Explanatory Memorandum to COM(2010)658 - Fixing for 2011 of the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in certain non EU waters - Main contents
Please note
This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.
| dossier | COM(2010)658 - Fixing for 2011 of the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, ... |
|---|---|
| source | COM(2010)658  |
| date | 10-11-2010 |
Grounds for and objectives of the proposalEach year, the Council of Ministers is bound to take a decision on fishing opportunities for the stocks in the Atlantic, the North Sea and international fisheries in which EU vessels participate. This is the main fishing opportunities regulation by number of regulated stocks. Along with the regulations fixing the fishing opportunities for the Baltic Sea, the Black sea and the deep sea stocks (the latter every two years), these regulations limit the harvesting of the stocks to levels which must be consistent with the overall objectives of the Common Fisheries Policy. In this respect, Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy i sets out the objectives for the annual proposals for catch and fishing effort limitations to ensure that EU fisheries are ecologically, economically and socially sustainable.The fishing opportunities fixed in these regulations reflect the degree of success of the Policy as a whole. The array of instruments that the Union utilises in pursuit of the Policy's objectives should, all together, work to ensure that the resource base for the European fisheries is exploited at the right level and not beyond. That management is not only the result of limiting fishing opportunities. Fleet policy and control of fishing activities, to name just two other areas where the Policy actively develops regulatory measures, may be determinant in this respect. The key feature of the annual fishing opportunities exercise is in fact its short-term nature. This is due essentially to historical reasons, relating to the way in which the CFP provides for the sharing of the maritime space and the resources therein among national EU fleets. It is important to maintain an annually-renewed process for this EU-wide pact at the basis of the Policy. However, this does not stand in the way of the introduction of long-term management approaches. The Union has made good progress in this regard and key stocks of commercial interest are now subject to multi-annual management plans that yearly TACs and effort ceilings must comply with. The overall assessment is that multi-annual plans work, as most stocks so regulated do in general better than the others. It is only from a long-term perspective that, especially in times of scarcity, the regulator can expect to implement a meaningful policy and give itself a fair chance of achieving its objectives.In this context, the Commission has, for five years now, published a Communication that reviews the state of the situation to which the fishing opportunities proposals must respond. This year, the Communication from the Commission on the Consultation on Fishing Opportunities for 2011 (COM(2010)241 final), notes some good news, as the state of some stocks has improved. However, many fish stocks remain subject to an advice to reduce catches to zero or to the lowest possible level. Many stocks are outside safe biological limits. Despite conservation measures imposed under the CFP, too many stocks are in these vulnerable categories and far too few stocks have improved. The analysis confirms that we need reinforced conservation measures for overexploited fish stocks.For 2011, the advice from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) and the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) once more underlines the poor state of many fish resources in EU waters. But it notes improvements in certain important stocks, such as hake, sole and anglerfish. In response to the Commission's request, ICES is providing advice on a strategy to reach management consistent with Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) in 2015. This is something the Union committed to do when it subscribed to the conclusions of the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg and its related Plan of Implementation.
