EN    EN EN 
 
EN    EN  EUROPEAN COMMISSION 
Brussels, 25.2.2010 
SEC(2010) 147 final 
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
 
Opinion of the Committee for Fisheries and A quaculture and Opinion of the Scientific, 
Technical and Economic Committee on Fisheries  
  
Accompanying document to the 
 
ANNUAL REPORT FROM  THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL 
 
on Member States' efforts during 2008 to achi eve a sustainable balance between fishing 
capacity and fishing opportunities 
[COM(2010)60 FINAL] 
[SEC(2010)146] 
 
EN 2   EN TABLE OF CONTENTS 
1. Publication of Member States' Annual Reports ........................................................... 3 
2. Opinion of the Committee for Fisheries a nd Aquaculture on the Annual Report from 
the Commission to the Council and the Eu ropean Parliament on Member States’ 
efforts during 2008 to achieve a sustainabl e balance between fishing capacity and 
fishing opportunities - Minut es of the Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture 
meeting........................................................................................................................ .3  
3. Opinion of the Scientific, Technical a nd Economic Committee for Fisheries on the 
Annual Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on 
Member States’ efforts during 2008 to achieve  a sustainable balance between fishing 
capacity and fishing opportunities ............................................................................... 7 
 
EN 3   EN 1. PUBLICATION OF MEMBER STATES ' ANNUAL REPORTS  
Member States Annual Reports are available on  the Community Fleet Register "Europa" web 
site: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/flee t/index.cfm?method=FM_Reporting.menu  
2. OPINION OF THE COMMITTEE FOR FISHERIES AND AQUACULTURE ON THE ANNUAL 
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT ON MEMBER STATES ’ EFFORTS DURING 2008  TO ACHIEVE A 
SUSTAINABLE BALANCE BETWEEN FISHING CAPACITY AND FISHING OPPORTUNITIES 
- MINUTES OF THE COMMITTEE FOR FISHERIES AND AQUACULTURE MEETING  
The Commission presented the draft annual re port from the Commission to the European 
Parliament and the Council at the meeting of  the Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture 
held on 28 October 2009. The Commission remi nded the Committee that the summary annual 
report for the year 2008 has been presented and di scussed a number of times in the previous 
Committee meetings. The Commission pointed out  that the final document which had been 
distributed prior the meeting included some cha nges with respect to the previous version. It 
explained that the Commission's report plus a technical annex includi ng tables and graphs 
would make part of the report transmitted to th e European Parliament and the Council, while 
the detailed calculations of the entry-exit re gime and the Member States' reports would be 
published on the website of the Community Fishing Fleet register. 
• Commission informed the Member States that  the STECF had evaluated Member States' 
reports and Commission's summary  report at the meeting of its  ad-hoc working group that 
took place in Edinburgh between 7 and 11 Sept ember. The report of this working group 
will be approved during the plenary session of the STECF that will take place in Brussels between 9 and 13 November 2009. The approved report will constitute the opinion of the 
STECF. 
• Commission informed Member States that it will start procedure fo r the adoption of the 
report once it receives formal opinion of the STECF. Since the procedure is lengthy, it may 
happen that it won't be possible to adopt the report before the beginning of January 2010.  
• Commission pointed out main Commission's conclusions on the Member States' Annual 
fleet reports for 2008: 
• The quality of the Member States’ reports is improving in relation to those from previous 
years, yet many Member States' still do not desc ribe their fleets in relation to fisheries, 
which would allow the Commission to analyse the efforts made to  achieve a balance 
between the capacity of the fishing fleet  and the available fishing opportunities. 
• The use of the Guidelines for the better assessm ent of the balance between fishing capacity 
and fishing opportunities  has increased since 12 Member St ates were able to apply them. 
Commission is aware of the problems related to  their application and will seek to amend 
them and improve the Guidelines. 
• From the information contained in most of the reports it is hard to  establish clear links 
between effort management measures and fleet capacity adjustments. 
 
EN 4   EN • The effect of the temporary and specific meas ures for the restructuring of the EU fishing 
fleet were adopted by Council in July 2008 as a response to fuel crisis in 2008 has been so 
far very limited, since the Fleet Adjustment Plans foreseen in the regulation have not yet been implemented at the time this report was prepared.  
• Exits from the fleet with public s upport in 2008 were below those of 2007. 
• During 2008 the fishing capacity of the EU fleet was reduced at an average annual rate of 
2.6 % in terms of tonnage and 2.3% in terms of  power. This has been the overall trend for 
the last 17 years, although the trend is not so uniform when looking at individual Member 
States. 
The Commission gave the floor to Member States representatives to comment on the 
Commission's draft report and informed them th at their statements made during the meeting 
and their written comments will be noted in the minutes of the meeting and that the official 
minutes of this meeting will constitute the opinion of the Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture. 
Lithuania requested in its written comment to u pdate the figures of the Lithuanian capacity 
ceilings in the Community Fishi ng Fleet Register by taking into  account the entry of fishing 
vessel which was based on the administ rative decision taken before accession.   
Poland also requested in its written comment to update the figures of the Polish capacity 
ceilings in the Community Fishi ng Fleet Register by taking into  account the entry of fishing 
vessel which was based on the administ rative decision taken before accession. 
Commission said that said that it will update  the Community Fishing Fleet Register and 
replace the figures and tables in the Techni cal annex (Commission Staff Working Document 
1) and thus present the most accurate data. 
Portugal requested in its written comments to replace the reference related to the "tuna 
recovery plan" with th e "Greenland halibut recovery pl an" in the summary  of Portuguese 
report. In addition, Portugal announced that they  will provide the calcula tion of the indicators 
proposed in the Guidelines for the better assessment of the ba lance between fishing capacity 
and fishing opportunities  ("Guidelines") in their report for 2009. In addition to the comments 
already expressed in their written comments, Portugal said that they have difficulties obtaining certain data, in partic ular those related to vessels under 12m, but they hope to be 
able to present their indicators in the report for 2009. 
The United Kingdom submitted following written comments: – Comments related to the UK report – Page 9 
The data needed to allow many of  the indicators to be calculated are included within the UK 
report and associated annexes of statistical tables. The report for 2009 will be revised to 
implicitly include the required indicators. 
– Comment upon Commission c onclusions – Pages 10-11 
As a general point the Commission document doe s not bring out the difficulties of what is 
being asked from Member States. Simply to equate the level of fishing capacity in use with 
biological sustainability of the resource is not an appropriate measure of whether the balance 
 
EN 5   EN required is being achieved. For example, econo mic sustainability relates to the balance 
between costs and earnings (i.e. profit). In ma ny sectors, including fishing, businesses have 
equipment which they do not utilise to their fulle st possible potential (i.e . they appear to be 
under-utilising their available capacity) whilst operating their businesse s in an economically 
sustainable way (i.e. at an accepta ble level of profit fo r the enterprise concerned). The critical 
factors relevant for economic su stainability are thus very di fferent from those related to 
ensuring that the biological resource is sustai nable, and as such determining the level of 
balance required between these is not a simple matter.  
In the penultimate paragraph of their conclusi ons, the Commission menti ons details of stock 
which are being fished outside safe biological limits, and a bove maximum sustainable yield 
levels. The UK introduced a new indicator in its report which attempted to introduce a simpler indicator of the balance between  capacity and opportuni ty by identifying the extent to which 
the fish landed by the different segments of  the UK fleet were from sources assessed as 
sustainable both in terms of the tonnage of fish  (e.g. the biological reso urce) and the value of 
fish (i.e. the level of income) as a way of  bringing together the biological and economic 
factors. The UK intends to further develop the us e of this indicator of sustainable sources of 
fishing activity in the future.  
Denmark sent to the Commission following written comments 
– General comments 
The Commission’s report includes an examina tion and discussion of the extent to which 
member states have managed to assess the bala nce between fleet size a nd fishing possibilities. 
This represents an important improve ment compared to previous reports. 
However, there seems to be no a ssessment in the report of the size or magnitude  of 
overcapacity in the Community fleet.  
As a general point, it should be noted that the indicators should be used to monitor and 
analyse the capacity situation, but it will not be relevant to use them as a management tool to 
control specific fleet segments or fishing effort. 
In stead, a series of relevant management tools is possible, such as access regulation 
combined with fleet segmentation, effort mana gement, rights-based management and others.  
Since 2007 rights-based management  has applied to almost all of  Danish commercial fishery. 
This type of management encourages the adapta tion of the fleet to ca tch possibilities. Fleet 
size is still also managed by access, but we expect  that this kind of regulation will gradually 
lose its effect on fleet capacity. 
There is a risk that capacity management based on a detailed segmentation of the fleet will not 
work with rights-based management and could ev en slow down adaptation of the fleet to the 
various conditions of fishing possibilities,  markets and technical developments.  
– Guidelines and indicators 
The Commission’s guidelines for the assessmen t represent a promising approach to the 
problem of monitoring and assessing overcapacity.  
 
EN 6   EN According to the report the Commission will ask STECF for advice to improve the guidelines. 
We would like to underline that the guidelines mu st be kept as simple as possible and that 
STECF should reflect further on how indicators c ould be developed so as to be simpler to 
calculate, and how they may be  interpreted to give a valid picture of over-capacity. 
Computation of some of the i ndicators according to the guide lines requires very detailed 
information down to single species and vessel level which is difficult and time consuming to 
extract if the information exists at all. It should be considered if information on fleet segment level according to the DCR might be sufficient. 
In particular, it seems that the biological indi cators tend to reflect th e biological state of the 
stocks and do not give much information a bout the fleet size rela tive to the stocks. 
The calculation of the biological indicators in terms of fishing mortality rates for fleet 
segments is also complicated for fleets which ta rget many species in different waters that are 
not subject to stock assessment. This is the reason why it was not possi ble to calculate these 
for the Danish fleet segments for 2008. 
– Comment on the summary of the Danish report 
According to the Commission’s summary overcapac ity is attributed to vessels below 12 m in 
length. The estimates of capacity are based on the present structure and t echnical level of the 
fleet and this does not exclude that effective capacity may increase or decrease should the 
fleet be renewed. It should be mentioned in th e summary that fleet development is strongly 
influenced by the introduction of rights base d management for the pelagic fishery in 2003 and 
in 2007 for the demersal fishery. 
 
EN 7   EN 3. OPINION OF THE SCIENTIFIC , TECHNICAL AND ECONOMIC COMMITTEE FOR 
FISHERIES ON THE ANNUAL REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL 
AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT ON MEMBER STATES ’ EFFORTS DURING 2008  TO 
ACHIEVE A SUSTAINABLE BALANCE BETWEEN FISHING CAPACITY AND FISHING OPPORTUNITIES 
 
EN 8   EN REVIEW OF NATIONAL REPORTS ON  MEMBER STATES EFFORTS TO 
ACHIEVE BALANCE BETWEEN FL EET CAPACITY AND FISHING 
OPPORTUNITIES (SGBRE 09-01) 
 
SUBGROUP ON BALANCE BETWEEN  RESOURCES AND EXPLOITATION 
(SGBRE) OF THE SCIENTIFIC, TEC HNICAL AND ECONOMIC COMMITTEE 
FOR FISHERIES (STECF) 
 
STECF OPINION EXPRESSED DURING TH E PLENARY MEETING (PLEN-09-03) 
 
9-13 NOVEMBER 2009, BRUSSELS 
 
EN 9   EN TABLE OF CONTENTS 
1. Introduction................................................................................................................ 10 
2. Terms of reference ..................................................................................................... 10 3. STECF comments and conclusions............................................................................ 10 4. Introduction to working group report......................................................................... 14 4.1. Terms of reference ..................................................................................................... 14 4.2. Participants.............................................................................................................. ... 15 
5. ToR 1. Evaluate Member States annual  reports and Commission summaries .......... 16 
5.1. Evaluation of Member States  annual reports for 2008............................................... 16 
5.2. Evaluation of Commission summary of  Member States annual reports.................... 22 
6. ToR 2. Evaluate Member States applicat ion of guidelines on balance indicators..... 30 
6.1. Evaluation of Quality of Technical Indicators........................................................... 33 6.2. Evaluation of Biol ogical Indicators ........................................................................... 38 
6.3. Evaluation of Economic Indicators............................................................................ 43 6.4. Evaluation of Social Indicators .................................................................................. 48 7. ToR 3. Assess and summarise the problem of data availability ................................ 54 8. ToR 4. Assess appropriateness of indicators for small scale fleets............................ 59 
9. ToR 5. Improve the guidelines for balance indicators ............................................... 60 
10. References................................................................................................................. . 62 
Appendix A ..................................................................................................................... ......... 63 
Appendix B ..................................................................................................................... ......... 65
 
