COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER Opinion of the Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture and Opinion of the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee on Fisheries
Date: 2011-06-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, fishery management, fishery resources, fishing statistics, scientific report, sustainable development

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 22.6.2011 
SEC(2011) 760 final 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER 

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

Accompanying the document 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND 
THE COUNCIL 

on Member States' efforts during 2009 to achieve a sustainable balance between fishing 
capacity and fishing opportunities 

{COM(2011) 354 final} 
{SEC(2011) 759 final} 

 
 
 
 
  
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. 

2. 

3. 

3.1. 

3.2. 

4. 

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 2009 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 2009 to achieve a sustainable balance between fishing 
capacity and fishing opportunities ............................................................................... 6 

Introduction .................................................................................................................. 6 

STECF comments and conclusions.............................................................................. 6 

ANNEX. Report of SGBRE 10-01 .............................................................................. 9 

4.1. 

Introduction to SGBRE 10-01 working group report ................................................ 10 

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

4.1.2.  Participants................................................................................................................. 11 

4.2. 

4.3. 

Summary of key findings and recommendations of SGBRE 10-01 .......................... 12 

ToR 1. Evaluate MS annual reports and Commission summary ............................... 13 

4.3.1.  Scoring system for evaluation of MS reports – required elements ............................ 14 

4.3.2.  Evaluation of Member States annual reports for 2009............................................... 15 

4.3.3.  Change in quality scores compared to 2008 reports .................................................. 21 

4.3.4.  Specific comments on Member States annual reports ............................................... 21 

4.3.5. 

Ideal information under each required element of the MS reports ............................ 23 

4.3.6.  Translation of MS reports .......................................................................................... 24 

4.4. 

ToR 1.d. Evaluate MS application of guidelines on balance indicators .................... 25 

4.4.1.  Evaluation of Technical Indicators ............................................................................ 30 

4.4.2.  Evaluation of Biological Indicators ........................................................................... 35 

4.4.3.  Evaluation of Economic Indicators............................................................................ 41 

4.4.4.  Evaluation of Social Indicators .................................................................................. 46 

4.4.5.  Evaluation of Commission summary of Member States annual reports.................... 52 

4.5. 

ToR 2. Updated Guidelines for completing the balance indicators ........................... 59 

4.5.1.  Guidelines for Technical indicators ........................................................................... 59 

EN 

1 

   EN 

 
4.5.2.  Guidelines for Biological indicators .......................................................................... 61 

4.5.3.  Guidelines for Economic indicators........................................................................... 65 

4.5.4.  Guidelines for social indicators.................................................................................. 66 

4.6. 

4.7. 

ToR 3. Assess progress in addressing the problem of data availability for the 
calculation of balance indictors in MS reports........................................................... 72 

ToR 4. Assess and comment on appropriateness of indicators used by MS for small 
scale coastal fleets and fisheries................................................................................. 75 

4.8. 

References .................................................................................................................. 76 

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  2009  TO  ACHIEVE  A 
SUSTAINABLE BALANCE BETWEEN FISHING CAPACITY AND FISHING OPPORTUNITIES 
- MINUTES OF THE COMMITTEE FOR FISHERIES AND AQUACULTURE MEETING  

The opinion of the Committee was requested at the session which took place on 28 October 
2010. 

The Chair summarised the state of play of the Commission's proposal on fishing opportunities 
for 2011. Most of the reports do not establish a relationship between effort reduction schemes 
and fleet capacity adjustments. Overall it appears that the impact of fishing effort adjustment 
measures on fleet capacity is limited. 

In their national reports, 14 Member States made to some extent use of the guidelines for the 
assessment of the balance between fishing capacity and fishing opportunities. The biological 
indicator  was  not  always  applied  by  Member  States,  although  in  some  cases  the  use  of  the 
biological indicator would have been possible. The same conclusion could be drawn for the 
technical  indicator.  Even  though  the  technical  indicator  is  relatively  easy  to  calculate,  if 
applicable, only part of the Member States actually did so.  

Some  Member  States'  reports  provide  an  accurate  description  of  the  size  of  the  fleet  in 
relation to its fishing opportunities. However, generally speaking the quality of the reports has 
not  improved  significantly  in  relation  to  2008.  Overall  can  be  concluded  that  based  on  the 
quality  of  the  Member  States'  reports,  no  clear  conclusions  can  be  drawn  on  the  balance 
between fishing capacity and fishing opportunities.  

Finally the Commission advised MS that the current text of the Commission's conclusions in 
the annual fleet report could be subject to changes. The results of the STECF working group 
on the annual report and input from intern procedures like the inter-service consultation also 
needs to be taken into account. 

The Commission asked the Member States two questions: 

1.  Do  MS  have  remarks  about  the  text  and  the  figures  of  the  annual  fleet  report  and  the 
Commission staff working document? 

2.  Does  the  current  system  of  fleet  capacity  management  function  well?  The  reform  of  the 
CFP  raises  questions  about  we  should  continue  with  the  current  fleet  policy  or  not.  The 
Commission asked the Member States to provide input for this discussion.  

FR:  prefers  a  consequent  use  of  words.  Capacity  adjustment  should  be  used  instead  of 
capacity  reduction.  From  an  economical  perspective  an  adjustment  of  the  fleet  capacity  can 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
also mean an increase of the capacity, not only a reduction. France stated that it did apply the 
fishing capacity indicators, in contrary of the Summary of Member State's reports.  

PT: Stated some figures in the report were incorrect. In the Commission's summary, it should 
be mentioned that PT did submit economic data and made a calculation of some fleet capacity 
indicators. The fishing effort reductions achieved in the Greenland halibut fishery since 2003 
are insufficiently reflected in the summary.  

ES:  stated  it  had  already  submitted  written  comments  to  the  Commission.  The  capacity 
reduction  both  with  and  without  public  aid  should  be  mentioned  in  the  Commission's 
summary. Spain explained that the calculation of the fleet capacity indicators presents several 
difficulties. The details are explained in the written comments. 

DE:  indicated  it  had  already  explained  in  the  past  the  reasons  for  not  applying  the  fleet 
capacity indicators, and is willing to forward this explanations ones more if requested for. 

BG: stated it had submitted written comments to the Commission. Some figures mentioned in 
the summary are incorrect and need to be amended. Moreover, the data concerning the entry-
exit  ceiling  differs  from  those  mentioned  in  the  Bulgarian  annual  report  with  170  GT  and 
1581  kW.  These  vessels  entered  after  the  accession  date  based  on  administrative  decisions 
adopted before accession and the entry-exit ceiling should be amended accordingly.  

DK: the figures of all Member States should be comparable as much as possible. Although it 
has improved, there is still al lot of work to do. The Green book mentions that Member States 
should be able to apply national fleet measures. For the reform of the CFP it is important that 
this competence of the Member States will be maintained.  

PL:  States  it  had  submitted  written  comments  to  the  Commission.  In  the  Commission's 
summary of the Polish report, the number of vessels decommission with public aid was of 26, 
and not. 

SE: asked whether the Commission wants to receive written Member States' comments on the 
Commission's conclusions. 

COM: The Commission would be very pleased to receive written comments on: 

- technical issues of the annual report 

- the use of the fleet capacity indicators 

- the question about the appropriateness of continuation of the current fleet policy. 

The COM stated that it would include the figures submitted by ES in the report. It requested 
PT  to  submit  their  comments  in  writing  and  agreed  with  FR  that  capacity  adjustment  is  the 
right  wording  to  use,  although  in  most  situations  this  would  mean  a  reduction  of  fishing 
capacity.  

The guidelines for an improved analysis of the balance between fishing capacity and fishing 
opportunities will be revised in the coming months. The objective is to improve the quality of 
the assessment. In the revision  some correction will be made in the text, as well as a better 
explanation  of  the  calculation  methods  for  the  indicators.  The  COM  won't  introduce  a  new 
methodology, although an additional indicator is being considered. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
All  Member  States  agreed  that  an  additional  meeting  on  the  annual  fleet  report  was  not 
necessary.  

COM  concluded  announcing  that  the  annual  fleet  report  would  be  adopted  including  the 
observations made by Member States at the meeting in the annex to the report, as well as the 
written comments received. 

EN 

5 

   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 2009 TO 
ACHIEVE  A  SUSTAINABLE  BALANCE  BETWEEN  FISHING  CAPACITY  AND  FISHING 
OPPORTUNITIES  

3.1. 

Introduction 

STECF is requested to review the report of the SGBRE 10-01 meeting of September 13th -17th 
2010  (Edinburgh),  evaluate  the  findings  and  make  any  appropriate  comments  and 
recommendations. 

3.2. 

STECF comments and conclusions 

STECF observations 

STECF endorses the methods and working group report of SGBRE 10-01.  

STECF  notes  the  overall  improvements  made  by  MS  in  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 only six (compared 
to  ten  in  the  previous  year)  out  of  22  MS  did  not  estimate  any  of  the  balance  indicators 
recommended in the Commission’s guidelines to MS. Completion of balance indicators is not 
mandatory under current regulations however.  

In  particular,  STECF  notes  that  13  of  the  22  MS  gave  an  overall  opinion  of  whether  the 
capacity  of  their  fishing  fleet  was  in  balance  with  their  fishing  opportunities  which  is  a  big 
improvement on the previous year’s reports. However, STECF notes that the benefits of MS 
completing  these  reports  may  not  be  realised  unless  MS  make  a  clear  statement  about  the 
degree of balance between their fleets and their fishing opportunities. 

STECF  notes  the  useful  example  of  a  suggested  Commission  summary  of  the  Belgian  MS 
report.  If  Commission  summaries  were  all  prepared  according  to  this  template  the  report  to 
parliament would enable members to make easier comparisons between MS. 

STECF questions once again the need for MS reports to be evaluated in an STECF working 
group.  Since  the  STECF-SGBRE  WG  has  devised  a  useful  and  straightforward  scoring 
system  for  the  legally  required  elements  in  MS  reports,  STECF  suggests  that  at  least  the 
required elements of MS could be evaluated by staff at either JRC or DG Mare. 

STECF  suggests  that  the  use  of  SGBRE  experts’  time  could  be  better  spent  evaluating  the 
application of the balance indicators, improving the balance indicators, the guidelines for the 
indicators and evaluating the overall situation or establishing a comprehensive overview with 
regard to balance or imbalance of EU fleets and opportunities. There is also then potential for 
experts to address specific questions about key areas where improvement in balance is a key 
requirement for improvements in fleet profitability and stock sustainability. 

STECF supports the suggestion of the SGBRE working group that MS could choose from a 
range  of  suggested  or  alternative  statements  regarding  the  degree  of  balance  in  their  own 
fleets and segments, and suggests that this suggestion is communicated to MS. The idea could 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
be  further  developed  by  linking  these  statements  to  values  of  indicators.  The  statements 
suggested are as follows: 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

Capacity is substantially in excess of opportunity – means that the fleet is capable of 
catching (at reference year catch rates) far in excess of the permitted opportunity, or 
that the level of production could have been achieved with substantially less physical 
capacity. 

Capacity  is  somewhat  in  excess  of  opportunity  –  means  that  the  fleet  is  capable  of 
catching more than the permitted opportunity. 

Capacity  is  approximately  in  balance  with  the  fishing  opportunity.  There  is  either 
little unused capacity or little unused opportunity. 

Capacity  is  somewhat  below  the  fishing  opportunity  –  means  that  there  is  some 
unused opportunity due to lack of catching capacity, which is therefore not delivering 
possible economic and social benefits to the MS. 

Capacity  is  substantially  below  the  fishing  opportunity  –  means  that  there  is  a 
substantial amount of the fishing opportunity that is not taken up due to lack of fleet 
capacity,  and  there  are  substantial  social  and  economic  benefits  that  are  not  being 
realised by the MS. 

STECF  is  concerned  to  note  the  issue  of  incorrect  translation  of  MS  reports  raised  by  the 
STECF-SGBRE 10-01WG and asks the Commission to consider appropriate solutions to this 
difficulty. 

STECF  endorses  the  suggestions  and  recommendations  of  the  working  group  report, 
summarised in section 6 of the report. STECF makes the following recommendations arising 
from the findings and recommendations of the STECF-SGBRE 10-01 WG: 

1. STECF recommends that the Commission once again urges MS to submit their reports and 
to do so by the deadline. 

2. STECF recommends that  Commission summaries  of MS  reports  follow the new, shorter, 
template format as suggested in the report of SGBRE 10-01. Summaries will then contain the 
same  information  in  the  same  order  while  remaining  within  the  word  limit  required  by  the 
translation service. This would greatly assist STECF to evaluate the Commission summaries 
should STECF continue to be required to do so. 

3. STECF recommends that the Commission again asks MS which have not already done so, 
to structure their annual reports as suggested in the report of SGBRE 10-01. 

4. STECF recommends that the Commission asks MS to include at the front of their reports 
the suggested summary template contained in the report of SGBRE 09-01. 

5.  STECF  recommends  that  in  its  summary  report,  the  Commission  names  the  MS  whose 
reports indicate a considerable degree of fleet over-capacity. 

6. STECF identifies the need for better technical indicator(s) for passive gear fleet segments 
and recommends that the Commission finds a way to develop them. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
7.  When  the  relevant  regulations  (Council  Regulation  No  2371/2002  and  Regulation  no 
1438/2003)  are  updated,  STECF  recommends  that  the  Commission  consider  explicitly 
requiring MS to report not only on their efforts to achieve balance, but to state clearly what 
they believe is the degree of balance between fleet capacity and fishing opportunity in their 
MS, and whether balance has been improving or worsening over the last few years. 

9.  STECF  recommends  that  MS  are  again  asked  to  state,  where  appropriate,  why  balance 
indicators have not been reported, as this may  help to resolve any underlying problems and 
make it possible to report indicators in subsequent years. 

10.  When  preparing  updated  Guidelines  to  MS  on  estimating  balance  indicators,  STECF 
recommends that the Commission take into account suggestions for text included in the report 
of SGBRE 10-01. 

11. STECF recommends that updated Guidelines are prepared and distributed to MS in time 
for  MS  to  use  them  in  preparation  of  their  reports  relating  to  2010,  to  be  submitted  by  30 
April 2011. 

12. STECF recommends that MS be asked to describe their fleets using the fleet segmentation 
required under the DCF.

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
4. 

ANNEX. REPORT OF SGBRE 10-01 

SGBRE 10-01: REVIEW OF NATIONAL REPORTS ON BALANCE BETWEEN FISHING 
CAPACITIES AND FISHING OPPORTUNITIES. 

Edinburgh, 13-17th September 2010 

This report is the opinion of the expert working group on Balance between capacity and 
exploitation (SGBRE 10-01) 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 

9 

   EN 

 
4.1. 

Introduction to SGBRE 10-01 working group report 

4.1.1.  Terms of reference 

The working group was asked to: 

1. 

Evaluate  the  Member  States'  reports  on  their  efforts  during  2009  to  achieve  a 
sustainable  balance  between  fishing  capacity  and  fishing  opportunities  and  the 
Commission's  summaries  of  MS  reports,  taking  account  in  particular  the  following 
aspects: 

1.1. 

Compliance  of  MS  reports  with  Art.  14  of  Council  Regulation  No.  2371/2002  and 
Art. 12 of Commission Regulation No. 1438/2003 

1.2.  Member  States  evaluation  of  the  effect  of  fishing  effort  management  measures  on 

fishing capacity 

1.3.  Member  States'  assessment  of  the  balance  between  fishing  capacity  and  fishing 

opportunities for their fishing fleets 

1.4.  Where  appropriate,  Member  States'  application  of  the  indicators  proposed  in  the 
"Guidelines  for  an  improved  analysis  of  the  balance  between  fleet  capacity  and 
fishing opportunities" 

2. 

3. 

4. 

The  Commission  has  produced  a  Draft  updated  version  of  the  "Guidelines  for  an 
improved analysis of  the  balance  between fleet capacity and fishing opportunities". 
The working group is asked to comment on this new Draft version of the guidelines, 
and  where  appropriate  suggest  alternative  drafting,  before  the  new  Guidelines  are 
finalised  and  forwarded  to  Member  States  for  their  application  to  the  2010  fleet 
reports.  

Assess  and  comments  on  any  progress  evident  in  addressing  the  problem  of 
availability of data for the calculation of the proposed indicators in MS reports. 

