Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on improving the economic situation in the fishing industry
Date: 2006-03-09
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: common fisheries policy, economic and social cohesion, economic development, fishery management, fishing industry

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 09.03.2006 
COM(2006) 103 final 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION  
TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 

ON IMPROVING THE ECONOMIC SITUATION IN THE FISHING INDUSTRY 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. 

2. 

Introduction .................................................................................................................. 3 

Sources of economic and social difficulties................................................................. 3 

2.1. 

Decreasing income ....................................................................................................... 4 

2.1.1.  Stagnating market prices .............................................................................................. 4 

2.1.2.  Lower fishing yields..................................................................................................... 4 

2.2. 

Rising costs .................................................................................................................. 5 

3. 

Addressing the economic difficulties........................................................................... 5 

3.1. 

Short-term rescue and restructuring ............................................................................. 6 

3.1.1.  Rescue and restructuring aid ........................................................................................ 6 

3.1.2.  Compatibility of certain operating aid ......................................................................... 8 

3.2. 

Longer-term measures and initiatives .......................................................................... 9 

3.2.1. 

Improving fisheries management................................................................................. 9 

3.2.1.1.  Moving towards maximum sustainable yields (MSY)................................................. 9 

3.2.1.2.  Economic management of fisheries ............................................................................. 9 

3.2.1.3.  Improving governance of the fisheries policy.............................................................. 9 

3.2.1.4.  Matching fishing effort to available resources........................................................... 10 

3.2.2.  Better compliance with fisheries management rules.................................................. 10 

3.2.2.1.  Improved enforcement and controls........................................................................... 10 

3.2.2.2.  Stepping up the fight against illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing...... 11 

3.2.3.  Organisation and operation of fish markets ............................................................... 11 

3.2.4.  Promote research on fuel-efficient and more environmentally friendly fishing 

methods ...................................................................................................................... 11 

3.3. 

Community support.................................................................................................... 12 

4. 

Conclusions ................................................................................................................ 12 

ANNEX.................................................................................................................................... 13 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
1. 

INTRODUCTION  

The  importance  of  the  fishing  industry  goes  beyond  its  direct  contribution  to  the  European 
Union’s  GDP.  Not  only  does  it  supply  a  substantial  proportion  of  the  protein  needed  for 
human consumption, but also it makes an important contribution to the economic and social 
fabric of many coastal communities across the EU.  

In recent years this industry has been facing difficult adjustments as depleted fish stocks and 
unfavourable  market  conditions  have  eroded  its  profitability.  The  reform  of  the  Common 
Fisheries Policy (CFP) has accelerated modernisation of management of the Union’s fisheries 
and put them on the path towards sustainability. This will lead to an economically healthier 
fishing  industry,  but  it  is  a  painful  process  that  has  inevitably  entailed  measures  to  restrict 
fishers’ catches, the time spent fishing and, hence, profits and will continue to do so for the 
foreseeable future.  

The recent increase in operating costs due to higher fuel prices therefore comes at a sensitive 
time, creating unprecedented difficulties for many parts of the industry. The combination of 
depleted  stocks,  inevitably  restrictive  management  measures,  heavy  increases  in  costs  and 
static or decreasing income means that many vessels with high fuel consumption are operating 
at a loss. 

In this Communication the Commission identifies the sources of the economic difficulties and 
suggests avenues for addressing both the short-term and the long-term challenges facing the 
fishing industry.  

2. 

SOURCES OF ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL DIFFICULTIES 

Over the past few years the economic situation of many fishing enterprises has deteriorated, 
primarily because of decreasing income. The situation has recently been aggravated by a rapid 
rise  in  costs,  due  to  increased  fuel  prices,  which  threatens  the  financial  viability  of  many 
fishing enterprises. This rise in costs is also felt strongly by crew members whose wages are a 
share  of  the  income  from  the  catch  (after  deduction  of  all  operating  costs,  including  fuel 
costs); the loss of income for crew members can be as high as 25% in some cases1. There is 
also a risk that loss in profitability may result in less safety on board.  

While  these  economic  difficulties  concern,  to  varying  degrees,  all  segments  of  the  fishing 
fleet,  they  particularly  affect  vessels  using  towed  gear  and  targeting  demersal  species,  i.e. 
bottom trawlers.  

1 

See Table 1. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
2.1. 

Decreasing income 

2.1.1. 

Stagnating market prices 

Market  factors  have  contributed  to  an  erosion  of  income  from  fishing.  Prices  for  many 
important commercial species have not followed production cost trends in recent years. For a 
number  of  whitefish  species,  for  example,  average  first-sale  prices  stagnated  or  even 
decreased between 2000 and the first half of 20052. 

