# EUR-Lex - 52003PC0706 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 52003PC0706

**Proposal for a Council Decision on a Community financial contribution towards Member States fisheries control programmes /* COM/2003/0706 final - CNS 2003/0281 */ **

*

*

Proposal for a COUNCIL DECISION on a Community financial contribution towards Member States fisheries control programmes

(presented by the Commission)

EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM

The main objective of the Common fisheries policy is to provide for sustainable exploitation of living aquatic resources and of aquaculture in the context of sustainable development. In order to ensure the achievement of this objective, Community rules shall be applied, in an effective and uniform manner. Even though it is up to the Member States to ensure the effective implementation of the control, inspection and surveillance of fisheries and related activities, by establishing administrative and technical structures, it is of Community interest that the Member States have structures allowing them to meet the requirements of Community legislation. It is therefore important to ensure that the Member States have human resources and technical means which are adequate for the control purposes.

In 1990, the Community introduced an aid scheme to provide financial support to the Member States for the establishment of control structures, and in particular to promote certain forms of control which are particularly effective, such as systems to monitor fishing activities at a distance. To take account of the results of the measure and the needs of the Member States in this area, these arrangements were amended in 1995 and most recently in 2001 by Decision 2001/431/EC [1].

[1] OJ L 154, 9.6.2001, p. 22.

Decision 2001/431/EC is due to expire on 31 December 2003; the Council decided in 2001 to limit the scheme to that date in order to assess the need which would arise from the reform of the CFP, which was planned for the end of 2002 and that came into force on 1 January 2003.

Having taken into account the results of the existing measure and needs in the light of the outcome of the Reform, the Commission is proposing to extend the arrangements in an amended form for two years for the following reasons:

- Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 [2] stresses the need to employ modern technologies to extend the system of remote monitoring to smaller fishing vessels and introduce the electronic transmission of information from vessels and the remote detection of the vessels present on fishing grounds;

[2] OJ L 358, 31.12.2002, p.59.

- on 1 May 2004 ten new countries will join the Community. The monitoring structures of some of these countries need upgrading rapidly if operators are not to profit from shortcomings in the control system;

- the Council has decided to step up cooperation among the Member States and coordination of their inspection activities by establishing a common inspection structure using the structures, equipment and communications networks provided by the Member States. As far as possible, therefore, the existing resources should be supplemented and adapted before 2006, at the time when the inspection structure is likely to come into operation;

- it has been found, principally through the annual reports on serious infringement of the CFP rules, that the Member States prosecute infringements with varying degrees of diligence and severity. This means that awareness of the importance of penalising behaviour deleterious to the conservation of fisheries resources should be increased. This will require promotion of a culture of protection of natural resources and inspection of all those helping implement the CFP so that effective penalties can be applied.

For these reasons and for the sake of greater clarity, it is proposed to redefine the measures eligible for financial support from the Community, most of which are already covered by the existing rules. The measures proposed as eligible for finance are:

(1) purchase of computer equipment and installation of IT networks;

(2) purchase of devices to locate fishing vessels and equipment for the electronic transmission of information;

(3) pilot projects concerning the new technologies for monitoring fisheries activities;

(4) training and exchanges of inspectors;

(5) pilot projects for inspection plans and observers;

(6) cost/benefit analysis of expenditure on inspections;

(7) initiatives to raise awareness of the importance of complying with fisheries control provisions;

(8) purchase and modernisation of boats and aircraft for inspections at sea.

The annual appropriations planned amount to EUR35 million for 2004 and 2005. The normal Community contribution will be 50% of the expenditure incurred by the Member States; it could be higher for expenditure under (2), (3) and (7). Projects under (8) may receive no more than 35% of expenditure and only the new Member States joining on 1 May 2004 will be eligible.

The procedural provisions on applying for aid and payment have been amended to make them clearer and more precise. New provision specify the content of the demand for Community financial assistance to projects. A statement of expenditure will now on be required to accompany any claim for reimbursement. New rules for decommitment of unutilised appropriations are laid down. These provisions replace those existing under Decision 2001/431/EC, which is repealed.

2003/0281 (CNS)

Proposal for a COUNCIL DECISION on a Community financial contribution towards Member States fisheries control programmes

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 37 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission [3],

[3] OJ C , , p. .

Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament [4],

[4] OJ C , , p. .

Whereas:

(1) The Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) sets out general rules on the conservation, management and responsible exploitation, and processing and marketing of living aquatic resources.

(2) Specific objectives and rules are set out in particular in Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy [5].

[5] OJ L 358, 31.12.2002, p.59

(3) Responsibility for ensuring that activities carried out within the scope of the CFP comply with those rules lies primarily with Member States.

(4) Member States must have the requisite human and financial resources to discharge their responsibility for controlling fishing activities and enforcing the CFP rules.

(5) Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 stressed the need to further improve control of fishing activities in order to fight by any means against illegal and undeclared fishing within and outside Community waters. It identified remote control technologies as a tool to better achieve the control objectives under CFP and extended the obligation for remote monitoring by means of vessel monitoring systems to vessels more than 15 meters overall.

(6) With effect from the date of accession the CFP rules will apply to new Member States which must be able to comply with all the requirements laid down by Community law, in particular in the control field. Those new Member States must be given the means to enable them to carry out their obligations.

(7) The Community has been granting financial assistance to Member States since 1990 to make controls more efficient and effective and in particular to introduce and extend remote-control technology and information technology networks, to improve staff skills and to equip competent authorities with patrol vessels and surveillance aircraft.

(8) The current financial scheme under Council Decision 2001/431/EC of 28 May 2001 on a financial contribution by the Community to certain expenditure incurred by the Member States in implementing the control, inspection and surveillance systems applicable to the common fisheries policy [6] will expire at the end of 2003. There is evidence, however, that the resources of Member States are still inadequate.

[6] OJ L 154, 9.6.2001, p. 22.

(9) It is of paramount importance to ensure that CFP rules are effectively enforced throughout the Community. It appears that some of those involved in the administrative or penal procedures are not always fully aware of the need to impose sanctions which are dissuasive in order to avoid overexploitation of fishing stocks. It is therefore appropriate to promote actions to focus attention on this issue.

