Commission staff working document - Opinion of the committee for fisheries and aquaculture and opinion of the scientific, technical and economic committee on fisheries accompanying document to the annual report from the commission to the european parliament and the Council on member states' efforts during 2008 to achieve a sustainable balance between fishing capacity and fishing opportunities [COM(2010)60 FINAL] [SEC(2010)146]
Date: 2010-02-25
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, fishery management, fishing fleet, fishing industry, fishing regulations, impact study, report, sustainable development

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 25.2.2010 
SEC(2010) 147 final 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

Opinion of the Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture and Opinion of the Scientific, 
Technical and Economic Committee on Fisheries  

Accompanying document to the 

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

on Member States' efforts during 2008 to achieve a sustainable balance between fishing 
capacity and fishing opportunities 

[COM(2010)60 FINAL] 
[SEC(2010)146] 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. 

2. 

3. 

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

Opinion of the Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture on the Annual Report from 
the  Commission  to  the  Council  and  the  European  Parliament  on  Member  States’ 
efforts  during  2008  to  achieve  a  sustainable  balance  between  fishing  capacity  and 
fishing  opportunities  -  Minutes  of  the  Committee  for  Fisheries  and  Aquaculture 
meeting......................................................................................................................... 3 

Opinion  of  the  Scientific,  Technical  and  Economic  Committee  for  Fisheries  on  the 
Annual Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on 
Member States’ efforts during 2008 to achieve a sustainable balance between fishing 
capacity and fishing opportunities ............................................................................... 7 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
1. 

PUBLICATION OF MEMBER STATES' ANNUAL REPORTS 

Member States Annual Reports are available on the Community Fleet Register "Europa" web 
site: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/fleet/index.cfm?method=FM_Reporting.menu 

2. 

OPINION OF THE COMMITTEE FOR FISHERIES AND AQUACULTURE ON THE ANNUAL 
REPORT  FROM  THE  COMMISSION  TO  THE  COUNCIL  AND  THE  EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT  ON  MEMBER  STATES’  EFFORTS  DURING  2008  TO  ACHIEVE  A 
SUSTAINABLE BALANCE BETWEEN FISHING CAPACITY AND FISHING OPPORTUNITIES 
- MINUTES OF THE COMMITTEE FOR FISHERIES AND AQUACULTURE MEETING  

The  Commission  presented  the  draft  annual  report  from  the  Commission  to  the  European 
Parliament  and  the  Council  at  the  meeting  of  the  Committee  for  Fisheries  and  Aquaculture 
held on 28 October 2009. The Commission reminded the Committee that the summary annual 
report for the year 2008 has been presented and discussed a number of times in the previous 
Committee  meetings.  The  Commission  pointed  out  that  the  final  document  which  had  been 
distributed prior the meeting included some changes with respect to the previous version. It 
explained  that  the  Commission's  report  plus  a  technical  annex  including  tables  and  graphs 
would make part of the report transmitted to the European Parliament and the Council, while 
the  detailed  calculations  of  the  entry-exit  regime  and  the  Member  States'  reports  would  be 
published on the website of the Community Fishing Fleet register. 

•  Commission  informed  the  Member  States  that  the  STECF  had  evaluated  Member  States' 
reports and Commission's summary report at the meeting of its ad-hoc working group that 
took  place  in  Edinburgh  between  7  and  11  September.  The  report  of  this  working  group 
will be approved during the plenary session of the STECF that will take place in Brussels 
between 9 and 13 November 2009. The approved report will constitute the opinion of the 
STECF. 

•  Commission  informed  Member  States  that  it  will  start  procedure  for  the  adoption  of  the 
report once it receives formal opinion of the STECF. Since the procedure is lengthy, it may 
happen that it won't be possible to adopt the report before the beginning of January 2010.  

•  Commission  pointed  out  main  Commission's  conclusions  on  the  Member  States'  Annual 

fleet reports for 2008: 

•  The quality of the Member States’ reports is improving in relation to those from previous 
years,  yet  many  Member  States'  still  do  not  describe  their  fleets  in  relation  to  fisheries, 
which  would  allow  the  Commission  to  analyse  the  efforts  made  to  achieve  a  balance 
between the capacity of the fishing fleet and the available fishing opportunities. 

•  The use of the Guidelines for the better assessment of the balance between fishing capacity 
and fishing opportunities has increased since 12 Member States were able to apply them. 
Commission is aware of the problems related to their application and will seek to amend 
them and improve the Guidelines. 

•  From  the  information  contained  in  most  of  the  reports  it  is  hard  to  establish  clear  links 

between effort management measures and fleet capacity adjustments. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
•  The effect of the temporary and specific measures for the restructuring of the EU fishing 
fleet were adopted by Council in July 2008 as a response to fuel crisis in 2008 has been so 
far very limited, since the Fleet Adjustment Plans foreseen in the regulation have not yet 
been implemented at the time this report was prepared.  

•  Exits from the fleet with public support in 2008 were below those of 2007. 

•  During 2008 the fishing capacity of the EU fleet was reduced at an average annual rate of 
2.6 % in terms of tonnage and 2.3% in terms of power. This has been the overall trend for 
the last 17 years, although the trend is not so uniform when looking at individual Member 
States. 

The  Commission  gave  the  floor  to  Member  States  representatives  to  comment  on  the 
Commission's draft report and informed them that their statements made during the meeting 
and their written comments will be noted in the minutes of the meeting and that the official 
minutes  of  this  meeting  will  constitute  the  opinion  of  the  Committee  for  Fisheries  and 
Aquaculture. 

Lithuania  requested  in  its  written  comment  to  update  the  figures  of  the  Lithuanian  capacity 
ceilings in the Community Fishing Fleet Register by taking into account the entry of fishing 
vessel which was based on the administrative decision taken before accession.  

Poland  also  requested  in  its  written  comment  to  update  the  figures  of  the  Polish  capacity 
ceilings in the Community Fishing Fleet Register by taking into account the entry of fishing 
vessel which was based on the administrative decision taken before accession. 

Commission  said  that  said  that  it  will  update  the  Community  Fishing  Fleet  Register  and 
replace the figures and tables in the Technical annex (Commission Staff Working Document 
1) and thus present the most accurate data. 

Portugal  requested  in  its  written  comments  to  replace  the  reference  related  to  the  "tuna 
recovery  plan"  with  the  "Greenland  halibut  recovery  plan"  in  the  summary  of  Portuguese 
report. In addition, Portugal announced that they will provide the calculation of the indicators 
proposed in the Guidelines for the better assessment of the balance between fishing capacity 
and fishing opportunities ("Guidelines") in their report for 2009. In addition to the comments 
already  expressed  in  their  written  comments,  Portugal  said  that  they  have  difficulties 
obtaining  certain  data,  in  particular  those  related  to  vessels  under  12m,  but  they  hope  to  be 
able to present their indicators in the report for 2009. 

The United Kingdom submitted following written comments: 

–  Comments related to the UK report – Page 9 

The data needed to allow many of the indicators to be calculated are included within the UK 
report  and  associated  annexes  of  statistical  tables.  The  report  for  2009  will  be  revised  to 
implicitly include the required indicators. 

–  Comment upon Commission conclusions – Pages 10-11 

As  a  general  point  the  Commission  document  does  not  bring  out  the  difficulties  of  what  is 
being asked from Member States. Simply to equate the level of fishing capacity in use with 
biological sustainability of the resource is not an appropriate measure of whether the balance 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
required  is  being  achieved.  For  example,  economic  sustainability  relates  to  the  balance 
between  costs  and  earnings  (i.e.  profit).  In  many  sectors,  including  fishing,  businesses  have 
equipment which they do not utilise to their fullest possible potential (i.e. they appear to be 
under-utilising their available capacity) whilst operating their businesses in an economically 
sustainable way (i.e. at an acceptable level of profit for the enterprise concerned). The critical 
factors  relevant  for  economic  sustainability  are  thus  very  different  from  those  related  to 
ensuring  that  the  biological  resource  is  sustainable,  and  as  such  determining  the  level  of 
balance required between these is not a simple matter.  

In the penultimate paragraph of their conclusions, the Commission mentions details of stock 
which are being fished outside safe biological limits, and above maximum sustainable yield 
levels. The UK introduced a new indicator in its report which attempted to introduce a simpler 
indicator of the balance between capacity and opportunity by identifying the extent to which 
the  fish  landed  by  the  different  segments  of  the  UK  fleet  were  from  sources  assessed  as 
sustainable both in terms of the tonnage of fish (e.g. the biological resource) and the value of 
fish  (i.e.  the  level  of  income)  as  a  way  of  bringing  together  the  biological  and  economic 
factors. The UK intends to further develop the use of this indicator of sustainable sources of 
fishing activity in the future.  

Denmark sent to the Commission following written comments 

–  General comments 

The  Commission’s  report  includes  an  examination  and  discussion  of  the  extent  to  which 
member states have managed to assess the balance between fleet size and fishing possibilities. 

This represents an important improvement compared to previous reports. 

However,  there  seems  to  be  no  assessment  in  the  report  of  the  size  or  magnitude  of 
overcapacity in the Community fleet.  

As  a  general  point,  it  should  be  noted  that  the  indicators  should  be  used  to  monitor  and 
analyse the capacity situation, but it will not be relevant to use them as a management tool to 
control specific fleet segments or fishing effort. 

In  stead,  a  series  of  relevant  management  tools  is  possible,  such  as  access  regulation 
combined with fleet segmentation, effort management, rights-based management and others.  

Since 2007 rights-based management has applied to almost all of Danish commercial fishery. 
This  type  of  management  encourages  the  adaptation  of  the  fleet  to  catch  possibilities.  Fleet 
size is still also managed by access, but we expect that this kind of regulation will gradually 
lose its effect on fleet capacity. 

There is a risk that capacity management based on a detailed segmentation of the fleet will not 
work with rights-based management and could even slow down adaptation of the fleet to the 
various conditions of fishing possibilities, markets and technical developments.  

–  Guidelines and indicators 

The  Commission’s  guidelines  for  the  assessment  represent  a  promising  approach  to  the 
problem of monitoring and assessing overcapacity.  

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
According to the report the Commission will ask STECF for advice to improve the guidelines. 
We  would  like  to  underline  that  the  guidelines  must  be  kept  as  simple  as  possible  and  that 
STECF  should  reflect  further  on  how  indicators  could  be  developed  so  as  to  be  simpler  to 
calculate,  and  how  they  may  be  interpreted  to  give  a  valid  picture  of  over-capacity. 
Computation  of  some  of  the  indicators  according  to  the  guidelines  requires  very  detailed 
information down to single species and vessel level which is difficult and time consuming to 
extract if the information exists at all. It should be considered if information on fleet segment 
level according to the DCR might be sufficient. 

In particular, it seems that the biological indicators tend to reflect the biological state of the 
stocks and do not give much information about the fleet size relative to the stocks. 

The  calculation  of  the  biological  indicators  in  terms  of  fishing  mortality  rates  for  fleet 
segments is also complicated for fleets which target many species in different waters that are 
not subject to stock assessment. This is the reason why it was not possible to calculate these 
for the Danish fleet segments for 2008. 

–  Comment on the summary of the Danish report 

According to the Commission’s summary overcapacity is attributed to vessels below 12 m in 
length. The estimates of capacity are based on the present structure and technical level of the 
fleet  and  this  does  not  exclude  that  effective  capacity  may  increase  or  decrease  should  the 
fleet be renewed. It should be mentioned in the summary that fleet  development  is strongly 
influenced by the introduction of rights based management for the pelagic fishery in 2003 and 
in 2007 for the demersal fishery. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
3. 

OPINION  OF  THE  SCIENTIFIC,  TECHNICAL  AND  ECONOMIC  COMMITTEE  FOR 
FISHERIES  ON  THE  ANNUAL  REPORT  FROM  THE  COMMISSION  TO  THE  COUNCIL 
AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT ON MEMBER STATES’ EFFORTS DURING 2008 TO 
ACHIEVE  A  SUSTAINABLE  BALANCE  BETWEEN  FISHING  CAPACITY  AND  FISHING 
OPPORTUNITIES 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
REVIEW OF NATIONAL REPORTS ON MEMBER STATES EFFORTS TO 
ACHIEVE BALANCE BETWEEN FLEET CAPACITY AND FISHING 
OPPORTUNITIES (SGBRE 09-01) 

SUBGROUP ON BALANCE BETWEEN RESOURCES AND EXPLOITATION 
(SGBRE) OF THE SCIENTIFIC, TECHNICAL AND ECONOMIC COMMITTEE 
FOR FISHERIES (STECF) 

STECF OPINION EXPRESSED DURING THE PLENARY MEETING (PLEN-09-03) 

9-13 NOVEMBER 2009, BRUSSELS 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

4.1. 

4.2. 

5. 

5.1. 

5.2. 

6. 

6.1. 

6.2. 

6.3. 

6.4. 

7. 

8. 

9. 

Introduction ................................................................................................................ 10 

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

STECF comments and conclusions............................................................................ 10 

Introduction to working group report......................................................................... 14 

Terms of reference ..................................................................................................... 14 

Participants................................................................................................................. 15 

ToR 1. Evaluate Member States annual reports and Commission summaries .......... 16 

Evaluation of Member States annual reports for 2008............................................... 16 

Evaluation of Commission summary of Member States annual reports.................... 22 

ToR 2. Evaluate Member States application of guidelines on balance indicators ..... 30 

Evaluation of Quality of Technical Indicators ........................................................... 33 

Evaluation of Biological Indicators ........................................................................... 38 

Evaluation of Economic Indicators............................................................................ 43 

Evaluation of Social Indicators .................................................................................. 48 

ToR 3. Assess and summarise the problem of data availability ................................ 54 

ToR 4. Assess appropriateness of indicators for small scale fleets............................ 59 

ToR 5. Improve the guidelines for balance indicators ............................................... 60 

10. 

