COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the document COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the State of Play of the Common Fisheries Policy and Consultation on the Fishing Opportunities for 2020
Date: 2019-06-07
Institutions: Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, European Commission
Subjects: Black Sea, Mediterranean Sea, common fisheries policy, conservation of fish stocks, fishing area, fishing controls, fishing fleet, fishing rights, sea fish, sea fishing

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 7.6.2019  SWD(2019) 205 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the document COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the State of Play of the Common Fisheries Policy and Consultation on the Fishing Opportunities for 2020  {COM(2019) 274 final}  
 
 
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
Accompanying the document 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL 

on the State of Play of the Common Fisheries Policy and Consultation on the Fishing 
Opportunities for 2020 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
This staff working document accompanies the Communication from the Commission on the 
state  of  play  of  the  common  fisheries  policy  (CFP)  and  consultation  on  the  fishing 
opportunities for 2020. It looks in greater depth at:  

1.  the state of stocks;  
2.  the setting of fishing opportunities for 2019;  
3.  specific actions in the Mediterranean and Black Seas;  
4.  the balance between fleet capacity and fishing opportunities;  
5.  the economic performance of the EU fishing fleet;  
6.  progress in implementing the landing obligation; and  
7.  the role of recommendations by Advisory Councils in EU decision-making. 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1.  The state of stocks  

CFP progress report  

Each  year, the Commission requests the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for 
Fisheries  (STECF)  to  assess  progress  in  achieving  the  maximum  sustainable  yield 
exploitation rate (FMSY) in line with the objectives of the CFP. 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 as well as the graphs of the STECF technical report1 are summarised 
below.  

1.1. Stock status  

1.1.1.  ICES area2 

The  status  of  stocks  in  the  ICES  area  has  significantly  improved,  although  the  rate  of 
progress  has  remained  steady.  Among  the  64  to  70  stocks  which  are  fully  assessed,  the 
proportion of overexploited stocks (i.e. F>Fmsy) decreased from around 75% to close to 40% 
over  the  last  10  years,  although  in  recent  years  the  decrease  was  less  pronounced.  The 
proportion of stocks outside the safe biological limits (F>Fpa or B<Bpa), computed for the 46 
stocks for which both reference points are available, follows the same decreasing trend, from 
65% in 2003 to around 35% in 2017 (Figure 1).  

1  STECF  Ad  Hoc  19-01:  Monitoring  the  performance  of  the  Common  Fisheries  Policy  (WP).  STECF  ISSN 
2467-0715. The  information  provided  in  this  Annex  is  a  selection  of  most  relevant  findings  coming  from  the 
STECF report, and is not an exhaustive reproduction of the whole report. 
2 Reference to the ICES area or ‘North-East Atlantic’ covers FAO area 27 and includes the waters of the Baltic 
Sea, North Sea, Irish Sea, Celtic Sea and adjacent waters. 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Figure 1. Trends in stock status in the ICES area, 2003-2017. 

1.1.2.  Mediterranean and Black Seas 

In the Mediterranean and Black Seas, of the 47 stocks assessed in 2016, only around 13% 
(6 stocks) are not overfished, while the majority of assessed stocks are overfished.  

1.2. Trends in fishing pressure (ratio of F/Fmsy) 

1.2.1.  ICES area  

In the ICES area, the fishing pressure (F/Fmsy) shows an overall downward trend between 
2003  and  2017  (Figures  2,  3,  5,  6  and  Table  1).  In  the  early  2000s,  the  median  fishing 
mortality  was  more  than  1.5  times  larger  than  Fmsy,  but  this  has  gone  down  and  has  now 
stabilised at around 1.0. This indicator has stabilised and been near the value of 1 since 2011.  

With  regard  to  11  stocks  located  in  the  ICES  areas  but  outside  EU  waters,  the  positive 
overall  trend  observed  in  EU  waters  until  2014  is  confirmed,  with  the  median  value  of  the 
F/Fmsy  indicator  closely  tracking  that  produced  for  EU  waters.  After  2014,  however,  the 
indicator seems to show an increasing number of stocks exploited above Fmsy, although the 
STECF  notes  that  the  indicator  for  ICES  area  stocks  outside  EU  waters  is  based  on 
comparatively few stocks, where uncertainty is high.  

1.2.2.  Mediterranean and Black Seas  

The F/Fmsy indicator for the Mediterranean and Black Seas remained at a very high level 
for  the  entire  2003-2016  period.  Since  the  peak  in  2011  when  F/Fmsy  reached  its  highest 
historical level, the value of F/Fmsy has remained at around 2.2. This indicates that the stocks 
are being exploited on average at rates well above the Fmsy CFP objective (Figure 4). 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 2. Trends in fishing pressure (ICES area and Mediterranean and Black 
Seas) 

Figure 3. Trend in F/FMSY in ICES area3  

3 Based on 48 stocks. Dark grey zone shows the 50% confidence interval; the light grey zone shows the 95% 
confidence interval. 

4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
 
Figure 4. Trend in F/Fmsy in Mediterranean and Black Seas4 

Figure 5. Percentage of stocks in ICES area where fishing mortality was equal 
to, or less than, Fmsy 

4 Based on 47 stocks. Dark grey zone shows the 50% confidence interval; the light grey zone shows the 95% 
confidence interval. 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Figure 6. Number of stocks by year by ecoregion for which fishing mortality (F) 
did not exceed Fmsy  

Table 1. Number of stocks by ecoregion for which fishing mortality (F) did not 
exceed Fmsy 

EcoRegion 
ALL 
Baltic Sea 
BoBiscay & Iberia 
Celtic Seas 
Greater North Sea 
Northeast Atlantic 

2003  2004  2005  2006  2007  2008  2009  2010  2011  2012  2013  2014  2015  2016  2017 
28 
3 
3 
10 
9 
3 

32 
3 
3 
12 
9 
5 

37 
5 
2 
18 
8 
4 

16 
2 
1 
8 
2 
3 

37 
4 
2 
18 
9 
4 

37 
2 
3 
18 
10 
4 

33 
3 
3 
14 
10 
3 

16 
2 
1 
6 
4 
3 

25 
2 
2 
9 
8 
4 

17 
2 
1 
8 
4 
2 

40 
3 
3 
17 
13 
4 

20 
1 
2 
8 
8 
1 

16 
2 
1 
6 
4 
3 

19 
2 
2 
8 
5 
2 

41 
1 
6 
17 
13 
4 

1.3. Trends in biomass  

1.3.1.  ICES area  

There has been improvement in the ICES area and particularly for data limited stocks (ICES 
category 3 stocks). The biomass has been generally increasing since 2007, and in 2017 was 
on average around 36% higher than in 2003 (Figure 7). 

1.3.2.  Mediterranean and Black Seas 

In the Mediterranean and Black Seas, the situation has remained essentially unchanged 
since the start of the series in 2003, although since 2012 there has been a slight increase in 
biomass. The STECF notes, however, the large uncertainty surrounding this indicator.  

6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 7. Trends in the indicators of stock biomass 

1.4. Coverage of scientific advice  

The  STECF  notes  that  156  Total  Allowable  Catches  (TACs)  (combination  of  species  and 
fishing management zones) were in place in 2017 in the EU waters of the ICES area. As in 
many cases, the boundaries of the TAC management areas are not aligned with the biological 
limits of stocks used in ICES assessments. The STECF considered a TAC to be ‘covered’ by 
a  stock  assessment  when  at  least  one  of  its  divisions  matched  the  spatial  distribution  of  a 
stock for which reference points have been estimated from an ICES full assessment. Based on 
this indicator, 55% of the 156 TACs are covered, at least partially, by stock assessments that 
provide estimates of Fmsy (or a proxy), 50% by stock assessments that have Bpa, but only 
20% by stock assessments that provide estimates of MSY-Btrigger (Figures 8 and 9, Table 2). 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 8. Number of stocks in the ICES area for which estimates of F/Fmsy are 
available by year. 

Table 2. Number of stocks in the ICES area for which estimates of F/Fmsy are 
available by ecoregion and year 

EcoRegion 

ALL 

Baltic Sea 

BoBiscay & Iberia 

Celtic Seas 

Greater North Sea 

Northeast Atlantic 

2003  2004  2005  2006  2007  2008  2009  2010  2011  2012  2013  2014  2015  2016  2017 
66 
8 
9 
22 
21 
6 

66 
8 
9 
22 
21 
6 

66 
8 
9 
22 
21 
6 

67 
8 
9 
23 
21 
6 

67 
8 
9 
23 
21 
6 

70 
8 
9 
26 
21 
6 

64 
8 
9 
20 
21 
6 

70 
8 
9 
26 
21 
6 

70 
8 
9 
26 
21 
6 

68 
8 
9 
24 
21 
6 

70 
8 
9 
26 
21 
6 

66 
8 
9 
22 
21 
6 

65 
8 
9 
21 
21 
6 

68 
8 
9 
24 
21 
6 

65 
8 
9 
21 
21 
6 

Figure 9. Number of stock assessments available in the Mediterranean and 
Black Sea. The totals include stocks in GSAs 1, 5-7, 9, 10-19, 22-23, 25 and 29 
(data 2017, pending GFCM assessment)

8 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.  Setting of fishing opportunities 

For 2019, the number of total allowable catches (TACs) set in line with FMSY increased from 
53 in 2017 to 59 in 2019, representing 73% of the FMSY-assessed TACs fished in the North-
East  Atlantic,  North  Sea  and  Baltic  Sea.  Of  the  overall  expected  catches  for  2019,  around 
11%  do  not  have  FMSY  advice,  but  are  assessed  by  ICES  based  on  precautionary  advice. 
During the discussions  with Member States, socio-economic considerations were taken into 
account, with Member States sending detailed submissions to the Commission (Tables 3-4). 

