these measures could not serve as restrictions over the yield capacity, i.e. could not
influence the fishing effort.
The main priority in such a conception is a precautionary approach and responsible fishery practice in force. It could “work” properly with quota principle introduction, together with more effective system control. It is hard for the any single
country to follow these regulations and it is harder for all Black Sea countries to do
so, because they are exploiting resources from shared fish stocks. In order to have an
effective management on these stocks (Caddy 2008), joint stock assessment is needed
(Leonart 2004). On this basis the allocation of the catches for the separate Black Sea
country could be established. Unfortunately, due to the different reasons, for the time
being this is impossible. Hence, it could be assumed that management of the marine
living resources shall be fulfilled in its incomplete form, under the national jurisdiction prescript, as they are. In the very concrete case with Bulgaria, it is more properly
to put the accent on the separate regulations of the fishery, instead of its integral
management. These regulations concerns in very small extension the shared fish
stocks, which are exploited without control, because of the restriction measures
absence. Much more different is the attitude concerning the so called “domestic
fish stocks” (turbot and sprat, mainly) with some elements of management applied.
But even such a scheme in force remains imperfect, because of the insufficient
control. Present policy regarding Bulgarian marine fishery is orientated to the production mainly, as far as the fish protein in the country is not corresponding
(adequate) to the demands. Average fish consumption from any kind of sources
amounts to 3.5 kg/per capita1 to 5.5 kg/per capita (2014).
1,2 Indicated production
orientated marine fishery, is stimulated by the lack of adequate management rules of
the fishing activities. In the present acting fishery policy of the Bulgaria some
ecological aspects exist, as endangered species conservation, included in the Red
book of the Republic of Bulgaria, according to the requirements of the CITES for
trade with rare and endangered species, ban of the bottom trawling activities with
view benthic communities conservation and etc.
Present Fishery and Aquaculture Act (FAA) was adopted in 2001 by the
Bulgarian parliament and published at State Gazette on 24th April the same year.
After that the Act has been amended six times (at the time of pre-accession period
for membership in EU negotiations, 2005–2006) for the adoption the legislation
of the community in the scope of fisheries. With the last changes, we can assume
that the Act is harmonized in the maximum possible extent with “Acquis
Commmuniautare of the EU. Nevertheless, the term “management” is used
only in the second chapter title, which in fact regulates (stipulates) administrative
procedures for formulation and compilation of the National Program of Fishery
and Aquaculture, to gain professional fishing rights and etc., but do not
consider questions on management in its specific aspects. In the other chapter
of the FAA (Section 4) the requirements regarding fisheries resources conservation are presented, including scientific research on the fish stock condition,
1 National statistical Institute Statement (2002).
2 Expert assessments.
438
V. St. Raykov and S. Nicheva
influence the fishing effort.
The main priority in such a conception is a precautionary approach and responsible fishery practice in force. It could “work” properly with quota principle introduction, together with more effective system control. It is hard for the any single
country to follow these regulations and it is harder for all Black Sea countries to do
so, because they are exploiting resources from shared fish stocks. In order to have an
effective management on these stocks (Caddy 2008), joint stock assessment is needed
(Leonart 2004). On this basis the allocation of the catches for the separate Black Sea
country could be established. Unfortunately, due to the different reasons, for the time
being this is impossible. Hence, it could be assumed that management of the marine
living resources shall be fulfilled in its incomplete form, under the national jurisdiction prescript, as they are. In the very concrete case with Bulgaria, it is more properly
to put the accent on the separate regulations of the fishery, instead of its integral
management. These regulations concerns in very small extension the shared fish
stocks, which are exploited without control, because of the restriction measures
absence. Much more different is the attitude concerning the so called “domestic
fish stocks” (turbot and sprat, mainly) with some elements of management applied.
But even such a scheme in force remains imperfect, because of the insufficient
control. Present policy regarding Bulgarian marine fishery is orientated to the production mainly, as far as the fish protein in the country is not corresponding
(adequate) to the demands. Average fish consumption from any kind of sources
amounts to 3.5 kg/per capita1 to 5.5 kg/per capita (2014).
1,2 Indicated production
orientated marine fishery, is stimulated by the lack of adequate management rules of
the fishing activities. In the present acting fishery policy of the Bulgaria some
ecological aspects exist, as endangered species conservation, included in the Red
book of the Republic of Bulgaria, according to the requirements of the CITES for
trade with rare and endangered species, ban of the bottom trawling activities with
view benthic communities conservation and etc.
Present Fishery and Aquaculture Act (FAA) was adopted in 2001 by the
Bulgarian parliament and published at State Gazette on 24th April the same year.
After that the Act has been amended six times (at the time of pre-accession period
for membership in EU negotiations, 2005–2006) for the adoption the legislation
of the community in the scope of fisheries. With the last changes, we can assume
that the Act is harmonized in the maximum possible extent with “Acquis
Commmuniautare of the EU. Nevertheless, the term “management” is used
only in the second chapter title, which in fact regulates (stipulates) administrative
procedures for formulation and compilation of the National Program of Fishery
and Aquaculture, to gain professional fishing rights and etc., but do not
consider questions on management in its specific aspects. In the other chapter
of the FAA (Section 4) the requirements regarding fisheries resources conservation are presented, including scientific research on the fish stock condition,
1 National statistical Institute Statement (2002).
2 Expert assessments.
438
V. St. Raykov and S. Nicheva