Implementation Plan are:

- North Sea herring (IV and IIIa)

- Saithe in the North Sea, West Scotland and the Skagerrak (IIIa(N), IV, and VI)

- Atlantic sea bass

- North Sea haddock (IV)

- Irish Sea plaice (VIIa)

- West Scotland herring (VIaN)

- Iberian megrims (VIIIc and IXa) (two species, Lepidorhombus boscii and L. whiffiagonis ).

In the Mediterranean area less detailed information is available because of the lack of internationally established sampling programmes. Where reliable estimates exist, they indicate that fishing mortality is substantially in excess of relevant Fmsy proxies.

2.3. Further data needs

As noted above, the state of the resources with respect to maximum sustainable yield is known in only about half of the stocks assessed by ICES. Some of the stocks whose status is unknown are highly significant in economic terms (e.g. anglerfish in the North Sea and West of Scotland, Norway lobster ( Nephrops ) in various areas).

2.4. Legislative Aspects

This new approach does not require the development of new types of legislative instruments. The choice of management targets, such as target fishing mortality rates, and associated rules to help improve stability for the industry would be made in management plans according to Article 6 of Regulation 2371/2002. Such management plans would established the detailed implementing rules for setting TACs that correspond to the fishing mortality target and other relevant parameters. Where relevant, implementing rules setting out the method for adjustments in fishing effort would also be included in management plans. However, the annual setting of fishing opportunities in terms of TACs and (where relevant) fishing effort would remain an annual regulation similar to the ones adopted in recent years.

3. CONSEQUENCES OF IMPLEMENTING AN MSY STRATEGY FOR FISHERIES AND THE ENVIRONMENT

3.1. Yields

Reducing fishing mortality in order to allow fish to grow more, so achieving a higher value and a higher yield, is a concept that is intuitively attractive and conceptually simple. The gains to be achieved can be measured as gains due to (a) catching a larger quantity of fish; (b) the larger size of the fish that are landed and the higher market value that they will attain; and (c) lower costs incurred in catching the fish.

The extent of these effects is highly specific to particular stocks. Some species, such as plaice and cod, have strongly ‘dome-shaped’ yield-per-recruit curves over the historic range of fishing mortalities - this means that higher yields can be taken at lower fishing mortalities. An example is given in Figure 3.1.1.

Figure 3.1.1 Long term yield and spawning stock size for North Sea plaice [6].

[pic]

The "Fishing mortality in 2004" arrow indicates the recent level of fishing mortality. The brace ( } ) indicates the range of predicted improvement in yield at average levels of recruitment - a more than 50% increase - if the fishing mortality is reduced to that corresponding to the maximum of the yield curve (figure adapted from ICES[7]).

In many other cases, yield curves may be flatter, which indicates that the use of Fmax as a proxy for Fmsy is not appropriate (Figure 3.1.2.).

Figure 3.1.2. Relative yield curve for saithe in the North Sea, the Kattegat and to the West of Scotland and Rockall[8].

[pic]

When fished at lower fishing mortalities, there will be a larger proportion of older, larger and generally more valuable fish.

As an example, Figure 3.1.3. below illustrates the size-range of plaice that would be caught on average when fishing at recent levels of fishing mortality, and at levels commensurate with maximum sustainable yield (F=0.2, for the purposes of this calculation). The catches would increase by 23%, but landings would increase by some 74% in weight (36% in number) because a much lower proportion of catches would be discarded. In addition, fishing at maximum sustainable yield will provide a much larger proportion of larger fish in the catch. Following this example and using prices from 2005 shows that the value of the catch would increase approximately two-fold. Variable costs of fishing (i.e. those directly associated with deploying effort, such as fuel consumption) would fall by more than half due to the lower effort needed to catch the same amount of fish.

Figure 3.1.3. Effect of changing fishing mortality on North Sea plaice[9]

[pic]

3.2. Discards

Reducing fishing mortality is the best single solution to the discard problem.

Fish are discarded because they have been brought on board a fishing vessel when they are too small, of too low value or else are not caught within the available quota. With a maximum sustainable yield approach, the reduced fishing mortality results in a larger proportion of large fish in the sea. The overall result will be that, per tonne of marketable fish landed, the quantity of smaller fish discarded will be much reduced.

