COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT REFIT Evaluation of the impact of the fisheries regulation Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Implementation and evaluation of Regulation (EC) 1224/2009 establishing a Union control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy as required under Article 118
Date: 2017-04-24
Institutions: Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, European Commission
Subjects: EU waters, European Fisheries Control Agency, application of EU law, common fisheries policy, exchange of information, fishery management, fishing controls, fishing industry, international waters, sea fishing

EN 

   EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 24.4.2017  SWD(2017) 134 final   COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT REFIT Evaluation of the impact of the fisheries regulation   Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Implementation and evaluation of Regulation (EC) 1224/2009 establishing a Union control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy as required under Article 118 {COM(2017) 192 final}  
 
 
REFIT 
Evaluation of the impact of the fisheries regulation  

TABLE OF CONTENT 

1. 

Introduction 

1.1 Purpose of the evaluation 

1.2 Scope of the evaluation   

Background of the initiative  

Evaluation questions  

Method  

Implementation: state of play  

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6.  

Answers to the evaluation questions  

6.1 Relevance  

6.2 Effectiveness 

6.3 Efficiency  

6.4 Coherence 

6.5 EU added value    

6.6 Administrative burden    

7.  

Conclusions   

Annex I - Intervention Logic   

Annex II - Procedural information  

Annex III - Stakeholder consultation  

Annex IV -  Implementation of the Control Regulation 

by sea basin and geographic region   

2 

 3 

 3 

 4 

 5 

 7 

 8 

10 

11 

13 

15 

16 

16 

17 

20 

24 

25 

29 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
 
 
 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

1.1. 

Purpose of the evaluation 

This  Staff  Working  Document  presents  the  results  of  a  comprehensive  evaluation  of  the 
implementation  and  impacts  of  Regulation  (EC)  No  1224/20091  establishing  a  Community 
control  system  for  ensuring  compliance  with  the  rules  of  the  common  fisheries  policy 
(hereinafter ‘the Control Regulation’) in the period 2010-2016.  

The evaluation responds to the legal obligation set in  Article 118 of  the Control Regulation 
which calls on the Commission to report to the European Parliament and the Council on the 
status of implementation of the Control Regulation in the Member States every five years, and 
to evaluate its impacts on the Common Fisheries Policy2 (CFP) five years after its entry into 
force. 

As part of the Regulatory Fitness and Performance Programme (REFIT)3 of the Commission, 
this  evaluation  also  aims  at  carrying  out  an  assessment  of  whether  the  Regulation  is  fit  for 
purpose by focusing on its simplification and regulatory burden reduction aspects. 

The  evaluation  assesses progress  and  achievements in  implementing  the  Control  Regulation 
and  shortcomings  and/or  gaps,  in  view  of  changes  in  the  global  context  since  2010.  The 
results presented in this document are based on the data reported by Member States according 
to  Article  118(1)  of  the  Control  Regulation  and  on  Commission  observations  derived  from 
audits, verifications and inspections carried out in the period 2010-2016 according to Title X 
of  the  Control  Regulation.  The  findings  are  supported  by  an  independent  analytical  study 
undertaken by an external consultant4,5 and a wide range of consultations. 

1.2. 

Scope of the evaluation 

The  evaluation  covers  all  EU  Member  States,  with  focus  on  coastal  countries.  The  main 
provisions  of  the  Control  Regulation  have  been  investigated  to  assess  their  impacts  in  the 

1 Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Union control system for ensuring 
compliance  with  the  rules  of  the  common  fisheries  policy,  amending  Regulations  (EC)  No  847/96,  (EC)  No 
2371/2002,  (EC)  No  811/2004,  (EC)  No  768/2005,  (EC)  No  2115/2005,  (EC)  No  2166/2005,  (EC)  No 
388/2006, (EC) No 509/2007, (EC) No 676/2007, (EC) No 1098/2007, (EC) No 1300/2008, (EC) No 1342/2008 
and repealing Regulations (EEC) No 2847/93, (EC) No 1627/94 and (EC) No 1966/2006,OJ L 343 22.12.2009 
p.1 

2  Regulation  (EU)  No  1380/2013  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  on  the  Common  Fisheries 

Policy, OJ L 354 28.12.2013 p.22. 
3  Commission  Staff  Working  Document  -Fitness  and  Performance  Programme  (REFIT):  State  of  Play  and 

Outlook, SWD(2015) 110 final. 

4 ‘Evaluation of the impact of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224 / 2009 of 20 November 2009 "establishing a. 
Community  control  system  for  ensuring  compliance  with  rules  of  the  common  fisheries  policy”  Evaluation 
report’, EU bookshop catalogue nr KL0716172ENN, ISBN 978-92-79-64671-3, DOI 10.2771/927090. 

5 ‘Evaluation of the impact of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224 / 2009 of 20 November 2009 "establishing a 
Community  control  system  for  ensuring  compliance  with  rules  of  the  common  fisheries  policy”  Synthesis 
report  of  the  first  five  years  report  of  Member  States  according  to  Art  118’,  EU  bookshop  catalogue  nr 
KL0716174ENN, ISBN 978-92-79-64676-8, DOI 10.2771/359063. 

3 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
promotion of the level playing field and development of a culture of compliance and respect 
of the CFP. Instruments of the Commission to ensure the implementation of CFP by Member 
States  have  been  also  analysed.  In  accordance  with  the  Commission  Better  Regulation 
Guidelines6  the  performance  of  the  Control  Regulation  is  evaluated  in  terms  of  relevance, 
effectiveness, efficiency, coherence and EU added value. According to the mandate set in the 
REFIT programme, administrative burden and simplification aspects were also investigated. 

2. 

BACKGROUND OF THE INITIATIVE 

The Common Fisheries Policy objectives are to ensure that fishing and aquaculture activities 
are environmentally sustainable in the long term and are managed in a way that is consistent 
to achieve economic, social and employment benefits. Setting and effectively monitoring total 
allowable  catches  (TAC)  and  national  quotas  to  ensure  sustainable  exploitation  of  fish 
resources is the cornerstone of this policy. The success of the CFP depends very much on the 
effective implementation of control system requirements. The measures establishing a Union 
control system for ensuring compliance with rules of the CFP are provided for in the Council 
Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009. The Regulation entered into force on 1 
January  2010  -  with  a  transitional  period  for  some  measures  until  31  December  2013.  In 
addition,  Commission  implementing  Regulation  (EU)  No  404/20117  laying  down  detailed 
rules for the implementation of Control Regulation entered into force on 7 May 2011. 

Before the adoption of the Control Regulation, the former control system no longer ensured 
compliance with the rules of the CFP. Control provisions were contained in a wide number of 
overlapping  and  complex  legal  texts.  Some  parts  of  the  control  system  were  poorly 
implemented  by  Member  States  which  resulted  in  insufficient  and  divergent  measures  in 
response  to  infringements  of  the  CFP  rules  thus  undermining  the  level  playing  field  for 
fishermen  across  the  EU.  The  European  Court  of  Auditors8,9  made  the  same  diagnosis: 
national  catch  registration  systems  had  numerous  shortcomings,  basic  data  were  incomplete 
and unreliable and the legal framework was inadequate and not properly applied by Member 
States. As a result, the Commission was unable to identify data errors and anomalies and take 
necessary decisions in due time. Inspection systems did not guarantee efficient prevention or 
detection of infringements and there was an absence of harmonised control standards. 

Against  this  background,  the  Control  Regulation  consolidated  and  simplified  all  control 
related  obligations  in  a  single  legal  instrument,  aiming  at  deleting  duplicate  regulations  and 
reducing  administrative  burden.  Furthermore,  it  intended  to  develop  a  new  approach  to 
inspection  and  control,  both  at  EU  and  Member  States  level,  creating  level-playing  field 

6 Better regulation guidelines (Commission Staff Working Document), SWD (2015) 111. 
7  Commission  Implementing  Regulation  (EU)  No 404/2011  of  8 April  2011  laying  down  detailed  rules  for  the 
implementation  of  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No 1224/2009  establishing  a  Community  control  system  for 
ensuring compliance with the rules of the Common Fisheries Policy, OJ L 112, 30.4.2011, p.1. 