References .................................................................................................................. 62 

Appendix A .............................................................................................................................. 63 

Appendix B .............................................................................................................................. 65

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

STECF  is  requested  to  review  the  report  of  the  SGBRE  meeting  of  September  7-11,  2009 
findings  and  make  any  appropriate  comments  and 
(Edinburgh),  evaluate 
recommendations. 

the 

2. 

TERMS OF REFERENCE 

The working group was asked to: 

1. Evaluate the Member States' reports on their efforts during 2008 to achieve a sustainable 
balance  between  fishing  capacity  and  fishing  opportunities  and  the  Commission's  summary 
made  thereof.  To  what  extent  do  the  Member  States’  reports  comply  with  Article  14  of 
Council Regulation No 2371/2002 and Article 12 of Commission Regulation no 1438/2003.  

2.  Evaluate  Member  States'  application  of  the  indicators  proposed  in  the  "Guidelines  for  an 
improved analysis of the balance between fleet capacity and fishing opportunities". Assess the 
extent of the application of the guidelines and the problems encountered by Member States.  

3. To assess the problem of availability of data for the calculation of the proposed indicators. 
Particular  attention  should  be  paid  to  biological  data.  If  time  allows,  in  addition,  propose 
solutions to these problems.  

4. To assess the appropriateness of the proposed indicators for small scale coastal fleets and 
fisheries, identify problems related to their use for this part of the fleet and consider possible 
alternatives. 

5. Propose improvements to the Commission guidelines on the balance indicators. 

3. 

STECF COMMENTS AND CONCLUSIONS 

STECF observations 

STECF  endorses  the  methods  and  working  group  report  of  SGBRE  09-01.  STECF  very 
much appreciates the effort put into the methodology and the work of the group to devise a 
scoring  system  by  which  MS  and  the  Commission  can  evaluate  and  compare  their  annual 
reports on the balance of their fishing fleets and fishing opportunities. 

STECF  notes  that  no  MS  achieved  a  maximum  score  for  fulfilling  their  obligations  under 
Article 14 of Council Regulation No 2371/2002 and Article 12 of Commission Regulation no 
1438/2003 (see table 5.4 in working group report). STECF also notes that ten out of 22 MS 
did not estimate any of the balance indicators recommended in the Commission’s guidelines 
to  MS  (see  table  6.1  in  the  SGBRE-09-01  Report).  Completion  of  balance  indicators  is  not 
mandatory under current regulations however. 

In particular, STECF notes that only 6 of the 22 MS gave an overall assessment of whether 
the capacity of their fishing fleet was in balance with their fishing opportunities.  

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
STECF endorses the suggestions and recommendations of the working group report. STECF 
recommends that the Commission and MS take the appropriate actions, namely: 

1. The date of submission should be included in the MS reports. 

2.  The  requirement  in  the  regulations  to  restrict  MS  reports  to  10  pages  should  be 
reconsidered. 

3. Commission summaries of MS reports should follow the template format as suggested so 
that they contain the same information in the same order. This would greatly assist STECF to 
evaluate the Commission summaries should STECF continue to be required to do so.  

4.  MS  should  complete  the  report  summary  template  suggested  for  their  own  report  and 
include it at the front of their reports. 

5.  In  its  summary  report,  the  Commission  should  make  only  factual  observations  regarding 
MS conclusions on balance, rather than adding any further interpretation to MS reports. 

6.  MS  should  be  encouraged  to  provide  suitable  alternative  approaches  to  the  technical 
indicator for their passive or static gear fleet segments, since days at sea is not appropriate in 
these cases. It would be appropriate to update the Guidelines accordingly. 

7. MS may have to revise  their  timetable  for data collection in order to ensure the previous 
year is reported on for the Technical indicator by the required date in the current year. 

8.  Specific  suggestions  to  individual  MS  in  the  working  group  report  regarding  data 
availability should be communicated by the Commission to MS. 

9.  MS  should  reveal  why  indicators  have  not  been  reported,  this  may  help  to  resolve  any 
underlying problems and make it possible to report indicators in subsequent years. 

10.  The  suggested  improvements  to  the  Guidelines  on  Balance  Indicators  contained  in 
response to ToR 5 in the WG report should be implemented. 

STECF also recommends that the description of fleets should follow the fleet segmentation 
proposed by the DCF in order to be useful. 

STECF notes that JRC economists completed TORs 1 and 2 in respect of the French report 
and  that  their  approach  appears  to  be  consistent  with  what  was  done  during  the  working 
group.  It  is  understood  that  JRC  was  not  asked  by  the  Commission  (here  DG  MARE)  to 
complete TORs 3, 4 and 5 in respect of the French report. 

STECF  suggests  the  Commission  should  consider  revisiting  Council  Regulation  No 
2371/2002  and  Regulation  no  1438/2003  to  ensure  that  the  balance  indicators  listed  in  the 
Guidelines, are made mandatory through a revised Council Regulation thereby providing the 
legal basis to require MS to produce the required information in a timely and comprehensive 
fashion. 

With regard to the French MS annual report, STECF notes that this report was only available 
to  the  working  group  in  French  and  the  WG  participants  were  unable  to  read  French. 
Subsequent to the WG, the French report was reviewed by JRC economists using the methods 
devised by SGBRE 09-01.  

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
STECF notes that the JRC economists completed only the first of five requests of the working 
group  Terms  of  Reference  and  their  approach  appears  to  be  consistent  with  what  was  done 
during the working group.  

The annex on the French report was not prepared by the working group and therefore STECF 
decided that it is appropriate to leave that section as an annex to the working group report. 

STECF requests that the Commission ensure that all documents supplied to STECF are made 
available in the working language of STECF, namely, English.

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
ANNEX I 

SGBRE-09-01: REVIEW OF NATIONAL REPORTS ON BALANCE BETWEEN FISHING 
CAPACITIES AND FISHING OPPORTUNITIES. 

Edinburgh, 7-11th September 2009 

This report is the opinion of the expert working group on Balance between capacity and 
exploitation (SGBRE-09-01) and not of the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee 
for Fisheries (STECF) 

This report does not necessarily reflect the view of the European Commission and in no way 
anticipates the Commission’s future policy in this area 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
4. 

INTRODUCTION TO WORKING GROUP REPORT 

4.1. 

Terms of reference 

The working group was asked to: 

1. Evaluate the Member States' reports on their efforts during 2008 to achieve a sustainable 
balance  between  fishing  capacity  and  fishing  opportunities  and  the  Commission's  summary 
made thereof. To what extent do the Member States’ reports comply with Art. 14 of Council 
Regulation No 2371/2002 and Art. 12 of Commission Regulation no 1438/2003.  

2.  Evaluate  Member  States'  application  of  the  indicators  proposed  in  the  "Guidelines  for  an 
improved analysis of the balance between fleet capacity and fishing opportunities". Assess the 
extent of the application of the guidelines and the problems encountered by Member States.  

3. To assess the problem of availability of data for the calculation of the proposed indicators. 
Particular  attention  should  be  paid  to  biological  data.  If  time  allows,  in  addition,  propose 
solutions to these problems. 

4. To assess the appropriateness of the proposed indicators for small scale coastal fleets and 
fisheries, identify problems related to their use for this part of the fleet and consider possible 
alternatives. 

5. Propose improvements to the Commission Guidelines on the balance indicators. 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
4.2. 

Participants 

Name 

Address 

Telephone no. 

email 

STECF members 

Curtis, Hazel  

(chair) 

Abella, Alvaro 

External experts 

Iriondo, Ane 

Brodie, Colin 

Little, Alyson 

Hadeler, Silvia 

Velinova, Mihaela 

Yankova, Maria 

Thoegersen, Thomas 

Galrito, Helena 

Miguez, Maria 
Amélia 

European Commission 

Sea Fish Industry Authority 
18  Logie  Mill,  Logie  Green 
Road 
Edinburgh, EH7 4HS, UK 
Agenzia  Regionale  Protezione 
Ambiente della Toscan 
Via Marradi 114 
57126, Livorno, Italy 

(Bizkaia), 

AZTI  -  Tecnalia  /  Unidad  de 
Investigación Marina 
Txatxarramendi Ugartea z/g 
48395  Sukarrieta 
Spain 
Sea Fish Industry Authority 
18  Logie  Mill,  Logie  Green 
Road 
Edinburgh, EH7 4HS, UK 
CEFAS 
Pakefield Road 
Lowestoft 
NR33 0HT, United Kingdom 
CEFAS 
Pakefield Road 
Lowestoft 
NR33 0HT, United Kingdom 
National  agency  of  fisheries 
and aquacuclture 
Hr. Botev 17  
1606 Sofia, Bulgaria 
Institute of Fishing Resourses 
Blvd. Primorski 4 
9000 Varna, Bulgaria 
FOI 
Marstalsgade 
2100 Copenhagen, Denmark 
DGPA 
Av. Brasília 
1449-030 Lisboa, Portugal 
DG Pescas e Agricultura 
Av.Brasília 
1449-030 Lisboa, Portugal 

+44 131 524 8664 

h_curtis@seafish.co.uk 

+39 0586 263456 

a.abella@arpat.toscana.it 

+34 946 029 400 

airiondo@suk.azti.es 

+44 131 524 8662 

c_brodie@seafish.co.uk 

+44 1502 524501 

alyson.little@cefas.co.uk 

+44 01502 
524590 

silvia.hadeler@cefas.co.uk 

+35 9280 51663 

mihaela.velinova@nafa-bg.org 

+35 9526 32066 

maria_y@abv.bg 

+35 286895 

thth@foi.dk 

+35 12130 35804 

galrito@dgpa.min-agricultura.pt 

+35 12130 35888 

amiguez@dgpa.min-agricultura.pt 

Lopez-Benitez, Casto   DG MARE 

+32 2 299 6077 

casto.lopez-benitez@ec.europa.eu 

Anderson, John 

Joint  Research  Centre  JRC, 
STECF secretariat 

+39 0332 78 9256 

john.anderson@jrc.ec.europa.eu 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
5. 

TOR 1. EVALUATE MEMBER STATES ANNUAL REPORTS AND COMMISSION 
SUMMARIES 

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

•  the  Member  States’  reports  on  their  efforts  during  2008  to  achieve  a  sustainable  balance 

between fleet capacity and fishing opportunities; and 

•  the Commission’s summary made of Member States’ reports. 

In  particular,  the  working  group  was  asked,  to  what  extent  do  the  Member  States’  reports 
comply  with  Article  14  of  Council  Regulation  no.  2371/2002  and  Articles  12  and  13  of 
Commission Regulation no. 1438/2003. 

5.1. 

Evaluation of Member States annual reports for 2008 

All Member States’ reports (with the exception of the French report) were evaluated against 
the  requirements  of  Article  12  and13  of  Commission  Regulation  no.  1438/2003  by  the 
SGBRE 09-01 working group. A separate evaluation of the French report has been included 
in appendix B because the evaluation was not carried out by SGBRE 09-01 participants. 

Overall  there  is  significant  variation  in  the  completeness  and  quality of  the  Member  States’ 
reports. A common strength amongst the Member States’ reports was the description provided 
of their fleets, changes of the fleet over the year and linkages with fisheries. However, there is 
a high degree of variation in the quality of the reports and the extent to which they provide the 
information stipulated in Article 13 of Commission Regulation no. 1438/2003: 

•  Two  Member  States  failed  to  describe  effort  reduction  schemes,  whilst  six  countries  did 
not refer to the impact of these schemes on fishing capacity. In general, the descriptions of 
effort reduction schemes are quite poor.  

•  Denmark,  Germany,  Italy  and  Spain  did  not  state  whether  they  complied  with  entry/exit 
schemes.  All  other  countries  did  give  some  indication  of  compliance  (although  often  not 
explicitly). 

•  Approximately  half  of  the  Member  States  summarised  strengths  and  weaknesses  of  fleet 
management  systems,  although  the  quality  of  these  statement  was  varied.  Furthermore, 
only half of Member States’ reports provided plans for improvements in fleet management 
systems. 

•  Only  seven  Member  States  gave  information  on  the  level  of  compliance  surrounding 
general fleet policy instruments. A common failing was weaknesses in the quality of this 
information.  

•  Half  of  the  Member  States  referred  to  changes  in  administrative  procedures  relevant  to 

fleet management with varying degrees of quality.  

The regulation stipulates that the Member States’ reports should not exceed 10 pages, 40% of 
countries  failed  to  meet  this  requirement.  Only  a  third  of  Member  States  gave  an  overall 
assessment of the balance between fishing capacity and opportunity. 

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
The  working  group  assessed  compliance  with  Article  12  and  13  of  Commission  Regulation 
no. 1438/2003 by developing a scoring system. Table 5.1 shows the scoring system is based 
on the elements of Article 13 (1A to 2) and Article 12 (O), if the report provides an overall 
balance between capacity and opportunity. The scoring system was split between a score for 
providing the required information and a separate score for the quality of the information. The 
quality score is a reflection of the completeness, robustness and relevance of the information 
provided  and  a  weighting  system  was  applied  to  reflect  the  importance  of  the  elements 
included  (present)  in  Member  States’  reports.  It  was  not  possible  to  assign  a  score  for 
submitting the report by the required date. 