In the plaice example (Figure 4.1.3) the reduction in discards would be of the order of 45% in weight, or 50% in numbers. At present, on average some 7.8 individual small plaice are discarded for every Kilogram of plaice landed. At a near-MSY régime, this could be reduced to some 2.2 fish discarded for every Kilogram of plaice landed. This improvement would be achieved only through a reduction in fishing mortality and without any increase in mesh size. In the longer term, as the average size of fish in the sea increases, it may be possible to fish with larger-meshed nets without causing a negative economic impact. For other stocks, the reduction in discarding would not necessarily be as high but substantial reductions could still be expected.

3.3. Cetaceans and non-target species

Fishing for commercial species can often cause disturbance of habitat and the capture of non-commercial species including dolphins and porpoises. The extent and impact of such effects vary widely according to area, type of fishing gear and target species. In general, the number of such mortalities will be in proportion to the fishing mortality of the target species, so long as the same fishing gear are used. Reductions in fishing mortality rate from current levels towards MSY levels will result in reductions of mortality levels on non-target species.

3.4. Ecosystem considerations and technical interactions in mixed fisheries

The productive capacity of the seas and oceans is limited. It may not be possible to achieve the maximum sustainable yield from all stocks in an ecosystem simultaneously because species compete with each other for resources. The full extent of the forecast increases in yields may not all be achievable in practice, because as stocks increase in size, competition effects within and between species will alter the productivity of the stocks.

As progress is made towards the original objectives, additional information about the changing environmental conditions should therefore be used to adjust the targets.

The Johannesburg plan of implementation is a commitment to rebuild individual stocks to the states at which they can produce maximum sustainable yields. This means that each fish resource should be able to produce maximum sustainable yields within the constraints of the ecosystem that it inhabits.

This excludes the possibility of attempting to manage ecosystem structure by overfishing some species in order to improve the yields of others. In any event, the scientific and technical basis for modifying the structure of an ecosystem is insufficiently understood in most cases to assure reliable implementation. Such manipulation would also be contrary to the commitment to maintaining the biological diversity of ecosystems (UN Convention on Biological Diversity, 1992; Biodiversity Action Plan for Fisheries, 2001[10]).

While in many fisheries, it is possible to target fishing activities on a particular species by an appropriate choice of fishing ground, season and fishing gear, it is often the case that fishing is prosecuted on a number of species in the same fishing trip. This can occur because by-catches are unavoidable in some fisheries, but also because targeting a number of species is necessary to make the fishing trip profitable.

Account will need to be taken of such interactions when choosing target fishing mortalities under an MSY strategy. To ensure conformity with the single-stock-based objectives determined under the Johannesburg plan of implementation, fishing on all species in an ecosystem should normally take place at a rate that is less than the Fmsy proxy. In order to achieve this, additional measures such as modifications to fishing gears and closed areas and seasons will need to be considered alongside the target fishing mortality rates in mixed fisheries in order that Fmsy is not exceeded for by-catch species.

In practice, management plans in mixed fisheries will need to be developed case-by-case and to include both appropriate target fishing mortalities for each species and relevant technical measures allowing the target fishing mortalities for all species to be respected in a fishery-based management system.

4. Social and economic consequences of implementing an MSY strategy

The MSY commitment was adopted by Member States during the Johannesburg summit. This Communication sets out a number of general principles proposed by the Commission to ensure implementation of the MSY commitment at Community level. Impact assessment (IA) is therefore not required at this stage.

Conversely, IA will be carried out on a case by case basis in line with Commission guidelines on IA[11], when proposals for long-term management plans concerning specific stocks will be presented. The IA will outline the objectives pursued and the policy options available.. It will assess economic, social and environmental (see above chapter 3.4 on ecosystem considerations) impacts of the various options available in order to guide the Commission in its final selection of the most appropriate route to pursue. The sensitivity and uncertainty of outcomes will also have to be assessed. The option of “no EU action” (= baseline scenario against which the impacts of the proposal are assessed) should also be considered. Active stakeholder involvement and input will be sought in the IA process.