Table 3: TACs with FMSY advice (in tonnes) 

EU stocks 

EU/NO jointly  
managed stocks  Coastal state stocks 

Total 

Total TAC  
(Fmsy assessed stocks)  1,664,083  568,203 
1,645,833  219,054 
TAC fished at FMSY 
349,149 
TAC not fished at FMSY  18,250 
39% 
% fished at FMSY 
61% 
% not fished at FMSY 

99% 
1% 

716,986 
0 
716,986 
0% 
100% 

3,278,779 
2,228,595 
1,043,583 
63% 
37% 

Table 4: Number of TACs with FMSY advice[2] 

Number of TACs with 
MSY advice 

2005 

20
06 

20
07 

20
08 

20
09 

20
10 

20
11 

20
12 

20
13 

20
14 

20
15 

20
16 

20
17 

20
18 

20
19 

34 

23 

32 

33 

35 

39 

35 

38 

41 

46 

62 

72 

75 

76 

81 

2 

2 

2 

4 

5 

11 

13 

20 

25 

27 

36 

36 

44 

54 

59 

32 

21 

30 

29 

30 

28 

22 

18 

16 

19 

30 

36 

31 

23 

22 

6% 

9%  6% 

12
% 

14
% 

28
% 

37
% 

53
% 

61
% 

59
% 

58
% 

50
% 

59
% 

71
% 

73
% 

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 2005-2018 are from previous Communications. 

9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
 
 
                                                           
The following paints a more detailed picture for each sea basin: 

The  Baltic  Sea  is  the  sea  basin  with  the  longest  experience  of  Member  States  and 
stakeholders  working  together  on  fisheries  management  measures  in  regionalisation. 
Considerable effort has been put into developing new gears and putting them in place through 
joint  recommendations  that  are  sent  to  the  Commission.  The  result  of  the  commitment  of 
stakeholders  and  Member  States  to  sustainable  fisheries  management  can  be  seen  in  the 
responsible decisions taken on the TACs for 2019. These followed the Baltic Sea multiannual 
plan  for  7  out  of  8  TACs,  for  which  the  Commission  received  FMSY  advice  set  in  line  with 
FMSY. In terms of volume of landings, this means that 95% of the total catch in the Baltic Sea 
is  from  sustainably  managed  stocks  in  line  with  FMSY,  while  4%  is  from  TACs  where  the 
precautionary advice is followed.  

All  TACs with  analytical  advice were set at  Fmsy  except  for western  Baltic herring whose 
TAC  was  reduced  by  -48%  following  a  0-catch  advice  from  ICES.  TAC  reductions  were 
adopted  for  eastern  cod  (-15%)  and  Gulf  of  Finland  salmon  (-3%)  under  the  precautionary 
approach.  The  main  basin  salmon  TAC  was  rolled  over  from  2018  to  continue  helping  the 
stocks in the weakest salmon rivers improve. 

In the North Sea, Skagerrak and Kattegat, for the FMSY assessed stocks that are managed by 
the  EU  alone,  100%  of  expected  landings  are  from  sustainably  managed  stocks.  However, 
this  rate  is  considerably  lower  for  those  stocks  that  are  shared  with  Norway  (39%).  Many 
TACs had to decrease this year, including for cod (-32%), haddock (-31%), whiting (-22%) 
and  herring  (-36%).  The  TACs  for  plaice  and  saithe  could  be  increased  by  11%  and  16% 
respectively, in line with MSY advice.  

In North-Western Waters, for the FMSY assessed stocks that are managed by the EU alone, 
98% of the expected landings are from sustainably managed stocks.  

In  line  with  MSY  advice,  the  TACs  for  many  stocks  could  be  increased,  proving  that 
sustainable management also pays off economically. The TACs for Northern hake could be 
increased again at a range between 23 and 37%. Horse mackerel could be increased by 18%. 
Another  success  story  is  the  Nephrops  TAC  West  of  Scotland  which  went  up  by  24%.  All 
TACs for megrim in the area were increased (6% for the West of Scotland and 47%for the 
Celtic and Irish Seas). 

Due  to  natural  fluctuations  and  changes  in  the  perception  of  the  stock  by  ICES,  some 
sustainably  managed  TACs  had  to  be  reduced  to  allow  yields  to  stay  high  in  the  long  run. 
These  reductions  include  Eastern  Channel  sole  (-26%),  Celtic  Seas  Nephrops  (-32%)  and 
Celtic  Sea  herring  (-53%).  A  significant  challenge  was  to  prevent  low  TACs  from  choking 
other  fisheries  due  to  the  landing  obligation.  This  was  prevented  by  introducing  ‘by-catch 
TACs’  at  the  level  of  unavoidable  catches  of  the  respective  species.  This  new  concept  was 
used for West of Scotland cod, West of Scotland whiting, Celtic Sea cod, Celtic Sea plaice 
and Irish Sea whiting. Member States committed to introducing by-catch reduction measures, 
as  a  tool  to  limit  fishing  mortality  for  these  stocks.  These  measures  will  be  reviewed  by 
STECF in order to assess their effectiveness. 

For South-Western Waters, of the FMSY assessed stocks that are managed by the EU alone, 
100%  of  expected  landings  come  from  sustainably  managed  stocks.  An  important  success 
story for this sea basin is Bay of Biscay sole, which delivered a 7% increase. Among others, 

10 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
TACs  were  agreed  in  line  with  FMSY  for  Iberian  anglerfish  (+5%),  and  horse  mackerel 
(+69%), Bay of Biscay anglerfish (-7%) and horse mackerel (+18%). The overall increase of 
TACs translate into higher and sustainable incomes for the fishing industry. 

For stocks subject to Coastal States consultations, no progress has been achieved in terms 
of  MSY,  and  the  number  of  TACs  set  in  line  with  MSY  is  at  zero.  The  Commission  is 
determined  to  achieve  progress  on  this,  in  cooperation  with  our  international  partners  the 
Faroe Islands, Iceland, Norway and Russia. 

11 

 
 
 
 
 
 
3.  Specific actions for the Mediterranean and Black Seas 

The  Commission  has  stepped  up  its  efforts  to  implement  the  March  2017  ‘Malta 
MedFish4Ever Declaration’. Increased cooperation and political engagement enshrined in the 
Declaration  enabled  further  progress  to  be  made  in  2018.  The  main  achievements  are 
summarised below. 

Within the framework of the GFCM 

At the 42nd session of the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM) in 
October  2018,  11  EU  proposals  were  adopted  as  binding  recommendations.  The  adopted 
proposals  include  two  multiannual  plans  for  sustainable  fishing  activities  in  the  Ionian  and 
the  Levant  Seas  involving  high  value  species.  With  these  measures,  the  entire  central  and 
eastern Mediterranean are now covered by:  

  conservation and control measures;  
  a  multiannual  plan  for  European  eel,  which  includes  introducing  a  three-month 

closure period;  

  emergency  measures  for  small  pelagics  in  the  Adriatic,  with  a  progressive  5% 

 

reduction of catches, a limitation of effort and closure periods;  
two  regional  research  programmes  for  non-indigenous  species  (blue  crab  in  the 
Mediterranean and rapa whelk in the Black Sea);  

  control  measures  in  the  Strait  of  Sicily,  extending  the  duration  of  the  international 

 
 

inspection scheme in that area;  
the marking of gears to allow better traceability for vessels over 15 metres;  
the exchange of information concerning monitoring, control and surveillance data in 
areas where joint inspection schemes are deployed;  
  a recommendation on shark fins naturally attached. 

At EU level 

An important milestone has been the adoption of the first EU MAP in the Mediterranean 
with  the  plan  for  demersal  stocks  in  the  western  Mediterranean  Sea.  It  introduces  a 
fishing effort regime at EU level for trawls exploiting the main demersal stocks, i.e. hake, red 
mullet, deep-water rose shrimp,  Norway lobster, giant red shrimp  and blue and red shrimp. 
The  fishing  effort  regime  is  to  be  applied  starting  on  1  January  2020.  The  MAP  is  also 
complemented with technical conservation measures such as closure areas. 

On discard plans, in 2018 the Commission extended the discard plan for demersal fisheries 
in  the  Mediterranean.  Some  of  the  high  survivability  and  de  minimis  exemptions  were 
extended for 1 year only (until December 2019), and the Member States have been requested 
to submit further data allowing the Commission to assess the exemptions granted. 

On the implementation of the Mediterranean Regulation5, the Commission will focus on 
assessing  22  national  management  plans  in  force  to  ensure  they  are  aligned  with  the 
objectives of the CFP. 

5 Council Regulation (EC) No 1967/2006 of 21 December 2006 (OJ L 36, 8.2.2007, p.6) 

12 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Fishing opportunities for the Mediterranean and Black Seas 

As a result of the actions mentioned above, the Commission will for the first time present a 
single proposal for fishing opportunities in these two sea basins. This proposal will:  

a)  implement the 10% reduction of the fishing effort for demersal stocks in the western 

Mediterranean Sea, following the adoption of the MAP;  

b)  implement  the  measures  adopted  at  the  2018  annual  session  of  the  GFCM,  in 
particular  for  small  pelagic  species  in  the  Adriatic  and  for  eel,  and  implement  the 
additional measures adopted by the GFCM in November 2019; and 

c)  set fishing opportunities for the Black Sea, including an autonomous quota for sprat, 
as  in  previous  years,  and  put  forward  the  new  regional  allocation  scheme  to  be 
adopted by the GFCM for turbot. Measures to be adopted by the GFCM in November 
2019 will be in pm, pending the outcome of the annual session. 

13 

 
 
 
 
 
4.  Report on the balance between fishing capacity and fishing opportunities 

In  line  with  Article  22(4)  of  Regulation  1380/2013  (the  CFP  Regulation),  the 
Commission  must  report  annually  to  the  European  Parliament  and  to  the Council  on 
the balance between fishing capacity and fishing opportunities, taking into account the 
assessment by the STECF 6. 

This  report  covers  the  year  2017.  It  assesses  the  annual  capacity  of  all  the  EU  fleet 
segments based on the information included in the Member States’ reports submitted 
to  the  Commission  in  20187.  These  reports  must  follow  the  2014  Commission 
Guidelines8  and,  for  the  fleet  segments  for  which  structural  overcapacity  has  been 
identified,  they  must  contain  an  action  plan.  The  action  plan  must  set  out  the 
adjustment targets, tools and a clear time-frame for its implementation.  

The  submission  of  the  annual  fleet  reports  is  an  ex  ante  conditionality,  i.e.  a  pre-
requisite,  under  the  European  Maritime  Fisheries  Fund  (EMFF)9.  Not  submitting  the 
annual  fleet  report  and/or  failing  to  implement  the  action  plan  could  result  in  a 
proportionate  suspension  or  interruption  of  relevant  EU  financial  assistance  to  the 
Member  States  for  the  fleet  segments  concerned  as  provided  for  by  the  EMFF 
Regulation.  

4.1. Member States' annual reports and action plans, STECF assessment 

All  23  coastal  Member  States  submitted  their  reports  for  2017  to  the  Commission10, 
and 10 of the reports included an action plan11. The Commission asked the STECF to:  

  assess  balance  indicators  for  all  EU  Member  States’  fleet  segments, 

 

including for the outermost regions of France, Portugal and Spain; 
review  national  reports  on  Member  State  efforts  to  achieve  balance 
between fleet capacity and fishing opportunities; and  

  assess  action  plans  submitted  for  fleet  segments  where  Member  States 

identified structural overcapacity.  

The  data  used  to  compile  the  various  indicators  were  collected  under  the  data 
collection framework (DCF)12. All balance indicators provided and used in the STECF 

6 See: https://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu/reports/balance 
7  Article  22(2)  of  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, OJ L 354, 28.12.2013, p. 22. 
8  Guidelines  for  the  analysis  of  the  balance  between  fishing  capacity  and  fishing  opportunities  according  to 
Article  22  of  Regulation  (EU)  No  1380/2013  of  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  on  the  Common 
Fisheries Policy, COM(2014) 545 final.  
9 See Annex IV of Regulation (EU) No 508/2014 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, 20.05.2014, p. 1. 
10 All reports and action plans can be found at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/fleet/index.cfm?method=FM_Reporting.AnnualReport 
11 Croatia, France, Germany, Italy, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain and the UK. 
12  Regulation  (EU)  2017/1004  of  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  on  the  establishment  of  a  Union 
framework  for  the  collection,  management  and  use  of  data  in  the  fisheries  sector  and  support  for  scientific 

14 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
 
Expert  Working  Group  (EWG)  18-14  were  calculated  in  accordance  with  the  2014 
Commission Guidelines, which provide a common approach for estimating the balance 
over time between fishing capacity and fishing opportunities. On the coverage of the 
data, the STECF concluded that, overall, there has been an improvement in the quality 
and coverage of the data compared to previous years despite some discrepancies. The 
main  problem,  as  also  highlighted  in  the  STECF’s  2018  annual  economic  report 
(AER),  is  the  incomplete  data  set  for  Greece  and  the  consequent  exclusion  of  this 
Member State from the analysis at EU and regional level.   

Concerning  coverage  of  the  fleet  segment,  the  STECF  noted  that  some  of  the 
indicators could not be calculated for all fleet segments. This is either due to a lack of 
data  or,  in  the  case  of  economic  and  technical  indicators,  due  to  a  clustering  of 
segments (to protect  commercial confidentiality). Data deficiencies led to  difficulties 
in  calculating  balance  indicators  for  fleet  segments,  making  them  unreliable  or  non-
representative.  In  some  cases,  only  landings  in  weight  were  provided  without  the 
corresponding landed values for all active fleet segments reported by a Member State.  

The  STECF  analysis  also  confirmed  a  significant  number  of  inactive  vessels, 
especially  in  the  fleet  segments  with  vessels  under  10  m  (small-scale  coastal  fleets), 
where many vessels are only used part-time and fishing is often not the only source of 
income.  

Since the entry into force of the 2013 CFP, 20 Member States13 have identified, using 
biological,  economic  or  technical  indicators  and/or  supplementary  information,  fleet 
segments whose fishing capacity is not effectively balanced with fishing opportunities, 
or  shows  latent  signs  of  being  imbalanced.  Over  that  period,  only  3  Member  States 
concluded  that  no  fleet  segments  clearly  demonstrated  an  imbalance  and  did  not 
submit action plans14.  

The  Commission  also  asked  the  STECF  to  propose  and  justify  an  improved  suite  of 
environmental indicators to help assess the balance between fleet capacity and fishing 
opportunities.  In  this  regard,  the  STECF  concluded  that  over  the  years  alternative 
biological  indicators  have  been  proposed  but  not  thoroughly  tested.  To  justify 
introducing new indicators to  replace or integrate the current  ones, a deeper analysis 
and testing of those new indicators is  necessary.  The STECF concluded that without 
such  a  deep  and  robust  analysis,  it  might  be  confusing  for  Member  States  to  start 
applying new or revised indicators in their upcoming fleet report.  

advice  regarding  the  common  fisheries  policy  and  repealing  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  199/2008,  OJ  157, 
20.06.2017, p. 1.  
13  Belgium,  Bulgaria,  Croatia,  Cyprus,  Denmark,  France,  Germany,  Greece,  Ireland,  Italy,  Latvia,  Lithuania, 
Malta, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom.  
14 Estonia, Finland and the Netherlands. 

15 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                     
Table 5. Active fleet segments out of balance 

Active fleet segments out of balance*  

Percentage of 
assessed fleet 
segments  out 
of balance (%) 

Area 27 
Atlantic  
Northeast   

Area  37 
Mediterrean 
and Black Sea  

Other 
fishing 
regions 

FI 

IE 

FR 

EE 

DE 

CY 

BE 

HR 

DK 

BG 

GR 

Member 
States 

Total 
number of 
active fleet 
segments 

Number of 
assessed fleet 
segments out of 
balance 

Number of 
fleet 
segments 
assesssed  
(including 
clustering) 
2 
25 
11 
1 
14 
4 
4 
33 
10 
4 
15 
18 
3 
6 
4 
7 
2 
11 
6 
2 
36 
17 
20 
Total 
255 
* Sustainable harvest indicator assessment by STECF 18-14 

2 
25 
9 
0 
7 
4 
4 
20 
10 
4 
11 
17 
3 
4 
4 
6 
2 
8 
6 
2 
21 
10 
11 
190 

10 
25 
31 
6 
19 
5 
11 
87 
20 
14 
33 
31 
3 
12 
21 
27 
15 
59 
6 
14 
85 
25 
43 
602 

RO 

MT 

UK 

NL 

ES 

SE 

LV 

PL 

PT 

LT 

SI 

IT 

100 
100 
82 
0 
50 
80 
100 
61 
100 
100 
73 
94 
100 
67 
100 
86 
100 
73 
100 
100 
61 
59 
55 

2 
- 
- 
- 
7 
4 
4 
12 
10 
- 
11 
- 
3 
4 
- 
6 
2 
6 
- 
- 
11 
10 
11 
103 

- 
25 
9 
0 
- 
- 
- 
7 
- 
4 
- 
17 
- 
- 
4 
- 
- 
- 
6 
2 
10 
- 
- 
84 

- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
1 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
0 
- 
- 
- 
2 
- 
- 
0 
- 
0 
3 

To address situations of imbalance, Member States proposed a variety of management 
tools in their action plans, including15: 

- 

- 

fleet  measures  (ban  of  new  vessels,  fleet  conversion,  reduction  of  the  fishing 
capacity, permanent or temporary cessation of activities and modernisation of 
fishing fleet); 
technical  measures  (monitoring  of  landings,  more  selectivity  or  energy-
efficient gear, permitting schemes for certain fisheries, space and time-related 
fishing restrictions); 

15 See STECF-18-14, p.121-142. 

16 

 
 
 
 
  
 
                                                           
- 

economic  measures  (support  to  develop  marketing  initiatives  or  assistance  to 
improve competitiveness). 

Support  for  the  permanent  cessation  of  fishing  activities  by  scrapping  vessels  was 
eligible  for  funding  under  the  EMFF  until  31  December  2017  only  for  the  fleet 
segments considered not in balance. Between 1 January 2014 and 31 December 2017, 
1260 fishing vessels were decommissioned or were going to be decommissioned with 
public  support, with  a total public expenditure of almost  EUR 149 million, of which 
more than EUR 75 million from the EMFF (Table 6). 

Table 6. Support for the permanent cessation under the EMFF 

Member 
State 

BG 
CY 
DE 
EL 
ES 
FR 
HR 
IT 
LV 
PL 
PT 
Total 

Number 
of 
vessels 
8 
66 
6 
766 
25 
15 
85 
230 
5 
48 
6 

1,260 

Total eligible public cost committed 
                                                     €247,046.22 
                                                  €2,955,480.70 
                                                     €542,462.00 
                                                €46,029,264.00 
                                                 €3,655,932.20 
                                                  €1,655,080.70 
€15,688,234.10 
                                                €62,022,503.81 
                                                 €1,367,637.11 
                                                €12,854,547.87 
                                                 €1,907,740.96 

                             €148,925,929.66 

 EMFF support committed  
                           €123,523.88 
                        €1,486,490.36 
                           €271,231.00 
                      €23,014,632.00 
                        €2,612,733.65 
                          €827,540.35 

€7,844,117.04 
                      €31,011,251.89 
                          €683,818.54 
                        €6,427,273.91 
                           €953,870.49 
               €75,256,483.12 

The significant decommissioning of vessels with EMFF support over the past period in 
the  Mediterranean  shows  the  increased  efforts  undertaken  to  balance  the  fleets  and 
adjust fishing capacity in this region.  

The  evaluation  on  the  entry/exit  scheme  also  confirms  that  provided  that  Member 
States  ensure  an  accurate  measurement,  verification  and  reporting  of  the  capacity 
indicators GT and kW,  capacity policies  continue to  be of  relevance, in  particular in 
situations where conservation and management  measures  are not  effective enough to 
regulate the use of fishing capacity and many fleet  segments are not  in  balance  with 
fishing opportunities. 

4.2. Overall capacity of EU fishing fleet 

The capacity of the EU  fleet  continued to  decrease.  In December 2018, the EU fleet 
register  (including  outermost  regions)  contained  81,644  vessels  with  an  overall 
capacity of 1,533,180 in gross tonnage (GT) and 6,075,634 in kilowatts (kW). This is 
a reduction of 1.32% since the previous year in terms of number of vessels, 2.46% in 
GT and 2.61% in kW.  

17 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The information recorded in the EU fleet register has become more accurate since the 
2017 Commission Regulation on the Union fishing fleet register16, which introduced a 
new procedure guaranteeing the update of the EU fleet register in real time. It gives the 
Commission the possibility to check the correctness and correspondence between data 
submitted  by  Member  States  and  vessel  data  already  registered.  However,  some 
countries  are  not  yet  fully  compliant  with  the  Commission  Regulation  on  the  Union 
fishing fleet register. They are not yet in a position to submit their data in real time but 
only  on  a  monthly  basis,  and/or  they  cannot  yet  send  snapshots  (data  for  a  set  of 
vessels) requested by the Commission.  

The veridicity of the data recorded in the EU fleet register is also an issue of concern. 
The  results  of  a  recent  study  commissioned  by  the  Commission  on  engine  power 
verifications  showed,  in  almost  every  Member  State,  widespread  non-compliance  in 
almost  every  fleet  segment  tested  for  the  engine  power  declared17.  The  lack  of 
compliance  with  declared  engine  power  undermines  control  effort  regimes,  but  also 
raises  questions  about  the  overall  compliance  of  the  Member  States  with  the  fishing 
capacity ceilings set by the CFP Regulation.  

Figure 10. Compliance with capacity ceilings based on the Fleet Register 
(effective capacity as percentage of capacity ceiling by Member State (Mainland 
fleets), situation in December 2018)  

100,00%

90,00%

80,00%

70,00%

60,00%

50,00%

40,00%

30,00%

20,00%

10,00%

0,00%

BE BG CY DE DK ES EE

FI

FR EL HR IR

IT

LT LV MT NL PL PT RO SI

SE UK

GT

KW

16  Commission  Implementing  Regulation  (EU)  2017/2018  of  6  February  2017  on  the  Union  fishing  fleet 
register, OJ, L 34, 9.5.2017, p.9. 
17 Tests were conducted on 68 fishing vessels across 14 Member States. 

18 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
4.3. Regional assessment 

In the North East Atlantic, the fishing capacity continues to decrease both in GT and 
KW.  However,  according  to  the  STECF,  there  are  fleet  segments  which  are  not  in 
balance  with  their  fishing  opportunities.  Based  upon  assessment  with  the  sustainable 
harvest indicator, of the 350 fleet segments active in this area in 2016, 103 were out of 
balance.  In  terms  of  the  level  of  activity  of  the  fleet,  56  fleet  segments  with  8,555 
inactive  vessels  are  reported.  20  fleet  segments  show  a  decrease  in  the  number  of 
inactive vessels, 12 show an increasing trend. The vessel use indicator shows that out 
of the 208 segments assessed for this indicator, 95 fleet segments appear not to be in 
balance with their fishing opportunities. An increasing trend in the vessel use indicator 
can be observed for 14 segments, while a decreasing trend is shown for 12 segments.  

In the Mediterranean and Black Seas, a large number of fleet segments may not be 
in balance with their fishing opportunities. According to the STECF analysis, of the 92 
fleet  segments  for  which  the  sustainable  harvest  indicator  may  be  considered 
meaningful  to  assess  balance  or  imbalance,  it  was  concluded  that  84  fleet  segments 
may  not  be  in  balance  with  their  fishing  opportunities.  The  inactive  vessel  indicator 
shows  that  out  of  38  assessed  fleet  segments  there  is  an  increasing  trend  for  7  fleet 
segments, while 18 segments show decreasing trends. The vessel use indicator shows 
that out of the 119 segments assessed for this indicator, 54 fleet segments appear not to 
be  in  balance  with  their  fishing  opportunities.  An  increasing  trend  in  the  vessel  use 
indicator can be observed for 14 segments, while a decreasing trend is shown for 17 
segments.  

Finally, for the fleet  in  the  outermost regions,  the STECF noted that 3 assessed fleet 
segments  were  out  of  balance  according  to  the  sustainable  harvest  indicator:  small 
vessels  (under  10  metres)  in  the  French  outermost  regions  and  two  segments  in 
Madeira. The latter segments comprise small vessels under 10 metres which received 
40% of their 2016 landed value from bigeye tuna landings and vessels between 24-40 
metres for which bigeye tuna was also a significant landing (28%), but with blue shark 
making up 34% of total landed value and thus being the most valuable component of 
the catch.   

19 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 11. Number of vessels in outermost regions (situation in December 
2018)  

766 

1.177 

2.132 

France

Portugal

Spain

Figure 12. Total GT in outermost regions (situation in December 2018)  

21.702 

26.952 

[VALUE] 

France

Portugal

Spain

20 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 13. Total KW in outermost regions (situation in December 2018)  

50.444 

69.869 

288.151 

France

Portugal

Spain

4.4. CONCLUSIONS 

The  capacity  of  the  EU  fleet  continued  to  decrease,  following  the  same  trend  of 
previous  years.  Between  December  2017  and  December  2018,  the  overall  EU  fleet 
decreased by 1.32% in number of vessels, 2.46% in GT and 2.61% in kW. 

In  2018,  all  23  coastal  Member  States  complied  with  their  obligation  to  report 
information on the capacity of their fleet segments. Ten of the Member States’ reports 
included  an  action  plan.  Action  plans  contain  a  large  variety  of  measures  to  address 
overcapacity.  These  measures  range  from  fleet  measures,  such  as  temporary  or 
permanent cessation, to technical, economic and control measures.  

For  the  fleet  segments  that  are  not  in  balance,  EMFF  support  for  the  permanent 
cessation  of  fishing  activities  through  the  scrapping  of  vessels  was  eligible  until  31 
December  2017.  Partly  due  to  the  continued  effect  of  these  permanent  cessation 
measures, in December 2018, the fishing capacity of the overall EU fleet was 23.1% 
below the capacity ceilings for tonnage and  17.6% below the power ceilings.  This is 
expected  to  have  some  positive  effect  on  the  conservation  of  marine  biological 
resources,  considering  that  capacity  measures  can  be  of  relevance  for  countries  and 
regions where conservation and management measures are not (yet) effective enough 
to regulate the use of fishing capacity through enforceable input and output measures.   

21 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
5.  Economic performance of the EU fishing fleet 

The 2018 AER on the Union fishing fleet provides a comprehensive overview of the 
latest  information  available  on  the  structure  and  economic  performance  of  the  23 
coastal EU Member State fishing fleets. The results indicate that the profitability of the 
EU  fleet  improved  further  in  2016,  registering  record-high  net  profits  of  EUR  1.35 
billion,  up  from  EUR  789  million  in  2015. Continued  improvements  into  2016  were 
mainly a result of higher average fish prices (more value for less quantity landed) and 
continued  low  fuel  prices,  while  the  improved  status  of  some  important  stocks  and 
technological  advances  also  contributed  (Figures  14-16).  Forecasts  for  2018  suggest 
that developments are slightly offset by higher fuel prices compared to 2017. 

Direct  employment  generated  by  the  sector,  including  Greece,  amounted  to  152 331 
fishers, corresponding to 114 776 Full Time Employees (FTEs). Average annual wage 
per FTE18 was estimated at EUR 26.4 thousand, ranging from EUR 1.8 thousand for 
Cypriot  fishers  to  EUR  131  thousand  for  Belgian  fishers.  The  EU  fleet,  excluding 
Greece, spent 4.85 million days at sea and consumed 2.25 billion litres of fuel, to land 
4.9 million tonnes of seafood in 2016 with a reported landed value of EUR 7.7 billion. 
In 2016, the EU fishing fleet had an estimated, depreciated replacement value (tangible 
asset value) of EUR 5.2 billion and in-year investments amounted to EUR 531 million. 
The  amount  of  gross  value  added  (GVA)  and  gross  profit  (all  excluding  subsidies) 
generated by the fleet (excluding Greece) in 2016 was EUR 4.5 billion and EUR 2.07 
billion, respectively. GVA as a proportion of revenue was estimated at 58%, up from 
53.6%  in  2015  and  gross  profit  margin  at  26.7%,  up  from  22.4%.  With  a  total  net 
profit  of  EUR  1.35  billion,  17.4%  of  the  revenue  generated  by  the  EU  fleet  was 
retained as net profit. 

18 Gross wage (i.e. total remuneration before taxes and other deductions). 

22 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
Figure 14. Landings by the EU fleet, weight (tonnes), value (EUR) million and average 
price (2008=100)19 

Figure 15. EU fleet economic performance indicators 

19 Source: STECF and European Commission 

23 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Figure 16. Revenue and total costs for 2016 and estimates for 2017 and 2018 by Member 
State20  

Results, however, varied by fishing region as indicated below: 

The  overall  performance  of  EU  fleets  operating  in  the  North  Sea  &  eastern  Arctic 
region  was  positive  in  2016,  and  improved  further  compared  to  previous  years.  The 
most profitable fleets were the large pelagic trawlers (>40 m Length Overall (LOA)), 
with average gross profits estimated at around EUR 36 thousand per day at sea. Only 
the Lithuanian fleet operating in the region suffered small net losses in 2016, while all 
other Member State fleets generated net profits. The overall changes have been mostly 
driven by large-scale vessels, whereas trends  for the small scale coastal fleet (SSCF) 
are  less  clear.  Depending  on  the  terms  and  conditions,  the  withdrawal  of  the  United 
Kingdom could have a significant impact on the operations of segments of the North 
Sea fleet. 

