commission staff working paper report of the … · the role of the stecf in providing economic...

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

ADVANCED COPY pending SEC number

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER

REPORT OF THE SCIENTIFIC, TECHNICAL AND ECONOMIC

COMMITTEE FOR FISHERIES

Economic Performance of EU fleets and Assessment of the Impact of ACFM Advice

STECF opinion expressed during plenary meeting held in Ispra from 6-10 November 2006

This report does not necessarily reflect the view of the European Commission and in no way anticipates the Commission’s future policy in this area.

18 November 2006

CONTENTS 1 Processing of economic data..................................................................1

1.1 Evaluation of latest call for economic data .....................................1 1.2 STECF recommendations ..............................................................1 1.3 Future utilisation of economic data ...............................................2 1.4 Annual Economic Report (AER) .....................................................2 1.5 Economic Interpretation of ACFM Advice (EIAA) ............................3

2 Current economic status of EU fleets ....................................................4 3 Work programme 2007..........................................................................6 Annex 1 Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee of Fisheries Subgroup on Economic Affairs (SGECA) Meeting on Economic Assessment of EU Fleets 15-18 May 2006 ...........................................................................7 Annex 2 Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee of Fisheries Subgroup on Economic Affairs (SGECA) Meeting on Economic Assessment of EU Fleets 23 – 27 October 2006 ...................................................................8 Economic performance of selected European fishing fleets in 2007 The Potential Economic Impact on Selected Fishing Fleet Segments of TACs Proposed by ACFM and reviewed by SGRST for 2007 (EIAA-model calculations) .................................................................................................9

1 PROCESSING OF ECONOMIC DATA

1.1 Evaluation of latest call for economic data

The Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) Subgroup for Economic Affairs (SGECA) met on two occasions from 15 - 18 of May and 23-27 October, 2006 to analyse the first call for information under the Data Collection Regulation (DCR), to analyse the data submitted by the Member States (MS) under the DCR and to carry out the Economic Interpretation of the ACFM Advice.

The data currently available for analysis during the SCEGA meeting was very heterogeneous in terms of completeness - coverage of fleet segments, variables and years. In the current report a brief assessment of EU fleets and a statistical overview is presented for ten countries for which 2005 data was available at the meeting. Statistical data on several other countries is also presented, for which data on earlier years was submitted.

In Table 1-1 below an overview of the data as available at the time of the meeting is presented. Not all MS were represented at the meeting, which further affected the elaboration of an analysis on those countries. Consequently, the analysis was limited to those fishing fleets for which experts from the relevant MS were present during the meeting. Table 1-1 Data available at the meeting by MS

Costs and earnings data submitted Belgium 2002-04 Cyprus 2005 Denmark 2002-2005 Finland 2002-05 France 2002-04 Germany 2004 fragmentary Greece 2004-05 Italy 2002-05 Latvia 2002-05 Lithuania 2002-05 Netherlands 2002-05 Poland 2004 fragmentary Sweden 2002-05 UK 2004-05

The JRC data management system was not yet fully operational at the time of the meeting. As the uploading system failed manual preparations of some of the data had to be undertaken. The economic analysis remains very brief and there has been extremely little time to review and cross-check the available data.

1.2 STECF recommendations

1. This was the first time that the new procedure had been tested in earnest

and several improvements were proposed. Based on the work of the SGECA May and October meeting STECF recommends the following:

2. Member States to report active and partially active segments separately and to justify the threshold used for their definition in their Technical Reports. The Subgroup recommended that a study on threshold values of economic activity be undertaken in order to arrive at a harmonisation of approach within the EU. Such a study might include the rules for inclusion in the Community Register.

3. JRC should compile information on the thresholds used in the MS when dealing with data on regularly active, non-regularly active and non-active fleets.


2

4. JRC should organise a training course to get the staff from the MS acquainted with the software used to upload the data.

5. MS should be encouraged to provide an expert when their data needs to be analyzed.

6. A study is required to develop methods for estimation of regional data in countries whose fleets operate in several of the large geographic areas (North Sea, Baltic, Atlantic, Mediterranean and distant waters).

1.3 Future utilisation of economic data STECF notes that producing an annual report on economic performance (AER) and using the same data for economic interpretation of ACFM advice in the EIAA model provides a challenge to timing. Whereas for some MS delivering data in early autumn is a possibility, others need up to the end of the year to be able to submit a comprehensive data set. This of course affects the cycle of production of annual reports and analyses.

First of all STECF comments that the need for three types of analysis exists and therefore it is recommended the analysis to undertaken with the available data for:

1) the production of an annual report on the performance of European fishing fleets

2) the analysis of the effects of proposed annual fisheries management measures such as TAC and Quota for the Atlantic and effort allocations for the Mediterranean

3) ad hoc evaluation (ex ante and ex post) of other proposed management measures.

Of course, in order to allow for these analyses, the availability of data is of prime importance. Noting the prevailing calendar for management decisions it would be desirable to have all relevant data available for analysis practically at the same time as for example the ACFM advice is produced. In addition producing relevant data entails also scientific research to clarify the real data content and its reflection of the basic realities.

STECF recommends that a dynamic website, which will allow the user to generate tailor-made reports on the performance of fleets by country, maritime area or by gear type is developed.

It should be noted that data as submitted under the DCR are already at an aggregated level. Consequently, the published AER and the proposed web site will contain only data at an aggregated level in line with the basic requirements of confidentiality.

However, it should be noted that in order to fulfil the need for ad hoc analysis and impact assessments of proposed fisheries management measures, there is a need to have the data set needed for the analysis available at any given period in time. As concerns impact assessments a suitable methodology should be developed.

1.4 Annual Economic Report (AER)

This was the first time for the analysis and annual report to be produced by the STECF-SGECA working group and the first occasion to test procedures put in place under the DCR and to analyze data, which had been submitted by the MS to JRC. The currently produced report builds on the Annual Economic Report on ‘Economic performance of selected European fishing fleets’ as was prepared in 2005 under EC contract FISH/2005/12. It was a continuation of three Concerted Actions, which produced similar reports over the period 1996-2004. The methodology applied was refined over the years and had in the past resulted in a highly efficient and effective process.

Economic Performance of EU fleets and Assessment of the Impact of ACFM Advice Page 3

3

The existing process resulted in the production of an annual economic report (AER) providing performance statistics on selected European fishing fleets presented in national chapters, and one annual analysis of the effects on economic performance of the same selected fishing fleets of the advice on TAC and quota as provided in the ICES ACFM advice.

With the implementation of the Data Collection Regulation and the ensuing availability of data coupled with the desire of the Commission to strengthen the role of the STECF in providing economic advice, a rather radical change to the position and set up on the previously produced annual economic analysis was realized. With data under the DCR having a broader coverage of fleets and fisheries, in principle, the new system of analysis would allow for a more complete coverage and a more standardised description of the EU fleet.

STECF subscribes to the need to have an Annual Economic Report, presenting current state and performance and trends in development of the fishing fleets of Europe. However, for many countries the annual fisheries data are not publishable other than by the end of the following year. While acknowledging these difficulties STECF recommends that the AER should be produced during the first quarter of the next year (hence the 2006 data to be available for analysis by January 2008).

As for the annual economic report (AER), as it stands at this moment the annual report provides an overview by fishery and country of the performance of the fleet. It is recommended to continue with the production of this publication in future. The report should in addition also provide an analysis of main trends and developments in European Fisheries.

It is extremely useful to analyse key economic parameters such as fuel price and decommissioning vessels over the entirety of the EU fishing fleet through trend analysis using time series. In order make the time series longer, it would be useful to link the data set as collected under DCR to the data base as developed by the Concerted Action, going back as far as 1998. This does not cover the EU fleet in its entirety and uses a different segmentation. But, noting the importance of the issue, STECF recommends that available expertise available to implement such an analysis.

1.5 Economic Interpretation of ACFM Advice (EIAA)

Noting availability of data it is observed that the EIAA model (to be run in October each year) is not able to be run with a full data set for that particular year. Since the EIAA model uses a three-year average it is possible that for those countries for which data are only available for earlier time periods the model to be run with older data.

In addition, concerning the timing of the exercise, with a call for data in September, there is a need to stipulate a clear procedure on data preparation in order to have the data ready for analysis for the October meeting. For countries that are unable to produce relevant data, estimates should be made preferably based on a suitable model.

As for coverage of the analysis it is recommended to have the current October analysis (of the effect of ICES ACFM advice based proposed management measures (TAC)) to be extended to proposed management measures to other geographical areas such as the Mediterranean and the Black Sea. This would call for the selection of an appropriate set of analytical tools next to the EIAA model. Special topics

Apart from the EIAA analyses, there is wide need for different kinds of economic analyses of the fisheries. Especially, there is an obligation for impact analysis of various management decisions. To be able to answer the questions there is a need to develop frameworks and platforms to prepare these economic analyses efficiently.

In general there is a need to have data available for analysis by fleets and fisheries but also by country and by maritime area. In addition, when it


4

comes to the analysis of concrete proposals or issues specific data by gear and fishery are required. The basis for these data sets can be found in the AER; additional data needs to be gathered in relation to the analysis at hand.

Concerning predictions on economic developments in fisheries, other then the impact assessment of management measures at the level of effort regulations and TAC, currently only measures based on ICES predictions are undertaken on a regular basis. In future, it is recommended, both supply and demand considerations should be incorporated into the forecasting models and analyses.

2 CURRENT ECONOMIC STATUS OF EU FLEETS It is recommended, in order to have available an assessment of the current performance of fishing fleets, to have SGECA reconvene early 2007 to finalise the analysis with a complete data set. Hence the current report should not be made public because of weak coverage of the European Fishing Fleet and the fact that the current data set has not yet been cross checked with all member states. This underlines the fact that it is necessary to have all MS be represented by experts at this exercise.

It is recommended that all MS will have an expert, responsible for data collection, present at this meeting to allow for the analysis of the data.

Based on the available data it was possible to run the EIAA model to predict effects of the proposed TAC levels as per the ACFM advice for several fleet segments of Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands, Sweden, UK and Lithuania. In the table below the results of the model runs are presented.

Considering the partiality of the analysis STECF finds it not relevant to endorse the conclusions of the analysis to a general European Fisheries Level.

The potential economic impact of two sets of TAC proposals for 2007 is evaluated using the net operating profit as indicator based on the following criteria:

1. Single species TACs. As far as possible, TACs for 2007 were taken directly from the ICES advice for single species exploitation boundaries. These were used to demonstrate the economic performance of the fishing fleets in 2007 relative to the 2003-2005 baseline run if TACs were set according to the single species advice and ignoring any interactions between stocks and fisheries.

2. Management plan taking into account the provisions for stock recovery agreed by the Council.

3. TACs set in line with ICES’ mixed fishery advice. This scenario was undertaken to evaluate the economic performance of the fleets when the interactions between stocks and fisheries are taken into consideration. This represents a worst-case scenario, since it implies zero catch for a large number of demersal stocks that are caught in mixed fisheries. For example, for the North Sea mixed demersal fisheries, the ICES advice states. As the mixed species advice result in worse economic performance than the two other scenarios, these results are not presented.

This left two scenarios:

The selected economic indicator is the operating profit margin defined as the net profit relative to the value of landings. Theoretically, net profit relative to the value of the invested capital would be a more appropriate measure, but because of the uncertainty about the estimated value of the invested capital it is concluded that this economic indicator is not so useful. The net profit is defined as the value of landings minus all costs. If the net profit is negative the operating profit margin is negative.

Economic Performance of EU fleets and Assessment of the Impact of ACFM Advice Page 5

5

Table 2-1 Summary Economic impact of two scenarios for 2007 Segment Single species Management plan

Operating Profit Margin Impact


Denmark Pelagic Trawl and Seine 12 – 24 m -21.7% W -19.5% W

Pelagic Trawl and Seine 24 – 40 m -42.1% W -41.8% W

Pelagic Trawl and Seine ≥ 40 m -13.2% L -12.0% L

Demersal Trawl and Seine 12 – 24 m -28.0% W -23.9% W

Finland Pelagic Trawl and Seine 12 – 24 m

13.0% I 12.8% I

Pelagic Trawl and Seine 24 – 40 m 18.2% I 18.1% I

Netherlands Beam trawlers 12 – 24 m -4.6% L -3.8% L Beam trawlers 24 – 40 m -25.0% W -23.7% W Beam trawlers ≥ 40 m -20.4% L -18.9% L Pelagic Trawl and Seine ≥ 40 m -9.6% W -3.7% W

Sweden Passive Gears < 12 m 41.7% L 40.7% L Demersal Trawl and Seine 12 – 24 m 11.7% L 10.7% L

Pelagic trawl and seine 24 – 40 m 13.9% I 14.2% I

Pelagic trawl and seine ≥ 40 m 27.7% H 28.0% H

UK Beam trawlers 24 - 40 m 0.6% L 1.0% L Demersal Trawl and Seine 12 - 24 m -52.8% - -52.1% -

Lithuania Demersal Trawl and Seine 24 – 40 m 22.2% -

W ‘Worsened’ Segment was making losses, losses now greater I Improved Segment was making losses, losses now smaller or even

profits L Lower Segment was making profits, profits now lower. H higher Segment was making profits, profits now higher ‘– No significant change. The general picture for the selected segments is that they are expected to be performing very poorly in economic terms. There may be some uncertainty related to projections because of the change of data provision procedure compared to earlier years, but for Denmark, Finland and the Netherlands the data are consistent over time and considered reliable, while the data for the other countries may gain from a further check of reliability.


6

3 WORK PROGRAMME 2007 STECF recommends the following work programme for the inclusion of socio-economic issues:

1. AER subgroup meeting January/February production of annual economic report for 2005

2. Working group to examine the two reports as commissioned under the DCR the first on the definition of Capital costs in fisheries, the second on the concept of Full Time Equivalents in fisheries. Meeting scheduled for January/February

3. Meeting on threshold values of the level of economic activity (active and partially active segments) leading to a harmonisation of the approach within the EU.

4. EIAA meeting on ACFM advice October 5. Meeting to evaluate the Baltic cod management plan in Q1 2007 6. Meeting for the development of a common methodology for assessing

balance between stocks and fishing capacity. 7. Establish task force for selection of appropriate bioeconomic models

for the Mediterranean 8. Joint biology and economic meeting on key parameters in bio-

economic evaluation models In general STECF continues to promote the collaboration of biologists and economists in the evaluation of management measures. STECF stresses that the meetings can only assess research results and make recommendations to internationalize the applications. Basic research is necessary in order to bring the issues forward.

7

ANNEX 1 SCIENTIFIC, TECHNICAL AND ECONOMIC COMMITTEE OF FISHERIES SUBGROUP ON ECONOMIC AFFAIRS (SGECA) MEETING ON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT OF EU FLEETS 15-18 MAY 2006


Brussels, SEC ( )

Commission Staff Working Paper

Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee of Fisheries Subgroup

on Economic Affairs (SGECA)

Meeting on Economic Assessment of EU Fleets

15-18 May 2006 This report does not necessarily reflect the view of the European Commission and in

no way anticipates the Commission’s future policy in this area.

Version 05/06/2006 07:47:00

ABSTRACT

The Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) Subgroup for Economic Affairs met on 15-18 May, 2006 to see how data collected under the Data Collection Regulation could contribute towards an economic assessment of both the present profitability of EU fleets and the future economic impact of ICES ACFM advice. The results of both analyses should be ready in time for the STECF plenary meeting of November 2006.

Previously these analyses had been made by a team working under the framework of a Concerted Action and then by an EC contract. Coverage of the EU fleets was about 50% in terms of value of landings. Data had been obtained from the countries concerned by the partners in the project on a voluntary basis.

Prior to the meeting, capacity, effort and economic data pertaining to 2004 had been collected using the Data Collection Regulation. This was a challenge for the Member States and for the Commission. It was only the second time that a request to Member States had been made for data using this mechanism. It was the first time that economic data had been requested and the first time that it had been requested specifically for a STECF meeting. The Commission’s Joint Research Centre (JRC) was responsible for gathering the data and reporting on its quality.

However, because many Member States were very late in submitting data and because much effort was needed to process the heterogeneous formats received, it was only possible to produce a limited overview of the data in the 20 days allowed by the Regulation. Some of the data had been inserted by JRC in the software of the Concerted Action software. But, due to an inexact correspondence between the parameters requested by the Regulation and those used by the Concerted Action, it was not possible to reproduce the analyses of the Concerted Action. The participants in the meeting did not examine the collected data during the meeting but had been briefed by those in their country who had been responsible for collecting and transmitting it.

The Subgroup felt that, in principle and in the long-term, the new method should allow a more complete coverage of fleets than had been possible before. But in 2006 this will not be possible because some Member States will not be ready with the data. Some adjustments and clarifications were made of the parameters requested from Member States in order to separate more clearly those costs that are dependent on effort and those that are fixed.

Although not specifically mandated by the Regulation, Member States can optionally separately report (1) vessels with less than one day’s activity, (2) vessels with income below a threshold to be defined by each Member State and (3) fully commercial vessels. However all vessels in the register should be reported.

For confidentiality reasons, segments with less than 10 vessels cannot be separately reported and they may need to be grouped with neighbouring segments. For some segments – large freezer trawlers for instance – this is not feasible or gives misleading results. Neglecting their contribution is not reasonable because they make a significant contribution to the overall economics of some countries’ fleets. It was suggested that contributions from these segments be grouped over several countries into an EU fleet.

It is expected that the future Data Collection Regulation will define three classes of data (1) raw (2) raw but with no reference to the vessel concerned for privacy reasons (3) aggregated. The Subgroup recommended that the aggregated data should be publicly available in electronic form without time-limits. For further calls using the present Regulation, the Commission will invoke Article 10, paragraph 4 of the Regulation and ask Member States;’ permission to retain the data.

The Subgroup recommended that in order to prepare properly for the challenging tasks in Autumn 2006, a further set of calls for data pertaining to 2004 should be made in order to refine the methods and tools for the preparation and processing of data in Member States and in the Joint Research Centre. A final call to be made in September will request data from 2002, 2003 and 2005. A meeting should be held immediately before the STECF

plenary meeting of November in order to assess the profitability of the EU fleets and to determine the economic impact of ICES ACFM advice.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 1 1.1 TERMS OF REFERENCE ............................................................................................ 1 1.2 PARTICIPANTS......................................................................................................... 1

1.2.1 Members of the STECF .......................................................................................1 1.2.2 Other Experts......................................................................................................1 1.2.3 European Commission........................................................................................2

2 BACKGROUND ................................................................................................... 3 2.1 ABBREVIATIONS ...................................................................................................... 3 2.2 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 3 2.3 LESSONS LEARNED FROM ANNUAL ECONOMIC REPORT PRODUCED BY CONCERTED ACTION.3

2.3.1 Strengths ............................................................................................................3 2.3.2 Weaknesses .......................................................................................................3 2.3.3 Opportunities ......................................................................................................3 2.3.4 Threats ...............................................................................................................3

2.4 ACCESS TO DATA UNDER DATA COLLECTION REGULATION ............................................. 4 2.4.1 Current Situation ................................................................................................4 2.4.2 In Future (from 2008 onwards, new regulation) .................................................4

3 FORMAL REQUEST FOR DATA PERTAINING TO 2004 ........................................ 5 3.1 PREPARATION OF REQUEST....................................................................................... 5 3.2 REQUEST FOR DATA ................................................................................................ 5 3.3 OUTCOME OF REQUEST............................................................................................ 5 3.4 SGECA ANALYSIS ................................................................................................... 6

4 LESSONS LEARNED FROM EXERCISE................................................................ 7 4.1 SEGMENTATION ...................................................................................................... 7 4.2 ACTIVE AND NON-ACTIVE VESSELS ........................................................................... 10

4.2.1 The issue ..........................................................................................................10 4.2.2 a possible study ...............................................................................................11

4.3 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR NEXT EXERCISE.................................................................. 11 4.4 COMPARISON (CORRESPONDENCE) OF ECONOMIC PARAMETERS DEFINED BY THE CA AND IN APPENDIX XVII OF THE DCR ............................................................................................. 13

5 ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT OF EUROPEAN FLEETS.............................................16 5.1 INDIVIDUAL MEMBER STATES’ ................................................................................. 16 5.2 COVERAGE COMPARED TO PREVIOUS ASSESSMENTS. ................................................... 17 5.3 ANALYSIS OF DATA – A POSSIBLE STUDY.................................................................... 18

5.3.1 Background ......................................................................................................18 5.3.2 Objectives .........................................................................................................18

6 BIOECONOMIC MODELLING..............................................................................20 6.1 RECOMMENDATIONS OF STECF .............................................................................. 20

6.1.1 Use of data for economic assessment – Bio-economic modelling ......................20 6.2 RUNNING EIAA..................................................................................................... 21

7 TIMETABLE FOR ACTION .................................................................................23 ANNEX: MEMBER STATES’ EXPERIENCE FROM DATA COLLECTION AND TRANSMISSION .......................................................................................................25 1 DENMARK ........................................................................................................27

1.1 HOW THE PROCEDURE FOR OBTAINING THE DATA COULD BE IMPROVED. ......................... 27 1.1.1 Were the instructions clear?..............................................................................27 1.1.2 Were there ambiguities? ...................................................................................27

1.1.3 What improvements can be made next time?....................................................27 1.2 HOW WERE THE DATA OBTAINED? ............................................................................ 27 1.3 THE QUALITY OF THE DATA (EXTRACT FROM TECHNICAL REPORT 2004). ......................... 27 1.4 DATA REPORTED FOR 2004 IN THE DCR CONTROL EXERCISE COMPARED TO THE DATA USED IN THE ANNUAL ECONOMIC REPORT IN NOVEMBER 2005 (AER)............................................... 28

1.4.1 Coverage...........................................................................................................28 1.4.2 Variable definitions...........................................................................................29

2 FINLAND...........................................................................................................31 2.1 PROCEDURE FOR OBTAINING THE DATA...................................................................... 32 2.2 PROVENANCE OF DATA?.......................................................................................... 32 2.3 THE QUALITY OF DATA............................................................................................ 32

3 FRANCE............................................................................................................33 3.1 THE PROCEDURE FOR OBTAINING DATA ..................................................................... 33 3.2 HOW THE DATA ARE OBTAINED?............................................................................... 33 3.3 THE QUALITY OF DATA: ........................................................................................... 33 3.4 OTHER EXTRA POINTS: ........................................................................................... 33

4 GERMANY.........................................................................................................35 4.1 PROCEDURES FOR DATA TRANSFER ........................................................................... 35 4.2 PROVENANCE OF DTA............................................................................................. 35 4.3 DIFFICULTY OF DATA PREPARATION........................................................................... 35 4.4 QUALITY OF DATA .................................................................................................. 35

5 GREECE ...........................................................................................................37 6 IRELAND ..........................................................................................................38

6.1 2006 DATA REQUEST FOR 2004 DATA ...................................................................... 38 6.2 DATA SOURCES, SAMPLING STRATEGY AND PRECISION ................................................. 38 6.3 PARAMETER DERIVATION ........................................................................................ 38 6.4 REPORTING IN OCTOBER ........................................................................................ 38

7 ITALY ...............................................................................................................39 7.1 PROCEDURE FOR THE TRANSMISSION OF DATA TO THE JRC.......................................... 39 7.2 HOW WERE THE DATA OBTAINED.............................................................................. 39 7.3 THE QUALITY OF THE DATA...................................................................................... 39 7.4 TIMING FOR THE DELIVERING OF RESULTS ................................................................. 40

8 LATVIA .............................................................................................................41 8.1 COMMENTS TO JRC REQUEST................................................................................. 41 8.2 COLLECTION OF ECONOMIC DATA IN 2005................................................................. 42

9 LITHUANIA .......................................................................................................44 9.1 DIFFICULTIES: ...................................................................................................... 45 9.2 COMMENTS ON SUBMITTING THE DATA 2006 SPRING................................................... 45

10 MALTA ..........................................................................................................46 11 NETHERLANDS .............................................................................................47

11.1 PROCEDURE FOR THE TRANSMISSION OF DATA TO THE JRC.......................................... 47 11.2 HOW WERE THE DATA OBTAINED.............................................................................. 47 11.3 THE QUALITY OF THE DATA...................................................................................... 47 11.4 TIMING FOR THE DELIVERING OF RESULTS ................................................................. 47

12 POLAND ........................................................................................................48 12.1 REQUIRED AND ACHIEVED SAMPLING ........................................................................ 48 12.2 DEVIATIONS FROM AIM........................................................................................... 48 12.3 COMMENTS ON SUBMITTING THE DATA ...................................................................... 48

13 PORTUGAL....................................................................................................48 13.1 DIFFICULTIES........................................................................................................ 48 13.2 PROVENANCE OF DATA ........................................................................................... 49

STECF opinion on Italian Plans for Protection of Marine Living Resources Page 7

13.3 THE QUALITY OF THE DATA ..................................................................................... 49 13.4 PRECISION LEVEL.................................................................................................. 50 13.5 WEAKNESS .......................................................................................................... 50

14 SWEDEN........................................................................................................51 14.1 REQUIRED AND ACHIEVED SAMPLING ........................................................................ 51 14.2 DEVIATIONS FROM AIM........................................................................................... 52 14.3 COMMENTS ON SUBMITTING THE DATA 2006-05-16 ................................................... 52

15 UNITED KINGDOM.........................................................................................53 15.1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 53 15.2 DATA ASSEMBLY AND TRANSMISSION ......................................................................... 53

15.2.1 no economic data..............................................................................................53 15.2.2 Network security...............................................................................................53 15.2.3 Fleet segmentation............................................................................................53 15.2.4 Economic Data ..................................................................................................53

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Terms of Reference The Member States were asked to provide the Commission with economic data pertaining to 2004 in March 2006. They were given 20 days to prepare the data and JRC were given a further 20 days to prepare the data for analysis. The objective of the Subgroup to determine: 1. how the procedure for obtaining the data could be improved.

a. were the instructions clear? b. were there ambiguities? c. what improvements can be made next time?

2. how were the data obtained - questionnaires, tax returns? 3. was it difficult to prepare the data for JRC? 4. the quality of the data.

a. are the data complete? b. is the aggregation at the level specified in the Regulation. c. are the data finalised or will some adjustments be made at a later date? d. what are sampling protocols? e. how have the requested indicators/information been estimated from the data,

what is raising procedure? f. what is the accuracy, precision and variance of the indicators?

5. how does data compare to that collected for the Annual Economic Report presented to the STECF in November 2005?

a. in terms of coverage b. in terms of parameter values

6. how should the Annual Economic Report be produced in 2006 a. when shall STECF ask for data? b. how should participants submit the data in the Autumn exercise? c. what segmentation shall we use? (the fleet segmentation used for Annual

Economic Report is a bit different to that used for Data Collection Regulation)? d. how can STECF obtain an expert opinion for results - a qualified

description/reasoning for observed trends in the data for each country, the driving factors of economic performance of the fleets?)

7. how can STECF determine the economic impact of ACFM Advice (EIAA model) in 2006?

1.2 Participants

1.2.1 Members of the STECF Tore Gustavsson (chairman) Jarno Virtanen,

1.2.2 Other Experts Jesper Levring Andersen, Angel Calvo, Liam Costello, Fabienne Daures, Jordi Guillen, Aaron Hatcher, Argyris Kapantagakis, Jens Kjaersgaard, Rainer Klepper,

SGECA-06-02 economic assessment of EU fleets

Aleksandrs Kozlovskis, Emil Kuzebski, Simon Mardle, Lara Marisa Monteiro Pereira, Arina Motova, Hans Van Oostenbrugge, Guenter Peter, Evelina Sabatella, Pavel Salz,

1.2.3 European Commission Maria Geronymaki Erik Lindebo Philippe Moguedet Iain Shepherd

2 BACKGROUND

2.1 Abbreviations ACFM Advisory Committee for Fisheries Management. An ICES committee that advises

on management measures for stocks in the North Atlantic AER Annual Economic Report produced by Concerted Action CA Concerted Action Q5CA-2001-01502 “Economic Assessment of European

Fisheries DCR Data Collection Regulation EIAA A model used to evaluate the economic impact of ACFM advice ICES International Council for Exploration of the Sea. An organisation that coordinates

and promotes marine research in the North Atlantic.

2.2 Introduction An Annual Economic Report on ‘Economic performance of selected European fishing fleets’ in 2005 was prepared under EC contract FISH/2005/12. It was a continuation of three Concerted Actions, which produced similar reports in the years 1996-2004. The methodology in producing this report was refined over the years and ended up as a highly effective process. The availability of data coming from the Data Collection Regulation and the wish of the Commission to strengthen the role if the STECF in providing economic advice will mean a rather radical change in the production of the annual economic report. The present exercise aims to see how well the data collected under the Regulation can meet the needs of the STECF in producing this report.

2.3 Lessons Learned from Annual Economic Report produced by Concerted Action

Pavel Salz presented the strengths and weaknesses of the Concerted Action approach and then the opportunities and threats posed by the move to a new approach.

2.3.1 Strengths 1. Dedication of partners 2. Efficient procedures – timely delivery 3. Good coverage of most commercial fisheries 4. Powerful database 5. Consistent time series 6. Established report format 7. Incl. non-EU countries

2.3.2 Weaknesses 1. Poor coverage of some countries (ES, PT, UK, GR, IE) 2. Differences in national approaches to measurement of capital value and

employment 3. Poor coverage of some important segments

2.3.3 Opportunities 1. Institutionalisation in JRC 2. Increasing potential applications (fuel, EFF, etc.) 3. Further development (prices, fleet data, etc.) 4. Fuller coverage of countries and segments

2.3.4 Threats 1. Disregard for reliance on experts – errors of interpretation


2. Institutional commitment uncertain - timing 3. Role of national politics 4. Production of next report is uncertain 5. 20 days rule 6. Data availability outside STECF

2.4 Access to Data under Data Collection Regulation

2.4.1 Current Situation In the current DCR (article 10 paragraph 4) the Member State has to submit the requested data within a 20 days period to the asking Member State or bodies. The data are transmitted in aggregated DCR segment defined form to the requestor. In the course of 20 days the data could be used and held in electronic form. After this period the submitted data has to be destroyed.

The Regulation stipulates that “When a computer file has been set up by the Commission from the data of the Member States, this file may not be kept for more than 20 working days following the date for which the information was requested and must therefore be destroyed except when explicit written agreement of the Member States concerned has been obtained.”

The Subgroup considered that the 20-day limit poses great difficulties for those charged with analysing the data. They recommended that the Commission use the exception allowed under Article 10 paragraph 4 to retain the aggregated data for longer.

2.4.2 In Future (from 2008 onwards, new regulation) Philippe Moguedet from DG-FISH explained how the revision of the Regulation would change the present rules.

An objective of the new regulation is to improve access to and use of the data collected within the framework of the DCR. It should cover all the process from the collection of the data on the fish market or at sea to its use by the end-users (e.g. mainly the scientific community and advisory bodies).

Member States will continue to be responsible for the collection, the storage, the maintenance in their national database (raw data) and the transmission of the data. This information will have to be available to the Commission and to the scientific community, the rule for confidentiality being respected. The basic principle should be that detailed data on fishing activities, landings, and economics should be made available except such information that could be specifically related to individual or vessel.

In practice, availability to the scientific community means that Member States will have the obligation to transmit the data for scientific needs and have the capacity of doing so. The raw data will have to be aggregated before their transmission to the level of aggregation stipulated in the request.

The “20 day” for providing the requested aggregated data and the obligation to delete the electronic files will be implemented in the same way in the new regulation as in the current one. For scientific purposes, e.g., PhD research, this data holding period may be increased up to two years.

The Subgroup recommends that the 20-day rule be abolished for aggregated data.

3 FORMAL REQUEST FOR DATA PERTAINING TO 2004

3.1 Preparation of Request As of 2006, JRC is responsible for receiving economic data collected by Member States under the Data Collection Regulation and providing it to the STECF for analysis. The objectives for 2006 are to produce the Annual Economic Report using data that are based on the Data Collection Regulation definitions and to evaluate the economic impacts of ACFM advice (running EIAA). For the 2006 exercise, JRC has looked into the possibility to use the Concerted Action software that was used to produce the Annual Economic Report until 2005. There are certain differences between the data structures used in Concerted Action software and those defined in the Data Collection Regulation (see also Table 4-2): • The models inside the Concerted Action software require time series of at least 3 years

in order to run. Under the DCR, data availability covers only 2004 and 2005. • The Concerted Action software covers few selected fleets per country that account for

the regional dimension of the fisheries. DCR covers all existing fleets and segments in the EU and does not provide for regional reporting for economic parameters.

• Some of the economic indicators used by the two approaches are different. • Species, length and age classes differ. • Aggregation levels differ. • National Fleet data required by the Concerted Action software are not required as such

by the DCR.

3.2 Request for Data JRC developed an approach in order to test whether it is possible to modify the Concerted Action software bringing it in line with the Data Collection Regulation definitions without affecting the accuracy and reliability of the analyses produced.

According to JRC’s approach: • a formal request for 2004 data was launched in March 2006 • data were received and converted to CA software in April 2006 • in May 2006, SGECA evaluated both the approach and the data received • solutions to the problems that emerged during the exercise were identified • these will be addressed between May and October 2006 by JRC.

3.3 Outcome of Request The preliminary conclusion is that in principle the software can run with the new data structures. However, it was not possible to run the economic models incorporated in the Concerted Action software due to incomplete and/or badly formatted data sent by the Member States. Only 12 out of 20 Member States responded to the formal request for data by the day of the meeting and only 6 out of these 12 did it in the proposed format (Table 3-1) Sending data using ad-hoc formatting and naming makes it impossible for JRC to process it.

For this exercise, JRC presented 2004 data collected under the DCR inserted into the Concerted Action software where they can be analysed.


Table 3-1 data prepared for SGECA-06-01

Country Arrival at JRC format

Belgium arrived 31 March

Cyprus nothing yet

Denmark arrived 12 April

Estonia none collected

Finland arrived 7 April

France 12 May

Germany 2 May

Greece delivered during the SGECA meeting on 17 May

Ireland arrived 21 April

Italy arrived 10 April

Latvia no

Lithuania arrived 14 April

Malta no data for 2004. Will participate in next exercise

Netherlands 20 April

Poland 8 May

Portugal do not have economic data yet

Spain request for data was not in Spanish so was not counted

as an official request

Sweden arrived 21 April

UK 17 May (only capacity and effort)

3.4 SGECA analysis No analysis of the data received was made by SGECA. It was decided that this should be done in a subsequent meeting (see section 7 of this report)

4 LESSONS LEARNED FROM EXERCISE

Each country’s experience in preparing the data is summarised in Annex 1. Here we identify two particular challenges in preparing the data followed by a summary of all the difficulties encountered and proposals for amending the procedure in the next call for data.

4.1 Segmentation The Subgroup discussed the segmentation. This is clearly a major issue as the one in the Concerted Action (CA) is different from the one in the present regulation (Table 4-1). The Subgroup recommends to use the segmentation in the regulation and the JRC is recommended to ask for historic data as from 2002 from the Member State funded by the Commission to produce data according to the regulation. Historic data is necessary in order to create time series and analyse trends.

