Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the monitoring of the member states' implementation of the common fisheries policy 2003-2005 {SEC(2007) 425}
Date: 2007-04-10
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, application of EU law, common fisheries policy, fishery management, fishing controls, report

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 10.4.2007 
COM(2007) 167 final 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL  
AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 

ON THE MONITORING OF THE MEMBER STATES' IMPLEMENTATION OF 
THE COMMON FISHERIES POLICY 2003-2005 

{SEC(2007) 425} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION  

Article 27 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 of 20 December 20021 requires 
the Commission to draw up every three years an evaluation report to be submitted to 
the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  on  its  control  activities  and  on  the 
application  of  the  Common  Fisheries  Policy  (CFP)  rules  by  the  Member  States.  In 
addition  Article  35  of  Council  Regulation  (EEC)  N°  2847/93  of  12  October  19932 
(hereafter  the  Control  Regulation)  requires  the  Commission  to  draw  up  an 
assessment report every three years on the application of the regulation on the basis 
of implementation reports submitted by the Member States. 

This  report  responds  to  these  obligations  and  is  the  first  adopted  since  the  2002 
reform of the CFP. It covers the period from 2003 to 2005. Issues related to sanctions 
and  serious  infringements  are  not  covered  in  detail  by  the  report  as  they  are  dealt 
with  separately  in  the  Communications  from  the  Commission  on  behaviours  which 
seriously infringed the rules of the CFP in 20033 and 20044.  

2. 

COMMISSION INSPECTION PROGRAMMES 2003-2005 

These programmes focussed on the most sensitive aspects, identified as areas of high 
risk in terms of non-compliance. These include: 

(1) 

(2) 

Stocks  subject  to  regional  recovery  and  management  measures  such  as  cod, 
hake, bluefin tuna, pelagic fisheries and Greenland halibut. 

Horizontal  control  issues  such  as  satellite  monitoring,  activity  by  third 
country vessels and marketing.  

All  programmes  included  a  series  of  missions  to  the  Member  States,  some  without 
prior  notice,  and  were  followed  up  by  detailed  analysis  of  information  received 
directly  and  from  other  sources.  In  some  cases  the  inspection  unit  was  able  to 
remotely access the fisheries control data bases of the Member States.  

The  extent  of  verification  by  Commission  inspectors  is  limited  by  the  personnel 
available  and  the  legal  powers  of  the  inspectors.  Commission  inspectors  may  carry 
out inspections of vessels and premises and have access to all relevant information. 
They normally operate in the field by observing national inspectors carrying out their 
work  and  in  this  way  are  able  to  assess  the  physical  implementation  of  control 
measures by the competent authorities of the Member States.  

1 
2 

3 
4 

OJ L 358, 31.12.2002, p 59 
OJ L 261, 20.10.1993, p 1, as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1967/2006 (OJ L 409, 30.12.2006, 
p 11) 
COM (2005) 207, 30.05.2005 
COM (2006) 387, 14.7.2006  

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
                                                 
2.1. 

North Sea and Western Waters cod recovery programme  

By the end of 2004 all Member States had an administrative system in place for the 
effort limitation scheme. In general the arrangements for the allocation and transfer 
of days were significantly  more advanced than the control measures adopted at the 
ports of landing. The following specific issues were identified in all Member States 
during the inspection missions: 

•  There  was  a  lack  of  strategy  to  secure  compliance  with  the  effort  limitation 

scheme. 

•  Vessel  Monitoring  System  (VMS)  information  was  not  used  effectively  to  cross 
check prior notifications of landing and fishing effort recorded in vessel logbooks. 

•  By-catch rules, which in some instances allowed a higher allocation of days at sea, 

were not systematically checked. 

•  Member States did not properly enforce the reduced margin of tolerance of 8% for 

catch estimates in the logbook.  

Conclusion:  The  cod  recovery  scheme  was  implemented  in  a  manner  that  would 
cause minimum disturbance to fishing activity. The impact of the scheme was further 
reduced by unreliable catch data caused by mis-declaration. 

2.2. 

Northern hake recovery programme 

Control measures - Most Member States had working systems for designated ports 
and the prior notification of landings specific to the programme. Both were seen as 
important  tools  for  targeting  inspections.  However  many  Member  States  had 
difficulty with enforcing the reduced margin of tolerance for catch estimation in the 
EC fishing logbook. 

Recording  of  catches  -  A  large  proportion  of  catches  of  hake  are  transported  from 
landing in one Member State for sale in another. Member States had not required that 
the hake is weighed prior to transportation, and as a result the accuracy of the data in 
the landing declaration could not be guaranteed. Furthermore the lack of some of the 
basic legal catch registration documents in some Member States (logsheets, landing 
declarations,  transport  documents  and  sales  notes)  prevented  effective  cross-checks 
and prevented efficient validation of the landing data. 

Technical  measures  -  Technical  measures  in  most  Member  States  are  usually 
controlled at sea. In the two missions conducted at sea poor inspection strategy and 
lack of sanctions resulted in a general lack of effective control. Moreover the lack of 
effective control of landings of undersized hake in several Member States remained a 
major concern.  

Conclusion:  A  lack  of  co-ordinated  control  of  the  international  transport  of  hake 
combined  with  a  poor  standard  of  catch  registration  and  the  landing  of  undersized 
fish reduced the effectiveness of the Northern hake recovery programme. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
2.3. 

Southern hake and Nephrops recovery programme 

Management of fishing effort – As 2005 was the first year of the implementation of 
the  recovery  measures  for  southern  hake  and  Nephrops,  it  was  difficult  to  evaluate 
the  impact  of  those  measures  on  the  reduction  of  fishing  effort.  In  Spain  the 
maximum number of days at sea was the same under earlier national legislation. 

Specific  control  measures  -  Both  Member  States  concerned  had  difficulty  with 
enforcing  the  reduced  margin  of  tolerance  for  catch  estimation  in  the  logbook. 
Portugal  successfully  introduced  the  required  Special  Fishing  Permit  and  required 
catches to be weighed prior to transportation. 

Recording  of  catches  –  Lack  of  sufficient  inspections  and  cross-checks  between 
catch  registration  documents  and  surveillance  data  undermined  the  reliability  of 
catch records. 

Conclusion: The impact of the programme was limited as it only really affected 250 
out  of  the  11 000  vessels  involved  in  the  southern  hake  fishery.  Despite  this  the 
human resources devoted to control of the programme were not sufficient. Landings 
of undersized fish, including hake, reduced the effects of the recovery programme. 

2.4. 

Baltic Sea transitional technical control measures for cod 

The analysis of catch registration documents revealed major weaknesses in the catch 
declarations. The records analysed by the Commission inspectors showed an overall 
average  under  declaration  of  recorded  catches  of  23%  in  the  logbooks.  Observed 
averages in individual Member States ranged between 8% and 49%.  

The landing and marketing of fish in the Baltic Sea area is based on direct sales and 
transport  to  other  markets.  There  is  neither  the  practice  nor  the  infrastructure  to 
systematically sort and weigh catches at the point of landing. Vessels enter port and 
land fish directly according to market demands, and in many cases catches are landed 
and  transported  immediately  to  the  buyer’s  premises  or  to  an  auction  in  another 
Member State. 

Where  landing  inspections  resulted  in  the  detection  of  suspected  infringements, 
lengthy  sanctioning  procedures,  as  witnessed  in  many  Member  States,  a  lack  of 
immediate  enforcement  action  and  a  low  level  of  sanctions  undermined  the 
credibility and effectiveness of the inspection efforts.  

Conclusion:  The  lack  of  control  in  the  Baltic  Sea  seriously  undermined  the  catch 
report  system  which  led  to  fishermen  under  recording  catches,  thus  preventing  a 
major reduction in fishing mortality. 

2.5. 

BACOMA trawl escape window in the Baltic Sea 

All  Member  States  visited  during  the  programme  had  implemented  the  BACOMA 
measures  and  it  was  seen  that  this  measure  had  more  success  than  the  first  variant 
introduced  in  2002.  In  addition  several  exchanges  of  inspectors  or  joint  inspection 
operations  were  carried  out  between  different  Member  States,  showing  a 
continuation  of  management  plans  for  cod  in  the  Baltic  Sea  that  had  been  in  place 
since 2001.  

