REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL

on Member States' efforts during 2012 to achieve a sustainable balance between fishing capacity and fishing opportunities

1. Introduction

Member States are responsible for achieving a stable and enduring balance between the fishing capacity of their fleet and their fishing opportunities, and to take appropriate measures to ensure this balance. This has been a requirement under the Common Fisheries Policy[1] since 2002 and is continued in the new CFP[2] as adopted in December 2013. Such balance contributes to the objectives of the CFP, in particular to achieve MSY in order to ensure that fishing activities are environmentally sustainable in the long term and consistent with achieving economic, social and employment benefits.

This report is based on Member States’ reports on their efforts to achieve a sustainable balance between fishing capacity and fishing opportunities. Member States are expected to apply the Commission guidelines[3] when preparing their reports. Data collected under the Data Collection Framework[4] (DCF) are also used (Annex I). The Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) has assessed the Member States' reports[5].

The analysis of Member States’ fleet capacity shows some progress towards achieving a balance with the available fishing opportunities, although more remains to be done to ensure that stocks are managed in accordance with the objective of MSY.

In its report on the Member States' effort during 2011 on achieving the balance, the Commission introduced a set of elements to improve the analysis of the balance. In that report a series of indicators were listed concerning the sustainable and viable operation of fishing fleets[6], such as whether fleets:

- rely on stocks fished above MSY levels

- are breaking even

- are economically sustainable

- are underutilised

- are inactive

These indicators are again used for this report. In addition, an indicator of stocks at high biological risk that are affected by a fleet segment has been added due to concerns that this aspect had been neglected.

Capacity ceilings

Each Member State must ensure that its fishing capacity in tonnage (GT) and power (KW) is always equal to or less than the capacity and power ceilings fixed in Regulation No 1380/2013[7]. Current entries in the EU Fleet Register indicate that all Member States complied with these levels. Overall the fishing capacity of the EU fleet was 16.4% below the capacity ceilings for tonnage and 10.4 % below the power ceilings (Annex 2).

According to the EU fishing fleet register, on 31 December 2012 the fleet consisted of 76 023 vessels with a total fishing capacity of 1 578 015 GT and 5 807 827 KW. Fleets reduced by 1.6 % in number of vessels while the tonnage and engine power decreased by 2% and 1% respectively (including vessels registered in the outermost regions (Annex 3)).

In 2012 decommissioning with public aid was the most used management tool to reduce fishing capacity (Annex 4). From 1st January 2007 until 31 of July of 2012, 464M€ of EFF payments were allocated corresponding to ~3700 vessels ceasing fishing (Annex 5).

Completeness and quality of Member States' reports and capacity indicators

All 22 Member States' reports were received by the Commission. Overall, STECF observed that there is continued further improvement in consistency, completeness and quality of reports compared to those of previous years (Annexes 1A and 1B). More Member States are using the Commission's Guidelines for the analysis, although there are still some who do not yet use these Guidelines.

The Joint Research Centre (JRC) has, under STECF instructions, calculated technical, economic and biological indicators relevant to the balance between fleet capacity and fishing opportunities based on data submitted by Member States under the DCF (Annex 6). The analysis includes 434 fleet segments where data for at least one indicator are available. These cover 97% of the reported value of landings made in 2011. STECF has provided guidance as to the interpretation of these DCF-based indicator values, which has been followed by the Commission in this report.

Fleet capacity situation by Member State

This section presents an overview of fleet situation by Member State, based on the Member States' report and STECF findings based on DCF data.

Belgium reported that the capacity of its fleet has shrunk since 2003 by 30% in KW and 38% in GT. The fleet capacity appears to be evenly balanced with fishing opportunities. There is little unused capacity and there are few unused fishing opportunities.

The STECF review indicates that the 18-40 m, beam trawlers, demersal trawlers and seiners relied on stocks fished above MSY levels. The 24-40 m beam trawlers impacted two stocks at biological risk. The 18-24m demersal trawlers, and demersal seiners and 12-18 m beam trawlers were not economically sustainable in 2011.