8  Special  Report  No  7/2007  pursuant  to  Article  248(4)  second  paragraph,  EC,  on  the  control,  inspection  and 

sanction systems relating to the rules on conservation of Community fisheries resources. 

9 It should be noted that the Court of Auditors is currently performing audits on the effectiveness of the fisheries 

control system in some Member States. The results will be published in the second half of 2017.  

4 

 
 
                                                 
across  the  EU  for  the  sanction  of  serious  infringements  of  CFP  rules  and  strengthening 
cooperation and assistance among Member States and the European Commission. It intended 
to develop a culture of compliance and of enhanced transparency, making more use of modern 
technologies  and  of  data  cross-checking,  increasing  cost  effectiveness  and  adjusting  and 
extending the mandate of the European Fisheries Control Agency (EFCA)10.  

Besides the context and objectives set at the time of its adoption, the evaluation of the Control 
Regulation could not abstract from considering  changes in the global context since 2010. In 
this  regard,  the  recent  CFP  reform  introduced  new  objectives  and  legal  obligations,  as  for 
instance the landing obligation. The evolution of the control aspects implemented by means of 
application  of  the  Illegal,  Unreported,  and  Unregulated  (IUU)  Fishing  Regulation11,  the 
European  Maritime  and  Fisheries  Fund12  (EMFF)  for  the  period  2014-2020  (introducing, 
among  others,  new  provisions  on  financial  sanctions),  the  Regulation  on  Common  Markets 
Organisation13  (CMO),  as  well  as  on-going  discussions  on  a  Regulation  on  the  sustainable 
management  of  external  fishing  fleets14  (FAR)  and  the  EU's  efforts  to  shape  international 
ocean  governance  have  also  be  taken  into  account.  Finally,  the  evaluation  considered  the 
changed  institutional  and  political  scenarios,  above  all  the  entry  into  force  of  the  Lisbon 
Treaty and the establishment of a European Cooperation on Coast Guard functions15. 

3. 

EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

The  evaluation  was  carried  out  according  to  the  five  criteria  of  relevance,  effectiveness, 
efficiency, coherence, EU added value, plus administrative burden. 

 

 

Relevance: The evaluation looked at whether the current control system framework is 
adequate to address the main issues of the control of fisheries. The analysis under this 
criterion  has  in  particular  focussed  on  the  approach  to  control  and  control  rules,  by 
assessing  the  Control  Regulation  as  regards  its  potential  to  improve  data  quality,  to 
enhance mutual and administrative cooperation, to harmonise inspections, to manage 
the capacity of the EU fleet and in general to simplify rules. 

Effectiveness:  The  effectiveness  of  the  control  of  fisheries  legislation  refers  to  the 
realisation  of  the  expected  effects.  The  evaluation  has  therefore  especially  looked  at 
whether the Control Regulation has contributed to establish a level playing field and to 

10  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  768/2005  establishing  a  Community  Fisheries  Control  Agency,    OJ  L  128 

21.05.2005 p.1. 

11Council Regulation (EC) No 1005/2008 establishing an Union system to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, 

unreported and unregulated fishing, OJ L 286 29.10.2008 p.1. 

12 Regulation (EU) No 508/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Maritime and 

Fisheries Fund, OJ L 149 20.05.2014 p.1. 

13 Regulation (EU) 1379/2013 on the Common Organisation of the Markets of Fishery and Aquaculture 
Products, OJ L 354 28.12.2013 p.1. 
14 Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the sustainable management of 
external  fishing  fleets,  repealing  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  1006/2008,  SWD/2015/636  final  -  2015/0289 
(COD). 

