COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the document COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Sustainable fishing in the EU: state of play and orientations for 2025
Date: 2024-06-07
Institutions: Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, European Commission
Subjects: catch of fish, catch quota, common fisheries policy, exploitation of resources, fishery management, fishing area, fishing fleet, fishing rights, sea fishing, sustainable fisheries

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 7.6.2024  SWD(2024) 139 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT                                                         Accompanying the document COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Sustainable fishing in the EU: state of play and orientations for 2025 {COM(2024) 235 final}  
 
 
This staff working document accompanies the Communication ‘Sustainable fishing in the EU: 
state of play and orientations for 2025’. It looks in greater depth at: 

1.  the state of fish stocks; 
2.  the balance between fleet capacity and fishing opportunities; 
3.  the socio-economic performance of EU fishing fleets; 
4.  progress in implementing the landing obligation; 
5.  the work of advisory councils and their role in EU decision-making; 
6.  action taken under the EU’s international ocean governance agenda. 

Following  dialogue  in  the  wake  of  the  publication  of  the  fisheries  and  oceans  package1  the 
Commission decided to launch an evaluation of the Regulation on the common fisheries policy 
(‘CFP  Regulation’)2.  The  evaluation  will  build  on  the  fisheries  and  oceans  package  and 
subsequent dialogue. It will take stock of how the Regulation has performed, its instruments 
and  measures  and  how  it  addresses  the  objectives  of  ensuring  environmentally  and 
economically sustainable fisheries. 

1.  THE STATE OF FISH STOCKS 

Monitoring the results of the common fisheries policy progress report 

Each  year,  the  Commission  calls  on  the  Scientific,  Technical  and  Economic  Committee  for 
Fisheries (STECF) to  assess the progress  made in achieving the maximum sustainable yield 
(MSY) exploitation rate in line with the objectives of the CFP. Article 50 of the CFP Regulation 
states that: 

The Commission shall report annually to the European Parliament and to the 
Council  on  the  progress  on  achieving  maximum  sustainable  yield  and  on  the 
situation of fish stocks, as early as possible following the adoption of the yearly 
Council Regulation  fixing the fishing opportunities available in  Union waters 
and, in certain non-Union waters, to Union vessels. 

The  current  and  historic  fishing  mortality  rates  (FY,  F  in  each  year)  relative  to  the  fishing 
mortality rate that would produce the highest long-term yield (FMSY) were calculated by two 
scientific  bodies:  the  International  Council  for  the  Exploration  of  the  Sea  (ICES)  and  the 
General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM). The rates were then compiled 

1 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_23_828 
2 Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 on the 
Common  Fisheries  Policy,  amending  Council  Regulations  (EC)  No 1954/2003  and  (EC)  No 1224/2009  and 
repealing Council Regulations (EC) No 2371/2002 and (EC) No 639/2004 and Council Decision 2004/585/EC (OJ 
L 354, 28.12.2013, pp. 22-61). 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
and tabulated by the STECF in their 75th Plenary Report (STECF-24-01)3. The corresponding 
biomass value, BMSY, is the average biomass of fish in the sea that would be expected if a stock 
is  fished  at  FMSY  for  an  extended  period.  Both  the  F/FMSY  rates  and  the  biomass  values  are 
calculated  using  reported  catches.  Misreporting  of  catches  will  result  in  errors  in  both 
parameters, with errors being greater for biomass values4. 

As applied by the STECF, , historic and current fishing mortality values have been expressed 
as a ratio of the FMSY value for each stock. By doing so, this makes it possible to compare all 
stocks at the same scale with a fishing mortality ratio equal to 1 for all stocks fished at FMSY. 

Therefore,  this  section  focuses  on  the  fishing  mortality  ratio  indicator  and  the  biomass5 
indicator. More information on other indicators, such as safe biological limits, can be found in 
the STECF 24-01 ad hoc report Monitoring the Performance of the Common Fisheries Policy6. 

Regarding progress made in the achievement of  FMSY in line with the CFP, the latest results 
indicate a reduction in overall fishing mortality and a general increase in stock biomass in the 
North-East  Atlantic7  (both  EU  and  non-EU  waters)  over  the  period  2003-2022.  Among  the 
stocks  which  were  fully  assessed,  the  proportion  of  overexploited  stocks  (i.e.  F>  FMSY) 
decreased from around 72% (2003-2008) to 30% in 2022 and fishing mortality rates declined 
from  53%  above  FMSY  to  42%  below  FMSY.  The  situation  with  regard  to  stocks  in  the 
Mediterranean and Black Seas remains challenging but is improving. Here, the annual fishing 
mortality  estimates  were almost  double the  FMSY  in  2007 but  have fallen  significantly  since 
then, to reach 20% above FMSY in 2021. 

1.1 Trends in fishing pressure (F/FMSY ratio) 

Figure 1 below presents the trends in F/FMSY over the time period 2003-2022 for the North-East 
Atlantic (in EU and non-EU waters) and 2003-2021 forthe Mediterranean and Black Seas. 

3 https://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu/documents/d/stecf/stecf_plen_24-01. 
4  Patterson,  K.  R.  1998.  Assessing  fish  stocks  when  catches  are  misreported:  model,  simulation  tests,  and 
application to cod, haddock, and whiting in the ICES area, ICES Journal of Marine Science, 55: 878-891. 
5 Quantity of adult fish in a stock that can reproduce. 
6  
7 In this section, ‘North-East Atlantic’ refers to stocks in area 27 of the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), 
and ‘Mediterranean and Black Seas’ refers to stocks in FAO area 37. 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 1: Trends in fishing pressure 2003-2022. Three model-based indicators (F/FMSY) are presented 
(all using the median value of the model). The red line indicates the trends for 59 stocks located in EU 
waters in the North-East Atlantic. The green line indicates trends for an additional set of 18 stocks also 
located in the North-East Atlantic but in non-EU waters and the black line indicates the trends for 63 
stocks8  in  the  Mediterranean  and  Black  Seas.  Trends  are  medians  of  bias-corrected  estimates  from 
STECF/JRC models. 

1.0.1.  Stocks of EU interest in the North-East Atlantic, the North Sea and adjacent 

waters, including the Baltic Sea. 

In 2003, most stocks (70%) were overfished and the average (median) rate of fishing was 53% 
above MSY. The situation improved rapidly thanks to action to restrict fishing effort, improve 
monitoring and to set total allowable catches (TACs) in line with scientific advice. By 2022, 
the average rate of fishing was well within the sustainable rate and only 30% of stocks were 
overfished.  The  reduction  in  fishing  pressure  in  2020  and  2021  coincided  with  the  start  of 
COVID-19 restrictions (Figure 3). 

Overall, fish stock biomass increased by some 37% over the period 2003-2022. 

8 For STECF-Adhoc-23-01, there was data available for 58 Mediterranean and Black Sea stocks, of which one 
(sardine in GSA 7) had no F estimates. Therefore, that stock was used for the B/B2003 indicator (N=58 stocks) 
but not for the F/FMSY indicator (N= 57 stocks). 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 2: Overall development of fishing mortality and biomass in the North-East Atlantic. Top panel: 
number of stocks fished in excess of FMSY (black) or fished at or under FMSY (grey). Middle panel: average 
F/FMSY trend based on 59 stocks. Bottom panel: trend in spawning stock biomass relative to 2003. Dark 

4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
grey and light grey areas show the 50% and 95% confidence intervals of the average, based on the 59 
assessed stocks. 

There are differences in trends between areas. Fishing mortality fell fastest in the Bay of Biscay 
and in widely distributed stocks. Those same stocks also recovered fastest (Figure 2). In the 
Baltic Sea, where unfavourable environmental conditions9 have weakened the stocks’ resilience 
to  fishing,  no  significant  recovery  has  yet  been  observed,  and  some  fish  stocks  have  even 
deteriorated further. In the North Sea, primary production10 was reported to have decreased by 
around one quarter, possibly affecting the rebuilding of fish stocks. 

9 For more information on key signals within the Baltic Sea environment and ecosystem, see  
10  The  productivity  of  phytoplankton  and  algae  that  serves  as  food  for  zooplankton  and  then  eventually  the 
commercial fish stocks and other ecosystem components. 
5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 3: Upper trends in the average (median) F/FMSY (top panel) and biomass (B/B2003) (bottom 
panel) over the period 2003-2022 in each of the North Atlantic sea areas. 

1.1.2 Stocks in the Mediterranean and Black Seas 

In 2022, the number of fish stocks assessed by the GFCM rose to 58 from 39 in 2021. Data 
quality  had  increased significantly.  The additional stocks, many of which had lower  fishing 
mortality rate estimates, led to some changes in the overall perception of stock status. The new 
estimates showed F/FMSY peaked at close to 2.0 in 2007, gradually declining from this point 
onwards, and at a faster rate in 2020 and 2021 which coincided with COVID-19 restrictions 
(Figure 3). The value for 2022 was estimated at 1.2 which is the lowest ever but still 20% above 
FMSY. 

There are different trends in F/FMSY in each region (Figure 4), with an irregular trend in the 
Black  Sea,  a  stable  trend  in  the  central  Mediterranean,  a  sharp  decline  in  the  eastern 
Mediterranean  since  2008,  and  a  smaller  decline  in  the  western  Mediterranean.  All  areas 
showed a sharp drop in 2020 and 2021. 

Stock  biomass  has  increased  gradually  in  the  western  Mediterranean,  hand  in  hand  with  a 
decrease  in  fishing  mortality.  The  decrease  in  F/FMSY  in  the  Black  Sea  also  appears  to  be 
associated with an increase in biomass. For the central and eastern Mediterranean, it is unclear 
at present whether the changes in biomass and fishing mortality are related. 