Table 4-1 Correspondence between segmentation used in the Concerted Action and that used by Data Collection Regulation. The numbers in the column indicate the number of DCR length classes within the DCR segment covered by a particular Concerted Action segment. Two tables are presented. The first only takes into account information from the database and fleet report (ie we do not know a-priori that the German shrimp trawlers are in the 12-24 metre class) and the numbers do not take into account that some classes will be empty. The second table has been checked by the Member State concerned

A. Table created using information from database

CAClient

Beam

trawl

Demersal trawl and

demersal seine

Demersal trawl and

demersal seiner

Dredges Drift and

fixed nets

Gears using hooks

Pelagic trawl and seiners

Polyvalent Pots and

traps (blank) Grand

Total

BE: Beam trawlers < 24 m 1 1

BE: Beam trawlers < 24 m 1 1

BE: Beam trawlers > 24 m 2 2

BE: Shrimp beam trawlers 4 4

ES: Trawlers < 24m 2 2

ES: Trawlers > 24m 2 2

FI: Gillnetters 4 4 FI: Trawlers < 24 m 2 2

FI: Trawlers > 24 m 2 2

FR: Atlantic bottom trawlers 4 4

FR: Atlantic longliners&liners 4 4

FR: Atlantic netters 4 4

FR: Atlantic potters 4 4

FR: Atlantic trawlers-dredgers

4 4

FR: Medit. trawlers 18-25 m

1 1


CAClient

Beam

trawl

Demersal trawl and

demersal seine

Demersal trawl and

demersal seiner

Dredges Drift and

fixed nets

Gears using hooks


Polyvalent Pots and

traps (blank) Grand

Total

DE: Baltic trawlers 4 4

DE: North Sea trawlers 4 4

DE: Shrimp beam trawlers 4 4

GR: Thermaikos trawlers < 24m 2 2

GR: Thermaikos trawlers > 24m 2 2

IE: NW Polyvalent -< 12 m

1 1

IE: Polyvalent >= 24m 1 1

IE: Polyvalent 12 -< 18 m 1 1

IE: Polyvalent 18 -< 24 m 1 1

IT: Dredgers 4 4 IT: Mediterranean trawlers

4 4

IT: Midwater pair trawlers 4 4

IT: Multipurpose vessels 4 4

IT: Purse seiners 4 4 IT: Small scale fisheries 2 2

LV: Gillnetters 4 4 LV: Trawlers < 24m 2 2

LV: Trawlers > 24m 2 2

LT: Atlantic trawlers 4 4

LT: Baltic trawlers 2 2

LT: Coastal vessels < 12 m 1 1

LI: Gillnetters 4 4 NL: Beam trawlers <= 24 m 2 2

NL: Beam trawlers > 24 m 2 2

NL: Pelagic freezer trawlers 1 1

NL: Shrimp beam trawlers <24m

2 2

NL: Trawlers > 24m 2 2

PL: Demersal trawlers < 12 1 1

PL: Demersal trawlers 12 -< 24

1 1

PL: Demersal trawlers 24 -< 40

1 1

PL: Gill-netters 12 -< 24 1 1

PL: Gill-netters 24 -< 40 1 1

SGECA-06-02 economic assessment of EU fleets page 9

9

CAClient

Beam

trawl

Demersal trawl and

demersal seine

Demersal trawl and

demersal seiner

Dredges Drift and

fixed nets

Gears using hooks


Polyvalent Pots and

traps (blank) Grand

Total

PL: Longliners < 12 1 1

PL: Passive gear vessels < 12 1 1

PL: Pelagic trawlers 24 -< 40

1 1

PL: Polyvalent 12 -< 24 1 1

PT: Coastal purse seiners 4 4

PT: Gillnetters, north > 40 GT 4 4

PT: Longliners 4 4 PT: NAFO trawlers 4 4

PT: Trawlers 3 1 4

ES: 300 fleet 4 4 ES: Atlantic longliners 4 4

ES: Galician purse seiners 4 4

ES: N and NW trawlers 4 4

SE: Cod trawlers < 24 m 2 2

SE: Cod trawlers >= 24 m 2 2

SE: Gillnetters < 12 m 1 1

SE: Gillnetters >= 12 m 1 1

SE: Nephrop trawlers 4 4

SE: Pel. trawlers/purse s.>24m

2 2

SE: Pelagic trawlers < 24 m 2 2

SE: Shrimp trawlers 4 4

UK: Beam trawlers 4 4

UK: Scallop trawlers 4 4

UK: Scot. demersal trawlers<24m

2 2

UK: Scot. demersal trawlers>24m

2 2

UK: Scot. Ir. nephrops trawlers

4 4

UK: Scottish nephrops trawlers

4 4

UK: Scottish seiners 4 4

(blank)

Grand Total 26 3 81 12 25 13 22 12 4 198


B table checked by responsible Member State

CAClientSegments Beam trawl

Demersal trawl

and demersal

seiner Dredges

Drift and fixed nets

Gears using hook

s

Pelagic trawl and

seiners Polyvalent

Pots and

traps NA Grand Total

DK: Danish seiners 1 1 DK: Gillnetters 2 2 DK: National Fleet 1 1 DK: Purse s. / trawlers >= 40 1 1 DK: Trawlers < 24 m 2 2 DK: Trawlers 24 - < 40 m 1 1

Total 3 0 2 0 2 0 0 1 8

4.2 Active and non-active vessels

4.2.1 The issue The data collection regulation requires economic data to be collected for all vessels in the fishing vessel register. However it has been recognised that fishing vessel register includes also non-active vessels. Active vessels are defined as vessels that have fished for at least one day over one year. All the economic indicators required by the regulation have to be collected for all the active vessels, without any exclusion criteria (Workshop Economic Indicators - Paris, May 2004 and the SGECA meeting in October 2004).

Non active vessels (vessels for which fishing time equals zero) cannot be classified in any of the existing segments (appendix III DCR) as segmentation is based on the effective use of a gear and on fishing time. Therefore it is recommended that JRC defines an extra segment for non active vessels, with no specification of fishing technique and vessel length. Indicators to be collected also for non-active vessels are capacity indicators (No, GT, kW), value of capital and capital costs.

Members States should carry out additional surveys in their data collection programs in order to distinguish between active and non active vessels in the fleet register. This task could be particularly difficult considering that non activity is relevant especially for small scale vessels and that therefore activity of the fleet has to be evaluated in absence of logbook data. During the workshop on small scale fisheries (Kavala, September 2005) various obstacles to the collection of data for the fleet segment of vessels less than 12 m have been identified and it was suggested to implement specific sampling strategies. Moreover the Training Group on Fleet-based Approach (Nantes, March 2006), suggested that Member States include necessary actions and cost in their National Programme 2007 to collect relevant data for the segmentation of the fleet according to fishing activities.

Some argued that the inclusion in the segment of vessels under the threshold value could lead to a wrong interpretation of the economic performance of the segment and to a break in the time series. The group recommended that in these cases, Member States report active and partially active segments separately and to justify the threshold used in their Technical Reports.

4.2.2 a possible study The issue is complex. The Subgroup recommended that a study on threshold values of

economic activity be made that might lead to a harmonisation of approach within the EU. Such a study might include the rules for inclusion in the Community Register.

4.2.2.1 background

The EU fishing fleet register contains about 90,000 vessels, of which 73,000 are smaller than 12m. There are strong indications from various sources that a significant number of these vessels is either not active at all or their activity should be characterized as hobby / sports fishing rather than professional / commercial fishing: 1. Several countries, where the data is available, confirm this conclusion (De, Dk, Nl, Fi)


11

2. When total registered fleet would be related to national production values, the resulting productivity is far below acceptable levels of income.

The Common Fisheries Policy is primarily aimed at regulation of professional fishing activities. It is therefore fundamental to determine as precisely as possible what the actual size of commercial fishing fleets is, subdivided by gear type and vessel size. Only when reliable information in this respect is available, will it be possible to evaluate properly economic impact of various management measures.

4.2.2.2 objective and terms of reference

The proposed study should deliver the following results: 1. Detailed review of national rules and procedures for registration of fishing vessels, incl.

the procedures for elimination of non-active vessels from the national register. 2. Formulation of criteria for defining various levels of activity of fishing vessels (e.g.

occasional, seasonal, part time and full time). 3. Determination of the size of the national fishing fleets according to these criteria. In the first phase the study should elaborate an application of the above objectives (rules, criteria and fleet definitions) to a number of characteristic case studies, where various situations must be well represented (e.g. Mediterranean, Atlantic, North Sea and Baltic areas). After further refining the methodology, on the basis of the experience from the case studies, all EU Member States should be elaborated according to the three objectives stated above.

4.3 Recommendations for next exercise Based on the lessons learned in this exercise the Subgroup proposed a set of recommendations for subsequent efforts Problem Identified Proposed Solution for Submission of data

pertaining to 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 in 2006

Not clear whether values requested for a particular segment are for population or sample or whether they are total or average values

Data values required refer to total population and not the sample. Values are submitted as totals with exception of age and prices

Not possible to allocate a precision to every cost parameter

Revised codification will allow a precision to be allocated to every parameter

Not possible to describe precision when less than 25%.

Use 0 if not achievable

NA not available(could not be calculated)

NR not required

Lack of clarity as to whether costs depend on effort or not. This is needed for analysis of economic performance – past and future – and for analytic applications - - especially EIAA model

Revise reporting guidelines for data collection exercise including all non-variable operational costs (ie. independent of effort) together with “repair and maintenance” separated from “other operational costs” that depends on effort. See SGECA report October 2004.


Problem Identified Proposed Solution for Submission of data pertaining to 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 in 2006

Different regional fisheries have very different characteristics. Economic data aggregated over different fishing regions can be misleading. This is a general problem but is particularly acute for countries with a Mediterranean and Atlantic coastline.

For 2006, countries may make separate submissions and they will be considered as separate countries. We could consider the four regions Atlantic (including North Sea), Baltic, Mediterranean and distant waters. This issue needs further exploration.

Species not included in codification document (some of these are classified as freshwater fish)

The list can be extended as desired.

Cannot report segments with less than 10 vessels.

Put into dominant length class and add comment.

Meaningless to group with neighbouring segments for some segments (or there are no neighbouring segments). This includes

1. Pelagic freezer-trawlers (NL, D, F, IR, UK?)

2. Demersal freezer-trawlers (D, E, UK?)

3. Baltic distant-water vessels (LT, PL, LV, EE)

For those where grouping to neighbouring segment is not possible, create new EU Country. Coordination will be by:

1. Pelagic freezer-trawlers (NL)

2. Demersal freezer-trawlers (D)

3. Baltic distant-waters vessels (LT)

1. Need to identify active vessels

2. Some countries distinguish between commercial and non-commercial vessels using thresholds. Not doing so can distort financial performance

Distinguish new non-active segment of vessels spending less than one day fishing (without gear description but with vessel length). For these non-active vessels only potential capacity is reported (N, kW, GT, value of capital and capital costs).

Create new optional sub-segmentation for active vessels of level of economic activity. Two types

1. regularly active (above threshold to be defined by Member State)

2. less active (below certain threshold to be defined by Member State.

All vessels should be reported.


13

Problem Identified Proposed Solution for Submission of data pertaining to 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 in 2006

Different formats supplied by Member States makes processing and error-checking difficult

XML, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy Netherlands

Excel Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Poland Sweden, UK,

Can do limited checking with XML, Old concerted action software did checking for unlikely bounds

Define new “approved” Excel structure that can create XML file.

Modify XML structure

The group also noted that there are discrepancies between wording and contents for some of the variables. For example this occurs in effort related and non-effort related costs, investments, and income.

4.4 Comparison (correspondence) of economic parameters defined by the CA and in Appendix XVII of the DCR

The economic parameters defined in the Data Collection Regulation do not correspond precisely with those assumed within the Concerted Action. The Subgroup therefore defined how the parameters to be collected in 2006 should be defined. JRC will use these as a basis for defining a new set of instructions. Income/turnover Discussion referred to the outcome of the SGECA workshops in

Paris/Brussels. The DCR requires income per species so equates income with value of landings: there is currently no provision for recording income from other (non-fishing) activities. This is equivalent to income defined by the CA.

Production costs Crew and fuel costs correspond. CA has variable (effort-related) plus “vessel costs” which include fixed (non-variable) costs. In the DCR “other costs” includes both other variable costs and fixed costs which is a problem for models which require separation of variable and fixed costs. Note the problem of the use of the term “fixed costs” in the DCR to refer to the economic (opportunity) costs of the current value of physical capital (defined in the DCR as “Average cost, calculated from investment”).

Fixed costs In the CA opportunity costs of capital, taken as depreciation and (net) interest costs applied to the estimated value of capital. The DCR requires a single figure, so there is a problem with knowing how the Member State have calculated this parameter.

Financial position This has no equivalent in the CA. In the DCR it is defined as “Share of own/foreign capital”. The word “foreign” appears to be erroneous, what is meant is the vessel owner’s debt share of the total assets, i.e., one minus the proportion of capital value owed to a bank or other financial institution.

Capital investment This refers to the value of physical capital, not any investment flow in the current year. Equivalent in the CA is calculated from annual insurance premiums; the DCR asks for insured value (preferably) or otherwise estimated replacement value.


Prices/species (DCR) – These are not separated out in the CA but can be derived.

Employment This is basically the same although the DCR is not very clear as to the methodology for the calculation of FTE or whether we require actual numbers plus FTE or one or the other.

Fleet parameters Same, but the DCR also requires age plus the gear. The gear type may be redundant since all DCR data are required disaggregated by fleet segment.

Effort The CA has days (at sea), while the DCR specifies kW days and GT days In the next call for data, Member States should provide all three.

Value and volume of landings

Same parameters in CA and DCR.

The CA reports “depreciation, gross value, gross cash flow, net profit” but these can be derived from DCR data.

In conclusion, SGECA recommends that JRC can use the CA software to analyse DCR data.

Table 4-2clarification of transmitted parameters

Concerted Action Data Collection Regulation

Comment

1. Value of Landings Income In reality it is

Income = Value of Landings + extra income

2. Vessel cost Repair & maintenance independent of effort

3. Crew costs Crew share

4. Fuel costs Fuel costs

5. Other running costs Other operational costs

Related to effort

6. Depreciation Fixed costs

7. Interest deleted

Fixed costs = Depreciation of the invested capital+ interest;

Every Member State can set their depreciation time and interest rate

8. Financial position (to be added to CA)

Financial position debt/total assets

9. Invested capital Investment Add EC1639 definition

10. Prices/species (to be added (values/tones))

Prices/species (values/tones)

Euros/tones

11. Employment (add Full time and part time to CA)

Employment(Full/part time/FTE)

12. Fleet (No, GT, KW) Fleet (No, GT, KW) Add a new fishing technique: “NON-ACTIVE”


15

Concerted Action Data Collection Regulation

Comment

13. Effort in 1000 days Effort in unit accounting for technology and time

Unit=Days at sea and KWdays and GTdays

14. Gross value added

15. Gross cash flow

16. Net profit

Calculate it from the figures above

Pavel Salz will supply to JRC the formulas for the calculation

17. National Composition

National Composition (for all parameters)

JRC will ask separately for national values for all parameters

5 ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT OF EUROPEAN FLEETS

The STECF expects to have an assessment of the economic stratus of EU fleets by its November plenary 2006 meeting. In previous years this has been achieved using data collected under the Concerted Action. The SGECA subgroup examined what data would be available by that date and what impact this would have on the completeness and quality of the assessment.

5.1 Individual Member States’

Table 5-1 summary of availability of data in October 2006

Country Comments data pertaining to 2005 data pertaining to 2002-2003-2004

Belgium Not present at meeting but data arrived early

A request for data has gone out this week to shipowners to be returned by Sep,1st. 2006. Since this is a voluntary exercise, there is no guarantee as to the timely response. However it should be able to provide figures by October , possibly based on partial data.

This should be no problem, except for the fuel consumption in liters, which is not requested from owners.

Cyprus Not present at meeting JRC to check

Denmark Data obtained from accounts. Can deliver Yes

Estonia We can deliver 2005 data by October

can deliver 2005 data by October

No (not collected)

Finland Data obtained from accounts Provisional data for October

Yes

France Different partners are involved Earliest is March 2007 2004 (yes),

2002 2003 (?)

Germany Catch and effort arrive early but final economic data arrive later than October 2006

Can provide very preliminary indicators

2004, (yes),

2002 2003 (?)

Greece Based on samples reported monthly by 48 surveyors

End of May 2006 2004

2002 2003 (incomplete)

Ireland Economic data is obtained from questionnaires but checked by accountants. Data from 2004 are still being obtained.

Cannot provide certified data till January-February 2007 but can check whether preliminary data can be prepared earlier.

2003, 2004

2002(?)


17

Country Comments data pertaining to 2005 data pertaining to 2002-2003-2004

Italy Data collected by interviews. That for year N must be sent to Ministry by September of year N+1

No difficulty foreseen for 2005.

Yes

Latvia Not collected Can deliver 2005 data 3 out of 4 segments

Lithuania Questionnaires, fisheries databases and fleet register. Institute has historic data from Concerted Action but Ministry has only report.

Can deliver 2005 data 2004

2002 (?) 2003 (?)

Malta Malta only started carrying out National Data Collection Programmes (NDCP) in 2005 (Malta's accession to EU took place in May 2004). No data collected in 2004 or previous exercises.

Can deliver 2005 data No

Netherlands Use sales notes, logbooks accounts for commercial fishermen and logbooks plus questionnaires for non-commercial fishermen

Can deliver 2005 data Yes

Poland Used questionnaires that had to be returned by end of March

Can deliver 2005 data 2004

2002 (no) 2003 (no)

Portugal Only 60% of questionnaires on 2003 returned, 25% accurate

Can deliver provisional data for 2005 in December 2006

2003, 2004 but not for October (maybe December)

Spain Not delivered because request was not in Spanish

DG-FISH to check

Slovenia JRC to check

Sweden All data collection Can deliver 2005 data yes

UK Only catch and effort data delivered. SEAFISH are currently undertaking a survey this year. The accounts are for business years ending during 2005, and they also show the previous year. So in essence they are collecting data that will supply the UK figures for 2004 and for 2005.

Expect to deliver the UK data to Marine Fisheries Agency in July, and they will submit to the Commission.

2004

5.2 Coverage compared to previous assessments. In principle the use of a mandatory request for data from the Commission rather than a voluntary submission of data from a consortium of public and private institutions in Member States should result in an improved coverage compared to previous cases.


In most cases the time-series of economic data collected under the Regulation will start in 2004 or 2005. The earliest is 2002. The Concerted Action database collected dta from 1998.

Table 5-2 regional coverage of data expected in October 2005 compared to previous years

area coverage Mediterranean Several new countries are included in the analysis (Malta, Cyprus, Greece)

improving the coverage, however availability of data from important countries is uncertain.

North Sea Data availability from important countries is uncertain, therefore undermining the coverage compared to the CA-data.

Western waters

No coverage is expected, thus a serious deterioration compared to the CA-data.

Baltic Sea More precise data expected from Poland, Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania, while no deterioration is expected from other countries relevant in the Baltic Sea. The conclusion is thus that data availability for the Baltic are expected to be improved.

5.3 Analysis of Data – a possible study SGECA suggested to implement a small-scale project to develop analytical tools to exploit economic data collected under the Data Collection Regulation

SGECA proposed the following Terms of Reference for the study:

5.3.1 Background The Annual Economic Report produced so far by the Concerted Action Economic Assessment Of European Fishing Fleet presents the economic results of selected European fishing fleets and assesses their economic performance on the basis of analytical tools and algorithms.

The DCR represents an important step forward in the economic analysis of fishing fleets as more complete data will be available for the whole European fleet (new parameters and quarterly information of landings, prices and effort). A more complete coverage of the European fisheries will be available. Moreover the use of a common segmentation will allow EU-wide fleet segment datasets to be developed, instead of fleets based on national definitions.

Moreover, STECF needs to receive an annual report on the economic performance of European fishing fleets. According to the present DCR, all analysis should be finalized within 20 days from the receipt of data from Member States. This rule implies that all data need to be standardised in terms of definitions and presentation to users in a very quick and consistent way.

It is considered that the development of methods and tools for the analysis and the presentation of the data is essential to allow an improved interpretation of economic parameters and the reliability of various results to be checked.

5.3.2 Objectives The general aim of the project is to develop analytical tools to exploit available data and allow assessment of the performance of fleets, in order to improve general understanding of the economic performance of European fishing fleets, as required by the STECF and to strengthen the quality of economic advice to policy preparation and evaluation.

The project will discuss all possible uses of economic data collected within the Data Collection Regulation for the Common Fisheries Policy.

The project will suggest analytical tools (models, algorithms, graphical representations) to improve interpretation of data with the aid of statistical or econometric techniques.


19

Furthermore, comparative methods have to be suggested to compare similar fleet segments. It could also be attempted to estimate eventually lacking data on the basis of the available time series and cross-section data by economic comparisons, extrapolations, regression models.

Models and methods suggested by the study will then been implemented into software tools to be run soon after the reception of data by the Commission. Results will be made available to carry out the required economic assessment of European fishing fleets.

6 BIOECONOMIC MODELLING

6.1 Recommendations of STECF

6.1.1 Use of data for economic assessment – Bio-economic modelling A series of subgroup meetings has reviewed existing operating bio-economic models (and relevant ongoing projects) and evaluated the possibilities for supporting the STECF with economic assessments. Three overall types of advice were identified. Models have been related to different types of advice and to different management regimes relevant to European fisheries. The advice of the subgroup was endorsed by the STECF in its plenary meeting of April 2006.

6.1.1.1 Background

STECF decided in 2003 to organise a series of subgroup meetings to investigate the availability of bio-economic models that can support STECF’s advice about fisheries management, in terms of

• Economic assessment of ICES Advisory Committee for Fisheries Management (ACFM) advice

• Economic assessment of fisheries not subject to quota management • Bio-economic models in broader context

Three meetings have been held with the following objective:

1. June 2004. Review of the EIAA used to calculate economic repercussions of ACFM advice.

2. October 2005. Investigation of bio-economic models in a broader context. 3. March 2006. Compilation of a final report with recommendations for future

approaches to economic assessments.

6.1.1.2 Report

The report of the second two meetings is available on the STECF webpage under the reference SGECA-SGRST-06-01.

According to the terms of reference, the report address:

1. Objectives and methodologies of bio-economic advise 2. Review types of models used 3. Relevant projects (including ongoing) 4. Data requirements – (related to the data collection regulation, MP and EP of EC

1639/2001) 5. Adjustment of data regulation 6. Advice procedures and organisational framework 7. finalize report 8. Setting up task forces.

6.1.1.3 Type of advice

The group identified three types of advice

1. Regular tasks 2. Ad hoc tasks


21

3. Long term strategic tasks. The group suggests candidate models related to different kind of advice and for different kinds of harvest control rules (TAC, Effort, combination TAC and effort). Table 6-1 models considered by Subgroup

Model Type of model Harvest Control Rule EIAA Output driven TAC/quota TEMAS Input driven Sea days, capacity MOSES Optimisation/input driven All BIRDMOD Input driven Sea days, capacity MEFISTO Input driven Sea days, capacity EMMFID Optimisation All SRRMCF Optimisation All COBAS Input driven Sea days, capacity ECONMULT Input driven Sea days, capacity

6.1.1.4 Recommendation of STECF bioeconomic subgroup

The report suggests how the different tasks could be approached and proposes a task force group to prepare the road for long term, ad hoc and strategic advice, and to secure short term regular advice is continued, it is recommended that task forced are established.

The objective of a task force is to produce detailed information in terms of user manuals about the operational models identified in this report. It should provide information that increases the accessibility and applicability of the models to a broader group of people and institutes.

The manual produced by the task force should address as minimum the following items: 1. Model language 2. Model objective and scope 3. Type of advice and time range (simulation over years, static comparative, optimization) 4. Model overview - diagram 5. Full specification of the equations of the model 6. Full specification of the variables of the model 7. Full list of the parameters of the model (including parameter values) 8. Data requirements to initialise the model; i.e. a complete list of indicators (often the same as the variables) 9. Description of the required time to run the model and to produce and disseminate the advice. 10. Format of output of the model 11. Procedure of how to run the model 12. Where has the model been used, outcome, validation and references 13. Institute and key personnel

6.2 Running EIAA In November of each year the STECF uses the EIAA model to evaluate the economic impact of proposed changes in quota and total allowable catch. The economic data for this modeling was obtained from the database of Concerted Action data. The SGECA subgroup believes that in principle it is possible to continue running the EIAA (Economic Interpretation of ACFM Advice) model using data collected under the Data Collection Regulation. The following topics may require specific attention: 1. According to the new description of the data definitions costs which are and are not

dependent on the level of effort. An adjustment of data definitions is proposed.


2. Countries should report whether the effort dependence is well reflected in their data or not.

3. CA software generates standard lists of species which can be directly copied into the EIAA model. JRC should assure that this feature of the software remains operational

7 TIMETABLE FOR ACTION

This exercise clearly showed that an analysis of data in October 2005 will not be possible unless Member States can provide data in a uniform format that can immediately be processed by the software. The Subgroup suggested that a meeting should be held immediately before the STECF plenary session in November in order to provide the economic assessment of EU fleets and the economic impact of ACFM advice.

Before that data, there will need to be a number of exercises testing the ability of Member States to deliver data and of JRC to process it. The timetable suggested in Table 7-1 was proposed.

Table 7-1 timetable

17 May Preparation of guidelines/discussion/comments

1 June 2nd formal request for data pertaining to 2004 asking for permission to

keep data (article 10, paragraph 4)

1 July Receipt (after 20 working days)

15 July 3rd request for data pertaining to 2004 asking for permission to keep data

(article 10, paragraph 4)

15 August Procedure ok and 2004 data ready, comments on data

1 September Request for data pertaining to 2002, 2003 and 2005 asking for permission

to keep data (article 10, paragraph 4)

1 October Receipt of data

15 October Data ready to prepare the economic assessment and input for EIAA

End October SGECA meeting to finalise report and run EIAA model

5 November STECF/EIAA model to be presented

Annex: Member States’ Experience from Data

Collection and Transmission

1 DENMARK

1.1 How the procedure for obtaining the data could be improved.

1.1.1 Were the instructions clear? All in all the exercise has been very well prepared. There are still some definitions which have not been finalized, and therefore not yet fully implemented (like the fleet segmentation, Nantes June 2006), and some errors that should be taken care of e.g. the use of the word “investment” (see below).

Perhaps it wasn’t clearly stated whether the figures in the report should be average per vessel or aggregate figures. Based on the fact that the first variable in the report should be “Number of vessels” and the second variable “Age of vessels” the conclusion were to specify all figures as average per vessel.

1.1.2 Were there ambiguities? In the formal request for economic data (Module J, sec. 5) is applied for “Total investment: Annual total investment for all segments of Appendix III”.

To look at the annual investment in the fishery sector is a good sound question to bring up, but unfortunately that economic information is not included in the Appendix XVII. This ambiguity is caused by the misuse of the word “investment” for “Value of fishery assets” in App. XVII.

What should be put in the report is the “Capital input”, which is the “Value of fishery assets” at the beginning of the year. That is a stock measure, which can be calculated by accumulating all former investments and depreciate according to the economic consumption of capital until that date. If the investment during the year should be in the report, that needs to be included in the App. XVII.

1.1.3 What improvements can be made next time? The upload explains that both XML and Excel files can be uploaded. It doesn’t say how,

when it comes to the Excel files.

1.2 How were the data obtained? Vessel register, Sales notes register, Accounts from the fishermen’s official accountants.

1.3 The quality of the data (Extract from technical report 2004). In order to ensure an adequate data quality the economic data on Danish fishing vessels does not rely on a simple questionnaire. The coherent structure of economic data makes it necessary to be able to validate all variables for an individual economic agent both in detail and consistently combined with other variables. The best way to do that is by setting up a balanced account. FOI has constructed a harmonized accounting form for fishery, which ensures that the data is broken down to meet the requirements of the Account Statistic for Fishery and the specifications in appendix XVII of the Data Collection Regulation (EC) No 1639/2001. The accounts are filled out by the fisherman’s officially authorized accountant. The reported accounts are being thoroughly tested by FOI, for instance using registered information from the Directorate of Fisheries to validate fishing activity (logbooks) and value of landings (sales note register). Also accounts, that has been recorded the year before are tested for inconsistence between the closing balance and opening balance the year after.

Besides fleet segments the population is also stratified according to economic size based on the total Standard Catch Value (SCV) for the vessel unit. The population is divided into 11 economic size groups, which when the statistic is calculated are aggregated to 5 groups. The selection share for the groups varies, as the optimal sample size for each group is


calculated in order to give the best possible estimate on the total value of landings by Danish fishermen.

Table 1-1 Selection share in per cent for the 5 economic size groups (‘000 EUR)

Economic size groups for 2004 30 to 70 70 to 161 161 to 302 302 to 603 More than

603 EUR Selection share 13% 20% 25% 36% 42%

The sample is randomly drawn using the selection percentages shown in table 12.1.4 for each fleet segments / economic size group. Only vessel owners who previously have given permission to their accountants to report their figures to FOI are selected. See technical report 2004.

The number of vessels in the sample amounts to about 25% of the total number of vessels in the commercial fishing fleet. Due to the optimal sample size calculation more than 44% of the vessels over 24 metres are included in the sample. For two segments, the purse seiners and the beam trawlers, FOI has decided to include all vessels (100%) in the sample, which has been achieved, except for one reluctant beam trawler skipper.

The economic indicators are computed by a weighting scheme using register information for the whole population to calculate individual weights for each separate account. There is no evidence that the vessel units available for selection shows any kind of bias compared with the total population. It is clear though, that an increase in the number of units available for selection would be most welcome.

1.4 Data reported for 2004 in the DCR control exercise compared to the data used in the Annual Economic Report in November 2005 (AER).

1.4.1 Coverage The Danish part of the AER report is based on the same data as the DCR report but contains only five fleet segments and statistics for the whole commercial fishing fleet. The DCR report includes the 14 segments. The number of vessels in each segment is shown in the table Table 1-2 below.

There are 2 DCR reports, one with commercial vessels only and one with “all vessels”. The “all vessels” report includes vessels which have been on the vessel register for a short time period, like the 9 extra vessels in the [PTS-VL40xx] and [PTS-VL2440] segments which have been cancelled on the register in March and April 2004 after a period of very limited activity. For the smaller vessels the “all vessels” report include vessels with very limited catches in 2004, the minimum being EUR 3 for the whole year. Therefore the statistics in the “all vessels” report are very misleading and should not be taken as representing the average operating vessel in the segments.

The basic definition for fishery based fleet segmentation according to gear use has still to be decided. The Nantes workshop on fleet based approach will eventually come up with the definition for separating demersale and pelagic fishery. In the DCR report the split between [PTS] and [DTS] for the length group [VL1224] has been done simply by attaching vessels with a length of 18 metre and above to pelagic trawlers [PTS], and vessels of less than 18 metre to demersale trawlers [DTS].


29

Table 1-2 Fleets and vessels in DCR and AER

DCR report – Control exercise 2006 Annual Economic Report 2005

14 fleet segments in the DCR 1639/2001 report

All vessels

Commercial 5 fleet segments in the Annual Economic Report

Commercial

[PTS] [VL40xx] Pelagic trawl and seiners 48 45 Trawlers and Purse seiners >= 40 m 45 [PTS] [VL2440] Pelagic trawlers 124 118 Trawlers 24-40 m 118 [PTS] [VL1224] Pelagic trawlers 109 107 [DTS] [VL1224] Demersale trawlers 246 237 [DTS] [VL0012] Demersale trawlers 37 26

Trawlers < 24 m 370

[SDN] [VL1224] Danish seiners 71 69 Danish seiners 69 [PGP] [VL1224] Polyvalent passive gears 126 118 [PGP] [VL0012] Polyvalent passive gears 1342 312

(Gill)netters (63 trapsetters <12 m excluded)

367

[PVG] [VL1224] Polyvalent mobile gears 64 60 Not in Annual Econ Report segments

-

[PVG] [VL0012] Polyvalent mobile gears 111 56 Not in AER segments - [TBB] [VL2440] Beam trawlers 7 7 Not in AER segments - [TBB] [VL1224] Beam trawlers (shrimp) 29 26 Not in AER segments - [DRB] [VL1224] Dredges 25 24 Not in AER segments - [DRB] [VL0012] Dredges 37 37 Not in AER segments - Total fleet not calculated in DCR report - - Total commercial fishing fleet 1242

1.4.2 Variable definitions The report combines data from the Vessel Register and the Sales Note Register together with data from the Account Statistics. The Control exercise 2006 report included 109 variables for each of the 14 fleet segments. 1. 6 variables from the vessel register [NUM, AGE, LEN, GT, KW, CREW] 2. 92 variables [TON and EUR for 45 species plus TOTAL] from the sales note register

aggregated for each individual vessel. 3. 11 variables from the Account Statistics for Fishery (Unfortunately fuel in litre was left

out in submitted report. This mistake will be corrected, whereas the right number of variables will be 12)

The 11 variables from the Account Statistics are compared with the variables in the AER 2005 report in the table 2 below.

Table 1-3 Comparison of economic variables between DCR and AER.


Variable name Contents Variable name Contents

INCOME

Value of landings Other fishery income Subsidies and other sources

Gross output

Value of landings Other fishery income Subsidies and other sources

FUEL Fuel expenses (diesel oil only)

Fuel costs Fuel, energy and lubricants



OTHER

Ice and bait Provisions Harbour dues, pilot service Landing and sales costs P.O. fees Boxes and transport Purchase of fishing rights Insurance Administration, communication Truck, vehicle and other services

Other running costs

Ice and bait Provisions Stores Harbour dues, pilot service Landing and sales costs P.O. fees Boxes and transport

REPAIR

Repair and maintenance of all fishery assets Other energy, lubricants and stores

Vessel costs

Repair and maintenance of all fishery assets Rent and lease of fishery assets Purchase of fishing rights Insurance Administration, communication Truck, vehicle and other services

CREW All expenses on crew including social costs and salary to owners

Crew costs All expenses on crew including social costs and salary to owners

Depreciation Depreciation FIXCOST Depreciation and interest

Interest Interest, net

POSITION Total debt in percent of total assets (end of year)

- -

ASSETS Total fishery assets (beginning of year)

Value of capital

Total fishery assets (beginning of year)

VES_DAYS Vessel days at sea Effort Vessel days at sea MAN_DAYS Man days at sea

MAN_HOUR

Number of man days at sea multiplied by the average number of working hours per day at sea for that specific fleet segment

Employment (FTE)

Employment on board calculated as number of man days at sea multiplied by the average number of working hours per day at sea for that specific fleet segment divided by 2000

FUEL_VOL Diesel oil in litre (not in the report by mistake)

- -

2 ESTONIA

Estonia did not collect economic data for 2004 but can deliver 2005 data by October.

3 FINLAND

3.1 procedure for obtaining the data The instructions and codification was found unclear. Especially: 1. form of presentation of different parameters was not clear: Should we give total sums or

averages. 2. references in the codification document are unclear and hard to follow. There is no

distinction whether a reference refer to appendix in the codification or data collection regulations.

3. the instructions/codification makes also interpretations of the regulation in a way that has not been confirmed by appropriate body.

4. determination of fishing technique is unclear: Should we give the primary technique stated in fishing vessel register or by actual use.

3.2 provenance of data? The data collection procedure and the methods used are described in the Finnish National Program and in the Technical Report.

3.3 The quality of data The quality of data can be assessed from the Finnish Technical Report.

4 FRANCE

4.1 The procedure for obtaining data Instructions should be clearer regarding the following points: 1. Is the "number of vessel" related to the Population of the segment or the sample? It

should be interesting to have information on both within the final data. 2. Do economic indicators need to be calculated in average or in total per segment? For

the French case, 2004 data per segment have been transmitted in average. Proposal for some improvements: 1. Codification of precision level: need to add new codification (when the level of precision

of 25% is not achieved for example) 2. No possibility to inform on precision level for category of costs More generally, thanks to write the instructions in the guidance document in very clear and detailed way as far as possible.

4.2 How the data are obtained? Different partners are involved in the collection of economic data in France. Methods of collection are combining direct questionnaires and accountings data. Each partner is in charge of the validation of the data it has collected during the year (individual data are obviously confidential data).

A working group at national level regrouping the different participants and the ministry meets regularly to discuss and solve the technical and methodological points raised during the data collection program, to harmonize the methodology for the calculation of economic indicators based on different sources and finally to define the methodology to calculate aggregated indicators per segment.

4.3 The quality of data: For the 2004 data exercise and at national level, France replied economic indicators for 20 segment fleets (where the total population is over 20 vessels or where the sample rate is over 50% if the number of vessels is less than 20).

For the moment, Data are required by the CE at national level. For the French case, there is a need to differentiate Atlantic area and Mediterranean area in order to improve the quality of data. That is why two economic data files per area (Atlantic and Mediterranean files) have been transmitted in addition to the national file for this 2004 exercise.

For some segments and/or some indicators, it is very difficult to achieve the levels of precisions required by the regulation even by increasing the sample rate. It is the case for most of Mediterranean segments and this issue has to be discussed.

4.4 Other extra points: Restitution of 2005 data: Not possible before the end of March 2007 (N+2) even with provisional data regarding the organisation of data collection in France which involved different partners


The 2004 exercise of data restitution has been very time consuming and it is not possible, at the moment, to have an idea of the working time required to achieve the new requests which are going to be asked by the JRC to the Member states in the next days like: 1. Recalculation of 2004 data to produce and transmit total value per segment 2. Recalculation of 2004 data in order to include "other non variable costs" (which are

part of "other costs" in the current calculation) into "Repair and maintenance costs" 3. Reconstitution of time series with data collected since 2003 national program.

5 GERMANY

5.1 procedures for data transfer a) were the instructions clear ? in general yes b) were there ambiguities ?

missing codification for some fishing (fresh water) species (e.g. perch-pike) missing possibility (codification) to aggregate neighbouring length groups (e.g. VL0012 and VL1224 to VL0024) unclear which kind of value (average, sum) has to be delivered

c) what improvements can be made next time ?

to split the guidelines in two parts (biological and economic part) to give some examples in EXCEL file format see 1) b) kind of value to deliver (average, sum) to clarify whether cost items should have a positive or negative sign to skip the examples for analysis (charts, time series, etc.) to develop checking procedure/programme of formal consistency before data transmission (e.g. macro in EXCEL VBA) to add links to relevant papers of work shops, guidelines, etc.

5.2 Provenance of dta 2. how were the data obtained - questionnaires, tax returns ?

- cost and earnings postal questionnaire : vessels less than 10 m accountancy (tax based) / panel data : other vessels except distant-waters vessels postal questionnaire based on accountants : distance-waters vessels - landings / prices (cross check income) sales notes / logbooks - effort / segmentation log-books / questionnaire - capacity fleet register

5.3 Difficulty of data preparation 3. was it difficult to prepare the data for JRC ?

in general no, see above 1)b) short period (20 days) to prepare and transmit the data uncomfortable XML format

5.4 quality of data 4. the quality of the data a) are the data complete ?

sampling are complete, but data transmission to the JRC is not complete (data protection, no neighbouring segments with n < 10, e.g. distant water fleet, no aggregation over length groups possible)

b) is the aggregation at the level specified in the Regulation. Yes


c) Are the data finalized or will some adjustments be made at later date ? As consequence of the workshops DE has to recalculate some data (up-scaling from sample to the population)

d) What are the sampling protocols ? Some indicators are collected in an exhaustive way, some are sampled on voluntary base (see question No. 2 and technical report 2006 based on the 2005 programme

e) How have the requested indicators/information been estimated from the data is raising procedure ?

Not clearly defined in the DCR, so no up-scale procedure has been applied, so far (see question 4)c)), but will be established for future data requests

f) What is the accuracy, precision and variance of the indicators ? Most indicators are collected exhaustively; for the remaining indicators no precision level can be calculated due to the non random nature of the sampling scheme.

6 GREECE

The Greek data collection system is based on samplings of all fleet segments. No logbooks have been utilized so far. The sampling procedure is applied to obtain the data for the parameters of module D as well as module J of the Regulation 1639/01. The samplings for module J are collected by means of direct observations on the fishing ports as well as by means of interviews with the fishers. The samplings are performed in 30 important fishing areas where 82% of the commercial fishing fleet is active. The sampling size for each parameter is proportional to the underlying population. A dedicated sampling schema is set up for each parameter. The data collection frequency is different for each parameter. The parameters: costs, investment, capital cost are collected on an annual survey. All other parameters are collected on monthly surveys.

The problems encountered by the data collection so far are caused by the understanding of the meaning of the economic parameters by the interviewers. The problem still exists and we try to resolve it by repetitive training of the data collectors. An important issue in the Greek fisheries is the large number of part time fishers, and occasional fishers but also that of non active boats. This is observed mainly in the small scale fishery. In order to solve this problem, a separate sampling procedure has been established in order to enable the estimation of the active fleet on a monthly basis. The procedure is described in the annual technical report.

The quality of the data is good for the parameters collected on monthly basis. Especially, concerning the cost indicators, the fishers blow up the cost in many cases. The data are complete concerning the parameters and the aggregation level specified in the Regulation. The estimation of the parameters and the associated precision levels has been based on cluster analysis. The precision levels required for each parameter by the Regulation have been achieved in the most of the cases. They have not been achieved in the landings by some species. This has been the case in fleet segments where the reported species are not target species of the gear for that particular segment.

The data presented in the Annual Economic Report presented in the STECF in November 2005 is a small set covering only a limited area and limited segments. It is provided by a privet expert participating in the Concerted Action, having no link with the National Data Collection System.

The transmission of the data to JRC failed due to the lack of experience of the Greek team in handling XML exchange protocols. The data are available in EXCEL format. The problem has been adequately addressed during the meeting and hopefully the transmission of the data will be implemented without obstacles. The data set for 2004 will be rebuilt and retransmitted in the XML formats that will be transmitted to the responsible teams and according to the modifications proposed during the meeting.

7 IRELAND

7.1 2006 data request for 2004 data The data request instructions issued by the JRC for 2004 economic data were clear and easy to follow. Using the instructions published on the JRC website it was relatively easy to produce the XML files. The only ambiguity was how to report on capacities of the fleets. It was unclear if capacities should be reported as population totals or sample averages per segment. To improve upon the data request mechanism, missing data element items from the species list and from the precision level list needs to be included in the updated XML Schemas. In addition, we experiences difficulties in uploading the larger XML files via the secure data upload facility.

7.2 Data sources, sampling strategy and precision The Irish 2004 economic data were obtained from economic questionnaires submitted on a voluntary basis, the fleet register and the official logbook database. In 2004 we identified 23 fleet segments as defined by Appendix III of Commission Regulation 1639/2001. Of these, 13 had fewer than 10 vessels and were thus not included in the data submission. Completed economic assessment forms containing 2004 data are still been received.

Ireland's sampling strategy for collecting 2004 data was developed by independent statistical consultants, commissioned by Bord Iascaigh Mhara to assess the sampling effort needed to achieve the required precision as set down in the regulations. Based on an analysis of variance on the 2003 economic dataset, and knowledge of the target population size, the statisticians developed a sampling frame for each of the segments. Unfortunately, we have not achieved the sampling effort required for level 1 precision. To ensure future compliance with precision levels we are currently reviewing our sampling methodologies. For example, we hope to gain greater cooperation from industry by guaranteeing anonymity. In addition, we have made it a condition of grant aid schemes and decommissioning schemes that vessel owners submit economic data relating to their vessel.

7.3 Parameter derivation Income, landings and effort parameters are extracted from the logbook database and are

reported exhaustively for all segments. All other economic parameters are estimated from sample averages per segments raised up to the active population of the segment. Vessels over 10 metres are considered active if they have declarations in the national logbook database. It was not possible to separate the under 10 metre vessels into active and inactive sub-segments, as they are not obliged to submit logbook data to the authorities. There are proposals to introduce mandatory logbooks for these vessels as part of a national inshore management framework, but discussions are at an early stage and it is will be at least 2 years before we can accurately identify inactive vessels for the inshore fleet.

7.4 Reporting in October A crucial aspect of our national strategy is linking the final submission date for completed economic questionnaires with the final submission date for tax returns for the previous year. This has been agreed with industry to ensure that the vessel owners do not incur accountancy costs, as a suitably qualified accountant must verify the figures in the economic questionnaires. This timing makes it difficult for Ireland to supply economic data in October for the previous reference year.

8 ITALY

8.1 Procedure for the transmission of data to the JRC Irepa onlus is the institute in charge of the implementation of the economic module of the Italian national program, as well as of the landings per species and effort estimations.

Elementary data are processed and maintained by Irepa in a local database. Aggregated data as required by the DCR are sent to the national central database which contains all data collected under the National Program (economic and biological). The database is located centrally at the Directorate-General of Fisheries and Aquaculture of the Ministry of Agricultural and Forestry Policies. The management of the database is under the responsibility of an IT Company (Finsiel).

The transmission of data to the Commission, trough the JRC, consists into a query to the central database and into the generation of XML files according to the request. The problems encountered during the last request for economic data were caused by ambiguities in the instructions (how to send precision levels for production costs), by missing codes for some species and finally by difficulties to transmit data trough the web page. A general problem encountered in the exercises was related to the too rigid codification system and to the time consuming procedure to generate XML files.

8.2 How were the data obtained The estimate of the economic parameters is conducted through a specific sample survey. The sampling data are raised to the entire population to yield the final overall estimates, which are statistically significant because corrected estimators are used. Conversely, the value of fixed assets and capital costs is calculated by processing records derived from the Vessel Register.

Data are collected by using a computerised questionnaire specifically designed for the survey. A complex-type sampling design using a single-stratified-stage sample with two variables is employed. The stratification is designed to maximise the homogeneity of the strata, using parameters of known form for each unit of population, correlated with the target variables. The stratification uses two parameters, one geographical and one technical (fishing systems and vessel length), in accordance with the disaggregation of the results. In the 2005 survey total strata summed up to 150, the sample consisted of 1300 vessels, which represented about 8% of the total fleet.

8.3 The quality of the data All parameters have been evaluated as defined in the National Program and precision levels have been calculated. Precision levels have not been achieved for the financial position. To estimate this parameter a specific questionnaire has been developed and transmitted to the local data collectors. They filled the questionnaire through an interview with the vessels’ owners and, when available, through the consultation of official balance sheets (that however are available only for a minority of the fleet, i.e. industrial vessels > 24 m). Considering the confidentiality of the required information the response rate has been very low, as well the quality of the information.

Regarding the level of aggregation, data transmitted by Irepa to the central national database are disaggregated by administrative region. Therefore, before sending data to the Commission data have to be aggregated at the national level and precision levels have to be recalculated.


8.4 Timing for the delivering of results Pursuant to what was established by the agreement between IREPA and the Directorate-General of Fisheries and Aquaculture of the Ministry of Agricultural and Forestry Policies, the results pertaining to the period January –December 2004 have been delivered in September 2005. Results of 2005 will be delivered by the end of September 2006. Some very preliminary data for the year 2005 have been produced at the end of April 2005.

The module of economic data has been included in the Italian National Program since the first year of application of the DCR. Therefore 2002 and 2003 data are also available.

9 LATVIA

9.1 Comments to JRC request JRC questions Answers

1. How the procedure for obtaining the data could be improved.

a. were the instructions clear?

b. were there ambiguities?

c. what improvements can be made next time?

1. 1a. In generally all instructions were clear, but data delivery system in XML format is too difficult. 1b. The ambiguities were with definitions of economic indicators (Fixed costs, Financial position). 1c. It is necessary to create templates for data delivery in Excel format and precise (and clear) definition of economic indicators.

2. How were the data obtained - questionnaires, tax returns?

2. The economic data were collected used questionnaires on voluntary basis. The effort and capacity data for 2004 were obtained from LatFRA database.

3. The quality of the data.

a. are the data complete?

b. is the aggregation at the level specified in the Regulation.

c. are the data finalised or will some adjustments be made at a later date?

d. what are sampling protocols?

e. how have the requested indicators/information been estimated from the data, what is raising procedure?

f. what is the accuracy, precision and variance of the indicators?

3. 3a. The segment of distant trawlers (>40m) is not covered – the questionnaire in this segment was unsuccessful. 3b. - 3c. The economic data will precise and recalculate accordingly new definitions of economic indicators (Fixed costs, Financial position). 3d. The form of questionnaire. 3e. – 3f. The accuracy, precision and variance of indicators (R. 1639) were not estimated by statistic methods. (For CA indicators estimated standard error, relative standard error and representativity (t-test)).

4. How does data compare to that collected for the Annual Economic Report presented to the STECF in November 2005?

a. in terms of coverage

b. in terms of parameter values

4. Individual economic data of vessel (obtained by questionnaire in 2004) was common row date for AER and R.1639.

5. How should the Annual Economic 5. 5a. October


Report be produced in 2006

a. when shall STECF ask for data?

b. what segmentation shall we use? (the fleet segmentation used for Annual Economic Report is a bit different to that used for Data Collection Regulation)?

c. how can STECF obtain an expert opinion for results - a qualified description/reasoning for observed trends in the data for each country, the driving factors of economic performance of the fleets?)

5b. In compliance with R.1639 (for Latvian fleet the difference not exist). 5c. Using EIAA model.

9.2 Collection of economic data in 2005 In 2005 was collected the following vessels economic data, inter alia: • Landing (volume); • Income (as value of landing); • Production costs, i.a.:

- Crew share (as labour costs social costs included); - Fuel costs (as sum of fuel and oil costs); - Repair and maintenance (as sum of costs of repair costs, as well as rent of

fishing rights, halt expenses, port services, port duties, veterinary and sanitary services, vessel register, technical inspection, port supervisory, radio inspection, life-saving tools)

- Other operational costs (as sum of costs of materials, inventory, food, documentation, radio and phone, administrative costs, repair of fishing gears, transport, ice, boxes;

• Fixed costs (as sum of depreciation and interest); • Financial position: own capital/borrowed capital • Investment (as insured value. For the fleet segment below 12m the replacement value

used, as most of small boats are not insured); • Employment (as number of employed on vessel). Vessels economic data were collected in compliance with following segments:

- Polyvalent passive gears coastal vessel (boats) of length under 12 m (746 vessels in 2004);

- Baltic pelagic trawlers of length from 12 to 24 m (47 vessels in 2004); - Baltic pelagic trawlers of length from 24 m to 40 m (79 vessels in 2004); - Baltic gill-netters of length from 24 to 40 m (58 vessels in 2004); - Atlantic trawlers of length equal to or over 40 m (13 vessels in 2004).

The first source was the Logbooks and Fishing Vessels Register (FVR) data bases in the ICIS System and the second - the sample surveys performed by LATFRA.

The physical data of fleet included the number of vessels, length, gross tonnage (GT), main engine power (kW) and age of vessel and of main engine. Vessel activity measured as days at sea. Data on prices was collected from database and verified using questionnaires data.


43

The extract from ICIS, containing the information on all vessels, fishing in the previous year formed the basis for analysis and stratification of the fleet before the sample survey is performed. The collected data are the basis for reporting on the economic situation for the groups of vessels.

The economic data was collected based on ICIS Fishing Vessel Register, ICIS Logbooks database, ICIS Notifications on the First Fish Sale database and LATFRA questionnaires data.

By questionnaires was sampled the following vessels economic data – production costs, fixed costs, financial position and employment. The procedure was face to face interview (mostly) or questionnaire by mail. The result of interview was filled in questionnaire form. Data on each vessel was tested and all errors verified in cooperation with the responding person, before data was approved.

In 2005 in segments of gill-netters of length from 24 to 40 m was filled 10 form only (50% from planned sample, population covering 17,2%). In segments of pelagic trawlers of length from 24 m to 40 m the result was 65% (covering 16,5%). 40% (covering 12,8%). only was result in segment of pelagic trawlers of length from 12 to 24 m and 48% (covering 3,2%) - in segment of polyvalent passive gears coastal vessel (boats) of length under 12 m.

Deviations. LZRA questionnaire was unsuccessful accordingly the segment of vessels of length equal to or over 40 m – the owners of company did not answer to questionnaire’s letters and did not agree to participate in interview.

In relation to Financial position the questionnaires was unsuccessful too (in all segments) – in most cases fishing companies didn’t give answer.

10 LITHUANIA

The data for DCR were obtained from: • log books (Central Fishing Data Base) – effort, catches and landings by species for

vessels >12 fishing in Baltic sea. • National Fishing Vessels Register – number of vessels, kW, GT, age. • Questionnaires – all economic data. On behalf of Fisheries Department, questionnaires have been sent to all companies, engaged in commercial fishing. Questionnaires and information, acquired from those, had been accumulated, processed and aggregated by LIAE, promoting data confidentiality.

Table 10-1 Number of vessels in specific segments according DCR and Fishing Fleet register

Type of fishing technique < 12 m 12 - <24

m 24 - < 40

m >= 40 m

Mobile Beam trawl 0 0 0 0 Demersal trawl and

demersal seiner 0 0 44 0

Pelagic trawl and seiner 0 0 1 23 Dredges 0 0 0 0 Polyvalent 0 0 0 0 Passive gears Gears using hooks 0 0 0

Drift and fixed nets 15 15 0 Pots and traps 0 0 0 Polyvalent

192 0 0 0

Polyvalent gears

Combining mobile and passive gears 0 0 0 0

The dependence of vessel to particular segment was estimated according fleet register (main gear) because Fishing data base for 2004 was not complete (Lithuania joined EU only in May 2004). The research was also made on non active vessels, which were deleted from economic segment. For vessels > 12 m activity was estimated according Fishing database. If the vessel had no catches in 2004 it was considered as non active vessel and its capacity was not used during aggregation of data. Each vessel > 12 m was examined. After evaluation drift and fixed nets segments 12-<24 m and 24-<40 m were aggregated.

Table 10-2 Representativity of economic data

Number of vessels Segment Economic segment

Economic sample

Coastal vessels < 12 189 23 Baltic trawlers 24-40 38 18

Baltic gillnetters 12-40 19 4 Atlantic trawlers >40 18 9


45

10.1 Difficulties: • Lithuania still has no data for asset value as it requested in DCR (this data is in

questionnaires see Lithuanian NP 2005, but no data about insurance or replacement value have been collected). It happened because the vessels are not insured and only few vessels were bought (sold) during the year. Only book value is available.

• Financial position indicator was not clear, so the data were missing. The other data are reliable and consistent with DCR.

10.2 Comments on submitting the data 2006 spring The instructions were rather clear, but: • there were some specie missing in codification document; • there were no codes for aggregated (length classes) segments; • it was not clearly stated which year the capacity indicators has to refer (according NP

2005 Lithuania had to collect capacity data for 2005 and economic data for 2004) It would be preferable to make the request more clear in terms of year data refers, procedures and etc.

11 MALTA

Malta only started carrying out National Data Collection Programmes (NDCP) in 2005 (Malta's accession to EU took place in May 2004). Thus they did not collect any data in 2004 or previous exercises. In January 2005, they started the first NDCP. Regarding the Economic module, Malta carried out a Pilot Study during the 2005 exercise. The results from this Pilot Study will be forwarded in a report by October, 2006. In 2006, Malta is planning to perform a full survey according to results obtained in the Pilot Study 2005.

12 NETHERLANDS

12.1 Procedure for the transmission of data to the JRC Although in general the guidelines for data transmission were clear, the following problems were encountered when submitting the data in the xml format:

1. It was not clear whether total /average numbers were asked 2. No codes were available for poor data quality 3. Some species codes were missing 4. No codes were available for combined length classes

As the financial position is collected from balance sheets, this information was not available for 2004 yet and thus was not transmitted.

12.2 How were the data obtained The data were collected through the on-going LEI survey of the Dutch cutter fleet. Data are collected from company accounts, logbooks sales notes and the fleet register, which were cross-checked as much as possible. The population defined for the data collection was limited to the commercially active part of the fleet (threshold of 50.000 Euro gross revenue). From this part of the fleet, data are collected from a panel of vessel owners covering around 25% of the population, with an annual turnover rate of about 10%.

Investments were valuated, based on the actual purchase price whenever possible. In case this was not possible insurance value was used as a proxy of the replacement value, or the value of the investment was estimated based on standards or expert knowledge this last possibility was only seldom used.

The engine and the hull of the vessel were written down exponentially, whereas all other assets were written down linearly. Based on this, depreciation was calculated.

For the calculation of the employment, full time employees were defined as employees who are normally joining the fishing operation (>70% of the fishing trips). In some instances the number of crew members is larger than the number of people working on board the vessel at any given trip, so that crewmembers get some days of. All of these crew members were defined as full-time employees.

12.3 The quality of the data The quality of the data has been assessed in the process of aggregation and precision levels have been calculated. These analyses showed that the quality of the data was generally good and estimates had the prescribed accuracy level. However, for some of the variables, such as the income from some rarely caught species, the prescribed accuracy level was not obtained as the variability in the data is very high.

12.4 Timing for the delivering of results Data for the active part of the fleet will be available before October, using the same methodology.

Additionally, from 2006 onwards, economic data will be gathered for the inactive part of the fleet by means of paper questionnaires, which will be sent to vessel owners. Data for 2004 and 2005 will be available before October. Data from the inactive vessels will only be available from 2004 onwards.


13 POLAND

13.1 Required and achieved sampling Poland collects economic data through questionnaires. Each fishing vessel’s owner is legally obliged to submit the report in due time (2004 data until 31 of March 2005) to the Sea Fisheries Institute. In 2005 information were gathered from about 1/3 of the population what generally allowed to produce good quality data. Fishing capacity data were obtained from the Fishing Vessel Register of the Ministry. The register contains information about all commercial fishing vessels regardless its size (less 10 meters vessels are included). The fishing effort and specific fishing effort were calculated for every quarter by processing of logbook data (in case of vessels over 10 m) or monthly catch reports (for vessels less than 10 m length) and data from Fishing Vessel Register. For vessels of over 10 m length landings data were collected through logbooks, landings declaration or sales notes, landings of boats of less than 10 m were obtained from monthly catch reports.

13.2 Deviations from aim Because of misinterpretation of DCR definition of “Financial position” (share of own/foreign capital) Poland failed to produce data for this indicator, this will be possible after redefining a questionnaire content. Due to confidentiality reasons data for deep sea trawlers segment were excluded. This segment consisted of only 5 vessels and their technical parameters make impossible to merge them with another segment.

13.3 Comments on submitting the data In general Poland found the instruction prepared by JRC clear. There were some problems however with the interpretation of the Commission letter requesting for economic data. Since Poland as well as other new member states joined EU in 2004 and started its data collecting program in 2005 it was uncertain for us whether the request concerned also new member states. However because Poland started in 2005 collecting economic data for 2004, requested information were submitted to JRC. There were no major problems with preparation and uploading files. Data were prepared in Excel format. A national database that will in the future almost automatically prepare answer for Commission request is currently in process of developing, so it should not be problematic to prepare XML replies in due format in the nearest future.

There were some problems with interpretation of indicators e.g. definition of fixed costs and whether the indicators should be reported as totals or averages. It would be useful to find these kind of instruction in the future on the JRC website.

14 PORTUGAL

14.1 difficulties 1. To understand what data was request. ( 2003 or 2004?)

1st paragraph of the Formal request it’s not clear “…Commission intends to ask Member States to provide specific data included within their National data collection programme during 2004.” in Portuguese NP 2004, we planned to collect 2003 economic data. So, at the begun, we thought that the reference year of the request data was 2003, Next time: please make clear what the reference year for data required.


49

2. Difficult to understand some XML files (e.g. Landings XML)

Next time: please provide excel examples.

3. Technical problems in access the link provided.

4. Problems in prepare the data:

a) The new codification document implied changes in National Data Base. b) All most informatics services are sub-contracted. When it is necessary to

make any changes, it takes some time. c) Data comes from 4 different participating institutes; it’s difficult to arrange

all data in a short time.

14.2 Provenance of data The method used to collect economic data was a survey by mean of a statiscal sampling (Random stratified sampling). Data was collected by using a questionnaire specifically designed for the survey. Variables to estimate with inquiry:

Income; Production costs: crew, fuel, repair and maintenance, other

operational costs; Fixed costs/Capital costs; Financial position; Investments; prices per species; Employment (Full time/part time/FTE);

Portugal started collecting economics data in 2004, as planned in National Program 2004. First Survey: Reference year – 2003 Universe – Vessels register engaged in fishing Criteria for fleet segmentation: gears licensed per vessel Situation at May 2006 - data are processed but will be made some adjustments.

Present Survey: Reference year – 2004 (the requested data in March2006) Universe – Vessels register engaged in fishing Criteria for fleet segmentation: gears licensed per vessel Situation at May 2006 – data are not processed yet.

14.3 The quality of the Data We use the same method for all country. That includes: Mainland, Madeira Autonomous Region and the Azores Autonomous Region. Our aggregation is according DCR.

DCR ANNEX III Fishing technique fishery Fish Coastal bottom trawl Crustacean trawl

Offshore trawl seiner Pelagic seiner

Mobile gear

polyvalent Polyvalent


hooks Longlines Passive gear polyvalent Polyvalent polyvalent polyvalent polyvalent

14.4 Precision level 2004 - No precision level yet. 2003 – 61% of the inquired vessel returned us a reply 25% of complete responses, considering all sample For this reason it’s impossible to achieved the precision level

14.5 Weakness There is no obligation to answer the inquiry There is no way to carry out another methodology to collect data

15 SWEDEN

15.1 Required and achieved sampling The database on catches and landings, and the vessel register at the Swedish Board of Fisheries were used as the primary source of information on catches, prices and vessels. All fishing operations of a commercial nature conducted either by vessels with a length overall of at least 10 meter or by fishermen holding a professional fishing licence in coastal journals. In the Baltic Sea logbooks should also be submitted from fishing vessels with a length overall of at least 8 meters. Data from fishing operations conducted by vessels less than 10 meter (less than 8 meters in the Baltic Sea) is thus reported in the coastal journals which have to be sent in to the Board at least monthly and in certain cases even daily.

The segments of the extended programme were the basis for the data collection according to the minimum programme. Hence, only data from the EP is presented in the standard table (12.3 and 12.4). The segments of the extended program were merged into the segments of the minimum program according to appendix III of the (EC) 1639/2001. The fleet was divided into the following seven MP segments:

1. Demersal trawl and seiner, < 12 m 2. Demersal trawl and seiner, 12 - 24 m 3. Demersal trawl and seiner,> = 24 m 4. Pelagic trawl and seiner, < 24 m 5. Pelagic trawl and seiner, > = 24m 6. Dredges and fixed nets, 12 - 24 m 7. Passive gears, < 12 m 8. Vessels with a total value < 78 800 skr

Economic data was collected directly from the fishing companies within the sample, which provided the Board of Fisheries with copies of their company accounts (i.e. profit and loss accounts and balance sheets) or their income tax returns. The companies have also provided additional information on insurance value, employment and fuel in a questionnaire. Crew costs include:

- Retirement insurance - Subsidised meals - Unemployment insurance - Allowance - Car compensation - Education - Health care - Salary

Repair and maintenance costs include: - Repair and maintenance of equipment - Repair and maintenance of inventories Other operational costs for all segments consist of:

- Travel compensation - Computer programme - Ice - Car costs and car compensation - Tenancy - Salt - Other operational costs - Bookkeeping -Insurance - Freight and transportation - Office - Work - Consumable supplies - Pr/advertising clothes - Union fee PO - Representation - Union fee SVC - Phone/mailing costs - Sales costs - Electricity for lighting - Food supplies - Office supplies - Radar -Repair/maintenance of

building - Combustibles - Tools - Transport/unloading/truck costs - Hire of inventories - Operating plotter - Boxes

Fixed costs is calculated as the sum of depreciation costs and capital cost


Financial position is the difference of own capital and borrowed capital Investment is equal to the insurance cost

15.2 Deviations from aim For vessels with a yearly income below 78 800 Swedish crowns data on catch

composition, value of landings, capacity and effort was collected. This approach was chosen since the collection of data from these vessels has been proven difficult in previous years. The fishery differs from region to region and is very heterogeneous in terms of type of vessel, gear and catch composition. The segment comprises catches of all kinds of species and the various fisheries show very different earnings between and within regions and also between companies. In addition, the companies are generally very small and the fishermen often have additional means of income, which makes it very difficult to get accurate economic figures for costs associated with the fishing activity.

There were only 10 vessels in the segment pelagic trawl < 24 metres hence no costs could be calculated for this segment.

Because of low response rates and small segments the required level 1 could not be achieved for most parameters. In some cases where the response rate was too low regression or forecasting based on previous years has been used to calculate the parameters. In order to ensure that the samples are representative of the population statistical tests (t-tests) have been conducted.

15.3 Comments on submitting the data 2006-05-16 SE was not able to use the data upload link. Instead data was send to JRC by email and the data was put into the system by Andrew Mclean.

The commission strongly recommends that data is submitted in XML-format. SE did not have the qualifications to use XML and in order to receive assistance from the IT-department we need extra resources (in the budget for 2007 we ask for means (one extra month so that a database in XML can be build for future requests).

The instructions were clear but somewhat short. It took some effort to figure out exactly how the data should be presented (how they should be individualised etc.). A few more sentences would have made the instructions easier to understand.

The codification standards document for 2006 is written in understandable English but the examples from the 2005 years document has been left out. When submitting data for the first time the examples help to understand the structure and the format that the data should take.

16 UNITED KINGDOM

16.1 Introduction The two UK participants at the meeting were unable to provide details of the data collection procedure so this text is based on a communication from the Data Collection Correspondent.

16.2 data assembly and transmission

16.2.1 no economic data The data arrived two months after the formal request and only included modules C and D (effort and capacity). No explanation was given as to why there was no economic data.

16.2.2 Network security The data was submitted in excel via e-mail rather than through the upload procedure that was recommended by JRC. The UK Correspondent believed that this was a problem with network permissions at his end rather than at JRC. Obtaining access would have required agreement from a cross-government security committee as the change required would affect the Government Secure Intranet which is a part of all government departments e-mail transmission systems. He is still waiting for firmer estimates of expenses involved in getting the changes made.

16.2.3 Fleet segmentation The Data Collection correspondent reported that:

“I have used classifications and schemas as defined with the exception of the typologies for Appendix VIII - I could not find any coding schema for these data. If this could be provided I will resubmit the data. I have also assumed that there is a typo in the request for data for Module D - I have provided effort by vessels classified to each segment of Appendix III broken down by the typologies given in Appendix VIII - as such you will see effort with other gears listed against the appendix III segments (e.g. Drift netters using lines, beam trawlers using dredges/pots) which represents different

One point re this that has come to light through similar analyses for various STECF groups - there is some effort listed against "pelagic Trawl" as listed in Appendix VIII - this effort is exerted by vessels classified to EC segment DTS - demersal trawl and demersal seines. This is because it is common practice for Northern Ireland based vessels fishing in the Irish Sea (ICES VIIA) to use what is regarded as a pelagic gear in other areas (e.g. a mid-water trawl) for targeted fishing for demersal species. As such care should be taken when using the results”

16.2.4 Economic Data Economic data was not provided. SEAFISH are currently collecting data for business years ending during 2005, and they also show the previous year. So in essence they are collecting data that will supply the UK figures for 2004 and for 2005.


8

ANNEX 2 SCIENTIFIC, TECHNICAL AND ECONOMIC COMMITTEE OF FISHERIES SUBGROUP ON ECONOMIC AFFAIRS (SGECA) MEETING ON ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT OF EU FLEETS 23 – 27 OCTOBER 2006


Brussels, SEC ( )

Commission Staff Working Paper

Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee of Fisheries Subgroup on

Economic Affairs (SGECA)

Meeting on Economic Assessment of EU Fleets

23 – 27 October 2006


4 November 2006

ABSTRACT

The Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) Subgroup for Economic Affairs met on 23-27 November, 2006 to analyse the data submitted by the Member States under the Data Collection Regulation and to carry out the Economic Interpretation of the ACFM Advice.

Previously these analyses had been made by a team working under the framework of a Concerted Action and then by an EC contract. Coverage of the EU fleets was about 50% in terms of value of landings. Data had been obtained from the countries concerned by the partners in the project on a voluntary basis.

TOR 1. ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT OF EU FLEETS

A brief assessment of EU fleets and a statistical overview is presented for ten countries for which 2005 data was available at the meeting. Statistical data on several other countries is also presented, for which data on earlier years was submitted. Several Member States did not submit any data at all.

The economic performance of most fleet segments has deteriorated due to high fuel prices and / or lower landing.

TOR 2. COMPLETENESS AND QUALITY

The data from 10 countries met largely DCR requirements. Several countries submitted either incomplete data or nothing at all. Due to the lack of 2005 data on several important MS it was not possible to elaborate an EU-wide overview.

TOR 3 ADEQUACY OF CURRENT PROCEDURES

The data management system has not yet been completed. Consequently, significant effort was required before and during the meeting to compile basic overview. Timing of the procedure has been reviewed and a proposal is made to develop a model which will generate preliminary data and allow to carry out an economic assessment within the required timing in the future.

TOR 4. IMPROVEMENTS OF ASSESSMENT

Several propositions are made to improve the quality and extend the scope of the economic assessment in the future.

TOR 5. EIAA 2006

The EIAA assessment was carried out during the meeting and shortly afterwards. The report is submitted under separate cover.

TIME PRESSURE

The working wishes to express its serious concern about the time pressure under which the present report had to be produced. Even if the data collection and processing would run smoothly, it is not possible to deliver a scientific review within one week. The WG considers it essential that proper structure be set up which will allow to analyse the available data in depth and offer high quality answers to EC’s questions. The structure of biologic advice, where SGRST deals with result delivered by ICES, could be considered as a working example.

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. JRC should compile information in relation to relevance of the thresholds used in the MS when dealing with data on regularly active, non-regularly active and non-active fleets.

2. Strict measures should be taken against countries which have not complied with their obligations under DCR.

3. JRC should organise a training course to get the staff from the MS acquainted with the software used to upload the data.

4. A study should be carried out to develop several models to support the estimation of the missing data to improve economic assessment of foreseen policy measures.

5. MS should be obliged to provide an expert when their data needs to be analyzed. 6. A study is required to develop methods for estimation of regional data in countries whose fleets

operate in several of the large geographic areas (North Sea, Baltic, Atlantic, Mediterranean and distant waters).

7. The Commission should decide if it wants an economic yearbook summarizing the economic performance of fleets in a particular year. If so then this could be produced about 14 months after the year in question

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 Introduction......................................................................................................................................................... 3 1.1 Terms of Reference ...................................................................................................................................... 3 1.2 Participants..................................................................................................................................................... 3

1.2.1 Members of the STECF .................................................................................................................... 3 1.2.2 Other Experts...................................................................................................................................... 3 1.2.3 European Commission ...................................................................................................................... 3

2 Background.......................................................................................................................................................... 4 2.1 Abbreviations ................................................................................................................................................ 4 2.2 Introduction................................................................................................................................................... 4 2.3 General comments........................................................................................................................................ 4

3 TOR 1. Economic Assessment of EU fleets ................................................................................................. 6 4 TOR 2. Completeness and quality ................................................................................................................... 7

4.1 Recommendation: ......................................................................................................................................... 7 5 TOR. 3 Adequacy of current procedures ....................................................................................................... 9

5.1 Submission of the data - deadline .............................................................................................................. 9 5.1.1 Recommendation: ............................................................................................................................... 9

5.2 Data management tool (DMT)................................................................................................................... 9 5.2.1 Recommendations ............................................................................................................................ 10

5.3 Timing of the submission of the data...................................................................................................... 10 5.3.1 Recommendation.............................................................................................................................. 10

5.4 Participation in the process ....................................................................................................................... 11 5.4.1 Recommendation: ............................................................................................................................. 11

5.5 TOR 4: Improvements of assessment..................................................................................................... 11 5.5.1 Data Management Tool (DMT) ..................................................................................................... 11 5.5.2 FTE and capital costs....................................................................................................................... 11 5.5.3 Regional split ..................................................................................................................................... 11 5.5.4 Possible further analysis................................................................................................................... 12 5.5.5 Precision level of data ...................................................................................................................... 12 5.5.6 Economic report ............................................................................................................................... 12

6 TOR 5. EIAA 2006 .......................................................................................................................................... 13 Appendix 1a. Regional comparison ........................................................................................................................ 15

1. North Sea region ............................................................................................................................................... 15 2. Baltic region ....................................................................................................................................................... 17 3. Mediterranean region........................................................................................................................................ 19

Appendix 1b. Brief description of economic performance by country ............................................................ 21 1 EU ................................................................................................................................................................. 21 2 Belgium......................................................................................................................................................... 21 3 Cyprus........................................................................................................................................................... 21 4 Denmark....................................................................................................................................................... 22 5 Estonia.......................................................................................................................................................... 23 6 Finland .......................................................................................................................................................... 23 7 France ........................................................................................................................................................... 24 8 Germany....................................................................................................................................................... 25 9 Greece........................................................................................................................................................... 25 10 Ireland........................................................................................................................................................... 26 11 Italy................................................................................................................................................................ 26 12 Latvia............................................................................................................................................................. 27 13 Lithuania....................................................................................................................................................... 27 14 Malta.............................................................................................................................................................. 29 15 Netherlands.................................................................................................................................................. 30 16 Poland ........................................................................................................................................................... 31

17 Portugal......................................................................................................................................................... 31 18 Slovenia......................................................................................................................................................... 31 19 Spain.............................................................................................................................................................. 31 20 Sweden.......................................................................................................................................................... 31

Appendix 1c. Statistical summary by country – fleet, effort, value of landings, gross cash flow and employment, 2002-2006............................................................................................................................................ 35

1 EU ................................................................................................................................................................. 35 2 Belgium......................................................................................................................................................... 35 3 Cyprus........................................................................................................................................................... 36 4 Denmark....................................................................................................................................................... 37 Denmark (cont.) .................................................................................................................................................... 38 5 Estonia.......................................................................................................................................................... 38 6 Finland .......................................................................................................................................................... 39 7 France ........................................................................................................................................................... 40 France (cont.) ......................................................................................................................................................... 41 8 Germany....................................................................................................................................................... 42 9 Greece........................................................................................................................................................... 42 Greece (cont.) ........................................................................................................................................................ 43 11 Italy................................................................................................................................................................ 44 12 Latvia............................................................................................................................................................. 46 13 Lithuania....................................................................................................................................................... 47 14 Malta.............................................................................................................................................................. 47 15 Netherlands.................................................................................................................................................. 48 16 Poland ........................................................................................................................................................... 49 17 Portugal......................................................................................................................................................... 49 18 Slovenia......................................................................................................................................................... 49 19 Spain.............................................................................................................................................................. 50 20 Sweden.......................................................................................................................................................... 50 United Kingdom.................................................................................................................................................... 52 United Kingdom (cont. Fleet and effort) .......................................................................................................... 53 United Kingdom.................................................................................................................................................... 54 United Kingdom (cont. Economic indicators)................................................................................................. 55

Appendix 1d Economic and technical parameters by segment ......................................................................... 57 1 EU ................................................................................................................................................................. 57 2 Belgium......................................................................................................................................................... 57 3 Cyprus........................................................................................................................................................... 59 4 Denmark....................................................................................................................................................... 60 5 Estonia.......................................................................................................................................................... 66 6 Finland .......................................................................................................................................................... 66 7 France ........................................................................................................................................................... 67 8 Germany....................................................................................................................................................... 74 9 Greece........................................................................................................................................................... 74 10 Ireland........................................................................................................................................................... 79 11 Italy................................................................................................................................................................ 79 12 Latvia............................................................................................................................................................. 85 13 Lithuania....................................................................................................................................................... 87 14 Malta.............................................................................................................................................................. 89 15 Netherlands.................................................................................................................................................. 89 16 Poland ........................................................................................................................................................... 92 17 Portugal......................................................................................................................................................... 95 18 Slovenia......................................................................................................................................................... 96 19 Spain.............................................................................................................................................................. 96 20 Sweden............................................................................................................................................................... 96

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 TERMS OF REFERENCE

The Member States were asked to provide the Commission / JRC with economic data regarding 2002-2005. The ToR of the Subgroup were specified as follows: 1. Assess the economic performance of EU fleets. Provide a best estimate for each country and for

appropriate fleet segments within each country of: a. changes in the size and structure of each country's fleet b. changes in fishing effort c. changes in economic performance - cash flow, profitability d. changes in employment

2. Assess the completeness and quality of each country's data. Where possible comparisons with other data sources should be made - the vessel register, the Annual Economic Report. Explain the reasons for any missing data.

3. Assess the adequacy of the procedure for collecting data and determine how it could be improved in the future - both within the legal constraints of the present Regulation and with less restrictions on holding the data.

4. Suggest how the assessment could be modified as better data becomes available. 5. Determine the likely economic impact of the ICES ACFM advice for 2006 TACs and quotas.

1.2 PARTICIPANTS

1.2.1 Members of the STECF Jarno Virtanen,

1.2.2 Other Experts Pavel Salz (chairman) Angel Calvo, Anna Jonsson Argyris Kapantagakis, Arina Motova, Evelina Sabatella, Hans Frost Hans van Oostenbrugge, Heleen Bartelings John Anderson Kim Normark Andersen Myrtou Ioannou Thomas Thogersen

1.2.3 European Commission Alberto Spagnolli Erik Lindebo Iain Shepherd Jenny Nord

2 BACKGROUND

2.1 ABBREVIATIONS

ACFM Advisory Committee for Fisheries Management. An ICES committee that advises on management measures for stocks in the North Atlantic

AER Annual Economic Report produced by Concerted Action CA Concerted Action Q5CA-2001-01502 “Economic Assessment of European Fisheries DCR Data Collection Regulation EIAA A model used to evaluate the economic impact of ACFM advice ICES International Council for Exploration of the Sea. An organisation that coordinates and

promotes marine research in the North Atlantic.

2.2 INTRODUCTION

An Annual Economic Report on ‘Economic performance of selected European fishing fleets’ in 2005 was prepared under EC contract FISH/2005/12. It was a continuation of three Concerted Actions, which produced similar reports in the years 1996-2004. The methodology in producing this report was refined over the years and ended up as a highly effective process.

The availability of data coming from the Data Collection Regulation and the wish of the Commission to strengthen the role of the STECF in providing economic advice mean a rather radical change in the production of the annual economic analysis. The SGECA meeting of October 2006 was the first occasion to test in practice procedures put in place under the DCR and to analyze data which has been submitted by the MS to JRC.

In principle the new procedure should allow a more complete coverage and a more uniform description of the EU fleet.

2.3 GENERAL COMMENTS

The data available for the analysis at the meeting was very heterogeneous in terms of completeness - coverage of fleet segments, variables and years. Not all MS were represented which further affected the elaboration of an analysis on those countries. This situation is reflected in table 1. Consequently, text has been prepared on MS represented in the meeting, while the statistical appendix contains almost all data received1.

The JRC data management system was not yet operational. Some preparations of the data had been done by hand before the meeting. However, a significant part of the time during the meeting had to be devoted to the preparation of the statistical appendices to this report. The economic analysis remains very brief and there has been extremely little time to review and cross-check the available data. This was the first time that the new procedure had been tested in earnest. Suggestions for improvements are made later in this report under TOR 4.

1 Except for Germany and Poland, where the data was fragmented.

SGECA Meeting on Economic Assessment of EU Fleets 23 – 27 October 2006 Page 5

5

Table 1 Data and experts available at the meeting by MS

Expert Costs and earnings data submitted Ability to submit final data on 2005

Belgium No 2002-04 ?? Cyprus Yes 2005 Jan 07 Denmark Yes 2002-2005 Beg. Oct. 06 Estonia No No data ?? Finland Yes 2002-05 End Dec. 06 France No 2002-04 Dec. 06 Germany No 2004 fragmentary ?? Greece Yes 2004-05 Mar. 06 Ireland No No data ?? Italy Yes 2002-05 End Sept. 06 Latvia No 2002-05 ?? Lithuania Yes 2002-05 Beg. Oct. 06 Malta No No data ?? Netherlands Yes 2002-05 Beg. Oct. 06 Poland No 2004 fragmentary Nov. 06 ?? Portugal No No data ?? Slovenia No No data ?? Spain Yes No data ?? Sweden Yes 2002-05 End Oct. 06 UK Yes 2004-05 Beg. Oct. 06

3 TOR 1. ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT OF EU FLEETS

An economic assessment of the fleets by country is presented in appendix 1. In case of most countries and segments the economic performance has deteriorated due to significantly

higher fuel costs and often lower catches, which were not always compensated by somewhat higher prices.

For those countries (Denmark, Finland, Italy, Lithuania, Netherlands, UK) where data was available for both 2004 and 2005, all fleet segments where data was available showed a decrease in the volume of landings and an increase in fuel costs. The generally higher prices compensated partly for the decrease in volume of landings so that revenue was generally higher than in 2004

Some segments did, however, improve their performance. The size of the fleets and employment has further decreased.

The following issues need to be kept in mind in relation to the interpretation of economic data: • The 2005 data is still only preliminary in some countries • The fleet definitions may be different in different countries. Some present data on regularly active

fleets and some include all active vessels2. • There are differences in definitions of employment, some MS using engaged persons and others

FTE. • There is, as yet, no uniform understanding of how to calculate capital costs. Clear guidelines on FTE and capital costs will be formulated in the SGECA meeting in January 2007. Because there was no data on 2005 from several important MS (Spain, France, Portugal, Ireland) it was not possible to prepare a reliable summary at EU level.

2 SGECA report of May 2005 proposed to distinguish non-active, regularly active and not regularly active fleets.

4 TOR 2. COMPLETENESS AND QUALITY

At the beginning of the meeting (October 23) data pertaining 2005 were available from 10 member states. The coverage in terms of submitted data and in terms of the population size is given in table 2. Table 2 Coverage of the required data provided in the September and October 2006 calls.

Country Years Requested variables Threshold Belgium 4.3.2 All none Cyprus 5 All but days at sea Regularly active Denmark 5.4.3.2 All but effort incomplete Regularly active Estonia incomplete - - Finland 5.4.3.2 All Regularly active France 4.3.2 All but effort none Germany 4 (incomplete) Only costs and landings by (kg) none Greece 5.4 All Regularly active Ireland - - - Italy 5.4.3.2 All none Latvia 5.4.3.2 All Regularly active (?) Lithuania 5.4.3.2 All none Malta only required to subm. 5 - - Netherlands 5.4.3.2 All Regularly active Poland 4 All but landings in Euros none Portugal 4.3 (errors=zeros) - - Slovenia only required to subm. 5 - - Spain - - - Sweden 5.4.3.2 All 2-4 regularly active, 5 noneUK 5.4 All > 7m The possibility to exclude vessels that are not considered commercially active was discussed in the group. This topic has been raised at numerous occasions previous to this meeting. It was stressed:

• collection of data on marginal groups with low fishing activity and/or income level may be relatively costly in relation to analytical benefits obtained.

• aggregating commercial and non-commercial vessels can give misleading results These points were already made in the May15-18 SGECA meeting SGECA-06-02 but not all countries provided information on activity levels and thresholds.

A number of countries did not submit data. The group recommended that the Commission take strict measures in ensuring future compliance.

Some countries only provided information on active vessels thus comparison between countries becomes problematical. Parameters such as gross add value per fisherman are not very meaningful in cases where some countries only consider active vessels and some do not.

Detailed comparison of the covered fleet with the fleet register could not be carried out due to lack of time and some conceptual problems.

Comparison to AER was not considered relevant because of differences in segment definitions and changes in data collection system in some countries. There are no significant differences at the aggregate national level in those MS which had not in the meantime changed their way of collecting data.

4.1 RECOMMENDATION:

JRC should design a questionnaire and request the Member State to provide information on: • Division of the total fleet (according to the fleet register) between regularly active, non-regularly

active and non-active vessels in terms of number of the vessels, total GT and total kW. • Assessment of the costs of collection of data on non-regularly active and non-active vessels.

• Estimation of the economic importance of the non-regularly active and non-active vessels.

5 TOR. 3 ADEQUACY OF CURRENT PROCEDURES

The meeting has reviewed procedures, which preceded the meeting. Several issues were highlighted which require attention in the coming months.

5.1 SUBMISSION OF THE DATA - DEADLINE

Countries present in the meeting have submitted data shortly before the meeting or have brought the data to the meeting. However, several countries have either indicated that they could not meet the deadline (Pl, Fr, Ie), have not reacted at all to the request (Es) or provided data that could not be analysed (Pt, De, Ee).

The JRC received economic data through four formal requests for data during 2006. Member States were invited to upload data either in XML or Excel format through the JRC web page following common instructions for codification. Examples of Excel or XML data were provided. In the event nearly everybody used the format they were most familiar with – Excel. The uploading procedure demanded a rather precise format which is straightforward to check with XML but difficult with Excel. Some Member States could not access the uploading page. For those that could, the error messages from non-compliant formats were unclear. Many Member States therefore sent the data by e-mail. Table 3 Overview of calls for data by JRC and response by MS – adherence to deadlines

Date of call for date by JRC August 10 September 11 Years requested

2002,2003,2004 2005

Belgium Yes Still no data Cyprus Not required Yes Denmark six days late Yes Estonia - - Finland Yes Data brought to meeting

France Yes - Germany Yes - Greece No (21 Oct) Data brought to meeting Ireland - - Italy Yes Yes Latvia Yes Yes (incomplete, have resend) Lithuania miscommunication Yes Malta Not required - Netherlands Yes Yes Poland Yes - Portugal Yes (errors=zeros) - Slovenia Not required - Spain - - Sweden Yes Yes United Kingdom - Data brought to meeting

5.1.1 Recommendation: The Commission should request the MS which have not delivered the data in time to adhere to their obligations under the DCR.

5.2 DATA MANAGEMENT TOOL (DMT)

JRC is developing a DMT to receive and process the data. Despite repeated attempts to streamline the procedures, various problems remain to be resolved:

• Uploading: MS have adapted the templates by changing text, translation into their national language, changing structure or the worksheets (adding or deleting columns), etc. Consequently JRC could not use the software developed for this purposes, which lead to delays in the preparation of the data for the meeting.

• JRC did not have sufficient time to review the data quality and ask MS for corrections. • MS did not use strictly the segmentation prescribed in annex III of DCR. • MS must strictly adhere to agreed codes for this segmentation.

The experts stressed that the software used should contain clear error messages to point to actions which are incompatible with the uploading procedures and software.

Some Member States reported difficulty in providing the data in 20 days. It was felt that the further 20 days allowed for analysis imposed significant restrictions on the ability of

the experts to carry out scientifically sound analysis. These aggregated statistics do not contain any confidential information and should be published.

5.2.1 Recommendations In view of the significant problems still existing in communication between JRC and the national staff responsible for uploading of the data, a technical meeting where the national staff would be trained to use the DMT should be considered.

Procedures should be put in place that allow JRC to hold the data from those countries that agree, distribute it for further analysis and ensure its updating once more accurate data becomes available.

5.3 TIMING OF THE SUBMISSION OF THE DATA

Table 1. shows that only a few MS are capable to deliver economic data (costs and earning) of the previous year sufficiently in time to for quality review before delivery to the plenary session of the STECF, usually held in week 45. Furthermore, it must be stressed that thorough preparation of every meeting by each participant is essential to obtain the required quality of the economic analysis. It is not considered feasible that such analysis is carried out during a 5-days SGECA meeting. Such meeting should focus on global analysis at EU level (e.g. analysis of specific EU-wide segments) and respond to specific questions of the Commission in terms of highlighting certain recent developments. The process of analysis and advice followed by the biologists of STECF (incl. the preparatory work carried out under ICES) should be taken as an example to organize the economic assessment.

The following timing needs to be adhered to in order to meet this deadline: Week 37 JRC launches a call for data of the previous year Week 41 MS prepare preliminary (or final) data and submit it Week 42 JRC runs check routines on the submitted data and requests corrections if required. All

corrections must be completed by end of week 42. Week 43 SGECA meeting on economic assessment, execution of EIAA model (independent

experts) Week 45 STECF plenary meeting. Nov / Dec MS complete final data on the previous year Jan / Feb Preparation of the Economic Report if requested by Commission As some MS may not be able to meet the proposed deadlines, it is necessary to allow for the use of preliminary or estimated data. This is a common practice in many statistical systems. Recent data available at Eurostat is often labeled as preliminary or estimated. Solid procedures for estimation need to be developed.

5.3.1 Recommendation In order to improve quality and scope of the data it is proposed to execute a study with the following objectives:


11

• develop a statistical model to estimate economic indicators for the previous and current year (i.e. in 2006 the model would estimate data for 2005 and 2006)

• estimate data for years 2000-2004 for countries which do not have such data • develop a model which will:

o generate more flexibly scenarios for the following year o improve analysis of effort related measures o allow exploration of management through economic incentives

• explore the possibilities to exploit the information about stochastic qualities of the data for further data estimation and analysis (e.g. development of stochastic model)

This implies not only some further development of the EIAA model but also of new tools to support the required analysis.

5.4 PARTICIPATION IN THE PROCESS

It is necessary to clarify and / or specify the role and responsibilities of the persons involved in the DCR process from data collection to analysis. Although the experts attending the meeting were formally in the position of ‘independent expert’ and acted in this manner their inside knowledge of economic data collection in their home country was a considerable help in the interpretation of the data.

Furthermore, it is considered appropriate that data are analyzed and interpreted by nationals of the country from which the data originates. In particular the correct interpretation is essential.

5.4.1 Recommendation: MS should be obliged to provide an expert when their data needs to be analyzed.

5.5 TOR 4: IMPROVEMENTS OF ASSESSMENT

5.5.1 Data Management Tool (DMT) A data management tool is going to be developed so member states can upload data easily (user friendly). A suggestion to improvement is pop-up error messages when uploading data wrongly. The DMT has to be designed and implemented in dialogue with the end-users.

The database has to be able to generate data used for SGECA meeting. This must include flexible queries able to produce data in various formats. The query-options developed in the database under CA-3 (CA-client) should serve as a minimum benchmark to achieve the required level of efficiency.

The Data Management Tool has to be implemented latest January 2007 and tested in January 2007 with a call for 2005 data.

Access to the database will be discussed later, when above tasks are completed. The existing codification standards have to be used and deadlines have to be respected.

Format specifications should be sent to national Data Collection contact points and to participants of the SGECA meeting by JRC for approval and checking by the end of November 2006.

5.5.2 FTE and capital costs The results of studies on FTE and capital cost will be presented in the SGECA meeting in January 2007. The studies make proposals for possible approaches. SGECA will decide which of these approaches should be followed under DCR.

The procedures for the implementation of these new approaches is not clear. The Commission should clarify these procedures so that they are included in the 2007 Economic Assessment.

5.5.3 Regional split A split between the Baltic, North Sea, Atlantic and Mediterranean is considered necessary for analytical analysis (e.g. information to RACs). Also a fifth region with non EU waters should be considered. Consequently, the relevant MS should develop estimations on a regional level.

In order to achieve homogeneity in estimation procedures and to avoid duplications of development of such procedures, it is proposed to launch a study which would deal with this issue. It should be investigated how this can be achieved a-posteriori with data provided with the current segmentation of the DCR.

5.5.4 Possible further analysis Further issues to be considered in the future as parts of economic performance analysis are:

• productivity analysis, • impact assessment of management-decisions (incl. TACs, structures – EFF, technical measures,

market measures, etc.) • cross sectional analysis (comparing performance of segments and development of analysis of

EU-wide segments) • resource rent • over capacity

5.5.5 Precision level of data The inclusion of standard error of the mean in the annual report is to be preferred to the precision levels of confidence intervals, because the normality assumption is not always verified. In addition other measures of the variation in the data like deviation or quartiles should be given as the indicators usually do not have normal distributions.

Analysis of elementary data and stochastic modeling could improve the information for economic assessment. A study is necessary to investigate this subject and to propose tools for stochastic analysis.

5.5.6 Economic report The representatives of the Commission expressed their interest in continuation of the preparation of an Annual Economic Report. In view of the timing of the availability of the final data in the various MS, this report could be produced in January / February of 2007 (for 2005 data) or earlier making greater use of the preliminary 2005 data. The Commission will have to make the necessary resources available, in particular for the first report in this new series to develop a new format which should suit the Commission and other users.

6 TOR 5. EIAA 2006

The EIAA assessment has been carried out shortly after the meeting. The report is submitted under separate cover.

APPENDIX 1A. REGIONAL COMPARISON

1. NORTH SEA REGION

Fisheries sectors For the North sea area comparisons were made for 5 segments: beam trawlers 12-24 m, 24-40m and over 40m and demersal trawlers and seiners 12-24m and 24-40m. For this report the North Sea area only consisted of ICES area IV, in contrast with the AER report. From these segments only the segment of beam trawlers 24-40 is comparable over all countries. For all other segments only part of the countries had vessels present. Comparison of segments Although the catches of Danish and Dutch beamers <24 m are not fully comparable (Danish only shrimp, Dutch, shrimp and flatfish), the economic indicators are fairly similar. Danish beamers are performing slightly better than their Dutch colleagues. The economic performance of the Belgian beamers is much worse, but it should be taken into account that the indicators for this segment are from 2004 when fish prices were lower. Beam trawl 12-24 m. Indicators per vessel 2005. Belgium1) Denmark NetherlandsAverage size GT 74.4 50.0 65.4kW 213.1 186.3 202.1Crew 3.1 2.9 2.8Economic indicators, 1000 Euro. Revenue per vessel 277.5 419.9 347.4Volume of landings per vessel 79.8 158.6 110.1Gross cash flow percentage -40% 26% 16%Gross value added percentage 17% 71% 51%Crew cost per man 51.1 66.0 43.7Gross value added per man 15.4 103.6 63.4Average price per tonne 2.9 2.6 3.21) Data for 2004. In the segment of beamers 24-40m the vessels from Belgium, Netherlands and UK are comparable. The Danish vessels are bigger than the other ones, but the economic performance in 2005 was worse compared to the others. The UK beamers have the highest cash flow percentage when compared against the other countries, however these vessels also operate in the English Channel. . Beam trawl 24-40 m. Indicators per vessel 2005. Belgium1) Denmark Netherlands2) United KingdomAverage size GT 297.2 330.2 225.3 199.5kW 856.5 1005.8 838.3 771.0Crew 5.7 7.4 5.2 5.3Economic indicators, 1000 Euro. Revenue per vessel 1103.5 1387.9 816.6 611.0Volume of landings per vessel 307.5 596.0 214.2 221.9Gross cash flow percentage 11% 3% 14% 21%Gross value added percentage 47% 33% 39% 34%Crew cost per man 70.5 55.4 40.0 30.7Gross value added per man 91.3 61.5 62.2 46.6Average price per tonne 2.7 2.3 3.8 3.31) Data for 2004. 2) Segment consists of vessels <25m and vessels >35m.

The Dutch and UK beamers >40m are very similar in size and engine power but, as the UK vessels are older and have more technical costs, the overall economic performance is much lower. Beam trawl >40 m. Indicators per vessel 2005. Netherlands United KingdomAverage size GT 472.1 483.8kW 1638.1 1609.4Crew 6.9 7.8Economic indicators, 1000 Euro. Revenue per vessel 1331.3 1478.6Volume of landings per vessel 415.9 456.1Gross cash flow percentage 13% 2%Gross value added percentage 34% 21%Crew cost per man 44.3 36.5Gross value added per man 65.3 40.1Average price per tonne 3.2 3.2 The economic performance of the demersal trawlers and seiners 12-24m is on average the worst of all segments that can be compared in the North Sea region. The UK vessels have actually a negative gross cash flow percentage. The performance of the Dutch vessels is slightly better. The Danish vessels are very different from the vessels of the other two countries; they are much smaller and also catch a large volume of industrial fish. Demersal trawl and seine 12-24 m. Indicators per vessel 2005. Denmark1) Netherlands United KingdomAverage size GT 33.2 116.8 81.4kW 180.2 220.9 267.4Crew 2.3 4.1 5.0Economic indicators, 1000 Euro. Revenue per vessel 214.6 589.5 332.9Volume of landings per vessel 305.2 163.1 112.8Gross cash flow percentage 5% 9% -22%Gross value added percentage 56% 40% 24%Crew cost per man 47.0 44.3 30.4Gross value added per man 51.2 60.0 15.8Average price per tonne 0.7 3.6 3.0 The demersal trawlers and seiners 24-40 m of the three countries are very different. The UK vessels are the largest in terms of technical characteristics and crew size, whereas the Belgian vessels are much smaller than the other vessels. The economic performance is however similar for the UK and Dutch vessels. The low price per tonne for the Dutch vessels results from large catches of low value herring. Demersal trawl and seine 24-40 m. Indicators per vessel 2005. Belgium1) Netherlands United KingdomAverage size GT 161.0 174.2 272.3kW 346.4 499.0 648.6Crew 2.6 3.8 7.8Economic indicators, 1000 Euro. Revenue per vessel 349.9 634.8 1150.2Volume of landings per vessel 142.8 353.5 446.2Gross cash flow percentage 13% 23% 26%Gross value added percentage 48% 53% 49%Crew cost per man 47.4 49.8 34.8Gross value added per man 64.7 88.0 72.8


17

Average price per tonne 3.2 1.8 2.61) Data for 2004.

2. BALTIC REGION

Fisheries sectors In 2004 the value of the fisheries production in the Baltic Sea region was estimated at 204 mln Euro. The fleets employed 8.7 thousands people. A comprehensive assessment of the regional fisheries is not possible for 2005 due to problems discussed elsewhere in this report. The new classification of the data by standard gears and size groups should allow comparison of segments across several countries in the region, but the decision from the RAC to include the Ices area IIIa (Skagerrak and Kattegat) in the Baltic region makes it difficult to compare with results from previous years. Demersal trawl and seiners Demersal trawls and seiners target mainly cod in Baltic Sea. Cod quota has decreased significantly during past few years in the Baltic. Many Danish and some Swedish vessels are fishing in both the North Sea and the Baltic Region. In this case they are also fishing nephrops. The Danish segment of Demersal trawl end seiners include only vessels up to 18 metres, but they produce 36 percent higher revenues than the Swedish Demersal trawlers. Demersal trawl and seiners 12-24 m. Indicators per vessel 2005. Denmark SwedenAverage size GT 33.2 61kW 180.2 283Crew 2.3 2Economic indicators, 1000 Euro. Revenue per vessel 214.6 158Volume of landings per vessel 305.2 117Gross cash flow percentage 5%Gross value added percentage 56%Crew cost per man 47.0 11Gross value added per man 51.2Average price 0.7 1.4 Demersal trawl and seine 24-40 m. Indicators per vessel 2005. Lithuania SwedenAverage size GT 122 175kW 214 590Crew 6 4Economic indicators, 1000 Euro. Revenue per vessel 137 358Volume of landings per vessel 217 267Gross cash flow percentage 23%Gross value added percentage 50%Crew cost per man 6.1 16Gross value added per man 11.3Average price 0.6 1.4 Swedish Demersal trawl and seiners 24-40 m produces 2½ times more revenue than Lithuanian vessels. The crew costs per man were also 2½ times higher in Sweden than in Lithuania.. Pelagic trawl and seine The main target species for the pelagic trawl and seine vessels in the Baltic Region are herring and sprat. The Danish and the Swedish fleets also fish in the North Sea for other species which resulted in the higher average price for these fleets. The Finnish landings are mainly used for industrial purposes and it is

only herring and sprat. Sprat quota has gone up during the last few years, while herring quotas have remained approximately stable. Both the Danish and the Swedish vessels are larger than the Finnish vessels in regards to gross tonnage, kW and employment. The gross value added as a per cent of the revenue is similar for Denmark and Finland, but the revenue per vessel is 68% higher in the Danish fleet than it is for Finnish vessels. Pelagic trawl and seine 12-24 m. Indicators per vessel 2005. Denmark Finland Sweden Average size GT 85.8 48.2 76 kW 329.3 283.2 337 Crew 3.6 1.8 3 Economic indicators, 1000 Euro. Revenue per vessel 409.9 71.4 151 Volume of landings per vessel 681.6 731.7 400 Gross cash flow percentage 9% 21% Gross value added percentage 52% 54% Crew cost per man 48.5 13.3 Gross value added per man 59.2 21.7 Average price 0.6 0.1 0.3 Pelagic trawl and seine 24-40 m. Indicators per vessel 2005. Denmark Finland Sweden Average size GT 241.4 253.6 335 kW 582.7 696.0 974 Crew 5.5 3.5 6 Economic indicators, 1000 Euro. Revenue per vessel 741.6 453.0 627 Volume of landings per vessel 2630.0 2859.7 3351 Gross cash flow percentage 10% 13% Gross value added percentage 45% 46% Crew cost per man 46.5 42.7 19 Gross value added per man 60.3 58.8 Average price 0.3 0.2 0.2 Passive polyvalent 12-24 m. The passive driftnet and fixed net segment target mainly cod and salmon in the Baltic Sea. Cod quota has decreased significantly during past few years while salmon quotas have remained approximately stable. Danish vessels also catch other species like flat fishes in both IIIa and the North Sea. The figures shows that Danish catches are significantly higher – both in volume and value – than those in Sweden and Finland. Also the productivity of labour in terms of gross value added in Danish vessels is much higher. However, the Finnish fleet is more profitable. Passive polyvalent 12-24 m. Indicators per vessel 2005. Denmark Finland Sweden Average size GT 35.9 22.6 31 kW 154.8 208.3 182 Crew 2.7 2.2 2 Economic indicators, 1000 Euro. Revenue per vessel 250.4 80.0 54 Volume of landings per vessel 94.9 20.8 27 Gross cash flow percentage 12% 27% Gross value added percentage 64% 43% Crew cost per man 47.4 5.7


19

Gross value added per man 58.8 15.8 Average price 2.5 3.8 1.6

3. MEDITERRANEAN REGION

The analysis of the performance of the Mediterranean fleets in 2005 is based on data regarding 3 segments of 3 Member States. These 3 segments have been selected because they are among the most representative of the Mediterranean fishery. Demersal trawl and seine 12-24 m Average size Cyprus Greece Italy GT 118 49 32 kW 352 263 176 Crew 7.0 4.3 3.0 Economic indicators Revenue per vessel (000) 169 343 193 Volume of landings per vessel (tons) 53 78 29 Gross cash flow percentage 0,3 0,5 0,3 Gross value added percentage 0,5 0,6 0,6 Crew cost per man (000) 5 10 18 Gross value added per man (000) 12 51 36 Average price (E/kg) 3,17 4,41 6,73 The higher average size and crew of the Cypriot vessels depends on the fact that also vessels above 24 meters have been classified in this segment, because they are less then 10 units. The average volume of landings in Cyprus is almost twice than that of the Italy, while the revenue per vessel in Italy is much higher. This is explained by the higher average price of the Italian production, that is composed by more valuable species. Greek vessels have a very high productivity. The crew cost per man in Cyprus and Greece is very low compared with the Italian one. The reason is that the Greek and Cypriot trawlers are allowed to work only for eight and seven months respectively, whereas the Italian trawelers work all over the year. Pelagic trawl and seine 12-24 m Average size Cyprus Greece Italy GT 35 53 kW 171 256 Crew 6.1 6.2 Economic indicators Revenue per vessel (000) 225 276 Volume of landings per vessel (tons) 145 164 Gross cash flow percentage 0,4 0,3 Gross value added percentage 0,6 0,6 Crew cost per man (000) 7 13 Gross value added per man (000) 22 27 Average price (E/kg) 1,56 1,69 The economic indicators of this fleet are rather homogenous. Even the profitability indicators show the same performance. This fleet is rather specialized and target few species (mainly anchovies and sardines) with an international market managed by local POs. Passive <12 m Average size Cyprus Greece Italy GT 4 2 2 Kw 11 18 26 Crew 1.9 1.3 1.4 Economic indicators

Revenue per vessel (000) 7 29 37 Volume of landings per vessel (tons) 1 5 5 Gross cash flow percentage -0,6 0,6 0,4 Gross value added percentage -0,5 0,6 0,7 Crew cost per man (000) 1 2 8 Gross value added per man (000) -2 16 18 Average price (E/kg) 8,11 6,29 7,73 This is the most important fleet for all the three countries in terms of number of vessels and employment. The revenues per vessel in Greece and Italy are almost the same, while they are very low for the Cypriot fleet. This is explained by the lower volume of landings per vessel. It should be noted that eastern Mediterranean waters are oligotrophic compared to that in the western Mediterranean countries. The crew cost per man is very low, especially in Greece and Cyprus. This depends on the part time activity that carachterizes these vessels. Moreover, the crew of small-scale fishery is often composed of a single person who is both the vessel owner and fisherman. In this case, the remuneration both of the labour and the capital is represented by the added value. The average price is very high in all the Member States. Production of artisanal vessels is generally composed by pregiate species of good quality that are sold fresh in local markets or directly to final consumers.

APPENDIX 1B. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE BY COUNTRY

1 EU

In case of most countries and segments the economic performance has deteriorated due to significantly higher fuel costs and often lower catches, which were not always compensated by somewhat higher prices. Some segments did, however, improve their performance. Size of the fleets and employment has further decreased.

2 BELGIUM

Expert did not attend the meeting. Description could not be prepared.

3 CYPRUS

Performance 2005 Production value in 2005 was 8.22mln Euro. The total volume of the landings was 1.97mln Euro. The most important segments in terms of production value are:

1. Demersal trawl and demersal seiners 12-24 meters 2. Passive polyvalent vessels 12-24 meters 3. Passive gears <12 meters

These three segments accounted for 92.8% of national production. Gross cash flow in 2005 was -1.8 mln Euro. Employment in 2005 was to 1142 persons (engaged crew). The size of the national fleet was 11,062.5 GT (929 vessels). Notes on data: Concerning the value of landings for trawlers there was inconsistency when using the logbooks and the face- to- face questionnaires. Due to the fact that there are not any data for previous years it can be questioned which of the two is the most reliable. However, for this economic analysis the face-to face interviews were considered as a more reliable tool. Moreover, it should be noted that four out of eight trawlers for which data where collected were not commercially active. As a result, the extrapolation was based on the commercially active trawlers fleet.

4 DENMARK

Performance 2004 – 2005 Production value increased in 2005 by 8% to 381 million Euro. The total volume of the landings decreased by 18%, due to a 24% reduction in the landings of industrial fish and a 17% increase in the landings of herring. The average price of fish increased by 10%. The most important segments in terms of production value are:

1. Pelagic trawl and seiners > 40 m. 2. Pelagic trawl and seiners 24-40 m. 3. Pelagic trawl and seiners 12-24 m. 4. Demersal trawl and seiners 12-24 m.

These four segments accounted for 72% of national production. The change in production value was primarily caused by the increase of production and prices in segments 1. Gross cash flow increased in 2005 by 107% to 67 million Euro. This change was caused by increase of total production value and an increase of fuel costs by 6.5 million Euro (13%). The segments where the gross cash flow increased most were segment 1, 2 and 3. Employment decreased in 2005 by 11% to 2835 persons (FTE). The gross value added per man has increased by 32% to 76000 Euro. The size of the national fleet decreased by 13% to 80000 GT (1167 vessels). Outlook 2006 • Price level: +20% • Volume of landings: industrial fish +25%, herring -20%, other 0% • Value of landings: industrial fish +40%, other fish +10% • Fuel price: +12% • Overall performance: improvement Notes on data: • Data from the Account Statistics, the sample includes more than 25% the population. • Only commercial fleet included, this fleet accounts for 97% of total production.


23

5 ESTONIA


6 FINLAND

Performance 2004 - 2005 Production value for the whole Finnish fleet decreased in 2005 by 8% to 17 mln Euro. The total volume of the landings decreased by 4% while the price development was mixed. The most important segments in terms of production value are:

1. Pelagic trawlers 24-40 meters 2. Pelagic trawlers 12-24 meters 3. Gillnetters

These three segments accounted for 90% of the national catch volume. The total revenue of these segments decreased 13%. This change was primarily caused by the decline of production in the two trawler segments. Despite the reduced revenues and 50% increase in fuel prices, Gross cash flow improved 15% to 2 mln Euro. The improved performance originated from improved efficiency of the reduced fleet. The size of these three fleet segments decreased 22% to 73 vessels with capacity of 6,800 GT and 26,800 kW.

Value of landings and employmentNational fleet

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

2002 2003 2004 2005

Year

mln

Eur

o

050010001500200025003000350040004500

Eng

aged

crew

Value of landings(Million Euro)Employment (FTE)

Value of landings Main segments

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

2002 2003 2004 2005

Year

mln

Eur

o

Segment 1Segment 2Segment 3Segment 4

Gross cash flow Main segments

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

2002 2003 2004 2005

Year

mln

Eur

o


Employment (FTE) Main segments

0

200

400

600

800

1000

2002 2003 2004 2005

Year

Eng

aged

crew


Employment decreased in these segments by 28% to 168 persons (engaged crew). At the same time the efficiency increased; the gross value added per man increased by 22% to 34,000 Euro. Outlook 2006 The outlook for 2006 looks mixed for the different segments. The quotas for trawlers increased

significantly while for gill-netters smaller quotas together with other restrictive management decisions restricts fishing opportunities. Rising fuel prices increase costs further for this year. In the first six months of 2006 the price of light fuel was 13 % higher than year before putting pressure for the economic performance of the fleet. Notes on data: The analysis is based on preliminary data on 2005. The economic data collected under Data collection regulation is targeted on commercially active vessels/units. The threshold value of a vessel to be considered active in 2005 was a landing value of 9134 euros. Economic data is based on the financial statements collected by Statistics Finland. Data on catches and vessels are based on data in FGFRI. Data on coastal fishery was not yet finalized and were not available for analysis.

7 FRANCE



0,02,04,06,08,0

10,012,014,016,018,020,0

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Year

mln

Eur

o

0,0

50,0

100,0

150,0

200,0

250,0

Eng

aged

crew

Value oflandings (mnEuro)

Employment


0,0

2,0

4,0

6,0

8,0

10,0

12,0

2002 2003 2004 2005

Year

mln

Eur

o

Seg. 1Seg. 2Seg. 3


0,0

0,2

0,4

0,6

0,8

1,0

1,2

1,4

1,6

2002 2003 2004 2005

Year

mln

Eur

o

Seg. 1Seg. 2Seg. 3

Employment Main segments

0,0

20,0

40,0

60,0

80,0

100,0

120,0

2002 2003 2004 2005

Year

mln

Eur

oSeg. 1Seg. 2Seg. 3


25

8 GERMANY


9 GREECE

Performance 2004 - 2005 Production value increased in 2005 by 1,61 % to 742,38 mln Euro. The total volume of the landings increased by 4% while the price was stable. The most important segments in terms of production value are:

1. Passive gears (small scale fishery <12 m) 2. Pelagic seiners 12-24 m 3. Demersal trawls 24-40 m 4. Demersal trawls 12-24 m

These four segments accounted for 89,5 % of national production. The change in production value was primarily caused by the increase of production in the segment of pelagic seiners 24-40 m. Gross cash flow decreased in 2005 by 0,36 % to 1,5 mln Euro. This change was caused by increase of total production costs by 13,3 mln Euro (4,3 %). The segment where the gross cash flow decreased most were 1. Employment decreased in 2005 by 1,2 % to 323 persons (engaged crew). The gross value added per man has increased by 4,5 % to 21.538.152 Euro. The size of the national fleet increased by 0,84 % to 97.200 GT (159 vessels). Notes on data: • The data are collected through a random sampling survey. • The calculation of all parameters refer to the commercially active vessels


724726728730732734736738740742744

2002 2003 2004 2005

Year

mln

Eur

o

25,500

26,000

26,500

27,000

27,500

28,000

28,500

29,000

29,500

30,000

Eng

aged

crew

Value oflandings(mln Euro)Employment


0.0088

0.009

0.0092

0.0094

0.0096

0.0098

0.01

0.0102

2002 2003 2004 2005

Year

mln

Eur

o

Segment 1Segment 2Segment 3

Segment 4


-0.02

-0.018

-0.016

-0.014

-0.012

-0.01

-0.008

-0.006

-0.004

-0.002

02002 2003 2004 2005

Year

mln

Eur

o

Segment 1Segment 2

Segment 3Segment 4


02468

101214161820

2002 2003 2004 2005

Year

mln

Eur

o

Segment 1Segment 2Segment 3

Segment 4

10 IRELAND


11 ITALY

Performance 2004 - 2005 Production value increased in 2005 by 0,6% to 1,388mln Euro. The total volume of the landings decreased by 7.4% while the price increased by 7.5%. The positive trend of price is due to the consistent increase of landings of high valuable species, like shrimps and hakes. The most important segments in terms of production value are:

1. demersal trawls 12-24 m 2. pelagic trawls 12-24 m 3. dredgers 12-24 4. vessels using passive gears < 12 m

These five segments accounted for 75% of national production. The change in production value was primarily caused by the decrease of production in the segments 3 and 4. Gross cash flow decreased in 2005 by 2.8% to 451mln Euro. This change was caused by an increase of fuel costs by 57mln Euro (20%). The segment where the gross cash flow decreased most were 3 and 4. In order to balance the huge increase of fuel cost, vessels’ owners tried to decrease, when possible, other costs. This explains the decrease of repair and maintenance costs (-25%). Another effect of the increase of fuel price and of other operative costs has been the reduction of effort, in particular for segment 4. From 2002 days at sea of this segment decreased by 24%. Employment decreased in 2005 by 9% to 32,174 persons (engaged crew). The gross value added per man has increased by 6% to 26,000 Euro. The size of the national fleet decreased by 3.4% to 15,086 vessels (203,000 GT). Outlook 2006 • Price level: + 2% • Volume of landings: - 6% • Value of landings: - 4% • Fuel price: + 9% • Overall performance: deterioration The previous estimates are based on landings and effort data for the first 6 months of 2006.


27

Main segments: 1. demersal trawl 12-24 m 2. pelagic trawls and seiners 12-24 m 3. dredgers 12-24 m 4. passive < 12 m Notes on data:

• Data for the composition of the fleet by size is based on the vessel register. Desegregation of total fleet into segments has been obtained from statistical elaboration supported by a survey for the identification of the prevalent fishing technique.

• To be consistent from a statistical point of view, capacity data are derived from the fleet used to extract the sample and to raise the sample figures to the total fleet, and not from the fleet at the end of the year.

• Effort, landings and costs data are derived from a specific sample survey carried out by Irepa onlus. In 2004, a methodological revision occurred in the survey. This revision mainly regarded the stratification of the fleet in the segments required by the DCR. Therefore, the time series from 2002 to 2005 are not homogenous for several segments. A coherent analysis can be carried out starting from 2004 onwards.