The increasing share of imports on the EU market for fish and the development of aquaculture 
are often blamed for stagnating or falling fish prices. However, their contribution to reducing 
fishers’  income  is  probably  less  important  than  other  factors,  such  as  the  concentration  of 
sales in big distribution chains and greater competition between fish and other food products, 
putting  considerable  pressure  on  wholesalers  to  cut  their  prices  and  profit  margins.  This 
reverberates  all  along  the  market  chain  but  hits  primary  producers,  i.e.  fishers,  hardest.  For 
species  such  as  cod  or  saithe,  the  EU  fishing  industry  can  no  longer  provide  the  size  or 
quantity needed and supplies are already almost exclusively imported. 

2.1.2.  Lower fishing yields  

Heavy fishing, generally pushing levels of fishing mortality well above the maximum possible 
for sustainable fishing, has depleted fish stocks and drastically reduced the economic output 
for fishermen3. 

For the North-East Atlantic and adjacent waters, the International Council for the Exploration 
of the Sea (ICES) evaluated the exploitation rate for fish stocks in relation to sustainability4. 
Out  of  43  stocks  assessed,  35  (i.e.  81%)  were  over-fished  and  only  8  were  being  fished  at 
levels corresponding to the highest long-term yields (i.e. maximum sustainable yield, MSY)5. 
Over-fishing was running at two to five times the level that would generate the highest yields; 
it  was  particularly  high  for  demersal  species.  But  over-fishing  is  not  confined  to  the  North-
East Atlantic; it occurs everywhere. 

Consequently, fishers have had to face a significant reduction in their catch possibilities. The 
quotas allocated to vessels fishing in the west of Europe for the main demersal species (cod, 
haddock, whiting, saithe and hake) and benthic species (plaice, sole, anglerfish and nephrops) 
have  been  decreasing  since  the  mid-1990s.  For  cod,  for  example,  total  allowable  catches 
(TACs) were reduced by 54% between 1998 and 20056. Stocks of other demersal species also 
show  a  downward  trend.  This  reduction  in  catch  possibilities  for  cod  stocks  has  led  to 

2 
3 

4 

5 
6 

See Graph 1. 
Other  factors,  such  as  climate  change  and  pollution,  possibly  also  contribute  to  stock  depletion, 
although to a much lesser degree than over-fishing. The Commission’s proposal for a Thematic Strategy 
for the Protection of the Marine Environment aims at achieving a healthy marine environment which, 
amongst other things, is conducive to healthy fish stocks.  
Report  of  the  ICES  Advisory  Committees  on  Fishery  Management  (ACFM),  on  the  Marine 
Environment  (ACME)  and  on  Ecosystems  (ACE),  2005;  ICES  Advice,  Volumes  1-11,  1418  pp. 
Copenhagen, 2005. 
See Table 2. 
See Graphs 2a, b and c. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
restrictions  of  fishing  for  associated  species  in  the  context  of  mixed  fisheries,  which  are 
particularly common in the North Sea. 

In  the  meantime,  fishing  capacity  (vessel  tonnage  and  engine  power)  has  decreased  very 
slowly  over  the  last  ten  years  (by  2%  per  year  in  engine  power)7.  This  small  reduction  has 
been totally offset by the steady increase in efficiency of fishing vessels8. Despite reductions 
in  fishing  capacity,  scientific  advice  does  not  suggest  any  significant  improvement  in 
commercially important stocks9.  

Excessive  fishing  puts  greater  pressure  on  stocks  and  accelerates  depletion,  which  in  turn 
forces  vessels  to  increase  their  overall  fishing  effort  and  reduces  incentives  to  comply  with 
fishing  management  rules.  This  downward  spiral,  leading  to  lower  yields  and  revenues  for 
fishers,  must  be  reversed.  Fishing  effort  must  return  to  levels  compatible  with  higher  and 
sustainable fishing yields. There are various ways of reducing it, but over-capacity is clearly a 
key  factor  conducive  to  over-fishing;  removal  of  this  excess  capacity  is,  therefore,  an 
important objective. 

2.2. 

Rising costs 

The  recent  rise  in  fuel  prices  has  significantly  added  to  operating  costs  for  fishing  vessels. 
Between  January  2003  and  December  2005  prices  for  Maritime  Bunker  Fuels  increased 
significantly10.  Prices  for  the  fuel  used  in  long  range  fishing  (380  CST)  remained  relatively 
stable in 2004; however, these prices nearly doubled in 2005. Prices for fuel used in coastal 
fishing  (Marine  Diesel  Oil)  showed  steady  price  increases  until  September  2005,  and  then 
eased  slightly.  The  profitability  of  fishing  enterprises  has  been  seriously  affected  by  this 
development,  although  the  impact  on  costs  depends  on  the  type  of  gear  (towed  and  non-
towed) and target species.  