6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 4: Overall trend in fishing mortality and biomass in the Mediterranean basin. Top panel: average 
F/FMSY trend. Bottom panel: trend in spawning stock biomass relative to 2003. Dark grey and light grey 
areas show the 50% and 95% confidence intervals of the average, based on 58 assessed stocks. 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 5: Trends in the average (median) F/FMSY (top panel) and biomass (B/B2003) (bottom panel) 
over time in each of the Mediterranean sea areas. 

Regarding European eel, the Council implemented in EU law a decision adopted by the GFCM 
in 2023 to consolidate existing measures (i.e. 6-month closure periods and a ban on recreational 
fishing) and further measures to reduce the fishing mortality of glass eel in all habitats including 
freshwater habitats. 

2.  REPORTING  ON  THE  BALANCE  BETWEEN  FISHING  CAPACITY  AND  FISHING 

OPPORTUNITIES 

In line with Article 22(4) of the CFP Regulation, the Commission must report annually to the 
European  Parliament  and  the  Council  on  the  balance  between  fishing  capacity  and  fishing 
opportunities11. 

Coastal  Member  States  report  annually  on  potential  imbalances,  following  Commission 
guidelines12. For the fleet segments for which overcapacity has been identified, they are required 
to submit an action plan with adjustment targets, tools and a clear implementation time frame, 
in line with Article 22 of the CFP Regulation. 

A  detailed  analysis  of  the  biological  sustainability,  economic  parameters,  vessel  usage  and 
national fleet reports is provided below. The Annex shows the fleets where there is an imbalance 
between  fisheries  resources  and  the  fleet’s  fishing  capacity.  It  also  shows  where  inadequate 
monitoring and data collection prevented conclusive results from being obtained. 

11 See: https://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu/reports/balance. 
12  Guidelines  for  the  analysis  of  the  balance  between  fishing  capacity  and  fishing  opportunities  according  to 
Article 22  of  Regulation  (EU)  No 1380/2013  of  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  on  the  Common 
Fisheries Policy (COM(2014) 545 final). 

8 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.1 Member States’ annual reports and action plans and the STECF’s assessment 

All 22 coastal Member States submitted their 2023 reports to the Commission13. The STECF 
examined  these  reports  comprehensively,  together  with  the  available  information  on  the 
sustainability of fisheries resources, economic parameters and vessel activity. The STECF then 
issued a report14, in line with the Commission guidelines, providing details and their analysis. 

A summary of the indicators calculated for each fleet segment is provided in the Annex. It also 
indicates the Member States that have submitted action plans and the fleet segments identified 
by  Member  States  as  having  overcapacity.  The  calculation  of  the  indicators  and  the 
corresponding thresholds signalling potential overcapacity presented here are described in full 
detail in the Commission guidelines and the STECF report. 

Information is provided for each fleet segment separately. A fleet segment is a group of vessels 
of a defined length (e.g. 6-12 metres), operating in a set area (e.g. the North-East Atlantic) and 
using the same principal type of gear (e.g. beam trawl). In the Annex, the area code NAO means 
North  Atlantic  Ocean,  including  the  North  Sea,  Celtic  Sea  and  Baltic  Sea,  MBS  means  the 
Mediterranean and Black Seas, and OFR means other fishing regions. Gear codes are as set out 
in Annex XI to the applicable Commission Implementing Regulation15. 

Two biological indicators (stocks at risk (SAR) and sustainable harvest indicator (SHI)) have 
been set. The SAR  is  a  measure of  whether a fleet  segment catches significant  quantities of 
stocks that are at high biological risk after being depleted to a low level. In the Annex, a SAR 
in  red  means  that at  least  10% of the  catches of  the segment  are taken from  a stock  at  high 
biological risk. 

The SHI measures whether a fleet depends on stocks that are overfished with respect to the MSY 
(see Annex) for a significant part of its income. A SHI in red means that a fleet segment relies, 
on average, on stocks that are fished above MSY for its income. 

The following three economic indicators are used. 

13 Reports and action plans: https://ec.europa.eu/oceans-and-fisheries/fisheries/rules/fishing-fleet-capacities_en. 
14 STECF, Assessment of balance indicators for key fleet segments and review of national reports on Member 
States efforts to achieve balance between fleet capacity and fishing opportunities  (STECF-23-13), Publications 
Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2023. 
15 Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 404/2011 of 8 April 2011 laying down detailed rules for the 
implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring 
compliance with the rules of the Common Fisheries Policy (OJ L 112, 30.4.2011, p. 1). 

9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1.  If the return on investment is less than zero and less than the best available long-term 
risk-free interest rate, this is flagged in red to indicate long-term economic inefficiency. 
If  data  on  intangible  costs  (e.g.  quota  leasing)  are  not  available,  return  on  fixed  and 
tangible assets can be used instead. 

2.  If the current revenue is less than break-even revenue, this is flagged in red to indicate a 

short-term economic inefficiency. 

3.  Vessel-use indicators are flagged in red if more than 20% of the fleet segment recurrently 
demonstrates less than 70% of its potential workable activity, which could indicate an 
imbalance  in  capacity.  Other  reasons  could  also  affect  this  parameter,  such  as 
unexpected events and emergencies. 

In many cases, biological information (such as the state of the exploited resource) or economic 
information was not available for certain fleet segments. These are listed in Table 1. 

10 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Fleet segments 
with no 
biological 
indicators 

Fleet segments 
with no 
economic 
indicators 

Number of vessels with 
no biological indicators 

Number of vessels with 
no economic indicators 

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

3 
0 
0 
7 
0 
0 
2 
3 
3 
6 
1 
0 
0 
0 
0 
9 
16 
7 
7 
0 
7 
0 

3 
8 
1 
7 
0 
16 
3 
3 
52 
6 
8 
8 
9 
4 
0 
9 
16 
11 
7 
2 
7 
16 

11 
0 
0 
19 
0 
0 
7 
12 
3 
20 
1 
0 
0 
0 
0 
63 
41 
21 
14 
0 
24 
0 

11 
17 
1 
19 
0 
65 
13 
12 
228 
20 
22 
32 
134 
7 
0 
63 
41 
25 
14 
33 
24 
429 

Table  1:  Numbers  in  bold  indicate  fleet  segments  where  a  lack  of  biological  or  economic 
information prevented the calculation of biological or economic indicators and where more than 
50 vessels were affected by a lack of data reporting 

2.2 The EU fishing fleet’s capacity 

The number, gross tonnage and power of vessels in the EU fleet have all followed a downward 
trend in recent years (latest data from 2023) (Figures 6 and 7). In December 2023, the EU fleet 

11 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
register (which includes the outermost regions) listed 71 608 vessels corresponding to 1 305 115 
gross tonnage (GT) and 5 226 554 kilowatts (kW) of installed power16. 

Figure 6: Tonnage capacity trend (GT) of the EU fishing fleet between 2014 and 2023 

Total EU Engine Power vs its capacity ceiling

8.000.000
7.000.000
6.000.000
5.000.000
4.000.000
3.000.000
2.000.000
1.000.000
0

Power (kW)

Capacity Ceiling Main Power (kW)

Figure 7: Capacity trend (kW) of the EU fishing fleet between 2014 and 2023 

16 EU fleet register. Data extracted in March 2024 and includes data as at 31 December 2023. 

12 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
A  study17  was  initiated  in  January  2018  to  assess  the  engine  power  verification  systems 
implemented in  coastal  Member States, completed in  June 2019.  The  results of the physical 
verifications  carried  out  during  the  study  indicated  non-compliance  across  coastal  Member 
States, areas and vessel types. The study found levels of non-compliance indicating a systematic 
lack of a culture of compliance at operator level across the fishing sector with regard to engine 
power limitations. The study also indicated that there were significant differences among coastal 
Member States in the level of progress and quality of implementing the sampling plan to verify 
engine power and the systems in place to certify and effectively verify engine power physically. 
In addition, the study indicated that certification systems do not always generate reliable engine 
power figures for registration purposes and that certification does not guarantee that certified 
engine power will not be exceeded. 

In  October  2019,  the  Commission  initiated  a  series  of  informal  discussions  with  several 
Member  States  to  address  issues  related  to  their  engine  power  verification  and  certification 
systems.  While  progress  has  already  been  made  by  the  Member  States  concerned,  the 
Commission will continue monitoring the implementation of engine power verification rules in 
Member States. 

In December 2023, all coastal Member State fleets were under their respective capacity ceilings 
(Figure 8). However,  it has  come to  the  Commission’s attention that declarations on engine 
power are increasingly becoming subject to complaints, allegations or similar submissions. This 
raises concerns about the accuracy and reliability of coastal Member State declarations. 

17 Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries (European Commission), Roos Diesel Analysis B.V., 
Study  on  engine  power  verification  by  Member  States,  final  report,  ISBN  978-92-76-08327-6,  DOI 
10.2771/945320, Luxembourg, Publications Office of the European Union, 2019. 

13 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 8: Effective capacity as a percentage of the capacity ceiling by Member State in December 2023: 
mainland fleets only 

The  fleet  in  the  outermost  regions  has  seen  a  reduction  in  the  number  of  vessels  and  gross 
tonnage capacity (Figures 9 and 10). Between December 2021 and December 2022, the number 
of vessels decreased by 13 to a total of 3 937. Fleet capacity in GT decreased by 1 167 GT to 
55 647 GT. Fleet capacity in kW increased marginally by 2 125 kW to 394 363 kW. 

