Corrigendum : Annual Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on Member States’ efforts during 2007 to achieve a sustainable balance between fishing capacity and fishing opportunities {SEC(2008) 3108/2} {SEC(2009) 645}
Date: 2009-01-12
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, fishery management, fishing fleet, fishing industry, fishing regulations, report, sustainable development

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 8.2.2010 
COM(2008) 902 final/2 

CORRIGENDUM: 
Annule et remplace le document COM(2008) 902 final du 12.1.2009 
Concerne toutes les versions linguistiques 

ANNUAL REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL 

on Member States’ efforts during 2007 to achieve a sustainable balance between fishing 
capacity and fishing opportunities 

{SEC(2008) 3108/2} 
{SEC(2009) 645} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
ANNUAL REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL 

on Member States’ efforts during 2007 to achieve a sustainable balance between fishing 
capacity and fishing opportunities 

EN 

2 

   EN 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

ANNUAL REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 
AND THE COUNCIL on Member States’ efforts during 2007 to achieve a sustainable 
balance between fishing capacity and fishing opportunities...................................................... 2 

1. 

2. 

2.1. 

2.2. 

2.3. 

3. 

3.1. 

3.2. 

4. 

Introduction .................................................................................................................. 4 

Summary of Member States’ annual reports................................................................ 4 

Description of the fleets in relation to fisheries ........................................................... 5 

Impact of effort reduction schemes on capacity .......................................................... 7 

Compliance with the entry/exit scheme and with reference levels ............................ 10 

Compliance with fishing capacity management rules. Overall results ...................... 10 

Results for the mainland fleet (except vessels registered in the outermost regions) . 10 

Results for the fleets registered in the outermost regions .......................................... 10 

The Commission's conclusions .................................................................................. 11 

EN 

3 

   EN 

1. 

INTRODUCTION 

Member States are required1 to submit to the Commission, before 1 May each year, a report 
on  their  efforts  during  the  previous  year  to  achieve  a  sustainable  balance  between  fleet 
capacity and available fishing opportunities. The Member States’ reports are available on the 
Europa  website2.  On  the  basis  of  these  reports  and  the  data  in  the  Community  fishing  fleet 
register, the Commission produced a summary for 2007, which it presented to the Scientific, 
Technical  and  Economic  Committee  for  Fisheries  (STECF)  and  to  the  Committee  for 
Fisheries and Aquaculture. This report from the Commission now presents that summary of 
the Member States’ reports, plus a technical annex (Commission Staff Working Document I) 
and the opinions of the above-mentioned committees (Commission Staff Working Document 
II), to the Council and the European Parliament. The Commission Staff Working Document I 
provides  detailed  comments  on  capacity  management3  together  with  tables  and  graphs 
showing the overall  trends  in  the  EU  fishing fleet and Member States’ compliance with  the 
entry/exit scheme. In addition, the following information is available in English on the Europa 
website: 

–  detailed results as regards compliance by individual Member States; 

–  results in each of the outermost regions of the Community; 

–  Member States’ reports. 

2. 

SUMMARY OF MEMBER STATES’ ANNUAL REPORTS 

This year only 13 Member States submitted their reports on time; eight reports were between 
two weeks and two months late. At the time this report was drafted, the United Kingdom had 
not yet sent their reports to the Commission. Despite these delays, the Commission presented 
the summary report to the above-mentioned committees by 31 July 2008. It should be added 
that, although many Member States followed the outline laid down for the report in Article 13 
of  Regulation  1438/2003,  the  quality  of  the  information  provided  was  not  always  sufficient 
for the purposes of this report. 

This  report  sums  up  Member  States’  descriptions  of  their  fishing  fleets,  the  impact  of  the 
existing  schemes  to  reduce  fishing  effort,  Member  States’  compliance  with  the  entry/exit 
scheme and the weaknesses and strengths of their fleet management systems. 