The  working  group  notes  the  similar  work  carried  out  by  the  Institute  for  European 
Environmental  Policy1  (IEEP).  The  IEEP  report  scored  Member  States  on  a  scale  of  10  for 
timeliness,  completeness  and  readability.  In  comparison  our  report  has  a  two  score  system; 
presence  of  required  element  and  a  quality  score  based  on  completeness,  robustness, 
relevance. Unlike the IEEP report our assessment did not adopt a traffic light system to rank 
Member States.  

Max score available
Present Quality

Q

Element to be included

1A

i) Description of fleets

ii) Link with fisheries

iii) Development in fleets

1B

i) statement of effort reduction schemes

ii) impact on fishing capacity of effort reduction schemes

1C Statement of compliance with entry / exit scheme

1D

i) Summary of weaknesses & strengths of fleet management system
ii) plan for improvements in fleet management system

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

1E Information on changes of the admin. procedures relevant to fleet management

2

O

Report 10 pages or less? 

Overall:  does report assess balance between capacity & opportunity?

2

3

3

2

3

2

1
2

1

1

1

3

Total possible scores: 

24

3

3

3

3

3

3

3
3

3

3

3

33

Table 5.1 Scoring system for evaluation of Member States annual reports 

Table  5.2  shows  the  scores  by  country  for  the  inclusion  of  required  elements  in  the  annual 
report (the present score). Overall, Member States scored quite highly on 1A (description of 
fleets,  link  with  fisheries,  fleet  developments),  1B  (effort  reduction  schemes)  and  1C 
(compliance  with  entry/exit  scheme).  Member  States  scored  less  well  on  1D  (fleet 
management  systems),  1E  (administrative  procedures),  report  length  and  an  overall 
assessment of balance. Only 6 of the 22 Member States gave an overall assessment of whether 
the capacity of their fishing fleet was in balance with the fishing opportunity.  

1 

‘Overcapacity – What Overcapacity’, An evaluation of Member States Reporting on Efforts to achieve 
a  sustainable  balance  between  capacity  and  fishing  opportunities  in  2007,  Institute  for  European 
Environmental Policy, July 2009.  

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
Table 5.4 ranks the Member States by their ‘present’ score for inclusion of required elements. 
A maximum of 24 points was available. Latvia, Netherlands and Poland achieved 21 points, 
while Greece only scored 7 points.  

EN 

18 

   EN 

 
I

M
ax 
sc
or
es  B

M
U
G
L
E

2 

3 

3 

2 

3 

2 

1 

2 

2 

3 

3 

0 

0 

2 

0 

2 

I

A
R
A
G
L
U
B

2 

3 

3 

2 

3 

2 

1 

2 

S
U
R
P
Y
C

2 

3 

3 

2 

3 

2 

0 

2 

K
R
A
M
N
E
D

2 

0 

3 

2 

3 

0 

0 

0 

I

A
N
O
T
S
E

D
N
A
L
N
I
F

2 

3 

3 

0 

0 

2 

0 

0 

2 

3 

3 

2 

3 

2 

1 

0 

Y
N
A
M
R
E
G

2 

3 

3 

2 

3 

0 

0 

2 

E
C
E
E
R
G

D
N
A
L
E
R

I

Y
L
A
T
I

I

A
V
T
A
L

2 

0 

0 

0 

0 

2 

1 

0 

2 

3 

3 

2 

3 

2 

0 

0 

2 

0 

0 

2 

3 

0 

1 

2 

2 

3 

3 

2 

3 

2 

1 

2 

I

A
N
A
U
H
T
I
L

2 

0 

3 

2 

0 

0 

0 

2 

A
T
L
A
M

2 

3 

0 

2 

3 

2 

1 

0 

S
D
N
A
L
R
E
H
T
E
N

2 

3 

3 

2 

3 

2 

1 

0 

D
N
A
L
O
P

2 

3 

3 

2 

3 

2 

1 

2 

L
A
G
U
T
R
O
P

2 

3 

3 

2 

3 

2 

1 

0 

I

A
N
A
M
O
R

2 

3 

3 

2 

3 

2 

1 

0 

I

A
N
E
V
O
L
S

2 

3 

3 

2 

0 

2 

0 

2 

I

N
A
P
S

N
E
D
E
W
S

K
U

2 

3 

3 

2 

3 

0 

0 

0 

2 

0 

0 

2 

0 

2 

1 

2 

2 

0 

3 

2 

3 

2 

1 

2 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

1 

0 

1 

0 

0 

1 

1 

1 

0 

0 

1 

1 

0 

1 

0 

0 

1 

1 

0 

1 

1 

1 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

1 

0 

1 

1 

Q 

Required element of report 

1A 

i) Description of fleets 

ii) Link with fisheries 

iii) Development in fleets 

1B 

i) statement of effort reduction schemes 

ii) impact on fishing capacity of effort reduction schemes 

1C 

Statement of compliance with entry / exit scheme 

1D 

i) Summary of weaknesses & strengths of fleet management system 

ii) plan for improvements in fleet management system 

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

Information on changes of the administrative procedures relevant to fleet 
management 

1E 

2 

O 

Report 10 pages or less? 

Overall: does report assess balance between capacity & opportunity? 

1 

3 

1 

3 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

3 

1 

0 

1 

0 

1 

3 

Total scores: 

24 

16 

18 

19 

14 

11 

19 

20 

1 

0 

7 

1 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

3 

1 

3 

1 

3 

1 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

3 

0 

0 

17 

10 

21 

12 

17 

21 

21 

17 

17 

15 

14 

15 

16 

Table 5.2 Scores by country for inclusion of required elements in annual reports

EN 

19 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
Q 

Required element of report 

1A 

i) Description of fleets 

ii) Link with fisheries 

iii) Development in fleets 

1B 

i) statement of effort reduction schemes 

s
e
r
o
c
s

x
a
M

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

0 

ii) impact on fishing capacity of effort reduction schemes 

3 

0 

1C 

Statement of compliance with entry / exit scheme 

1D 

i) Summary of weaknesses & strengths of fleet management system 

m
u
i
g
l
e
B

a
i
r
a
g
l
u
B

s
u
r
p
y
C

k
r
a
m
n
e
D

a
i
n
o
t
s
E

d
n
a
l
n
i
F

3 

1 

2 

2 

0 

1 

2 

2 

3 

1 

1 

2 

1 

3 

0 

2 

3 

0 

3 

3 

3 

2 

0 

0 

1 

1 

1 

0 

0 

3 

0 

0 

2 

2 

1 

2 

0 

3 

2 

0 

3 

3 

3 

2 

0 

2 

y
n
a
m
r
e
G

3 

2 

2 

1 

1 

1 

0 

3 

e
c
e
e
r
G

d
n
a
l
e
r
I

y
l
a
t
I

a
i
v
t
a
L

a
i
n
a
u
h
t
i

L

a
t
l
a

M

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

2 

2 

0 

1 

2 

2 

3 

1 

2 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

3 

1 

0 

1 

3 

3 

3 

2 

3 

2 

2 

3 

2 

2 

0 

1 

1 

0 

1 

0 

2 

2 

2 

0 

2 

0 

1 

1 

0 

s
d
n
a
l
r
e
h
t
e
N

2 

2 

3 

3 

2 

2 

2 

0 

d
n
a
l
o
P

l
a
g
u
t
r
o
P

a
i
n
a
m
o
R

a
i
n
e
v
o
l
S

n
i
a
p
S

n
e
d
e
w
S

K
U

3 

2 

3 

3 

3 

2 

1 

1 

3 

2 

3 

3 

2 

3 

3 

0 

1 

2 

1 

3 

2 

3 

2 

0 

2 

1 

1 

2 

0 

3 

0 

2 

1 

1 

2 

2 

3 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

2 

0 

2 

1 

2 

1 

0 

2 

2 

2 

3 

1 

1 

ii) plan for improvements in fleet management system 

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

Information  on  changes  of  the  administrative  procedures  relevant  to  fleet 
management 

3 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

1 

0 

2 

0 

0 

1 

1 

1 

0 

0 

1 

1 

0 

3 

0 

0 

2 

3 

0 

2 

1 

1 

0 

0 

3 

0 

0 

0 

3 

0 

0 

1 

0 

1 

2 

Report 10 pages or less? 

n/
a 

Overall: does report assess balance between capacity & opportunity? 

3 

2 

0 

0 

3 

0 

0 

2 

0 

0 

0 

1 

2 

2 

2 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

2 

0 

Total scores: 

33 

15 

13 

15 

20 

6 

15 

16 

6 

12 

9 

26 

9 

10 

19 

22 

20 

14 

12 

10 

11 

14 

1E 

2 

O 

Table 5.3 Scores by country for quality of required elements in annual reports

EN 

20 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Scores for inclusion of required elements 

Member State 

Score 

Max Score 

Latvia 

Netherlands 

Poland 

Germany 

Cyprus  

Finland 

Bulgaria 

Romania 

Portugal 

Ireland 

Malta 

UK 

Belgium 

Sweden 

Slovenia 

Spain 

Denmark 

Lithuania 

Estonia 

Italy 

Greece 

21 

21 

21 

20 

19 

19 

18 

17 

17 

17 

17 

16 

16 

15 

15 

14 

14 

12 

11 

10 

7 

24 

24 

24 

24 

24 

24 

24 

24 

24 

24 

24 

24 

24 

24 

24 

24 

24 

24 

24 

24 

24 

% 

88% 

88% 

88% 

83% 

79% 

79% 

75% 

71% 

71% 

71% 

71% 

67% 

67% 

63% 

63% 

58% 

58% 

50% 

46% 

42% 

29% 

Table 5.4 Ranked results of scoring system for inclusion of required elements in Member 
States’ reports 

Table 5.5 shows the quality scores by Member States for each of the required elements in the 
annual reports. There is a significant variation in the quality of the Member States’ reports. 
Table 5.5 shows the Member States ranked by quality of included elements. Latvia scored 26 
out  of  33  points  (79%),  whereas  Estonia  and  Greece  only  scored  6  points  (18%)  for  report 
quality. 

EN 

21 

   EN 

 
Scores for quality of included elements 

Member State 

Score 

Max Score 

Latvia 

Poland 

Portugal 

Denmark 

Netherlands 

Germany 

Finland 

Cyprus  

Belgium 

UK 

Romania 

Bulgaria 

Slovenia 

Ireland 

Sweden 

Spain 

Malta 

Lithuania 

Italy 

Greece 

Estonia 

26 

22 

20 

20 

19 

17 

15 

15 

15 

14 

14 

13 

12 

12 

11 

10 

10 

9 

9 

6 

6 

33 

33 

33 

33 

33 

33 

33 

33 

33 

33 

33 

33 

33 

33 

33 

33 

33 

33 

33 

33 

33 

% 

79% 

67% 

61% 

61% 

58% 

52% 

45% 

45% 

45% 

42% 

42% 

39% 

36% 

36% 

33% 

30% 

30% 

27% 

27% 

18% 

18% 

Table 5.5 Ranked results of scoring system for quality of included elements in Member States 
reports 

5.2. 

Evaluation of Commission summary of Member States annual reports 

The Commission summaries of  Member  States’  reports vary in quality and relevance. They 
vary in length, order of information and detail included. For instance, in many cases the first 
sentence of the summary states whether or not the balance indicator guidelines were followed 
in the Member States’ report, but this is not true of all summaries. 

It  would  be  useful  if  all  Commission  summaries  followed  a  template  so  that  they  would 
contain  the  same  information  in  the  same  order,  as  long  as  it  is  included  in  the  Member 
States’  reports.  This  would  also  serve  to  highlight  when  Member  States’  reports  failed  to 

EN 

22 

   EN 

 
 
include  some  required  information.  Such  a  method  of  providing  summaries  would  make  it 
easier for members of the Council to compare the situation between various Member States. 

template  could  possibly  be  supplied 

A  summary 
the  Member  States  national 
correspondents,  so  that  Member  States  could  complete  their  own  report  summary.  This 
procedure might also help to improve the completeness of MS annual reports. 

to 

The  regulation  requires  the  Member  States’  reports  to  be  less  than  10  pages  but  this  is  a 
difficult  target  to  achieve  if  the  report  is  to  include  application  of  the  guidelines  regarding 
balance indicators. 

A  suggested  summary  template  is  given  below  and  could  potentially  be  completed  in  table 
form.  Where  the  required  information  is  not  contained  in  the  Member  States’  reports,  the 
Commission summary could note the absence of the information. The Commission summary 
could also note whether the information supplied is comprehensive. 

Suggested template for summary of Member States annual reports 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

(6) 

(7) 

(8) 

(9) 

Conclusions about whether the fleet is in balance with the opportunity. Note 
whether the balance is improving, staying the same or getting worse 

Size of the fleet (no. of vessels, total GT, total kW) 

List biggest fleet segments, with key species fished and total volumes landed 

Additions  to  and  removals  from  the  fleet  during  the  year,  expressed  in 
number of vessels, giving fleet segment or some indication of vessel capacity 

Change in state of stocks and/or in fishing opportunity during the year 

Outline of effort reduction schemes, if any, during the year 

Statement of compliance with entry / exit scheme during the year 

Plans for improvements in fleet management system 

Length of report (over / under 10 pages) 

(10)  Application of the balance indicators (technical, biological, economic, social) 

In the final paragraph of section 2 of the summary document, the Commission highlights that, 
of  the  11  Member  States’  reports  which  included  application  of  the  balance  indicators,  “a 
number”  of  them  indicated  “a  great  degree  of  overcapacity”.  This  comment  is  not  helpful 
because it suggests many of the 11 Member States indicated overcapacity, but  does not  say 
how many, which would have been more useful. 

Comments on summary of the Belgium report 

•  The  Commission’s  summary  is  relevant  and  a  good  reflection  of  what  is  written  in  the 

Belgian report. 

