eu intervention in inland fisheries · means all activities aiming at extracting wild fish from...

Framework contract N° FISH/2006/09 (Lot N°3) “Studies linked to the implementation of the European Fisheries Fund”

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

DIRECTORATE GENERAL FOR

MARITIME AFFAIRS AND FISHERIES

EU wide report – final version

EU intervention in inland fisheries

Cyprinidae ©R.Swainston.ANIMA

TABLE OF CONTENT

1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 2 1.1. Various concepts and definitions ..................................................................................................................................................... 2 1.2. Synthesis and scoping of the study ................................................................................................................................................. 5

2. Definition and characterisation of inland fisheries .............................................................................. 7 2.1. Inland waters and inland fisheries ................................................................................................................................................... 7 2.2. Definition and status of commercial inland fishing........................................................................................................................... 9

3. Typology of inland ecosystems and commercial fisheries within the EU ....................................... 11 3.1. Inland aquatic ecosystems ............................................................................................................................................................ 11 3.2. Commercial inland fisheries........................................................................................................................................................... 11 3.3. Fish of commercial interest ............................................................................................................................................................ 18

4. Administration and management......................................................................................................... 19 4.1. Ownership of property rights and fishing rights ............................................................................................................................. 19 4.2. Administration and management of inland fishing......................................................................................................................... 22 4.3. Other regulatory requirements for inland fishing ........................................................................................................................... 23

5. Socio-economic importance of commercial inland fishing............................................................... 27 5.1. Monitoring of inland fisheries within the EU................................................................................................................................... 27 5.2. Commercial inland fishing.............................................................................................................................................................. 29 5.3. Inland recreational fishing and aquaculture................................................................................................................................... 67 5.4. Interactions between commercial fisheries and other fish-related activities.................................................................................. 69

6. Strength and weaknesses of commercial fisheries ........................................................................... 71 6.1. SWOT analysis .............................................................................................................................................................................. 71 6.2. Trends and perspective ................................................................................................................................................................. 78 6.3. Problems and needs of the sector ................................................................................................................................................. 85

7. EU and national supports to commercial inland fishing ................................................................... 90 7.1. Needs of the sector and current area of public intervention .......................................................................................................... 90 7.2. Adequacy of EFF regarding the needs of the sector ................................................................................................................... 108

8. Appendices.......................................................................................................................................... 120 8.1. Appendix 1 – Examples of inland fishing techniques operated from the shore........................................................................... 121 8.2. Appendix 2 – Devices used for commercial ice fishing ............................................................................................................... 122 8.3. Appendix 3 – Collective organisation of inland fisheries ............................................................................................................. 124 8.4. Appendix 4 – Diadromous and freshwater fishes registered in international conventions for the conservation of biodiversity . 127 8.5. Appendix 5 - Main freshwater species exploited by inland fishing (FAO) ................................................................................ 128

List of Tables ..................................................................................................................................................... 130 List of Figures.................................................................................................................................................... 132

- 1 -

EU intervention in inland fishing final EU wide report

Foreword

The views expressed in this document are the sole responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Commission and in no way anticipates the Commission's future policy in this area.

Methodology

A survey has been conducted in each of the 21 EU Member States where commercial inland fishing is practised. Factors such as the number of fishermen and local socio-economic importance of the sector, as well as data availability, have prompted more detailed investigations in 11 Member States.

Detailed investigations Simple data collection and interviews

Estonia Finland France Germany Hungary Italy Lithuania Poland Romania Sweden The Netherlands

Austria Bulgaria Czech Republic Denmark Greece Ireland Latvia

Portugal Spain The United Kingdom

This transversal, EU wide report, centralises all the data collected and analysis undertaken and draws conclusions regarding the overall importance of commercial inland fisheries in the EU, its main issues and needs, as well as the relevance and added value of EU intervention in the sector.

The goal of the survey was to determine the elements that will justify the added value of the Community intervention as regards Inland Fishing.

The main objectives of the survey were to:

- Provide a definition of inland fishing and evaluate its limits;

- Clarify the socio-economic importance of inland fishing;

- Define the framework of the Article 33 of the EFF;

- Identify the appropriate actions that should benefit from the EFF support.

The framework of this EU-wide report provides an integrated analysis of the definition and the socio-economic importance of commercial inland fishing at the EU level.

The rationale of the analysis developed in each chapter is to highlight the differences and similarities between the MS and regions, regarding structures and needs of the sector, and to identify subsequent challenges and fields for EU intervention.

- 2 -


1. Introduction

This preliminary chapter analyses the problems relating to the diverse definitions of commercial inland fisheries. The Bucharest Conference1 on inland fisheries revealed that the often regulatory definitions reported by the national authorities either varied and were based on diverse criteria, or there was no specific definition in some Member States where Inland fisheries cover both extensive aquaculture and catch fisheries.

1.1. Various concepts and definitions Article 33 of Council Regulation (EC) 1198/2006 concerning Inland fishing states that “1. For the purpose of this Article ‘inland fishing’ means fishing carried out for commercial purposes by vessels operating exclusively in inland waters or by other devices used for ice fishing.”

This definition is open to interpretation in some specific situations, and may not be relevant regarding fishing techniques. As an example, the reference to “vessels” is not relevant to (or will exclude from the support) fishing techniques conducted from the shore or “on foot” and the wording “operating exclusively in Inland waters” is likely to be a problem in some estuaries or coastal areas where there is overlap between sea and inland fishing.

1.1.1. Article 33 definition The “definition” provided by Article 33 for Inland Fishing refers to four key elements:

• A) “Fishing”: this term clearly refers to catching activities and not rearing activities (aquaculture activities are covered by Article 28, 29 and 30 of the EFF regulation), which means all activities aiming at extracting wild fish from natural waters, as opposed to rearing of aquatic animals in controlled environments and with human intervention (stocking, feeding, etc.);

• B) “for commercial purposes”: i.e., fishing with the legal authorisation to sell fish. Article 33 underlines the commercial dimension of the activity, as the CFP and CAP only concern primary production sectors (agriculture and fishery) and not recreational activities (such as angling);

• C) “by vessels …or by other devices used for ice fishing”: the reference to “vessels” is clearly a translation of the EU approach regarding sea fisheries (where vessels are the central point of most of the policies within the CFP). Furthermore, operating with a vessel is another criterion for targeting “professional” activities (even though anglers also use fishing boats). The extension to devices used for ice fishing is clearly linked to the previous intervention under FIFG 2000-2006 in Finland;

• D) “ …operating exclusively in inland waters”: in contrast to sea fishing where vessels are supposed to operate exclusively in sea waters (and be registered in the EU fleet register). This last criterion is likely to be problematic in some transitional areas such as estuaries and coastal lagoons, where regulatory overlaps between sea waters and inland waters are possible, and with fishing vessels operating on both sides of the limits.

1 Conference on EFF, Inland Fishing, and Aquaculture Production Methods. Enhancing the Environment -27/29 June 2007, Bucharest, Romania.

- 3 -


1.1.2. EIFAC definition of inland fisheries

The European Inland Fisheries Advisory Commission (EIFAC) of the FAO has discussed the concepts and proposed definitions relating to the different activities covered by the term “Inland fisheries”, i.e. the different extractive activities (catching) and rearing activities (extensive and intensive aquaculture).

The definitions proposed by Ian Cowx2 at the 2007 Bucharest workshop were as follows:

• Inland Fisheries: Fisheries where the species spend all or part of their life cycle in fresh water;

• Commercial Fisheries: Natural fisheries where the stock is exploited for commercial gain either through the provision of food fish, fish for stock enhancement or seed or brood stock for aquaculture production purposes;

• Recreational Fisheries: Those fisheries where the stock is exploited for individual personal consumption, sport or pleasure;

• Aquaculture: The farming of aquatic organisms, including fish, molluscs, crustaceans and aquatic plants. Farming implies some form of intervention in the rearing process to enhance production, such as feeding, protection from predators or regular stocking of managed pond systems.

These definitions do not contradict those of Article 33, but they do differ on two key points:

• Methods and fishing gear are not taken into consideration (no reference to vessels). It is the nature of the act (catching / rearing) and its objective (commercial / recreational) that are emphasised above;

• The continental (inland) character of fishing is determined by the link of fish species with fresh water (spending all or part of their life cycle in fresh water) rather than in reference to a physical or regulatory limit between sea and inland waters.

1.1.3. EIFAC definition of fishing

The EIFAC has recently proposed definitions for different kinds of fishing3 that distinguish three main types, depending on the purpose:

• Recreational fishing: fishing of aquatic animals that do not constitute the individual’s primary resource to meet nutritional needs and are not generally sold or otherwise traded on export, domestic or black markets. An unambiguous demarcation between pure recreational fisheries and pure subsistence fisheries is often difficult. However, using fishing activity to generate resources for livelihood marks a clear point of distinction between recreational fisheries and subsistence fisheries. Globally, angling is by far the most common recreational technique, which is why the term recreational fishing is often used synonymously with (recreational) angling;

• Subsistence fisheries: fishing for aquatic animals that contribute substantially to meeting an individual’s nutritional needs. In pure subsistence fisheries, fishing products are not traded on formal domestic or export markets but are consumed personally or within a close network of family and friends. Pure subsistence fisheries sustain a basic level of livelihood and constitute a culturally significant food-producing and -distributing activity;

2 Characterisation of inland fisheries in Europe. Ian Cowx for EIFAC, Bucharest workshop, June 2007. 3 EIFAC Code of practice for recreational fisheries –Glossary – FAO 2008

- 4 -


• Commercial fisheries: fisheries whose primary aim is to generate resources to meet nutritional (i.e. essential) human needs; in both full-time and part-time commercial fisheries, fish and other aquatic organisms are sold on domestic and export markets. Commercial fisheries include fisheries that supply feed to the aquaculture and agriculture sectors and raw material to other industrial sectors (e.g. the biomedical sector).

The definition proposed for commercial fishing does not refer to economic aspects (income, revenue, etc.) but rather to the method by which the product reaches the final consumer and the relationship between producers and consumers.

1.1.4. National definition of inland fisheries in the EU Member States

The key elements of the definition of inland fisheries proposed by the national authorities participating at the Bucharest workshop in June 2007 appear heterogeneous and linked to a very different historical and regulatory context (Table 1).

Only a minority of Member States offered a detailed and complete definition of their inland fisheries.

The key elements they mentioned refer to:

• Continental water bodies - “fishing in inland waters”;

• Professional status of fishermen, in reference to the source of their income and food (and that of their community)- “fishing by professional fishermen”, “with professional permits or licences”;

• Professional characteristics of fishing methods and gear - “fishing with professional vessels or equipment”;

• Commercial dimension: “fishing for commercial purposes” (only mentioned by Denmark).

Half of the Member States that provided elements of a definition indicated that there was either no national legal definition of inland fisheries or that inland fisheries legally include both fishing and aquaculture activities.

Table 1 - Summary of the definitions proposed Member States’ participants at the Bucharest workshop

Member State Key elements of the definition of inland

fisheries Sea / inland

fishery Inland fishing /

aquaculture Professional/

recreational fishing

Austria Fishing with professional equipment? Commercial status / recreational

Landlocked country n/a Angling / professional

equipment

Belgium Fishing with professional vessels For commercial purposes

Fish stocks (inland + anadromic and catadromic species)

Fishing of fish stocks with professional vessels

Professional vessels Commercial fishing

Czech Republic Definition includes fishing and aquaculture

Landlocked country n/a n/a

Denmark Fishing for commercial purposes Freshwaters n/a Professionals are

allowed to trade

Estonia Fishing with a specific inland professional permit

Inland water bodies

Extensive aquaculture is not regulated

Defined by the type of fishing rights

- 5 -


Member State Key elements of the definition of inland

fisheries Sea / inland

fishery Inland fishing /

aquaculture Professional/

recreational fishing

Finland Fishing by professional fishermen Inland "area"

No definition for extensive aquaculture

Professionals earn at least 30% of their income from professional fishing

France

Fishing in rivers and water areas (excluding closed waters and aquaculture locations) upstream from the saltwater line

Water salt content Regulatory definition excludes aquaculture

Professional fisherman who belong to a professional association and have a professional permit

Germany Definition includes fishing and aquaculture n/a No distinction n/a

Hungary No specific definition n/a n/a n/a

Latvia Fishing in inland waters Coastal Lines Extensive aquaculture is not regulated

Professional equipment (gear) Professional licence

Lithuania Definition includes fishing and aquaculture (legal definition)

Inland waters Fishing / breeding Angling / professional gear and methods

Poland No legal definition. Many different uses of inland waters.

Sea limits (Sea Fishery Act) No distinction No distinction

Portugal Recreational and professional fishing

Waters out of the maritime jurisdiction

No extensive aquaculture in inland waters

Professional = for commercial purposes

Slovenia Definition includes fishing and aquaculture (legal definition)

n/a No commercial inland fishing in Slovenia

Sweden No legal definition n/a No legal definition Professional fishing licence

The Netherlands No specific definition n/a n/a n/a

Source: minutes of the 2007 Bucharest Workshop

1.2. Synthesis and scoping of the study In order to define the scope of the present study, a synthesis of the key elements that distinguish the different activities potentially included in Inland Fisheries and the different types of fishing is presented below.

The first distinction is between:

• Fishing, which includes the different methods for extracting “natural”, “wild” stocks of aquatic species through their capture using various gears and techniques;

• and Rearing, which includes all kind of aquaculture activities, including extensive pond aquaculture, requiring human intervention in the development cycle of reared species.

The distinction between fishing and aquaculture is generally clear, except for some very extensive exploitation of ponds (re-stocking only) where fish are harvested by emptying the ponds periodically.

- 6 -


Table 2 – Key elements defining commercial inland fishing and other fish-linked activities

Recreational fishing Subsistence fishing Commercial-professional fishing

Extensive pond exploitation Intensive aquaculture

Aquatic bodies concerned

Large range : stream, rivers, lakes, ponds…

Large range : stream, rivers, lakes, ponds…

Estuaries, big natural lakes and lagoons, main course

of rivers

Artificial or semi-natural (emptyable) ponds Rearing ponds and tanks

Ownership on fishing rights Public and private Public and private Mostly public Mostly private Mostly private + public (for

re-stocking)

Fishing method and gears Mostly rod and line Rod and line + traps and

netsProfessional gears (Traps,

nets, lines…)Pond harvesting (yearly

or on a pluri-annual cycle)Ponds and tanks

harvesting

Targeted species Game and culinary species Culinary species Commercial (valuable)

speciesCommercial (culinary and

for re-stocking) Commercial

Leasure Food Revenue (main or complement) Revenue (complement) Revenue (main)

"Fishing for fun" (+ food)

"Fishing for food" (+ money) (1)

"Fishing for money"(+ food) (2)

Main motivation of fishing

Fishing Rearing

Source: development AND International – (1) some subsistence fishermen may be authorised to sell part of their fish. – (2) Commercial fishermen may keep a part of their catch for self and family consumption. Possible overlaps between commercial fishing and extensive aquaculture or subsistence fishing.

Distinctions between the different types of fishing activities are based on various criteria, including:

• The types of aquatic bodies: commercial fishing is often dependent on large natural ecosystems (lakes, lagoons, main rivers, etc.) and/or bottlenecks where fish are seasonally abundant (estuaries, with migrating species);

• Ownership of fishing rights: commercial fishermen may have to reach agreements with private landlords and/or pay licences to public authorities to gain access to fishing rights;

• The fishing methods and gear, which often differ significantly between angling (mostly rod and line) and commercial fishing (professional traps and nets). The gear may, on the other hand, be very similar for subsistence and commercial fishing in some areas;

• The targeted species: Commercial fishermen focus on the more valuable species and anglers may target game fish with little if any culinary or commercial value (catch and release);

• And finally, the main motivation of fishing, which is mostly economy-driven for commercial fishermen whilst leisure-driven for anglers.

Some areas of dispute may exist in some local fisheries with fishermen possessing subsistence licences authorised (or not) to sell part of the fish they catch.

- 7 -


2. Definition and characterisation of inland fisheries

2.1. Inland waters and inland fisheries

Article 33 clearly refers to the boundaries of inland waters as an eligibility criterion for FIFG support:

D) “ …operating exclusively in inland waters”, which assumes, firstly, that the boundaries of inland waters with the sea are clear, and secondly, that inland fishermen never operate outside these boundaries (at sea).

The boundaries of inland waters are defined using various criteria in the Member States, at the national and/or regional level (see table below). It appears that there are no particular issues regarding the application of Article 33 as no inland fishermen are likely to be excluded from EFF because of unclear boundaries and/or because they fish partly at sea.

Table 3 – Limits between sea and inland waters and consequences on inland fishing

Member States Criteria that set the boundaries with marine waters

Are Inland fishermen authorised to fish

outside inland waters (at sea)

Bulgaria No transition areas between sea and inland waters Not relevant

Denmark Boundary between salt and fresh water No

Estonia Inland water bodies = rivers, lakes and water basins No

Finland Line joining the two farthermost points in estuaries No

France Boundary between salt and fresh water No

Germany Defined at Federal State level. Generally coastline No

Greece Limit defined by administrative act at local level. Line joining two geographical points at estuaries and coastal lagoons No

Ireland Coastal line No

Italy Farthermost point of estuaries and connection of coastal lagoons with sea No

Latvia Coastal line. Farthermost points of each side of estuaries No (without sea licence and boat)

Lithuania Coastal line. Coastal lagoons and their connections with the sea are inland waters. No

The Netherlands Geographical coordinates (estuaries) and delimitation of water bodies No

Poland Regulatory delimitation (Water act). Transitional coastal lagoons are excluded from inland fisheries. No

Portugal Different criteria depending on the coastal line, limit of tides and navigable waters. No

Romania All inland waters and coastal waters above the 12 m depth limit (Black Sea)

No (outside 12 m depth limit)

Spain Waters are divided according to geographic characteristics in each area. No

Sweden Inland waters are precisely defined by fisheries regulations, with geographical coordinates for boundaries with sea waters. No

United Kingdom Defined at regional level. Inland waters include a few miles into the sea at estuaries (6 miles in England). No

Sources: Data collection in the MS - NOTA: Out of concern for landlocked Member States (AT, CZ, HU)

- 8 -


The delineation between inland waters and sea waters draws on four main approaches:

• A virtual line defined by regulation: coastal line and its projection into the sea where estuaries and coastal lagoons meet the sea. Geographical coordinates or reference points (farthermost points on each side of estuaries) are predominantly used. This approach is likely to include salt waters (lagoons and tidal zones) with the inland waters. For example, in Italy, commercial inland fishermen working in the coastal lagoons (Venice and elsewhere) are fishing in inland salt water (and catch mostly marine species);

• A regulatory limit based on the limit between salt and fresh water (FR, DK, etc.). In these cases, saltwater coastal lagoons are considered sea water and the fishermen are sea fishermen (French Mediterranean lagoons);

• A regulatory limit fixed beyond the coastal line. This is the case in some tidal and estuarine zones where the influence of freshwater entering the sea is deemed to influence the spatial distribution of diadromous or freshwater species. Such limits exist in the UK (6 miles from the estuary) for specific fisheries targeting migratory salmonids (salmon and sea trout) and in Romania (12 m depth limit in the Black Sea) in view of the substantial influence of fresh water from the Danube entering the sea;

• A hybrid of the different criteria, often when complex water systems and borders with other countries are involved (PL, SE, etc.).

The following figure summarises the overall rationale for delineation and interaction between waters, species, regulatory status and activities of fishermen. It underlines that inland fishermen are not permitted to go at sea (and are often not able to, due to their fishing boats and techniques), when sea fishermen are permitted to fish in inland waters in some Member States. This is the case in estuaries where glass-eel fisheries were significant (in France, Portugal and Spain).

Figure 1 – Limits between sea and inland waters and consequences on inland fishing

Water bodies SEA ESTUARIES and LAGOONS LAKES and RIVERS

Waters Salt water Brackish water Fresh water

Sea species Sea species

Diadromous species Diadromous species Diadromous species Species Freshwater species Freshwater species

Maritime status (ex : BG, DE, DK, FR, PL, PT)

Inland status (ex : IT, ES, GR, RO)

Status of Fisheries Maritime status

Inland status

Sea fishermen Sea fishermen (ES, FR, PT) Fishermen Sea fishermen

Coa

stal

line

Inland fishermen

Upp

er li

mit

of s

alte

d w

ater

s

Inland fishermen

Irrespective of the criteria and approach, interviews with authorities in charge of managing inland fisheries and with inland fishermen organisations have not revealed grey areas or overlaps between sea and inland fishing definitions that are likely to be problematic with respect to Article 33 of the EFF (double funding, exclusion of producers…)

- 9 -


2.2. Definition and status of commercial inland fishing

Article 33 states that “commercial inland fishing” must be understood as:

• A - B) …”Fishing”…. “for commercial purposes”; i.e., fishing activities operated by fisherman legally authorised to sell fish.

This definition refers to two different dimensions of the regulatory status of commercial inland fishermen in the Member States:

• The clear recognition of their activity as fishing (extractive activity / aquaculture);

• The legal authorisation to sell fish (“fishing for revenue”).

Table 4 (following page) presents the different types of regulatory status of commercial fishermen in the different Member States, from which it appears that:

• In most of the Member States, the status “commercial” (or “professional” depending on the official appellation) inland fishermen is linked to the granting of a “licence” :

- With a specific national registration (and tax) ; - With sometimes a registration of fishing boats used for commercial fishing

(Bulgaria, Finland, Italy, Romania, the Netherlands…); - With sometimes the obligation to join a professional fishermen organisation

(France, Romania…).

• In some MS, the professional nature of fishing is defined through a minimum time investment or economic indicators:

- Contribution of fishing activity to revenue (Finland), minimum annual income (The Netherlands);

- Full time activity (Italy); - Minimum of 600 h/year in France.

• In some other MS, commercial licenses are attributed for specific species and/or gear: - This is the case for Atlantic salmon and eel fisheries in Ireland and the United

Kingdom, where gear licences are commercial

In Hungary and Poland, the economic actors (legal or natural persons) legally exploiting inland waters may integrate different activities (fishing, aquaculture, angling…) which are all considered to be contributing towards inland fisheries.

Some fishermen are employed by companies (CZ, EE, DE, HU, LT, PL, NL) and thus are not directly recognised as professional fishermen (since they are not a permit holder).

- 10 -


Table 4 – Regulatory status of commercial inland fishermen

Member State Law definition Fisherman

permit / gear licence (1)

Minimum requirement Registration Employed fishermen

Austria depends on the Länder yes - Yes no

Bulgaria yes yes - yes no Czech Republic no yes - yes yes

Denmark ? no - yes

(catch declaration)

no

Estonia yes yes - yes yes

Finland yes no 30% of the revenue must come from inland fishing

compulsory to get subsidies no

France yes yes 600 hours per year yes no Germany no yes - yes yes Greece yes yes main source of revenue yes no Hungary no yes - yes yes Ireland Italy yes yes main activity yes no Latvia yes yes - yes no Lithuania yes yes - yes yes Poland yes yes - yes yes Portugal yes yes - yes no Romania

Spain depends on the Communities ? ? ? no

Sweden yes yes - yes no

The Netherlands yes yes exploiting at least 250 ha earning at least 8 500 €

from fishing yes yes

United Kingdom no yes - yes no

Sources: Data collection in the MS (1): Inland fishermen are recognised to practise a professional activity either by a professional permit or by having the right to use professional gear.

In some Member States, specific subsistence licences are available (FR, RO…), allowing fishing with “professional gear” (traps and nets) for family consumption. The commercialisation of fish with a subsistence licence is prohibited but may occur illegally in some areas.

In the United Kingdom and Finland, recreational fishermen are authorised to sell their fish.

The Finnish case can be outlined. In this country everyone is allowed to sell the fish they catch. But to be recognised as a professional fisherman, one must earn at 30 % of their revenue from fishing. This registration as professional fisherman is not compulsory; however it is required to benefit from public aid.

The distinction between commercial inland fishing and recreational fishing is clear in all the MS, where specific angling licences or permits and specific anglers associations exist.

Commercial inland fishermen have a specific status in 21 Member States that distinguish them from recreational and subsistence fishing (they are the only group authorised to sell fish). The distinction with extensive pond aquaculture is sometimes more difficult, such as in Poland and Hungary where fishing rights may be granted to companies exploiting ponds by fishing and/or rearing fish.

- 11 -


3. Typology of inland ecosystems and commercial fisheries within the EU

3.1. Inland aquatic ecosystems A wide range of aquatic ecosystems can be found within the European Union, from the cold large natural Scandinavian lakes to brackish Mediterranean coastal lagoons, and from deep alpine lakes to large rivers and estuaries.

Potentially, commercial fishing should be present in numerous different areas, classified into three main categories:

• Main river basins and their estuaries;

• Natural lakes, reservoirs and ponds;

• Coastal lagoons and lakes.

A detailed description of the different aquatic bodies with commercial fisheries (regarding national or regional definitions) is presented in the following sections.

3.2. Commercial inland fisheries

3.2.1. Location of commercial inland fisheries

Commercial inland (capture) fisheries still exist in 21 of the 27 Member States of the European Union.

Six Member States have no commercial fishing activities and the exploitation of aquatic resources only involves angling and/or aquaculture:

• Belgium, Cyprus, Luxembourg, Malta, Slovakia, Slovenia.

In two Member States, the size of commercial fisheries is very small (less than 20 fishermen) and they risk disappearing:

• Denmark, where traditional commercial fisheries in the lakes are about to disappear (19 fishermen);

• The Czech Republic, where a very local and particular commercial lake fishery (using electric fishing) is still active (4 fishermen).

Commercial inland fishing is considered significant (with at least 100 fishermen and local socio-economic importance) in 19 Member States (see map in Figure 2).

There appear to be both natural and sociological reasons for maintaining significant commercial inland fisheries in these 19 countries, including:

• The presence of large natural lakes, with sizable and healthy stocks of valuable typical species, such as coregonids, salmonids, perch, pike and pike-perch in the large Sub-Alpine and Northern lakes;

• The existence of large coastal lagoons (mostly freshwater, but sometimes with brackish waters) with good productivity (eel, predator fishes, crustaceans, etc.);

• The presence of estuaries and large rivers, with high productivity and/or important runs of diadromous species (glass eel, eel, shads, salmon, lampreys, mullets, etc.);

• The continued demand for freshwater fish, at the local (culinary heritage and contribution to tourism), national (traditional consumption of freshwater fish in landlocked countries of Central Europe) or international (glass eel) levels;

• The reliance on fishing in some specific areas with few other activities (remote coastal areas, rural territories, Danube delta, etc.).

- 12 -


3.2.2. Typology and characteristics of commercial inland fisheries

A summary presentation of the characteristics of the main commercial inland fisheries within the EU is presented in Table 5 (next pages). Fisheries are classified by type of ecosystem, which generally defines similar types of fisheries:

• Lacustrine fisheries, located mostly on large natural lakes (more rarely on reservoirs);

• Lagoons and coastal lake fisheries (with either salt, brackish or fresh water, and related fish and shell species);

• Estuarine fisheries (focused on diadromous species, eel in particular) and downstream sections of rivers;

• Fluvial fisheries, mostly located on the main course of large rivers (and sometimes on reservoirs and ponds linked to the rivers).

Figure 2 – Commercial inland fisheries within the EU

Significant commercial inland fisheries

Anecdotic commercial fisheries (< 20 fishermen)

No commercial inland fisheries

Sources : Data collection in the 27 Member States

- 13 -


Table 5 – Characteristics of commercial inland fisheries: lake fisheries large rivers and lakes estuaries and rivers coastal lagoons

MS

code Areas Ecosystems Main species targeted Fishing methods and gears Captures (tonne)

Number of fishermen

Number of boats

AT All Austria Deep subalpine lakesUltra-oligotrophic and

plain lakes

Whitefishes nei (Coregonus spp.), arctic char (Salvelinus alpinus), perch (Perca fluviatilis), cyprinids nei (Cyprinidae), pike (Esox lucius), eel (Anguilla anguilla), trout (Salmo trutta)

From boats: gill nets and trap nets 400 100 100

BU Danube dams Reservoirs and ponds

Common carp (Cyprinus carpio), crucian carp (Carassius carassius), breams nei (Abramis spp.), wels catfish (Silurus glanis), pike perch (Sander lucioperca)

From boats: traps and nets 1 100 50 50

BU Danube river Large river

Breams nei (Abramis spp.), catfish(Silurus glanis), carps nei (Hypophthalmichthys spp), sturgeons nei (Acipenseridae)

From boats: traps and nets 100 1 450 1 100

CZ Vestonice reservoir Reservoir Cyprinids nei (Cyprinidae), catfish (Slirus glanis), pike (Esox lucius), pike perch (Sander lucioperca)

From boats: electronic gear 24 4 2

DE Lakes of Brandenburg and

Mecklenburg, Lake Constance Elbe river, Havel river, Rhine

and Mosel

Lakes and rivers

Eel (Anguilla anguilla), whitefishes nei (Coregonus spp.), pike (Esox lucius), pike perch (Sander lucioperca), perch (Perca fluviatilis)

From boats: gill nets, pots, fyke nets, seine nets 3 256 932 932

DK All Denmark Lakes

Pike perch (Sander lucioperca), eel (Anguilla anguilla), pike (Esox lucius), breams nei (Abramis spp.), perch (Perca fluviatilis)

From boats: passive gears 30 19 20

EE Lakes (Peipsi, Vörtsjärv) and rivers (Narva, Vagula)

Lakes (eutrophic) and rivers

Perch (Perca fluviatilis), pike perch (Sander lucioperca), breams nei (Abramis spp.), roaches nei (Rutilus spp), pike (Esox lucius), lampreys nei (Petromyzonidae)

From boats: gill nets, seines, fyke nets 2 748 963 350

FI South Finland Lakes (oligotrophic)

Vendace (Coregonus albula), roaches nei (Rutilus spp), perch (Perca fluviatilis), breams nei (Abramis spp.)

From boats: trawls, summer seines, trap nets, gill nets Ice fishing: winter seines

4 498 945 651

- 14 -


MS code Areas Ecosystems Main species targeted Fishing methods and gears Captures

(tonne) Number of fishermen

Number of boats

FR Alpine lakes Deep subalpine lakes (meso-eutrophic)

Whitefishes nei (Coregonus spp.), arctic char (Salvelinus alpinus), perch (Perca fluviatilis), pike (Esox lucius)

From boats: gill nets, trap nets 484 71 71

FR Loire, Gironde, Garonne,

Adour, Rhône estuaries and rivers

Estuaries and rivers

Glass-eel, eel (Anguilla anguilla), shads nei (Alosa spp.), lampreys nei (Petromyzonidae), cyprinids nei (Cyprinidae), pike perch (Sander lucioperca)

From boats: glass eel nets, gill nets, trammels, fyke nets, trap nets

702 360 550

GR Evros river, lakes in the North Lakes and rivers

Cyprinids nei (Cyprinidae), catfish (Slirus glanis), pike (Esox lucius), pike perch (Sander lucioperca), whitefishes nei (Coregonus spp.), trouts nei (Salmo spp.), big-scale sand smelt (Atherina boyeri)

From boats: lines, fyke nets, other nets 887 400 200

HU Lakes Balaton and Kis-Balaton

Oligotrophic plain lakes (63 000 ha)

Carps nei (Hypophthalmichthys spp), breams nei (Abramis spp.), eel (Anguilla anguilla)

From boats: trap nets, hand-nets, lines 600 14 4

HU Hungary

Rivers, canal and oxbow lakes

Reservoirs and ponds ( 39 300 ha)

Carps nei (Hypophthalmichthys spp), cyprinids nei (Cyprinidae), catfish (Slirus glanis), pike (Esox lucius), pike perch (Sander lucioperca)

From boats: trammels, hand nets, trap nets, lines From shore: techniques similar to traditional extensive pond aquaculture

1 600 290 n.a.

IE Rivers and lakes Rivers and lakes Yellow and silver eel (Anguilla anguilla) (closure in 2008)

From shore and from boats : fyke net, pots, long lines, coghill, traps

160 200 n.a.

IE North and West estuaries Estuaries and tidal rivers

Salmon (Salmo salar), sea trout (Salmo trutta) From boats: draft nets 27 624 156

IT Lake Maggiore Deep subalpine lake Whitefishes nei (Coregonus spp.), shads nei (Alosa spp.), roaches nei (Rutilus spp)

From boats : gill nets and drift nets 160 32 32

IT Lake Lugano Deep subalpine lakeEutrophic

Whitefishes nei (Coregonus spp.), perch (Perca fluviatilis), pike (Esox lucius), twaite shad (Alosa fallax lacustris)

From boats : gill nets and drift nets 40 8 8

IT Lake Guarda Deep subalpine lakeMeso-oligotrophic

Whitefishes nei (Coregonus spp.), perch (Perca fluviatilis), twaite shad (Alosa fallax lacustris)

From boats : gill nets and drift nets n.a. 47 47

IT Lake Trasimeno Large, shallow lake Carps nei (Hypophthalmichthys spp), perch (Perca fluviatilis), big-scale sand smelt (Atherina boyeri)

From boats: Tofo (fixed gill net), Altana (drift net), Fila (Anguilla)

220 105 105

- 15 -




Number of boats

IT Coastal lagoons (Puglia, Lazzio, Veneto, Sardinia)

Brackish water lagoon

Eel (Anguilla anguilla), big-scale sand smelt (Atherina boyeri), mullets nei (Mugilidea), seabass (Dicentrarchus labrax), seabream (Sparus aurata)

From boats: group of trammels (paranza), gill nets and trap nets

n.a. 2 600 2 600

LT Curonian lagoon, inland lakes and rivers

Coastal lagoon (freshwater), inland

lakes and rivers

Roaches nei (Rutilus spp), vimba bream (Vimba vimba), white bream (Blicca bjoerkna), bream (Abramis brama), shads nei (Alosa spp.), pike perch (Sander lucioperca), crucian carp (Carassius carassius), eel (Anguilla anguilla)

From boats: trap nets , gill nets, fyke nets 1 594 300 200

LV Areas around Lakes of Latgale and Kutzeme,

Daugava river Lakes and river

Eel (Anguilla anguilla), lampreys nei (Petromyzonidae), salmon (Salmo salar), pike (Esox lucius), pike perch (Sander lucioperca), perch (Perca fluviatilis), cyprinids nei (Cyprinidae)

From boats: nets, trap nets 349 231 139

NL Plain natural lake : Lakes in Friesland, Noord- and Zuid-

Holland and Overijssel Eutrophic lakes

Eel (Anguilla anguilla), cyprinids nei (Cyprinidae), pike (Esox lucius), pike perch (Sander lucioperca)

From boats : gill nets and trap nets n.a. n.a. n.a.