Bulgaria reported that since accession the fishing fleet reduced in number (-7%), in tonnage (-14%) and in power (-6%). Capacity utilisation, which is markedly low for vessels under 12 m, has improved in 2012 in all segments. Individual vessel activity increased by 220% overall.

The national authority has already taken measures to reduce the number of inactive vessels and is in process of withdrawing them from the national register.

Smaller vessels (under 12m) have been economically unprofitable; it is intended to continue withdrawing such vessels and to replace them with larger vessels targeting pelagic fish.

Bulgaria concludes that its fleet capacity is somewhat in excess of the balance with fishing opportunities.

The STECF review indicates that the 12-18m drift and fixed netters and vessel using active and passive gears are not economically sustainable; there is still a very large inactive fleet (almost 1200 vessels) and activity levels are very low for the active and passive gear fleet. ROFTA values for 2011 appear anomalously low. Biological indicators are not available.

Cyprus has since 2004 reduced the capacity of its fleet (-65% in GT and -20% in KW). Vessel utilisation was low (under 53%) for all fleets except for demersal trawlers in international waters. Analysis of economic data for 2011 was not completed but 2010 data showed overcapitalisation.

The "demersal trawlers in territorial waters" fleet has reduced recently and Cyprus could not carry out a full assessment but concluded that the small scale inshore fishery appears to be in imbalance and the 12-24 m polyvalent passive gear fleet may be approximately in balance.

Cyprus did not provide any DCF-based data, so no STECF review is available.

Germany reported a clear downward trend in the number of vessels, from 2315 vessels in 2000 to 1549 in 2012. The rate of decline is slowing down. In comparison with the previous year, the German fishing fleet has decreased in four segments. The fleet was reduced by 31 vessels in 2012 - a drop in capacity of 598 GT (-0.93 %) and 2.242 KW (-1.51%). The departure of 16 gillnet fishing vessels ˂ 12 m represented the biggest reduction in absolute terms. The beam trawl and trawl fleets (<=40 m) were decreasing by more than 4% each.

Germany concludes that there is a balance between its capacity and its fishing opportunities, even though due to part-time fishing some activity indicators are low. Economic indicators are negative, but Germany considers that actual costs of depreciation are lower than the official depreciation costs and that therefore the calculation that the fleet is in long-term economic imbalance is not justified.

The STECF review indicates that most fleet segments rely on overfished stocks, but biological indicators only show an impact on a stock at risk for the 24-40m demersal trawlers and seiners. The 10-12m passive gear, 12-18m demersal trawl and seine and 24-40m fixed net and >40m trawl and seine nets do not seem to be economically sustainable. There seems to be underutilisation of vessels under 12 m using passive gear and of the 18-24 m beam trawl fleet, which cannot be explained by the seasonality of the fisheries concerned. For 2011 the corresponding figure is 65%.

Denmark manages fishing opportunities by individual transferable quotas (ITQ) and vessel quota shares (VQS), which has resulted in a drop in the number of vessels, in tonnage and in power. Vessel underutilisation appears to be present in most fleet segments in 2011, except in 12-24m beam trawlers, and in demersal trawl and seine vessels >40 m.

Most vessels <12m were consistently in an economic overcapitalisation situation. Most other vessels were approximately in a situation of economic balance. From 2005 to 2011 many fleets showed current revenue persistently lower than break-even revenue, and it is unclear how these vessels continued to operate.

Economic and vessel utilisation indicators would suggest an imbalance, in particular for vessels <12 m in the North Sea.

Vessels <10m using demersal trawls and seines, vessels 10-12m using polyvalent passive gear and 12-18m beam trawlers were not economically sustainable and were relying on overfished stocks.

Despite considerable removal of capacity in previous years Estonia reported imbalance, mainly in trawlers with an overall length >12 m. During 2012, the fleet was reduced by 4 vessels. The segment's power and gross tonnage both decreased by 6%. There are many (~1300) small vessels fishing inshore for herring, perch and flounder but the balance situation of these vessels is unclear.

Estonia did not use fleet register segmentation in its reporting. Estonia has introduced an ITQ system which is expected to lead to an improvement in the balance. Estonian economic analysis shows that all length classes have been fishing with economic sustainability since 2010.

