EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 29.4.2016 SWD(2016) 144 final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT



IMPACT ASSESSMENT

on the Agreement concluded between the General Confederation of Agricultural Co-operatives in the European Union (COGECA), the European Transport Workers' Federation (ETF) and the Association of National Organisations of Fishing Enterprises (EUROPÊCHE) of 21 May 2012 as amended on 8 May 2013 concerning the implementation of the Work in Fishing Convention, 2007 of the International Labour Organisation Accompanying the document the proposal for a Council Directive implementing the Agreement concluded between the General Confederation of Agricultural Co-operatives in the European Union (COGECA), the European Transport Workers' Federation (ETF) and the Association of National Organisations of Fishing Enterprises (EUROPÊCHE) of 21 May 2012 as amended on 8 May 2013 concerning the implementation of the Work in Fishing Convention, 2007 of the International Labour Organisation {COM(2016) 235 final}

{SWD(2016) 143 final}



Table of Contents 1.PROBLEM DEFINITION 1.1.Specific problems affecting the sector and its workers 1.1.1.Problem 1: Risk and the seriousness of accidents are high in the sector 1.1.2.Problem 2: Risk and the seriousness of occupational diseases are high in the sector 1.2.Main drivers 1.2.1.Work related factors 1.2.2.Ineffective legal framework 1.3.Who is affected and how? 1.4.How is the problem likely to evolve? 2.Why should the EU ACT? 2.1.Why could Member States not achieve the objectives of this initiative? 2.2.What is the EU added value? 2.3.Assessment of the representativeness of the EU social partners and the legality of the clauses 2.3.1.Representativeness of the EU social partners 2.3.2.Legality of the clauses 3.WHAT SHOULD BE ACHIEVED? 3.1.General Objective 3.2.Specific objectives

3.3.Consistency with other EU policies and the Charter of Fundamental Rights. 4.POLICY OPTIONS 4.1.Option 1 Baseline Scenario. 4.2.Option 2 Implementation of the agreement by a Council Directive in accordance with Article 155 TFEU 4.3.Legal analysis of the differences between the agreement provisions, the existing EU provisions and the national level 4.3.1.Scope and applicability 4.3.2.Minimum requirements for work on board fishing vessels 4.3.3.Working time 4.3.4.Fisherman’s work agreement 4.3.5.Repatriation 4.3.6.Food and water on board 4.3.7.Right to medical treatment on board and ashore 4.3.8.Protection in case of work-related injury sickness and death 4.3.9.Occupational safety and health: risk assessment 5.What are the impacts and who will be affected? 5.1.Background 5.2.Impact on the Member States 5.3.Impact on workers 5.4.Impact on employers 5.5.Impact on employment

5.6.Impact on competitiveness, SMEs and consumers 5.7.Impact on third countries 5.8.Overview of costs and benefits 6.Comparison of the options 7.How would actual impacts be monitored and evaluated? 7.1.Monitoring of the impacts 7.2.Evaluation of the agreement 8.Annexes



List of abbreviations BMI Body Mass Index DCF Data Collection Framework in the context of the Common Fisheries Policy EU European Union EU LFS European Labour Force Survey EU OSHA EU Occupational Safety and Health Agency ESAW European Statistics Accidents at Work FTE Full-Time Equivalents GDP Gross Domestic Product

ILO International Labour Organisation ILC International Labour Conference IMO International Maritime Organisation IUU Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated fishing NACE Nomenclature Générale des Activités Economiques dans l'Union Européenne OSH Occupational Safety and Health STCW-F Standards of Training, Certification and Watch keeping for Fishing Vessel Personnel TFEU Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union



Background In accordance with Articles 152-155 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), the European Union promotes the dialogue between the social partners at European level, including through consultations on EU social policy initiatives, and support to negotiations and joint actions of the social partners. According to Article 155(2) TFEU, agreements between the European social partners can either be implemented autonomously by the signatory parties and their affiliates in accordance with the procedures and practices specific to management and labour and the Member States, or if they concern matters covered by Article 153 TFEU, through EU legislation by means of a Council Decision further to a proposal from the Commission. According to the Treaty, the EU social partners make the decision to negotiate an agreement on an autonomous basis. In 2002, the International Labour Organisation (ILO) started discussions and the preparation of complete and up-to-date international social standards for working conditions in the fishing sector, taking into account the technological progress in the sector. The ILO had already developed and adopted five Conventions relating to fishermen. The last Convention had been adopted in 1966. The new standards would also address critical issues such as safety and health and take into account the existing differences in fishing operations, employment arrangements, methods of remuneration and other aspects The EU, its Member States, employers' representatives (in particular fishing vessel owners), and workers' representatives (in particular fishermen representatives) actively participated in the negotiations and conclusion of the Work in Fishing Convention, 2007 (also referred to as ILO Convention C 188), which was adopted at the 96th International Labour Conference (ILC) of the ILO in 2007. All EU Member States voted in favour of the Convention. The objectives of this Convention are to ensure that fishermen have decent living and working on board fishing vessels with regard to working time, the details of their work agreement, accommodation and food, occupational safety and health protection, medical care and social security. It contains global minimum requirements. It will apply to all fishermen and fishing vessels engaged in commercial fishing operations. It consolidates the four out of five existing ILO Conventions relating to fishermen. The EU social partners in the sea fisheries sector ETF, Europêche and COGECA decided to enter into negotiations with an aim of reaching an agreement concerning the ILO Work in Fishing Convention, 2007 at the end of 2009. Firstly their objective was to promote the ratification of the ILO Convention in order to create a level playing field for the sector in the EU. Secondly they wanted to undertake a first step towards codification of the EU social acquis in the sea fishing sector. They wanted to merge the provisions from the EU acquis and the ILO Convention C.188, in order to create a higher level of protection for fishermen in the EU. The EU social partners were of the opinion that EU provisions currently applicable to their sector were in need of updating. Thirdly, the EU social partners sought to improve the image of the sector, which they considered had deteriorated due to environmental issues, the decline in fish stocks, general disinvestment in the sector but also unattractive working conditions for young and skilled workers. The agreement was concluded on 21 May 2012, and later amended on 8 May 2013. On 10 May 2013, the EU social partners requested the Commission to implement their agreement by a Council decision according to Article 155(2) TFEU. The objective of the agreement is, in line with Article 153(1)(a) and (b) TFEU, to improve the working and living conditions of workers on board sea fishing vessels with regard to minimum requirements for work on board (e.g. minimum age, medical certificate), conditions of service (e.g. content of the fisherman's work agreement, working time limits, right of repatriation), accommodation and food, occupational safety and health protection and medical care, i.e. medical treatment on board and ashore, based on the ILO Convention's provisions. When management and labour jointly request implementation of their agreement by a Council decision based on a proposal of the Commission, in accordance with Article 155 (2) TFEU, the Commission can either accept or reject this request, but it cannot amend the text of the agreement. In accordance with the Better Regulation Guidelines, and in order for the College to take an informed decision, the Commission services have prepared this proportionate impact assessment which includes an assessment of the representativeness of the signatories, the legality of the agreement vis-à-vis the EU legal framework (See Section 2) and the respect of the subsidiary and proportionality principles. An external study was commissioned to support the assessment of cost and benefits of the agreement. This study was conducted by ICF International. Given the transparency of the process and the role entrusted to the social partners by Article 155 TFEU, no additional public consultation has been carried out





1.PROBLEM DEFINITION Characterisation of the sector At a global level, Asia dominates the production in the fishing sector worldwide. It has the largest percentage of the world's fishing fleet (73%), followed by Africa (11%). China and Indonesia count for a quarter of the global fish harvest. Asian countries dominate the production worldwide, but typically consume most of the fish production domestically. This is in particular the case in China. The EU fisheries industry is the fourth largest in the world. Fishing provides jobs for over 100,000 people. It supplies some 6.4 million tonnes of fish each year. Global trade in fish products is still dominated by EU Member States. Denmark, Spain and the Netherlands belong to the global top ten trading nations next to Norway, Canada, the United States and Chile. This dominance and the fact that the EU is one of the biggest importers of fish products, allow the EU to set standards that influence production and processes worldwide.. The sea fishing sector involves 23 EU Member States, which are coastal states. According to the 2015 Annual Economic Report on the EU Fishing Fleet (STECF 15-07),the amount of Gross Value Added (GVA) and gross profit (all excl. subsidies) generated by the EU fishing fleet (excl. Bulgaria, Cyprus, Greece and Malta) in 2013 was €3.4 billion and €1.3 billion, respectively. GVA as a proportion of revenue was estimated at 49% and gross profit margin at 20%. With a total net profit of €506 million for the EU fleet in 2013, 7.8% of the revenue was retained as net profit. Sixteen out of nineteen member states (excludes Bulgaria, Cyprus, Greece and Malta) generated net profits in 2013; the remaining three Member States (Belgium, Finland and Portugal) generated net losses. In most Member States, the share of single-vessel enterprises by far outweighs those with several vessels. The share of such enterprises is largest in Lithuania (where 100% of enterprises consist of only one vessel), Belgium (98%), Finland (97%), Malta (97%), and the United Kingdom (96%). Conversely, Latvia is the country with a highest number of enterprises with more than 5 vessels, although this remains a comparatively low proportion of the total number of enterprises (5%). More than 100,000 people work on board vessels in this sector. Greece, Italy and Spain have the largest fleets in terms of number of vessels. Consequently, the number of enterprises in the sea fisheries sector is highest in those Member States with the biggest fleet in terms of vessels, gross tonnage and engine power. In 2012, Greece was the country with the largest number of fishing enterprises (almost 14,000), followed by Spain, Italy, France, the United Kingdom and Portugal (See Annex 5). Structure of the sector Box 1: Some data concerning sea fisheries sector Number of enterprises in the sector within the EU: 61,274 Number of EU fishing vessels 80,468 Total number of fishermen in the EU 108,482 Total number of employed fishermen 59,665 Total number of self-employed without workers 29,290 Total number of self-employed with workers 15,187 Turnover sea fisheries sector: 6.9 billion Euros In terms of employment, the countries with the largest fleet (Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal,) account for around more than half of the employment within the EU. Taking into account the countries with a larger fleet such as France, the Netherlands, Poland, and the United Kingdom, these eight countries make up 84% of the sector in total employment terms and 87% in terms of FTE (See Annex 5).





