REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on Member States' efforts during 2012 to achieve a sustainable balance between fishing capacity and fishing opportunities 
Date: 2014-04-29
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, European fisheries fund, catch quota, conservation of fish stocks, disclosure of information, fishing fleet













EUR-Lex - 52014DC0233 - EN











|



52014DC0233

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on Member States' efforts during 2012 to achieve a sustainable balance between fishing capacity and fishing opportunities /* COM/2014/0233 final */









REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN
PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL
on
Member States' efforts during 2012 to achieve a sustainable balance between
fishing capacity and fishing opportunities

1.                      
Introduction
Member
States are responsible for achieving a stable and enduring balance between the
fishing capacity of their fleet and their fishing opportunities, and to take
appropriate measures to ensure this balance. This has been a requirement under
the Common Fisheries Policy[1]
since 2002 and is continued in the new CFP[2] as adopted in
December 2013. Such balance contributes to the objectives of the CFP, in
particular to achieve MSY in order to ensure that fishing activities are
environmentally sustainable in the long term and consistent with achieving
economic, social and employment benefits. 
This
report is based on Member States’ reports on their efforts to achieve a
sustainable balance between fishing capacity and fishing opportunities. Member
States are expected to apply the Commission guidelines[3] when
preparing their reports. Data collected under the Data Collection Framework[4]
(DCF) are also used (Annex I). The Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee
for Fisheries (STECF) has assessed the Member States' reports[5]. 
The
analysis of Member States’ fleet capacity shows some progress towards
achieving a balance with the available fishing opportunities, although more
remains to be done to ensure that stocks are managed in accordance with the
objective of MSY. 
In
its report on the Member States' effort during 2011 on achieving the balance,
the Commission introduced a set of elements to improve the analysis of the
balance. In that report a series of indicators were listed concerning the
sustainable and viable operation of fishing fleets[6],
such as whether fleets:
-
rely on stocks fished above MSY levels
-
are breaking even
-
are economically sustainable 
-
are underutilised 
-
are inactive 
These
indicators are again used for this report. In addition, an indicator of stocks
at high biological risk that are affected by a fleet segment has been added due
to concerns that this aspect had been neglected.
Capacity
ceilings
Each
  Member State must ensure that its fishing capacity in tonnage (GT) and power
(KW) is always equal to or less than the capacity and power ceilings fixed in
Regulation No 1380/2013[7].
Current entries in the EU Fleet Register indicate that all Member States
complied with these levels. Overall the fishing capacity of the EU fleet was
16.4% below the capacity ceilings for tonnage and 10.4 % below the power
ceilings (Annex 2). 
According
to the EU fishing fleet register, on 31 December 2012 the fleet consisted of 76
023 vessels with a total fishing capacity of 1 578 015 GT and 5 807 827 KW.
Fleets reduced by 1.6 % in number of vessels while the tonnage and engine power
decreased by 2% and 1% respectively (including vessels registered in the
outermost regions (Annex 3)).
In
2012 decommissioning with public aid was the most used management tool to
reduce fishing capacity (Annex 4). From 1st January 2007 until 31 of July of
2012, 464M€ of EFF payments were allocated corresponding to ~3700 vessels
ceasing fishing (Annex 5). 
Completeness and
quality of Member States' reports and capacity indicators
All
22 Member States' reports were received by the Commission. Overall, STECF
observed that there is continued further improvement in consistency,
completeness and quality of reports compared to those of previous years
(Annexes 1A and 1B). More Member States are using the Commission's Guidelines
for the analysis, although there are still some who do not yet use these
Guidelines. 
The
Joint Research Centre (JRC) has, under STECF instructions, calculated
technical, economic and biological indicators relevant to the balance between
fleet capacity and fishing opportunities based on data submitted by Member
States under the DCF (Annex 6). The analysis includes 434 fleet segments where
data for at least one indicator are available. These cover 97% of the reported
value of landings made in 2011. STECF has provided guidance as to the
interpretation of these DCF-based indicator values, which has been followed by
the Commission in this report.
Fleet capacity
situation by Member State
This
section presents an overview of fleet situation by Member State, based on the
Member States' report and STECF findings based on DCF data.
Belgium
reported that the capacity of its fleet has shrunk since 2003 by 30% in KW and
38% in GT.  The fleet capacity appears to be evenly balanced with fishing
opportunities. There is little unused capacity and there are few unused fishing
opportunities.
The
STECF review indicates that the 18-40 m, beam trawlers, demersal trawlers and
seiners relied on stocks fished above MSY levels. The 24-40 m beam trawlers
impacted two stocks at biological risk. The 18-24m demersal trawlers, and
demersal seiners and 12-18 m beam trawlers were not economically sustainable in
2011.
Bulgaria
reported that since accession the fishing fleet reduced in number (-7%), in
tonnage (-14%) and in power (-6%). Capacity utilisation, which is markedly low
for vessels under 12 m, has improved in 2012 in all segments. Individual vessel
activity increased by 220% overall. 
The
national authority has already taken measures to reduce the number of inactive
vessels and is in process of withdrawing them from the national register. 
Smaller
vessels (under 12m) have been economically unprofitable; it is intended to
continue withdrawing such vessels and to replace them with larger vessels
targeting pelagic fish.
Bulgaria
concludes that its fleet capacity is somewhat in excess of the balance with
fishing opportunities.
The
STECF review indicates that the 12-18m drift and fixed netters and vessel using
active and passive gears are not economically sustainable; there is still a
very large inactive fleet (almost 1200 vessels) and activity levels are very
low for the active and passive gear fleet. ROFTA values for 2011 appear
anomalously low. Biological indicators are not available. 
Cyprus has
since 2004 reduced the capacity of its fleet (-65% in GT and -20% in KW).
Vessel utilisation was low (under 53%) for all fleets except for demersal
trawlers in international waters. Analysis of economic data for 2011 was not
completed but 2010 data showed overcapitalisation.
The
"demersal trawlers in territorial waters" fleet has reduced recently
and Cyprus could not carry out a full assessment but concluded that the small
scale inshore fishery appears to be in  imbalance and the 12-24 m polyvalent
passive gear fleet may be approximately in balance.
Cyprus did
not provide any DCF-based data, so no STECF review is available.
Germany
reported a clear downward trend in the number of vessels, from 2315 vessels in
2000 to 1549 in 2012. The rate of decline is slowing down. In comparison with
the previous year, the German fishing fleet has decreased in four segments. The
fleet was reduced by 31 vessels in 2012 - a drop in capacity of 598 GT (-0.93 %)
and 2.242 KW (-1.51%). The departure of 16 gillnet fishing vessels ˂ 12 m
represented the biggest reduction in absolute terms. The beam trawl and trawl
fleets (<=40 m) were decreasing by more than 4% each. 
Germany
concludes that there is a balance between its capacity and its fishing
opportunities, even though due to part-time fishing some activity indicators
are low. Economic indicators are negative, but Germany considers that actual
costs of depreciation are lower than the official depreciation costs and that
therefore the calculation that the fleet is in long-term economic imbalance is
not justified.
The
STECF review indicates that most fleet segments rely on overfished stocks, but
biological indicators only show an impact on a stock at risk for the 24-40m
demersal trawlers and seiners. The 10-12m passive gear, 12-18m demersal trawl
and seine and 24-40m fixed net and >40m trawl and seine nets do not seem to
be economically sustainable. There seems to be underutilisation of vessels
under 12 m using passive gear and of the 18-24 m beam trawl fleet, which cannot
be explained by the seasonality of the fisheries concerned. For 2011 the corresponding
figure is 65%.
Denmark manages
fishing opportunities by individual transferable quotas (ITQ) and vessel quota
shares (VQS), which has resulted in a drop in the number of vessels, in tonnage
and in power.  Vessel underutilisation appears to be present in most fleet
segments in 2011, except in 12-24m beam trawlers, and in demersal trawl and
seine vessels >40 m.
Most
vessels <12m were consistently in an economic overcapitalisation situation.
Most other vessels were approximately in a situation of economic balance. From
2005 to 2011 many fleets showed current revenue persistently lower than
break-even revenue, and it is unclear how these vessels continued to operate. 
Economic
and vessel utilisation indicators would suggest an imbalance, in particular for
vessels <12 m in the North Sea.
Vessels
<10m using demersal trawls and seines, vessels 10-12m using polyvalent
passive gear and 12-18m beam trawlers were not economically sustainable and
were relying on overfished stocks. 
Despite
considerable removal of capacity in previous years Estonia
reported imbalance, mainly in trawlers with an overall length >12 m. During
2012, the fleet was reduced by 4 vessels. The segment's power and gross tonnage
both decreased by 6%. There are many (~1300) small vessels fishing inshore for
herring, perch and flounder but the balance situation of these vessels is
unclear.
Estonia did
not use fleet register segmentation in its reporting. Estonia has introduced an ITQ system which is expected to lead to an improvement in the balance.
Estonian economic analysis shows that all length classes have been fishing with
economic sustainability since 2010.
The
STECF review indicates that the 10-12m fleet using polyvalent passive gears
relied on stocks fished above MSY levels. 
Greece did
not present an assessment of the balance, nor has it assessed its fleet policy
or provided data under the DCF. Greece reported that fishing activities and the
situation of fishable biological stocks were unchanged from the previous year.
Comparing the data included in the 2011 and 2012 reports show a reduction of
632 vessels. Between 1 January 2003 and 31 December 2012 the fleet was reduced
by 3019 vessels (15.84%) and capacity decreased by 21.57 % and 21.71 %
respectively as regards gross tonnage (GT) and engine power (KW).
Greece did
not submit DCF data and hence the corresponding indicators could not be
calculated and assessed by STECF and JRC. 
Spain has
continued to reduce fishing capacity in 2012. There have been 429 permanent
removals from the register in 2012, of which 147 received state aid. In 2012
some 85 % of the fleet has been active. Spain considers that some
imbalance  exists in the small-scale fleets fishing in national coastal waters
(1280 inactive vessels), but the fleet fishing in international waters (32
inactive vessels) is in balance or has lower capacity than needed for the
available fishing opportunities.
The
STECF review indicates that the only DCF data available from Spain was economic data for 2011. This showed a diverse situation with many fleets in a
negative economic situation, some in a positive situation, and some fleets in
an intermediate condition.
Finland's
fleet has decrease steadily between 1995 and 2012. In 2012 there was an
increase in tonnage (mainly the offshore fisheries segment), but a decrease in
engine power. Finland considers its fleet to be in an acceptable
balance with its fishing opportunities. Finland did not apply the STECF
guidelines in its report, nor were any other indicators included to assess
capacity in relation to fishing opportunities.
STECF
did not find clear trends in economic indicators. The technical indicator shows
low or very low average vessel utilisation. Biological indicators were not
available.
France
considers that, for most of its fisheries, the fleets are stable and in balance
with fishing opportunities. This has been achieved after several successive
years of adaptation of the fleets. Many vessels target non-quota species for
which no biological assessments are available, and neither the biological
indicators nor the technical indicator could be calculated. France decommissioned 192 vessels in 2012, of which 74 were in overseas territories. Of the
192 vessels, 46 were decommissioned with public funds (6 of these in Guyana).
No
biological indicators were available for most fleets in the Mediterranean. In
the Atlantic, most fleets showed a reliance on overfished stocks, with the
exception of pelagic trawlers >40m. Economic data were largely not available
or inconclusive.
Ireland reported
that in comparison with the previous year fishing capacity has increased 1.29 %
in GT and 2.25 % in KW but the fleet has remained within its reference level.
Economic indicators suggest the fleets have improving economic performance in
the last years, are now profitable in both the short and the long term, and are
not overcapitalised.
STECF review indicates that the longline
(10-18m) fleet, the >18m demersal trawlers and seiners and the >24m
pelagic trawlers relied on overfished stocks and impacted up to 6 stocks at
biological risk. The technical indicator suggests low vessel utilisation. There
are many inactive vessels (13% to 40%).
Italy
reported that during the year 2012 its fleet decreased by 2.23% in number and
its capacity decreased by 5.8% in GT and 3.5 in KW. Italy did not apply the
guidelines in its report nor were any other indicators included to assess
capacity in relation to fishing opportunities. Due to lack of data, Italy could not assess the balance of its fleets.  
The STECF review indicates that 12-24m
beam trawlers, 24-40 m demersal trawlers and seiners and >40m purse seiners
were not economically sustainable, but many other fleets showed good
profitability. Vessel utilisation indicators point at situations of imbalance.
Biological indicators were not available in many cases. Where available, they
showed overfishing.
Lithuania's
fleet was reduced by 3 vessels in 2012. Capacity went down by 18025 GT (55%)
and 19982 KW (53,9) %. The fleets exploit mostly stocks that are not overfished
and are in balance with the stocks of eastern Baltic cod, herring and sprat. In
2011 fleets were generally profitable. 
The
STECF review indicates a low utilisation for all fleets apart from the 24-40m
pelagic trawlers. The >40m pelagic trawlers impacted one stock at biological
risk.
Latvia has
reduced its capacity by 20% in number, 24% in GT and 31% in KW since 2004. Latvia considers that the capacity utilisation indicators for all fleet segments show no
significant imbalance and that the fisheries are profitable. 
The
STECF review indicates reliance on overfished stocks by the <10m polyvalent
passive gear fleet and the 12-18m pelagic trawlers. These fleets also have low
utilisation.
Malta
reported unsatisfactory results for its fleet in 2011. For 2012 no conclusive
result was obtained in the absence of economic and social data. Maltese
authorities are currently verifying the accuracy of fleet register
information.  
The
STECF review indicates that most fleets where data were available were
economically unsustainable, with the exception of 12-18m purse seiners and the
18-24m "other active gears" fleet. Vessel utilisation was low in all
fleets. Biological indicators were generally not available.
The
  Netherlands reported that its fleet capacity is approximately in
balance with its fishing opportunities and that biological indicators suggest
its fisheries exploit stocks that are not overfished.  Economic indicators
suggest that the Dutch pelagic fleet is unprofitable. The demersal fleet over
24m has been profitable and its profitability has improved. 
The
STECF review shows that for all fleets where biological indicators were
available, the fleets relied on average on overfished stocks. Pelagic trawlers
over 40m and beam trawlers 18-24m appeared not to be economically sustainable,
yet other fleets showed good results.
Poland
reported that 8 vessels (250GT and 980KW) left the fleet in 2012. Poland could not determine whether a balance has been achieved. Poland considers that all
of its fleets were economically sustainable except for the 12-18m longline
fleet.
The
STECF review indicates that the 12-18 m vessels using hooks are economically
unprofitable. All fleets had low levels of utilisation except for the >40m
demersal trawl and seine and >40m pelagic trawler segments. Biological
indicators were not available.
Portugal
concluded that the capacity of its fleet is in balance with its fishing
opportunities. However, the technical indicators for the purse-seine fleets
showed relatively low vessel utilisation.
Biological
indicators were not available in most cases. The STECF review indicates that
under-12m longline, <12 m dredgers and 10-12 m vessels using active and
passive gears are economically unprofitable.  Many fleets had low utilisation
rates.
Romania reported
very low vessel utilisation and dependence on overfished stocks. 
Only
limited biological and economic data are available. STECF concluded that there
are low vessel utilisation rates.
Sweden
reported a 12% fall in vessel numbers from 2008 to 2012. The fleets depend on
stocks that are harvested sustainably, and appear economically sustainable.
Some imbalance can still be noted in some segments. 
STECF
assessed that under-18m fixed-net vessels were economically unsustainable. Nine
fleets relied on overfished stocks but the stocks-at-risk indicator was not
available. Data availability was insufficient for many fleets.
Slovenia
reported low vessel utilisation in many segments, ascribing these to dependence
on migratory stocks and part-time working rather than to imbalance. In 2012 the
Slovenian fleet decreased by 35% in GT and 16,83 % in KW. Total landings
decreased by 54% from 2011 to 2012. Drift- and fixed- net vessels <6m were
economically unsustainable, but other segments appeared to be sustainable.
STECF
assessed that <12m demersal fixed net and 24-40m pelagic trawl fleets were
economically unprofitable, but the purse seine 12-18m fleet was profitable and
sustainable. Vessel utilisation rates were low. Biological indicators were not
available.
UK
reported an increase in capacity for vessels targeting shellfish (especially
scallops), while there was generally a decrease in fleet capacity in demersal
trawl fleets. UK did not calculate indicators nor draw conclusions about the
balance between the fleet and its fishing opportunities.
The
STECF review indicates that most fleets were economically sustainable, with the
exception of the <10m and 12-18m beam trawlers and <10m longline fleets.
Biological indicators were not available in most cases, but the 18-40m demersal
trawl and seine vessels impacted five stocks at high biological risk. Many of
the smaller vessels (under 18m) showed a low vessel utilisation rate.
The
40m purse seine fleet relied on stocks fished above MSY levels. 
Conclusions
Although
more needs to be done, some progress was made since 2002 in closing the gap
between fleet capacity and fishing opportunities. The mix of different trends
among fleets segments does not make it possible to make generalised comments
about the trends in balance between capacity and opportunity for the whole of
the EU. 
A
number of stocks are fished above levels corresponding to MSY, and a number of
fleets segments are economically dependent on these stocks. Many Member States
have low vessel utilisation. The Commission, after considering the results of
the STECF analysis, consider that there is still a need for active fleet
capacity adjustment measures by Member States to facilitate attaining the MSY
objective fixed under the new Common Fisheries Policy.
The
obligation for Member States to adjust the fishing capacity of their fleets to
their fishing opportunities over time is maintained, and is reinforced under
the new CFP. In addition to existing obligations, Member States will have to
include in their reports an action plan for the fleet segments with identified
structural imbalance. In the action plan, Member States have to set out the
adjustment targets and tools to achieve the balance. It has to include a clear
time frame for the implementation of the action plan as well.
This
additional obligation can contribute further (and more rapidly) to the
achievement of the balance. The action plans will result in more transparency
on the Member States' targets and actions to remedy imbalance, and the time
frame for achieving the balance allows for close monitoring of Member States'
progress in implementing the plan. 
Under
the new CFP a proven lack of commitment of Member States to bring about the
balance between fleet capacity and the fishing opportunities may lead to
suspension or interruption of relevant Union financial assistance to a Member
State for certain expenditures under the new European Maritime and Fisheries
Fund. Future Member States reports and action plans will be instrumental in
monitoring the situation in this context.
The
combination of strengthened obligations for the Member States and the related
financial conditionality should ensure a progressive adaptation of the fleet
capacity to the fishing opportunities over time. The Commission will continue
to closely monitor this progress in light of the objectives of the CFP in
general and of the management of fishing capacity in particular.
Annex 1 A: Quality
of information
1
Qualitative and Descriptive Information
The table below shows the sections of the reports of those
Member States that have sent limited information. The relevant sections are
marked with an (X).  
   || Link-ages between fleets and fisheries || Fleet development || Description of effort reduction schemes || Impact of effort reduction schemes || Assessment of fleet management system || Plans to improve fleet management system || Statement of Compliance Entry/Exit scheme || Changes to admin. procedures || Assessment of balance 
 DE ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || X 
 FI ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || X ||   ||   || X 
 IE ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || X ||   ||   ||   
 IT || X || X || X || X ||   || X ||   || X || X 
 LT ||   ||   ||   || X ||   || X ||   ||   ||   
 PO ||   ||   ||   ||   || X ||   ||   ||   ||   
 SE ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || X ||   ||   ||   
 UK ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || X 
Source:
Table 3.2 of report STECF-13-11 Review of national reports on Member States
efforts to achieve balance between fleet capacity and fishing opportunities.
2.
Quantitative Information
Evaluating
the dependence of a fleet on stocks fished above MSY levels depends on the
availability of quantitative fish stock assessments. In the Mediterranean Sea
and the Black Sea, the coverage of biological assessments is not yet sufficient
in most cases for a fleet-based analysis of biological sustainability. This is
also the case for many fleets exploiting stocks in ICES areas VI, VII, VIII and
IX.
Information
on return on fixed tangible assets (ROFTA), and on the ratio between current
revenue and break even revenue (CR/BER)([8]) was
missing or incomplete for some Member States. Information on the numbers of
inactive vessels was provided by most Member States, but this information was
not complete.
Values
of the technical indicator (the average vessel days-at-sea divided by the
maximum for the fleet) were provided by most Member States but this information
was not complete. Seven Member States did not provide technical indicator
values in their national reports. 
Annex 1 B: Quality
of information ([9])
Annual
development in MS sum of score as percentage of maximum scores.
Source:
Figure 3.1 of report STECF-13-11 Review of national reports on Member States
efforts to achieve balance between fleet capacity and fishing opportunities.
The
table above shows that since 2008 the annual fleet report of Member State have improved both in terms of completeness and data quality.
Annex
2:

Table
2.1: Compliance with the entry-exit ceiling at 31.12. 2012 (Except outermost
regions)
   || GT || KW 
 GT || MAX GT || A/B || KW || MAX KW || C/D 
 A || B || C || D 
 at 31/12/2012 || at 31/12/2012 
 BEL BGR CYP DEU DNK ESP EST FIN FRA GRC IRL ITA LTU LVA MLT NLD POL PRT ROM SVN SWE UK || 15 053 7 071 4 248 63 618 64 348 364 354 15 149 16 146 152 452 80 693 60 141 165 370 27 186 33 797 7 998 128 886 25 573 86 840 628 653 30 652 201 092 || 18 962 7 517 11 021 71 117 88 762 391 602 21 713 18 290 178 261 85 688 77 568 173 717 73 529 46 627 14 965 166 859 39 139 95 077 1913 728 43 386 231 106 || 79.39% 94.07% 38.54% 89.46% 72.49% 93.04% 69.77% 88.28% 85.52% 94.17% 77.53% 95.20% 36.97% 72.48% 53.44% 77.24% 65.34% 91,34% 32.83% 89.70% 70.65% 87.01% || 47 794 60 950 45 782 146 086 228 563 822 115 46 325 169 972 695 496 468 894 183 820 1 020 785 34 389 51 231 76 660 276 357 75 865 297 913 6 185 9 188 173 440 805 930 || 51 586 60 654 47 803 167 078 313 333 886 578 52 641 182 334 769 739 478 398 210 083 1 071 389 73 484 58 759 95 776 350 736 90 583 315 650 6 410 9 503 210 829 909 141 || 92.65% 100.49% 95.77% 87.44% 72.95% 92.73% 88.00% 93.22% 90.35% 98.01% 87.50% 95.28% 46.80% 87.19% 80.04% 78.79% 83.75% 94.38% 96.49% 96.69% 82.27% 88.65% 
 Σ 31/12/2012 || 1 551 948 || 1 857 547 || 83.55% || 5 743 740 || 6 412 487 || 89.57% 
Source
EU Fleet Register – Fleet Management – Entry Exit Regime - Statistics, 15.10.
2013. 
Annex
3:

Table
3.1. Summary of Member States' fleet evolution during 2012 (except outermost
regions) 
   || GT || KW ||   ||   ||   
 N || GT || KW || N || GT || KW || Δ N(%) || Δ GT (%) || Δ KW (%) 
 31/12/2011 || 31/12/2012 || Δ 2011-2012 
 BEL BGR CYP DEU DNK ESP EST FIN FRA GRC IRL ITA LTU LVA MLT NLD POL PRT ROM SVN SWE UK || 86 2 336 1 080 1 580 2 786 9 571 923 3 332 4 640 16 658 2 092 13 063 151 731 1 054 740 790 7 110 502 184 1 368 6 453 || 15 326 7 373 4 213 64 294 64 503 373 465 14 281 16 028 153 998 83 807 59 571 175 393 45 216 34 725 7 996 135 585 33 379 86 826 934 1 002 29 642 202 317 || 49 135 61 307 45 329 148 277 232 469 841 788 38 915 171 167 701 022 483 390 182 307 1 056 757 54 357 52 684 77 489 288 415 82 890 299 565 7 714 10 763 170 472 810 306 || 83 2 366 1 074 1 550 2 743 9 257 1 360 3 241 4 571 16 006 2 249 12 736 147 715 1 043 848 798 7 048 195 174 1 392 6 427 || 15.059 7.061 4.247 64.236 65.177 362.781 15.157 16.386 151.972 79.638 65.173 164.668 27.186 33.789 7.998 145.271 33.399 85.992 628 623 30.637 200.937 || 47.554 61.336 45.664 147.292 230.131 819.429 46.570 170.681 694.670 461.531 197.648 1.019.161 34.389 51.203 76.660 331.306 81.944 296.196 6.153 8.812 173.377 806.120 || -3.5% 1.3% -0.6% -1.9% -1.5% -3.3% 47.3% -2.7% -1.5% -3.9% 7.5% -2.5% - 2.6% -2.2% -1.0% 14.6% 1.0% -0.9% -61.2% -5.4% 1.8% -0.4% || -1.7% -4.2% 0.8% -0.1% 1.0% -2.9% 6.1% 2.2% -1.3% -5.0% 9.4% -6.1% -39.9% -2.7% 0.0% 7.1% 0.1% -1.0% -32.8% -37.8% 3.4% -0.7% || -3.2% 0.0% 0.7% -0.7% -1.0% -2.7% 19.7% -0.3% -0.9% -4.5% 8.4% -3.6% -36.7% -2.8% -1.1% 14.9% -1.1% -1.1% -20.2% -18.1% 1.7% -0.5% 
 Σ || 77 230 || 1 609 874 || 5 866 515 || 76.023 || 1.578.015 || 5.807.827 || -1.6% || -2.0% || -1.0% 
Source
EU Fleet Register – Advanced Search, 15.10. 2013 
Annex
4
Table
4.1. EFF commitments in permanent cessation (2007 – 31.05. 2013)
   || %S || NS || %R || NR || %(S+R) || S+R 
 BE || 30.3% || 9 || 0.0% || 0 || 30.3% || 9 
 BG || 5.2% || 57 || 0.0% || 0 || 5.2% || 57 
 CY || 42.3% || 14 || 0.0% || 0 || 42.3% || 14 
 DE || 0.0% || 0 || 0.0% || 0 || 0.0% || 0 
 DK || 31.9% || 69 || 0.0% || 0 || 31.9% || 69 
 EE || 4.1% || 16 || 6.4% || 10 || 10.5% || 26 
 EL || 44.0% || 1011 || 0.0% || 0 || 44.0% || 1011 
 ES || 21.7% || 755 || 0.1% || 2 || 21.8% || 757 
 FI || 0.0% || 0 || 0.0% || 0 || 0.0% || 0 
 FR || 23.4% || 534 || 0.2% || 1 || 23.6% || 535 
 IE || 80.8% || 46 || 0.0% || 0 || 80.8% || 46 
 IT || 50.3% || 958 || 3.8% || 10 || 54.1% || 968 
 LT || 9.7% || 32 || 0.3% || 1 || 10.0% || 33 
 LV || 41.8% || 149 || 3.0% || 10 || 44.9% || 159 
 MT || 35.2% || 20 || 0.0% || 0 || 35.2% || 20 
 NL || 22.1% || 23 || 0.0% || 0 || 22.1% || 23 
 PL || 3.7% || 73 || 0.1% || 5 || 3.9% || 78 
 PT || 10.8% || 68 || 0.0% || 0 || 10.8% || 68 
 RO || 0.3% || 5 || 0.3% || 8 || 0.7% || 13 
 SE || 22.9% || 30 || 0.5% || 1 || 23.4% || 31 
 SI || 10.4% || 10 || 0.6% || 1 || 11.0% || 11 
 UK || 7.5% || 97 || 0.0% || 0 || 7.5% || 97 
 EU TOTAL || 17.6% || 3976 || 0.5% || 0 || 18.1% || 3976 
Source:
MS data based on formal request by DG MARE to submit cumulative EFF data for
the period 1 January 2007 to 31 May 2013.
%s:
Percentage of EFF commitments so far in scrapping; 
NS:
Number of scrapping operations (vessels); 
R%:
Percentage of EFF committed to reassignment of vessels; 
NR:
Number of reassignments (vessels);
%S
+
%R: Total percentage scrapping + reassignment
Annex 5
EFF commitments during the period 1/01/2007 - 31/07/2012
 Measure || Number of operations || Total cost || National public contribution || EFF contribution || % EFF committed compared to total MS committed || %EFF committed compared to EFF Total allocation 
 1.1: Permanent cessation of fishing activities || 3'691 || 840'586'705 || 364'754'604 || 475'112'883 || 19.61% || 11.04% 
 Action 1: Scrapping || 3'653 || 822'180'366 || 357'863'531 || 463'597'617 || 19.13% || 10.78% 
 Action 2: Reassignment for activities outside fishing || 38 || 18'406'340 || 6'891'074 || 11'515'266 || 0.48% || 0.27% 
 1.2: Temporary cessation of fishing activities || 47'809 || 303'379'641 || 118'971'042 || 184'404'717 || 7.61% || 4.29% 
 Action 1: Data 1: Number of fishers/day || 41'450 || 264'640'631 || 101'271'726 || 163'365'023 || 6.74% || 3.80% 
 Action 1: Data 2: Vessels concerned if appropriate || 6'359 || 38'739'010 || 17'699'317 || 21'039'694 || 0.87% || 0.49% 
 1.3: Investments on board fishing vessels and selectivity || 2'052 || 83'147'676 || 12'234'523 || 20'304'471 || 0.84% || 0.47% 
 Action 5: Improvement of energy efficiency || 490 || 50'508'625 || 7'403'213 || 12'447'674 || 0.51% || 0.29% 
 Action 6: Improvement of selectivity || 264 || 7'647'446 || 1'143'544 || 1'840'787 || 0.08% || 0.04% 
 Action 7: Replacement of engine || 523 || 17'053'672 || 2'668'272 || 4'180'453 || 0.17% || 0.10% 
 Action 8: Replacement of gear || 777 || 7'937'932 || 1'019'495 || 1'835'557 || 0.08% || 0.04% 
 1.4: Small-scale coastal fishing || - || - || - || - || 0.00% || 0.00% 
 1.5: Socio-economic compensations for the management of the fleet || 2'709 || 90'568'443 || 23'412'874 || 40'487'961 || 1.67% || 0.94% 
 Data 3: Total number of fishers concerned by early departure from the fishing sector || 2'709 || 90'568'443 || 23'412'874 || 40'487'961 || 1.67% || 0.94% 
 Total MS EFF Commitments || 60'818.00 || 2'823'214'370.52 || 762'634'778 || 1'157'287'915 || 47.77% || 26.90% 
Missing MS: BE (included until 1
June 2012), FR (No breakdown available)
Total
EFF allocation 4'302'229'775.00.  Total EFF committed by MS.2'422'797'726.39
Annex
6
Indicators
used by STECF
The
sustainable harvest indicator is intended to be a measure of how much a fleet
segment relies on overfished stocks. This measure does not take
account of the fact that some stocks in the mix of catches may be more or less
seriously overexploited or depleted, nor does it take account of the extent of
the impact of other fleets on the exploitation of the resources. 
Two
"Economic sustainability indicators" are used. The Return on Fixed
Tangible Assets (ROFTA) (a proxy for the Return on Investment) is a measure of
long-term economic health. It measures the net profit divided by the value of
capital investments. If this rate is higher than the risk-free interest
available elsewhere then the fleet is in a healthy economic state and is able
to replace large capital items as this becomes necessary. If the ROFTA is lower
than this rate this means that such investments are not worthwhile in financial
terms, because greater gains may be obtained by investing funds elsewhere.
Risk-free interest rates used for this reference purpose are given in Table 4.3
of the STECF expert Group report (STECF-13-28).
The
ratio "Current Revenue/Break-Even Revenue" (CR/BER) is a measure of
short-term viability. If it is less than one then vessels cannot cover their
operating costs and will have to stop fishing when they run out of cash; and
above one the vessels can cover their operating costs, but this does not mean
that they generate sufficient income to replace large capital items.
Two
measures are used to assess whether vessels are "fully utilised". A
"Technical Indicator" is defined as the ratio of the average time
spent at sea divided by the maximum feasible fishing time in the relevant
activity. It takes a value of unity when all vessels are fishing as much as
practicable, even though the fishing season may be short. Values less than one
indicate that parts of the fleet are fishing less than they could. A threshold
value of 70% is usually taken as a sign of a significant under-use. However,
some vessels may not fish at all in the entire year and are
"inactive". If there are many inactive vessels in a fishing fleet,
this is an indication that the fleet is not in balance with the resources. 
[1]               Article 11 of Council Regulation (EC) No. 2371/2002.
[2]               See art. 22 § 1 of Parliament and Council Regulation
(EC) No. 1380/2013. 
[3]               See Guidelines for an improved analysis of the
balance between fishing capacity and fishing opportunities, Version 1th March
2008. 
[4]               In accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No
199/2008 concerning the estabilishment of a Community framework for the
collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector and support for
scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Policy, Official Jurnal of The
European  Union, L 60/01, 05/03/2008, p.1.
[5]               Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for
Fisheries (STECF)  assessment of balance indicators for key fleet segments and
review of national reports on Member States efforts to achieve balance between
fleet capacity and fishing opportunities (STECF-13-28), available on web site http://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu/reports/balance.
[6]               Report from the Commission to the European Parliament
and the Council on Member States' efforts during 2011 to achieve a sustainable
balance between fishing capacity and fishing opportunities, COM(2103) 85 final
of 18 February 2012, Chapter 3.
[7]               See Annex II of Regulation No 1380/2013 on the
fishing capacity ceilings, Official Jurnal of The European Union, L 354/22,
28/12/2013, p. 58.
[8]               The break even revenue (BER)
is the revenue required to cover both fixed and variable costs so that no
losses are incurred and no profits are generated. The current revenue (CR) is
the total operating income of the fleet segment, which consists of income from
landings and non fishing income.
See also Annex VI.
[9]               Source Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee
for Fisheries (STECF) Assessment of balance indicators, above p.85.