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 2022"
Date: 2021-06-09
Institutions: Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, European Commission
Subjects: catch of fish, catch quota, common fisheries policy, conservation of fish stocks, fishing fleet, fishing rights, illegal fishing, sustainable fisheries

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 9.6.2021  SWD(2021) 122 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 2022" {COM(2021) 279 final}  
 
 
This  staff  working  document  accompanies  the  Communication  ‘Towards  more  sustainable 
fishing in the EU: state of play and orientations for 2022’. It looks in greater depth at:  

1.  the state of stocks;  
2.  specific actions in the Mediterranean and Black Seas;  
3.  the balance between fleet capacity and fishing opportunities;  
4.  the socio-economic performance of the EU fishing fleet;  
5.  progress in implementing the landing obligation;  
6.  the role of recommendations by Advisory Councils in EU decision-making; and 
7.  the actions taken under the EU’s International Ocean Governance Agenda 

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 2019 and 
analysed and published in 2020. It therefore reflects the state of stocks of fish measured in the 
sea in 2019 as an outcome of the set of management measures implemented (setting TACs, 
landing  obligation,  etc.,  including  effort 
capacity  management,  technical  measures, 
management where applicable). 

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

1 Article 50 of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP; Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 of the European Parliament 
and of the Council of 11 December 2013) stipulates: “The Commission shall report annually to the European 
Parliament and to the Council on the progress on achieving maximum sustainable yield and on the situation of 
fish stocks, as early as possible following the adoption of the yearly Council Regulation fixing the fishing 
opportunities available in Union waters and, in certain non-Union waters, to Union vessels.” 
2 STECF Ad Hoc 21-01: Monitoring the performance of the Common Fisheries Policy (WP). ISSN 2467-0715 
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. 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
1.1 Trends in fishing pressure (ratio of F/Fmsy) 

1.1.1  Northeast Atlantic 

In  the  Northeast  Atlantic,  the  fishing  pressure  shows  an  overall  downward  trend  over  the 
period  2003-2019  (Figure  1).  In  the  early  2000s,  the  median  indicator  of  fishing  mortality 
was  more  than  1.7  times  larger  than  FMSY,  but  this  has  reduced  and  since  2011  stabilised 
below 1.2, getting close to 1 in 2019 (see figures 2, 3 and table 1). 

For 12 stocks located outside EU waters, 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, the indicator seems to show an increasing number of stocks exploited 
above Fmsy, especially for one of the stocks. However, the STECF notes that the indicator 
for  ICES  area  stocks  outside  EU  waters  is  based  on  comparatively  few  stocks  and  that 
uncertainty around the actual value of the estimate (confidence interval) is high. This makes 
the results unstable from year to year, and should therefore be interpreted with care. 

Figure 1: . Trends in fishing pressure (Northeast Atlantic area and Mediterranean and Black 
Seas), 2003 - 2019 

2 

 
 
 
Figure 2: Trend in F/Fmsy in the northeast Atlantic area, 2003 – 20193 

3 Trend in F/FMSY
light grey zone shows the 95% confidence interval. 
3 

 (based on 44 stocks). Dark grey zone shows the 50% confidence interval; the 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
Figure 3: Number of stocks by year for which fishing mortality (F) did not exceed FMSY, 
2003 – 2019 

EcoRegion 
ALL 
Baltic Sea 
BoBiscay & Iberia 
Celtic Seas 
Greater North Sea 
Widely 

ALL 
Baltic Sea 
BoBiscay & Iberia 
Celtic Seas 
Greater North Sea 
Widely 

2003 
15 
0 
1 
6 
8 
0 
2012 
28 
3 
3 
9 
10 
3 

2004 
13 
0 
1 
6 
5 
1 
2013 
30 
3 
2 
14 
8 
3 

2005 
11 
0 
1 
5 
4 
1 
2014 
30 
3 
2 
14 
8 
3 

2006 
12 
0 
1 
6 
3 
2 
2015 
32 
2 
3 
14 
10 
3 

2007 
13 
0 
1 
5 
4 
3 
2016 
33 
2 
3 
14 
11 
3 

2008 
15 
1 
1 
5 
6 
2 
2017 
33 
1 
4 
15 
10 
3 

2009 
20 
0 
2 
8 
7 
3 
2018 
38 
2 
5 
15 
13 
3 

2010 
23 
1 
3 
8 
8 
3 
2019 
37 
2 
7 
16 
8 
4 

2011 
25 
1 
3 
10 
8 
3 

Table 1: Number of stocks by ecoregion for which fishing mortality (F) did not exceed FMSY, 
2003 - 2019 

1.1.2  Mediterranean and Black Seas 

For the Mediterranean and Black Seas, the fishing pressure has remained at a very high level 
during  the  whole  2003-2018  period.  After  the  observed  peak  between  2011-2013  where 
F/FMSY has reached its highest historical level, there has been a slight improvement in terms 
of fishing pressure  (see  figure 8). Nevertheless, the value of  F/FMSY has still been around 

4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.1  in  recent  years  indicating  that  the  stocks  are  being  exploited  on  average  at  rates  well 
above the FMSY objective contained in the CFP (see figure 4). 

Figure 4: Trend in F/Fmsy in the Mediterranean and Black Seas, 2003 – 20184 

1.2 Stock status 

1.2.1  Northeast Atlantic 

The  status  of  the  stocks  in  the  Northeast  Atlantic  (both  EU  and  non-EU  waters)  has 
significantly  improved  since  2003  (Figure  5)  but  many  stocks  are  still  overexploited. 
Information  was  available to  assess time-trends  in the fishing mortality rate with  respect  to 
the MSY rate from 65 stocks. Among the stocks which are fully assessed, the proportion of 
overexploited stocks has decreased from around 75% to close to 40% over the last ten years. 
However,  in  2019,  the  proportion  of  overexploited  stocks  has  increased  slightly.  The 
proportion of stocks outside safe biological limits, computed for the 42 stocks for which both 
reference  points  are  available,  follows  the  same  decreasing  trend,  from  75%  in  2003  to 
around 30% in 2018, but has increased again substantially in 2019.  

4 Trend in F/FMSY
light grey zone shows the 95% confidence interval. 
5 

 (based on 35 stocks). Dark grey zone shows the 50% confidence interval; the 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
Figure 5: Trends in stock status in the northeast Atlantic area, 2003-20195 

1.2.2  Mediterranean and Black Seas 

In  the  Mediterranean  and  Black  Seas,  during  the  period  2003-2009  the  number  of  stocks 
assessments available increased from 19 up to 35. The number of stock assessments has been 
stable until 2017 decreasing to 26 in 2018 and 23 in 2019. In the Mediterranean and Black 
Seas, the number of stock assessments data publically available vary year to year. In addition, 
not all stock assessment extend back to the early part of the time series. This drop in available 
stock assessment is largely driven by the lack of updated Black Sea assessments in 2019-20 
and the non availability of other GFCM Mediterranean assessments.  
The STECF Black Sea assessment Expert Working Group (EWG) has not been planned since 
2017 as the EU share of Black Sea stocks is around 4% and it was deemed more appropriate 
to perform the assessments at GFCM level. For this, the GFCM BlackSea4Fish Project (EUR 
1  million  per  year)  was  launched  and  from  2021  it  will  anticipate  the  stock  assessments  to 
July  instead  of  September.  Due  to  Covid-19  pandemic  the  GFCM  Scientific  Advisory 
Committee  (SAC)  of  2020  could  not  meet  to  validate  the  stock  assessments  performed  in 
2019.  Additionally,  for  other  stocks,  STECF  was  tasked  to  focus  more  on  stocks  under 
management  plans  and  GFCM  has  focused  on  key  priority  stocks.  At  the  same  time,  the 
different  calendar  for  the  provision  of  advice  under  the  GFCM  framework  means  that  the 
latest  stock  assessments  become  publically  available  only  later  in  the  year,  and  the  2020 
GFCM stock assessments were therefore unavailable for the present analysis. For this reason, 
updated figures for the proportion of stocks fished above Fmsy are not sufficiently reliable to 
be presented. 

5 Two indicators are presented: blue line: the proportion of overexploited stocks (F>FMSY: stock overexploited 
compared to maximum sustainable yield) within the sampling frame (out of a total of 65 stocks) and orange 
line: the proportion of stocks outside safe biological limits SBL (F>Fpa or B<Bpa) (out of a total of 42 stocks). 
6 

 
 
 
                                                           
1.3 Trends in biomass 

1.3.1  Northeast Atlantic 

There  has  been  improvement  in  the  Northeast  Atlantic  area  with  the  biomass  generally 
increasing since 2007 (EU waters only), in particular for data limited stocks (ICES category 3 
stocks).  For  fully  assessed  stocks,  it  was  35%  higher  in  2019  than  in  2003  (median  value, 
Figure 6). 

Figure 6: Trends in the indicators of stock biomass6 

6 Three indicators are presented: one for the NE Atlantic EU waters (51 stocks 
considered, red line); one for the Mediterranean & Black Seas (32 stocks, black line); 
and one for data limited stocks (ICES category 3, 69 stocks, blue line). 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Figure 7: Trend in biomass or abundance indices relative to 2003 for data limited stocks 
(ICES category 3) (based on 69 stocks)7 

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

8 

 
 
                                                           
1.3.2  Mediterranean and Black Seas 

In the Mediterranean and Black Seas, biomass increased at the beginning of the time series, 
but declined after 2006. Since 2015 there has been an increase in biomass. STECF notes there 
is  large uncertainty  around this indicator,  which is  due to  opposite trends  in  biomass in  the 
West Mediterranean (increasing) and in the Central Mediterranean (decreasing). 

Figure 8: Trend in spawning stock biomass (SSB) relative to 2003 (based on 32 stocks)8 

1.4 Coverage of scientific advice 

The  STECF  notes  that  156  TACs  (combination  of  species  and  fishing  management  zones) 
were in place in 2019 in the EU waters of the Northeast Atlantic. The STECF underlines that 
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  match  the  spatial 
distribution  of  a  stock  for  which  reference  points  have  been  estimated  from  an  ICES  full 

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

9 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
assessment. Based on this indicator, 53% of the 156 TACs are covered, at least partially, by 
stock assessments that provide estimates  of FMSY (or a proxy), 48% by  stock assessments 
that have Bpa, with only 19% covered by stock assessments that provide estimates or proxies 
of BMSY.  
For  the  Mediterranean  and  Black  Seas,  during  the  period  2003-2009  the  number  of  stocks 
assessments available increased from 19 up to 35. The number of stock assessments has been 
stable until 2017 decreasing to 26 in 2018 and 23 in 2019. 

Arctic Ocean 
Azores 
Baltic Sea 
BoBiscay & Iberia 
Celtic Seas 
Greater North Sea 
Iceland, Greenland and Faroes 
Widely 

ICES Stock Category 
1 
8 
0 
8 
12 
25 
22 
14 
7 

3 
4 
2 
8 
20 
16 
18 
9 
8 

2 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
1 
0 

Total 

96 

1 

85 

4 
0 
0 
1 
0 
2 
4 
0 
0 

7 

5 
0 
1 
1 
9 
13 
7 
1 
4 

36 

6 
0 
0 
0 
5 
10 
3 
1 
12 

31 

Total 

12 
3 
18 
46 
66 
54 
26 
31 

256 

Table 2: Total number of stocks assessed by ICES for different stock categories in different 
areas. Note that not all of these stocks are considered of EU relevance (STECF 15-04) and as 
such, numbers are higher than those used in the CFP monitoring analysis 

EcoRegion 
ALL 
Baltic Sea 
BoBiscay & Iberia 
Celtic Seas 
Greater North Sea 
Widely 

ALL 
Baltic Sea 
BoBiscay & Iberia 
Celtic Seas 
Greater North Sea 
Widely 

2003 
60 
7 
8 
18 
21 
6 
2012 
63 
7 
8 
21 
21 
6 

2004 
60 
7 
8 
18 
21 
6 
2013 
65 
7 
8 
23 
21 
6 

2005 
60 
7 
8 
18 
21 
6 
2014 
65 
7 
8 
23 
21 
6 

2006 
61 
7 
8 
19 
21 
6 
2015 
65 
7 
8 
23 
21 
6 

2007 
61 
7 
8 
19 
21 
6 
2016 
65 
7 
8 
23 
21 
6 

2008 
62 
7 
8 
20 
21 
6 
2017 
65 
7 
8 
23 
21 
6 

2009 
62 
7 
8 
20 
21 
6 
2018 
65 
7 
8 
23 
21 
6 

2010 
61 
7 
8 
19 
21 
6 
2019 
64 
7 
8 
22 
21 
6 

2011 
62 
7 
8 
20 
21 
6 

Table 3: Number of stocks in the ICES area for which estimates of F/Fmsy are available by 
ecoregion and year, 2003-2019 

10 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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 

2.  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.  

