COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Brussels, 18.03.1996 
COM(%) 100 final 
MONITORING THE COMMON FISHERIES POLICY 
- COMMISSION REPORT -

CONTENTS 
I. INTRODUCTION 
II. RESOURCES AVAILABLE AND DEPLOYED 
1. Resources available for control work 
2. Inspection and monitoring of fishing vessels and their activities 
III. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CONSERVATION POLICY 
1. Catch registration, estimation and validation in the Member States 
2. Monitoring of observance of restrictions other than on catch volume 
3. Overall assessment 
IV. ASPECTS OTHER THAN CONSERVATION 
1. Market policy 
2. The transport of fishery products 
3. The structural policy 
V. SANCTIONS AND LEGAL ISSUES 
1. National legal systems of fisheries enforcement 
2. The Community legal framework 
3. Cooperation 
VI. CONCLUSIONS 
Annex I Reports for each Member State 
Annex II Tables 
Annex III Satellite monitoring 
pAc3l\rapports\ctrl\report\en - 2 
I. INTRODUCTION 
This report is made in response to a formal obligation (Article 35 of Council Regulation 
(EEC) No 2847/93) and to an overriding need for transparency. 
The report is the first exercise of its kind, surveying monitoring activities in 1994. It 
accordingly suffers from the defects attendant on any new production. There are many gaps 
in the information passed to the Commission by the Member States. It is indispensable 
nonetheless to take stock of the situation as regards the areas covered by the new control 
Regulation adopted in 1993. On the conservation side a fairly detailed picture can be drawn, 
but as regards extension to other aspects of the common fisheries policy initial findings only 
are possible. 
Fisheries monitoring in third-country waters and the NAFO framework is not covered. This 
is a subject of crucial importance given both the economic scale of the fisheries concerned 
and the political stakes in the international arena. It absorbs considerable resources of both 
the Commission and the Member States, and the NAFO fisheries for example are the best 
monitored of those exploited by Community vessels. These matters are moreover being 
discussed in the relevant forums (NAFO, Moroccan negotiations). Nor is any mention made, 
with some exceptions, of the content of the very recent report on the Community's 
contributions towards expenditure on monitoring (COM(95) 243 final of 9 June 1995). 
The body of the report presents a general survey. Annex I contains a report on each Member 
State and Annex II statistics. Annex III deals with satellite monitoring. 
p:\c3l\rapports\ctrl\report\en 
II. RESOURCES AVAILABLE AND DEPLOYED 
1. RESOURCES AVAILABLE FOR CONTROL WORK 
The resources available in the Member States are summarized in Table 1. Direct 
comparisons are not, however, possible. 
The organisation of monitoring, control and surveillance differs considerably from one 
Member State to another. Some Member States have a single competent authority for 
fisheries control, others call on several government departments which also have tasks not 
related to fisheries, or even to the maritime field. This is further illustrated in Table 2. 
Furthermore, in some countries, competence is shared between national and regional 
governments. 
This results in a broad range of organisation types, varying from a comparatively well-
organised service using qualified staff in one Member State to a poorly coordinated set of 
national and regional departments with non-specialised personnel in another Member State. 
The number of inspectors in each port differs substantially from one Member State to 
another. For some countries there are several inspectors in each fishing port, whilst in others 
one fisheries inspector is in charge of several ports. The low level of human resources in 
some Member States raises doubts as to whether the control regime applicable to the 
common fisheries policy is applied there. Several Member States have insufficient specialised 
equipment to meet their monitoring obligations, even if some of them have used Community 
financing to upgrade their resources during the past five years. A small number of Member 
States even have no airborne surveillance, which considerably reduces the efficiency of 
inspections at sea. 
2. INSPECTION AND MONITORING OF FISHING VESSELS AND THEIR 
ACTIVITIES 
Most Member States have indicated figures corresponding to the inspection activities. These 
numbers are, however, difficult to compare because the quality of the inspections has not 
been specified consistently. Table 3 shows the number of port inspections and the number of 
inspections offshore. This is compared with the total size of the vessels in the fleet. 
p:\c3l\rapports\ctrl\report\en - 4 -
The Table clearly shows that there are very big differences in the level of inspection between 
the various Member States. One reason for the differences can be attributed to the definition 
of an inspection: from a simple sighting to a detailed inspection. 
The Regulation also provides for the possibility to control transport of fish on land (Reg. 
(EEC) No 2847/93, Article 13). All transports on land must be accompanied by transport 
documents which describe the origin of the consignment, the content of the transport as well 
as the destination and the transport vehicle, the consignee and the place and date of loading. 
The control of these transports can be used to ensure that fish destined for destruction are 
not re-sold, undersized fish are not exported and sold in other countries hiding their origin, 
as well as the hygienic aspect that the fish should be chilled or frozen during transport so 
that the quality is not reduced dramatically. 
The reports from UK, Ireland, and Denmark say that transports are randomly checked but no 
numbers are supplied. In Denmark the checks involve not only the fishing authorities but 
also the police. Belgium makes no explicit remarks about this subject but the imports - at 
least - seem to be monitored closely. There is no information in the Portuguese and French 
reports. The author of the German report states that he sees no point in controlling transport 
on land. 
An essential aspect of the inspection and monitoring of fishing vessels is the coordination 
between Member States. Most reports do not mention this point. The only exceptions are the 
UK report, where it is said that some agreements exist, and the Belgian report, which 
mentions that there is regular data exchange with Denmark (via modem), the Netherlands 
and the UK. The Danish, Irish, Portuguese, German, and French reports have no 
information on this point. 
However, some Member States (Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom) have bilateral 
agreements with Norway. 
It would be very disappointing if no more agreements existed. It is, however, impossible at 
the moment' to get an overview of the number of bilateral agreements and their coverage 
(types of data exchanged, how regular, method of exchange, etc.). 
p:\c3l\rapports\ctrl\report\en - 5 -
Generally, all Member States have stressed, during the annual monitoring meetings of the 
Expert Group Fisheries Control (which is made up of representatives of the Member States 
and the Commission who are responsible for the control matters of the CFP), the need for 
more and better coordination and cooperation. The Commission has offered its support but 
experience shows that practical consequences are still limited. 
III. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CONSERVATION POLICY 
1. CATCH REGISTRATION. ESTIMATION AND VALIDATION IN THE MEMBER 
STATES 
The monitoring of catches is based on logbooks, landing declarations, and sales notes. Some 
member countries have chosen to combine either the logbook and the landing declaration or 
the landing declaration and the sales note into one document. Derogations exist for certain 
categories of vessel, in which case the catches must be estimated through sampling. 
The number of returned documents seems in general to be high even though this may reflect 
different interpretations of what is meant by returned (see Table 4). None of the reports 
describe either possible problems with incomplete documents or the time taken for 
documents to be returned to the authorities, with the exception of the Danish report. 
The next step after the collection of data is to detect missing information. This is usually 
combined with some cross-validation of the different sources. 
There are large differences in the approach to and effectiveness of data collection and 
verification - even though the official reports always try to present the existing systems in a 
positive light. It is also evident that all Member States could benefit from the experience of 
other Member States in refining their own systems. 
Two specific problems for most countries are landings outside auctions and how to estimate 
the catches made by vessels which are not obliged to use a logbook. These problems are far 
from being solved satisfactorily in all countries (see Table 5). 
p:\c31\rapports\ctrl\rcport\en - 6 -
Checks at sea allow some comparison of logbook entries with direct observation. Inspection 
at sea is an important aspect of the work of control agencies but the proportion of this 
devoted to direct validation of logbooks cannot be specified from the national reports. 
Combining the information in logbooks with the information in landing declarations/sales 
notes should offer a systematic validation procedure. 
From the reports it seems that only Belgium, Denmark, Germany and the Netherlands 
regularly combine these information sources to improve the quality of data (see Table 6). 
This point is not mentioned in the rest of the reports. Nor does there seem to be any 
systematic use of other sources of information downstream of first sale. 
2. MONITORING OF OBSERVANCE OF RESTRICTIONS OTHER THAN ON CATCH 
VOLUME 
The difficulties involved here, pointed out in a Commission communication reviewing these 
technical measures, are analysed in detail in a Commission working paper. 
Observance of zonal restrictions is the easiest of these measures to monitor, at least if the 
area in question is sufficiently close to the coast to be easily patrolled. A check by an 
aircraft suffices to confirm fishing activity in a prohibited zone. 
Checking observance of the rules on fishing gear (length of nets, number of hooks, mesh 
sizes) is particularly difficult. It can be backed up by inspection on land but inspection at sea 
is indispensable, even more so given the absence of rules of the "single net" type. One of the 
most difficult things to check is respect for catch composition rules imposed when waivers 
are granted on mesh sizes. Ensuring that size minima are complied with is at first sight less 
difficult but where trading channels exist, firm determination is required with a strategy 
combining inspection at sea, on landing, after first sale and if possible on consignment. 
p:\c3l\rapports\ctrl\report\en - 7 -
Where problems are most serious (English Channel and Region 3), none of the Member 
States concerned has applied or even defined such a strategy. 
3. OVERALL ASSESSMENT 
The reports of the working groups covering the various stocks permit detailed analysis of the 
size and trend of the misreporting problem. The overall gravity of the situation has recently 
been stressed by ICES experts1. An earlier Commission report(2) summarises estimates of the 
amount of this for key stocks. Reference may also be made to a recent article by G. Biais 
(1995)f3) for a wide overview that compares the misreporting problem with that of discards, 
with which there is often a connection. Table 7 is adapted from the conclusions of that 
article. 
Small pelagic species. The proportion of catches not declared is considerable and has shown 
no tendency to improve since introduction of the CFP. One of the biggest problems is 
misreporting of species (confusion of mackerel and horse mackerel, herring and sprat) or 
catch zone. 
On landing, inspections targeted at catch composition would be more useful if concentrated 
on a relatively small number of ports. These catches are primarily intended for processing, 
which for control purposes gives a much more favourable situation than for high value 
species, where the multiplicity of landing points and shortness of the distribution periods 
seriously complicate the work of monitoring services. However, economic integration of 
producers and processors and direct-sales contracts allowing markets to be by-passed can 
also make a specific control plan for pelagics necessary. 
1 Report of the Statistics Committee Liaison Working Group (ICES CM 1995/D:1) 
(2) See Annex 2 to COM(95) 243 final. 
(3) G. Biais: An evaluation of the policy of fishery resource management by TACs in European 
Community waters from 1983 to 1992. Aquat. Living Resources, 1995, 8, N° 3, 201-288. 
p:\c3l\rapports\ctrl\report\en - 8 -
As for the geographical origin of catches, analysis of logbooks ought to be able to show up 
inconsistencies. Combination of this with controls at sea and continuous monitoring (by 
satellite) is however the only way to tackle the problem really effectively. 
The problem of discards used to be almost negligible when set against the volume of pelagic 
catches but is growing and - a serious development - is centring on specific fisheries where 
on-board sorting results in retention of only a fraction of the catch, e.g. herring fisheries 
targeted on the sale of roes. 
Demersal fisheries 
In the Community's central and southern Atlantic waters misreporting is limited, as are 
discards. The reasons for this favourable impression are not, however, necessarily that 
conservation principles are being observed. Many TACs in this zone are precautionary 
and set at levels imposing no real quota constraints on Member States, barring some 
specific difficulties over allocation (anchovy for France, northern hake and monkfish for 
Spain, megrim or southern hake for Portugal, etc.). The lower proportion of discards 
compared with the North Sea is partly explained by the fact that southern markets see 
catches of species not valued and sometimes discarded in the north, and of small fish, 
even undersized ones. Ready acceptance of the latter means that control problems are 
more of non-compliance with technical measures than of quota overruns. 
Further north, on the Atlantic coast, catch misreporting problems become more serious. 
In general terms they remain limited by the existence of numerous precautionary TACs, 
set at a level often still too high to impose constraints on Member States or guarantee 
effective conservation. The overall figure for 1994 in Table 7 is however misleading in 
this regard; for western Scotland the scientific conclusions have had to be adjusted to 
take account of under-declarations of roundfish catches, as described in detail in the 
ICES report mentioned above. The discard problem is also greater than in the south but 
without any distinct trend. 
p:\c3l\rapports\ctrl\report\en 
In the North Sea and adjacent sectors (see Table 7), the under-reporting problem is 
particularly acute and has worsened, particularly for roundfish. This stems from a 
problem to which attention was drawn in a previous report (COM(95) 243 final). In line 
with the scientific recommendations, which have been more readily followed given that 
the situation for certain stocks is now recognized to be very serious, TACs in the North 
Sea have in the last few years been set at levels corresponding to strongly reduced 
exploitation rates. But fishing efforts have not been reduced: the Commission has not 
been followed when it has proposed substantial capacity reductions and considerable 
direct restrictions of fishing time. All conditions come together for the encouragement of 
fraud and discarding and the persistently high level of the latter, despite increases in 
authorized mesh size, will be noted. The twin phenomena of fraud and discarding amply 
illustrate the urgency for restriction of fishing effort in the North Sea. In the Baltic the 
situation for cod has developed in a very similar way to that in the North Sea: actual 
catches in the last few years have been substantially above quota, the problem not being 
restricted to any particular Member State or Union countries alone. The recent 
satisfactory recruitment to the cod stock has meant that, in the absence of effort 
restrictions, catches have exceeded those authorized. Control work has run into the 
problems of probable fraudulent misrepresentation of the geographical origin of catches 
made by Community fishermen and exportation to the Union of cod fraudulently fished 
in the Baltic by non-Union vessels, large quantities of Baltic cod having been declared on 
the market of Member States not bordering it. 
p:\c3l\rapports\ctrl\report\en , - 10 
IV. ASPECTS OTHER THAN CONSERVATION 
1. MARKET POLICY 
The rigorous application of the relevant body of Community rules should ensure that the 
proper functioning of the common organisation is not disturbed by, for example, undeclared 
imports and that undersized fish are not presented for sale through publicly or privately 
owned auction centres or benefit directly or indirectly from the price withdrawal system. In 
addition, fishery products presented for sale are required to comply with specific freshness 
and grading standards in order to protect consumers, etc. Each Member State is required to 
organise regular checks on its own territory in order to ensure compliance with the technical 
aspects of the common organization of the market in fishery and aquaculture products. The 
withdrawal of products from the market for purposes other than human consumption and the 
storage and/or processing of products so withdrawn must also be monitored. 
Member States must notify the Commission about the specific control measures adopted to 
implement the controls outlined above, the identity of the competent national control 
authorities, the type of infringements discovered and subsequent action taken. 
Within each Member State, the task of monitoring and control is shared between a number of 
national services. This division is partly explained by the fact that different services (health, 
antifraud, quality control, etc.) have traditionally been involved in controls and that different 
entities (producers' organizations in particular) have a major role to play in the common 
organization of the fisheries market. 
p:\c31\rapports\ctrl\report\en - 11 
As regards the actual implementation of technical controls, the Commission notes that checks 
on minimum sizes are undertaken by either the national fisheries inspectorate based in ports 
(United Kingdom, Ireland, Denmark), specialised services (France, Portugal), or a 
combination of both. In Member States where more than one service is associated with this 
type of control, it is not clear how and to what extent this task is shared or coordinated. 
In their submissions to the Commission, Member States, whilst indicating that this type of 
control is indeed exercised, gave few details on their level, frequency or extent. 
Consequently, the Commission cannot conclude that these have been satisfactory. 
As for controls on the procedures governing the withdrawal of fish from the market, Member 
States' reports indicate that in most cases these are adequately monitored and that the 
procedures are properly applied. 
Member States were also asked to supply information on the outcome of market-based 
inspections and controls (types of infringement, etc.) and the action taken in cases of non­
compliance. Almost without exception, Member States have not supplied this information. 
2. THE TRANSPORT OF FISHERY PRODUCT'S 
The proper functioning of the rules governing the transport of fishery products(4) should 
ensure that the national monitoring authorities are in a position to intervene in order to 
prevent the carriage and eventual sale of quantities of fish (particularly those subject to total 
allowable catch restrictions) which have not been comprehensively or correctly registered at 
the point of landing or importation or whose precise origin is unclear. Such controls can also 
assist in the prevention of fraudulent imports into the Community. Moreover, conducting 
routine checks on transporters constitutes a deterrent against the carriage of quantities of fish 
which have not been properly registered and/or of undersized fish. Both practices present 
persistent problems for national monitoring services. 
(4) Detailed rules applicable to the market sector are set out in Council Regulation (EEC) No 3759/92, and 
the enforcement of these is incorporated into the integrated control approach provided for in Articles 
24-28 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2847/93, while the transport of fisheries products is regulated in 
Article 13 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2847/93. 
p:\c3l\rapports\ctrl\report\en - 12 -
Port landings are normally controlled in the course of routine dockside inspections and new 
obligations apply in particular to quantities transported through Community territory. 
The controls focus primarily on whether: 
- such quantities are accompanied by a transport document, 
- the document in question contains the proper information. Responsibility for drawing 
up and keeping the document rests with the transporter. 
Checks on the transport of fishery products is a new task for the national monitoring 
authorities. The overland transport of fishery products has increased substantially in recent 
years and has particular relevance for different groups of Member States. The monitoring of 
the movement of fishery products has assumed greater importance in recent years because of 
the increase in the volume of fishery products transported for either marketing or/and specific 
consumption reasons. 
In their reports, Member States have not indicated the extent to which random checks have 
been conducted to check on the distribution of fish catches, nor do they report that their 
particular checks/controls yielded significant results. On the basis of these reports and 
missions conducted to Member States in 1994 by the Commission's Fisheries Inspectorate, the 
Commission takes the view that these controls have been at best very limited in the majority 
of Member States and that they cannot be considered to be of any significance in terms of 
overall control Consequently, the Commission concludes that the monitoring opportunities 
provided by this measure are not being fully exploited by Member States, particularly in the 
context of dealing with the problem of undersized fish. 
3- STRUCTURAL POLICY(S) 
The input and output (catch) management requirements in the basic Regulation, reflecting as 
they do the scientific analytical work identifying excessive fishing effort and over-capacity as 
the primary cause of the CFP's difficulties, have given monitoring of capacity and effort an 
increasing importance that will continue to grow very rapidly. 
(5) The specific rules are contained in Articles 25 to 27 of Regulation (EEC) No 2847/92 
p:\c3I\rapports\ctrl\report\en - 13 -
Fishing-capacity adjustment, whether expressed in vessel size, engine power or in the number, 
size or gear characteristics of vessels, is to be properly monitored and the different means 
employed, e.g. restrictions etc., to implement the different objectives are to be checked on a 
regular basis. Fishing-activity limitations accepted for some Member States as a complement 
to capacity reduction within the third-generation MAGPs must also be monitored. It is also 
necessary to ensure that, for example, vessels in receipt of financial aid for modernisation or 
cessation of activity, whether temporary or permanent, are checked by national monitoring 
authorities. 
From the various submissions and reports forwarded by Member States, a wide variation in 
both the type and depth of controls conducted by national monitoring services is apparent. On 
the one side, a number of Member States (United Kingdom, Germany, Denmark) have a 
relatively well-developed and integrated control framework (databases on vessel activity, fleet 
register, systematic checks on vessels entering the fleet, etc.), while on the other side, other 
Member States appear to have a more ad hoc approach to these particular technical controls. 
