EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 52012DC0665
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Action Plan for reducing incidental catches of seabirds in fishing gears
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Action Plan for reducing incidental catches of seabirds in fishing gears
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Action Plan for reducing incidental catches of seabirds in fishing gears
/* COM/2012/0665 final */
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Action Plan for reducing incidental catches of seabirds in fishing gears /* COM/2012/0665 final */
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO
THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Action Plan for reducing incidental
catches of seabirds in fishing gears 1. INTRODUCTION Interactions between fisheries and seabirds
are frequent and widespread leading to levels of incidental seabird mortality which
pose a serious threat to many seabird populations and which have an adverse
effect on fishing productivity and profitability. Current management measures to protect
seabirds are contained in a wide range of fisheries and environmental
legislation as well as a number of international Conventions and Agreements.
These measures, however, have been largely ineffective in reducing seabird
bycatch except in some isolated cases in external waters. The Action Plan in this Communication (EU-PoA)
seeks to provide a management framework to minimise seabird bycatch to as low
levels as are practically possible. This is in line with the objectives of the reformed Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) of moving towards ecosystem management
covering all components of the ecosystem including seabirds. It is also consistent with the framework of an International
Plan of Action (IPOA) for Reducing the Incidental Catches of Seabirds in
Longline Fisheries[1]
adopted in 1999 by the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) Committee on Fisheries
(COFI). 2. Bycatch and its
mitigation Advice received from ICES in 2008[2] (updated in 2009 and 2010[3])
indicates that there is a paucity of data on the distribution of seabird
species, threat vulnerability, overall conservation status and levels of
incidental catches. This presents a challenge in assessing the impact of
fisheries on these species and reflects the lack of systematic monitoring and
reporting of seabird bycatch. However, the available data indicates seabird
mortality is substantial in a number of areas within EU fisheries. Recent
estimates3 report bycatch by the EU fishing fleet at c.a. 200,000
seabirds annually in EU waters, while a report by Birdlife International[4]
estimates global seabird bycatch in longline fisheries to be at least 160,000
and potentially 320,000 seabirds per year. At least 49 species (25 in EU waters
and 24 in non-EU waters) are classified as being of conservation concern either
globally or at a local population level. The data also highlights longlines[5] and static nets[6] as the gears with the highest
seabird bycatch although there are reports of incidental catches in trawl[7] and purse seine[8] fisheries. 2.1. Longlines ICES reports that at least 20 species of
seabirds interact with longline fisheries in EU waters, principally in the
Mediterranean pelagic and demersal longline fisheries and the N.E. Atlantic
(Gran Sol) demersal longline fishery, although ICES3 reports bycatch
of seabirds in almost all EU longline fisheries. Four species are notable for
their high conservation status with moderate to high frequency of capture in
longline gear relative to their populations. The
Balearic Shearwater is classed by the IUCN as Critically Endangered, meaning it
has been evaluated to have a very high risk of extinction in the wild. Three others, the Sooty shearwater,
Yelkouan shearwater and Audouin's gull are classified as Near Threatened
meaning the population is in moderately rapid decline globally. In addition to these species a further five
are listed in the Birds Directive[9] as having unfavourable conservation status requiring "special conservation measures" due to declines in localised populations. These
include the Corys shearwater and Mediterranean gull in the Mediterranean and