Overall, the EU Baltic Sea fleet spent almost 415 thousand days at sea in 2016 to land 
approximately 652 thousand tonnes of seafood valued at EUR 228 million. While the 
weight landed has increased since 2012, both  effort  (days at  sea,  LSF down 5%  and 
SSCF  down  2%)  and  landed  value  declined  (from  EUR  246  to  EUR  228  million) 
during  the  period.  More  recently,  the  landed  value  increased  8%  between  2015  to 
2016,  and  this,  combined  with  significant  reductions  in  operating  costs,  helped  the 
overall situation of the Baltic Sea fleet move from a loss-making position in 2015 to a 
modest net profit-making position in 2016. GVA was estimated at EUR 119 million, 
up  3%  compared  to  2015.  After  accounting  for  operating  costs,  the  fleet  made  an 
estimated EUR 56 million in gross profit, also a marked increase (13%) compared to 

20 Source: STECF 

24 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
2015.  These  improvements  were  largely  due  to  relatively  stable  revenues  (-2%) 
combined with lower costs, in particular fuel (-19%) and labour (-6%) costs. 

The  major  players  in  the  Northeast  Atlantic  are  the  Spanish,  French,  British, 
Portuguese  and  Irish  fleets.  The  most  important  species  include  Atlantic  mackerel, 
horse mackerel, hake, Norway lobster and monkfish. The weight and value of landings 
generated  by  the  Northeast  Atlantic  fleet  amounted  to  approximately  1.4  million 
tonnes  and  EUR  2.48  billion  respectively.  In  terms  of  production,  the  UK,  French, 
Spanish,  Portuguese  and  Irish  fleets  are  the  most  important  and  collectively  were 
responsible for 85% of the landed weight  and 94% of the value landed in 2016. The 
overall  performance  of  the  fleet  improved,  with  the  majority  of  Member  State  fleets 
generating gross and net profits in 2016. GVA was estimated at EUR 1.57 billion, and 
after  accounting for operating costs, the fleet  made EUR 620 million  in  gross profit. 
GVA increased by 12% and gross profit increased by 29%. Net profit was estimated at 
EUR 417 million, an 84% increase from 2015. The SSCF generated EUR 298 million 
in  GVA  and  EUR  103  million  in  gross  profits.  The  large-scale  fleet  generated  over 
EUR  1.28  billion in  GVA  and  EUR  518  million  in  gross  profit.  In  2016,  fuel  prices 
decreased  and  remained  low  in  2017,  while  most  fish  prices  remained  stable  or 
increased compared to 2016. Therefore, it is expected that economic performance will 
further  improve  as  revenues  are  likely  to  increase  and  costs  decrease.  Overall, 
performance is mostly driven by the large-scale fleets.  

Overall,  the  economic  situation  of  EU  fleets  operating  in  the  Mediterranean  Sea 
improved  with  increased  gross  profit  and  net  profit  even  if  wide  variations  across 
Member States are observed; the positive trend was mainly driven by the Italian fleet. 
Revenues  benefited  from  an  increase  in  landings  and  higher  average  fish  prices.  In 
particular,  the  SSCF  sold  at  higher  prices  compared  to  the  large-scale  fleet,  mainly 
directed  to  the  local  market  through  very  short  supply  chains  (either  direct  to 
consumers  or  to  restaurants  in  tourist  areas).  There  are  some  examples  of  fisheries 
where stocks are being exploited at rates consistent with achieving Fmsy, and fleets are 
showing  positive  trends,  particularly  in  landings.  The  overall  level  of  overfishing, 
however, remains generally too high. A number of specific actions have been taken for 
the Mediterranean Sea to tackle overfishing by improving control and enforcement and 
aligning the Mediterranean strategy with the CFP, both within EU waters and with its 
international  partners.  This  has  already  had  an  effect  with  the  review  and  update  of 
five  national  management  plans  in  line  with  STECF  advice.  It  is  expected  that  the 
process will have accelerated in 2018 and beyond. Better enforcement and control is a 
priority in this sea basin. 

After  the  visible  improvement  in  the  economic  performance  of  the  EU’s  Black  Sea 
fleet in 2015, with an increase in both gross and net profit, there was a slight decrease 
in 2016. The Black Sea fishery is highly dependent on a very small number of species, 
and several commercially important stocks continue to be exploited above Fmsy. The 
fishery  resources  of  the  Black  Sea  are  shared  by  Bulgaria,  Georgia,  Romania,  the 
Russian Federation, Ukraine and Turkey. The overall economic situation in the region 
is  rather  unstable.  Revenue  increased  gradually  between  2008  and  2016,  peaking  in 
2015  and  subsequently  falling  19%  in  2016.  GVA  as  a  proportion  of  revenue  was 
estimated at 65% for 2016, which means that the Black Sea fishing fleet transformed 
more  than  half  its  total  revenue  into  capital,  salaries  and  profits,  thereby  having  a 
positive impact on the economies of the region and their fishing communities. 

25 

 
 
 
 
 
 
The EU SSCF totalled 49 029 vessels in 2016, employing 78 304 fishers or 46 647 in 
FTE  (including  Greece).  As  a  whole,  the  EU  SSCF  was  profitable  in  2016:  lower 
energy and capital costs in 2016 together with higher revenues fostered a 14% increase 
in  GVA  and  a  16%  increase  in  gross  profit.  Net  profit  increased  from  EUR  96.8 
million in 2015 to EUR 132 million in 2016, i.e., a 36% increase (excluding Greece). 
Projection results suggest that landings in weight decreased slightly in 2017, at around 
254 thousand tonnes with a corresponding decrease in landed value, estimated at EUR 
830 million; a 7% drop compared to 2016. Findings suggest that in 2017 the EU SSCF 
generated  EUR  626  million  in  GVA,  a  decrease  of  11%  compared  to  2016  results, 
while gross profit was estimated at EUR 222 million, a 9% decrease. Nonetheless, in 
2017  the  performance  indicators  remained  positive  —  GVA  to  revenue  (67%)  and 
gross profit margin (24%) and net profit margin (15%). In 2018, the increase in energy 
costs  were  counterbalanced  by  an  increase  in  revenue,  and  performance  results 
improved slightly from 2017. The SSCF remains profitable, with gross and net profit 
margins of 24% and 15% respectively. While the EU SSCF as a whole was profitable 
over  the  time  period  analysed,  results  at  the  regional  and  Member  State  level  are 
mixed.  By  Member  State,  projected  results  suggest  that  six  Member  States’  SSCFs 
suffered gross losses in 2017. Only the Polish SSCF is projected to have recovered in 
2018. 

26 

 
 
 
 
 
 
6.  Implementation of the landing obligation  

The first of January 2019 marked an important date when the landing obligation came 
into full force. The landing obligation was introduced to gradually eliminate, between 
2015 and 2019, the wasteful practice of discarding. The landing obligation represents a 
fundamental  shift  in  the  management  approach  to  EU  fisheries.  Since  its  phasing  in, 
this  fundamental  shift  has  required  the  industry  and  stakeholders  involved  to  change 
their  behaviour,  and  it  has  brought  challenges  with  feasibility  and  compliance. 
Through  intensive  collaboration  between  the  various  stakeholders,  the  European 
Parliament, the Council, the Member States, the industry, NGOs, the scientists and the 
European  Commission,  a  common  understanding  is  being  reached  on  discard  causes 
and certain challenges linked to the landing obligation.  

Also this  year, the Commission obtained information  from  Member States, Advisory 
Councils and other relevant sources to use as a basis for the mandatory annual report 
on  the  implementation  of  the  landing  obligation,  as  stated  in  Regulation  (EU) 
2015/81221. Since 2016, these reports have been  based on a questionnaire developed 
by the STECF. For 2018, the Commission has received reports from 18 Member States 
and  5  Advisory  Councils.  As  in  previous  years,  year-on-year  change  has  to  be 
interpreted with  care, since the  composition  of respondents  in  the different  areas has 
changed. It is also important to recognise that changes reported in the questionnaire do 
not  necessarily  imply  a  successful  implementation  of  the  landing  obligation.  An 
effective  and  successful  implementation  of  the  landing  obligation  depends  on 
significant changes in fishing practises at sea, adequate control and enforcement of all 
fishing  operations  to  ensure  compliance  and  full  accounting  of  all  catches,  and 
significant reductions in unwanted catches. 

In line with Article 9 of Regulation (EU) 2015/812, the obtained information includes 
the following elements: 

  steps taken by Member  States and producer organisations to  comply with the 

landing obligation;  

  steps taken by Member States to verify compliance with the landing obligation;  
 
 

information on the socioeconomic impact of the landing obligation;  
information on how the landing obligation has affected safety on board fishing 
vessels;  
information on the use and outlets of catches below the minimum conservation 
reference size of a species subject to the landing obligation;  
information  on  port  infrastructures  and  vessels'  fitting  with  regard  to  the 
landing obligation;  
for  each  fishery  concerned,  information  on  the  difficulties  encountered  in 
implementing the landing obligation and recommendations to address them. 

 

 

 

21 Regulation (EU) 2015/812 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 amending Council 
Regulations (EC) No 850/98, (EC) No 2187/2005, (EC) No 1967/2006, (EC) No 1098/2007, (EC) No 254/2002, 
(EC) No 2347/2002 and (EC) No 1224/2009, and Regulations (EU) No 1379/2013 and (EU) No 1380/2013 of the 
European Parliament and of the Council, as regards the landing obligation, and repealing Council Regulation 
(EC) No 1434/98, OJ L 133, 29.5.2015, p. 1–20.  

27 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
This section focuses on these elements and on the state of play of the discard plans and 
the use of the EMFF to implement the landing obligation. 

6.1. Progress report  

The fundamental shift in the management approach since the most recent reform of the 
CFP with the landing obligation creates a change of focus from landed catches to all 
catches,  including  discards.  This  shift  required  intensive  collaboration  with  the 
stakeholders  where  the  regionalisation  aspect  of  the  CFP  assisted  tremendously,  but 
the  fishing  industry  still  seems  reluctant  to  embrace  the  change.  The  main  concerns 
involve  the  lack  of  accurate  reporting  by  most  countries  of  fish  discarded  under 
exemptions  allowed  for  under  the  landing  obligation,  the  very  low  volumes  of  fish 
below  minimum  conservation  reference  sizes  (MCRS)  being  landed,  and  the 
difficulties  experienced  by  Member  States  in  ensuring  effective  control  and 
enforcement of fishing activity. These concerns will be elaborated on in this section, as 
will the initiatives carried out by all stakeholders involved to address these issues. 

6.1.1.  Implementation of the landing obligation – state of play  

Progress  in  implementing  the  landing  obligation  across  species  subject  to  TAC  in 
Union  waters  and  non-Union  waters,  excluding  the  Mediterranean  Sea,  is  shown  in 
Figures  17  and  18.  A  steep  increase  can  be  seen  from  2018  to  2019,  since  a  further 
43% of all TACs  are due to  come under the landing obligation. From 2015 to  2018, 
progress was made in increasing the number of TACs at least partially covered from 
26% to 57%. 

28 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 17. Summary of no. of TACs subject to the landing obligation since 2015 22 

Figure 18. Percentage of TACs at least partially subject to the landing obligation from 
2015 to 201923 

This does not imply that all catches of TAC species will have to be landed from 2019 
onwards, because some TAC species are subject to exemptions. These exemptions will 
be discussed in the following section (State of play - discard plans).  

The  steps  taken  by  the  Member  States  and  producer  organisations  to  promote 
compliance  with  the  landing  obligation  diverge  widely  in  approach.  Member  States 
continue  to  make  a  big  effort  to  inform  fishermen  and  to  engage  with  the  relevant 
Advisory Councils. One such example can be seen in conducting the analysis on choke 
species,  which  was  a  prominent  activity  in  2018  within  the  regional  groups,  the 
Advisory  Councils  and  the  Commission.  A  number  of  Member  States  continue 
specific  studies  and  pilot  projects  that  test  selective  gears  and  avoidance  strategies, 
with  some  Member  States  reporting  outcomes  for  2017  and  2018  including  on  their 

22Based on Joint Recommendations for 2019, all other years based on relevant discard plans. Source: STECF 18-
6 
23 2015 to 2018 data based on respective discard plans, 2019 data based on current set of joint 
recommendations. Source: STECF 18-06 

29 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
strategies to increase the uptake of the outcomes. There has been no increase in actions 
by  Member  States  in  the  Mediterranean  and  Black  Seas  where  less  difficulty 
implementing the landing obligation has been reported.   

The  uptake  by  the  Member  States  of  the  several  tools  available  in  the  CFP  for 
mitigating the impact or challenges of the landing obligation has continued. The inter-
annual flexibility mechanism has been used throughout the year, whereas inter-species 
quota flexibility has mostly not been used. Since 2017, more emphasis has been put on 
the  quota  management  system,  with  a  few  Member  States  adjusting  their  national 
quota management system. In 2019, for stocks with advice for zero catches (0 TAC), a 
by-catch  mechanism  was  introduced  to  provide  a  small  quota  to  Member  States,  via 
exchanges  with  other  Member  States,  who  would  otherwise  have  no  quota,  or  an 
insufficient  quota,  for  their  unavoidable  by-catches  when  implementing  the  landing 
obligation. This mechanism allows mixed fisheries to continue to a reasonable extent 
but  also  ensures  that  improvements  in  selectivity  are  made.  It  was  established  for  5 
TACs  with  zero  catch  advice  for  2019  and  will  be  assessed  every  year,  taking  into 
account  the  choke  situations,  the  annual  by-catch  reduction  plans  of  the  Member 
States, and the improvements made in selectivity. The TAC composition depends on 
the annual advice of ICES on the fishing opportunities. 

Following previous discussions on quota management and quota swaps being able to 
help avoid choke situations, the Commission organised a technical workshop on quota 
swaps  for  the  Member  States  in  December  2018.  For  the  stakeholders  involved,  the 
system  is  considered  transparent  and  fluid  enough,  and  possible  mechanisms  to 
alleviate the matters should be (further) discussed in the regional groups. The Member 
States  use  the  quota  swap  system.  However,  no  significant  increases  can  be  seen 
during the phasing-in of the landing obligation (Figure 19.) 

Figure 19. Changes in quota swaps24 

24 Source: Directorate General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, European Commission (QUOTA). 

30 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
6.1.2.  Socio-economic  impact  and  port  infrastructure  and  vessels  fit  for    

purpose 

As in previous years, most Member States report that it remains difficult to assess  the socio-
economic  impacts  of  the  landing  obligation,  and  problems  have  been  minimal  so  far  but 
could increase when more or all species are included. In their advice, the Advisory Councils 
identify a variety of perceived socio-economic and practical or technical difficulties that have 
not been experienced yet but are likely to emerge. The analysis of certain fisheries has shown 
that  the  economic  outcome  will  be  negatively  affected  in  the  long  term  by  the  landing 
obligation, when compared to the expected outcome with no landing obligation25. However, 
efficient  mitigation  strategies  may  reduce  this  negative  economic  effect  of  the  landing 
obligation  in  some  of  the  fisheries.  The  possibility  to  swap  quotas  may  also  reduce  the 
economic losses caused by the landing obligation. These possibilities are available within the 
current framework, and it is important  to further intensify collaboration in 2019. 

Horizon2020 DiscardLess project 

The  four-year  H2020  DiscardLess  project  was  completed  in  2018.  One  of  the 
results  of  the  project  is  a  compilation  of  articles  in  one  open  access  book  ‘The 
European  Landing  Obligation’  covering  various  elements  of  the  landing 
obligation.  The  project  sheds  light  upon  the  different  elements  of  the  landing 
obligation and on the uncertainties and challenges still ahead of us. It emphasizes 
the  time  it  takes  for  other  international  countries  to  have  implemented  a  similar 
discard ban, as well as the challenges identified for the EU. It also underlines the 
strengthened  collaboration  on  EU  and  international  level,  between  scientists  and 
fishermen, creating possibilities for a sustainable fisheries management. 

The reports of the Member States show no clear evidence of the landing obligation causing 
safety issues on board the fishing vessels, which is consistent with the reports from previous 
years.  Member  States  highlight  potential  problems  or  safety  issues  that  will  be  faced  by 
fishermen  on  board  when  handling  unwanted  catches.  However,  no  actual  incidences  were 
reported on these matters, including in the pelagic fisheries and in the Baltic Sea where the 
landing  obligation  has  been  in  place  for  more  than  2  years.  Pilot  projects  carried  out  by 
producer organisations, scientists and Member States sometimes show results on this specific 
issue, concluding that to keep the work pressure stable one to three extra crew members are 
needed to handle unwanted catches. Part of the vessel’s capacity will have to be used to store 
the unwanted catches in order to land them.  

25 Chapter 6, Potential Economic Consequences of the Landing Obligation in: The European Landing 
Obligation, (2019) Uhlmann, Ulrich and Kennely (eds.). 

31 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
 
6.1.3.  Control and enforcement 

It is the responsibility of Member States to ensure the detailed and accurate documentation of 
catches  and  to  ensure  control,  enforcement  and  inspection  of  activities  that  fall  under  the 
scope  of  the  CFP,  including  the  landing  obligation.  Effective  control  and  enforcement  is 
pivotal  for  the  successful  implementation  of  the  landing  obligation.  The  complexity  of 
ensuring control and enforcement of the landing obligation means that the control authorities 
must  be  able  to  identify  discarding  events  and  accurately  identify  the  species  concerned. 
Remote  electronic  monitoring  (REM)  tools,  such  as  closed-circuit  television  (CCTV)  and 
sensor data, have been demonstrated as the most effective and cost-efficient means to control 
the landing obligation  at  sea. This  has been  confirmed in  numerous trials conducted by the 
Member  States,  and  these  tools  continued  to  be  tested  in  2018  by  some  countries  on  a 
voluntary  basis.  However,  the  tools  have  not  been  implemented  yet.  The  Commission 
supported the use of these measures in its proposal for a revised Fisheries Control System26. 
An  obligation  is  introduced  for  Member  States  to  use  CCTV  and  other  REM  systems  on  a 
minimum  percentage  of  fishing  vessels  according  to  risk.  By  doing  so,  the  Commission 
intends to provide a harmonised approach and ensure a level playing field in terms of the use 
of effective controls at sea. Establishing a level playing field is of utmost importance for the 
necessary support of the co-legislators, Member States and the fishing industry.  

The  European  Fisheries  Control  Agency  (EFCA)  has  assisted  Member  States  in  delivering 
specific training events and dedicated workshops for inspectors on the control elements of the 
landing  obligation.  The  EFCA  has  also  shown  that  the  last  haul  analysis  makes  it  easier  to 
evaluate  compliance  with  the  landing  obligation  provisions  and  to  provide  information  on 
catch  composition  across  different  fisheries  in  different  sea  basins.  Last  haul  analysis  is  a 
method  of  estimating  representative  size-  and  species-distribution  of  the  catch  of  a  fishing 
fleet  based  on  the  contents  of  trawls  which  are  hauled  in  the  presence  of  inspectors  at  sea. 
Figure  20  below  provides  an  overview  of  the  number  of  last  haul  inspections  conducted  in 
2018.  Although  the  results  of  the  last  haul  analysis  point  in  the  direction  of  a  very  poor 
implementation of the landing obligation and of a generally widespread non-compliance, to 
date  Member  States  have  not  introduced  appropriate  measures  to  ensure  control  of  the 
landing  obligation  at  sea  and  as  a  result  there  has  been  a  very  low  detection  rate  for 
infringement. 