Between  2003  and  2005  fuel  costs  rose  from  approximately  18%  to  36%  of  the  value  of 
landings for trawlers and from approximately 9% to 18% for fleets operating with static gear. 
This suggests that for most bottom trawlers - by far the biggest segment of the fishing fleet - 
net operational profit is negative11.  

3. 

ADDRESSING THE ECONOMIC DIFFICULTIES 

Both short- and long-term action must be taken to address the current economic difficulties of 
the fishing industry. 

7 
8 

9 
10 
11 

See Graph 3. 
According to a report written for the Commission in June 2001 ("The impact of technological progress 
on  fishing  effort"),  fishing  vessels  are  becoming,  on  average,  between  2  and  4%  more  efficient  each 
year, depending on the kind of fishery. 
ICES report 2005.  
See Graph 4. 
Based  on  balance  sheet  figures  for  2003  provided  in  "Economic  Performance  of  Selected  European 
Fishing Fleets - Annual Report 2004" (see previous footnote and Table 3). 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
In the short term, available instruments and resources must be mobilised to help rescue and 
restructure fishing enterprises capable of regaining profitability through structural changes. It 
is  therefore  necessary  to  examine  how  the  existing  instruments  and  the  current  State  aid 
framework,  based  on  the  Community  guidelines  on  State  aid  for  rescuing  and  restructuring 
firms in difficulty12 and the guidelines for the examination of State aid to fisheries 13, can be 
applied to rescue and restructure fishing enterprises facing difficulties. 

It is also crucial to put these rescue and restructuring measures in a longer-term perspective so 
that  the  fishing  industry  can  adapt  to  the  new  situation  marked  by  high  fuel  prices. 
Throughout this process, the Commission will invite Member States to use the Community’s 
structural  instruments  for  fisheries14  to  accompany  the  necessary  adjustments  and  support 
fishing communities in the transition.  

3.1. 

Short-term rescue and restructuring 

To the extent allowed by Community law, Member States might wish to come to the aid of 
fishing  enterprises  that  appear  to  be  close  to  bankruptcy.  Possibilities  exist  to  provide  State 
aid  to  enterprises  in  difficulties  under  the  conditions  of  the  currently  applicable  Rescue  and 
Restructuring  Guidelines.  This  section  clarifies  how  the  Commission  intends  to  apply  the 
guidelines to the fishing industry.  

3.1.1.  Rescue and restructuring aid 

With fuel prices likely to remain high, fishing enterprises must adapt to the new situation and 
restructure if they are to regain viability, particularly in the case of vessels using towed gear 
and targeting demersal stocks. 

Rescue aid is to be seen as a short-term aid to keep an ailing enterprise financially afloat for 
the time necessary to work out a restructuring or liquidation plan. Such rescue aid, which may 
last no more than six months, must take the form of a reimbursable loan or guarantee. Where 
the rescue aid is followed by an approved restructuring plan, the rescue aid can be repaid with 
support received by the firm in the form of restructuring aid.  

Further  restructuring  of  fishing  enterprises  to  restore  economic  viability  will  often  imply 
investment  to  adapt  fishing  vessels.  General  rules  on  aid  for  such  investment  are  set  out  in 
point  4.4  of  the  guidelines  on  State  aid  to  fisheries.  These  allow  aid  for  modernisation  and 
equipment  of  fishing  vessels  subject  to  the  rules  laid  down  in  the  Financial  Instrument  for 
Fisheries  Guidance  (FIFG)  Regulation.  The  conditions  for  granting  national  aid  for  these 
purposes  are  therefore  the  same  as  those  applicable  to  Community  aid  under  the  FIFG 
Regulation. 

However, national aid for certain types of modernisation and equipment of vessels that is not 
allowed under point 4.4. could be considered if it is aimed at restructuring fishing enterprises 

12 
13 
14 

OJ C 244, 1.10.2004, p. 2. 
OJ C 229, 14.9.2004, p. 5, in particular point 4.1.2.  
Financial  Instrument  for  Fisheries  Guidance  (FIFG),  OJ  L  337,  30.12.1999,  p. 10,  Regulation,  as  last 
amended  by  Regulation  485/2005  (OJ  L  81,  30.3.2005,  p. 1);  from  1  January  2007  on,  the  European 
Fisheries Fund (EFF) (COM/2004/0497 final). 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
as part of rescue and restructuring schemes authorised by the Commission15. Member States 
which  decide  to  provide  such  aid  need  to  obtain  the  Commission's  approval  for  the  general 
framework of their national “rescue and restructuring aid schemes” if these concern small or 
individual  notification16.  The 
medium-sized  enterprises,  which  are  exempted  from 
Commission will assess these schemes on the basis of the Community guidelines on State aid 
for firms in difficulty, provided the restructuring of the firms is based on realistic economic 
assumptions in the present context, taking also into account the state and possible evolution of 
targeted  stocks.  Rescue  aid  should  be  limited  to  the  minimum  necessary.  The  purpose  of 
restructuring  must  be  to  ensure  the  profitability  of  the  enterprise  within  the  meaning  of 
paragraph  37  of  these  guidelines  by  reducing  operational  costs  without  increasing  current 
overall fishing effort and capacity.  