the Black-legged kittiwake, Black guillemot and Manx shearwater in the NE
Atlantic[10]. For all of these
species significant levels of bycatch are reported2,10. Several other species - the Yellow-legged
gull in the Mediterranean and the Northern fulmar, Great shearwater and
Northern gannet in the N.E. Atlantic have high incidental catches and ICES reports
that the sheer scale of the numbers caught in longline
fisheries is cause for concern even though the populations of these species are
relatively stable2,3. 2.2. Static nets Static nets, encompassing gillnets,
entangling nets and trammel nets are widely used in EU waters. Static net fisheries tend to be seasonal and a wide range of seabird
species can interact but most likely to get caught in nets are coastal species
that either forage on the bottom or shallow dive to pursue prey through the
water column. Many of the fishing grounds in the Baltic
and North Sea are important feeding, resting, moulting and overwintering areas
for seabirds which are present only during the non-breeding period (winter
time). This means the impact of incidental catches on seabird populations is
directly dependent on the temporal overlap of static net fisheries with these
species. The information available on incidental
catches of seabirds in static nets is not complete enough for a comprehensive
understanding of the magnitude of the impacts on seabird populations at an
EU-wide level. A recent review[11] of seabird bycatch
in the Baltic Sea and (predominantly eastern) North Sea provided a cumulative
annual bycatch estimate (made up mainly of divers,
grebes, sea ducks, diving ducks, auks and cormorants) of
between 90,000-200,000 birds killed in static net fisheries in the region each
year. Several of the species at risk are rare in the region and subject to
international legal protection. Steller’s eider is listed as Vulnerable by IUCN
and is in Annex 1 of the EU Birds Directive as are the red-throated diver,
black-throated diver, Slavonian grebe and smew. A number of others are listed
in the Birds Directive and assessed by Birdlife as being "species of
European concern"10. In other areas outside the Baltic and North
Sea there are several static net fisheries where seabird mortality has been
reported as being problematic. In northwest Spain in ICES Subarea IX, high mortality
of European shags and Iberian guillemot3 has been observed, while in
the Mediterranean available information suggests that static nets pose a threat
to subspecies of the European shag and several species
of shearwater3. 2.3. Other Gears For gears such as trawls and purse seines, few
reliable estimates of bycatch levels within EU waters are recorded. One study did
estimate around 780 northern gannets to have been caught in pelagic trawl fisheries
operating off the north and north-east coasts of Scotland3 while
there are several other anecdotal reports of bycatch occuring in trawl
fisheries. Evidence is emerging that purse seines can
take significant bycatch of species such as shearwaters. A questionnaire survey
carried out in 2008/2009 in Portuguese ports showed purse seines to have taken
the highest proportion (45%) of Balearic shearwaters compared to any other
fishing gears, including longlines and static nets in this region3. 2.4. Bycatch in non-EU waters In external waters longlines and trawls are
responsible for a high number of incidental catches of seabirds leading to
widespread concern on the long-term ecological effects on populations.
Currently of 61 species which interact with fisheries, it is estimated that
nearly half are threatened with extinction, including 17 species of albatrosses
worldwide with an estimated 100,000 albatrosses reportedly killed annually4.
A further 7 species of petrels listed under the
Agreement on the Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels (ACAP) face similar
threats[12]. A notable exception is
in the Antarctic, where a comprehensive assessment of the problem, carried out annually
by CCAMLR[13],
has shown bycatch to have been reduced by over 99% since measures were
introduced. In other longline fisheries, while improvements have been noted and
the instances of IUU fishing reduced considerably, there are indications that
bycatch still remains at unsustainable levels in some longline fisheries.
