COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT on the Agreement concluded between the General Confederation of Agricultural Co-operatives in the European Union (COGECA), the European Transport Workers' Federation (ETF) and the Association of National Organisations of Fishing Enterprises (EUROPÊCHE) of 21 May 2012 as amended on 8 May 2013 concerning the implementation of the Work in Fishing Convention, 2007 of the International Labour Organisation Accompanying the document the proposal for a Council Directive implementing the Agreement concluded between the General Confederation of Agricultural Co-operatives in the European Union (COGECA), the European Transport Workers' Federation (ETF) and the Association of National Organisations of Fishing Enterprises (EUROPÊCHE) of 21 May 2012 as amended on 8 May 2013 concerning the implementation of the Work in Fishing Convention, 2007 of the International Labour Organisation
Date: 2016-04-29
Institutions: Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion, European Commission
Subjects: International Labour Organisation, crew, fisherman, fishing regulations, fishing vessel, international convention, labour standard, sea fishing, working conditions

EN 

   EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 29.4.2016  SWD(2016) 144 final   COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  IMPACT ASSESSMENT  on  the Agreement concluded between the General Confederation of Agricultural Co-operatives in the European Union (COGECA), the European Transport Workers' Federation (ETF) and the Association of National Organisations of Fishing Enterprises (EUROPÊCHE) of 21 May 2012 as amended on 8 May 2013 concerning the implementation of the Work in Fishing Convention, 2007 of the International Labour Organisation Accompanying the document the proposal for a Council Directive   implementing the Agreement concluded between the General Confederation of Agricultural Co-operatives in the European Union (COGECA), the European Transport Workers' Federation (ETF) and the Association of National Organisations of Fishing Enterprises (EUROPÊCHE) of 21 May 2012 as amended on 8 May 2013 concerning the implementation of the Work in Fishing Convention, 2007 of the International Labour Organisation {COM(2016) 235 final} {SWD(2016) 143 final}  
 
 
Table of Contents 

1.  PROBLEM DEFINITION .......................................................................................... 6 

1.1.  Specific problems affecting the sector and its workers ..................................... 9 

1.1.1.  Problem  1:  Risk  and  the  seriousness  of  accidents  are  high  in  the 

sector ................................................................................................... 9 

1.1.2.  Problem 2:  Risk  and  the seriousness of occupational  diseases  are 

high in the sector ............................................................................... 11 
1.2.  Main drivers .................................................................................................... 12 
1.2.1.  Work related factors .......................................................................... 12 
Ineffective legal framework .............................................................. 14 
1.2.2. 
1.3.  Who is affected and how? ............................................................................... 17 
1.4.  How is the problem likely to evolve? .............................................................. 19 

2.  WHY SHOULD THE EU ACT? .............................................................................. 20 

2.1.  Why could Member States not achieve the objectives of this initiative? ........ 21 
2.2.  What is the EU added value? .......................................................................... 21 
2.3.  Assessment  of  the  representativeness  of  the  EU  social  partners  and  the 

legality of the clauses ...................................................................................... 24 
2.3.1.  Representativeness of the EU social partners .................................... 24 
2.3.2.  Legality of the clauses ....................................................................... 25 

3.  WHAT SHOULD BE ACHIEVED? ........................................................................ 26 

3.1.  General Objective ............................................................................................ 26 
3.2.  Specific objectives ........................................................................................... 26 
3.3.  Consistency with other EU policies and the Charter of Fundamental Rights. 26 

4.  POLICY OPTIONS................................................................................................... 27 

4.1.  Option 1 Baseline Scenario. ............................................................................ 27 
4.2.  Option  2  Implementation  of  the  agreement  by  a  Council  Directive  in 

accordance with Article 155 TFEU ................................................................. 28 

4.3.  Legal  analysis  of  the  differences  between  the  agreement  provisions,  the 

existing EU provisions and the national level ................................................. 29 
4.3.1.  Scope and applicability ..................................................................... 30 
4.3.2.  Minimum requirements for work on board fishing vessels ............... 31 
4.3.3.  Working time ..................................................................................... 34 
4.3.4.  Fisherman’s work agreement ............................................................ 36 
4.3.5.  Repatriation ....................................................................................... 38 
4.3.6.  Food and water on board ................................................................... 39 
4.3.7.  Right to medical treatment on board and ashore ............................... 40 
4.3.8.  Protection in case of work-related injury sickness and death ........... 41 
4.3.9.  Occupational safety and health: risk assessment ............................... 43 

5.  WHAT ARE THE IMPACTS AND WHO WILL BE AFFECTED? ...................... 44 

5.1.  Background ..................................................................................................... 44 

1 

 
 
Impact on the Member States .......................................................................... 45 
5.2. 
Impact on workers ........................................................................................... 46 
5.3. 
Impact on employers ....................................................................................... 47 
5.4. 
Impact on employment .................................................................................... 50 
5.5. 
Impact on competitiveness, SMEs and consumers ......................................... 51 
5.6. 
5.7. 
Impact on third countries ................................................................................. 52 
5.8.  Overview of costs and benefits ....................................................................... 52 

6.  COMPARISON OF THE OPTIONS ........................................................................ 55 

7.  HOW WOULD ACTUAL IMPACTS BE MONITORED AND EVALUATED? .. 57 

7.1.  Monitoring of the impacts ............................................................................... 57 
7.2.  Evaluation of the agreement ............................................................................ 57 

8.  ANNEXES ................................................................................................................ 58 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
BMI  

DCF 

EU 

EU LFS 

EU OSHA 

ESAW  

FTE 

GDP 

ILO 

ILC 

IMO 

IUU  

NACE 

OSH  

STCW-F  

TFEU 

List of abbreviations  

Body Mass Index  

Data  Collection  Framework  in  the  context  of  the 
Common Fisheries Policy 

European Union 

European Labour Force Survey 

EU Occupational Safety and Health Agency 

European Statistics Accidents at Work 

Full-Time Equivalents 

Gross Domestic Product 

International Labour Organisation 

International Labour Conference 

International Maritime Organisation 

Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated fishing 

Nomenclature Générale des Activités Economiques dans 
l'Union Européenne 

Occupational Safety and Health 

Standards of Training, Certification and Watch keeping 
for Fishing Vessel Personnel 

Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Background 

In accordance with Articles 152-155 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union 
(TFEU), the European Union promotes the dialogue between the social partners at European 
level,  including  through  consultations  on  EU  social  policy  initiatives,  and  support  to 
negotiations  and  joint  actions  of  the  social  partners.  According  to  Article  155(2)  TFEU, 
agreements between the European social partners can either be implemented autonomously by 
the  signatory  parties  and  their  affiliates  in  accordance  with  the  procedures  and  practices 
specific to management and labour and the Member States, or if they concern matters covered 
by  Article  153  TFEU,  through  EU  legislation  by  means  of  a  Council  Decision1  further  to  a 
proposal  from  the  Commission.  According  to  the  Treaty,  the  EU  social  partners  make  the 
decision to negotiate an agreement on an autonomous basis.  

In 2002, the International Labour Organisation (ILO)2 started discussions and the preparation 
of complete and up-to-date international social standards for working conditions in the fishing 
sector,  taking  into  account  the  technological  progress  in  the  sector.  The  ILO  had  already 
developed and adopted five Conventions relating to fishermen3. The last Convention had been 
adopted  in  1966.  The  new  standards  would  also  address  critical  issues  such  as  safety  and 
health  and  take  into  account  the  existing  differences  in  fishing  operations,  employment 
arrangements,  methods  of  remuneration  and  other  aspects4  The  EU,  its  Member  States, 
employers' representatives (in particular fishing vessel owners), and workers' representatives 
(in  particular  fishermen  representatives)  actively  participated  in  the  negotiations  and 
conclusion of the Work in Fishing Convention, 2007 (also referred to as ILO Convention C 
188),  which  was  adopted  at  the  96th  International  Labour  Conference  (ILC)  of  the  ILO  in 
20075.  All  EU  Member  States  voted  in  favour  of  the  Convention.  The  objectives  of  this 
Convention  are  to  ensure  that  fishermen  have  decent  living  and  working  on  board  fishing 
vessels with regard to working time, the details of their work agreement, accommodation and 
food, occupational safety and health protection, medical care and social security. It contains 
global  minimum  requirements.  It  will  apply  to  all  fishermen  and  fishing  vessels  engaged  in 
commercial fishing operations. It consolidates the four out of five existing ILO Conventions 
relating to fishermen6. 

1 The implementation of a social partner agreement in EU law, normally takes the form of a Directive. See for 
example  Directive  2009/13/EC,  which  implements  the  EU  social  partners'  agreement  on  the  ILO  Maritime 
Labour  Convention,  2006.  The  content  of  the  ILO  Maritime  Labour  Convention  is  similar  to  that  of  the  ILO 
Fishing  Convention.  However,  the  first  is  applicable  to  seafarers  and  not  to  fishermen.  Another  example  is 
Directive  Council  Directive  1999/70/EC  of  28  June  1999  concerning  the  framework  agreement  on  fixed-term 
work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP. 
2 The International Labour Organisation is a specialised agency of the United Nations with a tripartite structure, 
www.ilo.org 
3  C112  -  Minimum  Age  (Fishermen)  Convention,  1959  (No.  112),  C113  -  Medical  Examination  (Fishermen) 
Convention,  1959  (No.  113),  C114  -  Fishermen's  Articles  of  Agreement  Convention,  1959  (No.  114)  C125  - 
Fishermen's  Competency  Certificates  Convention,  1966  (No.  125),  C126  -  Accommodation  of  Crews 
(Fishermen) Convention, 1966 (No. 126) 
4 ILO Report " Conditions of work in the fishing sector: The constituents’ views" Report V(2) submitted to the 
International Labour Conference 2004. 
 http://www.ilo.org/public/english/standards/relm/ilc/ilc92/pdf/rep-v-2.pdf 
5http://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:12100:0::NO:12100:P12100_INSTRUMENT_ID:312
333:NO   
6  C112  -  Minimum  Age  (Fishermen)  Convention,  1959  (No.  112),  C113  -  Medical  Examination  (Fishermen) 
Convention,  1959  (No.  113),  C114  -  Fishermen's  Articles  of  Agreement  Convention,  1959  (No.  114),  C126  - 
Accommodation of Crews (Fishermen) Convention, 1966 (No. 126)  

4 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
The EU social partners in the sea fisheries sector ETF, Europêche and COGECA decided to 
enter  into  negotiations  with  an  aim  of  reaching  an  agreement  concerning  the  ILO  Work  in 
Fishing  Convention,  20077  at  the  end  of  2009.  Firstly  their  objective  was  to  promote  the 
ratification of the ILO Convention in order to create a level playing field for the sector in the 
EU.  Secondly  they  wanted  to  undertake  a  first  step  towards  codification  of  the  EU  social 
acquis in the sea fishing sector. They wanted to merge the provisions from the EU acquis and 
the ILO Convention C.188, in order to create a higher level of protection for fishermen in the 
EU.  The  EU  social  partners  were  of  the  opinion  that  EU  provisions  currently  applicable  to 
their sector were in need of updating. Thirdly, the EU social partners sought to improve the 
image of the sector, which they considered had deteriorated due to environmental issues, the 
decline  in  fish  stocks,  general  disinvestment  in  the  sector  but  also  unattractive  working 
conditions  for  young and  skilled  workers8.  The  agreement  was  concluded  on  21 May  2012, 
and  later  amended  on  8  May  2013.  On  10  May  2013,  the  EU  social  partners  requested  the 
Commission to implement their agreement by a Council decision according to Article 155(2) 
TFEU. 

The objective of the agreement is, in line with Article 153(1)(a) and (b) TFEU, to improve the 
working  and  living  conditions  of  workers  on  board  sea  fishing  vessels  with  regard  to 
minimum requirements for work on board (e.g. minimum age, medical certificate), conditions 
of  service  (e.g.  content  of  the  fisherman's  work  agreement,  working  time  limits,  right  of 
repatriation), accommodation and food, occupational safety and health protection and medical 
care, i.e. medical treatment on board and ashore, based on the ILO Convention's provisions.  

When management and labour jointly request implementation of their agreement by a Council 
decision based on a proposal of the Commission, in accordance with Article 155 (2) TFEU, 
the  Commission  can  either  accept  or  reject  this  request,  but  it  cannot  amend  the  text  of  the 
agreement. In accordance with the Better Regulation Guidelines9, and in order for the College 
to  take  an  informed  decision,  the  Commission  services  have  prepared  this  proportionate 
impact assessment which includes an assessment of the representativeness of the signatories, 
the legality of the agreement vis-à-vis the EU legal framework (See Section 2) and the respect 
of  the  subsidiary  and  proportionality  principles.  An  external  study  was  commissioned  to 
support  the assessment  of  cost  and  benefits  of  the  agreement.  This  study  was  conducted  by 
ICF International10. Given the transparency of the process and the role entrusted to the social 
partners by Article 155 TFEU, no additional public consultation has been carried out11  

7http://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:12100:0::NO:12100:P12100_INSTRUMENT_ID:312
333:NO  
8  ICF  International,  Study  on  Costs  and  Benefits  of  a  Council  Decision  implementing  the  European  sectoral 
social partners' Agreement concerning the implementation of the Work in Fishing Convention, 2007 of the ILO, 
November 2015 
9 SWD(2015) 111 final 
10  ICF  International,  "Study on  Costs  and  Benefits  of  a  Council  Decision  implementing  the  European  sectoral 
social partners' Agreement concerning the implementation of the Work in Fishing Convention, 2007 of the ILO", 
December 2015.  
11 http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/guidelines/tool_7_en.htm  

5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
1.  PROBLEM DEFINITION 

Characterisation of the sector 

At  a  global level,  Asia  dominates the  production  in  the  fishing  sector  worldwide.  It  has  the 
largest percentage of the world's fishing fleet (73%), followed by Africa (11%)12. China and 
Indonesia  count  for  a  quarter  of  the  global  fish  harvest.  Asian  countries  dominate  the 
production worldwide, but typically consume most of the fish production domestically. This 
is in particular the case in China13. The EU fisheries industry is the fourth largest in the world. 
Fishing  provides  jobs  for  over  100,000  people.  It  supplies  some  6.4  million  tonnes  of  fish 
each year14.  

Global  trade in  fish products  is  still dominated by EU Member States. Denmark,  Spain  and 
the  Netherlands  belong  to  the  global  top  ten  trading  nations  next  to  Norway,  Canada,  the 
United  States  and  Chile.  This  dominance  and  the  fact  that  the  EU  is  one  of  the  biggest 
importers  of  fish  products,  allow  the  EU  to  set  standards  that  influence  production  and 
processes worldwide.15.  

The sea fishing sector involves 23 EU Member States, which are coastal states. According to 
the  2015  Annual  Economic  Report  on  the  EU  Fishing  Fleet  (STECF  15-07),the  amount  of 
Gross Value Added (GVA) and gross profit (all excl. subsidies) generated by the EU fishing 
fleet (excl. Bulgaria, Cyprus, Greece and Malta16) in 2013 was €3.4 billion and €1.3 billion, 
respectively. GVA as a proportion of revenue was estimated at 49% and gross profit margin at 
20%. With a total net profit of €506 million for the EU fleet in 2013, 7.8% of the revenue was 
retained  as  net  profit.  Sixteen  out  of  nineteen  member  states  (excludes  Bulgaria,  Cyprus, 
Greece  and  Malta)  generated  net  profits  in  2013;  the  remaining  three  Member  States 
(Belgium, Finland and Portugal) generated net losses. 

In  most  Member  States,  the  share  of  single-vessel  enterprises  by  far  outweighs  those  with 
several  vessels.  The  share  of  such  enterprises17  is  largest  in  Lithuania  (where  100%  of 
enterprises consist of only one vessel), Belgium (98%), Finland (97%), Malta (97%), and the 
United  Kingdom  (96%).  Conversely,  Latvia  is  the  country  with  a  highest  number  of 
enterprises with more than 5 vessels, although this remains a comparatively low proportion of 
the total  number of enterprises  (5%)18. More than 100,000 people work on board vessels in 

12 The Work in Fishing Convention, 2007 (No. 188): Getting on board, Issues paper for discussion at the Global 
Dialogue  Forum  for  the  promotion  of  the  Work  in  Fishing  Convention,  2007  (No.  188),  Geneva,  15–17  May 
2013/International Labour Office, Sectoral Activities Department. Geneva, ILO, 2013, p. 2. 
13OECD (2015) Executive Summary, OECD  Review of Fisheries: Policies and Summary Statistics 2015, OECD 
Publishing, Paris.  
14 http://europa.eu/pol/fish/index_en.htm   
15 OECD (2015) Recent trends in OECD fisheries and aquaculture in OECD Review of Fisheries: Policies and 
Summary Statistics 2015, OECD Publishing, Paris 
16 Data from these Member States are not included in the 2015 The 2015 Annual Economic Report on the EU 
Fishing Fleet (STECF 15-07), due to data quality issues (see p. 3 of the report).  
17  In  terms  of  applicability  of  the  EU  OSH  legislation  to  fishing  vessels,  the  main  parameter  size  is  size. 
Directive 93/103/EC applies to fishing vessels 15 or 24 meters and over, whilst Directive 29/92/EEC (Medical 
treatment  on  board  vessels,  also  including  fishing  vessels)  as  well  as  Directive  89/391/EEC  and  its  individual 
directives (where relevant) apply in full to all fishing vessels irrespective of size. 
18 ICF study, p. 14-16 

6 

 
 
 
                                                 
this  sector.  Greece,  Italy  and  Spain  have  the  largest  fleets  in  terms  of  number  of  vessels19. 
Consequently, the number of enterprises in the sea fisheries sector is highest in those Member 
States  with  the  biggest  fleet  in  terms  of  vessels,  gross  tonnage  and  engine  power.  In  2012, 
Greece  was  the  country  with  the  largest  number  of  fishing  enterprises  (almost  14,000), 
followed by Spain, Italy, France, the United Kingdom and Portugal (See Annex 5).  

Structure of the sector 

Box 1: Some data concerning sea fisheries sector20 

Number of enterprises in the sector within the EU: 

Number of EU fishing vessels21   

Total number of fishermen in the EU22   

Total number of employed fishermen23   

Total number of self-employed without workers24 

Total number of self-employed with workers25   

61,274 

80,468 

108,482 

59,665 

29,290 

15,187 

Turnover sea fisheries sector:  

6.9 billion Euros 

In terms of employment, the countries with the largest fleet (Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal,) 
account for around more than half of the employment within the EU. Taking into account the 
countries  with  a  larger  fleet  such  as  France,  the  Netherlands,  Poland,  and  the  United 
Kingdom,  these  eight  countries  make  up  84%  of  the  sector  in  total  employment  terms  and 
87% in terms of FTE (See Annex 5). 

19 Greece had the largest fleet in 2013 (>16,000 vessels), followed by Italy (>14,000 vessels) and Spain (>10,000 
vessels) 
20  Employment  data  is  published  as  part  of  the  Labour  Force  Survey  (EU-LFS)  (agriculture,  farming  and 
fisheries). Data on the fisheries sector (level 3 NACE data) was requested specifically for this study. However, 
employment data is only available for 16 countries and is missing for BE BG, CY, DK, IE, LV, and SI. The EU 
LFS data was supplemented with national sources, ICF study, p.20-21 
21 EU vessel data 
22 This includes employed, self-employed and family workers, ICF Study, p.24 
23  Calculation  based  on  ICF  study,  table  7  Employment,  self-employment  and  family  workers  in  the  fisheries 
sector, 2014 
24 Total number of self-employed without workers ICF study p. 24 
25 This metric from the EU-LFS indicates the share of self-employed individuals who have employees. As the 
only available relevant data, this has been used as a proxy for the share of self-employed working on the same 
vessel with employees, ICF Study p, 24 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Table 1: Employment: workers, family workers and self-employment in the EU fisheries 
sector in 2014, by share of category out of total employees 

Row Labels 

Employee 

Family 
worker 

Total self 
employed 

Self-
employed 
with 
employees 
(out of total 
employees)26 

Self-
employed 
without 
employees 
(out of total 
employees) 

Lithuania 

100% 

Portugal 

Spain 

Germany 

Croatia 

Italy 

Poland 

Romania 

France 

United 
Kingdom 

Finland 

Estonia 

Netherlands 

Sweden 

Malta 

Greece 

EU28 

71% 

67% 

65% 

62% 

56% 

56% 

51% 

49% 

49% 

39% 

36% 

27% 

20% 

22% 

3% 

55% 

0% 

1% 

2% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

17% 

7% 

8% 

7% 

0% 

6% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

7% 

3% 

0% 

27% 

29% 

35% 

38% 

44% 

27% 

42% 

43% 

44% 

61% 

58% 

73% 

80% 

78% 

90% 

41% 

0% 

9% 

13% 

31% 

18% 

14% 

0% 

13% 

17% 

18% 

0% 

17% 

37% 

8% 

0% 

15% 

14% 

0% 

18% 

16% 

4% 

20% 

30% 

27% 

29% 

26% 

26% 

61% 

41% 

36% 

72% 

78% 

76% 

27% 

Source: LFS data available by special request [stapro].  

The  share  of  self-employed  in  the  sector  proved  difficult  to  determine,  due  to  the  lack  of 
comparable,  sufficiently  disaggregated  data27  and  also  due  to  the  fact  that  the  definition  of 
self-employed is determined at national level. An attempt was made to determine the number 
of self-employed based on the form of payment. Most fishermen who are paid on the basis of 
"crew  share28"  are  often  self-employed.  Some  Member  States  like  the  United  Kingdom  and 
the  Netherlands  consider  fishermen  paid  on  the  basis  of  crew  share  as  self-employed  while 
other  Member  States  consider  them  as  employees.  According  to  the  data  available29,  self-

26 This metric from the EU-LFS indicates the share of self-employed individuals who have employees. As the 
only available relevant data, this has been used as a proxy for the share of self-employed working on the same 
vessel with employees.  
27 Due to the size of the sector, the data in the sea fisheries sector are for statistical purposes aggregated with 
aquaculture  and  processing.  In  terms  of  employment  data  it  is  often  aggregated  further  with  agriculture  and 
forestry.  
28 This form of payment consists of a share of a catch minus costs. 
29The  data  of  the  EU-LFS  indicates  the  share  of  self-employed  individuals  who  have  employees.  As  the  only 
available relevant data, this has been used as a proxy for the share of self-employed working on the same vessel 

8 

 
 
 
                                                 
employment  is  limited  in  Estonia,  Spain,  Finland,  France,  Italy,  Latvia,  Portugal,  Romania 
and  Lithuania.  Self-employment  makes  up  around  30%  of  total  employment  in  Cyprus, 
Denmark, Finland, Italy, Malta, and Poland. On the other hand, in Greece, Ireland, Slovenia 
and  the  UK,  the  share  of  self-employment  in  the  sector  is  estimated  between  60-90%30.  No 
data exist, which links employment to  vessel size. For the EU as  a whole the share of self-
employed fishermen stands at 41% of total individuals working in the sector. Between 2008 
and 2014, EU-LFS data records stability in the share of self-employment in the sector at 41% 
(See Annex 5 for more details on employment in the sector). 

With regard to employment relationships, the sector is characterised by different employment 
relationships  such  as  part-time  or  seasonal,  informal  employment  relationships,  or 
employment  contracts  for  a  number  of  voyages.  The  shares  of  part-time  employment  were 
highest in the Netherlands (24%), followed by Romania (23%) and Finland (20%) and lowest 
in  Poland  (4%),  Greece  (5%)  and  France  (7%)31.  In  Spain,  there  is  no  obligation  to  have  a 
written employment contract. In some Member States, such as Slovenia fishing is a seasonal 
and part-time occupation.  

In  terms  of  vessel  size,  fleets  with  the  greatest  share  of  vessels  of  24  metres  and  over  are 
registered in Belgium (44% of the Belgian fleet), Lithuania (28%), the Netherlands (20%) and 
Latvia  (16%).  Smaller  fishing  vessels  (i.e.  under  12  meters)32  were  more  prevalent  in 
Romania  (98%)  and  Finland  (97%),  Bulgaria  (96%),  Cyprus  (96%),  Greece  (94%)  and 
Estonia (94%).  

Across those Member States making up the largest share of the EU fishing fleet, large vessels 
above  24  metres  were  relatively  more  prevalent  in  Spain  (8%),  whereas  small  vessels 
predominated in Greece (94%)33. 

1.1. 

Specific problems affecting the sector and its workers 

1.1.1.  Problem 1: Risk and the seriousness of accidents are high in the sector 

Comparing  the  risks  of  accidents  in  the  fishing  industry  with  those  for  other  occupational 
categories worldwide reveals that fishing is one of the most dangerous occupations worldwide 
both in terms of accidents at work and of occupational diseases. In 1999, the ILO estimated 
24,000 deaths among workers in the sector each year in the world, representing an incidence 
rate  of  80  per  100,000  workers.  The  risk  is  not  proportional  to  the  size  of  the  sector.  In 
addition, 24 million non-fatal accidents were estimated to take place per year. In the UK, the 
incidence rate of fatal accidents in the fisheries sector was 15 times higher than the national 
average.  In  Sweden  it  was  22  times  higher  than  the  national  average  and  in  Spain  8  times 
higher than the national average. In Denmark, from 1989 to 1996, the incidence rate was 25-

with  employees.  The  self-employed  working  on  the  same  vessel  alongside  employees  fall  under  certain 
conditions  within  the  scope  of  the  agreement  in  the  context  of  occupational  safety  and  health  conditions  (see 
section 4.3) 
30  ICF  study  and  European  Foundation  for  the  Improvement  of  Living  and  Working  Conditions  (2012) 
Representativeness  of 
fisheries.  Available  at: 
http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/eiro/studies/TN1105068S/tn1105068s_3.htm  
31 ICF study, p. 21 
32 In terms of scope of the existing OSH legislation, the parameter (size) is however slightly different, as small 
vessels are vessels less than 15 meters in length. 
33 ICF Study p.14 

social  partner  organisations:  Sea 

the  European 

9 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                         
30 times higher than the rate for those employed on land34. This trend remains within the EU 
and  worldwide35.  Although  the  number  of  fatal  accidents  decreased  over  the  period  2007-
2012 with an overall reduction of 11%, the national trends are very different. In six Member 
States the number of accidents increased. 17 Member States saw no change in the number of 
accidents. In four Member States, the number of accidents decreased36.  

The  number  of  non-fatal  accidents  has  been  decreasing.  However,  they  still  occur  at  rates 
much higher than the national average. Furthermore, underreporting of this type of accidents 
in the sector needs to be taken into account. Cuts, scratches, injuries, lashes and bruises are 
generally not even considered as accidents, but simply as part of the job37. The risk of being 
involved  in  a  non-fatal  accident  is  2.4  times  greater  in  the  fishing  activity  when  compared 
with  other  industrial  sectors.  The  scale  of  employment  in  the  sector  alone  does  not  explain 
these results38. According to research, almost 70% of the accidents happen at sea. In a 2009 
survey39,  69%  of  persons  working  in  the  sector  reported  that  their  most  recent  accident  at 
work or in the course of the work resulted in sick leave in the past 12 months40. Because of 
the  seriousness  of  the  accidents  occurring  in  the  sector,  workers  are  normally  absent  longer 
than in other sectors. Out of 4,453 total non-fatal accidents in the sector, a large proportion led 
to  7  and  more  days  of  absence  in  2012,  whereas  the  proportion  of  accidents  leading  to  less 
than 6 days of absence was relatively small. This leads to increased social security costs and 
reduced output for the employer41.  

Table 2 Working days lost linked to accidents in the fishing and aquaculture 
sector (2012), by total number of accidents42  

Less than one 
week 

one week to one 
month 

one month to six 
months 

more than six 
months 
(permanent 
incapacity) 

2008 

2012 

2008 

2012 

2008 

2012 

2008 

2012 

ES 

PT 

UK 

IT 

DE 

IE 

217 

142 

1,668 

1,311 

915 

0 

0 

17 

0 

61 

41 

0 

16 

0 

36 

0 

0 

142 

0 

81 

460 

414 

0 

85 

0 

21 

0 

79 

0 

41 

908 

340 

0 

58 

0 

14 

33 

0 

0 

33 

0 

0 

87 

31 

0 

22 

0 

0 

34 FAO Fisheries Circular no.966: Safety at sea as an integral part of fisheries management, 2001 
35 Handbook for improving living and working conditions on board fishing vessels, ILO 2010 
36 ICF study, p. 34-36 
37  Report  From  The  Commission  To  The  Council,  The  European  Parliament,  The  European  Economic  And 
Social Committee And The Committee Of The Regions on the practical implementation of Health and Safety at 
Work Directives 93/103/EC, COM(2009)599 final (fishing vessels) and 92/29/EEC (medical treatment on board 
vessels) 
38 ICF study, p. 33 
39 TNO (2009); Health and safety at work: Results of the Labour Force Survey 2007 ad hoc module on accidents 
at work and work-related Health and safety at work  
40  This  is  likely  an  underestimate  for  the  sea  fisheries  sector,  as  non-fatal  accidents  are,  as  explained, 
underreported in the sector.  
41 ICF study, p.32 

10 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
Less than one 
week 

one week to one 
month 

one month to six 
months 

more than six 
months 
(permanent 
incapacity) 

DK 

EL 

HR 

FR 

PL 

FI 

MT 

SE 

EE 

LT 

SV 

CY 

RO 

BE 

BG 

LV 

NL 

4 

0 

5 

0 

3 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

6 

0 

10 

1 

0 

4 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

2 

22 

25 

16 

17 

11 

2 

9 

1 

2 

0 

0 

4 

0 

2 

0 

35 

18 

10 

17 

6 

8 

8 

4 

0 

1 

3 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

25 

3 

6 

18 

7 

4 

2 

4 

5 

1 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

17 

12 

10 

6 

8 

2 

2 

0 

6 

0 

0 

0 

2 

0 

0 

0 

0 

2 

0 

2 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

3 

0 

3 

3 

2 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

EU28 

310 

348 

2,011 

2,002 

1,114 

1,389 

72 

154 

Source: ICF study: analysis of EU-LFS [hsw_n2_04] data  

1.1.2.  Problem 2: Risk and the seriousness of occupational diseases are high in 

the sector  

At EU level, in 2007, 13.6% of fishermen reported one or more work-related health problems 
in the past 12 months. This is slightly higher than the EU average for all activities which is 
12.8%. In 2007, 20.6% of persons in the EU fishing sector also reported exposure to factors 
that  can  adversely  affect  mental  well-being,  such  as  stress  and  long  working  hours.  This 
number is higher than in all activities where this amounts to 16.6%. However, this percentage 
dramatically  increases  when  this  concerns  factors  affecting  physical  well-being.  In  2007, 
64.8%  of  persons  in  the  EU  fishing  sector  reported  exposure  to  factors  that  can  adversely 
affect  physical  well-being,  such  as  weather  conditions  and  working  with  heavy  equipment. 
The average EU percentage for all NACE43 activities amounted to 39.8%44 (See for detailed 
explanation section 1.2).  

43 The NACE code system is the European standard for industry classifications and was introduced in 1970. In 
1990  a  revised  version  became  applicable.  NACE  stands  for  "Nomenclature  Generale  des  Activites 
Economiques dans I`Union Europeenne" (General Name for Economic Activities in the European Union). 

11 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
1.2.  Main drivers 

1.2.1.  Work related factors  

This has been confirmed by international, EU and national studies from the UK, Greece and 
France over the years45. Fishermen have to work in a cramped and slippery workplace that is 
constantly  moving.  Due  to  increasing  competition  in  the  sector  and  due  to  fact  that  fishers 
depend on fish stock, they often work, irregular hours which causes fatigue and thus increases 
the risks to safety and health. They are not only exposed to risks when at sea but also when at 
port,  while  loading  or  unloading  the  catch,  making  reparations  and  boarding  or  leaving  the 
vessel. In addition fishing vessels  are normally isolated from immediate health care and the 
medical facilities available on shore.  

According to a report by the European Parliament46 on this issue, the four main categories of 
factors leading to accidents at work in the fishing sector are: 

  The  first  category  is  human-related  factors.  This  can  be  fatigue,  stress,  poor 
maintenance, and routine or navigation errors. These are the main causes for accidents.  
  Another cause of accidents lies in technical factors such as failure to respect parallel 
standards  during  the  design,  the  use  of  outdated  and/or  worn  out  equipment,  the 
absence or the poor functioning of alarm systems and fire-fighting systems. About a 
quarter of the accidents are caused by these factors. 