Table 1: Employment: workers, family workers and self-employment in the EU fisheries sector in 2014, by share of category out of total employees Row Labels Employee Family worker Total self employed Self-employed with employees (out of total employees) Self-employed without employees (out of total employees) Lithuania 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% Portugal 71% 1% 27% 9% 18% Spain 67% 2% 29% 13% 16% Germany 65% 0% 35% 31% 4% Croatia 62% 0% 38% 18% 20% Italy 56% 0% 44% 14% 30% Poland 56% 17% 27% 0% 27% Romania 51% 7% 42% 13% 29% France 49% 8% 43% 17% 26% United Kingdom 49% 7% 44% 18% 26% Finland 39% 0% 61% 0% 61% Estonia 36% 6% 58% 17% 41% Netherlands 27% 0% 73% 37% 36% Sweden 20% 0% 80% 8% 72% Malta 22% 0% 78% 0% 78% Greece 3% 7% 90% 15% 76% EU28 55% 3% 41% 14% 27% Source: LFS data available by special request [stapro]. The share of self-employed in the sector proved difficult to determine, due to the lack of comparable, sufficiently disaggregated data and also due to the fact that the definition of self-employed is determined at national level. An attempt was made to determine the number of self-employed based on the form of payment. Most fishermen who are paid on the basis of "crew share" are often self-employed. Some Member States like the United Kingdom and the Netherlands consider fishermen paid on the basis of crew share as self-employed while other Member States consider them as employees. According to the data available, self-employment is limited in Estonia, Spain, Finland, France, Italy, Latvia, Portugal, Romania and Lithuania. Self-employment makes up around 30% of total employment in Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, Italy, Malta, and Poland. On the other hand, in Greece, Ireland, Slovenia and the UK, the share of self-employment in the sector is estimated between 60-90%. No data exist, which links employment to vessel size. For the EU as a whole the share of self-employed fishermen stands at 41% of total individuals working in the sector. Between 2008 and 2014, EU-LFS data records stability in the share of self-employment in the sector at 41% (See Annex 5 for more details on employment in the sector). With regard to employment relationships, the sector is characterised by different employment relationships such as part-time or seasonal, informal employment relationships, or employment contracts for a number of voyages. The shares of part-time employment were highest in the Netherlands (24%), followed by Romania (23%) and Finland (20%) and lowest in Poland (4%), Greece (5%) and France (7%). In Spain, there is no obligation to have a written employment contract. In some Member States, such as Slovenia fishing is a seasonal and part-time occupation. In terms of vessel size, fleets with the greatest share of vessels of 24 metres and over are registered in Belgium (44% of the Belgian fleet), Lithuania (28%), the Netherlands (20%) and Latvia (16%). Smaller fishing vessels (i.e. under 12 meters) were more prevalent in Romania (98%) and Finland (97%), Bulgaria (96%), Cyprus (96%), Greece (94%) and Estonia (94%). Across those Member States making up the largest share of the EU fishing fleet, large vessels above 24 metres were relatively more prevalent in Spain (8%), whereas small vessels predominated in Greece (94%). 1.1.Specific problems affecting the sector and its workers 1.1.1.Problem 1: Risk and the seriousness of accidents are high in the sector Comparing the risks of accidents in the fishing industry with those for other occupational categories worldwide reveals that fishing is one of the most dangerous occupations worldwide both in terms of accidents at work and of occupational diseases. In 1999, the ILO estimated 24,000 deaths among workers in the sector each year in the world, representing an incidence rate of 80 per 100,000 workers. The risk is not proportional to the size of the sector. In addition, 24 million non-fatal accidents were estimated to take place per year. In the UK, the incidence rate of fatal accidents in the fisheries sector was 15 times higher than the national average. In Sweden it was 22 times higher than the national average and in Spain 8 times higher than the national average. In Denmark, from 1989 to 1996, the incidence rate was 25-30 times higher than the rate for those employed on land. This trend remains within the EU and worldwide. Although the number of fatal accidents decreased over the period 2007-2012 with an overall reduction of 11%, the national trends are very different. In six Member States the number of accidents increased. 17 Member States saw no change in the number of accidents. In four Member States, the number of accidents decreased. The number of non-fatal accidents has been decreasing. However, they still occur at rates much higher than the national average. Furthermore, underreporting of this type of accidents in the sector needs to be taken into account. Cuts, scratches, injuries, lashes and bruises are generally not even considered as accidents, but simply as part of the job. The risk of being involved in a non-fatal accident is 2.4 times greater in the fishing activity when compared with other industrial sectors. The scale of employment in the sector alone does not explain these results. According to research, almost 70% of the accidents happen at sea. In a 2009 survey, 69% of persons working in the sector reported that their most recent accident at work or in the course of the work resulted in sick leave in the past 12 months. Because of the seriousness of the accidents occurring in the sector, workers are normally absent longer than in other sectors. Out of 4,453 total non-fatal accidents in the sector, a large proportion led to 7 and more days of absence in 2012, whereas the proportion of accidents leading to less than 6 days of absence was relatively small. This leads to increased social security costs and reduced output for the employer. Table 2 Working days lost linked to accidents in the fishing and aquaculture sector (2012), by total number of accidents Less than one week one week to one month one month to six months more than six months (permanent incapacity) 2008 2012 2008 2012 2008 2012 2008 2012 ES 217 142 1,668 1,311 915 908 33 87 PT 0 41 0 460 414 340 0 31 UK 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IT 17 16 142 85 79 58 33 22 DE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IE 61 36 81 21 41 14 0 0 DK 4 6 2 35 25 17 2 0 EL 0 0 22 18 3 12 0 3 HR 10 10 10 0 FR 5 1 25 17 6 6 2 3 PL 0 0 16 6 18 8 0 3 FI 3 4 17 8 7 2 1 2 MT 1 0 11 8 4 2 0 1 SE 0 0 2 4 2 0 0 0 EE 0 0 9 0 4 6 0 0 LT 0 0 1 1 5 0 0 0 SV 0 0 2 3 1 0 0 0 CY 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 RO 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 BE 0 0 4 0 0 0 1 1 BG 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LV 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 NL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 EU28 310 348 2,011 2,002 1,114 1,389 72 154 Source: ICF study: analysis of EU-LFS [hsw_n2_04] data 1.1.2.Problem 2: Risk and the seriousness of occupational diseases are high in the sector At EU level, in 2007, 13.6% of fishermen reported one or more work-related health problems in the past 12 months. This is slightly higher than the EU average for all activities which is 12.8%. In 2007, 20.6% of persons in the EU fishing sector also reported exposure to factors that can adversely affect mental well-being, such as stress and long working hours. This number is higher than in all activities where this amounts to 16.6%. However, this percentage dramatically increases when this concerns factors affecting physical well-being. In 2007, 64.8% of persons in the EU fishing sector reported exposure to factors that can adversely affect physical well-being, such as weather conditions and working with heavy equipment. The average EU percentage for all NACE activities amounted to 39.8% (See for detailed explanation section 1.2). 1.2.Main drivers 1.2.1.Work related factors This has been confirmed by international, EU and national studies from the UK, Greece and France over the years. Fishermen have to work in a cramped and slippery workplace that is constantly moving. Due to increasing competition in the sector and due to fact that fishers depend on fish stock, they often work, irregular hours which causes fatigue and thus increases the risks to safety and health. They are not only exposed to risks when at sea but also when at port, while loading or unloading the catch, making reparations and boarding or leaving the vessel. In addition fishing vessels are normally isolated from immediate health care and the medical facilities available on shore.