Recent recommendations adopted by ICCAT[14]
and IOTC[15]
which strengthen existing mitigation measures in tuna longline fisheries are
welcome and need to be extended to other Regional Fishery Management Organisations
(RFMOs). In trawl fisheries, seabird mortality has
been increasingly reported in the Southern and Northern Hemispheres. For
example, data collected in the South African hake fleet from 2004–2005,
indicated an annual bycatch of around 18,000 birds3. No known data exists
regarding the level of seabird bycatch in other gears such as purse seines in external
waters. 2.5. Mitigation measures A range of mitigation measures has been developed. Some of these
have been shown to be highly effective at reducing seabird bycatch. These
measures can be split between specific measures by fishing method and measures
with broad applicability across multiple fishing gears. Most have been developed to reduce bycatch in longline fisheries and
these can be divided into four main categories: (1)
Avoidance of fishing in areas and/or at times
when seabird interactions are most likely and intense (night setting, area and
seasonal closures). (2)
Limiting bird access to baited hooks (weighted
lines and side-setting). (3)
Deterring birds from taking baited hooks
(streamer (bird-scaring) lines and acoustic deterrents). (4)
Reducing the attractiveness or visibility of the
baited hooks (dumping of offal and artificial baits). Research[16]
has shown that benefits can accrue from using these measures in longline
fisheries through reductions in direct costs from reduced bait loss to seabirds;
damage to fish catches from depredation by seabirds; and direct gear damage
caused by seabirds. There are also indirect cost benefits from reducing catches
foregone from seabirds being caught on baited hooks that could otherwise have
yielded catch. Mitigation measures tested in static net
fisheries are fewer in number. Two methods have been proposed and tested to
alert seabirds to the presence of static nets and thereby avoid collision[17]. One method is to increase the
visibility of the net (visual alerts), and the other method is to attach acoustic
deterrents (pingers) to nets. Encounters with static nets may also be reduced
by setting nets deeper than the diving depth of seabirds. None of these methods
are widely used currently. Streamer lines, adapted from longline
fisheries in association with the management of offal discharge during shooting
and hauling, have been demonstrated to be effective at reducing seabird interactions
and mortality in trawl fisheries. Reducing entanglements in trawls is more difficult,
but in CCAMLR it has been demonstrated that seabird mortality from entanglement
can be almost eliminated by simple measures such as net binding[18]. 2.6. The policy framework 2.6.1. The CFP The EU-PoA is aligned with the overarching
objective of the CFP[19],
which points to the need to minimise the impacts of fishing activities on
marine ecosystems (including seabirds) and progressively implement an ecosystem
based approach to fisheries management. Under the
reform of the CFP[20], currently being undertaken, the Commission has re-affirmed this
commitment and aims to achieve this objective measures through
several elements of the reform package: ·
A new regionalised approach to technical
measures to allow mitigation measures to be tailored to specific fisheries. This approach will take time to be developed and the final content
is dependent on the outcome of the reform but should be in place by 2016. In
the meantime, where appropriate and urgently required, already available and
proven mitigation measures may be incorporated into multiannual management
plans. ·
The new EU Multiannual Programme for Data
Collection (DCMAP) planned to be introduced in 2014. Discussions are currently
on-going regarding whether to include the monitoring of other ecosystem
components including seabirds. Input from experts and a costing of such an
extension of the current Data Collection Framework are still needed. Nevertheless,
systematic collection and reporting of data on seabird bycatch remains essential
to tackling seabird bycatch. ·
Financial support for new measures provided
under the current European Fisheries Fund (EFF) and the
new European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF)[21]. The new EMFF is scheduled to be introduced in 2014 and would provide aid
for the development and use of mitigation measures,
pilot projects and the testing of alternative monitoring technologies such as
CCTV. ·
The commitment given by the Commission in the
recent Communication on the External Dimension of the CFP[22] to take a more pro-active role
in the RFMOs and try to remedy the current situation of poor compliance with
conservation and management measures. 2.6.2. Environmental Legislation The EU-PoA depends on parts of the EU
environmental acquis, in particular the Birds9 and Habitats
Directives[23]
and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD)[24]. The
full implementation of these Directives is part of the EU’s response to its
commitments under the UN Convention on Biological Diversity[25], and is reinforced by the commitment made by EU Heads of State
"to halt the loss of biodiversity [in the EU] by 2010"; it is further
reiterated in the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020[26]. The key measure established by the Birds
Directive is a general scheme of protection for all wild birds prohibiting
various acts including, most relevant to fisheries, deliberate killing or
capture by any method[27].
The Birds and Habitats Directives also establish the Natura 2000 network of
protected areas, which embraces sites designated under any of the Directives
concerned – Special Protection Areas (SPAs) established under the Birds
Directive and Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) established under the
Habitats Directive. As of February 2011, under the Birds Directive, a total of
936 SPAs covering an area of 122,000km² have been established in marine areas. The MFSD aims to bring
coherence between different policies and foster the integration of
environmental concerns into other policies, such as the CFP. Under the MSFD protection of seabirds is recognised as a requirement
that will contribute towards the achievement of Good Environmental Status (GES).
