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 2026
Date: 2025-06-06
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, 6.6.2025  SWD(2025) 149 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 2026 {COM(2025) 296 final}  
 
 
This staff working document accompanies the Communication ‘Sustainable fishing in the EU: 
state of play and orientations for 2026’. 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  CFP  Regulation  has  performed,  its 
instruments  and  measures  and  how 
it  has  addressed  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)  are  calculated  by  three 
scientific bodies: the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES), STECF and 
the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM). The rates are then compiled 
and tabulated by the STECF in their 76th Plenary Report (STECF-25-01)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 

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). 
3 https://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu/documents/d/stecf/stecf_25-01_adhoc. 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
are  calculated  using  reported  catches  and  scientific  survey  data.  Misreporting  of  catches 
results in errors in both parameters, with errors being greater for biomass values4. 

As applied by the STECF, historic and current fishing mortality values is 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 25-01 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  2003-2023. Among  the 
stocks  which  were  fully  assessed,  the  proportion  of  overexploited  stocks  (i.e.  F>  FMSY) 
decreased from around 67% (2003-2008) to 20% in 2023 and fishing mortality rates decreased 
from  51%  above  FMSY  to  41%  below  FMSY.  The  situation  with  regard  to  stocks  in  the 
Mediterranean and Black Seas saw a strong improvement in the period 2020-2022.While the 
annual fishing mortality estimates were almost double the FMSY in 2007, they have since fallen 
significantly, to reach 6% below FMSY in 2022. 

1.1 Trends in fishing pressure (F/FMSY ratio) 
Figure 1 below presents the trends in F/FMSY over the time period 2003-2023 for the North-East 
Atlantic (in EU and non-EU waters) and 2003-2022 for the Mediterranean and Black Seas. 

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 https://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu/documents/d/stecf/stecf_25-01_adhoc  
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 2003-2023. Three model-based indicators (F/FMSY) are presented 
(all using the median value of the model). The red line indicates the trends for 63 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 65 
stocks  in  the  Mediterranean  and  Black  Seas.  Trends  are  medians  of  bias-corrected  estimates  from 
STECF/JRC models. 

1.1.1 Stocks of EU interest in the North-East Atlantic, the North Sea and adjacent 
waters, including the Baltic Sea. 
In 2003, most stocks (67.5%) were overfished and the average (median) rate of fishing was 
51% above MSY. Since 2023, the situation has improved thanks to action to restrict fishing 
effort,  to  improve  monitoring  and to set  total  allowable  catches  (TACs)  in line  with scientific 
advice. By 2023, the average rate of fishing was within the sustainable rate and only 21% 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. 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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 63 stocks. 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 the 63 assessed stocks. 

There are differences in trends between areas. Fishing mortality fell fastest in the Bay of Biscay 
and in widely distributed stocks. However, widely distributed stocks saw an increase from 2022 
to  2023.  Those  same  stocks  also  recovered  fastest  (Figure  2).  In  the  Baltic  Sea,  where 
unfavourable  environmental  conditions8  have  weakened the  stocks’  resilience  to fishing,  no 
significant recovery has been observed, and some fish stocks have even deteriorated further. 
In the North Sea, primary production9 was reported to have decreased by around one quarter, 
possibly affecting the rebuilding of fish stocks. 

information  on  key  signals  within 

8  For  more 
https://www.ices.dk/advice/ESD/Pages/Baltic_Sea_landing.aspx 
9  The  productivity  of  phytoplankton  and  algae  that  serves  as  food  for  zooplankton  and  then  eventually  the 
commercial fish stocks and other ecosystem components. 
5 

the  Baltic  Sea  environment  and  ecosystem,  see 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 3: Upper trends in the average (median) F/FMSY (top panel) and biomass (B/B2003) (bottom 
panel) over the period 2003-2023 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 and by STECF rose to 65. 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 -2022 (Figure 3). The value for 2022 was estimated 
at 0.94 which is the lowest ever. 

There are different patterns 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. 

6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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  or  if 
biomass responds slower than fishing mortality. 

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 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
grey and light grey areas show the 50% and 95% confidence intervals of the average, based 
on 66 assessed stocks. 

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.2 

Regarding European eel, the Council implemented in EU law a decision adopted by the GFCM 
in 2024 to establish long-term measures which include a 6-month closure period for yellow and 
silver eels, a ban on recreational fishing and further measures to reduce the fishing mortality of 
glass eel (i.e. 10 months closure period, freeze in capacity and efforts) in all habitats including 
freshwater habitats. 

8 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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 
opportunities10. 

Coastal  Member  States  report  annually  on  potential  imbalances,  following  Commission 
guidelines11.  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. 

2.1  Member  States’  annual  reports  and  action  plans  and  the 

STECF’s assessment 

All 22 coastal Member States submitted their 2024 reports to the Commission12. 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 report13, 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 

10 See: https://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu/reports/balance. 
11  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). 
12 Reports and action plans: https://ec.europa.eu/oceans-and-fisheries/fisheries/rules/fishing-fleet-capacities_en. 
13 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. 

9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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 Regulation14. 

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. 

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. 

14 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). 

