COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
C0M(94) 235 final 
Brussels, 10.06.1994 
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION 
FISHING WTIH PASSIVE GEAR IN THE CCMMUNIIY 
The need for management^ its desirability and feasibility 
FISHING WITH PASSIVE GEAR IN THE COVlMUNnY 
The need for management its desirability and feasibility 
INTROTUCTION 
In recent years the use of various types of passive gear has increased in Community waters. 
If this tendency continues, and assuming no complementary reduction in other types of fishing 
activity, the exploited stocks might be subject to even greater pressure than is currently the 
case. In technical terms, this means that fishing mortality rates for various species are likely 
to increase from the already high and undesirable levels currently estimated. 
Furthermore, there are indications that, in some fisheries conducted with fixed nets, the mesh 
size has decreased in line with the decrease in the average size of fish in the stocks which 
they exploit. A similar decrease in the size of hooks used in some longline fisheries has also 
been mentioned. 
On the other hand, much of this gear can be highly selective and this property can be used 
to avoid e.g. capture of juvenile fish provided that the gear is appropriately deployed. 
At present, Community regulations as embodied in Council Regulation (EEC) No 3094/86 of 
7 October 1986 laying down certain technical measures for the conservation of fishery 
resources1 make no reference to passive gear, either fixed or drifting. This is in contrast to 
the present situation for mobile gear (trawls, demersal seines etc.) where numerous regulations 
intended to control their activities, and hence the fishing mortality rates generated by them, 
are currently in force. 
In 1991 the Commission annonced its wish to restore balance to the technical measures 
mechanism, in order to improve the regulations on passive gear. In 1992 the discussion of the 
Multiannual Guidance Programmes showed that although it did not seem appropriate in the 
immediate future to reduce the tonnage and/or kW of the fleets using passive gear, the 
contribution of these methods to fishing effort should be reduced, and where necessary laid 
down in appropriate measures. The Commission was requested to submit a report to this end. 
DG XTV therefore organized a meeting in Brussels in February 1993. This meeting made it 
possible to take stock of the biological and technical data available. The result appear in a 
was the Commission working paper2. 
In spite of the incomplete information available, it is clear that net fishing poses major 
problems. Its expansion, as a result of the increase in the number of net vessels and/or the 
length of the nets used, and in some cases the reduction in the mesh size, requires urgent 
attention. Therefore, the group of experts' activities and this report concentrate on net fishing, 
and more particularly on fixed-net fishing. The special case of large drifting gillnets has been 
O.J.No288, 11.10.1986, p. 1 
2 "Biological basis for control of exploitation rate offish stocks by fixed gears", SEC(93)652, Brussels, 
26 April 1993. 
d:\cfaui\vwpwin\rapportt\engdonn\texteWfvl 1 
examined separately3. The other types of passive gear (pots, longlines, etc) will be referred 
to only under specific points where necessary. 
It was expedient to summarize the technical conclusions of the group of experts and to add, 
where possible, comments on the economic and social aspects, together with a consideration 
of the monitoring problems specific to passive gear. All these aspects are covered in this 
report, which concludes with an examination of a possible strategy of action. 
1. DESCRIPTION OF PASSIVE GEAR AND ITS OPERATING TECHNIQUES IN 
COMMUNITY WATERS 
The use of passive gear4 is widespread in Community waters. Most fisheries using these types 
of gear target a single species or a restricted group of species with sometimes significant by-
catches of other species. 
Usually, fixed gear is not continuously supervised when it is in operation, but is deployed and 
subsequently visited at more or less regular intervals of time to remove fish and debris, to 
haul it for deployment in other areas and for repair. Fixed gear may be used on rough grounds 
or even on wrecks, where other fishing gear can be operated only with difficulty. 
1.1. Fixed gillnets and entangling nets 
For reasons explained above it is to this gear that most attention will be given in this report. 
1.1.1 General comments 
In these types of nets the fish are gilled, entangled or enmeshed in the netting. The nets can 
be deployed individually but usually many such nets are joined end to end and are deployed 
as a "fleet". 
These nets consist of single or multiple walls of netting, fixed at the top to a headline to 
which floats are attached and at the bottom to a weighted footrope. The weight of the 
footrope neutralises the buoyancy of the floats so that, in the absence of currents, the nets 
hang vertically in the water. (Headline floats may be absent in the case of some tangle nets -
Section 1.1.3). 
The nets are fixed to the bottom, or at some distance above it, and their geographical position 
is maintained, by anchors or ballast at each end of a fleet which are marked by an anchor-
buoy or "dan" attached to the anchor or ballast. Additional anchors or ballast and associated 
buoys may be incorporated at regular intervals along the fleet to assist in maintaining position 
or, more usually, to better indicate the position of the fleet to other navigators, including 
fishermen using towed gear. Flags, lights or radar reflectors are attached to the dans to 
facilitate detection and hence retrieval of the nets. 
3 COM(94)50 final, Brussels, 08.04.1994 
4 See Annex VIII 
d:\data\wp\wn\rapports\engdorm\tcxteWfvl 
The dimensions of fixed gear and the number of nets carried by a boat may depend on many 
factors such as area, species, boat size, etc. 
The report SEC(93)652 indicates that in the North Sea single net lengths vary between 55 and 
400 metres. The number of nets carried by a boat may vary between 10 and 650. The total 
length of nets which can be set by a single boat can vary between 950 and 43 000 metres. 
In other areas nets with a length varying between 5 500 and 26 000 metres are used. 
The netting sheets are made of knotted synthetic yarns made from the chemical groups 
polyamide, polyester or polytethylene. The yarns may be constructed of monofilaments, 
multifilaments or multimonofilaments. Monofilaments are single filaments which are normally 
more than 0.1mm in diameter. Those thicker than 0.4mm are strong enough to function alone 
as netting yarn and are frequently used for the construction of enmeshing gear. Multifilaments 
are made from a large number of very fine fibres (diameter less than 0.07mm). 
Multimonofilament yarns consist of a low number of monofilaments loosely twisted together. 
An important characteristic of gillnets and entangling nets is the hanging ratio. The hanging 
ratio, denoted by E, is the ratio of the length of the headline to the horizontal stretched length 
of the netting. The hanging ratio detennines the shape of the meshes in the water. 
The same concept of hanging ratio may also be applied to the footrope and in some cases 
different hanging ratios are employed for footrope and headrope within the same gear unit. 
This phenomenon is referred to as "hanging-in" and is implemented to increase or decrease 
the probability of capture of, respectively, desired or undesired species. 
1.1.2. Gillnets 
A gill net consists of a single wall of netting fixed at the top to a headline carrying floats and 
at the bottom to a weighted footrope. 
The hanging ratio usually exceeds 0.5. A hanging ratio of 0.6-0.7 combines the benefit of a 
wide mesh aperture and a large net area 
In this type of gear, most fish are caught when they become held within a single mesh of the 
net. There are different positions in which fish become caught. Fish are held securely when 
the mesh catches under the gill-cover in which case the fish is said to be "gilled". 
1.1.3. Tangle nets 
Single-wall tangle nets closely resemble gill nets but have a greater amount of slack netting 
set into the headline, which results in a more loosely hung net. The hanging ratio of these 
nets may be as low as 0.3 and the headline is not always provided with floats, in which case 
the nets lie horizontally across the seabed. 
Single wall tangle nets are most effectively used to catch organisms with spines such as 
crawfish and species with a very pronounced demersal (benthonic) behaviour such as 
monkfish, rays and other flatfish. Different hanging ratios for footrope and headrope (hanging-
in) are often employed in the construction of tangle nets. 
d:\data\\vpwin\rapports\engdonn\texte\en/fvl 
1.1.4. Trammel nets 
The trammel net consists of three walls of netting in which a smaller-meshed inner net is 
sandwiched between two outer walls of larger-meshed netting. Slack internal netting is 
ensured both by setting the net loosely on the head and foot ropes and also by having the 
inner net 1.5 to 2 times the depth of the outer walls. In this way there is always sufficient 
slack net in which fish can become entangled. The hanging ratio of the inner net is usually 
of the order of 0.3 to 0.5. The outer net is hung more tightly, the hanging ratio being 0.5-0.7. 
In trammel nets the fish are mainly held within a pocket of netting formed by the small-
meshed inner net pushed through the large-meshed outer net. However, depending on the 
species and the mesh size of the inner net, fish may also be gilled or enmeshed. 
1.1.5 Some variants of gill and trammel nets 
(a) Semi-trammel net 
A variant of the trammel net is made of only two walls of netting, one of large mesh and one 
of small mesh. 
(b) Combined gill/trammel nets 
In these nets the lower part consists of a trammel net while the upper part is a gill net. The 
upper part often acts as a barrier leading fish towards the lower section. 
(c) Fixed gillnets on stakes 
These gill nets are mounted at their ends and at regular intervals along their length on stakes 
driven into the seabed in inter-tidal areas. Fish are collected from them at low tide. The nets 
are left for the whole fishing season. Because they are attached to stakes, the shape of these 
nets when submerged is not greatly affected by currents. 
1.2. Other passive gear 
1.2.1. Fixed gear 
There are a number of other fixed gear types which are not considered in detail in this report. 
The most important ones within the Community are the stationary uncovered pound nets, the 
fyke nets, long lines,and various pots. 
In various pot or bottom longline fisheries, an increase in the length of the nets or lines has 
been observed, entailing a corresponding increase in the number of pots and hooks. To a large 
extent this has been made possible by the development of automatic lifting and/or baiting 
equipment. However, use of the bottom longline by Community fleets has not increased to 
the extent it has elsewhere, for example in Norway or the Faroe Islands. 
d:\data\wpwin\rapports\engdorm\lexte\en/fvl 
1.2.2 Drifting gear 
Beyond large drifhets (more than 1 km) targetting on albacore (north Atlantic), swordfish 
(Mediterraean) or salmon (Baltic), "traditional" driftnetting has also played a significant part 
in the catches of some small species, mainly clupeoids (e.g. herring), or small tunids or 
scombrids (e.g. frigate tunas). Such drift-net fishing, which was of significance in the past, 
is now practised only marginally. 
Floating longlines have been expanding rapidly over the past few years, both in inshore 
fishing, directed at bass or sparidae depending on the region, and in deep-sea fishing, 
concentrating in particular on swordfish. Some net vessels have been converted. 
2. SELECTIVITY 
2.1. Nets 
The selectivity of a specified net for a fish of a given species and of a given length is defined 
as that proportion of fish encountering a net which will be retained. The proportion retained 
is different for different lengths of fish. 
The way in which selectivity changes according to fish-length for gill nets is usually 
described adequately by a symmetrical, bell-shaped curve generally referred to as the 
"selection curve" (Annex VIII - Fig. 12). 