With respect to the latter group of Member States, the Commission has noted that the 
technical controls are at best carried out intermittently and in an uncoordinated manner. In 
general, such controls are conducted only when vessels are initially modified etc. and there 
appears to be no or little attempt at follow-up checking. This is particularly important in the 
case of vessels which are subject to restrictions on gear usage or engine power. A second and 
equally important unsatisfactory element associated with the implementation of these technical 
controls is that many of them are carried out by services which are often not part of fisheries 
control services or departments. In addition, responsibility is sometimes shared by different 
services; in Portugal, for example, five different services are responsible for such controls 
while in others, two or up to three different ministries are involved. 
Whilst acknowledging that certain aspects of shipping (including fishing vessels) traditionally 
fall within the remit of different ministries, the Commission expects Member States to take 
steps to ensure that these tasks are centralised or closely coordinated by the service which has 
overall responsibility for fisheries control. 
As a first step in that direction, Member States should ensure that the information in the 
fishing-fleet register is more systematically utilised and complemented by databases on vessel 
activity linked to the fishing-fleet register, e.g. logbook returns, landing declarations, sales 
notes, etc. 
p:\c3l\rapports\ctrl\report\en - 14 -
With respect to the actual implementation of technical controls, most Member States have not 
yet given sufficient attention to this type of controls. Few Member States, in the context of 
their annual reports, have provided sufficient information on the extent to which these 
controls are conducted. 
v. SANCTIONS AND LEGAL ISSUES 
The record on compliance with the provisions of the common fisheries policy is the result of 
the quality and frequency of inspections and the level of sanctions in cases of non­
compliance. This is an area where the Member State have sole competence. In order to get a 
better understanding of the legal systems applicable in the Member States concerning fisheries 
enforcement, the Commission ordered a study which covers most Member States. The results 
of this study are reflected in this chapter. 
1. NATIONAL LEGAL SYSTEMS OF FISHERIES ENFORCEMENT 
Fisheries enforcement can be divided into three different stages, i.e. disclosure of apparent 
infringement by monitoring, initiation of infringement procedures and sanctions. 
1.1. Monitoring powers 
Traditional monitoring powers are rather similar in all Member States. Control authorities in 
all Member States have wide ranging powers, such as the power to board vessels and search 
any relevant compartment; to examine fish; to initiate inquiries; to require any paper or 
document for investigative purposes;'to take samples and to measure and weigh goods. 
But there are considerable differences in the scope of these powers. This scope may vary 
according to a number of factors. One of the most important factors is the nature of the 
enforcement system, i.e. criminal or administrative. 
p:\c3l\rapports\ctrl\rcport\en - 15 -
1.2. Infringement procedures 
Infringement procedures in respect of fishery offences are very different as between the 
Member States. These differences are for instance apparent in matters relating to the rules of 
evidence. Problems sometimes occur when evidence is transferred from one Member State to 
another. Differences also exist as far as the settlement of fishery offences out of court is 
concerned. 
1.3. Sanctions 
Differences between the national systems are also reflected in the way in which sanctions are 
imposed for fishery offences. In some Member States, decisions on fishery offences fall under 
the jurisdiction of the criminal courts, whilst other Member States have an administrative 
system of fisheries enforcement in which such decisions are taken by administrative 
authorities instead of courts of law. In some Member States combined systems apply. 
Sanctions can be classified in three main categories : 
- penalties imposed in criminal court proceedings (money fines, imprisonment, forfeiture 
of catch or gear, licence withdrawal); 
- civil fines, which are imposed only in Denmark and the Netherlands. 
- administrative penalties imposed by administrative authorities in the countries having 
an administrative system of fisheries enforcement. 
2. THE COMMUNITY LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
As the frequency of inspections is generally low, fishermen can calculate the risk of being 
fined as another operating expense. In many cases, the impact of penalties on the behaviour 
of fishermen is, therefore, negligible. If even a fine deprives a fisherman of the gains of the 
fishing trip in question, it will at most only marginally increase annual costs. In addition, 
national courts have been known to impose very low fines because they consider Community 
legislation too complex and do not expect the fishermen to understand it. Unfortunately, there 
are too many examples where the fishing industry and in some cases even national 
administrations have promoted this image of the common fisheries policy. 
p:\c3l\rapports\ctrl\report\en - 16 
In order to safeguard the objectivity and transparency of the action taken following 
infringements, the Commission proposed - and Member States adopted, as part of Council 
Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 of October 1993 establishing a control system applicable to the 
common fisheries policy - certain provisions relating to the effectiveness of sanctions to be 
applied in cases where the Community measures are not observed. 
In the light of these provisions, Member States are required to take all the necessary non­
discriminatory measures to ensure compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy 
and prosecute irregularities, by establishing a roster of sanctions effectively depriving the 
wrong-doers of the economic benefit of the infringements or producing results proportionate 
to the seriousness of such infringements. 
In addition, and in accordance with Article 34(2) of the Council Regulation, Member States 
are obliged to notify the Commission regularly of the results of all inspections or monitoring 
carried out, including the number and type of infringements discovered and the action taken. 
Most Member States do not provide information on their penalty practices. Although it is 
easy to find examples illustrating the insufficient level of penalties, there is little information 
supporting an assessment of the efficiency of sanctions in fisheries. Even if Member States 
notify the number of infringements prosecuted, little or no information about the eventual 
penalty inflicted, if any, is available. The statistics provided in Annex II demonstrate the 
inefficiency of the information transmitted. 
Moreover, certain Member States capitalize on the obligation of notification to systematically 
indicate all infringements committed by vessels from other Member States and even non-
member countries. 
As long as the Commission does not receive systematic information on the amount and type 
of penalties imposed by national courts or administrative authorities, it cannot properly assess 
the efficiency of fisheries enforcement in the Member States. 
p:\c3l\rapports\ctrl\report\en - 17 
3. COOPERATION 
It appears that the legal framework applicable in the Member States concerning fisheries 
enforcement provides very few opportunities for cooperation between Member States. A 
Member State has jurisdiction over all fishing vessels operating in its waters, and beyond in 
the case of its own vessels. Non-compliance may be disclosed and sanctioned under its 
jurisdiction. However, in many other cases where fishing vessels operate in the waters of 
several Member States and land their catch again in another Member State, it may be difficult 
for the flag Member State to monitor the activities of its vessels. This arises particularly 
when, for example, the flag Member State allocates individual catch quotas to its vessels. 
However, such cooperation is particularly non-existent. 
Furthermore, cooperation between Member States is meant to involve procedures for the 
exchange of information and evidence as well as taking action against vessels which have 
escaped inspection in another Member State. But problems can occur due to different national 
systems of fisheries enforcement. Member States have, for instance, widely diverging rules of 
evidence. The current lack of cooperation may reflect the permissive attitude towards the 
national fishing industries which attempt to exploit fishing possibilities beyond the limits set 
in accordance with the common fisheries policy. As long as the fishing industry in most 
Member States exploits such fishing possibilities, none of them will gain, but obviously the 
conservation of fish stocks will be undermined for everyone. 
To overcome some of the obstacles between national procedures, close cooperation between 
the authorities of the flag Member State and the authorities of the coastal state is 
recommended. It is submitted that effectiveness of fisheries enforcement should not vary 
according to the national system of law involved. 
As regards enforcement, it is therefore necessary to enhance cooperation between Member 
States, increase the deterrent effect of sanctions and create improved transparency. 
p:\c31\rapports\ctrl\report\en - l! 
VI. CONCLUSIONS 
This report, completed in 1995, has clearly indicated the delays occurring in implementation 
of the new provisions contained in the control Regulation (Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93), 
the impact of which cannot yet be fully assessed. The next report, which will be completed 
in 1996, will be of primary importance in this regard. It will have to take account of the 
conclusions of the December 1994 meeting of the Council calling for a report on fishery 
controls in the Atlantic and experience acquired in 1996 following the computerization, now 
compulsory, of databases of logbook and landing-note information. The value of this will be 
all the greater as the information transmitted by the Member States becomes more precise, 
particularly as to actual resource allocation to monitoring work and the statistics on 
infringements detected and penalties imposed. 
Incomplete though it is, the present report is in the Commission's eyes eminently useful. It 
can only help to diminish the lack of transparency between Member States on control 
matters. Invariably unwilling to draw attention to their own weaknesses, the Member States 
have nonetheless made big efforts to describe their control mechanisms. Experience gained 
in preparing this report will enable the Commission to frame its requests for information 
from the Member States more accurately, which will increase the contribution of this type of 
report to transparency. The Commission is also now in a better position to adjust the 
deployment of its own resources, though this is unfortunately restricted by the increased 
burden of control work in international waters (NAFO, driftnets). The Commission continues 
to hope that, in line with the rules on sharing of responsibility, the Member States concerned 
will rapidly take up the burden of work falling on them. Irrespective of this the Commission 
considers that it must in future give priority to: 
validation, for the sake of transparency, of the information transmitted by each Member 
State on resources devoted to control work and the outcome of this work; 
p:\c3l\rapports\ctrl\report\cn - 19 
new areas being covered by control work at Community level: structural measures, 
particularly the adjustment of fleet capacity, parallel monitoring of fishing effort, market 
monitoring liaison, checks during transport, and the development of systematic cross­
checks between different sources of information; 
the problems in each fishery that lie behind major infringements of Community 
regulations to the possible detriment of other Member States, e.g. quota overruns in the 
North and Baltic Seas and disregard of technical conservation rules in Region 3; 
coordination between national administrations and between them and DG XIV. 
Accelerated implementation of new technology (satellite monitoring, computer links) is a 
first field for consultation but not the only one. Coordination of action at sea, as control 
work in the Atlantic tuna fisheries has demonstrated, requires action at Community level. 
The same applies to checks on catches by vessels operating in the EEZ of one Member 
State and landing at a port in another. Generally the Commission has an important role to 
play in promoting synergy and dissipating suspicion. 
The detailed priorities of national administrations will certainly vary but for 1996 the 
Commission considers there to be two general priorities: computerization and control work 
on capacity and effort. 
p:\c31\rapports\ctrl\report\en - 20 -
ANNEX I 
REPORTS FOR EACH MEMBER STATE 
The report on each Member State is in two parts: 
I. Inspection and monitoring of fishing activities 
A summary of the description provided by the Member State of the provisions it has 
implemented for the enforcement of the CFP. The Commission has been obliged to 
provide summaries because of the volume and non-uniform presentation of the reports 
from the national authorities. 
II. Evaluation 
This is an evaluation carried out by the Commission and notified to the relevant Member 
State, whose comments have been incorporated. 
In all cases the Commission's evaluation contains a description of the particular 
circumstances in each Member State. In the mind of the Commission, this part is 
intended to promote mutual understanding between Member States. 
6 1 
p:\c3l\rapports\ctrl\annexel\en 
BELGIUM 
I. Inspection and monitoring of fishing activities 
A. ORGANIZATION 
Responsibility for monitoring fishing activities of Belgian and non-Belgian fishing vessels rests 
primarily with the Ministry of Agriculture, although some specific aspects of fisheries 
monitoring are allocated to the Ministry of Communications and Infrastructure, the Ministry 
of the Economy and the Regional Flemish Government. 
Within the Ministry of Agriculture, the Sea Fisheries Service has responsibility for the 
collection of data on fish landings, controls on imports, markets and the management of 
national quotas. 
Sea inspections are assisted by the national Naval Service, which is under the authority of the 
Ministry of Defence. These inspections are carried out in cooperation with the Sea Fisheries 
Service and personnel from that service accompany naval vessels. 
Structural aspects (licences, vessel characteristics) are dealt with by the Sea Fisheries Service, 
while the technical aspects (engine capacity, tonnage) are monitored by the Ministry of 
Communications (Maritime Inspection Service). Fleet development is regulated by licences 
issued by the Sea Fisheries Service and finance (loans etc.) is provided by the Regional 
Government of Flanders. 
In the area of markets (quality grading, withdrawal price levels, etc.) responsibility is divided 
as follows: 
Quality/grading is monitored by the Ministry of Agriculture (National Service for the 
Promotion of Agricultural/Horticultural products) (N.D.A.L.T.M.) 
Withdrawal of fish etc.: Ministry of Economy (General Economic Inspection Service) 
Price levels: Ministry of Agriculture (See Fisheries Service). 
p:\c3l\rapports\ctrl\annexe l\en Z <L 
B. RESOURCES 
1. Human 
The Sea Fisheries Service has a staff of approximately 25 persons. 
The Fisheries Inspectorate, which is a separate unit inside the Sea Fisheries Service, is 
composed of one inspector and four fisheries officers and is based in Ostende. The Inspectorate 
visits ports and auctions on a regular basis, and participates in naval inspections and aerial 
surveillance missions. A small staff within the Sea Fisheries Service covers catch registration 
and quota management. 
When conducting auction/port inspections in Zeebrugge, the national inspectors are assisted 
by the local port police. 
From time to time the Fisheries Inspectorate can avail itself of the services of the Investigation 
Branch of the Custom and Excise Service. 
Monitoring at the marketing stage and the technical aspects (grading, freshness) are covered 
by two inspectors from the N.D.A.L.T.P. (Ministry of Agriculture). One inspector (from the 
Ministry of the Economy) conducts checks on the destination of fish withdrawn from the 
market and general compliance with withdrawal prices. 
2. Vessels/aircraft 
Three naval vessels (2 tugs and 1 inshore minesweeper) are available for fisheries protection 
duties. 
An aircraft under the control of the regional government (Dept. of the Environment) is leased 
for a total of forty hours per year. This is used for aerial surveillance during specific periods 
of the year (spring - for the flat fish season). 
I 3 
p:\c31\rapports\ctrl\annexe l\en 
3. Computerization 
A centralised computer service based in Ostende has been established (AS-400 IBM 
mainframe computer). This is used to store data on catches - logbook, landing declarations, 
sales notes, information on marketing (prices, quantities, quality grading, etc.) and the list of 
licences issued. 
The registration of vessels, which is the responsibility of the Ministry of Communications, is 
also computerized. Data (sales notes etc.) from the Zeebrugge Auction are transmitted on-line 
to the Sea. Fisheries Service on a daily basis. Data from other auction centres are entered 
manually in Ostende. 
C. ACTIVITIES 
The inspections conducted onshore (in auctions/on buyers and vessels) in 1994 totalled 208. 
These were carried in the following port/auctions: Zeebrugge: 99, Ostende : 71, 
Nieuwpoort : 17, Others : 21 
These checks detected 64 apparent infringements (the majority of these concerned logbooks 
or landing declarations). Approximately 30% of all recorded landings were checked. 
Approximately 95% of all logbook information is returned. The same applies for landing 
declarations and sales notes. Exchange of information is furthermore carried out on a regular 
basis with Denmark (via modem), the Netherlands and the UK. 
Validation of logbook/landing declaration data is carried out by use of sales notes and this is 
undertaken with respect to approximately 75% of landings. Discrepancies etc. are identified 
and transmitted to the Fisheries Inspectorate for subsequent follow-up. 
^M 
p:\c3l\rapports\ctrl\annexel\en 
Naval Inspections 1994 
In 1994, sixty-eight vessels (mainly Belgian and Dutch) were inspected and a total of nine 
infringements were detected. Sea patrols were conducted in area IVc and totalled 34 days 
during 1994. 
Aerial surveillance (40 hours) resulted in 302 sightings. 
L S 
p:\c3l\rapports\clrl\annexel\en 
II. Evaluation 
A. General 
The fishing fleet comprises a limited number of medium-sized vessels. A relatively large part 
of the catch is landed in other Member States (UK, Netherlands and Denmark). In 1994, the 
quota for 9 stocks was exhausted. Quota management for sole in particular is very restrictive. 
The EEZ is limited in size and the coastline is relatively short with a small number of ports. 
B. Strengths and weaknesses 
The recording of catches is computerized. It is based on data from logbook sheets, landing 
declarations and sales notes. About 75% of landings are cross-checked. The catch registration 
of landings offered for first sale at auction seems to be reliable. Landings in other Member 
States are scrutinized on the basis of logbook sheets. This information is checked against the 
information on landing and sales provided by the Member States concerned. 
Although the number of officials responsible for inspection has increased over the last years, 
their numbers are still considered insufficient. Furthermore these officials do not have the 
necessary legal powers required to carry out their tasks on land and at sea. 
Three navy vessels with limited capacities for fisheries surveillance carry out part time 
inspections at sea. Aerial surveillance is limited to 40 hours per year. The legality of findings 
obtained by this means of inspection is contested. 
It is believed that unrecorded landings still occur. Fisheries inspectors are accompanied by 
customs or police officials with a view to disclose such practices. 
Z-Q 
p:\c31\rapports\ctrl\annexel\en 
DENMARK 
I. Inspection and monitoring of fishing activities 
A. Organization 
Responsibility for monitoring fishing activities rests with the Fisheries Directorate, which now 
forms part of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries following restructuring which took 
place in 1994. 
Within the Fisheries Directorate there is a division which has specific responsibility for 
controls including actual inspection. Other tasks ascribed to that division include registration 
of catches, the issuing of licences and structural and market aspects associated with the fishing 
industry. 
The actual Fisheries Inspectorate is decentralised, that is to say, the majority of inspectors are 
based in the main fishing ports and their activities are coordinated through the Division's 
Secretariat. 
In specific areas of responsibility, e.g. structures and markets, the Inspectorate is assisted or 
cooperates with other specialised public organizations such as Customs and Excise, the health 
and veterinary services. 
The Inspectorate has its own inspection resources - patrol vessels and computer systems which 
are under its own exclusive control. 
The main objective of the inspectorate both centrally and locally is the collection of catch data 
from logbooks/landing declarations and comparison with data obtained from sales notes 
supplied by auction centres and buyers. 
This data is systematically analyzed and discrepancies noted are investigated. In .order to 
facilitate analysis, two data bases have been created, covering landings and sales. 
M 
p:\c3l\rapports\ctrl\annexe 1 \en 
B. RESOURCES 
1. Human 
In terms of actual inspectors, the Inspectorate has a staff of 143 inspectors divided between 
the main fishing port areas. 
In addition, the Secretariat has a staff of 25, while the Computer Service used to process data 
from logbooks/landing declarations/sales notes has a staff of 24. 
Analysis and updating of catches subject to total allowable catch restrictions is undertaken by 
an additional staff of 3 persons. 
2. Vessels/aircraft 
A total of five vessels are used for fisheries patrol purposes. These vessels have a total crew 
of 102 persons. 
No aircraft surveillance is carried out by the Fisheries Inspectorate. 
3. Computerization 
Computer systems have been installed to process logbook/landing declaration data and sales 
note data, record catch returns and conduct ongoing analysis of fishing activity and effort. 
The data is stored in a mainframe, access to which is available to staff via a local network. 
Locally based inspectors are linked by a network and also have access to the mainframe. 
2E 
p:\c3l\rapports\ctrl\arinexel\en 
C. ACTIVITIES 
Inspection activity, by port, by type of activity 
Table 1 
Inspectorate based 
in 
Esbjerg 
Fredericia 
Frederikshavn 
Nykobing Mors 
Randers 
Roskilde 
Total N " of Employees 
21 
19 
29 
25 
18 
31 
143 N ' of inspections 
of vessels 
1475 
107 
1524 
457 
83 
1107 
4573 N * of inspections 
of buyers 
1016 
50 
2617 
993 
293 
205 
5174 
19 
p :\c3 l\rapports\ctrl\annexe 1 \en 
Inspections at Sea 
- Patrols conducted per patrol vessel, by number of days, by ICES area 
Table 2 
VESSEL 
Jens Vaever 
Nords0en 
Nordjylland 
Vestkysten 
Viben 
Various other 
vessels 
Total AREA 
IV A 
12 
12 IV b 
142 
14 
117 
1 
274 III AN 
2 
49 
97 
148 III AS 
26 
28 
21 
75 III B 
2 
80 
1 
83 III C 
1 
5 
102 
3 
111 III D 
51 
16 
31 
98 
Number of inspections at sea by ICES area. 