With  a  view  to  helping  the  Member  States  to  carry  out  a  harmonised  and  well-founded 
analysis  of  the  balance  between  their  fleet  and  the  available  fishing  opportunities,  the 
Commission asked the STECF to produce guidelines for an improved analysis of the balance 
between fishing capacity and opportunities. The Commission submitted them to the Member 
States, requesting that they assess capacity on the basis of the various indicators proposed by 
the  STECF.  Some  Member  States  did  not  apply  the  guidelines,  claiming  they  did  not  have 

1 
2 
3 

In accordance with Article 14 of Regulation 2371/2002 and Article 12 of Regulation 1438/2003 
http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/fleet/index.cfm?method=FM_Reporting.AnnualReport. 
In accordance with the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) adopted in December 2002, fishing fleets are 
managed  in  line  with  the  general  rule  that  new  capacity,  expressed  in  terms  of  tonnage  and  power, 
added to a fleet cannot be higher than the capacity withdrawn from it. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

                                                 
enough time or sufficient data to carry out this task. Despite the short notice, some Member 
States did however include the calculation of some or all of the proposed indicators. 

2.1. 

Description of the fleets in relation to fisheries 

Belgium:  A  slight  tonnage  reduction  took  place  during  2007  without  public  aid,  while  the 
overall power increased very slightly. The Belgian report applied the guidelines to the beam 
trawler segment, which is the most important in the Belgian fleet. The low capacity utilisation 
and  a  negative  return  on  investment  (based  on  data  for  2006)  indicate  a  certain  degree  of 
overcapacity.  Additional  scrapping  is  foreseen  for  the  2007-2013  EFF  programming  period 
but the amount of capacity affected is not quantified. 

Bulgaria:  The  Bulgarian  fleet  is  composed  mainly  of  small  vessels;  only  105  out  of  2  536 
have  a  length  of  more  than  12  m.  The  first  report  for  the  Bulgarian  fleet  shows  a  slight 
increase (approx. 1%) in fishing capacity during 2007. The report includes the calculation of 
some capacity balance indicators, as proposed in the guidelines, but no conclusions are drawn 
in relation to the size of the fleet. 

Denmark:  As  in  previous  reports  since  2003,  an  economic  model  (EIAA)  was  used  to 
calculate  the  minimum  number  of  vessels  required  to  catch  the  allocated  quotas  in  12  fleet 
segments categorised in accordance with the Data Collection Regulation4. The number of days 
at sea for these vessels was taken as the maximum possible per year. It was found that there 
are  different  degrees  of  overcapacity  in  every  segment  given  the  current  state  of  stocks. 
According to this model, the current number of active vessels is considered to be in balance 
with  the  available  fishing  opportunities.  The  number  of  active  vessels  has  been  reduced  by 
approximately 3% in relation to 2006. More than 800 vessels with a total tonnage of 7,143 GT 
and  33,456  kW  were  reported  as  being  inactive  in  2007.  No  capacity  reductions  took  place 
with public aid during 2007. This gives an idea of the magnitude of overcapacity. 

Germany:  The  German  report  did  not  apply  the  guidelines.  Instead,  a  qualitative  biological 
approach was used to examine the balance between fishing capacity and fishing opportunities 
by fleet segment. The fleet segments were those defined under MAGP IV. The report assessed 
whether the capacity trend in each fleet segment was in line with the trend in the abundance 
and level of fishing of the main stocks concerned. Small capacity reductions took place during 
2007  in  passive  gear  segments,  North  Sea  trawlers  and  beam  trawlers  without  public  aid. 
There was an increase in capacity for the long-distance fleet. The entry of a big trawler in this 
segment resulted in an overall capacity increase for the German fleet (11% in GT, 3% in kW). 

Estonia: The Estonian report did not apply the guidelines and did not include an assessment of 
the  balance  between  fleet  capacity  and  fishing opportunities.  The  fleet  is  organised  in  three 
segments defined on the basis of length, gear and fishing area. The Estonian fleet is subject to 
TAC reductions for cod in the Baltic Sea and to the NAFO rebuilding plan. In 2007, no new 
multiannual  management  and  recovery  plans  were  introduced  in  the  Baltic  Sea  or  in  the 
NAFO regulatory area. 

Greece: The Greek report did not apply the guidelines and did not include an assessment of 
the balance between fleet capacity and fishing opportunities. Public aid continued to finance 
capacity reduction during 2007, resulting in the decommissioning of 1 528 GT and 8 264 kW. 