The STECF review indicates that the 10-12m fleet using polyvalent passive gears relied on stocks fished above MSY levels.

Greece did not present an assessment of the balance, nor has it assessed its fleet policy or provided data under the DCF. Greece reported that fishing activities and the situation of fishable biological stocks were unchanged from the previous year. Comparing the data included in the 2011 and 2012 reports show a reduction of 632 vessels. Between 1 January 2003 and 31 December 2012 the fleet was reduced by 3019 vessels (15.84%) and capacity decreased by 21.57 % and 21.71 % respectively as regards gross tonnage (GT) and engine power (KW).

Greece did not submit DCF data and hence the corresponding indicators could not be calculated and assessed by STECF and JRC.

Spain has continued to reduce fishing capacity in 2012. There have been 429 permanent removals from the register in 2012, of which 147 received state aid. In 2012 some 85 % of the fleet has been active. Spain considers that some imbalance exists in the small-scale fleets fishing in national coastal waters (1280 inactive vessels), but the fleet fishing in international waters (32 inactive vessels) is in balance or has lower capacity than needed for the available fishing opportunities.

The STECF review indicates that the only DCF data available from Spain was economic data for 2011. This showed a diverse situation with many fleets in a negative economic situation, some in a positive situation, and some fleets in an intermediate condition.

Finland's fleet has decrease steadily between 1995 and 2012. In 2012 there was an increase in tonnage (mainly the offshore fisheries segment), but a decrease in engine power. Finland considers its fleet to be in an acceptable balance with its fishing opportunities. Finland did not apply the STECF guidelines in its report, nor were any other indicators included to assess capacity in relation to fishing opportunities.

STECF did not find clear trends in economic indicators. The technical indicator shows low or very low average vessel utilisation. Biological indicators were not available.

France considers that, for most of its fisheries, the fleets are stable and in balance with fishing opportunities. This has been achieved after several successive years of adaptation of the fleets. Many vessels target non-quota species for which no biological assessments are available, and neither the biological indicators nor the technical indicator could be calculated. France decommissioned 192 vessels in 2012, of which 74 were in overseas territories. Of the 192 vessels, 46 were decommissioned with public funds (6 of these in Guyana).

No biological indicators were available for most fleets in the Mediterranean. In the Atlantic, most fleets showed a reliance on overfished stocks, with the exception of pelagic trawlers >40m. Economic data were largely not available or inconclusive.

Ireland reported that in comparison with the previous year fishing capacity has increased 1.29 % in GT and 2.25 % in KW but the fleet has remained within its reference level. Economic indicators suggest the fleets have improving economic performance in the last years, are now profitable in both the short and the long term, and are not overcapitalised.

STECF review indicates that the longline (10-18m) fleet, the >18m demersal trawlers and seiners and the >24m pelagic trawlers relied on overfished stocks and impacted up to 6 stocks at biological risk. The technical indicator suggests low vessel utilisation. There are many inactive vessels (13% to 40%).

Italy reported that during the year 2012 its fleet decreased by 2.23% in number and its capacity decreased by 5.8% in GT and 3.5 in KW. Italy did not apply the guidelines in its report nor were any other indicators included to assess capacity in relation to fishing opportunities. Due to lack of data, Italy could not assess the balance of its fleets.

The STECF review indicates that 12-24m beam trawlers, 24-40 m demersal trawlers and seiners and >40m purse seiners were not economically sustainable, but many other fleets showed good profitability. Vessel utilisation indicators point at situations of imbalance. Biological indicators were not available in many cases. Where available, they showed overfishing.

Lithuania's fleet was reduced by 3 vessels in 2012. Capacity went down by 18025 GT (55%) and 19982 KW (53,9) %. The fleets exploit mostly stocks that are not overfished and are in balance with the stocks of eastern Baltic cod, herring and sprat. In 2011 fleets were generally profitable.

The STECF review indicates a low utilisation for all fleets apart from the 24-40m pelagic trawlers. The >40m pelagic trawlers impacted one stock at biological risk.