General contextThe fixing and sharing of possibilities for fishing falls exclusively within the competence of the Union. The EU's obligations for sustainable exploitation of living aquatic resources arise from obligations set out in Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002.Fishing opportunities decided by the Union which regard straddling and highly migratory stocks must be in accordance with international agreements, inter alia the 1995 United Nations agreement concerning the conservation and management of straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks. This proposal implements into EU law the conservation measures agreed by the Union with its international counterparts in respect of such stocks, when these translate into fishing opportunities, be they catch or fishing effort limits.For stocks whose management is incumbent only upon the Union, the proposed fishing opportunities respond to the scientific advice received by the Commission as to the state of the stocks, on the basis of which, catch limits compliant with multi-annual management plans are determined. For stocks not covered by such plans, the proposed TACs respond to the scientific advice in the manner outlined in Communication COM(2010)241 final. The Communication indeed outlines a number of management responses deemed appropriate for each of the various scenarios that may emerge from the scientific advice, depending on the status of the stock (from 'sustainably exploited' down to 'depleted') or on the trends observed if precise assessment is not possible on the basis of available data. Stocks are assigned to categories. Rules to determine the catch/effort limits that should apply are then assigned to each of them.Scientific advice is essentially dependent on data. Only stocks for which there is sufficient and reliable data can be assessed, so that size estimates are produced, as well as forecast of how they will react to the various exploitation scenarios (this is referred to as 'catch options tables'). Such situation exists only for a number of regulated stocks. For the remainder, management has to be based on observed trends derived from indicators such as reported catches, which may be more or less reliable. In certain cases, the lack of reliable data prevents scientists to advice even on trends. In all these cases, the Council should decide on fishing opportunities based on the Precautionary Approach, thus implementing conservative measures. This approach is sometimes difficult to follow, taking into account the various interests at stake. The Commission is nevertheless bound to make proposals in accordance with this principle. It is essential, in particular, to apply strictly the rule whereby there must be no increase in fishing pressure unless the scientific advice indicates that this is possible without detriment to the stock concerned.
Existing provisions in the area of the proposalThe existing provisions in the area of the proposal are applicable until 31 December 2010, with the exception of certain effort limitations which are applicable until 31 January 2011.
Consistency with other policies and objectives of the UnionThe measures proposed are designed in accordance with the objectives and the rules of the Common Fisheries Policy and are consistent with the Union's policy on sustainable development.
Consultation of interested parties
Consultation methods, main sectors targeted and general profile of respondentsThe proposal takes into account consultations held with the Advisory Committee on Fisheries and Aquaculture ('ACFA' is composed of representatives from professional organisations representing the production sector, the processing industry and trade in fishery and aquaculture products as well as non-professional organisations representing the interests of consumers, the environment and development) and the Regional Advisory Councils (RACs) with an interest in the fisheries concerned by the proposal. These consultations have taken place on the basis of the Communication from the Commission to the Council and European Parliament on improving consultation on Community fisheries management (COM(2006)246 final), which sets out the principles for the so called front-loading process.In this framework, the Commission developed four consultation papers on specific topics relevant for this proposal, namely:Spatially-structured management of Nephrops in Zone VII;Separating TAC areas for Plaice in VIId and in VIIe;Effort Management in Zone VIIfg: An Ecosystem Approach;Management decisions addressing uncertainties in category 11 stocks.The first two documents discuss technical adjustments to the spatial implementation of catch limits and the calculations needed to align Member State quota shares accordingly. The third paper discusses the introduction of an effort capping as a response to general advice on Celtic Sea stocks to freeze or reduce fishing effort. The last paper discusses a possible approach to make decisions regarding stocks for which scientists are unable to issue advice for lack of appropriate data, and is being discussed with a view to the proposal for 2012. This is so because the implementation of the proposed approach would first need to be taken up within the scientific advice process in the first half of 2011. These frontloading documents were submitted to Member States and also transmitted to the RACs to provide them with an opportunity for feedback. The Commission organised a joint ACFA and RACs meeting on 14 October, preceded by an open seminar (with participation of Member States, Members of the European Parliament, fisheries experts, stakeholders, the press and the public) on 14 September, at which the outcomes of the scientific advice and its key implications were presented and discussed.The Consultation process was also based on the Communication from the Commission on the Consultation on Fishing Opportunities for 2011 (COM(2010)241 final), which set out the views and intentions of the Commission concerning its proposals for fishing opportunities, pending the scientific advice on the state of the stocks for 2011.