According to a report by the European Parliament on this issue, the four main categories of factors leading to accidents at work in the fishing sector are: The first category is human-related factors. This can be fatigue, stress, poor maintenance, and routine or navigation errors. These are the main causes for accidents. Another cause of accidents lies in technical factors such as failure to respect parallel standards during the design, the use of outdated and/or worn out equipment, the absence or the poor functioning of alarm systems and fire-fighting systems. About a quarter of the accidents are caused by these factors. The nature of the work itself and tasks involved, such as heavy lifting, risks of slips and trips on board vessels and work with potentially hazardous equipment in difficult environmental conditions also has a role to play. Finally, external environmental factors which mainly include meteorological conditions are also the causes of accidents at work in the sea fisheries sector. There is a relation between accidents caused by human factors and the working conditions on board vessels. Accidents are often caused by fatigue due to long working hours, inadequate health and safety circumstances or working conditions. The risk of accidents to crews of small fishing vessels seems higher than on large vessels due to the small number of crew and the many tasks carried out - often at the same time. Regarding illnesses, the prevalence of the following diseases seem to be linked to the working conditions in the sector: musculoskeletal (musculoskeletal problems have been identified by several studies because of the use of heavy equipment and heavy manual work, e.g. handling the fishing gear and the catch, reparation of nets) respiratory (often caused by weather conditions, breathing gases, personal habits and life style) Cardiovascular incidents, (data on Body Mass Index (BMI) and mortality show that fishermen are a particularly exposed occupational group. The BMI of fishermen seems to be larger than average (BMI is considered as an indicator for e.g. cardiovascular diseases and diabetes.) hearing impairment as an effect of exposure for several hours to the continuous noise of the boat’s engine, stress, fatigue and psychological problems, for example, due to long working hours unevenly divided between periods of intense activity, pressure to work fast, prolonged isolation, lack of private space, sleep disturbance and disturbed sleep rhythm, night work, and other working conditions such as noise, ship motions. As an example, a study on Andalusian fishermen found that the main disorders reported were musculoskeletal disorders, respiratory diseases, diseases of the digestive system, eye problems and skin problems. A total of 72% fishermen participating in the study reported taking some self-prescribed medication, and 60% of fishery workers smoked. Nine percent of fishery workers admitted taking illicit drugs and 3% reported using illicit drugs on board. The workers indicated that diets on board were poorly balanced. While on board, 62% of crews reported a subjective significant worsening of their previous health condition. Some fishermen were reportedly still going to sea with conditions incompatible with working at sea, such as insulin dependent diabetes and angina. According to the study prevention and medical checks before being allowed or considered to work are therefore very important. A study on Polish coastal fishermen reports the same main illnesses as the Andalusian study. In order to improve fishermen's health and their working conditions the report indicates the importance of good quality food and water, working time limits and risk assessment to eliminate or reduce risks related to the work environment and the importance of medical checks prior to employment on board. In addition, self-awareness of risks should be raised. At EU level, the percentage of persons reporting one or more work-related health problems in the past 12 months in 2007 is higher in the EU fishing sector than the average for all activities with 13.6% (compared to 12.8%). In 2007, 20.6% of persons in the EU fishing sector also reported exposure to factors that can adversely affect mental well-being. This number is higher than in all activities where this amounts to 16.6%. However, this percentage dramatically increases when this concerns factors affecting physical well-being. Indeed, the same year, 64.8% of persons in the EU fishing sector reported exposure to factors that can adversely affect physical well-being which is by far more important than the average EU number for all NACE activities amounting to 39.8%. 1.2.2.Ineffective legal framework International legal framework for fishermen has not entered into force There is a number of international Conventions for the sea fishing sector, which have been concluded within the framework of the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) that deal with the safety on board the vessel, such as the Torremolinos International Convention for the Safety of Fishing Vessels 1977, the 1993 Torremolinos Protocol, the Cape Town Agreement of 2012 and the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watch keeping for Fishing Vessel Personnel, 1995 (STCW-F) (see Annex 6). However, with the exception of the STCW-F., they have not entered into force due to lack of ratifications by IMO Member States. The slow pace of ratification has different reasons depending on the country and the Convention: some countries mention the complexity of implementation and the narrow scope of application, developing countries considered the 1993 Torremolinos Protocol would be too onerous for them to apply, while other countries believed that their fishing fleet was already adequately covered by national legislation. The 2012 Cape Town agreement amended the Torremolinos Protocol in an attempt to trigger further ratifications, but this has only resulted in five ratifications as of January 2016. While previous ILO conventions concerning the living and working conditions of fishermen have been ratified. They have only been ratified by a few EU Member States. Table 3: Ratification by EU Member States of ILO Conventions in the sea fisheries

ILO Convention Ratifications by EU Member States Total C.112 Ratifications of C112 - Minimum Age (Fishermen) Convention Convention 112 was superseded by Convention 138 on the minimum age, which is a fundamental ILO Convention. It applies to all workers. It is ratified by all 28 Member States. Therefore Convention 112 was denounced. 28 C.113 Medical Examinations BE, BG, DE, ES, FR, HR, NL and PL 8 C.114 Fisherman’s Agreement BE, CY, DE, ES, FR, IT, NL and UK 8 C.125 Fisherman’s Competency Certificates BE, DE and FR 3 C.126 Accommodation of Crews BE, DE, EL, ES, FR, NL, SI and UK 8 Belgium, France and Germany have ratified all the ILO Conventions mentioned above. The Netherlands and Spain have ratified four out five Conventions. As shown by Table 3, these Conventions dealt only with a few aspects of the living and working conditions for fishermen. They did not include important issues such as the quality of food and water on board, health and safety at work, the content of the employment agreement, working time, medical treatment on shore, and repatriation. Some Member States found the previous Conventions, such as Convention C. 126 on accommodation too detailed. Due to the developments in the sector, these Conventions, dating from the 1960s, were considered outdated. In 2002, the ILO started working on a complete and up-to-date set of international standards for the fishing sector, in order to guarantee proper protection for fishers on a global scale. The resulting ILO Work in Fishing Convention, 2007 which all EU Member States and the representative organisations of employers and workers supported at the time of adoption, has not yet entered into force. It will only come into force twelve months after ratification by ten Member States of the ILO, of which eight are coastal States. According to the ILO database, as of January 2016, seven countries had ratified the Convention. Voting in favour of an ILO Convention does not automatically lead to its ratification. The EU can authorise the Member States to ratify this Convention, but it cannot oblige the Member States to do so. The EU authorised Member States to ratify the ILO Work in Fishing Convention, 2007 by Council Decision 2010/321/EU. The decision to ratify an ILO Convention is taken by the legislative authority of each EU Member State. As Member States are not obliged to ratify or give reasons for not ratifying, it is therefore not sure whether (and if so, when) all 23 Member States will ratify. This process can take several years. Currently, only France ratified the ILO Work in Fishing Convention, 2007. In case of a similar Convention, the ILO Maritime Labour Convention, ratification by all the EU Member States has not yet been completed, almost 10 years after the signing of the Convention. Furthermore, some EU Member States might delay ratification as they are aware of the request of the EU social partners to implement their agreement in EU law. They expect the EU to come forward with a proposal. Ratification by some of the EU Member States would lead to continuing different standards, in particular, on issues which are not yet included in the EU acquis, such as medical certificates for fishermen, the right to repatriation, medical treatment on shore. Different working conditions for fishermen within the EU would exist. In addition, this would lead different competitive positions between the Member States who have ratified the Convention and who have not. EU Framework exists but is fragmented and not fully adapted to the specific features of the sector EU legal provisions relevant to fishermen's living and working conditions are laid down in a number of legal instruments, notably EU labour law Directives and the EU occupational safety and health (OSH) legislation. However, despite the fact that quite a number of OSH issues are already covered and addressed by the existing EU OSH acquis, a number of OSH provisions are limited to vessels of 15 meters and over (e.g. requirements on accommodation on board vessels such as ventilation, lighting, emergency exits etc.). The vessels below 15 meters are not covered by those specific provisions. The agreement covers in principle all fishing vessels. Some provisions are specifically addressed to vessels of a length of 24 meters or more or normally staying more than three days at sea. Certain aspects of the living and working conditions such as the right to medical treatment on shore, compensation in case of occupational diseases and injuries and an obligatory medical certificate certifying the fitness for work of fishermen are not featured in the existing EU OSH acquis. Other issues are covered by the EU acquis but in a broader way than in the ILO C.188 Convention. For example the current acquis only contains specific provisions on refrigerators or low-temperature food-storage equipment and the precaution measures to be taken in relation to cooking and domestic appliances using heavy gases, but it does not contain a right to food of sufficient quality and quantity and the right to potable water to be provided to fishermen who live and work on the vessel. An obligation of an employer to carry out a risk assessment exists, but it does not foresee active participation of workers in it. On many of these issues, Member States have taken very different approaches (see legal analysis in 4.3 below) leading to an unlevelled playing field among EU firms in the sector. Similarly EU labour law Directives, apply to fishermen. However, these rules apply to all workers, and are not adapted to the fisher's specific working conditions. Contrary to shore workers, sea fishermen often live and work at their workplace. The right to medical treatment ashore and the right of repatriation when a vessel enters into a foreign port are for instance not covered by the current EU Labour Law rules, while similar provisions exist for seafarers. The employment agreement of the fishermen needs to specify the number of voyages for which the fisherman is hired. This is an important aspect for fishermen who can be hired for one or more voyages and for the fishermen who do not have at this moment a written employment agreement. The owner of the fishing vessel is often the employer. He may not always be on board. Since the skipper of the vessel has a number of responsibilities during the voyage with regard to the crew, he would need to have access to the employment agreement while the fishermen are on board of the vessel. There are however no provisions on the need to carry the employment agreement of the fishermen on board. Inspections tend to focus on safety first. Working and living conditions come second In addition the difficulty of performing inspections of actual working conditions is the major practical problem: these are seldom carried out at sea, when the fishermen are actually working. Therefore involvement of the social partners and fishermen who work on the vessel is important in this respect. In terms of prevention, their involvement in risk assessment is indispensable. Risk assessments are compulsory under the current acquis. Practice shows that sometimes it is done as a simple check-list, which has no effect. Where risk assessments have been really implemented in practice, the experience shows that it has encouraged a discussion on the risks and preventative measures. 1.3.Who is affected and how? Workers The sector differs from the land based sectors in that the work takes place on board, in a closed and often times cramped workplace. It is an isolated workplace, normally at some distance of the nearest land. This is particularly the case for the distant water fleet. Fishermen often live and work often for days on board of the vessel in difficult circumstances with heavy equipment. They often do not return to their homes on a daily basis, so they are dependent on their employer, inter alia, for medical care on board, food, potable water, and accommodation. The workers in this sector are at a high risk of both fatal and non-fatal accidents. The high number of accidents cannot be explained by the size of the sector as the risk faced by the fishers is not proportional to the size of the sector. Fatal accidents lead to loss of lives and, for the dependants of the worker, to a loss of income. Non-fatal accidents lead to absences from work and loss of income. Il-health due to occupational diseases or the after-effects of injuries and accidents have a negative impact on workers' well-being and push them to leave the sector. In a 2009 survey, 69% of persons working in the sector reported that their most recent accident at work or in the course of the work resulted in sick leave in the past 12 months. At EU level, the percentage of persons reporting one or more work-related health problems in the past 12 months in 2007 was higher in the EU fishing sector than the average for all activities with 13.6% (compared to 12.8%). The high numbers cited, do not, however, reflect the real figures as accidents and injuries are underreported in the sector. This could be linked to the perception amongst fishers that cuts bruises and injuries are not occupational accidents, but simply part of the job. However, the members of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) decided that the collection and analysis of statistical information on casualties, including fishing vessels and fishermen, should be prepared on an annual basis, they acknowledged in 1999 that there had been very limited response. (For a detailed description, see section 1.1.1 and 1.2.1). Employers For employers, a high rate of accidents, occupational injuries and diseases leads to employers' loss of output and higher costs due to the absences and the need to replace staff. Accidents in the fisheries sector tend to lead to long periods of absence. In 2012, a total of 4,423 non-fatal accidents were reported at EU level. About 45% resulted in an absence of between a week and a month, 31% to an absence of 1 to 6 months, and 3% to 6 months to a year.

