Commission staff working document  accompanying the proposal for a Council Regulation establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the Common Fisheries Policy - Summary of the impact assessment {COM(2008) 721 final} {SEC(2008) 2760}
Date: 2008-11-14
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU waters, common fisheries policy, fishing controls, information network, maritime surveillance

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 14.11.2008 
SEC(2008) 2761 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

accompanying the 

Proposal for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION 

establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the 
Common Fisheries Policy 

SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

{COM(2008) 721 final} 
{SEC(2008) 2760} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

In preparing its proposal for reform of the control regime under the current Common Fisheries 
Policy (CFP), the Commission has carried out this in-depth Impact Assessment with the aim 
of analysing the possible consequences of several options to address the current shortcomings 
in the EU fisheries control regime. The CFP control system currently suffers from substantial 
failures,  identified  by  both  the  European  Commission1  and  the  European  Court  of  Auditors 
(CoA)2,  and  it  is  not  as  efficient  or  as  effective  as  it  could  be.  It  is  therefore  important  to 
establish a coherent and effective control system to secure full implementation of and proper 
compliance with the CFP rules in order to ensure the sustainable exploitation of living aquatic 
resources. 

The  Commission  has  consequently  proposed  a  number  of  changes  to  bring  about 
improvement, and this report is an assessment of the probable impacts of those changes upon 
the  effectiveness  and  efficiency  of  control  and  compliance  and  the  likelihood  of  ensuring 
optimum benefits from existing and future investment, particularly in stock recovery, in order 
to preserve a sustainable industry. 

In order to gain the information necessary to properly develop and analyse different options, 
and in order to allow all stakeholders to contribute to the discussion at an early stage, a wide 
consultation involving Member States, the fishing sector, and all interested parties was held. 
Moreover,  the  Commission  made  use  of  external  expertise  for  a  case  study  based  on  seven 
stocks, most of which are subject to recovery plans, to support some of the arguments in the 
present report. 

In this report, the following options were considered: 

- 

Option  1:  No  policy  change.  Continue  current  policy  and  focus  on  implementation 
and enforcement of existing framework 

Sub-option 1: No policy change, continuation of the current situation 

The main assumption for this sub-option is that current control policy is sufficient to 
ensure compliant behaviour in line with the objectives of the CFP, and that the core 
issue  is  poor  implementation  of  the  existing  regulatory  requirements  by  Member 
States. On numerous occasions, the Commission has raised serious concerns as to the 
lack  of  sufficient  action  by  Member  States  to  this  end3.  In  order  to  address  these 
concerns, the emphasis could be put on better implementation of the already existing 
legislation. However, the substantial shortcomings of the existing system, such as the 
complexity of the legal framework, the absence of common inspection standards, the 
lack  of  a  harmonised  and  sufficiently  deterrent  sanctions  system  or  the  limited 
capacities  of  the  Commission,  could  not  be  addressed  under  this  option  and  the 
situation is unlikely to improve. 

Sub-option  2:  Implementation  and  enforcement  of  existing  framework  through 
implementation regulations 

The main assumption for this sub-option, as an alternative to the simple continuation 
of  the  current  situation,  is  that  the  emphasis  could  be  put  on  the  adoption  of 

1 

2 

3 

Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the monitoring of Member 
States’ implementation of the Common Fisheries Policy 2003-2005 - COM(2007) 167, 10.4.2007. 
Special  Report  No  7/2007  of  the  Court  of  Auditors  on  the  control,  inspection  and  sanction  systems 
relating to the rules on conservation of Community fisheries resources. 
COM(2007) 167. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
outstanding implementing legislation. The fact that many implementation regulations 
have not been adopted clearly prevents the initial control regulation from having its 
full impact. However, this approach means additional layers of rules being added in 
an  uncoordinated  manner  to  the  existing  web  of  complexity  in  response  to  isolated 
political  demands  or  emergency  situations  in  fisheries.  Even  if  all  implementation 
regulations were to be adopted, this would not allow a new approach to control and 
inspection  to  be  developed.  Additional  provisions  would  instead  exacerbate  the 
fragmentation  of  the  current  rules  and  lead  to  an  even  more  complex  legal 
framework.  The  vicious  circle  of  poor  data  not  allowing  reliable  scientific  advice, 
leading to unsustainable management decisions and resulting in over-exploitation of 
stocks, would  continue.  Apart from  possibly a couple of recovery stocks subject to 
specific  conditions,  the  downward  trend  in  quotas  would  generally  continue.  The 
capacities  of  the  Commission  and  its  inspectors  would  remain  limited.  This 
incapacity  of  the  Commission  would  continue  to  be  matched  by  the  continued 
leniency  of  national  legal  systems  towards  infringements,  unsatisfactory  follow-up 
for legal or procedural reasons and incomplete information on sanctions and previous 
non-compliance. 

- 

Option 2: Recast of the Control Regulation, combined with a Code of conduct 

The  development  of  an  approach  in  which  reform  is  implemented  through  a 
consolidated  legal  framework  in  combination  with  a  steering  instrument,  such  as  a 
‘Code of Conduct’ or ‘Best Practice Guidance’, could contribute to a certain extent 
to improving the current control system. As this approach would build on initiatives 
developed  by  Member  States  over  the  years,  the  coordination  of  inspection  and 
surveillance  activities  by  national  authorities  at  Community  level  would  be 
improved,  based  on  the  adoption  of  inspection  and  surveillance  strategies  by  the 
Commission  and  the  pooling  of  national  inspection  resources  for  joint  deployment. 
National inspection resources would thus be used as rationally and as effectively as 
possible. Some fisheries might recover as a result of unilateral action in a segment of 
the fleet or groups of fleet segments, but, overall, this approach does not change the 
content  of  the  current  provisions  or  add  any  new  legal  instruments,  and  relies  too 
heavily on voluntary implementation by the Member States. Even with a recast of the 
existing  provisions,  Member  States  would  still  need  a  new  legal  framework  that 
provides  new,  mandatory  tools  to  ensure  effective  application  of  the  CFP  rules. 
Consequently,  a  combination  of  consolidation  and  steering  measures  would  be 
insufficient. 

- 

Option 3: Regulatory instrument in the form of a new binding regulation 

The  third  option  presented  for  assessment  is  the  implementation  of  the  reform 
package through a regulatory instrument binding at EU level. This approach aims to 
create  a  level  playing  field  in  the  EU,  a  goal  strongly  demanded  by  the  Member 
States and in particular by the sector itself. It would ensure uniform application of the 
CFP  rules  across  the  EU  and  non-  discriminatory  treatment  of  all  fishermen.  The 
regulatory  instrument  would  meet  the  objectives  of  a  truly  global  and  integrated 
control policy, as it would encompass all levels of control, from ‘net to plate’. The 
implementation of adequate control measures would also bring about some necessary 
structural adjustments to the fleet. On the one hand, effective and reinforced control 
of  effort  regimes  would  reduce  current  overfishing,  which  artificially  maintains  the 
profitability of the fleet and hence creates an incentive for-non compliance with the 
rules.  On  the  other  hand,  overcapacity  would  be  addressed  by  the  introduction  of 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
 
 
effective tools to better control the capacity of fishing vessels. The establishment of 
common  control  and  inspection  standards  would  provide  a  common  basis  and 
thereby help bring about a level playing field. Harmonised sanctions would also help 
to  achieve  a  level  playing  field  by  establishing  penalties  proportionate  to  the  gain 
from illegal activities and comparable in all Member States. A mandatory regulatory 
framework would enable the Commission to ensure effective application of the CFP 
rules.  First,  the  capacity  of  the  Commission  to  respond  proportionately  to  non-
compliance  by  Member  States  would  be  improved.  Strengthened  competences  for 
Commission  inspectors  would  make  it  more  difficult  for  Member  States  to  hide 
shortcomings in the implementation of CFP rules. Second, the strengthened capacity 
of  the  Commission  would  in  particular  enable  it  to  ensure  better  management  of 
fishing possibilities and make it easier for it to close down fisheries in real time on its 
own initiative to avoid overfishing. 

Indicative  qualitative  and  quantitative  analyses  show  that,  while  some  of  the 
proposed  elements  of  the  package  are  more  significant  than  others,  the  package  is 
most  likely  to  be  effective  in  achieving  a  high  level  of  compliance  when 
implemented  in  full  with  a  binding  rather  than  a  voluntary  instrument  similar,  for 
example, to the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing. 