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
Conclusion: The BACOMA trawl escape window, accepted by both fishermen and 
control authorities, has been successfully enforced. 

2.6. 

Highly migratory fish  

Missions in 2003 concluded that there was virtually no catch registration systems put 
in place by Member States for bluefin tuna.  

A further evaluation was therefore made of the management measures implemented 
for  the  bluefin  tuna  fishery  and  the  application  of  new  rules  on  cage  farming  and 
minimum  size.  This  confirmed  the  continuing  need  to  make  improvements  in  the 
catch  reporting  system,  in  particular  the  accuracy  of  the  logbook  and  landing 
declaration  figures  and  revealed  that  the  movements  of  fishing  vessels  were  not 
tracked systematically.  

Missions  carried  out  to  France,  Italy,  Spain  and  Greece  confirmed  that  prohibited 
driftnets are still used in several Member States.  

2.7. 

Regional fisheries management organisations 

NAFO  -  The  European  Commission  maintained  an  inspection  vessel  in  the 
Northwest  Atlantic  Fisheries  Organisation 
for 
approximately 10 months of each year. From 2004 the responsibilities for inspection 
and  deployment  of  observers  started  to  be  transferred  from  the  Commission  to  the 
Member States although the Commission inspection vessel continued to be used as a 
support  platform.  In  addition  the  Commission  co-ordinated  the  activities  of 
inspection  vessels  from  other  Member  States,  and  its  inspectors  participated  in 
landing inspections. 

(NAFO)  Regulatory  Area 

The presence of Commission inspectors at sea in the Greenland halibut fishery made 
it  possible  to  directly  collect  actual  catch  data  which,  when  analysed,  revealed 
discrepancies in the catch registration system of one of the Member States involved. 
After  discussions  between  the  Commission  and  the  Member  State  concerned  the 
fishery was closed by this Member State. 

NEAFC  -  The  Commission  co-ordinated  the  inspection  activity  of  the  Member 
States  patrol  vessels  at  sea  in  the  North-East  Atlantic  Fisheries  Commission 
(NEAFC) Regulatory Area. The European Commission also co-ordinated an increase 
in inspections in port of vessels engaged in fisheries in the NEAFC Regulatory Area, 
and  targeted  in  particular  vessels  listed  as  engaged  in  Illegal,  Unreported  and 
Unregulated (IUU) activities, following the publication of the NEAFC IUU list in the 
Community TAC and quota regulation for 2005. 

2.8. 

Third country fishing vessels 

In response to increasing imports of fish from third country catching vessels, either 
directly  or  following  transhipment  at  sea  and  concerns  over  the  part  played  by 
vessels engaged in IUU activities, Commission inspectors carried out 12 missions to 
assess compliance in Community ports with the fisheries control regime in place. 

The prevailing situation found in most Member States was that the deliveries of non 
EU fisheries products were considered as imports and as such to be controlled by the 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
Customs  and  Veterinary  services.  Consequently  fisheries  monitoring  obligations 
were either ignored or carried out in a haphazard manner. The fisheries authorities of 
most of the Member States were not aware of the extent of fish from third country 
catching vessels entering their national ports. Some evidence was found of fish that 
had come from IUU listed vessels or by vessels not authorised by the Commission’s 
Health & Consumer Protection Directorate General. 

Following  the  series  of  missions  a  significant  number  of  Member  States 
acknowledged the situation and started to take steps to comply with all the fisheries 
requirements for third country fishing vessels.  

2.9. 

Pelagic weighing procedures 

Within  the  framework  of  the  EU-Norway-Faeroes  agreements  a  pelagic  working 
group  was  set  up.  This  group  recommended  a  number  of  measures  to  improve  the 
weighing  and  inspection  of  landings  of  pelagic  fish  which  were  incorporated  into 
Community legislation under the annual quota regulations for 2003-2005.  

Commission inspectors carried out missions to both the Member States and the third 
countries concerned. They found that initially compliance with the rules was at best 
patchy,  with  some  countries  using  nominal  weights,  and  the  rules  themselves  were 
often  misunderstood.  At 
the  programme  however  significant 
improvements were seen in the Member States concerned. Of particular note was the 
enforcement  action  taken  by  the  Irish  and  British  authorities  on  the  suspected 
systematic mis-declaration of catches over a long period. The agreement of Norway 
and  the  Faeroe  Islands  to  adopt  the  same  measures  as  the  Community  was  also  a 
significant step in achieving a level playing field.  

the  end  of 

2.10.  Vessel monitoring system (VMS) 

Experience of previous missions had shown that national authorities have been slow 
to  innovate  and  exploit  the  potential  of  VMS  despite  the  large  number  of  fishery 
management measures that can be automatically monitored by analysing VMS data. 

A  programme  was  therefore  set  up  to  assess  the  use  by  Member  States  of  VMS  in 
recovery plans for the  Baltic  and North Sea. All Member States concerned  had the 
technical and operational infrastructure in place although in some not all the required 
vessels  were  properly  equipped  with  VMS.  The  benefits  of  VMS  technology  were 
mainly  seen as a tool for tactical  surveillance to  back up  other inspection activities 
and generally it was not used as a management tool for fishing effort. Commission 
inspectors  also  found  a  number  of  discrepancies  between  catch  registration 
documents and data from VMS in most Member States which had not been picked 
up by the national authorities:  

In some Member States there was a lack of compliance by fishermen with the VMS 
regulations  which  was  not  followed  up  with  effective  sanctions  by  the  competent 
authorities,  partly  because  there  was  no  legal  framework  for  sanctions  in  place. 
Globally,  at  least  up  to  the  end  of  2005,  Member  States  did  not  make  full  use  of 
VMS technology to manage fisheries. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
2.11.  Marketing and traceability 

Although  the  situation  varied  significantly  between  Member  States,  Commission 
inspectors  found  that  Member  States  are  reluctant  to  change  traditional  marketing 
practices.  As  a  consequence,  the  implementation  of  the  EU  grading  standards  was 
not a priority and such standards were applied and controlled only when they did not 
disturb the local operators and practices. 

The responsibility for the control of the traceability rules for fisheries products was 
in  the  majority  of  the  Member  States  spread  among  different  national  or  regional 
authorities.  Coordination  between  these  authorities  was  often  totally  absent.  
The situation was worse for imported products and as a consequence, huge quantities 
of  fisheries  products  entered  the  Community  without  any  indication  of  the  basic 
compulsory information, such as the origin and the catching area. The common use 
of  local  commercial  denominations,  not  present  in  the  official  national  list, 
commonly  covered  the  sale  of  undersized  or  undeclared  fish  through  the  use  of 
specific local names, for example whiting for hake; atun for bluefin tuna. 

3. 

CONTROL IN THE MEMBER STATES 

3.1. 

Annual reports 

In  accordance  with  Article  35  of  the  Control  Regulation  Member  States  have 
submitted  annual  reports  on  how  they  have applied  the  Control  Regulation.  On  the 
basis  of  the  annual  reports  a  compilation  of  the  available  information  on  Member 
States’ control activities and structure of control is presented in tabular form in the 
Annex.  

These tables describe the fishing activity of each Member State followed by data on 
inspection  resources  and  activity,  catch  registration  and  a  list  of  the  operational 
authorities involved in fisheries control. Examination of the information provided by 
the  Member  States  is  however  hindered  by  the  near  impossibility  to  make  rational 
comparisons  on  a  number  of  issues.  The  information  is  not  supplied  in  a  standard 
format,  for  example  the  reports  provided  ranged  from  1  page  (Malta)  to  over  100 
pages (Spain) in length and there is no standardised list of information that must be 
provided or guidelines on their content. The most important possible conclusions are 
nevertheless highlighted in the following paragraphs. 

3.1.1.  Available resources 

Equipment - Generally the hardware in terms of patrol ships and aircraft can now be 
considered sufficient for the task. New technologies, including VMS, are now much 
more widely used. However computer technology is rarely used to its full potential 
and in a number of Member States it is greatly under-utilised, including that related 
to VMS. 

Personnel - Human means are variable in quality and quantity. 

Professional  standards  relating  to  fisheries  control  often  show  significant  gaps. 
Training  is  variable  and  many  inspectors  are  not  fully  qualified  for  the  work 
required, although improvements have been seen. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
In  most  Member  States  fisheries  inspectors  are  involved  in  non-fisheries  tasks  or 
fisheries  inspection  is  just  one  of  their  duties  carried  out  and  may  be  of  a  low 
priority.  It  is  therefore  impossible  to  compare  the  numbers  of  inspection  personnel 
given in the tables. 