• The quality of the final information is assessed through the calculation of precision levels for each segment and parameter and is also assured by a computerized system, able to support checks and control procedures and to provide documentation of all the correction, missing data integration and estimation process.

12 LATVIA


13 LITHUANIA

Performance 2004 - 2005


-

5.000

10.000

15.000

20.000

2002 2003 2004 2005

Year

mln

Eur

o

seg. 1

seg. 2

seg. 3seg. 4


-

100,00

200,00

300,00

400,00

500,00

600,00

2002 2003 2004 2005Year

mln

Eur

o

seg. 1

seg. 2

seg. 3seg. 4


1.320,00

1.350,00

1.380,00

1.410,00

1.440,00

1.470,00

1.500,00

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Year

mln

Eur

o

-

10.000

20.000

30.000

40.000

50.000

Eng

aged

cre Value of landings (mn

Euro)Employment


-

40,00

80,00

120,00

160,00

200,00

2002 2003 2004 2005

Year

mln

Eur

o

seg. 1

seg. 2seg.t 3

seg. 4

Production value increased in 2005 by 5 % to 54.3 mln Euro. The total volume of the landings decreased by 11.6 % while the average price increased by 19 %. The main segments in terms of production value are:

1. Pelagic trawl and seine > 40 m. 2. Demersal trawl and seine 24m – 40m 3. Drift and fixed nets 24m – 40m 4. Passive gears <12 m

These four segments accounted for 99 % of national production. The change in production value was primarily caused by the increase of production value in the segment 1. Gross cash flow decreased in 2005 by 10 % to 6.2 mln Euro. This change was caused by increase of total production value and an increase of other costs by 5.7 mln Euro (54 %) in the 1 segment and the increase of fuel price by 0.3 mln Euro (30 %) in the other segments. The segment where the gross cash flow increased most was 1. Employment decreased in 2005 by 15 % to 2070 persons (engaged crew). The gross value added per man has increased by 18% to 6 625 Euro. The size of the active national fleet decreased by 16 % to 47 400 GT (277 vessels). The main reasons of this decrease are the permanent cessation of some vessels fishing in the Baltic sea (20 vessels were scrapped in 2005) and the lack of fishing opportunities for the high sea fishery. Outlook 2006 • Price level: + 7 % • Volume of landings: + 13 % (for the Baltic sea) • Fuel price: + 7 % • Overall performance: improvement The main reason for the improvement in the Baltic Sea is the increased cod quota for 2006. Notes on data: • Consistency: data are collected from Lithuanian Central Fishery Database, Fishing Fleet Register and

questionnaires data.

• Economic and capacity indicators for the 1, 2 and 3 segments are presented only for active vessels. Value of landings and employment

National fleet

20,0

30,0

40,0

50,0

60,0

mln

Eur

o

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

Eng

aged

crew

Value of landings (mnEuro)

Employment


1,0

2,0

3,0

4,0

5,0

6,0

mln

Eur

o

Seg 1Seg 2

Seg 3

Seg 4


0,0

10,0

20,0

30,0

40,0

50,0

60,0

2002 2003 2004 2005Year

mln

Eur

o

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

Eng

aged

crew

Value of landings (mnEuro)Employment

Value of landingsMain species

0,0

10,0

20,0

30,0

40,0

50,0

60,0

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Year

Hig

h se

a flee

t

0,0

1,0

2,0

3,0

4,0

5,0

6,0

Balti

c sea

flee

t

Seg 1Seg 2Seg 3

Seg 4


-1,0

0,0

1,0

2,0

3,0

4,0

5,0

6,0

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Year

mln

Eur

o

Seg 1Seg 2Seg 3Seg 4


0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Year

Seg 1Seg 2Seg 3Seg 4


29

Seg 1. Pelagic trawl and seine, > 40 m. Seg 2. Demersal trawl and seine, 24m – 40m Seg 3. Drift and fixed nets, 24m – 40m Seg 4. Passive gears, <12 m

14 MALTA


15 NETHERLANDS

Performance 2004 - 2005 Production value decreased in 2005 by 3.0% to 357.0 mln Euro. The total volume of the landings decreased by 2.0% while the price decreased by 10.0%. The most important segments in terms of production value are:

1. Pelagic trawls and seiners larger than 40 meters 2. Beam trawl larger than 40 meters 3. Beam trawl 12 to 24 meters 4. Beam trawl 24 to 40 meters

These five segments accounted for 96% of national production. The change in production value was primarily caused by the decrease of production in the segment 2. Gross cash flow increased in 2005 by 1.5% to 56.5 mln Euro. This change was caused by a decrease of the total production value, an increase of fuel costs by 14.7 mln Euro (18.2%) and a decrease of the costs of crew, repair and maintenance costs and other costs. The segment where the gross cash flow increased the most was segment 1. In segment 2 the gross cash flow decreased sharply. Employment decreased in 2005 by 9.2% to 1,960 persons (FTE). The gross value added per man has increased by 4.4% to 26000 Euro. The size of the national fleet decreased by 14.1% to 143000 GT (336 vessels). Outlook 2006 • Price level: + 0 % • Volume of landings: + 0 % • Value of landings: + 3 % • Fuel price: + 15 % • Overall performance: deterioration These estimates only hold for the cutter fleet. For the high sea fisheries data are not available yet. Large differences are occurring between the different segments. Shrimp prices have been going down by 30% over the first 8 months of 2006, compared to 2005 whereas prices of flat fish have been increasing by around 10%. Notes on data: • Consistency: Data were gathered means of the LEI economic panel for all years. Large difference can

be seen in the developments of the different fleet segments. The rise in Gross Cash Flow in the national fleet is only caused by the good results of the high sea fleet, whereas the economic performance of the cutter fleet was deteriorating. This was mainly due to the increasing fuel prices.

• The data are only given for the main segments, so the total might not represent the National total as more existing smaller segments are not taken into account.

• Data on non commercial activities have been gathered for 2004 and 2005, but were not yet available for the analyses, thus the figures for the Dutch fleet represent the commercially active vessels (threshold of 50 kEuro).

Figure 1 Fleet and effort by country


31

Seg. 1 = Pelagic trawls and seiners > 40 m Seg. 2 = Beam trawl > 40 m Seg. 3 = Beam trawl 12- 24 m Seg. 4 = Beam trawl 24- 40 m

16 POLAND


17 PORTUGAL


18 SLOVENIA


19 SPAIN

Description could not be prepared due to lack of data.

20 SWEDEN

Performance 2004 - 2005 Production value increased in 2005 by 8 % to 97 mln Euro. The total volume of the landings increased by 8 % while the price increased by 40 %. The most important segments in terms of production value are:


050

100150200250300350400450

2002 2003 2004 2005

Year

mln

Eur

o

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Em

ploy

men

t on

boar

d

Value of landings(mn Euro)

Employment


020406080

100120140160

2002 2003 2004 2005

Year

mln

Eur

o

Seg. 1Seg. 2Seg. 3Seg. 4


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

2002 2003 2004 2005

Year

mln

Eur

o

Seg. 1Seg. 2Seg. 3Seg. 4


0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

2002 2003 2004 2005

Year

Em

ploy

men

t on

boar

d Seg. 1Seg. 2Seg. 3Seg. 4

1. Demersal trawl and demersal seiner 12-24 meters 2. Pelagic trawl and seiners 24-40 meters 3. Pelagic trawl and seiners > 40 meters 4. Passive gear < 12 meters 5. Drift and fixed nets 12-24 meters

These five segments accounted for 84 % of national production. The change in production value was primarily caused by the increase of production in the segments 2 and 3. The size of the national fleet increased by 8 % to 46800 GT (1228 vessels). Outlook 2006 • Fuel price: + 15 % Notes on data: • Consistency: There are inconsistencies in effort related costs and repair and maintenance costs for

2004 and 2005. These costs have therefor been left out. Fuel consumption, fuel cost, repair and maintenance cost and employment on board has been estimated from economic surveys. For 2005 effort related costs and crewcost and fuel costs have been compiled by Statistics Sweden and is based on income tax declarations, for 2002-2004 these costs come from economic surveys. Data on landings has been compiled from logbooks for vessels smaller than 12 meters and from sales notes for vessels that are 12 meters or larger. Data on capacity has been compiled from the vesselregister for vessels active on December 31st.

• Data is on commercially active and not commercially active. For 2004 the data is only on commercially active vessels.

• Income is value of landings.

21 United Kingdom

Performance 2004 - 2005 In 2005 the total value of landings by the UK fishing fleet3 increased in by 11.4% to 835.8 Mln Euro. The total volume of landings increased 8.3% and the average fish price increased by 2.9%. The increase in landings value can be attributed to a greater abundance of target species on the fishing grounds, a higher catch per unit of effort (CPUE) and improved quayside prices.

3 Includes UK landings landing abroad


33

In 2005 the following four segments were the highest earning segments4 of their class, accounting for 31.1% of the overall national landings value:

4. Demersal Trawl/Seine 12-24m 5. Beam Trawl 24-40m 6. Dredgers 12-24m 7. Pots and Traps 12-24m

The majority of UK demersal trawlers/seiners target fishing grounds in the North Sea (Area IVab) and West of Scotland. These vessels operate in a mixed fishery and target mainly nephrops and haddock. The beam trawlers operate in the North Sea (Area IVbc) and in the South West of the UK (Area VII). The main target species for these vessels are sole and plaice. The dredgers mainly operate in inshore waters around the UK and the predominant catch of these vessels in scallops. Inshore fishermen also operate pots and traps around the UK coastline and they target crabs and lobsters. In 2005 the value of landings for the Demersal Trawl/seine 12-24m segment rose by 13.8%. The landings value has risen steadily since a low point in 2003 and this trend looks set to continue into 2006. Conversely, the value of landings of the Beam trawl segment has declined by 13.2% from the previous year, a trend that has occurred continually since 2001. With an ageing fleet and restricted investment in this segment the trend looks set to continue into 2006. In 2005 Gross Cash Flow (GCF) increased by 25.8%5. This change was mainly due to the increase in total landings value despite an increase in the cost of fuel by 7.7%6 (fuel prices rose considerably in the third quarter of 2004). The segment where GCF showed the most improvement was the Dredgers 12-24m segment. There is also an indication the Demersal Trawl/Seine 12-24m segment is moving towards a positive GCF. Employment decreased in 2005 by 6% to 12,647 fishermen (engaged crew). The Gross Value Added (GVA) per crewman (for those segments where data is available) increased by 22.3% to 32.2 Euro (000). It is estimated the size of the national (active) UK fishing fleet decreased in 2006 by 2.3% to 3,052 vessels. This equates to a reduction in Gross Tonnage (GT) and Power (kW) of 3.3% and 3.6% respectively. Outlook 2006 • Price level: Stable • Volume of landings: - 24% • Value of landings: - 24% • Fuel price: - 12% • Overall performance: Stable Notes on data: Commercially active / not commercially active Although there were 6,767 fishing vessels registered in the UK in 2005, 3,644 vessels were estimated to be ‘inactive’ because they either caught nothing in 2005 (those vessels over 10m) or they were deemed ‘too small’ to be used for commercial purposes. (Vessels under 7m without any official recorded landings). Non Participation and Poor Response Levels The UK cost and earnings data collection programme generated 399 returns for 2005 and 384 returns for 2004 (12.8% and 12.3% of the active population respectively). A sample rate of 12% was achieved in 2001 and has again been achieved in the 2005 survey.

Segment 1: Demersal Trawl/Seine 12-24m Segment 2: Beam Trawl 24-40m Segment 3: Mechanical Dredge 12-24m Segment 4: Pots and Traps 12-24m

4 The pelagic sector and the under 10m sector are omitted due to a lack of cost and earnings data 5 For the fleet segments were cost data was available 6 For those segments where data is available


0.0

100.0

200.0

300.0

400.0

500.0

600.0

700.0

800.0

900.0

1000.0

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Year

mln

Eur

o

11500

12000

12500

13000

13500

14000

14500

Eng

aged

crew

Value of LandingsEmployment


100.0120.0140.0160.0180.0200.0

n E

uro

Segment 1

Segment 2

Segment 3Segment 4


-2

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Year

mln

Eur

o

Segment 1

Segment 2Segment 3

Segment 4


2000

2500

3000

3500

n E

uro

Segment 1

Segment 2

Segment 3Segment 4


35

APPENDIX 1C. STATISTICAL SUMMARY BY COUNTRY – FLEET, EFFORT, VALUE OF LANDINGS, GROSS CASH FLOW AND EMPLOYMENT, 2002-2006

1 EU

Insufficient data to prepare an EU overview.

2 BELGIUM

3 CYPRUS


37

4 DENMARK

DENMARK (CONT.)

5 ESTONIA

No data


39

6 FINLAND

7 FRANCE


41

FRANCE (CONT.)

8 GERMANY

No data

9 GREECE


43

GREECE (CONT.)

10 Ireland No data

11 ITALY

Notes: 1. In 2004, a methodological revision occurred in the IREPA survey. This revision mainly regarded the stratification of the fleet in the segments required by the DCR (appendix III). Therefore, the time series from 2002 to 2005 are not homogenous for several segments. A coherent analysis can be carried out starting from 2004 onwards. 2. Data on capacity are not those of the vessel register at the end of the year. To be consistent from a statistical point of view, capacity data reported in the tables are derived from the fleet used to extract the sample and to raise the sample figures. In this way, average values in terms of number of vessels or size can be calculated. 3. If a segment is composed by less then 10 vessels, it has been merged with a neighbouring length category segment 4. In Italy, the beam trawls do not really exist. We classified as “beam” trawl the so called “rapido” that is a kind of bottom trawl used mainly for flatfish. This segment has been introduced in 2004, as a specification of the demersal trawls. 5. The segment of "Gears using hooks" has been introduced in 2004, as a specification of the polyvalent vessels using passive gears 6 Passive polyvalents 12-24 are not present in 2002 because they were classified in the polyvalent (mobile + passive gears). In the subsequent years a field survey was carried out to better identify the prevalent fishing activity 7 No vessel is classified in the segment of polyvalent vessels 12-24 m (mobile and passive gears) in 2006. As a consequence of a detailed field survey it has been possible to classify these vessels according to their prevalent fishing activity


45

12 LATVIA


47

13 LITHUANIA

14 MALTA

No data

15 NETHERLANDS


49

16 POLAND

17 PORTUGAL

No data

18 SLOVENIA

No data

19 SPAIN

No data

20 SWEDEN


51

UNITED KINGDOM


53

UNITED KINGDOM (CONT. FLEET AND EFFORT)

UNITED KINGDOM


55

UNITED KINGDOM (CONT. ECONOMIC INDICATORS)


57

APPENDIX 1D ECONOMIC AND TECHNICAL PARAMETERS BY SEGMENT

1 EU

Parameters cannot be derived.

2 BELGIUM

Gear: Beam trawl Size: 12-24 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 (1-6) mln Euro, segment total Revenue 16.0 17.9 15.0 0.0 0.0 Fuel 3.8 3.5 3.9 0.0 0.0 Effort related costs 5.2 5.5 6.1 0.0 0.0 Repair and maintence 2.1 2.2 2.4 0.0 0.0 Crew 7.5 7.8 8.6 0.0 0.0 Fixed costs 0.0 1.8 2.0 0.0 0.0 Derived indicators Gross cash flow -6.0 0.0 0.0 Gross value added 2.6 0.0 0.0 Net profit -8.0 0.0 0.0 Capacity indicators Employment (FTE?) 184 183 169 Effort (1000 DAS) 9786.0 7535.0 4997.0 Number of vessels 56 55 54 52 Fleet (1000 kW) 11.8 11.6 11.5 Fleet (1000 GT) 4.2 4.2 4.0 Volume (1000 tonnes) 4635.2 4846.4 4310.6 Price (Euro/tonne) 3013.8 2883.9 2921.0 Gear: Beam trawl Size: 24-40 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 (1-6) mln Euro, segment total Revenue 73.0 69.6 66.2 0.0 0.0 Fuel 16.2 17.0 15.7 0.0 0.0 Effort related costs 16.5 15.9 14.7 0.0 0.0 Repair and maintence 5.1 5.2 4.8 0.0 0.0 Crew 25.3 25.7 23.9 0.0 0.0 Fixed costs 0.0 5.3 4.8 0.0 0.0 Derived indicators Gross cash flow 7.0 0 0 Gross value added 31.0 0 0 Net profit 2.2 0 0 Capacity indicators Employment (FTE?) 366 362 339 Effort (1000 DAS) 16885.0 12657.0 12866.0

58

Number of vessels 63 62 60 60 Fleet (1000 kW) 52.5 52.4 51.4 Fleet (1000 GT) 18.9 18.7 17.8 Volume (1000 tonnes) 20341.3 17975.9 18451.5 Price (Euro/tonne) 2692.4 2873.4 2698.2 Gear: Demersal trawl and seine Size: 24-40 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 (1-6) mln Euro, segment total Revenue 2.1 1.5 1.7 0.0 0.0 Fuel 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.0 Effort related costs 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.0 Repair and maintence 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 Crew 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.0 0.0 Fixed costs 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 Derived indicators Gross cash flow 0.2 0 0 Gross value added 0.8 0 0 Net profit 0.1 0 0 Capacity indicators Employment (FTE?) 25 21 13 Effort (1000 DAS) 736 631 665 Number of vessels 7 5 5 5 Fleet (1000 kW) 2.2 1.7 1.7 Fleet (1000 GT) 1.0 0.8 0.8 Volume (1000 tonnes) 711.5 586.9 714.1 Price (Euro/tonne) 3260 3063 3170 Gear: Drift and fixed nets Size: 12-24 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 (1-6) mln Euro, segment total Revenue 0.6 0.8 0.8 0.0 0.0 Fuel 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 Effort related costs 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 Repair and maintence 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 Crew 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 Fixed costs 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 Derived indicators Gross cash flow 0.1 0 0 Gross value added 0.4 0 0 Net profit 0.1 0 0 Capacity indicators Employment (FTE?) 15 12 12 Effort (1000 DAS) 402 292 267 Number of vessels 4 3 3 3 Fleet (1000 kW) 1.3 1.2 1.2 Fleet (1000 GT) 0.2 0.2 0.2 Volume (1000 tonnes) 121.6 228.0 131.2


59

Price (Euro/tonne) 3012.8 3647.5 2847.6

3 CYPRUS

Gear: Demersal trawl and seine

Size: 12-24 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 (1-6) mln Euro, segment total Revenue 2.7 0 Fuel 0.7 0 Effort related costs 0.2 0 Repair and maintence 0.4 0 Crew 0.6 Fixed costs 0.1 0 Derived indicators Gross cash flow 0 0.8 0 Gross value added 0 1.4 0 Net profit 0 0.6 0 Capacity indicators Employment (FTE?) 112.0 Effort (1000 DAS) 1609.0 Number of vessels 16.0 Fleet (1000 kW) 5.6 Fleet (1000 GT) 1.9 Volume (tonnes) 851.2 Price (Euro/tonne) 3171.8

Gear: Passive gears

Size: <12 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 (1-6) mln Euro, segment total Revenue 3.4 0 Fuel 2.9 0 Effort related costs 1.8 0 Repair and maintence 0.4 0 Crew 0.5 Fixed costs 0.6 0 Derived indicators Gross cash flow 0 -2.3 0 Gross value added 0 -1.7 0 Net profit 0 -2.9 0 Capacity indicators Employment (FTE?) 956.0 Effort (1000 DAS) 84400.0 Number of vessels 499.0 Fleet (1000 kW) 19.2 Fleet (1000 GT) 1.6 Volume (tonnes) 424.3

60

Price (Euro/tonne) 8111.0

Gear: Passive polyvalent

Size: 12-24 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 (1-6) mln Euro, segment total Revenue 1.9 0 Fuel 0.3 0 Effort related costs 0.6 0 Repair and maintence 0.2 0 Crew 1.0 Fixed costs 0.1 0 Derived indicators Gross cash flow -0.2 0 Gross value added 0.9 0 Net profit -0.3 0 Capacity indicators Employment (FTE?) 98.0 Effort (1000 DAS) 2225.0 Number of vessels 34.0 Fleet (1000 kW) 6.7 Fleet (1000 GT) 1.0 Volume (tonnes) 605.9 Price (Euro/tonne) 3203.5

4 DENMARK

Gear: Beam trawl Size: 12-24 2002 2003 2004 2005mln Euro, segment total Revenue 10.0 8.3 7.8 10.9Fuel 0.6 0.9 0.9 1.2Effort related costs 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.5Repair and maintenance 1.1 1.1 1.4 1.5Crew 4.0 4.0 3.8 4.9Fixed costs 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.4Derived indicators Gross cash flow 3.8 1.8 1.3 2.8Gross value added 7.8 5.8 5.1 7.7Net profit 2.7 0.6 0.1 1.4Capacity indicators Employment (FTE=2000hr) 58.8 82.1 69.8 74.4Effort (1000 DAS) 4.1 4.9 4.1 4.2Number of vessels 24 25 26 26Fleet (1000 kW) 4.4 4.7 4.8 4.8Fleet (1000 GT) 1.0 1.1 1.3 1.3Volume (1000 tonnes) 3.1 3.7 3.3 4.1Price (Euro/tonne) 3151 2192 2243 2628 Gear: Beam trawl Size: 24-40


61

2002 2003 2004 2005mln Euro, segment total Revenue 11.8 10.0 8.2 8.3Fuel 2.7 2.6 2.7 3.3Effort related costs 1.4 1.3 1.0 1.0Repair and maintenance 1.8 1.7 1.7 1.3Crew 3.7 3.1 2.5 2.5Fixed costs 2.2 2.2 1.8 1.6Derived indicators Gross cash flow 2.1 1.4 0.3 0.3Gross value added 5.8 4.5 2.8 2.7Net profit -0.1 -0.9 -1.5 -1.3Capacity indicators Employment (FTE=2000hr) 58.8 58.3 42.5 44.4Effort (1000 DAS) 2.0 1.8 1.5 1.4Number of vessels 7 8 7 6Fleet (1000 kW) 5.8 6.8 6.8 6.0Fleet (1000 GT) 1.9 2.2 2.2 2.0Volume (1000 tonnes) 4.6 3.8 3.6 3.6Price (Euro/tonne) 2247 2313 2275 2340 Gear: Demersal trawl and seine Size: <12 2002 2003 2004 2005mln Euro, segment total Revenue 2.5 2.8 1.6 1.9Fuel 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2Effort related costs 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2Repair and maintenance 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.4Crew 1.2 1.9 1.6 1.2Fixed costs 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.3Derived indicators Gross cash flow 0.3 0.0 -0.8 0.0Gross value added 1.5 1.9 0.8 1.1Net profit 0.0 -0.5 -1.2 -0.3Capacity indicators Employment (FTE=2000hr) 34.0 38.1 31.4 20.0Effort (1000 DAS) 3.2 3.4 3.4 2.2Number of vessels 34 26 26 21Fleet (1000 kW) 3.9 3.1 3.0 2.5Fleet (1000 GT) 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3Volume (1000 tonnes) 1.5 2.1 4.2 4.2Price (Euro/tonne) 1545 789 450 435 Gear: Demersal trawl and seine Size: 12-24 2002 2003 2004 2005mln Euro, segment total Revenue 83.2 63.3 55.4 56.9Fuel 7.4 6.5 7.0 7.6Effort related costs 10.2 7.7 7.2 6.9Repair and maintenance 16.3 12.8 12.3 10.6Crew 41.8 35.1 31.1 29.2Fixed costs 13.8 10.9 10.9 9.0

62

Derived indicators Gross cash flow 7.5 1.1 -2.2 2.7Gross value added 49.3 36.2 28.9 31.8Net profit -6.3 -9.8 -13.1 -6.4Capacity indicators Employment (FTE=2000hr) 966.8 793.4 731.8 621.2Effort (1000 DAS) 62.2 52.9 49.2 42.5Number of vessels 384 314 306 265Fleet (1000 kW) 69.9 57.8 55.6 47.8Fleet (1000 GT) 10.6 10.0 10.5 8.8Volume (1000 tonnes) 76.7 71.4 85.3 80.9Price (Euro/tonne) 997 824 636 703 Gear: Pelagic trawl and seine Size: 12-24 2002 2003 2004 2005mln Euro, segment total Revenue 53.0 42.5 38.3 39.8Fuel 5.6 6.1 6.4 7.3Effort related costs 5.8 5.3 5.0 4.9Repair and maintenance 9.1 8.6 7.7 6.9Crew 22.9 19.5 17.0 16.9Fixed costs 10.3 9.7 7.8 7.5Derived indicators Gross cash flow 9.5 2.9 2.2 3.7Gross value added 32.5 22.4 19.2 20.7Net profit -0.8 -6.8 -5.6 -3.7Capacity indicators Employment (FTE=2000hr) 491.6 460.3 402.4 349.2Effort (1000 DAS) 23.1 20.9 20.8 18.1Number of vessels 116 105 107 97Fleet (1000 kW) 38.5 35.4 35.6 31.9Fleet (1000 GT) 8.5 8.8 9.3 8.3Volume (1000 tonnes) 103.3 63.7 67.8 66.1Price (Euro/tonne) 495 628 555 588 Gear: Pelagic trawl and seine Size: 24-40 2002 2003 2004 2005mln Euro, segment total Revenue 131.0 86.0 74.5 69.0Fuel 15.7 15.0 15.9 16.2Effort related costs 16.4 12.4 11.5 9.3Repair and maintenance 21.9 19.7 16.2 12.5Crew 44.8 30.4 27.1 23.8Fixed costs 27.6 25.2 24.5 17.8Derived indicators Gross cash flow 32.2 8.6 3.7 7.1Gross value added 77.0 39.0 30.8 30.9Net profit 4.6 -16.7 -20.8 -10.7Capacity indicators Employment (FTE=2000hr) 819.9 705.2 633.2 511.9Effort (1000 DAS) 31.4 29.7 26.3 20.2Number of vessels 134 124 118 93


63

Fleet (1000 kW) 80.1 74.4 70.3 54.2Fleet (1000 GT) 33.2 31.2 29.2 22.4Volume (1000 tonnes) 607.1 376.0 355.3 244.6Price (Euro/tonne) 214 223 202 278 Gear: Pelagic trawl and seine Size: >40 2002 2003 2004 2005mln Euro, segment total Revenue 106.0 70.7 82.4 108.1Fuel 8.7 8.8 12.3 15.0Effort related costs 9.6 8.0 8.2 7.3Repair and maintenance 17.1 15.9 17.8 17.1Crew 31.0 20.3 23.5 26.4Fixed costs 20.9 19.4 25.2 25.6Derived indicators Gross cash flow 39.6 17.7 20.6 42.3Gross value added 70.6 38.0 44.1 68.7Net profit 18.7 -1.8 -4.6 16.8Capacity indicators Employment (FTE=2000hr) 353.2 309.2 338.4 312.7Effort (1000 DAS) 10.6 10.6 10.2 7.4Number of vessels 44 42 45 39Fleet (1000 kW) 47.4 45.3 56.7 53.8Fleet (1000 GT) 25.6 25.0 28.8 25.9Volume (1000 tonnes) 479.9 379.1 418.2 373.6Price (Euro/tonne) 217 188 192 269 Gear: Dredge Size: <12 2002 2003 2004 2005mln Euro, segment total Revenue 8.6 7.2 9.2 6.9Fuel 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4Effort related costs 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2Repair and maintenance 1.0 0.9 1.2 1.0Crew 3.5 3.1 4.6 3.0Fixed costs 0.8 0.3 0.9 0.7Derived indicators Gross cash flow 3.7 2.9 2.9 2.3Gross value added 7.3 6.0 7.5 5.3Net profit 2.9 2.6 2.0 1.6Capacity indicators Employment (FTE=2000hr) 51.6 47.6 70.4 53.6Effort (1000 DAS) 4.3 4.5 6.4 4.3Number of vessels 30 32 38 37Fleet (1000 kW) 3.8 3.9 3.9 4.0Fleet (1000 GT) 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5Volume (1000 tonnes) 52.0 50.7 52.5 32.1Price (Euro/tonne) 179 175 176 206 Gear: Dredge

64

Size: 12-24 2002 2003 2004 2005mln Euro, segment total Revenue 13.9 9.4 7.7 5.3Fuel 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4Effort related costs 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2Repair and maintenance 2.8 1.7 1.6 1.3Crew 4.5 3.0 2.7 1.9Fixed costs 1.3 0.9 1.0 0.7Derived indicators Gross cash flow 5.9 4.2 2.9 1.5Gross value added 10.5 7.1 5.6 3.4Net profit 4.6 3.3 1.9 0.9Capacity indicators Employment (FTE=2000hr) 59.5 38.0 31.4 27.9Effort (1000 DAS) 4.1 3.5 2.8 2.0Number of vessels 34 29 23 23Fleet (1000 kW) 4.1 3.5 3.5 3.5Fleet (1000 GT) 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7Volume (1000 tonnes) 59.7 42.5 51.9 38.4Price (Euro/tonne) 194 170 146 161 Gear: Passive gears Size: <12 2002 2003 2004 2005mln Euro, segment total Revenue 25.2 24.1 21.5 24.2Fuel 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.4Effort related costs 3.2 2.9 2.7 3.0Repair and maintenance 5.5 5.3 5.3 5.8Crew 18.5 17.5 15.4 15.6Fixed costs 4.7 4.3 4.2 4.0Derived indicators Gross cash flow -3.2 -2.7 -3.1 -1.6Gross value added 15.4 14.8 12.4 14.0Net profit -7.8 -7.0 -7.2 -5.5Capacity indicators Employment (FTE=2000hr) 420.6 400.2 328.2 315.5Effort (1000 DAS) 48.7 44.1 42.8 42.6Number of vessels 339 318 312 324Fleet (1000 kW) 22.1 20.9 20.0 20.3Fleet (1000 GT) 2.2 2.0 1.9 1.9Volume (1000 tonnes) 12.0 11.7 11.1 10.0Price (Euro/tonne) 1995 1971 1964 2353 Gear: Passive polyvalent Size: 12-24 2002 2003 2004 2005

mln Euro, segment total Revenue 36.7 30.3 25.5 29.0 Fuel 1.8 1.6 1.4 2.0 Effort related costs 4.3 3.9 3.4 3.4


65

Repair and maintenance 5.7 4.9 4.1 5.0 Crew 20.7 17.0 14.1 15.1 Fixed costs 7.4 5.2 4.5 5.0 Derived indicators Gross cash flow 4.2 3.0 2.5 3.6 Gross value added 24.9 20.0 16.6 18.7 Net profit -3.1 -2.2 -2.0 -1.4 Capacity indicators Employment (FTE=2000hr) 534.8 411.8 329.3 317.9 Effort (1000 DAS) 25.4 19.7 16.8 17.0 Number of vessels 160 121 118 116 Fleet (1000 kW) 26.6 19.1 18.4 18.0 Fleet (1000 GT) 5.0 4.4 4.5 4.2 Volume (1000 tonnes) 15.5 12.3 9.7 11.0 Price (Euro/tonne) 2375 2355 2718 2544 Gear: Mobile and passive polyvalent Size: <12 2002 2003 2004 2005

mln Euro, segment total Revenue 3.5 4.3 3.6 4.0 Fuel 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 Effort related costs 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.4 Repair and maintenance 0.8 1.0 0.9 1.2 Crew 2.0 2.5 2.2 1.8 Fixed costs 0.7 1.0 0.9 1.1 Derived indicators Gross cash flow 0.0 0.0 -0.3 0.3 Gross value added 2.1 2.4 1.8 2.0 Net profit -0.7 -1.0 -1.3 -0.8 Capacity indicators Employment (FTE=2000hr) 44.3 51.7 45.1 39.9 Effort (1000 DAS) 5.6 6.4 6.0 6.2 Number of vessels 41 48 56 52 Fleet (1000 kW) 3.7 4.4 5.0 4.4 Fleet (1000 GT) 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.4 Volume (1000 tonnes) 1.6 1.8 2.7 2.6 Price (Euro/tonne) 1876 1703 1253 1510 Gear: Mobile and passive polyvalent Size: 12-24 2002 2003 2004 2005

mln Euro, segment total Revenue 16.9 12.8 16.3 16.3 Fuel 1.7 1.5 2.5 2.5 Effort related costs 1.6 1.5 1.9 2.0 Repair and maintenance 2.9 2.1 3.1 2.8 Crew 8.0 5.9 6.9 7.3 Fixed costs 3.8 2.7 5.2 3.7

66

Derived indicators Gross cash flow 2.8 1.9 2.0 1.6 Gross value added 10.8 7.8 8.9 8.9 Net profit -0.9 -0.9 -3.2 -2.1 Capacity indicators Employment (FTE=2000hr) 156.7 114.1 146.2 146.4 Effort (1000 DAS) 9.7 7.3 9.4 9.1 Number of vessels 62 52 60 68 Fleet (1000 kW) 12.6 11.0 11.9 12.4 Fleet (1000 GT) 3.0 2.9 3.1 3.0 Volume (1000 tonnes) 9.2 8.1 10.6 16.3 Price (Euro/tonne) 1818 1720 1443 1011

5 ESTONIA

No data was submitted

6 FINLAND

Gear: Pelagic trawl and seine Size: 12-24 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 (1-6) mln Euro, segment total Revenue 5,9 5,3 4 2,7 0 Fuel 0,6 0,5 0,5 0,6 0 Effort related costs 0 0 0 0,0 0 Repair and maintence 1,9 2,1 1,3 0,7 0 Crew 2,1 2,1 1,6 0,9 Fixed costs 1,4 1,2 1,1 0,7 0 Derived indicators Gross cash flow 1,3 0,6 0,6 0,6 0 Gross value added 3,4 2,7 2,2 1,5 0 Net profit -0,1 -0,6 -0,5 -0,2 0 Capacity indicators Employment (FTE?) 108,3 111,7 99,4 68 Effort (1000 DAS) 4,1 3,3 2,7 2,6 Number of vessels 65 64 53 38 Fleet (1000 kW) 17,8 17,5 14,7 10,8 Fleet (1000 GT) 2,9 2,8 2,6 1,8 Volume (tonnes) 35,5 30,8 31,6 27,8 Price (Euro/tonne) Gear: Pelagic trawl and seine Size: 24-40 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 (1-6) mln Euro, segment total Revenue 9,6 7,2 8,5 8,2 0 Fuel 1,3 0,9 1,2 2,0 0 Effort related costs 0 0 0 0,0 0 Repair and maintence 3 2,9 3,3 2,4 0


67

Crew 3,9 2,6 3,1 2,7 Fixed costs 1,5 0,8 1,1 1,6 0 Derived indicators Gross cash flow 1,4 0,8 0,9 1,0 0 Gross value added 5,3 3,4 4 3,8 0 Net profit -0,1 0 -0,2 -0,5 0 Capacity indicators Employment (FTE?) 70,9 64,3 98 64 Effort (1000 DAS) 2,4 1,7 1,8 2,4 Number of vessels 21 20 24 18 Fleet (1000 kW) 14,1 13,4 17 12,5 Fleet (1000 GT) 4,2 4,1 5,5 4,6 Volume (tonnes) 44,1 35,4 45,6 51,5 Price (Euro/tonne) Gear: Drift and fixed nets Size: 12-24 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 (1-6) mln Euro, segment total Revenue 1,7 1,3 1,2 1,4 0 Fuel 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,1 0 Effort related costs 0 0 0 0,0 0 Repair and maintence 1 0,8 0,7 0,7 0 Crew 0,4 0,3 0,3 0,2 Fixed costs 0,3 0,2 0,2 0,2 0 Derived indicators Gross cash flow 0,2 0,1 0,1 0,4 0 Gross value added 0,6 0,4 0,4 0,6 0 Net profit -0,1 -0,1 -0,1 0,2 0 Capacity indicators Employment (FTE?) 34,2 30,9 35 37 Effort (1000 DAS) 1,1 0,9 0,9 0,9 Number of vessels 18 13 15 17 Fleet (1000 kW) 3,7 2,7 3,3 3,5 Fleet (1000 GT) 0,5 0,4 0,5 0,4 Volume (tonnes) 0,5 0,6 0,5 0,4 Price (Euro/tonne)

7 FRANCE

Gear: Demersal trawl and seine Size: <12 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 (1-6) mln Euro, segment total Revenue 51,3 48,4 47,4 Fuel 4,6 4,1 4,9 Effort related costs 7,7 9,5 9,8 Repair and maintence 2,5 3,4 3,8 Crew 23,0 21,5 20,6 Fixed costs 3,6 6,4 5,9

68

Derived indicators Gross cash flow 13,4 10,0 8,2 Gross value added 36,5 31,5 28,8 Net profit 9,8 3,6 2,3 Capacity indicators Employment (FTE) 701 679 620 Effort (1000 DAS) Number of vessels 378 374 338 Fleet (1000 kW) 43,1 41,6 39,7 Fleet (1000 GT) 3,9 3,6 3,4 Volume (1000 tonnes) 10,4 Price (Euro/tonne) 4541 Gear: Demersal trawl and seine Size: 12-24 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 (1-6) mln Euro, segment total Revenue 272,0 305,9 288,0 Fuel 37,5 45,1 50,4 Effort related costs 89,4 75,0 68,4 Repair and maintence 23,4 25,6 25,0 Crew 76,2 118,5 108,1 Fixed costs 33,0 37,6 38,4 Derived indicators Gross cash flow 45,5 41,6 36,0 Gross value added 121,7 160,2 144,2 Net profit 12,4 4,1 -2,3 Capacity indicators Employment (FTE) 2680 2800 2610 Effort (1000 DAS) Number of vessels 614 594 546 Fleet (1000 kW) 191,5 197,9 180,8 Fleet (1000 GT) 30,3 32,5 30,6 Volume (1000 tonnes) 97,7 Price (Euro/tonne) 2948 Gear: Demersal trawl and seine Size: 24-40 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 (1-6) mln Euro, segment total Revenue 98,5 97,2 96,2 Fuel 14,9 16,3 19,4 Effort related costs 32,1 24,4 23,9 Repair and maintence 5,9 6,7 6,1 Crew 27,2 34,3 32,8 Fixed costs 15,1 13,1 14,3 Derived indicators Gross cash flow 18,5 15,5 14,1 Gross value added 45,7 49,8 46,9 Net profit 3,4 2,4 -0,2 Capacity indicators Employment (FTE) 850 825 798 Effort (1000 DAS) Number of vessels 147 127 133