At EU level 

2020 was the first full year of implementation of the 2019 multiannual plan for the Western 
Mediterranean  (West  Med  MAP)9,  with  in  particular  its  objective  for  a  first  10%  effort 
reduction.  Different  technical  meetings  with  the  Member  States  concerned  took  place  to 
facilitate the implementation of the plan. 

Work  continued  also  on  the  alignment  of  national  management  plans  under  the 
Mediterranean Regulation10 to the objectives of the CFP.  

9 Regulation (EU) 2019/1022 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 establishing a 
multiannual plan for the fisheries exploiting demersal stocks in the western Mediterranean Sea and amending 
Regulation (EU) No 508/2014 (OJ L 172, 26.6.2019, p. 1). 
10 Council Regulation (EC) No 1967/2006 of 21 December 2006 concerning management measures for the 
sustainable exploitation of fishery resources in the Mediterranean Sea, amending Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 
and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1626/94 (OJ L 409, 30.12.2006, p. 11–85). 

11 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
In 2020, the Commission presented for the second time a stand-alone proposal for fishing 
opportunities in these two sea basins11, comprising the continued implementation of the West 
Med MAP and the implementation of measures adopted at the 2018 and 2019 annual sessions 
of the GFCM. 

Based  on  the  Commission  proposal,  the  Council  adopted  a  regulation  fixing  the  fishing 
opportunities for 2021 in the Mediterranean and Black Seas12. This was an important step in 
our  efforts  towards  ensuring  the  sustainability  of  stocks:  for  the  second  time,  a  proposal 
bringing together fishing opportunities for both the Mediterranean and the Black Sea was put 
forward.  

Within the framework of the GFCM 

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the multilateral work on new GFCM measures ground to a 
halt  in  2020  as  all  meetings,  including  the  44th  annual  session,  were  postponed  to  2021. 
However,  2020  was  the  first  year  of  implementation  of  the  ambitious  measures  adopted  in 
2019, including the multiannual management plan for demersal stocks in the Adriatic Sea13 
which  establishes  unprecedented  measures  in  the  region:  a  progressive  fishing  effort 
reduction,  minimum  conservation  reference  sizes  (MCRS),  fleet  capacity  freeze,  full 
monitoring  of  effort  quota  consumption  and  a  pilot  inspection  scheme.  In  particular,  2020 
was the first year of effort reduction under the plan. Other important GFCM measures were 
implemented  for  the  first  time,  including  a  freeze  of  the  level  of  catches  and  a  decrease  of 
fishing  effort  under  the  updated  management  plan  for  blackspot  seabream  in  the  Alboran 
Sea14,  and  a  TAC  with  allocation  scheme  between  contracting,  non-contracting  parties  and 
observers under the Black Sea turbot multiannual management plan15. 

Furthermore,  preparatory  work  on  the  future  GFCM  Strategy  continued.  The  GFCM,  in 
cooperation with the EU, organised on 3 November 2020, the High-level virtual conference 
Building together a new strategy for Mediterranean and Black Sea fisheries and aquaculture. 
On  this  occasion,  more  than  20  Ministers  met  to  share  views  on  how  to  ensure  the 
sustainability of fisheries and aquaculture in the Mediterranean and the Black Sea. This event 
was  an  opportunity  for  ministerial  level  participants  to  reiterate  their  commitment  to  the 
reform of fisheries governance in the Mediterranean and the Black Sea. 

Main achievements: 
- 
implement  at  least  7,5%  reduction  of  the  fishing  effort  for  demersal  stocks  in  the 
Western  Mediterranean  Sea,  in  the  framework  of  the  West  Med  MAP;  additional 

11 Proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION fixing for 2021 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and 
groups of fish stocks applicable in the Mediterranean and Black Seas (COM/2020/377 final).    
12 Council Regulation (EU) 2021/90 of 28 January 2021 fixing for 2021 the fishing opportunities for certain fish 
stocks and groups of fish stocks applicable in the Mediterranean and Black Seas (OJ L 31, 29.1.2021, p. 1–19). 
13 Recommendation GFCM/43/2019/5 on a multiannual management plan for sustainable demersal fisheries 
in the Adriatic Sea (geographical subareas 17 and 18). 
14 Recommendation GFCM/43/2019/2 on a management plan for the sustainable exploitation of blackspot 
seabream (Pagellus bogaraveo) in the Alboran Sea (GFCM geographical subareas 1 to 3). 
15  Recommendation  GFCM/43/2019/3  amending  Recommendation  GFCM/41/2017/4  on  a  multiannual 
management plan for turbot fisheries in the Black Sea (GFCM geographical subarea 29). 

12 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
implementation  of  a  cap  on  the  number  of  vessels  and  limits  for  the  harvested 

commitments from France and Spain to reduce the bycatch of juveniles and spawners and a 
commitment from Italy to reduce by 10% its fishing effort. 
continued protection of the European eel, with a 3 month closure period; 
- 
-  
the  implementation  of  the  GFCM  ground-breaking  multi-annual  plan  for  demersal 
stocks in the Adriatic establishing an overall reduction of 12% in the fishing effort for OTB16 
and a 16% overall reduction for TBB17;  
-  
continued  implementation  of  the  GFCM  emergency  measures  for  small  pelagic 
species in the Adriatic, with the further reduction of catch limits as well as the establishment 
of a capacity limit for the fleets concerned;  
-  
quantities of red coral; 
implementation  of  a  cap  on  fishing  effort  for  common  dolphinfish  in  international 
-  
waters of the Mediterranean, for deep water shrimps  in  the  Ionian Sea,  Levant  Sea and the 
Strait of Sicily;  
implementation of catch limits for blackspot seabream in the Alboran Sea;  
-  
- 
setting  fishing  opportunities  for  the  Black  Sea,  including  an  autonomous  quota  for 
sprat,  as  in  previous  years,  and  the  TAC  for  turbot  agreed  in  2019  at  GFCM,  including  a 
management mechanism and a closure period 
-  
Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), rollover of the TAC for Eastern bluefin tuna for two years. 

within  the  framework  of  the  International  Commission  for  the  Conservation  of 

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

In  line  with  Article  22(4)  of  Regulation  1380/2013  (the  CFP  Regulation18),  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 19. 

This  report  assesses  the  annual  capacity  of  all  EU  fleet  segments  based  on  the 
information  included  in  the  Member  States’  reports  submitted  to  the  Commission  in 
202020. These reports must follow the 2014 Commission Guidelines21 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.  

16 FAO gear classification. 
17 FAO gear classification. 
18 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). 
19 See: https://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu/reports/balance 
20 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). 
21  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.  

13 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
The  submission  of  the  annual  fleet  reports  is  an  ex  ante  conditionality  under  the 
European  Maritime  Fisheries  Fund  (EMFF)22.  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 Regulation23.  

3.1. Member States' annual reports and action plans 

All  22  coastal  Member  States  submitted  their  reports  for  2019  to  the  Commission24. 
Eleven national reports included a new or a revised action plan25.  
Since  the  entry  into  force  of  the  2013  CFP  Regulation,  only  3  Member  States  never 
reached  the  conclusion  that  one  or  several  of  their  fleet  segments  demonstrated  an 
imbalance and therefore did not submit any action plans26.  

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

- 

- 

- 

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 selective or energy-efficient 
gear,  permitting  schemes  for  certain  fisheries,  space  and  time-related  fishing 
restrictions); 
economic  measures  (support  for  the  development  of  marketing  initiatives  or 
assistance to improve competitiveness). 

Some Member States with fisheries in the Baltic Sea included permanent cessation as 
a  measure  in  their  action  plan,  as  foreseen  in  the  Baltic  Sea  multi-annual  plan27  to 
reduce fishing capacity for Eastern Baltic cod, Western Baltic cod and Western Baltic 
herring.  

3.2. STECF assessment 

Following  the  request  by  the  Commission,  the  STECF  carried  out  an  assessment  for 
each of the Member States’ fleets with a view to: 

22 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). 
23 Articles 100 and 101 of Regulation (EU) No 508/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
15 May 2014 on the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and repealing Council Regulations (EC) 
No 2328/2003, (EC) No 861/2006, (EC) No 1198/2006 and (EC) No 791/2007 and Regulation (EU) 
No 1255/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 149, 20.5.2014, p. 1). 
24 Reports and action plans can be found at: https://ec.europa.eu/oceans-and-fisheries/fisheries/rules/fishing-
fleet-capacities_en 
25  Croatia,  France,  Germany,  Italy,  Latvia,  Lithuania,  Malta,  Poland,  Romania,  Spain.  Sweden  presented  an 
action plan early 2021 in order to take measures for the Baltic Sea.  
26 Estonia, Finland and the Netherlands. 
27 Regulation (EU) 2016/1139 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 2016 establishing a 
multiannual plan for the stocks of cod, herring and sprat in the Baltic Sea and the fisheries exploiting those 
stocks, amending Council Regulation (EC) No 2187/2005 and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1098/2007 
(OJ L 191, 15.7.2016, p. 1). 

14 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
  providing an overview of whether, according to the Commission Guidelines fleet 
segments can be considered in or out of balance with their fishing opportunities; 
  assessing  whether  the  fleet  reports  submitted  by  the  Member  States  provide  a 
sound  and  comprehensive  analysis  of  balance  between  fleet  capacity  and  fishing 
opportunity of all EU fleet segments. 

  comparing  its  own  calculations  with  the  equivalent  values  and  trends  in  the  fleet 
reports  submitted  by  the  Member  States,  highlighting  and,  where  possible, 
explaining any discrepancies. 

  commenting  on  whether  the  measures  in  the  new  or  revised  action  plans  are 
appropriately  targeted,  timebound  and  are  likely  to  contribute  to  redressing  the 
imbalance in the fleet segments concerned. 

The  data  used  to  compile  the  various  indicators  were  collected  under  the  Data 
Collection  Framework  (DCF)28.  All  balance  indicators  provided  and  used  in  the 
STECF  EWG  20-11  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.  

The  STECF  confirms  that  in  general,  the  national  fleet  reports  from  Member  States 
were  in  line  with  the  Commission  guidelines  and  that  the  discrepancies  between 
outcomes in calculations did in most cases not lead to a different outcome in terms of 
status of the fleet segment concerned (in or out of balance). Only two national reports 
(France and Italy) could not be compared with the STECF calculations due to the use 
of  different  fleet  segmentations.  In  this  regard,  the  STECF  points  out  that,  while 
acknowleding  the  fact  that  another  segmentation  can  be  used  for  the  purpose  of 
fisheries  management,  it  would  still  be  important  to  relate  these  national  segments 
with those required by the Commission guidelines.  

STECF also notes, as in previous years, 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.  

From a regional perspective, STECF29 notes that for the North Atlantic Ocean30, 69% 
of the 125 fleet segments  for  which  the  Sustainable Harvest Indicator (SHI)31 could  

28  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).  
29 STECF PLEN 20-03. 
30 This includes the UK fleet. 
31 The Sustainable Harvest Indicator is the main biological indicator being used for assessing balance of a fleet 
segment. It reflects the extent to which a fleet segment is dependent on overfished stocks. “Overfished” means 
in this context that a stock is fished above Fmsy. 

15 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
be calculated  were  out  of  balance.  38%  of these segments present an improving 
trend  and  11%  are  worsening.  For  the  remaining  segments,  no  trend  could  be 
calculated or obtained. The economic indicators suggest  that  most  of  the  segments  
are  in  balance  and  present  a positive  trend.  For  technical  indicators  of  most  of  
the  segments  no  clear trends could be calculated or obtained. 

For the Mediterranean and Black Seas, STECF underlines that all but one of the 65 
fleet  segments  for  which  the  SHI  could  be  calculated  were  out  of  balance.  20%  of 
them present an improving trend and 25% are worsening. For the remaining segments, 
no trends could be calculated or obtained. The economic indicators suggest that most 
of the segments are in balance and present a positive trend. Even though the technical 
indicators such as the vessel utilisation ratio appear to be out of balance, STECF points 
out  these  are  unlikely  to  provide  reliable  information  given  that  this  sea  basin  is 
composed mainly by small scale fleets where operators are often part-time, seasonal or 
occasional fishers. 

As  regards  the  other  fishing  regions  (external  fleet  and  outermost  regions)  where  2 
out of the 11 fleet segments for which the SHI could be calculated were out of balance, 
STECF underlines the fact that the number of fleet segments for which calculations are 
made is small. Furthermore, STECF notes that for these fleet segments no trend could 
be established for either of the three groups of indicators. STECF also points out that it 
is  currently  impossible  to  fully  assess  the  situation  in  the  outermost  regions 
considering  the  lack  of  of  data,  especially  the  general  absence  of  stock  assessments 
and/or catch data.  

16 

 
 
 
 
Active fleet segments with sustainable harvest indicator out of balance 
(2018 values)*  

Member 
States 

Total 
number of 
active fleet 
segments 

BE 

BG 

HR 

CY 

DK 

EE 

FI 

FR 

DE 

GR 

IE 

IT 

LV 

LT 

MT 

NL 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SI 

ES 

SE 
Total 

10 
24 
28 
7 
19 
6 
8 
119 
22 
23 
30 
25 
3 
11 
19 
25 
18 
58 
6 
10 
87 
24 
582 

Number of 
fleet 
segments 
assesssed  
(including 
clustering) 
2 
18 
12 
- 
12 
3 
3 
26 
8 
3 
11 
16 
2 
5 
1 
6 
2 
9 
6 
- 
20 
17 
182 

Number of 
assessed fleet 
segments out of 
balance 

Percentage of 
assessed fleet 
segments  out of 
balance (%) 

Area 27 
Atlantic  
Northeast   

Area  37 
Mediterranean 
and Black Sea  

Other fishing 
regions 

1 
18 
12 
- 
7 
3 
3 
17 
7 
2 
6 
16 
1 
4 
1 
3 
2 
6 
6 
- 
20 
10 
145 

50 
100 
100 
- 
58 
100 
100 
65 
88 
67 
55 
100 
50 
80 
100 
50 
100 
67 
100 
- 
100 
59 

1 
- 
- 
- 
7 
3 
3 
16 
7 
- 
6 
- 
1 
3 
- 
3 
2 
6 
- 
- 
11 
10 
79 

- 
18 
12 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
2 
- 
16 
- 
- 
1 
- 
- 
- 
6 
- 
9 
- 
64 

- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
1 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
1 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
2 

Table 4: Active fleet segments with sustainable harvest indicator out of balance 

* Sustainable harvest indicator assessment by STECF 20-11. In case of CY and Sl, the SHI indicator could not 
be used meaningfully for any of the segments (indicator values based on stocks that comprise less than 40% of 
the total value of landings by those segments).  

Considering  the  action  plans,  the  STECF  concludes  that  the  information  provided  by 
the  Member  States  was  generally  not  sufficiently  detailed  regarding  the  precise 
measures to be implemented or their objectives and targets for reducing the perceived 
imbalance  in  the  fleet  segments  concerned.  STECF  also  considers  that  the  Member 
States  should  supply  the  necessary  data  and  analyses  that  demonstrate  the  likely 
effectiveness  of  the  proposed  measures  in  achieving  the  objectives  and  targets.  The 
Commission has written to the Member States to emphasise the need to provide more 
detailed,  targeted  and  timebound  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. 

17 

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

Finally  and  in  line  with  previous  recommendations  by  STECF,  the  Commission  also 
requested STECF to assess the robustness and sensitivity of four indicators32 currently 
not foreseen by the Commission guidelines. Based on the work carried out, the STECF 
concludes  that  the  biological  indicators  (SHI  and  stocks  at  risk  (SAR))  as  currently 
foreseen in the guidelines should be kept but points to the need for Member States to 
calculate  these  indicators  using  the  same  method  and  input  data.  The  STECF 
recognises the value of the two alternative indicators NOS and EDI for the purpose of 
fleet management and considers that they could be included in the guidelines, in case 
these were to  be revised. Alternatively, STECF indicates that it could  calculate these 
indicators as part of the annual exercise and Member States could apply the indicators 
to manage their fleet.     

3.3. The capacity of the EU fishing fleet 

The  number  of  vessels  in  the  EU  fleet  continued  to  decline,  however  the  capacity  of 
the  fleet  (outermost  regions  excluded)  slightly  increased.  In  December  2020,  the  EU 
fleet  register  (outermost  regions  excluded)  contained  70  756  vessels  with  an  overall 
capacity of 1263967 in gross tonnage (GT) and 4897641 in kilowatts (kW). This is a 
reduction compared to the previous year of 0.4 % in terms of number of vessels but an 
increase of  0.6 % in GT and 0.4 % 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 register33, 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, six Member States34 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. Since February 2020, a new application 
of  the  EU  fleet  register  has  become  publicly  available  on  the  Commission’s  Europa 
website35. 

The veridicity of the data recorded in the EU fleet register remains also of concern due 
to  the  widespread  non-compliance  with  declared  engine  power36.  This  not  only 
undermines  control  effort  regimes,  but  also  raises  questions  about  the  overall 
compliance of the Member States with the fishing capacity ceilings established by the 
CFP Regulation.  

32 Number of overfished stocks (NOS), Economic dependency indicator (EDI), Number of stocks at risk (NSR) 
and Restricted Sustainable harvest indicator (SHIR). 
33 Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2018 of 6 February 2017 on the Union fishing fleet register 
(OJ, L 34, 9.5.2017, p.9). 
34 Bulgaria, Cyprus, Italy, Latvia, Malta and Slovenia. 
35 https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fleet-europa 
36 Study on engine power verification by Member States: https://op.europa.eu/s/oQKG  

18 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Compliance with Capacity Ceillings on Dec 2020  
(Mainland fleets) 

100,00%

80,00%

60,00%

40,00%

20,00%

0,00%

BEL BGR CYP DEU DNK ESP EST FIN FRA GRC HRV IRL ITA LTU LVA MLT NLD POL PRT ROU SVN SWE

%ceiling GT

%ceiling KW

Figure 10: Compliance with capacity ceilings based on the Union fleet register 
(effective capacity as percentage of capacity ceiling by Member State  
(Mainland fleets), situation on December 2020)  

The fleet  in  the  outermost  regions has seen a  reduction in the number of  vessels and 
overall capacity. Between December 2019 and December 2020, the number of vessels 
decreased by 20 vessels to a total of 3998 (figure 11). The capacity in GT decreased by 
547 to a total of 56960 GT (figure 12). The capacity in kW decreased by 3721 kW to a 
total of 394 609 kW (figure 13). 

Number of vessels in outermost regions 
(December 2020) 

ESP; 770 

PRT; 1152 

FRA; 2076 

Figure 11: Number of vessels in outermost regions (situation on December 2020)  

19 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Total GT in the outermost regions  
(December 2020) 

PRT; 13053 

ESP; 20182 

FRA; 23725 

Figure 12: Total GT in the outermost regions (situation on December 2020)  

Total kW in the outermost regions  
(December 2020) 

ESP; 
48132 

PRT; 67996 

FRA; 278481 

Figure 13: Total KW in the outermost regions (situation on December 2020) 

3.4. CONCLUSIONS 

In 2020, all coastal Member States complied with their obligation to report information 
on  the  capacity  and  the  balance  of  their  fleet  segments  with  fishing  opportunities. 
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  STECF.  Eleven  Member  State  presented  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.  

20 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The overall capacity of the EU fleet (outermost regions included) continued to decrease 
in  number  of  vessels.  However,  the  overall  capacity  (in  GT  and  kW)  of  the  EU 
mainland fleet (outermost regions excluded) somewhat increased.  In December 2020, 
the fishing capacity of the EU fleet as a whole (outermost regions excluded) was 22% 
below  the  capacity  ceilings  for  gross  tonnage  and  14%  below  the  engine  power 
ceilings.  
Nevertheless,  a  particular  attention  needs  to  be  paid  to  the  fleets  of  some  Member 
States, especially in the Mediterranean and Black Seas, of which the capacity is very 
close to the ceilings. Capacity measures can be of a particular 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.   

4.  Economic performance of the EU fishing fleet 

The analysis presented in this part of the document are based on the latest available data, from 
2018. 

4.1. Economic performance: main trends  

The amount of Gross Value Added (GVA) and gross profit generated by the fleet in 2018 was 
EUR 3.8  billion  and  EUR 1.5  billion,  respectively.  By  Member  State,  projected  results  for 
2019 and 2020 indicate that all the national fleets generate gross profits. 

Figure 14: Trends on revenue and profits for the EU-27 fishing fleet 

Source: MS data submissions 

4.1.1.  The impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic 

The  COVID-19  outbreak  has  had  significant  socio-economic  impacts  on  the  EU  fisheries 
sector.  The  lockdown  and  subsequent  economic  crisis  caused  by  the  COVID-19  have 
presented a situation of: i) weaker demand due to lower purchasing power, difficulties in the 
continuity  of  buying  seafood  products  (demand  shifted  from  perishable  to  preserved 
products), and the closure of HORECA channels, with the subsequent drop in some first sale 
prices; ii) slowdown of international trade; iii) a decrease in fishing activity, partly because of 

21 

 
 
 
 
 
 
the  declining  demand  but  also  due  to  health  measures  (need  to  maintain  the  safety  distance 
between crew members at sea); and iv) increase in the cold storage and processing of seafood. 

Economic analysis indicates a 17% decrease in the landed value and 16% drop in GVA of the 
EU  capture  fisheries  for  2020  compared  to  2019  mainly  due  to  the  COVID-19  pandemic. 
Despite  this,  the  EU  fleet  as  a  whole  continues  to  be  profitable  with  gross  and  net  profit 
margins  of  26%  and  14%,  respectively.  This  indicates  a  notable  resilience  of  the  EU  fleet, 
which is the result of the efforts made by the sector in previous years to achieve sustainable 
fishing in growing number of stocks in conjunction with low fuel prices. 

Estimates show that the small-scale coastal fleet sees the GVA and gross profits reduced by 
about 20% and the large-scale fleet by about 10% compared to 2019. Thus, it seems that the 
small-scale coastal fleet has been more impacted by the COVID-19 than the large-scale fleet 
because  their  production  tends  to  be  products  with  a  higher  value  that  often  are  sold  to 
restaurants. With the closure of restaurants, and sometimes the reduction of tourism, there was 
an important decrease in demand. 

4.1.2.  Employment and wages  

The  sector  directly  employed  146 906  fishers,  corresponding  to  105 851  Full-Time 
Equivalents  (FTEs)  in  2018.  These  values  follow  a  similar  trend  as  the  capacity  indicators. 
The Spanish fleet employed 23% of the total, followed by the Italian (19%) and Greek (15%) 
fleets.  

Average annual wage per FTE was estimated at EUR 24 287, a reduction compared to 2017. 
Remarkable, is the big dispersion of this indicator along the different Member States, ranging 
from EUR 1 400 for Cypriot fishers to EUR 135 500 for Belgian fishers. Nowcast results for 
2020 indicate a decrease of 14% in FTE in 2020 compared to 2019.  

4.1.3.  Effort and fuel consumption 

The  EU  fishing  fleet  spent  almost  6.2  million  days-at-sea  (-3%  compared  to  2017)  and 
consumed 2.0 billion litres of fuel (-2%), meaning that on average each vessel spent around 
104  days-at-sea  (-0.5%)  and  consumed  34  204  litres  of  fuel  (+0.4%)  in  2018,  roughly 
unchanged compared to 2017. For the EU fleet in 2018, this roughly translates into an average 
fuel consumption of 328 litres per day-at-sea at an average cost of EUR 182 (EUR 0.55 per 
litre).  

Figure 15: Trends on fuel use, costs and average price for the EU-27 and by Member State 
fleet 

22 

 
 
 
Source: MS data submissions 

  The EU fleet has become more fuel efficient over the years, yet shows less efficiency 
in  some more recent  years. This  is  largely a  result of higher fuel  prices in 2017 and 
2018.  In  2018,  fuel  costs  as  a  proportion  of  revenue  were  estimated  at  15%,  up  two 
percentage  points  compared  to  2017  and  three  percentage  points  compared  to  2016. 
Improvement  in  ﬂeet  performance  can  largely  be  attributed  to  lower  fuel  prices. 
However, it is noteworthy that fuel intensity – the amount of fuel consumed per landed 
tonne – has declined, stabilising since 2014 at around 445 litres per tonne landed. 
  With  the  decrease  in  the  volume  of  landings  and  the  marginal  increase  in  fuel 
consumption  in  2018,  the  amount  of  fuel  consumed  per  landed  tonne  increased  1% 
compared to 2017; reaching 432 litres per tonne. 

