TABLE OF CONTENTS

1........... Publication of Member States' Annual Reports................................................................ 3

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 2009 to achieve a sustainable balance between fishing capacity and fishing opportunities - Minutes of the Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture meeting 3

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 2009 to achieve a sustainable balance between fishing capacity and fishing opportunities............................... 6

3.1........ Introduction.................................................................................................................... 6

3.2........ STECF comments and conclusions................................................................................. 6

4........... ANNEX. Report of SGBRE 10-01................................................................................ 9

4.1........ Introduction to SGBRE 10-01 working group report..................................................... 10

4.1.1..... Terms of reference........................................................................................................ 10

4.1.2..... Participants................................................................................................................... 11

4.2........ Summary of key findings and recommendations of SGBRE 10-01................................. 12

4.3........ ToR 1. Evaluate MS annual reports and Commission summary...................................... 13

4.3.1..... Scoring system for evaluation of MS reports – required elements................................... 13

4.3.2..... Evaluation of Member States annual reports for 2009.................................................... 13

4.3.3..... Change in quality scores compared to 2008 reports....................................................... 13

4.3.4..... Specific comments on Member States annual reports..................................................... 13

4.3.5..... Ideal information under each required element of the MS reports................................... 13

4.3.6..... Translation of MS reports............................................................................................. 13

4.4........ ToR 1.d. Evaluate MS application of guidelines on balance indicators............................ 13

4.4.1..... Evaluation of Technical Indicators................................................................................. 13

4.4.2..... Evaluation of Biological Indicators................................................................................. 13

4.4.3..... Evaluation of Economic Indicators................................................................................. 13

4.4.4..... Evaluation of Social Indicators...................................................................................... 13

4.4.5..... Evaluation of Commission summary of Member States annual reports............................ 13

4.5........ ToR 2. Updated Guidelines for completing the balance indicators................................... 13

4.5.1..... Guidelines for Technical indicators................................................................................. 13

4.5.2..... Guidelines for Biological indicators................................................................................ 13

4.5.3..... Guidelines for Economic indicators................................................................................ 13

4.5.4..... Guidelines for social indicators...................................................................................... 13

4.6........ ToR 3. Assess progress in addressing the problem of data availability for the calculation of balance indictors in MS reports......................................................................................................................... 13

4.7........ ToR 4. Assess and comment on appropriateness of indicators used by MS for small scale coastal fleets and fisheries........................................................................................................................ 13

4.8........ References................................................................................................................... 13

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/fleet/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 2009 to achieve a sustainable balance between fishing capacity and fishing opportunities - Minutes of the Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture meeting

The opinion of the Committee was requested at the session which took place on 28 October 2010.

The Chair summarised the state of play of the Commission's proposal on fishing opportunities for 2011. Most of the reports do not establish a relationship between effort reduction schemes and fleet capacity adjustments. Overall it appears that the impact of fishing effort adjustment measures on fleet capacity is limited.

In their national reports, 14 Member States made to some extent use of the guidelines for the assessment of the balance between fishing capacity and fishing opportunities. The biological indicator was not always applied by Member States, although in some cases the use of the biological indicator would have been possible. The same conclusion could be drawn for the technical indicator. Even though the technical indicator is relatively easy to calculate, if applicable, only part of the Member States actually did so.

Some Member States' reports provide an accurate description of the size of the fleet in relation to its fishing opportunities. However, generally speaking the quality of the reports has not improved significantly in relation to 2008. Overall can be concluded that based on the quality of the Member States' reports, no clear conclusions can be drawn on the balance between fishing capacity and fishing opportunities.

Finally the Commission advised MS that the current text of the Commission's conclusions in the annual fleet report could be subject to changes. The results of the STECF working group on the annual report and input from intern procedures like the inter-service consultation also needs to be taken into account.

The Commission asked the Member States two questions:

1. Do MS have remarks about the text and the figures of the annual fleet report and the Commission staff working document?

2. Does the current system of fleet capacity management function well? The reform of the CFP raises questions about we should continue with the current fleet policy or not. The Commission asked the Member States to provide input for this discussion.

FR: prefers a consequent use of words. Capacity adjustment should be used instead of capacity reduction. From an economical perspective an adjustment of the fleet capacity can also mean an increase of the capacity, not only a reduction. France stated that it did apply the fishing capacity indicators, in contrary of the Summary of Member State's reports.

PT: Stated some figures in the report were incorrect. In the Commission's summary, it should be mentioned that PT did submit economic data and made a calculation of some fleet capacity indicators. The fishing effort reductions achieved in the Greenland halibut fishery since 2003 are insufficiently reflected in the summary.

ES: stated it had already submitted written comments to the Commission. The capacity reduction both with and without public aid should be mentioned in the Commission's summary. Spain explained that the calculation of the fleet capacity indicators presents several difficulties. The details are explained in the written comments.

DE: indicated it had already explained in the past the reasons for not applying the fleet capacity indicators, and is willing to forward this explanations ones more if requested for.

BG: stated it had submitted written comments to the Commission. Some figures mentioned in the summary are incorrect and need to be amended. Moreover, the data concerning the entry-exit ceiling differs from those mentioned in the Bulgarian annual report with 170 GT and 1581 kW. These vessels entered after the accession date based on administrative decisions adopted before accession and the entry-exit ceiling should be amended accordingly.

DK: the figures of all Member States should be comparable as much as possible. Although it has improved, there is still al lot of work to do. The Green book mentions that Member States should be able to apply national fleet measures. For the reform of the CFP it is important that this competence of the Member States will be maintained.

PL: States it had submitted written comments to the Commission. In the Commission's summary of the Polish report, the number of vessels decommission with public aid was of 26, and not.

SE: asked whether the Commission wants to receive written Member States' comments on the Commission's conclusions.

COM: The Commission would be very pleased to receive written comments on:

- technical issues of the annual report

- the use of the fleet capacity indicators

- the question about the appropriateness of continuation of the current fleet policy.

The COM stated that it would include the figures submitted by ES in the report. It requested PT to submit their comments in writing and agreed with FR that capacity adjustment is the right wording to use, although in most situations this would mean a reduction of fishing capacity.

The guidelines for an improved analysis of the balance between fishing capacity and fishing opportunities will be revised in the coming months. The objective is to improve the quality of the assessment. In the revision some correction will be made in the text, as well as a better explanation of the calculation methods for the indicators. The COM won't introduce a new methodology, although an additional indicator is being considered.

All Member States agreed that an additional meeting on the annual fleet report was not necessary.

COM concluded announcing that the annual fleet report would be adopted including the observations made by Member States at the meeting in the annex to the report, as well as the written comments received.

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 2009 to achieve a sustainable balance between fishing capacity and fishing opportunities 3.1. Introduction

STECF is requested to review the report of the SGBRE 10-01 meeting of September 13th -17th 2010 (Edinburgh), evaluate the findings and make any appropriate comments and recommendations.

3.2. STECF comments and conclusions

STECF observations

STECF endorses the methods and working group report of SGBRE 10-01.

STECF notes the overall improvements made by MS in fulfilling their obligations under Article 14 of Council Regulation No 2371/2002 and Article 12 of Commission Regulation no 1438/2003 (see table 5.4 in working group report). STECF also notes that only six (compared to ten in the previous year) out of 22 MS did not estimate any of the balance indicators recommended in the Commission’s guidelines to MS. Completion of balance indicators is not mandatory under current regulations however.

In particular, STECF notes that 13 of the 22 MS gave an overall opinion of whether the capacity of their fishing fleet was in balance with their fishing opportunities which is a big improvement on the previous year’s reports. However, STECF notes that the benefits of MS completing these reports may not be realised unless MS make a clear statement about the degree of balance between their fleets and their fishing opportunities.

STECF notes the useful example of a suggested Commission summary of the Belgian MS report. If Commission summaries were all prepared according to this template the report to parliament would enable members to make easier comparisons between MS.

STECF questions once again the need for MS reports to be evaluated in an STECF working group. Since the STECF-SGBRE WG has devised a useful and straightforward scoring system for the legally required elements in MS reports, STECF suggests that at least the required elements of MS could be evaluated by staff at either JRC or DG Mare.

STECF suggests that the use of SGBRE experts’ time could be better spent evaluating the application of the balance indicators, improving the balance indicators, the guidelines for the indicators and evaluating the overall situation or establishing a comprehensive overview with regard to balance or imbalance of EU fleets and opportunities. There is also then potential for experts to address specific questions about key areas where improvement in balance is a key requirement for improvements in fleet profitability and stock sustainability.

STECF supports the suggestion of the SGBRE working group that MS could choose from a range of suggested or alternative statements regarding the degree of balance in their own fleets and segments, and suggests that this suggestion is communicated to MS. The idea could be further developed by linking these statements to values of indicators. The statements suggested are as follows:

1. Capacity is substantially in excess of opportunity – means that the fleet is capable of catching (at reference year catch rates) far in excess of the permitted opportunity, or that the level of production could have been achieved with substantially less physical capacity.

2. Capacity is somewhat in excess of opportunity – means that the fleet is capable of catching more than the permitted opportunity.

3. Capacity is approximately in balance with the fishing opportunity. There is either little unused capacity or little unused opportunity.

4. Capacity is somewhat below the fishing opportunity – means that there is some unused opportunity due to lack of catching capacity, which is therefore not delivering possible economic and social benefits to the MS.

5. Capacity is substantially below the fishing opportunity – means that there is a substantial amount of the fishing opportunity that is not taken up due to lack of fleet capacity, and there are substantial social and economic benefits that are not being realised by the MS.

STECF is concerned to note the issue of incorrect translation of MS reports raised by the STECF-SGBRE 10-01WG and asks the Commission to consider appropriate solutions to this difficulty.

STECF endorses the suggestions and recommendations of the working group report, summarised in section 6 of the report. STECF makes the following recommendations arising from the findings and recommendations of the STECF-SGBRE 10-01 WG:

1. STECF recommends that the Commission once again urges MS to submit their reports and to do so by the deadline.

2. STECF recommends that Commission summaries of MS reports follow the new, shorter, template format as suggested in the report of SGBRE 10-01. Summaries will then contain the same information in the same order while remaining within the word limit required by the translation service. This would greatly assist STECF to evaluate the Commission summaries should STECF continue to be required to do so.

3. STECF recommends that the Commission again asks MS which have not already done so, to structure their annual reports as suggested in the report of SGBRE 10-01.