EN 

23 

   EN 

 
•  The summary omits to explicitly state that the Belgian report includes an evaluation of the 
current status as regards the likely balance between capacity and fishing opportunities. 

•  The  summary  is  correct  in  stating  that  the  guidelines  were  applied  to  the  main  Belgian 

fleet. 

Comments on summary of the Bulgaria report 

•  The summary is relevant and makes reference to the main issues contained in the text of 

the Bulgarian report. 

•  The  summary  omits  to  explicitly  state  that  the  Bulgarian  report  does  not  include  an 
evaluation of the current status as regards the likely balance between capacity and fishing 
opportunities. 

•  The summary is correct in stating that the guidelines were applied to the main Bulgarian 

fleet. 

•  The summary does not mention that (as stated in the report) the quality of data and results 
utilised for the definition of MSY and corresponding F rates in the biological indicators are 
highly uncertain. 

Comments on summary of the Cyprus report 

•  The summary is correct but very brief, and several key points contained in the report are 

missing from the summary, such as the size of the fleet. 

•  The  summary  is  correct  in  highlighting  that  the  report  contains  no  assessment  of  the 

balance between fleet capacity and fishing opportunities. 

•  The summary is correct in stating that the proposed guidelines on balance indicators were 

not applied. 

Comments on summary of the Germany report 

•  The Commission’s summary is correct but omits some important points. 

•  The summary omits to explicitly state that the German report does include an evaluation of 
the current status as regards the likely balance between capacity and fishing opportunities 
by segment. 

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

•  More  information  in  the  link  of  vessels  with  fisheries  could  have  been  included  in  the 

Member States report but this absence was not highlighted in the summary. 

•  Statement  of  effort  reduction  schemes  and  the  impact  on  fishing  capacity  were  not 

quantified in the report but this is not highlighted in the summary. 

Comments on summary of the Denmark report 

EN 

24 

   EN 

 
•  The  Commission’s  summary  gives  a  good  summary  of  the  significant  elements  in  the 

Danish report, but omits some important detail. 

•  The summary correctly states that the Danish report includes an assessment of the current 

status as regards the likely balance between capacity and fishing opportunities. 

•  The summary correctly states that the guidelines were applied in the Danish report but fails 

to mention the indicators use 2007 and not 2008 data. 

Comments on summary of the Estonia report 

•  The Commission’s summary report accurately summarises the key details contained in the 

Member States report. 

•  The  summary  omits  to  explicitly  state  that  the  Estonian  report  does  not  include  an 
evaluation of the current status as regards the likely balance between capacity and fishing 
opportunities. 

•  The  summary  is  correct  in  stating  that  the  guidelines  were  only  partly  applied  in  the 

Estonian report. 

•  The summary does not give details of the size of the fleet segments but does mention the 

number of vessels joining and leaving the fleet. 

•  The summary notes that there appears to be distinct over capacity in one segment, but fails 

to mention that there are only 6 vessels in total in that segment. 

Comments on summary of the Finland report 

•  The summary accurately reflects the main points of the report. 

•  The  summary  correctly  states  that  the  Finnish  report  fails  to  make  an  evaluation  of  the 
current status as regards the likely balance between capacity and fishing opportunities. 

•  The summary is correct in stating that the guidelines were not applied in the Finnish report. 

•  It is unclear both in the summary and the report what fishing effort refers to (according to 

Table 2.3. in the report). 

Comments on summary of the France report 

•  The  report  from  France  was  not  available  in  English,  so  it  is  not  possible  to  make  a  fair 

assessment of the Commission summary of the French report. 

Comments on summary of the Greece report 

•  The summary provides a short and accurate summary of the Greek report but omits some 

important information. 

•  The summary omits to explicitly state that the Greek report does not include evaluation of 
the current status as regards the likely balance between capacity and fishing opportunities. 

EN 

25 

   EN 

 
•  The summary correctly stated that the Greek report partially applied the guidelines but did 

not mention that the report failed to reflect on any biological and social indicators. 

Comments on summary of the Ireland report 

•  The summary of the Irish report is a good reflection of the contents of the report. 

•  The summary correctly states that the Irish report gave no evaluation of the current status 

as regards the likely balance between capacity and fishing opportunities. 

•  The summary notes that the guidelines were not applied in the Irish report. 

Comments on summary of the Italy report 

•  The summary of the Italian report is a good reflection of the contents of the Italian report. 

•  The summary omits to explicitly state that the Italy report does not include an evaluation of 
the current status as regards the likely balance between capacity and fishing opportunities. 

•  The summary notes that the guidelines proposed by the Commission were applied. 

Comments on summary of the Latvia report 

•  The summary includes most important points contained in the Latvian report. 

•  The  summary  states  that  some  assessment  of  balance  between  capacity  and  fishing 
opportunities  was  made  for  the  high-sea  segments.  However  the  summary  omits  to 
explicitly state that the Latvian report does not include an overall evaluation of the current 
status as regards the likely balance between capacity and fishing opportunities in general. 

•  The summary correctly states that the Latvian report did not apply the guidelines. 

•  The summary states the number of vessels removed since May 2004. It would have been 

useful if the summary indicated what proportion of vessels had been removed. 

Comments on summary of the Lithuania report 

•  The  summary  of  the  Lithuania  report  is  a  fair  reflection  of  the  contents  of  the  Lithuania 

report. 

•  The  summary  correctly  states  that  the  Lithuanian  report  provides  an  evaluation  of  the 
current status as regards the likely balance between capacity and fishing opportunities. 

•  The summary correctly states that the Lithuanian report applies the guidelines. 

•  The  summary  missed  information  on  general  level  of  compliance  with  fleet  policy 

instrument. 

Comments on summary of the Malta report 

•  The summary reflects most of the main points in the Malta report. 

EN 

26 

   EN 

 
•  The summary correctly states that the guidelines were not fully adhered to in the Maltese 

report but fails to mention that no social indicator was reported. 

•  The  summary  accurately  describes  low  fleet  utilisation  and  that  the  fleet  is  proportionate 

with available resources and hence does not require reduction. 

•  The summary gives a brief but fair description of the Maltese fleet and correctly states that 

no fishing effort adjustment aid schemes were implemented in Malta. 

Comments on summary of the Netherlands report 

•  The summary captures the main aspects of the Dutch report. 

•  The summary correctly states that the Dutch report gives an evaluation of the current status 
as  regards  the  likely  balance  between  capacity  and  fishing  opportunities.  The  summary 
states the Dutch fleet is at a justifiable size given fish stocks. 

•  The summary accurately reports that the guidelines were applied in the Dutch report. 

•  The summary describes improvements in economic and social indicators; however a social 
indicator  has  not  been  reported.  The  summary  report  does  not  refer  to  the  technical  and 
biological indicators reported. 

•  The  summary  correctly  describes  substantial  contraction  in  the  Dutch  cutter  fleet  and 

fishing effort. 

Comments on summary of the Poland report 

•  Overall the Commission’s statement accurately reflects the Polish report. 

•  The  Commission's  summary  correctly  states that  the  Polish  report  fails  to  directly  assess 

the balance between fishing capacity and fishing opportunities. 

•  The Commission is also correct in stating that the guidelines were not applied. 

•  There is a summary of the Polish report, description of the Polish fleet and the year on year 

changes which appears to be accurate. 

Comments on summary of the Portugal report 

•  Overall the Commission’s statement accurately reflects the Portuguese report. 

•  The summary correctly states that the Portuguese report fails to directly assess the balance 

between fishing capacity and fishing opportunities. 

•  The summary correctly states that the guidelines were not applied in the Portuguese report. 
The  summary  acknowledges  that  the  Portuguese  report  does  make  use  of  some  socio-
economic data.  

•  The  summary  provides  a  description  of  the  Portuguese  fleet  management  and  effort 

reduction changes which appears to be accurate. 

EN 

27 

   EN 

 
Comments on summary of the Romania report 

•  Overall, the summary provides an accurate description of the Romanian report but misses 

several key points in the report. 

•  The summary omits to explicitly state that the Romanian report does include an assessment 
of  the  current  status  as  regards  the  likely  balance  between  capacity  and  fishing 
opportunities. The summary does not mention the claim that the fleet is under capacity for 
the fishing opportunity, due to lack of fishing gear. 

•  The summary correctly states that the Guidelines (indicators of balance) are not applied in 

the Romania report. 

•  The  summary  mentions  that  the  Romanian  report  claims  that  the  fleet  is  operating  in  a 
sustainable  manner,  but  the  summary  fails  to  say  on  what  basis  the  Romanian  report 
reaches this conclusion. 

•  The summary mentions  that the Romanian report claims that fish species are  sufficiently 

available, but fails to mention the basis for the claim. 

•  The Romanian report mentions that over half of the small scale vessels have no engine, but 
this is omitted from the Commission summary, as is the total number of small scale vessels 
(416 under 12m vessels). 

•  The summary does mention the additions (6) and removals (7) from the fleet in 2008 but 

does not mention the total size of the fleet. 

Comments on the Summary of the Slovenia report 

•  The Commission’s summary gives a fair review of the Slovenian report. 

•  The  summary  omits  to  explicitly  state  that  the  Slovenian  report  does  not  include  an 
assessment of the current status as regards the likely balance between capacity and fishing 
opportunities. 

•  The  summary  correctly  notes  that  Slovenia  applied  to  the  guidelines  as  technical, 

biological, economic and social indicators were reported. 

•  The  summary  highlights  structural  problems  in  the  fleet  and  emphasizes  that  whilst  no 
effort  reduction  schemes  apply  to  the  Slovenian  fleet,  scrapping  schemes  are  envisaged 
under the 2007-2013 EFF programme. 

Comments on the Summary of the Spain report 

•  Overall the summary gives a fair description of the Spanish fleet focussing on the vessel 

decommissioning programme and the Greenland halibut recovery plan. 

•  The  Commission’s  summary  correctly  highlights  that  Spain  did  not  comply  with  the 

indicator guidelines. 

Comments on the Summary of the Sweden report 

EN 

28 

   EN 

 
•  The summary provides a fair reflection of the emphasis in the Sweden report. 

•  The summary omits to explicitly state that the Swedish report does include an assessment 
of  the  current  status  as  regards  the  likely  balance  between  capacity  and  fishing 
opportunities. 

•  The summary is correct in stating that the guidelines were applied in the Swedish report. 

•  The  summary  focuses  on  the  balance  indicators  and  on  the  plans  adopted  by  Sweden  to 
reduce  the  fishing  effort.  Sweden  has  made  some  administrative  changes  about  special 
permits but the report does not mention it. 

Comments on the Summary of the United Kingdom report 

•  The summary is a fair description of the UK’s report. 

•  The summary correctly states the UK report makes no assessment of balance between fleet 

capacity and fishing opportunity. 

•  The  summary  correctly  states  the  UK  report  did  not  apply  the  guidelines  but  does 
acknowledge  that  other  technical,  biological  and  socio-economic  information  was 
provided. 

•  The  summary  points  out 

relevant 

results  achieved  by 

the  UK  government.

EN 

29 

   EN 

 
6. 

TOR 2. EVALUATE MEMBER STATES APPLICATION OF GUIDELINES ON BALANCE 
INDICATORS 

Item 2 in the Terms of Reference requested that the working group evaluate Member States 
application of the guidelines indicators and highlight any problems encountered. 

The  balance  indicators  estimated  in  Member  States’  reports  were  reviewed  and  evaluated 
using the scoring system detailed below. The guidelines require completion of the technical 
indicator, one biological, one economic and one social indicator. There is a stated preference 
for the first indicator, with second or third indicators being regarded as less satisfactory but 
acceptable if data is not available for the preferred indicator. Therefore, 3 points are awarded 
for  the  first  indicator  in  any  category,  2  for  the  second  and  1  point  is  awarded  for  a  third 
biological  indicator.  The  maximum  score  available  for  completing  the  minimum  required 
indicators is 12 points. It is possible to exceed full marks if more than the minimum required 
indicators are completed, for instance, Slovenia. Table 6.1 shows  scores per Member States 
for completing the indicators. Detailed scores are shown in subsequent tables for each type of 
indicator. 

I

2
L
A
C
G
O
L
O
B

I

I

1
L
A
C
G
O
L
O
B

I

3 

3 

3 

I

L
A
C
N
H
C
E
T

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

Member 
State 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Cyprus 

Denmark 

Estonia 

Finland 

Germany 

Greece 

Ireland 

Italy 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Malta 

Netherlands 

EN 

I

3
L
A
C
G
O
L
O
B

I

3 

3 

I

1
C
M
O
N
O
C
E

3 

3 

I

2
C
M
O
N
O
C
E

1 

1
L
A
C
O
S

I

3 

3 

2
L
A
C
O
S

I

1 

3 

1 

3 

1 

L
A
T
O
T

12 

14 

0 

11 

3 

0 

0 

6 

0 

I

D
E
R
U
Q
E
R

%  of 
full 
marks

12 

100% 

12 

117% 

12 

12 

12 

12 

12 

12 

12 

0% 

92% 

25% 

0% 

0% 

50% 

0% 

3 

3 

1 

3 

1 

14 

12 

117% 

3 

1 

1 

3 

0 

11 

9 

9 

12 

12 

12 

12 

0% 

92% 

75% 

75% 

3 

3 

3 

30 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovenia 

Spain 

Sweden 

UK 

3 

3 

0 

0 

0 

12 

12 

12 

0% 

0% 

0% 

3 

3 

1 

3 

1 

14 

12 

117% 

0 

12 

0% 

3 

3 

1 

3 

13 

12 

108% 

0 

12 

0% 

Table 6.1 Scores per Member State for completion of balance indicators 

Weighting and overall scores for completing the indicators are as shown in Table 6.1. 