Vessel Tonnage vs its Capacity Ceiling in the 
Outermost Regions 2023

PT

FR

ES

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

45000

50000

Tonnage (GT)

Capacity Ceiling Tonnage

Figure 9: Vessel tonnage vs its capacity ceiling in the EU outermost regions (2023) 

14 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 10: Vessel power vs its capacity ceiling in the EU outermost regions (2023) 

2.3 Main conclusions by coastal Member State18 

Each  year,  the  STECF  issues  advice  on  the  balance  between  fleet  capacity  and  fishing 
opportunities for the different fleet segments and on the quality of the coastal Member States’ 
assessments provided in their national fleet reports and, where relevant, action plans. Therefore, 
the  STECF  conclusions  sometimes  differ  from  those  of  the  coastal  Member  States,  as 
summarised  below,  based  on  the  indicators  calculated  by  STECF.  In  the  summaries  which 
follow, the Commission has drawn conclusions and inferences from the STECF calculations. 

Belgium had 2 fleet segments (totalling 42 vessels) with red biological indicators and another 
2 segments (totalling 22 vessels) with red economic indicators, which points to an imbalance. 
Belgium considers that its fleet is in balance with fishing opportunities and has not submitted 
an action plan. 

Bulgaria had 13 fleet segments (totalling 586 vessels) with at least one red biological indicator. 
Of these 13 segments, 6 were exploiting stocks at risk and 4 were operating unprofitably. There 
were  3  fleet  segments  not  in  balance,  while  6  were  in  balance  for  all  economic  indicators. 
Economic  information  was  lacking  for  10  segments,  while  information  about  sustainable 
harvesting was lacking for a number of fleet segments. Bulgaria has submitted an action plan 

18 Red or green indicators are references to the Annex and mean that the indicators as assessed in STECF-23-13 
possibly indicate an imbalance (red) or no imbalance (green). A further explanation is given in the STECF report. 
If Member States have not submitted an action plan, this means they consider their fleets to be in balance. 

15 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
to tackle overcapacity in 15 fleet segments. Overcapacity will be addressed by support measures 
(e.g. investments, marketing, compensation) rather than withdrawal of fleet capacity. 

Cyprus had 3 fleet segments with red economic indicators and 4 segments with a red biological 
indicator. Cyprus has submitted an action plan concerning overcapacity in one of these fleet 
segments comprising 4 vessels (out of a total fleet of 853) for action by 2025. It will tackle the 
overcapacity by permanently withdrawing two vessels or by modifying fishing gear. 

Germany had 7 fleet segments with at least one red biological indicator and 12 with at least 
one red economic indicator. Germany has submitted an action plan covering 9 fleet segments 
totalling 165 vessels. The report shows that seven segments have red biological indicators and 
two have red economic indicators. For two other segments, indicators were not available. 

Denmark had 11 fleet segments with at least one red biological indicator and 13 segments with 
at least one red economic indicator. Out of 1 592 vessels, 407 were inactive. In 2022, Denmark 
submitted an action plan indicating the need for a vessel scrapping scheme for the Baltic Sea 
(33  vessels)  in  order  to  reduce  the  capacity  of  smaller-length  vessel  segments  and  vessels 
affected by the UK’s withdrawal from the EU (30 vessels). 

Spain had 41 fleet segments with at least one red biological indicator and 25 fleet segments 
with at least one red economic indicator. Spain submitted an action plan for the period 2023-
2025  for  the  13  fleet  segments  not  in  balance  with  fishing  opportunities,  which  included 
segments in the outermost regions. The plan proposes a number of measures to help tackle the 
imbalance in the fleet segments and has a target date of 2025. The plan focuses primarily on a 
wide variety of technical measures, in particular tonnage and engine power reduction. 

Estonia had 4 fleet segments with at least one red biological indicator and 1 segment with three 
red economic indicators. Estonia has a fleet of 1 954 vessels, of which 650 are inactive. Estonia 
has not submitted an action plan, despite the indications of overcapacity. 

Finland had 5 fleet segments with at least one red biological indicator and 3 segments with at 
least one red economic indicator. For three segments, all biological and economic indicators 
were  lacking.  Finland  has  not  submitted  an  action  plan,  despite  the  indications  of 
overcapacity.  It  expects  capacity  to  fall  systemically  through  the  use  of  transferable  quotas, 
which  were  introduced  in  2017.  Finland  has  not  fixed  objectives  for  achieving  capacity 
reductions. 

France had 45 fleet segments with at least one red biological indicator and 22 fleet segments 
with at least one red economic indicator. France submitted an updated action plan including 
all nine fleet segments operating in the Mediterranean. Unlike previous years, the action plan 
now  includes  an  additional  17  fleet  segments  from  its  outermost  regions.  In  its  action  plan, 
France includes technical measures including temporary closures and capacity reduction. The 
16 

 
 
 
 
 
 
majority of the technical indicators for France showed  an imbalance (red), about half of the 
available biological indicators were in balance (green), while most of the economic indicators 
showed fishing activity to be profitable (green). 

Greece had 21 fleet segments, of which 3 had at least one red biological indicator. However, 
biological indicators were only available for 14 segments. There were 7 segments with at least 
one  red  economic  indicator.  Greece  has  not  yet  presented  an  action  plan  despite  the 
indications of overcapacity. 

Croatia had 21 fleet segments with at least one red biological indicator and 10 segments with 
at least one red economic indicator. Croatia submitted an update to its action plan to tackle 
overcapacity. The majority of Croatia’s fleet segments appear to be out of balance with fishing 
opportunities. Measures proposed by Croatia include capacity reductions, effort limits, closed 
areas and decommissioning certain types of fishing gear. 

Ireland had 11 fleet segments with at least one red biological indicator and 3 segments with at 
least one red economic indicator. 10 segments had no available economic indicator. Ireland 
has not presented an action plan despite the indications of overcapacity. 

Italy had 19 fleet segments with at least one red biological indicator and 3 fleet segments with 
at  least  one  red  economic  indicator.  Italy  has  presented  an  action  plan  to  tackle  the 
overcapacity in its fleet. It did not identify any structural overcapacity for 2022. Italy’s action 
plan presents different measures to reduce fishing effort, e.g. continuing previous measures and 
permanently ceasing activity. However, the information presented in the Italian fleet report was 
insufficient to quantitatively assess whether the proposed measures in the action plan would 
result in a reduction in fishing mortality of relevant target species or the extent to which it will 
remedy  any  potential  imbalance  between  capacity  and  fishing  opportunities  in  Italian  fleet 
segments. 

Latvia had 3 fleet segments with at least one red biological indicator. No fleet segments had 
red economic indicators. Latvia has submitted an action plan concerning 1 fleet segment that 
in 2022 comprised 32 vessels out of a total fleet of 313 vessels. That segment now comprises 
29 vessels out of a total fleet of 325 vessels. The segment had a red biological indicator. 

Lithuania had 6 fleet segments with at least one red biological indicator and 2 fleet segments 
with at least one red economic indicator. Lithuania submitted an action plan with a target date 
of 2023. The action plan covered 4 of the aforementioned 8 segments and comprised 9 vessels 
out of a total fleet of 141 vessels. It has not submitted an updated or a new action plan. 

Malta had 9 fleet segments with at least one red biological indicator and 4 segments with at 
least  one  red  economic  indicator.  Malta  has  submitted  an  action  plan  which  is  largely  a 

17 

 
 
 
 
 
 
statement  of  intent  to  improve  monitoring  by  adopting  new  regulatory  frameworks  and  by 
rolling out equipment to register fishing vessel activity and monitor catches. 

The  Netherlands  had  4  segments  with  red  biological  indicators  and  6  segments  with  red 
economic indicators, out of a total of 27 segments. Despite the indications of overcapacity, the 
Netherlands did not submit an action plan. Biological and economic indicators were lacking 
for 15 segments. 

Poland had 8 fleet segments with at least one red biological indicator and 4 fleet segments with 
at least one red economic indicator. Poland submitted an action plan concerning 8 segments. 
However, it did not indicate a specific timeframe for implementation, only that the plan is to be 
implemented over a 3-5 year time period. 

Portugal had 6 fleet segments with at least one red biological indicator and 12 segments with 
at least one red economic indicator. Portugal submitted an action plan due to the imbalance 
observed in vessel-use indicators and economic indicators for the fishing fleet operating with 
hooks, particularly in the case of larger length-class vessels. The action plan was extended until 
the end of 2025 and includes permanent cessation of activity by 16 vessels. The action plan is 
clear, targeted and limited in time. 

Romania had 5 fleet segments with one red technical indicator and 1 fleet segment with one 
red biological indicator. Romania submitted an action plan which seems to be a continuation of 
the action plan from 2022. The action plan proposes broad economic and technical measures 
with unclear objectives . The time frame for implementing the action plan runs until 2027. 

Slovenia had 10 fleet segments totalling 137 vessels. For 7 segments, no economic or biological 
indicators were available. Despite the indications of overcapacity, Slovenia did not submit an 
action plan. 

Sweden had 1 220 segments with at least one red biological indicator. 14 segments had a red 
economic indicator. In 2021, Sweden submitted an action plan covering 17 fishing vessels 
targeting cod across 5 segments. The action plan expired in 2022, however no new or revised 
action plan has been submitted. 

There were significant gaps in the provision of biological and economic indicators. Bulgaria, 
Cyprus, Spain,  France,  Greece,  Ireland,  Italy, Malta, Portugal  and Sweden all had segments 
totalling 50 or more vessels for which either biological or economic data were not available. 
For Cyprus, France, Ireland and Sweden, the numbers exceeded 200 vessels. 

18 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The Commission has written to these Member States about the need to improve data collection 
in order to comply with Article 22 of the CFP Regulation. The Commission also asked Member 
States  to  submit further details  on their  fishing  fleets in  order to  build a clear picture of  the 
situation in their fleets. In particular, this is intended to further the work on energy transition 
and  tackle  the  health  and  safety  concerns  highlighted  in  the  fisheries  and  oceans  package19, 
while stressing the need to improve data collection, 

The Commission will launch an evaluation of the common fisheries policy and a study of the 
fleet to underpin this evaluation. 

2.4 Financial support from the European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund 

for the structural adaptation of fishing fleets 

Certain  segments  of  the  fishing  fleet  are  subject  to  overcapacity,  resulting  in  the 
overexploitation  of  marine  biological  resources.  If  there  is  structural  overcapacity,  the 
profitability of the fleet is low because too many vessels are chasing too few fish. To avoid this, 
it is necessary to structurally adapt the fishing fleets concerned. 

The European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund20 (EMFAF) can grant, under specific 
conditions, financial compensation to fishers if they permanently cease fishing activities. The 
fishing capacity eliminated thanks to this support is then permanently removed from the fleet. 
Permanent  cessation  can  happen  by  scrapping  a  fishing  vessel  or  decommissioning  it  and 
retrofitting it for other activities. However, any conversion to recreational fishing must not lead 
to increased pressure on the marine ecosystem. 

Member States have submitted their EMFAF programmes for 2021-2027. These programmes 
are multiannual strategic roadmaps for public investment, underpinned by an  analysis of the 
strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. They set out tailor-made measures to respond 
to the specific challenges identified by Member States to the common EU priorities for marine 
biodiversity,  maritime  policy  and  sustainable  fisheries  and  aquaculture.  The  Commission 
adopted the programmes21 after an in-depth assessment which took into account, among other 
things,  the  balance  between  fleet  fishing  capacity  and  available  fishing  opportunities,  as 
reported on annually by coastal Member States in line with Article 22(2) of the CFP Regulation. 

19 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 final). 
20  Regulation  (EU)  2021/1139  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  7  July  2021  establishing  the 
European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund (OJ L 247, 13.7.2021, p. 1). 
21 https://oceans-and-fisheries.ec.europa.eu/funding/emfaf-programmes-2021-2027_en 

19 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.5 Conclusion 

In 2023, all coastal Member States complied with the obligation to report on the capacity and 
balance of their fleet segments with fishing opportunities. However, some Member States will 
need to  adjust their reporting to better comply with the Commission’s guidelines and tackle 
discrepancies  between  their  national  reports  and  the  STECF’s  advice.  12  Member  States 
submitted  new  or  revised  action  plans  encompassing  many  different  measures  to  tackle 
overcapacity. However, more needs to be done to make the action plans more specific, time-
bound and objective-driven. 

The  overall  capacity  of  the  EU  mainland  fleet  (i.e.  excluding  the  outermost  regions)  has 
remained relatively stable. Only minor changes were observed compared to the previous year, 
namely -0.44%, -0.52% and -0.1% in the number of vessels, tonnage and power, respectively. 

Nevertheless, a greater focus is needed on the fleets of some coastal Member States, especially 
in  the Mediterranean and Black Seas, where  capacity is  very  close to  the ceilings.  Capacity 
measures  can  be  particularly  important  for  countries  and  regions  where  conservation  and 
management measures are not (yet) effective enough to regulate input and output measures, 
such as effort limits or TACs. 

3.  SOCIO-ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE: EU TRENDS AND RESULTS BY FLEET CATEGORY 

According  to  the  latest  available  STECF  annual  economic  report  for  202322,  the  EU  fleet 
directly employed 121 917 fishers in 2021, corresponding to 81 747 FTE. The average annual 
wage (including crew wages and unpaid labour) per FTE was estimated at EUR 26 387, ranging 
from EUR 122 104 for Belgian fishers to EUR 2 289 for fishers in Cyprus. 

The EU fleet spent over 5.5 million days at sea and consumed almost 1.8 billion litres of fuel 
in  2021.  Total  reported  landings  amounted  to  3.57 million  tonnes  of  seafood  (a  decrease  of 
9.5% compared to 2020), corresponding to a value of EUR 6 billion. Landings per day at sea 
for  the  EU  fleet  as  a  whole  were  estimated  at  approximately  0.64 tonnes  per  day,  again  a 
reduction in volume since 2020. 

Revenue (gross value of landings plus other income) amounted to almost EUR 6.2 billion, up 
5% on 2020. Other income accounted for 3.4% of this revenue. The gross value added (GVA), 
gross  profit  and  net  profit  generated  by  the  fleet  were  EUR 3.3 billion,  EUR 1.2 billion  and 
EUR 0.5 billion, respectively. GVA and gross profit remained stable in 2021 compared to 2020. 
However,  net  profit  increased  by  23%.  GVA  to  revenue  was  estimated  at  53.7%  (55.9%  in 
2020), gross profit margin at 19.1% (down marginally from 20.2% in 2020), and net profit as a 
proportion of revenue at 9.1% (up from 7.8% in 2020). In terms of economic performance at 
Member  State  level,  four  of  the  22  Member  States  analysed  generated  a  net  loss,  namely 

22 STECF 23-14, Economic and Social analyses - European Commission (europa.eu). 

20 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Cyprus, Greece, Germany and France (down from five in 2020, i.e. Cyprus, Estonia, France, 
Finland and Germany). None of the Member States analysed incurred a gross loss in 2021. 

The socio-economic performance is presented below by fleet category: 

Small-scale coastal fleet (SSCF). Gross and net profits generated by the SSCF in 2021 returned 
to  pre-pandemic  levels,  recovering  from  an  abrupt  decline  in  2020.  The  SSCF  in  the 
Mediterranean recorded the largest recovery along with, to a lesser extent, other regions such 
as the South-Western Waters and North-Western Waters. Taking into account the trend in gross 
and net profit, there are still regions that, despite the improvement in 2021, continue to show a 
negative trend compared to  2018, such as the Black Sea, North  Sea, Eastern Arctic and the 
‘other fishing regions’ area. Crew in the SSCF (59 948) represented 49% of total EU employed 
crew and 40% (33 052) of all FTEs. Total employed crew decreased by 7% and FTE by 8% in 
2021 compared to the average for the period 2018-2020. The Mediterranean accounted for the 
highest number of FTEs, followed by the South-Western Waters and the Baltic. However, the 
Baltic saw the largest reduction (-20%) in FTEs of all regions in the EU in the period 2018-
2021. 

The EU large-scale fleet (LSF) comprises all fishing vessels over 12 metres using static gear 
and  all  fishing  vessels  using  towed  gear  operating  predominately  in  EU  waters.  In  2021,  it 
comprised 12 704 vessels and employed 55 217 fishers, corresponding to 23% and 45% of the 
total active EU fleet respectively. The LSF fleet produced 74% of landings by weight and 67% 
of  landings  by  value  of the  total  EU  fleet.  The  LSF  was  profitable  in  2021  but  while  GVA 
remained similar to 2020, gross profit  fell by 10% and net profit by 12.5% compared to the 
previous year. The LSF in all Member States made a gross profit in 2021, but four Member 
States, namely Cyprus, Germany, Finland and Slovenia, made a net loss. The LSF accounted 
for 45% of employed crew (55 217) and 51% of FTEs (41 903) of the EU fishing fleet. GVA 
was estimated at around EUR 2 242 million (67% of the EU total) and gross profit at around 
EUR 789 million (67% of the EU total). Estimated net profit was EUR 343 million (68% of the 
EU total). Compared to 2020, gross profit decreased by 10% and net profit by 12.5%. Labour 
productivity  (GVA  per  FTE)  was  estimated  at  EUR 53 500,  similar  to  2020  levels.  All 
productivity indicators decreased significantly over the period 2015-2020. 

The EU distant-water fleet (DWF) comprises fishing vessels over 24 metres in length flying 
the flag of a Member State and fishing predominately in non-EU waters. The DWF represents 
0.4% of EU active vessels and 1% of fishing effort (fishing days), producing 19% of all EU 
landings  by  weight  (686 908 tonnes)  and  17%  by  value  (EUR 1 036  million).  In  2021, 
according  to  the  above-mentioned  STECF  report,  the  DWF  comprised  242  fishing  vessels 
active  in  distant  waters  (Spain  81%,  France  8%,  Portugal  6%,  Italy  2%,  Lithuania  2%  and 
Poland accounting for one vessel) with a capacity of 252 511 GT (19.2% of the EU total) or 
344 591 kW (6.6% of the EU total). Over the years, the number of DWF vessels has decreased 
(from 288 in 2013 to 242 in 2021). However, catches and landings have not fallen to the same 
extent, down by 2.4% against the average for the period 2013-2020. The DWF accounts for 

21 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
5.5% of employed crew (6 752) and 8.3% of FTEs (6 792) of the EU fishing fleet. GVA was 
estimated  at  around  EUR 398 million  (12%  of  the  EU  total)  and  gross  profit  at  around 
EUR 168 million (14% of the EU total). Estimated net profit was EUR 95 million (19% of the 
EU  total).  Compared  to  2020,  gross  profit  and  net  profit  had  increased.  Gross  profit  almost 
doubled while net profit went from negative to positive. Labour productivity (GVA per FTE) 
was  estimated  at  EUR 58 600.  In  2021,  the  average  salary  of  an  FTE  in  the  DWF  was 
EUR 33 900 per year. All productivity indicators decreased significantly over the period 2013-
2021. GVA decreased by 3% and gross profit by 15%. This fleet also saw a decrease in GVA 
to revenue and gross profit margin (2.9% and 29%, respectively) compared to 2013 levels. 