Latvia has reduced its capacity by 20% in number, 24% in GT and 31% in KW since 2004. Latvia considers that the capacity utilisation indicators for all fleet segments show no significant imbalance and that the fisheries are profitable.

The STECF review indicates reliance on overfished stocks by the <10m polyvalent passive gear fleet and the 12-18m pelagic trawlers. These fleets also have low utilisation.

Malta reported unsatisfactory results for its fleet in 2011. For 2012 no conclusive result was obtained in the absence of economic and social data. Maltese authorities are currently verifying the accuracy of fleet register information.

The STECF review indicates that most fleets where data were available were economically unsustainable, with the exception of 12-18m purse seiners and the 18-24m "other active gears" fleet. Vessel utilisation was low in all fleets. Biological indicators were generally not available.

The Netherlands reported that its fleet capacity is approximately in balance with its fishing opportunities and that biological indicators suggest its fisheries exploit stocks that are not overfished. Economic indicators suggest that the Dutch pelagic fleet is unprofitable. The demersal fleet over 24m has been profitable and its profitability has improved.

The STECF review shows that for all fleets where biological indicators were available, the fleets relied on average on overfished stocks. Pelagic trawlers over 40m and beam trawlers 18-24m appeared not to be economically sustainable, yet other fleets showed good results.

Poland reported that 8 vessels (250GT and 980KW) left the fleet in 2012. Poland could not determine whether a balance has been achieved. Poland considers that all of its fleets were economically sustainable except for the 12-18m longline fleet.

The STECF review indicates that the 12-18 m vessels using hooks are economically unprofitable. All fleets had low levels of utilisation except for the >40m demersal trawl and seine and >40m pelagic trawler segments. Biological indicators were not available.

Portugal concluded that the capacity of its fleet is in balance with its fishing opportunities. However, the technical indicators for the purse-seine fleets showed relatively low vessel utilisation.

Biological indicators were not available in most cases. The STECF review indicates that under-12m longline, <12 m dredgers and 10-12 m vessels using active and passive gears are economically unprofitable. Many fleets had low utilisation rates.

Romania reported very low vessel utilisation and dependence on overfished stocks.

Only limited biological and economic data are available. STECF concluded that there are low vessel utilisation rates.

Sweden reported a 12% fall in vessel numbers from 2008 to 2012. The fleets depend on stocks that are harvested sustainably, and appear economically sustainable. Some imbalance can still be noted in some segments.

STECF assessed that under-18m fixed-net vessels were economically unsustainable. Nine fleets relied on overfished stocks but the stocks-at-risk indicator was not available. Data availability was insufficient for many fleets.

Slovenia reported low vessel utilisation in many segments, ascribing these to dependence on migratory stocks and part-time working rather than to imbalance. In 2012 the Slovenian fleet decreased by 35% in GT and 16,83 % in KW. Total landings decreased by 54% from 2011 to 2012. Drift- and fixed- net vessels <6m were economically unsustainable, but other segments appeared to be sustainable.

STECF assessed that <12m demersal fixed net and 24-40m pelagic trawl fleets were economically unprofitable, but the purse seine 12-18m fleet was profitable and sustainable. Vessel utilisation rates were low. Biological indicators were not available.

UK reported an increase in capacity for vessels targeting shellfish (especially scallops), while there was generally a decrease in fleet capacity in demersal trawl fleets. UK did not calculate indicators nor draw conclusions about the balance between the fleet and its fishing opportunities.

The STECF review indicates that most fleets were economically sustainable, with the exception of the <10m and 12-18m beam trawlers and <10m longline fleets. Biological indicators were not available in most cases, but the 18-40m demersal trawl and seine vessels impacted five stocks at high biological risk. Many of the smaller vessels (under 18m) showed a low vessel utilisation rate.

The 40m purse seine fleet relied on stocks fished above MSY levels.

Conclusions

Although more needs to be done, some progress was made since 2002 in closing the gap between fleet capacity and fishing opportunities. The mix of different trends among fleets segments does not make it possible to make generalised comments about the trends in balance between capacity and opportunity for the whole of the EU.