4. STECF recommends that the Commission asks MS to include at the front of their reports the suggested summary template contained in the report of SGBRE 09-01.

5. STECF recommends that in its summary report, the Commission names the MS whose reports indicate a considerable degree of fleet over-capacity.

6. STECF identifies the need for better technical indicator(s) for passive gear fleet segments and recommends that the Commission finds a way to develop them.

7. When the relevant regulations (Council Regulation No 2371/2002 and Regulation no 1438/2003) are updated, STECF recommends that the Commission consider explicitly requiring MS to report not only on their efforts to achieve balance, but to state clearly what they believe is the degree of balance between fleet capacity and fishing opportunity in their MS, and whether balance has been improving or worsening over the last few years.

9. STECF recommends that MS are again asked to state, where appropriate, why balance indicators have not been reported, as this may help to resolve any underlying problems and make it possible to report indicators in subsequent years.

10. When preparing updated Guidelines to MS on estimating balance indicators, STECF recommends that the Commission take into account suggestions for text included in the report of SGBRE 10-01.

11. STECF recommends that updated Guidelines are prepared and distributed to MS in time for MS to use them in preparation of their reports relating to 2010, to be submitted by 30 April 2011.

12. STECF recommends that MS be asked to describe their fleets using the fleet segmentation required under the DCF.

4. ANNEX. Report of SGBRE 10-01

SGBRE 10-01: REVIEW OF NATIONAL REPORTS ON BALANCE BETWEEN FISHING CAPACITIES AND FISHING OPPORTUNITIES.

Edinburgh, 13-17th September 2010

This report is the opinion of the expert working group on Balance between capacity and exploitation (SGBRE 10-01) and not of the Scientific, 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

4.1. Introduction to SGBRE 10-01 working group report 4.1.1. Terms of reference

The working group was asked to:

1. Evaluate the Member States' reports on their efforts during 2009 to achieve a sustainable balance between fishing capacity and fishing opportunities and the Commission's summaries of MS reports, taking account in particular the following aspects:

1.1. Compliance of MS reports with Art. 14 of Council Regulation No. 2371/2002 and Art. 12 of Commission Regulation No. 1438/2003

1.2. Member States evaluation of the effect of fishing effort management measures on fishing capacity

1.3. Member States' assessment of the balance between fishing capacity and fishing opportunities for their fishing fleets

1.4. Where appropriate, Member States' application of the indicators proposed in the "Guidelines for an improved analysis of the balance between fleet capacity and fishing opportunities"

2. The Commission has produced a Draft updated version of the "Guidelines for an improved analysis of the balance between fleet capacity and fishing opportunities". The working group is asked to comment on this new Draft version of the guidelines, and where appropriate suggest alternative drafting, before the new Guidelines are finalised and forwarded to Member States for their application to the 2010 fleet reports.

3. Assess and comments on any progress evident in addressing the problem of availability of data for the calculation of the proposed indicators in MS reports.

4. Assess and comment on the appropriateness of any indicators used by MS for small scale coastal fleets and fisheries.

4.1.2. Participants

Name || Address || Telephone no. || email

STECF members || || ||

Hazel Curtis (chair) || Sea Fish Industry Authority 18 Logie Mill, Logie Green Road Edinburgh, EH7 4HS, UK || +44 131 524 8664 || h_curtis@seafish.co.uk

Alvaro Abella || Agenzia Regionale Protezione Ambiente della Toscan Via Marradi 114 57126, Livorno, Italy || +39 0586 263456 || a.abella@arpat.toscana.it

External experts

Ane Iriondo || AZTI - Tecnalia / Unidad de Investigación Marina Txatxarramendi Ugartea z/g 48395 Sukarrieta (Bizkaia), Spain || +34 94 6574000 || airiondo@azti.es

Colin Brodie || Sea Fish Industry Authority 18 Logie Mill, Logie Green Road Edinburgh, EH7 4HS, UK || +44 131 524 8662 || c_brodie@seafish.co.uk

Maria Yankova || Institute of Fishing Resources Blvd. Primorski 4 9000 Varna, Bulgaria || +35 9526 32066 || maria_y@abv.bg

Thomas Thoegersen || FOI Milanovej 10B, 3th 2300 Copenhagen, Denmark || +45 3533 6895 || thth@foi.dk

Helena Galrito || DGPA Av. Brasília 1449-030 Lisboa, Portugal || +35 12130 35804 || galrito@dgpa.min-agricultura.pt

Maria Amélia Miguez || DG Pescas e Agricultura Av.Brasília 1449-030 Lisboa, Portugal || +35 12130 35888 || amiguez@dgpa.min-agricultura.pt

Mark Dimech || Malta Centre for Fisheries Sciences Fort San Lucjan BBG 06 Marsaxlokk, Malta || +35 62229 3302 || mark.dimech@gov.mt

Darcelle Vassallo || Agriculture and Fisheries Regulation Department Fort San Lucjan BBG 06 Marsaxlokk, Malta || +35 62229 3315 || darcelle.vassallo@gov.mt

Monica Gambino || IREPA Onlus Via S Leonardo trav Migliaro 84113 Salerno, Italy || +39 08933 8978 || gambino@irepa.org

Constantin Stroie || National Agency for Fisheries and Aquaculture of Romania, 54 Eufrosina Popescu Str 75436 Bucharest, Romania || || constantin.stroie@anpa.ro

Gheorge Rhadu || NIMRD "Grigore Antipa" Constanta, Mamaia 300, 900581, CONSTANTA, Romania || +40 2415 43288 || gpr@alpha.rmri.ro

Tomas Zolubas || Fisheries Service under ministry of Agriculture, Naujoji uosto 8a, LT-92119, Klaipeda, Lithuania || +37 04631 0660 || TomasZ@zum.lt

Leyre Goti || Independent expert, General Concha 44, 4ºcentro izda, 48012 Bilbao, Spain || +34 67562 1801 || leyregoti@yahoo.com

JRC Experts

Guillen Jordi || Joint Research Centre JRC Via Enrico Fermi 2749 I-21027 Ispra, (VA) Italy || || Jordi.guillen@jrc.ec.europa.eu

Anderson John || Joint Research Centre JRC, Via Enrico Fermi 2749 I-21027 Ispra, (VA) Italy || +39 0332 78 9256 || John.anderson@jrc.ec.europa.eu

European Commission

Marco Traa || DG MARE || +32 2 29 68070 || marco.traa@ec.europa.eu

Jordi Guillen || Joint Research Centre JRC, STECF secretariat || + || jordi.guillen@jrc.ec.europa.eu

John Anderson || Joint Research Centre JRC, STECF secretariat || +39 0332 78 9256 || john.anderson@jrc.ec.europa.eu

4.2. Summary of key findings and recommendations of SGBRE 10-01

Overall, the terms of reference for the working group were not quite achievable due to time constraints. In particular, because the group had to split into subgroups to tackle different aspects of many of the ToR questions (Technical, Biological, Economic and Social), there was insufficient time for each group’s draft text to be edited by the chair of the working group and then reviewed and agreed in plenary during the week of the meeting. The tasks of editing, discussing and agreeing text had to be completed remotely after the meeting and took a considerable amount of time.

This is a summary of the key findings of the working group SGBRE 10-01:

(1) MS annual reports on their efforts to achieve a balance between fleet capacity and fishing opportunity for 2009 overall showed substantial improvements in completeness and in quality compared to reports for 2008.

(1) More MS had estimated more balance indicators in their 2009 reports than in the 2008 reports.

(2) The overall quality of balance indicators was higher this year compared to last year but only six MS presented the first (preferred) indicator.

(3) France had not submitted its annual report for 2009 before SGBRE met to review the reports.

(4) MS reports could be further improved and made more readable in future years if they would include the proposed summary sheet and use the proposed report structure included in this report.

(5) Little progress was noted in addressing issues of data availability for calculating balance indicators.

(6) No MS had developed and presented any alternative balance indicators appropriate for use in small scale fleets and fisheries.

(7) The Commission summaries are again presented in variable order and could be much improved if they followed a standardised template. A suggested template and format is provided that would still allow the Commission to adhere to the character limit imposed by their translation service.

(8) The Commission summaries of MS reports include some unhelpful generalisations, including a statement that the Portuguese report did not follow the guidelines on calculating balance indicators, when in fact the Portuguese report does include all but the biological balance indicators.

(9) The quality and accuracy of the translation of technical vocabulary in some MS reports was found to be poor in some cases. In particular this was noticed in the Italian report. SGBRE recommends that MS consider the Commission’s translation and identify any important changes of meaning that have occurred. SGBRE also encourages MS to consider submitting their annual report in English, to avoid the risk of poor translation of technical vocabulary.

(10) Some MS reports included graphs in which the text had not been translated. It would be helpful if MS could themselves translate any elements, such as text in graphs, which the Commission translation service will not translate. It might be necessary to advise MS which elements will not be translated by the Commission translation service.

(11) Had the French report been submitted on time, it seems that we would once again have had the issue that the Commission translation service would have refused to translate it from French to English, on the grounds that French is an official Commission language. SGBRE suggests that the Commission translation service be required to translate documents into English when those required to work with the documents are not Commission staff.

(12) Preliminary contributions to the draft updated Guidelines for calculating balance indicators are presented. There was insufficient time during the working group for members to review and agree proposals for each set of indicators in plenary. SGBRE recommends that the Commission takes these suggestions into account when preparing updated Guidelines on completing balance indicators.

4.3. ToR 1. Evaluate MS annual reports and Commission summary

Under Item 1 in the Terms of Reference, SGBRE was asked to evaluate:

· Member States’ reports on their efforts during 2009 to achieve a sustainable balance between fleet capacity and fishing opportunities; and

· The Commission’s summary of Member States’ reports.