10 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Fleet 
segments  with 
no  biological 
indicators 

Fleet 
segments 
with  no  economic 
indicators 

Number of vessels 
fleet 
the 
within 
segments  that  do 
not have biological 
indicators 

Number of vessels 
fleet 
the 
within 
segments  that  do 
not 
have 
economic 
indicators 

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

FRA OFR 
PRT OFR 
ESP OFR 

0 
0 
0 
0 
10 
0 
2 
0 
3 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
2 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

3 
0 
0 

0 
2 
1 
0 
1 
0 
2 
0 
0 
0 
0 
4 
2 
0 
2 
0 
0 
4 
0 
2 
0 
0 

1 
1 
0 

0 
0 
0 
0 
16 
0 
6 
0 
12 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
5 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

4 
0 
0 

0 
7 
1 
0 
2 
0 
6 
0 
0 
0 
0 
78 
3 
0 
5 
0 
0 
4 
0 
12 
0 
0 

7 
4 
0 

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 

11 

 
 
 
 
 
 
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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 2024) (Figures 6 and 7). In December 2024, the EU fleet 
register (which includes the outermost regions) listed 69 570 vessels corresponding to 1 245 
871 gross tonnage (GT) and kilowatts (kW) of installed power15. 

Figure 6: Tonnage capacity trend (GT) of the EU fishing fleet between 2014 and 2024 

Figure 7: Capacity trend (kW) of the EU fishing fleet between 2014 and 2024 

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

12 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
A  study16  was  initiated  in  January  2018  to  assess  the  engine  power  verification  systems 
implemented in 15 main coastal Member States, completed in June 2019. The results of the 
physical  verifications  carried  out  during  the  study,  revealed  that  for  the  majority  of  verified 
vessels, across coastal Member States, areas and vessel types, the measured engine power 
exceeded  the  vessel’s  licensed  and  certified  engine  power,  and  for  a  significant  number  of 
inspected  vessels,  secondary  indications  of  non-compliance  with  engine  power  restrictions 
were  observed.  These  findings  indicated  a  systematic  lack  of  a  culture  of  compliance  at 
operator  level  across  the  fishing  sector  with  regard  to  engine  power  limitations  and  raised 
serious  concerns  about  the  state  of  implementation  and  effectiveness  of  Member  States’ 
engine power certification and verification procedures. 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  existing 
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  certification  and 
verification  procedures  in  Member  States,  as  improvements  of  both  the  certification  and 
verification  system  are considered  necessary to increase  the  accuracy  of  registered  engine 
power.  

To support Member States in this process, the Commission set up a Technical Working Group 
in September 2022, composed of EU Member States’ experts and supported by an external 
expert in the field of engine power, to follow-up on the conclusions of the study, with as a main 
objective the development of common harmonised guidance for the monitoring, certification 
and verification of engine power of EU catching vessels in line with the provisions of the Control 
Regulation. These guidance documents have been prepared during September 2022 – 2024, 
and  the  final  guidance  documents  have  been  endorsed  by  the  Expert  Group  on  Fisheries 
Control in March 2025.      

In  December  2024,  all  coastal  Member  State  fleets  were  under  their  respective  capacity 
ceilings  (Figure  8).  However,  it  has  come  to  the  Commission’s  attention  that  engine  power 
related  compliance  issues  are  increasingly  becoming  subject  to  complaints.  This  raises 
concerns  about  the  accuracy  and  reliability  of  the  engine  power  values  as  reported  by  the 
coastal Member State and reflected in the Union fleet register. 

16 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 2024: 
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 2022  and  December 2023,  the 
number of vessels decreased by 200 to a total of 3 737. Fleet capacity in GT decreased by 
3 256 GT  to  52 391 GT.  Fleet  capacity  in  kW  increased  marginally  by  18 837 kW  to 
375 526 kW. 

Figure 9: Vessel tonnage vs its capacity ceiling in the EU outermost regions (2024) 

14 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 10: Vessel power vs its capacity ceiling in the EU outermost regions (2024) 

2.3  Main conclusions by coastal Member State17 

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 3 fleet segments (totalling 45 vessels) with red biological indicators and another 
2 segments (totalling 43 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 9 fleet segments (totalling 69 vessels) with at least one red biological indicator. 
Of  these  9  segments,  5  were  exploiting  stocks  at  risk. All  fleet  segments  had  one  or  more 
economic  indicator.  Bulgaria  has  submitted  an  updated  action  plan  but  does  not  give 
enough information about specific actions to balance fleet capacity with fishing opportunities. 

Cyprus  had  4  fleet  segments  with  red  economic  indicators  and  4  segments  with  a  red 
biological  indicator.  Cyprus  submitted  an  action  plan  in  2023  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. 

17 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 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Germany had 4 fleet segments with at least one red biological indicator and 13 with at least 
one  red  economic  indicator.  Germany  has submitted  an  updated  action  plan  covering  7 
fleet segments. 

Denmark had 18 fleet segments with at least one red biological indicator and  18 segments 
with at least one red economic indicator. Out of 1 989 vessels, 763 were inactive, which is a 
significant  increase  in  inactive  vessels  compared  to  the  year  before.  In  2024,  Denmark 
submitted an updated action plan however only very general measures were included. 

Spain had 38 fleet segments with at least one red biological indicator and 14 fleet segments 
with  at  least  one  red  economic  indicator.  Spain  submitted  an  updated  action  plan  with 
objectives clearly defined and the measures to achieve them being described. 

