Communication from the Commission - Compliance with the rules of the Common Fisheries Policy "Compliance Work Plan and scoreboard "
Date: 2003-06-11
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU control, European Commission, application of EU law, common fisheries policy, competence of the Member States, fishing regulations, national implementing measure

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

Brussels, 11.06.2003
COM(2003)344 final

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION

COMPLIANCE WITH THE RULES OF THE COMMON FISHERIES POLICY

“COMPLIANCE WORK PLAN AND SCOREBOARD ”

   
1.

1.1.

INTRODUCTION

The  achievement  of  the  effective  implementation  of  the  rules  of  the  Common
Fisheries Policy (CFP) is a prerequisite for the success of the reform of this policy.
To this end, each Member State must meet its responsibilities in the area of control
and  enforcement  of  the  rules  of  the  CFP.  The  Commission  shall  facilitate,  where
appropriate,  these  Member  State’s  tasks  and  act  in  order  to  ensure  effective,
equitable  and  uniform  application  of  the  rules  of  the  CFP.  Indeed,  the  CFP  cannot
achieve  its  objectives  if  weaknesses  in  national  control  and  enforcement  systems
persist.

In the discussions on the reform of the CFP, the conclusions of the Commission on
the  implementation  of  the  CFP  were  generally  supported  by  the  fishing  industry,
Member States authorities, the Parliament and the Council. It was notably concluded
that :

(cid:1)  Poor implementation undermines effectiveness of conservation measures;

(cid:1)  A lack of uniformity results in the absence of a level playing field in control and

enforcement on the Community level.

The Council adopted on 20 December 2002 Regulation (EC) No. 2371/2002 on the
conservation  and  sustainable  exploitation  of  fisheries  resources  under  the  Common
Fisheries  Policy.  This  Regulation  provides  for  a  strengthening  of  control  and
enforcement  of  the  rules  of  the  CFP,  including  preventive  measures,  suspension  of
financial  assistance  to  Member  States  and  increased  powers  for  the  Commission’s
inspectors  in  the  framework  of  specific  monitoring  programmes.  The  division  of
responsibilities between the Member States’ authorities and the Commission is also
clarified.

In  this  regard  the  Commission  has  set  out  an  Action  Plan  for  Co-operation  in
Enforcement as well as the arrangements for setting up a Joint Inspection Structure1.
The duration of this Action Plan is foreseen for 2003-2005.

The present Communication ties in with this Action Plan by setting out a Compliance
Work Plan. Its aim is to give a clear message on the action that needs to be taken to
redress the shortcomings in the implementation of the CFP.

The  Compliance  Work  Plan  is  accompanied  by  a  scoreboard,  which  is  a  new
information  tool  that  provides  an  indication  of  the  level  of  compliance  of  different
regulatory provisions by the Member States as well as the action carried out by the
Commission  in  terms  of  verification  of  Member  States’  control  and  enforcement
activities and their level of compliance with the rules of the CFP. This Compliance
Scoreboard  is  made  available  to  the  public  through  the  Commission  web  site
(http://europa.eu.int/comm/fisheries).

1

Communication  to  the  Council  and  the  European  Parliament  “Towards  uniform  and  effective
implementation of the Common Fisheries Policy”,  COM (2003) 130 of 21.03.2003

2

                                                
1.2.

Member States are responsible for the application of the rules of the CFP whilst the
Commission evaluates the performance by Member States in this regard in order to
ensure that the CFP is being applied in an equitable fashion and in conformity with
the  rules.  Moreover,  the  Commission  facilitates  co-ordination  and  co-operation
between Member States in the area of control and enforcement.

The Commission must also meet its responsibilities under the reformed CFP and use
the means at its disposal in order to achieve compliance with the rules of the CFP by
Member States including, where required, act against weaknesses in national control
systems.

Most Member States have adopted measures over the past decade to improve control
and  enforcement  both  in  response  to  the  problems  observed  and  to  new  control
provisions adopted2 by the Council.

The  introduction  of  VMS  and  information  technology  has  reinforced  considerably
the  capacity  of  national  authorities  to  monitor  fishing  activities.  Furthermore,  most
Member  States  increased  the  means  of  inspection  and  surveillance  or  involved  the
industry  itself  more  directly  in  monitoring  fishing  activities.  Some  Member  States
adopted also comprehensive control systems maximising the probability  for vessels
to be inspected.

Although progress has been  made  since  1992  weaknesses  have  persisted  in  control
and  enforcement,  which  have  a  negative  impact  on  the  effectiveness  of  the
conservation and control measures adopted by the Council.

2.

APPLICATION OF THE COMMON FISHERIES POLICY

2.1.

Shortcomings in the implementation of the CFP

2.1.1.

In spite of the undeniable progress, certain deficiencies in the implementation of the
CFP  still  remain.  The  success  of  fisheries  control  is  uneven  with  many  fishing
activities being efficiently controlled but with other activities not controlled at all or
with a level of control that is clearly insufficient. In a number of fisheries, the overall
success of control will be as strong as the weakest link in the chain.

National  authorities  have  sometimes  been  slow  to  react  whilst  the  fishing  industry
has  not  always  been  supportive  of  the  introduction  of  new  obligations;  thus
contributing itself to delays in the implementation of Community requirements.

2.1.2.

Several  stocks  (cod,  hake,  etc.)  which  are  crucial  to  the  livelihood  of  many
fishermen, are depleted. The  fishing  mortality  on  these  stocks  has  not  decreased  in
the same proportion as the reductions in TAC and Quota decided by the Council. The
restrictions in catches (TACs and quotas) or fishing effort (days  at sea  restrictions)
have not always been properly implemented.

2

Regulation (EEC) N° 2847/93, OJ L 261 of 20.10.1993, p.1
Regulation (EC) N° 1489/97, OJ L 202 of 30.07.1997, p. 18
Regulation (EC) N° 2846/98, OJ L 358 of .31.12.1998, p. 5

3

                                                
The examples of cod and northern hake illustrate how these shortcomings have had
an adverse effect on conservation. Despite the TACs for these species being reduced
by 40% from 2000 to 2001 the services of the Commission concluded on the basis of
an analysis made by its inspectors that fishing effort or the catch rates in the fisheries
concerned  had  not  been  significantly  reduced  in  2001.  Therefore,  and  taking  into
account variations in catch rates based on verification of samples from logbook data,
VMS  data  and  enquiries  among  the  fishing  industry,  it  may  be  assumed  that  the
fishing mortality on the stocks in question has not drastically changed in comparison
with previous years.

Cod and hake are certainly not the only stocks affected by weaknesses in control and
enforcement. Indeed, poor landing controls affect generally all landings of fish in the
ports concerned.

2.1.3.

In  accordance  with  Art.  11  of  Regulation  (EC)  N°2371/2002,  Member  States  shall
put in place measures to adjust the fishing capacity of their fleets in order to achieve
a stable and enduring balance between their capacity and their fishing opportunities.
The  reality  is  that  effort  deployed  by  existing  capacity  of  fishing  fleets  generates
fishing  mortality  on  the  stocks  concerned  throughout  the  year  if  relevant  fishing  is
not  stopped  when  quotas  are  exhausted  or  otherwise  fishing  effort  is  reduced.  In
some cases, weaknesses in inspection and surveillance by Member States  allow  for
practices of non-declared landings for the purpose of avoiding to stop the fishery.

The transmission of information to the Commission on the application of the rules of
the  CFP  has  suffered  from  weaknesses  in  the  collection  of  this  information  by
national authorities and insufficient inspection and surveillance in order to ascertain
the quality of data. Member States have often not submitted in time information and,
at times, have submitted incomplete information of sometimes doubtful quality.

in 

slowness 

implementation  of  Community 

In many cases the problems of transmission of data can be explained by reasons such
successive
as 
reorganisation  of  national  control  systems,  malfunction  of  information  technology,
replacement  of  officials,  temporary  lack  of  staff  and  so  on.  The  information  in  the
scoreboard presented in the Annex to this Communication shows some of the above
weaknesses.

requirements, 

2.1.4. National  control  systems  have  for  various  reasons  not  always  lived  up  to  the
requirement to ensure the effective application of the rules of the CFP. Irregularities
and cases of non-compliance with applicable rules have, therefore, not always been
detected.  This  means,  for  example,  that  the  information  declared  by  the  fishing
industry  does  not  always  correspond  to  the  physical  quantities  of  stocks  caught,
retained on board, landed and sold on which they are based.

The  information  registered  by  Member  States  and  submitted  to  the  Commission  is
therefore not always reliable. The information in the attached scoreboard is based on
official data submitted by Member States to the Commission but this does not mean
that  this  necessarily  reflects  the  real  situation,  since  the  official  catch  data  may  in
some cases not reflect the actual volume of catches.

There  are  many  reasons  for  the  possible  lack  of  effectiveness  of  national  control
systems.  Despite  progress  in  the  means  of  control  allocated  to  national  authorities,
deficiencies  still  remain.  In  fact,  the  means  of  control  available  do  not  always

4

adequately match the requirements of establishing a comprehensive national control
system. Monitoring systems of catches and effort do not cover always adequately all
activities  carried  out.  Therefore,  gaps  in  the  information  occur  as  well  as  delays  in
compiling all information required.

Inspection  and  surveillance  is  not  always  properly  programmed  and  targeted.  The
national  authorities  in  charge  of  fisheries  inspection  and  surveillance  are  in  many
Member  States  involved  in  other  duties  also.  Although  efforts  are  made  inspectors
are not always properly trained in fisheries inspection whilst cumbersome procedural
demands are time consuming. The probability of inspection and notably the detection
of  an  infringement  is  therefore  in  many  fisheries  quite  low.  Furthermore,  national
sanction systems often lack deterrence to commit infringements.

2.1.5.

Fleet  register  data  (engine  power)  has  not  always  been  properly  controlled.
Compliance  with  MAGP  segmentation  has  in  many  cases  fallen  short  of  their
objectives.  In  certain  fisheries,  the  balance  between  fleet  capacity  and  fishing
opportunities has deteriorated due to depleted stocks, implying a need for increased
monitoring and inspection.

Member  States  have  often  not  reacted  in  a  timely  fashion  when  such  control  and
enforcement problems have occurred.

2.2.

Commission powers and action on the shortcomings

2.2.1. Background

During the last decade, the Commission has drawn up several evaluation reports on
the  application  of  the  rules  of  the  CFP  by  Member  States3.  The  report  from  the
Commission on the monitoring of the implementation of the CFP4 by Member States
consolidates the state  of  play  in  the  area  of control and  enforcement.  The  Working
Documents5  concerning  each  Member  State  involved  in  marine  fisheries  by  which
this  Report  is  accompanied,  summarise  both  the  main  features  of  the  respective
national  control  system  and  the  Commission’s  own  observations  on  that  system,
including  those  based  on  the  finding  of  its  fisheries  inspectors.  These  Working
Documents also contain the Commission’s assessment of the actual situation within
the field of fisheries control in each Member State.

In  order  to  increase  transparency  and  develop  co-operation  between  authorities
responsible for control and enforcement and to enhance the awareness of the fishing
industry  the  Commission  organised  an  international  Conference  on  Fisheries
Monitoring, Control and Surveillance6 in 2000.

3

4

5

6

COM(96) 100 final. Premier rapport de la Commission sur le contrôle de la pêche
COM(96) 363 final. Rapport sur l’application du régime communautaire de la Pêche et de
l’Aquaculture
COM(97)226 final. Monitoring the CFP 1995
ISBN 92-894-0915-0. Report on the implementation of the Community system for fisheries and
aquaculture 1993-2000
COM (2001) 526 final (http://europa.eu.int/fisheries/doc_et_publ/factsheets/legal_texts/rapp_en.htm)
SEC  (2001)  1798,  1799,  1811,  1812,  1813,  1814,  1818,  1819,  1820,  1821,  1822,  1823,  1824  of
13.11.2001 (http://europa.eu.int/fisheries/doc_et_publ/factsheets/legal_texts/rapp526_en.htm)
International  Conference  on  Fisheries  Monitoring,  Control  and  Surveillance,  Brussels,  24-27  October
2000.

5

                                                
Various means are available for the Commission to take action in order to improve
compliance, including new possibilities acquired under the reform.

2.2.2. Financial aid

In order to assist Member States to make improvements the Commission has adopted
annual  decisions  committing  a  financial  contribution  of  the  Community  to  control
and  enforcement  expenditure  incurred  by  them7.  The  annual  amounts  have  been
doubled to 205 million € for the period 1996-2000 and fixed at 105 million € for the
period  2001-2003.  These  contributions  have  greatly  facilitated  the  acquisition  and
modernisation  of  inspection  and  control  equipment.  It  also  provided  financing  for
training  of  inspectors  and  joint  inspection  programmes.  However,  Member  States
made limited use of these latter possibilities.

2.2.3.