  The nature of the work itself and tasks involved, such as heavy lifting, risks of slips 
and trips on board vessels and work with potentially hazardous equipment in difficult 
environmental conditions also has a role to play. 

  Finally,  external  environmental  factors  which  mainly 

include  meteorological 

conditions are also the causes of accidents at work in the sea fisheries sector.  

There is a relation between accidents caused by human factors and the working conditions on 
board vessels.  Accidents are often caused by fatigue due to long  working hours, inadequate 
health and safety circumstances or working conditions. The risk of accidents to crews of small 
fishing vessels seems higher47 than on large vessels due to the small number of crew and the 
many tasks carried out - often at the same time48. 

Regarding illnesses, the prevalence of the following diseases seem to be linked to the working 
conditions in the sector:  

  musculoskeletal  (musculoskeletal  problems  have  been  identified  by  several  studies 
because  of  the  use  of  heavy  equipment  and  heavy  manual  work,  e.g.  handling  the 
fishing gear and the catch, reparation of nets)  

44 ICF study, p. 40 
45 A detailed overview is presented in the ICF study, p.34.  
46  European  Parliament,  Directorate  for  Research:  Safety  and  the  causes  of  accidents  in  The  fisheries  sector, 
2000 
47 Incidence rates for accidents tend to be higher on small vessels (Ref. e.g. Jensen et al., 2014  -  A review of 
fatal accident rate trends in Fishing, http://czasopisma.viamedica.pl/imh/article/download/IMH.2014.0011/27190 
48 
fisheries 
and 
Safety 
http://www.beswic.be/en/faq/osha_help_center_view?SearchableText=&category=fisheries 

at  Work, 

European 

Agency 

Health 

FAQ 

for 

12 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                         
 

respiratory (often caused by weather conditions49, breathing gases, personal habits and 
life style) 

  Cardiovascular incidents, (data on Body Mass Index (BMI)50 and mortality show that 
fishermen are a particularly exposed occupational group. The BMI of fishermen seems 
to  be  larger  than  average  (BMI  is  considered  as  an  indicator  for  e.g.  cardiovascular 
diseases and diabetes.)  

  hearing impairment as an effect of exposure for several hours to the continuous noise 

of the boat’s engine,  

  stress,  fatigue  and  psychological  problems,  for  example,  due  to  long  working  hours 
unevenly divided between periods of intense activity, pressure to work fast, prolonged 
isolation,  lack  of  private  space,  sleep  disturbance  and  disturbed  sleep  rhythm,  night 
work, and other working conditions such as noise51, ship motions52. 

As an example, a study on Andalusian fishermen found that the main disorders reported were 
musculoskeletal disorders, respiratory diseases, diseases of the digestive system, eye problems 
and skin problems. A total of 72% fishermen participating in the study reported taking some 
self-prescribed  medication,  and  60%  of  fishery  workers  smoked.  Nine  percent  of  fishery 
workers  admitted  taking  illicit  drugs  and  3%  reported  using  illicit  drugs  on  board.  The 
workers indicated that  diets  on board were  poorly balanced.  While on board, 62%  of crews 
reported  a  subjective  significant  worsening  of  their  previous  health  condition.  Some 
fishermen were reportedly still going to sea with conditions incompatible with working at sea, 
such as insulin dependent diabetes and angina. According to the study prevention and medical 
checks before being allowed or considered to work are therefore very important53.  

A study on Polish coastal fishermen reports the same main illnesses as the Andalusian study. 
In  order  to  improve fishermen's health  and their working  conditions the report indicates the 
importance  of  good  quality  food  and  water,  working  time  limits  and  risk  assessment  to 
eliminate  or  reduce  risks  related  to  the  work  environment  and  the  importance  of  medical 
checks prior to employment on board. In addition, self-awareness of risks should be raised54.  

At EU level, the percentage of persons reporting one or more work-related health problems in 
the past 12 months in 2007 is higher in the EU fishing sector than the average for all activities 
with  13.6%  (compared  to  12.8%).  In  2007,  20.6%  of  persons  in  the  EU  fishing  sector  also 
reported  exposure  to  factors  that  can  adversely  affect  mental  well-being.  This  number  is 
higher  than  in  all  activities  where  this  amounts  to  16.6%.  However,  this  percentage 

49  Weather  conditions  (unprotected  exposure  to  UV-radiation  and  decreased  immune  system  from  working  in 
cold conditions) can also have an impact in the health of the workers. 
50  Body  Mass  Index  (BMI)  is  an  established  measure  utilized  by  physicians  and  health  experts  to  determine 
weight status (i.e. underweight, overweight or within a healthy weight range).  
51 An OSH hazard that may contribute to fatigue is noise (e.g. from and in the engine room). Noise also impedes 
concentration  and  communication  and  can  cancel  other  noises  related  to  safety,  e.g.  alarms.  Rest  periods  on 
board can also be not long enough for the ear to recover, which is worsened by the fact that workers often do not 
leave  the  vessel  once  their  working  day  is  finished.  Noise  is  a  constant  feature  during  rest  hours  as  well  as 
working hours often affecting the entire crew. (Rodriguez et al., 2012 –International regulations on labour health 
and safety applied to fishing and maritime transport sectors. Are maritime workers under-protected?, Int Marit 
Health 2012; 63,3:117-124. 
52 ICF study, p. 39 
53 Novalbos Et Al.: Occupational Health In Andalusian Fisheries, Occupational Medicine 2008;58:141–143 
54  Maria  Jezewska,  Marta  Grubman-Nowak,  Irena  Leszczyñska,  Bogdan  Jaremin,  Occupational  hazards  for 
fishermen in the workplace in Polish coastal and beach fishing — a point of view, Int Marit Health,2012; 63, 1: 
40–48 

13 

 
 
                                                 
dramatically  increases  when  this  concerns  factors  affecting  physical  well-being.  Indeed,  the 
same  year,  64.8%  of  persons  in  the  EU  fishing  sector  reported  exposure  to  factors  that  can 
adversely  affect  physical  well-being  which  is  by  far  more  important  than  the  average  EU 
number for all NACE activities amounting to 39.8%55.  

1.2.2.  Ineffective legal framework 

International legal framework for fishermen has not entered into force 

There  is  a  number  of  international  Conventions  for  the  sea  fishing  sector,  which  have  been 
concluded within the framework of the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) that deal 
with the safety on board the vessel, such as the Torremolinos International Convention for the 
Safety of Fishing Vessels 1977, the 1993 Torremolinos Protocol, the Cape Town Agreement 
of 201256 and the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watch 
keeping  for  Fishing  Vessel  Personnel,  1995  (STCW-F)57  (see  Annex  6).  However,  with  the 
exception  of  the  STCW-F.,  they  have  not  entered  into  force  due  to  lack  of  ratifications  by 
IMO  Member  States.  The  slow  pace  of  ratification  has  different  reasons  depending  on  the 
country and the Convention: some countries mention the complexity of implementation and 
the  narrow  scope  of  application,  developing  countries  considered  the  1993  Torremolinos 
Protocol  would  be  too  onerous  for  them  to  apply,  while  other  countries  believed  that  their 
fishing  fleet  was  already  adequately  covered  by  national  legislation.  The  2012  Cape  Town 
agreement  amended  the  Torremolinos  Protocol  in  an  attempt  to  trigger  further  ratifications, 
but this has only resulted in five ratifications as of January 2016.  

While previous ILO conventions concerning the living and working conditions of fishermen 
have been ratified. They have only been ratified by a few EU Member States58.  

Table 3: Ratification by EU Member States of ILO Conventions in the sea fisheries 

ILO Convention 

Ratifications by EU Member States 

Total 

C.112  Ratifications  of  C112  - 
Minimum  Age 
(Fishermen) 
Convention 

Convention  112  was  superseded  by 
Convention  138  on  the  minimum  age, 
which is a fundamental ILO Convention. 
It  applies  to  all  workers.  It  is  ratified  by 
all  28  Member  States.  Therefore 
Convention 112 was denounced.59 

C.113 Medical Examinations   BE, BG, DE, ES, FR, HR, NL and PL  

C.114 Fisherman’s Agreement   BE, CY, DE, ES, FR, IT, NL and UK 

28 

8 

8 

http://www.imo.org/en/About/Conventions/ListOfConventions/Pages/The-Torremolinos-International-

55 ICF report, p. 35 
56 
Convention-for-the-Safety-of-Fishing-Vessels.aspx 
57  https://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/HumanElement/Pages/STCW-F-Convention.aspx    Only  five  EU  Member 
States have ratified it so far: Denmark, Spain, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland. 
58http://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=1000:11001:0::NO:  Previous  ILO  Conventions  have  been  ratified  by 
eight or nine of the 23 EU Member States see www.ilo.org.  
59 http://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=1000:11300:0::NO:11300:P11300 _INSTRUMENT_ ID:312257  

14 

 
 
                                                 
C.125 
Competency Certificates 

Fisherman’s 

BE, DE and FR 

C.126  Accommodation 
Crews 

of 

BE, DE, EL, ES, FR, NL, SI and UK 

3 

8 

Belgium, France and Germany have ratified all the ILO Conventions mentioned above. The 
Netherlands and Spain  have ratified four out  five Conventions. As shown by Table 3,  these 
Conventions dealt only with a few aspects of the living and working conditions for fishermen. 
They did not include important issues such as the quality of food and water on board, health 
and  safety  at  work,  the  content  of  the  employment  agreement,  working  time,  medical 
treatment  on  shore,  and  repatriation.  Some  Member  States  found  the  previous  Conventions, 
such as Convention C. 126 on accommodation too detailed60. Due to the developments in the 
sector, these Conventions, dating from the 1960s, were considered outdated. In 2002, the ILO 
started  working  on  a  complete  and  up-to-date  set  of  international  standards  for  the  fishing 
sector, in order to guarantee proper protection for fishers on a global scale61.  

The resulting ILO  Work  in  Fishing Convention, 2007 which all  EU Member States and the 
representative organisations of employers and workers supported at the time of adoption, has 
not yet entered into force62. It will only come into force twelve months after ratification by ten 
Member States of the ILO, of which eight are coastal States. According to the ILO database, 
as of January 2016, seven countries63 had ratified the Convention. 

Voting in favour of an ILO Convention does not automatically lead to its ratification. The EU 
can authorise the Member States to ratify this Convention, but it cannot oblige the Member 
States  to  do  so.  The  EU  authorised  Member  States  to  ratify  the  ILO  Work  in  Fishing 
Convention,  2007  by  Council  Decision  2010/321/EU64.  The  decision  to  ratify  an  ILO 
Convention is taken by the legislative authority of each EU Member State. As Member States 
are not obliged to ratify or give reasons for not ratifying, it is therefore not sure whether (and 
if so, when) all 23 Member States will ratify. This process can take several years. Currently, 
only  France  ratified  the  ILO  Work  in  Fishing  Convention,  2007.  In  case  of  a  similar 
Convention, the ILO Maritime Labour Convention, ratification by all the EU Member States 
has not yet been completed, almost 10 years after the signing of the Convention.  

Furthermore,  some  EU  Member  States  might  delay  ratification  as  they  are  aware  of  the 
request of the EU social  partners to implement their agreement in  EU law. They expect the 
EU to come forward with a proposal.   

improving 

living  and  working  conditions  on  board  fishing  vessels,  2010 

60  B.  Saenen  (2014)  The  Causal  Relation  Between  the  European  Union's  Coherence  and  Effectiveness  in 
International Institutions, Centre for European Studies, University of Ghent.  
61  ILO  Handbook  for 
http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_dialogue/---ector/documents/publication/wcms_162323.pdf 
62 The Convention was adopted during the International Labour Conference, 2007 of the ILO with 437 votes in 
favour,  2  votes  against,  with  22  abstentions.  http://www.ilo.org/public/english/standards/relm/ilc/ilc96/pdf/pr-
25.pdf 
63 Argentina, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Congo, France, Morocco, Norway, and South Africa 
64 Council Decision of 7 June 2010 authorising Member States to ratify, in the interests of the European Union, 
the Work in Fishing Convention, 2007, of the International Labour Organisation (Convention No 188)  
OJ L 145, 11.6.2010, p. 12–12 

15 

 
 
 
                                                 
Ratification by some of the EU Member States would lead to continuing different standards, 
in  particular,  on  issues  which  are  not  yet  included  in  the  EU  acquis,  such  as  medical 
certificates  for  fishermen,  the  right  to  repatriation,  medical  treatment  on  shore.  Different 
working  conditions  for  fishermen  within  the  EU  would  exist.  In  addition,  this  would  lead 
different competitive positions between the Member States who have ratified the Convention 
and who have not. 

EU Framework exists but is fragmented and not fully adapted to the specific features of the 
sector  

EU legal provisions relevant to fishermen's living and working conditions are laid down in a 
number  of  legal  instruments,  notably  EU  labour  law  Directives  and  the  EU  occupational 
safety and health (OSH) legislation65.  

However,  despite  the  fact  that  quite  a  number  of  OSH  issues  are  already  covered  and 
addressed by the existing EU OSH acquis, a number of OSH provisions are limited to vessels 
of  15  meters  and  over  (e.g.  requirements  on  accommodation  on  board  vessels  such  as 
ventilation, lighting, emergency exits etc.). The vessels below 15 meters are not covered by 
those  specific  provisions.  The  agreement  covers  in  principle  all  fishing  vessels66.  Some 
provisions are specifically addressed to vessels of a length of 24 meters or more or normally 
staying more than three days at sea.   

Certain aspects of the living and working conditions such as the right to medical treatment on 
shore, compensation in case of occupational diseases and injuries and an obligatory medical 
certificate  certifying  the  fitness  for  work  of  fishermen67  are  not  featured  in  the  existing  EU 
OSH acquis. Other issues are covered by the EU acquis but in a broader way than in the ILO 
C.188  Convention.  For  example  the  current  acquis  only  contains  specific  provisions  on 
refrigerators or low-temperature food-storage equipment68 and the precaution measures to be 
taken  in  relation  to  cooking  and  domestic  appliances  using  heavy  gases69,  but  it  does  not 
contain a right to food of sufficient quality and quantity and the right to potable water to be 
provided  to  fishermen  who  live  and  work  on  the  vessel70.  An  obligation  of  an  employer  to 
carry  out  a  risk  assessment  exists,  but  it  does  not  foresee  active  participation  of  workers  in 

65 A detailed description of the relevant acquis is provided in section 4 
66 Article 1(h) of the agreement: "fishing vessel or vessel means any ship or boat, flying the flag of a Member 
State or registered under the plenary jurisdiction of a Member State, of any nature whatsoever, irrespective of 
the form of ownership, used or intended to be used for the purpose of commercial fishing"; 
67 Which already exists for seafarers - Clause 13 of the Annex to Council Directive 1999/63/EC of 21 June 1999 
concerning  the  Agreement  on  the  organisation  of  working  time  for  of  seafarers  concluded  by  the  European 
Community Shipowners’Association (ECSA) and the Federation of Transport Workers’ Unions in the European 
Union (FST), OJ L 167, 22.7.1999, and p.33-37.  
68 Directive 93/103/EC Annex I, point13.3 and Annex II point 13.2  
69 Directive 93/103/EC contains the requirement for cooking and domestic appliances using heavy gases to be 
used  only  in  well  ventilated  spaces  with  care  being  taken  to  avoid  dangerous  accumulation  of  gas.  (Annex  I, 
point 2.9 and Annex II, point 2.9 
70 Directive 93/103/EC contains the requirement for cooking and domestic appliances using heavy gases to be 
used  only  in  well  ventilated  spaces  with  care  being  taken  to  avoid  dangerous  accumulation  of  gas.  (Annex  I, 
point 2.9 and Annex II, point 2.9 

16 

 
 
                                                 
it71. On many of these issues, Member States have taken very different approaches72 (see legal 
analysis in 4.3 below) leading to an unlevelled playing field among EU firms in the sector.  

Similarly  EU  labour  law  Directives,  apply  to  fishermen.  However,  these  rules  apply  to  all 
workers,  and  are  not  adapted  to  the  fisher's  specific  working  conditions.  Contrary  to  shore 
workers, sea fishermen often live and work at their workplace. The right to medical treatment 
ashore and the right of repatriation when a vessel enters into a foreign port are for instance not 
covered  by  the  current  EU  Labour  Law  rules,  while  similar  provisions  exist  for  seafarers73. 
The  employment  agreement  of  the  fishermen  needs  to  specify  the  number  of  voyages  for 
which the fisherman is hired. This is an important aspect for fishermen who can be hired for 
one  or  more  voyages  and  for  the  fishermen  who  do  not  have  at  this  moment  a  written 
employment agreement. The owner of the fishing  vessel is often the employer. He  may not 
always be on board. Since the skipper of the vessel has a number of responsibilities during the 
voyage with regard to the crew, he would need to have access to the employment agreement 
while the fishermen are on board of the vessel. There are however no provisions on the need 
to carry the employment agreement of the fishermen on board.  

Inspections  tend  to  focus  on  safety  first.  Working  and  living  conditions  come  second  In 
addition  the  difficulty  of  performing  inspections  of  actual  working  conditions  is  the  major 
practical  problem:  these  are  seldom  carried  out  at  sea,  when  the  fishermen  are  actually 
working. Therefore involvement of the social partners and fishermen who work on the vessel 
is  important  in  this  respect.  In  terms  of  prevention,  their  involvement  in  risk  assessment  is 
indispensable. Risk assessments are compulsory under the current acquis. Practice shows that 
sometimes it is done as a simple check-list, which has no effect. Where risk assessments have 
been really implemented in practice, the experience shows that it has encouraged a discussion 
on the risks and preventative measures74.  

1.3.  Who is affected and how? 

Workers 

The  sector  differs  from  the  land  based  sectors  in  that  the  work  takes  place  on  board,  in  a 
closed  and  often  times  cramped  workplace.  It  is  an  isolated  workplace,  normally  at  some 
distance of the nearest land. This is particularly the case for the distant water fleet. Fishermen 
often live and work often for days on board of the vessel in difficult circumstances with heavy 
equipment. They often do not return to their homes on a daily basis, so they are dependent on 
inter  alia,  for  medical  care  on  board,  food,  potable  water,  and 
their  employer, 
accommodation.  

71 Article 11 1) and 2) c) of Directive 89/391/EEC foresees that the employer shall consult workers and/or their 
representatives and allow them to participate in discussions on all questions relating to safety and health at work 
and participate or be consulted in advance in regard to the information relating to the assessment of the risks. 
72 ICF study page 72 
73  According  to  the  agreement  the  fisherman  has  the  right  to  repatriation  in  case  of  individual  dismissal  or 
inability to carry out his duties or in case his employment contract expires.  
74  Report  from  the  Commission  to  the  Council,  the  European  Parliament,  the  European  Economic  And  Social 
Committee  and  the  Committee  of  the  Regions  on  the  practical  implementation  of  Health  and  Safety  at  Work 
Directives 93/103/EC, COM(2009)599 final 

17 

 
 
 
                                                 
The  workers  in  this  sector  are at a high  risk  of  both  fatal  and  non-fatal  accidents. The  high 
number  of  accidents  cannot  be  explained  by  the  size  of  the  sector  as  the  risk  faced  by  the 
fishers is not proportional to the size of the sector. Fatal accidents lead to loss of lives and, for 
the dependants of the worker, to a loss of income. Non-fatal accidents lead to absences from 
work and loss of income. Il-health due to occupational diseases or the after-effects of injuries 
and  accidents  have  a  negative  impact  on  workers'  well-being  and  push  them  to  leave  the 
sector.  In  a  2009  survey75,  69%  of  persons  working  in  the  sector  reported  that  their  most 
recent  accident  at  work  or  in  the  course  of  the  work  resulted  in  sick  leave  in  the  past  12 
months.  At  EU  level,  the  percentage  of  persons  reporting  one  or  more  work-related  health 
problems in the past 12 months in 2007 was higher in the EU fishing sector than the average 
for all activities with 13.6% (compared to 12.8%). The high numbers cited, do not, however, 
reflect the real figures as accidents and injuries are underreported in the sector. This could be 
linked  to  the  perception  amongst  fishers  that  cuts  bruises  and  injuries  are  not  occupational 
accidents,  but  simply  part  of  the  job.  However,  the  members  of  the  International  Maritime 
Organization  (IMO)  decided  that  the  collection  and  analysis  of  statistical  information  on 
casualties,  including  fishing  vessels  and  fishermen,  should  be  prepared  on  an  annual  basis, 
they  acknowledged  in  1999  that  there  had  been  very  limited  response76.  (For  a  detailed 
description, see section 1.1.1 and 1.2.1).  

Employers 

For employers, a high rate of accidents, occupational injuries and diseases leads to employers' 
loss of output and higher costs due to the absences and the need to replace staff. Accidents in 
the fisheries sector tend to lead to long periods of absence. In 2012, a total of 4,423 non-fatal 
accidents were reported at EU level. About 45% resulted in an absence of between a week and 
a month, 31% to an absence of 1 to 6 months, and 3% to 6 months to a year77. 

Occupational diseases also lead to a higher staff turn-over as trained and skilled staff can no 
longer work in the sector and tends to leave the sector. Hard working conditions and a high 
rate of accidents and injuries makes fishing unattractive for young and skilled workers78. 

In  Member  States  where  the  employer  has  to  pay  sickness  benefit  in  case  of  a  prolonged 
period  of  time,  it  leads  also  to  higher  costs  for  the  employer.  In  case  of  compensation  for 
occupational injury and death, this can lead to higher insurance premiums. 

National authorities 

For  national  authorities  a  high  number  of  occupational  accidents,  injuries  and  diseases  in  a 
sector  have  consequences  in  terms  of  social  security  costs  (sickness  benefits,  incapacity 
benefits, and social assistance) and healthcare costs. 

75 TNO (2009); Health and safety at work: Results of the Labour Force Survey 2007 ad hoc module on accidents 
at work and work-related Health and safety at work  
76  FAO  (2001)  Fisheries  Circular  N0.  966  FIIT/C966:  Safety  At  Sea  as  an  Integral  Part  of  Fisheries 
Management 
77 ICF study, p.38 
78  ICF  study,  p.  45.  With  regard  to  young  people  this  is  reportedly  the  case  in  Belgium,  where  finding  an 
appropriate  crew  remains  a  challenge  for  many  vessel  owners.  Young  potential  fishermen  prefer  to  work  for 
dredging companies or in the tourism industry. Source: 2015 Annual Economic Report on the EU Fishing Fleet, 
p.  25.  The  British  Safety  Council  also  indicated  this:  British  Safety  Council  (2015)  Safety  Management,  the 
Troubled  Waters  of  the  European  Fishing  Industryhttps://sm.britsafe.org/troubled-waters-european-fishing-
industry 

18 

 
 
                                                 
the  European  Commission  (2011)79, 
A  report  published  by 
that  overall 
approximately  4%  of  the  world’s  Gross  Domestic  Product  (GDP)  is  spent  on  the  costs  of 
addressing work related accidents and health problems. Economic growth would be favoured 
by a healthy of the workforce. 

indicates 

The  external  study  shows  that  very  limited  information  is  available  on  the  costs  linked  to 
occupational  accidents  and  illnesses  in  the  sector  beyond  the  data  on  absences  linked  to 
accidents.  Limited  data  was  provided  by  national  stakeholders  on  the  number  of  claims  for 
occupational disability in the context of the external study. In Spain the number of claims for 
occupational  disability  linked  to  accidents  rose  from  726  to  760  between  2008  and  2013. 
Claims for occupational disability linked to occupational illness rose in Spain between 2008 
and 2014 from 96 to 113. In Italy the number of claims for occupational disability linked to 
accidents declined from 175-152. In Poland there were 10 claims for occupational disability 
linked to accidents in 2012, with a cost to the insurer of around 10,700 Euros. In France 235 
claims for occupational disability linked to occupational illness were made in 201280. 

1.4.  How is the problem likely to evolve? 

If no further specific legislation concerning working and living conditions is developed, it is 
reasonable  to  assume  that  the  occupational  safety  and  health  problems  in  the  sector  will 
remain. Awareness, training and enforcement activities have led to a decrease of occupational 
accidents, injuries and disease. However, trends have shown that despite these measures the 
incidence  rate  of  accidents  has  remains  high  compared  to  the  national  average  in  the  EU 
Member States. In 2012, there were 154 accidents in sector in the EU which led to permanent 
incapacity. This accounts for 1% of the sector, and is over twice that of 2008 levels (72).  

The incidence of occupational diseases and injuries remains high in the sector, compared to 
other sector. Any changes in the incidence of occupational accidents/illnesses in the fisheries 
sector  are  likely  to  be  driven  by  changes  in  the  workforce  size.  The  sector  will  remain 
unattractive for young and skilled workers.  

Any changes in the level of awareness of the health risks amongst workers and employers by 
prevention  or  risk  assessments  done  together  by  employers  and  workers  or  their 
representatives could have a positive effect. Considerable challenges are linked to performing 
satisfactory risk assessments on fishing vessels. One such challenge is the fact that the work 
environment  changes  when  the  vessel  is  at  sea  and  because  risk  assessments  are  often 
performed  in  port,  some  risks  may  not  be  reflected (e.g.  changing  weather  conditions  when 
operating,  which  may  have  an  impact  in  the  risks  and  hazards  faced  by  the  fishers), 
additionally risk assessments are often performed by management not necessarily working at 
sea (particularly for larger vessels). Risk assessment provisions tailored for the specific work 
environment  (i.e.  fishing  vessels)  and  for  the  workers  in  the  sector  are  key  to  make  risk 
assessments an effective tool for improving OSH conditions on board. Actively involving the 
workers  in  the  risk  assessment  would  thus  prove  to  be  a  very  positive  measure.  Also 
prevention in the form of regular medical examination and certification would have positive 
effects on the occupational health and safety problems in this sector81.  

79 European Commission (2011) Socio-economic costs of accidents at work and work related ill-health; Report 
prepared  by  de  Greef  et  al  on  behalf  of  the  European  Commission.  The  study used  a  series  of  case studies  to 
assess the costs and benefits of measures to improve health and safety in the workplace. 
80 ICF study, p. 44 
81 ICF study, p. 137 

19 

 
 
                                                 
France  is  the  only  Member  State  who  has  so  far,  ratified  the  ILO  Work  in  Fishing 
Convention,  2007.  According  to  the  information  available  to  the  Commission,  it  seems  that 
Denmark, Estonia82, the Netherlands83, and the United Kingdom84 have established working 
groups to prepare for ratification. In Spain discussions have taken place between the Spanish 
authorities  and  representatives  of  the  EU  sectoral  social  dialogue  committee  in  the  sea 
fisheries sector in order to encourage ratification85. In view of the inaction of some Member 
States  and  the  different  pace  in  preparing  for  ratification  of  others,  different  national 
approaches  to  health  and  safety  in  the  fisheries  sector  will  maintain  the  existing  divergent 
level of protection and unlevelled playing field. 

As  a  consequence,  fishermen  in  the  different  EU  Member  States  will  not  enjoy  the  same 
minimum protection levels. For example, in the case of an accident or serious illness, workers 
could be repatriated by some Flag States or abandoned in a foreign port by others. In addition, 
as  sometimes  ships  fish  in  the  waters  of  another  Member  State  and  their  fish  captures  (or 
derived products) are sold across the single market, not acting would also entail a competitive 
advantage for Member States which have less favourable working conditions, compared to the 
Member States who have standards in place in accordance with the agreement.  

2.  WHY SHOULD THE EU ACT? 

This initiative fits within the Commission's priority for a deeper and fairer Internal Market, in 
particular  its  social  dimension.  It  is  in  line  with  Commission's  work  to  establish  a  fair  and 
truly  pan-European  labour  market,  which  provides  workers  with  decent  protection  and 
sustainable  jobs86.  This  includes  among  others,  occupational  safety  and  health  protection, 
working time, social protection, and rights connected to the employment contract.  

In its 2007 Communication reassessing the regulatory social framework for more and better 
seafaring  jobs  in  the  EU87,  the  Commission  sought  to  determine,  against  the  background  of 
the already extensive body of international conventions and standards, to what extent action 
may be needed to improve legal protection and working conditions for maritime professions 
in the EU and enhance the competitiveness of the EU maritime sector, including the fisheries 
sector.  

The 2007 Communication also initiated a first phase of consultation of the EU social partners 
pursuant  to  Article  154  TFEU  and  invited  them  to  "examine  the  possibilities  of  a  joint 
initiative to promote the application within the EU, of the provisions of the recent ILO Work 
in Fishing Convention, 2007". 

82 http://www.riigikogu.ee/tegevus/eelnoud/eelnou/c3837e93-26b4-47c0-a842-
f5770f817a57/Rahvusvahelise%20T%C3%B6%C3%B6organisatsiooni%20kalandust%C3%B6%C3%B6%20ko
nventsiooni%20(nr%20188)%20ratifitseerimise%20seadus/  
83 Letter of the Minister of Social Affairs and Employment to the chair of the Parliament of 17 June 2013, 
parliamentary year 2012-2013, 29 427, nr. 
95http://www.tweedekamer.nl/kamerstukken/brieven_regering/detail?id=2013Z12347&did=2013D25432   
84 The UK working timetable aims for ratification at the end of 2016. However, this could change depending on 
the  national  political  context  and  legislative  preparations.  Ratification  is  subject  to  approval  of  the  national 
legislative  authorities.  Source:  Seafish  Industry  briefing  -  Labour  issues  in  the  fishing  and  aquaculture  sector 
Focus: Working on UK fishing vessels, December 2014 
85 http://www.thefishsite.com/fishnews/26781/spain-encouraged-to-ratify-ilo-work-in-fishing-convention-C.188/  
86 President Juncker's State of the Union address in the European Parliament on 9 September 2015 
87 COM(2007) 591 final 

20 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Social partners were convinced of the need for action in the area and they therefore decided in 
2009  to  negotiate  an  agreement  at  Union  level  in  accordance  with  Article  155(1)  TFEU. 
Within  their  agreement  they  sought  to  consolidate  and  modernise  the  working  and  living 
conditions of fishermen taking into account the EU acquis. In order to align their agreement 
with  the  ILO  Convention,  C.188,  they  stipulated  that  their  agreement  will  enter  into  force, 
when the ILO Convention C.188 enters into force88. Subsequently, they asked this agreement 
to be implemented by a Council decision following a proposal from the Commission pursuant 
to Article 155(2) TFEU. Article 155 is therefore the legal basis for a proposal of a Directive 
implementing this EU social partner agreement.  

2.1.  Why could Member States not achieve the objectives of this initiative? 

The fact that EU Member States voted in favour of its adoption, does not lead automatically to 
ratification. The decision whether or not to ratify lies with the legislative authorities in each 
Member State. As Member States are not obliged to ratify or give reasons for not ratifying, it 
is  therefore  not  certain  whether  (and  if  so,  when)  all  23  Member  States,  which  have  a  sea 
fishing sector, will ratify the ILO Work in Fishing Convention, 2007. This process can take 
several  years89.Despite  the  Council  Decision  to  authorise  Member  States  to  ratify  the  ILO 
Convention C.18890, the pace of ratification has been slow. Eight years after its adoption, only 
France  has  ratified  the  Convention.  A  few  Member  States  (DK,  EE,  NL,  and  the  UK)  are 
preparing for ratification. Furthermore, Member States might be delaying ratification as they 
are aware of the request of the EU social partners to implement their agreement in EU law. 
They  expect  the  EU  to  come  forward  with  a  proposal.  Ratification  by  only  some  Member 
States would not allow ensuring a similar level of decent living and working conditions within 
the EU for fishermen and a level playing field  in terms of competitiveness between the EU 
Member States. The agreement will ensure this by bringing about the simultaneous entry into 
force  and  uniform  transposition  in  all  Member  States  of  the  standards  of  the  ILO  Work  in 
Fishing Convention, 2007 to which it refers . 

2.2.  What is the EU added value? 

Fishing is a cross-border sector which operates worldwide. Fishing vessels sail under different 
EU flags, they operate also outside the territorial waters of the EU Member State concerned, 
in waters under jurisdiction of other Member States and in international waters. For example, 
ten  Member  State  fleets  operated  in  the  NE  Atlantic  region  in  2013;  Belgium,  Denmark, 
France,  Germany,  Ireland,  Lithuania,  the  Netherlands,  Portugal,  Spain  and  the  United 
Kingdom91.  The  EU  distant-water  fleet92  operates  in  international  waters  (high  seas)  and 

88 The ILO Convention enters into force a year after 10 ILO Member States of which 8 coastal states ratify the 
Convention.  At  this  moment  seven  ILO  Member  States  have  ratified  the  Convention.  France  is  the  only  EU 
Member State who has ratified this Convention up till now. According to the information available, Denmark, 
Estonia, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom are preparing for ratification.  
89  In  case  of  a  similar  Convention,  the  ILO  Maritime  Labour  Convention,  ratification  by  all  the  EU  Member 
States,  which  have  a  maritime  sector,  has  not  yet  been  completed,  almost  10  years  after  the  adoption  of  the 
Convention:  
http://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=1000:11300:0::NO:11300:P11300_INSTRUMENT_ID:312331 
90  Council  Decision  2010/321/EU  of  7  June  2010  authorising  Member  States  to  ratify,  in  the  interests  of  the 
European Union, the Work in Fishing Convention, 2007, of the International Labour Organisation (Convention 
No 188). 
91 The 2015 Annual Economic Report on the EU Fishing Fleet (STECF 15-07), p. 104 

21 

 
 
 
                                                 
through bilateral agreements with countries outside the EU. These include fishing areas in the 
North, South and Central Atlantic, Indian, Pacific and Antarctic (or Southern) Oceans. 

While  fishermen  on  board  fishing  vessel  are  nationals  of  the  Member  State  which  flag  the 
vessel flies, fishermen of another EU Member State or third country often also work on board 
of fishing vessels. According to the available data, within the EU 95% of the fishermen is of 
the Member State's nationality in which the fishing vessel is registered or which flag it flies. 
There  are  differences  between  the  EU  Member  States,  for  example  79%  of  the  crew  on 
Estonian  flagged  vessels  is  of  Estonian  nationality,  while  100%  of  the  crew  is  of  Polish 
nationality on Polish flagged vessels93. 

The EU already has a shared approach to fishing through the Common Fisheries Policy. As 
we have seen, that is not the case for labour standards in the fisheries sector, where national 
differences  persist.  These  differences  have  an  impact  on  competitiveness,  because  they 
impose  different  costs on  operators.  As  a  consequence,  EU  action  leading  to  a consolidated 
EU legal framework for the sea fishing sector would help create a more level playing field, 
aligning  the  situation  of  fishermen  with  that  of  other  maritime  professions94.  Such  a 
framework  would  build  on  existing  international  and  EU  standards,  taking  into  account  the 
specific  work  environment  in  this  sector  the  EU  legal  framework  would  contain  minimum 
standards for living and working conditions on board of EU fishing vessels. This would be in 
line with suggestions made by some Member States and social partners, who indicated that a 
general alignment of the EU acquis with the provisions of ILO Convention C. 188 would be 
desirable95. 

An EU framework would lead to an EU level playing field across the EU Member States in 
the sea fishing sector. Fishermen would have the same minimum protection, across the EU, 
All  Member  States  would  have  to  implement  the  same  minimum  rules,  also  on  the  issues 
which  are  now  not  part  of  the  EU  acquis  such  as  medical  certificates  for  fishermen  and 
medical treatment ashore and the right to repatriation. On these issues the Member States have 
taken diverging approaches. For example as the legal analysis in section 4.3.2 will show, on 
the  issue  of  a  medical  certificate,  some  Member  States,  such  as  the  UK,  Slovenia  and 
Romania  have  no  specific legislation  in  place  for  the  fisheries  sector,  some  Member  States, 
e.g.  Ireland,  Italy  and  Sweden  have  fewer  medical  checks  as  prescribed  by  the  agreement. 
Portugal exempts small vessels. The Latvian authorities indicated that they have to introduce 
minor changes to comply with the agreement. Other Member States96 provided for a medical 
certificate for fishermen in accordance with the provisions of the agreement. (See for further 
details section 4.3.2).  This  leads to an uneven  level  playing field  within the EU in  terms of 
working  conditions.  The  working  conditions  of  fishermen  are  different  depending  on  the 
nationality  of  the  vessel.  Also  while  working  on  the  same  vessel,  fishermen  could  have 
different working conditions. Fishermen sailing on board Spanish flagged vessels have a right 

92  In  2013:  Spain,  France,  Lithuania,  Portugal,  Poland,  Latvia,  UK,  Germany,  Netherlands,  Denmark,  Estonia 
and  Ireland  operated  in  distant  waters.  Source:  The  2015  Annual  Economic  Report  on  the  EU  Fishing  Fleet 
(STECF 15-07), p. 135 
93 ICF study, p.23 and Data Annex to this study 
94 Such a legal framework already exists in EU law for seafarers: Council Directive 2009/13/EC of 16 February 
2009 implementing the Agreement concluded by the European Community Shipowners’ Associations (ECSA) 
and  the  European  Transport  Workers’  Federation  (ETF)  on  the  Maritime  Labour  Convention,  2006,  and 
amending Directive 1999/63/EC, OJ L 124, 20.5.2009, p. 30–50   
95  Results  of 
http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/maritimeaffairs_fisheries/consultations/ocean-governance/index_en.htm 
96 BE, DE, EE, EL, ES, FI, FR, HR, LT, NL, PL 

International  Ocean  Governance  by  DG  MARE, 

the  public  consultation  on 

22 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                         
to  repatriation  according  to  the  Spanish  legislation,  if  they  are  registered  under  the  Spanish 
social  security  legislation  See  section  4.3.6).  Fishermen  working  on  board  Italian  fishing 
vessels  have  no  right  of  repatriation.  This  could  mean  that  Member  States  not  having  some 
standards in place would have a competitive advantage against the Member States who have 
these rules in place.  

In addition, a transparent, flexible, up to date legal framework is expected to foster a culture 
of prevention and compliance. It is expected to contribute to the image of the sector and make 
it more attractive for young and skilled workers.  

This initiative will also give additional protection to workers and employers as it will enable 
stakeholders in the sea fisheries sector to make use of the complaint procedures at EU level in 
case of a breach of the national legislation with the requirements of the agreement. 

As mentioned in section 1, EU Member States belong to the top ten trading nations in fishing 
products  and  one  of  the  biggest  importers  of  fishing  products.  The  implementation  of  the 
agreement  in  EU  legislation  will  set  an  example  and  give  the  EU  a  stronger  position  to 
encourage ratification of the ILO Convention C.188 worldwide. This is particularly important 
in the context of the fight against illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing97, within 
EU waters as well as beyond. Vessels engaging in IUU fishing seek to evade control by flag, 
coastal  and  port  States,  which  makes  it  extremely  difficult  to  enforce  labour  standards.  As 
UNODC has highlighted ''the […] most disturbing finding […] was the severity of the abuse 
of fishers trafficked for the purpose of forced labour on-board fishing vessels''98   

IUU fishing is often associated with substandard vessels and fishermen working on board in 
very  poor  conditions.  Sometimes  this  amounts  to  labour  exploitation99.  It  leads  to  unfair 
competition  for  vessel  owners  who  respect  the rules  and  provide  decent  living  and working 
conditions100. IUU fishing fleet in some areas are so accustomed to act in breach of the rules 
in relation to quotas limitations, catch documentation and gear restrictions, that contraventions 
of marine living resource management and conservation regulations is often linked to forced 
labour or trafficking in persons.  

IUU  fishing  damages  fish  stocks,  negatively  affecting  the  fishing  communities  and  workers 
who rely on them for their income. At the same time the offence of IUU fishing is committed 
by fishermen often driven by difficult circumstances (low fish stock, unemployment). It has 
been argued that if fishermen are protected by standards ensuring decent living and working 
conditions, the likelihood that the offence is committed will be considerably reduced101.  

Moreover,  fishing  operators  who  exploit  their  crew  enjoy  an  unfair  competitive  advantage 
because  of  lower  labour  costs.  The  Convention  would  provide  an  additional  legal  basis  to 
fight labour abuses, thereby reducing the profitability of criminal activities linked to IUU. An 

97 Council Regulation (EC) No 1005/2008 of 29 September 2008 establishing a Community system to prevent, 
deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, amending Regulations (EEC) No 2847/93, (EC) 
No 1936/2001 and (EC) No 601/2004 and repealing Regulations (EC) No 1093/94 and (EC) No 1447/1999 
98 UNODC study: "Transnational Organized Crime in the Fishing industry", UNITED NATIONS Vienna, 2011 
99  ILO  (2015),  International  expert  meeting  on  labour  exploitation  in  the  fishing  sector  in  the  Atlantic region, 
Oslo, 
2015, 
25‐26 
http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/@ed_norm/@declaration/documents/publication/wcms_429048.pdf, 
p. 2  
100 FAO fisheries report No. 637, 2000.  
101 Uilapesca-CRES (2012), IUU Fishing and its Relation to the Rights of Fishworkers in International Law, p.  

November 

Norway, 

23 

 
 
                                                 
EU action in this sense supports the IUU EU policy and ensures its consistency inside EU and 
as regards third countries. 

2.3.  Assessment of the representativeness of the EU social partners and the legality of 

the clauses 

When  the  Commission  receives  a  request  of  the  EU  social  partners  to  implement  their 
agreement in EU legislation, it can accept or reject the request, but it cannot change the text of 
the  agreement.  The  Commission  also  has  to  assess  the  representativeness  of  the  EU  social 
partners who are the signatories to the agreement and the legality of the clauses. The detailed 
analysis can be found in Annex 1.  

2.3.1.  Representativeness of the EU social partners  

When assessing  a request  from EU  social  partners to  implement their agreement in  EU law 
according to Article 155 TFEU, the Commission looks at representativeness and mandate of 
the social partners for the area concerned by the agreement. This ensures that the request is in 
line  with  the  provisions  of  the  TFEU  and  that  the  agreement  can  count  on  a  broad  support 
amongst those actually concerned. 

In accordance with Article 1 of Commission Decision 98/500/EC of 20 May 1998102, social 
partners at the European level should fulfil the following criteria: 

a.  they shall relate to specific sectors or categories and be organised at European level; 

b.  they  shall  consist  of  organisations  which  are  themselves  an  integral  and  recognized 
part  of  Member  States’  social  partner  structures  and  have  the  capacity  to  negotiate 
agreements, and which are representative of several Member States; 

c.  they shall have adequate structures to ensure their effective participation in the work 

of the [Sectoral Dialogue] Committees. 

These  conditions  should  be  fulfilled  at  the  time  when  the  agreement  was  signed.  At  the 
moment of signature of the agreement, Croatia was not yet a member of the EU at the time of 
the  conclusion  of  the  agreement.  In  order  to  assess  the  representativeness  of  the  EU  social 
partners,  the  European  Foundation  for  the  Improvement  of  Living  and  Working  Conditions 
(Eurofound) conducted a study in 2012103.  

The  agreement  concerns  working  conditions  in  the  sea-fisheries,  which  matches  with  the 
sectoral  delimitations  of  the  sea-fisheries  sectoral  social  dialogue  Committee.  Therefore, 
congruence between the coverage of the Committee and of the agreement is given. 

The social partners participating in the Committee are Europêche and Cogeca on the employer 
side and ETF on the workers side.  

For Europêche, the Eurofound representativeness study from 2012 identifies members in 11 
Member States, namely BE, DE, DK, ES, FR, EL, IT, NL, PL, SE and UK.  

102  Commission  Decision  98/500/EC  of  20  May  1998  on  the  establishment  of  Sectoral  Social  Dialogue 
Committees promoting the dialogue between the social partners at European level, OJ L 225, 12.8.1998, page 27 
103http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/sites/default/files/ef_files/docs/eiro/tn1105068s/tn1105068s.pdf  

24 

 
 
                                                 
As  the  economic  situation  of  the  sector  has  deteriorated  since  2012/13,  keeping  the 
membership is a challenge for the employer organisations at EU and national level. However, 
Europêche  has  managed  to  secure  cooperation  of  the  Latvian  and  Lithuanian  employer 
associations. 

Cogeca  represents  the  general  and  specific  interests  of  European  agricultural,  forestry, 
fisheries and agri-food co-operatives. It has members related to sea fisheries in the following 
11 Member States: CY, DE, EE, ES, FR, EL, IE, IT, MT, NL and SI. This means that on the 
employer side, altogether 16 countries are represented in the committee.104  

On  the  workers  side,  ETF  had  membership  related  to  sea-fisheries  in  11  countries,  namely 
BE,  BG,  DE,  DK,  ES,  FR,  IT,  NL,  PL,  PT  and  UK,  which  leaves  –  beyond  the 
aforementioned landlocked countries - fishermen in 11 Member States, i.e. CY, EE, EL, IE, 
FI, LV, LT, MT, RO, SE, SL not represented. According to the employment figures for the 
sector, for most of these countries the numbers of employees are around a 1000 workers (in 
most of these countries, employment is considerably smaller). While IE, EL, RO and SE have 
more than 1000 fishermen, a very large share of the fishermen is self-employed105.  

In conclusion, with the exception of Portugal and Romania, there are no Member States where 
employer organisations active in sea-fishing are not represented at the European level, taking 
into account that the sector is relatively small in Romania. This leads to the conclusion that 
European  level  dialogue  is  on  the  side  of  employer  organisations  highly  inclusive  and  that 
Europêche and Cogeca can together be considered as representative for the employers in the 
sector. As indicated above the same is true for ETF on the workers' side. The eight Member 
States106  which  make  up  84%  of  the sector  in  total  employment  terms  and  87%  in  terms  of 
FTE are represented within the EU social dialogue. This leads to the conclusion that the social 
partners  who  have  signed  the  agreement  are  representative  of  the  sector  and  can  therefore 
justly request the Commission for implementation of an agreement according Art. 155 TFEU. 

2.3.2.  Legality of the clauses 

The  Commission  has  examined  the  legality  of  the  agreement.  It  has  scrutinised  each  clause 
and has not found any to be contrary to EU law. The obligations which would be imposed on 
the Member States do not arise directly from the agreement between the social partners. They 
would rather result from its implementation by means of a Council decision, i.e. a directive. 
The  scope  and  content  of  the  agreement  remains  within  the  fields  listed  in  Article  153(1) 
TFEU. Article 3(3) of the agreement contains a non-regression clause, which safeguards the 
existing level of protection of workers. Article 4 of the agreement states that it shall not affect 
any  law,  award  or  custom,  or  any  agreement  between  fishing  vessel  owners  and  fishermen, 
which  ensures  more  favourable  conditions  to  fishermen  than  those  provided  for  in  the 
agreement. In addition, the necessary safeguards of the acquis will be included in the proposal 
for  a  Council  directive  (more  favourable  provisions  and  non-regression),  to  which  the 
agreement will be an annex. 

104 Joining the EU on 1 July 2013, Croatia was not yet a member of the EU at the time the agreement was signed. 
105 According to the ICF study, EL would have more than 1000 employees. For EL table 1 indicates that 76% of 
the fishermen are self-employed without employees.. More than 70% of the fishermen in SE are self-employed. 
IE has also a large number of self-employed. About 40% of the RO fishermen are self-employed. 
106 Greece, Spain, Italy, France, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal and the United Kingdom. 

25 

 
 
                                                 
3.  WHAT SHOULD BE ACHIEVED? 

3.1.  General Objective 

The general objective is to enhance the working and living conditions for fishermen working 
on vessels flying the flag of an EU Member State.  

3.2. 

Specific objectives 

In  order  to  reach  the  general  objective  set  above,  the  present  agreement  has  the  following 
specific objectives: 

  To improve occupational safety and health for fishermen within the EU; 
  To establish a consolidated legal  framework which is  adapted to  working conditions 

for the sea fishing sector. 

3.3.  Consistency with other EU policies and the Charter of Fundamental Rights.  

The ex post evaluation of the EU OSH acquis is ongoing and a number of key issues for the 
revision of the acquis  have  not  been  defined yet, namely in  relation to the new architecture 
and  exact  content  of  the  provisions  of  the  future  OSH  regulatory  framework.  During  the 
preliminary work, stakeholders indicated the need to align the current OSH provisions for the 
maritime  and  fisheries  sector  with  the  recent  ILO  Conventions,  such  as  the  ILO  Work  in 
Fishing Convention, 2007. It is clear that the agreement complements the current OSH acquis 
and aligns it with the Convention. The future revision of the EU OSH framework will have to 
take the agreement into account. 

The EU also contributes to improving fishermen's conditions through the Common Fisheries 
Policy  (CFP).  The  objective  of  the  CFP  is  to  ensure  that  fishing  and  aquaculture  activities 
contribute  to  long-term  environmental,  economic,  and  social  sustainability.  Indeed,  healthy 
fish  stocks  will  in  turn  benefit  fishermen.  Managing  resources  in  a  sustainable  manner  will 
increase the competitiveness of the EU fisheries sector, creating new jobs. 

The  objectives  of  the  CFP  are  also  promoted  internationally,  ensuring  that  EU  fishing 
activities  outside  EU  waters  are  based  on  the  same  principles  and  standards  as  those 
applicable  under  EU  law,  and  promoting  a  level–playing  field  for  EU  operators  and  third-
country operators. To this end, the EU actively seeks to lead the process of strengthening the 
performance  of  regional  and  international  fisheries  organisations  in  order  to  better  enable 
them  to  conserve  and  manage  marine  living  resources  under  their  purview,  including 
combating  illegal,  unreported  and  unregulated  (IUU)  fishing107.  In  line  with  recent 
international  case  law,  flag,  coastal,  port  or  market  States  have  due  diligence  to  fulfil  their 
duties  incumbent  upon  them  under  international  law108.  The  EU  cooperates  with  third 
countries  and  international  organisations  for  the  purpose  of  improving  compliance  with 
international  measures,  including  the  respect  of  human  rights,  through  in  particular  safe 
working conditions. This constitutes an essential element of sustainable fisheries partnership 

107 Council Regulation (EC) No 1005/2008 of 29 September 2008 establishing a Community system to prevent, 
deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, amending Regulations (EEC) No 2847/93, (EC) 
No 1936/2001 and (EC) No 601/2004 and repealing Regulations (EC) No 1093/94 and (EC) No 1447/1999  
108 See ITLOS case No 21 retrieved:  
https://www.itlos.org/fileadmin/itlos/documents/press_releases_english/PR_227_EN.pdf 

26 

 
 
                                                 
agreements, which contain a specific human rights clause. This is consistent with the overall 
Union development policy objectives. 

Several  studies  have  confirmed  that  low  health  and  safety  standards  and  poor  working 
conditions  are  both  a  driver  of  IUU  fishing  and  one  of  its  consequences.  On  one  hand, 
operators  may  choose  to  engage  in  IUU  fishing  because  of  the  lower  cost  of  limited  health 
and safety checks and other controls over working conditions109. On the other hand, workers 
on IUU vessels are vulnerable to all sorts of labour violations, as there is no way of ensuring 
decent  working  conditions  on  a  vessel  engaging  in  illegal  activities.  This  also  has  negative 
impacts on international efforts to promote better ocean governance by undermining efforts to 
achieve  international  progress  on  social  standards  for  fishermen.  Improving  the  social 
situation  of  fishermen  is  expected  to  reduce  the  risk  of  abuses  and  increase  the  cost  of 
engaging  in  IUU  fishing,  making  it  a  less  attractive  option110.  Thorough  implementation  of 
ILO  Conventions  worldwide  would  therefore  have  a  positive  impact  both  on  fishermen's 
working conditions and on the incidence of IUU fishing. By incorporating the  agreement of 
the ILO social partners on the ILO work in Fishing Convention in EU legislation, the EU will 
be in a stronger position to promote their implementation in partner countries worldwide.  

The objectives of this initiative are also in line with the protection of the rights mentioned in 
the  EU  Charter  of  Fundamental  Rights  of  the  European  Union,  in  particular  the  rights 
protected  under  Articles  20  (equality  before  the  law),  31  (fair  and  just  working  conditions) 
and 32 (prohibition of child labour and protection of young people at work) of the Charter. 

4.  POLICY OPTIONS  

The Commission can consider only two options: 

  No EU action (the baseline scenario): The current EU labour and occupational safety 

and health legislation applicable to fishermen in the sector will remain in force.  

  Propose  the  implementation  of  the  agreement  by  a  Council  decision  in 
accordance  with  Article  155  TFEU:  The  EU  acquis  will  be  complemented  by  a 
Directive  which  will  provide  more  specific  rules  at  EU  level  on  living  and  working 
conditions for the sea fisheries sector.  

4.1.  Option 1 Baseline Scenario.  

With  the  exception  of  France,  EU  Member  States  have  not  yet  ratified  the  ILO  Work  in 
Fishing Convention.  

The current EU acquis with regard to living and working conditions would remain in force. At 
this moment no other specific EU initiatives in the field of labour law, social security or safety 
and health of workers are planned for the sea fisheries sector.  

With regard to the different subjects covered by the EU social partner agreement, this would 
mean that the fishermen would remain covered by the EU labour law Directives, such as the 

109 Agnew, D. and Barnes, C., Economic aspects and drivers of IUU fishing: building a framework, in Gray, K. 
et al. (Ed.) (2004). Fish piracy: combating illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, P. 14 
110 European Parliament: Beke, M. and Blomeyer, R., Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated fishing: sanctions in 
the EU, July 2014, p. 27 

27 

 
 
                                                 
Written  Statement  Directive111,  the  Working  Time  Directive112,  and  the  Temporary  Agency 
workers  Directive113.  The  current  EU  rules  on the  coordination  of  social security  are would 
remain applicable to sea fishermen (See Annex 6 for further details).  

The EU OSH Directives apply to all economic sectors, both public and private114. Directive 
89/391/EEC  and  its  relevant  individual  directives  apply  to  workers  in  all  fishing  vessels 
irrespective of size. Two specific Directives were introduced to tackle the specific risks and to 
promote  the  occupational  health  and  safety  of  fishermen.  Directive  93/103/EEC115  defining 
the minimum safety and health requirements for work on board fishing vessels and Directive 
92/29/EEC116 on the minimum safety and health requirements for improved medical treatment 
on  board  vessels.  Directive  93/103/EC  lays  down  minimum  safety  and  health  requirements 
applicable to new fishing vessels117 with a length between perpendiculars of 15 m or over and 
to existing fishing vessels with a length between perpendiculars of 18 m or over. In addition, 
EU  OSHA  produced  a  Risk  assessment  for  small  fishing  vessels  as  well  as  information 
material on safe maintenance of fishing vessels  

4.2.  Option 2 Implementation of the agreement by a Council Directive in accordance 

with Article 155 TFEU 

The agreement is based on the ILO Work in Fishing Convention, 2007. It covers most areas 
of  the  Convention  itself.  It  contains  minimum  requirements  concerning  minimum  age  and 
medical  examination,  manning  requirements,  limits  to  daily  and  average  weekly  working 
time,  health  protection  and  medical  care  in  case  of  sickness,  occupational  injury  or  death, 
fisherman's  work  agreement,  private  labour  market  services,  and  occupational  safety  and 
health  and  accident  prevention.  The  agreement  does  not  cover  the  provisions  concerning 
remuneration or pay118, and compliance and enforcement of the ILO Convention119, as these 
fall outside the scope of Article 153 of the Treaty.  

The  agreement  will  apply  to  fishermen  employed  on  all  fishing  vessels  engaged  in 
commercial  sea  fishing.  It  will  also  apply  to  all  other  fishermen  (self-employed)  who  are 
present  on  the  same  vessel  with  employed  fishermen,  in  order  to  ensure  protection  of  the 
workers' health and safety on board the vessel.  

The  agreement  provides  minimum  standards.  When  the  EU  Member  States  transpose  the 
agreement in national legislation; they are allowed to maintain more favourable standards. In 
addition,  the  agreement  provides  for  some  flexibility  by  providing  for  a  possibility  to 

111 Council Directive 91/533/EEC of 14 October 1991 on an employer's obligation to inform employees of the 
conditions applicable to the contract or employment relationship, OJ L 288, 18.10.1991, p. 32–35 
112 Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain 
aspects of the organisation of working time, OJ L 299, 18.11.2003, p. 9–19 
113 Directive 2008/104/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on temporary 
agency work, O.J. L 327, 5.12.2008, p. 9 
114 Article 2(1) of Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage 
improvements in the safety and health of workers at work, OJ L 183, 29.6.1989, p. 1 
115 Directive 93/103/CE of 23 November 1993 concerning the minimum safety and health requirements for work 
on board fishing vessels, OJ L 307, 13.12.1993, p. 1 
116 Directive 92/29/EEC of 31 March 1992 on the minimum safety and health requirements for improved medical 
treatment on board vessels, OJ L 113, 30.4.1992, p. 19 
117  New  vessel  in  this  context  means  that  the  Directive  applies  to  vessels  whose  building  contract  was  placed 
after 23 November 1995. 
118 Article 23-24 of the ILO Work in Fishing Convention, 2007 
119 Articles 40-44 ILO Work in Fishing Convention, 2007 

28 

 
 
                                                 
gradually  transpose  the  agreement  for  specific  categories  of  vessels  or  fishermen  within  a 
period of 5 years, in case of substantial problems120.  

The  national  authorities  of  the  Member  State  are  obliged  to  consult  the  national  social 
partners  on  the  transposition  of  the  agreement  in  national  law.  This  could  facilitate  the 
implementation of the agreement as these organisations will be able to support and advise the 
national authorities during the process121. 

As  is  the  case  with  the  current  acquis,  the  national  authorities  will  have  to  ensure  the 
enforcement  of  their  national  legislation  transposing  the  agreement.  This  normally  will  be 
done by the national labour inspectorates, fisheries or maritime authorities and by the judicial 
authorities. It is up to the Member State to nominate the competent enforcement authorities. 
National  social  partners  could  also  support  enforcement  authorities  to  improve  working 
conditions  as  they  will  have  the  expertise  on  working  conditions  in  the  sector  and  have  an 
important role to play in supplying information and raising awareness. 

Once  the  Directive  implementing  the  agreement  in  EU  legislation  has  entered  into  force, 
citizens will have the possibility to complain to the Commission via the normal Commission's 
complaint procedures if they are of the opinion that the national legislation is in breach of the 
agreement122. 

4.3.  Legal  analysis  of  the  differences  between  the  agreement  provisions,  the  existing 

EU provisions and the national level 

Before  assessing  the  impacts  of  implementing  the  proposed  agreement,  the  substantial 
changes as compared to the current situation need to be identified. This is a challenging task 
as there is a very complex set of existing rules in place. In the remainder of section 4.3, for 
each of the areas of the agreement, first the substantial changes are identified, followed by a 
table which aims to indicate which Member States already have legislation in place for the sea 
fisheries  sector  which  is  equivalent  or  more  favourable  for  the  protection  of  workers  when 
compared to the provisions of the agreement, and which Member States have less favourable 
provisions than the agreement123.  

Provisions of the agreement which are similar to the provisions of the existing EU Directives 
already  applicable  to  the  sea  fishing  sector,  or  which  are  limited  to  establishing  further 
specification are not compared (e.g. manning requirements, and the obligation of a crew list, 
private labour market services).  

120 Article 3 of the agreement 
121  This  obligation  to  consult  national  social  partners  in  the  sea  fisheries  sector  is  for  example  provided  if 
national  authorities  consider  exemptions  of  on  the  minimum  age  and  exemptions  on  the  obligation  of  the 
fishermen to have a medical certificate.  
122  The  experience  with  Directive  2009/13/EC  concerning  the  EU  social  partner  agreement  on  the 
implementation of the ILO Maritime Labour Convention, which is a similar Convention for the maritime sector, 
shows that seafarers and other stakeholders in the sector make use of the possibility to inform the Commission 
on alleged breaches of this Directive in the national legislation of a Member State. 
123 The provisions in the agreement are compared to the national legislation of the Member States. If a Member 
State's provisions on working time are considered being more favourable, it means that these provisions contain 
more  protective  provisions.  Less  favourable  provisions  means  that  the  provisions  are  less  protective  than  the 
provisions in the Agreement  

29 

 
 
 
                                                 
Information on the national legislation of the different Member States is mainly based on the 
information  obtained  from  the  research  and  from  the  information  supplied  by  national 
authorities of the different Member States as part of the external study carried out in support 
to  this  impact  assessment124.  While,  in  the  context  of  this  study  all  28  Member  States  have 
been  contacted  with  the  request  to  supply  information,  information  from  certain  Member 
States was not received. Consequently, any information on these Member States is based on 
further desk research.125  

4.3.1. 

Scope and applicability 

Article  1(e)  of  ILO  Convention  C.188,  defines  fishermen  as  “every  person  employed  or 
engaged in any capacity or carrying out an occupation on board any fishing vessel, including 
persons  working  on  board  who  are  paid  on  the  basis  of  a  share  of  the  catch  but  excluding 
pilots, naval personnel, other persons in the permanent service of a government, shore-based 
persons  carrying  out  work  aboard  a  fishing  vessel  and  fisheries  observers”.  This  definition 
includes both employed as self-employed fishermen.  

As  the  social  partner’s  agreement  addresses  fields  covered  by  Article  153  TFEU,  the 
agreement  applies  to  fishermen  who  are  employed  on  board  a  vessel  (i.e.  workers).  The 
agreement  is  extended  to  self-employed  working  alongside  workers  on  the  same  vessel, 
whenever  there  is  a  link  (direct  or  indirect)  to  the  protection  of  the  health  and  safety  of 
workers  employed  on  the  same  vessel  This  corresponds  to  the  current  scope  of  Directive 
93/103/EC and Directive 92/29/EEC in the sense that provisions therein are also extended to 
the self-employed whenever there is a link (direct or indirect) to the protection of the health 
and safety of workers employed on the same vessel126.  

While  the  ILO  Convention  C.188  applies  to  vessels  irrespective  of  the  ownership,  the 
agreement applies to vessels registered within the plenary  jurisdiction or flying the flag of a 
Member  State.  Directive  93/103/EC127  and  Directive  92/29/EEC128  also  refer  to  the  plenary 
jurisdiction or the flag of the Member State.  

Table 4 Scope and applicability 

124  ICF  Study:  "Costs  and  Benefits  of  a  Council  Decision  implementing  the  European  sectoral  social  partners' 
Agreement concerning the implementation of the Work in Fishing Convention, 2007 of the International Labour 
Organisation", November 2015 
125 In the context of the external study, Austria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Luxembourg and Slovakia replied that 
they  do  not  have  a  sea  fishing  sector  due  to  their  geographical  location.  No  information  was  received  in  the 
course of this study from Bulgaria, Cyprus, Malta, Poland and Romania. Any information on these five countries 
is based on further desk research (ICF, p.68). 
126 This is also indicated in recital 12 of the Agreement.  
127  Article  2(a)  of  Directive  93/103/EC  Council  Directive  93/103/EC  of  23  November  1993  concerning  the 
minimum  safety  and  health  requirements  for  work  on  board  fishing  vessels  (thirteenth  individual  Directive 
within the meaning of Article 16 (1) of Directive 89/391/EEC). 
128 Article 1(a) of Directive 92/29/EEC on the  minimum safety and health requirements for improved medical 
treatment on board vessels. 

30 

 
 
 
                                                 
EU acquis129 

Agreement 

MS  having  equal 
more 
or 
favourable 
standards 

less 

MS  having 
favourable 
standards  or  no 
standards 
in  this 
area 

Employed 
fishermen  and  self-
employed fishermen 
working  on  board 
the  same  vessel  in 
the context of health 
safety 
and 
protection 

Employed 
fishermen  and  self-
employed fishermen 
working  on  board 
the  same  vessel  in 
the context of health 
safety 
and 
protection 

SE 

BE,  BG,  CY,  DK 
DE, EE, EL, ES, FI, 
FR, HR, IE, IT, LT, 
LV,  MT,  NL,  PL, 
PT, RO, SI and UK 

flying 

the 
registered 
the  plenary 
a 

Vessel 
flag  or 
under 
jurisdiction  of 
Member State 

flying 

the 
registered 
the  plenary 
a 

Vessel 
flag  or 
under 
jurisdiction  of 
Member State 

ES, HR, and PT131 

BE, BG, CY, DE130, 
DK,  EE,  EL,  FI, 
FR, IE, IT, LT, LV, 
MT,  NL,  PL,  RO, 
SE, SI and UK 

4.3.2.  Minimum requirements for work on board fishing vessels 

Minimum age 

According  to  the  ILO  Convention,  the  minimum  age  for  working  on  a  fishing  vessel  is  16 
years of age. The competent authority may authorise a minimum age of 15 for persons who 
are  no  longer  subject  to  compulsory  schooling  as  provided by  national legislation, and  who 
are  engaged  in  vocational  training  in  fishing.  Night  work  is  forbidden  under  the  age  of  18. 
Night  is  defined  as  the  period  between  midnight  and  5  am.  Under  certain  conditions,  the 
competent  authorities  after  consultation  of  the  national  social  partners  can  authorise 
exemptions in the context of training.  