Assess and comment on the appropriateness of any indicators used by MS for small 
scale coastal fleets and fisheries. 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
4.1.2.  Participants 

Name 
STECF 
members 
Hazel Curtis 
(chair) 

Alvaro Abella 

External experts 
Ane Iriondo  

Colin Brodie  

Maria Yankova 

Thomas 
Thoegersen  

Address 

Telephone no. 

email 

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 
Institute of Fishing Resources 
Blvd. Primorski 4 
9000 
Varna, Bulgaria 
FOI 
Milanovej 10B, 3th 
2300 Copenhagen, Denmark 

+44 131 524 8664 

h_curtis@seafish.co.uk 

+39 0586 263456 

a.abella@arpat.toscana.it 

+34 94 6574000 

airiondo@azti.es 

+44 131 524 8662 

c_brodie@seafish.co.uk 

+35 9526 32066 

maria_y@abv.bg 

+45 3533 6895 

thth@foi.dk 

Helena Galrito   DGPA 

+35 12130 35804 

galrito@dgpa.min-agricultura.pt 

Maria  Amélia 
Miguez 

Av. Brasília 1449-030 
Lisboa, Portugal 
DG Pescas e Agricultura 
Av.Brasília 
1449-030 
Lisboa, Portugal 

+35 12130 35888 

amiguez@dgpa.min-agricultura.pt 

Mark Dimech   Malta  Centre 

for  Fisheries 

+35 62229 3302 

mark.dimech@gov.mt 

Darcelle 
Vassallo  

Monica 
Gambino 

Constantin 
Stroie  

and 

Fisheries 

Sciences 
Fort San Lucjan  
BBG 06 Marsaxlokk, Malta 
Agriculture 
Regulation Department 
Fort San Lucjan 
BBG 06 Marsaxlokk, Malta 
IREPA Onlus 
Via  S  Leonardo  trav  Migliaro 
84113 
Salerno, Italy 
National  Agency  for  Fisheries 
and Aquaculture of Romania,  
54 Eufrosina Popescu Str 
75436 
Bucharest, Romania 

+35 62229 3315 

darcelle.vassallo@gov.mt 

+39 08933 8978 

gambino@irepa.org 

constantin.stroie@anpa.ro 

Gheorge Rhadu   NIMRD 

"Grigore  Antipa" 

+40 2415 43288 

gpr@alpha.rmri.ro 

Constanta,  
Mamaia 300, 900581,  
CONSTANTA, Romania 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Address 

Name 
Tomas Zolubas   Fisheries Service under ministry 
of  Agriculture,  Naujoji  uosto 
8a, 
LT-92119, Klaipeda, Lithuania 
Independent expert,  
General  Concha  44,  4ºcentro 
izda,  
48012 Bilbao, Spain 

Leyre Goti  

Telephone no. 
+37 04631 0660 

email 
TomasZ@zum.lt 

+34 67562 1801 

leyregoti@yahoo.com 

JRC Experts 
Guillen  
Jordi 

Anderson 
John 

Joint Research Centre JRC 
Via Enrico Fermi 2749 
I-21027 Ispra, (VA) Italy 
Joint Research Centre JRC, 
Via Enrico Fermi 2749 
I-21027 Ispra, (VA) Italy 

European Commission 
Marco Traa 
Jordi Guillen 

DG MARE 
Joint  Research  Centre  JRC, 
STECF secretariat 

John Anderson  

Joint  Research  Centre  JRC, 
STECF secretariat 

Jordi.guillen@jrc.ec.europa.eu 

+39 0332 78 9256 

John.anderson@jrc.ec.europa.eu 

+32 2 29 68070 
+ 

marco.traa@ec.europa.eu 
jordi.guillen@jrc.ec.europa.eu 

+39 0332 78 9256 

john.anderson@jrc.ec.europa.eu 

4.2. 

Summary of key findings and recommendations of SGBRE 10-01 

Overall, the terms of reference for the working group were not quite achievable due to time 
constraints.  In  particular,  because  the  group  had  to  split  into  subgroups  to  tackle  different 
aspects  of  many  of  the  ToR  questions  (Technical,  Biological,  Economic  and  Social),  there 
was insufficient time for each group’s draft text to be edited by the chair of the working group 
and then reviewed and agreed in plenary during the week of the meeting. The tasks of editing, 
discussing  and  agreeing  text  had  to  be  completed  remotely  after  the  meeting  and  took  a 
considerable amount of time. 

This is a summary of the key findings of the working group SGBRE 10-01: 

(1)  MS  annual  reports  on  their  efforts  to  achieve  a  balance  between  fleet  capacity  and 
in 

for  2009  overall  showed  substantial 

fishing  opportunity 
completeness and in quality compared to reports for 2008. 

improvements 

(1)  More MS had estimated more balance indicators in their 2009 reports than in the 2008 

reports. 

(2) 

(3) 

The overall quality of balance indicators was higher this year compared to last year but 
only six MS presented the first (preferred) indicator. 

France had not submitted its annual report for 2009 before SGBRE met to review the 
reports. 

(4)  MS reports could be further improved and made more readable in future years if they 
would  include  the  proposed  summary  sheet  and  use  the  proposed  report  structure 
included in this report. 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
(5) 

(6) 

(7) 

(8) 

(9) 

Little  progress  was  noted  in  addressing  issues  of  data  availability  for  calculating 
balance indicators. 

No MS had developed and presented any alternative balance indicators appropriate for 
use in small scale fleets and fisheries. 

The Commission summaries are again presented in variable order and could be much 
improved if they followed a standardised template. A suggested template and format is 
provided  that  would  still  allow  the  Commission  to  adhere  to  the  character  limit 
imposed by their translation service. 

The  Commission  summaries  of  MS  reports  include  some  unhelpful  generalisations, 
including  a  statement  that  the  Portuguese  report  did  not  follow  the  guidelines  on 
calculating balance indicators, when in fact the Portuguese report does include all but 
the biological balance indicators. 

The  quality  and  accuracy  of  the  translation  of  technical  vocabulary  in  some  MS 
reports was found to be poor in some cases. In particular this was noticed in the Italian 
report.  SGBRE  recommends  that  MS  consider  the  Commission’s  translation  and 
identify  any  important  changes  of  meaning  that  have  occurred.  SGBRE  also 
encourages MS to consider submitting their annual report in English, to avoid the risk 
of poor translation of technical vocabulary. 

(10)  Some MS reports included graphs in which the text had not been translated. It would 
be  helpful  if  MS  could  themselves  translate  any  elements,  such  as  text  in  graphs, 
which the Commission translation service will not translate. It might be necessary to 
advise  MS  which  elements  will  not  be  translated  by  the  Commission  translation 
service. 

(11)  Had the French report been submitted on time, it seems that we would once again have 
had the issue that the Commission translation service would have refused to translate it 
from  French  to  English,  on  the  grounds  that  French  is  an  official  Commission 
language.  SGBRE  suggests  that  the  Commission  translation  service  be  required  to 
translate documents into English when those required to work with the documents are 
not Commission staff. 

(12)  Preliminary  contributions  to  the  draft  updated  Guidelines  for  calculating  balance 
indicators  are  presented.  There  was  insufficient  time  during  the  working  group  for 
members to review and agree proposals for each set of indicators in plenary. SGBRE 
recommends that the Commission takes these suggestions into account when preparing 
updated Guidelines on completing balance indicators. 

4.3. 

ToR 1. Evaluate MS annual reports and Commission summary 

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

•  Member  States’  reports  on  their  efforts  during  2009  to  achieve  a  sustainable 

balance between fleet capacity and fishing opportunities; and 

•  The Commission’s summary of Member States’ reports. 

In particular, SGBRE was asked to take into account the following aspects: 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
(a) 

Compliance of Member States’ reports with Article 14 of Council Regulation 
no.  2371/2002  and  Articles  12  and  13  of  Commission  Regulation  no. 
1438/2003 

(b)  MS evaluation of the effect of fishing effort management measures on fishing 

capacity 

(c)  MS  assessment  of  the  balance  between  fishing  capacity  and  fishing 

opportunities for their fishing fleets 

(d)  Where  appropriate,  MS  application  of  the  indicators  proposed  in  the 
“Guidelines for an improved analysis of the balance between fleet capacity and 
fishing opportunities" 

4.3.1. 

Scoring system for evaluation of MS reports – required elements 

The working group assessed compliance with Articles 12 and 13 of Commission Regulation 
no.  1438/2003  by  using  the  scoring  system  that  had  been  developed  during  SGBRE  09-01. 
Table 4.1 shows the scoring system which is based on the elements of Article 13 (items 1A to 
2 in Table 4.1) and Article 12 (item O in Table 4.1). The scoring system awards a score for 
providing  the  required  information  and  a  separate  score  for  the  quality  of  the  information. 
Scores  for  providing  the  required  information  are  weighted  to  reflect  the  importance  of  the 
elements included (present) in Member States’ reports. The quality score is a reflection of the 
completeness,  robustness  and  relevance  of  the  information  provided.  We  did  not  assign  a 
score for submitting the report by the required date. 

The scoring table was altered slightly compared to the report of SGBRE 09-01, to reflect the 
full wording of required element 1.c) in Article 13 of Regulation 1438/2003. 

This year we awarded specific scores for completeness, robustness and relevance and each of 
these  elements  could  achieve  a  score  of  0,  0.5  or  1,  so  that  the  total  quality  score  could  be 
between 0 and 3 for each required element. 

For  including  the  required  elements,  reports  were  awarded  full  marks  available  for  each 
element. If the element in respect of 2009 was absent, the score was zero. Therefore, if a MS 
included  the  element  only  in  relation  to  the  wrong  year,  the  report  would  score  zero  for 
including that element. 

Members  of  SGBRE  split  into  smaller  groups  to  evaluate  MS  reports  so  it  is  possible  that 
groups may have applied the scoring system differently. However the system was reviewed in 
plenary  before  the  task  and  each  report  was  read  in  full  by  the  groups  assessing  them.  Last 
year’s  MS  reports  and  scores  were  also  reviewed  to  try  to  ensure  consistency  of  evaluation 
from SGBRE 09-01 to SGBRE 10-01. 

Section 4.3.5 on page 23 includes suggestions of answers to some requirements and gives an 
indication of what we were looking for under each requirement. 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
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 and with level of reference

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?

Max score available
Present Quality

2

3

3

2

3

2

1
2

1

1

1

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3
3

3

3

-

3

Total possible scores: 

24

33

Table 4.1 Scoring system for evaluating Member States annual reports 

The  requirement  that  reports  should  be  10  pages  or  less  was  interpreted  to  mean  that  the 
annual  report  covering  the  legally  required  elements  should  be  10  pages  or  less.  If  a  report 
exceeded  10  pages  because  of  including  the  balance  indicators,  (which  are  not  legally 
required)  or  an  annex  of  detailed  information,  then  the  report  was  still  awarded  a  point  for 
being  10  pages  or  less.  We  took  this  interpretation  because  last  year  we  recommended  that 
this page limit be revisited and the Commission has indicated that it will reconsider the page 
limit next time the regulation is revised and that in the meantime there is no penalty to MS 
whose reports exceed 10 pages. 

We  understand  that  only  10  of  the  22  relevant  MS  submitted  their  annual  reports  by  the 
deadline of 30th April 2010. Failure to meet the deadline meant that some reports had not been 
summarised by the Commission before SGBRE 10-01. The report from France had not been 
received by the Commission before the working group. 

4.3.2.  Evaluation of Member States annual reports for 2009 

All MS reports (with the exception of the French report, which had not been received by the 
Commission prior to the working  group) were evaluated against the requirements of Article 
12 and13 of Commission Regulation no. 1438/2003 by the SGBRE 10-01 working group.  

Overall there is variation in the completeness and quality of MS reports for 2009 but there is a 
general  improvement  in  completeness  compared  to  the  reports  for  2008.  Once  again  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. Key points to note are: 

•  There  has  been  a  distinct  overall  improvement  in  providing  the  required  elements  of  the 

MS reports compared to the 2008 reports. 

•  Several  MS  mentioned  as  not  having  completed  required  elements  in  their  2008  reports 

have included those elements in their 2009 reports. 

•  Sweden, Spain and UK did not describe their fishing fleets in relation to fisheries. 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
 
•  All MS stated whether they complied with entry/exit schemes. 

•  Five  MS  (Belgium,  Cyprus,  Estonia,  Greece  and  Spain)  did  not  provide  a  summary  of 

weaknesses & strengths of fleet management system. 

•  Eleven  Member  States’  reports  did  not  provide  plans  for  improvements  in  fleet 

management systems. 

•  Seven Member States did not give information on the level of compliance with fleet policy 

instruments. This was an improvement on 2008 MS reports. 

•  Eight MS did not give an overall opinion on whether their fleet was or was not in balance 

with its fishing opportunity in 2009 (compared to14 in 2008 reports). 

•  Greece was the most improved MS in terms of score achieved. 

Table  4.2  shows  the  scores  by  MS  for  inclusion  of  required  elements  in  their  annual  report 
(the “present” score). Table 4.4 ranks MS by their score for inclusion of required elements. A 
maximum of 24 points was available. Bulgaria and Poland achieved the maximum 24 points, 
while Spain scored only 8 points. There is less variation than for the previous year with all but 
two MS scoring 75% or above for including the required elements. 

Table 4.3 shows the quality scores by MS for included elements in the annual reports. There 
is  a  slight  reduction  in  variation  in  the  quality  of  the  MS  reports  compared  to  the  previous 
year. Table 4.5 ranks MS by their quality score for the required elements. A maximum of 33 
points was available. Denmark achieved highest points with a score of 28 and Spain scored 
9.5.

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
Q 

Required element of report 

i) Description of fleets 

1A 

ii) Link with fisheries 

iii) Development in fleets 

i) statement of effort reduction schemes 

1B 

1C 

1D 

1E 

2 

O 

ii) impact on fishing capacity of effort reduction schemes 

Statement of compliance with entry / exit scheme and with level of 
reference 

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 

Report 10 pages or less? 

Overall: does report assess balance between capacity & opportunity? 

s
e
r
o
c
s

x
a
M

2 

3 

3 

2 

3 

I

M
U
G
L
E
B

2 

3 

3 

2 

3 

I

A
R
A
G
L
U
B

2 

3 

3 

2 

3 

S
U
R
P
Y
C

2 

3 

3 

2 

3 

K
R
A
M
N
E
D

2 

3 

3 

2 

3 

I

A
N
O
T
S
E

2 

3 

3 

2 

3 

D
N
A
L
N
I
F

2 

3 

3 

2 

3 

Y
N
A
M
R
E
G

2 

3 

3 

0 

3 

E
C
E
E
R
G

2 

3 

3 

2 

3 

D
N
A
L
E
R

I

2 

3 

0 

2 

3 

Y
L
A
T
I

2 

3 

3 

2 

3 

I

A
V
T
A
L

2 

3 

3 

2 

3 

I

A
N
A
U
H
T
I
L

2 

3 

3 

2 

3 

A
T
L
A
M

2 

3 

3 

2 

3 

S
D
N
A
L
R
E
H
T
E
N

2 

3 

3 

2 

3 

D
N
A
L
O
P

2 

3 

3 

2 

3 

L
A
G
U
T
R
O
P

2 

3 

3 

2 

3 

I

A
N
A
M
O
R

2 

3 

3 

2 

3 

I

A
N
E
V
O
L
S

2 

3 

3 

2 

3 

I

N
A
P
S

2 

0 

0 

2 

0 

N
E
D
E
W
S

2 

0 

3 

2 

3 

K
U

2 

0 

3 

2 

3 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

1 

2 

0 

0 

1 

2 

0 

2 

1 

2 

0 

0 

1 

0 

1 

0 

0 

2 

1 

0 

1 

2 

1 

0 

1 

0 

1 

0 

1 

0 

1 

2 

1 

2 

1 

0 

1 

2 

0 

0 

1 

2 

1 

2 

1 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

1 

0 

1 

1 

0 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

3 

0 

1 

3 

1 

1 

3 

1 

0 

0 

1 

1 

3 

0 

1 

3 

1 

1 

0 

1 

1 

3 

1 

1 

3 

0 

1 

0 

1 

0 

3 

1 

1 

3 

0 

1 

3 

1 

0 

3 

1 

1 

3 

1 

1 

3 

1 

0 

0 

1 

1 

0 

1 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

8 

1 

1 

0 

1 

0 

3 

18 

20 

Table 4.2 Scores by Member State for inclusion of required elements in annual reports 

Total scores: 

24 

19 

24 

18 

23 

19 

19 

19 

23 

14 

23 

22 

20 

21 

22 

24 

20 

19 

20 

EN 

17 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Max 
scores 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

m
u
i
g
l
e
B

3 

1 

2 

a
i
r
a
g
l
u
B

3 

2 

s
u
r
p
y
C

3 

3 

2.5 

0.5 

2.5 

0.5 

2 

1.5 

0 

0 

0 

0 

2 

3 

1.5 

1.5 

0.5 

1.5 

3 

3 

3 

0 

2 

0 

3 

k
r
a
m
n
e
D

3 

2 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

2 

0 

3 

a
i
n
o
t
s
E

2.5 

2.5 

2.5 

3 

3 

3 

0 

0 

0 

0 

d
n
a
l
n
i
F

3 

3 

3 

3 

2.5 

2.5 

1.5 

0 

1.5 

2.5 

y
n
a
m
r
e
G

3 

3 

3 

0 

1 

3 

2 

0 

0 

3 

e
c
e
e
r
G

3 

2.5 

1 

3 

3 

3 

0 

1.5 

0.5 

2.5 

d
n
a
l
e
r
I

3 

2 

0 

3 

1.5 

3 

0 

0 

0 

0 

y
l
a
t
I

1.5 

3 

1 

3 

3 

3 

1.5 

2.5 

0.5 

1 

a
i
v
t
a
L

3 

3 

3 

3 

1.5 

a
i
n
a
u
h
t
i

L

2 

2 

1.5 

3 

3 

2.5 

1.5 

a
t
l
a

M

2 

2.5 

2 

3 

3 

3 

3 

0 

0 

3 

2.5 

1.5 

0 

0 

0 

0 

2 

1.5 

s
d
n
a
l
r
e
h
t
e
N

3 

2 

2 

3 

2 

0 

3 

0 

1 

3 

d
n
a
l
o
P

l
a
g
u
t
r
o
P

1.5 

2 

1.5 

2.5 

1.5 

3 

3 

2.5 

3 

3 

3 

3 

2 

3 

3 

3 

1.5 

2.5 

2.5 

1.5 

a
i
n
a
m
o
R

3 

3 

3 

2.5 

3 

3 

3 

0 

1 

2 

a
i
n
e
v
o
l
S

3 

0.5 

2 

3 

0.5 

3 

3 

3 

2 

2 

n
i
a
p
S

3 

0 

0 

3 

0 

2 

0 

0 

n
e
d
e
w
S

3 

0 

3 

3 

1.5 

0 

1.5 

1.5 

1.5 

1.5 

0 

1.5 

K
U

3 

0 

3 

3 

3 

3 

0 

3 

0 

3 

Q 

Required element of report 

i) Description of fleets 

1A 

ii) Link with fisheries 

1B 

1C 

iii) Development in fleets 

i)  statement  of  effort  reduction 
schemes 

ii) impact on fishing capacity of 
effort reduction schemes 

Statement  of  compliance  with 
entry  /  exit  scheme  and  with 
level of reference 

i)  Summary  of  weaknesses  & 
strengths  of  fleet  management 
system 

1D 

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? 

n/a 

Overall: does report assess 
balance between capacity & 
opportunity? 

