Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament - Fisheries monitoring under the Common Fisheries Policy
Date: 1998-02-19
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: common fisheries policy, fishery management, fishing controls, fishing regulations, technological change

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels,  19.02.1998 
COM(1998) 92  final 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION 

TO THE COUNCIL AND 

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 

FISHERIES MONITORING 

UNDER THE 

COMMON FISHERIES POLICY 

FISHERIES MONITORING UNDER THE C.F.P. 

Introduction 

The common  fisheries  policy has been marked  in the past five years by major  changes  in the field  of 
fisheries  monitoring, the  first  stage  of which  was the  adoption  of the  1993  fisheries  monitoring  and 
control regulation,  in force  since January  1994. In spite of the progress achieved the situation  has not 
always  been  fully  satisfactory,  as  evidenced  by  the  various  reports  drawn  up  by  the  Commission. 
While significant  additional  progress  is expected  following  the implementation  of recent monitoring-
related decisions, this alone will not be sufficient,  and additional measures are therefore  needed. 

Making use of a perspective that is not available when drafting  an annual report,1 this document takes 
stock of the overall situation and analyses the potential  for progress. Part One consists of an overview 
of  what  has  been  achieved  since  1993, Part  Two  contains  an  analysis  of the  major  gaps  that  remain 
and  possible  ways  of  remedying  them,  while  the  third  and  final  part  lists  the  fields  in  which  closer 
scrutiny or additional measures are required. 

I. 

PROGRESS SINCE  1992 

In  1992  the  Commission  highlighted  major  weaknesses  in  the  field  of  fisheries  monitoring.^  The 
legislation  concerned  has  since  undergone  major  changes,  from  the  adoption  in  1993  of  a  new 
fisheries  monitoring  and  control  regulation,  wider  ranging  and  more  precise  than  its predecessor,  to 

the  Council's  adoption  in  December  1996  of  a  major  plan  for  extending  satellite  monitoring.^ 
Substantial  budget resources  have been  deployed  both  nationally  and  by the Community  as a whole. 
Increasing  use  is  being  made  of  modern  technology  (information  technology  and  satellites).  In 
addition to instruments for the management of catches, a number of schemes have been  introduced  to 
regulate  fishing  effort.  While  success  has  been  patchy,  owing  mainly  to  slowness  in  reporting  in 
certain  Member  States, what  has  been  achieved  is nothing  short  of remarkable.  In the  case  of  Spain 
and  Portugal  the arrangements  concerned  have replaced  a much more rigid  scheme that  was  in  force 
before  those  two  Member  States  were  fully  integrated  the  CFP - without  adversely  affecting  the 
previous equilibrium.  This shows that flexibility and effectiveness  can  go hand  in hand,  in  particular 
when modern technology  is used. 

1  The annual reports do, however, contain detailed  information,  in particular  some figures  not given here -

COM (96) 100 final of 18 March 1996 and COM(97) 226 final of 13 June 1997. 

2 

SEC(92) 394 final of 6 March 1992 

3  Regulation  (EC)  No  686/97  amending  Regulation  (EEC)  No  2847/93  establishing  a  control  system 

applicable to the common fisheries policy (OJ No L 102, 19.4.1997) 

mmmmÊBÊgmmÊMBm 

1 

In the world  generally,  major  changes  in mentality  and  in the  legal  environment  have taken  place  in 
recent  years  in  the  wake  of  the  1992 Rio  Conference.  The  instruments  adopted  (the  19941 FAO 
Agreement  on  compliance  with  management  measures,  the  1995 Code  of  Conduct  for  Responsible 
Fisheries  and  the  19952UN  Agreement  on  Straddling  Stocks)  mirror  those  changes,  with  strict 
adherence  to a policy  of  pursuing  purely  national  interests  being  gradually  replaced  by  an  approach 
based  on  international  cooperation.  The  regional  fisheries  organisation  in  which  those  decisive 
developments  were  first  witnessed  was  NAFO  (Northwest  Atlantic  Fisheries  Organisation),  where 
new  rules have been  adopted  and vital  experiments  have  been  conducted  since  1995. Fisheries  there 
are  now  subject  to  some  of  the  tightest  and  most  effective  controls.  Another  framework  is  being 
introduced  under  the  North-East  Atlantic  Fisheries  Convention  (NEAFC).  Under  agreements  with 
non-Community  countries protocols are being implemented  and experiments  are being carried  out in 
cooperation  with  the  countries  concerned.  Generally  speaking,  the  European  Union  is  acting  as  a 
driving  force  in introducing  fisheries  control  arrangements  and, therefore,  in putting the  principle  of 
responsible  fishing  into  practice,  and  its  experience  in  the  field  of  satellite  monitoring  is  widely 
recognised. 

At  national  level,  progress  is  not  limited  to  simply  buying  more  equipment.  There  has  been  a 
considerable  increase  in  monitoring  staff  in  several  Member  States,  and  reorganisation  has  brought 
about sizeable gains in terms of  effectiveness. 

Cooperation  between  national  administrations  has also grown. Existing bilateral cooperation  schemes 
are  now  being  supplemented  by  measures  aimed  at  coordinating  the  work  of  the  Member  States 
concerned  and  the  Commission  in  respect  of  certain  fisheries.  Closer  links  have  thus  been  forged 
between  the  Commission  and  national  administrations  in  a  positive  spirit  of  collaboration.  Progress 
has been particularly effective  in the case of sensitive  fisheries,  with a concentration  of efforts  on the 
part both of national administrations and the Commission, viz. NAFO: driftnet  fishing,  in particular in 
the  Atlantic  and  herring  fishing  in  the North  Sea  since  the  introduction  of  special  arrangements  in 
1996. 

A series of working  papers and meetings with national  administrations  have made  it possible to take 
stock  of the  situation,  both  as regards general  matters  (satellites  and  non-Community  countries)  and 
more specific aspects (driftnets, North Sea herring, etc.). 

All  this progress  is symptomatic  of a widespread  realisation  that strict enforcement  is essential  to an 
effective  common  fisheries  policy and, therefore,  to the  survival  of the  industry.  Increasing  numbers 
of  people  within  the  European  fishing  industry  subscribe  to  that  principle,  one  which  demands 
fairness and, by the same token, transparency, in particular between Member States. 

1  Council  Decision  of  25  June  1996  on  acceptance  by  the  Community  of  the  Agreement  to  promote 
compliance with international conservation and management measures by fishing vessels on the high seas; 
O.J. N° L 177, 16.07.1996, p. 24 

2  COM(96) 472 of 4 October 1996 

C£323 

I I. 

M A J OR  S H O R T C O M I N GS  T H AT  A RE  S T I LL  A P P A R E NT 

1. 

Monitoring of fishing fleets 

Overcapacity,  i.e. maintaining  the means to take  catches  in excess  of what would  be needed to  exert 
the pressure on stocks that is recommended  by experts, or even  in excess of what would be needed  to 
take the quotas decided  upon by the Council,  is often  at the root  of the problems  relating to  fisheries 
monitoring.  The  practice  of  sustaining  high  catch  rates  also  means  that,  as  large  fish  have  now 
become  scarce,  undersized  fish  may  well  account  for  an  appreciable  share  of  the  stocks  available, 
making  it  difficult  to  monitoring  the  implementation  of  technical  measures  designed  to  protect 
juveniles. 