(10) Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 underlined the need to enhance co-operation and co-ordination among Member States and with the Commission in order to strengthen control and discourage behaviour contrary to CFP rules. A structure designed to organise co-operation and co-ordination of control activities and of means dedicated to control purposes is expected to be operational in 2006.

(11) It is therefore appropriate to continue to provide financial support to Member States until that time. It is necessary to ensure that Community funds are allocated efficiently with a view to reducing identified weaknesses. The funds should be used in accordance with the principle of sound financial management.

(12) A financial reference, within the meaning of point 34 of the Interistitutional Agreement of 6 May 1999 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and improvement of the budgetary procedure [7], is inserted in this Decision for the entire duration of the period for which financial assistance is to be provided, without thereby affecting the powers of the budgetary authority as defined by the Treaty.

[7] OJ C 172, 18.6.1999, p. 1.

(13) Member States must assess their programmes and the impact of their expenditure on control, inspection and surveillance, each year and over the whole period covered by this Decision and Decision 2001/431/EC.

(14) Decision 2001/431/EC should accordingly be repealed and replaced by the measures provided for in this Decision,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1 Subject-matter

This Decision establishes the conditions under which the Community may grant a financial contribution to Member States for their fisheries control programmes

Article 2 Definitions

For the purpose of this Decision the following definitions shall apply:

"financial contribution" means a financial contribution paid by the Community to a Member State under this Decision;

"fisheries control programme" means a programme drawn up by a Member State for monitoring, control and surveillance in fields covered by the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) as required by Regulations (EC) No 2371/2002;

"new Member State" means a country which accedes to the Community on 1 May 2004.

Article 3 Annual fisheries control programmes

1. Member States wishing to receive a financial contribution shall notify to the Commission, by 31 January of each year, an annual fisheries control programme specifying:

(a) the objectives of the programme;

(b) the human resources available;

(c) the financial resources available;

(d) the number of vessels and aircraft available;

(e) a list of projects for which a financial contribution is sought;

(f) the overall expenditure planned for achieving the projects;

(g) a schedule for completion of each project listed in the programme.

2. For the year 2004, new Member States shall submit their annual fisheries control programme by 1 June 2004.

3. Detailed rules on the content of the fisheries control programme are set out in Annex I, part A.

Article 4 Actions covered

1. The projects for which a financial contribution is sought shall relate to one or more of the following actions:

(a) purchase of, installation and technical assistance for, computer technology and setting up of IT networks in order to allow efficient and secure data exchange in connection with monitoring, control and surveillance of fisheries activities;

(b) purchase and fitting on board of fishing vessels of:

(i) - electronic localisation devices enabling vessels to be monitored at a distance by fisheries monitoring centre through a vessel monitoring system (VMS);

(ii) - electronic recording and reporting devices, allowing data transmission from the vessel;

(c) pilot projects relating to and implementation of new technologies on the control of fisheries activities;

(d) training and exchange programmes of civil servants responsible for monitoring, control and surveillance tasks in the fisheries area;

(e) implementation of pilot inspection and observer schemes;

(f) cost/benefit analysis and assessment of overall expenditure incurred by the competent authorities in carrying out monitoring, control and surveillance of fisheries activities;

(g) initiatives including seminars and media tools aimed at enhancing awareness among fishermen and other players such as inspectors, public prosecutors and judges, as well as among the general public of the need to fight irresponsible and illegal fishing and on the implementation of CFP rules.

(h) purchase and modernisation of vessels and aircraft used for inspection and surveillance of fisheries activities by the competent authorities of the new Member States.

2. Detailed rules on the actions covered are set out in Annex I, Part B.

Article 5 Community appropriations

1. The financial reference for the implementation of the actions for which financial assistance is provided for the period 2004 to 2005 shall be EUR 70 million. The annual appropriations shall be authorised by the budgetary authority within the limits of the financial perspectives.

2. In the decision granting a Community financial contribution provided for in Article 6, the Commission shall give priority to the actions which it deems most appropriate in order to improve efficiency in monitoring, control and surveillance activity, taking also into account the performance of Member States in implementing programmes already approved.

Article 6 Decision on financial contribution

1. On the basis of the fisheries control programmes submitted by Member States, a decision shall be taken each year, in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 30(2) of Regulation (EC) n° 2371/2002. The decision shall fix:

a) the global amount of the financial contribution to be granted to each Member State for the actions referred to in Article 4;

b) the rate of the financial contribution;

c) any condition applying to the financial contribution.

2. The rate of the financial contribution shall not exceed 50% of eligible expenditure. However,

a) for the actions referred to in Article 4(1) (b), the Commission may decide to grant a lump sum per vessel localisation device or for a device allowing electronic recording and reporting of data;

b) for the actions referred to in Article 4(1) (c) and (g), the Commission may decide on a rate of contribution higher than 50% of the eligible expenditure;

c) for the actions referred to in Article 4(1) (h) the rate may not exceed 35% of the eligible expenditure.

Article 7 Advances

At the reasoned request of a Member State, the Commission may grant an advance of up to 50 % of the financial contribution for one year. The amount of the advance shall be deducted from the amount of the final payment of the financial contribution to that Member State.

If a binding commitment is not made by the competent authority within the period laid down in Article 8, any advance granted shall be repaid forthwith.

Article 8 Commitment of expenditure

Member State shall enter into legal and budgetary commitments at the latest within 12 months

after the end of the year in which the decision referred to in Article 6 was notified to it.

Article 9 Implementation of project

1. Projects shall be started in accordance with the schedule laid down in the annual fisheries control programme and in any case within one year as of the date of the commitment.

2. They shall be completed according to that schedule.

Article10 Non-implementation of projects

When a Member State decides not to implement all or part of the projects for which a financial contribution has been granted it shall immediately inform the Commission, stating the implications for its fisheries control programme.

Article 11 Eligible expenditure

1. In order to be eligible for reimbursement, expenditure must :

a) be provided for in the fisheries control programme;

b) relate to the actions referred to in Article 4;

c) concern projects with a cost exceeding EUR 50 000 except in respect of action referred to under Article 4(1) (d) and (g);

d) arise from legal and budgetary commitments entered into by Member States in accordance with Article 8;

e) concern projects implemented in accordance with Article 9.

2. Value added tax (VAT) shall not be eligible for reimbursement.

3. Expenditure on projects which benefit from other Community aid shall not be eligible.

4. For the new Member States, expenditures incurred from 1 January 2004 is eligible for reimbursement subject to compliance with conditions set out in this Decision and in the decision referred to in Article 6.

Article 12 Claims for reimbursement

1. Member States shall submit to the Commission their claims for reimbursement of expenditure within 6 month following the date on which it was incurred. Claims shall be for an amount not less than EUR 25 000. Claims for an amount less than EUR 25 000 shall not be processed, unless duly justified.

Detailed rules on the content of the claims for reimbursement are set out in Annex I, Part C.

2. Claims for projects which were not completed in accordance with the schedule referred to in Article 3.1(f) may be accepted only where the delay is duly justified. Where those claims are not accepted the Community appropriations may be decommitted. In any event, Community appropriations related to this Decision shall be decommited at the latest by 31 December 2008.

3. When submitting claims for reimbursement, Member States shall verify and certify that the expenditure has been incurred in compliance with the conditions laid down in this Decision, in the Decision provided for in Article 6 and with the rules on the award of public contracts. The claim shall include a statement concerning the accuracy and veracity of the transmitted accounts, in accordance with the form set out in Annex II.

4. If the Commission considers that the claim does not comply with the conditions referred to in paragraph 3, it shall request the Member State to submit its observations on the matter. If the examination confirms non-compliance, the Commission shall refuse to reimburse all or part of the expenditure at issue and, where applicable, request reimbursement of advance payments.

Article 13 Currency

All fisheries control programmes, claims for reimbursement of expenditure and claims for payment of advances shall be expressed in Euro.

Member States not participating in the third stage of economic and monetary union shall specify the exchange rate used.

Reimbursement will be made in Euro at the rate for the month in which the claim is received by the Commission.

Article 14 Information

Member States shall provide the Commission and the Court of Auditors with any information it may request as regards the implementation of this Decision and the Decision provided for in Article 6.

They shall keep supporting documents available to the Commission and the Court of Auditors for at least five years from the date of reimbursement.

Article 15 Checks

1. Without prejudice to checks carried out by the Member States in accordance with national laws, regulations and administrative provisions, officials of the Commission and of the Court of Auditors may carry out on-the-spot checks on projects benefiting from a financial contribution.

The Commission may also require the Member State concerned to carry out on-the-spot checks on projects benefiting from a financial contribution. Officials of the Commission and of the Court of Auditors may take part in such checks.

2. If the Commission considers that Community resources have not been used in accordance with the conditions laid down in this Decision or in the decision provided for in Article 6, it shall inform the Member State concerned. If those considerations are not refuted, the Commission shall reduce or cancel the financial contribution to the projects at issue. Any amount unduly paid shall be repaid to the Commission, together with interest.

Article 16 Reports from the Member States

Member States shall send the Commission information enabling it to verify the use made of the financial contribution and to assess the impact of the measures provided for in this Decision on control, inspection and surveillance activity.

To that end, they shall submit to the Commission :

(a) before 30 March each year, an intermediate assessment report on their fisheries control programme for the previous year covering the following :

(i) projects completed,

(ii) the cost of projects,

(iii) the impact on the fisheries control programmes by applying appropriate indicators,

(iv) any adjustment to the original programme.

(b) by 31 December 2006 at the latest, a final assessment report covering the following :

(i) projects completed,

(ii) the cost of projects,

(iii) the impact on the fisheries control programmes by applying appropriate indicators,

(iv) any adjustment to the original programme,

(v) the impact of the financial contribution on fisheries control programmes over the whole period from 2001 to 2005.

Article 17 Report to the European Parliament and the Council

On the basis of the information provided by the Member States under Article 16, the Commission shall, by 30 June 2007 at the latest, submit to the European Parliament and to the Council a report on the application of this Decision and Decision 2001/431/EC.

Article 18 Implementing measures

When appropriate, detailed rules for the implementation of this Decision shall be adopted in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 30(2) of Regulation (EC) n°2371/2002.

Article 19 Transitional provisions

1. This Decision shall not affect the continuation or modification, including the total or partial cancellation, of financial contribution approved on the basis of Decision 2001/431/EC.

2. As of 1 January 2004, claims for reimbursement relating to financial contribution referred to in paragraph 1, shall be submitted in conformity with Article 12, Annex I, Part C and Annex II of this Decision.

Article 20 Repeal

Decision 2001/431/EC is repealed as from 1 January 2004.

Article 21 Application

This Decision shall apply from 1 January 2004.

Article 22 Addressees

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels,

For the Council

The President

ANNEX I

Part A

Minimum information requirements for the annual fisheries control programmes as referred to in Article 3

(1) For each project the annual fisheries control programme must specify one of the actions referred to in Article 4, and the aim, the description, the owner, the location, the estimated cost, the administrative procedure to be followed and the timetable for its achievement.

(2) As regards the vessels, aircraft and helicopters as referred to in Article 4(1) (h), the annual fisheries control programme must also specify :

(a) to what extent they will be used by the competent authorities for control purposes as a percentage of their use over a year's total activity;

(b) how many hours or days over a year they will be used for fishery control purposes;

(c) in the case of modernisation, their life expectancy.

(3) Whenever possible, there must be publicity as regards the financial support from the Community.

Part B

Detailed rules on eligible actions set out in Article 4

(1) Vessel localisation devices referred to in Article 4(1)(b)(i) must be in conformity with the provisions laid down by the relevant Community rules.

(2) Expenditure incurred for the action foreseen in Article 4(1)(d) will be reimbursed to the extent that it is eligible for reimbursement in conformity with relevant national rules.

(3) Expenditure incurred for purchase of equipment referred to in Article 4(1)(h), may be reimbursed to the extent that it is used for control of fishing activity, as declared by the Member State concerned.

Part C

Rules on claims for reimbursement as referred to in Article 12

Claims for reimbursement shall include the following :

1) a reference to the Decision referred to in Article 6 and the table annexed thereto specifying the aid granted;

2) a list of all the supporting documents sorted by project;

3) the amounts claimed without VAT, sorted by projects;

4) a brief description of each project for which a reimbursement is claimed on what has been achieved, accompanied by an assessment of the impact of the investment on monitoring, control and surveillance activity and a forecast of its use.