Preventive measures

A  new  possibility  acquired  under  the  reform  of  the  CFP  concerns  the  taking  of
preventive  measures  by  the  Commission  (Article  26(3)  of  Regulation  (EC)  No.
2371/2002).Without  prejudice  to  the  responsibilities  of  the  Commission  under
Article 226 of the Treaty, if there is evidence of a risk that fishing activities carried
out in a given geographical area could lead to a serious threat to the conservation of
fisheries resources, the Commission will take urgently such preventive measures.

These  measures  shall  be  proportionate  to  the  risk  of  a  serious  threat  to  the
conservation of  fisheries resources  and  should be taken after  the  dialogue  provided
for  in  Article  26(2)  of  Regulation  (EC)  No.  2371/2002.  For  this  purpose,  the
Commission shall inform in writing the Member State concerned of its findings and
set a deadline of no less than 15 working days to demonstrate compliance and to give
its  comments.  The  measures  adopted  by  the  Commission  may  be  extended  up  to  6
months.

2.2.4. Deductions from future fishing opportunities

Furthermore, under Article 23 (4) of Council Regulation (EC) No  2371/2002 when
the  Commission  has  established  that  a  Member  State  has  exceeded  the  fishing
opportunities  which  have  been  allocated  to  it,  the  Commission  shall  continue  to
operate  deductions  from  future  fishing  opportunities  of  that  Member  State.  This
decision is taken in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 30(2).

2.2.5.

Suspension of financial assistance

Article  16  (1)  of  Regulation  (EC)  No  2371/2002  establishes  the  conditionality  of
Community financial assistance and reduction of fishing effort whereby the Member
State  concerned  must  comply  with  the  relevant  provisions  and  provide  certain
information.  This  article  foresees  that  if  after  having  afforded  the  Member  State
concerned the possibility of being heard and as far as proportionate to the degree of
non  compliance  the  Commission  may  suspend  financial  assistance  under  Council
Regulation  (EC)  No  2792/1999.  The  Commission  will  thus  contribute  to  the  good
functioning of the fleet policy.

7

Council Decision (2001/431/EC), OJ L 154 of 09.06.2001, p. 22

6

                                                
2.2.6.

Infringements

Formal  infringement  procedures  take  considerable  time  before  a  judgement  can  be
passed by the Court of Justice. The text of Article 226 of the Treaty  foresees  three
initial steps  to  be taken by  the Commission  (the  letter  of  formal  notice,  a  reasoned
opinion and the application to the Court of Justice) before the case can be decided by
the Court. However, even if the Court rules in favour of the Commission, there are
no  guarantees  that  the  Member  State  in  question  will  enforce  the  judgement.  The
possibility to impose a lump sum  or penalty payment  on  a  Member  State  that does
not  comply  with  a  judgement,  provided  for  in  Article  228  in  the  same  Treaty,
presupposes  that  the  Commission  once  again  completes  the  three  stages  mentioned
above.

In  several  cases  the  Commission  has  initiated  infringement  procedures  against
Member  States  that  have  failed  to  comply  with  Community  legislation,  notably
concerning  overfishing  based  on  official  catch  data  (see  Annex,  p.  53).  67
infringement  procedures  are  pending  overall  and  8  procedures  are  presently  before
the Court. 24 new infringement procedures were launched in 2002.

As  regards  failure  to  control  and  enforce  the  minimum  fish  size  for  northern  hake,
the Commission has initiated a procedure for not executing a previous ruling of the
Court of Justice8 in which the Commission has proposed a penalty of 316,500 Euro
per day to be paid by the Member State until it complies with the previous ruling of
the Court.

3.

COMPLIANCE WORK PLAN FOR 2003 AND BEYOND

3.1.

Scope

Considerable efforts are required in order to achieve an effective implementation of
the  rules  of  the  CFP.  These  efforts  must  be  deployed  in  2003  and  in  the  years
beyond. It will not be an easy task to redress the current situation.

In  the  first  place,  the  Member  States  have  to  meet  their  responsibilities  for  the
effective  application  of  the  rules  of  the  CFP.  The  support  of  the  Commission  will
however be required in order to achieve this objective.

The support of the fishing industry for conservation and control measures is crucial
for the achievement of the effective implementation of these measures. This support
can only be gained adequately when a level playing field is guaranteed. To this end,
the Member States concerned should closely co-operate with the Commission to co-
ordinate their activities.

The Compliance Work Plan focuses on the following areas :

(cid:1)  Support to national authorities and promotion of co-ordination between them;

(cid:1)  Transparency concerning the application of the rules of the CFP;

8

Court of Justice of the European Communities case C 304/02.

7

                                                
(cid:1)  Control and enforcement measures by the Commission

The Commission will implement its compliance Work Plan in co-ordination with the
Member States. Progress will be reviewed at regular intervals.

3.2.

Support and co-ordination

3.2.1. Consultation of national authorities

To ensure  implementation of the  Action Plan for  Co-operation in  Enforcement, the
Commission will co-operate closely with Member States within the framework of the
Management  Committee  for  Fisheries  and  Aquaculture  and  the  Expert  Group  on
Fisheries  Control  which  advises  the  Commission.  It  will  co-ordinate  its  activities
with those of the Member States. The Commission will increase this activity in order
to give more support to Member States.

Weaknesses  in  the  implementation  of  the  CFP  and  the  implementation  of  new
requirements  must  be addressed  in  this  fora.  The  Commission  has  arranged  for  the
following issues to be dealt with :

(cid:1)  Fleet  requirements  :  The  detailed  rules  to  be  adopted  under  Chapter  III  of
Regulation  (EC)  N°  2371/2002;  review  of  weaknesses  in  the  implementation  of
the  current  fleet  requirements 
together  with  options  ensuring  effective
implementation of these provisions.

(cid:1)  Inspection and enforcement : Review of the current weaknesses in inspection and
surveillance  including  follow-up  of  infringements;  detailed  rules  to  be  adopted
under Articles 24, 27 and 28 of Regulation (EC) N° 2371/2002. The adoption of
these detailed rules are required for the implementation of the Action Plan on Co-
operation in Enforcement.

(cid:1)  Monitoring measures :  Review  of weaknesses  in  monitoring  of  fishing  activities

and solutions to resolve these weaknesses.

Together  with  the  national  authorities  concerned,  the  Commission  will  also  assess
the results of the implementation of joint inspection programmes in these  fora. The
findings  of  Commission  inspectors  will  be  presented  and  discussed.  To  this  end,  it
will  draw  up  periodic  evaluation  reports.  Moreover,  this  forum  can  be  offered  on
request  to  Member  States  for  discussion  of  any  issues  facilitating  co-operation
between them.

In  this  framework  the  Commission  will  seek  to  increase  its  assistance  to  Member
States in finding appropriate solutions to address the weaknesses that are found.

3.2.2. Consultation of the fishing industry

The fishing industry has a strong interest in maintaining the health of fish stocks and
is realising that the long-term economic sustainability of the sector will be protected
through increased compliance. However, as long as fishermen are not convinced that
compliance  is  guaranteed  by  all  participants  in  the  exploitation  of  the  stocks
concerned,  their  support  for  effective  implementation  of  control  and  conservation
measures will not be easily gained. It is, therefore, essential that equality of treatment

8

is  established  thus  banning  unfair  competition  on  the  expense  of  the  sustainable
exploitation of stocks.

A  greater  understanding  of  the  fishing  industry  for  conservation  and  control
measures that take into account its concerns, will increase support for the measures,
resulting in a more balanced and improved implementation.

To this end, the industry will be consulted in the ways described below before new
legislation is tabled. The Commission will continue to consult stakeholders through
the Advisory  Committee  on  Fisheries  and  Aquaculture  (ACFA)9  when  tabling  new
proposals.  However,  it  will  also  take  advantage  of  the  new  Regional  Advisory
Councils (RACs) in order to consult interested parties and to exchange  information
about the application of the CFP rules in the areas concerned by the RACs.

The establishment of a  level playing  field  will  require full  transparency  concerning
the  application  of  conservation  and  control  measures.  The  Compliance  Scoreboard
displays the official information on the application of the rules of the CFP submitted
to the Commission by Member States. The main findings and evaluation reports of
the Commission on compliance levels drawn up by Commission inspectors must also
be presented to the industry in these meetings. Any complaints from the industry on
irregularities  by  vessels  or  fleets  must  also  be  considered  in  this  context,  and
appropriate follow-up must be ensured.

3.3.

Transparency

3.3.1. Compliance Scoreboard

The European Commission, in its Communication of 28 May 200210 on the timetable
of  the  Reform  of  the  CFP,  committed  itself  to  improving  the  transparency  of
information on the compliance by the Member States with the rules of the CFP. For
this purpose, a Compliance Scoreboard containing information on the application of
the  CFP  has  been  compiled  by  the  Commission  and  is  made  public  through  the
Commission web site11.

This  Compliance  Scoreboard  (presented  in  the  Annex  to  this  Communication)
constitutes a source of transparent and  easily accessible information on the level of
Member States’ compliance with their obligations under Community legislation with
regards  to:  conservation  of  fisheries  resources,  fleet  management,  structural  policy,
control and enforcement.

The Compliance Scoreboard, also gives an overview of the infringement procedures
initiated  by  the  Commission,  in  its  role  of  “guardian  of  the  Treaties”,  against
Member States which did not comply with CFP rules, as well as an indication of the
inspections carried out by Commission fisheries inspectors.

9

10

11

Commission Decision of 14.07.1999 renewing the Advisory Committee on Fisheries and  Aquaculture
(1999/478/EC)
Commission  communication  relating  to  the  reform  of  the  Common  fisheries  policy  –  Timetable  of
implementation (COM(2002) 181 final of 28.5.2002)
http://europa.eu.int/comm/fisheries/

9

                                                
It also aims to serve as an instrument of comparative information on the application
by Member States of the rules of the CFP. Through some key indicators, it shows in
a concise and clear way the general level of compliance with those rules.

The Compliance Scoreboard will be updated annually. The information contained in
this  first  edition  will  be  supplemented  in  the  following  editions.  Information
concerning  inspections  carried  out  by  the  Commission,  for  example,  could  include
elements  from  inspection  reports.  These  reports,  drawn  up  by  the  Commission’s
fisheries  inspectors  shall  be  transmitted  to  the  Member  States  concerned  for
comments  under  Article  27  of  Regulation  (EC)  No  2371/2002.  Insofar  as  these
reports are part of infringement procedures no public access is foreseen under Article
4(2) of Regulation (EC) 1049/2001 regarding public access to European Parliament,
Council  and  Commission  documents.  The  Commission  will  examine  under  which
conditions,  in which  form  and  at  which  time  these  reports  can  be  made  public  and
integrated in future editions of the scoreboard.

The first edition of the Compliance Scoreboard, which includes data available up to
2002, shows a different picture depending on the rules considered. In most cases, the
information included in the Compliance Scoreboard is based on elements reported by
the Member States.

Concerning management of resources, while a majority of Member States appear to
have  complied  with  the  obligation  to  report  catches  from  stocks  covered  by  TACs
and  quotas  landed  in  their  territory  by  vessels  flying  their  flag,  almost  all  of  them
failed  to  meet  their  obligations  on  reporting  catches  taken  outside  EU  waters  and
landed in their territory by EU vessels. Overall, the majority of Member States failed
to meet their obligations in reporting catch data. The accuracy of the reported data is
also to be taken into consideration when looking at Member States’ compliance with
the rules (see below).

On the other hand, with regard to communication of data on management of fishing
activities in certain areas subject to specific conservation measures, no Member State
respected the reporting  deadline  established  by  the  legislation.  Five  Member  States
sent  their  data  with  a  certain  delay,  two  sent  incomplete  data;  and  four  Member
States did not send any data at all.

The  Compliance  Scoreboard  also  shows  that  the  quota  for  a  number  of  fish  stocks
were  overrun  both  in  2001  and  2002.  The  data  shown  are  based  on  the  catch
declarations  transmitted  by  the  Member  States,  which  are  compiled  from  the
declarations  of  catches  and  landings  reported  by  the  vessels’  skippers.  These  data,
however,  might  not  reflect  the  situation  correctly  in  all  cases,  as  scientific  reports
have  often  mentioned  misreporting,  underreporting  or  even  unreporting  of  catches
and  landings  as  having  an  impact  on  stock  assessments.  These,  of  course,  do  not
appear in the tables; therefore, it is possible and even likely that some quota overruns
may be worse than what they appear or are ignored.

Concerning the obligation to report information on management of the fleet, while
the  data  communicated  by  Member  States  to  the  Commission  on  certain
characteristics of fishing vessels to be entered in the Community Fleet Register were
nearly or fully complete in the majority  of cases, in  four instances many  data  were
still missing or were incorrect.

10

Compliance  with  objectives  set  within  the  Multi-Annual  Guidance  Programme  IV
for  the  period  1997-2002  shows  a  positive  development  as  far  as  fishing  capacity
objectives are concerned (only objectives in terms of engine power in kW are shown
as  tonnage  objectives  may  still  subject  to  review  due  to  a  tonnage  re-measurement
programme). Compliance in terms of fishing effort (i.e. vessels’ capacity multiplied
by the number of days vessels spent at sea), for those countries which had chosen to
fix  this  kind  of  objective  instead  of  capacity  objectives,  was  totally  or  partially
unreported for two out of six Member States in 2000 and, in 2001.

Concerning  reporting  on  structural  policy,  the  vast  majority  of  Member  States
complied with the obligation to communicate information of the state of progress of
their  programmes  in  favour  of  fisheries.  Three  Member  States  did  not  submit  their
reports for certain of their programmes regarding the Objective 1 regions, while all
complied with this obligation for the regions other than Objective 1.

In the area of control and enforcement, it appears from Member States reports that
behaviour  which  seriously  infringe  the  rules  of  the  CFP  is  not  always  subject  to
sanctions.  Furthermore,  the  delay  between  the  citation  of  infringements  and  the
sanctioning  thereof  may  extend  in  certain  cases  to  more  than  a  year.  The
Commission will review the efficiency of national sanction systems notably in terms
of deterrence to commit infringements.

Infringement  procedures  carried  out  by  the  Commission  concern  mainly  four
Member States (56 %). 67 % of all infringements relate to cases of overfishing.

Some information is given in the Compliance Scoreboard on inspections carried out
by the Commission inspectors. Their number varies from year to year, according to
inspection  priorities  and  specific  programmes.  However,  they  concentrate  in  the
countries  where  fishing  activity  is  the  most  important.  As  mentioned  before,  such
information should be expanded in future editions.

3.3.2. Other specific actions enhancing transparency

In accordance with Art. 35 of Regulation (EEC) No. 2847/93 the Commission must
draw up a new evaluation report on control and enforcement of the rules of the CFP
covering the period from 2000 to 2002. This report will be tabled in the beginning of
2004. It will also be made available through the Compliance Scoreboard.

This report will notably provide the observations of the Commission on the national
control systems as well as its assessment of the application of the rules of the CFP by
each of the Member States. Accordingly, this report supplements and  offers further
explanation to the information contained in the scoreboard.

On an ad-hoc basis, the Commission will provide, to the extent possible, additional
information to stakeholders in the course of the periodic meetings to be convened by
the  Commission.  This  information  will  be  tailored  to  the  exploitation  of  the  stocks
concerned in the relevant regions.

11

3.4.

Control and Enforcement measures

3.4.1.

Inspection Priorities of the Commission

The  objective  of  an  effective  implementation  of  the  rules  of  the  CFP  by  Member
States  can  be  achieved  more  easily  when  all  Member  States  and  the  Commission
follow the same priorities. The Commission intends to follow a pro-active approach
by  encouraging  the  support  of  the  fishing  industry  that  exploits  the  stocks  in
question,  for  the  conservation  and  control  measures  to  be  adopted.  National
authorities  will  also  be  involved  in  the  elaboration  of  these  measures  to  ensure
controllability and enforceability of the legislation.

Firstly, it is imperative to ensure the effective implementation of the rules of the CFP
applicable  to  fishing  activities  on  stocks  outside  safe  biological  limits.  The
Commission  will  table,  in  2003,  recovery  plans  concerning  the  following  such
stocks:

(cid:1)  Cod in ICES12 zones IV, VI, IIIa (North Sea, West of Scotland, Skagerrak)

(cid:1)  Cod in ICES zones IIIa, VIIa, VIId (Kattegat, Irish Sea, Eastern Channel)

(cid:1)  Cod in ICES zones IIId (Baltic)

(cid:1)  Hake – northern stock in ICES zones IIIa, IV, V, VI, VII VIIIa, b, d, e (North Sea,

West of Scotland, Skagerrak, Channel, Northern Bay of Biscay)

(cid:1)  Hake  –  southern  stock  in  ICES  zones  VIIIc  and  IXa  (Cantabrian  Sea,  Western

Iberian peninsula)

(cid:1)  Sole in ICES zones VIIe (Western Channel)

(cid:1)  Sole in ICES zones VIIIab (Bay of Biscay)

(cid:1)  Haddock in ICES zones VIb (Rockall)

(cid:1)  Norway lobster in ICES zones VIIIc (Cantabrian Sea)

(cid:1)  Norway lobster in ICES zones IXa (Western Iberian peninsula)

The Commission’s Compliance Work plan focuses in the first place on these stocks
for  which  Specific  Monitoring  Programmes13  will  be  adopted.  These  programmes
will  guide  co-operation  between  Member  States  and  ensure  the  strengthening  of
control  and  enforcement  in  a  co-ordinated  way.  They  will  set  out  benchmarks  for
inspection, common priorities and list the verifications to be carried out by national
inspectors.

The effective application of conservation and  control and enforcement measures by
Member States for such stocks is considered as the first priority for the inspectors of
the Commission. Significant efforts will be allocated to this particular objective. The

12 
13

International Council of the Exploration of the Sea (ICES)
COM (2003) 130 final of 21.03.2003, p. 9

12

                                                
newly  introduced  provisions  of  the  CFP,  such  as  unaccompanied  inspections  by
in  accordance  with  Art.  27  of  Regulation  (EC)
Commission 
No. 2371/2002, will be applied in order to achieve it.

inspectors, 

Secondly, other priority areas for Commission inspectors include:

●

●

●

●

●

Verification  of  the  implementation  of  the  fishing  effort  limitations  in  ICES
zones IV and VI;

Verification  of  the  implementation  of  control  measures  by  Member  States
applicable to fishing activities on Baltic cod;

Verification  of  implementation  of  conservation  and  control  measures  by
Member  States  applicable  to  fishing  activities  implying  catches  of  highly
migratory species;

Verification of the implementation of logbook requirements by Member States
in the Mediterranean;

Verification  of  the  effectiveness  of  measures  taken  by  Member  States  to
control engine power.

The Commission will draw up evaluation reports concerning the implementation of
the legal requirements by Member States in each of the above areas. The conclusions
drawn from these verifications will be discussed with the Member States in the above
forum.

Thirdly,  the  Community  shall  also  co-operate  with  third  countries,  notably  under
bilateral  Fishery  Agreements,  Regional  Fisheries  Organisation  control  and
enforcement schemes and the FAO International Plan of Action to Prevent, Deter and
Eliminate Illegal Unreported and Unregulated fishing (IUU). Control of landings by
IUU vessels requires in particular co-ordinated action on Community level.

Finally,  the  Commission  shall  facilitate  the  timely  implementation  of  new
requirements adopted  by the Council in  2002 such as for  example  the  extension  of
VMS  to  smaller  vessels  and  the  setting  up  of  pilot  projects  concerning  remote
sensing  and  electronic  logbooks.  With  regard  to  VMS,  following  the  extension  to
smaller vessels and in the light of experience gained since 1998 the Commission will
also  propose  to  strengthen  the  implementing  provisions,  by  changing  the  format  of
the position report, increasing the reporting frequency and introducing stricter  rules
in case of technical failure or non-function of satellite tracking devices.

13

3.4.2. Administrative inquiries

In  view  of  the  Commission  very  significant  unrecorded  quantities  of  cod  and  hake
have  been  landed  in  Member  States.  Therefore,  the  Commission  will  request  all
Member States concerned to start an administrative inquiry on the basis of Art. 30 of
Regulation (EEC) N°2847/93 into the reliability of catch data and to investigate any
potential  cases  of  illegal  landings  of  cod  and  hake.  It  is  inconceivable  that  large
quantities of cod and hake can be landed in Member States completely unobserved.
All  sources  of  information  including  commercial,  trade  and  tax  data  should  be
exploited for verification of the actual quantities of cod and hake landed.

3.4.3.

Transfer of tasks to Member States

In  the  framework  of  Regional  Fisheries  Organisations  (RFOs)  such  as  NAFO  and
NEAFC,  the  Community  is  required  to  ensure  inspection  and  surveillance  in  the
Regulatory  Area  if  the  number  of  Community  fishing  vessels  exceeds  a  certain
number. In accordance with Articles 23 (1) and (2) and  24 of  Regulation (EC)  No.
2371/2002, flag Member States are to deliver on this obligation.

Because Commission inspectors are heavily involved in these tasks they impede  on
their  availability  for  the  priorities  outlined  above.  As  a  consequence,  and  in
accordance  with  the  provisions  of  Article  23  (1)  and  (2)  of  Regulation  (EC)  No.
2371/2002, the Commission will transfer certain duties, which it performs at present,
to  the  Member  States.  These  would  include,  in  particular,  inspection  of  fishing
activities  in  the  NAFO  Regulatory  Area  by  flag  Member  States  concerned.  Under
Article  23  (2),  Member  States  shall  also  be  responsible  for  placing  observers  on
board fishing vessels.

3.4.4. Enforcement action

Under  Article  25  of  Regulation  (EC)  No.  2371/2002,  Member  States  have  the
obligation to initiate proceedings which will be capable of effectively depriving those
responsible  for  committing  infringements  of  any  economic  benefit  thus  gained  and
also acting as a deterrent in the future.

The Commission will use the means that are given to it under the rules of the CFP, in
order  to  ensure  compliance  by  Member  States.  These  rules  include,  suspension  of
fishing
financial  assistance,  preventive  measures,  deductions 
opportunities,  as  well  as  increased  powers  for  the  Commission’s  inspectors,  to  be
used as appropriate in order to improve the level of compliance.

future 

from 

As regards preventive measures, in a first stage, the Commission envisages using this
instrument primarily in relation to “black fish”14 concerning vulnerable  stocks such
as cod and hake.

14

The expression “black fish” refers to landings of fish taken beyond defined quotas. Such fish are either
not declared at all or are declared as landings from a stock and/or geographical area  from  which they
did not originate.

14

                                                
Concerning infringements, the Commission will seek to follow a selective approach
to the use of proceedings against Member States, concentrating on such weaknesses
in national control and enforcement systems that fundamentally affect the efficiency
of  these  systems  and  jeopardise  compliance  with  the  rules  applicable  to  the
conservation, management and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources.

4.

CONCLUSION

For the above reasons and in order to ensure compliance with the rules of the CFP,
the Commission intends to act in accordance with the following guidelines:

(cid:1)  facilitate  compliance  by  increasing  its  active  support  to  Member  States  and  by

ensuring co-ordination between them, as set out in the above section 3.2;

(cid:1)  enhance  transparency  concerning  the  level  of  compliance  with  CFP  rules  by
Member States through a Compliance Scoreboard which is made available to the
public through the Commission web site, as well as certain other specific actions
as outlined in action 3.3.2;

(cid:1)  prioritise  inspections by  the  Commission  concerning  the  application  of  the  rules
of the CFP by Member States as outlined in the above section 3.4.1 and make full
use of powers under Art. 27 of Council Regulation (EC) No. 2371/2002;

(cid:1)  request the Member States concerned to initiate an administrative inquiry, on the
basis  of  Art.  30  of  Regulation  (EEC)  No  2847/93,  into  the  reliability  of  official
catch data concerning cod and hake;

(cid:1)  concentrate the use of its powers under Art. 226 of the Treaty and Articles 16(1),
23(4)  and  26(3)  of  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No.  2371/2002  on  cases  of  non-
compliance  with  CFP  rules  and  on  shortcomings  in  national  control  and
enforcement systems that undermine the effectiveness of applicable conservation
and control measures. Priority will be given in this area to vulnerable stocks.

15

ANNEX: COMMON FISHERIES POLICY COMPLIANCE SCOREBOARD

The  effectiveness  of  the  common  fisheries  policy  (CFP)  depends  on  the  compliance  of  the
various operators concerned with the CFP rules. Member States are responsible for ensuring
the  correct  application  of  the  CFP  rules  on  their  territory  and  in  the  waters  under  their
jurisdiction. They must also ensure that all vessels flying their flags comply with these rules
wherever  they  operate.  To  ensure  the  equity  and  fairness  of  control  and  monitoring
throughout  the  Community,  Commission  inspectors  oversee  the  activities  of  the  national
enforcement services and report to the Commission. In addition, Member States must transmit
information  to  the  Commission  on  various  aspects  of  their  enforcement  activities  at  given
times. In the context of the reform of the CFP, which has strengthened control and monitoring
of fishing activities in the EU15, the Commission is committed to increasing transparency in
the  information  related  to  the  compliance  of  Member  States  with  their  enforcement
obligations (cfr. Communication of 28 May 200216 on the timetable for reforming the CFP).
This  is  why  it  has  presented  a  Communication  on  compliance  with  the  CFP  rules17  which
includes for the very first time a scoreboard which will be updated on an annual basis.

This scoreboard represents a clear and easily accessible source of information about Member
States'  compliance  with  their  obligations  under  Community  rules  on,  among  other  things,
reports  on  catches  taken  by  their  fleets,  the  capacity  and  fishing  effort  of  those  fleets,  and
national  monitoring  and  inspection  activities.  In  addition,  it  sets  out  in  particular  the
infringement procedures initiated by the Commission in its role as guardian of the Treaties, in
respect of Member States which have failed to comply with certain CFP rules.

The  scoreboard  seeks  also  to  serve  as  a  tool  for  comparing  data  about  enforcement  by
Member States of the existing rules. Using a number of key indicators, it shows in summary
form, the general level of compliance with those rules. However, it must be kept in mind that
these data do not show the quality or reliability of the information provided by the Member
States which itself relies in some domains on data recorded in logbooks and other documents
which are not always a true reflection of reality. This problem is compounded by weaknesses
in  the  collection  and  transmission  of  the  information  by  the  Member  States  to  the
Commission. This is particularly important to remember in cases of overshooting of quotas,
for example, when the accurate and timely reporting of catches by some Member States may
make  them  appear  in  a  worse  light  than  others  whose  slackness  may  mask  worse  cases  of
overfishing.

The  CFP  reform  will  enable  the  Commission  and  Member  States  to  tackle  these  and  other
weaknesses  in  enforcement,  control  and  monitoring  of  the  CFP.  Possible  measures  against

15

16

17

Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 of 20.12.2002, on the conservation and sustainable exploitation
of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy
Communication  from  the  Commission  on  the  reform  of  the  common  fisheries  policy–Roadmap
(COM(2002)181 final of 28.5.2002)
Communication  from the Commission,  Compliance  with  the  rules  of  the  Common  Fisheries  Policy  –
“Compliance work plan and Scoreboard”, …

16

                                                
Member States include the taking of preventive measures, suspension of financial assistance
and  deductions  from  future  fishing  opportunities.  The  reform  also  provides  for  increased
powers for the Commission inspectors.

17

Table of contents

The  scoreboard  on  compliance  with  the  rules  of  the  common  fisheries  policy  covers  the
following areas :

1.         Management of fisheries resources

(cid:1)  Reporting of catch data

(cid:1)  Overfishing

(cid:1)  Reports on fishing effort

2.         Fleet management

(cid:1)  Community register of fishing vessels: quality of information

(cid:1)  Re-measuring fishing vessels’ capacity

(cid:1)  Information required in fishing licences

(cid:1)  Compliance with the fourth Multi-Annual Guidance Programme’s (MAGP IV) obligations

and objectives

3.         Structural policy

(cid:1)  Progress  reports  on  programmes  under  the  Financial  Instrument  for  Fisheries  Guidance

(FIFG)

4.         Verification  of  national  monitoring/control  arrangements  and  infringement
procedures

(cid:1)  Inspections

(cid:1)  Behaviour seriously infringing the rules of the CFP

(cid:1)  Infringement procedures

The  scoreboard  contains  details,  for  each  of  the  above  chapters,  of  the  legal  basis  of  the
obligations of Member States, their nature and the intervals at which they must be met along
with  information  concerning  compliance  by  individual  Member  States  with  each  of  those
obligations.

It  also  contains  particulars  of  action  taken  by  the  European  Commission,  firstly,  under  its
powers to check the monitoring of fishing activities by the competent national authorities and,
secondly, in its role as guardian of compliance with Community law.

This  is  a  first  set  of  information  which  will  be  extended  in  future  editions.  The  scoreboard
will be updated annually.

18

Abbreviations used in the tables:

A

B

D

= Austria

= Belgium

= Germany

DK

= Denmark

E

= Spain

EL

= Greece

F

= France

FIN

= Finland

I

= Italy

IRL

= Ireland

NL

= Netherlands

P

S

= Portugal

= Sweden

UK

= United Kingdom

19

1.

1.1

MANAGEMENT OF RESOURCES

Reporting of catch data

A number of fish stocks have been in decline for some years now. The main reason for
this  is  the  overfishing  of  resources  mainly  as  a  result  of  the  imbalance  between  the
fishing effort of the Community fleet and the quantity of fish actually available. Limits
are set on the fishing opportunities for most of the stocks targeted by the Community
fleet in the North Atlantic and the Baltic and for a few stocks in the Mediterranean.
Fishing opportunities (or total allowable catches – TACs) in  Community waters are
set  each  year  by  the  Council  of  Fisheries  Ministers  and  allocated  as  quotas  to  the
individual Member States.

Limits  have  also  been  imposed  on  catches  in  third-country  waters,  mainly  under
bilateral  fisheries  agreements  concluded  between  the  European  Union  and  the
countries  concerned,  and  in  international  waters  covered  by  the  regional  fisheries
organisations which set management measures for fisheries in the areas under their
responsibility.

To  facilitate  the  monitoring  of  resources  landed  in  the  Member  States  ,  a  series  of
obligations  covering  the  declaration  of  landings  has  been  introduced  under
Community  law18.  All  Member  States  are  required  to  report  regularly  to  the
Commission  on the quantities landed in their  territory.  The  frequency  of  the  reports
depends according to the nature of the data concerned. Information provided in these
reports  may  be  cross-checked  with  reports  on  catches  in  order  to  better  monitor
fishing activities for certain stocks.

Reports that must be presented monthly

A  report: quantities  of  each  stock  covered  by  a  TAC  and/or  quota  landed  in  the
territory of a Member State by vessels flying its flag

B  report: quantities  of  each  stock  covered  by  a  TAC  and/or  quota  landed  in  the
territory of a Member State by vessels flying the flag of another Member State

Reports that must be presented quarterly

C report: quantities of each stock not covered by a TAC and/or quota landed in the
territory of a Member State by vessels flying its flag

D report: quantities of each stock not covered by a TAC and/or quota landed in the
territory of a Member State by vessels flying the flag of another Member State

E report: quantities of each species taken in third-country waters or on the high seas,
landed in the territory of a Member State, by vessels flying its flag

18

Council  Regulation  (EEC)  No  2847/93,  Article  15(1),  (4)  and  Article  18  and  Council
Regulation 2371/2002, Article 22.

20

                                                
F report: quantities of each species taken in third-country waters or on the high seas,
landed  in  the  territory  of  a  Member  State,  by  vessels  flying  the  flag  of  another
Member State

Table  1  contains  information  about  compliance  by  the  various  Member  States  with
the regulatory time limits in reporting catch data.

Table 1. Reporting of catch data in 2002

Reports (cid:1)

A

B

C

D

E

F

B

D

DK

E

EL

F

FIN

I

IRL

NL

P

S

UK

21

Time limits met

Slightly late

Report
presented
irregularly

Considerably
late

No report
presented

A report: quantities of each stock covered by
a TAC and/or quota landed in the territory of
a Member State by vessels flying its flag

B report: quantities of each stock covered by
a TAC and/or quota landed in the territory of
a  Member  State  by  vessels  flying  the  flag  of
another Member State

C report: quantities of each stock not covered
by a TAC and/or quota landed in the territory
of a Member State by vessels flying its flag

D report: quantities of each stock not covered
by a TAC and/or quota landed in the territory
of a Member State by vessels flying the flag of
another Member State

E  report: quantities  of  each  species  taken  in
third-country waters or on the high seas and
landed in the territory of a Member State by
vessels flying its flag

F  report: quantities  of  each  species  taken  in
third-country waters or on the high seas and
landed in the territory of a Member State by
vessels  flying  the  flag  of  another  Member
State

22

Spain  and  the  Netherlands  transmitted  their  A  and  B  reports  slightly  late.  Ireland
failed to submit any A reports in the first three months of 2002 and transmitted reports
at  irregular  intervals  during  the  rest  of  the  year.  For  instance,  its  B  reports  for  the
period January to October 2002 were only transmitted in December 2002.

With regards to reports C and D, only Germany and Denmark fully complied with the
legal requirements, while Spain, Greece, Italy, Ireland and the UK failed to send any
of these reports  for  the  year  2002.  The remaining  Member  States  (Belgium,  France,
Finland,  the  Netherlands,  Portugal  and  Sweden)  sent  only  some  of  the  quarterly
reports on an irregular basis.

A  lower  level  of  compliance  appears  with  respect  to  E  and  F  reports.  In  fact  only
Germany  and  Greece  sent  their  E  reports  complete  and  within  the  time  limits.  No
single Member State fully complied with the obligations related to F reports. The only
F  reports  received  came  from  Denmark,  which  presented  information  for  three
quarters of the year, and from the Netherlands and Sweden which provided a single F
report each.

See  also  the  enclosed  table  for  details  of  the  dates  on  which  Member  States
transmitted their reports.

23

1.2

Overrun of quotas allocated to certain Member States

In a number of cases the Member States' fleets use up the quotas allocated to them for
stocks  or  groups  of  stocks  before  the  end  of  the  year  for  which  they  have  been  set.
Community  law19  stipulates  that  from  the  date  on  which  a  Member  State  notes  that
catches  of  a  stock  or  group  of  stocks  are  deemed  to  have  exhausted  the  quotas
allocated  to  it  for  those  stocks,  it  must:  provisionally  ban  fishing  for  that  stock  or
group  of  stocks,  prohibit  the  keeping  on  board,  transshipment  and  landing  of  fish
taken  after  that  date,  and  set  a  date  up  to  which  transshipment  and  landings  are
permitted.

By notifying the Commission, in real time, of the uptake of quotas allocated to them,
the Member States contribute to the proper management of fishing opportunities and
consequently to the effective conservation of resources. Failure to comply in this area
is likely to lead to overfishing of a stock and to increase the risk of stock exhaustion.

It is important to note that Community law20 also provides, under certain conditions,
for  appropriate  year-to-year  flexibility  in  the  management  of  TACs  and  quotas.
Member States may, for example, ask that up to 10 % of its quota for a certain stock
be transferred to the following year. In this case, the relevant quantities are added to
the quota concerned in the following year. On the other hand, in case of overfishing,
the Commission may operate appropriate reductions in the following  year’s quota of
the Member States responsible for the overfishing.

Table 2 shows the number of stocks covered by TACs and quotas for which Member
States declared catches in 2001 and  2002, and the  number  of  overruns  noted  by  the
Commission from the catch declarations transmitted by the Member States. The rules
on  the  closing  of  fisheries  were  not  complied  with  in  these  cases.  Details  of  quotas
overrun  in  2001  and  2002  according  to  Member  States’  declarations  are  shown  in
tables 3a and 3b. These data take into account any transfers or deductions applied in
accordance with the flexibility rules referred to above.

The data transmitted by the Member States are based on declarations of  catches and
landings reported by the vessels’ skippers. The Commission believes that they might
not reflect the situation correctly in all cases. Scientific reports have often mentioned
possible  misreporting,  underreporting  or  unreporting  of  catches  and  landings  as
having an impact on stock assessments. Such infringements could, therefore, worsen
the quota overruns detected on the basis of the Member States’ declarations or mask
overruns of other stocks. Inspection and control authorities of the Member States and
the Commission do and will continue to act on any such detected infringements.

The  Commission  may,  for  example,  launch  infringements  procedures  or  apply
deductions  from  future  fishing  opportunities  of  Member  States  which  exceed  their
quotas. Priority for launching such procedures is given to cases concerning the most
sensitive  stocks  or  stocks  being  severely  overfished.  67%  of  current  infringement
procedures against Member States relate to cases of overfishing.

19

20

Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93, Article 21.
Council Regulation (EC) N° 847/96

24

                                                
Table 2.Overruns of quotas by Member States in 2001 and 2002

(on the basis of data reported by the Member States)

2001

2002

Number of
stocks*

Overruns**

Number of
stocks*

Overruns**

B

D

DK

E

EL

F

FIN

I

IRL

NL

P

S

UK

66

90

90

91

1

106

11

1

53

51

51

74

113

2

2

6

3

0

4

0

0

3

3

1

6

4

72

97

74

75

1

108

10

1

58

48

37

62

114

3

2

3

0

0

9

0

0

1

3

3

1

0

* number of stocks covered by TACs and quotas for which each Member State declared catches

**number of overruns

25

Table 3a.Quota overfishing in 2001

(on the basis of data reported by the Member States)

* Click on the area name to see the map of fisheries areas

Quota overfishing in 2001

Member
State

Species

Area Name

Total
Quota
2001

Total
Catch
2001

% Quota
Overfishing

B

Common sole

VIIfg

European plaice

IIa (EC waters, North Sea)

D

Cod & haddock

Vb (Faroese waters)

Haddock

IIIa, IIIbcd (EC waters)

DK

Atlantic cod

IIIa Skagerrak

European plaice

IIa (EC waters, North Sea)

Haddock

Herring

Herring

IIIa, IIIbcd (EC waters)

IIIbcd (EC waters), except Management Unit 3

I, II (Norwegian EEZ)

Saithe(=Pollock)

IIa (EC waters), IIIa, IIIbcd (EC waters), IV

26

686

716

5.527

6.031

11

12

100

116

5.680

5.884

13.679

13.811

1.580

1.594

44.704

44.708

5.930

5.964

3.504

3.591

4,43

9,12

10,00

15,90

3,59

0,96

0,89

0,01

0,57

2,48

E

Anchovy

Atlantic cod

VIII

I, II

Greenland halibut

NAFO 3LMNO

F

Atlantic cod

IIa (EC), North Sea

Herring

Herring

Herring

VIIghjk

VIIef

North Sea North of 53°30' N

IRL

Atlantic cod

VIIb to k, VIII, IX, X, CECAF 34.1.1 (EC waters)

20.700

21.485

2.450

2.461

11.364

11.570

1.313

1.350

1.360

1.361

525

528

15.889

15.961

1.279

1.283

3,79

0,46

1,82

2,83

0,06

0,48

0,45

0,32

Redfish

V (non-EC waters), XII, XIV

3

4

33,33

Saithe(=Pollock)

Vb (EC waters), VI, VII, XIV

NL

Hake

IIa (EC waters), North Sea (EC waters)

P

S

Skates and rays

IIa (EC waters), IV (EC waters)

Whiting

Swordfish

IIa (EC waters), IV

Atlantic Ocean, south of latitude 5° N

European plaice

IIIa Kattegat

Haddock

Herring

IIIa, IIIbcd (EC waters)

I, II (Norwegian EEZ)

27

398

406

34

37

700

742

2.376

2.521

385

258

240

393

259

303

2.290

2.397

2,09

9,71

5,94

6,10

2,00

0,35

26,08

4,66

Herring

Herring

Herring

North Sea North of 53°30' N

I, II

Skagerrak and Kattegat

3.546

3.678

9.940

10.161

35.720

36.651

3,72

2,23

2,61

Saithe(=Pollock)

IIa (EC waters), IIIa, IIIbcd (EC waters), IV

1.376

1.599

16,20

UK

Common sole

VIIe

Herring

Redfish

North Sea North of 53°30' N (IVa, IVb)

V, XIV (Greenland waters)

Saithe(=Pollock)

IIa (EC waters), IIIa, IIIbcd (EC waters), IV

357

378

40.570

40.638

175

179

6.430

6.507

5,91

0,17

2,40

1,19

28

Table 3b.Quota overfishing in 2002

(on the basis of data reported by the Member States)

* Click on the area name to see the map of fisheries areas

Member
State

Species

Quota overfishing in 2002

Area Name

B

Atlantic cod

VIIb),c),d),e),f),g),h),j),k),VIII,IX,X;COPACE 34.1.1 (1)

Common sole

ICES division VIIe - Western English Channel

Common sole

VIIf),g)

D

Atlantic cod

Norway zone ( North of 62° N ): I, IIa),b)

Cod & haddock

Faroe zone: Vb)1.

DK

Norway lobster

IIIa); IIIb),c),d) (1)

Common sole

IIIa); IIIb),c),d) (1)

Atlantic herring

I, II (Norwegian EEZ)

F

Atlantic herring

IV a), IV b)

Atlantic herring

IVc) _, VIId)

Atlantic cod

Norway zone ( North of 62° N ): I, IIa),b)

Atlantic cod

I, IIb)

29

Total
Quota
2002

Total
Catch
2002

% Quota
Overfishing

393

575,5

46,44

19

31,4

65,26

648

694,4

1985

1985,7

12

12,3

3282

3299,6

526

567,4

5896

6076

14730

14731,8

9569

9753,2

1813

1819,2

1114

1115,1

7,16

0,04

2,50

0,54

7,87

3,05

0,01

1,92

0,34

0,10

Atlantic herring

VIIg),h),j),k)

Atlantic herring

VIIe),f)

801

802,7

498

499,8

Anglerfishes

ICES sub-area VII - Irish Sea, West of Ireland, Porcupine Bank, Eastern and Western English Channel, Bristol Channel,
Celtic Sea North and South,and South-West of Ireland - East and West

9924

10003,1

0,21

0,36

0,80

Norway lobster

ICES division VIIIc - Bay of Biscay – South

European plaice

VIId),e)

IRL

Common sole

ICES division VIIa - Irish Sea

NL

Atlantic herring

IV a), IV b)

Rays, stingrays, mantas nei

IIa) (1), IV (1)

Atlantic mackerel

IVa) (1)

P

Swordfish

Atlantic Ocean North of latitude 5°N

Swordfish

Atlantic Ocean South of latitude 5°N

Atlantic cod

Norway zone ( North of 62° N ): I, IIa),b)

S

Atlantic herring

ICES division IIIa - Skagerrak and Kattegat

30

14

17,4

24,29

3649

3683,3

102

103,9

30947

31034,1

0,94

1,86

0,28

714

792,2

10,95

9800

9837

763

377

765,7

382,4

2205

2205,1

33986

34333,7

0,38

0,35

1,43

0,00

1,02

both  in  the  Baltic  Sea  and  in  Western
waters; and

-  on  a  monthly  basis,  for  demersal
species in Western waters.

1.3.

Annual 
management 
effort in certain fisheries

reports  on 
of 

the
fishing

law21, 

to  notify 

Member  States  are  required,  under
Community 
the
Commission  of  their  fleets'  fishing
effort,  (i.e.  the  product  of  the  capacity
of  the  vessels  concerned  and  their
fishing  activities),  in  certain  European
Union  fishing  areas  considered 
to
require  special  resource  conservation
measures.  Failure  to  comply  with  the
to
existing  measures 
of
undermine 
fisheries in those areas.

likely 
sustainability 

the 

is 

for 

law 

limits  set  by 

The  data  in  Table  4  concern  the
observance  by  Member  States  of  the
time 
the
submitting  of  information  concerning
fishing  effort  in  the  area  generally
to  as  “Western  waters”22,
referred 
which extends from the Bay of Biscay
to  the  waters  to  the  west  and  north-
west of Ireland and the UK, and in the
Baltic  Sea23.  Member  States  whose
vessels  are  authorised  to  fish  in  those
areas  are  required  to  submit  such
information:

-  on  a  quarterly  basis,  for  demersal
species (i.e. fish living near the bottom
of  the  sea),  as  well  as  for  salmon,  sea
trout and fresh water  fish in the  Baltic
Sea. In addition, a yearly report on the
fishing  effort  carried  out  per  month
should also be submitted;

-  on  a  quarterly  basis,  for  pelagic
species  (i.e.  fish  living  in  mid-water)

21

22

23

(EEC)  No

Council  Regulation 
2847/93, Article 19, decies.
Council  Regulation 
(EEC)  No
2847/93,  Article  19,  decies,  as
amended.
Council  Regulation 
(EEC)  No
2847/93,  Article  19,  decies,  as
amended.

31

                                                
Table  4.  Observance  by  Member
States of the time limits for submitting
data about the management of fishing
effort in 2002

Notifying of fishing effort in 2002

B

D

DK

E

EL

F

FIN

I

IRL

NL

P

S

UK

Data not notified

Late

Slightly late

Partial notification

Notification 
required

not

32

The  above  information  shows  that  four  Member  States  (France,  Ireland,  the
Netherlands and Portugal) failed altogether to transmit data about their fishing
effort in 2002; two Member States (Germany and UK) transmitted such data
with  a  slight  delay  and  three  others  (Denmark,  Finland  and  Sweden)
transmitted the  information late. Spain and  Belgium  only transmitted part  of
it.

Failure  to  comply  with  these  requirements  may  give  rise  to  infringement
procedures  by  the  Commission.  Eight  such  procedures  on  cases  relating  to
failure  to  notify  fishing  effort  or  catch  data  are  currently  pending.

33

2.

FLEET MANAGEMENT

Overcapacity which leads to overfishing is generally considered as one of the
main causes of the depletion of fish stocks. This has not only caused damage
to  the  fisheries  resources  and  the  marine  environment  but  has  also  made
fishing  activity  economically  unsustainable  and  has  led  to  substantial  job
losses in recent years. One of the key goals of the Common Fisheries Policy
has  been  to  achieve  a  long-term  balance  between  the  capacity  of  the  EU
fishing fleet and the available fish resources.

While  fishing  capacity  (defined  in  terms  of  vessels’  tonnage  and  engine
through  Multi-Annual  Guidance
power)  has  been  somewhat  reduced 
Programmes  (MAGPs),  recent  reduction  targets  under  MAGP  IV  have  been
too  modest.  Moreover,  increasing  fleet  efficiency  and  dwindling  stocks  have
meant  that,  in  some  segments,  the  fleet  is  still  too  large  for  the  stocks  it  is
targeting.

The reform of the Common Fisheries Policy has established a simpler system
for limiting the fishing capacity of the EU fleet to replace the former system of
MAGPs.  The  new  system,  which  gives  more  responsibility  to  the  Member
States to achieve a better balance between the fishing capacity of their fleets
and the available resources, entered into force on 1st January 2003. (see also
web pages on the Reform of the CFP)

The scoreboard on fleet management shows Member States’ compliance with
their  legal  obligations  before  the  entry  into  force  of  the  CFP  reform.  This
chapter is broken down into two parts:

(cid:1)  The  first  part  provides  an  indication  of  the  quality  of  information  sent  to
the  Community  Fleet  Register  by  Member  States.  It  also  contains
information  about  Member  States’  compliance  with  the  fleet  ‘re-
measurement  of  vessels’  exercise  and  about  their  compliance  with
Regulation (EC) 2090/98, as amended.

(cid:1)  In the second part, compliance with a number of aspects of the last Multi
Annual  Guidance  Programme  (MAGP  IV)  is  shown.  These  include
compliance  with  MAGP  IV  objectives  and  fishing  effort  ceilings  on  the
one hand and obligations related to fishing effort declarations, on the other.

2.1

Fleet register: Quality of the information

2.1.1.  Compliance  with  obligations  to  communicate  data  on  certain

characteristics of fishing vessels to the Community Fleet Register

Community  legislation24  stipulates  that  Member  States  have  to  register  their
fishing  vessels  into  the  Community  Fleet  Register.  Therefore  the  Register
should  reflect,  under  the  responsibility  of  the  Member  States,  the  current

24

Regulation (EC) 2090/98, as amended

34

                                                
situation  of  their  fleets.  The  Regulation  defines  a  minimum  set  of
characteristics per vessel that have to be entered into this register.

In order to check the quality of the data communicated by the Member States,
the  Community  Fleet  Register  programme  automatically  identifies  those
elements in declarations that are incomplete or erroneous. For the  most  part,
these errors relate to either missing information (e.g. a vessel’s age, tonnage,
segment, power, length,…) or to the inclusion of vessels in a wrong segment.

35

Table 5. Compliance of Member States with Fleet Register submission
obligations

Member State

Comments on missing information

B

D

DK

E

EL

F

FIN

I

IRL

NL

P

S

UK

No  errors  detected  in  the  data  transmitted  to  the  Community  Fleet
Register

For some vessels: re-measurement of capacity incomplete; information
on owner and place of construction incomplete

For many vessels: no indication of power; age, erroneous segmentation;
re-measurement  of  capacity  incomplete;  information  on  owner  and
place of construction incomplete

For  some  vessels:  no  indication  of  fishing  gear,  re-measurement  of
capacity  incomplete;  information  on  owner  and  place  of  construction
incomplete

For  many  vessels:  No  indication  of  tonnage,  erroneous  segment  or  no
segment  at  all;  information  on  owner  and  place  of  construction
incomplete

For  some  vessels:  no  indication  of  fishing  gear,  re-measurement  of
capacity  incomplete;  information  on  owner  and  place  of  construction
incomplete

For  some  vessels:  information  on  owner  and  place  of  construction
incomplete

For  many vessels: no indication of age, port code, power, fishing  gear,
no or erroneous segmentation, re-measurement of capacity incomplete;
information on owner and place of construction incomplete; no regular
data transmission

Comprehensive  review  of  data  underway  as  the  Irish  database  is  in
theprocess  of  being  updated  because  of  IT-communication  problems
during  2001-2002;  for  several  vessels:  re-measurement  of  capacity
incomplete; information on owner and place of construction incomplete

For some vessels: re-measurement of capacity incomplete; information
on owner and place of construction incomplete

For  many  vessels:  no  indication  of  age,  length  or  fishing  gear,  re-
measurement  of  capacity  incomplete;  information  on  owner  and  place
of construction incomplete; no regular data transmission

For some vessels: re-measurement of capacity incomplete

For  many vessels: no indication of age, port code, power, fishing  gear,
tonnage,  no  or  erroneous  segmentation,  re-measurement  of  capacity
information  on  owner  and  place  of  construction
incomplete; 
incomplete; no regular data transmission

According to Fleet Register on 31 March 2003

36

Full or almost full compliance

More than average compliance

Less than average compliance

Quality checks on data communicated by Member States to the Fleet Register
are  made  regularly  by  the  Commission.  When  errors  or  missing  data  are
detected,  the  Commission  informs  the  Member  States  concerned  which  are
the  necessary  adjustments  within  30  days25.
required 

to  make 

25

Regulation (EC) 2090/98, art. 4

37

                                                
2.1.2.  Compliance  with  obligation  to  re-measure  the  capacity  of  fishing
vessels  in  Gross  Tonnes  (GT)  instead  of  Gross  Registered  Tonnes
(GRT)

According  to  Council  Regulation  (EC)  2930/86  and  the  implementing  rules
thereof (Commission Decision 84/95):

(cid:1)  vessels  up  to  15m  in  length  should  have  been  measured  in  GT  by

31 December 1998,

(cid:1)  vessels between 15m and 24m in length have to be measured in GT by 31
December 2003 (at least 77% of these vessels had to be re-measured by 31
December 2001)