Its implementation is a legal
requirement under the TFEU and dedicated measures to protect seabirds are
implicitly required in compliance with the Directive. In the context of the
MFSD and also the EU-PoA, the issue of seabird bycatch is also covered within
the framework of Regional Sea Conventions on marine environment, in particular
OSPAR[28],
HELCOM[29]
and the Barcelona Convention[30]. 2.6.2.1. External Policy In external waters the RFMOs remain key for
conservation and mangement of seabirds with RFMOs having been given explicit
responsibilities under the UN Fish Stocks Agreement (UNFSA)[31] for minimising bycatch in
their fisheries. To date, the majority of RFMOs have adopted some form of
mitigation measures aimed at avoiding seabird mortality in longline fisheries. As
a contracting party to many RFMOs, the EU is bound to implement those measures. The EU has also made a number of commitments
related to the principles of sustainable development and others more
specifically related to the management of the shared ocean resources, including
species at conservation risk which are relevant to the EU-PoA. These include: –
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
(UNCLOS)[32]
–
The United Nations Convention
on Biological Diversity (CBD)[33]
–
The Convention on the
Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (also known as CMS or Bonn
Convention)[34] Under the auspices of
CMS there is an Agreement on the Conservation of
Albatrosses and Petrels (ACAP)[35].
This is a legally binding international treaty whose objective is to achieve
and maintain a favourable conservation status for albatrosses and petrels by addressing threats on land and at-sea, bycatch
is arguably the primary threat for this group of species. 3. THE EU-PoA The objective of the
EU-POA is to minimise and, where possible, eliminate the incidental
catches of seabirds, with priority action focussing on individuals belonging to
at least 49 threatened seabird populations by EU vessels operating in EU and
non-EU waters, as well as by non-EU vessels operating in EU waters. For other
seabirds where the populations are stable but bycatch are at levels that are
cause for concern, bycatch should be reduced as a first step towards bycatch
elimination. Additional specific
objectives are to: (1)
Identify and rectify weaknesses and
incoherencies in current management measures both in EU and non-EU waters. (2)
Consolidate and collect data critical to establish
the extent and threat posed by seabird bycatch particularly to the populations
of species identified as being of conservation concern. (3)
Minimise bycatch of seabird species of
conservation concern to levels that eliminate the threat to the populations of these
species through the implementation of appropriate mitigation measures. (4)
Address the lack of acceptance by fishermen that
seabird bycatch is a problem as well as the lack of incentive for fishermen to
adopt mitigation measures. (5)
Resolve outstanding difficulties with existing
mitigation used in longline fisheries and address the absence of effective
mitigation measures for other fishing gears, particularly static net fisheries. 3.1. Scope and Structure The EU-PoA will follow
an adaptive management approach, recommending actions in areas and fisheries
identified as having incidental catches of seabirds. It provides a
framework to develop a clear and comprehensive picture of the scale of
incidental seabird bycatch in EU fisheries and identify the action required to
introduce mitigation and management measures that will achieve a coherent and
effective approach to minimising the problem. The scope of the EU-PoA covers all EU vessels
operating in Union waters and to EU flagged vessels in external waters. In EU waters actions under the EU-PoA will be supported by the increased
implementation of fishery management measures in Special Protection Areas created
under the Birds Directive (Article 4). Member States will be encouraged to
adopt similar measures within the network of Important Bird Areas (IBA)[36].