ANNEX II

STATEMENT OF EXPENDITURE

PUBLIC EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN CARRYING OUT THE NATIONAL PROGRAMME FOR IMPLEMENTING THE CONTROL, INSPECTION AND SURVEILLANCE SYSTEMS ON FISHERIES ACTIVITIES as provided for in Article 12 of Council Decision 2003/.../EC

Commission Decision of / No // ________________________________________

National reference (if any) // ________________________________________

I, the undersigned _____________________________________ representing the authority _____________________________________________ responsible for the relevant financial and control procedures, hereby certify, after verification, that all amounts shown below represent the total cost, paid in 200_ , in accordance with relevant national legislation, with regard to projects approved and referring to actions set out in Article 4(1) of Council Decision 2003/.../EC :

>TABLE POSITION>

I also certify that the statement of expenditure is accurate and the application for payment takes account of any recoveries made.

The operations were carried out in accordance with the objectives laid down in the Council Decision 2003/.../EC), and with the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002, in particular as regards:

- compliance with the conditions laid down in this Decision and the Directives concerning the co-ordination of procedures for the award of public works, supply and service contracts, and in accordance with the detailed rules in Part C of Annex I;

- application of management and control procedures, in particular to verify the delivery of the products and services co-financed and the reality of expenditure claimed and to prevent, detect and correct irregularities, pursue fraud, and recover unduly paid amounts.

Date .. / .. / ....

Name capitals, stamp, position

and signature of competent authority

LEGISLATIVE FINANCIAL STATEMENT

Policy area(s): FISHERIES

Activit(y/ies): 11.07. Fisheries conservation, control and enforcement

Title of action: Community financial contribution towards Member States fisheries control programmes

1. BUDGET LINE(S) + HEADING(S)

B2-901 (11.07.02) // Financial contribution to the Member States for expenditure in the field of control

2. OVERALL FIGURES

2.1. Total allocation for action (Part B): EUR million for commitment

70 m EUR

2.2. Period of application:

2004 and 2005

2.3. Overall multiannual estimate of expenditure:

(a) Schedule of commitment appropriations/payment appropriations (financial intervention) (see point 6.1.1)

EUR million (to three decimal places)

>TABLE POSITION>

(b) Technical and administrative assistance and support expenditure(see point 6.1.2)

>TABLE POSITION>

>TABLE POSITION>

(c) Overall financial impact of human resources and other administrative expenditure (see points 7.2 and 7.3)

>TABLE POSITION>

>TABLE POSITION>

2.4. Compatibility with financial programming and financial perspective

[X] Proposal is compatible with existing financial programming.

Proposal will entail reprogramming of the relevant heading in the financial perspective.

Proposal may require application of the provisions of the Interinstitutional Agreement.

2.5. Financial impact on revenue: [8]

[8] For further information, see separate explanatory note.

[X] Proposal has no financial implications (involves technical aspects regarding implementation of a measure)

OR

Proposal has financial impact - the effect on revenue is as follows:

(NB All details and observations relating to the method of calculating the effect on revenue should be shown in a separate annex.)

(EUR million to one decimal place)

>TABLE POSITION>

(Please specify each budget line involved, adding the appropriate number of rows to the table if there is an effect on more than one budget line.)

3. BUDGET CHARACTERISTICS

>TABLE POSITION>

4. LEGAL BASIS

Article 37 TCE

5. DESCRIPTION AND GROUNDS

1. Problem analysis and needs assessment

The objective of the Common Fisheries policy is to provide for sustainable exploitation of living aquatic resources and of aquaculture in the context of sustainable development. In order to ensure the effective implementation of the CFP, the Community control and enforcement system for fisheries should be reinforced and co-operation and co-ordination between all relevant authorities should be strengthened. This goal can be achieved mainly through on-the-spot checks and inspections of fishing vessels, collecting and disseminating in real time data on fishing activities, upgrading of communication and information technology tools, securing interconnections within Fisheries monitoring centres, extending the utilisation of remote monitoring systems (like satellite monitoring system and vessel detection systems) and improving inspection skills (see Council Regulation n° 2371/2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the CFP, esp. recitals 19 et 25, and Chapter V [9]).

[9] JO L 358, 31.12.2002.

To ensure effective control, inspection and enforcement of the rules of the CFP falls within the responsibility of Member States. It is however of a Community interest that control activities are carried out in an effective way and in a uniform manner throughout the Community. For these reasons, the Community has granted since 1990 financial assistance to Member States on the basis of national programmes of expenditure for fisheries control purposes.

Through this financial scheme, provided for subsequently by Decision 89/631 [10], Decision 95/527 [11] and Decision 2001/431 [12], Member States have undoubtedly reinforced their control structures and their inspectors' skills, as it is stated in the conclusions of the Commission's Reports on the monitoring of the implementation of the CFP Rules by the Member States, essential source of valuable information which provides an evaluation on control structures and performance of each Member State in fulfilling its control duties. The most recent, relating to years 1996/1999, indicates (at page 7) that "the previous deficit of means of inspection and surveillance at sea in Community waters has been reduced... Community financial contributions have greatly facilitated the acquisition and modernisation of inspection and control equipment...(However) in spite of undeniable progress, certain deficiencies still remain : this is generally due to the fact that the means available to the national authorities and the measures taken by them do not adequately match the requirements of establishing a comprehensive control systems " [13].

[10] JO L 364, 14.12.1989.

[11] JO L 301, 14.12.1995.

[12] JO L154, 9.6.2001.

[13] COM(2001)526.

A similar evaluation, stressing the positive effects but also the needs for further improvement, can be read in the Report of the Commission to the Council and European Parliament related to the Decision 89/631 [14] and in the Report of May 2000 prepared by a private consultant for the Commission on the evaluation of the Community financial contribution towards control and surveillance operations of Member States, which analyses in particular Decision 95/527. In the latter it is recommended that, although certain goals have been achieved, "given the responsibility imposed on Member States in the Common fisheries policy, it remains appropriate that Community assistance should be continued to ensure the adequate policing of Community fisheries resources" (page 53).

[14] COM(1995)268.

It is presently available, even though only as a draft final report for the time being, an "ex-post" evaluation of the implementation of Decision 2001/431 [15], conducted by a private consultant, closely linked with an analysis (also in a draft form) of the information on the inventory and utilisation of control means forwarded by the Member States in relation to Decision 2001/431 [16], made by the same consultant. Most of the elements of analysis of the present note are extracted from these documents.

[15] Assessment of the Community financial contribution for the implementation of the control, inspection and surveillance systems applicable to the CFP (FISH/2002/12). The final version will be available in autumn.

[16] FISH/2002/10.

Lastly, the Commission adopted in June 2003 a Communication on the compliance with the rules of the CFP and set up a Compliance scoreboard, made available to the general public through the Commission's web-site [17]. This document highlights Member States' shortcomings in their obligation to ensure effective, equitable and uniform application of the rules of the CFP. This document restates, in its conclusions, that poor implementation of the CFP rules undermines effectiveness of conservation measures, which are an essential part of the CFP. Furthermore, it stresses that a lack of uniformity in procedures and sanctions entail no level playing field in the control and enforcement which consequently may encourage behaviours contrary to Community interest. Thus there is no doubt that without further investments in equipment and training, the control system of Member States does not correspond yet to the standards required by Community law.

[17] COM(2003)344.

In addition, it is also essential to recall the fact that new Member States will join the Community as of 1st May 2004. Seven of these States have, at a different degree, interests in fishing activities. According to the information available [18], these States will face difficulties to satisfy immediately the control standards required by the Community rules. A financial aid will therefore be more than welcome in order to facilitate and to speed up the attainment of these standards.

[18] Screening missions are still ongoing. But a first overview can be obtained by mission reports (see notes DG/FISH n° 24178 (Poland), n° 24134 (Estonia), n° 24034 (Chypre).

It is also worth noting that Community legislation [19] requires that, as of 1.1.2005, every fishing vessel longer than 15 meters overall, flying the flag of a current or of a Member State to-be, shall be equipped with devices enabling Fisheries monitoring centres to track them down. So far, these devices have been installed on board of each Community vessel larger than 24 meters [20] within the framework of a large financial assistance from the Community. Fishermen would have been undoubtedly very reluctant to accept it without an aid. Therefore, an aid also has to be foreseen in favour of smaller vessels if the Community deems that this device is an essential tool for control. Figures are detailed in the Chapter relating to appropriations.

[19] Art.22 of R.2371/2002.

[20] Save the vessels exempted under Art.3(3) R. 2847/93.

2. Setting objectives

The main conclusions arisen from the reports and analyses mentioned above can be summarised as follows:

(a) as regards to acquisition and modernisation of aircraft and patrol vessels, which represents by far the most important expenditure [21], given in particular the cost of each unit, Member States have significantly increased their capacity and, with few exceptions, they now seem to have at their disposal a sufficient number of units compared with the number of fishing vessels and their characteristics, their EEZ and the quantity of catches landed [22].

[21] It equates to 74% of total Community financial contribution during the period 1995/2000 (see Nautilus report, page 27). This percentage is reduced at less than 60% (provisional figure) under the current scheme.

[22] « Member States and the Community spent about half of the total budget on equipment. This would seem to be appropriate, considering the expense of these items. Although there are still imbalances in the Member States capacity indicators (suggesting that more money should be provided) these imbalances are to only a few Member States .» (Report FISH/2002/12, page 103).

Furthermore, the utilisation of the remote control systems, like the VMS, and its foreseen extension to another 6.000 vessels (acceding countries not included), reduces the need to patrol large areas of fishing grounds since aircraft and patrol vessels can be instantly directed to the targets by the fisheries control centres.

However, the situation is not similar in some acceding countries, where the screening of the administrative capacity has identified the need to acquire equipment like aircraft/vessels, although their number or specifications can be determined only when we will be notified of their control programmes.

(b) the purchase of and fitting on board of fishing vessels of vessel localisation devices (VLD), enabling fisheries monitoring centres to monitor vessels at a distance through Vessel Monitoring Systems (VMS), has been a very successful action and every Community fishing vessel longer than 24 meters, save the exemptions provided [23], have been equipped as of 1.1.2000. This has been made possible thanks to the Community financial assistance which granted an aid for each unit installed with a rate on average higher than 50% of costs (the amount reimbursed by the Community has been between 4000 and 2900 EUR per unit, depending on the allocations available on each budgetary year).

[23] See Art.3(3) R.2847/93. However also these vessels shall now be equipped since the exemptions are no longer valid.

Council Regulation n°2371/2002 lays down the obligation to equip with VLD every vessel longer than 15 meters as of 1.1.2005. This entails that some 6000 vessels (acceding countries not included) shall be equipped [24]. According to our best estimation, acceding countries vessels still to be equipped are in a number of about 1000.

[24] A Community aid has been provided in 2003 in order to install VLD on board of about 4000 vessels.

The VMS proved to be very cost effective since naval and aerial surveillance can be managed [25] more efficiently. It also represents a valid and cost effective incitement to fishermen to comply with the CFP rules due to the fact that the position of the vessel is reported in almost real time and can be recorded for administrative purposes [26].

[25] « It would seem that at least for some Member States detection of infringements has been markedly encouraged by the collaborative working of the VMS and surveillance systems and development of integrated systems based on VMS should be further encouraged » (Report FISH/2002/12 page 103).

[26] The cost of each data transmission varies according to the provider, but it is less than 1EUR and will certainly decrease.

(c) the Member States have largely taken advantage of the financial assistance in order to set up and upgrade information technology and to create IT networks [27]. This has allowed the collection, processing, recording and retrieval of data relating to fishing activities in a quicker and much more efficient way. Secured networks have enabled decentralised centres to communicate with the headquarters. The Community services dealing with the management of quotas and fishing effort have also benefited from the improvement of the quality of data and its availability. The data is in fact now received in due time and in the correct format and it has thus been possible for instance, to state in 2003 the final figures relating to catches of the previous year 8 months earlier than in the past.

[27] The percentage of Community financial contribution has been of 19% during 1995/2000 period (Nautilus report, page 27). Similar figures apply to the current scheme.