Energy will remain one of the major cost items for the EU fishing fleet in 2024, with many EU 
fishing  vessels  vulnerable  to  the  cost  of  fossil  fuels  due  to  their  high  energy  intensity.  The 
Energy Transition Communication23, published in February 2022, therefore proposes several 
measures to help the sector accelerate its energy transition and reach the objective of climate 
neutrality  by 2050.  The main actions  proposed  include the  creation  of an Energy Transition 
Partnership for EU fisheries and aquaculture, a financing guide24 for stakeholders and Member 
States on how best to use funding from the European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund 
(EMFAF) and other funds to help achieve the energy transition, and a study on technologies 
geared towards energy transition in the fishing sector which will soon be published. 

3.1 National fisheries profiles and social indicators 

The latest STECF report on social data in fisheries25 contains important information related to 
national fisheries profiles and the development of additional social indicators. 

National  fisheries  profiles  collate  quantitative  and  qualitative  social  data  for  each  Member 
State. They provide historical background and specific contextual information, and emphasise 
the most salient social, institutional, and legal aspects related to fisheries in each country. As 
such, they are a key tool to understand the wider social context of fisheries. Three initial profiles 
were  prepared  as  proof  of  concept  and  an  additional  nine  profiles  are  planned  based  on  the 
revised template and guidelines provided by the STECF in its report. This means 12 Member 
States will be covered by the end of March 2024. The Commission intends to make the plans 
fully accessible to all in the course of 2024. 

Regarding  social  indicators,  the  STECF  produced  a  detailed  analysis  of  the  seven  policy 
priorities identified by the Commission as essential to understanding the social reality of fishers: 

23 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). 
24https://blue-economy-observatory.ec.europa.eu/guide-and-tool-financing-energy-transition-fisheries-and-
aquaculture_en 
25 Scientific Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) – Social Data in Fisheries (STECF 23-
17) 

22 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
state  of  play,  assessment  of  conservation  and  management  measures,  dependency,  mobility, 
immaterial value, generational renewal, and engagement and compliance. For each priority, the 
STECF identified the associated social concepts, the potential indicators, the data availability 
and collection method, and the level of granularity of the data required. Given the broad scope 
of the policy priorities, the STECF concluded that the list of potential indicators was too long 
to allow the Expert Working Group to operationalise them into concrete data calls26. It therefore 
suggested that the Commission engage in discussions with the wider stakeholder community to 
prioritise and identify the most relevant policy questions. 

The Commission sent a survey on this matter to Member States and advisory councils (ACs), 
as well as the ICES and STECF secretariat, with a deadline of 15 April 2024. 

4. 

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE LANDING OBLIGATION 

The objective of the landing obligation is to avoid wasting resources through discards by 
encouraging fishers to fish more selectively and actively avoid unwanted catches. For 
that purpose, it requires all catches to be landed. 

The landing obligation has been in place since 2015 and fully applicable since 2019. Reporting 
is based on information sent by Member States, advisory councils and other relevant sources to 
the Commission. Reports on implementing the landing obligation were first produced in 2015. 
Since 2016, this reporting has been included in the Commission’s annual communication on 
the CFP. This staff working document covers implementation of the landing obligation in 2023. 

Since 2021, the Commission has no longer been under a legal obligation to annually report on 
the implementation of the landing obligation. However, as the landing obligation is key to the 
CFP objectives, the Commission decided to continue annual reporting. 

For 2023, reporting on the landing obligation was based on: (i) progress with EMFAF measures 
addressing  the  landing  obligation;  (ii)  discussions  in  the  advisory  councils;  (iii)  control  and 
enforcement, including annual reporting by the European Fisheries Control Agency (EFCA); 
and  (iv)  studies  conducted  in  previous  years  as  extensively  described  in  Section 3.3.  of  the 
Communication on the functioning of the CFP27. Looking ahead, in 2024 and 2025 the reports 
should focus on the ongoing evaluation of the landing obligation. 

26 See page 3 of STECF Report 23-17. 
27 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). 

23 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
4.1 Implementation of measures at sea basin level 

Delegated regulations specifying details for implementing the landing obligation 

To  ensure  successful  and  feasible  implementation  of  the  landing  obligation,  Member  States 
may develop joint recommendations in consultation with the advisory councils. They may agree 
to submit these recommendations to the Commission with specific implementation provisions 
which the Commission must adopt by means of delegated acts. Before adopting the delegated 
acts, the Commission must submit the joint recommendations to the STECF for assessment as 
the suggested implementation provisions should take into account the best available scientific 
advice and include it as the basis for exemptions to the landing obligation. 

The delegated acts provide some flexibility where unwanted catches are very difficult to avoid 
or lead to disproportional costs, or where species have a high survivability rate. Exemptions 
from the landing obligation are set out in Article 15(4) of the CFP Regulation28. In addition to 
the exemptions for prohibited species and predator-damaged fish, the landing obligation does 
not apply to the following cases: 

(i)  High  survivability cases,  for which  scientific  evidence demonstrates high survival 

rates of discarded species. 

(ii) Up to 5% of the total annual catches (de minimis), either because scientific evidence 
demonstrates  that  increases  in  selectivity  are  very  difficult  to  achieve  or  to  avoid 
disproportionate costs for handling and sorting unwanted catches. These exemptions 
were  put  in  place by the co-legislators to  tackle the specific problems  of  (mostly) 
mixed fisheries29 in achieving the objectives of the CFP Regulation and to avoid the 
phenomenon of choke species. 

28 Additionally, Article 15(2) of the CFP Regulation empowers the Commission to adopt delegated acts for the 
purpose of implementing international obligations into EU law, including exemptions to the landing obligation. 
29 ‘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, Article 4(1)(36) of the CFP Regulation. 

24 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The  Western  Waters30,  the  North  Sea31,  the  Baltic32  and  the  western  Mediterranean33 
multiannual  plans  allow  for  delegated  regulations  to  be  adopted  specifying  details  for 
implementing  the  landing  obligation  for  species  subject  to  catch  limits  and,  in  the 
Mediterranean, also species subject to minimum conservation reference sizes, and covering the 
de minimis and high survivability exemptions and technical measures aimed at increasing gear 
selectivity,  reducing  unwanted  catches  and  eliminating  discards.  The  landing  obligation  has 
been fully in force since 2019 and multiannual plans have been adopted for most waters. This 
represents  a  shift  from  granting  exemptions  to  the  landing  obligation  under  the  CFP  via 
temporary discard plans34 to a more stable approach with multiannual plans as a legal basis. 

In 2023, the following delegated regulations specifying details for implementing the landing 
obligation were in place: 

1.  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2023/2623 of 22 August 2023 supplementing 
Regulation (EU) 2019/472 of the European Parliament and of the Council by specifying 
details of the landing obligation for certain fisheries in Western Waters for the period 
2024-2027; 

2.  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2023/2459 of 22 August 2023 supplementing 
Regulation (EU) 2018/973 of the European Parliament and of the Council by specifying 
details  of  the  landing  obligation  for  certain  fisheries  in  the  North  Sea  for  the  period 
2024-2027; 

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; 

30  Article 13  of  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 (OJ L 83, 25.3.2019, p. 1). 
31  Article 11  of  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). 
32  Article 7  of  Regulation  (EU)  2016/1139  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  6 July  2016 
establishing a multiannual plan for the stocks of cod, herring and sprat in the Baltic Sea and the fisheries exploiting 
those  stocks,  amending  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No 2187/2005  and  repealing  Council  Regulation  (EC) 
No 1098/2007 (OJ L 191, 15.7.2016, p. 1). 
33  Article 14  of  Regulation  (EU)  2019/1022  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  20 June  2019 
establishing a multiannual plan for the fisheries exploiting demersal stocks in the western Mediterranean Sea and 
amending Regulation (EU) No 508/2014 (OJ L 172, 26.6.2019, p. 1). 
34 Article 15(6) of the CFP Regulation. 

25 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
4.  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2023/2462 of 22 August 2023 supplementing 
Regulation  (EU)  2019/1022  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  by 
specifying details of the landing obligation for certain demersal stocks in the western 
Mediterranean Sea; 

5.  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; 

6.  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2023/2918 of 22 August 2023 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; 

7.  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2023/2460 of 22 August 2023 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 
small pelagic fisheries in the Mediterranean Sea; 

8.  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. 

In 2023, the Commission asked the STECF to review and evaluate the Member States’ joint 
recommendations  which  would  continue  to  apply  to  the  implementation  of  the  landing 
obligation beyond 2024. The purpose of doing so was to ensure that all requested exemptions 
undergo an updated assessment. The STECF drew conclusions on the individual exemptions 
and made general observations focusing on key issues such as the process and methodology 
used  to  carry  out  the  evaluation.  The  STECF  also  commented  on  how  to  undertake  future 
reviews when requested by the Commission. This review35 has been an important input into 
follow-up work to improve data (requirements) and gain insight into the implementation status. 

35 STECF 23-04 and 23-06,  

26 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Quota management 

In previous years, Member States reported that the most important management measures to 
help prevent choke situations36 and successfully implement the landing obligation were quota 
swaps; inter-species and inter-annual flexibility provided for by CFP Regulation. These tools 
remain important but no significant trend can be detected in quota swapping between Member 
States.  This  is  confirmed  by  the  Commission’s  QUOTA  database  (Figures  11,  12,  13).  To 
increase transparency and facilitate swapping, the Commission publishes the quota swaps list 
every year on a public website37. Figures for the current year are updated weekly. 

Figure 11: Volume of quota swaps ‘in’ (t) 

36 ‘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’ (Zimmermann et al. 2015). 
37 After notifying the Commission, Member States may exchange all or part of the fishing opportunities allocated 
to them (Article 16(8) of the CFP Regulation). The quota swaps are published every year by the Commission at . 
27 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 12: Volume of quota swaps ‘in’ by Member State (t) 

Figure 13: Number of quota swaps ‘in’ by Member State 

4.2 Control and enforcement 

As reported in previous years, one of the main risks associated with the landing obligation is 
the illegal and undocumented discard of catches subject to the landing obligation during fishing 

28 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
activities at sea. There are incentives for non-compliance38 which need to be tackled through 
effective control and enforcement. 

