Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on Community Fisheries Control System
Date: 2009-06-18
Institutions: European Committee of the Regions
Subjects: CoR opinion, common fisheries policy, fishing controls, fishing regulations, fishing rights, fishing vessel, maritime shipping, maritime surveillance, protected species








C_2009211EN.01007301.xml










4.9.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 211/73





Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on community fisheries control system
(2009/C 211/11)
THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS






—


strongly welcomes the root and branch reform of the control system of the European Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) and calls upon the Council and on the European Commission to take into account the diversity and specific characteristics of different fleets and fishing regions;










—


believes that a culture of natural compliance with fisheries rules would be fostered only if the control measures are implemented on a dialogue and consensus basis rather than being imposed through a top-down process. It welcomes new measures provided by the regulation to force Member States to comply with the objectives of the CFP, however, the proportionality of such measures should be well reflected upon. The CoR rejects the refusal of quota transfers or exchanges in this regard;










—


urges clarification on the scope of the new provisions on recreational fisheries with regard to licenses and authorisation. Such fishing, if unregulated could endanger fish stocks on recovery plans. However, the response of the regulation must be proportionate and not excessive;










—


being particularly concerned about sustainable and profitable small-scale fishery, seeks clarification on new provisions which oblige boats of 10-15 metres length to install a VMS, keep an electronic logbook, and complete electronic landing declarations. It rejects fitting AIS to all fishing vessels exceeding 15 metres length and calls for boats less than 10 metres long that use only static fishing gear to be exempted from certification of engine power.











Rapporteur


:


Sir Simon DAY (UK/EPP), Member of Devon County Council




Reference documents
Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the proposal for a Council Regulation establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the Common Fisheries Policy — COM(2008) 718 final
Proposal for a Council Regulation establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the Common Fisheries Policy, COM(2008) 721 final — 2008/0216 (CNS)
I.   POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS






1.


strongly welcomes the overhaul of the control system of the European Common Fisheries Policy (CFP). The current control system is inefficient, expensive and complex and does not produce the desired results.










2.


endorses the stated aims: simplification, harmonisation, making controls more effective at lower cost, developing a culture of compliance.










3.


considers that a root and branch reform is needed and that option 3, a new regulation, is the most realistic.




A.   Taking into account the regional and local dimension






4.


calls upon the Council and on the European Commission to take into account the diversity and specific characteristics of different fleets and fishing regions, as stipulated in recital 18 of the proposal.










5.


urges that specific consideration should be given to the needs of peripheral maritime regions particularly dependent on fisheries. Flexibility and the possibility for taking specific action tailored to particular circumstances and to the region concerned are pre-requisites (1).










6.


stresses that the decentralisation of CFP, reflected in the creation of the Regional Advisory Councils (RACs) and in the restructuring of DG Mare of the European Commission, emphasises the increasing need to deploy the new policy framework for control on a regional seas basis. This calls for greater capacity of the European Commission to service the diversity implicit in the regional model.










7.


highlights the changes which the new fisheries control system will bring to local and regional authorities responsible for fisheries control. The new system can only be implemented successfully on the ground, if Member States properly assign the modified competences to all administrative levels involved. Pre-requisites are sufficient financial and human resources for sound organisational structures, equipped with sufficient means for control and for promoting a natural culture of compliance and tools for the coordinated deployment of those means.




B.   A new, common approach to control and monitoring
General provisions






8.


supports clarification on the respective responsibilities of the Member States and regions, the Commission and the Community Fisheries Control Agency (CFCA), to avoid duplication of tasks. The European Commission will continue to provide for the monitoring measures needed to ensure that fisheries rules are adhered uniformly in all regions.










9.


welcomes the new provisions on strengthening strategic programming, tactical targeting and sampling strategies in fisheries control, including a systematic risk analysis. To avoid an uncoordinated application of this new tool, the CoR strongly supports assistance of monitoring authorities by developing uniform risk management methodologies at all levels, as foreseen for example by the CFCA in Art. 112.










10.


in particular welcomes the new obligation for Member States to set up a single authority within each Member State (Art. 5 (5)) responsible for effective coordination of all control instruments at all levels.




Reducing the administrative burden and costs






11.


anticipates a substantial reduction of 30 % of the operational costs, thus increasing the cost effectiveness of the Member States' and regions' control systems, provided full use is made of modern technologies and streamlined control systems. However, if such reductions do not materialise, any increased financial burden placed on Member States or regions should be met from within the EU budget particularly given the disproportionate responsibility of some Members States and regions to police the CFP relative to their quotas.










12.


urges the Council to emphasise achieving cost effectiveness by establishing coastal public structures which better integrate fisheries governance with that of other marine activities, as well as by coastal member states and adjacent regions setting up joint fisheries control inspectorates.










13.


recently has recommended to integrate fisheries inspectorates with tasks such as environment inspectorates, frontier control, sea rescue services, and civil protection (2) and welcomes the new provision of establishing an integrated maritime surveillance network. (Art. 4, Art 112 (Art. 17g on competences of CFCA)




Increased use of modern technologies






14.


cautiously welcomes the emphasis in the proposal to increase the use of modern technologies and efficient data validation systems, including Vessel Monitoring and other suitable and cost-efficient Systems (Art. 9-11), which partly reflects a previous recommendation of the CoR (3). However, although electronic monitoring is a key component of cost-effective fisheries enforcement and management systems should not be duplicated. Installations should be proportionate to vessel size and voyage duration and location. In particular, the CoR is concerned that the AIS system is for safety of navigation and is not suitable for fisheries control.










15.


Technologies are constantly developing and the CoR insists the regulation be made future-proof with efficient regulatory mechanism for adapting technical change. It calls for local and regional authorities and producer organisations to be involved in pilot projects on traceability tools, such as genetic analysis (Art. 13(1)).




Monitoring of fisheries and of marketing






16.


emphasises that controls at sea must be maintained, being currently the only method where fishing gear and TCM, mesh size, etc. can be appropriately monitored, often regulated by provisions on environmental impacts of fisheries.










17.


advocates a double track approach, which strives for balance between controls at sea and on land. It should include a) improvements in relevant and efficient controls at sea and b) improved control and inspection at land focusing on key ports, including improvements of the control of imported fish. The provision of more reliable landings data is crucial to benefit the stock assessment process.










18.


with fleet management continuing to be a critical element of the CFP, the CoR welcomes the new instruments on the monitoring, certification and cross checking of engine power with the exception of boats of less than 10 metres long that use only static fishing gears (Art. 30-32).










19.


being particularly concerned about sustainable and profitable small-scale fishery, seeks clarification on new provisions which oblige boats of 10-15 metres length to install a VMS (Art. 9), keep an electronic logbook (Art. 14), and complete electronic landing declarations (Art. 21), with derogations however possible to be introduced by the Member States. In order to support those smaller vessels in meeting the new provisions, the CoR must insist on wider exemptions or for EU and national funding to be increased for this purpose.










20.


encourages projects at local/regional level for voluntary, funded, introduction of the above mentioned monitoring systems or similar, in boats smaller then 10/15 metres, e.g. in view of the management of marine protected areas and conservation zones.










21.


agrees that, in order to ensure an adequate level of control, Member States and regions should monitor small vessels below 10 metres via a sampling plan. However, the CoR seeks clarification of sampling plans to be, ‘as far as possible, standardised within regions’ (Art. 16(2) and 22 (2)).










22.


welcomes the new common standards for the monitoring of marketing, seeking full traceability of landings. This in the interest of reducing illegal landings of fish as well as of consumers by providing them with relevant production information at each stage of marketing (Art. 51).




Specific monitoring of multi-annual plans and technical measures






23.


asks that local and regional control authorities and stakeholders be associated in the definition of ‘designated ports’ (Art. 34), and in the setting up of national and regional control action programmes, applicable to each multiannual plan (Art. 36).










24.


Calls again for improved control of technical measures which aim at reducing and even eliminating discards, whilst taking local circumstances into account and providing incentives (4). However, there seems no benefit in delaying the return of necessary discards to the sea and only estimates of quantities should be recorded.










25.


welcomes the new, advanced vessel monitoring system proposed for marine protected areas (Art. 39), which provide public authorities with better tools to fulfil their management obligations for these sites. However, marine protected areas should also be well-defined and their purpose well-publicised to ensure that only those vessels not authorised to fish in such areas are monitored.




Monitoring of recreational fisheries






26.


urges the Council to clarify the scope of the new Article 47 on recreational fisheries. Such fishing, if unregulated could endanger fish stocks on recovery plans, e.g. by professional fishing tourism, or at times when commercial fishing is closed.




C.   A culture of compliance






27.


calls for stronger reference within recital 5 of the regulation on the development of a culture of natural compliance with fisheries rules determined among all stakeholders involved. It should be considered as the cornerstone of any effective reform of the control system.










28.


believes that ‘Compliance Culture’ would be fostered only if the control measures are implemented on a dialogue and consensus basis rather than being imposed through a top-down process. There is need to develop a coherent partnership between fishermen, control authorities, research establishments, NGOs and fishing industry, with the RACs and local groups established under Axis 4 of the EFF to assist this sort of cooperation. The CoR has stressed that fishermen must be given responsibility for monitoring fishing and fishing rights (5).










29.


urges the European Commission to use its best endeavours to ensure that the culture of compliance is adhered by all international partners and other waters where EU vessels operate.










30.


considers simplification of fisheries control rules to be a primary objective (6) and welcomes the substantial move made by the Commission in this regard. This reduces the administrative burden for public authorities and the private sector, making the rules easier to monitor. It also increases confidence by stakeholders, thus fostering a culture of compliance.




Introduction of harmonised deterrent sanctions






31.


welcomes the introduction of harmonised and deterrent administrative sanctions for serious infringements (Art. 82), including establishing a penalty point system (Art. 84), which can result in the suspension or withdrawal of a fishing licence, as well as the creation of national registers of infringements (Art. 85).










32.


believes that this all reflects previous calls of the CoR for harmonising the dissuasive and penal measures (7) and helps to correct the arbitrary nature of the present system, stops the ‘crime pays’ policy, and reduces the migration of offenders to Member States where the penalties are lowest.










33.


calls upon Member States and regions to harmonise their sanctions of infringements committed within trans-boundary fishing regions, e.g., for trans-boundary marine protected areas.










34.


acknowledges calls for subsidies to be used as an additional element for sanction besides fines, with vessels which have committed multiple and serious infringements barred from public assistance or subsidies. However, developing a culture of compliance would be greatly assisted through positive incentives such as extra ‘days at sea’, or other awards, in return for participation in schemes such as use of more selective gears, support for real time closures, participation in stock avoidance plans, etc.




Cooperation between Member States, with the European Commission and the CFCA






35.


welcomes the reinforced provisions for improving cooperation between bodies of fishery control in the Member States/regions and with the Commission, including a modern approach to exchange of data. The CFCA should play a key role in facilitating this approach.










36.


takes note of progress in developing joint deployment plans at sea. However, similar progress in the case of on land inspections does not appear to be as well developed. Furthermore, co-operation with the competent services of third countries has to be put in place while ensuring that they possess the means and competences required.










37.


believes that the new secure websites to be set up for data exchange (Articles 106-108), and systematic cross-checks of all available data (Art. 102) will increase the European Commission's capacity to evaluate how well the CFP is actually enforced by Member States.










38.


in the past has supported the establishment of a ‘European fisheries inspectorate’ (8) and welcomes in this regard the extension of the mandate of the Community Fisheries Control Agency (CFCA) as provided by Article 112 of the draft regulation. However, the CoR insists that the foreseen CFCA assistance to national, regional and local fishing control authorities should cover standardization of control and inspection procedures at sea and on land, verifying national training standards, conducting work-shops and seminars, as well as include a ‘helpdesk’ service where Member States, the RACs or professional organizations could go to query the extent and meaning of the regulation.




D.   Effective application of CFP rules
New standards for surveillance and inspections






39.


acknowledges the need to increase not only the level of sanctions, but also the detection rates of the control systems in place by inspections and surveillance bodies. The CoR welcomes in this regard the new provisions on standardising surveillance and observers schemes, as well as the admissibility of surveillance and observers reports (Art. 61-64).










40.


supports the possibility for a Member State to inspect its vessels or vessels of another Member State now also in coastal waters below 12 nautical miles as well as to carry out inspections on the territory of another Member State (Art. 71-73). The CoR encourages local and regional control bodies operating in border areas to create synergies by seeking close cooperation in their inspection activities, with swift application of authorisation procedures provided by Art. 72.




Increase in the powers of the Commission evaluation, management and control






41.


supports some increase in the use of existing powers of the European Commission where it is aiming to achieve a level playing field for controls, with the primary responsibility for control of the CFP to remain with the Member States. The CoR welcomes with caution the additional powers given to the European Commission in carrying out autonomous inspections (Art. 90) as well as audit of national control systems (Art. 92). On the other hand, the scope of new powers attributed to the European Commission in establishing a specific control action plan for deficient Member States to improve their implementation of the CFP (Art. 94(4)) needs to be clarified.










42.


calls upon the European Commission to avoid any tendency to engage in microdecisions. Transferring to the Commission the power of real time closures (Art. 45) is questioned in this regard although species affected by over fishing could benefit.










43.


stresses that obtaining extra power should be based on a redefined cooperation with the Member States, as well as within the European Commission on capacity-building in DG MARE and the CFCA, but also increased institutional coherence with DG Environment of the European Commission.




Measures to ensure compliance by Member States






44.


acknowledges that bad implementation by one Member State can undermine, in particular for migrant fish species, a sound management of the common fish resource. The CoR notes that the only procedure currently available to the Commission in case of failure of a Member State is the infringement procedure, which is very lengthy and does not guarantee sanctions.










45.


welcomes in this regard the new measures provided by the regulation to force Member States to comply with the objectives of the Common Fisheries Policy, including closure on the Commission's initiative of the fisheries concerned (Art. 96), financial measures against Member States such as suspension and cancellation of Community financial assistance (Art. 95). However, the CoR is concerned that an extended scope involving deduction of quota (Art. 98) and the refusal of quota transfers (Art. 99) may mean that the Commission could unilaterally alter relative stability of TACs and quotas among the Member States.










46.


believes that the proportionality of such measures should however be well reflected upon. The CoR is concerned whether the EU's coastal regions and their fishing industries rather than the Member States would have to bear the cost.










47.


urges the European Commission to continue in parallel a more cooperative approach started by the new memoranda of understanding which it has signed with some Member States and which contain clearly defined benchmarks for improvements in the fisheries control systems in the Member States concerned. Local and regional control bodies should be associated in the setting up of such memoranda.




II.   RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AMENDMENTS

Amendment 1

Proposal for a Council Regulation, Recital 29






Text proposed by the Commission


CoR amendment










(29)


Powers should be conferred to the Commission to close a fishery when the quota of a Member State or a TAC itself is exhausted. The Commission should also be empowered to deduct quotas and refuse quota transfers or quota exchanges to ensure the achievement of the objectives of the Common Fisheries Policy by the Member States.












(29)


Powers should be conferred to the Commission to close a fishery when the quota of a Member State or a TAC itself is exhausted. The Commission should also be empowered to deduct quotas and refuse quota transfers or quota exchanges to ensure the achievement of the objectives of the Common Fisheries Policy by the Member States.










Reason

The CoR acknowledges that a Member State that allows a fleet repeatedly to exceed its quota or that fails to take the measures necessary to ensure compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy should be penalised. Nevertheless, the mechanisms for doing so should not involve the deduction of quotas and refusal of quota transfers or quota exchanges, since this would not affect the Member State that is failing to comply but would affect fleets which may be totally uninvolved in the infringements, and even — in the case of quota exchanges — other Member States that have nothing to do with the violation in question. Furthermore, these measures would mean that the Commission could unilaterally alter the relative stability among the Member States.

Amendment 2

Proposal for a Council Regulation, Article 4 — point 21






Text proposed by the Commission


CoR amendment










(21)


‘Vessel Monitoring System data’ means data on the fishing vessel identification, geographical position, date, time, course and speed transmitted by satellite-tracking devices installed on-board fishing vessels to the Fisheries Monitoring Centre of the flag State;












(21)


‘Vessel Monitoring System data’ means data on the fishing vessel identification, geographical position, date, time, course and speed transmitted by satellite-tracking or similar terrestrial-based monitoring systems devices installed on-board fishing vessels to the Fisheries Monitoring Centre of the flag State;









Reason

The definition proposed would preclude the use, after suitable testing, of less expensive, but equally efficient means of VMS that might be more suited to fishing vessels exceeding 10m overall length up to 15m overall length and operating close enough to terrestrial-based monitoring systems. The CoR amends this definition and relevant sub-paragraphs of Article 9 (see amendment 7).

Amendment 3

Proposal for a Council Regulation, Article 4 — new point after point 24






Text proposed by the Commission


CoR amendment




 



‘Serious infringement’ means types of conduct considered to be particularly detrimental to the proper application of the rules of the CFP, in particular in areas such as stock conservation, monitoring of fishing activities and marketing of fisheries products, in particular those activities listed in Article 42, paragraph 1 of COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 1005/2008.