A number of stocks are fished above levels corresponding to MSY, and a number of fleets segments are economically dependent on these stocks. Many Member States have low vessel utilisation. The Commission, after considering the results of the STECF analysis, consider that there is still a need for active fleet capacity adjustment measures by Member States to facilitate attaining the MSY objective fixed under the new Common Fisheries Policy.

The obligation for Member States to adjust the fishing capacity of their fleets to their fishing opportunities over time is maintained, and is reinforced under the new CFP. In addition to existing obligations, Member States will have to include in their reports an action plan for the fleet segments with identified structural imbalance. In the action plan, Member States have to set out the adjustment targets and tools to achieve the balance. It has to include a clear time frame for the implementation of the action plan as well.

This additional obligation can contribute further (and more rapidly) to the achievement of the balance. The action plans will result in more transparency on the Member States' targets and actions to remedy imbalance, and the time frame for achieving the balance allows for close monitoring of Member States' progress in implementing the plan.

Under the new CFP a proven lack of commitment of Member States to bring about the balance between fleet capacity and the fishing opportunities may lead to suspension or interruption of relevant Union financial assistance to a Member State for certain expenditures under the new European Maritime and Fisheries Fund. Future Member States reports and action plans will be instrumental in monitoring the situation in this context.

The combination of strengthened obligations for the Member States and the related financial conditionality should ensure a progressive adaptation of the fleet capacity to the fishing opportunities over time. The Commission will continue to closely monitor this progress in light of the objectives of the CFP in general and of the management of fishing capacity in particular.

Annex 1 A: Quality of information

1 Qualitative and Descriptive Information

The table below shows the sections of the reports of those Member States that have sent limited information. The relevant sections are marked with an (X).

|| Link-ages between fleets and fisheries || Fleet development || Description of effort reduction schemes || Impact of effort reduction schemes || Assessment of fleet management system || Plans to improve fleet management system || Statement of Compliance Entry/Exit scheme || Changes to admin. procedures || Assessment of balance

DE || || || || || || || || || X

FI || || || || || || X || || || X

IE || || || || || || X || || ||

IT || X || X || X || X || || X || || X || X

LT || || || || X || || X || || ||

PO || || || || || X || || || ||

SE || || || || || || X || || ||

UK || || || || || || || || || X

Source: Table 3.2 of report STECF-13-11 Review of national reports on Member States efforts to achieve balance between fleet capacity and fishing opportunities.

2. Quantitative Information

Evaluating the dependence of a fleet on stocks fished above MSY levels depends on the availability of quantitative fish stock assessments. In the Mediterranean Sea and the Black Sea, the coverage of biological assessments is not yet sufficient in most cases for a fleet-based analysis of biological sustainability. This is also the case for many fleets exploiting stocks in ICES areas VI, VII, VIII and IX.

Information on return on fixed tangible assets (ROFTA), and on the ratio between current revenue and break even revenue (CR/BER)([8]) was missing or incomplete for some Member States. Information on the numbers of inactive vessels was provided by most Member States, but this information was not complete.

Values of the technical indicator (the average vessel days-at-sea divided by the maximum for the fleet) were provided by most Member States but this information was not complete. Seven Member States did not provide technical indicator values in their national reports.

Annex 1 B: Quality of information ([9])

Annual development in MS sum of score as percentage of maximum scores.

Source: Figure 3.1 of report STECF-13-11 Review of national reports on Member States efforts to achieve balance between fleet capacity and fishing opportunities.

The table above shows that since 2008 the annual fleet report of Member State have improved both in terms of completeness and data quality.

Annex 2:

Table 2.1: Compliance with the entry-exit ceiling at 31.12. 2012 (Except outermost regions)