Despite recent advancements in REM technologies and the increasing use of these measures 
in fisheries around the world, there has been a very limited uptake of REM control systems 
by  Member  States.  Inspections  at  sea  and  aerial  surveillance  are  widely  regarded  as  being 
inadequate  to  ensure  control  and  enforcement  of  the  landing  obligation,  and  the  use  of 
observers  is  costly  and  impractical.  In  order  to  support  the  Member  States  and  establish  a 
basis  for  the  harmonised  introduction  of  REM  systems,  a  technical  working  group  was 
created by the EFCA in 2018. The group focused on defining REM systems requirements and 
technical  guidelines  to  monitor  the  implementation  of  the  landing  obligation  across  EU 

26 COM(2018)368 final. 

32 

 
 
 
                                                           
waters,  and  its  work  resulted  in  a  set  of  guidelines27.  Member  States  supported  the 
continuation of the Technical Working Group. Aside from this, the EFCA conducted a risk 
assessment at fleet segment level where a series of specific actions, addressing priority threats 
in the most relevant segments and implementing some of the risk treatment measures, were 
agreed upon for the joint deployment programmes in 2019.  

Figure 20. Number of last haul inspections conducted in 2018 

6.1.4.  Market outlets for catches below minimum conservation reference sizes 

One of the challenges identified of successfully implementing the landing obligation involves 
the  market  outlets  for  catches  below  MCRS.  These  landings  of  fish  below  MCRS  that 
Member  States  reported  for  2018  are  generally  low  across  the  different  regions.  No  major 
changes were noticed in the use of the landed material, which is mainly used for fish meal, 
pet  food  or  as  bait  for  pot  fisheries.  Studies  have  been  carried  out  on  how  best  to  use 
unwanted  catches  below  MCRS,  knowing  that  these  can  be  used  in  many  different  ways 
depending on their composition. The results of a 2018 study on the alternative uses of catches 
below  MCRS  suggest  that  although  alternatives  exist  and  transport  links  are  available, 
transport  costs  make  the  alternatives  economically  unattractive.  In  2017  and  2018,  an 
increase was seen in the use of the EMFF by Member States to improve the infrastructure of 
ports and make modifications on board fishing vessels. However, more focus should be given 
to improving selectivity (gear). 

27https://www.efca.europa.eu/sites/default/files/Technical%20guidelines%20and%20specifications%20for%20
the%20implementation%20of%20Remote%20Electronic%20Monitoring%20%28REM%29%20in%20EU%20fish
eries.pdf 

33 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
6.1.5.  State of play – discard plans  

Exemptions  from  the  obligation  are  provided  within  the  common  fisheries  policy,  Article 
15(2) and (4), to ensure successful and feasible implementation. In principle, the details of de 
minimis and survivability exemptions are specified in multiannual plans (MAP). In addition, 
in  the  absence  of  a  MAP,  the  Commission  is  empowered  by  the  co-legislators  to  adopt 
discard  plans  through  delegated  acts  via  joint  recommendations  submitted  by  the  regional 
groups  for  a  period  of  three  years.  For  the  sea  basins  for  which  no  MAP  is  in  place,  the 
possibility to  introduce  exemptions  to  ensure successful  and feasible implementation of the 
landing  obligation  would  be  lost.  This  required  an  extension  of    discard  plans  for  an 
additional period of three years, a proposal agreed upon by the co-legislators28.  

In 2018, amendments to four discard plans for demersal stocks were adopted for the period 
2019  to  2021:  3  discard  plans  covering  the  Atlantic29  were  submitted  separately  by  three 
regional  groups  (Scheveningen,  North  Western  Waters,  and  South-Western  Waters);  and  1 
discard  plan  covering  the  Mediterranean  Sea30  was  submitted  as  a  combined  joint 
recommendation by three regional groups (Pescamed, Adriatica and SudestMed). Despite the 
Member  States  being  pro-active  in  carrying  out  experiments  with  (more)  selective  gears  or 
avoidance  measures,  a  few  of  these  measures  have  been  included  in  the  discard  plans. 
Regional  groups  have  tended  to  focus  on  developing  cases  for  de  minimis  or  high 
survivability  exemptions  rather  than  including  improvement  of  selectivity  in  the  discard 
plans. An annual stabilisation or increase in the use of exemptions in the different seabasins 
can be observed (see Figures 21 and 22). 

28 Regulation (EU) 2017/2092 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 November 2017 amending 
Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 on the Common Fisheries Policy (OJ L 302, p. 1). 
29Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/2035 of 18 October 2018 specifying details of implementation 
of the landing obligation for certain demersal fisheries in the North Sea for the period 2019-2021.  
Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/2034 of 18 October 2018 establishing a discard plan for certain 
demersal fisheries in North-Western waters for the period 2019-2021. 
Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/2033 of 18 October 2018 establishing a discard plan for certain 
demersal fisheries in South-Western waters for the period 2019-2021.  
30 Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/2036 of 18 October 2018 amending Delegated Regulation (EU) 
2017/86 establishing a discard plan for certain demersal fisheries in the Mediterranean Sea.  

34 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Figure 21. Number of de minimis exemptions by area 

Figure 22. Number of high survival exemptions by area 

These  exemptions,  for  example  the  high  survivability  exemption  where  scientific  evidence 
demonstrates high survival rates taking into account the characteristics of the gear, the fishing 
practices and the ecosystem, need to be supported by scientific evidence.  The Commission 
scrutinises the exemptions and the scientific evidence provided by the STECF.  

In  the  Mediterranean,  the  implementation  of  the  landing  obligation  has  been  facilitated 
through the adoption of different discard plans on small pelagic and demersal stocks. In 2018, 
the Commission adopted amendments to the discard plan for demersal stocks, extending the 
applicability of both survivability and de minimis exemptions already granted and introducing 
new ones. As for the Atlantic, the adoption of different discard plans on certain pelagic and 
demersal  fisheries  has  made  it  easier  to  implement  the  landing  obligation,  and  the 
Commission  adopted  the  amendments  to  the  three  discard  plans  for  demersal  stocks.  Some 
exemptions  were granted for a period of 3  years until  the validity of the discard plan ends, 
while others were only granted until the end of 2019. The exemptions granted only until the 
end  of  2019  are  conditional  on  the  Member  States  providing  the  additional  data  and 

35 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
supporting  information  requested  by  the  STECF  to  justify  the  exemption.  This  information 
has to be submitted in order for these exemptions to be extended, and the Commission closely 
scrutinises the progress and development of this. 

6.1.6.  European Maritime Fund for Fisheries 

Because  of  the  fundamental  shift  in  management  approach  that  the  landing  obligation 
requires,  several  measures  are  eligible  for  funding  under  the  EMFF  to  help  meet  the 
obligation.  The  total  amount  of  funding  that  Member  States  committed  to  projects  selected 
under  measures  to  help  implement  the  landing  obligation  increased  from  the  anticipated 
potential  commitment  of  EUR  49  million31  to  EUR  89  million  in  201832.  The  level  of 
commitment accelerated in 2017-2018 with EUR 75 million, compared to EUR 14 million in 
total  between  2014  and  2016.  This  is  the  result  of  the  EMFF  programme  taking  longer  to 
implement  in  most  Member  States  and  the  result  of  the  increased  demand  of  the  measures 
supporting  the  (gradual)  implementation  of  the  landing  obligation.  By  the  end  of  2018, 
Member States had spent EUR 40 million of the total amount of EMFF support committed.  

During 2014-2017, Member States used the EMFF to help implement the landing obligation 
(see Figure 7). In particular, Denmark focused on improving the fishing gear (Article 38  of 
the  EMFF  Regulation)  and  exploring  ways  to  use  unwanted  catches  (Article  42).  Latvia 
invested a significant  amount (i.e.  EUR 6.6 million) to  use unwanted catches  (Article 42). 
The  United  Kingdom  and  Portugal  used  EMFF  support  to  improve  the  port  conditions  for 
handling  unwanted  catches  (Article  43.2).  The  EMFF  investments  by  Member  States  for 
marketing  (Article  68)  may  support  the  use  of  unwanted  catches  but  are  not  the  only 
investment possibilities for this.  

In the Member State reports, there were quite a few references to using funding under Article 
38  of  the  EMFF  Regulation  to  improve  the  selective  fishing  gear  and  handle  unwanted 
catches. This suggests that the Member States increased their efforts to mitigate the problems 
of the landing obligations by improving selectivity as the full entry into force of the landing 
obligations  became  more  imminent.  However,  some  Member  States  for  which  the  landing 
obligation may prove challenging to implement because of their large fleets do not appear to 
have significantly mobilised relevant EMFF resources so far. 

Although an increase is noticed in the total commitment by the Member States, the total of 
EUR 89 million committed remains very low when taking into account the EUR 1.5 billion in 

31 ‘FAME Support Unit, AT01.2 ad-hoc consultancy Landing Obligation Final Report (AT1.2 5/5)’, Version 1.0, 
February 2018. -  These projects include: investments in equipment improving selectivity of fishing gears; 
investments on board or in equipment that eliminates discards; investments in fishing ports, auction halls, 
landing sites and shelters; marketing measures aimed at finding new markets and improving the conditions for 
the placing on the market of fishery products, including unwanted catches landed 
32 The data provided here are based on the EMFF ‘Infosys database’ of 29 April 2019. The reference period is 1 
January 2015 to 31 December 2018.  

36 

 
 
 
                                                           
 
total  funds  available  under  Union  priority  1:  Promoting  environmentally  sustainable, 
resource-efficient, innovative, competitive and knowledge-based fisheries (UP1). 