4.2. EU fleet performance by scale of operation  

The  EU  small-scale  coastal  fleet  (SSCF)  represents  the  most  significant  part  of  the  EU 
fishing fleet in number of vessels and jobs. The EU SSCF numbered 44 702 vessels in 2018, 
employed  67 760  fishers;  comprising  76%  of  the  active  EU  fleet  and  50%  of  the  engaged 
crew. While the EU SSCF as a whole was profitable, four Member State SSCF suffered gross 
losses and eight suffered net losses in 2018.  

The EU large-scale fleet (LSF) totalled 14 047 vessels in 2018 and employed 61 000 fishers, 
24% and 45% of the total EU, respectively. This fleet contributed 79% in landings in weight 
and 70% to the value of these landings of the total EU. Overall performance of the EU fleet is 
largely  driven  by  the  performance  of  the  LSF.  The  LSF  was  profitable  in  2018  but  GVA 
decreased by 7%, gross profit by 12% and net profit by 17%; a continuation of the downward 
trend observed in 2017.  

The  EU  Distant-water  fleet  (DWF),was  profitable,  with  a  GVA  estimated  at  EUR 387 
million (10% of the EU total) and gross profit at EUR 161 million (11% of the EU total). Net 
profit was EUR 60 million (8% of the EU total).  

4.3. EU fleet performance by main fishing region  

Fleet  performance  varies  greatly  by  main  fishing  region  and  type  of  fishing  activity.  The 
Mediterranean fleet obtained the highest revenues (EUR 1.98 billion) and profits, followed by 
the South Western Waters, North Sea & Eastern Arctic and North Western Waters fleets; all 
with revenues ranging between EUR 1.1 billion and EUR 1.2 billion in 2018.  

By fishing activity, the Baltic Sea SSCF was the only regional fleet to collectively perform at 
a  loss  in  2018,  similar  to  the  situation  observed  in  2017  while  in  2016,  this  segment  made 
gross profits but suffered net losses.  

23 

 
 
 
 
Figure 16: Shares of main indicators by fishing region. Source: MS data submissions 

  North Sea and Eastern Arctic  

Member  States’  fleets  operating  in  the  North  Sea  &  Eastern  Arctic  (NSEA)  region  in  2018 
numbered 2 065 vessels, a slight decrease (-1%) from 2017, and employed almost 4 500 FTE. 
The  revenue  generated  was  EUR 1.1  billion,  77%  of  which  was  provided  by  three  Member 
States: Denmark (35%), the Netherlands (31%) and Germany (11%).  

The overall performance of the EU fleets operating in the NSEA region was positive in 2018, 
with  some  deterioration  compared  to  2017.  GVA  produced  by  the  fleets  was  estimated  at 
about EUR 643 million (-6% compared to 2017). The fleets made EUR 314 million in gross 
profit (-10%) and EUR 179 million in net profit (-16%).  

  Baltic Sea  

Eight  Member  States  were  actively  involved  in  Baltic  Sea  fisheries  in  2018:  Denmark, 
Estonia,  Finland,  Germany,  Latvia,  Lithuania,  Poland,  and  Sweden.  These  fleets  numbered 
5 290  vessels,  a  slight  decrease  (-1%)  from  2017,  and  employed  4 265  FTE.  The  revenue 
generated amounted to EUR 215 million, 74% of which was provided by four Member States: 
Poland (22%), Sweden (22%), Finland (17%) and Denmark (13%).  

Overall, the performance of the fleet was positive in 2018, with some deterioration compared 
to 2017. GVA was estimated at EUR 110.2 million (-5% compared to 2017). The fleets made 
EUR 42  million  in  gross  profit  (-8%)  and  EUR  6.7  million  in  net  profit  (+20%).  Net  profit 
improved compared to 2017, as a result of lower or even negative opportunity costs of capital 
for  several  fleet  segments.  All  Member  State  fleets  with  the  exception  of  Germany  and 
Denmark generated net profits in 2018; an improvement on 2017, where four national fleets 
suffered net losses.  

  North Western Waters  

24 

 
 
The main Member State fleets in the North Western Waters (NWW) in terms of revenue are 
the  French,  Irish,  Spanish  and  Dutch.  Belgium,  Denmark  and  Germany  also  have  quite  a 
substantial amount of production while Portugal and Lithuania have low activity. Overall, the 
fleet  comprised 2 525  active vessels in  2018, employing 7 025 FTE. The revenue  generated 
amounted  to  EUR 1.1  billion,  83%  of  which  was  provided  by  three  Member  States:  France 
(47%), Ireland (25%) and Spain (11%). 

The fleet as a whole was profitable, but deteriorated compared to 2017: GVA was estimated 
at EUR 595 million (-5% compared to 2017), gross profit was EUR 216 million (-10%) and 
net profit EUR 103.5 million (-20%). 

  South Western Waters and CECAF – Madeira & Canaries  

The  main  Member  States’  fishing  fleets  in  the  Southern  Western  Waters  (SWW)  are  the 
Spanish, French and Portuguese, combined producing 99% of the revenue in 2018. The most 
important  species  include  hake,  albacore,  anchovy,  sardine  and  common  octopus.  The  fleet 
numbered 10 730 vessels and employed over 22 640 FTE in 2018.  

Overall,  the  fleet  was  profitable  but  generally  deteriorated  compared  to  2017:  revenue 
amounted  to  EUR 1.2  billion  and  GVA  was  estimated  at  EUR 714  million.  Gross  profit  at 
EUR 182  million  and  net  profit  at  EUR 92.5  million,  were  lower  than  in  2017,  -22%  and  -
36% respectively. Only the three main Member State fleets generated gross and net profits.  

By fishing activity, the SSCF generally performed better than in 2017 and generated EUR 278 
million in revenue (+1% increase relative to 2017), EUR 196 million in GVA (-2%%), EUR 
68 million in gross profit (+12%) and EUR 48 million in net profit (+19%). Contrariwise, the 
LSF saw performance deteriorate, generating EUR 915 million in revenue (-10%), EUR 518 
million in GVA (-15%), EUR 116 million in gross profit (-33%) and EUR 47 million in net 
profit (-55%). 

  Mediterranean Sea  

After continued improvement in performance since 2015, the Mediterranean Sea fleet reached 
a point of stagnation in 2018. Overall, the fleet  comprised  around 34 900 active vessels and 
employed 49 810 FTE. The revenue generated amounted to almost EUR 2.0 billion, 94% of 
which  was  provided  the  fleets  of  four  Member  States:  Italy  (55%),  Greece  (21%),  Spain 
(10%) and France (8%). 

Overall,  the  fleet  was  profitable  with  mixed  results  compared  to  2017:  while  revenue 
increased by about 3%, GVA estimated at EUR 1.2 billion and gross profit EUR 538 million 
decreased by around 2%. Net profit at EUR 306 million increased slightly. All Member State 
fleets generated gross profits while Cyprus was the only one to suffer net losses in 2018.   

  Black Sea 

Two  Member  States  are  involved  in  the  Black  Sea  fisheries:  Bulgaria  and  Romania.  The 
Bulgarian fleet makes up 90% of the EU fleet capacity in the region. The Black Sea fishery is 

25 

 
 
highly dependent on a few commercially important stocks: sea snails, sprat, turbot, red mullet 
and  mackerel.  The  main  fishing  gears  used  are  set  gillnets,  pelagic  trawls,  purse  and  beach 
seine, pots and traps.  

Overall,  the  fleet  comprised  around  1 340  vessels  and  employed  681  FTE.  The  revenue 
generated amounted to EUR 11.9 million, 66% of which was produced by the Bulgarian fleet. 

After the visible improvement of the regional fleet’s performance in 2015 to 2017, there was 
some deterioration in 2018. Revenue decreased by 11% compared to 2017; this was due to the 
SSCF,  which  saw  revenue  drop  by  24%.  GVA  (EUR 8.3  million),  gross  profit  (EUR 6.3 
million) and net profit (EUR 5.9 million) followed similar trends with reductions of 17% and 
18%, respectively for the gross and net profits, compared to 2017.  

  EU Outermost Regions (OMR) 

Combined,  the  OMR  fleet  numbered  2 818  active  vessels  in  2018;  6.5%  less  than  in  2017. 
With 1 608 vessels, the French fleet was the most numerous, accounting for 57% of the active 
fleet.  The  Portuguese  fleet  comprised  620  vessels  (22%)  and  the  Spanish  fleet  590  vessels 
(21%). Collectively, these vessels employed 3 213 FTE and landed 42 777 tonnes of seafood 
valued at EUR 148.5 million (excluding Saint Martin) in 2018.  

The  economic  performance  of  the  OMR  fleets  deteriorated  in  2018  compared  to  2017. 
However,  overall,  they  were  profitable.  Excluding  Mayotte,  St  Martin  and  Martinique,  the 
OMR  fleet  generated  a  revenue  EUR 118.8  million  in  2018,  a  20%  decrease  compared  to 
2017 (EUR 148.5 million).  

5.  Implementation of the landing obligation  

In line with Article 15(14) of the Regulation on the CFP, the Commission reports annually on 
the  implementation  of  the  landing  obligation  of  the  year  prior  to  the  report  based  on 
information  transmitted  by  the  Member  States,  the  Advisory  Councils  and  other  relevant 
sources to the Commission. This reporting is included since 2016 in the Commission’s annual 
Communication submitted every June on the State of Play of the CFP and Consultation on the 
Fishing Opportunities. The Commission’s Communication in 2021 covers the implementation 
of the landing obligation in 2020. 

This  legal  obligation  of  the  Commission  to  annually  report  on  the  implementation  of  the 
landing obligation does not apply anymore as of this year. However, as the landing obligation 
is  a  key  element  in  the  CFP  to  contribute  to  its  objectives  of  sustainable  fisheries,  it  was 
decided to  continue the annual  exercise.  In order to  facilitate the reporting, and in  line with 
the outcome of STECF EWG 16-04, in 2017 Member States were invited on a voluntary basis 
to  complete  questionnaires  seeking  more  detailed  information  on  the  impact  of  the  landing 
obligation  and  national  steps  taken  to  assist  with  its  implementation.  In  2018  and  2019, 
Member States were asked to update the information provided as appropriate with additional 
questions  on  control  and  enforcement.  The  questionnaire  continues  to  help  structure  the 
responses  provided  by  the  Member  States  and  the  quality  of  information  provided  has 

26 

 
 
 
improved. The questionnaire follows a similar approach each year to ensure comparability of 
replies. Still, where relevant, questions were updated in view of the available scientific advice 
and STECF 20-03 recommendations. 

Reports covering 2020 implementation were received from 17 Member States, two Advisory 
Councils  (referring  to  previous  recommendations  given),  as  well  as  the  European  Fisheries 
Control  Agency  (EFCA).  The  report  of  Germany  was  received  in  May  2021  and  could 
therefore  not  be  taken  in  the  analysis  of  this  staff  working  document.  No  reports  were 
received from Croatia, Ireland, Malta, Cyprus, United Kingdom and Romania. 

Table 5 shows the responses received from Member States by sea basin. Generally, Member 
States that responded followed the questionnaire although the level of detail provided varied 
widely.  Many  of  the  reports  tended  to  repeat  information  provided  for  earlier  years  (2016-
2019). It is underlined that the Baltic Sea is best covered this year. 

NWW 

Yes 

Yes 

Member 
States 
Belgium 
Bulgaria 
Croatia 
Cyprus 
Denmark 
Estonia 
Finland 
France 
Germany 
Greece 
Ireland 
Italy 
Latvia 
Lithuania 
Malta 
Netherlands  Yes 
Poland 
Portugal 
Romania 
Slovenia 
Spain 
Sweden 
United 
Kingdom 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

No 

SWW 

North Sea 

Baltic 

Mediterranean  Black Sea 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 
No 

Yes 

Yes 
No 

Yes 
Yes 
Yes 

No 

Yes 
Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

No 
No 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

Yes 
Yes 

Yes 

No 

Table 5: 2020 reports received (in 2021) by region (blanks indicate no activity in that sea 
basin) 

27 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
A key requirement in the review of the 2020 questionnaire responses was to indicate where 
there  was  evidence  of  adaptation,  development  or  change  from  the  previous  submissions, 
indicative of progress  towards implementation  of the landing obligation.  Table 6 provides a 
general  indication  of  the  extent  to  which  the  Member  State  reports  have  changed  since  the 
initial submission covering 2016. 