EN 10   EN 1. INTRODUCTION  
STECF is requested to review  the report of the SGBRE mee ting of September 7-11, 2009 
(Edinburgh), evaluate the findings and make any appropriate comments and 
recommendations. 
2. TERMS OF REFERENCE  
The working group was asked to: 
1. Evaluate the Member States' reports on thei r efforts during 2008 to achieve a sustainable 
balance between fishing capacity and fishi ng opportunities and the Commission's summary 
made thereof. To what extent do the Member  States’ reports comply with Article 14 of 
Council Regulation No 2371/2002 and Article  12 of Commission Re gulation no 1438/2003.  
2. Evaluate Member States' application of the indicators proposed in the "Guidelines for an 
improved analysis of the balance between fleet  capacity and fishing opportunities". Assess the 
extent of the application of the guidelines a nd the problems encountered by Member States.  
3. To assess the problem of availability of da ta for the calculation of the proposed indicators. 
Particular attention should be paid to biologi cal data. If time allows, in addition, propose 
solutions to these problems.  
4. To assess the appropriateness of the proposed  indicators for small scale coastal fleets and 
fisheries, identify problems related to their use fo r this part of the fleet  and consider possible 
alternatives. 
5. Propose improvements to the Commission guidelines on the balance indicators. 
3. STECF  COMMENTS AND CONCLUSIONS  
STECF observations 
STECF endorses  the methods and working group re port of SGBRE 09-01. STECF very 
much appreciates the effort put into the me thodology and the work of the group to devise a 
scoring system by which MS and the Commis sion can evaluate and compare their annual 
reports on the balance of their fish ing fleets and fishing opportunities. 
STECF notes that no MS achieved a maximum score for fulfilling their obligations under 
Article 14 of Council Regulation No 2371/2002 a nd Article 12 of Com mission Regulation no 
1438/2003 (see table 5.4 in working group report). S TECF also notes that ten out of 22 MS 
did not estimate any of the balance indicat ors recommended in th e Commission’s guidelines 
to MS (see table 6.1 in the SG BRE-09-01 Report). Completion of  balance indicators is not 
mandatory under current regulations however. 
In particular, STECF notes that  only 6 of the 22 MS gave an overall assessment of whether 
the capacity of their fishing fleet was in balance with their fi shing opportunities.  
 
EN 11   EN STECF endorses  the suggestions and recommendations of th e working group report. STECF 
recommends  that the Commission and MS take the appropriate actions, namely: 
1. The date of submission should be included in the MS reports. 
2. The requirement in the regulations to restrict MS reports to 10 pages should be 
reconsidered. 
3. Commission summaries of MS reports should follow the template format as suggested so 
that they contain the same information in the sa me order. This would greatly assist STECF to 
evaluate the Commission summari es should STECF continue to  be required to do so.  
4. MS should complete the report summary te mplate suggested for their own report and 
include it at the front  of their reports. 
5. In its summary report, the Commission shoul d make only factual observations regarding 
MS conclusions on balance, ra ther than adding any further interpretation to MS reports. 
6. MS should be encouraged to provide suitabl e alternative approaches to the technical 
indicator for their passive or static gear fleet se gments, since days at sea is not appropriate in 
these cases. It would be appropriate to update the Guidelines accordingly. 
7. MS may have to revise their timetable for da ta collection in order to ensure the previous 
year is reported on for the T echnical indicator by th e required date in the current year. 
8. Specific suggestions to individual MS in  the working group report regarding data 
availability should be communi cated by the Commission to MS. 
9. MS should reveal why indica tors have not been reported, this may help to resolve any 
underlying problems and make it possible to re port indicators in subsequent years. 
10. The suggested improvements to the Guidel ines on Balance Indicators contained in 
response to ToR 5 in the WG report should be implemented. 
STECF also recommends  that the description of fleets sh ould follow the fleet segmentation 
proposed by the DCF in order to be useful. 
STECF notes that JRC economists completed TORs  1 and 2 in respect of  the French report 
and that their approach appear s to be consistent  with what was done  during the working 
group. It is understood that JRC was not asked by the Commission (here DG MARE) to 
complete TORs 3, 4 and 5 in respect of the French report. 
STECF suggests the Commission should cons ider revisiting Council Regulation No 
2371/2002 and Regulation no 1438/2003 to ensure that  the balance indicators listed in the 
Guidelines, are made mandatory through a revi sed Council Regulation th ereby providing the 
legal basis to require MS to produce the required information in a timely and comprehensive 
fashion. 
With regard to the French MS annual report, ST ECF notes that this repo rt was only available 
to the working group in French and the WG participants were unable to read French. 
Subsequent to the WG, the French report was reviewed by JRC economists using the methods 
devised by SGBRE 09-01.  
 
EN 12   EN STECF notes  that the JRC economists completed only the first of five requests of the working 
group Terms of Reference and their approach a ppears to be consistent  with what was done 
during the working group.  
The annex on the French report was not prepar ed by the working group and therefore STECF 
decided  that it is appropriate to l eave that section as an anne x to the working group report. 
STECF requests that the Commi ssion ensure that all documents supplied to STECF are made 
available in the working language  of STECF, namely, English.
 
EN 13   EN ANNEX I  
SGBRE-09-01: REVIEW OF NATIONAL RE PORTS ON BALANCE BETWEEN FISHING 
CAPACITIES AND FISH ING OPPORTUNITIES. 
Edinburgh, 7-11th September 2009 
This report is the opinion of the expert working group on Balance between capacity and 
exploitation (SGBRE-09-01) and not of the Sc ientific, Technical and Economic Committee 
for Fisheries (STECF) 
This report does not necessarily  reflect the view of the European Commission and in no way 
anticipates the Commission’s future policy in this area  
 
EN 14   EN 4. INTRODUCTION TO WORKING GROUP REPORT  
4.1. Terms of reference 
The working group was asked to: 
1. Evaluate the Member States' reports on thei r efforts during 2008 to achieve a sustainable 
balance between fishing capacity and fishi ng opportunities and the Commission's summary 
made thereof. To what extent do the Member St ates’ reports comply w ith Art. 14 of Council 
Regulation No 2371/2002 and Art. 12 of  Commission Regulation no 1438/2003.  
2. Evaluate Member States' application of the indicators proposed in the "Guidelines for an 
improved analysis of the balance between fleet  capacity and fishing opportunities". Assess the 
extent of the application of the guidelines a nd the problems encountered by Member States.  
3. To assess the problem of ava ilability of data for the calcul ation of the proposed indicators. 
Particular attention should be paid to biologi cal data. If time allows, in addition, propose 
solutions to these problems. 
4. To assess the appropriateness of the proposed indicators for small scale coastal fleets and 
fisheries, identify problems related to their use for this part of the fl eet and consider possible 
alternatives. 
5. Propose improvements to the Commission Guidelines on the balance indicators. 
 
EN 15   EN 4.2. Participants 
Name Address Telephone no. email 
STECF members    
Curtis, Hazel  
(chair) Sea Fish Industry Authority 
18 Logie Mill, Logie Green 
Road 
Edinburgh, EH7 4HS, UK +44 131 524 8664 
 h_curtis@seafish.co.uk 
Abella, Alvaro Agenzia Regionale Protezione 
Ambiente della Toscan 
Via Marradi 114 
57126, Livorno, Italy +39 0586 263456 a.abella@arpat.toscana.it 
External experts  
Iriondo, Ane AZTI - Tecnalia / Unidad de 
Investigación Marina 
Txatxarramendi Ugartea z/g 
48395 Sukarrieta (Bizkaia), Spain +34 946 029 400 airiondo@suk.azti.es 
Brodie, Colin Sea Fish Industry Authority 
18 Logie Mill, Logie Green 
Road 
Edinburgh, EH7 4HS, UK +44 131 524 8662 
 c_brodie@seafish.co.uk 
Little, Alyson CEFAS 
Pakefield Road 
Lowestoft NR33 0HT, United Kingdom +44 1502 524501 alyson.little@cefas.co.uk 
Hadeler, Silvia CEFAS 
Pakefield Road 
Lowestoft NR33 0HT, United Kingdom +44 01502 
524590 silvia.hadeler@cefas.co.uk 
Velinova, Mihaela National agency of fisheries 
and aquacuclture 
Hr. Botev 17  
1606 Sofia, Bulgaria +35 9280 51663 mihaela.velinova@nafa-bg.org 
Yankova, Maria Institute of Fishing Resourses 
Blvd. Primorski 4 
9000 Varna, Bulgaria +35 9526 32066 maria_y@abv.bg 
Thoegersen, Thomas FOI 
Marstalsgade 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark +35 286895 thth@foi.dk 
Galrito, Helena DGPA 
Av. Brasília 
1449-030 Lisboa, Portugal +35 12130 35804 galrito@dgpa.min-agricultura.pt 
Miguez, Maria 
Amélia DG Pescas e Agricultura 
Av.Brasília 1449-030 Lisboa, Portugal +35 12130 35888 amiguez@dgpa.min-agricultura.pt 
European Commission 
Lopez-Benitez, Casto  DG MARE +32 2 299 6077 casto.lopez- benitez@ec.europa.eu 
Anderson, John Joint Research Centre JRC, 
STECF secretariat +39 0332 78 9256 john.anderson@jrc.ec.europa.eu 
 
 
EN 16   EN 5. TOR 1. EVALUATE MEMBER STATES ANNUAL REPORTS AND COMMISSION 
SUMMARIES  
Under Item 1 in the Terms of Reference,  the working group was asked to evaluate: 
• the Member States’ reports on their efforts during 2008 to achieve a sustainable balance 
between fleet capacity and fishing opportunities; and 
• the Commission’s summary made of Member States’ reports. 
In particular, the working group was asked, to  what extent do the Me mber States’ reports 
comply with Article 14 of Council Regul ation no. 2371/2002 and Articles 12 and 13 of 
Commission Regulation no. 1438/2003. 
5.1. Evaluation of Member Stat es annual reports for 2008 
All Member States’ reports (with the exception of  the French report) were evaluated against 
the requirements of Arti cle 12 and13 of Commission Re gulation no. 1438/2003 by the 
SGBRE 09-01 working group. A separa te evaluation of the French  report has been included 
in appendix B because the evaluation was not  carried out by SGBRE 09-01 participants. 
Overall there is significant variation in the co mpleteness and quality of the Member States’ 
reports. A common strength amongst  the Member States’ reports was the description provided 
of their fleets, changes of the fleet over the year  and linkages with fisher ies. However, there is 
a high degree of variation in the quality of the re ports and the extent to which they provide the 
information stipulated in Article  13 of Commission Regulation no. 1438/2003: 
• Two Member States failed to describe effo rt reduction schemes, whilst six countries did 
not refer to the impact of these schemes on fish ing capacity. In general, the descriptions of 
effort reduction schemes are quite poor.  
• Denmark, Germany, Italy and Spain did not state whether they complied with entry/exit 
schemes. All other countries did give some  indication of compliance (although often not 
explicitly). 
• Approximately half of the Member States summarised strengths and weaknesses of fleet 
management systems, although the quality of these statement was varied. Furthermore, 
only half of Member States’ reports provided plans for improvements in fleet management 
systems. 
• Only seven Member States gave informa tion on the level of co mpliance surrounding 
general fleet policy instruments. A common failing was weaknesses in the quality of this 
information.  
• Half of the Member States referred to change s in administrative procedures relevant to 
fleet management with varying degrees of quality.  
The regulation stipulates that the Member States ’ reports should not exceed 10 pages, 40% of 
countries failed to meet this requirement. Only  a third of Member St ates gave an overall 
assessment of the balance between fishing capacity and opportunity. 
 
