[pic] | COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES |

Brussels, 28.3.2007

SEC(2007) 381

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying document to the

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT A policy to reduce unwanted by-catches and eliminate discards in European fisheries IMPACT ASSESSMENT Executive Summary

{COM(2007) 136 final}{SEC(2007) 380}

Executive Summary

This document constitutes an impact assessment of various possible options to reduce discards in the EU. It provides the basis for the Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on a policy to reduce unwanted by-catches and eliminate discards in European fisheries (the Discard Communication).

The objective of a new policy on discards is to ensure fisheries which are economically, environmentally and socially sustainable and with minimal impact on the marine ecosystem, by significantly reducing the waste of natural resources in fisheries through the incidental by-catch and the subsequent discard of marine animals which are not deemed to benefit society.

Unwanted by-catches and discarding has a negative effect both on the economy of future fisheries and the health of marine ecosystems. When unwanted by-catch is discarded, it dies (in most cases) and thus is lost to the ecosystem and to future fisheries. When species of commercial value are discarded, there will be lower catch options in the future. When species without commercial value are discarded the fisheries are impacting biodiversity and the functioning of the marine ecosystem.

The following policy options can be considered:

- The first option consists of not taking any specific measures to reduce by-catches and discards but to continue with fisheries management as it is.

- The second option would be to take supplementary direct measures and adapt current CFP instruments to reduce unwanted by-catches and discards where necessary; in particular, real-time area closures, obligation to switch fishing grounds, and promotion of selective gears.

- The third option would be to implement a discard ban. Two sub-options are considered. The first is a discard ban as a stand-alone measure. The second is a discard ban combined with supplementary measures intended to reduce the negative effects of the discard ban (i.e. the direct costs on fishermen and the costs of enforcement) and/or to amplify the positive effects thereof. This may include requirements to change fishing ground when high amounts of unwanted by-catch are encountered, real time closures and encouragement of the use of selective fishing gear.

The following matrix summarises the likely general impacts as a result of these options. The impacts will however vary by fishery.

Effects / Options | Adapt current CFP plus supplementary measures | Discard ban as a stand alone measure | Discard ban plus supplementary measures |

Reduction of by-catch and discards | Small to negligible. Even negative | High | Higher and quicker than those from a pure discard ban |

Economic impacts | Loss of future yield as resources are wasted and thus lower income to fishermen. No significant effects on marketing and distribution | Significant cost increases for fishermen in the short term. Medium and long term positive effects through larger stocks with larger fish and healthy ecosystem. Positive effects likely on reduction of overcapacity Positive effects on other fisheries likely Positive effects on marketing and distribution in particular for low value species | Short term cost increases less significant due to by-catch reducing measures. Medium and long term positive effects through larger stocks with larger fish and healthy ecosystem Positive effects likely on reduction of overcapacity Positive effects on other fisheries likely Positive effects on marketing and distribution in particular for low value species |

Social impacts | Some job losses in the medium or longer term likely due to lost income | Short term job losses in industrial fisheries. Longer term job increases likely as stocks will be larger Handling landings of previously discarded fish may create some new jobs | Short term job losses in industrial fisheries less significant due to reduced cost increases Longer term job increases likely as stocks will be larger Handling landings of previously discarded fish may create some new jobs |

Environmental impacts | Small to negligible reduction of negative impacts | Significant reduction of negative impacts | Significant to very significant reduction of negative impacts |

Enforcement costs | High | High | High. Smaller than those from a pure discard ban |

Administrative burden | Not significant | Not significant | Not significant |

Quality and availability of data | No impact | Positive impact | Positive impact |

The present impact assessment compares the possible options and comes to the conclusion that, while the specific situation of each fishery will need to be looked at carefully, the most suitable one is generally that which consists of combining a discard ban with different measures intended to reduce the economic and social costs of the discard ban and/or to amplify the positive effects thereof on discards. These measures will need to be selected on a fishery by fishery basis. The Discard Communication is hence based on that preferred option.

The Discard Communication will be the starting point for a debate which will then form the basis for specific regulations on a fishery by fishery basis. Monitoring of outcomes of these regulations will be based on observer and landing data collected through the Data Collection Regulation. These data will enable an analysis of the development of unwanted by-catches as regulations are introduced.