However, Member States mainly use traditional control tools, such as inspections at sea, landing 
inspections, data analysis and aerial surveillance. These tools on their own are not enough to 
effectively  monitor  and  control  the  discard  of  catches  during  fishing  activities  at  sea.  For 
example, inspections at sea only provide a snapshot of compliance at the time of monitoring 
and do not cover fishing activity before or after an inspection. Landing inspections do not cover 
illegal discards during fishing activities at sea and aerial surveillance does not provide sufficient 
evidence  of  compliance  or  non-compliance39Data  analysis  may  indicate  a  lack  of  discard 
reporting but does not confirm it at individual vessel level. 

The inadequacy of these conventional control methods has been highlighted in several reports, 
including  several  evaluation  reports  by  the  European  Fisheries  Control  Agency  (EFCA). 
According  to  the  EFCA,  remote  electronic  monitoring  (REM)  tools  are  very  well  suited  to 
controls of catch registration and illegal discard at sea. This has also been confirmed by several 
trials conducted by Member States40 and fisheries around the world, which have pointed out 
that  these  modern  control  technologies  are  scalable  and  effective  measures  for  control  and 
enforcement of the landing obligation during fishing activities at sea. 

In order to effectively monitor compliance with the landing obligation, the European Parliament 
and the Council recently adopted new EU rules which require EU vessels of 18 metres or more 
in  length  that  pose  a  potential  risk  of  non-compliance  to  install  on-board  REM  systems, 
including closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras, within the next 4 years. However, the new 
rules do not mandate the use of cameras on board fishing vessels of less than 18 metres in length 
overall and or on those perceived to pose a low risk of non-compliance. It is unclear how those 
vessels, which account for a significant proportion of the EU fleet, will be monitored or how 
compliance with the landing obligation will be ensured. 

In addition to the issue of illegal and undocumented discard during fishing activities at sea, the 
landing obligation requires ‘detailed and accurate documentation of all trips’ and catches to be 
‘counted against the quotas where applicable’. The weighing and registration of landed catches 
is essential in this regard and effective monitoring of quota uptake is fundamental to the success 

38 The main risks include illegal and undocumented discarding to avoid ʻchokeʼ situations, maximise profit (ʻhigh-
gradingʼ) and reduce the costs associated with the handling and storage of low-value catches. 
39  This  is  compounded  by  the  significant  number  and  complexity  of  the  de  minimis  and  high  survivability 
exemptions.  Aerial  surveillance  cannot  reliably  identify  species,  size  and  condition,  so  it  cannot  confirm  non-
compliance; it is also greatly impaired by poor weather and bad visibility (including periods of darkness). 
40  Several  Member  States  have  agreed  to  participate  in  an  EFCA-coordinated  REM  pilot  project  to  learn  best 
practice  on  REM  controls  (one  or  two  vessels  per  Member  State).  Denmark  uses  REM  in  the  nephrops  fleet 
operating in the Kattegat and the Netherlands is conducting a fully documented fisheries scheme on a few vessels 
in the North Sea. Neither project is being used for control and enforcement purposes. 

29 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
of the CFP. However, verification conducted by the Commission over the years has shown that 
Member States do not always ensure that catches are weighed in accordance with EU rules and 
that there is often significant misreporting of the actual quantities landed. The problem has been 
identified  in  several  sea  basins  but  is  especially  serious  in  the  Baltic  Sea  where  major 
shortcomings have  recently been confirmed in those Member States with the largest quotas. 
Shortcomings  in  implementing  EU  rules  on  weighing  and  catch  registration  contributes  to 
overfishing, plays a significant role in the decline of Baltic Sea stocks and jeopardises the status 
of stocks in other sea basins. 

Improper  implementation  of  the  landing  obligation  poses  a  significant  risk  to  achieving  the 
objectives of the CFP and undermines the accuracy of catch data (landings, unwanted catch, 
and discards) and reporting. Data and accurate reporting are crucial for the quality of scientific 
advice and therefore for achieving the maximum sustainable yield. 

European Fisheries Control Agency (EFCA) last haul inspections 

In  2023,  the  EFCA  continued  to  focus  on  assisting  Member  States  and  the  Commission  in 
monitoring,  control  and  enforcement  of  the  landing  obligation.  A  risk  assessment  regarding 
non-compliance with the landing obligation was conducted, as in previous years, as part of the 
joint deployment plans (JDP). 

EFCA last haul verifications41 have contributed to a level of monitoring of compliance with the 
landing  obligation,  either  in  relation  to  illegal  discards  or  to  the  recording  of  legal  discards 
covered  by  exemptions.  While  such  verification  during  sea  inspections  is  not  effective  in 
detecting possible infringements related to illegal discards – since fishers are unlikely to discard 
fish subject to the landing obligation in the presence of inspectors – they are instrumental in 
monitoring  compliance  levels  with  the  provisions  of  the  landing  obligation.  Moreover,  this 
verification  may  also  help  to  raise  awareness  among  fishers  regarding  the  provisions  of  the 
landing obligation and associated reporting requirements. 

The need for alternative control tools such as the REM as an effective operational solution for 
monitoring  compliance  with  the  landing  obligation  and  identifying  illegal  practice  was 
emphasised in 2023. During the course of the year, the EFCA REM Working Group discussed 
topics such as data protection issues, tender and procurement, the installation of REM systems, 
and the development of operational guidelines for implementing REM in NAFO fisheries. The 
EFCA will continue to assist Member States in preparing for implementation of REM and in 
identifying the best possible strategies for monitoring compliance with the landing obligation. 

41 Last haul: verification of the catch composition of the last haul during sea inspections. 

30 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 14: Number of last haul inspections by joint deployment plan in 2021-2023 

Figure 15: Number of last haul inspections in 2023 by joint deployment plan 

31 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
5.  THE WORK AND ROLE OF ADVISORY COUNCILS IN 2023 

5.2  Advisory  councils’  recommendations  in  2023  and  how  these  were  taken  on 

board 

In  2023,  the  advisory  councils  (ACs)  submitted  128  recommendations  to  the  Commission, 
exceeding  the  126  submitted  in  2022.  As  in  previous  years,  they  covered  a  broad  range  of 
subjects (Figure 16), which indicates the extent to which the large number of files has an impact 
on fisheries and aquaculture. 

The number of recommendations varied considerably between ACs. Recommendations were 
evenly spread across the different ACs although most were received from the Market Advisory 
Council  (MAC)  and  the  North-Western  Waters  Advisory  Council  (NWWAC)  and  only  one 
from  the  Black  Sea  Advisory  Council  (BlSAC),  which  mainly  sent  recommendations  to 
Member States and not to the Commission. As in previous years, joint recommendations were 
also submitted to the Commission by the Member States who consulted the ACs. 

Figure 16: Number of recommendations received by the Commission on specific topics 

32 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
As described below, these recommendations were essential in shaping policy. The Commission 
took the recommendations on board to a great extent. 

1)  Recommendations on the Mediterranean and Black Seas 

In  2023,  the  Commission  received  advice  from  the  Mediterranean  Advisory  Council 
(MEDAC)  on  topics  such  as  fishing  opportunities,  implementation  of  the  EU  Western 
Mediterranean multiannual plan, implementation of GFCM multiannual plans, implementation 
of the landing obligation in the Mediterranean Sea and contributions to EU proposals to the 
GFCM. 

In the EU proposals  for GFCM recommendations, the Commission incorporated parts of  all 
MEDAC advice on new multiannual plans, new fisheries restricted areas in the Mediterranean 
Sea, and measures on red coral and non-indigenous species. The Commission promoted in all 
the GFCM proposals the need for a regional level-playing field, as requested by MEDAC. 

In preparing the annual fishing opportunities proposal for the Mediterranean and Black Seas, 
the Commission took into account parts of MEDAC advice, including implementation of the 
compensation  mechanism  under  the  Western  Mediterranean  multiannual  plan,  notably  by 
proposing to increase the level of compensation and include additional technical criteria. 

The Commission also received advice from the Black Sea Advisory Council (BlSAC) on topics 
such as the decarbonisation of fishing activities in the Black Sea, challenges in research and 
innovation  in  aquaculture,  non-indigenous  species,  recreational  fisheries,  maritime  special 
planning and the certification of fish and fisheries products. The Commission incorporated parts 
of  these  recommendations  into  the  proposals  for  GFCM  recommendations,  most  notably  on 
decarbonisation, recreational fisheries and non-indigenous species. 

2)  North-East Atlantic and North Sea – shared fish stock management 

In  2021,  the  North-Western  Waters  Advisory  Council  (NWWAC),  the  North  Sea  Advisory 
Council (NSAC) and the Pelagic Advisory Council (PELAC) decided to set up an inter-AC 
forum to deal with the consequences of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU. The Commission 
met with this forum’s members on six occasions in 2022 to discuss all the agenda items of the 
Specialised  Committee  on  Fisheries  (SCF)  under  the  EU-UK  Trade  and  Cooperation 
Agreement and debrief on annual consultation outcomes. For the SCF in particular, this has 
helped prepare stakeholder involvement on a number of important files to be discussed with the 
UK. 