Occupational diseases also lead to a higher staff turn-over as trained and skilled staff can no longer work in the sector and tends to leave the sector. Hard working conditions and a high rate of accidents and injuries makes fishing unattractive for young and skilled workers. In Member States where the employer has to pay sickness benefit in case of a prolonged period of time, it leads also to higher costs for the employer. In case of compensation for occupational injury and death, this can lead to higher insurance premiums. National authorities For national authorities a high number of occupational accidents, injuries and diseases in a sector have consequences in terms of social security costs (sickness benefits, incapacity benefits, and social assistance) and healthcare costs. A report published by the European Commission (2011), indicates that overall approximately 4% of the world’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is spent on the costs of addressing work related accidents and health problems. Economic growth would be favoured by a healthy of the workforce. The external study shows that very limited information is available on the costs linked to occupational accidents and illnesses in the sector beyond the data on absences linked to accidents. Limited data was provided by national stakeholders on the number of claims for occupational disability in the context of the external study. In Spain the number of claims for occupational disability linked to accidents rose from 726 to 760 between 2008 and 2013. Claims for occupational disability linked to occupational illness rose in Spain between 2008 and 2014 from 96 to 113. In Italy the number of claims for occupational disability linked to accidents declined from 175-152. In Poland there were 10 claims for occupational disability linked to accidents in 2012, with a cost to the insurer of around 10,700 Euros. In France 235 claims for occupational disability linked to occupational illness were made in 2012. 1.4.How is the problem likely to evolve? If no further specific legislation concerning working and living conditions is developed, it is reasonable to assume that the occupational safety and health problems in the sector will remain. Awareness, training and enforcement activities have led to a decrease of occupational accidents, injuries and disease. However, trends have shown that despite these measures the incidence rate of accidents has remains high compared to the national average in the EU Member States. In 2012, there were 154 accidents in sector in the EU which led to permanent incapacity. This accounts for 1% of the sector, and is over twice that of 2008 levels (72). The incidence of occupational diseases and injuries remains high in the sector, compared to other sector. Any changes in the incidence of occupational accidents/illnesses in the fisheries sector are likely to be driven by changes in the workforce size. The sector will remain unattractive for young and skilled workers. Any changes in the level of awareness of the health risks amongst workers and employers by prevention or risk assessments done together by employers and workers or their representatives could have a positive effect. Considerable challenges are linked to performing satisfactory risk assessments on fishing vessels. One such challenge is the fact that the work environment changes when the vessel is at sea and because risk assessments are often performed in port, some risks may not be reflected (e.g. changing weather conditions when operating, which may have an impact in the risks and hazards faced by the fishers), additionally risk assessments are often performed by management not necessarily working at sea (particularly for larger vessels). Risk assessment provisions tailored for the specific work environment (i.e. fishing vessels) and for the workers in the sector are key to make risk assessments an effective tool for improving OSH conditions on board. Actively involving the workers in the risk assessment would thus prove to be a very positive measure. Also prevention in the form of regular medical examination and certification would have positive effects on the occupational health and safety problems in this sector. France is the only Member State who has so far, ratified the ILO Work in Fishing Convention, 2007. According to the information available to the Commission, it seems that Denmark, Estonia, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom have established working groups to prepare for ratification. In Spain discussions have taken place between the Spanish authorities and representatives of the EU sectoral social dialogue committee in the sea fisheries sector in order to encourage ratification. In view of the inaction of some Member States and the different pace in preparing for ratification of others, different national approaches to health and safety in the fisheries sector will maintain the existing divergent level of protection and unlevelled playing field. As a consequence, fishermen in the different EU Member States will not enjoy the same minimum protection levels. For example, in the case of an accident or serious illness, workers could be repatriated by some Flag States or abandoned in a foreign port by others. In addition, as sometimes ships fish in the waters of another Member State and their fish captures (or derived products) are sold across the single market, not acting would also entail a competitive advantage for Member States which have less favourable working conditions, compared to the Member States who have standards in place in accordance with the agreement. 2.Why should the EU ACT? This initiative fits within the Commission's priority for a deeper and fairer Internal Market, in particular its social dimension. It is in line with Commission's work to establish a fair and truly pan-European labour market, which provides workers with decent protection and sustainable jobs. This includes among others, occupational safety and health protection, working time, social protection, and rights connected to the employment contract. In its 2007 Communication reassessing the regulatory social framework for more and better seafaring jobs in the EU, the Commission sought to determine, against the background of the already extensive body of international conventions and standards, to what extent action may be needed to improve legal protection and working conditions for maritime professions in the EU and enhance the competitiveness of the EU maritime sector, including the fisheries sector. The 2007 Communication also initiated a first phase of consultation of the EU social partners pursuant to Article 154 TFEU and invited them to "examine the possibilities of a joint initiative to promote the application within the EU, of the provisions of the recent ILO Work in Fishing Convention, 2007". Social partners were convinced of the need for action in the area and they therefore decided in 2009 to negotiate an agreement at Union level in accordance with Article 155(1) TFEU. Within their agreement they sought to consolidate and modernise the working and living conditions of fishermen taking into account the EU acquis. In order to align their agreement with the ILO Convention, C.188, they stipulated that their agreement will enter into force, when the ILO Convention C.188 enters into force. Subsequently, they asked this agreement to be implemented by a Council decision following a proposal from the Commission pursuant to Article 155(2) TFEU. Article 155 is therefore the legal basis for a proposal of a Directive implementing this EU social partner agreement.