The  agreement  provides  the  same  age  limits  as  the  ILO  Convention,  but  adds  that  young 
people  between  the  ages  of  16-18  at  work  need  to  be  supervised  both  during  the  day  and 
during the night.  

As concerns night work, the agreement defines night as a period of at least 9 hours, instead of 
8  hours  starting  not  later  than  midnight  and  ending  not  earlier  than  5  am.  In  that  sense  the 
agreement  complements  Directive  94/33/EC  and  provides  for  more  protective  measures  for 
young  people  as  regards  the  definition  of  night  period  and  consequently  the  prohibition  of 
night work under the age of 18.  

Table 5: Minimum age132 

129 Directive 93/103/EC and Directive 92/29/EEC 
130 According to the ICF study national authorities in DE are discussing the notion of “plenary jurisdiction”, as 
Germany has an international shipping register which falls under the plenary jurisdiction of the Member State, 
but allows for the application of different labour legislation.  
131 According to the information provided for the ICF study, these Member States have different regulations for 
the Flag State or for the vessel owner registry.  

31 

 
 
                                                 
MS  having  equal 
more 
or 
favourable 
standards 

less 

MS  having 
favourable 
standards  or  no 
standards  

DE,  DK,  EE,  ES, 
FI, FR, IT, LT, LV, 
PL and UK 

EL  and  SE  provide 
for  exemptions  for 
occasional  work  for 
family members 

DE,  DK,  ES,  FI, 
FR, IT, LT, LV, PL 
and UK 

BE,  EE,  EL,  HR134, 
IE,  NL,  PT135,  SE 
and SI  

EU acquis133 

Agreement 

Minimum  age  16, 
15  under  certain 
conditions  when  in 
context  vocational 
training  

Minimum  age  16, 
15  under  certain 
conditions  and 
in 
context  vocational 
training 

Night 
work 
forbidden  for  under 
18. Only allowed in 
context  of  training 
when supervised 

Night 
work 
forbidden  for  under 
18. Only allowed in 
context  of  training 
when supervised 

Night  defined  as  8 
hours 
either 
between  10  pm  and 
6  am  or  11  pm  and 
7 am  

Night  defined  9 
hours  starting  not 
later  than  midnight 
and 
not 
ending 
earlier than 5 am 

Medical certificate 

Articles  10-12  of  the  ILO  Convention  introduce  the  obligation  for  all  fishermen  to  have  a 
medical  certificate  before  being  admitted  to  work  on  a  fishing  vessel.  The  ILO  Convention 
provides  for  some  flexibility  as  Member  States  could  limit  the  obligation  of  a  medical 
certificate to workers working on a vessel of 24 meters and over or vessels remaining at sea 
for more than 3 days. Article 11 states that the Member State can provide for rules with regard 
to the nature and content of the certificate and other administrative requirements. Article 12 
delimits the examination required (eyesight and hearing) and the fact that the certificate has to 
state  that  the  fisherman  does  not  suffer  from  any  condition  which  would  be  aggravated  by 
working  at  sea  or  which  would  endanger  the  safety  and  health  of  the  persons  working  on 
board  the  vessel.  The  agreement,  in  its  article  7-9,  provides  for  the  same  as  the 
aforementioned  provisions  of  ILO  Convention  C.188.  Hence  Member  States  can  limit  the 
obligation  of  a  medical  certificate  to  workers  working  on  a  vessel  of  24  meters  or  over  or 
vessels remaining at sea for more than three days.  

On  the  other  hand,  the  existing  EU  OSH  directives  do  not  contain  a  similar  obligation 
regarding medical certificates. Article 14 of Directive 89/391/EEC136 on occupational safety 
and  health  contains  a  general  requirement  for  the  Member  States  to  implement  measures 

132 ICF study p. 70 
133 Directive 94/33/EC on the protection of young people at work  
134 These countries do not refer to specific safety and health conditions when granting exceptions.  
135 PT: night work also permitted for light work, not only for training purposes 
136 Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements 
in the safety and health of workers at work, OJ L 183, 29.6.1989, p. 1–8 

32 

 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                         
whereby  health  surveillance  at  regular  intervals  should  be  made  available  for  workers  who 
wish to receive such health surveillance. The measures regarding health surveillance apply to 
employed fishermen.  

In  13  Member  States137,  medical  certificates  are  already  compulsory  for  all  seafarers, 
including  fishermen, irrespective of the time spent at sea  or the type of the vessel. Portugal 
exempts small fishing vessels from this obligation. In some Member States, such as Ireland, 
Italy and Sweden the medical certificate includes fewer checks than the ones required by the 
agreement. The United Kingdom's legislation contains a medical certificate for seafarers, but 
fishermen  are  at  the  moment  excluded.  Slovenia  does  not  have  any  specific  occupational 
safety  and  health  legislation  in  place  for  fishermen.  A  general  medical  examination  for  all 
workers exists, but there are no specific rules for fishermen.  

137 BE, DE, EE, EL, ES, FI, FR, HR, LT, LV, NL, PL and PT 
33 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
having 

less 

or  no 

MS 
favourable 
standards 
standards  

IE  and  IT141,  RO142, 
SE, SI, and UK143 

MS  having  equal 
or 
more 
favourable 
standards 

BE,  DE,  EE,  EL, 
ES, FI, FR, HR, LT, 
LV  139,  NL,  PL  and 
PT140 

Table 6 Medical Certificate138 

EU acquis 

Agreement 

Member States have 
to  introduce  health 
surveillance 
measures 

Each  worker  may 
health 
receive 
surveillance 
at 
regular 
intervals, 
possibly as part of a 
national 
health 
system 

this 

Medical  certificate 
for 
is  obligatory 
workers  on  vessels 
of  24  meters  and 
over.  MS  may 
to 
extend 
vessels  under  24 
meters. 
Eyesight 
and hearing and any 
conditions  which 
make  them  unfit  or 
will  be  aggravated 
by work at sea 

4.3.3.  Working time 

Working time 

The  provisions  on  working  time  are  laid  down  in  Article  13  paragraph  2  of  the  ILO 
Convention C.188. They apply to all vessels, regardless of their size, which are for more than 
three days at sea. They establish limits on hours of rest and hours of work for the purpose of 
the protection of safety and health of workers and for limiting fatigue. In emergency situations 
such as the immediate safety of the vessel, or giving assistance to other vessels, the skipper 
might temporarily suspend the schedule of hours of rest until the normal situation is restored. 
After  the  normal  situation  is  restored,  the  skipper  must  schedule  a  rest  period  for  the 
fishermen who worked their rest period.144  

Within EU law, Article 21 of the general Working Time Directive145 which lays down certain 
minimum  requirements  to  protect  the  health  and  safety  of  workers  applies  to  fishermen. 
Member  States  must  ensure  adequate  rest  and  that  the  average  working  week  amounts  to  a 
maximum of 48 hours calculated over a 12 month reference period. For the safety and health 

138 ICF study p.71-72 
139  LV  seems  to  have  a  medical  certificate  for  fisherman  in  place,  but  the  national  authorities  supplying 
information in the context of the ICF study estimate that they would need to do some moderate changes to the 
national legislation to comply with the agreement. 
140 PT: exemption small vessels.  
141 These Member States do not provide for all checks prescribed by the agreement.  
142 Romanian Labour Law seems to contain a general obligation for all employees to have a medical certificate. 
http://knowledge.leglobal.org/wp-content/uploads/LEGlobal_Memo_Romania.pdf  
143 No certificate for fishermen 
144http://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:12100:0::NO:12100:P12100_INSTRUMENT_ID:3
12333:NO  
145 Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain 
aspects of the organisation of working time, OJ L 299, 18.11.2003, p. 9–19 

34 

 
 
                                                 
protection of workers limits on the hours of work and rest must be established. Exceptions to 
the rules may be permitted by Member States. These must as far as possible comply with the 
limits  laid  down  in  the  Directive  but  may  take  account  of  more  frequent  or  longer  leave 
periods  or  granting  compensatory  leave.  Like  the  ILO  rules  the  EU  provisions  give  the 
skipper of the vessel the right to suspend the normal schedule in emergency situations.  

The  Agreement  lays  down  similar  provisions  and  limits  to  hours  of  work  and  rest  that  are 
similar to Article 21 of the general Working Time Directive. It adds that the limits to working 
time and hours of rest are not only laid down for the safety and health of workers, but also for 
the purposes of limiting fatigue caused by long irregular working hours, which would occur 
often  on  fishing  vessels.  Alternative  requirements  are  possible,  but  they  should  be 
substantially equivalent to the provisions of the agreement and shall not jeopardize the safety 
and health of fishermen.  

At  national  level,  16  Member  States146  comply  with  the  provisions  of  the  Agreement. 
According to the information received by the national authorities, two Member States, Spain 
and  Portugal  will  need  to  implement  rules  relating  to  compensatory  rest  and  introduce  a 
definition of fatigue. No information was received from the Romanian national authorities; a 
2003 ILO report indicates that Romania has no specific working time rules for fishermen; the 
working time rules for shore workers and a decree for vessels seem to apply to fishermen147. 
The Swedish authorities indicated that they will need to change their working time legislation, 
but did not provide any further details148.  

less 

MS  having 
favourable 
standards  or  no 
standards  in  this 
area 

ES,  PT151,  RO  and 
SE 

MS150 
having 
equal  or  more 
favourable 
standards 

BE,  DE,  DK, 
EE,  EL,  FI,  FR, 
HR,  IE,  IT,  LT, 
LV,  NL,  PL,  SI 
and UK 

Table 7 Working Time149 

EU acquis 

Agreement 

- 

- 

- 

Average 
working  week 
of 48 hrs over a 
month 
12 
reference period 
Maximum  work 
hours  10  hours 
per 24 hours  
72  hours  within 
a 
seven  day 
period 

Average 
working 
week  of  48  hrs  over 
a 12 month reference 
period 

- 

- 

Maximum 
work 
hours 
10  hours  per 
24 hours  
72 
within 
seven 
period 

hours 
a 
day 

146 BE, DE, DK, EE, EL, FI, FR, HR, IE, IT, LT, LV, NL, PL, SI and UK 
147 http://www.ilo.org/public/portugue/region/eurpro/lisbon/pdf/rep-v-1.pdf, p. 70 
148 ICF Study, p.75 
149 ICF study p. 75 
150 No information on this issue received from: BG, MT, and CY. 
151 Minor changes to introduce notion of fatigue. 

35 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
4.3.4.  Fisherman’s work agreement 

Articles 16-20 and Annex II of the ILO Convention C.188 provide for the obligation of the 
fishing vessel owner for every fisherman/worker on all vessels to have a written fisher's work 
agreement that is comprehensible to them and provides them with decent living and working 
conditions. Annex II contains provisions concerning the content of a fisher's work agreement 
which,  except  for  the  name  of  both  employer  and  employee,  also  needs  to  contain  clauses 
concerning,  among  others,  the  capacity  the  fisherman  is  going  to  work  in,  the  number  of 
voyages  for  which  the  fishermen  is  hired,  the  place  of  joining  the  ship,  wage,  paid  annual 
leave,  social  security,  including  the  compensation  in  case  of  sickness,  injuries  or  death, 
medical  coverage,  as  well  as  the  right  to  repatriation.  The  fisherman  needs  to  have  time  to 
review  and  seek  advice  concerning  his  agreement  before  it  is  concluded  and  the  agreement 
needs to be carried on board of the vessel152.  

Articles  14-18  and  Annex  I  of  the  Agreement  contain  identical  provisions  concerning  the 
fisherman's working agreement.  

Directive  91/533/EEC153  establishes  the  employer’s  obligation  to  inform  employees  of  the 
conditions applicable to the contract or employment relationship. This Directive contains the 
obligation  for  employers  to  provide  the  employee  with  a  written  contract  of  employment 
containing the essential elements such as name of the parties, wages, duration of the contract, 
length  of  working  week,  function  of  the  employee  and  tasks.  The  differences  between  the 
agreement and the current acquis are mainly the parts of the agreement which are specific for 
the sea fisheries sector, such as the place where the fisherman needs to embark, the voyage or 
number  of  voyages  the  fisherman  is  engaged  for,  social  security  and  health  coverage  and 
protection  in  case  of  injury,  sickness  or  death.  In  addition,  the  Agreement  clearly  specifies 
that  a  fishermen  needs  to  have  time  to  review  and  seek  advice  concerning  his  agreement 
before  it  is  concluded.  Finally,  the  agreement  indicates  that  it  is  the  responsibility  of  the 
fishing vessel owner to ensure that each fisherman on board has a written agreement, which 
ensuring him decent working conditions. The fisherman work agreements have to be carried 
on board of the vessel.  

At national level 10 Member States154 already comply with the rules set out in the Agreement. 
In  Poland,  the  fisherman’s  work  agreement  has  the  same  requirements  as  the  seafarers' 
employment  agreement  and  in  addition  it  must  contain  provisions  on  the  food  board,  the 
provision of working clothes and the individual protective equipment.155  

In Greece and Portugal, the national authorities indicated that the current rules do not comply 
with all the provisions regarding the content of fisherman's work agreement as set out under 

152http://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:12100:0::NO:12100:P12100_INSTRUMENT_ID:3
12333:NO  
153 Council Directive 91/533/EEC of 14 October 1991 on an employer's obligation to inform employees of the 
conditions applicable to the contract or employment relationship, OJ L 288, 18.10.1991, p. 32–35 
154 BE, DE, EE, FI, FR, HR, LV, NL and SE 
155  Ustawa  z  dnia  5  sierpnia  2015  r.  o  pracy  na  morzu,  Dz.U.  2015  poz.  1569  published 
9/10/2015, www.isip.sejm.gov.pl 

36 

 
 
 
                                                 
 
Annex I in the Agreement. Along the same line, Ireland finds that current provisions need to 
be  updated  and  indicates  that  not  all  particular  statements  of  Annex  I  are  covered  by  its 
national legislation.  

In Slovenia, only general rules on work agreements apply to fishermen thus do not provide for 
the specificities of the sector. Spain does not have an obligation to provide for a written work 
agreement thus does not comply with the compulsory information set out in the Annex I. Also 
the United Kingdom does not set out any provisions defining the fishermen’s work agreement 
nor the particular information as set out in Annex I.  

The  obligation  to  carry  the  work  agreement  on  board  the  vessel  is  complied  with  by  the 
majority  of  Member  States,  with  the  exception  of  Ireland,  Portugal,  Spain  and  United 
Kingdom.  

Latvia  and  Slovenia  have  general  provisions  in  place  that  specify  that  the  work  agreement 
shall be carried by the employer but do not specifically refer to the sector. This may mean that 
these countries need to provide for more sector specific legislation.  

In  conclusion,  in  10  countries  no  additional  requirements  are  needed.  There  are  4  countries 
that  do  not comply  with  the  requirements  of  the  Agreement  and  thus a  new  standard  of  the 
format of the fisherman’s work agreement would have to be issued. Only currently Spain does 
not  impose  any  written  agreements,  thus  requiring  more  significant  changes  to  the  national 
system.  For  2  countries,  only  minor  changes  are  expected  as  these  relate  to  some  of  the 
clauses entailed in written agreements. This only requires a change in the way agreements are 
written  (higher  administration  efforts).  For  7  countries,  no  information  from  the  national 
authorities was received.156 

Table 8 Fisherman's Work Agreement 

EU acquis 

Agreement 

- General provisions for 
all sectors concerning a 
written  agreement 
in 
which  essential  details 
concerning the name of 

- Written fisherman's 
work 
agreement 
containing  all  details 
provided 
in 
1,  which 
Annex 

for 

MS157 
having 
equal  or  more 
favourable 
standards 

less 

MS  having 
favourable 
standards  or  no 
standards  

BE,  DE,  EE,  FI, 
FR, HR, LT, NL, 
PL, and SE  

SI and LV158,  
IE,  PT,  ES,  EL159, 
UK160 and RO161 

156 ICF study, p.76 
157 No information received from BG, MT, CY, LT, PL 
158 No sector specific provisions 
159  EL:  According  to  the  ICF  study,  table  7  self-employed  without  personnel  make  up  80%  of  the  total 
employment. Only workers would have to comply with the agreement, so this is likely an overestimate.  
160  EL,  IE,  PT,  ES,  and  UK:  According  to  the  information  received  by  the  national  authorities,  the  national 
legislation does not contain the obligation to carry the fisherman's work agreement on board of the vessel. ES's 
national legislation does not contain any provision concerning a written fisherman's work agreement.  
161 Title II of the Romanian Labour Code on individual employment contracts complies with the content of the 
employment contract required by Directive 91/533/EC. It also includes a provision on employee seeking advice 
of  third  parties  before  concluding  the  contract.  http://www.codulmuncii.ro/en/title-2/page-1.  There  seems  no 
specific legislation on employment contracts for fishermen.  
37 

 
 
                                                 
the 
the 
parties, 
function,  wages,  start 
and  if  applicable  end 
date of the contract.  

includes 
sector 
specific  details  such 
as  name  of 
the 
vessel,  health  care 
protection 
and 
against 
disability 
injury,  and  sickness, 
number of voyages.  

-  employee  has  the 
time  to  review  and 
seek  advice  before 
the 
concluding 
agreement 

-  fisherman's  work 
agreement  has  to  be 
carried  on  board  of 
the vessel.  

4.3.5.  Repatriation 

Repatriation  is  a  right  for  fishermen  whose  employment  agreement  has  expired  or  is 
terminated for justified reasons or the fishermen can no longer carry out the duties required. 
The  fishing  vessel  owner  has  to  pay  for  the  repatriation  of  the  fishermen  to  the  country  of 
origin. If the fishing vessel owner fails to provide for repatriation, this obligation falls on the 
Member State. 

The ILO Convention C.188 provides for a right of repatriation when a fishing vessel enters a 
foreign port. The provisions in the Agreement are based on the ILO Convention. There is no 
current  EU  acquis  concerning  repatriation  for  fishermen.  Directive  2009/13/EC162  solely 
contains a provision on repatriation for seafarers in the merchant navy, but it does not apply to 
sea fishermen.  

Some  Member  States  have  already  extended  the  repatriation  rights  for  seafarers  to  sea 
fishermen163.  Some  Member  States,  like  Belgium,  have  created  a  special  fund  to  cover  the 
funds  of  repatriation.  Some  Member  States  like  Bulgaria164  and  Croatia  might  not  have  a 
statutory right of repatriation because their sea fisheries sector fishes in coastal waters, so that 
the fishing vessels do not reach or enter foreign ports.  

162 Council Directive 2009/13/EC of 16 February 2009 implementing the Agreement concluded by the European 
Community Shipowners’ Associations (ECSA) and the European Transport Workers’ Federation (ETF) on the 
Maritime Labour Convention, 2006, and amending Directive 1999/63/EC, OJ L 124, 20.5.2009, p. 30–50  
163 ICF Study section 3.3.2.7 
164 
31 
Fisheries 
European 
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/note/join/2011/460049/IPOL-PECH_NT(2011)460049_EN.pdf   

Parliament 

Bulgaria, 

2001, 

Note 

in 

p. 

38 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Table 9 repatriation 

EU acquis 

Agreement 

No EU acquis 

of 

the 
Right 
be 
to 
fishermen 
repatriated 
from  a 
foreign  port  to  the 
country  of  origin  in 
case  their  contract  is 
expired 
or 
terminated.  

MS165 
having 
equal  or  more 
favourable 
standards 

less 

MS  having 
favourable 
standards  or  no 
standards  

BE,  DE,  EE,  FI, 
FR, LV, NL, PL. 
PT,  SE,  SI  and 
UK166 

BG,  ES167,  HR168, 
IE169, IT170, LT171 

4.3.6.  Food and water on board 

Article  25  of  ILO  C.188  provides  that  food  carried  and  served  on  board  be  of  a  sufficient 
nutritional  value,  quality  and  quantity.  Potable  water  must  be  of  sufficient  quality  and 
quantity. This is an important requirement given the high incidence of occupational diseases 
in the sector (see section 1.2), both in terms of quality and quantity. As the fishermen are at 
sea several days or even weeks, they are dependent on the food and water provided on board. 
Food and water shall be provided by the fishing vessel owner at no cost to the fishermen. This 
cost  can  be  recovered  as  an  operational  cost  if  the  collective  agreement  governing  a  share 
system  or  a  fisher's  work  agreement  so  provides.  Article  24  of  the  agreement  contains  a 
similar  provision.  This  provision  applies  to  all  vessels.  There  is  no  similar  provision  in  the 
current  EU  acquis172.  In  addition,  annex  II  of  the  agreement  contains  specific  technical 
requirements  on  food  storage,  conservation,  food  preparation,  and  kitchen  utensils.  These 
requirements  will  apply  to  vessels  for  which  the  building  or  major  conversion  contract  has 
been placed on or after the date of the entry into force of this agreement (See Annex 6).  

Ten Member States already have this provision in their national legislation. In five Member 
States  minor  changes  are  expected  to  add  to  the  general  standard  of  healthy  and  safe  living 

165 No information received: BG, MT, CY, PL, RO 
166  In  the  context  of  the  ICF  study,  the  UK  national  authorities  indicated  that  they  intend  to  provide  general 
protection on repatriation also for self-employed fishermen as per the ILO Convention C.188 
167 Repatriation right exists, but only for fishermen registered under the Spanish social security legislation and 
sailing on a fishing vessel flying under Spanish flag.  
168  According  to  the  information  received  from  the  national  authorities  in  the  context  of  the  ICF  study,  the 
Croatian fishing fleets sails in coastal waters, so the repatriation clause would not be applicable. The Bulgarian 
fishing fleet is also concentrated on its Black Sea coastal zone, see footnote 116 
169 Irish national authorities indicated in the context of the ICF study that the legislation needs to be updated. 
170  In  the  context  of  the  ICF  study  the  national  authorities  indicated  that  there  was  no  national  legislation 
regarding the repatriation of fishermen.  
171 
social 
www.socmin.lt/download/.../analize_tdo%20konvencija%20188_bendra.doc  
172  Directive  93/103/EC  does  contain  some  provisions  on  food,  but  not  to  this  level  of  detail.  It  contains  the 
requirement  for  cooking  and  domestic  appliances  using  heavy  gases  to  be  used  only  in  well  ventilated  spaces 
with care being taken to avoid dangerous accumulation of gas. (Annex I, point 2.9 and Annex II, point 2.9 

Lithuania, 

Analysis 

ministry 

affairs 

done 

the 

for 

by 

in 

39 

 
 
 
                                                 
conditions  on  board  as  already  applicable  through  the  result  of  Directive  93/103/EC,  the 
specific aspect of food and quality of food and water.  

having 
MS 
equal  or  more 
favourable 
standards 

less 

MS  having 
favourable 
standards  or  no 
standards  

DE,  DK,  EE,  FI, 
FR,  IT,  LV,  SE, 
SI, and UK 

BE, ES173 IE, HR, 
NL174, and PT 

Table 10 Food and water on board 

EU acquis 

Agreement 

No EU acquis 

The food carried and 
board 
served 
on 
a 
of 
be 
must 
sufficient  nutritional 
value,  quality  and 
quantity. 

of 

Potable  water  must 
be 
sufficient 
quality  and  quantity. 
The  food  and  water 
shall  be  provided  by 
the 
fishing  vessel 
owner  at  no  cost  to 
the fisherman;  

4.3.7.  Right to medical treatment on board and ashore 

Medical treatment on board and ashore is an important right in a sector where there is a great 
risk to injuries and accidents on board of vessels. This is illustrated among others by a study 
done on 187 medical treated injuries on board fishing vessels. Medical treatment ashore was 
delayed for more than 24 hours in 35% of the injuries.175 

Directive  92/29/EC176  sets  out  standards  for  medical  equipment  on  board  as  well  as  for  on 
board medical consultation by radio, which imply a right to medical care on board the vessel; 
the agreement however adds a requirement of satellite communication to be made available to 
the workers in this context and the right to medical care on shore (nearest port which can also 
be  outside  the  country  normally  responsible  of  the  fisherman’s  social  security).  A  right  to 
medical treatment ashore is not yet been provided for in the EU acquis.  

The ILO Convention C.188 contains a right for fishermen to receive medical treatment ashore 
as  well  as  to  be  taken  ashore  for  medical  treatment  in  a  timely  manner  in  case  of  serious 

173 These Member States only cover this right implicitly in their legislation 
174 Right is explicitly covered but for fisheries only if stated in the work agreement  
175 Jensen OC1, Christensen S, Larsen S, Soerensen L., Occupational injuries among fishermen, Bull Inst Marit 
Trop Med Gdynia. 1996;47(1-4):11-8. 
176 Council Directive 92/29/EEC of 31 March 1992 on the minimum safety and health requirements for improved 
medical treatment on board vessels, OJ L 113, 30.4.1992, p. 19–36 

40 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
injury  or  disease  (Article  29(e)  of  the  Convention).  The  Agreement  contains  a  similar 
provision in Article 26(a).  

At national level, 12 Member States177 already have provisions in place concerning medical 
treatment  abroad  and  ashore  in  accordance  with  the  Agreement.  5  Member  States178  have 
indicated that they do not fully comply with the provisions.  

Table 11: Medical treatment on board and ashore 

EU acquis 

Agreement 

Workers on board must 
be  granted  access  to 
medical consultation by 
radio 
facilitate 
assistance  in  case  of 
injury or emergency180. 

to 

No  similar  provision 
in the EU acquis 

Right 
free 
for 
medical treatment on 
board  and  abroad. 
Satellite 
communication 
needs  to  be  made 
available. 

Right 
have 
to 
treatment  ashore  or 
to  be  transported  to 
the shore in a timely 
manner 
receive 
to 
medical treatment.  

MS179 
having 
equal  or  more 
favourable 
standards 

less 

MS  having 
favourable 
standards  or  no 
standards  

BE, DE, EE, EL, 
FI,  FR,  HR,  LT, 
NL,  PL,  PT,  SE, 
UK 

ES181,  IE,  IT,  LV, 
SI182 

BE,  DE,  DK, 
EE,  EL,  FI,  FR, 
HR183, NL, LT184 
SE and the UK 

IE, IT, LV, PT, and 
SI185 

4.3.8.  Protection in case of work-related injury sickness and death 

Articles 38 and 39 of the ILO Convention C.188 contain provisions to ensure that in case of a 
work-related  injury,  or  sickness,  the  fishermen  shall  have  the  right  to  appropriate  medical 
care. Also, in case of work-related disease, injury or death, the fisherman or his descendants 
have the right to compensation. If the national social security system does not provide for it, 
the  fishing  vessel  owner  is  responsible  for  the  protection  and  medical  care  of  a  fishermen 
while on board of the vessel or in a foreign port until he is repatriated. This liability might be 

177 BE, DE, DK, EE, EL, FI, FR, HR , NL, LT, SE and the UK 
178 IE, IT, LV, PT and SI 
179 No information was received in the context of the ICF study from BG, CY, ES, MT, PL, RO, and SI 
180  Directive  92/29/EEC,  this  Directive  also  contains  provisions  on  the  type  and  quantity  of  medicaments  on 
board to be used on board if necessary. 
181 ES: No clear information was received in the context of the ICF study, p.79.  
182 Only general provisions applicable to all workers on access to medical care.  
183  In  the  context  of  the  ICF  study  the  Croatian  national  authorities  indicated  that  in  their  view  the  national 
legislation complies with the provisions of the Agreement.  
184 Source: www.socmin.lt/download/.../analize_tdo%20konvencija%20188_bendra.doc 
185 SI has a fleet which predominantly is composed of small scale fishing in coastal waters. Hence this fleet is not 
time. 
expected 
https://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu/documents/43805/1034590/2015-07_STECF+15-07+-+AER+2015_JRC97371.pdf  

for  a  prolonged  period  of 

foreign  port  and  not 

to  stay  at  sea 

land  at 

to 

41 

 
 
 
                                                 
covered via a system for fishing vessel owner's liability or a national compulsory insurance or 
other scheme186.  

The  Agreement  provides  is  to  the  extent  consistent  with  national  legislation,  medical  care 
shall be provided free of charge on board and abroad. The fishing vessel owner shall pay the 
costs  in  case  the  social  security  system  does  not  cover  it.  It  leaves  it  for  Member  States  to 
decide  about  the  rights  ensured  under  their  national  social  security  system  and  about  the 
height of benefits 

The  EU  acquis  provides  for  a  coordination  of  social  security187.  These  rules  ensure  that 
citizens making use of their right of free movement will be insured the social security system 
of  one  Member  State.  The  same  goes  for  sea  fishermen  who  reside  in  one  country  and  are 
employed on vessels flying the flag of another Member State. As said above, the EU rules do 
not determine the right to a social security benefit such as the right to medical care abroad or 
in case of occupational injury or accident. The height of the benefit is also determined by the 
Member States themselves.  

12 Member States188 seem to comply with the provisions in the agreement. Latvia and Spain 
estimate  that  some  additional  provisions  need  to  be  implemented,  but  did  not  specify  this 
further in the context of the study. For Ireland, Italy and Croatia the information received in 
the  context  of  the  external  study189  did  not  allow  to  make  estimations  on  gap  between  the 
national legislation and the agreement.  

Table 12 Right to compensation in case of occupational injury, sickness, or death 

EU acquis 

Agreement 

MS190 
having 
equal  or  more 
favourable 
standards 

Right  to  compensation  in  case 
of occupational injury, sickness 
or  death  in  so  far  as  it  is 
consistent  with 
the  national 
social security system.  

BE, DE, DK EE, 
EL,  FI,  FR,  LT, 
NL,  PT,  SE  and 
UK 

Ship-owners to pay the costs if 
social security system does not 
cover it.  

less 

MS  having 
favourable 
standards  or  no 
standards  in  this 
area 

ES, IE, IT and LV  

186http://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:12100:0::NO:12100:P12100_INSTRUMENT_ID:3
12333:NO  
187  Regulation  (EC)  No  883/2004  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  29  April  2004  on  the 
coordination  of  social  security  systems  (Text  with  relevance  for  the  EEA  and  for  Switzerland),OJ  L  166, 
30.4.2004, p. 1–123 
188 BE, DE, DK EE, EL, FI, , LT, NL, PT, SE and UK 
189 ICF study p. 80 
190 EE, ES, HR, IE, IT, LT, MT, PL, RO and SI 

42 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
4.3.9.  Occupational safety and health: risk assessment 

In  the  context  of  occupational  safety  and  health,  Article  33  of  the  ILO  Convention  C.188 
provides  that  risk  evaluation  shall  be  conducted,  as  appropriate,  with  the  participation  of 
fishers  or  their  representatives.191  The  Agreement  contains  an  identical  obligation  in  its 
Article 36.  

Directive 89/391/EEC192 contains an obligation on the employer to carry out a risk assessment 
and be in the possession of the respective documentation193. Employers shall consult workers 
or their representatives and allow them to take part in discussions on all questions relating to 
health  and  safety  at  work194.  A  similar  obligation  on  information  and  consultation  of 
employees  exists  in  Directive  93/103/EC  on  the  safety  and  health  requirements  in  the  sea 
fishing sector195.  

As  all  Member  States  have  transposed  both  Directives  in  their  national  legislation,  most 
Member States196 estimate that only minor adjustments have to be made to allow workers to 
participate in the risk assessment.  

Table 13: Risk assessment 

EU acquis 

Agreement 

or 

Workers 
their 
representatives  must  be 
consulted 
on 
occupational safety and 
health matters.  

or 

appropriate 
If 
workers 
their 
representatives  shall 
participate in the risk 
evaluation.  