4 

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1639/2001 (OJ L 222 of 17 August 2001, pp. 53-115) 

EN 

5 

   EN 

                                                 
Most of the Greek fishing fleet is made up of small-scale coastal fishing boats using a variety 
of passive fishing gear. 

Spain: The Spanish report did not apply the guidelines and did not include an assessment of 
the  balance  between  fleet  capacity  and  fishing  opportunities.  Spain  continued  to  use  public 
funds to reduce fleet capacity; over 9 000 GT and 21 000 kW were scrapped during 2007, but 
no  details  are  given  in  the  report  as  to  the  fisheries  and  fleet  segments  subject  to  this 
decommissioning.  The  fleet  is  managed  by  means  of  separate  segments,  as  it  was  under 
MAGP IV. 

France: The French report was submitted too late and could not be included. 

Ireland: The Irish report did not apply the guidelines and did not include an assessment of the 
balance between fleet capacity and fishing opportunities. However, it is reported that many of 
the targeted stocks are outside safe biological limits. Quotas and landings are decreasing at a 
much  faster  rate  than  fishing  capacity.  No  decommissioning  took  place  in  2007,  but  a 
substantial amount of decommissioning in the whitefish fleet is foreseen for 2008. 

Italy: The capacity of the Italian fleet was further reduced by means of scrapping backed by 
public aid. During 2007, 177 vessels with a combined tonnage of 9 422 GT and total engine 
power  of  38  372  kW  were  decommissioned.  The  Italian  report  included  the  calculation  of 
some  of  the  balance  indicators  suggested  in  the  guidelines.  The  average  activity  of  Italian 
fishing vessels is steadily diminishing, with a value for 2007 of 131 days per vessel. The catch 
per unit of effort measured in GTxdays decreased slightly as well. 

Cyprus:  The  Cypriot  report  did  not  apply  the  guidelines  and  did  not  assess  the  balance 
between capacity and fishing opportunities. The capacity of the Cypriot fleet was reduced by 
3% in tonnage and 9% in power during 2007 without public aid. The Cypriot report points out 
that the capacity of the fleet will increase in 2008 following the small fishing vessels' change 
of status from recreational to professional. 

Latvia: The Latvian report did not apply the guidelines to assess the balance between capacity 
and fishing opportunities. However, for the high-seas segment (8 vessels), the capacity of the 
fleet is said to be in balance with the available quotas. Decommissioning of 70 vessels in the 
Baltic  segment  and  110  vessels  in  the  small-scale  segment  is  foreseen  for  the  period  2007-
2013 in order to adjust capacity to the available quotas. During 2007, 17 vessels with a total 
capacity of 950 GT and 2 228 kW were decommissioned with public aid. 

Lithuania: The Lithuanian report included the calculation of some of the indicators proposed 
in  the  guidelines,  but  no  conclusions  have  been  drawn  in  relation  to  the  size  of  the  fleet. 
Nevertheless, the values of the proposed indicators suggest an excess of capacity in the Baltic 
fleet.  In  2007,  eleven  vessels  with  a  total  capacity  of  1  173  GT  and  1  893  kW  were 
decommissioned with public aid. 

Malta: The Maltese report includes the calculation of the balance indicators proposed in the 
guidelines.  The  capacity  of  the  fleet  is  judged  to  be  commensurate  with  the  available 
resources and no reduction is foreseen. The fleet is made up of full-time and part-time vessels. 
Recreational  vessels  are  reported  as  well,  although  they  are  not  commercial  fishing  vessels 
and are not subject to the CFP. The fleet is composed mainly of small-scale vessels under 12 
m in length which represent 99% of the fleet. During 2007, the capacity of the Maltese fleet 
remained  unchanged  from  the  previous  year,  with  no  indication  of  any  increase  in  fishing 
effort in any fishery. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

The  Netherlands:  The  Dutch  report  applied  the  guidelines  proposed  by  the  Commission. 
However, the report noted that it is difficult to judge the balance between fishing capacity and 
fishing  opportunities,  due  to  the  complexity  of  producing  the  detailed  data  for  the  fleet 
segments concerned that are necessary for a correct analysis. The Dutch report considers that 
the indicators proposed in the guidelines are not suitable for the pelagic segment, in view of 
its  orientation  towards  international  waters.  These  indicators  show  an  overcapacity  in  the 
beam  trawl  fleet.  A  15%  capacity  reduction  took  place  by  means  of  a  decommissioning 
scheme implemented by the end of the year but which will only be reflected in the figures for 
early 2008. The capacity of the pelagic trawlers segment increased in 2007 by 7% in tonnage 
and 12% in power following the replacement of the capacity withdrawn during 2006. 