The Commission will examine State aid under these guidelines for the following investments 
in fishing vessels if they are made in the framework of such rescue and restructuring schemes 
and where these investments are necessary for the return to viability: 

–  a first change of fishing gear resulting in a less fuel-intensive fishing method,  

–  purchase of equipment to improve fuel efficiency, such as econometers, or 

–  one replacement of the engine provided that, 

•  for vessels under 12 m in overall length and not using towed gear, the new engine 

has the same power as the old one or less, 

•  for all other vessels up to 24 m in overall length, the new engine has at least 20% 

less power than the old one, or,  

•  for trawlers of more than 24 m in overall length, the new engine has at least 20% 
less power than the old one and the vessel changes to a less fuel-intensive fishing 
method. 

The power of the new engines of more than 130 kW covered by such State aid will be verified 
on  the  basis  of  the  “NOx  certificate”17.  Any  reduction  in  engine  power  linked  to  engine 
replacement  with  public  aid  will  be  deducted  from  the  national  reference  levels  and  fleet 
capacity ceilings18. 

In the case of individual enterprises operating several vessels, the Commission could accept, 
under the Community guidelines on State aid to fisheries, that the reduction of engine power 
mentioned under the second and third bullet points above could apply “globally” at the level 
of  the  enterprise.  Decommissioning  of  a  vessel  without  public  aid  would  also  be  counted 
against the required reduction rate. 

15 
16 
17 

18 

See point 4.1.2 of the Community guidelines on State aid to fisheries. 
See points 18 and 79 of the Community guidelines on State aid for firms in difficulty. 
EIAPP (Engine International Air Pollution Prevention) certificate issued in accordance with Annex VI 
to  the  MARPOL  Convention  (International  Convention  for  the  Prevention  of  Pollution  from  Ships, 
1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978 relating thereto) (MARPOL 73/78). 
Chapter III of Regulation 2371/2002 (OJ L 358, 31.12.2002, p. 59.) 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Similarly, national schemes allowing a restructuring plan presented by a group of small and 
medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) could be acceptable19. In this case, the profitability of some 
members of the group (or of some of the vessels operated) could be improved by action taken 
by others, such as decommissioning, as mentioned in the previous paragraph.  

In addition, following the same reasoning as for aid to modernisation and equipment, State aid 
for  temporary  cessation  of  activities  for  the  time  needed  to  carry  out  the  abovementioned 
investment on board fishing vessels could also be acceptable under point 4.1.2 of Community 
guidelines  on  State  aid  to  fisheries  if  it  is  granted  as  part  of  such  rescue  and  restructuring 
schemes.  

Any other public aid, including Community support, granted to a company in difficulty will 
have to be taken into account in the overall assessment of the restructuring plans and the long-
term viability. 

to 

the  Commission  within 

The  Commission  is  ready  to  examine  national  “rescue  and  restructuring  aid  schemes”  for 
SMEs  set  up  by  Member  States  to  address  the  present  economic  difficulties  as  soon  as 
possible. They should notify these schemes and, where appropriate, individual plans in case of 
this 
bigger  enterprises 
Communication.  The  Commission  will  examine  the  schemes  on  the  basis  of  relevant 
provisions  of  the  structural  funds  applicable  to  fisheries  and  in  particular  in  relation  to  aid 
intensity  where  aid  concerns  investments  on  board  fishing  vessels.  Within  two  years  after 
approval  of  the  notified  plan  by  the  Commission  Member  States  should  issue  the 
administrative  decisions  on  the  restructuring  plans.  Given  that  the  current  economic 
difficulties  hit  vessels  using  towed  gear  in  particular,  the  Commission  considers  that  such 
restructuring aid should primarily target trawlers. 

two  years  after  publication  of 

3.1.2.  Compatibility of certain operating aid 

The current difficulties in the fishing industry have been aggravated by the recent increase in 
fuel  prices.  This  has  led  to  calls  from  the  fishing  industry  for  public  intervention  to 
compensate for this sudden increase in costs. Such aid would constitute operating aid which is 
incompatible  with  the  Treaty.  The  Commission  would  not  approve  any  aid  notified  for  this 
purpose.  