It  is therefore  essential  to  introduce effective  rules governing  fishing  capacity  and  fishing  effort.  The 
experience  gained  in  this  field  does  not  go  back  very  far  in  time,  however.  It  was  only  when  the 
register  of  fishing  vessels  and  the  third  multiannual  guidance  programmes  (MAGPIII)  were 
introduced  that the question  of the validity  of the  data  arose, and  it was  not  until the  adoption  of  the 
new  fisheries  monitoring  and  control  regulation  in  1993 that  these  aspects  came  within  the  remit  of 
the Commission's fisheries  inspectorate. 

Difficulties  have emerged, however, concerning fleet  segmentation  and the measurement of tonnages, 
engine power and fishing time. 

Following the adoption of the new generation  of MAGPs (covering the period  1997 to 2001) towards 
the  end  of  1997,  close  attention  will  be  paid  to  monitoring  the  implementation  of  MAGP IV,  in 
particular verification  of the segmentation  of fleets  and the parameters  relating to the limitation  of the 
fishing  effort. 

The practice of underdeclaring engine power should come under scrutiny. There  is above all a general 
problem  as  regards  standardising  the  way  in which  engine  power  is measured,  in  some  cases  within 
the  same Member  State. Moreover,  no Member  State  appears  to have  a procedure  for  systematically 
cross-checking declared engine power against other data such as fuel  consumption. 

With  regard  to the  monitoring  of  fishing  activity,  attention  has already  been  drawn  to the  successful 
introduction  of the fishing  effort  management  scheme  in the  Atlantic. Apart  from  slowness  the  main 
problem concerns the validation of the reference  levels notified  by Member States in respect of (a) the 
management  of  the  fishing  effort  in  the  Atlantic  and (b) MAGP IV.  Here  too,  the  outlook  for 
enforcement  is  good  if  logbooks  are  available,  especially  in  the  Member  States  that  have  put  into 
effect  the  rules  on  setting  up  computerised  databases,  but  there  are  still  some  delays  of  a  technical 
nature. 

2. 

Controls at sea 

Major  differences  still  exist  between  Member  States  as  regards  the  means  deployed  for  carrying  out 
controls  at  sea. The  material  resources  available,  whether  seaborne  or  airborne,  tend  to vary. This  is 
attributable  in particular to objective  characteristics  such as the size of the EEZ (Exclusive  Economic 
Zone) concerned and, within the EEZ, the size of the continental shelf, where fishing  activities tend to 
be  concentrated.  A realistic  comparison  between  the  means  deployed  is made  difficult,  however,  by 
the  fact  that  the  competent  departments  of the  various  Member  States  have to  perform  a number  of 
tasks falling  outside the field of fisheries monitoring  and that there  is no commonly  agreed  definition 
of what constitutes a basic inspection. 

At sea, checks on catches are based on logbooks and, in some cases, on notifications  of the quantities 
held  on  board.  The  special  problems  posed  by  non-Community  vessels  operating  in  Community 

waters are dealt with  in a separate Commission paper. 1 Cross-checking  with  landings  is, in this case, 
particularly  difficult  if  not  to  say  impossible.  The  answer  lies  in:  closer  cooperation  with  the 
authorities of the non-Community countries concerned; the use of satellites to monitor the location of 
vessels  and,  therefore,  to  increase  the  effectiveness  of  inspection  vessels;  and,  on  the  high  seas,  in 
setting  up  checkpoints  where  quantities  held  on  board  can  be  verified  before  the  vessel  leaves 
Community waters. 

With regard to the volume of catches the role played  by logbooks  is also limited  by the small  number 
of  species  covered  and  by  geographical  exemptions  (e.g.  the  Mediterranean)  or  the  size  of  fishing 
vessels  (e.g.  small  boats).  On  the  first  point  the  revision - expected  in  1998-of  the  Commission 
Regulation  on  logbooks  will  pave  the  way  for  an  adjustment.  In  the  case  of  the  Mediterranean  the 
exemption  will  end  in  1998,  with  the  result  that  there  is  now  an  urgent  need  to  prepare  for  the 
introduction  of  logbooks  in  that  area.  The  derogation  for  vessels  less  than  ten  metres  long  is,  in 
principle  at  least,  fully justified.  The counterpart  to this  derogation  is, under the  present  Regulation, 
the setting-up  in each  Member  State of alternative  arrangements  for  assessing catches. In the absence 
of  such  arrangements,  non-exempt  fishermen  would  be  justified  in  fearing  discrimination  since, 
owing  to  its  size  and  in  some  cases  its  impact  on  breeding  grounds,  the  small-boat  population  can 
have a major  effect  on  stocks. The actual  introduction  of  catch-assessment arrangements  for  exempt 
vessels by all the Member  States concerned  should therefore  be regarded as a matter of priority. This 
also applies to other exemptions. 

In the  case of checks  carried  out at sea  it is important  not only that  inspectors  be given  access to all 
the  quantities  on  board  but  also  that  they  do  not  needlessly  disrupt  the  work  of  the  fishermen. 
Drawing  inspiration  from  what  has  been  done  in  the  context  of  the  NAFO  and,  more  recently, 
NEAFC, codes of good conduct could be drawn up with the help of the various parties concerned. 

Technical  measures, too, are directly concerned  by checks carried  out  at sea. The biggest  problem  is 
the  unwarranted  or  unauthorised  use  of  small  mesh-sizes.  Since  the  straightforward  "single-net" 
solution  has not been adopted, despite the guarantees  it provides  in terms of fisheries  monitoring, care 
must be taken to ensure that the conditions under which  several  mesh  sizes  ma}' be used on the same 
trip are complied with. A decision by the Council on this point is expected  in 1998. 

In the case of Community vessels there are also problems with regard to movements between  EEZs. It 
is not easy to ensure continuous checks. Checkpoints  for vessels  leaving an EEZ would, however, run 
counter  to  the  Community  spirit.  The  provisions  adopted  recently,  and  closer  cooperation  between 
national  administrations - which  could  perhaps  be  fostered  by  the  Commission - are  expected  to 
provide some answers. Movement from  one EEZ to another essentially  involves vessels large enough 
to be covered by satellite motiitoring, thus greatly facilitating  the work of inspection vessels. Services 
operating  at  sea  must  adapt  their  strategies  in  order  to  exploit  the  potential  of  satellite  monitoring. 
Moreover,  in the Atlantic vessels will be required  to notify  the quantities they  are carrying on board 
whenever they move from  one sector to another. Priority will thus be given to making full  use of the 
provisions  adopted  recently  and, thereafter,  to  learning  from  the experience  gained  in the Atlantic  in 
particular. 

1  CC:*•:•'•-:•;' 

'" 

' .  •  i?.0;.-.:>berl996 

Transshipment  can also be used  in an attempt to evade subsequent  checks on catches. In  international 
forums  (Baltic  Commission,  ICCAT/CICTA  and  IATTC)  there  has  been  a  move  towards  stricter 
provisions - in some cases leading to a total ban - in the case of fraudulent  transshipment. Where there 
is a serious  risk  of  fraud  the  only  solution  consists  in  allowing  transshipment  only  if checks  can  be 
conducted  sufficiently  frequently  and  at  a  reasonable  cost.  Moreover,  the  possibility  of  covert 
transshipment could be limited by combining the checks concerned with position checks by satellite. 

3. 

Controls on landings 

Controls on  landings are analysed  in detail  in the recent communication  on the future  for the markets 

in fisheries  products  in the  Union:  responsibility,  partnership  and  competitiveness J  For this  reason, 
only comments not already  included  in that communication  are set out below. 

-  Basic documents, use of information technology, validation 

Here again, the resources deployed  by the Member  States tend to vary without the Commission  being 
in  a  position  to  make  meaningful  comparisons,  given  the  range  of  tasks  assigned  to  fisheries 
inspectors in many Member States and the absence of a commonly agreed definition  of what is meant 
by  a  basic  inspection.  International  developments,  such  as  ICCAT's  1997 minimum  standards  for 
inspections  in port, could well provide a useful  basis in this respect. 

In  terms  of  actual  difficulties  the  reason  why  inspectors  are  assigned  a range  of tasks  can,  as  in  the 
case of  logbooks, be traced  back  to  shortcomings  in  certain  Member  States with regard  to the  basic 
requirements  governing  the  collection  of  landing  declarations  and/or  sales  notes.  Procedures  for 
validating  and cross-checking the various sources of  information  are patchy, and much remains to be 
done if the verification  opportunities  afforded  by computerised  records - compulsory  since  1996 - are 
to be fully  exploited. 

-  Checks on vessels flying a flag other than that of the country in which the catch is landed 

There are situations  in which, at certain Community  ports, vessels from  non-Community  countries are 
checked  less rigorously than are Community vessels. This  is also true, and on an even  larger scale, of 
vessels flying the flag of a Member State other than the one  in which the catch  is being landed. There 
is a strong feeling  among some fishermen  that by  landing their  catch  in another  Member  State  some 
vessels can in effect  escape adequate rigorous control. While this feeling  is not always fully  justified, 
the  problem  does  exist  and  is  indeed  a  serious  one.  It  is  important  to  find  a  solution,  since  this 
problem  is at the heart of fishermen's  concerns about the fairness of controls. 

1  COM(97) 719 final of 16 December 1997, pp. 15 and 16 

5 

The Commission  takes the view that the Member States are legally in a position  to impose a fair  level 
of  checks  on  non-Community  vessels,  if need  be  by  adopting  the  necessary  national  provisions.  To 
this  it might  be retorted, however, that  in the absence of Community  provisions  there  is a risk  that a 
Member State which has adopted the strictest rules might see landings move to a Member State where 
checks are not as strict. Under current Community rules checks carried out by Member States on non-
Community  vessels  landing at their ports are  likely to prove effective  only  if the vessels have  fished 
in Community waters. No action can at present be taken if the catch has been taken  in third-country or 
international  waters.  Here too, the  situation  is evolving  rapidly,  in  particular  at the  level  of  regional 
fisheries  organisations,  among  them  NAFO.  Community  provisions  should  be  aimed  at  making 
checks  more  effective  - in particular  with  regard  to  vessels  flying  flags  of convenience - and,  by  the 

same  token,  fairer.  The  foundations  have  already  been  laid J  The  time  has  come  to  complete  the 
building work. 

The  answer  lies  first  of  all  in  clear-cut  standards  that  allow  comparisons  to  be  made  between  the 
intensity  of  landing  checks  in  the  various  Member  States  and,  within  each  Member  State,  between 
classes of  vessels. The Commission  should  be  specifically  informed  of the procedures  and  levels of 
inspection  for  the  various  fleets  flying  the  flag  of  one  Member  State  and  landing  their  catches  in 
another  Member  State.  This  should  be  followed  by  effective  cooperation  between  Member  States 
whereby the authorities of a Member State can acquire the certainty that vessels flying the flag of that 
Member  State and choosing to land their catch  in another Member State will be checked  fairly.  More 
specifically,  when  informed  that  a vessel  intends  to  complete  its trip  in  another  Member  State,  the 
authorities  of  the  flag  state  must  be  confident  that  they  can  rely  on  the  cooperation  of  inspection 
services  in the  second  Member  State. Obliging the  latter to act on  every  request  would  be going too 
far, but there must be a guarantee that the checks are, on the whole, carried out with the diligence that 
is called  for.  Several  types of arrangements - underpinned  by varying amounts of  legislation - can  be 
adopted  in  this  connection.  A  fair  and  effective  regime  needs  to  be  introduced  as  soon  as  possible, 
however,  something  which  at all  events  presupposes  that the administrations  of the various  Member 
States will  actively  cooperate  with  each  other, just  as they  have  already  begun  to do  in a number  of 
cases, the Commission  being a witness to the satisfactory  performance  of those arrangements. 

-  Multiplicity of possible  landing points 

The  large  number  of  potential  landing  points  means  that  having  inspectors  continuously  present  at 
each  one  is  out  of  the  question.  As  a  result,  some  Member  States  now  specify  which  fish  auction 
markets  are  to  be  used,  or  require  that  certain  types  of  catch  be  landed  at  designated  ports,  where 
systematic  checks  can  be  carried  out.  Here  too,  satellite  monitoring  can  be  of  immense  help  to 
inspectors,  in particular where the system  can be used to make contact with a beacon and establish  in 
real  time  (almost)  the  position  of a vessel  as  it  nears the  coast.  Inspection  departments  can  then,  at 
reasonable  cost, ensure a sufficiently  high probability  of an  inspection  when the catch  is landed  and, 
thereby,  make  fisheries  control  much  more  credible.  More  generally,  as soon  as a  species  is at  risk 
and  checks  on  landings  begin  to  pose  a problem,  special  procedures  must  be activated  including,  if 
need be, drawing up lists of designated ports. 

1  Council Regulation  (EC) No  1093/94 of  6 May  1994 setting the terms under which fishing  vessels of a 

third country may land directly and market their catch at Community ports 

6 

-  Separate marketing channels 

The  provisions  of  the  present  fisheries  monitoring  and  control  regulation  are  fully  relevant  to 
traditional  marketing channels, in which catches are entered  in a logbook and actually sold after  being 
landed. Cross-checking, using sources of information  that, to some extent at least, are  independent  of 
each other is in such cases feasible. Computerised fish auctions assist this process and fortunately,  for 
some years now, their share of the total catch has been on the increase. 

Other than  in that particular  situation the provisions  lose some of their effectiveness,  as in the case of 
exempt  vessels.  In  this  respect  and  as  pointed  out  earlier,  it  is  imperative  that  Member  States 
introduce compensatory provisions as required under the various  instruments. 

Problems  arise  in at  least two other cases, however,  without  the existing  rules being fully  adapted  to 
cope with them: where the catch  is landed and transported  prior to sale; and where the catch  is not the 
subject  of  a genuine  sale  after  being  landed,  the  fishing  vessel  being  part  of  a vertically  integrated 
firm. 

In  the  first  of  these  two  cases  an  appropriate  plan  of  action  should  be  defined,  as  was  done  for  the 
checks  on  minimum  fish  sizes. It would  combine  possible  adjustments  of the texts and  a  monitoring 
strategy  after  landing,  in  particular  when  transportation  is  involved.  Since  this  is  largely  an 
international  problem  there  should  be  a guarantee,  as  in  the  case  of  vessels  landing their  catch  in  a 
country  other  than  the  one  whose  flag  they  fly,  that  they  will  be  effective  cooperation  between  the 
administrations  concerned. 

In  the  case  of  integrated  firms  an  analysis  of  the  various  situations  would  point  to  ways  of 
guaranteeing  that,  in  terms  of  reliability,  the  figures  declared  compare  with  those  relating  to 
traditional marketing channels. 

-  Community vessels landing their catches outside the Community 

Here  also,  problems  of  fairness  and  a risk  of distortion  of  competition  arise. In the  north  Atlantic  or 
Baltic, there  is a strong  feeling  among  some  fishermen  that  by  landing their catches  in ports  outside 
the  Community,  ships  are  in  fact  circumventing  proper  controls  on  landings.  In  addition, 
administrative  cooperation  on exchanging data with  non-Community  countries  on quantities  actually 
landed  is not as organised as it is within the Community. Therefore  the international obligations of the 
port states as regards controls on landings and administrative  cooperation  between  port state and  flag 
state  must  be  clarified.  In  negotiations  with  the  non-Community  countries  concerned,  obtaining 
guarantees on this must have a high priority. 

4. 

Controls on the market in fishery and aquaculture  products 

-  General 

As the  Commission  underlined  in  its recent  communication  on the  future  for  the  market  in  fisheries 
products  in  the  European  Union,  the  rules  governing  the  market  must  help  to  safeguard  resources; 
effective  controls at all  stages of marketing  are a basic  requirement  for  achieving this objective.  The 
present situation  leaves a lot to be desired in several  respects. 

(i) 
Common  marketing  standards,  which  are  one  of  the  building  blocks  of  competition  rule 
harmonisation, are not being applied uniformly  or adequately  in all  Member States. This has meant, 
for example, that undersized fish have been classified  in higher  size  categories  despite the  fact that, 
legally, they cannot be marketed. Although marketing standards should be monitored throughout the 
chain of production, from the first sales transaction up to the time they are sold to the consumer, there 
are  no  actual  control  procedures  in  place  after  the  first  sales  transaction  and  Commission  fishery 
inspectors have no powers beyond that stage. 

(ii)  When  market  intervention  takes  place  as  the  result  of  applying  a  withdrawal  price,  the 
quantities  withdrawn  are  not  always  subjected  to  the  necessary  checks.  For  example,  it  has  been 
shown that the prescribed denaturing operations are not applied by all Member States, and even where 
denaturing  is  done,  it does  not appear to  be adequate  because  there  is  still  a risk of  these  products 
being placed on the market again. 

Regarding  imports,  the  action  plan  proposed  by  the  Commission  in  its  communication 
(iii) 
concerning  management  of  preferential  economical  regimes  aims  to  strengthen  the  legal  and 
organisational  means  appropriate  for ensuring  the  respect  of  the  original  rules by all  the  concerned 
parties. 

(iv) 
Infringements  of  the  rules  governing  imports  are  rife,  pointing  to  inadequate  controls,  in 
particular as regards the origin of fishery products. There are also difficulties  in applying health rules. 

-  Minimum sizes 

The  main  difficulties  arise  from  landings  of  undersized  fish  intended  for  specific  markets.  Priority 
should  be  given to eliminating  these  marketing channels,  which  involve  transport from  the point  of 
landing  to  the  places  of  consumption,  sometimes  over  long  distances.  This  would  also  require 
intervention in transit. The weaknesses in applying controls after landing referred to above are crucial 
here. When such fish are sold, it is all too easy to claim that those below the minimum size laid down 
for that particular species come from a region where the minimum size does not apply or from a fish 
farm, or have been imported. 

The regulations should be changed to reduce the scope for fraud. As the Commission suggested  in its 
communication  referred  to  above,  the market organisation  rules  should  include  new  restrictions  on 
fishery product  labelling,  not only to  improve consumer  information  but also to facilitate  checks on 
compliance with Community rules. Community rules requiring the trade description and origin to be 
indicated  for  each  species,  and  applicable  at all  stages  of  marketing,  would  make  it  easier  for  the 
supervisory authorities to identify the product and the minimum sizes applicable. 

Current Community regulations already give the national authorities powers which are far from being 
fully  exploited.  It would therefore  be pointless to adjust these  regulations  to provide  new  scope  for 
intervention  only  for  it to  remain  unused. Thus  progress  can  be  achieved  by  adjusting  Community 
legislation  if needed to facilitate the task of the national  authorities, but it will  also require a greater 
willingness to deploy the necessary means and coordinate the various authorities concerned, covering 
landings, transport, imports and marketing. 

mmm^s^^TZ^ 

New  forms  of administrative  cooperation  between  Member  States could  be particularly  useful  in the 
field of market management,  as is already the case  in other sectors of the internal market,  in the  form 
of  exchanges  of  national  inspectors  (as  provided  for  in  the  Community  programmes  Karolus  and 
Mattheus)  and case-by-case  involvement of inspectors from  other Member  States in national  controls 
(food  safety  or laboratory practice  inspections). 

5. 

General;  resources allocated, infringements  and  penalties 

-  Resources  allocated hv the various Member States 

At  present  it is not  possible  for  the Commission  to carry out a quantitative  and objective  comparison 
of the means and methods of monitoring used by the various Member States. 

In terms of the  human  and  material  resources  allocated,  the difficulty  stems  from  the diversity  of the 
tasks  carried  out  within  one and the  same service. First  of all, therefore,  the  resources  allocated  full-
time  must  be  analysed  separately.  For  "shared"  resources,  the  Commission  would  have  to  quantify, 
and  if  necessary  validate,  the  part  actually  committed  to  fisheries  controls  using  the  information 
forwarded  to it, along the lines followed  for financing  new monitoring resources. 

Similarly, generalising what was said previously  in connection with  inspections at sea and on landing, 
a  common  definition  of  what  inspection  is  must  be  found,  where  necessary  distinguishing  between 
different  types depending on the degree of detail. Minimum  standards could then be laid down. 

- 

Infringements  and penalties 

In the  sector's  legitimate  demand  for  equal treatment  of fishermen  in the various Member  States, the 
question  of penalties plays a central role. The Commission  has repeatedly tried to promote progress in 
this direction. It has been  supported  by the  European  Parliament,  but the Council  has not  followed  its 
recommendations. Regulation  (EEC) No 2847/93 provides only that Member  States, whilst  being  free 
to  choose  the  means,  have the  shared  duty  to  set  up a system  of deterrent  controls  and  penalties  and 
inform  the  Commission  of  the  penalty  scales  and  their  application  in  practice.  But  experience  has 
shown  that  the  information  forwarded  cannot  really  be  used  to  bring  about  the  desired  transparency. 
The  Commission  is  therefore  unable  to  guarantee  the  effectiveness  of  penalties  and  even-handed 
application  by  the  Member  States.  Even  the  lists  of  infringements  are  too  unlike  each  other  to  be 
useful.  In  addition, the  information  sent  is more often  than  not  incomplete, or  is sent  so  late as to  be 
largely useless. 

This  situation  is a  major  problem.  At the  very  least  the  information  sent  to the  Commission  should 
enable  it to  make  proper  comparisons. Major  infringements  at  least  should  be defined  and  penalised 
in  a  comparable  way  in  the  various  Member  States.  Progress  on  this  has  been  made  in  the  extra-
Community, and a priori  more difficult,  context of NAFO. 