Total scores:  

3 

2 

2 

0 

3 

2 

0 

2 

1.5 

0 

1.5 

1.5 

2 

0 

1.5 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

3 

33 

14.0 

20.0 

20.5 

28.0 

18.5 

22.5 

20.0 

21.5 

12.5 

21.5 

23.5 

17.5 

20.5 

20.5 

25.0 

23.5 

23.5 

22.0 

9.5 

16.5 

24.0 

Table 4.3 Scores by Member State for quality of required elements in annual reports 

EN 

18 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Scores for inclusion of required elements 

Member State 

Score  Max Score 

BULGARIA 

POLAND 

DENMARK 

GREECE 

ITALY 

LATVIA 

NETHERLANDS 

MALTA 

LITHUANIA 

PORTUGAL 

SLOVENIA 

UK 

BELGIUM 

ESTONIA 

FINLAND 

GERMANY 

ROMANIA 

CYPRUS 

SWEDEN 

IRELAND 

SPAIN 

24 

24 

23 

23 

23 

22 

22 

21 

20 

20 

20 

20 

19 

19 

19 

19 

19 

18 

18 

14 

8 

24 

24 

24 

24 

24 

24 

24 

24 

24 

24 

24 

24 

24 

24 

24 

24 

24 

24 

24 

24 

24 

% 

100% 

100% 

96% 

96% 

96% 

92% 

92% 

88% 

83% 

83% 

83% 

83% 

79% 

79% 

79% 

79% 

79% 

75% 

75% 

58% 

33% 

Score for 2008 
report 

Change from 08 
to 09 report 

18 

21 

14 

7 

10 

21 

21 

17 

12 

17 

15 

16 

16 

11 

19 

20 

17 

19 

15 

17 

14 

+6 

+3 

+9 

+16 

+13 

+1 

+1 

+4 

+8 

+3 

+5 

+4 

+3 

+8 

0 

-1 

+2 

-1 

+3 

-3 

-6 

Table 4.4 Ranked results for inclusion of required elements in MS reports 

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
Scores for quality of included elements 

Member State 

Score 

Max Score 

DENMARK 

POLAND 

UK 

LATVIA 

PORTUGAL 

ROMANIA 

FINLAND 

SLOVENIA 

GREECE 

ITALY 

CYPRUS 

MALTA 

28.0 

25.0 

24.0 

23.5 

23.5 

23.5 

22.5 

22.0 

21.5 

21.5 

20.5 

20.5 

NETHERLANDS 

20.5 

BULGARIA 

GERMANY 

ESTONIA 

LITHUANIA 

SWEDEN 

BELGIUM 

IRELAND 

SPAIN 

20.0 

20.0 

18.5 

17.5 

16.5 

14.0 

12.5 

9.5 

33 

33 

33 

33 

33 

33 

33 

33 

33 

33 

33 

33 

33 

33 

33 

33 

33 

33 

33 

33 

33 

% 

85% 

76% 

73% 

71% 

71% 

71% 

68% 

67% 

65% 

65% 

62% 

62% 

62% 

61% 

61% 

56% 

53% 

50% 

42% 

38% 

29% 

Score for 
2008 report 

Change from 08 
to 09 report 

20 

22 

14 

26 

20 

14 

15 

12 

6 

9 

15 

10 

19 

13 

17 

6 

9 

11 

15 

12 

10 

+8 

+3 

+10 

-2.5 

+3.5 

+9.5 

+7.5 

+10 

+15.5 

+12.5 

+5.5 

+10.5 

+1.5 

+7 

+3 

+12.5 

+8.5 

+5.5 

-1 

+0.5 

-0.5 

Table 4.5 Ranked results for quality of included elements in MS reports 

EN 

20 

   EN 

 
Scores for including required elements

Q Required element of report

i) Description of fleets

1A

ii) Link with fisheries

iii) Development in fleets

1B

1C

1D

1E

i) statement of effort reduction schemes

ii) impact on fishing capacity of effort reduction schemes

Statement of compliance with entry / exit scheme and with level of 
reference

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

2

Report 10 pages or less?

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

2008 MS reports

2009 MS reports

Sum of 
scores

Summed 
score as 
% of max

sum of 
max 
scores

Sum of 
scores

Summed 
score as 
% of max

sum of 
max 
scores

42

45

51

36

45

32

12

22

8

10

13

21

100%

71%

81%

86%

71%

76%

57%

52%

38%

48%

62%

33%

67%

42

63

63

42

63

42

21

42

21

21

21

63

42

54

57

40

60

42

16

20

14

17

14

39

504

415

100%

86%

90%

95%

95%

100%

76%

48%

67%

81%

67%

62%

82%

42

63

63

42

63

42

21

42

21

21

21

63

504

Total scores: 

337

Table 4.6 Comparison of scores for inclusion of required elements between 2008 MS reports 
and 2009 MS reports. 

Scores for quality of included elements

Q Required element of report

i) Description of fleets

1A

ii) Link with fisheries

iii) Development in fleets

1B

1C

1D

1E

i) statement of effort reduction schemes

ii) impact on fishing capacity of effort reduction schemes

Statement of compliance with entry / exit scheme and with level of 
reference

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

2

Report 10 pages or less?

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

Total scores: 

2008 MS reports
Summed 
score as 
% of max

sum of 
max 
scores

Sum of 
scores

2009 MS reports
Summed 
score as 
% of max

sum of 
max 
scores

Sum of 
scores

41
27
33
42

23

41

21

22

9

19

16

294

65%
43%
52%
67%

37%

65%

33%

35%

14%

30%

25%

42%

63
63
63
63

63

63

63

63

63

63

63

693

56.5
41
41.5
56.5

47.5

51.5

31.5

22.5

17.5

37

22

425

90%
65%
66%
90%

75%

82%

50%

36%

28%

59%

35%

61%

63
63
63
63

63

63

63

63

63

63

63

693

Table 4.7 Comparison of scores for quality of included elements between 2008 MS reports and 
2009 MS reports 

4.3.3.  Change in quality scores compared to 2008 reports 

16 MS improved their scores for including required elements, and some of those made very 
substantial improvements. Only four MS had lower scores this year for inclusion of required 
elements and these were all minor reductions in score.  

18  MS  had  improved  scores  for  quality  of  included  elements  relative  to  the  previous  year. 
Three MS had slightly lower scores for quality than in the previous. 

4.3.4. 

Specific comments on Member States annual reports 

For  some  MS  reports  the  experts  at  SGBRE  10-01  made  come  comments  which  may  be 
helpful to those preparing the reports next year. 

EN 

21 

   EN 

 
 
 
Belgium. This report included some unnecessary details, such as the names and registration 
numbers of every vessel that left the fleet, and had some important items lacking. The report 
could be substantially improved if the report headings were in line with the required elements, 
as suggested above. 

Cyprus. It was helpful that the Cyprus report was structured with headings that matched the 
required elements of the report. However, in some cases the content did not match the header, 
for  instance  under  heading  D,  there  are  three  elements  listed  in  the  header,  but  only  one  of 
those elements (a plan for improvements) is included in the text under that header. There is no 
summary of strengths and weaknesses and there is no information on compliance. 

There is mention of fleet figures at 1st December 2009. We suspect this may be a typing error 
and should really read 31st December, but it is not certain whether or not this is accurate. 

Estonia. This report obtained lower marks for relevance because there is too much extra data 
(e.g.  catch  data  at  vessel  level)  that  was  not  required.  It  was  also  more  difficult  to  read 
because  the  sections  were  not  presented  in  the  same  order  as  in  Article  13  of  Commission 
Regulation no. 1438/2003. 

In  order  to  assess  the  balance  between  fishing  capacity  and  fishing  opportunities  the  report 
includes an additional definition of potential fishing capacity (“passive capacity”).  

Germany. The German report follows the order of Article 13 of Commission Regulation no. 
1438/2003  and  presents  a  clear  description  of  the  fleet,  including  the  link  between  fleet 
segments and fisheries. Fishing effort reduction schemes are not so well described, the same 
occurs with the summary of strengths and weaknesses and the plans for improvement. 

Lithuania.  The  Lithuanian  report  follows  only  partially  the  order  of  the  required  headings, 
which were also mixed with the calculations of the recommended indicators.  

The  balance  of  fishing  capacity  and  fishing  opportunities  is  not  assessed  for  the  High  Sea 
fleets, which are more important in terms of landings than those operating in the Baltic Sea. 
The summary of strength and weaknesses and the plans for improvement is also missing for 
this part of the Lithuanian fleet. 

Malta.  The  Maltese  report  correctly  follows  the  scheme  of  Article  13  of  Commission 
Regulation no. 1438/2003. 

Some  administrative  information  is  contained  in  the  paragraph  related  to  the  fleet 
management system. 

With regard to the assessment of the balance between capacity and opportunities, the Maltese 
report contains a statement about the absence of overcapacity, but omits to explicitly state if 
the balance has been reached or if there is a situation of under capacity. 

Portugal.  Some  figures  in  the  report  related  to  the  Portuguese  fleet  capacity  have  not  been 
translated  into  English.  For  this  reason  the  presentation  of  developments  in  fleets  is  not 
considered  fully  robust  and  relevant.  Information  about  plans  for  improvements  in  fleet 
management  system  has  been  included  in  paragraph  2  related  to  fishing  effort  reduction 
scheme. The quality of the information is complete and relevant. 

EN 

22 

   EN 

 
4.3.5. 

Ideal information under each required element of the MS reports 

Many MS could make substantial improvements to the completeness and usefulness of their 
report if they would structure their report in line with the required minimum elements as listed 
in the regulation. Some MS did do this and it made the job of the working group very much 
easier  when  the  report  headings  matched  the  text  of  the  required  elements  in  Article  13  of 
Regulation 1438/2003. 

Specifically, we suggest that the MS reports should be structured like this: 

Summary of report 

Statement of MS opinion on balance of fleet capacity and fishing opportunity 

Section A 

i) Description of fleets 

ii) Link with fisheries 

iii) Development in fleets 

Section B 

i) statement of effort reduction schemes 

ii) impact on fishing capacity of effort reduction schemes 

Section C 

Statement of compliance with entry / exit scheme and with level of reference 

Section D 

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 

Section E 

Information on changes of the administrative procedures relevant to fleet management 

Section F 

Estimation and discussion of balance indicators 

i) Technical indicator(s) 

ii) Biological indicators 

iii) Economic indicators 

iv) Social indicators 

Summary of report 

The  summary  page  of  MS  reports  should  follow  the  proposed  summary  page  template 
contained in the report of SGBRE 09-01, which was endorsed by STECF plenary and by the 
Commission.  We  understand  that  this  proposed  summary  page  will  be  included  in  updated 
Guidelines from the Commission on how to complete the Balance Indicators. 

Statement of opinion on balance of fleet capacity with fishing opportunity 

EN 

23 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
It would be very helpful if each MS would give a clear opinion or verdict on whether, overall, 
they consider that there is balance between fleet capacity and fishing opportunity. We looked 
for  each  MS  report  to  state  quite  clearly  how  the  MS  assesses  the  balance  between  fleet 
capacity and opportunity. For instance, a report may state that fleet utilisation is 80%, quota 
uptake  is  90%  and  so  on,  but  still  fail  to  give  an  opinion  as  to  whether  there  is  balance 
between fleet capacity and fishing opportunity, and if not, in  which direction the  imbalance 
lies.  

An  acceptable  statement  could  be  along  the  lines of  this:  Based  on  an  overview  of  the  four 
balance  indicators,  the  fishing  capacity  of  the  fleet  is  approximately  in  balance  with  the 
fishing opportunity in 2009. For some MS, it might be appropriate to make such a statement 
for a number of major fleet segments or sectors. 

It  would  be  useful  if  MS  could  choose  from, for instance, five possible opinions on a scale 
from severely over capacity to severely under capacity. A suggested range is presented below. 
A future working group could perhaps propose a way to link the indicator ratios to these or an 
alternative set of potential overall opinions: 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

Capacity is substantially in excess of opportunity – means that the fleet is capable of 
catching (at reference year catch rates) far in excess of the permitted opportunity, or 
that the level of production could have been achieved with substantially less physical 
capacity. 

Capacity  is  somewhat  in  excess  of  opportunity  –  means  that  the  fleet  is  capable  of 
catching more than the permitted opportunity. 

Capacity  is  approximately  in  balance  with  the  fishing  opportunity.  There  is  either 
little unused capacity or little unused opportunity 

Capacity  is  somewhat  below  the  fishing  opportunity  –  means  that  there  is  some 
unused opportunity due to lack of catching capacity, which is therefore not delivering 
possible economic and social benefits to the MS. 

Capacity  is  substantially  below  the  fishing  opportunity  –  means  that  a  substantial 
amount  of  the  fishing  opportunity  is  not  taken  up  due  to  lack  of  fleet  capacity,  and 
there  are  substantial  social  and  economic  benefits  that  are  not  being  realised  by  the 
MS. 

Alternatively, MS might like to give an opinion using a phrase that describes vessel utilisation 
or fleet capacity utilisation, for instance, vessels are fully utilised; vessels are somewhat under 
utilised; vessels are substantially under-utilised.  

MS need to bear in mind however that the indicators of balance are just indicators, and not 
actual  measures  of  fleet  capacity  or  definitive  judgements  on  the  appropriateness  of  fleet 
capacity in relation to its opportunity.  

4.3.6.  Translation of MS reports  

SGBRE  understands  that  the  reports  submitted  by  MS  are  translated  into  English  by  the 
Commission translation service. Due to the language skills of some of the experts at SGBRE 
10-01, we noted some examples of inaccurate translation, to the extent that the meaning of the 
report had been changed during translation.  

EN 

24 

   EN 

 
For example, it was pointed out from the Italian report: 

(1) 

On page 20, section 6.3, in the first paragraph the Italian reports states: 

–  “…il ROI e il rapporto tra i ricavi di Break-even e i ricavi correnti.” 

–  An Italian speaker in SGBRE advises that this means, 

–  “the ROI and the ratio between break-even revenue and current revenue”. 

–  In  the  English  translation  of  the  Italian  report,  this  sentence  is  incorrectly 

translated as, 

–  “the ROI is the ratio between break-even revenue and current revenue”. 

–  As written in English, this is an incorrect statement. 

(2) 

On page 21 the Italian report states: 

–  “stante la modalita di retribuzione “alla parte” ”. 

–  An Italian speaker in SGBRE advises that this means 

–  “due to the profit share wage contract”. 

–  In the English translation of the Italian report, this phrase is incorrectly translated 

as, 

–  “due to the piecework wages system”. 

–  A  piece  work  wage  system  is  completely  different  from  a  profit  share  wage 

system. 

There was also confusion among experts at the meeting regarding the Portuguese report and 
the Commission summary of the Portuguese report. There appears to have been an incorrect 
translation  of  the  “Greenland  Halibut  recovery  plan”  in  the  Portuguese  report  into  English, 
where it was presented on page 8 as the “Tuna recovery plan”. 

SGBRE accepts that highly technical vocabulary in both languages is required to accurately 
translate MS reports and suggests that MS could read the English translation of their reports 
and  highlight  any  errors  in  translation  that  they  find.  Otherwise,  MS  may  wish  to  translate 
their reports themselves and submit their annual reports to the Commission in English. 

4.4. 

ToR 1.d. Evaluate MS application of guidelines on balance indicators 

The balance indicators estimated in MS reports were reviewed and evaluated largely using the 
scoring system devised during SGBRE 09-01 and detailed below. However, for presence or 
inclusion of recommended indicators, we revised the system. 

After  first  recording  which  indicators  were  present  in  MS  reports,  we  noted  that  using  last 
year’s  system,  a  MS  had  scored  over  100%  despite  not  having  included  any  biological 
indicators. Also, we felt that the possibility of scoring in excess of 100% could be a confusing 
element  of  the  scoring  system.  Therefore  we  simplified  the  approach.  If  any  indicator  in  a 

EN 

25 

   EN 

 
category (Technical, Biological, Economic, Social) was presented, that indicator was awarded 
one  point.  The  maximum  score  for  completing  the  minimum  recommended  indicators  is 
therefore  four  points.  If  a  MS  included  extra  indicators  over  and  above  the  minimum 
recommended  of  one  per  category,  this  was  noted  in  the  score  table  but  not  awarded  a 
numerical score. 

The  existing  guidelines  recommend  completing  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  are  not 
available for the preferred indicator. There was debate about the desire to recognise that the 
indicators are designated as first preference, second preference and in the case of biological, 
third preference. This designation was created by a previous meeting of SGBRE, endorsed by 
STECF and adopted by the Commission in the first version of the Guidelines on completing 
the indicators. 

There was strong feeling that those MS that completed the preferred indicators (the first one 
listed  in  each  category)  should  receive  greater  acknowledgement  than  those  that  completed 
less-preferred  indicators.  However,  there  were  many  views  within  the  group  as  to  the  best 
way to achieve this, given that for some MS, data did not exist to allow the completion of the 
preferred biological indicator. After discussion it was clear that all the members of the group 
would  not  reach  agreement  on  a  scoring  system  for  completion  of  indicators,  therefore  the 
chair of SGBRE 10-01 chose one of the systems that had been discussed (described above). 

We awarded a presence score for the UK, which presented an alternative biological indicator 
of balance instead of one of the recommended indicators. 

Table  4.8  shows  scores  per  MS  for  presenting  the  indicators.  Detailed  scores  are  shown  in 
subsequent  tables  for  each  type  of  indicator.  Detailed  evaluation  was  carried  out  by  experts 
working in sub-groups of appropriate disciplines. 

EN 

26 

   EN 

 
.
t
l

I

A
L
A
C
G
O
L
O
B

I

I

1
C
M
O
N
O
C
E

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

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

1 

E 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

E 

E 

I

L
A
C
N
H
C
E
T

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

Member 
State 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Cyprus 

Denmark 

Estonia 

Finland 

Germany 

Greece 

Ireland 

Italy 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Malta 

Netherlands 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovenia 

Spain 

I

2
C
M
O
N
O
C
E

E 

1
L
A
C
O
S

I

1 

1 

2
L
A
C
O
S

I

E 

E 

1 

E 

E 

E 

1 

E 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

E 

E 

E 

E 

1 

E 

E 

1 

s
r
o
t
a
c
i
d
n
i

a
r
t
x
E
f
o
.
o
N

1 

2 

2 

2 

1 

2 

1 

2 

1 

 2 

1 

n
i
m

r
o
f

s
k
r
a
m

l
l
u
F

s
r
o
t
a
c
i
d
n
i

d
e
r
i
u
q
e
r

s
k
r
a
m

l
l
u
f

f
o
%

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

100% 

100% 

75% 

100% 

50% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

100% 

100% 

75% 

100% 

100% 

0% 

75% 

25% 

75% 

0% 

100% 

25% 

e
r
o
c
S
l
a
t
o
T

4 

4 

3 

4 

2 

0 

0 

0 

0 

4 

4 

3 

4 

4 

0 

3 

1 

3 

0 

4 

1 

Sweden 

1 

1 

1 

E 

UK 

1 

Table 4.8 Scores per Member State for completion of balance indicators. (E = extra) 

Overall scores for completing the indicators are as shown in Table 4.8. Eight MS (Belgium, 
Bulgaria,  Denmark,  Italy,  Latvia,  Malta,  Netherlands  and  Sweden)  met  or  exceeded  the 
minimum  requirements  for  the  balance  indicators  as  specified  in  the  guidelines.  This  is  an 

EN 

27 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
improvement  on  the  previous  year.  Some  MS  did  not  complete  any  balance  indicators  and 
some MS completed some of the indicators suggested. The Technical indicator and the first 
Economic  indicator  were  the  most  commonly  completed  indicators,  each  completed  by  12 
MS. Eleven MS presented at least one Biological Indicator, including United Kingdom which 
completed an alternative biological indicator. 

Table 4.9 shows quality scores for MS for the guideline and alternative indicators. Belgium, 
Bulgaria,  Denmark,  Italy,  Latvia,  Lithuania,  Malta,  Netherland,  Slovenia  and  Sweden  all 
scored highly in terms of the quality of indicators. 

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 

4 

7 

6 

5 

5 

4 

8 

6 

7 

8 

4 

7 

I

L
A
C
N
H
C
E
T

7 

8 

6 

5 

6 

6 

6 

7 

2 

6 

7 

Member State 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Cyprus 

Denmark 

Estonia 

Finland 

Germany 

Greece 

Ireland 

Italy 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Malta 

Netherlands 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovenia 

Spain 

.
t
l

I

A
L
A
C
G
O
L
O
B

I

I

1
C
M
O
N
O
C
E

5 

8 

6 

8 

8 

8 

7 

8 

5 

7 

I

2
C
M
O
N
O
C
E

6 

1
L
A
C
O
S

I

6 

6 

2
L
A
C
O
S

I

E
R
O
C
S
L
A
T
O
T

28 

6 

38 

20 

8 

8 

8 

43 

13 

0 

0 

0 

0 

45 

35 

33 

35 

7 

7 

8 

6 

28 

0 

5 

18 

0 

8 

4 

8 

7 

8 

8 

6 

6 

6 

7 

5 

31 

0 

Max score for 
minimum 
recommended 
indicators 

32 

32 

32 

32 

32 

32 

32 

32 

32 

32 

32 

32 

32 

32 

32 

32 

32 

32 

32 

EN 

28 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Sweden 

7 

7 

7 

7 

6 

34 

UK 

8 

8 

32 

32 

Table 4.9 Summary of quality scores for indicators per Member State 

In general, there was some improvement in presenting an overview and comparison between 
the  different  indicators  (biological,  technical,  social  and  economic)  that  MS  have  estimated 
for their own fisheries. 

EN 

29 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
4.4.1.  Evaluation of Technical Indicators 

Technical Indicator Scoring System 

The  technical  indicators  included  in  MS  reports  were  reviewed  and  evaluated  against  four 
criteria  and  given  scores  of  0,  1  or  2  for  each  of  the  criteria.  Table  4.10  shows  how  scores 
were awarded for quality of technical indicators. 

Score 

0 

1 

2 

0 

1 

2 

0 

1 

2 

0 

1 

2 

Completeness of indicator 

Incomplete i.e. indicator not calculated 

Partially complete – included one of days at sea per vessel, GT or KW. Not 2009 

Complete  or  almost  complete  –  as  per  guidelines.  Included  two  of  days  at  sea  per 
vessel, GT or kW, was for 2009 

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 

Table 4.10 Scoring system used for technical indicators 

Table 4.11 shows the scores awarded to each MS for their application of technical indicators. 
The technical indicators from each MS are then evaluated individually and a short summary 
and comment are presented. 

The technical balance indicator evaluated is: 

EN 

30 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
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 

31 

   EN 

 
Country 

Completeness  Conclusion Accuracy

Fleet 
coverage 

Total Score  Max Score 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Cyprus 

Denmark 

Estonia 

Finland 

Germany 

Greece 

Ireland 

Italy 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Malta 

Netherlands 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovenia 

Spain 

Sweden  

UK 

1 

2 

2 

1 

1 

1 

2 

1 

1 

1 

2 

1 

1 

2 

0 

1 

2 

2 

0 

2 

0 

1 

1 

2 

2 

2 

2 

1 

1 

1 

2 

2 

0 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

1 

2 

2 

2 

6 

8 

6 

5 

6 

0 

0 

0 

0 

6 

6 

0 

7 

2 

0 

6 

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 4.11 Scores per Member State for quality of technical indicators 

Belgium 

Belgium’s  report  provided  the  Technical  Indicator  for  2009.  The  Technical  Indicator  was 
calculated accurately and some discussion of the ratio was made. However, the ratio was not 
related to the balance between fishing capacity and fishing opportunities. The indicator was 
calculated for days at sea per vessel but not for kW days or GT days. Fleet coverage was good 

EN 

32 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
for  the  Technical  Indicator  as  most  of  the  fleet  was  covered.  Overall  we  judged  the 
information provided to be of good quality. 

Bulgaria 

Bulgaria’s  report  provided  the  Technical  Indicator  for  2009. The  Technical  indicator  was 
calculated  for  days  at  sea  per  vessel,  kW  days  and  GT  days. Useful  interpretation  of  the 
technical  indicator  was  given  by  using  the  traffic  light  system.  Overall  we  judged  the 
information provided to be of good quality. 

Cyprus 

Cyprus  has  provided  detailed  information  of  the  Technical  Indicator  for  2009.  The  fleet 
coverage was good. The technical indicator was calculated accurately for all vessels in Cyprus 
fleet, but the overall interpretation of the technical indicator was not provided. 

Denmark 

Denmark’s  report  provided  the  Technical  Indicator  for  2009.  The  ratio  was  present,  but  the 
calculation was not shown. The indicators were shown for days at sea, but not for kW days or 
GT days. The indicators were discussed, but the ratio was not applied to discuss the balance 
between  fishing  capacity  and  fishing  opportunities.  Overall  we  judged  the  information 
provided to be of good quality. 

Estonia 

Estonia’s report provided the Technical Indicator for 2009. Estonia provided the ratio based 
on days at sea only and not GT or kW days at sea. However, the underlying information in 
terms  of  maximum  days  at  sea  was  not  provided.  Technical  Indicators  were  provided  on  a 
vessel by vessel basis and good coverage of fleet. There was good overall interpretation of the 
balance  between  fishing  capacity  and  fishing  opportunities,  based  on  among  others  the 
technical indicator. Overall we judged the information provided to be of good quality. 

Finland 

No Technical Indicator was provided. 

Germany 

No Technical Indicator was provided. 

Greece 

No Technical Indicator was provided. 

Ireland 

No Technical Indicator was provided. 

Italy 

Italy’s report provided the Technical Indicator for 2008, but not for 2009. The report provided 
the ratio for days at sea per vessel, kW and GT indicators and the average days at sea, but not 

EN 

33 

   EN 

 
the  maximum  days  at  sea.  The  interpretation  of  the  result  was  clearly  presented  using  the 
traffic light system and there is a thorough discussion of the overall conclusion.  

Latvia 

Latvia  provided  the  technical  balance  indicators  for  the  period  2005-2009.  They  ratio  was 
provided, based on days at sea, as well as kW days at sea for netters and GT days at sea for 
trawlers.  Latvia  provided  full  fleet  coverage,  calculating  indicators  for  the  three  Latvian 
segments.  However,  Latvia  did  not  interpret  their  results  in  terms  of  traffic  light  system  or 
text concluding whether there is balance between fishing capacity and fishing opportunities. 

Lithuania 

No Technical Indicator was provided. 

Malta 

Malta’s  report  provided  the  Technical  Indicator  but  for  2005-2009.  The  report  provided  the 
days at sea ratio as well as the kW and GT days. Malta did provide indicators for active and 
passive  gears,  but  not  for  each  fleet  segment.  The  interpretation  of  the  results  was  clear. 
Overall we judged the information provided to be of reasonable quality. 

The Netherlands 

The Netherlands’ report provided the Technical Indicator for 2007-2009. They only provided 
data for the beam trawlers and not for pelagic freezer trawlers. The ratio for days at sea per 
vessel  was  provided  for  beam  trawlers,  but  not  the  ratio  for  kW  days  or  GT  days.  No 
supporting  information  on  days  at  sea  per  vessel  and  maximum  days  at  sea  per  vessel  was 
provided and the result was not interpreted. Overall, we judged the information provided to be 
of low quality. 

Poland 

No Technical Indicator was provided. 

Portugal 

Portugal did provide the technical indicator for 2005-2009. They provided the ratio for days 
as sea per vessel only, but not for kW or GT days at sea per vessel. Portugal had a high fleet 
coverage, including the complete mainland fleet. The ratios were discussed, but interpretation 
related to the balance between fishing capacity and fishing opportunities was missing. Overall 
we judged the information provided was of good quality. 

Romania 

No Technical Indicator was provided. 

Slovenia 

Slovenia’s  report  provided  the  technical  indicator  for  2009.  The  ratio  was  given  for  days  at 
sea per vessel and GT days (for vessels using passive gear) and kW days (for vessels using 
active gears). The fleet coverage was good. There was some discussion of the ratios, but no 

EN 

34 

   EN 

 
interpretation  related  to  the  balance  between  fishing  capacity  and  fishing  opportunities. 
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, assumable for 2008 (the assessment year 
is not stated explicitly), but not for 2009. They provide the ratio based on both days at sea as 
well as kW days at sea. Both the ratios and underlying days were given in the report. The fleet 
coverage  was  high,  using  the  fleet  segments  of  the  DCF.  Complete  interpretation  of  the 
indicator was provided in the text. Overall we judged the information provided (for 2008) to 
be of high quality. 

UK 

UK  provided  information  on  the  change  in  capacity  over  time,  only.  However,  this  is  not 
useful to conclude of the current balance between fishing capacity and fishing opportunities. 
It is recommended that the guidelines are used for calculation of the technical indicator. 

4.4.2.  Evaluation of Biological Indicators 

The  biological  indicators  included  in  Member  States’  reports  were  reviewed  and  evaluated 
against  four  criteria  and  given  scores  of  0,  1  or  2  for  each  of  the  criteria.  In  general,  those 
indicators  presented  were  of  fairly  good  quality.  However,  only  six  MS  calculated  the 
preferred  biological  indicator.  SGBRE  appreciates  the  effort  of  these  MS  for  presenting  the 
more  difficult  indicator.  Some  MS  gave  reasons  of  incompatibility  with  non-quota 
management  regimes  and  some  mentioned  that  the  Guidelines  were  not  clearly  worded  and 
well explained. 

Table 4.12 shows how scores were awarded for quality of biological indicators. 

Score 

0 

1 

2 

0 

1 

Completeness of indicator by species 

When none of the biological indicators were present/calculated 

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

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 

EN 

35 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
2 

0 

1 

2 

0 

1 

2 

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 

Table 4.12 Scoring system used for biological indicators 

Table 4.13 shows the scores awarded to each Member States for their application of biological 
indicators. The biological indicators from each Member States are then evaluated individually 
and a short summary and comment are presented. 

The three biological balance indicators evaluated are: 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

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

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. 

Some MS presented more than one biological indicator. The DCF requires that all MS should 
collect  catch  and  effort  data  and  therefore  MS  could  present  at  least  CPUE  trends  together 
with one or all biological indicators.  

Following  Commission  Guidelines  for  biological  indicators,  it  is  desirable  to  have  a  5  year 
time series as it contributes to robust results. But if a MS cannot provide a 5 year time series 
because they are new members or because there has been no assessment for one stock, they 
should not be penalised for using shorter time series.  

EN 

36 

   EN 

 
 
 
Member 
State 

Belgium  

Belgium  

Bulgaria 

Cyprus 

Denmark 

Estonia 

Finland 

Germany 

Greece 

Ireland 

Italy 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Lithuania 

Malta  

Malta  

Netherlands 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovenia 

Spain 

Sweden 

UK 

Indicator  Completeness 

Interpretation  Accuracy 

Fleet 
Coverage 

Total 
score 

Max 
Score 

B1 

B2 

B2 

B3 

B3 

B3 

B3 

B1 

B1 

B3 

B1 

B3 

B1 

B1 

Balt 

1 

1 

1 

2 

2 

2 

2 

1 

1 

1 

1 

2 

1 

1 

2 

1 

1 

1 

2 

1 

2 

2 

2 

2 

0 

1 

1 

2 

2 

2 

2 

0 

0 

2 

2 

1 

2 

2 

1 

1 

1 

2 

1 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

1 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

1 

2 

2 

6 

4 

4 

8 

6 

7 

0 

0 

0 

0 

8 

7 

6 

4 

5 

7 

5 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

7 

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 4.13 Scores per Member State for quality of biological indicators 

Belgium 

EN 

37 

   EN 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
•  Biological  indicator  has  to  be  given  for  all  the  time  series  available  and  not  only  for  the 

reference year. 

•  Second indicator has to be based on the stock biomass and not on the quota 

•  Limited  comments  on  the  interpretation  of  the  indicators,  the  interpretation  has  to  be 

developed further. 

•  MS to clarify which fleet segments do the indicators represent (e.g. beam trawls, demersal 

trawls, etc). 

Bulgaria 

•  The Bulgarian report presents biological indicator 3 (CPUE) for all main species separately 

and total for 2008 and 2009, for each fleet segment by vessel size range.  

•  Changes in CPUE from 2008 to 2009 for each fleet segment are presented using a traffic 

light system. 

•  There are no further details about how CPUE was calculated; short time data (two years) 
series  do  not  permit  an  assessment  of  its  precision  and  robustness.  Two  years  data  not 
enough for trend analysis. 

Cyprus 

•  The biological indicators B1 and B2 were not reported, it is considered that they cannot be 

calculated. 

