COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT ANNEX Accompanying the document COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Towards more sustainable fishing in the EU: state of play and orientations for 2021
Date: 2020-06-16
Institutions: Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, European Commission
Subjects: catch of fish, common fisheries policy, epidemic, fishery management, fishing area, fishing fleet, infectious disease, sea fishing, sustainable fisheries

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 16.6.2020  SWD(2020) 112 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT     Accompanying the document COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL  Towards more sustainable fishing in the EU: state of play and orientations for 2021 {COM(2020) 248 final}  
 
 
This  staff  working  document  accompanies  the  Communication  ‘Towards  more  sustainable 
fishing in the EU: state of play and orientations for 2021’. It looks in greater depth at:  

1.  the state of stocks;  
2.  the setting of fishing opportunities for 2020;  
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; 
7.  the role of recommendations by advisory councils in EU decision-making; and  
8.  the actions taken under the EU’s International Ocean Governance Agenda.  

1 

 
 
 
 
 
1.  The state of stocks 

Monitoring results of the common fisheries policy 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  common  fisheries  policy  (CFP)1. 
The  exploitation  rate  relative  to  FMSY  is  calculated  by  three  bodies:  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. Information in this section is generally based on data collected in 2018 and 
analysed and published in 2019. It therefore reflects the state of stocks of fish measured in the 
sea in 2018 as an outcome of the set of management measures implemented (setting TACs, 
capacity  management,  technical  measures, 
landing  obligation,  etc.,  including  effort 
management where applicable). 

The  main  findings  as  well  as  the  graphs  of  the  STECF  technical  report2  are  summarised 
below.  

1.1. Stock status  

1.1.1.  Northeast Atlantic3 

The  status  of  stocks  in  the  northeast  Atlantic  has  steadily  and  significantly  improved. 
Information  was  available to  assess time-trends  in the fishing mortality rate with  respect  to 
the  MSY  rate  from  68  stocks.  The  proportion  of  overexploited  stocks  (i.e.  F>Fmsy) 
decreased  from  around  71%  in  2003  to  38%  in  2018,  the  lowest  value  recorded  since 
monitoring began. The proportion of stocks outside the safe biological limits, computed for 
the 44 stocks for which both reference points are available, also followed a decreasing trend, 
from 70% in 2003 to 32% in 2018 (Figure 1). 

1 Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the, STECF March Plenary could not take place in its usual setting and 
therefore could not endorse the STECF Ad hoc 20-01 report in its usual manner. The STECF adopted this report 
in a written procedure instead.  
2 STECF Ad Hoc 20-01: Monitoring the performance of the Common Fisheries Policy (WP). ISSN 1831-942. 
The  information  provided  in  this  staff  working  document  is  a  selection  of  the  most  relevant  findings  of  the 
STECF report and therefore not an exhaustive reproduction of the whole report. 
3 Reference to the ICES area or ‘northeast 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 northeast Atlantic area, 2003-20184 

1.1.2.  Mediterranean and Black Seas 

In the Mediterranean and Black Seas, 47 stocks were assessed in 2016 but information was 
only  available  for  21  stocks  in  20185.  This  reduced  availability  of  data  makes  historical 
comparisons difficult, and steps are being taken to improve the transparency and information 
transmission  of  fish  stock  assessments  made  in  the  General  Fisheries  Commission  for  the 
Mediterranean (GFCM). For this reason, updated figures for the proportion of stocks fished 
above Fmsy are not sufficiently reliable to be presented. 

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

1.2.1.  Northeast Atlantic area  

In the northeast Atlantic area, the fishing pressure relative to the MSY rate (F/Fmsy) shows 
an overall downward trend between 2003 and 2018 (Figures 2, 3, 5, 6 and Table 1).  

For 12 stocks located in the ICES areas but jointly managed with other international partners, 
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.  

4 Two indicators are presented: blue line: the proportion of overexploited stocks (F>FMSY) within the sampling 
frame (62 to 68 stocks fully assessed, depending on year) and orange line: the proportion of stocks outside safe 
biological limits (F>Fpa or B<Bpa) (out of a total of 44 stocks). 
5 In 2018, GFCM assessed a number of additional stocks, but the data could not be included in the analysis as 
they have not been made available yet by the GFCM. 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
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  2003-2017  period.  Since  2011  when  the  F/Fmsy  peaked  at  its  highest  historical 
level, the value of F/Fmsy has remained at around 2.4. This indicates that the stocks are being 
exploited on average at rates well above the Fmsy CFP objective (Figure 4). There has been a 
slightly decreasing trend since 2011, from 2.7 to 2.4, which indicates a small improvement in 
exploitation. Nevertheless, the instability in the dataset used, due to reduced data availability, 
may have an impact on the results. 

Figure 2. Trends in fishing pressure (northeast Atlantic area and Mediterranean 
and Black Seas), 2003 - 2018 

4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 3. Trend in F/Fmsy in the northeast Atlantic area, 2003 - 20186  

Figure 4. Trend in F/Fmsy in the Mediterranean and Black Seas, 2003 - 20177 

6 Dark grey zone shows the 50% confidence interval; the light grey zone shows the 95% confidence interval.

7 Dark grey zone shows the 50% confidence interval; the light grey zone shows the 95% confidence interval. 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
 
 
Figure 5. Percentage of stocks in the northeast Atlantic area where fishing 
mortality was equal to, or less than, Fmsy, 2003 - 2018 

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

y
s
m
F
e
d
i
s
n

i

s
k
c
o
t
s

f
o
%

0
2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

2012

2014

2016

2018

2020

Year 

Figure 6. Number of stocks by year by ecoregion for which fishing mortality (F) 
did not exceed Fmsy, 2003 - 2018 

6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 1. Number of stocks by ecoregion for which fishing mortality (F) did not 
exceed Fmsy, 2003 - 2018 

EcoRegion  2003  2004  2005  2006  2007  2008  2009  2010  2011  2012  2013  2014  2015  2016  2017  2018 

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

18 
0 
2 

7 

9 

0 

16 
1 
2 

7 

5 

1 

14 
1 
1 

6 

5 

1 

15 
1 
1 

7 

3 

3 

14 
1 
1 

5 

4 

3 

17 
2 
1 

6 

5 

3 

22 
1 
2 

9 

7 

3 

25 
1 
3 

9 

9 

3 

29 
2 
3 

29 
3 
3 

33 
3 
2 

32 
3 
2 

35 
1 
3 

34 
1 
3 

37 
1 
6 

42 
1 
7 

12 

9 

15 

15 

17 

15 

15 

17 

9 

3 

10 

4 

9 

4 

9 

3 

11 

12 

12 

14 

3 

3 

3 

3 

1.3. Trends in biomass  

1.3.1.  Northeast Atlantic area  

There  has  been  improvement  in  the  northeast  Atlantic  area  with  the  biomass  generally 
increasing  since  2007.  For  fully  assessed  stocks,  it  was  48%  higher  in  2018  than  in  2003 
(median value, 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 data series in 2003, although since 2012 there may have been a slight increase 
in biomass. The STECF notes, however, the large uncertainty surrounding this indicator.  

Figure 7. Trends in the indicators of stock biomass 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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 2018 in the EU waters of the ICES area. 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,  54%  of  the  156  TACs  were  covered,  at  least  partially,  by  stock  assessments  that 
provide estimates of Fmsy (or a proxy), 49% by stock assessments that have Bpa, but only 19% 
by stock assessments that provide estimates of MSY-Btrigger (Figures 8 and 9, Tables 28 and 
3). These figures show little change since 2017. 

Figure 8. Number of stocks in the ICES area for which estimates of F/Fmsy are 
available by year, 2003 - 2018 

8 Explanations of the different categories of ICES advice are available at: 
https://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2018/2018/Introduction_to_advice_2018.pdf.  

8 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Table 3. Number of stocks in the ICES area for which estimates of F/Fmsy are 
available by ecoregion and year, 2003 - 2018 

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  2018 
65 
63 
7 
7 
9 
9 
23 
19 
22 
22 
4 
6 

63 
7 
9 
19 
22 
6 

68 
7 
9 
24 
22 
6 

65 
7 
9 
21 
22 
6 

66 
7 
9 
22 
22 
6 

68 
7 
9 
24 
22 
6 

62 
7 
9 
18 
22 
6 

64 
7 
9 
20 
22 
6 

64 
7 
9 
20 
22 
6 

64 
7 
9 
20 
22 
6 

64 
7 
9 
20 
22 
6 

65 
7 
9 
21 
22 
6 

68 
7 
9 
24 
22 
6 

68 
7 
9 
24 
22 
6 

68 
7 
9 
24 
22 
6 

9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
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) 

10 

 
 
 
2.  Setting of fishing opportunities for 2020  

For 2020, the number of total allowable catches (TACs) set in line with Fmsy increased from 
59  in  2019  to  62  in  2020,  representing  79%  of  the  Fmsy-assessed  TACs  fished  in  the 
northeast  Atlantic,  North  Sea  and  Baltic  Sea9.  Of  the  16  Fmsy-assessed  TACs  that  are  not 
fixed at MSY level, 6 are in EU waters and 10 are outside EU waters. The rest of the overall 
expected  catches  for  2020  do  not  have  Fmsy  advice,  but  are  assessed  by  ICES  based  on 
precautionary advice, with  various degrees of data uncertainty. During the discussions with 
Member States, socio-economic considerations were taken into account, with Member States 
sending detailed submissions to the Commission. 

Table 1. MSY-assessed fishing opportunities 2020 (in tonnes) 

Total TAC (Fmsy-
assessed stocks) 

TAC fished at Fmsy 

EU 
stocks 
1,348,039 

EU/Norway jointly 
managed stocks 
534,835 

Coastal state 
stocks 
814,256 

1,339,215 

519,726 

0 

Total 
2,697,130 

1,858,941 

8,824 

15,109 

814,256 

838,189 

TAC not fished at Fmsy 

% fished at Fmsy 
% not fished at Fmsy 

99.3% 

0.7% 

97% 

3% 

0% 

69% 

100% 

31% 

Table 2. MSY-assessed fishing opportunities 2020 (number of TACs) 

TACs with MSY advice 

TACs set in accordance with 
or lower than advice 

TACs set above advice 

2020 

78 

62 

16 

9 The Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the 
European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community (’Withdrawal Agreement’) provides for a 
transition period that started on 1 February 2020 and ends on 31 December 2020. During that transition period, 
unless otherwise provided by the Withdrawal Agreement, Union law applies. 

11 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
% of TACs in accordance 
with or lower than advice 

79% 

12 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3.  Specific actions for the Mediterranean and Black Seas 

The EU continued working, including with its international partners, to improve the situation 
of stocks in the Mediterranean and Black Seas.  

The  Commission  has  further  stepped  up  its  efforts  to  implement  the  2017  Malta 
MedFish4Ever Declaration and the 2018 Sofia  Declaration towards establishing sustainable 
management  of  fisheries  in  these  basins.  Increased  cooperation  and  political  engagement 
enshrined in the Declaration enabled substantial progress to be made in 2019, especially with 
the adoption of ground-breakings measures. The main achievements are summarised below. 

in 

At international level, considering the shared nature of most fish stocks, the EU continued to 
the  competent  regional  fisheries  management 
promote  multilateral  cooperation 
organisations (RFMOs), including the General  Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean 
(GFCM) and the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT). 
With  the  adoption  of  the  MedFish4Ever  (March  2017)    and  the  Sofia  (June  2018) 
Declarations,  there  is  a  detailed  work  plan  to  rebuild  Mediterranean  fish  stocks,  in  close 
collaboration with the Barcelona Convention, and rebuild Black Sea fish stocks to protect the 
region’s  ecological  and  economic  wealth  and  boost  the  sustainable  development  of 
aquaculture  for  the  next  10  years.  This  is  complemented  by  the  regional  plan  of  action  for 
sustainable small-scale fisheries (September 2018).   

Within the framework of the GFCM 

At the 43rd session of the GFCM in November 2019, a record 15 EU proposals were adopted, 
of  which  8  were  binding  recommendations.  They  include  ground-breaking  management 
measures,  such  as  the  MAP  for  demersal  stocks  in  the  Adriatic,  which  is  a  first  MAP 
addressing the alarming state of key stocks, in particular hake, of great relevance for Member 
States such as  Italy and  Croatia.  It  provides for  a cut  of 16% in  effort over 2020 and 2021 
before  further  reductions  are  agreed  on  the  basis  of  scientific  advice.  This  MAP  also 
comprises a pilot  joint  inspection scheme.  Other iconic species  are now  covered by MAPs, 
with the adoption of MAPs for red coral, blackspot seabream in the Alboran Sea, deep water 
shrimp in the Strait of Sicily, as well as dolphinfish under fish aggregating devices (FADs). 

In 2019 the Commission also emphasised the importance of protecting sensitive habitats and 
species,  with  the  adoption  of  GFCM  decisions  on  the  protection  of  vulnerable  marine 
environments and the prevention of by-catches, including through better selectivity of gears. 

Lastly,  and importantly,  2019 saw the  adoption of important  measures leading to  improved 
compliance  and  the  active  fight  against  illegal,  unreported  and  unregulated  fishing.  Of 
particular  notice  are  the  new  powers  given  to  the  GFCM  to  identify  non-compliance  by 
GFCM members, thus strengthening enforcement.  

Within the framework of ICCAT 

Thanks to EU efforts, in November 2019 the International Commission for the Conservation 
of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) adopted a one-year interim measure to end overfishing of bigeye 
tuna in the Atlantic and managed to introduce changes to the management of fishing activities 
on  fishing  aggregating  devices  (FADs)  needed  to  reduce  juvenile  mortality  for  bigeye  and 
yellowfin  tuna.  For  the  first  time,  and  based  on  EU  proposals,  ICCAT  adopted  a  quota  for 
blue sharks. This  ground-breaking decision is  the first  of its kind  for sharks in  ICCAT and 
will provide a platform for the efficient long-term management of sharks. 

13 

 
 
At EU level 

2019  was  an  important  year  for  the  implementation  of  the  common  fisheries  policy  in  the 
Mediterranean with the adoption of the Western Mediterranean MAP. This was the first ever 
MAP in the Mediterranean, providing a comprehensive plan to redress the state of demersal 
stocks in this sub-regional area, in particular through a reduction of 10% of Member States’ 
efforts in 2020 and up to 40% in total by 2025.  

On  the  implementation  of  the  Mediterranean  Regulation10,  some  important  progress  was 
recorded in 2019, in particular with the commitment obtained from Italy, the largest fishing 
nation in the Mediterranean, to cut effort for demersals by up to 40% over 5 years.  

On discard plans, in 2019 the Commission extended the discard plan for demersal fisheries in 
the Mediterranean. Some of the high survivability and de minimis exemptions were extended 
for another 2 years (until December 2021). 

2020 will see a consolidation of the significant progress recorded in 2019. It will be the first 
year  of  full  implementation  of  the  MAP  for  demersal  stocks  in  the  western  Mediterranean 
with  the  first  effort  reduction  and  the  setting  of  fisheries  closures  for  the  protection  of 
juveniles.  2020  will  also  be  the  second  year  in  which  a  specific  fishing  opportunities 
regulation for the Mediterranean and the Black Seas is adopted. 

Fishing opportunities for the Mediterranean and Black Seas 

As a result of the actions mentioned above, in  2019 the Commission  presented for the first 
time a stand-alone proposal for fishing opportunities in these two sea basins, comprising the 
following elements:  

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,  in  particular  the 
multiannual plan for demersal stocks in the Adriatic; and  

c)  set fishing opportunities for the Black Sea, including an autonomous quota for sprat, 
as in previous years, and put forward the regional allocation scheme adopted in 2019 
by the GFCM for turbot. 

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

14 

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

In  line  with  Article  22(4)  of  Regulation  1380/2013  (the  Common  Fisheries  Policy 
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 11. 

This  report  covers  the  year  2018.  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  201912.  These  reports  must  follow  the  2014  Commission 
Guidelines13  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  under  the 
European  Maritime  Fisheries  Fund  (EMFF)14.  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 by the EMFF Regulation.  

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

All  23  coastal  Member  States  submitted  their  reports  for  2018  to  the  Commission15. 
Eleven  national  reports  included  a  new  or  a  revised  action  plan16.  The  Commission 
requested 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  strike  a  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)17.  All  balance  indicators  provided  and  used  in  the 

11 See: https://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu/reports/balance 
12 Article 22(2) 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. 
13  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.  
14 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. 
15 Reports and action plans can be found at: https://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/fishing_rules/fishing_fleet_en 
16 Bulgaria, Croatia, France, Germany, Italy, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain and the UK. 

15 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
STECF Expert Working Group (EWG) 19-13 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.  Regarding  the 
coverage  of  the  data,  the  STECF  concluded  that,  overall,  there  has  been  an 
improvement  in  the  data  quality  and  coverage  compared  to  previous  years  despite 
some discrepancies.  

The STECF confirmed that in general, the national fleet reports from Member States 
provided  pertinent  information  on  the  fleet  composition  and  structure,  together  with 
accompanying action plans for those fleet segments deemed to be out of balance with 
fishing opportunities. It noted, however, that in some national reports, the rationale for 
concluding whether a fleet segment is deemed to be in or out of balance with fishing 
opportunities  is  not  clear  and  in  other  cases  such  an  assessment  is  on  the  basis  of  a 
single indicator value. The STECF recalled that while Member States are best placed 
to provide an assessment of whether a fleet segment is in or out of balance with fishing 
opportunities,  such  an  assessment  cannot  be  made  solely  on  the  basis  of  a  single 
indicator value. The Commission has again drawn the Member States’ attention to the 
need to follow the Commission’s 2014 guidelines in this regard.  

identified,  using  biological,  economic  or 

Since  the  entry  into  force  of  the  2013  common  fisheries  policy,  20  Member  States18 
have 
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 never reached the conclusion that one or several of 
their  fleet  segments  demonstrated  an  imbalance  and  therefore  did  not  submit  action 
plans19.  

technical 

17  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 
advice  regarding  the  common  fisheries  policy  and  repealing  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  199/2008,  OJ  157, 
20.06.2017, p. 1.  
18  Belgium,  Bulgaria,  Croatia,  Cyprus,  Denmark,  France,  Germany,  Greece,  Ireland,  Italy,  Latvia,  Lithuania, 
Malta, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom.  
19 Estonia, Finland and the Netherlands. 

16 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                     
Table 1. Active fleet segments with sustainable harvest indicator out of balance 

Active fleet segments with sustainable harvest indicator out of 
balance (2017 values)*  

Percentage of 
assessed fleet 
segments  out 
of balance (%) 

Area 27 
Atlantic  
Northeast   

Area  37 
Mediterranean 
and Black Sea  

Other 
fishing 
regions 

FI 

IE 

EE 

FR 

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 
14 
2 
14 
4 
2 
34 
10 
2 
14 
15 
3 
3 
4 
6 
2 
7 
6 
1 
42 
15 
20 
Total 
247 
* Sustainable harvest indicator assessment by STECF 19-13 

1 
25 
13 
1 
11 
4 
2 
15 
10 
1 
14 
14 
1 
3 
3 
5 
2 
4 
6 
1 
29 
9 
8 
182 

9 
25 
35 
7 
19 
5 
8 
95 
20 
23 
32 
28 
3 
11 
18 
25 
18 
66 
6 
14 
90 
24 
46 
627 

RO 

MT 

UK 

NL 

ES 

SE 

LV 

PL 

PT 

LT 

SI 

IT 

50 
100 
93 
50 
79 
100 
100 
44 
100 
50 
100 
93 
33 
100 
75 
83 
100 
57 
100 
100 
69 
60 
40 

1 
- 
- 
- 
11 
4 
2 
9 
10 
- 
11 
- 
1 
3 
- 
5 
2 
4 
- 
- 
15 
9 
7 
94 

- 
25 
13 
1 
- 
- 
- 
4 
- 
1 
- 
14 
- 
- 
3 
- 
- 
- 
6 
1 
12 
- 
- 
80 

- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
2 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
2 
- 
1 
5 

To address situations of imbalance, Member States proposed a variety of management 
tools in their action plans, including20: 

- 

- 

fleet  measures  (ban  of  new  vessels,  fleet  conversion,  reduction  of  the  fishing 
capacity, 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); 

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

17 

 
 
 
  
 
                                                           
- 

economic  measures  (support  for  the  development  of  marketing  initiatives  or 
assistance to improve competitiveness). 

The STECF concluded that the information in the action plans was only sufficient to 
note the actions that Member States intended to implement to address any imbalances 
in the fleet segments identified but was not sufficient to quantitatively assess whether 
such measures would be sufficient  to  redress  any  such imbalances. The  Commission 
has written to all Member States to emphasise the need to provide more detailed action 
plans,  specifying  the  objectives  of  the  measures  proposed  for  each  of  the  segments 
identified  as  being  out  of  balance.  This  would  allow  for  a  better  monitoring  of  the 
effectiveness of these action plans. 

In general terms, the Commission expects the STECF to enhance its assessment of the 
soundness of national fleet reports and action plans in the forthcoming period.  

4.2. The overall capacity of the EU fishing fleet 

The number of vessels in the EU fleet continued to decline. In December 2019, the EU 
fleet register (including outermost regions) contained 81 279  vessels with an overall 
capacity of 1 521 189 in gross tonnage (GT) and 6 047 356  in kilowatts (kW). This is 
a  reduction  compared  to  the  previous  year  of  0.45%  in  terms  of  number  of  vessels, 
0,78% in GT and 0,47% in kW. 

The accuracy of the information recorded in the EU fleet register has been enhanced 
following  the  2017  Commission  Regulation  on  the  Union  fishing  fleet  register21, 
which has introduced a procedure that guarantees 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 still not 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. Over the past period verifications of the 
number of vessels  decommissioned with  public aid  were carried out.  Since  February 
2020, a new application of the EU fleet register has become publicly available on the 
Commission’s Europa website22. 

The veridicity of the data recorded in the EU fleet register remains an issue of concern. 
In particular the widespread non-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 established by the Common Fisheries 
Policy Regulation.  

21  Commission  Implementing  Regulation  (EU)  2017/2018  of  6  February  2017  on  the  Union  fishing  fleet 
register, OJ, L 34, 9.5.2017, p.9. 
22 https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fleet-europa  

18 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Figure 2. Compliance with capacity ceilings based on the Union fleet register 
(effective capacity as percentage of capacity ceiling by Member State  
(Mainland fleets), situation in December 2019)  

4.3. Regional assessment 

According to the STECF, in the northeast Atlantic there are still a significant number 
of  fleet  segments  which  most  probably  are  not  in  balance  with  their  fishing 
opportunities. Based on  an assessment using the  sustainable harvest  indicator, out  of 
147  assessed  fleet  segments  active  in  this  area  in  2017,  94  were  out  of  balance.  In 
terms  of  the  level  of  activity  of  the  fleet,  74  fleet  segments  with  10 497  inactive 
vessels are reported for 2018. Twelve fleet segments show a decrease in the number of 
inactive vessels, 7 show an increasing trend. The vessel use indicator shows that out of 
the  231  segments  assessed  for  this  indicator,  70  fleet  segments  appear  not  to  be  in 
balance with their fishing opportunities. An increasing trend in the vessel use indicator 
can be observed for 40 segments, while a decreasing trend is shown for 45 segments.  

Also  in  the  Mediterranean  and  the  Black  Seas,  a  large  number  of  fleet  segments 
may  not  be  in  balance  with  their  fishing  opportunities.  According  to  the  STECF 
analysis,  of  the  91  fleet  segments  for  which  the  sustainable  harvest  indicator  can  be 

19 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
considered meaningful to assess balance or imbalance, it was concluded that 80 fleet 
segments may not be in balance with their fishing opportunities in 2017. The inactive 
vessel indicator shows that in 2017 there were 41 inactive fleet segments for a total of 
6 377 inactive vessels of which 5 916 had an overall length of less than 12 metres. The 
data over the recent  period are influenced by the Croatian authorities’ registration of 
3 500  small-scale  fishing  vessels  in  2015  that  were  formerly  considered  ‘subsistence 
fishing vessels’ falling outside fisheries statistics. The vessel use indicator shows that 
out of the 113 segments assessed for this indicator, 25 fleet segments appear not to be 
in  balance  with  their  fishing  opportunities.  An  increasing  trend  in  the  vessel  use 
indicator can be observed for 12 segments, while a decreasing trend is shown for 13 
segments.  

Finally,  the  fleet  in  the  outermost  regions  has  seen  a  reduction  in  the  number  of 
vessels  and  overall  capacity.  Between  December  2018  and  December  2019,  the 
number  of  vessels  decreased  by  66  vessels  to  a  total  of  4 009.  The  capacity  in  GT 
decreased by 5 007 to 57 507 GT. The capacity in kW decreased by 10 142 to a total 
of  398 322  kW.  STECF  noted  that  despite  the  improved  data  provided  by  Member 
States,  there  remain  a  number  of  fleet  segments  where  it  was  impossible  for  some 
indicators to be determined. The latest report by the STECF provided a listing of those 
segments  in  outermost  regions  where  at  least  one  of  the  biological,  technical  or 
economic indicators was imbalanced. However, at this stage, given the lack of data, in 
particular  regarding  the  biological  indicators,  it  is  impossible  to  draw  definitive 
conclusions on the overall balance/imbalance of these fleet segments.       

Figure 3. Number of vessels in outermost regions (situation in December 2019)  

759 

1156 

France

Portugal

Spain

2094 

20 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 4. Total GT in the outermost regions (situation in December 2019)  

20447 

23988 

13072 

France

Portugal

Spain

Figure 5. Total KW in the outermost regions (situation in December 2019)  

48432 

67987 

281903 

France

Portugal

Spain

4.4. CONCLUSIONS 

The  overall  capacity  of  the  EU  fleet  (outermost  regions  included)  continued  to 
decrease in number of vessels, GT and kW.   

In  2019,  all  23  coastal  Member  States  complied  with  their  obligation  to  report 
information  on  the  capacity  of  their  fleet  segments.  However,  some  Member  States 
will need to readjust their reporting to better comply with the Commission’s guidelines 
and  address  discrepancies  between  their  national  reports  and  the  findings  of  the 

21 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
STECF.  Eleven  of  the  Member  State  reports  included  a  new  or  revised  action  plan 
with a large variety of measures to address overcapacity, but more needs to be done to 
make the action plans more specific, timebound and objective driven.  

In December 2019, the fishing capacity of the EU fleet (outermost regions excluded) 
was 21 % below the capacity ceilings for tonnage and 15% 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.   

22 

 
 
 
 
 
5.  Economic performance of the EU fishing fleet 

According  to  preliminary  data  submitted  by  MemberMember  States,  the  economic 
performance of the EU fleet continued to remain generally high, with an average net 
profit  margin  of  18%  in  2018.  The  projections  for  the  economic  performance  of  the 
EU fleet in 2020 remain highly uncertain so far due to the combined effects of decline 
in demand and supply chain disruption resulting from the COVID-19 health crisis.  

COVID-19 pandemic 

Early  indications  suggest  that  the  fishery  sector  has  been  hard  hit  by  the  market 
disruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, as demand has seen a sudden decline. 
The  decline  in  demand,  and  subsequent  drop  in  first  sale  prices,  has  caused  many 
vessels  to  cease  activity  as  it  has  become  no  longer  profitable.  The  closure  of 
HORECA  channels  has  had  significant  impacts  on  the  EU  fishing  fleet’s  activities, 
especially  for  fleet  segments  targeting  high-value  species  and  small-scale  coastal 
fisheries which tried to maintain some limited activity to reach a new balance between 
the supply and the reduced demand.  

Data  from  fish  auctions  in  Spain,  France,  the  Netherlands  and  Denmark  report  high 
volatility (increases and decreases) as a result of either less demand or less supply, but 
overall  first  sale  prices  tend  to  be  lower  as  a  result  of  containment  measures. 
Fishermen, retailers and processors are also confronted with limited stocking capacity 
(e.g. freezing products). 

In addition to these demand and supply problems, sanitary measures (distance between 
crew  members  at  sea)  cannot  be  guaranteed  for  some  fisheries,  resulting  in  activity 
ceasing and/or fishing seasons being postponed. 

On  the  other  hand,  low  fuel  prices  in  2020  will  help  to  ease  operating  costs  in  EU 
fleets. 

To  tackle  this  unprecedented  situation,  the  Commission  has  proposed  a  range  of 
actions addressing the urgent challenges that the EU seafood community faces. These 
measures  will  help  to  protect  thousands  of  jobs  in  the  EU’s  coastal  regions  and 
maintain food security. Such measures include: i) extending the scope of the European 
Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) to allow compensation to be paid to fishermen 
for  economic  losses  caused  by  a  public  health  crisis,  ii)  granting  EMFF  support  to 
fishermen for the temporary cessation of fishing activities due to the coronavirus, iii) 
reallocating  financial  resources  within  the  operational  programme  of  each  Member 
State  in  a  more  flexible  manner  and  v)  simplifying  the  procedure  for  amending 
operational  programmes  in  order to  introduce the new measures.  In addition  to  these 
EMFF measures, the adoption of a new temporary framework for State aid will enable 
Member  States  to  provide  relief  to  economic  operators  active  in  the  fishery  sectors 
who have been hit by the pandemic by allowing them to grant up to EUR 120 000 in 
State aid (national funding) per undertaking. 

Findings of the STECF report on the economic performance of the EU fishing fleet 

23 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The 2019 STECF report on the economic performance of the EU fishing fleet gives a 
detailed and comprehensive narrative of the status  of the fishing  fleets  in  2017, with 
preliminary  data  for  2018  and  forecasts  for  2019.  These  results  confirm  that,  on 
average,  the  EU  fleets  continued  to  be  profitable,  with  slightly  lower  figures  than  in 
2016, yet still at historical heights. The positive results have been driven by three main 
factors: 

  continued relatively low fuel costs resulting from lower fuel consumption and 

relatively low fuel prices. 

  stable  or,  in  some  cases,  increased  average  first  sale  prices  for  a  number  of 

commercially important species.  

  progress  in  achieving  sustainable  fisheries.  A  positive  economic  trend  is 
observed for a number of fleets targeting stocks exploited sustainably (such as 
anglerfish  and  megrim  in  the  Irish  Sea;  sole  in  the  western  English  Channel 
and megrim in the North Sea), as this tends to improve their profitability and 
salaries.  Conversely,  fleets  targeting  overexploited  stocks  tend  to  register 
poorer economic performance. 

At sea basin level, there are some noteworthy differences. Fishing fleets operating in 
the Atlantic continue to present, on average, higher profits than fleets operating in the 
Mediterranean. Yet, while profitability remained stable or decreased in the Atlantic, an 
increase was observed in the Mediterranean and the Black Sea.  

5.1. Employment and salaries 

In  2017,  the  EU  fishing  fleet  directly  employed  a  total  of  151 981  fishers, 
corresponding  to  107 807  full-time  equivalents  (FTEs).  Compared  to  2016,  they  fell 
0.2%  and  6%  respectively.    The  fall  in  employment  alongside  the  2%  increase  in 
personnel costs meant a 7.6% increase in annual average wage per FTE (EUR 28 652 
compared to EUR 26 370 in 2016).  

Employment has steadily decreased over the period of analysis (2008-2017): -13% in 
total jobs and -14.7% in FTE, while average annual wages per FTE increased by 38% 
in the same period. 

24 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 1. Trends in employment (in persons employed and FTE) 

Figure 2. Variation in employment and average wage (based on 2008=100) 

5.2. Main economic indicators 

The  EU  fishing  fleet  generated  EUR 7.7  billion  in  total  revenue  in  2017,  while  total 
costs amounted to EUR 6.4 billion (i.e. 83% of the revenue generated). In addition, the 
fleet  received  EUR 51.6  million  in  subsidies  and  EUR 39.8  million  in  income  from 
leasing  out  fishing  rights.  Of the costs incurred,  89% were operating costs (EUR 5.7 
billion), and the remaining 11% were capital costs (EUR 688 million).  

The  Spanish  fishing  fleet  continues  to  obtain  the  highest  revenue  (EUR 2  billion),  a 
quarter of the total. It is followed by the French fleet (EUR 1.35 billion). 

25 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 3. Trends and variations in revenue by main type of fishing activity23  

23 SCF stands for small-scale coastal fleet, LSF – for large-scale fleet, DWF – for distant-water fleet. 

26 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
5.3. General trends by fishing region 

Collectively, all regional fleets generated gross profits over the period analysed, with 
the following breakdown per fishing region: 

North Sea and Eastern Arctic region 

The  North  Sea  and  Eastern  Arctic  fleet  produced  1.6  million  tonnes  in  weight  and 
EUR 1.7  billion  in  value.  The  revenue  in  2017  showed  a  5%  decrease  over  2016. 
Gross value added (GVA) was over EUR 1 billion in 2017 (-11% to 2016) and gross 
profits EUR 547 million (-16%). 

Figure 4. Trends in revenue and profits for Member States fleets operating in 
the North Sea & Eastern Arctic 

The Baltic Sea region 

The  weight  and  value  of  landings  were  632 538  tonnes  and  EUR 217  million 
respectively. The Baltic fleet employed 8 533 fishers, i.e. 4 422 FTEs. 

In  general,  the  Baltic  fleet  was  profitable  in  2017,  generating  gross  and  net  profits. 
Nevertheless, four Member States fleets (Denmark, Finland, Germany and Lithuania) 
suffered  aggregated  net  losses.  The  revenue  generated  was  estimated  at  EUR 226 
million. GVA was EUR 112 million, gross profit was EUR 44.3 million and net profit 
was EUR 9.4 million.  

27 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 5. Trends in revenue and profits for Member States fleets operating in 
the Baltic Sea 

The North Western Waters region 

The  Member  States  fishing  in  the  North  Western  Waters  are  Belgium,  Denmark, 
France, Germany, Ireland, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain and the United 
Kingdom. The French, UK and Irish fisheries have the highest level of landings in the 
North Western Waters. The Irish fleet is also the most dependent on the region, with 
85%  of  the  country’s  landed  value  coming  from  that  region.  The  North  Western 
Waters comprised 5 664 active vessels (+1.6% over 2016). 

The  weight  and  value  of  landings  amounted  to  1.09  million  tonnes  and  EUR 1.57 
billion respectively. They were mainly generated by the large-scale fleet (LSF).). The 
volume of landings increased but the fishing effort decreased, i.e. the fleets spent 473 
thousand days at sea. For 2017, total landings in weight increased by 5% compared to 
2016. Additionally, fuel prices rose slightly while fuel consumption was down 1%. 

Employment was estimated at 15 500 jobs or 11 000 FTEs, a 7% decrease compared to 
2016. The average yearly wage per FTE for the small-scale coastal fleet (SCF) rose by 
8%  in  2017  (to  around  EUR 38 000),  while  for  the  LSF  it  increased  by  12%  to 
EUR 53 500,  the  highest  value  recorded  for  the  2010-2017  period.  As  for  labour 
productivity,  it  continues  an  increasing  trend  for  the  LSF  and  remains  flat  for  the 
SSCF. 

The revenue generated amounted to EUR 1.7 billion. GVA was estimated at EUR 949 
million,  a  1%  increase  from  2016.  Gross  profit  came  to  EUR 397  million  and  net 
profits totalled EUR 259 million.  

28 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 6. Trends in revenue and profits for Member State fleets operating in the 
North Western Waters 

South Western Waters region 

Total employment in the region was 37 000 (24 600 FTE). Figures show a decreasing 
trend (-3.7% since 2010). Average annual  wages per FTE since 2010 have increased 
for SSCF (+8%) and for the LSF (+18%).  

The weight and value of landings generated were 557 600 tonnes and EUR 1.23 billion 
respectively. Compared to 2016, landings in weight went up by 3.3% and in value by 
1%.  

Revenue  for  the  South  Western  Waters  was  EUR 1.3  billion,  a  0.7%  decrease  over 
2016.  The  GVA  was  EUR 832  million,  while  gross  profits  were  EUR 243  million. 
Overall, the fleet was profitable and registered net profits of EUR 152 million. 

Figure 7. Trends in revenue and profits for Member State fleets operating in the 
Southern Western Waters 

29 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The Mediterranean Sea region 

The fleet generated about 46 217 jobs, corresponding to 30 630 FTEs (-7% compared 
to 2016). In 2017, annual wages saw a 6.5% increase for SSCF and a 6.7% increase for 
LSF  compared  to  2016.  The  weight  and  value  of  landings  generated  by  the  fleet  in 
2017  amounted  to  approximately  363 000  tonnes  (+1%  compared  to  2016)  and 
EUR 1.46  billion  (+8%),  respectively.    Energy  consumption  fell  by  5%  (505  million 
litres). 

In 2017, labour productivity (GVA per FTE) for both the SSCF and the LSF increased 
by around 14% compared to 2016. The revenue generated by the Mediterranean fleet 
in 2017 was estimated at about EUR 1.5 billion (+5% compared to 2016). GVA stood 
at  EUR 922  million  (+7%),  gross  profit  was  at  EUR 430  million  (+16%)  and  net 
profits of EUR 227 million. All Member States reported net profits, with the exception 
of Malta. The profit figures were the highest over the covered period. 

Figure 8. Trends in revenue and profits for Member States fleets operating in 
the Mediterranean Sea 

The Black Sea region  

Landings in weight and value increased in 2017. However, the fishing effort remained 
largely  unchanged.  The  weight  of  landings  was  approximately  17 000  tonnes  worth 
EUR 9.22 million.  

Employment  in  the  region  was  estimated  at  2 353  jobs  (776  FTEs).  The  revenue 
generated by the Black Sea fleet was EUR 9.6 million, an increase of 4% compared to 
2016.  GVA  was  estimated  at  EUR 6.2  million  (+4%  over  2016),  gross  profit  was 
EUR 3.9 million (+7%) and net profit was EUR 3 million. 

30 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 9. Trends in revenue and profits for Member State fleets operating in the 
Black Sea 

EU outermost regions  

The  fleet  in  the  Canary  Islands:  generated  EUR 50.2  million  in  revenue,  EUR 36 
million in GVA, EUR 3.7 million in gross profits and EUR 2 million in net profits.  

The Madeiran fleet: generated EUR 16 million in revenue, EUR 12.3 million in GVA, 
EUR 4 million in gross profits and EUR 3.3 million in net profits.  

The Azorean fleet: generated EUR 38.5 million in revenue, EUR 27.6 million in GVA 
and  EUR 11.6  million  in  gross  profits.  Overall,  the  fleet  was  profitable  with  a  net 
profit of EUR 6.6 million. All fleet segments were profitable. 

Analysis for the rest of the fleets was not possible due to a lack of data or incomplete 
data.  

31 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
6. Implementation of the landing obligation  

As  in  previous  years,  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) 
2015/81224. Since 2016, these reports have been  based on a questionnaire developed 
by the STECF.  

The  Commission  received  reports  from  18  Member  States25  (Figure  1)  and  five 
advisory councils. As with previous years, care is required in interpreting year-on-year 
change, since the composition of respondents in the different areas has changed. It is 
also important to recognise that changes reported in a questionnaire do not necessarily 
imply a successful outcome for the landing obligation. Similarly, failure to respond or 
reports showing no change do not  necessarily mean an unsuccessful outcome. To be 
able to give the best picture of implementation, the Commission has used other sources 
of information aside from the reports.  

Effective  and  successful  implementation  of  the  landing  obligation  will  depend  on:  i) 
confidence  that  there  has  been  significant  change  in  fishing  practices  at  sea,  ii) 
adequate  monitoring  and  control  of  all  fishing  operations  to  ensure  that  catches  are 
fully accounted for and iii) a significant reduction in unwanted catches.  

24 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.  
25 The report from Lithuania was received but due to transmission issues was not part of the assessment. 

32 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Figure 1. Member State reports, 2016-2019 (STECF 20-01adhoc report) 

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

  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 socio-economic 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 vessel fittings in relation to the landing 
obligation;  
for  each  fishery  concerned,  information  on  the  difficulties  encountered  in 
implementing the landing obligation and recommendations to address them. 

 

 

 

This  section  focuses  on  these  elements  as  well  as  on  the  state  of  play  of  the  discard 
plans  and  on  control  and  enforcement.  It  also  provides  an  update  of  the  use  of  the 
EMFF to implement the landing obligation. 

33 

Key20162017-2019BelgiumNo ReportNo ReportBulgariaNo informationNo changeCroatiaCyprusDenmarkSignificant informationSignificant changeEstoniaFinlandFranceGermanyGreeceIrelandItalyLatviaLithuaniaMaltaNetherlandsPolandPortugalRomaniaSloveniaSpainSwedenUnited KingdomMember States2016201720182019 
 
 
 
 
 
 
5.4. Progress report  

The  changes  reported  in  2019  tend  to  refer  to  activities  taking  place  across  the  different 
elements  of  the  Regulation.  Many  Member  States  have  provided  more  quantitative  data. 
Information on discard quantities is more detailed, but based on the questionnaires, it is still 
not  possible  to  say  definitively  whether  there  have  been  any  changes  in  discard  quantities. 
Member States and the advisory councils continue to report that the fishing industry remains 
negative for the landing obligation. This is backed up by the presentations given at European 
Parliament  hearings,  where  industry  representatives  routinely  rejected  the  policy  as 
unworkable and ill-conceived. Evidence to suggest behavioural change in operating practices 
when at sea is still limited, and even with full implementation in 2019, maintaining ‘business 
as usual’ seems to be the main objective. 

5.4.1.  Implementation of the landing obligation – state of play  

Overall,  it  appears  that  the  landing  obligation  continues  to  have  a  low  impact  on  Member 
States and the fishing industry. This  is  contrary to  indications given by  Member States and 
the advisory councils in 2018 that impacts would increase with full implementation in 2019. 
Most Member States in the North Western Waters, South Western Waters, Baltic and North 
Sea  have  put  more  focus  on  control  and  enforcement,  but  compliance  in  general  would 
appear  to  be  still  low.  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 monitoring such catches are major concerns and areas that 
have not  been addressed.  In the Mediterranean and the  Black Sea, the impression  given by 
Member  States  and  supported  in  the  case  of  the  Mediterranean  by  the  advisory  councils  is 
that the impacts of the landing obligation will be minimal if the current exemptions remain in 
place. However, the reliance on exemptions suggest there is a lack of willingness or difficulty 
to  change  operational  behaviour  or  take  steps  to  increase  selectivity.  Most  of  the  gaps  and 
weaknesses  highlighted  in  the  2018  reports  covering  implementation  remain,  and  full 
implementation is still some way off from being achieved in all sea basins. 

More Member States than in the past have adjusted their national quota management systems. 
Inter-species  quota  flexibility  has  mostly  not  been  used  but  inter-annual  flexibility 
mechanisms  continue  to  be  used  extensively.  There  is  no  evidence  of  any  significant 
increases  in  quota  swapping  between  Member  States,  and  this  is  confirmed  by  the 
Commission’s  QUOTA  database  (Figure  2).  However,  it  remains  an  important  mechanism, 
and  there  are  specific  cases  where  Member  States  report  that  quota  swaps  have  helped  to 
avoid choke situations. The quota pool put in place for 2019 to provide quotas for by-catch 
species for which Member States had no quota is thought to be a good initiative that should 
be  continued,  even  if  these  quotas  have  not  been  fully  utilised.  Given  that  the  STECF 
analysed the by-catch reduction plan of the Member States in 201926 and concluded that the 
measures were not  effective enough to  increase  selectivity and therefore reduce by-catches, 
the  Commission  aimed  at  linking  remedial  measures  and  control  measures  to  the  by-catch 
quota pool for 2020.  

26 STECF PLEN 19-02, https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/publication/eur-scientific-and-technical-research-
reports/scientific-technical-and-economic-committee-fisheries-stecf-61st-plenary-meeting-report-plen.  

34 

 
 
                                                           
To  increase  transparency  and  facilitate  the  swapping,  the  Commission  publishes  the  quota 
swaps list per year on a publicly available website27. The file for the current year is updated 
on a weekly basis. 

