Technical measures and innovative fishing gears

The document examines the TCMF Proposal's provisions for 'innovative fishing gears', specifically focusing on pulse trawling. ClientEarth argues that Article 24 of the proposal lacks a clear definition of 'innovative' and an adequate burden of proof. It recommends that any gear designated as innovative must be proven to have lower negative impacts on marine ecosystems than conventional methods, based on independent evaluations by the STECF. Using pulse trawling as a case study, the briefing highlights significant knowledge gaps regarding its impact on benthic communities and non-target species, and warns against its use in Natura 2000 sites without meeting the Habitats Directive's integrity tests.

• The TCMF Proposal fails to define 'innovative fishing gears', creating uncertainty for Member States and stakeholders. ClientEarth argues that for a gear to be considered innovative, it must be more environmentally sustainable and have a "lower impact on marine ecosystems than existing conventional gears".
• Current wording in Article 24(3) of the TCMF Proposal is viewed as having the wrong burden of proof because it requires an indication that a gear will lead to negative impacts before permission is denied. ClientEarth recommends amending this to ensure gear is only permitted if the STECF evaluation concludes it has "lower negative impacts on marine ecosystems than existing conventional gears".
• Pulse trawling is specifically listed as an innovative gear in the TCMF Proposal, despite a general ban in the previous framework. There are significant knowledge gaps regarding its effects on the wider marine ecosystem, particularly the "functioning of benthic communities", and its impact on species with electro-receptor organs.
• There are critical deficiencies in the control and enforcement of pulse trawling. STECF previously concluded that existing provisions are "not sufficient and not appropriate to prevent unregulated and harmful pulse trawl practices/technologies to be used".
• Innovative fishing gears, including pulse trawls, should not be permitted in Natura 2000 sites unless they satisfy Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive, which requires a demonstration that the activity will not "adversely affect the integrity of the site".
• ClientEarth asserts that existing pilot projects conducted under Article 14 of the CFP Basic Regulation must still undergo the Article 24 joint recommendation procedure and evaluations if they are to be transitioned to commercial use.

APA

ClientEarth (2016). Technical measures and innovative fishing gears. https://www.clientearth.org/media/fmyaptwr/technical-measures-and-innovative-fishing-gears-ce-en.pdf

Chicago

ClientEarth. Technical measures and innovative fishing gears. 2016. https://www.clientearth.org/media/fmyaptwr/technical-measures-and-innovative-fishing-gears-ce-en.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |author=ClientEarth |title=Technical measures and innovative fishing gears |date=November 2016 |url=https://www.clientearth.org/media/fmyaptwr/technical-measures-and-innovative-fishing-gears-ce-en.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{clientearth2016technical, author = {{ClientEarth}}, title = {{Technical measures and innovative fishing gears}}, institution = {ClientEarth}, year = {2016}, month = nov, url = {https://www.clientearth.org/media/fmyaptwr/technical-measures-and-innovative-fishing-gears-ce-en.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }