COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the document COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION on the State of Play of the Common Fisheries Policy and Consultation on the Fishing Opportunities for 2018
Date: 2017-07-05
Institutions: Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, authorised catch, catch quota, common fisheries policy, conservation of fish stocks, exploitation of resources, fishing area, fishing rights, sea fish, sea fishing

EN 

   EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 5.7.2017  SWD(2017) 256 final   COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the document COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION   on the State of Play of the Common Fisheries Policy and Consultation on the Fishing Opportunities for 2018  {COM(2017) 368 final}  
 
 
Contents 

Section I – Assessment of the state of the stocks ....................................................................... 1 

Section II – Economic performance of the EU fishing fleet ...................................................... 9 

Section III – Implementation of the landing obligation ........................................................... 14 

Section IV -  Governance through regionalisation ................................................................... 20 

Section V -  Report on Member States' efforts during 2015 to achieve a sustainable balance 
between fishing capacity and fishing opportunities ................................................................. 22 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Section I – Assessment of the state of the stocks 

Section I  explains in  detail the progress towards archieving maximum sustainable yield  and 
the situation of the stocks. 

1.  Progress Report 

The Commission has asked the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries 
(STECF) to report on progress in achieving the maximum sustainable yield exploitation rate 
(FMSY)  in  line  with  the  objectives  of  the  Common  Fisheries  Policy.  The  exploitation  rate 
relative to FMSY is calculated by the STECF, the International Council for the Exploration of 
the Sea (ICES) and the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM) 

In line with recommended best practice, all historic data series have been updated. This means 
that some new methods have been introduced, new science taken into account, and new data 
added. 

The  main  findings  of  the  STECF  technical  report1  are  summarised  here.  Reference  to  the  
"North-East Atlantic" includes the waters of the Baltic Sea, North Sea, Irish Sea, Celtic Sea 
and  adjacent  waters.  Some  technical  improvements  have  been  incorporated  into  the  method 
used by the STECF – these are documented in the report cited. 

1.1 Knowledge of the state of the stocks 
1.1.1 North-East Atlantic 

New  knowledge  and  new  data  have  enabled  an  additional  10  stocks  to  be  included  in  the 
evaluation  since  the  previous  exercise.  However,  estimates  for  three  stocks  could  not  be 
updated for 2015. 

The number of stocks for which there is scientific advice about fishing mortality compared to 
the fishing mortality that would lead to the maximum sustainable yield has increased from 62 
to 66 since 2003, but has generally remained stable (see Figure 1)  

1 2017-04_STECF 17-04: Monitoring the performance of the Common Fisheries Policy (WP), 
Ispra, Italy, 27-31 March 2017, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 
2017. 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
 
North-East Atlantic 

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

y
s
m
F
d
n
a
F

r
o
f
d
e
s
s
e
s
s
A
s
k
c
o
t
S
f
o
r
e
b
m
u
N

2003

2006

2009
Year 

2012

2015

Figure  1  Numbers  of  fish  stocks  of  EU  interest  in  the  North-East  Atlantic  where  both  annual 
fishing mortality (F) and the fishing mortality corresponding to maximum sustainable yield have 
been assessed. 

1.1.2. Mediterranean Sea and Black Sea 
Due to a lack of human resources, only some of the commercial stocks in these areas undergo 
an annual biological assessment. Although the number of assessments increased from 2003 to 
2009  and  remained  roughly  stable  afterwards,  significantly  fewer  stock  assessments  are 
available for 2015 data (Figure 2). This is due to a number of factors. Experts from key non-
EU countries were unavailable for  STECF meetings, so no assessments were possible in the 
Black  Sea.  Information  on  GFCM  assessments  in  2016  was  not  available  at the  time  of  the 
analysis  (March  2017).  The  STECF  was  unable  to  provide  acceptable  assessments  for  new 
stocks.  This,  combined  with  new  geographic  stock  definitions,  resulted  in  some  stocks 
previously considered as biologically discrete being merged into larger, single stock units. In 
turn, the overall number of stocks fell.  

4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Mediterranean and Black Sea 

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

y
s
m
F
d
n
a
F

r
o
f
d
e
s
s
e
s
s
A
s
k
c
o
t
S
f
o
r
e
b
m
u
N

* 

2003

2006

2009
Year 

2012

2015

Figure 2 Numbers of fish stocks of fish of EU interest in the Mediterranean and Black Seas 
where both annual fishing mortality (F) and the fishing mortality corresponding to maximum 
sustainable yield have been assessed. * = value to be updated. 

1.2. Fishing compared to the maximum sustainable yield rate (FMSY) 

1.2.1  North-East Atlantic 

The number of stocks overfished or fished within FMSY by year in the North-East Atlantic is 
given in Figure 3, with the relative proportions shown in Figure 4. The average intensity of 
fishing  compared  to  FMSY  is  illustrated  in  Figure  5.  The  figures  show  similar  trends.  The 
number and proportion of stocks fished in accordance with the CFP FMSY objective increased 
gradually, particularly in the period 2007-2013. The most recent estimates show that 39 of 66 
assessed stocks were exploited within FMSY (equating to 59 %, up from 52 % in the previous 
year).  

5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
s
k
c
o
t
s

f
o
r
e
b
m
u
N

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Overfished 

Not Overfished 

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Year  

Figure 3. Numbers of assessed stocks in the North-East Atlantic, North Sea and Baltic Sea in EU 
waters and contiguous shared stocks, showing the number of stocks not overfished (fishing 
mortality is at or below FMSY) or overfished (fishing mortality is above FMSY) 

d
e
h
s
i
f
r
e
v
o

t
o
n
s
k
c
o
t
s

f
o
e
g
a
t
n
e
c
r
e
P

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

2003

2005

2007

2009

Year 

2011

2013

2015

Figure 4. Relative proportion of stocks assessed as not overfished (fishing mortality at or below 
FMSY) of the total assessed stocks in the North-East Atlantic, North Sea and Baltic Sea in EU 
waters and contiguous shared stocks 

6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
y
s
m
F
o
t
d
e
r
a
p
m
o
c
y
t
i
l

a
t
r
o
m
g
n
h
s
i
F

i

2,5

2

1,5

1

0,5

Overfished 

Not  
Overfished 

0
2003

2005

2007

2011

2013

2015

2009
Year 

Figure 5. Average fishing mortality compared to FMSY values (=1 for F= FMSY) for stocks in the 
North-East Atlantic, including the Celtic Seas, North Sea and Baltic Sea. Based on Figure 3.18 
and Table 3.9 of 2017-04 STECF 17-04. The solid line represents the average (median of model 
fit); the dotted lines show the range of uncertainty in the estimate of the average (95% 
confidence interval). 

For  2017  the  number  of  TACs  established  in  accordance  with  the  MSY  advice  increased 
again  and  now  stands  at  44  stocks,  or  61 %  of  the  overall  volume  fished  in  the  North-East 
Atlantic, North Sea and Baltic Sea (see Tables 1 and 2, and Figures 6 and 7). Of the overall 
expected catches, about 20 % do not have MSY advice.  

Percent  
(%)  

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

% share of TACs in line with
MSY advice (volume)

% share of TACs not in line
with MSY advice (volume)

% share of TACs without MSY
advice

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Year 

Figure 6. TACs with MSY advice by landed volume in North-East Atlantic, North Sea and Baltic 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 1. TACs with MSY advice (volume) 

% share of TACs in line with 
MSY advice (volume) 

% share of TACs not in line 
with MSY advice (volume) 

% share of TACs without MSY 
advice  

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

2017 

50 

44 

45 

49 

48 

51 

55 

61 

22% 

24 

23 

21 

22 

20 

20 

19 

28 

33 

33 

30 

30 

29 

25 

20 

s
C
A
T
f
o
r
e
b
m
u
N

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

5
0
0
2

6
0
0
2

7
0
0
2

8
0
0
2

9
0
0
2

0
1
0
2

1
1
0
2

2
1
0
2

3
1
0
2

4
1
0
2

5
1
0
2

6
1
0
2

7
1
0
2

Year 

Figure 7. Number of TACs with MSY advice2 

Table 2. Number of TACs with MSY advice 

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

s
C
A
T
f
o
e
g
a
t
n
e
c
r
e
P

TACs with MSY advice

TACs set in accordance
with or lower than
advice

TACs set above advice

% of TACs in accordance
with or lower than
advice

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

2017 

34 

23 

32 

33 

35 

39 

35 

38 

41 

46 

62 

72 

75 

2 

2 

2 

4 

5 

11 

13 

20 

25 

27 

32 

36 

44 

32 

21 

30 

29 

30 

28 

22 

18 

16 

19 

30 

36 

31 

6 

9 

6 

12 

14 

28 

37 

53 

61 

59 

58 

50 

59 

TACs with 
MSY advice 
TACs set in 
accordance 
with or lower 
than advice 
TACs set 
above advice 
% of TACs in 
accordance 
with or lower 
than advice 

2 Figures for 2005-2014 are taken from previous Communications 

8 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
 
 
 
 
 
 
1.2.2. Mediterranean and Black Seas 

Due to the incomplete assessment coverage of stocks in this area, no estimates are available 
for the number of stocks with respect to FMSY. However, trends in F compared to FMSY have 
been  assessed  (see  Figure  8).  They show  that  overfishing  in  the  Mediterranean  is very  high 
(209 % of FMSY in 2014) and shows no sign of falling. 

3,5

3

2,5

2

1,5

1

0,5

Overfished 

Not  
Overfished 

y
s
m
F
o
t
d
e
r
a
p
m
o
c
y
t
i
l

a
t
r
o
m
g
n
h
s
i
F

i

0
2003

2005

2007

2009
Year 

2011

2013

Figure 8. Average fishing mortality compared to FMSY values (=1 for F= FMSY) for stocks in the 
Mediterranean and Black Seas. Based on Figure 4.3 and Table 4.2 of STECF-17-04. The solid 
line represents the average (median of model fit); the dotted lines show the range of uncertainty 
in the estimate of the average (95% confidence interval). 

1.3 Trends in Biomass 

Fisheries directly affect fish stocks through catches. The fishing mortality (F) is a measure for 
fishing  pressure,  the  proportion  of  fish  in  a  year  class  that  is  taken  by  fisheries  during  one 
year.  Fishing  mortality  is  the  only  variable  that  can  be  directly  controlled  by  fisheries 
management. Fisheries management cannot directly control stock size, but can only influence 
it  through  fishing  mortality.  Stock  size  is  also  subject  to  natural  variability  that  can 
overwhelm the influence of fishing from one year to the next. MSY is therefore the long-term 
average stock size that can be expected when stocks are fished at FMSY The CFP objectives 
include rebuilding stocks above levels at which they can produce maximum sustainable yield. 
However,  estimates  of  corresponding  stock  sizes  are  not  currently  available  from  scientific 
agencies.  Instead,  ICES  reports  on  MSY  BTRIGGER,  which  is  considered  the  lower  bound  of 
spawning-stock biomass fluctuation around BMSY. It is therefore useful to report on trends in 
stock biomass. The STECF has provided information on biomass trends, which is reproduced 
here  (in  Figures  9  and  10  for  the  North-East  Atlantic  and  Mediterranean  respectively).  The 
analysis shows a 35 % increase in average biomass in the North-East Atlantic between 2003 
and 2015. By way of comparison, in 2014, 53% of stocks were classified as being within safe 

9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
biological  limits.  In  2015  this  figure  rose  to  68 %.  By  contrast,  in  the  Mediterranean  Sea 
average biomass declined by 20 % between 2003 and 2014. 

d
e
s
s
e
s
s
a
f
o
s
s
a
m
o
b
g
n
n
w
a
p
S

i

i

l

Northeast Atlantic 

)

%
0
0
1
=
3
0
0
2
(

s
k
c
o
t
s

200

150

100

50

0
2003

2005

2007

2011

2013

2015

2009
Year 

Figure 9. Average spawning biomass compared to values in 2003 (B/B2003) for stocks in the 
North-East Atlantic. Based on Figure 3.19 and Table 3.10 of STECF-17-04. The solid line 
represents the average (median of model fit); the dashed lines show the range of uncertainty in 
the estimate of the average (95% confidence interval). 

s
k
c
o
t
s
d
e
s
s
e
s
s
a
f
o
s
s
a
m
o
b
g
n
n
w
a
p
S

l

i

i

Mediterranean  and Black Sea 

200

180

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

)

%
0
0
1
=
3
0
0
2
(

0
2003

2005

2007

2011

2013

2015

2009
Year 

Figure 10. Average spawning biomass compared to values in 2003  (B/B2003) for stocks in the 
Mediterranean (the Black Sea is not included). Based on Figure 4.4 and Table 4.3 of STECF-17-
04. The solid line represents the average (median of model fit); the dashed lines show the range 
of uncertainty in the estimate of the average (95% confidence interval). 

10 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Section II – Economic performance of the EU fishing fleet 

This  section  provides  a    detailed  report  about  the  economic  performance  of  the  EU  fishing 
fleet is provided. 

Main economic trends 

According to the latest Annual Economic Report from the STECF, the economic performance 
of  the  EU  fleet  has  improved  significantly  in  recent  years  (see  Figure  11).  The  EU  fleet 
registered record net profits of EUR 770 million in 2014, a 50 % increase over the 2013 figure 
of  EUR 500  million.  Preliminary  data  for  2015  confirm  this  upturn,  and  the  economic 
forecasts for 2016 and 2017 remain upbeat. Furthermore, the EU fleet’s gross value added, 
i.e.  the  fish-catching  sector’s  contribution  to  the  economy  through  wages  and  gross  profit, 
amounted  to  EUR 3.7  billion  in  2014.  This  represented  a  substantial  increase  on  previous 
years. Average salaries and labour productivity in the EU fleet have also risen in recent years. 
However, employment continues to decline, reflecting reductions in fleet capacity. 

The  overall  improvement  in  the  EU  fleet’s  profitability  coincides  with  an  increase  in  the 
number  of  fish  stocks  being  fished  at  rates  consistent  with  the  objective  of  achieving  MSY 
and an associated increase in the biomass of these stocks (see Figures 12 and 13). This upturn 
in performance is the result of increases in revenue and reduced or stable fishing costs. Fuel 
costs have undergone a significant fall, driven not only by relatively low fuel prices, but also 
by  a  downward  trend  in  fuel  consumption  and  fuel  use  intensity,  as  a  result  of  the  more 
efficient way in which many EU fleets operate.  

Recent studies and scientific publications suggest that in the longer term, the EU fishing fleet 
could substantially improve its economic performance if the biomass of all exploited stocks 
recovered to MSY levels. They also suggest that the sooner fishing mortality rates are reduced 
to FMSY, the higher the EU fleet’s net profits will be. However, there are potential short-term 
economic  consequences  in  achieving  FMSY  where  stocks  are  currently  fished  at  levels  well 
above FMSY and therefore require ongoing reductions in fishing opportunities to meet the CFP 
objectives.  

To  add  a  note  of  caution,  these  papers  and  analyses  should  be  understood  as  a  series  of 
scenarios  or  simulations,  not  forecasts.  Key  external  factors  such  as  environmental 
fluctuations, fuel and fish prices are held constant in these simulations, but can dramatically 
impact  the  results  of  the  simulations.  Furthermore,  long-term  projections  are  subject  to 
considerable uncertainty and are dependent on the model’s assumptions.  

11 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 11. The EU fishing fleet's economic performance is improving 

Figure  12.  Contrast  between  number  of  stocks  sished  sustainably  and  the  impact  on  landings 
and average profit. 

12 

 
 
 
 
Figure 13. Trends in economic performance and fishng mortality rates relative to FMSY. 

Differences across fishing regions, fisheries and fleet categories 

Despite  this  overall  economic  progress  at  EU  level,  performance  also  varies  considerably 
between regions, Member States and fisheries. 

The overall performance of fleets operating in the North Sea and North-East Atlantic has been 
good, beating previous years. Factors that may have contributed to this improvement include 
recovery of certain stocks (e.g. plaice in the North Sea and Northern hake in the Atlantic) and 
higher  average  first-sale  prices  for  some  important  species  (e.g.  sole,  mackerel  and  hake). 
Notable  examples  of  increased  returns  in  the  North  Sea  from  fishing  at  MSY  include  the 
haddock,  plaice  and  sole  fisheries.  Some  of  the  UK  fleets  with  the  greatest  dependency  on 
haddock stocks have significantly boosted their profitability, with gross value added and net 
profits substantially increasing between 2008 and 2015, and the net profit margin exceeding 
15 % in 2015. Likewise, the medium-sized and large Dutch beam trawlers of 24-40 metres in 
length  have  enjoyed  high  profitability,  with  a  net  profit  margin  of  over  20 %  in  2015, 
supported  by  the  change  to  less  fuel-intensive  fishing  methods.  In  the  North-East  Atlantic, 
recent trends for the Nephrops (ICES SubareaVII – Irish and Celtic Seas) and Northern hake 
fishery suggest better economic returns from fishing at MSY. In the former, the 24-40 m Irish 
demersal  trawlers  operating  on  a  small  profit  margin  in  2008  were  recording  a  net  profit 
margin above 15 % in 2015. In the latter, the Spanish demersal trawlers operating at a loss in 
2008 were registering a 5 % net profit in 2015.   

There  are,  however,  examples  of  other  fleets  whose  performance  in  these  fisheries  has  not 
improved to the same extent. 

13 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Generally  speaking,  economic  performance  trends  are  better  in  the  North  Sea,  North-East 
Atlantic  and  Baltic  fleets  than  those  fleets  fishing  in  the  Mediterranean  and  Black  seas 
fleets  (see  Figures  14-18),  although  the  latest  economic  data  in  the  Baltic  Sea  suggests  a 
poorer economic performance among certain fleets, putting a brake of the improvements the 
region has seen in previous years.  

The economic performance of certain EU fleets in the Mediterranean and Black Sea continues 
to stagnate in areas where several stocks remain overfished. 

The  economic  situation  of  certain  small-scale  coastal  fleets,  in  particular  in  the 
Mediterranean  basin,  continues  to  show  signs  of  slowing  down,  in  contrast  with  the  overall 
improvement in the EU large-scale and distant-water fleets. 

Figure 14. Landings per sea and average gross profit per vessel. 

€
n
o

i
l
l
i

M

200

150

100

50

0

Revenue

Gross Value
Added

Gross profit

Net profit

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

Figure  15.  Trends  in  EU  economic  performance  indictors  2008  –  2013:  UK  demersal  trawlers 
24-40 meters in length. 

14 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
€
n
o

i
l
l
i

M

50

40

30

20

10

0

-10

Revenue

Gross Value
Added

Gross profit

Net profit

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Figure 16. Trends in EU economic performance indictors 2008 – 2013: Irish demersal trawlers 
24-40 meters in length. 

€

n
o

i
l
l
i

M

50

40

30

20

10

0

-10

Revenue

Gross Value
Added

Gross profit

Net profit

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

Figure 17. Trends in EU economic performance indictors 2008 – 2013: Dutch beam trawlers 24-
40 meters in length. 

Figure  18.  Trends  in  EU  economic  performance  indictors  2008  –  2013:  Spanish  demersal 
trawlers 24-40 meters in length. 

15 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Section III – Implementation of the landing obligation 

Introduction 
Based  on  the  obligation  to  report  on  the  implementation  of  the  landing  obligation  in 
Regulation  (EU)  No  1380/20133,  the  Commission  has  obtained  information  from  Member 
States and Advisory Councils information on: 

 

 

 
 
 

the  steps  taken  by  Member  States  and  producer  organisations  to  comply  with  the 
landing obligation; 
the  steps  taken  by  Member  States  regarding  checks  on  compliance  with  the  landing 
obligation; 
the socioeconomic impact of the landing obligation; 
the effect of the landing obligation on safety on board fishing vessels; 
the  use  of,  and  outlets  for  catches  below  the  minimum  conservation  reference  size 
(MCRS) of a species subject to the landing obligation; 

  port infrastructures and vessel fittings responding to the landing obligation; 
 

the  difficulties  encountered  in  the  implementation  of  the  landing  obligation  and 
recommendations to address them, for each fishery concerned. 

In  2016  the  Commission  issued  a  voluntary  questionnaire  with  34  questions  on  the  landing 
obligation to help the Member States with their reports and increase comparability. 

Reports  were  received  from  22  Member  States,  three  Advisory  Councils  (for  the 
Mediterranean, South-Western waters AC and North-Western waters, the European Fisheries 
Control Agency (EFCA) and two local groups. The information in this Section is based on the 
Member States and Advisory Councils contributions on their experiences in implementing the 
landing obligation in 2016. 

The  individual  reports  from  Member  States  highlight  the  wide  range  of  measures  used  to 
promote  compliance  with  the  landing  obligation.  Overall,  Member  States  have  continued  to 
make significant efforts to disseminate information to fishermen; these have included working 
through  and  in  close  cooperation  with  the  Advisory  Councils.  A  number  of  Member  States 
have launched specific studies and pilot projects to test selective gears or avoidance strategies, 
to  assess  the  impacts  of  the  landing  obligation  on  specific  fisheries,  or  to  provide  data  to 
support  de  minimis  and  high  survivability  exemptions  under  discard  plans.  Here,  some 
difficulties have been reported with the registration of catches below minimum conservation 
reference  size  in  the  Electronic  [catch]  Reporting  System  (ERS)  system  and  in  paper 
logbooks.  A  few  Member  States  have  amended  their  national  quota  management  systems. 
One Member State has reported using the inter-species quota flexibility; six report using the 
inter-annual flexibility mechanism. 

3 REGULATION (EU) No 1380/2013 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 11 December 2013 on the 
Common Fisheries Policy, amending Council Regulations (EC) No 1954/2003 and (EC) No 1224/2009 and repealing Council Regulations 
(EC) No 2371/2002 and (EC) No 639/2004 and Council Decision 2004/585/EC 

16 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
 
Member States have also taken a range of steps to ensure controls on, and compliance with, 
the  landing  obligation.  Most  have  provided  specific  training  and  dedicated  workshops  for 
inspectors  on  the  control  side  of  the  landing  obligation.  In  most  of  these  cases  EFCA  has 
provided  assistance.  In  addition,  the  majority  of  Member  States  have  signalled  a  move 
towards  a  risk-based  approach  to  control  and  monitoring.  EFCA  has  demonstrated  how  the 
last-haul  analysis  can  help  assess  compliance  with  the  landing  obligation  provisions  and 
provide information on catch composition across different fisheries. However, while there has 
been  extensive dialogue between inspectors at  regional level, and  most  Member State high-
level  groups  have  established  cross-sectoral  working  groups  on  control,  relatively  few 
concrete  measures  have  emerged.  New  control  tools  such  as  Close  Circuit  Television  
(CCTV) and other Remote Electronic Monitoring (REM) systems have been tested in many 
countries but there is little evidence of their being mandatory. By contrast, observer coverage 
has not increased; in fact, in several Member States there are indications that it has actually 
fallen. This is a worrying development and could ultimately affect future scientific advice.  

Member  States  report  that  it  is  difficult  as  yet  to  assess  the  socio-economic  impacts  of  the 
landing obligation, as it is still at an early stage of implementation. The majority of Member 
States indicate that problems so far have been minimal, but they expect more to arise as the 
phasing-in  of  the  landing  obligation  progresses.  In  particular,  difficulties  with  the  handling 
and storage of unwanted catches on board and limited opportunities for disposing of them are 
highlighted as potential problems. 

There is still no clear evidence of the landing obligation causing safety issues on board fishing 
vessels. No Member States have reported any incidents or accidents, although some continue 
to  highlight  potential  issues  of  overloading  and  additional  workload,  leading  to  tiredness. 
Several  Member  States  have  provided  funding  under  the  European  Maritime  and  Fisheries 
Fund (EMFF) to improve safety on board, although these funds are not directly related to the 
landing obligation.  

Landings of fish below MCRS reported by Member States are low across the different regions. 
The  comparisons  between  estimates  from  the  available  observer  data  and  the  last-haul 
analysis  cast  doubt  on  whether  they  reflect  the  quantities  actually  caught.  Any  unwanted 
catches  landed  have  been  used  for  fish  meal,  pet  food  or  bait  for  pot  fisheries.  The  limited 
volume  of  unwanted  catches  seems  to  have  restricted  the  level  of  investment  required  to 
develop alternative uses for such catches in most Member States. However, several Member 
States have reported ongoing projects to look at other potential uses. 

Funding under the EMFF to improve the infrastructure of ports and modifications on board 
fishing vessels to handle unwanted catches has been limited to date, reflecting the low levels 
of  unwanted  catches  below  MCRS  that  have  been  landed.  Several  Member  States  highlight 
specific actions taken, such as the provision of cold-storage facilities in fishery harbours and 
ports  and  modifications  on  board  vessels  to  help  fishermen  with  the  storage  of  unwanted 
catches on landing and on board. 

17 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
Overall,  Member  States  indicate  that  difficulties  in  implementing  the  landing  obligation 
encountered so far have been minimal. However, several highlight the most significant issue 
they  face  as  being  the  industry’s  reluctance  to  comply  with  the  landing  obligation,  despite 
considerable awareness-raising efforts. They also report that fishermen seem slow to change 
behaviour.  The  issue  of  choke  species  remains  the  biggest  challenge  in  implementing  the 
landing  obligation,  although  very  few  concrete  choking  scenarios  have  been  reported.  For 
2016,  only  one  Member  State  indicated  that  unintended  catches  had  led  to  the  premature 
closure of the herring fishery off the southwest coast of England.  