Poland: The Polish report did not apply the guidelines and does not include an assessment of 
fleet capacity in relation to fishing opportunities. Following a very big reduction in the Baltic 
fleet  during  2005  and  2006,  a  further  but  much  smaller  reduction  took  place  in  2007;  24 
vessels amounting to 700 GT and 2 600 kW were permanently withdrawn from this fleet with 
public aid. 

Portugal:  The  Portuguese  report  did  not  apply  the  guidelines  and  does  not  include  an 
assessment  of  fleet  capacity  in  relation  to  fishing  opportunities.  The  total  capacity  of  the 
Portuguese  mainland  fleet  was  reduced  by  only  0.4%  during  2007,  most  of  this  reduction 
being the result of public aid. 

Romania: The Romanian report did not apply the guidelines. However, Romania deems that 
the  fleet  is  operating  in  sustainable  manner.  The  fleet  suffers  from  structural  problems, 
notably  old  vessels  and  obsolete  gear.  Scrapping  is  foreseen  for  the  2007-2013  EFF 
programming period but the amount of capacity affected is not quantified. 

Slovenia:  The  Slovenian  report  did  not  apply  the  guidelines  and  does  not  include  an 
assessment of fleet capacity in relation to fishing opportunities. The capacity of the Slovenian 
fleet  decreased  slightly  during  2007  without  public  aid.  The  fleet  suffers  from  structural 
problems, notably old vessels and obsolete gear. The management plan drawn up according to 
the  provisions  of  the  Mediterranean  regulation  will  focus  on  capacity  adjustment  and 
reduction of bottom trawling. 

Finland: The Finnish report did not apply the guidelines and does not include an assessment 
of fleet capacity in relation to fishing opportunities. The number of vessels and the capacity of 
the Finnish fleet decreased slightly during 2007 but no decommissioning with public aid took 
place. Compared with the starting level on 1 January 2003 there has been a decrease of 19% 
in GT and 12% in kW. 

Sweden:  The  Swedish  report  included  the  evaluation  of  the  balance  indicators  according  to 
the guidelines. The results show that some stocks are overfished, the activity of most of the 
fleet is very low and its economic performance is not satisfactory. These are clear indications 
of overcapacity and this is recognised in the report; capacity reductions of up to 50% for the 
demersal segment and 30% for the pelagic segment are foreseen over the period 2007-2013. 

United  Kingdom:  No  report  had  been  received  from  the  UK  at  the  time  this  report  was 
drafted. 

2.2. 

Impact of effort reduction schemes on capacity 

Member States reported various recovery measures and effort reduction schemes applicable in 
2007. Generally, Member States' reports do not clearly show whether fishing effort schemes 

EN 

7 

   EN 

have been or will be an effective means to achieve a sustainable balance between capacity and 
resources.  The  Commission  believes  that  the  overall  results  of  fishing  effort  adjustment 
schemes in terms of fleet size are poor and more needs to be done. 

Belgium:  The  fishing  fleet  was  subject  to  the  Annex  II5  scheme  and  the  Western  Waters 
regime. The total number of days at sea for the entire fleet was not exceeded because certain 
vessels underused their allocation. Nevertheless the restriction in days at sea did not result in 
the  available  quotas  being  underused.  The  available  fishing  opportunities  for  scallops  were 
almost fully used. However, in ICES area VIII, the fishing effort allocation was insufficient 
and an exchange of quotas and effort with the Netherlands was required. 

Bulgaria: No fishing effort adjustment scheme applied to the Bulgarian fleet. 

