Report from the Commission - Report on the Monitoring of the Implementation of the Common Fisheries Policy - Synthesis of the Implementation of the Control System Applicable to the Common Fisheries Policy by Member States
Date: 2001-09-28
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: authorised catch, common fisheries policy, exchange of information, fishery management, fishing area, fishing controls, report

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

Brussels, 28.09.2001
COM(2001) 526 final

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION

REPORT ON THE MONITORING OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
COMMON FISHERIES POLICY

SYNTHESIS OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CONTROL SYSTEM APPLICABLE
TO THE COMMON FISHERIES POLICY BY MEMBER STATES

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION

REPORT ON THE MONITORING OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMON
FISHERIES POLICY

SYNTHESIS OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CONTROL SYSTEM APPLICABLE
TO THE COMMON FISHERIES POLICY BY MEMBER STATES

1. INTRODUCTION

The present report and the Working Documents “Fisheries Control in Member
States” respond to obligations laid down in Community legislation, while
providing a detailed factual description of fisheries monitoring, inspection and
surveillance activities in the period of 1996-1999 as well as an assessment by the
Commission of the state of implementation of Community legislation in this
domain. At a later stage, these documents will be followed by a Communication
on the future orientations in the area of monitoring, control and enforcement
under the common fisheries policy, taking into account conclusions to be drawn
from the debate on the Green Paper “The future of the common fisheries
policy”.

Council Regulation (EEC) N° 2847/93 of 12 October 1993 establishing a control
system applicable to the common fisheries policy1 (hereafter Control Regulation)
entered into force on 1 January 1994. It has been amended several times2; the main
part of the most recent amendments by Council Regulation (EC) N° 2846/98 have
been applied as of 1 July 19993.

The Control Regulation,
together with several specific Regulations containing
notably control provisions adopted by Regional Fisheries Organisations (RFO’s),
defines the legal framework of minimal requirements applicable throughout the
Community and beyond Community fishing waters to fishing activities by
Community fishing vessels. Member States and, in certain cases, the Commission
have been obliged to take measures ensuring the implementation of this legal
framework.

Over the past decade,
the Commission has presented several communications
analysing and emphasising the basic problems relating to the efficiency of fisheries
control, as well as the methods for achieving improvements in these areas4. The last
amendment of the Control Regulation5 was mainly based on the Commission’s

1

2

3

4

5

OJ L 261 of 20.10.1993.
The amendments of Control Regulation are listed in Annex I.
Certain provisions of Control Regulation concerning the Mediterranean fisheries have become
applicable first as of 1 January 2000 (see Article 40, as amended by Regulation (EC) N° 2846/98). The
same moment has been significant also for the commencing application of the amended technical
conservation measures (Council Regulation (EC) N° 850/98 of 30 March 1998, for the conservation of
fishery resources through technical measures for the protection of juveniles of marine organisms (OJ L
125 of 27.4.1998)) and the second phase of the implementation of VMS, both topics thus remaining out
of the scope of this report.
The communications presented are listed in Annex I.
Council Regulation (EC) N° 2846/98 of 17 December 1998.

2

Communication COM(1998) 92 (final) and was supplemented by an Action Plan
implementation of the
SEC(1998) 949 final listing the actions to promote full
provisions of this Regulation.

The Commission has also drawn up annual reports about the implementation of
technical conservation measures applicable to fishing with driftnets6. Therefore, the
present report only refers to these sources. This report does not either cover the
common organisation of the market in fishery products which has been reviewed in
the end of 19977 and amended in 1999 by Council Regulation (EC) N° 104/20008.

The present report responds to obligations laid down in Article 35 of Control
Regulation and comprises the third in a series of similar reports9. Reaching beyond
the formal obligation to submit such a report, it provides a more detailed account
supporting the analysis and suggestions for improvements in the area of monitoring,
control and enforcement under the common fisheries policy, outlined in the Green
Paper “The future of the common fisheries policy”, published early this year.

The report consists of a synthesis of the basic structure of the implementation of the
Community control system in Member States. It deals first with the legislation and
the organisation of fisheries control at the level of Member States and subsequently
with the means of control,
the monitoring systems and the inspection and
surveillance activities carried out, together with sanctioning procedures. Finally, a
summary review is presented of conservation policy and structural policy.

The report is accompanied by separate Working Documents “Fisheries Control in
Member States”, each summarising the main features of the respective national
control system based on the factual submissions each Member State has transmitted
to the Commission within the framework of Article 35 of Control Regulation, and
the Commission’s own observations, including those based on the findings of its
fisheries inspectors (cf. also Article 29 of the said Regulation). These Working
Documents contain also the Commission’s assessments of the factual situation within
the field of fisheries control in each Member State.

As the report and the accompanying Working Documents are intended as factual
descriptions of the state of affairs in fisheries control, they will, subsequently, be
followed by a Communication on the future orientations in the area of monitoring,
control and enforcement under the common fisheries policy, taking into account the
conclusions concerning this topic to be drawn from the discussions on the Green
Paper.

6

7

8

9

These reports are listed in Annex I.
Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament: ‘The future for the
market in fisheries products in the European Union – Responsibility, partnership and competitiveness”,
COM(97) 719 final, of 16.12.1997.
Council Regulation (EC) N°104/2000 of 17 December 1999 on the common organisation of the markets
in fishery and aquaculture products (OJ L 17 of 21.1.2000).
The previous reports have been Report from the Commission: Monitoring the common fisheries policy,
COM(96) 100 (final), of 18.3.1996, and Report from the Commission: Monitoring the common
fisheries policy 1995, COM(97) 226 (final), of 13.6.1997.

3

2. NATIONAL FRAMEWORKS FOR CONTROL

Member States have established legal frameworks for control and assigned
competent authorities, within the traditions of their legal and administrative
systems. Member States have also invested fisheries inspectors with legal powers
of control as well as of the initiation of sanctioning procedures.

These frameworks of basic measures would generally allow national authorities
to enforce Community law. However, the differences between the practical
applications in Member States have remained substantial in this field and may
result in unequal treatment of fishermen in different parts of the Community

The co-operation and co-ordination arrangements established by Member States
do not adequately respond to the requirements of transboundary fishing
activities.

2.1.Legislation and administration

Pursuant to Article 1 of Control Regulation, each Member State is required to adopt
appropriate measures to ensure the effectiveness of the control system applicable to
the common fisheries policy. Member States have complied with this demand by
introducing national statutes in order to ensure the implementation of Community
law, either by adopting totally new legislation or by amending the previous national
acts to make them compatible with Community requirements.

In accordance with Article 4 of Control Regulation, Member States shall carry out
their monitoring, inspection and surveillance duties on their own account by means
of a system of inspection decided by each Member State. Member States have
identified the services responsible for the control of the different aspects of
Community legislation. During the necessary organisational development and the
selection of the competent authorities, the administrative traditions of respective
Member States were usually closely followed.

for monitoring,

Only in Denmark have the responsibilities
inspection and
surveillance of fisheries been centralised in a single authority. In other Member
States these tasks have been distributed amongst a number of different authorities
and form, on many occasions, only one of the various duties of the authorities
concerned. Some Member States have even opted for partly or fully decentralised
systems (cf., for example, Finland). The mandates of the authorities involved in
fisheries control and the limits of their competencies are not always well defined in
the framework of national control systems.

The priorities of the authorities entrusted with tasks related to fisheries control do not
necessarily coincide with the needs for efficiency of the control system applicable to
the common fisheries policy. Although, in some cases, adequate efforts are deployed
for fisheries monitoring and control purposes, the Commission has also observed
situations where authorities responsible for several duties attribute only a low priority
to their fisheries tasks, as well as occasions when the control authorities have been
eager to carry out fisheries duties but have not received sufficient technical or
political support for accomplishing this goal.

4

The control systems decided by most Member States present challenges for internal
for exchange of
and external co-operation between competent authorities,
information relevant for enforcement between these authorities as well as for co-
ordination of their activities. Some Member States have set up formal committees or
services for these purposes, whilst in other Member States the authorities concerned
have developed informal practical arrangements
them. The scope for
improvement in co-operation and co-ordination between all authorities involved in
fisheries control and of the exchange of information between them is far from
exhausted. In addition, the current level of these activities between Member States
does not adequately respond to the requirements generated by transboundary fishing
activities and is presently addressed almost solely within the frameworks of certain
RFO’s10.

for

2.2.Powers of control

The fisheries inspectors in Member States have generally been empowered under
national legislation (or at least by the customary practices) to take basic enforcement
actions on their own. This represents a clear development.

More specifically, the national officials in question are authorised to carry out
inspections on board fishing vessels, landing and storage facilities or other private
premises utilised for fisheries-related purposes or during the transport of fish or fish
products. Nevertheless, in some Member States the specialised areas of responsibility
for different groups of inspectors present additional challenges and necessitate rather
far-reaching co-operation between the agencies in question. Moreover, the traditional
fields of operation of some inspection authorities have had a restricting effect on
their inspection powers.

National systems of crime investigation also influence greatly the scope of the
powers of fisheries inspectors after the initial inspection phase. Enquiries in catch or
effort documentation belong to these powers without exception; however, in some
Member States not the fisheries inspectors, but almost exclusively the national police
forces have been allowed to assist the prosecutors by further pre-trial investigations,
whereas in other countries the fisheries inspector is quite fluently integrated into the
role of investigator, too. The former solution might occasionally appear rather
problematic, when account
is taken of the particular requirements of fisheries
investigations.

The seizure of illegal catches and gear belongs to the competencies of fisheries
inspectors in all Member States. These powers have been restricted, however, in
some countries to occasions where the culprit is caught in act or where the illegal
gear is being used for fishing. These kinds of limitations tend to make the inspection
activities less efficient, as, for example, discovered illegal gears not fishing at the
moment could not be confiscated because of them.

The detention of vessels is customarily included in the prerogatives of naval
inspection services, usually connected to or forming a part of the defence forces of
the Member State in question. On shore, fisheries inspectors are not always

10

For the purpose of this report, the large number of existing multi- and bilateral agreements concerning
judicial assistance and co-operation between Member States has not been thoroughly examined.

5

authorised to stop vehicles used for fish transports; in some Member States they have
to acquire the assistance of the police forces for this, even when the subsequent
inspection could be carried out by fisheries inspectors alone.

The scope and the precise contents of these powers thus vary quite a lot within the
Community: even the precision (or at the most, the existence) of the respective
national statutes leaves room for improvement. On the other hand, some of the
existing national (mainly procedural) requirements, to be complied with by fisheries
inspectors, clearly tend to complicate the accomplishment of their tasks. The number
of partly overlapping national provisions concerning these competencies may also
bring about unnecessary confusion. Besides, the follow-up of infringements is not
always connected sufficiently closely to the powers and mandates of fisheries
inspectors in order to allow them to complete their control actions.

2.3.Follow-up of infringements

follow-up of all established fisheries-related
National procedures for efficient
infringements have obviously been defined in line with the administrative and
judicial traditions of each respective Member State. Thus, where the sanctioning of
all offences has predominantly been entrusted to the competencies of the general
system of criminal courts, this applies to fisheries, too. On the other hand,
in
countries with a prevailing tradition of administrative sanctioning procedures, it has
been regarded convenient to use them also with respect to fisheries matters. These
national features rather than the nature of fisheries in question have largely dictated
the course of the actions to be taken by the legislature on these occasions.

Similarly, national features of the connection between investigative and judicial
if not dominating impact on the procedure to be
authorities have had a clear,
followed in each Member State regarding fisheries offences. Where criminal cases
have traditionally been brought to a prosecuting judge or a public prosecutor, albeit
via intermediary (police) authorities, these rules are in force also here. The same
applies to countries with a tradition to deal with misdemeanours in a swift procedure
of administrative sanctions, which in these circumstances is the obvious method to be
utilised here, too.

Within the bounds of the doctrine of jurisdictional sovereignty, the importance of
national traditions reaches all the way to inspection procedures and their results. In
Member States where the control authorities have been empowered to establish
(constater) an infringement as a pre-requisite for further procedures, the same system
is predominantly in force within fisheries control, as well. On the other hand, where
the role of all the controlling and investigating bodies, for example the police forces,
has been generally limited to gathering the factual circumstances relating to crimes
for the court to decide upon them, the fisheries inspectors usually have neither been
authorised to cite or establish, i.e. to pre-judge, the existence of an infringement.

6

3. MEANS OF CONTROL

The previous deficit of means of
inspection and surveillance at sea in
Community fishing waters has been reduced. This has been accomplished not
only by increasing these means, but also by other measures involving the
industry itself more directly in these tasks. Several Member States have
succeeded in finding a balance between the means available and the
requirements to be fulfilled by the industry.

Community financial contributions have greatly facilitated the acquisition and
modernisation procedures
equipment. The
introduction of advanced technologies, especially VMS, has provided new
opportunities.

inspection and control

of

In spite of the undeniable progress, certain deficiencies still remain: this is
generally due to the fact that the means available to the national authorities and
the measures taken by them do not adequately match the requirements of
establishing a comprehensive control system.

3.1.Human resources

While reassessing their national control systems, some Member States (especially –
until recently – Spain, but also Ireland and Portugal) have increased human resources
for these purposes, while others have concentrated on a more effective use of the
available resources (Denmark, Netherlands, and United Kingdom). In either of these
cases, dramatic changes cannot be expected from one year to another.

The number of inspectors required for efficient fisheries control depends on the
circumstances of the fisheries in question (i.e. TACs, quotas, technical measures,
types of vessels, distances of landing places, coastal topography, risk of illegal
landings, landing procedures and the methods of marketing after first sale). Some
Member States have adopted national measures obliging the fishing industry to adopt
procedures that render inspection and surveillance more effective. The tasks of
inspectors have thus been focused on supervisory activities and on ensuring a high
probability of inspection in each of the subsequent stages of fisheries-related
operations.

Several Member States have sought to develop their system of landing controls in
order to achieve greater efficiency. As ingredients of a comprehensive control
the introduction of measures such as designated port schemes, prior
system,
notification of arrival, prior authorisation of discharge, and compulsory first sales by
auction has improved considerably the efficiency of these inspection and surveillance
activities. The landing controls of unsorted herring catches in Denmark, NAFO
landings and landings of freezer trawlers in Germany (level of inspection 100 %) are
examples of such developments.

In spite of the improvements observed in many areas, there remain fisheries where
the efficiency of control cannot be guaranteed due to a lack of human resources
allocated for monitoring and inspection purposes. Within landing controls,
this
applies to most cases where the landings are allowed to occur at all times in any port.

7

Some Member States have not provided the Commission with detailed information
on the number of specialised fisheries inspectors. In cases such as the national coast
guard authorities (for example Greece, Italy, Finland and Sweden), all the officials of
these services are potentially authorised to carry out fisheries inspection tasks as a
part of their general mandate, whilst many of them may, in practice, hardly ever
participate in these kinds of inspections.