VESSEL 
Jens Vaever 
Nordsoen 
Nordjylland 
Vestkysten 
Viben 
Total AREA 
IV A IV b 
200 
5 
68 
293 III AN 
1 
48 
89 
128 III AS 
10 
15 
14 
39 III B 
7 
7 III C 
13 
' 71 
84 III D 
39 
20 
6 
65 
Results 
Number of apparent infringements detected during the course of sea and port inspections: 
Port Inspections: 182 - largest category: logbook/landing declaration obligation (57). 
Sea Inspections: 59 . . 
?>0 
p:\c3 l\rapports\ctrl\annexe 1 \en 
Validation of landings, auction data, etc. 
Validation is conducted primarily through the systematic comparison of logbook/landing 
declarations and sales notes. 
Landing and sales data is collected in port by local inspectors and transmitted to the central 
authorities. Purchases made at auctions or by major buyers (fish-processing plants) are 
transmitted within forty-eight hours. Cross-checks on this data are made on a daily basis to 
identify errors, missing information and discrepancies. 
In addition, the larger auction centres are visited on a regular basis to make checks on 
quantities, their grading and freshness and in the context of monitoring market regulations 
generally. 
Validation of landings by means of physical controls (monitoring and recording quantities 
landed - number of boxes and their weight) is limited to approximately 3% of landings. 
There exists a licensing system for vessels with no logbook and their catch is recorded using 
the sales notes. 
Landings in non-member countries 
Landings made by Danish vessels in ports located in non-member countries are checked using 
logbooks/landing declarations and comparing these with subsequent sales notes if the catch is 
sold in Denmark. In 1995, the sales-note format was modified to include information on the 
economic zone where the catch was taken. 
Monitoring of technical conservation measures (gear type, fish sizes, etc.) 
Checks are undertaken by the Fisheries Inspectorate in the course of port inspections and 
during sea patrols. No precise details are available with respect to the number (or frequency) 
of these types of inspections. In general, they are carried out in the context of routine port 
inspections. 
31 
p:\c31\rapports\ctrl\annexel\en 
Problems with respect to undersized fish (Norway lobster in particular) have been noted by the 
national authorities but their efforts to suppress such practices have been hampered by the fact 
that many occur in the context of smaller landings which cannot be subjected to continual 
monitoring. 
Control on mesh sizes and gear generally is carried out in the context of sea patrols. No 
precise figures are available as to the rate of inspection or detection. Effective monitoring is 
hampered by the fact that vessels can retain different gear types/mesh sizes while at sea and 
is restricted to the inspection of the last haul. 
Transport of fish 
Monitoring of fish transported overland is, in the first instance, carried out on a sample basis 
and through random checks. The authority to stop transport vehicles is confined to the national 
police authority and this inhibits more general controls. A satisfactory level of monitoring can 
be effected through cooperation with the national police authority. 
3 2. 
p:\c31Vrapports\ctrl\annexel\en 
II. Evaluation 
A. General 
The Danish EEZ is limited, but Denmark has a long coastline with over 200 harbours. The 
fishmeal industry is located on the West Coast of Jutland. A large number of small ports are 
located along the Danish coast and among the islands. The most important Baltic port is Nekso 
on Bornholm. 
The Danish fleet carries out a number of various fisheries. The overcapacity of the fleet has 
been gradually reduced and there is no excessive pressure on quotas, except for certain species 
such as cod and North Sea sole. The major volume of the catch consists of small species 
destined for fish meal and oil. A sampling scheme recently revised indicates that the landings 
of herring for reduction have diminished as a result of the management regime and probably 
certain biological developments including increased sprat occurrences. The monitoring of 
industrial fisheries remains difficult, however. An important problem in this respect is the 
mixed clupeoid fishery in the Skagerrak/Kattegat, where ambiguities in the regulations are 
exploited to the fullest extent possible. By-catches in certain other industrial fisheries can also 
create problems. Even the so-called clean fisheries deserve attention because of the risk of 
species misreporting, e.g. herring being reported as sandeel. 
The fishermen in the industry are well organised, which should facilitate controls. 
B. Strengths and weaknesses 
Danish fisheries policy has a long history and covers a large number of aspects. It has been 
translated into a comprehensive set of national regulations. 
The authorities have set up a fairly extensive system to register catches. Computerised 
procedures have been set up to process logbook sheets and sales accounts transmitted by fish 
buyers. The consistency of the data is systematically cross-checked. Physical inspection is 
however not so extensive. 
ij 
0'.\c^l\rannnrts\ctrl\annexe I \en 
Logbook entries are not profoundly checked. Sales notes, which are actually used as landing 
declarations, are not sufficiently checked by the national inspectors, although illegal 
arrangements between fishermen and buyers may exist. Cross-checks between logbooks and 
sales notes should be more-often complemented by physical checks. 
The Danish system for registering catches and landings has three components: physical 
inspection, scrutiny of documents and checking of accounts. The scale of each of these 
depends on an assessment of where resources can be most effectively applied. The 
physical monitoring of landings allows cross-checking of logbook data and sales 
accounts. The national regulations for the fisheries in all major species are controlled 
by document checks carried out regularly by local inspectorates and by checks on 
business accounts. The document checks involve comparing logbooks and sales notes 
against the allowable catches in regulated fisheries. Individual fisheries are 
comprehensively surveyed at vessel level. Local inspectors also carry out checks on 
business accounts. On a sample basis, for a given period, a complete input/output 
analysis is made of the flow of products and the flow of money to see whether goods 
received/bought tally with goods sold. This ensures that any data errors in registers will 
be identified. 
The registration of industrial catches through the administrative circuit is not fully satisfactory. 
The buyers of industrial landings only mention the main species in the catch; the composition 
of individual catches is in general not known to the authorities. In this way an industrial catch 
of pout mixed with protected species can be declared entirely as pout. This results in certain 
species being over-reported in the catch reports, whilst others are under-reported. An overall 
scientific evaluation of industrial catches, based on the sampling scheme, helps however to 
correct these shortcomings. Nevertheless, the Commission is not in a position to guarantee the 
full effectiveness of the sampling scheme in question. There is also insufficient direct 
monitoring at sea of the specific management measures aimed at limiting industrial fisheries 
in problem areas. A satellite tracking system would overcome this problem. 
^ 
p:\c3l\rapports\ctrl\annexe 1 \en 
On the registering of industrial catches, the Danish authorities comment as follows: 
The registration of industrial catches is in accordance with the rules for registering 
catches set out in Article 5(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 3362/94 of 20 December 
1994 fixing, for certain fish stocks and groups offish stocks, the total allowable catches 
for 1995 and certain conditions under which they may be fished, this registration system 
is also well-suited to managing quotas if it is supplemented by a sampling system for use 
in formulating scientific advice. The sampling arrangements and the volume of samples 
taken can of course be modified. 
Furthermore, the legal authorities require a significant excess of the by-catch limits before they 
sentence fishermen. If the by-catch limit is e.g. 10%, prosecution will only start if the by-catch 
is at least 20%. A conviction results in a fine and in the confiscation of the value of the illegal 
part of the catch. 
Enforcement at sea is in general limited. The patrol vessels are also assigned to other task such 
as assistance to fishermen. Their efficiency could be increased by the establishment of airborne 
surveillance. The Danish authorities comment as follows: 
The seagoing patrols spend about 80% of their time on surveillance, with the remaining 
20% being spent on rescue and towing activities. The number of days at sea in 1994 
came to 801, with 120 127 nautical miles sailed in total. 
2.-T 
p:\c31\rapports\ctrl\annexe l\en 
During 1994, the controls on the cod fishery in the Baltic sea caused particular problems. The 
inspection service faced difficulties to cope with the numerous third country landings and had 
therefore insufficient resources left to control fisheries. Moreover, one of the inspection vessel 
then operating in the Baltic was not adequate for the task. Pursuant to the request of the 
Commission, the Danish authorities have conducted an administrative inquiry into this fishery. 
2>C 
p:\c31\rapports\ctrl\annexe l\en 
GERMANY 
I. Inspection and monitoring of fishing activities 
A. ORGANIZATION 
Responsibility for monitoring fishing activities in the Federal Republic is divided between the 
central authorities and their counterparts in the Lander. 
The central authorities are based in the Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Forestry. 
Fisheries inspectors are based in the Ministry and in the Lander. Both inspectorates are 
responsible for the following tasks: 
monitoring landings, gear and vessel characteristics, 
conducting checks on quality and compliance with market and technical rules (prices, 
withdrawal freshness, grading, etc.) 
validation and cross-checking of catch and sales records. 
A number of specialized public organizations are also involved in monitoring different aspects 
of fishing activity: 
technical aspects of vessels and gear: Federal Office of Sea Navigation and 
Hydrography. 
markets: Federal Veterinary Office 
Federal Agriculture and Food Office - BLE 
The national intervention agency. 
imports: Custom and Excise Service. 
control vessels: Coastguard Service. 
B. RESOURCES 
1. Human 
Fisheries Inspectorate 
The total number of shore inspectors in the Federal Republic is 30, with 4 at federal level and 
26 in the Lander (Schleswig-Holstein 10, Mecklenburg-W. Pomerania 12, Hamburg 1). 
"àv 
p:\c3l\rapports\ctrl\annexel\en 
This core group of inspectors is assisted by additional local staff during major control 
operations. 
2. Vessels/aircraft 
A total of 21 surveillance vessels are utilised in the Federal Republic, 4 operated by the central 
authorities and 17 by the Lander. In addition, 12 customs vessels carry out limited control 
duties, for example patrols are conducted on the outer limits of the German fishing zone and 
in certain protected areas to monitor flatfish. However, these vessels do not conduct actual 
fisheries inspections. 
Surveillance vessel activity is coordinated by the National Coastguard Service. 
No aircraft are assigned to fisheries surveillance. 
3. Computerization 
Information on the administration of quotas, the national fishing fleet and markets is 
computerized at the Federal Agriculture and Food Office (BLE). In addition, some of the 
individual Lander have computer systems while others are installing them at present. 
2>S 
p:\c3l\rapports\ctrl\annexe l\cn 
C. ACTIVITIES 
Fisheries Inspectorate 
Port inspections 
A total of 10 539 port inspections were conducted in 1994. 
These were located as follows: 
Lander Number of port checks 
Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania 7 383 
Lower Saxony 2 473 
Schleswig-Holstein 683 
TOTAL 10 539 
In the context of these inspections a total of 176 infringements were detected. The bulk of the 
infringements involved logbook/landing declaration offences. 
Type of infringement Nationality of vessel 
German Danish 
Logbook/landing decl. r 53 4 
Illegal gear 10 
Vessel tonnage/engine capacity 1 
By-catch 1 
Undersized fish 8 
Unauthorised fishing 5 
Gear marking 5 
Vessel marking 17 
Others 76 
p:\c3l\rapports\ctrl\annexel\en 3 3 
In addition to vessel inspection, the monitoring authorities were involved in checking landings 
at the point of unloading or in auction centres. An estimated 30% were checked mainly in 
auction markets in 1994. No checks were performed on transport on land. 
Cross-checks between logbook entries, landing declarations and sales notes were conducted on 
all vessels of ten metres or more in length. These landings represented 95% of total landings 
at ports in the Federal Republic. Catches made by vessels under 10 metres are reported 
monthly to the authorities. 
Specific control activity focused on compliance with minimum fish-size requirements (both at 
sea and in port), minimum mesh sizes and, to a limited extent, on the transport of fish. 
Inspections at sea 
Area Number of days Inspections 
ICES III 1 415 2 843 
ICES IV 1 344 1 645 
ICES V 4 
ICES VI 2 
ICES XII 14 
ICES XIV 68 
TOTAL 2 847 4 488 
Sea patrols detected a total of 265 infringements. 
Infringements detected at sea by nationality of vessel by type of infringement break down as 
shown below. 
Total number of vessels 
involved in infringements 
TOTAL: 265 Nationality of vessels 
Belgian 
2 German 
240 Danish 
7 Dutch 
15 UK 
1 
The main types of infringement were logbook irregularities, unauthorised gear, unauthorised 
fishing, entry into a closed area, etc. 
Mo 
p:\c3l\rapports\ctrl\annexel\en 
Number of fishing vessels inspected by nationality 
German 3 778 
Danish 138 
Dutch 503 
UK 45 . 
Belgian 24 
TOTAL 4 488 
W4 
p:\c31\rapports\ctrl\annexe 1 \en 
II. Evaluation 
A. General 
The size of the German fisheries has dwindled drastically in the past 15 to 20 years. Germany 
has adapted the structure and size of its fleet to the available quotas. There is no overcapacity. 
The EEZ is limited in size, and the North Sea coast is relatively short with only a small 
number of ports. The Baltic coast counts a larger number of mainly small harbours. 
Germany has an important fish processing industry relying largely on imported products. 
B. Strengths and weaknesses 
There is little problem with breaches of technical measures discoverable in ports and control 
seems to be adequate, although hampered by staff shortages in the Lander. The situation is 
rather different at sea; the fisheries protection vessels appear not to be optimally utilized 
because of the division of competence between the Federal authorities and those of the Lander. 
The German deep-sea fleet is active in the entire North Atlantic. The fleet is most of the time 
escorted by a German fishery protection vessel (Fischereischutzboot). Therefore the German 
authorities have a good knowledge of the activities of this fleet segment in the fishing grounds. 
The landing controls made on freezer-trawlers are very detailed. The inspectors tally the 
unloading and verify at irregular intervals the marking of the units. They also take samples 
from frozen fillet blocks and send them to a veterinary office for species identification. 
Catch registration is based on logbook sheets, landing declarations and sales notes. A 
comprehensive set of conversion factors is in use. In general, the catch reporting system seems 
to be reliable. 
V 
p:\c3l\rapports\ctrI\annexel\en 
During 1994, the monitoring of the cod fishery in the Baltic caused particular problems. The 
inspection services could not cope with the numerous cases of species mis-declaration and with 
cod imports and transits. Initiatives were taken by the competent authorities with respect to 
monitoring German vessels fishing in the Danish zone and reciprocal arrangements for Danish 
patrol vessels. At the request of the Commission, the German authorities have conducted an 
administrative inquiry into this fishery. 
4 3 
p:\c31\rapports\ctrl\annexe 1 \cn 
GREECE 
I. Inspection and monitoring of fishing activities 
A. ORGANIZATION 
Responsibility for monitoring fishing activities is shared between a number of ministries and 
public organizations. With respect to the ministries associated with controls, these are the 
Ministry of Agriculture (Directorate-General for Fisheries) and the Ministry of the Merchant 
Marine (Coastguard-Police Division) and, to a lesser extent, the Ministry of Commerce. Actual 
controls are carried out by the port authorities (172 in total), which come under the Ministry 
of the Merchant Marine. These coastguard authorities are responsible for issuing safety 
certificates to fishing vessels and monitoring fishing activities up to the point of landing of 
catches and for verifying compliance with national and Community legislation in the context 
of the common fisheries policy (mesh sizes, technical measures, etc.). In addition, they also 
process infringement proceedings. 
Specialised services of the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Commerce are 
responsible for controls on domestic and imported fishery products transported from the port 
of landing to fish markets and processing units and for verifying compliance with national and 
Community legislation applicable to marketing, health and sales matters. 
B. RESOURCES 
1. Human 
As stated above, controls are carried out, in the main, by the one hundred and seventy-two 
coastguard-designated port authorities. No details of precise personnel figures are available 
with respect to port inspections, etc. 
Inspections are concentrated on vessels over 10 metres and these number 2 416 in total (12 % 
of fleet); in addition, the 12 main auction centres which sell approximately 30% of all landings 
are monitored. 
Cross-checking of logbooks/landing declarations and sales notes is not undertaken because of 
the deferment until 1 January 1999 of the provisions of Article 40 of Council Regulation 
(EEC) No 2847/93. 
4 W 
p:\c3l\rapports\ctrl\annexel\en 
2. Vessels/aircraft 
A total of 120 surveillance vessels and 70 onshore vehicles are available for control purposes. 
No details are available with regard to how these are utilised and the results of patrol 
activities. 
Four light aircraft are available for aerial surveillance. Again no details on their operation have 
been reported to the Commission. 
3. Computerisation 
The Greek authorities have created the following computer systems : 
Using the HELLAS-PAC facility, the Ministry for the Merchant Marine has set up a network 
of computers and terminals for its headquarters and regional services and 12 port authorities 
(Piraeus, Thessaloniki, Patras, Kavala, Chios, Corfu, Heraklion, Volos, Rhodes, Halkida, 
Lalamata and Syros). The whole data network functions under the TCP/IP communications 
protocol. 
The computers carry data on the Greek fishing fleet. Client/server-environment applications 
are operated through the network, and there is a facility for automatic information exchange. 
Information is stored in databases on the Ministry for the Merchant Marine's central computer 
and is available to all of the network users. 
The Ministry for the Merchant Marine has installed a SUN 690 MP computer and developed 
an ETHERNET network linking 50 terminals and printers via 5 terminal servers and personal 
computers. 
SCO-UNIX systems have been installed at the offices of the coastguard authorities in ports. 
Fishing fleet data is stored in a data base on the central computer. 
The database is fed daily with information from the coastguard authorities about the current 
situation of fishing vessels and about any changes in their characteristics, as required by 
Regulation (EC) No 10.9/94. 
Mr 
p:\c3I\rapports\ctrl\annexe 1 \en 
The final phase of control/approval of all changes made to fishing vessels, as specified in 
Regulation (EC) No 109/94, is carried out before forwarding to the Ministry of Agriculture, 
which has ultimate competence and is responsible for implementing the common fisheries 
policy and for the management of fisheries resources. 
All data are stored via magnetic means on a daily basis. 
A pilot fishing-activity control application via satellite is already being implemented and is 
providing satisfactory results. 18 fishing vessels and 6 coastguard patrol boats are participating 
in this pilot application. 
C. ACTIVITIES 
The specialised services of the three Ministries involved in controls and monitoring are 
engaged in a wide range of inspection activities. These include: 
safety certificates, 
fishing licences, 
landings, 
fish sizes and species, 
fishing gear, 
fishing methods, 
checks on imports and transportation of fish landed, technical inspections with respect 
to vessel characteristics and fleet composition, including up-dating the national fishery 
register, markets - quality grading and the withdrawal regime. 
No details are available as to the number of personnel and other resources actually deployed 
to cover the range of tasks indicated above. 
M6 
p:\c3I\rapports\ctrl\annexe 1 \en 
II. Evaluation 
Like Italy, Greece is not yet fully integrated into the control system applicable to the common 
fisheries policy. 
Consequently, the main task of the national monitoring services is to enforce national 
legislation and specific aspects of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93. 