69

Fleet (1000 kW) 63,8 58,7 54,6 Fleet (1000 GT) 14,9 14,0 13,0 Volume (1000 tonnes) 33,1 Price (Euro/tonne) 2909 Gear: Demersal trawl and seine Size: >40 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 (1-6) mln Euro, segment total Revenue 65,0 45,3 39,0 Fuel 8,6 8,0 7,8 Effort related costs 22,2 16,3 14,3 Repair and maintence 8,0 6,5 4,2 Crew 26,9 19,4 17,2 Fixed costs 5,0 5,0 4,8 Derived indicators Gross cash flow -0,7 -4,9 -4,5 Gross value added 26,3 14,5 12,7 Net profit -5,7 -10,0 -9,4 Capacity indicators Employment (FTE) 437 373 300 Effort (1000 DAS) Number of vessels 23 20 16 Fleet (1000 kW) 53,0 32,6 39,2 Fleet (1000 GT) 14,7 12,5 10,0 Volume (1000 tonnes) 15,0 Price (Euro/tonne) 2597 Gear: Pelagic trawl and seine Size: 12-24 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 (1-6) mln Euro, segment total Revenue 63,0 73,4 64,9 Fuel 6,2 7,9 6,6 Effort related costs 22,0 13,2 13,1 Repair and maintence 6,2 5,7 5,3 Crew 15,6 32,1 28,1 Fixed costs 6,8 6,4 6,7 Derived indicators Gross cash flow 13,0 14,4 11,8 Gross value added 28,6 46,5 39,9 Net profit 6,2 8,1 5,1 Capacity indicators Employment (FTE) 681 739 712 Effort (1000 DAS) Number of vessels 124 124 118 Fleet (1000 kW) 37,5 38,6 33,6 Fleet (1000 GT) 6,0 6,7 6,3 Volume (1000 tonnes) 39,7 Price (Euro/tonne) 1633 Gear: Pelagic trawl and seine Size: 24-40 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 (1-6)

70

mln Euro, segment total Revenue 0,0 0,0 28,3 Fuel 0,0 0,0 5,0 Effort related costs 0,0 0,0 6,5 Repair and maintence 0,0 0,0 1,2 Crew 0,0 0,0 13,3 Fixed costs 0,0 0,0 6,0 Derived indicators Gross cash flow 0,0 0,0 2,4 Gross value added 0,0 0,0 15,6 Net profit 0,0 0,0 -3,6 Capacity indicators Employment (FTE) 348 Effort (1000 DAS) Number of vessels 34 45 Fleet (1000 kW) 17,4 Fleet (1000 GT) 5,4 Volume (1000 tonnes) 4,9 Price (Euro/tonne) 5828 Gear: Pelagic trawl and seine Size: >40 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 (1-6) mln Euro, segment total Revenue 196,9 177,1 187,2 Fuel 23,8 23,2 24,8 Effort related costs 35,2 34,4 32,8 Repair and maintence 29,0 30,7 37,3 Crew 58,4 57,2 59,1 Fixed costs 24,6 22,3 23,7 Derived indicators Gross cash flow 50,5 31,5 33,1 Gross value added 108,9 88,8 92,2 Net profit 25,9 9,2 9,4 Capacity indicators Employment (FTE) 964 946 901 Effort (1000 DAS) Number of vessels 38 38 37 Fleet (1000 kW) 108,0 106,0 105,6 Fleet (1000 GT) 49,0 46,1 47,5 Volume (1000 tonnes) 12,3 Price (Euro/tonne) 15199 Gear: Dredge Size: <12 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 (1-6) mln Euro, segment total Revenue 16,3 22,1 22,6 Fuel 0,9 1,4 1,7 Effort related costs 3,0 4,6 4,6 Repair and maintence 0,8 1,3 1,4 Crew 7,3 9,9 10,4 Fixed costs 1,3 2,7 2,1 Derived indicators


71

Gross cash flow 4,4 4,9 4,5 Gross value added 11,7 14,8 14,9 Net profit 3,1 2,2 2,4 Capacity indicators Employment (FTE) 333 379 367 Effort (1000 DAS) Number of vessels 152 169 158 Fleet (1000 kW) 17,3 18,8 18,2 Fleet (1000 GT) 1,4 1,7 1,6 Volume (1000 tonnes) 12,9 Price (Euro/tonne) 1749 Gear: Dredge Size: 12-24 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 (1-6) mln Euro, segment total Revenue 47,8 49,7 45,5 Fuel 4,5 5,4 5,4 Effort related costs 15,5 11,4 10,5 Repair and maintence 3,3 4,3 3,5 Crew 15,6 21,1 18,7 Fixed costs 4,5 7,2 5,2 Derived indicators Gross cash flow 8,8 7,5 7,4 Gross value added 24,5 28,6 26,1 Net profit 4,3 0,3 2,3 Capacity indicators Employment (FTE) 633 649 556 Effort (1000 DAS) Number of vessels 139 134 120 Fleet (1000 kW) 32,1 35,8 30,4 Fleet (1000 GT) 4,6 4,8 4,4 Volume (1000 tonnes) 15,8 Price (Euro/tonne) 2883 Gear: MGPMobile polyvalent Size: <12 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 (1-6) mln Euro, segment total Revenue 10,2 5,8 7,1 Fuel 0,8 0,4 0,7 Effort related costs 1,5 1,2 1,3 Repair and maintence 0,5 0,7 0,5 Crew 4,6 2,6 3,2 Fixed costs 0,7 0,6 0,9 Derived indicators Gross cash flow 2,9 0,8 1,6 Gross value added 7,4 3,5 4,7 Net profit 2,2 0,3 0,7 Capacity indicators Employment (FTE) 132 91 118 Effort (1000 DAS) Number of vessels 66 56 65 Fleet (1000 kW) 9,0 5,7 6,1

72

Fleet (1000 GT) 0,9 0,5 0,6 Volume (1000 tonnes) 7,3 Price (Euro/tonne) 977 Gear: MGP Mobile polyvalent Size: 12-24 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 (1-6) mln Euro, segment total Revenue 10,4 0,0 11,2 Fuel 0,6 2,0 1,7 Effort related costs 4,6 3,4 2,3 Repair and maintence 0,5 0,9 0,9 Crew 2,7 5,4 4,4 Fixed costs 1,7 1,4 1,6 Derived indicators Gross cash flow 2,0 -11,8 1,9 Gross value added 4,6 -6,3 6,3 Net profit 0,2 -13,1 0,3 Capacity indicators Employment (FTE) 121 147 134 Effort (1000 DAS) Number of vessels 33 34 31 Fleet (1000 kW) 9,2 7,7 Fleet (1000 GT) 1,6 1,3 Volume (1000 tonnes) 5,2 Price (Euro/tonne) 2149 Gear: Passive gears Size: <12 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 (1-6) mln Euro, segment total Revenue 177,2 241,4 253,1 Fuel 8,0 9,9 12,2 Effort related costs 32,5 51,2 55,3 Repair and maintence 8,8 12,7 13,0 Crew 89,6 117,9 122,6 Fixed costs 12,8 23,9 22,5 Derived indicators Gross cash flow 38,4 49,8 50,0 Gross value added 127,9 167,6 172,6 Net profit 25,6 25,9 27,6 Capacity indicators Employment (FTE) 4199 4661 4599 Effort (1000 DAS) Number of vessels 2803 2778 2740 Fleet (1000 kW) 210,9 252,7 243,6 Fleet (1000 GT) 12,7 14,9 15,3 Volume (1000 tonnes) 33,7 Price (Euro/tonne) 7520 Gear: Drift and fixed nets

Size: 12-24 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 (1-6)


73

mln Euro, segment total Revenue 72,5 70,4 71,1 Fuel 3,7 3,9 4,1 Effort related costs 27,2 20,2 18,4 Repair and maintence 4,9 5,0 5,4 Crew 22,8 31,3 31,1 Fixed costs 7,6 6,5 7,1 Derived indicators Gross cash flow 13,8 10,1 12,0 Gross value added 36,6 41,4 43,1 Net profit 6,2 3,6 4,9 Capacity indicators Employment (FTE) 863 890 826 Effort (1000 DAS) Number of vessels 194 180 169 Fleet (1000 kW) 40,4 44,1 40,5 Fleet (1000 GT) 5,2 7,0 6,5 Volume (1000 tonnes) 11,5 Price (Euro/tonne) 6166 Gear: Pots and traps Size: 12-24 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 (1-6) mln Euro, segment total Revenue 0,0 10,4 8,5 Fuel 0,0 0,4 0,5 Effort related costs 0,0 2,0 1,8 Repair and maintence 0,0 0,7 0,4 Crew 0,0 4,4 3,7 Fixed costs 0,0 0,7 0,7 Derived indicators Gross cash flow 0,0 3,0 2,1 Gross value added 0,0 7,4 5,9 Net profit 0,0 2,3 1,4 Capacity indicators Employment (FTE) 121 119 Effort (1000 DAS) Number of vessels 24 23 22 Fleet (1000 kW) 5450,0 5094,0 Fleet (1000 GT) 1022,0 976,2 Volume (1000 tonnes) 3,8 Price (Euro/tonne) 2224 Gear: Mobile and passive polyvalent Size: <12 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 (1-6) mln Euro, segment total Revenue 22,3 24,3 25,3 Fuel 1,2 1,2 1,5 Effort related costs 4,0 5,1 5,4 Repair and maintence 1,0 1,4 1,2 Crew 10,8 11,7 12,1 Fixed costs 1,6 3,3 2,0 Derived indicators

74

Gross cash flow 5,3 4,9 5,1 Gross value added 16,1 16,6 17,2 Net profit 3,7 1,5 3,1 Capacity indicators Employment (FTE) 425 422 395 Effort (1000 DAS) Number of vessels 250 233 215 Fleet (1000 kW) 23,5 22,6 21,9 Fleet (1000 GT) 1,7 1,9 1,7 Volume (1000 tonnes) 17,3 Price (Euro/tonne) 1458

8 GERMANY

Only fragmented data was submitted

9 GREECE

Gear: Demersal trawl and seine Size: 12-24 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 (1-6) mln Euro, segment total Revenue 32,4 55,9 0 Fuel 10,0 8,9 0 Effort related costs 6,6 8,0 0 Repair and maintence 2,5 2,8 0 Crew 6,6 7,0 Fixed costs 23,6 12,4 0 Derived indicators Gross cash flow 6,8 29,3 0 Gross value added 13,3 36,3 0 Net profit -16,8 16,9 0 Capacity indicators Employment (Engaged) 847 711 682 706 Effort (1000 DAS) 31,0 29,4 29,0 30,1 Number of vessels 180 169 161 163 Fleet (1000 kW) 47,5 44,9 43,2 42,9 Fleet (1000 GT) 8,5 8,1 7,8 8,0 Volume (tonnes) 9.858,8 12.684,6 Price (Euro/tonne) 3.291,2 4.409,7 Gear: Demersal trawl and seine Size: 24-40 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 (1-6) mln Euro, segment total Revenue 51,0 65,2 0 Fuel 23,7 10,3 0 Effort related costs 9,1 11,0 0 Repair and maintence 2,4 2,4 0 Crew 8,2 8,9 Fixed costs 7,8 4,5 0 Derived indicators


75

Gross cash flow 7,5 32,6 0 Gross value added 15,8 41,5 0 Net profit -0,3 28,1 0 Capacity indicators Employment (Engaged) 848 849 846 930 Effort (1000 DAS) 31,0 29,4 29,0 30,1 Number of vessels 170 170 173 184 Fleet (1000 kW) 54,5 53,9 54,8 57,4 Fleet (1000 GT) 18,9 19,5 20,4 23,6 Volume (tonnes) 11.244,5 16.150,1 Price (Euro/tonne) 4.539,6 4.035,8 Gear: Pelagic trawl and seine Size: 12-24 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 (1-6) mln Euro, segment total Revenue 73,6 64,0 0 Fuel 18,2 9,0 0 Effort related costs 10,1 12,0 0 Repair and maintence 3,0 4,2 0 Crew 14,1 11,9 Fixed costs 46,1 0 Derived indicators Gross cash flow 28,1 26,9 0 Gross value added 42,2 38,9 0 Net profit -18,0 26,9 0 Capacity indicators Employment (Engaged) 2027 1633 1851 1729 Effort (1000 DAS) 49,2 47,7 52,1 52,3 Number of vessels 306 295 288 284 Fleet (1000 kW) 53,3 50,8 49,7 48,5 Fleet (1000 GT) 10,4 10,0 9,9 10,1 Volume (tonnes) 34.030,1 41.105,9 Price (Euro/tonne) 2.163,5 1.557,4 Gear: Pelagic trawl and seine Size: 24-40 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 (1-6) mln Euro, segment total Revenue 6,7 10,5 0 Fuel 1,2 0,9 0 Effort related costs 1,6 2,2 0 Repair and maintence 0,2 0,6 0 Crew 1,4 1,7 Fixed costs 0,0 0 Derived indicators Gross cash flow 2,2 5,1 0 Gross value added 3,6 6,8 0 Net profit 2,2 5,1 0 Capacity indicators Employment (Engaged) 302 346 200 267 Effort (1000 DAS) 2,7 2,9 4,0 5,7 Number of vessels 11 13 21 26

76

Fleet (1000 kW) 2,2 2,8 5,2 6,0 Fleet (1000 GT) 0,9 1,1 1,9 2,4 Volume (�ones) 3.901,2 8.616,1 Price (Euro/tonne) 1.715,7 1.223,5


77

Gear: Passive gears Size: <12 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 (1-6) mln Euro, segment total Revenue 506,7 497,9 0 Fuel 56,0 46,2 0 Effort related costs 40,8 55,8 0 Repair and maintence 43,0 47,6 0 Crew 23,0 47,2 Fixed costs 95,4 0 Derived indicators Gross cash flow 343,9 301,1 0 Gross value added 366,9 348,2 0 Net profit 248,5 301,1 0 Capacity indicators Employment (Engaged) 23.337 22.825 21.989 21.852 Effort (1000 DAS) 2.918,9 2.867,9 2.631,7 2.749,4 Number of vessels 18.201 17.820 17.288 17.457 Fleet (1000 kW) 366,6 337,3 317,4 316,0 Fleet (1000 GT) 52,8 34,0 32,1 32,5 Volume (tonnes) 93.297,6 79.131,4 Price (Euro/tonne) 5.431,1 6.291,5 Segment 18 Gear: Gears using hooks Size: 12-24 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 (1-6) mln Euro, segment total Revenue 18,4 13,0 0 Fuel 1,2 1,1 0 Effort related costs 5,6 4,1 0 Repair and maintence 0,8 1,2 0 Crew 4,0 3,4 Fixed costs 0 Derived indicators Gross cash flow 6,8 3,3 0 Gross value added 10,8 6,7 0 Net profit 6,8 3,3 0 Capacity indicators Employment (Engaged) 334 287 338 246 Effort (1000 DAS) 16,8 11,9 11,1 10,2 Number of vessels 125 111 106 97 Fleet (1000 kW) 14,8 13,2 10,7 9,7 Fleet (1000 GT) 2,7 2,4 2,2 2,1 Volume (�ones) 1.148,4 1.328,1 Price (Euro/tonne) 16.063,5 9.816,3

78

Gear: Drift and fixed nets Size: 12-24 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 (1-6) mln Euro, segment total Revenue 24,2 18,5 0 Fuel 2,9 2,1 0 Effort related costs 2,7 2,5 0 Repair and maintence 1,3 1,7 0 Crew 1,2 1,9 Fixed costs 10,8 1,4 0 Derived indicators Gross cash flow 16,2 10,3 0 Gross value added 17,4 12,2 0 Net profit 5,4 8,9 0 Capacity indicators Employment (Engaged) 686 636 576 575 Effort (1000 DAS) 63,4 59,3 57,3 57,1 Number of vessels 374 341 340 342 Fleet (1000 kW) 35,3 31,2 31,6 32,1 Fleet (1000 GT) 6,5 5,9 5,9 5,9 Volume (tonnes) 1.687,8 2.459,1 Price (Euro/tonne) 14.340,3 7.535,1 Segment 30 Gear: Passive polyvalent Size: < 12 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 (1-6) mln Euro, segment total Revenue 15,4 15,47 0 Fuel 1,4 0,95 0 Effort related costs 1,7 1,55 0 Repair and maintence 1,5 1,45 0 Crew 1,9 2,29 Fixed costs 16,7 7,95 0 Derived indicators Gross cash flow 8,9 9,2 0 Gross value added 10,8 11,5 0 Net profit -7,8 1,3 0 Average price 100 Capacity indicators Employment (Engaged) 908 810 760 626 Effort (1000 DAS) 45,7 43,2 37,6 39,0 Number of vessels 419 386 366 359 Fleet (1000 kW) 22,4 20,8 19,8 19,5 Fleet (1000 GT) 2,3 2,1 2,0 2,0 Volume (�ones) 4.835,7 4.311,0 Price (Euro/tonne) 3.188,2 3.588,9 Segment 31 Gear: Passive polyvalent Size: 12-24 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 (1-6) mln Euro, segment total Revenue 2,0 1,8 0 Fuel 0,4 0,2 0


79

Effort related costs 0,4 0,2 0 Repair and maintence 0,2 0,2 0 Crew 1,3 0,4 Fixed costs 0,2 0 Derived indicators Gross cash flow -0,3 0,8 0 Gross value added 1,0 1,2 0 Net profit -0,3 0,6 0 Capacity indicators Employment (Engaged) 129 103 114 111 Effort (1000 DAS) 7,4 6,5 5,3 5,6 Number of vessels 64 54 51 53 Fleet (1000 kW) 6,4 5,5 5,2 5,5 Fleet (1000 GT) 0,9 0,8 0,7 0,7 Volume (tonnes) 203,8 881,5 Price (Euro/tonne) 9.825,0 2.048,5

10 IRELAND


11 ITALY

Gear: Beam trawl Size: 12-24 2002.0 2003.0 2004.0 2005.0 2006 (1-6) mln Euro, segment total Revenue 19.2 17.8 8.9 Fuel 6.0 6.0 3.0 Effort related costs 1.9 1.8 0.9 Repair and maintence 1.5 1.2 0.6 Crew 5.9 4.3 2.2 Fixed costs 1.6 1.7 0.9 Derived indicators Gross cash flow 3.9 4.5 2.2 Gross value added 9.8 8.8 4.4 Net profit 2.4 2.8 1.3 Capacity indicators Employment (engaged crew) 334.3 298.9 312.1 Effort (1000 DAS) 12.4 14.0 6.4 Number of vessels 85.0 89.0 94.0 Fleet (1000 kW) 23.0 24.5 26.5 Fleet (1000 GT) 4.4 4.7 5.1 Volume (tonnes) 3060.9 3024.2 1507.2 Price (Euro/tonne) 6.3 5.9 5.9 Gear: Demersal trawl and seine Size: <12 2002.0 2003.0 2004.0 2005.0 2006 (1-6)

80

mln Euro, segment total Revenue 8.5 2.5 5.7 8.5 6.2 Fuel 1.7 0.6 1.3 2.8 2.4 Effort related costs 0.9 0.3 1.1 1.6 1.2 Repair and maintence 0.9 0.4 0.7 0.5 0.3 Crew 2.9 0.8 1.6 1.8 1.1 Fixed costs 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.3 Derived indicators Gross cash flow 2.1 0.4 1.0 1.8 1.1 Gross value added 4.9 1.3 2.5 3.6 2.2 Net profit 1.6 0.3 0.7 1.4 0.8 Capacity indicators Employment (engaged crew) 153.0 42.0 132.0 204.0 248.9 Effort (1000 DAS) 10.4 6.8 3.9 13.2 10.3 Number of vessels 136.0 49.0 66.0 109.0 133.0 Fleet (1000 kW) 11.1 4.2 5.3 7.8 9.8 Fleet (1000 GT) 1.0 0.3 0.3 0.6 0.8 Volume (tonnes) 1416.7 495.7 883.3 1840.4 889.7 Price (Euro/tonne) 6.0 5.1 6.4 4.6 6.9 Gear: Demersal trawl and seine Size: 12-24 2002.0 2003.0 2004.0 2005.0 2006 (1-6) mln Euro, segment total Revenue 419.9 359.5 447.1 496.4 269.3 Fuel 87.8 72.2 97.7 130.8 69.0 Effort related costs 49.3 40.9 50.6 56.1 27.3 Repair and maintence 42.0 35.7 45.3 33.7 16.1 Crew 134.4 113.6 135.5 135.2 64.1 Fixed costs 25.1 30.1 34.4 33.7 16.1 Derived indicators Gross cash flow 106.5 97.1 118.1 140.5 92.8 Gross value added 240.8 210.7 253.6 275.8 156.9 Net profit 81.3 67.0 83.7 106.8 76.7 Capacity indicators Employment (engaged crew) 6617.0 6769.0 7569.8 7705.7 7307.8 Effort (1000 DAS) 337.6 395.9 348.2 410.8 199.9 Number of vessels 1912.0 2156.0 2572.0 2576.0 2443.0 Fleet (1000 kW) 355.2 404.9 443.7 454.5 435.5 Fleet (1000 GT) 50.5 58.5 74.8 82.3 78.7 Volume (tonnes) 71820.9 59071.7 76091.0 73759.1 37309.9 Price (Euro/tonne) 5.8 6.1 5.9 6.7 7.2 Gear: Demersal trawl and seine Size: 24-40 2002.0 2003.0 2004.0 2005.0 2006 (1-6) mln Euro, segment total Revenue 151.6 195.7 149.1 159.5 95.5 Fuel 30.8 39.8 37.2 46.4 25.1 Effort related costs 17.9 23.3 16.4 19.4 9.7 Repair and maintence 13.3 17.2 13.4 12.8 6.1


81

Crew 49.4 60.9 39.5 39.2 18.6 Fixed costs 9.4 17.1 15.3 14.8 7.1 Derived indicators Gross cash flow 40.3 54.5 42.6 41.7 36.0 Gross value added 89.7 115.4 82.1 80.9 54.6 Net profit 30.9 37.4 27.3 26.9 28.9 Capacity indicators Employment (engaged crew) 2259.0 2422.0 2173.3 2086.7 1976.5 Effort (1000 DAS) 76.2 66.3 62.4 60.8 30.4 Number of vessels 431.0 379.0 355.0 322.0 305.0 Fleet (1000 kW) 174.7 146.2 141.2 128.2 121.1 Fleet (1000 GT) 45.6 41.7 44.6 43.1 41.4 Volume (tonnes) 23728.9 26666.8 21863.2 21062.7 9999.7 Price (Euro/tonne) 6.4 7.3 6.8 7.6 9.5 Gear: Pelagic trawl and seine Size: 12-24 2002.0 2003.0 2004.0 2005.0 2006 (1-6) mln Euro, segment total Revenue 75.8 99.4 117.0 108.3 43.4 Fuel 7.8 12.8 14.4 18.1 8.2 Effort related costs 8.3 12.2 16.9 14.4 6.0 Repair and maintence 4.5 7.1 13.2 10.2 3.5 Crew 24.1 35.4 43.3 31.9 14.3 Fixed costs 3.6 6.3 7.9 8.1 2.8 Derived indicators Gross cash flow 31.1 31.9 29.2 33.6 11.3 Gross value added 55.2 67.3 72.5 65.5 25.6 Net profit 27.4 25.6 21.3 25.6 8.5 Capacity indicators Employment (engaged crew) 1490.0 1967.0 2821.1 2414.7 2162.1 Effort (1000 DAS) 29.8 46.8 46.8 47.2 19.8 Number of vessels 263.0 402.0 383.0 392.0 351.0 Fleet (1000 kW) 50.1 89.0 92.6 100.3 76.9 Fleet (1000 GT) 6.6 13.4 16.9 20.8 14.2 Volume (tonnes) 48215.0 55988.1 57689.3 64156.2 24809.5 Price (Euro/tonne) 1.6 1.8 2.0 1.7 1.7 Gear: Pelagic trawl and seine Size: 24-40 2002.0 2003.0 2004.0 2005.0 2006 (1-6) mln Euro, segment total Revenue 63.5 57.1 41.8 25.6 25.1 Fuel 5.1 3.7 3.2 3.0 2.0 Effort related costs 7.6 7.0 3.3 2.1 1.3 Repair and maintence 3.0 3.0 2.2 2.6 1.5 Crew 25.7 21.8 11.0 9.7 6.1 Fixed costs 3.4 3.9 2.3 2.1 1.2 Derived indicators

82

Gross cash flow 22.0 21.5 22.0 8.2 14.2 Gross value added 47.8 43.4 33.0 17.9 20.3 Net profit 18.6 17.6 19.7 6.0 13.0 Capacity indicators Employment (engaged crew) 1016.0 1035.0 518.0 473.1 597.1 Effort (1000 DAS) 18.5 10.2 12.0 8.3 5.0 Number of vessels 152.0 103.0 75.0 61.0 77.0 Fleet (1000 kW) 72.1 45.5 31.7 25.1 31.0 Fleet (1000 GT) 15.9 10.5 8.2 6.3 7.3 Volume (tonnes) 38806.4 37444.4 33552.2 18874.0 13431.9 Price (Euro/tonne) 1.6 1.5 1.2 1.4 1.9 Gear: Dredge Size: 12-24 2002.0 2003.0 2004.0 2005.0 2006 (1-6) mln Euro, segment total Revenue 65.0 91.6 81.3 62.4 27.0 Fuel 5.1 7.3 6.9 7.5 4.4 Effort related costs 2.8 4.6 5.2 4.4 2.4 Repair and maintence 4.5 6.4 5.4 4.1 2.1 Crew 26.1 38.5 27.1 20.8 10.3 Fixed costs 5.5 7.4 7.3 7.1 3.5 Derived indicators Gross cash flow 26.5 34.9 36.7 25.5 7.8 Gross value added 52.6 73.3 63.8 46.3 18.1 Net profit 21.0 27.5 29.4 18.4 4.3 Capacity indicators Employment (engaged crew) 1503.0 1468.0 1428.9 1439.2 1425.1 Effort (1000 DAS) 71.9 75.0 78.6 64.5 34.7 Number of vessels 722.0 729.0 716.0 715.0 708.0 Fleet (1000 kW) 78.1 78.6 77.0 76.9 76.1 Fleet (1000 GT) 7.5 7.5 9.3 9.4 9.3 Volume (tonnes) 14702.8 26928.9 23412.3 17811.8 9036.3 Price (Euro/tonne) 4.4 3.4 3.5 3.5 3.0 Gear: Passive gears Size: <12 2002.0 2003.0 2004.0 2005.0 2006 (1-6) mln Euro, segment total Revenue 363.5 347.8 357.8 351.8 193.7 Fuel 30.1 30.2 36.5 42.9 23.7 Effort related costs 38.7 37.7 39.9 35.5 18.2 Repair and maintence 28.7 27.4 33.5 25.4 13.2 Crew 106.3 102.4 97.8 108.4 52.5 Fixed costs 17.9 18.2 20.0 20.3 10.5 Derived indicators Gross cash flow 159.7 150.0 150.2 139.6 86.1 Gross value added 266.0 252.4 247.9 248.0 138.6


83

Net profit 141.8 131.8 130.1 119.3 75.6 Capacity indicators Employment (engaged crew) 18402.0 14952.0 15508.9 13631.5 13211.5 Effort (1000 DAS) 1499.1 1361.6 1261.7 1205.3 616.0 Number of vessels 10778.0 8794.0 9623.0 9446.0 9428.0 Fleet (1000 kW) 267.2 218.9 244.1 246.0 263.0 Fleet (1000 GT) 28.5 22.9 16.3 17.6 18.2 Volume (tonnes) 56319.1 52178.6 49497.6 45497.8 22848.1 Price (Euro/tonne) 6.5 6.7 7.2 7.7 8.5 Gear: Gears using hooks Size: 12-24 2002.0 2003.0 2004.0 2005.0 2006 (1-6) mln Euro, segment total Revenue 66.1 73.1 24.4 Fuel 8.8 10.5 5.1 Effort related costs 9.9 9.5 4.2 Repair and maintence 5.2 6.0 2.9 Crew 16.1 19.6 9.5 Fixed costs 5.8 5.8 2.8 Derived indicators Gross cash flow 26.1 27.5 2.7 Gross value added 42.2 47.1 12.2 Net profit 20.4 21.8 -0.1 Capacity indicators Employment (engaged crew) 1300.8 1321.8 1284.4 Effort (1000 DAS) 43.8 47.3 21.1 Number of vessels 353.0 354.0 344.0 Fleet (1000 kW) 69.0 67.7 65.1 Fleet (1000 GT) 10.6 10.6 10.3 Volume (tonnes) 7313.3 8595.7 3148.2 Price (Euro/tonne) 9.0 8.5 7.7 Gear: Passive polyvalent Size: 12-24 2002.0 2003.0 2004.0 2005.0 2006 (1-6) mln Euro, segment total Revenue 58.7 30.6 36.1 17.9 Fuel 6.0 3.7 4.7 2.7 Effort related costs 7.8 4.2 5.8 3.0 Repair and maintence 3.1 2.9 2.7 1.3 Crew 16.1 9.1 9.9 4.4 Fixed costs 6.0 3.9 3.5 1.7 Derived indicators Gross cash flow 25.7 10.8 13.0 6.5 Gross value added 41.8 19.9 22.9 -7.8 Net profit 19.7 6.9 9.5 -4.4 Capacity indicators Employment (engaged crew) 1395.0 1125.1 905.6 809.6 Effort (1000 DAS) 61.5 67.1 48.1 25.1 Number of vessels 496.0 412.0 387.0 346.0

84

Fleet (1000 kW) 79.7 58.7 52.2 48.7 Fleet (1000 GT) 8.2 5.1 4.6 4.5 Volume (tonnes) 8907.1 4514.0 4800.5 2386.5 Price (Euro/tonne) 6.6 6.8 7.5 7.5 Gear: Mobile and passive polyvalent Size: <12 2002.0 2003.0 2004.0 2005.0 2006 (1-6) mln Euro, segment total Revenue 100.5 106.8 51.3 39.4 Fuel 15.6 16.0 7.8 8.0 Effort related costs 13.4 14.4 5.1 3.8 Repair and maintence 8.4 8.7 4.1 2.5 Crew 34.2 35.3 15.9 13.3 Fixed costs 8.1 6.1 3.0 2.3 Derived indicators Gross cash flow 28.9 32.5 18.5 11.8 Gross value added 63.1 67.8 34.4 25.1 Net profit 20.8 26.4 15.5 9.6 Capacity indicators Employment (engaged crew) 3489.0 4740.0 1937.9 1461.5 Effort (1000 DAS) 69.8 113.4 62.6 40.1 Number of vessels 532.0 2467.0 869.0 565.0 Fleet (1000 kW) 32.3 90.5 44.4 29.6 Fleet (1000 GT) 3.0 9.2 3.3 2.3 Volume (tonnes) 19912.7 18667.9 8411.6 7757.0 Price (Euro/tonne) 5.0 5.7 6.1 5.1 Gear: Mobile and passive polyvalent Size: 12-24 2002.0 2003.0 2004.0 2005.0 2006 (1-6) mln Euro, segment total Revenue 144.1 147.0 12.5 9.5 3.1 Fuel 21.0 18.4 1.2 0.9 0.3 Effort related costs 19.0 16.2 1.4 1.4 0.4 Repair and maintence 10.8 9.5 0.8 0.8 0.5 Crew 47.9 39.8 3.6 2.7 1.8 Fixed costs 10.4 11.7 0.9 0.7 0.5 Derived indicators Gross cash flow 45.4 63.1 5.6 3.8 0.0 Gross value added 93.3 102.9 9.2 6.5 1.8 Net profit 35.0 51.4 4.7 3.1 -0.5 Capacity indicators Employment (engaged crew) 3356.0 3369.0 345.2 231.9 318.1 Effort (1000 DAS) 199.2 172.7 12.2 13.2 4.3 Number of vessels 1656.0 963.0 95.0 70.0 96.0 Fleet (1000 kW) 260.9 144.3 12.2 8.7 12.8 Fleet (1000 GT) 27.5 15.2 1.4 1.0 1.4 Volume (tonnes) 29003.3 25820.0 1994.7 1189.0 646.2 Price (Euro/tonne) 5.0 5.7 6.3 8.0 4.8


85

12 LATVIA

Gear: Pelagic trawl and seine Size: 12-24 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 (1-6) mln Euro, segment total Revenue 2,5 2,3 2,5 2,312 2,382 Fuel 0,6 0,6 0,6 0,861 0,861 Effort related costs 0,2 0,1 0,1 0,057 0,0627 Repair and maintence 1,8 0,9 0,6 0,554 0,6094 Crew 0,5 0,8 0,5 0,343 0,3773 Fixed costs 0,5 0,4 0,4 0,15 0,165 Derived indicators Gross cash flow -0,6 -0,1 0,7 0,497 0,471375 Gross value added -0,1 0,7 1,2 0,84 0,848675 Net profit -1,1 -0,5 0,3 0,347 0,306375 Capacity indicators Employment (FTE?) 165 154 141 108 108 Effort (1000 DAS) 6,4 5,1 5,8 4,7 4,7 Number of vessels 50 48 47 36 36 Fleet (1000 kW) 7 7,2 7,1 5,8 5,832 Fleet (1000 GT) 1,7 1,6 1,6 1,2 1,2 Volume (tonnes) 13500 12600 14600 12430 13133 Price (Euro/tonne) 181 182 177 182 182 Gear: Pelagic trawl and seine Size: 24-40 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 (1-6) mln Euro, segment total Revenue 12,3 10,7 11,1 15,954 15,250 Fuel 3,2 3,6 3,3 4,74 4,74 Effort related costs 0,2 0,2 0,2 0,268 0,2948 Repair and maintence 3,4 2,2 2,1 2,909 3,1999 Crew 2 2,8 2,6 3,158 3,4738 Fixed costs 4,2 4,4 4,2 1,3 1,43 Derived indicators Gross cash flow 3,5 1,9 2,9 4,879 3,541371 Gross value added 5,5 4,7 5,5 8,037 7,015171 Net profit -0,7 -2,5 -1,3 3,579 2,111371 Capacity indicators Employment (FTE?) 476 490 474 451 451 Effort (1000 DAS) 9,6 9,7 9,8 8,6 8,6 Number of vessels 81 83 79 75 75 Fleet (1000 kW) 18 20 19 20 20 Fleet (1000 GT) 9 9 9 9 9 Volume (tonnes) 55800 52000 63000 74870 68644 Price (Euro/tonne) 218 202 189 212 212 Gear: Pelagic trawl and seine Size: >40 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 (1-6)

86

mln Euro, segment total Revenue NA NA NA 24,616 24,085 Fuel NA NA 1,4 5,96 5,96 Effort related costs NA NA NA 2,8 3,08 Repair and maintence NA NA NA 11,11 12,221 Crew NA NA NA 0,38 0,418 Fixed costs NA NA NA 3,15 3,465 Derived indicators Gross cash flow 4,366 2,4059535 Gross value added 4,746 2,8239535 Net profit 1,216 -1,0590465 Capacity indicators Employment (FTE?) NA NA NA 160 160 Effort (1000 DAS) NA NA NA NA NA Number of vessels NA NA 13 8 8 Fleet (1000 kW) NA NA 26,7085 16,436 16,436 Fleet (1000 GT) NA NA 25,5788 15,7408 15,7408 Volume (tonnes) NA NA NA 57247 56012 Price (Euro/tonne) NA NA NA 430 430 Gear: Passive gears Size: <12 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 (1-6) mln Euro, segment total Revenue NA NA 0,9 0,792 0,917 Fuel NA NA 0,6 0,8 0,8 Effort related costs NA NA 0,1 0,1 0,11 Repair and maintence NA NA 0,8 0,7 0,77 Crew NA NA 0,8 1 1,1 Fixed costs NA NA NA NA NA Derived indicators Gross cash flow -1,4 -1,808 -1,8628396 Gross value added -0,6 -0,808 -0,7628396 Net profit Capacity indicators Employment (FTE?) NA NA 1492 1486 1486 Effort (1000 DAS) NA NA NA NA NA Number of vessels NA NA 746 743 743 Fleet (1000 kW) NA NA 8,0568 8,0244 8,0244 Fleet (1000 GT) NA NA 1,3428 1,3374 1,3374 Volume (tonnes) NA NA 2824 2678 2678 Price (Euro/tonne) NA NA 0,318 0,296 0,296 Gear: Drift and fixed nets Size: 24-40 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 (1-6) mln Euro, segment total Revenue 6,4 5,6 5,4 4,233 5,072 Fuel 0,9 1 1 1,184 1,184 Effort related costs 0,2 0,2 0,2 0,221 0,2431 Repair and maintence 2,5 1,8 1,5 1,302 1,4322


