COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Common Fisheries Policy - State of play Accompanying the document COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL The common fisheries policy today and tomorrow: a Fisheries and Oceans Pact towards sustainable, science-based, innovative and inclusive fisheries management
Date: 2023-02-21
Institutions: Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, European Commission
Subjects: aquaculture, coastal protection, coastal region, common fisheries policy, energy transition, fishery management, innovation, marine ecosystem, scientific progress, sustainable fisheries

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 21.2.2023  SWD(2023) 103 final/2  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Common Fisheries Policy - State of play Accompanying the document COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL   The common fisheries policy today and tomorrow: a Fisheries and Oceans Pact towards sustainable, science-based, innovative and inclusive fisheries management {COM(2023) 103 final}  
 
 
Contents 

1. 

1.1. 

2. 

2.1. 

Introduction .................................................................................................................. 5 

Brief history of the latest reform of the common fisheries policy in 2013 .................. 6 

Policy context ............................................................................................................... 9 

Ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management .................................................. 9 

2.1.1. 

Introduction .................................................................................................................. 9 

2.1.2.  Background: from 2009 to the state of play in 2022 .................................................... 9 

2.1.3.  Opportunities and challenges ..................................................................................... 12 

2.2. 

The economic dimension ........................................................................................... 13 

2.2.1. 

Introduction ................................................................................................................ 13 

2.2.2.  Background: from 2009 to the state of play in 2022 .................................................. 14 

2.3. 

The social dimension.................................................................................................. 17 

2.3.1. 

Introduction ................................................................................................................ 17 

2.3.2.  Background: from 2009 to the state of play in 2022 .................................................. 17 

2.3.3.  The social dimension of sea fisheries at global level ................................................. 22 

2.3.4.  Small-scale coastal fisheries ...................................................................................... 22 

2.3.5.  Opportunities and challenges ..................................................................................... 24 

2.4. 

Sustainable blue economy .......................................................................................... 26 

2.4.1. 

Introduction ................................................................................................................ 26 

2.4.2.  Background ................................................................................................................ 26 

2.4.3.  Maritime spatial planning .......................................................................................... 27 

2.4.4.  Opportunities and challenges ..................................................................................... 28 

2.5. 

Recreational fisheries ................................................................................................. 29 

2.5.1. 

Introduction ................................................................................................................ 29 

2.5.2.  Background: from 2009 to the state of play in 2022 .................................................. 29 

2.5.3.  Opportunities and challenges ..................................................................................... 31 

2.6. 

A clean and healthy ocean.......................................................................................... 32 

2.6.1. 

Introduction ................................................................................................................ 32 

2.6.2.  A clean and healthy ocean at EU level....................................................................... 32 

2.6.3.  Clean and healthy oceans at international level ......................................................... 34 

2.6.4.  Opportunities and challenges ..................................................................................... 35 

2.7. 

Climate change ........................................................................................................... 36 

2.7.1. 

Introduction ................................................................................................................ 36 

2.7.2.  Background: from 2009 to the state of play in 2022 .................................................. 37 

2.7.3. 

Impacts of climate change on European fisheries and aquaculture ........................... 37 

EN 

1 

EN 

 
 
2.7.4.  A flexible and adaptive fisheries management framework to build resilience to 

climate change ............................................................................................................ 39 

2.7.5. 

Improving the fuel efficiency of fishing and reducing the fleet’s carbon emissions . 41 

2.8. 

International ocean governance agenda ..................................................................... 42 

2.8.1. 

Introduction ................................................................................................................ 42 

2.8.2.  Background: from 2009 to the state of play in 2022 .................................................. 42 

2.8.3.  Opportunities and challenges ..................................................................................... 43 

3. 

3.1. 

Applying the CFP Regulation .................................................................................... 43 

Fisheries management measures for conserving and sustainably exploiting marine 
biological resources .................................................................................................... 43 

3.2. 

Multiannual plans ....................................................................................................... 43 

3.2.1. 

Introduction ................................................................................................................ 43 

3.2.2.  Background: from 2009 to the state of play in 2022 .................................................. 44 

3.2.3.  Baltic multiannual plan .............................................................................................. 45 

3.2.4.  North Sea multiannual plan and the Western Waters multiannual plan .................... 46 

3.2.5.  Western Mediterranean multiannual plan .................................................................. 46 

3.2.6.  Multiannual plans in the Mediterranean and the Black Sea in the GFCM framework47 

3.3. 

Landing obligation ..................................................................................................... 48 

3.3.1. 

Introduction ................................................................................................................ 48 

3.3.2.  Background: from 2009 to the state of play in 2022 .................................................. 49 

3.3.3. 

Increased cooperation and knowledge on (implementing) the landing obligation .... 49 

3.3.4. 

Implementation of the landing obligation and socioeconomic impact ...................... 51 

3.3.5.  Challenges and opportunities ..................................................................................... 53 

3.4. 

Scientific advice ......................................................................................................... 55 

3.4.1. 

Introduction ................................................................................................................ 55 

3.4.2.  Background: from 2009 to the state of play in 2022 .................................................. 56 

3.4.3.  Future developments for scientific advice and data collection .................................. 57 

3.4.4.  Promote greater stakeholder involvement .................................................................. 57 

3.4.5.  Reinforce implementation of an ecosystem approach to fisheries management ....... 58 

3.5. 

Technical measures .................................................................................................... 59 

3.5.1. 

Introduction ................................................................................................................ 59 

3.5.2.  Background: from previous framework to the state of play in 2022 ......................... 60 

3.5.3.  Opportunities and challenges ..................................................................................... 61 

3.6. 

Fishing opportunities .................................................................................................. 62 

3.6.1. 

Introduction ................................................................................................................ 62 

3.6.2.  Background: from 2009 to the state of play in 2022 .................................................. 62 

EN 

2 

EN 

 
 
3.6.3.  Allocation of fishing opportunities ............................................................................ 63 

3.6.4.  Opportunities and challenges ..................................................................................... 64 

3.7. 

Emergency measures .................................................................................................. 65 

3.7.1. 

Introduction ................................................................................................................ 65 

3.7.2.  Background: from 2009 to the state of play in 2022 .................................................. 65 

3.7.3.  Opportunities and challenges ..................................................................................... 65 

3.8. 

Conservation measures necessary for complying with obligations under EU 
environmental legislation ........................................................................................... 66 

3.8.1. 

Introduction ................................................................................................................ 66 

3.8.2.  Background: from 2009 to the state of play in 2022 .................................................. 66 

3.8.3.  Opportunities and challenges ..................................................................................... 69 

3.9. 

Management of fishing capacity ................................................................................ 70 

3.9.1. 

Introduction ................................................................................................................ 70 

3.9.2.  Background: from 2009 to the state of play in 2022 .................................................. 70 

3.9.3.  Fishing capacity ceilings ............................................................................................ 72 

3.9.4.  Fishing fleet register ................................................................................................... 72 

3.9.5.  Fishing fleets in the outermost regions ...................................................................... 73 

3.9.6.  Opportunities and challenges ..................................................................................... 74 

3.10.  Aquaculture ................................................................................................................ 74 

3.10.1.  Introduction ................................................................................................................ 74 

3.10.2.  Background: from 2009 to the state of play of 2022 ................................................. 75 

3.10.3.  Opportunities and challenges ..................................................................................... 76 

3.11.  Regional cooperation on conservation measures – Regionalisation .......................... 77 

3.11.1.  Introduction ................................................................................................................ 77 

3.11.2.  Background: from 2009 to the state of play in 2022 .................................................. 77 

3.11.3.  Regional coordination under the Data Collection Framework .................................. 80 

3.11.4.  Opportunities and challenges ..................................................................................... 81 

3.12.  Advisory Councils ...................................................................................................... 82 

3.12.1.  Introduction ................................................................................................................ 82 

3.12.2.  Background: from 2011 to the state of play in 2022 .................................................. 82 

3.12.3.  The role of the Advisory Councils ............................................................................. 83 

3.12.4.  Functioning of the Advisory Councils ....................................................................... 84 

3.12.5.  Opportunities and challenges ..................................................................................... 85 

3.13. 

External dimension..................................................................................................... 86 

3.13.1.  Introduction ................................................................................................................ 86 

3.13.2.  Background: from 2009 to the state of play in 2022 .................................................. 87 

EN 

3 

EN 

 
 
3.13.3.  Illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing ............................................................... 88 

3.13.4.  Sustainable fisheries partnership agreements............................................................. 88 

3.13.5.  Regional fisheries management organisations ........................................................... 89 

3.13.6.  Bilateral and multilateral agreements......................................................................... 90 

3.13.7.  Opportunities and challenges ..................................................................................... 90 

3.14.  Market and trade (common market organisation) ...................................................... 92 

3.15. 

Structural policy and support: EU funding ................................................................ 93 

4. 

4.1. 

4.2. 

4.3. 

4.4. 

4.5. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

Annex 1: Synopsis of consultation activities ............................................................. 96 

Introduction ................................................................................................................ 96 

Consultation activities ................................................................................................ 96 

Responses to the consultations ................................................................................... 97 

Main results .............................................................................................................. 100 

Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 101 

Annex 2: Overview of studies and reports as source for the review ........................ 102 

Annex 3: Ratification status of key conventions by coastal EU Member State ...... 103 

Annex 4: Fishing capacity ceilings (1 October 2022) .............................................. 104 

Annex 5. Overview Delegated Regulations in force specifying the details of 
implementation of the landing obligation ................................................................ 107 

EN 

4 

EN 

 
 
 
INTRODUCTION 

1. 
As  set  out  in  Article 49  of  the  Common  Fisheries  Policy  Regulation  (EU)  No 1380/20131 
(‘CFP  Regulation’),  the  aim  of  this  staff  working  document  and  the  Communication  it 
accompanies is to report on the functioning of the common fisheries policy (CFP). It assesses 
the  state  of  play  and  implementation  of  the  different  provisions,  mindful  of  the  new 
challenges and opportunities since the 2013 reform, and the political orientations set out in the 
European  Green  Deal2  and  the  related  Biodiversity3  and  Farm  to  Fork4  strategies.  This 
document looks into the impacts of the triple environmental crisis (biodiversity loss, climate 
change and pollution) on fisheries and aquaculture management, and other issues. It analyses 
the  socioeconomic  challenges  stemming  from  the  COVID-19  pandemic,  the  high  prices  of 
energy and inputs and the disruptions in trade flows due to the geopolitical context and how 
these factors have had an impact on implementation of the CFP.  

This document looks at the new dynamics in fisheries management created by the withdrawal 
of  the  UK  from  the  EU.  Since  then,  managing  fish  stocks  together  with  third  countries  has 
become the rule rather than the exception, also in the North East Atlantic. In practice, it means 
that  the  overwhelming  majority  of  stocks  covered  by  the  annual  rounds  of  fishing 
opportunities  are  managed  in  an  international  consultation  setting.  This  creates  additional 
complexity in the decision-making process and highlights the need to strengthen cooperation. 

This document builds on the input received from the targeted stakeholder consultation and the 
call  for  evidence  (see  Annex  1  for  a  synopsis  of  the  consultation  activities).  It  builds  on 
multiple  resolutions  adopted  by  the  European  Parliament,  the  discussions  at  the  Informal 
Meeting  of 
in  May  2022, 
recommendations  and  advice  issued  by  the  Advisory  Councils.  It  also  builds  on  the  work 
carried  out  by  scientific  advisory  bodies  such  as  the  Scientific,  Technical  and  Economic 
Committee for Fisheries, the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, and regional 
scientific fisheries bodies of the Regional Fisheries Management Organisations. 

the  Directors-General  and  Attachés  for  Fisheries  held 

To avoid  duplication, this  document  refrains  from  assessing in-depth  specific aspects  of the 
CFP Regulation that are evaluated or assessed in more detail in other documents such as the 
self-standing  reports  or  communications  on  the  EU’s  international  ocean  governance5,  the 
Control  Regulation6,  the  Data  Collection  Framework7,  the  annual  communications  on  the 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 
7 

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. 
Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the European Council, the European Economic 
and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, The European Green Deal, COM/2019/640 final. 
Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social 
Committee and the Committee of the Regions, EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 - Bringing nature back into our 
lives, COM/2020/380 final. 
Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social 
Committee  and  the  Committee  of  the  Regions,  A  Farm  to  Fork  Strategy  for a  fair, healthy  and  environmentally 
friendly food system, COM/2020/381 final. 
Joint Communication to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and 
the Committee of the Regions, Setting the course for a sustainable blue planet - Joint Communication on the EU’s 
International Ocean Governance agenda, JOIN(2022) 28 final and staff working document (2022) 174 final. 
COM 2021(316) final. 
Report  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  Report  on  the  implementation  and 
functioning of Regulation (EU) 2017/1004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2017 on the 
establishment  of  a  Union  framework  for  the  collection,  management  and  use  of  data  in  the  fisheries  sector  and 

EN 

5 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
CFP8, the evaluation on the Baltic multiannual plan9, the retrospective evaluation study of the 
Mediterranean Sea Regulation10, the implementation of the Technical Measures Regulation11, 
and  the  report  on  the  Common  Market  Organisation12.  This  document  builds  on  these 
assessments  as  well  as  on  findings  from  the  European  Climate,  Infrastructure  and 
Environment  Executive  Agency studies contracted on behalf of DG MARE. Throughout  all 
chapters, references will be provided to these studies and to own initiative reports issued by 
the European Parliament. They are also referred to in Annex 2. 

1.1. 

Brief history of the latest reform of the common fisheries policy in 2013 

The  CFP  is  based  on  Article 43  of  the  Treaty  on  the  Functioning  of  the  European  Union 
(TFEU). It was created in the 1970s and over time has developed into a genuinely EU-level 
policy  as  Member  States  have  pooled  resources  to  operate  a  single  EU  policy  under  a 
common  budget.  The transnational  nature of the  sustainability  challenges confirms  the need 
for a strong policy based on common rules agreed at EU level. 

The EU has exclusive competence to manage the conservation of marine biological resources 
under the CFP Regulation. This applies both in EU waters and to the EU’s involvement in and 
international obligations deriving from the United Nations Convention for the Law of the Sea 
and other United Nations agreements to which the EU is party, such as the UN Fish Stocks 
Agreement13.  The  EU  has  exclusive  competence  to  manage  the  Sustainable  Fisheries 
Partnership  Agreements  (SFPAs)  concluded  between  the  EU  and  third  countries.  The  CFP 
includes  areas  of  shared  competences  between  the  EU  and  its  Member  States,  where  the 
subsidiarity  principle  applies.  For  example,  for  aquaculture,  there  is  EU  added  value  in 
coordinating  action  to  tackle  the  most  common  obstacles  to  the  sustainable  development  of 
the  sector  in  Member  States.  Under  the  market  policy,  which  is  essential  to  create  a  single 
market  in  fishery and  aquaculture products  and  ensure fair competition,  Member States and 
businesses (including producer organisations) have a high degree of autonomy in applying the 
various  market  policy  instruments  available.  The  CFP  contributes  to  the  socioeconomic 
objectives and to the availability of the food supply under Article 39 TFEU. 

The  current  CFP  Regulation  provides  a  set  of  rules  for  managing  European  fishing  fleets 
sustainably  and  for  conserving  fish  stocks  within  and  outside  EU  waters  (regarding  EU 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

EN 

support  for  scientific  advice  regarding  the  common  fisheries  policy  and  repealing  Council  Regulation  (EC) 
No 199/2008 (recast), COM(2020) 664 final. 
Each year, the annual communication provides further details on the status of European fisheries and  guidance on 
the Commission’s proposals and consultations with third countries on fishing opportunities for the subsequent year. 
Most  recent:  Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council,  Towards  more 
sustainable fishing in the EU: state of play and orientations for 2023. COM/2022/253 final. 
Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council, First report on the implementation of the 
Multiannual Plan for the stocks of cod, herring and sprat in the Baltic Sea and the fisheries exploiting those stocks. 
COM/2020/494 final. 
European Commission, Directorate-General for Maritime  Affairs  and Fisheries,  Retrospective evaluation study of 
the 
2019, 
final 
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2771/886852. 
Report  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council,  Implementation  of  the  Technical 
Measures  Regulation  (Article 31  of  Regulation  (EU)  2019/1241)  COM(2021)  583  final  and  staff  working 
document (2021) 268 final. 
Report to the European Parliament and the Council on the implementation of the CMO Regulation COM (2023) 
101 final 
Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 
10 December 1982 relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory 
Fish Stocks. 

Mediterranean 

Publications 

Regulation: 

report, 

Office, 

Sea 

6 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                         
fishing  activities).  Originally  part  of  the  common  agricultural  policy,  over  time  the  CFP 
developed  a  separate  identity,  through  the  adoption  of  specific  legislation  and  a  structural 
policy for fisheries in 1970. Since then, this legislation has been amended regularly, until the 
CFP Regulation was adopted in 2013, which still applies today.  

The aim of the 2013 CFP reform was to remedy the shortcomings of the previous legislative 
framework  as  outlined  in  the  2009  Green  Paper14.  For  the  first  time,  it  brought  in  a 
comprehensive legal framework featuring: 

  a  new  focus  in  the  objectives  on  the  environmental,  economic  and  social  aspects  of 
fisheries  and  a  range  of  tools  to  manage  this  approach  (such  as  an  ecosystem-based 
approach to fisheries management); 

  an  explicit  mentioning  of  the  precautionary  approach  and  the  ecosystem-based 
approach  to  fisheries  management  aiming  to  ensure  fish  stock  management  at 
maximum  sustainable  yield  (MSY)  by  2020  for  all  managed  stocks15  and  to  ensure 
that negative impacts of fishing activities on the marine ecosystem are minimised; 

  gradual introduction of an obligation to land all catches by 2019; 

  continued application of the multiannual plans to provide a framework for managing 

specific fisheries at sea basin level; 

  attention to the external dimension, in accordance with the international obligations of 

the EU and principles of the CFP;  

  attention  to  aquaculture  and  a  new,  specific  system  of  strategic  coordination  for  the 
sustainable  development  of  aquaculture  in  the  EU,  including  the  adoption  of 
Commission  strategic  guidelines  and  the  obligation  of  Member  States  to  adopt 
multiannual national strategic plans for the sector; 

  a  reform  of  the  common  organisation  of  the  markets  for  fishery  and  aquaculture 
products,  with  an  emphasis  on  production  and  marketing  plans  developed  and 
implemented by producer organisations; 

  a 

regional  approach 

‘joint 
recommendations’  with  specific  measures  at  sea  basin  level,  which  the  Commission 
can then translate into EU law through delegated acts;  

to  empower  Member  States 

to  cooperate  on 

  Advisory Councils to enable the CFP to draw on the knowledge and experience of all 
stakeholders by taking into account the diverse conditions throughout EU waters and 
the increased regionalisation of the CFP;  

  a greater role for science, data collection and scientific advice; 

 

fleet capacity ceilings per Member State in combination with the obligation for each 
Member  State  to  achieve  a  stable  balance  between  fishing  capacity  and  fishing 
opportunities over time in order to eliminate structural fleet overcapacity. 

14 
15  

Green Paper, Reform of the Common Fisheries Policy, COM(2009) 163 final. 
Fish  stock  management  at  MSY  by  2025  for  the  demersal  stocks  in  the  western  Mediterranean  Sea  following 
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 

EN 

7 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
The CFP Regulation takes the specific situation of the outermost regions into account in the 
access to waters regime. It helps protect fishing communities by creating an exclusive access 
zone  up  to  100  nautical  miles  from  the  baseline  of  the  outermost  regions,  extending  to  all 
outermost  regions  the  protection  mechanism  that  has  covered  the  Azores,  Madeira  and  the 
Canary  Islands  since  2004.  In  these  zones,  until  1 January  2032,  the  Member  States  can 
restrict  fishing  activities  to  vessels  registered  in  the  ports  of  these  territories  and  to  vessels 
that traditionally fish in those waters. 

The 2013 CFP Regulation has been amended five times. 

The first amendment16 was made in 2014 as Mayotte became an outermost region of the EU 
within  the  meaning  of  Article 349  and  Article 355(1)  of  the  TFEU.  This  had  to  be 
implemented into EU law, including the CFP. 

The second amendment17 was  adopted in  2015 to provide coherence between the objectives 
and implementation of the landing obligation with the regulations on technical measures and 
management  measures.  It  removed  incompatibilities  between  the  regulations  establishing 
technical  and  control  measures,  making  the  landing  obligation  operational  by  amending  or 
repealing certain provisions. 

A  third  legislative  change  was  made  in  2017  to  extend  the  transition  to  adopt  multiannual 
plans (MAPs)  for  all sea basins, which  had  taken longer than originally  expected. This  was 
necessary  because  not  all  MAPs  were  in  place  in  all  sea  basins  when  the  discard  plans 
granting  exemptions  to  the landing obligation  expired. Article 15(6) was amended  to  enable 
the discard plans to be renewed for a further three years18.  

When the Technical Measures Regulation19  entered  into force in 2019, it  amended the CFP 
Regulation  specifically  for  Article 15(12)  providing  ‘for  species  that  are  not  subject  to  the 
landing  obligation  as  specified  in  paragraph  1,  the  catches  of  species  below  the  minimum 
conservation reference size shall not be retained on board, but shall be returned immediately 
to the sea, except when they are used as live bait’.  

16 

17 

18 

19 

Council Regulation (EU) No 1385/2013 of 17 December 2013 amending Council Regulations (EC) No 850/98 and 
(EC)  No 1224/2009,  and  Regulations  (EC)  No 1069/2009,  (EU)  No 1379/2013  and  (EU)  No 1380/2013  of  the 
European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council,  following  the  amendment  of  the  status  of  Mayotte  with  regard  to  the 
European Union. 
Regulation  (EU)  2015/812  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  20 May  2015  amending  Council 
Regulations  (EC)  No 850/98,  (EC)  No 2187/2005,  (EC)  No 1967/2006,  (EC)  No 1098/2007,  (EC)  No 254/2002, 
(EC) No 2347/2002 and (EC) No 1224/2009, and Regulations (EU) No 1379/2013 and (EU) No 1380/2013 of the 
European Parliament and of the Council, as regards the landing obligation, and repealing Council Regulation (EC) 
No 1434/98. 
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. 
Regulation (EU) 2019/1241 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on the conservation of 
fisheries  resources  and  the  protection  of  marine  ecosystems  through  technical  measures,  amending  Council 
Regulations (EC) No 1967/2006, (EC) No 1224/2009 and Regulations (EU) No 1380/2013, (EU) 2016/1139, (EU) 
2018/973,  (EU)  2019/472  and  (EU)  2019/1022  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council,  and  repealing 
Council Regulations (EC) No 894/97, (EC) No 850/98, (EC) No 2549/2000, (EC) No 254/2002, (EC) No 812/2004 
and (EC) No 2187/2005. 

EN 

8 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
A fifth amendment20 to extend the access to waters regime by another 10 years was adopted 
on 14 December 2022. 

2. 

POLICY CONTEXT  

2.1. 

Ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management  

2.1.1. 

Introduction 

Sustainable  fisheries  management  goes  beyond  mere  fish  stock  management;  it  aims  to 
achieve a sustainable approach to the broader social, economic and environmental dimensions 
of  fisheries  policy.  Sustainable  fisheries  management  should  be  delivered  through  the 
implementation  of  an 
fish  stock 
management, contributes to environmental protection and sustains fishers' livelihoods.  

integrated,  ‘ecosystem-based’  approach  covering 

The  CFP  Regulation  defines  the  ecosystem-based  approach  to  fisheries  management  as  ‘an 
integrated approach to managing fisheries within ecologically meaningful boundaries which 
seeks  to  manage  the  use  of  natural  resources,  taking  account  of  fishing  and  other  human 
activities, while preserving both the biological wealth and the biological processes necessary 
to  safeguard  the  composition,  structure  and  functioning  of  the  habitats  of  the  ecosystem 
affected, by taking into account the knowledge and uncertainties regarding biotic, abiotic and 
human components of ecosystems21’. 

On  that  basis,  an  ecosystem-based  approach  to  fisheries  management  is  about  ensuring  the 
supply of goods and services from living aquatic resources for present and future generations 
within meaningful ecological boundaries. This approach is important because by their nature, 
fisheries,  like  other  activities  that  take  place  at  sea,  impact  the  wider  marine  environment. 
This impact of such activities should be minimised and avoid the degradation of the marine 
environment. 

2.1.2.  Background: from 2009 to the state of play in 2022 

The  2009  Green  Paper  identified  the  need  to  integrate  an  ecosystem-based  approach  in  the 
overall strategy to implement the CFP as an instrument to pursue sustainable development in 
its  three  dimensions.  To  meet  this  need,  the  2013  reform  made  clear  that  the  CFP  must  be 
based on the three dimensions of sustainability: social, economic and environmental. The CFP 
Regulation  also  requires  applying  the  precautionary  approach  widely  to  the  conservation, 
management and exploitation of fish stocks. This approach, as referred to in Article 6 of the 
UN  Fish  Stocks  Agreement  and  defined  in  the  CFP  Regulation22,  means  ‘an  approach 
according  to  which  the  absence  of  adequate  scientific  information  should  not  justify 
postponing or failing to take management measures to conserve target species, associated or 
dependent species and non-target species and their environment’. 

The  role  of  sustainable  fisheries  management  in  helping  to  protect  the  marine  environment 
was  enshrined  in  the  CFP  Regulation,  together  with  other  policies  addressing  maritime 
activities.  In  particular,  this  includes  helping  to  achieve  good  environmental  status, 

20 

21 
22 

Regulation  (EU)  2022/2495  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  14  December  2022  amending 
Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 as regards restrictions to the access to Union waters  
Article 4(1)(9) of the CFP Regulation. 
Article 4(1)(8) of the CFP Regulation. 

EN 

9 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
specifically  through  descriptors  123,  324,  425  and  626  set  out  in  the  in  the  Marine  Strategy 
Framework  Directive27.  It  also  includes  the  contribution  to  the  effective  management  of 
marine protected areas and to the implementation by Member States of the their obligations 
under  the  Birds28  Habitats29  and  the  Water  Framework30  Directives.  To  this  end,  a  suite  of 
tools were adopted. The CFP Regulation providesfor the use of these tools both for fisheries 
management  and  for  empowering  Member  States  to  meet  their  obligations  under 
environmental  legislation,  market  (and  food  supply)  policy,  and  aquaculture  development. 
These  tools  in  the  CFP  Regulation  include  conservation  (including  technical)  measures  and 
multiannual  plans.  They  have  been  complemented  with  additional  provisions  and  tools  for 
Member States to  use under the Technical  Measures Regulation. Overall,  it is  essential that 
fisheries  policy  is  consistent  and  integrated  with  other  environment,  marine  and  maritime 
policies.  The  European  Green  Deal  emphasises  this  need  for  integration  by  prioritising 
Europe’s seas, oceans, and  marine environment  as  a source of natural  and economic wealth 
for  Europe  that  must  protected  to  continue  sustaining  Europe  in  the  future.  An  ecosystem 
approach  to  managing  the  seas  indeed  cannot  and  should  not  be  implemented  in  a  single 
specific  sector  but  must  be  cross-sectoral.  In  this  same  vein,  the  Farm  to  Fork  Strategy 
recognises  the  need  of  a  harmonised,  cross-sectoral  EU  approach  for  a  sustainable  food 
system. 

Since the 2013 reform and building on cooperation and research carried out before that time, 
the scientific advisory bodies have adapted their methods to achieve a robust knowledge base, 
ensure  it  is  based  on  interdisciplinary  science,  i.e.  incorporating  natural  sciences,  social 
sciences  and  economics,  and  informed  by  cross-disciplinary  perspectives.  This  means 
involving  stakeholders  in  the  scientific  advisory  processes  and  taking  account  of  the  local 
indigenous knowledge of fishers and other stakeholders. Involving stakeholders and scientific 
experts  in  the  different  advisory  and  decision-making  processes  of  the  ecosystem-based 
approach  to  fisheries  management  can  increase  the  credibility  of  the  knowledge  base,  the 
legitimacy  of  the  process,  and  the  relevance  of  scientific  input31.  Overall,  the  International 
Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) continues to actively promote participation by 
stakeholders in its numerous activities and processes. 

Though work on the ecosystem approach to fisheries management is an ongoing process, the 
ICES has already taken into account ecosystem factors in its scientific advice. For example, it 
provides  Ecosystem  Overviews32  for  each  ecoregion33.  The  ICES  Ecosystem  Overviews 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28  

29  
30    

31 
32 

Descriptor  1:  Biological  diversity  is  maintained.  The  quality  and  occurrence  of  habitats  and  the  distribution  and 
abundance of species are in line with prevailing physiographic, geographic and climatic conditions. 
Descriptor  3:  Populations  of  all  commercially  exploited  fish  and  shellfish  are  within  safe  biological  limits, 
exhibiting a population age and size distribution that is indicative of a healthy stock. 
Descriptor 4: All elements of the marine food webs, to the extent that they are known, occur at normal abundance 
and diversity and levels capable of ensuring the long-term abundance of the species and the retention of their full 
reproductive capacity. 
Descriptor  6:  Sea-floor  integrity  is  at  a  level  that  ensures  that  the  structure  and  functions  of  the  ecosystems  are 
safeguarded and benthic ecosystems, in particular, are not adversely affected. 
Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 establishing a framework for 
community action in the field of marine environmental policy (Marine Strategy Framework Directive). 
Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation 
of wild birds (Codified version),  
Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, 
Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework 
for Community action in the field of water policy. Water Framework Directive (europa.eu) 
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2014.10.019. 
https://www.ices.dk/advice/ESD/Pages/Ecosystem-overviews.aspx. 

EN 

10 

EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
provide  a  description  of  the  regional  ecosystems,  identify  the  main  human  pressures  and 
activities, and explain how these  affect  key  ecosystem  components. The  ICES also  looks  at 
the dynamics and challenges of fisheries in a social and ecological system. For instance, for 
73% of the data-rich stocks, the advice already contains elements of ecosystem variability34. 
In  certain  cases,  the  ICES also  provides estimates  for management options  that can provide 
'pretty good yield'35 for fisheries management plans (setting broader ecosystem, economic and 
social objectives than simply setting a maximum sustainable yield for individual species). 
In addition, the ICES fisheries overviews36 provide information on the commercial fish stocks 
and their exploitation. Fisheries overviews cover  more than information on a single species, 
they now include mixed fisheries37 advice and information on the effects of fisheries on the 
wider  ecosystem,  i.e.  beyond  the  target  stocks.  Specifically,  they  describe  two  types  of 
effects:  physical  disturbance  of  benthic  habitats  by  bottom  trawl  fishing  gear,  and  fisheries 
by-catch of protected, endangered and threatened species. The ICES provided further advice 
identifying  vulnerable  marine  ecosystem  areas  that  need  protection  via  closures,  while  also 
taking into account the fishing intensity in those areas. This represents an innovative balanced 
approach to achieve maximum conservation with a minimum disturbance of fishing activities. 
More  recently,  the  ICES  has  also  started  to  issue  scientific  advice  that  takes  account  of 
changes to ecosystem productivity (for Irish Sea fisheries). 

A multiannual approach to the system of setting total allowable catches (TAC) can be useful 
for  stocks  that  have  shown  relatively  stable  trends  because  it  would  give  more  stability  in 
managing stocks and would be more efficient when organising the Council decision making 
process.  This  approach  is  already  implemented  for  deep-sea  stocks  (set  for  two  years).  For 
stocks shared with third countries, it is crucial to first secure agreement on this approach. The 
Commission has already explored the concept of setting multiannual TACs with the scientific 
bodies. Multiannual TACs would require the provision of ICES advice covering several years, 
as well as an annual scientific review of specific indicators (most recent data on catches and 
fishing  effort)  to  check  whether  any  changes  require  further  assessment  and  that  the 
multiannual advice remains valid. The ICES has made some proposals in this respect in their 
ecosystem  overviews,  but  there  are  still  a  number  of  methodological  issues  that  need  to  be 
solved before a fully reliable multiannual advice can be provided instead of an annual advice. 

However, the uncertainties brought by climate change call for a further and more systematic 
application of the precautionary approach to fisheries management. This means, for example, 
exploring  more  adaptive  and  flexible  frameworks  to  fisheries  management  that  can  help 
address  and  contain  potential  future  climate-driven  shocks  that  would  affect  the  status  of 
commercial fish stocks in the short and medium term.  

In the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean's (GFCM) management approach, 
an  ecosystem  approach  to  fisheries  is  an  important  aspect  and  it  is  reflected  in  the  GFCM 

33 

34 

35 
36 
37 

ICES uses ecoregions as the spatial units to synthesise the evidence for the ecosystem approach. ICES ecoregions 
are based on biogeographic and oceanographic features and existing political, social, economic, and management 
divisions. They are developed through an iterative process of consultations between scientists and stakeholders led 
by the ICES Advisory Committee. 
ICES, ACOM sanctioned analysis of ICES productivity questionnaire (Ad Hoc), ICES Scientific Reports. Vol. 4, 
Issue 12, 2022, pp. 12, http://doi.org/10.17895/ices.pub.10037. 
'Pretty good yield' is defined as sustainable yield, at least 80% of the maximum sustainable yield. 
https://www.ices.dk/advice/Fisheries-overviews/Pages/fisheries-overviews.aspx. 
Article 4(1)(36) of the CFP Regulation defines mixed fisheries as ‘mixed fisheries’ means fisheries in which more 
than one species is present and where different species are likely to be caught in the same fishing operation’. 

EN 

11 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                         
Agreement38.  The  central  GFCM  fisheries  management  subsidiary  body,  in  particular  the 
Scientific Advisory Committee on Fisheries, takes the ecosystem approach to fisheries in its 
mandate  that  guides  its  work.  Over  the  years,  important  political  documents39  adopted  at 
regional  level  have  also  emphasised  the  role  of  the  ecosystem  approach.  The  last  important 
political  document  in  this  respect  is  the  GFCM  2030  strategy,  which  recognises  that 
‘concerted  efforts  are  in  fact  essential  to  maximise  GFCM  action  and  address  the  social, 
economic  as  well  as  environmental  aspects  of  sustainability  in  the  region,  in  line  with  the 
ecosystem  approach,  and  build  resilience  to  respond  to  global  challenges  and  crises.’  The 
GFCM  has  adopted  45  instruments  (recommendations,  resolutions  and  decisions)  over  the 
years that explicitly refer to the ecosystem approach to fisheries management, mainly relating 
to management plans or management measures. 

2.1.3.  Opportunities and challenges 

The most recent European Climate, Infrastructure and Environment Executive Agency study, 
The  implementation  of  ecosystem-based  approaches  applied  to  fisheries  management  under 
the  CFP40  indicated  that  current  conservation  measures  are  still  primarily  focused  on 
conventional single-species fisheries management. It concluded that to achieve an ecosystem 
based approach to fisheries management, several challenges must be tackled, in particular to 
improve  the  advisory  process,  the  knowledge  base  and  the  decision-making  process.  The 
study recommends expanding the policy objectives beyond commercial species. As fisheries 
management to date has mostly been dominated by conventional single-species advice (which 
forms the basis of the annual fishing opportunities), a step towards a more ecosystem-based 
approach  should  be  to  continue  and  step  up  implementation  of  technical  measures  via  the 
Technical  Measures  Regulation  to  reduce  unwanted  catches  and  minimise  the  impacts  of 
fishing on the marine ecosystem and in particular on sensitive species and habitats. The study 
concludes that this will require a fundamental re-assessment of data needs as the current data 
are insufficient to calibrate and validate models needed to make a multispecies analysis.  

The  2022  MARE  seminar  on  fisheries  science41  explored  how  to  capture  trends  in  marine 
ecosystems  and  how  to  use  this  information  to  complement  the  more  conventional  single 
stocks  assessments,  to  refine  or  qualify  the  scientific  advice.  In  the  context  of  rapid  global 
changes in both the climate and oceans, it is important to look beyond the dynamics of target 
stocks, or even predator-prey relationships. It is crucial to seek a better understanding of the 
overall ecosystem trends and to  boost our understanding of the links  to  and impact  of other 
areas  of  the  sustainable  blue  economy  (such  as  aquaculture,  maritime  spatial  planning  and 
other maritime sectors). This information should be used by decision makers when adopting 
harvest strategies. 

The studies on the ecosystem-based approach recommended that further improvement can be 
achieved through better stakeholder involvement and a clearer focus on the broader context of 
fisheries  management.  Similarly,  the  importance  and  role  of  stakeholders  is  outlined  in 

38 

39 
40 

41 

EN 

for 

the  Establishment  of 

the  General  Fisheries  Commission 

Agreement 
https://www.fao.org/3/ax825e/ax825e.pdf. 
The 2016 Bucharest Declaration, the 2017 MedFish4Ever Declaration, the 2018 Sofia Declaration. 
European Commission, European Climate, Infrastructure and Environment Executive Agency, The implementation 
of ecosystem-based approaches applied to fisheries management under the CFP: final report, Publications Office 
of the European Union, 2022, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2926/57956. 
DG MARE 2022 Seminar (webinar) on Fisheries Science: Implementation of an Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries 
Management, https://www.fisheriesscienceseminar.eu/. 

the  Mediterranean, 

for 

12 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
another  European  Climate,  Infrastructure  and  Environment  Executive  Agency  study  on 
regionalisation42.  This  study  sets  the  current  approach  to  regionalisation  and  to  stakeholder 
involvement against the achievement of the CFP objectives to implement an ecosystem-based 
approach and precautionary approach. The study concludes that the contribution of these two 
approaches  to  support  the  achievement  of  the  CFP  objectives  depends  on  the  success  in 
achieving  both  approaches  in  practice.  The  advisory  councils  comprise  stakeholders  with 
different  knowledge  domains  and  different  interests  which  ultimately  need  to  be  balanced. 
This  should  help  develop  both  approaches  and  reach  the  CFP  objectives.  The  regional 
approach is covered in more depth in Chapter 3.11. 

Many  stakeholders  underlined  the  importance  of  including  an  ecosystem-based  approach  to 
fisheries  management  and  decision-making.  Any  ecosystem-based  approach  to  fisheries 
management  requires  a more  holistic fisheries governance framework that  tackles the trade-
offs  between  ecological,  social  (including  cultural  and  institutional)  and  economic 
sustainability  criteria.  Operational  methods  to  support  the  ecosystem-based  approach 
comprise  both  conventional  single-species  fisheries  management  and  wider  ecosystem 
management.  The  latter  attempts  to  account  for  the  dynamic  and  highly  complex  nature  of 
ecosystems,  their  ecological  integrity  and  biodiversity,  and  the  recognition  of  fisheries 
management  as  part  of  a  social-ecological  system.  The  ecosystem-based  approach  does  not 
mean moving away from the current fisheries management system but extending it. 

2.2. 

The economic dimension 

2.2.1. 

Introduction 

One of the objectives of the CFP Regulation is to create the conditions for an economically 
viable and competitive fishing capture and processing industry and land-based fishing-related 
activity43.  The  CFP  Regulation  should  also  foster  direct  and  indirect  job  creation  and 
economic  development  in  coastal  areas44  and  ensure  that  fishing  and  aquaculture  activities 
contribute to long-term environmental, economic and social sustainability45.  

In 2019, the EU’s blue economy (a catch-all term to denote all economic activities linked to 
the water, the sea and the oceans) employed 4.45 million people, generating gross added value 
of  EUR 183.9  billion,  a  total  turnover  at  EUR 667.2  billion  and  gross  profits  of  EUR 72.9 
billion46.  In  2019,  total  employment  in  the  living  resources  sector,  which  includes  primary 
production,  processing  and  distribution,  employed  close  to  540 000  people  and  generated  a 
total  gross  value  added  of  over  EUR 19  billion47.  Of  that,  the  EU  commercial  fisheries 
generated revenue from landings of over EUR 5.8 billion per year and employed over 124 630 

42 

43 
44 
45 
46 

47 

EN 

European  Commission,  European  Climate,  Infrastructure  and  Environment  Executive  Agency,  Study  on 
regionalisation  of  Common  Fisheries  Policy  (CFP),  Publications  Office  of  the  European  Union,  2022, 
https://cinea.ec.europa.eu/publications/study-regionalisation-common-fisheries-policy-cfp_en#files 

Article (2)(5)(c) of the CFP Regulation. 
Recital 12 of the CFP Regulation. 
Recital 4 of the CFP Regulation. 
European  Commission,  Directorate-General  for  Maritime  Affairs  and  Fisheries,  Joint  Research  Centre,  Addamo, 
A.,  Calvo  Santos,  A.,  Guillén,  J.,  et  al.,  The EU blue  economy  report  2022, Publications  Office  of  the  European 
Union, 2022. 
European  Commission,  Directorate-General  for  Maritime  Affairs  and  Fisheries,  Joint  Research  Centre,  Addamo, 
A.,  Calvo  Santos,  A.,  Guillén,  J.,  et  al.,  The EU blue  economy  report  2022, Publications  Office  of  the  European 
Union, 2022. 