If the proposals are implemented by a binding regulation and if Member States apply 
this  regulation  alongside  existing  multiannual  recovery  plans,  then  the  incremental 
net benefits to the industry as a result of recovered and better protected stocks can be 
in the order of EUR 10 billion over 10 years. Such economic benefits are likely to be 
accompanied by net increases in employment of up to 4 000 new jobs across all sub-
sectors. Increased fish production can be a significant factor in creating new jobs on 
a sectoral and regional basis. 

With  a  fully  binding  regulation,  catches  from  all  stocks  could  increase  by  some 
270 000 tonnes of high-value species. This would go a long way to securing market 
supplies and a sustainable industry. 

Underlying  the  catch  increases  will  be  the  considerable  environmental  benefits  of 
improved  fish  stocks,  particularly under recovery plans — these alone are likely to 
yield an increase of 830 000 tonnes in the ‘spawning stock biomass’ over the period 
analysed. Moreover, the analysis has demonstrated that this increase in the biomass 
of key species would reverse the current trend of decline in the ecosystem as a result 
of ‘fishing down the food chain’. 

- 

Option  4:  Centralisation  of  CFP  control  policy  at  EU  level,  with  increased 
competences  for  the  Commission  and  the  Community  Fisheries  Control  Agency 
(CFCA) 

The  Commission  and  the  CFCA  would  concentrate  the  inspection  resources  of  the 
Member States, and develop universally accepted standards with the long-term goal 
of setting up some kind of European coastguard system. This would ensure uniform 
application of the CFP rules and non-discriminatory treatment of all fishermen across 
the  EU.  The  Commission  would  have  policing  and  enforcement  powers,  which 
would  also  facilitate  the  collection  of  information  on  possible  infringements,  and 
therefore  enhance  the  overall  efficiency  of  the  system.  This  would  require  a 
substantial  increase  in  human  and  technical  resources  at  the  Commission  and  the 
Agency and massive financial investment.  

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
This  option  had  to  be  discarded  at  an  early  stage,  however,  for  several  reasons.  In 
particular, the reallocation of tasks between the Commission and the Member States 
would  exceed  what  is  provided  for  in  the  Treaty.  The  Commission  would  itself 
implement and enforce the rules it lays down. That would also entail the Commission 
exercising  jurisdiction  over  Community  fishing  vessels.  Moreover,  it  is  difficult  to 
conceive  that  Member  States  would  suddenly  accept  giving  up  such  powers  to  a 
supranational body. In addition, the approach might even go against the principles of 
proportionality  and  subsidiarity.  Finally,  such  an  option  would  have  a  dramatic 
impact on the EU budget in terms of staff and operational deployment costs, which 
would be impossible to afford. 

Conclusions 

The report recommends  that, since  the reform package can be shown to be likely to deliver 
high  compliance,  with  resulting  benefits  across  the  industry,  particularly  from  recovering 
stocks, it is best implemented with a binding regulation, since the analysis of more voluntary, 
non-regulatory options suggests that they would ineffective. 

The Impact  Assessment  has shown that no significant improvements can  be expected  under 
option 1, since one of the major shortcomings of the current system, namely the complexity of 
the  legal  framework,  which  is  spread  over  several  regulations  and  has  undergone  various 
amendments  during  the  last  year,  would  not  be  addressed  under  this  option,  while  the 
additional implementing provisions considered under sub-option 2 are likely to exacerbate the 
fragmentation of the current rules. 

Option 2 would provide a simplified legal framework and bring about partial improvements to 
the control system in some Member States. However, since shortcomings in the current legal 
provisions would not be eliminated and since improvements would rely mainly on voluntary 
action by the Member States, this option would neither lead to a global approach to control 
nor create a level playing field for all stakeholders. 

A complete reform of the current fisheries control regime based on a binding Regulation as 
considered  under  option  3  would  not  only  consolidate  and  simplify  the  existing  legislation, 
currently spread over a number of different regulations. It would also allow us to develop a 
new, harmonised approach to inspection and control covering all aspects from ‘net to plate’, 
to  develop  a  common  culture  of  compliance  and  to  ensure  the  effective  application  of  CFP 
rules. The outcome would be a truly global and integrated control system able to restore the 
confidence of stakeholders in the CFP. 

EN 

5 

   EN