Demonstrable use of seabird friendly gear should be a pre-condition for access
to fishing opportunities in such areas where seabirds are a qualifying feature
and where bycatch threatens their favourable conservation status. In order to
ensure a coherent approach between the internal and external EU fisheries
policy for seabirds, the Union will seek that the relevant international bodies
enhance these measures by
facilitating their adoption by fishermen, integrating seabird bycatch
monitoring into observer programmes (where this has not already been achieved)
and promoting best practice to non-EU fleets. The Long Distance Fleet Regional
Advisory Council (LDRAC) has a clear role in assisting with this task. 3.2. Defining the problem One of the biggest challenges in
implementing the EU-PoA is to define the existence of an incidental seabird
bycatch problem in the first place. Current information such as IUCN listings and
reporting under the Birds Directive are the most reliable sources to identify
fisheries where measures are needed urgently but are limited. They do not allow
accurate and realistic assessments of seabird populations and the impact of
bycatch on these populations. This means defining clear management targets is
problematic in most fisheries. The FAO IPOA-Seabirds1 does not
define what constitutes a seabird bycatch "problem" generically, but
recommends undertaking an assessment based on the following components: (a)
the magnitude of seabird bycatch (rate or
number); (b)
species that are incidentally caught, and their
conservation status; (c)
spatial and temporal overlap of fishing effort
with seabirds; and (d)
population trends of seabirds likely to be
impacted by bycatch. An assessment should be based on all
available data including inter alia, bycatch data collected by at-sea
observers, seabird data and other anecdotal information which may be the first
sign of a more generalised problem. Observer programmes are the best source of
data but it is not realistic to establish specific seabird bycatch programmes
for EU fisheries, except perhaps in those fisheries in external waters where it
is already a mandatory requirement. Therefore other approaches as well the criteria used to define what constitutes a ‘problem’ need to be
developed. As an action under the EU-PoA, the Commission will request the relevant
scientific body to update existing information and also to explore the criteria
and whether biological indicators (e.g. PBR[37]
or BPUE[38])
could be used for defining a problem and setting management targets. 3.3. Research, Training,
Education and Awareness-Raising In their Best Practice Technical Guidelines[39], the FAO stress the importance
of research, particularly into the development of mitigation measures, as part
of any Plan of Action. Such research should encourage innovation through
collaboration of the fishing industry, scientists, environmental NGOs and
resource managers. It must be scientifically robust but
also consider how most effectively to convert the results into uptake of
mitigation measures. The FAO also highlight the need to
establish education and training programmes to raise awareness among fishermen,
fisheries representative organisations and other relevant groups about the need
to address the problem of seabird bycatch. At EU level the RACs have a vital
role play in developing these programmes, while at international level the EU will support the establishment and
strengthening of outreach and education programmes to fishermen in priority
seabird bycatch areas. Research, training, education
and awareness-raising measures are all included as integral parts of the
EU-PoA. 3.4. Actions under the EU-PoA Annex I lists the actions under the PoA by
specific objectives; the responsible parties for each action; and also the
anticipated timeline for completing these actions. 3.5. Reporting and evaluation Under the EU-PoA, the intention is that
Member States should report biennially to the Commission on the level of
seabird bycatch observed by fishery and gear type, the implementation of any
mitigation measures and the effectiveness of these mitigation measures. The
Commission working with the relevant scientific body will develop a standard
reporting format to facilitate Member States to submit information to the
Commission and which could also be used to facilitate data access to the wider
public. On the basis of these reports, the
Commission will carry out an interim assessment of the EU-PoA after the second
of these reports and then produce a Communication for the Parliament and
Council on the implementation of the plan based on this information. The relevant scientific body as appropriate
would be requested to input into this review. In particular ICES would be asked
to supply population and bycatch estimates for the species of concern. Such
population data is reviewed routinely by the ICES Working Group on Seabird
Ecology (WGSE). This would provide a benchmark of populations to be compared
against bycatch levels and allow evaluation of the extent of the problem by