33 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
In addition, the joint advice of the NWWAC and the NSAC on skate and ray management was 
followed up by the Commission’s regular attendance at focus group meetings to prepare the 
terms of reference for the STECF EWG in 2022 and work with the UK in the SCF. A dedicated 
NWWAC/NSAC stakeholder workshop was organised on the future management of skate and 
ray in Brussels on 9 February 2023. This has helped steer the scientific and management debate, 
in  particular  on  the  issue  of  how  to  manage  group  skate  and  ray  TACs  and  assess  possible 
alternatives. This has been a major and sensitive topic in the last three rounds of annual EU-
UK consultations, and stakeholder input to the process has been of great value. 

NWWAC advice on the seabass tool was followed up with specific discussions between the 
Commission and the focus group on how to improve the current tool. This helped inform the 
EU position when drafting joint terms of reference for ICES, agreed by the EU-UK SCF. 

Other  NWWAC  advice  provided  feedback  on  technical  measures  for  Celtic  Sea  cod.  This 
feedback is being taken into consideration in the ongoing discussions with the UK aimed at 
introducing co-agreed measures. The Commission will continue to engage with the NWWAC 
on this topic. 

The  PELAC  proposal  for  a  rebuilding  plan  for  western  horse  mackerel  was  taken  into 
consideration  during  the  annual  consultation  with  the  UK  for  2023.  It  was  instrumental  in 
setting up fishing opportunities for this species for 2023. 

The  NWWAC  gave  advice  on  the  draft  joint  recommendation  for  the  delegated  regulation 
specifying the details for implementing the landing obligation and advice on choke situations 
after exemptions. This  advice  was  important  and helped ascertain  the main  priorities of and 
concerns raised by Member State stakeholders about the extensive list of proposed de minimis 
and  high  survivability  exemptions.  In  some  cases,  the  information  is  helpful  in  subsequent 
stages of this process, in particular during interaction and technical meetings with the STECF 
experts responsible for evaluating the exemptions in the joint recommendation. On choke risks, 
the advice included a comprehensive list of key choke species, based on the ‘choke mitigation 
tool’, by sea basin, fishing area, species and TACs. This useful information further confirms 
the high degree of complexity in mixed fisheries and the importance of some de minimis and 
high survivability exemptions to help avoid choke risks in those fisheries. 

The NSAC letter on the technical regulation for Norwegian waters pointed out the failure to 
consult and notify the EU before the announcement and entry into force of the beam trawl ban 
in those waters. The NSAC regretted that stakeholders affected by the measure had not had the 
chance to suggest alternatives to the ban. The Commission conveyed this position to Norway 
on several occasions. 

34 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3)  South-Western Waters 

The South-Western Waters Advisory Council issued advice on the limitation of variations in 
fishing opportunities for certain stocks over the years. The stocks concerned were shared stocks 
managed by the EU. 

4)  Baltic Sea 

The Commission proposal on fishing opportunities for 2023 took into account the part of the 
Baltic Sea Advisory Council (BSAC) recommendation on Riga herring and Gulf of Finland 
salmon. The BSAC also adopted a white paper entitled Implementation and revision of the CFP 
with a Baltic perspective, and a recommendation on how to implement the ICES advice on eels. 

There was also a good example of AC and Member State cooperation when a dialogue between 
the BSAC and BaltFish (a Member State Regional Group for the Baltic) was established as part 
of  the  discussions  on  a  joint  recommendation  on  conservation  measures  for  some  areas  in 
German waters. Germany, which led the joint recommendation, participated in several meetings 
with industry members  of the BSAC, which disagreed with the envisaged measures arguing 
they  were  unnecessary.  BaltFish  and  Member  States  took  the  time  to  respond  to  the  BSAC 
comments and described the management measures in detail. The BSAC also commented on 
the draft joint recommendations from BaltFish for high survivability exemptions to the landing 
obligation for plaice and salmon. 

5)  Aquaculture 

The Aquaculture Advisory Council (AAC) submitted 14 recommendations on aquaculture in 
2023. In doing so, the AAC continued to support implementation of the Strategic guidelines for 
aquaculture,  in  particular  in  relation  to  work  related  to  environmental  performance,  climate 
change adaptation and mitigation, decarbonisation and good husbandry practices. In addition, 
the AAC proposed to set up a system for regularly monitoring the progress and impact of the 
Strategic guidelines and Member State Multiannual National Strategic Plans for Aquaculture. 
Based on this proposal and discussions with the AAC and Member States, DG MARE plans to 
launch  a  yearly  survey  for  this  purpose.  The  AAC  also  provided  valuable  input  on  the 
development  of  the  EU-wide  communication  campaign  on  aquaculture,  currently  being 
developed by DG MARE. 

35 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
6)  Market 

In 2023, the MAC sent recommendations on a number of topics related to market policy, market 
intelligence, consumption patterns, and the sustainability of fishery and aquaculture products 
on the EU market. The recommendations covered studies suggested for inclusion in the work 
programme  of  the  European  Union  Market  Observatory  for  Fisheries  and  Aquaculture 
Products, and disturbances on the market for fishery and aquaculture products due to Russia’s 
full-scale invasion of Ukraine. 

7)  Communication on the functioning of the CFP 

Seven recommendations were received on the annual communication and orientations for 2024 
and the fisheries and oceans package42. 

8)  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 

Nine recommendations were received on the marine action plan43. Recommendations covered 
the Mediterranean Sea, the Baltic Sea and the North-East Atlantic. 

9)  Energy transition of the EU fisheries and aquaculture sector44 

In 2023, the Commission discussed the energy transition with ACs. The Commission received 
several  recommendations  on  energy  transition  from  a  number  of  ACs.  The  Commission 
launched the Energy Transition Partnership for EU fisheries and aquaculture on 16 June 2023 
and looks forward to continuing this work. 

10) Maritime spatial planning and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive 

In 2023, BlSAC and BSAC made three recommendations on the impact of offshore renewable 
energy on fisheries. 

42 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). 
43 COM(2023) 102 final. 
44 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 final). 

36 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
5.2 Conclusion 

As reported in previous years, the ACs are the Commission stakeholders’ forum and a vital part 
of policymaking under the CFP. Their recommendations are of the utmost importance to the 
Commission  as  they  enable  EU  and  national  policymakers  to  draw  on  local  knowledge  and 
experience. They also build collaboration and trust between all those involved. 

Advice by ACs is an important input to policymaking and the development and implementation 
of  measures,  even  though  not  every  recommendation  leads  to  a  change  in  legislation. 
Conservation measures need to be adopted taking into account the available scientific, technical 
and economic advice. This advice includes reports drawn up by the STECF and other scientific 
advisory  bodies,  recommendations  from  advisory  councils  and  joint  recommendations  from 
Member  States  under  Article 18  of  the  CFP  Regulation.  Some  recommendations  may  have 
already been addressed through EU legislation or initiatives; others may have been considered 
but are not yet visible in legislation. 

AC  recommendations  may  lead  to  different  outcomes,  such  as  contributing  to  research  and 
policy documents or to scientific advisory bodies’ terms of reference. They may also trigger the 
launch of a study on a specific issue. Above all, AC meetings and recommendations make it 
possible to discuss and get a better understanding of the issues at stake and involve stakeholders 
in policymaking. Dialogue with stakeholders is enshrined in the CFP Regulation, as part of the 
principles of good governance under Article 3. It has proven to be essential to achieving the 
objectives  of  the  CFP.  Considering  the  diverse  nature  of  EU  waters  and  the  increased 
regionalisation of the CFP, ACs enable the CFP to draw on the knowledge and experience of 
all stakeholders. Involving stakeholders, in particular ACs, at all stages – from conception to 
implementation of the measures – is provided for as a guideline for the CFP under Article 3. 

6. INTERNATIONAL OCEAN GOVERNANCE 

The EU has committed to taking an even more active role in international ocean governance 
and in implementing the UN 2030 Agenda and its Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 14 
‘life below water’ by: 

1.  strengthening  international  ocean  governance  framework  at  global,  regional  and 

bilateral levels; 

2.  making  ocean  sustainability  a  reality  by  2030  by  taking  a  coordinated  and 

complementary approach to common challenges and cumulative impacts; 

3.  making the ocean a safe and secure space as competition in international waters and 

challenges to the rules-based multilateral order are growing; 

37 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
4.  building  up  international  ocean  knowledge  for  evidence-based  decision-making  that 

results in action to protect and sustainably manage the ocean. 

In 2022, a Joint Communication on international ocean governance was published, focusing on 
safe, secure, clean and sustainably managed oceans. The Communication on international ocean 
governance45 focuses on safe, secure, clean and sustainably managed oceans. It contributes to 
the EU’s implementation of the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, in particular 
SDG  14  ‘life  below  water’46 and  delivers  on  the  blue  part  of  the  European  Green  Deal47, 
demonstrating the EU’s strong engagement on oceans. 

As  the  CFP  is  an  exclusive  competence  of  the  EU,  the  Commission  represents  the  EU  in 
international negotiations on issues falling under the CFP at multilateral, regional and bilateral 
levels. 

The EU made it a priority to adopt the agreement on the biodiversity of areas beyond national 
jurisdiction48.  The  agreement  now  needs  to  be  implemented  and  ratified.  EU  ratification  is 
currently underway. Once in force, the agreement will allow for marine protected areas to be 
designated,  help  set  global  guidelines  and  standards  for  conducting  environmental  impact 
assessments  and  encourage  mutual  support  between  different  international  frameworks  and 
bodies with ocean-related competence. 

The  World  Trade  Organisation  (WTO)  negotiations  on  fisheries  subsidies  also  reached  a 
successful outcome in March 2024 with strong disciplines prohibiting subsidies, in particular 
on IUU fishing but also regarding high seas and overfished stocks. The EU played a prominent 
role in these WTO negotiations to prohibit harmful fisheries subsidies. Negotiations are due to 
resume on additional disciplines on overfishing and overcapacity as well as specific rules for 
the poorest nations, and the EU intends to continue playing a leading role. 

