Technical Measures and sensitive species and habitats

The document argues that the TCMF Proposal contains wording and targets that may conflict with and weaken the protections of the Nature Directives and the MSFD. It recommends aligning the TCMF's objectives with the requirement to maintain or restore 'favourable conservation status', clarifying the distinction between 'incidental' and 'deliberate' bycatch based on CJEU case law, and ensuring that bycatch and habitat targets are measurable and consistent with existing Union and international standards.

• The TCMF Proposal's objectives in Article 3(2)(b) and (c) use the qualifier "such that they do not represent a threat to the conservation status", which may conflict with the Habitats Directive's more ambitious requirement to "maintain or restore, at favourable conservation status, natural habitats and species".
• There is a risk that the TCMF Proposal treats all bycatch as incidental, whereas CJEU case law suggests bycatch can be 'deliberate' if the actor accepted the possibility of capture, which would necessitate a complete prohibition for Annex IV(a) species and those under the Birds Directive.
• The target in Article 4(1)(b) regarding bycatch levels is considered meaningless because the referenced Union legislation, including the Habitats and Birds Directives, does not establish specific permitted quantitative levels of bycatch.
• The target in Article 4(1)(c) regarding seabed habitat impacts relies on 'good environmental status' (GES) levels from the MSFD, but it is unclear how fishing-specific impacts will be measured against the total anthropogenic pressures defined in the proposed GES Decision.
• Current baseline mitigation measures in the TCMF regional annexes are insufficient, as some areas, such as the North Sea, lack measures to mitigate seabird bycatch, and many measures only apply to specific gears.
• The process for adopting conservation measures for sensitive habitats under Article 13 of the TCMF Proposal lacks clarity, particularly regarding whether joint recommendations are required to trigger amendments to the list of areas in Annex II.
• The document recommends that Article 25 of the TCMF Proposal be amended to require ('shall') rather than allow ('may') Member States to specify mitigation measures and monitoring to evaluate the effectiveness of those measures.

APA

ClientEarth (2017). Technical Measures and sensitive species and habitats. https://www.clientearth.org/media/p4cfcp1e/technical-measures-and-sensitive-species-and-habitats-ce-en.pdf

Chicago

ClientEarth. Technical Measures and sensitive species and habitats. 2017. https://www.clientearth.org/media/p4cfcp1e/technical-measures-and-sensitive-species-and-habitats-ce-en.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |author=ClientEarth |title=Technical Measures and sensitive species and habitats |date=March 2017 |url=https://www.clientearth.org/media/p4cfcp1e/technical-measures-and-sensitive-species-and-habitats-ce-en.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{clientearth2017technical, author = {{ClientEarth}}, title = {{Technical Measures and sensitive species and habitats}}, institution = {ClientEarth}, year = {2017}, month = mar, url = {https://www.clientearth.org/media/p4cfcp1e/technical-measures-and-sensitive-species-and-habitats-ce-en.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }