REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS On Reporting Obligations under Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy
Date: 2011-07-13
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: common fisheries policy, conservation of fish stocks, exploitation of resources, fishery resources, fishing controls, fishing fleet

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 13.7.2011 
COM(2011) 418 final 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE 
COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE 
COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 

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

 
 
 
 
  
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  2371/2002  on  the  conservation  and  sustainable 
exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) obliges 
the  Commission  to  report  to  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  on  the 
operation  of  the  CFP  with  respect  to  chapters  II  (Conservation  and  Sustainability) 
and III (Adjustment of Fishing Capacity) of that regulation before the end of 20121. 
Under  the  same  Regulation,  the  Commission  is  also  obliged  to  report  on  the 
arrangements  set  out  in  Article  17  paragraph  2  on  fishing  restrictions  in  the  12 
nautical miles waters by 31 December 20112. This report complements the reporting 
in the Green Paper on the Reform of the Common Fisheries Policy3.  

2. 

CHAPTERS II AND III  

2.1. 

Chapter II – Conservation and Sustainability 

Since 2002, multi-annual recovery and management plans with clear objectives and 
harvest  rules  have  become  the  core  of  the  conservation  policy.  They  balance 
ecological  requisites  (state  of  the  stocks  and  exploitation  rates)  and  economic  and 
social  considerations  (stability  of  catches).  Effort  management  and  specific 
inspection and monitoring provisions were introduced in these plans where relevant. 
Community plans were adopted for 17 stocks in the EU waters. There is also a plan 
for recovery of stocks of the European eel, and additional proposals currently under 
negotiation  or  preparation  (see  Annex  I).  By  the  end  of  2010,  around  25 %  of  the 
stocks and 80 % of the catches concerned (in tonnes) can be considered under multi-
annual plans and harvest rules (either as Council Regulations, Commission/Council 
statements,  as  Commission  proposals  or  as  plans  agreed  with  third  parties,  such  as 
Regional Fisheries Management Organisations and Norway).  

Council  also  adopted  regulations  on  conservation  in  the  Mediterranean  Sea,  on 
technical measures for the Baltic Sea, and on specific fishing effort provisions for the 
Western  Waters.  Since  2004,  the  deep-sea  fisheries  have  been  brought  under  bi-
annual  management  of  fishing  opportunities.  A  high-grading  ban  was  gradually 
introduced  for  the  Atlantic,  North  Sea  and  Baltic  Sea  in  2009/2010.  No  agreement 
was possible with Council on a proposal for technical measures for the Atlantic and 
North  Sea  areas  that  would  have  allowed  for  simplification  and  adjustment  to 
regional specificities. 

The  Commission  presented  Communications  on  improving  scientific  and  technical 
advice; on the ecosystems approach to marine management; on the implementation 
of  maximum  sustainable  yields;  and  on  discards.  Regarding  integration  of 
environmental considerations in the fisheries policy, concrete progress was achieved, 

1 

2 

3 

In accordance with article 35 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the 
conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy . 
In accordance with article 17 paragraph 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 of 20 December 
2002. 
Communication  from  the  Commission  on  the  Reform  of the  Common  Fisheries Policy  -  COM(2009) 
163, 22.4.2009. 

EN 

1 

   EN 

 
                                                 
including  the  adoption  of  legislative  measures.  An  overview  of  these  initiatives  is 
listed  in  the  Communication  on  the  ecosystem  approach  to  marine  management4. 
This includes a number of Natura 2000 areas where the CFP was asked to provide for 
the  necessary  rules  on  fishing  activities.  A  limited  number  of  measures  were  taken 
under Articles 7, 8 and 9 of the chapter.  

Since  2006,  the  Commission  has  presented  its  working  method  for  proposals  for 
decisions  on  annual  fishing  opportunities.  This  offers  transparency  in  the  way  the 
fishing opportunities are set. The 2010 Communication showed improvements in the 
situation  since  2003:  a  decrease  in  the  numbers  of  stocks  outside  safe  biological 
limits, as well as in stocks for which a fishing closure has been advised. However, of 
the  stocks  for  which  robust  data  is  available,  over  60 %  is  still  fished  beyond 
maximum  sustainable  yield.  Progress  has  been  made  as  regards  the  levels  of  Total 
Allowable Catches (TAC) adopted by Council, compared to sustainable catch levels: 
on average, Council exceeded advice by 45 %, with peaks as high as 59 % (2005) and 
51 % (2008), but the gap between the advice and the result has narrowed in the last 
two  years,  and  the  23 %  gap  in  the  decision  for  2011  is  unprecedented.  There  has 
been an increase in the number of stocks for which no scientific advice is available 
(see also Annex II)5. 

From this overview it can be confirmed that: 

•  Multi-annual  plans  are  more  effective  in  taking  a  long-term  perspective  in 
managing stocks than the annual TAC decision-making, especially since Council 
has started to respect the rules of the plans for the TACs.  

•  Nevertheless, the framework resulting from the 2002 CFP reform has not curbed 
overfishing enough, so EU fisheries continue to see declining catches taken from 
EU waters. 

•  The  very  significant  gap  between  the  levels  of  TACs  agreed  in  Council  and 
sustainable catches confirms the prevalence of short-term concerns over long-term 
sustainability.  This  continues  to  put  stocks  at  further  risk,  though  the  recent 
narrowing of the gap is a significant step forward. 

•  While  vital  to  sound  policy  making,  the  knowledge  base  is  under  constant 
pressure, impeding progress in the coverage of stocks for which scientific advice 
is provided. 

•  Finally,  the  new  CFP  needs  to  provide  the  right  tools  for  integrating  the 

ecosystems approach fully into conservation and sustainability. 

2.2. 

Chapter III – Adjustment of Fishing Capacity 

In  2002,  responsibility  for  adjusting  the  size  of  the  fleet  was  devolved  to  Member 
States. From then on, targets for mandatory cuts to fishing capacity were no longer 

4 

5 

Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament — The role of the 
CFP in implementing an ecosystem approach to marine management - COM(2008) 187, 11.4.2008. 
Communication  from  the  Commission  —  Consultation  on  Fishing  Opportunities  -  COM(2010)  241, 
17.5.2010 -, and internal Commission figures for 2011. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
                                                 
set. Nevertheless, there were still global limits on fishing capacity per Member State, 
and these have been complied with. However, it is clear that there is still significant 
over-capacity, and this is still a serious problem. The devolution of fleet management 
to  Member  States  has  not  led  to  sufficient  cuts  in  fleet  capacity,  even  if  nominal 
capacity is within the ceilings set for Member States. Adjustment has been relatively 
slow, despite the poor state of stocks throughout the EU. The drop in fleet capacity 
decrease  is  nominal,  and  has  stayed  below  what  is  considered  the  technological 
development rate of the fleet. As there are no real yardsticks for success, it has not 
been possible to verify what progress has actually been made. In short, the policy on 
adjusting the size of the fleet has not delivered satisfactory results. 

There  are  two  pillars  to  the  fleet  capacity  management  measures.  One  is  the  entry-
exit  regime,  which  requires  new  capacity  to  be  balanced  by  withdrawing  an 
equivalent  amount,  both  in  terms  of  tonnage  and  power.  The  other  is  a  bar  on 
replacing  capacity  withdrawn  with  public  aid.  These  provisions  were  developed  in 
implementing  rules  combining  both  pillars  (with  provisions  allowing  for  a  tonnage 
increase  for  safety  reasons),  so  as  to  calculate  fleet  capacity  ceilings  for  each 
Member State’s fleet. Additional provisions were developed to manage the transition 
between the old and the new regimes. This is positive, as it prevents aggravation of 
the problem. 

All  Member  States  have  complied  with  legal  fishing  capacity  limitations.  Though 
some had difficulties when the new rules came into force, today most Member States 
have fleets with capacity under the ceilings they are allowed. This margin averages 
10 % in tonnage and 8 % in power. This means that reductions in the size of the fleet 
were partly achieved without public aid. 

Specific treatment was introduced for fleets registered in the outermost regions of the 
European Union by means of Council Regulation (EC) No 639/20046. This excluded 
fleets  in  these  regions  from  the  general  fleet  management  rules,  and  set  limits  on 
capacity  per  fleet  segment  defined  for  Azores,  Madeira,  the  French  overseas 
departments and the Canary Islands. The regime has worked satisfactorily, although 
increases to capacity limitations for some segments were required. 

Given  that  Member  States  have  complied  with  fishing  capacity  management  rules, 
Article 16 on the conditionality EU funds for the fleet has never been applied. 

The reference levels under Article 12 are additional limits to fishing capacity, both in 
terms of tonnage and power. They do not apply to the Member States which joined 
the EU after 2003, and represent no additional constraint in relation to the capacity 
ceilings  resulting  from  the  entry-exit  regime. The EU Fleet  Register  has performed 
well as a tool to monitor compliance with fishing capacity management rules. 

Finally, Member States are obliged to report on fleet capacity, and this is an essential 
component  of  the  policy.  The  results  assessed  are  not  satisfactory.  Member  States 
the 
have  reported 
Commission's annual report on the state of the fleet. However, the reports might have 

the  Commission  annually,  providing 

information  for 

to 

6 

Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  639/2004  of  30  March  2004  on  the  management  of  fishing  fleets  in  the 
Community outermost regions. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
been  expected  to  show  an  excess  of  fishing  capacity,  the  most  important  issue  at 
stake,  and  the  data  available  is  inconclusive.  The  reporting  tool  has  not  enabled 
precise estimates of excess fishing capacity per segment or fishery. 

In view of the above, some conclusions can be drawn concerning the performance of 
the fishing capacity management provisions: 

•  Despite  compliance  with  the  fishing  capacity  management  rules  defined  at  EU 
level,  there  are  still  clear  indications  of  over-capacity  in  the  EU  fleet,  namely: 
excess  of  fishing  mortality  in  some  stocks,  low  profitability  and  low  capacity 
utilisation. 

•  While tonnage is a reliable fishing capacity indicator, the Commission has serious 
concerns  about  the  reported  power  of  fishing vessels, as the data  suggest under-
declaration, making it extremely difficult to estimate fleet capacity accurately.  

•  The policy is static, in that it only establishes a ceiling, with no specific objectives 
for reduction. Compliance with nominal capacity limits under these ceilings does 
not  mean  that  there  is  no  persistent  overcapacity.  The  system  does  not  integrate 
technical progress into the management measures. However, due to technological 
progress, a static capacity ceiling leads to overcapacity. 

•  It has proven very difficult to set clear objectives for the size of the fleet and to 
monitor the balance between fishing capacity and fishing opportunities due to the 
complexity inherent in quantifying over-capacity. Determining an adequate level 
for the size of the fleet given a certain amount of fishing possibilities needs to take 
into account factors other than the biological and economic. 

3. 

ARTICLE 17.2 – FISHING RESTRICTIONS IN THE 12 NAUTICAL MILES WATERS 

The  authorisation  for  specific  fishing  restrictions  under  article  17  paragraph  2  of 
Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  2371/2002  expires  on  31  December  2012  with  an 
obligation for the Commission to report to the European Parliament and the Council 
on the arrangements set out in the paragraph. 

The objectives related to introduction (before entry into force of the CFP) of specific 
arrangements in the waters up to 12 nautical miles as formulated in Article 17(2) of 
Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 were: 

• 

• 

conservation of fish resources through allowing only small-scale coastal fleets 
into the area. These fleets generally exert less fishing pressure in areas which 
may include the most sensitive EU waters, and include spawning areas, and 

preservation of coastal fleets' traditional fishing activities to maintain the social 
and economic infrastructure of these areas.  

These  specific  restriction  provisions  were  introduced  in  the  CFP  in  1983  and  have 
been extended with every reform of the policy since. 

Since  2002,  the  EU  has  taken  in  new  members  on  two  occasions.  The  Acts  of 
Accession  in  2004  (10  Member  States)  and  2007  (two  Member  States)  make  no 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
specific  reference  to  the  12  nautical  miles  regime,  and  no  amendments  were 
proposed or made to Annex I of Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002. 

Commission  services  surveyed  the  Member  States  concerned  and  affected  by  the 
regime.  In  addition  to  the  arrangements  listed  in  Annex  I,  eight  Member  States 
reported  on  the  presence  of  arrangements  under  existing  neighbourhood  relations 
outside  Annex  I,  most  of  which  are  reciprocal,  although  this  is  not  a  legal 
prerequisite.  No  requests  were  made  to  include  these  or  other  arrangements  into 
Annex  I  of  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  2371/2002  (Denmark  and  Germany  have 
requested a corrigendum in 2008). Most of the new Member States plus Greece have 
not had specific reciprocal access arrangements in place. They restrict fishing in the 
12 nautical miles area to their national fleets, and have no fishing activities in the 12 
nautical miles area of other Member States. A number of Member States introduced 
specific  (technical)  conservation  measures  for  vessels  fishing  within  these  areas, 
contributing to conservation as referred to in recital 11 in Council Regulation (EC) 
No 2371/2002.  

Since  2002,  the  Commission  was  not  informed  of  (real)  problems  or  conflicts  on 
specific  restrictions,  whether  on  setting  them,  or  on  their  management  and 
functioning.  Member  States  were  able  to  resolve  problems  without  having  to  refer 
any  of  them  to  the  Commission.  The  regime  is  very  stable,  and  the  rules  have 
continued to operate satisfactorily. All Member States stressed the importance of the 
specific  restrictions  in  the  light  of  their  original  objectives  in  their  reactions  to  the 
Green Paper on CFP reform. One Member State suggested extending the 6-12 miles 
regime to 10-20 miles to achieve the regime’s objectives more effectively. 

Considering  the  current  conservation  state  of  many  stocks,  and  the  continued 
sensitivity  of  coastal  waters  for  conservation,  as  well  as  ongoing  difficulties  in 
coastal  areas  highly  dependent  on  fisheries  and  unlikely  to  benefit  from  other 
economic  development,  the  objectives  for  the  specific  regime  appear  to  remain  as 
valid as they were in 2002. Modifying current arrangements might disrupt the current 
balance that has developed since the introduction of the special regime. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
Annex I – Recovery and/or Management Plans adopted by Council since 2003 

Council Regulation 
(EC) No. 

Type of plan 

Species (number of stocks) 

Areas 

423/2004 

Recovery 

Cod (4) 

Kattegat, Skagerrak, North Sea, Eastern Channel, West 
of Scotland, Irish Sea 

811/2004 

Recovery 

Northern hake (1) 

Kattegat, Skagerrak, North Sea, Channel, West of 
Scotland, around Ireland, Bay of Biscay 

2115/2005 

Recovery 

Greenland Halibut (1) 

Northwest Atlantic 

2166/2005 

Recovery 

Southern Hake (2) & 
Norway Lobster (1) 

Cantabrian Sea, Western Iberian peninsula waters 

388/2006 

Management 

Sole (1) 

Bay of Biscay 

509/2007 

676/2007 

Recovery & 
Management 

Recovery & 
Management 

Sole (1) 

Western Channel 

Plaice (1) & Sole (1) 

North Sea 

1098/2007 

Recovery 

Cod (2) 

Baltic Sea 

1100/2007 

Recovery 

European eel (1) 

MS estuaries/rivers into ICES areas III-IX and 
Mediterranean 

1559/2007 

Recovery 

Bluefin tuna (1) 

Eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean 

1300/2008 

1342/2008 

Recovery & 
Management 

Recovery & 
Management 

Herring (1) 

West of Scotland 

Cod (4) 

Kattegat, Skagerrak, North Sea, Eastern Channel, West 
of Scotland, Irish Sea 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
 
Annex II - Stocks under annual fishing opportunities in the North-East Atlantic and 
adjacent waters – 2003 - 2011 

Scientific advice about the state of 
the stock 

No. of fish stocks 

2003 

2004 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009  2010  2011  Average 

Outside safe biological limits 

Inside safe biological limits 

30 

12 

29 

10 

26 

14 

26 

11 

26 

12 

28 

13 

27 

12 

22 

15 

19 

15 

The state of the stock is unknown due 
to poor data 

48 

53 

53 

57 

58 

55 

57 

60 

61 

26 

13 

56 

Scientific advice about overfishing 

2003 

2004 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010  2011  Average 

The  rate  of  fishing  on  the  stock  is 
known 
to  maximum 
compared 
sustainable yield rate 

The stock is overfished 

The  stock  is  fished  at  the  maximum 
sustainable yield rate 

34 

32 

23 

21 

32 

30 

33 

29 

35 

30 

39 

28 

35 

22 

2 

2 

2 

4 

5 

11 

13 

33 

27 

6 

Difference  between  TACs  and 
sustainable catches 

2003 

2004 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009  2010  2011  Average 

Excess of TAC over sustainable catch 
ICES/STECF 
by 
(as 
according 
precautionary 
the 
approach) in percentage of fish stocks 

advised 
to 

Summary  of  the  scientific  advice 
about fishing opportunities 

Stocks  where  stock  size  and  fishing 
mortality can be forecast 

Stocks  where  a  scientific  advice 
concerning  fishing  opportunities  is 
available 

Stocks  where  no  scientific  advice  is 
available 

46% 

49% 

59% 

47% 

45% 

51% 

48% 

34%  23% 

45% 

2003 

2004 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009  2010  2011  Average 

40 

34 

40 

31 

29 

30 

34 

36 

36 

34 

59 

52 

54 

65 

61 

62 

63 

55 

55 

58 

31 

40 

39 

29 

35 

34 

33 

42 

40 

36 

EN 

7 

   EN