The catches are taken from only a restricted part of the population and, in this case, the net 
catches only fish of a restricted range of lengths. 
It is in this sense that gill nets are referred to as being highly selective gear. Their 
construction and mode of deployment can be arranged such that they target a very well-
defined sub-group of the target species. This contrasts with the selectivity of, for example, 
trawls and Danish seines, the two major types of towed gear used to catch fish, where it is 
possible to construct the gear only to avoid capture offish of lengths less than some specific 
value. All fish of lengths greater than this value which enter the codends of this towed gear 
are retained. 
However, the symmetrical bell-shaped selection curve of gill nets is only an approximation 
to reality. In addition to wedging and gilling fish, tangle and trammel nets also retain by 
entanglement fish which are much larger than the size range that can be simply gilled or 
wedged. For this reason, the selection curves of trammels and tangle nets are much more 
asymmetrical than those of gill nets, the right-hand limb of the curve being extended. 
2.2 An example 
Commercial fishermen recognize the selectivity of gear types and design and use the 
appropriate mesh size in particular habitats to capture specific species or sizes of fish. 
The report of the expert group presents a number of case studies on this topic of which only 
one will be presented in this document. 
d:\data\wpwin\rapports\cngdonn\texte\en/fvl 
Species: Hake. Country: Spain 
The length distribution of hake caught by trawl in Atlantic fishing grounds by Spanish 
trawlers exhibits a distribution with its mode at 25 cm (Text Table 1 below). There is a 
pronounced decline in percentage retained from length class 35 cm to length class 55 cm. For 
length classes in excess of 60 cm there are only a few captures. 
For the same stock the length distribution offish caught by gillnets using a mesh size of 60 
mm, shows a mode at 25 cm and a sharp decline until 40 cm. For gill nets using mesh size 
of 90 mm the mode occurs at 50 cm and the upper length limit is extended to 80 cm. The gill 
nets select hake from a more restricted length interval than that evident for trawlers. The 
length distribution taken by longline resembles that of the gillnet of 90 cm with the mode at 
40-50cm. 
It should also be noted that the size composition of the catches of hake taken by gill nets of 
60mm mesh includes many individuals of lengths less than the legal minimum landing size 
(27cm). This could be avoided by employing a larger mesh size. 
Table 1 : Mean length composition (percentage) of hake caught by trawl and fixed gear 
in Atlantic waters. (Div. VIIIc and IXa) 
Class Trawl Gillnet 60 mm Gillnet 90 mm Longline 
(cm) 
10 6 0 0 0 
15 11 + 0 0 
20 25 12 0 0 
25 25 67 3 + 
30 50 20 3 3 
35 9 1 7 10 
40 6 1 12 25 
45 3 + 22 20 
50 2 0 26 23 
55 1 0 17 13 
60 + 0 8 3 
65 . + 0 2 2 
70+0 11 
75 + 0 + + 
80 0 0 + + 
From the case presented here and from the others presented by the expert group, it is clear 
that the gillnet can be, and often is in practice, more selective with respect to fish size 
compared to trawls. Using an appropriate mesh size, it is possible to catch a narrow size 
range and thereby avoid catching juveniles. 
However, data are often only available for landings which introduce a bias in size 
distributions, due to the amounts of undersized fish that are caught and discarded. For this 
reason the frequency distributions taken from trawl and gillnet landings data may be biased 
since the catches may have included smaller fish which did not appear in the landings. 
d:Vlata\wpwin\rapports\engdonn\texte\cn/fvl O 
2.3. Factore affecting selectivity 
Two aspects must be distinguished, intra-species selectivity, which is essentially linked to the 
size of the fish caught, and inter-species selectivity, which distinguishes between fisheries 
where a single species is caught, and fisheries with mixed catches. 
2.3.1. Gill nets and entangling nets 
All passive gear is selective for certain species, sizes or sexes offish. This property depends 
mainly on the mesh size, flotation of head line and weight of foot rope, material and thickness 
of twines and hanging ratio. 
For gillnets the mesh size has a greater influence on intra-species selectivity, and generally, 
larger fish are favoured by a larger mesh opening. 
Factors which can influence the way in which fish are captured (enmeshing or entangling) 
include: 
Shape of the fish, which may change as the fish become older. 
Behaviour, which may change seasonally and as the fish become older. 
The hanging ratio of the net 
The degree of hanging-in of the net. 
The amount of vertical slack in the net. 
The direction of shooting of the net in relation to currents which affects the taughtness 
of the net and, possibly, the probability of interception of fish. 
Fish of almost any size may be held by the net if they are caught or entangled on their own 
jaws, teeth, spines or other projections. Tangle nets are specifically designed to operate in this 
way, and are often made from multifilament netting which is softer and is generally thought 
to be more likely to snag the fish than the harder and more springy monofilament yarns. 
The species composition of catches obviously depends on the mesh size, but also on the net 
immersion time and height, and the fishing zones and times. For this reason, bycatches of 
birds and mammals vary considerably in space and time. 
2.3.2. Other gear 
Intra-species selectivity (length) 
The selectivity of fyke nets and pound nets is directly linked to the mesh sizes used, and in 
the case of pots, by the gaps in the sidewalls. In all these cases selectivity is similar to that 
of trawls (retention of animals exceeding a certain size). 
d:\data\wpwin\rapports\cngdorm\texte\cn/fvl / 
12) 
The intra-species selectivity of longliners depends on the size of the hooks. It is closer to the 
selectiviy of gillnets than of trawls since fish that are too large or small are spared. However, 
longline selectivity is, as a rule, less effective than that of gillnets. 
Inter-species selectivity 
Essentially, pots capture only scavenger crustaceans and shellfish. Furthermore, in the case 
of longlines and pots, the type of bait used may affect the composition of catches. However, 
for all the types of gear referred to in this report it is the conditions of use, and the fishing 
sectors and times which are of prime importance. For this reason the situation varies from 
one extreme to the other. 
As with fixed nets, drift nets and longlines may, under certain circumstances, create major 
bycatch problems, in particular with birds, sea mammals and even turtles. 
3. EFFICDENCY 
The efficiency of passive gear depends on the structure of the gear, its method of deployment 
and the conditions, both biological and physical, prevailing in the area of deployment. 
3.1. Nets 
The most important factors are, the dimensions of the gear, yarn characteristics, the soak time 
(i.e. time spent immersed between shooting and hauling), the weight of the footrope and the 
size and number of floats on the headline. 
Interactions between these factors cause the efficiency of the gear to vary over time and, in 
particular, to vary within the period of deployment of a fleet of nets. 
3.1.1 Dimensions of the netting 
Length of netting 
The efficiency of a gear is not strictly proportional to its length. Small nets can be laid very 
precisely. A long net may extend into sectors that are not very workable. It may be difficult 
to prevent it from looping, thus limiting its effective area. Only in exceptional cases will a 
large net be as effective as a group of smaller nets with an equivalent aggregate length. 
Nevertheless net length is the prime factor to be taken into account. 
Height 
Potentially, there are 3 useful definitions of the height of a fixed netting wall. 
1) Total length of netting stretched in the vertical direction. 
2) Distance of the headline from the footrope when the gear is fishing. 
3) Distance of the headline from the seabed when the gear is fishing. 
d:\data\wpwin\rapports\engdorm\textc\cn/fvl O 
Definition 3 does not apply to drift nets. 
The height of the wall of netting has a complex relationship with efficiency. Assuming that 
a net catches only one species, the efficiency of the net will vary over time according to the 
quantity of that species retained at any given time. As the quantity retained increases, headline 
height, and hence the area of the net capable of retaining fish, will decrease. 
In addition, the inter-species efficiency may be altered in that higher nets may encounter a 
different species composition compared to lower nets since some species potentially available 
to the net are pelagic, while others are demersal, benthic or semi-pelagic. 
Furthermore, the action of currents can cause the headline height to vary. Headline height is 
reduced in strong currents and is maximum in the absence of currents. Essentially, the 
orientation of the nets with respect to the currents is a compromise between maximising the 
probability of intercepting fish and minimising loss of efficiency as a result of the action of 
the currents. 
The distance between the seabed and the footrope is also of importance for fixed nets. In 
general, fishermen wish to set the footrope as close as possible to the seabed. However, in 
some areas there is high probability of fouling with debris or taking a large by-catch of 
undesired species. In such cases the footrope is set at some distance from the seabed. 
Similarly, and particularly to avoid undesirable by-catches, the depth of the headline below 
the surface may also be adjusted. 
3.1.2. Soak time (Immersion time) 
Within limits, increased soak time will result in increased catches. However, for each type 
of gear there is a maximum quantity of fish which can be retained so that extending soak time 
beyond these limits does not result in appreciable increase in catch. The gear increasingly 
approaches saturation with retained fish, other organisms and debris, the presence of which 
may deter contact with the gear by other fish. Alternatively and/or additionally the quantity 
of fish etc. retained may be such that the headline height of the gear and hence the efficiency 
decreases, potentially to the point at which the gear becomes ineffective. 
If immersion continues for a long period, the initial catch may deteriorate in the net as a 
result of simply "rotting" or the action of various scavengers, in particular small crustaceans. 
As a rule, immersion for too long makes it impossible to market an increasing portion of the 
catch, and therefore leads to an increase in discards. In some fisheries this phenomenon 
becomes apparent after 24 hours, whereas in others immersion can last for several days before 
real problems are encountered. 
The optimal soak time depends on the target species and should take into account the 
quantities both landed and discarded of each species retained by the gear. 
3.1.3. Type of gear 
The hanging ratio can affect the gear efficiency both within species and between species. Nets 
mounted with a hanging ratios of less than 0.5 operate to a greater degree by entanglement 
and catch a greater number of species (if available) than nets with higher hanging ratios. 
d:\data\wpwin\rappofts\cngdonn\textc\en/fvl y 
Intra-species efficiency is also changed in that such gear retains a greater size range of 
individuals of each species. 
The number of walls of netting can also influence efficiency. Experimental evidence indicates 
that for the same mesh size, and for a specified hanging ratio of the central net wall, a 
trammel net is usually more efficient than a gillnet of the same hanging ratio. 
3.1.4 Yarn specification 
The type of yarn used to construct the net may also influence efficiency. The factors of most 
importance are: 
Texture - The choice between different textures provided by e.g. monofilament, 
multimonofilament and multifilament yarns depends on the perception of the 
fishermen of the visibility and retention capability of the netting material. (In addition, 
the cost and durability and the ease of handling and removal of debris from the 
various materials also affects their choice.) 
Thickness - The diameter of the yarn affects the visibility of the net for the fish, 
detennines the strength of the net and the elasticity of its meshes and hence, in part, 
its capacity to retain fish. The diameter employed is a compromise between low 
visibility to fish and high strength. 