EN 17   EN The working group assessed compliance with Article 12 and 13 of Commission Regulation 
no. 1438/2003 by developing a scoring system. Tabl e 5.1 shows the scoring system is based 
on the elements of Article 13 (1A to 2) and Article 12 (O), if the report provides an overall 
balance between capacity and opportunity. The sc oring system was split between a score for 
providing the requir ed information and a separate score fo r the quality of the information. The 
quality score is a reflection of  the completeness, robustness a nd relevance of the information 
provided and a weighting system  was applied to reflect the importance of the elements 
included (present) in Member States’ reports . It was not possible to assign a score for 
submitting the report by the required date. 
The working group notes the similar work ca rried out by the Institute for European 
Environmental Policy1 (IEEP). The IEEP report scored Member States on a scale of 10 for 
timeliness, completeness and readability. In comparison our report ha s a two score system; 
presence of required element and a quality  score based on completeness, robustness, 
relevance. Unlike the IEEP report our assessment did not adopt a traffic light system to rank 
Member States.  
Present Quality
i) Description of fleets 2 3
ii) Link with fisheries 3 3iii) Development in fleets 3 3
i) statement of effort reduction schemes 2 3
ii) impact on fishing capacity of effort reduction schemes 3 3
1C Statement of compliance with entry / exit scheme 2 3
i) Summary of weaknesses & strengths of fleet management system 1 3
ii) plan for improvements in fleet management system 2 3
iii) information on general level of compliance with fleet policy instruments 1 3
1E Information on changes of the admin. procedures relevant to fleet management 1 3
2 Report 10 pages or less? 1O Overall:  does report assess balance between capacity & opportunity? 3 3
24 33Q Element to be included Max score available
Total possible scores: 1A
1B
1D
 
Table 5.1 Scoring system for evaluati on of Member States annual reports 
Table 5.2 shows the scores by country for the in clusion of required elements in the annual 
report (the present score). Overall, Member Stat es scored quite highly on 1A (description of 
fleets, link with fisheries, fleet developmen ts), 1B (effort reduction schemes) and 1C 
(compliance with entry/exit scheme). Memb er States scored less well on 1D (fleet 
management systems), 1E (administrative procedures), report length and an overall 
assessment of balance. Only 6 of the 22 Member States gave an overall assessment of whether the capacity of their fishing fleet was in  balance with the fishing opportunity.  
                                                
 
1 ‘Overcapacity – What Overcapacity’, An evaluation of Member States Reporting on Efforts to achieve 
a sustainable balance between capacity and fishing opportunities in 2007, Institute for European 
Environmental Policy, July 2009.  
 
EN 18   EN Table 5.4 ranks the Member States by their ‘prese nt’ score for inclusion of required elements. 
A maximum of 24 points was available. Latvia, Netherlands and Poland achieved 21 points, 
while Greece only scored 7 points.  
 
EN 19   EN Q Required element of report M
ax 
sc
or
es 
BELGIUM 
BULGARIA 
CYPRUS 
DENMARK 
ESTONIA 
FINLAND 
GERMANY 
GREECE 
IRELAND 
ITALY 
LATVIA 
LITHUANIA 
MALTA 
NETHERLANDS 
POLAND 
PORTUGAL 
ROMANIA 
SLOVENIA 
SPAIN 
SWEDEN 
UK 
1A i) Description of fleets 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 
  ii) Link with fisheries 3 3 3 3 0 3 3 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 0 
  iii) Development in fleets 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 3 0 3 3 0 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 3 
1B i) statement of effort reduction schemes 2 0 2 2 2 0 2 2 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 
  ii) impact on fishing capacity of effort reduction schemes 3 0 3 3 3 0 3 3 0 3 3 3 0 3 3 3 3 3 0 3 0 3 
1C Statement of compliance with entry / exit scheme 2 2 2 2 0 2 2 0 2 2 0 2 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 2 2 
1D i) Summary of weaknesses & strengths  of fleet management system 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 
  ii) plan for improvements in fleet management system 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 2 2 
  iii) information on general level of compliance with fleet policy 
instruments 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 
1E Information on changes of the administrative procedures relevant to fleet 
management 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 
2 Report 10 pages or less? 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 
O Overall: does report assess balan ce between capacity & opportunity? 3 3 0 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 
Total scores: 24 16 18 19 14 11 19 20 7 17 10 21 12 17 21 21 17 17 15 14 15 16 
Table 5.2 Scores by country for inclusion of required elements in annual reports
 
EN 20   EN Q Required element of report 
Max scores 
Belgium 
Bulgaria 
Cyprus  
Denmark 
Estonia 
Finland 
Germany 
Greece 
Ireland 
Italy 
Latvia 
Lithuania 
Malta 
Netherlands 
Poland 
Portugal 
Romania 
Slovenia 
Spain 
Sweden 
UK 
1A i) Description of fleets 3 3 3 3 3 1 2 3 1 1 1 3 2 2 2 3 3 1 2 1 0 1 
  ii) Link with fisheries 3 3 1 1 0 1 2 2 0 2 0 3 0 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 0 0 
  iii) Development in fleets 3 3 2 1 3 1 1 2 0 2 0 2 1 0 3 3 3 1 1 2 0 2 
1B i) statement of effort reduction schemes 3 0 2 2 3 0 2 1 0 3 3 3 1 2 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 
  ii) impact on fishing capacity of effort reduction schemes 3 0 0 1 3 0 0 1 0 1 1 2 0 0 2 3 2 2 0 3 0 2 
1C Statement of compliance with entry / exit scheme 3 2 1 3 2 3 3 1 2 2 0 2 1 1 2 2 3 3 3 0 2 3 
1D i) Summary of weaknesses & strengths  of fleet management system 3 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 1 3 0 1 2 1 3 2 0 0 1 1 
  ii) plan for improvements in fleet management system 3 2 2 2 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 2 2 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 2 1 
  iii) information on general level of compliance with fleet policy 
instruments 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 
1E Information on changes of the administ rative procedures relevant to fleet 
management 3 0 0 2 3 0 2 1 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 1 2 
2 Report 10 pages or less? n/
a                                           
O Overall: does report assess balance between capacity & opportunity? 3 2 0 0 3 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 
Total scores: 33 15 13 15 20 6 15 16 6 12 9 26 9 10 19 22 20 14 12 10 11 14 
Table 5.3 Scores by country for quality of  required elements in annual reports
 
EN 21   EN Scores for inclusion of required elements 
Member State Score Max Score % 
Latvia 21 24 88% 
Netherlands 21 24 88% 
Poland 21 24 88% 
Germany 20 24 83% 
Cyprus  19 24 79% 
Finland 19 24 79% 
Bulgaria 18 24 75% 
Romania 17 24 71% 
Portugal 17 24 71% 
Ireland 17 24 71% 
Malta 17 24 71% 
UK 16 24 67% 
Belgium 16 24 67% 
Sweden 15 24 63% 
Slovenia 15 24 63% 
Spain 14 24 58% 
Denmark 14 24 58% 
Lithuania 12 24 50% 
Estonia 11 24 46% 
Italy 10 24 42% 
Greece 7 24 29% 
Table 5.4 Ranked results of scoring system for inclusion of required elements in Member 
States’ reports 
Table 5.5 shows the quality scores by Member Stat es for each of the required elements in the 
annual reports. There is a signi ficant variation in the quality of the Member States’ reports. 
Table 5.5 shows the Member Stat es ranked by quality of include d elements. Latvia scored 26 
out of 33 points (79%), whereas Estonia and Greece only scored 6 points (18%) for report quality. 
 
EN 22   EN  
Scores for quality of included elements 
Member State Score Max Score % 
Latvia 26 33 79% 
Poland 22 33 67% 
Portugal 20 33 61% 
Denmark 20 33 61% 
Netherlands 19 33 58% 
Germany 17 33 52% 
Finland 15 33 45% 
Cyprus  15 33 45% 
Belgium 15 33 45% 
UK 14 33 42% 
Romania 14 33 42% 
Bulgaria 13 33 39% 
Slovenia 12 33 36% 
Ireland 12 33 36% 
Sweden 11 33 33% 
Spain 10 33 30% 
Malta 10 33 30% 
Lithuania 9 33 27% 
Italy 9 33 27% 
Greece 6 33 18% 
Estonia 6 33 18% 
Table 5.5 Ranked results of scoring system for quality of included elements in Member States 
reports 
5.2. Evaluation of Commission summary of Member States annual reports 
The Commission summaries of Member States’ re ports vary in quality and relevance. They 
vary in length, order of information and detail  included. For instance, in many cases the first 
sentence of the summary states whether or not  the balance indicator guidelines were followed 
in the Member States’ report, but th is is not true of all summaries. 
It would be useful if all Commission summar ies followed a template so that they would 
contain the same information in the same order,  as long as it is included in the Member 
States’ reports. This would also serve to hi ghlight when Member St ates’ reports failed to 
 
EN 23   EN include some required information. Such a method of providing summaries would make it 
easier for members of the Council to compare th e situation between various Member States. 
A summary template could possibly be s upplied to the Member  States national 
correspondents, so that Member States coul d complete their own report summary. This 
procedure might also help to improve the completeness of MS annual reports. 
The regulation requires the Member States’ report s to be less than 10 pages but this is a 
difficult target to achieve if the report is to include application of the guidelines regarding balance indicators. 
A suggested summary template is given below and could potentially be completed in table 
form. Where the required information is not c ontained in the Member States’ reports, the 
Commission summary could note the absence of  the information. The Commission summary 
could also note whether the information supplied is comprehensive. 
Suggested template for summary of Member States annual reports 
(1) Conclusions about whether the fleet is in balance with th e opportunity. Note 
whether the balance is improving, st aying the same or getting worse 
(2) Size of the fleet (no. of ve ssels, total GT, total kW) 
(3) List biggest fleet segments, with key species fished and total volumes landed 
(4) Additions to and removals from the fleet during the ye ar, expressed in 
number of vessels, giving fleet segment or some indication of vessel capacity 
(5) Change in state of stocks and/or in fishing opportunity during the year 
(6) Outline of effort reduction schemes, if any, during the year 
(7) Statement of compliance with entry / exit scheme during the year 
(8) Plans for improvements in fleet management system 
(9) Length of report (ove r / under 10 pages) 
(10) Application of the balance indicators (technical, biological, economic, social) 
In the final paragraph of sec tion 2 of the summary document, the Commission highlights that, 
of the 11 Member States’ reports which included  application of the balance indicators, “a 
number” of them indicated “a great degree of overcapacity”. This comment is not helpful 
because it suggests many of the 11 Member Stat es indicated overcapacity, but does not say 
how many, which would have been more useful. 
Comments on summary of the Belgium report 
• The Commission’s summary is relevant and a good reflection of what is written in the 
Belgian report. 
 