-  Cooperation between Member States on infringements and penalties 

Even  where  sufficient  resources  are  allocated,  the  limitations  on  inspection  and  the  mobility  of 
fishing  activities  often  leave  inspectors with  more  doubts than  legally  admissible  evidence, which  is 
essential  in  order  to  penalise  illegal  activities  properly.  Some  illegal  activities  could  be  better 
prosecuted  by increasing collaboration  between the Member  States concerned.  It is up to the Member 
States  to  establish,  within  the  legal  cooperation  framework,  the  right  conditions  and  procedures  to 
make  such  collaboration  possible.  Existing  procedures  are  'often  cumbersome  and  sometimes 
inconsistent.  The effect  of procedural  incompatibility  at Community  level  is that some  infringements 
cannot  be  prosecuted,  which  seriously  compromises  the  CFP  monitoring  system.  However,  progress 
is  also  possible  at  Community  level  without  encroaching  on  the  Member  States'  powers.  Member 
States  should  proceed  with  reports  drawn  up  by  the  supervisory  authorities  of  the  other  Member 
States in the same way as the reports drawn up by their own services. Concerted action could enable a 
harmonised  format  for  inspection  reports to  be  gradually  introduced.  Here  again, the  progress  made 
within  NAFO  provides  a  useful  basis.  In  addition,  distribution  procedures  must  be  clarified  and 
speeded  up, so that documents are transmitted to the competent authorities in good time. 

-  Commission measures 

Ensuring the effectiveness  of the control systems  in the various Member States and a balance  between 
effort  undertaken  and  the  results  obtained  is  one  of  the  Commission's  main  tasks.  However,  the 
Commission  has  the  impression  that,  in  spite  of  the  progress  made,  so  far  this  task  has  not  been 
accomplished  in a wholly satisfactory  way. The fact  that the  information  it receives  is incomplete  has 
already been pointed out. The Commission's work is also hampered  by several other factors. The first 
is  the  limited  human  resources  at  its  disposal.  This  has  been  all  the  more  serious  because  the 
Commission  has  had  to  devote  a  very  large  part  of  its  resources  to  specific  problems  with 
repercussions  beyond  the  European  Union  (cf.  NAFO,  driftnets).  Therefore  the  human  resources 
effectively  available  for  other  tasks,  covering  the  main  fisheries  activities  in  the  European  Union, 
have  been  reduced. Under these circumstances, the  limits  imposed  by Regulation  (EEC) No 2847/93 
on  the  scope  for  action  by  the  Commission's  inspection  service  are  particularly  detrimental.  If  a 
Member  State does not cooperate with the Commission  to clear  up a dispute,  it will  be very  difficult 
for  it to gather the required  information  without  investing  prohibitive  levels of human  resources. The 
Commission  would  be  much  more effective  in  its task  of  supervising  controls  made  by the  Member 
States  if Community  inspectors had greater autonomy, over and above the power to intervene  without 
prior  warning  provided  under  Regulation  (EEC)  No 2847/93.  They  should  be  able  to  collect 
information  not  just  for  use  as  evidence  against  individual  operators,  but  also  to  establish  any 
shortcomings  in the inspection  mechanisms  introduced.  The Member  States' obligations to cooperate 
with the Commission  should also be. more clearly defined.  The rules on access to databases  laid down 
in  Regulation  (EEC)  No 2847/93  could  be  adjusted  to  make  the  Commission  inspectorate  more 
effective.  It  would  be  much  easier to validate  these  databases  if the  Commission  could  access  them 
without  having to  send  an  inspection  mission,  under  provisions  similar  to those  recently  adopted  by 
the Council for databases on satellite controls1. 

1  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  2205/97  of  30  October  1997  amending  Regulation  (EEC)  No  2847/93 
establishing a control system applicable to the common fisheries  policy.  OJ No L 304, 07.11.1997, pp. Î 
and 2 

imEHmmmmm—mmmam 

III. 

INTENSIFYING  EXISTING MEASURES, IDENTIFYING  NEW FIELDS OF ACTION 

l. 

Increasing  awareness 

The  recent  changes  in  attitudes  to  controls  have  been  a  major  step  forward.  But  greater  and  more 
widespread awareness  is still required. 

-  The issues 

Monitoring  fishing  is  essential  if  we  are  to  have  an  effective  CFP.  Inadequate  controls  place 
fishermen  who do not commit fraud  at a disadvantage. Fraud committed  by the few deprives others of 
part  of  their  potential  catch.  It  disrupts  trade,  pulling  prices  down.  But,  because  they  make  official 
statistics  unreliable,  inadequate  controls  also  mean  that  a  major  part  of  the  work  of  research 
establishments  must  be  devoted  to  estimating  actual  catches  and  not  to  research,  thus  affecting  the 
quality of scientific  advice. 

Over  and  above  these  immediate  consequences,  a  lack  of  effective  management  damages  the 
economic  health  of  the  sector  as  a  whole.  As  with  other  intervention  measures,  controls  are 
sometimes  seen  as  a  costly  burden  which  the  fisheries  sector  imposes  on  public  authorities.  But 
effective  management,  which  goes  hand  in  hand  with  proper  controls,  is  all  about  restoring  the 
economic  health  of the sector  and eliminating  its dependence  on  outside  aid. Therefore,  the  adoption 
of effective  controls as soon as possible  is an  investment  without which  there will  be no return  on all 
other  investments. 

- 

Involving  the industry itself 

Controls can be effective  only  if they are seen as a necessity, or even  of benefit,  by all  in the  industry 
and are seen to be applied  fairly.  The trade can and  must  be the inspection  authorities'  principal  ally. 
There are examples in some Member States of trade  involvement  in controls, and legal action  brought 
by groups  of  fishermen  in  fraud  cases.  Such  approaches  have  proved  to  be highly  effective.  But  for 
the  desired  degree  of  involvement  to  be  achieved,  the  control  measures  introduced  must  be  finely 
tuned  and  proportional  in the  sense that  the  burden  imposed  on  the  trade  by  each  measure  must  be 
commensurate  with  the  progress  on  controls  it provides  and  the  size  of the  risk  of fraud.  They  must 
also  be  explained,  so that  the  extent  of the  problems  which  the  control  mechanisms  are  designed  to 
solve  is  fully  appreciated  by  those  they  affect.  Finally,  they  must  be  convinced  that  there  is  no 
discrimination. 

Therefore  the discussion  between the trade and the authorities must focus  on the question  of controls. 
In  addition,  since  the  question  of  transparency  plays  a  crucial  role  in  trade  involvement,  everything 
that can help the Commission to secure it will be extremely  important. 

11 

-  Widening  the debate 

Controls  cannot  be  dealt  with  between  the  fisheries  supervisory  authorities  and  fishermen.  For  them 
to be effective,  all  the  authorities  concerned  throughout  the  sector  must  be  involved,  including  those 
in  charge  of  shipbuilding  and  fuel  distribution  and  those  responsible  for  supervising  transport, 
processing  and  distribution.  For some of these authorities,  fisheries-related  matters  may be a priority 
task. Nevertheless they must be made fully  aware of the  issues. The same applies to those  responsible 
for  imposing penalties: they must be able to appreciate the extent of the fraud  and the  impact of their 
decisions. 