If, for example, in Denmark there has been a reduction in the number of inspectors, 
other Member States, such as Ireland, Spain and the United Kingdom have increased 
the  staff  allocated  to  control  and  inspection  activities.  In  Italy  a  re-alignment  of 
inspectors  has  provided  a  greater  focus  on  fisheries  control.  A  number  of  Member 
States have improved the quality of their existing human resources through improved 
training of inspectors. 

3.1.2. 

Inspection activities 

Inspection  intensity  -  What  constitutes  an  inspection  in  terms  of  the  elements 
inspected  and  the  standards  to  which  they  are  inspected  is  not  properly  defined 
despite  previous  attempts  by  the  Commission  to  standardise  the  reporting  of 
inspection activity. 

As mentioned above some inspection activity is carried out as part of other work, for 
example  sanitary  controls  or  safety  checks.  The  recording  of  inspection  activity  is 
patchy  and  not  harmonised  in  a  way  that  would  enable  results  to  be  compared 
between Member States. As a consequence numbers of inspections cannot be directly 
compared. 

Organisation  of  inspections  -  There  were  still  many  gaps  is  control  activity.  Port 
inspections  are  too  often  poorly  organised,  some  of  the  basic  catch  registration 
documents are still not collected in many Member States. Transport controls seem to 
be  non  existent  in  places;  cross-checks  are  far  from  being  systematic.  Furthermore 
inspection benchmarks (for example the 20% inspection rate in some cod and hake 
fisheries) have not been met in several instances. 

Strategies - The high cost of enforcement in relation to the value of fish catches is a 
barrier to effective control. The use of available resources for fisheries control could 
be improved by allocating a greater share to control measures that tackle the greatest 
risks  of  jeopardising  the  aims  of  the  CFP.  A  better  use  of  well  defined  risk-based 
strategies could increase the efficiency of the control resources. There is however a 
lack  of  a  real  strategy  in  most  Member  States,  even  if  a  small  number  of  Member 
States have started to analyse compliance risks and use this to allocate resources and 
plan inspection activity.  

The  limited  resources  available  are  therefore  not  being  used  with  the  greatest 
effectiveness.  This  is  particularly  evident  in  those  fisheries  subject  to  recovery 
programmes. In a number of cases the bottleneck of effective control is the number 
of inspections carried out at the point of landing. In this context it may be more cost-
effective to shift resources from control at sea to the control of landings.  

Cooperation between Member States - Positive results may be seen resulting from 
the  international  co-ordination  of  inspectors.  Operation  SHARK  in  the  North  Sea 
where several Member States worked together in real-time to prevent offenders from 
escaping detection by hiding in the waters of another Member States has resulted in a 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
number of successful prosecutions. The pelagic working group has resulted in major 
improvements in monitoring and control and has provided transparency between the 
Member States and some third countries. 

3.2. 

Non-compliance and sanctions 

Infringing the rules of the CFP is a risk some individual fishermen may be prepared 
to take given the low chance of detection of infringements or the application of any 
dissuasive  sanctions.  As  may  be  seen  in  the  Communications  on  serious 
infringements  most  penalties  imposed  on  offenders  are  insufficient  to  have  a  real 
deterrent effect. Statistically across the Community the amounts paid in penalties in 
2003 and 2004 were roughly 0.4%5 and 0.2%6 of the value of fish landings in 2002 
and 2003  respectively;  however  the variation between Member  States was striking. 
Apart from two Member States where assessments have been made, there remains a 
general  lack  of  understanding  of  the  relationship  between  compliance  risks, 
inspection activity and the effect of follow-up, including sanctions. 

3.3. 