NL Rhine and Ijssel complex

Ijsselmeer, Grevelingemeer, Veersemeer

Estuarine complex with large coastal

lakes, rivers, Canals

Eel (Anguilla anguilla), pike perch (Sander lucioperca), breams nei (Abramis spp.), perch (Perca fluviatilis)

From boats: trap nets, gill nets, eel pots n.a. 200 200

PL All Poland - mainly in the North Lakes and dams

Common bream (Abramis brama), roaches nei (Rutilus spp.), pike (Esox lucius), perch (Perca fluviatilis), carps nei (Hypophthalmichthys spp.), vendace (Coregonus albula), eel (Anguilla anguilla), tench (Tinca tinca), crucian carp (Carassius carassius)

From boats: seines, trawls, trap nets, trammels, gill nets, fyke nets

3 057 755 475-500

PT Rio Lima, Cavado, Douro, Tejo, Sado, Guadiana Estuaries and rivers

Eel (Anguilla anguilla), shads nei (Alosa spp.), lampreys nei (Petromyzonidae)

From boats: gill nets, trap nets, long lines From shore: traps

800 940 900

RO Danube delta complex + lakes (Razim-Sinoe complex)

Large Delta complex (mesotrophic to eutrophic)

Cyprinids nei (Cyprinidae), pike (Esox lucius), pike perch (Sander lucioperca), perch (Perca fluviatilis), diadromous species: pontic shad (Alosa pontica), mullets nei (Mugilidea)

From boats : fyke nets, gill nets, Trap nets 3 543 1 342 1 860

- 16 -




Number of boats

RO Main course of Danube, Prut river and lakes

Rivers and connected lakes

Cyprinids nei (Cyprinidae), pike (Esox lucius), pike perch (Sander lucioperca), perch (Perca fluviatilis)

From boats : fyke nets, gill nets, trap nets 741 1 335 1 600

SE Lakes Vättern, Vänern, Malaren...

Large oligotrophic lakes

Eel (Anguilla anguilla), Salmon (Salmo salar), pike (Esox lucius), pike perch (Sander lucioperca), perch (Perca fluviatilis), vendace (Coregonus albula), crayfish (Astacus astacus)

From boats: seines, trawls, gill nets, baited hooks, long lines and trap nets

1 615 193 170

SP Lagoons and estuaries Estuaries

Mullets nei (Mugilidea), glass eel, eel (Anguilla anguilla), seabass (Dicentrarchus labrax), seabream (Sparus aurata), flounder (Platichtys flesus), lampreys nei (Petromyzonidae), tench (Tinca tinca), Procambarus clarkia, Melicertus kerathurus

From boats: gill nets, trap nets, fyke nets From shore: traditional gears(pesqueira, fisga)

>800 500 >300

UK Northern Ireland: Lough Neagh, river Bann, other

rivers

Large meso-eutrophic lake and rivers

Brown eel and silver eel (Anguilla anguilla), salmon (Salmo salar)

From boats: lines, draft nets, nets From shore: fixed traps on weirs

373 220 110

UK England and Wales River, tidal rivers, estuaries

Brown and silver eel (Anguilla anguilla), glass eel

From boats: fyke nets, fixed traps From shore: hand nets

32 500 n.a.

UK England and Wales River, tidal rivers, estuaries

Salmon (Salmo salar) and sea trout (Salmo trutta)

From boats: drift nets, coracle nets, seine nets From shore: fixed gears, basket traps, hand nets

82 293 84

UK Scotland River, tidal rivers, estuaries

Salmon (Salmo salar) and sea trout (Salmo trutta)

From boats: fixed gears, nets, cobles 56 263 n.a.

Sources: Data collection in the MS 2008 data: Austria, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Hungary, Latvia (catches), Lithuania, Portugal, Spain, Netherlands, United Kingdom. 2007 data: Finland, Latvia (employment), Poland, Portugal (Rio Minho) 2006 data: Greece, Italy

- 17 -


3.2.3. Relative importance of the various fisheries An aggregation of socio-economic data by type of fisheries allows their relative socio-economic importance to be assessed (table and figure below). It appears that:

• Large natural lakes and large reservoirs fisheries account for about 53% of the overall catch by volume of commercial fishing in the EU, but involve only 28% of the fishermen (productivity by fisherman above average);

• Estuarine fisheries and downstream sections of large rivers comprise the second highest number of fishermen (with often significant percentages of part-time and seasonal jobs, focused on migratory species) but they contribute to only 17% of the catch by volume (the contribution in value is far more important in light of the high value of diadromous species, particularly eel and glass eel);

• Fisheries located on the main course of rivers account for 37% of the fishermen and 24% of the catches. These fisheries are those which have suffered the most from degradation of aquatic ecosystems and from competition with other activities in the past decades, resulting in major reductions in commercial fishing;

• Coastal lagoon fisheries (Curonian Lagoon and Ijsselmeer) involve around 2% of inland commercial fishermen for only 6% of catches. However, the real weight of commercial inland fishing in coastal lagoons is underestimated, given that catches of marine species in Italian lagoons are not monitored separately from sea fishing, and that some estuarine complex fisheries includes fishing in coastal brackish lagoons (DK, ESP…).

Table 6 – Relative importance of the different types of fisheries

Type of fisheries Number of fishermen

Captures (tonne)

Large natural lakes 3 992 18 727 Estuaries + rivers (downstream) 4 815 5 991 Rivers + lakes 5 369 8 279 Coastal lakes 318 2 162 Total 14 494 35 159 Italian lagoons (brackish) 2 918 na Total 17 094 na

Sources: Data collection in the MS

Figure 3 – Number of fishermen and catch in the different fisheries % of fishermen % of catch (volume)

L arg e natural lakes

28%

E s tuaries + riv ers

33%

R iv ers + lakes37%

C oas tal lakes

2%

L arg e natural lakes53%

E s tuaries + riv ers

17%

R iv ers + lakes24%

C oas tal lakes

6%

Sources : Data collection in the MS

- 18 -


3.3. Fish of commercial interest Inland commercial fisheries target the most valuable local species, regardless of the conditions. Two main groups of fish are concerned:

• Freshwater species, which spend their entire life cycle in fresh water;

• Diadromous species, which spend a part of their life cycle in sea water and another part in freshwater (some reproducing at sea and others in freshwater) and thus are migratory species.

3.3.1. Diadromous species Diadromous species have been fished for centuries in coastal areas, estuaries and tidal rivers. They have long been the main source of income for commercial fishermen in these areas. They still constitute the main species exploited in estuaries and in the downstream parts of rivers.

Five main families of fish are concerned:

• Salmonidae, with two main species migrating hundreds of kilometres upstream to spawn: Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) and Sea trout (Salmo trutta). These two species are still exploited by small traditional commercial fisheries in IE, the UK, FI, SW, LV, PL, FR, etc.;

• Clupeoidae, with different species of shads (Alosa spp.) seasonally fished during their upstream migration in LT, FR, SP, PT, IT, RO, BG, etc.;

• Petromyzonidae, with sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinus) and river lamprey (Lampetra fluviatilis);

• Anguillidae, with European eel (Anguilla anguilla) fished at different development stages, glass eel in estuaries (FR, SP, PT, UK, etc.), yellow and silver eel in lake and rivers;

• Acipenseridae, with different species of sturgeons. These fisheries have been historically important in France (Gironde), Romania and Bulgaria (Danube), but have strongly declined or disappeared with the prohibition on fishing of the European sturgeon (Acipenser sturio) and the Beluga (Huso Huso);

• Mugillidae, with different species of mullets (Mugil spp.) that constitute an important share of the catch in estuaries, coastal lagoons and rivers in GR, IT, SP, PT, FR, RO.

Most of the diadromous fish are among the most valuable species exploited by inland fisheries. They are primarily marketed locally and are often part of the culinary heritage in some regions, except for glass eel (exported across wide distances, even to Asia) and adult eels (yellow and silver), which are the source of an intense intra-European trade.

3.3.2. Freshwater species A wide range of freshwater species are exploited by commercial inland fishermen, but some specific families or species stand out over other types of fisheries:

• For Northern and sub-Alpine lake fisheries the predominant species are coregonids (Coregonus spp.), salmonids (trouts and chars) and some predator fishes, mostly Perch (Perca fluviatilis), Pike-Perch (Sander lucioperca) and Pike (Esox Lucius);

• In plain natural lakes, the predominant fish populations are generally Cyprinidae, of which Roach (Rutilus rutilus), Carps (Cyprinus carpio and herbivorous Asian carps), Tench (Tinca tinca), Crucian carp (Carassius spp.) represent a large share of fish biomass. In these fisheries, predator fishes are often the most valuable species and are actively targeted (Perch, Pike-perch, Pike, European catfish). Eel may be a significant resource when it succeeds in migrating to the lakes and/or when it is actively restocked (as in Lough Neagh in Northern Ireland);

• Rivers are mostly exploited in their main course (plain areas) and the most valuable fish species are often similar to those of the plain lakes (Cyprinids).

Detailed information on fish species exploited in EU inland fisheries is provided in Appendix 8.5.

- 19 -


4. Administration and management

4.1. Ownership of property rights and fishing rights Table 7 (on the following 2 pages) presents a synthetic overview of the main commercial inland fisheries within the 21 Member States where commercial fisheries exist, and mentions the ownership of fish resources and fishing rights in these fisheries (areas without commercial fisheries are not considered).

The main conclusions that can be drawn from this analysis are that:

• Commercial inland fisheries are clearly located in areas where fish resources are sufficiently abundant to ensure a minimum profitability of fishing activities, that is :

- Large lakes, coastal lagoons and main course of large rivers, where the available superficies and yields (ecosystems productivity) produce significant fish stocks;

- Estuaries and lower parts of rivers, which constitute bottlenecks for migrating species of high commercial value (eel, salmon, shad, lampreys…), enabling the coexistence of numerous fishermen within a limited area.

• These particular areas are mostly State-owned (water and fishing rights) due to their common interest in :

- Water resource management, for large lakes and reservoirs; - Navigation, for main courses of rivers and canals; - Historical strategic issues (navigation and defence), for estuaries.

In addition to these two considerations, it appears that resources of the majority of commercial fisheries within the EU are State or public-owned.

In most of the cases, water is considered as “Res Communis” (common property and common management) and fish as “Res Nullius” as being a wild resource (no one’s property until caught by an authorised fisher). There is therefore no direct ownership of fish but only of fishing rights.

Most of the privately-owned waters (non navigable or floatable waters, reservoirs, “small” lakes...) are mainly devoted to non commercial fishing and aquaculture, or to other activities (tourism, energy production, irrigation…). It is worth noting that these privately-owned waters often account for the majority of inland waters in the EU.

Exceptions are however evident in some Member States, where commercial fisheries exploit privately-owned fishing grounds, mainly for some large lakes in Austria, Finland, Sweden, and the United Kingdom.

In these countries, fishing rights are often managed through shareholders cooperatives or associations that combine both private and public (State, communes, parishes…) land owners.

In some new Member States, where fishing rights are now managed through auction systems on delimited fishing areas, private bidders may obtain tradable rights on historical fishing areas and lease them to commercial fishermen (e.g. in Poland, and during the “concession period” in the Danube Delta).

- 20 -


Table 7 - Main commercial inland fisheries areas and ownership of fish resources

Main Commercial fishing areas Member State Estuaries and coastal lagoons Lakes and reservoirs Rivers

Ownership of inland fish resources

Austria _ Lakes Bodensee (Constance) and Neusidler _ Mostly private (owners of land adjacent

to waters).

Bulgaria _ Reservoirs - No commercial fishing in natural lakes Danube river State (Danube)

Municipalities or State (dams) Czech Republic _ Vestonice reservoir _ State

Denmark _ Lake Arreso and > 20 other lakes _ State (Fjords) State or private (lakes and rivers)

Estonia _ Lake Peipsi, Lake Vorstjarv Emajogi River, Narva river State

Finland _ 67 natural lakes _ Numerous public and private owners, jointed into fishery associations

France Estuaries of Gironde, Garonne, Loire, Adour and Rhône 3 Alpine lakes + 1 plain lake

Main course of Loire, Garonne, Dordogne, Rhône, Saône and Rhine Rivers

State (natural lakes and main course of rivers)

Germany _ Lakes of Brandenburg and Mecklenburg Lake Constance

Elbe river, Havel river, Rhine and Mosel

Bund (navigable rivers), Federal States (lakes, small rivers)

Greece Coastal Lagoons (considered as aquaculture) Northern lakes Evros River (East boundary of

Greece) State

Hungary _ Lake Balaton Danube river State

Ireland Estuaries and tidal rivers of North-West and West _ _ State

Italy Venice lagoon, Orbetello lagoon, Sardinian lagoon, Apulian lagoon

Alpine Lakes (Piemonte, Lombardia, Veneto) and plain lakes (Umbria, Lazio)

Po, Tevere State (mostly) or private (Exclusive fisheries rights)

Latvia _ Lakes of Latgale and Kutzeme areas Daugava river State

Lithuania Curonian Lagoon Some large lakes (Kruonis and Kaunas reservoirs) Nemunas and Sventoji rivers State (mostly)

Poland Vistula and Szczecin estuaries (recognised as sea fisheries)

Lakes of Mazuria, Pomerania and Great Poland + reservoirs

Oder and Vistula rivers (minor importance for commercial fishing) State (mostly)

- 21 -


Main Commercial fishing areas Member State Estuaries and coastal lagoons Lakes and reservoirs Rivers

Ownership of inland fish resources

Portugal Estuarian areas are under maritime jurisdiction - Special regulation for Rio Minho

_

Rio Minho (maritime juridiction) + mainly 5 other rivers : Lima, Cavado, Mondego, Vouga and Tejo (AFN juridiction)

State

Romania Danube Delta+ Razim-Sinoe coastal complex Reservoirs Danube river and tributaries State

Spain Minho estuary + other estuaries _ _ State

Sweden _ Vänern, Vättern, Mälaren lakes + 35 other lakes and reservoirs _ State (5 largests lakes)

Private (other lakes and reservoirs)

The Netherlands Rhine-Mass estuarine complex, mainly in coastal lakes (Ijsselmeer) and main course of rivers

Lakes in Friesland NS, outside Rhine-Maas estuarine complex

State (Ijsselmeer and main course of rivers) Public or private (lakes)

United Kingdom Severn river estuary and Bristol Channel + other estuaries Lough Neagh in Northern Ireland

Eel fishery in the Thames Salmon, trout and smelt fishery in North East and/or North West regionsGlass eel fishery in the West of England

State (estuaries) Private (lakes and rivers)

- 22 -


4.2. Administration and management of inland fishing

Following table describes at which level the commercial inland fisheries are administered and managed in the 21 Member States concerned, and what the main rules are in terms of management of fishing rights.

Table 8 - Management of fishing rights in commercial inland fisheries Level and system of management of fishing rights

Management system Member State Level (national / local)

Fishing right leaseholder Type of fishing right

Austria Provincial governments (licences) Local (fishing rights) professional fishermen licences

Bulgaria National (licensing and registration) Regional (monitoring) professional fishermen annual licences

Czech Republic National companies licences

Denmark National Local professional fishermen licences

Estonia National Co-management with Russia (Lake Peipsi)

professional fishermen companies licences

Finland National (administration) Local (fishing rights) professional fishermen

licences and unit system (each gear corresponds to a number of unit)

France National (administration) Local (licensing by Departements) professional fishermen

Licences (areas shared by several fishermen) Lots leasing (exploited by a single fisherman)

Germany Federal States companies licence

Greece Regional (Prefectures) professional unions or professional fishermen auction

companies or cooperatives (=water users)

Long-term leasing (15 years) through a tendering system Hungary National

professional fishermen permission from water users

Ireland National (administration and licensing) Local (fishing rights)

Italy Regional (administration) Province (licensing and regulatory rules) professional fishermen licences

Latvia National (administration, registration) Regional (fishing rights) professional fishermen lots leasing

Lithuania National (State owned water) Local (private waters) companies licences

Poland Regional (RZWG) with supervision at national level companies

Long-term leasing (10 years) through a tendering system

Portugal National (AFN juridiction) Local (Rio Minho) professional fishermen individual and collective

licences (annual)

Romania National (ANPA) Regional (Danube Delta authority)

Spain Regional (Communities) professional fishermen licences Sweden National and local (private) professional fishermen licences

- 23 -


Level and system of management of fishing rights Management system

Member State Level (national / local) Fishing right leaseholder Type of fishing right

The Netherlands National (administration and licensing) companies licences and unit system (each gear corresponds to a number of unit)

United Kingdom National (administration, licensing) Local (fishing rights) professional fishermen gear licences


The main conclusions that can be drawn at EU level are that:

• Most of the commercial inland fisheries are administered at the State level (including federal States in Germany), due to the overall status of inland waters and of fish resources:

- With an involvement of regional or local administrations and/or public agencies or boards for operational aspects (specific regulations, licensing, monitoring);

- With different fishing rights management systems (by water bodies, by fishing areas/lots, by gear, by species…).

• Some fisheries are administered at regional or local level: - This is the case in Italy and Spain where regions and provinces have strong

autonomy of decision-making relating to regulation and administration of inland fisheries.

Different licensing systems are used, with individual (natural persons) and/or collective (legal licences) licences:

• In most of the MS, commercial fishing licences are delivered to individual fishermen (even if they legally have to join an agreed association);

• In some MS, licences may be granted to companies, co-operatives or associations employing or assembling individual fishermen (CZ, DE, LT, NL);

• In Poland and Hungary, fishing rights are leased for a long term (10 to 15 years) to water users, who are mostly private companies and cooperatives. Then a single right is granted per water body, and the leaseholder is free to exploit its resources as they wish (commercial fishing, pond aquaculture, leasing to recreational fishermen). Furthermore Hungarian leaseholders may give permission to individual fishermen (having a state-granted permit for professional fishing) to exploit their waters;

• In Romania; both individual and collective licensing systems are used: each fisherman must have his own professional licence and be a member of an agreed local association.

4.3. Other regulatory requirements for inland fishing

The two fundamental regulatory requirements for practising commercial inland fishing are 1) to obtain an official licence / permit entitling the holder to sell fish, and 2) to obtain fishing rights from public authorities and/or by private agreement.

Other preliminary and or supplementary regulatory requirements may exist, such as:

• Specific educational degree and/or training;

• Affiliation with a professional organisation;

• Licence for fishing boats, specific gear and/or species;

• Meeting a quota (individual or collective).

- 24 -


Table 9 (following two pages) presents the regulatory requirements for commercial fishing in the Member States.

Those requirements may vary within a country: as seen previously, regulatory management of fished areas is often decided at a local level. In some case committees formed that include owners of fishing rights and fishermen representatives (both recreational and professional) establish rules to be respected by fishermen: authorised gear, closure dates, minimal sizes, etc. Then there are no extra licences for gear or species, for example.

- 25 -


Table 9 – Regulatory requirements for commercial inland fishing Sources: Data collection in the MS

Regulatory requirements for commercial inland fishing

Member State Specific diploma or training

Fisherman licence-permit

Affiliation to an agreed

Association

Fishing licence Boat licence Gear licence Species

licence Fishing quota Validity of licences and permits

Austria Yes Yes No Yes No No No No One year

Bulgaria Yes Yes No Yes Yes (Danube only)

Yes (Danube only)

Yes (Danube only) No One year

Czech Republic Vocational training Yes No No Yes Yes No No Two-years

Denmark No Yes No Yes No No Yes No One year

Estonia No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes (Lake Peipsi) One year

Finland No Yes No Yes No Yes No No One year

France No - agreement on professional capacities

Yes Yes Yes No No Yes (Glass-eel and Salmon)

No Five years

Germany Yes, at least a professional training with diploma

Yes No Yes No No No No One year

Greece No Yes No Yes Yes No No No One year

Hungary Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No No Permit for exclusive water use for 15 years

Ireland No No No No No Yes ( Eel and Salmon gears) By river (Salmon) One year

- 26 -


Regulatory requirements for commercial inland fishing

Member State Specific diploma or training

Fisherman licence-permit

Affiliation to an agreed

Association

Fishing licence Boat licence Gear licence Species

licence Fishing quota Validity of licences and permits

Italy No Yes Yes Yes No (boat registration only)

No No No 6 to 10 years

Latvia No Yes No Yes No No Yes No One year

Lithuania No Yes No Yes No No Yes

Yes (in lakes, lagoons and reservoirs)

1 day to 3 months

Poland No Yes No No No (boat registration only)

No No No Permit for exclusive water use above 10 years

Portugal No Yes No Yes Registration No Only for Rio Minho No One year

Romania Yes - three weeks training Yes Yes No Yes No No

Yes, individual and by association

One year

Spain Depend on the Communities

Sweden Yes Yes No Yes No No No No Annual

The Netherlands Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes 3 years

United Kingdom No Yes No Yes No, in most of the UK, yes in Lough Neagh

Yes Yes Yes (Lough Neagh only) One year

- 27 -


5. Socio-economic importance of commercial inland fishing

The main purpose of the present study was to collect and analyse all the available, reliable and relevant socio-economic data in order to assess the status of and opportunities for the different types of commercial inland fisheries within the EU.

The socio-economic importance of the sector had to be assessed through the three main traditional indicators for primary production activity: the number of fishermen (employment), the number and capacity of fishing boats (production equipment), and the catches in volume and value (production).

5.1. Monitoring of inland fisheries within the EU

The first finding of the study is that information available on commercial inland fishing is very heterogeneous depending on the Member State and each area, it is also scarce, not fully reliable at EU level, and is insufficient for performing complete and robust analysis.

This is not a new discovery, as these issues have regularly been highlighted by EIFAC and national authorities and experts. One of the main proposals to the participants at the 2007 Bucharest workshop was to improve statistical monitoring within the sector, in order to gain a better understanding of its socio-economic importance and opportunities.

Monitoring systems appear to be very different in the MS (Table 10, next page) and therefore provide highly diverse information:

• The number of commercial fishermen is not always known, even when commercial licences are registered, due to the following factors:

- Some gear licences can be used by several fishermen (for example, a draft net licence in Ireland may be used by up to five fishermen, but the actual number is unknown);

- Licences granted to legal bodies for the exploitation of water bodies (HU, PL) are registered, but not the number of people employed by companies or co-operatives for commercial fishing;

- Fisherman or licence registers, often managed at the local level, are not systematically aggregated at the national or regional level and reported as sector statistics;

- Time series are scarce and often not consistent and/or reliable, as most of the monitoring systems have been affected by changes in regulatory and management authorities (e.g. France, most of the new MS).

• Inland fleet registers do not exist in all the MS, and characteristics of boats are not systematically provided. In some MS, fleet registers are being developed in connection with eel management plans.

• Catches are poorly monitored and the overall quality of data is poor at EU level. - Log books and catch reports are not regulatory obligations in all the MS; - The absence of catch reports and under-reporting are common; - Catches by value are generally not monitored.

- 28 -


Table 10 - Monitoring of socio-economic data on commercial inland fishing in the E.U.

Member State Fishermen register Registration authority Fleet

Register Registration authority Log book Monitoring agency

Austria No No Monitoring only in Lake Constance IBKF

Bulgaria Yes National Agency for Fisheries and Aquaculture (NAFA)

Yes (Danube) NAFA

Yes - fishers have to register the volumes and values for each species

NAFA

Czech Republic No (one company) No yes: annual reports Nature protection

authorities

Denmark No Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Fisheries No Ministry of Food,

Agriculture and Fisheries No- registation happens only if the fish is sold.

Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Fisheries

Estonia No Fishing rights belong mostly to companies Yes Ministry of Agriculture Yes Ministry of Agriculture

Finland Yes Ministryàf Agriculture and Fishery + RKTL No No RKTL

France Yes Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries + CONAPPED

No Yes : monthly declaration ONEMA

Germany No

Fishermen's register currently being built in relation with the Eel regulation and the Hygiene Pack

No

Fleet register currently eing built in relation with the Eel regulation and the Hygiene Pack, but only for boats used for eel fishery

No Exception for Lake Constance (IBKF))

Greece Yes Prefecture + Ministry of Rural Development and Food

Yes (available at the end of 2009)

Prefecture + Ministry of Rural Development and Food

No Prefecture + Minstry of Rural Development and Food

Hungary No No

Ireland No

(geralicences)

No Yes : tags for Salmon, declaration for eels

Regional fisheries boards

Italy Yes Regional authorities Yes Ispettorato di Porto In some Regions Region

Latvia No No Yes Inland & Marine Waters Administration

Lithuania No Yes

The register is not an official one because in the Curonian Lagoon there is no limitation of length and power

Yes Regional Departments of Environmental Protection

Poland

No (but register of authorised fisheries users)

Regional authorities(RZGW) Yes County offices, no

national register

Yes: obligatory registration for RZGW / facultative for IRS

Regional Water Management Authority (RZGW) / poll data: Inland Fisheries Institute (IRS)

Portugal Yes

AFN (resgistration of licenses) - Capitanha de Caminha for the Rio Minho (registration of licenses)

Yes

Regional administrations of Ministry of Environment / Rio Minho : Capitanha de Caminha

No obligation for catches registration for inland fisheries under AFN juridiction - Registration for the Rio Minho

Rio Minho : Capitania de Caminha

Romania Yes ANPA Yes ANPA Yes : registration at first sale points ANPA

Spain Yes Autonomous Communities Yes Autonomous

Communities Yes

Environmental Authorities at the Autonomous Communities

Sweden Yes Swedish Board of Fisheries Yes Swedish Board of

Fisheries Yes Swedish Board of Fisheries

The Netherlands Yes Ministry of Yes Ministry Yes Ministry

United Kingdom No (gear licences)

Yes in Lough Neagh

LNFCS Yes Environment Agency

Fishermen Boats Catches


- 29 -


5.2. Commercial inland fishing

5.2.1. Number of fishermen and employment Approximately 17,100 commercial inland fishermen are operating within the EU (2008-2009), of which a significant percentage is part-time, due to the seasonality of fishing activities and to national regulations (generally, a minimum fishing time is not compulsory). Amongst these include 2600 Italian fishermen operating in coastal lagoons and a few dozen Romanian fishermen who would not qualify as inland fisherman in other Member States

It must be emphasised that most national authorities estimate the number of people involved in commercial inland fishing, usually on the basis of the number of licences registered, or estimated when no aggregation of regional data exists. The following table demonstrates how the number of fishermen is linked with the number of licences and the number of fishing businesses in the different Member States. Three main observations are apparent:

• In most of the MS, one fishing licence per fisherman is issued, and the number of licenses, fishermen and businesses are equal;

• In some MS, fishing licences (and fishing rights) are issued for legal or natural persons, employing several fishermen. This is the case in the new Member States where the system is inherited from the former State cooperative system (CZ, EE, HU, LT, PL) and in Finland and the Netherlands, where some medium-sized fishing companies exist;

Table 11 – Number of licences, fishermen and businesses in inland fisheries

Member State Number of fishermen

Number of licenses

Number of businesses Comments

Austria 100 100 100 Sole-trader or family businesses Bulgaria 1 500 1 500 1 500 Sole-trader or family businesses Czech Republic 4 1 1 1 commercial company Denmark 19 19 19 Sole-trader or family businesses Estonia 963 291 291 20 large companies on lake Peipsi Finland 945 945 350 Non compulsory registration (estimates) France 431 391 391 Sole-trader or family businesses Germany 932 932 932 Sole-trader or family businesses Greece (1) 400 400 400 Sole-trader or family businesses

Hungary 304 304 < 100 Several companies and cooperatives manage fishing rights on different water bodies

Ireland 624 156 n/a Fishing gears licences for draft nets, generally operated by 4 fishermen

Italy (2) 3 600 3 600 3 600 Sole-trader or family businesses Latvia 231 231 231 Sole-trader or family businesses Lithuania 300 193 193 Sole-trader or family businesses Poland 755 339 < 339 A company can own several licences Portugal 940 940 940 Sole-trader or family businesses

Romania 2 677 2 677 < 2 677 Sole-trader or family businesses + some companies employing 1 to 3 fishermen

Spain 500 500 500 Sole-trader or family businesses Sweden 193 193 193 Sole-trader or family businesses Netherlands 400 200 200 Small craft businesses

United Kingdom 1 276 1 730 n/a Fishing gear licences, some of them being operated by several fishermen

Total 21 MS 17 094 15 642 - -

Sources: Data collection in the MS and estimates – (1) Greek lagoons are not included as their exploitation is considered as extensive aquaculture. (2) of which about 2600 inland fishermen operating in coastal salted lagoons and 1 000 fishermen operating in freshwaters and estuaries.

- 30 -


• In some MS (IE, UK), licences are issued for gears, sometimes operated by several fishermen (e.g.: in Ireland, a draft net licence allows the holder to fish with a maximum of 4 other fishermen) and with sometimes several licences issued for a same fisherman (in the UK, eel-fishermen may hold licences for different gears).

Considering these issues, it is clear that a consistent overall assessment of employment at EU level is difficult to perform.

Therefore, estimates from national experts (fishermen and their professional organisations, scientists, etc.) have been used when official statistics were unreliable or incomplete.

On this basis, it is estimated that in 2008-2009, there were approximately 17,100 people involved in the commercial inland fisheries sector in the EU (see table below).

Table 12 - Employment in commercial inland fisheries

Number of commercial fishermen

Member State Total Full time Part time Occasional (1)

Full time equivalent

Austria 100 20 80 Bulgaria (5) 1 500 630 870 717 Czech Republic 4 4 Denmark (5) 19 10 9 Estonia 963 Finland 945 313 338 294 478 France (5) 431 242 189 306 Germany (5) 932 437 495 Greece (2) 400 50 350 200 Hungary 304 204 100 Ireland 624 - 624 60 Italy (3) 3 600 Latvia 231 40 191 Lithuania 300 Poland (5) 755 475 280 Portugal (4)(5) 940 188 564 188 Romania 2 677 2 422 242 13 2 545 Spain 500 Sweden 193 The Netherlands 400 United Kingdom 1 276 20 1 256 298

Total 17 094 5 051 5 592 495

(1) Only some hours/year and sometimes no fishing. (2) Greek lagoons are not taken into account as they are not considered as fishery areas (extensive aquaculture). (3) The number of fishermen in Italy includes around 2 600 fishermen operating in coastal inland lagoons (salted)

and generally having other activities (shellfish rearing, sea fishing…). (4) Rio Minho fishery is not taken into account because it is mainly under maritime jurisdiction. (5) Brackish lagoons are under maritime jurisdiction in BG, DE, DK, FR, PL, PT Sources: Data collection in the MS and estimations

Full time / Part time

Numbers of full-time and part-time fishermen are only available in official statistics for some MS and the number of FTEs is often a rough estimate.

The proportion of full time fishermen is not always easy to assess, especially when the number of professional fishermen is not monitored. Nevertheless inland fishing often involves significant part time activity, due to the existence of fishing seasons.

- 31 -


Fishing seasons can be linked with stock management issues. Closure periods are frequent during spawning seasons regardless of the species, and thus restrict the time fishermen can devote to fishing. Furthermore, productivity is not steady all year long, as winter months often witness less activity and interest from fishermen. During those quiet months full-time fishermen generally maintain their boats and facilities and repair and assemble fishing gear. Even full-time fishermen do not exercise their profession 12 months a year.

Additionally, migrating species cannot be exploited all year by inland fishermen. Anadromous species only migrate upstream for the breeding season, often in spring. For example the Irish salmon fishery lasts only two months, shad fisheries only a few weeks. Glass eels migrate upstream during winter (from November to April, depending on the area). Consequently fishermen who only obtain a licence for a migratory species are part-time fishermen.

Another important point is that in many countries professional licences entitle fishermen to sell their catch, but no minimum fishing time is compulsory. Possessing a professional licence does not necessarily mean that you sell your fish. In some fisheries, for example in Portugal or the British glass eel fishery, many fishermen obtain a licence to continue a family tradition or to be allowed to use professional gear. It is becoming more frequent that licence prices are not as high and do not deter leisure fishermen. It is really difficult to assess the share of those non-professional fishermen, even though it should be significant in Germany, Portugal, Spain and the UK. They surely do not spend more than a few days per year in fishing.

A precise assessment of the number of Full Time Equivalent represented by commercial inland fishermen is then almost impossible, and the figures given here are rough estimates.

Equal opportunities: women employment

Little data is available on the number of fisherwomen. In France they are around 15, and represents 3% of all the fishermen, Romania has 51 fisherwomen (2% of the fishermen) and Sweden 7 (4% of the profession). Those partial figures illustrate the low share of women among the profession. If they are not officially registered as fishermen, women play an important role in the businesses management, at least in small scale family enterprises, which are the more widespread in inland fisheries.

They usually perform numerous invisible tasks linked to fishing, like the administrative running of the business (accounting, dealing with banks and administration...), or can be involved in fish processing and sales, given that fishery business with direct-sales activity often need someone in charge of selling. Business diversification towards tourism offers employment opportunities to women: fish restaurant, room renting, tourist guiding, etc.

Furthermore women’s social role is by no means insignificant. They contribute to the fishermen communities’ coordination and defence. Some of them are involved in associations like AKTEA (European Network of women's organisations in fisheries and aquaculture), which allow women to share their experiences.

The following map (following page) depicts the distribution of inland fishermen within the EU. It shows that significant populations of commercial inland fishermen are still present in the different areas, even in MS where policies tend to promote recreational fishing (northern and western MS).

- 32 -


Figure 4 – Number of commercial inland fishermen by Member State

MS with commercial inland fisheries

MS without commercial fisheries

940

4 00

1 000

19

400

1 276

624

431

932

945

193

2 677

1 500304

755

300

963

231

100

Number of commercial fishermen

Employment

500

IT + around 2 600 fishermen in

coastal salted lagoons

Sources: National statistics and experts

- 33 -


The ranking of MS on the basis of the number of fishermen requires a few comments:

• The figure for Italy should be set apart, given that most of the estimated 3,600 inland commercial fishermen are located in saltwater coastal lagoons (and would be considered coastal sea fishermen in other MS);

• Romania and Bulgaria are the two MS with a very large number of fishermen connected with traditional domestic consumption of freshwater fish;

• The UK issues numerous gear licences for salmon and eel, but the percentage of full-time fishermen is very low;

• Finland, with its large lake fisheries, is one of the MS more directly implicated in inland fishing.