15  Regulation  (EU)  2016/1626  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  amending  Council  Regulation 

(EC) No 768/2005 establishing a Community Fisheries Control Agency, OJ L 251 16.9.2016 p. 80 

5 

 
 
                                                 
promote  a  culture  of  compliance  with  CFP  rules  in  the  EU  and  among  EU 
stakeholders.  Under  this  criterion,  the  contribution  of  the  various  instruments  of  the 
Control Regulation to reach these overall objectives has been assessed. 

Efficiency:  Under  the  efficiency  criterion,  the  compliance  cost  for  the  different 
stakeholders  (operators,  national  administrations,  EFCA)  to  implement  the  main 
provisions of the Control Regulation have been compared with the achieved benefits 
at EU level. 

European Added Value: The analysis of the EU added value has looked at whether 
action at EU level is the most appropriate, if compared to same action performed by 
individual Member States. 

Coherence: The evaluation looked at the coherence of the fishery control system, both 
internally  (i.e.  with  other  fishery  legislation  and  international  agreements)  and 
externally in terms of coherence with other EU policies. 

Administrative burden: 
The administrative burden of the current system on operators and national authorities 
was  assessed  against  the  previous  system,  and  its  reduction  estimated  as  much  as 
possible. 

 

 

 

 

The evaluation questions were defined on the basis of the intervention logic presented below. 
In  particular  they  aimed  at  assessing  the  various  identified  links  between  needs,  objectives, 
inputs and effects. Details of the intervention logic elements in the figure below are provided 
in Annex I, together with the evaluation questions. 

6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
4. 

METHOD 

The  Commission  evaluation,  which  is  supported  by  an  independent  analytical  study 
undertaken  by  an  external  consultant,  is  based  on  a  wide-ranging  consultation  process.  It 
included the five years reports from the Member States sent according to Article 118(1) of the 
Control Regulation, surveys and targeted individual or group interviews structured around the 
evaluation  questions,  a  public  consultation  with  an  online  questionnaire,  national  visits  in 
Member States and single and multi-stakeholder workshops. 

Although  the  information  submitted  by  Member  States  through  the  five  years  report  covers 
the period 2010-2014, the evaluation considered also more up-to-date information, collected 
through the consultation process. 

More  details  on  the  procedure  followed  are  provided  in  Annex  II  while  the  consultation 
process, the tools used and a summary of responses gathered are provided in Annex III. 

In this document the results of the study carried out by the external consultant are summarised 
and  complemented  with  EFCA  technical  expertise,  with  the  outcome  of  stakeholders' 
consultations carried out by DG MARE, and with the results  of the verifications, audits and 
inspections carried out  in the period 2010-2016 by the Commission  according to  Title X of 
the Control Regulation. 

Limitations — robustness of findings 

The assessment of the implementation of the Control Regulation is based on the data provided 
by the Member States in their reports submitted pursuant to Article118(1). Unfortunately, the 
margin  of  interpretation  offered  by  the  Annex  XXXVII  of  the  Commission  Implementing 
Regulation (EU) No 404/2011, laying down the list of minimum information to be provided 
by the Member States to the Commission, resulted in limited possibilities for comparison and 
compilation  of  the  quantitative  data  reported  at  national  level  Member  States  also  had 
different interpretations of the qualitative information requested. Due to these differences, the 
qualitative information provided did not always serve the purpose it was intended for, namely 
to support the quantitative information by providing context and explaining trends. 

These  limitations  were  addressed  through  several  calls  for  additional  information,  to  which 
Member States responded and which helped to clarify the situation. The limitations in the data 
reporting  were  mitigated  through  the  finding  of  the  verification  missions  and  audits  carried 
out  by  DG  MARE  since  2010  and  with  cross  checking  with  other  reporting  systems  (e.g. 
Eurostat, fleet register). 

Notwithstanding  these  limitations,  the  evaluation  is  based  on  a  review  of  best  available 
quantitative  and  qualitative  evidence,  including  stakeholders’  and  experts’  views  and  field 
visits.  

7 

 
 
 
 
5. 