Five Member States (Belgium, Bulgaria, Italy, Slovenia and Sweden) all met or exceeded the 
minimum  requirements  for  the  balance  indicators  as  specified  in  the  guidelines.  Some 
Member States did not complete any balance indicators and some Member States completed 
some of the indicators suggested. The Technical indicator was the most commonly completed 
indicator by Member States and the Biological Indicators were the least. Bulgaria completed 
an alternative biological indicator. 

Table 6.2 shows the quality scores for Member States for the guideline indicators. Bulgaria, 
Italy, Lithuania and Slovenia all scored highly in terms of the quality of indicators. 

I

L
A
C
N
H
C
E
T

7 

7 

2 

6 

4 

4 

Member State 

BELGIUM 

BULGARIA 

CYPRUS 

DENMARK 

ESTONIA 

FINLAND 

GERMANY 

GREECE 

IRELAND 

ITALY 

LATVIA 

I

1
L
A
C
G
O
L
O
B

I

I

2
L
A
C
G
O
L
O
B

I

I

3
L
A
C
G
O
L
O
B

I

6 

3 

7 

3 

I

1
C
M
O
N
O
C
E

5 

7 

8 

I

2
C
M
O
N
O
C
E

7 

8 

1
L
A
C
O
S

I

7 

6 

6 

7 

7 

6 

LITHUANIA 

5 

8 

7 

7 

E
R
O
C
S
L
A
T
O
T

25 

36 

0 

31 

6 

0 

0 

11 

0 

34 

0 

34 

y
t
i
l
a
u
q
r
o
f

s
k
r
a
m

l
l
u
F

d
e
r
i
u
q
e
r

.
n
i
m

f
o

s
r
o
t
a
c
i
d
n
i

32 

32 

32 

32 

32 

32 

32 

32 

32 

32 

32 

32 

2
L
A
C
O
S

I

6 

7 

7 

7 

EN 

31 

   EN 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
MALTA 

NETHERLANDS 

POLAND 

PORTUGAL 

ROMANIA 

SLOVENIA 

SPAIN 

SWEDEN 

UK 

4 

1 

7 

7 

1 

7 

1 

3 

8 

1 

4 

6 

7 

6 

7 

7 

4 

15 

3 

0 

0 

0 

33 

0 

30 

0 

32 

32 

32 

32 

32 

32 

32 

32 

32 

Table 6.2 Summary of quality scores for indicators per Member State 

In general, there is a lack of overview and comparison in the Member States’ reports between 
the  different  indicators  (biological,  technical,  social  and  economic)  they  have  estimated  for 
their  own  fisheries.  Overall  there  is  a  lack  of  interpretation  of  findings  from  use  of  the 
indicators and a lack of conclusions about balance drawn from use of the indicators. 

EN 

32 

   EN 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
6.1. 

Evaluation of Quality of Technical Indicators 

Technical Indicator Scoring System 

The  technical  indicators  included  in  Member  States’  reports  were  reviewed  and  evaluated 
against five criteria and given scores of 0, 1 or 2 for each of the five criteria. Table 6.3 shows 
how  scores  were  awarded  for  quality  of  technical  indicators.  The  technical  indicators  from 
each  Member  States  are  then  evaluated  individually  and  a  short  summary  and  comment  are 
presented. 

Score 

Completeness of indicator 

Incomplete i.e. indicator not calculated 

Partially complete – included one of days at sea per vessel, GT or KW. Not 2008. 

Almost complete – as per guidelines. Included two of days at sea per vessel, GT or 
kW, was for 2008 

Interpretation / useful / conclusion 

No interpretation, comment on ratio 

Limited comment on meaning of ratio 

Useful commentary on meaning of ration in relation to segment 

Accurate – correct computation 

Not present 

Only presented ratio and not underlying days. Calculation appeared accurate 

Presented days at sea and ratio. Calculation appeared accurate 

Fleet coverage 

No coverage of segments 

0-74% of total fleet GT covered 

75% or over of total fleet GT covered 

0 

1 

2 

0 

1 

2 

0 

1 

2 

0 

1 

2 

Table 6.3 Scoring system used for technical indicators 

EN 

33 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The technical balance indicator evaluated is: 

Capacity  utilisation:  Ratio  between  the  average  number  of  days  at  sea  per  vessel  and  the 
maximum historical number of days at sea achieved by any vessel in that fleet segment. Gives 
a simple measure of potential capacity in a given fleet segment over time, and the utilisation 
of  that  potential  capacity  over  time.  Kilowatts  (kW)  and  or  Gross  tonnage  (GT)  can  be 
incorporated into the calculation to give a better assessment 

EN 

34 

   EN 

 
Member 
State 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Cyprus 

Denmark 

Estonia 

Finland 

Germany 

Greece 

Ireland 

Italy 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Malta 

Netherlands 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovenia 

Spain 

Sweden  

UK 

Completeness 

Accuracy 

Fleet 
coverage 

Conclusion 

Total 
Score 

Max 
Score 

1 

2 

0 

1 

1 

0 

0 

1 

0 

1 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

2 

0 

2 

0 

2 

2 

0 

1 

2 

0 

0 

1 

0 

1 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

2 

0 

2 

0 

2 

2 

0 

0 

2 

0 

0 

1 

0 

1 

0 

0 

1 

1 

0 

0 

0 

2 

0 

2 

0 

2 

1 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

1 

0 

1 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

1 

0 

7 

7 

0 

2 

6 

0 

0 

4 

0 

4 

0 

0 

4 

1 

0 

0 

0 

7 

0 

7 

0 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

Table 6.4 Scores per Member State for quality of technical indicators 

Belgium 

Belgium’s  report  provided  the  Technical  Indicator  for  2008.  The  Technical  Indicator  was 
calculated  accurately  and  some  interpretation  of  the  ratio  was  provided.  The  indicator  was 
calculated  for  days  at  sea  per  vessel  but  not  for  KW  days  or  GT  days.  Fleet  coverage  was 
good for the Technical Indicator as the majority of the fleet was covered. Overall we judged 
the information provided to be of good quality. 

Bulgaria 

Bulgaria’s  report  provided  the  Technical  Indicators  for  2008. The  Technical  indicator  was 
calculated  for  days  at  sea  per  vessel,  KW  days  and  GT  days. Limited  interpretation  of  the 

EN 

35 

   EN 

 
 
technical  indicator  was  given.  Overall  we  judged  the  information  provided  to  be  of  good 
quality. 

Cyprus 

No Technical Indicator was provided. 

Germany 

No Technical Indicator was provided. 

Denmark 

Denmark’s report provided the Technical Indicator for 2008. The ratio was calculated using 
an estimated maximum of days at sea rather than actual figures. No interpretation of indicator 
was  given  and  it  was  difficult  to  assess  fleet  coverage.  Overall  we  judged  the  information 
provided to be of low quality. 

Estonia 

Estonia’s report provided the Technical Indicator for 2008. Estonia provided the days at sea 
per vessel only and not GT or KW days at sea. Technical Indicators were provided on a vessel 
by vessel basis and good coverage of fleet. Limited interpretation of the indicator was given. 
Overall we judged the information provided to be of good quality. 

Greece 

Greece’s report provided the Technical Indicator for 2008. The days per vessel, GT and KW 
technical  indicators  are  all  calculated.  Only  the  ratio  is  shown  however,  not  the  underlying 
days or vessels, which makes it difficult to assess coverage of fleet. Limited interpretation of 
the  indicators  was  given  in  the  text.  Overall  we  judged  the  information  provided  to  be  of 
reasonable quality. 

Finland 

No Technical Indicator was provided. 

Ireland 

No Technical Indicator was provided. 

Italy 

Italy’s report provided the Technical Indicator but for 2007 not 2008. The report provided the 
ratio for days at sea per vessel, KW and GT indicators only and not supporting information on 
days at sea.  Given the information  provided,  it  was  difficult  to  assess  the  coverage  of  fleet. 
Overall we judged the information provided to be of reasonable quality. 

Latvia 

No Technical Indicator was provided. 

Lithuania 

EN 

36 

   EN 

 
No Technical Indicator was provided. 

Malta 

Malta’s report provided the Technical Indicator but for 2007 not 2008. The report provided 
the  ratio  for  days  at  sea  per  vessel,  KW  and  GT  indicators  only  and  not  supporting 
information  on  days  at  sea.  Given  the  information  provided,  it  was  difficult  to  assess  the 
coverage of fleet. Overall we judged the information provided to be of reasonable quality. 

Netherlands 

Netherlands’s report provided the Technical Indicator for 2008. Only a single ratio for days at 
sea  per  vessel  was  provided  for  Netherlands  main  segment.  No  supporting  information  on 
days or interpretation was provided. Overall we judged the information provided to be of low 
quality. 

Poland 

No Technical Indicator was provided. 

Portugal 

No Technical Indicator was provided. 

Romania 

No Technical Indicator was provided. 

Slovenia 

Slovenia’s report provided the Technical Indicator for 2008. The ratio was given for days at 
sea per vessel and GT. There was some interpretation of the indicator and fleet coverage was 
good. Overall we judged the information provided to be of high quality. 

Spain 

No Technical Indicator was provided. 

Sweden 

The Swedish report provided the Technical Indicator for 2008 using Days per vessel and KW 
days  given  for  technical  indicator.  Both  the  ratios  and  underlying  days  were  given  in  the 
report. Limited interpretation of the indicator was provided in the text. Fleet segments given 
and  good  coverage  of  segments.  Overall  we  judged  the  information  provided  to  be  of  high 
quality. 

UK 

No Technical Indicator was provided. 

EN 

37 

   EN 

 
6.2. 

Evaluation of Biological Indicators 

The  biological  indicators  included  in  Member  States’  reports  were  reviewed  and  evaluated 
against five criteria and given scores of 0, 1 or 2 for each of the five criteria. Table 6.5 shows 
how scores were awarded for quality of biological indicators. The biological indicators from 
each  Member  States  are  then  evaluated  individually  and  a  short  summary  and  comment  are 
presented. 

Score 

Completeness of indicator by species 

0  When none of the biological indicators were present/calculated 

1 

Partially complete – when at least one year is calculated (either 2007 or 2008) 
for at least the main species in terms of catch composition 

2  When  biological  indicator  was  present  for  at  least  5  years  (as  cited  in  the 

guidelines) for at least the main species in terms of catch composition 

Interpretation / useful / conclusion 

No interpretation and comments on indicator 

Limited comments on meaning of indicator, little interpretation or conclusion 

Meaningful and coherent comments on fleet segment, possible draw conclusion 

Accurate – correct computation 

Not present 

Partially correct computation of indicators 

Fully correct computation of indicators 

Fleet coverage 

<10% of the total fleet in number of boats  

11-70% of total fleet in number of boats 

>70% of total fleet in number of boats 

0 

1 

2 

0 

1 

2 

0 

1 

2 

Table 6.5 Scoring system used for biological indicators 

The three biological balance indicators evaluated are: 

EN 

38 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

Ratio  between  current  and  target  fishing  mortality.  This  indicator 
terms  of  sustainable 
accommodates  differences  between  species 
exploitation rates. The F/Ft ratio is dimensionless and facilitates comparisons 
or combinations across species. 

in 

Catch / Biomass Ratio. It can be interpreted as a proxy for the exploitation 
rate. 

Catch per unit of effort (CPUE). It can be interpreted as a relative index of 
stock abundance. 

No  Member  State  has  presented  more  than  one  biological  indicator.  According  to  the  data 
availability (DCR) all Member States (or most of them) should have catch and effort data and 
therefore, it would be desirable if they present at least CPUE trends together with one or all 
biological indicators.  

Following commission guidelines, for biological indicator, it is desirable to have 5 years time 
series as it contributes to robust results. But if a Member State can not provide 5 year time 
series because they are new members or because there has been no stocks assessment for one 
stock they should not be penalised for shorter time series of biological indicators.  

Member 
State 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Cyprus 

Germany 

Denmark 

Estonia 

Greece 

Finland 

Ireland 

Italy 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Malta 

Netherlands 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Spain 

Indicator 

Completeness 

Accuracy 

Fleet 
coverage 

Conclusion 

Total 
score 

Max 
Score 

B1 

B3 

 - 

 - 

 - 

 - 

B3 

 - 

 - 

B3 

 - 

B1 

B3 

B1 

-  

-  

-  

-  

1 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

2 

0 

0 

1 

0 

1 

1 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

2 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

2 

0 

0 

2 

0 

2 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

2 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

2 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

2 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

2 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

6 

5 

0 

0 

0 

0 

7 

0 

0 

3 

0 

5 

3 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

EN 

39 

   EN 

 
Sweden 

Slovenia 

UK 

B1 

B2 

- 

1 

0 

0 

2 

1 

0 

2 

0 

0 

2 

0 

0 

7 

3 

0 

8 

8 

8 

Table 6.6 Scores per Member State for quality of biological indicators 

Belgium 

•  The  biological  indicator  1  (Fest/Ftarget)  is  only  calculated  for  2008,  guidelines  suggest 
biological indicators should be presented for the last 5 years. There is a good application of 
guidelines, however the indicator is still not as detailed as is suggested in the guidelines. 
The  biological  indicator  is  not  calculated  for  each  fleet  segment  (i.e.  beam  trawl  has  2 
length  ranges)  as  done  for  the  technical  indicator  and  therefore  indicators  were  not 
comparable. 

•  The biological indicator was calculated for plaice and sole which represent 41% of the total 

catch.  