•  The Cyprus report presents biological indicator 3 (CPUE) for each main species targeted 
by  the  small  scale  inshore  fleet  for  the  period  2000-2008.  Cyprus  provides  the  trend  of 
CPUE for the main species targeted by the trawl fishery in territorial waters, as well as for 
the overall catch of the fishery, for the period 2000-2008. 

•  The  large  pelagic  species  caught  by  drifting  longliners  are  analysed  for  the  years  2006-

2008. 

•  Data  for  2009  was  not  presented  therefore  Cyprus  might  have  to  consider  its  data 

collection timings to allow presentation of data for the reference year. 

Germany 

•  The biological indicators are not reported.  

•  The  MS  explains  again  their  disagreement  about  the  usefulness  of  all  three  biological 

indicators.  

Denmark 

•  The biological indicator, catch per unit of effort (CPUE), was calculated for 5 years, which 

fully complies with the guidelines.  

EN 

38 

   EN 

 
•  MS analysed only two species (cod and plaice) for fleet segment with significant catches, 

by main fishing area. 

Estonia 

•  The biological indicator should be calculated by stock and fleet segment and not for every 

single vessel. 

Greece 

•  The biological indicators were not reported.  

Finland 

•  The biological indicators were not reported. 

Ireland 

•  The biological indicators were not reported.  

Italy 

•  Due to the lack of stock assessment information for most Mediterranean species, the first 

two indicators (B1 and B2) were not provided.  

•  The  CPUE  indicator  was  reported  for  the  various  fishing  systems  (bottom  trawling, 
midwater pair trawling, seining, boat dredges, small-scale fisheries and long lines) and also 
for the most important species from the viewpoint of marketing and biomass.  

Lithuania 

•  Biological  indicator  has  to  be  given  for  all  the  time  series  available  and  not  only  for  the 

reference year. 

•  MS should specify for each fleet segment which stocks (species) were used to calculate the 

indicator. 

Latvia 

•  The guidelines for calculation of F/Ftarget biological indicator were followed correctly. 

•  The first biological indicator was provided for the main stocks and fleet segments. 

Malta 

•  Two  indicators  (F/Ft  and  CPUE)  were  provided.  The  F/Ft  was  only  used  in  respect  of 
bluefin  tuna  while  CPUE  was  used  for  the  most  important  species  and  divided  by  fleet 
segment.  

•  Five years detailed time data series were used for CPUE trend evaluations. 

The Netherlands 

EN 

39 

   EN 

 
•  MS  should  specify  within  the  fleet  segments  for  which  stock  (species)  the  indicator  was 

calculated. 

•  MS should calculate the indicator for all the fleet segments 

Poland 

•  The biological indicators were not reported.  

Portugal 

•  The biological indicators were not reported.  

Romania 

•  The biological indicators were not reported.  

Sweden 

•  The calculation of the biological indicator is very detailed and comprehensive. MS is not 
required to give a total value of the biological indicator for each fleet segment as this may 
be misleading 

•  Biological  indicator  has  to  be  given  for  all  the  time  series  available  and  not  only  for  the 

reference year. 

Slovenia 

•  Slovenia  did  not  present  any  biological  indicators.  In  Slovenia  only  sardine  (Sardina 
pilchardus  (Walbaum,  1792))  and  anchovy  (Engraulis  encrasicolus  (Linnaeus,  1758))  are 
part  of  the  national  data  collection  program.  The  main  problem  for  regular  stock 
assessment of these two small pelagic species in Slovenia is the fact that these are shared 
stocks  between  Italy,  Croatia  and  Slovenia.  At  the  moment,  only  Slovenian  data  on 
catches, landings and effort are available. For the above mentioned reasons, Slovenia can 
not calculate biological indicators.  

Spain 

•  No biological indicators were reported.  

United Kingdom 

•  The  UK  presented  a  different  indicator  than  the  ones  proposed  in  the  guidelines.  The 
indicator  presented  describes  the  proportion  of  total  landings  from  sustainable  sources. 
SGBRE appreciates the new indicator developed by the UK and the group recognises that 
this is a possible way to describe the balance between the fishing fleet and their resources. 

EN 

40 

   EN 

 
4.4.3.  Evaluation of Economic Indicators 

The  economic  indicators  included  in  Member  States’  reports  were  reviewed  and  evaluated 
against  four  criteria  and  given  scores  of  0,  1  or  2  for  each  of  the  criteria.  Of  the  indicators 
presented most were of good quality. 

Table 4.14 shows how scores were awarded for quality of economic indicators. 

Score 

0 

1 

2 

0 

1 

2 

0 

1 

2 

0 

1 

2 

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 

Table 4.14 Scoring system used for economic indicators 

Table 4.15 shows the scores awarded to each MS for their application of economic indicators. 
The economic indicators from each MS are then evaluated individually and a short summary 
and comment are presented. 

The two economic balance indicators evaluated are: 

EN 

41 

   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. 

•  The greater the ROI, the more profitable the investment. 

•  Low or negative ROI may indicate overcapitalisation. 

(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. 

•  When (CR/BER) < 0, cash flow is negative and fishery unviable in the short-run. 

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

fishery. 

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

viable fishery. 

Country 

Indicator 

Completeness 

Interpretation 

Accuracy 

Fleet 
coverage 

Total 
score 

Max 
Score 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Bulgaria 

Cyprus 

Denmark 

Denmark 

Estonia 

Finland 

Germany 

Greece 

Ireland 

Italy 

Italy 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Malta 

Netherlands 

Netherlands 

E1 

E1 

E2 

E1 

E1 

E2 

E1 

E2 

E2 

E1 

E2 

E1 

E2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

1 

1 

1 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

1 

1 

2 

2 

2 

1 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

5 

8 

6 

6 

8 

8 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

8 

8 

8 

7 

8 

5 

4 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

0 

2 

0 

1 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

1 

2 

1 

0 

42 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Poland 

Portugal 

E2 

Romania 

Slovenia 

Slovenia 

Spain 

Sweden 

Sweden 

UK 

E1 

E2 

E1 

E2 

2 

1 

1 

1 

1 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

1 

1 

2 

2 

1 

2 

2 

2 

2 

0 

7 

0 

6 

6 

0 

7 

7 

0 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

Table 4.15 Scores per Member State for quality of economic indicators 

Little progress was made in terms of submission of economic indicators in the 2009 reports, 
with member states which previously did not present economic indicators also not including 
them in their 2009 reports.  

In  terms  of  quality  of  the  economic  indicators,  overall  quality  was  good  and  overall  better 
than  in  2008.  However,  for  some  MS  that  only  presented  the  economic  indicators  without 
detail  of  the  components  of  the  calculation  it  is  difficult  to  assess  the  accuracy  of  the 
indicator. It would be useful to provide a breakdown of the components of the indicators. 

Belgium 

•  The report shows ROI in a table, but the CR/BER is not calculated. It was not possible to 
state whether the computation is correct because it was not clear whether the opportunity 
cost was deducted from profit. The fleet segments in terms of GT would have been useful 
to determine fleet coverage. 

Bulgaria 

•  The report presents ROI and CR/BER in a table. 

•  ROI  -  The  interpretation  for  the  ROI  indicator  was  reported  and  the  calculation  was 

correct.  

•  CR/BER – No interpretation has been provided for this indicator. The computation for this 

indicator is considered to be accurate.  

Cyprus 

•  The report presents ROI indicator. The report could usefully include more comments and 

interpretation. 

Denmark 

•  The report presents ROI and CR/BR. It has scored maximum points in all aspects. In fact 
this report (economic indicators) is a good example to all other Member States to follow. 

EN 

43 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Estonia 

•  No economic indicators reported. 

Finland 

•  No economic indicators reported. 

Germany 

•  No economic indicators reported. 

Greece 

•  No economic indicators reported. 

Ireland 

•  No economic indicators reported. 

Italy 

•  The  report  presents  ROI  and  CR/BER  calculated  in  a  correct  way.  Good  comments  and 

interpretation are provided. 

Lithuania 

•  The report presents ROI and CR/BER. The indicator is correctly calculated however better 

explanation/comments would have been appreciated. 

•  The  table  for  CR/BER  is  missing  and  therefore  the  working  group  could  not  assess 

accuracy, interpretation and fleet coverage. 

Latvia 

•  The report includes a correctly estimated indicator that is the CR/BER.  

•  The ROI indicator is not provided.  

•  A good interpretation is provided.  

Malta 

•  The report calculates CR/BER, but not ROI. The calculations are considered to be correct. 

•  The report makes good comments and interpretation of the figures for CR/BER.  

EN 

44 

   EN 

 
The Netherlands 

•  The report calculates CR/BER for 2 years (2007 and 2008) and ROI for one year (2008). 

•  The  interpretation  for  ROI  was  only  provided  for  one  segment  namely  the  beam  trawl 

segment. 

•  Member  State  is  invited  to  provide  interpretation  for  all  segments.  No  interpretation  was 

provided for the CR/BER segment. 

Poland 

•  No economic indicators reported. 

Portugal 

•  The report presents CR/BER, but not ROI. 

•  Interpretation and calculation are considered to be good. 

Romania 

•  No economic indicators reported despite the fact that the data is available and reported. 

Slovenia 

•  Slovenia has calculated both ROI and CR/BER only for one year. 

•  The interpretation was considered to be useful. 

•  It is uncertain whether the computation for both the indicators is correct as the calculations 

were not provided. 

Spain 

•  No economic indicators reported. 

Sweden 

•  The report presents both CR/BER and ROI but only for one year (2008). Interpretations of 

the indicators are satisfactory and the calculations are accurate. 

UK 

•  No economic indicators reported. 

EN 

45 

   EN 

 
4.4.4.  Evaluation of Social Indicators 

Social indicator scoring system 

The social indicators included in Member States’ reports were reviewed and evaluated against 
four criteria and given scores of 0, 1 or 2 for each of the criteria. Table 4.16 shows how scores 
were awarded for quality of social indicators. 

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 2006, 2007, 2008 or 2009) 

Required time series of three years (2006-2008 or 2009 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 4.16 Scoring system used for social indicators 

Table  4.17  shows  the  scores  awarded  to  each  Member  State  for  their  application  of  social 
indicators. The social indicators for each Member State are then evaluated individually and a 
short summary and comment are presented. 

The two social balance indicators evaluated are: 

EN 

46 

   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 

47 

   EN 

 
Country 

Indicator  Completeness  Conclusion  Accuracy 

Fleet 
coverage 

Total 
score 

Max 
Score 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Bulgaria 

Cyprus 

Denmark 

Denmark 

Estonia 

Finland 

Germany 

Greece 

Ireland 

Italy 

Italy 

Latvia 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Lithuania 

Malta 

Netherlands 

Netherlands 

Poland 

S1 

S1 

S2 

S1 

S2 

S1 

S2 

S1 

S2 

S1 

S2 

S1 

S1 

S2 

Portugal 

S2 

Romania 

Slovenia 

Slovenia 

Spain 

S1 

S2 

Sweden 

S2 

UK 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

1 

1 

2 

1 

1 

2 

0 

1 

1 

2 

2 

2 

1 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

1 

2 

0 

2 

2 

1 

1 

2 

2 

2 

2 

1 

1 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

1 

1 

0 

2 

2 

0 

6 

6 

6 

0 

8 

8 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

8 

7 

7 

7 

8 

8 

8 

6 

6 

0 

5 

0 

7 

5 

0 

6 

0 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

9 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

Table 4.17 Scores per Member State for quality of social indicators 

EN 

48 

   EN 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The  use  of  GT  as  a  measure  of  fleet  coverage  might  be  misleading  in  the  case  of  social 
indicators,  because  GT  gives  more  importance  to  vessels  with  higher  GT  while,  in  general, 
vessels  that  have  a  lower  GT  are  more  important  in  terms  of  FTE  jobs.  It  might  be  more 
useful to use proportion of FTE jobs covered by the parts of the fleet included in the social 
indicators presented.” For the same reason, the inclusion of the number of GTs of the inactive 
vessels  in  the  total  number  of  GTs  of  the  national  fleet  would  reduce  the  level  of  fleet 
coverage incorrectly. 

Social indicators 

Belgium 

•  Belgium calculated the average share per full-time equivalent for 2003-2008 for two fleet 
segments (12-24m and 24-40m). Belgium had a good time series for the S1 social indicator 
and it was estimated accurately for a very large proportion of the fleet. Limited conclusions 
were drawn from the social indicator. 

•  No explanations were provided by the Member State as to how they calculated the wage 

cost. 

Bulgaria 

•  Following the criterion for the biological indicators (“if a Member State cannot 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” SGBRE 

•  0901 report) we award full marks to Bulgaria because it was not able to include data for 
more than two years back as it started collecting data in 2008 (accession year was 2007). 

Cyprus 

•  Cyprus did not report any social indicators 

Denmark 

•  For  this  report  Denmark  was  able  to  calculate  both  crew  cost  per  FTE  and  GVA,  as 

opposed to the uncertainty and lack of information from the previous year. 

•  Denmark  gave  a  complete  time  series  for  both  indicators  and  includes  a  reference  wage 

from the industry. 

Estonia 

•  Estonia did not report any social indicators 

Finland 

•  Finland did not report any social indicators 

Greece 

EN 

49 

   EN 

 
•  Greece did not report any social indicators 

Germany 

•  Germany  did  not  report  any  social  indicators.  As  in  the  previous  year’s  report  Germany 
explained  that  they  were  not  able  to  report  any  social  indicators  because  the  data  was 
unavailable until 12-15 months after the reporting period. However, Germany could have 
reported social indicators for the previous years for which data would be available (2008). 

Ireland 

•  Ireland did not report any social indicators 

Italy  

•  Italy  did  not  calculate  the  GVA  indicator  for  the  >40m  fleet  segments,  which  consist  of 
more than 40 vessels. However, the Member State still received the highest score for fleet 
coverage because of the high total of GT of the rest of the fleet (the segments operating in 
the  Mediterranean)  for  which  social  indicators  have  been  calculated.  Furthermore,  larger 
vessels tend to have lower employment in proportion to GT than small scale fisheries, and 
are therefore less relevant for social indicators based on wages. 

•  Italy commented that their fleets are too heterogeneous to compare among each other and 

to find a reference level. 

Latvia 

•  This year Latvia calculated an additional social indicator. 

•  The S1 indicator (crew cost per FTE) is said to be inaccurate, but no further explanation is 

given nor a way to improve it. 

Lithuania 

•  Social indicators were presented both as total and by fleets, including values of variables 

needed for the calculations  

•  The  interpretation  of  costs  per  FTE  was  set  in  the  context  of  the  social  and  economic 

situation of Lithuania. 

Malta 

•  The  indicators  cover  most  fleet  segments,  but  they  do  not  follow  the  DCF  segmentation 

(they use gear classes but do not give the corresponding length classes). 

Netherlands 

•  The  presentation  of  the  indicators  in  a  separate  section  for  each  fleet  makes  reading  and 
comparison  more  difficult.  However,  abundant  comments  are  given  at  the  different 
sections. 

EN 

50 

   EN 

 
•  The  fleet  segments  are  not  described  using  the  DCF  categories  (length  classes)  and 

terminology. 

•  A  total  figure  for  the  capacity  of  the  national  fleet  in  GT  is  not  given,  making  the 
evaluation  of  the  fleet  coverage  difficult.  The  total  GT  of  the  fleet  segments  chosen  for 
each section on fleet segment description do not add up to 50% of the national fleet. 

Portugal 

•  The presence of Portuguese language in table headings caused some confusion. 

Romania 

•  Romania did not report any social indicators. 

Slovenia 

•  GVA was calculated but it was presented on the economic indicator section.  

•  In  general,  there  was  less  information  than  in  the  previous  year  and  the  comments  were 
poorer. SGBRE encourages the MS to follow the path of the previous report which was of 
a very good standard in social indicators. 

Spain 

•  Spain did not report any social indicators. 

Sweden  

•  The report used different fleet disaggregation from the DCF. 

•  Two additional indicators called value added per FTE and vessel were calculated for each 

of the considered fleet segments. 

United Kingdom 

•  The UK did not report any social indicators. 

EN 

51 

   EN 

 
4.4.5.  Evaluation of Commission summary of Member States annual reports 

The Commission summaries of Member States’ reports once again vary in quality, accuracy 
and relevance. In particular, the Commission stated that the guidelines were not applied in the 
Portuguese report when in fact we found that the Portuguese report did include calculations of 
balance indicators.  

In general, many of the Commission summaries make a prominent statement about whether 
the  guidelines  were  applied.  The  guidelines  are  described  in  an  introductory  paragraph. 
However,  it  is  not  a  legal  requirement  to  follow  these  guidelines  and  we  feel  that  undue 
prominence is given to inclusion in the MS reports of an element that is not legally required. 
Also, in some cases MS had calculated alternative indicators to those recommended. Since the 
indicators in the guidelines are only recommended and not required, we feel that it would be 
preferable  if  the  Commission  summaries  stated  whether  balance  indicators  were  calculated 
rather than stating whether the guidelines were applied. 

The  Commission  summaries  vary  in  length,  order  of  information  and  detail  included.  For 
instance, as we noted last year, in many cases the first sentence of the summary states whether 
or  not  the  guidelines  were  followed  in  the  MS  report,  but  this  is  not  true  of  all  summaries. 
Some summaries begin with a description of the fleet. 