A. Organization of monitoring 
The bulk of control duties are allocated to the Coastguard Service which is based in, and 
operates in, the main ports. This service appears to be well-organised and integrated into all 
major aspects of monitoring. Further development of the monitoring service will be necessary 
in order to complete the control infrastructure in time for the application of all provisions of 
Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93. 
B. Management of the structural and market aspects of fisheries 
The task of monitoring structural and market aspects of fisheries products in shared between 
a number of public organizations drawn from different ministries. Consideration should be 
given by the Greek authorities to ensuring that this task is carried out, as far as possible, by 
the service responsible for monitoring generally. 
The Greek authorities wish to point out the following: 
The management of the structural and market aspects concerning fishery and aquaculture 
products is the responsibility of the Ministry of Agriculture, with the Directorate-General 
for Fisheries and the EAP (Coastguard) playing a substantial coordinating role. Where 
markets are concerned, there are obviously certain other departments of the Ministry of 
Agriculture involved (DIDAGEP, Veterinary Service) under the supervision of the 
Ministry of Agriculture as well as departments of other Ministries (Commerce, Economic 
Affairs), whose activities are however based on cooperation and agreement with the 
Directorate-General for Fisheries and the EAP. 
H} 
p:\c3l\rapports\ctrl\annexel\en 
C. Monitoring of the transport and sale of fishery products 
The Greek authorities have acknowledged that enforcement of these two aspects is not yet 
complete and that steps are currently being taken to facilitate full implementation of these two 
types of control (development of sales notes etc.). 
V* 
p:\c31\rapports\ctrl\annexel\en 
SPAIN 
I. Inspection and monitoring of fishing activities 
A. ORGANIZATION 
Responsibility for the monitoring of fishing and related activities is divided between the central 
authorities in Madrid, based in the Ministry of Agriculmre, Fisheries and Food, and the 10 
fisheries authorities of the "coastal" autonomous communities. This division is based on the 
origin of catches landed, that is, catches taken in waters located outside the baselines are the 
responsibility of the Madrid authorities while those taken inside are under the responsibility 
of the autonomous community authorities. 
In effect, this means that the registration of catches and associated aspects (logbooks, landing 
declarations and sales notes) are monitored by the respective control authorities. 
With respect to controls on marketing aspects, e.g. first-stage sale, this is the responsibility 
of the Madrid authorities regardless of the origin of catches. However, subsequent sales fall 
within the competence of the (17) autonomous, communities. 
On the other hand, monitoring of the structural aspects of fisheries policy (fleet register, 
vessels characteristics and capacity) falls within the competence of the central authorities - the 
Ministry of Transport (Directorate-General of the Merchant Marine), which is responsible for 
all national fleets. The Secretariat-General of Fisheries within the Ministry of Agriculture, 
Fisheries and Food is responsible for recording vessel activity and issuing.licences and the use 
of specific gear types, etc. 
The Fisheries Inspectorate which monitors external landings is based in Madrid and is 
deployed throughout the country on a regular on-going basis. 
M 3 
p:\c31\rapports\ctrl\annexel\en 
B. RESOURCES 
1. Human and other resources 
Organisation Inspectors Patrol Vessel Helicopters Vehicles 
Madrid based 30 31(1) 2 26 
Guardia Civil 
(Maritime Division) 
Basque Country 9 
Cantabria 15 
Asturia 12 
Galicia 117 
Andalusia 25 
Murcia 3 
Valencia 12 
Catalonia 18 
Balearics 7 
Canaries 24 19 
2/5(2) 
6/3<io) 
3/6(io) 
21/3UO) 
11/8(io) 
1 
1 
4/3(io) 
3 
7 J(3) 
2 
1(4) 4 
52 
11 
1 
5 
9(5) 
14 
The inspectorates based in the autonomous communities focus primarily on the local small-
scale fleet and shellfish vessels. 
(i) 
(2) 
(3) 
(4) 
(5) 31 patrol vessels the majority of which belong to the navy. 
Auxiliary vessels 
In association with Guardia Civil 
300 hours per year. 
3 trailers. i^O 
p :\c3 l\rapports\ctrl\annexe 1 \en 
With respect to structures, 145 local agents of the Merchant Marine conduct checks on fishing 
vessels and maintain a technical datasheet on each vessel. Authorizations for modernisation, 
construction and changes to the engine capacity of fishing vessels are within the competence 
of the Autonomous Communities in conjunction with the Directorate-General of Fisheries. 
The enforcement of market regulations including producer organisations is the task of the 
Ministry of Agriculmre, Fisheries and Food and is conducted with a staff of 70 persons. 
C. COMPUTERIZATION 
No Information is available from the Spanish authorities. 
D. ACTIVITIES IN 1994 (inspections at sea, in port, aerial surveillance) 
Inspections at sea by area and nationality of vessels inspected: 
AREA 
VIII 
IX 
CECAF 
Mediterranean 
TOTAL NATIONALITY OF VESSEL 
Spanish 
3.532 
5.316 
205 
•4.958 
14.011 Portuguese 
4 
8 
-
<-
12 French 
9 
-
-
2 
11 Italian 
-
-
-
33 
33 
Infringements detected by nationality of vessel (all areas) 
AREA 
ALL NATIONALITY OF VESSEL 
Spanish 
4.578 Portuguese 
3 French 
6 Italian 
13 
p:\c3l\rapports\ctrl\annexe l\en SA 
Aerial surveillance by region and result (conducted by central authorities) 
REGION 
Cantabria & NW 
South Atlantic 
Mediterranean 
Canaries 
TOTAL Number of 
inspection days 
165 
78 
101 
21 
365 Sightings 
636 ' 
416 
499 
20 
1 571 Infringements 
noted 
50 
167 
58 
0 
275 
Infringements detected in port by nationality of vessel: 
Type of infringement 
Logbook/landing 
declaration 
Use of prohibited gear 
Fishing in prohibited 
area 
Excessive engine/ 
tonnage capacity 
Illegal directed fishery 
By-catch violations 
Undersized fish 
violations 
Fishing licence 
Incorrect gear marking 
Incorrect vessel 
identification 
Other 
TOTAL Nationality of vessel 
E 
133 
78 
53 
2 
2681 
15 
2 755 
115 
8 
1 
40 
5 881 P 
7 
1 
-
-
-
2 
1 
4 
-
-
6 
21 UK 
4 
4 
-
-
-
-
-
1 
-
-
-
9 IRE 
2 
2 
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
4 I 
2 
2 
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1 
5 F 
2 
2 
-
-
-
-
-
1 
2* 
-
-
7 TOTAL 
150 
89 
53 
2 
2 681 
17 
2 756 
121 
10 
1 
47 
5 927 
s^ 
p:\c3l\rapports\ctrl\annexel\en 
Future development of the inspection service 
In the immediate future, the Spanish authorities intend to recruit 20 Madrid-based inspectors, 
deploy additional patrol vessels and purchase and deploy an additional helicopter for use in 
patrols in the Mediterranean. In order to facilitate the implementation of the transport-
document control procedure, the central authorities are presently seeking agreement with the 
Guardia Civil in order for the latter to undertake this particular task. 
Monitoring of quotas and catch registration 
Personnel are located in 19 main ports to key in information taken from logbooks and 
landing declarations. This information is transmitted to a central database which allows 
catches by vessel to be registered. 
s 2» 
p:\c3l\rapports\ctrl\annexcl\en 
IL Evaluation 
A. General 
Mainland Spain has a very long Mediterranean coastline and a shorter Atlantic one. Coastal 
indentation adds to the number of landing places. The EEZ is relatively large but the 
narrowness of the continental shelf reduces considerably the true extent of the fishing 
grounds, with the exception of those for large pelagic species. 
There is ready demand on the Spanish market for a wide variety of species. Small fish, 
including the biologically undersized, offer high returns. The Spanish authorities wish to 
point out the following: 
The Spanish market covers a wide variety of species and there is consumer demand for 
small-sized fish that are within regulatory requirements. This demand, a large part of 
which is met by imports from other countries, makes worse the problem of consumption 
of immature fish. Action is being taken against this consumption of juveniles by 
stepping up inspections and information campaigns. 
The fishing fleet is large but its heterogenous nature is not always widely known about 
outside Spain. 
Spain is meeting its obligations under the multiannual guidance programme now under way. 
While it has not completely resolved its problem of overcapacity, it has achieved very 
significant progress, much better than in many other Member States. The rate of uptake of 
the hake and monkfish quotas demonstrates that the problem of overcapacity persists in areas 
VI, VIA and VIII. 
The Spanish authorities point out that: 
To help resolve this problem, a system for regulating effort has been developed and 
there has been a significant increase in exchanges of quota with other Member States. 
A considerable proportion of the fleet is made up of vessels specializing in techniques other 
than trawling, with bottom trawling being in widespread use. 
p:\c3l\rapports\ctrl\annexel\en 
Traditionally this technique is very opportunistic and catches in effect include pelagic fish 
(horse mackerel and blue whiting) as well as demersal and benthic species. 
Spain has always been able to rely on a solidly structured fishing industry. Effective 
monitoring of fishing activities, at least in the sense of conservation measures, did not, on 
the other hand, figure among the authorities' top priorities until relatively recently. 
B. Strengths and weaknesses 
Resources 
Spain has equipped itself with substantial sea-patrol and aerial surveillance resources. The 
installation of the computer systems necessary for enforcement seems to have suffered a 
delay, however. The human resources deployed are especially difficult to evaluate given that 
more than one agency is involved. Numbers have increased but, according to the information 
presented to the Commission, do not yet appear capable of meeting the challenges that Spain 
should and will face in terms of enforcement, particularly on land. The burden of monitoring 
international fisheries is going to add to the problem. 
Organisation 
Organizational problems in Spain appear to be particularly complex. Not alone do the civil 
and military authorities play a part and, in some cases, different ministries, both before and 
after landing, but there is a complex share-out of responsibilities with the regional 
authorities. More than in any other Member State, in Spain the Commission's inspectors 
have repeatedly encountered problems arising from the share-out of responsibilities. 
SS 
p:\c31\rapports\ctrl\annexcl\en 
C. Inspection of technical measures 
Compliance with the technical rules governing bottom trawls and minimum catch sizes is 
presenting Spain with considerable long-running difficulties. The Commission notes that 
some regions have taken forceful action, notably to inspect the composition of hake catches. 
It has nonetheless failed to obtain assurances as to the effective introduction of rules 
determining a minimum mesh size of 65 mm and requirements for the authorization, as an 
exception, of other sizes. Spain has emphasized on several occasions, with just cause, the 
problems created for it by exports of undersized fish from other Member States, but, no 
more than the exporting states, and despite repeated requests to all of them to do so, has not 
implemented the body of rules available to it for conducting checks during transportation and 
at market. The problems are particularly acute in Region 3. France and Portugal, which also 
operate in the demersal fisheries in that region, share responsibility with Spain for the 
situation. However, shortcomings in enforcement in Region 3 may also prove harmful to 
fishermen from other Member States, especially in the case of the hake fishery in the Bay 
of Biscay. 
D. Checks on quotas and effort 
The Commission considers that the procedures and resources put in place for ensuring proper 
filling-in and use of logbooks, landing declarations and sales notes do not offer the necessary 
guarantees. 
However, while direct checks on catches have not always been Spain's strong point, the 
existence of specific provisions aimed at limiting effort in the EEZ of the other Member 
States means that Spain (and, to a certain extent, Portugal) can avail itself of rules not 
available to the other Member States operating in the Atlantic. Effective restrictions on effort 
have been introduced, even if the inspection of Spanish vessels has come up against problems 
- although these have diminished in recent times. 
S(> 
v :\c3 l\raDDOrts\ctrl\annexe 1 \en 
E. Conclusions 
%. 
The difficulties, mainly historical ones, in Spain are genuine. Progress achieved has been 
considerable and the Commission is anxious to point out that the type of illegal activity 
leading to escape from, or even clashes with, the French enforcement authorities in the Bay 
of Biscay does not appear to have recurred for some time. The monitoring of the NAFO 
fisheries has required considerable resources and energy and has proved fruitful. The 
Commission acknowledges therefore the efforts deployed by the Spanish authorities to secure 
these initial results. It is very satisfied with the cooperation shown by Spain in promoting 
the use of satellite surveillance techniques. It must point out, however, that much has still 
to be done. Future progress can only be assisted by the adoption of new general 
arrangements for the management of effort of a type that will dispel any feeling of 
discrimination in Spain. The use of modern methods such as computer systems and satellite 
surveillance should accelerate that progress. They will only suffice, however, if Spain 
allocates the necessary material and human resources to fisheries inspection. 
^ 
p:\c3l\rapports\ctrl\annexcl\en 
FRANCE 
I. Inspection and monitoring of fishing activities 
A. ORGANIZATION 
The Affaires Maritimes (AFFMAR) administration, based in the Ministère de l'Équipement, 
has responsibility for conducting the monitoring of all fishing vessels (French and non-
French registered) engaged in fishing activities. Overall control for fisheries is determined 
from the Ministry of Agriculmre. Other surveillance tasks undertaken by AFFMAR include 
vessel safety, pollution prevention and rescue at sea. 
The Gendarmerie Maritime (GM), which is under the responsibility of the Ministry of 
Defence, is also authorised to carry out fisheries enforcement tasks such as checking fish 
minimum sizes, gear, landings, etc. Navy vessels are deployed for specific tasks, including 
enforcement, in international waters. 
In addition, AFFMAR shares with the Customs Service the responsibility for monitoring 
aspects of the structural policy such as engine power and tonnage. 
Regarding the monitoring of minimum commercial sizes, withdrawal prices and market 
regulations, responsibility is shared between AFFMAR, the Fonds d'Intervention et 
d'Organisation des Marches des produits de la pêche maritime et des cultures marines 
(FIOM), which is based in the Ministry of Agriculture, and anti-fraud services which are 
under the responsibility of the Finance Ministry. 
Cross-checking of data concerning fleet activity is carried out by AFFMAR in collaboration 
with the Centre Regional des Traitements Statistiques (CRTS), which is under the authority 
of the Ministère de l'Équipement. 
^ç 
p:\c3l\rapports\ctrl\annexe l\en 
B. RESOURCES 
1. Human 
Personnel involved in fisheries enforcement monitor catches, landings, minimum fish sizes 
and technical measures and are also employed to carry out other tasks, e.g. safety at sea, 
pollution prevention, rescue at sea, etc. 
The AFFMAR personnel based onshore is divided between Sindics des gens de mer (SGM) 
(164), inspectors of the technical arm of the Affaires Maritimes administration (82 personnel) 
(CAM/BT) and Techniciens du contrôle des établissements de pêches maritimes (47 
personnel) (TCEPM). In addition, a limited number of GMs (42 personnel) are seconded to 
AFFMAR. During 1994, five new Unités de Surveillance du Littoral (USL), based in 
administrative departments, have been created thus increasing the total number of USLs to 
11. They are composed of personnel from SGM, CAM/BT, TCEPM and other unidentified 
administrative services. Approximately 335 personnel are involved in fisheries monitoring. 
2. Vessels 
Eight long-range, six mid-range and twenty-one inshore fishery protection vessels are 
operated directly by AFFMAR . Crews total 202 persons. 
3. Computerization 
Different databases (fleet capacity, catches, landings, sales, etc.) are maintained by the 
Centre Administrative des Affaires Maritimes (CAAM), Direction des Pêches Maritimes et 
Cultures Marines (DPCM/BCS), CRTS, IFREMER and FIOM to cross-check and control 
the activity of the fleet(6). 
(6) see Annex 1 
p:\c3 l\rapports\ctrl\annexe 1 \en 
C. ACTIVITIES 
On land 
Eleven administrative departments have their own ULS units which are under the control of 
the Directeur départemental des AFFMAR, and these cover controls in ports and markets etc. 
Other departments without their own ULS units are covered by a combination of Sums, 
CAMs, TCEPMs and GMs, under the control of the Chef de Quartier. 
Main infringements detected in port by nationality of vessel and type of infringement 
Main infringement type 
Logbook/landing decl. 
Prohibited gear 
Illegal Fishing 
Prohibited zone 
Illegal catch 
Undersized fish 
By-catch 
Excessive vessel tonnage Nationality of vessel 
French 
184 
49 
110 
22 
1 
2 Spanish 
1 
3 Belgian 
3 
At sea 
The French authorities have reported that their fishery protection vessels conducted 1 404 
sea-patrol and 49 air surveillance days in ICES areas VII, VIII and the waters of French 
Guiana. 
€o 
p:\c3l\rapports\ctrl\annexel\en 
Inspections at sea 
Total Number of vessels inspected by nationality and ICES area. 
Area 
VII 
VIII 
CECAF 
TOTAL Nationality 
Belgian 
6 
6 Spanish 
2 
859 
861 French 
3 062 
4511 
220 
7 793 Dutch 
3 
3 UK 
2 
2 Other 
63 
63 
CO 
p:\c3l\rapports\ctrl\annexe l\en 
Nationality 
Type of Infringement 
Total number of vessels involved in all 
infringements 
Logbook/landing declaration 
Illegal gear 
Illegal fishing: prohibited zone 
Excessive tonnage 
Illegal catch: directed fishery 
By-catch 
Undersized fish 
Unauthorised fishing 
Marking of gear 
Marking of vessel 
Other 
Total Belgian 
1 
1 
2 
3 Spanish 
182 
24 
14 
1 
12 
20 
11 
1 
82 
165 French 
933 
27 
128 
484 
1 
23 
24 
39 
48 
27 
14 
321 
1136 Total 
1116 
52 
142 
490 
2 
23 
24 
51 
68 
38 
15 
401 
There is no information given concerning the return rate of logbook information, landing 
declarations and sales notes, or about cross-checking of this information. 
G 2. 
p:\c3l\rapports\ctrl\annexel\en 
//. Evaluation 
A. General 
France is required to monitor a large EEZ and a long coastline. Fisheries are very varied 
and enforcement problems take many forms. The proportion of landings sold at auction 
centres has grown significantly. Computerization of auction centres and the installation of 
links between them are well advanced. Landings disposed of elsewhere than at auction 
centres continue to be considerable, particularly in the case of species with a high 
commercial value and from certain inshore fisheries. 
In France there is demand for small-sized fish, for home consumption or export to 
neighbouring countries, particularly Spain. 
From the point of view of quota enforcement, France is at a considerable advantage in that 
there are very few quotas that can really restrict catches. Since the introduction of the CFP 
there have even been cuts in some deep-water fleets which fished mainly for whiting in the 
North Sea. Quotas have had a restrictive impact, therefore, only in the case of some stocks 
in Norwegian waters, saithe off the west of Scotland, anchovy in the Bay of Biscay and from 
time to time cod and whiting stocks in the Celtic Sea. From now on the whiting fishery in 
the Bay of Biscay will also be affected. France, consequently, does not suffer from an 
overall imbalance between the capacity of its fleet and the available nominal quotas. 
Problems created for some stocks are nevertheless recurrent. They would be greater if, as 
a 
demanded by improved stock management, a number of precautionary TACs were to be 
adjusted downwards. 
The French fleet employs a variety of techniques. Bottom and pelagic trawling constitute 
separate fishing methods and gears, except in the Mediterranean. This means that certain 
problems encountered elsewhere, in Spain for example, can be avoided. The problems 
created by multispecies catches taken during a fishing haul exist nevertheless. There is even 
a growing tendency to use pelagic trawls when fishing for demersal species, particularly 
hake. 