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 2 015 vessels, of which 766 are inactive. 
Estonia has not submitted an action plan and considers all segments to be in balance. 

Finland had 4 fleet segments with at least one red biological indicator and 4 segments with at 
least  one  red  economic  indicator.  Finland  has  not  submitted  an  action  plan,  despite  the 
indications of overcapacity. Finland has not fixed objectives for achieving capacity reductions. 

France had 43 fleet segments with at least one red biological indicator and 11 fleet segments 
with at least one red economic indicator. France submitted an updated action plan including 
four  new  segments.  The  plan  contains  a  wide  range  of  general  as  well  as  more  specific 
measures for imbalanced fleet segments. 

Greece had 7 fleet segments, of which 1 had at least one red biological indicator. There were 
5 segments with at least one red economic indicator. Greece has not yet presented an action 
plan  despite  the  indications  of  overcapacity. An  action  plan  is  in  preparation  but  was  not 
submitted with the annual fleet report.  

Croatia had 20 fleet segments with at least one red biological indicator and 14 segments with 
at least one red economic indicator. Croatia continues its action plan to tackle overcapacity 
through  temporary  and  permanent  cessation  and  complemented  with  supplementary 
measures. 

Ireland had 12 fleet segments with at least one red biological indicator and 10 segments with 
at least one red economic indicator. 4 segments had no available economic indicator. Ireland 
has not presented an action plan despite the indications of overcapacity. 

Italy had 20 fleet segments with at least one red biological indicator and 9 fleet segments with 
at least one red economic indicator. Italy has presented an updated action plan to tackle the 
overcapacity in its fleet. Italy’s action plan presents different measures to reduce fishing effort, 
e.g. continuing previous measures and permanently ceasing activity. 

Latvia had 2 fleet segments with at least one red biological indicator. No fleet segments had 
red economic indicators. Latvia has submitted an action plan in 2023 and considers this 
action plan to be in the implementation phase. 

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  targeting  4 

16 

 
 
 
 
 
 
vessels in one fleet segment, which would reduce the total tonnage of the segment by 40 % 
through permanent cessation and a 42 % decrease in power. 

Malta had 8 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  largely  is  a 
statement of intent to improve monitoring activities. 

The  Netherlands  had  1  segment  with  red  biological  indicators  and  3  segments  with  red 
economic indicators. Despite the indications of overcapacity, the Netherlands did not submit 
an action  plan  referring  to the  benchmarking  of  the  North  Sea  sole  stock  and  the  ongoing 
Coastal States negotiations on the management of pelagic stocks. 

Poland had 7 fleet segments with at least one red biological indicator and 4 fleet segments 
with at least one red economic indicator. Poland submitted an updated action plan which 
clearly specifies the targets and the tools. 

Portugal had 9 fleet segments with at least one red biological indicator and 6 segments with 
at  least  one  red  economic  indicator.  Portugal  extended  its  action  plan  from  2022  to  run 
through 2025. 

Romania had 3 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. Romania submitted an action plan which is largely a statement 
of intent to improve monitoring of activities. 

Slovenia  had  for  biological  indicators  12  fleet  segments  of  which  6  segments  had  red 
indicators. No red economic indicators were identified. Despite the indications of overcapacity, 
Slovenia did not submit an action plan as it considers its activities extremely low and have 
insignificant impact. 

Sweden had 19 segments with a red biological indicator and 4 segments with a red economic 
indicator.  Sweden  has  not  submitted  an  action  plan  as  it  considers  all  its  segments  in 
balance. 

The number of segments with no biological or economic indicators have significantly reduced 
with only Bulgaria, Denmark Estonia, France, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Poland and Romania having 
segments  with  no  indicators. A  number  of  Member  States  had  segments  with  one  or  more 
indicators  not  having  data  available  (Bulgaria,  Croatia,  Cyprus,  Denmark,  Estonia,  Finland, 
France,  Germany,  Greece,  Ireland,  Italy,  Latvia,  Lithuania,  Malta,  Netherland,  Poland, 
Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden).  

There were significant gaps in the provision of biological and economic indicators. Bulgaria, 
Cyprus,  Denmark,  Estonia,  France,  Ireland,  Italy,  Latvia,  Poland  and  Romania  all  had 
segments  for  which  either  biological  or  economic  data  were  not  available.  Compared  to 
previous years the number of vessels for which data is not available no longer exceed 200 
vessels in any Member State. 

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 

17 

 
 
 
 
 
 
and tackle the health and safety concerns highlighted in the fisheries and oceans package18, 
while stressing the need to improve data collection, 

The  Commission  has  launched  a  study  of  the  fleet  to  feed  into  the  evaluation  of  the  CFP 
Regulation. 

2.4  Financial  support from  the  European  Maritime, Fisheries  and 
Aquaculture  Fund  (EMFAF)  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 
situation, it is necessary to structurally adapt the fishing fleets concerned. 

The  European  Maritime,  Fisheries  and Aquaculture  Fund19  (EMFAF)  can  grant,  under  very 
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 through the scrapping of a fishing vessel or 
through  its  decommissioning  and  retrofitting  for  activities  other  than  commercial  fishing. 
However, any conversion to recreational fishing must not lead to increased pressure on the 
marine ecosystem. 

Member  States  are 
implementing  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 
actions which are co-financed by the Member States and the EU, in order to respond to the 
specific challenges linked to the common EU priorities for marine biodiversity, maritime policy 
and sustainable fisheries and aquaculture. These Programmes take into account, 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. 

2.5  Conclusion 

In 2024, 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. 

18 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). 
19  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). 

18 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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 -2.92%, -4.72% and -3.25% 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 202420, the profitability 
saw a decrease from 2021 to 2022 and reached the lowest point in the time series. The decrease 
in profitability is largely due to the fuel costs. The profitability is expected to increase in 2023 
primarily due to the effects of reduced fuel costs. 

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

Small-scale coastal fleet (SSCF). 

The SSCF totalled 40 083 active vessels in 2022, employing 59 694 fishers. This implies that 
the SSCF comprised 76% of the active fleet and 53% of the engaged crew.  

The value of landings by the SSCF represented 19% of all EU landings in 2022. The number 
of vessels of the SSCF is 76% from the EU active fishing fleet, however, in terms of GTs, they 
represent the 10%. The European Union's SSCF value of landings is heavily influenced by the 
Mediterranean region, which accounts for 41% of the total value. The second most significant 
region is the Southern Western waters, responsible for 33% of the SSCF landings' value. The 
value of landings in the EU for the SSCF shows distinct trends across different regions from 
2018 to 2022.  

In the Baltic region, there has been a consistent decline, dropping from EUR 58 million in 2018 
to EUR 37 million in 2022, indicating a reduction of about 36%. This downward trend is mirrored 
in the Black Sea, where the value decreased by half from EUR 6 million to EUR 3 million over 
the same period. The Mediterranean region, traditionally a significant area for fisheries, saw a 
notable decrease from EUR 577 million in 2018 to EUR 405 million in 2022, reflecting a 30% 
decline. The North Sea and Eastern Arctic (NSEA) experienced a similar downward trajectory, 
with values falling from EUR 35 million in 2018 to EUR 23 million in 2022, a 34% reduction. 

The gross and net profit margin in the SSCF can vary depending on several factors, such as 
the type of fishing activities, operational costs, market conditions, and the efficiency of the fleet 
management. There is a large heterogeneity among regions as far as the SSCF profit margins 
is  concerned.  However,  most  of  the  fishing  regions  have  generated  positive  gross  profit 
margins over the period analysed, except the Baltic Sea region’s fleet (hitting a record low in 

20 STECF 24-07, Economic and Social analyses - European Commission (europa.eu). 

19 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2020) and NSEA which has fluctuated between losses and profits. In 2022, the Mediterranean 
also experienced a significant decline, transitioning from a positive value in the period 2018-
2021 to a negative value. The net profit margin data from 2018 to 2022 showed notable trends 
and  fluctuations  across  various  fishing  regions.  The  Baltic  consistently  recorded  significant 
negative  margins,  although  there  was  some  improvement  in  2022.  The  Black  Sea  region 
showed  volatility  with  positive  margins  in  some  years  and  a  sharp  decline  in  2021.  The 
Mediterranean had consistently negative margins, with a notable decline in 2022. The NSEA 
showed significant negative margins, briefly turning positive in 2021 before dropping again in 
2022.  

The EU large-scale fleet (LSF)  

The LSF encompassed 12 503 vessels in 2022 and employed 53 516 fishers, representing 
23.7%  and  44.7%  of  the  total  active  EU  fleet,  respectively.  This  fleet  contributed  73%  in 
landings and 65% to the value of these landings of the total EU fleet.  

The LSF was profitable in 2022 but the gross value added (GVA) reduced a 7.3% compared 
to  2021,  gross  and  net  profit  reduced  by  13%  and  14%  compared  to  2021,  respectively.  In 
2022, this segment accounted for 44.7% of the total employment (53 516 jobs) and 51.5% of 
the FTE (39 055) of the EU fishing fleet. GVA was estimated at around EUR 2.3 billion (67% 
of the EU total) and gross profit at around EUR 756 million (67% of the EU total). Estimated 
net profit was EUR 76 million (68% of the EU total). 

Compared to 2021, gross profit and net profit in LSF decreased by 13% and 44%, respectively. 
Labour productivity (GVA per FTE) was estimated at EUR 58 900 which is a similar value as 
in 2021.  

All productivity indicators have decreased significantly throughout 2015-2021 and compared 
to 2021, driven by the sharp increase in the fuel costs (39% higher than in 2021) 

The EU distant-water fleet (DWF) 

The DWF was composed by 244 vessels representing 0.5% of the EU active fleet and 1.1% 
of the effort (fishing days). However, it carries out 21% of all the landings of the EU in weight 
(715 000 tonnes) and 20% in value (EUR 1 295 million). Regarding flag states, Spain has 82% 
of the total number of vessels, followed by France (9%), Portugal (5%), Lithuania (2%), Italy 
(1%) and Poland (with one vessel). In terms of capacity, the active vessels of DWF show a 
capacity of 258 700 GT (21.5% of total) or 351 600 kW (7.9% of total). In 2022, the trend in the 
number of DWF vessels has reversed and gone up with respect to previous years. There was 
a solid downward trend from 288 in 2013 to 242 in 2021, a reduction of 15.3%. However, in 
2022 the number increased in two units. This does not correlate with the level of catches and 
landings, which has increased by 3% in the period 2013-2022.  

Regarding employment, the DWF accounts for 5% of the total employment (6 500 jobs) and 
10% of the FTE (7 400) of the EU fishing fleet. In 2022, GVA was estimated at around EUR 
405 million (12% of the EU total). Gross profit at around EUR 166 million (15% of the EU total) 
and estimated net profit was EUR 31 million (15% of the EU total).  

20 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
In  terms  of  comparisons,  GVA  decreased  by  9.7%,  compared  to  2021,  while  gross  profit 
decreased on 13.2% and net profit decreased 56.4%. 

Labour productivity (GVA per FTE) was estimated at EUR 55 000. On average, the salary of 
FTE in the EU DWF in 2022 was EUR 32 400 per year (13% lower than in 2021). All productivity 
indicators have decreased throughout 2013 to 2022. 

3.1 National fisheries profiles and social indicators 

The latest STECF report on social data in fisheries21 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.  To  date,  17 
National Fisheries Profiles (BE, BG, CY, DK, EE, ES, FR, HR, IE, IT, NL, PT, SE, SI, EL, DE, 
LV)  have  been  produced  and  8  have  been  peer-reviewed  and  published.  Additionally,  a 
template for fisheries community profiles has been developed to be used by national institutes 
to provide detailed case studies of specific harbours and complement national aggregate data 
analysed in the National Fisheries Profiles.  

Regarding social indicators, the STECF proposed a list of 38 new social indicators, including 
12 that would be immediately collectable by national authorities. Building on these findings, 6 
Member States plan to test the collection of new social indicators in their National Work Plans 
(BE, HR, EL, FI, ES, SE). The STECF will also produce a first dedicated social report in autumn 
2025  that  will  analyse  existing  social  data  (employment,  income)  collected  through  the  EU 
MAP along with a set of more qualitative data (National Fisheries Profiles).. 

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. 

21 https://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu/documents/d/stecf/stecf_24-05_social-data-in-fisheries  

21 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
For 2024, 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  , 
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 CFP22. Looking ahead, in 2024 and 2025 the reports should focus on the 
ongoing evaluation of the landing obligation. 

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 may 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 specific implementation provisions should take into account the best available scientific 
advice and include that advice as the basis for exemptions to the landing obligation. 

Such 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 Regulation23. In addition to 
the exemptions for prohibited species and predator-damaged fish, the landing obligation does 
not apply to the following cases: 

High survivability cases, for which scientific evidence demonstrates high survival rates 

of discarded species. 

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 
for  handling  and  sorting  unwanted  catches.  These 
disproportionate  costs 
exemptions were put in place by the co-legislators to tackle the specific problems of 
(mostly) mixed fisheries24 in achieving the objectives of the CFP Regulation and to 
avoid the phenomenon of choke species. 

22 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 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. 
24 ‘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. 

22 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The  Western  Waters25,  the  North  Sea26,  the  Baltic27  and  the  western  Mediterranean28 
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  applicable  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 plans29 to a more stable approach with multiannual plans as a legal 
basis. 

In  2025,  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) 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; 

4.  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 

25  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). 
26  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). 
27  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). 
28  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). 
29 Article 15(6) of the CFP Regulation. 

23 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
regards  the  establishment  of  a  de  minimis  exemption  to  the  landing  obligation  for 
certain demersal fisheries in the Adriatic and south-eastern Mediterranean Sea; 

5.  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; 

6.  Commission  Delegated  Regulation  (EU)  2024/2992  amending  Delegated  Regulation 
(EU)  2023/2462  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 

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

24 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Quota management 

In previous years, Member States reported that the most important management measures to 
help prevent choke situations30 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 website31. Figures for the current year are updated weekly. 

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

30 ‘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). 
31 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 
Fishing quotas - European Commission. 

25 

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

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

26 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
4.2 

Control and enforcement by Member States 

As reported in previous years, the main risks of non-compliance associated with the landing 
obligation  during  fishing  activities  at  sea  are  the  illegal  and  undocumented  discarding  of 
catches.  There  are  incentives  for  illegal  and  undocumented  32discarding  which  need  to  be 
tackled through the adoption of ‘control’33 and ‘enforcement’34 measures by Member States. 

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 
effective for ensuring control and enforcement of the landing obligation during fishing activities 
at sea. For example, inspections at sea only provide a snapshot at the time of monitoring and 
do  not  cover  fishing  activity  before  or  after  an  inspection.  It  is  not  likely  that  illegal  and 
undocumented discarding will be detected during inspections at sea as operators are unlikely 
to contravene the landing obligation in the presence of officials. Landing inspections do not 
monitor illegal discards during fishing activities at sea and aerial surveillance does not always 
provide sufficient evidence of compliance or non-compliance35 Data analysis may indicate a 
lack of discard reporting but does not confirm it at individual vessel level. The lack of effective 
control  measures  adopted  by  Member  States  to  date,  means  that  illegal  behaviour,  in  the 
context of the main risks associated with the landing obligation, are very difficult to detect and 
confirm. In turn, this means that sanctions are seldom applied for illegal and undocumented 
discarding.  These  control  and  enforcement  shortcomings  undermine  the  ‘development  of  a 
culture  of  compliance’  as  required  under  EU  rules36 and  also  have  serious  ramifications  in 
terms of the ability of Member States to ensure that catches falling under de minimis exemption 
do not exceed the permitted amounts37. 