2016 

2017 

2018 

2019 

2020 

Member 
States 
Belgium 
Bulgaria 
Croatia 
Cyprus 
Denmark 
Estonia 
Finland 
France 
Germany 
Greece 
Ireland 
Italy 
Latvia 
Lithuania 
Malta 
Netherlands 
Poland 
Portugal 
Romania 
Slovenia 
Spain 
Sweden 
United 
Kingdom 

Table 6: Extent to which reports have been changing by Member States (Source: STECF 21-
01) 

Key: 

2016 
No Report 
No information 
Slight information 
Medium 
level 
information 
Significant information 

of 

>2017 
No Report 
No change 
Slight change 
Medium change 

Significant change 

*The ‘No Change’ category also includes responses where there were only minor changes 

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 

28 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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,  such  as  the  draft  report37  ‘Securing  the  objectives  of  the  landing  obligation  under 
Article  15  of  the  CFP’,  a  motion  for  a  European  Parliament  Resolution  on  securing  the 
objectives of the landing obligation. 

Progressive  changes  in  reports  might  be  interpreted  as  good  engagement  with  the  landing 
obligation  process  and  an  expression  of  intent.  Judgment  on  the  success  of  the  landing 
obligation  will  rely  on  adequate  data  on  reductions  in  discards  and  unwanted  catches  and  a 
transparent  system  for  ensuring  that  all  catches  are  accounted  for.  Up  until  2019,  Member 
State reports contained few of these data. By providing specific table formats for 2020, with 
question  7,  8,  16  and  18,  the  aim  was  to  receive  more  quantitative  data  from  the  Member 
States.  Although  some  Member  States38  filled  in  the  tables  and  a  comprehensive  overview 
was given of quantities discarded under exemptions – and  below the minimum conservation 
reference  size  (MCRS),  the  main  conclusion  is  that  it  remains  a  challenge  to  monitor  and 
control accurate documentation at sea – regarding discard data.  

The  main  identified  risks  to  the  inaccurate  documentation  and  the  weak  compliance  are 
related to the misreporting of discards made by operators; illegal discards of species with no 
exemptions available; and landings of specimen below MCRS. STECF re-iterates (PLEN 21-
01)  the  need  to  maintain  and  improve  the  collection  and  reporting  of  catch  (landings, 
unwanted  catch  and  discards)  data  as  pointed  out  by  EWG  20-04.  This  remains  a  major 
weakness  because  if  the  data  reported  do  not  reflect  the  actual  removals,  this  will  have  a 
significant impact on the quality of scientific advice and may compromise the achievement of 
the MSY objective. There is evidence from previous STECF evaluations and from ICES that 
levels  of  unwanted  catches  remain  high  in  many  mixed  demersal  fisheries  in  EU  waters. 
According to STECF, Member States seem more intent in adopting exemptions to allow the 
discarding  of  a  level  of  unwanted  catches  rather  than  improving  selectivity.  The  uptake  of 
more  selective  gears,  while  increasing,  remains  slow  and  STECF  observes  that  the 
progression  from  trialling  selective  gears  to  adoption  into  legislation  remains  a  lengthy 
process.  This  is  vital  as  the  objective  of  the  landing  obligation  is  to  eliminate  discards  and 
avoid, and reduce, as far as possible, unwanted catches, by increasing selectivity. 

STECF  acknowledges  that  the  Member  States  reports  for  2020  show  a  renewed  focus  on 
selectivity  trials,  which  is  positive.  However,  STECF  re-iterates  that  while  extensive  work 
continues  to  be  carried  out  on  selectivity,  for  some  regions,  this  work  remains  largely 
uncoordinated and not necessarily targeted at the right fisheries. The STECF advises a review 
of  the  work  completed  to  identify  what  works  and  what  does  not,  along  with  detailing 
fisheries  for  which  de  minimis  or  survivability  exemptions  are  already  in  place  and  where 
improving selectivity may reduce the need for such exemptions. 

37 https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/PECH-PR-659055_EN.pdf 
38 Question 7 & 8 (discards under exemptions): LT, NL, PL, ES, SE; Question 16 (<MCRS catches and its outlet): 
DK, EE, ES, GR, LT, LV, NL, SE; Question 18 (infringements): DK, ES, NL, PL, SE, PT 

29 

 
 
                                                           
5.1 Quota management 

Changes in quota management and re-allocation (still) seems to be one of the most effective 
and  used  tools  to  facilitate  the  implementation  of  the  landing  obligation.  Member  States 
continue  to  adapt  their  quota  management  to  facilitate  the  implementation  of  the  landing 
obligation. There is evidence of limited changes to the quota management systems in Member 
States.  Several  Member  States  with  Individual  Transferable  Quota  (ITQ)  systems  have 
adapted them to the landing obligation, including the use of bycatch and over shoot quotas to 
cover unintended catches and prevent “choke” situations. Most Member States continue to use 
inter annual flexibility but there are very few reported instances of the inter species flexibility 
mechanism being used. 

There is no evidence of any significant increases in quota swapping between Member States, 
and  this  is  confirmed  by  the  Commission’s  QUOTA  database  (Figures  17a-b  and  18a-b). 
However,  it  remains  an  important  mechanism,  and  there  are  specific  cases  where  Member 
States report that quota swaps have helped to avoid choke situations.  

To  increase  transparency  and  facilitate  the  swapping,  the  Commission  publishes  the  quota 
swaps list per year on a publicly available website39. The file for the current year is updated 
on a weekly basis. 

Volume of Quota swaps (t) 

900.000

800.000

700.000

600.000

500.000

400.000

300.000

200.000

100.000

0

Total

7
9
9
1

8
9
9
1

9
9
9
1

0
0
0
2

1
0
0
2

2
0
0
2

3
0
0
2

4
0
0
2

5
0
0
2

6
0
0
2

7
0
0
2

8
0
0
2

9
0
0
2

0
1
0
2

1
1
0
2

2
1
0
2

3
1
0
2

4
1
0
2

5
1
0
2

6
1
0
2

7
1
0
2

8
1
0
2

9
1
0
2

0
2
0
2

1
2
0
2

39 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   

30 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0

Number of Quota swaps 

Total

7
9
9
1

8
9
9
1

9
9
9
1

0
0
0
2

1
0
0
2

2
0
0
2

3
0
0
2

4
0
0
2

5
0
0
2

6
0
0
2

7
0
0
2

8
0
0
2

9
0
0
2

0
1
0
2

1
1
0
2

2
1
0
2

3
1
0
2

4
1
0
2

5
1
0
2

6
1
0
2

7
1
0
2

8
1
0
2

9
1
0
2

0
2
0
2

1
2
0
2

Figures 17a - b: 1997 - 2021 quota swaps40 

40 Source: Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, European Commission (QUOTA). The year 
2021 is not yet completed. 

31 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
Volume of Quota swaps "in" per MS (t) 

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

7
9
9
1

8
9
9
1

9
9
9
1

0
0
0
2

1
0
0
2

2
0
0
2

3
0
0
2

4
0
0
2

5
0
0
2

6
0
0
2

7
0
0
2

8
0
0
2

9
0
0
2

0
1
0
2

1
1
0
2

2
1
0
2

3
1
0
2

4
1
0
2

5
1
0
2

6
1
0
2

7
1
0
2

8
1
0
2

9
1
0
2

0
2
0
2

1
2
0
2

Number of Quota swaps "in" per MS 

180000

160000

140000

120000

100000

80000

60000

40000

20000

0

7
9
9
1

8
9
9
1

9
9
9
1

0
0
0
2

1
0
0
2

2
0
0
2

3
0
0
2

4
0
0
2

5
0
0
2

6
0
0
2

7
0
0
2

8
0
0
2

9
0
0
2

0
1
0
2

1
1
0
2

2
1
0
2

3
1
0
2

4
1
0
2

5
1
0
2

6
1
0
2

7
1
0
2

8
1
0
2

9
1
0
2

0
2
0
2

1
2
0
2

B
E
L
C
Y
P
D
E
U
D
N
K
E
S
P
E
S
T

BEL

CYP

DEU

DNK

ESP

EST

FIN

FRA

GBR

GRC

HRV

IRL

ITA

Figures 18a – b: Number and volume of quota swaps per Member State 1997 - 202141 

41 Source: Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, European Commission (QUOTA). The year 
2021 is not yet completed. 

32 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
5.2 Sea basins implementation 

Delegated Regulations specifying the details of implementation of the landing obligation 

To  ensure  successful  and  feasible  implementation,  exemptions  from  the  obligation  are 
provided  under  Article  15(4)  of  the  CFP  Regulation.  In  addition  to  prohibited  species  and 
predator damage exemptions, the landing obligation does not apply to: (i) high survivability 
exemptions,  for  which  scientific  evidence  demonstrates  high  survival  rates;  and  (ii)  de 
minimis exemptions of up to 5% of the total annual catches either because scientific evidence 
demonstrates  that  increases  in  selectivity  are  difficult  to  achieve  or  in  order  to  avoid 
disproportionate  costs  of  handling  unwanted  catches.  Article  15(5)  of  the  CFP  Regulation 
stipulates that the details of the implementation of the landing obligation shall be specified in 
multiannual plans. For those sea basins with no multiannual plan, Article 15(6) CFP, prior the 
submission  of  a  joint  recommendation  by  the  Member  States  concerned,  empowered  the 
Commission  to  adopt  delegated  acts  laying  down  specific  discard  plans,  containing  the 
exemptions. Discard plans could be adopted for an initial period of three years, that could be 
renewed for another three years, as agreed upon by the co-legislators42, because multiannual 
plans  were  not  in  place  everywhere  when  the  discard  plans  were  reaching  their  initial 
expiration date. Most of those discard plans have reached the total  period of 6  years by the 
end  of  2020,  or  will  reach  the  total  period  of  6  years  by  the  end  of  2021.  Details  on  the 
implementation of the landing obligation are now specified in the multiannual plans, in line 
with Article 15(5) of the CFP Regulation. 

Currently the landing obligation is fully in force and multiannual plans are adopted for most 
waters.  The  Western  Waters43,  the  North  Sea44,  the  Baltic45  and  the  western  Mediterranean 
multiannual plans46 empower the Commission to adopt delegated acts specifying the details of 
implementation  of  the  landing  obligation  for  all  species  under  the  landing  obligation, 
including the de minimis and high survivability exemptions and technical measures aimed at 
increasing  gear  selectivity  or  reducing  or,  as  far  as  possible,  eliminating  unwanted  catches. 
Where those delegated acts include technical measures, these should be in full coherence with 
the  objectives  of  the  Technical  Measures  Regulation47,  which  provides  in  its  Article  15  the 
possibility  for  adopting  delegating  regulations  aiming  to  amend,  supplement,  repeal  or 
derogate from the technical measures set out in the Annexes to that Regulation. The suggested 
measures  within  the  joint  recommendations  should  take  into  account  the  best  available 

42 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). 
43 Article 13, Regulation (EU) 2019/472 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 March 2019 establishing a multiannual plan for 
stocks fished in the Western Waters and adjacent waters, and for fisheries exploiting those stocks, amending Regulations (EU) 2016/1139 
and (EU) 2018/973, and repealing Council Regulations (EC) No 811/2004, (EC) No 2166/2005, (EC) No 388/2006, (EC) No 509/2007 and (EC) 
No 1300/2008 
44 Article 11, Regulation (EU) 2018/973 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2018 establishing a multiannual plan for 
demersal stocks in the North Sea and the fisheries exploiting those stocks, specifying details of the implementation of the landing 
obligation in the North Sea and repealing Council Regulations (EC) No 676/2007 and (EC) No 1342/2008 
45 Article 7, Regulation (EU) 2016/1139 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 2016 establishing a multiannual plan for the 
stocks of cod, herring and sprat in the Baltic Sea and the fisheries exploiting those stocks, amending Council Regulation (EC) No 2187/2005 
and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1098/2007 
46 Article 14, Regulation (EU) 2019/1022 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 establishing a multiannual plan for 
the fisheries exploiting demersal stocks in the western Mediterranean Sea and amending Regulation (EU) No 508/2014 
47 Regulation (EU) 1241/2019 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 (OJ L 198, p. 
105) 

33 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
scientific advice as well as include scientific evidence for the basis of the exemptions and will 
be submitted by the Commission to STECF for assessment. 