4.1. Assessment of impacts

In any future MSY plans, IA will have to clearly identify and evaluate the long-term benefits ensuing from the adoption of MSY strategies. Similarly, the potential short- and long-term effects oneconomic operators will also need to be assessed. This should allow an assessment of the costs and benefits over time of the various policy options available.

Reducing the fishing mortality rate for a particular stock in order to achieve increases in yield will imply a short-term decrease in catches while the stocks are rebuilt. Figure 4.1.1. illustrates a typical transition path from a situation of high fishing mortality and depleted stock to a near-MSY condition of low fishing mortality and larger stock size, with an eventual increase in yield after a period of lowered catches. The example is taken from a recent study by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea on the western stock of cod in the Baltic Sea.

Figure 4.1.1. An example of a transition scenario for reducing fishing mortality for Western Baltic cod from current levels to near - F msy levels[12].

[pic]

The Johannesburg commitment is to rebuild stocks to that biomass capable of providing a yield at the MSY level by 2015. This implies that fishing mortalities should be reduced to Fmsy well before then - of the order of one generation time for the species concerned - in order for the fishery and the stock to come into balance. This may not, however be a realistic option, in terms of its likely economic and social impact, in many cases.

Future stock development is rather unpredictable as a result of the dynamic ecosystem interactions, as are the relative costs and benefits. While the overall economic gain in the long term is not in question, the relative precision with which different parameters can be estimated will need to be accounted for in the IA.

Significant societal and economic benefits could, in some cases, be achieved at fishing mortalities that are lower than Fmsy - and this may be a choice that stakeholders prefer to be taken in specific cases.

4.2. Long-term and short-term effects

Improved fish stock levels and lower fishing mortality rates should lead to social and economic benefits in the longer term, through more stable catches, bigger fish, improved profit levels, and more secure employment. Indeed, in situations where near-MSY strategies have been followed, fisheries usually become highly profitable. This has been the case for the herring fishery in the North Sea, the north-east Atlantic mackerel fishery, and (outside the Community) the sablefish fishery in eastern Canada. However, the extent of the increase in profitability will be fishery-specific and is difficult to estimate a priori .

Cost reductions in the longer term would be most substantial in the variable costs of fishing operations, such as fuel costs. That is, following the implementation of an MSY fishing strategy, higher catch rates should be realised and hence the same catch will be available at a lower cost to economic operators. Similarly, greater catches can be achieved for the same level of operating costs (fishing effort).

Where fisheries can presently only be prosecuted profitably in relatively remote fishing areas with large and powerful vessels, because the stocks are depleted, a transition to an MSY based fishing regime may allow small-scale and coastal fisheries to exploit the resources profitably.

The short-term effects and the anticipation of structural changes in the sector will have to be included in an assessment of the impact of MSY strategies. In a transitional period, income levels from individual fisheries may initially decline as a result of lower catches. This could probably intensify the need for structural adjustment of fleets and the industry at large (e.g. support services, processors), both temporary and permanent in nature. The choice of implementation of fishing effort reductions through either a capacity reduction (by decommissioning) or an activity reduction (by reducing days at sea, for example) remains a national choice, but the economic consequences of such alternatives could be evaluated in an IA.

Furthermore, the temporary reductions in supply could affect auctions, traders, processors, and ultimately consumers.

4.3. Examining trade-offs over time

It is possible to compare trade-offs of costs and benefits in general terms, as shown in Figure 4.1.2. A rapid approach to MSY implementation leads to a higher stream of costs (Costs 1) in the short- term but will also be associated with a quicker return of benefits (Benefits 1). A slower approach leads to a more drawn out stream of costs (Costs 2), but will delay the eventual returns of benefits (Benefits 2) from moving to MSY fishing rates. The figure only offers a simplified illustration of possible trade-offs over time and assumes that both options reach the same MSY benefits level.

Figure 4.1.2. An example of possible economic trade-offs between two approaches to moving to MSY management over time.

