COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Brussels, 19.02.1998 
COM(1998) 92 final 
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION 
TO THE COUNCIL AND 
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 
FISHERIES MONITORING 
UNDER THE 
COMMON FISHERIES POLICY 

FISHERIES MONITORING UNDER THE C.F.P. 
Introduction 
The common fisheries policy has been marked in the past five years by major changes in the field of 
fisheries monitoring, the first stage of which was the adoption of the 1993 fisheries monitoring and 
control regulation, in force since January 1994. In spite of the progress achieved the situation has not 
always been fully satisfactory, as evidenced by the various reports drawn up by the Commission. 
While significant additional progress is expected following the implementation of recent monitoring-
related decisions, this alone will not be sufficient, and additional measures are therefore needed. 
Making use of a perspective that is not available when drafting an annual report,1 this document takes 
stock of the overall situation and analyses the potential for progress. Part One consists of an overview 
of what has been achieved since 1993, Part Two contains an analysis of the major gaps that remain 
and possible ways of remedying them, while the third and final part lists the fields in which closer 
scrutiny or additional measures are required. 
I. PROGRESS SINCE 1992 
In 1992 the Commission highlighted major weaknesses in the field of fisheries monitoring.^ The 
legislation concerned has since undergone major changes, from the adoption in 1993 of a new 
fisheries monitoring and control regulation, wider ranging and more precise than its predecessor, to 
the Council's adoption in December 1996 of a major plan for extending satellite monitoring.^ 
Substantial budget resources have been deployed both nationally and by the Community as a whole. 
Increasing use is being made of modern technology (information technology and satellites). In 
addition to instruments for the management of catches, a number of schemes have been introduced to 
regulate fishing effort. While success has been patchy, owing mainly to slowness in reporting in 
certain Member States, what has been achieved is nothing short of remarkable. In the case of Spain 
and Portugal the arrangements concerned have replaced a much more rigid scheme that was in force 
before those two Member States were fully integrated the CFP - without adversely affecting the 
previous equilibrium. This shows that flexibility and effectiveness can go hand in hand, in particular 
when modern technology is used. 
1 The annual reports do, however, contain detailed information, in particular some figures not given here -
COM (96) 100 final of 18 March 1996 and COM(97) 226 final of 13 June 1997. 
2 SEC(92) 394 final of 6 March 1992 
3 Regulation (EC) No 686/97 amending Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 establishing a control system 
applicable to the common fisheries policy (OJ No L 102, 19.4.1997) 
mmmmÊBÊgmmÊMBm 1 
In the world generally, major changes in mentality and in the legal environment have taken place in 
recent years in the wake of the 1992 Rio Conference. The instruments adopted (the 19941 FAO 
Agreement on compliance with management measures, the 1995 Code of Conduct for Responsible 
Fisheries and the 19952UN Agreement on Straddling Stocks) mirror those changes, with strict 
adherence to a policy of pursuing purely national interests being gradually replaced by an approach 
based on international cooperation. The regional fisheries organisation in which those decisive 
developments were first witnessed was NAFO (Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organisation), where 
new rules have been adopted and vital experiments have been conducted since 1995. Fisheries there 
are now subject to some of the tightest and most effective controls. Another framework is being 
introduced under the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Convention (NEAFC). Under agreements with 
non-Community countries protocols are being implemented and experiments are being carried out in 
cooperation with the countries concerned. Generally speaking, the European Union is acting as a 
driving force in introducing fisheries control arrangements and, therefore, in putting the principle of 
responsible fishing into practice, and its experience in the field of satellite monitoring is widely 
recognised. 
At national level, progress is not limited to simply buying more equipment. There has been a 
considerable increase in monitoring staff in several Member States, and reorganisation has brought 
about sizeable gains in terms of effectiveness. 
Cooperation between national administrations has also grown. Existing bilateral cooperation schemes 
are now being supplemented by measures aimed at coordinating the work of the Member States 
concerned and the Commission in respect of certain fisheries. Closer links have thus been forged 
between the Commission and national administrations in a positive spirit of collaboration. Progress 
has been particularly effective in the case of sensitive fisheries, with a concentration of efforts on the 
part both of national administrations and the Commission, viz. NAFO: driftnet fishing, in particular in 
the Atlantic and herring fishing in the North Sea since the introduction of special arrangements in 
1996. 
A series of working papers and meetings with national administrations have made it possible to take 
stock of the situation, both as regards general matters (satellites and non-Community countries) and 
more specific aspects (driftnets, North Sea herring, etc.). 
All this progress is symptomatic of a widespread realisation that strict enforcement is essential to an 
effective common fisheries policy and, therefore, to the survival of the industry. Increasing numbers 
of people within the European fishing industry subscribe to that principle, one which demands 
fairness and, by the same token, transparency, in particular between Member States. 
1 Council Decision of 25 June 1996 on acceptance by the Community of the Agreement to promote 
compliance with international conservation and management measures by fishing vessels on the high seas; 
O.J. N° L 177, 16.07.1996, p. 24 
2 COM(96) 472 of 4 October 1996 
C£323 
II. MAJOR SHORTCOMINGS THAT ARE STILL APPARENT 
1. Monitoring of fishing fleets 
Overcapacity, i.e. maintaining the means to take catches in excess of what would be needed to exert 
the pressure on stocks that is recommended by experts, or even in excess of what would be needed to 
take the quotas decided upon by the Council, is often at the root of the problems relating to fisheries 
monitoring. The practice of sustaining high catch rates also means that, as large fish have now 
become scarce, undersized fish may well account for an appreciable share of the stocks available, 
making it difficult to monitoring the implementation of technical measures designed to protect 
juveniles. 
It is therefore essential to introduce effective rules governing fishing capacity and fishing effort. The 
experience gained in this field does not go back very far in time, however. It was only when the 
register of fishing vessels and the third multiannual guidance programmes (MAGPIII) were 
introduced that the question of the validity of the data arose, and it was not until the adoption of the 
new fisheries monitoring and control regulation in 1993 that these aspects came within the remit of 
the Commission's fisheries inspectorate. 
Difficulties have emerged, however, concerning fleet segmentation and the measurement of tonnages, 
engine power and fishing time. 
Following the adoption of the new generation of MAGPs (covering the period 1997 to 2001) towards 
the end of 1997, close attention will be paid to monitoring the implementation of MAGP IV, in 
particular verification of the segmentation of fleets and the parameters relating to the limitation of the 
fishing effort. 
The practice of underdeclaring engine power should come under scrutiny. There is above all a general 
problem as regards standardising the way in which engine power is measured, in some cases within 
the same Member State. Moreover, no Member State appears to have a procedure for systematically 
cross-checking declared engine power against other data such as fuel consumption. 
With regard to the monitoring of fishing activity, attention has already been drawn to the successful 
introduction of the fishing effort management scheme in the Atlantic. Apart from slowness the main 
problem concerns the validation of the reference levels notified by Member States in respect of (a) the 
management of the fishing effort in the Atlantic and (b) MAGP IV. Here too, the outlook for 
enforcement is good if logbooks are available, especially in the Member States that have put into 
effect the rules on setting up computerised databases, but there are still some delays of a technical 
nature. 
2. Controls at sea 
Major differences still exist between Member States as regards the means deployed for carrying out 
controls at sea. The material resources available, whether seaborne or airborne, tend to vary. This is 
attributable in particular to objective characteristics such as the size of the EEZ (Exclusive Economic 
Zone) concerned and, within the EEZ, the size of the continental shelf, where fishing activities tend to 
be concentrated. A realistic comparison between the means deployed is made difficult, however, by 
the fact that the competent departments of the various Member States have to perform a number of 
tasks falling outside the field of fisheries monitoring and that there is no commonly agreed definition 
of what constitutes a basic inspection. 
At sea, checks on catches are based on logbooks and, in some cases, on notifications of the quantities 
held on board. The special problems posed by non-Community vessels operating in Community 
waters are dealt with in a separate Commission paper. 1 Cross-checking with landings is, in this case, 
particularly difficult if not to say impossible. The answer lies in: closer cooperation with the 
authorities of the non-Community countries concerned; the use of satellites to monitor the location of 
vessels and, therefore, to increase the effectiveness of inspection vessels; and, on the high seas, in 
setting up checkpoints where quantities held on board can be verified before the vessel leaves 
Community waters. 
With regard to the volume of catches the role played by logbooks is also limited by the small number 
of species covered and by geographical exemptions (e.g. the Mediterranean) or the size of fishing 
vessels (e.g. small boats). On the first point the revision - expected in 1998-of the Commission 
Regulation on logbooks will pave the way for an adjustment. In the case of the Mediterranean the 
exemption will end in 1998, with the result that there is now an urgent need to prepare for the 
introduction of logbooks in that area. The derogation for vessels less than ten metres long is, in 
principle at least, fully justified. The counterpart to this derogation is, under the present Regulation, 
the setting-up in each Member State of alternative arrangements for assessing catches. In the absence 
of such arrangements, non-exempt fishermen would be justified in fearing discrimination since, 
owing to its size and in some cases its impact on breeding grounds, the small-boat population can 
have a major effect on stocks. The actual introduction of catch-assessment arrangements for exempt 
vessels by all the Member States concerned should therefore be regarded as a matter of priority. This 
also applies to other exemptions. 
In the case of checks carried out at sea it is important not only that inspectors be given access to all 
the quantities on board but also that they do not needlessly disrupt the work of the fishermen. 
Drawing inspiration from what has been done in the context of the NAFO and, more recently, 
NEAFC, codes of good conduct could be drawn up with the help of the various parties concerned. 
Technical measures, too, are directly concerned by checks carried out at sea. The biggest problem is 
the unwarranted or unauthorised use of small mesh-sizes. Since the straightforward "single-net" 
solution has not been adopted, despite the guarantees it provides in terms of fisheries monitoring, care 
must be taken to ensure that the conditions under which several mesh sizes ma}' be used on the same 
trip are complied with. A decision by the Council on this point is expected in 1998. 
In the case of Community vessels there are also problems with regard to movements between EEZs. It 
is not easy to ensure continuous checks. Checkpoints for vessels leaving an EEZ would, however, run 
counter to the Community spirit. The provisions adopted recently, and closer cooperation between 
national administrations - which could perhaps be fostered by the Commission - are expected to 
provide some answers. Movement from one EEZ to another essentially involves vessels large enough 
to be covered by satellite motiitoring, thus greatly facilitating the work of inspection vessels. Services 
operating at sea must adapt their strategies in order to exploit the potential of satellite monitoring. 
Moreover, in the Atlantic vessels will be required to notify the quantities they are carrying on board 
whenever they move from one sector to another. Priority will thus be given to making full use of the 
provisions adopted recently and, thereafter, to learning from the experience gained in the Atlantic in 
particular. 
1 CC:*•:•'•-:•;' '" ' . • i?.0;.-.:>berl996 
Transshipment can also be used in an attempt to evade subsequent checks on catches. In international 
forums (Baltic Commission, ICCAT/CICTA and IATTC) there has been a move towards stricter 
provisions - in some cases leading to a total ban - in the case of fraudulent transshipment. Where there 
is a serious risk of fraud the only solution consists in allowing transshipment only if checks can be 
conducted sufficiently frequently and at a reasonable cost. Moreover, the possibility of covert 
transshipment could be limited by combining the checks concerned with position checks by satellite. 
3. Controls on landings 
Controls on landings are analysed in detail in the recent communication on the future for the markets 
in fisheries products in the Union: responsibility, partnership and competitiveness J For this reason, 
only comments not already included in that communication are set out below. 
- Basic documents, use of information technology, validation 
Here again, the resources deployed by the Member States tend to vary without the Commission being 
in a position to make meaningful comparisons, given the range of tasks assigned to fisheries 
inspectors in many Member States and the absence of a commonly agreed definition of what is meant 
by a basic inspection. International developments, such as ICCAT's 1997 minimum standards for 
inspections in port, could well provide a useful basis in this respect. 
In terms of actual difficulties the reason why inspectors are assigned a range of tasks can, as in the 
case of logbooks, be traced back to shortcomings in certain Member States with regard to the basic 
requirements governing the collection of landing declarations and/or sales notes. Procedures for 
validating and cross-checking the various sources of information are patchy, and much remains to be 
done if the verification opportunities afforded by computerised records - compulsory since 1996 - are 
to be fully exploited. 
- Checks on vessels flying a flag other than that of the country in which the catch is landed 
There are situations in which, at certain Community ports, vessels from non-Community countries are 
checked less rigorously than are Community vessels. This is also true, and on an even larger scale, of 
vessels flying the flag of a Member State other than the one in which the catch is being landed. There 
is a strong feeling among some fishermen that by landing their catch in another Member State some 
vessels can in effect escape adequate rigorous control. While this feeling is not always fully justified, 
the problem does exist and is indeed a serious one. It is important to find a solution, since this 
problem is at the heart of fishermen's concerns about the fairness of controls. 
1 COM(97) 719 final of 16 December 1997, pp. 15 and 16 
5 
The Commission takes the view that the Member States are legally in a position to impose a fair level 
of checks on non-Community vessels, if need be by adopting the necessary national provisions. To 
this it might be retorted, however, that in the absence of Community provisions there is a risk that a 
Member State which has adopted the strictest rules might see landings move to a Member State where 
checks are not as strict. Under current Community rules checks carried out by Member States on non-
Community vessels landing at their ports are likely to prove effective only if the vessels have fished 
in Community waters. No action can at present be taken if the catch has been taken in third-country or 
international waters. Here too, the situation is evolving rapidly, in particular at the level of regional 
fisheries organisations, among them NAFO. Community provisions should be aimed at making 
checks more effective - in particular with regard to vessels flying flags of convenience - and, by the 
same token, fairer. The foundations have already been laid J The time has come to complete the 
building work. 
The answer lies first of all in clear-cut standards that allow comparisons to be made between the 
intensity of landing checks in the various Member States and, within each Member State, between 
classes of vessels. The Commission should be specifically informed of the procedures and levels of 
inspection for the various fleets flying the flag of one Member State and landing their catches in 
another Member State. This should be followed by effective cooperation between Member States 
whereby the authorities of a Member State can acquire the certainty that vessels flying the flag of that 
Member State and choosing to land their catch in another Member State will be checked fairly. More 
specifically, when informed that a vessel intends to complete its trip in another Member State, the 
authorities of the flag state must be confident that they can rely on the cooperation of inspection 
services in the second Member State. Obliging the latter to act on every request would be going too 
far, but there must be a guarantee that the checks are, on the whole, carried out with the diligence that 
is called for. Several types of arrangements - underpinned by varying amounts of legislation - can be 
adopted in this connection. A fair and effective regime needs to be introduced as soon as possible, 
however, something which at all events presupposes that the administrations of the various Member 
States will actively cooperate with each other, just as they have already begun to do in a number of 
cases, the Commission being a witness to the satisfactory performance of those arrangements. 
- Multiplicity of possible landing points 
The large number of potential landing points means that having inspectors continuously present at 
each one is out of the question. As a result, some Member States now specify which fish auction 
markets are to be used, or require that certain types of catch be landed at designated ports, where 
systematic checks can be carried out. Here too, satellite monitoring can be of immense help to 
inspectors, in particular where the system can be used to make contact with a beacon and establish in 
real time (almost) the position of a vessel as it nears the coast. Inspection departments can then, at 
reasonable cost, ensure a sufficiently high probability of an inspection when the catch is landed and, 
thereby, make fisheries control much more credible. More generally, as soon as a species is at risk 
and checks on landings begin to pose a problem, special procedures must be activated including, if 
need be, drawing up lists of designated ports. 
1 Council Regulation (EC) No 1093/94 of 6 May 1994 setting the terms under which fishing vessels of a 
third country may land directly and market their catch at Community ports 
6 
- Separate marketing channels 
The provisions of the present fisheries monitoring and control regulation are fully relevant to 
traditional marketing channels, in which catches are entered in a logbook and actually sold after being 
landed. Cross-checking, using sources of information that, to some extent at least, are independent of 
each other is in such cases feasible. Computerised fish auctions assist this process and fortunately, for 
some years now, their share of the total catch has been on the increase. 
Other than in that particular situation the provisions lose some of their effectiveness, as in the case of 
exempt vessels. In this respect and as pointed out earlier, it is imperative that Member States 
introduce compensatory provisions as required under the various instruments. 
Problems arise in at least two other cases, however, without the existing rules being fully adapted to 
cope with them: where the catch is landed and transported prior to sale; and where the catch is not the 
subject of a genuine sale after being landed, the fishing vessel being part of a vertically integrated 
firm. 
In the first of these two cases an appropriate plan of action should be defined, as was done for the 
checks on minimum fish sizes. It would combine possible adjustments of the texts and a monitoring 
strategy after landing, in particular when transportation is involved. Since this is largely an 
international problem there should be a guarantee, as in the case of vessels landing their catch in a 
country other than the one whose flag they fly, that they will be effective cooperation between the 
administrations concerned. 
In the case of integrated firms an analysis of the various situations would point to ways of 
guaranteeing that, in terms of reliability, the figures declared compare with those relating to 
traditional marketing channels. 
- Community vessels landing their catches outside the Community 
Here also, problems of fairness and a risk of distortion of competition arise. In the north Atlantic or 
Baltic, there is a strong feeling among some fishermen that by landing their catches in ports outside 
the Community, ships are in fact circumventing proper controls on landings. In addition, 
administrative cooperation on exchanging data with non-Community countries on quantities actually 
landed is not as organised as it is within the Community. Therefore the international obligations of the 
port states as regards controls on landings and administrative cooperation between port state and flag 
state must be clarified. In negotiations with the non-Community countries concerned, obtaining 
guarantees on this must have a high priority. 
4. Controls on the market in fishery and aquaculture products 
- General 
As the Commission underlined in its recent communication on the future for the market in fisheries 
products in the European Union, the rules governing the market must help to safeguard resources; 
effective controls at all stages of marketing are a basic requirement for achieving this objective. The 
present situation leaves a lot to be desired in several respects. 
(i) Common marketing standards, which are one of the building blocks of competition rule 
harmonisation, are not being applied uniformly or adequately in all Member States. This has meant, 
for example, that undersized fish have been classified in higher size categories despite the fact that, 
legally, they cannot be marketed. Although marketing standards should be monitored throughout the 
chain of production, from the first sales transaction up to the time they are sold to the consumer, there 
are no actual control procedures in place after the first sales transaction and Commission fishery 
inspectors have no powers beyond that stage. 
(ii) When market intervention takes place as the result of applying a withdrawal price, the 
quantities withdrawn are not always subjected to the necessary checks. For example, it has been 
shown that the prescribed denaturing operations are not applied by all Member States, and even where 
denaturing is done, it does not appear to be adequate because there is still a risk of these products 
being placed on the market again. 
(iii) Regarding imports, the action plan proposed by the Commission in its communication 
concerning management of preferential economical regimes aims to strengthen the legal and 
organisational means appropriate for ensuring the respect of the original rules by all the concerned 
parties. 
(iv) Infringements of the rules governing imports are rife, pointing to inadequate controls, in 
particular as regards the origin of fishery products. There are also difficulties in applying health rules. 
- Minimum sizes 
The main difficulties arise from landings of undersized fish intended for specific markets. Priority 
should be given to eliminating these marketing channels, which involve transport from the point of 
landing to the places of consumption, sometimes over long distances. This would also require 
intervention in transit. The weaknesses in applying controls after landing referred to above are crucial 
here. When such fish are sold, it is all too easy to claim that those below the minimum size laid down 
for that particular species come from a region where the minimum size does not apply or from a fish 
farm, or have been imported. 
The regulations should be changed to reduce the scope for fraud. As the Commission suggested in its 
communication referred to above, the market organisation rules should include new restrictions on 
fishery product labelling, not only to improve consumer information but also to facilitate checks on 
compliance with Community rules. Community rules requiring the trade description and origin to be 
indicated for each species, and applicable at all stages of marketing, would make it easier for the 
supervisory authorities to identify the product and the minimum sizes applicable. 
Current Community regulations already give the national authorities powers which are far from being 
fully exploited. It would therefore be pointless to adjust these regulations to provide new scope for 
intervention only for it to remain unused. Thus progress can be achieved by adjusting Community 
legislation if needed to facilitate the task of the national authorities, but it will also require a greater 
willingness to deploy the necessary means and coordinate the various authorities concerned, covering 
landings, transport, imports and marketing. 
mmm^s^^TZ^ 
New forms of administrative cooperation between Member States could be particularly useful in the 
field of market management, as is already the case in other sectors of the internal market, in the form 
of exchanges of national inspectors (as provided for in the Community programmes Karolus and 
Mattheus) and case-by-case involvement of inspectors from other Member States in national controls 
(food safety or laboratory practice inspections). 
5. General; resources allocated, infringements and penalties 
- Resources allocated hv the various Member States 
At present it is not possible for the Commission to carry out a quantitative and objective comparison 
of the means and methods of monitoring used by the various Member States. 
In terms of the human and material resources allocated, the difficulty stems from the diversity of the 
tasks carried out within one and the same service. First of all, therefore, the resources allocated full-
time must be analysed separately. For "shared" resources, the Commission would have to quantify, 
and if necessary validate, the part actually committed to fisheries controls using the information 
forwarded to it, along the lines followed for financing new monitoring resources. 
Similarly, generalising what was said previously in connection with inspections at sea and on landing, 
a common definition of what inspection is must be found, where necessary distinguishing between 
different types depending on the degree of detail. Minimum standards could then be laid down. 
- Infringements and penalties 
In the sector's legitimate demand for equal treatment of fishermen in the various Member States, the 
question of penalties plays a central role. The Commission has repeatedly tried to promote progress in 
this direction. It has been supported by the European Parliament, but the Council has not followed its 
recommendations. Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 provides only that Member States, whilst being free 
to choose the means, have the shared duty to set up a system of deterrent controls and penalties and 
inform the Commission of the penalty scales and their application in practice. But experience has 
shown that the information forwarded cannot really be used to bring about the desired transparency. 
The Commission is therefore unable to guarantee the effectiveness of penalties and even-handed 
application by the Member States. Even the lists of infringements are too unlike each other to be 
useful. In addition, the information sent is more often than not incomplete, or is sent so late as to be 
largely useless. 
This situation is a major problem. At the very least the information sent to the Commission should 
enable it to make proper comparisons. Major infringements at least should be defined and penalised 
in a comparable way in the various Member States. Progress on this has been made in the extra-
Community, and a priori more difficult, context of NAFO. 
- Cooperation between Member States on infringements and penalties 
Even where sufficient resources are allocated, the limitations on inspection and the mobility of 
fishing activities often leave inspectors with more doubts than legally admissible evidence, which is 
essential in order to penalise illegal activities properly. Some illegal activities could be better 
prosecuted by increasing collaboration between the Member States concerned. It is up to the Member 
States to establish, within the legal cooperation framework, the right conditions and procedures to 
make such collaboration possible. Existing procedures are 'often cumbersome and sometimes 
inconsistent. The effect of procedural incompatibility at Community level is that some infringements 
cannot be prosecuted, which seriously compromises the CFP monitoring system. However, progress 
is also possible at Community level without encroaching on the Member States' powers. Member 
States should proceed with reports drawn up by the supervisory authorities of the other Member 
States in the same way as the reports drawn up by their own services. Concerted action could enable a 
harmonised format for inspection reports to be gradually introduced. Here again, the progress made 
within NAFO provides a useful basis. In addition, distribution procedures must be clarified and 
speeded up, so that documents are transmitted to the competent authorities in good time. 
- Commission measures 
Ensuring the effectiveness of the control systems in the various Member States and a balance between 
effort undertaken and the results obtained is one of the Commission's main tasks. However, the 
Commission has the impression that, in spite of the progress made, so far this task has not been 
accomplished in a wholly satisfactory way. The fact that the information it receives is incomplete has 
already been pointed out. The Commission's work is also hampered by several other factors. The first 
is the limited human resources at its disposal. This has been all the more serious because the 
Commission has had to devote a very large part of its resources to specific problems with 
repercussions beyond the European Union (cf. NAFO, driftnets). Therefore the human resources 
effectively available for other tasks, covering the main fisheries activities in the European Union, 
have been reduced. Under these circumstances, the limits imposed by Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 
on the scope for action by the Commission's inspection service are particularly detrimental. If a 
Member State does not cooperate with the Commission to clear up a dispute, it will be very difficult 
for it to gather the required information without investing prohibitive levels of human resources. The 
Commission would be much more effective in its task of supervising controls made by the Member 
States if Community inspectors had greater autonomy, over and above the power to intervene without 
prior warning provided under Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93. They should be able to collect 
information not just for use as evidence against individual operators, but also to establish any 
shortcomings in the inspection mechanisms introduced. The Member States' obligations to cooperate 
with the Commission should also be. more clearly defined. The rules on access to databases laid down 
in Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 could be adjusted to make the Commission inspectorate more 
effective. It would be much easier to validate these databases if the Commission could access them 
without having to send an inspection mission, under provisions similar to those recently adopted by 
the Council for databases on satellite controls1. 
1 Council Regulation (EC) No 2205/97 of 30 October 1997 amending Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 
establishing a control system applicable to the common fisheries policy. OJ No L 304, 07.11.1997, pp. Î 
and 2 
imEHmmmmm—mmmam 
III. INTENSIFYING EXISTING MEASURES, IDENTIFYING NEW FIELDS OF ACTION 
l. Increasing awareness 
The recent changes in attitudes to controls have been a major step forward. But greater and more 
widespread awareness is still required. 
- The issues 
Monitoring fishing is essential if we are to have an effective CFP. Inadequate controls place 
fishermen who do not commit fraud at a disadvantage. Fraud committed by the few deprives others of 
part of their potential catch. It disrupts trade, pulling prices down. But, because they make official 
statistics unreliable, inadequate controls also mean that a major part of the work of research 
establishments must be devoted to estimating actual catches and not to research, thus affecting the 
quality of scientific advice. 
Over and above these immediate consequences, a lack of effective management damages the 
economic health of the sector as a whole. As with other intervention measures, controls are 
sometimes seen as a costly burden which the fisheries sector imposes on public authorities. But 
effective management, which goes hand in hand with proper controls, is all about restoring the 
economic health of the sector and eliminating its dependence on outside aid. Therefore, the adoption 
of effective controls as soon as possible is an investment without which there will be no return on all 
other investments. 
- Involving the industry itself 
Controls can be effective only if they are seen as a necessity, or even of benefit, by all in the industry 
and are seen to be applied fairly. The trade can and must be the inspection authorities' principal ally. 
There are examples in some Member States of trade involvement in controls, and legal action brought 
by groups of fishermen in fraud cases. Such approaches have proved to be highly effective. But for 
the desired degree of involvement to be achieved, the control measures introduced must be finely 
tuned and proportional in the sense that the burden imposed on the trade by each measure must be 
commensurate with the progress on controls it provides and the size of the risk of fraud. They must 
also be explained, so that the extent of the problems which the control mechanisms are designed to 
solve is fully appreciated by those they affect. Finally, they must be convinced that there is no 
discrimination. 
Therefore the discussion between the trade and the authorities must focus on the question of controls. 
In addition, since the question of transparency plays a crucial role in trade involvement, everything 
that can help the Commission to secure it will be extremely important. 
11 
- Widening the debate 
Controls cannot be dealt with between the fisheries supervisory authorities and fishermen. For them 
to be effective, all the authorities concerned throughout the sector must be involved, including those 
in charge of shipbuilding and fuel distribution and those responsible for supervising transport, 
processing and distribution. For some of these authorities, fisheries-related matters may be a priority 
task. Nevertheless they must be made fully aware of the issues. The same applies to those responsible 
for imposing penalties: they must be able to appreciate the extent of the fraud and the impact of their 
decisions. 
In addition, the general public must recognise the need for effective controls. A common policy 
means it is everyone's business. Deficiencies damage the overall credibility of European integration 
and its outward image. Their impact is felt directly by consumers, and indirectly by European 
taxpayers. Consumers are also called upon to play an increasing role in combating fishing practices 
not in line with the principles of sound management. The efforts already made, for example, to make 
consumers aware of the need to protect juveniles and therefore not to encourage fishing for 
undersized fish by buying them, must be extended and applied more generally. To achieve this, 
meeting as it does growing consumer demand for responsible fishing, it is essential to have product 
"traceability". This confirms the need for origin labelling referred to in connection with undersized 
fish. But this is a more general problem and is also linked to the question of quality standards: here 
also, consumers must have the information and guarantees they need to make an informed choice. 
2. Establishing integrated common strategies 
Controls are necessary, and necessarily expensive. The cost-effectiveness of controls is therefore an 
increasingly important issue. On the whole the Commission takes the view that controls both within 
individual Member States and at European level have yet to be governed by efficient overall 
strategies and must be developed along the following lines: 
- Controls offer landing 
The possibility of bringing together all the available data, from controls at sea to checks during 
transportation and marketing, and of cross-checking the various sources of information is recognised 
universally to be essential. Putting in place the overall strategies is proving to be difficult however. 
The use being made of the scope for cross-checking the different information sources and the 
different types of control operations, which is at the core of Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93, is too 
often marginal. Controls beyond the landing stage continue to be of limited extent. The regulations in 
some Member States at least appear not to provide the basis needed for action at this level. Controls 
during transportation are frequently the responsibility of a ministry other than the ministry of 
fisheries. The problem is not confined to the simple matter of compliance with minimum sizes. 
Illegally landed fish can easily be made to appear lawful when a consignment that is being 
transported is able to evade checks because it is declared during transportation to have been sold 
previously. Fish in transit (following importation), or alleged to be such, also constitute a potential 
source of fraud if checks are not carried out during transportation. It is essential therefore that 
arrangements be developed for carrying out controls beyond the landing stage in all Member States. 
12 
- Optimising the allocation of control effort 
The breakdown between controls at sea and on land varies considerably from one Member State to 
another. This can be explained partly on objective grounds; tradition, however, plays a significant role 
too. Generally speaking, the rules determining how control effort is allocated, and especially how it is 
targeted at the more intractable problems are not very easy to identify. The entire question of the 
strategies for deploying control resources needs to be considered in greater depth therefore. On the 
operational level the links between the various departments involved in all aspects of control of the 
fishing industry regularly find themselves hampered by the discontinuities in responsibilities between 
departments in the Member States, whether it is vertical, for example between the ministries with 
responsibility for fisheries and transport, or horizontal, between central and regional administrations. 
The difficulty of developing strategies which embrace all the control options, which target resources 
at the most serious problems, and maintain links between the various departments is to be found also 
at European level, where it is even more acute and problematical. 
Most of the progress in this area will have to be made by the Member States, as it is they which have 
overriding responsibility for control. The Commission, however, can and must assist the development 
of the necessary strategies, by calling the necessary technical meetings and by making suggestions 
and recommendations. 
3. Introducing and sustaining the necessary resources 
Efforts that have been made both by the Member States and at Community level in terms of the 
material resources provided has meant that considerable progress has been achieved. 
These investments need to be optimised, by linking them to general strategies. It must be possible to 
determine precisely the share set aside for fisheries control out of all the existing resources, and not 
only out of those for which Community part-financing is sought and in which it will henceforth be 
necessary to specify that part. Certain types of heavy-duty equipment will not have to be replaced in 
the immediate future. 
These improvements in terms of expenditure transparency and relevance will not however lessen the 
need for continuing effort. Material resources must continue to be made available for control, with 
particular attention focusing on the use of modern technology. The Commission must continue 
therefore to promote the use of methods arising from scientific and technological developments, 
which are liable to make control more effective. 
As far as human resources are concerned, a special effort will be needed. The first stage will be to 
identify clearly the human resources actually assigned to control activities. In Member States which 
up to now have invested less than others, these resources will have to be increased. The numbers 
assigned represent only one aspect of the problem however. The training and motivating of inspection 
staff will be equally important. Here again, without intending to introduce harmonisation in an area 
where there is no obligation to do so, coordination at Community level could make increased 
effectiveness a possibility. The Commission must encourage and facilitate exchanges of officials 
involved in monitoring fisheries in the Member States. 
13 
4. Greater transparency 
The need for the Commission to have easier access to the information it requires in order to perform 
its role of overseeing national control systems has been mentioned already. As far as transparency is 
concerned, the report the Commission is required to produce annually under Article 35 of Regulation 
(EEC) No 2847/93 has not been fulfilling its expected role either. The difficulty the Commission has 
in obtaining relevant and genuinely comparable information has been mentioned above. There is also 
the matter of deadlines. Delays by Member States in transmitting information both at the initial stage 
and in reacting to the first draft of the report prepared by the Commission concerning them means that 
the annual report has been systematically late in appearing and this has undermined its usefulness. It 
is necessary therefore to review the deadlines set and to ensure that they are properly observed. It is 
also worth considering the need for an annual report as produced at present. Discussion of the report 
within the Council should also be much more thorough so that that conclusions are actually drawn 
from it. 
In other words, the principle of Commission reports making it possible for everyone to assess the 
work that has been carried out and the effectiveness of the control arrangements in the different 
Member States is fully justified. However, if the goal is to be properly achieved it is necessary that 
the procedure be revised so that reports become more relevant, are drawn up more speedily, and are 
discussed in greater depth. 
On the matter of transparency, formal reports are not the only means of action available to the 
Commission. It should also make use of the many meetings it arranges which involve aspects of 
monitoring, and exploit the opportunities for making contacts on the ground afforded by inspection 
visits in the Member States in order to make known the scale of the efforts it has deployed in the 
other Member States, and seek to allay unfounded suspicion between Member States whenever it has 
the information required. 
Improving transparency is not the role solely of the Commission. Exchanges of officials have been 
taking place between national services and in some Member States even showed a promising rise in 
1997. These exchanges must be increased as rapidly as possible. The question must even be asked 
whether it would be possible for inspectors from one Member State to participate with Community 
inspectors in inspections in other Member States. 
Amending legislation where necessary 
A large number of new regulations on monitoring and control have been adopted in the last five years, 
covering a very wide range of aspects. The solution to the outstanding problems mentioned above is 
clearly not simply to adopt more rules. In any case decisions have been taken that have obviously not 
had time to produce results yet, such as those on satellite monitoring. An exhaustive regulatory 
structure will not serve its purpose if the human and material resources, appropriate strategies, 
political will or support of those involved in the industry are lacking. 
er 
Any updating of the regulatory arrangements should take account of the whole body of regulations 
and not simply of Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93. To start with, it will be necessary to adopt 
implementing regulations in cases where this has not yet been done, for example for the Regulation 
amending the arrangements on logbooks, discussion on which can now resume (following agreement 
in the Council on the technical measures, the terms of which must be reflected in the changes to the 
logbooks). There is also, however, a series of other instruments for monitoring fisheries, such as 
Regulation (EEC) No 3759/92 on the common organisation of the market in fishery and aquaculture 
products^. All the regulations must be taken into consideration together in order to remove 
redundancies and to ensure that full use is made of the opportunities they offer of producing a body of 
rules which is consistent and cohesive. 
The Regulation adopted in 1993 nevertheless occupies a central position and has shown with the 
passage of time that it could be improved. Certain difficulties were less pressing before 1993 than 
now, for example the problems of non-Community vessels operating in Community waters or landing 
their catches at Community ports. Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 should be amended to remedy the 
shortcomings found in the second part of the instrument. This is particularly necessary with regard to 
non-Community vessels, checks on catches landed in a Member State other than the flag State, 
controls at stages after landing and/or first marketing and access to data the Commission needs in 
order to perform its task of supervising national control systems. There is also the question of what 
can be done to achieve greater equity in the matter of penalties. A review of the Regulation would 
mean also that it could be updated and simplified, and where necessary made clearer. 
6. Cooperation within and between Member States 
In a single Member State the areas affected by fisheries control are frequently the responsibility of 
separate departments. If monitoring is to be effective, however, all of these areas need to be covered. 
Direct responsibility for monitoring, moreover, rests with the Member States while problems arise 
systematically at Community level. Sound coordination is therefore essential. 
The Commission cannot take on responsibility for arranging all the necessary cooperation. This is 
clear in so far as Member States' internal coordination is concerned. But direct cooperation between 
Member States is necessary too. Experience has shown however that the Commission, enjoying an 
overview which national administrations may lack, and operating from a position of neutrality that 
occasionally allows it to provide services through its 'good offices', must perform a very important 
coordinating role at Community level. This role is in addition to its express role of supervising the 
effectiveness of national controls and ensuring fairness and transparency. 
Awareness of the extent of coordination problems has been growing for some years now and the 
meeting on monitoring arranged by the Irish Presidency in September 1996 brought this fully to the 
fore. 
1 OJL 388, 31.12.1992, p.I. 
•••••••• 
The number of areas that need to be dealt with is considerable. It includes: 
- establishing priorities and general strategies; 
- operational problems involving action on the ground; 
- exploring what can be done to make controls on new techniques effective; 
- exchanges of know-how between Member States so that advances made by some can benefit 
others while avoiding duplication of effort; 
- achieving the degree of harmonisation required for these exchanges, in particular operational 
exchanges of data; 
- establishing a 'common language' so that monitoring effort and results can really be compared (cf 
engine power of fisheries vessels, defining what constitutes basic inspection). 
On these matters the importance of the Commission's role will depend more on its ability to provide 
genuine added value recognised by the Member States than on a regulation setting out its terms of 
reference. In any event it can act in a number of different ways: 
- by making proposals which must ensure that Community rules provide a favourable framework 
for cooperation, and if necessary impose an obligation to cooperate; 
- in its reports examining the role of the Member States in monitoring the CFP, and hence the 
effectiveness of cooperation between the responsible services within a Member State as well as 
the level of cooperation between Member States; 
- by taking account, when deciding on requests from Member States for Community assistance 
towards monitoring expenditure, of evidence that an effective national strategy and successful 
cooperation with other Member States will guarantee the proper use of funds; 
- by arranging exchanges of information between Member States; • 
- by identifying major problems at Community level, and by encouraging the development of 
strategies and procedures to promote cooperation appropriate for resolving each of those 
problems; 
- by arranging meetings to deal with specific problems, whether horizontal (e.g. the introduction of 
satellite monitoring) or vertical, associated with a specific fishery. 
The last three points show that what is required is crating and supporting a network among the 
services responsible for monitoring both in the Member States and at the Commission. Work that has 
been successfully undertaken on specific points must be extended and encouraged. To do this, a plan 
needs to be drawn up for the coming months and years, on the initiative of the Commission, acting in 
concert with the national administrations, in a spirit of partnership. If progress is to be achieved it 
would be useful to consider approaches taken in other fields, for example on issues linked with 
environment policy in the IMPEL* initiative, or for the completion of the internal market^. Opening 
up the monitoring of fisheries and establishing Jinks with monitoring problems in other areas can only 
be beneficial. 