In 2020, the following delegated regulations specifying the details of implementation  of the 
landing obligation are in place: 

1.  Commission  Delegated  Regulation  (EU)  2020/2015  of  21  August  2020  specifying 
details of the implementation of the landing obligation for certain fisheries in Western 
Waters for the period 2021-2023  

2.  Commission  Delegated  Regulation  (EU)  2020/2014  of  21  August  2020  specifying 
details  of  implementation  of  the  landing  obligation  for  certain  fisheries  in  the  North 
Sea for the period 2021-2023 

3.  Commission  Delegated  Regulation  (EU)  2020/2012  of  5  August  2020  amending 
Delegated  Regulation  (EU)  2018/161  establishing  a  de  minimis  exemption  to  the 
landing  obligation  for  certain  small  pelagic  fisheries  in  the  Mediterranean  Sea,  as 
regards its period of application  (2021 – 2023) 

4.  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  

5.  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 

6.  Commission  Delegated  Regulation  (EU)  2020/2237  of  13  August  2020  amending 
Delegated  Regulation  (EU)  2020/3  as  regards  the  derogation  for  the  minimum 
conservation  reference  size  of  Venus  shells  (Venus  spp.)  in  certain  Italian  territorial 
waters  

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

a discard plan as regards salmon in the Baltic Sea  

It  should  be  noted  that  in  2020,  the  COVID  crisis  impacted  the  timing  and  preparation  of 
some  of  the  scientific  efforts  and  led  Member  States’  regional  groups  to  face  very  difficult 
circumstances  when  preparing  the  joint  recommendations  on  the  implementation  of  the 
landing obligation and the technical measures.  

Mediterranean 
Mediterranean fisheries display a high diversity of species and fishing methods with landings 
in  some  areas  being  predominantly  small  pelagic  species  while  demersal  species  represent 
higher market values. Most Mediterranean stocks are exploited by local fleets, unlike Atlantic 
stocks,  that  are  characterized  with  catch  volumes  generally  smaller  than  hold  capacity  of 
fishing  boats.  The  implementation  of  the  landing  obligation  is  thus  not  affecting  much  the 
carrying capacity for target species, nor the economics of Mediterranean fisheries. 

Within  this  context,  the  most  recent  steps  of  the  implementation  of  the  landing  obligation 
focused  on  the  improvement  of  data  collection  and  the  adoption  of  discard  plans  for  small 
pelagics  and  demersals.  Further  work  is  on-going  to  strengthen  scientific  monitoring  of  the 
landing obligation and its exemptions. 

5.3 Control and enforcement 

34 

 
 
 
 
 
 
The European Commission has a responsibility to control and evaluate the application of the 
rules  of  the  CFP  by  Member  States  (Article  96(1)  of  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No 
1224/2009)48.  In  fulfilling  this  role,  the  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.  The  audit  series  was  completed  in  November  2020  and  to  date 
final audit reports are at various stages of completion.  

The findings of the audits indicate that the landing obligation is not effectively controlled and 
enforced and that 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 
EFCA  compliance  evaluation  reports49  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 
Waters. 

The  reporting  of  discards  by  fishermen  continues  to  be  very  low  and  underrepresents  the 
actual quantities discarded. Quantities recorded as discarded under de minimis provisions are 
in general significantly below permitted thresholds. The registration of landed catches below 
the MCRS is very low, indicating that such catches are illegally discarded at sea rather than 
avoided  through  more  selective  fishing  practices.  More  Member  States  (Cyprus,  Denmark, 
Finland,  Germany,  Greece,  Ireland,  the  Netherlands,  Portugal  and  Spain)  than  in  previous 
years  provided  quite  detailed  information  on  below  MCRS  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 and 2020, it is extremely doubtful that they reflect the true quantities being 
caught.  Observer  data  from  ICES  and  last-haul  analysis  by  EFCA50  indicate  large 
discrepancies between what is reported and what is observed. Member States should ramp up 
efforts to ensure better reporting of such catches. The landing obligation requires a paradigm 
shift  in  terms  of  control  and  enforcement  and  requires  the  introduction  of  modern  control 
technologies  such  as  remote  electric  monitoring  (REM)  tools  incorporating  closed  circuit 
television (CCTV) and sensors. The fact that fishing activities by the vast majority of Union 
fishing vessels  currently take place  without effective control  remains  a serious issue for the 
successful implementation of the landing obligation. 

48 OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1. 
49 Link to executive summaries: https://www.efca.europa.eu/en/content/pressroom/evaluation-suggests-non-compliance-
landing-obligations-certain-fisheries-north-sea. 
50 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. 

35 

 
 
                                                           
In  general,  the  EFCA  highlights  that  their  activities  to  promote  an  effective  and  efficient 
implementation  of  the  landing  obligation  were  impacted  by  the  COVID-19  situation  during 
2020.  Member  States  report  similar  difficulties  as  well  as  with  on  board  sampling  and  the 
carrying  out  of  research  work  and  pilot  studies  relating  to  implementation  of  the  landing 
obligation because of COVID-19. 

Member  States  still  rely  on  conventional/traditional  controls  such  as  inspections  at  sea, 
inspections at landing, data analysis 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. The essential role of effective enforcement 
should  be  acknowledged  in  light  of  the  strong  incentives  for  non-compliance  and  the 
generally poor levels of ‘buy in’ by the fishing industry. Traditional  controls cannot reliably 
detect illegal and unreported discarding and cannot ensure compliance with the conditions and 
thresholds associated with exemptions  such as the survivability and  de minimis exemptions. 
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  requirements.  This  deficiency  poses  a  significant  risk  to  the  long-term 
sustainability objectives of the CFP, especially when the capacity of the Member States’ fleets 
and the biological status of certain stocks are taken into consideration51. 

Effective  control  and  enforcement  is  essential  to  the  success  of  the  landing  obligation.  The 
Commission supported the use of the REM tools, incorporating closed-circuit television and 
sensor  data,  in  its  proposal  for  a  revised  Fisheries  Control  System52.  In  recognition  of  the 
value of REM controls, in 2019 EFCA published their Technical guidelines and specifications 
for the implementation of Remote Electronic Monitoring (REM) in EU fisheries53 to facilitate 
the  harmonised  adoption  of  REM  controls  by  Member  States.  The  absence  of  meaningful 
control  measures in  2021 is  disappointing, considering the time afforded to  Member States’ 
control  authorities  to  apply  effective  controls  since  the  phasing-in  period  that  started  in 
January 2015.  

As a result of the failure to adopt the necessary means, such as REM, to ensure control and 
enforcement of the landing obligation, indications point towards widespread non-compliance 
and  prolific,  undocumented  illegal  discarding  of  catches.  This  represents  a  significant  risk 
which is emphasized by the STECF as it is vital to maintain and improve the collection and 
reporting  of  catch  (landings,  unwanted  catch  and  discards)  data.  If  the  data  reported  do  not 
reflect  the  actual  removals,  this  will  have  a  significant  impact  on  the  quality  of  scientific 
advice and may compromise the achievement of the MSY objective. Monitoring all catches 

51 For example, Lisa Borges 2020 paper on The unintended impact of the European discard ban 
(https://academic.oup.com/icesjms/article/78/1/134/6026103). 
52 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, 30.5.2018). 
53 https://www.efca.europa.eu/en/content/technical-guidelines-and-specifications-implementation-remote-
electronic-monitoring-rem-eu 

36 

 
 
                                                           
using  onboard  measures  such  as  REM  have  shown  to  be  an  effective  way  to  monitor  the 
landing obligation to generate catch evidence for science and compliance. 

5.4 Socio-economic effect and safety issues 

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. As stated 
in  2019,  the  general  conclusion  of  Horizon2020  projects  was  that  while  there  were  initial 
short-term  negative  economic  impacts,  in  the  longer  term  these  were  more  positive.  This  is 
consistent  with  the  fact  that  recent  trends  in  the  economic  performance  of  many  EU  fleets 
have  been  generally  positive  before  the  impacts  of  the  COVID-19  outbreak  in  2020.  The 
STECF notes that it is not possible currently to assess information on socio-economic impacts 
of implementation of the landing obligation as, to date, Member States have not reported on 
such impacts. 

There  was  again  no  clear  evidence  of  the  landing  obligation  causing  safety  issues  on  board 
fishing vessels and reports from Member States were identical to the previous years in that no 
incidents or issues were recorded.  

6.  The role of Advisory Councils in 2020  

2020 was marked by the start of the functioning of the CC RUP, the Advisory Council for the 
outermost  regions,  which  was  the  last  one  to  be  set  up.  In  2020,  there  were  11  Advisory 
Councils54. which submitted 128 advices to the Commission, versus 72 in 2019, representing 
nearly a doubling compared to 2019. 

These recommendations  were related to a large range of subjects on CFP-related issues, the 
Covid  pandemic,  the  aquaculture  guidelines,  environmental  specific  issues  or  the  blue 
economy. 

Subjects covered by the ACs' 
recommendations in 2020 

19 

14 

12 

7  7 

8 

6 

2 

1 

3 

1 

3 

2 

1 

2 

1 

2 

5 

1 

6 

3 

9 

7 

1 

1 

3  3 

1 

20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0

i

l

i
l

)
3
(

)
1
(

)
7
(

)
8
(

)
7
(

…
s
e
n

…
d
n
w
e
54 These 11 Advisory Councils are the Aquaculture AC (AAC), the Baltic Sea AC (BSAC), the Black Sea AC (BlSAC), 
n
i
r
a
the  Advisory  Council  for  Outermost  Regions  (CC  RUP),  the  Long  Distance  AC  (LDAC),  the  Market  Advisory 
m
Council  (MAC),  the  Mediterranean  AC  (MEDAC),  the  North  Sea  AC  (NSAC),  the  North  Western  Waters  AC 
(NWWAC), the pelagic AC (PELAC) and the South Western Waters AC (SWWAC).  

)
6
(
y
g
e
t
a
r
t
S
k
r
o
F
o
t

…
c
i
t
s
a
P
e
s
U
e
g
n
i
S

)
1
(
y
m
o
n
o
c
e
e
u
b

c
i
m
e
d
n
a
p
d
i
v
o
C

)
3
(
y
t
e
f
a
s
d
o
o
f

t
n
e
m
e
g
a
n
a
m

s
r
a
e
g
g
n
h
s
i
f

s
e
i
c
e
p
s
h
s
i
f

)
1
(
n
o
i
t
a
s
i
l

s
e
i
r
e
h
s
i
f
n

s
n
a
e
c
a
t
e
c

s
e
r
u
s
a
e
m

)
2
(
n
o
i
t
a
g

)
1
(
n
o
i
t
c
e

)
3
(
F
C
E
T
S

f
o
t
c
a
p
m

s
t
e
k
r
a
m

a
n
o
g
e
r

o
c
a
t
a
d

s
O
M
F
R

…
1
-
3
1
(

o
r
t
n
o
c

…
d
n
a
s
e
i
c
e
p
s
e
v
i
s
a
v
n

)
2
(
g
n
n
m
a
e
s
-
p
e
e
d

t
c
a
p
m

r
e
h
t
o

…
c
i
m

s
n
a
P

)
9
1
(

)
4
1
(

s
i
e
s

U
U

)
3
(

)
3
(

)
6
(

)
9
(

)
1
(

)
1
(

)
7
(

l
l

i
l

I

i

i

l

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

l

l

i

l

l

l

i

i

b
o
g
n
d
n
a

l

a
u
n
n
A
-
i
t
l
u
M

e
d
u
g
e
r
u
t
l
u
c
a
u
q
a

s
e
n
u
t
r
o
p
p
O
g
n
h
s
i
F

i

s
c
A
f
o
g
n
n
o
i
t
c
n
u
f

37 

a
c
i
n
h
c
e
T

n
e
m
o
W

c
i
f
i
c
e
p
S

s
e
i
r
e
h
s
i
f

m
r
a
F

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 19: Subjects covered by the Advisory Councils’ recommendations in 2020 

Each  Advisory  Council  produced  from  2  to  19  individual  advices.  2020  was  also 
characterised by an increase in the number of joint recommendations, which were often led by 
the NWWAC. The advice on blue economy in particular was signed by all the ACs, while the 
advice  on  Single  Use  Plastics  Directive  and  the  Fishing  for  Litter  Scheme  was  signed  by  8 
ACs. The activity of the CC RUP, which became operational only in March 2020 was really 
impressive with 6 advices.  