In particular, SGBRE was asked to take into account the following aspects:

(a) Compliance of Member States’ reports with Article 14 of Council Regulation no. 2371/2002 and Articles 12 and 13 of Commission Regulation no. 1438/2003

(b) MS evaluation of the effect of fishing effort management measures on fishing capacity

(c) MS assessment of the balance between fishing capacity and fishing opportunities for their fishing fleets

(d) Where appropriate, MS application of the indicators proposed in the “Guidelines for an improved analysis of the balance between fleet capacity and fishing opportunities"

4.3.1. Scoring system for evaluation of MS reports – required elements

The working group assessed compliance with Articles 12 and 13 of Commission Regulation no. 1438/2003 by using the scoring system that had been developed during SGBRE 09-01. Table 4.1 shows the scoring system which is based on the elements of Article 13 (items 1A to 2 in Table 4.1) and Article 12 (item O in Table 4.1). The scoring system awards a score for providing the required information and a separate score for the quality of the information. Scores for providing the required information are weighted to reflect the importance of the elements included (present) in Member States’ reports. The quality score is a reflection of the completeness, robustness and relevance of the information provided. We did not assign a score for submitting the report by the required date.

The scoring table was altered slightly compared to the report of SGBRE 09-01, to reflect the full wording of required element 1.c) in Article 13 of Regulation 1438/2003.

This year we awarded specific scores for completeness, robustness and relevance and each of these elements could achieve a score of 0, 0.5 or 1, so that the total quality score could be between 0 and 3 for each required element.

For including the required elements, reports were awarded full marks available for each element. If the element in respect of 2009 was absent, the score was zero. Therefore, if a MS included the element only in relation to the wrong year, the report would score zero for including that element.

Members of SGBRE split into smaller groups to evaluate MS reports so it is possible that groups may have applied the scoring system differently. However the system was reviewed in plenary before the task and each report was read in full by the groups assessing them. Last year’s MS reports and scores were also reviewed to try to ensure consistency of evaluation from SGBRE 09-01 to SGBRE 10-01.

Section 4.3.5 on page 13 includes suggestions of answers to some requirements and gives an indication of what we were looking for under each requirement.

Table 4.1 Scoring system for evaluating Member States annual reports

The requirement that reports should be 10 pages or less was interpreted to mean that the annual report covering the legally required elements should be 10 pages or less. If a report exceeded 10 pages because of including the balance indicators, (which are not legally required) or an annex of detailed information, then the report was still awarded a point for being 10 pages or less. We took this interpretation because last year we recommended that this page limit be revisited and the Commission has indicated that it will reconsider the page limit next time the regulation is revised and that in the meantime there is no penalty to MS whose reports exceed 10 pages.

We understand that only 10 of the 22 relevant MS submitted their annual reports by the deadline of 30th April 2010. Failure to meet the deadline meant that some reports had not been summarised by the Commission before SGBRE 10-01. The report from France had not been received by the Commission before the working group.

4.3.2. Evaluation of Member States annual reports for 2009

All MS reports (with the exception of the French report, which had not been received by the Commission prior to the working group) were evaluated against the requirements of Article 12 and13 of Commission Regulation no. 1438/2003 by the SGBRE 10-01 working group.

Overall there is variation in the completeness and quality of MS reports for 2009 but there is a general improvement in completeness compared to the reports for 2008. Once again 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 fisheries. Key points to note are:

· There has been a distinct overall improvement in providing the required elements of the MS reports compared to the 2008 reports.

· Several MS mentioned as not having completed required elements in their 2008 reports have included those elements in their 2009 reports.

· Sweden, Spain and UK did not describe their fishing fleets in relation to fisheries.

· All MS stated whether they complied with entry/exit schemes.

· Five MS (Belgium, Cyprus, Estonia, Greece and Spain) did not provide a summary of weaknesses & strengths of fleet management system.

· Eleven Member States’ reports did not provide plans for improvements in fleet management systems.

· Seven Member States did not give information on the level of compliance with fleet policy instruments. This was an improvement on 2008 MS reports.

· Eight MS did not give an overall opinion on whether their fleet was or was not in balance with its fishing opportunity in 2009 (compared to14 in 2008 reports).

· Greece was the most improved MS in terms of score achieved.

Table 4.2 shows the scores by MS for inclusion of required elements in their annual report (the “present” score). Table 4.4 ranks MS by their score for inclusion of required elements. A maximum of 24 points was available. Bulgaria and Poland achieved the maximum 24 points, while Spain scored only 8 points. There is less variation than for the previous year with all but two MS scoring 75% or above for including the required elements.

Table 4.3 shows the quality scores by MS for included elements in the annual reports. There is a slight reduction in variation in the quality of the MS reports compared to the previous year. Table 4.5 ranks MS by their quality score for the required elements. A maximum of 33 points was available. Denmark achieved highest points with a score of 28 and Spain scored 9.5.

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 || 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 || 3 || 3 || 3 || 3 || 3 || 3 || 3 || 3 || 3 || 3 || 3 || 3 || 3 || 3 || 3 || 0 || 0 || 0

iii) Development in fleets || 3 || 3 || 3 || 3 || 3 || 3 || 3 || 3 || 3 || 0 || 3 || 3 || 3 || 3 || 3 || 3 || 3 || 3 || 3 || 0 || 3 || 3

1B || i) statement of effort reduction schemes || 2 || 2 || 2 || 2 || 2 || 2 || 2 || 0 || 2 || 2 || 2 || 2 || 2 || 2 || 2 || 2 || 2 || 2 || 2 || 2 || 2 || 2

ii) impact on fishing capacity of effort reduction schemes || 3 || 3 || 3 || 3 || 3 || 3 || 3 || 3 || 3 || 3 || 3 || 3 || 3 || 3 || 3 || 3 || 3 || 3 || 3 || 0 || 3 || 3

1C || Statement of compliance with entry / exit scheme and with level of reference || 2 || 2 || 2 || 2 || 2 || 2 || 2 || 2 || 2 || 2 || 2 || 2 || 2 || 2 || 2 || 2 || 2 || 2 || 2 || 2 || 2 || 2

1D || i) Summary of weaknesses & strengths of fleet management system || 1 || 0 || 1 || 0 || 1 || 0 || 1 || 1 || 0 || 1 || 1 || 1 || 1 || 1 || 1 || 1 || 1 || 1 || 1 || 0 || 1 || 1

ii) plan for improvements in fleet management system || 2 || 0 || 2 || 2 || 2 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 2 || 0 || 2 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 2 || 2 || 0 || 2 || 0 || 2 || 2

iii) information on general level of compliance with fleet policy instruments || 1 || 0 || 1 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 1 || 0 || 1 || 0 || 1 || 1 || 0 || 1 || 1 || 1 || 1 || 1 || 1 || 1 || 1 || 1

1E || Information on changes of the administrative procedures relevant to fleet management || 1 || 0 || 1 || 1 || 1 || 0 || 1 || 1 || 1 || 0 || 1 || 1 || 0 || 1 || 1 || 1 || 1 || 1 || 1 || 1 || 1 || 1

2 || Report 10 pages or less? || 1 || 1 || 1 || 0 || 1 || 1 || 1 || 1 || 1 || 1 || 0 || 1 || 1 || 0 || 1 || 1 || 0 || 1 || 0 || 0 || 1 || 0

O || Overall: does report assess balance between capacity & opportunity? || 3 || 3 || 3 || 0 || 3 || 3 || 0 || 3 || 3 || 0 || 3 || 3 || 3 || 3 || 3 || 3 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 3

Total scores: || 24 || 19 || 24 || 18 || 23 || 19 || 19 || 19 || 23 || 14 || 23 || 22 || 20 || 21 || 22 || 24 || 20 || 19 || 20 || 8 || 18 || 20

Table 4.2 Scores by Member State for inclusion of required elements in annual reports

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 || 2.5 || 3 || 3 || 3 || 3 || 1.5 || 3 || 2 || 2 || 3 || 1.5 || 2 || 3 || 3 || 3 || 3 || 3

ii) Link with fisheries || 3 || 1 || 2 || 3 || 2 || 2.5 || 3 || 3 || 2.5 || 2 || 3 || 3 || 2 || 2.5 || 2 || 1.5 || 2.5 || 3 || 0.5 || 0 || 0 || 0

iii) Development in fleets || 3 || 2 || 2.5 || 0.5 || 3 || 2.5 || 3 || 3 || 1 || 0 || 1 || 3 || 1.5 || 2 || 2 || 1.5 || 2 || 3 || 2 || 0 || 3 || 3

1B || i) statement of effort reduction schemes || 3 || 2.5 || 0.5 || 3 || 3 || 3 || 3 || 0 || 3 || 3 || 3 || 3 || 3 || 3 || 3 || 3 || 3 || 2.5 || 3 || 3 || 3 || 3

ii) impact on fishing capacity of effort reduction schemes || 3 || 2 || 2 || 3 || 3 || 3 || 2.5 || 1 || 3 || 1.5 || 3 || 1.5 || 3 || 3 || 2 || 3 || 3 || 3 || 0.5 || 0 || 1.5 || 3

1C || Statement of compliance with entry / exit scheme and with level of reference || 3 || 1.5 || 3 || 3 || 3 || 3 || 2.5 || 3 || 3 || 3 || 3 || 2.5 || 1.5 || 3 || 0 || 2.5 || 3 || 3 || 3 || 2 || 0 || 3

1D || i) Summary of weaknesses & strengths of fleet management system || 3 || 0 || 1.5 || 0 || 3 || 0 || 1.5 || 2 || 0 || 0 || 1.5 || 3 || 2.5 || 1.5 || 3 || 3 || 1.5 || 3 || 3 || 0 || 1.5 || 0

ii) plan for improvements in fleet management system || 3 || 0 || 1.5 || 2 || 2 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 1.5 || 0 || 2.5 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 3 || 2.5 || 0 || 3 || 0 || 1.5 || 3

iii) information on general level of compliance with fleet policy instruments || 3 || 0 || 0.5 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 1.5 || 0 || 0.5 || 0 || 0.5 || 0 || 0 || 2 || 1 || 3 || 2.5 || 1 || 2 || 1.5 || 1.5 || 0

1E || Information on changes of the administrative procedures relevant to fleet management || 3 || 0 || 1.5 || 3 || 3 || 0 || 2.5 || 3 || 2.5 || 0 || 1 || 3 || 0 || 1.5 || 3 || 3 || 1.5 || 2 || 2 || 0 || 1.5 || 3

2 || Report 10 pages or less? || n/a || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

O || Overall: does report assess balance between capacity & opportunity? || 3 || 2 || 2 || 0 || 3 || 2 || 0 || 2 || 1.5 || 0 || 1.5 || 1.5 || 2 || 0 || 1.5 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 3