IMPLEMENTATION - STATE OF PLAY 

This  section  presents  progress  and  achievements  in  the  implementation  of  the  Control 
Regulation,  as  well  as  shortcomings  and  gaps.  It  provides  the  basis  on  which  some  of  the 
answers to the evaluation questions — in particular regarding effectiveness — in section 6 are 
drawn.  

Based on data reported by Member States according to Article 118 of the Control Regulation 
and  on  Commission  observations  derived  from  audits,  verifications  and  inspections  carried 
out  according  to  Title  X  of  the  Control  Regulation,  the  Commission  considers  that  the 
implementation  of  the  Control  Regulation  has  been  sufficiently  satisfactory.  Subsequent 
improvements  could  be  observed  year-on-year  as  Member  States  and  operators  gained 
experience  with  its  operation.  Not  all  aspects  of  the  Control  Regulation  however  have 
received  equal  attention  in  the  implementation  phase.  Resources  have  been  focused  on 
measures perceived to be most effective or most urgent. Member States have implemented the 
main  requirements  of  the  Control  Regulation  and  set  up  new  instruments,  procedures  and 
standards for inspection and enforcement of fishing activities throughout the EU. They have 
established  modern  Fishing  Monitoring  Centres  which,  together  with  a  risk-based  control 
strategy  and  coherent  national  control  programmes,  have  improved  the  surveillance  and 
tracking  of  fishing  vessels  in  all  EU  and  international  waters,  as  well  as  the  collection  and 
transmission of reliable data. The designation of a single authority to coordinate control and 
data management, as well as the nomination of EU inspectors has also been completed. This 
has considerably helped to develop operational and strategic cooperation between the Member 
States. 

Today almost 100% of the fishing vessels longer than 12m, which account for 97% of total 
landings,  is  equipped  with  a  Vessel  Monitoring  System  (VMS).  The  setting-up  of  IT 
infrastructure  for  electronic  exchange  of  fishing  activities  data  between  Member  States  has 
been largely achieved, although not without difficulties. Almost 5000 vessels were equipped 
at the end of 2014 with an electronic logbook (ERS), which represents an increase of 500% in 
5 years and around 40% of the vessels above 12m. Conversely, the number of vessels using 
the  paper  logbook  has  decreased  from  15  thousand  in  2010  to  9  thousand  in  2014.  In  the 
control of the use of fishing opportunities there are however concerns on how Member States 
monitor  the  activities  and  report  to  the  Commission  catch  data  of  fishing  vessels  which  are 
not subject to fishing logbook requirements.  

Also, although the fishing capacity in Europe decreased over the years, there are some issues 
on  how  Member  States  implement  their  fleet  management  control,  in  particular  regarding 
monitoring and verification of the engine power of fishing vessels. 

Although  Member  States  implemented  to  a  great  extent  the  provisions  in  the  Control 
Regulation  regarding  control  of  marketing,  several  weaknesses  still  appear.  Weighing 
sampling plans, derogations for weighing and control plans are implemented very differently 
across  Member  States,  sometimes  with  weak  control,  which  might  leave  room  for 
misreporting.  Likewise,  the  quality  of  traceability  systems  implemented  to  track  lots  of 

8 

 
 
fisheries  products  present  big  differences  across  Member  States.  Key  problems  are  due 
insufficient  control  at  first  sale  where  consignments  might  be  put  on  the  market  without 
preliminary  control  of  their  origin  and  loss  of  traceability  during  transport.  Also  the  paper 
based traceability system mandated by the Control Regulation is not considered effective by 
Member States, which as a result are developing on a voluntary basis electronic traceability 
systems. The different approaches taken at national level however hinder data exchange, cross 
checks and validation.  