Reason

The CoR seeks clarification on which infringements are considered ‘serious’, so that Art. 82 would apply. Further attention should be paid to different interpretations by the Member States and relevant criteria should be aligned as much as possible.

Amendment 4

Proposal for a Council Regulation, Article 4 — new point after point 24






Text proposed by the Commission


CoR amendment




 



‘Auction centre’ means the natural or legal person who is registered and authorised as a fish auction centre where fish is first sold by competitive bidding or by direct sales to registered buyers.






Reason

The CoR notes that no definition of ‘auction centre’ is proposed, yet Article 52 requires certain stocks to be first sold at an auction centre. ‘Auction’ should not be limited to ‘competitive bidding’ for the purposes of this regulation.

Amendment 5

Proposal for a Council Regulation, Article 4 — new point after point 24






Text proposed by the Commission


CoR amendment




 



‘Recreational Fisheries’ means fisheries, other than commercial and authorised fisheries, which practise large-scale recreational fishing from an unlicensed vessel or vessels on the open sea, taking from fish stocks which are subjects to multiannual plans.






Reason

Article 47 refers to ‘recreational fisheries’. Article 47 may be re-drafted by the Commission, but the CoR proposes this definition of ‘recreational fisheries’ to clarify the present drafted context.
However, non-commercial recreational fisheries normally means any fisheries in marine waters including, inter alia, sports fishing, recreational fishing and tournaments, conducted from a vessel which is not required to have a Community fishing licence pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1281/2005 of 3 August 2005.

Amendment 6

Proposal for a Council Regulation, Article 5 — paragraph 6






Text proposed by the Commission


CoR amendment




6.   The payment of contributions from the European Fisheries Fund pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 1198/2006 and of Community financial contributions to measures referred to in Article 8, paragraph a, of Council Regulation (EC) No 861/2006 shall be conditional upon respect by the Member States of their obligation to ensure compliance with and enforcement of the rules on conservation, control, inspection and enforcement under the Common Fisheries Policy related to, or having an impact on the effectiveness of, the measures being financed, and to operate and maintain an effective inspection, monitoring, surveillance and enforcement regime to this effect.



6.   The payment of contributions from the European Fisheries Fund pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 1198/2006 and of Community financial contributions to measures referred to in Article 8, paragraph a, of Council Regulation (EC) No 861/2006 shall be conditional upon respect by the Member States of their obligation to ensure compliance with and enforcement of the rules on conservation, control, inspection and enforcement under the Common Fisheries Policy related to, or having an impact on the effectiveness of, the measures being financed, and to operate and maintain an effective inspection, monitoring, surveillance and enforcement regime to this effect.






Reason

The CoR believes that better regulation is about incentives as well as penalties. Failure to ensure full compliance with the rules of the CFP should be handled proportionately with only serious failures dealt with at appropriate judicial level. It is not acceptable for the payment of EFF funds to be linked to wholesale compliance with control obligations. This paragraph creates great legal uncertainty. (Note Article 95.)

Amendment 7

Proposal for a Council Regulation, Article 9 — paragraph 1






Text proposed by the Commission


CoR amendment




1.   Member States shall operate a satellite-based Vessel Monitoring System for effective monitoring of fishing activities of the fishing vessels flying their flag regardless where they are and of fishing activities in their waters. Member States shall ensure the regular monitoring of the accuracy of this data and shall act promptly whenever data are found to be inaccurate.


1.   Member States shall operate a satellite-based Vessel Monitoring System and where appropriate a terrestrial-based monitoring system, for effective monitoring of fishing activities of the fishing vessels flying their flag regardless where they are and of fishing activities in their waters. Member States shall ensure the regular monitoring of the accuracy of this data and shall act promptly whenever data are found to be inaccurate.





Reason

See Amendment 2.

Amendment 8

Proposal for a Council Regulation, Article 10






Text proposed by the Commission


CoR amendment




Article 10

Automatic Identification System

1.   A fishing vessel exceeding 15 meters length overall shall be fitted with and maintain in operation an Automatic Identification System which meets the performance standards drawn up by the International Maritime Organisation according to chapter V, Regulation 19, section 2.4.5 of the 1974 SOLAS Convention in its up-to-date version.
2.   Member States shall use the Automatic Identification System data for the purpose of cross-checking with other available data in accordance with Articles 102 and 103. For that purpose Member States shall ensure that data from the Automatic Identification System for fishing vessels flying their flag are available to their national fisheries control authorities. Member States shall ensure the regular monitoring of the accuracy of those data and shall act promptly whenever data are found to be inaccurate.



Article 10



Automatic Identification System



1.   A fishing vessel exceeding 15 meters length overall shall be fitted with and maintain in operation an Automatic Identification System which meets the performance standards drawn up by the International Maritime Organisation according to chapter V, Regulation 19, section 2.4.5 of the 1974 SOLAS Convention in its up-to-date version.


2.   Member States shall use the Automatic Identification System data for the purpose of cross-checking with other available data in accordance with Articles 102 and 103. For that purpose Member States shall ensure that data from the Automatic Identification System for fishing vessels flying their flag are available to their national fisheries control authorities. Member States shall ensure the regular monitoring of the accuracy of those data and shall act promptly whenever data are found to be inaccurate.






Reason

The International Maritime Organization's (IMO) International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) requires Automatic Identification Systems to be fitted aboard international voyaging ships with gross tonnage (GT) of 300 or more and all passenger ships regardless of size. 40,000 vessels are now fitted with AIS worldwide with the aim to enhance the safety of navigation and security in the international maritime transport sector. Fitting AIS to all fishing vessels exceeding 15 metres length overall would undoubtedly saturate the system and cause its efficacy in the field of maritime safety to be undermined.

Amendment 9

Proposal for a Council Regulation, Article 14 — paragraph 1






Text proposed by the Commission


CoR amendment




1.   Without prejudice to specific rules, the masters of Community fishing vessels exceeding 10 meters length overall shall keep a logbook of their operations, indicating specifically all quantities greater than 15 kg of live-weight equivalent of each species caught and kept on board, the date and the relevant geographical area, expressed by reference to a sub-area and division or sub-division, or where applicable statistical rectangle in which catch limits apply pursuant to Community legislation, of these catches and the type of gear used. The quantities of each species discarded at sea shall also be recorded in the logbook. The accuracy of the data recorded in the logbook shall be the responsibility of the master.


1.   Without prejudice to specific rules, the masters of Community fishing vessels exceeding 10 meters length overall shall keep a paper logbook of their operations, indicating specifically all quantities greater than 15
50 kg of live-weight equivalent of each species caught and kept on board, the date and the relevant geographical area, expressed by reference to a sub-area and division or sub-division, or where applicable statistical rectangle in which catch limits apply pursuant to Community legislation, of these catches and the type of gear used. The quantities of each species discarded at sea shall also be recorded in the logbook
Estimated quantities of each species discarded at sea may be recorded in the logbook for evaluation purposes. The accuracy of the data recorded in the logbook shall be the responsibility of the master.





Reason

The CoR considers it necessary for legal clarification to add the word ‘paper’, taking into account Article 15, as amended.
The CoR considers that the quantitative restrictions in this Article place a new and exceptional burden on fishing vessel masters and, in relation to recording discards, has no bearing on the uptake of fishing opportunities. The text from Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 provides that ‘The quantities discarded at sea may be recorded for evaluation purposes.’ The CoR recommends the use of this text.

Amendment 10

Proposal for a Council Regulation, Article 14 — paragraph 3






Text proposed by the Commission


CoR amendment




3.   The permitted margin of tolerance in estimates recorded in the logbook of the quantities in kilograms of fish retained on board shall be 5 %.


3.   The permitted margin of tolerance in estimates of species the subjects of TACs and quotas recorded in the logbook of the quantities in kilograms of fish retained on board shall be 5
12 %.





Reason

The CoR notes that the margin of tolerance is an arbitrary figure for which there is no scientific justification. Practical tests conducted by MRAG on fishing vessels have shown widely differing margins with few correlation factors. If a single figure is to be accepted it should be efficacious and proportionate to monitoring requirements. The CoR considers the proposed margin is impracticable; a compromise between the current system and the margin for recovery stocks should be adopted. The Regulation should apply only to TAC species.

Amendment 11

Proposal for a Council Regulation, Article 15 — paragraphs 1 and 2






Text proposed by the Commission


CoR amendment




Article 15

Electronic recording and transmission of logbook data

1.   The master of a Community fishing vessel exceeding 10 meters length overall shall record by electronic means fisheries logbook information and shall send it by electronic means to the competent authority of the flag Member State at least once a day
2.   Paragraph 1 shall apply to Community fishing vessels exceeding 15 meters length and up to 24 meters length overall as from 1 July 2011, and to Community fishing vessels exceeding 10 meters length and up to 15 meters length overall as from 1 January 2012. Community vessels up to 15 meters length overall may be exempted from paragraph 1 if they:






a)


operate exclusively within the territorial seas of the flag Member State, or










b)


never spend more than 24 hours at sea taken from the time of departure to the return to port.






Article 15

Electronic recording and transmission of logbook data

1.   The master of a Community fishing vessel exceeding 10
15 meters length overall shall record by electronic means fisheries logbook information and shall send it by electronic means to the competent authority of the flag Member State at least once a day

2.   Paragraph 1 shall apply to Community fishing vessels exceeding 15 meters length and up to 24 meters length overall as from 1 July 2011, and to Community fishing vessels exceeding 10 meters length and up to 15 meters length overall as from 1 January 2012. Community vessels up to 15 meters length overall may be exempted from paragraph 1 if they:








a)




operate exclusively within the territorial seas of the flag Member State, or












b)




never spend more than 24 hours at sea taken from the time of departure to the return to port.










Reason

The CoR considers that fishing vessels exceeding 10m length overall up to 15m length overall, are of insufficient size to facilitate the safe and cost-effective use of electronic fisheries logbooks.

Amendment 12

Proposal for a Council Regulation, Article 17 — paragraph 1






Text proposed by the Commission


CoR amendment




1.   Without prejudice to specific provisions contained in multiannual plans, masters of Community fishing vessels or their representatives shall notify the competent authorities of the Member State whose port or landing facilities they wish to use at least 4 hours before the estimated time of arrival at the port, unless the competent authorities have given permission for an earlier entry, of the following information:






a)


vessel identification;










b)


name of the designated port of destination and the purposes of the call, such as landing, transhipment, access to services;










c)


fishing authorisation or, where appropriate, authorisation to support fishing operations or to tranship fishery products;










d)


dates of the fishing trip and the areas in which the catches were taken;










e)


estimated date and time of arrival at port;










f)


the quantities of each species retained on board, including zero catches returns;










g)


the quantities for each species to be landed or transhipped.






1.   Without prejudice to specific provisions contained in multiannual plans, masters of Community fishing vessels exceeding 15 meters overall length or their representatives shall notify the competent authorities of the Member State whose port or landing facilities they wish to use at least 4 hours before the estimated time of arrival at the port, unless the competent authorities have given permission for an earlier entry, of the following information:






a)


vessel identification;










b)


name of the designated port of destination and the purposes of the call, such as landing, transhipment, access to services;










c)


fishing authorisation or, where appropriate, authorisation to support fishing operations or to tranship fishery products;










d)


dates of the fishing trip and the areas in which the catches were taken;










e)


estimated date and time of arrival at port;










f)


the quantities of each species retained on board, including zero catches returns;










g)


the quantities for each species to be landed or transhipped.