|| GT || KW

GT || MAX GT || A/B || KW || MAX KW || C/D

A || B || C || D

at 31/12/2012 || at 31/12/2012

BEL BGR CYP DEU DNK ESP EST FIN FRA GRC IRL ITA LTU LVA MLT NLD POL PRT ROM SVN SWE UK || 15 053 7 071 4 248 63 618 64 348 364 354 15 149 16 146 152 452 80 693 60 141 165 370 27 186 33 797 7 998 128 886 25 573 86 840 628 653 30 652 201 092 || 18 962 7 517 11 021 71 117 88 762 391 602 21 713 18 290 178 261 85 688 77 568 173 717 73 529 46 627 14 965 166 859 39 139 95 077 1913 728 43 386 231 106 || 79.39% 94.07% 38.54% 89.46% 72.49% 93.04% 69.77% 88.28% 85.52% 94.17% 77.53% 95.20% 36.97% 72.48% 53.44% 77.24% 65.34% 91,34% 32.83% 89.70% 70.65% 87.01% || 47 794 60 950 45 782 146 086 228 563 822 115 46 325 169 972 695 496 468 894 183 820 1 020 785 34 389 51 231 76 660 276 357 75 865 297 913 6 185 9 188 173 440 805 930 || 51 586 60 654 47 803 167 078 313 333 886 578 52 641 182 334 769 739 478 398 210 083 1 071 389 73 484 58 759 95 776 350 736 90 583 315 650 6 410 9 503 210 829 909 141 || 92.65% 100.49% 95.77% 87.44% 72.95% 92.73% 88.00% 93.22% 90.35% 98.01% 87.50% 95.28% 46.80% 87.19% 80.04% 78.79% 83.75% 94.38% 96.49% 96.69% 82.27% 88.65%

Σ 31/12/2012 || 1 551 948 || 1 857 547 || 83.55% || 5 743 740 || 6 412 487 || 89.57%

Source EU Fleet Register – Fleet Management – Entry Exit Regime - Statistics, 15.10. 2013.

Annex 3:

Table 3.1. Summary of Member States' fleet evolution during 2012 (except outermost regions)

|| GT || KW || || ||

N || GT || KW || N || GT || KW || Δ N(%) || Δ GT (%) || Δ KW (%)

31/12/2011 || 31/12/2012 || Δ 2011-2012

BEL BGR CYP DEU DNK ESP EST FIN FRA GRC IRL ITA LTU LVA MLT NLD POL PRT ROM SVN SWE UK || 86 2 336 1 080 1 580 2 786 9 571 923 3 332 4 640 16 658 2 092 13 063 151 731 1 054 740 790 7 110 502 184 1 368 6 453 || 15 326 7 373 4 213 64 294 64 503 373 465 14 281 16 028 153 998 83 807 59 571 175 393 45 216 34 725 7 996 135 585 33 379 86 826 934 1 002 29 642 202 317 || 49 135 61 307 45 329 148 277 232 469 841 788 38 915 171 167 701 022 483 390 182 307 1 056 757 54 357 52 684 77 489 288 415 82 890 299 565 7 714 10 763 170 472 810 306 || 83 2 366 1 074 1 550 2 743 9 257 1 360 3 241 4 571 16 006 2 249 12 736 147 715 1 043 848 798 7 048 195 174 1 392 6 427 || 15.059 7.061 4.247 64.236 65.177 362.781 15.157 16.386 151.972 79.638 65.173 164.668 27.186 33.789 7.998 145.271 33.399 85.992 628 623 30.637 200.937 || 47.554 61.336 45.664 147.292 230.131 819.429 46.570 170.681 694.670 461.531 197.648 1.019.161 34.389 51.203 76.660 331.306 81.944 296.196 6.153 8.812 173.377 806.120 || -3.5% 1.3% -0.6% -1.9% -1.5% -3.3% 47.3% -2.7% -1.5% -3.9% 7.5% -2.5% - 2.6% -2.2% -1.0% 14.6% 1.0% -0.9% -61.2% -5.4% 1.8% -0.4% || -1.7% -4.2% 0.8% -0.1% 1.0% -2.9% 6.1% 2.2% -1.3% -5.0% 9.4% -6.1% -39.9% -2.7% 0.0% 7.1% 0.1% -1.0% -32.8% -37.8% 3.4% -0.7% || -3.2% 0.0% 0.7% -0.7% -1.0% -2.7% 19.7% -0.3% -0.9% -4.5% 8.4% -3.6% -36.7% -2.8% -1.1% 14.9% -1.1% -1.1% -20.2% -18.1% 1.7% -0.5%