According to data reported by Member States, during the years the number of inspections at 
sea  conducted  decreased  by  30%,  but  the  number  of  infringements  found  during  these 
inspections  grew  by  50%.  The  ratio  of  inspections  compared  to  fishing  trips  has  increased 
over  the  five  year  period,  from  1  to  5%.  The  number  of  onshore  inspections  increased  by 
more  than  60%  from  2010,  and  this  brought  to  an  increase  in  the  number  of  infringements 
detected. The ratio between the number of total infringements detected and the total number 
of  inspections  (onshore  plus  offshore)  shows  however  a  downward  trend,  hence  suggesting 
increased compliance.  

Specific  Control  and  Inspection  Programmes  have  been  adopted  by  the  Commission  for  all 
sea  basins  and  have  been  implemented  by  Members  States  through  Joint  Deployment  Plans 
(JDPs),  with  EFCA  assuring  operational  coordination  of  inspection  activities  in  this  frame. 
Sea and land-based inspections carried out in the frame of JDPs have increased between 2010 
and 2015, from 6 000 to 17 000 across all sea basins. The ratio for suspected infringements by 
inspection has remained low over the years (4%). In 2014 this ratio increased significantly in 
the Mediterranean Sea from approximately 6% to 16%, primarily due to extending the scope 
of the JDPs to more species. The Commission has been closely monitoring the enforcement 
measures taken by Members States as a result of infringements detected in the framework of 
JDPs  (proceedings  and  sanctions),  especially  in  the  Bluefin  tuna  fishery  where  there  is  an 
international  obligation  to  report  serious  infringements  to  the  International  Commission  for 
the  Conservation  of  Atlantic  Tunas  (ICCAT).  The  large  majority  of  the  suspected 
infringements identified during the JDPs inspections in those cases relates to misreporting. 

All Member States have in place a legal framework for sanctioning CFP infringements, and 
most of them have a point system for sanctioning serious infringements. In the majority of the 
countries, however, the penalty point system has been introduced into the national legislation 
only recently, and points were attributed only in a limited number of cases. Not all Member 
States  answered  the  questions  on  serious  infringements,  but  according  to  the  data  received 
less  than  in  half  of  cases  points  were  allocated  to  the  license  holder  when  a  serious 
infringement  was  detected.  On  points  allocation  there  is  a  clear  confusion  between  the 
responsibilities  of  flag  state  and  costal  state,  which  results  in  some  cases  in  an  inadequate 
follow  up  of  the  serious  infringements  and  point  allocations.  It  is  estimated  that  there  are 
about 900 serious infringements reports in EU per year.  

In  order  to  verify  compliance  with  CFP  rules  by  Member  States,  DG  MARE's  fisheries 
inspectors carry out verifications, inspections and audits. Since 2010, more than 300 missions 
have  been  carried  out  by  DG  MARE  and  all  coastal  Member  States  of  the  EU  have  been 

9 

 
 
controlled  and  evaluated.  The  identified  cases  of  non-compliance  have  been  followed-up 
either by action plans or by infringement procedures. Up to date in total 13 action plans have 
been established, 2 of which have been already closed, and a few more are in the pipeline. As 
regards  cases  of  non-compliance  that  could  not  be  addressed  by  an  action  plan,  informal 
bilateral dialogues proved successful in most of the cases and formal infringement procedures 
had to be launched only in a small minority of these cases. This demonstrates the willingness 
of  Member  States  to  cooperate  with  the  Commission  in  finding  solutions  to  identified 
irregularities  already  at an  early  stage  of  the  infringement  process.  In  2015  and  2016  seven 
and three infringement cases respectively were still pending. 

More  details  on  implementation  of  the  Control  Regulation  by  geographical  area  and 
instruments used by the Commission to verify compliance with the provisions of the Control 
Regulation by Member States is provided in Annex IV. 

Between 2014 and 2016 specific work was carried out by DG MARE to analyse the Member 
State  sanctioning  legislation  and  practice  for  fisheries  infringements.  The  results  show  that 
levels  of  sanctions  are  very  different  from  one  Member  State  to  another.  This  comes  as  no 
surprise given that there is no harmonisation of sanctions for infringements of CFP rules, the 
applicable  EU  standard  in  this  respect  being  the  general  requirement  for  effective, 
proportionate and dissuasive sanctions, leaving the type and level of sanctions entirely to the 
Member State. In most Member States, the economic benefit derived from the infringement is 
normally  an  element  considered  for  the  purpose  of  calculating  the  sanctions.  On  the 
implementation  of  the  point  system  for  serious  infringements,  deficiencies  still  remain  both 
with respect to the national legal framework, but more importantly with its full application. 

