Communication from the Commission - Perspectives for simplifying and improving the regulatory environment of the Common Fisheries Policy {SEC(2004) 1596}
Date: 2004-12-15
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: administrative formalities, codification of EU law, common fisheries policy, consolidation of EU law, fishing regulations, legislative drafting, simplification of legislation

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 15.12.2004 
COM(2004) 820 final 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION 

Perspectives for simplifying and improving the regulatory environment of the Common 
Fisheries Policy 

{SEC(2004) 1596} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

Improving  the  regulatory  environment  in  the  EU  is  one  of  the  key  priorities  of  the 
Commission  and  a  joint  responsibility  of  the  EU  institutions  and  of  the  Member  States.  In 
June  2002,  the  Commission  adopted  the  Action  Plan  “Simplifying  and  improving  the 
regulatory  environment”1,  on  which  basis  the  Inter-institutional  Agreement  on  ‘Better 
Lawmaking’2  was  concluded  in  December  2003.  These  initiatives  establish  a  broad  EU 
strategy  and  provide  the  institutional  framework  to  deliver  concrete  results  to  simplify  the 
Community legislation. 

In this context, the Commission proposed in February 2003 a framework action for “Updating 
and  simplifying  the  Community  acquis”3,  aimed  at  securing  a  clear,  understandable,  up-to-
date  and  user-friendly  body  of  EC  secondary  law  to  the  benefit  of  citizens,  economic 
operators  and  public  administrations.  This  framework  sets  out  six  areas  of  action: 
repeal,  declaration  of  obsolescence  and 
simplification,  consolidation,  codification, 
organisation & presentation of the acquis.  

Regarding the common fisheries policy (CFP), simplification is part of the reform adopted in 
20024.  Significant  steps  towards  this  goal  have  already  been  taken  or  are  underway,  for 
example by  contributions to  the  implementation of the framework action for “Updating and 
simplifying the Community acquis” (repeals, declaration of obsolescence, screening) and by 
other specific initiatives. The proposal for a regulation setting up the new European Fisheries 
Fund  (EFF)5.  Consideration  of  this  subject  has  intensified  since  the  last  quarter  of  2003, 
resulting  in  numerous  contacts  and  discussions.  In  addition  the  discussions  sometimes 
exceeded the strict limits of simplification within the meaning of the Framework Action  6to 
cover other measures likely to improve the effective implementation of the Common fisheries 
policy.  This  Communication  sets  out  the  conclusions  of  all  these  discussions  mentioned  as 
well as analysis carried out within the Commission. 

1 
2 

3 

4 
5 
6 

COM(2002) 278 of 6 June 2002. 
The  "better  regulation"  inter-institutional  agreement  was  signed  by  the  European  Parliament,  the 
Council and the Commission on 16 December 2003. The main purpose of this agreement is to improve 
the quality of the Community legislation and its transposition in national law. The agreement defines 
best  practices  and  sets  new  aims  and  commitments.  The  main  elements  of  the  agreement  are: 
improvement  of  inter-institutional  co-ordination  and  of  transparency;  establishment  of  a  stable 
framework  for  the  "alternative  instruments  ";  increased  use  of  impact  assessment  in  the  Community 
decision-making  process;  willingness  to  set  limiting  deadlines  for  the  transposition  of  directives  into 
national law (see OJ C 321 of 31.12.2003 and corrigendum OJ C 4 of 08.01.2004) (see OJ C 321 of 
31.12.2003 and corrigendum OJ C 4 of 08.01.2004). 
COM(2003) 71 of 11 February 2003. See also the two reports on the implementation of the Framework 
Action: COM(2003) 623 final and SEC(2003) 1085; COM(2004) 432 final and SEC(2004) 774. 
(Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002). 
(COM(2004) 497 final). 
In its second report on the implementation of the Framework Action of February 2003 (Cf. COM(2004) 
432 final) the Commission singled out the following types of action:  
- simplification (amending the substance of legislation for the benefit of citizens, operators and public 
administrations);  
- reduction of the volume (consolidation, codification and the removal of obsolete legislation through 
repeal or declaration of obsolescence);  
- organisation & presentation of the ‘acquis’ (all aspects related to the presentation and accessibility of 
official reference databases CELEX and Eur-Lex).  