Bulgaria 

•  The Bulgarian report presents biological indicator 3 (CPUE) for sprat and turbot for 2007 
and 2008, for each fleet gear but not for vessel size range, therefore not detailed for each 
fleet segment. The 2 species covered are the main catch of different fleet gears, which were 
not  stated.  Extra  information  use  survey  data and therefore do not reflect fleet segments. 
Also  there  is  no  further  details  about  how  it  was  calculated  which  do  not  permit  an 
assessment of its precision and robustness. 

•  Good use of the guidelines about CPUE. Unfortunately the time series is short and there is 

no further interpretation of this indicator with additional expert information.  

Cyprus 

•  The biological indicators were not reported. 

Germany 

•  The biological indicators are not reported.  

•  The  Member  State  explains  in  detail  their  disagreement  about  the  usefulness  of  all  three 
biological indicators. The report comments on their own bio-economical modelling work, 
which  should  provide  more  comprehensive  analyses  of  the  fishing  capacity  once  it  is 
completed. 

Denmark 

•  The biological indicators are not reported.  

•  The Member State explains that there are difficulties with data desegregation, i.e. to have 
detailed  information  of  landing,  per  species  per  fleet  segment,  which  can  reflect  on  low 
level of results reliability. 

EN 

40 

   EN 

 
Estonia 

•  The Member State presents biological indicator 3 (CPUE). However, the indicator is only 
presented for 2008 and it is not aggregated for fleet segment, it is presented per vessel. 

•  The  Member  State  failed  to  follow  the  guidelines.  The  Member  State  should  seek  help 

from their scientific community to calculate the biological indicators. 

Greece 

•  The biological indicator 3 (CPUE) was calculated for 5 years, which fully complies with 
the  guidelines.  However,  they  do  not  make  further  comments  on  the  trends  of  CPUE. 
There is no comment on the importance of each species in the total catch.  

•  Guidelines were applied. 

Finland 

•  The biological indicators were not reported.  

Ireland 

•  The biological indicators were not reported.  

Italy 

•  CPUE indicator was provided. This indicator was done for the total landings and total fleet 

and was not by separated species and fleets as is explained in the guidelines 

Lithuania 

•  Evaluate indicator: Estimation of F/Ftarget is provided and the guidelines were applied for 
this indicator. It is clearly presented but the indicator for the demersal trawlers should be 
divided into fleet segments. 

Latvia 

•  The biological indicators were not reported. 

Malta 

•  Evaluate indicator: CPUE is calculated by the assemblage of species (i.e. for the total catch 
composition)  but  not  for  single  species.  There  is  general  information  about  catch 
composition  but  it  is  not  very  detailed.  CPUE  data  is  given  by  gear  but  not  by  fleet 
segment. 

•  Guideline application and problems: the guidelines were applied. However, the biological 
indicator was reported by assemblage of species instead of by individual target species. 

Netherlands 

EN 

41 

   EN 

 
•  Evaluate  indicator:  there  is  no  numerical  value  for  the  biological  indicator.  Although  the 
fleet is divided into different segments (explained earlier) the indicator was only cited for 
beam trawl. 

•  Guideline application and problems: There is a statement in the Dutch annual report: “the 
indicators  provided  by  the  Commission  are  difficult  to  apply  to  the  Dutch  pelagic  fleet 
which operates worldwide” but no more detailed information about this issue is provided, 
so  it  is  difficult  to  evaluate  how  difficult  it  was  and  whether  it  might  still  be  possible  to 
estimate this indicator. 

Poland 

•  The biological indicators were not reported. 

Portugal 

•  The biological indicators were not reported. 

Sweden 

•  Evaluate  indicator:  all  information  was  very  clear,  easy  to  find  and  to  interpret.  The 

indicator was only estimated for one year however. 

•  Guideline  application  and  problems:  good  application  of  the  guidelines  and  extra  useful 
information related to stock, quotas and fleet. There are some comments in the report about 
the biological indicators: “the indicator provides a rough overview of the ratio, and there 
may be a huge spread within each segment”. 

Slovenia 

•  Evaluate  indicator:  only  covers  3  boats  and  1  fleet  segment  (3.2%  of  fleet).  Good 
information  about  stock  assessment  but  failed  to  show  as  indicator  despite  having  catch 
and the stock biomass estimation. 

•  Guideline application and problems: none were noted in the report. 

Spain 

•  The biological indicators were not reported.  

UK 

•  The biological indicators were not reported. 

EN 

42 

   EN 

 
6.3. 

Evaluation of Economic Indicators 

The  economic  indicators  included  in  Member  States’  reports  were  reviewed  and  evaluated 
against five criteria and given scores of 0, 1 or 2 for each of the five criteria. Table 6.7 shows 
how scores were awarded for quality of economic indicators. The economic indicators from 
each  Member  State  are  then  evaluated  individually  and  a  short  summary  and  comment  are 
presented. 

Score 

Completeness of indicator 

Incomplete i.e. indicator not calculated 

The indicator is only calculated for one year 

The indicator is completely calculated for three years or more 

Interpretation / useful / conclusion 

No comments or interpretation of indicator 

Limited comments and interpretation of indicator  

Useful comments and interpretation of indicator  

Accurate – correct computation 

The indicator is not correctly calculated 

There are uncertainty of the accuracy of the calculation 

There are no indication of incorrectly computation 

Fleet coverage 

No coverage of segments 

0-74% of total fleet GT is covered in the calculation of the economic indicator 

75% or over of total fleet GT is covered in the calculation of the economic indicator 

0 

1 

2 

0 

1 

2 

0 

1 

2 

0 

1 

2 

Table 6.7 Scoring system used for economic indicators 

The two economic balance indicators evaluated are: 

EN 

43 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(1) 

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

(a) 

(b) 

The greater the ROI, the more profitable the investment 

Low or negative ROI may indicate over-capitalisation 

(2) 

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

(c)  When (CR/BER) < 0, cash flow is negative and fishery unviable in the 

short-run 

(d)  When (CR/BER) < 1, cash flow does not cover fixed costs, indicating 

an unviable fishery 

(e)  When (CR/BER) > 1, cash flow is equal to or greater than fixed costs, 

indicating a viable fishery 

EN 

44 

   EN 

 
Member 
State 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Bulgaria 

Cyprus 

Denmark 

Denmark 

Estonia 

Finland 

France 

Germany 

Greece 

Ireland 

Italy 

Italy 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Lithuania 

Malta 

Netherlands 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovenia 

Slovenia 

Spain 

Sweden 

Sweden 

UK 

Indicator 

Completeness 

Accuracy 

Fleet 
coverage 

Conclusion 

Total 
score 

Max 
Score 

E1 

E1 

E2 

 - 

E1 

E2 

 - 

 - 

 - 

 - 

 - 

 - 

E1 

E2 

 - 

E1 

E2 

E2 

E1 

 - 

 - 

 - 

E1 

E2 

 - 

E1 

E2 

 - 

1 

2 

2 

0 

2 

2 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

1 

0 

2 

2 

2 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

1 

0 

1 

1 

0 

2 

2 

2 

0 

2 

2 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

2 

2 

0 

2 

2 

2 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

2 

0 

2 

2 

0 

2 

2 

2 

0 

2 

2 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

2 

2 

0 

2 

2 

2 

1 

0 

0 

0 

2 

2 

0 

2 

2 

0 

0 

1 

1 

0 

2 

2 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

2 

2 

0 

2 

1 

2 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

2 

0 

1 

1 

0 

5 

7 

7 

0 

8 

8 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

7 

7 

0 

8 

7 

8 

1 

0 

0 

0 

4 

7 

0 

6 

6 

0 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

Table 6.8 Scores per Member State for quality of economic indicators 

Belgium 

EN 

45 

   EN 

 
 
•  The report shows ROI in a table, but the CR/BR is not calculated. The report could make 

more comments and interpretation. 

Bulgaria 

•  The report presents ROI and CR/BR in a table. The report could make more comments and 

interpretation. 

Cyprus 

•  No economic indicators reported. 

Denmark 

•  The  report  presents  ROI  and  CR/BR  and  makes  comments  and  interpretation.  An  extra 
indicator  is  included,  which  is  Return  of  Revenue  (ROR).  The  indicator  indicates,  like 
CR/BR, the profitability of the segments and it can be discussed whether this measures the 
balance  between  fishing  capacity  and  fishing  opportunities  rather  than  just  being  a 
profitability measure. 

Estonia 

•  No economic indicators reported. 

Finland 

•  No economic indicators reported. 

France 

•  No economic indicators reported. 

Germany 

•  No economic indicators reported. 

Greece 

•  No economic indicators reported. 

Ireland 

•  No economic indicators reported. 

Italy 

•  The report presents the economic capacity indicators for 2007, but does not present figures 
for 2005 and 2006. There could have been more comments and interpretation of the figures 

Lithuania 

EN 

46 

   EN 

 
•  The  report  presents  the  economic  capacity  indicators,  but  there  could  have  been  more 

interpretation of the figures. 

Latvia 

•  No economic indicators reported. 

Malta 

•  The  report  calculates  CR/BR,  but  not  ROI.  The  report  makes  good  comments  and 

interpretation of the figures for CR/BR. 

The Netherlands 

•  The  Netherlands  report  gives  an  indication  that  ROI  is  positive,  but  no  exact  values  are 

calculated and no comments are made. 

Poland 

•  No economic indicators reported. 

Portugal 

•  No economic indicators reported. 

Romania 

•  No economic indicators reported. 

Slovenia 

•  Slovenia has calculated both ROI and CR/BR, but the figures for ROI appear unlikely. A 
possible  explanation  is  a  misinterpretation  of  the  investment  calculation.  Also,  there  is 
missing  information  on  investments,  capital  costs  and  repair  costs,  which  makes  it 
uncertain  and  difficult  to  calculate  the  balance  between  fishing  capacity  and  fishing 
opportunities. The report presents the economic capacity indicators for 2007, but does not 
present figures for 2005 and 2006. 

Spain 

•  No economic indicators reported. 

Sweden 

•  The report presents the economic capacity indicators for 2007, but do not present figures 
for 2005 and 2006. There could have been more comments and interpretation of the figures 

UK 

•  No economic indicators reported. 

EN 

47 

   EN 

 
6.4. 

Evaluation of Social Indicators 

Social indicator scoring system 

The social indicators included in Member States’ reports were reviewed and evaluated against 
five criteria and given scores of 0, 1 or 2 for each of the five criteria. Table 6.9 shows how 
scores were awarded for quality of social indicators. The social indicators for each Member 
State are then evaluated individually and a short summary and comment are presented. 

Score 

Completeness of indicator 

0 

1 

2 

0 

1 

2 

0 

1 

2 

0 

1 

2 

Incomplete – year of indicator not referenced or incorrect year reported 

At least one year (either 2005, 2006, 2007 or 2008) 

Required time series of three years (2005-2007 or 2008 if possible) 

Useful / quality of presentation / interpretation or conclusion 

No useful information or useful interpretation/conclusion of indicators 

Limited usefulness of information, very little interpretation or conclusion 

Good information and/or interpretation / conclusions drawn 

Accurate – correct computation 

Complete inaccurate computation of indicators 

Partially correct computation of indicators 

Compete correct computation of indicators 

Fleet coverage 

for <20% of total fleet GT coverage 

for 21%-50% of total fleet GT coverage 

for >50% of total fleet GT coverage 

Table 6.9 Scoring system used for social indicators 

The two social balance indicators evaluated are: 

EN 

48 

   EN 

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

(2) 

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

EN 

49 

   EN 

 
Member 
State 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Bulgaria 

Cyprus 

Denmark 

Denmark 

Estonia 

Finland 

Germany 

Greece 

Ireland 

Italy 

Italy 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Lithuania 

Malta 

Netherlands 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovenia 

Slovenia 

Spain 

Sweden 

UK 

Indicator 

Completeness 

Accuracy 

Fleet 
coverage 

Conclusion 

Total 
score 

Max 
Score 

 S1 

S1 

S2 

S1 

S2 

S1 

S2 

S1 

S2 

S1 

S2 

2 

1 

1 

0 

2 

2 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

2 

2 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

1 

0 

1 

0 

2 

2 

2 

0 

1 

2 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

2 

2 

0 

2 

2 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

2 

2 

0 

1 

0 

2 

2 

2 

0 

2 

2 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

2 

2 

0 

2 

2 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

2 

2 

0 

1 

0 

1 

1 

1 

0 

1 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

2 

2 

0 

1 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

2 

2 

0 

1 

0 

7 

6 

6 

0 

6 

7 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

6 

7 

0 

7 

7 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

7 

7 

0 

4 

0 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

Table 6.10 Scores per Member State for quality of social indicators 

Belgium 

•  Belgium calculates the average share per full-time equivalent for 2003-2007 for two fleet 
segments  (12-24m  and  24-40m).  Belgium  had  a  good  time  series  for  the  social  indicator 

EN 

50 

   EN 

 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
(S1),  they  were  estimated  accurately  for  a  very  large  proportion  of  the  fleet  (93%  of 
vessels). Limited conclusions were drawn from the social indicator. 

Bulgaria 

•  Bulgaria  calculates  both  the  social  indicators  for  2008  covering  the  whole  fleet  (five 
segments)  Bulgaria  reported  complete  social  indicators  for  the  whole  Bulgarian  fleet  for 
2008. Bulgaria also conclude using a traffic light system levels of the indicators, using the 
measure of the social indicator three segments of the fleet are performing well whilst two 
segments (vessels up to 12m) are not making a positive assessment. 