5.2.2. Fishing methods, boats and gears Between 14,000 and 15,000 fishing boats are operational in the EU’s commercial inland fisheries. Most of these boats are less than 8 m in length and operate with passive gear, in some cases without an engine (rowboats). Some large natural lake fisheries (Finland, Estonia, etc.) are exploited by larger boats with active gear (trawls or seines). Fishing without a boat (from shore or pontoons) is comprised of some small local traditional fisheries (eel and salmon) and seasonal fisheries in Northern MS (fishing on ice in the Scandinavian and Baltic States)

Article 33 of the EFF regulation states that inland fishing refers to fishing activities conducted:

C) ” by vessels …or by other devices used for ice fishing”: these criteria for EFF funding are likely to exclude fishing with shore-operated gear, such as lift-nets, eel traps, etc., or by fishermen operating on foot (shellfish fishing in some estuaries or lagoons).

Figure 5 – Number of commercial inland fishermen

4

19

100

193

231

300

304

400

400

431

500

624

755

932

940

945

963

1 276

1 500

2 677

3 600

- 1 000 2 000 3 000 4 000

Czech Republic

Denmark

Austria

Sw eden

Latvia

Lithuania

Hungary

The Netherlands

Greece

France

Spain

Ireland

Poland

Germany

Portugal

Finland

Estonia

United Kingdom

Bulgaria

Romania

Italy

Sources : National statistics and experts

- 34 -


Fishing methods and gears

Table 5 (Part 3.2.2) describes the fishing methods and gear used in the different types of fisheries within the EU. Some primary factors relating to the characteristics of water bodies, the species of fish targeted and/or regulation are responsible for the use of different methods and gear:

• Passive gears are the most widely used throughout the EU, mostly in rivers and shallow waters, where the use of active gears is difficult or even impossible:

- Traps, pots, fyke nets, lines, trammels, gill nets and other passive nets are traditional gear used for decades (sometimes centuries) in virtually all the MS. Only the raw materials used for gear and net manufacture have changed (synthetic fibres have gradually replaced natural fibres);

- In these fisheries, boats are not properly used for fishing, but mostly to transport gear to the fishing grounds and fish to landing points. Small traditional wooden rowboats are still used in some areas;

- Some traditional fixed gears are operated from shore in specific arrangements (weirs and other bottlenecks on rivers, channels connecting coastal lakes or lagoons to the sea). Fishing from shore is still found in some traditional salmon and eel fisheries (UK, IE, Baltic States) as well as fishing from pontoons in glass eel fisheries (FR);

- The predominance of passive gear is also often due to inland fishing regulations. Competition between commercial fishing and other water-related activities (angling, tourism, etc.) has led some MS to impose a prohibition, or restrictions, on the use of active gear.

• Active gears are used in larger water bodies where fish stocks are spread over wide areas. This involves mostly large lake and estuarine fisheries, examples of which include:

- Finnish lake fisheries, where vendace (Coregonus albula) are fished with specific trawl nets;

- Lake Peipsi fishery, conducted by boats using seines for the capture of pikeperch (Stizostedion lucioperca) and vendace (Coregonus albula);

- The Lough Neagh eel (Anguilla Anguilla) fishery in Northern Ireland, where surrounding nets are used for the capture of yellow eels;

- France’s sub-Alpine lakes, with trawl line fishing for char (Salvelinus alpinus) and lake trout (Salmo trutta lacustris);

- These fishing techniques obviously require larger and more powerful boats and are a main factor in the ratio of costs to margins.

Fishing without a boat

Data collected from the 21 MS reveals that fishing without a boat comprises two different methods: fishing from shore and winter ice-fishing (fishing on ice).

Fishing from shore

Three main types of traditional fishing techniques can be distinguished:

- Fishing “by foot”. This specific method concerns more specifically intertidal harvesting of molluscs and crustaceans. It is the traditional activity of “mariscadores a pie” in Spain and of “pêcheurs à pied” in France. In both countries theses fishermen have maritime status, even if operating legally, in inland waters (estuaries and tidal zones). Their catches are thus registered (or supposed to be) with sea catch as most of the shellfish and crustaceans harvested are salt-water species. No particular overlap with inland fishing was observed during the study;

- Fishing from weirs. These techniques have been developed to enable fishing of migrating species at specific points they have to pass during their migration to spawning or feeding grounds. Fixed traps, boxes, and nets are placed at specifically designed passes where fish catch themselves. In the past, there have been many fishing weirs on European rivers, but these were progressively prohibited due to their high impact on some diadromous species (Atlantic salmon). Two types of inland water bodies are still relevant in the EU:

- 35 -


- Coastal lagoons in Spain (Albufera Lagoon). According to Autonomous EU of Valencia, around 100 fishermen fish from weirs in Albufera Lagoon but most of them own boats even if not specifically used for fishing;

- On a river in Northern Ireland, where the Lough Neagh co-operative catch silver eels when returning to sea from a bridge-weir. This fishery is complementary to the brown eel fishery of the Lough Neagh, which is operated using boats (cf. UK profile).

• Fishing from shore or from pontoons. These traditional techniques are still operated by potentially hundreds of fishermen for catching migratory fish at specific passes (mostly eel and salmon). The study has identified different categories of fishermen fishing exclusively from shore throughout the EU:

- About 30 fishermen in France fishing for glass eel from pontoons on small coastal rivers in south-western France (Landes);

- Around 40 glass-eel fishermen fishing from shore in Portugal estuaries; - Some dozens of glass-eel fishermen in Spanish estuaries; - Some hundreds of licences for traditional gear (pots, traps, harpoons…) used for

catching salmon or eel are issued in the UK and Latvia…and for lampreys in some Galician rivers.

The overall number of fishermen fishing without a boat is estimated to be lower than 1,000 throughout the EU.

There are still a large number of licences issued for techniques and gear operated from shore in the E.U. However, it must be noted that the majority of these licences are not used or used only seldom, because of the dramatic reduction in stocks of the targeted species (eel and Salmon). As an example, more than 650 licences for glass-eel dip nets (hand nets) were issued in 2008 in the UK, when the overall catch was around 800 kg (less than 1 kg/license). This means that most fishermen continue purchasing licenses out of habit, regardless of the profitability of fishing, and because license fees are not a deterrent (some €).

Several images of hand equipment operated from shore are presented in Appendix 1.

It should also be mentioned that the current situation of eel and salmon stock is more than likely to lead national authorities to close these fisheries in the short-term.

Winter “ice” fishing

EFF regulation allows funding “devices used for ice fishing”.

Ice fishing is a traditional seasonal technique in Northern lakes, which is practised in winter time when ice covers the usual fishing grounds of large lakes. It is still commercially operated in Finland, Sweden and Estonia during the two months when the ice is sufficiently thick. Ice fishing is operated by the same commercial fishermen fishing from boats on the same lakes during the rest of the year and is often simply called “winter fishing” by professionals.

Ice-fishing activities are also developed in the coastal areas of the Baltic Sea (Gulf of Riga, Gulf of Pärnu, Swedish coasts…), but they are practised only by recreational or sea fishermen.

Two main techniques are used for ice fishing in inland waters:

• Traditional passive ice fishing, with line or nets. The method is as follows: a hole is drilled through the ice, using an ice saw or auger, for the fishermen to pass their baited lines or nets through. The fishermen will then look through the hole, waiting for the fish to eat the bait or become trapped in the nets. The equipment needed for this type of fishing includes an ice drilling device (saw or auger), special ice-fishing lines or nets that do not freeze and an ice vehicle (car or skidoo) to reach the fishing grounds. Such methods are mostly used by recreational fishermen. Modern techniques have been developed by commercial fishermen who nowadays use sonar and fast augers which allow the drilling of upwards of 110 holes in a single day, in the search for fish;

• Active Ice-fishing with surrounding nets. These professional techniques occur in Estonia and Finland. Fishing gear is surrounding nets, trawled under ice with the help of mobile motorised

- 36 -


winches. Skidoos and 4X4 vehicles are used to transport nets, equipment and fish on the ice4. In Finland, a highly innovative technique using a radio-guided device has been developed in recent years. This equipment represents a significant investment (€50,000 – 60,000) and is thus used by very few companies.

Images of ice fishing techniques and equipment are presented in Appendix 2.

In conclusion, Article 33 criteria that refers to fishing activities operated “by vessels…or by other devices used for ice fishing” excludes about 1,000 commercial license holders who fish exclusively from shore with EU intervention. These fishermen are mostly fishing on a part-time basis.

4 A movie describing in details the different operations is available on the website of one of the main Finnish companies. http://www.lakefishexport.fi/index.php?id=22

http://www.lakefishexport.fi/index.php?id=22

http://www.lakefishexport.fi/index.php?id=22

- 37 -


Fishing with boats

Another conclusion is that the majority of commercial inland fishermen fish from a boat, at least for transport from landing points to fishing grounds, and sometimes as a power source for the technology used to operate active gear.

It is estimated that the commercial inland fishing fleet of all Member States consists of about 14,000 fishing boats. The average ratio is less than 1 boat / fisherman (0.8), due to the fact that some boats are used by two or more fishermen (largest unit operating in northern lakes).

The following table and Figure 6 (next page) present all the available data concerning commercial inland fishing fleets. As we mentioned in the introduction, fishing boats are not registered in all of the MS. When official statistics are not available, estimates have been made on the basis of interviews with national experts (fishery economists, fishermen, etc.) and/or literature.

Inland fishing fleets are mostly comprised of small-sized boats (under 8 m in length and 30-hp outboard engines). There still appears to be many rowboats in some areas, sometimes because of the very traditional fishing techniques (UK, IE) and/or because fishermen lack the resources to invest in new boats and engines (RO, BG).

Table 13 – Number and characteristics of boats operating in the main EU inland fisheries

Fishing boats

Member State Number Average size Average Power Boat / fisherman

Nb fishermen / boat

Austria 100 10-12 m 20-50 HP 1,0 1,0 Bulgaria 1 150 < 10 m 4-5 HP 0,8 1,3 Czech Republic 2 6 m n.a. 0,5 2,0 Denmark 20 5 to 11 m n.a. 1,1 1,0 Estonia 350 11-14 m 70-150 HP 0,4 2,8 Finland 651 7,3 m (aver.) 58 HP (aver.) 0,7 1,5 France 621 6 m (aver.) 40 HP (aver.) 1,4 0,7 Germany 932 5 -11 m n.a. 1,0 1,0 Greece 200 5-10 m n.a. 0,5 2,0 Hungary 200 6 m (aver.) 25-100 HP 0,7 1,5 Ireland 156 4-5 m rowboats 0,3 4,0 Italy (1) 3 600 5 -8 m 25-40 HP 1,0 1,0 Latvia 139 5-12 m 40 HP and rowboats 0,6 1,7 Lithuania 200 6-8 m n.a. 0,7 1,5 Poland 485 4-7 m 10-20 HP 0,6 1,6 Portugal 900 5 m 13-26 HP 1,0 1,0 Romania 3 459 5-6 m 3 HP (aver.) 1,3 0,8 Spain > 300 n.a. n.a. 0,6 1,7 Sweden 170 5,5 m (aver.) 54 HP (aver.) 0,9 1,1 The Netherlands 200 5-20 m 6-300 HP 0,5 2,0 United Kingdom 475 4-8 m n.a. 0,4 2,7

Total > 14 310 0,8 1,2 (1) The number of boats in Italy includes about 2,600 units operating in coastal inland lagoons (saltwater)

Sources: Data collection in the MS and estimates.

- 38 -


Figure 6 – Number and type of inland fishing boats by Member State

Sources : National fleer registers or statistics and experts estimations

900

200

1 000

20

200

475

156

621

932

651

170 3 459

1150200

485200

350

139

100

Mainly rowboats and fishing by feet

Mainly boats <10 m with passive gears

Mainly boats >10 m with active gears

Fishing boats (number)

> 300

IT + around 2 600 inland

boats in coastal salted lagoons

- 39 -


The most significant inland fleets are located in Romania and Bulgaria, which is consistent with the large number of commercial fishermen in these countries.

As regards Italy, about 2600 of the 3600 fishing boats are operated in coastal saltwater lagoons. Outside these specific areas, only about 1000 fishing boats are fishing on Italian freshwater lakes and rivers.

These estimates are heavily influenced by the inclusion of fishermen operating in coastal lagoons or areas among inland fishermen in Italy and to a lesser extent in Romania, and their exclusion in most other Member States

The average number of fishermen / boat is 1.2 for the 21 MS with commercial fisheries.

Ratios are not significant for IE and UK, as some of the fishermen operate from shore and estimates are difficult to make regarding the number of fishing boats.

Fishing with crews is more frequent in the northern MS, where some “large” fishing boats are registered in the main lake fisheries (as in LT, NL, LV, etc.).

In Romania and France, the average ratio is less than 1, which means that some fishermen own more than one boat. The second boat is likely to be in other fisheries where older (often family-owned) boats are often used as an added resource but not registered as the main fishing vessel.

Figure 7 – Number of commercial fishing boats


Figure 8 – Number of fishermen per boat

0,7

0,8

1,0

1,0

1,0

1,0

1,1

1,3

1,5

1,5

1,5

1,6

1,7

1,7

2,0

2,0

2,0

2,7

2,8

4,0

1,2

1,0

0,0 1,0 2,0 3,0 4,0 5,0

France

Romania

Denmark

Austria

Germany

Italy

Portugal

Sweden

Bulgaria

Finland

Lithuania

Hungary

Poland

Latvia

Spain

Czech Republic

Greece

The Netherlands

United Kingdom

Estonia

Ireland

21 MS


- 40 -


5.2.3. Catch by inland commercial fishermen The overall catch for commercial inland fishermen is estimated at about 35 000 tonnes (2007-2008) for a value of 100 – 110 million € (at first sale). Average prices and the total value of catches are higher in the old MS, where the remaining inland fisheries focus on the most valuable species.

Catch statistics, like other socio-economic indicators, are not monitored in every MS and, when they are monitored, are not fully reliable. Under-reporting is considered the norm, even in the most closely monitored fisheries.

In some MS, only a rough estimate of catch volume is available, from previous surveys and/or through an assessment of the average catch per fisherman. The aggregation of official statistics and expert advice leads to an overall estimate of 35,000 tonnes of fish landed (2007-2008 average) by commercial inland fishermen within the EU (Table 14).

The value of inland catches is monitored by few MS. Value is more often deduced from the volume of the catch and the average price of each species. Based on an aggregation of official national data and expert advice, the overall value of commercial inland fisheries is estimated between €100 million to €110 million. The contribution of each MS is detailed in Table 14. It appears that:

• Five MS account for half of the overall value: Germany, the Netherlands, France, Finland and Italy;

• Catches have reached a critical level in some MS (CZ, DE, IE, UK) with a strong probability that commercial inland fisheries will collapse in the short term (closure of the eel fishery in Ireland and management measures in the UK will certainly have a negative impact).

Table 14 – Catch of commercial inland fishing by Member State

Inland catches Member State Volume

(tons) Value

(€) Value

% Average price

(€/kg) Austria 400 3 500 000 3,3% 8,8 Bulgaria 1 200 1 835 000 1,7% 1,5 Czech Republic 24 57 300 0,1% 2,4 Denmark 30 141 600 0,1% 4,7 Estonia 2 748 3 570 000 3,4% 1,3 Finland 4 498 9 276 000 8,8% 2,1 France 1 186 10 470 000 9,9% 8,8 Germany 3 256 11 300 000 10,7% 3,5 Greece 887 2 481 000 2,4% 2,8 Hungary 2 275 3 867 500 3,7% 1,7 Ireland 27 675 000 0,6% 25,0 Italy (1) 3 915 9 054 000 8,6% 2,3 Latvia 349 820 000 0,8% 2,3 Lithuania 1 594 2 500 000 2,4% 1,6 Poland 3 057 5 205 700 4,9% 1,7 Portugal 800 7 500 000 7,1% 9,4 Romania 4 284 4 712 400 4,5% 1,1 Spain > 800 3 000 000 2,8% 3,8 Sweden 1 615 7 580 000 7,2% 4,7 The Netherlands 1 672 13 000 000 12,3% 7,8 United Kingdom 542 4 957 000 4,7% 9,1

Total 21 MS 35 159 105 502 500 100,0% 3,0

Sources: Data collection in the MS and estimations

(1) Italian data does not include lagoons because no information was available on the catches.

- 41 -


The relationship between the volume and value of the catch can be more easily appreciated in the figure shown below.

The map clearly highlights the contrast between the old MS of Western Europe, where only the more profitable fisheries (targeting the most valuable species) have survived (with average low volume) and fisheries in the new MS, which are partly dependant on less valuable fish (Cyprinids) but for which there is still a domestic demand (Romania and Bulgaria).

Figure 9 – Catch of commercial inland fisheries by Member State

7 500

887

3 815

30

1 672

542

27

1 186

1 615

4 284

1 200

2 275

3 0571 594 349

400

9 276

4 498

2 7483 570

7 580

13 000

9 054

4 957

675

800

10 470

11 300

3 256

142

3 500

5 206

3 8684 712

1 835

2 481

820 2 500

Volume in tonnes (live weight)

Value in 1 000 Euros

> 800

Catches

3 000

IT : catch in coastal salted

lagoons unknown

Sources : National statistics and experts estimations

- 42 -


The annual catch by commercial inland fisheries exceeds 4,000 tonnes in two MS:

• Finland, where the catch is dominated by vendace and perch, species that are typical of cold northern lakes;

• Romania, where the catch is dominated by Cyprinids and, over the past 15 years, by Gibel carp (Carassius gibelio).

Italy ranks third, with an estimated annual catch of about 3,900 tonnes in rivers and lakes (excluding saltwater species fished in inland coastal lagoons).

Inland fisheries in northern and eastern MS (DE, PL, EE, HU, NL, SE, LT) produce from 1,500 to 3,000 t/year of various species (mostly from lakes and lagoons).

As can be seen on the map, the overall value of the catch is higher in the old MS. This is partly the result of an historical trend towards consolidation of inland fisheries around the most valuable species (with high consumer purchasing power in those countries).

Figure 10 – Catches in volume (tons) by MS


Figure 11 – Catches in value (euro) by MS

57 300 141 600

675 000 820 000

1 835 000 2 481 000 2 500 000

3 000 000 3 500 000 3 570 000 3 867 500

4 712 400 4 957 000 5 205 700

7 500 000 7 580 000

9 054 000 9 276 000

10 470 000

13 000 000 11 300 000

- 5 000 000 10 000 000 15 000 000

Czech RepublicDenmark

IrelandLatvia

BulgariaGreece

LithuaniaSpain

AustriaEstonia

HungaryRomania

United KingdomPoland

PortugalSweden

ItalyFinlandFrance

GermanyThe Netherlands


- 43 -


The average price of freshwater fish, at first sale and at EU level, is approximately €3/kg, but a wide range of prices is observed among the MS, with:

• The highest prices in Ireland and the U.K (for wild Atlantic salmon and some eel), in Austria (profitable local markets) Portugal and France (with a significant contribution of glass eel and adult eels);

• The lowest average prices are found in new MS (Romania, Bulgaria and Hungary), where coarse Cyprinids are predominant in the catch, and in the largest lake fisheries of Northern Europe (EE, FI) where fish are not traded purely at the local level.

But fish species are not the only factors that drive prices. Marketing channels are also important (margin distribution in the supply chain).

Glass eel + yellow and silver eels account for about 2 000 t (6% of total catch) and other diadromous species account for 1 700 t (5%), while Cyprinidae account for 62% by volume.

The proportion of each group of fish species in the catch is analysed for the EU as a whole in Figure 13 (next page).

Two groups of species account for 80% of the overall catch in volume:

• Cyprinidae and other coarse fish, which make up 22,000 tonnes, or 62%, of the overall catch from plain lakes and rivers;

• Predator fishes (other than salmonids and eel), with 5,500 to 6,000 tonnes of perch, pike-perch, pike, European catfish, etc., from various types of fisheries (lakes, rivers, coastal lagoons, estuaries). Predator fish are targeted by commercial fishermen everywhere in the EU because of their high culinary (and economic) value;

• Coregonidae and Salmonidae (other than diadromous) represent 3,500 to 4,000 tonnes, mostly from large sub-Alpine and Northern lakes;

• Eel and other diadromous species (salmon, sea trout, shads, lampreys and mullets) account for 10-11 % of the total catch, with 3,300 to 3,500 tonnes.

Figure 12 – Average price of catches (€/kg) by MS


- 44 -


The degree to which inland fisheries rely on diadromous species varies significantly among the MS (see table below):

• Ireland and the UK are all but exclusively dependent on salmon and eel, and estuarine fisheries in France and Spain are highly dependent;

• In value, the level of dependence for some MS (such as LV) and all the estuarine fisheries may be significantly higher due to high prices of glass-eel and other diadromous species.

Table 15 – Share of eel and diadromous species in the commercial inland catches

Volume %

Member State Volume (tons) Eel

Other diadromous

species

Freshwater species Eel

other diadromous

species

Freshwater species

Austria 400 - - 400 - - 100,0%Bulgaria 1 200 - 2 1 198 - 0,2% 99,8%Czech Republic 24 - - 24 - - 100,0%Denmark 30 9 - 21 30,0% - 70,0%Estonia 2 748 24 67 2 657 0,9% 2,4% 96,7%Finland 4 498 - 5 4 493 - 0,1% 99,9%France 1 186 165 308 713 13,9% 26,0% 60,1%Germany 3 256 217 - 3 039 6,7% - 93,3%Greece 887 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Hungary 2 275 45 - 2 230 2,0% - 98,0%Ireland 27 - 27 - - 100,0% - Italy (1) 3 915 56 - 3 859 1,4% - 98,6%Latvia 349 11 115 223 3,2% 33,0% 63,9%Lithuania 1 594 15 19 1 560 0,01 1,2% 97,9%Poland 3 057 132 31 2 894 4,3% 1,0% 94,7%Portugal 800 13 207 580 1,6% 25,9% 72,5%Romania 4 284 - 167 4 117 - 3,9% 96,1%Spain > 800 54 605 141 6,8% 75,6% 17,6%Sweden 1 615 113 29 1 473 7,0% 1,8% 91,2%The Netherlands 1 672 781 - 891 46,7% - 53,3%United Kingdom 542 393 143 6 72,5% 26,4% 1,1%

Total 21 MS 35 159 2 028 1 725 31 406 5,8% 4,9% 89,3%

Sources: Data collection and estimates – (1) Catch in coastal salted lagoons are unknown in Italy.

Figure 13 - Catch distribution by species (volume) Catch in volume (tonnes) and % per species or group of species

Other diadromous

species5%

Predator fishes17%

Cyprinids and others

62%

Eel 6%

Salmonids and

Coregonids10%

Species Catch (t) Eel 2 028Other diadromous species (1) 1 725Predator fishes (2) 5 897Salmonids and Coregonids (3) 3 600Cyprinids and others 21 909Total 35 159

(1) Atlantic salmon, sea trout, lampreys, shads, mullets (2) Pike-perch, perch, pike, European catfish (3) Excluding salmon and sea trout

Source : national statistics and/or experts estimations

- 45 -


5.2.4. Markets and supply chains for freshwater fishes

Most of the volume of freshwater fish landed is sold to local dealers and wholesalers or directly to consumers by fishermen (or their organisations). They also principally supply regional and national markets. Some species are exported to other MS and/or to foreign countries: Pike-perch filets from Estonia; glass eel from FR, NL, UK, etc.; yellow eel from Northern Ireland.

Catch disposal

Available information on catch disposal by MS is presented in the following tables.

Table 16 – Catch disposal in the different EU commercial inland fisheries (Main segments in yellow)

Catch disposal (% of volume)

Member State

Dom

estic

con

sum

ptio

n

Priv

ate

sale

s

Dea

lers

& w

hole

sale

rs

Fish

mon

gers

Hor

eca,

gue

stho

uses

Maj

or re

tail

chai

ns

Proc

esso

rs

Expo

rt

Oth

er

Trends and comments

Austria 60 5 5 30 Most fishermen have their own processing (smoking) facilities.

Bulgaria X ? X ? Legally, fish has to be traded by wholesalers or registered dealers, but domestic consumption and private sales are significant.

Czech Republic 40 40 10 10 The majority is sold by the fisheries company in its own facilities, to restaurants and for its own stocking purposes.

Denmark ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? No statistical information available.

Estonia 15 5 10 5 65 Export (pikeperch fillets) by processing companies (EU, USA, Canada).

Finland ? X ? X 10% sold locally, 90% at national level (4 main wholesalers and 4 main processors).

France 30 43 4 20 2 1 The major market share held by "mareyeurs" (fish dealers) is linked with glass eel and other estuarine fish operations. It is decreasing with the decline in stocks of diadromous species.

Germany ? 45 7 2 21 1 1 23 Significant sales of "trash" fish caught for ecological reasons to zoological parks and biogas plants.

Greece X X X X X Most of the catch is marketed locally, except eel (exported to Italy).

Hungary ? ? 70 10 20

Most fishermen sell the majority of the fish to fishery cooperatives. The cooperatives (having processing facilities) sell the fish to retail chains (80%) and restaurants (10%) and to consumers in their own shops (10%).

- 46 -


Catch disposal in the various EU commercial inland fisheries (Main segments in yellow)

Catch disposals (% of volume)

Member State Dom

estic

con

sum

ptio

n

Priv

ate

sale

s

Dea

lers

& w

hole

sale

rs

Fish

mon

gers

Hor

eca,

gue

stho

uses

Maj

or re

tail

chai

ns

Proc

esso

rs

Expo

rt

Oth

er

Trends and comments

Ireland 11 37 43 7 2 The share of the catch sold to licensed dealers has decreased with the drop in the supply (closure of drift net fisheries).

Italy ? ? X ? X ? No detailed data. Markets are mostly local (private sales, wholesalers and restaurants).

Latvia 3 20 52 15 10 A major percentage of sales in Riga’s Central Market.

Lithuania 25 40 25 10 Some exports by Klaipeda wholesalers.

The Netherlands 10 90 Fish are sold mostly through auctions (Ijsselmer).

Poland 4 20 30 2 15 3 25 1 From the fishermen’s perspective: Up to 60% of freshwater fish is consumed by the Horeca sector.

Portugal 5 25 45 20 5 Eel, glass eel and lamprey are sold through dealers; other species are sold directly to restaurants or consumers.

Romania 10 30 60 Legally, fishermen are obliged to sell their fish at authorised trading points, where often only one fish dealer is present.

Spain ? ? X ? ? ? ? ? ? No reliable data. Legally, fishermen sell their fish at authorised first selling points.

Sweden 90 5 5 According to the fishermen, wholesalers and local markets are the main commercial channels.

United Kingdom ? ? 70 ? ? ?

Eel from Northern Ireland are sold to wholesalers and exported. Local and national markets in England and Wales.

Sources: Data collection in the MS and estimates.

Some main EU-wide characteristics appear from these tables: • In most of the MS, fish are sold mostly to local dealers and wholesalers (the main channel for

16 of the 21 MS), with sales through auction only in The Netherlands. Co-operatives are involved in marketing in some MS (Italy, Northern Ireland, Hungary);

• Private sales (directly by fishermen) are the second channel for 10 of the 21 MS and the primary in Austria and Germany;

• Horeca is another important market in some territories with a tradition of freshwater fish consumption;

• Sales to processors are predominant in Estonia, where major quantities of pike-perch from Lake Peipsi are filleted for export markets. These sales are significant in all the Baltic States and Poland, where freshwater fish processing is a traditional activity. Moreover, it should be stressed that some processing industries, as well as major retail chains, may be indirectly supplied by wholesalers;

• Other channels (fishmongers, direct export, etc.) are far less significant.

- 47 -


These figures highlight how inland fishermen still rely substantially on local buyers in most of the fisheries. Private sales are only possible for small local fisheries (such as those on Austrian lakes, and for small groups or individual fishermen located on the main course of rivers in France) and access to regional or national markets requires support from intermediaries.

Ultimately, inland fishermen appear to be in a similar position as sea fishermen with regard to first sales: prices are subject to significant volatility and often driven by the number and behaviour of local buyers.

Some groups of fishermen have developed collective marketing strategies with the aim of improving their position on the market, through the development of new products (fish nuggets for school catering in Italy, prepared meals in France) or through collective brands (FR, IT, FI).

Status of eel and glass eel markets

There is no reliable information for use in a detailed analysis of the supply chains for each type of freshwater fish in the EU.

In view of the current dramatic situation of European eel stocks and the considerable degree to which some commercial inland fisheries rely on this species (estuaries), trends in markets for glass eel and adult eels have been analysed.

Glass eel have been intensively fished for decades in estuaries of rivers flowing into the Atlantic and the Mediterranean Sea. France is the main fishing country (with 70-80% of the total EU catch in recent years) along with Spain, Portugal and the UK.

Landings have dramatically decreased from year to year (see figure below) and fell below 40 tonnes during the 2008-2009 campaign, of which only 10% was from commercial inland fisheries.

European prices for glass eels escalated from about €100/kg in 1995 to €800/kg in 2005, owing to the imbalance between a shrinking supply and strong demand for Asian eel aquaculture. The People’s Republic of China and Hong Kong are the two main destinations for European glass eel exports (Table 17, following page).

Figure 14 – Glass-eel landings and prices per campaign

-

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1995

-1996

1996

-1997

1997

-1998

1998

-1999

1999

-2000

2000

-2001

2001

-2002

2002

-2003

2003

-2004

2004

-2005

2005

-2006

2006

-2007

2007

-2008

2008

-2009

Landings (tonnes)

Average price (€/kg)

Sources : E.U. glass-eel dealers (non official figures)

- 48 -


Table 17 – Glass eel exports from the EU to Asia (tonnes and apparent prices)

Destination 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 China (PR) 46 23 18 57 36 31 50 32 56 Russian Federation 0 - 8 Hong Kong 84 94 38 46 54 26 21 5 4 Non-EU total 144 185 64 117 97 64 77 38 71 Apparent price (€/kg) 207 222 343 215 226 534 748 399 505

Source: EUROSTAT - COMEXT

According to international glass-eel dealers5, the Asian demand for European glass-eel dropped sharply during the 2008-2009 campaign, because of two key factors:

• The market’s capacity was presumably overestimated. Stocks of large eel increased in Chinese farms that faced difficulty in selling their products on the traditional Japanese markets. Demand for large eels declined in Japan (it is particularly smaller eels weighing between 120 and 200 grams that are in demand) and these can only be sold for very low prices, often below production costs. Chinese farmers thus try to sell these fish in Europe, usually as frozen raw materials for smokehouses. But in Europe, too, the slack market has weakened demand considerably. The situation was additionally exacerbated by the use of prohibited chemicals on some farms with the result that the EU imposed an import ban on Chinese eel products in January 2001. Consequently, the demand of aquaculture companies for glass eel is less significant than in the past;

• As a reaction to the reduced market availability of European eel, Chinese companies have diversified their supply, purchasing an increasing number of juvenile American eel (Anguilla rostrata) and Japanese eel (Anguilla japonica).

The long-time Spanish market (for consumption) declined with the sharp increase in price and only extended to dead glass eel during the last campaigns. The development of production of Surimi-based glass eel also replaced natural glass eel on the Spanish market (see figure below).

European eel aquaculture and re-stocking markets suffered in the last decade from both the scarcity of the resource and the increase in price. European eel farmers are today threatened with a complete collapse in European eel stocks that will force them to stop production and/or compete with Asian farmers for access to other genetic material. The restocking of inland waters with glass eel is crucial for some European yellow and silver eel fisheries.

5 Glasseel.com (NL) and Glass Eels Ltd (UK)

Figure 15 – Market for glass-eel

-

100

200

300

400

500

600

1995

-1996

1996

-1997

1997

-1998

1998

-1999

1999

-2000

2000

-2001

2001

-2002

2002

-2003

2003

-2004

2004

-2005

2005

-2006

2006

-2007

2007

-2008

2008

-2009

EU c

atch

es (t

onne

)

Spain (consumption)Europe (farming and restocking)Asia (farming)

Sources : E.U. glass-eel dealer (non official figures)

- 49 -


This is the case of the biggest lake eel fisheries (Lough Neagh in Northern Ireland, Ijsselmeer in the Netherlands) and in all the coastal lagoons and rivers flowing into the Baltic Sea (DE, PL, LV, LT, FI, SE, etc.). The low natural recruitment combined with high prices are major issues for fisheries that are highly dependent from eel. For example, the cooperative of Lough Neagh fishermen has been forced to reduce its purchases of glass eel and anticipates a significant reduction in the yellow and silver eel catch in the coming years.

Landings of adult eels (yellow and silver) in the EU follow the same trend as those of glass eels (see figure below). Although landing data is considered only partly reliable (in light of the overall lack of serious monitoring of catches by the various categories of fishermen, and the high rate of IUU fishing in some areas), the trends are similar in the different Member States. More pessimistic experts believe that the European eel is about to disappear in the short term.

The decline in landings from sea and inland fisheries is only partly offset by European aquaculture production and by imported eels. The continued strong demand for fresh and processed (smoked) eel on European markets has driven the price higher (the following figure illustrates the trend on the main UK wholesale market).

However, the price increase has not offset the decline in the catch (which has halved over the past decade), and the more eel-dependent fisheries are currently facing serious difficulties.

Figure 16 – Trend in landings of eel in the E.U. (yellow and silver eels)

Sources : WGEEL – EIFAC /ICES 2008 from FAO

Figure 17 – Brown and silver eels wholesale prices Billingsgate market (UK)

8,009,00

10,0011,0012,0013,0014,0015,0016,0017,0018,00

janv

-98

juil-

98

janv

-99

juil-

99

janv

-00

juil-

00

janv

-01

juil-

01

janv

-02

juil-

02

janv

-03

juil-

03

janv

-04

juil-

04

janv

-05

juil-

05

janv

-06

juil-

06

Ave

rage

pric

e £/

kg

Source: FAO - Globefish

Eel landings in the E.U. (FAO database)

- 50 -


5.2.5. Investment costs in boats and gear

Information on investment costs for boats and gear is scarce and only partly reliable for commercial inland fisheries.