EN 24   EN • The summary omits to explicitly state that the Belgian report includes an evaluation of the 
current status as regards the likely bala nce between capacity a nd fishing opportunities. 
• The summary is correct in stating that the guidelines were applied to the main Belgian 
fleet. 
Comments on summary of the Bulgaria report 
• The summary is relevant and makes reference to  the main issues contained in the text of 
the Bulgarian report. 
• The summary omits to explicitly state that  the Bulgarian report does not include an 
evaluation of the current status as regards the likely balance between capacity and fishing 
opportunities. 
• The summary is correct in stating that the guidelines were applied to the main Bulgarian 
fleet. 
• The summary does not mention that (as stated in  the report) the quality  of data and results 
utilised for the definition of MSY and corres ponding F rates in the bi ological indicators are 
highly uncertain. 
Comments on summary of the Cyprus report 
• The summary is correct but very brief, and se veral key points contained in the report are 
missing from the summary, such as the size of the fleet. 
• The summary is correct in highlighting that  the report contains no assessment of the 
balance between fleet capaci ty and fishing opportunities. 
• The summary is correct in stating that the proposed guidelines on ba lance indicators were 
not applied. 
Comments on summary of the Germany report 
• The Commission’s summary is correct but omits some important points. 
• The summary omits to explicitly state that th e German report does include an evaluation of 
the current status as regards the likely ba lance between capacity a nd fishing opportunities 
by segment. 
• The summary is correct in stating that the proposed guidelines on ba lance indicators were 
not applied. The summary mentions that a qua litative version of th e biological approach 
examined the balance between fishing capacity and fishing opportunities by fleet segment. 
• More information in the link of vessels with fisheries could have been included in the 
Member States report but this absenc e was not highlighted in the summary. 
• Statement of effort reduction schemes and the impact on fishing capacity were not 
quantified in the report but this is not highlighted in the summary. 
Comments on summary of the Denmark report 
 
EN 25   EN • The Commission’s summary gives a good summar y of the significant elements in the 
Danish report, but omits some important detail. 
• The summary correctly states that the Danish report includes an assess ment of the current 
status as regards the likely balance be tween capacity and fishing opportunities. 
• The summary correctly states that the guidelines were applied in the Danish report but fails 
to mention the indicators use 2007 and not 2008 data. 
Comments on summary of the Estonia report 
• The Commission’s summary report accurately summ arises the key details contained in the 
Member States report. 
• The summary omits to explicitly state that  the Estonian report does not include an 
evaluation of the current status as regards the likely balance between capacity and fishing 
opportunities. 
• The summary is correct in stating that the gu idelines were only partly applied in the 
Estonian report. 
• The summary does not give details of the size of the fleet segments but does mention the 
number of vessels joinin g and leaving the fleet. 
• The summary notes that there appears to be di stinct over capacity in one segment, but fails 
to mention that there are only 6 vessels in total in that segment. 
Comments on summary of the Finland report 
• The summary accurately reflects th e main points of the report. 
• The summary correctly states that the Finnish  report fails to make an evaluation of the 
current status as regards the likely bala nce between capacity a nd fishing opportunities. 
• The summary is correct in stating that the guid elines were not applied in the Finnish report. 
• It is unclear both in the summary  and the report what fishing effort refers to (according to 
Table 2.3. in the report). 
Comments on summary of the France report 
• The report from France was not available in En glish, so it is not possible to make a fair 
assessment of the Commission summary of the French report. 
Comments on summary of the Greece report 
• The summary provides a short and accurate su mmary of the Greek report but omits some 
important information. 
• The summary omits to explicitly state that the Greek report does not include evaluation of 
the current status as regards the likely bala nce between capacity a nd fishing opportunities. 
 
EN 26   EN • The summary correctly stated that the Greek re port partially applied the guidelines but did 
not mention that the report failed to refl ect on any biological a nd social indicators. 
Comments on summary of the Ireland report 
• The summary of the Irish report is a good re flection of the contents of the report. 
• The summary correctly states that the Irish re port gave no evaluation of the current status 
as regards the likely balance between  capacity and fishing opportunities. 
• The summary notes that the guidelines we re not applied in the Irish report. 
Comments on summary of the Italy report 
• The summary of the Italian report is a good reflec tion of the contents of  the Italian report. 
• The summary omits to explicitly state that the Italy report does not include an evaluation of 
the current status as regards the likely bala nce between capacity a nd fishing opportunities. 
• The summary notes that the guidelines proposed by the Commission were applied. 
Comments on summary of the Latvia report 
• The summary includes most important poi nts contained in the Latvian report. 
• The summary states that some assessment of balance between capacity and fishing 
opportunities was made for the high-sea se gments. However the summary omits to 
explicitly state that the Latvian report does not  include an overall evaluation of the current 
status as regards the likely ba lance between capacity and fish ing opportunities in general. 
• The summary correctly states that the Latv ian report did not apply the guidelines. 
• The summary states the number of vessels removed since May 2004. It would have been 
useful if the summary indicated what proportion of vessels had been removed. 
Comments on summary of the Lithuania report 
• The summary of the Lithuania report is a fair  reflection of the contents of the Lithuania 
report. 
• The summary correctly states that the Lith uanian report provides an evaluation of the 
current status as regards the likely bala nce between capacity a nd fishing opportunities. 
• The summary correctly states that the L ithuanian report applies the guidelines. 
• The summary missed information on general level of compliance with fleet policy 
instrument. 
Comments on summary of the Malta report 
• The summary reflects most of the main points in the Malta report. 
 
EN 27   EN • The summary correctly states that the guidelines  were not fully adhered to in the Maltese 
report but fails to mention that no social indicator was reported. 
• The summary accurately describes low fleet uti lisation and that the fl eet is proportionate 
with available resources and he nce does not require reduction. 
• The summary gives a brief but fair description of  the Maltese fleet and correctly states that 
no fishing effort adjustment aid sc hemes were implemented in Malta. 
Comments on summary of the Netherlands report 
• The summary captures the main aspects of the Dutch report. 
• The summary correctly states that the Dutch report gives an evaluation of the current status 
as regards the likely balance between capac ity and fishing opport unities. The summary 
states the Dutch fleet is at a ju stifiable size given fish stocks. 
• The summary accurately reports that the guide lines were applied in the Dutch report. 
• The summary describes improvements in economic  and social indicators; however a social 
indicator has not been reported. The summary report does not refer to the technical and 
biological indicators reported. 
• The summary correctly describes substantial contraction in the Dutch cutter fleet and 
fishing effort. 
Comments on summary of the Poland report 
• Overall the Commission’s statement acc urately reflects the Polish report. 
• The Commission's summary correctly states that the Polish report fails to directly assess 
the balance between fishing cap acity and fishing opportunities. 
• The Commission is also correct in stati ng that the guidelines were not applied. 
• There is a summary of the Polish report, descri ption of the Polish fleet and the year on year 
changes which appears to be accurate. 
Comments on summary of the Portugal report 
• Overall the Commission’s statement accura tely reflects the Portuguese report. 
• The summary correctly states that the Portuguese report fails to directly assess the balance 
between fishing capacity and fishing opportunities. 
• The summary correctly states that the guideline s were not applied in the Portuguese report. 
The summary acknowledges that the Portuguese  report does make use of some socio-
economic data.  
• The summary provides a description of the Portuguese fleet management and effort 
reduction changes which appears to be accurate. 
 
EN 28   EN Comments on summary of the Romania report 
• Overall, the summary provides an accurate de scription of the Romanian report but misses 
several key points in the report. 
• The summary omits to explicitly state that th e Romanian report does include an assessment 
of the current status as regards the likely balance between capacity and fishing 
opportunities. The summary does not mention the claim that the fleet is under capacity for 
the fishing opportunity, due to lack of fishing gear. 
• The summary correctly states that the Guidelines  (indicators of balance) are not applied in 
the Romania report. 
• The summary mentions that the Romanian report claims that the fleet is operating in a 
sustainable manner, but the summary fails to say on what basis the Romanian report 
reaches this conclusion. 
• The summary mentions that the Romanian repor t claims that fish species are sufficiently 
available, but fails to mention the basis for the claim. 
• The Romanian report mentions that over half of the small scale vessels have no engine, but 
this is omitted from the Commission summary, as  is the total number of small scale vessels 
(416 under 12m vessels). 
• The summary does mention the additions (6) an d removals (7) from the fleet in 2008 but 
does not mention the total size of the fleet. 
Comments on the Summary of the Slovenia report 
• The Commission’s summary gives a fair  review of the Slovenian report. 
• The summary omits to explicitly state that  the Slovenian report does not include an 
assessment of the current status as regards the likely balance between capacity and fishing opportunities. 
• The summary correctly notes that Slovenia applied to the guide lines as technical, 
biological, economic and social  indicators were reported. 
• The summary highlights structural problems in  the fleet and emphasizes that whilst no 
effort reduction schemes apply to the Slove nian fleet, scrapping schemes are envisaged 
under the 2007-2013 EFF programme. 
Comments on the Summary of the Spain report 
• Overall the summary gives a fair descripti on of the Spanish fleet focussing on the vessel 
decommissioning programme and the Gr eenland halibut recovery plan. 
• The Commission’s summary correctly highlight s that Spain did not comply with the 
indicator guidelines. 
Comments on the Summary of the Sweden report 
 
EN 29   EN • The summary provides a fair reflection of  the emphasis in the Sweden report. 
• The summary omits to explicitly state that th e Swedish report does include an assessment 
of the current status as regards the likely balance between capacity and fishing 
opportunities. 
• The summary is correct in stating that the gu idelines were applied in the Swedish report. 
• The summary focuses on the balance indicat ors and on the plans adopted by Sweden to 
reduce the fishing effort. Sweden has made some administrative changes about special 
permits but the report does not mention it. 
Comments on the Summary of the United Kingdom report 
• The summary is a fair description of the UK’s report. 
• The summary correctly states the UK report makes no assessment of balance between fleet 
capacity and fishing opportunity. 
• The summary correctly states the UK report did not apply the guidelines but does 
acknowledge that other technical, biologic al and socio-economic information was 
provided. 
• The summary points out relevant re sults achieved by the UK government.
 
EN 30   EN 6. TOR 2. EVALUATE MEMBER STATES APPLICATION OF GUIDELINES ON BALANCE 
INDICATORS  
Item 2 in the Terms of Reference requested th at the working group evaluate Member States 
application of the guideline s indicators and highlight any problems encountered. 
The balance indicators estimated in Member St ates’ reports were reviewed and evaluated 
using the scoring system detailed below. The guidelines require completion of the technical 
indicator, one biological, one economic and one so cial indicator. There is a stated preference 
for the first indicator, with second or third i ndicators being regarded as less satisfactory but 
acceptable if data is not available for the prefe rred indicator. Therefore, 3 points are awarded 
for the first indicator in any category, 2 for the second and 1 point is awarded for a third 
biological indicator. The maximum score avai lable for completing the minimum required 
indicators is 12 points. It is possible to exceed  full marks if more than the minimum required 
indicators are completed, for instance, Sloveni a. Table 6.1 shows scores  per Member States 
for completing the indicators. Detailed scores ar e shown in subsequent ta bles for each type of 
indicator. 
Member 
State 
TECHNICAL 
BIOLOGICAL 1 
BIOLOGICAL 2 
BIOLOGICAL 3 
ECONOMIC 1 
ECONOMIC 2 
SOCIAL 1 
SOCIAL 2 
TOTAL 
REQUIRED  % of 
full 
marks
Belgium 3 3     3   3   12 12 100% 
Bulgaria 3     3 3 1 3 1 14 12 117% 
Cyprus                 0 12 0% 
Denmark 3       3 1 3 1 11 12 92% 
Estonia 3               3 12 25% 
Finland                 0 12 0% 
Germany                 0 12 0% 
Greece 3     3         6 12 50% 
Ireland                 0 12 0% 
Italy 3     3 3 1 3 1 14 12 117% 
Latvia                 0 12 0% 
Lithuania   3     3 1 3 1 11 12 92% 
Malta 3     3   3     9 12 75% 
Netherlands 3 3     3       9 12 75% 
 
EN 31   EN Poland                 0 12 0% 
Portugal                 0 12 0% 
Romania                 0 12 0% 
Slovenia 3   3   3 1 3 1 14 12 117% 
Spain                 0 12 0% 
Sweden 3 3     3 1   3 13 12 108% 
UK                 0 12 0% 
Table 6.1 Scores per Member State for completion of balance indicators 
Weighting and overall scores for completing the indicators are as shown in Table 6.1. 
Five Member States (Belgium, Bulgaria, Italy, Slovenia and Sweden) all met or exceeded the 
minimum requirements for the balance indicato rs as specified in the guidelines. Some 
Member States did not complete any balance indicators and some Member States completed 
some of the indicators suggest ed. The Technical indicator wa s the most commonly completed 
indicator by Member States and the Biological Indicators were the least. Bulgaria completed 
an alternative biological indicator. 
Table 6.2 shows the quality scores for Member St ates for the guideline indicators. Bulgaria, 
Italy, Lithuania and Slovenia all scored highl y in terms of the quality of indicators. 
Member State 
TECHNICAL 
BIOLOGICAL 1 
BIOLOGICAL 2 
BIOLOGICAL 3 
ECONOMIC 1 
ECONOMIC 2 
SOCIAL 1 
SOCIAL 2 
TOTAL SCORE 
Full marks for quality  
of min. required 
indicators 
BELGIUM 7 6     5   7   25 32 
BULGARIA 7     3 7 7 6 6 36 32 
CYPRUS                 0 32 
DENMARK 2       8 8 6 7 31 32 
ESTONIA 6               6 32 
FINLAND                 0 32 
GERMANY                 0 32 
GREECE 4     7         11 32 
IRELAND                 0 32 
ITALY 4     3 7 7 6 7 34 32 
LATVIA                 0 32 
LITHUANIA   5     8 7 7 7 34 32 
 
EN 32   EN MALTA 4     3   8     15 32 
NETHERLANDS 1 1     1       3 32 
POLAND                 0 32 
PORTUGAL                 0 32 
ROMANIA                 0 32 
SLOVENIA 7   1   4 7 7 7 33 32 
SPAIN                 0 32 
SWEDEN 7 7     6 6   4 30 32 
UK                 0 32 
Table 6.2 Summary of quality scores for indicators per Member State 
In general, there is a lack of overview and co mparison in the Member States’ reports between 
the different indicators (biological, technical, social and economic) they have estimated for 
their own fisheries. Overall th ere is a lack of interpretati on of findings from use of the 
indicators and a lack of c onclusions about balance drawn from use of the indicators. 
 