Cyprus 

•  Cyprus did not report any social indicators 

Germany 

•  Germany did not report any social indicators 

•  Germany explains that they are not able to report any social indicators because the data is 
unavailable  until  12-15  months  after  the  reporting  period.  Germany  could  report  social 
indicators for the previous years for which data would be available (2007). 

Denmark 

•  Denmark reported both social indicators for 2005-2007 and made estimates for 2008 and 
2009 using the EIAA model. Denmark was unable to estimate the average crew per full-
time  equivalent  according  to  the  guidelines,  but  made  an  equivalent  estimation  for  the 
Danish  fleet.  The  social  indicators  cover  all  the  active  Danish  fleet.  No  specific 
conclusions  were  made  in  relation  to  the  social  indicators,  but  that  social  indicators  are 
related to the economic climate and must be analysed with caution. 

Estonia 

•  Estonia did not report any social indicators. 

Greece 

•  Greece did not report any social indicators. 

Finland 

•  Finland did not report any social indicators. 

Ireland 

•  Ireland did not report any social indicators. 

Italy 

•  Italy  reported  a  limited  time  series  for  both  social  indicators  by  fleet  segment.  Italy 
reported  average  crew  share  per  FTA  and  GVA  (weighted  by  fishery  segment)  for  2006 

EN 

51 

   EN 

 
and  2007  respectively.  Italy  carried  out  additional  analysis  for  crew  share  per  FTE  for  6 
geographical  sub-areas  employing  a  traffic  light  system.  GVA  was  not  analysed  further 
because a valid reference point for this indicator was not found. 

Latvia 

•  Latvia did not report any social indicators 

Lithuania 

•  Lithuania  reported  a  time  series  (2005-2007)  of  both  social  indicators  for  two  fleet 
segments. The social indicators calculated covered over 90% of the active fleet, however 
Lithuania drew limited conclusions from the social indicators. 

Malta 

•  Malta did not report any social indicators 

Netherlands 

•  Netherlands did not report any social indicators. Netherlands described an improvement in 

the social indicator however it was not reported. 

Poland 

•  Poland did not report any social indicators 

Portugal 

•  Portugal did not report any social indicators. 

•  Portugal believed they were difficult to apply to the characteristics of the national fleet and 
also as a result of poor data reliability. Nevertheless Portugal did report yield, employment 
and days of effort for 2003-2007. 

Romania 

•  Romania did not report any social indicators. 

Slovenia 

•  Slovenia  reported  both  social  indicators  for  all  fleet  segments  in  2007.  A  time  series  of 
social indicators was not reported but Slovenia drew comprehensive conclusions for both 
social indicators. 

Spain 

•  Spain did not report any social indicators. 

Sweden 

EN 

52 

   EN 

 
•  Sweden only reported gross value added for the Swedish fleet. It is uncertain to which year 
the  calculations  of  GVA  relate.  Whilst  Sweden  concluded  that  the  fishing  industry  adds 
value to the economy, GVA is probably under-estimated because labour costs are not fully 
incorporated. 

United Kingdom 

•  The UK did not report any of the social indicators specified in the guidelines. 

•  The UK was unable to report GVA, instead GVA per capita employed was reported due to 

insufficient profitability data. 

EN 

53 

   EN 

 
7. 

TOR 3. ASSESS AND SUMMARISE THE PROBLEM OF DATA AVAILABILITY  

Item  3  in  the  Terms  of  Reference  required  the  working  group  to  assess  and  summarise  the 
problem  of  availability  of  data  for  the  calculation  of  the  proposed  indicators  in  Member 
States’  reports.  Particular  attention  should  be  paid  to  biological  data.  If  time  allows,  in 
addition, propose solutions to these problems. 

Technical indicators 

Member  States  are  required  to  collect  days  at  sea  per  vessel,  GT  and  kW  according  to  the 
DCR.  Therefore  availability  of  data  should  not  be  a  problem.  Member  States  which  have  a 
large number of small vessels may find it problematic to report on the technical indicator for 
some of their fleet but this is discussed in Terms of Reference 4. 

It  is  noted  again  that  there  are  shortcomings  in  the  technical  indicator  as  applied  to  vessels 
using passive gear such as pots and traps. The days at sea of the vessel is not a good proxy for 
total effort when there is no discrimination or assessment of the amount of passive gear (e.g. 
number of pots)  operated by the  vessel during those days, because the gear is fishing every 
day it is deployed, even if the vessel is not at sea. This is an element which could be improved 
and Member States should be encouraged to provide suitable alternative approaches for their 
passive or static gear fleet segments. 

Providing  up  to  date  data  in  time  for  the  publication  deadline  may  be  an  issue  for  some 
Member States. Member States may have to revise their timetable for data collection in order 
to ensure the appropriate year is reported on for this indicator. 

Biological indicators 

For the new Member States it is not possible to provide a five years time series of biological 
indicators  (F  estimate/  F  target,  catch  per  unit  effort  by  fleet  segment  and  species  and  ratio 
between catch weight and stock biomass) because this information is not available. 

For  example,  in  the  Black  Sea,  Sprat  (Sprattus  sprattus)  and  turbot  (Psetta  maxima  L)  has 
been included in the Data Collection Program of the European Commission since 2007. The 
surveys  conducted  were  funded  by  the  Data  Collection  Regulation  of  the  European 
Commission.  The  reference  year  of  the  Data  Collection  Programme  for  Bulgaria  is  2007, 
therefore National Agency of Fisheries and Aquaculture will have the biological data of the 
most important fish species (sprat, horse mackerel, anchovy and turbot in the Black Sea) and 
more accurate information after the programme is implemented. This is the situation with lack 
of available biological data essential for the most important stocks and for other new Member 
States. 

As  many  stocks  do  not  have  assessment,  there  is  no  fishing  mortality  information  for  these 
stocks  and  therefore  the  Member  States  that  exploited  these  stocks  can  not  yet  provide  the 
indicators requested. 

Some countries share borders with non-EU countries and it might therefore be difficult to get 
information  on  the  total  catches  or  biomass,  since  the  non-EU  countries  are  not  obliged  to 
collect and share this. 

EN 

54 

   EN 

 
For  example,  the  horse  mackerel  (Trachurus  mediterraneus)  and  anchovy  (Engraulis 
encrasicholus), are two of the intensively exploited summer pelagic migration species off the 
Black Sea Coast. For these species, stock assessment is only possible when the whole area of 
distribution of the species is included into  examination. Therefore, it would be necessary to 
collect samples in the waters of all Black Sea states to produce stock assessment and mortality 
data  for  these  pelagic  species.  However,  due  to  the  lack  of  general  agreement  between  the 
Black  Sea  states  in  fishery  matters  (no  legal  agreement  to  regulate)  no  such  joint  scientific 
research expeditions and scientific assessments take place. Some countries share borders with 
non-EU countries, for example Turkey, and it might therefore be difficult to get information 
on the total catches, and Turkey is not obliged to collect and share this data.  

Belgium 

No  problem  with  data  availability  was  detected  or  stated  by  the  Member  State.  In  order  to 
calculate fishing mortality ratio (Fest/Ft) the Member State used 2007 values but that should 
not be considered an issue as data come from ICES working groups which have a time lag due 
to their estimation procedure.  

Bulgaria 

Data collection by this Member State only started two years ago when the country joined the 
EU. Therefore their biological indicators could only be shown for this period. We suggest that 
the Member State should endeavour to collect further data which will allow them to estimate 
the other biological indicators.  

Cyprus 

Data  availability  is  an  issue  for  this  Member  State.  They  reported  conflicting  deadlines 
between  DCR  report  submission  and  DCR  data  submission.  For  this  reason  it  was  not 
possible to estimate the indicators. We suggest that Cyprus try to adjust to the deadlines and 
attempt to produce a complete report.  

Germany 

Data availability does not seem to be an issue for this Member State. Germany has improved 
its  methodology  of  analysing  and  reach  conclusions  about  fleet  capacity  and  fishing 
opportunities,  which  is  good.  However,  it  would  be  best  if  they  would  comply  with  the 
guidelines calculating and analysing the indicators, at least as a comparison ground with all 
the other Member States. 

Denmark 

Data availability seems to be an issue for this Member State. It is mentioned that detailed data 
for fleet segment and species is not accessible. The Member State should seek help from their 
scientific community to extract the information from their databases and attempt to produce 
the report.  

Estonia 

Data availability is not mentioned in the report. The Member State should attempt to follow 
the  guidelines  and  present  the  indicators  calculated  for  fleet  segments  and  species,  as 
suggested in the guidelines. 

EN 

55 

   EN 

 
Greece 

Data  availability  to  calculate  biological  indicator  3  does  not  seem  to  be  an  issue  for  this 
Member State. We would like to encourage Greece to attempt to estimate other indicators.  

Finland 

Data availability does not seem to be an issue for Finland. We encourage Finland to follow 
the guidelines, estimate the indicators and draw some conclusions about the balance between 
their fleet capacity and fishing opportunities. 

Ireland 

Data availability does not seem to be an issue for Ireland. We encourage Ireland to follow the 
guidelines, estimate the indicators and draw some conclusions about the balance between their 
fleet capacity and fishing opportunities. 

Italy 

Biological data are updated to 2007 because 2008 data are not available. There is information 
about  fleet  coverage.  Biological  indicators  1  and  2  were  not  calculated  because  of  the 
particular characteristics of the Mediterranean management system where stock assessment is 
not  provided  for  many  species.  Assessments  including  estimates  of  fishing  mortality  and 
biomass are available for a very limited number of species. 

Lithuania 

Data availability is not mentioned as an issue for Lithuania. The Lithuanian report mentions 
the  quota  for  herring,  sprat,  cod  and  salmon.  However,  only  biological  indicator  1  is 
calculated for cod and there is no mention about cod importance in terms of landings. It is not 
clear what fleet segments were included as acronyms in text and graphs are different.  

Latvia 

Data availability is not reported as an issue for Latvia.  

Malta 

Data availability to calculate the biological indicator 3 does not seem to be an issue for Malta 
apart  from  the  fact  that  only  3  years  were  presented.  We  encourage  Malta  to  attempt  to 
calculate other indicators and have a longer time series of biological indicator 3. Malta should 
also draw from their analysis some conclusions about the balance between fleet capacity and 
fishing opportunity 

Netherlands 

Data  availability  does  not  seem  to  be  an  issue  for  the  Netherlands.  We  encourage  the 
Netherlands to follow the guidelines and to draw conclusions about the balance of their fleet 
capacity and fishing opportunity. 

Poland 

EN 

56 

   EN 

 
There is no information about data availability. However there is no estimation of biological 
indicators. We encourage Poland to be transparent about its data collection and availability, 
follow  the  guidelines,  and  to  draw  some  conclusions  about  the  balance  between  their  fleet 
capacity and their fishing opportunity. 

Portugal 

There is no information about data availability. However there is no estimation of biological 
indicators. We encourage Portugal to be transparent about its data collection and availability, 
follow  the  guidelines,  and  to  draw  some  conclusions  about  the  balance  between  their  fleet 
capacity and their fishing opportunity. 

Sweden 

Data availability does not seem to be an issue for Sweden. 

Slovenia 

Data  availability  seems  to  be  an  issue  for  Slovenia  as  their  main  catch  species  (Sardine 
(Sardina pilchardus) and Anchovy (Engraulis encrasicolus)) are migratory species which are 
also  targeted  by  Italian  and  Croatian  fleets.  Only  Slovenian  fleets  were  considered  in  this 
analysis. We would like to encourage Slovenia to promote joint studies with the neighbouring 
countries to improve the accuracy of its estimations and usefulness of its results 

Spain 

There  is  no  mention  about  data  availability  and  no  estimation  of  biological  indicators.  We 
would  like  to  encourage  the  Member  State  to  be  transparent  about  data  collection  and 
availability  and  to  endeavour  to  follow  the  guidelines  and  present  at  least  one  biological 
indicator. 

UK 

There  is  no  mention  about  data  availability  and  no  estimation  of  biological  indicators.  We 
would like to encourage the UK to be transparent about data collection and availability and to 
endeavour to follow the guidelines and present at least one biological indicator. 

Economic indicators 

•  Return on investment for each fleet segment 

Over a third (38%) of Member States delivered information on Return on Investment (ROI). 
However  it  is  doubtful  whether  these  countries  have  calculated  ROI  accurately  or  in  a 
standard  manner.  This  doubt  is  because  the  guidelines  do  not  explicitly  explain  what 
“investment”  means.  The  Member  States  might  therefore  misinterpret  it  as  “the  annual 
investment”  instead  of  the  total  capital  investment  less  depreciation.  It  is  likely  that  most 
countries  do  not  have  information  about  long-term  investments  and  this  increases  the 
uncertainty of the calculations of ROI. Furthermore, some Member States do not have data on 
depreciation  and  interest,  even  though  this  is  required  in  both  the  DCR  and  DCF.  This 
information is crucial for the accurate calculation of ROI.  

•  Current revenue divided by break even revenue 

EN 

57 

   EN 

 
A third of Member States delivered information on Current Revenue / Break-even Revenue. 
As with ROI, it is likely that some Member States do not have information on depreciation 
and interest and therefore are unable to complete the calculation. 

Social indicators 

Over  a  third  (38%)  of  Member  States  reported  a  social  indicator.  The  social  indicators  are 
based on data collection under the DCR and the accuracy and reliability of the data collected 
for the social indicators is questionable. We suggest that the Commission could discuss with 
Member  States  to  further  consider  how  the  quality  of  the  data  in  relation  to  the  social 
indicators can be improved. 

Often Member States DCR data is not available until after the reporting period for the annual 
reports on balance. The Commission should give guidelines and encourage Member States to 
report social indicators for most recent year (three years) that data is available. 