Σ || 77 230 || 1 609 874 || 5 866 515 || 76.023 || 1.578.015 || 5.807.827 || -1.6% || -2.0% || -1.0%

Source EU Fleet Register – Advanced Search, 15.10. 2013

Annex 4

Table 4.1. EFF commitments in permanent cessation (2007 – 31.05. 2013)

|| %S || NS || %R || NR || %(S+R) || S+R

BE || 30.3% || 9 || 0.0% || 0 || 30.3% || 9

BG || 5.2% || 57 || 0.0% || 0 || 5.2% || 57

CY || 42.3% || 14 || 0.0% || 0 || 42.3% || 14

DE || 0.0% || 0 || 0.0% || 0 || 0.0% || 0

DK || 31.9% || 69 || 0.0% || 0 || 31.9% || 69

EE || 4.1% || 16 || 6.4% || 10 || 10.5% || 26

EL || 44.0% || 1011 || 0.0% || 0 || 44.0% || 1011

ES || 21.7% || 755 || 0.1% || 2 || 21.8% || 757

FI || 0.0% || 0 || 0.0% || 0 || 0.0% || 0

FR || 23.4% || 534 || 0.2% || 1 || 23.6% || 535

IE || 80.8% || 46 || 0.0% || 0 || 80.8% || 46

IT || 50.3% || 958 || 3.8% || 10 || 54.1% || 968

LT || 9.7% || 32 || 0.3% || 1 || 10.0% || 33

LV || 41.8% || 149 || 3.0% || 10 || 44.9% || 159

MT || 35.2% || 20 || 0.0% || 0 || 35.2% || 20

NL || 22.1% || 23 || 0.0% || 0 || 22.1% || 23

PL || 3.7% || 73 || 0.1% || 5 || 3.9% || 78

PT || 10.8% || 68 || 0.0% || 0 || 10.8% || 68

RO || 0.3% || 5 || 0.3% || 8 || 0.7% || 13

SE || 22.9% || 30 || 0.5% || 1 || 23.4% || 31

SI || 10.4% || 10 || 0.6% || 1 || 11.0% || 11

UK || 7.5% || 97 || 0.0% || 0 || 7.5% || 97

EU TOTAL || 17.6% || 3976 || 0.5% || 0 || 18.1% || 3976

Source: MS data based on formal request by DG MARE to submit cumulative EFF data for the period 1 January 2007 to 31 May 2013.

%s: Percentage of EFF commitments so far in scrapping;

NS: Number of scrapping operations (vessels);

R%: Percentage of EFF committed to reassignment of vessels;

NR: Number of reassignments (vessels);

%S + %R: Total percentage scrapping + reassignment

Annex 5

EFF commitments during the period 1/01/2007 - 31/07/2012

Measure || Number of operations || Total cost || National public contribution || EFF contribution || % EFF committed compared to total MS committed || %EFF committed compared to EFF Total allocation

1.1: Permanent cessation of fishing activities || 3'691 || 840'586'705 || 364'754'604 || 475'112'883 || 19.61% || 11.04%

Action 1: Scrapping || 3'653 || 822'180'366 || 357'863'531 || 463'597'617 || 19.13% || 10.78%

Action 2: Reassignment for activities outside fishing || 38 || 18'406'340 || 6'891'074 || 11'515'266 || 0.48% || 0.27%

1.2: Temporary cessation of fishing activities || 47'809 || 303'379'641 || 118'971'042 || 184'404'717 || 7.61% || 4.29%

Action 1: Data 1: Number of fishers/day || 41'450 || 264'640'631 || 101'271'726 || 163'365'023 || 6.74% || 3.80%

Action 1: Data 2: Vessels concerned if appropriate || 6'359 || 38'739'010 || 17'699'317 || 21'039'694 || 0.87% || 0.49%

1.3: Investments on board fishing vessels and selectivity || 2'052 || 83'147'676 || 12'234'523 || 20'304'471 || 0.84% || 0.47%

Action 5: Improvement of energy efficiency || 490 || 50'508'625 || 7'403'213 || 12'447'674 || 0.51% || 0.29%

Action 6: Improvement of selectivity || 264 || 7'647'446 || 1'143'544 || 1'840'787 || 0.08% || 0.04%