2.1.Why could Member States not achieve the objectives of this initiative? The fact that EU Member States voted in favour of its adoption, does not lead automatically to ratification. The decision whether or not to ratify lies with the legislative authorities in each Member State. As Member States are not obliged to ratify or give reasons for not ratifying, it is therefore not certain whether (and if so, when) all 23 Member States, which have a sea fishing sector, will ratify the ILO Work in Fishing Convention, 2007. This process can take several years.Despite the Council Decision to authorise Member States to ratify the ILO Convention C.188, the pace of ratification has been slow. Eight years after its adoption, only France has ratified the Convention. A few Member States (DK, EE, NL, and the UK) are preparing for ratification. Furthermore, Member States might be delaying ratification as they are aware of the request of the EU social partners to implement their agreement in EU law. They expect the EU to come forward with a proposal. Ratification by only some Member States would not allow ensuring a similar level of decent living and working conditions within the EU for fishermen and a level playing field in terms of competitiveness between the EU Member States. The agreement will ensure this by bringing about the simultaneous entry into force and uniform transposition in all Member States of the standards of the ILO Work in Fishing Convention, 2007 to which it refers . 2.2.What is the EU added value? Fishing is a cross-border sector which operates worldwide. Fishing vessels sail under different EU flags, they operate also outside the territorial waters of the EU Member State concerned, in waters under jurisdiction of other Member States and in international waters. For example, ten Member State fleets operated in the NE Atlantic region in 2013; Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain and the United Kingdom. The EU distant-water fleet operates in international waters (high seas) and through bilateral agreements with countries outside the EU. These include fishing areas in the North, South and Central Atlantic, Indian, Pacific and Antarctic (or Southern) Oceans. While fishermen on board fishing vessel are nationals of the Member State which flag the vessel flies, fishermen of another EU Member State or third country often also work on board of fishing vessels. According to the available data, within the EU 95% of the fishermen is of the Member State's nationality in which the fishing vessel is registered or which flag it flies. There are differences between the EU Member States, for example 79% of the crew on Estonian flagged vessels is of Estonian nationality, while 100% of the crew is of Polish nationality on Polish flagged vessels. The EU already has a shared approach to fishing through the Common Fisheries Policy. As we have seen, that is not the case for labour standards in the fisheries sector, where national differences persist. These differences have an impact on competitiveness, because they impose different costs on operators. As a consequence, EU action leading to a consolidated EU legal framework for the sea fishing sector would help create a more level playing field, aligning the situation of fishermen with that of other maritime professions. Such a framework would build on existing international and EU standards, taking into account the specific work environment in this sector the EU legal framework would contain minimum standards for living and working conditions on board of EU fishing vessels. This would be in line with suggestions made by some Member States and social partners, who indicated that a general alignment of the EU acquis with the provisions of ILO Convention C. 188 would be desirable. An EU framework would lead to an EU level playing field across the EU Member States in the sea fishing sector. Fishermen would have the same minimum protection, across the EU, All Member States would have to implement the same minimum rules, also on the issues which are now not part of the EU acquis such as medical certificates for fishermen and medical treatment ashore and the right to repatriation. On these issues the Member States have taken diverging approaches. For example as the legal analysis in section 4.3.2 will show, on the issue of a medical certificate, some Member States, such as the UK, Slovenia and Romania have no specific legislation in place for the fisheries sector, some Member States, e.g. Ireland, Italy and Sweden have fewer medical checks as prescribed by the agreement. Portugal exempts small vessels. The Latvian authorities indicated that they have to introduce minor changes to comply with the agreement. Other Member States provided for a medical certificate for fishermen in accordance with the provisions of the agreement. (See for further details section 4.3.2). This leads to an uneven level playing field within the EU in terms of working conditions. The working conditions of fishermen are different depending on the nationality of the vessel. Also while working on the same vessel, fishermen could have different working conditions. Fishermen sailing on board Spanish flagged vessels have a right to repatriation according to the Spanish legislation, if they are registered under the Spanish social security legislation See section 4.3.6). Fishermen working on board Italian fishing vessels have no right of repatriation. This could mean that Member States not having some standards in place would have a competitive advantage against the Member States who have these rules in place. In addition, a transparent, flexible, up to date legal framework is expected to foster a culture of prevention and compliance. It is expected to contribute to the image of the sector and make it more attractive for young and skilled workers. This initiative will also give additional protection to workers and employers as it will enable stakeholders in the sea fisheries sector to make use of the complaint procedures at EU level in case of a breach of the national legislation with the requirements of the agreement. As mentioned in section 1, EU Member States belong to the top ten trading nations in fishing products and one of the biggest importers of fishing products. The implementation of the agreement in EU legislation will set an example and give the EU a stronger position to encourage ratification of the ILO Convention C.188 worldwide. This is particularly important in the context of the fight against illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing, within EU waters as well as beyond. Vessels engaging in IUU fishing seek to evade control by flag, coastal and port States, which makes it extremely difficult to enforce labour standards. As UNODC has highlighted ''the […] most disturbing finding […] was the severity of the abuse of fishers trafficked for the purpose of forced labour on-board fishing vessels'' IUU fishing is often associated with substandard vessels and fishermen working on board in very poor conditions. Sometimes this amounts to labour exploitation. It leads to unfair competition for vessel owners who respect the rules and provide decent living and working conditions. IUU fishing fleet in some areas are so accustomed to act in breach of the rules in relation to quotas limitations, catch documentation and gear restrictions, that contraventions of marine living resource management and conservation regulations is often linked to forced labour or trafficking in persons. IUU fishing damages fish stocks, negatively affecting the fishing communities and workers who rely on them for their income. At the same time the offence of IUU fishing is committed by fishermen often driven by difficult circumstances (low fish stock, unemployment). It has been argued that if fishermen are protected by standards ensuring decent living and working conditions, the likelihood that the offence is committed will be considerably reduced. Moreover, fishing operators who exploit their crew enjoy an unfair competitive advantage because of lower labour costs. The Convention would provide an additional legal basis to fight labour abuses, thereby reducing the profitability of criminal activities linked to IUU. An EU action in this sense supports the IUU EU policy and ensures its consistency inside EU and as regards third countries. 2.3.Assessment of the representativeness of the EU social partners and the legality of the clauses When the Commission receives a request of the EU social partners to implement their agreement in EU legislation, it can accept or reject the request, but it cannot change the text of the agreement. The Commission also has to assess the representativeness of the EU social partners who are the signatories to the agreement and the legality of the clauses. The detailed analysis can be found in Annex 1. 2.3.1.Representativeness of the EU social partners When assessing a request from EU social partners to implement their agreement in EU law according to Article 155 TFEU, the Commission looks at representativeness and mandate of the social partners for the area concerned by the agreement. This ensures that the request is in line with the provisions of the TFEU and that the agreement can count on a broad support amongst those actually concerned. In accordance with Article 1 of Commission Decision 98/500/EC of 20 May 1998, social partners at the European level should fulfil the following criteria: a.they shall relate to specific sectors or categories and be organised at European level; b.they shall consist of organisations which are themselves an integral and recognized part of Member States’ social partner structures and have the capacity to negotiate agreements, and which are representative of several Member States;

c.they shall have adequate structures to ensure their effective participation in the work of the [Sectoral Dialogue] Committees. These conditions should be fulfilled at the time when the agreement was signed. At the moment of signature of the agreement, Croatia was not yet a member of the EU at the time of the conclusion of the agreement. In order to assess the representativeness of the EU social partners, the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (Eurofound) conducted a study in 2012. The agreement concerns working conditions in the sea-fisheries, which matches with the sectoral delimitations of the sea-fisheries sectoral social dialogue Committee. Therefore, congruence between the coverage of the Committee and of the agreement is given. The social partners participating in the Committee are Europêche and Cogeca on the employer side and ETF on the workers side. For Europêche, the Eurofound representativeness study from 2012 identifies members in 11 Member States, namely BE, DE, DK, ES, FR, EL, IT, NL, PL, SE and UK. As the economic situation of the sector has deteriorated since 2012/13, keeping the membership is a challenge for the employer organisations at EU and national level. However, Europêche has managed to secure cooperation of the Latvian and Lithuanian employer associations. Cogeca represents the general and specific interests of European agricultural, forestry, fisheries and agri-food co-operatives. It has members related to sea fisheries in the following 11 Member States: CY, DE, EE, ES, FR, EL, IE, IT, MT, NL and SI. This means that on the employer side, altogether 16 countries are represented in the committee. On the workers side, ETF had membership related to sea-fisheries in 11 countries, namely BE, BG, DE, DK, ES, FR, IT, NL, PL, PT and UK, which leaves – beyond the aforementioned landlocked countries - fishermen in 11 Member States, i.e. CY, EE, EL, IE, FI, LV, LT, MT, RO, SE, SL not represented. According to the employment figures for the sector, for most of these countries the numbers of employees are around a 1000 workers (in most of these countries, employment is considerably smaller). While IE, EL, RO and SE have more than 1000 fishermen, a very large share of the fishermen is self-employed. In conclusion, with the exception of Portugal and Romania, there are no Member States where employer organisations active in sea-fishing are not represented at the European level, taking into account that the sector is relatively small in Romania. This leads to the conclusion that European level dialogue is on the side of employer organisations highly inclusive and that Europêche and Cogeca can together be considered as representative for the employers in the sector. As indicated above the same is true for ETF on the workers' side. The eight Member States which make up 84% of the sector in total employment terms and 87% in terms of FTE are represented within the EU social dialogue. This leads to the conclusion that the social partners who have signed the agreement are representative of the sector and can therefore justly request the Commission for implementation of an agreement according Art. 155 TFEU. 2.3.2.Legality of the clauses The Commission has examined the legality of the agreement. It has scrutinised each clause and has not found any to be contrary to EU law. The obligations which would be imposed on the Member States do not arise directly from the agreement between the social partners. They would rather result from its implementation by means of a Council decision, i.e. a directive. The scope and content of the agreement remains within the fields listed in Article 153(1) TFEU. Article 3(3) of the agreement contains a non-regression clause, which safeguards the existing level of protection of workers. Article 4 of the agreement states that it shall not affect any law, award or custom, or any agreement between fishing vessel owners and fishermen, which ensures more favourable conditions to fishermen than those provided for in the agreement. In addition, the necessary safeguards of the acquis will be included in the proposal for a Council directive (more favourable provisions and non-regression), to which the agreement will be an annex. 3.WHAT SHOULD BE ACHIEVED? 3.1.General Objective The general objective is to enhance the working and living conditions for fishermen working on vessels flying the flag of an EU Member State. 3.2.Specific objectives In order to reach the general objective set above, the present agreement has the following specific objectives: To improve occupational safety and health for fishermen within the EU; To establish a consolidated legal framework which is adapted to working conditions for the sea fishing sector. 3.3.Consistency with other EU policies and the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The ex post evaluation of the EU OSH acquis is ongoing and a number of key issues for the revision of the acquis have not been defined yet, namely in relation to the new architecture and exact content of the provisions of the future OSH regulatory framework. During the preliminary work, stakeholders indicated the need to align the current OSH provisions for the maritime and fisheries sector with the recent ILO Conventions, such as the ILO Work in Fishing Convention, 2007. It is clear that the agreement complements the current OSH acquis and aligns it with the Convention. The future revision of the EU OSH framework will have to take the agreement into account.