EN 33   EN 6.1. Evaluation of Quality of  Technical Indicators 
Technical Indicator Scoring System 
The technical indicators included in Member States’ reports were reviewed and evaluated 
against five criteria and given scores of 0, 1 or  2 for each of the five criteria. Table 6.3 shows 
how scores were awarded for quality of techni cal indicators. The technical indicators from 
each Member States are then evaluated indivi dually and a short summary and comment are 
presented. 
Score  
 Completeness of indicator  
0 Incomplete i.e. indicator not calculated 
1 Partially complete – included one of da ys at sea per vessel, GT or KW. Not 2008. 
2 Almost complete – as per guidelines. Include d two of days at sea per vessel, GT or 
kW, was for 2008 
 
 Interpretation / useful / conclusion 
0 No interpretation, comment on ratio 
1 Limited comment on meaning of ratio 
2 Useful commentary on meaning of ration in relation to segment 
 
 Accurate – correct computation 
0 Not present 
1 Only presented ratio and not underlying days. Calculation appeared accurate 
2 Presented days at sea and ratio. Calculation appeared accurate 
 
 Fleet coverage 
0 No coverage of segments 
1 0-74% of total fleet GT covered 
2 75% or over of total fleet GT covered 
Table 6.3 Scoring system used for technical indicators 
 
EN 34   EN The technical balance indicator evaluated is: 
Capacity utilisation : Ratio between the average number of  days at sea per vessel and the 
maximum historical number of days at sea achie ved by any vessel in that  fleet segment. Gives 
a simple measure of potential capacity in a given fleet segment over time, and the utilisation of that potential capacity over time. Kilowatts  (kW) and or Gross tonnage (GT) can be 
incorporated into the calculati on to give a better assessment 
 
EN 35   EN  
Member 
State Completeness Accuracy Fleet 
coverage Conclusion Total 
Score Max 
Score 
Belgium 1 2 2 2 7 8 
Bulgaria 2 2 2 1 7 8 
Cyprus 0 0 0 0 0 8 
Denmark 1 1 0 0 2 8 
Estonia 1 2 2 1 6 8 
Finland 0 0 0 0 0 8 
Germany 0 0 0 0 0 8 
Greece 1 1 1 1 4 8 
Ireland 0 0 0 0 0 8 
Italy 1 1 1 1 4 8 
Latvia 0 0 0 0 0 8 
Lithuania 0 0 0 0 0 8 
Malta 1 1 1 1 4 8 
Netherlands 0 0 1 0 1 8 
Poland 0 0 0 0 0 8 
Portugal 0 0 0 0 0 8 
Romania 0 0 0 0 0 8 
Slovenia 2 2 2 1 7 8 
Spain 0 0 0 0 0 8 
Sweden  2 2 2 1 7 8 
UK 0 0 0 0 0 8 
Table 6.4 Scores per Member State for quality of technical indicators 
Belgium 
Belgium’s report provided the Technical Indi cator for 2008. The Tec hnical Indicator was 
calculated accurately and some interpretation of the ratio was provided. The indicator was calculated for days at sea per vessel but not for KW days or GT days. Fleet coverage was 
good for the Technical Indicator as the majority of the fleet was covered. Overall we judged 
the information provided to be of good quality. 
Bulgaria 
Bulgaria’s report provided the Technical I ndicators for 2008. The T echnical indicator was 
calculated for days at sea per vessel, KW days  and GT days. Limited interpretation of the 
 
EN 36   EN technical indicator was given. Overall we j udged the information provided to be of good 
quality. 
Cyprus 
No Technical Indicator was provided. 
Germany 
No Technical Indicator was provided. 
Denmark 
Denmark’s report provided the Technical Indicat or for 2008. The ratio was calculated using 
an estimated maximum of days at sea rather th an actual figures. No inte rpretation of indicator 
was given and it was difficult to assess fleet coverage. Overall we judged the information 
provided to be of low quality. 
Estonia 
Estonia’s report provided the Te chnical Indicator for 2008. Estoni a provided the days at sea 
per vessel only and not GT or KW days at sea.  Technical Indicators were provided on a vessel 
by vessel basis and good coverage of fleet. Limite d interpretation of the indicator was given. 
Overall we judged the information provided to be of good quality. 
Greece 
Greece’s report provided the Tec hnical Indicator for 2008. The da ys per vessel, GT and KW 
technical indicators are all cal culated. Only the ratio is sh own however, not the underlying 
days or vessels, which makes it difficult to asse ss coverage of fleet. Li mited interpretation of 
the indicators was given in the text. Overall we judged the information provided to be of 
reasonable quality. 
Finland 
No Technical Indicator was provided. 
Ireland 
No Technical Indicator was provided. 
Italy 
Italy’s report provided the T echnical Indicator but for 2007 not 2008. The report provided the 
ratio for days at sea per vessel, KW and GT indicators only and not supporting information on 
days at sea. Given the information provided, it  was difficult to assess the coverage of fleet. 
Overall we judged the information pr ovided to be of reasonable quality. 
Latvia 
No Technical Indicator was provided. 
Lithuania 
 
EN 37   EN No Technical Indicator was provided. 
Malta 
Malta’s report provided the Technical In dicator but for 2007 not 2008. The report provided 
the ratio for days at sea per vessel, KW and GT indicators on ly and not supporting 
information on days at sea. Given the inform ation provided, it was difficult to assess the 
coverage of fleet. Overall we judged the information provided to be of reasonable quality. 
Netherlands 
Netherlands’s report provided the Technical Indi cator for 2008. Only a single ratio for days at 
sea per vessel was provided for Netherlands main segment. No supporting information on days or interpretation was provided. Overall we judged the information provided to be of low 
quality. 
Poland 
No Technical Indicator was provided. 
Portugal 
No Technical Indicator was provided. 
Romania 
No Technical Indicator was provided. 
Slovenia 
Slovenia’s report provided the Technical Indicator for 2008. The ratio was given for days at 
sea per vessel and GT. There was some interpre tation of the indicator and fleet coverage was 
good. Overall we judged the information provided to be of high quality. 
Spain 
No Technical Indicator was provided. 
Sweden 
The Swedish report provided the Technical Indi cator for 2008 using Days per vessel and KW 
days given for technical indicator. Both the ratios and underlying da ys were given in the 
report. Limited interpretation of the indicator was provided in the text . Fleet segments given 
and good coverage of segments. Overall we ju dged the information provided to be of high 
quality. 
UK 
No Technical Indicator was provided. 
 
EN 38   EN 6.2. Evaluation of Biological Indicators 
The biological indicators included in Member St ates’ reports were reviewed and evaluated 
against five criteria and given scores of 0, 1 or  2 for each of the five criteria. Table 6.5 shows 
how scores were awarded for qua lity of biological indicators. The biological indicators from 
each Member States are then evaluated indivi dually and a short summary and comment are 
presented. 
Score  
 Completeness of indicator by species  
0 When none of the biological i ndicators were pr esent/calculated 
1 Partially complete – when at least one  year is calculated (either 2007 or 2008) 
for at least the main species in terms of catch composition 
2 When biological indicator was present for at least 5 years (as cited in the 
guidelines) for at least the main sp ecies in terms of catch composition 
 
 Interpretation / useful / conclusion 
0 No interpretation a nd comments on indicator 
1 Limited comments on meaning of indicator , little interpreta tion or conclusion 
2 Meaningful and coherent comments on fleet segment, possible draw conclusion 
 
 Accurate – correct computation 
0 Not present 
1 Partially correct com putation of indicators 
2 Fully correct computation of indicators 
 
 Fleet coverage 
0 <10% of the total fleet  in number of boats  
1 11-70% of total fleet in number of boats 
2 >70% of total fleet in number of boats 
Table 6.5 Scoring system used for biological indicators 
The three biological balance indicators evaluated are: 
 
EN 39   EN (1) Ratio between current and target fishing mortality . This indicator 
accommodates differences between species in terms of sustainable exploitation rates. The F/Ft ratio is di mensionless and facilitates comparisons 
or combinations across species. 
(2) Catch / Biomass Ratio.  It can be interpreted as a proxy for the exploitation 
rate. 
(3) Catch per unit of effort (CPUE) . It can be interpreted as a relative index of 
stock abundance. 
No Member State has presented more than one biological indicator. Ac cording to the data 
availability (DCR) all Member States (or most of  them) should have catch and effort data and 
therefore, it would be desirable if they present at least CPUE trends together with one or all 
biological indicators.  
Following commission guidelines, for biological indicator, it is de sirable to have 5 years time 
series as it contributes to robust results. But if  a Member State can not provide 5 year time 
series because they are new members or because  there has been no stocks assessment for one 
stock they should not be penalised for shorte r time series of biological indicators.  
Member 
State Indicator Completeness Accuracy Fleet 
coverage Conclusion Total 
score Max 
Score 
Belgium B1 1 2 2 1 6 8 
Bulgaria B3 1 1 1 1 5 8 
Cyprus  - 0 0 0 0 0 8 
Germany  - 0 0 0 0 0 8 
Denmark  - 0 0 0 0 0 8 
Estonia  - 0 0 0 0 0 8 
Greece B3 2 2 2 1 7 8 
Finland  - 0 0 0 0 0 8 
Ireland  - 0 0 0 0 0 8 
Italy B3 1 2 0 0 3 8 
Latvia  - 0 0 0 0 0 8 
Lithuania B1 1 2 0 2 5 8 
Malta B3 1 0 2 0 3 8 
Netherlands B1 1 0 0 0 1 8 
Poland -  0 0 0 0 0 8 
Portugal -  0 0 0 0 0 8 
Romania -  0 0 0 0 0 8 
Spain -  0 0 0 0 0 8 
 
EN 40   EN Sweden B1 1 2 2 2 7 8 
Slovenia B2 0 1 0 0 3 8 
UK - 0 0 0 0 0 8 
Table 6.6 Scores per Member State for quality of biological indicators 
Belgium 
• The biological indicator 1 (F est/Ftarget) is only calcula ted for 2008, guidelines suggest 
biological indicators should be presented for the last 5 years. There is a good application of 
guidelines, however the indicator is still not as  detailed as is suggested in the guidelines. 
The biological indicator is no t calculated for each fleet se gment (i.e. beam trawl has 2 
length ranges) as done for th e technical indicator and th erefore indicators were not 
comparable. 
• The biological indicator was calculated for plaice  and sole which represent 41% of the total 
catch.  
Bulgaria 
• The Bulgarian report presents biological in dicator 3 (CPUE) for sp rat and turbot for 2007 
and 2008, for each fleet gear but not for vessel size range, therefore not detailed for each 
fleet segment. The 2 species covered are the main  catch of different fleet gears, which were 
not stated. Extra information use survey data  and therefore do not re flect fleet segments. 
Also there is no further de tails about how it was calcula ted which do not permit an 
assessment of its precision and robustness. 
• Good use of the guidelines about CPUE. Unfortuna tely the time series is  short and there is 
no further interpretation of this indicato r with additional expert information.  
Cyprus 
• The biological indicators were not reported. 
Germany 
• The biological indicator s are not reported.  
• The Member State explains in detail their disagreement about the us efulness of all three 
biological indicators. The report comments on their own bio-economical modelling work, 
which should provide more comprehensive anal yses of the fishing capacity once it is 
completed. 
Denmark 
• The biological indicator s are not reported.  
• The Member State explains that there are difficu lties with data desegr egation, i.e. to have 
detailed information of landing, per species per fleet segment, which can reflect on low 
level of results reliability. 
 