Summary of responses and how they have been taken into accountWhereas the frontloading process is focused on technical aspects, the response to the Commission's consultation on fishing opportunities reflects the views of Member States and Stakeholders on the evaluation made by the Commission of the state of the resources and how to ensure the appropriate management response.In this respect, four Member States and 4 Regional advisory bodies have provided views in response to the Commission's Communication.The points made by each of the RACs that responded can be summarised as follows:South Western Waters RAC: Supports the MSY target and regrets the Commission did not start moving earlier towards this target. It should be implemented in a mixed fishery, ecosystem context. It regrets, however, that this approach will result in larger TAC reductions than otherwise for stocks in categories 2 and 3.Concerning the devolution of single-MS TAC decisions to MS, SWWRAC considers a mechanism for sector consultation should be constructed, not just a delegation to MS.Supports multi-annual plans, but these should include technical measures, capacity and effort limits etc. and developed in a regional framework.Stresses the problem of missing scientific information.Questions the effort data for the southern hake stock.Opposes moves to average catch levels under categories 6 and 9.North Western Waters RAC: Notes the legislative obligation of the EU to reach the MSY target. However, in light of scientific uncertainties and the lack of data, the Commission will have to make choices at the precautionary end of the range. The RAC fears, like the SWWRAC, that this will result in larger TAC reductions than in previous years for stocks in categories 2 and 3. The industry members of the RAC recognise that an assessment of the socio-economic effects on all fishers of the 2011 proposals made under the new principle for every stock is clearly impossible. They underline, nevertheless that such an assessment should be made before a highly significant change in policy direction is imposed.With regard to the Celtic Sea management, the NWWRAC is more favourable to a fishing capacity cap than an in effort cap.With regard to the management of plaice in subdivisions VII d and VII e, the RAC does not agree with the proposed TAC split for reasons relating to the mixing of the two stocks, and believes that the Member States involved in these fisheries are best placed to manage the TAC to achieve objectives of sustainability.The NWWRAC proposes that an integrated fisheries management plan be developed for the Norway lobster fisheries in VIIa, which should also address the conservation of whiting and sole, as they are essentially by-catches in these fisheries.Pelagic RACWould like the Commission to have presented a more positive picture concerning pelagic stocks.Supports the ICES MSY framework.Would have liked recognition that the TACs for pelagic species are being set according to scientific advice.Continues to argue for improved data.Would like to see a long-term plan for western Baltic herring.Regrets the delay in the adoption of the western horse mackerel multi-annual plan.Notes the need for a process to review estimates of fishing mortality rates consistent with MSY (Fmsy).Regrets the absence of social and economic analysis.North Sea RACPrefers a multispecies, ecosystem-based approach;Opposes 25% reductions for stocks in categories 2 and 10; these should be only 15%;Instead of moving to Fmsy in 4 equal steps by 2015, it would be better to retain some flexibility;Expresses concern at the large number of stocks in data-poor situation and promotes the use of fishermen's information;Claims that continued effort reductions are causing discards;Regrets the absence of social and economic analysis for in-year decisions;Would like any initiatives on devolving responsibilities to include stakeholders;Adds a clarification concerning the effort ceilings for deep-sea species, to indicate that the ceilings are set with reference to the track record of each Member State separately;Opposes reductions for 'Category 11' stocks* * *Stakeholders insist on the principle whereby any changes in the annual TACs and Quotas must be gradual, in order to minimise short-term disruption to the economic activity. As is made clear in the detailed explanation of the proposal below, the principle of gradual adjustment and limitation of annual changes in fishery possibilities has been incorporated into the proposal wherever this has been possible without incurring deterioration in the state of vulnerable resources.Stakeholders also react to the objective of rebuilding stocks to Maximum Sustainable Yield in accordance with the commitment taken by the Union at the 2002 Johannesburg World Summit on Sustainable Development. They generally agree with the objective, but regret that the development of a gradual approach to reach it in 2015 may now be painful for the industry, as this only leaves 5 years to act. They expect the necessary adjustments may reduce their catch expectations for stocks in a reasonably fair state of conservation. Indeed, for such stocks, the MSY objective may require to moderate catches to maximise the benefits of their better status, compared with catch levels aimed simply at keeping the stock within safe biological limits. For stocks where there is sufficient technical basis to proceed ahead with this strategy, the approach followed has been that suggested by ICES, which indeed proposes a step-wise approach towards MSY but with additional safeguards applied to stocks that are at low levels. Following the RACs' views for stocks in relatively good shape would mean renouncing the Johannesburg objective, precisely for the resources for which this looks the most feasible.Stakeholders are quite in agreement regarding the need to devolve responsibility to the industry. All responses underline the need for better data and propose a more active role of the fishing industry in providing such data to scientists. Devolution of responsibility, however, entails assuming the consequences of failing to act. Such consequences become evident with the evolution of the state of the stocks. If it does not improve, fishing opportunities must remain low or even decrease further.