The inadequacy of these conventional control methods has been highlighted in several reports, 
including ten audit reports by the European Commission38 and several evaluation reports by 
the European Fisheries Control Agency (EFCA). The Commission audit reports highlighted a 
failure by Member States to adopt the necessary measures to ensure control and enforcement 
of the landing obligation in contravention of the Control Regulation and the CFP Regulation, 
and that there were indications of prolific illegal and undocumented discarding of catches. The 
EFCA reports indicated  widespread discards in several fisheries. Subsequent studies have 
confirmed that discard rates have not changed since the introduction of the landing obligation. 
Legally,  however  these  alleged  non-compliances  are  difficult  to  sustain  because  of  the 

32 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. 
33 ‘control’ means monitoring and surveillance; (Article 4(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009). 
34 ‘enforcement’ means any actions taken to ensure compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy; 
(Article 4(26) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009. 
35  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). 
36 Control and enforcement of the CFP shall in particular be based on and shall include the following: [...] (g) the 
development of a culture of compliance and co-operation among all operators and fishermen. (Article 36(2)(g). 
(Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council) 
37 Member States shall ensure that catches falling under the de minimis exemption referred to in point (c) of Article 
15(5) of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 do not exceed the percentage of the exemption established in the relevant 
Union measure. (Article 49b of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009). 
38 Audits were conducted in BE (1), DK (1), FR (1), LT (1), IE (1), ES (2), NL (2) and UK (1) from 2017 to 2022. 
27 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
problems  to  gather  evidence  and  to  identify  individual  vessels/operators  responsible for  the 
discards. According to the EFCA, remote electronic monitoring (REM) tools are very well suited 
to controls39 of catch registration and illegal discard at sea. This has also been confirmed by 
several trials conducted by Member States￼ and by third countries around the world, which 
have pointed out that these modern control technologies are scalable and effective measures 
for controlling discarding during fishing activities at sea. In the absence of such control tools 
enforcement action by Member States is limited. 

In  order  to  facilitate  the  effective  control  and  enforcement  of  the  landing  obligation,  the 
European Parliament and the Council  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 require 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 should be 
borne in mind that under EU rules, Member States are responsible for adopting the necessary 
measures to ensure control and enforcement of all activities, carried out within the scope of 
the CFP, regardless of vessel size. Such is to be done on the basis of a risk-based approach, 
which entails that MS have considerable discretion in controlling other fleet segments.  

In addition to the issue of illegal and undocumented discard during fishing activities at sea, the 
landing obligation requires Member States to ensure ‘detailed and accurate documentation of 
all  fishing  trips’  and  that  catches  to  be  ‘recorded’  and  ‘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  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 basins40 but is especially serious in the Baltic Sea where major shortcomings have 
been detected in those Member States with the largest quotas. Many of these shortcomings 
are longstanding issues that were previously identified by the Commission in verifications and 
audits,  undermines  the  landing  obligation  in  the  context  of  recording  and  counting  catches 
against  quotas,  contributes  to  overfishing  and  plays  a  significant  role  in  the  decline  of  fish 
stocks. 

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 

39  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. 
40 Serious shortcomings detected concerning weighing and catch recording remain in NL, FR, DK, DE, PT, SE, 
PL, FI and EE. There are also indications that IE, DK and LT do not weigh and register sorted and unsorted catches 
in accordance with EU rules. 

28 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EFCA last haul verifications41 have contributed to a level of monitoring the implementation of 
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  the  implementation  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 the landing obligation. 

5. 34The work and role of advisory councils in 2023 

5.1 

Advisory councils’ recommendations in 2023 and how these 

were taken on board 

In 2024, the advisory councils (ACs) submitted 93 recommendations to the Commission, down 
from the 128 submitted in 2023. 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 Pelagic Advisory 
Council (PelAC) and the Conselho Consultivo para as Regiões Ultraperiféricas (CCRUP). As 
in  previous  years,  joint  recommendations  were  also  submitted  to  the  Commission  by  the 
Member States who consulted the ACs. 

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

29 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 14: Number of recommendations received by the Commission on various topics 

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

1)  Recommendations on the Mediterranean and Black Seas 

In  2024,  the  Commission  received  recommendations  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, on generational 
renewal, on marine recreational fishery, on invasive species (particularly focusing on blue crab) 
on the stakeholder engagement in GFCM and STECF processes but also contributions on the 
CFP evaluation, on the EMFAF and EMFF, on Fishers of the Future and contributions to EU 
proposals to the GFCM. 