seabird species and fishery. The Commission would carry out a full
review and evaluation of the EU-PoA after the fourth report (eight years) of
implementation and update the EU-PoA accordingly. This review would be timed to
coincide with the obligation under the MSFD to reach GES for marine ecosystems
by 2020. Under Article 12 of the Birds Directive
Member States must report every three years on the implementation of national
provisions taken under the Directive. Where relevant,
Member States could also use these reports as a data source (e.g. seabird
population estimates) for use in evaluating the effectiveness of the PoA. 4. CONCLUSIONS The EU-PoA entails a wide range of elements
including recommended actions, strengthening existing provisions and
incorporation of certain elements into future Regulations. Some of these
measures can be implemented at Union level while others need action by Member
States or must be endorsed by RFMOs. Furthermore, the EU-PoA foresees both
actions that can be implemented immediately while others that need a longer
term commitment based on available evidence and scientific advice. The timing
of the implementation of the EU-PoA will therefore depend on the contributions
of all actors involved. The Commission presents this EU-PoA to the Council and
Parliament and encourages them to endorse it fully. Annex I
List of actions in the EU-PoA Specific Objective 1: Identifying and addressing weaknesses and incoherencies in current management measures both in EU and non-EU waters. Action || Responsible Party || Timetable Explore the criteria that could be used to define a seabird bycatch problem || COM in conjunction with scientific bodies || 1st Quarter 2013 Progress designation of the SPA network, including by using IBAs to identify candidate SPAs || MS, COM || Continuous Progress the development and implementation of fisheries management measures to protect seabirds in designated SPAs under the Birds Directive, in other MPAs, including those established in overseas countries and territories as well as in IBAs and extend these to the wider seas where required || MS, COM || Continuous Review current monitoring and mitigation measures to protect seabirds in RFMO and assess levels of compliance with current measures || MS, COM, RFMOs, LDRAC || Continuous Encourage RFMOs, both through direct request and via the FAO, to develop their own National/Regional Plans of Action, consistent with the FAO Best Practice Technical Guidelines || COM, RFMOs || Continuous Ensure, to the extent possible, that mitigation measures used by EU vessels fishing in external waters, are also used by vessels flagged to non-EU States but owned or controlled by owners and operators based in the MS || COM, MS, RFMOs, LDRAC || Continuous Propose a specific recommendation(s) in the Coastal States agreement for non-EU vessels operating in EU waters to adopt mitigation measures and report on seabird bycatch || COM || By the latest end of 2013 Specific Objective 2: Collecting data critical to establishing the extent of seabird bycatch, particularly in fisheries/areas in EU and no-EU waters where the information is limited, only anecdotal and/or not available. Action || Responsible Party || Timetable Review available bycatch data, validate sources of information and identify fisheries where appropriate follow up actions with more detailed investigations are required || MS, COM in conjunction with scientific bodies || By the latest end of 2013 Adopt a precautionary approach where information is lacking or uncertain on seabird bycatch and undertake more extensive monitoring of fisheries falling into this category (A minimum 10% observer coverage in the short term should be aimed for) || MS || Following from initial assessment Ensure that observers routinely deployed on vessels operating in external waters accurately record seabird bycatch. || MS, RFMOs || Continuous Ensure that observer data is routinely submitted to the Secretariat of the respective RFMO and the Commission to facilitate analysis of observer programme data || MS, RFMOs, COM || Continuous Establish a standard reporting format for recording seabird bycatch on a voluntary basis and to maintain a database of seabird bycatch in EU fisheries based on the information supplied by MS || COM in conjunction with ICES || End of 2012 Consider the feasibility of incorporating the monitoring of seabirds under the new DCF || COM || Beginning of 2014 Specific Objective 3: Implementation of mitigation measures where information indicates occurrence of seabird bycatch. Action || Responsible Party || Timetable Implement proven mitigation measures in longline fisheries in the Gran Sol, Mediterranean and non-EU waters (where not already required to do so). In these fisheries at least two of the following mitigation measures should be used: – Night setting with minimum deck lighting – Bird-scaring lines (Tori lines) – Line weighting Mitigation measures should comply with minimum technical standards as set out in Birdlife and ACAP