Q1 
p:\c31\rapports\ctrl\annexe 1 \en 
France has never regarded the physical monitoring of fisheries as a top management priority. 
The close links that have developed between the authorities and fishermen, undoubtedly 
invaluable in certain respects, have done more to promote a climate of tolerance and permit 
exceptions so as to protect groups, in some cases small ones, than to establish 
straightforward and effective monitoring. 
The French authorities wish to state the following: 
The situation has changed noticeably since the albacore crisis in 1994, during which 
the industry itself saw the necessity of conforming with developments in the Community 
rules (abolition of the 5-km exemption) in the general interest, while the public 
authorities introduced an effective monitoring system. 
B. Strengths and weaknesses 
France states that it has substantial physical and human resources both onshore and at sea. 
A precise determination of the resources genuinely allocated to enforcement is not possible, 
however, given the many tasks that must be undertaken by the different agencies. Great 
strides have been made in installing computer systems. The time required for data processing 
and transmission and shortcomings detected in the validation of certain catch data are 
evidence, however, of an alarming shortage of specialist personnel. 
The French authorities are present all along the coastal areas and especially in fishing ports. 
The number of government departments and ministries involved is considerable, however. 
The French authorities wish to add here: 
Monitoring of fishing activities in France is the responsibility of services coming under 
several different ministerial departments. While appearing complex, the system works 
well in both normal times and times of crisis. In addition, it gives access to greater 
human and physical resources and to the assistance of staff competent in many fields 
and used to dealing with very diverse situations. 
&M 
p:\c3l\rapports\ctrl\annexe l\en 
This applies particularly to the coastal maritime-affairs units which carry out controls 
at sea, on land and at the marketing stage. Because of their mobility, they are a core 
component in the fisheries enforcement strategy. 
Events in the albacore fishery demonstrate that an operational force can be put together 
where there is a major problem. Cooperation in normal circumstances can be more 
problematical. The fact that the agencies involved have duties other than CFP enforcement 
means that there is a risk of their being spread too thinly. A survey of mission reports from 
Community inspectors indicates that strict enforcement of Community rules is not perceived 
to be a priority by all the agencies concerned. 
Moreover, extensive mechanisms for joint responsibility involving the industry in inspection 
duties, on the lines of those the Netherlands is endeavouring to develop, do not generally 
exist for CFP enforcement. However, they do exist for certain fisheries (in particular 
anchovy and albacore) and for the inshore fisheries which are subject to national rules. 
A law passed on 2 May 1991, in fact, confers powers on the national trade organization in 
the fishing industry to help it participate in a balanced management of resources. 
C. Technical measures 
Fishing vessels operating beyond the French EEZ are barely distinguishable from other fleets 
operating in the same fisheries. In a number of high-seas fisheries the problems associated 
with keeping small-sized fish on board, for example Norway lobster or hake, lessen the 
financial incentive that illegal trade in undersized fish may offer to fishermen operating far 
from their home port. 
Illegal activities involving technical measures create particular problems in the French EEZ, 
and especially in the inshore fishery. The French authorities have made no real progress nor 
devised a convincing strategy for the future to tackle the problem of fishing for undersized 
hake in the Bay of Biscay. Enforcement measures are inadequate, both at sea for preventing 
the use of illegal mesh sizes, and in many ports for terminating the marketing of undersized 
fish. France has made use of the opportunities afforded by Article 13 of Regulation (EEC) 
No 2847/93 to take action after first marketing (during transportation) so as to control illegal 
Cr . 
n \r3l\ranDorts\ctrl\annexe 1 \cn 
imports but not to enforce compliance with minimum mesh sizes. One would have thought 
it possible with a few firm measures to prevent exports to Spain of undersized fish. 
The French authorities note: 
In relation to fraud involving infringements of technical measures, the Ministry of 
Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is preparing a measure which will make it mandatory 
to display the permitted commercial sizes for fish at all points of sale. 
Specific monitoring of the length of driftnets only became effective in 1994 with the adoption 
of stringent measures. In 1995, there has been ample evidence that the shortcomings noted 
previously had now been remedied. 
D. Monitoring of catches 
The rate of non-returns and late returns of logbooks continues to be high. As far as the 
Commission is aware, France has no systematic procedure for the validation of logbooks or 
landing declarations, either by direct statistical analysis or cross-checking against other 
information sources. 
France has wide-ranging scientific experience of the statistical evaluation and validation of 
catches, particularly insofar as the monitoring of small-vessel fishing and the evaluation of 
non-auction centre catches are concerned. 
This experience has been under-utilized, however, and the administrative data are far from 
being fully exploited. The quality of French statistics, having improved, has tended to 
deteriorate in recent years, but to a varying degree depending on the fishery. It is unlikely 
that this deterioration has led to the overrun of more than a handful of special quotas, such 
as the anchovy quota in the Bay of Biscay. In that particular case the shortcomings were 
patently obvious and recurrent. 
c& 
p:\c3l\rapports\ctrl\annexe l\en 
The French authorities would like to stress the following: 
Concerning the rate of return of logbook sheets, the deterioration seen in 1993 and 
early 1994 has been reversed. The ports in which rates of return have not been good 
have been very clearly identified as the result of a survey conducted in 1995. 
A study has also been embarked on to implement a system for forecasting landings 
which, once operational, should help to improve the quality of landing statistics. 
E. Conclusions 
Despite possessing substantial resources and having laid the material, human and 
administrative foundations for the effective control and up-to-date management of catch data, 
France still needs to improve its monitoring and inspection procedures considerably. De facto 
liberties and concessions involving a number of rules (non-compliance with minimum sizes, 
catches of undersized juvenile hake, negligence in keeping logbooks), taken at a time of 
crisis for example and now the norm, will only cease if purposeful action is taken. At 
present, the prosecution of infringements does not generally result in the imposition of 
penalties commensurate with the seriousness of the offence. Progress achieved in controlling 
the albacore fishery demonstrates the type of action that needs to be taken. The essential 
elements are in place and improvements will depend on the definition of a comprehensive 
strategy based on a firm desire for progress together with action to alert all parties involved 
to the opportunities afforded by enforcement and to the assignment of highly qualified staff 
to key tasks (such as informatics or statistics). 
The French authorities note in this connection that they are preparing for the 
implementation in France of a system to manage fishing effort. All the operational 
services concerned with fisheries enforcement are being involved in the scheme, which 
is to come into effect on 1 January 1996. 
G } 
p:\c31\rapports\ctrI\annexel\en 
IRELAND 
I. Inspection and monitoring of fishing activities 
A. ORGANIZATION 
Responsibility for conducting the monitoring of all fishery vessels (Irish and non-Irish 
registered) engaged in fishing activities is shared between the Department of the Marine's 
Fisheries Inspectorate and the Naval Fisheries Protection Service. This responsibility is 
divided along the following lines. 
The Fisheries Inspectorate is charged with the task of carrying out inspections in port, 
whilst the Naval Service conducts inspections at sea through the deployment of seven 
fishery protection vessels. 
The fishery protection vessels are under the command of the Naval Service, which is 
responsible to the Ministry of Defence. These vessels are used for security and other 
purposes. Their fisheries responsibilities are decided jointly by the two Ministries. In 
practice, the vessels are deployed for fisheries purposes on request by the Ministry of 
the Marine. 
In addition, the Department of the Marine has overall responsibility for controls relating to 
markets and the structural aspects of the industry. With respect to markets, the Sea Fisheries 
Inspectorate is assisted by a number of fish quality officers who deal specifically with the 
administrative and qualitative aspects of fish withdrawals. In the context of monitoring 
structural aspects (vessel characteristics), the Dept. of the Marine utilises the Marine Survey 
Office, which is an integral part of that department. 
eg 
p :\c3 l\rapports\ctrl\annexe 1 \en 
B. RESOURCES 
1. Human 
With respect to the Sea Fisheries Inspectorate, the Dept. of the Marine currently employs 
18 Inspectors which are based in the major fishing ports in the State. 
[East Coast: 2 sea fisheries officers (SFOs), 2 fish quality officers (FQOs), South 
Coast: 45 SFOs, West Coast: 5 SFOs and 1 FQO] 
Vessel registration is managed by the Register General assisted by local Registers and 
department staff (one full time, 2 part-time) 
2. Vessels/Aircraft 
Seven fishery protection vessels are operated by the Naval Service to conduct inspections and 
surveillance at sea. In addition, three inshore sea fisheries surveillance craft are deployed to 
monitor the salmon fishery. 
With respect to aerial surveillance, the Dept. of the Marine relies upon the Air Corp. 
Service, which during 1994 made one CASA patrol aircraft- available for fisheries 
surveillance. 
3. Computerization 
Monitoring of fleet activity etc. is augmented through the creation of various computer 
systems, which are supplemented by a variety of computer software packages, databases, 
spreadsheets etc. 
More specifically, the following systems are maintained: 
fishing vessel register 
fish catch reporting system (landings) 
fishing licensing system. 
G9 
p:\c31\rapports\ctrl\annexe 1 \en 
C. ACTIVITIES 
Sea Fisheries Inspectorate 
Inspection and monitoring of fishing activity is coordinated by the national Sea Fisheries 
Control Manager based in departmental offices in Dublin. Regional coordination is effected 
through three senior sea fisheries officers based in Dublin, Cork, and Killybegs respectively. 
In 1994, the Sea Fisheries Inspectorate carried out a total of 10 500 inspections on land. 
These were divided as follows: 
1 500 inspections in east coast ports 
4 500 inspections in south coast ports 
4 500 inspections in west coast ports. 
It is not clear if these inspections are confined exclusively to landings, checks on gear, etc. 
or include the activities of the Inspectorate with regard to market and structural aspects or 
whether it includes the inspections by inshore fisheries authorities. 
-) o 
p:\c3l\rapports\ctrl\annexe l\en 
The port inspections detected approximately 159 infringements as indicated in the table 
below: 
Port inspections by type of infringement and nationality of vessel 
Type of offence 
Logbook/landing declaration 
Illegal gear 
Fishing in prohibited area Nationality of vessel 
Irish 
51 
30 
2 Spanish 
5 UK 
4 
Illegal catches 
Directed fishery 
By-catch 
Undersize 
Unauthorised fishing 
Marking of gear 
Marking of vessel 
TOTAL (159) 2 
4 
28 
1 
10 
22 
150 5 4 
The Fisheries Officers inspect landings (35 % of all landings are validated by physical checks 
in port and/or in auction centres) and seek to provide 100% monitoring of the landings of 
certain TAC and quota species (unspecified but probably herring and mackerel). Landings 
made by vessels under 10 metres are not registered. 
The Officers also cross-check logbook and landing declarations and sales notes and monitor 
the transport of fish. 
In addition, all nets are measured ashore twice annually. 
1A 
p:\c3l\rapports\ctrl\annexe ! \en 
Naval Service 
The Irish authorities have reported that the seven fishery protection vessels operated by the 
Naval Service conducted the following patrol activities in 1994. 
ICES Area of Activity 
VI A 
VI B 
VII A 
VII B 
VII C 
VII G 
VII J 
VII K 
VII H 
VIII E Days on Patrol 
35 
22 
247 
143 
25 
344 
380 
31 
12 
17 
TOTAL 1 258 
Inspection at sea: by ICES area and nationality of vessel inspected 
Area 
VI 
VII 
VIII Nationality 
Belg. 
n J Germ. 
1 
9 Sp. 
103 Fren. 
3 
164 Irish 
39 
294 
11 Dutch 
3 UK 
2 
248 Other 
4 
} <^ 
p:\c3l\rapports\ctrI\annexe 1 \en 
Number of vessels detected in an infringement, by nationality and type of 
infringement 
Main types of 
Infringement 
Logbook/Landing 
declaration 
Prohibited gear 
Illegal fishing: 
closed area 
Illegal catch: 
directed fishing 
Undersized fish 
Gear/vessel 
marking 
Other Belg. 
1 Germ. 
1 Sp. 
8 
4 
7 
1 
15 Fren. 
1 
14 Irish 
12 
5 
2 
2 
9 
39 Dutch UK 
25 
8 
1 
24 Others 
Aerial Surveillance 
In 1994 one CASA fixed-wing aircraft was available for fisheries surveillance functions. The 
aircraft conducted 91 patrols over a period of 447 hours. These patrols yielded sighting 
information (1132 sighting) over ten different ICES zones (in particular areas VII J., VII G, 
VII E, VII A). 
} 3 
p:\c3l\rapports\ctrl\annexe 1 \en 
//. Evaluation 
Ireland has a large exclusive fishery area in which there is a high level of activity by fishing 
vessels from other Member States. There is also a large number of landing places, many of 
which are not permanently supervised, which makes it difficult for the inspection authorities 
to effectively verify catch/landing declarations against physical checks on catches. In 1994 
there was adequate quota allocation to provide sufficient fishing opportunities for the Irish 
fleet. However, the uptake of the herring and mackerel quota required close supervision. 
In Ireland there is considerable difference between the way the inspection and monitoring 
task is performed at sea and in port. The enforcement task at sea is compounded by the size 
of the patrol area and the diverse nature of the different fisheries. There is, therefore, a need 
to maximise the efficient use and deployment of resources to ensure that Ireland discharges 
its surveillance and inspection obligations. In this regard, it is important to develop certain 
strategies which will allow the inspection authorities to focus on the most effective 
monitoring and enforcement measures. The Commission is aware of the efforts undertaken 
in recent years to monitor the activities of vessels which are registered in other Member 
States and which fish within Irish exclusive fishery limits. 
Whereas the Irish authorities have undertaken the control and inspection of vessels engaged 
in the albacore fishery, and when appropriate strictly applied the Community regulations, 
there is, nevertheless, a requirement to sustain the inspection enforcement presence 
throughout the albacore season. 
The inspection activities on land need to be intensified as there is still insufficient compliance 
with conservation measures and the pace of implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 
2847/93 appears to be slow. Transport documents were not widely utilised in 1994. 
Furthermore, even though sea fishery officers are now empowered to examine the records 
of fish buyers, merchants, agents, etc. the Commission is not in a position to evaluate how 
the additional powers are relied on to detect illegal activity and to what extent such measures 
are invoked. 
VM> 
p:\c3I\rapports\ctrl\annexel\en 
The monitoring of catches and fishing gear utilised has significantly improved in the 
principle landing ports. Nevertheless, the coverage of smaller ports remains inadequate. In 
terms of catch registration generally, there is a major difficulty created by the incomplete 
submission of logbooks and landing declarations. With respect to the processing of catch 
data, although the Irish authorities have acquired the necessary computer equipment and 
appropriate software to comprehensively register catch data, the expected operational 
efficiency has not materialised. 
The Commission is aware of special problems posed by the technical monitoring of structural 
measures and would emphasis the importance of undertaking frequent checks within the 
market sector. 
Conclusions 
The enforcement authorities in Ireland have to overcome two challenges, which are - at sea 
- the extent of the Irish EEZ and - in ports - the absence of a long tradition of inspections 
and monitoring with respect to the control task. A real commitment has been given by the 
Irish authorities to overcome the problems posed. This has been facilitated by the 
Community financial aid programme towards the acquisition of essential equipment. In this 
regard, the absence of sufficient personnel to undertake the enforcement task weakens the 
national control system. This problem may be further aggravated with the conclusion and 
implementation of the Western Waters Fisheries Agreement in 1996. 
}r 
p:\c3l\rapports\ctrI\annexel\en 
ITALY 
I. Inspection and monitoring of fishing activities 
A. ORGANIZATION 
Overall responsibility for monitoring and control within the fisheries sector is allocated to 
the Directorate-General for Fisheries, which is a separate service of the Ministry of 
Agriculture Resources, Food and Forestry. Prior to 1994, the service formed part of the 
Ministry of the Merchant Marine. 
The Directorate-General for Fisheries does not have a separate fisheries inspection unit 
within its service but relies upon a variety of other specialised services which are under the 
authority of different ministries. 
Land and sea inspections are conducted by the: 
Guarda di Finanza - Ministry of Finance 
Polizia di Stato - Ministry of the Interior 
Arma dei Carabinieri - Ministry of Defense 
Unità Sanitarie Locali - Ministry of Health 
Local authorities 
A key role is played by the port authorities - the "capitanerie di porto" - which have 
resources to conduct inspections in port and within the territorial limits. (See further below). 
Logistical support with respect to sea inspections is provided by the Coastguard Service, 
which is part of the Ministry of Defense. 
B. RESOURCES 
1. Human 
As noted above, a variety of public organisations carry out monitoring and control tasks with 
respect to fisheries. Consequently, it is difficult to estimate the approximate number of 
personnel allocated to the specific control tasks associated with inspection at sea and ashore. 
1G 
p:\c3l\rapports\ctrl\annexe 1 \en 
With respect to the "capitanerie di porto" service, this is composed of 4 500 personnel 
distributed in 47 administrative units ("compartimenti marittimi"). Approximately 30% 
(1200) of its personnel deals exclusively with sea inspections to monitor compliance with 
national and Community measures (licences, technical measures, etc). The remainder of the 
service carry out a variety of control tasks ashore. It is not possible to identify or estimate 
with any real precision the extent to which the personnel of this service is devoted to classic 
control tasks as envisaged in Council Regulation (EEC) No 284.7/93. 
2. Vessels/Aircraft 
The capitanerie di porto possess: - 300 vessels of varying lengths 
- 16 aircraft. 
3. Computerization 
No system of computerization functions at present. The Italian authorities have, however, 
indicated that an integrated information system is being proposed in order to link the various 
services involved in monitoring. 
C. ACTIVITIES 
1. "Capitanerie di Porto" 
Activities at Sea 
In 1994, 8 247 seagoing missions were conducted by this service. During the course of these 
missions, 10 793 inspections were carried out and 2 884 infringements of 
national/Community law were recorded. The majority of these were of an administrative 
nature ( breach of licence conditions etc.). 
Aerial surveillance 
A total of 57 aerial surveillance missions were conducted in 1994. 
}3 
p :\c3 l\rapports\ctrl\annexc 1 \en 
Shore based inspection (in ports, markets, restaurants) 
A total of 10 692 inspections/controls were conducted: 
landings, distribution, sales 7 165 
' controls on gear 3 527 
These controls resulted in the detection of 477 infringements, the majority of which were 
violations of administrative regulations. 
In the course of the year the "capitanerie di porto" confiscated 37 727 kilograms of catch 
and 1 012 items of gear (not detailed in the report). 
Costs incurred in 1994 amounted to LIT 9 796 831 200 lire (ECU 4.5 million). 
2. "Polizia di Stato" 
In 1994 the "Polizia di Stato" inspected a total of 1 700 vessels, of which 343 were fishing 
with driftnets. A total of 1 009 infringements (unspecified) were detected, of which 41 
related to vessels using driftnets. A total of 8 vessels were seized as well as 352 nets. 
3. "Guarda di Finanzau 
No precise figures are available with respect to the number of inspections carried out. 
Information is available on the results of these inspections: 
Infringements detected . 2 060 
Seizures/confiscations 
carried out: 
nets 1 518 
quantities of fish 65 525 kilograms 
-1 6 
p:\c3I\rapports\ctrl\annexc 1 \en 
//. Evaluation 
Monitoring fishing activities in Italy presents a number of specific problems: the long length 
of the coastline and the numerous landing places. The absence of an exclusive fishery zone 
in Italy mitigates against rigorous controls on Italian fishermen who fish in international 
areas alongside foreign fishermen engaged in fishing for large pelagic species and for some 
demersal stocks. 