Scientific/expertise domains concernedFisheries biology and fisheries economics.
Methodology usedThe Commission consulted ICES, an international independent scientific body, and organised the plenary meeting of the STECF. Advice from ICES is based on an advice framework developed within ICES and used in accordance with requests from their clients, among which the Commission. The STECF gives its advice following terms of reference that it receives from the Commission.
Main organisations/experts consulted- International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES).- Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF).
Summary of advice received and usedFor the first time in 2010 ICES has provided three options in its advice, corresponding to :the implementation of the 'Precautionary Approach' framework, provided for historical continuity;the immediate application of the ICES MSY framework;a gradual implementation of the ICES MSY framework, leading to full implementation in 2015 (as according to the Johannesburg World Summit).These options are provided in addition to the information needed to implement the rules outlined in Communication COM(2010)241 final, including the gradual transition from current fishing mortality rates to rates consistent with MSY (Fmsy) by 2015.By areas, the most important points stemming from the advice received can be summarised as follows:North Sea, Skagerrak and Kattegat (ICES areas IIa (EU waters), III, IV)Small increases possible for plaice.Small decreases needed for sole, herring, Nephrops, haddock, whiting, saithe.Fishing mortality for cod is increasing since 2007 and the stock is still under the limit biomass reference point, even with discard avoidance measures. Estimated catches are around three times the quota.Herring and haddock are still fished consistently with MSY. Gaelic Sea (Ices area VI)Demersal fisheries in this area have almost fished out the whitefish and now subsist on Nephrops, anglerfish and megrim.Anglerfish: New surveys show declines in abundance since 2007 and in biomass since 2009. This indicates a need to apply category 7 and a 15% TAC reduction. The whitefish are still problematic. Despite the (very contested) new technical measures west of Scotland, discarding of haddock was still 66% in number in 2009. Haddock is still well below Blim; Whiting are in a collapsed state; cod show a very small increase but are still well below Blim also. Advice on Nephrops is again restrictive and implies a 15% reduction.Poor knowledge base due to unreliable catch reports.Cod plan requires further 25% reductions in TAC and in effort.Irish Sea (Ices area VIIa)Situation unchanged since last year:Continued problems with catch reporting;No solution in sight to the problem of depletion of whiting or sole.The Cod plan requires at least a further 25% reduction in TAC and in effort.All fisheries are in a depleted state except for plaice and herring.There is a need to consider an in-depth review of fisheries in this area.Celtic Sea (ICES area VIIb to k)The poor state of the Norway lobster on the Porcupine Bank is confirmed, but there are encouraging signs about the effects of the seasonal closure implemented in 2010.Discarding rates of Norway lobster are estimated around 20 to 25%. The assessment and advice for VIIe sole are reinstated: the multi-annual plan is operational again.An increase in the anglerfish TAC is possible, however this advice does not take into account an increase already agreed last year by the Council.Bay of Biscay and Iberian Atlantic AreaAnchovy in Western Iberian waters shows signs of decrease.It is possible to increase the TAC for anglerfish.The implementation of the Southern hake plan has not been effective: fishing mortality has not decreased and TACs have been overshot.Small TAC decrease for megrims.Norway lobster: 10% decreases in VIIIc and IXa; unchanged in VIIIab.TAC decrease needed for sole in the Bay of Biscay.Deep-sea stocks (All areas)Some abundance indices show increasing trends for ling, tusk and blue ling, but the available information does not allow concluding on trends in the stock size. Scientists continue advising that primary management tool should be effort restrictions, and that measures need to be continued or extended that avoid depletion of local aggregations of certain species (orange roughy, blue ling).