In summary, Member States, EFCA and the Advisory Councils are working closely together 
to help implement the landing obligation smoothly, and no significant impacts on the industry 
have  been  reported  so  far.  On  the  other  hand,  much  of  the  information  supplied  remains 
largely qualitative; an increase in the level of quantitative information would provide a better 
means of assessing how the landing obligation is being implemented. There are other areas to 
be addressed in the lead-up to 2019: industry’s reluctance to embrace the change; the lack of 
accurate  reporting  of  fish  discarded  under  the  exemptions  in  place;  the  low  volumes  of 
reported or landed catches below MCRS; and the difficulties experienced by Member States 
in monitoring such catches. 

The  CFP  envisages  the  gradual  phasing  in  of  stocks  which  will  be  subject  to  the  landing 
obligation, with full implementation by 2019. Based on the legal calendar and the state of play 
of phasing in the landing obligation we already have a number of fisheries in Europe where 
today  all  catches  fall  under  the  landing  obligation,  namely  all  fisheries  in  the  Baltic  Sea  as 
well  as  all  fisheries  for  pelagic  and  for  industrial  species  in  all  EU  waters.  Furthermore 
looking at the regional situation in the North Sea 82% of all TACs are now under the landing 
obligation. In North Western Waters this figure amounts to 86% and in South Western waters 
it is 77%. Looking at the volume of demersal fish under the landing obligation this is 28% in 
the  North  Sea,  46%  in  North  Western  waters  and  27%  in  South  Western  Waters.  These 
figures  bring  to  light  that  we  are  well  on  the  way  for  North  Western  Waters  demersal 
fisheries, and that a more concerted effort is needed for demersal fisheries in the North Sea 
and in South Western Waters order to ensure progress until 20194. 

Based  on  the  legal  calendar  and  the  state  of  play  of  phasing  in  the  landing  obligation  we 
already  have  a  number  of  fisheries  in  Europe  where  today  all  catches  need  to  be  landed, 
namely  all  fisheries  in  the  Baltic  Sea  as  well  as  all  fisheries  for  pelagic  and  for  industrial 
species in all EU waters. Furthermore looking at the regional situation in the North Sea 82 % 
of  all  TACs  are  now  under  the  landing  obligation.  In  North  Western  Waters  this  figure 
amounts to 86 %, in South Western waters it is 77 %. Looking at the volume of demersal fish 
under  the  landing  obligation  this  is  28 %  in  the  North  Sea,  46%  in  North  Western  Waters, 
27% in South Western Waters. These figures bring to light that we are well on the way for 

4 Table XY in the annex to this Communication 

18 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
North  Western  Waters  demersal  fisheries,  and  that  a  more  concerted  effort  is  needed  for 
demersal fisheries in the North Sea, in South Western Waters order to ensure progress until 
2019. 

In the Mediterranean Sea, where the landing obligation applies to species which are subject to 
minimum  conservation  reference  sizes,  29 %  of  the  total  landings  are  currently  under  the 
landing obligation. Looking by fisheries, this figure amounts to 82 % for small pelagic species 
and  17 %  for  demersal  species  (including  molluscs).  This  data  indicates  that  most  catches 
from  small  pelagic  fisheries  are  subject  to  the  landing  obligation,  whereas  further  work  is 
needed to better integrate demersal fisheries in the landing obligation by 2019. As regards the 
Black Sea, the landing obligation covers all catches of the species subject to TAC since 2017 
(i.e. sprat and turbot). 

Volume under LO per seabasin 

Total 

Baltic Sea 

North Sea 

North Western Waters 

South Western Waters 

Black Sea 

Total TAC 2017 

Volume of TAC under 
LO 

% under LO 

3,807,970 

697,390 

1,537,721 

1,244,440 

328,419 

11,561 

3,281,504 

697,390 

1,257,929 

1,071,749 

254,435 

11,561 

86% 

100% 

82% 

86% 

77% 

100% 

Volume under LO per stock category 

Total 

Demersal species 

Pelagic species 

Industrial species 

Deep-sea species 

Total TAC 2017 

Volume of TAC under 
LO 

% under LO 

3,807,970 

825,267 

2,279,34 

696,799 

18,431 

3,281,504 

317,232 

2,279,34 

696,799 

0 

86% 

38% 

100% 

100% 

0% 

Volume of demersal stocks under LO per 
seabasin 

Total 

North Sea 

North Western Waters 

South WesternWaters 

Baltic Sea 

Black Sea 

Total demersal TAC 

Total demersal volume 
under LO (t) 

% unnder LO 

825,181 

387,830 

304,102 

88,454 

44,795 

86,4 

317,146 

108,368 

140,017 

23,965 

44,795 

86,4 

38% 

28% 

46% 

27% 

100% 

100% 

19 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
Breakdown of volume of pelagic stocks and fish for industrial purposes 
under LO 

Total pelagic volume 
under LO (t) 

Total 

North Sea 

North Western Waters 

South Western Waters 

Baltic Sea 

Black Sea 

Of this:  
Fish for industrial 
purposes 

Pelagic species 

2,964,358 

1,149,561 

931,732 

230,470 

652,595 

11,475 

696,799 

2,279,34 

Mediterranean Sea: volume under LO (species with MCRS) 

Small pelagic species 
Demersal species 
Molluscs 
Others 
Total 

Total reported landings (tonnes) 
279.766 
280.069 
204.633 
180.763 
945.231 

Volume of landings under LO 
230.249 
15.403 
24.774 
0 
270.426 

% under 
LO 
82% 
5% 
12% 
0% 
29% 

Source: FIDES, reference year 2016 

Support for implementing the landing obligation 

Additional  detailed  information  EMFF  –  Member  States’  operational  programmes  for 
the landing obligation 

The  total  amount  set  aside  by  Member  States  in  their  operational  programmes  (OPs) 
specifically  for  landing  obligation  measures  is  EUR 408 809 677,  or  7 %  of  total  funding 
available under the EMFF. The EMFF articles of relevance for landing obligation measures 
are 26, 28, 37, 38, 39, 40(1), 42 and 43(2).  

Figure  19  shows  the  percentage  of  measures  programmed  specifically  for  the  landing 
obligation  by  each  Member  State  within  their  OPs,  compared  to  the  total  EMFF  resources 
available to it. 

20 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 19. Measures programmed for the landing obligation by Member State. 

Additional information – Commission programmes on the landing obligation 

Aside  from  EMFF  funding,  the  Commission  invests  in  (research  on)  implementing  the 
landing obligation. For example, the DiscardLess and MINOUW projects are financed from 
Horizon2020.  These  projects  provide  best-practice  case  studies  on  how  to  avoid  discards 
through technological changes, tactical changes and the use of unwanted catches in the value 
chain.  The  scientific  knowledge  collected  in  this  way  could  contribute  to  successful 
implementation of the landing obligation. 

framework. This project provides best practice case studies for avoiding discards through 
technological changes, tactical changes and by using unwanted catches in the value chain. 
Scientific knowledge is in this way collected that could contribute to a successful 
implementation of the LO. 

21 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Section IV -  Governance through regionalisation 

Joint Recommendations under Article 11 of the CFP 

Joint recommendations under Article 11 of the CFP, received by the Commission: 

Date 

EU countries having direct 
management interest 

Sea basin 

13/03/2015 
13/03/2015 
10/06/2016 
16/11/2016 
30/11/2016 
14/02/2017 
28/02/2017 

  Baltic Sea 

DE, DK, SE 
DE, DK, SE 
DE, DK, SE 
DE, DK, SE 
DE, DK, SE, PL 
BE 
BE, DE, DK, SE 

North Sea 
Baltic Sea 
North Sea 
North Sea 
Baltic Sea 
North Sea 
North Sea 

Commission  Delegated  Regulation  (EU)  2017/117  of  5  September  2016  establishing 
fisheries conservation measures for the protection of the marine environment in the Baltic 
Sea and repealing Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/1778. 

  North Sea 

Commission  Delegated  Regulation  (EU)  2017/118  of  5  September  2016  establishing 
fisheries conservation measures for the protection of the marine environment in the North 
Sea. 

Discard Plans 

Since 2014 the Commission has adopted 15 discard plans to prepare for the implementation of 
the landing obligation: 

1.  Commission  Delegated  Regulation  (EU)  No 1392/2014  of  20  October  2014 
establishing  a  discard  plan  for  certain  small  pelagic  fisheries  in  the  Mediterranean 
Sea  

2.  Commission  Delegated  Regulation  (EU)  No 1393/2014  of  20  October  2014 
establishing a discard plan for certain pelagic fisheries in north-western waters   

3.  Commission  Delegated  Regulation  (EU)  No 1394/2014  of  20  October  2014 
establishing a discard plan for certain pelagic fisheries in south-western waters      

22 

 
 
 
 
 
4.  Commission  Delegated  Regulation  (EU)  No 1395/2014  of  20  October  2014 
establishing  a  discard  plan  for  certain  small  pelagic  fisheries  and  fisheries  for 
industrial purposes in the North Sea  

5.  Commission  Delegated  Regulation  (EU)  No 1396/2014  of  20  October  2014 

establishing a discard plan in the Baltic Sea 

6.  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2438 of 12 October 2015 establishing a 

discard plan for certain demersal fisheries in north-western waters  

7.  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2439 of 12 October 2015 establishing a 

discard plan for certain demersal fisheries in south-western waters  

8.  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2440 of 22 October 2015 establishing a 
discard plan for certain demersal fisheries in the North Sea and in Union waters of 
ICES Division IIa  

9.  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/2250 of 4 October 2016 establishing a 
discard plan for certain demersal fisheries in the North Sea and in Union waters of 
ICES Division IIa 

10. Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/2374 of 12 October 2016 establishing a 

discard plan for certain demersal fisheries in South-Western waters 

11. Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/2375 of 12 October 2016 establishing a 

discard plan for certain demersal fisheries in North-Western waters 

12. Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/2376 of 13 October 2016 establishing a 

discard plan for mollusc bivalve Venus spp. in the Italian territorial waters 

13. Commission  Delegated  Regulation  (EU)  2016/2377  of  14  October  2016  amending 
Delegated  Regulation  (EU)  No 1394/2014  establishing  a  discard  plan  for  certain 
pelagic fisheries in South-Western waters 

14. Commission  Delegated  Regulation  (EU)  2017/86  of  20  October  2016  establishing  a 

discard plan for certain demersal fisheries in the Mediterranean Sea  

15. Commission  Delegated  Regulation  (EU)  2017/87  of  20  October  2016  establishing  a 

discard plan for turbot fisheries in the Black Sea 

23 

 
 
 
 
Section V -  Report on Member States' efforts during 2015 to achieve a sustainable 
balance between fishing capacity and fishing opportunities 

In  accordance  with  the  Common  Fisheries  Policy,  Member  States  are  required  to 
prepare  an  annual  report  on  the  fishing  capacity  of  their  fleets  in  relation  to  fishing 
opportunities.  If  a  Member  State  identifies  a  structural  imbalance,  it  must  submit  an 
action  plan  for  the  segment(s)  concerned,  setting  out  adjustment  targets,  tools  and  a 
clear timeframe for its implementation. Member States must submit fleet reports in line 
with the Commission guidelines as a pre-condition under the EMFF5.  

The  Commission  draws  on  these  national  fleet  reports6  to  draft  a  report  on  Member 
States’  efforts  to  achieve  a  sustainable  balance  between  fishing  capacity  and  fishing 
opportunities. The current report covers 2015 and also contains some updated data for 
2016. 

THE STATE OF THE FISHING FLEET CAPACITY IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 

The  CFP  stipulates  that  Member  States  must  ensure  that,  from  2014,  the  fishing 
capacity of their fleet at no time exceeds the fishing ceilings in Annex II to Regulation 
(EU) No 1380/2013.  There  are  84 134  vessels  in  the  EU  fleet  register.  With  overall 
capacity  at  1 592 057  gross  tonnes  (GT)  and  6 375 340  kilowatts  (kW),  the  fishing 
capacity  of  the  EU  fleet  is  25.50 %  below  the  capacity  ceilings  for  tonnage  and 
22.21 % below the power ceilings (see Figure 20). Fleet capacity is still decreasing; in 
the EU’s 23 coastal Member States there have been falls of  1.09 % in  the number of 
vessels, 1.53% in kW and 2.16% in GT, continuing the trends seen in the past decade. 

5 See Annex IV to Regulation (EU) No 508/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
15 May 2014 on the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and repealing Council Regulations (EC) 
No   2328/2003, (EC) No 861/2006, (EC) No 1198/2006 and (EC) No 791/2007 and Regulation (EU) 
No 1255/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council, OJ L 149, 20.5.2014, p. 1. 

6 See Annual Report, http://s-antares.fish.cec.eu.int/front/index.cfm?method=FM_Reporting. 

24 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
100,00%

90,00%

80,00%

70,00%

60,00%

50,00%

40,00%

30,00%

20,00%

10,00%

0,00%

B
E
L

B
G
R

C
Y
P

D
E
U

D
N
K

E
S
P

E
S
T

F
I
N

F
R
A

G
R
C

H
R
V

I

R
L

I
T
A

L
T
U

L
V
A

M
L
T

N
L
D

P
O
L

P
R
T

R
O
M

S
V
N

S
W
E

U
K

T
O
T

GT

KW

Figure 20. Compliance with capacity ceilings in December 2016. Effective capacity 
as percentage of capacity ceiling by Member State (excluding outermost regions) 

In the period 2007-2016, Member States also used permanent cessation measures under 
the  European  Fisheries  Fund  to  decommission  vessels  from  their  fleet  and  reduce 
capacity.  Between  1  January  2007  and  31  December  2015,  4 378  vessels  were 
decommissioned  with  public  support.  Public  expenditure  (certified  payments) 
amounted  to  almost  EUR 932  million,  of  which  EUR 554  million  came  from  the 
European Fisheries Fund. Vessels decommissioned with public support from the Fund 
cannot  be  replaced,  thereby  ensuring  that  overall  fleet  capacity  has  been  reduced.  A 
further 3 608 vessels (totalling 92 292.89 GT and 289 474.28 kW) were removed from 
the  fleet  without  public  aid,  although  capacity  withdrawn  in  this  way  can  be 
reintroduced.  

In line with commitments set out in the CFP, all 23 coastal Member States submitted 
their  reports  to  the  Commission  for  2015.  The  Scientific,  Technical  and  Economic 
Committee for Fisheries (STECF) was asked by the Commission to provide an analysis 
of  the  balance  between  fleet  capacity  and  fishing  opportunities  using  a  standard 
approach across all EU fleet segments and based on Data Collection Framework (DCF) 
information. All balance indicators provided and used in the STECF EWG 16-09 were 
calculated in accordance with the Commission Guidelines. 

The  overview  of  trends  in  the  balance  indicators  shows  progress  in  most  fleet 
segments.  However,  the  balance  indicators  for  some  segments  may  require  further 
action to redress the situation. In such circumstances Member States are required under 

25 

 
 
 
 
the CFP to prepare and include in their annual fleet report action plans for the segments 
with a structural imbalance7. This is closely linked to implementation of the EMFF, as 
permanent cessation measures under the EMFF are only possible for imbalanced fleet 
segments (and only until the end of 2017). Engine replacement and start-up support for 
young fishermen are only possible in balanced fleet segments. 

In  2016,  on  the  basis  of  biological,  economic  or  technical  indicators  and/or 
supplementary  information,  fifteen  Member  States8  identified  a  number  of  their  fleet 
segments as not effectively balanced with their fishing opportunities, or showing latent 
signs of being imbalanced, and therefore requiring action plans under the Commission 
guidelines.  

Another  four  Member  States9  concluded  that  they  no  longer  had  imbalanced  fleet 
segments and thus did not submit any action plans. The remaining four coastal Member 
States10  did  not  submit  new  action  plans  in  2016,  despite  the  fact  that  they  had 
identified  imbalanced  segments,  because  they  were  still  implementing  previous  long-
term action plans.  

In  the  North-East  Atlantic,  fishing  capacity  in  terms  of  GT  and  kW  continues  to 
decrease  and  there  is  a  general  improvement  across  all  the  balance  indicators. 
However,  according  to  the  STECF  analysis,  some  fleet  segments  in  the  North-East 
Atlantic  remain  out  of  balance  with  their  fishing  opportunities11  and  rely  on  stock 
considered at risk12.  

Overcapacity  is  considered  a  leading  cause  of  overfishing  in  the  Mediterranean  Sea, 
given  the  general  lack  of  catch  controls  and  the  reliance  on  effort  to  regulate  fishing 
mortality. For example, around the Adriatic, Italy plans to reduce its fishing capacity 
by 8 % and Croatia by 5 to 20 %, depending on the fleet segment. Slovenia carried out 
a capacity reduction in 2013 of 38 % (in GT) and 20 % (in kW) compared to 201013. 

7 Member States must submit annual reports (and action plans where relevant) to remain eligible for EU 
financial support under the new European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF).  

8  Belgium,  Bulgaria,  Croatia,  Cyprus,  Denmark,  France,  Germany,  Ireland,  Italy,  Malta,  Portugal, 
Romania,  Slovenia,  Spain  and 
the  United  Kingdom.  The  action  plans  are  available  at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/fleet/index.cfm?method=FM_Reporting.menu.   

9 Estonia, Finland, Greece and the Netherlands. 

10 Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Sweden. 

11  The  list  of  fleet  segments  not  in  balance  also  includes:  12-18 m  and  18-24 m  drift  and  fixed  nets 
(mostly targeting sole); 12-18 m demersal trawls (targeting various Nephrop stocks); 24-40 m pelagic 
trawls  (targeting  Atlantic  mackerel);  and  18-24 m  and  24-40 m  beam  trawls  (targeting  a  mix  of 
species). These segments account for 2.4 % (8.1 % of GT and 8.3 % of Kw) of all vessels in the North-
East Atlantic. For an overview of the North-East Atlantic fleet, see Annex VI. 

12  For  the  list  of  stocks  at  risk  in  this  area,  see  annex  V  of  Scientific,  Technical  and  Economic 
Committee for Fisheries (STECF) Assessment of balance indicators for key fleet segments and review 
of  national  reports  on  Member  States  efforts  to  achieve  balance  between  fleet  capacity  and  fishing 
opportunities (STECF-16-18).); Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg; EUR 27758 
EN; doi:10.2788/245471. 

13  The  ten  fleet  segments  which  account  for  the  greatest  share  of  catches  of  small  pelagics  in  the 
Adriatic  are  all  included  in  the  relevant  Member  States’  action  plans  for  the  fleet  segments  with 

26 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
 
More generally across the Mediterranean, in 2016 Member States presented a number 
of action plans to address imbalances or make the action plans submitted in 2015 more 
effective.  They  have  established  fishing  protected  areas  and  adopted  38  national 
management plans. The Commission is also working with them to introduce short-term 
national management measures. National management plans will have to be adapted to 
take account of these measures where relevant. They will also have to be aligned with 
the  new  CFP,  especially  where  the  landing  obligation  and  the  MSY  objective  are 
concerned.  

