Proposal for a COUNCIL DECISION on a Community financial contribution towards certain expenditures incurred by the Member States in implementing the monitoring and control system applicable to the common fisheries policy
Date: 1995-06-09
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU financing, common fisheries policy, conservation of fish stocks, fishery management, fishing controls

COMMISSION  OF THE  EUROPEAN  COMMUNITIES 

Brussels,  9.06.1995 
COM(95)  243 final 

95/0142  (CNS) 

Proposal  for  a 
COUNCIL  DECISION 

on  a Community  financial  contribution  towards  certain  expenditures  incurred  by  the 
Member  States  in  implementing  the  monitoring  and  control  system  applicable 
to  the  common  fisheries  policy 

(presented  by  the  Commission) 

REPORT  FROM  THE  COMMISSION  TO  THE  COUNCIL 
AND  THE  EUROPEAN  PARLIAMENT 

on  the  Community's  financial  contribution  towards  expenditure  incurred  by 
Member  States  for  the  purpose  of  ensuring  compliance  with 
the  common  fisheries  policy 

EXPLANATORY  MEMORANDUM 

The common  fisheries  policy  (CFP) includes  a general and integrated  monitoring 

system.  Each  Member  State  is  responsible  for  monitoring  fishing  activities  on 

its territory  and  in the  areas of  sea over  which  it  has sovereignty  or jurisdiction. 

Each Member  State  has appointed  authorities to  carry  out this  monitoring  in line 

w i th  the  applicable  common  rules}  Given that  this  monitoring  is of  a nature  that 

goes  beyond the  protection  of  purely  national  interests  and that  the  investment 

necessary to develop the appropriate  equipment  for monitoring  and surveillance, 

in particular  seagoing  and airborne  equipment,  has in some  cases  exceeded  the 

financing  available  under  national  budgets,  the  Council  has  been  making  a 

growing  financial  contribution  since  1978  to  the  expenditure  incurred  by  the 

Member  States.  After  an  intermediate  stage,  the  support  has  been  organized 

on  the  basis  of  Council  Decision  89/631/EEC  of  27  November  1989  on  a 

Community  financial  contribution  towards  expenditure  incurred  by  Member 

States  for  the  purpose  of  ensuring  compliance  with  the  Community  system  for 

the  conservation  and  management  of  fishery  resources1.  This  Decision  has 

covered  the  period  from  1991  to  1995  and  has  enabled  the  Community  to 

contribute  between  3 5%  and  5 0%  towards  the  expenditure  incurred  by  the 

Member  States. 

The  Council  has  undertaken  to  adopt  before  30  June  1995,  on  the  basis  of  a 

Commission  report, the  provisions  for  Community  participation  that  could  apply 

,from  1  January  1996.  When  the  new  inspection  and  monitoring  rules  were 

adopted  at  the  end  of  1993,  the  Council  reinforced  this  undertaking  by 

emphasizing  the  need also to  support  the  new  elements  in these  arrangements. 

OJ No L 364,  14.12.1989, p. 64. 

A 

The  objective  of 

the  draft  Council  Decision  on  a  Community 

financial 

contribution 

to  certain  expenditure 

incurred  by  Member  States 

for 

the 

implementation  of  the  monitoring  system  applicabie  to  the  common  fisheries 

poiicy,  drawn  up  on  the  basis  of  a  Commission  report, 

is  to "meet 

the 

Commission's  obligation  laid  down 

in  Decision  8 9 / 6 31 /EEC,  while 

taking 

account  of  the  changing  context. 

The  draft  Commission  report  on the  Community  financial  contribution  towards 

expenditures 

incurred  by  Member  States  to  ensure  compliance  with 

the 

common  fisheries  policy  falls  into  three  sections,  namely  a  report  on  the 

application  of  Decision  89/631/EEC,  an  analysis  of  the  context  in  which  a  new 

Decision  would  be  applied  and  proposals  for  the  content  of  such  a  Decision. 

The  first  section  gives  a factual  report  and  a summing-up.  The  latter  concludes 

that  Community's  financial  participation  has  made  major  improvements  in 

equipment  possible,  as a result  of  which  inspections  have  been stepped  up,  but 

that  this  has  not  sufficed  to  significantly  reduce  the  scale  of  fraud. 

The  second  section  first  reviews  all  the  Decisions  adopted  since  1989  and 

highlights  the features that  define the  new  regulatory  framework.  The latter  has 

been  profoundly  altered  and  expanded  by  the  extension  of  the  new  basic 

Regulation  as  well  as  by 

the  consequences  of 

the  enlargement  of 

the 

Community  and  by  a  set  of  specific  decisions.  The  scope  of  inspection  and 

monitoring  has been extended geographically  to fishing activities  by  Community 

vessels  on  the  high  seas  -  activities  which  are  also  subject  to  a  set  of 

international  rules  to  ensure  responsible  fishing  -  and  in  the  waters  of  third 

countries  on  the  basis  of 

fishing  agreements  concluded  between 

those 

countries  and  the  Union.  Furthermore,  inspection  and  monitoring  has  been 

extended  to  cover  all the  components  of  the  CFP, in particular  those  relating  to 

the  "market"  and  "structures"  aspects.  To  this  will  be  added  surveillance  over 

the  fishing  effort  deployed,  which  will  make  it  possible  to  complete  the  system 

of  monitoring  inputs.  The  second  section  goes  on  to  analyse  the  conditions  of 

effective  controls.  It  argues  that  a  system  of  human  and  technical  resources 

needs  to  be  set  up  and  organized  to  achieve  the  necessary  synergies  in  order 

to  serve  a  strategy  targeted  at  the  sensitive  areas  of  monitoring. 

The  third  and  finai  section  of  the  report  demonstrates  the  need  for  a  further 

financial  solidarity  measure following  on from  Decision 89/631/EEC.  It  proposes 

guidelines,  a  wider  and  better  defined  field  of  application  and  detailed  rules 

adapted  to  the  new  approach,  as  well  as  an  assessment  of  budget  needs  to 

extend  the  Community's  financial  contribution  to  Member  State  expenditure 

and  improve  its  effectiveness,  taking  account  of  the  changing  context. 

The  emphasis  is  on  the  fact  that  needs  are  increasing  and  the  scope  for 

intervention  needs  to  be  expanded.  In  particular,  technological  developments 

such  as  the  tracking  of  vessels  by  satellite  and  computer  networking  must  be 

accelerated.  On  the  other  hand, firmer  guarantees  regarding  effectiveness  and 

transparency  must  be  obtained  from  the  Member  States. 

The  draft  Council  Decision  formalizes  the  report's  conclusions  on  the  future 

Community  financial  contribution  to  expenditure  incurred  by  Member  States.  In 

addition  to  the  contribution  to  investment  expenditure,  it  is  now  planned  to 

make  the  financing  of  integrated  projects  possible  from  the  beginning,  in 

contrast  to  the  previous  Decision;  which  needed  to  be  amended  to  allow  the 

financing  of  pilot  projects  for  the  continuous  tracking  of  fishing  vessels  by 

satellite.  The  draft  Decision  also  provides  for  support  for  a  set  of  measures 

promoting  training  and  staff  exchanges.  This  will  make  it  possible  to  act  not 

only  on  technical  and  regulatory  aspects,  but  also  to  raise  awareness  of  the 

issues  involved  in  inspection  and  monitoring  among  those  working  in  the  field 

and  better  to  train  and  motivate  the  agents  responsible  for  monitoring.  The 

proposed  Decision  also  takes  account  of  the  need  to  formalize  the  Council's 

undertakings 

to 

Ireland.  The  extended  guarantees  of  effectiveness  and 

transparency  are  laid  down  in  specific  clauses. 

In conclusion, taken  together,  all the  measures  and operations  envisaged  in  the 

report  and  draft  Decision  reflect  a  more  global  and  integrated  approach  to  the 

management  and  monitoring  of  the  CFP.  This  approach  will  help  to  make  the 

fishing  industry  itself  more  responsible  for  management  and  will  reinforce  the 

role  of  the  authorities  both  at  Member  State  and  Community  level. 

PROPOSAL FOR A 
COUNCIL DECISION 

9 5/0142  (CNS) 

on a Community  financial  contribution towards certain expenditures  incurred by the 

Member  States  in implementing the monitoring and control system applicable to the 

common fisheries  policy 

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, 

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

Article 43 thereof, 

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission1, 

Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament2, 

Having regard to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee3, 

Whereas Council Decision 89/631/EEC of 27 November 1989 on a Community  financial 

contribution towards expenditure incurred by Member States for the purpose of ensuring 

compliance with the Community system for the conservation and management of fishery 
resources4, as last amended by Decision 94/207/EC5, and in particular Article 1(5) thereof, 

provides that the Council must adopt, before 30 June 1995, the provisions for Community 

financial  assistance which  could apply from 1 January  1996; 

Whereas  the  common  fisheries  policy,  which  guarantees  the  long-term  existence  of 

fishery  stocks  and thus employment  in the sector,  can achieve  its objectives  only  if its 

rules are complied with and effectively  controlled; 

OJNoC 
OJNoC 
OJNoC 
OJNoL364,  14.12.1989, p. 64. 
OJNoL  101,20.4.1994, p. 9. 

Whereas those objectives and rules are primarily established by Council Regulation (EEC) 

No 3760/92  of  20  December  1992 establishing  a  Community  system  for  fisheries  and 
aquaculture1  and  by  Council  Regulation  (EEC)  No 2847/93  of  12 October  1993 
establishing a control system applicable to the common fisheries policy2; 

Whereas the Member States, by guaranteeing the implementation  of the control system 

applicable to the common fisheries policy, are carrying out an obligation of Community 

interest; 

Whereas for some Member States the scale of the enforcement task is unrelated to budget 

capacity and may in certain cases constitute a disproportionate burden; 

Whereas  it  is  therefore  appropriate  to  provide  for  a  contribution  by  the  Community 

towards certain inspection and monitoring expenditures incurred by some Member States; 

Whereas Article  7  of  Council  Regulation  (EEC) No 685/95  of  27 March  1995 on the 
management of fishing effort  relating to certain Community fishing areas and resources3 

provides  for  additional  Community  financial  support  for  Ireland,  including support  for 

operating  expenditure,  for  the  purposes  of  improving  controls,  with  due  regard  for 

authorised Community practices and in the framework of financial  guidelines; 

Whereas the total  Community contribution  should remain within the limits of a budget 

provision of ECU 41 million per annum for  a period of five years (1996-2000) and the 

corresponding  financial  resources  should  be  entered  as  annual  appropriations  in  the 

general budget of the European Communities; 

OJNoL389,  31.12.1992, p. 1. 
OJNoL261,  20.10.1993, p. 1. 
OJNoL71,  31.3.1995, p. 5. 

C 

Whereas any such contribution should be conditional on the attainment, by the Member 

States which are beneficiaries,  of a satisfactory  standard of enforcement  both at sea and 

on  land;  whereas  the  effectiveness  of  the  enforcement  must  be  made  apparent  in  the 

annual report referred  to in Article 35 of  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93, 

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION: 

1. 

The Community may, under the conditions set out in this Decision, contribute to 

Article 1 

the  financing  of  certain  expenditures  by  Member  States  relating  to  the 

implementation  of the control system applicable to the common fisheries  policy 

provided  for  in Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93, as amended by Regulation (EC) 

No  ..../95.  The following  expenditure may be regarded as eligible: 

(a) 

(b) 

the acquisition or modernisation  of inspection and control equipment; 

specific measures intended to improve the quality and effectiveness  of the 

monitoring of fishing and related activities, the duration of which does not 

exceed two years. 

This  expenditure must  contribute to the mobilisation  of monitoring  facilities  in 

accordance with Article  1(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93. 

2. 

The  Community  contribution  shall  relate  to  eligible  expenditure  incurred  by 

Member States between  1 January  1996 and 31 December 2000. 

Eligible expenditure means the  legal  and financial  undertakings  entered  into by 

national authorities within the above period. 

3. 

The maximum amount of Community expenditure deemed necessary to carry out 

the scheme introduced by this Decision shall be ECU 41 million per annum. 

i) 

¥ 

4. 

The  budgetary  authority  shall  determine  the  available  appropriations  for  each 

financial  year. The Community contribution shall be granted within the limits of 

the appropriations  allocated to that end in the Community budget. 

Article 2 

1. 

The  financial  contribution  referred  to  in  Article  l(l)(a)  shall  cover  investment 

expenditure relating to the acquisition or modernisation  of: 

vessels, aircraft  and land vehicles employed in the monitoring and control 

of fishing activities; 

systems  for  the  detection  and  recording  of  fishing  activities  (including 

equipment installed on fishing vessels); 

systems for the recording, management and transmission  of data relating 

to controls, including computer applications and  software. 

The above expenditure shall be eligible on condition that  it  is actually used  for 

the implementation of the control system referred to in Article 1. 

2. 