The working group understands that the Commission summaries of MS reports must be very 
short as there is a restriction in length imposed by the Commission’s translation service. We 
understand that the summary template provided last year in the report of SGBRE 09-01 would 
mean that the summaries would exceed the limit placed by the translation service. 

Nevertheless, it would still 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. Standardised summaries would make it easier for Council members 
to compare Member States. 

A suggested summary template is given below. Where the information is not contained in the 
MS reports, the Commission summary could note the absence. 

Suggested template for summaries of Member States’ annual reports: 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

Note MS conclusions about whether the fleet is in balance with the opportunity. Note 
whether the balance is improving, staying the same or getting worse. State if MS fails 
to  state  a  clear  conclusion  on  balance.  If  MS  makes  no  conclusion,  the  Commission 
could state its own opinion. 

Say  whether,  and  to  what  extent,  the  balance  indicators  (technical,  biological, 
economic, social) were calculated. If space allows, mention key indicators. 

Describe size of the fleet (main segments, no. of vessels, total GT, total kW). 

Highlight  key  points  of  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)  Mention major change in state of stocks and/or in fishing opportunity during the year. 

EN 

52 

   EN 

 
(6) 

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

(7)  Mention statement of compliance with entry / exit scheme during the year. 

(8)  Mention plans for improvements in fleet management system. 

We  believe  that  the  summaries  could  be  drafted  carefully  to  include  only  the  above 
information with little use of extraneous words, such that the overall summary of MS reports 
could fit within the 25,000 character limit imposed by the Commission’s translation service. 
An example is provided below: 

Example summary of Belgium’s report following the proposed template: 

The report did not reach a conclusion on balance. The Commission judges that fleet 
capacity is somewhat in excess of the fishing opportunity. The balance indicators are 
estimated.  The  technical  indicator  suggests  larger  vessels  are  fully  utilised  but 
smaller  vessels  are  c.60%  utilised.  There  were  89  vessels  and  totals  of  16,048  GT 
and 52,590kW in the fleet register on 31/12/09. Most activity and landings were by 
beam  trawlers.  There  was  a  net  reduction  of  11  vessels  during  the  year.  Effort 
reduction was achieved by vessel removal. Fleet GT and kW were below reference 
levels. No improvements in the fleet management system are planned. 

This example summary is 651 characters (including spaces). If all MS summaries were of this 
or similar length, the Commission report could fit within the limit of 25,000 characters. 

In  the  final  paragraph  of  section  2  of  the  summary  document,  once  again  the  Commission 
mentions  that  of  the  12  Member  State  reports  which  included  the  balance  indicators,  “a 
number”  of  them  indicated  “a  considerable  degree  of  overcapacity”.  This  comment  is  not 
helpful because it does not say how many of the 12 MS did this, but seems to suggest that it is 
a substantial proportion of the 12 MS. We made this same comment in last year’s SGBRE 09-
01 report. We would again encourage the Commission actually to specify the number, or at 
least the proportion, of MS whose reports suggested fleet over capacity. 

Comments on summary of Belgium’s report 

•  The  summary  correctly  states  that  the  guidelines  were  applied  only  to  the  beam  trawler 
segment  and  that  during  2009  Belgium  had  a  fleet  adaptation  scheme  for  the  large  fleet 
segment (above 221 kW). 

•  The summary is correct in stating that according to the Belgian report for the 24-40m beam 
trawl fleet segment the low utilisation of quotas for sole and plaice in area VIIa was mainly 
caused by the increasing exchange of quotas. 

Comments on summary of Bulgaria’s report 

•  The summary is relevant but it is concentrated on fleet description. 

•  The  summary  omits  that  the  Bulgarian  report  does  evaluate  the  current  status  of  balance 

between capacity and fishing opportunities. 

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

fleet. 

EN 

53 

   EN 

 
Comments on summary of Cyprus’s report 

•  There  was  no  summary  of  the  report  from  Cyprus  because  it  had  not  been  submitted  in 

time. 

Comments on summary of Germany’s report 

•  The  Commission’s  summary  gives  a  good  summary  but  omits  some  deficiencies  in  the 

Member State report. 

•  The  summary  states  that  the  German  report  includes  an  evaluation  of  the  current  status 

regarding the balance between capacity and fishing opportunities by segment. 

•  The  summary  is  correct  in  stating  that  the  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. 

•  Additional information on the link of vessels with fisheries is now included by the Member 

States report but is absent from 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 Denmark’s report 

•  The  Commission’s  summary  mentions  the  description  of  the  fleet  but  omits  some 

important detail. 

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

status of balance between capacity and fishing opportunities. 

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

Comments on summary of Estonia’s report 

•  The  Commission’s  summary  report  accurately  reflects  the  key  details  contained  in  the 
Member  State  report  but  omits  some  deficiencies  in  the  reporting  on  the  management 
system and compliance. 

•  The summary omits that the Estonian report does include an evaluation of 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 notes that there appears to be distinct over capacity in one segment. 

Comments on summary of Finland’s report 

•  The summary is quite complete and accurate. 

EN 

54 

   EN 

 
•  The  summary  correctly  states  that  the  guidelines  were  not  applied  completely  in  the 

Finnish report. 

•  The  summary  omits  that  the  Finish  report  does  not  include  an  analysis  of  the  fleet 

management system and strengths and weaknesses of the management system. 

Comments on summary of France’s report 

•  There  was  no  Commission  summary  of  the  French  report  because  it  had  not  been 

submitted in time. 

Comments on summary of Greece’s report 

•  The summary accurately reflects the Greek report. 

•  The summary correctly states that the Greek report includes evaluation of the current status 

as regards the likely balance between capacity and fishing opportunities. 

•  The summary correctly stated that the Greek report did not apply the guidelines. 

Comments on summary of Ireland’s report 

•  The summary reflects what is written in the Irish report and the comments are relevant. 

•  The  summary  correctly  reflects  that  there  are  difficulties  in  assessing  the  reduction  on 
effort  and  that  the  report  did  not  address  many  aspects  that  must  be  included  if  the 
guidelines are followed. 

•  The summary omits that the Irish report fails to mention weaknesses and strengths of the 
fleet  management  system,  any  change  in  administrative  procedures  and  the  level  of 
compliance with fleet policy instruments. 

•  The  summery  omits  that  the  analysis  of  the  likely  balance  between  fleet  capacity  and 

opportunities is missing. 

Comments on summary of Italy’s report 

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

•  The summary does not mention that the Italian report does not evaluate the current status 

of balance between capacity and fishing opportunities. 

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

except for the biological indicator. 

Comments on summary of Latvia’s report 

•  The summary includes the essential information of the Latvia Report. 

•  The  summary  focuses  on  the  vessels  scrapped  with  financial  support  and  the  plan  in  the 

Baltic Sea fleet, which is a very important aspect to mention in the Latvia report. 

EN 

55 

   EN 

 
•  The  summary  correctly  notes  that  Latvia  has  applied  the  guidelines,  and  that  the 

conclusions of the balance indicators are well reported. 

Comments on summary of Lithuania’s report 

•  The summary is a fair reflection of the contents of the Lithuania report. However, it omits 
some deficiencies in the reporting on the High Seas segment, the management system and 
compliance. 

•  The summary correctly states that the Lithuanian report provides an evaluation of balance 

between capacity and fishing opportunities. 

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

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

instrument. 

Comments on summary of Malta’s report 

•  The  summary  correctly  states  that  the  guidelines  were  correctly  applied  in  the  Maltese 

report but fails to mention that economic and social indicators only exist up to 2008. 

•  The Commission correctly states that during 2009, 4 fishing vessels stopped their fishing 
activities through the adjustment of fishing effort aid scheme. But in a previous sentence 
the Commission inaccurately states that no fishing effort adjustment scheme was applied to 
the Maltese fleet. 

Comments on summary of the Netherlands’ report 

•  The  summary  is  accurate  and  captures  some  of  the  key  aspects  of  the  Dutch  report  but 

omits any mention of balance between fishing capacity and opportunity. 

•  The  summary  correctly  describes  a  slight  contraction  in  the  Dutch  fleet  capacity  and 

fishing effort. 

•  The  summary  accurately  reports  that  the  guidelines  were  applied  for  the  beam  trawl 

segment and pelagic freezer trawlers in the Dutch report. 

•  No  mention  was  made  of  entry  and  exit  schemes  or  strengths,  weaknesses  of  the  fleet 

management system and changes to administrative procedures in the summary. 

Comments on summary of Poland’s report 

•  The Commission’s summary correctly reflects the Polish report. 

•  The summary correctly reflects that the Polish report does not assess directly the balance 

between fishing capacity and fishing opportunities. 

•  The  summary  correctly  states  that  the  guidelines  are  not  entirely  applied  in  the  Poland 

report. 

EN 

56 

   EN 

 
•  The  summary  omits  that  Poland  did  not  list  strengths  and  weaknesses  of  the  fleet 

management system and indicate plans to improve. 

Comments on summary of Portugal’s report 

•  The Commission summary inaccurately states that the Portuguese report did not apply the 
guidelines on completing the balance indicators. In fact the Portuguese report does include 
the balance indicators. 

•  Otherwise, in general the Commission’s summary reflects the Portuguese report. 

•  The  summary  provides  a  description  of  the  Portuguese  fleet  management  and  effort 
reduction changes but it inaccurately mentions the Greenland halibut recovery plan when it 
should refer to the Tuna recovery plan. 

Comments on summary of Romania’s report 

•  The summary provides an accurate description of the Romanian report and correctly states 
that the guidelines are not present but that some mention is made of the fleet operating in a 
sustainable manner. 

•  However  the  summary  fails  to  say  on  what  basis  the  Romanian  report  reaches  this 

conclusion. 

•  The  summary  accurately  describes  the  total  size  of  the  fleet  and  also  additions  and 

removals from the fleet in 2009. 

•  The summary makes no mention of the strengths and weaknesses of the fleet management 

system although they were mentioned in the Romanian report. 

Comments on the Summary of Slovenia’s report 

•  The summary accurately states that the guidelines have been partly applied. 

•  The summary omits that the Slovenian report does not include an assessment of the current 

status of balance between capacity and fishing opportunities. 

•  The  summary  correctly  states  that  the  Slovenian  fleet  has  structural  problems  and  that 

scrapping schemes are envisaged under the 2007-2013 EFF programmes. 

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

economic and social indicators were reported. 

Comments on the Summary of Spain’s report 

•  The summary reflects fairly well what is included in the Spanish report. 

•  The summary correctly states that the guidelines were not applied. 

•  The summary correctly states that there is no information provided on the effect of fishing 

effort limitation on the capacity of fleets to which they apply. 

EN 

57 

   EN 

 
•  The  summary  omits  that  the  report  did  not  refer  to  the  links  between  fisheries  and 

development of each fleet.  

•  The  summary  omits  that  the  report  did  not  describe  the  strengths  and  weaknesses  of  the 

management system. 

Comments on the Summary of Sweden’s report 

•  The summary in general gives a fair view of the Swedish report. 

•  The  summary  correctly  states  that  the  guidelines  were  applied  but  does  not  mention  that 

they were only calculated for 2008. 

•  The  summary  correctly  states  that  scrapping  aid  has  been  given  priority  in  Sweden’s 

operational programme.  

•  The summary correctly states transferable fishing rights have been introduced, although it 

could be more clear that they were introduced in 2009. 

•  The summary does not mention that the description of the Swedish fleet segments is only 
indirectly described in tables in the report in the section “balance between fishing capacity 
and fishing opportunities”. 

•  The summary does not mention that the link between fleets and fisheries is absent. 

Comments on the Summary of the United Kingdom’s report 

•  The summary includes most main elements of the UK report. 

•  The summary correctly states that the UK reports the capacity of the UK fleet, as a whole, 
exceeds  its  level  of  opportunities  however  fails  to  mention  that  the  UK  states  that  many 
fleet segments are in balance with their opportunity. 

•  The  summary  correctly  states  that  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 reductions in capacity achieved by the UK government. 

EN 

58 

   EN 

 
4.5. 

ToR 2. Updated Guidelines for completing the balance indicators  

Item  2  in  the  Terms  of  Reference  asked  the  working  group  to  comment  on  and  where 
appropriate suggest new Guidelines to completing the balance indicators. 

The  Commission  provided  draft  updated  Guidelines  to  start  with  and,  via  Marco  Traa  who 
attended  on  the  first  day,  made  some  specific  suggestions  that  it  asked  SGBRE  experts  to 
consider. 

There  was  not  enough  time  during  the  working  group  meeting  to  prepare  and  review  in 
plenary new draft guidelines. Members of the working group split into four groups to consider 
each category of indicator and its guidelines. There was not enough time for their work to be 
reviewed in plenary; therefore, although the text was reviewed by experts remotely after the 
working  group,  the  outputs  presented  in  this  section  of  the  report  should  be  considered  the 
result of preliminary discussion among a limited number of experts. The work presented here 
does  not  constitute  a  firmly  recommended  alternative  text  for  the  guidelines  but  rather  is  a 
contribution for the Commission to take into consideration. 

SGBRE  10-01  does  strongly  recommend  however  that  the  Guidelines  are  updated  by  the 
Commission  before  MS  annual  reports  due  on  30th  April  2011  are  prepared,  because  the 
current Guidelines contain some important weaknesses. 

4.5.1.  Guidelines for Technical indicators 

Technical indicator as it stands: Ratio between the average effort per vessel and the maximum 
effort per vessel in a fleet segment, where effort is measured in time at sea of the vessels. 

Suggestions and input from the Commission regarding updated guidelines: 

•  The Commission has a preference to use kW-days and/or GT-days (instead of days at sea, 

as recommended by STECF),  

•  The  Commission  suggests  that  we  should  not  use  the  maximum  days  at  sea  spent  by  a 

vessel in a fleet segment if that fishery is subject to effort limitation. 

•  Rather each MS should select what they think would be the maximum calendar days at sea 
per year if the fishery were not restricted by quota or days at sea limits, and for each fleet 
segment the MS should say why they have selected each level of maximum days. It would 
be  acceptable  to  the  Commission  that  MS  should  take  account  of  weather  and  seasonal 
fisheries. 

•  Use of this theoretical maximum of days per year would give insight into the true degree of 

underutilisation of vessels and into the order of overcapitalisation present. 

•  Fleet capacity depends on the catch rate and capability to find fish. 

•  Please  consider  the  inclusion  of  the  inactive  vessels  in  the  calculations.  Inactive  vessels 

constitute un-used capacity. 

Proposed updated text for Guidelines for Technical Indicator: 

EN 

59 

   EN 

 
Description and data sourcing 

–  Technical Indicator 1. 

–  The  ratio  between  the  average  effort  per  vessel  in  a  fleet  segment  and  the 
observed maximum effort actually expended by a vessel in the segment (in kW-
days or GT-days) in the reference year. 

–  Technical Indicator 2. 

–  The ratio between the average number of days at sea per vessel in a fleet segment 
and  the  theoretical  maximum  number  of  days  at  sea  if  no  effort  regime  was 
applied  (e.g.  365  days  or  less,  depending  on  social,  natural  and  technical 
conditions. This should be an expert judgement made by each Member State). 

Ideally these indicators should  be  presented for a  period  of several years. This will indicate 
whether the ratios are stable over time. 

The calculation should be done in kW-days or GT-days in order to take account of different 
vessel  characteristics,  e.g.  the  fact  that  vessels  with  larger  engines  using  towed  gear  might 
tend  to  catch  more  than  those  with  smaller  engines.  For  passive  gears,  GT-days  should  be 
preferred to kW-days. 

Data  (days  at  sea  per  vessel,  GT  and  kW)  is  available  at  Member  State  level  from  data 
collection according to the requirements of the DCR and DCF. 

A table showing the proportion of inactive vessels of the total fleet should be provided. This 
could, for example, be done by different length classes. 

Application and interpretation 

All active vessels in the fleet should be taken into account when calculating this indicator. An 
active vessel is one which is licensed to fish and has recorded at least one day at sea during 
the reference year. An inactive vessel is one which may or may not be licensed to fish during 
the reference year, but which has recorded no time at sea and no landings during the reference 
year. 

Inactive  vessels  (those  which  have  not  fished  commercially  during  the  reference  year) 
constitute an unused capacity and as such they reduce the overall capacity utilisation rate of 
the total fleet. A table showing the number and proportion of inactive vessels in the total fleet 
should  be  provided.  This  could  be  done  by  different  length  classes  for  example.  Inactive 
means  any  vessel  which  has  not  operated  as  a  commercial  fishing  vessel  at  all  during  the 
reference year. 

These indicators are easy to calculate and are the only one that refers to the potential capacity 
as a reference point. It roughly shows by how much fleet capacity could be reduced without 
reducing overall fleet output (landings). The technical indicators can therefore be considered 
the baseline indicators for each fleet segment. 

The  margin  between  the  calculated  value  and  1  indicates  the  technical  overcapacity.  For  a 
possible  "traffic  light  system",  an  indicator  of  more  than  0.9  will  only  be  observed  in  fleet 
segments showing a largely homogeneous level of activity, which could be classed as a green 

EN 

60 

   EN 

 
light in practice. Values of, for example (depending on fleet homogeneity), below 0.7 could 
be considered as showing a distinct structural overcapacity (red light). 