The EU also contributes to improving fishermen's conditions through the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP). The objective of the CFP is to ensure that fishing and aquaculture activities contribute to long-term environmental, economic, and social sustainability. Indeed, healthy fish stocks will in turn benefit fishermen. Managing resources in a sustainable manner will increase the competitiveness of the EU fisheries sector, creating new jobs. The objectives of the CFP are also promoted internationally, ensuring that EU fishing activities outside EU waters are based on the same principles and standards as those applicable under EU law, and promoting a level–playing field for EU operators and third-country operators. To this end, the EU actively seeks to lead the process of strengthening the performance of regional and international fisheries organisations in order to better enable them to conserve and manage marine living resources under their purview, including combating illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing. In line with recent international case law, flag, coastal, port or market States have due diligence to fulfil their duties incumbent upon them under international law. The EU cooperates with third countries and international organisations for the purpose of improving compliance with international measures, including the respect of human rights, through in particular safe working conditions. This constitutes an essential element of sustainable fisheries partnership agreements, which contain a specific human rights clause. This is consistent with the overall Union development policy objectives. Several studies have confirmed that low health and safety standards and poor working conditions are both a driver of IUU fishing and one of its consequences. On one hand, operators may choose to engage in IUU fishing because of the lower cost of limited health and safety checks and other controls over working conditions. On the other hand, workers on IUU vessels are vulnerable to all sorts of labour violations, as there is no way of ensuring decent working conditions on a vessel engaging in illegal activities. This also has negative impacts on international efforts to promote better ocean governance by undermining efforts to achieve international progress on social standards for fishermen. Improving the social situation of fishermen is expected to reduce the risk of abuses and increase the cost of engaging in IUU fishing, making it a less attractive option. Thorough implementation of ILO Conventions worldwide would therefore have a positive impact both on fishermen's working conditions and on the incidence of IUU fishing. By incorporating the agreement of the ILO social partners on the ILO work in Fishing Convention in EU legislation, the EU will be in a stronger position to promote their implementation in partner countries worldwide. The objectives of this initiative are also in line with the protection of the rights mentioned in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in particular the rights protected under Articles 20 (equality before the law), 31 (fair and just working conditions) and 32 (prohibition of child labour and protection of young people at work) of the Charter. 4.POLICY OPTIONS The Commission can consider only two options: No EU action (the baseline scenario): The current EU labour and occupational safety and health legislation applicable to fishermen in the sector will remain in force. Propose the implementation of the agreement by a Council decision in accordance with Article 155 TFEU: The EU acquis will be complemented by a Directive which will provide more specific rules at EU level on living and working conditions for the sea fisheries sector. 4.1.Option 1 Baseline Scenario. With the exception of France, EU Member States have not yet ratified the ILO Work in Fishing Convention. The current EU acquis with regard to living and working conditions would remain in force. At this moment no other specific EU initiatives in the field of labour law, social security or safety and health of workers are planned for the sea fisheries sector. With regard to the different subjects covered by the EU social partner agreement, this would mean that the fishermen would remain covered by the EU labour law Directives, such as the Written Statement Directive, the Working Time Directive, and the Temporary Agency workers Directive. The current EU rules on the coordination of social security are would remain applicable to sea fishermen (See Annex 6 for further details). The EU OSH Directives apply to all economic sectors, both public and private. Directive 89/391/EEC and its relevant individual directives apply to workers in all fishing vessels irrespective of size. Two specific Directives were introduced to tackle the specific risks and to promote the occupational health and safety of fishermen. Directive 93/103/EEC defining the minimum safety and health requirements for work on board fishing vessels and Directive 92/29/EEC on the minimum safety and health requirements for improved medical treatment on board vessels. Directive 93/103/EC lays down minimum safety and health requirements applicable to new fishing vessels with a length between perpendiculars of 15 m or over and to existing fishing vessels with a length between perpendiculars of 18 m or over. In addition, EU OSHA produced a Risk assessment for small fishing vessels as well as information material on safe maintenance of fishing vessels 4.2.Option 2 Implementation of the agreement by a Council Directive in accordance with Article 155 TFEU The agreement is based on the ILO Work in Fishing Convention, 2007. It covers most areas of the Convention itself. It contains minimum requirements concerning minimum age and medical examination, manning requirements, limits to daily and average weekly working time, health protection and medical care in case of sickness, occupational injury or death, fisherman's work agreement, private labour market services, and occupational safety and health and accident prevention. The agreement does not cover the provisions concerning remuneration or pay, and compliance and enforcement of the ILO Convention, as these fall outside the scope of Article 153 of the Treaty. The agreement will apply to fishermen employed on all fishing vessels engaged in commercial sea fishing. It will also apply to all other fishermen (self-employed) who are present on the same vessel with employed fishermen, in order to ensure protection of the workers' health and safety on board the vessel. The agreement provides minimum standards. When the EU Member States transpose the agreement in national legislation; they are allowed to maintain more favourable standards. In addition, the agreement provides for some flexibility by providing for a possibility to gradually transpose the agreement for specific categories of vessels or fishermen within a period of 5 years, in case of substantial problems. The national authorities of the Member State are obliged to consult the national social partners on the transposition of the agreement in national law. This could facilitate the implementation of the agreement as these organisations will be able to support and advise the national authorities during the process. As is the case with the current acquis, the national authorities will have to ensure the enforcement of their national legislation transposing the agreement. This normally will be done by the national labour inspectorates, fisheries or maritime authorities and by the judicial authorities. It is up to the Member State to nominate the competent enforcement authorities. National social partners could also support enforcement authorities to improve working conditions as they will have the expertise on working conditions in the sector and have an important role to play in supplying information and raising awareness. Once the Directive implementing the agreement in EU legislation has entered into force, citizens will have the possibility to complain to the Commission via the normal Commission's complaint procedures if they are of the opinion that the national legislation is in breach of the agreement.

4.3.Legal analysis of the differences between the agreement provisions, the existing EU provisions and the national level Before assessing the impacts of implementing the proposed agreement, the substantial changes as compared to the current situation need to be identified. This is a challenging task as there is a very complex set of existing rules in place. In the remainder of section 4.3, for each of the areas of the agreement, first the substantial changes are identified, followed by a table which aims to indicate which Member States already have legislation in place for the sea fisheries sector which is equivalent or more favourable for the protection of workers when compared to the provisions of the agreement, and which Member States have less favourable provisions than the agreement. Provisions of the agreement which are similar to the provisions of the existing EU Directives already applicable to the sea fishing sector, or which are limited to establishing further specification are not compared (e.g. manning requirements, and the obligation of a crew list, private labour market services). Information on the national legislation of the different Member States is mainly based on the information obtained from the research and from the information supplied by national authorities of the different Member States as part of the external study carried out in support to this impact assessment. While, in the context of this study all 28 Member States have been contacted with the request to supply information, information from certain Member States was not received. Consequently, any information on these Member States is based on further desk research. 4.3.1.Scope and applicability Article 1(e) of ILO Convention C.188, defines fishermen as “every person employed or engaged in any capacity or carrying out an occupation on board any fishing vessel, including persons working on board who are paid on the basis of a share of the catch but excluding pilots, naval personnel, other persons in the permanent service of a government, shore-based persons carrying out work aboard a fishing vessel and fisheries observers”. This definition includes both employed as self-employed fishermen. As the social partner’s agreement addresses fields covered by Article 153 TFEU, the agreement applies to fishermen who are employed on board a vessel (i.e. workers). The agreement is extended to self-employed working alongside workers on the same vessel, whenever there is a link (direct or indirect) to the protection of the health and safety of workers employed on the same vessel This corresponds to the current scope of Directive 93/103/EC and Directive 92/29/EEC in the sense that provisions therein are also extended to the self-employed whenever there is a link (direct or indirect) to the protection of the health and safety of workers employed on the same vessel. While the ILO Convention C.188 applies to vessels irrespective of the ownership, the agreement applies to vessels registered within the plenary jurisdiction or flying the flag of a Member State. Directive 93/103/EC and Directive 92/29/EEC also refer to the plenary jurisdiction or the flag of the Member State. Table 4 Scope and applicability EU acquis Agreement MS having equal or more favourable standards MS having less favourable standards or no standards in this area Employed fishermen and self-employed fishermen working on board the same vessel in the context of health and safety protection Employed fishermen and self-employed fishermen working on board the same vessel in the context of health and safety protection BE, BG, CY, DK DE, EE, EL, ES, FI, FR, HR, IE, IT, LT, LV, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SI and UK SE Vessel flying the flag or registered under the plenary jurisdiction of a Member State Vessel flying the flag or registered under the plenary jurisdiction of a Member State BE, BG, CY, DE, DK, EE, EL, FI, FR, IE, IT, LT, LV, MT, NL, PL, RO, SE, SI and UK ES, HR, and PT 4.3.2.Minimum requirements for work on board fishing vessels Minimum age According to the ILO Convention, the minimum age for working on a fishing vessel is 16 years of age. The competent authority may authorise a minimum age of 15 for persons who are no longer subject to compulsory schooling as provided by national legislation, and who are engaged in vocational training in fishing. Night work is forbidden under the age of 18. Night is defined as the period between midnight and 5 am. Under certain conditions, the competent authorities after consultation of the national social partners can authorise exemptions in the context of training. The agreement provides the same age limits as the ILO Convention, but adds that young people between the ages of 16-18 at work need to be supervised both during the day and during the night. As concerns night work, the agreement defines night as a period of at least 9 hours, instead of 8 hours starting not later than midnight and ending not earlier than 5 am. In that sense the agreement complements Directive 94/33/EC and provides for more protective measures for young people as regards the definition of night period and consequently the prohibition of night work under the age of 18. Table 5: Minimum age EU acquis Agreement MS having equal or more favourable standards MS having less favourable standards or no standards Minimum age 16, 15 under certain conditions when in context vocational training Minimum age 16, 15 under certain conditions and in context vocational training DE, DK, EE, ES, FI, FR, IT, LT, LV, PL and UK EL and SE provide for exemptions for occasional work for family members Night work forbidden for under 18. Only allowed in context of training when supervised Night defined as 8 hours either between 10 pm and 6 am or 11 pm and 7 am Night work forbidden for under 18. Only allowed in context of training when supervised Night defined 9 hours starting not later than midnight and ending not earlier than 5 am DE, DK, ES, FI, FR, IT, LT, LV, PL and UK BE, EE, EL, HR, IE, NL, PT, SE and SI