Denmark: The Danish fleet is subject to Annex II measures, as part of the cod recovery plan. 
The most important consequence of the application of Annex II has been an average reduction 
in fishing effort of 47% compared to the 2003 levels. The total number of fishing days was 
reduced  by  49%.  The  transfer  of  fishing  days  together  with  the  implementation  in  2007  of 
individual  transferable  quotas  has  resulted  in  the  remaining  effort  being  concentrated  in  a 
much smaller number of vessels, while part of the fleet saw very little activity or none at all 
during 2007. 

Germany:  As  in  2006,  fishing  effort  reduction  schemes  had  a  minor  impact  on  the  fleet, 
primarily in the Baltic Sea. This has not been quantified. 

Estonia: No fishing effort reduction scheme applied to the Estonian fleet in the Baltic, but this 
fleet was subject to the recovery measures adopted for Baltic cod. However, no assessment of 
the effect of these measures is provided in the report. 

Greece: No fishing effort adjustment schemes applied to the Greek fleet. 

Spain:  The  fleet  has  been  affected  by  effort  reduction  measures  for  southern  hake  and 
nephrops  (Annex  IIB),  deep  sea  species  and  resources  within  the  NAFO  area.  National 
management  plans  continued  to  apply  for  the  Mediterranean,  Gulf  of  Cadiz  and  Canaries 
waters. A 12% effective effort reduction was reported for deep sea species, corresponding to a 
nominal maximum effort reduction of 10%. By contrast, the effective effort increased under 
the  hake  and  nephrops  plan,  where  additional  days  were  granted  to  the  fleet  segment 
concerned in 2007, in view of vessel scrapping. The report does not explain to what extent the 
permanent capacity reduction, with public aid, of approximately 100 vessels and 9 000 GT is 
linked to such effort reduction measures. 

France: The French report was submitted too late and could not be included. 

Ireland:  The  Irish  fleet  is  subject  both  to  fishing  effort  reduction  schemes  adopted  under 
Annex II to the TAC and quota Regulation and to the Western Waters regime, although these 
had no consequences in terms of fishing fleet capacity during 2007. Fisheries falling within 
the  scope  of  stock  recovery  plans  (ICES  areas  VIa  and  VIIa)  are  of  a  highly  mixed  nature. 
The Irish administration has therefore found it difficult to gauge the impact of effort reduction 
schemes. 

5 

Council Regulation (EC) No 51/2006 (OJ L 1 of 20 January 2006, pp. 1-183) 

EN 

8 

   EN 

                                                 
Italy: No fishing effort adjustment schemes applied to the Italian fleet. 

Cyprus: No compulsory effort reduction schemes are applied to the Cypriot fisheries. 

Latvia: The Latvian fleet was subject to the recovery measures adopted for Baltic cod but no 
reference is made to the effects of those measures on fishing effort. The poor state of the cod 
stocks,  ageing  vessels  and  increasing  fuel  costs  have  pushed  vessel  owners  to  apply  for 
decommissioning premiums. 

Lithuania: The Lithuanian fleet was subject to the recovery measures adopted for Baltic cod 
but no reference is made to the effects of those measures on fishing effort. The reduction of 
this  fleet with  public  aid continued in 2007,  scrapping the oldest and least efficient vessels. 
The reductions in fleet capacity in 2005-2006 had a positive effect on economic performance 
(2006 data) since the catch per vessel was increased. 

Malta: No fishing effort adjustment scheme applied to the Maltese fleet. 

The Netherlands: The fleet is subject to the 'days at sea' limitation in the North Sea (Annex II 
regime). These measures did not result in a significant reduction in the total capacity of the 
beam  trawler  fleet;  the  total  power  was  reduced  by  2.9%  while  the  tonnage  decreased  by 
0.5%.  The  fishing  effort  exerted  during  2007  on  plaice  and  sole  in  the  recovery  areas 
increased by 6% in relation to 2006, although it remained under the 2005 levels. One of the 
reasons for this was a change in fishing gear combined with a higher number of days. When 
implementing  Annex  IIA,  the  Netherlands  opted  to  apply  as  much  flexibility  as  possible 
within  the  limits  of  the  rules:  transfers  of  days  between  vessels  and  transfers  between 
management periods were permitted. 