Although Italy is not yet fully integrated into the control system applicable to the common 
fisheries policy as set out in Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93, the national control 
authorities have a number of specific monitoring functions to carry out. These include 
monitoring the use of driftnets, management of structural aspects of the national fishing fleet, 
technical measures, controls with respect to markets and the creation of an adequate/ 
comprehensive control system over the next three years. 
A. Controls on fishing vessels using driftnets 
Italy has authorised approximately 650 vessels to use driftnets and these vessels fish in both 
international and national waters. The large number of vessels and their wide diffusion 
contribute to the difficulties in adequately monitoring the use of this type of gear. It has been 
clearly shown that the prescribed net length (2.5 kilometres) does not generally speaking 
allow an economic fishery. It has consequently been found that a number of vessels have 
been using nets in excess of 2.5 km. 
B. Management of structural and market aspects of fisheries 
In their report to the Commission, the Italian control authorities have not presented sufficient 
information on markets and structural aspects as set out in Council Regulation (EEC) No 
2847/93. Consequently, the Commission would like Italy to present this information as soon 
as possible. 
")3 
p:\c31\rapports\ctrl\annexe l\en 
C. Monitoring of the transport and sale of fishery products 
Articles 8 and 13 require that sales notes and transport documents be designed and their use 
monitored in order to identify quantities of fishery products sold and transported in Italy. It 
appears to the Commission that these documents are not yet in use by the industry in Italy. 
D. Creation of a validation system 
Although Italy is not obliged to create a validation system until 1999, the Commission notes 
that steps are being taken by the Italian authorities to establish such a system. The early 
establishment of a validation system would facilitate cross-checking and would be a useful 
addition to national controls. 
So 
p:\c3l\rapports\ctrl\annexe l\en 
NETHERLANDS 
I. Inspection and monitoring of fishing activities 
A. ORGANISATION 
The primary responsibility for monitoring fishing activities rests with the AID (General 
Inspection Service), which works within guidelines approved by the Ministry of Agriculmre, 
Environment and Fisheries. 
Within the inspection service, a number of inspectors are assigned to fishery inspection 
duties. These inspectors are based in the ports with a large auction or where a significant 
number of landings take place. In addition, the inspectors are supported by administrative 
support staff in the district offices and at headquarters. 
The AID inspection services monitor the registration of catches, technical measures, licences 
and some aspects of markets and structures. 
The inspections at sea are carried out by the AID, which itself has no inspection platforms, 
in cooperation with the Royal Navy, customs and police. 
The technical monitoring of market measures is carried out by the "Produkschap Vis", and 
infringements are reported to the AID for further action. 
B. RESOURCES 
Human 
The inspectorate has a staff of 58 inspectors divided between the main fishing ports. In 
addition, the inspectorate was assisted for a total of 37 500 hours by private security agents. 
8-1 
n :\c. 1 l\rannorts\ctrl\annexe I \en 
Vessels/aircraft 
In addition to the vessels provided by customs and police, 3 minesweepers are used. 
In 1994, the minesweepers conducted 80 days of sea inspections while the customs/police 
conducted 106 days. 
Aerial surveillance was conducted by the Navy and the police service. A total of 438 hours 
was devoted to aerial surveillance. 
Computerization 
The following computer systems are in operation: 
VIRIS I : monitoring of the national and individual allocated quotas 
COVIS : registration of catch and sales information together with control 
findings and detailed information on fishing trips. Corrections on catch 
information are sent to VIRIS I. 
CVR : registration and specification of fishing vessels 
C-Day : registration of consumption of days at sea 
COBRA : registration of controls and fixing of penalties. 
C. ACTIVITIES 
A total of 91 255 control hours were carried out. On average controls covered approximately 
12% of the total of 32 785 landings recorded. The level of control was the highest for the 
sole and plaice fisheries. 
Summary of controls and infringements by Member State in the Dutch North Sea E.E.Z. 
Member State 
Physical 
controls 
Air/sea 
sightings 
Infringements NL 
191 -
N/A 
44 B 
30 
127 
7 D 
13 
54 
4 DK 
7 
98 
2 F 
0 
1 
1 UK 
4 
87 
— Other 
2 
0 
2 
p:\c3l\rapports\ctrl\annexel\en §e 
Validation of landings, auction data, etc. 
All data from logbooks, sales information of auctions and landing declarations are compared 
in self-operating computer systems (100% cross-checking). In addition, for each vessel and 
for each fishing trip total catches in live weight are calculated per species. 
Monitoring of structural measures 
All fishing vessels must be registered in the Central Fishery Register. 
After registration a licence stipulates the fish species which may be targeted. 
Special documents are needed for fishing on quota species in general. 
A system of individual transferable quotas or group transferable quotas regulates the fisheries 
in certain quota species. 
A days-at-sea regulation limits the fishing effort per category for each vessel. 
Technical Monitoring of Market Measures 
Fresh fish presented for sale must be sold through an auction. 
After sorting, each lot is examined by a agent of the "Produktschap Vis" taking into account 
the grading and freshness of the fish. Controls on sizes are carried out on a sampled basis 
and through random checks. 
The producer organizations each year establish the withdrawal prices for the different 
products. 
Agents of the "Produktschap Vis" monitor compliance with withdrawal prices and each 
intervention is recorded and transmitted to the producer organisations. 
All sales information is subject to an administrative follow up. 
Physical control of the withdrawal process is carried out on a sample basis and in 1994 no 
irregularities were detected. 
«i 
p:\c3l\rapports\ctrl\annexel\en 
//. Evaluation 
A. General 
Quota management is mainly directed to three fleet categories, i.e. beam trawlers, a small 
number of specialized demersal vessels and pelagic freezer-trawlers. There is a potential 
overcapacity particularly in the beam trawler fleet. The pelagic fleet has shifted capacity 
from its traditional herring/mackerel fishery to species such as blue whiting and horse 
mackerel. 
The current quota management scheme and system of monitoring landings was introduced 
a few years ago, as a result of extensive discussions with the fishing industry, in order to 
stop the practice of unrecorded landings. These arrangements are based, in particular, on a 
limitation of fishing days to those necessary to catch vessel quotas as well as on the 
commitment of the fishing industry to market all quantities landed through auctions. 
Therefore, the fishing industry is co-responsible for the proper implementation of the agreed 
arrangements. Oversight and monitoring of quota compliance is the job of the AID. 
The EEZ covers a limited part of the North Sea. The coastline is relatively long and a 
number of ports (some which are located away from the coast) can be accessed by fishing 
vessels. Fishing vessels are only authorized to land their catches in designated ports after 
being authorized to do so by the competent authorities. 
A limited number of landings also takes place in other Member States, although these 
quantities are often offered for first sale in the Netherlands. Vessels from other Member 
States as well as third-country vessels land their catch frequently in the Netherlands. 
£<-) 
p:\c3l\rapports\ctrl\annexe l\en 
B. Strengths and weaknesses 
The reliability of catch recording has improved over recent years mainly because of 
reinforced quota management measures and an improved monitoring system. This seems in 
particular to be true for total quantities. The proper recording of catches by area cannot be 
guaranteed in all cases. Fishing effort has been adjusted on an individual basis to the 
allocated fishing possibilities, notably by reducing the number of fishing days. Dutch 
fisherman have also formed voluntary management groups. These are associations with their 
own articles of association and internal rules of procedure. These lay down, inter alia, that 
a fishing plan is to be drawn up and that all fish is to be sold through auctions. Also laid 
down is the fact that infringements of these arrangements can be sanctioned internally, in 
addition to any procedure in public law, and fines are specified. Landings are subject to 
administrative and physical inspection. Catch recording is fully computerized. Catch data, 
landing data and sales note data are cross-checked. 
Taking into account the role which some fishing ports play in the distribution of fish in 
Europe, the physical organization of landings and marketing in fishing ports seems not very 
transparent. AID's controls are systematic, in the sense that the whole chain from landing 
to sale is followed round the clock. This is to prevent landings from going unreported. The 
AID supplements this with checks at business premises. In such cases, fishery inspectors 
may be accompanied by officials from other specialised inspection agencies such as customs, 
tax officers and police. 
Aerial surveillance is carried out by the Navy and the police, whilst surveillance at sea is 
carried out by the Navy and by coastguard vessels operated by customs and the police. AID 
officials are always present during these controls and they carry out the actual controls 
themselves. However, the limited use made of these surveillance means suggests that 
fisheries inspection is not their priority. 
ss 
p:\c3l\rapports\ctrl\annexe 1 \en 
C. Conclusions 
The Commission has observed over recent years a real improvement in catch recording in 
the Netherlands. It is following with great interest the experience being gathered in the 
Netherlands, in particular the co-responsibility of the fishing industry in enforcing its 
commitment to market all quantities landed through auctions. 
The efficiency of the current arrangements has to be observed under varying levels of 
resource abundance to be able to assess the real strength of all components of the scheme. 
•?€ 
p:\c3l\rapports\ctrl\annexe l\en 
PORTUGAL 
I. Inspection and monitoring of fishing activities 
A. ORGANIZATION 
In Portugal a number of different departments and public organizations have responsibility 
for and authority to monitor fishing activities. 
These are listed below. 
1. Directorate-General for Fisheries - Inspection Service Department (DEI) 
- Structural Service Department (DE) 
2. Maritime Authority (ADAR) 
3. Inspection Brigade of National Guard (B) 
4. Inspectorate-General for Economic Activities (AG) 
5. Directorate-General for Customs (DAG) 
6. Directorate-General for Ports, Navigation, Transport, Maritime Safety (INS) 
All these organizations are involved to a greater or lesser extent in control and monitoring 
functions. 
The DEI is a separate department of the Directorate-General of Fisheries (Ministry of the 
Sea) and operates all along the coast, visiting ports and coordinating control activities with 
respect to landings in particular. 
The other five organizations listed above devote some of their resources and time to specific 
aspects of fishing industry. 
For example, the ADAR works along with the inspectors of DEI in the context of controls 
on fishing gear and vessel characteristics, whilst the agents of the INS are involved in 
monitoring the construction or modification of vessels granted fishing licences. 
Sea inspections are carried out by the Naval Service, which is under the control of the 
Ministry of Defence. 
p:\c3l\rapports\ctrl\annexel\en 
Patrol activity at sea is conducted at the request of the Ministry of the Sea, as is aerial 
surveillance is provided by the Air Force. The three services are linked through a series of 
computer networks which exchange information on sightings and boarding (see further 
below). 
Responsibility for monitoring the market and structural aspects of fisheries is also widely 
diffused. With respect to markets the following four organizations have specific 
responsibilities : 
Directorate General for Fisheries - Market and Quality Service Dept - DSM. 
- Inspection Service Dept. - DEI 
Inspection Brigade of the Republican National Guard - B 
Inspectorate General for Economic Activities (AG). 
Specialised services from the organizations listed above monitor marketing standard, prices, 
withdrawals and fish quality. 
Structural aspects - surveillance of fishing capacity and its modifications - are the 
responsibility of: 
Directorate-General for Fisheries - Structural Service Dept. - DE, 
Maritime Authority Agents (based in ports) - ADAR, 
Directorate-General of Ports Navigation and Maritime Transport Inspection and 
Maritime Safety - INS 
Fishing capacity (including adjustment of fishing activities) is monitored by means of 
joint action by the DE, the ADAR and INS. 
«"8 
p:\c31\rapports\ctrl\annexel\en 
B. RESOURCES 
1. Human 
The following table shows the number of inspectors and/or inspection agents from the 
various public authorities with responsibility for monitoring fishing activities by region of 
the country. 
Authority 
DGP 
ADAR 
B 
AG 
DAG NORTH 
(Valanca- Péniche) CENTRE 
(Ericeira-
Sesembra) SOUTH * 
(Setubal - U.R. Sâo 
Antonio) 
Number of inspectors 
-
25 
36 
21 
8 12.** 
18 
21 
24 
1 -
42 
40 
25 
6 
The ADAR performs other duties besides monitoring fishing activities and has a total of 
approximately 491 inspectors engaged in a wide range of monitoring activities. Equally, the 
B, AG and DAG allocate a small percentage of their overall personnel (approximately 2 500 
inspectors) to monitoring fishing activities. 
» 
* includes Autonomous Regions of the Azores and Madeira. 
** These are the Fisheries Inspectors from the Inspection Service Department of the DGP, 
based in Lisbon and who operate all along the main land coast as a type of "flying 
squad". 
^9 
p:\c3 t\rapports\ctrl\annexe I \en 
2. Vessels/aircraft 
The number of vessels from the Ministry of Defence/Navy carrying out inspection duties at 
sea is set out below, per type of vessel. 
"CACINE" class patrol boats 10 
"Joâo Coutenho" class corvettes 6 
"Baptista Anrade" class corvettes 4 
"Albatroz" class fast launches 5 
"Dragas" class fast launches 5 
Other inspection vessels (unspecified) 41 
Total 71 
These vessels, apart from fishery inspection duties, carry out mainly military and search and 
rescue operations. 
Aircraft 
Three Casa 100 AVIOCAR aircraft are deployed for aerial surveillance/inspection duties. 
3o 
p:\c3l\rapports\ctrl\annexel\cn 
3. Computerization 
The computer resources and network of the DGP, the Navy and Airforce are set out below. 
DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR FISHERIES 
FISHING ACTIVITIES INSPECTION DEPARTMENT 
SIFICAP 
SYSTEM OF INSPECTION AND 
MONITORING FOR FISHING ACTIVITIES 
STRUCTURE/LINK WITH THE NAVY AND AIR FORCE 
NAVY 
B D 
SIFICAP 
(Oracle) 
Fleet 
Licensing 
Missions 
Activity/Results X-25 
sec 
Unix - 5000/85 
Unix - 6000/65 
SunSparc2 - scc-Gl 
SunSparc2 - scc-G* 
SunSparc2 - scc-G3 AIR FORCE 
B NDP 
2 NCR 32/650 
Unix 5000/95 
SCC - Central 
Monitoring System 
BD - SISIFICAP 
Data Base 
BNDP - National 
Fisheries Data 
Base Fleet 
Licensing 
PIDDAC 
EAGGF 
Market sales 
Aquaculture 
Financial 
compensation and 
forfeiture 
Oil refunds 
Processed 
product 
production 
9-1 
p:\c3l\rapports\ctrl\annexe l\en 
PORTUGUESE NAVY 
STRUCTURE OF NAVAL SECTION - SIFICAP 
SCC 
DGP 
Fishing 
Activities 
Monitoring 
Department 
X-25 B.D. 
SIFICAP 
EMGFA 
DGM 
COMMAND 
DISTRICTS 
ETT 
CZM-North 
Unisys PW 
800 (standard-C) 
EPM 1 
MAIN NAVAL 
STATION 
1 Unisys 5000/55 
1 Microcomputer 
1 Graphics station 
4 Printers 
ETT 
CZM-South 
Unisys PW 800 B.N.D.P. 
DGP 
Directorate- General for 
Fisheries 
Navy 
section 
ETMs 
ETT 
CZM-
Azores • 
Unisys PW 
800 • 
27 vessels 
Standard-C 
Grid 1530 
Printer 
ETT 
CZM-
Madeira 
Unisys PW 
800 
BD - SIFICAP Data Base 
SCC - Central Monitoring Service 
BNDP - National Fisheries Data Base 
EMGFA - Armed Forces General Staff Headquarters 
EPM1 - Main Naval Station 
ETT - Land Terminal Station 
EMT - Mobile Terminal Station 
DGM - Navy Department 
CZM - Maritime Area Command 
Di 
p:\c3l\rapports\ctrl\annexe l\en 
PORTUGUESE AIR FORCE 
STRUCTURE /LINK WITH AIR SECTION-SIFICAP 
SCC B.D. 
DGP SIFICAP 
Fishing Activities Monitoring Department 
X-25 Emgfa AERO - C 
(standard-C) 
EPA 1 
Air Force operational command 
Unisys 
5000/Xenix/X-25 
Sun 
Sparc2/Xenix/X-25 
ETT-1 
SINTRA/ 
MAINLAND 
Unisys PW 800 
/MSS 
Unisys PW 800 
/Xenix/X-25 
Unisys 
MP14666/Dos B.N.D.P. 
DGP 
Directorate-General for Fisheries 
Air section 
ETT 
PORTO SANTO 
/MADEIRA 
Unisys PW 800 
/Xenix/X-25 
Unisys MP 
14666/Dos 3 ETM 
3 Casa 100 
3 MSs 
3 Grid 
1530/Xenix 
Standard-C 
Grid 1530 
Printer 
ETT 
LAJES/AZORES 
Unisys PW800 
/Xenix/X-25 
Unisys MP 
14666/Dos 
BD - SIFICAP Data Base 
SCC - Central Monitoring Service 
BNDP - National Fisheries Data Base 
EMGFA - Armed Forces General Staff Headquarters 
EPM1 - Main Naval Station 
ETT - Land Terminal Station 
EMT - Mobile Terminal Station 
DGM - Navy Department 
CZM - Maritime Area Command 
33 
p:\c31\rapports\ctrl\annexc l\cn 
C. ACTIVITIES 
1. Inspection Services 
The table below shows the number of port inspections made in 1994, per region of the 
country. 
Authority 
DGP 
ADAR 
B 
AG 
DAG 
Total NORTH 
Valance- Péniche CENTRE 
Ericeira-
Sesembra SOUTH 
Setubal U.R 
Sâo Antonio 
Azores/Madeira Total 
N ° of inspectors 
957 
2861 
1978 
3360 
251 
9407 203 
2233 
1176 
3840 
2 
74541 877 
3560 
2209 
4594 
241 
11481 2037 
8654 
5363 
11794 
494 
26342 
These inspections identified a total of 820 infringements divided into the following main 
categories: 
Failing to place fish in the registered auction centre 
Use of prohibited gear 
Logbook/landing declaration (irregularity) 
Minimum size violations 
Fishing without a licence 
Fishing in a prohibited area 
The table below shows the number of inspection days at sea per ICES division and per class 
of inspection vessel deployed. 
9^ 
p:\c31\rapports\ctrI\annexe l\en 
AREA 
Mainland 
(ICES IX,a,b) 
Madeira 
(CECAF) 
AZORES 
(ICES X) 
Total PATROLS 
400 
438 
-
838 CORVETTES 
365 
-
298 
663 FAST 
LAUNCHES 
1 624 
-
-
1,624 OTHERS 
1 109 
60 
63 
1 232 
INSPECTION DAYS AT SEA/VESSELS INSPECTED 
AREA INSPECTION DAYS VESSELS INSPECTED 
ICES IX a,b 3 498 8 000 
ICES X 361 282 
CECAF 498 48 
TOTAL 4 357 8 330 
The inspections at sea detected 181 vessels having committed an infringement of national or 
Community rules. 
2. Aerial surveillance 
The table below details the aerial inspection of fishery activities per ICES division. 
Area 
Mainland 
Madeira 
Azores 
Total N ' of flying 
hours 
367'15" 
93'35" 
166'35" 
627'35M N° of 
Missions 
126 
22 
33 
181. Aerial 
Detections 
747 
59 
135 
941 Inspected 
violations 
195 
8 
11 
214 Prosecutions 
117 
3 
3 
123 
p :\c3 l\rapports\ctrl\annexe 1 \en 3 s 
The table below details the aerial inspection activity per aircraft and the respective result. 