[pic]

As depicted, it may be decided to impose either rapid or more prolonged approaches. For a short time horizon for implementing an MSY strategy, greater restrictions on fishing in the short-term will be required. Hence, the economic and social costs in the short-term will be rather more severe than under a more prolonged approach. If MSY strategy is implemented more quickly, however, then the stream of benefits will also come sooner.

One concern often raised by industry in relation to MSY management approaches and structural adjustment of fleets is that too many vessels are forced out of the fishery in the short-term. In this context, IA should be able to indicate where a sustainable balance between fleets and resources can be identified.

These trade-offs will need to be explicitly considered in an IA to allow a prudent comparison of policy options for implementation of an MSY approach to take place. There may also be a wider range of options to develop fishing from smaller harbours and smaller communities.

ANNEX A: Extract of the Implementation Plan adopted at the World Summit on Sustainable Development, Johannesburg, 2002.

31. To achieve sustainable fisheries, the following actions are required at all levels:

(a) Maintain or restore stocks to levels that can produce the maximum sustainable yield with the aim of achieving these goals for depleted stocks on an urgent basis and where possible not later than 2015;

(b) Ratify or accede to and effectively implement the relevant United Nations and, where appropriate, associated regional fisheries agreements or arrangements, noting in particular the Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks and the 1993 Agreement to Promote Compliance with International Conservation and Management Measures by Fishing Vessels on the High Seas;

(c) Implement the 1995 Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, taking note of the special requirements of developing countries as noted in its article 5, and the relevant international plans of action and technical guidelines of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations;

(d) Urgently develop and implement national and, where appropriate, regional plans of action, to put into effect the international plans of action of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, in particular the International Plan of Action for the Management of Fishing Capacity by 2005 and the International Plan of Action to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing by 2004. Establish effective monitoring, reporting and enforcement, and control of fishing vessels, including by flag States, to further the International Plan of Action to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing;

(e) Encourage relevant regional fisheries management organizations and arrangements to give due consideration to the rights, duties and interests of coastal States and the special requirements of developing States when addressing the issue of the allocation of share of fishery resources for straddling stocks and highly migratory fish stocks, mindful of the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks, on the high seas and within exclusive economic zones;

(f) Eliminate subsidies that contribute to illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing and to over-capacity, while completing the efforts undertaken at the World Trade Organization to clarify and improve its disciplines on fisheries subsidies, taking into account the importance of this sector to developing countries;

(g) Strengthen donor coordination and partnerships between international financial institutions, bilateral agencies and other relevant stakeholders to enable developing countries, in particular the least developed countries and small island developing States and countries with economies in transition, to develop their national, regional and subregional capacities for infrastructure and integrated management and the sustainable use of fisheries;

(h) Support the sustainable development of aquaculture, including small-scale aquaculture, given its growing importance for food security and economic development.

ANNEX B: Technical background to MSY proxies

The World Sustainable Summit Implementation Plan (Annex A) prescribes actions to ‘Maintain or restore stocks to levels that can produce the maximum sustainable yield with the aim of achieving these goals for depleted stocks on an urgent basis and where possible not later than 2015’. The term ‘level’ may be interpreted to mean stock size. However, stock sizes are not only dependent on the fisheries but will vary for natural reasons such as variability in recruitment, natural causes of death and growth. Furthermore, stock sizes are difficult to measure and may only be estimated with considerable uncertainty. It is therefore not a practical option to manage fisheries with a specific stock size as target. Instead fisheries can be managed by only removing up to a maximum fraction of the stock every year, thereby enabling the stock and the fisheries to produce the maximum yield in the long term.

This maximum fraction removed is expressed in terms of a fishing mortality, Fmsy. Fishing at Fmsy will on average produce the maximum yield from the stock. The actual yield produced in a specific year will depend on the recruitment in recent years which for many fish stocks is the main natural source of variability. Future recruitment cannot be predicted accurately (though its dependency on stock size can often be assessed) and it is therefore more convenient to consider proxies to Fmsy based on the relationship between fishing mortality and yield on a ‘per recruit’ basis, that is the expected yield from one recruit, thereby removing the variability of recruitment from the considerations. The fishing mortality which would produce the maximum yield from one recruit is termed Fmax (see Figure 4.1.1).