Figure 2a - b: 1997 – 2020 quota swaps28 

27 After notifying the Commission, the Member States may exchange all or part of the fishing opportunities 
allocated to them (Article 16(8) Common Fisheries Policy Regulation). The quota swaps are published every 
year by the Commission on https://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/fishing_rules/tacs_en. 
28 Source: Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, European Commission (QUOTA). The year 
2020 is not completed.  

35 

 
 
 
  
 
 
                                                           
Figure 2.C Number of quota swaps per Member State 1997 - 2020 

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

Most Member States report that it remains difficult to assess the socio-economic impacts of 
the landing obligation, indicating that problems remain minimal across sea basins. For 2019, 
very  limited  information  was  supplied,  and  anything  provided  merely  repeated  the  same 
information provided in 2017 and 2018. However, extensive modelling of the impacts of the 
landing obligation were provided in the DiscardLess29 and Minouw30 projects funded under 
the Horizon 2020 programme. The general conclusion was that while there were initial short-
term negative economic impacts, in the longer term these were more positive.  

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 2020.  

During 2019, as in previous years, there was again no clear evidence of the landing obligation 
causing safety issues on board fishing vessels; reports from Member States were identical to 
the  previous  years  in  that  no  incidents  or  issues  were  recorded.  Several  Member  States 
reiterated their perception that such impacts exist and will become issues over time the longer 
the landing obligation is fully enforced. However, no substantive evidence has been provided 
to  support  this  assertion.  Other  than  in  several  Member  States,  the  reports  for  2019  saw 

29 http://www.discardless.eu/ 
30 http://minouw-project.eu/ 

36 

 
 
 
                                                           
 
 
limited funding provided under the EMFF to  improve the  infrastructure of  ports as well as 
modifications on board fishing vessels. Specific actions so far include the provision of cold 
storage facilities onshore and aboard vessels for the storage of unwanted catches.  

UK House of Lords reports on implementation and enforcement of the landing obligation 

The EU Energy and Environment Sub-Committee of the UK House of Lords published a report on 
8 February 2019 on the implementation and enforcement of the EU landing obligation inquiry, 
and a second report in July 2019. The government responded in April 2019 and October 2019. 
The debate took place in January 2020. When the Committee examined the issue, they found 
little evidence of the landing obligation being followed to date and an almost unanimous view 
that the UK was not ready for full implementation. The report stresses the importance of having 
mechanisms in place to monitor and enforce compliance. One of the ways suggested in the 
report is the use of remote electronic monitoring. 

‘Landing obligation as a policy instrument can be compared to a speed limit on the highway – 
you cannot deploy inspectors everywhere. It requires a cultural shift between government, 
regulators and the industry for successful implementation: a partnership.’ [Hearing 23 January 
2020] 

6.1.3  Control and enforcement 

The European Commission has a responsibility to control and evaluate the application of the 
rules of the common fisheries policy by Member States (Article 96(1) of Council Regulation 
(EC)  No  1224/2009).  In  fulfilling  this  role,  the  European  Commission  launched  an  audit 
series in 2020 to evaluate the measures adopted by Spain, France, Belgium, Ireland and the 
Netherlands  to  ensure  control,  enforcement  and  inspection  of  activities  relevant  to  the 
landing obligation and to ensure the full documentation of all fishing trips and relevant data. 
Member  States  were  selected  on  the  basis  of  those  having  access  to  by-catch  quotas  as 
provided for by Council Regulation (EU) 2019/124. To date, audits have been conducted in 
Spain and France and audits in Belgium, Ireland and the Netherlands will follow, depending 
on the restrictions imposed by the COVID-19 health crisis.  

The preliminary findings of the first audits indicate that the quantities recorded as discarded 
and the landed quantities of catches below the MCRS are very low. This information differs 
from scientific data and indicates extensive unreported discarding. This latter finding is also 
supported by various reports, including three European Fisheries Control Agency’s (EFCA) 
compliance  evaluation  reports  on  the  implementation  of  the  landing  obligation,  which  all 
found that non-compliance with  the landing obligation  was  widespread in specific fisheries 
during  the  evaluation  periods  (2015/2016-2017)  in  the  North  Sea  and  North  Western 
Waters31. 

31 Link to executive summaries: https://www.efca.europa.eu/en/content/pressroom/evaluation-suggests-non-
compliance-landing-obligations-certain-fisheries-north-sea. 

37 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
 
Reporting by fishermen continues to be sporadic for fish discarded under exemptions (i.e. de 
minimis,  high  survivability  and  damaged  by  predators),  for  discards  of  fish  currently  not 
subject to the landing obligation and for catches of fish below MCRS. More Member States 
(Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Greece, Ireland, the Netherlands, Portugal and Spain) 
than  in  previous  years  provided  quite  detailed  information  on  such  catches  for  2019,  while 
others provided no data, claiming there were still difficulties in recording such catches in the 
electronic  recording  system  (ERS).  Despite  the  better  reporting  of  catches  discarded  under 
exemptions and landings of catches below MCRS, which is evidenced by the Member States’ 
reports  for  2019,  it  is  extremely  doubtful  that  they  reflect  the  true  quantities  being  caught. 
Observer  data  from  ICES  and  last-haul  analysis  by  EFCA  (see  Figure  3)  indicate  large 
discrepancies between what is reported and what is observed. Member States should ramp up 
efforts to ensure better reporting of such catches. Until there is sufficient confidence that all 
the catch has been accurately accounted for, uncertainty will remain. The fact that such a high 
proportion of on-board fishing operations takes place without scrutiny remains a serious issue 
for successful implementation of the landing obligation. 

Member  States  still  rely  on  conventional  controls  such  as  inspections  at  sea,  inspections  at 
landing and aerial surveillance which are ineffective at ensuring control and enforcement of 
the landing obligation at sea and are limited in promoting a culture of compliance among all 
operators and fishermen. This failure is very serious in the context of monitoring compliance 
with  the  landing  obligation  and  for  ensuring  that  all  catches  are  documented  in  accordance 
with  European  Union  legislative  provisions.  This  deficiency  poses  a  significant  risk  to  the 
long-term  sustainability  objectives  of  the  common  fisheries  policy,  especially  when  the 
capacity of the Member States’ fleets and the biological status of certain stocks are taken into 
consideration.  The  Commission  supported  the  use  of  the  REM  tools,  such  as  closed-circuit 
television  and  sensor  data,  in  its  proposal  for  a  revised  Fisheries  Control  System32.  The 
absence  of  meaningful  control  measures  in  2020  is  disappointing,  considering  the  time 

Synthesis of the landing obligation measures and discard rates 

The Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries (DG MARE) launched a study in 2019 ‘Synthesis of the 
landing obligation measures and discard rates’, which was carried out by two consortia led by Wageningen Marine 
Research and MRAG Europe Limited, contracted by the European Commission’s Executive Agency for Small- and 
Medium-Sized Enterprises (EASME). 

The objective of the study is to identify and qualitatively assess the integration of (management) measures put in 
place to facilitate the implementation of the landing obligation, including an overview of the measures adopted by 
Member States to ensure control, enforcement and the detailed documentation of all trips. In order for this 
assessment to take place, an overview of the catch composition and discard patterns will be incorporated. 

This study will be based upon all the previous projects and studies carried out, such as DiscardLess, concerning the 
landing obligation as well as other information sources.  

afforded to Member States’ control authorities to apply effective controls since the phasing-in 
period that started in January 2015. This effort by Member States resulted, for example, in a 

32 COM(2018)368 final. 

38 

 
 
                                                           
 
set  of  guidelines33  published  with  the  EFCA  in  2019  focused  on  defining  REM  systems 
requirements  and  technical  guidelines  to  monitor  the  implementation  of  the  landing 
obligation  across  EU  waters.  As  well  as  trials  and  pilot  studies  conducted  by  the  Member 
States on the testing of the REM tools. 

33 
https://www.efca.europa.eu/sites/default/files/Technical%20guidelines%20and%20specifications%20for%20the
%20implementation%20of%20Remote%20Electronic%20Monitoring%20%28REM%29%20in%20EU%20fish
eries.pdf.  

39 

 
 
                                                           
Figure 3. Number of last-haul inspections conducted in 2019 

6.1.4  Market outlets for catches below minimum conservation reference sizes 

Landings  of  fish  below  the  MCRS  reported  for  2019  by  Member  States  are  generally  low 
compared  to  overall  catches  (typically  less  than  1-2%  of  total  catches)  across  the  different 
regions.  Not  all  Member  States  have  provided  quantitative  information,  so  the  picture  is 
incomplete. The landed material below MCRS continues to be used for fish meal, pet food or 
as bait for pot fisheries, with low economic returns. Two studies of alternative uses of below 
MCRS catches are reported for 2019 and suggest that although alternatives exist and although 
transport  links  are  available,  the  prohibitive  cost  to  the  fishermen  of  storage  and  transport 
makes the alternatives still economically unattractive. This is supported by a study carried out 
by the European Market Observatory for Fisheries and Aquaculture Products (EUMOFA) on 
the market outlets for unwanted catches34. Closer collaboration between fishers and producer 
organisations with ports and market operators who have infrastructure to collect fish offal and 
other  raw  material  for  fishmeal  and  fish  oil  production  could  potentially  reduce  the  cost 
burden  to  the  industry  of  handling  these  unwanted  catches.  Several  Member  States  and  the 
South  Western  Waters  Advisory  Council  suggest  that  the  legislation  should  be  changed  to 
allow such catches to be used for charitable purposes.  