(cid:1)  vessels  over  24m  in  length  should  have  been  measured  in  GT  by

31 December 1994

Table 6. Percentage of vessels measured in GT according to EU legislation
by Member State

Length categories

Member
States

0 m - 15 m 15 m - 24 m

> 24 m

B
D
DK
E
EL
F
FIN
I
IRL
NL
P
S
UK

100%
89%
98%
85%
99%
93%
100%
87%
96%
99%
25%
99%
80%

100%
84%
52%
91%
93%
98%
100%
94%
99%
93%
51%
79%
73%

100%
100%
100%
99%
97%
96%
100%
95%
99%
99%
39%
100%
96%

According to Fleet Register on 31 March 2003

Full compliance with deadline

Degree of compliance with forthcoming deadline

No compliance with deadline or unlikely to comply with forthcoming deadline

38

Table 6a. Number of vessels that are not yet re-measured in GT according
to EU legislation by Member State

Length categories

Member
States

0 m - 15 m

15 m - 24 m

> 24 m

Number of
vessels not
yet
re-
measured
in GT

Total number
of vessels

Total number
of vessels

Number of
vessels not
yet
 re-measured
in GT

Number of
vessels not
yet re-
measured in
GT

Total number
of vessels

B

D

DK

E

EL

F

FIN

I

IRL

NL

P

S

UK

0

199

35

4

1.892

3.209

1.788

12.010

27

469

0

18.803

6.852

3.438

0

47

196

175

33

21

0

59

302

420

2.009

609

1.086

84

1.710

13.185

146

2.527

57

3

7.247

0

397

1.107

315

9.704

1.635

6.277

0

22

240

26

230

249

319

490

137

863

0

0

0

6

3

4

0

16

0

2

111

0

2

67

51

168

873

132

142

22

329

82

297

182

70

242

According to Fleet Register on 31 March 2003

39

Table 6b.  Total  in  GT for  those  vessels  which  have  been  re-measured  and
Total in GRT for those which have not yet been re-measured

Length categories

Member
States

0 m - 15 m

15 m - 24 m

> 24 m

GT of
vessels
re-
measured

GRT of
vessels not yet
re-measured

GT of
vessels re-
measured

GRT of
vessels not yet
re-measured

GT of
vessels re-
measured

GRT of
vessels not
yet re-
measured

B

D

DK

E

EL

F

FIN

I

IRL

NL

P26

S

UK

89

5.170

14.252

35.503

44.835

31.867

10.240

42.045

6.194

1315

5.961

9.218

0

751

314

4.669

14.891

15.776

0

19.518

1.519

47.276

7.612

59552

0

0

0

2.832

118.497

7.585

352.693

1.184

99

28.962

1.829

26.430

1.447

97.917

1.228

97.115

0

4.806

0

4.511

596

850

0

5.223

104.762

5.114

56.087

2.111

131

24

20.937

18.390

0

45.290

892

178.585

0

227

15.669

18.552

13.033

16.736

43.673

0

9.771

1.644

25.111

0

273

31.275

1.517

80.519

8.357

125.232

According to Fleet Register on 31 March 2003

26

Portugal has 45 vessels without any length indication and for which tonnage amounts
to at least 313 GRT

40

                                                
2.1.3.  Compliance  with  legislation  on  information  to  be  communicated  by

Member States to the Community Fleet Register

In order to comply with:

– 

– 

Council  Regulation 
information required in fishing licences, and

(EC)  3690/93 

regarding 

the  minimum

Commission Regulation (EC) 2090/98, as amended

the  Commission  has  adopted  rules27  requiring  all  Member  States  to
communicate before 1st January 2003 the vessel agent’s name and address for
vessels  whose  overall  length  is  15  metres  or  over  or  whose  length  between
perpendiculars  is  12  metres  or  over.  For  vessels  of  an  overall  length  of  27
metres or more or of a length between perpendiculars of  25  metres or more,
information concerning the owner and the place of construction must also be
provided.

Table  7.  Percentage  of  vessels  for  which  the  information  regarding  the
agent's  name  and  address,  owner  or  the  place  of  construction  has  been
communicated.

Agent

Owner

Place of construction

Member State

> 15m

 > 24m

B
D
DK
E
EL
F
FIN
I
IRL
NL
P
S
UK

100%
99%
98%
99%
30%
100%
99%
0%
3%
99%
0%
100%
7%

100%
98%
99%
99%
1%
100%
100%
0%
8%
100%
0%
100%
11%

100%
98%
99%
98%
1%
100%
100%
0%
8%
100%
0%
100%
11%

Full compliance

More than average compliance

Less than average compliance

27

Regulation (EC) 839/2002

41

                                                
Table  7a.  Number  of  vessels  by  Member  State  for  which  the  information
regarding  the  name  and  address  of  agent,  owner  or  the  place  of
construction has not been communicated in relation to the total number of
vessels for that length category.

Agent

> 15m

Member
State

Owner

Place of construction

 > 27m

Total number of
vessels

Number of vessels for
which agent’s name
and address have not
been communicated
yet

Total number of
vessels

Number of
vessels for
which agent’s
name and
address have
not been
communicated
yet

B

D

DK

E

EL

F

FIN

I

IRL

NL

P

S

UK

0

2

11

13

587

0

1

3.505

320

5

710

0

128

376

600

3.152

844

1.356

120

3.508

333

616

710

207

1.028

1.105

According to Fleet Register on 31 March 2003

0

1

1

5

130

0

0

334

75

0

181

0

215

67

51

168

876

132

144

22

334

83

297

181

70

242

42

2.2.

Multi-Annual  Guidance  Programme:  Compliance  with  MAGP
IV obligations and objectives

The  MAGPs  (Multi-Annual  Guidance  Programmes)  aimed  at  restructuring
Member  States’  fishing  fleets  by  setting  capacity  reduction  objectives  or,  in
some cases, activity reduction objectives with a view to bringing fishing effort
into  line  with  available  resources.  MAGP  IV,  adopted  in  December  199728,
fixed reduction targets for the period 1997-2001. This period was extended by
Council Decision29 by a year to the end of 2002.

2.2.1. Compliance with the capacity objectives

Tables 8 and 9 below, give an indication of compliance with the MAGP IV
objectives fixed by Member State in terms of fishing capacity (engine power
in  kW)  and  fishing  effort  (kW  x  days  at  sea).  Because  of  the  tonnage  re-
measurement programme being carried out and which is due to be completed
by the end of 2003, the compliance with tonnage objectives is still subject to a
certain degree of uncertainty. Therefore, the following table expresses results
in kW only.

Table  8.  Compliance  with  MAGP  IV  objectives  in  power  (kW)  over  the
period 1997 – 2002

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

Member
State
B
D
DK
E
EL
F
FIN
I
IRL
NL
P
S
UK

According to Fleet Register on 21 February 2003

Full compliance = global and segment objectives achieved

Partial compliance = segment objectives not achieved

Neither the segment nor the global objectives achieved

28

29

97/413/EC: Council Decision of 26 June 1997
2002/70/EC: Council Decision of 28 January 2002

43

                                                
2.2.2. Compliance with MAGP IV's Fishing Effort ceilings

A  number  of  Member  States  (i.e.  Germany,  UK,  France,  Ireland,  the
Netherlands and Sweden) chose to set objectives in terms of fishing effort for
certain  segments  of  their  fleet,  instead  of  objectives  in  engine  power  and
tonnage.  Fishing  effort  is  defined  as  the  product  of  vessel  capacity,  in  both
tonnage and engine power, by activity (days spent at sea).

Table 9. Compliance with MAGP IV objectives in terms of fishing effort
(kW x days) for 2000 and 2001.
(Only applicable to Member States which had set such targets)

Number of segments-fisheries where the
objectives were achieved / Total
segments

Member
State

2000

2001

D

F

IRL

NL

S

UK

2 / 2

5 / 5

2 / 2

Unreported

1 / 1

Partially unreported

2 / 2

5 / 5

2 / 2

2 / 3

1 / 1

7 / 8

According to Fleet Register on date of 21 February 2003

More information on these data is available in:

(cid:1)  The Annual Report from the Commission to the Council on the results of
the Multiannual Guidance Programmes for the fishing  fleets at the  end  of
2000 ( COM (2001) 541 final).

(cid:1)  The Annual Report from the Commission to the Council on the results of
the Multiannual Guidance Programmes for the fishing  fleets at the  end  of
2001( COM (2002) 446 final)

2.2.3. Compliance with the obligation to submit annual reports on MAGPs

Provisions  on  MAGP  IV  in  the  FIFG  Regulation30  stipulated  that  Member
States  had  to  submit  each  year  to  the  Commission  a  report  reviewing  the
progress made in the context of their multiannual guidance programme. These
reports had to include information on  fishing  effort  by  fleet  segment  and  by
fishery,  in  particular  regarding  the  development  of  fleet  capacities  and  the

30

Regulation (EC) 2792/99, art. 5

44

                                                
corresponding  fishing  activity.  This  information  has  been  compiled  and
published  in  an  annual  report  from  the  Commission  to  the  Council  and  the
European Parliament.

The  table  below  shows  Member  States’  compliance  with  this  obligation  for
the  period  1997-2001.  Information  relating  to  compliance  in  2002  is  not  yet
available.

Table  10.  Member  States’  compliance  with  the  obligation  to  report  on
MAGPs over the period 1997 – 2001.

Member State 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

B

D

DK

E

EL

F

FIN

I

IRL

NL

P

S

UK

According to Fleet Register on 21 February 2003

Complete declaration

Incomplete declaration

 No declaration

45

3.

STRUCTURAL POLICY

Faced with declining fishery resources and the challenges of an increasingly
competitive economy, the European Union’s fishing industry has for a number
of  years  been  engaged  in  a  necessary  restructuring  process  to  ensure  the
sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources and to maintain its profitability.
The European Union is taking an active part in this restructuring, under the
Common  Fisheries  Policy,  through  the  Financial  Instrument  for  Fisheries
Guidance (FIFG). In addition, most of the areas dependent on fishing can call
on  the  European  Regional  Development  Fund  (ERDF)  and  the  European
Social  Fund  (ESF)  for  assistance  in  restructuring  and  diversifying  their
economic basis.

The FIFG provides assistance in areas such as fleet restructuring, support for
small-scale  inshore  fishing,  fishing  ports  facilities,  the  development  of
aquaculture,  the  processing  and  marketing  of  fishery  and  aquaculture
products,  the  promotion  and  search  for  new  outlets  for  fishery  products,
training, aid for diversification in areas dependent on fishing, assistance for
the  temporary  cessation  of  fishing  activities  and  other  social  measures  to
assist the sector during its restructuring.

FIFG funds are allocated on the basis of multiannual programmes negotiated
between  the  Commission  and  the  individual  Member  States.  The  overall
budget allocation for the FIFG for the period 2000-2006 is € 3.7 billion.

In the context of the reform of the CFP, major changes have been made in this
area, in particular, the ending of aid for fleet renewal and transfers to third
countries  as  from  1  January  2005  and  the  restricting  of  aid  for  the
modernisation  of  vessels  to  improvements  in  safety,  product  quality  and  on-
board  working  conditions.  (For  fuller  details  see  press  release  on  the
outcome of the Fisheries Council of 20.12.2002).

3.1

Annual  reports  under  the  Financial  Instrument  for  Fisheries
Guidance

As  part  of  the  implementation  of  Community  structural  measures  in  the
fisheries sector31, Member States are required to submit, every year before 30
April,  progress  reports  to  the  Commission  on  each  programme  both  in
electronic  format  and  on  paper.  These  reports  should  contain  data  collected
since 1 January 2000 covering the year preceding that in which they are sent.
These data enable the Commission to keep a close watch on the use made of
public  funds  allocated  to  the  various  programmes.  On  the  basis  of  these
progress reports, the Commission checks that aid  granted under the FIFG by
the  Member  States  meets  the  requirements  of  the  structural  funds  (e.g.
eligibility criteria, co-financing rates, etc.).

As  from  1  January  2003,  in  case  of  non  compliance  with  reporting
obligations, FIFG aid can be suspended from the Member State concerned.

31

Commission Regulation (EC) No 366/2001 (Article 1(2)).

46

                                                
Tables  11a  and  11b  show,  respectively,  details  of  the  progress  reports  for
2001 received for regions covered by Objective 1 of the Structural Funds and
for  regions  not  covered  by  that  Objective.  These  reports,  which  the
Commission  should  have  received  by  30  April  2002,  should  contain  data
about each programme collected since 1 January 2000 covering the period to
31  December  2001.  However,  it  will  be  noted  that  these  requirements  have
not  been  strictly  observed.  To  date,  the  Commission  has  only  received  32
progress  reports  covering  a  total  of  49  programmes.  Reports  on  nine
programmes need not be submitted for the time being as no project had been
selected  by  31  December  2001.  The  Commission  has  not  yet  received  the
remaining 8 programmes.