13 

EN 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
 
fishers,  some  82 272  full-time  equivalents48  in  2020.  The  cultural  heritage  and  history  of 
fishing is also very important across Europe. Fishing is often seen as a way of life, providing 
food that has a greater cultural significance than sustenance. It is often passed down through 
generations in the form of commercial livelihoods and, for some, a way of subsistence.  

2.2.2.  Background: from 2009 to the state of play in 2022 

Under the CFP, the EU fishing fleet has achieved a significant improvement in its economic 
performance.  However,  several  external  factors,  notably  fuel  prices,  have  had  a  substantial 
impact  on  the  economic  performance  of  the  EU  fishing  fleet49.  The  recent  economic  trends 
experienced by the EU fishing fleet can be divided in two periods: 

 

 

From 2009-2018, there was a general improvement in the economic performance of 
the EU fishing feel, with some fluctuations, driven by three key factors: (1) Progress 
in achieving sustainable fisheries, reflected in higher landings per unit of effort and 
lower  operational  costs  resulting  from  more  abundant  fishing  stocks.  As  effort  has 
decreased  over  the  past  several  years  and  stocks  have  become  more  abundant, 
landings  per  unit  of  effort  have  risen,  as  have  profits;  (2)  higher  average  first-sale 
prices for several commercially important species and (3) relatively low fuel costs. 

From  2019-2022,  this  long-term  positive  trend  stalled  and  there  was  a  significant 
downturn in the economic performance of the EU fleet due to the combined impacts 
of external shocks such as the pandemic, Brexit, environmental changes (see Section 
2.7.3  Impacts  of  climate  change  on  European  fisheries  and  aquaculture)  and  the 
current  energy  and  inflation  crises.  Despite  these  impacts,  the  EU  fishing  fleet 
remained  profitable  in  2020  and  2021,  showing  a  certain  degree  of  resilience. 
However, the high fuel prices in 2022 had a severe impact on the fleet and offset the 
gains achieved in previous years. For the first time since 2008, the EU fishing fleet 
will have made a loss in 2022 (projected at EUR 63 million in gross losses). 

However, not all fishing fleets made a loss. Economic evidence suggests that fleet segments 
that depend on stocks fished sustainably and that managed to increase their energy efficiency 
(or lower their fuel  use intensity)  are still able to  make  a  profit,  despite the current  adverse 
economic  conditions.  These  findings  provide  evidence  of  economic  gains  from  fish  stock 
conservation and from energy efficiency in EU fleets. Both are linked to support the economic 
performance and resilience of the EU fishing fleets. 

The Annual Economic Report on the EU fishing fleet provides a comprehensive overview of 
the  latest  information  available  on  the  structure  and  economic  performance  of  the  Member 
States' fishing fleets50. Overall, fuel use intensity fell by 15% from 2008 to 2020 mainly due 
to the good state of stocks (in particular in North Sea and North East Atlantic), yielding more 
catches  with  fewer  days  at  sea,  to  changes  in  fishing  behaviour  by  some  fishing  vessels  to 
reduce consumption (reduce speed, landing the catches in ports closer to the fishing grounds 

48 

49 

50 

European  Commission,  Joint  Research  Centre,  Scientific,  Technical  and  Economic  Committee  for  Fisheries,  The 
2022  annual  economic  report  on  the  EU  fishing  fleet  (STECF  22-06),  Virtanen,  J.(editor),  Guillen,  J.(editor), 
Prellezo, R.(editor), Sabatella, E.(editor), Publications Office of the European Union, 2022. 
European  Commission,  Joint  Research  Centre,  Scientific,  Technical  and  Economic  Committee  for  Fisheries,  The 
2022  annual  economic  report  on  the  EU  fishing  fleet  (STECF  22-06),  Virtanen,  J.(editor),  Guillen,  J.(editor), 
Prellezo, R.(editor), Sabatella, E.(editor), Publications Office of the European Union, 2022. 
European  Commission,  Joint  Research  Centre,  Scientific,  Technical  and  Economic  Committee  for  Fisheries,  The 
2022  annual  economic  report  on  the  EU  fishing  fleet  (STECF  22-06),  Virtanen,  J.(editor),  Guillen,  J.(editor), 
Prellezo, R.(editor), Sabatella, E.(editor), Publications Office of the European Union, 2022. 

EN 

14 

EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
and transporting them by road to the main fish auctions where they fetch higher prices, and to 
a  certain  extent  to  more  fuel-efficient  technology  and  fishing  gear,  with  support  from  the 
European  Maritime  and  Fisheries  Fund  during  2008  to  2020).  With  an  annual  fuel 
consumption of almost  2 billion of litres, there is  scope  to  substantially improve the energy 
efficiency of and reduce fuel consumption in the EU fishing fleet.  

At  Member  State  level,  the  Spanish  fleet  continued  to  generate  the  highest  revenue  at 
EUR 1.6 billion in 2020, followed by the French fleet at EUR 1.1 billion. No Member State 
suffered gross losses in 2020, but four (Finland, Germany, Estonia and Cyprus) generated net 
losses.  
At  fleet  segment  level,  the  EU  distant-water  fleet51,  large-scale  fleet52  and  the  small-scale 
coastal  fleet53  saw  marked  differences  in  their  economic  performance.  The  LSF  and  DWF 
demonstrated strong resilience in 2020, mostly due to exceptionally low prices for marine fuel 
in 2020. This situation changed dramatically in 2022, when these fleets (and particularly the 
distant-water)  were  the  most  affected  by  high  fuel  prices.  By  contrast,  for  the  small-scale 
coastal  fleet,  there  are  significant  differences  across  Member  States  and  regions.  Results 
broken  down  by  Member  State  show  that  the  small-scale  coastal  fleet  in  10  Member  States 
made  gross  losses  (Germany,  Denmark,  Estonia,  Finland,  Greece  Lithuania,  Latvia,  Malta, 
Poland and Sweden). The  small-scale  coastal  fleet  in  the Baltic region  recorded the poorest 
performance  due  to  the  combined  effects  of  poor  status  of  key  demersal  stocks  and  the 
unfavourable  environmental  situation54  caused  by  an  excessive  inflow  of  nutrients,  greater 
extent  of  deep-water  areas  with  low  oxygen  levels,  climate-driven  changes  in  water 
temperature, high levels of contaminants and the inflow of non-indigenous species. 

It is important to note that within this general trend, fleets targeting stocks fished sustainably 
for several years have tended to record higher profitability and salaries. Healthy stocks further 
contribute  to  the  sector’s  socio-economic  performance.  Vice-versa,  fleets  fishing  for 
overexploited stocks have tended to record poorer economic results. Indeed, certain segments 
of  the  fishing  fleet  have  overcapacity,  resulting  in  marine  biological  resources  being 
overexploited. If there is structural overcapacity, profitability is low because too many vessels 
are chasing too few fish. To prevent this situation, there needs to be a structural adaptation of 
the  fishing  fleets  concerned.  To  eliminate  overcapacity,  the  CFP  requires  Member  States  to 
take  specific  measures  to  align  the  number  of  fishing  vessels  with  the  resources  available. 
These measures are based on an assessment of the balance between fleet fishing capacity and 
the  fishing  opportunities  available,  for  each  segment  of  the  fishing  fleet.  Where  there  is 
overcapacity, the European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund (EMFAF)55 can grant 
financial compensation to fishers if they permanently cease their fishing activities. The fishing 
capacity  removed  with  the  use  of  this  support  is  then  permanently  removed  from  the  fleet. 
Permanent cessation is achieved either by scrapping the fishing vessel or by decommissioning 
it and retrofitting it for other activities. However, retrofitting the vessel for recreational fishing 
must not lead to increased pressure on the marine ecosystem. 

51 
52 

53 
54 
55 

Includes EU registered vessels over 24 metres operating in ‘other fishing regions’ including EU outermost regions. 
Includes all vessels over 12 metres using static gear and all vessels using towed gear operating predominately in 
EU waters. 
Includes all vessels under 12 metres using static gear. 
Includes all vessels under 12 metres using static gear. 
Regulation  (EU)  2021/1139  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  7 July  2021  establishing  the 
European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund and amending Regulation (EU) 2017/1004. 

EN 

15 

EN 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Overall,  the  economic  performance  of  the  aquaculture  industry  is  declining.  In  2019  and 
2020, the aquaculture industry in the EU generated sales of 1.2 million tonnes and revenues of 
EUR 4.1 billion and EUR 3.9 billion respectively. This represents a 4% drop in sales volume 
and a 4% drop in  revenue  from  2018 to  2020. Despite a decline in  total  production volume 
and turnover from 2019 to 2020, most economic performance metrics for the EU aquaculture 
industry in 2020 increased since 2019 for the countries providing data. The segment of marine 
finfish  led  this  positive  result  in  the  economic  indicators’56,  and  the  freshwater  fish  and 
shellfish segments recorded a decline. 

The rise in energy prices seen after Russia's unprovoked invasion of Ukraine has had multiple 
effects on the economic performance of the aquaculture sector, with different levels of impact 
in different segments and species involved. The increase in fuel and energy prices has both a 
direct  and  indirect  influence  on  production  costs.  Direct  impacts  stem  from  the  direct 
consumption  of  electricity,  fuel  and  gas  and  vary  according  to  the  energy  needed  to  run 
aquaculture  operations.  Indirect  impacts  affect  the  costs  of  other  vital  components  for 
aquaculture production such as fingerlings and feed. In addition to the effects of the pandemic 
and Russia's unprovoked aggression of Ukraine with the related spike on energy prices, other 
factors  have  also  affected  the  performance  of  EU  aquaculture  in  recent  years.  The  main 
factors are the ageing workforce with a low level of education and the more extreme weather 
conditions seen, which have affected aqua-farmers, production and international competition. 

The processing sector is particularly important, not only in terms of scale of employment but 
particularly in the capacity to add value to the raw material produced by the fishing fleet and 
aquaculture.  The  fish-processing  sector  is  an  industry  linked  to  the  sea  but  it  also  provides 
opportunities on land for coastal communities, particularly for women. 

The results of the latest Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) 
report on processing show that total income, including turnover and other income, increased 
for the European fish-processing industry between 2008 and 2019 (almost doubled in nominal 
terms), amounting to EUR 28.7 billion in 2019, a slight increase compared to 2018 (+6%) and 
2017 (+7%)57. For energy costs, though the share of total costs appears to have fallen slightly 
over  2008-2019,  it  went  up  by  9%  in  2021.  In  light  of  Russia's  unprovoked  aggression  of 
Ukraine,  the  higher  prices  for  energy  and  raw  materials  drove  up  operating  costs  for  fish-
processing companies. The extent of the effects of the energy prices increase will be assessed 
in the STECF processing economic report to be  issued in 2023. One of the consequences is 
that,  compared  to  fisheries  and  the  aquaculture  sector,  fish-processing  companies  are  more 
affected  by  high  prices  for  logistics  and  by  trade  disruption  because  they  rely  heavily  on 
supplies of whitefish from Russia58. 

The most recent STECF report indicates a general rise in employment in the processing sector 
since 2012 to over 110 000 people, or some 100 000 full-time equivalents. This indicates that 
the share of part-time employment in this sector is relatively low. The rise in employment in 
the processing sector from 2008 to 2019 was 10.9% when expressed in full-time equivalents, 
but  26.4%  when  expressed  in  the  total  number  of  people  employed.  This  suggests  a  shift 
towards part-time work and is most likely a reflection of broader labour shortages in northern 
EU Member State economies. 

56 
57 

58 

EN 

Economic Report on the EU aquaculture (STECF-22-17). 
STECF 
/asset_publisher/d7Ie/document/id/34543618. 
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/ATAG/2022/729372/EPRS_ATA(2022)729372_EN.pdf 

Processing 

sector, 

21-14, 

Fish 

EU 

https://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu/reports/economic/-

16 

EN 

 
 
                                                 
In  the  coming  years,  the  fish-processing  sector  will  be  strongly  influenced  by  the  political 
decisions  taken  in  the  context  of  the  European  Green  Deal,  the  Farm  to  Fork  strategy,  in 
particular  in  the  context  of  the  future  legislative  Framework  for  a  Union  Sustainable  Food 
System  and  the  energy  transition,  which  will  have  a  direct  influence  on  the  aquaculture 
process. The fish-processing sector remains highly dependent on imports of raw material and 
on  international  developments  in  the  markets  (i.e.  prices).  Consumers  are  located  in  the 
internal EU market and demand is not expected to fall but to rise. 

2.3. 

The social dimension 

2.3.1. 

Introduction 

The CFP Regulation provides that the socioeconomic impact of fisheries management should 
be assessed along with environmental considerations when taking decisions. In the EU’s blue 
economy, fishing is considered a relatively small economic sector, especially compared with 
coastal  tourism  and  maritime  transport.  However,  in  several  EU  coastal  communities  and 
regions,  the  social  importance  of  the  fisheries  sector  outweighs  its  direct  economic 
importance. 

The objectives of the CFP Regulation59 state that ‘… fishing and aquaculture activities …are 
managed  in  a  way  that  is  consistent  with  the  objectives  of  achieving  economic,  social  and 
employment  benefits  (…)’,  and  that  the  ‘…CFP  shall,  in  particular, …  contribute  to  a  fair 
standard  of  living  for  those  who  depend  on  fishing  activities, …  taking  into  account 
socioeconomic aspects.’ 

The  aforementioned  aspects  cover  a  wide  range  of  different  social  components,  many  of 
which  are  a  challenge  for  the  fishing  sector.  They  include  decent  working  conditions,  well-
being of fishing communities, safety on board, an ageing workforce, generational renewal and 
gender equality. These aspects, often overlapping, will be covered in the following section. 

2.3.2.  Background: from 2009 to the state of play in 2022 

The  social  dimension  was  put  forward  actively  as  a  topic  of  discussion  in  the  2009  Green 
Paper.  It  focuses  on  all  aspects  that  come  into  play  when  looking  at  the  human  side  of  the 
common fisheries policy. Topics range from the role and place of stakeholders, transparency, 
safety on board and working conditions, training and development of professionals, the wider 
aspects of EU funding to pursue these objectives and the need for the dialogue with EU social 
partners.  The  2009  Green  Paper  emphasised  that  economic  and  social  sustainability  require 
productive  fish  stocks  and  healthy  marine  ecosystems  as  prerequisites.  The  economic  and 
social viability of fisheries can only be achieved by restoring the productivity of fish stocks. 
There is, therefore, no conflict between the ecological, economic and social objectives in the 
long term. However, the Green Paper recognised that these objectives can and do clash in the 
short term, especially when fishing must be temporarily reduced to  allow overexploited fish 
stocks to recover.  
These  topics  were  all  included  in  the  2011  Commission  proposal60.  The  grounds  for  the 
Commission proposal were that the CFP should achieve environmental, economic and social 
sustainability  in  the  exploitation  of  fisheries  resources.  According  to  the  2011  Commission 

59 
60   

Article 2 of the CFP Regulation. 
COM(2011) 425 final 

EN 

17 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
proposal,  these  objectives  were  equally  important  legally  and  none  could  be  achieved  in 
isolation.  However,  the  impact  assessment  carried  out  to  underpin  the  2011  Commission 
proposal  confirmed  that  without  more  marked  improvements  in  stock  status,  economic  and 
social sustainability will remain limited. The proposal included specific indicators to monitor 
implementation of the social sustainability and social impacts linked to employment (full-time 
equivalents) and to crew wages per full-time equivalent.  

The mechanisation of the fishing activity has led to a reduction in the number of jobs at sea61. 
This is the inevitable result of technical progress in fishing vessels that makes it possible to 
fish  more  efficiently.  However,  the  social  dimension  of  the  common  fisheries  policy  is 
broader  than  employment,  it  includes  a  number  of  parameters  drawn  from  social  data.  A 
prerequisite to verify and ensure that fishing activities are managed in a way that is consistent 
with the social and employment objectives is to have this social data readily available. Some 
general social data are  already  available, such as overall  employment figures and wages, as 
provided in the Annual Economic Report on the EU Fishing Fleet.62  

The latest data presented in the 2022 AER, collected under the  Data Collection Framework, 
show that employment in the sector fell by 2.1% from 2008 to 2020. Over the same period, 
the total number of FTE has fallen more sharply, by 10.8%. By contrast, real average wages 
per full-time equivalent have risen by 23.8%. The 2022 AER also reports on the social  data 
collected  from  2020,  such  as  data  on  age,  gender,  education,  nationality  and  employment 
status.  This  data  collection  began  in  2019,  with  the  multiannual  EU  programme  for  the 
collection and management of biological, environmental, technical and socioeconomic data in 
the fisheries and aquaculture sectors63.  

This resulted in a first  report by the STECF on social data in the EU fisheries sector64. The 
report  covered  in  particular  the  profiles  of  the  EU  fleet’s  workforce  in  terms  of  age, 
nationality, education and gender. The STECF EWG 20-1465 was tasked with building on the 
findings from 2019 and was requested to further develop methodologies to collect and analyse 
social  data  in  fisheries.  In  2022,  the  Commission  requested  the  STECF  to  continue  this 
work66.  It  will  provide  the  way  forward  to  further  develop  tools  to  take  better  account  of 
social aspects when proposing measures on fisheries management. Along with the work from 
the STECF, the ICES is examining how to further integrate social aspects into an ecosystem-
based approach (see also Section 2.1). 

61 

62 

63 

64 

65 

66 

European  Commission,  Joint  Research  Centre,  Scientific,  Technical  and  Economic  Committee  for  Fisheries,  The 
2022  annual  economic  report  on  the  EU  fishing  fleet  (STECF  22-06),  Virtanen,  J.(editor),  Guillen,  J.(editor), 
Prellezo, R.(editor), Sabatella, E.(editor), Publications Office of the European Union, 2022. 
European  Commission,  Joint  Research  Centre,  Scientific,  Technical  and  Economic  Committee  for  Fisheries,  The 
2022  annual  economic  report  on  the  EU  fishing  fleet  (STECF  22-06),  Virtanen,  J.(editor),  Guillen,  J.(editor), 
Prellezo, R.(editor), Sabatella, E.(editor), Publications Office of the European Union, 2022. 
Commission Delegated Decision (EU) 2019/910 of 13 March 2019 establishing the multiannual Union programme 
for the collection and management of biological, environmental, technical and socioeconomic data in the fisheries 
and aquaculture sectors C/2019/1848. 
The EWG 19-03 report provided a comprehensive overview of the social data collected under the EU MAP for the 
EU fishing sector on the social and demographic characteristics of the labour force both at EU and Member States 
level over the year 2017. 
Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) – Social dimension of the CFP (STECF-20-
14).,  Doering,  R.,  Fitzpatrick,  M.  and  Guillen  Garcia,  J.  editor(s),  EUR 28359  EN,  Publications  Office  of  the 
European Union, Luxembourg, 2020, ISBN 978-92-76-27169-7, doi:10.2760/255978, JRC123058. 
STECF EWG 22-14 Social data in EU fisheries. 

EN 

18 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
The age of fishers (men and women), whether they are vessel owners or crew, is an important 
factor for fisheries. An intergenerational deficit in the fishing population can pose a risk to the 
economic and social sustainability of the sector. The age of the fishing population is also used 
as  an  indicator  for  a  number  of  characteristics,  including  the  attractiveness  of  the  sector.  In 
addition to ensuring the continuity of fishing activities, involving young people and achieving 
generational renewal gives the sector a better awareness of the challenges it faces, including 
sustainability issues such as climate change, pollution and the energy transition.  

The  STECF  Economic  report  on  EU  aquaculture  provides  social  data  of  aquaculture  in  the 
EU67.  According  to  this  report,  aquaculture  employs  predominantly  men  (78%).  The 
employment rate for those between the ages of 40 and 65 is around 46%, followed by the 25-
39 age group that covers 27% of the employment. The level of education is rather low as only 
8% of the people in this sector has a higher-level degree and 36% has obtained medium level 
education. Finally, the vast majority (82%) of people employed in the sector are EU nationals 
of their own country, the rest mainly being workers from other Member States. 

It is worth highlighting that in terms of gender, the processing sector has an equal ratio of men 
and women. Despite all the member states and production methods have a disproportionately 
high male workforce, the shellfish industry has a larger proportion of female employees. 

To support generational renewal and preserve the cultural aspect of fisheries, the Commission 
is  running  a  number  of  initiatives  to  increase  the  attractiveness  of  the  profession.  There  are 
five main conditions to make the fishing sector more attractive: 

-  Fisheries  and  fleets  must  be  managed  sustainably.  This  brings  a  greater  degree  of 

economic stability, which lays the ground for long-term profitability. 

-  Fishing  activities  must  lower  their  operational  costs  and  be  more  efficient.  Energy 
efficiency, decarbonisation, reducing fishing effort and gear selectivity are some of the 
key ways to reduce costs. 

-  There  must  be  a  high  standard  of  safety  and  working  conditions.  Fishing  can  be  a 

dangerous job, therefore providing good conditions for the crew is paramount.  

-  Competitiveness  relies  on  skills.  Adequately  trained  employees  are  better  and  more 
sustainability driven, healthier, safer fishers benefiting from competitive revenues and 
staying in employment longer. In particular, mastering digital tools is a key asset. 
-  The fishing sector and the seafood supply chain must improve their self-organisation. 
Producer organisations and inter-branch organisations play an essential role here. 

Support is available under the EMFAF, which already strongly reflects the social dimension. 
It is designed to foster human capital and skills, attract young people into the fisheries sector 
through  educational  and  communication  measures,  grant  start-up  support  to  young  fishers, 
improve safety and working conditions on board fishing vessels, improve gender balance and 
facilitate labour relations involving all stakeholders.  

67  

Economic Report on the EU aquaculture (STECF-22-17) 

EN 

19 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
For  example,  in  2018  a  network  for  seafaring  women  was  created  in  Spain,  via  the 
community-led  local  development  under  the  European  Maritime  and  Fisheries  Fund 
(EMFF)68.  A  cooperation  project  between  two  Catalan  Fisheries  Local  Action  Groups69 
supported  the  creation  of  an  association  that  aims  to  increase  the  visibility  of  women  in 
fishing  and  aquaculture  and  improve  their  ability  to  develop  business  projects  that  help 
diversify  the  sector.  However,  such  support  depends  on  each  Member  State  to  include  the 
social dimension aspects in their programming. 

Social dialogue is fundamental to improve the living and working conditions in any sector. It 
enhances social fairness. The EU-level social partners of the sea fisheries play a key role in 
shaping  the  social  model  for  the  sector.  Almost  40  joint  outcomes70  were  negotiated  and 
agreed upon over the past ten years. This includes a social partner agreement that is a basis for 
transposing the Work in Fishing Convention C188, for integrating guidelines on the medical 
examinations of fishers71 and for integrating other deliverables into EU law. 

Fisheries are a labour-intensive sector with health- and life-threatening workplaces and long 
working  hours.  Promoting  decent  work  is  an  increasing  focus  in  the  international  context, 
particularly through the work of the International Labour Organization (ILO), the UN and the 
Organisation  for  Economic  Cooperation  and  Development  (OECD),  but  also  in  the  G7  and 
G20  groups  of  nations.  The  EU  is  committed  to  shaping  the  global  agenda  on  decent  work 
and to  promoting a human-centred work  for the  future. The EU  aspires  to champion decent 
work both in the European Union and around the world, in line with the UN 2030 Agenda for 
Sustainable Development. The European Pillar of Social Rights and its 20 principles are the 
EU’s compass to  build a fairer Europe and to  promote better living and working conditions 
for all including but not limited to social protection, adequate wages, labour and human right, 
and  social  dialogue.  On  4 March  2021,  the  Commission  put  forward  an  ambitious  action 
plan72 to implement the Pillar of Social Rights across the EU.  

The  main  international  instrument  on  work  in  fishing  is  the  ILO’s  Work  in  Fishing 
Convention C188. Convention C188 helps ensure decent working conditions on board fishing 
vessels and provides the basis to enforce minimum requirements through labour inspections in 
foreign ports. Based on an EU social partner73 agreement, the Convention was transposed into 
EU  law  in  2017  via  Council  Directive  2017/159.  The  Commission  is  carrying  out  a 
compliance  assessment  to  check  whether  Member  States  have  correctly  transposed  the 
Directive into their national legal orders.  

68   

69 

70 

71 
72 

73 

EN 

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 
Local action groups financed from the different ESI Funds have been set up throughout Europe and tasked with the 
development  and  implementation  of  local  development  strategies  through  multi-stakeholder,  public-private 
partnerships. 

https://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=521&langId=en&day=&month=&year=&sectorCode=SECT18&theme
Code=&typeCode=&recipientCode=&mode=searchSubmit&search=Search . 
https://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=521&langId=en&agreementId=5739. 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/priorities-2019-2024/economy-works-people/jobs-growth-and-
investment/european-pillar-social-rights/european-pillar-social-rights-action-plan_en 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=LEGISSUM:social_partners. 

20 

EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
The fishing industry is seen as one of the most dangerous sectors to work in. The rate of fatal 
accidents  at  work in  fishing and aquaculture is  one of the highest  in  the  EU.  In 2018, there 
were  about  24  fatal  cases  per  100 000  workers  in  fishing  and  aquaculture  (economic  sector 
A03). According to a statistical evaluation of economic activities in 2020, (NACE Rev. 2) this 
was the highest rate of all economic sectors (two-digit level in EU-27), nearly 14 times higher 
than the average rate in the EU economy74.  

The  Torremolinos  Convention  (1977)  for  the  Safety  of  Fishing  Vessels  was  updated  by  the 
Torremolinos  Protocol  (1993)  and  then  again  by  the  Cape  Town  Agreement  (2012).  The 
Torremolinos Protocol was transposed into EU law through Directive 97/70/EC on maritime 
safety.  This  Directive,  which  largely  focuses  on  safe  construction,  equipment  and  the 
seaworthiness  of  fishing  vessels,  applies  the  technical  provisions  of  the  Torremolinos 
Protocol. It has been in force for over 20 years and since then the fishing sector has changed 
substantially. Fishing vessels have improved, and technology has advanced; this should have 
a  positive  effect  on  safety.  However,  there  is  no  information  available  yet  on  whether  the 
Directive  has  been  successful  in  achieving  its  original  objectives  in  a  cost-efficient  manner 
and whether it is able to address today’s needs. The Commission is currently carrying out an 
evaluation of the Directive, which is expected to be finalised in the beginning of 2023.  

Bilateral dialogues between the ILO’s High Representative and the Commission are used to 
address fishing-related challenges such as forced labour and other forms of work that infringe 
human rights and health. In September 2022, the Commission proposed to prohibit products 
made with forced labour on the EU market. The proposal75 covers all products, those made in 
the  EU  for  domestic  consumption,  exports  and  imported  goods,  without  targeting  specific 
companies or industries. 

A related piece of legislation governing the safety of fishing vessels is Directive 2009/18/EC 
on  maritime  accident  investigation.  This  Directive  includes  measures  concerning  accidents 
with fishing vessels of more than 15 metres. One of the tangible deliverables is the section on 
accidents  including  those  fishing  vessels  in  the  Annual  Overview  of  Marine  Casualties  and 
Incidents created by the European Maritime Safety Agency.  

The  Commission  has  also  been  revising  the  Port  State  Control  Directive  and  assessing 
whether to include the enforcement and compliance aspects of the ILO Convention on work 
in fishing (C188). The Commission is assessing whether to include larger fishing vessels (>24 
metres) in the port state control system that call in EU ports to verify their compliance with 
applicable  international  conventions.  This  could  be  proposed  on  a  voluntary  basis  and 
implemented  in  several  interested  Member  States  with  the  help  of  the  European  Maritime 
Safety Agency. 

‘Human  erroneous  action’  is  the  main  cause  of  serious  incidents  with  fishing  vessels.  This 
raises  the  issue  of  training  and  skills.  The  International  Maritime  Organisation  (IMO) 
Convention  on  Standards  of  Training,  Certification  and  Watch  keeping  for  Fishing  Vessel 
personnel (STCW-F) is the international instrument governing basic training levels for fishing 
personnel. This Convention has been in force since September 2012 and covers the minimum 
requirements  of  training  and  education  of  fishers.  It  sets  standards  for  training  and 
certification  of  skippers,  engineer  officers  and  radio  operators,  for  watch  keeping  and  basic 

74 
75 

Eurostat database on European Statistics on Accidents at Work (ESAW), table hsw_n2_02. 
COM(2022) 453 - Proposal for a regulation on prohibiting products made with forced labour on the Union market. 

EN 

21 

EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
training for personnel on fishing vessels. EU-wide application of the STCW-F with a common 
minimum level of training for fishing vessels personnel would improve safety at sea, increase 
the attractiveness of the sector and facilitate the free movement of workers. It would also level 
the playing field in the EU and for third countries that have ratified the Convention. The IMO 
is currently preparing a revised version of the Convention. The revision has been delayed by 
the pandemic, however, and unlikely to be finalised in 2022 as initially planned. 

The Commission cannot ratify any convention on behalf of the Member States, but it actively 
encourages  Member  States  to  do  so.  A  list  of  the  ratification  status  of  key  conventions  by 
coastal Member States is provided in Annex 3. 

2.3.3.  The social dimension of sea fisheries at global level  

The Commission's work in cooperation with some third countries on the fight against illegal, 
unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing showed that improvements in fisheries controls can 
indirectly  help  detect  potential  labour  abuses  in  the  fisheries  sector.  These  issues  can  be 
properly  addressed  by  the  labour  authorities  involved  and  in  the  context  of  bilateral  labour 
dialogues.  

Labour  issues  are  increasingly  important  at  international  level  too.  The  SFPA’s  include  in 
their protocols a set of binding rules, mostly referring to ILO standards and the protection of 
human rights. The most recent SFPAs contain a stronger social clause requiring shipowners to 
negotiate  employment  contracts  with  fishers  to  ensure  that  they  obtain  the  best  possible 
working  conditions,  including  salaries.  Recently,  the  Long  Distance  Advisory  Council 
(LDAC) issued a recommendation on the effectiveness of the evaluations of SFPAs76, which 
underlines the need to look in more detail  at implementation of the social clause of SFPAs, 
and  at  other  issues.  Likewise,  the  EU  has  supported  the  adoption  of  provisions  to  further 
integrate ILO C188 in several Regional Fisheries Management Organisations (RFMO), such 
as  in  the  International  Commission  for  the  Conservation  of  Atlantic  Tunas  (ICCAT),  the 
Western  and  Central  Pacific  Fisheries  Commission  (WCPFC)  and  the  Indian  Ocean  Tuna 
Commission (IOTC). The GFCM 2030 strategy also encompasses social aspects with the aim 
of promoting the principle of decent work in the Mediterranean and Black Sea fishing sector, 
including through fair and safe working conditions and access to social protection. 

Since  Canada  is  a  key  international  partner  of  the  EU  in  ocean  governance,  cooperation  to 
ensure decent  and safe living and working conditions  for fishers was included in  the Ocean 
Partnership with Canada signed in 2019. 

Small-scale coastal fisheries 

2.3.4. 
Small-scale coastal fisheries (SSCF)77 play an important socioeconomic role in many coastal 
communities  and  they  provide  local  markets  with  high-quality  products.  In  2020,  the  EU 

76 
77 

https://ldac.eu/en/publications 
‘Small-scale coastal fishing’ means fishing activities carried out by marine and inland fishing vessels of an overall 
length  of  less  than  12  metres  and  not  using  towed  gear  as  defined  in  Article 2(1)  of  Council  Regulation  (EC) 
No 1967/2006(28); or fishers on foot, including shellfish gatherers; according to Regulation (EU) 2021/1139 of the 
European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  7 July  2021  establishing  the  European  Maritime,  Fisheries  and 
Aquaculture Fund and amending Regulation (EU) 2017/1004. 

EN 

22 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
SSCF  comprised  42 582  vessels,  employing  62 196  fishers78.  This  means  that  76%  of  the 
EU's active fleet are small-scale coastal fisheries and they employ 50% of all crew. SSCFs are 
especially  important  in  the  Mediterranean  Sea,  where  over  half  of  the  sector  is  located  and 
where  SSCF  have  played  a  dominant  role  in  the  livelihoods  of  coastal  communities  for 
centuries.  Typically,  these  SSCFs  are  family-based  businesses,  where  owners  are  directly 
involved  in  the  fishing  activity.  The  2009  Green  Paper  pointed  out  that  many  vessels  were 
small scale and had a limited environmental impact. However, small-scale fishing can also be 
harmful  to  sensitive  coastal  habitats  and  its  aggregated  impact  can  have  significant 
consequences on the state of the stocks. At times, both small and large-scale fleets target the 
same fish stocks. A balanced approach covering both small and large-scale fleets is needed. It 
should have a differentiated regime for the small-scale fleet, which would have to be carefully 
designed  to  secure  the  ecological  sustainability  of  the  stocks  on  which  these  fishing 
communities depend. This was brought with the 2013 CFP reform. 

The  2013  CFP  reform  was  also  an  important  step  forward  in  recognising  the  significant 
differences  between  small-scale  and  larger  scale  fisheries  at  EU  level.  The  CFP  Regulation 
contains several provisions tailored to the specific features of small-scale coastal fisheries: 

-  Member States may give preferential access to the small-scale fleet in the 12-nautical 

- 

- 

miles coastal band under Article 5(2) of the CFP Regulation; 
the  small-scale  fleet  is exempt  from  certain  obligations that  apply  to  larger  vessels, 
such as fishing authorisations, landing declarations, sales notes and separate stowage; 
concerning governance, the rules on Advisory Councils ensure that representatives of 
small-scale fisheries can participate in their meetings. 

Financial  support  is  available  for  small-scale  coastal  fisheries  under  the  EMFAF.  This  fund 
has  a  specific  focus  on  SSCF  and  almost  all  the  projects  related  to  SSCF  are  eligible  for 
support  at  a  rate  of  public  aid  of  100%.  Member  States  must  take  into  account  the  specific 
needs of  small-scale  coastal  fisheries in  their  EMFAF  programmes  and  describe the  actions 
needed  to  meet  those  needs.  Member  States  must  endeavour  to  introduce  simplified 
procedures for small-scale coastal fishing businesses applying for EMFAF support. 

Article 17  of  the  CFP  Regulation  requires  Member  States  to  use  transparent  and  objective 
allocation criteria for fishing opportunities79, but it does not oblige them to reserve a share of 
the quotas to small-scale coastal fisheries. However, they may use allocation criteria that are 

78 

79  

EN 

European  Commission,  Joint  Research  Centre,  Scientific,  Technical  and  Economic  Committee  for  Fisheries,  The 
2022  annual  economic  report  on  the  EU  fishing  fleet  (STECF  22-06),  Virtanen,  J.(editor),  Guillen,  J.(editor), 
Prellezo, R.(editor), Sabatella, E.(editor), Publications Office of the European Union, 2022. 

To be noted that, in its Judgment of 12 July 2018, Spika, C-540/16, EU:C:2018:565, the Court of Justice pointed 
out that Member States may adopt a method of allocation of fishing opportunities which, while being based on a 
transparent and objective allocation criterion, may create a difference in treatment between operators having fishing 
vessels flying that Member State’s flag, provided that that method pursues one or more general interests recognised 
by the European Union and respects the principle of proportionality 

23 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
relevant  to  SSCF,  for  example  on  the  impact  of  fishing  on  the  environment  and  the 
contribution  to  the  local  economy.  When  allocating  fishing  opportunities,  Member  States 
must also endeavour to provide incentives to fishing vessels deploying selective fishing80 gear 
or  using  fishing  techniques  with  reduced  environmental  impact,  such  as  reduced  energy 
consumption  or  habitat  damage  (Article 17  of  the  CFP  Regulation).  These  incentives  may 
work in favour of small-scale coastal fisheries and the Commission is monitoring the criteria 
applied by Member States, ensuring transparency. 

Small-scale coastal fishing operators experience difficulties in accessing fishing opportunities 
and in having their concerns taken up in fisheries management and maritime spatial planning 
decisions.  Part  of  the  solution  lies  in  small-scale  fishers  improving  their  collective 
organisation  to  have  their  voice  heard  by  the  Member  States,  which  are  the  main  decision 
makers on allocating fishing opportunities and on maritime spatial planning. 

According to small-scale coastal fishers, the key challenge of the CFP remains to create and 
maintain level  playing field for small-scale  and large-scale  fishery  activities, and to  address 
the historical grievances of the small-scale sector in terms of access to fishing opportunities. 
During  the  stakeholder  consultation,  small-scale  fishers  cited  poor  implementation  of 
Article 17  and  the  lack  of  access  of  small-scale  fishers  to  quota  species  as  their  challenges. 
They  also  emphasised  the  importance  of  the  ‘access  to  waters’  regime,  since  granting 
preferential  access  in  coastal  waters  to  the  small-scale  fleet  highly  favours  them.  They  also 
mentioned the need to introduce measures with long-term objectives to restore stocks (such as 
temporary closures), develop production and marketing plans for producer organisations, give 
more weight to scientific data when setting restrictions on fishing activity, promote awareness 
to make use of the local knowledge of fishers, focus on measures to support young people and 
women, and improve the energy efficiency of vessels and gear. 

2.3.5.  Opportunities and challenges 

The European Green Deal  puts  a particular emphasis  on the role of fishers in  managing the 
transition  towards more sustainable fisheries  and  in  enhancing their role  as  ‘stewards of the 
sea’. Fishers carry out this role daily in their work and their fishing practices. By increasing 
gear selectivity, energy efficiency and improving waste management, fishers can make a real 
difference to the sustainability of fishing. See the text boxes in this document illustrating best 
practices of such initiatives. Training is a key enabler to this role as stewards of the sea, and 
another issue that was raised in the stakeholder consultation. It can also play an important role 
in boosting the contribution of fishing activities to the protection of nature.  

The  aim  of  the  ongoing  EMFF  project  ‘catching  the  potential’81  is  to  develop  a  European 
standard  for  sustainable  fisheries  training.  ‘Fishing  for  Litter’82  is  a  good  illustration  of  the 

80 

81 
82 

Article 4(1)(12)  defines  selective  fishing  as  ‘fishing  with  fishing  methods  or  fishing  gear  that  target  and  capture 
organisms by size or species during the fishing operation, allowing non-target specimens to be avoided or released 
unharmed'. 
https://catchingthepotential.eu/. 
https://fishingforlitter.org/. 

EN 

24 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
broader contribution fishers can make to achieve a healthier marine environment, beyond their 
traditional fishing activities. Enhancing the role of fishers in the sustainable management of 
the  seas  also  offers  opportunities  by  improving  the  image  of  the  sector  and  increasing  its 
attractiveness  for  newcomers.  Several  stakeholders  often  mentioned  the  need  to  boost  the 
attractiveness of the sector during the consultation.  

Stakeholders,  trade  unions  and  Advisory  Councils  highlighted  the  need  to  boost  the  role  of 
women in the fisheries sector. In local communities, women make an essential contribution to 
the generation of wealth and employment, as well as to the sustainable use and conservation 
of aquatic resources. Despite this, their contribution to fisheries and aquaculture is often not 
sufficiently  recognised,  preventing  their  full  and  balanced  participation  in  the  sector. 
Although the gender balance is proportionally better in aquaculture than in fisheries, 78% of 
people  employed  in  the  aquaculture  sector  are  men,  showing  that  European  aquaculture  is 
clearly gender biased83. This differs from the processing industry, which is gender balanced. 
In spite of that, the shellfish segment employs a higher percentage of female workers.  

Women  are  still  underrepresented  in  management  and  decision-making  positions,  in 
professional  bodies,  trade  unions  and  workers’  councils.  The  EMFAF  supports  projects  to 
help remedy this situation, in line with the objectives of the EU Gender Equality Strategy84. 
Financial  support  under  the  EMFAF  takes  account  of  gender  and  builds  on  projects  and 
actions to enhance the contribution of women to the sector supported under the previous EU 
fisheries  funds.  To  promote  gender  equality  in  the  sustainable  blue  economy  in  a  broader 
sense, the Commission launched a specific call for proposals under the EMFAF to support up 
to two projects promoting the role of ‘Women in the blue economy’85. With EUR 2.5 million, 
this call for proposals aims to increase the participation of women in different sectors of the 
blue economy and contribute to a more gender equal society. To promote gender balance in 
the fisheries sector in particular, it is necessary to invest in more data collection, consolidation 
and data analysis on women working in the sector.  