Reason

The CoR considers that smaller fishing vessels up to 15m length overall, are of insufficient size to require, for reasons of safety, notification 4 hours before the estimated time of arrival at the port. The requirement to record what has not been caught is beyond comprehension.

Amendment 13

Proposal for a Council Regulation, Article 21 — paragraph 2






Text proposed by the Commission


CoR amendment




2.   Without prejudice to specific provisions contained in multiannual plans, the master or his representative of a Community fishing vessel exceeding 10 meters length overall shall transmit landing declaration data by electronic means to the competent authorities of the flag Member State within 2 hours after completion of the landing.


2.   Without prejudice to specific provisions contained in multiannual plans, the master or his representative of a Community fishing vessel exceeding 10 meters length overall shall transmit landing declaration data by electronic means if exceeding 15 meters overall length and otherwise by paper, to the competent authorities of the flag Member State within 2
48 hours after completion of the landing.





Reason

The CoR notes that the information on a landing declaration must be certified accurate by the master, requiring sorting and weighing of the catch. This onerous requirement might have considerable cost implications in landing ports without auction facilities and particularly for smaller vessels landing in peripheral maritime regions. The interval laid down in Article 8 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 is 48 hours. The CoR proposes the use of this text.

Amendment 14

Proposal for a Council Regulation, Article 23 — paragraph 3






Text proposed by the Commission


CoR amendment




3.   All catches of a stock or a group of stocks subject to quota made by Community fishing vessels shall be charged against the quota applicable to the flag Member State for the stock or group of stocks in question, irrespective of the place of landing.


3.   All catches
landings of a stock or a group of stocks subject to quota made by Community fishing vessels shall be charged against the quota applicable to the flag Member State for the stock or group of stocks in question, irrespective of the place of landing.





Reason

The CoR notes that, whilst national quotas are arrived at from the amount known as Total Allowable Catch, the amount is and should continue to be counted at the point of landing and first sale. Discards should not be deducted from the national quota.

Amendment 15

Proposal for a Council Regulation, Article 31 — paragraph 1






Text proposed by the Commission


CoR amendment




1.   New engines, replacement engines and engines that have been technically modified shall be officially approved by the Member States' authorities for not being capable of producing more power than stated in the engine certificate. Such approvals shall only be issued if the engine is not capable of producing more than the stated power.


1.   with the exception for boats of less than 10metres long that use only static fishing gears, n
New engines, replacement engines and engines that have been technically modified shall be officially approved by the Member States' authorities for not being capable of producing more power than stated in the engine certificate. Such approvals shall only be issued if the engine is not capable of producing more than the stated power.





Reason

It is not appropriate to certify engine power for all fishing vessels which for the most part are used for small-scale coastal fishing; therefore boats less than 10 metres long that use only static fishing gear, should be exempted from this requirement. The specification provided by the engine manufacturer should be regarded as sufficient. Only in the case of trawling is engine power of decisive importance for fishing efficiency.

Amendment 16

Proposal for a Council Regulation, Article 37 — paragraph 2, introductory wording






Text proposed by the Commission


CoR amendment




2.   In fisheries in which it is allowed to have more than two types of gear on board, the gear which is not used shall be stowed so that it may not readily be used in accordance with the following conditions:


2.   In fisheries in which it is allowed to have more than two or more types of gear on board, the gear which is not used shall be stowed so that it may not readily be used in accordance with the following conditions:





Reason

The CoR believes this may be an error in the draft. Second or more unused gear should be stowed.

Amendment 17

Proposal for a Council Regulation, Article 40 — paragraphs 1 and 2






Text proposed by the Commission


CoR amendment




Article 40

Transit through a Marine Protected Area

1.   Transit through a Marine Protected Area is allowed for all fishing vessels subject to the following conditions:






a)


all gears carried on board are lashed and stowed during the transit; and










b)


the speed during transit is not less than 6 knots.




2.   Masters of Community fishing vessels intending to transit a Marine Protected Area shall communicate the following data in the form of a transit report, to the authorities of the flag Member State and to the coastal Member State:






a)


the name of the vessel, external identification mark, radio call sign and name of the master of the vessel;










b)


the coordinates of the geographical location of the vessel to which the communication refers;










c)


the date and time of each entry into a Marine Protected Area, and










d)


the date and time of each exit from a Marine Protected Area.






Article 40

Transit through a Marine Protected Area

1.   Protected Area, for fishing vessels not otherwise authorised to fish within the area, is allowed for all fishing vessels subject to the following conditions:






a)


all gears carried on board are lashed and stowed during the transit; and











b)




the speed during transit is not less than 6 knots.





2.   Masters of Community fishing vessels intending to transit, or if authorised to fish in a Marine Protected Area shall communicate the following data in the form of a transit report, to the authorities of the flag Member State and to the coastal Member State:






a)


the name of the vessel, external identification mark, radio call sign and name of the master of the vessel;










b)


the coordinates of the geographical location of the vessel to which the communication refers;










c)


the date and time of each entry into a Marine Protected Area, and










d)


the date and time of each exit from a Marine Protected Area.









Reason

The CoR is very concerned about the legal status of Marine Protected Areas as defined in Article 4 and as proposed in Articles 39 and 40. Marine Protected Areas, as proposed would have the same status as a ‘No Take Zone’. A ‘transit’ rule should apply only to those vessels not otherwise authorised under article 7 (c). The CoR questions the monitoring requirements in Article 39 and the terms of Articles 4 and 40 and proposes the amendment.

Amendment 18

Proposal for a Council Regulation, Article 41 — paragraph 1






Text proposed by the Commission


CoR amendment




1.   The master of a fishing vessel shall record all discards above 15 kg of live weight equivalents in volume and shall communicate, where possible by electronic means, this information without delay to its competent authorities.


1.   The master of a fishing vessel shall
may record all discards above 15 kg of live weight equivalents in volume and shall communicate, where possible by electronic means, this information without delay to its competent authorities
estimated quantities of each species discarded at sea in the logbook for evaluation purposes.





Reason

The text from Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 provides that ‘The quantities discarded at sea may be recorded for evaluation purposes’. The CoR recommends the use of the amended text. It would be unreasonable to require recording all discards above 15 kg and communicating them to competent authorities. The CoR believes that necessary discards should be returned to the sea without delay to allow maximum survival possibility.

Amendment 19

Proposal for a Council Regulation, Article 47






Text proposed by the Commission


CoR amendment




Article 47

Recreational fisheries

1.   Recreational fisheries on a vessel in Community waters on a stock subject to a multiannual plan shall be subject to an authorisation for that vessel issued by the flag Member State.
2.   Catches in recreational fisheries on stocks subject to a multiannual plan shall be registered by the flag Member State.
3.   Catches of species subject to a multiannual plan by recreational fisheries shall be counted against the relevant quotas of the flag Member State. The Member States concerned shall establish a share from such quotas to be used exclusively for the purpose of recreational fisheries.
4.   The marketing of catches from a recreational fishery shall be prohibited except for philanthropic purposes.


Article 47

Recreational fisheries

1.   Recreational fisheries on an unlicensed vessel in Community waters on a stock subject to a multiannual plan shall be subject to an authorisation for that vessel issued by the flag Member State.
2.   Catches in recreational fisheries on stocks subject to a multiannual plan shall be registered by the flag Member State.

3.   Catches of species subject to a multiannual plan by recreational fisheries shall be counted against the relevant quotas of the flag Member State. The Member States concerned shall establish a share from such quotas to be used exclusively for the purpose of recreational fisheries.


4.   The marketing of catches from a recreational fishery shall be prohibited except for philanthropic purposes.






Reason

The CoR proposes a definition for recreational fisheries at Article 4 (27). The text proposed here clarifies the position with regard to licenses and authorisation.
As highlighted in point 26 of the policy recommendations, such fishing, if unregulated could endanger fish stocks on recovery plans, e.g. by professional fishing tourism, or at times when commercial fishing is closed. However, deleting paragraphs 3 and 4 ensures the response of the regulation is proportionate and not excessive.

Amendment 20

Proposal for a Council Regulation, Article 52 — paragraphs 2 and 3






Text proposed by the Commission


CoR amendment




2.   Other fisheries products shall only be sold at an auction centre or to bodies or persons authorised by Member States.
3.   The buyer of fisheries products from a fishing vessel at first sale shall be registered with the authorities of the Member State where the first sale takes place. For the purpose of registration, each buyer shall be identified according to his VAT number in national databases.



2.   Other fisheries products shall only be sold at an auction centre or to bodies or persons authorised by Member States.

3.   The buyer of fisheries products from a fishing vessel at first sale shall be registered with the authorities of the Member State where the first sale takes place. For the purpose of registration, each buyer shall be identified according to his registration number or VAT number in national databases.





Reason

The CoR believes that VAT number may not always be relevant, but a registration number is generated by the Member State.

Amendment 21

Proposal for a Council Regulation, Article 53 — paragraph 1






Text proposed by the Commission


CoR amendment




1.   All registered buyers purchasing fishery and aquaculture products shall ensure that all lots received are weighed on scales approved by the competent authorities. The weighing shall be carried out prior to the fish being sorted, processed, held in storage and transported from the place of landing or resold.


1.   All registered buyers purchasing fishery and aquaculture products shall ensure that representative samples of all lots received are weighed on scales approved by the competent authorities. The weighing shall be carried out at the time of sorting, but prior to the fish being sorted, processed, held in storage and transported from the place of landing or resold.





Reason

The CoR is concerned that if every box of fish is weighed, unnecessary handling and delays might affect negatively fish quality.

Amendment 22

Proposal for a Council Regulation, Article 53 — paragraph 3






Text proposed by the Commission


CoR amendment




3.   By way of derogation from paragraph 1, Member States may permit fresh fish to be weighed after transport from the place of landing provided that the fish could not have been weighed on landing and provided they are transported to a destination on the territory of the Member State that is no more than 20 kilometers from the place of landing.


3.   By way of derogation from paragraph 1, Member States may permit fresh fish to be weighed after transport from the place of landing provided that the fish could not have been weighed on landing and provided they are transported to a destination on the territory of the Member State that is no more than 20
100 kilometers from the place of landing.





Reason

The CoR is concerned that the Commission may be proposing unnecessarily burdensome requirements on the industry that might be a disincentive to fostering a culture of compliance.

Amendment 23

Proposal for a Council Regulation, Article 54 — paragraph 1






Text proposed by the Commission


CoR amendment




1.   Registered buyers, registered auctions or other bodies or persons which are responsible for the first marketing of fishery products landed in a Member State, shall submit electronically, within 2 hours after the first sale, a sales note to the competent authorities of the Member State in whose territory the first sale takes place. If this Member State is not the flag State of the vessel that landed the fish, it shall ensure that a copy of the sales note is submitted to the competent authorities of the flag Member State upon receipt of the relevant information. The accuracy of the sales note shall be the responsibility of these buyers, auctions, bodies or persons.


1.   Registered buyers, registered auctions or other bodies or persons which are responsible for the first marketing of fishery products landed in a Member State, shall submit electronically, within 2
48 hours after the first sale, a sales note to the competent authorities of the Member State in whose territory the first sale takes place. If this Member State is not the flag State of the vessel that landed the fish, it shall ensure that a copy of the sales note is submitted to the competent authorities of the flag Member State upon receipt of the relevant information. The accuracy of the sales note shall be the responsibility of these buyers, auctions, bodies or persons.