Total scores: || 33 || 14.0 || 20.0 || 20.5 || 28.0 || 18.5 || 22.5 || 20.0 || 21.5 || 12.5 || 21.5 || 23.5 || 17.5 || 20.5 || 20.5 || 25.0 || 23.5 || 23.5 || 22.0 || 9.5 || 16.5 || 24.0

Table 4.3 Scores by Member State for quality of required elements in annual reports

Scores for inclusion of required elements

Member State || Score || Max Score || % || Score for 2008 report || Change from 08 to 09 report

BULGARIA || 24 || 24 || 100% || 18 || +6

POLAND || 24 || 24 || 100% || 21 || +3

DENMARK || 23 || 24 || 96% || 14 || +9

GREECE || 23 || 24 || 96% || 7 || +16

ITALY || 23 || 24 || 96% || 10 || +13

LATVIA || 22 || 24 || 92% || 21 || +1

NETHERLANDS || 22 || 24 || 92% || 21 || +1

MALTA || 21 || 24 || 88% || 17 || +4

LITHUANIA || 20 || 24 || 83% || 12 || +8

PORTUGAL || 20 || 24 || 83% || 17 || +3

SLOVENIA || 20 || 24 || 83% || 15 || +5

UK || 20 || 24 || 83% || 16 || +4

BELGIUM || 19 || 24 || 79% || 16 || +3

ESTONIA || 19 || 24 || 79% || 11 || +8

FINLAND || 19 || 24 || 79% || 19 || 0

GERMANY || 19 || 24 || 79% || 20 || -1

ROMANIA || 19 || 24 || 79% || 17 || +2

CYPRUS || 18 || 24 || 75% || 19 || -1

SWEDEN || 18 || 24 || 75% || 15 || +3

IRELAND || 14 || 24 || 58% || 17 || -3

SPAIN || 8 || 24 || 33% || 14 || -6

Table 4.4 Ranked results for inclusion of required elements in MS reports

Scores for quality of included elements

Member State || Score || Max Score || % || Score for 2008 report || Change from 08 to 09 report

DENMARK || 28.0 || 33 || 85% || 20 || +8

POLAND || 25.0 || 33 || 76% || 22 || +3

UK || 24.0 || 33 || 73% || 14 || +10

LATVIA || 23.5 || 33 || 71% || 26 || -2.5

PORTUGAL || 23.5 || 33 || 71% || 20 || +3.5

ROMANIA || 23.5 || 33 || 71% || 14 || +9.5

FINLAND || 22.5 || 33 || 68% || 15 || +7.5

SLOVENIA || 22.0 || 33 || 67% || 12 || +10

GREECE || 21.5 || 33 || 65% || 6 || +15.5

ITALY || 21.5 || 33 || 65% || 9 || +12.5

CYPRUS || 20.5 || 33 || 62% || 15 || +5.5

MALTA || 20.5 || 33 || 62% || 10 || +10.5

NETHERLANDS || 20.5 || 33 || 62% || 19 || +1.5

BULGARIA || 20.0 || 33 || 61% || 13 || +7

GERMANY || 20.0 || 33 || 61% || 17 || +3

ESTONIA || 18.5 || 33 || 56% || 6 || +12.5

LITHUANIA || 17.5 || 33 || 53% || 9 || +8.5

SWEDEN || 16.5 || 33 || 50% || 11 || +5.5

BELGIUM || 14.0 || 33 || 42% || 15 || -1

IRELAND || 12.5 || 33 || 38% || 12 || +0.5

SPAIN || 9.5 || 33 || 29% || 10 || -0.5

Table 4.5 Ranked results for quality of included elements in MS reports

Table 4.6 Comparison of scores for inclusion of required elements between 2008 MS reports and 2009 MS reports.

Table 4.7 Comparison of scores for quality of included elements between 2008 MS reports and 2009 MS reports

4.3.3. Change in quality scores compared to 2008 reports

16 MS improved their scores for including required elements, and some of those made very substantial improvements. Only four MS had lower scores this year for inclusion of required elements and these were all minor reductions in score.

18 MS had improved scores for quality of included elements relative to the previous year. Three MS had slightly lower scores for quality than in the previous.

4.3.4. Specific comments on Member States annual reports

For some MS reports the experts at SGBRE 10-01 made come comments which may be helpful to those preparing the reports next year.

Belgium. This report included some unnecessary details, such as the names and registration numbers of every vessel that left the fleet, and had some important items lacking. The report could be substantially improved if the report headings were in line with the required elements, as suggested above.

Cyprus. It was helpful that the Cyprus report was structured with headings that matched the required elements of the report. However, in some cases the content did not match the header, for instance under heading D, there are three elements listed in the header, but only one of those elements (a plan for improvements) is included in the text under that header. There is no summary of strengths and weaknesses and there is no information on compliance.

There is mention of fleet figures at 1st December 2009. We suspect this may be a typing error and should really read 31st December, but it is not certain whether or not this is accurate.

Estonia. This report obtained lower marks for relevance because there is too much extra data (e.g. catch data at vessel level) that was not required. It was also more difficult to read because the sections were not presented in the same order as in Article 13 of Commission Regulation no. 1438/2003.

In order to assess the balance between fishing capacity and fishing opportunities the report includes an additional definition of potential fishing capacity (“passive capacity”).

Germany. The German report follows the order of Article 13 of Commission Regulation no. 1438/2003 and presents a clear description of the fleet, including the link between fleet segments and fisheries. Fishing effort reduction schemes are not so well described, the same occurs with the summary of strengths and weaknesses and the plans for improvement.

Lithuania. The Lithuanian report follows only partially the order of the required headings, which were also mixed with the calculations of the recommended indicators.

The balance of fishing capacity and fishing opportunities is not assessed for the High Sea fleets, which are more important in terms of landings than those operating in the Baltic Sea. The summary of strength and weaknesses and the plans for improvement is also missing for this part of the Lithuanian fleet.

Malta. The Maltese report correctly follows the scheme of Article 13 of Commission Regulation no. 1438/2003.

Some administrative information is contained in the paragraph related to the fleet management system.

With regard to the assessment of the balance between capacity and opportunities, the Maltese report contains a statement about the absence of overcapacity, but omits to explicitly state if the balance has been reached or if there is a situation of under capacity.

Portugal. Some figures in the report related to the Portuguese fleet capacity have not been translated into English. For this reason the presentation of developments in fleets is not considered fully robust and relevant. Information about plans for improvements in fleet management system has been included in paragraph 2 related to fishing effort reduction scheme. The quality of the information is complete and relevant.

4.3.5. Ideal information under each required element of the MS reports

Many MS could make substantial improvements to the completeness and usefulness of their report if they would structure their report in line with the required minimum elements as listed in the regulation. Some MS did do this and it made the job of the working group very much easier when the report headings matched the text of the required elements in Article 13 of Regulation 1438/2003.

Specifically, we suggest that the MS reports should be structured like this:

Summary of report

Statement of MS opinion on balance of fleet capacity and fishing opportunity

Section A || i) Description of fleets

|| ii) Link with fisheries

|| iii) Development in fleets

||

Section B || i) statement of effort reduction schemes

|| ii) impact on fishing capacity of effort reduction schemes

||

Section C || Statement of compliance with entry / exit scheme and with level of reference

||

Section D || i) Summary of weaknesses & strengths of fleet management system

|| ii) plan for improvements in fleet management system

|| iii) information on general level of compliance with fleet policy instruments

||

Section E || Information on changes of the administrative procedures relevant to fleet management

||

Section F || Estimation and discussion of balance indicators

|| i) Technical indicator(s)

|| ii) Biological indicators

|| iii) Economic indicators

|| iv) Social indicators

Summary of report

The summary page of MS reports should follow the proposed summary page template contained in the report of SGBRE 09-01, which was endorsed by STECF plenary and by the Commission. We understand that this proposed summary page will be included in updated Guidelines from the Commission on how to complete the Balance Indicators.

Statement of opinion on balance of fleet capacity with fishing opportunity

It would be very helpful if each MS would give a clear opinion or verdict on whether, overall, they consider that there is balance between fleet capacity and fishing opportunity. We looked for each MS report to state quite clearly how the MS assesses the balance between fleet capacity and opportunity. For instance, a report may state that fleet utilisation is 80%, quota uptake is 90% and so on, but still fail to give an opinion as to whether there is balance between fleet capacity and fishing opportunity, and if not, in which direction the imbalance lies.

An acceptable statement could be along the lines of this: Based on an overview of the four balance indicators, the fishing capacity of the fleet is approximately in balance with the fishing opportunity in 2009. For some MS, it might be appropriate to make such a statement for a number of major fleet segments or sectors.

It would be useful if MS could choose from, for instance, five possible opinions on a scale from severely over capacity to severely under capacity. A suggested range is presented below. A future working group could perhaps propose a way to link the indicator ratios to these or an alternative set of potential overall opinions:

(1) Capacity is substantially in excess of opportunity – means that the fleet is capable of catching (at reference year catch rates) far in excess of the permitted opportunity, or that the level of production could have been achieved with substantially less physical capacity.

(2) Capacity is somewhat in excess of opportunity – means that the fleet is capable of catching more than the permitted opportunity.

(3) Capacity is approximately in balance with the fishing opportunity. There is either little unused capacity or little unused opportunity

(4) Capacity is somewhat below the fishing opportunity – means that there is some unused opportunity due to lack of catching capacity, which is therefore not delivering possible economic and social benefits to the MS.

(5) Capacity is substantially below the fishing opportunity – means that a substantial amount of the fishing opportunity is not taken up due to lack of fleet capacity, and there are substantial social and economic benefits that are not being realised by the MS.

Alternatively, MS might like to give an opinion using a phrase that describes vessel utilisation or fleet capacity utilisation, for instance, vessels are fully utilised; vessels are somewhat under utilised; vessels are substantially under-utilised.

MS need to bear in mind however that the indicators of balance are just indicators, and not actual measures of fleet capacity or definitive judgements on the appropriateness of fleet capacity in relation to its opportunity.

4.3.6. Translation of MS reports

SGBRE understands that the reports submitted by MS are translated into English by the Commission translation service. Due to the language skills of some of the experts at SGBRE 10-01, we noted some examples of inaccurate translation, to the extent that the meaning of the report had been changed during translation.

For example, it was pointed out from the Italian report:

(1) On page 20, section 6.3, in the first paragraph the Italian reports states:

– “…il ROI e il rapporto tra i ricavi di Break-even e i ricavi correnti.”

