Multiannual plans for certain stocks fished in the Baltic Sea, the North Sea and the Western Waters, and for fisheries exploiting those stocks: targets for fixing fishing opportunities

The Commission proposal is disappointing. The question of what to do once stocks are under MSY Btrigger and Blim is unresolved and the proposed amendment leaves us in a worse position than before. The proposal undermines the socioeconomic viability of the fishing industry, in particular the small-scale fleet segment, by removing a key fish stock recovery mechanism.

Sciaena is highly concerned with the European Commission's unexpected proposal to remove Article 4(6) from the Baltic, North Sea Fisheries Multi Annual Plans (MAPs) and Article 4(7) from the Western Waters MAPs, as these articles constitute a vital safeguard that prevents fish stocks from collapsing.

On December 6, 2023, the European Commission has unexpectedly proposed the removal of Article 4(6) from the Baltic and North Sea Fisheries Multi Annual Plans (MAPs) and Article 4(7) from the Western Waters MAPs.

The proposed removal of Article 4(6) from the Baltic and North Sea Fisheries Multi Annual Plans (MAPs) and Article 4(7) from the Western Waters MAPs came without prior consultation and quite unexpected. Indeed the proposed removal would be a turn around of the EU's commitment to the sustainable management of all fish stocks and the application of a precautionary approach in doing so.

EAPO members welcome the Commissions proposal to delete the 5% rule. From EAPOs perspective, this will limit inconsistencies, ensuring that effective measures are carried out to rebuild fish stocks. Seeing as this proposal comes at the end of the mandate, EAPO members request that no further additions to the proposal be made to ensure a swift adoption by all co-legislators.

WWF strongly opposes the proposed repeal of the so-called 5% rule in Regulations (EU) 2016/1139, (EU) 2018/973 and (EU) 2019/472. The proposal goes against international and european law and the principles found therein, most notably the precautionary approach, and as such, this correction, as labelled by the European Commission, is deemed inconsistent with other Union policies, contrary to what is stated in the…

Ecologistas en Acción would like to express our rejection of the European Commission’s proposal to abolish the 5 % rule, as it is essential to maintain ambitious, quantifiable and legally binding targets to ensure the temporary cessation of fishing on fish stocks below critical biomass levels.

Filed in Spanish · English published by the European Commission

The European Anglers Alliance (EAA) does not agree with the Commission's proposal to delete the 5% rule in the MAPs (Multiannual Plans). The rule is needed to protect fish stocks against overfishing. - We are happy that the European Parliament's plenary voted against (16 January) making use of its 'Urgent Procedure' as requested by the Council.

The CNPMEM is in line with the European Commissions proposal and supports the removal of this provision in the MAPs. Indeed, the application of the 5% rule (Article 4) could, for some stock, result in a situation that would be inconsistent with the other rules of the MAPs governing the fixing of fishing opportunities and could have serious socio-economic consequences (requiring the adoption of corrective measures…

It is FishSecs view that the Commissions proposal should be rejected. We also object to the procedural handling of this proposal. A) The Commissions proposal to remove the failsafe from the multiannual management plans, i.e. Art. 4(6) of the Baltic MAP, which is there to protect vulnerable fish stocks in decline, will further jeopardize fish populations and the fisheries that depend on them. With the removal of Art.

CCB does not approve of this proposal and suggests the best way forward is to withdraw it and start over. CCB considers that the Commission proposal is poorly justified, and that it is questionable both from a procedural point of view as well as from a legal point of view.

The Deutsche Umwelthilfe (DUH) opposes the proposal to remove Article 4(6)/(7) from the multi annual plans for the Baltic Sea, the North Sea and the Western Waters (hereafter the 5% rule). Moreover, DUH is concerned about the process of the proposal: There has been no public consultation before the presentation of the proposal, and no thorough impact assessment has been conducted to date.

BalticWaters strongly disapprove to the removal of Article 4(6) of the Multi Annual Plans for the Baltic Sea. The Baltic Sea, and a majority of its commercial fish stocks, are under severe pressure. Populations are in decline and show no, or weak signs of recovery. Therefore, legislation needs to be strengthened rather than weakened to secure long-term sustainable fisheries and ecosystems.

Stichting de Noordzee (North Sea Foundation) is very concerned about the European Commissions proposal to remove Article 4(6) from the Baltic and North Sea Fisheries Multi Annual Plans (MAPs) (december 6, 2023).

European Fishmeal and Fish Oil Producers has always supported fixing fishing opportunities based on the best scientific advice. It is also important for the sustainable management of stocks and the economic viability of fishing industries (primary production and processing activities) that the decision-making process for setting TACs is well-defined.

BUND strongly opposes the removal of the 5% rule from the multi annual plans for the Baltic Sea, the North Sea and the Western Waters. In addition to the rejection of the substantive justification of the proposal, BUND would like to express serious concerns about the process through which this proposal has gone through. We strongly disapprove the rushed and flawed procedure.

The Stockholm University Baltic Sea Centres comments below refer primarily to the proposal to amend the Baltic MAP. They are to a large extent also relevant for the other MAPs. Summary - The Commission proposal should be withdrawn. It is faulty in content and the process leading up to the proposal was deficient. - The Commission proposal would increase the level of risk permitted by the MAP.

The full BSAC response is attached to this extract. Procedural aspects The BSAC underlines that the BSAC was not formally consulted on this proposal before the opening of the feedback mechanism and no formal discussions within the BSAC had previously taken place, despite the inference of such discussions under the heading stakeholder consultations in the proposal.

Generell konnte sich die Anwendung des MSY-Prinzips als Grundlage für die nachhaltige Bewirtschaftung von Fischbeständen nicht bewähren, weil die Berechnungsgrundlagen bei der Einführung unvollständig waren. Es fehlten in der Berechnung die Rückwürfe in der Schleppnetzfischerei. die zu dieser Zeit noch weit über 20% lagen.

EFTTA, the European Fishing Tackle & Trade Association does not agree with changes, which water down the protection of fish stocks against overfishing.We agree that the MAP texts could be phrased better but this should not be achieved by lowering the stock protection level, which seems to be the case according to the Stockholm University Baltic Sea Centre.