In  the  EU  proposals  for  GFCM  recommendations  and  resolutions,  the  Commission 
incorporated parts of all MEDAC recommendations on new multiannual plans, new fisheries 
restricted  areas  in  the  Mediterranean  Sea,  additional  measures  on  blackspot  seabream 
multiannual management plan, measures on small pelagics in the Adriatic and demersals in 
the Strait of Sicily, 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, 
recommendations, 
the  Commission 
including 
implementation  of 
the  Western  Mediterranean 
multiannual  plan,  notably  by  proposing  to  increase  the  level  of  compensation  and  include 
additional technical criteria. 

into  account  parts  of  MEDAC 
the  compensation  mechanism  under 

took 

The  Commission  also  received  recommendations  from  the  Black  Sea  Advisory  Council 
(BlSAC)  on  topics  such  as  the  decarbonisation  of  fishing  activities  in  the  Black  Sea,  fleet 
30 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
modernization and sustainability of fisheries in the Black Sea, as well as small scale fishery 
challenges and data collection, recreational fishery registration regimes and mitigation of IUU 
fishing in the Black Sea, sea space use and reconciliation between traditional activities with 
emerging one, selectivity of the fishing gear, marine aquaculture, fishing sector involvement in 
ghost  gear  mitigation  to  reduce  bycatch,  efficiency  and  impact  of  the  state  aid,  needs  and 
challenges of the fishery sector in the Black Sea. The Commission incorporated parts of these 
recommendations into the proposals for GFCM recommendations,  

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 has been 
meeting with this forum’s members regularly since 2022 to discuss 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. 

In  addition,  the  joint  recommendation  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.  

The NWWAC recommendation 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  recommendations  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 NWWAC adopted a recommendation 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  NWWAC  recommendation  helped  ascertain  the  main 
priorities  of  and  concerns  raised  by  stakeholders  about  the  extensive  list  of  proposed  de 
minimis and high survivability exemptions. In some cases, the information was also 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  NWWAC  recommendation  included  a  comprehensive  list  of  key  choke 
species, based on the ‘choke mitigation tool’, by sea basin, fishing area, species and TACs. 
This  information  further confirmed  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. 

31 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3)  South-Western Waters 

The South-Western Waters Advisory Council adopted a recommendation 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 2025 took into account the Baltic Sea 
Advisory  Council’s  (BSAC)  recommendations  and  followed  the  recommendations  given  for 
Riga herring and salmon in the main basin and in the Gulf of Finland. The BSAC also adopted 
recommendations on the CFP evaluation, on seals and on cormorants. It also replied to the 
Commission questionnaires on the implementation of the Baltic Sea multiannual plan, and of 
the landing obligation. Moreover, the established good and regular cooperation with BaltFish 
(the Member State Regional Group for the Baltic) continued. 

5)  Aquaculture 

The Aquaculture Advisory  Council  (AAC)  submitted  5  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  has 
launched  a  yearly  survey  for  this  purpose.  The  AAC  also  provided  valuable  input  on  the 
development of the EU-wide communication campaign on aquaculture, finally launched on 25th 
of March 2025. 

6)  Market 

In  2024,  the  MAC  adopted  recommendations  on  a  number  of  topics  related  to  the  market 
policy, including market intelligence, consumption patterns, and the sustainability of fishery and 
aquaculture  products  on  the  EU  market.  The  recommendations  covered  inter  alia  studies 
suggested for inclusion in the work programme of the European Union Market Observatory for 
Fisheries and Aquaculture  Products  (EUMOFA), and disturbances on the  market for  fishery 
and aquaculture products due to Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. 

32 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
7) Energy transition of the EU fisheries and aquaculture sector42 

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  in EU  fisheries  and  aquaculture,  in  June  2023, 
marking a collaborative start, featuring diverse workshops and 10 segment groups to foster 
deep dialogue to collect input that will be gathered into the roadmap. 

The work has been ongoing with various workshops and working groups meetings taking place 
and more workshops and events planned during 2025.  

8)  Maritime spatial planning and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive 

In 2024, MEDAC adopted a recommendation on the processes for Marine Spatial Planning. 

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, 
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. 

from  advisory  councils  and 

recommendations 

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  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. 

42 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). 

33 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
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; 

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  governance43  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’44 and delivers on the blue part of the European Green 
Deal45, 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 
jurisdiction46. The agreement now needs to be ratified to enter into force and subsequently be 
implemented.  The  EU  has  completed  its  ratification  process,  it  will  deposit  its  ratification 
instrument,  together  with  as  many  Member  States  as  possible,  before  the  3rd  UN  Ocean 
Conference in June 2025. 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. 

Through 2024 the EU continued to lead the efforts to push for the ratification of the agreement 
on harmful fisheries subsidies (Phase I) of the World Trade Organisation (WTO agreed in June 
2022 for which 111 instruments of acceptance (i.e. 2/3 of the WTO Members) are needed. The 

43 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). 
44 https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/oceans/ 
45 https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024/european-green-deal_en 
46 United Nations Conventions on the Law of the Sea implementing agreement on biodiversity beyond national 
jurisdiction. 

34 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EU also actively participated in consultations on the various Chair’s proposals and initiatives 
to try to conclude Phase II, including a renewed attempt by the Chair in December 2024 to 
push for an agreement which did not materialise.  

Following the 2023 European Citizens’ Initiative, the Commission advanced with the impact 
assessment on the appropriateness of a trade ban on detached shark fins, as suggested by 
the initiative, and potential alternative measures. We coordinated with other Units in DG MARE 
and  other  DGs  to monitor  implementation  of  existing  EU  rules  relevant  to  sharks,  including 
traceability, labelling, and monitoring of shark fisheries, while pursuing our efforts to extend the 
finning ban through RFMOs. As we need to improve our ability to monitor trade in shark fins 
and other products, we worked with DG TAXUD in 2024 on a decision on additional customs 
classification codes applicable as of 1 January 2025. 