The available data shows a wide range of circumstances, depending on the fishing method (active / passive) and the characteristics of the fishing grounds (large and deep lakes / shallow rivers and lagoons). In most of the fisheries, overall investment needs for fishing boats, gear and equipment are under €50,000.

Only the most reliable and illustrative information is provided in this chapter.

The following table presents a summary overview of the range of purchasing costs for fishing boats and gear in 11 MS, corresponding to various types of fisheries, from those in large northern lakes to very traditional craft fisheries. The main findings of the study are as follows:

• The investment costs in boats and gear may vary from one piece of equipment up to 50-80;

• Investment costs for boat-based fishing with active gear (Finland, Sweden, Estonia) fall in the same range as those observed in small coastal fisheries (roughly from €25,000 up to €130,000€);

• Investment costs with passive fishing techniques are significantly lower than for active fishing (from €2,500 to €25,000) and appear to be very low in the most traditional fisheries (new Member States, Ireland, the UK, etc.).

Table 18 – Investment costs in some commercial inland fisheries

Investment costs Finland (Lakes)

Sweden (Lakes)

Estonia (Lake Peipsi)

UK - N. IRL (Lough Neagh)

Austria (Lakes)

Italy (Lake

Maggiore)

Boat 50 000 10 000 na na 17 000 na Engine 30 000 6 000 na na 4 500 na

Boat + engine 80 000 16 000 48 000 na 21 500 13 500 to 30 000

Electronic devices 15 000 na nr nr nr Nets and gears 32 000

40 000 na na 2 500 na

Boat + engine + gears 127 000 56 000 na 30 000 24 000 na

Investment costs France (average)

Germany (lakes and

active gears)

Germany (passive gears)

Poland (passive gear)

Romania (passive gear)

Ireland (draft net)

Boat 3 700 na 2 500 1 800 1 000 1 500 Engine 6 700 na 1 000 2 600 500 nr

Boat + engine 10 400 7 500 to 15 000 3 500 4 400 1 500 1 500

Electronic devices nr nr nr nr nr nr Nets and gears 12 800 na na na 700 1 000 Boat + engine + gears 23 200 na na na 2 200 2 500

Source: Interviews with fishermen and inland fisheries experts

Equipments required for winter ice fishing may vary depending on the technique (using or not radio-guided robot). In Finnish lake fisheries, the most sophisticated equipment may cost up to €55,000-€60,000 (see details on next page).

- 51 -


Table 19 – Investment costs in winter ice-fishing in Finland

Equipment Cost (€) Snow mobile 30 000 Powered winch 10 000 Sledge 5 000 Submarine robot 4 000 Ice drilling equipment 8 000 Total 57 000 Source: Interviews with fishermen

This disparity in the level of investment required to enter the sector also determines specific needs for fishermen: Self-financing and short-term loans are possible for investing in passive fisheries, but lending from banks (or even public institutions) is vital for investing in more sophisticated equipment (ice fishing devices, lake trawlers and seiners, etc.).

France is the only Member State where detailed information by fishery is available (thanks to a special study conducted by the country’s Environment Ministry6). Table 20 (below) shows the average purchase price for inland fishing boats in the various water basins. It indicates that fishing boat prices depend on:

• The fishing method: Specialised glass eel boats (“Civelliers” – 7.7 m in length for a 65-hp engine) operating in the Loire estuary with pushed nets are by far the most expensive (more than double the average price in France), as their value also reflects their fishing possibilities in marine waters;

• In other estuarine fisheries (Gironde, Adour), average purchase prices are lower (€3,500 – €3,700) compared with the smallest size boats (from 5.5 m to 6 m in length with 40-60 hp engines);

• Fishing boats operating on the main course of rivers or on lakes appear to be relatively inexpensive (< €3,000), except those used on the large Alpine lakes, which need to be better equipped since they use different techniques (trolled lines, large trap nets for perch, gill nets, etc.);

• Second-hand boats account for nearly half of the French commercial inland fleet. Their low average price highlights the fact that in river fisheries, boats are mostly used for the transport of gear and fish and are not directly involved in fishing.

Table 20 – Investment costs for fishing boats in France

Water bodies (COGEPOMI) Average costs

Average age

% of new boats

% of second hand boats

Adour 3 574 € 12,1 58% 42% Gironde 3 738 € 12,7 49% 51% Loire Atlantique 14 118 € 10,6 56% 44% Loire Bretagne 1 213 € 7,9 28% 72% Rhône Aval Méditerranée 1 706 € 10,1 40% 60% Rhône-Saône 1 000 € 6,0 0% 100% Franche Comté 850 € 5,7 83% 17% Garonne Dordogne 375 € 3,6 83% 17% Seine-Normandie 2 625 € 7,1 90% 10% Lacs Alpins 9 294 € 11,5 67% 33% France 6 483 € 10,5 54% 46%

Source: MEEDDM study 2009

It should be noted that the average age of the French fleet is around 10 years, which is the standard national depreciation period.

6 Etude socio-économique sur la pêche professionnelle en eau douce [Socio-economic study of professional freshwater fishing], French Ministry of Ecology, Energy, Sustainable Development and the Sea, December 2009.

- 52 -


A similar chart (see table below) can be established for engines. It appears that: • The higher purchase price is once again for engines used on board glass eel boats that push

active gear (requiring an average power of 65 hp); • Outboard engines are used in the other fisheries. The average price ranges from < €1,000 up

to €3,800, depending on the power and whether the engine is new or second-hand (34% of all engines are second-hand);

• The average age of engines used in the commercial inland fishing fleet is seven years, the standard depreciation time for this type of equipment (6-7 years).

Table 21 – Investment costs for principal engine in France

Water bodies (COGEPOMI) Average costs

Average age

% new engines

% second hand engines

Adour 3 144 € 7,0 56% 44% Gironde 3 220 € 7,7 76% 24% Loire Atlantique 5 352 € 5,9 64% 36% Loire Bretagne 1 499 € 7,4 37% 63% Rhône Aval Méditerranée 1 470 € 5,5 33% 67% Rhône-Saône 1 517 € 3,3 20% 80% Franche Comté 971 € 3,3 57% 43% Seine-Normandie 475 € 7,6 100% 0% Lacs Alpins 3 828 € 3,4 92% 8% France 3 357 € 6,2 66% 34%


Other significant investments in inland fishing are fishing gears and on-shore facilities (for enterprises needing to store and/or process their catch regarding the markets they supply).

Fishing gears appear to be “expensive" in most of the French fisheries, and their costs are often superior to those of boats (Table 22). This underlines again that fishing gears are the core equipments in inland passive fishing and boat often mostly a transport mean. Fishermen devote, so, important amount of money for buying fishing gears are, more often, basic materials for their fabrication.

• Highest average investments in fishing gears (€10,000 to €20,000) are observed in estuarine and large Alpine lake fisheries, using different fishing gears targeting different species (lakes) or operating with active gears having a short life-duration (as a consequence of their intense use). Investment in fishing gears is above €6,000 € in rivers and plain lake fisheries;

• Investment in in-shore facilities are also higher in Alpine lake fisheries and in estuaries (Loire) where fishermen have invested in fish tanks, cold storage and sometimes processing units allowing them to regulate their supply to local demands with overall low elasticity.

Table 22 – Investment costs in fishing gears and on shore facilities in France

Water bodies (COGEPOMI) Fishing Gears

on shore facilities

Adour 10 828 € 243 €Gironde 16 724 € 11 487 €Loire Atlantique 20 607 € 43 716 €Loire Bretagne 5 228 € 8 450 €Rhône Aval Méditerranée na 11 950 €Rhône-Saône 6 028 € -Franche Comté 1 795 € -Garonne Dordogne 3 701 € -Seine-Normandie na -Lacs Alpins 15 471 € 60 076 €France 12 823 € 23 488 €


The example of France cannot be simply extrapolated to all the EU inland fisheries, considering that not all the types of fisheries are represented, in particular the capital intensive Scandinavian and Baltic lake fisheries (FI, SE, EE…) and also because the French economic standards are different from those of the new Member States.

- 53 -


5.2.6. Income, costs and revenue of the producers

Information on fishermen’s’ revenue formation does not exist for most of the commercial inland fisheries. Apparent average income per fishermen can only be assessed through overall value of catch / number of jobs. Specific studies (France) and some case studies (interviews with fishermen and their organisations) allow analyzing the breakdown between operating costs and revenue.

Average productivity and turnover (catch value) per fishermen appear to be very different depending on the fisheries, from less than 2 000 € in BG and RO up to 35-40 000 € in AT and SE. But, the apparent average in each MS may be deeply affected both by the level of activity of the fishermen (employment in FTE is rarely available) and by underestimation of catch value

A) Approach through apparent revenue

Catch and other socio economic indicators are not monitored in each MS. When they are, available statistics are considered unreliable because of underreporting even in the most closely monitored fisheries

Average yield (catch volume /fisherman) and turnover (catch value/fisherman) may be calculated from national statistics and expert estimations (Table 23). Main conclusions from this analysis are as follow:

• Yields range from less than 1 (IE, UK) to 8 (SE) ton/fisherman depending on two factors: the fishing method used (passive / active gears) and fishing intensity (limited by regulation or by migratory seasons;

• Catch value in each MS is influenced by the average unit price of fish at first sale, which vary in a proportion from 1 to 10 depending both on the species fished and on the national economic standards (currency change, purchasing power);

• Low yields are often compensated by the high value of targeted species (UK, FR, IT…)

Table 23 – Productivity and turnover in E.U. commercial inland fisheries

Productivity, turnover and revenue Member State Catch (tons) t / fisherman Turnover (€) € / fisherman € / FTE

Austria 400 4,0 3 500 000 35 000 na Bulgaria 1 200 0,8 1 835 000 1 223 2 559 Czech Republic 24 6,0 57 300 14 325 na Denmark 30 1,6 141 600 7 453 na Estonia 2 748 2,9 3 570 000 3 707 na Finland 4 498 4,8 9 276 000 9 816 19 406 France 1 186 2,8 10 470 000 24 292 34 216 Germany 3 256 3,5 11 300 000 12 124 na Greece 887 2,2 2 481 000 6 203 12 405 Hungary 2 275 7,5 3 867 500 12 722 na Ireland 27 0,0 675 000 1 082 11 250 Italy (1) 3 915 3,9 9 054 000 9 054 na Latvia 349 1,5 820 000 3 550 9 000 Lithuania 1 594 5,3 2 500 000 8 333 na Poland 3 057 4,0 5 205 700 6 895 na Portugal 800 0,9 7 500 000 7 979 na Romania 4 284 1,6 4 712 400 1 760 1 852 Spain 800 1,6 3 000 000 6 000 na Sweden 1 615 8,4 7 580 000 39 275 na The Netherlands 1 672 4,2 13 000 000 32 500 na United Kingdom 542 0,4 4 957 000 3 885 16 634

Total 21 MS 35 159 2,4 105 502 500 7 279 (1) Italian data does not include coastal lagoons because no information was available on the catch. Source: Data collection in the MS and expert estimates

- 54 -


An analysis of average turnover per fisherman and per FTE highlights some key points:

• Apparent revenue per fisherman is very different across the EU. The ratio of lower to higher revenue is 1 to 35. However, this indicator is only partly relevant as the percentage of part-time fishermen differs among the MS. Part time nature of many fisheries is primarily due to the biology of the species caught (e.g. glass eel does not occur in EU estuaries year round and when it does, the fishing can only take place at the appropriate time and type of tide), then to the limitations on available resources and to the necessity to regulate fishing activities to protect these resources;

• Revenue per FTE is a more robust indicator, but statistics in FTE are not available for all the MS. Table 23 above presents some average revenue/FTE figures, compared with revenue/fisherman. Figures are very different for MS with seasonal fisheries, such as IE and UK. Revenues/FTE ultimately appear not very different from those of “full-time” fisheries (FI, FR);

• Whatever the indicator used, significant differences are observed between new and old MS.

The main limits to such an approach are of two kinds: low availability and reliability of data hamper any robust analysis (unreported catch, black market, non-monitoring of highly valuable products such as fish roe…) and the notion of “average” is poorly relevant regarding inland fishing (medium-sized full time enterprises are mixed with numerous craft part-time individuals businesses).

Productivity interms of yield (catch volume/ fisherman) differs depending on the type of fishery:

• The highest average yields (about five tonnes/fisherman and higher) are encountered in lake fisheries (SE, NL and FI, where active fishing gear are used) and in Hungary and Poland (where fishing and rearing activities are often both performed by the owners of fishing rights). The case of Czech Republic is not significant (electric fishing and small catch volume);

• The lowest yields are observed in seasonal fisheries targeting diadromous species (salmon and eel fisheries in IE and the UK), in very traditional fisheries (BG, LV, RO) and in fisheries in old MS targeting the most valuable species (eel, predator fish, salmonids) for their domestic markets (where coarse freshwater fish is no longer consumed).

Figure 18– Average productivity (t/fisherman) by MS

0,0

0,4

0,8

0,9

1,5

1,6

1,6

1,6

2,2

2,8

2,9

3,5

3,9

4,0

4,0

4,2

4,8

5,3

6,0

7,5

8,4

2,4

- 2,0 4,0 6,0 8,0 10,0

Ireland

United Kingdom

Bulgaria

Portugal

Latvia

Denmark

Spain

Romania

Greece

France

Estonia

Germany

Italy

Austria

Poland

The Netherlands

Finland

Lithuania

Czech Republic

Hungary

Sweden

Average 21 MS


- 55 -


Labour productivity can be estimated by the average turnover per fisherman (turnover from fishing / fisherman). It differs widely as well:

• The highest apparent revenues are found in northern MS;

• The high turnover/ fisherman in the Czech Republic is not significant, because it concerns a very small and particularly productive fishery (using electric fishing);

• An intermediate level of apparent revenue can be attributed to a range of factors, such as the percentage of part-time fishermen, the integration of various activities (fishing and aquaculture in HU and PL) the country’s level of development and the currency rates (€ zone / non € MS).

• The lowest revenues are in the new MS with traditional fisheries and lower economic standards and in the MS with seasonal fisheries that target diadromous species;

B) Literature and expert assessment approach

Missions in the 21 MS aimed at collecting all the available documentation related to the socio-economics of inland fisheries, with specific attention to fishing companies’ accounting and the breakdown between costs and income. The results are very clear on this point: there are no systems for monitoring the economic performance of inland fishing firms in the EU and very few relevant studies are available.

The very small size of the sector overall and the predominance of family-owned companies are the two factors explaining the “lack of interest” in the economics of inland fishing among public authorities.

Moreover, Europe’s networks of scientists and fishery economists working on inland fisheries (EIFAC and others) are generally focused on biological and environmental issues and/or other activities that exploit inland aquatic resources, i.e. aquaculture and recreational fishing (which are often more significant in terms of their contribution to the economy).

As a result, very little “official” information is available concerning the economic performance of inland fisheries across the EU. Moreover, the few studies available are not fully relevant, because:

• They often focus on one specific fishery (the largest, the one with the biggest companies, etc.) and are not representative of national conditions (e.g., the economic survey of the Ijsselmeer fishery in 2002). This problem is recurrent in all the MS, where there are often different types of fisheries and companies that differ substantially in size and performance;

• In addressing the various types of fisheries, the studies are often old (1998 in France) and no longer relevant in view of major changes that occurred during the last decade.

Figure 19 – Average turnover / fisherman (€/fisherman)

1 082

1 223

1 760

3 550

3 707

3 885

6 000

6 203

6 895

7 453

7 979

8 333

9 054

9 816

12 124

12 722

14 325

24 292

32 500

35 000

39 275

7 279

- 10 000 20 000 30 000 40 000 50 000

Ireland

Bulgaria

Romania

Latvia

Estonia

United Kingdom

Spain

Greece

Poland

Denmark

Portugal

Lithuania

Italy

Finland

Germany

Hungary

Czech Republic

France

The Netherlands

Austria

Sweden

Average 21 MS


- 56 -


The only recent and comprehensive study on the socio-economics of professional inland fishing was conducted in France. It was launched in the second half of 2009 by the French Environment Ministry (MEEDDM)7 to highlight the challenges facing fishing companies confronted with major environmental issues (decline in eel stocks, PCB contamination). The main findings of this study are presented later in this report.

In view of the overall lack of information, the question of professional revenue and income was raised with country experts during interviews. “Experts” are understood here as national authorities as well as scientists and/or professional organisations and fishermen themselves.

Assessments by country experts are obviously subject to limitations, related to their knowledge of the fishing companies and their perspective on the fisheries as a whole. In most of the MS, each expert had his or her own perspective, often limited to the local context and/or focused on a particular type of company or fishery (often those that are more professional, larger, better organised, have applied for public subsidies, etc.). This explains why significant differences can be observed between the calculation of apparent revenue/fisherman and the assessments by experts.

Estimated average revenue (turnover), costs and income (in % of turnover) are presented in Table 24 (on the next three pages) with trend analyses for the main drivers of margins and income (market demand, prices, stocks, production costs). These analyses are a summary of all available information and interviews with stakeholders.

7 Etude socio-économique sur la pêche professionnelle en eau douce [Socio-economic study of professional freshwater fishing], French Ministry of Ecology, Energy, Sustainable Development and the Sea, December 2009.

- 57 -


Table 24– Estimation and trends on turnover and income – key factors involved

Income and revenue Trends

Member State Ave

rage

turn

over

from

fish

ing

- (€

/Fis

herm

en)

Ave

rage

cos

ts li

nked

to fi

shin

g€/

(%)

Ave

rage

inc

ome

(%)

Fres

hwat

er fi

sh d

eman

d

Fres

hwat

er fi

sh p

rices

(a

t fris

t sal

e)

Ave

rage

cat

ches

(vol

ume)

Prod

uctio

n co

sts

(c

arbu

rant

, boa

ts a

nd g

ears

)

Lice

nces

, tax

and

soc

ial c

osts

Inco

me

Key factors affecting profitability of commercial fishing Austria (Lake Constance) 37 000 35 65

Good demand in touristic regions (i.e. all inland fishery regions) Most fishermen smoke and sell directly

Danube River Bulgaria (Danube river)

500 (income) 50 50

For Danube: The activity mainly relied on sturgeon species. Local consumption for other species = low demand. Reservoirs: better indicators: more valuable species (catfish, pike, pike perch), systems close to aquaculture with artificial restocking (for the moment treated as commercial fishing sites under the regulations)

Czech Republic n.a. n.a. n.a. Market issues have a negligible effect upon the profitability of fisheries in the Czech Republic since they have almost no relevance to aquaculture products.

Denmark n.a. n.a. n.a. Very limited catch volume. There is no inland fisheries "sector" in Denmark, only a few people fishing. Most of them are part-time fishermen.

Estonia 3 900 (income) n.a. n.a.

One third of fishermen gain their main source of income from fishing. Good Lake Peipsi fishermen can earn up to €1,600/month. All fishermen, both private and those working in fishing companies, obtain their income based on their catch (no companies provide salaries on a monthly basis).

Finland 19 400 (up to

100 000) 60% 40%

Inland fishermen are facing problems as a result of a highly concentrated wholesale and processing sector. Some projects are focused on finding new markets abroad.

France 26 700 43% 57% The decrease in catches and the decline in the traditional market for freshwater fish are lowering prices and income. A parallel increase in production costs is contributing to falling fisherman revenue.

- 58 -


Estimation and trends on turnover and income – key factors involved


Member State Ave

rage

turn

over

from

fish

ing

- (€

/Fis

herm

en)

Ave

rage

cos

ts li

nked

to fi

shin

g (%

)

Ave

rage

rin

com

e (%

)

Fres

hwat

er fi

sh d

eman

d

Fres

hwat

er fi

sh p

rices

(a

t fris

t sal

e)

Ave

rage

cat

ches

(vol

ume)

Prod

uctio

n co

sts

(c

arbu

rant

, boa

ts a

nd g

ears

)

Lice

nces

, tax

and

soc

ial c

osts

Inco

me

Key factors affecting profitability of commercial fishing

Germany 11 800 50% 50% Revenue maintained through other activities (smoking, sale of fishing permits to anglers, cottage rentals, etc.)

Greece Rivers 16 000 n.a. n.a. ? ? ? ? ? ? Estimated by regional authority (prefecture)

Greece Lakes 6 000 n.a. n.a. ? ? ? ? ? ? Estimated average from catch value and number of fishermen

Hungary n.a. n.a. n.a. The rising cost of fishing in recent years has reduced fishermen’s revenue.

Ireland 4 300 25% 75% Reduction in supply of wild salmon, increased prices at first sale and fishermen's revenue

Italy (Lake Maggiore)

7 000 to 15 000 45% 55% ? ?

Strong variability in revenue from place to place. No country-wide data. Generally a reduction in the catch and a decline in the traditional market for freshwater fish

Latvia 3 550 n.a. n.a. Sales by self-subsistence fishermen and anglers

Lithuania 8 000 n.a. n.a. Competition from imported panga and salmon Tourist demand in the Curonian Lagoon

- 59 -


Estimation and trends on turnover and income – key factors involved


Member State Ave

rage

turn

over

from

fish

ing

- (€

/Fis

herm

en)

Ave

rage

cos

ts li

nked

to fi

shin

g (%

)

Ave

rage

inc

ome

(%)

Fres

hwat

er fi

sh d

eman

d

Fres

hwat

er fi

sh p

rices

(a

t fris

t sal

e)

Ave

rage

cat

ches

(vol

ume)

Prod

uctio

n co

sts

(c

arbu

rant

, boa

ts a

nd g

ears

)

Lice

nces

, tax

and

soc

ial c

osts

Inco

me

Key factors affecting profitability of commercial fishing

Poland 8 460 90% 10% On the cost side: fish stocking costs (paid by inland fishermen), labour costs, rental (fee for water fisheries use). On the income side: market demand and prices (competition from imported species).

Portugal 8 000 15% 85% ns

Part-time activity for 80% of the fishermen. Their revenue depends on three species: lamprey and shad, eel and glass eel (major illegal activity). Catches have strongly decreased because stocks are low: salmon (no more catches), eel and glass eel (prohibited except in the Rio Minho).

Romania 2 000 -3 000 55% 45% Despite strong domestic demand for freshwater fish, prices at first sale are capped by the monopolistic grip of fish dealers. The rising costs of fishing in recent years have reduced fishermen’s revenue.

Spain n.a. n.a. n.a. ? No reliable data.

Sweden 40 000 60% 40% Higher demand for freshwater fish species plus higher prices plus an increase in the catch for some high-value species

The Netherlands 28 000 60 % 40% Profitability depends basically on eel fishing. Imports of eel have hurt the sector quite significantly.

United Kingdom n.a. n.a. n.a. ? No reliable data on income, costs or revenue. Part-time activities, fluctuate very widely.

- 60 -


Information on how fishermen obtain their income does not exist for most of the commercial inland fisheries. Apparent average income per fisherman can only be assessed through the overall value of the catch / number of jobs.

Specific studies (France) and some case studies (interviews with fishermen and their organisations) allow for a rough analysis of the breakdown between operating costs and revenue.

Average productivity and turnover (catch value) per fisherman appear to be very different depending on the fisheries, from less than €2,000 in BG and RO up to €35,000 to €40,000 in AT and SE. But the apparent average in each MS may be substantially affected both by the level of activity of the fishermen (FTE employment is rarely available) and by underestimates of catch value (some very valuable products, such as fish roe, are not always taken into account in the statistics, as in Romania).

Average fisherman income accounts for more than 50% of turnover (and up to 75%) in the small-scale fisheries that use passive gear. In the most technical fisheries using active gear, income/turnover is often under 50%.

The main overall observations from national figures concerning income are as follows:

• Average turnover/fisherman is not completely consistent with what is calculated from catch value and the number of jobs. Some assessments clearly relate to the more professional portion (full-time) of the businesses;

• Income for fishermen accounts for at least 50% of the turnover from fish sales in most of the MS (10 of 13 where an assessment was made). It rises to 75-80% in the more traditional fisheries, where operating costs are very low (old and low-power craft boats, passive gear, seasonal activity, etc.);

• Income accounts only for 40% of turnover in the Netherlands. This figure only includes the Ijsselmeer fishery, where active fishing methods are used, with significant operating costs (fuel, boat and gear maintenance and repair, etc.). This “low” level in % is offset by higher fishing productivity;

• Operating costs appear to be more than half of turnover in Romania. The precise percentage nevertheless has to be considered very carefully in view of the significance of the Danube Delta fishery, where the specific behaviour of fishermen is likely to affect the ratio. Two main factors are influencing the apparent income: the first is the recognised importance of unreported turnover (because some high-value products are not included in the statistics, such as fish roe, and because of the size of the black market). The second involves the way of life in the Delta, where fishing boats are often also used as a basic means of transport (there are no roads or cars in most of the villages) and all fuel costs are assigned to fishing activity.

The breakdown between costs and income may differ depending on the type of fishery (part-time/full-time fisheries, active/passive fishing methods, etc.). The availability of recent data in France provides an illustration of this (Table 25 and Figure 20 on the next page).

• In the French fisheries, the ratio of costs to turnover varies from 30% for glass eel estuarine fisheries (involving mostly part-time fishermen) to 52% for river fisheries (upstream);

Table 25 – Turnover and costs in the main French commercial fisheries

Average turnover

Eel share in turnover

Average costs

Costs / turnover

Turnover per FTE

France 26 683 € 41 % 11 474 € 43 % 34 107 €Glass eel (estuaries) 12 653 € 100 % 3 796 € 30 % 46 642 €Rivers : Downstream 30 604 € 54 % 13 772 € 45 % 31 770 €Rivers : Upstream 23 185 € 21 % 12 056 € 52 % 28 453 €Alpine lakes 43 427 € 0 % 16 808 € 37 % 44 642 €

Source: Socio-economic study 2009 (MEEDDM)

• Payroll charges are the most important cost in France (22–35%), just ahead of fuel which accounts for about 15% in the river and lake fisheries (using almost exclusively passive gear) and about 20% in the estuaries and the downstream portion of rivers, where glass eel is fished using pushed gear.

- 61 -


Another overall finding from the study is that:

• The average income of inland fishermen is decreasing in 11 MS (out of 18 where the trend was assessed);

• Average income is steady in 5 MS (AT, CZ, DE, LT, LV) and increasing in only two MS: Ireland, where the virtual collapse of inland salmon fishing has led to a significant increase in prices for wild salmon (demand still exceeds supply capacity), and Sweden, where lake fisheries are sustainable and there is an effective marketing strategy in place (export of pike and pike perch to other EU markets).

With regard to trends in the main drivers of income, the study highlights that:

• Operating costs are increasing in 14 MS whereas they are steady in three other MS (no decreases were noted), in relation with overall trends in oil prices and maintenance costs. Tax and the cost of licences appear to be more stable;

• Licences and taxes are holding steady in 10 MS and (slightly) increasing in six MS;

• Catches are decreasing in 13 MS, because of the decline in stocks and restrictions on fishing and/or over-fishing, and remain steady in seven others. Moreover, in diadromous-dependent fisheries, less valuable fish are gradually replacing high-value species (eel, salmon, shad, etc.);

• Market demand and price trends contrast more sharply depending on the domestic market situation and dynamic, but they are still fairly well oriented (at least holding steady in most of the MS). Transitions in market supply and demand balances in the new MS clearly affect the status of domestic freshwater fish production, which increasingly competes with imported products. But local species are still part of the culinary habits and traditions of the population, so demand remains substantial. In the old MS, most of the fisheries have gradually moved from a volume strategy (emphasising a wide range of species) to a value strategy (specializing in the most valuable species). An inversion of this trend has been observed in recent years as a consequence of the reduced availability of most diadromous species. This is clearly the case in France, where fishermen are now trying to diversify in terms of species (American crayfish, European catfish, etc.) and products (processed fish).

Figure 20 - Costs distribution by type of fishery in France

Source : Socio-economic study 2009 (MEEDDM)

- 62 -


5.2.7. Socio-economic impacts of inland fishing

Commercial inland fishing employs about 10% of EU fishermen (in number, since FTE is not monitored). Its contribution to EU market supply is low, accounting for less than 1% of the overall catch volume by EU fishing fleets (sea + inland). But the level of reliance on inland fishing is far more important in some specific areas (the Danube delta, lake areas in Scandinavia and the Baltic States, sub-Alpine lakes, etc.). The socio-economic impact of commercial inland fisheries nevertheless goes far beyond the simple tally of jobs and catch across the EU. As a traditional activity, inland fishing clearly has a high heritage value in regions near water where fish has provided a living for many people and is deeply rooted in the local culture. The extensive experience and knowledge of commercial fishermen make them irreplaceable observers of aquatic ecosystem and fish stocks, and potential active partners in the sustainable management of inland water resources (in terms of environmental monitoring, restocking and contributing to the objectives of the Water Framework Directive8 and Natura 20009).

Employment

Inland fishing is a labour-intensive sector, being composed mostly of small-scale businesses using traditional, passive methods. With about 17,100 fishermen (full-time + part time), inland fisheries represent more than 10% of employment in the catching sector in the EU (see table below).

• The % comparison is only possible with respect to the number of fishermen considered active regardless of how much time they devote to fishing. FTE is not available for all countries, for inland and/or sea fishing;

• The contrasts among MS figures indicate that sea fishing is more concentrated (in terms of capital and means of production) and productive (in terms of technology and yields) than inland fishing.

Table 26 – Share of inland fisheries in employment in the fishing (catching) sector

Employment in catching sector Member State Inland

fishermen Total

fishermen % Inland fishermen

Austria 100 100 100% Bulgaria 1 500 3 060 49% Czech Republic 4 4 100% Denmark 19 2 880 1% Estonia 963 2 493 39% Finland 945 1 360 69% France 431 14 400 3% Germany 932 4 107 23% Greece 400 30 041 1% Hungary 304 304 100% Ireland 624 4 288 15% Italy 3 600 28 980 12% Latvia 231 2 160 11% Lithuania 300 1 690 18% Poland 755 2 970 25% Portugal 940 17 820 5% Romania 2 677 2 880 93% Spain 500 34 736 1% Sweden 193 1 890 10% The Netherlands 400 1 890 21% United Kingdom 1 276 11 308 11% EU - 21 MS 17 094 169 361 10,0%

Sources: National reports and EU study on employment in the fishery sector 2006

8 Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy. 9 Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora.

- 63 -


The contribution of inland fisheries to employment in the catching sector depend both on national access to the sea and the scope of sea fishing in each MS:

• Three landlocked countries obviously have only inland fishermen, but two of them have small-sized inland fisheries (< 100 fishermen in AT and CZ);

• Inland fishermen account for at least half of all fishermen in two MS (RO, FI) and more than 20% in five other MS (BG, DE, EE, PL, NL);

• The contribution of inland fishing to employment is low in the main sea-fishing MS (ES, DK, PT, FR, UK).

Small-scale fishing

With around 14,000 boats, the inland fishing fleet represents 16% of the whole EU fishing fleet.

Characteristics of inland fishing boats are clearly similar to those of other small-scale fishing fleets. The main difference is their ability to operate in shallow waters (hull profile) and their generally lower engine power compared to small-scale coastal fishing boats that have to face more difficult conditions at sea.

Inland fishing fleet represents a significant share of the EU small-scale fishing fleets, with around 17% of the E.U. boats under 12 m length (following table).

Table 27 – Share of inland boats in the EU small-scale fisheries (2008) Boat length < 12 m < 16 m Sea fishing boats (nb) 71 261 77 507 Inland fishing boats (nb) 14 000 14 000 Total 85 571 91 817

% Inland fisheries 17% 16%

Sources: National reports and EU fleet register

In estuaries and coastal lagoons, inland fishing fleets and coastal fishing fleets often exploit the same fish species living in tidal areas and brackish water, sometimes in the same zones. They thus contribute, along with small-scale coastal fishing, to the local economy and employment.

Figure 21 – Employment in the catching sector

Sources : National reports and EU study on employment

- 64 -


Market supply

Considering the overall catch of commercial inland fishing, which represents less than 1% of the total catch of the EU fishing sector, its quantitative contribution to European market supply may be considered as negligible.

Nevertheless, the contribution of inland fisheries to national catch is still significant in some Member States, such as Romania and Bulgaria, where sea fishing opportunities are low and where freshwater fish are still part of the culinary culture.

Table 28 – Share of commercial inland fishing in national catch (Sea and freshwater fishes)

Catch in tons

Member State Inland fisheries

Total catch %Inland

Austria 400 400 100,0% Bulgaria 1 200 9 029 13,3% Czech Republic 24 24 100,0% Denmark 30 653 012 0,0% Estonia 2 748 99 527 2,8% Finland 4 498 132 667 3,4% France 1 186 549 107 0,2% Germany 3 256 230 557 1,4% Greece 887 95 546 0,9% Hungary 2 275 2 275 100,0% Ireland 27 256 494 0,0% Italy 3 915 288 023 1,4% Latvia 349 155 315 0,2% Lithuania 1 594 187 233 0,9% Poland 3 057 135 818 2,3% Portugal 800 254 096 0,3% Romania 4 284 4 802 89,2% Spain 800 803 596 0,1% Sweden 1 615 238 322 0,7% The Netherlands 1 672 413 274 0,4% United Kingdom 542 617 716 0,1%

Total 21 MS 35 159 5 126 832 0,7% Sources: National reports and EUROSTAT

However, to only considering market supply in volume is misleading, as most freshwater fish targeted by inland fishermen correspond to local traditional demand or to specific markets (glass-eel for re-stocking and aquaculture, eel for smoking industry…). Unlike mass market products, inland fish are niche market products.

In most of the inland fishing regions, fishermen supply local or regional markets with fish that have a particular image in terms of local and traditional products, being part of the cultural identity of the territories. Freshwater fish are very important in supplying numerous local markets and thus command relatively high prices at the first sale.

Heritage value As already highlighted, inland fisheries with their large share of small-sized family businesses play an important role in the social fabric and the cultural identity of many of Europe’s inland regions (lakes, rivers, estuaries and deltas, wetlands…). Fishing techniques and gear have not really been modernised for decades, and sometimes centuries (fyke nets are not so different from those used in the Middle Ages). Techniques and know-how are handed down from father to son throughout the generations.