6.1.5  State of play – discard plans  

To  ensure  successful  and  feasible  implementation,  exemptions  from  the  obligation  are 
provided under Article 15(2) and (4) of the common fisheries policy. In principle, the details 
of  de  minimis  and  survivability  exemptions  are  specified  in  multiannual  plans  (MAP).  In 

34 https://www.eumofa.eu/documents/20178/84590/Ex.+Summary+-
+Market+outlets+for+unwanted+catches.pdf 

40 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
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 3 years. For those sea basins with no MAP, the possibility to 
introduce  exemptions  to  ensure  successful  and  feasible  implementation  of  the  landing 
obligation would have been lost. This required an extension of discard plans for an additional 
period of 3  years, a proposal agreed upon by the co-legislators35. Most of the discard plans 
will reach the total period of 6 years by the end of 2020 and 2021.  

There are currently 11 discard plans in place: 

1)  Commission  Delegated  Regulation  (EU)  2018/190  of  24  November  2017  amending 
Delegated  Regulation  (EU)  No  1393/2014  establishing  a  discard  plan  for  certain 
pelagic fisheries in North-Western waters; 

2)  Commission  Delegated  Regulation  (EU)  2018/188  of  21  November  2017  amending 
Delegated  Regulation  (EU)  No  1394/2014  establishing  a  discard  plan  for  certain 
pelagic fisheries in South-Western waters; 

3)  Commission  Delegated  Regulation  (EU)  2018/189  of  23  November  2017  amending 
Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1395/2014 establishing a discard plan for certain small 
pelagic fisheries and fisheries for industrial purposes in the North Sea; 

4)  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/161 of 23 October 2017 establishing a 
de minimis exemption to the landing obligation for certain small pelagic fisheries in 
the Mediterranean Sea; 

5)  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/211 of 21 November 2017 establishing 

a discard plan as regards salmon in the Baltic Sea; 

6)  Commission  Delegated  Regulation  (EU)  2019/2239  of  1  October  2019  specifying 
details  of  the  landing  obligation  for  certain  demersal  fisheries  in  North-Western 
waters for the period 2020-2021; 

7)  Commission  Delegated  Regulation  (EU)  2019/2237  of  1  October  2019  specifying 
details  of  the  landing  obligation  for  certain  demersal  fisheries  in  South-Western 
waters for the period 2020-2021; 

8)  Commission  Delegated  Regulation  (EU)  2019/2238  of  1  October  2019  specifying 
details  of  implementation  of  the  landing  obligation  for  certain  demersal  fisheries  in 
the North Sea for the period 2020-2021; 

9)  Commission  Delegated  Regulation  (EU)  2020/4  of  29  August  2019  amending 
Delegated  Regulation  (EU)  2017/86  establishing  a  discard  plan  for  certain  demersal 
fisheries in the Mediterranean Sea; 

10) Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/306 of 18 December 2017 laying down 
specifications  for  the  implementation  of  the  landing  obligation  as  regards  cod  and 
plaice in Baltic Sea fisheries; 

11) Commission  Delegated  Regulation  (EU)  2020/3  of  28  August  2019  establishing  a 

discard plan for Venus shells (Venus spp.) in certain Italian territorial waters. 

The  regional  groups,  the  Commission  and  the  advisory  councils  worked  hard  together  to 
ensure  optimal  implementation  of  the  landing  obligation  in  accordance  with  the  necessary 

35 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). 

41 

 
 
 
                                                           
justification 

in  2019.  To  facilitate 
the  delegated  regulations  adopted 
scientific 
implementation of the landing obligation for challenging fisheries or cases, the co-legislators 
provided for exemptions.  

in 

42 

 
 
 
 
7. The role of advisory councils in 2019  

In  2019,  the  10  advisory  councils36  submitted  72  recommendations  to  the  Commission, 
versus  73  in  2018.  These  recommendations  covered  a  large  range  of  subjects,  from  issues 
relating  to  the  common  fisheries  policy  to  Commission  proposals,  specific  environmental 
issues  or  issues  relating  to  the  integrated  maritime  policy.  In  addition,  several  legislative 
proposals  were  adopted  in  2019  which  took  on  board  previous  recommendations  received 
from advisory councils. 

Figure 1. Number of recommendations received from advisory councils 

Subjects covered by ACs in the 2019 recommendations 

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

36 These 10 advisory  councils are the Aquaculture Advisory Council (AAC), the Baltic Sea Advisory Council 
(BSAC), the Black Sea Advisory Council (BlSAC), the Long Distance Advisory Council (LDAC), the Market 
Advisory  Council  (MAC),  the  Mediterranean  Advisory  Council  (MEDAC),  the  North  Sea  Advisory  Council 
(NSAC),  the  North  Western  Waters  Advisory  Council  (NWWAC),  the  Pelagic  Advisory  Councilpelagic 
(PELAC) and the South Western Waters  Advisory Council (SWWAC).. In 2019, the Commission received an 
application for setting up the Advisory Council AC for Outermost Regions (CC RUP), but this advisory council 
did not become fully operational until 2020.  

43 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Figure 2. Recommendations received from each advisory council 

2019 Recommendations by AC 

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

5.5. Recommendations by advisory councils on specific issues related to the common 

fisheries policy 

In 2019, the advisory councils’ recommendations on issues relating to the common fisheries 
policy mainly concerned the state of stocks and the allocation of fishing opportunities. Many 
recommendations were also related to ICES and the STECF, to the landing obligation and to 
the trade of fish. 

The information provided by the Baltic Sea Advisory Council on the state of Baltic cod was 
very  useful  in  the  context  of  the  emergency  measures  and  for  the  preparation  of  the 
Commission proposal to modify the Baltic multiannual plan and the EMFF in order to tackle 
the  root  causes  of  the  very  bad  state  of  this  stock  and  alleviate  the  socio-economic 
consequences for the fishing sector.  

The  Mediterranean  Sea  Advisory  Council  was  also  very  active  in  preparing  the  Adriatic 
demersal plan adopted by the GFCM in November 2019, which was adopted in alignment 
with its advice.  

In  addition,  advisory  councils  were  involved  in  preparing  joint  recommendations  for  five 
discard  plans  adopted  in  2019:  discard  plans  for  certain  demersal  fisheries  in  North 
Western Waters (with a contribution from the North Western Waters Advisory Council and 
the Pelagic Advisory Council), the South Western Waters (with a contribution from the South 
Western  Waters  Advisory  Council  and  the  Pelagic  Advisory  Council)  and  the  North  Sea 
(with a contribution from the North Sea Advisory Council and the Pelagic Advisory Council) 
as  well  as  a  discard  plan  for  Venus  shells  in  certain  Italian  territorial  waters  as  well  as  a 
discard plan for certain demersal fisheries in the Mediterranean Sea, which were both adopted 
with a contribution from the Mediterranean Sea Advisory Council.  

Through  their  recommendations,  the  Mediterranean  Sea  Advisory  Council  and  Black  Sea 
Advisory  Council  helped  to  implement  the  GFCM  regional  plan  of  action  for  small-scale 

44 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
fisheries  in  the  Mediterranean  and  Black  Sea.  The  Aquaculture  Advisory  Council 
recommendations  were  very  useful  for  the  revison  of  the  aquaculture  guidelines,  while 
different  recommendations  in  the  context  of  meetings  of  Regional  Fisheries  Management 
Organisations were highly appreciated. 

2019 was also characterised by a high number of recommendations on the STECF or ICES. 
Some  requests  could  not  be  retained,  as  the  advisory  councils’  advice  was  not  sufficiently 
specific  or  had  to  be  dealt  with  by  other  bodies37,  while  certain  other  requests  (such  as  the 
inclusion of a chapter on pelagics in the STECF Annual Economic Report on the EU fishing 
fleet) were taken on board already in 2019. 

5.6. Legislative 

texts  adopted 

in  2019  which 

took  on  board  previous 

recommendations by advisory councils 

In  2019,  two  multiannual  plans  (MAP)  were  adopted,  including  the  recommendations 
received  from  the  advisory  councils.  The  first  one  is  the  Western  Waters  MAP  which 
includes recreational fisheries, by-catches caught in the Western Waters, and the ecosystem-
based  approach  to  fisheries  management  as  recommended  by  the  North  Western  Waters 
Advisory Council and/or the South Western Waters Advisory Council. 