In these cases, control deficits cannot be attributed to the lack of human resources;
instead, the management and inspection staff may lack experience and training in
fisheries duties. In such circumstances,
it might prove more beneficial to form
specialised fisheries co-ordination and inspection teams. The Commission inspectors
have observed in a number of cases a blatant lack of training and experience as how
to conduct basic verifications of compliance with applicable rules. Thorough basic
knowledge of the technical background of fisheries (for example the recognition of
species and the construction of gear) together with a thorough knowledge of the
legislation to be applied are indispensable for performing fisheries inspection duties
adequately.

3.2.Means of surveillance at sea

The previous deficit of means of surveillance has been reduced. Several new and
modernised offshore and inshore surveillance vessels have entered into service over
the past years or are presently being constructed.
Nevertheless, the situation is not
fully satisfactory. The current means available are clearly intended for
yet
surveillance within Community fishing waters. Furthermore, several surveillance
vessels require renewal and modernisation in order to be adapted to updated
standards (speed, fuel consumption, communication facilities) necessary for efficient
control actions.

(cid:1)

Within the monitoring systems of several Member States, aircraft and other air
surveillance is available only for a limited number of hours or days for fisheries.
These surveillance actions are programmed far in advance, sometimes on an annual
basis; the same might apply also to the utilisation of surveillance craft at sea
provided by other
(military) authorities. These arrangements make fisheries
inspection and surveillance to a high degree inflexible and predictable, thus clearly
hampering the pursuit of enforcement priorities.

3.3.Advanced technologies

The computerised processing of catch and effort data, already begun before the
period in question, continued to improve, as Member States aimed to comply with
the requirements set out in Article 19 of Control Regulation. By now, most Member
States have established computerised databases; still, scope remains for more
progress, especially in the field of automatisation of the cross-checking facilities of
these informatic systems.

The development and the impact of VMS are dealt with more thoroughly in Section
4.3.;
this means of monitoring was adopted into large-scale use within the
Community during the period covered by this report11. Further advances have taken

11

See more closely Council Regulation (EC) N° 686/97 of 14 April 1997 amending Regulation
N°2847/93 establishing a control system applicable to the common fisheries policy (OJ L 102 of

8

place to combine VMS information with the data contained in the computerised
catch and effort registration systems mentioned above. This infrastructure offers a
good basis for the future and its contents should be exploited intensively for the
purpose of inspection and surveillance.

On an experimental level, Member States and the Commission have also allocated
funds to projects such as electronic fishing logbooks and remote sensing by satellite
as a complementary tool to VMS.

3.4.Community financial contribution

The second five-year programme of Community financial contribution towards
expenditure incurred by Member States for fisheries control, as laid down under
Council Decision 95/527/EC12 (hereafter Decision), has provided for financial
solidarity in the field of fisheries control. The Community financial contribution
amounts to 4 % of the Community budget for fisheries and at least 10 % of the total
expenditure of Member States for control.

As a continuation of the first five-year programme,
the Decision provided for
Community assistance to the acquisition and modernisation of inspection and control
equipment (vessels, aircraft and modern technology for detection of fishing activities
as well as the recording, management and transmission of information on such
activities). In addition to this type of funding, a second category was introduced for
the
specific measures intended to improve the quality and effectiveness of
monitoring of fishing and related activities (training of inspectors as well as joint
inspection programmes involving two or more Member States, specific control
programmes by Community initiative, electronic networks pilot projects etc).
Furthermore, the Decision implemented the principle13 of an additional financial
contribution to be allocated to Ireland for control expenditure, including operating
expenditures,
incurred by the implementation of the so-called Western Waters
scheme.

€

€

205 millions (

41 M per year) have been allocated in the Community
In total,
budget for these purposes. The general level of Community financial contribution
has been fixed at 35 - 50 % of the eligible expenditures, whilst specific levels above
50 % have been defined for notably the introduction of new technology, i.e. VMS.
All funds have been committed to specific annual programmes of expenditure
proposed by the Member States concerned and approved by the Commission. By the
end of 2000 and pursuant to the execution of the programmes approved by the
Commission, Member States have requested reimbursement of about 50 % of the
Specific levels of financial contribution have been
funds committed (Annex II).

─

12

13

19.4.1997) and Commission Regulation (EC) N° 1489/97 of 29 July 1997 laying down detailed rules
for
the application of Council Regulation (EEC) N° 2847/93 as regards satellite-based vessel
monitoring systems (OJ L 202 of 30.7.1997).
Council Decision 95/527/EC of 8 December 1995 on a Community financial contribution towards
certain expenditure incurred by the Member States implementing the monitoring and control systems
applicable to the common fisheries policy (OJ L 301 of 14.12.1995).
See more closely Article 7 of Council Regulation (EC) N° 685/95 of 27 March 1995 on the
management of fishing effort relating to certain Community fishing areas and resources (OJ L 71 of
31.3.1995).

9

determined for Ireland; (
expenditure).

€

19,5 M for investments and

€

11,5 M for operating

Member States were required to submit a five-year national programme containing in
the
particular the objectives of the proposed control and inspection measures,
envisaged operational measures and the anticipated results. Furthermore, Member
States were required to present a forecast of their annual expenditure eligible for
financial contribution. This innovation in the second five-year was to obtain the
retrieval of information on the utility of the annual programmes proposed by
Member States. However, no information was provided by any Member States
beyond the minimum legal requirements, which thus offered little support.

€

Most of the Community financial contribution (
152 M corresponding to 73 % of
the total) has been spent on offshore surveillance craft and VMS. As these major
investments have contributed, firstly, to the better availability of updated means of
inspection, and, secondly, to the higher precision of their deployment, the second
five-year programme has had a synergetic impact on the efficiency of fisheries
inspection and surveillance. Moreover, it has facilitated the adoption by the Council
of the principle of implementing VMS as a monitoring tool of fishing trips and,
subsequently, its fluent introduction.

The number of projects proposed by Member States under the category “specific
measures” (training and joint inspection programmes) has been disappointing. The
implementation of such projects is beneficial for enhancing co-operation between
competent authorities in several Member States (see Section 3.1.).

4. MONITORING SYSTEMS

Each flag Member State and each coastal Member State has a duty to ensure
proper recording of data on fishing activities on its territory and in its waters as
well as beyond on fishing activities carried out by its vessels. This data shall be
entered and compiled on national data base.

Since the previous report on fisheries control, the functioning of the catch and
effort monitoring systems of Member States cannot
still be considered
satisfactory, although during the period in question some Member States have
made substantial progress in this field. Given obligations dating back to 1984,
the monitoring of catches, landings and sales leaves a lot still to be accomplished.
The highly variable methods utilised by Member States to aggregate their effort
data have not generally reached a level of adequate performance.

While Spain has implemented thoroughly the effort scheme for Western Waters
to regulate the activities of its vessels operating in the waters of other Member
States and while some other Member States have made substantial progress in
this field, certain Member States remain behind.

Apart from the delays encountered in several Member States in the introduction
of VMS, the utilisation of these systems has commenced in a promising fashion.

10

4.1.Catch registration

Pursuant to Control Regulation, the competent authorities in each Member State are
obliged to receive logsheets, landing declarations and sales notes (more recently,
partly substituted by take-over declarations) for all landings into the ports of this
Member State. This catch information is then collated in a computerised central
database in order to aggregate the national catch figures of TAC and quota species.
The data obtained from different sources should also be cross-checked and verified
to guarantee their reliability against this data. In addition, Member States are obliged
to notify regularly their TAC uptake to the Commission.

The requirement to keep logbooks and to submit landing declarations in relation to
catches of TAC and quota species dates back to 1984 (subject to the Mediterranean
exemption). However, in certain Member States (especially France, but also Spain,
Portugal and Finland) the return rate of these documents had still not approached
100 % in 1999. Moreover, whilst some Member States have come up with a general
framework of catch registration functioning in a satisfactory manner, no Member
State has accomplished an adequate system for these purposes, concerning its vessels
operating beyond Community fishing waters. The whole idea of reliable catch
registration is gravely jeopardised by the persistent lack of the most elementary
documentation related to this topic.
Nevertheless, even the most elaborate systems
the logbooks, cannot guarantee the non-existence of “black
for retrieving all
landings”, as illustrated,
the national
description in the Working Document attached).

inter alia, by the British example (cf.

─

As of 1994, logbooks and landing declarations have been supplemented by sales
notes and transport documents to allow the possibility to compare systematically the
information recorded by the master of the vessel with the information from the
buyer. In a number of Member States (Ireland, Finland, Sweden and the United
Kingdom), these documents were not utilised in a satisfactory manner. This is
particularly relevant for sales by-passing the auction system (Spain, France and
Portugal). Further efforts are required in order to ensure full compliance with the
amendments adopted in 1998 to these provisions of the Control Regulation; if the
take-over declarations)
relevant authorities do not
receive sales notes
independent
corresponding to all
verification of catch data.

landings, no alternatives are available for

(or

Cross-checking and verification procedures within the catch registration databases
are often unnecessarily complex (for example owing to divided responsibilities
between several authorities) in some Member States; also the format of sales note
data, not corresponding to the requirements set out in Control Regulation, might
cause additional complications. Even where logbook and sales note information have
been computerised, this has in most cases not been achieved in a manner to facilitate
automatic and computerised crosschecking.

A great variety still remains within the compliance of different Member States with
their catch notification obligations towards the Commission.

11

4.2.Effort registration

The obligations of Member States to gather information about the fishing effort of
their vessels can be differentiated into two main clusters: Firstly, the Community
rules concerning fishing effort in Western Waters (similarly to this, a monitoring
obligation has been established in the Baltic Sea area) and, secondly, the national
implementation regulations adopted in order to comply with the requirements of
multiannual guidance programs (hereafter MAGP), dealt with in Section 6..

Within the Western Waters effort scheme, some Member States have made
substantial progress in its application; notably Spain has established and is currently
operating a very comprehensive and trustworthy monitoring and control system for
its vessels engaged in the fisheries in question, particularly for the so-called list of
300 vessels. Other Member States have still scope for improvement: the French and
the Irish monitoring systems for these purposes have not produced any verifiable
results up to 1999.

For the Baltic Sea area, the results of the monitoring actions of relevant Member
States cannot in general be deemed satisfactory. While differences exist between the
levels of ambition, the measures taken by some coastal Member States in this area
have only recently established the conditions for collection of the information
required for these purposes.

The methods utilised in different Member States to collect the necessary information
about their fishing effort vary: some extract this data from logsheets, others use effort
messages (especially for Western Waters purposes), whilst in some cases the sources
remain unclear. Similarly to catch registration, this data is then entered into a
computerised database for national aggregations, as well as crosschecked with other
available information about this topic in order to verify its reliability, and regularly
conveyed to the Commission.
Although some Member States apply these
verification procedures to their fishing effort databases, these practices are not yet
sufficiently widespread. Moreover, certain Member States have totally failed to
comply with their obligations of informing the Commission about the fishing effort
of their vessels, or have conveyed this information only occasionally during the
period in question.

─

4.3.VMS

During the first phase of the implementation of VMS14, this obligation has concerned
all Community fishing vessels exceeding 20 metres between perpendiculars or 24
metres overall length belonging to any one of the following categories: vessels
operating on the high seas, except in the Mediterranean Sea; vessels operating in the
waters of third countries in a reciprocal basis; or vessels engaged in industrial
fisheries.

Member States have been obliged notably to install a satellite-tracking device
(« Blue Box ») on the fishing vessels to which VMS shall apply from 30 June 1998,

14

The Community VMS requirements, laid down in Council Regulation (EC) N° 686/97 and Commission
Regulation (EC) N° 1489/97, have entered into force in two phases of application, out of which Phase I
has covered the period of 30.6.1998 - 31.12.1999; from 1 January 2000 onwards the Community has
entered into Phase II, with a larger number of fishing vessels obliged to participate in this system.

12

at the latest on that date; to establish by the said date fisheries monitoring centres
(FMC); and to ensure from 1 October 1998 onwards that the Commission shall have
distant access to their VMS data bases.

By the completion of Phase I, the systems of most Member States were operational,
albeit the delays still troubling four of them. Ireland and France have later caught up
with the others, whereas the VMS systems are not yet operational in Greece and in
Italy.
The transmission of the position reports to coastal Member States and the
availability of VMS data for the competent services have not yet become totally
operational.

─

5. INSPECTION AND SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITIES

Each Member State is responsible for the inspection and surveillance of the
fishing activities on its territory and in its waters.

Some Member States have introduced in Community fishing waters and/or
ashore an effective inspection and surveillance scheme as well as adopted a
coherent inspection strategy, both based on a comprehensive control system.
However, this observation cannot be generalised to all Member States.

The main reasons for weaknesses noted in inspection and surveillance activities
are deficits in the means available and in the training of inspectors, cumbersome
procedural demands and irrational programming or a lack of targeting of these
activities.

Beyond Community waters, the Commission promotes the joint control schemes
of regional fisheries organisations (RFOs) which require co-operation and
sharing of responsibilities within the Community as well as with other
Contracting Parties. The examples of NEAFC and NAFO should be extended to
other areas.

Flag Member States are attributing generally a low priority to monitoring the
fishing activities of their vessels in these areas, with exception of the Regulatory
Areas of NAFO and NEAFC. Inspection and surveillance beyond Community
waters are confined to NAFO, NEAFC and driftnet fisheries.

Systematic monitoring and inspection of landings from international and third
country waters do not extend beyond specific obligations (NAFO, Fishery
Agreements EU-Morocco and EU-Mauritania).

5.1.Community area and fisheries zone

The number of inspections varies considerably from one Member State to another.
Several national authorities focus on the intensity and thus the effectivity of the
inspections rather than the total amount of inspections. A large majority of
inspections are, however, performed on a routine basis. Only in a few Member
States, inspections are carried out as part of a comprehensive control strategy in a
targeted fashion.

13

The effectiveness of fisheries control actions is clearly related to the existence of
incentives for the fishermen to profit illegally by the lack of them. When Member
States have succeeded in introducing a well-functioning control system, balanced
with the probabilities of non-compliance, the fishermen have no reason to take
chances; examples of these kind of situations have already been referred to above.
On the other hand, if the probability of inspection is low, the economic benefits to be
acquired by fraudulent behaviour are high and the expected level of sanctions is low,
adequate observance cannot be guaranteed.

Community law requirements for inspection and surveillance require of inspection
activity after first sale. The number of inspections after first sale has not yet reached
a satisfactory level. As regards landings and subsequent marketing, improvements
have been observed notably for the reasons presented in Section 3.1..

Aerial surveillance of inshore areas has reached a rather high intensity,
the
availability of surveillance vessels and aircraft, often provided by authorities
involved in many other duties, for the purpose of fisheries control cannot be
sufficiently guaranteed.
In offshore and remote areas, where surveillance generally
is carried out mainly for fisheries objectives,
the availability of both sea- and
airborne means capable of these kinds of tasks presents its restrictions. Adequate
inspection and surveillance of these areas is facilitated by VMS.

─

Owing to the transboundary nature of fishing activities, any doubts from inspectors at
sea should be verified at landing by inspectors, perhaps from another Member State,
and during the first sale by inspectors, perhaps again from another Member State.
Joint surveillance
The inspectors of the flag state should be informed of the results.
campaigns by several Member States have often taken the fishermen totally by
surprise, since such co-ordinated actions have not been expected to be carried out.
The co-ordination of such activities of several national authorities often requires a lot
of effort, to accomplish the same on an international level between Member States,
has proved even more demanding. The number of examples of this kind remains
limited.

─

For some Member States, the numbers of inspections reach high levels, but the
number of infringements observed remains surprisingly low. On several occasions,
however, Commission inspectors have observed a totally different proportion
between cases inspected and infringements noted in these Member States. Moreover,
when Commission inspectors have been accompanying the surveillance vessels of
some Member States, the surveillance actions have sometimes been lacking any
clearly designed strategy: the consequence of this deficit could easily be, that the
control effort has been deployed in areas/periods, where/when the fisheries in
question usually did not take place or where/when infringements in general could not
With a comprehensive control strategy, the results measured in numbers
be found.
of infringements might also stay modest but this situation should still be interpreted
as reflecting the higher level of compliance in a reliable and verifiable manner.

─

Apart from the availability of the means and the training of the officials, referred to
above in Section 3.1., other factors have also been noted to affect the efficiency of
the inspections accomplished. The control powers of the officials in question might
in a manner open to all sorts of
have been legally defined too strictly or
interpretations. The competencies of various authorities acting separately multiply
─
The consequence of these circumstances
the challenges for fluent co-operation.

14

might well be summed up as a lack of an efficient control structure, at least as
regards results; the French case of undersized hake being constantly landed and
marketed is a prime example of this.

After outlining the above examples, in this context, the Commission has to refer to
substantial improvements which have taken place in the efficiency of inspections.
Indeed, inspection and surveillance of a number of fishing areas and in many ports
can be considered quite satisfactory.

5.2.Beyond Community waters

In accordance with Article 2(2) of the Control Regulation, Member States and the
Community have to comply with obligations in the field of monitoring, inspection
and surveillance, set out in Articles 17 and 18 of the Control Regulation, specific
provisions adopted in the framework of Regional Fisheries Organisations (RFOs)
and in fishery agreements concluded between the Community and a number of third
countries.

When Community fishing vessels operate in the waters of third countries,
the
Community as the flag party should co-operate with the coastal state in question in
order to achieve proper enforcement of applicable rules for example by carrying out
landing controls or by transmitting VMS information to the coastal state.
When
vessels are operating in international waters, the flag state has to ensure adequate
levels of monitoring, inspection and surveillance of their activities. In such cases, the
respective flag states are required to co-operate with the other relevant countries,
including the coastal states in order to ensure conservation of the living marine
resources concerned. In practice, apart from situations such as NAFO or Morocco,
only a low priority has been attributed by flag Member States to these issues.

─

In the frameworks of the relevant Regional Fisheries Organisations (RFOs), the
Community is committed to control under schemes agreed within these organisations
(for example NAFO, NEAFC, CCAMLR). The Community promotes actively the
adoption of control schemes by other regional organisations.

the Community has contributed to the establishment and the
Within NAFO,
implementation of an efficient control scheme, representing a major achievement
compared to the past. The tasks of the Commission have been restricted to inspection
and surveillance in the regulatory area (inspectors on EU surveillance vessels and
observer scheme), whereas Member States are to take care of landing inspections and
the follow-up of infringements. However, obvious burdens have also arisen from this
framework:
the landing inspections in Member States have often required the
presence of both Commission and national inspectors, and the immediate follow-up
of cited infringements as well as their sanctioning involve various authorities. The
Commission has not been assigned powers to guarantee adequate efficiency by each
of the authorities concerned, whereas this would simplify the achievement of
compliance with the Community’s international obligations throughout Community
territory and to maintain a balance in terms of costs and benefits.

Apart from the Mediterranean, where the introduction of fishing zones beyond
territorial waters has not been generalised, and the driftnet fishery in the Atlantic,
Member States have not carried out inspection and surveillance of their vessels in
international waters outside NAFO and (most recently) NEAFC regulatory areas.

15

Systematic monitoring and inspection of
landings into Member States from
international and third country waters have been applied only to some specific
obligations, arising from the international commitments of the Community (notably
NAFO as well as agreements with Morocco and Mauritania).

6. CONTROL OF THE FLEETS

General rules concerning the control of fleet capacity have been adopted at
Community level. Accordingly, each Member State is responsible for the
adoption of detailed measures ensuring the national implementation of targets
set at Community level.

New entries in the fishing fleet are regulated by Member States within their
national licensing schemes. In the framework of the fleet register, information is
collected on each Community fishing vessel, registered by Member States.

The national measures taken to achieve capacity restrictions in order to attain
MAGP objectives have not been ambitious enough to enable the structural
policy to obtain the benchmarks determined at Community level for fleet
reduction. This has contributed to a widening gap between the factual capacity
of the fleets and their fishing opportunities.

In addition, the control of fleet register data, the constancy of the MAGP
segmentation and the aimed reduction of fishing effort have fallen short of their
objectives.

In the framework of the structural policy, several measures have been introduced in
order to achieve a balance between the capacity of the fleet and the available as well
as accessible fishing opportunities. The information on fishing fleets is collected in
the fleet register, containing both historical and updated information on each fishing
vessel from its construction or import into the Community.

The Commission has subsequently adopted MAGPs for all Member States and thus
determined for each of them the total objectives for fleet capacity reductions,
presented in the respective Commission decisions separately concerning each
segment. However, the manner of achieving these global objectives has not been
defined in detail
in Community law. This legislation assumes detailed rules
concerning control procedures to be implemented by Member States.

The fleet register is the main tool for monitoring fleet capacity under the MAGP
framework. Moreover, it provides the computerised infrastructure necessary for the
management of national vessel licensing schemes, special fishing permit applications
and the upkeep of the lists required by Community legislation about certain vessels
fishing in Western Waters or in the Baltic Sea area. The contents of the register,
notably the data about vessel engine power and tonnage, have customarily been
obtained from the central national vessel inspection agency in charge of the national
vessel register and/or the initial checks on vessels entering the fleet. In some
countries there exist several such agencies.

16

In order to regulate the size of the fishing fleet, Member States have introduced
licensing systems, where the issuing of a licence is considered a prerequisite for the
operation of a fishing vessel. Pursuant to these arrangements, the newcomers are to
obtain a licence before commencing the exploitation of marine living resources.
These licence schemes should allow Member States to control effectively the number
of fishing vessels in their fleet.
Nonetheless, the efficient controls of the factual
capacity of the fleets have not generally been achieved by these national measures,
not ambitious enough to enable the structural policy to obtain the benchmarks
determined at the Community level for fleet reduction. This situation has brought
about a widening gap between the factual capacity of the fishing fleet of Member
States and their available as well as accessible fishing opportunities.

(cid:1)

least partial)
Most fisheries inspection authorities have been entrusted with (at
responsibility for the monitoring and control of the registered vessel characteristics
(Articles 24 - 26 of Control Regulation). In practice, these kinds of controls (both by
national fisheries administrations and by other competent authorities) have remained
almost exclusively on the level of checks on vessel documentation.

The registered data concerning the tonnage of fishing vessels are to a large extent
based on vessel remeasurements (or corresponding calculations) according to the
London (ICT) convention. Measurements are carried out by authorities, officially
recognised bodies or individuals (naval architects) certifying the measurement
results. The reliability of these figures has thus risen in general to an adequate level,
although this does not apply to all Member States.

On the other hand, the registered engine power of the fleet cannot in general be
considered totally reliable. Certain Member States have recently started with
attempts to standardise or to rectify their data about this topic. Some Member States
have tried to control their vessels with physical checks aimed at the factual engine
power in use: still, this has occurred almost exclusively in the Plaice Box.
The use
of derated engines together with the newest engine technology causes additional
complexities in this respect. If, as in most Member States, the derated engines are not
individually and physically checked during their installation,
there remains no
guarantee of the reliability of the manufacturers certified initial power figures.
Furthermore, additional measures have not been implemented for monitoring or
verification of the continuity of initial engine powers during the lifespan of vessels.

─

is low. No Member State has explored,

The priority attributed by some Member States to the verification of information
about engine power
for example,
opportunities such as utilising the information on tax-free fuel, supplied to fishing
vessels, for control purposes. This would be a relative simple method to analyse
globally the scope for discrepancies between declared and real engine power, fuel
consumption being an indicator for factually deployed power.

Even on occasions, when the visual picture of the vessel, alongside information
about its length/size and fishing method, has caused doubts concerning the reliability
of its registered engine power figures, the national authorities have on request
provided the Commission with explanations based solely on the documents obtained
from engine manufacturers: no physical controls have taken place in these cases and
the Commission has not even subsequently been informed of any further actions
taken.

17

legislation,

to national

Pursuant
the existing fishing vessels are not generally
forbidden from changing their MAGP segments: in some of these systems, this does
not even necessitate a new licence to be issued to such vessels.
In these
circumstances, Member States in question do not in practice control the constancy of
the MAGP segmentation.
Moreover, in several Member States, segments are only
monitored ex-post on the basis of the activities carried out by fishing vessels in the
course of the preceding year (or a shorter period).

─

Some of the Member States, required to meet their obligations as set out within the
MAGP IV framework by reducing the fishing effort in some of their fleet segments,
have also advanced in this area. Some of these Member States manage the activities
of their fishing fleets either by issuing special fishing permits, authorising the vessels
in question to be engaged in certain fisheries, or by attaching similar kinds of
conditions to the licences of the vessels. Nevertheless, certain other Member States,
notably France and Sweden, still do not control their aggregated information for the
segments in question, although the more general challenges having been encountered
during their MAGP IV implementation might account for some of this delay.

7. IMPLEMENTATION OF SANCTIONS

Within the Community framework, Member States are responsible for follow-
up of infringements and sanctioning systems. To this end, Member States are to
ensure the appropriateness of sanctioning procedures in force. While substantial
differences can be observed in the systems established by Member States, solely
their efficiency is to be assessed in terms of follow-up procedures and the
deterrent impact of sanctioning.

The current sanctioning systems appear too permissive towards fisheries-related
offences: all observed infringements are not brought forward to decision-
making bodies, warnings are in excessive use and the applied levels of sanctions
have remained below the demands of deterrence. Much remains to be achieved
also in the field of mutual exchange of evidentiary material and other judicial
co-operation in transboundary circumstances.

At present, the treatment of fishermen within the different national sanctioning
systems is not necessarily equal : variations could be encountered even within
one single system. Under current circumstances, the objective of a harmonised
Although administrative
level of sanctions would thus seem rather distant.
procedures appear to have resulted in more efficiency, also the achievement of
sufficient deterrence of the national sanctioning systems in general would be
necessary to ensure full compliance with the common fisheries policy.

(cid:1)

According to Article 31 of the Control Regulation, Member States are to ensure that
appropriate measures are taken to sanction those responsible for non-respect of the
common fisheries policy. Although Member States are at liberty in their choice of
procedures in conformity with their national legislations, the proceedings initiated
are to deprive those responsible for the infringements the economic benefits deriving
from them or to produce proportional results effectively discouraging further
offences of the same kind.
The choices taken by Member States have been

─

18

illustrated above in Section 2.3.; the requirements set out in Article 31 of the Control
Regulation for the type and level of sanctions to be applied focus on their efficiency
in deterring from non-compliance and in fully confiscating the benefits acquired by
the infringement.

interest

in fisheries-related offences

Within the present sanctioning procedures,
there often seem to exist arbitrary
thresholds between the different authorities dealing with fisheries offences: all the
noted infringements are not brought into the (administrative or judicial) decision-
making phases. Firstly, national inspectors have been observed not to report or
forward all the infringements they have discovered (or to cite all of them, in systems
where this would be appropriate). If some intermediary agencies (for example the
police forces) are involved, they have neither always presented all the cases brought
to them further to the prosecutionary bodies. Thirdly, even the prosecutors tend to
have lesser
(compared with the more
“customary” crimes), thus more easily not entered to the courts themselves. These
kinds of features have been observed without exception in all Member States,
their sanctioning systems, although sometimes
irrespective of
accentuated within the criminal ones.
There also seems to exist a gap between
warnings issued by fisheries administration and sanctions delivered by the criminal
jurisdiction in many Member States: the number of the warnings are generally quite
overwhelming when compared to the number of sanctions. Moreover, there have
been observed cases concerning repeated offences, where the warnings issued time
after time do not seem to have had any deterrent effect, but where apparently the
court procedure still has been considered too heavy by the national authorities to be
embarked upon.

the nature of

─

the impact of sanctions applied and their deterrence amongst

Member States with an administrative sanctioning system in place seem to have
reached, on average, results more proportionate to the offences committed. More
importantly,
the
fishermen appears to be felt more strongly, when there is a real threat of an
immediate and sufficient penalty. Within the administrative systems, there need not
be thresholds between authorities or gaps between different levels of sanctions. The
initial deliverance of sanctions can be carried out fluently and reasonably by the
responsible authorities fully aware of the total situation. The transparency and the
compatibility of the sanctions with common standards can be assisted also within
these procedures by issuing guidelines to the different administrative authorities
dealing with these matters.

As referred to in Section 2.1., there already exist multi- and bilateral agreements
between Member States, containing provisions of
judicial assistance and co-
─
operation. They have not been closely examined for the purposes of this report.
Reference has to be made also to the recently enlarged competencies of European
Union in the area of judicial co-operation in criminal matters (Title VI of the Treaty
on European Union).

However, Member States do not appear to continuously exercise such kinds of
strategies as in operation within RFO’s about notably mutual exchange of
enforcement and evidentiary information. The compatibility of national rules of
evidence in each respective Member State has brought up additional challenges even
in legal systems closely resembling each other.

19

The results attained so far in the field of judicial co-operation between Member
States concerning fisheries infringements appear to fall short of what is required in
order to accomplish satisfactory across the border enforcement of Community rules.
Much remains to be achieved in this context, especially while encountering
infringements connected to transboundary fishing activities.

the Commission is not

At present,
in possession of comprehensive detailed
information concerning the type and the level of sanctions factually applied to the
various fisheries-related infringements in Member States. This situation is to
improve, when Member States are to commence to notify the Commission on serious
infringements and to provide it with information about their sanctioning as specified
in Council Regulation (EC) No 1447/199915 and in Commission Regulation (EC)
No 2740/199916.