- 65 -


This know-how should be preserved because of its unique value, considering that:

• Fishing techniques and gear used in inland fishing are among the more sustainable, in terms of their low impact on the environment and their low energy consumption;

• Professional fishermen are often the only ones able to fish certain species and their contribution to scientific fishing is essential;

• Commercial fishing allows local markets to be supplied with typically high value products that contribute to the cultural identity of the territories.

Contribution of commercial fishermen to scientific knowledge and to the management of ecosystems

Commercial fishermen are often involved in managing the aquatic ecosystems they exploit. It could be a voluntary decision, but in some cases it is an obligation linked with the granting of fishing rights.

For example, Hungarian fishing rights holders have to draw up management plans which must be approved by the county level fisheries inspector. These plans comprise the main purpose of the utilisation (commercial or recreational fisheries or a combination of these two), the guarding of fish stock, the protected areas, special minimal sizes and yearly stocking rates of different fish species, as well as the number of licences. These plans are valid for a 5 year period.

The following table shows which actions are put in place in the Member States.

Type of actions Member States

Eel restocking EE, DE, LV, LT, PL, SE, NL, UK (N.IRL)

Other species restocking BG, EE, FR, GR, HU, LV, PL

Undesirable species removal DE

Fish stock monitoring FR, DE, NL

Source: data collection in MS

The most frequent action of commercial fishermen is to participate in fish stock management, usually through restocking plans. Such measures are usually carried out in lakes and reservoirs, where the introduced fish are likely to stay and to get caught by fishermen. It is a technique used for example in French Alpine lakes, in Bulgarian reservoirs and in the Lough Neagh in Northern Ireland. In some cases, such as in France, it is a facilitation of the natural process: breeding individuals are caught from the lakes and the reproduction is controlled in hatcheries, then young fish are sent back to their lake. In other fisheries, like in Lough Neagh, restocking is essential for the durability of the exploitation. Thus wild fryers from other areas (like elvers caught in France) or raised fish are introduced into the fishing grounds to continue the fishery.

As restocking is rather expensive, it is mainly used for valuable species: eel (Anguilla anguilla), whitefish (Coregonus spp.), brown trout (Salmo trutta fario), arctic char (Salvelinus alpinus). As seen before, increasing the price of glass eel has put some eel fisheries, which rely on restocking, in difficulty (DE, PL, LV, LT, FI, SE and UK).

Another way of managing the fish population is to remove undesirable species, usually invasive species with no commercial value. In Brandenburg and Berlin the targeted removal of ecologically undesirable mass species, which are not marketable either as fish for consumption or for stocking purposes, is subsidised. This group called “Futterfisch” (trash fish) includes mainly bream, white bream and roach and represents the largest portion of the catch volume..

- 66 -


Fishermen can also actively take part in aquatic ecosystems monitoring. Some scientific programs already involve fishermen as data collectors on fish stock (DE, FR, NL). Fishermen are generally remunerated to play this role, and this could represent a significant share of their revenue.

For example:

• In the Netherlands, water management and monitoring activities, along with the new requirements from the WFD and Natura 2000, are rather popular ways for fishermen to diversify their activities. The VBC (Fish stock management Committee) organised training sessions last year where approximately 50 fishermen participated at their own expense in order to be accredited as “fish stock information collector”. For some fishermen these activities were said to represent up to 30% of last year’s turnover;

• In France, some professional fishermen take part in aquatic environment monitoring, especially in terms of scientific fishing. For example they contributed to the national study about PCBs contamination level in fish flesh. Loire fishermen are carrying out a long-term monitoring of shad and eel populations (European INDICANG Programme) and the fisherman’s association of Gironde is organizing a complete catch monitoring.

- 67 -


5.3. Inland recreational fishing and aquaculture

Commercial inland fishing interacts with two main activities relying on freshwater fish resources: recreational fishing (angling) and pond extensive aquaculture.

At EU level, angling and pond aquaculture have a higher socio-economic impact on inland fishing: There are more than 900 anglers for one commercial fisherman and production of inland pond aquaculture reaches 3 times the catch of inland fishing (in volume).

Interactions and conflicts of usage are rather low between pond aquaculture and commercial inland fishing, as the water bodies are often different (natural lakes and rivers/reservoirs and artificial ponds). In some MS, both activities are linked (HU, PL).

The main conflicting interactions are with anglers associations which, in some MS, act as a powerful lobby with national authorities to promote their activities and marginalise commercial fishermen.

5.3.1. Socio-economic importance of non-commercial fishing Recreational fishermen, almost all anglers, are estimated to be around 15,8 millions in the countries concerned by commercial inland fisheries (table below). This means that on average there are more than 900 anglers for one professional fisherman.

Recreational fishing is more developed in the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Germany, Finland, France and Sweden, with more than 1 million anglers.

The catch is not monitored, except for very specific fisheries like the Irish salmon fishery. Few estimates are available. They range between 2 kg per fisherman in Austria to 20 kg in Poland.

Table 29 – Number of anglers in the 21 MS with commercial inland fishing

Member State Number of anglers

Catches (tonnes)

Austria 300 000 520 Bulgaria 180 000 n.a. Czech Republic 330 000 4 095 Denmark 616 000 n.a. Estonia 50 000 n.a. Finland 1 493 000 31 676 France 1 400 000 15 500 Germany 1 500 000 9 230 Greece n.a. n.a. Hungary 324 000 4 749 Ireland 200 000 n.a. Italy 900 000 n.a. Latvia 150 000 1 660 Lithuania 170 000 3 000 Poland 600 000 45 000 Portugal 235 000 n.a. Romania 200 000 n.a. Spain 646 000 n.a. Sweden 1 000 000 18 000 The Netherlands 1 500 000 n.a. United Kingdom 4 000 000 1 730 Total 21 MS 15 794 000 Sources: data collection in MS and European Anglers Alliance 2003.

- 68 -


The socio-economic importance of recreational fisheries is estimated through the expense anglers devote to their leisure: licences, fishing gear (mainly rods and lines) and other supplies (bait, clothes...), transportation, accommodation... In France, the amount spent is estimated to reach €200 to 250 per angler, and €350 to 400 in Ireland.

Such a method does not allow a comparison between the economic importance of recreational and commercial fisheries to be made, the first one being estimated with how much the fishermen spend and the second one with the commercial value of the catch (as being a productive sector).

5.3.2. Socio-economic importance of inland pond aquaculture Freshwater aquaculture represents a production of 287,500 tonnes and €722,500 (Table 30). 99% of this production comes from the 21 Member States involved in commercial fishery.

The main species bred is the rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) which accounts for 2/3 of the production. Other diadromous species, in particular eel (Anguilla anguilla), have an significant share in the value of freshwater aquaculture. Nevertheless those species are mainly bred in intensive systems (cages, recirculation systems, tanks and raceways). In contrast, freshwater species production mainly takes place in semi-intensive or extensive systems, i.e. in ponds where the living conditions of the fish are more or less controlled.

Table 30 - Freshwater aquaculture: production per species (EU 27)

Volume (tonnes)

Value (1000 €)

Volume (% total)

Value (% total)

Diadromous species 193 000 541 500 67% 75%

European eel (Anguilla anguilla) 7 500 65 000 2,6% 9,0%

Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) 180 000 447 000 62,7% 61,8%

Sea trout (Salmo trutta) 2 000 9 000 0,6% 1,2%

Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) 30 144 0,0% 0,0%

Sturgeons (1)

(Acipenseridae) 400 2 300 0,1% 0,3%

Freshwater species 94 500 181 000 33% 25% Cyprinids (Cyprinidae) 80 500 156 000 28% 22%

Common carp (Cyprinus carpio) 66 000 136 000 23% 19%

Total 287 500 722 500 33% 25% Source: Eurostat. (1) : A. baerii, A. stellatus, A. gueldenstaedti, A. ruthenus, Huso huso

Pond aquaculture represents around 40% of the overall freshwater aquaculture volume and 25% of the value (Table 31). This activity does not occur in Denmark, Spain and the Netherlands. The main countries associated with pond aquaculture are Poland, the Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary and France.

The main species raised in ponds are Cyprinids (Cyprinidae), the first species being common carp (Cyprinus carpio), Chinese carp (Hypophthalmichthys spp.) and bream (Abramis brama). Some predatory species such as pike (Esox lucius) are also concerned. These fish are mostly intended for the re-stocking market, for recreational fisheries. The consumption market is more developed in the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Romania.

- 69 -


Pond aquaculture reaches 3 times the volume of commercial inland fisheries.

Table 31 - Pond aquaculture production

Member State Volume (tons)

Value (1000€)

Austria 3 376 10 941 Bulgaria n.a. n.a. Czech Republic 20 447 41 600 Denmark - - Estonia 814 1 939 Finland 2 229 7 300 France 12 000 18 000 Germany 15 400 53 000 Greece 3 073 14 700 Hungary 13 735 n.a Ireland 760 2 027 Italy 1 300 9 000 Latvia 600 n.a. Lithuania 3 378 6 500 Poland 19 000 n.a. Portugal 800 1 800 Romania 9 107 n.a. Spain - - Sweden 6 100 24 600 The Netherlands - - United Kingdom 100 200

Total 21 MS >112 219 >187 807

Sources: data collection in MS and FRAMIAN BV- 200910.

5.4. Interactions between commercial fisheries and other fish-related activities

5.4.1. Angling As recreational fishermen are usually not permitted to sell their catch (except in Finland and in the United Kingdom), there should be no interaction between recreational and commercial fishermen on the market. However, cases of poaching and black markets are reported in almost all countries. But, this is not the main area of conflict between both fishermen categories.

Recreational and professional fisheries may overlap in terms of the targeted stocks and the fishing grounds. Fishing rights are not always exclusive, which means that recreational and professional fishermen are permitted to fish in the same areas. Furthermore, anglers target mostly game fish, i.e. large fish whatever the species: cyprinids, predatory fishes and salmonids, whereas professionals usually fish smaller species. Consequently they don’t have the same goal in terms of stock management: recreational fishermen favour maintaining old fish while professional fishermen give priority to renewing the populations.

Those disagreements are accentuated by the unbalanced position of the two categories. Being three thousand times greater in number than commercial fishermen, anglers constitute a lobby that professionals have difficulty to outweigh. In many countries, recreational fishermen campaign for the closure of professional fisheries, arguing that recreational fishing has a much more important economic weight and anglers contribute to the development of tourism activities.

10 Definion of data collection needs for aquaculture -Reference No. FISH/2006/15 - Lot 6 – Part 1: Review of the EU aquaculture sector and results of costs and earnings survey.

- 70 -


Some national authorities have already taken a clear position in favour of angling. As an example, Ireland offered to buy back professional salmon fishermen licences in order to develop angling tourism.

Such a situation is likely to occur in other MS, such as the UK, considering the number of studies launched by the authorities to assess the economic importance and potential of angling, or in Lithuania where the closure of commercial inland fishing has been recently discussed and rejected by Parliament.

5.4.2. Aquaculture Commercial inland fishing and pond aquaculture experience cross-over in terms of space, markets and species management.

The sharing of water areas between fisheries and aquaculture does not cause conflict, as these two activities occupy different types of aquatic bodies. Commercial fishing takes place in large areas, such as estuaries, coastal lagoons, main courses of rivers, and large natural lakes, which cannot be exploited by aquaculture. Pond aquaculture occurs in shallower and mostly artificial reservoirs that can be emptied to harvest fish.

Nevertheless some areas of dispute remain when fishing rights are leased to companies or cooperatives free to decide how they will exploit the waters, like in Poland and Hungary. In these situations, the boundaries between fishing and rearing are unclear, and the fishing methods can be similar to harvesting methods used in extensive aquaculture. In the same way, some Bulgarian ponds identified as fishing areas are exploited using methods similar to those in aquaculture.

Similarly, some coastal lagoons (in particular in Greece) are restocked on a regular basis and fished from weirs and fixed traps. Those techniques are not very different from those in aquaculture, even if the lagoons are not drained to harvest the fish.

Fish coming from inland fishing and raised freshwater fish do not usually compete on the same markets. In some Member States (France), the first market for ponds aquaculture is restocking, mostly for private recreational fisheries, whereas commercial fishermen sell their catch for consumption purposes. Furthermore wild fish have a higher value than reared ones. For example, there is a huge gap between the prices of wild salmon and raised salmon. This is especially true for old Member States, where commercial fisheries provide the market with rare and well promoted species. In countries where a strong demand for cyprinids exists, like in Poland, Hungary and Romania, fishery production competes with fish from pond aquaculture. The higher volumes produced by aquaculture may restrain prices for commercial fishery.

Commercial fisheries and intensive aquaculture are linked through the problematic topic of European eel (Anguilla anguilla). Important eel rearing takes place in the Netherlands and Denmark. The sustainability of this activity depends highly on glass eels and elvers. The general collapse of glass eel fisheries may threaten the durability of eel aquaculture, if the farms cannot find young individuals to grow.

- 71 -


6. Strength and weaknesses of commercial fisheries

6.1. SWOT analysis

On the whole, threats affecting commercial inland fisheries outweigh the maintenance and development opportunities, even though situations vary among fisheries.

Fisheries dependent on diadromous species are highly threatened by a decline in resources.

Lakes and lagoon fisheries, targeting sedentary species, have to face marketing problems.

Main opportunities involve developing new products and improving marketing strategies as well as collective organisations.

A SWOT analysis has been carried out for all studied MS. Due to the wide range of fishery features, the main threats and opportunities vary significantly from one MS to the next. Consequently a SWOT analysis of commercial inland fishery at a European level would have no significance.

6.1.1. Strength and weaknesses

The strengths and weaknesses of professional inland fisheries are more due to internal characteristics (targeted species, fishing methods, marketing strategies...) than to external factors (administrative environment, relationship with other players...). Those characteristics are the same within each fishery type, no matter in which MS they take place. Consequently strengths and weaknesses can be handled through main fishery types: downstream and estuarine fisheries, upstream fisheries, lakes and lagoons fisheries.

Estuaries and downstream

fisheries Upstream fisheries

Lakes and lagoons fisheries

Strengths Technical know-how + + + Heritage value + + + Empirical knowledge of ecosystems + + + Environmentally friendly fishing methods + ++ + Valuable species ++ - - Processing and direct-sales - ++ + Weaknesses Small and atomised sector - ++ - Weak professional organisation + ++ - Dependance on few species ++ - + Not attractive to new generations + ++ + Weak involvement in marketing channels ++ - -

- 72 -


It appears that a number of strengths are shared by all inland fisheries. They are linked with the traditional aspects of professional inland fishing. Fishermen are the keepers of specific technical know-how and have developed an empirical knowledge of aquatic ecosystems. It can be pointed out that inland fishing mostly uses passive gear, i.e. techniques harmless to the environment. Moreover professional inland fishing has a high heritage value, as it is the legacy of a multi-centenary tradition.

A common weakness is the profession’s difficulty in attracting the new generation. It is considered as tough work, with few prospects.

Differences exist among fisheries. Downstream and estuarine fisheries exploit diadromous species (glass eel, shads, salmon, lamprey), which is a strength as they are valuable species, but also a weakness, as fisheries rely on a lower number of species and thus depend on the state of stocks. Furthermore downstream fishermen sell most of their catch to wholesalers and then do not control the prices.

Upstream fisheries mostly target sedentary species (cyprinids and predator fish) which are not as valuable as migratory species, but more diversified. Fishermen outweigh the lower value of their catch with significant involvement in marketing: they often process fish and use the direct-sale channel. Nevertheless upstream fishermen are spread out along the rivers and isolated from one another, which hinders the possibility of collective initiatives.

Lakes and lagoon fishermen frequently join professional organisations, whether they be associations or cooperatives. They usually target two or three species (the most important populations of the water body) which mean that they are dependent on the state of stocks. Main market channels are either wholesalers on water bodies distant from the market (e.g. FI) or direct-sales where there is an important local market (alpine lakes for example).

- 73 -


6.1.2. Threats and opportunities

Main threats and opportunities of each country, sometimes detailed at fishery level, are summarised in the table below. For more details see the countries profiles.

The table must be read as follows:

-: Weak threat or opportunity;

+: Significant threat or opportunity;

++: Major threat or opportunity.

Despite the diversity between fisheries, some global trends are apparent. There are more threats than opportunities, and they put the sustainability of fisheries at risk. Threats can be classified as follows:

• Threats linked to resource availability (stock decrease, ecosystem degradation);

• Threats linked to economic viability (dependence on a single species, decreasing freshwater fish consumption);

• Threats linked to interactions with other players (competition with anglers).

In the same way main opportunities are:

• Either linked with an improvement of fishery added-value (new fishery development, technological innovation, marketing strategy enhancement);

• Or linked with diversification (ecosystem management, touristic activities).

More endangered fisheries are those that depend most on diadromous species (Anguilla anguilla, Alosa spp., Petromyzonidae, Salmo salar), as stocks of those species are often in an alarming situation. It is especially true for eel, whose case is examined in the following part.

Lakes and lagoon fisheries (AT, BG, EE, FI, FR, GR, HU, IT, PL) are less threatened by resource matters: they exploit sedentary species whose stocks are steadier, even though population changes are observed. Such fisheries are more concerned by fish valorisation due to local market saturation, distance of national markets and competition with reared and imported freshwater fish.

All those topics are examined in parts 6.2 and 6.3.

It must be emphasised that professional inland fishermen have been facing growing problems in the past few years, particularly a decrease in resources, increase in regulation and pollution. This combination of issues requires an urgent response and prevents fishermen from establishing mid-term plans.

- 74 -


Table 32 – Threats and opportunities in the different E.U. commercial inland fisheries

Threats Opportunities

Member State Fisheries

Fish

sto

cks

decr

ease

Dep

ende

nce

on s

ingl

e or

few

spe

cies

Envi

ronm

enta

l deg

rada

tion

Incr

ease

in re

gula

tory

con

stra

ints

an

d re

stric

tions

on

fishi

ng

Dec

reas

e in

dem

and

for f

resh

wat

er fi

sh a

nd

com

petit

ion

with

impo

rted

pro

duct

s

Non

repl

acem

ent o

f age

d fis

herm

en

and

decr

ease

bel

ow a

crit

ical

thre

shol

d

Com

petit

ion

with

ang

lers

or o

ther

act

ors

Oth

er

Dev

elop

men

t of n

ew fi

sher

ies

an

d/or

new

pro

duct

s

Tech

nolo

gica

l inn

ovat

ion

(b

oats

, fis

hing

gea

r and

met

hods

)

Incr

ease

d pr

ofita

bilit

y (p

rice/

cost

effi

cien

cy)

Impr

ovem

ent o

f mar

ketin

g st

rate

gies

,

col

lect

ive

orga

nisa

tion

Incr

ease

d pa

rtic

ipat

ion

in e

cosy

stem

s m

anag

emen

t (sc

ient

ific

fishi

ng, m

onito

ring…

)

Div

ersi

ficat

ion

into

nat

ure

or fi

shin

g to

uris

m

Comments

Austria Lake fisheries + - - + - + ++ - - - - + - - Good touristic demand with good prices. But no potential to develop fisheries.

Danube ++ + ++ ++ - + - - - - - - - -

Subsistence activity. Very low demand for most species. Most valuable ones are threatened (sturgeons). No organisation of the sector. Old fishing boats, gear and landing facilities. Pollution problems in the Danube River. High level of poaching. Bulgaria

Dams - - - - - - - - + - + + - - More valuable species, low costs of production. Systems close to aquaculture (artificial restocking). Sector more organised. High level of poaching.

Czech Republic Lake fishery - - + ++ ++ - ++ - - - + - ++ + Competition with the requirements for nature protection

Denmark Lake fisheries ++ ++ - ++ - ++ ++ - - - - - - - The inland fisheries are decreasing and will probably be replaced by recreational fisheries in a few years.

Estonia Lake fisheries - + + + - - - - - + + - + ++ Central role of fishing/processing/exporting companies on Lake Peipsi. Opportunities linked to development of tourism.

- 75 -




Fish

sto

cks

decr

ease

Dep

ende

nce

on s

ingl

e or

few

spe

cies

Envi

ronm

enta

l deg

rada

tion

Incr

ease

in re

gula

tory

con

stra

ints

an

d re

stric

tions

on

fishi

ng

Dec

reas

e in

dem

and

for f

resh

wat

er fi

sh a

nd

com

petit

ion

with

impo

rted

pro

duct

s

Non

repl

acem

ent o

f age

d fis

herm

en

and

decr

ease

bel

ow a

crit

ical

thre

shol

d

Com

petit

ion

with

ang

lers

or o

ther

act

ors

Oth

er

Dev

elop

men

t of n

ew fi

sher

ies

an

d/or

new

pro

duct

s

Tech

nolo

gica

l inn

ovat

ion

(b

oats

, fis

hing

gea

r and

met

hods

)

Incr

ease

d pr

ofita

bilit

y (p

rice/

cost

effi

cien

cy)

Impr

ovem

ent o

f mar

ketin

g st

rate

gies

,

col

lect

ive

orga

nisa

tion

Incr

ease

d pa

rtic

ipat

ion

in e

cosy

stem

s m

anag

emen

t (sc

ient

ific

fishi

ng, m

onito

ring…

)

Div

ersi

ficat

ion

into

nat

ure

or fi

shin

g to

uris

m

Comments

Finland Lake fisheries - + - + + + - - - - + + + -

Lake fishery is dependent on vendace which represents about 50% of the fishery. There is a lack of business know-how and collective organisation. There are now some innovative projects to process fish by fishermen and to market it abroad.

Estuarine fisheries ++ ++ + ++ - ++ - - + - + + ++ -

More threats than opportunities considering the specialization in eel and some other diadromous species with stocks outside safe biological limits.

Lake fisheries - - + + - + + - + - - + + + Very few possibilities for developing the fisheries. Opportunities for better marketing and processing of products.

France

River fisheries + - + + + ++ ++ PCBS + - - + + + Tough competition with anglers and environmental issues have led to a progressive reduction in commercial fishing on rivers. Relocation and diversification are difficult.

Germany River and lake fisheries + + + + - + +

+ cormorant

dioxin-PCBs in

rivers

- - + + + + The major opportunity is to develop the combination of inland fishing and tourism.

Greece All fisheries + - + - - + + - - - - + + + Small scale activity, not monitored and not managed

Hungary All fisheries + - + + - + ++ - + + - - - - New technologies provide real opportunities only in case of oxbow-lake and reservoir fisheries.

- 76 -




Fish

sto

cks

decr

ease

Dep

ende

nce

on s

ingl

e or

few

spe

cies

Envi

ronm

enta

l deg

rada

tion

Incr

ease

in re

gula

tory

con

stra

ints

an

d re

stric

tions

on

fishi

ng

Dec

reas

e in

dem

and

for f

resh

wat

er fi

sh a

nd

com

petit

ion

with

impo

rted

pro

duct

s

Non

repl

acem

ent o

f age

d fis

herm

en

and

decr

ease

bel

ow a

crit

ical

thre

shol

d

Com

petit

ion

with

ang

lers

or o

ther

act

ors

Oth

er

Dev

elop

men

t of n

ew fi

sher

ies

an

d/or

new

pro

duct

s

Tech

nolo

gica

l inn

ovat

ion

(b

oats

, fis

hing

gea

r and

met

hods

)

Incr

ease

d pr

ofita

bilit

y (p

rice/

cost

effi

cien

cy)

Impr

ovem

ent o

f mar

ketin

g st

rate

gies

,

col

lect

ive

orga

nisa

tion

Incr

ease

d pa

rtic

ipat

ion

in e

cosy

stem

s m

anag

emen

t (sc

ient

ific

fishi

ng, m

onito

ring…

)

Div

ersi

ficat

ion

into

nat

ure

or fi

shin

g to

uris

m

Comments

Ireland Salmon (Draft Net) ++ + - ++ - ++ ++ - + - + - - -

Very few opportunities for a fishery close to collapse. The recovery of some salmon stocks may allow for an increase in the surplus available for commercial fishing.

Italy Lagoon fisheries - - + + - - + - + - - + - + Inland fisheries in lagoons are a secondary source of revenue compared to aquaculture. Consequently threats are low. Main opportunities are the integration with other activity (e.g., aquaculture).

Italy Lake fisheries - + ++ + ++ ++ + - + - - + - + Very few possibilities for developing the fisheries. Opportunities for better marketing and processing of products.

Latvia All fisheries + ++ + ++ + + ++ - - - - + - + Ambition to develop fishing/angling tourism. Risk of legal disappearance of inland commercial fishing.

Lithuania All fisheries + + ++ + + + + - - - - + - + Environmental degradation (excess salt) in Curonian Lagoon due to expansion works at Klaipeda port.

Poland Lake fisheries + + ++ - + - + ++

cormorant pressure

+ + - + - ++

Main constraints are: cormorant pressure; lack of long-term stability in fishing rights; bureaucracy. High price of glass eel for stocking and competition with imported species (eel, pike-perch) are also important. Main opportunities are: diversification and EFF funds for investment in infrastructure (landing places, processing, transport etc.).

- 77 -




Fish

sto

cks

decr

ease

Dep

ende

nce

on s

ingl

e or

few

spe

cies

Envi

ronm

enta

l deg

rada

tion

Incr

ease

in re

gula

tory

con

stra

ints

an

d re

stric

tions

on

fishi

ng

Dec

reas

e in

dem

and

for f

resh

wat

er fi

sh a

nd

com

petit

ion

with

impo

rted

pro

duct

s

Non

repl

acem

ent o

f age

d fis

herm

en

and

decr

ease

bel

ow a

crit

ical

thre

shol

d

Com

petit

ion

with

ang

lers

or o

ther

act

ors

Oth

er

Dev

elop

men

t of n

ew fi

sher

ies

an

d/or

new

pro

duct

s

Tech

nolo

gica

l inn

ovat

ion

(b

oats

, fis

hing

gea

r and

met

hods

)

Incr

ease

d pr

ofita

bilit

y (p

rice/

cost

effi

cien

cy)

Impr

ovem

ent o

f mar

ketin

g st

rate

gies

,

col

lect

ive

orga

nisa

tion

Incr

ease

d pa

rtic

ipat

ion

in e

cosy

stem

s m

anag

emen

t (sc

ient

ific

fishi

ng, m

onito

ring…

)

Div

ersi

ficat

ion

into

nat

ure

or fi

shin

g to

uris

m

Comments

Estuarine fisheries ++ ++ + - + - +

++ cormorant pressure, lack of eel

for re-stocking

- + - + + -

Main constraints are: cormorant pressure; decrease in main fish stocks, lack of glass eel stocking and competition with imported species (eel, pike-perch). Main opportunities are: EFF funds for investment in boats, infrastructure, joint marketing.

Portugal All fisheries ++ ++ + + - + + - - - - - - -

Very few opportunities considering the reliance on some species with vulnerable stocks (eel, glass eel for Rio Minho) - Diminution of stocks on all migratory species (modification of hydrographical systems for dams) - No main activity for 80% of the fishermen. Activity in decline.

Romania All fisheries + - - ++

++ - +

poaching and black

market + -

++

++ + ++

Inland fisheries are faced to radical changes in regulation and market supply. Freshwater fish business has to be re-organised with active participation of fishermen

Spain All fisheries + + + ++ ++ + + - - - - - - - Decrease of eel stocks is a major threat to traditional estuarine fisheries.

Sweden All fisheries + + - - - - + cormorant plus power

plants + - + + + ++ Good market opportunities, but low perspective of

development

The Netherlands All fisheries + ++ - ++ ++ + + - - - - - - - Eel stocks decrease and relation with anglers are main

threat to commercial fishing in Rhine-Ijsselmeer complex.

United Kingdom All fisheries ++ ++ - ++ + + + - + - - + ++ + The main issue in UK inland fishery is the decrease of eel

and salmon stocks

- 78 -


6.2. Trends and perspective

The sustainability of commercial inland fishing faces several major threats: • Fish stocks collapse (eel, salmon); • Water and fish contamination by toxins (PCB, heavy metals, phytosanitary products); • Rapid changes in ecosystems (invasive species and population inversion); • Lack of consistent strategies regarding fishery management and product marketing ; • Short-term decision making and individualistic behaviour).

Diadromous species dependent on fisheries are expected to disappear or drastically decrease in the short to medium-term.

Other fisheries may carry on if the topic of the market is handled and fishermen renewal is ensured.

Developing opportunities are held back due to a lack of political will.

6.2.1. State of fish stocks, restocking and recovery measures

As seen in part 5.2.3 and detailed on table 33 (page 81), many inland fisheries are dependent on migratory species: eel (Anguilla Anguilla), shads (Alosa spp.), lampreys (Petromyzonidae) and salmon (Salmo salar).

Stocks of those species are often low and declining, which leads to certain species being registered in international conventions for the conservation of biodiversity (See appendix 4).

In particular the European sturgeon (Acipenser sturio) which is nearly extinct and is in the first appendix of the CITES, which means that its international trade is forbidden. All sturgeon species are classified on international lists in order to limit their exploitation.

All the following fisheries are under the threat of closure: • Sturgeons are still fished in Bulgaria, but decreasing catches and restrained international trade

may lead to a complete closure; • Declining stocks of salmon and competition with anglers is likely to speed up the end of

professional fisheries in the UK and France, as has already commenced in Ireland; • The state of shad stocks is not regular: some can continue to be exploited, while others are

found to be in an uncertain situation. For example in France the Loire stocks are sufficient, while those of the Garonne are still low despite a two year fishing closure.

Eel is the most affected species in terms of its importance for inland fisheries, whether it be glass eel, yellow, or silver eel (DK, EE, FR, DE, PT, ES, NL, UK). Eel Management Plans implementation (EMPs) and the registration in the second appendix of the CITES, which restrict international trade, seek to protect the species and recover its stocks.

The closure or drastic decline in those diadromous species fisheries seems inevitable. EMPs plan the decrease in fishing mortality, and thus limit catches with quotas or dates of fishery closures. Such restrictions will disadvantage businesses that are highly dependent on eel. Furthermore if no improvement in eel stocks is observed before 2012, fishery closure may appear to be the only solution to quickly reduce eel mortality.

EMPs also plan restocking measures. Such actions have been implemented in Europe for decades, especially in eel dependent fisheries not supplied by natural renewal (i.e. mainly along the Baltic Sea). Restocking has decreased since 1990 (figure 22 on next page) due to the increasing price of glass eel during this period (linked with the development of the Asian market). If this trend continues, fisheries dependent on restocking will lack young individuals and their sustainability will not be guaranteed.

- 79 -


Eel aquaculture faces the same problems as it depends on glass eel and elver supplies (eel breeding not being controlled).

Such uncertainties may lead fishermen to cease their activity, or at least to diversify the species they target. In this instance, an aid to activity interruption (temporary or definitive) or to diversification would be beneficial.

Figure 22 – Re-stocking of glass-eel in the E.U.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

Mill

ions

of g

lass

-eel

Year DE NL SE PL N.IRL. FI LT LV Total Weight

kg 1998 1,70 0,60 0,90 3,00 0,10 0,10 0,00 0,60 7,00 2 333 1999 2,40 1,20 1,00 4,10 0,04 0,10 0,00 0,50 9,34 3 113 2000 3,30 1,00 0,70 3,80 0,00 0,00 0,80 9,60 3 201 2001 2,40 0,10 0,40 1,70 0,00 0,00 0,60 5,60 1 868 2002 2,40 0,10 0,30 2,40 0,01 0,20 0,60 6,41 2 136 2003 2,60 0,10 0,30 2,20 0,01 0,50 6,21 2 068 2004 2,20 0,10 0,20 0,80 0,01 0,10 0,50 4,31 1 436 2005 2,10 0,10 0,30 0,01 0,70 3,61 1 203 2006 5,50 0,00 1,60 1,10 8,60 2 867 2007 4,70 0,00 0,80 0,90 6,70 2 233 2008 0,20 0,80 1,00 2,20 NR

Sources : WGeel report 2008 – from national statistics

- 80 -


Table 33 – Dependence of commercial inland fisheries on eel and other migratory species European eel (Anguilla anguilla) Other diadromous species

AT Few catches of adult eels occur in some lakes (insignificant) None

BG No eels in national waters Sturgeons and Pontic shad in Danube river: negligible in the overall catch

CZ Insignificant catch of adult eels None

DK 19 fishermen depend on Yellow and silver eel: 29% of the catch and 41% of the value. NEMP targets = -50% of catches, licences valid till 2013

None

EE Lake Vörtsjärv: 79 fishermen depend on Eel: 50% of the value Catches occur in some other lakes (low dependency) Lampreys: 2% of overall catch

FI Insignificant catch < 5 tons of Atlantic salmon

FR Heavy dependency on Glass-eel: Adour estuary. Heavy dependence on Yellow and Silver eel: Rhône downstream, Loire mainstream…Over 50% of the turnover for 152 fishermen

Shads and Lampreys: Gironde and Loire downstream

DE Important species throughout Germany. Number of dependent fishermen unknown. None

GR Lagoons: not the main targeted species Rivers and lakes: negligible Mullets.

HU Lake Balaton: not the main targeted species None

IE No more eel licences issued from 2008 (NEMP) Salmon and Sea trout: 100% of commercial catch (27 tons) for about 600 fishermen.

IT Lagoons: significant catch, but not the main targeted species. Less than 1% of catch in rivers and lakes. Shads and mullets

LV 45 lease owners 3% of the overall catch, 14% of the overall value

Lampreys: 32% of the overall catch, 49% of the overall value (main source of revenue)

LT In Curonian lagoon: 40 companies catch some eels, not the main targeted species <5 tons of Shads

- 81 -


European eel (Anguilla anguilla) Other diadromous species

PL Not the main targeted species (4% of the overall catch). Glass-eel and eel are mostly exploited by sea fishermen in estuaries <5 tons of Atlantic salmon

PT Glass-eel and eel catches are partly monitored (IUU fishing) the number of inland fishermen dependent on the species is unknown. Shads and lampreys represent a significant share in catch.

RO No eels in national waters Pontic shad: 4% of catch in volume and 8% in value in Danube delta

ES Glass-eel and eel catches are partially monitored (IUU fishing). The number of inland fishermen dependent on the species is unknown.