47

Table 11a. Progress reports for 2001 received by the Commission on regions
covered  by  Objective  1  (regions  lagging  behind  in  their  development),  by
Member State

Member State

Programme title

Received/Exempt

A
B
D
E
EL
F
F
F
F
F
FIN
FIN
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
IRL
IRL
IRL
IRL
NL
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
S
S
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK

Austria - Burgenland
Belgium - Hainault ATT.
Germany - Fisheries
Spain - Fisheries
Greece - Fisheries
France - Réunion
France - Corsica
France - Guadeloupe
France - Guyana
France - Martinique
Finland - North
Finland - East
Italy - Fisheries (Muliregional)
Italy - Calabria
Italy - Campania
Italy - Molise
Italy - Apulia
Italy - Sardinia
Italy - Sicily
Ireland - Prod. Inv.
Ireland - South & East
Ireland - BMW
Ireland PEACE II
Netherlands - Flevoland
Portugal - Fisheries (Continental)
Portugal - Azores
Portugal - Algarve
Portugal - Alentejo
Portugal - Centro
Portugal - Madeira
Portugal - Norte
Sweden - Norra
Sweden - Södra
United Kingdom - Cornwall
United Kingdom - Merseyside
United Kingdom - W & V
United Kingdom - H & Is
United Kingdom - Northern Ireland OP

Report received

Exempt

Report not received

48

Table  11b.  Progress  reports  for  2001  received  by  the  Commission  on  regions  not
covered by Objective 1, by Member State

Member State

Title

Received/Exempt

A

B

D

DK

E

F

FIN

I

NL

S

UK

Austria - Fisheries

Belgium - Fisheries

Germany - Fisheries

Denmark - Fisheries

Spain - Fisheries

France - Fisheries

Finland - Fisheries

Italy - Fisheries

Netherlands - Fisheries

Sweden - Fisheries

United Kingdom - Fisheries

Report received

49

4.

ENFORCEMENT, MONITORING AND CONTROL

Inadequate  checks  on  fishing  activities  and  the  lack  of  uniformity  in  the  penalties
imposed  on  rule  breakers  are  considered  to  be  the  main  shortcomings  of  the
application  of  the  CFP.  During  the  consultation  process  on  the  basis  of  the  Green
Paper,  there  were  calls  from  various  parties,  including  fishermen,  for  the
establishment  of  a  more  centralised  and  uniform  monitoring  system  at  Community
level  which  was  seen  as  being  more  effective  across  the  Union  at  ensuring  equal
treatment regardless of where fishing activities took place. At present, the control and
monitoring  arrangements,  for  which  the  national  authorities  are  responsible,  are
infringements  vary  widely  and  Community
compartmentalised;  penalties 
inspectors have limited powers.

for 

The reform of the Common Fisheries Policy is bringing about major changes in this
area  and  achieving  real  progress  in  the  application  of  the  rules  of  the  CFP  (For
fuller details of these changes see web pages on the Reform of the CFP).

4.1

Behaviour seriously infringing the rules of the CFP

A  list  of  the  types  of  behaviour  which  seriously  infringe  the  rules  of  the  Common
Fisheries  Policy  has  been  drawn  up  under  Community  law32.  Member  States  have
agreed on the types of behaviour considered to be particularly harmful to the proper
application  of  the  rules  of  the  CFP.  Because  of  their  seriousness,  the  national
authorities  should  impose  penalties  which  are  "proportionate,  dissuasive  and
effective". In the interests  of transparency,  the  Member States are  required  to notify
the  Commission  each  year  of  the  procedures  initiated  against  operators  who  have
committed  serious  infringements.  These  reports  must  include  the  type  of  procedure
initiated, the area in which the infringement occurred and the penalties imposed.

Table  12  shows  for  each  Member  State  the  number  of  cases  where  penalties  were
imposed  and  the  number  of  infringements  by  type  of  behaviour  which  seriously
infringed  CFP  rules  in  2001.  The  details  are  based  on  information  reported  by  the
Member States.

(See  also  the  Commission  Communication  to  the  Council  and  the  European
Parliament  on  behaviour  that  seriously  breached  the  rules  of  the  common  fisheries
policy in 2001 – COM(2002)687)

32

Council Regulation (EC) No 1447/1999

50

                                                
Table 12 .NUMBER OF CASES WHERE PENALTIES WERE IMPOSED AND NUMBER OF SERIOUS INFRINGEMENTS BY TYPE OF BEHAVIOUR AND BY MEMBER STATE IN 2001

(based on information reported by the Member States), * in brackets, the number of cases uncovered

A

B

D

DK

E

EL

FRA

IRL

I

NL

P

FIN

S

UK

Obstructing the work of fisheries inspectors

Falsifying, concealing, destroying or tampering with evidence

Obstructing the work of observers

Fishing  without  a  fishing  licence,  a  fishing  permit  or  other  necessary
authorisation

Fishing under cover of a falsified document

1
(7)

1
(1)

 2
(2)

 8
(15)

1
(3)

0
(2)

Falsifying, deleting or concealing the identification marks of the fishing
vessel

0
(4)

Using or keeping on board prohibited fishing gear

Using prohibited fishing methods

Not lashing or stowing fishing gear the use  of which  is  prohibited in  a
certain fishing zone

Directed  fishing  for,  or  keeping  on  board  of  species  from,  stocks
subject to a moratorium or a prohibition of fishing

Unauthorised fishing

Failure to comply with the rules on minimum sizes

Failure 
transhipments

to  comply  with 

the  rules  and  procedures  relating 

to

Falsifying or failing to record data in control documents (e.g. logbooks
etc.)

Tampering with the vessel monitoring system

Deliberate  failure  to  comply  with  the  Community  rules  on  remote
transmission of movements of fishing vessels

Failure  of  the  master  of  the  fishing  vessel  of  a  third  country  or  his
representative to comply with the applicable control rules when fishing
in Community waters
Landing  of  fishery  products  not  respecting  the  Community  rules  on
control and enforcement
Stocking, processing, placing for sale and transporting fishery products
not meeting the marketing standards

 Unspecified

1
(12)

4
(6)

 92
(93)

 1
(2)
5
(6)
 6
(7)

3
(4)
 15
(19)
34
(42)

 74
(83)

 124
(202)

5
(21)

10
(11)
1
(1)

 0
(1)

2
(11)
3
(3)

51

120
(133)
0
(3)
3
(3)
1093
(1226)

3
(3)
4
(9)

39
(54)
76
(88)
1
(1)
171
(178)
 547
(684)
 304
(347)
 1
(4)
 129
(164)
7
(11)
7
(40)
1
(1)

129
(155)
 367
(607)

3
(6)

1
(1)

0
(1)

3
(14)

4
(4)
1
(1)

 19
(23)

 4
(16)

1
(4)

 207
(209)

1
(2)

3
(5)
1
(1)
 151
(241)

 11
(19)

 111
(190)
 85
(134)
2
(2)
 4
(16)
235
(410)
 18
(27)

0
(1)

 2
(6)

33
(34)

0
(1)

210
(213)
79
(80)
 11
(11)
 39
(39)
659
(669)
80
(86)

2
(11)
2
(5)
0
(1)
1
(2)
 18
(23)
21
(41)

 1
(1)

 1
(4)

8
(13)
2
(4)

 16
(23)
1
(11)
4
(4)

 17
(17)

 1
(47)

 5
(15)

2
(5)

12
(13)

0
(2)

 3
(4)

2
(2)
227
(228)

0
(26)
 0
(5)

26
(26)

 5
(6)
14
(52)

0
(2)

1
(1)
 5
(5)

 16
(16)
62
(72)

 166
(178)
 57
(59)

 10
(10)

5
(27)
0
(3)
1
(7)
 6
(17)
5
(36)
31
(73)

 28
(104)

4
(24)

4
(16)
12
(35)

6
(6)

 3
(10)

 3
(6)

 12
(12)
 2
(2)

 4
(6)
6
(6)
 8
(8)

45
(46)
 2
(2)

2
(2)

0
(3)

 0
(1)
 0
(6)
 0
(4)

2
(7)

 0
(6)
 0
(6)

0
(1)

4.2

Inspections by Commission inspectors

The European Commission has a small inspection team to assist it in monitoring the
application of the rules of the CFP in the Member States. The task of its 25 inspectors
is  to  observe  the  control  and  inspection  activities  of  the  national  authorities  and
report their findings to the Commission.

Commission inspectors may  make  on-the-spot  inspection  visits,  examine  documents
and,  of  their  own  accord  and  using  their  own  resources,  carry  out  investigations,
verifications  and  inspections.  Insofar  as  inspectors'  reports  are  part  of  infringement
procedures  there  is  no  public  access  under  Regulation  (EC)  1049/2001  regarding
public  access  to  European  Parliament,  Council  and  Commission  documents33.
However, the Commission will examine under which conditions, in what form and at
what time these reports could be made public in future editions of the scoreboard.

The number of inspections carried out by Commission inspectors varies from year to
year, according to inspection priorities and specific programmes. They concentrate in
the  Member  States  with  most  fishing  activities.  (for  general  information  on  fishing
activity in the EU, see “Facts and Figures on the CFP”)

Tables  13  and  14  give  a  summary  of  the  tasks  carried  out  by  the  Commission
inspectors in 2002 by subject and by Member State:

Table 13. Number and object of inspection visits by Commission inspectors in 2002

Object

Number

Checking the implementation of emergency measures to protect hake

and cod

Checking 

the  application  of  control  measures  under 

fisheries

agreements

Monitoring  landings  of  catches  taken  in  the  Baltic  Sea,  including

those of third country vessels

Monitoring landings of pelagic species

Monitoring landings of catches taken in the Mediterranean. Checking

compliance with technical measures.

Overall verification of the application of control by Member States

NAFO- Scheme of inspection and surveillance. Inspections at sea.

NEAFC- Scheme of inspection and surveillance. Inspections at sea.

Checking the system of penalties imposed by the Member States

Monitoring of landings from the NAFO area

TOTAL

35

5

16

8

19

6

17

4

6

1

117

33

Regulation  (EC)  1049/2001  regarding  public  access  to  European  Parliament,  Council  and
Commission documents (Art. 4 (2))

52

                                                
Table  14.  Number  of  inspection  visits  by  Commission  inspectors  in  each  Member
States and outside the EU in 2002.

Member State

Number

B
D
DK
E
EL
F
FIN
I
IRL
NL
P
S
UK
Outside the European Union
TOTAL

3
5
9
17
4
13
2
5
8
5
3
6
10
27
117

4.3

Current infringement procedures

The  Commission  has  opened  a  number  of  infringement  procedures  against  some  Member
States.

"Infringement" here means any procedure adopted by the Commission and formally
initiated  against  a  Member  State  for  failure  to  comply  with  basic  or  secondary
Community  law  (i.e.  provisions  in  the  Treaties,  Regulations  and  other  legislative
instruments).

Where the Commission considers that a Member State is in breach of Community law,
it calls on the concerned State to present its observations within a specified period of
time by sending it a letter of formal notice.

If  the  Member  State  concerned  continues  to  fail  to  meet  its  obligations  and  if  the
Commission does not change its views as a result of the Member State’s observations
in response to the letter of formal notice, the Commission delivers a reasoned opinion
with which the Member State must comply within a given period.

If the Member State fails to do so, the Commission may refer the matter to the Court
of Justice (this procedure is called a referral).

The Court of Justice delivers judgements, which are binding on the  Member States,
on each matter referred to it.

Table  15  gives  details  of  infringement  procedures  currently  pending  for  failure  to
comply with the rules of the CFP.

53

Table 15.  Infringement  procedures  now  pending  by  type  of  infringement  and  by
Member State

INFRINGEMENT

B

D DK E EL F FIN I

IRL NL P

S UK TOTAL

Overfishing

7

2 11 11

7

1

2

1

6

1

2

1

5

1

6

1

8

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

67

8

1

3

3

2

2

1

1

Failure 
catch 
effort

to  notify
data/fishing

Failure  to  observe
the time limit for the
implementation  of
the VMS

Unsatisfactory
monitoring 
technical
conservation
measures

of

Failure 
to  meet
interim objectives of
MAGP IV

of

Inadequacy 
control/inspection
measures  in  certain
(“black
fisheries 
fish”)

Use 
fishing
of 
licences  of  vessels
transferred  to  third
countries

Conditions
fishing
governing 
for  species  covered
by quotas

1

Ban  on  landings  of
fisheries
certain 
products

TOTAL
INFRINGEMENTS
PENDING

8

2 11 13

1 14

3

3

8

5

6

7 18

99

The majority of these procedures concern overfishing, that is to say, overruns of the
quotas allocated to the individual Member States. The allegations are generally based
on  the  mismanagement  of  quota  uptake  by  the  national  authorities  which,  in  most
cases, means:

(cid:1)  the  absence  of  appropriate  procedures  for  the  use  of  the  quotas  allocated  to  the

Member State concerned,

54

(cid:1)  the  absence,  inadequacy  and/or  ineffectiveness  of  inspections  and  other  checks

required under Community rules,

(cid:1)  the absence of a provisional ban on fishing activities or the late stopping of fishing,

or,

(cid:1)  the  lack  of  deterrent  penalties  to  rule  breakers  to  encourage  compliance  with  the

above rules.