Experience shows that in general, the Member States have now the capacity to deal efficiently with the administrative tasks. A smaller amount of money should therefore be spent by the Community for this action (since costs relating to the renewal of IT equipment shall be borne by the Member States). However, there are three important exceptions :

- the extension of VMS to a significant number of vessels (and the doubling of the messages as proposed by the Commission) entails that fisheries monitoring centres' equipment shall be adapted in order to be able to process, record and retrieve properly all the data;

- the introduction in 2004, at the end of the experimental phase, of electronic reporting of fishing activities (like catches or fishing effort declarations) and the Vessel detection systems, which will require new IT tools, on board of each vessel concerned (electronic reporting devices and electronic logbook software) and at the fisheries monitoring centres (for both the electronic reporting and the VDS);

- acceding countries' fisheries monitoring centres shall be in a position to operate with the same standards as the other centres, in order to avoid any loophole in the Community-wide control system. Investments for IT equipment and IT networks will be necessary;

(d) modern control technologies are in constant development. In order to assess them and to facilitate their introduction, the Community budget has financed pilot projects relating to fishing activities at a rate higher than 50% of the cost incurred. It is worth noting that VMS has been firstly introduced on the basis of pilot projects. It would be advisable to foresee this action for the years to come, given that other modern technologies in the area of fisheries control would probably be conceived (e.g., in order to detect when a vessel is fishing or weighing catches on board).

(e) all the analyses and reports mentioned above, stress the essential role of the training and exchange programmes of civil servants responsible for monitoring, control and surveillance tasks in the fisheries area [28]. This in fact proved to be extremely cost effective with regard to the improvement of the quality of control, as shown inter alia, by the increase of the number of infringements ended with sanctions inflicted by the Courts [29]. What is also of a great importance is the establishing of favourable working relationships within officials of different Member States which also lead to co-ordinated control campaigns which posed the basis of more developed and complex control actions at sea teamed by inspectors of different nationalities.

[28] « A 50% contribution in training appears sensible, and if the Italian experience is anything to go by it can be extremely cost effective. We would suggest it continues. » (Report FISH/2002/12, page 103).

[29] The Scottish experience is an example of good results yielded by specific training of inspectors on legal skills.

The Commission has stated its intention to actively support these initiatives which it considers as an embryo of the joint fisheries inspection structure referred to the Communication on the reform of the CFP ("roadmap") [30]. This action constitutes therefore a priority also for the new period of validity of this regime. Although the Member States have made use of the possibility to claim reimbursement for expenditure on training, it has not been used to the extent the Commission would have liked and therefore the Member States will be encouraged to have a massive recourse to aid for training of new officials, periodic retraining and exchange schemes for inspectors. It is worth noting that the introduction of new technologies and the interconnection of different data bases will require specific skills that can only be acquired by specific training. It is also obvious that training programmes will be of a particular importance for acceding countries' officials.

[30] COM(2002)181. See also the "Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament Towards uniform and effective implementation of the Common Fisheries Policy" (COM(2003)130, esp. Action point 9.

(f) cost/benefit analysis and assessment of overall expenditure incurred by competent authorities in carrying out monitoring, control and surveillance of fisheries activities as a tool to identify the most cost effective means of control and gauge the financial effort supported by each Member State in fulfilling its duties arising from the Community rules. Unfortunately, only few Member States decided to launch this analysis. The Commission will seek to convince both present and future Member States to apply for this action, which attracts Community funding, since the results are of a common interest.

(g) no money has been spent on the action relating to the implementation of pilot inspection and observer schemes. This occurred because expenditure was eligible only for experimental schemes adopted by regional fisheries organisation and none has been programmed so far. The Commission intends to maintain this action, but it will no longer be linked to inspection or observer schemes adopted by RFO. In fact, deployment of observers on board of fishing vessels, for recording and reporting the activities of the vessels, is foreseen by the Commission as a means to improve compliance with the rules, when other systems are considered to be inadequate (for example, respect of a discard ban, reduction of by-catch or catch of non-target species or use of illegal gears) [31]. Observers could also be employed in the framework of recovery plans for stocks which are outside safe biological limits [32]. For the same purposes, inspection schemes may be used alike.

[31] See COM(2002) 181.

[32] See Art.5 R. n° 2371/2002.

In both cases, financial assistance shall be confined to pilot projects. When a scheme is no longer running on a trial, the Members States shall bear their costs.

(h) experience shows that fishermen and other players in the control activities, like inspectors, public prosecutors and judges, and on a larger scale the general public, are not fully aware of the need to respect conservation measures in order to ensure rational and sustainable exploitation of natural resources [33]. With a view to enhance awareness on this fundamental aspect, the Commission proposes to finance initiatives such as seminars and media tools dealing with this topic. The Member States will be invited by the Commission to set up these initiatives, possibly in co-operation with the fisheries industries and the enforcement authorities. Consumer organisations can play an important role in ensuring that only fish caught in a sustainable way are bought by the final consumer. They should therefore be involved in these initiatives, wherever possible.

[33] See conclusions on the Commission reports on serious infringements (COM(2001)650 and (2002)687).

3. Options

Since the inception of this scheme in 1990, the Community has supported investment on the fisheries control area by a reimbursement to the Member States of the expenditure incurred. The rate of the reimbursement varies between 35% to 100% of the real, eligible costs.

This way of intervention has been deemed the most appropriate since most of the Member States are not keen to devote financial means to this sector which is indeed of a negligible importance compared to other national economic sectors. In fact, with some exceptions, the contribution to the fisheries to the GNP is such that public spending would not be justified in bare economic terms. However, as we have seen, there is a common interest to monitor fishing activities within and outside European EEZ since different flag State vessels actually operate on the same fishing grounds and the Community has a duty to ensure sustainable exploitation of marine resources.

By submitting their application for financial assistance, the Member States are compelled to foresee on the national budget the appropriations needed to match the Community contribution. Since the control programme lies with the responsibility of the national authorities, they shall be the only recipients of the aid. Obviously, the authorities which could benefit from the aid must only be those responsible for the fisheries control.

It is also worth noting that the structural Funds cannot intervene in this area, except for costs involved in the installation of vessel localisation devices on board of fishing vessels [34] . In the previous schemes, including the present one, there have been different rates of Community participation. It is now foreseen to simplify the matter by setting a general rate of a maximum of 50% of real costs, with 2 exceptions:

[34] So far this possibility has not been used by any Member State.