Fmax is equal to Fmsy if recruitment is independent of the size of the parent stock. However, when fishing mortality increases the parent stock is reduced (Figure 4.1.1) and at low parent stock levels it is expected that recruitment is reduced on average. Therefore, even if Fmax may produce the maximum yield per recruit, fishing at that level may, for some stocks, also result in a reduction in recruitment. The result is that the maximum yield is achieved at a fishing mortality which is lower than Fmax. Fmsy is thus in these cases lower than Fmax. Fmsy is considered to be an upper limit for sustainable fisheries and it will therefore not be appropriate to use Fmax as a proxy for Fmsy in those cases where there is a risk that Fmax may be larger than Fmsy.

For this reason and because estimates of Fmax may be very uncertain for many stocks where the maximum of the yield curve is very poorly determined (as is the case in Figure 4.1.2) a more robust reference point which is lower than Fmax should be used whenever recruitment may be impaired at Fmax or when Fmax is poorly determined. F0.1 is widely used as a proxy for Fmsy in those cases. The technical definition of F0.1 is that fishing mortality where the expected yield increase from adding another unit of effort is one tenth of the yield produced when the first unit of effort was launched on the formerly unfished stock. This definition of a reference point may seem rather arbitrary but the bottom line is that F0.1 has two desirable properties if one is to manage within Fmsy: F0.1 is lower than Fmax and there is thus better chances that it is at or below Fmsy and the estimation of F0.1 has been found to be more robust to uncertainties than the estimation of Fmax .

A detailed discussion of MSY related reference points including Fmsy, Fmax and F0.1 can be found in K. L. Cochrane, The use of scientific information in the design of management strategies. pp 95-127 In: Cochrane, K.L. (ed.). A fishery manager’s guidebook. Management measures and their application. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper. No. 424. Rome, FAO. 2002. 231p.

Annex B. State of Fisheries Resources of Community interest in 2004 with respect to highest sustainable yields[13].

Species | Area | ICES Evaluation | Fishing mortality in 2004 | F0.1 | Fmax |

Stocks in the North Sea, Eastern channel, Skagerrak and Kattegat (ICES Divisions IV, VIId and IIIa) |