guidelines[40] || COM, MS, RFMOs || By the latest end of 2013 Promote the adoption of mitigation measures at international level, where appropriate and not already applicable. || COM || Continuous Assess and implement mitigation measures applicable in static net fisheries in the Baltic, eastern North Sea and western waters where incidental catches of seabirds are well-documented || MS || By the latest end of 2013 Recommend that all vessels implement on-board management of offal/discards according to best practice guidelines[41] || MS || By the latest end of 2013 On the basis of a review of RFMOs bring forward proposals for additional mitigation measures and improved monitoring in RFMOs || COM, MS, RFMOs, LDRAC || Continuous Propose the incorporation of relevant mitigation measures under the technical measures regulation being developed in the context of the reform of the CFP and also ensure the inclusion of specific measures under multiannual plans, as a matter of priority where appropriate and urgently required. || COM || From 2016 following adoption of a new technical measure regulation and the development of multiannual plans Encourage Member States to transpose the EU-PoA into national legislation || COM, MS || By the latest end of 2013 Provide sufficient resources, notably supporting funding through the EFF and the new EMFF for the development, testing and implementation of mitigation measures || MS || Immediate action for the EFF. By the latest end of 2014 for the EMFF. Specific Objective 4: Providing education and training to fishermen in the use and benefits of mitigation measures and accurate identification of seabirds for reporting purposes. Action || Responsible Party || Timetable Organise a workshop(s) to inform stakeholders on the EU-PoA || COM || 1st quarter 2013 Promote the adoption of mitigation measures to reduce seabird bycatch and assist in the development of training programs addressed to fishermen and fisheries observers, the preparation and distribution of seabird identification guides and other relevant materials || MS, NGOs, RACs || Continuous Provide sufficient resources, notably supporting funding through the EFF and the new EMFF for delivery of education and awareness raising measures || MS || Continuous Continue to provide training, education and awareness-raising measures to vessels operating in external waters || NGOs, RFMOs || Continuous Extend awareness-raising measures to other stakeholders and the general public || COM, NGOs || Continuous Specific Objective 5: Instigating research into practical and effective mitigation measures for all fishing gears which impact on seabirds. Action || Responsible Party || Timetable Instigate research through EU funding programmes (e.g. FP7, LIFE) into the development of practical and efficient mitigation measures, evaluation of the effectiveness of those measures and evaluation and improvement of technologies and practices already in place. Emphasis should be placed on developing mitigation measures for static net fisheries in the short-term || COM, MS, RACs, NGOs || Continuous Continue research on the development of alternative fishing gear aiming to overcome adverse fishery-induced impacts on SPAs so as to facilitate access to fishing opportunities || MS, RACs, NGOs || Continuous If monitoring of bycatch of seabirds is included in the EU Multiannual Programme for Data Collection 2014-2020, assess how novel electronic monitoring technologies can be used to monitor seabird bycatch and, as appropriate, ensure their implementation || MS, RACs, NGOs || 2014 Provide sufficient resources, notably supporting funding through the EFF and the new EMFF to facilitate uptake and testing of mitigation measures and also additional monitoring of fisheries with suspected bycatch issues || MS || Immediate action for the EFF. By the latest end of 2014 for the EMFF. Annex II
Latin Names of Seabird Species Mentioned Balearic shearwater || Puffinus mauretanicus Sooty shearwater || Puffinus griseus Yelkouan shearwater || Puffinus yelkouan Audouin's gull || Larus audouinii Corys shearwater || Calonectris diomedea Mediterranean gull || Larus melanocephalus Black-legged kittiwake || Rissa tridactyla Black guillemot || Cepphus grylle Manx shearwater || Puffinus puffinus Yellow-legged gull || Larus michahellis Northern fulmar || Fulmarus glacialis Great shearwater || Puffinus gravis Northern gannet || Morus bassanus Divers || Gaviidae spp. Grebes || Podicipedidae spp. Sea ducks || Merginae spp. Diving ducks || Aythyinae spp. Auks || Alcidae spp. Cormorants || Phalacrocoracidae spp. Steller's eider || Polysticta stelleri Red-throated diver || Gavia stellata Black-throated diver || Gavia arctica Slavonian grebe || Podiceps auritus Smew || Mergellus albellus Iberian guillemot || Uria aalge ibericus European shag || Phalacrocorax aristotelis Albatross spp. || Diomedeidae spp. Petrel spp. || Procellaria and Macronectes spp. [1] FAO. 1999. International Plan of Action for reducing
incidental catches of seabirds in longline fisheries. Rome, FAO. 1999. pp 1-11.