The recommendations are split as follows by individual ACs: 

Number of advices by ACs in 2020 

19 

13 

12 

12 

10 

6 

2 

16 

14 

9 

10 

8 

20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0

Figure 20: Number of advices by Advisory Councils in 2020 

6.1. Contribution of the Advisory Councils in the context of the COVID-19 crisis 

In  2020,  the  outbreak  of  the  COVID-19  pandemic  severely  affected  the  fishing  and 
aquaculture  sectors,  leaving  fishers  at  dock  and  leading  to  socio-economic  effects  on  the 
whole value chain. Sustaining business operations at the backdrop of the crisis became a top 
priority  in  order  for  the  sector  to  safeguard  its  immediate  viability  and  preserve  activity  in 
local  communities.  In this  context,  advice from  the Advisory Councils helped identify most 
urgent actions to be undertaken by the Commission to alleviate the impact of the pandemic on 
the sector. 7 recommendations from 4 different Advisory Councils (LDAC, MAC, MEDAC, 
SWWAC) were prepared in this regard. 

Most of these contributions called for emergency measures to ensure the safety of employees 
on  board  and  in  the  value  chain  as  well  as  to  ensure  the  short-term  financial  viability  of 
fishing  and  processing  undertakings.  They  informed  the  Commission  on  the  needs  of  the 
sector  in  relation  to  specific  issues  such  as  state  aids,  temporary  cessation  of  activities  or 
compensations  for  revenue  losses.  They  guided  the  Commission  in  the  amendment  of  the 
EMFF  Regulation  and  implementation  of  targeted  EMFF  and  common  market  organisation 
(CMO)  measures  in  the  framework  of  the  “Coronavirus  Response  Investement  Initiative 
Plus”. 

38 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
6.2. Recommendations by Advisory Councils on aquaculture 

In 2020, DG MARE received 4 recommendations from the AAC on the preparation of the 
aquaculture  guidelines,  3  general  and  one  on  shellfish.  These  recommendations  identified 
priorities and actions to be carried out by involved partners as well as specific proposals such 
as a pledge for fish welfare to be considered broadly in the Guidelines or the overall support 
to the idea of EU aquaculture sector being carbon neutral by 2050 and the encouragement to 
widen  the  scope  of  indicators  in  terms  of  data  and  monitoring  and  of  indicators  on 
environmental  performance.  The  Commission  took  into  consideration  all  these  proposals  in 
the preparation of the new Strategic Guidelines. While the AAC recommended also to review 
guidelines every 18 months in order to better adapt priorities to challenges, the Commission 
explained  that  18  months  was  not  sufficient  to  see  the  results  of  the  actions  proposed,  and 
proposed instead an assessment every 3 years. The proposals on shellfish-specific guidelines 
were also very relevant and are all incorporated to the work on the new Strategic Guidelines. 

6.3. Recommendations by Advisory Councils on the landing obligation 

In  2020,  Advisory  Councils  were  also  asked  to  contribute  to  the  Annual  report  on  the 
implementation  of  the  landing  obligation  in  2019,  the  first  year  when  this  important 
provision  of  the  CFP  Regulation  applied  to  all  fisheries.  3  ACs  (MAC,  NWWAC  and 
SWWAC)  fed  into  the  drafting  of  the  report55.  Responses  received  highlighted  again  the 
problem of choke species  causing the premature  closure of  fisheries, which they identify as 
the biggest challenge in implementing the landing obligation. Feedback received by EFCA in 
relation to its participation in ACs meetings confirmed the utility of ACs meetings to keep the 
EFCA staff informed of the main issues of concern for the stakeholders56.  

In  relation  to  the  landing  obligation,  the  ACs  were  also  involved  in  the preparation  of  joint 
recommendations for two discard plans adopted in 2020. NWWAC, PELAC and SWWAC 
were  consulted  on  2  joint  recommendations  from  Belgium,  Spain,  France,  Ireland,  the 
Netherlands  and  Portugal  for  a  discard  plan  for  certain  fisheries  in  Western  Waters,  which 
served  as  a  basis  for  adopting  Commission  Delegated  Regulation  (EU)  No  2020/201557. 
NSAC  and  PELAC  were  consulted  on  a  joint  recommendation  from  Belgium,  Denmark, 
France, Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden for a discard plan for certain fisheries in the 
North  Sea,  leading  to  the  adoption  of  Commission  Delegated  Regulation  (EU)  No 
2020/201458. In addition, ACs were consulted on the amending of existing discard plans and 
exemptions to the landing obligation. These include the amending of Commission Delegated 
Regulation  (EU)  2020/3  as  regards  the  derogation  for  the  minimum  conservation  reference 
size (MCRS) of Venus shells in certain Italian territorial waters, for which MEDAC supported 
the extension of the MCRS derogation until 31 December 2022, which was finally granted by 
the amending act.  

6.4. Recommendations by Advisory Councils on by-catches of cetaceans 

55 STECF (2020) Evaluation of Member States’ Annual Reports on the Landing Obligation (for 2019)  URL 
56 See EFCA (2020) 2019 Annual Report URL 
57  Commission  Delegated  Regulation  (EU)  2020/2015  of  21  August  2020  specifying  details  of  the 
implementation of the landing obligation for certain fisheries in Western Waters for the period 2021-2023 (OJ L 
415, 10.12.2020, p. 22–38). 
58 Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/2014 of 21 August 2020 specifying details of implementation of 
the landing obligation for certain fisheries in the North Sea for the period 2021-2023 (OJ L 415, 10.12.2020, p. 
10–21). 

39 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
In  2020,  5  recommendations  were  also  received  from  ACs  on  by-catches  of  cetaceans  (2 
from  BSAC,  1  from  NWWAC  and  2  from  SWWAC).  The  Commission  recognised  the 
intensive  of  the  BSAC  on  the  issue  of  bycatch  of  the  critically  endangered  Baltic  Proper 
harbour  porpoise.  The  recommendations  received  from  the  NWWAC  and  SWWAC  on  the 
issue  of  incidental  by-catches  of  small  cetaceans  in  the  North  Western  Waters  and  Bay  of 
Biscay were also very useful for the Commission in its assesment. On the issue of bycatch of 
cetaceans  and  other  protected  and  sensitive  species,  the  Commission  encourages  a  regional 
approach and a close cooperation between the ACs, the Member States and their fisheries and 
environmental authorities, as well as with the respective high level Member States’ groups.  

6.5. Recommendations received in the context of the European Green Deal 

In the context of the European Green Deal, the Commission launched in 2020 a consultation 
on  the  blue  economy,  in  order  to  identify  ways  to  make  the  EU’s  ‘blue  economy’  more 
sustainable. The goal  of this communication is to aid  economic recovery  and tackle climate 
change, by promoting sustainable products and services that preserve the marine environment 
and maintain ocean health. The advice drafted by all the ACs59 in December 2020 in reply to 
this consultation  was  very  useful  in  the context  of the preparation of the Communication in 
this subject60.  
Still in relation to the Green Deal, DG MARE received 6 letters on the Farm to Fork Strategy 
in  2020,  which  all  confirmed  the  ACs  support  to  this  strategy.  Several  recommendations 
received  on  health  and  food  safety  issues  or  on  labelling  of  fish-products  were  not  directly 
under DG MARE remit and transferred to concerned DGs.  
A multi-AC Advice on the implementation of the Single Use Plastics Directive and Fishing 
for Litter, involving 8 ACs, was also received, which recommendations were very useful for 
several work streams of DG MARE, but also other services such as DG ENV, DG MOVE and 
EASME.  

Finally,  it  is  worth  mentioning  2  joint  recommendations  received  in  2020  on  newly  raised 
issues that are the impact of seismic activities and of wind energy on fisheries. While the ACs  
requested  to  ask  for  an  ICES  advice,  which  did  not  fit  into  the  scope  and  timeframe  of  the 
cooperation  between  DG  MARE  and  ICES,  other  solutions  to  tackle  these  issues  were 
proposed in order to pursue the reflexions on these subjects.  

6.6. Contributions of Advisory Councils on fishing opportunities for 2021 

The  Commission  paid  great  attention  to  the  recommendations  of  Advisory  Councils  on 
fishing opportunities when elaborating in 2020 its proposals for 2021.  

The Commission did its proposal on fishing opportunities for 2021 in the Atlantic and North 
Sea in October 202061. In order to take the underutilization effects of Covid-19 into account, 
as  recommended  by  NSAC  and  PELAC  and  requested  by  Member  States,  the  Commission 
agreed  to  ask  ICES  early  in  2021  to  examine  whether  for  any  stocks  within  safe  biological 

59 With the exception of the AAC. 
60 Not published yet. 
61 Proposal for a Council Regulation fixing for 2021 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups 
of fish stocks, applicable in Union waters and, for Union fishing vessels, in certain non-Union waters 
(COM/2020/668 final). 

40 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
limits, a low uptake of the quota in 2020 justifies an increased TAC in 2021, this in view of a 
possible in-year amendment of the TACs for such stocks.  

In accordance with the advice from the North Sea AC to put in place remedial measures for 
the  recovery  of  North  Sea  cod,  the  Commission  proposed  to  continue  existing  safeguard 
measures to ensure that the amount of cod in Kattegat recovers to safe levels, and set a fishing 
quota  for  by-catches  only.  Fishers  in  the  area  were  also  invited  to  use  selective  gears  that 
reduce or avoid cod by-catches, or electronic monitoring to prevent illegal discards.  

In  view  of  the  Brexit  and  taking  on  board  the  concerns  expressed  by  the  NSAC,  NWWAC 
and  PELAC  on  its  consequences,  the  Commission  proposal  also  incorporated  in  2020  the 
Total Allowable Catches that will be decided in cooperation with non-EU countries, such as 
the United Kingdom and Norway, or through Regional Fisheries Management Organisations 
(RFMOs). 
The advice from the CC RUP on Fishing Opportunities however, which proposed to allocate 
TACs  at  outermost  regions  level,  could  not  be  retained  as  related  to  issues  to  be  fixed  at 
national level. 

In the Baltic Sea, the most TACs were set at the upper FMSY range of the Baltic Sea Multi-
Annual  Plan,  generally  in  accordance  with  the  NGOs  minority  position  of  the  BSAC. 
However,  the  proposal  by  some  NGOs  to  set  quotas  at  the  lower  FMSY  range  was  not 
retained,  in  accordance  with  economic  and  social  considerations.  As  the  situation  of  the 
Eastern Cod stock has not  improved,  the Commission proposed to  continue with  a by-catch 
quota, as proposed by the BSAC, but reduced this by-catch quota by 70%, based on scientific 
advice, while maintaining all the accompanying measures. 

For  the  Mediterranean  and  Black  Sea,  the  Commission  proposed  fishing  opportunties 
which incorporate the ambitious measures agreed at  GFCM level, including  an autonomous 
quota for sprat62. The proposal made by the MEDAC to wait for a further assesment on the  
socio-economic  consequences  of  COVID-crisis  on  demersal  fisheries  in  the  Western 
Mediterranean  Sea  and  in  the  Adriatic  Sea  before  setting  fishing  opportunities  was  not 
retained  as  the  Commission  considered  that  implementing  the  EU  legislation,  including  the 
West Med MAP, remains essential for the fish stocks to recover and for the communities to 
secure a long-term livelihood in the Mediterranean. While the Commission was very aware of 
the  impact  of  the  Covid  pandemic  on  the  coastal  communities  in  the  Mediterranean  Sea,  it 
reacted promptly in April 2020 by the adoption of an emergency fund63 to help the sector and 
marine communities to adapt, recover and evolve in the face of the existing difficulties related 
to Covid as well as to the poor state of the stocks in the Mediterranean Sea.  

6.7. Functioning of the ACs 

Already  initiated  in  2019,  the  discussion  on  the  improvement  of  the  functioning  of  the 
Advisory  Councils  further  unfolded  in  2020,  with  12  recommendations  produced  in  this 
regard.  Most  recommendations  were  sent  to  the  Commission  in  the  run-up  to  the  inter 
Advisory-Councils  meeting  organisated  in  January  2021,  an  event  largely  dedicated  to 
discussing ways to improve the functioning of the Advisory Councils and making sure they 
fully play their role of consultation bodies as enshrined in the CFP Regulation.  

62 Proposal for a Council Regulation fixing for 2021 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups 
of fish stocks applicable in the Mediterranean and Black Seas (COM(2020) 377 final).  
63 SURE - European instrument for temporary Support to mitigate Unemployment Risks in an Emergency. 