The  situation  is  similar  in  the  Black  Sea,  where  the  majority  of  assessed  stocks  are 
overfished.  While  two  stocks  (turbot  and  sprat)  are  regulated  under  EU  TACs  and 
quotas, no management plan is currently in place.  

OUTERMOST REGIONS 

The fleets in the outermost regions of France, Portugal and Spain (with a total of 4 511 
fishing  vessels)  are  considered  separately  from  the  mainland  fleets  in  Annex  II  of 
Regulation  (EU) No 1380/2013.  As  of  December  2016,  the  overall  ceilings  for  the 
outermost  regions  decreased  very  slightly  to  107 430 GT.  For  the  EU’s  outermost 
regions, which account for 5.4 % of the total EU fleet, from January 2015 to December 
2016  fleet  capacities  decreased  in  total  by  3.34 %  in  GT  and  by  0.46 %  in  kW  (see 
Table  1).  The  fishing  fleets  in  these  regions  are  primarily  composed  of  small-scale 
vessels  targeting  inshore  and  offshore  resources.  The  STECF  notes  that  lack  of  data 
(both  economic  and  biological)  makes  it  difficult  to  assess  the  extent  to  which  these 
fleets are in balance or not.   

CONCLUSIONS  

From the STECF analysis and Member State reports, the following conclusions can be 
reached. 

Member  States  are  making  huge  efforts  to  balance  their  fleets’  fishing  capacity  and 
the available fishing opportunities. 

Most  Member  States  have  identified  fleet  segments  with  structural  overcapacity  or 
showing potential signs of imbalance. In comparison with 2014, in 2015 the number 
of fleet segments for which Member States identified an imbalance with the available 
fishing  opportunities  increased.  As  a  result,  the  action  plans  submitted  in  2016  by 
most coastal Member States identified additional imbalanced fleet segments. In 2015 
fifteen  new  action  plans  were  submitted  by  Member  States,  13  of  which  were 
revisions to action plans already submitted in 2014. 

In concrete situations of segments with identified structural overcapacity, the Member 
States’ action plans to reduce the imbalance appear to be a transparent and effective 
means of pursuing a balance between fishing fleet capacity and fishing opportunities 
over time.  

identified  structural  overcapacity.  The  plans  detail  how  Member  States  intend  to  address  this 
overcapacity.  

27 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                          
 
The STECF analysis shows that some of the indicators could not be calculated for all 
fleet segments due to a lack of biological and catch data or, in case of economic and 
technical 
to  protect  commercial 
to  clustering  of  segments 
confidentiality. 

indicators,  due 

In  spite  of  the  above  developments,  in  recent  years  the  balance  between  fishing 
capacity  and  fishing  opportunities  has  improved  across  the  entire  EU  fleet.  This  is 
partly because, over the last decade, the EU fishing fleet’s capacity has been gradually 
cut.  However,  Member  State  reports  and  action  plans  reveal  that  further  efforts  are 
needed on fleet segments where structural overcapacity remains. The reduction in fleet 
capacity  in  recent  years  has  helped  improve  the  state  of  fish  stocks  generally  and 
continues to move fisheries towards the MSY objectives in the CFP.   

28 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 1 

Member States' fleet evolutions (vessels, tonnage and engine power) during 2015-2016 

N 

GT 

KW 

N 

GT 

KW  

Δ N(%) 

Δ GT (%) 

Δ KW (%) 

31/12/2015 

01/12/2016 

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

41640 
78 
1,989 
2,396 
1,465 
1,534 
2,157 
15,638 
9,481 
6,964 
12,414 
893 
688 
143 
1,005 
832 
874 
8,137 
152 
169 
2,839 
1,357 
6,320 
7,540 
85,065 

14,535 
6,541 
69,607 
64,221 
13,225 
63,466 
76,573 
353,356 
171,544 
162,749 
3,502 
24,671 
41,401 
7,106 
133,995 
26,293 
98,217 
870 
597 
15,613 
30,398 
196,304 
52,341 
1,627,125 

46,289 
58,043 
224,769 
141,679 
43,714 
192,441 
449,534 
812,550 
1,001,603 
1,003,301 
40,209 
43,114 
46,418 
73,106 
312,548 
76,256 
362,058 
6,146 
8,540 
160,475 
167,214 
789,992 
414,618 
6,474,617 

74 
1,930 
2,299 
1,427 
1,547 
2,136 
15,241 
9,388 
6,847 
12,311 
839 
681 
143 
917 
840 
875 
8,029 
158 
171 
3,024 
1,322 
6,256 
7,679 
84,134 

13,962 
6,598 
69,700 
63,930 
13,275 
63,498 
71,882 
339,949 
175,445 
157,527 
3,427 
28,715 
40,875 
6,211 
128,090 
35,718 
93,835 
1,118 
590 
15,549 
28,050 
184,312 
49,800 
1,592,057 

29 

45,267 
58,984 
215,029 
140,171 
44,535 
193,866 
431,838 
794,304 
1,006,598 
986,471 
38,460 
47,638 
47,993 
67,165 
306,754 
86,937 
356,258 
6,041 
8,535 
165,748 
160,941 
769,237 
396,570 
6,375,340 

Δ 2015-2016 

-5.13% 
-2.97% 
-4.05% 
-2.59% 
0.85% 
-0.97% 
-2.54% 
-0.98% 
-1.68% 
-0.83% 
-6.05% 
-1.02% 
0.00% 
-8.76% 
0.96% 
0.11% 
-1.33% 
3.95% 
1.18% 
6.52% 
-2.58% 
-1.01% 
1.84% 
-1.09% 

-3.94% 
0.87% 
0.13% 
-0.45% 
0.38% 
0.05% 
-6.13% 
-3.79% 
2.27% 
-3.21% 
-2.14% 
16.39% 
-1.27% 
-12.59% 
-4.41% 
35.84% 
-4.46% 
28.53% 
-1.23% 
-0.41% 
-7.72% 
-6.11% 
-4.85% 
-2.16% 

-2.21% 
1.62% 
-4.33% 
-1.06% 
1.88% 
0.74% 
-3.94% 
-2.25% 
0.50% 
-1.68% 
-4.35% 
10.49% 
3.39% 
-8.13% 
-1.85% 
14.01% 
-1.60% 
-1.71% 
-0.06% 
3.29% 
-3.75% 
-2.63% 
-4.35% 
-1.53%