The Member States in which there have been most instances of failure to comply with
the rules  on overfishing  since 1985  include the United  Kingdom,  France,  Spain  and
Denmark.  Less  numerous  cases  of  overfishing  have  been  reported  for  Belgium,
Ireland, Sweden, Portugal, Finland, the Netherlands and Germany.

(More information is available on progress of procedures currently in hand)

55

85

86

87

88

(89)

90

91

X

92

X

93

X

94

95

96

97

98

99

00

01 N°

Stage

B

D

DK

E

F

FIN
IRL

NL

P

S

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X
X

X
X

X

X

X

X

X

UK

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Referral
Referral
Formal notice

Referral
Referral
Referral
Referral
Reasoned opinion
Formal notice
Formal notice
Referral
Referral
Referral
Referral

Decision 01.02.01
Decision 01.02.01
Decision 25.04.02
Decision 25.04.02
Reasoned opinion
Formal notice

Referral
Referral
Reasoned opinion
Formal notice
Formal notice

Reasoned opinion

Referral
Referral
Formal notice
Formal notice
Referral
Reasoned opinion
Formal notice
Formal notice
Decision 14.11.02
Decision 14.11.02
Decision 14.11.02
Decision 14.11.02
Reasoned opinion
Formal notice
Formal notice

97/2253
98/2255
02/2204
02/2177
02/2203
90/481
93/2219
98/2264
99/2283
00/2308
02/2164
02/2205
92/2256
97/2254
98/2256
99/2284
02/2206
90/418
92/2258
97/2255
98/2257
99/2285
01/2224
02/2253
02/2210
98/2261
00/2307
02/2174
02/2175
02/2207
00/2306
02/2208
94/2256
98/2258
02/2182
02/2176
98/2262
00/2171
02/2171

87/398-91/67
92/2257
97/2257
98/2259
00/2305
02/2172
02/2173
02/2209

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X
X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X
X

56

A second group of infringement procedures concerns failure by the Member States to forward
to  the  Commission  certain  information  about  fishing  activities  as  required  by  Community
rules (catch and fishing effort data) to enable the Commission to assess whether the rules of
the CFP are being applied. The States  concerned include  Finland,  France,  Ireland,  Italy, the
Netherlands,  Portugal,  the  United  Kingdom  and  Sweden.  (see  Section  1  on  Management  of
fisheries resources)

A  procedure  has  been  initiated  against  Greece  for  failure  to  observe  the  time  limit  for
implementing the satellite-based vessel monitoring system (VMS).

Infringement  procedures  have  been  initiated  also  for  unsatisfactory  control  by  the  national
authorities  of  technical  conservation  measures  (use  of  driftnets  (Italy);  catching  and/or
marketing of undersized fish (France and Spain).

Procedures for failure to comply with the multiannual guidance programmes (MAGPs) for the
fleet  have  been  initiated  in  respect  of  Italy,  Ireland  and  the  Netherlands  which  have  not
observed the interim objectives set by the MAGP for the period 1997-2001. (see Section 2 on
Fleet management)

Lastly,  infringement  procedures  have  been  launched  also  in  respect  of  the  continued  use  of
fishing  licences  of  vessels  transferred  to  third  countries  (United  Kingdom  and  the
Netherlands),  the  conditions  governing  fishing  for  species  allocated  as  national  quotas
(Belgium) and the ban on the landing of certain fisheries products (France).

4.4

Referrals

In  a  second  referral  (under  Article  228  of  the  EC  Treaty),  currently  before  the  Court  of
Justice,  the  Commission  has  asked  the  Court  to  order  France  to  pay  a  daily  penalty  of
EUR 316,500 until it takes action to comply with the Court's judgement of 11 June 1991 in
which  France  was  found  not  to  be  enforcing  Community  technical  measures  for  the
conservation of fish resources, from the date on which judgement is delivered in the case now
pending.

(For further information see also press release on this procedure)

In addition, the Commission has decided to refer other cases involving overfishing in respect
of the Member States listed in Table 16 below:

Table 16. Referrals

Infringement

B

DK

E

comply  with

to 
Failure 
conservation
measures/observe  minimum
sizes  (second  referral  under
Article 228 of the EC Treaty)

Overfishing (fishing years)

FIN

IRL

P

S

F

X

1990
to
1997

1995/
1996

1995/
1996

1994
to
1996

1995/
1996

1991
to
1996

1988,
1990  to
1992
1994  to
1996
1997

57

4.5.

Judgements of the Court of Justice of the European Community

In 2002, the Court delivered three judgements on overfishing.

It held that France had failed to fulfil its obligations regarding  appropriate arrangements for
the use of quotas allocated to it and the control of  fishing  activities which  had resulted in a
number of cases of overfishing in the fishing years from 1991 to 1996 and by failing to take
action against those responsible for these unlawful activities (Judgement of 25 April 2002 –
Joined Cases C-418/00 and C-419/00 ).

In its judgements of 14 November 2002 (Cases C- 454/99 and C-140/00 ), the Court held that
the UK had failed to fulfil similar obligations with regard to a number of cases of overruns of
quotas during the fishing years 1985 to 1988 and 1990 to 1996.

58

Reception of Catch Reports from Member States

Year 2002

Updated: 07 April 2003

January

February

March

Lim

15 FEB

15 MAR

15 APR

30 APR

MS

A

B

A

B

A

B

C

D

E

F

B

D

18/03/02

18/03/02

18/03/02

19/04/02

19/04/02 27/07/02 13/09/02

14/02/02 14/02/02

15/03/02

15/03/02

1/05/02

15/04/02 17/07/02 17/07/02 1/08/02

DK 13/02/02 13/02/02

26/03/02

26/03/02

11/04/02

1/05/02 11/04/02 11/04/02 11/04/02 11/04/02

E

11/03/02 11/03/02

22/03/02

22/03/02

29/04/02

29/04/02

EL

18/02/02

15/03/02

15/04/02

10/01/03

1/08/02

F

14/02/02

19/03/02

19/03/02

15/04/02

12/04/02

25/07/02

FIN 12/03/02

12/03/02

11/04/02

11/04/02

11/04/02

I

1/03/02

15/03/02

15/04/02

IRL

2/12/02

7/03/02

2/12/02

2/12/02

NL

7/03/02

27/03/02

29/03/02

27/05/02

27/05/02

P

S

15/02/02

15/03/02

15/04/02

14/02/02 14/02/02

15/03/02

15/03/02

15/05/02

15/05/02

UK

9/04/02 10/04/02

9/04/02

10/04/02

15/05/02

15/05/02

April

May

June

Lim

15 MAY

15 JUN

15 JUL

31 JUL

MS

A

B

A

B

A

B

C

D

E

F

B

D

21/05/02 21/05/02

13/06/02

12/06/02

17/07/02

17/07/02

13/09/02

15/05/02 15/05/02

14/06/02

13/06/02

11/07/02

11/07/02 9/08/02

9/08/02

9/08/02

DK 13/05/02 13/05/02

14/06/02

14/06/02

9/07/02

9/07/02 31/07/02 30/07/02 30/07/02 30/07/02

E

24/05/02 24/05/02

27/06/02

27/06/02

22/07/02

22/07/02

EL

15/05/02

17/06/02

18/07/02

10/01/03

12/09/02

F

15/05/02 13/05/02

17/06/02

10/06/02

15/07/02

15/07/02

25/07/02

59

Quart.

Days

23

7

15

45

2

2

9

7

388

65

0

29

109

Quart.

Days

6

-6

-9

28

3

-3

FIN 10/05/02

14/06/02

14/06/02

10/07/02

10/07/02

15/10/02

I

15/05/02

19/06/02

12/07/02

IRL 29/05/02 2/12/02

8/07/02

2/12/02

7/08/02

2/12/02

NL

5/06/02 27/05/02

19/06/02

27/06/02

24/07/02

24/07/02

15/05/02

17/06/02

15/07/02

2/12/02

29/11/02

-9

1

286

34

1

14/05/02 14/05/02

14/06/02

28/06/02

12/07/02

12/06/02 8/008/02 8/08/02

8/08/02

-13

P

S

UK 15/05/02 15/05/02

19/06/02

19/06/02

16/07/02

16/07/02

July

Lim

15 AUG

August

15 SEP

September

15 OCT

30 OCT

MS

A

B

A

B

A

B

C

D

E

F

B

D

14/08/02 14/08/02

18/09/02

18/09/02

18/10/02

18/10/02 23/10/02 23/10/02 23/10/02

13/08/02 9/08/02

16/09/02

12/09/02

11/10/02

8/10/02 21/10/02 21/10/02 21/10/02

DK 12/08/02 12/08/02

12/09/02

12/09/02

11/10/02

14/10/02 23/10/02 23/10/02

E

16/08/02 16/08/02

1/10/02

1/10/02

18/10/02

18/10/02

EL

14/08/02

13/09/02

27/09/02

10/01/03

31/10/02

F

16/08/02 13/08/02

16/09/02

9/09/02

16/10/02

10/10/02 9/12/02

9/12/02

FIN 15/08/02

17/09/02

14/10/02

15/10/02

I

1/08/02

16/09/02

11/10/02

7/09/02

IRL 19/09/02 2/12/02

20/09/02

2/12/02

23/10/02

10/12/02

NL

6/09/02 13/09/02

23/09/02

24/09/02

16/10/02

17/10/02

P

S

14/08/02

13/09/02

15/10/02

20/01/03

15/08/02 15/08/02

16/09/02

16/09/02

14/10/02

14/10/02 31/10/02 31/10/02

UK 15/08/02 15/08/02

13/09/02

13/09/02

16/10/02

15/10/02

5

Quart.

Days

5

-11

-9

20

-11

-5

1

-28

146

36

-2

0

-2

October

November

December

Quart.

Final

Lim

15 NOV

15 DEC

15 JAN

31 JAN

Days

A + B

MS

A

B

A

B

A

B

C

D

E

F

Days

B

D

13/11/02 13/11/02

12/12/02

12/12/02

17/01/03

17/01/03 29/01/03 29/01/03 29/01/03

15/11/02 15/11/02

13/12/02

13/12/02

14/01/03

14/01/03 28/01/03 29/01/03 29/01/03

-3

-3

2,5

-1,0

60

DK 12/11/02 12/11/02

13/12/02

13/12/02

14/01/03

14/01/03 14/01/03 14/01/03 14/01/03 14/01/03

E

18/11/02 18/11/02

14/12/02

14/12/02

17/01/03

17/01/03

EL

14/11/02

20/12/02

23/01/03

10/01/03

4/02/03

F

15/11/02 12/11/02

18/12/02

18/12/02

16/01/03

9/01/03 24/02/03 24/02/03

FIN 13/11/02

17/12/02

15/01/03

15/01/03

I

12/11/02 12/11/02

12/12/02

18/12/02

20/01/03

20/01/03

IRL 15/11/02 10/12/02

20/12/02

28/01/03

28/01/03

NL

19/11/02 19/11/02

20/12/02

20/12/02

16/01/03

16/01/03 4/02/03

4/02/03 14/02/03 14/02/03

P

S

15/11/02

16/12/02

15/01/03

15/01/03 31/03/03

4/04/03

15/11/02 14/11/02

20/12/02

20/12/02

14/01/03

14/01/03 31/01/03 31/01/03 31/01/03

UK 14/11/02 14/11/02

16/12/02

16/12/02

15/01/03

15/01/03

-6

4

6

-1

0

2

28

10

1

4

0

-0,7

8,1

0,0

-0,5

0,1

-1,5

70,5

12,0

0,0

1,6

9,4

Uploaded by MS with Fides II

In general not delivered

Delivered e-mail Fides format

Occasionally not transmitted

Incorrect format used

Delivered Excel spreadsheets

61

Rockall
Irish Sea

Barents Sea
Norwegian Sea
Spitzbergen and Bear Island
Skagerrak and Kattegat
Sound
Belt
Baltic Sea
Northern North Sea
Central North Sea
Southern North Sea
 Iceland
Faroes
West Scotland

I 
IIa 
IIb 
IIIa 
IIIb 
IIIc 
IIId 
IVa 
IVb 
IVc 
Va
Vb 
VIa
VIa  West Scotland (Clyde stock)
VIb 
VIIa 
VIIb  West Ireland
Porcupine Bank
VIIc 
VIId 
Eastern English Channel
VIIe  Western English Channel
Bristol Channel
VIIf 
South-east Ireland
VIIg 
Little Sole
VIIh 
VIIj 
Great Sole
VIIk  West Great Sole
VIIIa  South Brittany
VIIIb  South Biscay
VIIIc  North and North-west Spain
VIIId  Central Biscay
VIIIe  West Biscay
IXa 
IXb  West Portugal
Azores
X 
North Azores
XII 
East Greenland
XIVa 
South-East Greenland
XIVb 

Portuguese coast

Map of ICES zones

62