From  a  governance  point  of  view,  a  strong  involvement  of  fishers  in  decision-making  and 
ownership  of  the  measures  adopted  are  also  a  prerequisite  for  success.  The  regionalisation 
approach taken by the CFP, the empowerment of producer organisations under the Common 
Market Organisation Regulation and the role given to Advisory Councils are ways to achieve 
this  involvement  and  ownership.  Some  Advisory  Councils  have  social  partners  among  their 
members, and they have actively promoted the social dimension of the CFP for some years. In 
2016,  the  LDAC  issued  a  recommendation  to  express  its  concerns  about  fundamental  and 
human  rights  in  the  fisheries  sector  around  the  world.  In  2020,  the  LDAC  issued  a 
recommendation on the role of women in fisheries and SFPAs. The Mediterranean Advisory 
Council  has  also  been  very  active  over  the  years  and  has  worked  on  the  role  of  women  in 

83 
84 

85 

Once published (January 2023) – finalise reference STECF 22-17. 
Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social 
Committee  and  the  Committee  of  the  Regions,  A  Union  of  Equality:  Gender  Equality  Strategy  2020-2025, 
COM/2020/152 final. 
https://cinea.ec.europa.eu/news-events/news/women-blue-economy-call-proposals-now-open-2022-05-17_en. 

EN 

25 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
fisheries.  In  May  2021,  Europêche,  European  Transport  Workers’  Federation  (ETF)  and 
LDAC jointly wrote to the Commission to request the transposition of key legal international 
instruments on maritime safety and labour in fisheries.  

The Pelagic Advisory Council (PELAC) then expressed its support for this recommendation 
and the social dimension in fisheries. The Commission is working closely with the EU social 
partners in sea fisheries on these issues. 

2.4. 

Sustainable blue economy 

2.4.1. 

Introduction 

The sustainable blue economy pursues the ambitions set out in the European Green Deal and 
has a role to play in  enabling the EU to  meet its environmental and climate objectives. The 
ocean  is  the  planet's  main  climate  regulator.  It  provides  clean  energy  and  sustains  us  with 
oxygen, food and many critical ecosystem services. Biodiversity conservation and protection 
are the fundamental principles that underpin maritime economic activity. Marine biodiversity 
is not only the prerequisite for economic activities, but it also offers economic opportunities. 
To  fully  embed  the  blue  economy  into  the  Green  Deal  and  the  recovery  strategy,  the 
Commission has adopted a new approach to achieve a sustainable blue economy in the EU86.  

2.4.2.

To rejuvenate the ageing fisheries sector in Lapland, a fisheries recruitment 
and training project was funded. As a result, 14 young fishers of both genders 
started to operate. 
Recruiting young people to train with experienced fishers | FARNET 
(europa.eu) 

Background 

In  2012,  the  European  Commission  adopted  the  communication  entitled  Blue  Growth,  on 
opportunities for marine and maritime sustainable growth87 (the Blue Growth Strategy). This 
communication describes the potential of the blue economy to provide jobs and growth in the 
EU and identifies areas for further work to realise this potential. The Commission followed up 
this work in 2014 by adopting the communication entitled Innovation in the Blue Economy: 
realising  the  potential  of  our  seas  and  oceans  for  jobs  and  growth88,  focusing  on  action  to 
develop  knowledge,  innovation  and  skills.  In  2017,  the  Commission  issued  a  Report  on  the 
implementation of the Blue Growth Strategy, which detailed the achievements made since the 
adoption  of  this  strategy  in  2012.  It  covered  maritime  spatial  planning  (EU  Directive  and 
international  work),  sea-basin  strategies,  marine  data  and  knowledge  (European  Marine 
Observation and Data Network89) and maritime security.  

In  2021,  the  Commission  adopted  a  new  communication  entitled  the  Sustainable  Blue 
Economy, which marks the transition  from  the concept  of blue  growth  to  a sustainable blue 

86 

87 
88 
89 

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social 
Committee  and  the  Committee  of  the  Regions  on  a  new  approach  for  a  sustainable  blue  economy  in  the  EU 
Transforming the EU’s Blue Economy for a Sustainable Future COM(2021)240 final. 
COM(2012) 494 final. 
COM(2014) 254 final/2. 
https://emodnet.ec.europa.eu/en. 

EN 

26 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
economy. It sets out a detailed and realistic agenda for the blue economy to play a major role 
in  achieving  the  European  Green  Deal’s  objectives.  In  2022,  the  European  Commission 
launched the EU  Blue Economy  Observatory to  provide near-real-time information  and key 
socio-economic indicators on the EU blue economy 90 . 

2.4.3.  Maritime spatial planning 

Europe’s  seas  are  home  to  a  wealth  of  activities.  At  any  given  time,  fishing,  aquaculture, 
shipping,  renewable  energy,  nature  conservation,  touristic  activities  and  other  uses  compete 
for maritime space. Multiple initiatives under the European Green Deal will trigger changes in 
the use of the European seas and oceans, for example: 

 

 

 

 

the EU strategy on offshore renewable energy;91 

the strategic guidelines for a more sustainable and competitive EU aquaculture;92 

the initiative on algae;93 

the  targets  under  the  EU  Biodiversity  Strategy  for  203094,  and  in  particular  the 
extension and effective management of marine protected areas (MPAs)95.  

Maritime  spatial  planning  can  play  a  very  useful  role  in  charting  the  way  forward  on 
sustainable  and  integrated  management  of  human  activities  at  sea,  while contributing  to  the 
sustainable  use  of  marine  goods  and  services  by  current  and  future  generations.  The  EU 
Directive  on  Maritime  Spatial  Planning96  therefore  sets  out  provisions  to  improve 
transparency and stability.  It encourages investment and cross-border cooperation, including 
in  relation  to  offshore  wind  energy  developments  and  marine  protected  areas.  It  lays  down 
minimum  requirements  for  the  planning  process  and  for  national  maritime  spatial  plans, 
including stakeholders and transboundary consultation requirements.  

The process to draw up  national maritime spatial plans is consultative and iterative. Coastal 
communities  must  be  involved  in  the  process  and  it  should  also  factor  in  sea  interactions. 
Maritime  spatial  planning  should  take  an  ecosystem-based  approach,  as  referred  to  in 
Article 1(3)  of  the  Marine  strategy  framework  directive  (2008/56/EC),  with  the  aim  of 
ensuring that the collective pressure of all activities is kept within levels compatible with the 
achievement of good environmental status. 

90  
91 
92 

93 

94  

95 
96 

https://blue-economy-observatory.ec.europa.eu/index_en. 
https://energy.ec.europa.eu/topics/renewable-energy/offshore-renewable-energy_en. 
Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social 
Committee  and  the  Committee  of  the  Regions,  Strategic  guidelines  for  a  more  sustainable  and  competitive  EU 
aquaculture for the period 2021 to 2030, COM/2021/236 final. 
Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social 
Committee  and  the  Committee  of  the  Regions,  Towards  a  Strong  and  Sustainable  EU  Algae  Sector, 
COM/2022/592 final. 
Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social 
Committee and the Committee of the Regions,  EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 Bringing nature back into our 
lives COM/2020/380 final 
https://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/water/europes-seas-and-coasts/assessments/marine-protected-areas. 
Directive 2014/89/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 2014 establishing a framework for 
maritime spatial planning. 

EN 

27 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
The  European  Maritime  Spatial  Planning  Platform97,  financed  by  the  EMFAF,  provides 
information  on  current  practices,  processes  and  projects,  carries  out  technical  studies,  and 
hosts a question and answer service. In addition, the European Marine Observation and Data 
Network  provides  free  and  easy  access  to  spatial  data  from  national  maritime  spatial  plans. 
There is scope to create synergies between the multiple human activities carried out at sea in 
initiatives  such  as  the  European  Blue  Forum,  as  announced  in  the  new  approach  for  a 
sustainable blue economy. 

There  is  evidence98  of  positive  results  achieved  by  combining  aquaculture  activities  with 
renewable  energy,  in  particular  in  the  North  Sea.  This  is  encouraging,  not  only  for  the 
integration of blue economy activities, but also for a more efficient maritime space planning 
in  the  EU.  It  could  have  a  positive  impact  on  aquaculture  production,  given  the  scope  to 
explore better water quality for production. 

2.4.4.  Opportunities and challenges 

The ambitions set out in the European Green Deal and related EU policy on ocean governance 
put  a  greater  legislative  focus  on  environmental  protection  and  on  competing  claims  for 
coastal and marine space in the EU. This will influence the management and governance of 
marine  resources’  use  in  the  near  future.  The  use  of  maritime  space,  in  particular  given  the 
further  expansion  of  marine  protected  areas  and  the  increased  need  to  develop  offshore 
renewable energy, will require further discussions in the context of maritime spatial planning. 
The  stakeholder  consultation  process  (Annex  1)  showed  that  many  stakeholders  were 
concerned  about  the  interaction  between  fisheries  and  other  activities  at  sea.  Maintaining  a 
level playing field and creating synergies between activities are essential challenges to tackle 
in future discussions. Structured dialogues will be needed in this process in order to reach the 
set objectives. 

The  study  on  regionalisation99  highlighted  that  the  current  structure  for  stakeholder 
participation developed under the common fisheries policy works well in many regards. This 
structure can be used by organisations participating in the tasks of the Advisory Councils as 
defined  in  Article 44  of  the  CFP  Regulation  for  transboundary  cooperation  and  regional 
stakeholder involvement in maritime spatial planning, which can be improved in this regard. 
The increased use made of areas of regional seas by other users than fishers (such as marine 
protected  areas  and  renewable  energy)  demand  a  greater  degree  of  regional  alignment  in 
maritime spatial planning, which currently is mostly carried out at Member State level. 

The  outermost  regions  have  a  unique  potential  to  contribute  to  the  blue  economy  thanks  to 
their rich marine biodiversity and their large exclusive economic zones (EEZ), accounting for 
over half of the EU’s EEZ. Fisheries account for an important share of their economies. It is 

97 
98 
99  

EN 

https://maritime-spatial-planning.ec.europa.eu/. 
STECF EWG 22-17 in report STECF PLEN 2. 
European Commission, European Climate, Infrastructure and Environment Executive  Agency study on Study on  
2022,  
regionalisation 
https://cinea.ec.europa.eu/publications/study-regionalisation-common-fisheries-policy-cfp_en 

of  Common  Fisheries  Policy 

report,  Publications  Office, 

(CFP): 

final 

28 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
  
  
important  that  the  outermost  regions  develop  their  blue  economy  strategies  in  a  sustainable 
way, including by protecting their marine biodiversity100. 

2.5. 

Recreational fisheries 

2.5.1. 

Introduction 

Under  the  CFP,  specifically  under  the  sustainable  blue  economy  and  fisheries  management, 
the  EU  recognises  the  role  of  recreational  fishers  in  promoting  the  prosperity  of  (coastal) 
communities across Europe. In addition to being a leisure activity, recreational fishing serves 
the cultural ecosystems with individual benefits of and by recreational fishers’ spending. As 
this activity can have a significant impact on fish resources, the Member States should ensure 
that it is conducted in line with the CFP objectives101.  

2.5.2.  Background: from 2009 to the state of play in 2022 

The 2009 Green Paper highlighted that it is essential to secure a future for coastal, small-scale 
and recreational fishers taking fully into account the specific situation of small- and medium 
sized  enterprises.  Recreational  fisheries  are  defined  in  EU  legislation  as  ‘..non-commercial 
fishing  activities  exploiting  marine  living  aquatic  resources  for  recreation,  tourism  or 
sport’102.  

The  CFP  Regulation  recognises  that  recreational  fishing  has  an  impact  on  fish  stocks  and, 
under the CFP, management measures are in  place for certain  species caught  recreationally. 
Quotas  and  seasonal  closures  applicable  to  recreational  fishing  are  provided  by  the  Fishing 
Opportunities  Regulation.  For  technical  (conservation)  measures,  the  Technical  Measures 
Regulation103  provides  that  certain  provisions  apply  to  recreational  fishing104  and,  where 
recreational  fishing  has  a  significant  impact  in  a  particular  region,  the  Commission  has  the 
power  to  adopt  delegated  acts  to  set  minimum  conservation  sizes  for  specific  recreational 
fisheries on the basis of a joint recommendation submitted by the Member States with a direct 
management interest.  

The Commission encourages Member States to collect data to monitor recreational catches of 
certain species. The current EU MAP for data collection105, which is used to supply data for 
EU  fisheries  management,  requires  the  Member  States  to  implement  sampling  schemes  to 

100  

101  
102 
103 

104 

105 

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social 
Committee  and  the  Committee  of  the  Regions,  Putting  people  first,  securing  sustainable  and  inclusive  growth, 
unlocking the potential of the EU’s outermost regions, COM/2022/198 final. 
Recital 3 of the CFP Regulation. 
Article 4(24) of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009. 
Regulation (EU) 2019/1241 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on the conservation of 
fisheries  resources  and  the  protection  of  marine  ecosystems  through  technical  measures,  amending  Council 
Regulations (EC) No 1967/2006, (EC) No 1224/2009 and Regulations (EU) No 1380/2013, (EU) 2016/1139, (EU) 
2018/973,  (EU)  2019/472  and  (EU)  2019/1022  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council,  and  repealing 
Council Regulations (EC) No 894/97, (EC) No 850/98, (EC) No 2549/2000, (EC) No 254/2002, (EC) No 812/2004 
and (EC) No 2187/2005. 
Under Article 2(2) of the Regulation, the following provisions apply to recreational fishing: Article 7 (Prohibited 
fishing  gear  and  methods),  Article 10  (Prohibited  fish  and  shellfish  species),  Article 11  (Catches  of  marine 
mammals,  seabirds  and  marine  reptiles)  and  Article 12  (Protection  for  sensitive  habitats  including  vulnerable 
marine ecosystems). 
Commission Delegated Decision (EU) 2021/1167 of 27 April 2021 establishing the multiannual Union programme 
for the collection and management of biological, environmental, technical and socioeconomic data in the fisheries 
and  aquaculture  sectors  from  2022,  and  Commission  Implementing  Decision  (EU)  2021/1168  of  27 April  2021 
establishing  the  list  of  mandatory  research  surveys  at  sea  and  thresholds  as  part  of  the  multiannual  Union 
programme for the collection and management of data in the fisheries and aquaculture sectors from 2022. 

EN 

29 

EN 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
estimate  catches  and  releases  (at  least  for  the  species  listed  in  the  programme)  by  running 
statistically  sound  multispecies  surveys.  Under  the  previous  2017-2021  programme,  the 
Member  States  conducted  pilot  studies  to  test  the  data  collection  schemes  for  recreational 
fisheries,  optimise  sampling  methods  and  identify  priority  species.  The  STECF106  evaluated 
the  results  of  the  studies,  which  formed  the  basis  of  routine  sampling  programmes  for 
recreational  fisheries  under  the  current  EU  MAP.  Regional  coordination  and  end  user 
dialogue is ongoing to prioritise species and optimise sampling schemes at regional level. 

In  its  judgement  of  10 March  2020  (T-251/18),  the  Court  stated  that  when  setting  fishing 
opportunities,  the  Council  was  entitled  to  take  into  account  all  fishing  activities  that  could 
have an impact on fish stock status, including recreational activities. The relevant paragraph 
of  this  judgment  is  paragraph  72  ‘Consequently,  in  order  to  ensure  the  attainment  of  the 
objective pursued by Article 43(3) TFEU, it was permissible, appropriate and even necessary 
for  the  Council,  when  it  adopted  the  contested  provisions,  to  take  into  account  all  activities 
which may have an impact on the stock status of European seabass and the replenishment of 
that stock, irrespective of whether or not those activities are commercial.”. This confirmed the 
general approach that the scope of the CFP can cover recreational fisheries when they impact 
the conservation of marine biological resources. 

In  2018,  the  GFCM  adopted  the  regional  plan  of  action  for  small-scale  fishers  in  the 
Mediterranean and the Black Sea.107 The plan recognises interactions between small-scale and 
recreational  fishing  activities,  encourages  good  cooperation,  calls  for  strengthening  the 
knowledge  on  their  interactions  and  for  improving  monitoring  and  surveillance  to  avoid 
illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing. The plan is a political commitment setting out an 
ambitious  roadmap  until  2028.  It  prescribes  concrete  and  coherent  measures  to  address  the 
challenges  and  boost  opportunities  for  small-scale  fisheries,  including  by  giving  fishers  a 
voice  in  the  decisions  that  affect  their  livelihoods,  by  safeguarding  environmentally 
sustainable fishing practices and by providing economic, social and employment benefits.  

In addition, the GFCM created a Working Group on Recreational Fisheries, which convenes 
annually, for example to produce key input to a regional research programme on recreational 
fisheries.  The  GFCM  also  published  a  Handbook  for  Data  Collection  on  Recreational 
Fisheries in the Mediterranean and Black Sea108 to provide a clear methodological framework 
to allow Mediterranean and Black Sea countries to implement suitably harmonised sampling 
and  survey  monitoring  schemes  for  recreational  fisheries.  In  2022,  the  scientific  advisory 
committee  of  the  GFCM  reviewed  the  proposal  for  a  recommendation  on  recreational 
fisheries, pending from the forty-fourth session of the GFCM, and endorsed a revised list of 
species of importance for recreational fisheries.  

Building  on  this  work,  at  the  GFCM  Annual  session  of  November  2022,  based  on  an  EU 
proposal  the  GFCM  adopted109  setting  regional  minimum  rules  to  achieve  the  effective 
management,  control  and  monitoring  of  recreational  fishing  activities  in  the  Mediterranean 
Sea.  The  rules  adopted  are  based  on  the  need  to  continue  monitoring  this  activity  and  to 
identify solutions to mitigate the pressure of recreational fishing, as advised by the SAC. This 

106 
107 
108 

109 

STECF 21-09 - Evaluation of AR and DTi.pdf - Data Collection Framework - European Commission (europa.eu). 
https://www.fao.org/3/cb7838en/cb7838en.pdf. 
Grati, F., Carlson, A., Carpentieri, P. & Cerri, J. 2021. Handbook for data collection on recreational fisheries in the 
Mediterranean and the Black Sea. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper No 669. Rome, FAO. 
GFCM/45/2022/12  on  the  establishment  of  a  set  of  minimum  rules  for  sustainable  recreational  fisheries  in  the 
Mediterranean sea 

EN 

30 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
should  serve  a  general  framework,  with  fishery-specific  details  to  be  developed  at  sub-
regional level. 
On  the  specific  issue  of  monitoring,  the  Commission's  evaluation110  of  the  impact  of  the 
Control Regulation111, several scientific studies and other reports have indicated that in most 
Member  States,  knowledge  on  recreational  fisheries  was  scarce  and  the  monitoring  was  not 
always sufficient. The lack of licencing/registration in some countries and the lack of detailed 
reporting provisions for recreational fisheries catches at EU level hinder the quality of catch 
data and the implementation of adequate conservation and management measures in some sea 
basins.  These  findings  called  for  a  more  regular  data  collection  system  and  more  effective 
control schemes for recreational fisheries, which included revising the Control Regulation.  

Therefore,  in  November  2019,  at  the  request  of  the  European  Parliament,  the  Commission 
launched  the  pilot  project  ‘Control  scheme  for  recreational  catches  of  sea  bass’.  This  12-
month  pilot  project  primarily  targeted  sea  bass  in  the  Atlantic  Ocean  but  was  expanded  to 
include four other species  (salmon and cod in  the Baltic Sea and blackspot  seabream  in  the 
Mediterranean  Sea).  Key  stakeholders  were  consulted,  and  the  stakeholder  survey  results 
showed that, overall, recreational fishers in Europe agreed on the need for catch reporting and 
preferred mobile application-based reporting tools. They recommended adopting an integrated 
monitoring and control information system to facilitate the sharing of fishery-related data and 
promote cooperation between all stakeholders in managing marine recreational fisheries. 

Following this work, an innovative integrated catch reporting system for recreational fisheries 
was developed with two main components: a web-based platform – RecFishing.eu112 (with an 
administration web portal and a public fisher’s web portal) – and an existing partner app for 
catch reporting of recreational fisheries – FishFriender113. The system was successfully tested 
at  sea  (in  real-life  conditions),  with  the  support  of  European  angler  federations  and 
recreational  federations.  The  RecFishing.eu  platform  is  being  developed  to  cover  more 
species and to integrate other apps. 

2.5.3.  Opportunities and challenges 

The  RecFishing.eu  platform  shows  that  a  licensing/registration  and  reporting  system 
regarding  recreational  fisheries  is  feasible  and  implementable.  Fisheries  monitoring  and 
control can be modernised by  making the transition to a fully digitalised system  to improve 
data  on  catches  of  recreational  fisheries  and  the  management  of  key  fish  stocks,  and  to 
prevent the problem of taking measures based on insufficient/poor data.  

Given that recreational fishing can have a potentially significant impact on fish resources, the 
Member States should ensure that it follows the  CFP objectives. The Commission  monitors 
the situation closely and proposes measures for recreational fisheries on a case-by-case basis, 
as  it  was  the  case  for  recreational  catches  of  sea  bass  and  European  eel.  The  scientific 
community,  on  which  the  Commission  relies  on  for  advice  on  conservation  and  policy 
management,  identified  as  a  main  challenge  the  difficulty  to  accurately  estimate  both  the 
biological impact and the overall economic impact of recreational fisheries.  

110 
111 
112 
113 

COM(2021)316 final. 
Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009. 
https://recfishing.eu/ 
https://www.fishfriender.com/?_locale=en 

EN 

31 

EN 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Stakeholder involvement is of the essence and recreational  fishing  associations are active in 
multiple  Advisory  Councils.  During  the  stakeholder  consultation,  recreational  fishers 
themselves mentioned their wish to be included fully and fairly in the CFP, in order to reach 
its objectives and make informed decisions on the best use of fish resources in society.  

Recreational fishing is already integrated in multiple aspects of the CFP as described above. 
There  needs  now  to  be  a  continued  focus  and  improvement  in  the  ongoing  work  on  data 
collection, monitoring and regional implementation. 

2.6. 

A clean and healthy ocean 

2.6.1. 

Introduction 

Oceans  are  key  for  the  climate  system  and  host  huge  biodiversity  that  is  under  threat  by 
cumulative pressures. The five main drivers of biodiversity loss114 – changes in land and sea 
use, overexploitation, climate change, pollution, and invasive alien species pose multiple risks 
to human, and ecosystems health, including to the ocean and seas. They have environmental, 
social and economic consequences, and challenges the resilience of the blue economy sectors. 
Pollution  in  all  its  forms  poses  a  particular  risk  for  marine  ecosystems,  which  has 
consequences on the resilience of the fisheries sector. 

A clean ocean is an ocean free from all forms of pollution. The main forms of pollution are: 

  eutrophication (excess of nutrients pollution/ agricultural runoffs); 
  contaminants (chemicals, pesticides, heavy metals, toxins); 
  underwater noise (oil drilling, shipping); 
  marine litter (plastic, wood, metal etc.). 

2.6.2.  A clean and healthy ocean at EU level 

To restore ocean health, the EU aims to regenerate and recover European marine ecosystems 
by taking action to achieve cleaner, more resilient and productive marine waters, restore their 
rich biodiversity and make the blue economy climate friendly. The 2030 Biodiversity Strategy 
under the European Green Deal and the proposal for the EU Nature Restoration Law115 play a 
key role in translating the aims into concrete action.  

On 12 May 2021, the European Commission adopted the zero pollution vision to reduce air, 
water  and  soil  pollution  to  levels  no  longer  considered  harmful  to  health  and  natural 
ecosystems,  that  respect  the  boundaries  with  which  the  planet  can  cope,  and  create  a  toxic-

114  

115 

IPBES  (2019),  Summary  for  policymakers,  pp.  17-19,  B.10-B.14;  European  Environment  Agency  (2019),  The 
European environment – state and outlook 2020. 
https://environment.ec.europa.eu/topics/nature-and-biodiversity/nature-restoration-law_en. 

EN 

32 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
free environment. Its Zero Pollution Action Plan116, a key deliverable of the European Green 
Deal,  includes  the bold  but  achievable ambition  to reduce plastic litter and microplastics by 
50%  and  30%  respectively  by  2030.  It  also  aims  to  achieve  zero  pollution  in  all  aquatic 
ecosystems.  

The recent Sustainable Blue Economy Communication117 also highlights marine pollution as 
a  significant  pressure  on  the  marine  ecosystem,  threatening  the  health  of  the  marine 
environment with corresponding impacts on commercial and recreational activities.  

In September 2021, the European Commission launched five new ‘EU missions’ to tackle big 
challenges in health, climate and the environment. One of the five missions, Mission ‘Restore 
our Ocean and Waters by 2030’118 will take a systemic approach to address ocean and waters 
as one and play a key role in achieving climate neutrality and restoring nature. The  Mission 
will  finance  demonstration  projects  that  can  later  be  scaled  up  to  speed  up  progress  in 
achieving the objectives of the European Green Deal by:  

  protecting 30% of the EU’s sea area;  
 
restoring marine ecosystems and 25 000 km of free flowing rivers;  
 
reducing plastic litter at sea, nutrient losses and the use of chemical pesticides; and  
  making  the  blue  economy  climate-neutral  and  circular  with  zero-net  maritime 

emissions. 

The  EU  has  taken  specific  action  to  address  different  forms  of  pollution  and  improve  the 
circular design and monitoring of fishing gear. It has focused on: 

  adopting  a  Single  use  Plastics  Directive119  which  introduces  a  combination  of 
measures  ensuring  that  single-use  plastic  products  for  which  more  sustainable 
alternatives are available and affordable cannot be placed on the market, obliging the 
producers  and  importers  of  fishing  gear  to  take  responsibility  for  safe  handling  and 
disposal  of end-of-life fishing  gear including  reporting  what  is  placed on the market 
and what is collected as waste120 

  engaging CEN, the European Committee for Standardisation organisations to develop 
standards  for  the  circular  design  of  fishing  gears  to  encourage  their  re-use  and 
facilitate recyclability at end of life 
improving the circular design of fishing gear to encourage re-use and recycling at end 
of life, working with standardisation organisations; 

 

116 

117 

118 

119 

120 

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social 
Committee  and  the  Committee  of  the  Regions,  Pathway  to  a  Healthy  Planet  for  All  EU  Action  Plan:  ‘Towards 
Zero Pollution for Air, Water and Soil’, COM/2021/400 final. 
Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social 
Committee  and  the  Committee  of  the  Regions  on  a  new  approach  for  a  sustainable  blue  economy  in  the  EU 
Transforming the EU’s Blue Economy for a Sustainable Future COM/2021/240 final. 
Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social 
Committee and the Committee of the Regions on European Missions 
Directive  (EU)  2019/904 of  the  European Parliament  and  of  the Council  of  5  June  2019  on  the  reduction  of  the 
impact of certain plastic products on the environment 
Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/958 of 31 May 2021 laying down the format for reporting data and 
information on fishing gear placed on the market and waste fishing gear collected in Member States and the format 
for the quality check report in accordance with Articles 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of Directive (EU) 2019/904 of the 
European Parliament and of the Council. 

EN 

33 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
  encouraging  ship  operators  to  deliver  all  waste  to  ports  under  the  Port  Reception 
Facilities  Directive121,  including  waste  caught  up  in  nets  during  normal  fishing 
operations; 
 
further improving the marking of fishing gear, retrieval and notification of lost gear; 
 
tackling the issue of conventional, chemical and explosive munitions dumped at sea; 
  developing tools  to  determine the acoustic impact  of human activities on  the  marine 
underwater soundscape  and to  support Member States in  setting threshold values for 
allowable underwater noise good environmental status descriptor122 under the Marine 
strategy framework directive. 

Several  Member  States  did  not  accurately  transpose  the  Single-Use  Plastics  Directive  into 
their national legislation within the deadline of two years after entry into force on 3 July 2019. 
Therefore,  in  September  2022  the  Commission  took  legal  steps  against  11  Member  States, 
calling on them to  step up implementation  of the Directive in  order to  reduce the impact  of 
certain plastic products on the environment and on human health. 

2.6.3.  Clean and healthy oceans at international level 

The Commission has actively supported the adoption of provisions to reduce marine litter and 
plastics in several RFMOs, such as the IOTC, the WCPFC or the Convention on Conservation 
of Antarctic Marine Living Resources123.  

In the Mediterranean, the GFCM adopted its 2030 Strategy124, which set five specific targets 
that each contribute to the overarching vision for sustainability:  

level playing field to eradicate all IUU fishing;  
the growth of aquaculture as a sustainable and resilient sector;  

  healthy seas and productive fisheries;  
 
 
  support to livelihoods and  
 

fostering capacity development.  

The  EU  was  the  driving  force  for  shaping  this  strategy,  including  contributions  from  the 
Mediterranean  Advisory  Council  and  NGOs.  The  strategy  is  well  equipped  to  tackle  the 

121  

122 

123 
124 

Directive  (EU)  2019/883  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  17  April  2019  on  port  reception 
facilities for the delivery of waste from ships, amending Directive 2010/65/EU and repealing Directive 2000/59/EC 
(Text with EEA relevance) OJ L 151, 7.6.2019, p. 116–142 
Descriptor  11:  Introduction  of  energy,  including  underwater  noise,  is  at  levels  that  do  not  adversely  affect  the 
marine environment. 
https://www.ccamlr.org/. 
FAO,  GFCM  2030  Strategy  for  sustainable  fisheries  and  aquaculture  in  the  Mediterranean  and  the  Black  Sea, 
Rome, 2021. 

EN 

34 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
numerous challenges ahead, namely persisting overfishing and the growing threats to marine 
environment  caused  by  human  activities,  the  impact  of  pollution  and  the  impact  of  climate 
change  (i.e.  impact  of  invasive  species).  The  new  strategy  also  integrates  the  latest 
international  and  EU  policy  developments  on  the  green  transition  (the  2030  Agenda  for 
Sustainable  Development,  the  EU  Green  Deal,  the  Farm  to  Fork  and  the  Biodiversity 
Strategy). 

Mindful of the specific needs of the GFCM region, the new strategy brings together different 
sectors of the blue economy and promotes a multidisciplinary approach. The aim is to achieve 
the  green  transition  (following  the  EU  Green  Deal)  and  protect  biodiversity  (following  the 
principles  set  out  in  the  EU  Biodiversity  Strategy).  One  of  the  expected  outcomes  from 
implementing  the  strategy  is  specifically  to  minimise  and  mitigate  any  form  of  pollution 
caused  by  the  activities  of  the  fishing  sector,  in  particular  abandoned,  lost  or  otherwise 
discarded  fishing  gear.  To  do  so  it  will  involve  the  sector  in  testing  new  technologies  to 
remove litter (in particular plastics) from the marine environment. 

The  Commission  is  also  stepping  up  its  commitment  to  reduce  marine  litter  at  international 
level, including in the UN, G7, G20 and other international fora. It promotes cooperation with 
Regional Sea Conventions.  Reaching a  global agreement on plastics remains  a high priority 
for the EU and its Member States and the EU is strongly committed to negotiating a legally 
binding instrument on plastics, including in the marine environment, by the end of 2024. 

2.6.4.  Opportunities and challenges 

To achieve these goals contributing to a clean ocean, Member States and economic operators 
at  sea,  including  fishers,  ship  operators,  processing  operators,  seafood  farmers,  must 
accelerate action to implement the CFP and at the same time contribute to other EU policies. 
These operators  can be solution providers and help  transition  their operations  towards more 
environmentally friendly practices within the areas of focus listed in section 2.6.2. 

The Commission is also driving research into creating innovative and impactful solutions for 
a  clean  and  healthy  ocean.  An  example  is  the  work  under  the  second  objective  of  Mission 
‘Restore our Ocean and Water’ to prevent and eliminate pollution through its ‘lighthouse’ in 
the Mediterranean Sea basin. The EMFAF also makes it a priority to strengthen international 
ocean  governance  and  enable  seas  and  oceans  to  be  clean  and  sustainably  managed.  The 
EMFAF provides support to develop solutions for restoring and maintaining ocean health and 
for reducing marine litter. The fund can compensate fishers for bringing ashore waste caught 
in  their  nets  rather  than  dumping  it  back  into  the  sea  and  supports  action  to  improve  the 
environmental performance of aquaculture. 

Having  and  maintaining  clean  and  healthy  oceans  is  mentioned  as  important  for  all 
stakeholders. Fishers are particularly aware of the fact that the ocean is their workplace, since 
they depend on the good health of marine ecosystems. Stakeholders are concerned by the fact 
that marine litter is a major threat to marine species and to the environment. Many initiatives 
have been taken up to prevent litter pollution highlighted by the stakeholders, including: 

 

 

the obligation for fishers to mark and identify gear, to have the equipment they need 
to retrieve lost gear and to inform coastal authorities if gear is lost; 
increasing the use of biodegradable ropes, nets and gear components; 

EN 

35 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

voluntary participation of fishers in marine litter collection and prevention activities 
(e.g. ‘Fishing for Litter’). 

2.7. 

Climate change 

2.7.1. 

Introduction 

The  ocean-climate  nexus  is  essential  to  EU  action.  It  forms  an  integral  part  of  its  policies, 
particularly  the  European  Green  Deal  and  the  EU  Agenda  on  International  Ocean 
Governance. 

The EU must achieve a sharp reduction in greenhouse gas emissions coupled with sustained 
and  robust  action  on  climate  adaptation.  In  2021,  the  EU  adopted  an  ambitious  Climate 
Law125 setting binding targets for the continent to reach climate neutrality by 2050. The EU 
also agreed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 55% by 2030, compared to 1990 
levels. The EU has also adopted a strategy on adaptation to face the unavoidable impacts of 
climate change. The ocean, being an important carbon sink, plays an integral part of the EU 
Strategy on Adaptation to Climate Change126, which includes fisheries and aquaculture. 

From  a  fisheries  and  aquaculture  perspective,  addressing  the  challenges  of  climate  change 
means taking action to pursue the following two objectives: 

  adapting  the  fishery  and  aquaculture  sectors,  as  well  as  the  overall  governance  and 

 

management, to changes in climatic and environmental conditions; 
reducing  greenhouse  gas  emissions  and  the  environmental  footprint  from  the  fishery 
and aquaculture sectors, to mitigate the magnitude of climate change. 

To  its  approach  to  adapting  fisheries  to  the  challenges  of  climate  change,  the  Commission 
contracted two studies on climate change and the CFP127, and the post-harvest value chain128. 
The Commission also assessed the feedback provided by stakeholders, such as the advice sent 
in 2021 by the North Western Waters Advisory Council (NWWAC) on the impact of climate 
change in the North Western Waters, which showed stakeholders’ commitment on this topic 
of utmost importance. In 2021, the Mediterranean Advisory Council also produced an opinion 
on the impact of climate change in the Mediterranean Sea basin, which was timely input into 
the discussions on the GFCM 2030 Strategy. 

125 

126 

127 

128 

Regulation  (EU)  2021/1119  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  30 June  2021  establishing  the 
framework  for  achieving  climate  neutrality  and  amending  Regulations  (EC)  No 401/2009  and  (EU)  2018/1999 
(‘European Climate Law’), PE/27/2021/REV/1. 
Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council,  the  European  Parliament,  the 
Council,  the  European  Economic  and  Social  Committee  and  the  Committee  of  the  Regions,  Forging  a  climate-
resilient Europe - the new EU Strategy on Adaptation to Climate Change, COM(2021)82 final. 
European Commission, European Climate, Infrastructure and Environment Executive Agency, Bastardie, F., Feary, 
D.,  Kell,  L.,  et  al.,  Climate  change  and  the  common  fisheries  policy:  adaptation  and  building  resilience  to  the 
effects  of  climate  change  on  fisheries  and  reducing  emissions  of  greenhouse  gases  from  fishing:  final  report, 
Publications Office of the European Union, 2022, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2926/155626. 
Adapting postharvest activities in the value chain of fisheries and aquaculture to the effects of climate 
change  and  mitigating  their  climate  footprint  through  the  reduction  of  greenhouse  gas  emissions,  aim 
publication early 2023. 

EN 

36 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
As regards aquaculture, the Commission strategic guidelines129 adopted in 2021 envisage the 
development of guidance documents on environmental performance (including the reduction 
of carbon-foot print of aquaculture activities) and on climate change. The guidelines also note 
that non-fed aquaculture has a lower carbon footprint than other types of aquaculture and that 
certain  types  of  aquaculture  have  the  potential  to  mitigate  climate  change.  The  results  of 
studies130 financed by the EMFAF to estimate the potential of shellfish and algae farming to 
recycle  nutrients  and  the  greenhouse  gas  emissions  generated  by  their  production  will  be 
available in early 2023.  

2.7.2.  Background: from 2009 to the state of play in 2022 

In the discussions on the 2013 reform, the 2009 Green Paper recognised that climate change 
would have a severe impact on the marine environment. It stated that climate change was an 
added stress that made marine ecosystems more vulnerable, and that made it even more urgent 
to  reduce  fishing  pressure  to  sustainable  levels.  It  suggested  that  the  reformed  CFP  would 
have  a  role  to  play  in  facilitating  action  to  adapt  to  climate  change  and  the  impacts  in  the 
marine  environment.  The  objectives  and  tools  adopted  in  the  2013  reform  enshrined 
environmental  and  conservation  measures  that  contribute  to  building  up  the  resilience  of 
marine ecosystems to a changing climate and put a stop to overfishing. 

In 2020, the Farm to Fork Strategy openly recognized ‘that farmed fish and seafood generate 
a lower carbon footprint than animal production on land’, still, it calls to further accelerate 
the shift to sustainable fish and seafood production via stepping up the implementation of the 
CFP131. 

2.7.3. 

Impacts of climate change on European fisheries and aquaculture 

Environmental  changes  caused  by  climate  change  will  bring  uncertainties  to  marine 
ecosystems  and  fish  stocks.  The  effects  of  these  changes  may  decrease  the  long-term 
productivity of stocks due to changes in the state of ecosystems. They may also increase the 
probability  of  short-term  shocks  such  as  oxygen  depletion  events,  marine  heatwaves, 
recruitment  failures  or  toxic  algal  blooms,  which  can  undermine  the  productivity  of  fish 
stocks in the short-term and have a significant impact on aquaculture. Cumulative pressures 
and environmental drivers such as sea surface temperature increases, changes in salinity and 
oxygen levels and subsequent changes in prey distributions and abundance are already having 
effects  on  ocean  ecosystems  and  on  the  biological  functions  of  fish  stocks.  Recruitment, 
spawning  times,  growth,  maturation  and  mortality  may  alter  under  these  changing 
circumstances and affect the productivity of stocks and of the oceanic ecosystems in general.  

Sea  surface  warming  will  also  affect  changes  in  the  distribution  of  fish  populations.  The 
distribution  of  fish  stocks  will  change  as  certain  species  move  northwards  or  into  deeper 
water.  In  the  North-East  Atlantic,  the  productivity  of  colder-water  fish  such  as  cod  and 

129 

130 
131  

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social 
Committee  and  the  Committee  of  the  Regions,  Strategic  guidelines  for  a  more  sustainable  and  competitive  EU 
aquaculture for the period 2021 to 2030, COM(2021)236 final. 
https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/maritimeforum/en/node/7174. 
Communication from the Commission to the European parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social 
Committee  and  the  Committee  of  the  Regions  A  Farm  to  Fork Strategy  for a  fair,  healthy and  environmentally-
friendly food system (COM/2020/381 final)  

EN 

37 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
herring is already decreasing132 while the productivity of warmer-water species such as hake 
in  the  Mediterranean  and  potentially  invasive  species  such  as  lionfish  and  lizardfish  is 
increasing133. Overall productivity of fish stocks in mid-latitudes is expected to decrease. The 
direct stresses are caused not only by higher temperatures but also by higher acidity and lower 
oxygen levels, which in turn affect the plankton on which the fish feed. These changes will be 
more  severe  in  partially  enclosed  seas  such  as  the  Black  Sea,  the  Baltic  Sea  and  the 
Mediterranean Sea134135,. 

These  challenges  are  also  concerning  for  fishing  communities,  stakeholders  and  public 
authorities.  This  was  demonstrated  by  the  numerous  replies  received  to  the  targeted 
stakeholder  consultation.  As  fish  spend  more  energy  on  survival  when  living  in  warmer 
waters, their growth and reproduction levels will decrease. Lower productivity, together with 
distributional  changes  in  fish  populations,  will  then  reduce  fishing  opportunities  for  fishers, 
resulting  in  less  raw  material  for  the  post-harvest  value  chain.  Measures  to  build  up  the 
resilience and adaptation of fish stocks are therefore also useful to build sustainable economic 
resilience for the sector along the whole supply chain.  

The  EU's  outermost  regions,  most  of  which  are  remote  islands,  are  even  more  strongly 
exposed to the impacts of climate change. In some places such as French Guiana, small-scale 
coastal fisheries are heavily affected by algal blooms (such as sargassum). 

The  aquaculture  sector  will  also  need  to  adapt  to  the  many  disruptive  impacts  of  climate 
change  (e.g.  extreme  weather  events,  algae  blooms)  and  improve  its  resilience136.  Equally, 
action  is  needed  to  minimise  any  potential  negative  contribution  made  by  aquaculture  to 
climate  change.  Energy  consumption  and  carbon  emissions  from  production,  transport  and 
processing  must  be  reduced  as  much  as  possible.  The  potential  of  aquaculture  to  mitigate 
climate  change  also  needs  to  be  supported.  When  carried  out  under  a  suitable  framework, 
certain  types  of  aquaculture  such  as  seaweed  and  mollusc  cultivation  can  provide  climate-
mitigation  services  (such  as  carbon  sequestration)  and  climate-adaptation  services  (such  as 
nature-based  coastal  protection).  Other  types  of  aquaculture,  when  managed  appropriately, 
can help preserve ecosystems such as ponds or wetlands. These ecosystems provide protection 
against climate-change impacts such as sea-level rise and floods and therefore these types of 
aquaculture should be promoted. 