87

Crew 1,1 1,2 1,2 1,014 1,1154 Fixed costs 0,6 0,6 0,6 0,36 0,396 Derived indicators Gross cash flow 1,7 1,4 1,5 0,512 1,0974664 Gross value added 2,8 2,6 2,7 1,526 2,2128664 Net profit 1,1 0,8 0,9 0,152 0,7014664 Capacity indicators Employment (FTE?) 337 336 336 215 215 Effort (1000 DAS) 9,7 8,1 8,7 5,3 5,3 Number of vessels 60 60 58 41 41 Fleet (1000 kW) 9,4 9,5 9,2 6,6 6,6 Fleet (1000 GT) 4,6 4,8 4,6 3,3 3,3 Volume (tonnes) 3700 3600 3700 2726 3272 Price (Euro/tonne) 1781 1565 1400 1547 1547

13 LITHUANIA

Gear: Pelagic trawl and seine Size: >40 2002 2003 2004 2005 mln Euro, segment total Revenue 77,1 98,0 46,2 48,4 Fuel 23,1 39,0 19,5 15,6 Effort related costs 3,2 1,3 9,8 15,5 Repair and maintenance 17,4 14,3 6,5 7,1 Crew 3,9 8,9 5,6 5,2 Fixed costs 3,9 2,7 3,6 3,0 Derived indicators Gross cash flow 29,5 34,5 4,8 5,0 Gross value added 33,3 43,4 10,4 10,3 Net profit 25,6 31,8 1,1 2,1 Capacity indicators Employment (engaged crew) 1730 2033 1811 1600 Effort (1000 DAS) 3,1 3,2 3,2 Number of vessels 17 23 18 14 Fleet (1000 kW) 41,5 61,4 47,2 39,5 Fleet (1000 GT) 47,2 69,2 49,9 41,8 Volume (1000 t) 139,4 141,0 143,7 124,7 Price (Euro/tonne) 553 695 321 388

Gear: Demersal trawl and seine Size: 24-40 2002 2003 2004 2005 mln Euro, segment total Revenue 3,8 3,4 4,1 4,1 Fuel 0,9 1,0 0,7 1,1 Effort related costs 0,9 0,9 0,4 0,7 Repair and maintenance 0,2 0,3 0,3 0,3 Crew 0,7 0,8 0,6 1,1 Fixed costs 0,7 0,4 0,2 0,2 Derived indicators Gross cash flow 1,1 0,3 2,2 0,9 Gross value added 1,8 1,2 2,7 2,0 Net profit 0,4 -0,1 2,0 0,7

88

Capacity indicators Employment (engaged crew) 240 288 213 181 Effort (1000 DAS) 3,2 4,9 3,1 4,1 Number of vessels 40 48 38 30 Fleet (1000 kW) 8,5 9,9 9,1 6,4 Fleet (1000 GT) 4,8 5,7 4,9 3,7 Volume (1000 t) 6,9 6,8 11,2 6,5 Price (Euro/tonne) 556 492 367 630

Gear: Drift and fixed nets Size: 24-40 2002 2003 2004 2005 mln Euro, segment total Revenue 1,0 2,0 1,0 0,6 Fuel 0,2 0,2 0,2 0,1 Effort related costs 0,3 0,4 0,3 0,1 Repair and maintenance 0,1 0,1 0,2 0,0 Crew 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,2 Fixed costs 0,1 0,1 0,0 0,1 Derived indicators Gross cash flow 0,2 0,9 -0,1 0,2 Gross value added 0,4 1,2 0,3 0,4 Net profit 0,1 0,8 -0,2 0,2 Capacity indicators Employment (engaged crew) 96 124 104 67 Effort (1000 DAS) 1,8 2,7 1,5 0,7 Number of vessels 15 19 19 8 Fleet (1000 kW) 2,2 2,6 2,7 1,2 Fleet (1000 GT) 1,0 1,2 1,3 0,6 Volume (1000 t) 0,8 2,2 0,8 0,5 Price (Euro/tonne) 1250 907 1210 1384

Gear: Passive gears Size: <12 2002 2003 2004 2005 mln Euro, segment total Revenue 0,4 0,3 0,4 0,5 Fuel 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,1 Effort related costs 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,1 Repair and maintenance 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 Crew 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,3 Fixed costs 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 Derived indicators Gross cash flow 0,2 0,1 0,1 0,1 Gross value added 0,2 0,2 0,2 0,3 Net profit 0,2 0,1 0,1 0,0 Capacity indicators Employment (engaged crew) 111 110 295 222 Effort (1000 DAS) 8,3 7,9 3,9 5,8 Number of vessels 67 65 189 221 Fleet (1000 kW) 2,2 2,2 4,3 5,5 Fleet (1000 GT) 0,3 0,3 0,4 0,6 Volume (1000 t) 0,4 0,4 0,6 0,4


89

Price (Euro/tonne) 870 687 665 1165

14 MALTA


15 NETHERLANDS

Gear: Beam trawl Size: 12-24 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 (1-6) mln Euro, segment total Revenue 56.5 55.9 59.4 64.5 Fuel 7.4 7.0 9.0 12.6 Effort related costs 11.4 10.7 11.5 8.7 Repair and maintenance 8.9 9.5 9.7 10.3 Crew 20.5 20.3 21.0 23.1 Fixed costs Derived indicators Gross cash flow 8.3 8.3 8.2 9.8 Gross value added 28.8 28.6 29.2 32.9 Net profit 8.3 8.3 8.2 9.8 Capacity indicators Employment (FTE?) 539.2 532.0 556.1 555.6 Effort (1000 DAS) 4.2 4.6 4.5 4.4 Number of vessels 185.0 180.0 177.0 170.0 Fleet (1000 kW) 36.6 36.1 35.7 34.4 Fleet (1000 GT) 11.7 11.6 11.8 11.1 Volume (tonnes) 15128.5 18467.8 18156.3 18713.8 Price (Euro/tonne) 3734.2 3025.0 3270.2 3447.2 Gear: Beam trawl Size: 24-40 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 (1-6) mln Euro, segment total Revenue 46.1 45.9 39.8 32.2 Fuel 10.9 10.8 11.4 12.8 Effort related costs 7.9 8.1 6.5 4.2 Repair and maintenance 6.9 7.8 6.0 5.1 Crew 13.5 12.5 11.1 9.4 Fixed costs Derived indicators Gross cash flow 6.8 6.7 4.9 0.7 Gross value added 20.3 19.2 15.9 10.0 Net profit 6.8 6.7 4.9 0.7 Capacity indicators Employment (FTE?) 276.9 264.7 265.1 266.2 Effort (1000 DAS) 8.5 8.4 7.9 6.4 Number of vessels 59.0 53.0 52.0 45.0 Fleet (1000 kW) 52.6 49.0 49.5 37.7 Fleet (1000 GT) 13.7 12.7 12.8 10.1 Volume (tonnes) 14076.4 12317.7 11678.2 9640.4 Price (Euro/tonne) 3274.0 3726.3 3408.1 3340.2

90

Gear: Beam trawl Size: >40 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 (1-6) mln Euro, segment total Revenue 135.5 140.6 130.3 110.5 Fuel 35.6 35.6 38.0 47.1 Effort related costs 20.2 19.7 19.2 12.3 Repair and maintenance 18.8 18.0 17.2 13.9 Crew 34.1 36.7 31.3 23.2 Fixed costs Derived indicators Gross cash flow 26.7 30.5 24.5 14.0 Gross value added 60.8 67.2 55.8 37.2 Net profit 26.7 30.5 24.5 14.0 Capacity indicators Employment (FTE?) 666.7 666.2 665.8 650.3 Effort (1000 DAS) 31.1 31.4 28.9 26.0 Number of vessels 100.0 99.0 102.0 83.0 Fleet (1000 kW) 172.8 169.0 169.8 136.0 Fleet (1000 GT) 46.6 46.2 47.2 39.2 Volume (tonnes) 46938.5 43774.0 40865.9 34521.9 Price (Euro/tonne) 2886.1 3212.5 3187.7 3200.9 Gear: Demersal trawl and seiners Size: 12-24 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 (1-6) mln Euro, segment total Revenue 1.8 6.5 6.6 9.4 Fuel 0.2 0.9 1.3 1.9 Effort related costs 0.4 1.2 1.0 1.5 Repair and maintenance 0.3 1.4 1.6 2.3 Crew 0.7 2.2 2.3 2.9 Fixed costs Derived indicators Gross cash flow 0.2 0.9 0.4 0.9 Gross value added 1.0 3.0 2.7 3.8 Net profit 0.2 0.9 0.4 0.9 Capacity indicators Employment (FTE?) 25.0 62.7 72.8 71.8 Effort (1000 DAS) 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.4 Number of vessels 10.0 14.0 16.0 12.0 Fleet (1000 kW) 2.2 3.1 3.5 2.7 Fleet (1000 GT) 0.8 1.4 1.5 1.4 Volume (tonnes) 1575.1 2151.4 2561.2 1956.6 Price (Euro/tonne) 1161.4 3017.5 2583.1 4820.3 Gear: Demersal trawl and seiners Size: 24-40 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 (1-6) mln Euro, segment total Revenue 9.5 10.3 10.7 8.9 Fuel 1.1 1.2 1.4 1.5


91

Effort related costs 1.8 1.8 1.9 1.2 Repair and maintenance 1.7 2.0 2.0 1.5 Crew 3.3 3.6 3.7 2.7 Fixed costs Derived indicators Gross cash flow 1.6 1.7 1.7 2.1 Gross value added 4.8 5.3 5.4 4.7 Net profit 1.6 1.7 1.7 2.1 Capacity indicators Employment (FTE?) 72.9 80.4 80.4 59.6 Effort (1000 DAS) 1.2 1.3 1.3 0.8 Number of vessels 16.0 17.0 17.0 11.0 Fleet (1000 kW) 7.9 8.1 7.8 5.5 Fleet (1000 GT) 2.7 2.8 2.8 1.9 Volume (tonnes) 5081.4 5347.5 4830.3 3888.1 Price (Euro/tonne) 1861.2 1933.8 2213.1 2285.8 Gear: Pelagic trawl and seiners Size: >40 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 (1-6) mln Euro, segment total Revenue 126.1 143.3 130.7 136.6 Fuel 19.1 20.5 20.8 21.0 Effort related costs 27.7 30.8 29.7 28.3 Repair and maintenance 28.0 25.2 28.3 26.1 Crew 32.3 36.9 34.7 35.5 Fixed costs Derived indicators Gross cash flow 19.0 30.0 17.3 25.6 Gross value added 51.3 66.9 52.0 61.1 Net profit 19.0 30.0 17.3 25.6 Capacity indicators Employment (FTE?) 613.0 613.0 613.0 587.0 Effort (1000 DAS) 26.5 27.4 27.2 22.6 Number of vessels 18.0 19.0 17.0 15.0 Fleet (1000 kW) 103.5 105.2 98.9 84.7 Fleet (1000 GT) 93.8 94.2 90.4 79.2 Volume (tonnes) 364171.9 435688.2 442465.9 441351.9 Price (Euro/tonne) 346.4 329.0 295.5 309.5

92

16 POLAND

Gear: Demersal trawl and seine Size: <12 2002 2003 2004 mln Euro, segment total Revenue 0.190462 Fuel 0.01385 Effort related costs 0.025114 Repair and maintence 0.003573 Crew 0.034371 Fixed costs 0.11721 Derived indicators Gross cash flow 0.113554 Gross value added 0.147925 Net profit -0.003656 Capacity indicators Employment (FTE?) 39.5 Effort (1000 DAS) 1.78 Number of vessels 13 Fleet (1000 kW) 0.77 Fleet (1000 GT) 0.1 Volume (tonnes) Price (Euro/tonne) Gear: Demersal trawl and seine Size: 12-24 2002 2003 2004 mln Euro, segment total Revenue 5.558659 Fuel 2.1882 Effort related costs 0.994737 Repair and maintence 0.298057 Crew 1.005725 Fixed costs 3.051208 Derived indicators Gross cash flow 1.07194 Gross value added 2.077665 Net profit -1.979268 Capacity indicators Employment (FTE?) 535.6 Effort (1000 DAS) 15.84 Number of vessels 141 Fleet (1000 kW) 26.1 Fleet (1000 GT) 6.19 Volume (tonnes) Price (Euro/tonne) Gear: Demersal trawl and seine Size: 24-40 2002 2003 2004 mln Euro, segment total Revenue 3.186218


93

Fuel 2.537819 Effort related costs 1.136165 Repair and maintence 0.161858 Crew 0.831824 Fixed costs 2.609552 Derived indicators Gross cash flow -1.481448 Gross value added -0.649624 Net profit -4.091 Capacity indicators Employment (FTE?) 396.5 Effort (1000 DAS) 10.45 Number of vessels 74 Fleet (1000 kW) 20.37 Fleet (1000 GT) 7.8 Volume (tonnes) Price (Euro/tonne) Gear: Pelagic trawl and seine Size: 24-40 2002 2003 2004 mln Euro, segment total Revenue 15.57432 Fuel 5.524268 Effort related costs 4.451336 Repair and maintence 1.09988 Crew 3.792006 Fixed costs 5.08703 Derived indicators Gross cash flow 0.70683 Gross value added 4.498836 Net profit -4.3802 Capacity indicators Employment (FTE?) 548.5 Effort (1000 DAS) 11.18 Number of vessels 80 Fleet (1000 kW) 33.07 Fleet (1000 GT) 11.72 Volume (tonnes) Price (Euro/tonne) Gear: Passive gears Size: <12 2002 2003 2004 mln Euro, segment total Revenue 10.316446 Fuel 1.259381 Effort related costs 1.517045 Repair and maintence 0.407922 Crew 1.160724 Fixed costs 4.224634 Derived indicators Gross cash flow 5.971374 Gross value added 7.132098

94

Net profit 1.74674 Capacity indicators Employment (FTE?) 1498.4 Effort (1000 DAS) 81.99 Number of vessels 757 Fleet (1000 kW) 30.66 Fleet (1000 GT) 3.53 Volume (tonnes) Price (Euro/tonne) Gear: Gears using hooks Size: 12-24 2002 2003 2004 mln Euro, segment total Revenue 0.798159 Fuel 0.120311 Effort related costs 0.155044 Repair and maintence 0.036877 Crew 0.25408 Fixed costs 0.268198 Derived indicators Gross cash flow 0.231847 Gross value added 0.485927 Net profit -0.036351 Capacity indicators Employment (FTE?) 64 Effort (1000 DAS) 2.48 Number of vessels 19 Fleet (1000 kW) 2.03 Fleet (1000 GT) 0.53 Volume (tonnes) Price (Euro/tonne) Gear: Drift and fixed nets Size: 12-24 2002 2003 2004 mln Euro, segment total Revenue 4.780189 Fuel 0.899884 Effort related costs 1.291609 Repair and maintence 0.400287 Crew 1.200834 Fixed costs 2.160884 Derived indicators Gross cash flow 0.987575 Gross value added 2.188409 Net profit -1.173309 Capacity indicators Employment (FTE?) 542.8 Effort (1000 DAS) 13.2 Number of vessels 119 Fleet (1000 kW) 15.7 Fleet (1000 GT) 4.33 Volume (tonnes)


95

Price (Euro/tonne) Gear: Drift and fixed nets Size: 24-40 2002 2003 2004 mln Euro, segment total Revenue 0.838821 Fuel 0.244907 Effort related costs 0.19521 Repair and maintence 0.027195 Crew 0.233727 Fixed costs 0.627711 Derived indicators Gross cash flow 0.137782 Gross value added 0.371509 Net profit -0.489929 Capacity indicators Employment (FTE?) 120 Effort (1000 DAS) 2.81 Number of vessels 20 Fleet (1000 kW) 4.41 Fleet (1000 GT) 1.93 Volume (tonnes) Price (Euro/tonne) Gear: Mobile and passive polyvalent Size: 12-24 2002 2003 2004 mln Euro, segment total Revenue 0.61409 Fuel 0.13327 Effort related costs 0.050054 Repair and maintence 0.036629 Crew 0.062943 Fixed costs 0.211499 Derived indicators Gross cash flow 0.331194 Gross value added 0.394137 Net profit 0.119695 Capacity indicators Employment (FTE?) 50 Effort (1000 DAS) Number of vessels 12 Fleet (1000 kW) 2.16 Fleet (1000 GT) 0.42 Volume (tonnes) Price (Euro/tonne)

17 PORTUGAL


96

18 SLOVENIA


19 SPAIN


20 SWEDEN

Gear: Demersal trawl and seine Size: <12 2002 2003 2004 2005 mln Euro, segment total Revenue 1.63 1.73 1.73 3.10 Fuel 0.29 0.39 0.30 0.48 Effort related costs 0.39 0.35 0.61 9.71 Repair and maintence 0.25 0.41 0.02 0.97 Crew 0.36 0.45 0.39 0.63 Fixed costs 5.58 0.19 0.56 0.26 Derived indicators Gross cash flow 0.34 0.13 0.41 -8.69 Gross value added 0.70 0.58 0.80 -8.06 Net profit -5.24 -0.06 -0.15 -8.95 Capacity indicators Employment (Total) 75 72 79 59 Effort (1000 DAS) 3 4 4 4 Number of vessels 53 63 63 57 Fleet (1000 kW) 8.46 10.34 9.96 8.84 Fleet (1000 GT) 0.70 0.81 0.76 0.66 Volume (1000 tonnes) 0 1 1 1 Price (Euro/1000 tonne) 6 2 3 2 Gear: Demersal trawl and seine Size: 12-24 2002 2003 2004 2005 mln Euro, segment total Revenue 27.35 22.47 24.19 24.30 Fuel 4.46 4.25 4.16 6.25 Effort related costs 3.87 3.94 8.55 16.47 Repair and maintence 3.88 3.57 0.25 5.41 Crew 7.02 6.66 5.47 3.82 Fixed costs 17.26 17.42 4.65 1.87 Derived indicators Gross cash flow 8.12 4.06 5.76 -7.64 Gross value added 15.14 10.71 11.23 -3.82 Net profit -9.14 -13.36 1.11 -9.51 Capacity indicators Employment (Total) 407 407 384 353 Effort (1000 DAS) 20 21 21 20 Number of vessels 164 154 160 154 Fleet (1000 kW) 44.08 42.90 45.09 43.60


97

Fleet (1000 GT) 9.31 9.07 9.85 9.37 Volume (tonnes) 14 14 20 18 Price (Euro/1000 tonne) 2 2 1 1 Gear: Demersal trawl and seine Size: 24-40 2002 2003 2004 2005 mln Euro, segment total Revenue 15.36 11.93 10.61 10.75 Fuel 2.22 2.09 1.83 2.90 Effort related costs 1.32 1.64 3.75 7.69 Repair and maintence 2.59 1.37 0.11 1.99 Crew 4.89 3.32 2.40 1.70 Fixed costs 4.00 5.46 0.99 0.46 Derived indicators Gross cash flow 4.34 3.50 2.53 -3.53 Gross value added 9.23 6.82 4.93 -1.83 Net profit 0.34 -1.96 1.54 -3.99 Capacity indicators Employment (Total) 145 124 111 108 Effort (1000 DAS) 6 6 6 5 Number of vessels 38 35 30 30 Fleet (1000 kW) 21.57 20.69 17.55 17.69 Fleet (1000 GT) 6.70 6.35 5.34 5.24 Volume (tonnes) 11 8 8 8 Price (Euro/tonne) 1 1 1 1 Gear: Pelagic trawl and seine Size: 12-24 2002 2003 2004 2005 mln Euro, segment total Revenue 1.51 Fuel 0.60 Effort related costs 0.96 Repair and maintence 0.45 Crew 0.09 Fixed costs 0.37 Derived indicators Gross cash flow -0.60 Gross value added -0.51 Net profit -0.97 Capacity indicators Employment (Total) 25 Effort (1000 DAS) 1 Number of vessels 10 Fleet (1000 kW) 3.37 Fleet (1000 GT) 0.76 Volume (tonnes) 4 Price (Euro/tonne) 0 Gear: Pelagic trawl and seine

98

Size: 24-40 2002 2003 2004 2005 mln Euro, segment total Revenue 30.02 24.22 19.91 23.19 Fuel 4.99 6.82 7.39 6.73 Effort related costs 5.31 1.91 8.45 13.18 Repair and maintence 4.66 5.00 0.45 4.51 Crew 8.79 6.71 5.98 4.10 Fixed costs 30.70 32.95 12.47 2.17 Derived indicators Gross cash flow 6.26 3.79 -2.36 -5.32 Gross value added 15.05 10.50 3.62 -1.22 Net profit -24.44 -29.16 -14.83 -7.49 Capacity indicators Employment (Total) 243 259 295 215 Effort (1000 DAS) 6 8 7 6 Number of vessels 34 42 46 37 Fleet (1000 kW) 35.02 37.15 38.54 36.04 Fleet (1000 GT) 12.41 12.36 12.97 12.40 Volume (tonnes) 142 145 120 124 Price (Euro/tonne) 0 0 0 0 Gear: Pelagic trawl and seine Size: >40 2002 2003 2004 2005 mln Euro, segment total Revenue 19.99 16.40 16.63 19.02 Fuel 1.58 2.01 5.75 5.21 Effort related costs 1.68 0.57 6.57 12.34 Repair and maintence 1.48 1.48 0.35 3.17 Crew 2.79 1.98 4.65 1.97 Fixed costs 9.73 9.73 0.00 2.61 Derived indicators Gross cash flow 12.45 10.37 -0.70 -3.66 Gross value added 15.24 12.35 3.95 -1.69 Net profit 2.72 0.63 -0.70 -6.27 Capacity indicators Employment (FTE?) 77 76 90 122 Effort (1000 DAS) 2 3 3 4 Number of vessels 13 13 14 14 Fleet (1000 kW) 25.27 24.75 26.12 26.12 Fleet (1000 GT) 8.30 8.30 8.76 8.76 Volume (tonnes) 95 100 99 87 Price (Euro/tonne) 0 0 0 0 Gear: Passive gears Size: <12 2002 2003 2004 2005 mln Euro, segment total Revenue 17.54 14.53 13.41 13.33 Fuel 0.76 0.53 0.66 1.89


99

Effort related costs 1.77 1.41 4.64 7.03 Repair and maintence 1.68 0.86 0.19 4.66 Crew 1.05 0.49 4.84 0.33 Fixed costs 3.03 2.81 1.19 0.74 Derived indicators Gross cash flow 12.29 11.23 3.08 -0.58 Gross value added 13.33 11.72 7.91 -0.25 Net profit 9.26 8.42 1.89 -1.32 Capacity indicators Employment (Total) 355 360 604 515 Effort (1000 DAS) 81 131 123 118 Number of vessels 752 951 908 878 Fleet (1000 kW) 48.70 56.70 55.98 55.68 Fleet (1000 GT) 4.00 4.31 4.21 4.10 Volume (tonnes) 14 10 8 7 Price (Euro/tonne) 1 2 2 2 Gear: Gears using hooks Size: 12-24 2002 2003 2004 2005 mln Euro, segment total Revenue 0.61 Fuel 0.21 Effort related costs 0.52 Repair and maintence 0.16 Crew 0.04 Fixed costs 0.03 Derived indicators Gross cash flow -0.32 Gross value added -0.28 Net profit -0.35 Capacity indicators Employment (Total) 23 Effort (1000 DAS) 1 Number of vessels 11 Fleet (1000 kW) 1.80 Fleet (1000 GT) 0.33 Volume (tonnes) 0 Price (Euro/tonne) 2 Gear: Drift and fixed nets Size: 12-24 2002 2003 2004 2005 mln Euro, segment total Revenue 2.66 3.37 3.08 1.99 Fuel 0.30 0.35 0.32 0.39 Effort related costs 0.61 0.66 1.35 0.82 Repair and maintence 0.47 0.46 0.10 0.49 Crew 0.65 0.61 1.20 0.12 Fixed costs 1.81 2.03 0.39 0.13 Derived indicators

100

Gross cash flow 0.63 1.29 0.10 0.16 Gross value added 1.28 1.89 1.31 0.29 Net profit -1.18 -0.74 -0.29 0.03 Capacity indicators Employment (Total) 82 93 94 57 Effort (1000 DAS) 4 6 5 4 Number of vessels 41 46 46 37 Fleet (1000 kW) 6.56 7.42 7.49 6.73 Fleet (1000 GT) 1.15 1.23 1.30 1.13 Volume (tonnes) 2 2 2 1 Price (Euro/tonne) 2 1 1 2


101

21 United Kingdom Gear: Static Size: <10 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 (1-6)mln Euro, segment total Revenue 156.8 156.3 Fuel 7.0 9.4

Effort related costs 19.3 22.0

Repair and maintence 12.1 16.6 Crew 66.6 62.3 Fixed costs 17.9 15.7 Derived indicators Gross cash flow 0 0 51.9 46.0 0Gross value added 0 0 118.5 108.3 0Net profit 0 0 34.0 30.3 0Capacity indicators Employment (FTE?) 2721 2783 3007 2879 -Effort (1000 DAS) - - - - -Number of vessels 1738 1789 1764 1728 1658Fleet (1000 kW) 133.6 138.4 137.3 136.2 133.8Fleet (1000 GT) 8.7 9.2 9.0 8.8 8.5Volume (tonnes) Price (euros/tonne) Gear: Mobile Size: <10 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 (1-6)mln Euro, segment total Revenue 84.7 106.3 Fuel 9.2 13.7 0Effort related costs 11.3 14.2 0Repair and maintence 11.6 12.2 0Crew 33.4 37.7 Fixed costs 8.5 9.7 0Derived indicators Gross cash flow 19.3 28.6 0Gross value added 52.7 66.3 0Net profit 10.9 18.8 0Capacity indicators Employment (FTE?) 1965 1912 1989 2013 -Effort (1000 DAS) - - - - -Number of vessels 941 922 875 906 862Fleet (1000 kW) 78.7 78.0 75.5 77.5 74.9Fleet (1000 GT) 5.9 5.9 5.8 6.1 5.9Volume (tonnes) Price (euros/tonne) Segment 1 Gear: Beam trawl Size: 10-11.99 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 (1-6)mln Euro, segment total

102

Revenue 1.1 1.9 0.3 0.3 0.1Fuel 0.2 0.1 Effort related costs 0.0 0.0 Repair and maintence 0.1 0.1 Crew 0.6 0.4 Fixed costs 0.1 0.1 Derived indicators Gross cash flow -0.6 -0.3 Gross value added 0.0 0.1 Net profit -0.7 -0.4 Capacity indicators Employment (FTE?) 40 44 41 27 -Effort (1000 DAS) 1.4 1.2 0.8 0.9 0.2Number of vessels 19.0 21.0 18.0 12.0 11.0Fleet (1000 kW) 2.4 2.5 2.0 1.3 1.3Fleet (1000 GT) 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2Volume (tonnes) 318764.9 527024.5 200493.5 117577.9 61740.6Price (euros/tonne) 3323.0 3574 1660.2 2768.2 1633.5 Segment 2 Gear: Beam trawl Size: 12-24 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 (1-6)mln Euro, segment total Revenue 10.8 9.1 9.7 7.3 3.5Fuel Effort related costs Repair and maintence Crew Fixed costs Derived indicators Gross cash flow Gross value added Net profit Capacity indicators Employment (FTE?) 320 318 376 236 -Effort (1000 DAS) 5.7 5.5 5.5 3.8 1.5Number of vessels 49 49 53.0 34.0 33.0Fleet (1000 kW) 9.0 9.3 10.2 6.6 6.5Fleet (1000 GT) 2.3 2.3 2.6 1.7 1.7Volume (tonnes) 2920100.3 2915113.6 3034063.0 1704187.5 714122.8Price (euros/tonne) 3701.1 3108.8 3191.6 4291.6 4898.3 Gear: Beam trawl Size: 24-40 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 (1-6)mln Euro, segment total Revenue 59.7 46.3 48.3 41.9 20.8Fuel 13.2 14.9 Effort related costs 6.7 5.7 Repair and maintence 8.5 7.1 Crew 11.3 9.4 Fixed costs 4.8 4.9 Derived indicators Gross cash flow 8.6 4.9


103

Gross value added 19.9 14.3 Net profit 3.8 -0.1 Capacity indicators Employment (FTE?) 412 360 389 306 -Effort (1000 DAS) 13.8 12.5 12.1 10.6 5.2Number of vessels 83 73 72 58 60Fleet (1000 kW) 65.3 55.8 53.4 44.8 45.6Fleet (1000 GT) 16.6 14.3 13.7 11.6 12.0Volume (tonnes) 20574456.3 17322298.9 17034981.1 12872606.5 6700486.7Price (euros/tonne) 2901.9 2672.3 2837.1 3258.7 3100.1 Gear: Beam trawl Size: >40 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 (1-6)mln Euro, segment total Revenue 17.9 18.5 22.6 23.7 12.6Fuel 14.1 13.2 Effort related costs 3.6 3.6 Repair and maintence 1.9 1.9 Crew 4.3 4.5 Fixed costs 2.8 3.0 Derived indicators Gross cash flow -1.37 0.4 Gross value added 2.97 5.0 Net profit -4.16 -2.6 Capacity indicators Employment (FTE?) 95 102 119 124 -Effort (1000 DAS) 2.6 2.6 3.1 3.2 1.7Number of vessels 13 14 15 16.0 16Fleet (1000 kW) 21.3 22.8 24.3 25.8 25.9Fleet (1000 GT) 6.1 6.6 7.2 7.7 7.9Volume (tonnes) 7813853.3 7485706 9230817.3 7296857.0 4192362.6Price (euros/tonne) 2296.5 2471.0 2448.2 3242.3 3012.6 Gear: Demersal trawl and seine Size: 10-11.99 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 (1-6)mln Euro, segment total Revenue 12.7 10.9 11.1 10.1 6.9Fuel 2.1 1.5 Effort related costs 1.9 1.7 Repair and maintence 2.3 1.1 Crew 4.7 4.9 Fixed costs 2.3 1.7 Derived indicators Gross cash flow 0.2 1.0 Gross value added 4.8 5.9 Net profit -2.1 -0.7 Capacity indicators Employment (FTE?) 415 398 417 358 -Effort (1000 DAS) 16.2 16.5 16.2 14.5 7.2Number of vessels 142 137 131 115 116Fleet (1000 kW) 17.4 17.1 16.7 14.8 14.9Fleet (1000 GT) 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.0 2.1

104

Volume (tonnes) 4189302.6 3936262.5 4031069.7 2872368.8 1657342.0Price (euros/tonne) 3025.8 2762.0 2764.1 3526.1 4182.5 Gear: Demersal trawl and seine Size: 12-24 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 (1-6)mln Euro, segment total Revenue 177.7 139.7 144.2 164.1 118.1Fuel 40.7 40.7 Effort related costs 53.8 53.8 Repair and maintence 30.7 30.7 Crew 77.8 75.0 Fixed costs 25.4 25.4 Derived indicators Gross cash flow -58.8 -36.1 Gross value added 19.0 38.9 Net profit -84.2 -61.5 Capacity indicators Employment (FTE?) 3189 2730 2715 2464 -Effort (1000 DAS) 95.1 92.1 80.9 76.9 38.0Number of vessels 679 585 531 493 476Fleet (1000 kW) 181.9 157.8 140.1 131.8 128.7Fleet (1000 GT) 57.2 48.9 42.9 40.1 39.6Volume (tonnes) 90877716.5 78156556.9 75533772.2 55629465.0 35598201.7Price (euros/tonne) 1955.5 1787.3 1909.2 2950.6 3318.8 Gear: Demersal trawl and seine Size: 24-40 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 (1-6)mln Euro, segment total Revenue 165.2 119.3 126.7 130.0 81.7Fuel 21.5 22.6 Effort related costs 16.3 29.5 Repair and maintence 13.9 13.9 Crew 32.4 30.6 Fixed costs 13.2 11.4 Derived indicators Gross cash flow 42.6 33.4 Gross value added 74.9 63.9 Net profit 29.3 22.0 Capacity indicators Employment (FTE?) 1491 1154 978 879 -Effort (1000 DAS) 33.9 27.1 23.3 21.1 10.2Number of vessels 204 159 123 113.0 109Fleet (1000 kW) 127.1 102.2 80.5 73.3 71.1Fleet (1000 GT) 51.5 41.9 33.6 30.8 29.6Volume (tonnes) 96442744.5 74664349.1 72732269.1 50424729.2 34078083.9Price (euros/tonne) 1712.6 1597.9 1741.9 2577.6 2398.5 Gear: Demersal trawl and seine Size: >40 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 (1-6)mln Euro, segment total Revenue 41.8 53.9 45.7 55.7 18.8


105

Fuel 8.1 10.9 Effort related costs 3.8 3.8 Repair and maintence 2.6 3.4 Crew 7.3 6.6 Fixed costs 3.6 4.4 Derived indicators Gross cash flow 24.0 31.1 Gross value added 31.3 37.7 Net profit 20.4 26.8 Capacity indicators Employment (FTE?) 132 112 133 130 -Effort (1000 DAS) 2.5 2.5 2.8 2.3 1.1Number of vessels 14 12 13 13 12Fleet (1000 kW) 23.0 22.1 22.9 23.4 21.8Fleet (1000 GT) 13.9 12.5 12.9 13.0 12.6Volume (tonnes) 22985802.0 24369418.8 25639576.7 27056365.6 10303274.7Price (euros/tonne) 1816.5 2213.3 1783.6 2059.4 1826.9 Segment 9 Gear: Pelagic trawl and seine Size: 10-11.99 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 (1-6)mln Euro, segment total Revenue 0.7 0.2 0.3 0.7 0.3Fuel Effort related costs Repair and maintence Crew Fixed costs Derived indicators Gross cash flow Gross value added Net profit Capacity indicators Employment (FTE?) 50 25 27 40 -Effort (1000 DAS) 0.7 0.4 0.4 0.8 0.4Number of vessels 8 4 4 6 6Fleet (1000 kW) 1.1 1.1 0.6 1.1 1.1Fleet (1000 GT) 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1Volume (tonnes) 425466 143520.5 124897.4 384841.4 157909.9Price (euros/tonne) 2950.766032 1709.2 2183.7 1811.5 1680.3 Gear: Pelagic trawl and seine Size: 12-24 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 (1-6)mln Euro, segment total Revenue 5.1 3.0 4.1 2.8 1.4Fuel Effort related costs Repair and maintence Crew Fixed costs Derived indicators Gross cash flow Gross value added

106

Net profit Capacity indicators Employment (FTE?) 184 116 127 169 -Effort (1000 DAS) 3.8 2.6 2.8 2.2 0.9Number of vessels 22 14 14 19 11Fleet (1000 kW) 4.2 4.2 3.0 2.3 2.2Fleet (1000 GT) 0.7 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.3Volume (tonnes) 3202019.3 1954660.5 3003308.6 2074900.3 671112.7Price (euros/tonne) 797.4 1560.2 1375.7 1368.9 2014.2 Gear: Pelagic trawl and seine Size: 24-40 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 (1-6)mln Euro, segment total Revenue 5.5 2.7 0.5 Fuel Effort related costs Repair and maintence Crew Fixed costs Derived indicators Gross cash flow Gross value added Net profit Capacity indicators Employment (FTE?) 42 33 18 Effort (1000 DAS) 0.3 0.2 0.0 Number of vessels 5 4 2 Fleet (1000 kW) 5.9 5.9 2.0 Fleet (1000 GT) 1.8 1.5 0.7 Volume (tonnes) 3469539.2 6630389.0 1261000.0 Price (euros/tonne) 474.7 407.9 424.3 Gear: Pelagic trawl and seine Size: >40 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 (1-6)mln Euro, segment total Revenue 175.7 152.2 145.6 204.5 132.4Fuel Effort related costs Repair and maintence Crew Fixed costs Derived indicators Gross cash flow Gross value added Net profit Capacity indicators Employment (FTE?) 501 460 477 440 -Effort (1000 DAS) 2.2 1.9 2.0 1.9 0.6Number of vessels 40 37 35 33 32Fleet (1000 kW) 105.4 105.4 123.6 130.4 127.0Fleet (1000 GT) 52.6 50.4 52.7 53.8 51.5Volume (tonnes) 110425626.7 302548937.1 320517966.9 364714394.9 177636627.4


107

Price (euros/tonne) 565.1 503.1 454.1 560.8 745.5 Gear: Dredge Size: 10-11.99 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 (1-6)mln Euro, segment total Revenue 2.4 2.0 2.5 2.6 1.6Fuel 0.2 0.3 Effort related costs 0.6 0.6 Repair and maintence 0.4 0.7 Crew 0.1 0.0 Fixed costs 0.3 0.2 Derived indicators Gross cash flow 1.2 1.1 Gross value added 1.3 1.1 Net profit 0.9 0.9 Capacity indicators Employment (FTE?) 58 50 57 53 -Effort (1000 DAS) 2.4 2.2 2.4 2.5 1.2Number of vessels 28 24 25 24 23Fleet (1000 kW) 3.6 3.1 3.1 2.9 2.8Fleet (1000 GT) 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4Volume (tonnes) 1920164 1821613.1 2547010 1390764 617472.1Price (euros/tonne) 1259.807437 1113.0 967 1887 2662.8 Gear: Dredge Size: 12-24 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 (1-6)mln Euro, segment total Revenue 28.5 22.8 24.0 28.8 15.1Fuel 4.7 5.9 Effort related costs 3.6 4.0 Repair and maintence 5.6 6.1 Crew 11.7 11.8 Fixed costs 4.6 5.3 Derived indicators Gross cash flow -1.7 1.1 Gross value added 10.0 12.9 Net profit -6.3 -4.3 Capacity indicators Employment (FTE?) 414.2 386.1 427.7 472.6 -Effort (1000 DAS) 14.2 13.1 12.8 14.5 7.0Number of vessels 97 91 92 104 127Fleet (1000 kW) 4.2 4.2 3.0 2.3 2.2Fleet (1000 GT) 0.7 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.3Volume (tonnes) 21386525.8 16840687.5 15770176.7 20787260.1 7144982.3Price (euros/tonne) 1333.8 1353.1 1521.6 1387.6 2106.8 Gear: Dredge Size: 24-40 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 (1-6)mln Euro, segment total Revenue 19.5 17.3 15.6 18.8 9.4Fuel 0.9 1.7

