Fisheries technical measures

06-06-2016

The main strengths of the IA are its use of wide-ranging and apparently sound information from the external studies, meetings and consultations, as well as the cogent presentation of the stakeholder views and the results of the public consultation throughout the report. The IA appears to be well-illustrated by examples; however, they do not always facilitate a better understanding of the current issues due to their sometimes inconsistent and rather confusing presentation. The analysis of the various impacts on stakeholders and fishing regions is rather weak. In particular, the analysis of impacts on SMEs is brief, qualitative and very general, and might have merited a more in-depth approach. It is unclear why Options 1 and 2.1 were retained for further analysis since it is claimed that they would only have a limited contribution to solving the problems of enforcement of the technical measures. A more detailed analysis is provided for Option 2, which is the preferred option, in comparison to the other options, which might suggest that the apparent choice of options is not as broad as it may appear. Finally, the IA could have given greater insight into how the remaining technical measures regulations and the Commission acts would be affected in practice as a result of this proposal.     

The main strengths of the IA are its use of wide-ranging and apparently sound information from the external studies, meetings and consultations, as well as the cogent presentation of the stakeholder views and the results of the public consultation throughout the report. The IA appears to be well-illustrated by examples; however, they do not always facilitate a better understanding of the current issues due to their sometimes inconsistent and rather confusing presentation. The analysis of the various impacts on stakeholders and fishing regions is rather weak. In particular, the analysis of impacts on SMEs is brief, qualitative and very general, and might have merited a more in-depth approach. It is unclear why Options 1 and 2.1 were retained for further analysis since it is claimed that they would only have a limited contribution to solving the problems of enforcement of the technical measures. A more detailed analysis is provided for Option 2, which is the preferred option, in comparison to the other options, which might suggest that the apparent choice of options is not as broad as it may appear. Finally, the IA could have given greater insight into how the remaining technical measures regulations and the Commission acts would be affected in practice as a result of this proposal.