In  addition,  the  general  public  must  recognise  the  need  for  effective  controls.  A  common  policy 
means  it  is everyone's  business. Deficiencies  damage  the  overall  credibility  of  European  integration 
and  its  outward  image.  Their  impact  is  felt  directly  by  consumers,  and  indirectly  by  European 
taxpayers.  Consumers  are  also  called  upon  to play  an  increasing  role  in  combating  fishing  practices 
not  in line with the principles of sound  management. The efforts  already made, for  example, to make 
consumers  aware  of  the  need  to  protect  juveniles  and  therefore  not  to  encourage  fishing  for 
undersized  fish  by  buying  them,  must  be  extended  and  applied  more  generally.  To  achieve  this, 
meeting  as  it does  growing  consumer  demand  for  responsible  fishing,  it  is essential  to  have  product 
"traceability".  This  confirms  the  need  for  origin  labelling  referred  to  in  connection  with  undersized 
fish.  But this  is a more  general  problem  and  is also  linked  to the question  of quality  standards:  here 
also, consumers must have the information  and guarantees they need to make an informed  choice. 

2. 

Establishing integrated common strategies 

Controls  are  necessary,  and  necessarily  expensive.  The  cost-effectiveness  of  controls  is therefore  an 
increasingly  important  issue. On the whole the Commission  takes the  view that  controls  both  within 
individual  Member  States  and  at  European  level  have  yet  to  be  governed  by  efficient  overall 
strategies and must be developed along the following  lines: 

-  Controls offer landing 

The  possibility  of  bringing  together  all  the  available  data,  from  controls  at  sea  to  checks  during 
transportation  and  marketing, and of cross-checking  the various sources of  information  is recognised 
universally  to  be  essential.  Putting  in place the  overall  strategies  is  proving to  be difficult  however. 
The  use  being  made  of  the  scope  for  cross-checking  the  different  information  sources  and  the 
different  types  of  control  operations,  which  is  at  the  core  of  Regulation  (EEC) No  2847/93,  is  too 
often  marginal. Controls beyond the landing stage continue to be of  limited extent. The regulations  in 
some Member  States at  least appear not to provide  the  basis needed  for  action  at this  level. Controls 
during  transportation  are  frequently  the  responsibility  of  a  ministry  other  than  the  ministry  of 
fisheries.  The  problem  is  not  confined  to  the  simple  matter  of  compliance  with  minimum  sizes. 
Illegally  landed  fish  can  easily  be  made  to  appear  lawful  when  a  consignment  that  is  being 
transported  is  able  to  evade  checks  because  it  is  declared  during  transportation  to  have  been  sold 
previously.  Fish  in  transit  (following  importation),  or  alleged  to  be  such, also  constitute  a  potential 
source  of  fraud  if  checks  are  not  carried  out  during  transportation.  It  is  essential  therefore  that 
arrangements be developed  for carrying out controls beyond the landing stage in all Member States. 

12 

-  Optimising the allocation of control effort 

The  breakdown  between  controls  at  sea  and  on  land  varies  considerably  from  one  Member  State  to 
another. This can be explained  partly on objective  grounds; tradition, however, plays a significant  role 
too. Generally speaking, the rules determining how control effort  is allocated, and especially  how  it is 
targeted  at  the  more  intractable  problems  are  not  very  easy  to  identify.  The  entire  question  of  the 
strategies  for  deploying  control  resources  needs  to  be  considered  in  greater  depth  therefore.  On  the 
operational  level  the  links  between  the  various  departments  involved  in  all  aspects  of control  of  the 
fishing  industry  regularly find themselves hampered  by the discontinuities  in responsibilities  between 
departments  in  the  Member  States,  whether  it  is  vertical,  for  example  between  the  ministries  with 
responsibility for fisheries  and transport, or horizontal, between central and regional administrations. 

The difficulty  of developing  strategies  which  embrace  all the  control  options, which  target  resources 
at the most serious problems, and maintain  links between  the various departments  is to be found  also 
at European level, where it is even more acute and  problematical. 

Most of the progress in this area will have to be made by the Member  States, as it is they which  have 
overriding responsibility for control. The Commission, however, can and must assist the development 
of  the  necessary  strategies,  by  calling  the  necessary  technical  meetings  and  by  making  suggestions 
and  recommendations. 

3. 

Introducing  and  sustaining the necessary  resources 

Efforts  that  have  been  made  both  by  the  Member  States  and  at  Community  level  in  terms  of  the 
material resources provided  has meant that considerable  progress has been achieved. 

These investments  need to be optimised, by  linking them  to general  strategies. It must  be possible  to 
determine  precisely  the  share  set  aside  for  fisheries  control  out  of  all  the  existing  resources, and  not 
only  out  of those  for  which  Community  part-financing  is  sought  and  in  which  it will  henceforth  be 
necessary  to specify  that  part. Certain types of heavy-duty  equipment  will  not have to be replaced  in 
the immediate  future. 

These  improvements  in terms of expenditure  transparency  and  relevance will  not however  lessen  the 
need  for  continuing  effort.  Material  resources  must  continue  to  be  made  available  for  control,  with 
particular  attention  focusing  on  the  use  of  modern  technology.  The  Commission  must  continue 
therefore  to  promote  the  use  of  methods  arising  from  scientific  and  technological  developments, 
which are liable to make control more  effective. 

As  far  as  human  resources  are  concerned,  a  special  effort  will  be  needed.  The  first  stage  will  be  to 
identify  clearly  the  human  resources  actually  assigned  to  control  activities.  In  Member  States  which 
up  to  now  have  invested  less  than  others,  these  resources  will  have  to  be  increased.  The  numbers 
assigned represent only one aspect of the problem  however. The training and motivating of inspection 
staff  will  be equally  important.  Here  again,  without  intending  to  introduce  harmonisation  in an  area 
where  there  is  no  obligation  to  do  so,  coordination  at  Community  level  could  make  increased 
effectiveness  a  possibility.  The  Commission  must  encourage  and  facilitate  exchanges  of  officials 
involved  in monitoring fisheries in the Member States. 

13 

4. 

Greater transparency 

The need for  the Commission  to have easier access to the  information  it requires  in order to  perform 
its role of overseeing national control  systems has been mentioned  already. As far as transparency  is 
concerned, the report the Commission  is required to produce annually under Article 35 of Regulation 
(EEC) No 2847/93 has not been fulfilling  its expected  role either. The difficulty  the Commission  has 
in obtaining  relevant and genuinely comparable  information  has been  mentioned  above. There  is also 
the matter of deadlines. Delays by Member States in transmitting  information  both at the initial  stage 
and  in reacting to the first draft  of the report prepared  by the Commission  concerning them means that 
the annual  report  has been  systematically  late  in appearing  and  this has undermined  its usefulness.  It 
is necessary  therefore  to review the deadlines  set and  to ensure that  they are properly  observed.  It  is 
also worth considering the need  for an annual report as produced  at present. Discussion  of the report 
within  the  Council  should  also  be  much  more  thorough  so  that  that  conclusions  are  actually  drawn 
from  it. 

In  other  words,  the  principle  of  Commission  reports  making  it  possible  for  everyone  to  assess  the 
work  that  has  been  carried  out  and  the  effectiveness  of  the  control  arrangements  in  the  different 
Member  States  is fully justified.  However,  if the  goal  is to be  properly  achieved  it  is necessary  that 
the procedure  be revised  so that reports become more  relevant,  are drawn  up more speedily, and  are 
discussed  in greater depth. 