Colour - The colour of the net also affects the visibility by the fish. Contrast between 
the colour of the seabed and the colour of the background scattered light and that of 
the net have been reported as a factor affecting efficiency. For these reasons, different 
net colours are used in different areas and/or for different species. 
Chemical composition (e.g. polyamide, polyester, polyethylene) acts indirectly on 
efficiency since different chemicals permit the creation of yarns of various thicknesses, 
elasticities, breaking strains and textures. 
3.2. Other passive gear 
In the case of pot fishing the essential element is the number of pots, and in the case of 
longline fishing the number of hooks. However, as is the case with net length, as a rule there 
is no simple relationship between the number of pots or hooks and fishing effort. Where lines 
of several tens of pots are used they will not be as efficient as individually laid pots, since 
the latter can be immersed in very carefully selected places. 
The second element influencing efficiency is the bait used, although it is very difficult to 
quantify its effect. 
Finally, the soak time may also play a role, but even more so than for nets the efficiency 
decreases with time due to deterioration of the bait. 
d:\data\wpwin\rapports\engdorm\texte\en/fvl 10 
4. MORTAIJTY RATES CURRENTLY GENERATED BY FIXED GEAR 
Little information is available on estimated values of mortality rates generated by fixed gear. 
Therefore, it is not yet possible to present estimates of the numerical proportion of the stocks 
removed each year from the sea by fixed gear for comparison with other types of gear. (In 
principle, it is possible to calculate these rates for stocks where analytical assessments and 
appropriate catch-at-age data exist). 
Some incomplete information is available for landing weights for fixed gear relative to the 
total landings within a number of Member States. 
4.1. Percentage of landings using fixed gear 
Text-Table 1 gives landing weights for the years 1985-1990 from enmeshing gear compared 
to the total landings by species, nation and catch area. (These data should be regarded as 
preliminary and therefore perhaps subject to modification). 
From Text-Table 1, it is obvious that there is an immense variation in the importance of 
enmeshing gear landings between nations for the same species and catch area (ICES 
management area). The table reflects both the availablity of a species with respect to 
enmeshing gear and the structure of the national fishing fleets. As an example, the Danish 
gillnet landings of cod and turbot from the North Sea comprised (in 1989) 18% and 71% 
respectively of the total national landings while the Scottish gillnet landings were less than 
1% of the national total for both species. 
The table also indicates the tendency for the relative landings from enmeshing gear to be 
greatest for high valued species such as monkfish, bass, sole and turbot. 
Table 2: Landings from enmeshing gear as a percentage of total landings by country 
and species. (Data are incomplete and may be subject to amendment). 
COUNTRY 
SPECIES 
Monkfish 
Bass 
Cod 
Hake 
Mullet 
Plaice 
Saithe 
Sole 
Turbot 
ALL DK 
18 
27 
6 
6 
58 
71 
16 UK 
13 
40 
10 
46 
89 
3 
9 
10 
24 
9 F 
6 
28 
25 
20 
19 
9 
43 
40 
21 IRL 
37 
16 
30 POR 
30 
20 
8 
30 
28 ALL 
11 
27 
13 
21 
30 
5 
4 
36 
50 
13 
Source: Document SEC(93)652, 1993 
d:\data\wp win\rapports\engdorm\texte\en/fvl 11 
In ICES Divisions VIIIc and IXa several multispecies fisheries are exploited by various fleets. 
The contribution to the total fishery production by gillnets, longlines and other artisanal fleets 
is 4%, 9% and 7% respectively. 
Gillnets contribute 27% to the Spanish landings of hake in ICES Divisions VIIIc and IXa and 
69 % to the total Portuguese landings of hake. For monkfish the percentage is 54 % and 78% 
respectively for each country. 
This kind of data appears to be entirely lacking for the Mediterranean area. 
A detailed data set on landings from enmeshing gear is available for England and Wales. The 
percentage catch due to gill net and tangle net is more than 70 % for salmon, seatrout, grey 
mullet and pollack and more than 50 % in the case of hake and ling. Of the total landings, 
9% are caught by enmeshing gear. 
4.2. Percentage of landings using other gear 
As already mentioned, catches by small drift nets are marginal. Large drift nets will be dealt 
with elsewhere. 
Surface longlines account for a small but not inconsiderable part of some fisheries (bass, red 
sea bream). Large surface longlines catch mainly swordfish; in the Atlantic almost the entire 
catch consists of this fish. 
4.3. Mortality not reflected in landings 
4.3.1. Ghost nets 
Some fixed nets are lost at sea and may continue to fish thereafter. The text below reproduces 
the comments of the Study Group of ICES on ecosystem effects of fishing activities (1992). 
It is known that gillnets, tangle nets and traps may continue to fish for some time after being 
lost or discarded. The term "ghost fishing" is used to describe this phenomenon. 
The length of time that such gill and tangle nets continue to fish depends on a number of 
factors such as the current speed, the amount of fouling weed in the water, the rate of other 
marine fouling, the amount of fish caught and the presence of crabs; all things which cause 
the nets to collapse to the bottom and cease fishing (Millner, 1985). In areas relatively free 
of fouling the nets may continue to fish at some reduced level of efficiency until the build-up 
of fish and crabs forces this collapse. Once on the bottom, multifilament nets may, once clear 
of fish remains and crabs, disentangle, return to an upright position and resume fishing. Over 
the longer term, such nets gradually build up an encrusting layer of marine organisms and 
become more visible to fish. 
The Study group had only limited information on the occurrence of lost or "ghost" fishing 
gear and none on mortalities resulting directly from such gear in the North Sea. Some 
information on both occurrence and related mortalities was, however, available for areas off 
Norway and eastern Canada. This information came from three unpublished reports of the 
Norwegian Directorate of Fisheries (NDF) and a summary report of as yet unpublished 
d:\data\wpwin\rapports\engdonn\texte\ein/fvl 1 £. 
Canadian Department of Fisheries (DFO) data While the degree to which such information 
may relate to conditions in the North Sea is uncertain, the findings do provide some insight 
into the occurrence and fishing behaviour of "ghost" fishing gillnets. 
The Norwegian reports indicate the capture, using towed grapnels, of large numbers of 
"ghost" gillnets in two separate areas off the Norwegian coast. It was observed that old nets 
were still fishing and that in some areas there was "a relatively large amount of fish". Nets 
lost in 1983 continued to fish, as evidenced by bony remains and recently caught fish. More 
fish were observed in nets found on soft bottom than in those over harder substrates. Nets 
found in deeper water also contained more fish. 
In the Canadian study an area along the 50 fin isobar [this should read isobath] on the 
northern edge of Georges Bank was fished using grapnels. Long-liners and trawlermen had 
complained of ghost-fishing gillnets in this area. Eight percent of the 236 tows resulted in the 
recovery of 19 gillnets. The remains of 94 fish (cod, hake, dogfish and unidentified skeletons) 
were found in the nets. 
The Canadian study also provided preliminary information into the length of time various 
types of fish remain in gillnets once caught. Two experiments were carried out. The first 
indicated that the time required for scavengers to consume all the flesh of entangled fish 
(residence time) ranged from 1-5 days (average=2). In the second, residence time ranged from 
2-12 days (average=6). No correlations were evident between residence time and water 
temperature or with location in the nets. A further experiment will explore the apparent 
relationship between amphipod densities and residence time of captured fish. 
The Commission expert group noted with respect to this text: 
(i) The work by Mllner (1985) was carried out under essentially experimental conditions 
and the results do not necessarily reflect events occuring following the loss of nets 
from commercial fishing vessels. 
(ii) The Norwegian report does not indicate how long recovered ghost nets had continued 
to fish. 
4.3.2 Discards 
The problem of discards has already been mentioned in connection with catches by drift nets 
immersed for long periods. Obviously these are not the only cases. Catches of sea mammals 
by drift nets are frequently mentioned. This is not the only phenomenon worthy of attention. 
Seals are sometimes caught by nets, but they are also blamed by some fishermen, particularly 
in Ireland, for eating the fish caught in the net and damaging those they do not eat 
completely. 
The difficulties are restricted neither to species of particular interest to the public at large 
(mammals, birds, turtles) nor to nets. Birds or sea turtles caught by longlines have been 
reported and special studies have been financed by the Commission on the specific problem 
of Mediterranean turtles. Furthermore, discards also include fish and invertebrates which are 
difficult to market. In the case of crustaceans, some are even crushed directly because it is 
too difficult to remove them from the net. 
d:\data\wpwin\rappôrts\engdorm\texte\en/fvl 1J 
However, discards vary considerably from one fishery to the next. No particular gear can be 
blamed for them, and a major effort will have to be made to gather the necessary information, 
leading to regulations as and where appropriate. 
5. FISHING EFFORT 
Reports on fixed gear fishing activity (Northridge et al 1991) give an overview of fleet 
characteristics and an indication of effort which is quoted here. 
"The vast majority of the fishing vessels involved are small, coastal vessels which, in many 
cases, take relatively modest amounts offish. Official statistics, which are often deficient, are 
usually based on the quantity offish landed, and do not adequately reflect the extent to which 
fixed gear is employed by tens of thousands of vessels throughout Community waters. 
In addressing the overall nature and scale of gillnet fisheries in the European Community, it 
would ideally be useful to have some idea of the relative quantities of netting being used in 
different parts, as this would provide an index of their intensity. This would require not only 
data on the numbers of vessels deploying fixed gear, but also the amounts of netting deployed 
by vessels of different size in different fisheries, and the number and duration of sets made 
by these vessels. The available data fall a very long way short of this ideal for most of 
Europe, so that much cruder indices of relative fixed gear effort must be used on an ad hoc 
basis, if any idea of the distribution and density of gillnets is to be obtained." 
In terms of fishing capacity, it must be stressed, as the Commission did during discussions 
on the MGP, that the usual tonnage and power criteria have no precise bearing on fishing 
effort. For example, in the case of trawlers, factors that are difficult to quantify (skill of the 
crew, manoeuvrability of the vessel, etc.) play a role. However, there are also specific 
problems in addition to the common difficulties. 
The tonnage may play an indirect role to the extent that the size of a vessel influences the 
size of its crew, and the number and/or size of the gear that it can transport and handle. 
However, the possibility of leaving some gear in the sea, either permanently or in rotation, 
makes it difficult to quantify the influence of the size of working and storage areas. 
Furthermore, catamarans provide much greater working areas than single-hull vessels of the 
same tonnage. 
Similarly, engine power plays only an indirect role, governing the speed, which reduces transit 
times and increases range. 