– An Italian speaker in SGBRE advises that this means,

– “the ROI and the ratio between break-even revenue and current revenue”.

– In the English translation of the Italian report, this sentence is incorrectly translated as,

– “the ROI is the ratio between break-even revenue and current revenue”.

– As written in English, this is an incorrect statement.

(2) On page 21 the Italian report states:

– “stante la modalita di retribuzione “alla parte” ”.

– An Italian speaker in SGBRE advises that this means

– “due to the profit share wage contract”.

– In the English translation of the Italian report, this phrase is incorrectly translated as,

– “due to the piecework wages system”.

– A piece work wage system is completely different from a profit share wage system.

There was also confusion among experts at the meeting regarding the Portuguese report and the Commission summary of the Portuguese report. There appears to have been an incorrect translation of the “Greenland Halibut recovery plan” in the Portuguese report into English, where it was presented on page 8 as the “Tuna recovery plan”.

SGBRE accepts that highly technical vocabulary in both languages is required to accurately translate MS reports and suggests that MS could read the English translation of their reports and highlight any errors in translation that they find. Otherwise, MS may wish to translate their reports themselves and submit their annual reports to the Commission in English.

4.4. ToR 1.d. Evaluate MS application of guidelines on balance indicators

The balance indicators estimated in MS reports were reviewed and evaluated largely using the scoring system devised during SGBRE 09-01 and detailed below. However, for presence or inclusion of recommended indicators, we revised the system.

After first recording which indicators were present in MS reports, we noted that using last year’s system, a MS had scored over 100% despite not having included any biological indicators. Also, we felt that the possibility of scoring in excess of 100% could be a confusing element of the scoring system. Therefore we simplified the approach. If any indicator in a category (Technical, Biological, Economic, Social) was presented, that indicator was awarded one point. The maximum score for completing the minimum recommended indicators is therefore four points. If a MS included extra indicators over and above the minimum recommended of one per category, this was noted in the score table but not awarded a numerical score.

The existing guidelines recommend completing the technical indicator, one biological, one economic and one social indicator. There is a stated preference for the first indicator, with second or third indicators being regarded as less satisfactory but acceptable if data are not available for the preferred indicator. There was debate about the desire to recognise that the indicators are designated as first preference, second preference and in the case of biological, third preference. This designation was created by a previous meeting of SGBRE, endorsed by STECF and adopted by the Commission in the first version of the Guidelines on completing the indicators.

There was strong feeling that those MS that completed the preferred indicators (the first one listed in each category) should receive greater acknowledgement than those that completed less-preferred indicators. However, there were many views within the group as to the best way to achieve this, given that for some MS, data did not exist to allow the completion of the preferred biological indicator. After discussion it was clear that all the members of the group would not reach agreement on a scoring system for completion of indicators, therefore the chair of SGBRE 10-01 chose one of the systems that had been discussed (described above).

We awarded a presence score for the UK, which presented an alternative biological indicator of balance instead of one of the recommended indicators.

Table 4.8 shows scores per MS for presenting the indicators. Detailed scores are shown in subsequent tables for each type of indicator. Detailed evaluation was carried out by experts working in sub-groups of appropriate disciplines.

Member State || TECHNICAL || BIOLOGICAL 1 || BIOLOGICAL 2 || BIOLOGICAL 3 || BIOLOGICAL Alt. || ECONOMIC 1 || ECONOMIC 2 || SOCIAL 1 || SOCIAL 2 || Total Score || No. of Extra indicators || Full marks for min required indicators || % of full marks

Belgium || 1 || 1 || E || || || 1 || || 1 || || 4 || 1 || 4 || 100%

Bulgaria || 1 || || || 1 || || 1 || E || 1 || E || 4 || 2 || 4 || 100%

Cyprus || 1 || || || 1 || || 1 || || || || 3 || || 4 || 75%

Denmark || 1 || || || 1 || || 1 || E || 1 || E || 4 || 2 || 4 || 100%

Estonia || 1 || || || 1 || || || || || || 2 || || 4 || 50%

Finland || || || || || || || || || || 0 || || 4 || 0%

Germany || || || || || || || || || || 0 || || 4 || 0%

Greece || || || || || || || || || || 0 || || 4 || 0%

Ireland || || || || || || || || || || 0 || || 4 || 0%

Italy || 1 || || || 1 || || 1 || E || 1 || E || 4 || 2 || 4 || 100%

Latvia || 1 || 1 || || || || 1 || || 1 || E || 4 || 1 || 4 || 100%

Lithuania || || 1 || || E || || 1 || || 1 || E || 3 || 2 || 4 || 75%

Malta || 1 || 1 || || E || || 1 || || 1 || || 4 || 1 || 4 || 100%

Netherlands || 1 || 1 || || || || 1 || E || 1 || E || 4 || 2 || 4 || 100%

Poland || || || || || || || || || || 0 || || 4 || 0%

Portugal || 1 || || || || || 1 || || || 1 || 3 || || 4 || 75%

Romania || || || || || || || || 1 || E || 1 || 1 || 4 || 25%

Slovenia || 1 || || || || || 1 || E || 1 || E || 3 || 2 || 4 || 75%

Spain || || || || || || || || || || 0 || || 4 || 0%

Sweden || 1 || 1 || || || || 1 || E || || 1 || 4 || 1 || 4 || 100%

UK || || || || || 1 || || || || || 1 || || 4 || 25%

Table 4.8 Scores per Member State for completion of balance indicators. (E = extra)

Overall scores for completing the indicators are as shown in Table 4.8. Eight MS (Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, Italy, Latvia, Malta, Netherlands and Sweden) met or exceeded the minimum requirements for the balance indicators as specified in the guidelines. This is an improvement on the previous year. Some MS did not complete any balance indicators and some MS completed some of the indicators suggested. The Technical indicator and the first Economic indicator were the most commonly completed indicators, each completed by 12 MS. Eleven MS presented at least one Biological Indicator, including United Kingdom which completed an alternative biological indicator.

Table 4.9 shows quality scores for MS for the guideline and alternative indicators. Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Netherland, Slovenia and Sweden all scored highly in terms of the quality of indicators.

Member State || TECHNICAL || BIOLOGICAL 1 || BIOLOGICAL 2 || BIOLOGICAL 3 || BIOLOGICAL Alt. || ECONOMIC 1 || ECONOMIC 2 || SOCIAL 1 || SOCIAL 2 || TOTAL SCORE || Max score for minimum recommended indicators

Belgium || 7 || 6 || 4 || || || 5 || || 6 || || 28 || 32

Bulgaria || 8 || || || 4 || || 8 || 6 || 6 || 6 || 38 || 32

Cyprus || 6 || || || 8 || || 6 || || || || 20 || 32

Denmark || 5 || || || 6 || || 8 || 8 || 8 || 8 || 43 || 32

Estonia || 6 || || || 7 || || || || || || 13 || 32

Finland || || || || || || || || || || 0 || 32

Germany || || || || || || || || || || 0 || 32

Greece || || || || || || || || || || 0 || 32

Ireland || || || || || || || || || || 0 || 32

Italy || 6 || || || 8 || || 8 || 8 || 8 || 7 || 45 || 32

Latvia || 6 || 7 || || || || 8 || || 7 || 7 || 35 || 32

Lithuania || || 6 || || 4 || || 7 || || 8 || 8 || 33 || 32

Malta || 7 || 5 || || 7 || || 8 || || 8 || || 35 || 32

Netherlands || 2 || 5 || || || || 5 || 4 || 6 || 6 || 28 || 32

Poland || || || || || || || || || || 0 || 32

Portugal || 6 || || || || || 7 || || || 5 || 18 || 32

Romania || || || || || || || || || || 0 || 32

Slovenia || 7 || || || || || 6 || 6 || 7 || 5 || 31 || 32

Spain || || || || || || || || || || 0 || 32

Sweden || 7 || 7 || || || || 7 || 7 || || 6 || 34 || 32

UK || || || || || 8 || || || || || 8 || 32

Table 4.9 Summary of quality scores for indicators per Member State

In general, there was some improvement in presenting an overview and comparison between the different indicators (biological, technical, social and economic) that MS have estimated for their own fisheries.

4.4.1. Evaluation of Technical Indicators

Technical Indicator Scoring System

The technical indicators included in MS reports were reviewed and evaluated against four criteria and given scores of 0, 1 or 2 for each of the criteria. Table 4.10 shows how scores were awarded for quality of technical indicators.

Score ||

|| Completeness of indicator

0 || Incomplete i.e. indicator not calculated

1 || Partially complete – included one of days at sea per vessel, GT or KW. Not 2009

2 || Complete or almost complete – as per guidelines. Included two of days at sea per vessel, GT or kW, was for 2009

|| 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 4.10 Scoring system used for technical indicators

Table 4.11 shows the scores awarded to each MS for their application of technical indicators. The technical indicators from each MS are then evaluated individually and a short summary and comment are presented.

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 achieved 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 calculation to give a better assessment.

Country || Completeness || Conclusion || Accuracy || Fleet coverage || Total Score || Max Score

Belgium || 1 || 1 || 2 || 2 || 6 || 8

Bulgaria || 2 || 2 || 2 || 2 || 8 || 8

Cyprus || 2 || 0 || 2 || 2 || 6 || 8

Denmark || 1 || 1 || 1 || 2 || 5 || 8

Estonia || 1 || 2 || 1 || 2 || 6 || 8

Finland || || || || || 0 || 8

Germany || || || || || 0 || 8

Greece || || || || || 0 || 8

Ireland || || || || || 0 || 8

Italy || 1 || 2 || 1 || 2 || 6 || 8

Latvia || 2 || 0 || 2 || 2 || 6 || 8

Lithuania || || || || || 0 || 8

Malta || 1 || 2 || 2 || 2 || 7 || 8

Netherlands || 1 || 0 || 0 || 1 || 2 || 8

Poland || || || || || 0 || 8

Portugal || 1 || 1 || 2 || 2 || 6 || 8

Romania || || || || || 0 || 8

Slovenia || 2 || 1 || 2 || 2 || 7 || 8

Spain || || || || || 0 || 8

Sweden || 1 || 2 || 2 || 2 || 7 || 8

UK || || || || || 0 || 8

Table 4.11 Scores per Member State for quality of technical indicators

Belgium

Belgium’s report provided the Technical Indicator for 2009. The Technical Indicator was calculated accurately and some discussion of the ratio was made. However, the ratio was not related to the balance between fishing capacity and fishing opportunities. 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 most of the fleet was covered. Overall we judged the information provided to be of good quality.