Poland:  As  a  result  of  the  fishing  effort  reduction  programme,  in  2007  the  number  of  days 
spent fishing by the Baltic fleet fell by as much as 44% compared with 2004 and by almost 
70% in the case of 24-40 metre cutters. In the period from 2004 to 2007 the number of days 
that vessels fishing for cod spent at sea fell by about 56%. 

Portugal:  The  recovery  plan  for  hake  and  nephrops  (Annex  IIB  to  the  TAC  Regulation) 
continued to apply in 2007 but no capacity reductions were reported as a result. However, the 
report  notes  that  the  vessels  involved  had  made  significant  efforts,  including  halting  of 
operations,  in  order  to  comply  with  the  days  at  sea  available.  Nevertheless,  the  overall 
effective effort increased in comparison with 2006. The number of days spent in the NAFO 
area  continued  to  decrease  in  2007.  National  measures  limiting  fishing  effort  apply  to  deep 
sea species. 

Romania: No fishing effort adjustment scheme applied to the Romanian fleet. 

Slovenia: No fishing effort reduction scheme applies to the Slovenian fleet.  

Finland: No fishing effort reduction schemes applied to the Finnish fleet during 2007. Despite 
a  significant  capacity  reduction  over  the  period  2003  -  2006,  the  total  fishing  effort  of  the 
Finnish fleet has showed an upward trend since 2005 and in 2007 it was 10% higher than in 
2003. This increase in fishing effort has taken place in pelagic fisheries. The segment of static 
gears targeting cod reduced its effort gradually and in 2007 there was no fishing activity in 
this segment due to the driftnet ban. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

Sweden: The fleet is covered by Annex IIA and fishing effort has been gradually reduced as a 
result of smaller TACs and fewer days at sea. 2007 was the last year in which driftnets were 
allowed.  Due  to  the  coming  driftnet  ban,  ten  gill-netters  were  scrapped  with  public  aid. 
Individual quotas for pelagic species were introduced in 2007. 

United  Kingdom:  No  report  had  been  received  from  the  UK  at  the  time  this  report  was 
drafted. 

2.3. 

Compliance with the entry/exit scheme and with reference levels 

According  to  the  CFR  data  available  on  22  July  2008,  every  Member  State  was  within  its 
maximum  fleet  capacity  ceiling  at  the  end  of  2007.  The  overall  trend  in  EU  fleet  capacity 
shows a steady decrease. All the Member States concerned complied with the reference levels 
for the mainland fleet. 

3. 

COMPLIANCE WITH FISHING CAPACITY MANAGEMENT RULES. OVERALL RESULTS 

3.1. 

Results  for  the  mainland  fleet  (except  vessels  registered  in  the  outermost 
regions) 

According  to  the  CFR,  during  the  five-year  period  2003–2007,  and  despite  two  successive 
enlargements, the overall capacity of the EU fleet was reduced by approximately 197 000 GT 
and 720 000 kW, giving a net reduction of approximately 11% in terms of tonnage. The “EU-
15 fleet” was reduced by 207 000 GT and 788 000 kW, compared with 71 000 GT and 152 
000 kW withdrawn by the “EU-10 fleet”. In relative terms, the reduction of the “EU-10 fleet” 
since the date of accession has been stronger than the reduction of the “EU-15 fleet” over the 
period 2003-2007 (26% compared with 11%, in terms of engine power). Over the five-year 
period 2003-2007, approximately 198 000 GT and 638 000 kW were withdrawn from the EU 
fleet (except for the outermost regions) with public aid, of which 25 000 GT and 81 000 kW 
were withdrawn in 2007. 

Generally speaking, the net reductions in the EU fleet still appear insufficient, considering the 
constant technological improvements that neutralise the effects of capacity reduction and the 
poor state of most Community fisheries, particularly for demersal species, which require very 
drastic reductions in fishing effort. 

Tables  1  and  2  in  the  Commission  Staff  Working  Document  I  to  this  report  summarise 
compliance  by  Member  States  with  the  entry/exit  scheme  and  the  reference  levels  on  31 
December 2007. All Member States have complied with these rules. 