STECF confirms, and has in some cases develops on, the advice provided by ICES.
Means used to make the expert advice publicly availableAll STECF reports are available, after formal adoption by the Commission on the DG MARE website. All ICES reports are available on its website.
Impact assessmentThe fishing opportunities regulation is no longer an instrument that allows the Council alone to adopt complex packages of measures, and must limit itself to the scope set by Article 43 i TFEU. It is therefore well adapted to a management by results approach. If the policy, as a whole, works better, then the annual fishing opportunities will improve. This includes, notably, fleet management, structural support, control and enforcement, markets regulation and integration of management tools into a comprehensive maritime policy. It remains, however, necessary to use this instrument to make adjustments necessary to conserve the resource base for the European harvesting and processing industry, and prevent or correct negative impacts of a too high fishing mortality on the marine environment.The Union has adopted a number of multi-annual management plans for stocks of key economic importance, including hake, cod, flatfish and others. Before their adoption, such plans are subject to the requirement of an Impact Assessment. Once in force, they determine the TAC levels that must be fixed for the given year in order to attain their long-term objectives. The Commission is bound to make its proposal for TACs in accordance with these plans. As a result, many crucial TACs included in the proposal are the result of the specific Impact assessment carried out for the plan they are based upon. For the remainder, and despite the fact that multi-annual plans are not in force for the relevant stocks, the proposal seeks to avoid short-term approaches in favour of longer-term sustainability decisions. In many cases, this entails a more gradual reduction in fishing opportunities. Accordingly, reduced TACs in the short term will lead, as the overexploited stocks recover, to increased catching possibilities. The medium- to long-term consequences of the approach are predicted to be a reduced impact on the environment as a consequence of the decline in fishing effort, reductions in the catching sector in terms of number of vessels and/or in the average fishing effort per vessel, and unchanged or increased landings.
Contents
Summary of the proposed actionThe proposal establishes the catch and effort limitations applicable to EU fisheries and to international fisheries where EU vessels participate, in order to achieve the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy of ensuring fisheries at levels that are biologically, economically and socially sustainable.
Legal basisArticle 43 i of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
Subsidiarity principleThe proposal falls under the Union exclusive competence as referred to in Article 3(1)(d) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The subsidiarity principle therefore does not apply.
Proportionality principleThe proposal complies with the proportionality principle for the following reason.
The Common Fisheries Policy is a common policy. According to Article 43 i TFEU it is incumbent upon the Council to adopt the measures on the fixing and allocation of fishing opportunities. The proposed Council Regulation allocates fishing opportunities to Member States. Having regard to Article 20 i of Regulation 2371/2002 Member States are free to allocate in turn such opportunities among regions or operators as they see fit. Therefore, Member States have ample room for manoeuvre on decisions related to the social/economic model of their choice to exploit their allocated fishing opportunities.
The proposal has no new financial implications for Member States. This Regulation is adopted by Council every year, and the public and private means to implement it are already in place.
Proposed instruments: Regulation.
This is a proposal for fisheries management on the basis of Article 43 i TFEU and in accordance with Article 20 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002.
The proposal has no implication for the EU budget.
Simplification
The proposal provides for simplification of administrative procedures for public authorities (EU or national), in particular as regards requirements regarding the effort management.
The proposal concerns an annual Regulation for the year 2011 and therefore does not include a revision clause.