Bulgaria

Bulgaria’s report provided the Technical Indicator for 2009. The Technical indicator was calculated for days at sea per vessel, kW days and GT days. Useful interpretation of the technical indicator was given by using the traffic light system. Overall we judged the information provided to be of good quality.

Cyprus

Cyprus has provided detailed information of the Technical Indicator for 2009. The fleet coverage was good. The technical indicator was calculated accurately for all vessels in Cyprus fleet, but the overall interpretation of the technical indicator was not provided.

Denmark

Denmark’s report provided the Technical Indicator for 2009. The ratio was present, but the calculation was not shown. The indicators were shown for days at sea, but not for kW days or GT days. The indicators were discussed, but the ratio was not applied to discuss the balance between fishing capacity and fishing opportunities. Overall we judged the information provided to be of good quality.

Estonia

Estonia’s report provided the Technical Indicator for 2009. Estonia provided the ratio based on days at sea only and not GT or kW days at sea. However, the underlying information in terms of maximum days at sea was not provided. Technical Indicators were provided on a vessel by vessel basis and good coverage of fleet. There was good overall interpretation of the balance between fishing capacity and fishing opportunities, based on among others the technical indicator. Overall we judged the information provided to be of good quality.

Finland

No Technical Indicator was provided.

Germany

No Technical Indicator was provided.

Greece

No Technical Indicator was provided.

Ireland

No Technical Indicator was provided.

Italy

Italy’s report provided the Technical Indicator for 2008, but not for 2009. The report provided the ratio for days at sea per vessel, kW and GT indicators and the average days at sea, but not the maximum days at sea. The interpretation of the result was clearly presented using the traffic light system and there is a thorough discussion of the overall conclusion.

Latvia

Latvia provided the technical balance indicators for the period 2005-2009. They ratio was provided, based on days at sea, as well as kW days at sea for netters and GT days at sea for trawlers. Latvia provided full fleet coverage, calculating indicators for the three Latvian segments. However, Latvia did not interpret their results in terms of traffic light system or text concluding whether there is balance between fishing capacity and fishing opportunities.

Lithuania

No Technical Indicator was provided.

Malta

Malta’s report provided the Technical Indicator but for 2005-2009. The report provided the days at sea ratio as well as the kW and GT days. Malta did provide indicators for active and passive gears, but not for each fleet segment. The interpretation of the results was clear. Overall we judged the information provided to be of reasonable quality.

The Netherlands

The Netherlands’ report provided the Technical Indicator for 2007-2009. They only provided data for the beam trawlers and not for pelagic freezer trawlers. The ratio for days at sea per vessel was provided for beam trawlers, but not the ratio for kW days or GT days. No supporting information on days at sea per vessel and maximum days at sea per vessel was provided and the result was not interpreted. Overall, we judged the information provided to be of low quality.

Poland

No Technical Indicator was provided.

Portugal

Portugal did provide the technical indicator for 2005-2009. They provided the ratio for days as sea per vessel only, but not for kW or GT days at sea per vessel. Portugal had a high fleet coverage, including the complete mainland fleet. The ratios were discussed, but interpretation related to the balance between fishing capacity and fishing opportunities was missing. Overall we judged the information provided was of good quality.

Romania

No Technical Indicator was provided.

Slovenia

Slovenia’s report provided the technical indicator for 2009. The ratio was given for days at sea per vessel and GT days (for vessels using passive gear) and kW days (for vessels using active gears). The fleet coverage was good. There was some discussion of the ratios, but no interpretation related to the balance between fishing capacity and fishing opportunities. Overall we judged the information provided to be of high quality.

Spain

No Technical Indicator was provided.

Sweden

The Swedish report provided the technical indicator, assumable for 2008 (the assessment year is not stated explicitly), but not for 2009. They provide the ratio based on both days at sea as well as kW days at sea. Both the ratios and underlying days were given in the report. The fleet coverage was high, using the fleet segments of the DCF. Complete interpretation of the indicator was provided in the text. Overall we judged the information provided (for 2008) to be of high quality.

UK

UK provided information on the change in capacity over time, only. However, this is not useful to conclude of the current balance between fishing capacity and fishing opportunities. It is recommended that the guidelines are used for calculation of the technical indicator.

4.4.2. Evaluation of Biological Indicators

The biological indicators included in Member States’ reports were reviewed and evaluated against four criteria and given scores of 0, 1 or 2 for each of the criteria. In general, those indicators presented were of fairly good quality. However, only six MS calculated the preferred biological indicator. SGBRE appreciates the effort of these MS for presenting the more difficult indicator. Some MS gave reasons of incompatibility with non-quota management regimes and some mentioned that the Guidelines were not clearly worded and well explained.

Table 4.12 shows how scores were awarded for quality of biological indicators.

Score ||

|| Completeness of indicator by species

0 || When none of the biological indicators were present/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 species in terms of catch composition

|| Interpretation / useful / conclusion

0 || No interpretation and comments on indicator

1 || Limited comments on meaning of indicator, little interpretation or conclusion

2 || Meaningful and coherent comments on fleet segment, possible draw conclusion

|| Accurate – correct computation

0 || Not present

1 || Partially correct computation 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 4.12 Scoring system used for biological indicators

Table 4.13 shows the scores awarded to each Member States for their application of biological indicators. The biological indicators from each Member States are then evaluated individually and a short summary and comment are presented.

The three biological balance indicators evaluated are:

(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 dimensionless 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.

Some MS presented more than one biological indicator. The DCF requires that all MS should collect catch and effort data and therefore MS could present at least CPUE trends together with one or all biological indicators.

Following Commission Guidelines for biological indicators, it is desirable to have a 5 year time series as it contributes to robust results. But if a MS cannot provide a 5 year time series because they are new members or because there has been no assessment for one stock, they should not be penalised for using shorter time series.

Member State || Indicator || Completeness || Interpretation || Accuracy || Fleet Coverage || Total score || Max Score

Belgium || B1 || 1 || 1 || 2 || 2 || 6 || 8

Belgium || B2 || 1 || 1 || 0 || 2 || 4 || 8

Bulgaria || B2 || 1 || 1 || 0 || 2 || 4 || 8

Cyprus || B3 || 2 || 2 || 2 || 2 || 8 || 8

Denmark || B3 || 2 || 1 || 2 || 1 || 6 || 8

Estonia || B3 || 2 || 2 || 1 || 2 || 7 || 8

Finland || || || || || || 0 || 8

Germany || || || || || || 0 || 8

Greece || || || || || || 0 || 8

Ireland || || || || || || 0 || 8

Italy || B3 || 2 || 2 || 2 || 2 || 8 || 8

Latvia || B1 || 1 || 2 || 2 || 2 || 7 || 8

Lithuania || B1 || 1 || 2 || 1 || 2 || 6 || 8

Lithuania || B3 || 1 || 0 || 1 || 2 || 4 || 8

Malta || B1 || 1 || 1 || 1 || 2 || 5 || 8

Malta || B3 || 2 || 1 || 2 || 2 || 7 || 8

Netherlands || B1 || 1 || 2 || 1 || 1 || 5 || 8

Poland || || || || || || 0 || 8

Portugal || || || || || || 0 || 8

Romania || || || || || || 0 || 8

Slovenia || || || || || || 0 || 8

Spain || || || || || || 0 || 8

Sweden || B1 || 1 || 2 || 2 || 2 || 7 || 8

UK || Balt || 2 || 2 || 2 || 2 || 8 || 8

Table 4.13 Scores per Member State for quality of biological indicators

Belgium

· Biological indicator has to be given for all the time series available and not only for the reference year.

· Second indicator has to be based on the stock biomass and not on the quota

· Limited comments on the interpretation of the indicators, the interpretation has to be developed further.

· MS to clarify which fleet segments do the indicators represent (e.g. beam trawls, demersal trawls, etc).

Bulgaria

· The Bulgarian report presents biological indicator 3 (CPUE) for all main species separately and total for 2008 and 2009, for each fleet segment by vessel size range.

· Changes in CPUE from 2008 to 2009 for each fleet segment are presented using a traffic light system.

· There are no further details about how CPUE was calculated; short time data (two years) series do not permit an assessment of its precision and robustness. Two years data not enough for trend analysis.

Cyprus

· The biological indicators B1 and B2 were not reported, it is considered that they cannot be calculated.

· The Cyprus report presents biological indicator 3 (CPUE) for each main species targeted by the small scale inshore fleet for the period 2000-2008. Cyprus provides the trend of CPUE for the main species targeted by the trawl fishery in territorial waters, as well as for the overall catch of the fishery, for the period 2000-2008.

· The large pelagic species caught by drifting longliners are analysed for the years 2006-2008.

· Data for 2009 was not presented therefore Cyprus might have to consider its data collection timings to allow presentation of data for the reference year.

Germany

· The biological indicators are not reported.

· The MS explains again their disagreement about the usefulness of all three biological indicators.

Denmark

· The biological indicator, catch per unit of effort (CPUE), was calculated for 5 years, which fully complies with the guidelines.

· MS analysed only two species (cod and plaice) for fleet segment with significant catches, by main fishing area.

Estonia

· The biological indicator should be calculated by stock and fleet segment and not for every single vessel.

Greece

· The biological indicators were not reported.

Finland

· The biological indicators were not reported.

Ireland

· The biological indicators were not reported.

Italy

· Due to the lack of stock assessment information for most Mediterranean species, the first two indicators (B1 and B2) were not provided.

· The CPUE indicator was reported for the various fishing systems (bottom trawling, midwater pair trawling, seining, boat dredges, small-scale fisheries and long lines) and also for the most important species from the viewpoint of marketing and biomass.

Lithuania

· Biological indicator has to be given for all the time series available and not only for the reference year.

· MS should specify for each fleet segment which stocks (species) were used to calculate the indicator.

Latvia

· The guidelines for calculation of F/Ftarget biological indicator were followed correctly.

· The first biological indicator was provided for the main stocks and fleet segments.

Malta

· Two indicators (F/Ft and CPUE) were provided. The F/Ft was only used in respect of bluefin tuna while CPUE was used for the most important species and divided by fleet segment.