Vessel equipment, the gear, and the way it is used are of prime importance. Automatic 
hauling, and even baiting, devices are of major significance. However, at present the data on 
European fleets fall far short of providing a complete picture of these appliances. 
In examining fishing effort, it is better to look directly at the gear and its use rather than the 
vessels themselves. 
d:\data\wpwin\rapports\engdorm\texte\en/fvl 1Q 
Fahy5 tried to standardise effort using a "km days fished per annum" measure. This effort 
measure was calculated as the product of number of vessels, number of nets aboard, length 
of each net, soak time, frequency of lift per day and days fished by vessel. Undoubtedly, 
more work should be done to define fishing effort measures, which can be related to fishing 
mortality rate. 
The same comments apply to drift nets. They are also valid for longliners and pot vessels, 
by substituting the number of hooks or pots for the length of the nets. 
6. SOaaEGCHVOMIC ASPECTS 
The debate on the place of passive gear in the development of the CFP cannot be restricted 
to biological and technical considerations. This is why, in spite of the restricted information 
available, the following is devoted, to a comparison of prices depending on the various fishing 
methods, and to a discussion of comparative price formation, in addition to a consideration 
of jobs at sea generated by the various types of fishing. 
6.1. Influence of the fishing method on the value of fishery products 
6.1.1 General 
In the case of crustaceans, the essential choice is between net and pot vessels, the latter 
having an inherent advantage since they preserve the catch best. However, we shall not go 
into this any further, since this report is primarily intended to examine the relationship 
between passive gear and other types of gear. 
There is little point in comparing passive gear and seiners in terms of the commercial value 
of catches since seiner catches and catches by the passive gear referred to here are not very 
similar. 
Therefore, the most important point is to compare passive gear and trawlers in terms of the 
marketing value of the catch. 
The intrinsic quality of a catch depends to a large extent on the fishing method. Maximum 
quality is obtained by processing fish as quickly as possible after they die, the most 
favourable situation being where the fish are brought on board alive and where possible bled 
immediately. This is possible for pole-and-line and troll fishing, but is generally not possible 
for longlines and nets. Fish caught with these drown in the water and as a rule cannot be 
processed very quickly. As indicated in the previous discussion on discards, the soak time 
plays an essential role. 
By contrast, as a rule trawlers process fish more quickly than longliners or net vessels. 
However, trawler catches may lose commercial value in particular by fish breaking up or as 
a result of friction and compression in the bottom of the trawls. The problem is even more 
serious when the catch is large or made up of "sharp" species (horse mackerel, Nephrops, 
Fahy, E. 1993. "Inventory of enmeshing gears in European waters". 
Document XIV/87/94-EN. CEC, DG XIV, Brussels 
d:\data\wpwin\rapports\engdorm\texte\en/fvl 13 
(31 
etc.), and where the trawl is pulled for a long time. There is a big difference between small 
trawlers pulling bottom trawls for short periods and, for example, large pelagic trawlers. 
The debate on the comparative quality of trawler and passive gear catches is complicated 
immediately, in particular by the duration of fishing operations. Account must also be taken 
of processing and preservation on board. In this respect the duration of trips plays an 
essential role, at least if freezer vessels are excluded. The two phenomena (duration of 
operations/length of trip) may have a similar effect, but not necessarily: net soak times are 
frequently shorter on shells man in coastal waters as a result of scavenger activity. 
Another essential aspect further complicates the debate - the influence of the selectivity of the 
various types of gear. For many fish the price per unit weight varies considerably with size. 
In this case the differences in price observable between longliners or net vessels and trawlers 
is above all a reflection of the various size categories involved. The biological arguments 
justifying the use of techniques providing better selectivity dovetail perfectly with the 
rationale of the economic exploitation of catches. 
6.1.2 An example 
Examination of the data obtained from six Member States suggests that the species captured 
using passive gear achieve better prices, with a few exceptions, in particular monk (see 
Annexes I and II). Nevertheless the exceptions (France/cod/gillnet; France/whiting^gillnet; 
PorUigal^ass/trammel) illustrate the influence of other factors: the mere fact of fishing using 
passive gear does not guarantee a better price. Irrespective of the causes previously discussed 
(duration of operations, length of trips, size categories), the high price of FF 57.4 per kg 
obtained for monk by beam trawlers in France may be explained by the fact that beam 
trawlers are used almost exclusively on the eastern Channel seaboard, where monk catches 
are low and prices are better than elsewhere. 
Therefore, more detailed information is required to determine the various factors influencing 
landing price formation. Unfortunately this is available only in exceptional cases. The best 
example which has been found is for hake, which has been examined in detail by the IGES 
Working Group for Fishery Units in subareas VII and VIII. Table 3 is taken from this 
group's 1990 report. / 
d:\data\wpwin\nipports\engdonn\texte\cfi/fvl 10 
Table 3: Values at age for hake (ECU/kg) by fishery unit 
FISHERY UNIT* AGE 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 
WESTERN APPROACHES 
Long line in medium to deep water 
Long line in shallow water 
Gillnet 
Non-nephrops trawling in medium 
deep water 
Non-nephrops trawling in shallow 
water 
Beam trawling in shallow water 
(B/T) 
Nephrops trawling in deep water 
Nephrops trawling in medium 
depth -
-
-
-
-
-
2,7 
1,8 -
-
-
2,7 
-
-
2,7 
1,8 -
1,2 
2,3 
2,7 
3,9 
1,2 
2,7 
1,8 -
1,2 
2,3 
2,7 
2,5 
1,5 
2,7 
2,0 10,0 
1,7 
2,3 
2,7 
2,7 
1,7 
2,7 
2,2 10,1 
2,3 
2,3 
2,9 
3,2 
2,0 
2,9 
2,7 10,1 
2,3 
2,3 
2,9 
3,5 
2,3 
2,9 
3,1 10,1 
3,8 
4,0 
3,5 
5,0 
2,8 
4,0 
4,5 
BAY OF BISCAY 
Nephrops trawling in shallow to 
medium depth 
Trawling in shallow to medium 
depth 
Long line in deep and medium 
depth (DM) 
Gillnets in medium to shallow 
depth (MS) 
Trawling in deep to medium depth 
(DM) 
Miscellaneous 
Outsiders -
-
-
-
5,5 
-
-2,1 
2,4 
3,3 
2,1 
5,5 
2,1 
1,2 2,1 
2,5' 
3,3 
2,1 
5,5 
2,1 
2,2 2,5 
2,8 
3,3 
2,8 
5,5 
2,5 
2,3 3,0 
2,9 
3,7 
3,3 
5,5 
3,0 
2,3 3,7 
3,0 
4,3 
3,4 
5,5 
3,6 
2,6 3,5 
3,7 
4,3 
4,1 
5,5 
3,5 
3,0 4,5 
4,5 
5,0 
5,4 
6,0 
4,5 
4,5 
•See ANNEX II for details. 
Source: ICES Working Group for Fishery Units in subareas VII and VIII; 1990. 
This table highlights the following facts: 
Firstly, the age of specimens and consequently their size is a factor wiiich deterrnines the 
price, no matter which fishing methods are used, with the sole exception of unit 14, the data 
for which should perhaps be verified 
There are also major differences within both passive gear and trawlers. Longliners are linked 
to the best prices (unit 1) and to the worst (unit 2). The fishery sector, in this case linked to 
depth, has a considerable impact. 
d:\dataVwpwin\rappoits\engdorm\texteVen/fvl 17 
6.2. Comparative cost formation 
Only the main costs likely to vary from one fishing method to the next have been examined, 
and only to the extent that sufficiently disaggregated information was available. Therefore 
depreciation and insurance costs for fishing gear have not been examined due to the lack of 
information. 
6.2.1 Fuel costs 
Fuel consumption depends mainly on the engine power of the vessel and the length of time 
the engine is rwining. Vessels using towed gear consume more fuel than vessels using 
passive gear. 
Table 4: Comparison of fuel costs 
Fuel and lube oil/ 
Total earnings 
Fuel and lube oil/ 
Total costs-expenses Gillnet 
Danish seine 
4.9% 
6.2% Trawler 
<50 GRT 
12.5% 
15.3% Trawler 
50-120 GRT 
16.1% 
19.2% Trawler 
>120 GRT 
19.2% 
22.4% 
Source : Annex IV 
The available data (see Annexes IV, V and VI) œnfirm this trend for the zones and vessels 
concerned, since as a rule fuel costs are lower for gillnets or the Danish seine than trawlers. 
The data for Denmark (Annex V) indicate that fuel costs represent approximately 5% and 
6.2% of earnings and total costs respectively of vessels using the gillnet and the Danish seine, 
whereas they represent between 12% and 19% of earnings and between 15% and 22% of total 
costs for trawlers. A similar trend is apparent from the data in Annex VI, which distinguishes 
between net vessels and seiners. 
6.2.2 Fishing gear costs 
Fishing gear costs vary with a large number of parameters (weather, risks taken, fishing 
zones, etc). As a rule towed gear is subjected to greater direct damage (fouling and tearing 
on rocky sea beds, etc.) than fixed gear5. Nevertheless fixed gear is more susceptible to the 
conflicts between the various types of fishing, including theft and loss (more particularly in 
the case of pot vessels). 
The ratios calculated from the Danish data indicate that net vessels allocate more of their 
expenditure to fishing gear than trawlers do. However, the difference is not great. 
Table 5: Comparison of expenditure by gear type 
5 Danish and Scottish seines are an isolated case, since they are towed slowly and are much less exposed 
to damage. 
d:\data\wpvnn\rapports\engdornAtexteWfvl 18 
Table 5: Comparison of expenditure by gear type 
Gear expenses/ 
Total earnings 
Gear expenses/ 
Total vessel costs 
Gear expenses 
Total costs-expenses Gillnet 
18-43 GRT 
9.4% 
34.2% 
11.0% Danish seine 
<30GRT 
3.4% 
17.4% 
4.3% Danish seine 
> 30 GRT 
4.1% 
19.9% 
5.0% Trawler 
0-50 GRT 
7.4% 
31.3% 
8.4% 
Source : Annex V 
6.2.3 Labour costs at sea 
As a rule, the share of earnings taken up by the crew decreases as the power and tonnage of 
the vessel increases, the fuel and ice costs being proportionally higher. Furthermore, in the 
case of inshore fishing, the share taken up by the crew may be reduced by the cost of damage 
suffered by the fishing gear. The figures in Annex IV indicate that labour expenses represent 
a higher proportion of earnings for net vessels than for trawler fleets, for which the percentage 
decreases as the tonnage and power of the vessels increase. 