EN 41   EN Estonia 
• The Member State presents biological indicat or 3 (CPUE). However, the indicator is only 
presented for 2008 and it is not aggregated for fleet segment, it is presented per vessel. 
• The Member State failed to follow the guide lines. The Member Stat e should seek help 
from their scientific community to calculate the biological indicators. 
Greece 
• The biological indicator 3 (CPUE) was calcula ted for 5 years, which fully complies with 
the guidelines. However, they  do not make further comme nts on the trends of CPUE. 
There is no comment on the importance of  each species in the total catch.  
• Guidelines were applied. 
Finland 
• The biological indicators were not reported.  
Ireland 
• The biological indicators were not reported.  
Italy  
• CPUE indicator was provided. Th is indicator was done for the total landings and total fleet 
and was not by separated sp ecies and fleets as is e xplained in the guidelines 
Lithuania  
• Evaluate indicator: Estimation of F/Ftarget is  provided and the guidelin es were applied for 
this indicator. It is cl early presented but the indicator for the demers al trawlers should be 
divided into fleet segments. 
Latvia  
• The biological indicators were not reported. 
Malta  
• Evaluate indicator: CPUE is calc ulated by the assemblage of species (i.e. for the total catch 
composition) but not for single species. Th ere is general information about catch 
composition but it is not very detailed. CPUE data is given by gear but not by fleet 
segment. 
• Guideline application and problems: the guide lines were applied. Ho wever, the biological 
indicator was reported by assemblage of species  instead of by individu al target species. 
Netherlands  
 
EN 42   EN • Evaluate indicator: there is no numerical valu e for the biological indicator. Although the 
fleet is divided into differen t segments (explained earlier) the indicator was only cited for 
beam trawl. 
• Guideline application and problems: There is a statement in the Dutch annual report: “the 
indicators provided by the Commission are diffi cult to apply to the Dutch pelagic fleet 
which operates worldwide” but no  more detailed information a bout this issue is provided, 
so it is difficult to evaluate how difficult it was and whether it might still be possible to estimate this indicator. 
Poland  
• The biological indicators were not reported. 
Portugal  
• The biological indicators were not reported. 
Sweden  
• Evaluate indicator: all information was very clear, easy to find and to interpret. The 
indicator was only estimated for one year however. 
• Guideline application and problems: good appli cation of the guidelines and extra useful 
information related to stock, quotas and fleet. There are some comments in the report about 
the biological indicators: “the indicator pr ovides a rough overview of the ratio, and there 
may be a huge spread within each segment”. 
Slovenia  
• Evaluate indicator: only covers 3 boats and 1 fleet segment (3.2% of fleet). Good 
information about stock assessment but failed to show as indicator  despite having catch 
and the stock biomass estimation. 
• Guideline application and problems:  none were noted in the report. 
Spain  
• The biological indicators were not reported.  
UK 
• The biological indicators were not reported. 
 
EN 43   EN 6.3. Evaluation of Economic Indicators 
The economic indicators included in Member St ates’ reports were reviewed and evaluated 
against five criteria and given scores of 0, 1 or  2 for each of the five criteria. Table 6.7 shows 
how scores were awarded for quality of econo mic indicators. The economic indicators from 
each Member State are then evaluated indivi dually and a short summary and comment are 
presented. 
Score  
 Completeness of indicator  
0 Incomplete i.e. indicator not calculated 
1 The indicator is only calculated for one year 
2 The indicator is completely calculated for three years or more 
 
 Interpretation / useful / conclusion 
0 No comments or inte rpretation of indicator 
1 Limited comments and interpretation of indicator  
2 Useful comments and inte rpretation of indicator  
 
 Accurate – correct computation 
0 The indicator is not correctly calculated 
1 There are uncertainty of th e accuracy of the calculation 
2 There are no indication of  incorrectly computation 
 
 Fleet coverage 
0 No coverage of segments 
1 0-74% of total fleet GT is covered in the calculation of the economic indicator 
2 75% or over of total fleet GT is covered in the calculation of the economic indicator 
Table 6.7 Scoring system used for economic indicators 
The two economic balance indicators evaluated are: 
 
EN 44   EN (1) Return on Investment (ROI) : ROI = (Net profit + Opportunity cost of 
capital) / Investment. ROI measures inve stment profitability and can identify 
under or over capitalisation in the medium to long term. 
(a) The greater the ROI, the more  profitable the investment 
(b) Low or negative ROI may indicate over-capitalisation 
(2) Ratio between current revenue (CR)  and break even revenue (BER) 
where BER= Fixed Costs / (Cash Fl ow / Revenue). Indicates economic 
sustainability in the short-run .  
(c) When (CR/BER) < 0, cash flow is negative and fishery unviable in the 
short-run 
(d) When (CR/BER) < 1, cash flow does not cover fixed co sts, indicating 
an unviable fishery 
(e) When (CR/BER) > 1, cash flow is equa l to or greater than fixed costs, 
indicating a viable fishery 
 
EN 45   EN  
Member 
State Indicator Completeness Accuracy Fleet 
coverage Conclusion Total 
score Max 
Score 
Belgium E1 1 2 2 0 5 8 
Bulgaria E1 2 2 2 1 7 8 
Bulgaria E2 2 2 2 1 7 8 
Cyprus  - 0 0 0 0 0 8 
Denmark E1 2 2 2 2 8 8 
Denmark E2 2 2 2 2 8 8 
Estonia  - 0 0 0 0 0 8 
Finland  - 0 0 0 0 0 8 
France  - 0 0 0 0 0 8 
Germany  - 0 0 0 0 0 8 
Greece  - 0 0 0 0 0 8 
Ireland  - 0 0 0 0 0 8 
Italy E1 1 2 2 2 7 8 
Italy E2 1 2 2 2 7 8 
Latvia  - 0 0 0 0 0 8 
Lithuania E1 2 2 2 2 8 8 
Lithuania E2 2 2 2 1 7 8 
Malta E2 2 2 2 2 8 8 
Netherlands E1 0 0 1 0 1 8 
Poland  - 0 0 0 0 0 8 
Portugal  - 0 0 0 0 0 8 
Romania  - 0 0 0 0 0 8 
Slovenia E1 1 0 2 1 4 8 
Slovenia E2 1 2 2 2 7 8 
Spain  - 0 0 0 0 0 8 
Sweden E1 1 2 2 1 6 8 
Sweden E2 1 2 2 1 6 8 
UK  - 0 0 0 0 0 8 
Table 6.8 Scores per Member State for quality of economic indicators 
Belgium 
 
EN 46   EN • The report shows ROI in a tabl e, but the CR/BR is not calcul ated. The report could make 
more comments and interpretation. 
Bulgaria 
• The report presents ROI and CR/BR in a table.  The report could make more comments and 
interpretation. 
Cyprus 
• No economic indicators reported. 
Denmark 
• The report presents ROI and CR/BR and ma kes comments and interpretation. An extra 
indicator is included, which is  Return of Revenue (ROR). The indicator indicates, like 
CR/BR, the profitability of the segments and it can be discussed whether this measures the 
balance between fishing capacity and fishi ng opportunities rather than just being a 
profitability measure. 
Estonia 
• No economic indicators reported. 
Finland 
• No economic indicators reported. 
France 
• No economic indicators reported. 
Germany 
• No economic indicators reported. 
Greece 
• No economic indicators reported. 
Ireland 
• No economic indicators reported. 
Italy 
• The report presents the economic capacity indi cators for 2007, but does  not present figures 
for 2005 and 2006. There could have been more co mments and interpretation of the figures 
Lithuania 
 
EN 47   EN • The report presents the econom ic capacity indicators, but th ere could have been more 
interpretation of the figures. 
Latvia 
• No economic indicators reported. 
Malta 
• The report calculates CR/BR, but not RO I. The report makes good comments and 
interpretation of the figures for CR/BR. 
The Netherlands 
• The Netherlands report gives an indication that  ROI is positive, but  no exact values are 
calculated and no comments are made. 
Poland 
• No economic indicators reported. 
Portugal 
• No economic indicators reported. 
Romania 
• No economic indicators reported. 
Slovenia 
• Slovenia has calculated both ROI and CR/BR, bu t the figures for ROI appear unlikely. A 
possible explanation is a misi nterpretation of the investme nt calculation. Also, there is 
missing information on investments, capital costs and repair costs, which makes it uncertain and difficult to calculate the ba lance between fishing capacity and fishing 
opportunities. The report presen ts the economic capacity indicators for 2007, but does not 
present figures for 2005 and 2006. 
Spain 
• No economic indicators reported. 
Sweden 
• The report presents the economic capacity indicators for 2007, but do not present figures 
for 2005 and 2006. There could have been more co mments and interpretation of the figures 
UK 
• No economic indicators reported. 
 
EN 48   EN 6.4. Evaluation of Social Indicators 
Social indicator scoring system 
The social indicators included in Member States’ reports were reviewed and evaluated against 
five criteria and given scores of 0, 1 or 2 fo r each of the five criteria. Table 6.9 shows how 
scores were awarded for quality of social indicators. The soci al indicators for each Member 
State are then evaluated indi vidually and a short summary and comment are presented. 
Score  
 Completeness  of indicator 
0 Incomplete – year of indicator not referenced or incorrect year reported 
1 At least one year (either 2005, 2006, 2007 or 2008) 
2 Required time series of three years (2005-2007 or 2008 if possible) 
 
 Useful / quality of presentation  / interpretation or conclusion 
0 No useful information or useful interpretation/conclusion of indicators 
1 Limited usefulness of information, very  little interpretation or conclusion 
2 Good information and/or inte rpretation / conclusions drawn 
 
 Accurate – correct computation 
0 Complete inaccurate computation of indicators 
1 Partially correct com putation of indicators 
2 Compete correct computation of indicators 
 
 Fleet coverage 
0 for <20% of total fleet GT coverage 
1 for 21%-50% of total fleet GT coverage 
2 for >50% of total fleet GT coverage 
Table 6.9 Scoring system used for social indicators 
The two social balance indicators evaluated are: 
 
EN 49   EN (1) Gross Value Added (GVA) : Where GVA = Depreciatio n costs + Interest + 
Crew share + Net profit. This indicato r measures the sum of contributions 
from the factors of production and indicat es if rents are extracted from the 
resource 
(2) Crew wages per Full Time Equivalent (FTE) : Supplements GVA to 
facilitate an assessment of the remune ration of labour and can be compared 
with average and minimum wage rates in Member States 
 
EN 50   EN  
Member 
State Indicator Completeness Accuracy Fleet 
coverage Conclusion Total 
score Max 
Score 
Belgium  S1 2 2 2 1 7 8 
Bulgaria S1 1 2 2 1 6 8 
Bulgaria S2 1 2 2 1 6 8 
Cyprus   0 0 0 0 0 8 
Denmark S1 2 1 2 1 6 8 
Denmark S2 2 2 2 1 7 8 
Estonia   0 0 0 0 0 8 
Finland   0 0 0 0 0 8 
Germany   0 0 0 0 0 8 
Greece   0 0 0 0 0 8 
Ireland   0 0 0 0 0 8 
Italy S1 0 2 2 2 6 8 
Italy S2 1 2 2 2 7 8 
Latvia   0 0 0 0 0 8 
Lithuania S1 2 2 2 1 7 8 
Lithuania S2 2 2 2 1 7 8 
Malta   0 0 0 0 0 8 
Netherlands   0 0 0 0 0 8 
Poland   0 0 0 0 0 8 
Portugal   0 0 0 0 0 8 
Romania   0 0 0 0 0 8 
Slovenia S1 1 2 2 2 7 8 
Slovenia S2 1 2 2 2 7 8 
Spain   0 0 0 0 0 8 
Sweden   1 1 1 1 4 8 
UK  0 0 0 0 0 8 
Table 6.10 Scores per Member State for quality of social indicators 
Belgium 
• Belgium calculates the average share per fu ll-time equivalent for 2003-2007 for two fleet 
segments (12-24m and 24-40m). Belgium had a good time series for the social indicator 
 