Cod | Kattegat | Overexploited | 1.21 | 0.150 | 0.242 |

Cod | North Sea and Skagerrak | Overexploited (*) | 0.91 | 0.132 | 0.201 |

Haddock | IV and IIIa | Close to target | 0.32 | 0.202 | 0.321 |

Whiting | IIIa | Unknown | - | - | - |

Whiting | IV and IIIa | Unknown | - | 0.268 | - |

Plaice | IIIa | Overexploited (*) | 0.794 | 0.095 | 0.183 |

Plaice | IV | Overexploited | 0.58 | 0.117 | 0.167 |

Plaice | VIId | Overexploited (*) | 0.5 | 0.105 | 0.193 |

Sole | IIIa | Overexploited (*) | 0.291 | 0.176 | 0.528 |

Sole | IV | Overexploited | 0.35 | 0.133 | 0.342 |

Sole | VIId | Overexploited | 0.42 | 0.132 | 0.308 |

Saithe | IIIa, IV and VI | Close to target | 0.245 | 0.105 | 0.216 |

Shrimp | IIIa, IVa | MSY estimates not available | - | - | - |

Herring | 22-24 and IIIa | Unknown | 0.358 | 0.212 | - |

Herring | IV, VIId and IIIa | Appropriate (*) | 0.254 | 0.126 | 0.412 |

Sprat | IIIa | Unknown | - | - | - |

Species | Area | ICES Evaluation | Fishing mortality in 2004 | F0.1 | Fmax |

Sprat | IV | Unknown | - | - | - |

Horse mackerel | IV | Unknown | - | - | - |

Norway pout | IV and IIIa | Reference points not defined | 0.219 | - | - |

Sandeel | IV | Unknown | 0.609 | - | - |

Sandeel | Shetland | Unknown | - | - | - |

Bass | Atlantic | Appropriate (*) | - | - | - |

Npehrops | IV and III | Unknown | - | - | - |

Stocks to the West of Scotland[14] |

Cod | VIa | Overexploited (*) | 0.132 | 0.191 |

Cod | VIb | Unknown | - | - | - |

Haddock | VIa | Overexploited (*) | 0.453 | 0.123 | 0.184 |

Haddock | VIb | Uncertain | - | - | - |

Whiting | VIa | Unknown | - | 0.138 | 0.229 |

Megrim | VI | Uncertain | - | - | - |

Anglerfish | IIIa, IV, VI | Unknown | - | - | - |

Herring | VIa | close to F0.1 (*) | 0.166 | 0.16 | - |

Herring | Clyde | Unknown | - | - | - |

Nephrops | VIa | Unknown | - | - | - |

Stocks in the Bay of Biscay and in the Celtic Sea and adjacent waters (Division VII and VIII)[15] |

Cod | VIIa | Overexploited | 1.19 | 0.180 | 0.310 |

Cod | VIIe-k | Overexploited (*) | 0.605 | 0.192 | 0.309 |

Haddock | VIIa | Overexploited (*) | 1.27 | 0.18 | 0.347 |

Species | Area | ICES Evaluation | Fishing mortality in 2004 | F0.1 | Fmax |

Haddock | VIIb-k | Unknown | - | - | - |

Whiting | VIIa | Unknown | - | - | - |

Whiting | VIIe-k | Overexploited | 0.452 | 0.18 | - |

Plaice | VIIa | Harvested sustainably | 0.16 | 0.133 | 0.357 |

Plaice | VIIfg | Overexploited | 0.426 | 0.16 | 0.327 |

Plaice | VIIe | Overexploited | 0.793 | 0.100 | 0.223 |

Plaice | VIIh-k | Unknown | - | - | - |

Plaice | VIIbc | Unknown | - | - | - |

Sole | VIIa | Overexploited (*) | 0.281 | 0.146 | 0.396 |

Sole | VIIfg | Overexploited | 0.440 | 0.101 | 0.229 |

Sole | VIIe | Overexploited | 0.482 | 0.113 | 0.266 |

Sole | VIIIabd | Overexploited | 0.379 | 0.110 | 0.213 |

Sole | VIIh-k | Unknown | - | - | - |

Sole | VIIbc | Unknown | - | - | - |

Herring | VIIa | Unknown | - | - | - |

Herring | Celtic Sea and VIIj | Uncertain | - | 0.164 | - |

Herring | VIaS and VIIbc | Unknown | - | - | - |

Sprat | VIIde | Unknown | - | - | - |

Megrim | VIIc-k and VIIIabd | Overexploited | 0.378 | 0.139 | 0.229 |

Anglerfish Lophius piscatorius | VIIb-k and VIIIab | Overexploited | 0.26 | 0.054 | 0.088 |

Anglerfish Lophius budegassa | VIIb-k and VIIIab | Overexploited | 0.24 | 0.097 | 0.151 |