As an alternative to direct aid for fuel costs, some stakeholders have advocated a guarantee 
scheme, at national or Community level, where money paid in by the industry in favourable 
times  could  be  repaid  as  compensation  in  the  event  of  sudden  increases  in  operating  costs 
(e.g. fuel price rises). The Commission could approve such a scheme only if it were to provide 
guarantees  of  reimbursement  of  all  public  aid  under  commercial  conditions,  which,  in  the 
current economic circumstances, seems very unlikely. 

19 

Such  groupings  could  be  based,  for  example,  on  the  fishery  conducted,  the  location  of  the  vessels  or 
commercial ties. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
                                                 
3.2. 

Longer-term measures and initiatives 

It is clear that positive long-term prospects for the industry can be assured only in a context of 
recovered  fish  stocks  and  sustainable  fishing  practices.  The  Commission  will  continue  to 
work towards these objectives on a number of fronts and invites Member States, the European 
Parliament and the Council to support these measures.  

3.2.1. 

Improving fisheries management 

3.2.1.1.  Moving towards maximum sustainable yields (MSY) 

The  reformed  CFP  has  so  far  concentrated  on  the  recovery  of  the  most  threatened  stocks, 
which  are  also  amongst  those  of  greatest  commercial  importance,  to  bring  them  within  safe 
biological  limits  as  quickly  as  economic  and  social  factors  allow.  This  focus  on  the  most 
endangered  fish  stocks  is  inevitable  and  necessary,  since  healthier  stocks  and  sustainable 
fishing would yield considerably higher economic returns than at present. 

At the Johannesburg World Summit on Sustainable Development the international community 
set itself the objective of managing fish stocks at MSY levels by 2015. For the Community, 
which has adopted an eco-system-based approach to fisheries management in the 2002 reform 
of  the  CFP,  this  is  not  only  highly  desirable  for  stock  conservation  reasons  but  also  will 
contribute  to  rebuilding  economic  profitability  in  the  fishing  industry.  A  fisheries 
management  system  that delivers maximum sustainable  yield would bring greater economic 
benefits  in  the  form  of  more  predictable  supply,  increased  quantities  of  larger-sized  and 
better-priced adult fish, and more plentiful fishing grounds that will yield more revenue per 
unit  of  effort.  The  challenge  is  to  implement  the  measures  that  will  achieve  recovery  of 
stocks, which is a prerequisite for making harvesting at MSY levels possible. 

In the first half of 2006 the Commission intends to open a debate on a Community strategy for 
gradually  lowering  fishing  mortality  in  all  major  fisheries  with  a  Communication  on  the 
implementation  of  the  MSY  objective  by  2015.  At  the  same  time,  work  on  recovery  and 
management  plans  will  continue  as  they  constitute  necessary  steps  towards  stabilising 
fisheries at risk before developing MSY exploitation strategies. 

3.2.1.2.  Economic management of fisheries 

While  economic  management  of  fishing  rights  is  an  exclusively  national  responsibility,  the 
methods of allocating, sharing or transferring fishing opportunities between vessels at national 
level also have a bearing on the economic situation of the fleet. A debate at Community level 
on these issues on the basis of a Commission Communication is planned later this year. 

3.2.1.3.  Improving governance of the fisheries policy 

The 2002 reform of the CFP provided for setting up Regional Advisory Councils (RACs) to 
strengthen  the  involvement  of  stakeholders.  So  far  three  have  been  set  up,  another  one  is 
about  to  be  and  three  more  are  being  formed.  By  bringing  together  representatives  of  all 
stakeholders to advise the Commission on fisheries policy, RACs can play an important role 
in  building  trust  and  strengthening  cooperation  between  stakeholders,  scientists  and  public 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
authorities.  This  should  lead  to  better  compliance  with  the  rules,  which,  in  turn,  will  make 
rebuilding and protecting fish stocks more effective. 

It is up to stakeholders to make a success of the RACs. The European Commission is prepared 
to make every effort to help in this process and, in 2007, will review the functioning of the 
RACs to optimise their contribution to improving fisheries management. Existing structures 
for  consultation  of  stakeholders,  such  as  the  Advisory  Committee  for  Fisheries  and 
Aquaculture (ACFA) and the Social Dialogue Committee, will continue to provide valuable 
input for development and implementation of Community policies.  

3.2.1.4.  Matching fishing effort to available resources 

Fleet  overcapacity  is  as  much  an  economic  as  a  conservation  issue.  From  the  conservation 
point of view, the desired balance between exploitation rates and resource availability could 
in  theory  be  achieved  by  deploying  a  larger  fleet  for  a  shorter  time  or  a  smaller  fleet  for  a 
longer time. However, overcapacity is clearly conducive to over-fishing and economic under-
performance. Given the depletion of many fish stocks and the need for further reductions of 
fishing  effort,  the  present  size  of  many  EU  fleets  is  well  above  what  it  should  be  if  every 
vessel in the fleet is to operate profitably, particularly in demersal fisheries.  

