MONITORING THE COMMON FISHERIES POLICY - COMMISSION REPORT
Date: 1996-03-18
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: common fisheries policy, exchange of information, fishing controls, fishing regulations, report

COMMISSION  OF THE  EUROPEAN  COMMUNITIES 

Brussels,  18.03.1996 
COM(%)  100  final 

MONITORING  THE  COMMON  FISHERIES  POLICY 

-  COMMISSION  REPORT  -

C O N T E N TS 

I. 

INTRODUCTION 

II. 

RESOURCES  AVAILABLE  AND DEPLOYED 

1.  Resources  available  for  control work 

2.  Inspection  and monitoring  of fishing  vessels  and their  activities 

III. 

IMPLEMENTATION  OF THE  CONSERVATION  POLICY 

1.  Catch registration,  estimation  and validation in the Member  States 

2.  Monitoring  of  observance  of restrictions  other  than on catch volume 

3.  Overall  assessment 

IV.  ASPECTS  OTHER  THAN  CONSERVATION 

1.  Market  policy 

2.  The transport  of fishery  products 

3.  The structural  policy 

V. 

SANCTIONS  AND LEGAL ISSUES 

1.  National  legal systems  of fisheries  enforcement 

2.  The Community  legal  framework 

3.  Cooperation 

VI. 

CONCLUSIONS 

Annex I  Reports  for  each Member  State 

Annex  II  Tables 

Annex III  Satellite monitoring 

pAc3l\rapports\ctrl\report\en 

-  2 

I. 

INTRODUCTION 

This  report  is  made  in  response  to  a  formal  obligation  (Article  35  of  Council  Regulation 

(EEC)  No  2847/93)  and  to  an  overriding  need  for  transparency. 

The  report  is  the  first  exercise  of  its  kind,  surveying  monitoring  activities  in  1994.  It 

accordingly  suffers  from  the  defects  attendant  on  any  new  production.  There  are  many  gaps 

in  the  information  passed  to  the  Commission  by  the  Member  States.  It  is  indispensable 

nonetheless  to  take  stock  of  the  situation  as  regards  the  areas  covered  by  the  new  control 

Regulation  adopted  in  1993.  On  the  conservation  side  a  fairly  detailed  picture  can  be  drawn, 

but  as  regards  extension  to  other  aspects  of  the  common  fisheries  policy  initial  findings  only 

are  possible. 

Fisheries  monitoring  in  third-country  waters  and  the  NAFO  framework  is  not  covered.  This 

is  a  subject  of  crucial  importance  given  both  the  economic  scale  of  the  fisheries  concerned 

and  the  political  stakes  in  the  international  arena.  It  absorbs  considerable  resources  of  both 

the  Commission  and  the  Member  States,  and  the  NAFO  fisheries  for  example  are  the  best 

monitored  of  those  exploited  by  Community  vessels.  These  matters  are  moreover  being 

discussed  in  the  relevant  forums  (NAFO,  Moroccan  negotiations).  Nor  is  any  mention  made, 

with  some  exceptions,  of  the  content  of  the  very  recent  report  on  the  Community's 

contributions  towards  expenditure  on  monitoring  (COM(95)  243  final  of  9 June  1995). 

The  body  of  the  report  presents  a general  survey.  Annex  I contains  a report  on  each  Member 

State  and  Annex  II  statistics.  Annex  III  deals  with  satellite  monitoring. 

p:\c3l\rapports\ctrl\report\en 

I I. 

R E S O U R C ES  A V A I L A B LE  A ND 

D E P L O Y ED 

1. RESOURCES AVAILABLE FOR CONTROL WORK 

The  resources  available 

in 

the  Member  States  are  summarized 

in  Table  1.  Direct 

comparisons  are  not,  however,  possible. 

The  organisation  of  monitoring,  control  and  surveillance  differs  considerably  from  one 

Member  State  to  another.  Some  Member  States  have  a  single  competent  authority  for 

fisheries  control,  others  call  on  several  government  departments  which  also  have  tasks  not 

related  to  fisheries,  or  even  to  the  maritime  field.  This  is  further  illustrated  in  Table  2. 

Furthermore, 

in  some  countries,  competence 

is  shared  between  national  and  regional 

governments. 

This  results  in  a  broad  range  of  organisation  types,  varying  from  a  comparatively  well-

organised  service  using  qualified  staff  in  one  Member  State  to  a  poorly  coordinated  set  of 

national  and  regional  departments  with  non-specialised  personnel  in  another  Member  State. 

The  number  of  inspectors  in  each  port  differs  substantially  from  one  Member  State  to 

another.  For  some  countries  there  are  several  inspectors  in each  fishing  port,  whilst  in  others 

one  fisheries  inspector  is  in  charge  of  several  ports.  The  low  level  of  human  resources  in 

some  Member  States  raises  doubts  as  to  whether  the  control  regime  applicable  to  the 

common  fisheries  policy  is applied  there.  Several  Member  States  have  insufficient  specialised 

equipment  to  meet  their  monitoring  obligations,  even  if  some  of  them  have  used  Community 

financing  to  upgrade  their  resources  during  the  past  five  years.  A  small  number  of  Member 

States  even  have  no  airborne  surveillance,  which  considerably  reduces  the  efficiency  of 

inspections  at  sea. 

2.  INSPECTION  AND  MONITORING  OF  FISHING  VESSELS  AND  THEIR 

ACTIVITIES 

Most  Member  States  have  indicated  figures  corresponding  to  the  inspection  activities.  These 

numbers  are,  however,  difficult  to  compare  because  the  quality  of  the  inspections  has  not 

been  specified  consistently.  Table  3  shows  the  number  of  port  inspections  and  the  number  of 

inspections  offshore.  This  is compared  with  the  total  size  of  the  vessels  in  the  fleet. 

p:\c3l\rapports\ctrl\report\en 

-  4  -

The  Table clearly  shows  that there  are very  big differences  in the level  of  inspection between 

the various  Member  States.  One reason  for  the differences  can be attributed  to the  definition 

of an inspection:  from  a simple sighting  to a detailed  inspection. 

The  Regulation  also  provides  for  the  possibility  to  control  transport  of  fish  on  land  (Reg. 

(EEC)  No 2847/93,  Article  13).  All  transports  on  land  must  be  accompanied  by  transport 

documents  which  describe  the origin  of the consignment,  the content  of  the transport  as well 

as  the destination  and  the  transport  vehicle,  the consignee  and  the place  and  date  of  loading. 

The  control  of  these  transports  can  be  used  to  ensure  that  fish  destined  for  destruction  are 

not  re-sold,  undersized  fish  are  not  exported  and  sold  in  other  countries  hiding  their  origin, 

as  well  as  the  hygienic  aspect  that  the  fish  should  be  chilled  or  frozen  during  transport  so 

that  the quality  is not reduced  dramatically. 

The reports  from  UK,  Ireland,  and Denmark  say that transports  are randomly  checked but no 

numbers  are  supplied.  In  Denmark  the  checks  involve  not  only  the  fishing  authorities  but 

also  the  police.  Belgium  makes  no  explicit  remarks  about  this  subject  but  the  imports  -  at 

least  -  seem  to  be  monitored  closely.  There  is no  information  in the  Portuguese  and  French 

reports.  The  author  of  the German  report  states that he sees no point  in controlling  transport 

on land. 

An  essential  aspect  of  the  inspection  and  monitoring  of  fishing  vessels  is  the  coordination 

between  Member  States.  Most  reports  do not mention this point.  The only  exceptions  are the 

UK  report,  where  it  is  said  that  some  agreements  exist,  and  the  Belgian  report,  which 

mentions  that  there  is  regular  data  exchange  with  Denmark  (via  modem),  the  Netherlands 

and  the  UK.  The  Danish,  Irish,  Portuguese,  German,  and  French  reports  have  no 

information  on this point. 

However,  some  Member  States  (Denmark,  Ireland  and  the  United  Kingdom)  have  bilateral 

agreements  with Norway. 

It  would  be  very  disappointing  if  no more  agreements  existed.  It  is,  however,  impossible  at 

the  moment' to  get  an  overview  of  the  number  of  bilateral  agreements  and  their  coverage 

(types  of data exchanged,  how regular,  method  of exchange, etc.). 

p:\c3l\rapports\ctrl\report\en 

-  5  -

Generally,  all  Member  States  have  stressed,  during  the  annual  monitoring  meetings  of  the 

Expert Group  Fisheries Control  (which  is  made  up  of  representatives  of  the  Member  States 

and  the  Commission  who  are  responsible  for  the  control  matters  of  the  CFP),  the  need  for 

more  and  better  coordination  and  cooperation.  The  Commission  has  offered  its  support  but 

experience  shows  that practical  consequences  are still  limited. 

III. 

IMPLEMENTATION  OF  THE  CONSERVATION  POLICY 

1.  CATCH  REGISTRATION.  ESTIMATION  AND  VALIDATION  IN  THE  MEMBER 

STATES 

The monitoring  of  catches  is based  on logbooks,  landing  declarations,  and  sales  notes.  Some 

member  countries  have  chosen  to  combine  either  the  logbook  and  the  landing  declaration  or 

the  landing  declaration  and  the  sales  note  into  one  document.  Derogations  exist  for  certain 

categories of vessel,  in which case the catches must be estimated  through  sampling. 

The  number  of  returned  documents  seems  in general  to be high even though  this  may  reflect 

different  interpretations  of  what  is  meant  by  returned  (see  Table  4).  None  of  the  reports 

describe  either  possible  problems  with  incomplete  documents  or  the  time  taken  for 

documents  to be returned  to the authorities,  with the exception of the Danish  report. 

The  next  step  after  the  collection  of  data  is  to  detect  missing  information.  This  is  usually 

combined  with some cross-validation  of the different  sources. 

There  are  large  differences  in  the  approach  to  and  effectiveness  of  data  collection  and 

verification  - even  though  the  official  reports  always  try  to present  the  existing  systems  in a 

positive  light.  It  is  also  evident  that  all  Member  States  could  benefit  from  the  experience  of 

other  Member  States  in refining  their own systems. 

Two  specific  problems  for  most  countries  are  landings  outside  auctions  and how  to  estimate 

the catches  made by  vessels  which  are  not obliged  to use a logbook.  These  problems  are  far 

from  being solved  satisfactorily  in all countries  (see Table 5). 

p:\c31\rapports\ctrl\rcport\en 

-  6  -

Checks  at  sea  allow  some  comparison  of  logbook  entries  with  direct  observation.  Inspection 

at  sea  is  an  important  aspect  of  the  work  of  control  agencies  but  the  proportion  of  this 

devoted  to  direct  validation  of  logbooks  cannot  be  specified  from  the  national  reports. 

Combining  the  information  in  logbooks  with  the  information  in  landing  declarations/sales 

notes  should  offer  a  systematic  validation  procedure. 

From  the  reports  it  seems  that  only  Belgium,  Denmark,  Germany  and  the  Netherlands 

regularly  combine  these  information  sources  to  improve  the  quality  of  data  (see  Table  6). 

This  point  is  not  mentioned  in  the  rest  of  the  reports.  Nor  does  there  seem  to  be  any 

systematic  use  of  other  sources  of  information  downstream  of  first  sale. 

2.  MONITORING  OF  OBSERVANCE  OF  RESTRICTIONS  OTHER  THAN  ON  CATCH 

VOLUME 

The  difficulties  involved  here,  pointed  out  in  a  Commission  communication  reviewing  these 

technical  measures,  are  analysed  in detail  in  a Commission  working  paper. 

Observance  of  zonal  restrictions  is  the  easiest  of  these  measures  to  monitor,  at  least  if  the 

area  in  question  is  sufficiently  close  to  the  coast  to  be  easily  patrolled.  A  check  by  an 

aircraft  suffices  to  confirm  fishing  activity  in a prohibited  zone. 

Checking  observance  of  the  rules  on  fishing  gear  (length  of  nets,  number  of  hooks,  mesh 

sizes)  is  particularly  difficult.  It  can be  backed  up  by  inspection  on  land  but  inspection  at  sea 

is  indispensable,  even  more  so  given  the  absence  of  rules  of  the  "single  net"  type.  One  of  the 

most  difficult  things  to  check  is  respect  for  catch  composition  rules  imposed  when  waivers 

are  granted  on  mesh  sizes.  Ensuring  that  size  minima  are  complied  with  is  at  first  sight  less 

difficult  but  where  trading  channels  exist,  firm  determination  is  required  with  a  strategy 

combining  inspection  at  sea,  on  landing,  after  first  sale  and  if  possible  on  consignment. 

p:\c3l\rapports\ctrl\report\en 

-  7  -

Where  problems  are  most  serious  (English  Channel  and  Region 3),  none  of  the  Member 

States  concerned  has applied  or even defined  such a strategy. 

3.  OVERALL  ASSESSMENT 

The  reports  of the working  groups  covering  the various  stocks permit  detailed  analysis  of the 

size  and  trend  of  the  misreporting  problem.  The  overall  gravity  of  the  situation  has  recently 
been  stressed  by  ICES experts1.  An earlier  Commission  report(2)  summarises  estimates  of the 

amount  of  this  for  key  stocks.  Reference  may  also  be  made  to  a  recent  article  by  G.  Biais 
(1995)f3)  for  a wide  overview  that  compares  the  misreporting  problem  with  that  of  discards, 

with  which  there  is  often  a  connection.  Table 7  is  adapted  from  the  conclusions  of  that 

article. 

Small pelagic  species.  The proportion  of catches not declared  is considerable  and has shown 

no  tendency  to  improve  since  introduction  of  the  CFP.  One  of  the  biggest  problems  is 

misreporting  of  species  (confusion  of  mackerel  and  horse  mackerel,  herring  and  sprat)  or 

catch zone. 

On  landing,  inspections  targeted  at  catch  composition  would  be  more  useful  if  concentrated 

on  a  relatively  small  number  of  ports.  These  catches  are  primarily  intended  for  processing, 

which  for  control  purposes  gives  a  much  more  favourable  situation  than  for  high  value 

species,  where  the  multiplicity  of  landing  points  and  shortness  of  the  distribution  periods 

seriously  complicate  the  work  of  monitoring  services.  However,  economic  integration  of 

producers  and  processors  and  direct-sales  contracts  allowing  markets  to  be  by-passed  can 

also make a specific  control  plan for  pelagics necessary. 

1 

Report  of the  Statistics Committee  Liaison  Working  Group  (ICES  CM  1995/D:1) 

(2)  See  Annex  2  to  COM(95)  243  final. 

(3)  G.  Biais:  An  evaluation  of  the  policy  of  fishery  resource  management  by  TACs 

in  European 

Community  waters  from  1983 to  1992.  Aquat.  Living  Resources,  1995,  8,  N°  3, 201-288. 

p:\c3l\rapports\ctrl\report\en 

-  8  -

As  for  the  geographical  origin  of  catches,  analysis  of  logbooks  ought  to  be  able  to  show up 

inconsistencies.  Combination  of  this  with  controls  at  sea  and  continuous  monitoring  (by 

satellite)  is however  the only  way to tackle the problem  really  effectively. 

The problem  of  discards  used  to be almost  negligible  when set  against  the  volume  of pelagic 

catches  but  is  growing  and  -  a serious  development  -  is  centring  on  specific  fisheries  where 

on-board  sorting  results  in  retention  of  only  a  fraction  of  the  catch,  e.g.  herring  fisheries 

targeted  on the sale  of roes. 

Demersal  fisheries 

In  the  Community's  central  and  southern  Atlantic  waters  misreporting  is  limited,  as are 

discards.  The  reasons  for  this  favourable  impression  are  not,  however,  necessarily  that 

conservation  principles  are  being  observed.  Many  TACs  in  this  zone  are  precautionary 

and  set  at  levels  imposing  no  real  quota  constraints  on  Member  States,  barring  some 

specific  difficulties  over  allocation  (anchovy  for  France,  northern  hake  and  monkfish  for 

Spain,  megrim  or  southern  hake  for  Portugal,  etc.).  The  lower  proportion  of  discards 

compared  with  the  North  Sea  is  partly  explained  by  the  fact  that  southern  markets  see 

catches  of  species  not  valued  and  sometimes  discarded  in  the  north,  and  of  small  fish, 

even  undersized  ones.  Ready  acceptance  of  the  latter  means  that  control  problems  are 

more  of  non-compliance  with technical measures  than of quota overruns. 

Further  north,  on the  Atlantic  coast,  catch  misreporting  problems  become  more  serious. 

In  general  terms  they  remain  limited  by  the existence  of  numerous  precautionary  TACs, 

set  at  a  level  often  still  too  high  to  impose  constraints  on  Member  States  or  guarantee 

effective  conservation.  The  overall  figure  for  1994  in  Table 7  is  however  misleading  in 

this  regard;  for  western  Scotland  the  scientific  conclusions  have  had  to  be  adjusted  to 

take  account  of  under-declarations  of  roundfish  catches,  as  described  in  detail  in  the 

ICES  report  mentioned  above.  The  discard  problem  is  also  greater  than  in the  south but 

without  any distinct  trend. 

p:\c3l\rapports\ctrl\report\en 

In  the  North  Sea  and  adjacent  sectors  (see  Table  7),  the  under-reporting  problem  is 

particularly  acute  and  has  worsened,  particularly  for  roundfish.  This  stems  from  a 

problem  to which  attention  was drawn  in a previous  report  (COM(95)  243  final).  In  line 

with  the  scientific  recommendations,  which  have  been  more  readily  followed  given  that 

the situation  for  certain  stocks  is now recognized  to  be very  serious,  TACs  in  the  North 

Sea  have  in  the  last  few  years  been  set  at  levels  corresponding  to  strongly  reduced 

exploitation  rates.  But  fishing  efforts  have  not  been  reduced:  the  Commission  has  not 

been  followed  when  it  has  proposed  substantial  capacity  reductions  and  considerable 

direct  restrictions  of  fishing  time.  All conditions  come together  for  the encouragement  of 

fraud  and  discarding  and  the  persistently  high  level  of  the  latter,  despite  increases  in 

authorized  mesh  size,  will be noted.  The twin phenomena  of  fraud  and  discarding  amply 

illustrate  the  urgency  for  restriction  of  fishing  effort  in the  North  Sea.  In  the  Baltic  the 

situation  for  cod  has  developed  in  a  very  similar  way  to  that  in  the  North  Sea:  actual 

catches  in the  last  few  years  have been  substantially  above quota,  the problem  not being 

restricted 

to  any  particular  Member  State  or  Union  countries  alone.  The  recent 

satisfactory  recruitment  to  the  cod  stock  has  meant  that,  in  the  absence  of  effort 

restrictions,  catches  have  exceeded  those  authorized.  Control  work  has  run  into  the 

problems  of  probable  fraudulent  misrepresentation  of  the  geographical  origin  of  catches 

made  by  Community  fishermen  and  exportation  to  the  Union  of  cod  fraudulently  fished 

in the Baltic  by non-Union  vessels,  large quantities  of Baltic cod having  been declared  on 

the market  of Member  States not bordering  it. 

p:\c3l\rapports\ctrl\report\en 

, 

-  10 

IV.  ASPECTS  OTHER  THAN  CONSERVATION 

1.  MARKET  POLICY 

The  rigorous  application  of  the  relevant  body  of  Community  rules  should  ensure  that  the 

proper  functioning  of  the  common  organisation  is  not  disturbed  by,  for  example,  undeclared 

imports  and  that  undersized  fish  are  not  presented  for  sale  through  publicly  or  privately 

owned  auction  centres  or  benefit  directly  or  indirectly  from  the  price  withdrawal  system.  In 

addition,  fishery  products  presented  for  sale  are  required  to  comply  with  specific  freshness 

and  grading  standards  in  order  to  protect  consumers,  etc.  Each  Member  State  is  required  to 

organise  regular  checks  on  its  own  territory  in  order  to  ensure  compliance  with  the  technical 

aspects  of  the  common  organization  of  the  market  in  fishery  and  aquaculture  products.  The 

withdrawal  of  products  from  the  market  for  purposes  other  than  human  consumption  and  the 

storage  and/or  processing  of  products  so withdrawn  must  also  be  monitored. 

Member  States  must  notify  the  Commission  about  the  specific  control  measures  adopted  to 

implement  the  controls  outlined  above,  the  identity  of  the  competent  national  control 

authorities,  the  type  of  infringements  discovered  and  subsequent  action  taken. 

Within  each  Member  State,  the  task  of  monitoring  and  control  is  shared  between  a  number  of 

national  services.  This  division  is  partly  explained  by  the  fact  that  different  services  (health, 

antifraud,  quality  control,  etc.)  have  traditionally  been  involved  in  controls  and  that  different 

entities  (producers'  organizations  in  particular)  have  a  major  role  to  play  in  the  common 

organization  of  the  fisheries  market. 

p:\c31\rapports\ctrl\report\en 

-  11 

As  regards  the  actual  implementation  of  technical  controls,  the  Commission  notes  that  checks 

on  minimum  sizes  are  undertaken  by  either  the  national  fisheries  inspectorate  based  in  ports 

(United  Kingdom, 

Ireland,  Denmark),  specialised 

services 

(France,  Portugal),  or  a 

combination  of  both.  In  Member  States  where  more  than  one  service  is  associated  with  this 

type  of  control,  it  is not  clear  how  and  to  what  extent  this  task  is  shared  or  coordinated. 

In  their  submissions  to  the  Commission,  Member  States,  whilst  indicating  that  this  type  of 

control 

is 

indeed  exercised,  gave  few  details  on 

their 

level, 

frequency  or  extent. 

Consequently,  the  Commission  cannot  conclude  that  these  have  been  satisfactory. 

As  for  controls  on  the  procedures  governing  the  withdrawal  of  fish  from  the  market,  Member 

States'  reports  indicate  that  in  most  cases  these  are  adequately  monitored  and  that  the 

procedures  are  properly  applied. 

Member  States  were  also  asked  to  supply  information  on  the  outcome  of  market-based 

inspections  and  controls  (types  of  infringement,  etc.)  and  the  action  taken  in  cases  of  non 

compliance.  Almost  without  exception,  Member  States  have  not  supplied  this  information. 

2.  THE  TRANSPORT  OF  FISHERY  PRODUCT'S 

The  proper  functioning  of  the  rules  governing  the  transport  of  fishery  products(4)  should 

ensure  that  the  national  monitoring  authorities  are  in  a  position  to  intervene  in  order  to 

prevent  the  carriage  and  eventual  sale  of  quantities  of  fish  (particularly  those  subject  to  total 

allowable  catch  restrictions)  which  have  not  been  comprehensively  or  correctly  registered  at 

the  point  of  landing  or  importation  or  whose  precise  origin  is unclear.  Such  controls  can  also 

assist  in  the  prevention  of  fraudulent  imports  into  the  Community.  Moreover,  conducting 

routine  checks  on  transporters  constitutes  a  deterrent  against  the  carriage  of  quantities  of  fish 

which  have  not  been  properly  registered  and/or  of  undersized  fish.  Both  practices  present 

persistent  problems  for  national  monitoring  services. 

(4)  Detailed  rules  applicable to  the  market  sector  are  set  out  in  Council  Regulation  (EEC)  No  3759/92,  and 
the  enforcement  of  these  is  incorporated  into  the  integrated  control  approach  provided  for  in  Articles 
24-28  of  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  2847/93,  while  the  transport  of  fisheries  products  is  regulated  in 
Article  13 of  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No 2847/93. 

p:\c3l\rapports\ctrl\report\en 

-  12  -

Port  landings  are  normally  controlled  in  the  course  of  routine  dockside  inspections  and  new 

obligations  apply  in  particular  to  quantities  transported  through  Community  territory. 

The  controls  focus  primarily  on  whether: 

-  such  quantities  are  accompanied  by  a transport  document, 

- 

the  document  in  question  contains  the  proper  information.  Responsibility  for  drawing 

up  and  keeping  the  document  rests with  the  transporter. 

Checks  on  the  transport  of  fishery  products  is  a  new  task  for  the  national  monitoring 

authorities.  The  overland  transport  of  fishery  products  has  increased  substantially  in  recent 

years  and  has  particular  relevance  for  different  groups  of  Member  States.  The  monitoring  of 

the  movement  of  fishery  products  has  assumed  greater  importance  in  recent  years  because  of 

the  increase  in  the  volume  of  fishery  products  transported  for  either  marketing  or/and  specific 

consumption  reasons. 

In  their  reports,  Member  States  have  not  indicated  the  extent  to  which  random  checks  have 

been  conducted  to  check  on  the  distribution  of  fish  catches,  nor  do  they  report  that  their 

particular  checks/controls  yielded  significant  results.  On  the  basis  of  these  reports  and 

missions  conducted  to  Member  States  in  1994 by  the  Commission's  Fisheries  Inspectorate,  the 

Commission  takes  the  view  that  these  controls  have  been  at  best  very  limited  in  the  majority 

of  Member  States  and  that  they  cannot  be  considered  to  be  of  any  significance  in  terms  of 

overall  control  Consequently,  the  Commission  concludes  that  the  monitoring  opportunities 

provided  by  this  measure  are  not  being  fully  exploited  by  Member  States,  particularly  in  the 

context  of  dealing  with  the  problem  of  undersized  fish. 

3- STRUCTURAL POLICY(S) 

The  input  and  output  (catch)  management  requirements  in  the  basic  Regulation,  reflecting  as 

they  do  the  scientific  analytical  work  identifying  excessive  fishing  effort  and  over-capacity  as 

the  primary  cause  of  the  CFP's  difficulties,  have  given  monitoring  of  capacity  and  effort  an 

increasing  importance  that  will  continue  to  grow  very  rapidly. 

(5)  The specific rules are contained in Articles 25 to 27 of Regulation (EEC) No 2847/92 

p:\c3I\rapports\ctrl\report\en 

-  13  -

Fishing-capacity  adjustment,  whether  expressed  in  vessel  size,  engine  power  or  in  the  number, 

size  or  gear  characteristics  of  vessels,  is  to  be  properly  monitored  and  the  different  means 

employed,  e.g.  restrictions  etc.,  to  implement  the  different  objectives  are  to  be  checked  on  a 

regular  basis.  Fishing-activity  limitations  accepted  for  some  Member  States  as  a  complement 

to  capacity  reduction  within  the  third-generation  MAGPs  must  also  be  monitored.  It  is  also 

necessary  to  ensure  that,  for  example,  vessels  in  receipt  of  financial  aid  for  modernisation  or 

cessation  of  activity,  whether  temporary  or  permanent,  are  checked  by  national  monitoring 

authorities. 

From  the  various  submissions  and  reports  forwarded  by  Member  States,  a  wide  variation  in 

both  the  type  and  depth  of  controls  conducted  by  national  monitoring  services  is apparent.  On 

the  one  side,  a  number  of  Member  States  (United  Kingdom,  Germany,  Denmark)  have  a 

relatively  well-developed  and  integrated  control  framework  (databases  on  vessel  activity,  fleet 

register,  systematic  checks  on  vessels  entering  the  fleet,  etc.),  while  on  the  other  side,  other 

Member  States  appear  to  have  a  more  ad  hoc  approach  to  these  particular  technical  controls. 

With  respect  to  the  latter  group  of  Member  States,  the  Commission  has  noted  that  the 

technical  controls  are  at  best  carried  out  intermittently  and  in  an  uncoordinated  manner.  In 

general,  such  controls  are  conducted  only  when  vessels  are  initially  modified  etc.  and  there 

appears  to  be  no  or  little  attempt  at  follow-up  checking.  This  is  particularly  important  in  the 

case  of  vessels  which  are  subject  to  restrictions  on  gear  usage  or  engine  power.  A  second  and 

equally  important  unsatisfactory  element  associated  with  the  implementation  of  these  technical 

controls  is  that  many  of  them  are  carried  out  by  services  which  are  often  not  part  of  fisheries 

control  services  or  departments.  In  addition,  responsibility  is  sometimes  shared  by  different 

services;  in  Portugal,  for  example,  five  different  services  are  responsible  for  such  controls 

while  in  others,  two  or  up to  three  different  ministries  are  involved. 

Whilst  acknowledging  that  certain  aspects  of  shipping  (including  fishing  vessels)  traditionally 

fall  within  the  remit  of  different  ministries,  the  Commission  expects  Member  States  to  take 

steps  to  ensure  that  these  tasks  are  centralised  or  closely  coordinated  by  the  service  which  has 

overall  responsibility  for  fisheries  control. 

As  a  first  step  in  that  direction,  Member  States  should  ensure  that  the  information  in  the 

fishing-fleet  register  is  more  systematically  utilised  and  complemented  by  databases  on  vessel 

activity  linked  to  the  fishing-fleet  register,  e.g.  logbook  returns,  landing  declarations,  sales 

notes,  etc. 

p:\c3l\rapports\ctrl\report\en 

-  14  -

With  respect  to  the  actual  implementation  of  technical  controls,  most  Member  States  have  not 

yet  given  sufficient  attention  to  this  type  of  controls.  Few  Member  States,  in  the  context  of 

their  annual  reports,  have  provided  sufficient 

information  on  the  extent  to  which  these 

controls  are  conducted. 

v.  SANCTIONS  AND  LEGAL  ISSUES 

The  record  on  compliance  with  the  provisions  of  the  common  fisheries  policy  is  the  result  of 

the  quality  and  frequency  of  inspections  and  the  level  of  sanctions  in  cases  of  non 

compliance.  This  is  an  area  where  the  Member  State  have  sole  competence.  In  order  to  get  a 

better  understanding  of  the  legal  systems  applicable  in  the  Member  States  concerning  fisheries 

enforcement,  the  Commission  ordered  a  study  which  covers  most  Member  States.  The  results 

of  this  study  are  reflected  in  this  chapter. 

1. 

NATIONAL  LEGAL  SYSTEMS  OF  FISHERIES  ENFORCEMENT 

Fisheries  enforcement  can  be  divided  into  three  different  stages,  i.e.  disclosure  of  apparent 

infringement  by  monitoring,  initiation  of  infringement  procedures  and  sanctions. 

1.1.  Monitoring  powers 

Traditional  monitoring  powers  are  rather  similar  in  all  Member  States.  Control  authorities  in 

all  Member  States  have  wide  ranging  powers,  such  as  the  power  to  board  vessels  and  search 

any  relevant  compartment;  to  examine  fish;  to  initiate  inquiries;  to  require  any  paper  or 

document  for  investigative  purposes;'to  take  samples  and  to  measure  and  weigh  goods. 

But  there  are  considerable  differences  in  the  scope  of  these  powers.  This  scope  may  vary 

according  to  a  number  of  factors.  One  of  the  most  important  factors  is  the  nature  of  the 

enforcement  system,  i.e.  criminal  or  administrative. 

p:\c3l\rapports\ctrl\rcport\en 

-  15  -

1.2. 

Infringement  procedures 

Infringement  procedures  in  respect  of  fishery  offences  are  very  different  as  between  the 

Member  States.  These  differences  are  for  instance  apparent  in  matters  relating  to  the  rules  of 

evidence.  Problems  sometimes  occur  when  evidence  is  transferred  from  one  Member  State  to 

another.  Differences  also  exist  as  far  as  the  settlement  of  fishery  offences  out  of  court  is 

concerned. 

1.3. 

Sanctions 

Differences  between  the  national  systems  are  also  reflected  in  the  way  in  which  sanctions  are 

imposed  for  fishery  offences.  In  some  Member  States,  decisions  on  fishery  offences  fall  under 

the  jurisdiction  of  the  criminal  courts,  whilst  other  Member  States  have  an  administrative 

system  of  fisheries  enforcement 

in  which  such  decisions  are  taken  by  administrative 

authorities  instead  of  courts  of  law.  In  some  Member  States  combined  systems  apply. 

Sanctions  can  be  classified  in three  main  categories  : 

-  penalties  imposed  in  criminal  court  proceedings  (money  fines,  imprisonment,  forfeiture 

of  catch  or  gear,  licence  withdrawal); 

-  civil  fines,  which  are  imposed  only  in  Denmark  and  the  Netherlands. 

-  administrative  penalties  imposed  by  administrative  authorities  in  the  countries  having 

an  administrative  system  of  fisheries  enforcement. 

2.  THE  COMMUNITY  LEGAL  FRAMEWORK 

As  the  frequency  of  inspections  is  generally  low,  fishermen  can  calculate  the  risk  of  being 

fined  as  another  operating  expense.  In  many  cases,  the  impact  of  penalties  on  the  behaviour 

of  fishermen  is,  therefore,  negligible.  If  even  a  fine  deprives  a  fisherman  of  the  gains  of  the 

fishing  trip  in  question,  it  will  at  most  only  marginally  increase  annual  costs.  In  addition, 

national  courts  have  been  known  to  impose  very  low  fines  because  they  consider  Community 

legislation  too  complex  and  do  not  expect  the  fishermen  to  understand  it.  Unfortunately,  there 

are  too  many  examples  where  the  fishing 

industry  and  in  some  cases  even  national 

administrations  have  promoted  this  image  of  the  common  fisheries  policy. 

p:\c3l\rapports\ctrl\report\en 

-  16 

In  order 

to  safeguard 

the  objectivity  and  transparency  of  the  action  taken 

following 

infringements,  the  Commission  proposed  -  and  Member  States  adopted,  as  part  of  Council 

Regulation  (EEC)  No  2847/93  of  October  1993  establishing  a  control  system  applicable  to  the 

common  fisheries  policy  -  certain  provisions  relating  to  the  effectiveness  of  sanctions  to  be 

applied  in  cases  where  the  Community  measures  are  not  observed. 

In  the  light  of  these  provisions,  Member  States  are  required  to  take  all  the  necessary  non 

discriminatory  measures  to  ensure  compliance  with  the  rules  of  the  common  fisheries  policy 

and  prosecute  irregularities,  by  establishing  a  roster  of  sanctions  effectively  depriving  the 

wrong-doers  of  the  economic  benefit  of  the  infringements  or  producing  results  proportionate 

to  the  seriousness  of  such  infringements. 

In  addition,  and  in  accordance  with  Article  34(2)  of  the  Council  Regulation,  Member  States 

are  obliged  to  notify  the  Commission  regularly  of  the  results  of  all  inspections  or  monitoring 

carried  out,  including  the  number  and  type  of  infringements  discovered  and  the  action  taken. 

Most  Member  States  do  not  provide  information  on  their  penalty  practices.  Although  it  is 

easy  to  find  examples  illustrating  the  insufficient  level  of  penalties,  there  is  little  information 

supporting  an  assessment  of  the  efficiency  of  sanctions  in  fisheries.  Even  if  Member  States 

notify  the  number  of  infringements  prosecuted,  little  or  no  information  about  the  eventual 

penalty  inflicted,  if  any,  is  available.  The  statistics  provided  in  Annex  II  demonstrate  the 

inefficiency  of  the  information  transmitted. 

Moreover,  certain  Member  States  capitalize  on  the  obligation  of  notification  to  systematically 

indicate  all  infringements  committed  by  vessels  from  other  Member  States  and  even  non-

member  countries. 

As  long  as  the  Commission  does  not  receive  systematic  information  on  the  amount  and  type 

of  penalties  imposed  by  national  courts  or  administrative  authorities,  it  cannot  properly  assess 

the  efficiency  of  fisheries  enforcement  in the  Member  States. 

p:\c3l\rapports\ctrl\report\en 

-  17 

3.  COOPERATION 

It  appears  that  the  legal  framework  applicable  in  the  Member  States  concerning  fisheries 

enforcement  provides  very  few  opportunities  for  cooperation  between  Member  States.  A 

Member  State  has jurisdiction  over  all  fishing  vessels  operating  in  its  waters,  and  beyond  in 

the  case  of  its  own  vessels.  Non-compliance  may  be  disclosed  and  sanctioned  under  its 

jurisdiction.  However,  in  many  other  cases  where  fishing  vessels  operate  in  the  waters  of 

several  Member  States  and  land  their  catch  again  in  another  Member  State,  it  may  be  difficult 

for  the  flag  Member  State  to  monitor  the  activities  of  its  vessels.  This  arises  particularly 

when,  for  example,  the  flag  Member  State  allocates  individual  catch  quotas  to  its  vessels. 

However,  such  cooperation  is particularly  non-existent. 

Furthermore,  cooperation  between  Member  States  is  meant  to  involve  procedures  for  the 

exchange  of  information  and  evidence  as  well  as  taking  action  against  vessels  which  have 

escaped  inspection  in  another  Member  State.  But  problems  can  occur  due  to  different  national 

systems  of  fisheries  enforcement.  Member  States  have,  for  instance,  widely  diverging  rules  of 

evidence.  The  current  lack  of  cooperation  may  reflect  the  permissive  attitude  towards  the 

national  fishing  industries  which  attempt  to  exploit  fishing  possibilities  beyond  the  limits  set 

in  accordance  with  the  common  fisheries  policy.  As  long  as  the  fishing  industry  in  most 

Member  States  exploits  such  fishing  possibilities,  none  of  them  will  gain,  but  obviously  the 

conservation  of  fish  stocks  will  be  undermined  for  everyone. 

To  overcome  some  of  the  obstacles  between  national  procedures,  close  cooperation  between 

the  authorities  of  the  flag  Member  State  and  the  authorities  of  the  coastal  state  is 

recommended.  It  is  submitted  that  effectiveness  of  fisheries  enforcement  should  not  vary 

according  to  the  national  system  of  law  involved. 

As  regards  enforcement,  it  is  therefore  necessary  to  enhance  cooperation  between  Member 

States,  increase  the  deterrent  effect  of  sanctions  and  create  improved  transparency. 

p:\c31\rapports\ctrl\report\en 

- 

l! 

VI.  CONCLUSIONS 

This  report,  completed  in  1995, has clearly  indicated  the  delays  occurring  in  implementation 

of  the  new  provisions  contained  in  the  control  Regulation  (Regulation  (EEC)  No  2847/93), 

the  impact  of  which  cannot  yet  be fully  assessed.  The  next  report,  which  will  be  completed 

in  1996,  will  be  of  primary  importance  in  this  regard.  It  will  have  to  take  account  of  the 

conclusions  of  the  December  1994  meeting  of  the  Council  calling  for  a  report  on  fishery 

controls  in  the Atlantic  and  experience  acquired  in  1996 following  the  computerization,  now 

compulsory,  of  databases  of  logbook  and  landing-note  information.  The  value  of  this  will be 

all  the  greater  as  the  information  transmitted  by  the  Member  States  becomes  more  precise, 

particularly  as  to  actual  resource  allocation  to  monitoring  work  and  the  statistics  on 

infringements  detected  and penalties  imposed. 

Incomplete  though  it  is,  the  present  report  is  in the  Commission's  eyes  eminently  useful.  It 

can  only  help  to  diminish  the  lack  of  transparency  between  Member  States  on  control 

matters.  Invariably  unwilling  to draw  attention  to  their  own weaknesses,  the  Member  States 

have  nonetheless  made  big  efforts  to  describe  their  control  mechanisms.  Experience  gained 

in  preparing  this  report  will  enable  the  Commission  to  frame  its  requests  for  information 

from  the Member  States more  accurately,  which will increase  the contribution  of this  type of 

report  to  transparency.  The  Commission  is  also  now  in  a  better  position  to  adjust  the 

deployment  of  its  own  resources,  though  this  is  unfortunately  restricted  by  the  increased 

burden  of control  work  in international  waters  (NAFO, driftnets).  The  Commission  continues 

to hope that,  in line with the rules  on sharing  of responsibility,  the Member  States  concerned 

will  rapidly  take up the burden  of work  falling  on them.  Irrespective  of  this  the  Commission 

considers  that  it must  in future  give priority  to: 

validation,  for  the  sake  of  transparency,  of  the  information  transmitted  by  each  Member 

State on resources  devoted  to control  work  and the outcome of this  work; 

p:\c3l\rapports\ctrl\report\cn 

-  19 

new  areas  being  covered  by  control  work  at  Community  level:  structural  measures, 

particularly  the  adjustment  of fleet capacity,  parallel  monitoring  of  fishing  effort,  market 

monitoring  liaison,  checks  during  transport,  and  the  development  of  systematic  cross 

checks between different  sources  of  information; 

the  problems  in  each  fishery  that  lie  behind  major 

infringements  of  Community 

regulations  to  the possible  detriment  of  other  Member  States,  e.g.  quota  overruns  in the 

North  and Baltic  Seas and disregard  of technical conservation  rules  in Region 3; 

coordination  between  national  administrations  and  between 

them  and  DG  XIV. 

Accelerated  implementation  of  new technology  (satellite  monitoring,  computer  links)  is a 

first  field  for  consultation  but  not the  only  one.  Coordination  of  action  at sea,  as  control 

work  in the Atlantic  tuna fisheries  has demonstrated,  requires  action  at Community  level. 

The  same  applies  to  checks  on catches  by  vessels  operating  in  the  EEZ  of  one  Member 

State and landing  at a port  in another.  Generally  the Commission  has  an important  role to 

play  in promoting  synergy  and dissipating  suspicion. 

The  detailed  priorities  of  national  administrations  will  certainly  vary  but  for  1996  the 

Commission  considers  there  to  be  two  general  priorities:  computerization  and  control  work 

on capacity  and  effort. 

p:\c31\rapports\ctrl\report\en 

-  20  -

A N N EX 

I 

REPORTS  FOR  EACH  MEMBER  STATE 

The  report  on each Member  State is in two parts: 

I. 

Inspection and monitoring of  fishing activities 

A  summary  of  the description  provided  by the  Member  State  of  the provisions  it has 

implemented  for  the  enforcement  of  the  CFP.  The  Commission  has  been  obliged  to 

provide  summaries  because of the volume and non-uniform  presentation  of the reports 

from  the national authorities. 

II.  Evaluation 

This is an evaluation carried out by the Commission and notified to the relevant Member 

State,  whose comments  have been  incorporated. 

In  all  cases  the  Commission's  evaluation  contains  a  description  of  the  particular 

circumstances  in  each  Member  State.  In  the  mind  of  the  Commission,  this  part  is 

intended  to promote mutual understanding  between Member  States. 

p:\c3l\rapports\ctrl\annexel\en 

6  1 

BELGIUM 

I. 

Inspection  and  monitoring  of  fishing  activities 

A.  ORGANIZATION 

Responsibility  for monitoring fishing  activities of Belgian and non-Belgian fishing  vessels  rests 

primarily  with  the  Ministry  of  Agriculture,  although  some  specific  aspects  of  fisheries 

monitoring  are  allocated  to the  Ministry  of  Communications  and  Infrastructure,  the  Ministry 

of  the  Economy  and  the  Regional  Flemish  Government. 

Within  the  Ministry  of  Agriculture,  the  Sea  Fisheries  Service  has  responsibility  for  the 

collection  of  data  on  fish  landings,  controls  on  imports,  markets  and  the  management  of 

national  quotas. 

Sea  inspections  are  assisted  by the national  Naval  Service,  which  is under  the  authority  of  the 

Ministry  of  Defence.  These  inspections  are  carried  out  in cooperation  with  the  Sea  Fisheries 

Service  and  personnel  from  that  service  accompany  naval  vessels. 

Structural  aspects  (licences,  vessel characteristics)  are dealt with by the Sea Fisheries  Service, 

while  the  technical  aspects  (engine  capacity,  tonnage)  are  monitored  by  the  Ministry  of 

Communications  (Maritime  Inspection  Service).  Fleet  development  is  regulated  by  licences 

issued  by  the  Sea  Fisheries  Service  and  finance  (loans  etc.)  is  provided  by  the  Regional 

Government  of  Flanders. 

In the area  of markets  (quality  grading,  withdrawal  price levels,  etc.)  responsibility  is divided 

as  follows: 

Quality/grading  is  monitored  by  the  Ministry  of  Agriculture  (National  Service  for  the 

Promotion  of  Agricultural/Horticultural  products)  (N.D.A.L.T.M.) 

Withdrawal  of  fish  etc.:  Ministry  of  Economy  (General  Economic  Inspection  Service) 

Price  levels:  Ministry  of  Agriculture  (See  Fisheries  Service). 

p:\c3l\rapports\ctrl\annexe l\en 

Z  <L 

B.  RESOURCES 

1.  Human 

The  Sea Fisheries  Service  has a staff  of approximately  25 persons. 

The  Fisheries  Inspectorate,  which  is  a  separate  unit  inside  the  Sea  Fisheries  Service,  is 

composed of one inspector and four fisheries officers  and is based in Ostende. The Inspectorate 

visits  ports  and  auctions  on a regular  basis,  and participates  in naval  inspections  and  aerial 

surveillance missions.  A small staff  within the Sea Fisheries  Service covers catch registration 

and quota  management. 

When conducting  auction/port  inspections  in Zeebrugge,  the national  inspectors  are  assisted 

by the local port police. 

From time to time the Fisheries Inspectorate can avail itself of the services of the Investigation 

Branch  of the Custom  and Excise Service. 

Monitoring  at the marketing  stage and the technical aspects  (grading,  freshness)  are covered 

by two inspectors  from  the N.D.A.L.T.P.  (Ministry  of Agriculture).  One inspector  (from the 

Ministry  of  the  Economy)  conducts  checks  on  the  destination  of  fish  withdrawn  from  the 

market  and general  compliance with withdrawal prices. 

2. 

Vessels/aircraft 

Three naval vessels  (2  tugs and  1  inshore minesweeper)  are available for  fisheries  protection 

duties. 

An aircraft  under the control of the regional government (Dept. of the Environment) is leased 

for  a total of forty  hours per year. This is used for  aerial surveillance  during  specific  periods 

of the year  (spring  - for  the flat  fish  season). 

p:\c31\rapports\ctrl\annexe l\en 

I  3 

3. 

Computerization 

A  centralised  computer  service  based  in  Ostende  has  been  established  (AS-400  IBM 

mainframe  computer).  This  is used  to store  data on catches - logbook,  landing declarations, 

sales notes,  information  on marketing (prices, quantities, quality grading,  etc.) and the list of 

licences  issued. 

The registration  of vessels,  which is the responsibility  of the Ministry  of Communications,  is 

also computerized.  Data (sales notes etc.) from  the Zeebrugge Auction are transmitted  on-line 

to  the  Sea. Fisheries  Service  on  a daily  basis.  Data  from  other  auction  centres  are  entered 

manually  in Ostende. 

C.  ACTIVITIES 

The  inspections  conducted  onshore  (in auctions/on  buyers  and vessels)  in  1994 totalled 208. 

These  were  carried 

in  the  following  port/auctions:  Zeebrugge:  99,  Ostende 

:  71, 

Nieuwpoort  :  17, Others  : 21 

These  checks  detected  64 apparent  infringements  (the majority  of  these  concerned  logbooks 

or  landing  declarations).  Approximately  30% of all recorded  landings  were checked. 

Approximately  95%  of  all  logbook  information  is  returned.  The  same  applies  for  landing 

declarations  and sales notes. Exchange of information  is furthermore  carried  out on a regular 

basis  with Denmark  (via modem), the Netherlands  and the UK. 

Validation of logbook/landing  declaration data is carried  out by use of  sales notes and this is 

undertaken  with respect  to approximately  75% of  landings.  Discrepancies  etc.  are  identified 

and transmitted  to the Fisheries  Inspectorate  for  subsequent  follow-up. 

p:\c3l\rapports\ctrl\annexel\en 

^M 

Naval  Inspections  1994 

In  1994,  sixty-eight  vessels  (mainly  Belgian  and  Dutch)  were  inspected  and  a  total  of  nine 

infringements  were  detected.  Sea  patrols  were  conducted  in  area  IVc  and  totalled  34  days 

during  1994. 

Aerial  surveillance  (40 hours)  resulted  in 302 sightings. 

p:\c3l\rapports\clrl\annexel\en 

L  S 

II.  Evaluation 

A.  General 

The fishing  fleet comprises a limited number of medium-sized  vessels.  A relatively  large part 

of the catch is landed in other Member States (UK, Netherlands and Denmark).  In  1994, the 

quota for  9 stocks was exhausted.  Quota management for sole in particular  is very restrictive. 

The EEZ  is limited  in size and the coastline  is relatively  short  with a small number  of ports. 

B. 

Strengths and weaknesses 

The  recording  of catches  is computerized.  It  is based  on data  from  logbook  sheets,  landing 

declarations and sales notes. About 75% of landings are cross-checked.  The catch registration 

of  landings  offered  for  first  sale at auction  seems to be reliable.  Landings  in other  Member 

States are  scrutinized  on the basis of logbook sheets. This  information  is checked against the 

information  on landing  and sales provided  by the Member  States concerned. 

Although the number of officials  responsible  for  inspection has increased  over the last years, 

their  numbers  are  still  considered  insufficient.  Furthermore  these  officials  do  not  have  the 

necessary  legal powers  required  to carry  out their tasks  on land and  at sea. 

Three  navy  vessels  with  limited  capacities  for  fisheries  surveillance  carry  out  part  time 

inspections at sea. Aerial surveillance  is limited to 40 hours per year.  The legality of findings 

obtained  by this means of  inspection  is contested. 

It  is believed  that  unrecorded  landings  still  occur.  Fisheries  inspectors  are  accompanied  by 

customs  or police  officials  with a view to disclose  such practices. 

p:\c31\rapports\ctrl\annexel\en 

Z-Q 

DENMARK 

I. 

Inspection  and  monitoring  of  fishing  activities 

A.  Organization 

Responsibility  for monitoring  fishing  activities rests with the Fisheries  Directorate,  which now 

forms  part  of  the  Ministry  of  Agriculture  and  Fisheries  following  restructuring  which  took 

place  in  1994. 

Within  the  Fisheries  Directorate  there  is  a  division  which  has  specific  responsibility  for 

controls  including  actual  inspection.  Other  tasks  ascribed  to that  division  include  registration 

of catches, the issuing  of licences and structural  and market aspects associated  with the  fishing 

industry. 

The  actual Fisheries  Inspectorate  is decentralised,  that  is to say,  the majority  of  inspectors  are 

based  in  the  main  fishing  ports  and  their  activities  are  coordinated  through  the  Division's 

Secretariat. 

In specific  areas  of  responsibility,  e.g.  structures  and  markets,  the  Inspectorate  is  assisted  or 

cooperates  with other  specialised  public organizations  such as Customs  and Excise,  the health 

and  veterinary  services. 

The Inspectorate  has its own inspection resources  - patrol  vessels  and computer  systems  which 

are  under  its  own  exclusive  control. 

The  main objective  of the inspectorate  both centrally  and locally  is the collection of catch data 

from  logbooks/landing  declarations  and  comparison  with  data  obtained  from  sales  notes 

supplied  by  auction  centres  and  buyers. 

This  data  is  systematically  analyzed  and  discrepancies  noted  are  investigated.  In .order  to 

facilitate  analysis,  two  data  bases  have  been  created,  covering  landings  and  sales. 

p:\c3l\rapports\ctrl\annexe 1 \en 

M 

B.  RESOURCES 

1.  Human 

In terms  of  actual  inspectors,  the Inspectorate  has a staff  of  143 inspectors  divided  between 

the main fishing  port areas. 

In addition, the Secretariat has a staff  of 25,  while the Computer Service used to process data 

from  logbooks/landing  declarations/sales  notes has a staff  of 24. 

Analysis and updating of catches subject to total allowable catch restrictions  is undertaken by 

an additional  staff  of  3 persons. 

2. 

Vessels/aircraft 

A total of five  vessels are used for  fisheries  patrol purposes.  These vessels have a total crew 

of  102 persons. 

No aircraft  surveillance  is carried  out by the Fisheries  Inspectorate. 

3. 

Computerization 

Computer  systems  have been installed  to process  logbook/landing  declaration  data  and sales 

note data,  record  catch returns  and conduct ongoing analysis  of fishing  activity  and  effort. 

The data  is  stored  in a mainframe,  access to which is available  to staff  via  a local  network. 

Locally  based  inspectors  are linked by a network  and also have access  to the  mainframe. 

p:\c3l\rapports\ctrl\arinexel\en 

2E 

C.  ACTIVITIES 

Inspection  activity,  by port,  by type of activity 

Table 1 

Inspectorate  based 
in 

N " of  Employees 

N '  of  inspections 
of  vessels 

N * of  inspections 
of  buyers 

Esbjerg 

Fredericia 

Frederikshavn 

Nykobing  Mors 

Randers 

Roskilde 

Total 

21 

19 

29 

25 

18 

31 

143 

1475 

107 

1524 

457 

83 

1107 

4573 

1016 

50 

2617 

993 

293 

205 

5174 

p :\c3 l\rapports\ctrl\annexe 1 \en 

19 

Inspections at Sea 
-  Patrols conducted  per patrol vessel,  by number of  days,  by ICES area 

Table 2 

AREA 

IV A 

IV b 

III AN 

III  AS 

III B 

III  C 

III  D 

VESSEL 

Jens  Vaever 

Nords0en 

Nordjylland 

Vestkysten 

12 

Viben 

Various  other 
vessels 

2 

49 

97 

142 

14 

117 

1 

26 

28 

21 

2 

80 

1 

1 

5 

102 

3 

51 

16 

31 

98 

Total 

12 

274 

148 

75 

83 

111 

Number  of inspections  at sea by ICES area. 

IV A 

IV b 

III AN 

III  AS 

III B 

III  C 

III  D 

AREA 

200 

5 

68 

1 

48 

89 

293 

128 

10 

15 

14 

39 

13 

'  71 

84 

7 

7 

39 

20 

6 

65 

VESSEL 

Jens  Vaever 

Nordsoen 

Nordjylland 

Vestkysten 

Viben 

Total 

Results 

Number of apparent infringements detected during  the course of sea and port inspections: 

Port  Inspections:  182 - largest  category:  logbook/landing  declaration  obligation (57). 
Sea Inspections:  59 

. 

. 

p:\c3 l\rapports\ctrl\annexe 1 \en 

?>0 

Validation  of  landings,  auction data, etc. 

Validation  is  conducted  primarily  through  the  systematic  comparison  of  logbook/landing 

declarations  and  sales notes. 

Landing  and  sales  data  is collected  in port  by  local  inspectors  and  transmitted  to the central 

authorities.  Purchases  made  at  auctions  or  by  major  buyers  (fish-processing  plants)  are 

transmitted  within  forty-eight  hours.  Cross-checks  on this data  are  made  on a daily  basis to 

identify  errors,  missing  information  and discrepancies. 

In  addition,  the  larger  auction  centres  are  visited  on  a  regular  basis  to  make  checks  on 

quantities,  their  grading  and  freshness  and  in the  context  of  monitoring  market  regulations 

generally. 

Validation  of  landings  by  means  of  physical  controls  (monitoring  and  recording  quantities 

landed  - number  of boxes  and their  weight)  is limited  to approximately  3% of landings. 

There  exists a licensing  system for  vessels  with no logbook and their catch is recorded  using 

the sales notes. 

Landings in non-member  countries 

Landings made by Danish vessels in ports located in non-member countries are checked using 

logbooks/landing  declarations  and comparing these with subsequent  sales notes if the catch is 

sold  in Denmark.  In  1995, the sales-note  format  was modified  to include  information  on the 

economic zone where  the catch was taken. 

Monitoring of technical  conservation measures  (gear type, fish sizes,  etc.) 

Checks  are  undertaken  by  the  Fisheries  Inspectorate  in  the  course  of  port  inspections  and 

during  sea patrols.  No precise details are available with respect  to the number  (or  frequency) 

of  these  types  of  inspections.  In general,  they  are carried  out  in the  context  of  routine  port 

inspections. 

p:\c31\rapports\ctrl\annexel\en 

31 

Problems with respect to undersized fish (Norway lobster in particular) have been noted by the 

national authorities but their efforts  to suppress such practices have been hampered by the fact 

that  many  occur  in  the  context  of  smaller  landings  which  cannot  be  subjected  to  continual 

monitoring. 

Control  on  mesh  sizes  and  gear  generally  is  carried  out  in  the  context  of  sea  patrols.  No 

precise  figures  are available as to the rate of  inspection or detection.  Effective  monitoring  is 

hampered  by the fact  that vessels  can retain different  gear  types/mesh  sizes  while  at sea and 

is restricted  to the inspection  of the last haul. 

Transport  of fish 

Monitoring  of fish  transported  overland is, in the first  instance, carried  out on a sample basis 

and through random checks. The authority to stop transport vehicles is confined  to the national 

police authority and this inhibits more general controls. A satisfactory  level of monitoring can 

be effected  through  cooperation  with the national police authority. 

p:\c31Vrapports\ctrl\annexel\en 

3  2. 

II.  Evaluation 

A.  General 

The  Danish  EEZ  is limited,  but  Denmark has a long coastline  with over 200 harbours.  The 

fishmeal  industry  is located on the West Coast of Jutland.  A large number  of small ports are 

located along the Danish coast and among the islands. The most important Baltic port is Nekso 

on Bornholm. 

The Danish fleet  carries  out a number  of various fisheries.  The overcapacity  of the fleet has 

been gradually reduced and there is no excessive pressure on quotas, except for certain species 

such  as  cod  and  North  Sea  sole.  The  major  volume  of  the  catch  consists  of  small  species 

destined for  fish meal and oil. A sampling scheme recently  revised indicates that the landings 

of herring  for  reduction have diminished  as a result  of the management regime and probably 

certain  biological  developments  including  increased  sprat  occurrences.  The  monitoring  of 

industrial  fisheries  remains  difficult,  however.  An important  problem  in this  respect  is the 

mixed  clupeoid  fishery  in the  Skagerrak/Kattegat,  where  ambiguities  in  the  regulations  are 

exploited to the fullest  extent possible.  By-catches in certain other industrial fisheries  can also 

create  problems.  Even  the  so-called  clean  fisheries  deserve  attention because  of  the risk  of 

species misreporting,  e.g.  herring  being reported  as sandeel. 

The fishermen  in the industry  are well organised,  which should  facilitate  controls. 

B. 

Strengths and weaknesses 

Danish  fisheries  policy  has a long history  and covers  a large  number  of aspects.  It has been 

translated  into a comprehensive  set of national regulations. 

The  authorities  have  set  up  a  fairly  extensive  system  to  register  catches.  Computerised 

procedures  have been set up to process  logbook sheets and sales accounts transmitted  by fish 

buyers.  The  consistency  of  the  data  is  systematically  cross-checked.  Physical  inspection  is 

however  not so extensive. 

0'.\c^l\rannnrts\ctrl\annexe I \en 

ij 

Logbook  entries  are  not  profoundly  checked.  Sales notes,  which  are  actually  used  as  landing 

declarations,  are  not  sufficiently  checked  by  the  national  inspectors,  although  illegal 

arrangements  between  fishermen  and  buyers  may  exist.  Cross-checks  between  logbooks  and 

sales  notes  should  be  more-often  complemented  by  physical  checks. 

The Danish  system for  registering catches and landings has three  components:  physical 

inspection,  scrutiny  of documents and  checking of accounts.  The scale  of  each  of these 

depends  on  an  assessment  of  where  resources  can  be  most  effectively  applied.  The 

physical  monitoring  of  landings  allows  cross-checking  of  logbook  data  and  sales 

accounts.  The national  regulations for  the fisheries  in all  major  species  are  controlled 

by  document  checks  carried  out  regularly  by  local  inspectorates  and  by  checks  on 

business  accounts.  The  document  checks  involve  comparing  logbooks  and  sales  notes 

against 

the  allowable  catches 

in  regulated 

fisheries.  Individual 

fisheries  are 

comprehensively  surveyed  at  vessel  level.  Local  inspectors  also  carry  out  checks  on 

business  accounts.  On  a  sample  basis,  for  a  given  period,  a  complete  input/output 

analysis  is  made  of  the  flow  of products  and  the  flow  of  money  to  see  whether  goods 

received/bought  tally with goods sold. This ensures that any data errors  in registers will 

be  identified. 

The registration  of industrial  catches through the administrative circuit  is not fully  satisfactory. 

The  buyers  of  industrial  landings  only mention the main species  in the catch;  the  composition 

of  individual  catches  is in general  not known to the authorities.  In this  way  an industrial  catch 

of  pout  mixed  with protected  species  can be declared  entirely  as pout.  This  results  in  certain 

species  being  over-reported  in the catch reports,  whilst  others  are under-reported.  An  overall 

scientific  evaluation  of  industrial  catches,  based  on  the  sampling  scheme,  helps  however  to 

correct  these shortcomings.  Nevertheless,  the Commission  is not in a position to guarantee the 

full  effectiveness  of  the  sampling  scheme  in  question.  There  is  also  insufficient  direct 

monitoring  at  sea  of  the  specific  management  measures  aimed  at  limiting  industrial  fisheries 

in problem  areas.  A  satellite  tracking  system  would  overcome  this  problem. 

p:\c3l\rapports\ctrl\annexe 1 \en 

^ 

On the registering  of  industrial  catches,  the Danish authorities  comment as  follows: 

The registration  of  industrial  catches is in accordance  with the  rules for registering 

catches set out in Article 5(1) of Council Regulation  (EC)  No 3362/94 of 20 December 

1994 fixing, for  certain fish stocks and groups offish  stocks,  the total allowable catches 

for  1995 and certain conditions under which they may be fished, this registration system 

is also well-suited to managing quotas if it is supplemented by a sampling system for use 

in formulating scientific advice. The sampling arrangements and the volume of samples 

taken can of course be modified. 

Furthermore, the legal authorities require a significant excess of the by-catch limits before they 

sentence fishermen.  If the by-catch limit is e.g.  10%, prosecution will only start if the by-catch 

is at least 20%. A conviction results in a fine and in the confiscation of the value of the illegal 

part of  the catch. 

Enforcement  at sea is in general limited. The patrol vessels are also assigned to other task such 

as assistance to fishermen.  Their efficiency  could be increased by the establishment of airborne 

surveillance.  The Danish authorities  comment as follows: 

The seagoing patrols spend about 80%  of their time on surveillance,  with the remaining 

20% being spent on rescue  and towing  activities. The number of days at sea in 1994 

came to 801,  with 120 127 nautical miles sailed in  total. 

p:\c31\rapports\ctrl\annexe l\en 

2.-T 

During  1994, the controls on the cod fishery  in the Baltic sea caused particular problems. The 

inspection service faced  difficulties  to cope with the numerous third country  landings and had 

therefore  insufficient  resources left to control fisheries.  Moreover,  one of the inspection vessel 

then  operating  in  the  Baltic  was  not  adequate  for  the  task.  Pursuant  to  the  request  of  the 

Commission, the Danish authorities have conducted an administrative inquiry into this fishery. 

p:\c31\rapports\ctrl\annexe l\en 

2>C 

GERMANY 

I. 

Inspection  and  monitoring  of  fishing activities 

A.  ORGANIZATION 

Responsibility  for  monitoring  fishing  activities  in the Federal  Republic  is  divided  between  the 

central  authorities  and  their  counterparts  in the  Lander. 

The  central  authorities  are  based  in the  Ministry  of  Food,  Agriculture  and  Forestry. 

Fisheries  inspectors  are  based  in  the  Ministry  and  in  the  Lander.  Both  inspectorates  are 

responsible  for  the  following  tasks: 

monitoring  landings,  gear  and  vessel  characteristics, 

conducting  checks  on  quality  and  compliance  with  market  and  technical  rules  (prices, 

withdrawal  freshness,  grading,  etc.) 

validation  and  cross-checking  of  catch  and  sales  records. 

A number  of specialized  public organizations  are also involved  in monitoring  different  aspects 

of  fishing  activity: 

technical  aspects  of  vessels  and  gear:  Federal  Office  of  Sea  Navigation  and 

Hydrography. 

markets: 

Federal  Veterinary  Office 

Federal  Agriculture  and  Food  Office  -  BLE 

The  national  intervention  agency. 

imports: 

Custom  and  Excise  Service. 

control  vessels: 

Coastguard  Service. 

B. 

RESOURCES 

1. 

Human 

Fisheries  Inspectorate 

The  total  number  of shore  inspectors  in the Federal  Republic  is 30, with 4 at federal  level  and 

26  in  the Lander  (Schleswig-Holstein  10,  Mecklenburg-W.  Pomerania  12,  Hamburg  1). 

p:\c3l\rapports\ctrl\annexel\en 

"àv 

This  core  group  of  inspectors  is  assisted  by  additional  local  staff  during  major  control 

operations. 

2. 

Vessels/aircraft 

A total of 21 surveillance vessels are utilised in the Federal Republic, 4 operated by the central 

authorities  and  17 by  the Lander. In addition,  12 customs  vessels  carry  out  limited  control 

duties, for  example patrols are conducted  on the outer limits of the German fishing  zone and 

in certain  protected  areas  to monitor  flatfish.  However,  these  vessels  do  not  conduct  actual 

fisheries  inspections. 

Surveillance  vessel  activity  is coordinated  by the National  Coastguard  Service. 

No aircraft  are  assigned  to fisheries  surveillance. 

3. 

Computerization 

Information  on  the  administration  of  quotas,  the  national  fishing  fleet  and  markets  is 

computerized  at  the  Federal  Agriculture  and  Food  Office  (BLE).  In  addition,  some  of  the 

individual Lander have computer  systems  while others  are installing  them  at present. 

p:\c3l\rapports\ctrl\annexe l\cn 

2>S 

C.  ACTIVITIES 

Fisheries  Inspectorate 

Port inspections 

A total  of  10 539 port  inspections  were conducted  in 1994. 

These  were  located  as follows: 

Lander 

Number  of  port  checks 

Mecklenburg-Western  Pomerania 

Lower  Saxony 

Schleswig-Holstein 

TOTAL 

7 383 

2 473 

683 

10 539 

In the context of these inspections a total of  176 infringements  were detected.  The bulk of the 
infringements  involved  logbook/landing  declaration  offences. 

Type of  infringement 

Nationality  of vessel 

German 

Danish 

4 

Logbook/landing  decl. 

Illegal  gear 

Vessel  tonnage/engine  capacity 

By-catch 

Undersized  fish 

Unauthorised  fishing 

Gear marking 

Vessel  marking 

Others 

r 

53 

10 

1 

1 

8 

5 

5 

17 

76 

p:\c3l\rapports\ctrl\annexel\en 

3  3 

In addition to vessel  inspection,  the monitoring  authorities  were involved  in checking  landings 

at  the  point  of  unloading  or  in  auction  centres.  An  estimated  30%  were  checked  mainly  in 

auction  markets  in  1994.  No  checks  were  performed  on  transport  on  land. 

Cross-checks  between logbook entries,  landing declarations  and sales notes were conducted  on 

all vessels  of  ten metres  or  more  in length.  These  landings  represented  95%  of total  landings 

at  ports  in  the  Federal  Republic.  Catches  made  by  vessels  under  10  metres  are  reported 

monthly  to  the  authorities. 

Specific  control  activity  focused  on compliance  with minimum  fish-size  requirements  (both at 

sea  and  in port),  minimum  mesh  sizes  and,  to  a limited  extent,  on  the  transport  of  fish. 

Inspections  at  sea 

Area 

Number  of  days 

Inspections 

ICES  III 
ICES  IV 
ICES  V 
ICES  VI 
ICES  XII 
ICES  XIV 

TOTAL 

1 415 
1 344 
4 
2 
14 
68 

2  847 

2  843 
1 645 

4  488 

Sea  patrols  detected  a total  of  265  infringements. 

Infringements  detected  at  sea  by  nationality  of  vessel  by  type  of  infringement  break  down  as 
shown  below. 

Total number  of vessels 
involved  in  infringements 

Nationality  of vessels 

Belgian 

German 

Danish 

Dutch 

2 

240 

7 

15 

UK 

1 

TOTAL:  265 

The  main  types  of  infringement  were  logbook  irregularities,  unauthorised  gear,  unauthorised 

fishing,  entry  into  a closed  area,  etc. 

p:\c3l\rapports\ctrl\annexel\en 

Mo 

Number  of fishing  vessels inspected  by nationality 

German 
Danish 
Dutch 
UK 
Belgian 

TOTAL 

3 778 
138 
503 
45 
24 

4 488 

. 

p:\c31\rapports\ctrl\annexe 1 \en 

W4 

II.  Evaluation 

A.  General 

The size of the German fisheries  has dwindled drastically  in the past  15 to 20 years. Germany 

has adapted the structure  and size of its fleet to the available quotas. There  is no overcapacity. 

The  EEZ  is  limited  in  size,  and  the  North  Sea  coast  is  relatively  short  with  only  a small 

number  of ports.  The Baltic coast counts a larger  number  of mainly  small  harbours. 

Germany  has an important  fish  processing  industry  relying  largely  on imported  products. 

B. 

Strengths and weaknesses 

There  is little problem  with breaches  of technical measures  discoverable  in ports  and control 

seems  to be adequate,  although  hampered  by staff  shortages  in the Lander. The  situation  is 

rather  different  at  sea;  the  fisheries  protection  vessels  appear  not  to  be  optimally  utilized 

because of the division of competence between the Federal authorities and those of the Lander. 

The German deep-sea  fleet is active in the entire North Atlantic. The fleet  is most of the time 

escorted  by a German fishery  protection vessel  (Fischereischutzboot).  Therefore  the German 

authorities have a good knowledge of the activities of this fleet segment in the fishing grounds. 

The  landing  controls  made  on  freezer-trawlers  are  very  detailed.  The  inspectors  tally  the 

unloading  and verify  at irregular  intervals  the marking  of  the units.  They  also take samples 

from  frozen  fillet  blocks and send them to a veterinary  office  for  species  identification. 

Catch  registration  is  based  on  logbook  sheets,  landing  declarations  and  sales  notes.  A 

comprehensive set of conversion factors  is in use. In general, the catch reporting system seems 

to be reliable. 

p:\c3l\rapports\ctrI\annexel\en 

V 

During  1994, the monitoring of the cod fishery  in the Baltic caused particular  problems. The 

inspection services could not cope with the numerous cases of species mis-declaration and with 

cod  imports  and  transits.  Initiatives  were  taken by the competent  authorities  with respect  to 

monitoring German vessels fishing  in the Danish zone and reciprocal arrangements for Danish 

patrol  vessels.  At the request  of the Commission,  the German authorities  have conducted an 

administrative  inquiry  into this  fishery. 

p:\c31\rapports\ctrl\annexe 1 \cn 

4  3 

GREECE 

I. 

Inspection and monitoring of fishing activities 

A.  ORGANIZATION 

Responsibility  for  monitoring  fishing  activities  is shared  between a number  of ministries  and 

public  organizations.  With  respect  to  the  ministries  associated  with  controls,  these  are  the 

Ministry  of Agriculture  (Directorate-General  for Fisheries)  and the Ministry  of the Merchant 

Marine (Coastguard-Police Division) and, to a lesser extent, the Ministry of Commerce. Actual 

controls  are carried  out by the port authorities  (172 in total), which come under the Ministry 

of  the  Merchant  Marine.  These  coastguard  authorities  are  responsible  for  issuing  safety 

certificates  to  fishing  vessels  and monitoring  fishing  activities  up to  the  point  of  landing of 

catches and for  verifying  compliance with national and Community  legislation  in the context 

of the common fisheries  policy  (mesh sizes, technical measures,  etc.). In addition,  they also 

process  infringement  proceedings. 

Specialised  services  of  the  Ministry  of  Agriculture  and  the  Ministry  of  Commerce  are 

responsible  for  controls  on domestic and imported fishery  products transported  from  the port 

of landing to fish markets and processing units and for verifying  compliance with national and 

Community  legislation  applicable to marketing,  health and sales matters. 

B.  RESOURCES 

1.  Human 

As stated  above,  controls  are carried  out,  in the main,  by the one hundred  and  seventy-two 

coastguard-designated  port  authorities.  No details  of  precise  personnel  figures  are  available 

with respect  to port  inspections,  etc. 

Inspections are concentrated  on vessels over  10 metres and these number 2 416 in total (12  % 

of fleet); in addition, the 12 main auction centres which sell approximately  30% of all landings 

are monitored. 

Cross-checking  of logbooks/landing declarations  and sales notes is not undertaken because of 

the  deferment  until  1 January  1999  of  the  provisions  of  Article  40  of  Council  Regulation 

(EEC)  No 2847/93. 

p:\c3l\rapports\ctrl\annexel\en 

4  W 

2. 

Vessels/aircraft 

A total of  120 surveillance  vessels  and 70 onshore  vehicles  are available  for  control  purposes. 

No  details  are  available  with  regard  to  how  these  are  utilised  and  the  results  of  patrol 

activities. 

Four light aircraft  are available for aerial surveillance.  Again no details on their operation have 

been  reported  to  the  Commission. 

3. 

Computerisation 

The  Greek  authorities  have  created  the  following  computer  systems  : 

Using  the HELLAS-PAC  facility,  the Ministry  for  the Merchant  Marine  has  set up a network 

of  computers  and  terminals  for  its headquarters  and  regional  services  and  12 port  authorities 

(Piraeus,  Thessaloniki,  Patras,  Kavala,  Chios,  Corfu,  Heraklion,  Volos,  Rhodes,  Halkida, 

Lalamata  and  Syros).  The  whole  data  network  functions  under  the  TCP/IP  communications 

protocol. 

The  computers  carry  data  on the  Greek  fishing  fleet.  Client/server-environment  applications 

are  operated  through  the network,  and  there  is a facility  for  automatic  information  exchange. 

Information  is stored  in databases  on the Ministry  for the Merchant Marine's  central  computer 

and  is  available  to  all  of  the  network  users. 

The  Ministry  for  the Merchant  Marine  has  installed  a SUN  690 MP  computer  and  developed 

an ETHERNET  network  linking 50 terminals  and printers  via 5 terminal  servers  and personal 

computers. 

SCO-UNIX  systems  have  been  installed  at the  offices  of  the  coastguard  authorities  in  ports. 

Fishing  fleet  data  is  stored  in  a data  base  on the  central  computer. 

The  database  is  fed  daily  with  information  from  the  coastguard  authorities  about  the  current 

situation  of  fishing  vessels  and  about  any  changes  in  their  characteristics,  as  required  by 

Regulation  (EC)  No  10.9/94. 

p:\c3I\rapports\ctrl\annexe 1 \en 

Mr 

The  final  phase  of  control/approval  of  all  changes  made  to  fishing  vessels,  as  specified  in 

Regulation (EC) No  109/94,  is carried  out before  forwarding  to the Ministry  of Agriculture, 

which  has  ultimate  competence  and  is  responsible  for  implementing  the  common  fisheries 

policy  and for  the management  of fisheries  resources. 

All data  are  stored  via magnetic means on a daily basis. 

A pilot  fishing-activity  control  application  via satellite  is  already  being  implemented  and  is 

providing satisfactory  results.  18 fishing vessels and 6 coastguard patrol boats are participating 

in this pilot  application. 

C.  ACTIVITIES 

The  specialised  services  of  the  three  Ministries  involved  in  controls  and  monitoring  are 

engaged  in a wide range  of  inspection  activities.  These  include: 

safety  certificates, 

fishing  licences, 

landings, 

fish  sizes  and species, 

fishing  gear, 

fishing  methods, 

checks on imports and transportation  of fish  landed,  technical  inspections  with respect 

to vessel  characteristics  and fleet  composition,  including up-dating the national  fishery 

register,  markets  - quality grading  and the withdrawal  regime. 

No details  are available as to the number of personnel  and other resources  actually deployed 

to cover  the range of tasks  indicated above. 

p:\c3I\rapports\ctrl\annexe 1 \en 

M6 

II.  Evaluation 

Like Italy, Greece is not yet fully  integrated  into the control system applicable to the common 

fisheries  policy. 

Consequently,  the  main  task  of  the  national  monitoring  services  is  to  enforce  national 

legislation  and specific  aspects  of Council Regulation  (EEC)  No 2847/93. 

A.  Organization  of monitoring 

The  bulk  of  control  duties  are  allocated  to  the  Coastguard  Service  which  is  based  in,  and 

operates  in, the main ports.  This  service  appears to be well-organised  and integrated  into all 

major  aspects of monitoring. Further development of the monitoring service will be necessary 

in order  to complete the control  infrastructure  in time for  the application of all provisions of 

Council Regulation  (EEC)  No 2847/93. 

B.  Management  of the structural  and market  aspects of  fisheries 

The task of monitoring  structural  and market aspects  of fisheries  products  in shared  between 

a  number  of  public  organizations  drawn  from  different  ministries.  Consideration  should  be 

given by the Greek  authorities  to ensuring  that this task  is carried  out,  as far  as possible,  by 

the service  responsible  for  monitoring  generally. 

The Greek  authorities  wish to point out the  following: 

The management of the structural and market aspects concerning fishery and aquaculture 

products is the responsibility of the Ministry of Agriculture,  with the Directorate-General 

for Fisheries and the EAP (Coastguard) playing a substantial coordinating role.  Where 

markets are concerned,  there are obviously certain other departments of the Ministry  of 

Agriculture involved  (DIDAGEP, Veterinary  Service) under  the  supervision of  the 

Ministry of Agriculture as well as departments of other Ministries  (Commerce,  Economic 

Affairs),  whose activities  are however  based on  cooperation  and agreement  with the 

Directorate-General for  Fisheries and the EAP. 

p:\c3l\rapports\ctrl\annexel\en 

H} 

C.  Monitoring  of the transport  and sale of fishery products 

The  Greek  authorities  have  acknowledged  that  enforcement  of  these  two  aspects  is  not  yet 

complete and that steps are currently being taken to facilitate  full  implementation of these two 

types of control  (development  of sales notes etc.). 

p:\c31\rapports\ctrl\annexel\en 

V* 

SPAIN 

I. 

Inspection  and  monitoring  of  fishing  activities 

A.  ORGANIZATION 

Responsibility  for the monitoring  of fishing  and related  activities is divided between the central 

authorities  in  Madrid,  based  in the  Ministry  of  Agriculmre,  Fisheries  and  Food,  and  the  10 

fisheries  authorities  of  the  "coastal"  autonomous  communities.  This  division  is  based  on  the 

origin  of  catches  landed,  that  is,  catches  taken  in waters  located  outside  the  baselines  are  the 

responsibility  of  the  Madrid  authorities  while  those  taken  inside  are  under  the  responsibility 

of  the  autonomous  community  authorities. 

In effect,  this  means  that the registration  of catches  and  associated  aspects  (logbooks,  landing 

declarations  and  sales  notes)  are  monitored  by  the  respective  control  authorities. 

With  respect  to  controls  on marketing  aspects,  e.g.  first-stage  sale,  this  is  the  responsibility 

of  the  Madrid  authorities  regardless  of  the  origin  of  catches.  However,  subsequent  sales  fall 

within  the  competence  of  the  (17)  autonomous, communities. 

On  the  other  hand,  monitoring  of  the  structural  aspects  of  fisheries  policy  (fleet  register, 

vessels  characteristics  and capacity)  falls  within the competence of the central  authorities  - the 

Ministry  of Transport  (Directorate-General  of the Merchant  Marine),  which is responsible  for 

all  national  fleets.  The  Secretariat-General  of  Fisheries  within  the  Ministry  of  Agriculture, 

Fisheries  and Food  is responsible  for  recording  vessel  activity and issuing.licences and the use 

of  specific  gear  types,  etc. 

The  Fisheries  Inspectorate  which  monitors  external  landings  is  based  in  Madrid  and  is 

deployed  throughout  the  country  on  a regular  on-going  basis. 

p:\c31\rapports\ctrl\annexel\en 

M 3 

B. 

RESOURCES 

1.  Human  and  other  resources 

Organisation 

Inspectors 

Patrol  Vessel  Helicopters  Vehicles 

Madrid  based 

30 

31(1) 

2 

26 

Guardia Civil 
(Maritime  Division) 

Basque  Country 

Cantabria 

Asturia 

Galicia 

Andalusia 

Murcia 

Valencia 

Catalonia 

Balearics 

Canaries 

9 

15 

12 

117 

25 

3 

12 

18 

7 

24 

19 

2/5(2) 

6 / 3<io) 

3 / 6( i o) 

J(3) 

21/3UO) 

2 

1 1 / 8( i o) 

1(4) 

1 

1 

4 / 3( i o) 

3 

7 

4 

52 

11 

1 

5 

9(5) 

14 

The  inspectorates  based  in  the  autonomous  communities  focus  primarily  on  the  local  small-

scale  fleet  and  shellfish  vessels. 

(i) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

31  patrol  vessels  the  majority  of  which  belong  to  the  navy. 

Auxiliary  vessels 

In  association  with  Guardia  Civil 

300  hours  per  year. 

3  trailers. 

i^O 

p :\c3 l\rapports\ctrl\annexe 1 \en 

With respect to structures,  145 local agents of the Merchant Marine conduct checks on fishing 

vessels  and maintain  a technical  datasheet  on each vessel.  Authorizations  for  modernisation, 

construction  and changes to the engine capacity of fishing  vessels  are  within the competence 

of the Autonomous  Communities  in conjunction  with the Directorate-General  of Fisheries. 

The  enforcement  of  market  regulations  including  producer  organisations  is  the  task  of  the 

Ministry  of  Agriculmre,  Fisheries  and Food  and  is conducted  with  a staff  of  70 persons. 

C.  COMPUTERIZATION 

No Information  is available from  the Spanish authorities. 

D.  ACTIVITIES IN 1994 (inspections at sea,  in port,  aerial  surveillance) 

Inspections  at sea by area  and nationality  of vessels  inspected: 

AREA 

NATIONALITY  OF  VESSEL 

Spanish 

Portuguese 

French 

Italian 

VIII 

IX 

CECAF 

Mediterranean 

TOTAL 

3.532 

5.316 

205 

•4.958 

14.011 

4 

8 

-

<-

12 

9 

-

-

2 

11 

-

-

-

33 

33 

Infringements  detected  by nationality  of vessel  (all areas) 

AREA 

NATIONALITY  OF  VESSEL 

Spanish 

Portuguese 

French 

Italian 

ALL 

4.578 

3 

6 

13 

p:\c3l\rapports\ctrl\annexe l\en 

SA 

Aerial  surveillance  by region  and result  (conducted  by central  authorities) 

REGION 

Number of 
inspection  days 

Sightings 

Infringements 
noted 

Cantabria  &  NW 

South  Atlantic 

Mediterranean 

Canaries 

TOTAL 

165 

78 

101 

21 

365 

636  ' 

416 

499 

20 

1 571 

50 

167 

58 

0 

275 

Infringements  detected  in port  by nationality  of vessel: 

Type  of  infringement 

Nationality  of vessel 

Logbook/landing 
declaration 

Use  of prohibited  gear 

Fishing  in prohibited 
area 

Excessive  engine/ 
tonnage  capacity 

E 

133 

78 

53 

2 

Illegal  directed  fishery 

2681 

15 

2 755 

115 

8 

1 

By-catch  violations 

Undersized  fish 
violations 

Fishing  licence 

Incorrect  gear  marking 

Incorrect  vessel 
identification 

Other 

TOTAL 

P 

7 

1 

-

-

-

2 

1 

4 

-

-

UK 

IRE 

4 

4 

-

-

-

-

-

1 

-

-

-

9 

2 

2 

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

4 

I 

2 

2 

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1 

5 

F 

TOTAL 

2 

2 

-

-

-

-

-

1 

2* 

-

-

7 

150 

89 

53 

2 

2 681 

17 

2 756 

121 

10 

1 

47 

5 927 

40 

5 881 

6 

21 

p:\c3l\rapports\ctrl\annexel\en 

s^ 

Future development of the inspection service 

In the immediate future,  the Spanish authorities intend to recruit 20 Madrid-based inspectors, 

deploy additional patrol  vessels and purchase and deploy an additional helicopter for use in 

patrols  in  the  Mediterranean.  In  order  to  facilitate  the  implementation  of  the  transport-

document control procedure, the central authorities are presently seeking agreement with the 

Guardia  Civil in order  for  the latter  to undertake  this particular  task. 

Monitoring  of quotas  and catch  registration 

Personnel  are  located  in  19  main  ports  to  key  in  information  taken  from  logbooks  and 

landing  declarations.  This  information  is  transmitted  to  a  central  database  which  allows 

catches by vessel  to be registered. 

p:\c3l\rapports\ctrl\annexcl\en 

s 2» 

IL  Evaluation 

A.  General 

Mainland  Spain has a very long Mediterranean coastline and a shorter  Atlantic one. Coastal 

indentation  adds  to  the  number  of  landing  places.  The  EEZ  is  relatively  large  but  the 

narrowness  of  the  continental  shelf  reduces  considerably  the  true  extent  of  the  fishing 

grounds,  with the exception of those for  large pelagic species. 

There  is  ready  demand  on  the  Spanish  market  for  a wide  variety  of  species.  Small  fish, 

including  the biologically  undersized,  offer  high  returns.  The  Spanish  authorities  wish  to 

point  out the  following: 

The Spanish market covers a wide variety of species and there is consumer demand for 

small-sized fish that are within  regulatory  requirements.  This demand,  a large part of 

which is met by imports from other countries,  makes worse the problem of consumption 

of  immature fish. Action  is  being  taken against this  consumption of juveniles by 

stepping  up inspections and information  campaigns. 

The  fishing  fleet  is  large  but  its  heterogenous  nature  is  not  always  widely  known  about 

outside  Spain. 

Spain is meeting its obligations under the multiannual guidance programme now under way. 

While  it  has  not  completely  resolved  its  problem  of  overcapacity,  it  has  achieved  very 

significant  progress,  much better than in many other Member  States. The  rate of uptake of 

the hake and monkfish quotas demonstrates that the problem of overcapacity persists  in areas 

VI,  VIA and VIII. 

The  Spanish  authorities  point out that: 

To help resolve  this problem, a system for  regulating  effort has been developed and 

there has been a significant increase in exchanges of quota with other Member States. 

A considerable proportion of the fleet  is made up of vessels  specializing in techniques other 

than trawling,  with bottom trawling  being in widespread use. 

p:\c3l\rapports\ctrl\annexel\en 

Traditionally  this technique  is very  opportunistic  and catches  in effect  include pelagic  fish 

(horse mackerel and blue whiting)  as well as demersal  and benthic species. 

Spain  has  always  been  able  to  rely  on  a  solidly  structured  fishing  industry.  Effective 

monitoring  of fishing  activities,  at least  in the sense of conservation  measures,  did  not, on 

the other hand,  figure  among the authorities'  top priorities  until relatively  recently. 

B.  Strengths and weaknesses 

Resources 

Spain has equipped  itself  with substantial  sea-patrol  and aerial  surveillance  resources.  The 

installation  of  the  computer  systems  necessary  for  enforcement  seems  to  have  suffered  a 

delay, however. The human resources deployed are especially difficult  to evaluate given that 

more than one agency is involved. Numbers have increased but, according to the information 

presented to the Commission, do not yet appear capable of meeting the challenges that Spain 

should and will face in terms of enforcement, particularly on land. The burden of monitoring 

international  fisheries  is going to add to the problem. 

Organisation 

Organizational  problems  in Spain appear to be particularly  complex. Not alone do the civil 

and military authorities play a part and,  in some cases, different  ministries,  both before and 

after  landing,  but  there  is  a  complex  share-out  of  responsibilities  with  the  regional 

authorities.  More  than  in any  other  Member  State,  in Spain the Commission's  inspectors 

have repeatedly  encountered  problems  arising  from  the share-out  of responsibilities. 

p:\c31\rapports\ctrl\annexcl\en 

SS 

C. 

Inspection  of technical  measures 

Compliance  with  the  technical  rules  governing  bottom  trawls  and minimum  catch  sizes  is 

presenting  Spain  with  considerable  long-running  difficulties.  The  Commission  notes  that 

some regions have taken forceful  action, notably to inspect the composition of hake catches. 

It  has  nonetheless  failed  to  obtain  assurances  as  to  the  effective  introduction  of  rules 

determining  a minimum mesh size of 65  mm and requirements  for  the authorization,  as an 

exception,  of  other  sizes.  Spain has emphasized  on several  occasions,  with just  cause,  the 

problems  created  for  it by  exports  of undersized  fish  from  other  Member  States,  but,  no 

more than the exporting states, and despite repeated requests to all of them to do so, has not 

implemented the body of rules available to it for conducting checks during transportation and 

at market. The problems are particularly  acute in Region 3. France and Portugal, which also 

operate  in  the  demersal  fisheries  in  that  region,  share  responsibility  with  Spain  for  the 

situation.  However,  shortcomings  in enforcement  in Region  3 may  also  prove  harmful  to 

fishermen  from  other Member  States,  especially  in the case of the hake fishery  in the Bay 

of Biscay. 

D.  Checks on quotas and  effort 

The Commission considers that the procedures and resources put in place for ensuring proper 

filling-in and use of logbooks, landing declarations and sales notes do not offer  the necessary 

guarantees. 

However,  while  direct  checks  on catches  have not  always  been  Spain's  strong  point,  the 

existence  of  specific  provisions  aimed  at  limiting  effort  in the EEZ  of  the  other  Member 

States  means  that  Spain  (and,  to  a  certain  extent,  Portugal)  can  avail  itself  of  rules  not 

available to the other Member States operating in the Atlantic. Effective  restrictions on effort 

have been introduced, even if the  inspection of Spanish vessels has come up against problems 

- although these have diminished  in recent times. 

v :\c3 l\raDDOrts\ctrl\annexe 1 \en 

S(> 

E.  Conclusions 

%. 

The  difficulties,  mainly  historical  ones,  in Spain are  genuine.  Progress  achieved  has been 

considerable  and  the  Commission  is  anxious  to  point  out  that  the  type  of  illegal  activity 

leading to escape from,  or even clashes with, the French enforcement  authorities  in the Bay 

of  Biscay  does  not  appear  to  have  recurred  for  some  time.  The  monitoring  of the  NAFO 

fisheries  has  required  considerable  resources  and  energy  and  has  proved  fruitful.  The 

Commission acknowledges therefore the efforts  deployed by the Spanish authorities to secure 

these  initial results.  It  is very  satisfied  with the cooperation  shown by  Spain  in promoting 

the use  of  satellite  surveillance  techniques.  It must point  out,  however,  that much has still 

to  be  done.  Future  progress  can  only  be  assisted  by  the  adoption  of  new  general 

arrangements  for  the  management  of  effort  of  a  type  that  will  dispel  any  feeling  of 

discrimination  in Spain. The use of modern methods such as computer systems  and satellite 

surveillance  should  accelerate  that  progress.  They  will  only  suffice,  however,  if  Spain 

allocates  the necessary  material  and human resources  to fisheries  inspection. 

p:\c3l\rapports\ctrl\annexcl\en 

^ 

FRANCE 

I. 

Inspection  and monitoring of fishing activities 

A.  ORGANIZATION 

The Affaires Maritimes (AFFMAR) administration,  based in the Ministère de l'Équipement, 

has  responsibility  for  conducting  the  monitoring  of  all  fishing  vessels  (French  and  non-

French registered)  engaged in fishing  activities.  Overall control  for  fisheries  is determined 

from  the Ministry  of Agriculmre. Other surveillance tasks undertaken by AFFMAR include 

vessel  safety,  pollution prevention  and rescue  at sea. 

The  Gendarmerie  Maritime (GM),  which  is  under  the  responsibility  of  the  Ministry  of 

Defence,  is also authorised  to carry  out fisheries  enforcement  tasks  such  as checking  fish 

minimum sizes, gear,  landings, etc. Navy vessels are deployed for  specific  tasks,  including 

enforcement,  in international  waters. 

In  addition,  AFFMAR  shares  with  the  Customs  Service  the  responsibility  for  monitoring 

aspects  of  the structural  policy  such as engine power  and tonnage. 

Regarding  the  monitoring  of  minimum  commercial  sizes,  withdrawal  prices  and  market 

regulations,  responsibility  is  shared  between  AFFMAR,  the  Fonds  d'Intervention et 

d'Organisation des Marches des produits de  la pêche  maritime et  des  cultures  marines 

(FIOM),  which  is based  in the Ministry  of Agriculture,  and anti-fraud  services  which are 

under the responsibility  of the Finance Ministry. 

Cross-checking  of data concerning fleet activity is carried out by AFFMAR in collaboration 

with the Centre Regional des Traitements Statistiques (CRTS), which is under the authority 

of the Ministère  de  l'Équipement. 

p:\c3l\rapports\ctrl\annexe l\en 

^ç 

B.  RESOURCES 

1.  Human 

Personnel  involved  in fisheries  enforcement  monitor catches,  landings, minimum fish  sizes 

and technical  measures  and are  also employed  to carry  out other  tasks,  e.g.  safety  at sea, 

pollution prevention,  rescue  at sea, etc. 

The AFFMAR personnel  based onshore is divided between Sindics des gens de mer (SGM) 

(164), inspectors of the technical arm of the Affaires Maritimes administration (82 personnel) 

(CAM/BT)  and  Techniciens du  contrôle des  établissements  de  pêches  maritimes  (47 

personnel) (TCEPM).  In addition, a limited number of GMs (42 personnel) are seconded to 

AFFMAR.  During  1994,  five  new  Unités  de  Surveillance  du Littoral  (USL),  based  in 

administrative  departments,  have been created thus increasing  the total number  of USLs to 

11. They are composed of personnel from  SGM, CAM/BT, TCEPM and other  unidentified 

administrative  services.  Approximately  335 personnel  are involved in fisheries  monitoring. 

2.  Vessels 

Eight  long-range,  six  mid-range  and  twenty-one  inshore  fishery  protection  vessels  are 

operated  directly  by AFFMAR  . Crews total 202 persons. 

3.  Computerization 

Different  databases  (fleet  capacity,  catches,  landings,  sales,  etc.)  are  maintained  by  the 

Centre Administrative  des Affaires Maritimes  (CAAM), Direction  des Pêches Maritimes  et 

Cultures Marines  (DPCM/BCS),  CRTS, IFREMER  and FIOM to cross-check  and control 
the activity  of the  fleet(6). 

(6)  see  Annex  1 

p:\c3 l\rapports\ctrl\annexe 1 \en 

C.  ACTIVITIES 

On land 

Eleven  administrative  departments  have their own ULS units  which  are  under  the control  of 

the Directeur départemental  des AFFMAR,  and these cover controls  in ports  and markets etc. 

Other  departments  without  their  own  ULS  units  are  covered  by  a  combination  of  Sums, 

CAMs,  TCEPMs  and  GMs,  under  the control  of  the  Chef de  Quartier. 

Main  infringements  detected  in port  by  nationality  of  vessel and  type  of  infringement 

Main  infringement  type 

Nationality  of  vessel 

French 

Spanish 

Belgian 

1 

3 

3 

Logbook/landing  decl. 

Prohibited  gear 

Illegal  Fishing 

Prohibited  zone 

Illegal  catch 

Undersized  fish 

By-catch 

Excessive  vessel  tonnage 

At  sea 

184 

49 

110 

22 

1 

2 

The  French  authorities  have  reported  that  their  fishery  protection  vessels  conducted  1 404 

sea-patrol  and  49  air  surveillance  days  in  ICES  areas  VII,  VIII  and  the  waters  of  French 

Guiana. 

p:\c3l\rapports\ctrl\annexel\en 

€o 

Inspections at sea 

Total Number of  vessels inspected  by nationality  and ICES area. 

Area 

Nationality 

Belgian 

Spanish 

French 

Dutch 

VII 

VIII 

CECAF 

TOTAL 

6 

2 

3  062 

859 

4511 

220 

6 

861 

7  793 

3 

3 

UK 

2 

2 

Other 

63 

63 

p:\c3l\rapports\ctrl\annexe l\en 

CO 

Type  of  Infringement 

Belgian 

Spanish 

French 

Total 

Nationality 

182 

933 

1116 

Total  number  of  vessels  involved  in all 
infringements 

Logbook/landing  declaration 

Illegal  gear 

Illegal  fishing:  prohibited  zone 

Excessive  tonnage 

Illegal  catch:  directed  fishery 

1 

1 

2 

24 

14 

1 

12 

20 

11 

1 

82 

27 

128 

484 

1 

23 

24 

39 

48 

27 

14 

321 

1136 

52 

142 

490 

2 

23 

24 

51 

68 

38 

15 

401 

3 

165 

By-catch 

Undersized  fish 

Unauthorised  fishing 

Marking  of  gear 

Marking  of  vessel 

Other 

Total 

There  is no  information  given  concerning  the  return  rate  of  logbook  information,  landing 

declarations  and  sales  notes,  or  about cross-checking  of this  information. 

p:\c3l\rapports\ctrl\annexel\en 

G  2. 

//.  Evaluation 

A.  General 

France  is required  to monitor  a large  EEZ  and a long coastline.  Fisheries  are  very  varied 

and  enforcement  problems  take  many  forms.  The  proportion  of  landings  sold  at  auction 

centres  has  grown  significantly.  Computerization  of auction centres  and  the  installation of 

links  between  them  are  well  advanced.  Landings  disposed  of  elsewhere  than  at  auction 

centres  continue  to  be  considerable,  particularly  in  the  case  of  species  with  a  high 

commercial  value  and from  certain  inshore  fisheries. 

In  France  there  is  demand  for  small-sized  fish,  for  home  consumption  or  export  to 

neighbouring  countries,  particularly  Spain. 

From the point of view of quota enforcement,  France is at a considerable  advantage  in that 

there are very  few  quotas that can really restrict  catches. Since the introduction of the CFP 

there have even been cuts in some deep-water fleets  which fished  mainly  for  whiting in the 

North Sea. Quotas have had a restrictive  impact, therefore,  only in the case of some stocks 

in Norwegian waters,  saithe off the west of Scotland, anchovy in the Bay of Biscay and from 

time to time cod and  whiting stocks  in the Celtic Sea.  From now on the whiting fishery  in 

the  Bay  of  Biscay  will  also  be  affected.  France,  consequently,  does  not  suffer  from  an 

overall  imbalance  between  the  capacity  of  its  fleet  and  the  available  nominal  quotas. 

Problems  created  for  some stocks are nevertheless  recurrent.  They would be greater  if,  as 

a 

demanded  by  improved  stock  management,  a number  of  precautionary  TACs  were  to be 

adjusted  downwards. 

The  French  fleet  employs  a variety  of  techniques.  Bottom  and pelagic  trawling  constitute 

separate  fishing  methods  and  gears,  except  in the Mediterranean.  This  means  that  certain 

problems  encountered  elsewhere,  in  Spain  for  example,  can  be  avoided.  The  problems 

created by multispecies catches taken during a fishing haul exist nevertheless.  There is even 

a  growing  tendency  to use  pelagic  trawls  when fishing  for  demersal  species,  particularly 

hake. 

p:\c31\rapports\ctrl\annexe 1 \en 

Q1 

France has never regarded the physical monitoring of fisheries  as a top management priority. 

The  close  links  that  have  developed  between  the  authorities  and  fishermen,  undoubtedly 

invaluable in certain respects,  have done more to promote a climate of tolerance and permit 

exceptions  so  as  to  protect  groups,  in  some  cases  small  ones,  than  to  establish 

straightforward  and effective  monitoring. 

The French  authorities  wish to state the  following: 

The situation  has changed noticeably since  the albacore  crisis  in 1994, during  which 

the industry itself saw the necessity of conforming with developments in the Community 

rules  (abolition of  the  5-km  exemption)  in  the  general interest,  while the public 

authorities  introduced an effective monitoring system. 

B.  Strengths and weaknesses 

France  states that it has substantial  physical  and human resources  both onshore  and at sea. 

A precise determination of the resources  genuinely allocated to enforcement  is not possible, 

however,  given  the  many  tasks  that  must  be undertaken  by  the  different  agencies.  Great 

strides have been made in installing computer systems. The time required for data processing 

and  transmission  and  shortcomings  detected  in  the  validation  of  certain  catch  data  are 

evidence,  however,  of an alarming  shortage  of specialist  personnel. 

The French authorities are present all along the coastal areas and especially  in fishing ports. 

The number  of government  departments  and ministries  involved  is considerable,  however. 

The French  authorities  wish to add here: 

Monitoring of fishing activities in France is the responsibility of services coming under 

several different ministerial departments.  While appearing  complex,  the system  works 

well in both normal times and times of crisis. In  addition, it gives access to greater 

human and physical resources and to the assistance  of staff competent in many  fields 

and used to dealing  with very diverse situations. 

p:\c3l\rapports\ctrl\annexe l\en 

&M 

This applies particularly to the coastal maritime-affairs units which  carry  out controls 

at sea, on land and at the marketing stage.  Because of their mobility, they are a  core 

component in the fisheries enforcement strategy. 

Events  in  the  albacore  fishery  demonstrate  that  an  operational  force  can  be  put  together 

where  there  is  a  major  problem.  Cooperation  in  normal  circumstances  can  be  more 

problematical.  The fact  that the agencies involved have duties other than CFP  enforcement 

means that there is a risk of their being spread too thinly. A survey of mission reports  from 

Community inspectors indicates that strict enforcement  of Community rules is not perceived 

to be a priority  by all the agencies concerned. 

Moreover,  extensive mechanisms for joint responsibility  involving the industry in inspection 

duties,  on the lines  of  those  the Netherlands  is endeavouring  to develop,  do not generally 

exist  for  CFP  enforcement.  However,  they  do  exist  for  certain  fisheries  (in  particular 

anchovy  and albacore)  and for  the inshore  fisheries  which are subject  to national rules. 

A law passed  on 2 May  1991, in fact,  confers  powers on the national trade organization in 

the fishing  industry  to help it participate  in a balanced management  of resources. 

C.  Technical measures 

Fishing vessels operating beyond the French EEZ are barely distinguishable from other fleets 

operating  in the same fisheries.  In a number of high-seas fisheries  the problems  associated 

with  keeping  small-sized  fish  on board,  for  example  Norway  lobster  or  hake,  lessen  the 

financial  incentive that illegal trade in undersized  fish  may offer  to fishermen  operating  far 

from  their home port. 

Illegal activities involving technical measures create particular problems in the French EEZ, 

and especially in the inshore fishery.  The French authorities have made no real progress nor 

devised  a convincing strategy  for  the future  to tackle the problem of fishing  for undersized 

hake in the Bay of Biscay. Enforcement  measures are inadequate, both at sea for preventing 

the use of illegal mesh sizes, and in many ports for terminating the marketing of undersized 

fish.  France has made use of the opportunities  afforded  by Article  13 of Regulation (EEC) 

No 2847/93 to take action after  first marketing (during transportation) so as to control illegal 

n \r3l\ranDorts\ctrl\annexe 1 \cn 

Cr . 

imports  but not to enforce  compliance with minimum mesh sizes.  One would have thought 

it possible  with  a few  firm  measures  to prevent  exports  to Spain of undersized  fish. 

The French  authorities  note: 

In  relation to fraud  involving  infringements  of  technical  measures, the Ministry  of 

Agriculture,  Fisheries and Food is preparing a measure which will make it mandatory 

to display  the permitted commercial sizes for fish at all points of sale. 

Specific monitoring of the length of driftnets  only became effective  in 1994 with the adoption 

of stringent  measures.  In  1995, there has been ample evidence that the shortcomings  noted 

previously  had now been remedied. 

D.  Monitoring of catches 

The  rate  of  non-returns  and  late  returns  of  logbooks  continues  to  be  high.  As  far  as the 

Commission is aware, France has no systematic procedure for the validation of logbooks or 

landing  declarations,  either  by  direct  statistical  analysis  or  cross-checking  against  other 

information  sources. 

France has wide-ranging  scientific  experience  of the statistical  evaluation and validation of 

catches, particularly  insofar  as the monitoring of small-vessel  fishing  and the evaluation of 

non-auction centre catches  are concerned. 

This experience has been under-utilized,  however,  and the administrative  data are far  from 

being  fully  exploited.  The  quality  of  French  statistics,  having  improved,  has  tended  to 

deteriorate  in recent years,  but to a varying  degree depending  on the fishery.  It is unlikely 

that this deterioration  has led to the overrun of more than a handful  of special quotas, such 

as  the  anchovy  quota  in the  Bay  of  Biscay.  In that  particular  case  the  shortcomings  were 

patently  obvious  and  recurrent. 

p:\c3l\rapports\ctrl\annexe l\en 

c& 

The French  authorities  would  like to stress  the  following: 

Concerning  the rate of return  of logbook  sheets, the deterioration  seen in  1993  and 

early 1994 has been reversed.  The ports in which  rates  of return  have not been  good 

have been very clearly  identified as the result of a survey  conducted in  1995. 

A  study has also been embarked  on to  implement  a system for forecasting  landings 

which, once operational,  should help to improve the quality  of landing statistics. 

E.  Conclusions 

Despite  possessing  substantial  resources  and  having  laid  the  material,  human  and 

administrative foundations for the effective control and up-to-date management of catch data, 

France still needs to improve its monitoring and inspection procedures considerably. De facto 

liberties and concessions  involving a number of rules (non-compliance with minimum sizes, 

catches  of  undersized  juvenile  hake,  negligence  in  keeping  logbooks),  taken  at  a  time  of 

crisis  for  example  and  now  the  norm,  will  only  cease  if  purposeful  action  is  taken.  At 

present,  the  prosecution  of  infringements  does  not  generally  result  in  the  imposition  of 

penalties commensurate with the seriousness of the offence.  Progress achieved in controlling 

the albacore  fishery  demonstrates  the type of  action that needs to be taken.  The  essential 

elements  are  in place  and  improvements  will depend  on the definition  of  a comprehensive 

strategy  based on a firm  desire for progress together with action to alert all parties involved 

to the opportunities  afforded  by enforcement  and to the assignment  of highly qualified  staff 

to key tasks  (such  as informatics  or statistics). 

The  French  authorities note  in  this  connection that  they  are  preparing for  the 

implementation  in France of a system to manage fishing effort. All  the  operational 

services  concerned with fisheries enforcement are being  involved in the scheme, which 

is to come into effect on 1 January  1996. 

p:\c31\rapports\ctrI\annexel\en 

G  } 

IRELAND 

I. 

Inspection  and monitoring of fishing activities 

A.  ORGANIZATION 

Responsibility  for  conducting  the  monitoring  of  all  fishery  vessels  (Irish  and  non-Irish 

registered)  engaged  in fishing  activities  is shared  between the Department  of the  Marine's 

Fisheries  Inspectorate  and  the  Naval  Fisheries  Protection  Service.  This  responsibility  is 

divided  along the following  lines. 

The Fisheries Inspectorate  is charged with the task of carrying out inspections  in port, 

whilst the Naval Service conducts inspections  at sea through the deployment  of seven 

fishery  protection vessels. 

The fishery  protection vessels  are under the command of the Naval Service,  which is 

responsible  to the Ministry  of Defence.  These vessels  are used for  security  and other 

purposes.  Their  fisheries  responsibilities  are decided jointly by the two Ministries.  In 

practice, the vessels are deployed for fisheries  purposes  on request by the Ministry of 

the Marine. 

In addition, the Department of the Marine has overall responsibility  for  controls relating to 

markets and the structural  aspects of the industry. With respect to markets, the Sea Fisheries 

Inspectorate  is assisted  by a number  of  fish  quality  officers  who deal  specifically  with the 

administrative  and  qualitative  aspects  of  fish  withdrawals.  In  the  context  of  monitoring 

structural aspects (vessel characteristics), the Dept. of the Marine utilises the Marine Survey 

Office,  which is an integral part of that department. 

p :\c3 l\rapports\ctrl\annexe 1 \en 

eg 

B.  RESOURCES 

1.  Human 

With respect  to the Sea Fisheries  Inspectorate,  the Dept.  of the Marine  currently  employs 

18 Inspectors  which are based  in the major  fishing  ports  in the State. 

[East  Coast:  2  sea  fisheries  officers  (SFOs),  2  fish  quality  officers  (FQOs),  South 

Coast:  45 SFOs,  West  Coast:  5 SFOs and  1 FQO] 

Vessel  registration  is  managed  by  the  Register  General  assisted  by  local  Registers  and 

department  staff  (one full  time,  2 part-time) 

2.  Vessels/Aircraft 

Seven fishery protection vessels are operated by the Naval Service to conduct inspections and 

surveillance at sea. In addition, three inshore sea fisheries  surveillance craft  are deployed to 

monitor  the salmon  fishery. 

With  respect  to  aerial  surveillance,  the  Dept.  of  the  Marine  relies  upon  the  Air  Corp. 

Service,  which  during  1994  made  one  CASA  patrol  aircraft-  available  for  fisheries 

surveillance. 

3.  Computerization 

Monitoring  of  fleet  activity  etc.  is  augmented  through  the  creation  of  various  computer 

systems,  which  are  supplemented  by  a variety  of computer  software  packages,  databases, 

spreadsheets  etc. 

More  specifically,  the following  systems  are maintained: 

fishing  vessel  register 

fish  catch reporting  system  (landings) 

fishing  licensing  system. 

p:\c31\rapports\ctrl\annexe 1 \en 

G9 

C.  ACTIVITIES 

Sea Fisheries Inspectorate 

Inspection  and  monitoring  of  fishing  activity  is coordinated  by  the  national  Sea  Fisheries 

Control Manager based  in departmental offices  in Dublin. Regional coordination  is  effected 

through three senior sea fisheries  officers  based in Dublin, Cork, and Killybegs respectively. 

In  1994,  the  Sea  Fisheries  Inspectorate  carried  out  a total  of  10 500  inspections  on  land. 

These  were divided  as follows: 

1 500 inspections  in east coast ports 

4 500 inspections  in south coast ports 

4 500 inspections  in west coast ports. 

It is not clear if these inspections  are confined  exclusively to landings, checks on gear, etc. 

or  include the activities of the Inspectorate  with regard  to market  and  structural  aspects or 

whether  it includes  the inspections  by inshore  fisheries  authorities. 

p:\c3l\rapports\ctrl\annexe l\en 

-)  o 

The  port  inspections  detected  approximately  159  infringements  as  indicated  in  the  table 

below: 

Port  inspections  by  type  of  infringement  and  nationality  of  vessel 

Type  of  offence 

Irish 

Spanish 

Nationality  of  vessel 

UK 

4 

Logbook/landing  declaration 

Illegal  gear 

Fishing  in prohibited  area 

Illegal  catches 

Directed  fishery 

By-catch 

Undersize 

Unauthorised  fishing 

Marking  of  gear 

Marking  of  vessel 

TOTAL  (159) 

5 

51 

30 

2 

2 

4 

28 

1 

10 

22 

150 

5 

4 

The Fisheries Officers  inspect landings (35 %  of all landings are validated by physical checks 

in port  and/or  in auction centres)  and seek to provide  100% monitoring  of the landings of 

certain TAC and quota species  (unspecified  but probably  herring  and mackerel).  Landings 

made  by vessels  under  10 metres  are not registered. 

The Officers  also cross-check  logbook and landing declarations and sales notes and monitor 

the transport  of  fish. 

In addition,  all nets are measured  ashore  twice annually. 

p:\c3l\rapports\ctrl\annexe ! \en 

1A 

Naval  Service 

The Irish authorities  have reported  that the seven fishery  protection  vessels  operated  by the 

Naval  Service  conducted  the  following  patrol  activities  in  1994. 

ICES  Area  of  Activity 

Days  on Patrol 

VI  A 
VI B 
VII A 
VII B 
VII C 
VII G 
VII J 
VII K 
VII H 
VIII E 

35 
22 
247 
143 
25 
344 
380 
31 
12 
17 

TOTAL 

1 258 

Inspection  at sea:  by ICES  area  and nationality  of vessel inspected 

Area 

Nationality 

VI 

VII 

VIII 

Belg. 

Germ. 

Sp. 

Fren. 

Irish 

Dutch 

UK 

Other 

1 

9 

3 

103 

164 

n 
J 

2 

3 

248 

4 

39 

294 

11 

p:\c3l\rapports\ctrI\annexe 1 \en 

} <^ 

Number  of  vessels  detected  in an  infringement,  by nationality  and  type  of 

infringement 

Main  types  of 

Belg. 

Germ. 

Sp. 

Fren. 

Irish 

Dutch  UK 

Others 

Infringement 

Logbook/Landing 

1 

1 

8 

1 

12 

25 

declaration 

Prohibited  gear 

Illegal  fishing: 

closed  area 

Illegal  catch: 

directed  fishing 

Undersized  fish 

Gear/vessel 

marking 

Other 

Aerial  Surveillance 

5 

2 

2 

9 

4 

7 

1 

15 

14 

39 

8 

1 

24 

In  1994 one CASA fixed-wing  aircraft  was available for  fisheries  surveillance  functions.  The 

aircraft  conducted  91  patrols  over  a  period  of  447  hours.  These  patrols  yielded  sighting 

information  (1132  sighting)  over ten  different  ICES zones (in particular  areas VII  J.,  VII  G, 

VII  E,  VII  A). 

p:\c3l\rapports\ctrl\annexe 1 \en 

}  3 

//.  Evaluation 

Ireland has a large exclusive fishery  area in which there is a high level of activity by fishing 

vessels  from  other Member States. There is also a large number of landing places, many of 

which are not permanently supervised,  which makes it difficult  for the inspection authorities 

to effectively  verify  catch/landing declarations  against physical  checks on catches.  In  1994 

there  was adequate quota allocation to provide  sufficient  fishing  opportunities  for  the Irish 

fleet.  However,  the uptake of the herring  and mackerel  quota required  close  supervision. 

In Ireland  there  is considerable  difference  between  the way the inspection  and monitoring 

task is performed  at sea and in port. The enforcement  task at sea is compounded by the size 

of the patrol area and the diverse nature of the different  fisheries.  There is, therefore,  a need 

to maximise the efficient  use and deployment of resources  to ensure that Ireland  discharges 

its surveillance  and inspection obligations.  In this regard,  it is important  to develop certain 

strategies  which  will  allow  the  inspection  authorities  to  focus  on  the  most  effective 

monitoring  and enforcement  measures.  The Commission  is aware of the efforts  undertaken 

in recent  years  to  monitor  the  activities  of  vessels  which  are  registered  in  other  Member 

States  and which fish  within Irish  exclusive  fishery  limits. 

Whereas the Irish authorities have undertaken the control and inspection of vessels engaged 

in the albacore  fishery,  and when appropriate  strictly  applied  the Community  regulations, 

there  is,  nevertheless,  a  requirement  to  sustain  the  inspection  enforcement  presence 

throughout  the albacore  season. 

The inspection activities on land need to be intensified  as there is still insufficient  compliance 

with conservation measures and the pace of implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 

2847/93  appears  to  be  slow.  Transport  documents  were  not  widely  utilised  in  1994. 

Furthermore,  even though sea fishery  officers  are now empowered  to examine the records 

of fish buyers,  merchants,  agents, etc. the Commission is not in a position to evaluate how 

the additional powers are relied on to detect illegal activity and to what extent such measures 

are  invoked. 

p:\c3I\rapports\ctrl\annexel\en 

VM> 

The  monitoring  of  catches  and  fishing  gear  utilised  has  significantly  improved  in  the 

principle  landing ports.  Nevertheless,  the coverage of smaller ports remains  inadequate. In 

terms  of  catch registration  generally,  there  is a major  difficulty  created  by the  incomplete 

submission  of  logbooks  and  landing  declarations.  With  respect  to the  processing  of  catch 

data,  although  the  Irish  authorities  have  acquired  the  necessary  computer  equipment  and 

appropriate  software  to  comprehensively  register  catch  data,  the  expected  operational 

efficiency  has not materialised. 

The Commission is aware of special problems posed by the technical monitoring of structural 

measures  and  would  emphasis  the  importance  of  undertaking  frequent  checks  within  the 

market  sector. 

Conclusions 

The enforcement  authorities  in Ireland have to overcome two challenges, which are - at sea 

- the extent of the Irish EEZ  and - in ports  - the absence of a long tradition  of  inspections 

and monitoring  with respect  to the control  task.  A real commitment has been given by the 

Irish  authorities  to  overcome  the  problems  posed.  This  has  been  facilitated  by  the 

Community financial  aid programme  towards the acquisition of essential  equipment.  In this 

regard,  the absence  of  sufficient  personnel  to undertake  the enforcement  task  weakens the 

national  control  system.  This  problem  may be further  aggravated  with the conclusion  and 

implementation  of the Western  Waters  Fisheries  Agreement  in 1996. 

p:\c3l\rapports\ctrI\annexel\en 

}r 

ITALY 

I. 

Inspection  and monitoring of fishing activities 

A.  ORGANIZATION 

Overall  responsibility  for  monitoring  and control  within the fisheries  sector  is allocated  to 

the  Directorate-General  for  Fisheries,  which  is  a  separate  service  of  the  Ministry  of 

Agriculture  Resources,  Food  and  Forestry.  Prior  to  1994,  the  service  formed  part  of  the 

Ministry  of the Merchant  Marine. 

The  Directorate-General  for  Fisheries  does  not  have  a  separate  fisheries  inspection  unit 

within its service but relies upon a variety of other specialised  services  which are under the 

authority  of different  ministries. 

Land  and  sea  inspections  are conducted by the: 

Guarda di Finanza 

Polizia  di Stato 

- Ministry  of Finance 

- Ministry  of the Interior 

Arma dei Carabinieri 

- Ministry  of  Defense 

Unità  Sanitarie Locali 

- Ministry  of Health 

Local  authorities 

A  key  role  is  played  by  the  port  authorities  -  the  "capitanerie  di porto"  -  which  have 

resources to conduct inspections in port and within the territorial  limits. (See further  below). 

Logistical  support  with  respect  to  sea  inspections  is  provided  by  the  Coastguard  Service, 

which  is part  of the Ministry  of  Defense. 

B.  RESOURCES 

1.  Human 

As noted above, a variety of public organisations carry out monitoring and control tasks with 

respect  to  fisheries.  Consequently,  it  is  difficult  to  estimate  the  approximate  number  of 

personnel allocated to the specific control tasks associated with inspection at sea and ashore. 

p:\c3l\rapports\ctrl\annexe 1 \en 

1G 

With  respect  to  the  "capitanerie  di porto"  service,  this  is  composed  of  4  500  personnel 

distributed  in  47  administrative  units  ("compartimenti  marittimi"). Approximately  30% 

(1200)  of  its personnel  deals  exclusively  with sea  inspections  to monitor  compliance  with 

national and Community measures (licences, technical measures, etc). The remainder  of the 

service carry  out a variety  of control tasks ashore.  It is not possible  to identify  or estimate 

with any real precision the extent to which the personnel of this service is devoted to classic 

control  tasks  as envisaged  in Council Regulation  (EEC)  No 284.7/93. 

2.  Vessels/Aircraft 

The capitanerie di porto possess: 

- 300 vessels  of varying  lengths 

-  16 aircraft. 

3.  Computerization 

No system  of computerization  functions  at present.  The Italian authorities  have,  however, 

indicated that an integrated information  system is being proposed in order to link the various 

services  involved  in monitoring. 

C.  ACTIVITIES 

1. 

"Capitanerie di Porto" 

Activities at Sea 

In 1994, 8 247 seagoing missions were conducted by this service. During the course of these 

missions,  10  793 

inspections  were  carried  out  and  2  884 

infringements  of 

national/Community  law  were  recorded.  The  majority  of  these  were  of  an  administrative 

nature  ( breach of  licence conditions etc.). 

Aerial surveillance 

A total of 57 aerial  surveillance  missions  were conducted  in 1994. 

p :\c3 l\rapports\ctrl\annexc 1 \en 

}3 

Shore based inspection  (in ports, markets,  restaurants) 

A total  of  10 692  inspections/controls  were conducted: 

landings,  distribution,  sales  7 165 

'  controls  on gear 

3 527 

These  controls  resulted  in the detection of 477 infringements,  the majority  of  which were 

violations  of administrative  regulations. 

In the course  of the year  the  "capitanerie di porto" confiscated  37 727 kilograms  of catch 

and  1 012 items of  gear  (not detailed  in the report). 

Costs  incurred  in  1994 amounted to LIT 9 796 831 200 lire  (ECU 4.5 million). 

2. 

"Polizia  di Stato" 

In  1994 the  "Polizia di Stato" inspected a total of  1  700 vessels,  of which 343 were  fishing 

with  driftnets.  A  total  of  1 009  infringements  (unspecified)  were  detected,  of  which  41 

related  to vessels  using  driftnets.  A total of 8 vessels  were seized  as well  as 352 nets. 

3. 

"Guarda di Finanzau 

No  precise  figures  are  available  with  respect  to  the  number  of  inspections  carried  out. 

Information  is available on the results  of these inspections: 

Infringements  detected  . 

2 060 

Seizures/confiscations 

carried  out: 

nets 

1  518 

quantities  of fish 

65 525 kilograms 

p:\c3I\rapports\ctrl\annexc 1 \en 

-1 6 

//.  Evaluation 

Monitoring fishing  activities in Italy presents a number of specific problems: the long length 
of the coastline and the numerous  landing places. The absence of an exclusive fishery  zone 
in  Italy  mitigates  against  rigorous  controls  on Italian  fishermen  who  fish  in  international 
areas alongside foreign  fishermen  engaged in fishing  for  large pelagic species and for some 
demersal  stocks. 

Although Italy  is not yet fully  integrated  into the control  system  applicable to the common 
fisheries  policy  as  set  out  in  Council  Regulation  (EEC)  No 2847/93,  the  national  control 
authorities  have  a  number  of  specific  monitoring  functions  to  carry  out.  These  include 
monitoring the use of driftnets, management of structural aspects of the national fishing  fleet, 
technical  measures,  controls  with  respect  to  markets  and  the  creation  of  an  adequate/ 
comprehensive  control  system  over the next three years. 

A.  Controls on fishing  vessels using  driftnets 

Italy has authorised  approximately 650 vessels to use driftnets  and these vessels fish  in both 
international  and  national  waters.  The  large  number  of  vessels  and  their  wide  diffusion 
contribute to the difficulties  in adequately monitoring the use of this type of gear. It has been 
clearly  shown  that  the prescribed  net  length  (2.5 kilometres)  does  not  generally  speaking 
allow  an economic  fishery.  It has  consequently  been found  that  a number  of  vessels  have 
been using nets in excess  of 2.5 km. 

B.  Management  of structural  and market  aspects of  fisheries 

In their report to the Commission, the Italian control authorities have not presented  sufficient 
information  on markets  and  structural  aspects  as set  out  in Council  Regulation  (EEC)  No 
2847/93. Consequently, the Commission would like Italy to present this information  as soon 
as possible. 

p:\c31\rapports\ctrl\annexe l\en 

")3 

C.  Monitoring of the transport  and sale of fishery  products 

Articles 8 and  13 require that sales notes and transport documents be designed and their use 

monitored  in order to identify  quantities of fishery  products  sold and transported  in Italy. It 

appears to the Commission that these documents are not yet in use by the industry  in Italy. 

D.  Creation of  a validation system 

Although Italy is not obliged to create a validation system until 1999,  the Commission notes 

that  steps  are  being  taken  by  the  Italian  authorities  to  establish  such  a  system.  The  early 

establishment  of  a validation system  would  facilitate  cross-checking  and would  be a useful 

addition to national controls. 

p:\c3l\rapports\ctrl\annexe l\en 

So 

NETHERLANDS 

I. 

Inspection and monitoring of fishing activities 

A.  ORGANISATION 

The  primary  responsibility  for  monitoring  fishing  activities  rests  with  the  AID  (General 

Inspection Service), which works within guidelines approved by the Ministry of Agriculmre, 

Environment  and Fisheries. 

Within  the  inspection  service,  a number  of  inspectors  are  assigned  to  fishery  inspection 

duties.  These  inspectors  are based  in the ports  with a large auction  or  where  a  significant 

number  of landings  take place.  In addition,  the inspectors  are supported  by  administrative 

support  staff  in the district  offices  and at headquarters. 

The AID inspection services monitor the registration of catches, technical measures, licences 

and  some aspects  of markets  and structures. 

The inspections  at sea are carried  out by the AID, which itself has no inspection platforms, 

in cooperation  with the Royal Navy, customs  and police. 

The technical monitoring  of market measures  is carried  out by the  "Produkschap  Vis", and 

infringements  are reported  to the AID for  further  action. 

B.  RESOURCES 

Human 

The  inspectorate  has  a  staff  of  58  inspectors  divided  between  the  main  fishing  ports.  In 

addition, the inspectorate was assisted for a total of 37 500 hours by private security agents. 

n :\c. 1 l\rannorts\ctrl\annexe I \en 

8-1 

Vessels/aircraft 

In addition  to the vessels  provided  by customs  and police,  3 minesweepers  are used. 

In  1994, the minesweepers  conducted  80 days of  sea  inspections  while the  customs/police 

conducted  106 days. 

Aerial  surveillance  was conducted by the Navy and the police service.  A total of 438 hours 

was devoted  to aerial  surveillance. 

Computerization 

The following  computer  systems  are  in operation: 

VIRIS I  : 

monitoring  of the national  and  individual  allocated  quotas 

COVIS  : 

registration  of  catch  and  sales  information  together  with  control 

findings and detailed information on fishing trips. Corrections on catch 

information  are sent to VIRIS I. 

CVR  : 

C-Day  : 

registration  and specification  of  fishing  vessels 

registration  of consumption  of days at sea 

COBRA  : 

registration  of controls  and fixing  of penalties. 

C.  ACTIVITIES 

A total of 91 255 control hours were carried out. On average controls covered approximately 

12%  of the total of  32 785 landings recorded.  The level of control  was the highest  for  the 

sole  and plaice  fisheries. 

Summary of controls and infringements by Member State in the Dutch North Sea E.E.Z. 

Member  State 

NL 

B 

30 

191 -

Physical 
controls 

Air/sea 
sightings 

N/A 

127 

Infringements 

44 

7 

p:\c3l\rapports\ctrl\annexel\en 

F 

0 

1 

1 

UK 

Other 

4 

87 

— 

2 

0 

2 

D 

13 

54 

4 

DK 

7 

98 

2 

§e 

Validation  of landings,  auction data, etc. 

All data from  logbooks, sales information of auctions and landing declarations are compared 

in self-operating  computer systems  (100% cross-checking).  In addition, for  each vessel and 

for  each fishing  trip  total catches  in live weight are calculated  per  species. 

Monitoring  of  structural  measures 

All fishing  vessels  must be registered  in the Central  Fishery  Register. 

After  registration  a licence  stipulates  the fish  species  which may be targeted. 

Special  documents  are  needed  for  fishing  on quota species  in general. 

A system of individual transferable  quotas or group transferable  quotas regulates the fisheries 

in certain  quota species. 

A days-at-sea  regulation  limits the fishing  effort  per category  for  each vessel. 

Technical  Monitoring of Market Measures 

Fresh  fish  presented  for  sale must be sold through  an auction. 

After  sorting,  each lot is examined by a agent of the "Produktschap  Vis"  taking into account 

the grading  and freshness  of the fish.  Controls  on sizes are carried  out on a sampled  basis 

and through  random checks. 

The  producer  organizations  each  year  establish  the  withdrawal  prices  for  the  different 

products. 

Agents  of  the  "Produktschap  Vis" monitor  compliance  with  withdrawal  prices  and  each 

intervention  is recorded  and transmitted  to the producer  organisations. 

All sales  information  is subject  to an administrative  follow up. 

Physical  control  of the withdrawal process  is carried  out on a sample basis  and in  1994 no 

irregularities  were detected. 

p:\c3l\rapports\ctrl\annexel\en 

«i 

//.  Evaluation 

A.  General 

Quota management  is mainly directed  to three fleet  categories,  i.e.  beam trawlers,  a small 

number  of  specialized  demersal  vessels  and  pelagic  freezer-trawlers.  There  is  a potential 

overcapacity  particularly  in the  beam  trawler  fleet.  The  pelagic  fleet  has  shifted  capacity 

from  its  traditional  herring/mackerel  fishery  to  species  such  as  blue  whiting  and  horse 

mackerel. 

The current  quota management  scheme and system  of  monitoring  landings  was  introduced 

a  few  years  ago,  as a result  of extensive  discussions  with the fishing  industry,  in order to 

stop the practice  of unrecorded  landings. These arrangements  are based,  in particular,  on a 

limitation  of  fishing  days  to  those  necessary  to  catch  vessel  quotas  as  well  as  on  the 

commitment  of  the  fishing  industry  to  market  all  quantities  landed  through  auctions. 

Therefore,  the fishing  industry is co-responsible for the proper implementation of the agreed 

arrangements.  Oversight  and monitoring  of quota compliance  is the job  of the AID. 

The  EEZ  covers  a  limited  part  of  the  North  Sea.  The  coastline  is  relatively  long  and a 

number  of ports  (some which are located away from  the coast) can be accessed  by  fishing 

vessels.  Fishing  vessels  are only  authorized  to land their  catches  in designated  ports  after 

being  authorized  to do so by the competent authorities. 

A  limited  number  of  landings  also  takes  place  in  other  Member  States,  although  these 

quantities  are  often  offered  for  first  sale  in the Netherlands.  Vessels  from  other  Member 

States as well as third-country  vessels  land their catch frequently  in the Netherlands. 

p:\c3l\rapports\ctrl\annexe l\en 

£<-) 

B.  Strengths  and weaknesses 

The  reliability  of  catch  recording  has  improved  over  recent  years  mainly  because  of 

reinforced  quota management measures  and an improved monitoring  system.  This seems in 

particular  to be true  for  total quantities.  The proper  recording  of catches by area cannot be 

guaranteed  in  all  cases.  Fishing  effort  has  been  adjusted  on  an  individual  basis  to  the 

allocated  fishing  possibilities,  notably  by  reducing  the  number  of  fishing  days.  Dutch 

fisherman have also formed  voluntary management groups. These are associations with their 

own articles of association  and internal rules of procedure.  These lay down,  inter alia, that 

a fishing  plan is to be drawn up and that all fish  is to be sold through  auctions.  Also laid 

down  is the fact  that  infringements  of  these  arrangements  can be sanctioned  internally,  in 

addition  to  any  procedure  in public  law,  and  fines  are  specified.  Landings  are  subject  to 

administrative  and  physical  inspection.  Catch recording  is fully  computerized.  Catch data, 

landing data  and  sales  note data are  cross-checked. 

Taking  into  account  the  role  which  some  fishing  ports  play  in  the  distribution  of  fish  in 

Europe, the physical organization of landings and marketing in fishing ports seems not very 

transparent.  AID's  controls  are  systematic,  in the sense  that the whole chain from  landing 

to sale is followed  round the clock. This is to prevent landings from  going unreported.  The 

AID  supplements  this  with  checks  at  business  premises.  In such cases,  fishery  inspectors 

may be accompanied by officials  from  other specialised inspection agencies such as customs, 

tax officers  and police. 

Aerial  surveillance  is carried  out by the Navy  and the police,  whilst  surveillance  at sea is 

carried  out by the Navy and by coastguard vessels operated by customs and the police. AID 

officials  are  always  present  during  these  controls  and  they  carry  out  the  actual  controls 

themselves.  However,  the  limited  use  made  of  these  surveillance  means  suggests  that 

fisheries  inspection  is not their  priority. 

p:\c3l\rapports\ctrl\annexe 1 \en 

ss 

C.  Conclusions 

The Commission  has observed  over  recent years  a real  improvement  in catch recording  in 

the  Netherlands.  It  is  following  with  great  interest  the  experience  being  gathered  in  the 

Netherlands,  in  particular  the  co-responsibility  of  the  fishing  industry  in  enforcing  its 

commitment to market  all quantities  landed through auctions. 

The  efficiency  of  the  current  arrangements  has  to  be  observed  under  varying  levels  of 

resource  abundance to be able to assess  the real strength  of all components  of the scheme. 

p:\c3l\rapports\ctrl\annexe l\en 

•?€ 

PORTUGAL 

I. 

Inspection and monitoring of  fishing activities 

A.  ORGANIZATION 

In Portugal  a number of different  departments  and public organizations  have responsibility 

for  and authority  to monitor  fishing  activities. 

These  are  listed  below. 

1.  Directorate-General  for  Fisheries 

- Inspection  Service  Department  (DEI) 

- Structural  Service  Department  (DE) 

2.  Maritime  Authority  (ADAR) 

3. 

4. 

Inspection  Brigade  of National Guard (B) 

Inspectorate-General  for  Economic Activities (AG) 

5.  Directorate-General  for  Customs (DAG) 

6.  Directorate-General  for  Ports,  Navigation,  Transport,  Maritime  Safety  (INS) 

All these organizations  are involved  to a greater  or lesser  extent in control  and monitoring 

functions. 

The  DEI  is a separate  department  of the Directorate-General  of Fisheries  (Ministry  of the 

Sea) and operates all along the coast,  visiting ports and coordinating  control  activities with 

respect  to landings  in particular. 

The other  five organizations listed above devote some of their resources and time to specific 

aspects  of fishing  industry. 

For example, the ADAR works along with the inspectors of DEI in the context of controls 

on  fishing  gear  and  vessel  characteristics,  whilst  the  agents  of  the  INS  are  involved  in 

monitoring  the construction  or modification  of vessels  granted  fishing  licences. 

Sea  inspections  are  carried  out  by  the  Naval  Service,  which  is  under  the  control  of  the 

Ministry  of  Defence. 

p:\c3l\rapports\ctrl\annexel\en 

Patrol  activity  at  sea  is  conducted  at  the  request  of  the  Ministry  of  the  Sea,  as  is  aerial 

surveillance  is provided by the Air Force. The three services are linked through a series of 

computer  networks  which  exchange  information  on  sightings  and  boarding  (see  further 

below). 

Responsibility  for  monitoring  the market  and structural  aspects  of  fisheries  is also  widely 

diffused.  With  respect  to  markets  the  following  four  organizations  have  specific 

responsibilities  : 

Directorate  General  for  Fisheries 

- Market  and Quality  Service  Dept - DSM. 

- Inspection  Service Dept.  - DEI 

Inspection  Brigade  of the Republican National  Guard  - B 

Inspectorate  General  for  Economic  Activities (AG). 

Specialised services from  the organizations listed above monitor marketing standard, prices, 

withdrawals  and  fish  quality. 

Structural  aspects  -  surveillance  of  fishing  capacity  and  its  modifications  -  are  the 

responsibility  of: 

Directorate-General  for  Fisheries  - Structural  Service  Dept.  - DE, 

Maritime  Authority  Agents  (based  in ports)  - ADAR, 

Directorate-General  of  Ports  Navigation  and  Maritime  Transport  Inspection  and 

Maritime  Safety  - INS 

Fishing capacity  (including adjustment  of fishing  activities)  is monitored  by means of 

joint  action by the DE,  the ADAR and INS. 

p:\c31\rapports\ctrl\annexel\en 

«"8 

B.  RESOURCES 

1.  Human 

The  following  table  shows  the  number  of  inspectors  and/or  inspection  agents  from  the 

various  public  authorities  with responsibility  for  monitoring  fishing  activities  by region of 

the country. 

Authority 

DGP 

ADAR 

B 

AG 

DAG 

NORTH 
(Valanca-  Péniche) 

CENTRE 
(Ericeira-
Sesembra) 

SOUTH  * 
(Setubal  -  U.R.  Sâo 
Antonio) 

Number  of  inspectors 

-

25 

36 

21 

8 

12.** 

18 

21 

24 

1 

-

42 

40 

25 

6 

The  ADAR  performs  other  duties  besides  monitoring  fishing  activities  and  has  a total  of 

approximately  491 inspectors engaged in a wide range of monitoring activities. Equally, the 

B, AG and DAG allocate a small percentage of their overall personnel (approximately  2 500 

inspectors)  to monitoring  fishing  activities. 

» 

* 

includes  Autonomous  Regions of the Azores  and Madeira. 

**  These are the Fisheries Inspectors from the Inspection Service Department of the DGP, 

based  in  Lisbon  and  who  operate  all  along the  main  land  coast  as  a type  of  "flying 

squad". 

p:\c3 t\rapports\ctrl\annexe I \en 

^9 

2.  Vessels/aircraft 

The number of vessels from  the Ministry of Defence/Navy  carrying out inspection duties at 

sea  is set out below,  per type of vessel. 

"CACINE"  class patrol  boats 

"Joâo Coutenho" class corvettes 

"Baptista  Anrade"  class corvettes 

"Albatroz"  class  fast  launches 

"Dragas"  class  fast  launches 

Other  inspection  vessels  (unspecified) 

Total 

10 

6 

4 

5 

5 

41 

71 

These vessels, apart from fishery  inspection duties, carry out mainly military and search and 

rescue  operations. 

Aircraft 

Three  Casa  100 AVIOCAR aircraft  are deployed  for  aerial  surveillance/inspection  duties. 

p:\c3l\rapports\ctrl\annexel\cn 

3o 

3.  Computerization 

The computer  resources  and network  of the DGP, the Navy  and  Airforce  are set out  below. 

DIRECTORATE-GENERAL  FOR  FISHERIES 
FISHING  ACTIVITIES  INSPECTION  DEPARTMENT 
SIFICAP 
SYSTEM  OF  INSPECTION  AND 
MONITORING  FOR  FISHING  ACTIVITIES 
STRUCTURE/LINK  WITH  THE  NAVY  AND  AIR  FORCE 

NAVY 

B  D 
SIFICAP 
(Oracle) 

X - 25 

s ec 

AIR  FORCE 

B  N DP 

2  NCR  32/650 
Unix  5000/95 

Fleet 
Licensing 
Missions 
Activity/Results 

Unix  -  5000/85 
Unix  -  6000/65 
SunSparc2  -  scc-Gl 
SunSparc2  -  scc-G* 
SunSparc2  -  scc-G3 

SCC  -  Central 
Monitoring  System 

BD  -  SISIFICAP 
Data  Base 

BNDP  -  National 
Fisheries  Data 
Base 

Fleet 
Licensing 
PIDDAC 
EAGGF 
Market  sales 
Aquaculture 
Financial 
compensation  and 
forfeiture 
Oil  refunds 
Processed 
product 
production 

p:\c3l\rapports\ctrl\annexe l\en 

9-1 

PORTUGUESE  NAVY 
STRUCTURE  OF  NAVAL  SECTION  -  SIFICAP 

B.D. 

SIFICAP 

B.N.D.P. 

DGP 

Directorate-  General  for 
Fisheries 

EMGFA 

(standard-C) 

Navy 
section 

• 

SCC 

DGP 

Fishing 
Activities 
Monitoring 
Department 

X - 25 

EPM  1 

MAIN  NAVAL 
STATION 

ETMs 

1  Unisys  5000/55 
1  Microcomputer 
1  Graphics  station 
4  Printers 

27  vessels 

Standard-C 
Grid  1530 
Printer 

DGM 

COMMAND 
DISTRICTS 

ETT 

ETT 

ETT 

ETT 

CZM-North 

CZM-South 

Unisys  PW 
800 

Unisys  PW  800 

CZM-
Azores 

• 

CZM-
Madeira 

Unisys  PW 
800 

Unisys  PW 
800 

BD 
SCC 
BNDP 
EMGFA 
EPM1 
ETT 
EMT 
DGM 
CZM 

-  SIFICAP  Data  Base 
- Central  Monitoring  Service 
- National  Fisheries  Data  Base 
- Armed  Forces  General  Staff  Headquarters 
- Main  Naval  Station 
- Land  Terminal  Station 
- Mobile  Terminal  Station 
- Navy  Department 
- Maritime  Area  Command 

p:\c3l\rapports\ctrl\annexe l\en 

Di 

PORTUGUESE  AIR  FORCE 
STRUCTURE  /LINK  WITH  AIR  SECTION-SIFICAP 

SCC 

B.D. 

B.N.D.P. 

DGP 
Fishing  Activities  Monitoring  Department 

SIFICAP 

DGP 
Directorate-General  for  Fisheries 

Emgfa 

AERO  - C 
(standard-C) 

EPA  1 

X - 25 

Air  Force  operational  command 

Air  section 

Unisys 
5000/Xenix/X-25 
Sun 
Sparc2/Xenix/X-25 

3  ETM 

3  Casa  100 
3  MSs 
3  Grid 
1530/Xenix 

Standard-C 
Grid  1530 
Printer 

ETT-1 

ETT 

ETT 

SINTRA/ 
MAINLAND 
Unisys  PW  800 
/MSS 
Unisys  PW  800 
/Xenix/X-25 
Unisys 
MP14666/Dos 

PORTO  SANTO 
/MADEIRA 

Unisys  PW  800 
/Xenix/X-25 
Unisys  MP 
14666/Dos 

LAJES/AZORES 

Unisys  PW800 
/Xenix/X-25 
Unisys  MP 
14666/Dos 

BD 
SCC 
BNDP 
EMGFA 
EPM1 
ETT 
EMT 
DGM 
CZM 

- SIFICAP  Data  Base 
- Central  Monitoring  Service 
- National  Fisheries  Data  Base 
- Armed  Forces  General  Staff  Headquarters 
- Main  Naval  Station 
- Land  Terminal  Station 
- Mobile  Terminal  Station 
- Navy  Department 
- Maritime  Area  Command 

p:\c31\rapports\ctrl\annexc l\cn 

33 

C.  ACTIVITIES 

1. 

Inspection  Services 

The  table  below  shows  the  number  of  port  inspections  made  in  1994,  per  region  of  the 

country. 

NORTH 
Valance-  Péniche 

CENTRE 
Ericeira-
Sesembra 

Total 

SOUTH 
Setubal  U.R 
Sâo  Antonio 
Azores/Madeira 

Authority 

N ° of  inspectors 

DGP 

ADAR 

B 

AG 

DAG 

Total 

957 

2861 

1978 

3360 

251 

9407 

203 

2233 

1176 

3840 

2 

877 

3560 

2209 

4594 

241 

74541 

11481 

2037 

8654 

5363 

11794 

494 

26342 

These  inspections  identified  a total  of  820  infringements  divided  into  the  following  main 

categories: 

Failing to place fish  in the registered  auction centre 

Use of prohibited  gear 

Logbook/landing  declaration  (irregularity) 

Minimum  size violations 

Fishing  without a licence 

Fishing  in a prohibited  area 

The table below shows the number of inspection days at sea per ICES division and per class 

of  inspection vessel  deployed. 

p:\c31\rapports\ctrI\annexe l\en 

9^ 

AREA 

PATROLS 

CORVETTES 

Mainland 
(ICES  IX,a,b) 

Madeira 
(CECAF) 

AZORES 
(ICES  X) 

400 

438 

-

Total 

838 

365 

-

298 

663 

FAST 
LAUNCHES 

OTHERS 

1 624 

1  109 

-

-

60 

63 

1,624 

1  232 

INSPECTION  DAYS AT SEA/VESSELS  INSPECTED 

AREA 

INSPECTION  DAYS 

VESSELS  INSPECTED 

ICES IX  a,b 

ICES X 

CECAF 

TOTAL 

3 498 

361 

498 

4 357 

8 000 

282 

48 

8 330 

The inspections at sea detected  181 vessels having committed an infringement  of national or 

Community rules. 

2.  Aerial surveillance 

The table below  details the aerial  inspection  of fishery  activities per  ICES division. 

Area 

Mainland 

Madeira 

Azores 

Total 

N '  of  flying 
hours 

N°  of 
Missions 

Aerial 
Detections 

Inspected 
violations 

Prosecutions 

367'15" 

93'35" 

166'35" 

627'35M 

126 

22 

33 

181. 

747 

59 

135 

941 

195 

8 

11 

214 

117 

3 

3 

123 

p :\c3 l\rapports\ctrl\annexe 1 \en 

3 s 

The table below details  the aerial  inspection activity per aircraft  and  the respective  result. 

Aircraft 

Flying  hours 

Number  of 
Missions 

Sightings 

1 

2 

3 

158 

184'35" 

285 

56 

60 

65 

320 

372 

249 

On the basis of aerial surveillance a total of 123 vessels were identified  as having committed 

the following  infringements: 

fishing  in a prohibited  zone 61 

fishing  without  a licence 

other 

60 

2 

Landings checked on unloading  or at fish markets 

In  1994,  approximately  440 000 landings  were made by  fishing  vessels  in national  ports. 

Under Portuguese  law the first  sale of fresh  or frozen  fish  must be held  in a registered  fish 

market  and  in  1994 approximately  80%  of  fish  offered  for  sale  was sold  in a fish  market 

which quantities were inspected by Doca pesca. 

The  various  national  inspection  authorities  monitored  approximately  thirty  to  thirty  five 

percent  of  all landings. 

Verification  of landings by means of cross-checks 

Monitoring by means of cross-checking  data from  logbooks, landing declarations  and sales 

notes  was carried  out with respect  to the deep-sea  fishing  fleet  and the  inshore  crustacean 

trawl  fleet  operating  in Portuguese  waters.  The percentage  of  landings  cross-checked  was 

100% with respect to the fleets operating in the NAFO area off Norway and Spitsbergen and 

60%  with respect  to the crustacean  fleet. 

p:\c3 I\rapports\ctrl\annexe 1 \en 

S€ 

//.  Evaluation 

A.  General 

Portugal  has  a  very  large  EEZ.  The  narrowness  of  the  continental  shelf  reduces  the  true 

extent  of  the  fishing  grounds  considerably,  however,  apart  from  those  for  large  pelagic 

species. 

The. coastline  of  mainland  Portugal  is  moderately  long. 

The  market  is  typically  southern  European  with  demand  for  a  wide  range  of  species, 

including  small-sized  fish. 

Despite  the  setting  of precautionary  TACs,  management  by quota places  serious  constraints 

on  the  Portuguese  hake  and  megrim  fisheries. 

Another  characteristic  feature  of  the  Portuguese  fisheries  is  the  lightness  of  the  trawl 

employed.  Static  gear  is used  generally  to fish  for  demersal  species  while  purse  seines  take 

precedence  in  the  small  pelagic  fisheries.  The  Portuguese  fleet  also  includes  a  number  of 

bottom  trawlers  which  fish  for  a wide  range  of  species. 

B. 

Strengths  and  weaknesses 

Means  available  for  and  assigned  to  monitoring 

The  twelve  inspectors  directly  responsible  for  inspection duties are too few  in number  to be 

able  to  act  at  the  appropriate  time  at  all  landing  places.  The  wide  range  of  tasks  that  must 

be  undertaken  by  the  other  agencies  which  may  be  involved  rules  out  any  quantitative 

assessment  of their actual contribution to enforcement.  In addition,  the monitoring  of catches 

in the NAFO zone and  the waters  of non-member  countries  restricts  the resources  allocated 

to  inspection  of  catches  from  Community  waters. 

- T l \ — « „ „ r f c V r » r l \ i r > r , » v , > l \ pn 

99 

Portugal  is able to avail itself of considerable  sea-patrol  and aerial surveillance  resources  and 

assigns  substantial  effort  to  fisheries  protection. 

It  can  avail  itself  of  considerable  data-processing  and  satellite-tracking  resources. 

Organisation 

More  so  perhaps  than  in  any  other  Member  State,  fisheries  protection  arrangements  in 

Portugal  are  complicated  by  the  involvement  of  a large  number  of  agencies  -  if  only  in the 

compiling  of  statistics  - and  by  the  many  tasks  which  most  of  these  agencies  undertake. 

The requirement  that a large proportion  of catches be marketed  at auction centres  is expected 

to  make  enforcement  more  effective. 

C.  Monitoring  of  technical  measures 

In the demersal  fisheries,  problems arise mainly in the case of trawling,  as mentioned  above. 

It  is  up  to  Portugal  to  define  a  strategy  for  preventing  the  use  of  illegal  mesh  sizes.  The 

extent  of  the problem  is  reduced,  however,  by  the  size  of  the  fleets  in  question  and  by  the 

introduction  of  boxes  for  hake.  Substantial  effort  appears  to  have  been  invested  and 

considerable  progress  achieved  in monitoring  these boxes.  Aerial surveillance,  in particular, 

has  been  used,  and  satellite  tracking  undoubtedly  makes  the  task  easier.  The  existence  of 

these  boxes  will  not,  however,  mean  that  Member  States  do not  have  to  monitor  the  other 

technical  measures  contained  in the  Community  rules. 

In the  case  of  pelagic  species,  steps  will  have  to be  taken  to put  an  end  to  the  liberties  that 

fishermen  have  been  taking  regarding  lawful  minimum  sizes. 

p:\c3l\rapports\ctrI\annexel\en 

3£ 

D.  Monitoring  of catches 

As far  as the Commission  is concerned,  the procedure  for  converting  landing  declarations 

and logbooks into comprehensive statistics is not sufficiently  reliable. Methods of validating 

the data contained in these documents have yet to be devised and estimates of the proportion 

of sales not recorded  are too subjective.  Doubts raised by the overall  shortcomings  of catch 

monitoring  are  especially  serious  in  the  case  of  stocks  for  which  official  catch  statistics 

disclose  a very  high level of uptake. 

While Portugal has been a pioneer in the use of satellite surveillance,  the installation of this 

type  of  equipment  on board  fishing  vessels  is  still  too  recent  and  fragmentary  to  prevent 

unlawful  landings  or  represent  a real tightening-up of catch control. 

E.  Conclusions 

Portugal  has the requirements  necessary  to achieve rapid progress:  catches must be sold at 

public auction centres,  an extensive  satellite monitoring network  is in place and quotas can 

be exchanged with France,  thus enabling it to offset  the difficulties  created  by a number of 

very restricted  quotas. It will still be necessary that quota exchanges with France do not shift 

the  difficulties  from  one  species  to another  (we are thinking  mainly  of  anchovy),  that  the 

necessary  human resources be deployed and that coordination problems between services do 

not result  in the effectiveness  of the arrangements  being undermined. 

p:\c31\rapports\ctrl\annexe l\en 

9© 

UNITED KINGDOM 

I. 

Inspection and monitoring of  fishing activities 

A.  ORGANIZATION 

Responsibility  for  monitoring  and enforcement  is shared  between four  UK Departments: 

Ministry  of Agriculture,  Fisheries  and Food (MAFF) 

Welsh  Office  Agriculture  Department  (WOAD) 

Scottish  Office  Agriculture  and Fisheries  Departments  (SOAFD) 

Department  of Agriculmre  for  Northern  Ireland  (DANI) 

In England and Wales surveillance and enforcement are undertaken by MAFF's Sea Fisheries 

Inspectorate  assisted  by the  Royal  Navy;  in Scotland  by  the  Scottish  Fisheries  Protection 

Agency  (an  executive  agency  of  the  Scottish  Office)  using  its  own  ships  and  also  with 

support  from  the  Royal  Navy;  and  in  Northern  Ireland  by  DANE s  own  Fisheries 

Inspectorate.  Both MAFF and SFPA use aerial surveillance.  The Inspectorates  are charged 

with enforcing  both national  and Community  fisheries  legislation. 

Limited  enforcement  duties  in England  and Wales are  also  carried  out by the various  Sea 

Fisheries  Committees  (SFC). The SFCs operate independently  of both MAFF and WOAD 

and their jurisdiction  extends as far  as the six-mile limit. Whilst the main task of the SFCs 

is  to  enforce  local  by-laws  promoting  and  regulating  fishing  activities,  they  are  also 

authorised  to enforce  certain technical conservation  measures  (minimum landing  and mesh 

sizes) adopted nationally or by the European Union and, in that capacity, cooperate with the 

MAFF  Sea Fisheries  Inspectorate. 

The  Sea  Fisheries  Inspectorate  is  also  responsible  for  monitoring  both  marketing  and 

structural  measures.  Monitoring  of the former  consists  of controls  on marketing  standards 

involving both visual  and specified  sampling checks of fish  offered  for  sale  and checks on 

price  arrangements  in the context of fish  withdrawn from  sale. 

In  the  context  of  monitoring  structural  measures,  the  Sea  Fisheries  Inspectorate  assist 

specialised  services  located  in MAFF WOAD, SOAFD and DANI. 

p:\c31\rapports\ctrl\annexel\en 

"loo 

B.  RESOURCES 

1.  Human 

In  order  to  discharge  the  various  tasks  assigned  to  it,  the  Sea  Fisheries  Inspectorate  has a 

total  of  169  shore-based  inspectors.  These  are  divided  as  follows. 

-  England  and  Wales 

-  Scotland 

-  Northern  Ireland 

81 

71 

17 

Inspectors  are  located  in  districts/areas. 

SCOTLAND 

NORTHERN IRELAND 

10 
2 
7 
12 

10 
7 
6 
6 
11 

17 

10 
11 
13 
7 

North 
North  East 
Moray  Firth 
East 
South  East 
South  West 

North  West 

13 

71 

17 

ENGLAND 

North  East 
Humberside 
East 
South  East 

South  West 
West 
Wales 
North  West 
Head  office 

Total 

2.  Vessels/aircraft 

A  total  of  17  inspections  vessels  are  deployed  for  enforcement  purposes  in  the  following 

manner: 

Department 

Number 

MAFF 

SFPA 

SFPA 

DANI 

7  vessels  operated  and  provided  by  Royal  Navy 

2 

" 

" 

7 vessels  owned  and  operated  by  SFPA 

1 inshore  vessel  owned  and  operated  by  DANI 

With  respect  to the  number  of  aircraft  available  for  surveillance,  5 were  put  at the  disposal 

of  MAFF  and  SFPA  in  1994. 

p:\c3l\rapports\ctrl\annexel\en 

SUMMARY  OF  EQUIPMENT  AND  SOFTWARE  USED  IN  THE  COLLECTION, 

PROCESSING  AND  ANALYSIS  OF  DATA  REQUIRED  BY  THE  CONTROL 

REGULATION  -  1994. 

MAFF  (covering  England  and  Wales) 

Statistics  required  by the control Regulation are collected mainly by Inspectorate  staff  at port 

offices,  manually  checked  and  keyed 

into  micro-computers  connected 

to  the  main 

government  databases.  Data  is again  checked  before  being  reflected  on  the  main  databases 

(which hold vessel information  for England, Wales and Northern Ireland). Further  credibility 

checks  are  applied  by  the  Fisheries  Statistics  Unit,  who  compile  the  catch  and  landings 

statistics  to  meet  EC  regulatory  requirements. 

HARDWARE 

SOFTWARE 

Headquarters  Statistics  Unit 
Compaq  System  PRO  XL  Fileserver 
9  PCs  (Siemens  Nixdorf  and  Compaq 
486)  connected  to  Fileserver,  MAFFNET  EXCEL,  SPSS,  Word  for  Windows, 
and  6 main  control,  landings  and  vessel 
databases 
Several  high  quality  printers 

Powerpoint,  Access,  Lotus  Spreadsheet, 
Reflections,  Relay  Gold,  anti-virus.  PC 
mail 

SCO-UNIX  SPSS  connected  to 
MAFFNET 

DFR  Lowestoft 
processing  catch  statistics 
Digital  VAX  cluster  - Vax  17610 
Vax  6510.  Micro  Vax  3100.  HSJ  disk 
storage  array 

Ethernet  LAN  connecting  to MAFF  net 
WAN  (for  remote  access  by  SFI  and  HQ) 
INGRES  relational  database  management 
system 
Transfer  of  data  from  DFR  to  Guildford 
(MAFF  IT  HQ)  - 

IBM-compatible  PC 

SFI  Licensing  Desk  (HQ)  and  Port 
Offices 
37  Apricot  Xen  PC 
15  Apricot  Xen  LS  II 
17  Siemens  Nixdorf  PC 
1  Compaq  PC  (486) 

INGRES  ABF/VISION  application. 
FORTRAN  programmes 

Digital  pathworks  networking  software 
Relay  Gold  file  transfer  software. 

Microsoft  Office,  Anti-virus, 
Reflections  4, 
bespoke  Ingres  V6  package  for  data 
entry. 

|  PC-mail  (X 400) 

_J 

p:\c3l\rapports\ctrl\annexel\en 

1 0£ 

SFPA and Scottish  Office  Agricultural  Dept (SOAFD)  (covering  Scotland) 

The current system uses facilities on a central Scottish Office IBM mainframe computer. The 

facilities  listed  below  are  being  developed  to  fulfil  the  requirements  of  the  control 

Regulation.  The  equipment  is  in  place  and  is  being  used  to  capture  information  for  the 

existing system.  A new database is under development which should be operational early in 

1995. 

Equipment 

There  are some 36 microcomputers  at the 22 port offices  to capture  information  on fishing 

activities  (and to issue  licences). The full  system will allow linkage to the central processor 

and  local  offices  will  be  able  to  access  the  central  database,  mainly  through  pre-written 

interrogations  using  ORACLE.  The  HQ network  has  two file-servers  available.  The  new 

Fisheries  Information  System  (FIN) database  will be held  on an ICL DRS6000 Level 750 

server  and  is  being  developed  in  ORACLE.  This  server  also  supports  database  and SAS 

software.  An ICL  DRS6000 Level  450 file  server  supports  the ICI  Team  Office  software 

providing  e-mail  facilities  etc. Back-up and archiving is to tape. There are 26 ICL ErgoPro 

D433d(486) machines  with 20 mb RAM and 6 ICL 486 machines with  16mb RAM on the 

Headquarters  network  supporting  the activities.of  the  Fisheries  Group.  The machines  are 

fully  networked.  The main access to the FIN database will be through pre-written ORACLE 

functions  but,  in addition,  4 machines are equipped with a wide range  of SAS software  for 

use  by  the  Statistics  Unit.  Additional  machines  (currently  used  for  development)  will  be 

added  to  the  network  as  the  system  nears  completion.  The  network  supports  a variety  of 

good quality printers  and further  ancillary  facilities.  The hardware and software  is itemised 

below for  ease  of  reference. 

p:\c3l\rapports\ctrl\annexel\en 

/JO  3 

HARDWARE 

SOFTWARE 

Headquarters 
ICL DRS6000 Level  750 file  server 

ICL DRS 6000 Level 450 file  server 
Backup/archiving  on tape 

26 ICL Ergo PRO D433 (486) - 20 mb 
RAM 

6 ICL 486 CX -  16 mb RAM 
(networked) 
several  high quality printers 

Ports 

36 microcomputers  (ICL Ergo  PRO 
D4/25 d (486) -  16/20 mb RAM 
and Hewlet Packard  Laserjet  4si printers 

Database  and SAS software.  Fisheries 
Information  System  (FIN)  to be 
developed  in ORACLE  (from  early  1995) 

ICL Team  Office  software  (e-mail etc) 

ORACLE packages  and  SAS software  on 
4 of these machines.  These  machines will 
access the FIN database  from  early  1995 
which will contain landings,  sightings, 
boardings  and prosecution  information, 
The number  of machines  and the exact 
functions  available are yet to be decided. 

Database.  Windows,  Microsoft  Office. 

p :\c3 l\rapports\ctrl\annexe 1 \en 

A o^f 

DANI  (covering  Northern  Ireland) 

In Northern  Ireland  statistics  are  also collected,  checked  and  keyed  into microcomputers  by 

port  staff  connected to a central mainframe  database. Links with MAFF's  database  are being 

progressed  for  periodic  capture  of  this  data. 

HARDWARE 

SOFTWARE 

Headquarters 
OLIVETI  M380-XP9  (File  Server) 

WANG  PC  321/16  &  1414  monitor 

Database  management/application 
software  -  SIR 3.2.  SAS  6.03 
Network  software  NOVELL  2.2 

(operating  system  DOS  5.0.) 
comms  :  MASS  BREAKOUT 
REFLECTIONS  2 
BREAKOUT  REPRO 
BREAKOUT  PLUS 

Anti-virus  : DR  SOLOMONS 

J2,  catch  and  validation  programmes 
written  by  DANI  in  DATAFLEX 

OLIVETTI  PC  M290-30  incl.  monitor 
(with  tape  streamer) 

TAPE  backup  software 
NOVELL  software  to  access  server 

NEWBURN  PC  : 486  DX  33  incl  VGA 
monitor 

2  no  Olivetti  PC  M290-30  incl.  monitor 

LASERJET  III  printer 
EPSON  FX-1050  dot-matrix  printer 

NOVELL  software  to  access  server 

As  Newburn  machine  - contingency  port 
PC  (see  below) 

(COMPAQ  PC  : DESKPRO  4/33i  incl. 
monitor. 

provided  by  MAFF  for  MAFF  net  WAN 
development. 

Ports 
Portavogie.  Ardglass.  Kilkeel. 
Londonderry. 

WANG  PC  321/168  &  1414  monitor 

Operating  system  : DOS  5.0 
Comms  : REPRO(DATAFLEX  internal 
modem) 
J2,  catch  & validation  programmes 
|  written  by  DANI  in  DATAFLEX. 

| 

p:\c31\rapports\ctrl\annexel\en 

^ oS 

C.  ACTIVITIES 

1.  Inspections  on  land 

In  1994,  the  Sea  Fisheries  Inspectorate  conducted  a  total  of  12 434  inspections  on  fishing 

vessels  in  United  Kingdom  ports.  In  addition,  a  further  64  044  inspections/checks  were 

carried  out at auctions, markets and in the offices  offish  merchants  and agents.  The  majority 

of  vessel  inspections  took  place  in  Scotland  (in the  North  and,  North  East  Districts  8.774) 

while 2.768  and  892 were undertaken  in England/Wales  and  Northern  Ireland  respectively. 

Inspections  in ports 

Infringements  detected  during  port  inspections  by  nationality  of  vessel 

Main  types  of  infringement 

Nationality 

Belgian 

Danish 

British 

Logbook/landing  declaration 

1 

1 

Prohibited  gear 

Undersized  fish 

Unauthorised  fishing 

Vessel  marking 

Other 

Total  (909) 

1 

2 

1 

776 

19 

106 

2 

1 

2 

906 

In  addition  to conducting  inspections  in port,  the Sea Fisheries  Inspectorate  is also engaged 

in the cross-checking  and validation  of  logbook  and  sales  notes/landing  declarations.  While 

no  precise  figures  are  available  on  the  percentage  of  total  landings  validated  by  physical 

checks on the vessels  discharging,  catches are physically  checked wherever  possible.  On the 

other hand,  auctions are visited by the Inspectorate on a regular basis and particular  attention 

is  paid  to  the  detection  and  inspection  of  off-market  landings. 

p :\c3 l\rapports\clrl\annexe l \en 

• 1 0o 

In 1994, the Sea Fisheries Inspectorate conducted random checks to monitor compliance with 

the transport-of-fish  provisions  of  Council  Regulation  (EEC)  No 2847/93.  No details  are 

available  as to the results  of these checks. 

2.  Inspections  at sea 

At  sea,  the  17 fishery  inspection  vessels  at the disposal  of the national  control  authorities 

made 4 509 boarding  of which 2 495 were on national and 2 014 were on foreign  vessels. 

The following  table indicates the number of areas patrolled,  the duration of patrols  and the 

number  of boarding  of UK and non-UK  vessels  during  1994. 

ICES  Area 

N ° of  days  in 
area 

N ° of  boarding  in 
UK 

non-UK  vessels 

Ha 

IV 

Vb 

Via  VIb 

VII 

VIII 

5 

1  469 

5 

837 

728 

51 

TOTAL 

3  095 

Inspection  at sea 

0 

1  420 

0 

659 

415 

1 

2  495 

4 

935 

1 

560 

513 

1 

2  014 

Total  number  of  vessels  (by nationality)  detected  in an infringement  (343). 

Main  types  of 
infringment 

N°  of  vessels 
showing 
infringement 

Logbook/land, 
declaration 

Nationality 

UK 

Belg. 

Ger 

Dan. 

Span. 

Fren. 

Irish 

Dut 

Total 

10 

19 

2 

15 

28 

11 

1 

8 

6 

2 

32 

56 

8 

150 

15 

6 

1 

2 

4 

3 

71 

51 

Prohibited  gear 

30 

7 

p :\c3 l\rapports\ctrl\annexe 1 \en 

5 

1 

'lo'} 

Nationality 

UK 

Belg. 

Ger 

Dan. 

Span. 

Fren. 

Irish 

Dut 

Total 

1 

2 

2 

3 

1 

5 

2 

16 

6 

1 

1 

2 

1 

1 

1 

1 

13 

10 

26 

3 

1 

5 

4 

3 

23 

30 

34 

119 

43 

3 

31 

22 

73 

62 

18 

371 

Main  types  of 
infringment 

Illegal  fishing 
Prohibited  area 

Illegal  catches 
Directed 
fishery 

By-catches 

Undersized 
fish 

Marking  of 
vessel 

Other 

Total 

p:\c3I\rapports\ctrl\annexel\en 

1=>  s 

2. 

Results  of  aerial  surveillance  by  area 

With respect to the aerial  surveillance conducted by the aircraft  at the disposal  of the national 

control  authorities,  the  following  table  indicates  the  location  and  results  achieved  in  1994. 

ICES  AREA 

Number  of  sightings  of 

Number  of  sightings  of 

UK  vessels 

foreign  vessels 

lia 

IVa 

IVb 

IVc 

Vb 

Via 

VIb 

Vila 

Vlld 

Vile 

Vllf 

Vllg 

Vllh 

VIIj 

VIII 

0 

8 632 

6 026 

663 

0 

3 759 

43 

4 276 

941 

2 _m 

923 

338 

2.3 

36 

5 

Total 

28  016 

6 

1 575 

2  104 

1 172 

15 

1 491 

52 

464 

861 

845 

543 

1 863 

859 

561 

23 

12  434 

D:\c31\raDDorts\ctrl\annexe l\en 

•lo g 

IL 

Evaluation 

A. 

General 

The United Kingdom has a well developed national fishery  control system,  which is matched 

by  the  allocation  of  substantial  resources.  These  resources  have  to  be  seen  against  the 

background  characterizing  the  UK  fisheries  sector:  the  UK  has  a  coastline  of  some 
16 000  km  and  some  850  000  km2  of  water  under  her jurisdiction.  At  1 January  1995, the 

UK fishing  fleet  comprised  some 3 000 licensed  vessels  over  10 metres,  and a further  5 800 

licensed  vessels  under  10 metres  which  mainly  fish  inshore  within  the  6  mile  limit.  There 

are over 450 locations  at which fish  may be landed and more  than  1 500 businesses  engaged 

in the  merchandising,  processing,  distribution  or  transportation  of  fish.  In  addition  to  UK 

vessels,  up to  1  000 vessels  from  other Member  States and non-member countries fish  in UK 

waters. 

B. 

Strengths  and  weaknesses 

The  regional  significance  of  the different  fisheries  certainly  varies  considerably.  This  does 

not, however, justify  the major  disparity  between the number of quayside  inspections/checks 

of  vessels  undertaken  in  Scotland  (North  and  North  East  District)  and  the  number  of 

quayside  inspections/checks  of  vessels  undertaken  elsewhere  in  the  United  Kingdom.  This 

disparity  may  partly  reflect  the  different  levels  of  fishing  activity  and  be  affected  by  the 

division  of  inspection  competence  among  several  different  authorities,  if  they  are  not using 

the  same  definition  of  inspection. 

The  United Kingdom  authorities  have stated that the main  reason for  the disparity  is 
the absence of standard definitions for  land-based inspections and of a comprehensive 
recording  system for  inspectoral  activity  in  England  and  Wales.  In  their  view  the 
development  of  standard  definitions for  inspectoral activity  is an  issue  which  needs 
to  be  pursued  on  a  Community-wide  basis,  otherwise  it  is  not  possible  to  make 
meaningful  comparisons  of  enforcement  activity  between  one  Member  State  and 
another.  This  is already  evident from  the material  which  the  Commission  publishes 
annually  on vessel inspections at sea and prosecutions.  So far  as the situation  within 
the  UK is concerned,  it has  not  been  considered necessary  in the past  to maintain  a 
complete  inventory  of  the  checks  undertaken  by  the  Sea  Fisheries  Inspectorate  for 
England  and  Wales.  The  situation  is  being  reviewed  and  changes  are  likely  to  be 
instituted  during  the course of  1996 which will bear fruit  in 1997 and  be reflected in 
the  annual  report  on  enforcement  activity  to be submitted  in  1998. 

n :\c3 l\rannorts\ctrl\annexe 1 \en 

The majority  of offences  detected and prosecuted in the United Kingdom during  1994 related 

to  apparent  infringements  committed  and  detected  at  sea  or  as  a  result  of  quayside 

inspections/checks.  On the other hand, there appears to be less inspection effort/checks  and 

follow-up  action  undertaken  at  certain  auctions,  markets,  merchants,  agents  etc.,  which 

might  partly  be  a  consequence  of  the  concentration  of  distribution  centres  and  other 

downstream infrastructure  in particular districts (e.g. North West District). However, the UK 

report states that precise figures cannot be given for the percentage of total landings validated 

by physical  checks on vessels  and in auctions. The figures  presented  in the UK report may 

not, therefore,  reflect  reality in all cases.  On the other hand, the importance  of undertaking 

inspections/checks  in the downstream sector is emphasised by the tendency of vessels to land 

catches  as  close  as  possible  to  the  fishing  grounds,  sometimes  at  ports  which  are  not 

permanently  supervised,  which  makes  it  difficult  for  the  inspection  authorities  to  verify 

logbooks/landing  declarations. 

The  validation  of  information  provided  in  logbooks,  landing  declarations  and  sales  notes 

needs  to be consistently  supplemented  with regular  physical  checks  on fishing  vessels  and 

in the auctions.  In this regard,  the United Kingdom is unable to provide  precise  figures  on 

the percentage of total landings cross-checked  accordingly.  On the other hand, the checking 

of  transport  documentation,  which appeared  to be limited  in  1994,  will  assist  in  verifying 

that catches  landed  are properly  accounted  for  in logbooks and landing  declarations. 

It is the view of the United Kingdom  authorities that enforcement activity  should be 

focused  at  sea and at the point  of  landing. Their experience  has  shown that  it is 

difficult, time-consuming and costly to bring successful enforcement action based on 

checks undertaken after the point of landing.  This reflects the need to satisfy rigorous 

evidential standards in the UK courts.  There is little to be achieved from  carrying out 

inspections  if they are unlikely to have an impact on compliance by being backed by 

successful court action. 

The  Commission  notes  the  special  problems  posed  in monitoring  the  activities  of  British-

registered vessels which land substantial volumes of their catches in other Member States and 

the initiatives undertaken on a bilateral basis to achieve satisfactory  solutions  and to ensure 

compliance  with quotas. 

p:\c3l\rapports\ctrl\annexe 1 \en 

- 4 11 

The technical monitoring  of structural  measures  is undertaken by different  organisations  in 

the  United  Kingdom.  The  technical  monitoring  of  marketing  standards  has  posed  special 

problems  where the standards  have conflicted  with traditional  trading  practice. 

In its report,  the United Kingdom states that the enforcement  action taken has a  significant 

deterrent effect  on preventing  illegal activity although it is not possible to quantify  the level 

of deterrence. It is the Commission's  view that it is important to develop certain parameters 

which will allow  it to focus  on the most effective  monitoring  and enforcement  measures. 

The Commission  acknowledges  the efficient  and competent manner  with which the United 

Kingdom has tackled the enforcement  task at sea and,  in particular,  the steps that have been 

taken to improve the monitoring of the albacore fishery.  However,  despite the considerable 

experience of the competent authorities in the United Kingdom and the significant  resources 

deployed for controlling fishing activities,  "black landings" have been reported  from  several 

important  fisheries  in  recent  years.  From  the enforcement  perspective,  this  indicates  that 

when quota restrictions  are set without effective  effort  limitations, then catch limitations are 

extremely difficult  to implement. It is anticipated by the Commission that the administrative 

inquiry  undertaken  in  Scotland,  during  1994/1995,  to  investigate  the  landing  of  catches 

which may not have been properly accounted for under national quota allocations, will result 

in appropriate  remedial  action which will prevent  the reoccurrence  of this problem. 

C. 

Conclusions 

Apart  from  some  shortcomings,  in particular  concerning  the  closure  of  fisheries  and  the 

prosecution  of  infringements,  the  means  and  the  commitment  invested  in  control  and 

inspection in the UK provide an example of how the CFP should be enforced.  On the other 

hand,  the UK will have to undertake supplementary  efforts  to further  adapt its capacities to 

available resources. 

p :\c3 l\rapports\ctrl\annexe 1 \en 

A^z, 

ANNEX  II 

- 

TABLES 

p:\c3l\rapports\ctrl\annexe2\en 

T) 3 

Means  theoretically  available  for  fisheries  control  in  the  Member  States 

Table 1 

Member  State 

Inspectors 

Vessels 

Planes 

Helicopters 

Belgium 

Denmark 

Germany 

Greece 

Spain 

France 

Ireland 

Italy 

Netherlands 

Portugal 

8 

143 

30 

1803 

304 

1445 

18 

6 

58 

12 

United  Kingdom 

169 

5 

212 

30 

31 

35 

10 

300 

i 
J 

71 

17 

1 

4 

1 

16 

5 

2 

Vessels  belonging  to  the Naval  Service. 
Some  of  these  vessels  belong  to  the  Ministry  of the  Environment. 
Greece:  Primary  role  played  by  the  Coast  Guard  Service  which  is  based  in  all  ports  (180).  In 

theory  one  person  could  conduct  inspections. 

Spain  :  This figure only includes the national Madrid-based inspections. In addition there are 232 

inspectors  employed  by  the  various  authorities  in  the  Autonomous  Regions. 

France  : Figure  is based  on 

1) Unités Littoral  Affaires  Maritimes  (88) 
2)  Gendarme  Maritime  (44) 
3)  Seagoing  inspectors  from  Affaires  Maritimes  (12). 

Italy 

Potentially  there  are  1 200  persons  engaged  in  some  form  of  fisheries  inspection  work. 
The  real  figure  is probably  much  smaller. 

p:\c31\rapports\ctrl\annexe2\en 

1^  M 

Sharing  of  responsibilities  for  fisheries  inspection  in  the  Member  States 

Table 2 

Member  State 

Total  number  of 

Regional 

Specialized  service 

competent 

authorities 

authorities 

competent  up  to 

first  sale 

Belgium 

Denmark 

Germany 

Greece 

Spain 

France 

Ireland 

Italy 

Netherlands 

Portugal 

United  Kingdom 

5 

-> 

7 

3 

2+autonomous 

5 

6 

6 

7 

6 

no 

no 

yes 

no 

yes 

no 

no 

no 

no 

no 

yes 

yes 

yes 

yes 

no 

yes 

no 

yes 

no 

yes 

no 

yes 

p:\c3l\rapports\ctrl\annexe2\en 

A ns 

Table 3 

Inspections  carried  out  annually  by  Member  States 

Country 

Onshore 

Offshore 

Fleet  size 

Fleet  size 

inspections 

inspections 

('000  kW) 

('000  GT) 

Belgium 

Denmark 

Germany 

Spain 

France 

Ireland 

Holland 

Portugal 

United 

Kingdom 

208 

4573  (+5174) 

10539 

No  Info 

10500 

26342 

12434 

(+64044) 

68 

616 

4488 

8728 

884 

8330 

• 

69 

416 

166 

1823 

1011 

191 

509 

426 

4509 

1137 

Source:  Member  States'  reports  and  Eurostat 

24 

97 

78 

579 

183 

52 

170 

140 

203 

Fleet  size 

(approx. 

number) 

170 

4300 

1600 

20100 

6800 

1400 

1000 

12900 

10300 

p :\c3 l\rapports\ctrl\annexe2\en 

TU 

RESULTS  OF  INSPECTIONS  OF  FISHING  ACTIVITIES  CARRIED  OUT  BY  THE  AUTHORITIES  OF THE  MEMBER  STATES  IN  1994 

TABLE  3a 

Belgium 

Denmark 

-J 

Germany 

Greece 

(T) 

(A) 

(S) 

(R) 

(T) 

(A) 

(S) 

(R) 

(T) 

(A) 

(S) 

(R) 

Total  of 

B 

D 

DK 

E 

FIN 

F 

IRL 

NL 

P 

UK 

S 

Others 

Country  in  which  vessels  are  registered 

1 

73 

2 

60 

2 

70 

58 

4 

4 

8 

8 

Country  in  which  vessels  are  registered 

Total  of 

B 

D 

DK 

E 

FIN 

F 

IRL 

NL 

P 

UK 

S 

Others 

466 

65 

70 

331 

1 

1 

1 

1 

457 

64 

69 

324 

2 

1 

1 

2 

2 

1 

1 

2 

2 

Total  of 

B 

D 

DK 

E 

FIN 

F 

IRL 

NL 

P 

UK 

S 

Others 

Country  in  which  vessels  are  registered 

2 

1 

•  1 

366 

232 

235 

57 

337 

218 

220 

57 

111 

7 

4 

15 

6 

9 

1 

1 

T  =  TOTAL 

A  =  OFFICIAL  WRITTEN  WARNINGS 

S  -  ADMINISTRATIVE  PENALTIES 

R  -  INFRINGEMENTS  BROUGHT  TO  COURT 

p\c3l\rapporls\ctrl\anncxc2\cn 

Spain 

Country  in  which  vessels  are  registered 

Total  of 

B 

D 

DK 

E 

FIN 

F 

IRL 

NL 

P 

UK 

S 

Others 

11.812 

not  available 

not  available 

not  available 

11.762 

5 

3 

2 

27 

5 

8 

Total  of 

B 

D 

DK 

E 

FIN 

F 

IRL 

NL 

P 

UK 

S 

Others 

Country  in  which  vessels  are  registered 

2.021 

6 

352 

135 

1.113 

3 

169 

33 

1.832 

352 

135 

1.077 

Country  in  which  vessels  are  registered 

14 

Total  of 

B 

D 

DK 

E 

FIN 

F 

IRL 

NL 

P 

UK 

S 

Others 

1 

1 

342 

234 

2 

67 

1 

1 

2 

.1 

41 

12 

1 

29 

15 

15 

220 

167 

2 

12 

62 

38 

24 

(T) 

(A) 

(S) 

(R) 

(T) 

(A) 

(S) 

(R) 

(T) 

(A) 

(S) 

(R) 

France 

Data not 

completed 

Ireland 

Italy 

Luxembourg 

T  =  TOTAL 

p:\c3l\rapports\ctrl\annexc2\en 

A  =  OFFICIAL  WRITTEN  WARNINGS 

S  =  ADMINISTRATIVE  PENALTIES 

R  =  INFRINGEMENTS  BROUGHT  TO  COURT 

Netherlands 

Country  in  which  vessels  are  registered 

Total  of 

B 

D 

DK 

E 

FIN 

F 

IRL 

NL 

P 

UK 

S 

Others 

(T) 

(A) 

(S) 

(R) 

379 

114 

24 

12 

10 

4 

23 

-5 

265 

12 

6 

18 

2 

2 

298 

88 

210 

18 

3 

15 

4 

2 

2 

Austria 

Portugal 

Not  received 

(T) 

(A) 

(S) 

(R) 

(T) 

(A) 

(S) 

(R) 

(T) 

(A) 

(S) 

(R) 

Finland 

Not 

applicable in 

1994 

Sweden 

Not 

applicable in 

1994 

Total  of 

B 

D 

DK 

E 

FIN 

' 

F 

IRL 

NL 

P 

UK 

S 

Others 

Country  in  which  vessels  are  registered 

795 

21 

132 

642 

33 

5 

28 

762 

21 

127 

614 

Total  of 

B 

D 

DK 

E 

FIN 

F 

IRL 

NL 

P 

UK 

S 

Others 

Country  in  which  vessels are  registered 

Total  of 

D 

DK 

E 

FIN 

F 

IRL 

NL 

P 

UK 

S 

Others 

Country  in  which  vessels  are  registered 

, 

T  =  TOTAL 

A  =  OFFICIAL  WRITTEN  WARNINGS 

S  =  ADMINISTRATIVE  PENALTIES 

R  =  INFRINGEMENTS  BROUGHT  TO  COURT 

p:\c3l\rapports\ctrl\annexc2\cn 

United 

Kingdom 

EC 

(T) 

(A) 

(S) 

(R) 

(T) 

(A) 

(S) 

(R) 

Country  in  which  vessels  are  registered 

Total  of 

D 

DK 

E 

FIN 

F 

IRL 

NL 

P 

UK 

S 

Others 

1.140 

968 

25 

17 

162 

8 

1 

1 

18 

12 

14 

4 

6 

10 

41 

36 

5 

6 

5 

1 

10 

8 

1.017 

880 

2 

127 

8 

6 

2 

Country  in  which  vessels  are  registered 

Total  of 

17.394 

1.988 

B 

119 

33 

574 

•  1 

2.707 

82 

D 

DK 

E 

FIN 

F 

IRL 

NL 

P 

350 

222 

221 

65 

512 

12.019 

89 

73 

349 

16 

5 

100 

2 

1 

1.899 

403 

135 

1 

1.088 

237 

172 

2 

21 

327 

102 

9 

214 

789 

21 

127 

614 

UK 

1.104 

921 

1 

167 

S 

Others 

36 

8 

6 

6 

T  =  TOTAL 

A  =  OFFICIAL  WRITTEN  WARNINGS 

S  =  ADMINISTRATIVE  PENALTIES 

R  =  INFRINGEMENTS  BROUGHT  TO  COURT 

p:\c3l\rapports\ctrl\annexe2\en 

Table 4 

Completion  of  basic  administrative  documents 

Country 

Percentage  of 

Percentage  of 

Percentage  of 

Comments 

logbooks 

landing  decls. 

sales  notes 

returned 

returned 

returned 

Belgium 

-95% 

As for  sales  notes 

-95% 

Denmark 

As  for  sales  notes 

95%  within  48 

Intensive  follow-

hours  for  TAC 

up  of  missing 

Germany 

>95% 

>95% 

species 

>95% 

Spain 

France 

logbook  data 

No  information  in 

the  report 

No  information  in 

the  report 

Ireland 

Almost  100% 

Almost  100% 

As  for  landing 

The  sale  of  certain 

decl. 

species  is 

inspected  100% 

Netherlands 

100% 

100% 

100% 

Portugal 

Approx.  80% (by 

As  for  landing 

Emphasis  put  on 

Docapesca) 

decl. 

NAFO  and 

Morocco  fisheries, 

and  in-shore 

shellfish  trawl 

fleet 

United 

Kingdom 

>99%  for  TAC 

As  for  landing 

species 

decl. 

Source  : Member  States'  reports 

p:\c31\rapports\ctrl\annexe2\en 

'Ul 

Estimated  catches  of  vessels  not  required  to  keep  logbooks  or  return  landing  declarations 

Table  5 

Belgium 

Belgium  has  no  vessels  under  10 m and  landings  outside  auctions  are 

very  small  (16  coastal  vessels  in  Ostende). 

Denmark 

Fishing  vessels  without  a  logbook  are  licensed  for  a  specific  area  and 

their  catch  is recorded  using  sales  notes.  There  is no  mention  of  catches 

outside  auctions  in the  report. 

Germany 

Catches  taken  by  vessels  under  10 m  are  recorded  by  the  Federal 

Fisheries  inspectors.  Vessels  have  to  report  their  total  catches  for  each 

species  and  area  monthly. 

Spain 

France 

Ireland 

Catches  taken  by  1 218  vessels  under  10 m  at  13 ports  are  sampled 

No  information  in  the  report. 

The  quantities  caught  by  vessels  under  10 m  are not  registered.  The 

report  says that  there  is access to  dealers'  records  but  it  does  not  say 

how  (and  if)  the  information  is used. 

Netherlands 

There  is no  professional  fishery  with  vessels  under  10 m.  Sporting 

vessels  are  not  authorized  to  fish  for  TAC  species. 

Portugal 

There  is no  specific  mention  of  non-logbook  vessels  in  the  report.  It 

merely  says that  all  landings  should  be  reported  at  auctions. 

United 

Kingdom 

No  information  in the  report. 

Source  : Member  States'  reports 

p:\c31\rapports\ctrl\annexe2\en 

^z  z. 

Table  6 

Validation  of  catch  data  in the  Member  States 

Belgium 

Cross-checks  are  made  between  logbook  data  and  landing  declaration/sales 

note  for  approx.  75% of  all  landings.  The  position  information  in  the 

logbook  is,  furthermore,  verified  against  aerial  position  information  received 

from  Netherlands,  UK  and  Belgium. 

Denmark 

The  system  matches  logbook  information  with  landing  declarations.  Missing 

information  is  automatically  identified  in  this  process  and  a  follow-up 

procedure  is  started. 

Germany 

Cross-checks  between  logbooks,  landing  declarations,  and  sales  notes  are 

made  for  approx.  95% of  all  landings  by  vessels  more  than  10 m  long. 

Spain 

France 

Ireland 

There  is  no  information  in the  report. 

There  is no  information  in the  report. 

It  is  difficult  to  say  from  the  report  if  there  is any  detection  of  missing  data. 

Some  cross-checking  is done  but  not  systematically. 

Netherlands 

100%  cross-checking  of  logbook,  landing  declaration  and  sales  note  data. 

Portugal 

There  are  no  cross-checks  in  general  but  for  specific  fisheries  such  as 

NAFO  and  Morocco  all  documents  are  cross-checked,  and  for  the  in-shore 

shellfish  trawl  fleet  approx.  60% are  cross-checked. 

UK 

The  report  does  not  state  explicitly  whether  missing  data  are  detected  or  if 

there  is  cross-validation  of  data. 

Source  : Member  States'  reports 

p:\c3I\rapports\ctrI\annexe2\en 

12 

Overall  increases  in  discard  and  wrongful  catch  rates  according  to  Biais  (1995) 

Table  7 

Pelagic 

Discard  rate 

Rate  of  declaration  of wrongful  catches 

Demersal North  Sea (related  sectors)1 

Discard  rate 

Rate  of  declaration  of  wrongful  catches 

Demersal  North  Atlantic2 

Discard  rate 

Rate  of  declaration  of  wrongful  catches 

Demersal  South  Atlantic3 

Discard  rate 

Rate  of  declaration  of  wrongful  catches 

1984 

1988 

1994 

0,6% 

7,6% 

12,0% 

8,0% 

13,0% 

3,0% 

1,5% 

7,5% 

1,2% 

21,0% 

11,0% 

20,5% 

7.0% 

5,4% 

2,0% 

6,0% 

2.2% 

17,0%o 

13,0% 

11,5% 

.0,0% 

11,0% 

3,0% 

0,5% 

1 
2 
3 

ICES  I,  II,  III,  IV,  Vlld 
ICES  VI  and  Vila 
ICES  VII  excluding  Vila  and  Vlld,  VIII,  IX 

p:\c3I\rapports\ctrl\annexe2\en 

«u V 

A N N EX 

I II 

- 

SATELLITE MONITORING 

p:\c31\rapports\ctrl\annexe3\en 

41$ 

In  June  1993,  the  Fisheries  Council  has  adopted  the  new  fisheries  control  regime,  later 

enacted  as  Council  Regulation  2847/93.  New  technologies  were  introduced  as  a  tool  for 

improved  fisheries  control.  Art.  3  of  Regulation  2847/93  provides  for  the  carrying  out  by 

Member  States  of  pilot  projects  on  continuous  position  monitoring.  The  implementation 

rules  for  the  pilot  projects  are  laid  down  in  Commission  Regulation  897/94  of  22  April 

1994.  The  operational  phase  of  the  pilot  projects  covers  the  period  from  October  1994  to 

December  1995.  The  Commission  should  soon  afterwards  submit  a  proposal  for  a  Council 

Regulation  on  satellite  monitoring,  on  the  basis  of  the  experience  gained,  in  order  to  allow 

the  Council  to  take  a decision  in  the  matter. 

The  pilot  projects  are  fully  or  partly  operational  in  nine  Member  states  (BELGIUM, 

DENMARK,  GERMANY,  GREECE, 

SPAIN, 

FRANCE, 

IRELAND, 

the 

NETHERLANDS  and  the  UNITED  KINGDOM).  More  than  200  fishing  vessels  have  been 

equipped  with  a  "blue  box"  (not  taking  into  account  the  situation  in  Portugal  where 

MONICAP  is  operational  with  92  trawlers).  Three  different  satellite  systems  are  being 

tested:  CLS-ARGOS,  EUTELTRACS  and  GPS/INMARSAT.  More  than  ten  months  after 

the  starting  date,  the  project  of  one  Member  state  (ITALY)  is  still  not  operational. 

Following  the  enlargement  of  the  Community,  DENMARK,  FINLAND  and  SWEDEN 

carry  out  a joint  pilot  project. 

During  the  trials,  the  Flag  state  has  to  inform  the  Coastal  state  at  regular  intervals  of  the 

position  of  the  vessels  participating  in  its  pilot  project.  The  basic  underlying  principle  is 

the  transmission  of  the  position  from  the  fishing  vessel  through  the flag  state  to  the  coastal 

state.  Member  states  so  far  failed  to  exchange  position  reports  among  themselves  on  a 

regular  basis,  although  there  is  a  growing  support  for  the  use  of  a  data  exchange  format 

proposed  by  Denmark  as  well  as  for  the  use  of  X.25  as  data  exchange  protocol.  The  data 

exchange  is  a very  important  part  of  the  pilot  projects.  A  failure  to  exchange  data  between 

flag  states  and  coastal  states  in  a  satisfactory  way  would  undermine  the  credibility  of  the 

decentralised  system  architecture  preferred  by most  Member  states. 

p:\c3l\rapports\ctrl\annexe3\en 

Al  G 

As  from  1996,  FIDES,  the  Fisheries  Data  Exchange  System  designed  for  electronic  data 

exchange  between  the  Member  states  and  the  Commission,  might  provide  a  more  general 

solution  for  data  communication  problems.  During  1995,  validation  projects  in  several 

areas  (catch  reporting,  licences,  fleet  register  and  electronic  mail)  will  attempt  to  proof  the 

feasibility  of  the  FIDES  concept. 

From  the  continuous  monitoring  of  a  fishing  vessel's  position,  speed  and  course,  certain 

conclusions  can  be  drawn  on  the  location  and  duration  of  its  fishing  activities.  An 

obligation  to  report  catches  on  board  on  entry  and  exit  of  the  fishing  zone,  as  well  in 

certain  intervals  when  being  in  that  zone,  would  complete  the  information  gained  from 

such  system. 

Fishing  activities 

in  prohibited  or 

temporarily  closed  areas  would 

immediately  become  apparent.  Inspection  vessels  could  operate  in  a  much  more  focussed 

way.  "Black"  landings  at  night  or  in  remote  ports  without  inspection  presence  would  be 

more  easily  detected. 

p:\c3l\rapports\ctrl\annexe3\en 

^ 3. 

ISSN  0254-1475 

COM(96)  100 final 

DOCUMENTS 

EN 

03 

Catalogue number  :  CB-CO-96-108-EN-C 

ISBN 92-78-01391-9 

Office for Official  Publications of the European Communities 

L-2985 Luxembourg