Overall results achieved in terms of compliance with CFP rules  

Positive  evolutions  –  The  problems  arising  from  non-compliance,  the  consequent 
damage  to  fish  stocks  and  the  lack  of  economic  and  social  stability  have  been 
recognised by the Member States, both at government level and within parts of the 
fishing sector itself. The Commission has been a part of this process by encouraging 
compliance,  by  providing  a  greater  transparency  and  facilitating  international  co-
operation, and, in more extreme cases, by using the deterrent effect of infringement 
proceedings before the European Court of Justice. A particular success has been the 
improvements  seen  in  the  monitoring  and  control  of  the  pelagic  fisheries  and, 
although to a lesser extent, the acknowledgement by Member States of their failure 
to  effectively  control  the  landings  of  third  country  fishing  vessels  and  their 
recognition they have to improve their enforcement system in this area. 

Major shortcomings –Compliance with key rules of the CFP remains poor in many 
fisheries.  

Quotas - Compliance with Total Allowable Catches (TAC’s) and quotas remains one 
of  the  major  problems  of  the  CFP.  These  problems  and  related  control  aspects  are 
probably  felt  more  acutely  when  significant  reductions  in  quotas  are  decided  in 
response to the need for a drastic reduction in fishing mortality rates. Undeclared and 
mis-reported landings seriously undermine in some cases the management of TAC’s 
and  quotas.  Fishery  scientists  are  forced  to  make  estimations  of  ‘real’  catches 
because the official figures are not considered reliable in some Member States. For 
example while the declared catch for southern hake was 5 549 tonnes scientists used 
an estimated figure of 6 810 tonnes. For Irish Sea cod the declared catch was 2 700 
tonnes  while  the  estimation  was  4 420  tonnes.  Similar  examples  can  be  found  in 
other areas (North Sea, Baltic…).  

Effort - Control of fishing effort, which should complement quota limits, seems to 
be implemented in a way that causes least effect on actual fishing activity. There is 

5 
6 

COM (2005) 207, 30.05.2005 
COM (2006) 387, 14.7.2006 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
                                                 
no evidence that the reduction in fishing effort has compensated for over-capacity in 
the fleet, even taking into account the effect of decommissioning schemes. VMS has 
not  been  used  to  effectively  monitor  fishing  effort  so  that  it  can  be  considered  a 
missed opportunity.  

Technical  measures  -  Significant  quantities  of  undersized  fish  are  still  landed, 
especially in southern Europe where banned gears (drift nets) are still in use, while in 
Northern waters trawl blinders (to retain small fish) have not been eradicated. 

4. 

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

4.1. 

Future of the report 

There have been important difficulties in the preparation of this report due the lack of 
a  standard  reporting  format  from  the  Member States  and  in  particular  the  lack  of  a 
standard definition of a fisheries inspection in order to ensure comparable statistics. 
In  conjunction  with  the  exercise  in  improving  the  Communication  on  serious 
infringements the Commission is considering listing the essential elements required 
of  a  fisheries  inspection  before  it  can  be  included  in  control  statistics  and 
standardising the format of the annual report made by the Member States.  

The  Commission  has  started  consulting  national  administrations  and  relevant 
stakeholders on the future format of the report, with a view to agreeing, by the end of 
2007,  standardised  characteristics  of  inspections  that  may  be  included  in  the  next 
annual reports.  

The  publication  of  control  statistics  on  the  internet  by  Member  States  may  also  be 
considered. 

4.2. 

Immediate priorities for improving enforcement and compliance  

Priorities for action should be in the short term: 

•  Ensure full use of existing regulatory tools – e.g. receipt of basic catch registration 

documents, cross-checks, VMS and use of transport checks; 

•  Allocate more skilled human resources to fisheries control; 

•  Adopt a systematic approach to training of inspectors; 

•  Strengthen  co-operation  and  co-ordination  between  Member  States  and  within 

Member States at all levels;  

•  Improve  systems  of  sanctions  so  that  they  are  more  related  to  the  type  and 
seriousness of offences. Sanctions need to be more dissuasive and to deprive those 
responsible of any economic benefit arising out of an offence;  

•  Strengthen the means devoted to the control of landings of vessels fishing beyond 

Community waters; 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
•  Use as quickly as possible of new technologies, such as the electronic logbook, to 

improve the flow of information; 

The  Community  Fisheries  Control  Agency  will  have  a  crucial  role  to  play  in  these 
respects and in many other issues mentioned in this report.  

At  Community  level  harmonised  and  simplified  reporting  on  fisheries  control  must 
be put into place. 

EN 

11 

   EN