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
 
 
2. 

STATE OF PLAY 

The  experience  and  the  consultations  undertaken  show  that  improvement  of  the  legal 
framework  of  the  Common  fisheries  policy  requires  efforts  at  the  level  of  regulatory 
architecture amongst others in order to attain three objectives:  

– 

– 

– 

improvement  in  the  clarity  of  existing  texts,  their  simplification  and  their  better 
accessibility;  

reduction of costs and constraints for public administrations7;  

alleviation of administrative costs and constraints for fishermen. 

Pursuing these goals would not only simplify the CFP but also improve its effectiveness. 

There  are  some  particularly  important  issues  to  tackle,  such  as  the  clarity  of  and  access  to 
Community documents. Many bemoan the number and volume of existing rules and the fact 
that  provisions  are  scattered  over  several  documents.  It  is  difficult  for  the  individual  to 
identify relevant information from the body of legislation. The obligation to submit data also 
raises problems. National administrations have voiced concern over the number and, in some 
cases, the detail of reports to be submitted regularly to DG Fish and the practical use of such 
data. The most sensitive issue for fishermen is the requirement to submit data, in particular via 
the logbook, but also other administrative documents. 

Certain  chapters  of  the  CFP  seem  to  present  more  problems,  in  particular  the  chapter  on 
enforcement where concerns focus on the scattering of provisions, certain differences between 
Member  States  concerning  implementation  and  the  workload  involved  in  submitting  reports 
and  data.  The  other  key  aspect  is  resource  conservation  measures.  The  combined 
implementation  of  different  management  tools,  intended  to  deal  with  the  limitation  of  input 
(fishing  capacity  and  effort),  the  volume  of  catches  (TAC  and  quota)  and  the  catch 
composition (technical measures) respectively, is a major source of problems. The complexity 
is  further  increased  by  the  fact  that  there  may  be  different  layers  of  measures,  where 
arrangements adopted in association with the annual TACs and quota regulations or recovery 
plans are added to ordinary technical measures. 

It is important to understand why the current rules are so complex in order to target areas for 
improvement. 

Certain reasons for such complexity cannot be avoided. 

– 

– 

7 

Ease of reading for the layman is difficult to reconcile with the wishes of the expert. 

The  CFP  covers  a  varied  group  of  fisheries  and  addresses  several  chapters: 
structures,  conservation  and  the  environment,  external  resources,  markets  and 
enforcement. 

The specific requirements of the fisheries sector lead in addition to distinguish between the burden for 
the national administrations from that imposed on the industry. Both can nevertheless be considered as 
related to “administrative burden” within the overall meaning of the term as used by the Commission. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
– 

– 

– 

– 

Where a high proportion of key stocks are endangered it is necessary to promote the 
use of different types of complementary protection measures to combat overcapacity 
and the overfishing of most resources. 

The  situation  changes  rapidly,  particularly  concerning  biological  conditions,  which 
means that documents must be updated. 

Regarding  external  resources,  our  various  negotiating  partners  each  have  their  own 
goals. 

The  rules  governing  fisheries  management  reflect  the  efforts  made  to  translate 
scientific findings into legislation, which is always a difficult task, especially when 
such findings are subject to rapid review or change. 

The specific background to the CFP is another source of its current complexity. Rules adopted 
in 1983 and amended in 1992 generally fell short of the mark, as the discussions leading up to 
the reform adopted in 2002 revealed. It is time to take on board the consequences of rules that 
have  led  to  the  current  situation  of  overcapacity  and  overfishing.  In  addition  to  this  crucial 
problem, decision-making procedures have also exacerbated the complexity of current rules. 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

Council and Parliament negotiations often result in a more complex final document 
than the original proposal. 

Several  key  policy  areas  have  had  to  be  repeatedly  reviewed  as  adopted  measures 
proved inadequate. 

Discussions on the various chapters have often been held in isolation. 

The Council’s decision-making procedure at the end of the year for the annual setting 
of TACs and quotas has made it difficult to hold all the necessary consultations and 
reach decision in time for the measures to enter into force. 

In legal and political terms, measures have been placed at a higher level than strictly 
necessary, which has made them harder to amend and simplify. 

Discussions  on  fisheries  policy  should  also  be  placed  within  the  general  context  of 
simplification. Several aspects of this communication are simply an application of the strategy 
developed  by  the  Commission  in  February  2003  to  the  fisheries  sector.  The  CFP  can  only 
benefit  from  the  horizontal  steps  already  taken  to  simplify  European  Union  rules. 
Nonetheless,  other  aspects  that  are  central  to  the  overall  process  do  not  apply  to  fisheries 
policy.  The  future  competitiveness  of  Community  fishing  vessels  depends  much  more  on 
replenishing resources, and therefore on effective management measures, than on lightening 
regulatory restrictions and burdens. Adopting a less prescriptive approach to fisheries policy, 
for  example  by  setting  result-driven  obligations  without  specifying  means,  raises  issues  of 
enforcement.  Fishermen  are  very  anxious  to  achieve  a  level  playing  field  for  all  Member 
States.  This  is  directly  linked  to  fair,  standard  enforcement,  which  automatically  requires 
legislation. 

To  sum  up,  analysis  has  shown  that,  without  underestimating  the  need  for  a  degree  of 
complexity  in  managing  Community  fisheries,  the  current  rules  have  gradually  become 
excessively  complex.  In  addition  to  the  aspects  of  the  CFP  that  could  well  benefit  from 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
simplification,  many  fishermen  feel  that,  whilst  they  may  be  necessary,  other  measures  are 
unduly complex. This perception is another key issue to be addressed. 

3. 

AREAS FOR PROGRESS 

Certain  developments  would  help  achieve  the  three  above-mentioned  goals  (improving 
documents  and  access  to  them  and  reducing  the  administrative  costs  and  workload  for  both 
national administrations and fishermen).  

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

8 

9 

10 

The  most  important  element  in  this  respect  corresponds  to  the  development  of  the 
preliminary consultations for decisions, and in related aspects such as the increase 
in  the  period  between  the  dates  of  decision-making  and  of  application.  This 
development  of  preliminary  consultations  will  have  to  take  into  account  minimum 
standards for consultation8 (sufficient time for consultation, obligation to publish the 
results, obligation to provide feedback in response to comments received and use of a 
single contact point for the consultations). This will make it possible to improve the 
quality of the texts, to make it easier to inform and involve the industry, and hence to 
facilitate the task of the national administrations.  

The  development  of  preliminary  consultations  is  closely  linked  to  the  definition  of 
multiannual  management  strategies,  which  in  addition  to  its  own  benefits  would 
make  it  possible  to  better  prepare  the  documents  by  extending  the  time  for 
preparation.  Reducing  the  frequency  of  recurrent  legislation  on  TACs  and  annual 
quotas  would  also  help  reduce  the  frequency  with  which  scientific  bodies  are 
consulted and cut the associated workload.  

It  would  also  be  useful  for  integrated  management  strategies  to  include  the 
corresponding  rules  from  the  various  chapters  of  the  CFP,  which  would  ensure 
management does not appear to be a jumble of measures.  

The  establishment  and  efficient  operation  of  Regional  Advisory  Councils  in  the 
framework  foreseen  by  the  reform  of  the  CFP9,  is  an  essential  condition  for 
achieving  improved  prior  consultation  and  for  developing  multiannual  integrated 
management strategies. 

Increased use of information technology would also improve access to Community 
texts by electronic means. The Publications Office (OPOCE) already makes available 
all  legislation  in  a  consolidated  form  on  EUR-Lex.10.  Improved  access  and 
presentation  of  the  legislation  applicable  to  the  fisheries  sector  would  be  achieved 
within the context of already existing initiatives to improve the EUR-Lex data base 
in collaboration with OPOCE. More systematic use of information technology would 
for  national 
simplify  greatly 
administrations and the industry alike. 

the  collection  and 

transfer  of 

information 

Commission  Communication  “Towards  a  reinforced  culture  of  consultation  and  dialogue  –  General 
principles  and  minimum  standards  for  consultation  of  interested  parties  by  the  Commission” 
(COM(2002) 704 final). 
Council  Decision  2004/585/EC  of  19  July  2004  establishing  Regional  Advisory  Councils  under  the 
Common Fisheries Policy, OJ L 256 of 03.08.2004, pp. 17-22. 
http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/index.htmlhttp://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/index.html.  

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Other targeted action is also needed to improve the body of rules. 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

The process of drawing up documents must be improved. The need to improve prior 
consultation  and  the  link  with  setting  up  Regional  Advisory  Councils  have  already 
been emphasised, but there are also other ways to make progress. 

The number of hierarchical layers of complex legislation should be reduced. 

Certain rules could be transferred to lower-level documents, or come under a wider 
application of the principle of subsidiarity. 

The role of decisions taken at national level that add to Community rules should be 
clarified. 

Although  the  CFP  must  be  underpinned  by  a  legal  basis,  it is  important  to  identify 
when regulations are strictly necessary. 

Wherever possible, the aim must be to have a small number of summary documents. 
This would help maintain consistency between different texts and boost readability. 

Practical access to documents concerning the CFP must also be improved. In addition to the 
above-mentioned aspect of IT use, it can be hard to ascertain an overall structure to the body 
of  documents,  references  and  supplementary  texts.  These  aspects  could  be  set  out  in  a 
summary  of  the  current  rules.  It  will  remain  impossible,  whatever  progress  is  achieved,  for 
reference texts to be immediately usable by all the interested parties, because of their structure 
and  their  method  of  drafting,  as  they  are  not  conceived  for  example  for  daily  use  by  each 
individual fisherman. It is time to build on previous attempts to develop information booklets 
for specific target groups, for example fishermen operating in a specific area, whilst carefully 
avoiding confusion between explanatory booklets and legal documents. The idea would be to 
provide fishermen  with a  small booklet  written in appropriate language explaining the rules 
that concern them, with links to the official reference documents where needed. The Regional 
Advisory Councils could also play a key role here by designing the booklets and defining the 
content of each one and target readership. 
Reducing  the  workload  for  administrations  also  requires  targeted  action.11  Analysing  the 
requirements  for  submitting  reports  should  be  a  matter  of  priority.  Efficient  fisheries 
management is dependent upon information flows from national administrations to DG Fish, 
but the current rules and procedures could be simplified to reduce the number  of reports by 
combining  them,  limiting  content  to  essential  and  useful  data  and  reducing  their  frequency. 
Lastly, regular feedback must be sent to national administrations. Inspection and enforcement 
are another major source of workload for national administrations, whose resources are set to 
remain limited. It is therefore essential to improve the cost/effectiveness ratio of the CFP by, 
to  the  extent  possible,  adopting  conservation  and  enforcement  measures  that,  without 
undermining effectiveness, are the least costly to establish and monitor, and which fulfil the 
requirements  of  the  principle  of  proportionality.  Analysis  must  be  undertaken  to  seek  the 
optimum solutions for sourcing and using enforcement methods. 

11 

The  Commission  intends  to  present  a  communication  in  early  2005  on  methods  to  measure 
administrative costs and to launch a pilot phase to determine whether a common EU approach can be 
envisaged.  If  a  common  methodology  for  measuring  the  administrative  burden  of  legislation  will  be 
endorsed, the Commission services will apply this methodology when assessing the impact of existing 
or new legislation. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Regarding  the  goal  of  lightening  the  workload  and  restrictions  for  fishermen,  several 
useful aspects have already been highlighted. Nonetheless, other areas merit further analysis. 
Fishermen  have  placed  considerable  emphasis  on  the  workload  involved  in  data  collection, 
primarily for the logbooks, which they consider are not always relevant to certain fisheries. In 
particular,  they  complain  of  having  to  send  data  via  various  channels  that  they  regard  as 
superfluous, repetitive, or under-used. To overcome these problems, increasing use of IT has 
already  been  mentioned.  In  the  medium  term,  this  approach  does  not  exclude  adapting 
logbooks  and  other  documents  to  address  only  the  specific  needs  of  fishery  management, 
including  enforcement.  Data  flows  to  fishermen  must  also  be  improved,  for  example  by 
promoting  scientists’  use  of  their  data.  Fishermen  would  like  to  see  harmonisation  of  the 
enforcement methods used by Member States. Under the basic regulation, there is scope for 
benchmarking  via  regulations.  This  will  aid  the  work  of  the  European  Fisheries  Control 
Agency,  but  in  no  way  excludes  an  analysis  of  the  appropriate  level  of  detail  for  such  a 
prescriptive approach, nor the development of other approaches based on recommendations, 
cooperation and exchange of good practice. 

External resources have a specific problem.  

– 

– 

– 

Every  contracting  party  to  multilateral  negotiations  (in  the  United  Nations  and  the 
Regional  Fisheries  Organisations  (RFOs))  and  bilateral  negotiations  (between  the 
European  Community  and  a  third  country  or  group  of  third  countries)  may  adopt 
their  own  position,  which  the  European  Union  cannot  change.  Nonetheless,  a 
suggestion has been made on defining a medium-term strategy according to the type 
of  agreement,  region  or  type  of  fishery  to  ensure  consistency  in  Community  action 
aimed  at  achieving  a  sustainable  fisheries  policy  while  at  the  same  time  protecting 
Community interests. 

In  the  framework  of  the  RFOs,  upholding  homogenous  principles  set  by  the 
Community  will  consolidate  the  EU’s  position  and  will  help  achieve  the  defined 
goals.  Although  the  Community’s  obligations as  a  contracting  or  cooperating  party 
are clearly defined, transposing them into Community legislation  requires  long and 
cumbersome procedures. Simplified procedures must therefore be considered. 

Regarding  bilateral  relations  (partnership  agreements),  action  by  the  European 
Community,  fishermen  and  Member  States  (including  action  under  other  EU 
policies)  could  be  improved  by  gradually  building  up  standard  legislative 
frameworks,  whilst  remaining  open  to  the  specific  features  and  issues  faced  by  the 
fisheries concerned, as well as by improving negotiation and follow-up procedures. 

4. 

RISKS TO BE FORESEEN AND PROBLEMS TO BE ANTICIPATED 

The first risk is being unrealistic about the scope for simplification and underestimating the 
resources  and  effort  involved.  The  current  CFP  cannot  be  replaced  in  the  short-term  by 
radically simplified rules. Several sources of complexity are structural. Moreover, the current 
situation  of  overcapacity  and  overfishing  is  one  of  the  key  factors  making  complexity 
inevitable and will continue to feature strongly over the coming years. It is also important to 
ensure  that  simplification  does  not  lead  to  weaker  management  or  provide  an  excuse  for 
opposing  any  new  measures  that  may  be  needed  to  progress  policy  or  to  address  new 
situations.  There  is  also  the  risk  that,  after  an  initial  bout  of  action  and  raised  awareness, 
simplification quickly drops off the priority list and the causes of the current over-complexity 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
will creep back. It therefore has to be made sure that the legislator gives sufficient priority to 
the need for simplicity, and the implementation of the inter-institutional agreement on better 
law making (particularly for improving the working methods of the Council and the European 
parliament for examining proposals for simplification) as well as the application of the inter-
institutional  agreement  on  the  quality  of  drafting  legislation  constitute  a  sound  basis  in  this 
respect.12 

In addition to the above general risks, it is important to be aware of the specific limits of some 
of the approaches to simplification proposed earlier. Increased use of IT could compound the 
problems  faced  by  inexpert  IT  users  and  some  approaches  could  prove  disproportionate  for 
small  vessels.  Since  it  is  impossible  to  always  win  on  all  fronts,  choices  and  compromises 
must  be  made.  For  example,  simplification  involves  mobilising  the  services  concerned, 
starting  with  DG  Fish.  They  will  not  be  able  to  throw  themselves  into  immediate 
improvements but will take gradual steps towards the overall strategy which will only come to 
fruition in the long term. 