· Five years detailed time data series were used for CPUE trend evaluations.

The Netherlands

· MS should specify within the fleet segments for which stock (species) the indicator was calculated.

· MS should calculate the indicator for all the fleet segments

Poland

· The biological indicators were not reported.

Portugal

· The biological indicators were not reported.

Romania

· The biological indicators were not reported.

Sweden

· The calculation of the biological indicator is very detailed and comprehensive. MS is not required to give a total value of the biological indicator for each fleet segment as this may be misleading

· Biological indicator has to be given for all the time series available and not only for the reference year.

Slovenia

· Slovenia did not present any biological indicators. In Slovenia only sardine (Sardina pilchardus (Walbaum, 1792)) and anchovy (Engraulis encrasicolus (Linnaeus, 1758)) are part of the national data collection program. The main problem for regular stock assessment of these two small pelagic species in Slovenia is the fact that these are shared stocks between Italy, Croatia and Slovenia. At the moment, only Slovenian data on catches, landings and effort are available. For the above mentioned reasons, Slovenia can not calculate biological indicators.

Spain

· No biological indicators were reported.

United Kingdom

· The UK presented a different indicator than the ones proposed in the guidelines. The indicator presented describes the proportion of total landings from sustainable sources. SGBRE appreciates the new indicator developed by the UK and the group recognises that this is a possible way to describe the balance between the fishing fleet and their resources.

4.4.3. Evaluation of Economic Indicators

The economic indicators included in Member States’ reports were reviewed and evaluated against four criteria and given scores of 0, 1 or 2 for each of the criteria. Of the indicators presented most were of good quality.

Table 4.14 shows how scores were awarded for quality of economic indicators.

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 interpretation of indicator

1 || Limited comments and interpretation of indicator

2 || Useful comments and interpretation of indicator

|| Accurate – correct computation

0 || The indicator is not correctly calculated

1 || There are uncertainty of the 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 4.14 Scoring system used for economic indicators

Table 4.15 shows the scores awarded to each MS for their application of economic indicators. The economic indicators from each MS are then evaluated individually and a short summary and comment are presented.

The two economic balance indicators evaluated are:

(1) Return on Investment (ROI): ROI = (Net profit + Opportunity cost of capital) / Investment. ROI measures investment profitability and can identify under or over capitalisation in the medium to long term.

· The greater the ROI, the more profitable the investment.

· Low or negative ROI may indicate overcapitalisation.

(2) Ratio between current revenue (CR) and break even revenue (BER) where BER= Fixed Costs / (Cash Flow / Revenue). Indicates economic sustainability in the short-run.

· When (CR/BER) < 0, cash flow is negative and fishery unviable in the short-run.

· When (CR/BER) < 1, cash flow does not cover fixed costs, indicating an unviable fishery.

· When (CR/BER) > 1, cash flow is equal to or greater than fixed costs, indicating a viable fishery.

Country || Indicator || Completeness || Interpretation || Accuracy || Fleet coverage || Total score || Max Score

Belgium || E1 || 2 || 0 || 1 || 2 || 5 || 8

Bulgaria || E1 || 2 || 2 || 2 || 2 || 8 || 8

Bulgaria || E2 || 2 || 0 || 2 || 2 || 6 || 8

Cyprus || E1 || 2 || 1 || 2 || 1 || 6 || 8

Denmark || E1 || 2 || 2 || 2 || 2 || 8 || 8

Denmark || E2 || 2 || 2 || 2 || 2 || 8 || 8

Estonia || || || || || || 0 || 8

Finland || || || || || || 0 || 8

Germany || || || || || || 0 || 8

Greece || || || || || || 0 || 8

Ireland || || || || || || 0 || 8

Italy || E1 || 2 || 2 || 2 || 2 || 8 || 8

Italy || E2 || 2 || 2 || 2 || 2 || 8 || 8

Latvia || E2 || 2 || 2 || 2 || 2 || 8 || 8

Lithuania || E1 || 2 || 1 || 2 || 2 || 7 || 8

Malta || E2 || 2 || 2 || 2 || 2 || 8 || 8

Netherlands || E1 || 1 || 1 || 1 || 2 || 5 || 8

Netherlands || E2 || 1 || 0 || 1 || 2 || 4 || 8

Poland || || || || || || 0 || 8

Portugal || E2 || 2 || 2 || 2 || 1 || 7 || 8

Romania || || || || || || 0 || 8

Slovenia || E1 || 1 || 2 || 1 || 2 || 6 || 8

Slovenia || E2 || 1 || 2 || 1 || 2 || 6 || 8

Spain || || || || || || 0 || 8

Sweden || E1 || 1 || 2 || 2 || 2 || 7 || 8

Sweden || E2 || 1 || 2 || 2 || 2 || 7 || 8

UK || || || || || || 0 || 8

Table 4.15 Scores per Member State for quality of economic indicators

Little progress was made in terms of submission of economic indicators in the 2009 reports, with member states which previously did not present economic indicators also not including them in their 2009 reports.

In terms of quality of the economic indicators, overall quality was good and overall better than in 2008. However, for some MS that only presented the economic indicators without detail of the components of the calculation it is difficult to assess the accuracy of the indicator. It would be useful to provide a breakdown of the components of the indicators.

Belgium

· The report shows ROI in a table, but the CR/BER is not calculated. It was not possible to state whether the computation is correct because it was not clear whether the opportunity cost was deducted from profit. The fleet segments in terms of GT would have been useful to determine fleet coverage.

Bulgaria

· The report presents ROI and CR/BER in a table.

· ROI - The interpretation for the ROI indicator was reported and the calculation was correct.

· CR/BER – No interpretation has been provided for this indicator. The computation for this indicator is considered to be accurate.

Cyprus

· The report presents ROI indicator. The report could usefully include more comments and interpretation.

Denmark

· The report presents ROI and CR/BR. It has scored maximum points in all aspects. In fact this report (economic indicators) is a good example to all other Member States to follow.

Estonia

· No economic indicators reported.

Finland

· No economic indicators reported.

Germany

· No economic indicators reported.

Greece

· No economic indicators reported.

Ireland

· No economic indicators reported.

Italy

· The report presents ROI and CR/BER calculated in a correct way. Good comments and interpretation are provided.

Lithuania

· The report presents ROI and CR/BER. The indicator is correctly calculated however better explanation/comments would have been appreciated.

· The table for CR/BER is missing and therefore the working group could not assess accuracy, interpretation and fleet coverage.

Latvia

· The report includes a correctly estimated indicator that is the CR/BER.

· The ROI indicator is not provided.

· A good interpretation is provided.

Malta

· The report calculates CR/BER, but not ROI. The calculations are considered to be correct.

· The report makes good comments and interpretation of the figures for CR/BER.

The Netherlands

· The report calculates CR/BER for 2 years (2007 and 2008) and ROI for one year (2008).

· The interpretation for ROI was only provided for one segment namely the beam trawl segment.

· Member State is invited to provide interpretation for all segments. No interpretation was provided for the CR/BER segment.

Poland

· No economic indicators reported.

Portugal

· The report presents CR/BER, but not ROI.

· Interpretation and calculation are considered to be good.

Romania

· No economic indicators reported despite the fact that the data is available and reported.

Slovenia

· Slovenia has calculated both ROI and CR/BER only for one year.

· The interpretation was considered to be useful.

· It is uncertain whether the computation for both the indicators is correct as the calculations were not provided.

Spain

· No economic indicators reported.

Sweden

· The report presents both CR/BER and ROI but only for one year (2008). Interpretations of the indicators are satisfactory and the calculations are accurate.

UK

· No economic indicators reported.

4.4.4. Evaluation of Social Indicators

Social indicator scoring system

The social indicators included in Member States’ reports were reviewed and evaluated against four criteria and given scores of 0, 1 or 2 for each of the criteria. Table 4.16 shows how scores were awarded for quality of social indicators.

Score ||

|| Completeness of indicator

0 || Incomplete – year of indicator not referenced or incorrect year reported

1 || At least one year (either 2006, 2007, 2008 or 2009)

2 || Required time series of three years (2006-2008 or 2009 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 interpretation / conclusions drawn

|| Accurate – correct computation

0 || Complete inaccurate computation of indicators

1 || Partially correct computation 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 4.16 Scoring system used for social indicators

Table 4.17 shows the scores awarded to each Member State for their application of social indicators. The social indicators for each Member State are then evaluated individually and a short summary and comment are presented.

The two social balance indicators evaluated are:

(1) Gross Value Added (GVA): Where GVA = Depreciation costs + Interest + Crew share + Net profit. This indicator measures the sum of contributions from the factors of production and indicates if rents are extracted from the resource.

(2) Crew wages per Full Time Equivalent (FTE): Supplements GVA to facilitate an assessment of the remuneration of labour and can be compared with average and minimum wage rates in Member States.

Country || Indicator || Completeness || Conclusion || Accuracy || Fleet coverage || Total score || Max Score

Belgium || S1 || 2 || 0 || 2 || 2 || 6 || 8

Bulgaria || S1 || 2 || 1 || 1 || 2 || 6 || 8

Bulgaria || S2 || 2 || 1 || 1 || 2 || 6 || 8

Cyprus || || || || || || 0 || 8

Denmark || S1 || 2 || 2 || 2 || 2 || 8 || 8

Denmark || S2 || 2 || 2 || 2 || 2 || 8 || 8

Estonia || || || || || || 0 || 8

Finland || || || || || || 0 || 8

Germany || || || || || || 0 || 8

Greece || || || || || || 0 || 8

Ireland || || || || || || 0 || 8

Italy || S1 || 2 || 2 || 2 || 2 || 8 || 8

Italy || S2 || 2 || 1 || 2 || 2 || 7 || 8

Latvia || S1 || 2 || 2 || 1 || 2 || 7 || 9

Latvia || S2 || 2 || 2 || 1 || 2 || 7 || 8

Lithuania || S1 || 2 || 2 || 2 || 2 || 8 || 8

Lithuania || S2 || 2 || 2 || 2 || 2 || 8 || 8

Malta || S1 || 2 || 2 || 2 || 2 || 8 || 8

Netherlands || S1 || 1 || 2 || 2 || 1 || 6 || 8

Netherlands || S2 || 1 || 2 || 2 || 1 || 6 || 8

Poland || || || || || || 0 || 8

Portugal || S2 || 2 || 1 || 2 || 0 || 5 || 8

Romania || || || || || || 0 || 8

Slovenia || S1 || 1 || 2 || 2 || 2 || 7 || 8

Slovenia || S2 || 1 || 0 || 2 || 2 || 5 || 8

Spain || || || || || || 0 || 8

Sweden || S2 || 2 || 2 || 2 || 0 || 6 || 8

UK || || || || || || 0 || 8

Table 4.17 Scores per Member State for quality of social indicators

The use of GT as a measure of fleet coverage might be misleading in the case of social indicators, because GT gives more importance to vessels with higher GT while, in general, vessels that have a lower GT are more important in terms of FTE jobs. It might be more useful to use proportion of FTE jobs covered by the parts of the fleet included in the social indicators presented.” For the same reason, the inclusion of the number of GTs of the inactive vessels in the total number of GTs of the national fleet would reduce the level of fleet coverage incorrectly.