[2] ICES Advice 2008, Book 1,
1.5.1.3 Interactions between fisheries and seabirds in EU waters ICES. 2008. Report of
the Working Group on Seabird Ecology (WGSE), ICES CM 2008/LRC:05. 99pp. [3] ICES. 2009. Report of the Working Group on Seabird
Ecology (WGSE), 23-27 March 2009, Bruges, Belgium. ICES CM 2009/LRC:10.91 pp. ICES. 2010. Report of
the Working Group on Seabird Ecology (WGSE), 15-19 March 2010, Copenhagen,
Denmark. ICES CM 2010/SSGEF:10.77pp. [4] Anderson O.R.J., Small C.J., Croxall J.P., Dunn E.K.,
Sullivan B.J. Yates O. and Black A. 2011. Global seabird bycatch in longline
fisheries. Endangered Species Research Vol. 14:91-106. [5] Longlines mean a number of connected lines, either
set at the bottom or drifting bearing a large number of baited hooks. [6] Static nets mean nets for which the catch operation
does not require an active movement of the nets. Such nets consist of one or
more separate nets which are rigged with top, bottom and connecting ropes, and
may be equipped with anchoring, floating and navigational gear. [7] Trawl means gear which is actively towed by one or
more fishing vessels and consisting of a net having a cone or pyramid-shaped
body closed by a bag or codend. [8] Purse seine means encircling gear made up of a net
where the bottom is drawn together by means of a purse line at the bottom of
the net, which passes through a series of rings along the groundrope, enabling
the net to be closed. [9] Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and
of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds [10] http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/documentation/studies/indez_en.htm [11] Žydelis, R., Bellebaum, J., Österblom, H., Vetemaa, M.,
Schirmeister, B., Stipniece, A., Dagys, M., van Eerden, M. and Garthe, S. 2009.
Bycatch in gillnet fisheries- An overlooked threat to waterbird populations.
Biological Conservation, 142: 1269-1281. [12] ACAP 2009. Species Assessments. Available at www.acap.aq/acap-species. [13] Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine
Living Resources [14] International Commission for the Conservation of
Atlantic Tunas [15] Indian Ocean Tuna Commission [16] http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/documentation/studies/index_en.htm [17] Melvin, E.F., Parrish, J.K. and
Conquest, L.L. 1999. Novel tools to reduce seabird bycatch in coastal gillnet
fisheries. Cons. Biol. 13: 1386-1397. [18] Sullivan, B. J., Clark, J. Reid, K,
Reid E (2009). Development of effective mitigation to
reduce seabird mortality in the icefish (Champsocephalus gunnar) trawl
fishery in Subarea 48.3. WG-IMAF-09-15. CCAMLR, Hobart, Australia [19] OJ L 358, 31.12.2002, p.59. [20] COM(2011)425. [21] COM(2011)804. [22] COM(2011)424. [23] OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, P. 7-50 [24] OJ L 164, 25.6.2008, p.19-40 [25] OJ L 309, 13.12.1993, p. 1. [26] COM(2011) 244. [27] In the light of case law of the Court of Justice of the
European Union, C-221/04, paragraph 71. [28] http://www.ospar.org/ [29] http://www.helcom.fi/ [30] http://www.unepmap.org/index.php?module=content2&catid=001001004 [31] http://www.tuna-org.org/Documents/TRFMO2/19%20ANNEX%205.11%20ENG.pdf [32] OJ L 179, 23.6.1998, p. 3-134 [33] OJ L 309, 13.12.1993, p. 1. [34] http://www.cms.int/about/intro.htm [35] https://www.acap.aq/ [36] Birdlife International (2011). Important Bird Areas
factsheets. http://www.birdlife.org [37] PBR is a measure of the maximum number of animal/birds,
not including natural mortalities, which can be removed from a population,
while still allowing that stock to reach or maintain its optimum sustainable population
level. [38] BPUE is the bird bycatch per unit effort. [39] FAO 2008. Report of the Expert Consultation on Best
Practice Technical Guidelines for IPOA/NPOA-Seabirds. Bergen, Norway, 2-5
September 2008. 46pp. [40] http://www.rspb.org.uk/ourwork/policy/marine/international/advocacy/mitigationfactsheets.aspx [41] http://www.birdlife.org/seabirds/downloads/FS_13_Trawl_fisheries_warp_strike_final.pdf