132 

133 

134 

135 

136 

ICES, ‘Greater North Sea Ecoregion – Ecosystem overview’, ICES Advice: Ecosystem Overviews, Report, Section 
9.1, 2021, https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.9434. 
EastMed,  Report  of  the  Sub-Regional  Technical  meeting  on  the  Lessepsian  migration  and  its  impact  on  Eastern 
Mediterranean fishery, GCP/INT/041/EC – GRE – ITA/TD-04, 2010, https://www.fao.org/3/ap961e/ap961e.pdf. 
IPCC, IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate [Pörtner, H.-O., Roberts, D.C., 
Masson-Delmotte, V., Zhai, P., Tignor, M., Poloczanska, E., Mintenbeck, K., Alegría, A., Nicolai, M., Okem, A., 
Petzold,  J.,  Rama,  B.,  Weyer,  N.M.  (eds.)].  Cambridge  University  Press,  Cambridge,  UK  and  New  York,  NY, 
USA, 2019, pp. 755, https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157964. 
Peck, M.A., Catalán, I.A., Damalas, D., Elliott, M., Ferreira, J.G., Hamon, K.G., Kamermans, P., Kay, S., Kreiß, 
C.M.,  Pinnegar,  J.K.,  Sailley,  S.F.,  Taylor,  N.G.H.,  Climate  Change  and  European  Fisheries  and  Aquaculture: 
‘CERES’  Project  Synthesis  Report,  Hamburg,  2020,  https://ceresproject.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/CERES-
Synthesis-Report-18-05-2020_format.pdf. 
Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social 
Committee  and  the  Committee  of  the  Regions,  Strategic  guidelines  for  a  more  sustainable  and  competitive  EU 
aquaculture for the period 2021 to 2030, COM/2021/236 final. 

EN 

38 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
2.7.4.  A  flexible  and  adaptive  fisheries  management  framework  to  build  resilience  to 

climate change 

To tackle these uncertainties and the challenges that climate change will bring, it is essential 
to  build  up  the  resilience  of  marine  ecosystems  and  of  the  fishing  sector  to  enable  both 
mitigation  and  adaptation.  Moving  towards  a  flexible  and  adaptive  fisheries  management 
framework  can  contribute  to  this  objective,  and  it  must  be  guided  by  a  solid  scientific  and 
evidence base. The CFP as a flexible policy lays the ground for such endeavours.  

The first prerequisite for stocks to be resilient to climate change both in the short term and in 
the long term is for them to be managed sustainably, in line with sound scientific advice. This 
implies  the  need  for  more  research,  science  and  data  that  provides  for  dynamic  assessment 
models  that  regularly  update  biological/conservation  reference  points137.  Conservation 
measures  under  the  CFP  are  taken  on  the  basis  of  scientific  assessment  models  built  on 
reference  points  that  have  steadily  improved  over  the  years.  Taking  into  account  more 
environmental  factors,  available  biomass  and  stock  productivity  changes  will  help  improve 
the robustness and accuracy of assessments in a changing context. Since fish populations do 
not evolve in isolation and are part of an ecosystem that must also be resilient, it is necessary 
to  further  integrate  climate  and  ecosystem  indicators  in  stock  assessments,  following  the 
ecosystem-based  approaches  to  fisheries  management.  This  means  factoring  in  the  need  to 
anticipate and detect climate shocks and vulnerabilities along different trophic interactions.  

Scientific  bodies  such  as  the  ICES  are  increasingly  including  ecosystem  elements  in  their 
assessments,  while  regular  benchmark  assessments  are  carried  out  over  five-year  cycle 
periods to review reference points. These cycles also avoid erratic changes in the perception 
of  stocks  over  a  certain  period.  The  Commission  welcomes  the  integration  of  such  broader 
ecosystem interactions parameters in scientific assessments. In particular, the work carried out 
138 is a welcome 
by ICES in the Irish Sea, which now provides catch scenarios based on Feco
example of evolutions in the scientific processes to integrate ecosystem factors in single-stock 
assessments.  

Healthy and well-assessed stocks are more resilient to climate impacts, while stocks in a poor 
state will suffer more from  climate change.  To build resilience, the first  key enablers  are to 
manage  stocks  in  line  with  the  maximum  sustainable  yield,  follow  scientific  advice,  ensure 
control,  monitoring  and  enforcement  and  apply  a  precautionary  approach  to  fisheries 
management.  Moving to  adaptive management  of fisheries based on sound scientific advice 
that integrates ecosystem indicators also means adapting conservation measures to changes in 
stock assessments and perceptions, to ensure that total allowable catch figures are in line with 
actual levels of stock productivity.  

The common fisheries policy also provides scope to manage stocks to lower fishing mortality 
levels such as FMSY lower139 when the applicable biological and legal conditions are met and 
in  line  with  scientific  advice.  There  is  also  scope  to  take  further  management  measures  to 
lower  fishing  mortality  levels,  if  justified  by  scientific  assessments  and  agreed  by 

137 

138 

139 

As  defined  by  Article 4(1)(18)  of  the  CFP  Regulation,  ‘conservation  reference  point’  means  values  of  fish  stock 
population  parameters  (such  as  biomass  or  fishing  mortality  rate)  used  in  fisheries  management,  for  example  in 
respect of an acceptable level of biological risk or a desired level of yield. 
Feco is an approach to allow ecosystem information or outputs of ecosystem models to be used to tune the Ftarget to 
account for medium term ecosystem driven variability in productivity. 
FMSY lower is the lower bound of the FMSY range. 

EN 

39 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
management  plans  and  proper  consultation.  In  the  wake  of  a  short-term  climatic  event, 
adopting  such  measures  have  been  shown  to  reduce  the  amplitude  of  a  climatic  shock  on  a 
stock, enabling the stock to better resist140and to recuperate faster.  

Under  the  current  governance  framework,  flexible  and  adaptive  management  of  fisheries 
provides  the  means  to  mitigate  the  impacts  of  climate  change  on  fisheries,  including  the 
climate-induced  displacement  of  fish  populations  and  changes  in  species  composition. 
Changes  to  the  reference  points  will  trigger  a  fisheries  management  reaction141.  These 
changes  must  also  be  considered  in  the  context  of  international  sharing  arrangements  with 
third countries, where most EU stocks are now shared in bilateral and multilateral settings. To 
alleviate certain constraints on quotas, quota swapping mechanisms between Member States, 
and  between  Member  States  and  third  countries,  have  been  permitted  since  1983  and  have 
successfully allowed certain fisheries to benefit from additional flexibility.  

Pooling mechanisms for Member States with no quotas for certain stocks in mixed fisheries 
were also brought in to respond to choke situations142 as the landing obligation came into full 
force  in  2019  (see  section  3.3  landing  obligation).  In  2019,  the  Member  States’  regional 
groups  successfully  addressed  potential  choke  situations  solutions  developed  with  the 
Commission and other stakeholders. For example, certain Member States agreed to set up a 
quota exchange pooling mechanism allowing  them to swap quotas for unavoidable by-catch 
where  certain  Member  States  lacked  a  quota.  The  pooling  mechanism  has  been  used 
successfully since then.  

That  same  year,  unavoidable  by-catch  only  TACs  were  adopted  to  alleviate  potential  choke 
situations,  which  were  to  be  accompanied  by  by-catch  reduction  measures.  However,  the 
STECF  assessed  that  some  of  the  by-catch  reduction  plans  were  not  effective  enough.  In 
2020, the Council therefore adopted some additional intrinsically linked remedial measures in 
subsequent  regulations  governing  fishing  opportunities.  Since  2019,  unavoidable  by-catch 
only  TACs  have  been  adopted  to  alleviate  specific  choke  risks,  while  a  Court  judgement 
(Case C-259/21) recently confirmed that the Council can include such measures in the annual 
fishing  opportunities  regulations,  provided  that  they  are  of  temporary  nature  until  the 
Commission adopts a delegated act which includes such measures. Pursuing such mechanisms 
and  improving  their  transparency  will  be  important  to  continue  alleviating  choke  situations 
that  are  likely  to  increase  due  to  displaced  fish  stocks  and  changes  to  species  compositions 
caused by climate change. It will also prevent certain fishing operations from having to cease 
prematurely.  

At  international  level,  the  Commission  actively  promotes  work  to  integrate  climate  change 
considerations into scientific advice and management policies in RFMOs. The Convention on 
Conservation  of  Antarctic  Marine  Living  Resources143  is  proposing  to  designate  two  new 
marine  protected  areas  in  the  Southern  Ocean  (in  East  Antarctica  and  in  the  Weddell  Sea). 
The  purpose  of  these  marine  protected  areas  is  also  to  increase  marine  resilience  to  climate 

140 
141 
142 

143 

https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/74753858-3fab-11ed-92ed-01aa75ed71a1/language-en. 
Management reactions are the adaptation of conservation measures following changes to scientific advice. 
‘A species for which the available quota is exhausted (long) before the quotas are exhausted of (some of) the other 
species  that  are  caught  together  in  a  (mixed)  fishery’  according  to  Zimmermann,  C.,  Kraak,  S.,  Krumme,  U., 
Santos,  J.,  Stotera,  S.,  Nordheim,  L.  Research  for  PECH  Committee  –  Options  of  handling  choke  species  in  the 
view  of  the  EU  landing  obligation  –  the  Baltic  plaice  example,  European  Parliament  (p. 100),  2015, 
https://doi.org/10.2861/808965. 
https://www.ccamlr.org/. 

EN 

40 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
change. In the framework of the GFCM 2030 Strategy, it is expected that the work on climate 
change and non-indigenous species will be consolidated, improving the initial assessments of 
these threats and the potential impacts of it on the sector, reinforcing monitoring programmes 
and integrating adaptive measures under management plans. An adaptation strategy is planned 
to tackle the potential effects of climate change and non-indigenous species on fisheries and 
on the marine environment and ecosystems, by integrating adequate mitigation and adaptation 
measures in management plans. In 2022, the GFCM decided to launch a pilot study on non-
indigenous  species  in  the  Eastern  Mediterranean  and  to  create  an  observatory  for  non-
indigenous  species,  as  a  regional  discussion  forum  on  best  practices  in  managing  these 
species. 

The  targeted  stakeholder  consultation  provided  many  clear  solutions  for  adapting  to  a 
changing  environment.  The  solutions  included  increasing  the  resilience  of  vulnerable 
ecosystems, shifting towards products with a lower carbon footprint and more flexibility and 
responsiveness in fisheries governance to adapt to changing conditions.  

The  uncertainties  and  challenges  brought  by  climate  change  will  therefore  require  careful, 
regular  and  accurate  scientific  monitoring,  coupled  with  appropriate  and  adaptive 
management reactions to ensure the long-term resilience of stocks and sustainable fisheries.  

2.7.5. 

Improving the fuel efficiency of fishing and reducing the fleet’s carbon emissions 

Currently, almost all vessels in the EU fishing fleet use marine diesel for their operations, and 
small  vessels  may use gasoline. This  current  reliance on fossil fuels  is  a major threat  to  the 
fleet’s  socioeconomic  performance  and  its  resilience  to  fuel  price  increases.  It  is  one  of  the 
highest impact ways to improve the environmental sustainability of fisheries products144.  

The  economic  consequences  of  this  fossil  fuel  dependency  became  abundantly  clear  when 
marine diesel prices started to increase over the course of 2021 and went up to record highs in 
the course of 2022145. With fuel expenses being one of the main cost items in EU fisheries146, 
this resulted in a serious negative impact on the socioeconomic performance of the fleet, with 
many  fishers  being  unable  to  cover  their  operational  costs.  Estimates  indicate  that  with  the 
current fuel consumption, a 10 euro-cent increase in the fuel price leads to a total of around 
EUR 185  million  loss  in  gross  profit147.  This  means  that  the  economic  benefits  of  stock 
recovery can be offset by higher costs after only marginal increases in fuel prices.  

Given  these  costs,  and  considering  the  current  uncertain  geopolitical  circumstances  with 
energy  prices  expected  to  remain  high  and  volatile,  it  is  clearly  important  to  reduce  the 
reliance of the sector on fossil fuels by increasing fuel efficiency and switching to clean and 
alternative  sources  of  energy.  To  boost  socioeconomic  resilience  and  reduce  the  carbon 

144 

145 

146 

147 

Gephart,  J.A.,  Henriksson,  P.J.G.,  Parker,  R.W.R. et  al. Environmental  performance  of  blue  foods. Nature 597, 
360-365, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03889-2. 
Marine fuel prices rose by 48% from 2020 to 2021 and even further to record high levels in 2022, with peaks well 
above EUR 1.00/litre. In the first nine months of 2022, the average marine fuel price was around EUR 1.00/litre; 
more than double the average price in 2021 (based on 2022 EUMOFA data). 
In 2019, energy costs accounted for around 15% of revenue in EU fisheries, with substantial differences between 
the different fleet segments. In some segments and vessels such as trawlers, energy expenses accounted for over a 
quarter of revenue in 2019, rising to over half of revenue in 2022. 
Based  on  analyses  of  economic  data  collected  under  the  EU  Data  Collection  Framework  (Regulation  (EU) 
2017/1004). 

EN 

41 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
emission of the sector, the Commission has adopted a  communication148 with an action plan 
to accelerate the energy transition in the EU fisheries and aquaculture sector.  

2.8. 

International ocean governance agenda 

2.8.1. 

Introduction 

Some  of  the  central  components  of  the  international  ocean  governance  agenda  aim  to 
strengthen  the  ocean  governance  framework  at  global,  regional  and  bilateral  levels,  to 
promote sustainable fisheries beyond the EU's jurisdiction in international fora and bodies and 
through  bilateral  relations,  and  to  stop  IUU  fishing.  International  governance  is  based  on 
international rules and obligations, CFP principles and objectives, together with some specific 
objectives such as policy coherence and promoting a level-playing field. 

2.8.2.  Background: from 2009 to the state of play in 2022 

Both the 2009 Green Paper and the 2011 Commission proposal highlighted the importance for 
the  EU  to  continue  actively  participating  in  international  fora  such  as  the  UN  General 
Assembly and the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO). 

The  EU  has  continued  to  implement  its  agenda  on  international  ocean  governance  for  the 
conservation and sustainable use of oceans and seas. The EU also actively participates in the 
Agreement  to  Prevent  Unregulated  High  Seas  Fisheries  in  the  Central  Arctic  Ocean,  which 
entered into force in 2021. The strong involvement of the EU enabled an agreement in World 
Trade  Organization  on  ending  unsustainable  fisheries  subsidies  and  decisive  progress  on 
environmental sustainability and the High Seas Biodiversity Treaty. 

On  24 June  2022,  the  European  Commission  and  the  High  Representative  of  the  European 
Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy unveiled the new EU agenda on International 
Ocean  Governance149.  It  proposes  a  series  of  actions  to  achieve  a  secure,  clean  and 
sustainably  managed  ocean.  Under  this  policy,  the  EU  confirms  its  active  role  in 
international ocean governance and its commitment to strengthen implementation of the UN 
2030  Agenda  and  its  Sustainable  Development  Goal  14  on  Life  Below  Water150.  The  new 
agenda has an important role in achieving the aims under the blue part of the European Green 
the  2016  Joint  Communication151.  It  also 
the 
Deal  and  updates 
recommendations  issued  in  2018  by  the  LDAC  on  the  role  of  the  European  Union  in 
International Fisheries Governance.  

takes  on  board 

The new agenda reflects several significant global developments since 2016, such as:  

 
 

the urgent need to act on the triple crisis of climate, biodiversity and pollution;  
the increasingly recognised role that the ocean plays in our lives and profound changes 
to the ocean caused by climate change and unsustainable human activity at sea;  

148 

149 
150 
151 

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social 
Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the energy transition of the EU fisheries and aquaculture sector 
COM(2023)100. 
JOIN(2022) 28 final. 
https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/oceans/. 
https://oceans-and-fisheries.ec.europa.eu/ocean/international-ocean-governance_en. 

EN 

42 

EN 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
 

the  need  to  better  protect  the  ocean  as  one  of  the  greatest  sources  of  life  and 
biodiversity on Earth;  
the heightened focus on food security; and 

 
  maritime  security,  which  has  come  to  the  fore  with  Russia’s  unprovoked  aggression 

against Ukraine. 

The new agenda sets out a number of key EU priorities to:  

take action on climate change and marine pollution to achieve a healthy ocean,  

  halt and reverse the loss of marine biodiversity,  
 
  protect the seabed from harmful practices,  
  ensure a sustainable blue economy,  
  build up ocean knowledge,  
  ensure security and safety at sea, and  
  ensure compliance with international rules and standards. 

2.8.3.  Opportunities and challenges 

A  challenge  and  an  opportunity  is  to  further  improve  the  sustainability  of  fisheries  and  of 
other uses of the seas, in a context where different sectors increasingly compete for maritime 
space.  Protecting  particularly  sensitive  ecosystems,  such  as  the  high  seas,  deep-sea 
ecosystems, or the Arctic, remains especially important. In the Arctic, the entry into force of 
the Agreement to prevent Unregulated High Seas Fisheries in the Central Arctic Ocean is an 
important milestone to ensure that any future fishing in the central Arctic Ocean is carried out 
sustainably. The EU is also pushing strongly for the conclusion of the Marine Biodiversity of 
Areas  Beyond  National  Jurisdiction  (BBNJ)  agreement  in  2023,  which  is  an  opportunity  to 
improve coherence between different sectors. 

3. 

3.1. 

APPLYING THE CFP REGULATION 

Fisheries  management  measures  for  conserving  and  sustainably  exploiting 
marine biological resources 

To  achieve  the  objectives  of  the  CFP  in  respect  of  the  conservation  and  sustainable 
exploitation of marine biological resources as set out in Article 2 of the CFP Regulation, the 
EU must adopt conservation measures as set out in Article 7. The Commission must consult 
the relevant  advisory bodies and scientific bodies.  The conservation measures adopted  must 
take  into  account  available  scientific,  technical  and  economic  advice,  including,  where 
relevant,  reports  drawn  up  by  STECF  and  other  advisory  bodies,  advice  received  from 
Advisory  Councils  and  joint  recommendations  made  by  Member  States152.  This  is  also 
emphasised in the principles of good governance,153 which guides the CFP. 

3.2.  Multiannual plans 

3.2.1. 

Introduction 

Managing stocks sustainably requires a long-term approach based on scientific, technical and 
economic advice. The CFP Regulation highlights the importance of  drawing up multiannual 

152 
153 

Article 6 of the CFP Regulation. 
Article 3 of the CFP Regulation. 

EN 

43 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
plans reflecting the specific features of the fish stocks in different regions, recognising that the 
objective  of  sustainable  exploitation  of  marine  biological  resources  is  more  effectively 
achieved by taking a multiannual approach to fisheries management.  

3.2.2.  Background: from 2009 to the state of play in 2022 

The  2009  Green  Paper  recommended  drawing  up  and  implementing  additional  long-term 
management  plans  to  reduce  fishing  pressure  on  overexploited  stocks  and  restore  them  to 
maximum  sustainable  yield  levels.  The  2011  Commission  proposal  emphasised  that 
multiannual  plans,  ideally  covering  more  stocks  in  fewer  plans,  were  needed  to  manage 
resources at levels capable of producing MSY to better preserve marine biological recourses. 

Following  the  adoption  of  the  2013  CFP  Regulation,  the  agreement  in  the  interinstitutional 
task force on multiannual plans between the European Parliament and the Council in 2014154 
paved the way to adopt the first multiannual management plan in 2016 for the Baltic Sea155. In 
2018,  this  was  followed  by  the  plan  for  the  North  Sea156,  and  in  2019  for  the  Western 
Waters157  and  for  the  Western  Mediterranean158.  The  2017  Commission  proposal  for  small 
pelagic stocks in the Adriatic Sea159 was never adopted and withdrawn on 29 September 2020.  

Articles 9 and 10 of the CFP Regulation set out the principles, objectives and content of such 
plans. The objectives of the multiannual plans are to: 

 

 
 
 

achieve conservation measures to restore and maintain fish stocks above levels  that 
can produce maximum sustainable yield; 
contribute to eliminating discards by avoiding and reducing unwanted catches;  
contribute to the implementation of the landing obligation for the relevant species;  
implement an ecosystem-based approach to minimise the negative effects of fishing 
activities on the environment.  

The co-legislators decided that the target fishing mortality  rate within the multiannual plans 
should be set as a range of values (with upper and lower limits) consistent with achieving the 
maximum  sustainable  yield  (MSY).  Those  ranges,  based  on  scientific  advice,  are  needed  to 
provide  flexibility  to  adjust  to  developments  in  scientific  advice,  to  help  implement  the 
landing obligation and to take into account the characteristics of mixed fisheries. For example, 
FMSY  ranges  within  single-stock  assessments  allow  fisheries  management  to  take  into 

154 
155 

156 

157 

158 

159 

Document 8529/14, Limité Pêche 117, Codec 1004 of 3 April 2014, Council of the European Union. 
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. 
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 (OJ L 179, 16.7.2018, p. 1). 
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. 
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. 
Commission  proposal  for  a  regulation of  the  European Parliament  and of  the  Council  establishing  a  multiannual 
plan for small pelagic stocks in the Adriatic Sea and the fisheries exploiting those stocks COM(2017) 0097. 

EN 

44 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
consideration the situation of ailing stocks when they are fished together with healthier stocks 
in  mixed  fisheries  situations.  To  minimise  the  pressure  and  negative  effects  of  fishing 
activities on the ailing stocks, the lower range of the fishing mortality rate can be used on the 
healthier stock.  

The FMSY ranges  have been calculated by  ICES on the basis of a number of considerations. 
The  ranges  are  calculated  to  result  in  no  more  than  a  5%  reduction  in  the  long-term  yield 
compared to the MSY. The upper limit of the range is capped, so that the probability of the 
stock  falling  below  the  limit  spawning  stock  biomass  reference  point  is  no  more  than  5%. 
That upper limit also follows the ICES advice rule, which indicates that when the spawning 
stock  biomass  is  below  the  minimum  spawning  stock  biomass  reference  point,  the  fishing 
mortality rate must be reduced to a value that does not exceed an upper limit equal to the FMSY 
point  value  multiplied  by  the  spawning  stock  biomass  in  the  TAC  year,  divided  by  MSY 
Btrigger.  

The  ICES  uses  these  calculations  and  the  advice  rule  when  providing  scientific  advice  on 
fishing  mortality  rate  and  catch  options.  The  multiannual  plans  have  transparent  rules  for 
setting fishing opportunities for fish stocks with an assessment for achieving the MSY. Some 
multiannual plans also empower the Commission to adopt delegated acts regarding certain by-
catch stocks, exemptions from the landing obligation and technical measures. As carried out 
in all the sea basins covered by MAPs, the STECF and ICES conduct annual assessments of 
the stocks to adapt the management decisions to the best available scientific knowledge. 

3.2.3.  Baltic multiannual plan  

The  Baltic  MAP  covers  fish  species  representing  95%  of  all  catches  in  the  Baltic  Sea.  The 
fisheries  management  in  the  Baltic  Sea  was  a  frontrunner  in  achieving  the  MSY  for  these 
stocks.  However,  the  condition  of  many  fish  stocks  has  unfortunately  significantly 
deteriorated  since  2019,  resulting  in  a  negative  impact  for  the  fishing  segments  concerned. 
Scientists do not fully understand the reasons for the decline in fish stocks.  

Some stakeholders blame the Baltic MAP and its implementation. As stated in the report on 
implementation  of  the  Baltic  MAP,160  the  opinions  of  the  different  stakeholders  diverge 
significantly as to the merits of the Baltic MAP. The fishing sector and other interest groups 
alike were very critical, though for diametrically opposite reasons: the fishing sector criticised 
the  alleged  lack  of  flexibility  to  set  higher  TACs,  and  other  interest  groups  criticised  the 
alleged  excessive  flexibility.  For  the  Member  States,  the  report  was  issued  too  soon  as  the 
Baltic MAP had only been implemented for three fishing seasons when the consultation was 
run.  For  the  Commission,  the  MAP  has  generally  shown  to  be  a  very  helpful  tool  to 
implement  the  CFP.  It  provides  a  stable  long-term,  transparent  and  region-specific  legal 
framework, which creates a safety net for ailing stocks and flexibility for healthy stocks. For 
stocks  under  pressure,  managers  must  decrease  the  TAC  and  adopt  additional  remedial 
measures.  This  framework  made  difficult  decisions  in  the  Council  possible.  On  the  other 
hand,  the  TAC  for  healthy  and  well  managed  stocks  might  be  set  higher  under  certain 
conditions. It should be acknowledged that, despite the action taken since 2019, the ailing fish 
stocks have not yet recovered. 

160 

Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council First report on the implementation of the 
Multiannual Plan for the stocks of cod, herring and sprat in the Baltic Sea and the fisheries exploiting those stocks, 
COM/2020/494 final. 

EN 

45 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Further  to  recent  audits  carried  out  in  the  Baltic  Member  States,  it  is  the  view  of  the 
Commission that the derogation to the margin of tolerance provided in the Baltic MAP played 
a major role in facilitating misreporting of species under the MAP,  which contributed to the 
current  status  of  the  stocks.  In  its  proposal  to  revise  the  control  system161  the  Commission 
proposed  amending  the  Baltic  MAP,  currently  allowing  a  10%  margin  of  tolerance  on  the 
estimated catches calculated on all species on board. It also proposed reinstating the standard 
rule  of  10%  margin  of  tolerance  calculated  per  each  species  on  board,  as  set  out  in 
Article 14(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009. 

3.2.4.  North Sea multiannual plan and the Western Waters multiannual plan 
The North Sea MAP for demersal162 fish stocks has been in place since 2018. It requires the 
Commission to report on the results and impacts of the plan by 6 August 2023, and every five 
years  thereafter.  The  Western  Waters  MAP  comprises  both  the  North  and  South  Western 
Waters, as well as the waters around Madeira  and the Canary  Islands.  It  came into force in 
2019  and  requires  the  Commission  to  report  on  the  results  and  impacts  of  the  plan  by 
27 March 2024 and every five years thereafter. 

As part of the process to withdraw from the EU, the UK currently retained the provisions of 
both the North Sea and Western Waters MAPs. However, the UK has  started to develop its 
own domestic fisheries management plans with a view to completely replacing the MAPs in 
due course. The UK fisheries bill of 2021 repealed Articles 9 and 10 of the CFP Regulation, 
which  are  the  main  articles  covering  implementation  of  the  MAPs.  As  a  result,  the  UK  is 
already taking different approaches to setting total allowable catches of shared stocks and to 
applying  any  necessary  remedial  measures,  especially  for  mixed  fisheries  and  the 
management  of  vulnerable  (zero-catch)  stocks.  Despite  this,  the  North  Sea  and  Western 
Waters MAPs are still key tools to guide the EU’s approaches to managing shared stocks, in 
its cooperation with the UK, as well as the continued use in managing EU-only stocks in EU 
waters.  

In  the  context  of  highly  formalised  cooperation  under  the  EU-UK  Trade  and  Cooperation 
Agreement, the Commission (on behalf of the EU) has based the EU’s position on many of 
the principles and provisions set out in the MAPs. This includes the use of the FMSY ranges 
and TAC constraints (avoiding excessive fluctuations between  years), as well as approaches 
to deal with the complexities of mixed fisheries. 

3.2.5.  Western Mediterranean multiannual plan 
The  first  ever  EU  multiannual  plan  for  the  Mediterranean163  entered  into  force  on  16 July 
2019. It regulates trawling activities that target key demersal stocks and their by-catches in the 
Western Mediterranean by setting a fishing effort regime and taking additional management 
measures. The plan provides for a 40% reduction in maximum trawling effort during the first 
five years of implementation. The MAP also introduces a derogation to the ‘MSY by 2020’ 
rule by giving five additional years to reach the MSY for the relevant stocks, due to specific 

161 
162 
163 

COM(2018) 368 final. 
Species that live and feed near the bottom of seas. 
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. 

EN 

46 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
socioeconomic features in the Mediterranean and the impossibility to achieve the MSY for all 
stocks  covered  by  this  plan  within  the  CFP  legal  deadline.  Each  year,  the  Council  adopts 
fishing opportunities based on the MAP.  

The first  two  years  of  implementing the MAP  saw a cumulative 17.5%  reduction in  fishing 
effort (10% in 2020 and an additional 7.5% in 2021). In 2022, the MAP achieved a further 6% 
effort reduction for trawlers combined with  a reward mechanism  granting additional fishing 
days for vessels that improved their selectivity or respected closure areas. Since the launch of 
the MAP, trawling fishing effort has fallen by 23.5%, as part of the 40% target set under the 
plan. In addition, the Fishing Opportunities Regulation for 2022 set maximum catch limits for 
deep-water  shrimp  stocks  and  an  effort  threshold  for  longliners.  The  Commission  has  been 
successful in promoting a global approach, making use of all the tools of the MAP to ensure a 
better  framework  to  fish  stock  management,  creating  a  better  probability  for  the  stocks  to 
recover. 

Since  2020,  the  Western  Mediterranean  MAP  has  established  a  seasonal  coastal  closure  to 
trawling within 6 nautical miles from the coast or 100 m depth, for three months every year in 
the  coastal  areas  of  Spain,  France  and  Italy.  Under  certain  conditions  and  on  the  basis  of 
STECF’s advice, Member States may establish other closure areas, provided that they reduce 
catches  of  juvenile  hake  by  at  least  20%  in  each  geographical  sub-area.  By  17 July  2021, 
Member States had the obligation to establish other closure areas where there is evidence of a 
high concentration of juvenile fish, below the minimum conservation reference size (MCRS), 
and evidence of spawning grounds of demersal stocks. In March 2022, the STECF evaluated 
the  existing  closure  areas  of  Spain,  France  and  Italy.  Only  the  closure  areas  in  the  Gulf  of 
Lion, where French vessels and some Spanish vessels are active, were shown to be effective 
in protecting juveniles and spawners of hake.  

In terms of evaluating the management measures in the Western Mediterranean Sea, the MAP 
provides for: 

  Permanent  evaluation  by  the  STECF.  Since  2018,  three  expert  working  groups  are 
organised  every  year  to  evaluate  the  situation  and  the  management  measures  to 
improve  the  state  of  the  stocks  while  minimising  the  socioeconomic  impacts.  The 
STECF reports are available online and can be attended by observers, providing full 
transparency on the work carried out by the experts. 

  The Commission to issue a report on the results and impact of the MAP by 17 July 

2024. 

3.2.6.  Multiannual plans in the Mediterranean and the Black Sea in the GFCM framework 

In  the  Mediterranean,  most  fish  stocks  are  shared  with  third  countries.  Therefore,  to  adopt 
common measures  with  all parties involved, ensure stock recovery  and  a  level playing field 
for  all  countries,  the  EU  puts  forward  proposals  for  multiannual  management  plans  in  the 
context of the GFCM, based on Article 33 of CFP and an EU position adopted by the Council.  

In  the  framework  of  the  GFCM,  multiannual  management  plans  are  essential  tools  for 
fisheries management. They include a number of management measures (e.g. spatio-temporal 
restrictions,  effort  and  catch  limitations,  technical  measures),  and  specify  adaptive 
mechanisms to be implemented to achieve specific objectives within desired timeframes and 
maintain  results  over  time.  These  mechanisms  are  adaptive,  to  adjust  to  changing  and 
evolving stocks, fisheries and environments.  The management measures  set out in the plans 

EN 

47 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
are accompanied by control measures, notably strengthened cooperation in implementing five 
inspection schemes set up with support from the European Fisheries Control Agency (EFCA). 

Since  the  creation  of  the  first  comprehensive  GFCM  multiannual  management  plan  –  for 
small  pelagic  fisheries  in  the  Adriatic  Sea  in  2013  –  the  GFCM  has  adopted  10  adaptive 
multiannual management plans (for turbot in the Black Sea, deep-water shrimp in the Levant 
sea,  deep-water  shrimp  in  the  Straight  of  Sicily,  hake  and  shrimp  in  the  Straight  of  Sicily, 
deep-water shrimp in the Ionian sea, demersal in the Adriatic, small pelagic in the Adriatic, 
eel, red coral and Blackspot seabream). While some are clearly structured and outline specific 
long-term  measures,  others  are  still  in  development  and  set  out  preliminary  transitional 
measures pending the collection of new scientific data to underpin longer-term measures.  

3.3. 

Landing obligation 

3.3.1. 

Introduction 

This  new  provision  in  the  CFP  Regulation  contributes  to  the  CFP  objective  of  eliminating 
discards by encouraging fishers to fish in a more selective manner and avoid and reduce, as 
far as possible, unwanted catches in the first place, by obliging them to land everything they 
catch. Discarding is a term specifically used for catches of species that are returned to the sea 
and are not kept on board and landed. Selective fishing means using fishing methods or gear 
that  target  and  capture  organisms  by  size  or  species  during  the  fishing  operation,  allowing 
fishers  to  avoid  or  release  unharmed  non-target  organisms.  Fishing  selectively  can  be 
improved  by  fishing  gear-  and  methods.  For  example,  by  selecting  fishing  areas  where 
unwanted  catches  such  as  protected,  endangered  and  threatened  species,  below  minimum 
conservation  reference  size  species,  fish  without commercial  value  or  species  for  which  the 
fisher has no quota, is expected or known to be low, at the time of the year considered. 

In the run-up  to  the 2013 reform,  it was estimated164 that in  European fisheries, 1.7 million 
tonnes (of all species) are discarded annually, corresponding to 23% of total catches. This has 
a serious negative environment impact, not only on the target species but also on non-targeted 
by-catch. Many stakeholders saw discarding as a non-sustainable practice that must change.  

One of the objectives of the European Green Deal – specifically the Farm to Fork Strategy – 
aims to make food systems fair, healthy and environmentally friendly. Food systems cannot 
be resilient to crises if they are not sustainable. With (rapid) population growth giving rise to 
an increase in global demand for additional food, there is a need to increase food production 
sustainably,  but  also  to  ensure  responsible  consumption,  to  minimise  food  waste  and  for 
fisheries to eliminate discarding. 

Eliminating the practice of discarding aims to make fishing more sustainable by encouraging 
more  responsible  practices  such  as  the  development  and  use  of  more  selective  fishing  gear 
and  methods.  Decreasing  unwanted  catches,  ending  discarding  and  minimising  the  negative 
impact  on the marine ecosystems  combined with  the precautionary and ecosystem approach 
will  contribute  to  the  good  environmental  status  of  the  seas  under  the  Marine  strategy 
framework directive. 

164 

From SEC(2011) 891 final, Eurostat data. 

EN 

48 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
3.3.2.  Background: from 2009 to the state of play in 2022 

As highlighted by the 2009 Green Paper, the previous system management of landing quotas 
was proven to be suboptimal in several ways. In mixed fisheries, targeting several species of 
fish creates unwanted by-catches  when the quota of one species is  exhausted  but  quotas for 
other  species  remain  gives  fishers  no  choice  but  to  discard  the  fish  that  they  are  no  longer 
allowed to land. In addition to being a waste of a precious resource, discarding has prevented 
several  stocks  from  recovering,  despite  the  low  quotas  set.  Therefore,  eliminating  discards 
contribute  to  sustainable  fisheries  and  reaching  the  commitments  to  keep  to  maximum 
sustainable yield numbers.  

Under the 2011 Commission proposal, a core element for conservation was to end the practice 
of discarding and reduce unwanted catches. The proposal introduced the obligation to land all 
catches of specific stocks, with a precise timeline for implementing this obligation and setting 
out flanking measures. To enforce the new landing obligation to avoid unwanted catches and 
eliminate  discards,  the  Commission  proposed  monitoring  and  control  obligations.  In 
particular,  this  involved  fully  documenting  fishery  data  and  running  pilot  projects  on  new 
fisheries control technologies that promote sustainable fishing. 

The landing obligation,  brought in as a tool to eliminate discarding, has required significant 
action since the 2013 reform to ensure its implementation. It is a very important subject for all 
stakeholders, as shown in the stakeholder consultation. By-catch, discarding and (compliance 
with)  the  landing  obligation  were  the  most  commented  on  topics  and  high  priorities  for 
NGOs, the fisheries sector, public authorities and academic and research institutions. 

The move to eliminate discards aims to reduce unseen discards of small fish and over-quota 
fish. This should promote a much higher rate of recovery of EU fish stocks and  an sizeable 
improvement  in  the  FMSY  indicator  for  a  number  of  stocks,  as  highlighted  in  the  impact 
assessment165  accompanying  the  2011  Commission  proposal.  Another  specific  change  is  to 
the change in mesh size, which leads to a shift in selectivity to catch older age classes of fish. 
The  effect  is  greater  than  that  achieved  by  simply  reducing  discards  and  leads  to  a  higher 
sustainable fishing mortality (i.e. a higher FMSY). Setting a higher sustainable fishing mortality 
rate,  combined  with  scrapping  the  minimum  landing  size  (so  that  there  are  no  discards), 
results in a higher retained catch, while still promoting the recovery of the stock. 

This  2011  Commission  impact  assessment  showed  that  bringing  in  an  anti-discard  policy 
based on more effective technical measures and removing ineffective technical measures that 
encourage  discarding  would  result  in  short-term  economic  losses  but  medium  to  long-term 
additional gains, primarily in environmental and economic terms. 

3.3.3. 

Increased cooperation and knowledge on (implementing) the landing obligation 

There  has  been  increasing  cooperation  between  stakeholders  and  scientists  to  improve 
knowledge about  the policy tool.  All stakeholders  have made  significant  efforts  to  facilitate 
implementation  of  the  landing  obligation,  in  particular  on  strategies  to  avoid  unwanted 
catches and to eliminate discarding.  The Horizon 2020 research projects DiscardLess166 and 
MINOUW167 are two such examples. These projects resulted in very specific tools such as: 

165 
166 
167 

SEC(2011) 891 final. 
http://www.discardless.eu/www.discardless.eu/deliverables.html.  
https://minouw-project.eu/. 

EN 

49 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 

 
 

 

an online atlas linking and mapping discard data from the STECF, the ICES and the 
GFCM for selected European fisheries in a synthetic manner;  
a catalogue of selectivity tools;  
solutions  proposed  by  fishers,  broken  down  by  technical  solutions  (gear  changes), 
tactical (fishing behaviour changes) and management solutions;  
getting  more  insight  into  the  on-board  handling  of  unwanted,  unavoidable  catches 
and  on  how  unavoidable,  unwanted  catches  could  be  used  once  they  are  landed, 
following the landing obligation.  

Following  Article 14(2)  of  the  CFP  Regulation,  Member  States  and  scientists  developed  a 
discard atlas providing evidence of discard patterns for different fishing fleets. The atlas was 
produced in 2014 by the Scheveningen Group (North Sea), the North Western Waters group, 
and  the  South  Western  Waters  group.  This  information  assisted  regional  managers  in 
identifying the fisheries that need more focused attention and to specify measures in discard 
plans and multiannual plans. 

The  Advisory  Councils  were  extremely  helpful  in  identifying  potential  choke  situations, 
solutions  and  the  best  available  tools  to  deal  with  them  such  as  increased  swaps,  inter-area 
and  inter-species  flexibility.  They  helped  develop  choke  mitigation  tools  (NSAC168  and 
NWWAC)169  to  identify  choke  species,  to  identify  the  various  types  of  potential  choke 
situations and to identify their causes and responsibility.  

The European Fisheries Control Agency, in close collaboration with the Member States, also 
carried  out  work  to  improve  control  and  enforcement.  For  example,  in  2019  they  issued 
technical  guidelines  and  specifications  for  implementing  remote  electronic  monitoring  in 
certain fisheries170. 

These research projects and cooperation generated valuable lessons on discard management in 
the  context  of  the  landing  obligation  and  on  cooperation  with  stakeholders,  cooperation 
between Member States and how to design and implement discard mitigation strategies. They 
built up knowledge through comparative examination at global level on implementing discard 
bans  and  on  by-catch  management  practices  in  general.  For  example,  such  comparative 
examination is  thoroughly  described in  the book  resulted of the DiscardLess  project171. The 
study concludes that countries as the United States of America, Norway, Iceland, Argentina, 
Chile  and  New  Zealand  have  established  different  approaches  to  eliminate  discarding.  The 
effectiveness  of  these  approaches  depends  on  many  factors  and  all  require  effective  cross-
sectoral  collaboration.  As  well  as  a  comprehensive  monitoring  and  control  system  which 
ensures  regulatory  compliance  and  collection  of  adequate  data  to  address  scientific  and 
management information n needs. Through the comparison of the different countries via case 
studies from selected fisheries around the world, scientists consider the importance of finding 
the  balance  between  top-down  and  bottom-up  processes,  looking  carefully  at  different  the 

168 
169 
170 

171  

EN 

https://www.nsrac.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/02-2122-NSAC-Advice-on-Choke-Identification-Tool.pdf. 
https://www.nwwac.org/publications/north-western-waters-choke-species-analysis.2365.html. 

https://www.efca.europa.eu/sites/default/files/Technical%20guidelines%20and%20specifications%20for%20the%2
0implementation%20of%20Remote%20Electronic%20Monitoring%20%28REM%29%20in%20EU%20fisheries.p
df . 
The European Landing Obligation, reducing discards in complex, multi-species and multi-jurisdictional fisheries. 
https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-030-03308-8 

50 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
                                                 
different policy and management measures available, factors which encourage or discourage 
innovation  and  collaborative  problem  solving,  monitoring  and  accountability.  The  various 
projects  and  cooperation  also  increased  knowledge  of  the  (mitigation)  tools,  of  the  catch 
situation  in  different  fisheries  and  sea  basins  and  how  to  avoid  unwanted  catches  through 
more selective fishing gear or techniques, either by taking area- or time-specific measures, or 
by real-time closures. 

In order to enable, to the extent possible, the use of fishing opportunities in mixed fisheries 
and adapt to the changes caused by climate change, it is seen appropriate to create a pool of 
quota  exchanges  for  Member  States  that  have  no  quota  to  cover  unavoidable  by-catches172. 
The  STECF  analysed  the  by-catch  reduction  plan  of  the  Member  States  in  2019173  and 
concluded  that  the  measures  were  not  effective  enough  to  increase  selectivity  and  therefore 
reduce by-catches. Therefore, the Commission sought to link remedial measures and control 
measures  to  the  by-catch  quota  pool  in  the  subsequent  years  in  the  fishing  opportunities 
regulations. 

Implementation of the landing obligation and socioeconomic impact 

3.3.4. 
A  recent  study174  concluded  there  was  no  evidence  of  changes  to  the  discarding  practice  in 
fisheries  and  that  discarding  was  still  taking  place.  Stakeholders  contributing  to  the  study 
identified the main reasons for this: complex legislation, numerous exemptions in the various 
Commission  delegated  regulations  and  the  substantial  amount  of  work  to  be  done  on  board 
due  to  the  landing  obligation.  The  study  results  include  suggestions  on  how  improving 
logbooks  and  providing  training  could  help  alleviate  this  problem,  something  that  all 
stakeholders  had  worked  on  during  the  transition  phase  but  that  could  be  further  improved. 
According  to  the  stakeholders  interviewed  in  the  study,  e-logbooks  were  perceived  as 
effective tools to facilitate the implementation of the landing obligation. Full adaptation of the 
e-logbook  software  to  facilitate  the  implementation  of  the  landing  obligation  is  needed, 
particularly  concerning  reporting  of  exemptions.  According  to  the  study’s  results,  this  has 
progressed  since  the  phasing  in  of  the  landing  obligation  but  improvements  on  these 
technologies  can  still  be  made.  Participation  of  the  fishers  in  further  development  of  these 
tools are essential to the stakeholders’ view. In the study, respondents evaluated positively the 
amount of information  and the means employed  to  inform  about  the features of the landing 
obligation  implementation  by  Member  States’-  and  control  authorities  to  fishing  operators. 
Numerous regional – and national initiatives for national inspectors have been provided. This 
was also the conclusion reached in another study175 covering the Mediterranean and the Black 
Sea. Apparently, further work is needed to boost communication and awareness raising in the 
sector,  involving  multiple  stakeholders  and  bodies  as  well  as  researchers,  administrations, 
consumers, industry and market organisations.  

Implementing  the  landing  obligation,  and  its  challenges,  was  also  the  topic  of  a  recent 
European Parliament Initiative report176. This report emphasised the socioeconomic impact of 

172 

173 
174 
175 

176 

Recital  7  and  Article 9  of  Council  Regulation  (EU)  2022/109  of  27 January  2022  fixing  for  2022  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. 
https://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu/reports/plenary. 
https://cinea.ec.europa.eu/publications/synthesis-landing-obligation-measures-and-discard-rates_en. 
https://cinea.ec.europa.eu/publications/synthesis-landing-obligation-measures-and-discard-rates-mediterranean-
and-black-sea_en. 
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2021-0227_EN.html. 

EN 

51 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
the  landing  obligation  on  the  industry,  and  the  need  for  the  Commission  to  evaluate  the 
impact. This particular aspect was studied in detail by STECF EWG 22-05, for which experts 
provided a very comprehensive overview of current scientific information and assessments of 
the socioeconomic impacts of the landing obligation. The majority of the reviewed literature 
provides an ex ante assessment of possible socioeconomic impacts based on simulations using 
bioeconomic  models,  interviews  and  literature.  One  of  the  main  concerns  voiced  by  the 
Member  States  and  the  fishing  industry  is  the  impact  of  choke  species.  Most  of  the  ex ante 
modelling  exercises  to  assess  socioeconomic  impacts  assume  full  implementation  of  and 
compliance with the landing obligation, showing that choke effects are the main problems of 
the  landing  obligation  in  these  analyses  and  the  accompanying  literature.  Current  studies 
based  on  practical  implementation  instead  of  modelling  seem  to  indicate  that  the 
socioeconomic impacts of the landing obligation were rather limited.  

The CFP Regulation recognises the difficulty in implementing the landing obligation in mixed 
fisheries in which more than one species is present and where different species are likely to be 
caught in the same fishing operation. Stakeholders from the industry, trade unions and public 
authorities  all  mentioned  in  the  stakeholder  consultation  carried  out  by  DG  MARE  the 
complex  difficulties  with  choke  situations.  Management  decisions  relating  to  maximum 
sustainable  yield  in  mixed  fisheries  should  factor  in  the  difficulty  of  fishing  all  stocks  in  a 
mixed fishery at  maximum  sustainable  yield  at  the same time, in  particular where scientific 
advice  indicates  that  it  is  very  difficult  to  avoid  the  phenomenon  of  choke  species  by 
increasing the selectivity of the fishing gear- and methods used.  

In cases where unwanted catches are unavoidable, even when all measures to reduce them are 
applied, where it is very difficult to increase selectivity, the CFP Regulation caters for certain 
de  minimis  exemptions  from  the  landing  obligation.  The  de  minimis  exemptions  can  also 
apply  in  cases  to  avoid  disproportionate  costs  from  handling  unwanted  catches.  The  second 
exemption  the  CFP  Regulation  allows  to  the  landing  obligation  is  for  species  for  which 
scientific evidence demonstrates high survival rates. The third and fourth type of exemptions 
are prohibited species and species damaged by predators.  

Article 15(4) and (5) of the CFP Regulation sets out the conditions for these exemptions that 
can  be  adopted  by  the  Commission  as  delegated  acts  based  on  joint  recommendations 
developed  by  the  Member  States  Regional  Group,  in  consultation  with  the  Advisory 
Councils177.  These  exemptions  are  primarily  set  under  multiannual  plans.  If  there  is  no 
multiannual  plan  for  the  fishery  in  question,  Article 15(6)  of  the  CFP  empowers  the 
Commission to adopt delegated acts to make temporary exemptions to the landing obligation 
in  the  discard  plans,  based  on  joint  recommendations  developed  by  the  Member  States 
Regional Groups after consulting the Advisory Councils, and following a STECF assessment 
of  the  scientific  evidence.  To  facilitate  implementation  of  the  landing  obligation  during  the 
phasing-in period, these discard plans were set up for three years. Because multiannual plans 
were not in place everywhere when the discard plans were close to expiry, Article 15(6) was 
amended in 2017178 to enable the discard plans to be renewed for a further three years. 

177 
178 

Following the regionalisation process of Article 18 of the CFP Regulation, see section 3.11 on regionalisation. 
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. 

EN 

52 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Currently, the landing obligation  has been legally  fully in  force  since  2019 and multiannual 
plans have been adopted for most waters179. This means a shift from setting out exemptions 
from  the  landing  obligation  under  the  CFP  via  temporary  discard  plans180  to  a  more  stable 
approach with the multiannual plans as a legal basis. This shift was completed in 2020-2021 
with  eight  delegated  acts181  currently  in  force  covering  the  sea  basins182  where  there  are 
multiannual  plans183.  Most  exemptions  are  in  mixed  fisheries,  as  the  CFP  Regulation 
recognises  management  decisions  to  tackle  the  difficulties  faced  by  these  fisheries.  The 
multiannual  plans  may  contain  specific  measures  to  address  the  specific  problems  faced  by 
mixed fisheries.  

Since  2014,  Member  States  Regional  Groups  cooperate  with  scientific  institutions  and  the 
advisory councils when submitting joint recommendations on exemptions based on scientific 
evidence. This  has  resulted in  temporary discard  plans and  temporary  exemptions  to certain 
conditions  pending  the  collation  of  more  scientific  evidence.  With  these  conditions  in  mind 
and  new  research  results  coming  in  step  by  step,  annual  amendments  of  the  delegated 
regulations were necessary for the STECF to reassess the joint recommendations containing 
new  scientific  evidence.  Slowly  but  surely,  more  knowledge  is  created  to  underpin  the 
exemptions needed. The roadmap linked to the exemption due to the high survivability rate of 
skate  and  ray  in  the  northeast  Atlantic,  to  build  up  evidence  of  the  discard  survival  rate  of 
skate and ray and to increase selectivity and survival of skates and rays is an example of this 
work and of increased knowledge in this field184.  

The results of the 2021 report on the EMFF and the landing obligation by FAME185 state that, 
although  there  continues  to  be  an  increase  in  selectivity  projects  supported  by  the  EMFF, 
there has also been an increase in scientific projects run to support exemptions. The emphasis 
placed by Member States and industry on seeking exemptions instead of adopting measures to 
increase  selectivity  is  not  due  to  a  lack  of  practical  and  technical  innovative  solutions.  The 
need for exemptions to the landing obligation seems more related to the implications of short-
term losses, the lack of actual uptake, the difficulty in achieving the uptake of the researched 
innovative  gear  by  a  large  group  of  fishers,  and  the  operational  changes  needed  (including 
changes to the legislative framework186).  

3.3.5.  Challenges and opportunities 

3.3.5.1.  Compliance and concerns over control and enforcement 

Control and enforcement of the landing obligation remains a serious issue. Overall, Member 
States have not adopted the measures needed to achieve proper control and enforcement.  

179 

180 
181 
182 

183 

184 
185 
186 

Western Mediterranean MAP, the Western Waters MAP, the North Sea MAP, and the Baltic MAP, see section 3.2 
on multiannual plans. 
Article 15(6) of the CFP Regulation. 
See Annex 5 for an overview. 
Excluding  delegated  regulations  on  exemptions  established  under  Article 15(2)  of  the  CFP  for  the  purpose  of  
implementing  international  obligations  into  EU  law,  including,  in  particular,  exemptions  from  the  landing  
obligation. 
Except for the de minimis exemptions in the Adriatic and South-eastern Mediterranean Sea, as those areas do not 
have a multiannual plan in place and are adopted under Article 15(7) CFP, and the high survivability rate for turbot 
in the Black Sea, which has been renewed for one year, until 2023, adopted under Article 15(6) CFP. 
By Scheveningen Group and North Western Waters Group – and the NSAC and NWWAC. 
https://oceans-and-fisheries.ec.europa.eu/funding/fisheries-and-aquaculture-monitoring-and-evaluation-fame_en. 
See Chapter 3.5 on technical measures. 

EN 

53 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
  
  
Significant  undocumented  discarding  of  catches  by  operators  is  an  ongoing  problem.  As 
indicated by the Commission’s audits and initiatives run by the EFCA187, compliance remains 
weak. In response to these findings, the Commission started in 2021 infringement proceedings 
against  several  Member  States  over  their  failure  to  comply  with  the  Control  Regulation188. 
These Member States were found to have failed to control and prevent activities that breached 
the  landing  obligation  and  the  detailed  and  accurate  documentation  of  all  fishing  trips  and 
associated data.  

So  far,  the  most  effective  and  cost-efficient  way  to  monitor  the  landing  obligation  are 
considered  to  be  Remote  Electronic  Monitoring  tools,  as  demonstrated  by  Member  States’ 
trials and by the adoption of Remote Electronic Monitoring by multiple countries around the 
world. Remote Electronic Monitoring incorporating closed-circuit television systems, sensors 
and automatic recognition software reviewing technologies, is another tool that is increasingly 
used  as  a  dependable  system  for  monitoring  compliance  and  ensuring  the  accurate 
documentation of catches. The Commission has supported the use of modern control tools in 
its  proposal  for  a  revised  fisheries  control  system189  and  will  continue  working  with  the 
European Parliament and the Council to reach an agreement.  

Opinions  regarding  control  and  enforcement  are  divided,  as  shown  during  the  stakeholder 
consultation. In general, the fisheries sector is concerned at the prospect of installing Closed 
Circuit  Television  for control  purposes,  while NGOs strongly support  it  to  achieve  a robust 
control system. 

Given the above, it is vital that Member States fulfil their responsibilities under EU legislation 
and  ensure  that  catches  and  discards  (in  line  with  the  exemptions  granted)  are  documented 
and that the landing obligation is properly controlled and enforced. As a result of the failure to 
adopt  the  tools  needed,  such  as  REM,  to  control  and  enforce  the  landing  obligation, 
indications suggest that catches are still discarded illegally. The difficulties for Member States 
in  achieving  a  detailed  and  accurate  documentation  of  catches  (and  discards)  in  all  trips 
represents a significant risk, as emphasised by the STECF. It is vital to maintain and improve 
data collection and reporting of catches (landings, unwanted catches and discards). If the data 
reported do not reflect the actual catch, it will significantly undermine the quality of scientific 
advice and may compromise the achievement of the maximum sustainable yield objective.  

3.3.5.2.  Opportunities and need for continued improvement 

The  primary  focus  when  implementing  the  landing  obligation  should  be  to  avoid  unwanted 
catches  by  improving  selectivity  or  taking  other  conservation  and  management  measures. 
While  recognising  that  increasing  the  selectivity  can  result  in  some  reduction  in  revenue, 
these short-term losses should be offset by the broader medium-term gains in stocks expected 
as a result of increased selectivity, the reduced risk of choke events and better utilisation of 
quota to land a higher proportion of more valuable catch. 

In  2023,  the  Commission  together  with  the  Member  States,  the  Advisory  Councils  and  the 
STECF will carry out a full review of the exemptions requested by the Member States.  

187 
188 

189 

https://www.efca.europa.eu/en/content/compliance-evaluation. 
For  France  and  Spain,  see  https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/inf_21_4681.  For  Ireland, 
Belgium and the Netherlands, see https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/inf_21_5342. 
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. 

EN 

54 

EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
The results of the study contracted by the European Climate, Infrastructure and Environment 
Executive Agency  on behalf of DG MARE  enabled the Commission to evaluate whether or 
not  discarding  patterns  have  changed  (reduced)  as  a  result  of  implementing  the  landing 
obligation.  To  measure  the  success  of  the  landing  obligation,  tools  and  methods  were 
developed for this study to clean, filter and display data on discards in the STECF Fisheries 
Dependent  Information  database.  This  included  an  interactive  app  (ShinyApp)  on  overall 
trends in discard patterns. The study concludes that the discard rates did not show clear trends 
or patterns as a result of full implementation of the landing obligation. This could be due to 
the short time-series of available information.  

In conclusion, cooperation between stakeholders and knowledge about the landing obligation 
has increased tremendously. Now, on the basis of all the knowledge collected, it is time for all 
stakeholders  to  work  on  a  range  of  practices  to  put  the  findings  into  practice.  First  and 
foremost, the Member States must ensure proper control and enforcement, which is essential 
to develop a culture of compliance and cooperation among all operators and fishers with the 
landing  obligation.  Secondly,  the  quality  and  consistency  of  catch  data  (to  support 
exemptions) should improve. A commitment from Member States and industry is needed to 
achieve this objective, with the support of the Commission.  

Several exemptions have been granted on the basis of justifications on best available scientific 
advice enshrined in the delegated regulations specifying the details on how to implement the 
landing  obligation.  The  number  and  range  of  these  exemptions  complicate  control  and 
enforcement  as  they  blur  the  distinction  between  legal  and  illegal  discarding.  This  is 
especially  so  in  cases  when  Member  States  depend  on  conventional  controls  such  as 
inspections  at  sea  and  aerial  surveillance.  Efforts  to  improve  the  situation  are  needed  (by 
Member States and industry) as well as support for the ongoing negotiations on the Control 
Regulation, with the Commission’s proposal supporting the use of modern control tools190. 

Continued  implementation  of  the  landing  obligation  must  also  be  sensitive  to  potential 
developments on the UK side for shared stocks, where there are indications that the UK may 
take different approaches. It will be important to monitor such changes, not only in terms of 
assessing how this may affect the ability to meet the specific objectives of the CFP but also in 
terms  of  practical  application  by  industry  should  the  approaches  to  discards  diverge  for  the 
shared stocks.  

3.4. 

Scientific advice 

3.4.1. 

Introduction 

The guiding principles for CFP management include decision-making based on best available 
scientific advice191. This  requires  independent,  high-quality structures to  provide advice and 
reliable and complete data underpinning the scientific work. 

As outlined in  recital  49 of the CFP Regulation, policy-oriented fisheries science should be 
strengthened by means of: 

190 
191 

COM/2018/368 final. 
Recital 14 and Article 3c of the CFP Regulation. 

EN 

55 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 

 

nationally-adopted, regionally-coordinated scientific data collection, in dialogue with 
end users of scientific data, 
research  and  innovation  programmes  implemented  in  coordination  with  other 
Member States and with EU research and innovation frameworks.  

3.4.2.  Background: from 2009 to the state of play in 2022 

The  2009  Green  Paper  highlighted  the  importance  of scientific  knowledge  and  data  to  the 
CFP, because policy decisions must be based on robust and sound knowledge of the level of 
exploitation that stocks can sustain, of the effects of fishing on marine ecosystems and of the 
impacts  of  changes  such  as  climate  change.  The  Green  Paper  mentioned  several 
shortcomings,  including  the  limited  human  and  institutional  resources  available  to  provide 
this advice and that the questions to address have become more numerous and complex.  

In particular, long-term CFP-oriented research programmes had to tackle new challenges such 
as  the  need  to  promote  synergies  at  EU,  national  and  regional  level,  to  integrate  fisheries 
policy with other maritime issues (especially the ecosystem approach and climate change) and 
further develop policy instruments and governance. The 2011 Commission proposal cited the 
need  to  improve  data  collection  and  scientific  advice  for  the  knowledge  base  underpinning 
conservation policy.  

Currently, when proposing new fisheries rules and regulations or reviewing existing rules, the 
Commission  seeks  the  best  available  scientific  advice  from  several  scientific  bodies.  This 
includes  the  STECF,  a  Commission  expert  group  whose  work  is  also  supported  by  the 
Commission's  Joint  Research  Centre  and  ICES,  an  intergovernmental  body  that  provides 
scientific advice for the sustainable management of fisheries and marine resources, mainly in 
the Northeast Atlantic. Scientific advice and management recommendations are also provided 
by  the  scientific  bodies  of  RFMOs  and  regional  fisheries  bodies,  such  as  the  Scientific 
Advisory Committee in the GFCM and the  ICCAT, to which the EU is a contracting party, 
and scientific committees for multispecies SFPAs. 

EU countries collect data under the Data Collection Framework192 (DCF), which outlines the 
Member States’ obligations to collect, manage and make available a wide range  of fisheries 
and aquaculture data needed for scientific advice, and forms the basis for the work of these 
advice providers. The data collected includes biological, environmental, economic and social 
data and is financially supported by the EU through the EMFF and EMFAF. The Report on 
the  implementation  and  functioning  of  the  DCF193  concludes  that  it  is  a  well-established 
regulatory regime. It concludes that the DCF provides the right structure, tools and flexibility 
to enable the Member States to collect data in the fisheries and aquaculture sectors, in support 
of science and scientific advice. It also concluded on the need to address challenges such as 
collection  of  data  on  protected,  endangered  and  threatened  species  or  broader  ecosystem 
knowledge. 

192 

193 

Regulation (EU) 2017/1004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2017 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. 
Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council Report on the implementation and 
functioning of Regulation (EU) 2017/1004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2017 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 (recast), COM(2020) 664 final. 

EN 

56 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
The  short-term  needs  for  additional  knowledge  can  be  addressed  through  the  EMFF  and 
EMFAF-funded  scientific  advice  studies194.  Long-term  research  projects  on  fisheries 
management  receive  support  under  EU  research  framework  programmes.  The  new  funding 
programme Horizon Europe195 includes a new approach – a mission to restore our ocean and 
waters  by  2030.  The  aim  of  the  mission  is  to  protect  and  restore  marine  and  freshwater 
biodiversity and ecosystems, eliminate pollution and make the blue economy carbon neutral 
and  circular.  Two  enabling  conditions  are  needed  to  achieve  these  objectives:  an  ocean  and 
waters knowledge system (created by the Digital Twin Ocean project) and public mobilisation 
and  engagement.  The  Commission  also  processes  and  manages  data  to  support  knowledge-
based decision making (EMODnet196 and the Atlas of the Seas)197. 

3.4.3.  Future developments for scientific advice and data collection 

A  range  of  development  needs  have  been  identified  to  adjust  the  scientific  advice  currently 
provided to underpin action under the CFP. They include making it fit to respond to upcoming 
challenges such  as  the  impacts  of  climate  and  ocean  changes,  increasing  ecosystem 
considerations,  and  increasing  calls  for  more  transparency  and  stakeholder  involvement  in 
fisheries science and management. 

3.4.4.  Promote greater stakeholder involvement  

A  strong  recurrent  message  emerged  from  the  recent  stakeholder  consultation  organised  to 
prepare  the  report  on  the  functioning  of  the  CFP  (see  Annex  1),  and  during  the  recent  DG 
MARE  Science  Seminar  on  an ecosystem-based  approach  to  fisheries  management198.  The 
message  was  a  plea  for greater  stakeholder  participation  in  the  decision-making  process, 
the 
including  on  data  collection,  which  could  help 
CFP. Moreover, fishers play a key role in enhancing environmental protection and should also 
be involved, since this role is often largely under-exploited. 

implementation  of 

improve 

One of the stakeholders’ demands is to enable them to contribute to the scientific process, in 
particular by providing information. This includes taking into account the observations made 
directly  by  fishers,  who  are  in  a  unique  position  to  document  changes  in  the  marine 
environment.  Fishers  increasingly  argue  that  they  have  a  substantial  volume  of  information 
that  is  rarely  used  by  scientists  in  practice.  The  multiplication  of  data-collecting  sensors 
deployed  by  fishers  has  significant  scope  to  improve  the  data  available  to  scientists.  Some 
positive  examples  of  such  mutual  benefits  include  when  the  pelagic  sector  provided  data  to 
scientists  to  improve  the  evaluation  of  pelagic  stocks. Similarly, acoustic  data  used 
by fishers to estimate  the  quantities  of tropical  tuna  under  fish  aggregating  devices  has 
allowed scientists and managers to gain a better understanding of the dynamics of bigeye and 

194 

195 

196 
197 

198 

EN 

Commission  Staff  Working  Document  Evaluation  Interim  Evaluation  of  direct  management  component  of  the 
European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) {SWD(2020) 222 final 
https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/funding/funding-opportunities/funding-programmes-and-open-
calls/horizon-europe_en. 
https://emodnet.ec.europa.eu/en. 

https://ec.europa.eu/maritimeaffairs/atlas/maritime_atlas/#lang=EN;p=w;bkgd=1;theme=2:0.75;c=617910.1422549
905 6661522.512668013;z=4. 
DG MARE 2022 Seminar (Webinar) on Fisheries Science: Implementation of an Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries 
Management, https://www.fisheriesscienceseminar.eu/. 

57 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
                                                 
yellowfin tuna in the Atlantic. This type of information has so far been often largely under-
exploited despite the potential for multiple benefits. It can potentially provide missing data or 
additional  contextual  data  for  scientists,  including  on  the  ecosystems.  It  can  contribute  to 
improving the quality of data required for scientific assessments of fish stocks, and reduce the 
uncertainties  associated  with 
involving 
the  advice.  In  addition, 
stakeholders in the  scientific  process  would  help  build  support,  confidence  and  trust  in  the 
decision-making process.  

the  approach  of 

Making  progress  on this will  require engaging  with  both  scientists  and  stakeholders  to 
identify  the  main  criteria  for  data  quality  (type  of  data  that  would  be  useful,  to  establish 
sampling and data transmission protocols and to develop user-friendly electronic platforms to 
submit  the  data).  This  should  form  the  basis  for  developing  a  wider  strategy  to  harness  the 
potential  of  the  digital  transition  (including  artificial  intelligence)  and  citizen  science  to 
support the scientific process.  

Another  aspect  to  develop  with  respect  to  stakeholder  involvement is providing greater 
transparency on the process of preparing and delivering scientific advice. While stakeholders 
are  already  involved  in  the  scientific  process,  for  example  as  observers  in  ICES  and 
STECF work, there is scope to involve stakeholders’ representatives in scientific meetings to 
actively bring in their views on and knowledge of specific aspects of the biology of the stocks 
concerned for which there can be a paucity of information (e.g. spatio-temporal distribution, 
predator-prey relations). This process can be facilitated by offering training to stakeholders on 
scientific processes (capacity building, for instance on the benefits and constraints of various 
stocks  assessments  methods,  but  also  on  the  characteristics  and  key  processes  involved  in 
implementing an ecosystem-based approach).  

A more effective dialogue between stakeholders, scientists and managers could be created by 
setting  up  a  forum  for  regular  exchanges  to  discuss  science  and  management  objectives  to 
feed  into  both  the  scientific  process  and  the decision-making process.  Working  together  to 
develop  a  common  research  agenda  should  deepen  the  conversation  between  stakeholders, 
scientists and managers, and provide an opportunity to set up feedback mechanisms ensuring 
relationships are based on genuine and effective dialogue (and not parallel monologues).  

Regular  dialogue  has  been  a  key feature  of  the  success  in  adopting  harvest  strategies  for 
internationally  managed  stocks  and  for  overall  implementation  of  the  CFP.  Channels  for 
dialogue  between  the  different  stakeholders  and  scientists  are  not  new.  For  example,  in 
26 June 2020, the Commission organised a roundtable discussion on the preventing by-catch 
of dolphins and harbour porpoises in fisheries (Baltic Sea and Bay of Biscay). The purpose of 
the  meeting  was  to  collect  and  present  scientific  advice,  listen  to  the  views  of  NGOs  and 
fishing  sectors  and  present  a  political  and  administrative  view  from  Parliament  and  the 
Commission.  It  helped  build  a  better  shared  understanding  of  the  challenges  and  discuss 
options  to  address  them.  A  similar  dialogue  was  organised  in  summer  2022  on  protecting 
vulnerable marine ecosystems and fisheries measures impacting those ecosystems.  

3.4.5.  Reinforce implementation of an ecosystem approach to fisheries management  

The 2022 MARE seminar on fisheries science emphasised the importance of gaining a better 
understanding  of  overall  ecosystem  trends  and  to refine  or  qualify  the  scientific  advice  in 
order to respond to global changes to the climate and the oceans. As previously mentioned, a 
valuable source of information could come from involving stakeholders (fishers’ knowledge) 
and also the general public (citizen science).  

EN 

58 

EN 

 
 
 
  
  
 
  
Another  priority  in  this  context  is  the  need  for  scientific  advice  to  support progress  on 
reducing the impact of fisheries on marine ecosystems, in particular on sensitive species and 
habitats. The  Marine  Action  Plan199  identified  a  range  of  targeted  actions,  notably  to 
strengthen the knowledge base and  increase  support for  research  and innovation to  enhance 
the  sustainability  of  fisheries. The  DCF  establishes  rules  for  the  collection  of  i.a. 
environmental data200 through the setting of a multiannual Union programme and requires the 
Member States to develop a national work plan containing a detailed description of the ‘data 
to be collected in accordance with the multiannual Union programme’ 

To ensure the availability of appropriate data, work between the Commission and the Member 
States will focus on ensuring that data collection under the Data Collection Framework is fit 
for purpose to meet these challenges. This includes:  

  Working with Member States and through the regional coordination groups, reviewing 
how  stakeholders,  and  fishers  in  particular,  already  contribute  to  the  collection  of 
scientific data under the DCF and how this process can be improved.  

  Working  with  data  end  users  and  Member  States,  reviewing  how  to  integrate 
ecosystem  data into ecosystem indicators and the role the DCF can play in this process. 
This can include maximising the use of data already collected (collect once, use multiple 
times)  and  facilitating  additional  ecosystem  data  collection  through,  for  example,  DCF 
surveys.  It  also  includes  assessing  the  data  needs  for  evaluating  climate  change  impacts 
and  how  data  collected  under  the  DCF  can  help  improve  the  scientific  advice  on  the 
impacts of climate change on fisheries; 

  Working in close cooperation with scientific advisory bodies, reviewing the data needs 
for socioeconomic analyses, identifying any gaps and proposing improvements to ensure 
equitable evaluations of the socioeconomic impacts of fisheries management decisions.  

3.5. 

Technical measures 

3.5.1. 

Introduction 

The  decisions  made  by  fishers  on  where,  how  and  when  to  fish  naturally  affect  the  species 
that are caught but they also affect interactions with the broader ecosystem.  

The  2013  CFP  Regulation  put  a  special  emphasis  on  technical  measures  as  a  tool  for 
conservation.  These  measures  are  enshrined  as  an  integral  part  of  the  CFP  Regulation  in 
Article 7 listing the types of conservation measures available201. Technical measures also play 
a very important rule in the contribution of the CFP to EU environmental legislation. As tools 
of the CFP, they play a major role in achieving its objectives. Maintaining or reducing fishing 
mortality  at  or  below  maximum  sustainable  yield  levels  will  contribute  to  healthier  fish 

199 

200  

201 

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social 
Committee and the Committee of the Regions  - EU Action Plan: Protecting and restoring marine ecosystems for 
sustainable and resilient fisheries COM(2023)102 
Article 5(2)(b): The multiannual Union programme shall establish data to assess the impact of Union fisheries on 
the marine ecosystem in and outside Union waters, including data on by-catch of non-target species, in particular 
species  protected  under  Union  or  international  law,  data  on  impacts  of  fisheries  on  marine  habitats,  including 
vulnerable marine areas, and data on impacts of fisheries on food webs. 
Fish  stock  recovery  areas  to  protect  juveniles  or  spawning  aggregations  (Article  8),  minimum  conservation 
reference sizes (Article 7(1)(g) and Article 7(1)(j) referring to the list of technical measures – Article 7(2). 

EN 

59 

EN 

 
 
  
 
  
 
  
  
 
                                                 
populations. Ensuring that fishing activities are highly selective so that only targeted species, 
certain quantities, ages and sizes of fish are caught will contribute to this objective. Last but 
not  least,  ensuring  that  fishing  activities  are  carried  out  mindful  of  the  broader  ecological 
considerations  means  taking  measures  that  minimise  the  impacts  of  fishing  gear  on  the 
ecosystem (e.g. mitigation measures or area closures).  

To  achieve  the  set  aims,  a  combination  of  effective  technical  conservation  measures  are 
needed  (i.e.  measures  that  regulate  the  operation  and  design  of  fishing  gear,  minimum 
conservation reference sizes and spatial/temporal closures), along with a greater commitment 
to these measures taken by the master of a fishing vessel, as the decisions made by the fishers 
will have a direct effect on the long-term sustainability of the resource. 

3.5.2.  Background: from previous framework to the state of play in 2022 

Traditionally, technical measures have been designed with a generic objective to increase the 
selectivity of fishing  gear. As a result, since 1980 European fishers had to  adapt  to  over 90 
different regulations, attempting to control too many details. Stakeholders reported that one of 
the benefits of the previous legislative framework was the harmonisation of rules across EU 
fisheries  (e.g.  rules  that  set  similar  minimum  conservation  reference  sizes).  Nonetheless, 
evidence (including the retrospective evaluation in the impact assessment)202 showed that the 
format  in  which  technical  measures  were  developed  had  not  achieved  the  objectives  of  the 
CFP effectively and several problems were identified.  

At  the  time  of  the  2013  reform,  the  framework  on  technical  measures  was  laid  down  in 
Council Regulation 850/98 along with a suite of other regulations that made it very complex 
to apply and understand all the rules. In an attempt to simplify the rules and remedy existing 
challenges,  in  2008  the  Commission  issued  a  proposal203  to  replace  Council  Regulation 
850/98 with a more coherent framework. However, at the end of 2009, the Council failed to 
reach a final agreement and rejected the proposal.  

After the CFP Regulation entered into force and the regional approach under the CFP started, 
it became even more urgent to change the legislative framework for technical measures. The 
2016 proposal included all the above considerations. It was designed to simplify the existing 
framework, moving from a top-down to a results-based approach, in line with conclusions of 
preparatory works that the STECF204 carried out. 

The  new  Regulation  entered  into  force  in  August  2019.  The  aim  was  to  prescribe  only  the 
baseline  measures  to  grant  a  minimum  conservation  standard  and  a  level  playing  field.  It 
brought in results-based management while presenting the need to progress on the objectives, 
it  gives  freedom  to  stakeholders  on  how  to  achieve  them  using  one  of  the  most  important 
tools: regionalisation. However, in return for this flexibility, the Regulation presents  another 
pivotal  aspect:  the  obligation  for  the  Commission  to  report  on  progress  in  reaching  the 
objectives.  Assessing  progress  is  vital  to  check  whether  the  measures  in  place  are  adequate 
and  fit  for  purpose.  Measuring  progress  comes  with  clear  and  accurate  objectives  on  the 
specifics of each target, some of which are concrete (achieving a maximum sustainable yield, 

202 

203 

204 

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the conservation of fishery resources 
and the protection of marine ecosystems through technical measures. COM/2016/0134 final - 2016/074 (COD). 
Proposal for a Council Regulation concerning the conservation of fisheries resources through technical measures 
COM/2008/0324 final. 
STECF EWG 12-12, 13-01. 

EN 

60 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
for  example).  The  objectives  include  protecting  juvenile  fish  stock  and  spawning 
aggregations,  minimising  incidental  catches  of  sensitive  species,  minimising  the  negative 
impacts of fishing on marine habitats and contributing to compliance with the Marine strategy 
framework directive, in particular to achieve good environmental status. 

3.5.3.  Opportunities and challenges 

The  Commission  adopted  the  first  report  on  implementation  of  the  Technical  Measures 
Regulation  in  September  2021205.  Considering  the  short  time  since  the  Regulation  was 
adopted and since the first reporting obligation, the report focused on the impact of previous 
measures,  on  assessing  the  current  situation,  on  how  to  measure  progress,  and  the  action 
planned for the near future to implement the Regulation, linked to the marine action plan (as 
discussed in section 3.8). The report set out how the CFP will contribute to the marine action 
plan, highlighting the areas  where more  action is  needed.  As such, this  is  an opportunity to 
align fisheries with the broader EU policy context (environmental, social and economic). 

As  outlined  in  the  conclusions  of  the  report,  the  Technical  Measures  Regulation  and  the 
current  governance  system  are  adequate  and  fit  for  purpose  to  achieve  the  objectives  and 
targets set by the Regulation. As mentioned in section 3.11, the regionalisation approach gave 
a  quantitative  and  qualitative  boost  to  the  participation  of  stakeholders  in  designing  the 
measures  with  which  they  will have to  comply.  The report also  showed  the commitment of 
stakeholders  to  research  and  innovation,  making  use  of  the  provisions  of  the  regulation 
designed to boost the involvement of the sector.  

However, challenges remain, and they need to be addressed, as identified in the marine action 
plan. Regarding progress to protect juveniles and optimise exploitation patterns, it is essential 
that  the  fishing  industry  plays  an  active  role  and  commits  to  implement  more  selective 
fishing. The adoption of measures needs to speed up. To account for this, and underpinned by 
scientific work, it is necessary to show the increased yields expected as a result of optimising 
fishing  patterns,  acting  as  a  driver  for  positive  change,  and  sharing  ownership  of  the  future 
measures  implemented.  Scientific  work  with  STECF  has  started  to  provide  evidence  of 
significant gains achieved in several stocks206, and will continue in the future.  

There  are  shortcomings  to  address  in  implementation  in  terms  of the protection of sensitive 
species and habitats, where more action is needed. For the very first time, the design of new 
technical  conservation  measures  must  factor  in  action  to  minimise  the  negative  impacts  on 
sensitive  species  and  sensitive  habitats.  In  addition  to  the  measures  designed  to  promote 
fishing  practices  that  help  rebuild  stocks  and  minimise  their  negative  effects,  the  Technical 
Measures Regulation facilitates scientific research. Most importantly, it provides incentives to 
involve industry in research to generate results that will benefit industry too. The Regulation 
includes provisions to encourage and facilitate scientific research, in particular pilot projects, 
and  provisions  on  scientific  research  and  innovative  gear,  as  described  in  the  following 
sections. 

For  the  Mediterranean,  the  aim  of  the  GFCM  2030  strategy  is  to  encourage  the  use  of  by-
catch  and  impact-reduction  technical  measures,  such  as  those  designed  to  improve  fishing 

205 

206 

Report  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council,  Implementation  of  the  Technical 
Measures Regulation (Article 31 of Regulation (EU) 2019/1241) COM/2021/583 final. 
STECF 20-02 and, mainly, STECF 21-07. 

EN 

61 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
selectivity, deter depredation and  reduce the mortality rate of incidentally  caught vulnerable 
species.  

The UK has started to develop its own framework for technical measures in UK waters, which 
will  apply  to  EU  fishers  fishing  in  those  waters.  Work  is  ongoing  in  the  Specialised 
Committee on Fisheries established by the Trade and Cooperation Agreement to develop joint 
new  and  aligned  measures  in  the  Celtic  Sea  and  to  develop  multi-year  strategies  for  shared 
non-quota stocks. These measures should try to maximise synergies and alignments between 
the approaches taken by the Parties to specific fisheries and sea basins. Such work will likely 
continue  to  be  a  feature  of  bilateral  cooperation,  because  joint  measures  are  more  effective 
from a conservation perspective than divergent measures, and they are also less burdensome 
for fishers. 

In line with Article 31 of the Technical Measures Regulation, the Commission plans to issue a 
second report on implementation of the Technical Measures Regulation in 2024.  

3.6. 

Fishing opportunities 

3.6.1. 

Introduction 

Under  Article 43(3)  TFEU,  ‘the  Council  on  a  proposal  from  the  Commission,  shall  adopt 
measures  on  fixing  prices,  levies,  aid  and  quantitative  limitations  and  on  the  fixing  and 
allocation of fishing opportunities’. These opportunities are set within the context of the CFP 
objectives.  Where  relevant,  specific  objectives  and  targets  are  set  in  the  multiannual  plans. 
Advisory  Councils  actively  participate  in  this  work  by  issuing  advice  as  follow-up  to  the 
Communication from the Commission on fishing opportunities for the following year, and by 
providing numerous pieces of advice on specific stocks.  

The fishing opportunities available are set each year for fishing in EU waters and apply to EU 
fishing vessels in certain non-EU waters, to  certain fish stocks and to  groups of fish stocks. 
These include catch limits207 and fishing effort limits. The total allowable catch is the quantity 
of fish in each stock that may be caught each year, and in fisheries covered by the exemption 
to the landing obligation, the quantity of fish in each stock that may be landed each year208. 
Total  allowable  catch  volumes  are  set  in  the  related  annual  regulations,  with  Council 
Regulation  (EU)  2022/109  being  the  most  recent.  The  proportion  of  catch  allocated  to  the 
Member State is called the quota.  

3.6.2.  Background: from 2009 to the state of play in 2022 

As indicated in the 2009 Green Paper, before the 2013 reform, the CFP lacked clear indicators 
and yardsticks that could provide more specific guidance on its objectives. To help measure 
policy  achievements,  the  2013  CFP  now  includes  more  specific  targets  and  objectives.  It 
specifies that  reaching the maximum  sustainable  yield is  a  concrete objective for the policy 
and for setting fishing opportunities. The concept of maximum sustainable yield was accepted 

207 

208 

Article 4(1)(15) of the CFP regulation: ‘catch limit’ means, as appropriate, either a quantitative limit on catches of 
a fish stock or group of fish stocks over a given period where such fish stocks or group of fish stocks are subject to 
an obligation to land, or a quantitative limit on landings of a fish stock or group of fish stocks over a given period 
for which the obligation to land does not apply. 
As  defined  by  Article 3(d)  of  Council  Regulation  (EU) 2022/109 of  27 January  2022  fixing  for  2022 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. 

EN 

62 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
by all Member States at the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development as an objective 
to  achieve  by  2015.  It  was  also  part  of  the  1995  UN  Fish  Stocks  Agreement.  This 
international commitment has been enshrined since 2013 as a principle for stock management 
in the CFP, guiding decision makers especially when setting fishing opportunities. 