Table 6: Comparison of on-board labour costs 
Labour share, wages/ 
Total earnings 
Labour share, wages/ 
Total costs-expenses Gillnet 
Danish seine 
36.0% 
45.8% Trawler 
<50GRT 
35.2% 
42.8% Trawler 
50-120 GRT 
33.2% 
39.7% Trawler 
>120 GRT 
29.3% 
34.2% 
Source : Annex IV 
To assess any disparity between fishing methods as regards on-board job creation, it is 
possible to refer directly to the size of the crew or the ratio between the number of men on 
board and the fuel consumption. For example, Annexes HI, VI and VII contain data on 
Denmark and Italy. This approach indicates that the labour share for net vessels and 
longliners is more favourable. However, an overall analysis must still be made. This should 
pay particular attention to automation equipment, which is exceptional on smaller vessels, but 
more common on larger vessels, if not systematically present. Although in most fisheries the 
substitution of capital for labour has taken the form of the replacement of crew by kW, as a 
rule the development of automation provides potential advantages in terms of the use of 
passive gear. 
d:\data\wpwin\rapports\engdonn\texte\en/fvl 19 
6.3 Preliminary conclusions 
The socio-economic information available on the issues broached here is too incomplete and 
the studies too specific to allow overall conclusions to be drawn. The use of some types of 
passive gear is likely to provide higher unit prices for catches, and a greater number of jobs 
at sea than trawling. However, it would be completely wrong to deduce from this that 
passive gear should be promoted in future for the sake of jobs. 
It would be very useful to analyse in depth the consequences of the policies relating to fishing 
fleets, the economic development of resources, and employment. A flotilla of small longliners 
with little or no automatic equipment would probably provide, for a given stock, a 
considerably greater number of on-board jobs than a smaller number of large trawlers. 
However, this is no longer so apparent if large, automated longliners or net vessels are 
considered. At the same time the requirements of productivity could make automation 
indispensable, just as fishing in some sectors and seasons makes it necessary to have vessels 
of sufficient size. 
7. INTERACTIONS BETWEEN FIXED GEAR AJSD (OTHER FISHING MEfflODS 
Fisheries employing fixed gear are often carried out in coastal waters, in areas under the 
jurisdiction of the various Member States. Many problems arising between fixed and other 
gear are, therefore, of a "national" character. However, in certain cases conflicts can arise 
between fishermen of Member States or between Community fishermen and those of third 
countries. 
Beyond commercial ones there are two types of competition: for the resources) and for space 
7.1. Competition for the resource 
Each specified fishing method competes with all other methods which exploit the available 
resource. An increase in fishing by static gear therefore implies that, on average, there are 
fewer fish available for each gear unless the deployment of some other type of gear 
diminishes. This is one of the fundamental causes for potential conflict resulting from the 
reported increase in fishing with static gear in recent years. 
In this context it is appropriate to differentiate between competition between fixed gear, 
between fixed gear and other fishing methods and, as a special case of the latter, between 
fixed gear and recreational fishing. 
Competition for a resource can occur between different types of fixed gear (e.g. enmeshing 
gear and lines) or within the same gear where different groups of fishermen employ different 
deployment of that gear. Similarly, fixed gear and mobile gear often compete for the same 
resource. Usually, the consequence of this competition is an augmentation of fishing intensity 
on some or all age groups of the stock. 
National legislation within Member States may permit (or not prohibit) the use of various (or 
any) types of fixed gear for recreational purposes. However, the use of prohibited gear and/or 
an excessive number of units of such gear exists. Again, the effect is to compete with other 
gear, in this case those employed for commercial gain. Recreational fishermen preceive the 
d:\data\wpwin\rapports\engdorm\tcxtc\cn/fvl 2X) 
problem from a diametrically opposed position and feel that commercial fishing is depriving 
them of leisure opportunities. The occurrence of such problems is largely confined to coastal 
waters but it may occur farther offshore in cases where both anglers and commercial 
fishermen fish on or close to wrecks. 
7.2. Competition for space 
Most of this type of interaction occurs between fixed gear and mobile gear, when both types 
are deployed in the same geographical area, and usually take the form of mobile gear 
deliberately or inadvertently towing through fixed gear. In such cases the effects of the 
collisions between the two types of gear is much greater on the fixed gear than on the trawls. 
The fixed gear tends to be lost and unrecoverable whereas the trawls are usually recovered 
by their parent vessel and often are reparable. 
This competition often results in fleets employing fixed gear tending to confine their activities 
to restricted areas and/or to seasons when they seek to catch a limited range of species. 
Competition of this type has probably increased as vessels with mobile gear have adopted 
techniques which permit them to tow over parts of the sea bed previously inaccessible to them 
and as the utilisation of fixed gear has itself increased. 
Competition for space may also exist between fixed gear in cases where attempts are made 
to deploy large numbers of fleets of gear in some finite area. Sometimes, fixed-gear fishermen 
attempt to reserve space for themselves by leaving gear, usually old and relatively ineffective, 
in positions where they wish to fish at some later date. 
One solution to this kind of problem lies in the definition and observance of areas to be 
permanently or seasonally exploited only by fixed gear. Another solution consists of time­
sharing where one type of gear fishes exclusively in a specified area for a number of days, 
after which the other type of gear has exclusive access. Both systems are embodied in 
national legislation in Spain and Italy while UK operates a number of static gear reserves. 
Additionally, informal agreement has been obtained in some areas between potentially or 
historically conflicting fishermen. Such agreements are usually most easily obtained between 
fishermen from the same port or the same area. However, in some instances, voluntary 
agreement has been reached between fishermen from different nations. The agreements have 
involved separation of the available fishing grounds between mobile and fixed gear, 
sometimes taking into account factors related to tidal conditions and there may also be a 
rotation of the use of various sea areas by the various types of gear throughout the year. 
Recreational anglers also experience a form of competition for space in circumstances where 
the deployment of commercial fishing gear hinders or prevents them from pursuing their 
activities. This conflict also causes problems for commercial fishermen who risk injury from 
hooks lost by anglers and embedded in their gear. 
d:\data\wTJwn\rapports\CTgdorm\lexteWfvl 2,1 
8. MaVTTŒaNGPRCeiJEMS 
A non-technical account of national regulations referring to fixed gear is provided in Annex 
2 of the report of the expert group. It should be emphasised that it cannot be guaranteed that 
the account provided is absolutely correct and that national regulations have been correctly 
interpreted. 
Nevertheless it is essential for provision to be made for the monitoring of passive gear to be 
tightened up. It must also be possible to monitor compliance with the decisions taken. This 
is practicable for some (mesh sizes), but is more difficult for others (soak time). 
8.1. Factois linked to selectivity 
8.1.1 Selection of length 
Nets 
Monitoring mesh sizes does not present any technical problems. The hanging ratio could also 
be monitored. However, in both cases provision has to be made for checks at sea, when the 
nets are hauled in, if necessary without prior warning: unlike trawls, the fishing gear is not 
necessarily on board. 
Longlines 
In principle it is possible to monitor the hooks. 
Pots 
The spacing between bars, and more generally the mouth size do not present a problem. 
8.1.2 Inter-species selectivity 
The factors affecting selectivity which are easiest to monitor are boxes, or a ban on fishing 
with and keeping certain gear which is not selective enough. It is technically possible to 
monitor the immersion of the headline, but this would require a major presence at sea. 
If various mesh sizes are laid down for target species, the catch composition rules bring us 
straight back to the current debate on this subject in respect of trawler mesh sizes. 
8.2. Factois linked to the fishing effort 
The problem revolves around distinguishing between the total fishing capacity of a vessel and 
the capacity of an individual piece of gear, i.e. a net, a longline or a line of pots. In the case 
of very large gear, this can be solved by authorising the use and keeping of only one net, for 
example. However, this would not be possible in other cases. 
Monitoring restrictions on the physical characteristics of specific gear (length or height of the 
nets, number of hooks, number of pots) is conceivable. This would require mamtaining 
d\data\wpwin\rapports\engdonn\texte\en/fvl 22 
vessels at sea for monitoring, as mentioned in the case of mesh sizes. Monitoring a 
restriction on soak times would be extremely difficult. 
Regulating the cumulative capacity of all a vessel's gear would make it necessary to have, in 
addition to the capacity for monitoring each individual item of gear, the resources to register 
all the gear at sea and on land used by boats. 
8.3. Rules for use 
It would be very difficult to monitor the setting of the footrope, or the vertical distance 
between the headline and footrope. 
The rules on the minimum distances between different gear can be monitored only if major 
supervision resources are kept at sea. 
8.4 Identification 
The capacity to identify each item of gear at sea, and to link it to a registered vessel, is the 
keystone of any control system. Community regulations exist providing for the identification 
number of the vessel to be indicated on each item of gear. It is not inconceivable, at least 
in certain cases, to go as far as giving each individual item of gear its own additional 
identification. It is also conceivable to rtxjuire the use of more effective marking and/or 
identification methods, in particular radar reflectors. 
Strict identification rules make it possible to deem any unidentified gear to be wreckage. 
However, technical progress, in particular in positioning, obviates the need for fishermen to 
have surface-floating markers. This could seriously increase difficulties in policing unmarked 
gear. 
9. GUIDELINES FOR A STRATEGY OF ACTION 
Action does not necessarily imply a Community regulation covering all the problems. Fishing 
in Europe using passive gear is even more diverse than trawling. This is why Community 
decisions can only serve as a basis to be built on pursuant to the principle of subsidiarity. 
This is particularly true for inshore fisheries where they are directed at strictly coastal 
resources, the corresponding stocks being exploited by fishermen from only one Member 
State. Community intervention is not justified in such cases. By contrast, in the case of 
straddling resources, undersized fish must be protected (selectivity), and quotas respected. 
However, where compliance with these regulations is ensured, a Member State must be able 
to govern the size of competing types of gear by adjusting restrictions imposed on them, 
without a Community regulation standardising the balance between these types of gear. 
Furthermore, since the urgency with which decisions must be made and the availability of the 
information required vary depending on the problems involved, an action timetable must be 
drawn up. In cases where an immediate decision cannot be proposed, but the question must 
be resolved in due course, provision must be made for the relevant information to be gathered 
as soon as possible. 
d:\data\wpwin\rapports\cngdorm\texte\en/fvl 23 
14) 
Action must be based on four priorities: selectivity, fishing effort, "cohabitation" and 
monitoring. 
9.1 Ensuring the selectivity of nets 
Although Community action on other types of gear (long lines, pots, etc.) is neither urgent 
nor indeed possible, measures should now be taken to ensure the selectivity of nets. 
The technical knowledge for the definition of rules on the materials used (monofilament, 
biodegradable materials, etc.) is not yet adequate for the drafting of an effective Community 
regulation. Steps should therefore be taken to promote the specific research necessary for any 
future decisions. 