MS197 
having 
equal  or  more 
favourable 
standards 

DE, DK, FR, IT, 
LT, SE and UK 

less 

MS  having 
favourable 
standards  or  no 
standards  in  this 
area 

EE,  EL,  FI,  HR198, 
IE, LV, NL, PT and 
SI 

191http://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:12100:0::NO:12100:P12100_INSTRUMENT_ID:3
12333:NO  
192 Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements 
in the safety and health of workers at work, OJ L 183, 29.6.1989, p. 1–8. 
193 Article 6(3) a and 9(1) a of Directive 89/391/EEC 
194 Article 11 of Directive 89/391/EEC 
195  Article  11  of  Directive  on  Council  Directive  93/103/EC  of  23  November  1993  concerning  the  minimum 
safety  and  health  requirements  for  work  on  board  fishing  vessels  (thirteenth  individual  Directive  within  the 
meaning of Article 16 (1) of Directive 89/391/EEC), OJ L 307, 13.12.1993, p. 1–17 
196 In the context of the ICF report DE, DK, FR, IT, SE and UK indicated that their national provisions on the 
risk assessment carried out with participation of fishermen or their representative comply with the Agreement. 
EE,  EL,  HR,  FI,  IE,  LV,  NL,  PT  and  SI  indicated  that  information  and  consultation  rights  are  in  place  with 
regard to risk assessment, ICF study p.80-81 
197 In the context of the ICF study no information was received from, BE, BG, CY, LT, MT, PL, RO and SI, p. 
81. 
198 Probably minor adjustments. 

43 

 
 
 
                                                 
5.  WHAT ARE THE IMPACTS AND WHO WILL BE AFFECTED? 

5.1.  Background 

This section will look at the likely economic and social impacts of the agreement. In addition 
it  will  look  at  the  impacts  on  competitiveness  and  on  SMEs.  There  are  no  environmental 
aspects  to  be  expected  from  the  agreement.  It  will  describe  who  will  be  affected.  In  this 
context  companies,  fishermen,  national  administrations,  consumers  and  possibly  third 
countries  will  be  affected199  as  sea  fishing  has  a  third  country  aspect  in  the  context  of  the 
Common Fisheries Policy.  

The  unit  of  analysis  used  to  estimate  the  population  is  represented  by  the  number  of 
stakeholders  which  are  affected  by  each  article  of  the  agreement.  The  estimation  of  the 
affected population was based as much as possible on EU level statistics or data collected at 
national level. In accordance with the applicability of the agreement workers, self-employed 
working  alongside  workers  on  the  same  vessels200,  were  included  in  the  analysis201.  Self-
employed workers not working alongside workers were excluded from all calculations, since 
they are not covered by the provisions of the Agreement). No data is available on employment 
per vessel. Given that precise data identifying relevant populations were not directly available 
for  all  aspects  of  the  agreement  assumptions  were  needed  to  produce  estimates.  For  the 
calculations over a 5 year period were made. Calculations were based on a low, best and high 
estimate. These figures are presented in section 5.2 and further.  

For each Article of the Agreement, the size of the affected population depends on the existing 
legislative framework at national level. In order to obtain comparable figures in the context of 
the external study, EU level datasets, triangulated with national datasets and information from 
interviews  have  also  been  used  as  in  many  cases  there  is  not  clear  and  reliable  data  on  the 
affected  population.  To  approximate  the  population  affected  by  articles  of  the  Agreement 
mainly  secondary  data  appearing  in  the  Annual  Economic  Report  (AER)  2014  under  the 
following  reference  Scientific,  Technical  and  Economic  Committee  for  Fisheries  (STECF) 
"The  2014  Annual  Economic  Report  on  the  EU  fishing  Fleet  (STECF  14-16)",  2014.,  EU-
LFS  and  EU-LFS  ad-hoc  modules  data  have  been  used.  A  sensitivity  analysis  has  been 
conducted as part of the quantitative analysis (see Annex 2). 

The detailed comparison of the options developed in section 4 assists in identifying the types 
of impacts and reasons for those impacts associated with the articles of the Agreement. This 
analysis is therefore taken into account when assessing quantifiable and non-quantifiable costs 
and benefits of the Agreement202.  

Particular attention will be paid in this section to the consequences in Spain, Italy, Portugal, 
Greece, the Netherlands, Poland and the United Kingdom as these countries make up 84% of 
the sector in total employment terms and 87% in terms of FTE within the EU (See Annex 5). 

199 http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/guidelines/tool_8_en.htm 
200  As  said  in  section  4.3.1,  The  agreement  is  extended  to  self-employed,  whenever  there  is  a  link  (direct  or 
indirect) to the protection of the health and safety of employed workers on the same vessel 
201 The proxy used for the category of self-employed working alongside workers was the EU-LFS category ‘self-
employed  with  employee’  (see  box  1).  It  is  acknowledged  that  this  is  only  an  approximating  of  the  relevant 
category of worker, but no other proxy was available. The self-employed excluded are captured by the EU-LFS 
category ‘self-employed without employees’ (see box 1). Again, this is the only available approximation of the 
relevant category.  
202 See annex 2 for details on the methodology used to quantify costs and benefits  

44 

 
 
                                                 
France will not be impacted by the agreement as they have ratified the ILO Convention itself 
in  October  2015.  The  Estonian  national  authorities  submitted  the  law  to  ratify  the  ILO 
Convention  to  the  national  Parliament  in  November  2015.  Therefore  it  is  assumed  that  the 
agreement  will  have  no  impact  on  Estonia203,  as  their  national  legislation  will  be  compliant 
with the ILO Convention. DK, NL, and UK are preparing for ratification. It could be assumed 
that ratification in these countries will take place in 2016-2017.  

The agreement contains minimum standards. It contains also more favourable provisions and 
a  non-regression  clause.  As  a  consequence,  Member  States  are  allowed  to  maintain  or 
introduce more favourable legislation on the subjects addressed by the agreement. Therefore, 
the agreement will have no direct impact on the situation in Member States that already have 
equal or more favourable provisions than the agreement. It will have an impact on Member 
States that have no or less favourable provisions, than the minimum requirements set out by 
the agreement, in their national legislation. 

In addition, the agreement contains some clauses to allow for its progressive implementation 
in  national  law  in  a  period  of  5  years  for  cases  where  the  implementation  of  the  agreement 
would entail substantial problems for limited categories of fishermen or vessels. If a Member 
State wishes to use this possibility of progressive implementation, the national social partners 
in the sector need to be consulted. 

Only  the  provisions  of  the  agreement  which  are  likely  to  add  significantly  to  existing 
international and already transposed EU legal acquis  have  been  assessed. This  means that  a 
number of articles have not been considered for an assessment of quantitative and qualitative 
impact,  either  because  they  are  already  covered  by  the  existing  international  or  EU  legal 
acquis, because they provide significant leeway for national interpretation and/or because they 
only  add  some  further  specification  in  relation  to  existing  provisions  at  the  margins.  These 
concern the provisions on manning requirements, minimum age, crew list and private labour 
market services.  

5.2. 

Impact on the Member States 

As a result of the analysis in Section 4, it can be concluded that out of the 23 Member States 
that have a sea fishing sector Belgium, Estonia, Denmark, France, Finland, and Germany do 
not  need  to  make  amendments  to  comply  with  the  provisions  of  the  agreement,  as  their 
national  rules  are  already  equivalent  or  more  favourable  than  the  agreement.  For  Croatia, 
Greece, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania and Sweden only minor amendments to 
national  provisions  are  needed.  Thus  in  total  13  countries  out  of  23  Member  States  do  not 
need  to  make  any  major  changes  to  implement  the  Agreement.  No  major  implementation 
challenges  are  therefore  expected  for  these  Member  States.  For  three  Member  States 
(Bulgaria, Cyprus, Malta) no assessment was possible due to the fact that no information was 
supplied by these Member States in the context of the external studies.  

This means seven Member States still need to streamline their national legislation. For Spain, 
Portugal,  Ireland  Latvia,  and  Italy,  Slovenia  and  the  UK  amendments  to  legislation  will  be 
necessary.  Some  amendments  will  be  minor  such  as  the  obligation  to  carry  the  fisherman's 

203http://www.riigikogu.ee/tegevus/eelnoud/eelnou/c3837e93-26b4-47c0-a842-
f5770f817a57/Rahvusvahelise%20T%C3%B6%C3%B6organisatsiooni%20kalandust%C3%B6%C3%B6%20ko
nventsiooni%20(nr%20188)%20ratifitseerimise%20seadus/  
45 

 
 
                                                 
work  agreement  on  board  of  the  vessel204,  or  the  introduction  of  certain  additional  health 
checks  to  obtain  the  medical  certificate205.  For  the  UK,  the  implementation  of  the  medical 
certificate  may  need  significant  changes.  For  Spain,  the  introduction  of  a  written  work 
agreement  will  lead  to  changes.  The  right  of  repatriation  needs  to  be  introduced  in  Italy. 
Slovenia  needs  to  introduce  sector  specific  legislation  but  this  may  not  have  in  practice  a 
strong  impact  due  to  similar  general  labour  law  provisions.  While  these  changes  are  more 
significant,  no  specific  implementation  challenges  are  expected.  Most  Member  States, 
concerned already have similar provisions in their national legislation for seafarers. Hence it 
would be a case of extending this legislation to sea fishermen. 

In terms of level playing field, even if Member States will retain some flexibility, the scope 
for divergence is narrower than presently as the same standards will apply to all of them. For 
example  all  Member  States  will  need  to  introduce  an  obligation  for  fishermen  to  have  a 
medical certificate before allowing fishermen to work on board. They could be more or less 
prescriptive regarding the medical examination required (although some essential checks are 
prescribed by the agreement).  

As a result of the agreement, Member States benefit from a decrease in occupational illnesses, 
injuries  and  workplace  accidents  through  lower  social  security  costs.  Out  of  those,  only  the 
impact linked to the reduction in hospital admissions could be quantified. The decrease was 
estimated  to  be  €70,000  per  year  for  illnesses  and  €100,000  for  accidents.  The  largest 
decreases  in  hospital  spending  for  accidents  was  estimated  to  be  in  the  United  Kingdom, 
Portugal,  Spain,  Ireland  and  Italy  (all  estimated  to  save  over  €10,000  per  year),  with  the 
United Kingdom, Spain and Portugal also saving over €10,000 per year from the reduction in 
illnesses.  For  the  national  enforcement  authorities,  it  would  support  the  enforcement  of 
obligations stemming from the national labour law. 

The benefits to national authorities will also persist beyond the full five year period analysed, 
with  the  total  benefit  estimated  to  be  over  €0.8-€1.5  million  for  illnesses  and  accidents.  for 
that 5 year period206. 

For the other provisions of the agreement, the impact of the agreement on public authorities is 
also  likely  to  be  limited,  as  in  most  cases  enforcement  mechanisms  exist.  Having  one  legal 
framework  for  the  living  and  working  conditions  for  fishermen,  might  facilitate  the 
enforcement  of  the  living  and  working  conditions.  It  will  also  lead  to  more  attention  being 
given  to  the  working  conditions  on  board.  In  addition,  it  would  foster  coordination  by  the 
different  enforcement  authorities.  Beyond  the  quantified  impacts  on  health  care  systems, 
further impacts on benefits or disability schemes are likely to be minimal as there is unlikely 
to be a significant (negative) employment effect which may lead to further calls on the benefit 
system. 

5.3. 

Impact on workers 

The  Agreement  aims  to  introduce  certain  provisions  (medical  certificate,  working  time, 
occupational  safety  and  health  provisions  on  food  and  water,  accommodation,  equipment, 

204 This is a minor adjustment for IE, PT, ES, and UK 
205 IT and IE 
206 ICF study, p. 115 

46 

 
 
 
                                                 
medical treatment on board, and risk assessments) which, if complied with, would reduce the 
safety  and  health  risks  for  workers  in  this  sector.  It  would  improve  working  conditions,  in 
particular occupational safety and health. In addition, the introduction of a written fisherman's 
work agreement and a right to repatriation would improve legal certainty. It would lead to less 
risk of undeclared work and of abandonment of fishermen in a foreign port.  

In terms of positive impacts with regard to better health outcomes and improved well-being 
(and an associated greater likelihood to be able to work in the sector for longer), provisions on 
working time and medical certificates are most likely to show some positive impact. Such an 
impact would occur, in particular in those Member States that need to make some changes to 
their legislation such as Ireland, Italy, Spain, Romania and United Kingdom. In particular, the 
United Kingdom would need to introduce legislation on medical certificates.  

It  is  being  assumed  that  the  medical  certificate  would  lead  to  a  reduction  of  workplace 
accidents  and  occupational  illnesses.  As  no  base  line  data  could  be  found  on  the  impact  of 
legislation  on  accidents  and  illnesses,  the  assumption  of  a  5%  reduction  rates  was  made.207 
Using information on illnesses and accidents from the EU-LFS, the analysis estimated that the 
introduction of the legislation would result in 200 fewer workplace accidents and 130 fewer 
occupational illnesses per year in the 20 Member States have been analysed.  

Involvement  of  the  fishermen  themselves  or  their  representatives  in  risk  assessment  will 
encourage  the  discussion  of  risks  and  preventative  measures  and  might  foster  a  culture  of 
prevention  which  is  currently  lacking  in  the  sector.  This  will  encourage  the  further 
improvement of working conditions on board208 

The  reduction  in  workplace  accidents  and  occupational  illnesses  would  persist  over  the  full 
five year period analysed. In total in the 20 Member States, it was estimated that over the five 
year209 period betweem1,000-2,000 workplace accidents and between 700-1,300 episodes of 
occupational illness would be avoided.  

5.4. 

Impact on employers 

Changes in expenditure 

One off costs 

207 A scenario analysis was made. In the external study the assumption was being made that where a Member 
State has to alter their approach to managing health and safety following the introduction of new legislation, the 
Member  State  will  experience  a  reduction  in  the  number  of  workplace  accidents  and  occupational  health 
conditions  of  5%  (taking  account  of  research  that  accident  risk  doubles  after  12  working  hours).  This  5% 
reduction has been adjusted depending on how far away from the agreement current Member State legislation is. 
(ICF study, p. 96). 
208 Report From The Commission to The Council, The European Parliament, The European Economic and Social 
Committee and The Committee of The Regions on the practical implementation of Health and Safety at Work 
Directives  93/103/EC,  COM(2009)599  final(fishing  vessels)  and  92/29/EEC  (medical  treatment  on  board 
vessels) 
209  Given  the  nature of  the  external  study,  the  timeframe  used  to  assess  the  baseline  costs,  should  in  principle 
reflect the numbers of years required for the full health impacts to come into effect. This, would require reliable 
information  on  the  period  of  latency  of  certain  illnesses  such  as  musculoskeletal  disorders  or  other  illnesses 
prevalent  in  this  sector,  which  was  generally  lacking.  Therefore  a  reasonable  timeframe  was  used,  which  was 
considered to be five years; as a longer period would increase the uncertainty of the estimates. 

47 

 
 
                                                 
It is likely that there will be costs to employers to implement the requirements detailed in the 
Agreement, some of these likely to be both one off costs. For example drafting or amending 
fisherman’s works agreements to meet the new standards and storing copies on board of the 
vessel. Employers in the six Member States210 will be the most impacted. The average labour 
cost in the sector for these countries is estimated between 8 and 17 euro per hour211. In order 
to draft or amend a workers agreement and store it on board the vessel. It is assumed that an 
administrator would spend 2 hours per worker (see sensitivity analysis in Annex 2), i.e. 16-34 
euro per worker to  draft or  amend the agreement and  make  sure it is  on board  the ship.  To 
ensure that the agreements are carried on board, the additional costs would be one hour per 
worker.  Taking  into  account  the  number  of  workers  involved  in  this  sector  in  the  Member 
States, this would lead to €0.6 million. Taking into account the number of enterprises in the 
country concerned, this would lead to an average cost of €30 per enterprise212. Due to the high 
number  of  employed  workers  in  the  sector,  Spain,  and  Portugal  would  be  relatively  more 
impacted.  

Other costs involve the training to make skippers of the vessel and the crew familiar with their 
rights  and  obligations  under  the  agreement  which  is  estimated  at  €1.7  million  euro.  This 
training is not an obligation provided for in the agreement, but seems logical. The experience 
with  a  similar  agreement  in  the  maritime  sector  shows  that  EU  and  national  social  partners 
also  provide  information  and  training  to  workers  in  the  sector.  Improving  the  working 
conditions  and  in  particular,  the  occupational  health  and  safety  culture  among  fishermen, 
demands information and training. Member States indicated previously that they consider that 
training  essential  and  that  it  needs to  be  more  adapted to  the  circumstances  of  fishermen  in 
terms of level of education, availability, traditions and culture, etc. and should include more 
practical exercises213.The cost of a training session has been estimated as €115 in the United 
Kingdom214. The number of skippers requiring training has been estimated taking into account 
the number of vessels that are not run by self-employed individuals with no employees (using 
information from the LFS), as this article of the Agreement. The cost of paying for training 
for skippers’ was estimated to be €1.7 million. This cost is also a one-off cost, not extending 
over the five year period. This estimate does not take into account the possibility that national 
social  partners  might  also  be  involved  in  the  training  and  in  providing  information  on  the 
rights  and  obligations  of  the  agreement.  The  costs  to  employers  of  paying  for  training  and 
allowing  skippers’  to  attend  training  is  highest  in  Greece,  Croatia  and  Finland,  as  larger 
countries  already  comply  with  this  aspect  of  the  Agreement.  However,  this  might  be 
overestimated  as  both  Greece  and  Finland  have  a  high  number  of  self-employed  (61%  and 
71%) who consequently do not fall within the scope of the agreement.  

Recurrent costs 

210 LV, RO and SI will need to adjust their general written agreement to the specific features of the sector. IE, 
PT, and the UK do have a written sector specific agreement, but their national legislation does not contain the 
obligation  to  carry  the  fisherman's  work  agreement  on  board  the  vessel.  ES  does  not  seem  to  have  written 
agreement for fishermen. 
211 See Annex 2  
212 This is an estimate as the employment per enterprise is not known.  
213Report From The Commission to The Council, The European Parliament, The European Economic and Social 
Committee and The Committee of The Regions on the practical implementation of Health and Safety at Work 
Directives  93/103/EC,  COM(2009)599  final(fishing  vessels)  and  92/29/EEC  (medical  treatment  on  board 
vessels)  
214  See  Annex  2.  This  value  has  been  adjusted  using  exchange  rates  and  PPP  values  to  give  country  specific 
values. 

48 

 
 
                                                 
Recurrent  costs  would  be  related  to  the  provision  of  food  and  water,  medical  certificates, 
covering the cost of repatriation, medical treatment on board and ashore, risk assessment).  

The provision of food and water of sufficient quality and quantity will be recurrent costs. The 
costs will depend on the number of crew on board and the time spent at sea. These costs will 
impact employers with a distant water fleet who remain longer at sea, more than employers of 
a coastal fleet which returns to shore every day or within a few days. This cost could not be 
quantified but it is expected not to have a significant impact since ships that stay longer at sea 
would have to have food and water of sufficient quantity and quality on board for the crew's 
health and safety.  

With  regard  to  the  medical  certificate  Italy,  Sweden  and  Ireland  need  to  make  some 
adjustments with regard to the content of the medical examination required, but the medical 
certificate  as  such  exists.  In  the  United  Kingdom  authorities  indicated  in  the  context  of  the 
study that it has no certificate for fishermen, as it has for seafarers. The assumption is being 
made that the UK would then introduce a medical certificate for all fishermen, which would 
cost 115 euro per worker. The cost of a certificate is estimated at an average of 300 euro per 
enterprise. These are recurrent costs as the certificate needs to be renewed every two year. It 
is  possible  that  in  some  Member  States  the  national  insurance  system  might  reimburse  the 
costs of the medical certificate.  

Repatriation  rights  impact  the  Member  States  with  a  fishing  fleet  which  is  active  in  distant 
waters have already a right to repatriations. This would mainly bring costs to Italy who does 
not  seem  to  have  a  right  to  repatriation  for  fishermen.  Spain  will  be  impacted  to  a  lesser 
extent, as a right to repatriation exists. It will need to expand it to fishermen which do not fall 
under  the  scope  of  its  national  social  security  system.  There  is  no  data  on  the  number  of 
fishermen which falls in to this category215.  

It is assumed that 1% of illnesses and accidents required repatriation, and the on-off cost of 
repatriation was €10,000 per repatriation  (see Annex 2).  Hence the costs per year would be 
€110.000216. This can be considered as a high estimate regarding Spain, where a large part of 
the  fishermen  are  already  covered  by  the  right  to  repatriation.  Italy  who  currently  does  not 
have right for repatriation would be the most impacted. 

In  the  context  of  the  medical  treatment  on  board  and  ashore,  the  provision  that  the  vessel 
owner defers all costs that were not covered under social security if abroad is new. Systems of 
private  insurance  for  example  could  ensure  that  the  vessel  owner  can  actually  in  practice 
apply  the  provisions.  The  Member  States  most  impacted  by the  provision  are  Ireland,  Italy, 
Latvia, Portugal and Spain. Sea fisheries’ activities in Slovenia are limited to coastal waters 
and seem to have a part-time and seasonal character, therefore, the impact is considered to be 
limited. 

Risk assessment, the agreement contains a requirement for fishermen or their representatives 
to take part in risk assessment as appropriate. This is a requirement which has already been 
introduced by a few Member States217 in their legislation. However, for the Member States, 
where  this  is  not  the  case,  this  could  imply  specific  guidance  from  national  (enforcement) 
authorities  and  potentially  specific  training  for  fishermen  or  their  representative  who 

215 See section 5.1.4. 
216 ICF study, p. 117 
217 DE, DK, FR, IT, SE and UK 

49 

 
 
                                                 
participate  in  the  risk  assessment.  In  Member  States  where  this  requirement  already  exists, 
trainings  were  estimated  to  cost  between  98  and  180  euro  per  person  for  training218.  This 
would  lead  to  a  total  cost  of  1  million  euro.  This  would  be  one-off  costs  due  to  agreement 
entering into force. The training might need to be repeated periodically for fishermen entering 
the  profession  and  for  new  representatives.  In  addition,  a  risk  assessment  would  need  to  be 
performed for example whenever new fishers enter into service, new equipment is installed or 
used,  or  new  work  methods  are  introduced.  The  cost  of  carrying  out  a  risk  assessment  for 
Member States who do not have the provisions in place is estimated on €0.1 million219. Based 
on  an  assumption  that  10,000  vessels  (see  Annex  2)  would  need  to  be  assessed  this  would 
come to €10 euro per vessel. 

Production gains 

The agreement would be expected to lead to production gains resulting from a reduction in the 
incidence and severity of occupational illnesses and accidents which require workers to take 
sick leave in this sector. This will lead to a reduced volume of absence due to a reduction in 
the number of occupational health conditions and accidents.  

This benefit has been estimated in monetary terms, using estimates of the duration of absence 
from an accident or illness (from the EU-LFS), the 5% reduction rate per year and the cost of 
labour.  The  benefits  to  employers  will  not  only  materialise  during  the  full  five  year  period 
analysed  but  also  beyond.  The  total  benefit  in  terms  of  reduction  in  lost  productivity  from 
occupational illnesses and accidents for employers for that five year period is estimated to be 
between €0.8-1.6 million for occupational illnesses and €1.9-3.8 million for accidents 220. 

Reduced staff turn-over  

A reduction in the number of workplace accidents and occupational health issues will have a 
positive  effect  on  staff  retention.  However,  no  evidence  was  found  which  estimated 
quantitatively  the  relationship  between  accidents  and  occupational  health.  The  reduction  in 
staff  turnover  would  persist  every  year.  Therefore  a  reduction  in  staff  turnover  is  likely  to 
have a moderate impact, in particular on the countries that have a large number of employees 
in the sector, such as Spain, Italy and the United Kingdom.  

Reduced insurance fees 

Reduced  accidents  and  illnesses  rates  would  lead  to  reduced  insurance  fees  for  employers 
because  of  a  reduction  of  claims.  However,  no  evidence  was  discovered  of  how  much 
employers in the fishing industry pay for insurance, or how much this would reduce if the new 
legislation was introduced. Therefore this impact could not be assessed quantitatively. Impact 
on the national administration 

5.5. 

Impact on employment 

The implementation of the agreement is unlikely to impact overall employment opportunities 
in the sector, with the potential exception of countries where regulations on working time may 

218 Prices quoted in the UK and DE. See Annex 2.  
219 ICF study section 129-130 
220 ICF Study, p. 119 

50 

 
 
 
                                                 
lead to the necessity to recruit additional staff. However, this eventually appears limited as the 
working time limits set on the agreement are the same as the current EU acquis. 

As most of the measures foreseen mainly impact employees (rather than self-employed), one 
might  argue  that  their  implementation  could  have  displacement  effect  with  employers 
preferring  to  recruit  self-employed  fishermen  rather  than  issuing  contracts  of  employment. 
However, since the impact of the agreement is limited, it is not expected that the impact of the 
Agreement  is  sufficient  to  have  significant  displacement  effects  of  this  nature  at  Member 
State level 221. 

5.6. 

Impact on competitiveness, SMEs and consumers 

Nearly 90% of businesses in this sector are micro-businesses with only one vessel. Although 
no  data  are  available  on  the  average  number  of  employees  per  vessels,  it  can  be  assumed 
(based on the data on self-employed without employees), that an important share of these are 
owner operated vessels or vessels operated by a skipped with one or two other self-employed 
or employees on board.  

The Agreement will have no impact on owner operated micro enterprises as its provisions do 
not apply to them. The impact on small businesses will be limited to those with employees or 
where self-employed work alongside employees.  

The overall quantitative and qualitative impact of the Agreement on businesses is of limited 
significance, although it presents differences by country. Therefore, while there is inevitably a 
greater  impact  on  SMEs,  it  is  proportionate  of  their  share  in  the  sector  and  is  unlikely  to 
impact  their  competitiveness  when  compared  to  the  situation  under  existing  legislative 
provisions. In addition, the agreement provides the possibility for Member States to exclude 
certain  categories  of  fishermen  or  vessels,  if  its  application  raises  special  problems  of  a 
substantial  nature  in  the  light  of  the  particular  conditions  of  service  or  operations  of  the 
vessels.  For  these  categories  Member  States  can  progressively  implement  the  agreement  in 
these  sectors  over  a  period  of  5  years.  Furthermore,  some  provisions,  like  the  provision  on 
medical  certificates  are  limited  to  vessels  of  24  meters  and  over.  It  is  left  to  the  Member 
States to decide whether or not to extend them to other  vessels. Even if Member States will 
retain some flexibility, the scope for divergence is narrower as the same standards will apply 
to  all  of  them.  For  example  all  Member  States  will  need  to  introduce  an  obligation  for 
fishermen  to  have  a  medical  certificate  before  allowing  fishermen  to  work  on  board.  They 
could be more or less prescriptive regarding the medial examination required although some 
essential checks are prescribed by the agreement.  

It therefore unlikely, that the Agreement will have impact negatively the competitiveness or 
competition in  the sector  or  vis-à-vis  vessels  of third countries.  This impact would be more 
significant  (and  potentially  beneficial  to  the  EU  fishing  fleet)  if  the  implementation  of  the 
Agreement  were  to  lead  to  the  ratification  of  the  ILO  Convention  188  also  by  countries 
outside  the  EU  (see  section  5.7).  Here  differences  in  labour  standards  are  currently  seen  to 
have  a  negative  impact  on  the  competitiveness  of  the  EU  fleet  which  could  be  improved  if 
non-EU countries were required to enforce similar labour standards as are already in place in 
most  EU  countries.  Due  to  the  EU's  strong  position  in  trading  of  fishing  products,  this  will 

221 ICF study, p. 129 

51 

 
 
                                                 
promote ratification on third countries. The EU Member States will also have an incentive to 
promote ratification222.   

Given  the  limited  impact  of  the  agreement  on  businesses,  it  would  be  unlikely  that  the 
agreement would lead to a substantial increase in the price of fish for the consumers.  

5.7. 

Impact on third countries 

The impact of the agreement on third countries in the context of the CFP and the fight against 
IUU  fishing  could  be  beneficial  to  the  EU  fishing  fleet  Indeed,  the  implementation  of  the 
Agreement in the EU acquis would give the EU a stronger position to promote the ratification 
of the ILO Convention C.188 by third countries (See section 3.3). 

For example, in the context of IUU fishing223, the European Commission has put Thailand on 
formal  notice  for  not  taking  sufficient  measures  in  the  international  fight  against  illegal 
fishing.  Such  a  procedure  could  lead  to  a  ban  on  import,  in  case  the  country  does  not  take 
measures to improve the situation. This has triggered discussions with the Thai authorities on 
the working conditions in its national fishing sector224, which exports its products mainly to 
the US and the EU.  

5.8.  Overview of costs and benefits 

The  table  below  shows  that  in  the  first  year  the  costs  of  implementing  the  Agreement  are 
estimated  to  outweigh  the  benefits,  mainly  due  to  the  costs  to  familiarise  workers  with  the 
new provisions and to implement the agreement in practice (frontloading). In the full five year 
period225, in the most conservative scenario, benefits and costs  cancel themselves out. In the 
average  and  optimistic  scenario  the  benefits  will  outweigh  the  costs.  However,  it  should  be 
noted  that  it  was  not  possible  to  quantify  and  monetise  all  costs  and  benefits226.  For  the 
calculations  over  a  5  year  period  were  made  a  low  estimate,  a  best  estimate  and  a  high 
estimate. These figures are presented in the table below. 

Actor 

Impact  

Value  first 
year 

Value 
over 
years 

Value  over 
5 years  

Value  over 
5 years  

5 

(best 
estimate) 

(high 
estimate) 

(Low 
estimate) 

Benefits  

Workers 

Reduction 
numbers 

in 
of 

1,000 

222 ICF study, p. 126 
223  In  the  context  of  IUU  fishing,  the  European  Commission  has  put Thailand on  formal  notice  for  not  taking 
sufficient  measures  in  the  international  fight  against  illegal  fishing  (IUU).  http://europa.eu/rapid/press-
release_IP-15-4806_en.htm 
224http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/21/eu-investigators-to-decide-on-thai-fishing-industry-ban-over-
slave-labour  
225arising from it under the assumptions used to model the impacts 
226 For estimated costs per Member State, please see Annex 4.  
52 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
accidents  

200 

Reduction 
numbers 
occupational 
injuries  

in 
of 

130 

Value  of  accidents 
avoided 

200 

130 

700 

2,000 

1,300 

€0.9 
million  

€0.4 
million 

€4.1 million 

€12,4 
million 

Employers 

in 

Reduction 
productivity 
accidents 

lost 
from 

€0.4 
million 

€0.4 
million 

€1.9 million 

€3.8 million 

the 
in 
Reduction 
lost 
productivity 
from  occupational 
illness 

€0.2 
million 

€0.2 
million 

€0.8 million 

€1.6 million 

Administrators  Reduction 

in 
hospital costs due to 
accidents 
and 
occupational 
diseases 

Total Benefits 

Costs  

One-off costs  

€0.2 
million 

€1.7 
million 

Employer 

or 

Drafting 
amending 
fisherman’s  work 
agreement 
and 
ensure it is on board 
the vessel 

€0.5 
million 

€0.2 
million 

€1.2 
million 

€0.3 
million 

€0.8 million 

€1.5 million 

7.5 million 

€19,7million 

€0.5 million  €0.5 million 

Recurrent 

Medical 
certificate227 

repatriation 

€0.5 
million 

€0.8 
million 

€1.3 
million228 

€4.8 million 

€0.1 

€0.5 million  €1.9 million 

€0.1 

227  For  vessels  over  24  meters  only,  based  on  providing  the  certificate  and  lost  output  due  to  providing  the 
certificate, based on the assumption that fishermen need to take time of work to obtain the certificate.  
228 Certificate needs to be renewed every 2 years.  

53 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Risk assessment 

Total costs 

million 

million 

€0.4 
million 

€1.5 
million 

€0.1 
million 

€1.3 
million 

€0.7 million  €0.8 million 

€2.9 million  €8 million 

54 

 
 
 
 
 
 
6. 

COMPARISON OF THE OPTIONS  

Baseline 

Agreement 

Assessment of 
the change 
from baseline 
to agreement 

Effectiveness 

The rate of occupational 
injuries 
accidents  and 
will remain high  

legal 

The 
framework 
will remain fragmented  

rate 

high 

The 
of 
accidents  and  injuries in 
the sector, leads to costs 
of  both  the  employer 
national 
and 
and 
administrations, 
workers 

the 

Efficiency 

Coherence 

Effectiveness 

and 

accidents 

The  agreement  will  help  reduce 
injuries 
and 
therefore  improve  occupational 
safety  and health of the workers 
in this sector. 