Nephrops | VIa | Unknown | - | - | - |

Species | Area | ICES Evaluation | Fishing mortality in 2004 | F0.1 | Fmax |

Nephrops | VII | Unknown | - | - | -- |

Stocks in the Iberian Region (VIIIc - IX a)[16] |

Hake | VIIIc IXa excl. Gulf of Cadiz | Overexploited | 0.533 | 0.179 | 0.284 |

Megrim whiffia-gonis | VIIIc IXa | Appropriate | 0.139 | 0.153 | - |

Megrim boscii | VIIIc IXa | Appropriate | 0.322 | 0.273 | - |

Anglerfish | VIIIc IXa | Overexploited (F relative to Fmsy) | 2.33 | 1.0 | - |

Horse Mackerel | IX | Unknown | - | - | - |

Sardine | VIIIc IXa | Uncertain | 0.228 |

Anchovy | VIII | Unknown | 0.56 | - | - |

Anchovy | IXa | Unknown | - | - | - |

Nephrops | VIIIab | Overexploited (*) | 0.427 | - | 0.24 |

Nephrops | VIIIc | Overexploited (*) | - | - | - |

Nephrops | IXa | Overexploited (*) | - | - | - |

Stocks in the Baltic Sea[17] |

Cod | 22-24 | Overexploited | 1.39 | 0.148 | 0.231 |

Cod | 25-32 | Overexploited | 0.958 | - | - |

Herring | 22-24, IIIa | Unknown | 0.358 | 0.212 | 0.529 |

Species | Area | ICES Evaluation | Fishing mortality in 2004 | F0.1 | Fmax |

Herring | 25-29 and 32 | Unknown | 0.204 | 0.231 | - |

Herring | Gulf of Riga | Unknown | 0.360 | 0.268 | 0.3 |

Herring | 30, Bothnian Sea | Unknown | 0.17 | 0.168 | - |

Herring | 31, Bothnian Bay | Unknown | 0.178 | - | - |

Sprat | 22-32 | Unknown | 0.35 | 0.516 | - |

Flounder | 22-32 | Unknown | - | - | - |

Plaice | 22-32 | Unknown | - | - | - |

Dab | 22-32 | Unknown | - | - | - |

Turbot | 22-32 | Unknown | - | - | - |

Brill | 22-32 | Unknown | - | - | - |

Widely distributed and migratory stocks[18] |

Hake | Northern area | Overexploited | 0.286 | 0.097 | 0.17 |

Mackerel | NE Atlantic | Overexploited | 0.295 | 0.188 | 0.681 |

Horse Mackerel | Western | Uncertain | - | - | - |

Blue whiting | NE Atlantic | Not available | 0.573 | 0.28 | - |

Norwegian spring-spawning Herring, | North Atlantic and Barents Sea | Not available | 0.119 | - | - |

Spurdog | NE Atlantic | Depleted | - | - | - |

Species | Area | ICES Evaluation | Fishing mortality in 2004 | F0.1 | Fmax |

Porbeagle | NE Atlantic | Depleted | - | - | - |

Basking shark | NE Atlantic | Severely depleted | - | - | - |

[1] The objective of exploiting stocks within levels that can produce the maximum sustainable yield was already established in the "Rio Declaration" of 1992. The new element is the agreement on a time period for achieving the objective.

[2] Yield per recruit is a measure of the weight of catch that can be caught for a given number of young fish entering the fishery, and takes into account how much fish can grow (or how many die from natural causes) before they are caught.

[3] i.e., the stock is fished 4.8 times harder than needed to achieve a high yield.

[4] Some pelagic stocks in the Baltic Sea are exploited below F0.1.

[5] Including depleted pelagic shark stocks.

[6] Assuming constant recruitment - this assumption is not valid at low stock sizes.

[7] Report of the ICES advisory committee on fishery management and the ICES advisory committee on ecosystems. Vol. 1(2). Book 2: part 1 (2004).

[8] Assuming unchnaged average recruitment. Source ICES.

[9] From current levels (F= 0.56) to near MSY levels (F=0.2). Calculation made by the Commission services based on ICES data.

[10] Biodiversity Action Plan for Fisheries Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament - COM(2001) 162.

[11] SEC(2005) 791 and http://intracomm.sg.cec.eu.int/i/impact/

[12] Redrawn from figure 9.8 of "Report of the ad hoc group on long-term advice, 2005, ICES, Copenhagen" (#) Assuming break-even in 2005, costs proportionate to fishing mortality, and coe to fishing mortality, and cod first sale value of €2 300/t. Excludes gains from adding value in processing and distribution(*). Assuming constant catchability with respect to the spawning biomass; Fishing mortality expressed as a yield-biomass ratio.

[13] (*) An evaluation for 2004 is not available. The most recent available information (from 2003) is given.

[14] (*) An evaluation for 2004 is not available. The most recent available information (from 2003) is given.

[15] (*) An evaluation for 2004 is not available. The most recent available information (from 2003) is given.

[16] (*) An evaluation for 2004 is not available. The most recent available information (from 2003) is given.

[17] (*) An evaluation for 2004 is not available. The most recent available information (from 2003) is given.

[18] (*) An evaluation for 2004 is not available. The most recent available information (from 2003) is given.