Medical certificate Articles 10-12 of the ILO Convention introduce the obligation for all fishermen to have a medical certificate before being admitted to work on a fishing vessel. The ILO Convention provides for some flexibility as Member States could limit the obligation of a medical certificate to workers working on a vessel of 24 meters and over or vessels remaining at sea for more than 3 days. Article 11 states that the Member State can provide for rules with regard to the nature and content of the certificate and other administrative requirements. Article 12 delimits the examination required (eyesight and hearing) and the fact that the certificate has to state that the fisherman does not suffer from any condition which would be aggravated by working at sea or which would endanger the safety and health of the persons working on board the vessel. The agreement, in its article 7-9, provides for the same as the aforementioned provisions of ILO Convention C.188. Hence Member States can limit the obligation of a medical certificate to workers working on a vessel of 24 meters or over or vessels remaining at sea for more than three days. On the other hand, the existing EU OSH directives do not contain a similar obligation regarding medical certificates. Article 14 of Directive 89/391/EEC on occupational safety and health contains a general requirement for the Member States to implement measures whereby health surveillance at regular intervals should be made available for workers who wish to receive such health surveillance. The measures regarding health surveillance apply to employed fishermen. In 13 Member States, medical certificates are already compulsory for all seafarers, including fishermen, irrespective of the time spent at sea or the type of the vessel. Portugal exempts small fishing vessels from this obligation. In some Member States, such as Ireland, Italy and Sweden the medical certificate includes fewer checks than the ones required by the agreement. The United Kingdom's legislation contains a medical certificate for seafarers, but fishermen are at the moment excluded. Slovenia does not have any specific occupational safety and health legislation in place for fishermen. A general medical examination for all workers exists, but there are no specific rules for fishermen.



Table 6 Medical Certificate EU acquis Agreement MS having equal or more favourable standards MS having less favourable standards or no standards Member States have to introduce health surveillance measures Each worker may receive health surveillance at regular intervals, possibly as part of a national health system Medical certificate is obligatory for workers on vessels of 24 meters and over. MS may extend this to vessels under 24 meters. Eyesight and hearing and any conditions which make them unfit or will be aggravated by work at sea BE, DE, EE, EL, ES, FI, FR, HR, LT, LV , NL, PL and PT IE and IT, RO, SE, SI, and UK 4.3.3.Working time Working time The provisions on working time are laid down in Article 13 paragraph 2 of the ILO Convention C.188. They apply to all vessels, regardless of their size, which are for more than three days at sea. They establish limits on hours of rest and hours of work for the purpose of the protection of safety and health of workers and for limiting fatigue. In emergency situations such as the immediate safety of the vessel, or giving assistance to other vessels, the skipper might temporarily suspend the schedule of hours of rest until the normal situation is restored. After the normal situation is restored, the skipper must schedule a rest period for the fishermen who worked their rest period. Within EU law, Article 21 of the general Working Time Directive which lays down certain minimum requirements to protect the health and safety of workers applies to fishermen. Member States must ensure adequate rest and that the average working week amounts to a maximum of 48 hours calculated over a 12 month reference period. For the safety and health protection of workers limits on the hours of work and rest must be established. Exceptions to the rules may be permitted by Member States. These must as far as possible comply with the limits laid down in the Directive but may take account of more frequent or longer leave periods or granting compensatory leave. Like the ILO rules the EU provisions give the skipper of the vessel the right to suspend the normal schedule in emergency situations. The Agreement lays down similar provisions and limits to hours of work and rest that are similar to Article 21 of the general Working Time Directive. It adds that the limits to working time and hours of rest are not only laid down for the safety and health of workers, but also for the purposes of limiting fatigue caused by long irregular working hours, which would occur often on fishing vessels. Alternative requirements are possible, but they should be substantially equivalent to the provisions of the agreement and shall not jeopardize the safety and health of fishermen. At national level, 16 Member States comply with the provisions of the Agreement. According to the information received by the national authorities, two Member States, Spain and Portugal will need to implement rules relating to compensatory rest and introduce a definition of fatigue. No information was received from the Romanian national authorities; a 2003 ILO report indicates that Romania has no specific working time rules for fishermen; the working time rules for shore workers and a decree for vessels seem to apply to fishermen. The Swedish authorities indicated that they will need to change their working time legislation, but did not provide any further details. Table 7 Working Time EU acquis Agreement MS having equal or more favourable standards MS having less favourable standards or no standards in this area -Average working week of 48 hrs over a 12 month reference period -Maximum work hours 10 hours per 24 hours -72 hours within a seven day period Average working week of 48 hrs over a 12 month reference period -Maximum work hours 10 hours per 24 hours -72 hours within a seven day period BE, DE, DK, EE, EL, FI, FR, HR, IE, IT, LT, LV, NL, PL, SI and UK ES, PT, RO and SE 4.3.4.Fisherman’s work agreement Articles 16-20 and Annex II of the ILO Convention C.188 provide for the obligation of the fishing vessel owner for every fisherman/worker on all vessels to have a written fisher's work agreement that is comprehensible to them and provides them with decent living and working conditions. Annex II contains provisions concerning the content of a fisher's work agreement which, except for the name of both employer and employee, also needs to contain clauses concerning, among others, the capacity the fisherman is going to work in, the number of voyages for which the fishermen is hired, the place of joining the ship, wage, paid annual leave, social security, including the compensation in case of sickness, injuries or death, medical coverage, as well as the right to repatriation. The fisherman needs to have time to review and seek advice concerning his agreement before it is concluded and the agreement needs to be carried on board of the vessel. Articles 14-18 and Annex I of the Agreement contain identical provisions concerning the fisherman's working agreement. Directive 91/533/EEC establishes the employer’s obligation to inform employees of the conditions applicable to the contract or employment relationship. This Directive contains the obligation for employers to provide the employee with a written contract of employment containing the essential elements such as name of the parties, wages, duration of the contract, length of working week, function of the employee and tasks. The differences between the agreement and the current acquis are mainly the parts of the agreement which are specific for the sea fisheries sector, such as the place where the fisherman needs to embark, the voyage or number of voyages the fisherman is engaged for, social security and health coverage and protection in case of injury, sickness or death. In addition, the Agreement clearly specifies that a fishermen needs to have time to review and seek advice concerning his agreement before it is concluded. Finally, the agreement indicates that it is the responsibility of the fishing vessel owner to ensure that each fisherman on board has a written agreement, which ensuring him decent working conditions. The fisherman work agreements have to be carried on board of the vessel. At national level 10 Member States already comply with the rules set out in the Agreement. In Poland, the fisherman’s work agreement has the same requirements as the seafarers' employment agreement and in addition it must contain provisions on the food board, the provision of working clothes and the individual protective equipment.

In Greece and Portugal, the national authorities indicated that the current rules do not comply with all the provisions regarding the content of fisherman's work agreement as set out under Annex I in the Agreement. Along the same line, Ireland finds that current provisions need to be updated and indicates that not all particular statements of Annex I are covered by its national legislation. In Slovenia, only general rules on work agreements apply to fishermen thus do not provide for the specificities of the sector. Spain does not have an obligation to provide for a written work agreement thus does not comply with the compulsory information set out in the Annex I. Also the United Kingdom does not set out any provisions defining the fishermen’s work agreement nor the particular information as set out in Annex I. The obligation to carry the work agreement on board the vessel is complied with by the majority of Member States, with the exception of Ireland, Portugal, Spain and United Kingdom. Latvia and Slovenia have general provisions in place that specify that the work agreement shall be carried by the employer but do not specifically refer to the sector. This may mean that these countries need to provide for more sector specific legislation. In conclusion, in 10 countries no additional requirements are needed. There are 4 countries that do not comply with the requirements of the Agreement and thus a new standard of the format of the fisherman’s work agreement would have to be issued. Only currently Spain does not impose any written agreements, thus requiring more significant changes to the national system. For 2 countries, only minor changes are expected as these relate to some of the clauses entailed in written agreements. This only requires a change in the way agreements are written (higher administration efforts). For 7 countries, no information from the national authorities was received. Table 8 Fisherman's Work Agreement EU acquis Agreement MS having equal or more favourable standards MS having less favourable standards or no standards - General provisions for all sectors concerning a written agreement in which essential details concerning the name of the parties, the function, wages, start and if applicable end date of the contract. - Written fisherman's work agreement containing all details provided for in Annex 1, which includes sector specific details such as name of the vessel, health care and protection against disability injury, and sickness, number of voyages. - employee has the time to review and seek advice before concluding the agreement - fisherman's work agreement has to be carried on board of the vessel. BE, DE, EE, FI, FR, HR, LT, NL, PL, and SE SI and LV, IE, PT, ES, EL, UK and RO 4.3.5.Repatriation Repatriation is a right for fishermen whose employment agreement has expired or is terminated for justified reasons or the fishermen can no longer carry out the duties required. The fishing vessel owner has to pay for the repatriation of the fishermen to the country of origin. If the fishing vessel owner fails to provide for repatriation, this obligation falls on the Member State. The ILO Convention C.188 provides for a right of repatriation when a fishing vessel enters a foreign port. The provisions in the Agreement are based on the ILO Convention. There is no current EU acquis concerning repatriation for fishermen. Directive 2009/13/EC solely contains a provision on repatriation for seafarers in the merchant navy, but it does not apply to sea fishermen. Some Member States have already extended the repatriation rights for seafarers to sea fishermen. Some Member States, like Belgium, have created a special fund to cover the funds of repatriation. Some Member States like Bulgaria and Croatia might not have a statutory right of repatriation because their sea fisheries sector fishes in coastal waters, so that the fishing vessels do not reach or enter foreign ports.