Comments regarding proposed changes to the Commission suggested updated guidelines 
for the technical indicators: 

The commission suggests that MS should include the maximum number of days (GT or KW-
days) for ANY year in the recent past. This is not necessarily appropriate, since bad weather 
conditions  or  change  in  the  fleet  from  year  to  year  restricts  the  vessels’  maximum  sea  days 
from  year  to  year.  It  is  therefore  suggested  that  MS  use  the  maximum  number  of  days  per 
vessel for each year in question. 

SGBRE  acknowledges  that  the  achieved  maximum  number  of  days  at  sea  within  a  fleet 
segment, calculated for each year in question as described above, could in reality have been 
limited by effort restrictions. Furthermore, there could be economic reasons (for example the 
fuel  crisis)  that  affect  the  maximum  observed  number  of  days  at  sea  per  vessel  for  certain 
years, so that this number does not reflect the true technical capacity of the fleet. Therefore, it 
is  recommended  that  MS  calculate  an  additional  ratio,  based  on  the  theoretical  maximum 
number of days at sea.  

The theoretical maximum number of days is 365 days minus the days that the national expert 
judges  the  fleet  will  not  use  for  social  or  technical  reasons.  These  could  be  weekends, 
holidays,  days  to  repair  and  maintain  the  vessel,  days  with  weather  conditions  that  make  it 
unprofitable or not possible to fish safely. 

The commission suggests that inactive vessels should be included in the data for calculation 
of  the  technical  indicators.  This  would  create  problems  with  fleet  segmentation  since  the 
segmentation is based on the effort used for the different gear types, and if there is no effort, 
then  the  vessel  cannot  accurately  be  placed  in  any  fleet  segment.  Therefore,  it  is 
recommended  not  to  include  inactive  vessels  in  the  calculation  of  technical  indicators. 
However, inactive vessels do constitute an unused capacity and it is therefore recommended 
that the percentage of inactive vessels in proportion to the total fleet should be provided, for 
example for each length category. 

The definitions of active and inactive vessels should be made more clear. Active vessels are 
licensed  fishing  vessels  that  have  declared  any  landings  from  commercial  fishing  activity 
during the reference year. Inactive vessels are licensed fishing vessels that have not declared 
any days at sea or any landings during the reference year. 

4.5.2.  Guidelines for Biological indicators 

Out of 21 MS only six attempted the calculation of the first (preferred) biological indicator, 
Festimated/Ftarget. Several MS amongst those that did not calculate the indicator acknowledged 
that  it  was  difficult  to  understand  the  Guidelines.  Some  MS  also  commented  that  the 
Festimated/Ftarget  indicator  is  mostly  based  on  ICES  area  and  does  not  take  into  consideration 
management  measures  other  than  quotas  which  are  present  in  other  areas  such  as  the 
Mediterranean. 

The guidelines could be adjusted according to the proposal provided, in order to simplify the 
text describing how to calculate the indicator and so that the indicator can be calculated for 
quota stocks and for non-quota stocks. The attached excel file could be distributed to help MS 

EN 

61 

   EN 

 
to calculate the Festimated/Ftarget indicator. The problem is not the indicator itself, since that is 
useful and probably the best choice for all the MS, but the guidelines on how to estimate it, 
which  suggest  that  quota  information  is  required  to  calculate  the  indicator.  This  may  create 
misinterpretations and may discourage Mediterranean MS to use it. 

Due to time constraints, SGBRE 10-01 biologists were only able to offer suggested updated 
text for the Guidelines relating to the first biological indicator. 

A suggested calculation template is provided in Table 4.18 on page 64. 

For  the  second  indicator,  ratio  between  current  catch  rate  and  stock  biomass,  SGBRE 
biologists suggest that, in cases where quotas do not exist, the rate can still be estimated using 
data on catch and biomass derived from the DCR of each MS 

Proposed updated text for Guidelines for first Biological Indicator: 

Ratio between Festimated and Ftarget (F/Ft) 

Description and data sourcing 

The calculation operates by establishing F/Ft ratios per species for which a stock assessment 
has been performed. The ratios are then weighted according to the catch composition (weight) 
and then added together to produce an overall indicator for the respective fleet segment. 

The following steps should be followed and are illustrated in the table provided: 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

(6) 

(7) 

(8) 

First, determine by fleet segment the stocks which have been assessed. 

For every stock (by fleet segment) extract catch of the fleet, total catch of stock for all 
countries and total F(estimated) and target F (e,g, FMSY, F0.1, Fpa), for the exploited 
stocks.  

Attribute the F to the fleet segment of the MS by multiplying F(estimated) of the stock 
by (catch of the fleet divided by total catch of he stock). 

The proportion of the MS quota (when this is available) or the proportion MS catch on 
total catch of the stock should be recorded in the table. 

Split the target F according to MS by multiplying the proportion of quota or catches by 
the target F of the stock.  

The  F/Ft  ratio  can  then  be  calculated  by  dividing  the  F(estimated)  of  the  MS  fleet 
segment by the target F of the MS. 

Then the proportion (p1) of the species on the total catch (all species, in weight) for 
the respective MS fleet segment should be recorded in the table. 

Then  the  proportion  (p2)  of  assessed  species  from  the  total  catch  composition  (all 
species in weight) should be recorded in the table. 

(9) 

The weighted F/Ft ratio is then calculated by using the equation (F/Ft)*(p1/p2) 

EN 

62 

   EN 

 
(10)  Finally the sum of the weighted F/Ft for the fleet segment is obtained by adding all the 

ratios for the different stocks exploited by the fleet segment. 

It is important to consider that the European Commission requests that Community fisheries 
management  should  be  based  on  Maximum  Sustainable  Yield  (MSY).  This  is  a  long-term 
management  system  designed  to  ensure  the  economic,  biological  and  social  sustainable 
exploitation  of  marine  living  resources.  In  this  respect  it  is  necessary  to  have  a  consistent 
Ftarget  as  a  biological  reference  point  for  the  estimation  of  the  first  biological  indicator 
(Festimated/Ftarget). Today, in some areas Fpa is used while in others FMSY or its proxy F0.1. The 
use  of  one  or  other  reference  point  (e.g  FMSY  or  Fpa)  may  produce  a  quite  different 
interpretation  of  the  biological  balance  indicator  which  may  lead  to  different  or  misleading 
evaluations. The group suggests following this order to choose F target: first choose FMSY if it 
is available, then its proxy F0.1 and finally, if none of them are available, Fpa should be used. 

Data requirements are: 

A stock subject to a full stock assessment, i.e. where current age or length averaged fishing 
mortality has been determined; a target value for that mortality must be available; and data on 
the  stock  should  include  either  total  allowable  catch  or  national  quotas  or  share  of  MS 
catches.  This  is  important  in  order  to  evaluate  both  quota  and  non-quota  species,  which  for 
example in the Mediterranean non-quota stocks are assessed regularly. The indicator is based 
on DCF data and stock assessment reports (e.g. ICES, ICCAT, GFCM). 

Application and interpretation 

Of the biological indicators considered the F/Ft ratio is regarded as the best indicator to use. A 
particular  advantage  is  that the  ratio  accommodates  differences  between  species  in  terms  of 
sustainable  exploitation  rates,  i.e.  the  optimal  exploitation  rate  for  each  species  has  already 
been  determined  and  is  expressed  as  Ftarget.  The  F/Ft  ratio  is  dimensionless  and  facilitates 
comparisons  or  combinations  across  species,  thereby  producing  ratios  that  are  fleet-specific 
(with all assumptions made) rather than showing thresholds concerning catches of individual 
species.  The  fleet-specific  nature  of  overall  F/  Ft  values,  however,  could  lead  to  hiding 
disproportionate  pressure  by  a  fleet  segment  on  one  particular  species,  which  leads  to  the 
recommendation  that  interpretation  of  this  biological  indicator  should  also  cover  individual 
species values (step 6 above).The overall values for individual fleet segments within MS give 
an indication of the importance of fleet segments to the overall national catch, but also, if the 
overall value for a fleet segment is greater than one, it indicates whether the individual fleet 
segment is catching more fish than would be expected under desirable fishing mortality rates 
from  the  entire  national  fleet  ("red  light"  in  a  traffic  light  system).  In  the  case  that  the 
calculation  has  been  made  using  fleet-segment  quotas  or  catches  a  value  greater  than  one 
might be given yellow colour, as the desirable exploitation rate is already fleet-specific. 

If several fleet segments of a MS operate on the same species, establishing an overall ratio for 
the  species  across  fleets  will  show  whether  national  catches  are  consistent  with  long  term 
stock management goals. Values above 1 indicate at least "yellow" traffic light. 

An obvious limitation of this indicator is that not all species are subject to stock assessments. 
For  this  reason  it  is  considered  important  to  also  show  the  proportion  of  the  fleet  segment 
catch  that  is  accounted  for  by  the  species  involved  in  calculating  the  indicator.  Otherwise  a 
species used to generate the indicator that constitutes a very low proportion of the total catch 

EN 

63 

   EN 

 
of a fleet segment could generate a high overall indicator value for this fleet segment when in 
fact absolute levels of the catch are small. 

ORIGINAL

Catch in Fleet segment (100 tons)

Total EU catch (100 tons)

Total EU catch according to ICES stock assessment (100 tons)

Current F (Stock assessment)

Current F applied to fleet segment (row 4 times (row 1 divided by row 3))

Target F (stock assessment)

Quota of the Member State

Target F split according to Member State quota (row 6 times 7)

F/Ft for species in the fleet segment (row 5 divided by row 8)

row

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Sp 1

Sp 2

50

65

80

0.7

0.4

0.5

90%

0.45

0.97

35

50

70

1.2

0.6

0.6

50%

0.3

2

Sp 3

20

80

100

0.9

0.18

0.3

50%

0.15

1.2

10 Catch composition of fleet segment

11

F/Ft weighted by catch composition of assessed species (row 9 times (row 10 
divided by row 13))or species in the fleet segment (row 5 divided by row 8)

12 Sum of all weighted F/Ft for the fleet segment

13

Percentage of fleet segment catch used for F/Ft calculation= significance of the 
value in row 12

37% (of 78% 
assessed catch)

26% (of 78% 
assessed catch)

15% (of 78% 
assessed catch)

0.46

1.36

0.67

1.36

0.23

1.36

PROPOSAL FOR MEMBER STATES

in yellow the cells to be filled by Member States

all other species 
and total

unknown

unknown

unknown

unknown

unknown

unknown

unknown

unknown

unknown

22% 
(of 100%)

unknown

unknown

78%

row

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Catch in Fleet segment (100 tons)

Total catch of the stock by all countries (100 tons)

Current F (Stock assessment)

Current F applied to fleet segment (row 3 times (row 1 divided by row 2))

Target F (stock assessment)

Proportion of Member State quota or catch

Target F split according to Member State quota (row 5 times 6)

F/Ft for species in the fleet segment (row 4 divided by row 7)

Proportion of the catch composition in weight of fleet segment

10

F/Ft weighted by catch composition of assessed species (row 8 times 
(row 9 divided by row 12))

11 Sum of all weighted F/Ft for the fleet segment

12 Percentage of fleet segment catch used for F/Ft calculation (row 10)

Sp 1

Sp 2

50

80

0.7

0.4

0.5

90%

0.45

0.97

37%

0.46

1.36

35

70

1.2

0.6

0.6

50%

0.3

2.00

26%

0.67

1.36

Sp 3

20

100

0.9

0.2

0.3

50%

0.15

1.20

15%

0.23

1.36

all other species 
and total

unknown

unknown

unknown

unknown

unknown

unknown

unknown

unknown
22% 
(of 100%)

unknown

unknown

78%

Table 4.18 Original and suggested new calculation template for biological indicator no.1

EN 

64 

   EN 

 
 
4.5.3.  Guidelines for Economic indicators 

SGBRE  economists’  comments  on  issues  related  to  Commission  comments  on  revised 
guidelines,  in  particular  the  second  economic  indicator  (1)  and  proposed  new  economic 
indicator (2). 

1)  “The  Commission  suggests  that  the  formula  for  CR/BER  is  incorrect.  They  believe  the 
BER should = total costs”. 

Initial  impressions  by  SGBRE  economists  were  that  the  amendments  proposed  by  the 
Commission  could  potentially  be  an  over  simplification  of  the  calculation.  Insufficient  time 
was  available  in  SGBRE  10-01  to  fully  assess  the  Commission’s  proposed  change  to  the 
indicator  formula  and  evaluate  the  appropriateness  of  the  original  calculations  (included  in 
original  version  of  the  Guidelines).  Instead,  SGBRE  economists  followed  up  on  this  issue 
after the working group. 

SGBRE economists agree that the formulas for the CR / BER indicator are correct, however 
the  existing  guidelines  for  this  indicator  are  confusing  and  should  be  clarified.  The  group 
concluded that there is no need to change the formulas, however the revised guidelines should 
be more explicit in defining the equations for calculating cash flow, fixed and variable costs, 
using DCF definitions. 

The Current Revenues/BER ratio is simply an indicator, which must be interpreted as such. A 
ratio lower than one indicates a state of financial difficulty while if it is greater than one the 
fishery is profitable in the short term. Strictly speaking, it is not an indicator of overcapacity, 
so  this  indicator  must  be  correctly  interpreted.  In  fact,  in  the  BER  ratio  FC/(1-(VC/R))  it  is 
assumed that the ratio Variable costs/ Revenues is constant. We know that it is not true for the 
fishery sector where Variable costs are also affected by the effort. But when economists make 
comments about this ratio, we implicitly consider this kind of relation. For example, between 
2007 and 2008 for most Italian fleet segments the BER ratio worsened considerably. As was 
explained in the conclusions of Italian report, this was mainly due to a reduction in the fishing 
days as a consequence of the fuel crises. 

SGBRE  10-01  suggests  that  the  Commission  takes  the  opportunity  to  get  further  advice  on 
this issue as there was still some difference of opinion among economists in e-mail exchanges 
following the meeting. 

Proposed updated text for Guidelines for CR/BER indicator: 

Ratio between current revenue and break-even revenue 

Description and data sourcing 

The current revenue is the total income of the fleet segment. The break even revenue (BER) is 
the  amount  of  revenue  required  to  produce  a  cash  flow  that  covers  the  fixed  costs  of  the 
segment,  taking  into  account  the  margin  per  unit landings  value.  The  data  used  to  calculate 
this  indicator  is  collected  by  Member  States  under  the  requirements  of  the  Data  Collection 
Framework (DCF). 

The formula for calculating the BER is as follows: 

EN 

65 

   EN 

 
BER = Fixed Costs / (1- [Variable costs / Current Revenue]) 

Where: 

Cash flow = Income / Variable costs 

Variable costs = Crew costs + Energy costs + Repair and Maintenance 

costs + Other variable costs (as defined under DCF) 

Fixed costs = Fixed costs (as defined under DCF) 

Note  that  Capital  costs  are  currently  excluded  from  the  calculation  based  on  STECF 
recommendations.  See  STECF  plenary  comments  in  SGECA-SGRST  08-01:  Report  of  the 
Working Group on the Balance between Fishing Capacity and Resources (ISBN 978-92-79-
10480-0) 

The ratio is calculated by dividing the current revenue by the BER 

i.e. Ratio = Current Revenue / BER 

Application and interpretation 

The  ratio  between  the  current  revenue  and  the  break-even  revenue  shows,  in  a  simplified 
calculation, the short term profitability of the fleet segment. If the ratio is greater than 1, then 
enough  cash  flow  is  generated  to  cover  fixed  costs,  indicating  that  the  segment  is 
economically viable in the short term. Conversely, if the ratio is less than 1, insufficient cash 
flow is generated to cover fixed costs, indicating that the segment is economically unviable in 
the short term. 

2)  Suggestion  from  the  Commission  to  present  the  ratio  between  the  total  operational  costs 
and the total value of the landings per fleet segment. There is economic overcapacity if the 
total costs of a fleet segment exceed the value of the landings. 

SGBRE  economists  understand  that  this  indicator  would  calculate  operating  costs  as  a 
proportion of the value of landings. 

While SGBRE economists agree that this in an indicator of economic performance, it is not 
necessarily  an  indicator  of  economic  over-  or  under-  capacity  relative  to  the  fishing 
opportunity.  For  economic  overcapacity  to  exist  there  should  be  evidence  of  ‘over- 
capitalisation’ within a particular fleet. This requires information on the returns on the capital 
employed in the fishery. 

Therefore  SGBRE  economists  do  not  recommend  adopting  this  indicator  proposed  by  the 
Commission. 

4.5.4.  Guidelines for social indicators  

Social  indicators  are  still  not  given  as  much  importance  in  the  Commission’s  draft  updated 
Guidelines as other indicators. Despite the fact that more MS presented social indicators, they 
are  still  the  least  presented  indicators.  Many  MS  do  not  specifically  refer  to  the  social 
indicators, some include them in the wrong category with the economic indicators and very 

EN 

66 

   EN 

 
few contribute conclusions or interpretations apart from the definition already included in the 
Guidelines.  It  is  again  recommended  that  the  Guidelines  should  be  more  explicit  in  stating 
that social indicators should also be reported, as the revised text proposed by the Commission 
does not seem to be clear enough. 