Detailed explanation of the proposalThe Lisbon Treaty establishes co-decision as the ordinary decision-making procedure for matters falling under the CFP. An exception is foreseen in Article 43 i of the Treaty as regards measures 'on the fixing and allocation of fishing opportunities'. These measures are to be adopted by the Council, on a proposal from the Commission, without the involvement of the Parliament. This proposal is therefore limited to the fixing and allocation of fishing opportunities and conditions functionally linked to the use of those opportunities. As regards catch limitations and effort management, the proposal is in accordance with the principles for the so-called front-loading process which are set out in the Communication from the Commission to the Council and European Parliament on improving consultation on Community fisheries management (COM(2006)246 final) and in the Communication from the Commission on the Consultation on Fishing Opportunities for 2011 (COM(2010)241 final), which sets out the views and intentions of the Commission concerning its proposals for fishing opportunities, pending the scientific advice on the state of the stocks for 2011. In accordance with that Communication, for an increasing number of stocks, such as for example hake, sole, plaice and nephrops, the fishing opportunities have been established on the basis of the rules laid down in the relevant multi-annual plans. For those stocks for which new multi-annual plans have been proposed (the western stock of horse mackerel), as well as for those stocks for which the Council and Commission committed themselves by way of a statement adopted at the 2009 December Council (herring in the Celtic Sea and haddock in areas Vb and VIa), the proposal follows the rules laid down therein.The specific situation of the stocks of cod should be highlighted. In the Western Waters (Irish Sea, West of Scotland and Kattegat), these stocks are below 5% of their virgin biomass and have therefore collapsed. These stocks, together with the stock spanning the North Sea, the Skagerrak and the Eastern Channel, are subject to a multi-annual management plan (Regulation (EC) No 1342/2008 of 18 December 2008) which, in light of scientific advice, is not being implemented properly. The state of the stocks continues to deteriorate, rather than improve. Outtakes are estimated far higher than the regulated levels, pointing at lack of adequate control of the fisheries and lack of reliable data, including discards. For three stocks (Irish Sea, West of Scotland and Kattegat) this results, once again, in a 'data poor situation' and no signs of a reversal of the trends that have led these stocks to their current collapsed state. For the North Sea cod, the situation must be discussed with Norway, as this is a shared stock. But for the stocks placed under the responsibility of the Union alone, Article 10 i of the management plan stipulates that the Council shall apply stricter measures than those normally applicable if STECF advises that the stocks are failing to recover properly. There is sufficient information in the advice received to conclude that this provision may apply, and indeed ICES and STECF themselves note this expressly. It seems appropriate to phase out these fisheries, given the collapsed state of the stocks. The proposal thus provides by a 50% reduction of the TAC rather than the 25% reduction that would normally apply. Effort reductions by 25% would in any case apply. Subsequently, a zero TAC would be proposed for the 2012 fishing season. In parallel, the Commission will request Member States to take the necessary measures to control the implementation of these measures rigorously. The proposal is furthermore in line with the Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on implementing sustainability in EU fisheries through maximum sustainable yield (COM(2006)360 final), in that the fishing opportunities proposed do not entail increases in fishing mortality for the relevant stocks. Such increases would be in conflict with the commitment of the EU and the Member States at the World Summit on Sustainable Development at Johannesburg 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.As regards the possibility introduced last year regarding additional cod catches of up to 5% of the quota for fully documented cod fisheries, they remain in this proposal but in square brackets, as these provisions are subject to agreement with Norway. Any such initiatives should, in all cases, be subject to ex-ante scientific evaluation, notably by STECF. On this basis, a catch quota incentive is foreseen in the proposal for the TAC of sole in zone VIIe.The proposal includes catch limitations agreed in the context of certain Regional Fisheries Management Organisations. Catch limitations and other recommendations from the South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organisation (SPRFMO), the Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna (CCSBT), the Commission on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR), the North East Atlantic Fishery Commission (NEAFC), the South East Atlantic Fisheries Organisation (SEAFO), the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Convention (WCPFC), the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC) and the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), are pending the annual meetings of these