The  sea  fisheries  sector  will 
legal 
have 
framework,  which  will  increase 
legal certainty.  

coherent 

a 

it  brings 

The  costs  of  the  agreement  are 
limited  as 
limited 
changes.  However,  costs  are  to 
the  Member 
in 
be  expected 
States  who  need  to  adjust  their 
provisions.  Costs 
be 
mitigated  by  flexibility  clauses 
in  the  agreement.  Costs  are  set 
off against the benefits.  

can 

in 

fits 

The  agreement 
the 
objective  of  the  Commission  to 
improve  the  living  and  working 
conditions  of  workers  in  the 
including 
sector 
maritime 
fisheries. 
the 
It 
protection  of  the  labour  rights 
mentioned  in  the  EU  Charter  of 
Fundamental  Rights  of 
the 
European Union. 

enhances 

++ 

-/+ 

+ 

Compared to the baseline situation, the agreement will improve occupational safety and health 
for fishermen within the EU. It will provide a consolidated legal framework which is adapted 
to working conditions for the sea fishing sector. 

55 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Efficiency 

The high rate of accidents and injuries in the sector, leads to costs of both the employer and 
the  national  administrations.  For  the  employers  it  leads  to  a  loss  of  production  and  a  high 
turnover of staff. For national authorities this results in costs in terms of health care costs and 
social insurance. For workers: a high risk of accidents and occupational injuries leads to a loss 
of income in case of incapacity or disease and it might lead to an early leaving of the sector. 

The costs of the agreement are limited as it brings limited changes. However, costs are to be 
expected in the Member States who need to adjust their provisions: 

Continuously cost for the employers: 

medical certificate; 

repatriation costs; 

training on risk assessment; 

costs on medical treatment on board and ashore; 

a) 

b) 

c) 

d) 

One-off: 

a)  training and familiarisation with the new rules;  

b)  drafting  or  adjusting  fisherman's  work  agreements  and  store  them  on  board  of  the 

vessel; 

c)  adaptation of the national legislation to the requirements of the agreement 

The  costs  seem  to  be  limited  and  in  direct  relation  with  the  intentions  of  the  initiative.  The 
permanent costs are set of against an expected continuing reduction of non-fatal accidents and 
injuries in the sector 

There  will  be  an  increase  of  costs,  but  also  benefits  in  particular  for  the  employers  in  the 
Member  States  that  would  need  to  introduce  health  and  safety  measures  and  where  a 
reduction in accidents can be expected. 

The costs can be mitigated as the agreement provides for flexibility on some clauses such as 
medical  certificates  and  also  by  the  possibility  to  gradual  implement  the  agreement  over  a 
period of 5 years. 

Coherence 

The  agreement  fits  in  the  objective  of  the  Commission  to  improve  the  living  and  working 
conditions of workers in the maritime sector including fisheries. 

It enhances the protection of the labour rights mentioned in the EU Charter of Fundamental 
Rights of the European Union 

The  Agreement  is  consistent  with  the  European  Policy  and  measures  to  fight  against  IUU 
fishing  activities.  Better  working  conditions  will  increase  the  attractiveness  of  the  sector 
operating legally, boosting competition among employers to get the best personnel on board 
and for this purpose indirectly ensure a healthier social climate. 

Proportionality 

The agreement makes a step forward to achieve the objectives set to improve the safety and 
health protection of workers and provide for a coherent legal framework. It does so at overall 

56 

 
 
reasonable costs. The action is based on an agreement concluded by employers’ and workers’ 
representatives  in  the  sector.  The  agreement  would  be  implemented  in  EU  legislation  via  a 
Council  Directive  which  establishes  minimum  requirements  and  would  leave  the  Member 
States  the  possibility  to  keep  or  set  more  favourable  standards  for  workers.  In  addition,  the 
agreement leaves the Member States flexibility to take into account specific features of their 
national situation. Therefore the Commission considers the agreement as an appropriate way 
forward. 

7.  HOW WOULD ACTUAL IMPACTS BE MONITORED AND EVALUATED? 

7.1.  Monitoring of the impacts 

Without prejudice to the provisions of the agreement on the follow-up and review by the 
signatories, the European Commission shall monitor the implementation of the directive. 

The following data will be examined: 

Operational objective 
Reduction of the numbers 
and 
accidents 
of 
occupational injuries 

Operational indicator 
1.  Total  number/incidence  rate 
of fatal/non-fatal accidents 

of 

health 
Reduction 
taking  other 
problems 
aspects 
the 
as 
such 
increased  average  aging 
of the population working 
in the sector into account; 

in 

living 
Improvement 
and working conditions in 
the sector 

number 

occupational 

work-related 

1. number of days absent in the 
sector 
2. 
illnesses.  
3.  Total  number/incidence  rate 
of 
health 
problems in the past 12 months 
complaints 
Number 
received by national authorities 
Number of complaints reported 
by  the  national  enforcement 
authorities 

of 

Data sources 
Monitoring  by  the  signatories 
of the agreement.  
Occupational  safety  and  health 
survey  both  at  European  (LFS 
data) and national level.  
Data on absenteeism from work 
due to injuries and accidents 

Data  on  employment  in  the 
sector  
Health  surveys  at  national  and 
EU level 
Specific  health  surveys  in  the 
sector 

Satisfaction  surveys  within  the 
sectors  at  national  level  will 
need 
conducted. 
be 
Questionnaires  to  the  national 
authorities  and  national  social 
partners.  

to 

7.2.  Evaluation of the agreement 

The  directive  implementing  the  agreement  into  EU  legislation  would  be  evaluated  by  the 
Commission  services  five years after the date of its entry into force. The evaluation will be 
based  on  data  gathered  from  the  monitoring  exercise,  complemented  by  the  results  of  the 
monitoring and of the review by the signatories of the agreement as  well as  by information 
collected from Member States and other stakeholders.  

57 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
In order to evaluate the results and the impact of the directive, the evaluation will focus on its 
effectiveness,  efficiency,  relevance,  coherence  and  added  value.  Potential  questions  to  be 
answered by the evaluation are: What have been the impacts on the main stakeholders in the 
sector?  To  what  extent  has  the  directive  led  to  a  reduction  of  occupational  accidents  and 
injuries. To what extent did the living and working conditions in the sector improve? Did the 
agreement support the fight against IUU fishing?  

8.  ANNEXES 

Annex 1: Process 

Lead DG: DG EMPL 

Background 
At  international  level,  in  2002,  the  International  Labour  Organisation  (ILO)229  started  the 
discussions and preparations of complete and up-to-date international standards for the fishing 
sector, in  order  to  guarantee  proper  protection  for  fishermen  on  a  global  scale  and  ensure a 
level  playing  field,  taking  into  account  the  technological  progress  in  the  sector.  The  new 
standards  would  also  address  critical  issues  such  as  safety  and  health  and  take  into  account 
differences  in  fishing  operations,  employment  arrangements,  methods  of  remuneration  and 
other aspects230. The EU, its Member States, employers' representatives (in particular fishing 
vessel owners), and workers' representatives (in particular fishermen representatives) actively 
participated in the negotiations and conclusion of the Work in Fishing Convention (2007) C 
188,  which  was  adopted  at  the  96th  International  Labour  Conference  (ILC)  of  the 
International  Labour  Organization  ILO  in  2007231.  The  objectives  of  this  Convention  are  to 
ensure that fishermen have decent conditions of work on board fishing vessels with regard to 
minimum  requirements  for  conditions  of  service,  accommodation  and  food,  occupational 
safety and health protection, medical care and social security. It applies to all fishermen and 
fishing  vessels  engaged  in  commercial  fishing  operations.  It  consolidates  the  existing  ILO 
Conventions relating to fishermen. 

On  10  October  2007,  the  EU  Commission  adopted  a  Communication232  reassessing  the 
regulatory  social  framework  for  more  and  better  seafaring  jobs  in  the  EU.  This 
Communication constituted the first phase of consultation of the EU social partners pursuant 
to Article 154 TFEU, by which the latter were invited to "examine the possibilities of a joint 
initiative to promote the application within the EU of the provisions of the recent ILO Work in 
Fishing Convention, 2007". 

The EU social partners in the sea fisheries sector considered the Commission’s invitation and 
decided to enter into negotiations at the end of 2009. The agreement under consideration was 
concluded  on  8  May  2013.  By  letter  of  10  May  2013  the  EU  social  partners  requested  the 
implementation  of  their  agreement  in  EU  legislation  through  a  Council  Decision  in 
accordance with Article 155 TFEU. 

229  The  International  Labour  Organisation  is  a  specialized  agency  of  the  United  Nations  with  a  tripartite 
structure, www.ilo.org 
230 ILO Report " Conditions of work in the fishing sector: The constituents’ views" Report V(2) submitted to the 
International Labour Conference 2004. 
 http://www.ilo.org/public/english/standards/relm/ilc/ilc92/pdf/rep-v-2.pdf 
231http://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:12100:0::NO::P12100_ILO_CODE:C188  
232 COM(2007) 591 final 

58 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Representativeness of the EU social partners, who are the signatories of the agreement 
When assessing  a request  from  EU  social  partners  to  implement their agreement in  EU law 
according to Article 155 TFEU, the Commission looks at representativeness and mandate of 
the social partners for the area concerned by the agreement. This ensures that the request is in 
line  with  the  provisions  of  the  TFEU  and  that  the  agreement  can  count  on  a  broad  support 
amongst those actually concerned. 

The  criteria  are  thereby  interpreted  in  accordance  with  Article  1  of  Commission  Decision 
98/500/EC of 20 May 1998233, which states that social partners at the European level should 
fulfil the following criteria: 

a.  they shall relate to specific sectors or categories and be organised at European level; 

b.  they  shall  consist  of  organisations  which  are  themselves  an  integral  and  recognized 
part  of  Member  States’  social  partner  structures  and  have  the  capacity  to  negotiate 
agreements, and which are representative of several Member States; 

c.  they shall have adequate structures to ensure their effective participation in the work 

of the [Sectoral Dialogue] Committees. 

These  conditions  should  be  fulfilled  at  the  time  when  the  agreement  was  signed.  A  first 
version  of  the  Sea  Fisheries  social  partners'  agreement  was  signed  in  May  2012  at  the 
occasion of the 2012 Maritime Day in Gothenburg. As some of the clauses of this agreement 
were problematic as regards the criteria of legality, the EU social partners signed an amended 
agreement. In order to assess the representativeness of the EU social partners, the European 
Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (Eurofound) conducted a 
study in 2012234.  

The  agreement  concerns  working  conditions  in  the  sea-fisheries,  which  matches  with  the 
sectoral  delimitations  of  the  sea-fisheries  sectoral  social  dialogue  Committee.  Therefore, 
congruence between the coverage of the Committee and of the agreement is given. 

The social partners participating in the Committee are Europêche and Cogeca on the employer 
side and ETF on the workers side.  

For Europêche, the Eurofound representativeness study from 2012 identifies members in 11 
Member States, namely BE, DE, DK, ES, FR, EL, IT, NL, PL, SE and UK.  

Cogeca  represents  the  general  and  specific  interests  of  European  agricultural,  forestry, 
fisheries and agri-food co-operatives. It has members related to sea fisheries in the following 
11 Member States: CY, DE, EE, ES, FR, EL, IE, IT, MT, NL and SI. This means that on the 
employer  side,  altogether  16  countries  are  represented  in  the  committee.  In  some  of  these 
countries, the employer organisation is not involved in collective bargaining – also because of 
very small numbers of employees – and more a sort of professional association. The countries 

233  Commission  Decision  98/500/EC  of  20  May  1998  on  the  establishment  of  Sectoral  Social  Dialogue 
Committees promoting the dialogue between the social partners at European level, OJ L 225, 12.8.1998, page 27 
234 http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/eiro/studies/TN1105068S/tn1105068s_1.htm  

59 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
not represented on the employer side are the landlocked countries AT, CZ, LU, HU and SK, 
where no workplaces in sea-fisheries are available and FI, LV, LT, PT, RO, BG235.  

In Bulgaria, Finland, Latvia and Lithuania, no sector-related employer organisation was found 
during  the  representativeness  study.  With  the  exclusion  of  Latvia,  where  company-level 
bargaining  was  reported,  no  significant  industrial  relations  activities  were  recorded  in  these 
countries.236 It also means that with the exception of Portugal and Romania, in all countries 
where  an  employer  organisation  was  found  to  exist,  there  was  at  least  one  organisation 
affiliated  to  either  of  the  two  employer  organisations  active  in  the  EU  Sectoral  Social 
Dialogue Committee and only six of the recorded 36 employer organisations had no affiliation 
to either Europêche or Cogeca.  

On  the  workers  side,  ETF  had  membership  related  to  sea-fisheries  in  11  countries,  namely 
BE,  BG,  DE,  DK,  ES,  FR,  IT,  NL,  PL,  PT  and  UK,  which  leaves  –  beyond  the 
aforementioned landlocked countries - fishermen in 11 Member States, i.e. CY, EE, EL, IE, 
FI, LV, LT, MT, RO, SE, SL not represented. According to the employment figures for the 
sector, for most of these countries the numbers of employees are around a 1,000 workers (in 
most of these countries, employment is considerably smaller). While IE, EL, RO and SE have 
more than 1,000 fishermen, a very large share of the fishermen is self-employed237.  

Looking  at  trade  unions  active  in  the  sector  in  the  Member  States,  it  appears  that  the  large 
majority  is  actually  a  member  of  ETF,  a  few  trade  unions  have  –  mostly  additionally  – 
membership with EFFAT, in Italy three trade unions (of the six active in the sector) are part 
of  CESI238  and  in  Portugal  as  well  as  in  Slovenia  the  representativeness  study  found  trade 
unions without European level affiliation. It justifies that ETF represents the sector well. 

As  the  economic  situation  of  the  sector  has  deteriorated  since  2012/13,  keeping  the 
membership is a challenge for the employer organisations at EU and national level. However, 
Europêche  has  managed  to  secure  cooperation  of  the  Latvian  and  Lithuanian  employer 
associations. 

In conclusion, with the exception of Portugal and Romania, there are no Member States where 
employer organisations active in sea-fishing are not represented at the European level, taking 
into account that the sector is relatively small in Romania. This leads to the conclusion that 
European  level  dialogue  is  on  the  side  of  employer  organisations  highly  inclusive  and  that 
Europêche and Cogeca can together be considered as representative for the employers in the 
sector.  As  argued  above  the  same  is  true  for  ETF  on  the  workers'  side.  This  leads  to  the 
conclusion  that  the  social  partners  who  have  signed  the  agreement  are  representative  of  the 
sector and can  therefore justly request the Commission  for  implementation  of an agreement 
according Art. 155 TFEU. 

p. 

of 

13 

the 

2012 

235 Joining the EU on 1 July 2013, Croatia was not yet a member of the EU at the time the agreement was signed. 
236 
study, 
http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/sites/default/files/ef_files/docs/eiro/tn1105068s/tn1105068s.pdf 
237 According to the ICF study, EL would have more than 1000 employees, but as for EL table 7 indicates a self-
employment rate at 100% for costal fisheries and almost 95% of the vessels smaller than 12 m, the large majority 
of the work-force will be self-employed. More than 70% of the fishermen in SE are self-employed. IE has also a 
large number of self-employed. About 40% of the RO fishermen are self-employed. 
238  As  EFFAT  and  ETF  are  members  of  ETUC,  the  ETF  delegation  to  the  sectoral  social  dialogue  can  also 
include members of trade unions which are affiliated to EFFAT only. 

representativeness 

Eurofound 

60 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Legality of the clauses 

The  Commission  has  examined  the  legality  of  the  agreement.  It  has  scrutinised  each  clause 
and has not found any to be contrary to EU law. The obligations which would be imposed on 
the Member States do not arise directly from the agreement between the social partners. They 
would rather result from its implementation by means of a Council decision, i.e. a directive. 
The  scope  and  content  of  the  agreement  remains  within  the  fields  listed  in  Article  153(1) 
TFEU. Article 3(3) of the agreement contains a non-regression clause, which safeguards the 
existing level of protection of workers. Article 4 of the agreement states that it shall not affect 
any  law,  award  or  custom,  or  any  agreement  between  fishing  vessel  owners  and  fishermen, 
which  ensures  more  favourable  conditions  to  fishermen  than  those  provided  for  in  this 
agreement. In addition, the necessary safeguards of the acquis will be included in the proposal 
for  a  Council  directive  (more  favourable  provisions  and  non  regression),  to  which  this 
agreement will be an annex. 

External expertise and interservice group 

The Commission launched a study to assess the costs and benefits of the implementation of 
the  social  partner  agreement  concerning  the  implementation  of  the  Work  in  Fishing 
Convention, 2007 of the International Labour Organization. This study has been carried out 
by a consortium led by ICF. The final report was delivered in December 2015239. 

As  part  of  the  national  data  collection  for  this  study,  a  legal  gap  analysis  template  was 
distributed  to  the  national  authorities  and  national  social  partner  organisations  of  the  28 
Member States to gather information about the detail and scope of existing legislation and the 
extent to which this divergences from the measures and standards set out in the social partner 
Agreement.  This  section  briefly  presents  basic  information  on  existing  national  legislation 
governing  OSH  and  living  and  working  conditions,  as  well  as  the  social  protection  of 
fishermen at Member State level.  

An interservice Steering Group, composed of representatives of DG EMPL, DG MARE, SJ, 
and  SG  was  set  up  to  accompany  and  discuss  the  results  of  the  above  mentioned  external 
study.  This  group  met  for  the  first  time  in  January  2015.  The  final  report  of  the  study  was 
discussed by the interservice Steering Group on 15 October 2015. The group met four times. 
A  more  extended  Impact  Assessment  Steering  Group,  to  which  SANTE,  JUST,  and  EAC 
were invited met two times to discuss the proportionate impact assessment. 

Regulatory Scrutiny Board 

The Regulatory Scrutiny Board (RSB) examined this proportionate impact assessment report 
and issued an opinion240. Following the recommendations of the RSB for improvement with 
regard to the evolvement of the base line scenario, the EU policy context, and the assessment 
of impacts, different sections of the report were strengthened. In the problem definition, the 
description  of  the  sector  was  enhanced,  in  particular  with  regard  to  its  competitive  position 

239  Costs  and  Benefits  of  a  Council  Decision  implementing  the  European  sectoral  social  partners'  Agreement 
concerning  the  implementation  of  the  Work  in  Fishing  Convention,  2007  of  the  International  Labour 
Organisation, ICF International, 2015 
240 This section will be completed after the RSB has issued an opinion in accordance with toolbox 8.  

61 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
and  the  cross  border  dimension.  In  section  2  the  EU  policy  context  problems  was  further 
explained.  In  section  5  the  assessment  of  impacts  in  Member  States,  different  stakeholders 
and  third  countries  were  further  explained.  The  section  on  monitoring  and  evaluation 
arrangements was strengthened.  

The table below gives an overview on this: 

RSB comment 

Why have several Member States not ratified 
the  ILO  Convention  C.188?  How  would  the 
situation  evolve 
the 
in 
adoption of the social partners' agreement? 

the  absence  of 

What is the EU added value of the initiative?  

How  would  effective  compliance  and 
enforcement be ensured? 

How  were 
account 

the  comments 

taken 

into 

Section 1.2 (drivers) has been enhanced as to 
why  several  Member  States  have  not  yet 
ratified ILO Convention, 2008. In addition it 
has  been  clarified  how  the  situation  would 
evolve  in  the  absence  of  the  social  partners' 
agreement,  in  both  section  1.2  and  1.4. 
Section  2.1.  provides  further  detail  why  MS 
cannot achieve the objectives on their own.  

(Problem  Definition) 

In  section  1 
the 
description  of  the  sector  has  been  enhanced, 
the 
providing  more 
competitive  position  of  the  sector.  Section 
2.2. on EU added value has been revised and 
expanded.  

information 

on 

To section 1.2 (problem drivers) a section has 
been  added  on  compliance  and  enforcement. 
In section 5.2 (impact on the Member States) 
more emphasis has been placed on the impact 
of the agreement on enforcement. In section 5 
also some  description has  been  added on the 
impact  of  prevention  on  both  workers  and 
employers.  

62 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex 2: Analytical models used in preparing the proportionate impact assessment 

1.  Methodology for Cost Benefit Analysis 

This section provides a detailed description of the method used for the quantitative analysis of 
the costs and benefits of introducing the Agreement. 

When looking at these data it is important to note a number of key challenges which affect the 
quality of the information flowing into any subsequent analysis.  

There are two key sources of data on employment: the Data Collection Framework (DCF) and 
the Eurostat labour  force survey (EU-LFS).  Both  data sets have  their respective advantaged 
and  drawbacks  and  are  not  comparable.  For  instance,  while  DCF  data  is  available  for  all 
countries and different years and can profile data on full-time equivalent employment in the 
sea  fisheries  sector,  it  cannot  offer  any  information  about  self-employment,  part-time 
employment  or  fixed-term  employment  in  the  sector.  EU-LFS  data,  on  the  other  had  offers 
information  on  different  forms  of  employment  and  the  characteristics  of  workers  (e.g.  age, 
education level etc.), but is not available for all countries but cannot distinguish between sea 
and inland fisheries. 

In terms of fleet structure, while relatively rich data are available, when looking at the nature 
of the fleet for the sea fisheries sector, this information does not always break down into the 
categories  which  might  be  most  suitable  for  an  analysis  of  the  impact  of  different  legal 
standards,  as  –  for  instance  –  size  categories  do  not  correspond  which  key  categories  often 
distinguished in legislation.  

Maybe most significantly for the purposes of this study, the level of information available on 
workplace  related  accidents  and  injuries  and  illnesses  are  relatively  limited.  Data  for  some 
indicators is available for the fisheries and aquaculture sectors, while for some indicators (e.g. 
incidence rates, these data are only available for the broader sector of fisheries, forestry and 
agriculture).  Furthermore,  there  is  acknowledged  level  of  under-reporting  of  occupational 
accidents.  data on occupational illnesses  and the cost and length of absence  associated with 
such illnesses (or indeed the cost of treatment) is limited to national level ad hoc studies241.  

1.1 Underpinning data 

Workers and vessels 

The total number of workers in the fishing sector has been taken from the EU Labour Force 
Survey (EU-LFS). There are an estimated total of 108,500 workers in the industry (if AT, CZ, 
HU, LU and SK are excluded which only have an inland fishing sector). The total size of the 
fishing fleet is estimated to be 80, 468 based on DCF figures.  

Data  from  the  EU-LFS  on  employment  were  only  available  for  16  of  the  Member  States 
analysed. However, data from the EU-LFS were required so that self-employed workers and 
self-employed workers with no employees could be identified. Therefore, in order to fill the 
gaps  in  employment  data  for  the  remaining  seven  countries  with  a  sea  fishing  sector242,  we 
mapped plotted the relationship between employment data from the DCF report and the EU-
LFS for Member States where both estimates were available. There was a strong relationship 
between the employment figures reported in the DCF reports and the EU-LFS. Therefore, we 
used  the  equation    as  highlighted  in  figure  1  and  DCF  reported  data  to  estimate  the 

241 ICF study, section 2.1. 
242 These Member States were: BE; BG; CY; DK; IE; LV and SI. 

63 

 
 
                                                 
employment  figures  from  the  EU-LFS  for  the  seven  Member  States  where  no  data  was 
available in the LFS. 

Figure 1: Relationship between DCF and LFS employment figures 

30000,0

25000,0

20000,0

15000,0

10000,0

5000,0

a
t
a
d
t
n
e
m
y
o
p
m
e
S
F
L

l

,0

 -

y = 0,863x + 1128,6 

 5000,0

 10000,0  15000,0  20000,0  25000,0  30000,0  35000,0

JRC employment data 

Source: LFS (2012 – 2013) DCF (2012 – 2013) 

However, not all of the changes in legislation will affect the entire workforce in the industry. 
Most of the changes in legislation only apply to employees or self-employed workers working 
alongside  employees  where  they  have  the  potential  to  affect  their  health  and  safety.  Self-
employed  workers  not  working  alongside  employees  will  not  be  affected  by  the  legislation 
and were therefore be excluded from the analysis.  

Again,  not  all  the  Member  States  analysed  had  information  available  for  the  number  of 
workers who were self-employed with employees and self-employed without employees (the 
proxies  being  used  for  self-employed  working  alongside  employees  and  self-employed  not 
working with employees, as these are the only data available from the EU-LFS). Where the 
proportion of self-employed workers ‘with or without’ is not provided, the proportions from a 
similar  Member  State  (e.g.  for  Cyprus  the  same  proportions  were  applied  as  in  Greece;  for 
Bulgaria the same as in Romania etc.) where information is available has been applied to the 
number  of  workers  in  the  Member  State.  This  allows  an  estimation  of  the  number  of  self-
employed workers working alongside and not working alongside employees to be made. 

For  some  of  the  calculations,  the  number  of  vessels  in  the  fleet  which  have  more  than  one 
crew member needed to be estimated. In order to do this, the total number of self-employed 
workers has been subtracted from the total number of vessels in the fleet.  

However,  in  some  Member  States  the  reported  number  of  self-employed  workers  with  no 
employees  is  larger  than  the  size  of  the  fleet.  Where  this  is  the  case,  the  number  of  self-
employed workers without employees has been divided by the number of workers on vessels 
under 12 metres. This proportion has then been multiplied by the number of vessels under 12 
metres  to  estimate  the  number  of  vessels  used  only  by  self-employed  workers  without 

64 

 
 
 
 
 
 
employees. This second estimation measure used an assumption that self-employed workers 
without employees would work on vessels less than 12 metres. 

Finally, some of the articles in the Agreement only apply to vessels longer than 24 metres and 
the employees who work on these vessels. The number of vessels over 24 metres in the fleet 
of each Member State is included in the DCF figures. It has been assumed that no vessels over 
24 metres are operated by self-employed workers without employees, as the manning of such 
vessels would involve more crew than one person.  

The number of workers employed on vessels over 24 metres is provided by the DCF data. For 
this analysis, this number has been divided by the total number of workers in the DCF data to 
give a percentage of the workforce that works on vessels over 24 metres. This has then been 
multiplied by the total number of workers in fishing industry in the EU-LFS in each Member 
State. This provides an estimate of the number of workers who work on vessels larger than 24 
metres.  

Labour Costs 

The average hourly labour cost for the fishing sector is taken from data in the DCF reports, 
which presents the total annual labour cost and the number of workers; and from the EU-LFS 
on the number of hours worked. It has been assumed that the average number of hours worked 
in  the  agriculture,  forestry  and  fishing  sector  is  representative  of  the  fishing  industry  (an 
average of 39.2 hours per week in the EU). 

The total reported labour cost has been divided by the total number of workers from the DCF 
report to estimate the labour cost per worker. This was then divided by 52 to give a weekly 
labour cost per worker, and then divided by the number of hours worked per week to estimate 
the hourly labour cost in the fishing industry. 

Prices 

Price  level  information  was  required  to  calculate  some  of  the  costs  and  benefits  of  the 
introduction  of  the  provisions  of  the  Agreement.  These  prices  included  the  cost  of 
hospitalisations, the cost of training, the cost of an employee obtaining a medical certificate 
and the cost of repatriation. 

There were no European wide price levels for the prices needed to estimate the costs needed 
for the analysis. Therefore, we took estimates from particular Member States and used these 
as a basis for our cost analysis (as presented in the main body of the report). 

The prices from individual countries were converted into Member State specific prices using 
Purchasing  Power  Parities  (PPPs)  and  Exchange  Rates.  The  equation  below  describes  how 
prices were converted into Member State specific prices (in € values): 

Where: 

PMS = Price level in a Member State; 

PSC = Price level of good in source country (in domestic currency); 

65 

 
 
 
     
   
     
   
     
      
 
PPPSC  =  Purchasing  Power  Parity  for  the  source  country  (i.e.  how  much  domestic  currency 
needs to be spent in the source country to buy the same amount of goods that can be bought 
for 1 EUR in the EU28); 

PPPMS  =  Purchasing  Power  Parity  for  Member  State  (i.e.  how  much  currency  needs  to  be 
spent in Member State to buy the same amount of goods that can be bought for 1 EUR in the 
EU28); and 

EXMS:€ = The exchange rate between the Member States domestic currency and the Euro. 

1.2 Baseline number of accidents and work-related illnesses 

The number of work related health problem and occupational accidents have been taken from 
the EU-LFS. Where the number of accidents or health problems was unreported for a Member 
State,  the  number  was  estimated  using  the  size  of  the  fishing  workforce  and  the  number  of 
reported cases in other Member States.  

1.2.1. Baseline cost associated with accidents and work-related illnesses 

Two  separate  costs  have  been  estimated  for  occupational  accidents  and  work-related  health 
problems: the loss of production due to the worker being absent from work; and the cost of 
medical  treatment  as  a  result  of  hospitalisation.  Arguably,  difficult  working  conditions  and 
health  and  safety  risks  can  also  have  an  impact  on  productivity,  however,  no  data  were 
available  to  estimate  this  impact,  and  this  can  therefore  only  be  taken  into  account  in  the 
qualitative assessment. 

Productivity costs 

The  duration  of  absence  from  work  due  to  work-related  health  problems  and  occupational 
accidents is provided in the EU-LFS. These data are presented in bands (for example one to 
three  days;  four  days  but  less  than  one  week  etc.).  The  midpoint  of  these  bands  has  been 
multiplied by the number of occupational accidents and work-related illnesses that caused that 
duration of absence. These have then been divided by the total number of accidents or work-
related  illnesses  to  estimate  the  average  duration  of  absence.  Where  no  information  is 
available for a Member State, a European average duration of absence has been used. 

In order to estimate the loss of production from these accidents the number of working days 
lost due to accidents and work-related illnesses have been multiplied by a daily labour cost for 
the  fishing  industry  in  each  Member  State.  This  calculation  is  summarised  in  the  equation 
below: 

          ∑                            

Where: 

          ∑       

TPCMS = The total cost of lost production lost due to workers absence due to accidents in each 
Member State; 

t = year; 

NMS, t = the number of accidents in each Member State and each year;  

66 

 
 
   
   
 
 
LCMS = the hourly Labour cost in each Member State;  

AMS = the average duration of absence in each Member State; 

δt = The discount rate; and 

TPCEU = The total cost of lost production lost due accidents in the EU. 

The same equation has been used to estimate the cost of lost production due to work-related 
illnesses, with the duration of absence and incidence numbers altered. 

Hospital costs 

The  proportion  of  accidents  which  require  hospital  treatment  has  been  assumed  to  be  26%, 
and the proportion of work-related illnesses requiring hospitalisation has been assumed to be 
30%.  These assumptions  are based on the proportion  of reported accidents and illnesses  for 
which workers are absent from work for two weeks or longer (based on information from the 
EU-LFS).  This  gives  an  estimate  of  the  number  of  hospital  appointments  required  to  treat 
occupational  accidents  and  work-related  illnesses  in  the  fishing  industry  in  each  Member 
State.  

Unfortunately  the  data  from  the  EU-LFS  about  the  health  problems  caused  by  occupational 
accidents and work-related health problems does not provide enough detail to form estimates 
of the number of each type of illness. Therefore we have taken estimates from the literature on 
the  types  of  injuries  and  illnesses  suffered  by  workers  in  the  fishing  industry  These 
proportions  have  been  multiplied  by  the  total  number  of  hospitalisations  for  accidents  and 
work-related health conditions, to provide an estimate of the number of health conditions by 
type of condition. 

There  are  no  EU  wide  estimates  of  the  cost  of  providing  health  care  for  different  health 
conditions. We  have  therefore taken  estimates  from  the  UK  (National  Health  Service  Tariff 
band information) on the unit cost of a hospitalisation by different conditions. The number of 
hospitalisations for each condition has been multiplied by the unit cost of hospitalisation for 
each condition in each Member State.  

1.2.2. Baseline cost of fatal accidents 

The number of fatal accidents in the fishing and aquaculture sector is provided by the ESAW 
data. It has been assumed that the fatal accidents in this sector all relate to the fishing industry 
rather than the aquaculture industry. 