Table 9 repatriation EU acquis Agreement MS having equal or more favourable standards MS having less favourable standards or no standards No EU acquis Right of the fishermen to be repatriated from a foreign port to the country of origin in case their contract is expired or terminated. BE, DE, EE, FI, FR, LV, NL, PL. PT, SE, SI and UK BG, ES, HR, IE, IT, LT 4.3.6.Food and water on board Article 25 of ILO C.188 provides that food carried and served on board be of a sufficient nutritional value, quality and quantity. Potable water must be of sufficient quality and quantity. This is an important requirement given the high incidence of occupational diseases in the sector (see section 1.2), both in terms of quality and quantity. As the fishermen are at sea several days or even weeks, they are dependent on the food and water provided on board. Food and water shall be provided by the fishing vessel owner at no cost to the fishermen. This cost can be recovered as an operational cost if the collective agreement governing a share system or a fisher's work agreement so provides. Article 24 of the agreement contains a similar provision. This provision applies to all vessels. There is no similar provision in the current EU acquis. In addition, annex II of the agreement contains specific technical requirements on food storage, conservation, food preparation, and kitchen utensils. These requirements will apply to vessels for which the building or major conversion contract has been placed on or after the date of the entry into force of this agreement (See Annex 6). Ten Member States already have this provision in their national legislation. In five Member States minor changes are expected to add to the general standard of healthy and safe living conditions on board as already applicable through the result of Directive 93/103/EC, the specific aspect of food and quality of food and water. Table 10 Food and water on board

EU acquis Agreement MS having equal or more favourable standards MS having less favourable standards or no standards No EU acquis The food carried and served on board must be of a sufficient nutritional value, quality and quantity. Potable water must be of sufficient quality and quantity. The food and water shall be provided by the fishing vessel owner at no cost to the fisherman; DE, DK, EE, FI, FR, IT, LV, SE, SI, and UK BE, ES IE, HR, NL, and PT 4.3.7.Right to medical treatment on board and ashore Medical treatment on board and ashore is an important right in a sector where there is a great risk to injuries and accidents on board of vessels. This is illustrated among others by a study done on 187 medical treated injuries on board fishing vessels. Medical treatment ashore was delayed for more than 24 hours in 35% of the injuries. Directive 92/29/EC sets out standards for medical equipment on board as well as for on board medical consultation by radio, which imply a right to medical care on board the vessel; the agreement however adds a requirement of satellite communication to be made available to the workers in this context and the right to medical care on shore (nearest port which can also be outside the country normally responsible of the fisherman’s social security). A right to medical treatment ashore is not yet been provided for in the EU acquis. The ILO Convention C.188 contains a right for fishermen to receive medical treatment ashore as well as to be taken ashore for medical treatment in a timely manner in case of serious injury or disease (Article 29(e) of the Convention). The Agreement contains a similar provision in Article 26(a). At national level, 12 Member States already have provisions in place concerning medical treatment abroad and ashore in accordance with the Agreement. 5 Member States have indicated that they do not fully comply with the provisions. Table 11: Medical treatment on board and ashore EU acquis Agreement MS having equal or more favourable standards MS having less favourable standards or no standards Workers on board must be granted access to medical consultation by radio to facilitate assistance in case of injury or emergency. Right for free medical treatment on board and abroad. Satellite communication needs to be made available. BE, DE, EE, EL, FI, FR, HR, LT, NL, PL, PT, SE, UK ES, IE, IT, LV, SI No similar provision in the EU acquis Right to have treatment ashore or to be transported to the shore in a timely manner to receive medical treatment. BE, DE, DK, EE, EL, FI, FR, HR, NL, LT SE and the UK IE, IT, LV, PT, and SI 4.3.8.Protection in case of work-related injury sickness and death Articles 38 and 39 of the ILO Convention C.188 contain provisions to ensure that in case of a work-related injury, or sickness, the fishermen shall have the right to appropriate medical care. Also, in case of work-related disease, injury or death, the fisherman or his descendants have the right to compensation. If the national social security system does not provide for it, the fishing vessel owner is responsible for the protection and medical care of a fishermen while on board of the vessel or in a foreign port until he is repatriated. This liability might be covered via a system for fishing vessel owner's liability or a national compulsory insurance or other scheme. The Agreement provides is to the extent consistent with national legislation, medical care shall be provided free of charge on board and abroad. The fishing vessel owner shall pay the costs in case the social security system does not cover it. It leaves it for Member States to decide about the rights ensured under their national social security system and about the height of benefits The EU acquis provides for a coordination of social security. These rules ensure that citizens making use of their right of free movement will be insured the social security system of one Member State. The same goes for sea fishermen who reside in one country and are employed on vessels flying the flag of another Member State. As said above, the EU rules do not determine the right to a social security benefit such as the right to medical care abroad or in case of occupational injury or accident. The height of the benefit is also determined by the Member States themselves. 12 Member States seem to comply with the provisions in the agreement. Latvia and Spain estimate that some additional provisions need to be implemented, but did not specify this further in the context of the study. For Ireland, Italy and Croatia the information received in the context of the external study did not allow to make estimations on gap between the national legislation and the agreement. Table 12 Right to compensation in case of occupational injury, sickness, or death EU acquis Agreement MS having equal or more favourable standards MS having less favourable standards or no standards in this area Right to compensation in case of occupational injury, sickness or death in so far as it is consistent with the national social security system. Ship-owners to pay the costs if social security system does not cover it. BE, DE, DK EE, EL, FI, FR, LT, NL, PT, SE and UK ES, IE, IT and LV 4.3.9.Occupational safety and health: risk assessment

In the context of occupational safety and health, Article 33 of the ILO Convention C.188 provides that risk evaluation shall be conducted, as appropriate, with the participation of fishers or their representatives. The Agreement contains an identical obligation in its Article 36. Directive 89/391/EEC contains an obligation on the employer to carry out a risk assessment and be in the possession of the respective documentation. Employers shall consult workers or their representatives and allow them to take part in discussions on all questions relating to health and safety at work. A similar obligation on information and consultation of employees exists in Directive 93/103/EC on the safety and health requirements in the sea fishing sector. As all Member States have transposed both Directives in their national legislation, most Member States estimate that only minor adjustments have to be made to allow workers to participate in the risk assessment. Table 13: Risk assessment EU acquis Agreement MS having equal or more favourable standards MS having less favourable standards or no standards in this area Workers or their representatives must be consulted on occupational safety and health matters. If appropriate workers or their representatives shall participate in the risk evaluation. DE, DK, FR, IT, LT, SE and UK EE, EL, FI, HR, IE, LV, NL, PT and SI 5.What are the impacts and who will be affected? 5.1.Background This section will look at the likely economic and social impacts of the agreement. In addition it will look at the impacts on competitiveness and on SMEs. There are no environmental aspects to be expected from the agreement. It will describe who will be affected. In this context companies, fishermen, national administrations, consumers and possibly third countries will be affected as sea fishing has a third country aspect in the context of the Common Fisheries Policy. The unit of analysis used to estimate the population is represented by the number of stakeholders which are affected by each article of the agreement. The estimation of the affected population was based as much as possible on EU level statistics or data collected at national level. In accordance with the applicability of the agreement workers, self-employed working alongside workers on the same vessels, were included in the analysis. Self-employed workers not working alongside workers were excluded from all calculations, since they are not covered by the provisions of the Agreement). No data is available on employment per vessel. Given that precise data identifying relevant populations were not directly available for all aspects of the agreement assumptions were needed to produce estimates. For the calculations over a 5 year period were made. Calculations were based on a low, best and high estimate. These figures are presented in section 5.2 and further. For each Article of the Agreement, the size of the affected population depends on the existing legislative framework at national level. In order to obtain comparable figures in the context of the external study, EU level datasets, triangulated with national datasets and information from interviews have also been used as in many cases there is not clear and reliable data on the affected population. To approximate the population affected by articles of the Agreement mainly secondary data appearing in the Annual Economic Report (AER) 2014 under the following reference Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) "The 2014 Annual Economic Report on the EU fishing Fleet (STECF 14-16)", 2014., EU-LFS and EU-LFS ad-hoc modules data have been used. A sensitivity analysis has been conducted as part of the quantitative analysis (see Annex 2). The detailed comparison of the options developed in section 4 assists in identifying the types of impacts and reasons for those impacts associated with the articles of the Agreement. This analysis is therefore taken into account when assessing quantifiable and non-quantifiable costs and benefits of the Agreement. Particular attention will be paid in this section to the consequences in Spain, Italy, Portugal, Greece, the Netherlands, Poland and the United Kingdom as these countries make up 84% of the sector in total employment terms and 87% in terms of FTE within the EU (See Annex 5). France will not be impacted by the agreement as they have ratified the ILO Convention itself in October 2015. The Estonian national authorities submitted the law to ratify the ILO Convention to the national Parliament in November 2015. Therefore it is assumed that the agreement will have no impact on Estonia, as their national legislation will be compliant with the ILO Convention. DK, NL, and UK are preparing for ratification. It could be assumed that ratification in these countries will take place in 2016-2017. The agreement contains minimum standards. It contains also more favourable provisions and a non-regression clause. As a consequence, Member States are allowed to maintain or introduce more favourable legislation on the subjects addressed by the agreement. Therefore, the agreement will have no direct impact on the situation in Member States that already have equal or more favourable provisions than the agreement. It will have an impact on Member States that have no or less favourable provisions, than the minimum requirements set out by the agreement,