Social indicators

Belgium

· Belgium calculated the average share per full-time equivalent for 2003-2008 for two fleet segments (12-24m and 24-40m). Belgium had a good time series for the S1 social indicator and it was estimated accurately for a very large proportion of the fleet. Limited conclusions were drawn from the social indicator.

· No explanations were provided by the Member State as to how they calculated the wage cost.

Bulgaria

· Following the criterion for the biological indicators (“if a Member State cannot 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 shorter time series of biological indicators” SGBRE

· 0901 report) we award full marks to Bulgaria because it was not able to include data for more than two years back as it started collecting data in 2008 (accession year was 2007).

Cyprus

· Cyprus did not report any social indicators

Denmark

· For this report Denmark was able to calculate both crew cost per FTE and GVA, as opposed to the uncertainty and lack of information from the previous year.

· Denmark gave a complete time series for both indicators and includes a reference wage from the industry.

Estonia

· Estonia did not report any social indicators

Finland

· Finland did not report any social indicators

Greece

· Greece did not report any social indicators

Germany

· Germany did not report any social indicators. As in the previous year’s report Germany explained that they were not able to report any social indicators because the data was unavailable until 12-15 months after the reporting period. However, Germany could have reported social indicators for the previous years for which data would be available (2008).

Ireland

· Ireland did not report any social indicators

Italy

· Italy did not calculate the GVA indicator for the >40m fleet segments, which consist of more than 40 vessels. However, the Member State still received the highest score for fleet coverage because of the high total of GT of the rest of the fleet (the segments operating in the Mediterranean) for which social indicators have been calculated. Furthermore, larger vessels tend to have lower employment in proportion to GT than small scale fisheries, and are therefore less relevant for social indicators based on wages.

· Italy commented that their fleets are too heterogeneous to compare among each other and to find a reference level.

Latvia

· This year Latvia calculated an additional social indicator.

· The S1 indicator (crew cost per FTE) is said to be inaccurate, but no further explanation is given nor a way to improve it.

Lithuania

· Social indicators were presented both as total and by fleets, including values of variables needed for the calculations

· The interpretation of costs per FTE was set in the context of the social and economic situation of Lithuania.

Malta

· The indicators cover most fleet segments, but they do not follow the DCF segmentation (they use gear classes but do not give the corresponding length classes).

Netherlands

· The presentation of the indicators in a separate section for each fleet makes reading and comparison more difficult. However, abundant comments are given at the different sections.

· The fleet segments are not described using the DCF categories (length classes) and terminology.

· A total figure for the capacity of the national fleet in GT is not given, making the evaluation of the fleet coverage difficult. The total GT of the fleet segments chosen for each section on fleet segment description do not add up to 50% of the national fleet.

Portugal

· The presence of Portuguese language in table headings caused some confusion.

Romania

· Romania did not report any social indicators.

Slovenia

· GVA was calculated but it was presented on the economic indicator section.

· In general, there was less information than in the previous year and the comments were poorer. SGBRE encourages the MS to follow the path of the previous report which was of a very good standard in social indicators.

Spain

· Spain did not report any social indicators.

Sweden

· The report used different fleet disaggregation from the DCF.

· Two additional indicators called value added per FTE and vessel were calculated for each of the considered fleet segments.

United Kingdom

· The UK did not report any social indicators.

4.4.5. Evaluation of Commission summary of Member States annual reports

The Commission summaries of Member States’ reports once again vary in quality, accuracy and relevance. In particular, the Commission stated that the guidelines were not applied in the Portuguese report when in fact we found that the Portuguese report did include calculations of balance indicators.

In general, many of the Commission summaries make a prominent statement about whether the guidelines were applied. The guidelines are described in an introductory paragraph. However, it is not a legal requirement to follow these guidelines and we feel that undue prominence is given to inclusion in the MS reports of an element that is not legally required. Also, in some cases MS had calculated alternative indicators to those recommended. Since the indicators in the guidelines are only recommended and not required, we feel that it would be preferable if the Commission summaries stated whether balance indicators were calculated rather than stating whether the guidelines were applied.

The Commission summaries vary in length, order of information and detail included. For instance, as we noted last year, in many cases the first sentence of the summary states whether or not the guidelines were followed in the MS report, but this is not true of all summaries. Some summaries begin with a description of the fleet.

The working group understands that the Commission summaries of MS reports must be very short as there is a restriction in length imposed by the Commission’s translation service. We understand that the summary template provided last year in the report of SGBRE 09-01 would mean that the summaries would exceed the limit placed by the translation service.

Nevertheless, it would still be useful if all Commission summaries 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. Standardised summaries would make it easier for Council members to compare Member States.

A suggested summary template is given below. Where the information is not contained in the MS reports, the Commission summary could note the absence.

Suggested template for summaries of Member States’ annual reports:

(1) Note MS conclusions about whether the fleet is in balance with the opportunity. Note whether the balance is improving, staying the same or getting worse. State if MS fails to state a clear conclusion on balance. If MS makes no conclusion, the Commission could state its own opinion.

(2) Say whether, and to what extent, the balance indicators (technical, biological, economic, social) were calculated. If space allows, mention key indicators.

(3) Describe size of the fleet (main segments, no. of vessels, total GT, total kW).

(4) Highlight key points of additions to and removals from the fleet during the year, expressed in number of vessels, giving fleet segment or some indication of vessel capacity.

(5) Mention major 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) Mention statement of compliance with entry / exit scheme during the year.

(8) Mention plans for improvements in fleet management system.

We believe that the summaries could be drafted carefully to include only the above information with little use of extraneous words, such that the overall summary of MS reports could fit within the 25,000 character limit imposed by the Commission’s translation service. An example is provided below:

Example summary of Belgium’s report following the proposed template:

The report did not reach a conclusion on balance. The Commission judges that fleet capacity is somewhat in excess of the fishing opportunity. The balance indicators are estimated. The technical indicator suggests larger vessels are fully utilised but smaller vessels are c.60% utilised. There were 89 vessels and totals of 16,048 GT and 52,590kW in the fleet register on 31/12/09. Most activity and landings were by beam trawlers. There was a net reduction of 11 vessels during the year. Effort reduction was achieved by vessel removal. Fleet GT and kW were below reference levels. No improvements in the fleet management system are planned.

This example summary is 651 characters (including spaces). If all MS summaries were of this or similar length, the Commission report could fit within the limit of 25,000 characters.

In the final paragraph of section 2 of the summary document, once again the Commission mentions that of the 12 Member State reports which included the balance indicators, “a number” of them indicated “a considerable degree of overcapacity”. This comment is not helpful because it does not say how many of the 12 MS did this, but seems to suggest that it is a substantial proportion of the 12 MS. We made this same comment in last year’s SGBRE 09-01 report. We would again encourage the Commission actually to specify the number, or at least the proportion, of MS whose reports suggested fleet over capacity.

Comments on summary of Belgium’s report

· The summary correctly states that the guidelines were applied only to the beam trawler segment and that during 2009 Belgium had a fleet adaptation scheme for the large fleet segment (above 221 kW).

· The summary is correct in stating that according to the Belgian report for the 24-40m beam trawl fleet segment the low utilisation of quotas for sole and plaice in area VIIa was mainly caused by the increasing exchange of quotas.

Comments on summary of Bulgaria’s report

· The summary is relevant but it is concentrated on fleet description.

· The summary omits that the Bulgarian report does evaluate the current status of balance between capacity and fishing opportunities.

· The summary is correct in stating that the guidelines were applied to the main Bulgarian fleet.

Comments on summary of Cyprus’s report

· There was no summary of the report from Cyprus because it had not been submitted in time.

Comments on summary of Germany’s report

· The Commission’s summary gives a good summary but omits some deficiencies in the Member State report.

· The summary states that the German report includes an evaluation of the current status regarding the balance between capacity and fishing opportunities by segment.

· The summary is correct in stating that the guidelines on balance indicators were not applied. The summary mentions that a qualitative version of the biological approach examined the balance between fishing capacity and fishing opportunities by fleet segment.

· Additional information on the link of vessels with fisheries is now included by the Member States report but is absent from 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 Denmark’s report

· The Commission’s summary mentions the description of the fleet but omits some important detail.

· The summary correctly states that the Danish report includes an assessment of the current status of balance between capacity and fishing opportunities.

· The summary correctly states that the guidelines were applied in the Danish report.

Comments on summary of Estonia’s report

· The Commission’s summary report accurately reflects the key details contained in the Member State report but omits some deficiencies in the reporting on the management system and compliance.

· The summary omits that the Estonian report does include an evaluation of balance between capacity and fishing opportunities.

· The summary is correct in stating that the guidelines were only partly applied in the Estonian report.

· The summary notes that there appears to be distinct over capacity in one segment.

Comments on summary of Finland’s report

· The summary is quite complete and accurate.

· The summary correctly states that the guidelines were not applied completely in the Finnish report.

· The summary omits that the Finish report does not include an analysis of the fleet management system and strengths and weaknesses of the management system.

Comments on summary of France’s report

· There was no Commission summary of the French report because it had not been submitted in time.

Comments on summary of Greece’s report

· The summary accurately reflects the Greek report.

· The summary correctly states that the Greek report includes evaluation of the current status as regards the likely balance between capacity and fishing opportunities.

· The summary correctly stated that the Greek report did not apply the guidelines.

Comments on summary of Ireland’s report

· The summary reflects what is written in the Irish report and the comments are relevant.

· The summary correctly reflects that there are difficulties in assessing the redu