The  financial  contribution  referred  to  in  Article  l(l)(b)  shall  cover  eligible 

expenditure which is intended to increase the effectiveness  of the application of 

the common fisheries policy and relates to measures and projects  not exceeding 

two years in duration and having the following purposes: 

(a) 

the implementation of joint inspection programmes as referred to in Article 

2(4) of Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93; 

(b) 

experiments with and the introduction of new technologies to improve the 

monitoring of fishing and related activities; 

(c) 

the  implementation  of  specific  control  programmes  established  by 

Community  initiative and carried out by the Member State(s) concerned; 

(d) 

programmes to computerise the processing and exchange of data developed 

by joint agreement between several Member States and, where appropriate, 

the Commission; 

(e) 

other control measures of Community interest to be adopted at a later date. 

3. 

The financial contribution referred to in Article l(lXb) may also relate to eligible 

expenditure intended for the training of national officials  connected with control 

activities,  in particular in a Member  State other than that  in which they work. 

Detailed rules for the application of this paragraph will be adopted in accordance 

with  Article  18  of  Regulation  (EEC)  No 3760/92  of  20  December  1992 

establishing a Community system for  fisheries  and aquaculture. 

Article 3 

1. 

The Community  financial  contribution  shall not  exceed  the  following  rates per 

Member  State and per annum: 

35% of the amount of eligible expenditure referred  to in Article 2(1); 

50% of the amount of eligible expenditure referred  to in Article 2(2) and 

(3). 

2. 

However,  notwithstanding paragraph  1, the Commission  may  decide to  grant  a 

higher rate, in particular in order to permit: 

the realisation of a joint measure by Member States and the Commission 

likely  to  remedy  control  difficulties  affecting  an  area  of  special 

Community  interest; 

experiments with and the introduction of new technologies to improve the 

monitoring of fishing and related activities. 

•9 

The annual budget allocation reserved for such measures shall be limited to  15% 

of the budget allocation. 

3. 

The Commission may, notwithstanding paragraph  1, decide to grant a higher rate 

in order to provide for additional financial  support for Ireland for the purpose of 

improving controls, including support for the following  operating expenditure: 

remuneration of national officials  connected with monitoring and control 

activities  and  occupying  additional  posts  created  after  1 January  1996 

within the framework of a detailed programme, for a period not exceeding 

one year,  and relating to the  inspection  and control  of specific  fisheries 

and zones; for the purposes of this paragraph,  "remuneration" means the 

salaries,  less  taxes  and  charges  levied  in  accordance  with  national 

legislation, of the officials  concerned and the travel allowances necessary 

for the carrying out of their duties; 

costs  relating  to  training  and  providing  information  for  the  national 

officials  connected with control activities; 

costs incurred as a result of controls entrusted to surveillance companies. 

The financial  support for operating expenditure for Ireland shall be granted up to 

a total amount of ECU 2 million per annum. 

Article 4 

1.  Member  States wishing to benefit from a financial  contribution  shall  forward  to 

the Commission, before  30 September 1995: 

(a) 

a five-year  programme describing the controls which they intend to carry 

out during the period referred  to in Article  1(2). The control programme 

must  contain  in  particular  the  objectives  of  the  proposed  control  and 

inspection  measures,  the  envisaged  operational  measures  and  the 

anticipated results. 

AS> 

(b) 

a programme of forecast  annual expenditure  for  the period referred  to in 

Article  1(2) for which they wish to receive a financial  contribution from 

the Community. 

2. 

Every Member State shall forward to the Commission, for the first time in 1996 

and each year thereafter,  a report  on progress  achieved with regard to  forecasts 

and to the need to adjust the control programme. That report shall form a special 

chapter in the report referred  to in Article 35 of Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93. 

3. 

The information  referred  to  in paragraphs  1 and 2 must enable the Commission 

to ensure adequate monitoring of the expenditure relating to the implementation 

of the control system applicable to the common fisheries  policy. 

Article 5 

1.  Member  States  wishing  to  benefit  from  a  Community  financial  contribution 

towards the expenditure referred to in Article 2 shall forward to the Commission, 

on the first occasion before 30 September  1995 and subsequently before 31 May 

of  each  year,  an  application  for  funding  for  the  following  year  containing  the 

information  specified  in  points  1,  2  and  3  of  the  Annex  hereto.  Applications 

received  after  those  dates  shall  not  be  considered  except  in  exceptional,  duly 

justified  cases. 

2. 

The  application  for  funding  must  be  drawn  up  within  the framework of  the 

programmes referred  to in Article 4. 

M 

Article 6 

On the basis of information provided by the Member States, the Commission shall decide, 

for the first time before 31 December 1995 and subsequently before 31 December of each 

year,  in accordance with the procedure  laid  down  in Article  18 of  Council  Regulation 

(EEC) No 3760/92, on: 

the eligibility  of the planned expenditure; 

the rate of the Community contribution; 

any conditions to which the contribution may be subject. 

Article 7 

At the reasoned request of a Member State, the Commission may grant advances up to 

a  maximum  of  25% of  the  Community's  annual  contribution.  That  advance  shall  be 

deducted from the final amount of the Community contribution to the eligible expenditure 

actually  incurred. 

Article 8 

In the  event  that  a  Member  State decides  not to  realise  all  or part  of the  expenditure 

which the Commission has deemed eligible, in accordance with Article 6, it shall  inform 

the  Commission  thereof  without  delay  giving  details  of  the  impact  on  its  control 

programme. 

Article 9 

1.  Member  States shall present their applications for reimbursement of expenditure 

no later than 31 May of the year following that during which the expenditure was 

incurred. 

2.  When submitting an application  for the reimbursement  of expenditure, Member 

States  should  have  a  national  control  authority  verify  and  certify  that  the 

expenditure  was  incurred  with  due  regard  to  the  conditions  laid  down  in  this 

Decision, in particular point 4 of the Annex hereto. 

A<L 

3. 

If the  application  reveals  indications  that  the conditions  set  out  in paragraph  2 

have  not  been  complied  with,  the  Commission  shall  undertake  a  thorough 

examination  of  the  case by  asking the  Member  State to  forward  its  comments 

within a specific time limit. If the examination œnfirms that the conditions have 

not  been  complied  with  the  Commission  shall  set  a  suitable  time  limit  for 

compliance by the Member State. If, when the time limit has expired, the Member 

State has not acted on the recommendations the Commission may reduce, suspend 

or cancel its contribution  in the area of assistance concerned. 

Article 10 

Member States shall provide the Commission with any information which it may request 

for the performance  of its duties under this Decision. 

Member States shall provide the Commission with any information which will enable it 

to verify  the use of the surveillance and control facilities which have been the subject of 

a Community financial  contribution pursuant to this Decision. 

If the Commission considers that the facilities are not being used for the intended purpose 

or in accordance with the conditions set out in this Decision, it shall inform the Member 

State  accordingly.  The  Member  State  shall  then  conduct  an  administrative  inquiry  in 

which  Commission  officials  may  participate.  The  Member  State  shall  inform  the 

Commission  of  the  progress  and  results  of  the  inquiry  and  provide  the  Commission 

without  delay  with  a  copy  of the report  of  the  inquiry  and the principal  data  used  in 

preparing it. 

43 

Article 11 

The Commission may carry out any checks which it deems necessary to ensure that the 

conditions and tasks imposed on the Member States by this Decision are fulfilled,  and the 

Member States shall provide assistance to the staff appointed by the Commission for this 

purpose. 

The  provisions  of  this  Article  shall  be  without  prejudice  to  Article  29  of  Council 

Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93. 

This Decision is addressed to the Member States. 

Article 12 

Done at 

, 

For the Council 

The President 

Jif 

ANNEX 

1. 

The applications for financing referred to in Article 5 shall state the expenditure 

envisaged  for the following  years. It shall specify  in particular: 

the timetable for the expenditure envisaged; 

the technical  features  of the equipment,  its cost, the method of payment 

envisaged and its control objective relative to the programme; 

the planned use of the equipment, including its date of entry into service; 

the nature and cost of specific  measures  intended to  improve the quality 

and effectiveness  of the control of fishing and related activities and details 

of their envisaged duration. 

2. 

Member  States  shall justify  the  above  measures  with  regard  to  the  following 

criteria: 

the objectives pursued within the framework of the expenditure which they 

wish to incur; 

the anticipated results  linked to the expenditure to be incurred; 

in the  case of  expenditure  on the purchase  of vessels,  aircraft  and  land 

vehicles, the amount of time which they will devote to fisheries  inspection 

and monitoring; 

the  use  made  by  a  Member  State  of  any  financial  contribution  granted 

under Decision 89/631/EEC or under this Decision in any previous year; 

AC 

the  improvement  in  the  Member  State's  performance 

in  fisheries 

enforcement  at  sea  and  on  land  in the period  preceding the application, 

under the programme referred to in Article 4, and the improvement  likely 

to result from the expenditure envisaged. 

3. 

The Member State shall also provide the following information for each measure: 

the  prevention,  detection  and  prosecution  of  infringements  against  the 

common fisheries policy; 

the  presence  in  national  legislation  and  the  application  in  practice  of 

penalties that are commensurate with the seriousness of infringements  and 

effectively  discourage further  infringements  of the same kind; 

the reliability  of the catch figures  forwarded  by the Member State to the 

Commission and the Member State's ability to prevent the overfishing  of 

its quotas; 

the amount and effectiveness  of the human and material resources devoted 

by the Member State to fisheries  enforcement; 

the diversity of the fishing  activities in the Member State's fishery  zone; 

the degree of cooperation  in fisheries enforcement  between that Member 

State and other Member States and the Commission; 

where applicable, that Member State's contribution to fisheries enforcement 

in areas  governed by  international  conventions to which the Community 

is a Contracting Party and the scale and effectiveness  of that  enforcement; 

the  enforcement  effort  devoted  by  the  Member  State  to  the  fishing 

activities of its vessels on the high seas. 

4. 

The reimbursement  of expenditure  and the payment  of advances  shall  be made 

only if the provisions of the Directives coordinating procedures for the award of 

public works and supply contracts have been complied with, in the sense that the 

duly completed public contract questionnaires must make reference to the notices 

Af 

on the award of public contracts published in the Official Journal of the European 

Communities.  In case of non-publication of the notices in the Official Journal of 

the European Communities,  the beneficiary  shall certify  that the public contracts 

have been awarded  in conformity  with Community  legislation. 

The Commission  may request  any  information  which  it considers  necessary  for 

judging whether Community  legislation on public contracts has been respected. 

Reimbursement  shall be subject  to the presentation  of documentary  evidence in 

duplicate.  That  evidence  should  contain  at  least  the  main  elements  of  the 

agreement  between  the  Member  State  and  the  service  providers)  and  the 

corresponding  proofs  of payment.  To be eligible  for  reimbursement,  individual 

items of expenditure must be listed in a summary statement  indicating explicitly 

for  each  item  the  object  of  the  expenditure,  its  connection  with  the  proposed 

programme and the net amount excluding VAT. 

SlVbùo 

FINANCIAL STATEMENT 

Heading B2-901: financial participation  in inspection and monitoring operations 

1. 

Title of operation 

Financial participation in inspection and monitoring operations. 

2. 

Budget heading involved 

B2-901. 

3. 

Legal basis 

Article 43 of the Treaty and Council Decision 89/631/EEC. 

4. 

Description of operation 

4.1  General objective of operation 

The question of financial assistance for  inspection operations carried out 
by the Member States was raised when the CFP was introduced  After  a 
preliminary  stage, assistance of an initial amount of ECU 22 million per 
annum  was  granted  for  the  period  from  1991  to  1995  on  the  basis  of 
Decision 89/631/EEC, allowing the Commission to contribute up to 50% 
of expenditure on equipment incurred by the Member States. The Council 
undertook to decide on future provisions before 30 June 1995 on the basis 
of a report drawn up by the Commissioa  In the mean time, the Council 
has taken other decisions which have a bearing on this question. 

When the new control Regulation was adopted, the Council said that the 
current system of inspections would now extend to new areas and required 
the  implementation  of  additional  measures not  covered  by  the previous 
Decision  (89/631/EEC)1.  The  range  of  operations  for  which  a  financial 
contribution could be made to the expenditure of the Member States would 
therefore have to be widened: 

OJ No L 364,  14.12.1989, p.64. 

AS 

Support for investment expenditure must continue to be a priority 
for financial assistance.  The  acquisition  of  heavy  equipment  is 
particularly  difficult  to finance from national  budgets.  Moreover, 
the  investments  made  during  the  period  1989  to  1995  have  not 
fully  covered  needs  as  shown  by  the  assessments  made  by  the 
Member  States for  the period  1996 to 2000. The working  life  of 
the  equipment  concerned  ranges from several  decades  (seagoing 
equipment) to several years (motor vehicles, computer equipment, 
technical  inspection  equipment),  airborne  inspection  equipment 
coming  somewhere  in  between.  The  equipment  with  a  short 
working  life will  have to be replaced within the next five years. 
Even  amongst  the  seagoing  equipment  there  will  have  to  be 
additions,  replacements  and  renewals.  A  greater  priority  will 
furthermore have to be given to investments in modem technology. 
Investment  will  have  to  cover  not  only  the  acquisition  of 
equipment  but  also  other  types  of  expenditure,  in  particular  on 
software. 

If rapid progress is to be made, integrated projects may need to be 
set  up,  the  financing  of  which,  like  that  of  the  satellite  pilot 
projects,  may  require  expenditure  over  and  above  the  cost  of 
investments.  The  setting-up  of  information  networks  depends  on 
such integrated projects. The agreement reached in the Council in 
December  1994  on  fisheries  inspection  west  of  longitude  4°W 
requires  very  rapid 
implementation  and  specific  financial 
arrangements. 

The serious problem of training needs to be stressed. Support must 
be permitted for the Member States' initiatives in this area  Priority 
must  also be given to  assistance for  exchanges  between Member 
States and between Member States and the Commission, both  for 
the  initial  training  of  officials  responsible  for  control  and 
subsequently to promote temporary detachments and exchanges. 

4.2  Duration of operation and provisions for renewal 

The operation forms part of a measure planned to cover the period  1996 
to 2000. Any subsequent  action will have to be decided upon before the 
end of the period. 

5. 

Classification of expenditure or  revenue 

5.1 

Compulsory expenditure. 

5.2  Differentiated  appropriations. 

5.3  No revenue. 

A.% 

6. 

TVpc of expenditure or  revenue 

Subsidy for joint financing with other sources in the public and/or private sector 

Subsidy  in the form of a reimbursement.  Possibility of paying advances. 

7. 

Financial impact 

7.1  Method of calculating the total cost of the scheme 

The financial contribution to investment expenditure is, inter alia, for the 
acquisition or modernization  of: 

>* 

- 

vessels, aircraft, and land vehicles employed in the monitoring and 
supervision of fishing activities; 
systems  for  the  detection  and  recording  of  fishing  activities 
(including equipment  installed on fishing vessels); 
systems for recording, managing and transmitting inspection data, 
including computer applications and  software. 

The  contribution  should  be  limited  to  35%, as  against  50% under  the 
previous Decision. 

The  financial  contribution  to  expenditure  intended  to  improve  the 
application  of the  common fisheries policy  as part  of specific  measures 
and projects not exceeding two years is limited to 50%. 

The same limit applies for expenditure on the training of national  officials 
involved  in inspection work,  in particular  in a Member  State other than 
that in which they are employed. 

The Commission may, however, decide on higher rates, in particular: 

to permit the implementation of a coordinated measure by Member 
States and the Commission to overcome difficulties with inspection 
in an area of Community interest; 
to  permit  experimentation  with  and  the  introduction  of  new 
technology to improve the control of fishing and related activities; 
to  permit  an  additional  Community  financial  contribution  not 
necessarily  limited  to  expenditure  on  investments  in  favour  of 
Ireland for the improvement of inspection work. 

to 

7.2 

Breakdown by type of measure 

Commitment appropriations in ECU million 

(at  1996 prices) 

Type of measure 

Annual budget 
.  1996 to 2000 

Total budget over five 

years 

1. Investment  in 

equipment 

2. Operating expenditure 

(Ireland) 

3. Information  networks 
4. Training and 
exchanges 

Total 

28 

2 

10 
1 

41 

140 

10 

50 
5 

205 

A more detailed breakdown of expenditure is not possible since it is up to 
the Member States to submit applications. Priority should nevertheless be 
given to new technology and to seagoing inspection equipment for those 
Member States which are still underequipped. 

7.3.  Operating expenditure on studies, meetings of experts, etc. included in Part 

B 

The nature of this heading excludes operating expenditure of this type. 

7.4 

Schedule  to  be  completed  for  multiannual  operations  whose  basic 
instrument contains "an amount deemed necessary" 

amount deemed necessary: ECU 41 million 

period:  1996 to 2000 

Commitment appropriations / payment appropriations  in ECU million 
(at  1996 prices) 

Indicative plan 

1996 

1997 

1998 

1999 

2000 

2001 

Total 

CA 
PA 

41 
10 

41 
40 

41 
40 

41 
40 

41 
40 

35 

205 
205 

3.A 

8. 

Ftaud-prevention measures; results of measures taken 

Under  the  scheme,  the  Commission  must  take  a  decision  every  year  on  the 
Community contribution to expenditure  incurred by the Member States. A prior 
appraisal  is  made  of  the  proposals  submitted  by  the  Member  States  and  the 
Commission  decides  on  the  eligibility  of  applications  on  the  basis  of  the 
documentation submitted  Each year, after  an interdepartmental  consultation, the 
selected proposals are examined by the Management Committee for Fisheries and 
Aquaculture. The Commission then decides on the eligibility of the applications 
and the size of the Community contribution. 

Payment  of  the  Commission  contribution  is  made  on  presentation  of  duly 
receipted  invoices  relating  to  eligible  expenditure  actually  incurred  and  on 
presentation of the duly completed  "public contract questionnaire". 

To  enable the best  use to  be  made  of  assistance  granted from the Community 
budget, the Member States must ensure the effectiveness  of all their arrangements 
for  controls and penalties and complete transparency of all procedures. 

The importance  of inspection  missions.carried out by officials  on behalf of the 
Commission in the Member States should be stressed. They enable verification of 
the  conformity  of  equipment  with  the  administrative  documents  which  the 
authorities of the Member States are obliged to submit to the Commission and the 
effective  use of all the control  facilities  part-financed  by the Community.  Joint 
missions  by  the  Authorizing  Office  and  Financial  Control  are  planned  in  the 
beneficiary  Member States. 

The  above  provisions  will  enable  the  Commission  to  evaluate  the  actual 
application of the Decision which will succeed Decision 89/631/EEC. 

9. 

Dements of cost-effectiveness  analysis 

Expenditure on fisheries  enforcement  must be set against the value of fish stocks 
and the damage caused by non-declaration (estimated at  10% of the value of the 
catches  landed)  and  poor  management  (resulting  in  the  loss  of  an  estimated 
potential annual revenue of ECU 3 000 million). 

9.1 

Specific  and quantifiable  objectives; target population 

Specific objectives:  links with general objective 

To provide inspection authorities with efficient,  modern equipment. 
To set up the mechanisms and computer networks necessary for the 
exchange of information  relating to enforcement  operations. 
To promote the training of those involved in enforcement operations. 

*> 

£X 

Target population: distinguish as applicable for each objective; indicate the 
end-beneficiaries  of  the  Community's  financial  contribution  and  the 
intermediaries involved 

The direct targets are the national fisheries inspection authorities, but it is 
all those involved in fishing and related activities, often  in regions where 
other  economic  activities  are  limited,  who  will  benefit  from  efficient 
fisheries  enforcement. It is not only the fisheries sector which is concerned 
-  the ecological  impact of poorly controlled fishing activities affects  the 
whole  of the  Union  as  do  the  diplomatic  consequences  when  there  are 
inadequate controls in international or third country waters. 

9.2  Grounds for the operation 

Need for  Community financial assistance 

If the inadequacies in fisheries inspection are to.be overcome, the 
Commission must take political, regulatory and budgetary action. 
None of these areas can be neglected; they are in any case linked. 
Progress has been made on regulatory provisions, essentially at the 
initiative of the Commission. The corresponding political decisions 
have financial consequences which the Commission cannot ignore. 

the  common  fisheries  policy  and 

The  existence  of 
the 
interdependence  of the fisheries sectors  in the  different  Member 
States resulting from the movement of fish stocks makes  fisheries 
control  a Community problem. Cost-benefit  analyses of fisheries 
control  cannot be carried  out at Member-State  level. Community 
financial  solidarity  is  therefore  essential  and the  budget  heading 
permitting assistance towards expenditure incurred by the Member 
States  is  the  expression  and  the  instrument  of  that  solidarity. 
Furthermore, the growth of that heading is the result of decisions 
already taken. 

Choice of ways and means 

* 

* 

advantages  over  alternative  measures  (comparative 
advantages), 
analysis  of  any  similar  measures  implemented  at 
Community or national level. 

The budget required for effective  control is small when set against 
the economic importance of fisheries, the losses from fraud and the 
waste arising from the current ineffectiveness  of the CFP. It is also 
small  compared  with  the  amounts  spent  in  this  area  by  other 
countries. 

£5 

The  Community  budget  for  control  will  remain  small  compared 
with the expenditure of Member States, but that budget is the key 
to any progress. Reference has been made to the obligations arising 
from  the decisions taken since 1991, particularly those taken by the 
Council. Assistance with the expenditure incurred by the Member 
States is essential. 

Community financial assistance  accounts  for  2.7% of  the  1995 
Community budget for fisheries and is less than 10% of the almost 
ECU 230 million  per  year  spent  by  the  Member  States  on 
inspection and monitoring. Of that amount, ECU 54 million is for 
investment, the rest to cover operating costs. That expenditure can 
be  compared  with  the  expenditure  on  controls  by  certain  third 
countries.  The  annual  estimated  cost  of  enforcement  operations 
carried out by Norway is NOK 500 million (ECU 60 million) and 
Canada  spends  CAD 85 million  (ECU 58 million).  The  1995 
budget  of  the  US  Coast  Guard  for  policing fishing activities  is 
USD 500 million (ECU 390 million). The Community budget  for 
fisheries  control is therefore modest when measured against a range 
of criteria 

Mean factors of  uncertainty which could affect the specific results 
of the operation 

The most serious risk is that Member States will be unable to meet 
their  commitments  as  regards  part-financing  and  their  other 
obligations (organization, personnel, penalties, etc.). 

In order for equipment towards which financial assistance has been 
granted to be used effectively,  it niust be used in a suitable context. 
Operating  budgets,  staffing,  administrative  organization  and 
penalties are, without exception, the responsibility of the Member 
States. If the Member States do not adopt the appropriate measures, 
Community  assistance  will  not  produce  the  desired  results. 
National  authorities,  although  well-equipped,  will  not  be  fully 
effective. 

9.3  Monitoring and evaluation of the operation 

Evaluation of costs 

The  major  difficulty 
is  that  the  authorities  involved  in  fisheries 
enforcement  are often also carrying out other duties. Costs have therefore 
to  be  allocated.  The most  obvious  example  is operations  at  sea.  Where 
these  involve the  armed  forces,  and  even where  an  operation  is mainly 
concerned  with  fisheries  enforcement,  they  could possibly  include other 
activities (sea rescue, demonstrating a security presence). 

£M 

Whatever the difficulties,  the expenditure required  for  effective  controls 
is such that appropriate accounting measures must be taken to permit an 
effective  breakdown of costs. 

Assessment of the results 

The initial  indicators  are a measure of the means employed: the number 
of  days  at  sea  of  inspection  vessels  or  flying  hours  of  airplanes  and 
helicopters, the area covered, the number of inspections carried out on land 
and  at  sea.  These  are  indicators  of  activity  and  not  a  measure  of 
effectiveness. They must nevertheless be part of any system for monitoring 
progress in enforcing the CFP. 

The  second  set  of  indicators  is  the  number  of  suspected  infringements 
detected  and  the penalties  imposed  This  information,  together  with the 
activity  indicators  referred  to  above,  are  vital  for  any  appraisal  of  the 
thoroughness  of inspections and penalties. They do not, however,  give a 
complete picture, since the number of suspected infringements depends on 
both  the  effectiveness  of  inspections  and  the  actual  number  of 
infringements. 

As  regards  resource-conservation  policy,  the  actual  effectiveness  of  the 
enforcement  of the  CFP  should  be assessed  in the  light  of two criteria: 
limits  on  the  rate  of  exploitation  and  protection  of  the  smallest  fish 
(juveniles). This means making a comparison between actual catches and 
authorized  catches  for  each  stock  and  calculating  the  proportion  of 
undersized fish taken. Paradoxically, this is technically easier than proving 
individual  infringements  on  a  legally  accepted  basis.  Procedures  can be 
worked  out  for  carrying  out  checks to verify  the  catches  of  a  group  of 
vessels.  However  statistically  lax the  procedures,  it  will  be possible  to 
assess the reliability  of such estimates and to  improve that reliability  as 
required by adjusting  the size of the samples taken. It will often be more 
difficult  to acquire  legally  acceptable proof against  a probable  fraudster. 
On  the  one  hand,  the  so-called  "law  of  large  numbers"  facilitates  the 
estimation  of  overall  quantities,  and,  on the  other,  the  burden  of  proof 
placed  on  the  prosecution  makes  the  penalization  of 
individual 
infringements  difficult.  This  duality  must  be  an  element  in  any 
consideration of the effectiveness  of controls. It shows that it is easier than 
it  is  sometimes  thought  to  measure  the  actual  overall  result  of 
infringements. Scientists have regularly done this by comparing the official 
statistics  with  estimates  based  on  research  work.  The  unreliability  of 
certain official  statistics forces research institutes to devote a considerable 
part of their  limited resources to non-scientific  work.  However,  in terms 
of enforcement, the possibility of quantifying fraud permits us not only to 
have  immediate  composite  indicators  of  efficiency  but  also  to  target 
inspections in the most  important areas. It therefore  becomes possible to 
rationalize  inspections  so  that  the  means  devoted  to  prevention  and 
dissuasion and to the gathering of evidence necessary  for  the imposition 
of  penalties  are  concentrated  on  the  most  serious  problems.  Such 
rationalization  would  not  only  permit  a  direct  improvement  in  the 

^ 

effectiveness  of controls but would also increase the credibility of controls 
with tliose working in the sector, who are often well-informed  about large 
and recurrent cases of fraud 

On an  operational  level,  it  would  be useful  if  each Member  State were 
able  to  verify  certain  catches  on  the  basis  of  random  checks.  DG XTV 
should use the assessments made by international  scientific bodies. 

(Items for  internal  information  purposes) 

9.4 

Consistency with financial programming 

Is the operation incorporated in the DG's financial programming for  the 
relevant years? 

The operation  is to be implemented under a Council Decision covering 
the period  1996 to 2000. 

To which broader objective defined in the DG's financial programming 
does the objective of the proposed operation correspond? 

The question of enforcement  concerns the. whole of the CFP. 

10 

Administrative expenditure (part A of the budget) 

This section of the financial statement must be sent to DGs XIX and IX; DG 
IX will then forward  it to DG XIX with its opinion. 

10.1  Will the proposed operation involve an increase in the number of 

Commission staff? If  so, how many? 

An increase is necessary to intensify  anti-fraud  controls, monitoring and 
assessment.  The estimated  increase is 0.5 A and  1 B grade staff. 

'i(c 

10.2 

Indicate the amount of staff and administrative expenditure involved in 
the proposed operation  Explain the method of calculation 

Mission expenses: ECU  15 000 

Staffing 

-  75% of the time of an A grade  official 
-  150% of the time of a B grade  official 
-  150% of the time of a C grade  official 
-  translation work (correspondence, proposed programmes, 

Commission Decision) 

In the medium term, after  the transitional phase, the additional 
resources might no longer be required 

£V 

REPORT  FROM  THE  COMMISSION  TO  THE  COUNCIL 
AND  THE  EUROPEAN  PARLIAMENT 

ON THE COMMUNITY'S FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTION  TOWARDS 
EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY MEMBER STATES FOR THE 
PURPOSE OF ENSURING COMPLIANCE WITH 
THE COMMON FISHERIES POLICY 

Note on the English translation: it has not proved possible to translate the Annexes of this 
Report by 28 April. The English version of these will follow in the first week of May. -
SdT/€/3 

£8-

CONTENTS 

INTRODUCTION 

l. 

APPLICATION  OF COUNCIL DECISION 89/631/EEC 

1.1 
1.2 
1.3 
\A 

BACKGROUND 
DESCRIPTION OF THE SCHEME 
PURPOSE OF THE INVESTMENTS 
RESULTS 

2. 

CONTEXT  FOR THE PREPARATION  OF A  NEW DECISION 

2.1 

2.2 

NEW  REGULATORY 
UNDERTAKINGS 
CONDITIONS OF EFFECTIVE MONITORING 

FRAMEWORK/COUNCIL  AND  COMMISSION 

3. 

RJTURE FINANCIAL SOLIDARITY 

3.1 
3.2 

3.3 
3.4 

JUSTIFICATION 
TOWARDS  A  PARTNERSHIP  BETWEEN  THE  COMMISSION  AND MEMBER 
STATES 
SCOPE OF APPLICATION AND PROCEDURES 
BUDGET APPROPRIATIONS 

CONCLUSIONS 

ï*> 

ANNEX 1: 

Implementation of Decision 89/631/EEC 

ANNEX 2:  Factors in the cost-effectiveness  of controls 

ANNEX 3:  Analysis of some Community schemes to finance controls in the 

agricultural  and customs sectors 

ANNEX 4:  Forecast expenditure by the Member States for the period  1996-2000 

ANNEX 5: 

Indicative financial planning for the period  1996-2000 

(5) 

INTRODUCTION 

The common fisheries policy includes a comprehensive, integiated system of control  for 
ensuring  compliance with  the rules relating  to  all  the  key  aspects  of that  policy.  The 
Member States have direct responsibility for most operational aspects. Each Member State 
designates the competent authorities responsible for carrying out inspections and makes 
the necessary funding and staffing  available. Given that controls are of more than purely 
national  interest and that the investments necessary to acquire suitable monitoring and 
control facilities in certain cases exceed the funding available from national budgets, since 
1978 the Community has gradually introduced a system of financial contributions towards 
expenditure incurred by the Member, States. 

The  purpose  of  this  report  is,  in  the  first  instance,  to  review  application  of  Council 
Decision  89/631/EEC  on  a  Community  financial  contribution  towards  expenditure 
incurred by Member States for the purpose of ensuring compliance with the Community 
system for the conservation and management of fishery  resources'. The Decision covers 
1991-95  and  an  initial  budget  of  ECU  110  million  was  authorized  for  the five-year 
period. 

Before looking at the future, an in-depth analysis of the current situation is required. This 
analysis  is  the  subject  of  the  second  part  of  this  report,  which  summarizes  recent 
decisions  affecting  the rules  on the  enforcement  of the  CFP  and  looks  at  the  general 
conditions necessary for progress on fisheries control. 

. 

On the basis of the analysis  given in that  second part, the third  and final part  aims to 
define the rules for a new system of financial support for fisheries control. 

OJNoL364,  14.12.1989, p. 64. 

M 

l. 

APPIJCATIQN  OF  COUNCIL  DECISION  89/631/EEC 

1.1 

BACKGROUND 

The primary  responsibility  for  enforcement  of the common fisheries policy  (CFP)  lies 
with the Member States. Each Member State controls fishing and related activities carried 
out on its territory and within the maritime waters under its sovereignty or falling within 
its jurisdiction.  Controls cover all vessels and all operators, both those of the Member 
State responsible for controls and those of other Member States and third countries. 

The  decentralization  of  responsibility  for  the  inspection  and  monitoring  of  fishing 
activities to the Member  States is in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity. The 
Commission must provide support for these controls and ensure that they are  effective, 
fair, objective and transparent. The financial burden, the relationship between that burden 
and the benefits for the national economy and budgetary capacity vary considerably  from 
Member  State  to  Member  State. Financial  solidarity  is therefore  necessary.  From  the 
introduction of the CFP, therefore, support has been given through a contribution to the 
cost of investments. 

Following  on  from  an  initial  measure  introduced  in  1978  for  Ireland  and  Denmark 
(Greenland), it was decided in 1987 to grant financial assistance to all Member States for 
the  development  of their  monitoring  and  inspection  facilities.  This  measure was then 
extended  for  a period of five years by Council  Decision  89/631/EEC of 27 November 
1989 on a Community financial contribution towards expenditure incurred by Member 
States  for  the  purpose  of  ensuring  compliance  with  the  Community  system  for  the 
conservation and management of fishery resources2. The Decision covers the period 1991-
95 and extends, as an interim measure, to monitoring operations' in the Mediterranean 
pending the adoption of Community rules for that area. 

This section reviews the implementation of Decision 89/631/EEC. The subject has already 
been covered in two previous documents: the Report on Monitoring Implementation of 
the Common Fisheries Policy3 makes an overall evaluation of the controls exercised by 
the Member States and examines in detail Community contributions towards expenditure 
incurred  by  Member  States;  the  report  from  the  Commission  to  the  Council  on  the 
Memorandum submitted by Ireland on the fisheries  sector4, from a more specific point 
of view, contains an appraisal of the Community contribution granted to Ireland 

OJNoL364,  14.12.1989, p. 64. 
Doc. SEC(92) 394  final. 
Doc. SEC(93) 882  final. 

1.2 

DESCRIPTION  OF THE SCHEME 

Council Decision 89/631/EEC provides for a Community financial  contribution towards 
expenditure incurred by Member States for the purpose of ensuring compliance with the 
Community  system  for  the  conservation  and  management  of fishery resources.  The 
principal objective of the measure is to contribute to the development of monitoring and 
inspection  facilities  in the Member  States,  since improving control  will help conserve 
fishery  resources and result in more rational, and therefore more economically  efficient, 
fishing. Day-to-day  expenditure  and  running  costs  are  not  eligible  for  a financial 
contribution from the Union. 

The  Community  contribution  applies  to  eligible  expenditure  incurred  by  the  Member 
States between 1  January 1991 and 31 December 1995. The Council, acting in accordance 
with the procedure provided for in Article 43 of the Treaty, must decide before 30 June 
1995 on provisions for any Community financial contribution to be made after  1 January 
1996 (Article 1(5)). 

In  1989, the Council considered that a budget of ECU 22 million was needed over the 
five years, with Community financing limited to a maximum of 50%.  . 

In  1994  a  budget  of  ECU 10 million  was  earmarked  for  pilot  projects  concerning 
continuous  satellite  position  monitoring  of  fishing  vessels  and  automatic  position 
recorders. These projects were implemented during the second half of 1994 and the  first 
half of 1995 in preparation for a Council decision on the definitive  introduction of such 
a monitoring system. 

The budget  for  the measure  in  1995  is ECU 22.5 million  or 2.7% of the Community 
budget for  fisheries. 
s 

Between  1991  and  1995,  the  Commission  made  a  total  financial  contribution  of 
ECU  118 million. The Community  contribution was 50% of eligible expenditure in all 
cases, except  for the pilot projects  concerning continuous satellite position monitoring, 
which were financed at the rate of 100%, the total contribution for those projects in 1994 
and  1995 being ECU 9.4 million. 

Annex  1  shows the consolidated position with regard to commitments and payments for 
all the Member States. 

M 

1.3 

PURPOSE OF THE INVESTMENTS 

Eligible expenditure has been spent on the acquisition or modernization  of: 

seagoing equipment, aircraft  and land vehicles and equipment  installed  in them; 
systems for the detection and recording of fishing activities; 
systems for recording and processing data on catches and landings/transshipments. 

The Community  contribution  of an average of ECU 22 million per year  should be set 
against the investment of more than ECU 54 million per year made by the Member States 
themselves. 

The  final  beneficiaries  of  the  Community  contribution  are  the  national  inspection 
authorities designated by the Member States. In certain cases, benefits  are passed on to 
the regional inspection authorities. 

The range of investments made and planned under Decision 89/631/EEC varies from one 
Member State to another. An indication is given in Annex 1. 

1.4 

RESULTS 

The results of the financial  support  given for  investment  expenditure can only be  fully 
assessed on the basis of a cost-effectiveness  analysis of the whole range of controls. As 
shown in Annex 2, the analytical tools required are not yet fully  in place in the Member 
States. The following analysis can therefore be no more than partial. 

The purpose of the expenditure on seagoing equipment, aircraft  and land vehicles and on 
the systems for the detection and recording of fishing activities was to improve controls 
in order to  achieve fuller  compliance with  conservation  measures. An evaluation must 
cover- the performance  of  inspection  services  and the  results  obtained  in terms  of  the 
compliance of fishermen with the rules on conservation (access to zones and resources, 
technical  measures) and application by the Member States of the overall restrictions on 
catches (quotas). 

Surveillance  and  controls  at  sea  and  on  land  can  be  analyzed  in  terms  of  activity. 
Evaluation is often based on key data such as the number of inspection days, the number 
of inspections at sea, the number of infringements detected, etc. Some of this information 
is  systematically  gathered  under  Commission  Regulation  (EEC)  No 3561/85  of 
17 December 1985 concerning information  about inspections of fishing activities carried 

">M 

out by national  control  authorities5.  Between  1990 and  1993, the number of inspection 
days  spent  at  sea by  national  inspection  vessels  rose  from  12 970  to  16 520  and  the 
number  of  inspections  at  sea  from  20 537  to  31 944.  The  number  of  infringements 
detected increased from 2 393 to 5 092, with infringements at sea involving the log-book 
rising from 217 to 489 and illegal catches from 152 to 320. 

As shown in Annex 2, it is vital to be able to estimate the extent of fraud. The increase 
in  the  number  of  infringements  detected  could  be  the  result  of  the  intensification  of 
controls  and,  in  part,  of  the  widening  of  the  scope  of  controls.  In  addition  to  the 
indicators of activity, an indication of effectiveness  could be gained from a comparison 
of  official  statistics  and  the  unofficial  statistics  used  by  ICES  working  parties  (see 
Annex 2). Comparison shows that the reliability of official  statistics has not significantly 
improved 

The  increase  in  investment,  with  a  financial  contribution  from  the  Community,  has 
enabled fisheries  control to be intensified  This has not permitted any large reduction in 
fraud,  since the factors which tend to encourage it, such as commercial difficulties,  have 
been  increasing.  In  any  event,  any  improvement  in  controls  is  impossible  without 
investment, although investment on its own is insufficient,  as shown in paragraph 2.2 

As regards legislation, Decision 89/631/EEC had to be amended to include expenditure 
on controls in the Mediterranean and to permit the financing of pilot projects concerning 
satellite position monitoring of fishing vessels. 

OJNoL339,  18.12.1985, p. 29. 

^ S' 

2. 

CONTEXT FOR THE PREPARATION  OF A  NEW DECISION 

2.1 

NEW REGULATORY  F R A M E W M U C / C C O V O L^ 

2.1.1  REVIEW OF THE  CFP 

Council Regulation (EEC) No 3760/92 of 20 December  1992 establishing a Community 
system  for  fisheries  and  aquaculture6  created  the  main  frame  of  reference  for  the 
implementation  of the  common fisheries policy  up to  2002. The CFP now  covers all 
activities involving the exploitation of live aquatic resources, including aquaculture, and 
product processing and marketing. The new basic Regulation, which essentially  rolled 
forward the CFP on the basis of what had been achieved since its establishment in 1983, 
also provides for the possibility of direct management of fishing effort  and the need for 
effective  links between conservation policy and limiting catch capacity. 

2.1.2  EXTENDED SCOPE OF THE MONTTORING AND INSTCOION  REQME 

Council  Regulation  (EEC) No 2847/93  establishing  a control  system applicable to the 
common fisheries policy7 entered into force on 1 January  1994. It is an instrument of the 
revised  CFP  and  has  extended  the  scope  of  application  of  monitoring  to  the 
Mediterranean, to fishing activities by Community vessels in the waters of third countries 
and  on  the  high  seas,  as  well  as  structural  measures  and  measures  on  the  common 
organization of the market. 

This  new  instrument,  which  replaces  Regulation  (EEC)  No 2241/87s,  maintains  and 
extends  the  responsibility  of  each  Member  State  with  regard  to  compliance  with 
Community  legislation. It paves the way for  increasing use  of new technologies. Two 
such uses are explicitly introduced: satellite technology (monitoring vessel position) and 
computer technology (databases and networking). 

With regard to satellite tracking, an experiment is under way which at the same time is 
testing arrangements for the continuous recording of vessel position. Conclusions based 
on  this  experiment  will  be  reached  in  1995.  The  creation  of  interconnectable 
computerized  databases  for  all  information  (e.g.  log  books,  sales  documents)  will  be 
compulsory from the beginning of 1996. 

OJ No L 389, 31.12.1992, p.l. 
OJ No L 261, 20.10.1993, p.l 
OJ  NoL  207,  29.7.1987,  p.l.  Regulation  amended  by  Regulation  (EEC) 
No 3483/88 (OJ No L 306,  11.11.1988, p.2). 

^ 

Progressive  computerization  should  lead to the creation  at  local, regional  and national 
level of computerized data bases and a computer network enabling the exchange of data 
between Member States and between Member States and the Commission. In addition to 
assisting monitoring, this would guarantee the availability at Community level of essential 
basic data, 

2.1.3  DŒNCES AND SPECIAL FISHING PERMITS 

Council Regulation (EC) No 3690/93 of 20 December  1993 establishing a Community 
system  laying  down  rules  for  the  minimum  information  to  be  contained  in fishing 
licences9  enhances  the  regulatory framework introduced  in  new  "control1'  Regulation. 
Applicable from January  1995, this Regulation lays down that every Community  fishing 
vessel must have a fishing licence containing technical information  on that vessel. 

The  licence  system was  supplemented  by  Council  Regulation  (EC) No  1627/94  of 27 
June  199410  laying  down  special  provisions  concerning  special  fishing  permits  for 
Community vessels and third-country vessels operating in Community waters. In addition, 
Council  Regulation  (EC)  No 3317/94  of  22  December  199411  lays  down  a  specific 
licensing system for Community vessels fishing under a fishing agreement in the waters 
of third countries. 

2.1.4  CONSERVATION OF MEDITERRANEAN RESOURCES 

In June  1994 the Council  adopted a set of technical  measures to create the basis for  a 
management  system  in  the  Mediterranean  (Regulation  (EC)  No  1626/94  of  27  June 
199412). 

2.1.5  ENLARGEMENT 

Two new Member States are involved, which operate exclusively (Finland) or principally 
(Sweden) in the Baltic. Both the conclusions arising from the satellite pilot projects and 
the obligations with regard to computerization from 1 January  1996 will apply fully  to 
the new Member States. In addition, special monitoring rules Were initiated in the Baltic 
in  September  1994.  Finally,  Sweden  and  Finland  have  a  direct  interest  in  industrial 
fishing.  The volume of monitoring to be carried out for this type of fishing, especially 
in  the  Baltic  and  the Kattegatt,  is  going to  increase  substantially,  particularly  since  a 
transitional period has been accepted for both Sweden and Finland at the end of which 
' an overall solution will have to be  found 

9 
10 
11 
12 

OJ No L 341, 31.12.1993, p.93. 
OJ No L  171, 6.7.1994, p.7. 
OJ No L 350, 31.12.1994, p.13. 
OJNoL  171, 6.7.1994, p.l. 

2.1.6  MANAGEMENT SYSTCIM WEST OF. 4°  W 

(Successor to the terms of Spanish and Portuguese accession) 

The Council meeting in December  1994 decided to establish new detailed management 
rules,  giving  a  major  role  to  the  direct  management  of fishing effort,  and  to  define 
associated control measures. The latter are to involve the systematic transmission, from 
1996, of entries into and exits from fishing areas for vessels of more than 15 metres, and, 
not  later  than  1998,  the  catch  data  will  also  have  to  be  transmitted.  Community 
management and data communication infrastructures  are planned for this purpose. 

2.1.7  NATO REGIME 

The  inspection  regime  in  the  NAFO  area  adopted  in  Council  Regulation  (EEC) 
No  1956/8813  has  been  supplemented  by  control  measures  contained  in  Council 
Regulation  (EEC)  No  189/9214  requiring  vessels  to  communicate  certain  information 
relating to their activity ("hail system"), by a pilot observation programme contained in 
Council  Regulation  (EEC)  No 3928/9215  and  by  certain  resource  conservation  and 
management measures (Council Regulation (EEC) No 3860/9316. 

2.1.8  UNEQUAL BURDENS 

During the debate leading to the adoption of the new control Regulation at the Council 
meeting in June 1993, the Council and the Commission undertook to examine the issue 
of the unequal  burdens placed  on certain  Member  States  in the  light  o£  among other 
things, the extent  of their EEZs, the economic significance  of their  fisheries  and their 
financial  capacity. 

This undertaking was œnfirmed by the Council in December  1994. In particular, it was 
planned,  as  part  of  the  authorized  practical  Community  measures  and  within  the 
framework  of the financial  guidelines, to grant additional Community support, including 
operating expenditure, to Ireland to help it  improve its monitoring, 

OJ No L  175, 6.7.1988, p.l. 
OJ No L 21,  30.1.1992,  p.4. 
OJ No L 397,  31.12.1992, p. 78, OJ No L 44, 22.2.1993, p.82  (corrigendum). 
Regulation amended by Regulation (EC) No 2762/94 (OJ No L 294, 15:11.1994, 
p.5). 
OJ No L 341, 31.12.1993, p. 42. 

16 

V* 

2 .2 

C O N D I T I O NS  Œ 

E F F E C T I VE  M O N I T O R I NG 

2.2.1  MEANS  OF IMPLEMENTATION 

Investment expenditure 

Monitoring at sea can only be carried out with suitable seagoing and airborne equipment. 
Inspection  on land, too, requires  means  of transport  and communications.  Monitoring 
fishing  also involves the collection, archiving and collation of considerable volumes of 
data. Computerized  equipment is therefore essential. 

All  the above  equipment  must  be constantly  modernized  so that  it  does  not become 
outdated and to prevent fraud, whose practitioners are constantly increasing and updating 
their equipment and expertise. 

Investment needs to take account not only of equipment, but also of other aspects such 
as the development of appropriate technology and the writing of software packages. 

Operating expenditure 

For  full  use to be made of the  equipment,  it must  be ensured  that  not only  the staff 
referred to in paragraphs  1-3 are provided, but also that the necessary operating budgets 
are available. 

Human resources 

It is sometimes easier to find the funds for acquiring heavy equipment than to ensure that 
the human resources needed to make full  use of the equipment  will be available on a 
long-term basis. It is nevertheless essential that organizations with a sufficient  number of 
steadily employed, trained and motivated staff should be established 

The  use  of  modem  technology  can  mean  that  the  same  level  of  effectiveness  in 
monitoring can be achieved with reduced numbers of staff, as can be seen from the cases 
of computerization and satellite surveillance. Yet, while it may be possible to reduce the 
number  of staff,  those  employed  must be qualified  The required  qualifications  go far 
beyond computer skills. The use of statistical methods means mat the monitoring services 
must be able to rely on real  specialists  in the field, and other  specializations  could be 
added to the list. But the essential point  is the general need for a sufficient  number of 
increasingly highly qualified  staff. 

' i3 

Legal powers 

If  the  agents  responsible  for  monitoring  do  not  have right of  access  to  the  relevant 
information, monitoring will be more difficult.  If the range of penalties available is not 
sufficient,  the very usefulness  of such monitoring will be  affected. 

Involvement of those working in the fishing industry and in the monitoring services 

Although  it is hard to conceive of monitoring being implemented without any  friction, 
effective  control of the CFP cannot be hoped for unless those involved, beginning with 
the fishermen themselves, can be made to see the need for  it.  Some progress has been 
achieved  A  few  years  ago monitoring of fishing was perceived  mainly  as  unjustified 
harassment from the authorities. But the fact that overall encouraging progress has been 
made  should  not  blind  us to the  fact  that  there  is still  a  long way  tb  go.  Both those 
working in the fishing industry  and those responsible for  monitoring need to be better 
informed  about what is at stake in cases of fraud 

Equity and transparency 

The primary fear blocking acceptance by fishermen  of more effective  control measures 
is that they will be subject to more rigorous controls than other fishermen.  This concern 
is most clearly reflected in the difficulties between Member States. It is therefore essential 
to  improve  transparency  œnceming the  exact  means  used  by  each  Member  State  for 
monitoring  and their  detailed  arrangements  for  the  application  of  rules  and  follow-up 
action  on  monitoring.  The Commission  must  play  a  leading role  in  ensuring that  the 
relevant information  is communicated and made public. The annual reports provided for 
in Regulation (EEC) No 2847/9317 will constitute a particularly important instrument for 
this purpose. But the cooperation of national authorities is indispensable. 

General advancement of the CFP 

Monitoring may uncover gaps in the CFP, but it cannot be a tool for  correcting a fault 
in policy. On the other hand, gaps in the CFP can only make monitoring more  difficult 
and  expensive.  The  most  important  problem  here  is  that  of  fishing  overcapacity. 
Overcapacity  is  an  essential  factor  in  explaining  the  depletion  of  resources.  This 
depletion, which reduces yield, affects the profitability  of fishing vessels. It .increases the 
temptation to commit fraud, in particular for vessels in commercial  difficulties. 

The  Council's  deliberations  on  TACs  and  quotas  have  been  moving  in  a  satisfactory 
direction for some years now, which has made it possible to take better account, for sorne 
overexploited  stocks,  of  scientific  opinion  recommending  a  reduction  in  the  level  of 

17 

OJ No L 26,1, 20.10.1993, p.l 

Ho 

exploitation.  But  the  overcapacity  which  has  give  rise  to  the  abovementioned 
over-exploitation has only been marginally  influenced  by the MGPs, at least so far. As 
a result the catch capacity  in various fisheries still  far  exceeds that  needed  for  catches 
within  the  quotas.  If  restrictions  on  the  activity  of  the  vessels  concerned  cannot  be 
established in parallel, the situation will lead to closures of fisheries in the course of the 
fishing year, to massive discards into the sea, or to fraud Monitoring catches is made all 
the more difficult  and expensive by the wide gap between the fishing capacity available 
and that needed to catch within the quotas. 

Use of recent technological  developments 

Fishermen  have  often  been  quicker to take  advantage  of  the  opportunities  offered  by 
technical developments than have the organizations responsible for monitoring. Reference 
has  already  been  made to  satellites  and  computer  technology  in  this  connection.  It  is 
important not to stand still in trying to apply the new control Regulation. On the contrary, 
active  and  constant  steps  must  be  taken  to  seize  all  the  opportunities  offered  by 
technological  development. 

2.2.2 

STRATEGY AND ORGANIZATION 

The extremely heterogeneous nature of the fisheries and aquaculture sector, the size of 
the zones to be supervised, the mixed nature of fisheries, the large number of landing and 
sales points and, above all, the imbalance between fishing capacity and the potential of 
existing fish stocks all make monitoring more difficult.  Substantial physical, human and 
financial  resources are needed to achieve successful  monitoring. But it is the linchpin of 
the CFP. It is therefore  essential to define a strategy and organization for  it. 

The available means should be deployed in optimal fashion  so as to concentrate 
them  on  the  most  serious  problems  and  give  proportionate  attention  to  the 
different  aspects  concerned  (catches,  fishing  effort,  structures,  the  market). At 
operational level, monitoring should be targeted on areas and fisheries where non 
compliance with Community rules is most widespread, and concentrate on major 
infringements. The monitoring and inspection services cannot afford  to carry out 
random surveillance with the limited means at their disposal. Moreover, dealing 
with  major  infringements  has  a  deterrent  effect,  whereas  the  pursuit  of  minor 
infringements  may be counterproductive  and even undermine  the credibility  of 
monitoring. Equally, infringements duly discovered must be penalized in an even-
handed way and have a deterrent  effect 

-  .  Changes  that  have  occurred  in  the  recent  past  mean  that  alterations  are  also 
needed in the way monitoring is conducted The monitoring of technical measures 
and landings, which have so far been the mainstay of fisheries monitoring, must 
be  supplemented  by  other  measures  to  achieve  global  and  integrated  control 
covering  the  key  elements  of the  common  fisheries  policy.  It  follows  that  the 
monitoring  of  inputs,  put  into  practice  through,  among  other  things,  capacity 
inspections (e.g. checking vessel displacement and engine power) and surveillance 

4'1 

of fishing effort  (number of days at sea), must be stepped up. The validation of 
catch  and  landing  data  and  cross-checking  of  data  from  different  sources,  in 
particular  through  the  use  of  computers,  will  also  provide  valuable  support. 
Sampling procedures should be defined, both to check certain data and to fill in 
information gaps. National authorities should develop programmes to take account 
of these new developments. The result will be a real increase in  efficiency. 

Experience  has  shown  that  breaking  up  monitoring  tasks  among  several 
departments  or ministries  greatly  complicates  the  collection  of  information.  In 
some  cases  a  monitoring  officer  is  obliged  to  curtail  his  work  in  order  not  to 
impinge upon the prerogatives of a department to which he does not belong. What 
makes these difficulties  all the more regrettable is that the collation of information 
from various sources is one of the essential  instruments  for  improving  fisheries 
monitoring. The information  required may be collected  in some cases at sea, in 
others at the point of landing or first sale, and in still other cases during transport 
or trade transactions beyond the first sale. It is probably not conceivable for one 
authority  to  be  responsible  for  the  all  the  aspects  likely  to  be  of  interest  for 
fisheries  monitoring  purposes.  But  the  greater  the  number  of  departments 
involved,  the  more  difficult  monitoring  is, while the  stronger  the  coordination 
structures  and  mechanisms, the  more  effective  it  is. This  is  another  respect  in 
which each Member State should establish the necessary organization, unless they 
wish to accept inefficient  monitoring at prohibitive expense. 

4°L 

3. 

F U T U RE  F I N A N C I AL  S O L I D A R I TY 

3.1 

JUSTIFICATION 

Improving monitoring is a priority  for the CFP that  is recognized by everyone. 
Expenditure on monitoring must therefore also be seen in relation to the value of 
Community production, which  is more than ECU 8 500 million.  The  improper 
exploitation  of  resources,  which  cannot  be  remedied  without  improving 
monitoring, is leading to a fall in revenue in many fisheries of 10% to 30% on the 
most  conservative  estimate. At  a  global  level, the FAO estimates  the  value  of 
waste resulting from over-fishing  at between USD  15 000 million and USD 30 
000 million. The present level of Commission financial assistance represents 2.7% 
of the section of the Community budget allocated to fisheries in  1995, and less 
than 10% of the total expenditure of Member States on monitoring. Total Member 
State expenditure on monitoring is approaching ECU 230 million per year. Of this 
amount,  ECU 54 million  relates to  investment, the rest  goes  on running costs. 
This expenditure  may also be compared with the cost  of monitoring  in certain 
third  countries.  The  annual  cost  of  monitoring  in  Norway  is  estimated  at 
NOK 500 million (ECU 60 million) and in Canada at CAD 85 million (ECU 58 
million). In the United States, the proportion of the  1995 budget allocated to the 
Coast Guard for policing fisheries is USD 500 million (= ECU 390 million). The 
Community fisheries monitoring budget is thus modest on a number of measures. 

Community participation in Member State expenditure is justified by the fact that 
the  rules  to  be  complied  with  are  Community  rules.  Only  the  application  of 
common rules can ensure effective conservation of resources. Monitoring landings 
and transport of fish goes beyond purely national interests. A fisherman from one 
Member  State may land fish in another Member  State and the fish landed may 
then be transported to a third Member State. (For example, a Belgian  fisherman 
may land his catch, caught in the North Sea, in Denmark and then transport it to 
the Netherlands and market it there). The Member State where the landing takes 
place  and  transport  commences  monitors  the  application  of  Community  rules 
without  having  any  direct  economic  interest  in the operation.  Monitoring  by  a 
Member  State, on its territory and in its maritime waters therefore  goes beyond 
national  interests.  The  Community  dimension  is  becoming  more  and  more 
important as time passes because of the interpénétration of activities. 

W5 

Non-compliance  with  the  control  system  results  in frauds that  undermine the 
internal  and external  credibility  of the common fisheries policy,  and in certain 
cases of the Community itself. The establishment at Community level of  effective 
monitoring  should  create  a  climate  of  confidence  and  cooperation  between 
inspection bodies and those active in the industry, and between the Community 
and third countries. 

The  benefits  of  effective  monitoring  cannot  be  assigned  to  specific  Member 
States. In this context solidarity is needed in bearing the costs. This is made still 
more  important  by  the  fact  that  some  Member  States  bear  disproportionate 
burdens.  The benefits  that  a  Member  State  may  hope  to  derive  from  better 
fisheries  monitoring is not proportionate to the financial burden it has to bear. The 
.  cost  of monitoring for a Member  State  increases according to the extent of its 
exclusive economic zone, and more particularly the extent of the continental shelf 
included  in that  zone  since,  apart from the large migratory  fish  (e.g. the tuna 
family), most fisheries are concentrated on the shelf. The size of landings and the 
possible number of landing points also increases costs. The financial capacity of 
Member  States to bear monitoring costs depends on other factors,  and even the 
commercial  value  of  the  fishing  activity  within  a  Member  State  is  not 
proportionate  to the potential  burden  of monitoring  it has to take  on. Having 
recognized  the  imbalance  of this  situation,  an exercise  in  increased  solidarity 
should  be undertaken  to  support  the Member  States  concerned,  of  which the 
clearest example is Ireland 

Beyond  the  requirements  of  solidarity,  there  is  major  potential  for  synergy. 
Monitoring  in  one Member  State  will  be  all  the  more  effective  if  it  is  also 
efficient  in  others.  Moreover,  economies  of  scale  may be  found  by  avoiding 
unnecessary duplication. This is particularly true in the case of experimenting with 
new technology as in the case of satellite tracking or the definition of software for 
data management and transfer. 

3.2 

TOWARDS A PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN THE COMMISSION AND NBEMBER STATES 

Such a partnership presupposes general agreement on overall strategy, taking account of 
the  principle  of  subsidiarity  and  the  exclusive  competence  of  Member  States  for 
monitoring their territory and EEZs, as well as the need for coordination at Community 
level and specific  Commission tasks. 

The Commission must ensure that national monitoring is effective, provide the necessary 
financial  assistance  as discussed  in this  report  and develop  its roles  as an initiator of 
progress  and coordinator.  However,  the Member  States  must  continue  to provide and 
develop the basics. Community  measures will be in vain if the Member  States do not 
make  all  the  necessary  arrangements.  The  function  of  Community  financing  for 
monitoring should be clearly defined  It is only under these conditions that an  effective 
partnership can be established between Commission and Member States. 

4W 

Community  funding  must  not  be  a  substitute  for  national  financing.  The  principle  of 
additionality  must  pertain  fully.  In  addition  to  that  principle,  to  ensure  that  the  best 
possible use is made of funding granted from the Community budget by the Commission, 
the  Member  States  must  guarantee  the  efficiency  of  all  the  monitoring  systems  and 
penalties they use and also ensure complete transparency. 

When funding  is granted under the heading of equipment, to enable it to be well used, 
there must be an adequate context into which it is to be integrated.  Barring exceptions, 
the  allocation  of  staffing,  operational  and  administrative  budgets  lies  within  the 
competence  of  the  Member  States.  If  they  do  not  make  the  necessary  arrangements, 
Community  assistance  will  not  achieve  the  desired  ends.  National  teams  with  good 
equipment will continue to be less effective  than they could be. 

In order to be able to guarantee efficient use of Community assistance, the Member States 
must also make the necessary arrangements to ensure the transparency required  It must 
be  possible  for  the  Commission  to  establish  that  every  Member  State  is  fulfilling  its 
obligations  with  regard  to  means  (cost  and  activity  indicators)  and  results  (efficiency 
indicators).  Independently  of  the  general  responsibilities  in  this  regard  established  by 
Regulation (EEC) No 2847/9318, it will thus be possible to quantify  and guarantee what 
the ultimate benefits  of Community financing have been. 

3.3. 

SCOPE OF APPLICATION AND PROCEDURES 

When the Council adopted the new control Regulation, it declared that the new control 
system as  adopted also relates to the new fields of application  and that  supplementary 
implementing measures were needed for which the earlier Decision (89/631/EEC)19 did 
not  provide.  It  will  therefore  be  necessary  to  extend  the  areas  of  Member  State 
expenditure eligible for Community assistance. 

Support for investment expenditure must however continue to be a key sphere of 
financial  assistance. The acquisition of heavy equipment  is particularly  difficult 
to  finance  from  national  budgets.  Furthermore,  the  size  of  the  investments 
approved  for the period  1989-95 did not provide fully  for  all needs as Member 
State assessments for the period  1996-2000 show (Annex 4). The lifetime of the 
equipment concerned has been falling from several decades to several years (car 
and  computer  pool,  technical  inspection  equipment),  while  aerial  control 
equipment is an intermediate case. Equipment with a short life should be renewed 
within  the  next  five  years.  Even  seagoing  equipment  will  need  additional 
attachments, replacement parts and renovation. A more important place under the 
heading  of  investment  should  also be  given to  modern  technology.  Investment 
expenditure should cover not  only the acquisition  of equipment, but also other 
types of costs, starting with  software. 

18 

19 

QJ No L 261, 20.10.1-993, p.l 
OJ No L 364,  14.12.1989, p.64. 

MV 

Rapid progress may also involve setting up integrated projects, and judging by the 
satellite  pilot  projects  the financing needed  will  go  beyond  investment  costs. 
Establishing  an information  network would be one of these integrated  projects. 
The agreement reached at trie Council meeting in December  1994 on monitoring 
fisheries  west of longitude 4° W will need to be implemented very rapidly and in 
itself will require specific financing capacity. 

Finally, the importance of training must be emphasized  There must be provision 
for supporting Member State initiatives in this matter. Priority assistance should 
also be granted to exchanges between Member States and between Member States 
and  the  Commission,  both  for  initial  training  of  monitoring  staff  and  for 
secondments and limited-duration further training. 

It should be possible to provide Community financial support for all the above measures. 
The assistance rate should vary according to the nature of those measures. For investment 
assistance,  in  order  to  avoid  inflation  of  Community  expenditure  that  is  not  strictly 
justified, the minimum rate could be brought down to 35%, except for Member States that 
bear a disproportionately heavy burden of expenditure. 

Beyond  contributions  to  expenditure  incurred  by the Member  States, the  Commission 
should also be able to assist directly. 

With regard to specific measures, it has proved necessary to have the capacity to 
initiate  operations  rapidly  to  deal  with problems beyond  the  scope  of  a  single 
Member State. For example, the monitoring of international seas for  long-finned 
tuna in the Atlantic and swordfish  in the Mediterranean has posed problems that 
•  could have been simplified  by the presence in the area of a vessel chartered by 
the Commission, following NAFO precedents. Member State inspectors without 
their own inspection vessel in the zone could have operated from that vessel. This 
is just one example. 

Support should also be given to experiments with new methods, as was done with 
the CAP, to encourage the use of new technology. Between the  initial research 
stage,  which  would  obviously • look  for  funding  under  Community  research 
programmes, and the operational application of findings, feasibility studies should 
be  supported  by  the  Commission.  For  example,  the  standardization  of  the 
measurement  of  engine power,  procedures  for  locating  and  identifying  passive 
gears,  and  the  development  of  techniques  for  determining  the  biological  and 
geographical origin of certain products all require specific studies. 

Direct Commission financing of these measures may, however, be treated separately. 

we 

3.4 

BUDGET APPROPRIATIONS 

At the Commission's request, the Member States have provided an assessment of 
their needs  for  the period up to 2000 (see Annex 4). On this basis, applying a 
corrective  factor  to take  account  of the  accession  of  Sweden  and Finland, and 
taking an average financial contribution at the "normal" rate of 35%, a package 
of ECU  150 million over five years should be planned for support for investment 
expenditure, budgeting for traditional investment and the investment necessary for 
the implementation of new technology together. 

Support  for  specific  integrated  projects  (satellites,  databases  and  computer 
networks) of limited duration, which may cover other expenditure than investment, 
will need an overall budget of ECU 50 million. This is an indicative figure and 
remains to be fixed following  the conclusions on the pilot projects  for  satellite 
tracking of fishing vessels and on the basis of the rules shortly to be adopted on 
the management of fishing  effort. 

Support for training and exchanges would require funding of ECU 5 million. 

A total budget of ECU 205 million,  or ECU 41 million per year on average, is 
thus required  This increase on the previous period must be seen in the light of 
all the new arrangements adopted by the Council and referred to. in paragraph 2.1. 
(extension of scope of application, enlargement, integration of the Mediterranean), 
as well as the need to expand the range of assistance possible, as has been done 
for the CAP. 

The  proposed  increase  will  only  be  sufficient  if  other  Community  budget 
resources are used at the same time. A computerized network for the exchange of 
data between the Member States and the Commission could be partly financed by 
the Community IDA programme (Interchange of Data between Administrations). 
The  programme  provides  for  financial  support  for  projects  for  cooperation 
between  national  administrations  and  the  Commission  in  respect  of  the 
telecommunication  of computerized  data. The FIDES (Fisheries Data Exchange 
System)  feasibility  study  provided  for  in the  Directorate-General  for  Fisheries' 
1994-95 Computer Guideline was financed in this way (ECU 1 million) and pilot 
projects  in  fisheries  are to  be financed  for  an  amount  of  ECU 0.75 million  in 
1995;  Under  the  FTFG  (financial  instrument  for  fisheries  guidance),  certain 
expenditure on fisheries  monitoring equipment is eligible. However,  in the case 
of expenditure charged to the fishermen, the monitoring agencies appointed by the 
Member States may not benefit from such assistance. 