organisations in the period from October to December 2010. TACs for stocks in Greenland waters, as well as stocks shared jointly with Norway and with the Faroe Islands, are not available yet, pending the conclusion of consultations in November and December of 2010. These TACs are therefore presented as pro memoria (pm) In relation to effort management, for cod fisheries, a system based on kilowatt days has been applied since 2009 and will be continued in 2011.For the effort management for sole in the Western Channel and for southern hake and nephrops, the system of management of days at sea per type of vessel having a track record in the fishery, will continue to apply during 2011, but the proposed regulation will continue to allow Member States to apply a system by kilowatt days in order to make a more efficient use of fishing opportunities and to stimulate conservation practices in agreement with the fishing sector. With regard specifically to the effort rules for the southern hake and nephrops fishery, the proposal will rationalise the system to establish the effort ceilings applicable to each Member State. From 2011 onwards, the actual figure for each Member State will be specified in the regulation. This will allow a more transparent process to re-allocate days at sea recovered from scrapped vessels in this fishery, and which result in specific figures for each Member State according to their scrapping activities. The maximum allowable fishing effort set for the various stocks in Annex II, whether measured in days at sea per vessel or in kilowatt days per effort group, is currently indicated provisionally and might need to be updated in the light of the final advice from the STECF following its plenary meeting in November 2010. The methodology for fixing the final fishing effort for the fisheries on sandeel in EU waters of IIa, IIIa and IV is also still being analysed.This proposal contains measures regarding the limitation of fishing effort in the Celtic Sea that are proposed for the first time for the 2011 regulatory exercise. These proposed measures consist in establishing a cap on fishing effort for this area that would apply to all fisheries indistinctly. The cap is proposed to be set at a 10% reduction of the effort levels deployed in the reference year of 2007. This reference year has been chosen to avoid penalising Member States that have implemented reductions in the last few years compared to those that have actually increased their effort levels in the area during the same period. The measure is justified by the fact that the scientific advice for most stocks in this Area is either to reduce or not to increase effort. The mixed nature of these fisheries therefore makes it appropriate to implement a general capping measure that will be easier to implement and monitor. It would apply in sub-divisions f and g of ICES Area VII, where most fishing effort is deployed. The expected impact on the fleet is negligible, since the measure should stabilise the current situation on the fishing grounds. For the stocks, it will be beneficial in preventing deviation of effort to this area from neighbouring regions where stocks are more seriously in decline, such as the Irish Sea (sub-division VIIa).As regards effort management for deep-sea stocks, the North _East Atlantic Fishery Commission (NEAFC) recommended in 2002 an effort freeze for two years. Subsequently, the maximum allowable effort was reduced in steps by yearly convention in NEAFC and transposition through the Council, and arrived for 2008 and 2009 at 75% and 65%, respectively, of the effort deployed in the reference year 2003. For the years 2010 to 2012, NEAFC recommended keeping the cap on fishing effort at a maximum of 65%. The continuation of the effort limitation is necessary both to meet the international obligations of the EU and to protect stocks that, as ICES has underlined for several years, are extremely fragile and in need of urgent protection due to their extremely low reproductive potential.In-year management systems are maintained for short-lived species such as sandeel, Norway pout and sprat in the North sea. In these cases, fishing opportunities proposed for the early part of 2011 may be revised in-year in accordance with updated scientific advice, through Commission Regulations which will allow for rapid implementation of the management measures envisaged. However, the methodology for the management of the sandeel stock is currently being reviewed and this revision might result in a system that makes in-year revisions unnecessary. These possible changes will need to be discussed and agreed with Norway in the autumn, so Annex IID may need to be substantially modified or even eliminated in light of the outcome of these discussions. Finally, this regulation provides, for the first time in the annual fishing opportunities regulatory exercise, for the adoption of certain TACs by Member States themselves. This is proposed for 7 TACs where only one Member State is listed as having fishing opportunities. There is no true allocation in this case, as the TAC is essentially 'owned' and administered by just one State. In these conditions, it is appropriate to simplify the regulation by proposing that responsibility in these cases be taken by the stakeholder Member State, albeit under an obligation to act in conformity with the objectives of the Common Fisheries Policy.