EN 51   EN (S1), they were estimated accurately for a ve ry large proportion of the fleet (93% of 
vessels). Limited conclusions were drawn from the social indicator. 
Bulgaria 
• Bulgaria calculates both the social indica tors for 2008 covering the whole fleet (five 
segments) Bulgaria reported complete social indicators for the whole Bulgarian fleet for 
2008. Bulgaria also conclude usi ng a traffic light system levels  of the indicators, using the 
measure of the social indicator three segmen ts of the fleet are performing well whilst two 
segments (vessels up to 12m) are not making a positive assessment. 
Cyprus 
• Cyprus did not report any social indicators 
Germany 
• Germany did not report any social indicators 
• Germany explains that they are not able to repo rt any social indicators because the data is 
unavailable until 12-15 months after the reporting period. Germany coul d report social 
indicators for the previous years for which data would be available (2007). 
Denmark 
• Denmark reported both social indicators for 2005-2007 and made estimates for 2008 and 
2009 using the EIAA model. Denmark was unabl e to estimate the av erage crew per full-
time equivalent according to the guidelines, but made an equivalent estimation for the 
Danish fleet. The social indicators cove r all the active Danish fleet. No specific 
conclusions were made in relation to the social indicators, but that social indicators are related to the economic climate and must be analysed with caution. 
Estonia 
• Estonia did not report an y social indicators. 
Greece 
• Greece did not report any social indicators. 
Finland 
• Finland did not report an y social indicators. 
Ireland 
• Ireland did not report any social indicators. 
Italy 
• Italy reported a limited time series for both social indicators by fleet segment. Italy 
reported average crew share per FTA and GVA (weighted by fishery segment) for 2006 
 
EN 52   EN and 2007 respectively. Italy carrie d out additional analysis for crew share per FTE for 6 
geographical sub-areas employing a traffic lig ht system. GVA was not analysed further 
because a valid reference point for this indicator was not found. 
Latvia 
• Latvia did not report any social indicators 
Lithuania 
• Lithuania reported a time series (2005-2007) of  both social indicators for two fleet 
segments. The social indicators calculated c overed over 90% of the active fleet, however 
Lithuania drew limited conclusions from the social indicators. 
Malta 
• Malta did not report a ny social indicators 
Netherlands 
• Netherlands did not report any social indicato rs. Netherlands described an improvement in 
the social indicator howev er it was not reported. 
Poland 
• Poland did not report any social indicators 
Portugal 
• Portugal did not report any social indicators. 
• Portugal believed they were difficult to apply to  the characteristics of the national fleet and 
also as a result of poor data reliability. Ne vertheless Portugal did report yield, employment 
and days of effort for 2003-2007. 
Romania  
• Romania did not report a ny social indicators. 
Slovenia 
• Slovenia reported both social in dicators for all fleet segmen ts in 2007. A time series of 
social indicators was not reported but Slove nia drew comprehensive conclusions for both 
social indicators. 
Spain 
• Spain did not report a ny social indicators. 
Sweden 
 
EN 53   EN • Sweden only reported gross value added for the Sw edish fleet. It is uncertain to which year 
the calculations of GVA relate. Whilst Sweden  concluded that the fishing industry adds 
value to the economy, GVA is probably under-es timated because labour costs are not fully 
incorporated. 
United Kingdom 
• The UK did not report any of the social indicators specified in the guidelines. 
• The UK was unable to report GVA, instead GVA per capita employed wa s reported due to 
insufficient profitability data. 
 
EN 54   EN 7. TOR 3. ASSESS AND SUMMARISE THE PROBLEM OF DATA AVAILABILITY  
Item 3 in the Terms of Reference required th e working group to assess and summarise the 
problem of availability of da ta for the calculation of the proposed indicators in Member 
States’ reports. Particular at tention should be paid to biol ogical data. If time allows, in 
addition, propose solutions to these problems. 
Technical indicators 
Member States are required to collect days at sea per vessel, GT and kW according to the 
DCR. Therefore availability of  data should not be a problem. Member States which have a 
large number of small vessels may find it problem atic to report on the technical indicator for 
some of their fleet but this is discussed in Terms of Reference 4. 
It is noted again that there are shortcomings in  the technical indicator as applied to vessels 
using passive gear such as pots and traps. The days at sea of the vessel is not a good proxy for 
total effort when there is no discrimination or assessment of the amount of passive gear (e.g. 
number of pots) operated by the vessel during those days, because the gear is fishing every 
day it is deployed, even if the vessel is not at s ea. This is an element which could be improved 
and Member States should be encouraged to pr ovide suitable alternativ e approaches for their 
passive or static gear fleet segments. 
Providing up to date data in time for the publication deadline may be an issue for some 
Member States. Member States may have to revi se their timetable for data collection in order 
to ensure the appropriate year is  reported on for this indicator. 
Biological indicators 
For the new Member States it is not possible to  provide a five years time series of biological 
indicators (F estimate/ F target, catch per un it effort by fleet segment and species and ratio 
between catch weight and stock biomass) b ecause this information is not available. 
For example, in the Black Sea, Sprat ( Sprattus sprattus ) and turbot ( Psetta maxima L ) has 
been included in the Data Collection Program  of the European Commission since 2007. The 
surveys conducted were funded by the Data Collection Regulation of the European 
Commission. The reference year of the Data Collection Programme for Bulgaria is 2007, 
therefore National Agency of Fisheries and Aqu aculture will have the biological data of the 
most important fish species (sprat, horse mack erel, anchovy and turbot in the Black Sea) and 
more accurate information after th e programme is implemented. This  is the situation with lack 
of available biological data esse ntial for the most important stocks and for other new Member 
States. 
As many stocks do not have assessment, there is no fishing mortality information for these 
stocks and therefore the Member States that exploited these stocks can not yet provide the 
indicators requested. 
Some countries share borders w ith non-EU countries and it might  therefore be difficult to get 
information on the total catches or biomass, since the non-EU countries  are not obliged to 
collect and share this. 
 
EN 55   EN For example, the horse mackerel ( Trachurus mediterraneus ) and anchovy ( Engraulis 
encrasicholus ), are two of the intensively exploited summer pelagic migra tion species off the 
Black Sea Coast. For these species, stock assessment is only possible when the whole area of distribution of the species is in cluded into examination. Theref ore, it would be  necessary to 
collect samples in the waters of  all Black Sea states to produce stock assessment and mortality 
data for these pelagic species. However, due to  the lack of general agreement between the 
Black Sea states in fishery matters (no legal ag reement to regulate) no such joint scientific 
research expeditions and scientific assessments take place. Some countri es share borders with 
non-EU countries, for example Turkey, and it mi ght therefore be difficu lt to get information 
on the total catches, and Turkey is not obliged to collect and share this data.  
Belgium 
No problem with data availability was detected  or stated by the Member  State. In order to 
calculate fishing mortality ratio  (Fest/Ft) the Member State us ed 2007 values but that should 
not be considered an issue as data come from  ICES working groups which have a time lag due 
to their estimation procedure.  
Bulgaria 
Data collection by this Member State only starte d two years ago when the country joined the 
EU. Therefore their biological i ndicators could only be shown fo r this period. We suggest that 
the Member State should endeavour to collect further data which will allow them to estimate 
the other biological indicators.  
Cyprus 
Data availability is an issue for this Memb er State. They reporte d conflicting deadlines 
between DCR report submission and DCR data  submission. For this reason it was not 
possible to estimate the indicators . We suggest that Cyprus try to  adjust to the deadlines and 
attempt to produce a complete report.  
Germany 
Data availability does not seem to be an issue for this Member State. Germany has improved 
its methodology of analysing and reach conclusions about fleet capacity and fishing opportunities, which is good. However, it would be best if they would comply with the 
guidelines calculating and analysing the indicator s, at least as a comparison ground with all 
the other Member States. 
Denmark 
Data availability seems to be an issue for this Member State. It is mentioned that detailed data 
for fleet segment and species is not accessible. The Member State should seek help from their 
scientific community to extrac t the information from their databases and attempt to produce 
the report.  
Estonia 
Data availability is not mentioned in the repor t. The Member State should attempt to follow 
the guidelines and present the indicators calcul ated for fleet segments and species, as 
suggested in the guidelines. 
 
EN 56   EN Greece 
Data availability to calculate biological indi cator 3 does not seem to be an issue for this 
Member State. We would like to encourage Gree ce to attempt to estimate other indicators.  
Finland 
Data availability does not seem to be an issu e for Finland. We encourage Finland to follow 
the guidelines, estimate the indi cators and draw some conclusions about the balance between 
their fleet capacity and fishing opportunities. 
Ireland 
Data availability does not seem to be an issu e for Ireland. We encourage Ireland to follow the 
guidelines, estimate the indicators and draw some  conclusions about the balance between their 
fleet capacity and fishing opportunities. 
Italy  
Biological data are updated to 2007 because 2008 da ta are not available. There is information 
about fleet coverage. Biological  indicators 1 and 2 were not  calculated because of the 
particular characteristics of the Mediterranean management system where stock assessment is 
not provided for many species. Assessments in cluding estimates of fishing mortality and 
biomass are available for a very limited number of species. 
Lithuania  
Data availability is not mentioned as an issu e for Lithuania. The Lithuanian report mentions 
the quota for herring, sprat, cod and salmon. However, only biologic al indicator 1 is 
calculated for cod and there is no  mention about cod importance in  terms of landings. It is not 
clear what fleet segments were included as acronyms in text and graphs are different.  
Latvia  
Data availability is not reported as an issue for Latvia.  
Malta  
Data availability to calculate the biological indicator 3 does not seem to be an issue for Malta 
apart from the fact that only 3 years were presented. We encourage Malta to attempt to 
calculate other indicators and have a longer time series of biological indicator 3. Malta should 
also draw from their analysis some conclusions  about the balance between fleet capacity and 
fishing opportunity 
Netherlands  
Data availability does not seem to be an issue for the Netherlands. We encourage the 
Netherlands to follow the guidelines and to draw  conclusions about the balance of their fleet 
capacity and fishing opportunity. 
Poland  
 
EN 57   EN There is no information about data availabilit y. However there is no estimation of biological 
indicators. We encourage Poland to be transpar ent about its data collection and availability, 
follow the guidelines, and to draw some conc lusions about the balance between their fleet 
capacity and their fishing opportunity. 
Portugal  
There is no information about data availabilit y. However there is no estimation of biological 
indicators. We encourage Portugal to be transparent about its da ta collection and availability, 
follow the guidelines, and to draw some conc lusions about the balance between their fleet 
capacity and their fishing opportunity. 
Sweden  
Data availability does not seem  to be an issue for Sweden. 
Slovenia  
Data availability seems to be an issue for Slovenia as their main catch species (Sardine 
(Sardina pilchardus ) and Anchovy ( Engraulis encrasicolus )) are migratory species which are 
also targeted by Italian and Cr oatian fleets. Only Slovenian fleets were considered in this 
analysis. We would like to encourage Slovenia to promote joint studies with the neighbouring 
countries to improve the accuracy of its estimations and usefulness of its results 
Spain  
There is no mention about data availability and no estimation of biological indicators. We 
would like to encourage the Member State to  be transparent about  data collection and 
availability and to endeavour to follow the guidelines and present at least one biological 
indicator. 
UK 
There is no mention about data availability and no estimation of biological indicators. We 
would like to encourage the UK to be transparen t about data collection a nd availability and to 
endeavour to follow the guidelines and pr esent at least one biological indicator. 
Economic indicators 
• Return on investment for each fleet segment 
Over a third (38%) of Member States delivere d information on Return on Investment (ROI). 
However it is doubtful whether these countries have calculated ROI accurately or in a 
standard manner. This doubt is because th e guidelines do not explicitly explain what 
“investment” means. The Member States might  therefore misinterpr et it as “the annual 
investment” instead of the total capital investment less depreciation. It is likely that most countries do not have information about lo ng-term investments and this increases the 
uncertainty of the calculations of ROI. Furtherm ore, some Member States do not have data on 
depreciation and interest, even though this is required in both the DCR and DCF. This 
information is crucial for the accurate calculation of ROI.  
• Current revenue divided by break even revenue 
 