In  addition,  the  Commission  continued  to  develop  cooperation  with  the  FAO  to  support 
developing  countries  in  various  fields  contributing  to  food  security,  nutrition,  and  the 
achievement of Agenda 2030, in particular SDG14. Among other things, the EU supported the 
FAO  for  assisting  developing  countries  in  the  fight  against  IUU  fishing  and  to  ensure  the 
effective  implementation  of  the  Port  State  Measures Agreement  as  well  as  other  fisheries 
agreements  and  tools,  which  are  crucial  to  ensure  the  sustainability  of  fish  stocks  and  the 
contribution of fisheries to sustainable food systems. The EU supported the second Summit 
on Small Scale and Artisanal Fisheries, as well as the promotion of the new FAO Guidelines 
on  Sustainable  Aquaculture.  The  FAO  is  also  the  implementing  agency  of  important  EU 
development  cooperation  programmes  aimed 
the  productivity  and 
competitiveness  of  fisheries  and  aquaculture  value  chains  in  developing  countries,  while 
ensuring that economic improvements go hand in hand with environmental sustainability and 
social inclusiveness. 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. 

to  enhancing 

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 

35 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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  to  secure  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  implementing  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 
202347. 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 implementation of the scheme and enhance import controls across the EU. 

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 

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

36 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
issue a processing statement was also extended to improve traceability of all consignments 
entering the EU. The Commission also strengthened guidance and cooperation with Member 
States on checks and verifications of fishery products imported into the EU. 
Although  the  use  of  CATCH  will  be  mandatory  only  for  EU  operators  and  Member  State 
authorities,  it  will  also  be  possible  for  non-EU-country  operators  and  authorities  to  use  the 
system directly to create, validate, and transfer catch certificates and related documents. 

Moreover,  the  Commission  continued  to  interact  with  and  support  a  number  of  non-EU 
countries  in  the  fight  against  IUU  fishing  through  the  system  of  dedicated  dialogues  and 
enabled  them  to  fundamentally  reform  their  fisheries  control  systems  and  meet  their 
international  obligations  as  flag,  coastal,  port  and  market  States.  Not  all  non-EU  countries 
showed willingness to address identified shortcomings and to reform which led to additional 
pre-identifications  or  identifications  as  non-cooperating  countries  in  the  fight  against  IUU 
fishing. At the end of 2024, there were 8 pre-identified (with Senegal added in May 2024) and 
5  identified  non-EU  countries  to  which  the  EU  market  for  fishery  products  is  closed  (with 
Cameroon and Trinidad and Tobago added in respectively February and November 2023)48.  

The EU also provided support to Africa and the Indo-Pacific region to contribute to strengthen 
ocean  governance  including  the  conservation  and  sustainable  of  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 
(PEUMP),  EUR 28 million  to  the  Indian  Ocean  region  under  the  ECOFISH  programme,  
EUR 16.5 million to West African nations under the Improved regional fisheries governance in 
western  Africa  project,  EUR  20  million  to  the  second  Pacific-European  Union  Marine 
Partnership, EUR 58 million to the Sustainable Western Indian OCean Regional Programme 
(SWIOP), EUR 42 million to Central Africa Regional Ocean Programme (OCEBAC), EUR 59 
million  to West Africa Sustainable  Ocean  Programme  (WASOP),  and  EUR  11 million  to the 
Benguela Current Large Marine Ecosystem (BCLME). 

Sustainable fisheries partnership agreements (SFPAs) continued to promote the sustainability 
of  the  oceans,  a  regulated  framework  for  the  EU  long-distance  fishing  fleet  and  p  the 
sustainable development of fisheries resources of third countries. Moreover, SFPAS put the 
EU on the map and 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.  

Preparatory work started in 2024 to deliver on the objective of Commissioner Kadis’ mission 
letter  to  work  on  a  new  generation  of  SFPAs,  ensuring they  are  in  line  with  the  EU’s  wider 
regional strategies and priorities, most notably for Africa and the Indo-Pacific, and promote a 
coherent approach for sustainable fisheries in all multilateral fora and bilateral dialogues. the 
new generation of SFPAs 

At the end of 2024, there were 11 SFPAs in force. New protocols were signed with Cabo Verde 
(24 July), Guinea-Bissau (18 September) and Greenland (12 December) to replace the ones 
that expired earlier in 2024. The new protocol with Ivory Coast was initialled on 21 November. 

48 
procedures-third-countries_en.pdf. 

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

37 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Negotiations of the new protocols with São Tomé and Principe (expired on 18 December) and 
Cook Islands (expired on 13 December) were carried out in the second half of 2024 and still 
require negotiation efforts to be completed.  

 Groundwork also started on future negotiations, notably  ex ante and ex post evaluations of 
SFPAs and their implementing protocols were launched for Seychelles and Gabon. 

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 
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. 

38 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex  1  Summary  of  indicators  calculated  for  each  fleet  segment  (situation  in 
December 2024) 

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 Regulation49. 

49 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). 

39 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
40 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
41 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
42 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
43 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
44 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
45 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
46 

 
 
 
 
 
 
47 

 
 
 
 
 
 
48 

 
 
 
 
 
 
49 

 
 
 
 
 
 
50 

 
 
 
 
 
 
51 

 
 
 
 
 
 
52 

 
 
 
 
 
 
53