In order to estimate the value of fatal accidents, a Value of Statistical Life (VOSL) approach 
has been used. This approach estimates the statistical value of a life in terms of loss of future 
productivity, the cost emergency rescue and healthcare treatment, and the value people place 
on  reducing  the  risk  of  fatality.  Following  guidance  in  the  European  Commission  Impact 
Assessment  guidelines,  a  value  of  €4.1  million  has  been  used  in  this  calculation.  The  total 
number of lives lost has been multiplied by the VOSL to estimate the cost of fatal accidents. 

 2. Change in number of accidents and work-related illnesses 

No evidence was discovered which presented how the number of accidents and work-related 
health conditions would be prevented following the introduction of the Agreement, or similar 
legislation  in  a  different  sector.  Therefore,  it  was  not  possible  to  state  what  the  impact 
introducing the Agreement would have on accidents and work-related health conditions with 
any degree of confidence. 

67 

 
 
The relationship between the distance between Member States national legislation and the rate 
of accidents and work-related ill health has been analysed. This evidence was inconclusive as 
well.  The  analysis  showed  a  positive  relationship  between  the  distance  of  the  national 
legislation from the Agreement and the rate of accidents. However, it also showed that there 
was  a  negative  relationship  between  the  distance  of  the  national  legislation  from  the 
Agreement and the rate of work-related ill health. 

This meant that there was no data to base the change on. Therefore, our analysis examined a 
scenario  where  a  Member  State  which  had  no  measures  in  place  which  matched  the 
requirements of the Agreement (a distance from the Agreement of 1 in the legislative  match 
analysis)  reduced  the  number  of  accidents  and  incidence  of  work-related  ill  health  by  5%. 
This level was chosen as a conservative estimate, so that the benefits of the legislation were 
not overestimated.  

The  change  in  the  number  of  accidents  and  work-related  is  estimated  using  the  equation 
below: 

        ∑              

Where: 
NA*
State; 

MS = Number of accidents following the introduction of the Agreement in each Member 

NAMS  =  Number  of  accidents  prior  to  the  introduction  of  the  Agreement  in  each  Member 
State; 

DMS = Legislative distance between current national legislation and the Agreement (a variable 
taking values between zero and one); 

αI = Assumed change in the incidence of accidents and work related illnesses (assumed to be 
5%); 

CNAEU = Total change in the number of accidents in the EU following the introduction of the 
Agreement; and 

t = time. 

The  change in  the  number  work-related  health  problems  has  been  estimated  using  the  same 
equation. 

2.2.1. Cost of accidents and illnesses 

The  new  cost  of  occupational  accidents  and  workplace  illnesses  has  been  calculated  in  the 
same  way,  using  the  revised  number  of  occupational  accidents  and  work-related  illnesses. 
This  value was  then  subtracted  from  the  baseline  value  to estimate  the  change  in  costs  as  a 
result of introducing the articles in the Agreement.  

68 

 
 
 
    
                                 
 
   
   
   
 
 
 
3. Cost of training for skippers 

No baseline cost for the training of skippers has been estimated. We have estimated the cost 
of  providing  training  for  skippers  in  Member  States  where  there  was  previously  no 
requirements for training skippers. 

The cost of training for skippers is estimated to be a one-off cost – skippers are trained once 
and  do  not  need  continuous  training  in  the  following  years.  There  are  two  separate  costs 
associated with training for skippers: the loss of output resulting from skippers attending the 
training rather than working; and the cost to employers of providing the training for skippers. 

The  population  affected  by  the  change  in  legislation  is  skippers  of  vessels  which  have 
employees.  This  population  was  multiplied  by  the  legislation  gap  analysis  so  that  the 
population  was  zero  in  Member  States  where  skippers  already  require  training  under  the 
national legislation. 

The direct cost to employers of providing training to skippers is estimated by multiplying the 
affected population in each Member State by the price of training in each Member State This 
estimation is summarised in the equation below:  

       ∑             

Where: 

TCEU = The total cost of skipper training in the EU; 

NMS  =  The  affected  population  in  each  Member  State  (the  number  of  skippers  requiring 
training); and 

PMS = The unit cost of training for skippers in each Member State 

The indirect cost of training skippers, the loss of output from skippers attending training has 
been estimated using the equation below. The population affected by the change in legislation 
has  been  multiplied  by  the  duration  of  the  training  (assumed  to  be  seven  hours)  and  the 
Labour Cost for staff in each Member State. 

        ∑                    

Where: 

TPCEU = The total cost of lost output due to skippers attending training in the EU; 

NMS  =  The  affected  population  in  each  Member  State  (the  number  of  skippers  requiring 
training);  

D = The duration of the training, assumed to be seven hours; and 

LCMS = The hourly Labour cost in each Member State. 

4 Cost of medical certificate 

No baseline cost for the medical certificates for the workforce has been estimated. We have 
estimated the cost of medical certificates for the workforce in Member States where there was 
previously no requirements for medical certificates.  

69 

 
 
 
The cost of the medical certificate is estimated to be a recurring cost – workers are required to 
obtain  a  medical  certificate  every  two  years.  Therefore,  the  workforce  is  assumed  to  be 
require medical certificates in year one, year three and year five of the time period analysed. 
There  are  two  separate  costs  associated  with  the  medical  certificate:  the  lost  output  from 
workers  obtaining  the  medical  certificate  rather  than  working;  and  the  cost  to  employers  of 
the medical certificate. 

The population affected by the change in legislation is all workers except for those who are 
self-employed  with  no  employees.  This  population  was  multiplied  by  the  legislation  gap 
analysis  so  that  the  population  was  zero  in  Member  States  where  workers  already  require 
training under the national legislation. 

The  direct  cost  to  employers  of  workers  obtaining  medical  assessments  is  estimated  by 
multiplying  the  affected  population  in  each  Member  State  by  the  price  of  a  medical 
assessment  in  each  Member  State  and  the  appropriate  discount  rate  for  the  year.  This 
estimation is summarised in the equations below: 

         ∑                      

          ∑      

Where: 

TCMS = Total cost of medical assessments in each Member State; 

t = year; 

NMS, t = The affected population in each Member State and each year (the number of workers 
obtaining a medical certificate);  

PMS = The unit cost of a medical certificate in each Member State;  

δt = The discount rate; and 

TCEU = Total cost of medical assessment in the EU. 

The  indirect  cost  of  workers  obtaining  a  medical  certificate,  the  loss  of  output  has  been 
estimated using the equation below. The population affected by the change in legislation has 
been multiplied by the time spent obtaining the medical certificate (assumed to be three and a 
half hours), the labour cost for staff in each Member State and the appropriate discount rate 
for each year. 

          ∑                          

Where: 

          ∑       

TPCMS  =  The  total  cost  of  lost  output  lost  due  to  workers  obtaining  medical  certificates  in 
each Member State; 

70 

 
 
   
   
 
 
   
   
 
 
t = year; 

NMS, t = The affected population in each Member State and each year (the number of workers 
obtaining a medical certificate);  

LCMS = The hourly Labour cost in each Member State;  

D = The duration of the absence to obtain the certificate, assumed to be three and a half hours; 

δt = The discount rate; and 

TPCEU = The total cost of lost output lost due to workers obtaining medical certificates in the 
EU. 

5 Administrative cost 

No  baseline  cost  for  the  administration  linked  to  the  fishermen’s  agreement  has  been 
estimated.  We  have  estimated  the  cost  of  administrative  tasks  related  to  the  fisherman’s 
agreement in Member States where there were previously no requirements in the  

The administrative cost linked to the fisherman’s agreement is estimated to be a one-off cost – 
workers are required to carry out the administrative task once and do not need to carry it out 
continuously in the following years. There is a single administrative cost: the lost productivity 
from workers carrying out the administrative task rather than working.  

The population affected by the change in legislation is all workers except for those who are 
self-employed  with  no  employees.  This  population  is  taken  from  the  LFS.  This  population 
was  multiplied  by  the  legislation  gap  analysis  so  that  the  population  was  zero  in  Member 
States  where  workers  are  already  required  to  have  the  fisherman’s  agreement  under  the 
national legislation. 

The cost of workers carrying out administrative tasks relating to the fisherman’s agreement is 
estimated by multiplying the affected population in each Member State by the duration of the 
administrative  task  (assumed  to  be  X  hours)  and  the  hourly  labour  cost  for  each  Member 
State. This estimation is summarised in the equations below: 

        ∑                    

Where: 

TPCEU  =  The  total  cost  of  lost  productivity  lost  due  to  administrative  tasks  relating  to  the 
fisherman’s agreement in the EU; 

NMS = The affected population in each Member State (the number of workers needing to carry 
out administrative task); 

D = Duration of administrative task (assumed to be X hours); and 

LCMS = The hourly Labour cost in each Member State.  

6 Cost of risk assessment 

No baseline cost for risk assessments have been estimated. We have estimated the cost of risk 
assessment  tasks  in  Member  States  where  there  were  previously  no  requirements  for  risk 
assessments in the national legislation. 

71 

 
 
 
The  costs  associated  with  risk  assessments  are  estimated  to  be  a  one-off  cost  –  one  risk 
assessment is required to be carried out in the first year of the period analysed and does not 
need to be carried it out in the following years. There is a single cost associated with the risk 
assessment: the lost productivity from a worker (assumed to be the skipper) carrying out the 
risk assessment rather than working.  

It has been assumed that a risk assessment is required on all vessels other than vessels used by 
self-employed workers with no employees. This population was multiplied by the legislation 
gap  analysis  so  that  the  population  was  zero  in  Member  States  where  workers  are  already 
required to have a risk assessment under the national legislation. 

The  cost  of  a  risk  assessment  is  estimated  by  multiplying  the  affected  population  in  each 
Member  State  by  the  duration  of  the  risk  assessment  (assumed  to  be  seven  hours)  and  the 
hourly  labour  cost  for  each  Member  State.  This  estimation  is  summarised  in  the  equations 
below: 

        ∑                    

Where: 

TPCEU = The total cost of lost productivity lost due to risk assessments being carried out in 
the EU; 

NMS = The affected population in each Member State (the number of risk assessments being 
carried out); 

D = Duration of risk assessment task (assumed to be seven hours); and 

LCMS = The hourly Labour cost in each Member State. 

7 Cost of repatriation 

No  baseline  cost  for  the  repatriations  has  been  estimated.  We  have  estimated  the  cost  to 
employers for repatriations which they would not otherwise have had to pay for in Member 
States where there were previously no requirements for repatriations.  

The cost  of repatriations is  estimated to  be a recurring cost  – employers will be  required to 
pay  for  the  repatriation  of  ill  workers  in  every  year  analysed.  The  cost  associated  with 
repatriations is the payment employers will have to make to repatriate injured workers.  

The  population  affected  by  the  change  in  legislation is  workers  on  vessels  larger than  24m. 
We have assumed that no self-employed workers with any employees work on vessels larger 
than 24 metres. In order to estimate this cost we have had to make assumptions on the rate of 
accidents by different types of fishing vessel. Therefore, it has been assumed that: 

  The rate of accidents and illnesses is the same for self-employed workers and 

employees; and 

  The rate of accidents and illnesses is the same for workers on different sizes of vessels. 

The proportion of accidents and work related illnesses for workers on vessels over 24 metres 
in  each  Member  State  is  equal  to  the  proportion  of  workers  employed  on  vessels  over  24 
metres in each Member State. Therefore the percentage of employment on vessels larger than 
24  metres  in  each  Member  State  has  been  multiplied  by  the  number  of  accidents  and  work 
related illnesses.  

72 

 
 
 
There  is  no  information  on  the  number  of  illnesses  or  accidents  that  require  repatriation. 
Therefore,  it  has  been  assumed  that  1%  of  illnesses  and  accidents  on-board  vessels  longer 
than  24  metres  will  require  repatriation.  This  number  of  accidents  was  multiplied  by  the 
legislation gap analysis so that the number of repatriations was zero in Member States where 
employers are already required to pay for repatriations under the national legislation.  

The estimated cost of repatriations has been estimated using the equation below. The number 
of  accidents  and  illnesses  requiring  repatriation  each  year  is  multiplied  by  the  cost  of  a 
repatriation  (which  has  been  estimated  using  information  from  the  UK  and  the  appropriate 
discount rate for the year.  

          ∑                     

         ∑       

Where: 

TRCMS = Total repatriation cost in each Member State; 

t = year; 

RMS, t = Repatriations required in each Member State in each year; 

PMS = Unit cost of repatriation in each Member State; 

δt = The discount rate; and 

TRCEU = The total cost of repatriations in the EU. 

8. Sensitivity analysis 

We  have  conducted  a  sensitivity  analysis  as  part  of  the  quantitative  analysis.  Sensitivity 
analysis is an exercise which measures how using different assumptions used in a calculation 
affect  the  outcome.  Therefore,  we  have  varied  a  number  of  the  assumptions  used  in  the 
quantitative  analysis.  Other  than  the  change  in  assumptions,  all  the  calculations  have  been 
carried out exactly as described in the section above.  

73 

 
 
   
   
 
 
 
 
 
Table 1: Assumptions varied in sensitivity analysis 

Assumption 

Low end 
value 

Best 
estimate 
value 

High end 
value 

Rationale 

Impact of legislation 
on accidents and 
illnesses 

1% 
reduction 

5% 
reduction 

10% 
reduction 

Size of vessel for 
training and risk 
assessment 

Exclude 
vessels 
smaller 
than 12m 

All vessels 
included 

All vessels 
included 

Number of 
repatriations 

0.5% of 
accidents 
and 
illnesses 

1% of 
accidents 
and 
illnesses 

2% of 
accidents 
and 
illnesses 

Cost of repatriation 

€5,000 

€10,000 

€20,000 

Scenario analysis, presents a 
range of changes in 
accidents and illnesses in the 
absence of conclusive 
evidence 

Low estimate excludes all 
vessels under 12m, assuming 
they are exempt from 
training and risk assessment. 
All other estimates use all 
vessels excluding vessels 
used by self-employed 
workers with no employees. 

Scenario analysis, presents a 
range of changes in 
accidents and illnesses in the 
absence of conclusive 
evidence 

UK foreign office range of 
values, depending on 
distance and type of 
repatriation. 

Cost of training 

€98 (UK) 

€115 (UK)  €180 (DE)  Low estimate is 85% of 

central estimate; high 
estimate taken from separate 
source. All values adjusted 
using PPP and exchange 
rates. 

€98 (UK) 

€115 (UK)  €180 (DE)  Low estimate is 85% of 

central estimate; high 
estimate taken from separate 
source. All values adjusted 
using PPP and exchange 
rates. 

Duration of administrative 
task unclear, therefore range 
of duration used. 

1 hour 

2 hours 

3 hours 

74 

Cost of medical 
certificate 

Duration of 
administration for 
fishermen’s 
agreement 

 
 
 
Annex 3: Who is affected by the initiative and how 

Who is affected 

How 

To transpose the Directive implementing the agreement into national 
legislation.  The  statutory  transposition  of  2  years  could  apply.  This 
would entail among others: 

to decide whether the agreement needs to be implemented gradually 
over  the  a  five  year  period,  after  consultation  of  the  national  social 
partners; 

National 
authorities  

to  determine  to  the  form,  content  and  procedure  of  the  medical 
examination; 

to  determine  to  the  form,  content  and  procedure  of  the  medical 
certificate; 

to guarantee the right of repatriation if the fishing vessel owner does 
not pay the cost. 

National  enforcement  authorities  to  enforce  the  national  legislation 
which  transposes  the  directive  implementing  the  agreement  in  EU 
national law 

To ensure that the skipper of the vessel has the appropriate means to 
comply with the agreement. 

To  pay  for  the  medical  certificate  and  ensure  fishermen  have  a 
certificate.  

To comply with working agreements.  

Fishing vessel 
owner. 

To  provide  for  food  and  water  on  board  the  vessel  in  accordance 
with the agreement. 

To  provide  fishermen  with  a  written  work  agreement  and  carry  a 
copy of the fisherman’s work agreement on board.  

To  provide  the  fishermen  with  medical  treatment  on  board  and 
ashore if not covered by the social security system. 

To pay the costs for repatriation. 

To obtain a medical certificate to work on a sea fishing vessel 

To comply with working time limits to prevent fatigue 

To  comply  with  the  health  and  safety  requirements  on  board  the 
vessel.  

75 

Workers 

 
 
 
 
Annex 4: Estimated costs per Member State 

Member 
State 

Medical Certificate 

Fisherman’s work 
agreement243 

Right for repatriation244 

EL 

complies 

1,50 euro per worker245 

Complies 

ES 

complies 

18 euro per worker246 

Total: 35,916 euro 

Total: 0.5 million euro 

Estimated 10.000 euro per 
repatriation247 

Total costs 44,800 euro 
per year 

IE 

IT 

Certificate exists, 
content of 
examination needs to 
be adjusted in 
legislation. No costs 
expected 

Certificate exists, 
content of 
examination needs to 
be adjusted. No costs 
expected 

Need to ensure that 
agreements are on board of 
the vessel248 

National authorities 
indicated legislation needs 
updating,  

15 euro per worker 

No specific information 

Total: 33,495 euro 

No information provided 
by national authorities 

Estimated 10,000 euro per 
repatriation 

Total costs 18,100 per year 

If fisherman's work 
agreement needs to be 
introduced.  

10 euro per worker 

Total costs: 188,460 euro 

HR 

Complies 

Complies 

Fishing fleet sails in 
coastal waters, so the 

243 Costs are calculated on the average labour costs per hour in the country for the sector and on the assumption 
that  the  drafting  a  full  agreement  would  cost  2  hours.  For  countries  which  have  already  an  employment 
agreement for fishermen and have to ensure that it is carried on board of the vessel. One hour is calculated.  
244 Based on estimates by the UK authorities, so this might be an over estimate for other Member States. Cost 
varies  depending  on  the  distance  between  the  place  of  repatriation  and  the  home  Member  State.  Right  of 
repatriation  calculated  as  1%  of  all  non-fatal  accidents  lead  to  repatriation,  based  on  the  figures  of  2012.  ICF 
study table 11. 
245 According to the ICF study, table 7 self-employed without personnel make up 80% of the total employment. 
Only workers would have to comply with the agreement, so this is likely an overestimate. 
246 Based on average labour costs per hour in the sector, and assuming 2 hours per worker to draft the contract.  
247 Repatriation right exists, for fishermen registered under the Spanish social security legislation and sailing on a 
fishing vessel flying under Spanish flag. This right would need to be expanded to migrant workers not registered 
under the social security system and sailing on vessels flying the Spanish flag.  
248 To ensure that the fisherman's work agreements are on board of the vessel, it is estimated that this will take an 
hour based on the average labour costs per sector.  

76 

 
 
                                                 
LT 

Complies partly, but 
no detailed 
information given 

Complies 

repatriation clause would 
not be applicable. 

Estimate 10,000 euro per 
repatriation 

500 euro per year 

LV 

No cost complies 

Need to adjust to the 
specifications of the sector 

Complies 

PT 

Complies 

7 euro per worker 

Total cost: 2,471 euro 

Need to ensure that 
agreements are on board of 
the vessel 

Complies 

5, 50 euro per worker 

Total costs: 

82,121 euro 

Obligation for all 
employees to have a 
medical certificate 
exists. Needs to be 
sector specific 

RO 

SI249 

Need to adjust to the 
specifications of the sector 

No information available 

16,72 euro per worker 

Total costs 652 euro 

Need to adjust to the 
specifications of the sector 

Total worker: 7 euro  

Right of repatriation does 
not exist, presumably 
because of the coastal 
nature of the sector 

472, 50 

UK 

115 euro per worker 

8,30 euro per worker 

Complies 

On average 300 euro 
per enterprise250.  

Total costs: 

81,904 euro 

249 SI has a small scale fishing sector, where most fishermen are part-time employed and have other jobs in for 
instance tourism 
250 Based on total employment in the sector and number of enterprises in the sector, it would come to an average 
of 2 workers per enterprise.  

77 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Annex 5: data on the sector251 

1. Size of fleet 

The largest sea fishing fleets can be found in Greece (19% of total EU fleet), Italy (17%) and 
Spain (13%). These three Member States combined therefore make up almost 50% of the total 
EU sea fishing fleet. Portugal (10% ), the UK (8%) and France (7%) have also relatively large 
fleets, whereas the Belgian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Romanian and Slovenian fleets respectively 
make up less than 1% of EU vessels in the sector.  

The  size  of  fishing  vessels  influences  not  only  accessible  fishing  grounds  (and  therefore 
distance  and  number  of  days  away  from  shore),  but  also  coverage  by  existing  legislation252 
and the provisions of the Agreement253. Regrettably, the data available does not break down 
into  all  the  size  categories  required  to  assess  coverage  of  existing  legislation,  but  the  most 
relevant categories are presented in Table 1 below. 

Fleets with the greatest share of vessels over 24 metres)254 were registered in Belgium (44% 
of  the  Belgian  fleet),  Lithuania  (28%),  the  Netherlands  (20%)  and  Latvia  (16%).  Smaller 
fishing  vessels  (under  12m)  were  more  prevalent  in  Romania  (98%)  and  Finland  (97%), 
Bulgaria  (96%),  Cyprus  (96%),  Greece  (94%)  and  Estonia  (94%).  Across  those  Member 
States making up the largest share of the EU fishing fleet, large vessels above 24 metres were 
relatively  more  prevalent  in  Spain  (8%),  whereas  small  vessels  predominated  in  Greece 
(94%). 

As  shown  in  Table  1  in  the  data  Annex,  fleets  with  the  highest  share  of  very  large  vessels 
(over 40 metres) were registered in Lithuania (46%) and the Netherlands (25%).  

Table 1 Number and length of vessels by Member State (2012), shares of vessels of different 
size categories as part of total fleet, by share of total EU fleet 

Country 

Greece 

Italy 

Spain 

Portugal 

United 
Kingdom 

France 

Croatia 

Total 
number of 
vessels 

Share of 
total EU fleet 

Share of 
small vessels 
(<12m) 

Share of 
medium 
vessels (12-
24m) 

Share of 
large vessels 
(›24m) 

16,063 

14,443 

10,544 

8,398 

6,413 

5,830 

4,236 

19% 

17% 

13% 

10% 

8% 

7% 

5% 

94% 

70% 

73% 

91% 

85% 

84% 

85% 

4% 

27% 

19% 

7% 

12% 

13% 

12% 

1% 

3% 

8% 

2% 

4% 

3% 

3% 

251 ICF Study Section 2 
252 Directive 1993/103/EC, for instance, specifies different provisions for vessels over 15, 18 and 45 metres. 
253 As will be further elaborated in section 3, some provisions of the agreement only apply (initially) to vessels over 24 metres in length. 
254  For  the  purpose  of  this  study  vessel  sizes  have  been  grouped  into  three  categories:  small  vessels  (below  12  meters),  medium  vessels 
(between 12 and 24 meters) and large vessels (24 meters and over). This does not ideally match the categorisations used for the purposes of 
some existing legislation, but is the only data available. 

78 

 
 
                                                 
Country 

Finland 

Bulgaria 

Ireland 

Denmark 

Germany 

Cyprus 

Sweden 

Malta 

Estonia 

Poland 

Netherlands 

Latvia 

Romania 

Slovenia 

Lithuania 

Belgium 

Total 

Total 
number of 
vessels 

Share of 
total EU fleet 

Share of 
small vessels 
(<12m) 

Share of 
medium 
vessels (12-
24m) 

Share of 
large vessels 
(›24m) 

3,359 

1,192 

2,203 

2,052 

1,564 

1,382 

1,322 

1,060 

923 

806 

740 

279 

261 

181 

151 

86 

4% 

1% 

3% 

2% 

2% 

2% 

2% 

1% 

1% 

1% 

1% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

8,3478 

100% 

97% 

96% 

86% 

78% 

80% 

96% 

85% 

92% 

94% 

75% 

49% 

80% 

98% 

87% 

70% 

1% 

84% 

2% 

3% 

9% 

18% 

17% 

4% 

11% 

7% 

2% 

19% 

30% 

4% 

1% 

13% 

2% 

55% 

13% 

1% 

0% 

5% 

3% 

3% 

1% 

3% 

1% 

4% 

6% 

20% 

16% 

1% 

1% 

28% 

44% 

4% 

Source: ICF calculations based on DCF data as reported in Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for 
Fisheries (STECF); The 2014 Annual Economic Report on the EU fishing Fleet (STECF 14-16), 2014.  

Between 2008 and 2012 the size of national fleets declined in most countries where data are 
available  for  both  years.  Over  this  time  there  has  been  a  decline  in  the  number  of  larger 
vessels, which accounted for a 4.54% of the total fleet in 2008, falling to 3.51% in 2012. At 
the same time, there was an increase in the number of small vessels over the same time, which 
accounted for 79.72% of the total fleet in 2008, but 83.55% in 2012.  

2. Number of enterprises 

DCF data show that in 2012 there were 61,274 enterprises in the EU sea fisheries sector255. 
These  were  primarily  enterprises  with  only  one  vessel  (88%),  and  very  rarely  (0.5%) 
enterprises with 5 vessels or more. 

The number of enterprises in the sea fisheries sector is highest in those Member States with 
the largest fleet in terms of vessels, gross tonnage and engine power. In 2012, Greece had the 
largest  number  of  fishing  enterprises  (almost  14,000,  or  23%  of  all  EU  enterprises  in  the 
sector), followed by Spain (16%), Italy (15%), France (8%), the UK (7%) and Portugal (7%).  

255 Even if this particular variable has more consistent data for 2013 (i.e. only three Member States are missing), the missing countries are 
those  with  large  fleets  and  significant  fishing  activity  (Denmark,  Greece  and  Italy),  thus  the  reported  figure is  likely  to  be  a  considerable 
underestimation. 

79 

 
 
 
                                                 
In  all  Member  States,  the  share  of  single-vessel  enterprises  by  far  outweighs  those  with 
several vessels. The share of such micro-enterprises is largest in in Lithuania (where 100% of 
enterprises consist of only one vessel), Belgium (98%), Finland (97%), Malta (97%), and the 
United  Kingdom  (96%).  Conversely,  Latvia  is  the  country  with  a  highest  number  of  large 
enterprises (more than 5 vessels), although this remains a comparatively low proportion of the 
total number of enterprises (5%). 

Table  2:  Number  and  size  of  enterprises  by  Member  State  (2012),  by  total  number  of 
enterprises, by share of total EU fleet256 

Country 

Total number 
of enterprises 

Share of total 
EU fleet 

Share with 
one vessel 

Share with 2 
to 5 vessels 

Share with 5 
vessels or 
more 

Greece 

13,918 

Spain 

Italy 

France 

United 
Kingdom 

Portugal 

Croatia 

Ireland 

Finland 

Denmark 

Sweden 

Germany 

Malta 

Cyprus 

Poland 

Estonia 

Netherlands 

Bulgaria 

Slovenia 

Latvia 

Romania 

Belgium 

Lithuania 

9,776 

9,142 

4,993 

4,357 

4,084 

3,602 

1,901 

1,500 

1,492 

1,055 

1,053 

1,028 

849 

702 

658 

471 

184 

146 

123 

91 

80 

69 

23% 

16% 

15% 

8% 

7% 

7% 

6% 

3% 

2% 

2% 

2% 

2% 

2% 

1% 

1% 

1% 

1% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

Total 

61,274 

100% 

88% 

94% 

84% 

88% 

96% 

95% 

79% 

87% 

97% 

95% 

79% 

72% 

97% 

100% 

92% 

70% 

74% 

88% 

70% 

53% 

63% 

98% 

62% 

89% 

12% 

6% 

14% 

12% 

4% 

5% 

20% 

13% 

3% 

5% 

21% 

27% 

3% 

0% 

8% 

29% 

23% 

12% 

29% 

42% 

34% 

3% 

35% 

11% 

0% 

0% 

3% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

1% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

2% 

1% 

1% 

5% 

3% 

0% 

3% 

1% 

Source:  ICF  calculations  based  on  data  from  the  Scientific,  Technical  and  Economic 
Committee  for  Fisheries  (STECF)  "The  2014  Annual  Economic  Report  on  the  EU  fishing 
Fleet (STECF 14-16)", 2014.  

256 Croatia was not yet a member in 2012. For Croatia the first available numbers are used 

80 

 
 
                                                 
Between 2008 and 2012, the number of fishing enterprises increased in Cyprus (73% increase 
in  the  total  number  of  enterprises)  and  Estonia  (53%).  Finland,  Ireland  and  France  also 
increased  their  number  of  enterprises  (around  20%  each)257.  The  largest  proportional 
decreases took place in Romania (46% of its enterprises disappeared), Malta (34%), Lithuania 
(29%)  and  Spain  (22%).  Further  information  about  trends  in  the  number  and  size  of 
enterprises in the sector can be found in Annex 2.  

3. Trends in costs and income 

In 2012, the EU fishing fleet generated more €6,940 million in revenue258. Revenues include 
income from landings (€6,848 million) and other income (€92 million). The highest revenue 
was  generated  by  the  Spanish  fleet  (over  €1,907  million),  where  it  increased  considerably 
compared to 2008.. 

Table  3:  Total  revenue  and  source  by  Member  State  (2012),  share  of  different  revenue 
streams, by share of total EU revenue 

Country 

Total revenue (€) 

Share of 
total EU 
revenue 

Income 
from 
landings 

Other 
income 

      Spain 

France 

United 
Kingdom 

Italy 

Portugal 

Denmark 

-  1,913,251,389 

-  1,079,730,174 

-  980,729,042 

-  932,924,557 

-  439,432,381 

-  385,188,772 

Netherlands 

-  358,513,374 

Ireland 

Croatia 

Sweden 

Germany 

Belgium 

Poland 

Lithuania 

Finland 

Latvia 

306,006,334 

245,533,416 

152,391,349 

150,757,171 

80,386,160 

65,315,129 

43,222,030 

43,168,816 

24,046,651 

26% 

15% 

14% 

13% 

6% 

5% 

5% 

4% 

3% 

2% 

2% 

1% 

1% 

1% 

1% 

0% 

100% 

99% 

96% 

100% 

100% 

98% 

100% 

98% 

100% 

82% 

98% 

95% 

85% 

99% 

89% 

97% 

0% 

1% 

4% 

0% 

0% 

2% 

0% 

2% 

0% 

18% 

2% 

5% 

15% 

1% 

11% 

3% 

257 Data for Bulgaria shows an increase so significant that points towards an error in the data, consistent with the questions raised on the data 
quality for this country. 
258 This figure excludes BG, HR, CY and MT which data are considered unreliable according to the 2014 AER. 

81 

 
 
                                                 
Country 

Total revenue (€) 

Malta 

Estonia 

Cyprus 

Bulgaria 

Romania 

Slovenia 

18,594,045 

13,957,296 

6,710,028 

5,288,194 

1,788,140 

1,582,378 

Share of 
total EU 
revenue 

Income 
from 
landings 

Other 
income 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

68% 

99% 

100% 

89% 

52% 

93% 

32% 

1% 

0% 

11% 

48% 

7% 

Total 

7248516828.31 

100% 

99% 

1% 

Source:  ICF  calculations  based  on  DCF  data  as  reported  in  Scientific,  Technical  and 
Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF); The 2014 Annual Economic Report on the EU 
fishing Fleet (STECF 14-16), 2014.  

 Total  costs  in  the  sea  fisheries  sector  include  wages  and  salaries  of  crew,  unpaid  labour, 
energy costs, repair and maintenance costs, other variable costs, other non-variable costs and 
annual depreciation. Total costs arising in the EU fishing fleet in 2012259 amounted to €6,412 
million.  Crew  wages  made  up  the  highest  share  of  total  costs  (more  than  30%)  in  Estonia, 
France,  Ireland  and  Portugal,  while  these  costs  were  lowest  in  (below  15%)  in  Finland, 
Lithuania, Malta and Sweden. 