In  line  with  Article 50  of  the  CFP  Regulation,  the  Commission  reports  each  year  on  the 
progress made towards sustainable fishing in the EU. As set out in more details in the most 
recent Annual Communication209, remarkable improvements have been achieved. First of all, 
in  the  North  East  Atlantic,  where  the  FMSY  indicator  fell  for  the  first  time  below  1  for  all 
stocks  with  maximum  sustainable  yield  advice.  This  means  that  overall,  stock  exploitation 
levels are, on average, in line or below the maximum sustainable yield. This is the result of all 
efforts  made  by  the  sector  over  the  past  years.  Progress  has  also  been  made  in  the 
Mediterranean, with the indicator now below 2. This progress  should be recognised, though 
further action is needed to reach the maximum sustainable yield objective by 2025 in line with 
the Western Mediterranean multiannual plan, and for the other Mediterranean and Black sea 
stocks  not  regulated  under  this  multiannual  plan.  In  the  Baltic,  the  situation  is  also 
concerning.  This  calls  for  different  policy  domains  to  work  hand  in  hand  to  address  the 
deteriorating environmental condition of that sea basin. 

3.6.3.  Allocation of fishing opportunities 

Articles 16 and 17 of the CFP Regulation lay down rules for allocating fishing opportunities 
by  the  Member  States.  In  particular,  Article 16(6)  sets  out  that  each  Member  State  must 
decide how to allocate the fishing opportunities available to it, that are not subject to a system 
of transferable fishing concessions210, to vessels flying its flag. Article 17 stipulates that when 
allocating  the  fishing  opportunities  available,  Member  States  must  use  transparent  and 
objective criteria, including criteria of an environmental, social and economic nature. 

In 2009, the Green Paper identified unclear and conflicting objectives of the previous CFP as 
a key structural  failing.  No priority was set  for these objectives  and,  though it makes  direct 
references  to  adopting  a  precautionary  and  an  ecosystem  approach,  it  is  not  clear  how  this 
relates  to  economic  and  social  conditions.  There  are  no  clear  indicators  and  yardsticks  that 
could provide more concrete guidance or help measure policy achievements.  

The  Green  Paper  also  highlighted  overcapacity  as  one  of  the  policy’s  failings.  It  suggested 
that  ‘market  instruments  such  as  transferable  rights …may  be  a  more  efficient  and  less 
expensive  way  to  reduce  overcapacity’.  In  2011,  the  Commission  proposed  implementing  a 
system  of  transferable  fishing  concessions  at  national  level  for  all  species  under  quota  or 
effort  limits.  The  proposal  for  transferable  fishing  concessions  was  dropped  and  the 
alternative was to return to the traditional scheme, which allowed Member States to allocate 
national  quotas  as  they  see  fit.  Environmental  NGOs  and  small-scale  fishers  supported  a 
mandatory use of social and environmental criteria when allocating fishing opportunities as a 
means  to  meet  the  CFP  policy  objectives.  This  resulted  in  a  compromise  in  the  2013  CFP 

209 

210 

Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council,  Towards  more  sustainable 
fishing in the EU: state of play and orientations for 2023, COM/2022/253 final. 
As  defined  by  Article 4(1)(23)  of  the  CFP  Regulation  ‘transferable  fishing  concession’  means  a  revocable  user 
entitlement to a specific part of fishing opportunities allocated to a Member State or established in a management 
plan  adopted  by  a  Member  State  in  accordance  with  Article 19  of  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No 1967/2006  (18), 
which the holder may transfer. 

EN 

63 

EN 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
reform, where Member States would still be able to allocate quotas as they see fit following 
some general principles and with an obligation to provide transparency. 

In 2016, 2020 and 2022 the Commission asked Member States to provide information on their 
methods  to  allocate  fishing opportunities  under  Article 16(6) and Article 17 of the CFP. All 
22  Member  States  with  a  commercial  marine  fishery  consulted  in  2022  replied  to  the 
questionnaire,  though  the  type,  amount  of  information  and  level  of  detail  provided  varied 
widely. The replies from Member States indicate that there is a wide variety in  the methods 
used  to  allocate  fishing  opportunities,  with  some  Member  States  using  transferable  fishing 
concessions only, others implementing a mixed system with transferable fishing concessions 
and a criteria-based allocation. A few Member States reported that they also apply criteria to 
the transferable fishing concessions (e.g. Denmark, Estonia, Latvia and Sweden). 

Approximately  half  of  the  Member  States  allocate  fishing  opportunities  on  the  basis  of 
criteria.  The  allocation  methods  used  differ  from  one  Member  State  to  the  other.  The  most 
frequently  reported  criterion  applied  was  historical  catches.  Many  allocation  systems  use  a 
criterion related to vessel size (or multiple criteria) to allocate fishing opportunities between 
large-scale  and  small-scale  fleets.  Several  Member  States  apply  environmental  criteria, 
mainly  relating  to  fishing  gear  type  (e.g.  Denmark,  France,  Greece,  Ireland,  Malta  and 
Sweden),  allocate  a  share  of  quota  for  the  purpose  of  unintended  by-catch  (e.g.  Croatia, 
Cyprus, Denmark, Greece, Malta and Spain) or use active acoustic devices to repel cetaceans 
(e.g.  Bulgaria).  Several  Member  States  use  social  criteria,  allocating  opportunities  to  young 
fishers (e.g. Bulgaria, Denmark and Greece) and to support newcomers in the fishing industry 
(e.g.  Germany  and  Malta).  Some  Member  States  reported  using  economic  criteria,  for 
example market situation (e.g. France, Germany and Ireland) and quota uptake (e.g. Bulgaria 
and Romania).  

In  general,  some Member States indicated that  the specific criteria applied depended on the 
fleet  segment,  species  and/or  fishing  techniques  used  (e.g.  Croatia,  Greece,  Ireland  and 
Sweden). In some cases, the information provided did not clearly indicate whether the criteria 
applied to all species for which there was a quota or only to the example given. Most Member 
States  did  not  describe  how  each  criterion  was  weighted  (i.e.  which  criterion  has  priority 
and/or the order of priority given to each criterion). A few Member States indicated that they 
allocated  fishing  opportunities  based  on  an  evaluation  of  criteria  to  which  they  applied  a 
points system (e.g. Bulgaria and Greece). 

3.6.4.  Opportunities and challenges 

The use of social criteria in allocating fishing opportunities was assessed in a STECF report 
on  the  social  dimension211  of  the  CFP.  The  report  documents  many  examples  of  Member 
States using social criteria to allocate fishing opportunities. The assessment revealed that there 
was no clear trend in the use of social criteria based on geography, type of fishing opportunity 
or  political  culture.  The  report  highlighted  the  great  diversity  and  complexity  of  systems  to 
allocate  fishing  opportunities  used  by  the  Member  States,  indicating  that  no  two  Member 
States  use  the  same  system  to  allocate  fishing  opportunities.  The  study  emphasises  that  the 
use  of  social  criteria  in  EU  fisheries  is  a  new  area  of  study  which  makes  an  assessment 
challenging  as  it  requires  a  level  of  detailed  understanding  and  confidence  regarding  each 

211 

STECF 20-14, – Social dimension of the CFP (STECF-20-14). 

EN 

64 

EN 

 
 
                                                 
national system. Another challenge observed by STEFC when analysing the criteria was that 
no definition of social criteria is provided in EU fisheries regulations, nor in the literature. 

The stakeholder analysis showed that  two-thirds  of respondents  from  all  stakeholder  groups 
are of the opinion that the requirements in Articles 16 and 17 of the CFP Regulation are not 
implemented in a satisfactory manner. Stakeholders are of the opinion that allocation methods 
are  not  transparent  and  that  environmental,  economic  and  social  criteria  are  not  considered 
sufficiently  when  allocating  fishing  opportunities.  Due  to  current  allocation  methods,  for 
instance  based  on  historical  catches,  Member  States  fail  to  harness  the  full  potential  of 
Article 17 to provide incentives for more sustainable, low-impact and small-scale fisheries. It 
is  evident  that  transparency  on  the  factors  and  criteria  applied  when  allocating  fishing 
opportunities can be further improved within and across all Member States.  

3.7. 

Emergency measures 

3.7.1. 

Introduction 

In  view  of  the  exclusive  competence  and  the  nature  of  the  common  resource,  the  CFP 
provides for tools to address emergency situations in a swift and effective manner.  

3.7.2.  Background: from 2009 to the state of play in 2022 

The 2013 reform maintained the provisions for emergency measures when conservation of the 
marine  biological  resources  is  threatened,  either  at  the  request  of  a  Member  State  or  at  the 
initiative of the Commission. In addition, the reform introduced a new provision for fisheries 
measures in the context of Union environmental law obligations. 

The  use  of  these  instruments  is  strictly  conditioned,  and  may  can  only  be  taken  if  on  duly 
justified  imperative  grounds  of  urgency  relating  to  a  serious  threat  to  the  conservation  of 
marine  biological  resources.  In  such  cases,  the  Commission  at  the  reasoned  request  of  a 
Member  State  or  on  its  own  initiative,  may,  in  order  to  alleviate  this  threat,  adopt  such 
emergency measures in the form of immediately applicable implementing acts applicable for 
a maximum period of six months. 

Since the entry into force of the CFP Regulation, the Commission had twice to revert to the 
use of emergency measures, once in 2015 to alleviate a serious threat to the conservation of 
the sea bass  (Dicentrarchus labrax) stock in  the Celtic Sea, Channel,  Irish Sea and southern 
North Sea212, and once in 2019 concerning the Eastern Baltic cod213.  

3.7.3.  Opportunities and challenges 

The possibility to adopt emergency measures remains essential and the Commission will not 
refrain from taking such measures where relevant and justifed. In view of the serious impact 
that such measures may have also for operators, strict adherence to the requirements as set by 
the legislators is needed.  

212  

213  

Commission  Implementing  Regulation  (EU)  2015/111  of  26  January  2015  establishing  measures  to  alleviate  a 
serious threat to the conservation of the sea bass ( Dicentrarchus labrax ) stock in the Celtic Sea, Channel, Irish Sea 
and southern North Sea 
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1248 of 22 July 2019 establishing measures to alleviate a serious 
threat to the conservation of the eastern Baltic cod (Gadus morhua) stock 

EN 

65 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
3.8. 

Conservation  measures  necessary  for  complying  with  obligations  under  EU 
environmental legislation 

3.8.1. 

Introduction 

Under  the  CFP,  the  EU  has  a  solid  legislative  framework  that  embeds  environmental 
objectives and complements EU environmental legislation. In particular, Article 2(5)(j) of the 
CFP  set  out  that  ‘the  CFP  shall  be  coherent  with  the  Union  environmental  legislation,  in 
particular with the objective of achieving a good environmental status by 2020 as set out in 
Article 1(1) of Directive 2008/56/EC’ (Marine strategy framework directive). As set out in the 
marine  action  plan,  major  steps  have  been  made  in  recent  years  to  better  implement  the 
environmental legislation and to strengthen the CFP’s contribution thereto. 

Member  States  have  clear  responsibilities  and  obligations  under  EU  environmental 
legislation.  With  the  2013  reform,  the  CFP  clarifies  the  obligations  of  Member  States  to 
contribute to these obligations and provides tools to implement the fisheries measures needed 
to  help  meet  them.  In particular, the regionalisation approach in  the CFP  provides the basis 
for all stakeholders to work together to define and agree on the fisheries measures adapted to 
the local or regional context. 

3.8.2.  Background: from 2009 to the state of play in 2022 

One  of  the  main  changes  made  to  the  CFP  in  2002  was  to  make  a  greater  commitment  to 
integrate environmental concerns into fisheries management. Despite the progress made since 
the 2002 reform, the policy and its implementation had not met the objective to achieve the 
environmental  dimension  of  sustainable  fisheries  and  the  Green  Paper  identified  several 
structural shortcomings. It acknowledged that ecological sustainability is a basic premise for 
the economic and social future of European fisheries. The Green Paper recognised that marine 
ecosystems  and  biodiversity  were  under  pressure  from  pollution  and  overfishing  and  would 
also  be  affected  by  climate  change.  Thus,  it  called  for  the  CFP  to  be  reformed  to  reach  the 
following aims:  

i. 
ii. 

iii. 

adopt a precautionary and ecosystem approach to fisheries management,  
facilitate  climate  change  adaptation  efforts  concerning  impacts  in  the  marine 
environment,  
achieve coherence with other EU policies, including EU environmental policy.  

Fisheries  could  no  longer  be  seen  in  isolation  from  the  broader  maritime  environment  and 
from  other policies  that  cover  maritime  activities. Thus, the Green Paper  in  2009 suggested 
that  the  upcoming  reform  of  the  CFP  should  continue  to  be  integrated  with  the  Integrated 
Maritime Policy including support to implement the  Marine strategy framework directive  to 
ensure environmental protection of marine ecosystems. It noted that small-scale fishing could 
also be harmful to sensitive coastal habitats and its aggregated impacts could be significant. 
Therefore  it  suggested  differentiating  the  fishing  regime  for  small  and  large-scale  fleets  to 
protect the ecological sustainability of fish stocks. 

The Commission's 2011 proposal therefore sought to remedy the lack of focus in the policy 
objectives  on  environmental  sustainability  as  a  result  of  overfishing  and  insufficient 
integration of environmental concerns into the policy. The overall objective was to ensure that 
fishing  and  aquaculture  activities  meet  long-term  sustainable  environmental  conditions  and 
contribute  to  the  availability  of  food  supplies.  The  proposal  included  environmental 
sustainability  as  a  precondition  to  achieve  overall  sustainability,  focusing  on  environmental 
sustainability  while  creating  sufficient  flexibility  to  give  the  fishing  sector  time  to  adapt  to 

EN 

66 

EN 

 
 
 
 
ambitious  environmental  objectives.  Minimising  the  negative  impact  on  marine  ecosystems 
combined  with  the  precautionary  and  ecosystem  approach  to  fisheries  management  would 
contribute to achieving good environmental status214 of the seas under the MSDF.  

The proposal brought in new provisions for fisheries measures for the conservation of marine 
biological  resources  and  the  protection  of  the  marine  environment.  These  provisions  were 
needed  for  compliance  with  the  EU’s  environmental  obligations  under  the  Birds  Directive, 
Habitats Directive and the Marine strategy framework directive  to alleviate the impact from 
fishing activities in protected areas. These provisions were needed to provide Member States 
with  tools  to  adopt  fisheries  measures  needed  to  ensure  compliance  with  their  obligations 
under the Birds Directive, Habitats Directive and the Marine strategy framework directive as 
regards  special  protection  areas,  special  areas  of  conservation  and  marine  protected  areas, 
respectively. As a result, the CFP now includes the possibility for Member States to adopt, in 
the waters under their sovereignty or jurisdiction, conservation measures necessary to comply 
with  their  obligations.  The  regulation  stipulates  that,  where  such  measures  might  affect 
fisheries interests of other Member States, the measures are to be adopted by Commission on 
the basis of joint recommendations from Member States regional groups. 

Member States have taken into account fisheries management measures that contribute to the 
achievement of the environmental objectives for decades but the 2013 CFP reform brought in 
new mechanisms, such as  the regionalisation  approach  and new tools,  such as  Article 11 of 
the  CFP  Regulation.  Article  11,  which  complements  the  specific  possibilities  that  Member 
States have to adopt measures for their waters or their fishing vessels under Articles 19 and 
20, provides a clear basis for Member States to act under the CFP to contribute to certain of 
their obligations under environmental law. This scope was extended and specified by the new 
Technical Measures Regulation in 2019. 

In 2018, to  facilitate the work of Member States, the Commission  published  guidance215 on 
Article 11  of  the  CFP  Regulation  on  adopting  conservation  measures  for  Natura  2000  sites 
and for the purposes of the Marine strategy framework directive. The guidance included good 
practices to be considered.  

implementation  on 

Regionalisation  has  shown  to  be  a  good  tool  to  adopt  region-specific  measures.  With  the 
regional groups set up and cooperation underway in the regional sea basins, it has proven to 
be  the  most  effective  way  to  ensure  the  bottom-up  transition  from  the  political  ambition  to 
real 
that 
regionalisation helps achieve the objective set out in Article 2(5)(j) of the CFP Regulation: to 
be coherent with other EU policies. Member States are empowered to take more initiative in 
developing measures to meet the objectives on fisheries and waters. Together with Article 11, 
Article 18 of the CFP Regulation can facilitate transboundary  cooperation between Member 
States and promote coherence with EU environmental policy. 

the  ground.  The  study  on  regionalisation  concluded 

While  from  the  outset  the  regional  approach  mainly  focused  on  implementing  the  landing 
obligation, it has also proven to be effective in adopting the conservation measures needed for 
compliance with obligations under EU environmental legislation, notably under Article 13(4) 
of the Marine strategy framework directive, Article 4 of the Birds Directive and Article 6 of 

214 

215 

Eleven qualitative descriptors describe what the environment looks like when good environmental status has been 
achieved. Specifically descriptors 1, 3, 4 and 6 contribute to the objectives of the CFP. 
Commission staff working document on the establishment of conservation measures under the Common  Fisheries 
Policy  for  Natura  2000  sites  and  for  Marine  Strategy  Framework  Directive  purposes  staff  working  document 
(2018)288. 

EN 

67 

EN 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
the  Habitats  Directive.  Adopting  the  first  joint  recommendations  paved  the  way  for  greater 
cooperation between administrations and stakeholders within a given Member State and with 
other Member States that have a direct management interest. In particular, since the Technical 
Measures  Regulation  was  adopted  in  2019,  implementation  has  taken  off  and  a  range  of 
measures have been put in place or are under discussion by the regional groups (Figure 1). 

To date, in total seven delegated regulations related to Article 11 have been adopted (of which 
one was rejected by Parliament during the scrutiny period and thus never came into force and 
one  no  longer  in  force)216.  14  delegated  regulations  were  adopted  under  the  Technical 
Measures Regulation217, created by in total 29 joint recommendations issued as a result of the 
work carried out by 14 Member States218. These include area-specific measures for the Baltic 
Sea,  North  Sea,  South  Western  Waters,  the  English  Channel,  the  Celtic  Sea,  the  Irish  Sea, 
the West  of  Scotland  and  the  Skagerrak.  They  covered,  for  example,  a  prohibition  on  all  or 
some fishing activities (e.g. using bottom  contacting  gear)  and  additional restrictions on  the 
use of certain gear. Member State action was complemented by measures agreed at EU level, 
for  example  with  the  adoption  in  2016  of  the  ‘deep  sea  access  regulation’219  as  a  means  to 
implement  in  EU  waters  the  UN  Resolutions  to  protect  vulnerable  deep-sea  marine 
ecosystems  from  the  impact  of  bottom  fishing  gear220,  as  implemented  in  2022  with  the 
specific implementing regulation221. 

216 

217 

218 

219 

220 
221 

These measures are currently included in Delegated acts (EU) 2017/117 stablishing fisheries conservation measures 
for  the  protection  of  the  marine  environment  in  the  Baltic  Sea  and  (EU)  2017/118  establishing  fisheries 
conservation measures for the protection of the marine environment in the North Sea. 
These  measures  are  currently  in  Commission  Delegated  Regulation  (EU)  2022/1357,  Commission  Delegated 
Regulation (EU) 2022/826, Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022/303, Commission Delegated Regulation 
(EU)  2022/199,  Commission  Delegated  Regulation  (EU)  2022/200,  Commission  Delegated  Regulation  (EU) 
2021/2324,  Commission  Delegated  Regulation  (EU)  2021/1160,  Commission  Delegated  Regulation  (EU) 
2020/2013,  Commission  Delegated  Regulation  (EU)  2019/2201,  and  Commission  Delegated  Regulation 
(EU)2018/47. 
Belgium, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Ireland, France, Latvia, Lithuania, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, 
Spain, Sweden. 
Regulation  (EU)  2016/2336  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  14 December  2016  establishing 
specific  conditions  for  fishing  for  deep-sea  stocks  in  the  north-east  Atlantic  and  provisions  for  fishing  in 
international waters of the north-east Atlantic and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 2347/2002. 
Resolutions adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations, in particular Resolutions 61/105 and 64/72. 
Commission  Implementing  Regulation  (EU)  2022/1614  of  15 September  2022  determining  the  existing  deep-sea 
fishing areas and establishing a list of areas where vulnerable marine ecosystems are known to occur or are likely 
to occur. 

EN 

68 

EN 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Article 11

Technical Measures Regulation

s
t
c
a

d
e
t
a
g
e
l
e
d
f
o

r
e
b
m
u
n

e
v
i
t
a
l
u
m
u
c
c
A

e
c
r
o
f
n
i

d
n
a
d
e
t
p
o
d
a

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

Figure 1 Timeline of accumulative number of delegated acts which are currently in force. 

In the Mediterranean Sea, work has progressed on the level of protection of sensitive habitats 
and nursery areas. The Mediterranean Regulation was adopted prior  to the 2013 reform  and 
was  unique  in  the  sense  that  at  the  time  it  was  the  only  CFP  instrument  that  provided  for 
fisheries restrictions in coastal areas (a ban on trawling within 3 nautical miles from the coast 
/ 50 m isobath) and above certain protected habitats (e.g. sea-grass beds (Posidonia), maërl, 
coralligenous).  In  the  framework  of  the  GFCM,  a  number  of  recommendations  include 
measures for the protection of sensitive habitats and vulnerable marine ecosystems, which are 
applicable to the EU and its Member States, as contracting parties to the GFCM. The GFCM 
2030  strategy  also  demonstrates  the  progress  on  this  issue  as  it  aims  to  establish  effective 
area-based  measures  to  minimise  and  mitigate  impacts  on  vulnerable  species,  sensitive 
habitats  and  essential  fish  habitats  to  meet  international  spatial  conservation  targets.  It  also 
aims  to  calculate  the  fishing  footprint  of  bottom  contact  fisheries  and  their  potential 
interactions with essential fish habitats, sensitive habitats and vulnerable marine ecosystems. 

In addition, Member States are empowered to take measures within the 12 nautical miles zone 
for  the  conservation  and  management  of  fish  stocks  and  to  maintain  or  improve  the 
conservation  status  of  marine  ecosystems.  The  Member  States  have  adopted  such  measures 
under Articles 19 and 20 of the CFP Regulation. Together with the measures under Article 11 
of  the  Technical  Measures  Regulation,  other  tools  mentioned  in  this  chapter  and  the 
emergency  measures  under  Articles  12  and  13  of  the  CFP  Regulation  to  alleviate  a  serious 
threat  to  the  conservation  of  marine  biological  resources  or  to  the  marine  ecosystem,  they 
form  a  comprehensive  toolbox  of  fisheries-related  measures  to  help  meet  the  EU's 
environmental objectives. 

3.8.3.  Opportunities and challenges 

integrity  requires  significantly  stepping  up 

Addressing  the  triple  planetary  crisis  and  the  accelerating  loss  of  marine  biodiversity  and 
ecosystem 
the  speed  and  ambition  of 
regionalisation, as detailed in the marine action plan. It is also vital to continue to put forward 
proposals  and  adopt  regulations  as  and  where  relevant  and  required  in  view  of  the  EU's 
environmental obligations. 

More recently, as part of action to implement the European Green Deal and the biodiversity 
strategy,  the  Commission  has  issued  a  marine  action  plan  and  a  proposal  for  a  nature 

EN 

69 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
restoration law that seek to increase and strengthen the efforts to achieve a more coherent and 
joined-up  implementation  of  the  EU’s  environmental  policy  and  legislation.  The  aim  is  to 
improve  alignment  between  the  CFP  and  the  three  pillars  of  sustainability  and  to  provide  a 
forward-looking  strategy  on  how  to  better  apply  the  ecosystem-based  approach  to  fisheries 
management 

3.9.  Management of fishing capacity 

3.9.1. 

Introduction 

Managing fishing  capacity is  one of the conservation measures listed under Article 7 of the 
CFP Regulation. Under the CFP, the total fishing capacity of each national fleet is capped and 
under Article 22, Member States must adjust their fleet’s  fishing capacity222 to the available 
fishing opportunities. This is to ensure that fishing activities are environmentally sustainable 
in  the  long-term  and  managed  in  a  way  that  is  consistent  with  the  objectives  of  achieving 
economic,  social  and  employment  benefits,  and  of  contributing  to  the  availability  of  food 
supplies over time. 

3.9.2.  Background: from 2009 to the state of play in 2022 

Fleet  capacity  that  is  out  of  balance  with  the  resources  they  fish  for  has  been  an  important 
factor behind the historic overexploitation of resources in European waters. For many years, 
there has been a problem of overcapacity of the European fishing fleet, which was highlighted 
in the 2009 Green Paper. This structural overcapacity has undermined both the sustainability 
of fish stocks and the long-term viability of the fishing sector and put too high of a pressure 
on the marine ecosystems and habitats. Reducing fishing overcapacity and managing fishing 
capacity in general has been a recurrent theme in reforms of the CFP.  

The  2011  Commission  proposal  maintained  the  general  obligation  for  Member  States  to 
adjust the fleet capacity to the fishing opportunities and brought in a system of Transferable 
Fishing  Concessions  (TFCs).  These  concessions  were  seen  to  constitute  a  major  driver  to 
adjust  fleet  capacity,  eliminate  overcapacity  and  improve  economic  results  of  the  fishing 
industry. The proposal highlighted that a basic fleet management policy remained necessary 
with overall fishing capacity ceilings per Member State set by the Commission. TFCs would 
accelerate  the  process  of  reducing  fleet  capacity,  justifying  that  Member  States  should  be 
allowed to exclude vessels with such concessions from the capacity ceiling. 

in  a  specific  fleet  policy.  Article 22(1)  of 

The  2013  reform  brought 
the  CFP 
Regulation requires Member States to ‘put in place measures to adjust the fishing capacity of 
their  fleet  to  their  fishing  opportunities  over  time,  taking  into  account  trends  and  based  on 
best scientific advice, with the objective of achieving a stable and enduring balance between 
them’. Under Article 22(2) of the Regulation, ‘Member States shall send to the Commission, 
by 31 May each year, a report on the balance between the fishing capacity of their fleets and 
their  fishing  opportunities  [which]  shall  contain  the  annual  capacity  assessment  of  the 
national fleet and of all fleet segments of the Member State’.  

222 

Fishing capacity is a vessel’s gross tonnage (GT) and power in kilowatts (kW), as defined  in Articles 4 and 5 of 
Council Regulation (EEC) No 2930/86. ‘GT’ actually measures a vessel’s enclosed volume, and ‘kW’ measures the 
maximum engine power available for propulsion. 

EN 

70 

EN 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
That assessment must be carried out against the biological, economic and technical indicators 
specified  in  the  Commission’s  guidelines.  Article 22(4)  provides  that  ‘if  the  assessment 
clearly  demonstrates  that  the  fishing  capacity  is  not  effectively  balanced  with  fishing 
opportunities, the Member State shall prepare and include in its report an action plan for the 
fleet  segments  with  identified  structural  overcapacity  [which]  shall  set  out  the  adjustment 
targets and tools to achieve a balance and a clear timeframe for its implementation’. 

The  Member  States  provide  fleet  assessments  in  their  annual  fleet  reports  sent  to  the 
Commission by 31 May each year. The reports are made public on the Europa website223 and 
assessed by the STEFC. 

To ensure a  common approach in all annual  national  fleet  reports, in 2014 the Commission 
issued  guidelines  for  the  Member  States224  to  analyse  the  balance  between  fishing  capacity 
and  fishing  opportunities.  These  guidelines225  are  defined  in  and  follow  the  best  possible 
scientific,  economic  and  technical  practices.  They  ensure  compatibility  with  standard 
biological, economic and social assessments with the goal of providing an assessment of the 
imbalance between each fleet segment and the stocks they rely on.  

These indicators are designed to be used together to assess whether there is an imbalance for 
each fleet separately. In general, fleet segments that rely on healthy stocks are also profitable 
both in the short- and long-term and are likely to be in balance. The CFP Regulation refers to 
balance  (and  imbalance)  over  time,  so  it  is  appropriate  to  assess  several  years  rather  than  a 
single year.  

Based on Article 26 of the CFP Regulation,  the  Commission  consults  the  STECF to  review 
the Member States’  annual  fleet  reports.  Each  year, the STECF is  requested to  carry out  its 
own assessment of the balance between fishing capacity and the fishing opportunities for the 
EU fleet segments but also to review the annual fleet reports and associated action plans (see 
below)  submitted  by  the  Member  States.  The  final  assessment  is  published  on  the  STECF 
website in November each year. When the assessment in an annual fleet report demonstrates 
an imbalance, the Member State is reminded of its obligation to prepare an action plan for the 
fleet segments with identified structural overcapacity, in accordance with Article 22(4) of the 
CFP Regulation. This plan sets adjustment targets and tools to achieve a balance and a clear 
time frame for its implementation.  

Each year, as part of the Communication launching the consultation on fishing opportunities, 
the Commission issues  a report on the balance between the fishing  capacity of the Member 
States’ fleets and their fishing opportunities. This report is published in June each year. 

The size of the EU fleet has been steadily decreasing since 1996. Today, all Member States 
report an overall fishing fleet capacity that is well within the capacity ceilings set by the CFP 
Regulation.  

223 

224 
225 

Fleet  capacity  reports  2020:  https://oceans-and-fisheries.ec.europa.eu/fisheries/rules/fishing-fleet-capacities/fleet-
capacity-reports-2020_en. 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32019R1022. 
As defined in COM(2014) 545. 

EN 

71 

EN 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
3.9.3.  Fishing capacity ceilings 

Since  the  creation  of  the  common  fisheries  policy,  the  EU  fishing  fleet  has  evolved 
significantly.  Its  nominal  capacity  has  decreased  but  studies226  suggest  that  technological 
progress has boosted effective efficiency. An important way to prevent fishing capacity from 
increasing is the entry/exit scheme (Article 23). The entry/exit scheme sets out that the entry 
into  the  fleet  of  new  capacity  without  public  aid  must  be  offset  by  the  prior  withdrawal  of 
capacity without public aid of at least the same amount.  

To  ensure  that  the  European  fleet  does  not  expand  and  thus  remains  sustainable  and 
profitable, since 2013 the Member States must ensure that their fleet does not exceed at any 
time the fishing capacity ceilings (in terms of overall gross tonnage and kilowatt) initially set 
out  in  the  CFP  Regulation.  They  must  also  ensure  that  fishing  capacity  corresponding  to 
fishing vessels withdrawn with public aid is not be replaced. This leads to a lowering of the 
fishing  capacity  ceilings  for  both  gross  tonnage  and  kilowatt.  An  updated  list  of  fishing 
capacity  ceilings  is  provided  in  Annex  4  to  this  document.  The  current  fishing  capacity 
ceilings  are  mostly  higher  than  the  capacity  of  the  active  fleet,  leaving  Member  States  a 
relatively comfortable margin in which to manage their fleet. 

3.9.4.  Fishing fleet register 

To  help  monitor  fishing  capacity  management  and  provide  information  for  control  and 
inspection,  the  Member  States  are  required  to  record  information  on  the  characteristics  and 
activity of the fishing vessels flying their flag in the EU fishing fleet register227. Updates from 
national registers are made almost in real time. 

In 2019, a Commission evaluation of the entry/exit scheme,228 concluded that the scheme is fit 
for  purpose  as  an  instrument  to  prevent  fishing  capacity  from  increasing.  The  entry/exit 
scheme has proven effective in contexts where other conservation and management measures 
alone are insufficient to regulate the use of fishing capacity through enforceable input (such as 
licences)  and  output  measures  (such  as  quotas).  A  Commission  study  on  engine  power 
verification229 brought to surface concerns regarding control and enforcement by the Member 
States. It highlighted that for some Member States, the data on engine power might be closer 
to the capacity ceilings. In 2022, the Commission set up a technical working group on engine 
power  with  the  aim  of  supporting  Member  States'  work  on  engine  power  controls  by 
developing  common  harmonised  standards  and  technical  guidelines  on  engine  power 
monitoring,  certification  and  verification.  The  technical  working  group  involves  Member 
State experts and stakeholders  in  the field of  engine power controls (e.g. certifying entities, 
classification societies, engine manufactures). 

226 

227 
228 

229 

For  example,  Villasante,  S.  and  U.S.  Sumaila  (2010),  Estimating  the  effects  of  technological  efficiency  on  the 
European fishing fleet, Marine Policy (2010) 720-722. 
https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fleet-europa/index_en. 
Commission staff working document, Executive summary of the evaluation of the Entry/Exit scheme in accordance 
with Article 23(3) of Regulation (EU) 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Common 
Fisheries Policy. Staff working document (2019) 312 final. 
European Commission, Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, Study on engine power verification 
by Member States: final report, Publications Office, 2019, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2771/945320. 

EN 

72 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
As the vessel information contained in the Fleet Register is uploaded directly by the Member 
States,  this  information  may  not  always  be  fully  accurate  or  entirely  up-to-date.  The 
Commission  carried  out  quality  checks  and,  where  relevant,  Member  States  are  asked  to 
verify  the  situation  and  update  the  register.  The  EU  fleet  register  will  enable  validation  of 
historical information entered by the Member States for each vessel.  

3.9.5.  Fishing fleets in the outermost regions 

The  state  of  the  fleet  in  some  outermost  regions  is  a  challenge  for  the  future  of  the  fishing 
sector; it is sometimes necessary to invest in new vessels. The rules under the CFP Regulation 
allow for the construction of new fishing vessels with private funds, along with safeguards to 
prevent the fleet’s fishing capacity from increasing.  

Considering the particular status of the outermost regions under Article 349 of the Treaty and 
the prevailing challenges to  their socioeconomic development  due to  the specific factors set 
out  in  that  Article,  the  Guidelines  for  the  examination  of  State  aid  for  fisheries  and 
aquaculture sectors (“State aid Guidelines”) were amended230 in November 2018 to introduce 
the  possibility  for  State  aid  for  the  renewal  of  fishing  fleets  in  the  outermost  regions.  Such 
change  followed-up  the  Communication  from  the  Commission  on  a  stronger  and  renewed 
strategic  partnership  with  the  EU’s  Outermost  regions  of  October  2017231.  The  granting  of 
such aid  is subject  to  specific conditions  including that there is  balance  between the fishing 
capacity and fishing opportunities in the fleet segment of the outermost  region to which the 
new vessel will belong.  In line with  the State aid guidelines for fisheries and aquaculture232 
and  the  CFP  Regulation,  this  balance  must  be  demonstrated  in  the  latest annual  fleet  report 
prepared by the Member State in  accordance with  Article 22(2) and (3)  of Regulation  (EU) 
No 1380/2013, taking account of biological, economic and vessel use indicators set out in the 
Fleet Indicators guidelines233 

Since this provision was included in the State aid guidelines, Member States have started to 
explore  the  scope  to  grant  aid  for  the  renewal  of  vessels  for  some  fleet  segments  in  some 
outermost  regions.  A  key  challenge  is  the  need  for  the  Member  States  to  improve  the  data 
underpinning the assessments of the balance in their national reports.  

To help clarify the data needs and support the Member States, in 2022 the Commission sought 
expertise from the STECF via an ad hoc contract. The objective of the contract was to provide 
the  Member  States  concerned  (Spain,  France,  Portugal)  with  a  scientific  opinion  on  the 

230 Communication from the Commission amending the Guidelines for the examination of State aid to the 

fishery and aquaculture sector, OJ C 422, 22.11.2018, p. 1 

231 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic  and 
Social Committee, the Committee of the Regions and the European Investment Bank, “ A stronger and 
renewed strategic partnership with the EU's outermost regions” COM/2017/0623 final 
Communication from the Commission – Guidelines for the examination of State aid to the fishery and aquaculture   
sector, OJ C 217, 2 July 2015, p. 1, as amended by the Communication published in OJ C 422, 22.11.2018, p. 1.  
the  Commission  are  available  here:  https://competition- 
The  new  State  aid  Guidelines  endorsed  by 
policy.ec.europa.eu/sectors/agriculture/legislation_en 

232   

233  

EN 

Guidelines for the analysis of the balance between fishing capacity and fishing opportunities according to Art 22 of 
Regulation  (EU)  No  1380/2013  of  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  on  the  Common  Fisheries  Policy 
(COM(2014) 545 final). 

73 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
  
  
  
potential actions they could take in the short term to improve data collection and the quality of 
reporting on the balance between their fishing capacity and the fishing opportunities available 
in certain segments. 

3.9.6.  Opportunities and challenges 

The  EU  fishing  fleet  is  currently  at  a  crossroads:  climate  change,  technological  creep234, 
economic  sustainability  challenged  by  the  depletion  of  natural  resources  (including  fish 
stocks) as well as increasing fuel prices, the need for safer conditions on board are only a few 
examples of the drivers. 

The  Member  States  are  invited  to  ensure  the  data  needed  to  prepare  the  annual  fleet  report 
based on the guidelines is collected235. 

It  is  essential  to  implement  the  current  rules  in  full  to  ensure  a  level  playing  field.  The 
Commission  continues  to  follow  up  with  Member  States  to  address  concerns  and,  where 
relevant, draft action plans to remedy any imbalances and to ensure correct implementation, 
control and enforcement of the entry-exit rules and registrations in the fishing fleet register. 
The  EU  rules  on  fishing  capacity  management  also  grant  flexibility  to  Member  States  to 
manage  the  allocation  of  their  available  fishing  capacity  within  a  ceiling  and  subject  to  the 
entry/exit  scheme  and  several  Member  States  have  inactive  fishing  capacity,  which  is 
available for allocation to the fleet.  

The Commission continues to encourage Member States to increase transparency, make full 
use  of  the  opportunities  under  the  Regulation  to  manage  their  fleet  in  a  way  to  effectively 
address  existing  challenges  and  provide  impetus  for  innovation.  In  addition,  for  fleets  in 
outermost  regions,  the  Commission  will  continue  discussions  with  Member  States  and  help 
them bridge data gaps, increase the quality of their reports and bring the fleets in balance with 
the fishing opportunities available.  

3.10.  Aquaculture 

3.10.1.  Introduction 

Aquaculture,  unlike  fisheries,  falls  under  exclusive  EU  competence  only  as  regards  market 
and financial measures236. For other aspects, it falls under shared competence between the EU 
and  the  Member  States237  under  the  same  conditions  applicable  to  agricultural  policy. 
‘Aquaculture products’ are included in the broader scope of ‘agricultural products’.  

A number of other horizontal EU policies, such as those ensuring environmental protection or 
human and animal health, also apply to aquaculture. However, with a few exceptions (notably 
for the control of diseases in aquatic animals), the EU regulatory framework developed under 
most of these horizontal policies is not designed to addressing specifically a given economic 

234 
235 
236 
237 

‘Technological creep’ is the term given to this method of advancing fishing capacity. 
COM(2014) 545. 
Article 1(1)(b) of the CFP Regulation. 
Article 4(d) of the Treaty of the functioning of the EU. 

EN 

74 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
sector such as aquaculture. However, this framework can have a direct and significant impact 
on the development and evolution of this type of activity in the EU.  

3.10.2.

Background: from 2009 to the state of play of 2022 

In  the  2009  Green  Paper,  the  need  for  a  new  strategy  on  aquaculture  addressing  the 
bottlenecks  that  prevent  the  sector  from  developing  was  highlighted  and  the  European 
Commission  adopted  in  2009  a  Communication  on  aquaculture238.  This  new  strategy  also 
emphasised the importance of considering this need in the process of the 2013 CFP reform. 
The  previous  CFP  Regulation  (Reg.  No 2371/2002)  only  provided  under  Article 1(2),  that, 
‘The  Common  fisheries  policy  shall  provide  for  coherent  measures  concerning: (…) 
Aquaculture.’  In  practice  however,  the  EU  intervention  under  the  ‘fisheries  policy’  for 
aquaculture mainly consisted in possibilities for support under the ‘structural pillar’ (namely 
the European Fisheries Fund)239. Providing support and setting the priorities remained totally 
for  national  or  even  regional  authorities.  Aquaculture  products  were  also  partly  covered  by 
some measures under the ‘market pillar’ of the CFP, such as labelling requirements. 

The 2011 Commission proposal highlighted this problem and justified the need for a  reform 
to promote the development of aquaculture. The 2013 CFP reform brought in for the first time 
the sustainable development of aquaculture as a pillar of the CFP ‘with a view to promoting 
sustainability and contributing to food security and supplies, growth and employment’ (para 
1 of Article 34). Since Member States have competence on most issues related to aquaculture, 
Article 34 set up a system of strategic coordination to achieve this objective across Member 
States.  

With  the  aim  of  facilitating  aquaculture  development  in  the  EU,  Article 34  mandated  the 
Commission to adopt non-binding EU strategic guidelines on common priorities and targets to 
develop  sustainable  aquaculture  activities  in  the  EU240.  Those  guidelines  were  adopted  in 
2013241. Article 34 also  brought  in  an obligation for Member States to  draw up  multiannual 
national strategic plans to develop aquaculture in their territories using the strategic guidelines 
as a basis242. All Member States, except Luxembourg, had adopted a plan by 2015.  