EN 58   EN A third of Member States delivered informa tion on Current Revenue / Break-even Revenue. 
As with ROI, it is likely that some Member States do not have information on depreciation 
and interest and therefore are una ble to complete the calculation. 
Social indicators 
Over a third (38%) of Member States reported a social indicator. The social indicators are 
based on data collection under the DCR and the accu racy and reliability of the data collected 
for the social indicators is questionable. We suggest that the Commission could discuss with 
Member States to further consider how the quality of the data in relation to the social indicators can be improved. 
Often Member States DCR data is not availa ble until after the reporting period for the annual 
reports on balance. The Commi ssion should give guidelines and encourage Member States to 
report social indicators for mo st recent year (three years)  that data is available. 
In some cases no explanation is given as to why a social indicator has not been reported. 
Member States should reveal why social indicat ors have not been report ed, this may help to 
resolve any underlying problems and make it possible to report indi cators in subsequent years. 
Average crew share wage per FTE 
Some Member States or fleet segments may no t pay crew using the crew share system and 
therefore may be unable to report on this indicator as it is curr ently defined. As a solution, an 
alternative measure of salary could potentially be used when vessels do not pay wages using 
crew share. In addition, FTE is  also difficult to calculate accur ately as data on hours worked 
are difficult to collect and interpret. This has be en elaborated in an EU report on FTEs in the 
catching sector and in reality, th is concept is often a case of considering whether work as a 
crew member is the principle or only employme nt of the crew, rather than any reference to 
number of hours worked.  
Gross Value Added 
Calculation of GVA requires estim ation of crew share, interest  and depreciation all of which 
are problematic to assess and therefore may not  be available. Based on data collected under 
the DCR  
 
EN 59   EN 8. TOR 4. ASSESS APPROPRIATENESS OF INDI CATORS FOR SMALL SCALE FLEETS  
The working group was asked to assess the appropriate ness of the proposed indicators for 
small scale coastal fleets and fisheries, identify problems related to their use for this part of 
the fleet and consider possible alternatives. 
Technical indicators 
For smaller vessels and fleets which tend to use pa ssive gears, days at sea per vessel can lead 
to misleading results and alternative measures of  effort may be appropriate i.e. number of 
pots, km’s of nets used. In most Member St ates, data collection and effort reporting for 
smaller vessels and fleets is problematic. 
Biological indicators 
The calculation of the any of the three biological indicators is appropriate regardless the fleet 
segment. 
First, it is actually very desirable to include all fleet segments (small and industrial scale) as 
that is the only way to produce a robust estimatio n of the stock status a nd fishing mortality. It 
would only be irrelevant to include the small scal e if catch/landing were ne gligible in weight.  
Secondly, calculate the same indi cator for all segments is the only way to permit comparison 
among fleet segments and Member States.  
Thirdly, there is a perception that  data availability could be an  issue. Therefore, there should 
be used an extra effort in the data collection for the small scale fleets because in some countries they are highly important in biologic al (landings), social and economic aspects. 
Economic indicators 
The economic indicators are found to  be equally appropria te for small-scale co stal fisheries as 
well as larger fisheries. Howeve r, one general issue for small-scale coastal fisheries is that 
these vessels are often operate d by one owner, having other incomes besides fishing, which 
may give a misrepresentation of the economic i ndicators. Specifically, the fishermen need to 
ensure that an appropriate propo rtion of crew share attributed  from fishing is used when 
estimating these indicators. 
Social indicators 
There may be a problem collecting data from sm all-scale coastal fleets as regulations are not 
often in place to ensure compulsory  data collection for these fleets. 
Average crew share per full-time equivalent. Often crew working on small-scale coastal 
vessels are not employed full-time or crew share may not be used as method for payment of 
salary. It is recommended that an alterna tive measure taking account of part-time crew 
working practices/other wage mechanisms be us ed to estimate average crew share per full-
time equivalent for small-scale coastal fleets. 
 
EN 60   EN 9. TOR 5. IMPROVE THE GUIDELINES FOR BALANCE INDICATORS  
Item 5. in the Terms of Reference asked the working group to recommend improvements to 
the Commission’s Guidelines for balance indicators. 
General comments 
It is suggested that the Guidelines should mo re closely follow the recommendations made by 
the SGBRE working group report which was the origin of the guidelines. 
The Commission should further discuss with Memb er States to better define the guidelines 
requirements. 
There is a lack of overview and comparison between the different indicators (biological, 
technical, social and economic). 
Technical indicators 
Only active vessels should be included when calculating the Technica l Indicators. Member 
States should be clear on whether ac tive vessels should be included or not. 
In terms of transparency, the components of th e Technical Indicator should be presented i.e. 
days at sea per vessel, GT and kW should be shown. In addition, the number of vessels in 
each segment should be shown so that coverage can be assessed.  
Totals for segments should be provided instead or in additi on to individual vessel detail. 
Biological indicators 
The guidelines are not clear with regard to bi ological indicators esti mation and presentation. 
The STECF Report of the Working Group on th e balance of the Fishing capacity and 
resources: Part II (SGECA/SGRST 08-01) has a great deal of detail and accurate explanation 
about the estimation of the indicator which were not included in the guidelines. We 
recommend that items 7.5, 7.6 and 7.7 from the report should be incl uded in full in the 
guidelines.  
Template table should be provided for the biolog ical indicator 2 and 3 (as similarly used for 
the biological indicator 1).  
Page 3 of guidelines: Member States should make a statemen t explaining the length of the 
time series when data availability is  shorter than the minimum required.  
There should be strong encouragement on furt her data analysis using for instance, bio-
economic models and other indicators, which can provide a robust picture of the fleet capacity 
and its balance with the fishing opportunities.  
There should be strong encouragement to s eek help from the scientific community. 
Economic indicators 
 
EN 61   EN The guidelines could be improved in relation to the calculation of ROI by specifying the terms 
“investment”. It is recommended to use the wo rd “capital value” instead, also suggested in 
DCF (the Member States used DCF for the firs t time in the 2008 data co llection). Still, there 
will be problems for the Member States to actu ally estimate exact capital value figures, since 
this requires data for more than one year. 
Social indicators 
Social indicators are not give n as much importance in the gui delines, consequently most 
Member States do not specifically refer to the social indicators and very few 
conclusions/interpretations are drawn. It is recommended that th e guidelines should be more 
explicit in stating that  social indicators s hould also be reported. 
It would be useful for Member States to have calculation examples of so cial indicators in the 
guidelines (as is the case for technica l, biological and economic indicators). 
 
EN 62   EN 10. REFERENCES  
Lutchman I, Van den Bossche K, des Cler s S, Overcapacity - What Overcapacity? An 
evaluation of Member States reporting on effort s to achieve a sustainable balance between 
fleet capacity and fishing opportunities in 2007. In stitute for European Environmental Policy. 
July 2009. JRC Publication: Balance between fishing capac ity and resources (part ii) (SGECA/SGRST-
08-01) joint subgroup on economic affairs (S GECA) and on stock reviews (SGRST). 
Prepared for the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fi sheries (STECF). April 
2008. Guidelines for an improved analysis of the balance between fishing capacity and fishing opportunities: The use of indicators for reportin g according to Art. 14 of Council Regulation 
2371/2002. DG Fisheries and Mari time Affairs, March 2008. 
Council regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the conservation and 
sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy  
Commission regulation (EC)  1438/2003 of 12 August 2003: Laying down implementing rules 
on the Community Fleet Policy as defined in Chapter III of 
Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 
 
EN 63   EN 11. APPENDIX A 
This appendix offers an example of a possible standardised template approach to summaries 
of Member States annual reports. 
Belgian Report Summary 
1. Overall assessment of balance 
and development year on year. 
  A full assessment of whether the capacity of the Belgian fleet is in 
balance with fishing opportunity is not given. However the report 
mentions that under-utilization of the 24-40m beam trawling fleet is not the result of an imbalance between balance and fishing opportunity but 
rather quota exchanging. No assessment of change in balance over-time is 
presented. 
2. Size of the fleet (no. of vessels, 
total GT, total kW) 
  The report gave an overview of size of the Belgian fleet by segment. The 
fleet consisted of 100 vessels in 2008, 2 fewer than at the end of 2007. 
The report gave total capacity of the fleet as 19,007 GT and 60,620 kW. 
3. Fleet segments with key species 
fished and total volumes landed 
  The Belgian fleet had two large segm ents; the 24-40m Beam Trawl fleet 
accounted for 48% of the total fleet and the 12-24m Beam Trawl fleet 
accounted for 45% of the total fleet. A breakdown of key species fished 
and volumes landed was provided. Plaice, Sole, Cod and Shrimp 
accounted for 51% of landings. Spec ies and volumes landed by segment 
was not provided by segment. 
4. Additions to and removals from 
the fleet during the year, expressed 
in number of vessels, giving fleet 
segment or some indication of 
vessel capacity The report shows the changes in fl eet capacity during 2008; 2 vessels 
were withdrawn adding 296 GT and 1,104 kW and 1 vessel was added 
with 11GT and 0kW. No breakdown of segment is provided. 
5. Change in state of stocks and/or in fishing opportunity during the 
year The report does not provide information on the change in state of the 
stocks and/or in fishing opportunity between 2007 and 2008. The report 
does show total quotas and TAC for 2 008 for the main species and ICES 
areas. 
6. Outline of effort reduction schemes, if any, during the year No reference to an effort reduction scheme in 2008. 
7. Statement of compliance with 
entry/exit scheme during the year Belgium complied with the entry/exit scheme in 2008. 
8. Plans for improvement in fleet 
management system The report states Belgium’s intention to implement a fleet adaptation 
scheme in accordance with the OP for the over 221kW beam trawl 
segment. 
9. Length of report (over/under 10 
pages) The report was 9 pages long in total. 
10 Application of the balance 
indicators (technical, bio, econ, social) Belgium provided some but not all of the balance indicators. 
Balance Indicator Diagram e.g.  
 
EN 64   EN  
T1  
B1  
B2  
B3  
E1  
E2  
S1  
S2 
 
EN 65   EN 12. APPENDIX B 
Introduction 
This appendix contains an evaluation of the French report which was carried out by JRC 
experts (John Anderson, Anna Cheilari, J ean-Noel Druon) followi ng the SGBRE working 
group of 7th-11th September. The working group was unabl e to evaluate the French report as 
no English version of the report was available.  
DG MARE and the JRC agreed that French sp eakers within JRC (Cheilari, Druon) would 
evaluate the report using the same criteria used during SGBRE 09-01 w ith the assistance of 
Anderson, who attended the or iginal working group and was familiar with the report 
evaluation criteria. DG MARE confirmed that  they had no objections in entrusting JRC 
scientists with the assessment of the French report, as long as the assessment was made according to the STECF framework.  
While this evaluation of the French report follows the same  methodology as developed and 
used during the SGBRE 09-01 working group, it is important to note that this evaluation has 
not been endorsed by the SGBRE working group due to the problems already outlined. 
Results 
The French report was evaluated against the requirements of Article  12 and13 of Commission 
Regulation no. 1438/2003. The results of this eval uation using the scoring system used by 
SGBRE are given in table 12.1. While the French report includes information on most of the 
required elements (scoring 20 out of a possible 24 points for presence of information) the 
quality of the information provided in most cas es could be improved (score of 18 out of a 
possible 36 points for quality). In  particular, information on the development of fleets and the 
strengths and weaknesses of the fleet manageme nt system was incomplete. In addition, no 
overall assessment on the balance between fl eet capacity and fi shing opportunities was 
provided, and none of the balance indicators  set out in the Commission guidelines were 
included. 
Comments on the Commission’s summary of the French report are as follows: 
• The Commission summary of the French repo rt reflects most of the main points of 
the French report.  
• The summary correctly notes that the guide lines were not applied in the French 
report. 
• While the Commission summary reports the extent of fleet reduction carried out 
in France, the summary fails to mention that the requirements for compliance with 
the entry exit regime are respected. 
 
EN 66   EN Elements to be included
Q Max 
scoreActual 
scoreMax 
scoreActual 
score
1A i) Description of fleets 22 32
ii) Link with fisheries 33 32
iii) Development in fleets 3 3 3 1
1B i) statement of effort reduction schemes 2 2 3 2
ii) impact on fishing capacity of effort reduction schemes 3 3 3 2
1C Statement of compliance with entry / exit scheme 2 2 3 2
1D i) Summary of weaknesses & strengths of fleet management system 1 1 3 1
ii) plan for improvements in fleet management system 2 2 3 2
iii) information on general level of compliance with fleet policy instruments 1 1 3 2
1E Information on changes of the administrative procedures relevant to fleet management 1 1 3 22 Report 10 pages or less? 1 0 3
O Overall:  does report assess balance between capacity & opportunity? 3 0 3 0
Total scores:  24 20 36 18Present Quality scores
 
Table B.1 Scores for inclusion and quality of required elements in the French report