Mullets (Mugilidae) account for an important share of the catch of commercial inland fishermen in Valencia.

SE Significant dependence : 7% of the overall catch NEMP: strong fishing restriction since the 1st may 2007 < 30 tons of Atlantic salmon

NL Ijsselmeer: 15% of the catch (70 companies and 140 fishermen) Other waters: 85% of the catch (130 companies and 260 fishermen) NEMP: two month fishery closure

None

UK

Lough Neagh: only targeted species, 220 fishermen dependent on the Yellow eel lake fishery. England and Wales: only targeted species for more that 600 fishermen (but only 20 full-time equivalent)

Salmon and sea trout: only targeted species for 556 fishermen in England, Wales and Scotland.

- 82 -


6.2.2. Degradation and changes in the aquatic ecosystems

Aquatic ecosystems suffer from the same degradation throughout Europe. Widespread PCBs and heavy metal pollution threaten inland fisheries, as lipophilic components concentrate in the trophic chain and end up in the fish flesh. Fishery closures already occur in France and there is a risk of these being more frequent, with increasing controls and the use of the precautionary principle.

Other cases of local pollution can be cited: a DDT pollution led to a temporary closure in Lombardia in the late 1990s, salinisation of the Curonian lagoon in Lithuania led to a compensation for a decrease in the catch.

Water body eutrophication is a general issue too, which can be addressed through better management of waste waters.

Population changes can be observed in many areas. Some alien species (like American crayfish, European catfish (Silurus glanis) and Crussian carp (Carassius gibelio) have invaded lakes and rivers. They have been introduced and are widespread due to man-made activities (ornamental aquaculture, recreational fishing...) and rapidly grow in number as they find a favourable ecosystem with no predator. Changes also occur in deep fish biomass dividing up variations. For example on Lake Peipsi (Estonia) vendace and smelt almost disappeared in favour of pike-perch and bream.

Global change also affects the aquatic ecosystem: river temperatures are rising. This may affect fish breeding, as eggs and young individuals need a specific temperature range to survive.

On the whole, ecosystem changes are a real threat for inland fishermen. Firstly they can trigger fishery closures due to pollution. Secondly, population changes are unfavourable to fishermen, with valuable species being replaced by species of less interest. The only positive point is the opportunity to find a market for invasive species, as this has been the case for pike-perch previously. The American crayfish and European catfish markets are developing in France and meet a demand. Some Italian fishermen have started to process Carassius spp.

6.2.3. Market evolution issues: freshwater fish consumption, prices, competition with aquaculture and imported products

In all studied Member States the human consumption of local freshwater fish is decreasing whilst consumption of imported freshwater fish (e.g. Tilapia, Nile perch, Panga) is increasing.

Wild freshwater fish consumption differs in old and new Member States. In the latter group, white fish consumption is still significant and wild fish compete with reared fish, in particular fish from pond aquaculture. As wild fish do not have a specific image for the consumer, its price is very similar to the price for reared fish (Figure 23 next page).

In old Member States inland fishing targets more valuable species and usually involves a connoisseur market. Wild fish prices are therefore higher than the reared fish price.

The convergence of the new Member States market towards the old MS model will probably minimise this difference.

Nevertheless even in old MS the impact of wholesalers is still high on price formation. With the exception of fishermen who develop processing and direct-sale (mostly on river main and upstream and near alpine lakes), the wholesalers’ share is still considerable (see part 5.2.4) in first sale. This is especially true for fisheries distant from the market (for example Finnish lakes or Danube Delta) or fisheries where local markets are insufficient to absorb the whole production (such as in estuaries and lagoons).

Inland fishermen are not yet sufficiently involved in fish marketing and their products are not identified among all fish types (wild fish, reared fish, imported fish...). Marketing strategies are necessary to distinguish wild inland fish from reared fish and achieve a better added-value, and maintain a sufficient income level in spite of decreasing landed volumes. Two main options are possible to differentiate wild freshwater fish: point out their local specificity or insist on their environmentally friendly aspects (harmless fishing methods, stock management...).

- 83 -


Some fishermen groups have already launched actions to identify their products: three regional brands exist in France, Lough Neagh fishermen apply for PGI (Protected Geographic Indication) and some Swedish lake fisheries for environmental certification (MSC).

Such strategies require fishermen groups. It would be possible only where fishermen concentration is sufficient: around lakes and lagoons, in rivers downstream and estuaries. On this point, support to collective initiatives and marketing research (to ensure marketing strategy effectiveness) could be helpful.

6.2.4. Opportunities: development and/or diversification?

Fishery prospects differ from one fishery to the next, some being destined to disappear in the short-term and others presenting good opportunities for continuation and growth.

The most threatened fisheries are salmon and eel fisheries, due to stock collapse and management plans. A decline in catches and growing fishing coercion will lead those activities to end in the short or medium term. Glass eel fisheries (especially in France) suffered a drastic decline in catches during the 2008-2009 seasons. If such a scenario is repeated for one or two seasons, fishermen will not be able to continue. Moreover the Asian market shows signs of a decline, and prices will then diminish along with a decline in catches. Interest in such a fishery will then dissipate. A chain reaction is to be feared for other eel fisheries, as they depend highly on restocking. If no glass eel is available on the market, then restocking will be impossible. The same risk hangs over eel aquaculture, which may not be able to purchase glass eel either.

Figure 23 – Average apparent price of inland fishing and freshwater aquaculture products

Sources : MS data collection and Eurostat NB: aquaculture data include extensive and intensive freshwater aquaculture

- 84 -


Professional salmon fisheries are also threatened by diminishing stock, but additionally through competition with anglers The latter often given preference by authorities (e.g. in Ireland), professional fishery closures will undoubtedly occur in the near future.

Some fisheries may disappear because of the small number of fishermen and the lack of interest new generations have in the profession. It is true in the Czech Republic and in Denmark, where professional inland fishing has already almost disappeared. But fishermen renewal is also a problem in bigger countries such as Italy. A fishermen’s average age is around 50 in all studied MS, and helping young fishermen to set up must be a matter of concern to ensure the profession’s sustainability.

On the other hand inland fishing still presents opportunities for continuing. Some fisheries do not depend on migratory species and do not face space and resource competition. They are mainly located on large natural lakes and reservoirs. Furthermore professional inland fisheries are part of the cultural heritage of local communities, where wild fish consumption is a tradition.

Of course fishermen will have to adapt their practice and notably their approach to the market. A stronger involvement in marketing is necessary to enhance added-value. In some cases diversification could be a way to maintain fishing activity. The main possibility is to develop an activity linked with fishing: processing, direct-sales, fish restaurant, fish tourism...

Regardless of space and resource conflicts (mainly with anglers), commercial inland fishing would even have the chance to grow, not all productive areas being accessible to professional fishermen. But there is no political will to extend areas where professional fishing is allowed, mostly because of the strong anglers lobby.

- 85 -


6.3. Problems and needs of the sector

The key problems faced by commercial inland fishermen are: • declining resources (diadromous species) and damaged ecosystems • insufficient access to credit and public aid • increasing pressure from recreational fishermen • lack of interest from authorities • insufficient professional organisations Their main needs to address these problems are: • easier access to public aid, to facilitate investments • a reinforcement of professional organisations, to strengthen their position • plans for activity cessation and/or reconversion when it is inevitable (e.g. eel dependent fisheries)

Problems and needs of the sector are summarised for each Member State in the table below.

Table 34 – Problems and needs of EU inland fisheries

Problems and needs Most concerned MS Main problems

Fishing rights AT, BG, DK, FI, FR, LV, LT, SE State of stocks BG, DK, FR, IT, PT, ES, SE, NL, UK Access to

resources Ecosystem degradation (pollution, hydroelectric plants, spawning areas disappearance...)

DE, FR, GR, HU, PT, SE

Access to credit DE, LT, PL, SE Profession durability FI, FR, GR, IT, PT Poaching BG, HU, LV, PL, PT, ES, RO Support needs

Boats and fishing gear AT, BG, EE, GR, IT, LV, LT, PL, UK, Investments

Onshore facilities (storage, processing) AT, BG, EE, FI, FR, DE, HU, IT, LV, PL, SE, UK Collective organisation AT, BG, FI, FR, IT, LT, PT, UK Marketing strategies AT, FI, FR, GR, HU, IT, UK Restocking DE, PL, NL, UK Diversification (tourism, angling...) BG, DE, IT, SE, NL

6.3.1. Access to resources and fishing rights

As seen in part 6.2, the major problem for fisheries dependent on diadromous species is a decline in stocks. This limited access to resources may be worsened by poaching. Illegal fishing is common in fisheries with high added-value (e.g. glass eel) and in communities where subsistence fishing was widespread (in Bulgaria for example).

There are few possibilities for helping those fisheries, except in supporting activity cessation or conversion towards new species (fishing gear change, training). Fisheries dependent on eel restocking (around Baltic Sea and in Northern Ireland) could be supported through financing such restocking actions.

For their part, freshwater species fisheries are under the threat of pollution and ecosystem degradations. PCBs and DDT pollution have already led to fishery closures.

Access to fishing rights may restrict professional inland fishing as well. The majority of professional fishermen practise their activity on public water bodies, and obtain fishing rights from national or local authorities. They often have to coexist with anglers, who represent a strong lobby towards

- 86 -


administration and politicians. To avoid conflict, authorities are reluctant to extend the number of licences or open new water bodies to commercial fishing. Furthermore young fishermen may face difficulties in setting up their businesses. As obtaining new fishing rights is almost impossible, they have to succeed fishermen who retire. But in some MS fishing rights are granted only to people from professional fisherman families.

Private fishing rights could be a solution, as private water bodies extend far beyond public ones. But private owners prefer to also lease fishing rights to recreational fishermen, the latter being more interesting from an economical point of view. Moreover the leasing of private fishing rights is much more expensive than fishing in public water bodies.

6.3.2. Access to credit/access to public aids

In some new MS access to credit is difficult for fishermen. They have small scale businesses, and in the opinion of banks their sustainability is not guaranteed as they are not owners of their fishing rights (their enterprises may cease if fishing rights are not renewed).

Investments in boats and fishing gear are usually not affected by this situation. Traditional inland fishing enterprises are indeed low capital intensive. Fishermen prefer self-financing their investments or buy second-hand boats, rather than subscribing to bank loans.

On the contrary, building on-shore facilities and particularly processing facilities require higher investments and resort to credit is essential. Such investments are more frequent for the biggest fishing enterprises, mainly located near large natural lakes, lagoons and reservoirs in Northern Europe.

Access to public aid, and in particular to the EU fund, is often complex for professional fishermen. Procedures are long and complicated and fishermen must advance money before being reimbursed. In general only fishermen organised through associations or cooperatives apply for subsidies.

6.3.3. Conflicts of usage with other activities related to fish and water

Inland fishing is nowadays administrated by two Ministries in most of the MS: the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries and the Ministry of Environment. The first manages inland fishing as a productive sector and the second as an activity exploiting natural resources. Priorities are difficult to establish: e.g. should the economic aspects (market supply and employment) or the preservation of ecosystems be favoured?

In most of the MS the trend is to consider inland fishermen as users of aquatic resources at the same level as anglers, naturalists and tourists, and not as productive individuals.

Situations are however contrasted among MS:

• Low level of conflict appears: - Where freshwater surfaces are huge, fish resources are still abundant and population

density low (SE, FI, EE….); - When regulations clearly recognise the rights of inland fishermen (AT, DE); - When freshwater fish still plays a significant role in market supply and is still

appreciated by consumers (HU, PL, BG, RO, Baltic States).

• On the other hand, conflicts in old Western MS are significant because: - Commercial fishermen and anglers target the same species (salmon, trout, predator

fish, carps…); - National policies are moving towards an enhancement of fish resources through

tourism rather than through the food market.

As professional fishermen are rarely organised, their weight is insufficient to put pressure on authorities to preserve their rights. This being the case, support to reinforce professional organisations could enhance the position of commercial fishermen and their ability to influence decisions concerning their future.

- 87 -


6.3.4. Professional organisation and coordination of activities

As previously emphasised, inland fishermen have insufficient institutional representation. Appendix 3 summarises existing collective organisations in studied MS. National professional associations only exist in Finland and France. In other countries professional inland fishermen can be represented either in professional associations bringing together sea and inland fishermen or in inland associations with professional and recreational fishermen. In both cases inland fishermen widely represent a minority and cannot really claim their positions.

In most MS, local associations exist where the density of professional fishermen is sufficient (around lakes and lagoons, in estuaries...). In some cases fishermen are brought together through cooperatives (e.g. Lough Neagh, Italian lagoons, Greek lakes and rivers). Nevertheless existing organisations lack human and financial resources (except for Lough Neagh cooperative).

Individualism seems to be usual for inland fishermen. Moreover in new MS fishermen are wary towards collective organisations, which make them think of cooperatives during the communist period.

Insufficient fishermen coordination and the poor means of existing organisations do not allow fishermen to put collective integrated strategies in place, whether it be for fisheries management or for marketing. Since such initiatives have better opportunities for success if they are held by a group, reinforcing collective organisations would be a way to support inland fishing.

- 88 -


Table 35 – Problems and needs of EU inland fisheries, by Member State

Main problems Main needs

AT Lack of organisation, small size of the sector No real strategy of authorities and associations

Boats and gear replacement/modernisation Processing equipment Marketing strategies

BG State of stocks: decline in main valuable species Pollution and hydroelectric plants Poaching

Boats and gear replacement/modernisation Landing and storage facilities Collective organisation Support to diversification towards fishing tourism and eco-tourism

CZ Anecdotic activity : only 4 part-time fishermen Modernisation of equipment

DK Fishing right access: only a few lakes, direct negotiations between landowners and fishermen Resources access: eel fishing restrictions since 2007

Support for cessation and or diversification considering the lack of prospects

EE Discharge of insufficiently treated effluent High energy consumption of fishing vessels

Modernisation of fishing vessels (selective fishing gear, energy efficiency, air pollution), Equipment to improve the quality of fish (sorting, cooling), Improvement of working conditions.

FI

Fishing right access: difficulties in getting a licence to start a business, not all the lake surfaces are accessible to commercial fishery No incentive for young people to start a business Difficult to find skilled employees during the main fishing season (autumn) Logistics and transportation costs

Collective organisation to face the concentrated food chain (wholesalers and processors) Marketing strategies

FR

Fishing right access: difficulties in getting a licence to start a business Resources: eel fishing restrictions with the Eel Management Plan, shad fishing restrictions in Gironde PCBs pollution and commercialisation ban

Collective organisation to reduce logistic costs Marketing strategies and processing development to enhance the added value Support for cessation, relocation and diversification for eel dependent fisheries and fisheries affected by pollution Support for eel-restocking

DE Predation by cormorants Levels of dioxin and PCBs in some rivers Use of water bodies for energy production and transport

Support for eel restocking Develop fish processing Reduce fish mortality in HPS turbines

GR No incentives for young people to start a business Ecosystem degradation

Fleet renewal (Evros River) Marketing strategies

HU Ecosystem degradation and punctual pollution Poaching

Storage and processing facilities to regulate market supply Fish population regulation

IE Resources: closure of eel fishery and reduction in salmon quotas Clear policy choice in favour of angling rather than commercial fishing

Recovery of salmon and eel stocks (long-term) Access to fishing rights Aid for cessation or diversification (short-term)

- 89 -


Main problems Main needs

IT No incentives for young people to start a business Stock decline

Boats and gear replacement/modernisation Collective processing plants Collective initiatives to develop tourism activities

LV Fishing rights access: political weight and lobbying of anglers, municipalities’ will to develope tourism based on angling Poaching

Boats and gear replacement/modernisation Storage and processing facilities

LT Fishing rights access: competition with anglers Financing capacity: banks are reluctant to loan to fishing businesses in view of the poor prospects of the sector (total ban)

Collective organisation: one big company per region to increase production Boat replacement

PL

Poaching Financing capacity: banks are reluctant to loan to small fishing businesses Instable fisheries management Predatory species regulation (cormorants)

Boats and gear replacement/modernisation Landing and storage facilities Restocking support

PT Migratory species decrease (eel) Poaching

Enhancing ecological connection (fish passes) Collective organisation

ES Poaching Migratory species decrease (eel) Opacity and lack of organisation of the sector

Increase monitoring and management of inland fishing

RO

Reduction in catch and supply of domestic market (more and more dependent on imported products) Poaching and over-fishing due to low added-value obtained through official marketing channels Low productivity and poor quality of products due to obsolete equipment and infrastructures Lack of coherent strategies and collaboration between local players

Modernise fishing boats, equipment and infrastructures (landing points, storage, processing…) Reinforce collective organisation for a better management of fishing effort (regarding resources) and for efficient marketing strategies (quality, added-value…) Support for territorial integrated strategies of development for traditional fishermen communities Reinforce

SE Fishing rights access: competition with anglers, frequently denied requests Resources: stock decline due to cormorants pressure and hydroelectric turbines Financing capacity: banks are reluctant to loan to small fishing businesses

Support for diversification (tourism) Processing development

NL Fishing rights access: eel for commercial fishermen and other species for anglers Eel stock decline and fishing restrictions (3 months closure)

Support eel restocking Support for diversification

UK

Lough Neagh: Restocking costs Eel stock decline Margin decrease Other fisheries: Migratory species decline

Lough Neagh: Support for restocking Develop new products Promote new species Train fishermen Other fisheries: Stock recovery: ecological connection (fish passes) and restocking

- 90 -


7. EU and national supports to commercial inland fishing

This chapter aims at describing the needs and the added value of a public intervention, at EU, national and/or regional level, in the European inland fisheries.

The analyses rely on a complete description of the previous (FIFG + national instruments) and current intervention (EFF + national) in inland fishing and on the gaps identified between needs and public supports.

7.1. Needs of the sector and current area of public intervention

7.1.1. EU and national interventions in inland fishing

Table 36 (following page) summarise, for the 21 MS where relevant, the different public interventions toward inland fishing at EU and national level, since 2000, with:

• The use of the FIFG 2000-2006 inland fishing measure (35) in the 10 Member States where it was implemented;

• The intentions of the Member State to mobilize, or not, the different measures of EFF 2007-2013 for supporting commercial inland fishing. Four Member States clearly do not intend to mobilize the EFF: Denmark and Ireland, where commercial eel fisheries are close to collapse and Spain and Portugal, where commercial inland fishing is not really a subject for national or regional authorities. Nevertheless, since Spain and Portugal are concerned by the eel recovery plan, they might be interested in EFF support for re-stocking in the short-term. Nine Member States intend to implement Axis 4 in areas where commercial inland fishermen communities represent a significant share of the local population: i.e. Northern countries with large lake areas and low population density (SW, FI, the Baltic States) and Eastern countries with important traditional inland fisheries (BG, PL, RO);

• An analysis of the national and regional interventions in inland fishing identified during the study (other interventions may have occurred).

These cross-analyses allow the different needs of inland fishing sector not currently or properly addressed by EU intervention to be identified, which are:

• Aid for investment. Some Regions have supported the modernisation and development of processing facilities (sometimes with the joint financing of Rural Development funds), generally for small investments where the EFF procedure was far too complex;

• Compensation for the temporary cessation of activities linked with toxic contamination issues (PCB, DDT) or a deep change in ecosystems;

• Compensation for the permanent cessation (declining salmon fisheries) or anticipate fishery closure (conversion - diversification;

• Fish stock management actions, mostly by jointly financing re-stocking or for the removal of invasive species.

An in-depth analysis of FIFG 2000-2006 outputs, of planned measures and budgets in EFF national programming documents and of national public interventions are developed in following chapter.

- 91 -


Table 36 – Public supports to inland fishing

Member states AT BG CZ DK EE FI FR DE GR HU IT IE LV LT PL PT RO ES SE NL UK EU support

FIFG (achieved) - (1) Boat construction + NR - - + + 0 + + - + - 0 0 + - NR - + - - Boat modernisation + NR - - + + 0 + + - + - 0 0 + - NR - + - - Other projects + NR - - 0 + + + 0 + + - 0 0 + - NR - + - - EFF (programmed or intended) –(2) Boat modernisation + + - - + + + + - + ? - - - + - + - + ? - Onshore facility modernisation/building + + - - + + + + + ? - + - + - + - + ? - Boat reassignment - - - - - - - - - - ? - - + + - - - + ? - New markets/Commercialisation - - - - + + - - + + ? - - - + - + - - ? - Restocking - - + - - - - + + - ? - + - - - - - - + + Ecosystem management - - - - + - - - - + ? - - - + - - - ? - Compensation for fishery closures - - - - - - - - + - ? - - - - - - - - ? - Axis 4 (3) - + - - + + - - - - - - + + + - + - + + - National and regional support - (4) achieved and/or planned Support for investment + + + Support for conversion -diversification + + + Compensation for permanent cessation + + + Compensation for temporary cessation (stock or pollution problems) + + + + Compensation for undesirable species removal + Restocking programs + + +

Sources: (1) From INFOSYS and interviews with national authorities. + = programmed and implemented; 0 = programmed, not implemented; - = not programmed; NR = non relevant (no programmes). (2) From national programming documents, Bucharest workshop and interviews; + = already programmed or intended; - = not programmed;? = uncertain (3) From national programming documents, missions in the MS, informations from Farnet; + = FLAGs involving inland fishemen groups or covering inland fisheries areas; - = No projects concerning inland fisheries;, ? = uncertain. (4) Support identified during missions in the MS; + = national or regional support identified

- 92 -


7.1.2. Outputs of the FIFG 2000-2006 FIFG 2000-2006 previously included a measure devoted to Inland fishing (Measure 35), with three different activities eligible for support:

• The construction of new vessels (closed by the end of 2004, since there is a similar measure for sea fishing);

• The modernisation of existing vessels; • Other projects concerning inland fisheries.

The level of financial participation was defined in the Council Regulation (EC) 2792/1999 as follows:

A: FIFG contribution B: National contribution C: Private contribution In the case of investments in small and medium-sized businesses within the meaning of Commission Recommendation 96/280/EC (1) the (A) rates for group 3 may be increased by an amount for forms of finance other than direct assistance, provided that this increase does not exceed 10% of the total eligible cost. The contribution of the private beneficiary shall be reduced accordingly.

In accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, support for inland fishing, as with all other FIFG measures, was optional. Measure 35 was ultimately implemented in nine Member States through 13 programmes, including nine Objective 1 programmes (see following table).

The overall FIFG spending for inland fishing measure appears very low, with less than 2.6 Millon € on the 6 years of the 2000-2006 programme. Moreover, the achievement rate (achieved amount / programmed amount) is only 60%, which is the lowest rate of all FIFG measures.

Table 37 – Physical and financial outputs of the FIFG 2000-2006

Execution of FIFG 2000-2006 – achievements –July 2008 Programmes Nb projects Total costs (€) National funding FIFG % public aid

Austria - National 24 620 402 116 330 81 324 31,9% Estonia - Obj 1 63 1 203 600 164 977 427 046 49,2% Finland - North 96 715 704 158 607 158 607 44,3% Finland - East 153 2 195 908 469 755 471 265 42,9% Finlande - out obj 1 205 1 818 843 376 401 265 336 35,3% France - out obj 1 8 627 293 31 365 94 094 20,0% Germany - obj 1 26 338 269 39 088 114 436 45,4% Germany - out obj 1 56 840 832 73 343 155 476 27,2% Greece - obj 1 19 716 381 179 095 250 733 60,0% Italy - out obj 1 374 2 357 925 565 185 336 704 38,2% Poland - objective 1 19 285 008 14 162 99 137 39,8% Sweden - Norra 2 15 845 792 5 546 40,0% Sweden - out obj 1 58 726 210 36 310 108 931 20,0%

Total 1 103 12 462 220 2 225 410 2 568 635 38,5% Sources: INFOSYS – 31/12/2008– from ex-post evaluation of the FIFG 2000-2006

The reasons cited by national authorities or inland fishermen organisations for the weak success of EU intervention, include the following:

• The co-financing rates were not an incentive in most of the MS. The average rate of public co-funding was 38.5% (of which more than half came from FIFG) for Measure 35;

• The low availability of national funds in some MS led authorities to focus their intervention on priorities other than inland fishing (such as marine fleet reduction). Promotion of the measure was consequently low;

Group 3A<= 35 %B >= 5 %

C >= 40 %A <= 15 %B >= 5 %

C >= 60 %

Obj 1 regions

Other Areas

- 93 -


• The implementation process was far too complex for most of inland fishermen, and technical assistance to applicants was often poor, except in two countries: Finland, where inland fishing is more organised and considered by authorities to have real socio-economic significance, and Italy, where cooperatives have been effective in processing applications (sometimes through collective projects);

• The average payment term (between the time the payment request was submitted and payment to the beneficiary) was considered excessive in view of the low self-funding capacity of most inland fishermen. The retrospective evaluation of FIFG 2000-2007 revealed that it took an average of 147 days in the old MS and 40 days in the new MS with, in some cases, pre-payment systems.

Finally, transactional costs were considered much too burdensome for the majority of non-organised inland fishermen. The success stories were found in programmes implemented at the regional level (Finland and Italy) that had coherent strategies by institutional and professional stakeholders (with a clear policy and projects). Conversely, “project driven” strategies managed at country level with low public support (France) produced poor results.

Aid for construction of new vessels (Action 35.1) accounted for half of the FIFG spending, with the following results:

• Contributions to the construction of 198 new vessels, of which 44% were in Italy (mostly in Veneto and the Lazzio coastal lagoon). It should be noted that Italian cooperatives were actively involved and sometimes applied for multi-boat projects (65 projects for 87 new boats);

• The average cost of new boats ranged from €6,400 to €17,500 in the more traditional fisheries (operating with passive gear). Costs appear higher in countries with large lake fisheries exploited by boats using active gear (Estonia, Finland-East, Sweden). This figure is not relevant for Greece (errors in project allocation by measure in INFOSYS).

Table 38 – FIFG 2000-2006 – action 35.1 - construction of new vessels

FIFG 2000-2006 - Achievement

Programmes Nb projects FIFG % public aid

average costs / project

Nb boats average costs / boat

Austria - National 4 7 390 13,1% 14 141 4 14 141 Germany - Obj 1 12 57 598 34,0% 14 136 14 12 116 Germany - out Obj 1 9 29 986 19,0% 17 495 9 17 495 Estonia - Obj 1 20 366 932 34,7% 52 852 20 52 852 Finland - North 7 13 223 22,0% 8 593 7 8 593 Finland - East 23 174 741 21,5% 35 382 23 35 382 Finlande - out obj 1 16 40 657 14,8% 17 188 16 17 188 France - out obj 1 Greece - Obj 1 8 237 197 35,0% 84 713 8 Non relevantItaly - out obj 1 65 222 818 14,6% 23 531 87 17 581 Poland - Objective 1 1 2 225 35,0% 6 356 1 6 356 Sweden - Norra 1 4 861 35,0% 13 889 1 13 889 Sweden - out obj 1 8 55 337 15,0% 46 114 8 46 114

Total 174 1 212 963 23,4% 29 805 198 26 192 Source: INFOSYS

Compared to average costs of construction of new boats in the different MS (chapter 5.2.5), the projects supported by FIFG appear concerning some of the larger inland fishing boats. This confirms that transaction costs are likely to have been deterrent for small investments.

In light of the average cost of new boat construction in the various MS (Part 5.2.5), the projects supported by FIFG appear to involve some of the larger inland fishing boats. This confirms that transaction costs are likely to have been a deterrent for small-scale investment.

- 94 -


Aid to modernisation of existing vessels: Action 35.2 only mobilised €0.28 million (10% of Measure 35 spending), with the following expenditures:

• 224 boats were modernised, including 91 in Italy, 47 in Germany, 34 in Sweden and 27 in Finland, for an average cost of about €6,600;

• Higher project costs are found in the same countries and regions than with construction funding, in relation to the larger size of boats modernised.

Low co-funding rates (the FIFG average is less than 20% for this action) combined with heavy transactional costs are likely to have acted as a deterrent for small-scale investment projects.

Table 39 – FIFG 2000-2006 – action 35.2 : modernisation of existing vessels

Execution of FIFG 2000-2006

Achievement Programmes Nb projects FIFG % public aid


NB boats average costs / boat

Austria - National 9 6 685 13,1% 5 691 9 5 691 Germany - Obj 1 8 16 524 33,7% 6 120 10 4 896 Germany - out Obj 1 35 24 414 15,0% 4 652 37 4 401 Estonia - Obj 1 9 60 115 41,0% 16 284 9 16 284 Finland - North 4 4 401 22,5% 4 890 4 4 890 Finland - East 12 45 623 21,2% 17 894 12 17 894 Finlande - out obj 1 11 18 420 14,4% 11 600 11 11 600 France - out obj 1 Greece - Obj 1 6 13 537 35,0% 6 446 6 6 446 Italy - out obj 1 64 50 795 12,5% 6 372 91 4 481 Poland - Objective 1 1 1 707 35,0% 4 878 1 4 878 Sweden - Norra Sweden - out obj 1 33 38 695 15,0% 7 817 34 7 587

Total 192 280 914 19,0% 7 712 224 6 610 Source: INFOSYS

Other projects concerning inland fisheries: Action 35.3 mobilised about €1 million with the following expenditures:

• 432 projects were implemented in 7 MS for various types of investments described in table 40; • Higher project costs are found in the same countries and regions than with construction

funding, in relation to the larger size of boats modernised.

Table 40 – FIFG 2000-2006 – action 3 - other projects concerning inland fishing

Execution of FIFG 2000-2006 - Achievement Programmes Nb projects Total costs (€) National funds FIFG % public aid


Austria - National 11 512 623 96 159 67 249 31,9% 46 602 Germany - Obj 1 6 119 681 13 438 40 314 44,9% 19 947 Germany - out Obj 1 9 520 557 45 301 101 166 28,1% 57 840 Estonia - Obj 1 Finland - North 78 630 206 139 680 139 680 44,3% 8 080 Finland - East 114 1 167 402 249 021 250 902 42,8% 10 240 Finlande - out obj 1 167 1 416 233 292 011 206 260 35,2% 8 480 France - out obj 1 8 627 293 31 365 94 094 20,0% Greece - Obj 1 Italy - out obj 1 19 420 610 105 153 63 092 40,0% 22 137 Poland - Objective 1 12 273 775 13 601 95 205 39,7% 22 815 Sweden - Norra 1 1 956 98 685 40,0% 1 956 Sweden - out obj 1 7 99 333 4 967 14 900 20,0% 14 190

Total 432 5 789 670 990 792 1 073 545 35,7% 13 402 Sources: INFOSYS

- 95 -


7.1.3. National strategies for EFF intervention

Minutes from the 2007 Bucharest Conference on EFF and inland fishing highlighted the positions and the intention of national authorities regarding the actions they wished to implement in response to the needs of the sector.

Table 41 (following page) presents the key elements provided by national authorities on: • The financial execution of FIFG 2000-2006; • Their decision to support or not support inland fishing with the EFF; • The budget they intended to devote to inland fishing measures (and sometimes to Axis 4

inland FLAGs); • What kind of action they would like to finance with the EFF.

The answers provided by most of the MS national authorities were rather uncertain: • No clear global strategy, other than using the available tool-box proposed by the EFF, is

proposed; • Budget allocation specifically devoted to measure 2.2 is not clearly distinguished from that of

priority Axis 2; • Very few references to priority Axis 4 involving mobilisation in inland fishing were mentioned.

Even though the conference was organised in the early part of the EFF programme, the answers from the national authorities clearly underline their lack of knowledge regarding the situation and the needs of the inland fishing sector. This might be considered as “normal” in terms of the lack of statistics and monitoring of these traditional and declining activities, compared to the importance of sea fishing.

- 96 -


Table 41 – Use of FIFG 2000-2006 and planned EFF intervention in inland fishing – Bucharest conference

INFOSYS Bucharest workshop

Financing inland fisheries

Estimated budget (k€)

What would you like to finance in inland capture fisheries sector (Bucharest workshop)

AT 81 yes 300

Improvement of infrastructure, adaption to altered conditions (e.g. change of gear), Hatcheries for stock production, Improvements for direct marketing, Investment in new boats (if possible)

BG ?

CZ yes 55 Spawning grounds and glass eel

DE 270 17 100 yes 2 830 To be defined, with : Re-stocking plans (pilote projects)Investment in devices facilitating migration of fish

DK No

EE 427 300 yes 2 500 Modernize inland fishing fleet (safety and working on board); Lifelong learning;Inland fisheries facilities;

ES ?

FI 894 872 Yes 5 000 -7 000

Mobile freezing lines, Fish delivery centres, Mobility of fishers and transportable infrastructure, Marketing of inland fishing catches.

FR 94 108 Yes 727 Modernization of vessels and equipmentsCompensation for temprary cessation of activityRestoration of aquatic ecosystems, co-management

GR 251 ?

HU Yes 5 000 Working conditions Safety of products

IE No Priority is given to recreational fishing

IT 897 ?

LT Yes 5 000

1. modernization of inland fishing vessels. 2. reassignment of inland fishing vessels to other activities outside fishing. 3. investments into the inland fishing infrastructure (construction, extension, modernisation). 4. temporary cessation of inland fishing activity

LV Yes 5 300

Construction, extension, equipment and modernisation of infrastructure necessary for the provision of operation of fishing boats (national funds for fishing vessels)Preservation of quality of the caught fish; Rehabilitation of inland waters - recovery of fish spawning areas, as well as construction and improvement of fish migration routes.

NL Yes 6 000 Eel management, with re-stocking with glass-eelTransition towards effective comanagement,Temporary suspension of activity

PL 99 To be decided ? All kind of measures, except investment in fishing vessels

PT - Yes ?

Investments in the construction, enlargement, equipment and modernization aiming at improving security, work conditions, hygienic and quality standards, as well as the reducing environmental impacts.

RO ? ?

SE 114 82 904 (?) yes 21 865 Public health, Animal health Environmental measures Investments on board (work conditions, product quality, safety on board, energy efficency)

UK No

FIFG 2000-2006 (k€) EFF 2007-2013

Sources: Bucharest workshop and Infosys (FIFG 2000-2006)

- 97 -


The question of national strategy regarding the implementation of EFF supports to inland fishing was discussed during Interviews conducted with national authorities as part of the missions in the Member States.