Reason

Marketing fish requires attention to quality and delivery times to customers should be minimised. The CoR believes it is not practical to reduce from 48 hours to 2 hours the interval between first sale and submission of declarations to the authorities.

Amendment 24

Proposal for a Council Regulation, Article 82 — paragraphs 2 and 3






Text proposed by the Commission


CoR amendment




2.   In addition, for all serious infringements which level cannot be linked to the value of the fishery products obtained by committing the serious infringement, Member States shall ensure that a natural person having committed or a legal person held liable for a serious infringement is punishable by an administrative fine of a minimum of at least 5 000 EUR and a maximum of at least 300 000 EUR for each serious infringement. The flag Member State shall be immediately notified of the sanction imposed.
3.   In case of a repeated serious infringement within a 5 year period, a Member State shall impose an administrative fine of a minimum of at least 10 000 EUR and a maximum of at least 600 000 EUR.


2.   In addition, for all serious infringements which level cannot be linked to the value of the fishery products obtained by committing the serious infringement, Member States shall ensure that a natural person having committed or a legal person held liable for a serious infringement is punishable by an administrative fine of a minimum of at least 5 000 EUR and a maximum of at least300 000 EUR for each serious infringement. The flag Member State shall be immediately notified of the sanction imposed.
3.   In case of a repeated serious infringement within a 5
one year period, a Member State shall impose an administrative fine of a minimum of at least 10 000 EUR and a maximum of at least600 000 EUR.





Reason

The CoR believes each Member State judiciary should set the penalty up to the maximum. The words ‘at least’ are superfluous in combination with the word ‘maximum’. In the interests of uniformity, the CoR notes that Article 76 refers only to ‘one year’.

Amendment 25

Proposal for a Council Regulation, Article 99






Text proposed by the Commission


CoR amendment




Article 99

Refusal of quota transfers

The Commission may deny the transfer of quotas for stocks of a Member State to the following year in accordance with Article 3 of Council Regulation (EC) No 847/96 of 6 May 1996 introducing additional conditions for year-to-year management of TACs and quotas if:






a)


the quota to be transferred has been overfished by the Member State concerned in any one of the immediately preceding two years or










b)


the quota refers to a stock that is under a multiannual plan or is caught in association with a stock under a multiannual plan and there has been an overfishing of that quota or of quotas for stocks under a multiannual plan in association with which that stock is caught, by the fleet of that Member State in one of the immediately preceding five years or










c)


the Member State concerned does not take appropriate measures to ensure a proper management of the fishing opportunities of the stocks concerned, in particular by not operating a computerized validation system as referred to in Article 102 or by insufficiently operating the systems providing the data for this validation system.







Article 99



Refusal of quota transfers



The Commission may deny the transfer of quotas for stocks of a Member State to the following year in accordance with Article 3 of Council Regulation (EC) No 847/96 of 6 May 1996 introducing additional conditions for year-to-year management of TACs and quotas if:








a)




the quota to be transferred has been overfished by the Member State concerned in any one of the immediately preceding two years or












b)




the quota refers to a stock that is under a multiannual plan or is caught in association with a stock under a multiannual plan and there has been an overfishing of that quota or of quotas for stocks under a multiannual plan in association with which that stock is caught, by the fleet of that Member State in one of the immediately preceding five years or












c)




the Member State concerned does not take appropriate measures to ensure a proper management of the fishing opportunities of the stocks concerned, in particular by not operating a computerized validation system as referred to in Article 102 or by insufficiently operating the systems providing the data for this validation system.










Reason

The CoR is very concerned that refusal of quota transfers is being proposed as punishment. There is danger that the Commission may alter unilaterally the relative stability of TACs and quotas among the Member States.

Amendment 26

Proposal for a Council Regulation, Article 100






Text proposed by the Commission


CoR amendment




Article 100

Refusal of quota exchanges

The Commission may exclude the possibility to exchange quotas according to Article 20 paragraph 5 of Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002:






a)


for quotas for which there was an overfishing of more than 10 % of the quotas available to one of the Member State concerned in one of the immediately preceding two years or










b)


if the Member State concerned does not take appropriate measures to ensure a proper management of the fishing opportunities of the stocks concerned, in particular by not operating a computerized validation system as referred to in Article 102 or by insufficiently operating the systems providing the data for this validation system.







Article 100



Refusal of quota exchanges



The Commission may exclude the possibility to exchange quotas according to Article 20 paragraph 5 of Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002:








a)




for quotas for which there was an overfishing of more than 10 % of the quotas available to one of the Member State concerned in one of the immediately preceding two years or












b)




if the Member State concerned does not take appropriate measures to ensure a proper management of the fishing opportunities of the stocks concerned, in particular by not operating a computerized validation system as referred to in Article 102 or by insufficiently operating the systems providing the data for this validation system.










Reason

The CoR is very concerned that refusal of quota exchanges is being proposed as punishment. There is danger that the Commission may alter unilaterally the relative stability of TACs and quotas among the Member States.

Brussels, 18 June 2009


The President


of the Committee of the Regions

Luc VAN DEN BRANDE





(1)  CdR 22/2008 fin, CdR 258/2006 fin, Cdr 153/2001 fin.

(2)  CdR 22/2008 fin, CdR 258/2006 fin.

(3)  CdR 258/2006 fin.

(4)  CdR 22/2008 fin, CdR 252/2004 fin, CdR 189/2002 fin, CdR 153/2001 fin.

(5)  CdR 189/2002 fin.

(6)  CdR 153/2001 fin.

(7)  CdR 258/2006 fin, CdR 189/2002 fin, CdR 153/2001 fin.

(8)  CdR 153/2001 fin.