Report from the Commission on the monitoring of the member states’ implementation of the common fisheries policy 2000 – 2002 {SEC(2004) 1718}
Date: 2005-01-04
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, application of EU law, common fisheries policy, report

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 4.1.2005 
COM(2004) 849 final 

. 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION  

ON THE MONITORING OF THE MEMBER STATES’ IMPLEMENTATION 
OF THE COMMON FISHERIES POLICY 2000 – 2002 

{SEC(2004) 1718} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

This report responds to obligations laid down in Article 35 of the Council Regulation (EEC) 
N°  2847/93  of  12  October  19931  (hereafter  the  Control  Regulation)  establishing  a  control 
system applicable to the CFP. It contains the Commission’s assessment of how the Member 
States have implemented the Community control system and applied the Control Regulation 
during the period 2000-2002. It is mainly based on the annual control reports submitted to the 
Commission by each Member State, as well as on the Commission’s own observations. 

The previous assessment report from the Commission,2 which covered the period 1996-1999, 
highlighted areas where deficiencies existed in the implementation of the CFP in the Member 
States.  The  main  problems  identified  concerned  the  lack  of  co-ordination  and  co-operation 
both  nationally  and  internationally,  the  lack  of  cohesive  internal  control  strategies,  the 
allocation  of  insufficient  means,  resources  and  control  effort  and  the  need  for  suitable 
deterrents  to  illegal  activity  via  the  sanctioning  systems.  The  report  was,  to  a  considerable 
extent,  taken  into  account  in  the  ‘Roadmap’  for  reform  of  the  CFP  and  in  the  resulting 
framework Regulation.  

It should be emphasized that the report covers the period 2000-2002 and thus only reflects the 
situation  up  to  the  reform  of  the  CFP.  The  report  is  accompanied  by  Working  Documents, 
entitled  ‘Fisheries  control  in  Member  States’,  which  contain  the  Commission’s  detailed 
description and assessment of the factual situation as regards fisheries control in each Member 
State. 

2. 

NATIONAL FRAMEWORKS FOR CONTROL AND ENFORCEMENT 

All the Member States have established legal and administrative frameworks for the control 
and  enforcement  of  the  CFP.  There  are  differences  between  the  states,  not  least  due  to 
inherent  legal  and  administrative  traditions,  and  two  main  approaches  can  be  discerned. 
Firstly, fisheries control may be the responsibility, mainly or totally, of an inspectorate under 
the  direct  authority  of  the  fisheries  department  of  the  relevant  ministry.  Secondly, 
responsibilities  may  be  entrusted  to  one  or  several  other  authorities  not  subordinated  the 
responsible ministry. Fisheries control is then only one task among many.  

Internal  co-operation  and  co-ordination  for  the  implementation  of  a  comprehensive  control 
strategy  are  the  main  challenges  for  many  national  control  systems,  and  the  division  of 
competencies  in  some  Member  States  poses  considerable  problems  in  this  respect.  The 
structures for co-operation between Member States also need to be reinforced and this is 
particularly  relevant  in  view  of  the  trans-boundary  nature  of  fishing  activities  and  the 
increasing amount of fish being transported around the Member States. 

The  control  powers  of  national  officials  entrusted  with  fisheries  control  tasks  are  now  in 
general sufficient to fulfil these duties. Problems may arise in areas where the powers of 
the  inspection  authorities  must  be  supplemented  with  powers  of  an  authority  with 
secondary  responsibility.  This  is  particularly  the  case  for  transport  controls  and  for  the 

1 
2 

OJ L 261 of 20.10.1993.  
COM(2001) 526 final of 28.9.2001 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
                                                 
follow-up of infringements, where the police in many cases are required to assist in or lead the 
investigations.  There  is  probably  also  scope  for  an  extension  of  powers  in  relation  to 
control of businesses related to fisheries.  

All  Member  States  have  established  systems  for  follow-up  of  infringements  which  at  least 
theoretically should be able to fulfil the requirements of the Control Regulation, i.e. to deprive 
offenders of the economic benefit of illegal acts and to act as a deterrent. Most Member States 
deal with fisheries infringements primarily through criminal procedure. The primary principal 
penalty is the fine. Fines, or ranges of fines, are normally defined in legislation and  often a 
statutory  maximum  is  set.  Tariffs,  sometimes  official  and  public,  are  used  by  quite  a  few 
Member States. The most important accessory sanctions are confiscation and forfeiture. The 
possibility to withdraw licenses or other authorisations needed to fish is provided for, at least 
in theory, in all Member States. 

3. 

MEANS OF CONTROL 

The increasing need to proactively control the fishing industry has placed further pressure on 
available  financial  resources.  Some  Member  States  have  increased  budgets  accordingly, 
whilst others have tried to adapt their existing resources and working practices to meet these 
demands.  

The  Member  States  have  made  significant  efforts  to  reduce  the  deficit  in  the  means  of 
surveillance  at  sea,  partly  helped  by  financial  contribution  from  the  Commission.  In 
conjunction  with  VMS  this  should  increase  the  efficiency  of  maritime  control.  However, 
inspection platforms whose suitability for control purposes is not satisfactory continue to be 
deployed,  and  it  is  not  always  possible  to  establish  the  extent  to  which  these  means  are 
used in fisheries control.  

The  lack  of  human  resources  remains  a  serious  problem  in  several  Member  States, 
notably  for  carrying  out  landing  inspections,  which  remains  one  of  the  most  essential 
elements  of  control.  This  situation  is  exacerbated  when  control  authorities  also  undertake 
other duties which often results in a lower priority being attributed to fisheries tasks. The level 
of  expertise  and  qualifications  of  control  staff  must  be  improved,  particularly  where 
fisheries control is not their sole task, and training should be intensified accordingly. 

4. 

MONITORING SYSTEMS 

All  Member  States  have  introduced  VMS  and  established  Fisheries  Monitoring  Centres  to 
monitor the positions of fishing vessels. However, if the VMS appears to be fully operational 
in the large majority of the Member States, problems still remain where in some Member 
States a considerable number of vessels are not yet fitted with the equipment or do not 
transmit correctly. Often manual reporting obligations are not complied with and there is no 
follow-up  by  the  authorities  concerned.  VMS  data  are  generally  under-utilized  for  control 
purposes, particularly for verification of fishing effort. 

Many  national  catch  and  effort  registration  systems  cannot  be  considered  satisfactory, 
although  some  Member  States  have  made  substantial  progress  in  this  field.  Moreover,  the 
satisfactory  integration  of  monitoring  systems  which  allow  systematic  cross-checking  of 
information from VMS, the fleet register, logbooks and sales notes, remains the exception. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
Even where such integrated systems do exist they are not used to their full potential. Cross-
checking  procedures  are  often  unnecessarily  complex,  for  example  where  several  different 
authorities have been given responsibilities in this respect.  

Sales notes and transport documents are still not satisfactorily used in some Member States, 
particularly for frozen fish and fish by-passing the auction system. 

5. 

CONTROL OF FLEETS AND EFFORT 

The  data  in  the  various  national  fleet  registers  has  generally  been  improved,  although 
inconsistencies still remain. Engine power data has proved particularly difficult to assess 
and verify and cannot be considered completely reliable. Certain Member States only met 
their  MAGP  ceilings  by  adjusting  or  redefining  the  segmentation  of  their  fleet  rather  than 
tackling  the  over-capacity.  Additional  national  measures,  such  as  decommissioning,  proved 
successful in reducing fleet sizes. In Western Waters the effective implementation of fishing 
effort limitation remains open to question, and in the Baltic Sea it was deemed as generally 
unsuccessful.  Whilst  many  Member  States  have  mostly  succeeded  in  stabilising  their 
fleet,  over  capacity  persists  in  many  segments,  not  least  because  developments  in 
technology have increased real capacity beyond the nominal capacity indicated by the power 
of  engines.  This  means  that  the  gap  between  fishing  capacity  and  the  available  fishing 
opportunities is still there.  

6. 

INSPECTION AND MONITORING ACTIVITIES 

In  order  to  strengthen  overall  control  some  Member  States  have  established  various 
national  and  regional  strategies,  both  for  control  at  sea  and  ashore,  but  this  does 
certainly not apply to all States or areas. Control activity at sea has intensified and gained 
in effectiveness, partly due to the acquisition and upgrading of maritime means. The number 
and quality of shore based inspections appear to have improved somewhat during the relevant 
period,  although  it  is  still  frequently  observed  that  inspections  are  carried  out  without 
sufficient strategy and knowledge of fisheries, fishing methods and the applicable regulations.  

On  the  whole,  the  control  effort  carried  out  by  most  of  the  Member  States  is  not 
considered  by  Commission  as  being  altogether  fully  effective.  Many  problems  relate 
particularly to controlling landings both before and after first sale, the transport of catches and 
the verification of catch area. All these activities should be cross-checked against the various 
sources of control and surveillance information available. In many areas, Member States do 
not lack the capacity to improve control but rather the willingness to use it. 

In view of the trans-boundary nature of fishing activities, it is crucial that there is effective co-
operation and co-ordination between the Member States. Joint surveillance actions, although 
limited in number, have given promising results and should be intensified. Co-operation in the 
vertical  sense,  i.e.  throughout  the  whole  production  chain,  needs  to  be  greatly  improved, 
particularly since fish is increasingly landed and sold in different Member States. There is an 
apparent lack of effort on the part of the Member States concerned in this respect. 

In  regard  to  notification  of  catches  to  the  Commission,  the  Member  States  have  mostly 
overcome  some  of  the  problems  in  delays  and  data  format  previously  identified.  Although 
some  difficulties  in  the  flow  of  data  have  been  resolved,  the  Commission  remains 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
reserved  about  the  quality  of  the  data.  Indeed,  in  spite  of  reductions  in  certain  TAC’s  in 
2000 and 2001, an analysis made by the Commission indicates that the catch levels in those 
fisheries  were  not  substantially  reduced.  The  monitoring  of  activities  of  fishing  vessels 
operating  beyond  Community  waters  remains  an  issue  which  must  be  particularly 
targeted  and  much  data  is  entirely  absent  for  certain  activities  in  waters  where  EU 
agreements with third parties have been concluded. 

Community  wide  deficiencies  in  landing  controls  and  cross-checks  between  logbooks, 
landing  declarations  and  sales  data  certainly  allowed  for  under-declaration  of  catches  or 
even non-declaration when the quota for the species concerned were exhausted. In many 
areas the lack of co-ordinated control at sea and on shore has resulted in unacceptably high 
fishing mortality on certain ‘pressurised’ stocks, large discard rates at sea and the proliferation 
of ‘black fish’ activity for both pelagic and demersal stocks subject to quota restrictions. On 
the  whole  the  catch  monitoring  systems  of  many  Member  States  suffer  inherent 
weaknesses,  many  of  which  could  be  overcome  by  a  more  effective  and  systematic  cross-
check of the data available.  

7. 

IMPLEMENTATION OF SANCTIONS 

Although the fines provided for in national legislation are, with a few exceptions, set at a high 
maximum level, for most types of infringements the fines actually imposed are situated at the 
lower  end  of  the  available  range.  Member  States  do  not  fully  use  their  possibilities  to 
confiscate  gear  and  catch.  Undersize  fish  and  illegal  gear  are  regularly  confiscated,  but 
generally the Member States could make better use of their powers to confiscate in addition to 
imposing  a  fine.  Although  all  Member  States  have  legal  provisions  making  it  possible  to 
withdraw licences and other authorizations to fish, it is extremely rare that these powers are 
used.  Formal  procedural  restrictions,  the  excessive  financial  consequences  and  the  impact 
such  measures  have  on  persons  not  directly  responsible  for  the  infringement  are  the  main 
reasons put forward. 

Handling times are excessive on the whole, and the level of awareness among prosecutors and 
member of the judiciary dealing with fisheries cases vary significantly. Further specialisation 
of prosecutors should be considered and efforts to sensitise members of the judiciary should 
be intensified. 

The  treatment  of  fisheries  infringements  and  offenders  still  vary  to  a  considerable  degree 
between different parts of the Community. There are indications that there is a certain amount 
of  discriminatory  treatment  of  foreign  fishermen,  both  in  the  levels  of  fines  and  in  the 
procedures  used.  The  co-operation  between  Member  States  in  the  area  of  sanctions  is  still 
seriously  underdeveloped.  Improvements  are  still  urgently  needed  so  that  all  actors  in  the 
fisheries sector are effectively deterred from breaking the rules and that a level playing field is 
created throughout the Community. 

8. 

CONTROL AND ENFORCEMENT PROBLEMS BY AREA, FISHERIES AND STOCKS 

In  the  Baltic  Sea,  despite  joint  control  programmes  within  the  context  of  IBSFC,  the  high 
fishing  mortality  rate  in  the  cod  stocks  has  continued  up  to  2002.  In  Region  2,  for  both 
demersal  and  pelagic  stocks,  designated  ports,  prior  notification  and  time  restrictions  for 
discharge  have  been  introduced  to  improve  control.  Key  elements  of  the  Community 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
‘recovery  plans’  and  ‘emergency  measures’  for  cod  and  hake  were  provisions  specifically 
aimed to aid and enhance control at sea and ashore. However, high discard rates and ‘black 
fish’  activity  remain  serious  problems  for  stocks  subject  to  quota  restrictions.  The  mis-
recording  of  ICES  areas  in  logbooks  remains  problematic  for  accurate  catch  assessment  in 
many stocks despite the introduction of VMS. In Region 3, the TAC’s are at levels which are 
not  generally  seen  as  restrictive  and  therefore  widespread  problems  of  the  deliberate 
misreporting  do  not  exist.  The  impact  of  the  ‘emergency  measures’  for  hake  in  the  Bay  of 
Biscay  has  been  difficult  to  assess  due  to  the  weak  landing  controls  applied  in  the  relevant 
Member States. 

With regards to the implementation of technical measures, in Regions 1 and 2, whilst the rules 
concerning  restricted  areas  are  generally  respected,  illegal  attachments  and  mesh  size  in 
relation to the catch composition retained on board remain serious concerns. Landing of 
undersize fish still occurs in Baltic Sea fisheries, by beam trawlers working in the North Sea 
and  trawlers  targeting  Nephrops  or  hake  in  the  Bay  of  Biscay.  In  Region  3  and  the 
Mediterranean  Sea  there  is  still  a  large  market  demand  for  small  fish,  which  presents  an 
incentive to use illegal gear.  

In the Mediterranean serious problems persist with vessels using driftnets longer than the 
maximum  allowed  and  still  taking  catches  of  swordfish  and  bluefin  tuna  despite  the 
prohibition  to  use  driftnets  to  catch  highly  migratory  species  from  the  beginning  of  2002. 
Trawling  activities  and  certain  traditional  fishing  methods  used  within  the  three  miles  from 
the  shore  remain  a  common  practice  in  the  Mediterranean  Sea,  which  all  entail  a  negative 
impact  on  fish  spawning  areas,  nurseries  and  the  biodiversity  of  the  marine  environment. 
Efforts  deployed  by  the  Member  States  concerned  have  proved  unsuccessful  in  eradicating 
these problems. 

9. 

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 

At  Community  level,  there  have  been  improvements  in  the  Member  States’  application 
and enforcement of the CFP over the period 2000-2002. However, these improvements are 
not  always  in  proportion  to  the  investments  made  in  sea  and  aerial  means  and  new 
technologies.  Additionally,  the  enforcement  of  measures  implemented  still  often  lacks 
uniformity  when  considering  the  different  fisheries  or  parts  of  the  production  chain  which 
need to be controlled. The lack of uniformity is particularly striking as regards the follow-up 
of infringements, where the treatment of infringements and offenders varies greatly between 
different  parts  of  the  Community,  between  Member  States  and  even  within  Member  States. 
Therefore,  many  serious  weaknesses  previously  identified  still  remain  and  have 
prevented the CFP from achieving its goals. 

Advanced technologies, such as VMS, should continue to be used and developed in order 
to  improve  control  methodology  and  strategy.  Properly  integrated  into  comprehensive 
monitoring  systems,  they  will  serve  as  an  invaluable  complement  to  a  physical  control 
presence  and  contribute  greatly  to  developing  control  systems  which  are  both  efficient  and 
cost effective. They will also provide the essential tools for improving co-operation and co-
ordination between national authorities, between Member States and between the Commission 
and the Member States.  

The availability and quality of control means is positive but they cannot, by themselves, 
be  the  sole  criterion  for  assessing  the  performance  of  control  activity  by  the  Member 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
States. The great challenge is to use existing tools to their full potential. The fact that means 
are  used  in  an  optimal  way  in  one  Member  State  does  not  necessarily  indicate  that  the 
Community as a whole utilises them efficiently. In order to obtain the desired results, it will 
be  necessary  to  implement  more  Community  wide  control  strategies.  Accordingly,  co-
operation  and  co-ordination  between  administrations  at  all  levels  must  be  greatly 
strengthened and the proposed Community Fisheries Control Agency will have a crucial role 
to play in this respect.  

EN 

7 

   EN