41 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Advice  received  from  stakeholders  in  this  context  allowed  for  the  identification  of 
shortcomings  in  the  functioning  of  the  Advisory  Councils,  including  issues  linked  to  the 
balanced representation of all interests, the  impartiality of the chairs and secretariats and the 
relations  with  Commission  services.  Most  importantly,  Advisory  Councils,  through  their 
recommendations,  suggested  solutions  to  overcome  the  challenges  faced  and  put  forward 
good  practices  that  already  proved  beneficial  in  several  ACs.  The  input  received  helped 
reflect on ways forward, from concrete actions to be implemented by both Advisory Councils 
and the Commission in the amendment of Delegated Regulation (EU) No 2015/24264. It was 
also  the basis for adopting new internal  procedures  for  dealing with  recommendations from 
the  Advisory  Councils,  with  a  view  to  enhancing  and  streamlining  the  cooperation  between 
the Commission and the ACs and ensure a better framing of recommendations within the CFP 
scope. 

6.8. Consultations initiated by the Commission 

While  the  Advisory  Councils  are  invited  to  constantly  provide  their  input  to  public 
consultations launched by the Commission65, they were in 2020 more specifically invited to 
contribute  to  specific  files  such  as  Endocrine  Disruptors,  the  European  Union's  Generalised 
Scheme  of  Preferences  (GSP),  a  Climate  Adaptation  Strategy,  harmonized  standards  for 
circular  design  of  fishing  gear  or  the  revision  of  the  geographical  indications’  system.  The 
diversity  of  the  subjects  on  which  they  were  consulted  shows  how  much  the  Advisory 
Councils’ advice is essential in the development of the policy.  

6.9. Conclusion 

Despite challenging circumstances, Advisory Councils in 2020 kept playing their role of key 
stakeholder  consultation  bodies  in  the  midst  of  the  crisis.  Fully  grasping  the  opportunities 
offered  by  online  digital  meetings,  they  kept  working  towards  issuing  advices  and 
coordinating  their  positions,  although  improvements  are  needed  in  some  cases  on  the 
achievement  of  consensus.  Recommendations  received  helped  in  particular  assessing  the 
impact  of  the  pandemic  on  the  sector,  identifying  mitigation  measures  and  ultimately 
reflecting on the post-covid perspective for the sector. 

7.  International ocean governance 

In February 2021, the Commission  actively participated, on behalf of the EU, in  the virtual 
meeting of the 34th FAO Committee on Fisheries  (COFI) and endorsed the FAO Declaration 
on  Fisheries  and  Aquaculture  Sustainability,  which  acknowledges  the  achievements  of  the 
fisheries  and  aquaculture  sectors  since  the  endorsement  of  the  FAO  Code  of  Conduct  for 
Responsible Fisheries 25 years ago. On that occasion, the Commission also stressed the vital 
contribution  of  the  sector  to  the  global  economy  and  to  global  food  and  nutrition  security, 
promoted  a  post-COVID  recovery  based  on  strengthened  sustainability  and  resilience,  and 

64 Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/242 of 9 October 2014 laying down the rules on the functioning 
of the Advisory Councils under the Common Fisheries Policy (OJ L 41, 17.2.2015, p. 1–4). 
65https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say 

42 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
  
called  on  collective  momentum  in  tackling  the  challenges  and  opportunities  to  secure  the 
long-term sustainability of the sector. The Commission, on behalf of the EU, also took part in 
the decision to develop guidelines on the regulation, monitoring and control of transhipment 
operations  for  adoption  at  the  next  COFI  in  2022,  as  well  as  to  progress  on  developing 
Sustainable  Aquaculture  Guidelines.  Both  could  be  important  soft  international  law 
instruments  to  advance  EU  interests  on  aquaculture  and  fisheries  worldwide  under  the 
European Green Deal. 

In relation to  Regional  Fisheries Management  Organisations (RFMOs), our activity in  2020 
shows that the EU continues to be a key driver for progress in RFMOs. This is despite the fact 
that  RFMOs  are  international  organisations  where,  with  limited  exceptions,  decisions  are 
normally  taken  by  consensus  and  that  the  EU  only  has  a  certain  leverage  to  influence  the 
decisions  taken.  We  have  continued  to  make  progress  in  2020  in  the  implementation  of 
RFMO  decisions  into  Union  law  with  the  advancement  of  the  legislative  work  for  several 
organisations,  including  the  ICCAT,  the  Inter-American  Tropical  Tuna  Commission 
(IATTC),  Northwest  Atlantic  Fisheries  Organization  (NAFO),  the  Indian  Ocean  Tuna 
Commission  (IOTC),  the  Western  and  Central  Western  Pacific  Fisheries  Commission 
(WCPFC) and the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC). 

The COVID-19 pandemic heavily impacted the work of RFMOs in 2020. The majority of the 
RFMO’s annual  meetings were held in  a virtual  format through videoconference, electronic 
correspondence, or a combination of both. Their agendas were, for the most part, limited to 
the  essential  elements  for  the  functioning  of  the  organisation,  including  fishery  measures 
expiring in 2020. Some RFMOs, however, managed to undertake more substantial discussions 
through virtual meetings than others. This was the case, for example, of the NAFO where a 
key achievement in 2020 was the endorsement of the EU proposal concerning the TAC of cod 
3M  based  on  scientific  advice.  For  what  concerns  ICCAT,  new  proposals  for  the  Northern 
shortfin  mako were examined.  The EU proposal  to  reduce mortality of shortfin  mako could 
unfortunately  not  be  adopted,  despite  offering  increased  conservation  benefits,  nor  could  its 
proposal to enhance existing measures until more comprehensive measures could be adopted. 
However, some EU achievements in the framework of ICCAT took place, including ensuring 
the  application  of  the  existing  harvest  control  rules  for  Northern  albacore  resulting  in  the 
increase of the TAC by 12.5% for 2021, as well as the rollover of the TAC for Eastern bluefin 
tuna for two years. 

In  general,  the  conclusion  is  that  virtual  meetings  do  not  represent  a  real  substitute  for  the 
normal  decision-making  process  in  RFMOs  as  they  are  not  compatible  with  discussing 
complex  matters  by  a  large  number  of  participants  scattered  across  different  continents  and 
time zones. 

In 2021, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, it cannot be excluded that the functioning of several 
RFMOs  will  continue  being  impacted,  and  affecting  the  scientific  advice  available  for 
fisheries managers. To deal with some of the leftover items from last year plus items arising 
this year and building on the lessons learnt in 2020, some RFMOs have already adopted very 
ambitious  programmes  of  inter-sessional  and  preparatory  meetings  in  2021  to  be  able  to 

43 

 
 
address all the pending issues. It is also expected that, subject to progress in the rollout of the 
national vaccination programmes, some of the existing restrictions might be revisited later in 
the year, which could facilitate RFMO in-person meetings. 

Nevertheless,  in  the  face  of  the  pandemic  related  pressures  in  2020,  the  EU  contributed  to 
maintaining the implementation of the international rules-based system for the management of 
fisheries.  We  worked  in  RFMOs  with  other  like-minded  countries  to  develop  common 
principles to ensure that RFMO exhausted all alternatives before resorting, as last option, to 
the derogation of the existing rules. Targeted derogations were developed in a transparent way 
through  international  collaboration  and  compatible  with  RFMO  measures  and  international 
law. And in general, exceptions, when necessary, were to be justified and of temporary nature, 
with a specified timeframe for expiry and related specifically to the COVID-19 situation. 

Despite  the  challenges  noted  above,  overall  most  of  the  stocks  managed  by  RFMOs  are 
generally  in  good  shape.  Of  the  total  commercial  tuna  catch  worldwide,  87%  came  from 
stocks at healthy levels of abundance. All skipjack stocks are in good shape and yellowfin has 
moved  from  uncertain  to  healthy  in  the  Eastern  Pacific  Ocean.  The  notable  exceptions  are 
Atlantic  Ocean  bigeye  currently  overfished  and  subject  to  overfishing,  and  shortfin  mako 
shark, both under the purview of the ICCAT, and yellowfin in the Indian Ocean managed by 
the  Indian  Ocean  Tuna  Commission  (IOTC)  for  which  there  is  already  an  ambitious  work-
programme in place for 2021 to address the identified issues. 

In 2020, the activities aiming to fight illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing have 
also been impacted by COVID-19 and the related travelling restrictions impeding fieldwork. 
Moreover, BREXIT had provoked additional challenges regarding the implementation of the 
EU instruments to fight against IUU fishing.  

Despite  the  particular  challenges,  significant  progress  in  our  fight  against  IUU  fishing  took 
place  summarised  in  the  report66  on  the  implementation  of  the  IUU  regulation  over  the  last 
five  years.  The  EU  continued  its  cooperation  with  and  support  provided  to  third  countries 
through virtual dialogues and IUU Working groups. 

The  EU  continued  its  actions  also  at  regional  level  through  input  to  RFMO  processes, 
updating  the  EU’s  IUU  vessels  list,  implementing  the  EU  funded  programme  PESCAO  in 
West of Africa, supporting ASEAN initiatives to fight IUU fishing and cooperating with EU 
NAFVOR  in  the  Indian  Ocean.  Guidance  and  cooperation  with  EU  Member  States  was 
strengthened regarding controls  of  imports of fishery products  and further investments  were 
made concerning the digitalisation of the catch certification scheme. The EU actively engaged 
in  the  WTO  negotiations  on  fisheries  subsidies  to  seek  strong  disciplines  regarding  IUU 
fishing. In 2020, the EU indeed continued playing a prominent role in the WTO negotiation to 
prohibit  harmful  fisheries  subsidies,  presenting  proposals  and  trying  to  contribute  to  a 
consensus. The WTO agreement is a political priority for the EU but it could not be concluded 
in 2020, as envisaged in sustainable development goal (SDG) 14.6, mainly due to the Covid 
pandemic which did not allow for physical meetings. The EU’s goal is to reach an ambitious 

66 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2020:0772:FIN:EN:PDF 

44 

 
 
                                                           
agreement at the latest by the 12th Ministerial Conference (MC12), which was rescheduled to 
30 November – 3 December 202167. 

Within  the  framework  of  the  sustainable  fisheries  partnership  agreements  (SFPAs),  the 
Commission  maintains  a  political  dialogue  on  fisheries  related  policies  with  third  countries 
concerned,  in  coherence  with  the  CFP  principles  and  commitments  under  other  relevant 
European  policies.  In  addition,  SFPAs  provide  a  financial  contribution  whose  aim  is  to 
support  the  sustainable  development  of  the  fisheries  sector  in  the  partner  countries  and 
contribute  to  better  governance  of  their  fisheries.  That  includes  notably  improvement  of 
scientific  and  technical  knowledge  of  relevant  fisheries,  contribution  to  control  and 
surveillance,  fight  against  illegal,  unreported  and  unregulated  fishing  and  support  for  better 
global governance of fisheries. 

The current 12 active SFPAs have been successful in fostering better governance of fisheries 
at  global  level  and  contributing  to  the  sustainable  development  of  the  fisheries  sector  in 
partner  countries.  These  agreements  have  also  contributed  to  economic  activity  and  job 
creation  both  in  the  EU  and  in  partner  countries.  As  for  the  latter,  SFPAs  have  been 
contributing positively to the development of the fisheries sector and to sustainable fisheries 
management.  A  significant  part  of  the  total  EU  budget  for  SFPAs  has  been  devoted  to  the 
concrete projects funded under sectoral support and related mostly to control and surveillance 
capacities,  small  port  infrastructures,  and  the  support  to  small-scale  fishermen.  At  the  same 
time, they contributed to eliminating illegal fishing and providing good framework conditions 
for local fishermen, thus also contributing to food security. Concrete projects financed include 
for example the supply of fishing equipment for small fishermen, including localisation and 
safety  kits,  the  reinforcement  of  sanitary  control  capacity  in  ports,  landing  facilities  with 
storage  and  ice  facilities,  financing  the  acquisition  of  patrol  boats  and  their  maintenance, 
training of fisheries inspectors and observers, etc.   

Efforts will continue to ensure timely renewal of SFPAs in order to ensure the continuity of 
fishing activities under SFPAs, and to maintain, or even extend where relevant, the network of 
SFPAs  in  the  Atlantic,  Indian  and  Pacific  Oceans.  In  2021,  the  Commission  will  conduct  a 
global evaluation of the SFPAs to obtain an overall assessment of their features, performance 
and synergies with other policies. This evaluation will contain a specific focus on the sectoral 
support provided for by SFPAs and will provide input to the 2022 report on the functioning of 
the CFP. 

67 https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/minist_e/mc12_e/mc12_e.htm 

45