More detailed data (tables and graphs) on trends in the capacity of Member States’ fleets are 
available on Europa6.  

3.2. 

Results for the fleets registered in the outermost regions 

The  capacity  of  the  fleets  registered  in  the  outermost  regions  and  its  variation  between 
1 January  2003  and  31  December  2007  are  shown  in  Table  4  of  the  Commission  Staff 
Working Document I to this report. The results show that the fleet registered in the outermost 

6 

http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/fleet/index.cfm?method=FM_Reporting.AnnualReport. 

EN 

10 

   EN 

                                                 
regions  of  Spain  and  Portugal  has  been  significantly  reduced,  in  terms  of  both  tonnage  and 
power.  In  the  French  overseas  departments  there  has  been  a  slight  decrease  in  the  total 
number of vessels, a decrease in tonnage and an increase in engine power. 

At the end of 2007, the reference level was exceeded slightly in the case of only one out of the 
17 segments for the outermost regions. The segment in question is CA2 (vessels more than 12 
metres long, registered in the Canary Islands and fishing in Community waters). 

4. 

THE COMMISSION'S CONCLUSIONS 

The quality of the Member States’ reports has steadily improved since the first one covering 
the  year  2003,  but  still  more  needs  to  be  done.  As  in  previous  years,  the  majority  of  the 
reports  did  not  describe  the  Member  States'  fleets  in  relation  to  fisheries,  as  required  by 
Article 13(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1438/2003, in a manner allowing the Commission to 
analyse the efforts made to achieve a balance between the capacity of the fishing fleet and the 
available fishing opportunities, as stipulated by Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002. 
Instead, Member States emphasised the national fleet management systems implemented and 
the trends in fleet capacity in relation to the entry/exit scheme. 

The application of the guidelines for assessment of the balance between fishing capacity and 
opportunities is a step in the right direction, but not all Member States have made use of this 
tool.  The  Commission  recognises  that  both  the  short  deadline  for  applying  these  guidelines 
and their rather technical nature posed difficulties for some Member States. Additional efforts 
should be made during the current year to implement the guidelines fully for the 2008 report. 

Most of the reports are compiled in such a way that a clear link between effort management 
measures  and  fleet  capacity  adjustment  cannot  be  established,  nor  do  they  critically  analyse 
the trends in real effort deployed. Generally speaking, the impact of fishing effort adjustment 
measures  on  fleet  capacity  seems  to  be  limited.  In  some  cases,  the  main  driver  of  fleet 
capacity reduction appears to be a combination of poor economic performance of the fleet and 
the availability of Community or national funds. This may be due, in part, to the absence of 
effort management systems for several fisheries but also to the limited effect of the existing 
ones (Annex II, Western Waters, deep-water fisheries, some national schemes, etc.).  

During 2007 the fishing capacity of the EU fleet continued its slow but steady decline at an 
annual  rate  of  between  2%  and  3%.  Figures  3  to  5  in  the  Commission  Staff  Working 
Document I show that this has been the overall trend for the last 16 years, although, the trend 
is not so uniform when looking at individual Member States. This fact puts a question mark 
over the effectiveness of the capacity adjustment measures applied under the CFP. 

The  scientific  assessment  tells  us  that  30%  of  the  stocks  for  which  data  exist  are  fished 
outside safe biological limits and 80% are fished at levels above Maximum Sustainable Yield. 
At the same time, for large parts of the fleet, the capacity is under-utilised, i.e. the number of 
fishing days is less than the maximum possible, and poor economic performance is recorded, 
which  has  been  further  aggravated  during  2008.  In  the  light  of  these  considerations  the 
capacity  reductions  achieved  appear  to  be  insufficient  to  result  in  a  sustainable  balance 
between  capacity  and  fishing  opportunities  in  the  short  term.  Moreover,  technological 
progress,  which  according  to  some  estimates  is  of  the  same  order  of  magnitude  as  the 
observed capacity reductions, risks neutralising their effect.  

EN 

11 

   EN 

The Council adopted, on 22 July 2008, temporary and specific measures for the restructuring 
of the EU fishing fleet, thus providing an opportunity to achieve the necessary restructuring of 
the fleet which should not be missed. 

EN 

12 

   EN