This  imbalance  between  excess  effort  and  available  resources  needs  to  be  addressed  as  a 
matter  of  urgency  if  the  Community  fishing  industry  is  to  regain  profitability.  Managed 
decommissioning  of  vessels  will  increase  catch  possibilities  for  the  vessels  that  remain  in 
operation.  

A  number  of  Member  States  have  recently  undertaken  or  are  considering  decommissioning 
schemes (e.g. Belgium, Denmark, France, Ireland, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom). 
Both  national  and  Community  aid  is  possible  for  decommissioning  fishing  vessels.  The 
Member  States  and  the  Community  should  also  look  into  ways  of  enhancing  measures  to 
reduce  fleet  overcapacity  with  the  aid  of  the  future  European  Fisheries  Fund  (EFF).  Other 
measures  to  help  to  adjust  fishing  capacity,  such  as  the  premium  for  the  reassignment  of 
fishing vessels to activities other than fishing, can also be used. 

3.2.2.  Better compliance with fisheries management rules  

Non-compliance by some fishers poses a serious economic threat to those who abide by the 
rules and to the health of stocks. Unreported catches and landings often make up a significant 
percentage  of  overall  catches.  This  in  turn  reduces  the  quality  of  the  scientific  advice,  thus 
further  endangering  stocks.  It  is  therefore  crucial  that  the  Commission,  Member  States  and 
stakeholders work together to improve compliance.  

3.2.2.1.  Improved enforcement and controls  

Member States must ensure proper enforcement of CFP regulations. The Commission checks 
that  the  control  framework  set  up  by  Member  States  is  appropriate.  The  newly  created 
Fisheries Control Agency in Vigo, which is set to start its activities in 2006, will provide the 
Community with a great opportunity to improve control of fishing activities and enforcement 
of fishing regulations across the Union. The Commission will work closely with the Agency 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
to  this  end.  Where  necessary,  the  Commission  will  take  the  appropriate  action  against 
Member States which fail to fulfil their enforcement obligations. 

3.2.2.2.  Stepping up the fight against illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing  

IUU  fishing  is  a  source  of  unfair  competition  for  the  Community  fleet.  In  line  with  the 
Community action plan for the eradication of IUU fishing20, the Commission intends to step 
up its fight against this practice in both Community and international waters. IUU fishing is 
highly profitable and an integral part of the commercial strategy of the operators involved; to 
tackle this problem, the Commission will focus on depriving the beneficiaries of IUU fishing 
of their expected gains. 

3.2.3.  Organisation and operation of fish markets 

The  Commission  intends  to  launch  a  comprehensive  evaluation  of  the  present  market 
organisation to look, in particular, at the effectiveness and efficiency of existing mechanisms 
designed to improve financial returns from landing catches and, as appropriate, new tools to 
improve  the  marketing  of  fish  and  fishery  products.  It  also  intends  to  explore,  with  the 
professional  organisations,  all  avenues  to  improve  added  value  for  fishers  marketing  their 
products.  

A code of conduct on fish trade in the European Union would also be useful; this should be 
industry-driven.  The  Commission  will  invite  the  Advisory  Committee  for  Fisheries  and 
Aquaculture to draw up such a code. 

Member States should make full use of the possibilities of Community assistance (FIFG, later 
the  EFF)  for  investment  in  improving  the  quality  and  value  added  of  fish  products  or 
marketing structures.  

Eco-labelling schemes could also provide for differentiation of the product marketed and act 
as a commercial incentive for more sustainable and valuable fishing. The Commission would 
like  to  see  greater  use  being  made  of  the  potential  benefits  of  eco-labelling  schemes  for 
fisheries  products  and  expects  the  debate  launched  by  its  recent  Communication  on  this 
subject21 to bear fruit. 

3.2.4.  Promote  research  on  fuel-efficient  and  more  environmentally  friendly  fishing 

methods 

The Commission will ensure that the needs of the fishing industry will be adequately covered 
in  the  annual  work  programmes  to  implement  the  Seventh  Framework  Programme  for 
Community  support  to  research  and  has  proposed  research  on  increased  sustainability  and 
competitiveness in fisheries and aquaculture and on means of reducing environmental impact. 
Development of new technologies, in particular improved fishing gear design, should be one 
of the priority areas. 