However desirable the limitation of the soak time of gear might be in theory, monitoring 
compliance would appear to be too difficult for regulation, at any rate Community regulation, 
to have sufficient short-term impact. Amended log-books could, nevertheless, provide useful 
information. 
Regulation of the height of nets on the basis of sea depth and immersion depth would be 
useful, particularly in order to avoid certain by-catches and so to guarantee inter-species 
selectivity. It would not necessarily be possible, however, to lay down general Community 
rules in the short term. A few basic rules could prohibit the use of over-high nets in shallow 
areas. Given that the problem is particularly severe in shallow waters, the most appropriate 
short-term solution would probably be local regulations adapted to local circumstances. It 
should be noted that the lack of tides makes the problem easier to overcome in the 
Mediterranean. Certain types of mixed-geometry nets enabling the bottom part of the gear to 
act as a trammel net and the top part as a gillnet should perhaps be prohibited. 
For driftnets, making the immersion of the float line compulsory would give advantages in 
terms of selectivity and safety for shipping. 
In order to improve inter-species selectivity and, in particular, to reduce catches of protected 
species, permanent or temporary boxes could be introduced in which the use of certain types 
of passive gear, especially nets in certain sectors, was prohibited. Again, the necessary 
information is not available and must therefore be gathered as soon as possible. 
There is, however, one area where rapid decisions can and must be taken and that is on the 
question of mesh sizes. For trammel nets it is more precisely the size of the interior webbing 
that must be regulated. The number of different types of fishing with nets makes it impossible 
to lay down a standard mesh. A minimum size should be laid down for the very large meshes 
used for crustaceans or even monk fish to prevent any risk of smaller nets being used in the 
future. On the other hand, no rules should be fixed as regards the composition of catches 
using such nets. 
d:\data\wpwn\rapports\CTgdonn\texteWfvl 24 
Table 7 : Mesh sizes (cm) employed in Member States to catch designated species by 
fixed nets in Region 2. (The mesh sizes apply to gillnets, tangle nets and the 
internal netting of trammel nets) 
Species 
Sprat 
Herring 
Mackerel 
R. Mullet 
Bass 
G. Mullet 
Sole 
Plaice 
Cod 
Gadoids* 
Spurdog 
Hake 
Flounder 
Crawfish 
Lobster 
Sp. Crab 
Anglers 
Rays 
Turbot 
Turbot 
Brill Country 
BEL. 
15-18 
K • DK 
9-14 
12-18 
11-20 
13-18 
13-27 FR 
2-5 
4-7 
7-13 
8-12 
8-12 
12-17 
12-18 
11-12 
24-32 
24-32 
26-32 
22-32 
27-32 
27-32 GER. 
5-7B 
9-11 
12-16 
11-16 
11-14B 
22-27 
19-22B IRL. 
4-7 
9-12 
8-13 
8-9 
8-9 
11-13 
11-13 
4146 
27-31 
26-31 
25-31 NL 
9$ 
18$ RU 
2-3 
4-7 
4-7 
9-13 
9-11 
8-13 
10-15 
12-14 
15-20 
12-15 
12-14 
20-30 
20-30 
27-33 
25-33 
27-33 Most used 
range 
2-3 
4-7 
8-12 
11-18 
25-33 
Notes: B - For fisheries in the Baltic. 
* - Gadoids other than cod including pollock, ling, saithe. 
S - Netherlands uses only tangle nets 
Source: Table I, Document SEC(93) 652, 1993 
d:\data\wpwin\rapports\cngdonn\texte\en/fvl 25 
Table 8: Mesh sizes (mm) employed in Member States to catch designated species by 
fixed nets in Region 3 
Species Country 
Spain Portugal 
Hake 
Pollock 
Horse Mac 
Mackerel 
Forkbeard 
Red Mullet 
Gurnards 
Angler T 
B 
B 
B 
B 
B 
B 
B 90 
x 
x 
x 
X 
X 
X 
X 80-120 
(usually, 
but may be as low 
as 65. 
By-catch unknown) 
Hake 
Gurnards 
Red Mullet 
Horse Mac 
Mackerel 60 
x 
X 
X 
X 
Sole 
Gurnards 
Wrasse 
Rays T 
T 
T 
T 40/280 
Trammel 
net 
Pouting 60 
Other Spp 60-80 
Meagre 
Rubberlip 
Grunt 160 
(Canary Island)) 
Notes : T - Target species 
B - By-catch species (x denotes known by-catch 
Rubberlip grunt = Plectorhincus mediterraneus 
Meagre = Argyrosomus regium 
Source: Table 2, Document SEC(93)652, 1993 
d:\data\wpwin\rapports\engdonn\texte\cn/fvt 26 
Tableau 9: Mesh sizes (mm) employed in Member States to catch desingated species by 
fixed nets in Mediterranean 
a) Greece 
Target Species 
Mullus barbatus 
Mullus surrmdetus 
Mugi I Sp. 
Trachurus Sp. 
Meluccius merluccius 
Boops boops 
Pagrus pagrus 
Oblada melanura 
Lithognathus mormyrus 
Dentex dentex 
Spicara smarts 
Scombroidei 
Sepia Sp. 
Homarus Sp. 
Shrimps 
Nephrops norvégiens 
Solea Sp. Mesh Size 
Gillnet 
17-22 
18-24 
22-28 
28 
24-40 
20-22 
32-110 
22-32 
22. 
32 
16» 
36-45 
45 Trammel Net 
Inner. 
18-28 
18-26 
24-40 
22-26 
24-28 
20-26 
32-40 
26-28 
28 
32-46 
20 
46 
26-42 
32-40 
22-28 
30 Outer 
110 
110 
120-200 
110-130 
110-140 
110 
180-200 
110-120 
110 
140-180 
110 
140 
110-170 
1810-200 
110-140 
180 
d:\data\wpwin\rapports\engdonn\texteWfvl 27 
(b) Italy 
Target species Mesh size 
Amberjack 110-130 
Atlantic bonito " 80-90 
Bass 90-140 
Common pandora 60-80 
Cuttlefish 68-74 
Frigate mackerel 70-80 
Lithognathus 64-72 
Mackerel 50-60 
Mullus Spp. 40-50 
Shrimps 40-50 
Sole 52-70 
Spiny Lobsters 50-70 
(c) Espagne 
Espèce cible Maillage 
Sepia officinalis 70/400 
Pagellus acerne Trémail 
Mullus surmuletus 28/300 
Solea Spp. Trémail 
Penaeus Kerathinus 20/125 
Trémail 
Lithognathus rnormyrus 70 
Pagellus erythrinus Filets maillants 
Trachurus trachurus 50 
Filets maillants 
Source: Table 3, Document SEC(93) 652, 1993 
Smaller meshes, suitable for catching particular species, are also used. These types of 
specialist fishing should be recognized and rules laid down for mesh sizes and catch 
composition. To prevent the rules becoming over-complex, the number of mesh sizes should 
be limited by grouping the target species concerned by category. By laying down minimum 
mesh sizes, any future tendency towards smaller meshes can be prevented. In cases where 
dVLi!a\wpwin\rapports\cngdorm\tcxte\en/fvl 28 
this trend has already started, the mesh sizes laid down will have to be larger than those 
currently used. 
Two methods could be used for choosing a minimum mesh size for each species: 
(1) A solution could be chosen which aims at producing first catch sizes similar to those 
taken by trawlers under the existing rules. 
(2) More ambitious selectivity criteria could be set for nets than for trawls. There are two 
reasons for this: to maintain the benefits of selectivity and to compensate for the 
difficulty of developing, at least in the immediate future, a tight management system for 
passive gear. The simplest option would be a solution based on the size at sexual 
maturity. 
Having defined a minimum mesh size for one or more target species, it might be useful to 
lay down a maximum. The objective would be to avoid the temptation to use one range of 
mesh sizes to catch species usually taken with the range above. Such a maximum should be 
set so as not to create unnecessary difficulties for fishermen. 
Finally, consideration should be given to supplementing the rules on meshes with provisions 
on the hanging ratio. 
9.2. Preventing an uncontrolled increase in fishing effort. 
In view of the need to prevent an uncontrolled increase in the fishing effort using passive 
gear but also bearing in mind the fact that an immediate reduction was not necessary given 
the advantages of such gear in terms of selectivity, the M AGP decisions set the aim of 
stabilising the capacities of vessels carrying out such fishing activities. 
To prevent such an uncontrolled expansion, however, account must be taken of the number 
of units in use and the relevant characteristics of each vessel such as the number and size of 
the fishing gear it uses. 
There are, however, at least three reasons for not immediately introducing complete 
Community regulation of the size of gear: 
(1) A Member State might prefer to give priority to maintaining employment at sea by 
linking the authorised length of the net to the size of the crew whilst another might 
encourage increases in productivity by only taking account of the tonnage of the vessel. 
(2) The introduction of a maximum size would raise the following dilemma: if it were much 
less than the size currently used by a large number of vessels, it would potentially be 
very useful in terms of the conservation of resources but could have very serious short-
term economic consequences; were it much greater than the lengths currently used by 
the overwhelming majority of vessels, its impact would be small and could encourage 
some vessels to increase their capacity up to the authorized maximum. 
d:\dala\wpvrtn\rapports\OTgdorm\texteWfvl 2y 
(3) Vessels using several types of gear (nets, long lines or lines of pots) immediately raise 
the question of the combination of rules (should they be applied by type of gear, 
cumulatively etc.). 
Initially, it would therefore appear sensible to stabilise the number of units fishing with the 
various types of passive gear rather then to set, by means of a Community regulation, the 
fishing capacity of each vessel using the authorized gear. That would not rule out the 
introduction of a few initial measures to safeguard against the risk of uncontrolled increases, 
for example, laying down that vessels above a certain size or using gear above a certain 
length must use only that gear. 
The current MAGP offers a certain level of protection against any unplanned growth in the 
number of vessels fishing with passive gear. Given the composite character of certain areas 
in which fleets using fixed gear fish, that protection is inadequate. Therefore, taking up a 
proposal put forward by the STECF (or rather its predecessor the STCF), licences should be 
introduced to regulate the use of passive gear, beginning with nets. This would not mean a 
Community licensing system. Each Member State would supplement its MAGP with a 
national licensing system permitting the use of the various types of passive gear. Systems 
could contain provisions specific to a Member State although these would have to be made 
known to the other Member States. Within the quotas allocated to it and in line with the 
objectives laid down in its MAGP, a Member State could decide on the balance it wished to 
strike between the various types of fishing. There would have to be slightly different 
arrangements, however, for those fisheries where the inexistence of effective guidelines for 
deciding on the output from various types of fishing implies the need for tight, direct 
management of the fishing effort of the Member States, namely fisheries not subject to TACs 
or those for which the TACs are too large to be effective management tools (precautionary 
TACs). 