5. 

IMMEDIATE FOLLOW-UP: PREPARING AN ACTION PLAN 

Simplifying the CFP and improving its effective implementation necessitate a comprehensive 
and  long-term  strategy.  Some  schemes  could  and  should  achieve  rapid  results;  others  will 
only come to fruition gradually. Several approaches require trial periods, others require prior 
discussions. Against this backdrop, a multiannual action plan is the way forward. The detailed 
content of such a plan cannot be set out immediately as wide-ranging debates and discussions 
are  needed  to  prepare  it.  However,  a  few  principles  can  already  be  identified  to  guide  the 
preparations. 

First and foremost, any initiative developed under the CFP must be part of the overall process 
of simplifying the Community acquis and be based on the inter-institutional agreement from 
2003. 

The  duration  of  the  plan  could  stretch  to  five  years,  with  an  essential  mid-term  review.  It 
should  include  schemes  for  immediate  action  which,  by  achieving  rapid  tangible  results, 
would  drive  the  process  forward.  It  should  also  cover  schemes  for  medium-term  action  and 
others for long-term results to ensure the concern for simplicity retains sharp focus. 

Preparing  the  plan  will  require  close  cooperation  between  Member  States,  fishermen  and 
other  stakeholders  in  order  to identify  the  rules  and  articles  to  be  simplified,  the  method  of 
doing so and alternative solutions to the existing rules. To aid this process, the Commission 
has  produced  a  Working  Document  containing  an  initial  list  of  proposed  areas  for  action 
intended to guide the discussions and target tangible initiatives. 

The  final  plan  will  have  to  be  tailored  to  available  resources  and  a  realistic  timescale  for 
progress. It cannot include every single possible area for action, nor even those contained in 
the  above-mentioned  document.  Each  proposed  initiative  must  be  analysed  to  ascertain  its 

12 

Inter-institutional agreement on better law-making (OJ C 321 of 31.12.2003, p.1, corrigendum OJ C 4 
of 08.01.2004, p.7); Inter-institutional agreement on common guidelines for the quality of drafting of 
Community legislation (OJ C 73 of 17.03.1999, p. 1); see also the Joint Practical Guide of the European 
Parliament, the Council and the Commission, Publications Office, 2003. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
                                                 
benefits,  potential  obstacles  and  risks  to  its  success  and  the  human  resources  needed.  Each 
proposed initiative must specify the role of all those involved and the timescale. 

Member  States  will  need  to  contribute  to  defining  an  effective  action  plan,  as  will  other 
stakeholders,  primarily  fishermen,  whose  opinion  is  essential  to  defining  priorities. 
Consultative  bodies,  in  particular  the  established  Regional  Advisory  Councils  and  the 
Advisory Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture, must be very actively involved. 

Consultation  procedures  needed  to  draw  up  the  action  plan  could  therefore  be  held  in  the 
beginning of 2005 with the aim of presenting the plan as soon as possible in the same year. 

6. 

CONCLUSIONS 

The initial discussions held on how to simplify the CFP have shown that this is a relevant and 
important issue. The debates revealed the expectations held by all stakeholders, but also the 
problems to be overcome. They have shown that there is significant scope for improvement 
but that success depends on the will to move forward and on a sustained effort on the part of 
all stakeholders. It is now time to strengthen resolve and to press ahead swiftly with tangible 
initiatives, paving the way for sustainable progress on simplification and improvement of the 
regulatory environment of the Common Fisheries Policy. 

EN 

9 

   EN