The main findings of the study are summarised in Table 42 (following two pages) as follows: • Objectives and modalities of the EFF intervention do not vary significantly from the position

outlined during the Bucharest workshop; • Very few Member States had comprehensively implemented support for inland fishing (except

Austria); • Axis 4 projects are more difficult than expected; • Nevertheless the implementation of the Eel Management Plan (EMP) raises the question of

the financing of eel restocking. In many countries, especially the ones along the Baltic Sea, eel fisheries depend on the regular introduction of glass-eel and elvers in the ecosystems.

As EMP imposes restocking measures on Member States, EFF is expected to be used through measure 3.2 to finance 30% of these actions. France, Germany, Hungary, Latvia, the Netherlands and the UK already intend to use this method. The main problem will remain finding private funds to complete the EU and national joint financing. Glass eel are rather expensive, and professional inland fishermen are rarely organised or numerous enough to be able to afford to buy young eels. Companies involved in hydroelectric production may take part in collective projects, as they also contribute to the deterioration of migration routes.

- 98 -


Table 42 – National and regional supports to inland fishing

MS Budget (€1000) Strategy, targets Measure 2.2 Planned Implemented Axis 4 Others

action 1 10 3 action 2 10 1 AT 6,740 Modernisation of boats and

facilities action 3 10 4

- -

BG > 11000 Maintain and modernise Danube fleet and infrastructures

all actions 680 boats - Tutrakan

region (€11 Million)

-

CZ - - - - - - Measure 3.2: fish passes

DE 2,830 Support ecological function of IF and competitiveness

implemented in Länder na na - Measure 3.2: Restocking and

fish passes DK 0 No intervention planned - - - - -

EE 2,500 Modernisation of boats and facilities all actions na na

8 areas of which

Lake Peipsi + Lake Võrtsjärv

-

ES 0 No intervention planned - - - - -

FI na

Modernisation of harbour facilities Support collective projects Improve marketing strategies

all actions na na na na

FR 963 Modernisation of boats and facilities all actions 100 0 na Measure 3.2: Eel restocking

and fish passes GR 0 No intervention planned - - - - -

HU 480 Maintain and modernise IF - selectivity na na na - Measure 3.2: ecosystems

conservation and rehabilitation IE 0 No intervention planned - - - - -

IT na Modernisation of boats Increase catch volume and quality

na na na na na

LV 350 Building and modernisation of coastal infrastructures Implement Eel MP

na na na - Measure 3.2: Eel restocking

- 99 -


MS Budget (€1000) Strategy, targets Measure 2.2 Planned Implemented Axis 4 Others

LT 3 330 Convert a part of the Curonian fleet towards tourism activities na na na Curonian

Lagoon na

PL 2 847 Modernisation of boats and landing places all actions na na FLAG in

constitution na

PT 0 No intervention planned - - - - -

RO na

Modernisation of boats and inland facilities Support distribution and marketing strategies

all actions na na Danube delta

and mainstream

Measure 2.6: Investments in processing and marketing Measure 3.3: Fishing ports, landing sites and shelters Measure 3.4: Development of new markets and promotional campaigns

SE 10 932

Modernisation of boats and landing places Convert a part of the fleet Compensate temporary cessation of activity

all actions na na na na

NL >300 Implement Eel MP na na na na Measure 3.2: Eel restocking (€300,000)

UK na Implement Eel MP na na na na Measure 3.2: Migration routes rehabilitation and eel restocking (€750,000)

.

- 100 -


7.1.4. National and regional intervention in inland fisheries

The following table summarises the national or regional intervention in inland fishing identified during the study. This list is not necessarily exhaustive, but encompasses the more important financial interventions

Table 43 – National and regional supports to inland fishing

Member state Aim of the national/regional aids Budget

DE Land Brandenburg: compensate undesirable species removal (bream, white bream, roach...) 0.27 €/kg

FR

Compensate the fishery closures due to PCB contamination: • Aid to conversion • Aid to relocation • Exemption of social contribution

Total amount: Maximum €700,000

IE

Irish Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources launched in 2007 a “Salmon hardship scheme” for the withdrawal of commercial fishing licences and nets, considering the decline of fish catches in Irish rivers. A EU support scheme was coupled in order to compensate the impact of withdrawal in Gaelic speaking areas?

€25 Million (national funds notified to EC) (75% of fishermen applied for the scheme, for €22 Million). + €5 Million on Leader programme

Lombardia • Compensate fishery closure due to

DDT pollution (1997-2005), regional aid notified to EC.

• Support fleet modernisation

Modernisation: €1.5 Million (2009)

Umbria

• Support investment (boats and gears replacement or modernisation),

• Support collective initiatives • Perugia:

-Compensate lack of gain -Gear purchase -Support young fishermen

• 40% of the cost • 90% of the cost • Perugia:

-€20,599 (2008) -€52,512 (2008) -€30,000 (2008)

IT

Toscana Support research and promotion projects ?

LV Restocking: National Fish Resource Restocking Programme (2001-2010) implemented by LATFRA ?

LT • Compensate loss of income due to increased salt

concentration in the Curonian Lagoon • Restocking: fries release by the state-owned hatcheries

• €209,400 (2003-2007), i.e. €9,500 per fishing company

NL

• National level: -decommissioning schemes -compensate loss of income due to eel fishery closures

• Provincial level: support for local project (Ijsselmeer brand fish)

Eel compensation: • €700,000 (i.e. €3,500 per

fishing business) to compensate loss of income

• €500,000 to reorganise the sector

UK • Northern Ireland: plan to reduce salmon fishery in 2000.

Government bought back licenses against 5 years of turnover. 90% of the fishery ceased and there are only 5 fishermen left.

45 fishermen applied for 5 X their annual turnover

- 101 -


The more significant actions supported by national or regional funds concerned compensation for the permanent or temporary cessation of fishing activities.

Two schemes aimed at encouraging commercial salmon fishermen to quit the business, have been implemented in Ireland (2007) and Northern Ireland (2000):

• In Ireland, the Salmon Hardship Scheme11 devoted €25 million to buy back commercial salmon fishing licences issued for drift nets (sea fishing) and draft nets (river fishing) in order to reduce catches and allow salmon stocks to be recovered. An additional budget of €5 million (LEADER) was devoted to revitalising the areas partly dependent on commercial salmon fishing (Gaelic speaking areas);

• A similar scheme had been implemented in Northern Ireland in 2000, on the same compensation basis of 5 times the annual turnover coming from salmon fishing.

French authorities are currently assessing the feasibility of similar compensation for the permanent cessation of eel-dependant fishermen and for inland fishermen affected by the long-term contamination of water and fish by PCB (with prohibition of the sale of fish).

Compensation for temporary cessation have been granted for: • Local contamination by phytosanitary products (DDT) in Italy. A compensation for temporary

cessation was implemented between 1997 and 2005 with financial support for the Lombardia Region12;

• Loss of income due to increased salt concentration in the Curonian Lagoon (as a consequence of the construction of port infrastructures);

• A compensation for the restriction on eel-fishing is planned in the Netherlands.

Aid for reorganisation, relocation, diversification and conversion to other activities is being assessed in the MS with eel-dependent fisheries (FR, NL).

Other national public support is for actions related to managing fish stocks, mostly through joint-financing of re-stocking and for the removal of undesirable species in Brandenburg (DE)

11 State aid notified to the Commission - NN 23/2007 – Ireland Salmon Hardship Fund 12 State aid notified to the Commission – N° 563-2003 – Region Lombardy

- 102 -


7.1.5. Needs covered and not covered by public intervention

This section seeks to analyse how and to what extent the needs of the sector are addressed by public intervention, and identify the main gaps: i.e., areas where private individuals or organisations do not have the capacity to confront new threats and challenges on their own.

The needs and problems of inland fishermen in each Member State are summarised in table 44 (following 3 pages). They are analysed under the three classic dimensions: economic, social and environmental.

Economical problems and needs

Like most private players, inland fishermen first refer to short-term investment issues when an issue arises that concerns their needs.

Inland fishermen are facing the same difficulties as other small-scale fishing enterprises in renewing their production means, and provide similar analysis regarding their needs:

• Boats: Nearly all of the fishermen interviewed emphasised that replacing boats is a major current need not addressed by EFF or national public intervention. The lack of self-financing capacities and difficulties in accessing bank loans are often cited as problematic for the most traditional fishing enterprises (in particular in New Member States);

• Modernisation of existing boats; modernising small boats such as those used in most of the EU inland fisheries is considered as technically complicated and of little interest considering their low life-span (5 to 10 years for small units). Replacing a boat is often only marginally more expensive than modernising it. Only the largest vessels, for which the depreciation and return on investment period is over 10-15 years, are likely to apply for modernisation (as was the case for FIFG);

• Fishing equipment: Measure 2.2 allows the joint financing of a wide range of equipment, including devices for ice fishing, mobile infrastructures… most of the needs appear to be potentially addressed by EFF;

• Other equipment: Measure 2.2 allows the joint financing of a wide range of onshore equipment and facilities. Most of the needs appear to be potentially addressed by EFF. Complementarities with measure 2.3 are moreover likely to occur for projects related to fish processing.

Beyond EFF eligibility criteria for the different types of investment and major issues are emphasised by both national authorities and fishermen regarding implementation procedures. The more important needs, not really addressed by current intervention, are “simplicity” and “low transaction costs”. In most of the Member States and regions where FIFG and EFF inland fishing measures were forecast or implemented, the complexity of application procedures and significant payment terms often acted as a strong deterrent.

It has already been highlighted that most inland fishing enterprises are craft family businesses, with a low self-financing capacity, low awareness and interest in administrative procedures and with investment decisions made on a short-term basis. The effectiveness of public intervention will thus be low if implementation procedures are too complicated and time-consuming, despite potential subsidies and short-term payment needs.

The FIFG evaluation showed that applications were easier and more successful when professional organisations got involved in technical assistance and/or directly managed multi-project applications (such as in the Venice lagoon).

The need to reinforce the means and the role of inland fishermen organisations is also justified regarding their overall insufficient involvement in marketing, when getting better prices and added-value on the products is the main way to increase fishermen’s revenue.

- 103 -


Table 44 – Needs, areas and opportunities for public intervention

Problems and needs Areas and opportunities for public intervention

Nature Term Potential justification for public intervention

Appropriate response

EFF coverage Appropriate procedures and level of intervention

Boat replacement Short term

Improve safety and working conditions Insufficient self-financing capacities among fishermen

Aid for investment Not covered

Boat modernisation Short term

Improve safety and working conditions Insufficient self-financing capacities among fishermen

Aid for investment M 2.2

Acquisition / replacement of other fishing devices (including devices used for ice fishing)

Short term

Improve effectiveness and selectivity of fishing techniques and gears (sustainability of fishing) Insufficient self-financing capacities among fishermen


Replacement and modernisation of equipment and fishing gear

Short term

Improve effectiveness and selectivity of fishing techniques and gears (sustainability of fishing) Insufficient self-financing capacities among fishermen


Construction and modernisation of onshore equipments (landing points, storage and processing facilities, etc.)

Middle term

Encourage better adaptation to hygiene standards and market demand Development of new products (processing) Insufficient self-financing capacity among fishermen

Aid for investment M 2.2 M 2.3

EU intervention through FIFG and EFF is not very appropriate. "Tool-box" and "cash-desk" policies are still predominant with regard to sector- or regional-level integrated projects. Effectiveness is low, as implementation procedures are far too complicated in light of potential subsidies. Only the biggest companies and/or the most organised fisheries are able to apply and to accept payment delays. Regional support (possibly involving EU funding) to local integrated projects is more relevant (simpler and more flexible) and more efficient. National support for investments (de minimis support or notified national schemes) is often more effective and efficient (low transaction costs and flexibility).

Econ

omic

al

Insufficient involvement of fishermen in marketing Middle term

Help inland fishermen develop coherent market-oriented strategies Increase product quality and added value

Support for collective projects

Partly covered M 2.3

Inland fishing communities are insufficiently organised and existing organisations are often unable to develop market-oriented strategies (few cooperatives are active in inland fishing). Helping fishermen to organise, at coherent regional level (fishery, water basin for migratory species) and get more involved in marketing should be a priority on aid to individual investment.

- 104 -


Problems and needs Areas and opportunities of public intervention




Decreasing profitability of fishing activities Short-term

Help fishermen to reduce their costs and/or increase value added to products

Aid for investment Support for collective projects Aid for diversification and reconversion

M 2.2 or Axis 3 or

Axis 4

Support to investment should be granted to fishermen with low self-financing capacity. As these fishermen have difficulties with complex implementation procedures (EFF), professional organisations should apply for jointed projects.

Restrictions on fishing due to dramatic decline in fish stocks (recovery measures)

Short term

Help fishing enterprises to stay in operation or shut down (depending on the recovery measures)

Compensation for temporary cessationAid for permanent cessation Aid for diversification or reconversion

Partly covered

Consequences of regulatory restrictions to inland fishing, due to stocks issues, are insufficiently covered by EU intervention (M 2.2 for temporary cessation, aid for boat reaffectation). Aid for permanent cessation and aid for should be available for fishermen highly affected by recovery measures (eel and other diadromous species).

Econ

omic

al

Reduction of fishing opportunities (fishing rights, licences) and profitability

Middle termEncourage fishing enterprises to diversify or move into new areas of business

Aid for diversification and reconversion

Partly (Axis 4)

Even though diversification or reconverion are difficult for inland fishermen, public support should be useful (at national or EU level, depending on the origin and the extent of the problems).

Insufficient organisation of the sector Middle term

Improve the capacity of fishermens communities to develop autonomous and coherent strategies Improve their capacity of negociation with the authorities (transactional costs)

Aid for setting up of professional organisations or Producers Organisations (CMO) Support to applicants and technical assistance

M 3.1.

Support to setting up of professional organisations (Producers Organisations) at EU level should allow to build a network of relevant actors fro the implementation of the CFP in inland waters (diadromous resources management)

Maintain activity and employment in fishing dependent areas

Long term Maintain -revitalisation of dependent areas Supply of local markets

All types, excluding support for cessation Territorial integrated projects

M 2.2, M2.3 Axis 4

Soci

o-ec

onom

ic

Preservation of know-how and heritage value of inland fishing Long term

Preservation of know-how and legacy Supply local markets with typical fish products

All types excluding supports to cessation or reconversion Territorial integrated projects

M 2.2 Axis 4

Maintaining or revitalizing inland fishing in territories where they are traditional and deep-rooted activities is unlikely to be obtained through project driven policies. Supporting territorial integrated projects is far more relevant. Effectiveness will depend on the quality and robustness of the stakeholder groups and the projects. Value added of EU intervention refers to cohesion objectives.

- 105 -


Restriction to fishing due to dramatic fish stocks decrease (recovery measures)

Short term

Help fishing enterprises to maintain or shut down (depending on the recovery measures)

Aid for adjustment of fishing effort Aid for contribution to scientific monitoring Aid for restocking

Partly (M 2.2 and M 3.2)

EFF co-financing of re-stocking for species under regulatory measures is considered relevant.

Restriction or prohibition on fishing due to environmental problems (PCB, heavy metals, salinisation….)

Short-term to long-

term

Help fishing enterprises stay in operation or shut down (depending on the recovery measures)

Compensation for temporary cessationAid for permanent cessation Aid for diversification or reconversion

Not covered

Management of local pollution being of the responsibility of MS or Regions, there is no justification for a EU intervention. National aids notified to the Commission are far more relevant.

Major changes in the ecosystems affecting fishing activities (invasive species, predator birds….)

Short-term to long term

Help fishing enterprises to adapt to changes Involve inland fishermen in remediation (limitation of invasive species)

Aid for investment Aid for diversification Aid for destruction of invasive species

Partly covered M 2.2 M

3.2

Inland fishermen should be more involved in ecosystems management. Fishermen organisations should be eligible to M 3.2

Contribution by inland fishermen networks to monitoring aquatic resources

Middle term to long-

term

Involve inland fishermen in setting up of robust and reliable statistic tools (going beyond regulatory obligations)

Compensation for data collection costs (professional organisations), Remuneration for amenities ("environmental intelligence")

M 3.1

Catch data and knowledge of inland fishermen are poorly monitored and underused at EU level Helping fishermen organisations to get more involved in creating environmental information for the benefit of the society is considered as relevant. EU support should focus on diadromous species justifying and EU integrated management.

Contribution by inland fishermen to aquatic ecosystems management

Long term Get inland fishermen involved in ecosystems management (long-term perspective)

Aid for re-stocking Aid for rehabilitation of inland waters Remuneration for amenities

Partly covered

M 3.1. M 3.2

Representative organisations of inland fishermen shoul benefit of supports for sustainable fishing plans, including co-financing for concrete projects (not only studies).

Envi

ronm

enta

l

Reduce environmental impact of fishing (other than on resources)

Short term Help inland fishermen invest in engines with low energy consumption

Aid for investment Aid for innovative projects

M 2.2 M 3.5

Inland fishermen should get access to support to innovative projects related to reduction of their impacts on environment.

Problems and needs Areas and opportunities of public intervention




- 106 -


One major problem commercial fishermen are facing nowadays is the dramatic decline in diadromous species stock (eel and salmon), on which important EU inland fisheries are still highly dependent.

The implementation of national eel management plans should accompany the reduction in the fishing effort of eel dependant fishermen, through:

• Compensation for the temporary cessation of fishing activities (when sufficient for ensuring stock recovery);

• And more likely through “radical” measures supporting the permanent cessation of activity or re-training and a move to new activities (tourism, aquaculture…).

Art 33 allows EFF support to temporary cessation of inland fishing activity without the necessity to adopt a Fishing Effort Adjustment Plan and to decommission inland fishing vessels without a national decommissioning scheme.

Economic compensation should be effectively structured with environmental measures for the recovery of eel stocks, such as re-stocking and taking part in scientific monitoring programs.

Contribution by inland fishermen to monitoring of aquatic resources could be considered as a way to implement EFF art 37(j) and measure 3.1 (data 4).

Socio-economic problems and needs

Most commercial inland fishing communities are facing an overall ageing trend and a decline in the number of fishermen, both due to diverse external pressures (access to fishing rights, pollution of waters, deep changes in ecosystems, competition with anglers…) and to internal weaknesses (a low level of professional organisation, poor visibility and a poor image of the sector). These trends reveal two main problems and needs, both for fishermen and for the EU:

• To maintain the activity and employment in areas with few other opportunities. The 17,100 inland fishermen identified through the study, even if a significant portion of them are fishing part-time, contribute significantly to employment and to fishing induced activities in some areas, often being part of the phasing out the Objective 1 programme;

• To preserve the know-how and heritage value of inland fishing. Commercial fishing is a father to son activity where ancestral empirical know-how is passed on from one generation to the other. This knowledge is part of a cultural legacy and deserves to be preserved.

Measure 2.2 of EFF is unlikely to sufficiently address these needs. Only territorial integrated projects, involving fishermen communities and other local players, may induce collective dynamics and development projects. Axis 4 is clearly a potential relevant tool.

One main need for implementing Axis 4 inland fishery projects will be to reinforce professional organisation, potentially through official recognition (integration of inland fisheries in the CMO ?).

Environmental problems and needs

Environmental issues have deteriorated in the last few decades to become a high priority for inland fishing, with

• The pollution of aquatic ecosystems (PCBs, DDT…), and the consequent ban on fish sales;

• Restrictions on fishing activities as a result of stock decline (mostly for diadromous species);

• Changes in fish populations, with an accelerated extension of the distribution areas of some species (invasive species).

Beyond economic compensation for fishermen, “needs” should also concern the services and amenities that inland fishermen may provide for the benefit of European citizens, such as observation, monitoring, management and restoration of aquatic ecosystems. In most cases, inland fishermen themselves provide the only information available for assessing the level of fish stocks and the “health” of aquatic ecosystems.

- 107 -


The common fisheries policy does not currently allow the costs of their contribution to environmental amenities to be remunerated (as is the case in agriculture). The only current possibility is joint financing eel by re-stocking with Measure 3.2 (considering article 7 of Reg (EC) N° 1100/2007).

Conclusion:

Although most needs could be addressed by the various FIFG and EFF measures, EU intervention in inland fisheries is considered to be inappropriate, considering that:

• No clear strategy is defined at EU level and in the MS regarding the specific needs of the different inland fisheries. "Tool-box" and "cash-desk" policies are still predominant on sector- and/or regional-level integrated approaches;

• Effectiveness is low, as implementation procedures are far too complicated with respect to potential subsidies and poor promotion and assistance to applicants in most of the MS. Only the biggest companies and/or the most organised fisheries are able to apply and accept payment delays;

• Adaptation of inland fishing measures in EFF (enhanced co-financing rates) is not likely to significantly improve the effectiveness of EU intervention, considering the heavy deterrent identified;

• Consistency between measures is unclear (cf. lack of strategy);

• Efficiency, although not assessed, is likely to be very low, considering the poor achievement rates of inland fishing measures (FIFG);

• Optional measures (principle of subsidiarity) are neither relevant nor efficient for addressing trans-national issues, such as eel stock recovery. Pan-European tools are far more effective.

These appreciations are those which could be made for all small-scale activities, where collective organisation is low and individual players do not have the capacity to carry out projects on their own.

Considering the current EU intervention, it is estimated that:

• Regional support (possibly involving EU funding) for local integrated projects could be far more relevant (simpler and more flexible) and efficient (joint management with fishermen organisations);

• National support for investments (de minimis support, or specific schemes notified to the Commission) is often more effective and efficient (low transaction costs and flexibility).

- 108 -


7.2. Adequacy of EFF regarding the needs of the sector

7.2.1. Areas and opportunities for EU intervention

The adequacy of EEF “Area of intervention” must initially be discussed in terms of Article 33 definition. One of the main objectives of the study was to "analyse the scope of Article 33 definition and its consistency with the current inland fishing situation”.

Article 33 definition

Article 33 of Council Regulation (EC) 1198/2006 concerning Inland fishing states that “‘inland fishing means fishing carried out for commercial purposes by vessels operating exclusively in inland waters or by other devices used for ice fishing.”

The study concludes (see chapter 1) that the current definition is adequate (i.e. not likely to exclude inland fishermen and/or to lead to overlaps with other activities covered by EFF) regarding the following dimensions:

• A) “Fishing”: no regulatory overlaps were identified between fishing and other inland fish-related activities. Although extensive pond aquaculture is not distinguished from fishing in some MS (no legal definition of inland fisheries), specific regulation and licensing systems exist for fishing;

• B) “for commercial purposes”: national and regional regulations clearly distinguish recreational fishing and subsistence fishing from commercial fishing;

• D) “ …operating exclusively in inland waters”: the study did not identify inland fishermen allowed to fish outside inland waters (regarding the national and regional definition of inland waters). Moreover, inland fishing boats and inland fishing techniques are not suitable for sea fishing. Nevertheless, sea fishermen may legally be allowed to fish in inland waters in some estuaries and downstream sections of rivers (traditional eel and diadromous species fisheries).

The definition is considered as partially adequate with respect to the last criterion:

• C) “by vessels …”:

o The study concludes that some commercial inland fishermen may operate “exclusively” from the shore, from pontoons or weirs, in very traditional and seasonal fisheries targeting diadromous species (glass-eel fisheries, salmon and sea trout, lampreys…). The exact number of fishermen fishing “without a boat” is very difficult to assess as these fishermen may have several different gear licences and because they generally own a boat. It is however estimated that less than 5% of inland fishermen fish seasonally without a boat;

o The study also concludes that intertidal harvesting of shellfish and crabs “by foot” (activity of Spanish “mariscadores” and French “pêcheurs à pied”) is, on a regulatory level, considered as sea fishing in the different MS, and therefore clearly out of the scope of Article 33.

Considering these issues, the final question is: should Article 33 be modified in order to enlarge the scope of eligibility to inland fishermen operating without boats?

This question can be discussed at two levels:

• Firstly, referring to the principle of “equality of treatment”. If all commercial inland fishermen are intended to access EFF support, then the current definition only achieves partial coverage and should be extended to “fishing with devices operated without a boat”;

• Secondly, regarding the relevance and effectiveness of EU intervention. Considering that commercial inland fishermen fishing without a boat are mostly targeting the two diadromous species facing a dramatic decline in their stock (eel and salmon), it is highly likely that most of

- 109 -


them will disappear or move to other activities in the short-term, because of drastic regulatory restrictions and/or due to the low productivity and profitability of fishing. Moreover, the traditional fishing devices they use are predominantly very low cost hand-made gear, so that they are unlikely to apply for EFF support.

C) …or by other devices used for ice fishing”: This last part of the definition is deemed globally relevant considering the existence of significant inland commercial ice fishing in Northern Member States, and the needs to modernise traditional techniques (mobile powered devices replaced hand operated equipment), which contribute to improving working conditions and productivity. Ice fishermen fish from boats during the rest of the year and are thus already covered by Article 33 definition (“by vessels”). The added-value of the words “devices used for ice fishing” is to enlarge the kind of equipment eligible for EFF joint financing.

The only question is on the understanding and the limitations of the wording “other devices”, considering that many different types of equipment may be used for fishing, grading, packaging and for transporting equipment and fish. In particular, as boats can obviously not sail on ice, SUV cars and/or skidoos are used for transport. The eligibility of skidoos or cars can be viewed as contradictory to the overall strategy of the EFF which is not to subsidise the purchase of new boats, if it is considered that skidoos play the same role as boats in passive inland fishing, e.g. transporting men, equipment and fishing gear to fishing grounds, and fish back to landing points.

A proposal for the definition of ice fishing is developed in the next chapter.

Added value of EU intervention

The overall relative economic importance of commercial inland fishing in the EU is low. Most inland fishing activities are carried out by small operators, with a large proportion having to complement their income through other revenue generating activities.

The added value of EU intervention from an economic perspective is therefore very limited as development of the sector is hampered by numerous growing pressures and the economic importance of the sector will not grow further. For example, support for inland fishery activities is unlikely to significantly contribute to achieving the goals of the Lisbon strategy.

Nevertheless, other dimensions must be taken into consideration.

• Contribution to socio-economic development, particularly in areas and communities that rely significantly on inland fishing;

Looking at the social dimension of the activities, inland fishing operations contribute to the sustainability of many rural communities where alternative sources of employment are scarce (the more significant example being the Danube Delta where fishing is the main activity of several fishermen villages)

Inland fishing activities also form part of the cultural heritage of many wet area communities which would lose a part of their soul and hence their attraction power for tourists, should inland fishing activities disappear.

On this level the added value of the EU intervention could come from the possible exchange of information and experiences with other areas culturally dependant on traditional activities in other regions of the EU. This would enable the cultural heritage these fishing practices represent to be secured. Axis 4 of the EFF is for example a possibility to support the re-training of these fishermen in socio-cultural/tourist activities or to develop alternative employment and income possibilities.

Many of the communities practising inland fishing activities are also located in areas that are part of the phasing out the Objective 1 programme. Added value of EU intervention in these regions is generally acknowledged in order to ensure cohesion between the least developed areas and the rest of the EU.

- 110 -


• Justification of an EU action in the areas of resource conservation, environmental protection;

It is probably in the environmental dimension that the added value of EU intervention is the most evident, particularly regarding the needs for:

o Maintaining or recovering diadromous fish stocks, which belong to the international biodiversity heritage. The EU eel recovery plan justifies the establishment of accompanying measures to help coordinate temporary cessation for eel fishermen. Also, re-training measures or the cessation of activity measures is needed. It is likely that similar measures will have to be introduced for salmon in the short-term;

o On a wider scale, the monitoring of diadromous fish stocks, re-stocking and helping to restore their migratory routes should involve inland fishermen organisations;

o Preserving or restoring the quality of inland aquatic ecosystems. Beyond the objectives of the Water Framework Directive, it is noteworthy that nearly all the European commercial inland fisheries are located in Natura 2000 areas and/or part of RAMSAR site networks (wetlands). The Danube Delta, which is the main inland fishing area in the EU is part of the UNESCO list of World Heritage Sites;

o Increasing “environmental intelligence”, which is still low for aquatic ecosystems and fish populations. Inland fishermen could play an important role in the monitoring of the fish population, beyond the simple regulatory obligation of catch declaration, for example by contributing to monitoring biological parameters in the framework of programs bringing together fishermen organisations and scientists (such as the European project INDICANG for eel13).

• The importance of integrating freshwater species into the common market organisation, particularly regarding the needs for a better sector organisation (aid for the setting up of POs?);

On a trade level, the contribution of inland fishing to EU fish supply is relatively low. However, considering the high dependence of the EU market on imported products, enhancing local natural resources is relevant when these resources are underexploited (which is the case for most freshwater fish).

Prices for inland fishery products are relatively high in most of the EU compared to other fish products and do not need price support. Low prices are generally due to poor coordination between fishermen and the lack of a marketing strategy. Most inland fishermen are still very dependent on buyers and inter-branch collaboration is low.

The added value of EU intervention should be helping to set up representative professional organisations (Producers Organisations or other) expected to become relevant partners to implement the different dimensions of the future CFP in inland waters. This will be consistent with the Green Paper vision on the necessity of giving the industry more responsibility in implementing the CFP.

• Other measures for economic support: investments in fishing firms, funding for professional organisations and collective projects;

Maintaining or revitalizing inland fishing in territories where they are traditional and deep-rooted activities is unlikely to be obtained through simple optional cash-desk policies and short-term decision making.

Economic support should only be proposed within the framework of coherent projects of players, focused on the long-term environmental, economic and social sustainability of inland fishing activities.

This assumes, once again, encouraging the creation (and/or the recognition) of representative organisations and strengthening their capacity to develop market oriented and environment friendly strategies. Coordination and consistency of the different projects should furthermore be ensured at the level of homogeneous hydrographic basins (inland RACs?), regarding the need for the trans-regional and/or trans-boundary management of diadromous fish stocks.

13 http://www.ifremer.fr/indicang/

- 111 -


7.2.2. Proposals for an adequate EU intervention in inland fishing

Definition of commercial inland fishing

The current Article 33 definition on Council Regulation (EC) 1198/2006 concerning Inland fishing excludes some hundred of inland foot fishermen operating in inland waters without a boat from eligibility to EFF measure 2.2 “inland fishing” in different Member States.

It has to be stressed that it does not include thousands of marine foot fishermen (e.g. Spanish “mariscadores” or “percebeiros”) who are also not eligible to certain EFF measures specifically designed for the benefit of sea fishermen operating from a fishing boat.

Most of these fishermen are nevertheless potentially eligible for support from other EFF measures under priority Axes 3 and 4.

The number of commercial inland “foot fishermen” is estimated lower than 1,000 in the U.E., of which there are approximatively 650 glass-eel licence holders in the UK, fishing on a very-part time basis

Considering that most fishermen fishing without a boat target glass-eel, salmon or lampreys, they are likely to be concerned in the short-term by the fishing restriction t and particularly those implemented in the framework of national eel management plans. They should therefore benefit from EFF support, such as compensation for the temporary cessation of activities, as well as eel fishermen fishing from boats (principle of equality of treatment).

According to these principles, the regulatory definition of inland fishing should be modified and extended in the aim of covering all European commercial inland fishermen.

A first option might be to include foot fishermen within the commercial inland fishing definition, as follows:

“…. fishing by vessels or by other devices used for ice fishing or fishing “by foot”.”

But, this wording is partly confusing as fishing “by foot” is generally used for sea fishermen harvesting shellfish in coastal and estuarine intertidal areas (“Mariscadores” in Spain and “pêcheurs à pied” in France).

A second option might be:

“…. fishing by vessels or by other devices used for ice fishing or fishing without a boat, from shore, pontoons or weirs.”

Another, radically different, option could be to consider inland fishing not in terms of the fishing technique but rather with regard to national regulatory definitions. The definition might be as follows:

“…. fishing with authorised gear and techniques operated with or without a boat.”

Considering, on the other hand, that modifying Article 33 definition will be complicated, the cost/benefit of this change must be taken into consideration.

The characteristics, prospects and needs of fishermen practising without a boat do not provide strong arguments in favour of change:

• Most of the fishermen operating without a boat are traditional part-time fishermen targeting glass-eel, eel or salmon, both species that are less abundant each year, so that the profitability of fishing decreases and leads to less fisherman renewing/purchasing licences (or taking a licence without fishing when duty is low);

• It is more than likely that new regulatory restrictions for eel and salmon fishing will be taken in the short-term, and that licences for small traditional gear will no longer be issued in most of the Member States (as is now the case in Ireland);

• The fishing equipment used for fishing eel from shore is mostly craft and often handmade traditional gear, with very low costs. Considering the identified deterrent effects of EFF procedures on small investment, it is more than likely that most of these very part-time fishermen would not apply for EFF support, even though they would become eligible for it.

- 112 -


As a conclusion, changing the Article 33 definition of inland fishing would only be justified in the case of adapting the current EFF intervention to the specific characteristics, needs and capacities of inland fishermen operating without a boat.

In particular, the implementation of the European eel recovery plan in Member States will require a significant reduction in the fishing effort on glass-eel and adult eels for inland fishermen and probably the complete closure of some river fisheries. Considering that sea-fishermen targeting glass-eel in estuaries (“Civelliers” in France) have benefited or may benefit from EFF support for the permanent cessation (boat withdrawal), inland fishermen fishing mostly eel, with or without a boat, should be eligible for similar support. Permanent cessation is currently only possible by reassigning inland fishing vessels, which is difficult regarding the type of boats and anyway do not apply to fishermen operating without a boat.

Definition of commercial ice fishing

With respect to the analysis performed in chapter 7.2.1, concerning the scope of intervention relating to ice fishing equipment, a more detailed definition of commercial ice fishing appears useful.

The key elements of a possible definition are as follows:

• Ice fishing is a seasonal winter-time technique practised by commercial fishermen during the months the lakes and rivers freeze over, sometimes on the same fishing grounds as those exploited from boats during the rest of the year;

• Fishing is operated through holes drilled in the ice, using specific drilling equipment, such as powered or hand-operated ice saws or augers;

• Passive (baited lines or passive nets) and active gears (seines) can be operated, involving different fishing equipment: sonar, radio-guides devices, powered winch, non freezing lines or nets…;

• Transport of fishermen, equipment and fish, from shore to fishing grounds, is ensured by skidoos and/or SUV cars;

• Grading and packaging equipment can be operated straight away on fishing grounds.

A synthesis of these elements might be as follows.