In addition to these two main instruments of strategic coordination, Article 34 establishes the 
exchange of information and best practices among Member States through the open method of 
coordination of the national measures contained in multiannual national strategic plans. This 

238 

239 

240 

241 

242 

‘Building a sustainable future for aquaculture – A new impetus for the Strategy for the Sustainable Development of 
European Aquaculture’ (COM(2009) 162). 
Commission Regulation (EC) No 498/2007 of 26 March 2007 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of 
Council Regulation (EC) No 1198/2006 on the European Fisheries Fund. 
This article identifies the objectives of such guidelines (i.e. increasing competitiveness and supporting development 
and  innovation,  reducing  administrative  burden  and  making  the  implementation  of  EU  legislation  more  efficient 
and responsive to the needs of stakeholders, encouraging economic activity, diversification and improvement of the 
quality of life in coastal and inland areas, and integrating aquaculture activities in spatial planning). 
Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social 
Committee  and  the  Committee  of  the  Regions,  Strategic  Guidelines  for  the  sustainable  development  of  EU 
aquaculture, COM/2013/0229 final. 
Article 34  provides  that  these  plans  must  include  the  Member  State’s  objectives  and  the  measures  and  the 
timetables necessary to achieve them. Article 34(4) lists the aims of those plans. 

EN 

75 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
exchange  was  mainly  carried  out  in  technical  seminars  of  Member  State  experts  on 
aquaculture organised by the European Commission. 

The Commission undertook an interim evaluation of the open method of coordination for the 
sustainable  development  of  EU  aquaculture  based  on  an  independent  evaluation  report 
prepared by external consultants243. As a follow up to the conclusions of this evaluation, the 
Commission  decided  to  work  on  new  strategic  guidelines  for  EU  aquaculture,  in  close 
consultation with Member States and stakeholders.  

The Commission adopted in 2021 strategic guidelines for a more sustainable and competitive 
EU aquaculture244, following close consultations with Member States and stakeholders and a 
strong  involvement  of  the  Aquaculture  Advisory  Council.  The  guidelines  acknowledge  that 
progress  has  been  made  to  overcome  the  obstacles  and  unlock  the  potential  of  sustainable 
aquaculture in the EU under Article 34 of the CFP Regulation, as well as the support of EU 
funding. Nonetheless, the EU aquaculture sector is still far from reaching its full potential in 
terms of growth and meeting the increasing demand for more sustainable seafood. Realising 
this  potential  has  become  even  more  important  in  the  context  of  the  European  Green  Deal 
agenda, the Farm to Fork Strategy and the need to ensure food security given the recent crises.  

3.10.3.  Opportunities and challenges 

Member States have reviewed their multiannual strategic plans for aquaculture (MNSPA) in 
light  of the new guidelines and  trends in  the sector. They have also  provided for support to 
aquaculture  in  their  EMFAF  programmes.  The  Commission  will  assess  the  progress  made 
under the new strategic guidelines in 2025 at the latest245. This will also be the opportunity to 
assess  progress  in  implementing  new  multiannual  strategic  plans  for  aquaculture  and 
implementing Article 34 of the CFP Regulation.  

The Farm to Fork Strategy and the new strategic guidelines on EU aquaculture recognise the 
enormous potential of algae to contribute to multiple objectives of the European Green Deal. 
The  Commission  has  adopted  a  specific  Communication  to  support  the  sustainable 
production, safe consumption and innovative use of algae and algae-based products246. This 
initiative will address the challenges and opportunities of algae farming and propose concrete 
action.  

In  the  Mediterranean,  the  GFCM  has  consolidated  the  objective  to  develop  sustainable 
aquaculture  activities  with  the  adoption  of  guidelines  on  different  aspects  of  aquaculture  as 
part  of  the  implementation  of  the  2017  strategy  for  the  sustainable  development  of 

243  

244 

245 

246 

https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/83f2aed6-b33c-11e9-9d01-
01aa75ed71a1/language-en, SWD 2020/7 final. 
Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social 
Committee and the Committee and the Committee of the Regions, Strategic guidelines for a more sustainable and 
competitive EU aquaculture for the period 2021 to 2030, COM/2021/236 final. 
‘The  Commission  will  undertake,  not  later  than  four  years  after  the  publication  of  this  Communication,  an 
assessment of: (i) the progress made in developing the recommended actions in the annex; and (ii) the efficiency of 
these actions in helping achieve the objectives laid down in these new strategic guidelines, with the possibility of 
adapting actions accordingly.  By  2029,  an  evaluation  of  the new Strategic  Guidelines  will  be  carried out,  which 
will assess their efficiency, effectiveness, coherence, relevance and EU added value, to provide the evidence base 
and support the decision on the next steps after 2030.’ 
Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social 
Committee  and  the  Committee  of  the  Regions,  Towards  a  Strong  and  Sustainable  EU  Algae  Sector, 
COM/2022/592 final. 

EN 

76 

EN 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Mediterranean and Black Sea aquaculture. The new 2030 strategy includes a specific target of 
growth of aquaculture as a sustainable and resilient sector. Aquaculture is an important sector 
in  this  region  as  it  plays  a  major  role  in  food  security,  employment  and  economic 
development,  in  the  face  of  the  rising  demand  for  seafood,  while  delivering  social  and 
economic benefits, including diversification solutions to coastal communities. 

Through  its  Communication  on  the  energy  transition  in  the  EU  fisheries  and  aquaculture 
sector 247 , the Commission aims toincreasing the sectors’ economic resilience and unlock the 
potential of aquatic foods as a sustainable source of food. 

3.11.  Regional cooperation on conservation measures – Regionalisation 

3.11.1.  Introduction 

The  aim  of  regionalisation  is  to  enable  a  bottom-up  approach  to  fisheries  governance  by 
enabling  lower-level  authorities  and  stakeholders  to  step  into  the  fisheries  management 
process  and  design  tailor-made  management  on  a  regional  scale248.  It  should  also  lead  to  a 
greater  involvement  of  stakeholders  in  the  fisheries  management  process.  The  CFP 
Regulation  recognises  that  dialogue  with  stakeholders  has  proven  to  be  essential  to  achieve 
the CFP objectives249.  

3.11.2.  Background: from 2009 to the state of play in 2022 

The 2009 Green Paper discussed the scope to take a regional approach to the CFP to address 
complaints about ‘micro-management from Brussels’, and the rigid top-down approach in EU 
fisheries management that lacked flexibility and adaptation to local and regional conditions. 
The  2013  CFP  reform  brought  in  a  regional  approach  to  governance.  Given  the  diverse 
conditions throughout EU waters and the rise in the regional approach to the CFP, Advisory 
Councils  were  designed  to  enable  the  CFP  to  draw  on  the  knowledge  and  experience  of  all 
stakeholders250.  This  is  also  emphasised  in  the  principles  of  good  governance251  that  guides 
the CFP. 

The key aspects covered by regionalisation include252: 

(i)  adopting  the  conservation  measures  needed  for  Member  States  to  comply  with 
certain environmental obligations;  
(ii) adapting the landing obligation to comply with the EU’s international obligations;  
(ii) extending the landing obligation to other species;  
(iii)  adopting  specific  temporary  discard  plans,  and  details  on  implementing  the 
landing obligation in MAPs; 

247 

248 

249 
250 
251 
252 

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social 
Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the energy transition of the EU fisheries and aquaculture sector 
COM(2023)100 
Recital  39  of  the  CFP  Regulation:  Member  States  should  cooperate  at  regional  level  in  order  to  adopt  joint 
recommendations  and  other  instruments  for  the  development  and  implementation  of  conservation  measures  and 
measures affecting fishing activity in areas protected by environmental law. 
Recital 65 of the CFP Regulation. 
Recital 65 of the CFP Regulation. 
Article 3 of the CFP Regulation. 
Recital 67 of the CFP Regulation. 

EN 

77 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
(iv)  adopting  de  minimis  exemptions  to  the  landing  obligation  if  no  other 
implementation measure for that obligation has been adopted;  
(v) drawing up measures and rules on the functioning of Advisory Councils; and 
(vi)  adopting  new  technical  measures  to  improve  selectivity,  establish  area  closures  
or minimum conservation reference sizes. 

In  each  sea  basin,  multiple  Member  States  cooperate  on  conservation  measures  for  their 
fisheries within Member State regional groups. Seven groups253 have been set up: 

1.  BaltFish  covering  the  Baltic  Sea  (Estonia,  Latvia,  Lithuania,  Poland,  Germany, 

Denmark, Sweden and Finland) 

2.  The  North  Western  Waters  Group  covering  North  Western  Waters  (Ireland, 

France, Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands);  

3.  the  Scheveningen  Group  covering  the  North  Sea  (Belgium,  Denmark,  Germany, 

France, the Netherlands, Sweden);  

4.  the  South Western  Waters  Group  covering  the  South  Western Waters  (Belgium, 

France, Portugal, Spain);  

5.  PescaMed covering Western Mediterranean Sea (France, Italy, Spain);  
6.  Adriatica covering the Adriatic Sea (Croatia, Italy, Slovenia); and  
7.  SudestMed covering the south-eastern Mediterranean Sea (Cyprus, Greece, Italy, 

Malta) 

These groups are not permanent bodies, they do not have a secretariat and are not recognised 
with  an  official  role  by  law.  They  typically  operate  on  the  basis  of  a  Memorandum  of 
Understanding  between  the  Member  States  concerned.  Most  regional  groups  have  three 
subgroups:  a  technical  group;  a  control  expert  group  (despite  the  fact  that  there  is  no 
regionalisation on control); and a high-level group.  

Article 18  of  the  CFP  Regulation  provides  for  rules  governing  the  regionalisation  process. 
The process covers work by the Member States’ regional groups, the Advisory Councils and 
the  European  Commission,  which  need  to  work  together  to  operationalise  the  process.  This 
approach enables Member States with a management interest to propose detailed conservation 
(including  technical)  measures  in  joint  recommendations,  having  consulted  the  Advisory 
Councils. The measures can be implemented into EU law by the Commission as delegated or 
implementing  acts,  on  the  basis  of  scientific,  technical  and  economic  advice  provided  by 
advisory bodies such as the STECF. After a delegated act is adopted by the Commission, it is 
transmitted to the Parliament (via the responsible committee) and the Council (via the relevant 
working party). If the European Parliament or the Council objects to the delegated act within 
two months, the act does not enter into force. The co-legislators may request an extension of 
this period by a further two months. 

The new landing obligation, which was phased in as of 2015, resulted in a large increase in 
the number of measures  related to discard plans since 2016. First, as these measures had an 
immediate impact on fishing practices, they are extremely relevant to the fishing industry and 
to Member States, and therefore it was the focus of much work over the last couple of years. 
Second, at the same time, the focus on the landing obligation might have had an impact on the 
delivery and capacity for other topics. Measures adopted in the early transition phase related 

253  

The  Black  Sea  with  only  two  Member  States,  does  not  have  a  formal  regional  group  but  follows  the 
same the same article 18 procedure of the CFP Regulation 

EN 

78 

EN 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
to  the  landing  obligation  are  no  longer  in  force  because  of  their  temporary  nature  and  they 
were  either  repealed  or  amended  via  delegated  regulations  during  implementation  of  the 
landing obligation. One of the reasons is that scientific evidence demonstrating high survival 
rates,  or  evaluating  requirements  for  de  minimis  regulations,  was  not  available  for  all 
species/areas/gear in the first years of the landing obligation. This required the stakeholders to 
submit  new  joint  recommendations  in  the  subsequent  years  on  the  basis  of  new  scientific, 
technical and economic advice which were then adopted by the Commission as delegated acts 
specifying details of implementation of the landing obligation. 

New scientific evidence  gradually  came in  to  underpin  joint  recommendations submitted by 
the Member States  and  Advisory  Councils. The  joint  recommendations were then  evaluated 
by  the STECF and if considered sufficiently justified by the Commission,  incorporated into 
legislation. There has been a recent increase in the number of delegated acts that contribute to 
the environmental objectives under Article 11 of the CFP Regulation (conservation measures 
necessary for compliance with obligations under EU environmental legislation) and under the 
Technical Measures Regulation.  

Since 2014, the Commission has adopted 82 delegated acts in total (including those ‘adopted 
and in force’, ‘adopted and subject to scrutiny’, ‘no longer in force’, ‘adopted but Parliament 
objected’;  Figure  2).  Of  these  delegated  acts,  41  are  no  longer  in  force.  In  addition,  12 
delegated acts are being prepared but not yet adopted (classified as ‘upcoming’). The highest 
numbers of delegated acts adopted so far cover the North Sea.  

s
t
c
a

d
e
t
a
g
e
l
e
d
f
o

r
e
b
m
u
N

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

Adopted and in force

Adopted (under scrutiny
or EP objected)

Upcoming

Article 11

Technical Measures Regulation

Article 15

Figure 2 Number of current delegated acts in force and upcoming delegated acts related to Articles 11 and 15 
and to the  Technical Measures Regulation of the CFP Regulation. Article 15 relates to the landing obligation 
and Article 11 relates to environmental obligations that Member States are obligated to fulfil in their sovereign 
waters under the Habitats Directive (Article 6 of Directive 92/43/EC), the Birds Directive (Article 4 of Directive 
2009/147/EC), and the Marine strategy framework directive (Article 13(4) of Directive 2008/56/EC). 

However,  regionalisation  has  yielded  more  than  drafted  or  adopted  legislation.  In  a  recent 
study254,  the  Advisory  Councils  and  the  Member  States  regional  groups  were  consulted  to 
provide a comprehensive overview of how the regionalisation process works under the CFP. 

254 

European  Commission,  European  Climate,  Infrastructure  and  Environment  Executive  Agency,  Van  Bogaert,  N., 
Lemey,  L.,  De  Peuter,  S.,  et  al.,  CFP  regionalisation:  final  report,  Hintzen,  N.(editor),  Wakeford,  R.(editor), 
Publications Office of the European Union, 2022. 

EN 

79 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
 
 
The study concluded that overall, regionalisation has fulfilled its expectations, though not in 
all  fields.  While  it  is  seen  as  an  improvement  to  the  system  used  before  2004,  stakeholders 
agree that more work is needed to apply regionalisation in practice. Concerning the objective 
under the good governance principle of 'better involvement of stakeholders' the study shows 
that the structure, procedures and experience of stakeholder involvement in the CFP are there, 
but  that  its  functioning  can  be  improved.  This  could  be  achieved  by  strengthening  their 
capacity  and  improving  engagement  protocols,  especially  between  Advisory  Councils  and 
Member States regional groups. The study also found that there are wide differences in how 
Member  States  regional  groups  operate  and  whether  they  have  formal  working  procedures. 
The Advisory Councils have clear working procedures, websites, and by and large their work 
is transparent. This is not the case for the Member States regional groups, for which a lot of 
information  on  their  structure,  working  procedures  and  meeting  outcomes  are  not  publicly 
available. 

Overall, stakeholders feel that regionalisation improved implementation of the CFP in terms 
of data collection, implementation of the technical measures and the landing obligation. It has 
provided a useful  channel  for individuals to  put  their points across and discuss  them with  a 
broader  spectrum  of  stakeholders,  which  has  worked  better  than  writing  position  papers  or 
lobbying. They found the distribution of the Advisory Councils and Member States regional 
groups  in  the  different  sea  basins  an  improvement  as  it  provides  an  EU-wide  fora  for 
discussions on fisheries management issues. The direct and close cooperation among different 
institutions  (European  Commission,  Advisory  Councils,  scientists,  Member  States  regional 
groups) is also seen as an advantage of regionalisation. However, stakeholders also feel that 
many  of  the  perceived  benefits  from  the  regionalisation  process  have  not  yet  been  realised. 
The  study  concluded  that  some  stakeholders  stated  that  regionalisation  has  contributed  to  a 
watering  down  of  the  management  objectives  of  the  CFP.  Some  indicated  a  general 
dissatisfaction  that  their  advice  is  not  sufficiently  incorporated  and  therefore  found  their 
involvement to be  a loss (or waste). Assessment based on the objectives of Article 2 shows 
that establishment of the ACs and MSGs through the structure of regionalisation (Article 18 
of  the  CFP)  and  the  management  measures  taken  in  this  context  have  influenced  the 
attainment of different CFP policy objectives since 2013. 

In conclusion, consolidating the role of the Advisory Councils and setting up regional groups 
participating  in  the  structure  governing  the  regionalisation  (process)  and  the  management 
measures taken have influenced the attainment of theCFP policy objectives listed in Article 2 
of the CFP Regulation since 2013. 

3.11.3.  Regional coordination under the Data Collection Framework 

The Member States located in the same sea basin or sharing the same fisheries coordinate data 
collection in regional coordination groups255. These groups agree on common data collection 
methodologies and approaches to respond to calls for data, they agree to share the tasks and 
costs of scientific surveys run by Member States, coordinate sampling activities,  tackle data 
quality issues and coordinate work on regional databases. Their decisions and actions are laid 
down in recommendations, followed up with the scientific community and the Commission. 

255 

There are six regional coordination groups: Baltic (RCG BAL); North Atlantic, North Sea & Eastern Arctic (RCG 
NANSEA);  Mediterranean  &  Black  Sea  (RCG  MED&BS);  Large  Pelagics  (RCG  LP);  Long-distance  fisheries 
(RCG LDF), on the economic issues (RCG ECON). 

EN 

80 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
The regional coordination of sampling schemes and research surveys can generate overall cost 
savings and helps avoid  duplicating or excessive data collection. Agreements reached in the 
regional  coordination  groups  are  incorporated  into  national  work  plans  on  data  collection. 
Eventually, it will lead to regional work plans, harmonised data collection and action to tackle 
specific issues at regional level. 

The  regional  coordination  groups  are  also  a  forum  for  dialogue  with  the  main  end  users  of 
data, including the RFMOs, on issues related to their data needs, data calls, and data quality. 

3.11.4.  Opportunities and challenges 

Regionalisation  has  helped  bring  clarity  to  distinguish  principles  from  implementation.  The 
Council can now work with the European Commission and the European Parliament on long-
term  principles,  while  regional  bodies  (Member  State  groups  involving  Advisory  Councils) 
work  on  implementing  these  principles  once  agreed  by  the  co-legislators.  Therefore  the 
regionalisation as such contributes to addressing one of the five structural failings of the CFP 
as noted in the 2009 Green Paper: the focus on short-term political goals. It facilitates a focus 
on longer-term goals linked to environmental, economic and social sustainability.  

This  results-based  regional  approach  was  designed  under  the  CFP  to  bring  the  decision-
making process closer to the fishers. It also encourages Member States and the fishing sector 
to  play  an  active  role  in  making  and  implementing  decisions.  The  range  of  joint 
recommendations  already  put  forward  demonstrates  that  regionalisation  can  be  effective  in 
and suitable for providing targeted and tailor-made technical measures. Member States have 
demonstrated  that  regional  cooperation  can  be  swift  and  efficient.  However,  improvements 
are needed in terms of speed and ambition to develop and agree on joint recommendations on 
measures to improve selectivity or to regulate fisheries in order for Member States to comply 
with their obligations stemming from EU environmental legislation. 

The regionalisation approach under the CFP has been applied to shaping and refining regional 
measures  in  the  EU  in  this  decision-making  process,  but  it  does  not  include  third  countries 
(e.g. Norway or the UK). This can pose challenges for the Commission representing the EU in 
international consultations and negotiations for fisheries both in terms of timing and content. 
Since the majority of fish stocks are now under shared management with third countries, this 
needs to be reflected upon.  

For  cooperation  with  the  UK,  the  Trade  and  Cooperation  Agreement  obliges  each  party  to 
notify  the  other  of  measures  they  intend  to  take,  and  to  provide  sufficient  time  to  the  other 
party to provide comments and request  clarifications  before implementation. Such measures 
must  comply  with  the  principles  and  objectives  set  out  in  Articles  494  of  the  Trade  and 
Cooperation Agreement, which resemble the core principles of the CFP itself.  

The  Trade  and  Cooperation  Agreement  also  establishes  the  Specialised  Committee  on 
Fisheries as a forum for cooperation between the Parties, including on questions of measures 
for  fisheries  management  and  conservation.  The  changing  landscape  for  the  EU's  shared 
stocks with  the UK will challenge the  way that  both  the regional Member State  groups and 
Advisory Councils operate and how it effectively feeds into the decision-making processes. It 
is likely that considerable adaptation will be needed, both in terms of formal processes and in 
the way that new approaches are designed, in possible cooperation with a third country. 

EN 

81 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3.12.  Advisory Councils 

3.12.1.  Introduction 
Advisory Councils256 are stakeholder organisations composed of operators in the fishery and 
aquaculture sector and other interest groups that have a link with the CFP. They were created 
by the 2002 CFP reform, a long time before the  introduction of a regionalised approach  for 
the  CFP  in  2013.  The  objective  was  to  provide  the  Commission  and  Member  States  with 
advice and information  on issues related  to  the implementation of the CFP. Seven Regional 
Advisory  Councils  (RACs)  were  established  through  a  Council  Decision  in  2004  in  their 
respective areas of competence257 (Figure 3). 

3.12.2.  Background: from 2011 to the state of play in 2022 

In 2011, the Commission proposed to consolidate and where possible extend the experience 
with  RACs  under  the  CFP.  The  Commission  recommended  renaming  the  RACs  Advisory 
Councils to  remove the  regional character.  It  also  advised creating  an  Advisory Council for 
Aquaculture  (AAC)  and  an  Advisory  Council  for  the  Black  Sea  (BLSAC).  Lastly,  the 
Commission recognised the role of the RACs as instruments to foster dialogue and consensus 
between  stakeholders,  and  to  provide  insight  to  the  Commission  into  policy  decisions. 
Dialogue  with  stakeholders  was  considered  essential  to  draw  on  their  knowledge  and 
experience  in  developing  the  policy  and  to  receive  their  support  afterwards.  A  bottom-up 
involvement  of  stakeholders  from  the  design  of  CFP  measures  to  implementation  was 
considered  more  suitable  to  achieve  the  objectives.  However,  as  some  RACs  were  not  yet 
fully operational in 2012, there were concerns that stakeholder representation was too narrow. 

The  2013  CFP  reform  transformed  the  seven  RACs  into  Advisory  Councils  and  included 
aquaculture in their mandate. As proposed by the Commission, the AAC was created to focus 
on the specific nature of aquaculture and the need to  consult  stakeholders  on aspects  of EU 
policies  that  could  affect  aquaculture.  The  BLSAC  was  created  to  provide  advice  on 
conservation policy in the Black Sea and boost cooperation between Romania, Bulgaria and 
their sea-basin neighbours. In addition, the 2013 CFP reform created an Advisory Council for 
Markets  (MAC)  and  an  Advisory  Council  for  the  outermost  regions  (CC  RUP)  to  focus  on 
these specific issues. 

256 
257 

https://oceans-and-fisheries.ec.europa.eu/fisheries/scientific-input/advisory-councils_en. 
Council Decision 2004/585/EC of 19 July 2004 (OJ L 256, 3.8.2004, p. 17). 

EN 

82 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Figure  3:  Timeline  representing  when  each  Advisory  Council  was  founded  (legally  and  operationally;  image: 
study on CFP regionalisation258). 

3.12.3.  The role of the Advisory Councils 

The role Advisory Councils play has increased as a result of the more regionalised approach 
to the CFP. Since 2013, Member States regional groups are obliged to consult the Advisory 
Councils  on  joint  recommendations  under  preparation  at  regional  level.  The  Advisory 
Councils may also submit recommendations on CFP matters and inform the Commission and 
Member  States  of  problems  in  their  area  of  competence259.  The  Advisory  Councils  are 
regularly  invited  to  provide  input  to  public  consultations  launched  by  the  Commission,  in 
particular on new legislative proposals. 

With 11 Advisory Councils fully operational since 2020, the number of recommendations has 
steadily increased over the past few years. Since 2018, more than 100 advice notes have been 
submitted  each  year.  These  recommendations  cover  a  very  wide  range  of  subjects  and  are 
essential  for  the  CFP  as  they  provide  the  Commission  with  the  experience  and  knowledge 
needed. The Commission's replies are then published on the Advisory Councils’ websites.  

To  improve  transparency  and  give  stakeholders  feedback  on  their  advice,  more  visibility 
could be given to the work of the Advisory Councils by systematically including references to 

258 

259 

European  Commission,  European  Climate,  Infrastructure  and  Environment  Executive  Agency,  Van  Bogaert,  N., 
Lemey,  L.,  De  Peuter,  S.,  et  al.,  CFP  regionalisation:  final  report,  Hintzen,  N.(editor),  Wakeford,  R.(editor), 
Publications Office of the European Union, 2022. 
The Commission and Member States are obliged to reply within two months to any recommendation received and 
to take the advice by Advisory Councils into account. When final measures diverge from the advice received, the 
Commission and where relevant the Member State concerned must state the reasons for divergence. 

EN 

83 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
the discussions held or recommendations received in new measures adopted. The Commission 
should also continue giving feedback on the role played by the Advisory Councils whenever 
possible,  as  it  currently  does  in  the  staff  working  document  accompanying  the  annual 
communication on fishing opportunities. 

Recommendations  are  prepared  in  working  groups  and  voted  on  in  Executive  Committees. 
The Commission is often invited to such meetings and attends whenever needed and possible. 
With the increase in the number of meetings,  attendance by the Commission has sometimes 
been  challenging.  In  order  to  have  all  the  Advisory  Councils  present  at  the  same  time, 
receiving  the  same  information  and  contributing  together  to  discussions,  since  2021  the 
Commission  has  organised  two  to  three  inter-Advisory  Council  meetings  a  year.  These 
meetings focus on policy discussions, exchanging best practices and updating all stakeholders 
on policy files or new developments, which feed into their reflections and recommendations. 
Regular  meetings  are  also  held  with  secretariats  to  deal  with  financial  and  organisational 
issues. To facilitate attendance by the Commission to meetings, Advisory Councils have been 
invited since 2021 to forward plan their meetings and requests for Commission participation. 
All these efforts, combined with the benefits of online digital meetings, have made it possible 
for the Commission to continue to attend in a more rationalised way, in line with the greening 
policy of the Commission. 

3.12.4.  Functioning of the Advisory Councils 

The rules governing the functioning of Advisory Councils are often the source of difficulties 
in the Councils. A first difficulty is the consensus rule. Since the set-up of the RACs in 2004, 
recommendations by Advisory Councils must be adopted by Executive Committee members 
by  consensus.  If  no  consensus  can  be  reached,  dissenting  opinions  must  be  recorded  in  the 
recommendations adopted by the majority of the members present and voting.  

While providing consensus advice is one of the pillars of the Advisory Councils, the process 
of  reaching  a  consensus  has  its  disadvantages.  To  achieve  consensus,  the  risk  is  that 
recommendations might become very general and poor. They might also be submitted too late 
to  take  them  on  board  or  not  submitted  at  all  due  to  the  lack  of  consensus.  To  avoid  these 
risks,  the  Commission  informs  the  Advisory  Councils  of  their  work  programme  well  in 
advance to enable the Advisory Councils to start preparing their recommendation or advice. 
The  Commission  is  also  mindful  to  register  dissenting  opinions  if  the  consensus  cannot  be 
reached, so that each opinion is brought forward. 

Another problem comes from the unequal weight of each group of stakeholders, as defined in 
the CFP Regulation. To promote a balanced representation of all stakeholders, the 2013 CFP 
reform  increased  the  weight  of  other  interest  groups260  in  the  Advisory  Councils  from  one 
thirds to 40% of votes. 60% of votes must be allocated to sector organisations261. This means 

260 

261 

An  organisation  is  classified  as  an  ‘other  interest  group’  when  it  does  not  meet  any  of  the  criteria  laid  down  in 
paragraph 1 and: (a) is primarily active in the field of environment, consumers and human rights, health, promotion 
of  equality,  animal  health  or  welfare  or  recreational  or  sport  fishing;  or  (b)  represents  or  has  direct  or  indirect 
economic interests linked to the use of the marine environment or maritime space other than commercial fishing, 
aquaculture or the processing, marketing, distribution and retail of seafood.’ According  to Commission Delegated 
Regulation  (EU)  2022/204  of  8 December  2021  amending  Delegated  Regulation  (EU)  2015/242  laying  down 
detailed rules on the functioning of the Advisory Councils under the Common Fisheries Policy C/2021/8734. 
An  organisation  is  classified  as  a  ‘sector  organisation’  when  at  least  one  of  the  following  criteria  is  met:  (a)  the 
organisation  represents  or  has  direct  or  indirect  economic  interests  in  the  sectors  of  commercial  fishing, 
aquaculture,  processing,  marketing,  distribution  or  retail  of  seafood;  (b)  a  majority  of  the  members  of  the 

EN 

84 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
however that if a vote is held on a recommendation because no consensus could be reached, 
the industry will still win the vote as they are always the largest group attending and voting. 
This  measure  brought  in  by  the  CFP  reform  has  proven  to  be  not  very  efficient  as  other 
interest group organisations such as environmental NGOs lack the means to use these votes. 
A study carried out in November 2019 on civil dialogue groups in the  common agricultural 
policy, which used the Advisory Councils as a case study262, identified these problems. The 
solutions  proposed  by  this  study  were  either  to  assign  higher  voting  rights  to  other  interest 
group members to  reach 40% or to  have  a third  group in  addition  to  the  industry  and  other 
interest groups.  

The  Commission  also  has  a  role  to  play  in  the  functioning  of  the  Advisory  Councils  as  the 
2013 CFP reform empowered it to lay down detailed rules on the functioning of the Advisory 
Councils.  In  2014,  it  adopted  a  first  delegated  regulation263  laying  down  these  rules,  which 
was  mainly  a  carry-over  of  existing  rules,  with  additional  rules  on  small-scale  fleet 
representation  and  on  third  countries  attending  meetings.  This  regulation  was  amended  in 
2017 and in 2022 to adapt the rules to good practices developed in some Advisory Councils 
and to improve the Advisory Councils’ functioning.  

The  aim  of  the  2017  amendment264  was  to  grant  each  category  of  stakeholders  the  right  to 
decide autonomously on their representation in the Executive Committee and to encourage the 
involvement of the small-scale fleet in these Committees. The aim of the 2022 amendment265 
was to increase transparency, achieve a balanced representation of all stakeholders and respect 
all opinions. Criteria to classify members into two categories of stakeholders, the requirement 
to have a vice-chair from the other interest group and the obligation to carry out performance 
reviews are practices that some Advisory Councils already followed. They were put in place 
as new common rules to facilitate the functioning of the Advisory Councils and to give each 
stakeholder  the  assurance  that  their  voice  is  properly  heard.  However,  the  Commission  has 
always rejected this idea of setting common rules of procedures and statutes for all Advisory 
Councils because each Council has its own specific needs. 

3.12.5.  Opportunities and challenges 

Since the Advisory Councils were  set up in 2004, they have  received  an EU grant  covering 
part  of  their  functioning  costs,  which  is  directly  managed  by  the  Commission.  For  many 

organisation, either natural or legal persons, represent or have direct or indirect economic interests in the sectors of 
commercial  fishing,  aquaculture,  processing,  marketing,  distribution  or  retail  of  seafood;  (c)  the  organisation 
represents employees in the sectors related to commercial fishing, aquaculture, processing, marketing, distribution 
or retail of seafood; (d) at least 50% of the organisation’s funding originates from undertakings active in the field of 
commercial fishing, aquaculture, processing, marketing, distribution or retail of seafood; (e) the organisation fulfils 
at least one of the criteria listed in point 1(a) to 1(d) and is active in the field of environment, consumers and human 
rights, health, promotion of equality or animal health or welfare. According to Commission Delegated Regulation 
(EU) 2022/204 of 8 December 2021 amending Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/242 laying down detailed rules on 
the functioning of the Advisory Councils under the Common Fisheries Policy C/2021/8734. 
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/42188fa9-5464-11ea-aece-01aa75ed71a1/language-
en/format-PDF/source-search. 
Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/242 of 9 October 2014 laying down detailed rules on the functioning 
of the Advisory Councils under the Common Fisheries Policy. 
Commission  Delegated  Regulation  (EU)  2017/1575  of  23 June  2017  amending  Delegated  Regulation  (EU) 
2015/242  laying  down  detailed  rules  on  the  functioning  of  the  Advisory  Councils  under  the  common  fisheries 
policy C/2017/4238. 
Commission  Delegated  Regulation  (EU)  2022/204  of  8 December  2021  amending  Delegated  Regulation  (EU) 
2015/242  laying  down  detailed  rules  on  the  functioning  of  the  Advisory  Councils  under  the  Common  Fisheries 
Policy C/2021/8734. 

85 

EN 

262 

263 

264 

265 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                         
years, reimbursement of costs has been based on real costs incurred. Each Advisory Council 
had to prepare a detailed budget to be approved by the General Assembly before being sent to 
the Commission. Final payment was subject to verification by the Commission that the costs 
were eligible and in line with the financial rules. 

In order to put the emphasis on overall output rather than on costs incurred and to shift from a 
quantitative to a qualitative approach, the Commission decided in 2022 to use lump sums for 
the  reimbursement  of  costs  incurred  by  the  Advisory  Councils.  This  means  that  the  grant 
reimbursement is based on results and outputs instead of real costs. The new methodology is 
progressively  being  applied  to  each  Advisory  Council,  which  must  set  out  in  advance  the 
planned number of meetings and recommendations (outputs to be achieved) together with its 
budgetary  needs  for  the  following  year.  The  final  payment  is  made  on  the  basis  of  outputs 
achieved. Only if the overall number of recommendations and meetings significantly deviates 
from the accepted number can the lump-sum amount be reduced at the moment of the balance 
payment.  This  methodology  makes  the  budgetary  discussions  in  Advisory  Councils  much 
simpler, leaving more space and time to Advisory Council members to deal with CFP policy 
issues, prepare recommendations and reach consensus. It also avoids the relatively high costs 
of monitoring the costs incurred in operating grants with a low risk of irregularities. 

With the reinforcement of the role of the Advisory Councils with the 2013 CFP reform and 
the fact  that all are now fully operational,  their role and importance have steadily increased 
over  the  past  few  years.  Despite  challenging  conditions  since  2020,  they  have  continued  to 
function  as  key  stakeholder  consultation  bodies  and  contributed  to  all  aspects  of  the  CFP, 
including the market pillar, social aspects, food supply and security, and the impact of climate 
change  on  the  state  of  stocks.  Some  recommendations  received  on  implementation  of  the 
European  Green  Deal,  the  Biodiversity  Strategy  or  the  Farm  to  Fork  Strategy  raised  very 
relevant concerns or issues. These recommendations are always considered in the context of 
preparations  for  new  legislation  or  policy  development.  The  Advisory  Councils  have 
increasingly  worked  together  in  recent  years  to  draft  advice  on  horizontal  issues  such  as 
climate  change,  the  blue  economy  and  maritime  spatial  planning,  though  they  have  not 
resulted in any joint recommendations issued by the Member States. 

The Commission has always been very committed to the Advisory Councils and is ready to 
support  them  in  practical  ways  such  as  looking  at  the  recommendations  received,  grant 
agreements,  participating  in  meetings  and  organising  inter-Advisory  Council  meetings.  The 
Commission is also always ready to step in if needed to improve transparency and dialogue. 

Given  the  many  files  under  development  in  the  fisheries  and  maritime  domain,  a  future 
challenge  for  the  Advisory  Councils  will  be  to  carefully  assess  and  prioritise  their  tasks. 
Another challenge might be the need to engage with stakeholders competing for different uses 
of the sea, including for energy production, extraction, tourism or conservation purposes and 
seeking to join the Advisory Councils as other interest groups in order to get involved in their 
tasks. 

3.13.  External dimension 

3.13.1.  Introduction 

The international dimension of the CFP Regulation focuses on three areas: 

EN 

86 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  Preventing,  deterring  and  eliminating  illegal,  unreported  and  unregulated  fishing 
(IUU Regulation)266, with the EU actively supporting reforms of fisheries controls by 
partner  countries  to  effectively  fight  against  IUU  fishing  in  line  with  their 
international  obligations  to  ensure  compliance  with  conservation  and  management 
measures. 

  The EU concludes SFPAs with third countries in order to secure access for EU fleets 
to  an  appropriate  share  of  surplus  in  the  exclusive  economic  zone  of  these  third 
countries. In exchange, the EU must provide a fair financial contribution, including 
specific  support  to  the  sustainable  fishery  policy  of  the  third  country.  These 
agreements should generate mutual benefits while enhancing fisheries governance. 

  The EU, represented by the Commission, plays an active role in RFMOs and RFBs. 
These  organisations  promote  the  long-term  sustainability  of  stocks  under  their 
purview, mainly in the high seas. 

In addition to its involvement in RFMOs and SFPAs, the EU is also bound by Article 33 of 
the CFP Regulation to engage with third countries on stocks of common interest in order to 
ensure  that  those  stocks  are  managed  in  a  sustainable  manner.  In  particular,  the  EU 
endeavours  to  conclude  bilateral  or  multilateral  agreements  with  third  countries  on  joint 
management of stocks, including: 

  regulating, where appropriate, access to waters and resources and conditions for such 

access; 

  the harmonisation of conservation measures; 
  the exchange of fishing opportunities. 

Each  year,  the  Commission  on  behalf  of  the  EU  engages  in  bilateral  or  multilateral 
negotiations  with  non-EU  countries  such  as  Norway,  the  UK,  the  Faroe  Islands  and  other 
coastal countries. 

3.13.2.  Background: from 2009 to the state of play in 2022 

The 2009 Green Paper highlighted the need to strengthen the external dimension of the CFP. 
It emphasised the importance of  extending the principles of the CFP's core objective (i.e. to 
promote  responsible  and  sustainable  fisheries)  at  international  level  and  to  endorse  better 
global governance of the sea, in particular fisheries. The Green Paper identified several fields 
for  improvement,  including  action  to  make  the  external  component  more  coherent  across 
policies. Due to difficulties in adopting conservation measures to achieve a more sustainable 
use  of  the  sea,  the  2009  Green  Paper  recommended  stepping  up  the  commitment  and  the 
overall performance of RMFOs and to continue working with international partners.  

Many  countries  reported  difficulties  in  implementing  the  Fisheries  Partnership  Agreements 
due  to  political  turmoil  or  the  slow  uptake  of  policy  assistance.  The  Green  Paper 
recommended action to scientific analysis and research capacity. The Green Paper also stated 
that external  fisheries policies should take better  account  of food security strategies  in  third 
countries.  It  suggested  revising  the  structure  of  agreements  to  explore  alternative  forms  of 
arrangements with third countries that would better meet the needs of industry and partners. 

266 

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2008/1005/oj. 

EN 

87 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
In  2011,  the  Commission  proposed  to  fully  integrate  the  external  policy  into  the  CFP 
Regulation, and for the EU to advocate best available science-based positions, to contribute to 
the  development  of  scientific  knowledge,  and  to  cooperate  to  strengthen  compliance  in  the 
international  context.  The  Commission's  proposal  also  included  several  recommendations 
concerning  relations  with  third  countries  through  Sustainable  Fisheries  Agreements  to 
promote the CFP principles and objectives at international level. In 2017, the new Regulation 
on  Sustainable  management  of  external  fishing  fleets267  entered  into  force.  The  objective  is 
for catches by EU vessels outside EU waters (10% of total EU vessels’ catches) to follow the 
same control rules and sustainability standards as catches inside EU waters, even outside the 
framework of fisheries agreements and outside the scope of RFMOs. 

3.13.3.  Illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing 

In 2008, the EU drew up a comprehensive framework to tackle IUU fishing, which includes a 
catch certification scheme to ensure that fishery products obtained from IUU fishing activities 
occurring  anywhere  in  the  world  do  not  reach  the  EU  market.  In  2018,  the  Commission 
proposed  the  compulsory  use  of  IT  tools  to  manage  the  catch  certification  scheme  in  the 
context  of  the  Control  Regulation  revision.  The  use  of  IT  tools  is  considered  essential  to 
counter  the  risks  inherent  in  the  paper-based  management  of  catch  certificates.  It  is  also  an 
opportunity  to  help  achieve  a  more  coherent  and  uniform  implementation  of  checks  by  the 
Member  States.  The  EU  implements  the  Port  State  Measures  Agreement  to  ensure  that  its 
ports  are  not  used  to  support  IUU  fishing,  and  actively  cooperates  with  third  countries  to 
promote a zero-tolerance approach to IUU fishing globally.  