- for pilot projects and initiatives to increase awareness on the conservation goals, reimbursement can go as far as 100%, because strong initiatives are needed in order to attain the objectives as soon as possible;

- for VLD, the reimbursement per unit can be more than 50%, but possibly less than 100% in order to seek to put a pressure on costs;

- for aircraft and vessels reimbursement cannot exceed 35% of the costs and this investment will be eligible only for the new Member States as of 1.1.2004. Hence, even if the costs are very high, it is important to consider the fact that according to recent findings present Member States seem to be sufficiently equipped.

4. Impact and possible indicators

The overall aim of the control regime is to flank the conservation policy carried out by the Commission in co-operation with the Member States within the framework of the CFP. Only when provisions are complied with by the large majority of the economic operators, conservation measures can achieve the expected results. It is not surprising that without an efficient and watertight control system across the Community it is simply not possible to compel fishermen and other operators to respect the rules, in particular given the structural situation of this economic sector and by taking into account the fact that fishermen are competitors on the same fishing grounds.

It is therefore of paramount importance that Member States allocate adequate resources to the control activity. The Community shall alleviate the financial burden of the Member States to a certain extent and promote the setting up of control tools its deems more appropriate.

Furthermore, when a control system is considered efficient by the fishermen and other operators concerned, it has a deterrent effect on the intention to breach the rules. In an ideal world, a lack of infringements will then be an indicator that the system works perfectly well. But reality shows that the number of infringements detected by national authorities is a good indicator of the efficiency of control. Therefore the number of infringements detected over a period may be used as an indicator of the impact of the scheme. A high number of infringements can be construed as a sign of efficient control. Thus, few infringements detected over a period, especially in a country where the fisheries industry is important, shows poor enforcement. The annual report on the serious infringements detected gives a picture of the situation.

The rate of procedures ended compared with the procedures opened, also is an indicator of the efficiency of the administration. A comparison of figures relating to subsequent years, is a tool to evaluate an increase or decrease of efficiency, once that the deterrent effect mentioned above is duly taken into account.

Also, the number of inspections at sea or at ports, or the number of sightings recorded by the aerial surveillance can be used as indicators, in comparison both with the number of inspectors available and the number of hours of vessel patrolling or flights and the number of infringements detected. These indicators combined together can be used to gauge essentially the impact of investments on equipment, remote monitoring and training.

Marine resources are managed through allocation of fishing quotas among the Member States. Quotas are correctly managed when no overrun of fish quota is recorded. To reach this objective, the Member States shall have at its disposal IT systems able to collect data from landing points scattered over their coastline and elaborate, convert and send them in a rapid and secure manner to recipients, like the Commission' services.

The variation on the number of overfishing may be used as an indicator to evaluate the impact of investments on IT equipment and networks, observer schemes and training. Feasibility will be an indicator in case of pilot projects, while cost/benefit analyses projects will be evaluated from the results yielded.

A general indicator will be the variation of the status of the stocks submitted to special management rules.

5. Risk assessment and monitoring systems

The Member States submit each year to the Commission their fisheries control plan indicating for what actions a grant from the Community is sought. The Commission's services examine the request against the background of the objectives set up and the rules on eligibility of actions. A Commission decision, for which the opinion of the management Committee will be sought, shall fix the amount of the maximum contribution granted. The Member States, when submitting claims for reimbursement, shall verify and certify (a specific statement to be signed is foreseen) that the expenditure has been incurred in compliance both with the general condition specified in the Council Decision and the specific conditions which may be provided for by the Commission decision fixing the amount granted.

Furthermore, the Member States are required to forward regularly to the Commission information as regards the use made of the financial contribution. The Commission can also require the Member States to carry out on-the-spot checks on projects or may decide to carry them out with its officials.

In the event any amount has been unduly paid, it shall be repaid to the Commission, with interest. It is worth noting that the Commission reimburses the Member States only invoices that the national administrations have paid. So far, no irregularities concerning reimbursements have occurred.

The Member States shall report yearly to the Commission how their programmes are implemented, any variation they had to introduce on their programmes and assess the impact of the expenditure on control, inspection and surveillance activities. A final assessment on the whole 2001-2005 programme shall be forwarded in 2006.

The Commission will draw a report on the outcome of the scheme to be sent in 2007 to the European Parliament and the Council. In this report indicators mentioned above will be used to gauge the impact of this scheme.

6. Added value of Community involvement

As it is clearly stated [35], Member States shall control the activities carried out within the scope of the CFP on their territory or in waters subject to their sovereignty or jurisdiction. They shall also control access to waters and resources and fishing activities outside Community waters by Community fishing vessels flying their flag and, without prejudice of the primary responsibility of the flag State, of their nationals. They shall be responsible for placing observers on board fishing vessels and for taking appropriate decisions, including the prohibition of fishing activities.

[35] See Art.23(2) of R.n°2371/2002.

However, without constant pressure and monitoring by the Commission, it is likely that Member States will not fulfil their duties in accordance with the standards required by Community law. Furthermore, improvements towards an efficient control system throughout the Community will be difficult to achieve without incentives, in particular when new technologies shall be tested and introduced where appropriate.

According to the experience and the recommendations drawn up in the reports above mentioned, it would seem proved that only a persistent auditing by the Commission's services of the national control systems coupled with financial assistance in order to secure investments which are deemed necessary, is the most effective mean to achieve the goal of a sustainable exploitation on the marine resources.

7. Lessons learned from past experiences and perspectives

Because of the interest of the Community for an improvement in the control of fishery activities, the Commission has implemented since 1978 a series of provisions for financial contribution towards Member States expenditure. The first Council Decision was approved in 1978 and concerned measures aimed at assisting the activities of Denmark and Ireland. This was superseded in 1987 by a new Decision to grant financial contribution to all Member States to further develop MCS capacity and capability within specific areas of control and surveillance. There are no available evaluations for these schemes.

Council Decision 89/631 thereafter established a framework for Community financial assistance toward expenditure incurred by the Member States, with a total envelope of 110 MEUR to be dispersed over five year period from 1991 to 1995.

Subsequently, a second five year programme from 1996 to 2000 was adopted by virtue of the Council Decision 95/527. It made 205 MEUR available under a similar framework.