20 
21 

COM (2002) 180 final. 
COM (2005) 275 final. 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Special  emphasis  is  being  placed  on  the  production  of  renewable  energy,  in  particular  the 
development  and  demonstration  of  new  types  of  bio-fuels.  Priority  will  also  be  given  to 
energy  efficiency  and  energy  savings  through  optimisation,  validation  and  demonstration  of 
new  concepts  and  technologies  for  the  industry.  The  Commission  intends  to  organise  a 
workshop on energy savings in the fishing industry in spring 2006. This could lead to further 
initiatives by the Commission later this year.  

3.3. 

Community support  

The Commission proposes that Member States use the Community financial instruments for 
fisheries  throughout  the  adjustment  process  to  accompany  the  necessary  changes  and  help 
fishing  communities  adapt  to  the  new  situation.  Both  the  FIFG  (until  the  end  of  the 
programming  period)  and  the  EFF  (from  1 January  2007  onwards)  can  support  the 
restructuring  measures  adopted  by  Member  States  in  their  national  rescue  and  restructuring 
schemes  and  help  to  finance  the  fleet  adjustment  measures  in  the  longer  term  as  well  as 
support the necessary social changes in affected fishing communities.  

If  the  EFF  Regulation  is  adopted  early  in  spring  2006,  the  Commission  would  consider 
amending the FIFG Regulation to harmonise some of its provisions with it so that remaining 
FIFG  funds  could  be  used  to  implement  restructuring  measures.  In  the  meantime,  the 
Commission will exceptionally accept requests already made by some Member States, outside 
the period fixed for the submission of modifications, to modify their 2005 FIFG programmes, 
with the aim to address the situation described in this Communication. 

Member  States  are  expected  to  ensure  appropriate  allocation  of  financial  resources  between 
the different EFF funding priorities. The level of financing allocated to measures to adjust and 
adapt  the  fishing  fleet  in  Member  States’  operational  programmes  should  reflect  the 
seriousness of the current economic situation  and the need to restore the  profitability of  the 
fishing industry. 

4. 

CONCLUSIONS  

There is no easy way out of the current difficulties of the fishing industry. But restoring the 
industry to sustainability is possible and indispensable given its economic, social and cultural 
importance for coastal communities across the EU. 

All concerned, at Community, national and local levels, should support the fishing industry in 
its restructuring efforts, focusing on the common objective of sustainable fisheries. 

This  Communication  aims  to  set  a  framework  for  stakeholders,  Member  States  and  the 
Community  institutions  to  participate  in  delivering  both  short-term  rescue  measures  for 
fishing enterprises in difficulty and the structural adjustments in the fishing industry that are 
necessary for its long-term sustainability and prosperity. 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
ANNEX 

Graph 1: average market prices 2000 – 2005 for cod, haddock and hake (fresh) 

Evolution of average market prices 2000 -2005

Cod (fresh)

Haddock (fresh)

Hake (fresh)

t
/

o
r
u
E

6.000

5.000

4.000

3.000

2.000

1.000

0

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

year

Graph 2a: evolution of TACs for demersal species 

-------------------------- 

Evolution of TACs for main demersal species targeted by the European fleet

s
n
o
t

350.000

300.000

250.000

200.000

150.000

100.000

50.000

0

EN 

Cod
Haddock
Hake
Saithe
Whiting

   EN 

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

years

13 

 
 
  
Graph 2b: evolution of TACs for benthic species 

Evolution of TACs for main benthic species targeted by the European fleet

160.000

140.000

120.000

100.000

s
n
o
t

80.000

60.000

40.000

20.000

0

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

years

--------------------------- 

Graph 2c: evolution of TACs for pelagic species 

Evolution of TACs for main pelagic species targeted by the European fleet

Plaice
Megrim
Sole
Monkfish
Nephrops

Mackerel
Anchovy
Sprat
Herring

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

years

14 

   EN 

1.000.000

900.000

800.000

700.000

600.000

s
n
o
t

500.000

400.000

300.000

200.000

100.000

0

EN 

 
Graph 3: evolution of fleet capacity (power) 

Power of the EU-15 fishing fleet *. 
Evolution between 1 January 1995 and 1 June 2005.

kW (1000)

7.231

8.000

7.000

6.000

5.000

4.000

3.000

2.000

1.000

0

5.710

1.1.95

1.6.95

1.1.96

1.6.96

1.1.97

1.6.97

1.1.98

1.6.98

1.1.99

1.6.99

1.1.00

1.6.00

1.1.01

1.6.01

1.1.02

1.6.02

1.1.03

1.6.03

1.1.04

1.6.04

1.1.05

1.6.05

* excluding the French Overseas departm ents

Graph 4: Trend in fuel prices 2003-2005 

total fleet capacity in thousands of kW

Evolution of Maritime Bunker Fuel Prices 
January 2003- December 2005

e
n
n
o
t

/

r
a
l
l

o
D
S
U
e
c
i
r
P

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

janv-
03

avr-
03

juil-
03

oct-
03

janv-
04

avr-
04

juil-
04

oct-
04

janv-
05

avr-
05

juil-
05

oct-
05

380 cst

Marine Diesel Oil

Date

Source: International Energy Agency (IEA) 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table  1:  Estimated  impact  of  increase  of  fuel  costs  on  income  of  crew  members  (‘share 
fishermen’) 

Gross Value 

Taxes and Fees 

Operating Costs:  

- other than fuel. 