108

Effort related costs 0.6 3.0 Repair and maintence 1.3 1.5 Crew 1.8 3.3 Fixed costs 0.9 0.9 Derived indicators Gross cash flow 11.0 9.5 Gross value added 12.8 12.7 Net profit 10.1 8.6 Capacity indicators Employment (FTE?) 137.8 156 122.7 140 -Effort (1000 DAS) 3.6 4.1 3.5 4.2 1.9Number of vessels 22.0 25 18.0 20.0 20Fleet (1000 kW) 11.7 13.2 10.1 11.2 11.4Fleet (1000 GT) 3.7 4.0 4.0 3.5 3.6Volume (tonnes) 21386525.8 8454426.9 8995044.2 8164103.2 4297648.1Price (euros/tonne) 1333.8 2046.6 1739.3 2306.8 2184.4 Gear: Gears using hooks Size: 24-40 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 (1-6)mln Euro, segment total Revenue 11.4 7.8 7.6 10.2 5.6Fuel 0.9 Effort related costs 2.3 Repair and maintence 0.3 Crew 2.1 Fixed costs 0.7 Derived indicators Gross cash flow 4.6 Gross value added 6.7 Net profit 3.9 Capacity indicators Employment (FTE?) 67 66 45 36 -Effort (1000 DAS) 2.3 2.6 1.8 1.8 0.9Number of vessels 16 16 10 8 9Fleet (1000 kW) 7.0 7.0 4.5 3.6 4.1Fleet (1000 GT) 3.7 3.8 2.3 2.0 2.2Volume (tonnes) 5662417.5 5302073.1 4117884.6 2793530.2 2342778.0Price (euros/tonne) 2007.9 1467.2 1850.5 3647.3 2390.8 Gear: Drift and fixed nets Size: 12-24 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 (1-6)mln Euro, segment total Revenue 9.4 7.6 7.6 8.4 4.4Fuel 0.3 Effort related costs 4.2 4.1 Repair and maintence 1.6 1.9 Crew 1.3 Fixed costs 0.7 0.8 Derived indicators Gross cash flow 1.8 0.9


109

Gross value added 1.8 2.2 Net profit 1.1 0.1 Capacity indicators Employment (FTE?) 157 145 142 128 Effort (1000 DAS) 2.6 2.9 2.6 2.6 1.3Number of vessels 30 28 25 23 22Fleet (1000 kW) 5.8 5.3 5.0 4.6 4.6Fleet (1000 GT) 1.7 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.6Volume (tonnes) 3134083.5 2861619.3 2734706.7 2763487.1 1478397.5Price (euros/tonne) 3015.1 2642.2 2781.8 3043.9 2997.3 Gear: Drift and fixed nets Size: 24-40 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 (1-6)mln Euro, segment total Revenue 23.3 12.7 15.2 18.7 9.7Fuel 0.3 0.3 Effort related costs 0.9 0.7 Repair and maintence 1.7 1.8 Crew 1.7 1.3 Fixed costs 0.8 0.5 Derived indicators Gross cash flow 10.6 14.6 Gross value added 12.2 15.8 Net profit 9.7 14.1 Capacity indicators Employment (FTE?) 146 145 131 128 -Effort (1000 DAS) 5.6 4.4 4.3 4.0 1.9Number of vessels 28 28 23 23 24Fleet (1000 kW) 15.9 16.2 13.6 13.3 13.8Fleet (1000 GT) 7.4 7.7 6.5 6.4 6.7Volume (tonnes) 10135352.9 9056309.0 8271470.7 6752591.8 2661412.5Price (euros/tonne) 2298.9 1403.5 1833.9 2766.2 3632.3 Gear: Pots and traps Size: 10-12m 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 (1-6)mln Euro, segment total Revenue 17.7 17.2 17.7 21.3 7.8Fuel 1.0 1.0 Effort related costs 2.3 4.2 Repair and maintence 1.3 1.4 Crew 3.3 2.9 Fixed costs 2.0 4.2 Derived indicators Gross cash flow 9.8 11.7 Gross value added 13.1 14.6 Net profit 7.8 7.5 Capacity indicators Employment (FTE?) 892 897 920 911 -Effort (1000 DAS) 20.0 20.4 19.8 20.6 9.4Number of vessels 171 173 162.0 164.0 169Fleet (1000 kW) 19.5 19.7 18.9 19.4 20.3Fleet (1000 GT) 2.0 2.0 1.9 2.0 2.1

110

Volume (tonnes) 11111339.6 7432271.6 15133561.1 7260135.4 3134910.8Price (euros/tonne) 2475.3 2309.5 1512.3 2929.5 2490.8 Gear: Pots and traps Size: 12-24 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 (1-6)mln Euro, segment total Revenue 23.8 22.1 22.9 24.8 11.4Fuel 1.4 2.5 Effort related costs 3.7 5.1 Repair and maintence 2.6 2.9 Crew 8.8 10.1 Fixed costs 2.9 3.3 Derived indicators Gross cash flow 6.3 4.2 Gross value added 15.2 14.3 Net profit 3.4 1.0 Capacity indicators Employment (FTE?) 592 544 628 591 -Effort (1000 DAS) 10.5 10.8 11.8 11.9 5.7Number of vessels 81 75 79 76 76Fleet (1000 kW) 15.0 14.5 15.5 15.0 15.1Fleet (1000 GT) 3.7 3.5 3.7 3.6 3.7Volume (tonnes) 13069927.3 14147511.1 15133561.1 12631102.2 6338053.7Price (euros/tonne) 1817.780949 1559.3 1512.3 1963.6 1802.3

9

ANNEX 3 ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE OF SELECTED EUROPEAN FISHING FLEETS IN 2007 THE POTENTIAL ECONOMIC IMPACT ON SELECTED FISHING FLEET SEGMENTS OF TACS PROPOSED BY ACFM AND REVIEWED BY SGRST FOR 2007 (EIAA-MODEL CALCULATIONS)

Economic performance of

selected European fishing fleets in 2007

The Potential Economic Impact on Selected Fishing Fleet Segments

of TACs Proposed by ACFM and reviewed by SGRST for 2007 (EIAA-model calculations)

DRAFT FINAL version 2 (3.11.2006)

This report has been evaluated by the STECF at its Plenary Meeting November 2006


2

Acknowledgement: The model used in this Report has been developed from the original EIAA model set out for the Economic Interpretation of ACFM Advice under FAIR CT97-3541. Most of the data presented has been collected under Data Collection Regulation (DCR) and made available by the SGECA (subgroup of Economic Affairs) at its assembly in Brussels 23-27. October 2006. The biological information presented in section I.2-4 forms basis for the economic assessment. This information was provided by the SGRST (subgroup on Reviews on Stocks) during the assembly in Brussels 23-27. October 2006. These contributions are greatly appreciated. The calculation in the EIAA model have been carried out by a group consisting of Ayoe Hoff, Thomas Thøgersen and headed by Hans Frost from the Institute of Food and Resource Economics (FOI) (DK). The report has been reviewed by John Anderson, Sea Fish Industry Authority, (UK), Kim Normark Andersen, the Institute of Food and Resource Economics (FOI) (DK), Tore Gustavsson and Anna Jonsson, Swedish Board of Fisheries (S), Arina Motova, Lithuanian Institute of Agrarian Economics (IAE) (LT). Hans van Oostenbrugge and Kees Tal, Landbouw Economisch Instituut (LEI) (NL), Jarno Virtanen, the Finnish Game and Fisheries Research Institute (SF). However, Hans Frost has the final responsibility for the contents of the report.

3

Content I. Introduction to the EIAA Report for 2007 .......................................................................................4

1. The Economic Assessment ..........................................................................................................4 2. TAC proposals for 2007...............................................................................................................7 3. Long-term TACs and SSBs .........................................................................................................7

II. Assessment of the Economic Impact of Proposed TACs for 2007 by Fleet Segments.................11 SUMMARY TABLE. Economic impact of two scenarios for 2007 .............................................12

1. Denmark.....................................................................................................................................13 1.1 Pelagic Trawl and Seine 12 – 24 metres ............................................................................13 1.2 Pelagic Trawl and Seine 24 – 40 metres ............................................................................13 1.3 Pelagic Trawl and Seine ≥ 40 metres................................................................................13 1.4 Demersal Trawl and Seine 12 – 24 metres ........................................................................13

2. Finland .......................................................................................................................................14 2.1 Pelagic Trawler and Seine 12 - 24 metres..........................................................................14 2.2 Pelagic Trawler and Seine 24 - 40 metres..........................................................................14

3. Netherlands ................................................................................................................................15 3.1 Beam Trawlers 12 – 24 metres ..........................................................................................15 3.2 Beam Trawlers 24 – 40 metres ..........................................................................................15 3.3 Beam Trawlers ≥ 40 metres ...............................................................................................15 3.4 Pelagic Trawl and Seine ≥ 40 metres.................................................................................15

4. Sweden .......................................................................................................................................16 4.1 Passive gears < 12 metres ..................................................................................................16 4.2 Demersal Trawl and Seine 12 – 24 metres ........................................................................16 4.3 Pelagic Trawl and Seine 24 – 40 metres ............................................................................16 4.4 Pelagic Trawl and Seine 24 – 40 metres ≥ 40 metres ........................................................16

5. United Kingdom.........................................................................................................................17 5.1 Beam Trawlers 24 - 40 metres ...........................................................................................17 5.2 Demersal trawl and Seine 12 – 24 metres..........................................................................17

6. Lithuania ................................................................................................................................18 6.1 Demersal Trawl and Seine 24-40 metres ...........................................................................18

Reference to previous reports ............................................................................................................19

4

I. Introduction to the EIAA Report for 2007 1. The Economic Assessment This report gives an assessment of the expected economic impact of the TACs proposed by the ACFM for 2007 and reviewed by the SGRST. The calculations were carried out by a small team headed by Hans Frost, FOI (Institute of Food and Resource Economics, DK), and the TAC information was forwarded to this group during the SGRST meeting 23-27. October 2006. The costs and earnings information and the landings compositions of the pertinent fleet segments were provided by the SGECA at its meeting in Brussels 23-27. October 2006.The report was forwarded to representatives from the pertinent countries for review before presenting the report to the STECF. The EIAA Model used for the calculations is described in last years report that is available from http://stecf.jrc.cec.eu.int/sgeca/eaef/2005.php. It is important to emphasize that the model is used to project the economic repercussion of different TAC/quota scenarios. This approach entails that prices and costs that are independent of the TAC/quotas are kept unchanged relative to the baseline period which is an average of the three preceding years. A baseline period is used to avoid that natural variations impact the projection too strongly as would be the case if only one year was used as baseline. To carry out an assessment of the economic impact of ACFM advice, the fleet segments examined need to be subject to quotas, and knowledge of the catch composition for the national fleet and each fleet segment is also required. In previous years the costs and earnings information was taken from the Annual Economic Report (AER) http://stecf.jrc.cec.eu.int/sgeca/eaef.php and the database CAClient hosted by LEI http://www3.lei.dlo.nl/ca/. This procedure has changed significantly in 2006. Now the cost and earnings data as well as landings composition data originates from the DCR1. Data is requested from the Member States by Joint Research Centre and then forwarded to SGECA meeting 23-27. October 2006. The fleet segments are in accordance with the DCR as shown in table 1. The EIAA model can work with these segments without problems. According to the Appendix XVII of the DCR, the vessel segmentation has to be adhered to two dimensions for the collection of the economic data. Firstly, a horizontal dimension that takes into account the vessel length, which is common for both the minimum and extended programmes and, secondly, a vertical dimension that separates vessels in terms of the gear used (with a higher disaggregation for the extended programme than for the minimum programme), see Table 1. The difference between the minimum and the extended programme is that level 4 in Table 1 is omitted in the minimum programme, and the four length groups below 24 metres at level 1 are aggregated to two, leaving only four length groups in the minimum programme. 1 Commission Regulation (EC) no 1639/2001, OJ L222, 17.8.2001, p. 53

5

Table 1. Detailed desegregation of vessels (Extended Programme) Vessel length (level 1) < 10 m 10 - 12

m 12 - 18 m

18 - 24 m

24 - 40 m

≥ 40 m

Type of fishing technique

Level 2 Level 3 Level 4

Mobile gears Beam trawl North Sea < 221 kW

North Sea ≥ 221 kW

Outside North Sea

Demersal trawl and demersal seine

Bottom trawl

Danish and Scottish seiners

Polyvalent

Pelagic trawl and seiners Pelagic trawl

Pelagic seiner and purse

Polyvalent

Dredges

Polyvalent mobile gears

Passive gears Gears using hooks Longlines

Other gears using hooks

Drift nets and fixed nets

Pots and traps

Polyvalent passive gears

Polyvalent gears

Source: Commission Regulation (EC) no 1639/2001 Appendix IV (section C) The extended programme allows for 6 segments according to length and 17*6 segments per country if all types of fishing technique are included. In principle even more segments are possible if appendix X in the DCR forms basis. In the minimum programme a full categorization allows for 10*4 segments per country. For Denmark for example 13 segments are provided according to the minimum programme and for France for example 15 segments are provided, however for France only data until 2004 are yet available. As the process finds itself in a transition period with respect to changing data sources, only four or less segments have been included for each Member State, namely the segment with the highest value of landings. Further necessary information in terms of TAC/quotas, landings composition per segment, and costs and earnings has to be available. The main reason for not including further segments is generally data shortage at the time the calculations have to be carried out. For Denmark for example all13 segments were available, of which 10 segments could have been included in the calculations (excluding only mussel dredgers and shrimp trawlers), and for Finland for example all three segments could have been included. In order to balance the calculation effort between the reporting countries 17 segments have been selected from 6 countries.

6

1. Denmark (DK) 4 segments 2. Finland (FI) 2 segments 3. Netherlands (NL) 4 segments 4. Sweden (SW) 4 segments 5. United Kingdom (UK) 2 segments 6. Lithuania (LT) 1 segments

With respect to Lithuania a special version of the EIAA model working on single country level has been used. The quotas agreed 26. October 2006 for the Baltic Sea has been used in this case. The segments are distributed according to the minimum programme as shown in table 2. Table 2. Segments distributed on the desegregation of vessels (Minimum Programme) Vessel length (level 1) < 12 m 12 - 24 m 24 - 40 m ≥ 40 m

Country SW DK FI NL SW UK DK FI LT NL SW UK DK NL SW

Type of fishing technique

Level 2 Level 3

Mobile gears

Beam trawl 1 1 1 1

Demersal trawl and seine 1 1 1 1

Pelagic trawl and seine 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Dredges

Polyvalent mobile gears

Passive gears 1

Hooks

Drift and fixed nets

Pots and traps

Polyvalent passive gears

Polyvalent gears

Source: Commission Regulation (EC) no 1639/2001 Appendix III (section C) Main assumptions for the calculations for these 6 countries are found in last years report: http://stecf.jrc.cec.eu.int/sgeca/eaef/2005.php However, one important change ought to be noted: The price flexibility rates have been changed according to those used in the calculations regarding the flatfish management plan. The rates for all

7

species have been increased to 0.3 compared to 0.2, and for sole and plaice the rates are 0.62 and 0.22. Higher flexibility rates imply larger price response to changes in landings. 2. TAC proposals for 2007. The group has evaluated the potential economic impact of two sets of TAC proposals for 2007 based on the following criteria:

1. Single species TACs. As far as possible, TACs for 2007 were taken directly from the ICES advice for single species exploitation boundaries.

2. Management plan taking into account the provisions for stock recovery agreed by the Council.

3. TACs set in line with ICES’ mixed fishery advice. This scenario was undertaken to evaluate the economic performance of the fleets when the interactions between stocks and fisheries are taken into consideration. This represents a worst-case scenario, since it implies zero catch for a large number of demersal stocks that are caught in mixed fisheries. For example, for the North Sea mixed demersal fisheries, the ICES advice states. As the mixed species advice result in worse economic performance than the two other scenarios, these results are not presented.

3. Long-term TACs and SSBs Since the long-term equilibrium estimates of TAC and SSB should be largely unaffected from one year to the next, the long-term calculations presented in this report are based on the ICES advice for 2004. Results for long term TACs are not included in this report. However, the SSBs are used in the EIAA model to include the impact of stock abundance on catct per unit effort. Further information is to be found in http://stecf.jrc.cec.eu.int/sgeca/eaef/2005.php.

8

Table I.1. TAC proposals for 2007 for EU (15). Metric tonnes. 20051 20062 2007 2007 2007

Scenarios Single

speciesManagement

plan Mixed fishery

Herring I,II 78541 62000 111360 111360 111360IIIa 82696 70217 106296 116874 116874IIIbcd (EC zone) 108440 108691 148000 148000 148000IIIbcd, Management Unit 3 (sub-div. 30-31) 64000 91600 88100 88100 88100IIa,IVab 305557 315351 181 232 232IVc,VIId 74293 50023 34 44 44Vb,VIaNb 29440 33340 33340 33340 33340VIa S,VIIbc 14000 15400 0 0 0VIaClyde 1000 800 800 800 800VIIa 4800 4800 4800 4800 4800VIIef 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000VIIghjk 13000 11050 0 0 0Anchovy VIII 30000 5000 0 0 0IX,,X,CECAF 8000 8000 4800 4800 4800Cod I,IIb 19499 18920 12793 15153 12793IIIa Skagerrak 3773 3207 0 4060 0IIIa Kattegat 1000 850 0 850 850IIIbcd (EC zone) 42391 49024 24500 24500 0IIa,IV 22659 19260 0 29000 0Vb,VI,XII,XIV 721 613 613 613 0VIIa 2150 1828 0 250 0VIIb-k,VIII,IX,X,CECAF34.1.1 6200 5270 0 3000 0Megrim IIa (EU),IV 1740 1740 1740 1740 0Vb,VI,XII,XIV 2880 2448 2100 2100 0VII 19263 18300 12723 12723 0VIIIabde 2237 2125 1477 1477 0VIIIc,IX,,X,CECAF 1059 1269 1440 1440 0Anglerfish IIa (EU zone),IV 10314 10314 10310 10310 0Vb,VI,XII,XIV 4686 4686 4686 4686 0VII 25082 26456 29155 29155 0VIIIabde 6120 6120 6745 6745 0VIIIc,IX,,X,CECAF 1955 1955 0 01 0Haddock IIIa,IIIbcd 3610 2935 4852 2387 0IIa,IV (EU zone) 52082 44546 78809 38775 0Vb,VI,XII,XIV 8302 8407 7200 7200 0VII,VIII,IX,X,CECAF34.1.1 11520 11520 10220 10220 0VIIa 0 0 1300 1300 0Whiting IIIa 723 910 910 910 0IIa,IV (EU zone) 19800 17370 7200 7200 0Vb,VI,XII,XIV 1600 1360 1360 1360 0

9

TACs (cont.) 2005 2006 2007 2007 2007

Scenarios Single

speciesManagement

plan Mixed

fisheryWhiting (cont.) VIIa 514 437 437 437 0VIIb-k 21600 18360 18360 18360 0VIIIabde 3600 3600 3600 3600 0VIIIc,IX,,X,CECAF 816 653 853 853 0

Hake IIIa,IIIbcd 1284 1323 1520 1520 0IIa,IV (EU zone) 1496 1541 1772 1772 0Vb,VI,VII,XII,XIV 23888 24617 28310 28310 0VIIIabde 15932 16419 18882 18882 0VIIIc,IX,,X,CECAF 5968 6661 0 0 0Blue Whiting IIa,IV 122024 106313 0 0 0Vb,VI,VII 474333 222109 0 0 0VIIIabd 64673 30283 0 0 0VIIIe 0 0 0 0 0VIIIc,IX,,X,CECAF 134227 62852 0 0 0Nephrops IIIa,IIIbcd 4700 5170 4700 4700 0IIa,IV (EU zone) 21350 28147 22820 22820 0Vb,VI 12700 17675 16275 16275 0VII 18596 21498 17450 17450 0VIIIab 3100 4030 3600 3600 3600VIIIc 162 146 0 0 0VIIIde 0 0 0 0 0IX,,X,CECAF 540 486 250 250 250Northern Prawn IIIa, IIa,IV 10599 10599 10599 10599 10599Plaice IIIa Skagerrak 7448 7526 7526 7526 0IIIa Kattegat 1900 1920 1920 1920 0IIIbcd (EU zone) 3201 3201 3201 3201 3201IIa,IV (EU zone) 57370 55820 30368 30368 0Vb,VI,XII,XIV 982 786 786 786 0VIIa 1608 1608 6500 6500 0VIIbc 160 136 55 55 55VIIde 5151 4378 4000 4000 0VIIfg 476 405 380 380 0VIIhjk 466 396 196 196 0VIII,IX,,X,CECAF 448 448 448 448 448Pollack Vb,VI,XII,XIV 563 450 450 450 450VII 17000 13600 15300 15300 15300VIIIab 1680 1680 1680 1680 1680VIIIc 328 262 262 262 262VIIId 0 0 0 0 0VIIIe 0 0 0 0 0IX,,X,CECAF 360 230 230 230 230

10

TACs (cont.) 2005 2006 2007 2007 2006

Scenarios Single

speciesManagement

plan Mixed

fisherySaithe IIa,IIIabcd,IV 69947 59160 75803 60662 0Vb,VI,XII,XIV 15044 12787 15300 12200 0VII,VIII,IX,X,CECAF34.1.1 5574 4738 6968 6968 0Mackerel IIa (EU),IIIabcd,IV 17067 17621 17445 17445 17445IIa,Vb,VI,VII,VIIIabde,XII,XIV 217477 225837 223579 223579 223579VIIIc,IX,,X,CECAF 24873 26176 25914 25914 25914Sole IIIa,IIIbcd 416 900 740 740 740II,IV 18320 17470 10800 10800 0Vb,VI,XII,XIV 68 68 68 68 68VIIa 960 960 0 0 0VIIbc 65 64 64 64 64VIId 5700 5720 6440 6440 0VIIe 865 940 350 350 0VIIfg 1000 950 840 840 0VIIhjk 650 650 287 287 0VIIIab 4140 4060 4830 4540 4540VIIIcde,IX,,X,CECAF 1216 1216 1216 1216 1216Sprat IIIa 46250 48100 8600 12900 12900IIIbcd (EC zone) 199541 169791 429300 429300 429300IIa,IV(part n/a) 257000 263540 150000 150000 136626VIIde 7680 6144 6144 6144 6144Horse Mackerel IIa(EU),IV(EU) 40616 40957 17254 17254 17254VI,VII, VIIIabde,XII,XIV,Vb(EU) 133233 135257 128092 128092 128092VIIIc,IX 44000 55000 45000 45000 45000X,CECAF 3200 3200 3200 3200 3200Turbot, brill IIa(EU),IV 4550 4323 4323 4323 4323Lemon Sole, witch IIa(EU),IV 6500 6175 6175 6175 6175Dab, flounder IIa(EU),IV 18000 17100 17100 17100 17100Skates and rays IIa(EU),IV 3220 2737 0 0 0Norway Pout IIa,IV(n/a) 173000 173000 0 0 0Sand eel IIa,IV 33668 33668 0 0 0Salmon Lllbcd (EC zone). except sub-division 32 of IBSFC 346918 346918 222028 222028 222028

1. As decided by the Council, Council Regulation (EC) No. 27/2005 of 22. December 2004 2. As decided by the Council, Council Regulation (EC) No. 51/2006 of 20. January 2006 The list of TAC/management areas in the table is not fully complete.

11

II. Assessment of the Economic Impact of Proposed TACs for 2007 by Fleet Segments The economic consequences of the three scenarios described above are presented in this chapter. The chapter is organised in the following way. First summary results for the three scenarios are presented for all the included segments. The selected economic indicator is the operating profit margin defined as the net profit relative to the value of landings. Theoretically, net profit relative to the value of the invested capital would be a more appropriate measure, but because of the uncertainty about the estimated value of the invested capital it is concluded that this economic indicator is not so useful. The net profit is defined as the value of landings minus all costs. If the net profit is negative the operating profit margin is negative. In the summary table the profit margin for the three scenarios for 2007 is related verbally to the profit margin for 2003-2005 in the following way: ‘Impact’ = Impact of 2007 TAC on operating profit margin compared to 2003-2005

• W ‘Worsened’ = Segment was making losses, losses now greater • I ‘Improved’ = Segment was making losses, losses now smaller or even profits • L ‘Lower’ = Segment was making profits, profits now lower. • H ‘Higher’ = Segment was making profits, profits now higher • ‘ – ‘ = No significant change.

The situation of the included segments of each country is the described by the characteristics of the segments followed by the the economic results of two scenarios relative to the base line 2003-2005. The results are presented in tables. The general picture for the selected segments is that they are expected to be performing very poorly in economic terms. There may be some uncertainty related to projections because of the change of data provision procedure compared to earlier years, but for Denmark, Finland and the Netherlands the data are consistent over time and considered reliable, while the data for the other countries may gain from a further check of reliability. The time pressure is one of the reason for these uncertainties.

12

SUMMARY TABLE. Economic impact of two scenarios for 2007

Segment Single species Management plan



Denmark



Pelagic Trawl and Seine ≥ 40 m -13.2% L -12.0% L

Demersal Trawl and Seine 12 – 24 m -28.0% W -23.9% W

Finland



Netherlands

Beam trawlers 12 – 24 m -4.6% L -3.8% L

Beam trawlers 24 – 40 m -25.0% W -23.7% W

Beam trawlers ≥ 40 m -20.4% L -18.9% L

Pelagic Trawl and Seine ≥ 40 m -9.6% W -3.7% W

Sweden

Passive Gears < 12 m 41.7% L 40.7% L

Demersal Trawl and Seine 12 – 24 m 11.7% L 10.7% L

Pelagic trawl and seine 24 – 40 m 13.9% I 14.2% I

Pelagic trawl and seine ≥ 40 m 27.7% H 28.0% H

UK

Beam trawlers 24 - 40 m 0.6% L 1.0% L

Demersal Trawl and Seine 12 - 24 m -52.8% - -52.1% -

Lithuania

Demersal Trawl and Seine 24 – 40 m 22.2% -

13

1. Denmark 1.1 Pelagic Trawl and Seine 12 – 24 metres 1.2 Pelagic Trawl and Seine 24 – 40 metres 1.3 Pelagic Trawl and Seine ≥ 40 metres 1.4 Demersal Trawl and Seine 12 – 24 metres Denmark – Scenario Analysis – 2007 2003-2005 2006 Single species Management plan Pelagic Trawl and Seine 12 – 24 m Operating profit margin -13.3% -14.3% -21.7% -19.5%Performance UNPROFITABLE UNPROFITABLE UNPROFITABLE UNPROFITABLEValue of landings 40.2 40.1 33.6 35.1Crew share 17.8 17.8 14.9 15.6Gross cash flow 3.0 2.6 1.0 1.5Net profit -5.4 -5.7 -7.3 -6.9Gross value added 20.8 20.4 15.9 17.0Pelagic Trawl and Seine 24 – 40 m Operating profit margin -21.0% -28.9% -42.1% -41.8%Performance UNPROFITABLE UNPROFITABLE UNPROFITABLE UNPROFITABLEValue of landings 76.5 67.2 54.3 54.5Crew share 27.1 23.8 19.3 19.3Gross cash flow 6.4 3.1 -0.4 -0.3Net profit -16.1 -19.4 -22.9 -22.8Gross value added 33.6 26.9 18.9 19.0Pelagic Trawl and Seine ≥ 40 m Operating profit margin 4.0% 0.5% -13.2% -12.0%Performance STABLE STABLE UNPROFITABLE UNPROFITABLEValue of landings 87.1 80.6 62.5 63.7Crew share 23.4 21.7 16.8 17.1Gross cash flow 26.9 23.8 15.1 15.8Net profit 3.5 0.4 -8.3 -7.6Gross value added 50.3 45.4 31.9 32.9Demersal Trawl and Seine 12 – 24 m Operating profit margin -16.6% -17.7% -28.0% -23.9%Performance UNPROFITABLE UNPROFITABLE UNPROFITABLE UNPROFITABLEValue of landings 58.5 58.4 45.5 49.5Crew share 31.8 31.7 24.7 26.9Gross cash flow 0.5 -0.1 -2.5 -1.6Net profit -9.7 -10.4 -12.7 -11.8Gross value added 32.3 31.6 22.2 25.3

14

2. Finland 2.1 Pelagic Trawler and Seine 12 - 24 metres 2.2 Pelagic Trawler and Seine 24 - 40 metres Finland – Scenario Analysis – 2007 2003-2005 2006 Single species Management plan Pelagic Trawl and Seine 12 – 24 m Operating profit margin -10.8% 4.2% 13.0% 12.8%Performance UNPROFITABLE STABLE PROFITABLE PROFITABLEValue of landings 4.0 5.3 6.6 6.6Crew share 1.5 2.0 2.5 2.5Gross cash flow 0.6 1.2 1.9 1.8Net profit -0.4 0.2 0.9 0.8Gross value added 2.1 3.3 4.4 4.4Pelagic Trawl and Seine 24 – 40 m Operating profit margin -2.9% 10.0% 18.2% 18.1%Performance STABLE PROFITABLE PROFITABLE PROFITABLEValue of landings 8.0 10.6 13.5 13.4Crew share 2.8 3.7 4.7 4.7Gross cash flow 0.9 2.2 3.6 3.6Net profit -0.2 1.1 2.5 2.4Gross value added 3.7 5.9 8.4 8.3

15

3. Netherlands 3.1 Beam Trawlers 12 – 24 metres 3.2 Beam Trawlers 24 – 40 metres 3.3 Beam Trawlers ≥ 40 metres 3.4 Pelagic Trawl and Seine ≥ 40 metres Netherlands – Scenario Analysis – 2006 NL – Scenario Analysis – 2007 2003-2005 2006 Single species Management plan Beam trawlers 12 – 24 m Operating profit margin 0.6% -0.8% -4.6% -3.8%Performance STABLE STABLE STABLE STABLEValue of landings 59.9 59.6 54.5 55.4Crew share 21.5 21.4 19.5 19.8Gross cash flow 8.8 8.0 6.0 6.3Net profit 0.3 -0.5 -2.5 -2.1Gross value added 30.3 29.3 25.5 26.2Beam trawlers 24 – 40 m Operating profit margin -5.9% -10.9% -25.0% -23.7%Performance UNPROFITABLE UNPROFITABLE UNPROFITABLE UNPROFITABLEValue of landings 39.3 38.3 29.1 29.8Crew share 11.0 10.7 8.1 8.3Gross cash flow 4.1 2.2 -0.9 -0.7Net profit -2.3 -4.2 -7.3 -7.1Gross value added 15.1 13.0 7.3 7.7Beam trawlers ≥ 40 m Operating profit margin 0.7% -4.8% -20.4% -18.9%Performance STABLE STABLE UNPROFITABLE UNPROFITABLEValue of landings 127.1 123.1 89.9 92.7Crew share 30.4 29.4 21.5 22.2Gross cash flow 23.1 16.3 3.9 4.8Net profit 0.8 -6.0 -18.3 -17.5Gross value added 53.5 45.7 25.4 26.9Pelagic trawl and seiners ≥ 40 m Operating profit margin -1.8% 2.1% -9.6% -3.7%Performance STABLE STABLE UNPROFITABLE STABLEValue of landings 136.9 147.6 114.5 128.7Crew share 35.7 38.5 29.9 33.6Gross cash flow 24.3 29.7 15.6 21.9Net profit -2.4 3.0 -11.0 -4.8Gross value added 60.0 68.2 45.5 55.5

16

4. Sweden 4.1 Passive gears < 12 metres 4.2 Demersal Trawl and Seine 12 – 24 metres 4.3 Pelagic Trawl and Seine 24 – 40 metres 4.4 Pelagic Trawl and Seine 24 – 40 metres ≥ 40 metres Sweden – Scenario Analysis – 2007 2003-2005 2006 Single species Management plan Passive gears < 12 m Operating profit margin 45.4% 44.7% 41.7% 40.7%Performance PROFITABLE PROFITABLE PROFITABLE PROFITABLE Value of landings 13.8 14.1 11.9 11.6Crew share 1.9 1.9 1.6 1.6Gross cash flow 6.7 6.8 5.5 5.2Net profit 6.2 6.3 5.0 4.7Gross value added 8.6 8.8 7.1 6.8Demersal trawl and seine 12 – 24 m Operating profit margin 14.1% 12.9% 11.7% 10.7%Performance PROFITABLE PROFITABLE PROFITABLE PROFITABLE Value of landings 23.7 24.2 22.1 21.4Crew share 5.3 5.4 5.0 4.8Gross cash flow 5.3 5.1 4.6 4.3Net profit 3.3 3.1 2.6 2.3Gross value added 10.6 10.6 9.5 9.1Pelagic trawl and seine 24 – 40 m Operating profit margin -0.9% 2.7% 13.9% 14.2%Performance STABLE STABLE PROFITABLE PROFITABLE Value of landings 22.4 24.1 38.0 38.5Crew share 5.6 6.0 9.5 9.6Gross cash flow 2.4 3.3 7.9 8.1Net profit -0.2 0.7 5.3 5.5Gross value added 8.0 9.3 17.4 17.7Pelagic trawl and seine ≥ 40 m Operating profit margin 19.3% 19.3% 27.7% 28.0%Performance PROFITABLE PROFITABLE PROFITABLE PROFITABLE Value of landings 17.4 18.2 27.2 27.6Crew share 2.9 3.0 4.5 4.6Gross cash flow 4.8 5.4 9.4 9.6Net profit 3.4 3.5 7.6 7.7Gross value added 7.7 8.4 13.9 14.1

17

5. United Kingdom 5.1 Beam Trawlers 24 - 40 metres 5.2 Demersal trawl and Seine 12 – 24 metres UK – Scenario Analysis – 2007 2003-2005 2006 Single species Management plan Beam trawlers 24 - 40 m Operating profit margin 4.8% 4.5% 0.6% 1.0%Performance STABLE STABLE STABLE STABLEValue of landings 45.5 45.4 40.1 40.6Crew share 10.4 10.3 9.1 9.2Gross cash flow 7.1 6.9 5.1 5.3Net profit 2.2 2.1 0.2 0.4Gross value added 17.4 17.3 14.2 14.5Demersal trawl and seine 12 – 24 m Operating profit margin -52.8% -49.8% -52.8% -52.1%Performance UNPROFITABLE UNPROFITABLE UNPROFITABLE UNPROFITABLEValue of landings 149.3 169.8 155.8 157.1Crew share 75.5 85.8 78.8 79.4Gross cash flow -52.5 -58.2 -55.9 -55.5Net profit -78.9 -84.5 -82.3 -81.9Gross value added 23.0 27.7 22.8 23.9

18

6. Lithuania 6.1 Demersal Trawl and Seine 24-40 metres Lithuania– Scenario Analysis – 2007 2003-2005 2006 Agreed 2007 Demersal Trawl and Seine 24 – 40 m Operating profit margin 22.4% 20.3% 22.2% Performance PROFITABLE PROFITABLE PROFITABLE Value of landings 3.9 5.6 5.5 Crew share 0.8 1.2 1.2 Gross cash flow 1.1 1.4 1.5 Net profit 0.9 1.1 1.2 Gross value added 2.0 2.6 2.7

19

Reference to previous reports Economic performance of selected European fishing fleets in 2004. The Potential Economic Impact on Selected Fishing Fleet Segments of TACs Proposed by ACFM and reviewed by SGRST for 2006 (EIAA-model calculations). No FISH/2005/12. http://stecf.jrc.cec.eu.int/sgeca/eaef/2005.php. SEC(2005) 259 Report of the Joint SGRST-SGECA sub-group on “Further improvements of the EIAA model including long term perspective and effect of recovery plans” Brussels, 14 – 16, June 2004. Commission Staff Working Paper, Brussels, 15.2.2005. SEC (2004) 1710 “The Potential Economic Impact on Selected Fishing Fleet Segments of TACs Proposed by ACFM for 2005 (EIAA-model calculations). Report of the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF), Subgroup on Economic Assessment (SGECA) (Brussels 27-29 October 2004). Commission Staff Working Paper, Brussels, 23.12.2004. SEC (2004) 61 “The Potential Economic Impact on Selected Fishing Fleet Segments of TACs Proposed by ACFM for 2004 (EIAA-model calculations)”. Report of the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries, Commission Staff Working Paper, Brussels, 20.01.2004. EAFE-AC Report (2002) The Potential Economic Impact on Selected Fishing Fleet Segments of TAC's Proposed by ACFM for 2002 (EIAA-model calculations), European Association of Fisheries Economists’ Advisory Committee. http://www.eafe-fish.org/notices/eafe-ac-eiaafinal.doc

commission staff working paper report of the … · the role of the stecf in providing economic...

Documents