Aircraft 
1 
2 
3 Flying hours 
158 
184'35" 
285 Number of 
Missions 
56 
60 
65 Sightings 
320 
372 
249 
On the basis of aerial surveillance a total of 123 vessels were identified as having committed 
the following infringements: 
fishing in a prohibited zone 61 
fishing without a licence 60 
other 2 
Landings checked on unloading or at fish markets 
In 1994, approximately 440 000 landings were made by fishing vessels in national ports. 
Under Portuguese law the first sale of fresh or frozen fish must be held in a registered fish 
market and in 1994 approximately 80% of fish offered for sale was sold in a fish market 
which quantities were inspected by Doca pesca. 
The various national inspection authorities monitored approximately thirty to thirty five 
percent of all landings. 
Verification of landings by means of cross-checks 
Monitoring by means of cross-checking data from logbooks, landing declarations and sales 
notes was carried out with respect to the deep-sea fishing fleet and the inshore crustacean 
trawl fleet operating in Portuguese waters. The percentage of landings cross-checked was 
100% with respect to the fleets operating in the NAFO area off Norway and Spitsbergen and 
60% with respect to the crustacean fleet. 
S€ 
p:\c3 I\rapports\ctrl\annexe 1 \en 
//. Evaluation 
A. General 
Portugal has a very large EEZ. The narrowness of the continental shelf reduces the true 
extent of the fishing grounds considerably, however, apart from those for large pelagic 
species. 
The. coastline of mainland Portugal is moderately long. 
The market is typically southern European with demand for a wide range of species, 
including small-sized fish. 
Despite the setting of precautionary TACs, management by quota places serious constraints 
on the Portuguese hake and megrim fisheries. 
Another characteristic feature of the Portuguese fisheries is the lightness of the trawl 
employed. Static gear is used generally to fish for demersal species while purse seines take 
precedence in the small pelagic fisheries. The Portuguese fleet also includes a number of 
bottom trawlers which fish for a wide range of species. 
B. Strengths and weaknesses 
Means available for and assigned to monitoring 
The twelve inspectors directly responsible for inspection duties are too few in number to be 
able to act at the appropriate time at all landing places. The wide range of tasks that must 
be undertaken by the other agencies which may be involved rules out any quantitative 
assessment of their actual contribution to enforcement. In addition, the monitoring of catches 
in the NAFO zone and the waters of non-member countries restricts the resources allocated 
to inspection of catches from Community waters. 
99 
-Tl\—«„„rfcVr»rl\ir>r,»v,>l\pn 
Portugal is able to avail itself of considerable sea-patrol and aerial surveillance resources and 
assigns substantial effort to fisheries protection. 
It can avail itself of considerable data-processing and satellite-tracking resources. 
Organisation 
More so perhaps than in any other Member State, fisheries protection arrangements in 
Portugal are complicated by the involvement of a large number of agencies - if only in the 
compiling of statistics - and by the many tasks which most of these agencies undertake. 
The requirement that a large proportion of catches be marketed at auction centres is expected 
to make enforcement more effective. 
C. Monitoring of technical measures 
In the demersal fisheries, problems arise mainly in the case of trawling, as mentioned above. 
It is up to Portugal to define a strategy for preventing the use of illegal mesh sizes. The 
extent of the problem is reduced, however, by the size of the fleets in question and by the 
introduction of boxes for hake. Substantial effort appears to have been invested and 
considerable progress achieved in monitoring these boxes. Aerial surveillance, in particular, 
has been used, and satellite tracking undoubtedly makes the task easier. The existence of 
these boxes will not, however, mean that Member States do not have to monitor the other 
technical measures contained in the Community rules. 
In the case of pelagic species, steps will have to be taken to put an end to the liberties that 
fishermen have been taking regarding lawful minimum sizes. 
3£ 
p:\c3l\rapports\ctrI\annexel\en 
D. Monitoring of catches 
As far as the Commission is concerned, the procedure for converting landing declarations 
and logbooks into comprehensive statistics is not sufficiently reliable. Methods of validating 
the data contained in these documents have yet to be devised and estimates of the proportion 
of sales not recorded are too subjective. Doubts raised by the overall shortcomings of catch 
monitoring are especially serious in the case of stocks for which official catch statistics 
disclose a very high level of uptake. 
While Portugal has been a pioneer in the use of satellite surveillance, the installation of this 
type of equipment on board fishing vessels is still too recent and fragmentary to prevent 
unlawful landings or represent a real tightening-up of catch control. 
E. Conclusions 
Portugal has the requirements necessary to achieve rapid progress: catches must be sold at 
public auction centres, an extensive satellite monitoring network is in place and quotas can 
be exchanged with France, thus enabling it to offset the difficulties created by a number of 
very restricted quotas. It will still be necessary that quota exchanges with France do not shift 
the difficulties from one species to another (we are thinking mainly of anchovy), that the 
necessary human resources be deployed and that coordination problems between services do 
not result in the effectiveness of the arrangements being undermined. 
9© 
p:\c31\rapports\ctrl\annexe l\en 
UNITED KINGDOM 
I. Inspection and monitoring of fishing activities 
A. ORGANIZATION 
Responsibility for monitoring and enforcement is shared between four UK Departments: 
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF) 
Welsh Office Agriculture Department (WOAD) 
Scottish Office Agriculture and Fisheries Departments (SOAFD) 
Department of Agriculmre for Northern Ireland (DANI) 
In England and Wales surveillance and enforcement are undertaken by MAFF's Sea Fisheries 
Inspectorate assisted by the Royal Navy; in Scotland by the Scottish Fisheries Protection 
Agency (an executive agency of the Scottish Office) using its own ships and also with 
support from the Royal Navy; and in Northern Ireland by DANE s own Fisheries 
Inspectorate. Both MAFF and SFPA use aerial surveillance. The Inspectorates are charged 
with enforcing both national and Community fisheries legislation. 
Limited enforcement duties in England and Wales are also carried out by the various Sea 
Fisheries Committees (SFC). The SFCs operate independently of both MAFF and WOAD 
and their jurisdiction extends as far as the six-mile limit. Whilst the main task of the SFCs 
is to enforce local by-laws promoting and regulating fishing activities, they are also 
authorised to enforce certain technical conservation measures (minimum landing and mesh 
sizes) adopted nationally or by the European Union and, in that capacity, cooperate with the 
MAFF Sea Fisheries Inspectorate. 
The Sea Fisheries Inspectorate is also responsible for monitoring both marketing and 
structural measures. Monitoring of the former consists of controls on marketing standards 
involving both visual and specified sampling checks of fish offered for sale and checks on 
price arrangements in the context of fish withdrawn from sale. 
In the context of monitoring structural measures, the Sea Fisheries Inspectorate assist 
specialised services located in MAFF WOAD, SOAFD and DANI. 
"loo 
p:\c31\rapports\ctrl\annexel\en 
B. RESOURCES 
1. Human 
In order to discharge the various tasks assigned to it, the Sea Fisheries Inspectorate has a 
total of 169 shore-based inspectors. These are divided as follows. 
- England and Wales 81 
- Scotland 71 
- Northern Ireland 17 
Inspectors are located in districts/areas. 
ENGLAND SCOTLAND NORTHERN IRELAND 
North East 
Humberside 
East 
South East 
South West 
West 
Wales 
North West 
Head office 
Total 10 
2 
7 
12 
10 
7 
6 
6 
11 North 
North East 
Moray Firth 
East 
South East 
South West 10 
11 
13 
7 17 
North West 13 
71 17 
2. Vessels/aircraft 
A total of 17 inspections vessels are deployed for enforcement purposes in the following 
manner: 
Department Number 
MAFF 7 vessels operated and provided by Royal Navy 
SFPA 2 " " 
SFPA 7 vessels owned and operated by SFPA 
DANI 1 inshore vessel owned and operated by DANI 
With respect to the number of aircraft available for surveillance, 5 were put at the disposal 
of MAFF and SFPA in 1994. 
p:\c3l\rapports\ctrl\annexel\en 
SUMMARY OF EQUIPMENT AND SOFTWARE USED IN THE COLLECTION, 
PROCESSING AND ANALYSIS OF DATA REQUIRED BY THE CONTROL 
REGULATION - 1994. 
MAFF (covering England and Wales) 
Statistics required by the control Regulation are collected mainly by Inspectorate staff at port 
offices, manually checked and keyed into micro-computers connected to the main 
government databases. Data is again checked before being reflected on the main databases 
(which hold vessel information for England, Wales and Northern Ireland). Further credibility 
checks are applied by the Fisheries Statistics Unit, who compile the catch and landings 
statistics to meet EC regulatory requirements. 
HARDWARE SOFTWARE 
Headquarters Statistics Unit 
Compaq System PRO XL Fileserver SCO-UNIX SPSS connected to 
9 PCs (Siemens Nixdorf and Compaq MAFFNET 
486) connected to Fileserver, MAFFNET EXCEL, SPSS, Word for Windows, 
and 6 main control, landings and vessel Powerpoint, Access, Lotus Spreadsheet, 
databases Reflections, Relay Gold, anti-virus. PC 
Several high quality printers mail 
DFR Lowestoft 
processing catch statistics INGRES ABF/VISION application. 
Digital VAX cluster - Vax 17610 FORTRAN programmes 
Vax 6510. Micro Vax 3100. HSJ disk 
storage array 
Ethernet LAN connecting to MAFF net 
WAN (for remote access by SFI and HQ) 
INGRES relational database management 
system 
Transfer of data from DFR to Guildford Digital pathworks networking software 
(MAFF IT HQ) - Relay Gold file transfer software. 
IBM-compatible PC 
SFI Licensing Desk (HQ) and Port 
Offices Microsoft Office, Anti-virus, 
37 Apricot Xen PC Reflections 4, 
15 Apricot Xen LS II bespoke Ingres V6 package for data 
17 Siemens Nixdorf PC entry. 
1 Compaq PC (486) | PC-mail (X 400) _J 
p:\c3l\rapports\ctrl\annexel\en 10£ 
SFPA and Scottish Office Agricultural Dept (SOAFD) (covering Scotland) 
The current system uses facilities on a central Scottish Office IBM mainframe computer. The 
facilities listed below are being developed to fulfil the requirements of the control 
Regulation. The equipment is in place and is being used to capture information for the 
existing system. A new database is under development which should be operational early in 
1995. 
Equipment 
There are some 36 microcomputers at the 22 port offices to capture information on fishing 
activities (and to issue licences). The full system will allow linkage to the central processor 
and local offices will be able to access the central database, mainly through pre-written 
interrogations using ORACLE. The HQ network has two file-servers available. The new 
Fisheries Information System (FIN) database will be held on an ICL DRS6000 Level 750 
server and is being developed in ORACLE. This server also supports database and SAS 
software. An ICL DRS6000 Level 450 file server supports the ICI Team Office software 
providing e-mail facilities etc. Back-up and archiving is to tape. There are 26 ICL ErgoPro 
D433d(486) machines with 20 mb RAM and 6 ICL 486 machines with 16mb RAM on the 
Headquarters network supporting the activities.of the Fisheries Group. The machines are 
fully networked. The main access to the FIN database will be through pre-written ORACLE 
functions but, in addition, 4 machines are equipped with a wide range of SAS software for 
use by the Statistics Unit. Additional machines (currently used for development) will be 
added to the network as the system nears completion. The network supports a variety of 
good quality printers and further ancillary facilities. The hardware and software is itemised 
below for ease of reference. 
/JO 3 
p:\c3l\rapports\ctrl\annexel\en 
HARDWARE SOFTWARE 
Headquarters 
ICL DRS6000 Level 750 file server Database and SAS software. Fisheries 
Information System (FIN) to be 
developed in ORACLE (from early 1995) 
ICL DRS 6000 Level 450 file server ICL Team Office software (e-mail etc) 
Backup/archiving on tape 
26 ICL Ergo PRO D433 (486) - 20 mb ORACLE packages and SAS software on 
RAM 4 of these machines. These machines will 
access the FIN database from early 1995 
6 ICL 486 CX - 16 mb RAM which will contain landings, sightings, 
(networked) boardings and prosecution information, 
several high quality printers The number of machines and the exact 
functions available are yet to be decided. 
Ports 
36 microcomputers (ICL Ergo PRO Database. Windows, Microsoft Office. 
D4/25 d (486) - 16/20 mb RAM 
and Hewlet Packard Laserjet 4si printers 
A o^f 
p :\c3 l\rapports\ctrl\annexe 1 \en 
DANI (covering Northern Ireland) 
In Northern Ireland statistics are also collected, checked and keyed into microcomputers by 
port staff connected to a central mainframe database. Links with MAFF's database are being 
progressed for periodic capture of this data. 
HARDWARE SOFTWARE 
Headquarters Database management/application 
OLIVETI M380-XP9 (File Server) software - SIR 3.2. SAS 6.03 
Network software NOVELL 2.2 
WANG PC 321/16 & 1414 monitor (operating system DOS 5.0.) 
comms : MASS BREAKOUT 
REFLECTIONS 2 
BREAKOUT REPRO 
BREAKOUT PLUS 
Anti-virus : DR SOLOMONS 
J2, catch and validation programmes 
written by DANI in DATAFLEX 
OLIVETTI PC M290-30 incl. monitor TAPE backup software 
(with tape streamer) NOVELL software to access server 
NEWBURN PC : 486 DX 33 incl VGA NOVELL software to access server 
monitor 
2 no Olivetti PC M290-30 incl. monitor As Newburn machine - contingency port 
PC (see below) 
LASERJET III printer 
EPSON FX-1050 dot-matrix printer 
(COMPAQ PC : DESKPRO 4/33i incl. provided by MAFF for MAFF net WAN 
monitor. development. 
Ports Operating system : DOS 5.0 
Portavogie. Ardglass. Kilkeel. Comms : REPRO(DATAFLEX internal 
Londonderry. modem) 
J2, catch & validation programmes 
WANG PC 321/168 & 1414 monitor | written by DANI in DATAFLEX. | 
p:\c31\rapports\ctrl\annexel\en ^oS 
C. ACTIVITIES 
1. Inspections on land 
In 1994, the Sea Fisheries Inspectorate conducted a total of 12 434 inspections on fishing 
vessels in United Kingdom ports. In addition, a further 64 044 inspections/checks were 
carried out at auctions, markets and in the offices offish merchants and agents. The majority 
of vessel inspections took place in Scotland (in the North and, North East Districts 8.774) 
while 2.768 and 892 were undertaken in England/Wales and Northern Ireland respectively. 
Inspections in ports 
Infringements detected during port inspections by nationality of vessel 
Main types of infringement 
Logbook/landing declaration 
Prohibited gear 
Undersized fish 
Unauthorised fishing 
Vessel marking 
Other 
Total (909) Nationality 
Belgian 
1 
1 Danish 
1 
1 
2 British 
776 
19 
106 
2 
1 
2 
906 
In addition to conducting inspections in port, the Sea Fisheries Inspectorate is also engaged 
in the cross-checking and validation of logbook and sales notes/landing declarations. While 
no precise figures are available on the percentage of total landings validated by physical 
checks on the vessels discharging, catches are physically checked wherever possible. On the 
other hand, auctions are visited by the Inspectorate on a regular basis and particular attention 
is paid to the detection and inspection of off-market landings. 
•10o 
p :\c3 l\rapports\clrl\annexe l \en 
In 1994, the Sea Fisheries Inspectorate conducted random checks to monitor compliance with 
the transport-of-fish provisions of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93. No details are 
available as to the results of these checks. 
2. Inspections at sea 
At sea, the 17 fishery inspection vessels at the disposal of the national control authorities 
made 4 509 boarding of which 2 495 were on national and 2 014 were on foreign vessels. 
The following table indicates the number of areas patrolled, the duration of patrols and the 
number of boarding of UK and non-UK vessels during 1994. 
ICES Area 
Ha 
IV 
Vb 
Via VIb 
VII 
VIII 
TOTAL N ° of days in 
area 
5 
1 469 
5 
837 
728 
51 
3 095 N ° of boarding in 
UK 
0 
1 420 
0 
659 
415 
1 
2 495 non-UK vessels 
4 
935 
1 
560 
513 
1 
2 014 
Inspection at sea 
Total number of vessels (by nationality) detected in an infringement (343). 
Nationality 
Main types of 
infringment 
N° of vessels 
showing 
infringement 
Logbook/land, 
declaration 
Prohibited gear UK 
10 
28 
30 Belg. 
19 
11 
7 Ger 
2 
1 Dan. 
15 
5 
1 Span. 
8 
6 
2 Fren. 
32 
15 
6 Irish 
56 
1 
2 Dut 
8 
4 
3 Total 
150 
71 
51 
'lo'} 
p :\c3 l\rapports\ctrl\annexe 1 \en 
Nationality 
Main types of 
infringment 
Illegal fishing 
Prohibited area 
Illegal catches 
Directed 
fishery 
By-catches 
Undersized 
fish 
Marking of 
vessel 
Other 
Total UK 
1 
1 
13 
10 
26 
119 Belg. 
2 
3 
1 
43 Ger 
3 Dan. 
3 
1 
6 
31 Span. 
5 
1 
22 Fren. 
2 
2 
16 
73 Irish 
1 
1 
1 
62 Dut 
1 
2 
18 Total 
5 
4 
3 
23 
30 
34 
371 
1=> s 
p:\c3I\rapports\ctrl\annexel\en 
2. Results of aerial surveillance by area 
With respect to the aerial surveillance conducted by the aircraft at the disposal of the national 
control authorities, the following table indicates the location and results achieved in 1994. 
ICES AREA Number of sightings of Number of sightings of 
UK vessels foreign vessels 
lia 0 6 
IVa 8 632 1 575 
IVb 6 026 2 104 
IVc 663 1 172 
Vb 0 15 
Via 3 759 1 491 
VIb 43 52 
Vila 4 276 464 
Vlld 941 861 
Vile 2_m 845 
Vllf 923 543 
Vllg 338 1 863 
Vllh 2.3 859 
VIIj 36 561 
VIII 5 23 
Total 28 016 12 434 
D:\c31\raDDorts\ctrl\annexe l\en •lo g 
IL Evaluation 
A. General 
The United Kingdom has a well developed national fishery control system, which is matched 
by the allocation of substantial resources. These resources have to be seen against the 
background characterizing the UK fisheries sector: the UK has a coastline of some 
16 000 km and some 850 000 km2 of water under her jurisdiction. At 1 January 1995, the 
UK fishing fleet comprised some 3 000 licensed vessels over 10 metres, and a further 5 800 
licensed vessels under 10 metres which mainly fish inshore within the 6 mile limit. There 
are over 450 locations at which fish may be landed and more than 1 500 businesses engaged 
in the merchandising, processing, distribution or transportation of fish. In addition to UK 
vessels, up to 1 000 vessels from other Member States and non-member countries fish in UK 
waters. 
B. Strengths and weaknesses 
The regional significance of the different fisheries certainly varies considerably. This does 
not, however, justify the major disparity between the number of quayside inspections/checks 
of vessels undertaken in Scotland (North and North East District) and the number of 
quayside inspections/checks of vessels undertaken elsewhere in the United Kingdom. This 
disparity may partly reflect the different levels of fishing activity and be affected by the 
division of inspection competence among several different authorities, if they are not using 
the same definition of inspection. 