3.13.4.  Sustainable fisheries partnership agreements 

The  2013  CFP  Regulation  refers  to  the  SFPAs  as  they  ensure  that  EU  fishing  activities  in 
third country waters are based on the best available scientific advice and relevant information 
exchange, ensuring  the sustainable exploitation  of marine biological  resources, transparency 
in  determining  as  regards  the  determination  of  the  surplus  and  consequently  resource 
management that is consistent with the objectives of the CFP. These agreements provide for 
access  to  resources  commensurate  with  the  interests  of  the  EU  fleet  in  exchange  for  EU 
financial  contribution  from  the  Union  and  contribute  to  the  high-quality  governance 
framework. 

By  the  end  of  2022,  there  were  13  SFPAs  with  implementing  protocols  in  force,  including 
four  multispecies268  and  nine  tuna269  SFPAs.  In  addition,  there  were  seven  SFPAs  without 
implementing  protocols  in  force,  known  as  ‘dormant’  SFPAs270.  Third  countries  derived 
significant additional economic benefits from the activities of EU fishing vessels through the 
supply of goods and services to EU fishing vessels, employment of labour on-board, and the 
processing  of  catches.  Between  2015  and  2020,  over  200  EU  vessels  fished  under  the 
framework of SFPAs per year, involving nearly 300 000 tonnes of catches a year. The sectoral 
financial  support  to  third  countries  included  in  SFPAs  boosts  the  capacity  of  third  country 

267 

268 
269 

270 

Regulation (EU) 2017/2403 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2017 on the sustainable 
management of external fishing fleets, and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1006/2008. 
Greenland, Mauritania, Morocco and Guinea Bissau. 
Cabo  Verde,  Cook  Islands,  Côte  d’Ivoire,  The  Gambia,  Gabon,  Mauritius,  São  Tomé-et-Príncipe,  Senegal  and 
Seychelles. 
Equatorial  Guinea,  Liberia,  Kiribati,  Federated  States  of  Micronesia,  Madagascar,  Mozambique  and  Solomon 
Islands. 

EN 

88 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
public  authorities  to  monitor,  control  and  surveillance  fishing  activities,  improve  scientific 
research, and provide overall support to fisheries and marine governance policies. 

3.13.5.  Regional fisheries management organisations 

The EU’s participation in RFMO meetings has been crucial. The EU has submitted proposals 
designed to achieve or support the adoption of measures in RFMOs, including to:  

-  promote the sustainability of fish stocks;  
-  uphold scientific advice;  
- 
- 
- 

ensure the adoption of monitoring, control and surveillance measures; 
step up work to combat IUU fishing; and  
strengthen  governance  in  those  organisations,  in  line  with  Commission  and  CFP 
objectives.  

The  EU  and  its  Member  States,  together  with  the  Mediterranean  Advisory  Council  and  the 
Black  Sea  Advisory  Council,  are  a  driving  force  in  the  GFCM  to  ensure  the  sustainable 
management of shared stocks. From a governance point of view, the Mediterranean Sea has 
long been considered a special case in the CFP Regulation, as management was traditionally 
decentralised to the local level. The Mediterranean basin and a significant share of its stocks 
are shared with third countries. The situation has improved in the last years, as a result of the 
EU's commitment to improving governance and protecting biodiversity in the Mediterranean 
and the Black Sea.  

At the EU's initiative, the MedFish4Ever and Sofia Ministerial Declarations were adopted in 
2017  and  2018.  This  launched  a  new  political  momentum  to  redress  the  governance  of 
fisheries  in  the  two  sea  basins.  The  Declarations  were  also  the  basis  for  adopting  sector-
specific strategies at GFCM level, namely the regional plan of action against IUU fishing, the 
regional plan of action for small-scale fisheries and the aquaculture strategy. Together, these 
five documents provide the structure for EU action for the next years.  

This governance process was consolidated with the former GFCM mid-term strategy (2017-
2020) and the new GFCM strategy (2021-2030). The strategies created a new dynamic in the 
functioning of the GFCM, modernising it and strengthening the role of the secretariat, as well 
as the sub-regional approach with GFCM sub-regional units. Over the last five years, the EU 
has  successfully  promoted  the  adoption  of  75  conservation  and  control  measures  under  the 
GFCM (with 35 measures adopted in 2021 alone) to address some of the key stocks, as well 
as important  environmental and ecosystem  issues in  both  the Mediterranean and  Black Sea. 
Looking  at  the  situation  in  the  broader  region,  the  latest  GFCM  report  on  the  State  of  the 
Mediterranean  and  Black  Sea  fisheries271  confirmed  the  first  positive  results  of  all  these 
efforts. The report  demonstrates that the new management measures  have  started to  make  a 
difference and have started to reverse the trend of overexploitation in the region.  

Likewise, in the Atlantic, EU leadership has been crucial to ensure to:  

the successful recovery and sustainable management of bluefin tuna;  

 
  adopt a comprehensive management plan for North Albacore;  
  adopt a rebuilding plan for Mediterranean Albacore;  

271 

FAO,  The  State  of  Mediterranean  and  Black  Sea  Fisheries  2020,  General  Fisheries  Commission  for  the 
Mediterranean, Rome, 2020, p. 172, https://doi.org/10.4060/cb2429en. 

EN 

89 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
  adopt management measures for blue shark and shortfin mako in ICCAT; and 
  adopt  measures  for  Greenland  sharks 

the  Northwest  Atlantic  Fisheries 

in 

Organization.  

In the Pacific, the EU was behind the first measure ever adopted by an RFMO to regulate the 
squid  fishery  and  the  jack-mackerel  recovery  plan  in  the  South  Pacific  Regional  Fisheries 
Management Organisation (SPRFMO). In the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian Oceans, the EU has 
pushed for stricter regulation and better monitoring of  fish aggregating devices  and actively 
supported  the  adoption  of  harvest  control  measures,  mitigation  measures  for  by-catch,  the 
protection of vulnerable marine ecosystems and the banning of shark finning. In many ways, 
several  of  the  measures  adopted  following  EU  leadership  were  a  milestone  in  fisheries 
management and similar measures have subsequently been adopted in other organisations. 

3.13.6.  Bilateral and multilateral agreements 

Brexit has reshaped the fisheries relations in the region. Since the withdrawal of the UK, the 
vast majority of stocks in the North East Atlantic are managed together with third countries. 
In  the  case  of  shared  EU-UK  stocks,  the  TCA  provides  the  framework  for  determining  the 
joint  management, including the setting of  fishing opportunities and ongoing cooperation in 
the  Specialised  Committee  on  Fisheries.  The  TCA  commits  both  Parties  to  respect  the 
objectives and principles set out in Articles 494 and 496, and in particular the promotion of 
the long-term sustainability (environmental, social and economic) and optimum utilisation of 
shared  stocks,  and  grants  automatic  access  to  each  other’s  waters  until  the  end  of  the 
adjustment period (2026). The TCA principles and objectives are coherent with those of the 
CFP and is the basis of our cooperation.  

A further consequence of the withdrawal of the UK is that the bilateral cooperation between 
the EU and Norway on jointly managed stocks in the North Sea has now become a trilateral 
issue, and the UK also acts as an independent coastal State in multilateral negotiations. The 
Commission  should  continue  to  facilitate  regional  and  bilateral  cooperation  with  third 
countries based on CFP principles to sustainable fisheries  and guarantee incomes and stable 
jobs for fishers. 

For certain other third countries, access to EU waters is granted to Seychelles in the outermost 
region  of  Mayotte  (through  a  negotiated  agreement)  and  to  Venezuela  (through  a  unilateral 
Council  decision)  in  the  waters  of  French  Guiana.  These  accesses  must  respect  the  same 
sustainability principles and rules as any fishery in EU waters.  

3.13.7.  Opportunities and challenges 

In  the  work  to  end  illegal,  unregulated  and  unreported  (IUU)  fishing,  controls  on  long-
distance fleets operating far from home ports across all oceans remain a challenge, set in the 
context  of  growing  demand  for  fish  and  competition  among  fleets.  It  is  crucial  to  continue 
IUU dialogues with third countries to improve flag (but also coastal and port) State controls in 
line with international obligations  with the aim of heightening fisheries  compliance globally 
and creating a meaningful level playing field.  

The adoption of FAO Voluntary Guidelines for transhipment should trigger further attention 
by  flag,  coastal  and  port  States  to  the  at-sea  and  port  transhipment  operations  that  require 
monitoring,  control  and  surveillance  tools  to  comply  with  the  applicable  conservation  and 

EN 

90 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
management measures. Effective implementation of the Port State Measures Agreement is the 
opportunity to close markets to fishery products obtained from IUU fishing. The challenges in 
implementing the Agreement should be addressed by continuing to build capacity at bilateral, 
regional and international level, the latter through the EU's contribution to the FAO Port State 
Measures  Agreement  Global  Capacity  Development  Umbrella  Programme.  IT  tools  in  the 
IUU catch certification scheme should be used to meet the objective of efficient, uniform and 
risk-focused import controls. To this end, it would be very effective to adopt a legal basis for 
the compulsory use of IT CATCH. 

SFPAs  give  the  EU  the  opportunity  to  create  a  network  and  make  access  for  the  EU  fleet 
stable  and  predictable  and  therefore  facilitate  investment.  However,  achieving  sustainability 
in  SFPAs  must  not  only  be  an  EU  commitment  but  also  a  commitment  made  by  coastal 
countries, facing generally important and numerous challenges to control their EEZ or ports, 
and  to  support  scientific  evaluation  of  stocks  and  manage  them.  Civil  society  generally 
expects  support  from  the  EU  for  such  activities,  especially  for  the  stocks  it  shares  with 
neighbouring countries, which also  tend to be stocks of major importance for food security, 
whether  or  not  these  stocks  are  targeted  by  EU  fleets.  The  challenge  is  therefore  to  create 
synergies between the SFPAs and other development policies, as called for by the CFP, and to 
secure  a  true  commitment  from  coastal  countries  to  use  their  limited  funds  to  create  robust 
evaluation and management frameworks governing their waters.  

SFPAs are also increasingly scrutinised for the benefits they bring to local populations, such 
as  fishers  on  EU  vessels  that  are  active  mostly  in  the  exclusive  economic  zone  of  African 
countries and high seas adjacent to these countries’ zones. Implementing international labour 
conventions is a challenge to  ensure fair working conditions to all fishers working on board 
EU vessels.  

The challenge for bilateral negotiations is to renew SFPA protocols in time to avoid dormant 
periods and therefore an interruption in activities. This is not always possible, especially when 
partner  countries  have  very  high  expectations  in  terms  of  EU  funding  or  shipowners’ 
contributions. These expectations are sometimes not met due to the scope for funding under 
the EU budget or the willingness of EU fleet operators. 

The  EU's  objectives  in  RFMOs  are  based  on  the  principles  of  the  CFP  and  its  external 
dimension272,  the  international  ocean  governance  agenda  and  the  mandates  for  those 
organisations.  However,  since  most  RFMOs  take  their  decisions  by  consensus  with  other 
parties  involved,  it  is  not  always  possible  to  achieve  the  EU's  objectives  in  those 
organisations. Individual positions taken by other parties in RFMOs do not always support the 
EU's proposals in full, for instance proposals to adopt marine protected areas in the Southern 
Ocean or promote the more sustainable management of tropical tuna stocks in the Atlantic or 
Indian  Oceans.  This  happens  despite  the  EU's  efforts  to  strengthen  those  organisations  and 
support  science  and  science-based  management  decisions,  including  through  financial 
contributions.  

Nevertheless,  the  EU  and  other  bodies  (national  and  local  Member  States’  administrations, 
responsible fishing industry, civil society, etc.) continue to strive endlessly for sustainability. 
The EU's alliances with international partners, the planned and ongoing performance review 
mechanisms in RFMOs and international developments (on an implementing agreement under 
the United Nations Convention for the Law of the Sea on the conservation and sustainable use 
of marine biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction (BBNJ), FAO, etc.) should 

272 

Part VI – External policy of the CFP Regulation. 

EN 

91 

EN 

 
 
                                                 
give  RFMOs  new  opportunities  to  promote  the  sustainable  management  of  the  stocks  and 
ecosystems under their purview.  

3.14.  Market and trade (common market organisation) 
The  Common  Market  Organisation  Regulation273  (the  CMO  Regulation)  covers  five  main 
areas: 

1) organisation of the sector 
2) marketing standards 
3) consumer information 
4) competition rules 
5) market intelligence. 

The  common  organisation  of  the  markets  for  fishery  and  aquaculture  products  has  existed 
since 1970. It is the oldest pillar of the CFP Regulation and was reformed together with the 
CFP in 2013. The aim of the CMO Regulation is to contribute to achieving the objectives of 
the CFP. The reform brought in a series of fundamental changes for the Member States and 
for industry. It involved a stronger role for producer organisations by empowering operators 
and  drawing  up  production  and  marketing  plans.  Producer  organisations  are  key  actors  in 
implementing the CFP in practice. The 2013 reform also  brought in new tools supported by 
the  EMFF  and  the  EMFAF  to  empower  producer  organisations  to  promote  viable  and 
sustainable  fishing  activities  of  their  members,  avoid  unwanted  catches,  contribute  to  the 
traceability  of  fishery  products  and  access  to  clear  and  comprehensive  information  to 
consumers, and end illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing. The reform enhanced the role 
of  inter-branch  organisations  to  improve  the  conditions  for  making  fishery  and  aquaculture 
products available on the market.  

The CMO lays the ground for fair competition between all products marketed in the EU and 
ensures  that  the  market  is  supplied  with  an  increased  number  of  sustainable  products  by 
setting  common  marketing  standards.  Another  objective  is  to  promote  more  sustainable 
consumption  habits  by  laying  down  specific  provisions  on  consumer  information  that 
complements the general food labelling rules274. As announced in the Farm to Fork strategy, it 
is important to continue work on the sustainable food system initiative that the Commission 
plans to propose in 2023 for a harmonised EU approach to sustainable food production. 

273 

274 

Regulation  (EU)  No 1379/2013  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  11 December  2013  on  the 
common  organisation  of  the  markets  in  fishery  and  aquaculture  products,  amending  Council  Regulations  (EC) 
No 1184/2006 and (EC) No 1224/2009 and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 104/2000. 
Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on the provision 
of  food  information  to  consumers,  amending  Regulations  (EC)  No 1924/2006  and  (EC)  No 1925/2006  of  the 
European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council,  and  repealing  Commission  Directive  87/250/EEC,  Council  Directive 
90/496/EEC,  Commission  Directive  1999/10/EC,  Directive  2000/13/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the 
Council, Commission Directives 2002/67/EC and 2008/5/EC and Commission Regulation (EC) No 608/2004. 

EN 

92 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
As regards market intelligence, the Commission set up the European Market Observatory for 
Fisheries  and  Aquaculture  Products275  to  boost  market  transparency  and  provide  market 
intelligence to all bodies in the sector, including policy makers. The Market Advisory Council 
is  very  active  in  providing  recommendations  on  issues  concerning  the  market.  The 
Commission  works  closely  with  the  Market  Advisory  Council  to  better  understand  market 
developments, meet its market intelligence needs and globally improve implementation of the 
CMO  objectives.  These  close  and  regular  exchanges  with  stakeholders  have  proven  to  be 
crucial assets in times of crisis, in particular to identify needs and frame crisis responses. 

The  Commission  must  provide  a  report  on  the  results  of  the  application  of  the  CMO 
Regulation by 31 December 2022. It will issue a separate report on these results. 

Structural policy and support: EU funding 

3.15. 
By  the  end  of  2024,  the  Commission  must  also  evaluate  the  EMFF276.  As  it  is  one  of  the 
European  Structural  and  Investment  Funds,  the  biggest  share  of  the  EMFF’s  budget  is 
managed  by  the  Member  States  via  operational  programmes.  The  EMFF  primarily  aims  to 
help coastal populations and people working in the fishing and aquaculture sectors to adapt to 
the  reformed  EU  CFP  over  the  period  2014-2020.  Table  1  shows  the  calculated  EMFF 
contribution277 to each of the CFP objectives as outlined in Article 2 of the CFP Regulation. 

Table 1: EMFF contribution to CFP objectives. 

CFP objective 

CFP Article 2(2.3) 

CFP Article 2(4) 

CFP Article 2(5 a, 
b) 

CFP Article 2(5 c) 

CFP Article 2(5 d) 

CFP Article 2(5 e) 

CFP Article 2(5 f) 

CFP Article 2(5 g) 

CFP Article 2(5 h) 

Total 

Total EMFF committed 
by Managing Authority 
(EUR) (Infosys, 
31/12/2021) 

Total eligible EMFF 
expenditure declared by 
beneficiaries to the 
Managing Authority 
(EUR) 

Number of operations 

801 527 129 

548 730 152 

97 215 842 

1 519 861 652 

297 051 386 

919 192 634 

232 583 846 

154 339 934 

61 977 405 

467 883 987 

463 039 596 

68 764 075 

787 930 348 

259 863 751 

522 180 022 

205 650 188 

112 900 114 

40 128 630 

4 632 479 980 

2 928 340 712 

6 911 

260 

3 804 

18 320 

33 724 

11 960 

8 869 

1 825 

803 

87  476 

275 
276 

277 

https://www.eumofa.eu/. 
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. 
https://oceans-and-fisheries.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2022-11/EMFF-Implementation-report-2021_en.pdf 

EN 

93 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Regulation (EU) 2020/560 amended the EMFF Regulation and brought in specific measures 
to  mitigate  the  impact  of  the  COVID-19  pandemic.  The  pandemic  resulted  in  a  significant 
drop  in  demand  for  fishery  and  aquaculture  products  with  serious  socioeconomic 
consequences  for  the  communities  where  fishing  and  aquaculture  play  a  major  role.  The 
amended regulation allows the EMFF to provide support for: 

 

the  temporary  cessation  of  fishing  activities,  including  for  inland  fishing  and  fishers 
on foot; 

  certain  economic  losses  caused  by  the  pandemic  for  aquaculture  producers,  for 

processing companies and in the outermost regions. 

Similarly,  following  Russia’s  aggression  against  Ukraine,  in  July  2022  a  legislative 
amendment to the EMFF Regulation entered into force to bring in additional crisis measures 
to  allow  Member  States  to  support  the  EU  fishery  and  aquaculture  sectors  affected  by  the 
pandemic. In particular, funding was made readily available to:  

  compensate  operators  in  the  fishery  and  aquaculture  sectors  for  additional  costs,  for 

income forgone and for the storage of products; 

  compensate  fishing  operators  for  the  temporary  cessation  of  fishing  activities  due  to 

safety reasons and economic constraints. 

Currently,  the  EMFAF  for  2021-2027  is  a  key  instrument  for  implementing  the  CFP  and 
achieving its objectives.  In helping to  protect  marine biodiversity,  achieve  the EU’s climate 
change mitigation objectives and ensure food supply, the EMFAF has four priorities: 

1)  fostering  sustainable  fisheries  and  restoring  and  conserving  aquatic  biological 
resources; 
2)  fostering  sustainable  aquaculture  activities,  processing  and  marketing  fishery  and 
aquaculture products, therefore contributing to food security in the EU; 
3)  enabling  a  sustainable  blue  economy  in  coastal,  island  and  inland  areas,  and 
fostering the development of fishing and aquaculture communities; 
4)  strengthening  international  ocean  governance  and  ensuring  seas  and  oceans  are 
safe, secure, clean and sustainably managed. 

The EMFAF is designed to provide a simpler structure creating more space for results-based 
policy and flexibility for the Member States to translate clear policy challenges into targeted 
types of action. Implementation is also simplified and monitored by a consistent performance 
framework with output result and performance indicators. The EMFAF puts a stronger focus 
on the regional dimension, as the programming phase has been accompanied by the regional 
Sea Basin Analysis278 providing Member States with a sea basin-specific approach to the key 
CFP challenges to address through future EMFAF funding. 

The EMFAF has a specific focus on the sustainability and profitability of small-scale coastal 
fishing and on the sustainable development  of maritime activities in  outermost  regions.  The 
specific  situation  of  the  EU's  outermost  regions,  their  vulnerability  to  climate  change  and 

278 

Commission staff working document, Regional sea basin analyses regional challenges in achieving the objectives 
of the common fisheries policy – a sea basin perspective to guide EUMFF programming, SWD(2020)206. 

EN 

94 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
natural disasters and their unique assets in terms of biodiversity and renewable energy sources 
have  required  specific  tools  at  European  level.  That  is  why  operations  implemented  with 
EMFAF support in the outermost regions are  generally eligible for a high rate of public aid 
(85% against 50% for the mainland EU). The Member States concerned (France, Portugal and 
Spain) prepare an action plan for each of their outermost regions. The plans set out a strategy 
for  developing  sustainable  blue  economy  sectors,  including  fisheries  and  aquaculture. 
Financial resources are then reserved to help implement these action plans. 

Both the EMFF and EMFAF regulations also provide for financial compensation to operators 
in outermost regions to offset the additional costs they face in fishing, farming, processing or 
marketing of fishery and aquaculture products due to the particular situation of these regions. 
This contributes to the economic and social sustainability of fisheries and aquaculture in the 
outermost regions and helps create conditions also for environmental sustainability.  

As  regards  its  contribution  to  climate  and  biodiversity,  the  EMFAF  supports  the  European 
Green Deal and the EU's climate and biodiversity objectives set in the Multiannual Financial 
Framework  for  2021-2027,  even  without  specific  binding  targets.  In  particular,  the  EMFAF 
supports the achievement of the CFP objectives on sustainable fishing and on achieving good 
environmental  status  in  the  marine  environment,  as  provided  for  under  the  Marine  strategy 
framework  directive.  In  doing  so,  it  provides  an  ambitious  support  package  to  achieve 
sustainable  fisheries  and  aquaculture,  which  is  strongly  connected  to  the  objectives  of  the 
Biodiversity and Farm to Fork strategies. 

Due to  the size of the EMFAF budget  and the related  national  programmes, Member States 
must  make  strategic  use  of  public  support  under  the  Fund  to  actions  that  can  be  scaled  up, 
generate synergies with  other funds and instruments  and also  trigger private investment.  As 
such, the EMFAF is the ideal financial tool for Member States to build up the resilience of the 
fisheries  and  aquaculture  sectors,  by  improving  their  preparedness  for  future  shocks  and 
strengthening their ability to withstand and overcome crises.  

To foster long-term resilience and boost the capacity of the sector for crisis management, the 
EMFAF  Regulation  embeds  specific  measures  and  specific  conditions  and  safeguards  to 
ensure an optimal return on investment and increase the leverage effect of public funding.  

EN 

95 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
4. 

ANNEX 1: SYNOPSIS OF CONSULTATION ACTIVITIES 

4.1. 

Introduction 

This  synopsis  collates  all  information  on  the  consultation  activities  carried  out  in  2021  and 
2022  for  the  European  Commission's  review  of  the  functioning  of  the  common  fisheries 
policy (CFP Regulation)279.  

The CFP enables sustainable exploitation of marine biological resources to supply healthy and 
affordable  seafood.  It  also  contributes  to  a  fair  standard  of  living  for  those  who  depend  on 
fishing activities. Under Article 49 of the CFP Regulation, the European Commission has to 
report on the functioning of the CFP by 31 December 2022. The Communication and the staff 
working  document  take  a  broader  and  deeper  look  into  the  successes  and  remaining 
challenges in fisheries management, their underlying causes and the opportunities available.  

The Communication and its  staff working document assess whether the CFP as reformed in 
2013  still  fits  the  purpose  of  enabling  the  sustainable  and  inclusive  exploitation  of  marine 
biological resources and of contributing to the security of food supply.  

This synopsis provides an overview of the consultation activities that were carried out as well 
as an analysis related to the recommendations by stakeholders.  

4.2. 

Consultation activities 

The consultation strategy comprises a range of stakeholder engagement activities organised in 
2021  and  2022.  These  activities  include  a  targeted  online  consultation,  in-depth  discussions 
with Member State regional groups, the  2022 CFP Stakeholder Event, and a consultation of 
stakeholders  on  the  Commission's  ‘Call  for  Evidence’  document  in  autumn  2022.  The  aim 
was to involve all stakeholders in the review process and to let all stakeholders have their say. 
In  parallel,  discussions  on  this  topic  followed  at  the  Council  (during  the  informal  DGs 
meeting in May 2022) and at the European Parliament280 (17 March 2022 hearing).  
The Commission opened the targeted online consultation281 in December 2021 and it ran until 
14 March 2022. The purpose of this consultation, conducted via an online questionnaire, was 
to receive input from CFP stakeholders on the review of the functioning of the CFP. The aim 
was to identify:  

1)  successes and/or shortcomings of the CFP;  
2)  any  scientific  evidence  or  supporting  documents  used  to  demonstrate  these 

successes and/or shortcomings; and  

3)  good practices, innovative tools, or processes implemented by stakeholders or 

the Member States.  

279 

280 

281 

EN 

‘State  of  Play 

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. 
Hearing  on 
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/committees/en/hearing-on-state-of-play-in-the-implemen/product-
details/20220304CHE09987. 
The  2022  common  fisheries  policy  and  common  market  organisation  reports:  your opinion  counts  –  take  part  in 
https://oceans-and-fisheries.ec.europa.eu/news/2022-common-fisheries-policy-and-
targeted 
common-market-organisation-reports-your-opinion-counts-take-part-2021-12-17_en. 

future  perspectives’: 

implementation  of 

consultations: 

the  CFP 

and 

the 

in 

96 

EN 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
The online questionnaire included questions  covering  all chapters of the  CFP Regulation.  It 
ended with the topics raised in the Mission letter282 to Commissioner Sinkevičius, namely the 
social dimension of fisheries policy, climate adaptation and clean oceans. The targeted online 
questionnaire was open to all stakeholders within and beyond Europe.  

The  results  of  the  online  questionnaire  provided  the  basis  for  more  in-depth  discussions  at 
regional level with the Member States’ regional groups, which took place on 20 and 30 May 
2022.  
The CFP report on the 2022 Stakeholder Event283, organised by the European Commission on 
10 June  2022,  was  the  next  step  in  the  consultation  process  for  the  Communication  on  the 
functioning of the CFP. The event was a unique opportunity to discuss challenges and good 
practices  with  a wide  range  of stakeholders working in  the fisheries  and aquaculture sector. 
The  event  featured  short  presentations  on  fisheries  and  aquaculture  management  and  policy 
topics,  followed  by  a  dialogue  and  discussions  between  stakeholders.  The  presentations  can 
be found on the website284. 
In line with the better regulation rules, the Commission published a ‘Call for Evidence’285 on 
the Communication on the functioning of the common fisheries policy. The objective was to 
inform the public and stakeholders about the review of the functioning of the CFP and  give 
them  the  opportunity  to  provide  feedback  and  participate  effectively.  The  ‘Call’  was  open 
from 26 August to 23 September 2022 in the European Commission’s Have Your Say portal.  

4.3. 

Responses to the consultations 

The targeted online consultation to review the functioning of the CFP received 195 responses 
from 22 countries (Figure 4). Contributions came from a broad range of stakeholders, such as 
non-governmental  organisations  (NGOs),  public  authorities,  the  fisheries  sector,  academia, 
SSCFs,  trade  associations,  Advisory  Councils  and  the  aquaculture  sector  (Figure  5).  The 
results  of  the  targeted  online  consultation  are  presented  in  the  FAMENET  CFP  survey 
report286.  

282 

283 
284 
285 

286 

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/commissioners/sites/default/files/commissioner_mission_letters/mission-letter-
sinkevicius-2019-2024_en.pdf. 
https://cfpreportevent2022.b2match.io/home. 
https://cfpreportevent2022.b2match.io/page-621. 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/13552-Fisheries-communication-on-the-
functioning-of-the-common-fisheries-policy_en. 
https://oceans-and-fisheries.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2022-05/2022-CFP-survey-report_en.pdf. 

EN 

97 

EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
108

120

100

s
t
n
e
d
n
o
p
s
e
r

f
o

r
e
b
m
u
N

80

60

40

20

0

19

11 10

7

6

6

4

4

3

2

2

2

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Figure 4: Number of responses to the targeted online consultation by country. 

81

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

s
t
n
e
d
n
o
p
s
e
r

f
o

r
e
b
m
u
N

31

21

18

17

14

7

3

2

1

Figure 5: Number of responses to the targeted online consultation by stakeholder group. The standard types of 
organisation or entity were used as per EUsurvey categorisation. The group ‘other’ constitute what is not listed 
already as type (for example advisory councils or citizens identified mostly as ‘other’).  

The results of the FAMENET CFP survey report provided the basis for discussions with the 
Member State regional groups. Both the Scheveningen Group and the North Western Waters 
Member States Regional Group met for an in-depth discussion, with the participation of the 
Advisory  Councils.  The  Member  States  involved  in  the  discussions  were  the  Netherlands, 
France,  Sweden,  Denmark,  Belgium,  Ireland  and  Spain.  The  Advisory  Councils  involved 

EN 

98 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
were  the  North  Sea  Advisory  Council,  the  Baltic  Sea  Advisory  Council  and  the  Pelagic 
Advisory Council. 

The stakeholder event of 10 June 2022 brought together up to 485 stakeholders and experts, 
including business associations and organisations, environmental organisations, academia, EU 
institutions,  EU  citizens,  NGOs,  public  authorities  and  trade  associations.  The  participants 
discussed  specific  projects,  such  as  innovation  and  collaborations  on  topics  such  as  climate 
change,  developing  a  fully  monitored  fleet,  and  using  smart  innovation  in  selective  fishing 
practices.  The  recordings  of  this  event  are  publicly  available287.  A  report  on  the  2022 
stakeholder event is published by the external contractor that organised the event288. 

Altogether,  44  responses  were  received  from  14  Member  States  in  response  to  the  call  for 
Evidence,  ‘Communication  on  the  functioning  of  the  common  fisheries  policy’  (Figure  6). 
Most  of  the  responses  were  received  from  NGOs.  There  were  seven  responses  from  EU 
citizens,  five  from  business  associations  and  four  from  public  authorities.  Two  research 
institutions,  one  trade  union  and  one  environmental  organisation  also  responded  (Figure  7). 
Overall,  the  feedback  largely  covered  the  same  topics  addressed  by  the  targeted  online 
consultation and the stakeholder event.  

11

7

6

s
t
n
e
d
n
o
p
s
e
r

f
o

r
e
b
m
u
N

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

4

3

3

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

Figure 6: Number of responses to the call for evidence, by country. 

287 

288 

https://webcast.ec.europa.eu/taking-stock-of-the-eu-common-fisheries-policy-building-further-on-sustainable-
fisheries-towards-a-competitive-and-resilient-environment. 
https://prod5.assets-cdn.io/event/8296/assets/8331903045-843ff11d7c.pdf. 

EN 

99 

EN 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
 
21

s
t
n
e
d
n
o
p
s
e
r

f
o

r
e
b
m
u
N

25

20

15

10

5

0

7

5

4

3

2

1

1

Figure 7: Number of respondents  by stakeholder group to the call for evidence on the ‘Communication on the 
functioning of the common fisheries policy’. 

4.4.  Main results 

Reponses  by  the  stakeholders  to  the  targeted  online  consultation  confirmed  that  the  CFP 
remains  a  good  framework  for  fisheries  management.  The  reformed  CFP  has  led  to 
improvements  in  EU  fisheries  management.  By  bringing  in  the  maximum  sustainable  yield 
principle in 2013, Member States could set their total allowable catches and quotas closer to 
scientific  advice.  Many  respondents  however  mentioned  that  implementation,  control  and 
enforcement of the CFP was insufficient and they highlighted the need to properly include an 
ecosystem-based and precautionary approach to fisheries management and decision-making.  

Some of the remaining key challenges mentioned by the respondents were the need to end all 
overfishing, the need to improve data collection, the quality of scientific advice, the need to 
better include aquaculture in the CFP framework, compliance with the landing obligation, the 
management  of  shared  fish  stocks,  climate  change  and  its  impact  on  the  fisheries  sector, 
improving  small-scale  fishing  opportunities,  including  recreational  fishers  in  the  CFP  and 
achieving coherence with environmental legislation.  

Respondents highlighted that the EU fishing sector contributes to many important EU policy 
objectives  (e.g.  Green  Deal  and  Farm  to  Fork)  and  the  United  Nation’s  Sustainable 
Development  Goals  (SDGs)  such  as  food  security  and  livelihoods  of  coastal  communities. 
However, there is an urgent need to better integrate the social and economic dimension in the 
CFP  and  the  decision-making  process.  It  is  also  necessary  to  improve  seafood  traceability 
rules  and  the  control  of  imports,  to  promote  ‘fully-documented  fisheries’,  to  include  the 
small-scale fisheries sector in the decision-making process and to improve the integration and 
coherence of the CFP with other EU policies.  
In  terms  of  EMFAF  2021-2027289,  respondents  from  the  fishing  sector  highlighted  the 
importance of correctly implementing new measures to promote the modernisation of the EU 

289 

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_.2021.247.01.0001.01.ENG 

EN 

100 

EN 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
 
 
fleet,  and  the  need  to  accelerate  the  transformation  to  carbon  neutrality.  However, 
environmental  NGOs  believe  that  these  measures  will  lead  to  more  overcapacity  in  the  EU 
fleet and an increase in fishing pressure in EU waters and beyond.  

According  to  the  Member  State  regional  groups,  the  findings  from  the  online  questionnaire 
were  in  line  with  earlier  findings  and  conclusions.  Over  the  past  year  and  during  the 
cooperation  process,  a  common  understanding  has  been  reached  of  the  successes  and 
challenges  of  the  CFP.  Many  stakeholders  stated  that  they  share  the  idea  that  reform  is  not 
needed at  this  stage, but the challenges identified through the online  consultation should be 
addressed via the CFP Communication.  

The  responses  to  the  call  for  evidence  in  September  2022  also  confirmed  the  support  of 
stakeholders that the CFP is a good framework for sustainable fisheries management. Input to 
the call contained proposals and recommendations on animal welfare, regionalisation, climate 
change,  the  social  dimension,  aquaculture,  marine  protected  areas,  decarbonisation,  the 
ecosystem-based  approach,  monitoring,  control  and  enforcement, 
transparency  and 
traceability, scientific advice and the landing obligation and others besides.  

4.5. 

Conclusion 

The findings fed into the process of reviewing the functioning of the CFP. The contributions 
received during the consultation process are not the official position of the Commission and 
do not bind the Commission; they are a representative sample of views of the EU population.  

EN 

101 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                         
 
5. 

ANNEX 2: OVERVIEW OF STUDIES AND REPORTS AS SOURCE FOR THE REVIEW 

The references in this document to specific studies and reports are not exhaustive as sources 
to feed into this Communication on the functioning of the common fisheries policy (CFP) and 
staff working document. The Commission used other sources, such as the recommendations 
and advice issued by the Advisory Councils, the stakeholder consultation organised in 2022 
and  the  work  from  scientific  advisory  bodies  including  the  STECF,  the  ICES,  and  regional 
fisheries bodies such as the GFCM. 

The studies commissioned by DG MARE and used to create the review on the functioning of 
the CFP are available on the following website290. The input used for this Communication and 
staff  working  document  goes  beyond  the  list  of  ongoing  studies  signed  from  the  European 
Climate Infrastructure and Environment Executive Agency and funded by the EU. 

The input used also goes beyond the list of reports of the European Parliament adopted in the 
previous years following the own initiative procedure with fisheries policy as subject. These 
reports covered multiple relevant topics291. 

290 
291 

https://oceans-and-fisheries.ec.europa.eu/publications-list_en. 
For example, 2019/2177 (landing obligation); 2019/2161 (fishers for the future); 2019/2158 (offshore wind farms); 
and 2021/2016 (future of fisheries in light of UK withdrawal). 

EN 

102 

EN 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
6. 

ANNEX 3: RATIFICATION STATUS OF KEY CONVENTIONS BY COASTAL EU MEMBER 
STATE 

IMO’s 1995 
STCW-F 
Convention 

X 

ILO’s Work in Fishing 
Convention (C188) 

Torremolinos International 
Convention for the Safety of 
Fishing vessels  

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Croatia 

Cyprus 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

Denmark 

X 

Estonia 

Finland 

France 

Germany 

Greece 

Ireland 

Italy 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Malta 

Netherlands 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovenia 

Spain 

Sweden 

EN 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

103 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
7. 

ANNEX 4: FISHING CAPACITY CEILINGS (1 OCTOBER 2022)292 

Member State 

GT 

kW 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Denmark 

Germany 

Estonia 

Ireland  

Greece 

18 962 

51 586 

7 053.08 

61 259.97 

88 762 

313 333 

70 281 

164 357 

21 314.33 

51 849.5 

77 568 

210 083 

79 219.78 

448 765.52 

Spain (including outermost regions) 

400 365.21 

910 993.53 

France (including outermost regions) 

223 845.09 

1 179 347 

Croatia 

Italy 

Cyprus 

Latvia  

Lithuania 

Malta 

Netherlands 

Poland 

49 074.8 

405 875.41 

156 304 

985 871.73 

10 832.83 

44 991 

45 628.01 

5 6405 

73 138 

72 965 

14 675.27 

92 806.55 

164 916 

344 323 

37 200.35 

87 351 

Portugal (including outermost regions) 

112 543.41 

381 143.82 

Romania 

Slovenia 

1 908 

675 

6 356 

8 867 

292 

EN 

Based  on  the  information  provided  by  Member  States  in  accordance  with  the  CFP  Regulation  and  Commission 
Implementing  Regulation 
at 
https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fleet-europa/stat_ceilings_en.  

the  Union 

2017/218 

available 

register, 

fishing 

(EU) 

fleet 

on 

104 

EN 

 
 
                                                 
 
Finland 

Sweden  

18 066 

181 717 

43 316 

210 535 

Outermost regions of the EU 

GT 

kW 

Spain 

Canary Islands: L < 12 m. EU waters 

2 596.42 

20 719.38 

Canary Islands: L > 12 m. EU waters 

3 059 

10 364 

Canary  Islands:  L  >  12 m.  International  and  third  country 
waters 

28 823 

45 593 

France 

Reunion Island: Demersal and pelagic species. L < 12 m 

1 047.01 

19 247 

Reunion Island: Pelagic species. L > 12 m 

10 002 

French Guiana: Demersal and pelagic species. L < 12 m 

903 

French Guiana: Shrimp vessels 

French Guiana: Pelagic species. Offshore vessels 

Martinique: Demersal and pelagic species. L < 12 m 

Martinique: Pelagic species. L > 12 m 

Guadeloupe: Demersal and pelagic species. L < 12 m 

Guadeloupe: Pelagic species. L > 12 m 

7 560 

N/A 

5 409 

1 046 

6 188 

N/A 

31 465 

11 644 

19 726 

N/A 

142 116 

3 294 

162 590 

N/A 

Mayotte. Seiners 

13 916 

24 000 

Mayotte. Mechanical longliners < 23 m 

N/A 

N/A 

Mayotte. Demersal and pelagic species. Vessels < 10 m 

 Portugal 

Madeira: Demersal species. L < 12 m 

Madeira: Demersal and pelagic species. L > 12 m 

EN 

604 

4 114 

3 969 

12 734 

105 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
Madeira: Pelagic species. Seine. L > 12 m 

181 

777 

Azores: Demersal species. L < 12 m 

2 556.95 

28 794.06 

Azores: Demersal and pelagic species. L > 12 m 

12 979 

25 721 

EN 

106 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
8. 

ANNEX  5.  OVERVIEW  DELEGATED  REGULATIONS  IN  FORCE  SPECIFYING  THE 
DETAILS OF IMPLEMENTATION OF THE LANDING OBLIGATION  

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, as amended by  Commission  Delegated  Regulation 
(EU) 2022/2290 of 19 August 2022  

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, as amended by Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 
2022/2289 of 18 August 2022  

3.  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/2065 of 25 August 2021 establishing a 
discard  plan  for  turbot  fisheries  in  the  Black  Sea,  as  amended  by  Commission 
Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022/2287 of 12 August 2022  

4.  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/2066 of 25 August 2021 supplementing 
Regulation (EU) 2019/1022 of the European Parliament and of the Council regarding 
details of implementation of the landing obligation for certain demersal stocks in the 
western  Mediterranean  Sea  for  the  period  2022-2024,  as  amended  by  Commission 
Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022/2288 of 16 August 2022  

5.  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/2064 of 25 August 2021 supplementing 
Regulation  (EU)  No  1380/2013  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  as 
regards  the  establishment  of  a  de  minimis  exemption  to  the  landing  obligation  for 
certain  demersal  fisheries  in  the  Adriatic  and  south-eastern  Mediterranean  Sea,  as 
amended by Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022/2564 of 16 August 2022  

6.  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/161 of 23 October 2017 establishing a 
de minimis  exemption to the landing obligation for certain  small  pelagic fisheries in 
the  Mediterranean  Sea,  as  amended  by  Commission  Delegated  Regulation  (EU) 
2020/2012 of 5 August 2020  

7.  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  

8.  Commission  Delegated  Regulation  (EU)  2021/1417  of  22 June  2021  supplementing 
Regulation (EU) 2016/1139 concerning the specifications for the landing obligation as 
regards salmon in the Baltic Sea for the period 2021-2023 

EN 

107 

EN