On  the  matter  of  transparency,  formal  reports  are  not  the  only  means  of  action  available  to  the 
Commission.  It  should  also  make  use  of  the  many  meetings  it  arranges  which  involve  aspects  of 
monitoring,  and  exploit  the  opportunities  for  making  contacts  on  the  ground  afforded  by  inspection 
visits  in the  Member  States  in  order  to  make  known  the  scale  of  the  efforts  it  has  deployed  in  the 
other Member  States, and seek to allay unfounded  suspicion  between  Member States whenever  it has 
the information  required. 

Improving  transparency  is not  the  role  solely  of  the  Commission.  Exchanges  of officials  have  been 
taking  place  between  national  services and  in some  Member  States even  showed  a promising  rise in 
1997. These  exchanges  must  be  increased  as  rapidly  as  possible.  The  question  must  even  be  asked 
whether  it would  be  possible  for  inspectors  from  one  Member  State  to  participate  with  Community 
inspectors in inspections in other Member States. 

Amending legislation where necessary 

A large number of new regulations on monitoring and control have been adopted  in the last five years, 
covering  a very wide range of aspects. The solution  to the outstanding  problems  mentioned  above  is 
clearly not simply to adopt more rules. In any case decisions have been taken that have obviously not 
had  time  to  produce  results  yet,  such  as  those  on  satellite  monitoring.  An  exhaustive  regulatory 
structure  will  not  serve  its  purpose  if  the  human  and  material  resources,  appropriate  strategies, 
political will or support of those involved in the industry are lacking. 

er 

Any  updating  of  the  regulatory  arrangements  should  take  account  of  the  whole  body  of  regulations 
and  not  simply  of  Regulation  (EEC)  No  2847/93.  To  start  with,  it  will  be  necessary  to  adopt 
implementing  regulations  in cases where  this  has  not yet  been  done, for  example  for  the  Regulation 
amending the arrangements  on  logbooks, discussion  on which  can  now  resume (following  agreement 
in the Council  on  the technical  measures, the terms  of which  must  be reflected  in the changes  to the 
logbooks).  There  is  also,  however,  a  series  of  other  instruments  for  monitoring  fisheries,  such  as 
Regulation  (EEC) No 3759/92 on the common  organisation  of the  market  in fishery  and aquaculture 

products^.  All  the  regulations  must  be  taken  into  consideration  together  in  order  to  remove 
redundancies and to ensure that full  use is made of the opportunities they offer  of producing a body of 
rules which  is consistent and cohesive. 

The  Regulation  adopted  in  1993  nevertheless  occupies  a  central  position  and  has  shown  with  the 
passage  of  time  that  it  could  be  improved.  Certain  difficulties  were  less  pressing  before  1993  than 
now, for example the problems of non-Community vessels operating in Community waters or landing 
their  catches  at  Community  ports. Regulation  (EEC) No  2847/93  should  be  amended  to  remedy  the 
shortcomings  found  in the second  part of the  instrument. This  is particularly  necessary with  regard to 
non-Community  vessels,  checks  on  catches  landed  in  a  Member  State  other  than  the  flag  State, 
controls  at  stages  after  landing  and/or  first  marketing  and  access  to  data  the  Commission  needs  in 
order  to  perform  its task  of  supervising  national  control  systems.  There  is also  the question  of  what 
can  be  done  to  achieve  greater  equity  in  the  matter  of  penalties.  A  review  of  the  Regulation  would 
mean also that it could be updated and simplified,  and where necessary made clearer. 

6. 

Cooperation within and between Member States 

In  a  single  Member  State  the  areas  affected  by  fisheries  control  are  frequently  the  responsibility  of 
separate departments. If monitoring  is to be effective,  however,  all  of these areas need to be covered. 
Direct  responsibility  for  monitoring,  moreover,  rests  with  the  Member  States  while  problems  arise 
systematically at Community  level. Sound coordination  is therefore  essential. 

The  Commission  cannot  take  on  responsibility  for  arranging  all  the  necessary  cooperation.  This  is 
clear  in so far  as  Member  States'  internal  coordination  is concerned.  But direct  cooperation  between 
Member  States  is  necessary  too.  Experience  has  shown  however  that  the  Commission,  enjoying  an 
overview  which  national  administrations  may  lack,  and  operating  from  a  position  of  neutrality  that 
occasionally  allows  it to  provide  services  through  its  'good  offices',  must  perform  a very  important 
coordinating  role  at  Community  level. This  role  is  in  addition  to  its  express  role  of  supervising  the 
effectiveness  of national controls and ensuring fairness  and transparency. 

Awareness  of  the  extent  of  coordination  problems  has  been  growing  for  some  years  now  and  the 
meeting  on monitoring  arranged  by the Irish  Presidency  in  September  1996 brought  this fully  to the 
fore. 

1  OJL 388, 31.12.1992, p.I. 

• • • • • • •• 

The number of areas that need to be dealt with is considerable. It includes: 

- 
- 
- 
- 

- 

- 

establishing priorities and general strategies; 
operational problems involving action on the ground; 
exploring what can be done to make controls on new techniques  effective; 
exchanges  of  know-how  between  Member  States  so  that  advances  made  by  some  can  benefit 
others while avoiding duplication of  effort; 
achieving  the  degree  of  harmonisation  required  for  these  exchanges,  in  particular  operational 
exchanges of data; 
establishing a 'common  language' so that monitoring effort  and results can really be compared  (cf 
engine power of fisheries  vessels, defining  what constitutes basic inspection). 

On these  matters the  importance of the Commission's  role will depend  more on  its ability to provide 
genuine  added  value  recognised  by the  Member  States  than  on  a  regulation  setting  out  its terms  of 
reference. In any event it can act in a number of different  ways: 

- 

- 

- 

- 
- 

- 

by  making  proposals  which  must  ensure that  Community  rules  provide  a favourable  framework 
for cooperation, and if necessary impose an obligation to cooperate; 
in  its  reports  examining  the  role  of  the  Member  States  in  monitoring  the  CFP,  and  hence  the 
effectiveness  of cooperation  between  the  responsible  services  within  a Member  State  as well  as 
the level of cooperation between Member States; 
by  taking  account,  when  deciding  on  requests  from  Member  States  for  Community  assistance 
towards  monitoring  expenditure,  of  evidence  that  an  effective  national  strategy  and  successful 
cooperation with other Member States will guarantee the proper use of funds; 
by arranging exchanges of information  between Member States;  • 
by  identifying  major  problems  at  Community  level,  and  by  encouraging  the  development  of 
strategies  and  procedures  to  promote  cooperation  appropriate  for  resolving  each  of  those 
problems; 
by arranging meetings to deal with specific  problems, whether horizontal (e.g. the introduction  of 
satellite monitoring) or vertical, associated with a specific  fishery. 

The  last  three  points  show  that  what  is  required  is  crating  and  supporting  a  network  among  the 
services responsible for monitoring both  in the Member  States and at the Commission.  Work that has 
been  successfully  undertaken  on specific  points must  be extended  and encouraged. To do this, a plan 
needs to be drawn  up for the coming months and years, on the initiative of the Commission, acting in 
concert  with  the  national  administrations,  in  a  spirit  of  partnership.  If  progress  is to  be  achieved  it 
would  be  useful  to  consider  approaches  taken  in  other  fields,  for  example  on  issues  linked  with 

environment  policy  in the IMPEL*  initiative, or for  the completion  of the  internal market^. Opening 
up the monitoring of fisheries and establishing Jinks with monitoring problems in other areas can only 
be beneficial. 