The social indicators illustrate aspects that can be the causes for the lack of balance between 
capacity and fishing opportunities and they can trace back the effects of this imbalance to the 
employees and to society. Crew costs per FTE can give useful information on the variability 
of  the  personal  income  of  the  employees  and  the  specification  of  the  composition  of  crew 
costs (crew share, wages, salaries or a combination of them) may describe the dependence of 
crew  members  on  level  of  catches.  GVA  as  both  an  absolute  and  as  a  ratio  of  FTE  and  the 
number of vessels can give very useful information helping to identify at a glance distinctive 
fishing  patterns  that  may  be  affecting  balance  between  capacity  and  resources  (see  below). 
More complete guidelines regarding these indicators would help emphasise their relevance for 
the assessment of balance. 

SGBRE  recommends  that  examples  of  calculation  of  social  indicators  be  included  in  the 
Guidelines  as  recommended  in  the  report  of  SGBRE  09-01.  Example  calculations  using  at 
least  an  alternative  between  crew  share  and  other  definition  of  crew  costs  are  especially 
important as there are some fleet segments or MS whose fleets do not use crew share as part 
of  the  wage.  Examples  of  presentation  of  GVA  indicator  should  also  be  included  (see 
suggested examples below). 

As  opposed  to  technical  indicators,  where  the  inclusion  of  inactive  vessels  is  required,  only 
active vessels  should be considered for the evaluation of  fleet  coverage in social indicators. 
This  is  due  to  the  fact  that  inactive  vessels  are  not  relevant  for  the  calculation  of  these 
indicators  Inactive  vessels  have  no  crew  costs,  FTE  or  GVA,  or  at  least  the  components  of 
GVA applicable to them (depreciation costs and interest costs) are not required to be collected 
under  the  DCF.  On  the  other  hand,  additional  data  on  inactive  vessels  could  help  identify 
inactive vessels that are still a source of costs (depreciation costs and interest costs). 

SGBRE  suggests  the  calculation  of  GVA  per  FTE  and  GVA  per  vessel  as  complementary 
social  indicators.  The  comparison  between  those  two  complementary  indicators  brings 
information  about  potential  overcapacity.  This  would  be  the  case  if,  for  example,  GVA  per 
FTE were higher that GVA per vessel (only one full time equivalent job for two vessels in a 
segment). There is an example in page 3 of the Swedish report. In this report there are three 
such cases in which the experts at SGBRE 10-01 considered that this potential overcapacity 
could be due to fishing rights allocated to vessels, and thus vessels being kept idle for the sake 
of  retaining  such  rights  which  were  then  actually  used  by  another  vessel  under  the  same 
ownership.  After  seeking  further  expertise,  three  completely  different  explanations  were 
provided. One of the segments (passive gear <12 m) had a particular fishing pattern consisting 
of  a  ship  owner  using  one  vessel  equipped  with  one  type  of  gear  exclusive  to  that  vessel 
during one season and then using another vessel with another gear during a different season, 
due to specific target species and specialised vessels. Another segment (pelagic trawl < 24 m) 
was composed of vessels targeting a species with high value but an extremely short season of 
approximately  one  month.  Finally,  the  third  segment  (demersal  trawl  <  12  m)  included  a 
group  of  vessels  with  a  very  low  level  of  activity.  The  suggested  complementary  indicators 
thus  make  the  GVA  indicator  more  useful,  given  additional  information  from  the  MS  on 
different situations specific to the segment, as in this example fishing patterns, short seasons 
and low activity. 

EN 

67 

   EN 

 
This could be used as help to measure the theoretical maximum number of days for a segment 
considered  in  the  technical  indicator.  The  maximum  number  of  days  for  the  technical 
indicator could not only conflict with  effort  restrictions,  but also with other fishing patterns 
unveiled by the comparison between GVA/FTE and GVA/vessel. 

Proposed additional text for updated guidelines  

SGBRE experts suggest retaining all the existing text in the first version of the Guidelines for 
the social indicators and adding the following additional text to the existing text: 

Average crew share per Full-time equivalent job 

Description and data sourcing 

The  recommended  indicator  of  Average  crew  share  per  Full-time  equivalent  should  be 
interpreted to mean average remuneration (crew income) per FTE job. This is because there 
are remuneration systems other than crew share, such as fixed wages, and there are different 
ways of calculating crew share - it is not only a straightforward percentage of fishing income 
for instance. This indicator is showing whether the fishing industry is paying a decent wage to 
the workers. Average wage or income per full-time equivalent crew job can then be compared 
to average wages or minimum full-time wage in the MS. 

“Total wages divided by number of FTEs (full time equivalent jobs)” 

If crew members are supplied by agency, and the vessel business pays the agency, then this 
indicator  becomes  difficult  to  estimate  as  the  vessel  owner  does  not  necessarily  know  the 
amount received by the crew members. In such cases, the MS will have to devise a reasonable 
way to estimate and explain their method. 

Application and interpretation 

Interpretation could also be based on comparing segments (highest and lowest income, range 
of variability, remarkable differences), identifying trends (evolution of the indicator for each 
segment), and putting in context with other social and economic indicators at national level 
(employment, prices, GDP etc.). This interpretation would complement the comparison with 
reference income levels such as the minimum wage in the economy, the average yearly wage 
in  economic  sectors  with  similar  qualification/remuneration  levels  (industry,  agriculture  etc. 
as appropriate) and the general evolution of wages in the MS. The average yearly wage would 
be the wage a person employed in an industry can earn on a yearly basis. 

There  are  fleet  segments  in  some  MS  where  professional  fishermen  use  their  licenses  to 
obtain  catches  that  are  not  sold  in  the  market,  but  used  for  their  own  consumption  instead. 
Qualitative information on these types of social patterns would help clarify the causes of low 
capacity use and/ or low employment in some segments. 

Comments  on  the  overlap  between  owners  and  crew  members  (especially  for  small  scale 
fisheries) can also be useful to set the social indicators in context. 

Gross value added (GVA) 

Description and data sourcing 

EN 

68 

   EN 

 
Using  DCF  data  mostly  already  employed  for  the  social  indicators  (GVA,  FTE)  and  other 
easily  available  data  (number  of  vessels),  the  following  complementary  indicators  can  be 
presented. 

Gross value added per Full Time Equivalent job (GVA/FTE). 

"(Depreciation costs plus interest costs plus crew share plus net profit) divided by number of 
FTEs".  All  items  are  available  from  data  collection  according  to  DCR  (see  ROI). 
"Depreciation costs plus interest" constitute the capital costs under DCR nomenclature. 

Gross value added per vessel (GVA/no. of vessels) 

"(Depreciation costs plus interest costs plus crew share plus net profit) divided by number of 
vessels".  All  items  are  available  from  data  collection  according  to  DCR  (see  ROI). 
"Depreciation  costs  plus  interest"  constitute  the  capital  costs  under  DCR  nomenclature. 
Number of vessels should be active vessels. 

Application and interpretation 

GVA  can  be  interpreted  not  only  as  positive/negative  value  but  also  as  the  proportional 
contribution of the segment to the GVA of the national fleet (the weight of that segment in the 
national fishing sector). The contribution of the fishing sector to the GVA of the economy can 
be obtained from the Annual Economic Report. 

GVA/FTE and GVA/Vessel put GVA at the scale of the employee and of the vessel, making 
it easier to interpret whether capital costs, labour costs and the company's profit are covered at 
company (vessel) level for each segment. The interpretation of GVA/vessel should however 
be  performed  against  the  background  of  additional  information  on  activity  patterns  and 
company  structure  (exploitation  patterns,  owner/crew  overlap,  FTE  per  vessel).  Again,  the 
interpretation of GVA/FTE gives an approximate view of the contribution to the economy per 
full time employee that should be nuanced by the pattern of employment in the segment. 

The  comparison  between  the  two  relative  versions  of  the  indicator  (GVA/FTE  and 
GVA/vessel) gives an idea of the number of FTE per vessel in each segment and may be used 
as  a  base  for  commenting  on  type  of  fishing  pattern  (level  of  activity,  seasonality,  fishing 
pattern). 

Calculation examples 

Average crew share per Full-time equivalent 

Case with only crew share: 

Values for a calendar year 

Fleet segment 1 

Fleet segment 2 

Crew share (1) 

Value of landings  

Crew costs 

FTE 

10% 

10% 

1,000,000 

2,000,000 

100,000 

200,000 

20 

20 

EN 

69 

   EN 

 
Average crew cost per FTE 

5,000 

10,000 

(1) Crew share is expressed as a percentage of gross revenues 

Case with only wages (without crew share): 

Values for a calendar year 

Fleet segment 1 

Fleet segment 2 

Wages 

Crew costs 

FTE 

Average crew cost per FTE 

Case with both crew share and wages: 

100,000 

100,000 

20 

5,000 

200,000 

200,000 

20 

10,000 

Values for a calendar year 

Fleet segment 1 

Fleet segment 2 

5% 

5% 

1,000,000 

2,000,000 

50,000 

100,000 

20 

5,000 

100,000 

200,000 

20 

10,000 

Crew share (1) 

Value of landings 

Wages (2) 

Crew costs (3) 

FTE 

Average crew cost per FTE 

(1) Crew share is expressed as a percentage of gross revenues 

(2) excluding crew share 

(3) Crew costs = (Crew share (in %) times value of landings) plus wages 

Gross value added (GVA) 

Values for a calendar year 

Fleet segment 1 

Fleet segment 2 

Depreciation costs 

Interest costs 

Crew share (1) 

Net profit 

GVA 

200,000 

200,000 

100,000 

200,000 

700,000 

200,000 

200,000 

200,000 

200,000 

800,000 

(1) Or crew costs, see calculation of indicator “average crew share per FTE” 

EN 

70 

   EN 

 
Values for a calendar year 

Fleet segment 1 

Fleet segment 2 

Number of vessles (2) 

FTE 

GVA 

GVA/FTE 

GVA/number of vessels 

(2) Number of active vessels 

20 

20 

10 

20 

700,000 

800,000 

35,000 

35,000 

40,000 

80,000 

EN 

71 

   EN 

 
 
4.6. 

ToR  3.  Assess  progress  in  addressing  the  problem  of  data  availability  for  the 
calculation of balance indictors in MS reports 

SGBRE 09-01 reported on issues of data availability that had restricted the ability of MS to 
calculate the balance indicators. 

In  general  we  found  that  in  the  2009  MS  reports,  only  a  few  MS  had  made  progress 
addressing data availability issues. Many MS had not reported any issues of data availability 
although  many  of  these  had  not  presented  indicators  and  we  do  not  know  whether  data 
availability may have been the reason. 

Biological Indicators 

For some MS it is not possible to provide a five year time series of biological indicators (F 
estimated/ 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  (Linnaeus,1758))  and 
turbot  (Psetta  maxima 
(Linnaeus,1758))  have  been  included  in  the  Data  Collection  Framework  of  the  European 
Commission only since 2007. 

As  many  stocks  do  not  have  assessment,  there  is  no  fishing  mortality  information  for  these 
stocks  and  therefore  the  MS  that  exploited  these  stocks  can  not  provide  the  Festimated/Ftarget 
indicator. Some MS 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 or to share this information. This is particularly relevant for Mediterranean and Black 
Sea  countries.  For  these  species,  stock  assessment  is  only  possible  when  the  whole  area  of 
distribution of the species is included in the analysis. 

There  is  need  for  regional  coordination  and  standardisation  of  methods  of  sampling, 
processing,  analysing  and  interpreting  of  data  as  well  as  assessing  fish  stocks  and  the 
environmental  factors  influencing  them,  in  compliance  with  international  regulations.  There 
could be merit in developing an information system to include fisheries statistics, fish stock 
assessment, multi-disciplinary research, and ecosystem monitoring. 

Greece 

The Greek National Fisheries Data Collection Programme was not run in 2009, therefore no 
technical and biological indicators could be calculated. No clear reason for this is stated in the 
report. This is a worsening of data availability. 

Economic indicators – data availability issues 

Overall only a few MS had improved any data availability issues that were reported last year. 

Cyprus 

For  the  2008  report,  data  availability  was  an  issue  for  this  MS.  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.  SGBRE  10-01  notes  the  progress  made  in  this 
regard. 

EN 

72 

   EN 

 
Germany 

This Member State has explained the reasons why data was not available however no progress 
has been reported in this regard. 

Greece 

The  MS  has  explained  why  the  data  is  not  available  to  calculate  biological  indicator  3, 
however no progress was reported. 

Italy 

Italy is invited to provide data with regards to vessels over 40 metres. No other issues with 
regards to data availability were present. 

Lithuania 

Data for the years 2005-2007 is not available for the segments pelagic trawlers 24-40 metres 
and high sea fleet bigger than 40 metres. No explanation was provided. 

Latvia 

Data was not available for the ROI indicator and no explanation was provided, however the 
working  group  notes  the  progress  made  in  terms  of  the  CR/BER  indicator  as  last  year  no 
economic indicators were provided. 

Malta 

An explanation with regards to data availability problems has been given however no progress 
in this regard has been reported. 

Netherlands 

Data for CR/BER is available for 2 years (2007 and 2008) while for ROI only for one year 
(2008). No reference has been made to data availability as being an issue. 

Portugal 

Data  for  the  segment  which  comprises  of  vessels  less  than  12  metres  is  not  available.  No 
explanation is given. 

Slovenia 

Data  is  not  available  to  calculate  the  indicator  of  CR/BER  for  the  segment  DFN  VL  12-18 
metres.  An  explanation  was  provided  however  progress  in  this  case  cannot  be  evaluated  as 
data presented was only for the year 2008. 

Social indicators 

Half (52%) of MS reported a social indicator. Most MS have not commented on progress in 
data availability for the social indicators. We have estimated progress in data availability by 
looking  at  the  evolution  of  the  completeness,  coverage  and  accuracy  marks  for  the  social 
indicators.  In  this  way,  two  MS  improved  in  one  of  the  social  indicators  and  five  more 

EN 

73 

   EN 

 
improved  in  both  the  indicators.  The  remaining  13  MS  stayed  the  same  in  terms  of  data 
quality of the social indicators. 

The  social  indicators  are  based  on  data  collection  under  the  DCF  and  the  accuracy  and 
reliability of the data collected for the social indicators is questionable. We suggest that the 
Commission could discuss with MS to further consider how the quality of the data in relation 
to the social indicators can be improved. 

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

In some cases no explanation is given as to why a social indicator has not been reported. MS 
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 MS 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. 
Some MS have already used wage costs instead of crew share. However, when this option is 
selected, explanations on the concept of wage used should be provided. 

In addition, FTE is also difficult to estimate 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. Again, other measures of wage 
costs could be used. Data is based on data collected under the DCF. When more than one data 
source is employed, it should be detailed on the report so that the accuracy and comparability 
of the indicators can be evaluated. 

EN 

74 

   EN 

 
4.7. 

ToR  4.  Assess  and  comment  on  appropriateness  of  indicators  used  by  MS  for 
small scale coastal fleets and fisheries 

It has been acknowledged in previous reports that some of the indicators of balance are not 
helpful  and  potentially  misleading  when  applied  to  small  scale  coastal  fleets  and  fisheries, 
particularly fleet segments in which vessels use passive gear. 

MS were invited to consider other indicators of balance between capacity and opportunity for 
these types of fisheries; however we did not observe any MS which developed and presented 
a new indicator appropriate for small scale fleets. 

Biological indicators 

All three biological indicators can be used for small scale coastal fleets and fisheries. MS may 
have difficulties in computing the first (F/Ft) and second (ratio between current catch weight 
and  stock  biomass)  biological  indicators  due  to  the  absence  of  necessary  data.  The  third 
biological  indicator  (CPUE)  can  be  computed  for  the  main  fish  species,  because  all  the 
necessary data (catches and effort) should be available from MS DCF. 

Economic indicators 

No economic indicators specifically for small scale coastal fleets were presented. 

Social indicators 

The social indicators seem to be appropriate for small scale coastal fisheries as some MS have 
succeeded in interpreting them in a useful way for both small scale and large scale fisheries. 

To give some examples, the crew cost indicator (S1) seems to distinguish between large and 
small  scale  fisheries  as  for  example  in  the  Danish  report.  Despite  the  doubts  on  the 
comparability  between  sectors,  with  small  scale  fisheries  showing  problems  of  overlapping 
between owner and crew members, in the Italian report the social indicators have been useful 
to observe how changes in profitability across time are transmitted to the crew. 

The comparison of the two additional social indicators presented by Sweden (GVA per FTE 
and GVA per vessel) could be useful to observe different wage distribution patterns between 
small  scale  fisheries  and  large  vessel  segments.  It  could  also  be  used  to  observe 
underutilisation or overcapitalisation of vessels in small scale fisheries, in cases were less than 
one FTE is allocated to a vessel. 

The fleet coverage criterion for the evaluation of the quality of social indicators does not seem 
to be the most useful. Fleet coverage based on percentage of GT gives more weight to large 
vessels, which normally are less relevant for employment. It could be the case that a Member 
State with many large vessels was awarded high marks for fleet coverage while the indicator 
of crew cost per FTE was reflecting only a small proportion of the fishermen employed. 

EN 

75 

   EN 

 
4.8. 

References 

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. 

Report of SGBRE 09-01 

EN 

76 

   EN