Action 7: Replacement of engine || 523 || 17'053'672 || 2'668'272 || 4'180'453 || 0.17% || 0.10%

Action 8: Replacement of gear || 777 || 7'937'932 || 1'019'495 || 1'835'557 || 0.08% || 0.04%

1.4: Small-scale coastal fishing || - || - || - || - || 0.00% || 0.00%

1.5: Socio-economic compensations for the management of the fleet || 2'709 || 90'568'443 || 23'412'874 || 40'487'961 || 1.67% || 0.94%

Data 3: Total number of fishers concerned by early departure from the fishing sector || 2'709 || 90'568'443 || 23'412'874 || 40'487'961 || 1.67% || 0.94%

Total MS EFF Commitments || 60'818.00 || 2'823'214'370.52 || 762'634'778 || 1'157'287'915 || 47.77% || 26.90%

Missing MS: BE (included until 1 June 2012), FR (No breakdown available)

Total EFF allocation 4'302'229'775.00. Total EFF committed by MS.2'422'797'726.39

Annex 6

Indicators used by STECF

The sustainable harvest indicator is intended to be a measure of how much a fleet segment relies on overfished stocks. This measure does not take account of the fact that some stocks in the mix of catches may be more or less seriously overexploited or depleted, nor does it take account of the extent of the impact of other fleets on the exploitation of the resources.

Two "Economic sustainability indicators" are used. The Return on Fixed Tangible Assets (ROFTA) (a proxy for the Return on Investment) is a measure of long-term economic health. It measures the net profit divided by the value of capital investments. If this rate is higher than the risk-free interest available elsewhere then the fleet is in a healthy economic state and is able to replace large capital items as this becomes necessary. If the ROFTA is lower than this rate this means that such investments are not worthwhile in financial terms, because greater gains may be obtained by investing funds elsewhere. Risk-free interest rates used for this reference purpose are given in Table 4.3 of the STECF expert Group report (STECF-13-28).

The ratio "Current Revenue/Break-Even Revenue" (CR/BER) is a measure of short-term viability. If it is less than one then vessels cannot cover their operating costs and will have to stop fishing when they run out of cash; and above one the vessels can cover their operating costs, but this does not mean that they generate sufficient income to replace large capital items.

Two measures are used to assess whether vessels are "fully utilised". A "Technical Indicator" is defined as the ratio of the average time spent at sea divided by the maximum feasible fishing time in the relevant activity. It takes a value of unity when all vessels are fishing as much as practicable, even though the fishing season may be short. Values less than one indicate that parts of the fleet are fishing less than they could. A threshold value of 70% is usually taken as a sign of a significant under-use. However, some vessels may not fish at all in the entire year and are "inactive". If there are many inactive vessels in a fishing fleet, this is an indication that the fleet is not in balance with the resources.

[1] Article 11 of Council Regulation (EC) No. 2371/2002.

[2] See art. 22 § 1 of Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) No. 1380/2013.

[3] See Guidelines for an improved analysis of the balance between fishing capacity and fishing opportunities, Version 1th March 2008.

[4] In accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 199/2008 concerning the estabilishment of a Community framework for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector and support for scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Policy, Official Jurnal of The European Union, L 60/01, 05/03/2008, p.1.

[5] Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) assessment of balance indicators for key fleet segments and review of national reports on Member States efforts to achieve balance between fleet capacity and fishing opportunities (STECF-13-28), available on web site http://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu/reports/balance.

[6] Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on Member States' efforts during 2011 to achieve a sustainable balance between fishing capacity and fishing opportunities, COM(2103) 85 final of 18 February 2012, Chapter 3.

[7] See Annex II of Regulation No 1380/2013 on the fishing capacity ceilings, Official Jurnal of The European Union, L 354/22, 28/12/2013, p. 58.

[8] The break even revenue (BER) is the revenue required to cover both fixed and variable costs so that no losses are incurred and no profits are generated. The current revenue (CR) is the total operating income of the fleet segment, which consists of income from landings and non fishing income. See also Annex VI.

[9] Source Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) Assessment of balance indicators, above p.85.