Although there seems to be no urgent need to go beyond measures to prevent an uncontrolled 
increase in fishing efforts, account must be taken of future needs. Much more information 
must be gathered on fishing using fixed gear and the bioeconomic analyses necessary must 
be carried out so as to gain an understanding of the role of the various aspects of the fishing 
effort. 
9.3. Encouraging "cohabitation" 
It is unlikely that the introduction of rules, and particularly Community rules, will be a 
suitable response to the problem of competition for space between passive gear and trawls 
or even that between different types of passive gear. Generally speaking, a strict system of 
management is required which can only be introduced where wide acceptance from those 
concerned permits a level of self-discipline within the industry. The concept of subsidiarity 
must be fully applied. The Commission must in no way become involved in disputes which 
can be resolved locally provided the necessary mediation is provided. 
A certain number of disputes have nevertheless acquired an international dimension. To help 
find solutions, the Commission could organize meetings between industry representatives and 
the authorities concerned as an attempt at arbitration designed to encourage the emergence 
of codes of good conduct. 
d jb(a\wpwin\rapports\engdorm\tcxte\en/fvl j(J 
9.4. Control 
The adoption of the new regulation on monitoring necessitates a revision of the rules of 
application. The opportunity must be taken to lay down the provisions necessary for ensuring 
compliance with the rules on mesh sizes and all aspects of the identification and location of 
fixed gear. Furthermore, log books must be revised to take better account of the situation in 
the various fisheries, particularly in the case of fishing with passive gear. Revised log books 
will be extremely useful for providing the information which is now lacking and which will 
be indispensable for carrying out the bioeconomic analyses referred to above. 
CONCLUSION 
Compared to towed gear, passive gear has a real advantage in terms of selectivity and 
therefore in terms of the economic exploitation of resources. It may even generate more 
direct employment. It is generally responsible for a minority of catches but recent 
developments call for vigilance. Trends towards catching smaller fish have been recorded for 
several fleets using passive gear (essentially due to smaller mesh sizes). The fishing effort has 
been increased, sometimes massively, by converting of a number of ships to passive gear and 
by increasing the size and number of gear. This has been facilitated by automatisation. This 
increase in the fishing effort has led to an increase in the contribution made by passive gear 
to the exploitation of resources and to an intensification in the disputes over space. At the 
same time, questions have been raised about the use of passive gear and the capture of non­
commercial species (marine mammals, birds). Action must therefore be taken, starting with 
nets, where the problems are particularly serious. 
"Local solutions" can be found to many of the problems linked to the use of passive gear. 
Member States must not seek to involve the Community simply because they are unwilling 
to mediate between their own fishermen. There is, however, one level at which the 
Community has a natural role. 
In the immediate future, priority must be given to drafting a regulation on net meshes and 
provisions to prevent an uncontrolled increase in fishing effort. Vessels fishing either full or 
part time should be subject to special licensing procedures. To ensure compliance with the 
rules, special control measures should be adopted when the rules of application for the new 
regulation on monitoring are adopted. Finally, consultation procedures should be set up to 
enable rules on cohabitation to be drafted. 
In the medium term, consideration must be given to additional technical measures or even to 
the possibility of the strict management of fishing effort. This can only be done if the 
necessary technical, biological and economic analyses have been carried out and, first and 
foremost, if the required information has been collected. An amendment of the log book 
could play an essential role. The research bodies concerned must adopt the programmes 
required and provide the necessary resources. The Commission must play a coordinating and 
supporting role. 
d:\data\wpwinVapports\engdorm\texte\en/fvl J 1 
ANNEX I 
Comparative prices of various species according to type of gear used 
Gears/species 
Cod 
Mackerel 
Hake 
Whiting 
Saithr 
Monk 
Bass 
Sole 
Plaice 
Cuttlefish 
Bream 
Molluscs 
Crustaceans GEAR OTHER THAN PASSIVE GEAR 
Bottom trawl 
(FB/Kg) 77.89 
(FF/Kg) 15.18 
(DkK/Kg) 10 
(Esc/Kg) 79 
(FF/Kg) 4.06 
(Esc/Kg) 700 
(FB/Kg)122.98 
(Pts/Kg) 700 . 
(FF/Kg) 25.20 
(FB/Kg) 41.53 
(FF/Kg) 7.74 
(FB/Kg) 33.58 
(FF/Kg) 6.77 
(Esc/Kg) 780 
(FB/Kg)387.92 
(FF/Kg) 30.50 
(Esc/Kg) 2000 
(FF/Kg) 68.15 
(FB/Kg)261.47 
(Pts/Kg) 330 
(FB/Kg) 48.10 
(Pts/Kg) 260 
(Pts/Kg) 200 
(Lit/Kg) 5313 
(Lit/Kg) 11882 Pelagic trawl 
17.99 
3.63 
29.50 
7.84 
30.22 
30.09 
97.51 Beam trawl 
68.66 
16.34 
4.63 
75.30 
35.69 
7.35 
36.13 
334.86 
57.40 
56.74 
266.08 
53.11 Large 
seine Small 
seine 
• PASSIVE GEAR 
Gillnet 
115.93 
13.25 
15.00 
4.72 
31.74 
62.60 
6.14 
25.22 
104.06 
284.25 
.. 800-
68.58 
500-
330. Trammel 
21.13 
85 
5.81 
788 
31.60 
12.15 
11.89 
780 
37.33 
1900-
68.63 
8690-
22374 Longline 
17.35 
8.08 
1.400 
52.20 
18.77 
11.76 
29.58 
100.25 Pots 
; 
104.79 
Source: DG XTV-A-3 
ll MaWl\wpwili\i:i|i|RiitsVii(\(lolin.t<-\Ii-VM/lv 
ANNEXE 
Summary of the characteristics of each of the demersal fishery units fishery in area VII and VTII a, b 
Fisheiy unit 
Western Approaches 
Long line in medium to 
deep water 
Long line in shallow waters 
Gill net 
Non-nephrops trawling in 
medium to deep water 
Non-nephrops trawling in 
shallow water 
Beem trawling in shallow 
water (B/T) 
Nephrops trawling in deep 
water 
Nephrops trawling in 
medium depth 
Bay of Biscay 
Nephrops trawling shallow 
to medium depth 
Trawling in shallow to 
medium depth 
Beam trawling in shallow 
water (B/T) 
Longline in deep and 
medium depth (DM) 
Gill nets in medium to 
shallow depth 
Trawling in deep to medium depth (DM) County 
France 
Ireland 
Spain 
U.K.(1) 
France 
U.K. 
France 
U.K. 
France 
Ireland 
Spain 
U.K.O) 
France 
Ireland 
U.K. 
Belgium 
U.K. 
France 
Spain 
France 
Ireland 
France 
France 
Belgium 
Netherlands 
Spain 
France 
France 
Spain Number of 
boats 
18 
1 
41 
30 
11 
12 
10 
110 
121 
13 
127 
39 
98 
<130 
221 
15 
91 
8 
63 
<25 
<17 
<20 
330 
174 
7 
±6 
81 
55 
67 
76 KW 
110 
300 
428 
560 
537 
184 
118 
190 
107 
442 
760 
596 
631 
468 
230 
143 
740 
431 
422 
324 
330 
400 
330 
208 
269 
180 
1470 
380 
250 
308 
615 GKT 
50 
130 
202 
201 
12 
24 
43 
19 
96 
240 
208 
202 
128 
65 
(so­ns) 
33 
. 
56 
296 
52 
±70 
±110 
±60 
26 
45 
30 
134 
50 
51 
242 Target species 
skate, dogfish, ling 
Hake 
Hake 
Hake, link, cod 
Pollack, ling, dogfish 
Gadoids, skates, 
spurdogs 
Hake 
Hake, monk, cod, 
pollack 
Monk, megrim 
Hake, megrim, monk 
Hake, megrim 
Hake, monk 
Gadoids 
Gadoids 
Gadoids 
Monk, gadoids 
Sole 
s 
Monk, sole 
Nephrops 
Nephrops 
Nephrops 
Nephrops 
Nephrops 
Nephrops 
Nephrops 
Sole, hake, monk 
cephalopods 
Sole 
Sole 
Hake 
Hake 
Monk 
Hake, By-catch 
Ling, greater forkbeard, cod 
Monk, ling | 
Whiting | 
Skate ! 
i 
Pollack I 
Spurdog | 
i 
Hake, skates, gadoids 
Cod, witch 
Cod, nephrops 
i 
mègrim 
Monk, skates, dogfish 
Megrim, monk, rays 
Plaice, sole 
Skates, flatfish 
Plaice, rays ! 
Megrim 
Hake, monk, megrim franche 
Hake, gadoids, monk, 
megrim 
Whiting, hake, monk, 
megrim 
Unknown 
Hake, monk, whiting, 
megrim 
Hake, monk 
Whiting, gurnards 
Bib, red mullet 
Mixed demersal 
Scad 
Pollack 
Skates, hake, megrim 
Scad, bib, monk, 
cephalopods 
(1) These vessels fished only in the 1st quarter of 1989 
Source: ICES Working Group for Fishery Units in Subareas VH and VIII - 1990 
d\dam\wp\vin\rappom\«igdonn\textcWfvl 
ANNEX m 
Breakdown of costs and manpower according to type of gear used 
Gears/Variable and semi-
variable costs 
(1) Fuel 
(2) Purchase and repair of 
fishing gear 
(3) Maintenance of vessels 
(4) Labour costs 
(5) Number of fishermen 
(6): (4)/(5) GEAR OTHER THAN PASSIVE GEAR 
Bottom trawl 
(LIT) 43.665 
(DK) 11 % 
for 2075 T 
(DK) 9 % 
(DK) 15 % 
(LIT) 129.000 
(DK**) 46 % 
for 2075 T 
(IT) 4.5 
(DK) 3.5 
(IT) 28.666.6 Pelagic trawl 
43.877 
180.446 
5.6 
32.222.5 Beam 
trawl 
25.000 
70.000 
4.1 
17.073.17 Large sein 
32.041 
315.400 
11.5 
27.426.0 Small 
seine 
9.500 
13% 
14% 
59.000 
5.6 
10.535.7 PASSIVE GEAR 
Gillnet 
3.200 
4 % for 1255 T 
26.000 
47 % for 1255T 
2.2 
4 
11.818.2 Trammel 
3 .200 
26.000 
2.2 
11.818.2 Longline 
26.500 * 
153.000 
5.2 
29.423.0 Pots 
*These figures are for an homogenous group of vessels, the Sicilian longliners, of above-average size (35/40 GRT) 
* including the skipper. 