1 (COM(96) 500 final. 
2 Council Resolutions of 16 and 20 June 1994, COM(94) 29 fma'; COM(96) 20 final. 
Conclusions 
Enforcement, particularly in an area such as fisheries, can never be perfect. As the Commission has 
had occasion to stress before, progress will depend on the overall development of fisheries 
management, since monitoring will not remedy the structural shortcomings of the CFP. Progress 
cannot be achieved instantaneously: resources will need to be put in place, and structures altered as 
well as outlooks. Progress on the other hand is crucial and will have to be speeded up. The switch 
from analysis to the putting in place of solutions will have to be accomplished more rapidly. A 
rereading of the Commission's 1992 report indicates the extent of the progress that has been 
achieved. It demonstrates also the difficulties faced in certain areas in getting beyond the stage of 
establishing the facts and outlining intentions, when there is occasionally a feeling that matters are 
marking time. 
For potential progress to become a reality it will be necessary first for the political wilt to accord the 
highest priority to putting in place an effective control system to be reaffirmed and given practical 
effect. The action to be undertaken will have to involve the Member States and the Commission, 
which together must set themselves precise goals with a deadline sufficiently short to be effective, 
bearing in mind scheduling constraints and the period required for making adjustments. For the 
coming years a timetable exists already of key dates adopted previously. The most important of these 
are: 
- July 1998: first phase in the introduction of satellite position monitoring, and in the Atlantic the 
incorporation of catch data in the data retransmission procedures required for putting in place the 
effort management arrangements; 
- Early 1999: introduction in the Mediterranean of logbooks and landing and sales declarations, 
together with the necessary data bases; 
- Beginning of the year 2000: second stage of the satellite monitoring plan; introduction of new 
technical measures in Community waters from the Atlantic to the North Sea: 
- The Decision 1 under which Member States can obtain assistance towards monitoring expenditure 
is due to expire in 2000. 
While it is not possible at this stage to determine the content of the decisions that will be taken under 
bilateral agreements and in international organisations, changes are to be expected in relation to non-
Community stocks. NAFO, for instance, is to decide in 1998 on the action to be taken on current pilot 
projects. 
The above timetable suggests that an overall objective be set of putting in place for the year 2000 an 
expanded monitoring and control system. 
1 Council Decision 95/527/EC on a Community financial contribution towards certain incurred by the 
Member States in implementing the monitoring and control systems applicable to the common fisheries 
policy. 
17 
In 1998 six priorities will need to be tackled: . 
- acting forcefully under the existing regulations to put an end to the most serious shortcomings 
(incomplete application by some Member States of the rules on basic documents, including 
putting them on computer, incorrect catch declarations, and above all repeated overfishing of 
quotas for certain stocks); 
- examining how combining regulatory arrangements with cooperation will make it possible for 
controls to be more effective; 
- putting in place pilot schemes for coordinating control operations and for joint consideration of 
horizontal problems; studying coordination methods introduced within the Union in areas other 
than fisheries; 
- amending the corpus of regulations: Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 and its implementing 
regulations, and, if necessary, other regulations on fisheries monitoring; 
- successfully launching the first phase of satellite monitoring, and paving the way for the 
Mediterranean to be included in the general rules; 
- giving a final update on resources, in particular the human resources, actually assigned to 
monitoring activities; establishing methods that can be used to make proper comparisons of 
controls carried out, and of the effectiveness of penalty systems. 
In 1999 the basic goals could be: 
- follow-up action to that mentioned in the first priority for 1998. It is particularly important that 
before new technical measures are introduced which are wider-ranging than those now in force, 
any gaps remaining in the application of the existing ones be remedied; 
- extending control operations across the whole of the sector, at sea, on landing and at later stages, 
and exploiting to the full the opportunities afforded by the cross-checking of the different sources 
of information, including those linked with satellite monitoring of the fleets concerned; 
- proposing a procedure for resolving coordination problems between Member States, including 
appropriate rules which could have been adopted earlier, drawing on pilot projects on the subject 
carried out in 1998, and establishing a plan for exchanges of information and staff between all the 
services concerned; 
- developing a comprehensive series of communications measures to alert all the actors concerned 
to the issues involved in monitoring; 
- defining possible statistical objectives for the resources assigned to monitoring by a Member 
State in terms of the objective characteristics of its involvement in the CFP; 
- ensuring that the Mediterranean is included in the general arrangements; 
- altering the arrangements for monitoring non-Community resources; promoting arrangements 
where this is necessary and possible; seeking to ensure that what has been adopted is properly 
applied, and specifying in each case the division of tasks between the Member States and the 
Commission; 
- preparing the ground for the action to be taken on the budget decision due to expire in 2000. 
In the year 2000 it would be possible then to benefit from all the arrangements previously put in 
place, or about to take effect in January 2000 (second phase of satellite monitoring, new technical 
measures). It would be possible to assess the effectiveness of the arrangements and draw up a review 
which would be entirely different from a reiteration of earlier shortcomings 
Looked at in the light of thel992 report on the monitoring of fisheries, and the improvements that 
needed to be made as identified then, the CFP can be said in a way to be in midstream. It will not be 
enough to allow the arrangements introduced by decisions adopted from 1996 to 1997 to drift along, 
however satisfactory they may be. A further effort will be required, which will have to include the 
amendment of the regulations, but whose overriding priority will have to be closer cooperation 
between all those responsible for monitoring fisheries. 
18 

ISSN 0254-1475 
COM(98) 92 final 
DOCUMENTS 
EN 03 14 07 10 
Catalogue number : CB-CO-98-097-EN-C 
ISBN 92-78-31218-5 
Office for Official Publications of the European Communities 
L-2985 Luxembourg 
v\