Lastly, the Council adopted Decision 2001/431 which will expire at the end of 2003 and which set up a three year programme (2001-2003) worth 105 MEUR.

On the basis of the experience gained and in conformity with the conclusions drawn by the ex-post evaluation report it can be said that, in general, funding has been directed in such a way as to address the most deficient (in term of EU average [36]) means for each Member State. Whilst this has addressed the imbalance in Member States capacity, it has not completely solved it and there is a certain further scope for additional expenditure [37].

[36] The consultant derived an EU average from the data submitted by the Member States in accordance to Dec 2001/431. Of course the average so determined has only a relative value.

[37] FISH/2002/12 pages 101-102.

Although assessment is very much dependant on specific monitoring, control and surveillance strategies adopted by each Member States, which are in turn a consequence of the different features of the fleet, the size of fishing grounds, quantity and value of catches landed, it appears that as regards:

- patrol vessels and aircraft, the Member States are on equivalent footing (with the exception of UK and Spain). However, it does not seem necessary to assist these States by increasing their equipment since this shortcoming can be easily set off by virtue of the extension of the coverage of the vessels controlled at a distance;

- all Member States have greatly improved their information technology systems and their network. The remaining needs concern the upgrading of the systems in order to face the significant increase of the quantity of data (due to the doubling both of the number of the vessels and the messages) and of the number of linkage with peripheral offices, patrol vessels and aircraft, the other Member States and the Commission's services. Furthermore, the introduction of an electronic reporting is recommended as this would enable quality checks to be applied to data as it is submitted by Member States, allowing fishermen no option but to correct any mistake in a near real time, and prior to submission. As a consequence, associated Commission administration costs may be reduced;

- VMS is in operation in each Member State, but it shall be extended to vessels larger than 15 meters as of 1.1.2005. Acceding States shall comply as of 1.5.2004;

- training has been extremely cost-effective and shall be supported, especially in the Member States which did not take full advantage of this possibility. Periodical retraining and improvement of legal skills shall be foreseen by each Member State. Acceding countries shall set up specific courses aimed at deepening the knowledge of the Community rules;

- in order to keep pace with innovation in the field of control technologies, the Community shall continue to assist pilot projects. It is worth remembering that VMS was first tested in the nineties as a pilot project;

- cost/benefit analysis of expenditure in the control activity has not yielded any result yet, but it is an important tool of evaluation and Member States shall be required to set up specific projects.

8. Duration

It was decided to extend Decision 2001/431 only for three years, until 31.12.2003, in order to allow the Council to decide the future of the financial assistance taking into account the CFP reform.

Bearing in mind the content of the reform, and taking into account the needs of the acceding countries, some of which have interest in the fisheries sector, it was deemed appropriate to further extend this financial regime.

With regard to the duration of the extended scheme, the fact that the Commission has proposed to set up a joint inspection structure which will be in charge of pooling national means of inspection and surveillance in order to carry out co-ordinated deployment of means available to Member States or, where appropriate, contract further means [38], must be taken into consideration. Since this structure shall deal with a large series of activities relating to monitoring, control and surveillance and it is foreseen to be in operation as of 2006, it seems advisable not to extend the financial scheme beyond 31.12.2005, i.e. for two years only.

[38] See COM(2003) 130

9. Planned Evaluations

The Member States shall transmit each year an intermediate report which will enable the Commission to evaluate the implementation of the control programmes and intervene in order to redirect investments planned, where necessary.

A final report has to be drawn up by the Member States before 31.12.2006. This will allow a thorough ex post evaluation of the scheme which will be presented the following year by the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council.

In the matter of control, it is not easy to quantify the results, especially in the short term. The overall goal of this initiative is to enhance a control culture among the stakeholders in the fisheries sector which will allow an unreserved compliance with the CFP rules. Without effective control, conservation rules are useless; without adherence to rules, control activities will never be successful.

10. Appropriations

In addition to adjust the rate of financial contribution in order to take on board the experience gained and the recommendations listed in the ex-post evaluation, the breakdown of the planned expenditure among the different actions mirrors the order of the priorities set up by the Commission. Therefore, a relative high share compared to the costs, is allocated to the actions relating to computer technology and IT networks, VLD and training.

5.1. Methods of implementation

Direct management by the Commission using regular staff.

6. FINANCIAL IMPACT

6.1. Total financial impact on Part B - (over the entire programming period)

(The method of calculating the total amounts set out in the table below must be explained by the breakdown in Table 6.2. )

6.1.1. Financial intervention

Commitments (in EUR million to three decimal places)

>TABLE POSITION>

>TABLE POSITION>

6.2. Calculation of costs by measure envisaged in Part B (over the entire programming period) [39]

[39] For further information, see separate explanatory note.

Commitments (in EUR million to three decimal places)

>TABLE POSITION>

7. IMPACT ON STAFF AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENDITURE

The needs for human and administrative resources shall be covered within the allocation granted to the managing DG in the framework of the annual allocation procedure.

7.1. Impact on human resources

>TABLE POSITION>

7.2. Overall financial impact of human resources

>TABLE POSITION>

The amounts are total expenditure for twelve months.

7.3. Other administrative expenditure deriving from the action

>TABLE POSITION>

The amounts are total expenditure for twelve months.

1 Specify the type of committee and the group to which it belongs.

>TABLE POSITION>

8. FOLLOW-UP AND EVALUATION

8.1. Follow-up arrangements

As described above under point 5, specific indicators have been identified

8.2. Arrangements and schedule for the planned evaluation

As largely described above under point 5, the Member States shall provide interim reports each year and a final report before 31.12.2006. The Commission shall draw up a report to the European Parliament and to the Council in 2007.

9. ANTI-FRAUD MEASURES

The Member States shall verify and certify that expenditure for which a reimbursement is claimed, has been incurred in compliance with the rules laid down by the Decision. If the Commission considers that the claim does not comply with the conditions laid down, it shall refuse to reimburse all or part of the expenditure at issue.

The Members States shall provide the Commission with any information it may request and they must keep supporting documents available to the Commission for at least 5 years from the date of reimbursement.

Commission officials may carry out or take part on ex-post control.

In the event of irregularity, any amount unduly paid shall be repaid to the Commission, together with interest.