Source: DG XIV-A-3 
d:\data\wpwin\rappom\aigdorm\texteWfvl 34 
ANNEX IV 
Average costs and earnings of fishing vessels in Denmark in 1990 
Fishery unit 
Size group 
GRT 
Metres (m) Gill net 
Danish seine 
19-45 
13-18 
104-201 Trawler 
< 50 GRT 
19-38 
14-17 
138-272 Trawler 
50-120 GRT 
55-98 
20-26 
298-386 Trawler 
120 GRT 
149-188 
34-35 
585-802 
(amount in ECU) 
11 579 
87 591 
99 170 Days at sea 
Earnings 
Réduction 
Consumption 
TOTAL 0 
136 485 
136 485 61 625 
293 934 
355 559 176 361 
316 585 
492 946 
634 
344 * Running Costs 
Fuel and lube oil 6 
Harbour Dues a) 3 
Boxes ice b) 
Food c) * 
Other costs of crew c) * 
Costs of selling fish 12 861 
Other running costs * 
TOTAL 22 839 12 442 
2 430 * 
* 
5 822 * 
20 693 57 275 
8 711 
* 
* 
* 
30 029 * 
96 016 94 456 
12 077 * 
* 
43 687 * 
150 220 
Labour share. 
Mages 
Social insurance c) 
Vessels costs 
Gear expenses 
Vessel repairs 
Equipt. Hire and 
maintenance 
Vessel insurance 
Other vessel costs 
General expenses 
Special earnings d) 
TOTAL 49 120 * 
6 
11 966 
285 
2 062 
5 469 
2 038 
8 396 
m. 
35 354 
TOTAL COSTS/EXPENSES 107 314 
CASH FLOU BRUT 29 171 
Dépréciation e) 15 214 
Interest e) 2 395 
NET PROFIT or LOSS 11 562 34 891 * 
940 
168 
802 
398 
958 
655 
MB. 
25 932 
81 516 
17 654 
14 310 
5 163. 
- 1 825 118 163 * 
20 352 
30 025 
6 075 
13 480 
4 691 
16 882 
8 002 
83 503 
297 681 
57 878 
44 576 
10 558 
2 744 144 177 * 
33 517 
34 153 
9 036 
24 809 
10 399 
25 024 
9 428 
127 509 
421 906 
71 906 
107 052 
38 266 
- 74 278 : Figure is not available cj 
a) : calculated as 2.45% of total earnings d) 
b) : Included in fuel and lube oil 
e) : Common method, described in section 7.4.1. and Appendix 7 Included in General expenses 
Special earnings: Capital gains, oil bonus 
Source: Davidse W.P. et al. 1993. Costs and earnings in four EC countries. 
Inst. (LEI-DLO) Agric. Econ. Res. 
d:\dau\wpwin\rapports\engdorm\texte\cn/fvl 35 
ANNEXE V 
Average Costs and Earnings of Fishing Vessels in Denmark in 1990 
Fishery Unit 
Size group 
GRT 
Metres (m) 
ky Gill net 
18-43 
14-18 
95-172 < 30 GRT 
28-29 
15 
82-128 Senne danoise 
> 30 GRT 
33-43 
16-18 
127-172 Chalutier 
0-50 GRT 
37-43 
17-18 
257-326 
Days at sea (amounts in ECU) 
Earnings 
Reduction 
Consumption 
TOTAL 0 
203 125 
203 125 0 
161 625 
161 625 0 
211 625 
211 625 0 
185 250 
185 250 
Running Costs 
Fuel and lube oil 
Harbour Dues a) 
Boxes Ice b) 
Food b) 
Other costs of crew 
Costs of selling fish 
Other running costs 
TOTAL 7 125 
4 977 
625 
15 023 
3 750 
31 500 5 125 
3 960 
* 
500 
17 665 
1 250 
28 500 8 500 
5 185 
* 
* 
625 
20 565 
3 125 
38 000 18 375 
4 539 
* 
* 
250 
15 961 
5 625 
44 750 
Labour share 
Mages 83 500 
Social insurance 2 875 65 750 
2 875 87 500 
4 125 72 625 
3 375 
Vessel costs 
Gear expenses 
Vessel Repairs 
Equpt. Hire and 
Maint c) 
Vessel Insurance 
Other Vessel costs 
General Expenses 
Special Earnings d) 
TOTAL 19 125 
23 125 
5 000 
3 375 
5 875 
625. 
55 875 
TOTAL COSTS/EXPENSES 173 750 
CASH FLOW BRUT 29 375 5 500 
17 625 
4 375 
1 375 
4 000 
1 250 
31 625 
128 750 
32 875 8 625 
23 375 
8 000 
1 250 
4 375 
2 375 
43 250 
172 875 
38 750 13 750 
16 625 
8 375 
1 875 
5 375 
2 000 
44 000 
164 750 
20 500 
Depreciation e) 12 554 
Interest e) 1 686 
NET PROFIT or LOSS (-) 15 135 9 165 
2 634 
21 076 13 076 
4 401 
31 273 29 564 
5 616 
14 680 
. : Figure is not available. 
a) : Calculated as 2.45% of total earnings 
b) : Included in Other Running Costs 
e) : Common moethod. described in section 7.4.1. and Appendix 7 c) : Included in Vessel Repairs 
d) : Special earnings: Capital gains, a.o. 
Source: Davidse W.P. et al 1993. Op. Cit, 
d\data\wpwin\rapports\engdonn\texte\en/fvl 36 
ANNEX VI 
Imputing the crew's share based on cost and earnings studies fromthe districts of Skagen and Hjorring (1990) 
Skagen 
Trawler : 15 à 19,9 
Trawler : 20 à 49,9 
Trawler : 50 à 99,9 
Trawler : > 100 
Hj0rring 
Gill net and seiners 
Trawler : < 50 
Trawler : 50 à 120 
Trawler : > 120 Crew size 
(1) 
2,1 
2,9 
3,5 
4,9 
1,9' 
2,2 
3,8 
4,9 Actual income to 
skipper 
(amounts ECU) 
24.500 
24.500 
28.750 
30.250 
11.706 
15.144 
21.310 
29.796 Crew's share 
(2) 
28.125 
48.625 
64.875 
117.875 
37.414 
19.747 
96.853 
114.381 Total earnings 
(3) 
127.875 
181.500 
250.625 
465.125 
136.485 
99.170 
355.559 
492.946 Landing costs 
+ 
fuel and lube oil 
20.250 
32.000 
53.500 
117.000 
22.875 
20.750 
96.000 
150.250 Imputed crew share 
(4) 
% 
26,1 
32,5 
32,9 
33,9 
32,9 
25,2 
37,3 
22A 
31,8 
(1) Crew size is including skipper 
(2) Crew's share exclusive social insurance 
(3) Total earning = Landings for human consumption and fishmeal production 
(4) Imputed crew share is defined : [total earning - landing costs - fuel and lube oil], which give an average per crew of 3,8 %. 
Source:Davidse W.P. et al 1993. Op. Cit. 
il liai a upwiiwa|>|was,cngdoi!ii\!c.\teWfvl 37 
ANNEX VH 
Imputation of crew's and owners share in Lemvig (1990) 
Lemvig 
Trawler : 0 - 50 
Trawler : 50 - 120 
Trawler : 120 - 200 
Trawler: > 200 
Danish Seine : < 30 
Danish Seine : > 30 
Gill net Crew size 
2,2 
^ 3,7 
4,5 
5,2 
3,1 
3,2 
2,7 Total wage 
72.625 
108.750 
132.750 
243.125 
65.750 
87.500 
83.500 Total earnings 
185.250 
284.625 
446.375 
825.500 
161.625 
211.625 
203.125 Landing osts 
+ 
fuel lube oil 
38.875 
61.625 
124.750 
239.750 
26.750 
34.250 
27.125 Estimated crew's 
share 
(1) 
46.547 
70.914 
102.277 
186.269 
42.890 
56.405 
55.968 Estimated 
owner's share 
(2) 
26.078 
37.836 
30473 
56.857 
22.860 
31.095 
27.532 Estimated share 
per crew 
(3) 
38.789 
26.264 
29.222 
44.350 
20.424 
25.639 
32.922 
(1) The crew's share is estimated by using the imputed average percentage of 31,8 % : 31,8 % of [total earning - landing cote - fuel and lube oil] 
(2) Owner's share is calculated like : total wage - est. crew share. 
(3) Estimated share per crew member is calculated like : est. crew share/(crew size less skipper). 
Source: W.P. Davidse et al. 1993. Op. Cit. 
d:\data\wp win\rapports\engdonn\texte\en/fvl 38 
ANNEX VH! 
Figure 1: Hanging Ratio (E) and Shape of Meshes in the 
Water 
E -- 08 E = 07 
E = OS 6 -- 0 3S 
Figure 2: Typical Rig Used in Fishing with Anchored Gill 
or Tangle Nets 
•—Weighted footrope 
39 
Figure 3: Methods of Capture of Fish in Gill Nets 
(a) Fish wedged around the snout 
(b) Fish wedged at maxirauro girth 
(c) Fish gilled 
40 
Figure 4: Trammel Net 
Headline 
float 
Attachment 
to bridle r6mm 
braided 
headline 
Inner net 
Outer net 
Braid covered leadline 
or weighted footrope 
Figure 5: Method of Capture of Fish in a Trammel Net 
A pocket formed by the small meshed net is 
pushed through a mesh of the outer net 
41 
Figure 6: Combined Gillnet/Trammel Net 
Figure 7: Fixed Gillnet on Stakes 
42 
Figure 8: Stationary Uncovered Pound Net 
Figure 9: Fyke Net 
43 
Figure 10: Bottom Long Line 
Figure 11: An Example of One of the Many Types of Pots 
Figure 12: Selectivity (a) of a Gill Net, with a 
Stretched Mesh Size of 89mm, in Catching Bass 
from a Population (b) with a wide Sizex 
Distribution, and the Resulting Catches (c) of 
Retained Fish. 
(t>) 
1 It _ r-\ 
<a» 
IC) 
» • • • ^ 
Fijh length (Cfi) 
45 
Figure 13: Retention Curves of Sole in Gillnets of Four 
Different Mesh Sizes. 
0) 
cr» «o *J 
c <i) 
o u 
a. 
45 
Fish Length (cm) 
Figure 14: A Gill Net - Showing that small fish can pass 
through while large fish might bounce off 
without becoming firmly wedged-
Figure 15: Mesh Size Measurements 
b - Bar Length s - Stretched Mesh 
Ul 
ISSN 0254-1475 
COM(94) 235 final 
DOCUMENTS 
EN 03 
Catalogue number : CB-CO-94-253-EN-C 
ISBN 92-77-69892-6 
Office for Official Publications of the European Conuniinities 
Lr2985 Luxembourg