Table 4: Total cost and share of different costs by Member State (2012), by share of total EU 
revenue 

)
€
(

t
s
o
c

l
a
t
o
T

e
u
n
e
v
e
r
U
E
l
a
t
o
t

f
o
e
r
a
h
S

w
e
r
c

f
o
s
e
i
r
a
l
a
s
d
n
a

s
e
g
a
W

e
u
l
a
v

r
u
o
b
a
l

d
i
a
p
n
U

t
s
o
c

y
g
r
e
n
E

e
c
n
a
n
e
t
n
i
a
m
&
r
i
a
p
e
R

s
t
s
o
c

e
l
b
a
i
r
a
v

r
e
h
t
O

s
t
s
o
c

e
l
b
a
i
r
a
v
-
n
o
n
r
e
h
t
O

s
t
s
o
c
n
o
i
t
a
i
c
e
r
p
e
d

l
a
u
n
n
A

1,773,087,600 

26% 

28% 

5% 

24%  7%  22%  7%  7% 

1,069,585,602 

15% 

35% 

0% 

21%  8%  11%  12%  14% 

865,633,047 

12% 

22% 

5% 

31%  5%  13%  4%  21% 

822,290,695 

12% 

27% 

1% 

23%  10%  19%  13%  7% 

458,839,521 

7% 

16% 

20% 

24%  9%  18%  2%  12% 

y
r
t
n
u
o
C

Spain 

France 

Italy 

United 
Kingdom 

Greece 

259 This figure excludes BG, HR, CY and MT which data are considered unreliable according to the 2014 AER. 

82 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
e
u
n
e
v
e
r
U
E
l
a
t
o
t

f
o
e
r
a
h
S

6% 

5% 

5% 

4% 

2% 

2% 

1% 

1% 

1% 

0% 

1% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

w
e
r
c

f
o
s
e
i
r
a
l
a
s
d
n
a

s
e
g
a
W

e
u
l
a
v

r
u
o
b
a
l

d
i
a
p
n
U

t
s
o
c

y
g
r
e
n
E

e
c
n
a
n
e
t
n
i
a
m
&
r
i
a
p
e
R

s
t
s
o
c

e
l
b
a
i
r
a
v

r
e
h
t
O

s
t
s
o
c

e
l
b
a
i
r
a
v
-
n
o
n
r
e
h
t
O

s
t
s
o
c
n
o
i
t
a
i
c
e
r
p
e
d

l
a
u
n
n
A

35% 

23% 

0% 

22%  9%  11%  4%  19% 

2% 

28%  17%  8%  10%  11% 

20% 

11% 

17%  11%  9%  6%  27% 

36% 

27% 

0% 

21%  11%  11%  9%  11% 

7% 

21%  12%  8%  11%  13% 

13% 

11% 

27%  16%  8%  7%  18% 

27% 

31% 

3% 

32%  6%  13%  8%  11% 

3% 

29%  8%  10%  11%  7% 

12% 

16% 

29%  13%  8%  14%  9% 

28% 

12% 

3% 

25%  9%  11%  9% 

16% 

0% 

31%  16%  30%  5%  6% 

18% 

0% 

23%  6%  17%  29%  6% 

11% 

3% 

11% 

23%  8%  15%  2% 

30% 

8% 

20%  12%  30%  1% 

25% 

39% 

0% 

25%  13%  9%  4%  10% 

27% 

2% 

25%  8%  31%  3% 

4% 

43% 

16% 

13%  8%  10%  1%  9% 

37% 

5% 

22%  8%  17%  1%  9% 

y
r
t
n
u
o
C

)
€
(

t
s
o
c

l
a
t
o
T

Portugal 

408,256,774 

Netherlands 

370,092,234 

339,889,971 

246,034,467 

145,278,238 

126,725,788 

85,945,555 

48,108,854 

37,437,027 

30,004,005 

37,139,507 

21,516,478 

18,822,264 

14,909,407 

12,536,201 

4,957,406 

2,189,631 

743,192 

Denmark 

Ireland 

Germany 

Sweden 

Belgium 

Poland 

Finland 

Croatia 

Lithuania 

Latvia 

Malta 

Cyprus 

Estonia 

Bulgaria 

Slovenia 

Romania 

Total 

6,412,490,860 

100% 

28% 

3% 

24%  9%  15%  9%  13% 

Source:  ICF  calculations  based  on  DCF  data  as  reported  in  Scientific,  Technical  and 
Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF); The 2014 Annual Economic Report on the EU 
fishing Fleet (STECF 14-16), 2014.  

4. Employment data and trends in the fisheries sector 

Table 5: Total employment in the fisheries sector, absolute and proportional changes in the 
period 2008 - 2014, by proportional change 

Country 

2008* 

Netherlands 

630 

2014 

1,805 

83 

Absolute 
change 

Proportional 
change 

1,175 

187% 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country 

2008* 

Poland 

Finland 

2,363 

626 

2014 

4,006 

1,045 

United Kingdom 

8,177* 

11,027 

Romania 

Croatia 

France 

Sweden 

Greece 

Italy 

Spain 

Portugal 

Germany 

Estonia 

Malta 

1,290 

5,369 

8,231 

1,872 

11,218 

27,552* 

41,225 

16,795 

4,903 

935 

395 

Lithuania 

3,222 

1,604 

5,732 

7,494 

1,671 

9,179 

18,846 

27,968 

11,177 

3,050 

516 

214 

902 

Absolute 
change 

Proportional 
change 

1,643 

420 

2,850 

314 

363 

-737 

-200 

-2,039 

-8,706 

-13,257 

-5,618 

-1,853 

-420 

-181 

-2,320 

70% 

67% 

35% 

24% 

7% 

-9% 

-11% 

-18% 

-32% 

-32% 

-33% 

-38% 

-45% 

-46% 

-72% 

Total 

108,482 
Source: EU-LFS [stapro] *UK’s earliest data is from 2009, Italy’s earliest data is from 2011 

101,125* 

7,357 

7% 

The share of sea fisheries employment of total employment is relatively low in the majority of 
Member  States  and  stands  below  0.1%  in  Belgium,  Germany,  France,  the  Netherlands, 
Poland, Romania, Slovenia, Sweden and the UK. Based on DCF data, the sector makes up the 
most  significant  share  of  overall  national  employment  in  Greece  (0.7%),  Bulgaria  (0.5%), 
Portugal (0.4%) and Cyprus (0.3%). For the EU28 as a whole the share of employment in the 
sea  fisheries  sector  of  total  employment  is  0.08%.  The  employment  picture  and  reasons  for 
employment  trends  are  complex  and  depend  on  the  region  and  the  size  and  nature  of  the 
existing fleet and its links to the above mentioned factors (e.g. mainly small scale, large scale 
or distant water etc.). Labour or occupational safety and health legislation was not identified 
as  having  played  a  significant  role  in  influencing  employment  trends  in  the  sector  by 
stakeholders consulted for this study260. 

Overall,  employment  in  the  sector  has  declined  significantly  in  recent  decades  (in  1995/6 
employment stood at around 260,000). This is mainly due to factors such as a decline in fish 
stocks, quota systems, increasing international competition but also an aging workforce, and a 
lack of attractiveness of the sector among young and skilled workers, which leads to shortage 
of  staff  in  some  Member.  States261.However,  as  shown  by  table  5,  there  are  considerable 

260 ICF Study, p. 17 
261  British  Safety  Council  (2015),  Safety  Management,  the  troubled  waters  of  the  European  Fishing  Industry, 
https://sm.britsafe.org/troubled-waters-european-fishing-industry. Also reported to be the case in Belgium where 
finding an appropriate crew remains a challenge for many vessel owners. Young potential fishermen  prefer to 
work  for  dredging  companies  or  in  the  tourism  industry.  Source:  2015  Annual  Economic  Report  on  the  EU 
Fishing Fleet, p. 25. 

84 

 
 
                                                 
difference between the Member States. In the Netherlands, Poland, Finland, United Kingdom, 
Romania and Croatia, the number of fishermen have increased between 7-24 %. 262 

Table 6: Employment, self-employment and family workers in the fisheries sector in 2014, by 
share of category out of total employees 

Row Labels 

Employee 

Family 
worker 

Total self 
employed 

Self-
employed 
with 
employees 
(out of total 
employees)263 

Self-
employed 
without 
employees 
(out of total 
employees) 

Lithuania 

100% 

Portugal 

Spain 

Germany 

Croatia 

Italy 

Poland 

Romania 

France 

United 
Kingdom 

Finland 

Estonia 

Netherlands 

Sweden 

Malta 

Greece 

EU28 

71% 

67% 

65% 

62% 

56% 

56% 

51% 

49% 

49% 

39% 

36% 

27% 

20% 

22% 

3% 

55% 

0% 

1% 

2% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

17% 

7% 

8% 

7% 

0% 

6% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

7% 

3% 

0% 

27% 

29% 

35% 

38% 

44% 

27% 

42% 

43% 

44% 

61% 

58% 

73% 

80% 

78% 

90% 

41% 

0% 

9% 

13% 

31% 

18% 

14% 

0% 

13% 

17% 

18% 

0% 

17% 

37% 

8% 

0% 

15% 

14% 

0% 

18% 

16% 

4% 

20% 

30% 

27% 

29% 

26% 

26% 

61% 

41% 

36% 

72% 

78% 

76% 

27% 

Source: LFS data available by special request [stapro].  

The share of self-employment is greatest in Greece (90%), Sweden (80%), Malta (78%) and 
Netherlands (73%) and is lowest in Poland (27%). Among the self-employed, the Netherlands 
(37%)  and  Germany  (31%)  feature  the  highest  share  of  self-employed  with  employees, 
whereas their share is lowest in Finland, Malta, Poland and Lithuania, where there are none 
(0%).  For  the  EU  as  a  whole  the  share  of  self-employed  fishermen  stands  at  41%  of  total 

262 ICF Study p. 40 
263 This metric from the EU-LFS indicates the share of self-employed individuals who have employees. As the 
only available relevant data, this has been used as a proxy for the share of self-employed working on the same 
vessel with employees.  

85 

 
 
 
                                                 
individuals working in the sector. Between 2008 and 2014, EU-LFS data records stability in 
the share of self-employment in the sector at 41%264.  

Part time employment in the sea fisheries sector 

The share of fishermen working part-time varies significantly between Member States. Data 
from the EU-LFS shows that the overall share of part-time employment stood at 11% in 2014. 
The  shares  of  part-time  employment  were  highest  in  the  Netherlands  (24%),  which  has  an 
overall high share of part-time employment in most sectors. Romania has a high share of part-
time employment (23%) as has Finland (20%). Part-time employment is the lowest in Poland 
Greece  and  France,  where  it  is  between  4-7%  of  the  total  employment.  There  were  no 
significant changes in the share of part-time employment in the Member States for which such 
data are available between 2008 and 2014265. 

Table 7 Share of part-time employment in the fisheries sector (2014), in order of share of the 
share of part-time employment 

Country 

Netherlands 

Romania 

Finland 

Germany 

Estonia 

Italy 

Portugal 

Spain 

Malta 

Sweden 

Lithuania 

United Kingdom 

Croatia 

France 

Greece 

Poland 

EU28 

Share of part-time employment 

24% 

23% 

20% 

17% 

17% 

14% 

13% 

12% 

12% 

12% 

11% 

10% 

8% 

7% 

5% 

4% 

11% 

Source: EU-LFS and ICF own calculations 

According  to  EU-LFS  data,  in  2014,  42%  of  the  EU-28  workforce  was  permanently 
employed.  Lithuania  had  the  highest  share  of  permanent  workers  (75%),  whereas  the 
countries with the highest proportion of temporary workers are Spain (22%), Lithuania (25%) 
and Poland (36%). The reasons for the high share of ‘not applicable’ answers are unclear and 

264 ICF study, p. 21 
265 ICF study p. 27 

86 

 
 
 
                                                 
this  data  must  therefore  be  treated  with  caution.  It  should  also  be  noted  that  EU-LFS 
temporary  employment  data  includes  fixed-term  employment  as  well  as  agency  work. 
Disaggregated figures for these two different types of employment are not available.  

Table  8:  Share  of  permanent  vs  temporary  employment  (EU-LFS  data  2014)  by  share  of 
temporary employment 

Row Labels 

Not applicable 

Permanent 

Temporary 

Poland 

Lithuania 

Spain 

Portugal 

Finland 

Croatia 

United Kingdom 

Germany 

France 

Italy 

Netherlands 

Sweden 

Estonia 

Greece 

Malta 

Romania 

EU28 
Source: EU-LFS [temp]  

44% 

33% 

29% 

61% 

38% 

51% 

35% 

51% 

44% 

73% 

80% 

64% 

97% 

100% 

49% 

45% 

19% 

75% 

45% 

54% 

28% 

53% 

41% 

51% 

43% 

49% 

21% 

16% 

36% 

3% 

51% 

42% 

36% 

25% 

22% 

17% 

11% 

8% 

8% 

7% 

6% 

6% 

6% 

4% 

12% 

87 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex  6:  Background  on  the  international  and  EU  legislation  on  living  and  working 
conditions for fisherman  

Existing International Agreements in the sector 

Prior  to  the  ILO  Work  in  Fishing  Convention  which  led  to  the  Agreement  signed  by  the 
European  social  partners,  the  ILO  had  already  passed  several  Conventions.  These  texts 
concerned  hours  of  work,  the  minimum  age  ,  medical  examination,  articles  of  agreement, 
competency  certificates,  accommodation  of  crews  and  vocational  training.266  These 
Conventions  were  ratified  by  some  Member  States  with  a  large  fleet,  but  not  by  all  EU 
Member States. ILO Convention C.188 consolidates the existing ILO provisions and adapted 
them to the changes which have occurred since the ILO Conventions were adopted 40 years 
ago. The ILO Conventions revised by the ILO Convention no. 188 are still in force, as ILO 
Convention  no.  188  has  not  yet  entered  into  force.  According  to  the  provisions  of  the 
Convention,  it  will  enter  into  force,  one  year  after  it  has  been  ratified  by  10  ILO  Member 
States of which 8 coastal states267. At this moment five ILO Member States have ratified this 
Convention268. None of the EU Member States have ratified the Convention, despite the fact 
that, the Council adopted a decision in 2010 inviting Member States to make efforts to take 
the  necessary  steps  to  deposit  their  instrument  of  ratification  of  ILO  Convention  n°  188  as 
soon as possible, preferably before 31 December 2012269.  

Another  important  international  instrument  is  the  Cape  Town  Agreement  of  2012  of  the 
International Maritime Organisation (IMO). This Agreement has been concluded to enable the 
implementation  of  the  Torremolinos  International  Convention  for  the  Safety  of  Fishing 
Vessels  signed  in  1977  and  it's  Protocol  of  1993270.  The  Torremolinos  Convention  has  not 
entered into force as an insufficient number of States ratified the Convention and its Protocol. 
These  two  texts  aimed  at  setting  safety  standards  of  fishing  vessels  of  24  meters  and  over 
which closely relate to health and safety and working conditions of fishers. At the EU level, 
the Torremolinos Protocol has been implemented through the Council Directive 97/70/EC271 
thus uniform safety standards of vessels of 24 meters  and over already exist in the EU. The 
Cape  Town  Agreement  was  another  attempt  to  set  worldwide  standards.  It  amended  certain 
provisions  of  the  Torremolinos  Convention  to  introduce  more  flexibility  in  view  of  the 
implementation difficulties faced by many States.  

As  the  Cape  Town  Agreement  concerns  a  subject  of  exclusive  EU  competence,  Member 
States  could  not  decide  to  ratify  it  on  their  own.  As  a  result,  in  February  2014,  a  Council 
Decision  was  adopted  to  authorise  Member  States  to  sign,  ratify  or  accede  to  Cape  Town 

266 ILO (1959) Minimum Age (Fishermen) Convention, No. 112, ILO (1959) Medical Examination (Fishermen) 
Convention,  No.  113,  ILO  (1959)  Fishermen’s  Articles  of  Agreement  Convention,  No.  114,  ILO  (1966),  ILO 
(1966) Accommodation of Crews (Fishermen) Convention, No. 126, ILO (1966).  
267 Article 48 of ILO Convention no. 188.  
268 Argentina, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Congo, Morocco, and South Africa 
269  Council  Decision  2010/321/EU  of  7  June  2010  authorising  Member  States  to  ratify,  in  the  interests  of  the 
European Union, the Work in Fishing Convention, 2007, of the International Labour Organisation (Convention 
No 188), OJ L 145, 11.6.2010, p. 1 
270 The Cape Town Agreement is a basic set of safety measures for larger high seas fishing vessels and contains 
provisions in relation to the vessel on stability, construction, watertight integrity and equipment, machinery and 
electrical installations, fire protection and fire-fighting, protection of the crew, lifesaving appliances, emergency 
procedures, musters and drills, ship-borne communications and navigational equipment.  
271 Council Directive 97/70/EC of 11 December 1997 setting up a harmonised safety regime for fishing vessels 
of 24 metres in length and over, OJ L 34, 9.2.1998, p. 1 

88 

 
 
                                                 
Agreement  within  two  years.  At  present,  available  information  suggests  that  only  the 
Netherlands has done so. 

The International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watch-keeping for 
Fishing  Vessel  Personnel  (STCW-F)272,  adopted  in  1995  under  the  auspices  of  the 
International  Maritime  Organization  (IMO),  lays  down  minimum  training  standards  for 
personnel on board fishing vessels. It represents a significant contribution to the promotion of 
safety  at  sea  and  to  the  protection  of  the  marine  environment.  The  EU  advocates  broad 
ratification of the Convention by its Member States. 

The Convention entered into force in 2012, after being ratified by the required fifteen parties. 
Only  five  EU  Member  States  have  ratified  it  so  far:  Denmark,  Spain,  Latvia,  Lithuania  and 
Poland.  While  the  EU  cannot  accede  to  the  Convention,  which  is  only  open  to  individual 
States,  its authorisation  is  required for  EU  Member  States  to  ratify  it,  since  a  number  of  its 
provisions fall under exclusive EU competence. 

Current EU provisions 

EU  labour  law  Directives,  such  as  the  Written  Statement  Directive273,  the  Working  Time 
Directive274,  and  the  Temporary  Agency  workers  Directive275  are  applicable  to  all  workers 
including to fishermen.  

The  Written  Statement  Directive  (91/533/EEC)  establishes  the  employer’s  obligation  to 
inform  employees  of  the  conditions  applicable  to  the  contract  or  employment  relationship. 
The  general  Working  Time  Directive  provides  for  minimum  standards  on  working  time  to 
protect workers’ health and safety.  

The Working Time Directive (2003/88/EC) contains separate provisions for workers on board 
sea fishing vessels. According to Article 21 of the Directive the general limits for daily and 
weekly rests and breaks do not apply to these workers. Instead, adequate rests has to be 
ensured and working time needs to be limited to an average working week of 48 hours 
calculated within a reference period of twelve months. This Article establishes specific 
daily and weekly working time or rest limits for these workers.  

The  Directive  on  Temporary  Agency  Work  (2008/104/EC)  defines  a  general  framework 
applicable  to  the  working  conditions  of  temporary  workers  in  the  European  Union.  The 
Directive aims to guarantee a minimum level of effective protection to temporary workers and 
to  contribute  to  the  development  of  the  temporary  work  sector  as  a  flexible  option  for 
employers and workers. 

With regard to  social  security, the EU Regulation on coordination  of social security applies 
also  to  fishermen.  This  Regulation  lays  down  the  rules  how  to  make  work  these  different 

1995 

entered 

(STCW-F), 

272 The International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watch keeping for Fishing Vessel 
Personnel 
2012, 
https://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/HumanElement/Pages/STCW-F-Convention.aspx. 
273 Council Directive 91/533/EEC of 14 October 1991 on an employer's obligation to inform employees of the 
conditions applicable to the contract or employment relationship, OJ L 288, 18.10.1991, p. 32–35 
274 Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain 
aspects of the organisation of working time, OJ L 299, 18.11.2003, p. 9–19 
275 Directive 2008/104/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on temporary 
agency work, O.J. L 327, 5.12.2008, p. 9 

September 

force 

into 

in 

89 

 
 
                                                 
systems  together.  The  Member  States  are  competent  concerning  their  own  social  security 
systems  and  under  which  conditions  benefits  are  given.  The  regulation  applies  to  the  EU 
nationals and to the third country national legally residing in the EU. 

The existing EU legislation on occupational safety and health (OSH), applies to all economic 
sectors, both public and private sector.276 The Framework Directive277 and, where relevant, its 
individual  directives278  apply  in  full  to  the  workers  in  the  fishing  sector.  Two  EU  OSH 
Directives  address  specific  issues  within  the  maritime  sector  –  Directive  92/29/EEC279 
(Medical  treatment  on  board  vessels)  and  Directive  93/103/EC280  (Work  on  board  fishing 
vessels). The latter was specifically designed having into account a number of OSH concerns 
in the sea fishing sector.  

Two  specific  Directives  were  introduced  to  tackle  the  specific  risks  and  to  promote  the 
occupational health and safety of fishermen. Directive 93/103/EEC281 defining the minimum 
safety and health requirements for work on board fishing vessels and Directive 92/29/EEC282 
on  the  minimum  safety  and  health  requirements  for  improved  medical  treatment  on  board 
vessels. 

Directive  93/103/CE  applies  to  new  fishing  vessels  (building  contract  placed  after  23 
November 1995) with a length between perpendiculars of 15 m or over and to existing fishing 
vessels  with  a  length  between  perpendiculars  of  18  m  or  over.  In  addition  EU  OSHA 
produced a Risk assessment for small fishing vessels283.  

Directive 92/29/EEC applies to any vessel, regardless of its size, flying the flag of a Member 
State  or  registered  under  the  plenary  jurisdiction  of  a  Member  State,  seagoing  or  estuary-
fishing,  publicly  or  privately  owned284.  It  aims  to  ensure  that  the  vessel  carries  appropriate 
medicines  and  anti-dotes  on  board  and  that  workers  on  board  of  the  vessel  can  obtain 
necessary medical treatment.  

The agreement 

The agreement contains minimum requirements with regard to living and working conditions 
for fishermen on board of fishing vessels flying the flag of an EU Member States. Some of the 
provisions  of  the  agreement  do  not  change  the  situation  vis-à-vis  the  current  acquis.  Other 
provisions  such  as  for  example  the  provisions  with  regard  minimum  age,  working  time, 
fisherman's  work  agreement,  medical  certificate,  repatriation,  right  to  food  and  water  on 

276 Article 2(1) of Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage 
improvements in the safety and health of workers at work, OJ L 183, 29.6.1989, p. 1 
277 Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements 
in the safety and health of workers at work, OJ L 183, 29.6.1989, p.1. 
278 Within the meaning of Article 16 (1) of Directive 89/391/EEC.  
279 COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 92/29/EEC, of 31 March 1992 on the minimum safety and health requirements for 
improved medical treatment on board vessels, OJ L 113, 30.4.1992, p. 19. 
280 Council Directive 93/103/EC of 23 November 1993 concerning the minimum safety and health requirements 
for  work  on  board  fishing  vessels  (thirteenth  individual  Directive  within  the  meaning  of  Article  16  (1)  of 
Directive 89/391/EEC) OJ L 307, 13.12.1993, p. 1) 
281 Directive 93/103/CE of 23 November 1993 concerning the minimum safety and health requirements for work 
on board fishing vessels, OJ L 307, 13.12.1993, p. 1 
282 Directive 92/29/EEC of 31 March 1992 on the minimum safety and health requirements for improved medical 
treatment on board vessels, OJ L 113, 30.4.1992, p. 19. 
283 https://osha.europa.eu/en/tools-and-publications/publications/factsheets/38  
284 Article 1(a) of Directive 92/29/EEC 

90 

 
 
                                                 
board,  medical  treatment  on  board  and  ashore  are  new  compared  to  the  current  acquis.  As 
these provisions are expected to have an impact on the legislation and practice of the Member 
States who do not have the same or more favourable provisions in place, they are analysed in 
the main text of this report.  

The agreement contains an Annex II which contains technical specifications on occupational 
safety  and  health  of  fishermen  concerning  accommodation,  sleeping  rooms,  sick  bay, 
recreational  rooms,  laundry  facilities,  preparation  and  storage  of  food.  Specific  numerical 
dimensions  are  provided  for  vessels  of  24  meters  and  over.  These  provisions  will  apply  to 
vessels for which: 

The building or major conversion contract has been placed on or after the date of the entry 
into force of the agreement; or 

(ii) the building or major conversion contract has 
been placed before the date of the entry into force of the agreement, and which is delivered 
three years or more after that date; or (iii) in the absence of a building contract, on or after the 
date of the entry into force of the agreement: 
(a) the keel is laid, or 
(b) construction identifiable with a specific vessel begins, or 
(c) assembly has commenced comprising at least fifty tonnes or one percent of the estimated 
mass of all structural material, whichever is less; 

For fishing vessels normally remaining at sea for less than 24 hours where the fishermen do 
not  live  on  board  the  vessel  in  port.  The  national  authorities,  after  consulting  the  national 
sectoral social partners, might permit variations to the provisions of this Annex .In the case of 
such vessels, the competent authority shall ensure that the fishermen concerned have adequate 
facilities for resting, eating and sanitation purposes. The requirements for vessels of 24 metres 
in length and over may be applied to vessels between 15 and 24 metres in length where the 
competent  authority  determines,  after  consultation,  that  this  is  reasonable  and  practicable. 
Hence the Annex II applies to all new fishing vessels, irrespective of size or existing vessels 
which are being converted: 

91 

 
 
 
 
 
 
MS having 
more favourable 
or equal 
protective 
standards 

MS having less 
favourable or 
no standards 

DE, EE, EL, ES, FR, 
HR, IE 

LV, UK287 

Legal analysis - Provisions of Annex II of the Agreement 

Clause285 

Relevant EU law 

General provisions286 

2(b) new fishing vessel means, a vessel for which: 

Article 2 (b) of Directive 93/103/EC 

(i) the building or major conversion contract has 

been placed on or after the date of the entry into force of 
the Agreement; or 

(ii) the building or major conversion contract has been 
placed before the date of the entry into force of the 
Agreement, and which is delivered three years or more after 
that date; or 

(iii) in the absence of a building contract, on or 

after the date of the entry into force of the Agreement: 

(a) the keel is laid, or 

(b) construction identifiable with a specific vessel begins, or  

(c) assembly has commenced comprising at 

least fifty tonnes or one percent of the 

New fishing vessel: a fishing vessel 
with a length between perpendiculars 
of 15 meters or over and for which, on 
or after the date specified in the first 
subparagraph of Article 13 (1):  

(i) the building or major conversion 
contract is placed; or 

(ii) the building or major conversion 
contract has been placed before the date 
specified in the first subparagraph of 
Article 13 (1) and which is delivered three 
or more years after that date; or 

(iii) in the absence of a building contract:  

- the keel is laid, or 

285 No information on this annex provided by the IT, NL, SI, SE, PL, PT, and RO authorities.  
286 FI: no information 
287 UK: Some of the requirements are covered by the current legislation. UK national authorities stated in the context of the external study that the current legislation needs to be 
updated and this might be the opportunity to do this 

92 

 
 
 
  
 
                                                 
Clause285 

Relevant EU law 

MS having 
more favourable 
or equal 
protective 
standards 

MS having less 
favourable or 
no standards 

estimated mass of all structural material, 

whichever is less; 

(c) existing vessel means, a vessel that is not a new 
fishing vessel. 

- construction identifiable with a specific 
vessel begins, or 

- assembly has commenced, comprising 
at least 50 tonnes or 1 % of the 
estimated mass of all structural material, 
whichever is the lesser;  

Article 2 (c) of Directive 93/103/EC  

Existing fishing vessel: any fishing 
vessel with a length between 
perpendiculars of 18 metres or over and 
which is not a new fishing vessel;  

6. Fishermen working on board feeder vessels which do not 
have appropriate accommodation and sanitary facilities shall 
be provided with such accommodation and facilities on 
board the mother vessel. 

n/a 

Planning and control288 

8. The competent authority shall satisfy itself that, on every  None 

288 FI: no information  
289 ES: legislation is pending if the agreement is ratified 
290 UK some adjustments necessary in case of flag change.  

93 

DE, EE, EL, FR, HR, 
IE 

ES289, LV, UK290 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Clause285 

Relevant EU law 

MS having 
more favourable 
or equal 
protective 
standards 

MS having less 
favourable or 
no standards 

occasion when a vessel is newly constructed or the crew 
accommodation of a vessel has been reconstructed, such 
vessel complies with the requirements of this Annex. 

The competent authority shall, to the extent practicable, 
require compliance with this Annex when the crew 
accommodation of a vessel is substantially altered and, for a 
vessel that changes the flag it flies to the flag of the Member 
State, require compliance with those requirements of this 
Annex that are applicable in accordance with paragraph 3.  

9. For the occasions noted in paragraph 8, for vessels of 24 
metres in length and over, detailed plans and information 
concerning accommodation shall be required to be 
submitted for approval to the competent authority, or an 
entity authorized by it.  

10. For vessels of 24 metres in length and over, on every 
occasion when the crew accommodation of the fishing vessel 
has been reconstructed or substantially altered, the 
competent authority shall inspect the accommodation for 
compliance with the requirements of the Agreement, and 
when the vessel changes the flag it flies to the flag of the 
Member State, for compliance with those requirements of 
this Annex that are applicable in accordance with paragraph 
3. The competent authority may carry out additional 
inspections of crew accommodation at its discretion. 

None 

None 

11. When a vessel changes flag to a Member State flag or is  None 

94 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Clause285 

Relevant EU law 

registered under a Member State’s plenary jurisdiction, any 
alternative requirements which the competent authority 

of a non EU Member State whose flag the ship 

was formerly flying, may have adopted in accordance with 
paragraphs 15, 39, 47 or 62 of Annex III to C.188, cease to 
apply to the vessel 

Design and construction (headroom, not less than 200 
cm for vessels of 24 meters and over) 

Openings into and between accommodation spaces no 
direct openings into sleeping rooms from fish rooms 
and machinery spaces, 

Insulation  

Other, natural, reading291 and emergency lighting 
privacy of sleeping spaces.  

Adequate Floor area specific dimensions for vessels of 
24 meters and over  

Persons per sleeping room 

MS having 
more favourable 
or equal 
protective 
standards 

MS having less 
favourable or 
no standards 

DE, EE, EL, ES, FR, 
HR, IE, LV, UK  

DE, EE, EL, FR, HR, 
IE, LV, UK 

ES 

DE, EE, EL, ES, FI, 
FR, IE, LV 

HR, UK 

DE, EE, EL, ES, FR, 
IE, LV, UK 

 HR 

DE, EE, FI, FR, IE,   EL, ES292, HR, 

DE,EE, ES, FI, FR, 
IE, LV, UK 

LV, UK 

EL, HR 

Other Sleeping rooms and Sanitary installations 

DE,EE, EL, ES, FI,  HR 

291 No information FI 
292 Specific numerical dimensions not met 

95 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Clause285 

Relevant EU law 

specific dimensions for vessels of 24 meters and over  

Laundry facilities 

Facilities for washing drying and ironing for vessels 
24 meters and over 

Facilities for sick and injured fishermen 

Other facilities (places for hanging foul-weather gear, 
personal protective equipment, bedding mess 
utensils.  

Recreational facilities (vessels of 24 meters and over)   

Communication facilities296 

Galley and food storage facilities cooking equipment, 
separate galley for vessels 24 meters and over 

Food and potable water 

MS having less 
favourable or 
no standards 

MS having 
more favourable 
or equal 
protective 
standards 
FR, IE, LV, UK293 

DE, EE, EL, ES,FI, 
FR, IE, UK 

HR, LV 

DE, EE, FI, FR, IE, 
LV 

EL, ES294, HR, 
UK 

DE, EE, FI, FR, IE, 
LV, UK 

EL, HR 

DE, EE, EL, FI, FR, 
IE 

ES295, FI, HR, 
LV, UK 

DE, EE, FR, IE 

EL, ES, HR, UK 

DE, EE,ES, FI, FR, 
IE  

EL, HR, UK 

DE, EE, FI, FR, HR, 
IE, LV 

EL, ES297, UK298 

293 UK: some fine-tuning might be needed for the requirements of the vessels of 24 meters and over.  
294 ES: not compulsory, and not applicable to vessels out of port for less than 36 hrs.  
295 ES: no specific regulations for vessels of 24 meters and over and not applicable to vessels out of port for less than 36 hrs.  
296 FI: No information 
297 ES: food and water has to be on board. 
298 UK additional legislation is required in particularly with regard to value, quantity, and quality, taking into account religious and cultural practices.  

96 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Clause285 

Relevant EU law 

Clean and habitable conditions 

Source: external study, table 20 

MS having 
more favourable 
or equal 
protective 
standards 

MS having less 
favourable or 
no standards 

DE, EE, EL, ES, FI, 
FR, HR, IE, UK 

LV 

97 

 
 
 
 
 
1