The United Kingdom authorities have stated that the main reason for the disparity is 
the absence of standard definitions for land-based inspections and of a comprehensive 
recording system for inspectoral activity in England and Wales. In their view the 
development of standard definitions for inspectoral activity is an issue which needs 
to be pursued on a Community-wide basis, otherwise it is not possible to make 
meaningful comparisons of enforcement activity between one Member State and 
another. This is already evident from the material which the Commission publishes 
annually on vessel inspections at sea and prosecutions. So far as the situation within 
the UK is concerned, it has not been considered necessary in the past to maintain a 
complete inventory of the checks undertaken by the Sea Fisheries Inspectorate for 
England and Wales. The situation is being reviewed and changes are likely to be 
instituted during the course of 1996 which will bear fruit in 1997 and be reflected in 
the annual report on enforcement activity to be submitted in 1998. 
n :\c3 l\rannorts\ctrl\annexe 1 \en 
The majority of offences detected and prosecuted in the United Kingdom during 1994 related 
to apparent infringements committed and detected at sea or as a result of quayside 
inspections/checks. On the other hand, there appears to be less inspection effort/checks and 
follow-up action undertaken at certain auctions, markets, merchants, agents etc., which 
might partly be a consequence of the concentration of distribution centres and other 
downstream infrastructure in particular districts (e.g. North West District). However, the UK 
report states that precise figures cannot be given for the percentage of total landings validated 
by physical checks on vessels and in auctions. The figures presented in the UK report may 
not, therefore, reflect reality in all cases. On the other hand, the importance of undertaking 
inspections/checks in the downstream sector is emphasised by the tendency of vessels to land 
catches as close as possible to the fishing grounds, sometimes at ports which are not 
permanently supervised, which makes it difficult for the inspection authorities to verify 
logbooks/landing declarations. 
The validation of information provided in logbooks, landing declarations and sales notes 
needs to be consistently supplemented with regular physical checks on fishing vessels and 
in the auctions. In this regard, the United Kingdom is unable to provide precise figures on 
the percentage of total landings cross-checked accordingly. On the other hand, the checking 
of transport documentation, which appeared to be limited in 1994, will assist in verifying 
that catches landed are properly accounted for in logbooks and landing declarations. 
It is the view of the United Kingdom authorities that enforcement activity should be 
focused at sea and at the point of landing. Their experience has shown that it is 
difficult, time-consuming and costly to bring successful enforcement action based on 
checks undertaken after the point of landing. This reflects the need to satisfy rigorous 
evidential standards in the UK courts. There is little to be achieved from carrying out 
inspections if they are unlikely to have an impact on compliance by being backed by 
successful court action. 
The Commission notes the special problems posed in monitoring the activities of British-
registered vessels which land substantial volumes of their catches in other Member States and 
the initiatives undertaken on a bilateral basis to achieve satisfactory solutions and to ensure 
compliance with quotas. 
-411 
p:\c3l\rapports\ctrl\annexe 1 \en 
The technical monitoring of structural measures is undertaken by different organisations in 
the United Kingdom. The technical monitoring of marketing standards has posed special 
problems where the standards have conflicted with traditional trading practice. 
In its report, the United Kingdom states that the enforcement action taken has a significant 
deterrent effect on preventing illegal activity although it is not possible to quantify the level 
of deterrence. It is the Commission's view that it is important to develop certain parameters 
which will allow it to focus on the most effective monitoring and enforcement measures. 
The Commission acknowledges the efficient and competent manner with which the United 
Kingdom has tackled the enforcement task at sea and, in particular, the steps that have been 
taken to improve the monitoring of the albacore fishery. However, despite the considerable 
experience of the competent authorities in the United Kingdom and the significant resources 
deployed for controlling fishing activities, "black landings" have been reported from several 
important fisheries in recent years. From the enforcement perspective, this indicates that 
when quota restrictions are set without effective effort limitations, then catch limitations are 
extremely difficult to implement. It is anticipated by the Commission that the administrative 
inquiry undertaken in Scotland, during 1994/1995, to investigate the landing of catches 
which may not have been properly accounted for under national quota allocations, will result 
in appropriate remedial action which will prevent the reoccurrence of this problem. 
C. Conclusions 
Apart from some shortcomings, in particular concerning the closure of fisheries and the 
prosecution of infringements, the means and the commitment invested in control and 
inspection in the UK provide an example of how the CFP should be enforced. On the other 
hand, the UK will have to undertake supplementary efforts to further adapt its capacities to 
available resources. 
A^z, 
p :\c3 l\rapports\ctrl\annexe 1 \en 
ANNEX II - TABLES 
T) 3 
p:\c3l\rapports\ctrl\annexe2\en 
Table 1 
Means theoretically available for fisheries control in the Member States 
Member State 
Belgium 
Denmark 
Germany 
Greece 
Spain 
France 
Ireland 
Italy 
Netherlands 
Portugal 
United Kingdom Inspectors 
8 
143 
30 
1803 
304 
1445 
18 
6 
58 
12 
169 Vessels 
5 
212 
30 
31 
35 
10 
300 
i 
J 
71 
17 Planes 
1 
4 
1 
16 
5 Helicopters 
2 
Vessels belonging to the Naval Service. 
Some of these vessels belong to the Ministry of the Environment. 
Greece: Primary role played by the Coast Guard Service which is based in all ports (180). In 
theory one person could conduct inspections. 
Spain : This figure only includes the national Madrid-based inspections. In addition there are 232 
inspectors employed by the various authorities in the Autonomous Regions. 
France : Figure is based on 1) Unités Littoral Affaires Maritimes (88) 
2) Gendarme Maritime (44) 
3) Seagoing inspectors from Affaires Maritimes (12). 
Italy Potentially there are 1 200 persons engaged in some form of fisheries inspection work. 
The real figure is probably much smaller. 
p:\c31\rapports\ctrl\annexe2\en 1^ M 
Table 2 
Sharing of responsibilities for fisheries inspection in the Member States 
Member State 
Belgium 
Denmark 
Germany 
Greece 
Spain 
France 
Ireland 
Italy 
Netherlands 
Portugal 
United Kingdom Total number of 
competent 
authorities 
5 
-> 
7 
3 
2+autonomous 
5 
6 
6 
7 
6 Regional 
authorities 
no 
no 
yes 
no 
yes 
no 
no 
no 
no 
no 
yes Specialized service 
competent up to 
first sale 
yes 
yes 
yes 
no 
yes 
no 
yes 
no 
yes 
no 
yes 
A ns 
p:\c3l\rapports\ctrl\annexe2\en 
Table 3 
Inspections carried out annually by Member States 
Country 
Belgium 
Denmark 
Germany 
Spain 
France 
Ireland 
Holland 
Portugal 
United 
Kingdom Onshore 
inspections 
208 
4573 (+5174) 
10539 
No Info 
10500 
26342 
12434 
(+64044) Offshore 
inspections 
68 
616 
4488 
8728 
884 
• 
8330 
4509 Fleet size 
('000 kW) 
69 
416 
166 
1823 
1011 
191 
509 
426 
1137 Fleet size 
('000 GT) 
24 
97 
78 
579 
183 
52 
170 
140 
203 Fleet size 
(approx. 
number) 
170 
4300 
1600 
20100 
6800 
1400 
1000 
12900 
10300 
Source: Member States' reports and Eurostat 
TU 
p :\c3 l\rapports\ctrl\annexe2\en 
TABLE 3a 
RESULTS OF INSPECTIONS OF FISHING ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT BY THE AUTHORITIES OF THE MEMBER STATES IN 1994 
Belgium 
(T) 
(A) 
(S) 
(R) Country in which vessels are registered 
Total of 
73 
2 
70 B 
60 
2 
58 D DK 
1 E FIN F 
4 
4 IRL 
8 
8 NL P UK S Others 
-J Denmark 
(T) 
(A) 
(S) 
(R) Country in which vessels are registered 
Total of 
466 
65 
70 
331 B 
1 
1 D 
1 
1 DK 
457 
64 
69 
324 E FIN 
2 
1 
1 F IRL NL 
2 
2 P UK 
1 
1 S Others 
2 
2 
Germany 
(T) 
(A) 
(S) 
(R) Country in which vessels are registered 
Total of 
366 
232 
235 
57 B 
2 
1 
• 1 D 
337 
218 
220 
57 DK 
111 
7 
4 E FIN F IRL NL 
15 
6 
9 P UK 
1 
1 S Others 
Greece 
T = TOTAL 
p\c3l\rapporls\ctrl\anncxc2\cn A = OFFICIAL WRITTEN WARNINGS S - ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTIES R - INFRINGEMENTS BROUGHT TO COURT 
Spain 
(T) 
(A) 
(S) 
(R) Country in which vessels are registered 
Total of 
11.812 
not available 
not available 
not available B D DK E 
11.762 FIN F 
5 IRL 
3 NL 
2 P 
27 UK 
5 S Others 
8 
France 
Data not 
completed (T) 
(A) 
(S) 
(R) Country in which vessels are registered 
Total of 
2.021 
352 
135 
1.113 B 
6 
3 D DK E 
169 
33 FIN F 
1.832 
352 
135 
1.077 IRL NL P UK S Others 
14 
Ireland 
(T) 
(A) 
(S) 
(R) Country in which vessels are registered 
Total of 
342 
234 
2 
67 B 
1 
1 D 
1 
1 DK 
2 
.1 
1 E 
41 
12 
29 FIN F 
15 
15 IRL 
220 
167 
2 
12 NL P UK 
62 
38 
24 S Others 
Italy 
Luxembourg 
T = TOTAL 
p:\c3l\rapports\ctrl\annexc2\en A = OFFICIAL WRITTEN WARNINGS S = ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTIES R = INFRINGEMENTS BROUGHT TO COURT 
Netherlands 
(T) 
(A) 
(S) 
(R) Country in which vessels are registered 
Total of 
379 
114 
265 B 
24 
12 
12 D 
10 
4 
6 DK 
23 
-5 
18 E FIN F 
2 
2 IRL NL 
298 
88 
210 P UK 
18 
3 
15 S Others 
4 
2 
2 
Austria 
Portugal 
Not received (T) 
(A) 
(S) 
(R) Country in which vessels are registered 
Total of 
795 
21 
132 
642 B D DK E 
33 
5 
28 FIN ' F IRL NL P 
762 
21 
127 
614 UK S Others 
Finland 
Not 
applicable in 
1994 (T) 
(A) 
(S) 
(R) Country in which vessels are registered 
Total of B D DK E FIN F IRL NL P UK S Others 
Sweden 
Not 
applicable in 
1994 (T) 
(A) 
(S) 
(R) Country in which vessels are registered 
Total of D DK E FIN F IRL 
, NL P UK S Others 
T = TOTAL 
p:\c3l\rapports\ctrl\annexc2\cn A = OFFICIAL WRITTEN WARNINGS S = ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTIES R = INFRINGEMENTS BROUGHT TO COURT 
United 
Kingdom 
(T) 
(A) 
(S) 
(R) Country in which vessels are registered 
Total of 
1.140 
968 
162 D 
25 
17 
8 DK 
1 
1 E 
18 
12 
6 FIN 
14 
4 
10 F IRL 
41 
36 
5 NL 
6 
5 
1 P UK 
10 
8 
2 S 
1.017 
880 
127 Others 
8 
6 
2 
EC 
(T) 
(A) 
(S) 
(R) Country in which vessels are registered 
Total of 
17.394 
1.988 
574 
2.707 B 
119 
33 
• 1 
82 D 
350 
222 
221 
65 DK 
512 
89 
73 
349 E 
12.019 
16 
5 
100 FIN 
2 
1 
1 F 
1.899 
403 
135 
1.088 IRL 
237 
172 
2 
21 NL 
327 
102 
9 
214 P 
789 
21 
127 
614 UK 
1.104 
921 
1 
167 S Others 
36 
8 
6 
6 
T = TOTAL 
p:\c3l\rapports\ctrl\annexe2\en A = OFFICIAL WRITTEN WARNINGS S = ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTIES R = INFRINGEMENTS BROUGHT TO COURT 
Table 4 
Completion of basic administrative documents 
Country 
Belgium 
Denmark 
Germany 
Spain 
France 
Ireland 
Netherlands 
Portugal 
United 
Kingdom Percentage of 
logbooks 
returned 
-95% 
>95% 
Almost 100% 
100% Percentage of 
landing decls. 
returned 
As for sales notes 
As for sales notes 
>95% 
Almost 100% 
100% 
Approx. 80% (by 
Docapesca) 
>99% for TAC 
species Percentage of 
sales notes 
returned 
-95% 
95% within 48 
hours for TAC 
species 
>95% 
As for landing 
decl. 
100% 
As for landing 
decl. 
As for landing 
decl. Comments 
Intensive follow-
up of missing 
logbook data 
No information in 
the report 
No information in 
the report 
The sale of certain 
species is 
inspected 100% 
Emphasis put on 
NAFO and 
Morocco fisheries, 
and in-shore 
shellfish trawl 
fleet 
Source : Member States' reports 
p:\c31\rapports\ctrl\annexe2\en 'Ul 
Table 5 
Estimated catches of vessels not required to keep logbooks or return landing declarations 
Belgium Belgium has no vessels under 10 m and landings outside auctions are 
very small (16 coastal vessels in Ostende). 
Denmark Fishing vessels without a logbook are licensed for a specific area and 
their catch is recorded using sales notes. There is no mention of catches 
outside auctions in the report. 
Germany Catches taken by vessels under 10 m are recorded by the Federal 
Fisheries inspectors. Vessels have to report their total catches for each 
species and area monthly. 
Catches taken by 1 218 vessels under 10 m at 13 ports are sampled Spain 
France No information in the report. 
The quantities caught by vessels under 10 m are not registered. The 
report says that there is access to dealers' records but it does not say 
how (and if) the information is used. Ireland 
Netherlands There is no professional fishery with vessels under 10 m. Sporting 
vessels are not authorized to fish for TAC species. 
There is no specific mention of non-logbook vessels in the report. It 
merely says that all landings should be reported at auctions. Portugal 
United 
Kingdom No information in the report. 
Source : Member States' reports 
^z z. 
p:\c31\rapports\ctrl\annexe2\en 
Table 6 
Validation of catch data in the Member States 
Belgium Cross-checks are made between logbook data and landing declaration/sales 
note for approx. 75% of all landings. The position information in the 
logbook is, furthermore, verified against aerial position information received 
from Netherlands, UK and Belgium. 
Denmark The system matches logbook information with landing declarations. Missing 
information is automatically identified in this process and a follow-up 
procedure is started. 
Cross-checks between logbooks, landing declarations, and sales notes are 
made for approx. 95% of all landings by vessels more than 10 m long. Germany 
Spain There is no information in the report. 
France There is no information in the report. 
Ireland It is difficult to say from the report if there is any detection of missing data. 
Some cross-checking is done but not systematically. 
Netherlands 100% cross-checking of logbook, landing declaration and sales note data. 
There are no cross-checks in general but for specific fisheries such as 
NAFO and Morocco all documents are cross-checked, and for the in-shore 
shellfish trawl fleet approx. 60% are cross-checked. Portugal 
UK The report does not state explicitly whether missing data are detected or if 
there is cross-validation of data. 
Source : Member States' reports 
12 
p:\c3I\rapports\ctrI\annexe2\en 
Table 7 
Overall increases in discard and wrongful catch rates according to Biais (1995) 
Pelagic 
Discard rate 
Rate of declaration of wrongful catches 
Demersal North Sea (related sectors)1 
Discard rate 
Rate of declaration of wrongful catches 
Demersal North Atlantic2 
Discard rate 
Rate of declaration of wrongful catches 
Demersal South Atlantic3 
Discard rate 
Rate of declaration of wrongful catches 1984 
0,6% 
7,6% 
12,0% 
8,0% 
13,0% 
3,0% 
1,5% 
7,5% 1988 
1,2% 
21,0% 
11,0% 
20,5% 
7.0% 
5,4% 
2,0% 
6,0% 1994 
2.2% 
17,0%o 
13,0% 
11,5% 
.0,0% 
11,0% 
3,0% 
0,5% 
1 ICES I, II, III, IV, Vlld 
2 ICES VI and Vila 
3 ICES VII excluding Vila and Vlld, VIII, IX 
p:\c3I\rapports\ctrl\annexe2\en «u V 
ANNEX III - SATELLITE MONITORING 
p:\c31\rapports\ctrl\annexe3\en 41$ 
In June 1993, the Fisheries Council has adopted the new fisheries control regime, later 
enacted as Council Regulation 2847/93. New technologies were introduced as a tool for 
improved fisheries control. Art. 3 of Regulation 2847/93 provides for the carrying out by 
Member States of pilot projects on continuous position monitoring. The implementation 
rules for the pilot projects are laid down in Commission Regulation 897/94 of 22 April 
1994. The operational phase of the pilot projects covers the period from October 1994 to 
December 1995. The Commission should soon afterwards submit a proposal for a Council 
Regulation on satellite monitoring, on the basis of the experience gained, in order to allow 
the Council to take a decision in the matter. 
The pilot projects are fully or partly operational in nine Member states (BELGIUM, 
DENMARK, GERMANY, GREECE, SPAIN, FRANCE, IRELAND, the 
NETHERLANDS and the UNITED KINGDOM). More than 200 fishing vessels have been 
equipped with a "blue box" (not taking into account the situation in Portugal where 
MONICAP is operational with 92 trawlers). Three different satellite systems are being 
tested: CLS-ARGOS, EUTELTRACS and GPS/INMARSAT. More than ten months after 
the starting date, the project of one Member state (ITALY) is still not operational. 
Following the enlargement of the Community, DENMARK, FINLAND and SWEDEN 
carry out a joint pilot project. 
During the trials, the Flag state has to inform the Coastal state at regular intervals of the 
position of the vessels participating in its pilot project. The basic underlying principle is 
the transmission of the position from the fishing vessel through the flag state to the coastal 
state. Member states so far failed to exchange position reports among themselves on a 
regular basis, although there is a growing support for the use of a data exchange format 
proposed by Denmark as well as for the use of X.25 as data exchange protocol. The data 
exchange is a very important part of the pilot projects. A failure to exchange data between 
flag states and coastal states in a satisfactory way would undermine the credibility of the 
decentralised system architecture preferred by most Member states. 
Al G 
p:\c3l\rapports\ctrl\annexe3\en 
As from 1996, FIDES, the Fisheries Data Exchange System designed for electronic data 
exchange between the Member states and the Commission, might provide a more general 
solution for data communication problems. During 1995, validation projects in several 
areas (catch reporting, licences, fleet register and electronic mail) will attempt to proof the 
feasibility of the FIDES concept. 
From the continuous monitoring of a fishing vessel's position, speed and course, certain 
conclusions can be drawn on the location and duration of its fishing activities. An 
obligation to report catches on board on entry and exit of the fishing zone, as well in 
certain intervals when being in that zone, would complete the information gained from 
such system. Fishing activities in prohibited or temporarily closed areas would 
immediately become apparent. Inspection vessels could operate in a much more focussed 
way. "Black" landings at night or in remote ports without inspection presence would be 
more easily detected. 
^3. 
p:\c3l\rapports\ctrl\annexe3\en 

ISSN 0254-1475 
COM(96) 100 final 
DOCUMENTS 
EN 03 
Catalogue number : CB-CO-96-108-EN-C 
ISBN 92-78-01391-9 
Office for Official Publications of the European Communities 
L-2985 Luxembourg