< tf 

Funds for operations directly initiated by the Commission must also be increased. 

The financing of  specific  measures  coordinated  at  Community  level  will  require  an 
additional  budget  of ECU  10 million.  Support  for  experimenting with new technology 
could be provided on the basis of a budget of ECU 10 million for five years. 

S 

CONCLUSIONS 

The scheme on Decision 89/631/EEC20 and summarized in this report currently covers a 
period  of five years, up to  1995. It has been very fruitful, but  must be extended.  The 
Control Report established  in  1992 has shown up. gaps which will not have been made 
good  by  the  end  of  1995.  Monitoring  is  essentially  a  Community  matter.  Financial 
solidarity is all the more necessary because no Member Sate can hope to benefit directly 
from  the efforts  it alone dedicates to monitoring, and certain Member States have to bear 
a disproportionate burden. Moreover, coordinated Community action enables synergy and 
economies of scale to be achieved 

It  will  be  all  the  more  important  to  support  Member  State  efforts  since the  scope of 
monitoring has been extended by Regulation (EEC) No 2847/9321 to cover structural and 
market aspects of fisheries and a number of other decisions have increased the range of 
needs, as has enlargement. The Council has emphasized the need to implement additional 
measures for which the relevant existing Decision does not provide in terms of  financial 
assistance. That declaration highlights the importance of a financial contribution by the 
Union to Member State efforts  to develop monitoring in line with new needs. 

Beyond  the  renewal  and  consolidation  of  the  existing  system,  accompanied  by  a 
multiannual financial framework, a major  overhaul  is needed. The existing system will 
have to be supplemented and adjusted in relation to specific criteria The incentive to use 
new technology  and  coordinated  measures  must  be stepped  up, with  the  Commission 
acting as the motive force  in this respect, and the Commission must therefore have the 
necessary financial instruments. 

On the basis of forecast monitoring expenditure for the period up to 2000, and assuming 
that the existing system is rolled forward, a substantial increase on the present  financial 
package of ECU 22 million per year will be necessary. 

However,  granting a financial contribution must be made conditional upon the Member 
State  concerned  establishing  all  the  necessary  facilities  and  measures  for  effective 
monitoring, which has not always been the case in the past. This will involve establishing 
a financial  system with tighter constraints. Measures for which Community assistance is 
being requested will have to be assessed ex ante and ex post  on the basis of  verifiable 
criteria and objectives  in order to determine in each case, both during and at the end of 
the programme, whether the objectives can be achieved at reasonable cost. 

20 
21 

OJ No L 364,  14.12.1989, p.64. 
OJ No L 261, 20.10.1993, p.l. 

4^ 

ANNEX1 

BVffUEMENTATlON OF DECISION 89/631/EEC (') 

(') 

OJ No L 364,  14.12.1989, p. 64. 

Ç© 

ANNEX I 

1.  CONSOLIDATED  SITUATION  OF  COMMTIMENTS  AND 

PAYMENTS 

(at 31 December 1994) 

(in ecu) 

(1) 

Programming 
(commitments) 

(2) 
Implementation 
(payments) 

(3) 
Cancellation 
(released) 

(4) = (1M2M3) 
In suspense 
(remain to be 
liquidated) 

1991 instalment 

. 19 238 472 

1992 instalment 

25 522 237 

1993 instalment 

28 620 985 

1994 instalment 

30 299 796 

1995 instalment 

23 935 267 

15 809 313 

16 252 278 

19 876 974 

12 041 391 
.  o 

3 429 159 

9 269 959 

0 

0 

915 971 

7 828 040 

1 505 711 

16 752 694 

0 

23 935 267 

TOTAL 

127 616 757 

63 979 956 

15 120 800 

48 516 001 

The  divergences  between  commitments  and  payments  are  explained  by  the  fact  that 
certain  investments were overestimated  and others were not carried out within the time 
initially envisaged. 

The investment projects planned for  1991 and  1992 but then cancelled have resulted in 
releases  of budget funds. 

^ 

ANNEX 1 (cont) 

2.  SITUATION OF  œMMHMENTSAlWPAYMEI^ 

(at 31 December 1994) 

(in ecu) 

Belgium 

Denmark 

Germany 

Greece 

Spain 

France 

Ireland 

Italy 

Luxembourg 

Netherlands 

Portugal 

United Kingdom 

(1) 

Programming 
(commitments) 

(2) 
Implementation 
(payments) 

(3) 
Cancellation 
(released) 

(4) = (1M2M3) 
In suspense 

(remain to be 

liquidated) 

342.551 

4.291.242 

2.387.897 

10.544.199 

19.441.470 

13.013.689 

143.780 

1.924.193 

799.765 

3.498.691 

7.998.025 

4.603.535 

29.575.133 

21.385.559 

3.513.887 

2.185.876 

-

-

2.591.372 

31.674.105 

10.241.212 

273.688 

15.402.754 

5.764.090 

0 

464.397 

85.662 

3.617.407 

3.429.522 

729.220 

887.003 

0 

-

0 

4.419.716 

1.487.873 

198.771 

1.902.652 

1.502.470 

3.428.101 

8.013.923 

7.680.934 

7.302.571 

1.328.011 

-

2.317.684 

11.851.635 

2.989.249 ' 

TOTAL 

127.616.757 

63.979.956 

15.120.800 

48.516.001 

-T? 

ANNEX I (cont) 

3.  RANGE OF EXPENDITURE BY MEMBER STATE 

BELGIUM envisages expenditure in 1995 on airborne monitoring, as well as the purchase 
of one off-road  vehicle and two rubber dinghies with engine. 

DENMARK has ordered a new fisheries inspection vessel which started building in 1993 
and should be-finished  in  1994. It  is also envisaged to supplement the present pool  of 
seagoing craft  and to purchase vehicles and communications  equipment  for  land-based 
teams. 

GERMANY  has  started  on  the  modernization  and,  in  one  case,  complete refitting of 
existing monitoring vessels used by the various Lander. This includes the acquisition and 
installation  of  systems  of  communication  and  navigation  by  satellite,  radar,  VHF 
communications equipment, map tables, NAVTEX receivers, rubber dinghies with engine, 
etc. In order to stay abreast of technological progress and with the increased demand for 
data,  computer  equipment  has  been  bought  for  the  processing  of  catch  data  and  of 
statistics. 

GREECE,  which  is  awaiting  the  extension  of  the  common  fisheries  policy  to  the 
Mediterranean,  has  carried  out  only  a  part  of  the  envisaged  programmes.  So  far,  the 
Greek authorities have purchased several rubber dingjhies and two*fast monitoring craft, 
off-road  vehicles  and motor bicycles as well  as electronic equipment  on ships  such as 
radar, VHF receivers and NAVTEX receivers, etc. The acquisition of three monitoring 
aircraft is planned as well as of high-speed motorboats for monitoring, additional vehicles 
and motor bikes, and more computer equipment. 

SPAIN  has  bought  a  helicopter  for  fisheries  surveillance  equipped  with  systems  for 
photography  and  positioning,  seagoing  monitoring  craft  and  land  vehicles.  Existing 
monitoring craft have been modernized (navigation equipment: autopilot, radar, navigation 
by  satellite,  map  tables).  A  part  of  this  equipment  is  intended  for  the  autonomous 
communities  of  Galicia  and  Catalonia  In  1995,  Spain  envisages  the  purchase  of  a 
fisheries  inspection vessel. 

6^> 

FRANCE has made investments in a radio-navigation network, radio stations and voice-
scrambling  equipment.  New  high-speed  motorboats  have  been  built  and  existing 
higji-speed  motorboats  have been modernized  Land vehicles for personnel  responsible 
for fisheries monitoring have also been  bought.  The Regional  Operational  Rescue and 
Monitoring Centres (C.RO.S.S.) have been equipped with VHF transmitter-receivers and 
radioelectric/telephone  telecommunications  systems,  and  the  Regional  Centre  for 
Processing  Statistics  (C.RT.S.)  in  the  Mediterranean  has  been  equipped  with 
clata-processingtetatistics equipment. In  1995, the purchase of seagoing craft  is planned, 
including specialized patrol boats. 

IRELAND has purchased two.monitoring aircraft  which should be operational  in 1994. 
In addition, it has acquired monitoring craft, land vehicles, computers, and equipment for 
safety  and protection, navigation equipment, radar and other fittings for seaborne vessels, 
as well as communications  and data-processing systems. In  1995, the construction of a 
new fisheries inspection vessel is envisaged 

ITALY planned  in  1993 to  acquire  18 high-speed  motorboats  for  the.merchant  navy, 
which is one of the authorities responsible for monitoring fishing. For 1994, the purchase 
of  two  inspection  vessels  for  the  region  of  Sardinia  is  planned  and  for  1995  the 
acquisition of airborne equipment and land vehicles. 

The NETHERLANDS has planned to purchase land vehicles and safety  and protection 
equipment, and to modernize a number of inspection vessels. 

PORTUGAL has invested  in the purchase of aircraft,  the acquisition of new inspection 
craft and land vehicles, the modernization of existing monitoring craft and the installation 
of the MONICAP and SIFICAP systems for the location and continuous monitoring of 
fishing  vessels by satellite. 

In the UNITED KINGDOM, the Ministry for Fisheries together with the various Fisheries 
Committees have been modernized by the acquisition of computer equipment, navigation 
systems, telecommunications, marine electronics, radar and VHF equipment. The UK has 
also replaced two monitoring aircraft  and purchased new monitoring craft as well as land 
vehicles. 

~h 

ANNEX2 

FACTORS IN THE OOST-EFFECIWENESS OF CONTROLS 

Evaluation of costs 

A major difiSculty comes from the fact that the departments taking part in the monitoring 
of activities connected with fishing often have a number of different  roles. The costs thus 
have to be allocated  among the various tasks. The most clear example is action at sea. 
Where  units  of  the  armed  forces  are  involved,  and  even  if  a  mission  is  focused  on 
fisheries  enforcement,  other  activities  can  arise  (sea  rescue,  demonstrating  an  armed 
presence). 

Whatever the difficulties,  the amount of expenditure necessary  for  effective  controls  is 
such that the accounting systems have to be designed to enable them to be  quantified 

Assessment of  efficiency 

The first-line indicators involve measuring the means employed: numbers of days spent 
at sea by inspection vessels or time spent in the air by planes and helicopters, the extent 
of areas covered, the number of inspections at sea or on land.  These figures constitute 
activity indicators and are not an efficiency  measure. They are a necessary part, however, 
in developing the instruments for monitoring the CFP 

The  second  level  of  analysis  is  the  number  of  apparent  infringements  detected, 
supplemented by action taken to impose penalties. These data, when measured against the 
above activity  indicators, are essential  in assessing the rigour of controls and penalties. 
They are not sufficient  for a complete analysis. The apparent-infringement  level results 
from  the combination of the effectiveness  of controls and the real infringement  rate. 

As regards the policy on conservation of resources, the real effectiveness  of controls has 
ultimately to be measured against the two fundamental  concerns, which are the limitation 
of  exploitation  rates  and  protection  of  the  smallest fish (juveniles).  It  is  necessary  to 
compare,  for  each  stock,  the  level  of  actual  catches  and  of  permitted  catches  and  to 
quantify  the scale of under-size catches. This task is paradoxically  simpler in technical 
terms than in cases of individual  infringements,  which have to be proved on a legally 

OS" 

enforceable  basis. On the scale of a group of vessels,  it is possible to devise sampling 
procedures to ascertain actual catch levels. Provided a statistically rigorous approach is 
followed,  it should be possible to assess, the reliability of these estimates and to adapt it 
to  the  needs, of  the  study  at  hand  by  varying  the  sample  size.  It  will  often  be  more 
difficult  to collect  legally acceptable evidence against  a possible fraudster. On the one 
hand, the law of large numbers facilitates  the calculation of overall estimates, while on 
the other hand the  importance  of the burden  of proof when bringing charges makes it 
difficult to demonstrate individual infringements.  This dilemma is basic to any discussion 
of the effectiveness  of controls. It shows that it is less difficult  than sometimes believed 
to  measure  the  real  overall  impact  of  infringements.  Scientists  regularly  make  such 
estimates,  as  in  Table  1 showing -  for  a  number  of  stocks  -  a  comparison  of  official 
statistics and estimates made by researchers. The unreliability of some official  data leads 
the research establishments to divert an important part of their limited resources into non-
scientific tasks. But in terms of monitoring and inspection, the ability to quantify fraud 
makes  it  possible  in  the  immediate  future  not  only  to  have  compound  efficiency 
indicators but also to direct the efforts of inspectors towards the most important problems. 
This makes it possible to rationalize the deployment of the different  inspectorates, so that 
the resources devoted  both  to  prevention  and  dissuasion  and  to  the  collection  of  the 
evidence necessary for imposing penalties are concentrated on the most serious problems. 
This rationalization would not only lead to direct improvements  in the effectiveness  of 
controls but woulç! do a great deal for the credibility of these controls in the eyes of the 
industry, members of which are often well-informed about major and recurrent instances 
of fraud 

At operational level, it would be desirable that internally each Member State be capable 
of estimating the actual levels of some catches by sampling. DG XIV should rely on the 
evaluations of international scientific bodies. 