However, on the basis of the information obtained so far, it can be concluded that the
applied levels of (especially criminal) fines frequently have stayed well below the
demands of deterrence. Besides, the necessity to restrict the (usually criminal as
opposed to administrative confiscations) to the proceeds of the fishing trip where the
offender has been caught in the act, and the illegal gears presently in use, does not
tend to present a strong incentive for fishermen to full compliance; this situation has
often been combined with a low probability of being inspected. The sanctions with
more substantial
for example licence withdrawals or
suspensions, have never been applied within the criminal court systems of some
Member States and appear to have been exceedingly rare also in other criminal
procedures.

impacts for

fishermen,

Conclusively, the Commission is at present not in a position to guarantee that the
existing national sanctioning systems would function in an equal manner in all
Member States and that, even within each respective Member State, the observed
infringements would be treated and punished with equity. Also, the sanctions issued
might still vary quite substantially depending on, whether they are to be delivered to
domestic (let alone local) fishermen, or to foreigners from neighbouring Member
States. Under current circumstances, the objective of a harmonised level of sanctions
within the whole Community would thus seem rather distant.
These remaining
features as well as the inadequate deterrent impact of these systems pose additional
burdens on monitoring, inspection and surveillance of fishing activities and thus
compromise the efficiency of fisheries control, a cornerstone of full compliance with
the common fisheries policy.

─

15

16

Council Regulation (EC) N° 1447/1999 of 24 June 1999 establishing a list of types of behaviour which
seriously infringe the rules of the common fisheries policy (OJ L 167 of 2.7.1999).
Commission Regulation (EC) N° 2740/1999 of 21 December 1999 laying down detailed rules for the
application of Council Regulation (EC) N° 1447/1999 establishing a list of types of behaviour which
seriously infringe the rules of the common fisheries policy (OJ L 328 of 22.12.1999).

20

8. REVIEW OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMON FISHERIES POLICY

Community legislation requires Member States to adopt appropriate measures
to ensure the effectiveness of the common fisheries policy. Therefore, the
efficiency of national control systems needs also to be assessed in terms of its the
contribution to the achievement of the aims of the common fisheries policy.

An evaluation of the impact of control systems on conservation of marine living
resources reflects the overall efficiency of the Community control system as the
aggregated impact of each national control system concerned. The level of this
overall efficiency affects the level of ambition directed towards the conservation
of fish stocks in question .

The national licensing and registration systems are generally not capable of
being utilised for achieving a forced reduction of the fleet capacity nor as effort
reduction. The impact of some of the national measures, aimed at the reduction
of fishing effort, on the conservation of the stocks has been limited to a few
cases. Overcapacity is one of the basic reasons for the existence of discards and
“black” fish and cases of inadequacy of national control.

8.1.Conservation policy

Fishing mortality can be regulated in several ways such as by the restriction of
catches (TACs and quotas), by restriction of effort (days at sea restrictions as well as
periodic closures) or by a combination of these two types of means. The exploitation
pattern is regulated notably by technical measures (mesh sizes, minimum fish sizes,
closed or restricted areas). The control systems implemented are to ensure that
fishing activities comply with these conservation measures.

8.1.1. Quantitative restrictions of catches

The number of official overshootings of quotas and the level by which the allowed
amounts have been exceeded have reduced over the years, owing also to the
introduction of an interannual flexibility into the Community rules concerning annual
quotas. Fisheries management methods utilised by Member States differ to a great
extent (vessel quotas, weekly maximum landing quantities, temporary closures etc.).
─
However, in a few cases, the improvement of quota management may only have

taken place on paper, whilst significant black landings are tolerated still.

In the Baltic Sea area, the reliability of official catch figures for cod has improved
considerably even while landing controls in this area have remained generally not
effective enough. In the period 1992-1994, the level of the TAC did not anticipate a
new large year-class entering the fishery. The increased catch rates did not match
with TAC and quota: “black-landed” catches may have exceeded declared catches.
The TAC and quota for herring and sprat have been fixed for a number of years at
levels where there was no real risk of overfishing.

In region 2, the landing controls have been considerably reinforced in a number of
Member States. The quality of the official landing figures has, therefore, improved.

21

This information regarding landings of most small pelagics and some demersal
species is considered accurate. However, landings of unrecorded catches (black fish)
remain a serious problem concerning notably roundfish. The misreporting by area
remains substantial for most of the stocks in this region.

In region 3, under-reporting and misreporting of catches is less important than in
region 2 even while landing controls in this area have remained generally not
effective enough. The TACs in this region are set at a level which are not really
compelling. Against that background, less incentive exists for the misreporting of
catches. Persistent problems in specific fisheries (anchovy and southern hake) have
been resolved by quota swaps. Monitoring systems of fishing activities are rather
poor in region 3.

In the Mediterranean Sea area, monitoring systems of catches are currently being
introduced. Only one stock (bluefin tuna) is subject to TAC and quota. Member
States have implemented specific measures for monitoring catches of this species;
however, these measures have not yet reached full efficiency.

The quality of the catch data of vessels operating beyond Community fishing waters
in the North Atlantic has improved considerably. The official catch figures
correspond to the quantities landed. However, the Commission is not in a position to
assess the accuracy of catches recorded in other international fisheries.

In addition to the aspects concerning certain areas or fisheries also difficulties with
horizontal dimensions have tended to emerge. Firstly, an imbalance has remained in
several Member States between the landing opportunities locally available for the
fishermen and the means allocated for controlling these landings. The disadvantages
of this lack of proportions have been gravely accentuated by the chronic situation of
fleet overcapacity, when compared with the fishing possibilities available for the
technically more advanced fleets.

8.1.2.

Implementation of fishing effort scheme

Only a few Member States have created management tools for restricting the fishing
effort of their vessels. Moreover, even fewer Member States have succeeded in this
task; however, some of the schemes currently in operation have proved successful in
producing sufficient results both in the field of updated information and in the area of
real obstacles for the vessels concerned to override their effort limits.

8.1.3.

Implementation of technical measures

Closed areas and area restrictions are generally well respected. The implementation
of minimum mesh sizes and minimum fish sizes is satisfactory in the Baltic Sea area
and in region 2. However, within some fisheries the enforcement of these measures
remains a problem. The use of mesh size obstructing devices, such as blinders,
persists notably in fisheries for sole; in other fisheries illegal mesh sizes are utilised
(for example, mesh sizes authorised in one fishery are used during the same trip in
other fisheries, which require larger mesh sizes). The one-net rule as proposed by the
Commission at several occasions would greatly alleviate these difficulties caused to
the control authorities.

22

In region 3 and in the Mediterranean Sea area the situation is less satisfactory. A
large market demand exists in these regions for small fish; this presents an incentive
to use illegal gear and land undersized fish. The efforts deployed by Member States
concerned have not proved successful in eradicating these kinds of fishing behaviour.
─
The maximum length of driftnets allowed to be utilised notably in the

Mediterranean Sea area remains a problem.

8.2.Structural policy

The measures taken by Member States, described in Section 6., have mostly
succeeded in establishing operational entry-exit schemes, according to which the new
entrants have to be registered and licensed in order to be allowed to engage in fishing
activities. However, the systems introduced for these purposes are not capable of
being utilised for achieving a forced reduction of the fleet capacity. No Member
State has adopted national legislation enabling the authorities to oblige the vessels to
be retired from the fishing fleet without a right for (at least almost) total substitution
in terms of existing capacity.