Ice fishing encompasses various winter-time fishing techniques, using passive or active gear, systematically operated through holes drilled in the ice. The transport of fishermen, equipment and fish from shore to fishing grounds is ensured by vehicles adapted to travel on ice.

- 113 -


Proposals for EU intervention

Proposals for EU intervention are discussed on the basis of three possible options: elimination of the intervention, adaptation of the modalities of the current EFF intervention and a significant modification of EFF intervention.

• Elimination of the EU intervention?

The elimination of the EU intervention in commercial inland fishing could be justified if its relevance and effectiveness are judged insufficient.

Current poor effectiveness of FIFG and EFF intervention is due more to the lack of real strategy and to complex implementation procedures than to fundamental irrelevancy.

Moreover, the added value of EU intervention is established regarding the socio-economic impacts of the sector (small scale fishing contributing to economic activity and in part the heritage value of areas where other opportunities are scarce, involvement of fishermen communities in eco-tourism development) which may contribute to cohesion objectives, and regarding fish resources and environment management issues (consistency and effectiveness of recovery plans).

EU intervention in inland fishing has undeniably reinforced the image of the sector, recognised as a real productive sector. Its elimination would send a very negative message both to national authorities and to the sector, probably leading some fisheries to close in the short-term and stopping the positive dynamics engaged in some areas (Axis 4 projects).

The last argument is that EU intervention does not hamper the possibility of national or regional public intervention, and may encourage articulations with other European tools, such as rural development programmes and Environmental policies.

The positive effects of elimination, regarding the transversal objectives of the new European policies would be:

• The simplification of EFF and a greater flexibility of public support for inland fishing (that could be managed at State or region level with a wider scope of intervention and less rigid eligibility criteria);

• The reduction of administrative costs (linked to inland fishing measures) and of the EFF budget.

In light of the very low importance of inland fishing measures (2.2) in most of the national programmes, costs and budget savings would be insignificant.

As a conclusion, it is considered that the elimination of EU intervention in inland fishing would have more negative than positive effects. Experts do not recommend abolishing measure 2.2 devoted to inland fishing.

- 114 -


• Adaptation of the current intervention to better address the needs of the sector?

The proposals developed in this chapter are based on chapter 7.1.6 analyses, concerning the inadequacy of the current intervention, both regarding the modalities of the different measures and the implementation procedures. They are reasoned under the hypothesis of an adaptation of existing tools allowing sector needs to be better addressed. Proposals for modifying the EFF intervention in inland fishing are developed in the next chapter.

The main inadequacies and weaknesses identified in the current EFF intervention refer to:

• The predominance of “project driven” policies on the joint management of integrated projects;

• The low priority given to inland fishing in most of the MS (except landlocked countries) and the lack of promotion and assistance to applicants;

• The lack of clear priorities and objectives for the different fisheries (because of a poor knowledge and monitoring of these fisheries);

• The deterrent effects of complex implementation processes in most of the MS;

• The deterrent effects of payment terms, when pre-payment was not available.

The national programming documents generally only explain how authorities intend to spend the money, in strict accordance with EFF regulation criteria (often considered as insufficiently flexible), but rarely develop consistent analysis on the needs of the different inland fishing communities, nor on what development projects might be relevant nor which combination of tools might generate the best results. At the mid-term of the EFF 2007-2013 programme, it appears that strategies have not been clarified.

On the other hand, most of the inland fishermen communities continue to function using an individual short-term decision making approach and have difficulty thinking “as a sector”. Moreover, the additional pressures fishermen have been facing in recent years explain why they have developed more defensive than offensive strategies.

EFF’s role should be to encourage both institutional and economic players to go through this difficult exercise of defining sector and territorial integrated strategies, adapted to the situation and prospects of the different fisheries (revitalisation and diversification/ accompanying the closure).

Basically, a good assessment of the sector in Member States, where relevant, should be considered as the first step to properly defining a strategy and deciding on the best way to allocate EFF funds and articulate them with national and private funds.

Another argument in favour of encouraging the realisation of national or regional in-depth studies on the socio-economic importance of inland fishing is the overall scarcity of reliable information on the sector, which hampers any clear decision making. The best recent example comes from National Eel management plans, which are clearly empty in relation to eel inland fishing (number of fishermen, catch, effort…).The French authorities’ decision to launch a socio-economic study in the second half of 2009 has enabled a public strategy and targets for accompanying inland fishermen affected by PCB contamination and those concerned by a reduction in the eel fishing effort linked with the National management plan to be defined.

Considering that socio-economic studies are open to Axis 5 “technical assistance” support, the experts consider that a relevant proposal should be to encourage Member States (at least those concerned by the European eel recovery plan) to launch socio-economic studies on inland fishing, or socio-economic studies on eel fishing (encompassing both sea and inland fishing), before or in parallel with the mid-term evaluation of the EFF.

- 115 -


Considering that complex implementation procedures and long payment are strong deterrents likely to lower EFF effectiveness regarding support for individual investment in inland fishing (and more generally regarding all small-scale fisheries) it appears relevant to suggest encouraging national authorities to:

• Simplify application and implementation procedures for inland fishing sector;

• Reinforce technical assistance and involve, to the greatest possible extent, professional organisations (if any) for applying jointed projects (lessons should be drawn from the effectiveness of Italian cooperatives from the Venice lagoon during the FIFG 2000-2006 programme);

• Facilitate access to credit (e.g. through financial engineering, micro-credit, etc.);

• Put in place pre-payment mechanisms and/or drastically reduce payment terms when there are strong deterrents.

The reduction in transaction costs for applicants might be obtained with the help of two complementary tools:

• Technical assistance (Axis 5), with an allocation of means to local development agencies or recognised professional organisations;

• Axis 4: This is clearly the most relevant tool for accompanying inland fishing communities in integrated development projects.

The allocation of technical assistance means depends on the will of national authorities. Recommendations on this point should be made for the mid-term revision of EFF national programmes.

Supporting the projects of professional organisations is currently eligible to EFF Axis 3 measures and should be specifically promoted for inland fishing. The relevancy of fishery management projects might be enhanced if relying on preliminary robust assessments of the situation and the prospects of fishing activities in the area. It could thus be suggested that:

• Professional organisations are involved in realising socio-economic studies, highlighting the prospects and opportunities for revitalising inland fishing activities;

• Professionals from each area are encouraged to build management plans, defining an overall strategy and identifying the needs for external support.

These two proposals do not require an adaptation of EFF tools and criteria, but only promotion by the national authorities.

Inland fishing areas and communities are clearly corresponding to the targets of Axis 4 measures: the delimitation of areas is often evident (Lakes, wetlands, estuaries, river basins…) and fishing communities are obviously key players in the local economy. In some areas, fishermen’s villages are still well identified (Romania, Estonia…). Considering the weaknesses of inland fishermen communities, particularly regarding their capacity of getting involved in “conceptual” middle-term projects, it appears relevant to suggest:

• Reinforcing promotional and technical assistance for setting up FLAGs in inland areas. It could be imagined that the FAR-NET helpdesk devotes means and tools adapted to the specificities of inland fishing (or adapted to small-scale inland, estuarine or coastal fisheries).

The adaptation of the current EFF in order to better address the needs of the sector should rely on a better understanding of the strategies in the different inland fishing communities. Getting the professional more involved in defining integrated territorial projects should be encouraged, through a better promotion of EFF Axis 3 and Axis 4 measures and by devoting more technical assistance to applicants. The simplification of the implementation procedure and setting up pre-payment tools are recommended for small scale projects

- 116 -


A) Modification of the EFF intervention?

Needs linked to fish stock issues

The study identified different needs not addressed by the current intervention (chapter 7.1.6), which are principally linked with the implementation of National Eel Management Plans, but might concern other diadromous species in the short or middle-term (Atlantic salmon, shads, …).

In most eel-dependent fisheries, a reduction in the fishing effort will only be possible by drastic regulatory measures (closure of fisheries) or by encouraging the permanent cessation of fishing enterprises. This second option is currently implemented in France, where marine glass-eel fishing vessels were withdrawn from EFF support (in accordance with the provision under Article 23 of EFF regulation).

Commercial inland fishermen are not eligible to Axis 1 withdrawal measures, but can apply for two actions of measure 2.2:

• Permanent scessation, only eligible by reassigning inland fishing vessels used for eel fishing in accordance with Article 33.3 of the EFF. These vessels may not return to fishing activities14;

• Temporary cessation, which is eligible to EFF support for a maximum of 12 months over the programming period, in accordance with Article 33.4 of the EFF.

Compensation for the temporary cessation of eel fishing might be a relevant tool for fishermen with a low economic dependence on eel (less than 20-30% of their income), but is not suitable for the numerous fishermen targeting quite exclusively glass-eel in estuaries (FR, ES, PT, UK…) or yellow and silver eels (DE, DK, EE, FR, N.IRL, NL…).

Support for the permanent cessation by reassigning inland fishing boats is partly relevant in terms of the few possibilities of reassignment, beyond allocating some boats to scientific tasks (one by area?). In particular, inland fishing boats are generally not suitable for tourism in terms of security requirements.

Moreover, if the fishing effort can be related to boats in some estuarine glass-eel fisheries where active gears are operated, most inland eel fishing techniques operated are passive gear, sometimes without a boat. Effort in inland fishing is thus generally assessed through the number of gears and not through the number of boats or their capacity.

That is why, as an example, the Irish Hardship Salmon Scheme, which is aimed at drastically reducing the number of commercial salmon fishermen (both sea and inland fishermen) proposed a compensation for the permanent cessation based on the average verifiable (tag return) catch value for each licence holder for the 5 years 2001 to 2005 and a payment equal to 6 times the 2006 licence fee. Finally, rather than a boat withdrawal scheme, Irish authorities implemented a licence withdrawal scheme with socio-economic compensation for fishermen. A similar scheme for inland eel fishing is currently being assessed by French authorities.

Considering:

• The inadequacy of current support for the permanent cessation in inland fishing;

• The absolute necessity to drastically reduce fishing effort on eel;

• The principle of the equity of treatment between sea and inland fishermen.

It appears relevant to propose a modification of the EFF regarding support for the permanent cessation in inland fishing. These modifications could be:

• Adding a new action within Article 33, allowing national authorities, in relevant Member States, to grant financial compensation for the permanent cessation to inland fishermen highly dependent on species under regulatory recovery measures (such as the eel recovery plan). The value of compensation should be established on the value of the registered catch of

14 No capacity targets are set in inland fisheries. The value of compensation is set in Operational Programs of relevant member states or in Selection Criteria approved by the Monitoring Committee in relevant MS.

- 117 -


applicants and/or on the value of the inland fishing license, rather than on the boat value (considering that this criterion is not very relevant in inland fishing);

• Making inland fishermen eligible to socio-economic compensation (not for managing the fleet, as no targets are set in inland fishing, but for managing the fishing effort). Compensation for an early departure from the inland fishing sector, for diversifying activities or for re-training outside inland fishing might be proposed, depending on opportunities in the different areas.

Needs linked to aquatic ecosystems management

The study highlighted new demands from both institutional players and fishermen for encouraging a greater involvement of inland fishermen organisations in managing aquatic ecosystems, with:

• The possibility of jointly financing re-stocking;

• Support for professional organisations for setting up plans for a sustainable management of fisheries;

• Compensation for the remediation of environment problems (limitation of invasive species, restoration of spawning grounds, restoration of migration routes….) or for contributing to “environmental intelligence” (monitoring of biological parameters, participation in scientific programmes…).

Re-stocking is a central issue for eel. It is currently eligible for EFF support (under Article 38) regarding Article 7, paragraph 8 of Reg. (EC) N° 1100/2007, under criteria in accordance with approved National Eel Management Plans of each Member State. It is not deemed relevant to suggest modification of EFF intervention regarding re-stocking.

Concerning the other needs mentioned most of them could potentially be addressed by priority axis 3: measures of common interest. But, eligibility criteria fixed in national programming documents are often unclear regarding inland fishing, and the promotion of Axis 3 measures in inland fishing is generally very low.

Considering that characteristics, weaknesses and needs of the inland fishing sector are similar to those of other small-scale estuarine or coastal fisheries, a relevant proposal is to make inland fishermen eligible to the same range of actions (by modifying Article 33, or by merging Article 26 and Article 33 into a new Article devoted to small scale fisheries)

Article 26.3 states that “EFF may contribute to the payment of premiums for fishermen and owners of fishing vessels involved in small-scale coastal fishing” in order to:

• (a) improve the management and control of access conditions to certain fishing areas;

• (b) promote the organisation of the production, processing and marketing chain of fisheries products;

• (c) encourage voluntary steps to reduce the fishing effort to preserve resources;

• (d) encourage the use of technological innovations (more selective fishing techniques which go beyond existing regulatory obligations under EU law or innovations to protect the gear and catches from predators) that do not increase the fishing effort;

• (e) improve professional skills and safety training.

This proposal is consistent with the standardisation already operated on the EFF joint financing rates for small-scale coastal fisheries and inland fishing.

This proposal complies with the objective of simplification of the EFF intervention.

Moreover, this proposal contributes to increasing the internal consistency of the EFF and ensuring the equity of treatment for the different small-scale fisheries.

- 118 -


Needs linked to organising the sector

Inland fishermen are currently not eligible for financial support for the creation of producers’ organisations (recognised under Article 5 of the COM regulation15) and therefore to financial support of Article 9 “Production and marketing planning”.

This point cannot be solved by modifying EFF intervention. It is discussed in the last part of the proposals.

Other needs

Most fishermen interviewed emphasised that replacing boats is a major need currently not addressed by EFF or national public intervention. This argument is recurrent in all small scale fisheries of the EU.

Considering:

• Boats are not the most significant investment for the majority of inland fishermen (it is only the case for the “largest” inland boats operating on large natural lakes);

• The necessity to maintain the internal consistency of EFF intervention (regarding the ineligibility of boat construction for sea fishing);

… it is not considered relevant to suggest modifying the EFF.

B) Which place for inland fishing in the future policies under the CFP?

Most of the weaknesses identified regarding the current EU intervention in inland fishing refer to the complexity of the EFF “tool-box” and to its low consistency with other policies under the CFP (resource and market). The lack of real strategy does not allow priorities to be defined and the best synergies between public and private interventions to be achieved.

The study also highlighted the core necessity of having representative and involved professional organisations to define relevant integrated management plans (aimed at the best possible promotion of aquatic resources and not disconnecting fishing from the other dimensions of the projects) and for implementing the different public tools (effectiveness and efficiency are likely to be enhanced if policy is jointly managed with local stakeholders).

These final conclusions are fully in line with the “vision” for the future CFP drawn up by the European Commission in the Green Paper16. The Green Paper pays particular attention to the small-scale coastal fisheries that should be transposed to all small-scale fisheries, including inland fisheries, regarding their similarities. The text states that “These fisheries, with a large share of small and medium-sized companies, play an important role in the social fabric and the cultural identity of many of Europe’s coastal (lakes, rivers and wetlands) regions. Many coastal (inland fishing) communities remain dependent on fisheries for their income, some of them with limited potential for economic diversification. It is therefore essential to secure a future for these fisheries… taking fully into account the particular situation of the small and medium-sized enterprises, thereby strengthening its economic viability, and maintaining its contribution to the life of coastal (inland) communities.

15 Council Regulation (EC) N° 104/2000 of 17 December 1999 on the Common organisation of the markets in fisheries and aquaculture sectors. 16 Reform of the Common Fisheries Policy - Green paper. European Commission – COM (2009)163

- 119 -


One of the ways suggested for the new policy is “encouraging the industry to take more responsibility in implementing the CFP”.

Chapter 4.4 of the Green Paper mentions that: “The industry can be given more responsibility through self-management. Result-based management could be a move in this direction: instead of establishing rules about how to fish, the rules focus on the outcome and the more detailed implementation decisions would be left to the industry. Public authorities would set the limits within which the industry must operate…. and then give the industry the authority to develop the best solutions economically and technically”.

Moreover, Chapter 5.6 underlines that: “Scientific knowledge and data are of vital importance to the CFP, because policy decisions must be based on robust and sound knowledge on the level of exploitation that stocks can sustain, of the effects of fishing on marine ecosystems and on the impact of changes such as climate change. The human and institutional resources available to provide this advice are increasingly limited and the questions to address have become increasingly numerous and complex”….”Improving communication between scientists, policy makers and stakeholders…. and securing their full commitment, should remain a priority”.

These different elements for the design and implementation of the future policy all refer to the necessity of having organisations representing the “industry” able to define integrated strategy and strong enough to act effectively in the joint management of the CFP in inland waters.

Currently, inland fishing organisations are not eligible for financial support for the creation of producers’ organisations (recognised under Article 5 of the COM regulation17) and therefore for financial support of Article 9 “Production and marketing planning”.

Considering that the COM reform is ongoing, it is considered as relevant to suggest that inland fishermen organisations may be recognised, as sea fishermen and aquaculture producer organisations, as key partners for the implementation of the future CFP.

This recommendation aims more at encouraging the creation of structures capable of getting involved in an integrated management plan, encompassing all the dimensions of the sustainable enhancement of aquatic resources, rather than at only getting access to the financial intervention of the COM (compensation for withdrawal or carry-over, for example).

As a general conclusion: inland fisheries should be considered as important as all other small-scale fisheries of the EU in the future CFP. Particular attention should be given to securing a future for the fishermen communities that depend on aquatic resources for their living, considering that fishing plays an important role in the social fabric and the cultural identity of many wet areas and that fishermen could play an important role in the diversification of these areas (angling, nature-tourism…). More than a new “toolbox strategy” trying to address some individual needs, the future policy should focus, firstly , on encouraging and sustaining the creation of representative and robust organisations in inland fishing and, secondly, on jointly financing territorial integrated projects based on long-term decision making (that is the role of a structural policy).

17 Council Regulation (EC) N° 104/2000 of 17 December 1999 on the Common organisation of the markets in fisheries and aquaculture sectors.

- 120 -


8. Appendices

- 121 -


8.1. Appendix 1 – Examples of inland fishing techniques operated from the shore

Putchers and baskets traditionally used on Severn River (UK)

Baskets (right) are fixed on the putchers (above) and fish trap themselves when moving upstream with the tide.

Source : Photo AND International

Leave net and hand net (UK)

Leave net (right) is traditional gear used for Salmon fishing Hand nets (above) are used for glass-eel fishing. Similar devices are operated from shore, pontoons or moored boats in Spanish, Portuguese and French estuaries.

Source : AND International and Glass-eel UK

- 122 -


8.2. Appendix 2 – Devices used for commercial ice fishing

Commercial ice fishing in Estonia Trawling of seine under ice with a mobile powered winch 4WD car used to transport equipment and fish

Source : Estonian authorities

Commercial ice fishing in Finland – Drilling equipments Powered auger and ice saw used for drilling holes

Source : Lakefish export company

Commercial ice fishing in Finland – Net pulling equipment A radio-controlled robot pulls the seine (300 m long) under the ice.


- 123 -


Commercial ice fishing in Finland – Net pulling equipment A powered winch helps to pull the seine. Machine grading of fish (vendace) is done right away at the fishing ground.


- 124 -


8.3. Appendix 3 – Collective organisation of inland fisheries

Fishermen associations Cooperatives Companies (with several fishermen)

AT A state fishery association by Land, shared with anglers International association in Lake Constance

None Austrian Federal Forests (ÖBF): “Wildfang” Label on whitefish, arctic char, trout, brown trout (not reared, not fed fish, delivered the day of the catch)

BG No specific association identified BG Fish: specialised in sea fisheries Nariba BG: specialised in aquaculture

None None

CZ None None One company

DK No specific association identified Danish Fishermen’s Association (professional and recreational fishermen)

None None

EE Biggest association: Lake Peipsi Fishermen’s Association None Some wholesaling/processing companies that employ fishermen and own most of the gear and fishing rights (Lake Peipsi)

FI

The National Association of Inland Fishermen brings together most full time fishermen, but plays no role in fishery management Lake Fish Export: 28 fishermen Find new market (abroad) Install 5 IQF (Individual Quick Freezing)

None None

FR

11 commercial fishermen’s associations approved by the Ministry of Ecology and Sustainable Development are brought together under the National Committee for Inland Commercial Fishers (Comité National de la Pêche Professionnelle en Eau Douce, CONAPPED). Fishermen must belong to one of these associations.

CUMA to build common storage and processing facilities (Loire, Gironde, Adour). Collective brands: Loire, Gironde, Alpine lakes

None

DE

The German Fisheries Association includes a federation of inland fisheries and carries out restocking actions (buys glass eel and sells elvers to fishermen associations). Federation of German Inland Fisheries includes a lake and river fisheries branch.

Yes (especially in Bavaria) Companies have own processing facilities and shops (and sometimes own brands).

- 125 -



GR ? Some cooperatives exist on lakes, lagoons and estuaries. ?

HU None Some cooperatives exist and act more or less like companies. 18 companies and cooperatives lease the fishing rights and employ fishermen or appoint small scale fishermen.

IE Some local traditional draft netters associations (declining with the reduction in licences) None. None

IT No specific association identified UNIPROM brings together major associations from the fishery sector, of which 26 inland fishery cooperatives

Most fishermen belong to a cooperative. 37 cooperatives were identified in 1998. They should be a member of one of the 3 organisations of cooperatives.

None

LV The Latvian Fishermen’s Association mostly concerns sea fishermen, but involves some Daugava river. One cooperative in the Riga area. None

LT No national association One local active association (Lampreta) brings together 50 members and is a mediator between fishermen and institutions.

One cooperative in the Kaunas reservoir, collective marketing. Some wholesaling/processing companies (Curonian Lagoon)

PL 2 main associations (Fish Producers Organisation and Polish Fisherman Association) represent fishermen’s interests. None 140-150 Fishing Farms with 2 to 10 employees.

PT No national association 2 associations on the Rio Minho

None None

RO

102 associations registered by ANPA, of which 95 for inland fishing Commercial fishermen must belong to one association (which deliver individual quotas)

None (strong individualism after the communist period) None

ES No specific association identified Some fishermen are involved in Cofradias (Valencia, Catalonia, Galicia)

None None

SE

The Swedish Fishermen’s Federation has a freshwater fish committee. Svensk Fisk is a trade organisation which promotes Swedish fish consumption. The Swedish Lake Fishermen’s Federation (professional and recreational fishermen) aims to improve the economy of the sector and develop trade. Swedish Freshwater Fishes Sales Association

Environmental certification projects in small lakes None

- 126 -



NL Ijsselmeer: P.O. (brings together 68 of the 71 licenses) Other waters: the Association of Professional Fishermen brings together 100 of the 130 companies.

None None

UK England and Wales: National Federation of Fishermen’s Association and local associations

Northern Ireland: LNFCS (Lough Neagh Fishermen Cooperative Society) is in charge of fishery management, eel marketing and eel stocking. LNFCS applied for a PGI for eel.

None

- 127 -


8.4. Appendix 4 – Diadromous and freshwater fishes registered in international conventions for the conservation of biodiversity

OSPAR Convention (Convention for the protection of the marine

environment of the North East Atlantic)

appendix I :

Acipenser brevirostrum (vulnerable)Acipenser sturio(critically endangered)

appendix I :

Acipenser sturio appendix II : Acipenser naccarii (vulnerable)Acipenser sturioHuso huso (endangered)

Acipenser sturio appendix II, IV : Acipenser naccariiAcipenser sturio

appendix II : Acipenseriformes spp appendix II : Acipenser spp appendix III : Acipenser ruthenus (vulnerable)Acipenser stellatus (endangered)Huso huso

appendix V : Acipenseridae

Anguillidae appendix II : Anguilla anguilla(critically endangered)

Anguilla anguilla

Petromyzonidae

appendix III : Lampetra fluviatilis(least concern)Petromyzon marinus (least concern)

Petromyzon marinus appendix II, V : Lampetra fluviatilisPetromyzon marinus

Clupeiformes appendix III : Alosa alosa (least concern)Alosa fallax (least concern)

Alosa alosa appendix II, V : Alosa spp

Salmoniformes

appendix III : Coregonus sppThymallus thymallus (least concern)Hucho hucho(endangered)Salmo salar(least concern)

Salmo salar appendix II, IV, V : Coregonus sppThymallus thymallusHucho huchoSalmo salar

Siluriformes

appendix III : Siluris glanis(least concern)Siluris aristotelis (data deficient)

appendix V : Siluris aristotelis

Cypriniformes

appendix III : Aspius aspius(least concern)Barbus plebejus(least concern)Barbus steindachneri(vulnerable)Cobitis larvata

Perciformes appendix III : Sander volgensis(least concern)

Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora

Acipenseriformes

CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild

Fauna and Flora)

Berne Convention (Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and

Natural Habitats)

Bonn Convention (Convention on migratory

species)

- 128 -


8.5. Appendix 5 - Main freshwater species exploited by inland fishing (FAO)

3-ALPHA CODE SCIENTIFIC NAME ENGLISH NAME

FBM Abramis brama Freshwater bream FBR Abramis spp Freshwater breams nei APG Acipenser gueldenstaedtii Danube sturgeon APE Acipenser stellatus Starry sturgeon STU Acipenseridae Sturgeons nei ALR Alburnus alburnus Bleak ASD Alosa alosa Allis shad TSD Alosa fallax Twaite shad SHC Alosa pontica Pontic shad SHZ Alosa spp Shads nei ELE Anguilla anguilla European eel MGR Argyrosomus regius Meagre ASU Aspius aspius Asp AYS Astacidae, Cambaridae Euro-American crayfishes nei AAS Astacus astacus Noble crayfish ATB Atherina boyeri Big-scale sand smelt SIL Atherinidae Silversides(=Sand smelts) nei - Ballerus sapa White-eye bream

PTB Barbus barbus Barbel ABK Blicca bjoerkna White bream CGO Carassius auratus Goldfish FCC Carassius carassius Crucian carp CGO Carassius auratus gibelio Crucian carp, Giebel carp HON Chondrostoma nasus Common nase

- Chondrostoma vardarense HER Clupea harengus Atlantic herring FVE Coregonus albula Vendace PLN Coregonus lavaretus European withefish HOU Coregonus oxyrinchus Houting WHF Coregonus spp Whitefishes nei FCG Ctenopharyngodon idellus Grass carp FCY Cyprinidae Cyprinids nei FCP Cyprinus carpio Common carp BSS Dicentrarchus labrax European seabass ANE Engraulis encrasicolus European anchovy ERS Eriocheir sinensis Chinese mitten crab FPI Esox lucius Northern pike FGX Gobiidae Freshwater gobies nei GPA Gobiidae Gobies nei ACC Gymnocephalus cernuus Ruffe HUC Hucho hucho Huchen HUH Huso huso Beluga SVC Hypophthalmichthys molitrix Silver carp BIC Hypophthalmichthys nobilis Bighead carp LAR Lampreta fluviatilis River lamprey LUD Leucaspius delineatus Belica LUH Leuciscus cephalus Chub

- 129 -


3-ALPHA CODE SCIENTIFIC NAME ENGLISH NAME

FID Leuciscus idus Orfe (=Ide) MGC Liza ramada Thinlip grey mullet LZS Liza saliens Leaping mullet FBU Lota lota Burbot

- Melicertus kerathurus Caramote prawn MPS Micropterus salmoides Largemouth black bass MUF Mugil cephalus Flathead grey mullet MUL Mugilidea Mullets nei MUX Mullus barbatus Red mullet MUR Mullus surmuletus Surmullet TRR Oncorhynchus mykiss Rainbow trout SME Osmerus eperlanus European smelt FRF Osteichthyes Freshwater fishes nei PIQ Palaemon longirostris Delta prawn FPE Perca fluviatilis European perch LAU Petromyzon marinus Sea lamprey LAS Petromyzontidae Lampreys nei PXP Phoxinus phoxinus Eurasian minnow FLE Platichtys flesus European flounder FLX Pleuronectiformes Flatfishes nei RCW Procambarus clarkii Red swamp crawfish ROR Rhodeus sericeus Bitterling FRO Rutilus rutilus Roach FRX Rutilus spp Roaches nei SAL Salmo salar Atlantic salmon TRO Salmo spp Trouts nei TRS Salmo trutta Sea trout TRS Salmo trutta fario Brown trout ACH Salvelinus alpinus Arctic char SVF Salvelinus fontinalis Brook trout FPP Sander lucioperca Pike-perch PIL Sardina pilchardus European pilchard SRE Scardinius erythrophthalmus Rudd SOM Silurus glanis Wels catfish SBG Sparus aurata Guilthead seabream TLV Thymallus thymallus Grayling FTE Tinca tinca Tench VIV Vimba vimba Vimba bream

- 130 -


List of Tables

Table 1 - Summary of the definitions proposed Member States’ participants at the Bucharest workshop............... 4 Table 2 – Key elements defining commercial inland fishing and other fish-linked activities ................................... 6 Table 3 – Limits between sea and inland waters and consequences on inland fishing ........................................... 7 Table 4 – Regulatory status of commercial inland fishermen ................................................................................ 10 Table 5 – Characteristics of commercial inland fisheries...................................................................................... 13 Table 6 – Relative importance of the different types of fisheries ........................................................................... 17 Table 7 - Main commercial inland fisheries areas and ownership of fish resources .............................................. 20 Table 8 - Management of fishing rights in commercial inland fisheries.................................................................. 22 Table 9 – Regulatory requirements for commercial inland fishing ......................................................................... 25 Table 10 - Monitoring of socio-economic data on commercial inland fishing in the E.U. ....................................... 28 Table 11 – Number of licences, fishermen and businesses in inland fisheries...................................................... 29 Table 12 - Employment in commercial inland fisheries.......................................................................................... 30 Table 13 – Number and characteristics of boats operating in the main EU inland fisheries .................................. 37 Table 14 – Catch of commercial inland fishing by Member State.......................................................................... 40 Table 15 – Share of eel and diadromous species in the commercial inland catches............................................. 44 Table 16 – Catch disposal in the different EU commercial inland fisheries (Main segments in yellow) ................. 45 Table 17 – Glass eel exports from the EU to Asia (tonnes and apparent prices) .................................................. 48 Table 18 – Investment costs in some commercial inland fisheries ........................................................................ 50 Table 19 – Investment costs in winter ice-fishing in Finland.................................................................................. 51 Table 20 – Investment costs for fishing boats in France........................................................................................ 51 Table 21 – Investment costs for principal engine in France................................................................................... 52 Table 22 – Investment costs in fishing gears and on shore facilities in France ..................................................... 52 Table 23 – Productivity and turnover in E.U. commercial inland fisheries ............................................................. 53 Table 24– Estimation and trends on turnover and income – key factors involved ................................................. 57 Table 25 – Turnover and costs in the main French commercial fisheries.............................................................. 60 Table 26 – Share of inland fisheries in employment in the fishing (catching) sector.............................................. 62 Table 27 – Share of inland boats in the EU small-scale fisheries (2008)............................................................... 63 Table 28 – Share of commercial inland fishing in national catch (Sea and freshwater fishes) .............................. 64 Table 29 – Number of anglers in the 21 MS with commercial inland fishing.......................................................... 67 Table 30 - Freshwater aquaculture: production per species (EU 27).................................................................... 68 Table 31 - Pond aquaculture production............................................................................................................... 69 Table 32 – Threats and opportunities in the different E.U. commercial inland fisheries ........................................ 74 Table 33 – Dependence of commercial inland fisheries on eel and other migratory species ................................ 80 Table 34 – Problems and needs of EU inland fisheries ......................................................................................... 85 Table 35 – Problems and needs of EU inland fisheries, by Member State............................................................ 88 Table 36 – Public supports to inland fishing .......................................................................................................... 91

- 131 -


Table 37 – Physical and financial outputs of the FIFG 2000-2006 ........................................................................ 92 Table 38 – FIFG 2000-2006 – action 35.1 - construction of new vessels .............................................................. 93 Table 39 – FIFG 2000-2006 – action 35.2 : modernisation of existing vessels ..................................................... 94 Table 40 – FIFG 2000-2006 – action 3 - other projects concerning inland fishing................................................. 94 Table 41 – Use of FIFG 2000-2006 and planned EFF intervention in inland fishing – Bucharest conference....... 96 Table 42 – National and regional supports to inland fishing .................................................................................. 98 Table 43 – National and regional supports to inland fishing ................................................................................ 100 Table 44 – Needs, areas and opportunities for public intervention ...................................................................... 103

- 132 -


List of Figures

Figure 1 – Limits between sea and inland waters and consequences on inland fishing .......................................... 8 Figure 2 – Commercial inland fisheries within the EU ......................................................................................... 12 Figure 3 – Number of fishermen and catch in the different fisheries.................................................................... 17 Figure 4 – Number of commercial inland fishermen by Member State .............................................................. 32 Figure 5 – Number of commercial inland fishermen .............................................................................................. 33 Figure 6 – Number and type of inland fishing boats by Member State ............................................................... 38 Figure 7 – Number of commercial fishing boats ................................................................................................... 39 Figure 8 – Number of fishermen per boat.............................................................................................................. 39 Figure 9 – Catch of commercial inland fisheries by Member State...................................................................... 41 Figure 10 – Catches in volume (tons) by MS......................................................................................................... 42 Figure 11 – Catches in value (euro) by MS ........................................................................................................... 42 Figure 12 – Average price of catches (€/kg) by MS............................................................................................... 43 Figure 13 - Catch distribution by species (volume)................................................................................................ 44 Figure 14 – Glass-eel landings and prices per campaign..................................................................................... 47 Figure 15 – Market for glass-eel ............................................................................................................................ 48 Figure 16 – Trend in landings of eel in the E.U. (yellow and silver eels) ............................................................. 49 Figure 17 – Brown and silver eels wholesale prices Billingsgate market (UK)..................................................... 49 Figure 18– Average productivity (t/fisherman) by MS.......................................................................................... 54 Figure 19 – Average turnover / fisherman (€/fisherman) ..................................................................................... 55 Figure 20 - Costs distribution by type of fishery in France..................................................................................... 61 Figure 21 – Employment in the catching sector.................................................................................................... 63 Figure 22 – Re-stocking of glass-eel in the E.U..................................................................................................... 79 Figure 23 – Average apparent price of inland fishing and freshwater aquaculture products ................................. 83

eu intervention in inland fisheries · means all activities aiming at extracting wild fish from...

Documents