Figure 23. EMFF measures concerning the landing obligation implemented by Member 
States and their commitment. Source: EMFF AIR 2017, FAME compilation 

EMFF measure 
(article number) 

MSs having implemented the measure 
during 2014-2017 

Three / four highest 
committed EMFF amounts  

Limiting the impact of 
fishing (Article 38) 

9 Member States: BE, DK, EE, ES, FI, IE, 
LT, SE, UK 

Innovation (Articles 
26 and 39) 

12 Member States: BE, DK, EE, ES, FI, 
FR, IE, IT, LV,  PT, SE, UK 

Use of unwanted 
catches (Article 42) 

9 Member States: DE, DK, ES, FI, IE, LV, 
PT, SE, UK 

Ports, etc. (Article 
43(2)) 

7 Member States: DK, ES, IE, PL, PT, SE, 
UK 

Marketing (Article 68)  19 Member States: AT, BE, BG, CZ, DE, 
DK, EE, ES, FI, FR, HR, IE, LT, LV, NL, PL, 
PT, RO, SE, UK 

DK: EUR 9.8 m 

UK: EUR 2.3 m 

EE: EUR 1.5 m 

PT: EUR 2.5 m 

ES: EUR 1.5 m 

DK: EUR 1.3 m 

EE: EUR 1.2 m 

LV: EUR 6.6 m 

UK: EUR 2.5 m 

DK: EUR 1.9 m 

UK: EUR 7.7 m 

PT: EUR 4.2 m 

PL: EUR 1 m 

IT: EUR 10.1 m 

ES: EUR 9.3 m 

HR: EUR 3 m 

Stakeholders have been emphasising the importance of finding market outlets for unwanted 
catches,  which projects carried out under Article 68 of the EMFF Regulation (marketing of 
unwanted  catches)  can  elaborate  on.  Three  Member  States  are  currently  carrying  out  21 
projects under this measure. All the projects involve the marketing and promotion of fisheries 
products.  In particular, they aim to create value added products from the unwanted catches, 
and  most  of  the  beneficiaries  are  small  and  medium-sized  fishing  companies  who  are  also 
involved in processing their catches.  

37 

 
 
 
 
7.  The role of Advisory Councils in 2018  

to 

the 

landing  obligation, 

In  2018,  the  10  Advisory  Councils  submitted  73  advices  to  the  Commission  (Figure  24). 
Most  of  the  2018  recommendations  by  the  ACs  Advisory  Councils  2018  recommendations 
related 
its  challenges  and  possible  solutions.  These 
recommendations were very useful in the context of the intensive discussions on choke issues 
that took place in 2018 in all regional groups. Furthermore, Advisory Councils were involved 
in preparing joint recommendations for four discard plans adopted in 2018. In addition to the 
landing obligation, Advisory Councils provided input for other legislative processes such as 
the  fishing  opportunities  for  2019,  the  post-2020  EMFF  proposal33,  the  control  regulation 
proposal and the technical measures proposal. Advisory Councils have also helped to develop 
the two management strategies for sole in the Bay of Biscay and the Eastern Channel, which 
produced fisheries in line with Fmsy and led to increased quotas for fishermen. 

Most recommendations concerned specific CFP issues and many concerned legislative texts 
under preparation. In most cases, the advice was taken on board as described below. 

33 Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on the European 
Maritime and Fisheries Fund and repealing Regulation (EU) No 508/2014 of the European Parliament and of 
the Council, COM/2018/390 final; Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE 
COUNCIL amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009, and amending Council Regulations (EC) No 
768/2005, (EC) No 1967/2006, (EC) No 1005/2008, and Regulation (EU) No 2016/1139 of the European 
Parliament and of the Council as regards fisheries control, COM/2018/368 final; and Proposal for a 
REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on the conservation of fishery resources 
and the protection of marine ecosystems through technical measures, amending Council Regulations (EC) No 
1967/2006, (EC) No 1098/2007, (EC) No 1224/2009 and Regulations (EU) No 1343/2011 and (EU) No 
1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Council Regulations (EC) No 894/97, 
(EC) No 850/98, (EC) No 2549/2000, (EC) No 254/2002, (EC) No 812/2004 and (EC) No 2187/2005 
COM/2016/0134 final - 2016/074 (COD) 

38 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Figure 24. Number of recommendations received from Advisory Councils 

7.1. Recommendations by Advisory Councils on specific CFP-related issues 

Most of the recommendations made by the Advisory Councils in 2018 related to the landing 
obligation.  They  were  extremely  helpful  in  identifying  potential  choke  situations,  solutions 
and the best available tools to deal with them such as increased swaps, inter-area and inter-
species flexibility. 

In  2018,  4  discard  plans  were  adopted  further  to  a  proposal  by  the  Commission.  These 
discard  plans  were  prepared  on  the  basis  of  joint  recommendations  developed  by  Member 
States  in  consultation  with  the  relevant  Advisory  Councils.  In  2018,  the  Commission  also 
prepared a proposal for a multiannual plan for demersal stocks in the western Mediterranean 
Sea.  The  MEDAC  was  largely  involved  in  its  preparation.  Most  of  the  elements  it 
recommended have been included in the Commission proposal, namely:  

 
 

 

its scope as regards geographical coverage, stocks and fishing gear;  
the use of fishing opportunities based on effort limits in accordance with the scientific 
advice;  
the extension of the ban on bottom towed gears from 50 m to an appropriate depth to 
increase the protection of essential coastal fish habitats;  
the use of spatial-temporal closures to protect spawning and nursery areas; and  

 
  updates  on  the  minimum  landing  sizes  of  species  listed  in  Annex  III  of  Council 

Regulation (EC) No 1967/2006.  

Two elements (i.e. the introduction of electronic monitoring systems for all vessels subject to 
the multiannual plan and the additional support from the EMFF) have not been taken up in 
the proposal, because cross-cutting legal frameworks were considered more suitable for this. 

39 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Advisory  Councils  have  been  actively  reflecting  on  the  United  Kingdom’s  withdrawal  and 
the possible consequences this will have on fisheries. In their letters to the Commission, the 
Advisory  Councils  have  emphasised  the  need  to  maintain  current  fishing  activities  for  EU 
fleets.  

7.2. Contributions of Advisory Councils to legislative proposals under preparation 

Fishing opportunities 

The  Commission  paid  great  attention  to  the  recommendations  of  Advisory  Councils  on 
fishing opportunities when elaborating its proposals. The origin of most differences between 
the Commission’s proposals and the advice of the Advisory Councils is the method used by 
the  Commission  to  set  quotas.  In  the  method  used  by  the  Commission,  the  amount 
corresponding to  de minimis exemptions  was  deducted from  the amount proposed by  ICES 
where calculations have been done on the basis of catches and no longer on landings due to 
full  entry  into  force  of  the  landing  obligation  from  January  2019.  In  some  cases,  the 
Commission proposal was the same as the proposal of the Advisory Councils. This was the 
case  in  the  Baltic  Sea  for  instance,  for  which  the  Commission  proposal  was  the  BSAC 
recommendation for some stocks while for some others the Commission retained the minority 
proposal  by  the  Other  Interest  Groups.  For  some  pelagic  stocks  as  well,  the  Commission 
proposal was the same as the PELAC’s recommendation. 

The EMFF proposal 

Seven Advisory Councils answered the Commission’s consultation on the post-2020 EMFF 
proposal. They all outlined the complexity of the current financial instrument and difficulties 
encountered in getting access to funds. The priorities that some of them identified were the 
permanent  reduction  of  active  fleet  capacity  in  case  of  risk  for  overcapacity;  research  and 
development;  the  improvement  of  health,  safety  and  working  conditions  for  fishers;  or 
additional  control  to  stop  high  level  of  discards.  For  others,  priority  should  be  given  to 
commercialising  and  adding  value  to  fish  products,  collecting  data,  protecting  the 
environment and implementing management plans. All Advisory Councils noted the need to 
support  small-scale  fisheries.  Flexible  access  to  financial  mechanisms  such  as  direct  grants 
and financial instruments was also mentioned. All these priorities and recommendations were 
incorporated in the EMFF proposal, some with certain conditions.  

Although Few Advisory Councils requested the construction of small vessels or the renewal 
of the fishing fleet to be eligible, this was not taken up in the Commission proposal. This is 
because it would inevitably increase fishing capacity, and this has not been eligible for public 
funding in the Union since 2002. Such support would therefore also be inconsistent with the 
EU’s international commitments, notably in the context of Sustainable Development Goal 14, 
and  the  EU’s  position  on  harmful  fisheries  subsidies  at  the  WTO.  However,  the  EMFF 
proposal  includes  support  for  engine  replacement  for  small-scale  fleets  under  certain 
conditions.  

Fisheries control system 

Six  Advisory  Councils  submitted  a  position  paper  for  the  Commission’s  stakeholder 
consultation  on  its  proposal  concerning  the  EU  fisheries  control  system.  All  stated  that  a 

40 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
revision of the current legislative framework is necessary. They emphasised the importance 
of  the  existing  good  cooperation  with  the  EFCA  and  welcomed  its  extended  role.  They 
generally  supported  tracking  vessels  less  than  12m,  but  warned  that  the  system  should  be 
user-friendly,  cost-effective  and  in  general  not  burdensome.  They  also  called  for  a 
harmonised implementation of sanctions and greater clarification on sanctions and the point 
system for serious infringement. 

Advisory Councils expressed reservations on the use of remote electronic tools (e.g. CCTV), 
as they considered that it might constitute an invasion of privacy and business confidentiality. 
However, as the landing obligation is an important element under the CFP that is difficult to 
control and as the level of proof required is practically impossible to obtain using traditional 
means,  the  Commission  proposed  its  utilisation  only  for  certain  vessels  which  would  be 
selected according to their level of discard risk. In this context, major attention will be given 
to personal data protection. 

Technical measures and eel recovery measures  

In 2018, many Advisory Councils sent letters to the Commission regarding inter-institutional 
negotiations  on  the  technical  measures,  stressing  the  need  to  adopt  a  new  framework  for 
technical measures that is fit for purpose before 1 January 2019.  

Advisory Councils were also consulted in 2018 on the measures to be taken for the recovery 
of  European  eel  stocks.  Further  to  the  Advisory  Council’s  recommendation  to  quantify  the 
impact  of  recreational  fisheries  on  eel  stocks,  the  Commission  assessed  internally  the 
available information and data on recreational fisheries. Further to this analysis and the ICES 
scientific  advice  on  the  state  of  the  eel  stock,  eel  recreational  fishing  was  included  in  the 
three-month fishing closure for all eel life stages decided in December 2018 under the 2019 
Fishing Opportunities Regulation. 

41