In these circumstances, Member States appear to be lacking efficient means to bring
the capacity reductions defined within the framework of MAGPs, still
about
remaining partly not achieved. This dilemma affects the reliability of the registered
capacity data notably in Member States, which have introduced national systems
converting the overall MAGP objectives into restrictions applying to individual
vessels. The national control measures related to this matter have not been
adequately adjusted to, or focused on, ensuring the reliability of fleet register
information concerning fleet capacity and especially engine power. The constancy of
the existing MAGP segmentation cannot always be guaranteed either.

In practice,
the balance between fleet capacity and fishing opportunities has
generally not been achieved. Moreover, Member States have chosen to regulate the
access to waters and resources only in a limited number of cases. Therefore, in most
fisheries the situation can be expressed as “too many vessels chasing too few fish”,
the equation of the difference being an indicator for monitoring, inspection and
surveillance burdens.

9. CONCLUSIONS

The Control Regulation, as amended, offers a complete legal framework of control,
covering the whole chain of fish and fisheries products from the net to the plate of
the consumer. This framework covers all fishing activities on the territory of the
Community and in Community fishing waters as well as all activities of Community
fishing vessels beyond these waters. This coverage reaches from conservation and
management of fish stocks to measures concerning the common organisation of the
market in fishery products, as well, implying not only the obligations of masters and
owners of fishing vessels but also the responsibility of fish buyers, processors and
subsequent economic operators.

In accordance with Community principles,
the responsibility of controlling the
application of Community legislation belongs first and foremost with Member States.
Several Member States have, indeed, established efficient national control systems
on the base of Community law referred to above. The financial contribution towards

23

control expenditure incurred by Member States has facilitated the allocation of
sufficient means for control and the introduction of VMS.

Currently, the success of fisheries control is fragmented with many fishing activities
being efficiently controlled but with other activities not controlled at all or with a
level of control clearly insufficient. In a number of fisheries, the overall success of
control will be as strong as the weakest link in the chain.

responsibility for a satisfactory level of
The Community bears the overall
implementation of the common fisheries policy. It should not only comply with its
international obligations, but also achieve its goals in the area of the protection and
conservation of marine living resources as well as secure the protection of its fleets
against IUU fishing by other fleets.

Concerning the further extension of the progress achieved over the past years, the
full
implementation of the recent amendments of Community Regulations will
further contribute to the achievement of full compliance with the common fisheries
policy. Furthermore, a number of problems enumerated in this report can be resolved
by measures to be adopted on the national level of Member States (for example, by
the establishment of comprehensive control system, by the adjustment of mandates
and by improved organisation and training, by the adoption of rational inspection
strategies as well as by the introduction of effective and deterrent sanctioning
procedures).

However, not all problems will be resolved in this way. If certain Member States
would still not achieve a satisfactory level of control in the future, the current
Community control framework is insufficiently compelling for the authorities failing
to live up to Community standards. Indeed, the Community framework cannot force
compliance with the common fisheries policy even where the Community itself is
committed to
cooperation and
coordination between all authorities involved in fisheries monitoring, inspection and
surveillance tasks will remain a heavy burden within the Community control system.
These dilemmas obviously require to be addressed at Community level.

international obligations. Furthermore,

the

As this report will be part of the discussion on the review of the common fisheries
policy, launched by the presentation of the Commission’s Green Paper “The Future
of the common fisheries policy”, the Commission is to draw its ultimate conclusions
for the future prospects of the Community fisheries control system first after the
public debate on these issues is completed. At that stage, the Commission will
present to the Council and the European Parliament a Communication on the future
orientations in the area of fisheries monitoring, control and enforcement.

24

ANNEX I

LIST OF THE AMENDMENTS OF CONTROL REGULATION:

Council Regulation (EC) N° 2870/95 of 8 December 1995 (OJ L 301 of 14.12.1995),

Council Regulation (EC) N° 2489/96 of 20 December 1996 (OJ L 338 of 28.12.1996),

Council Regulation (EC) N° 686/97 of 14 April 1997 (OJ L 102 of 19.4.1997),

Council Regulation (EC) N° 2205/97 of 30 October 1997 (OJ L 304 of 7.11.1997),

Council Regulation (EC) N° 2635/97 of 18 December 1997 (OJ L 356 of 31.12.1997) and

Council Regulation (EC) N° 2846/98 of 17 December 1998 (OJ L 358 of 31.12.1998)

LIST OF THE PRESENTED COMMUNICATIONS

Rapport de la Commission au Conseil et au Parlement européen sur
l’application de la politique commune de la pêche (SEC(92) 394 final du 6.3.1992)

le contrôle de

Rapport de la Commission au Conseil et au Parlement européen sur la participation financière
de la Communauté aux dépenses consenties par les Etats membres pour assurer le respect de
la politique commune de la pêche (COM(95)243 final du 9.6.1995)

Rapport de la Commission au Conseil et au Parlement européen sur l’établissement d’un
système de contrôle des bateaux de pêche communautaires par satellite (COM(96)232 final du
28.5.1996)

the Commission to the Council and European Parliament on monitoring
Report of
Community conservation and management measures applicable to third country fishing
vessels (COM(96)493 final, of 22.10.1996)

Communication from the Commission to the Council and European Parliament: Fisheries
monitoring under the common fisheries policy, COM (1998) 92 (final), of 19.2.1998

Action plan of the Commission for improving the implementation of the common fisheries
policy (SEC(1998) 949 final), of 5.6.1998

* * * * *

25

LIST OF THE DRIFTNETS REPORTS

– Report from the services of the Commission on enforcement of Community legislation

concerning the use of driftnets in 1994 : SEC(94) 2003 of 25.11.1994.

– Report on the enforcement of Community legislation concerning the use of driftnets in the

N.E. Atlantic and the Mediterranean

• in 1995 : SEC(95) 2259 of 14.12.1995

• in 1996 : SEC(97) 937 of 13.5.1997

• in 1997 : SEC(98) 477 of 17.3.1998

– Report on enforcement in 1998 and 1999 of Community legislation on the use of driftnets
in fishing for highly migratory species in the NE Atlantic and the Mediterranean –
24.5.2000

26

ANNEX II

Annual Community financial contribution to expenditure incurred by Member
States for fisheries control and the percentage actually used at the end of 2000
€

Million

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

Total

Contribution

•

35-50 %

• > 50 %

Contribution to
Ireland

•

•

investments

operating
expenditure

24.4

0.3

29.1

2.4

31.1

9.5

35.6

11.4

31.5

151.6

3.4

27.1

2.3

2.5

3.6

3.0

8.4

3.0

2.6

0

2.5

3.0

19.5

11.5

Total

29.5

38.1

52.0

49.6

40.5

209.6

Actually
reimbursed

50 %

69 %

62 % 50.5 %

1 %

47 %

The following amounts of financial contribution have been committed to the existing
subcategories:

154 M (74 %)
€
21 M
€
133 M

€

€

40 M (19 %)
€
17 M
€
4 M
19 M

€

15 M (7 %)
€
2 M
€
13 M

209 M (100%)

• surveillance vessels and aircraft

– inshore
– offshore
• new technology
– computers
– networks
– VMS

• specific measures and miscellaneous

– training
– miscellaneous

Total amount of financial contribution

€

€

27