In  addition,  the  Commission  actively  contributed,  on  behalf  of  the  EU,  to  the  successful 
development  and  endorsement  of  the  Food  and  Agriculture  Organisation  (FAO)  Voluntary 
Guidelines on Transhipment. Transhipment operations, if insufficiently regulated, monitored 
and controlled, can increase the risk of fish stemming from IUU fishing entering the food supply 
chain, thus undermining sustainable and responsible fisheries. The guidelines aim to support 
conservation  and  management  measures  and  improve  implementation  of  international 

45 Joint Communication from the Commission 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). 
46 https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/oceans/ 
47 https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024/european-green-deal_en 
48 United Nations Conventions on the Law of the Sea implementing agreement on biodiversity beyond national 
jurisdiction. 

38 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
instruments  to  combat  IUU  fishing,  such  as  the  FAO  Agreement  on  Port  State  Measures  to 
Prevent, Deter and Eliminate IUU Fishing. The EU has also been encouraging the creation of 
an intergovernmental science-policy interface for ocean sustainability, aimed at establishing an 
Intergovernmental Panel for Ocean Sustainability. It obtained the inclusion of the ocean in the 
Global Stocktake at the UNFCC COP 28. 

At  regional  level,  the  Commission  always  takes  advantage  of  its  participation  in  relevant 
organisations to promote the EU biodiversity strategy and the objectives and principles of the 
CFP.  The  Commission’s  messages  focus  on  the  sustainability  of  stocks,  the  promotion  of 
science  and  science-based  management  decisions,  the  eradication  of  IUU  fishing  and  the 
creation of a level-playing field. 

In  practical  terms,  the  Commission’s  work  in  RFMOs  in  2023  has  led  to  the  adoption  of 
comprehensive  management  measures  for  both  North  and  South  Atlantic  blue  shark  in  the 
International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) and the approval of 
provisions on non-entangling and biodegradable fish aggregating devices (FADs) in the Inter-
American  Tropical  Tuna  Commission.  This  is  the  very  first  time  an  RFMO  has  adopted  a 
binding measure to gradually introduce fully biodegradable FADs 

The  EU  continued  to  promote  a  culture  of  compliance  within  RFMOs,  tabling  proposals  to 
improve monitoring and control, and to combat IUU fishing, and taking an active role in the 
compliance  committees  of  RFMOs.  This  led  to  the  adoption  in  2023  of  EU  proposals  to 
establish a vessel monitoring system and to tighten transhipment procedures under the Southern 
Indian Ocean Fisheries Agreement, and on electronic monitoring within the Indian Ocean Tuna 
Commission and ICCAT. 

In line with the EU biodiversity strategy and implementation of the Convention on Biological 
Diversity (CBD), the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission agreed to report to the CBD 
the vulnerable marine ecosystems areas of the North-East Atlantic which were closed to bottom 
fisheries  as  other  effective  area-based  conservation  measures  (OECMs).  OECMs  are 
geographically defined areas – other than protected areas – which are governed in ways that 
achieve positive and sustained long-term outcomes for the conservation of biodiversity. 

RFMOs are, however, multilateral international organisations where decisions are usually taken 
by consensus. Final outcomes very often reflect a compromise and the EU has limited leverage 
to  obtain  certain  outcomes.  This  was  apparent,  for  example,  at  the  Commission  for  the 
Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources where the proposals from the EU and its 
Member States to create two new marine protected areas did not find the necessary consensus 
despite the efforts made. The same is also true of the Commission’s continued efforts to push 
for the two Atlantic regional fisheries bodies to be upgraded to fully fledged RFMOs and secure 
39 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EU  membership  to  the  Bering  Sea  Convention.  Unfortunately,  no  tangible  progress  was 
achieved in 2023 on either point due to a lack of consensus. Moreover, as there is seemingly no 
clear appetite in either of these regional fisheries bodies to upgrade their status, the Commission 
may reassess the weight given to this objective, also in view of other priorities. 

Nevertheless,  in  2023  the  Commission  did  manage  to  progress  with  implementation  of  the 
Agreement to prevent unregulated high seas fisheries in the central Arctic Ocean. A scientific 
cooperation framework  was adopted by the deadline set in the Agreement. The groundwork 
was laid to accelerate ongoing action to adopt a future measure on exploratory fisheries aimed 
at improving our knowledge of the region based on sound scientific research. 

In  2023,  progress  was  also  made  in  integrating  into  EU  law  RFMO  conservation  and 
management measures and decisions. 

The revision of the EU fisheries control system was successfully concluded at the end of 202349. 
The  amendments  to  the  IUU  Regulation  adopted  as  part  of  this  revision  introduced  legal 
provisions requiring the use of CATCH, an IT system implementing the EU catch certification 
scheme.  EU  importers  and  Member  State  authorities  will  be  required  to  use  CATCH  from 
10 January 2026. CATCH is an EU-wide real-time IT system allowing all information, data and 
documents to be centrally managed. The aim is to improve the effectiveness of the EU catch 
certification scheme  and enable electronic submission of catch certificates and documents 
accompanying the fishery products imported into the EU. This will harmonise the scheme and 
enhance import controls. 

The amendments to the IUU Regulation also made changes to the content of the catch certificate 
and accompanying documents. The  aim  is  to improve traceability and controls  of fishery 
products destined for the EU market by collecting additional information necessary to correctly 
identify fishery products, related fishing activities and trade flows. The requirement to issue a 
processing statement was also extended to improve traceability of all consignments entering 
the EU. 

Although  the  use  of  CATCH  will  be  mandatory  only  for  EU  operators  and  Member  State 
authorities, it will also be possible for third-country operators and authorities to create, validate, 
and transfer catch certificates and related documents directly within the system. 

The Commission also strengthened guidance and cooperation with Member States on checks 
of  fishery  product  imports  imported  into  the  EU.  Moreover,  the  Commission  continued  to 

49 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:L_202302842 

40 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
interact with and support a number of non-EU countries50 in achieving fundamental reform 
of  their  fisheries  control  systems  through  field  visits,  online  meetings  and  IUU  working 
groups. In addition, the EU was the principal donor to the FAO’s Global Capacity Development 
Programme to help third countries implement the Agreement on port state measures. 

The EU also provided support to Africa and the Indo-Pacific region to contribute to the 
development and management of sustainable fisheries. This included support to build the 
countries’ capacity to combat IUU fishing. In particular, the EU committed: EUR 35 million to 
Pacific ACP states under the Pacific-European Union Marine Partnership, EUR 28 million to 
the  Indian  Ocean  region  under  the  ECOFISH  programme,  and  EUR 16.5 million  to  West 
African nations under the Improved regional fisheries governance in western Africa project. 

Sustainable fisheries partnership agreements (SFPAs) helped to provide a regulated framework 
for the EU long-distance fishing fleet and supported its competitiveness. They also helped to 
ensure the sound use of fisheries resources of third countries. In addition, SFPAS helped the 
Commission maintain a political dialogue on fisheries policies with  those third countries, in 
accordance with CFP principles and commitments under other EU policies. There are 14 SFPAs 
in force. A new Agreement and Protocol with Madagascar and a new Protocol with Kiribati 
were signed and entered into provisional application in 2023. Preparatory work also started on 
possible upcoming negotiations. More specifically, several ex ante and ex post evaluations of 
SFPAs and their implementing protocols were completed (for Angola, Morocco, Cabo Verde, 
Guinea-Bissau and Côte d’Ivoire) or launched (for Senegal, the Cook Islands, and São Tomé 
and Principe). 

Joint  committee  meetings  were  held  with  partner  countries  throughout  the  year  to  monitor 
implementation  of  the  protocols,  in  particular  regarding  the  sectoral  support  funds  granted 
through the protocols. Overall, these agreements have contributed to economic activity and job 
creation in the EU and the partner countries. SFPAs have also been contributing positively to 
the  development  of  the  fisheries  sectors,  coastal  communities  and  sustainable  fisheries 
management. 

A  significant  part  of  the  total  EU  budget  for  SFPAs  was  devoted  to  projects  funded  under 
sectoral support, relating mostly to scientific research, control and surveillance capacity, small 
port  infrastructure,  and  support  to  small-scale  fishers.  Those  projects  also  contributed  to 
eliminating IUU fishing and providing good framework conditions for local fishers, which leads 
to better food security. The financed projects included projects for supplying fishing equipment 
to small-scale fishers (including localisation and safety kits), improving capacity for sanitary 

50https://oceans-and-fisheries.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2023-11/illegal-fishing-overview-of-existing-
procedures-third-countries_en.pdf. 

41 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
control in ports, landing facilities with storage and ice facilities, financing the acquisition of 
patrol boats and their maintenance, and training fisheries inspectors and observers. 

The Commission will continue working to renew the SFPAs in good time to ensure the fishing 
activities covered by them continue and to maintain or even grow the network of SFPAs in the 
Atlantic, Indian and Pacific Oceans. 

42 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex 1 Summary of indicators calculated for each fleet segment (situation in December 
2023) 

The area code NAO means North Atlantic Ocean, including the North Sea, Celtic Sea and Baltic 
Sea. MBS means  the Mediterranean  and Black  Seas, and OFR means  other fishing  regions. 
Gear codes are as set out in Annex XI to the Commission Implementing Regulation51. 

51 Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 404/2011 of 8 April 2011 laying down detailed rules for the 
implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring 
compliance with the rules of the Common Fisheries Policy (OJ L 112, 30.4.2011, p. 1). 

43 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
44 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
45 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
46 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
47 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
48 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
49 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
50 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
51 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
52 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
53 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
54 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
55