The second one is the multiannual plan for the fisheries exploiting demersal stocks in the 
western  Mediterranean  Sea,  which  incorported  many  Mediterreanean  Sea  Advisory 
Council suggestions, namely on: 

-  
-  

-  

postponing the MSY target by 5 years,  
managing  recreational  fisheries, 
surveillance,  
using  fishing  opportunities  based  on  effort  limits  in  accordance  with  the  scientific 
advice. 

including  effective  monitoring,  control  and 

2019 was also the year of the adoption and entry into force of the new Technical Mesaures 
Regulation38, supported by many advisory councils39, who all endorsed the need to revise the 
technical measures regulations. For the North Sea Advisory Council for instance40, the rules 
and requirements contained in the previous technical measures framework had proven to be 
complex and often very difficult to achieve. It had also been very  difficult for fishermen to 
understand and enforce, and had generated perverse outcomes, most notably by generating a 
pattern  of  regulatory  discards.  The  North  Sea  Advisory  Council  considered  that  the 
Commission’s  proposal  offered  a  radical  break,  providing  the  prospect  of  a  more  dynamic 
and  flexible  approach,  compatible  with  the  overall  policy  objectives  within  the  basic 
regulation  on  the  comon  fisheries  policy.  It  strongly  supported  the  adoption  of  specific 
technical rules for fisheries at regional seas level. It was also very supportive of a shift away 

37 Such as a working group on underwater noise.  
38  Regulation  (EU)  2019/1241  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  20  June  2019  on  the 
conservation  of  fisheries  resources  and  the  protection  of  marine  ecosystems  through  technical  measures, 
amending Council Regulations (EC) No 1967/2006, (EC) No  1224/2009 and Regulations (EU) No 1380/2013, 
(EU)  2016/1139, (EU)  2018/973, (EU)  2019/472  and  (EU)  2019/1022  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.  
39 See SWD(2016) 57 dated 11 March 2016, p.77. 
40 See Advice 05-1617.  

45 

 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
                                                           
from prescriptive micro-management towards an approach focused on results and outcomes, 
and supportive of the fact that the new Technical Measures Regulation applies not just to the 
exploitation of marine biological resources but also to the interaction of fishing activities with 
marine ecosystems. All these recommendations were finally present in the final regulation. 

5.7. Contributions of advisory councils to legislative proposals prepared in 2019 

Fishing opportunities 

The Commission paid great attention to the recommendations of advisory councils on fishing 
opportunities  when  elaborating  its  proposals  in  2019.  In  the  Baltic  Sea,  the  Commission 
proposal  retained  in  several  cases  the  Baltic  Sea  Advisory  Council’s  minority  position  of 
Other Interest Groups41 and in three cases (central herring, Riga herring, and Gulf of Finland 
salmon),  it  retained  the  Baltic  Sea  Advisory  Council’s  advice.  Management  measures  for 
seabass  in  the  Commission  proposal  took  on  board  the  North  Western  Waters  Advisory 
Council advice. For the southern horse mackerel, the Commission proposed a 50% reduction 
of the quota as recommended by the Pelagic Advisory Council. 

The  differences  between  the  Commision  proposal  for  2020  fishing  opportunities  and  the 
proposals  of the advisory  councils resulted from the methodology the Commission  used.  In 
particular,  with  the  full  application  of  the  landing  obligation  since  1  January  2019,  the 
Commission proposed TACs on the basis of catch advice instead of previously used landings 
advice and also took into account the fact that certain limited discards based on established 
exemptions  would  occur,  and  thus  would  not  be  landed  and  counted  against  the  quotas. 
These  amounts  therefore  were  deducted  from  the  catch-based  TAC.  Where  MAPs  were 
available,  the  Commission  used  MSY  ranges.  For  instance,  the  Commission  proposed  to 
limit the decrease of the TACs for northern and southern hake to -20%, using the upper part 
of  the  MSY  range  according  to  the  Western  Waters  multiannual  plan.  While  the  TAC  for 
haddock in the Celtic Sea could increase massively according to  ICES advice (+100%), the 
Commission  proposed  a  30%  increase,  using  the  lower  part  of  the  MSY  range,  in  order  to 
protect the vulnerable cod stock that is also caught as a by-catch of haddock.  

The new control system and the EMFF proposals 

In 2019, the Commission received 6 new recommendations on the proposal for revising the 
fisheries control system and 2 recommendations on the EMFF. Although these came after the 
Commission  adopted  its  proposal,  they  helped  to  clarify  the  Commission  proposal  for 
stakeholders and were useful in inter-institutional discussions.  

5.8. Consultations by the Commission  

Advisory  councils  were  also  consulted  in  2019  on  some  files  (the  evaluation  of  the  Eel 
Regulation,  possible  research  projects  for  Horizon  Europe,  and  the  review  of  the  State  aid 
framework), with the advice received beingwere very useful.  

41 This was the case for western cod, Bothian herring, plaice and sprat. 

46 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
5.9. A case study on advisory councils published in 2020 

In February 2020, a study on Civil Dialogue Groups for the Common Agricultural Policy was 
published on the Europa website, in which the advisory councils were a case study 42 43.  

The summary of key findings of this case study are as follows: 

Strengths of the case 

Weaknesses of the case 

The advisory councils generate specific output to 
the Commission in the form of recommendations, 
suggestions or information. This output can also 
be consulted by other external organisations 
(such as the European Parliament), which 
increases the impact of the advisory councils 
beyond their official goals. 

The advisory councils strive for consensus in 
their input to DG MARE, resulting in widely 
supported recommendations that reflect all the 
views from the relevant stakeholders. 

The advisory councils have a stakeholder-led 
structure, which makes it very efficient for DG 
MARE. DG MARE contributes to their 
operational costs and has one person in DG 
MARE to coordinate all advisory councils. 

Due to the thematic approach of the advisory 
councils, the advisory councils can provide expert 
advice on particular topics that are connected to 
the common fisheries policy. Seeing that the 
advisory councils are divided based on the 
regions/topics of the common fisheries policy, 
the advisory councils are well positioned to 
provide expert recommendations. 

There are insufficient standardised rules or 
sharing of best practices between advisory 
councils with regard to the format of work 
programmes or rules of procedures. This leads to 
inefficiencies, as advisory councils are now 
developing these for themselves 

The functioning of the advisory councils is 
indicated to be (highly) dependent on the 
functioning of the chair. However, given that the 
chair is one of the representatives of a member 
organisation, the chair is not always as suitable or 
impartial as desired. 
The aim of the advisory councils to provide 
consensus advice sometimes hinders the timely 
provision of recommendations to DG MARE 

The seats allocated to other interest groups are 
not always filled due to lack of resources from 
the other interest groups. Therefore, the balance 
in representation as set out by the Commission is 
not always achieved in practice, with seats 
remaining vacant. 

 The  advisory  councils  have  a  defined  set  of 
sector 
criteria 
organisations and other interest groups, as well as 

the  balance  between 

for 

42 You will find below the link to this case study (see pages from 191 to 206), 
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/42188fa9-5464-11ea-aece-01aa75ed71a1/language-
en/format-PDF/source-search 
43 The link to the whole study, where advisory councils are also mentioned, is available here: 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/food-farming-fisheries/key-policies/common-agricultural-policy/evaluation-policy-
measures/regulation-and-simplification/cdg-cap-analysis-eu-policy-consultation_en. 

47 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
for the balance between Member States. 

48 

 
 
 
 
 
8. International ocean governance  

The  EU  continued  to  implement  its  policy  on  international  ocean  governance  for  the 
conservation and sustainable use of oceans and seas. The promotion of sustainable fisheries 
beyond  EU  jurisdiction  in  international  fora  and  bodies  and  through  bilateral  relations  is  a 
central element of this policy.  

The  EU  remains  the  key  driver  for  progress  in  regional  fisheries  management 
organisations  (RFMO)  and  for  increasing  their  performance.  EUR 10.6  million  were 
committed  in  2019  to  improve  RFMO  governance,  science  and  capacity-building  and  to 
increase compliance44. Due to the decisions taken in RFMOs, the stocks under their purview 
are generally in good shape, with fisheries managed at sustainable levels. In addition to the 
decisions mentioned under point 3 above, a crucial achievement in 2019 was the re-opening 
of  the  shrimp  fisheries  in  the  Area  3M  by  the  Northwest  Atlantic  Fisheries  Organization 
(NAFO). This  was  done on the basis of scientific advice  and after a nine-year moratorium. 
The  management,  control  and  surveillance  systems  are  also  continuously  improving,  and 
consequently illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing is increasingly addressed as a 
matter  of  priority.  Currently,  roughly  160  vessels  (non-EU  vessels)  are  listed  as  IUU  in 
RFMOs, a powerful  deterrent to  IUU fishing.  In 2019, there was also  good progress in  the 
protection of vulnerable species such as sharks, mobula ray, seabirds, and vulnerable marine 
ecosystems. 

44 The EU represented by the Commission, plays an active role in 5 tuna and 12 non-tuna RFMOs and other 
organisations across all oceans. 

49