56 

Species 

Zone 

Misreporting 

Anglerfish 

Cod 

Haddock 

Hake 

Plaice 

^ 

Saithe 

Sole 

Whiting 

Bluewhitipg 

Anchovy 

Herring 

Horse mackerel 

VH,  Vffla,  b, d 

Stationary (8%) 

IV 

IV 

Northern 

Southern 

IV 

VHd 

VHe 

Vllf, g 

ma; IV 

IV 

VHd 

Vile 

Vllf, g 

Vffla,  b 

Vfflf,  g 

All 

VITI 

IVc, VHd 

Stationary (3%) 

Stationary (1%) 

Slight inc. (16%) 

Slight inc. (16%) 

Stationary (16%) 

Stationary (12%) 

Stationary (9%) 

Stationary (2%) 

Stationary (2%) 

Stationary (48%) 

Stationary (25%) 

Stationary (15%) 

Stationary (-1%) 

Stationary (14%) 

-

Stationary (27%) 

Stationary (48%) 

Via S., Vllb, c 

Slight dec. (42%) 

Via Clyde 

VIIj 

VI 

VH 

VIII 

Stationary (9%) 

Decreasing (21%) 

Stationary, some 

overreporting 

Increasing (23%) 

Stationary (1%) 

Increasing (47%) 

Mackerel 

Ha, IV 

Vfflc,  DC, X, CECAF 

Increasing (24%) 

Norway Pout 

lia, Ola, IV 

Stationary, some 
overreporting 

*¥ 

ANNEX3 

ANALYSIS OF SOME COMMUNITY SCHEMES 

TO  FINANCE CONTROLS 

IN THE AGRICULTURAL AND CUSTOMS SECTORS 

<X 

ANNEX3 

Analysis of some Cbmmunity schemes to finance  controls 
in the agricultural  and customs sectors 

General  remarks 

Under  Council  Decision  89/631/EEC  on  a  Community financial contribution  towards 
expenditure incurred by Member States for the purpose of ensuring compliance with the 
Community  system, for  the conservation  and  management  of  fishery  resources  Ç), the 
Community finances every year at least 35% and at most 50% of the expenditure of the 
Member  States  on  equipment  for  physical  controls  (seagoing  and  airborne  craft  for 
monitoring, other .equipment down to and including shipboard clothing, etc). 

On  the  basis  of  applications  from  the  Member  States,  the  Commission  decides  on 
financing  after  checking  the  supporting  administrative  documents  and  subject  to 
administrative  controls on the spot. Financed  equipment has to be used for  monitoring 
and inspecting fishing activities. 

0  OJ No L 364,  14.12.1989, p. 64. 

A.  Community participation in expenditure by the Member States on their monitoring 

and inspection activities 

CouncO Regulation (EEQ  No 4045/89  of 21  December 1989 on scrutiny by Member 
States of transactions forming part of the system of financing by the Guarantee Section 
of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund f) 

The  Community  participates  in  actual  expenditure  incurred  by  the  Member  States  for 
purchasing data-processing and office  automation equipment needed by the departments 
responsible  for  the  application  of controls within the framework of EAGGF financing 
(checking of the commercial documents of companies benefiting from Community aid) 
at a rate of  100% up to a maximum  of: 

ECU  100  000  for  Germany,  Spain,  France,  Italy,  the  Netherlands,  the  United 
Kingdom, 
ECU 60 000 for Belgium, Denmark, Greece, Ireland and Portugal, 
ECU 20 000 for Luxembourg. 

- 

This  limit  is  fixed  for  each  Member  State  on  the  basis  of  the  scale  of  the  control 
operations  that  they  have  to  carry  out  to  ensure  monitoring  of  the  correctness  of 
transactions directly or indirectly part of the EAGGF financing system 

Council Regulation (EEQ No 307/91 of 4 February 1991 on reinforcing the monitoring 
of certain expenditure chargeable to the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural 
Guidance and Guarantee Fund (3) 

The Community participates  in the cost  of equipment  for  agents of the Member  States 
responsible for controls at a rate of 50% for the first three years and 25% for the fourth 
and the fifth year after the entry into force of this Regulation. 

Council Regulation (EEQ No 3508/92 of 27 November 1992 establishing an integrated 
administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes in the agricultural 
sector (*) 

The Community participates in expenditure incurred by the Member States for setting up 
data-processing and monitoring structures as well as for acquiring aerial photographs and 
satellite images and their analysis (monitoring system by remote sensing) for a three-year 
period, at a maximum rate of 50% of the payments carried out by the Member States up 
to a limit allotted to each country in proportion to its monitoring tasks. 

O  OJ No L 388, 30.12.1989, p. 18. 
O  OJ No L  37, 09.02.1991, p.  5. 
(4)  OJNoL355, 05.12.1992, p.  1. 

é'o 

Council Regulation (EQ No 165/94 of 24 January 1994  concerning the co-financing by 
the Community of remote sensing checks and amending Regulation (EEQ No 3508/92 
establishing an integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid 
schemes (*). 

The Community can part-finance checks by remote sensing on agricultural utilized areas. 

The  Commission  can  grant  advances  up  to  a  maximum  of  75% of  the  foreseeable 
Community  share.  If the total  amount  of  the  appropriations  available  is not  used, the 
Commission can redistribute the surplus funds among the Member States which  finance 
from  their own funds  more than 50% of the cost of work approved by the Commission. 

Council  Regulation  (EEQ  No  2392/86  of  24 Jury  1986  establishing  a  Community 
vineyaid register (?) 

The Community participates  in financing the actual costs of setting up the Community 
vineyard register and investments in data-processing necessary to the management of the 
register, at a rate of 50%. 

Council  Regulation (EEQ  No  154/75  of  21 January 1975  on the establishment of a 
register  of olive cultivation in the Member States producing olive oil  () 

The Community participates in financing of the costs of setting up the olive cultivation 
register. 

B.  Community  participation  in  the  operating  costs  of  monitoring  activities  in  the 

Member States 

Council Regulation (EEQ No 307/91 of 4 Febmary 1991 on reinforcing the monitoring 
of certain expenditure chargeable to the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural 
Guidance and Guarantee Fund (*) 

The  Community  participates  in  actual  expenditure  incurred  by  the  Member  States  for 
remunerating  and  training  the  additional  staff  assigned  to  the  specific  monitoring 
departments  in  each  Member  State  in  respect  of  operations financed by  EAGGF  and 
strictly defined in the Regulation. This participation is at a rate of 50% for the first three 
years  and  25% in the  fourth  and  the fifth year  up to  a  limit  of  an  annual  maximum 
amount per Member State. 

(5)  OJNoL  24, 29.01.1994, p.  6. 
(6)  OJNoL208,  31.07.1986, p.  1. 
O  OJNoL  19, 24.01.1975, p.  1. 
(*)  OJNoL  37, 09.02.1991, p.  5. 

Gs\ 

Remuneration  means salary  less taxes and fiscal charges for  the agents responsible  for 
controls  and  their.travelling  expenses  as  required  for  carrying  out  their  tasks.  The 
maximum  Community participation  in expenditure on staff  remuneration  is fixed as a 
flat-rate  sum  per  Member  State.  The  level  of  remuneration  is  fixed  for  all  the 
Community. 

The Community can also finance, at 50% for the first three years then 25% for the fourth 
and the fifth year, the expenditure incurred by Member States for expenses resulting  from 
controls entrusted to monitoring companies and approved laboratories. 

C  Community financing of  the  specific  agencies  created  in the  Member States  for 

agricultural controls 

Council Regulation (EEQ No 2262/84 of 17 July 1984 laying down special measures in 
respect  of olive oil  Ô 

The  Community  finances  the  specific  agencies  responsible  for  various  checks  and 
activities within the framework of production aid for olive oil, at  100% for the first two 
years up to a limit fixed on a flat-rate basis for each Member State (e.g. ECU 14 Million 
for the agency set up in Italy and ECU 7 Million for the agency in Greece), and 50.% in 
the third year. 

The agencies have a general work programme with a minimum of tasks defined  in the 
Regulation,  and  an  annual  specific  programme  which  they  submit  in  the  national 
government and to the Commission, which can modify it. Agents of the Commission may 
monitor  at  all  times  the  activities  carried  out  by  the  agencies.  Annual  Community 
financing  is granted only  after checks by the Commission that the agency in question has 
been set up and has carried out its proper tasks. 

The agencies enjoy full administrative autonomy. They are provided by the Member State 
with any powers necessary to carry out their tasks. 

They are composed of agents in suitable numbers and suitably trained  for  carrying out 
their tasks. 

0  OJ No L 208, 03.08.1984, p. 11. 

ê^L 

Council Regulation (EEQ No 2075/92  of 30 June 1992 on the common oiganization of 
the market in raw tobacco  O 

The Regulation stipulates that each producing Member State is to set up a specific agency 
responsible  for  various  controls  within  the framework of  the  Community  regime  for 
tobacco. The actual expenditure of the agencies is covered from the general budget of the 
European Communities at a rate of 50%, the balance being financed by the Member State 
in question. 

D.  Financing of staff training in the Member States 

Council  Decision  91/341/EEC of  20  June  1991  on  the  adoption of  a  programme  of 
Community action on the subject of vocational training of customs officials  (Mathaeus 
programme) (") 

The  Commission  covers  the  accommodation  and  travelling  expenses  arising  from 
exchanges  of  customs  officers  between  national  adrninistrations.  It  also  covers  the 
accommodation  and  travelling  expenses  of  officials  taking  part  in  training  seminars 
intended for  customs officers  when these officials  are required to operate in a Member 
State other than their country of origin. 

(,0)  OJ No L 215, 30.07.1992, p. 70. 
(n)  OJNoL  187, 13.07.1991, p.  41. 

6^> 

ANNEX4 

FORECAST EXPENDITURE BY THE MEMBER STATES 
FOR THE PERIOD 1996-2000 

6^ 

ANNEX4 

Investments planned for the period from 1996 to 2000 
(excluding a satellite monitoring system) 

(estimates by the Member States in million ecu) 

1996 

1997 

1998 

1999 

2000 

TOTAL 

annual 

Belgium 

Denmark 

Germany 

vncece 

Spain 

France 

Ireland 

Italy 

Luxembourg 

Netherlands 

Austria 

Portugal 

Finland 

Sweden 

United Kingdom 

.37 

8.5 

4.16 

17.53 

10.55 

12.09 

22.91 

1.86 

.28 

.7 

.  .25 

.7 

1.56 

•34.43 

11.49 

10.87 

6.11 

20.39 

1.86 

20.87 

10.55 

3.38 

11.01 

1.86 

.25 

.7 

3.80 

12.72 

10.93 

.25. 

.7 

.72 

1.40 

10.55 

6.59  ' 

4.16 

6.39 

1.86 

.  1.86 

2.0 

2.0 

2.0 

2.0 

2.0 

12.89 

12.75 

13.52 

0.26 

1.79 

4.75 

0.34 

1.79 

4.67 

0.26 

1.79 

5.87 

2.27 

0.26 

1.79 

2.70 

1.40 

11.30 

44.67 

64.01 

53.45 

32.33 

60.70 

9.30 

0.00 

10.00 

0.00 

53.08 

1.38 

8.95 

23.07 

0.28 

2.26 

8.93 

12.80 

10.69 

6.47 

12.14 

1.86 

0.00 

2.00 

0.00 

10.62 

0.28 

1.79 

4.61 

11.65 

0.26 

1.79 

.5.08 

64.02 

22.41 

32.01 

.48.02 

28.66 

373.64 

74.73 

10.03 

14.33 

21.50 

130.77 

186.82 

280.23 

26.15 

37.36 

56.05 
; 

1 

i 

TOTAL 

99.66 

74.81 

106.49 

Contrib.35% 

Côntrib.50% 

Cbntrib.75% 

34.88 

49.83 

74.75 

26.18 

37.41 

56.11 

37.27 

53.25 

79.87 

£S 

ANNEX5 

INDICATIVE FINANCIAL PLANNING FOR THE PERIOD 1996-2000 

G6 

ANNEX5 

INDICATIVE FINANCIAL PLANNING FOR THE PERIOD 1996-2000 

(estimates in million ecu) 

Subject 

Maximum 
rate 

Maximum 
amount 
estimated 
necessary 
per year 

Maximum 
amount 
estimated 
necessary 
over 5 years 

1.Capital acods 
- traditional 
- modern 

2.Information networks 
- national 
- transnational 

3.Experiments and 
pilot projects 

4.Concerted actions 
between Member States • 

5.Training and exchanges 
- national 
- transnational 

TOTAL 

35% 
50% 

35% 
100% 

100% 

50% 

50% 
100% 

30 

10 

2 

2 

1 

150 

50 

10 

10 

5 

45 

225 

Ç* 

ISSN  0254-1475 

COM(95) 243  final 

DOCUMENTS 

EN 

03 

Catalogue number  :  CB-C0-95-268-EN-C 

ISBN 92-77-89563-2 

Office  for Official  Publications of the European Communities 

L-2985 Luxembourg