In  some  cases  no  explanation  is  given  as  to  why  a  social  indicator  has  not  been  reported. 
Member States should reveal why social indicators have not been reported, this may help to 
resolve any underlying problems and make it possible to report indicators in subsequent years. 

Average crew share wage per FTE 

Some  Member  States  or  fleet  segments  may  not  pay  crew  using  the  crew  share  system  and 
therefore may be unable to report on this indicator as it is currently defined. As a solution, an 
alternative measure of salary could potentially be used when vessels do not pay wages using 
crew share. In addition, FTE is also difficult to calculate accurately as data on hours worked 
are difficult to collect and interpret. This has been elaborated in an EU report on FTEs in the 
catching sector and in reality, this concept is often a case of considering whether work as a 
crew  member  is  the  principle  or  only  employment of the  crew, rather than any reference to 
number of hours worked.  

Gross Value Added 

Calculation of GVA requires estimation of crew share, interest and depreciation all of which 
are problematic to assess and therefore may not be available. Based on data collected under 
the DCR  

EN 

58 

   EN 

 
8. 

TOR 4. ASSESS APPROPRIATENESS OF INDICATORS FOR SMALL SCALE FLEETS 

The  working  group  was  asked  to  assess  the  appropriateness  of  the  proposed  indicators  for 
small scale coastal fleets and fisheries, identify problems related to their use for this part of 
the fleet and consider possible alternatives. 

Technical indicators 

For smaller vessels and fleets which tend to use passive gears, days at sea per vessel can lead 
to  misleading  results  and  alternative  measures  of  effort  may  be  appropriate  i.e.  number  of 
pots,  km’s  of  nets  used.  In  most  Member  States,  data  collection  and  effort  reporting  for 
smaller vessels and fleets is problematic. 

Biological indicators 

The calculation of the any of the three biological indicators is appropriate regardless the fleet 
segment. 

First, it is actually very desirable to include all fleet segments (small and industrial scale) as 
that is the only way to produce a robust estimation of the stock status and fishing mortality. It 
would only be irrelevant to include the small scale if catch/landing were negligible in weight.  

Secondly, calculate the same indicator for all segments is the only way to permit comparison 
among fleet segments and Member States.  

Thirdly, there is a perception that data availability could be an issue. Therefore, there should 
be  used  an  extra  effort  in  the  data  collection  for  the  small  scale  fleets  because  in  some 
countries they are highly important in biological (landings), social and economic aspects. 

Economic indicators 

The economic indicators are found to be equally appropriate for small-scale costal fisheries as 
well  as  larger  fisheries.  However,  one  general  issue  for  small-scale  coastal  fisheries  is  that 
these vessels are often operated by one owner, having other incomes besides fishing, which 
may give a misrepresentation of the economic indicators. Specifically, the fishermen need to 
ensure  that  an  appropriate  proportion  of  crew  share  attributed  from  fishing  is  used  when 
estimating these indicators. 

Social indicators 

There may be a problem collecting data from small-scale coastal fleets as regulations are not 
often in place to ensure compulsory data collection for these fleets. 

Average  crew  share  per  full-time  equivalent.  Often  crew  working  on  small-scale  coastal 
vessels are not employed full-time or crew share may not be used as method for payment of 
salary.  It  is  recommended  that  an  alternative  measure  taking  account  of  part-time  crew 
working  practices/other  wage  mechanisms  be  used  to  estimate  average  crew  share  per  full-
time equivalent for small-scale coastal fleets. 

EN 

59 

   EN 

 
9. 

TOR 5. IMPROVE THE GUIDELINES FOR BALANCE INDICATORS 

Item 5. in the Terms of Reference asked the working group to recommend improvements to 
the Commission’s Guidelines for balance indicators. 

General comments 

It is suggested that the Guidelines should more closely follow the recommendations made by 
the SGBRE working group report which was the origin of the guidelines. 

The  Commission  should  further  discuss  with  Member  States  to  better  define  the  guidelines 
requirements. 

There  is  a  lack  of  overview  and  comparison  between  the  different  indicators  (biological, 
technical, social and economic). 

Technical indicators 

Only  active  vessels  should  be  included  when  calculating  the  Technical  Indicators.  Member 
States should be clear on whether active vessels should be included or not. 

In terms of transparency, the components of the Technical Indicator should be presented i.e. 
days  at  sea  per  vessel,  GT  and  kW  should  be  shown.  In  addition,  the  number  of  vessels  in 
each segment should be shown so that coverage can be assessed.  

Totals for segments should be provided instead or in addition to individual vessel detail. 

Biological indicators 

The guidelines are not clear with regard to biological indicators estimation and presentation. 
The  STECF  Report  of  the  Working  Group  on  the  balance  of  the  Fishing  capacity  and 
resources: Part II (SGECA/SGRST 08-01) has a great deal of detail and accurate explanation 
about  the  estimation  of  the  indicator  which  were  not  included  in  the  guidelines.  We 
recommend  that  items  7.5,  7.6  and  7.7  from  the  report  should  be  included  in  full  in  the 
guidelines.  

Template table should be provided for the biological indicator 2 and 3 (as similarly used for 
the biological indicator 1).  

Page  3  of  guidelines:  Member  States  should  make  a  statement  explaining  the  length  of  the 
time series when data availability is shorter than the minimum required.  

There  should  be  strong  encouragement  on  further  data  analysis  using  for  instance,  bio-
economic models and other indicators, which can provide a robust picture of the fleet capacity 
and its balance with the fishing opportunities.  

There should be strong encouragement to seek help from the scientific community. 

Economic indicators 

EN 

60 

   EN 

 
The guidelines could be improved in relation to the calculation of ROI by specifying the terms 
“investment”.  It  is  recommended  to  use  the  word  “capital  value”  instead,  also  suggested  in 
DCF (the Member States used DCF for the first time in the 2008 data collection). Still, there 
will be problems for the Member States to actually estimate exact capital value figures, since 
this requires data for more than one year. 

Social indicators 

Social  indicators  are  not  given  as  much  importance  in  the  guidelines,  consequently  most 
Member  States  do  not  specifically  refer 
indicators  and  very  few 
conclusions/interpretations are drawn. It is recommended that the guidelines should be more 
explicit in stating that social indicators should also be reported. 

the  social 

to 

It would be useful for Member States to have calculation examples of social indicators in the 
guidelines (as is the case for technical, biological and economic indicators). 

EN 

61 

   EN 

 
10. 

REFERENCES 

Lutchman  I,  Van  den  Bossche  K,  des  Clers  S,  Overcapacity  -  What  Overcapacity?  An 
evaluation  of  Member  States  reporting  on  efforts  to  achieve  a  sustainable  balance  between 
fleet capacity and fishing opportunities in 2007. Institute for European Environmental Policy. 
July 2009. 
JRC Publication: Balance between fishing capacity and resources (part ii) (SGECA/SGRST-
08-01)  joint  subgroup  on  economic  affairs  (SGECA)  and  on  stock  reviews  (SGRST). 
Prepared for the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF). April 
2008. 
Guidelines  for  an  improved  analysis  of  the  balance  between  fishing  capacity  and  fishing 
opportunities: The use of indicators for reporting according to Art. 14 of Council Regulation 
2371/2002. DG Fisheries and Maritime Affairs, March 2008. 

Council  regulation  (EC)  No  2371/2002  of  20  December  2002  on  the  conservation  and 
sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy 

Commission regulation (EC) 1438/2003 of 12 August 2003: Laying down implementing rules 
on the Community Fleet Policy as defined in Chapter III of 

Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 

EN 

62 

   EN 

 
11. 

APPENDIX A 

This appendix offers an example of a possible standardised template approach to summaries 
of Member States annual reports. 

1.  Overall  assessment  of  balance 
and development year on year. 

Belgian Report Summary 

A  full  assessment  of  whether  the  capacity  of  the  Belgian  fleet  is  in 
balance  with  fishing  opportunity  is  not  given.  However  the  report 
mentions that under-utilization of the 24-40m beam trawling fleet is not 
the  result  of  an  imbalance  between  balance  and  fishing  opportunity  but 
rather quota exchanging. No assessment of change in balance over-time is 
presented. 

2.  Size  of  the  fleet  (no.  of  vessels, 
total GT, total kW) 

The report gave an overview of size of the Belgian fleet by segment. The 
fleet  consisted  of  100  vessels  in  2008,  2  fewer  than  at  the  end  of  2007. 
The report gave total capacity of the fleet as 19,007 GT and 60,620 kW. 

3.  Fleet  segments  with  key  species 
fished and total volumes landed 

4.  Additions  to  and  removals  from 
the  fleet  during  the  year,  expressed 
in  number  of  vessels,  giving  fleet 
segment  or  some 
indication  of 
vessel capacity 

5.  Change  in  state  of  stocks  and/or 
in  fishing  opportunity  during  the 
year 

6.  Outline  of  effort 
schemes, if any, during the year 

reduction 

7.  Statement  of  compliance  with 
entry/exit scheme during the year 

The Belgian fleet had two large segments; the 24-40m Beam Trawl fleet 
accounted  for  48%  of  the  total  fleet  and  the  12-24m  Beam  Trawl  fleet 
accounted for 45% of the total fleet. A breakdown of key species fished 
and  volumes  landed  was  provided.  Plaice,  Sole,  Cod  and  Shrimp 
accounted for 51% of landings. Species and volumes landed by segment 
was not provided by segment. 

The  report  shows  the  changes  in  fleet  capacity  during  2008;  2  vessels 
were  withdrawn  adding  296  GT  and  1,104  kW  and  1  vessel  was  added 
with 11GT and 0kW. No breakdown of segment is provided. 

The  report  does  not  provide  information  on  the  change  in  state  of  the 
stocks and/or in fishing opportunity between 2007 and 2008. The report 
does show total quotas and TAC for 2008 for the main species and ICES 
areas. 

No reference to an effort reduction scheme in 2008. 

Belgium complied with the entry/exit scheme in 2008. 

8.  Plans  for  improvement  in  fleet 
management system 

The  report  states  Belgium’s  intention  to  implement  a  fleet  adaptation 
scheme  in  accordance  with  the  OP  for  the  over  221kW  beam  trawl 
segment. 

9.  Length  of  report  (over/under  10 
pages) 

The report was 9 pages long in total. 

10  Application  of 
indicators 
social) 

the  balance 
(technical,  bio,  econ, 

Balance Indicator Diagram e.g.  

Belgium provided some but not all of the balance indicators. 

EN 

63 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
T1 

B1 

B2 

B3 

E1 

E2 

S1 

S2 

EN 

64 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
12. 

APPENDIX B 

Introduction 

This  appendix  contains  an  evaluation  of  the  French  report  which  was  carried  out  by  JRC 
experts  (John  Anderson,  Anna  Cheilari,  Jean-Noel  Druon)  following  the  SGBRE  working 
group of 7th-11th September. The working group was unable to evaluate the French report as 
no English version of the report was available.  

DG  MARE  and  the  JRC  agreed  that  French  speakers  within  JRC  (Cheilari,  Druon)  would 
evaluate the report using the same criteria used during SGBRE 09-01 with the assistance of 
Anderson,  who  attended  the  original  working  group  and  was  familiar  with  the  report 
evaluation  criteria.  DG  MARE  confirmed  that  they  had  no  objections  in  entrusting  JRC 
scientists  with  the  assessment  of  the  French  report,  as  long  as  the  assessment  was  made 
according to the STECF framework.  

While  this  evaluation  of  the  French  report  follows  the  same  methodology  as  developed  and 
used during the SGBRE 09-01 working group, it is important to note that this evaluation has 
not been endorsed by the SGBRE working group due to the problems already outlined. 

Results 

The French report was evaluated against the requirements of Article 12 and13 of Commission 
Regulation  no.  1438/2003.  The  results  of  this  evaluation  using  the  scoring  system  used  by 
SGBRE are given in table 12.1. While the French report includes information on most of the 
required  elements  (scoring  20  out  of  a  possible  24  points  for  presence  of  information)  the 
quality  of  the  information  provided  in  most  cases  could  be  improved  (score  of  18  out  of  a 
possible 36 points for quality). In particular, information on the development of fleets and the 
strengths  and  weaknesses  of  the  fleet  management  system  was  incomplete.  In  addition,  no 
overall  assessment  on  the  balance  between  fleet  capacity  and  fishing  opportunities  was 
provided,  and  none  of  the  balance  indicators  set  out  in  the  Commission  guidelines  were 
included. 

Comments on the Commission’s summary of the French report are as follows: 

•  The Commission summary of the French report reflects most of the main points of 

the French report.  

•  The  summary  correctly  notes  that  the  guidelines  were  not  applied  in  the  French 

report. 

•  While the Commission summary reports the extent of fleet reduction carried out 
in France, the summary fails to mention that the requirements for compliance with 
the entry exit regime are respected. 

EN 

65 

   EN 

 
Elements to be included

Q

1A i) Description of fleets

ii) Link with fisheries

iii) Development in fleets

1B i) statement of effort reduction schemes

ii) impact on fishing capacity of effort reduction schemes

1C Statement of compliance with entry / exit scheme

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

ii) plan for improvements in fleet management system

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

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

2 Report 10 pages or less?

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

Present  Quality scores
Actual 
score

Actual 
score

Max 
score

Max 
score

2

3

3

2

3

2

1

2

1

1

1

3

2

3

3

2

3

2

1

2

1

1

0

0

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

2

2

1

2

2

2

1

2

2

2

0

18

Total scores:  

24

20

36

Table B.1 Scores for inclusion and quality of required elements in the French report 

EN 

66 

   EN