- fuel 

Total Operating Costs 

Remainder to be shared 

Share for the Ship-owner  

Share for the Crew  

Assumptions: 

2004 

% 

100 

10 

15 

15 

30 

60 

30 

30 

2005 

% 

100 

10 

15 

30 

45 

45 

22,5 

22,5 

Difference 

-25% 

-25% 

(1)  Marine  fuel  oil  has  doubled  in  price  between  2003  and  2005,  from  0,30€  to 

0,60€/litre. 

(2) 

All  other  factors  in  income  and  costs  function  are  supposed  to  have  remained 
unchanged in % between 2003 and 2005.  

------------------------------------- 

Table 2: ICES report 2005 – long-term high yields evaluation 

Area 

Number of 
stocks 

Number of 
stocks 
evaluated 

Number of stocks 
overfished 

12 

3 

14 

7 

2 

5 

43 

8 

2 

13 

5 

2 

2 

35 

North 
Sea, 
Skagerrak and Kattegat 

eastern 

channel, 

West of Scotland 

Western waters 

Iberian Atlantic 

Baltic Sea 
Widely distributed22 

Total 

22 

Including depleted pelagic shark stocks. 

EN 

23 

10 

26 

11 

13 

5 

91 

16 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Table 3: Fuel cost as a percentage of the value of landings - some examples (data from 2003, i.e. before the recent price increases for fuel) 

Member 
State

Segment

Number of 
vessels

Total
kW

Type of 
gear

Target 
species

Value of 
landings
M€

Fuel cost
M€ and % of 
landing

LT
EL
PT
SE
BE
FR
LV
DE
IE
ES
UK
NL
NL
DK
UK
PT
FI
DE
SE
FR
DK
ES

Baltic Trawlers < 24 m
Thermaikos Trawlers < 24m
NAFO Trawlers
Pelagic trawlers purse seiners > 24 m
Beam trawlers > 24 m
Mediterannean trawlers 18-25 m
Gillnetters
Baltic Trawlers
Polyvalent 18 -< 24m
300 fleet
Scottish nephrops trawlers
Pelagic freezer trawlers
Beam trawlers <= 24 m
Trawlers < 24m
Scallop trawlers
Longliners
Coastal  vessels
Shrimp Beam Trawlers
Gillnetters >= 12 m
Atlantic longliners
Danish gillnetters
Galician Purse Seiners

48 
14 
14 
55 
58 
140 
60 
93 
133 
196 
296 
17 
173 
375 
237 
26 
188 
289 
49 
174 
380 
209 

9.900 
4.100 
28.100 
63.600 
49.400 
41.700 
9.500 
18.200 
43.200 
99.000 
44.900 
99.000 
37.900 
85.500 
47.400 
11.000 
15.600 
49.600 
7.800 
16.000 
37.300 
35.500 

T
T
T
PO
T
T
P
T
PO
PO
T
T
T
T
T
P
P
T
P
P
P
S

BDP
D
BD
P
B
DP
D
DP
D
D
BD
P
BD
DP
B
P
P
B
D
P
D
P

3,40 
2,00 
31,30 
41,30 
66,60 
68,80 
5,60 
12,60 
60,20 
201,40 
69,70 
143,30 
56,70 
88,40 
70,60 
11,50 
6,00 
55,10 
3,80 
14,00 
49,10 
36,00 

1,00 
0,50 
7,60 
9,40 
14,80 
12,60 
1,00 
2,10 
9,50 
29,70 
10,10 
20,50 
7,90 
12,00 
9,40 
1,50 
0,60 
5,10 
0,30 
1,00 
2,70 
1,80 

29,4%
25,0%
24,3%
22,8%
22,2%
18,3%
17,9%
16,7%
15,8%
14,7%
14,5%
14,3%
13,9%
13,6%
13,3%
13,0%
10,0%
9,3%
7,9%
7,1%
5,5%
5,0%

Source: Economic Performance of Selected European Fishing Fleets ( Annual Report 2004 based on 2003 accounts )
Targeted species: D demersal, P pelagic, B benthic

Type of gear: T  Trawler, S  Seiner, PO Polyvalent, P  Passive gear

EN 

17 

EN