1 

(COM(96) 500 final. 

2  Council Resolutions of 16 and 20 June 1994, COM(94) 29 fma'; COM(96) 20 final. 

Conclusions 

Enforcement,  particularly  in  an area  such  as  fisheries,  can  never  be  perfect.  As the  Commission  has 
had  occasion  to  stress  before,  progress  will  depend  on  the  overall  development  of  fisheries 
management,  since  monitoring  will  not  remedy  the  structural  shortcomings  of  the  CFP.  Progress 
cannot  be  achieved  instantaneously:  resources  will  need  to  be  put  in  place, and  structures  altered  as 
well  as  outlooks.  Progress  on  the  other  hand  is  crucial  and  will  have  to  be  speeded  up. The  switch 
from  analysis  to  the  putting  in  place  of  solutions  will  have  to  be  accomplished  more  rapidly.  A 
rereading  of  the  Commission's  1992  report  indicates  the  extent  of  the  progress  that  has  been 
achieved.  It  demonstrates  also  the  difficulties  faced  in  certain  areas  in  getting  beyond  the  stage  of 
establishing  the  facts  and  outlining  intentions,  when  there  is  occasionally  a feeling  that  matters  are 
marking time. 

For potential  progress to become a reality  it will  be necessary  first  for  the political  wilt  to accord  the 
highest  priority  to  putting  in  place  an  effective  control  system  to  be  reaffirmed  and  given  practical 
effect.  The  action  to  be  undertaken  will  have  to  involve  the  Member  States  and  the  Commission, 
which  together  must  set  themselves  precise  goals  with  a  deadline  sufficiently  short  to  be  effective, 
bearing  in  mind  scheduling  constraints  and  the  period  required  for  making  adjustments.  For  the 
coming years a timetable exists already of key dates adopted previously. The most important of these 
are: 

- 

July  1998: first phase  in the  introduction  of  satellite  position  monitoring,  and  in the Atlantic  the 
incorporation  of catch  data  in the data retransmission  procedures required  for putting  in place the 
effort  management  arrangements; 

-  Early  1999:  introduction  in  the  Mediterranean  of  logbooks  and  landing  and  sales  declarations, 

together with the necessary data bases; 

-  Beginning  of  the  year  2000:  second  stage  of  the  satellite  monitoring  plan;  introduction  of  new 

technical measures  in Community waters from  the Atlantic to the North Sea: 

-  The Decision 1 under which  Member  States can  obtain assistance towards monitoring  expenditure 

is due to expire in 2000. 

While it is not possible at this stage to determine the content of the decisions that will be taken  under 
bilateral  agreements and  in international  organisations, changes are to be expected  in relation  to non-
Community stocks. NAFO, for  instance, is to decide  in  1998 on the action to be taken on current pilot 
projects. 

The above timetable  suggests that an overall objective  be set of putting  in place for  the year 2000 an 
expanded monitoring and control system. 

1  Council  Decision  95/527/EC  on  a  Community  financial  contribution  towards  certain  incurred  by  the 
Member  States  in  implementing  the monitoring  and  control  systems  applicable  to the  common  fisheries 
policy. 

17 

In  1998 six priorities will need to be tackled:  . 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

acting  forcefully  under  the  existing  regulations  to  put  an  end  to  the  most  serious  shortcomings 
(incomplete  application  by  some  Member  States  of  the  rules  on  basic  documents,  including 
putting  them  on  computer,  incorrect  catch  declarations,  and  above  all  repeated  overfishing  of 
quotas for certain stocks); 
examining  how  combining  regulatory  arrangements  with  cooperation  will  make  it  possible  for 
controls to be more  effective; 
putting  in  place  pilot  schemes  for  coordinating  control  operations  and  for  joint  consideration  of 
horizontal  problems;  studying  coordination  methods  introduced  within  the  Union  in  areas  other 
than  fisheries; 
amending  the  corpus  of  regulations:  Regulation  (EEC)  No  2847/93  and  its  implementing 
regulations, and, if necessary, other regulations on fisheries  monitoring; 
successfully  launching  the  first  phase  of  satellite  monitoring,  and  paving  the  way  for  the 
Mediterranean  to be included in the general rules; 
giving  a  final  update  on  resources,  in  particular  the  human  resources,  actually  assigned  to 
monitoring  activities;  establishing  methods  that  can  be  used  to  make  proper  comparisons  of 
controls carried out, and of the effectiveness  of penalty systems. 

In  1999 the basic goals could be: 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 
- 

- 

follow-up  action  to  that  mentioned  in the  first  priority  for  1998.  It  is particularly  important  that 
before  new technical  measures  are  introduced  which  are  wider-ranging  than  those  now  in  force, 
any gaps remaining  in the application of the existing ones be remedied; 
extending control  operations across the whole of the sector, at sea, on  landing and  at  later stages, 
and exploiting to the full  the opportunities afforded  by the cross-checking  of the different  sources 
of information,  including those linked with satellite monitoring of the fleets  concerned; 
proposing  a  procedure  for  resolving  coordination  problems  between  Member  States,  including 
appropriate  rules which could  have been adopted  earlier, drawing on pilot projects  on  the  subject 
carried  out in  1998, and establishing a plan for exchanges of information  and staff between all the 
services  concerned; 
developing  a comprehensive  series of communications  measures to alert all the actors  concerned 
to the issues involved in monitoring; 
defining  possible  statistical  objectives  for  the  resources  assigned  to  monitoring  by  a  Member 
State in terms of the objective characteristics of its involvement  in the CFP; 
ensuring that the Mediterranean  is included  in the general arrangements; 
altering  the  arrangements  for  monitoring  non-Community  resources;  promoting  arrangements 
where  this  is  necessary  and  possible;  seeking  to  ensure  that  what  has  been  adopted  is  properly 
applied,  and  specifying  in  each  case  the  division  of  tasks  between  the  Member  States  and  the 
Commission; 
preparing the ground for the action to be taken on the budget decision due to expire in 2000. 

In  the  year  2000  it  would  be  possible  then  to  benefit  from  all  the  arrangements  previously  put  in 
place,  or  about  to  take  effect  in  January  2000  (second  phase  of  satellite  monitoring,  new  technical 
measures). It would  be possible to assess the effectiveness  of the arrangements  and draw up a review 
which would be entirely different  from  a reiteration of earlier  shortcomings 

Looked  at  in  the  light  of  thel992  report  on  the  monitoring  of  fisheries,  and  the  improvements  that 
needed  to be made as identified  then, the CFP can  be said  in a way to be in midstream. It will  not be 
enough  to allow the arrangements  introduced  by decisions  adopted  from  1996 to  1997 to drift  along, 
however  satisfactory  they  may  be. A further  effort  will  be  required,  which  will  have  to  include  the 
amendment  of  the  regulations,  but  whose  overriding  priority  will  have  to  be  closer  cooperation 
between all those responsible for monitoring fisheries. 

18 

ISSN 0254-1475 

COM(98) 92 final 

DOCUMENTS 

EN 

03  14  07  10 

Catalogue number  :  CB-CO-98-097-EN-C 

ISBN 92-78-31218-5 

Office  for Official  Publications of the European Communities 

L-2985 Luxembourg 

v\