The  EMFF  introduced  an  ex-ante  conditionality,  so  that  projects  can  be  funded  only  upon 
respect  of  important  control  requirements  and  secured  budget  appropriations  for  control, 
which  was  particularly  useful  in  this  period  of  budget  cuts.  Twelve  Member  States  did  not 
meet the established criteria and are now implementing corrective measures in the form of an 
EMFF action plan on ex-ante conditionality. This is currently being reviewed with results due 
by end of 2017.. 

6. 

ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

6.1.  Relevance: To what extent do the objectives of the Control Regime correspond to 

the problems and issues to be addressed? 

The assessment shows that the policy framework remains relevant and the Control Regulation 
is  essential  for  achieving  the  objectives  of  the  CFP.  Enforcing  respect  of  sustainable  and 
conservation  measures  is  in  fact  still  of  great  actuality.  The  objectives  of  the  Control 
Regulation  adequately  cover  needs  identified  ex-ante  and  proved  to  tackle  serious  fisheries 
control  issues.  The  principles  embedded  in  its  provisions,  namely  to  provide  a  global  and 
integrated approach to control, to have harmonised control rules and inspection standards, to 
enhance  mutual  cooperation,  to  impose  effective,  proportionate,  and  dissuasive  penalties,  to 
apply  cost  effective  measures  for  control  are  recognised  by  the  majority  of  stakeholders  as 

10 

 
 
essential for establishing a level playing field among fishing operators at EU level and results 
in those fields should be further actively pursed. 

6.2.  Effectiveness: To what extent the Control Regime has achieved its objectives ? 

The  Control  Regulation  is  considered  a  critical  instrument  for  establishing  a  level  playing 
field  and  for  promoting  a  culture  of  compliance  with  CFP  rules  in  the  EU  and  among  EU 
stakeholders. Great progress has been done in the fishery control system over the evaluation 
period and considerable results have been achieved. 

The  single  legal  framework  adopted  in  2009  simplified  and  rationalised  the  system. 
Previously control provisions were contained in a number of overlapping and complex legal 
texts. Some parts of the control system were poorly implemented by Member States and this 
undermined the creation of a level playing field for fishermen across the EU. The introduction 
of the new system improved the situation in this regard and contributed to establishing a more 
coherent system of control and enforcement of the CFP rules. 

A correct and effective implementation of the CFP relies on proper documentation and control 
of fishing activities. An accurate recording of catches is essential for monitoring the actual use 
of fishing opportunities by the Member States and for the correct assessment of the status of 
the  stocks.  The  effectiveness  of  the  control  system  benefited  from  the  introduction  of  new 
technologies.  Monitoring  of  vessels  improved  through  the  mandatory  use  of  VMS,  which 
allows continuos and 'live' monitoring of the fishing vessels. While only 15% of the vessels 
are  subject  to  mandatory  use  of  VMS,  these  vessels  account  for  approximately  90%  of  the 
gross tonnage (capacity) of the fleet. The Electronic Reporting System (ERS), also mandatory 
for  vessels  above  12  meter,  allows  to  exchange  catch  data  in  real  time,  and  validation 
procedures and cross checks allow to increase the quality, reliability and timeliness of catch 
data.  The  evaluation  however  shows  that  there  are  still  issues  mainly  linked  to  derogations 
from the logbook and sales notes requirements, and derogations for weighing which may still 
lead  to  fish  being  unaccounted  for.  Also  the  lack  of  reporting  provisions  for  recreational 
fisheries is felt hampering the quality of catch data. 

The  principles  behind  the  provisions  on  market  control  and  traceability  create  the  right 
framework  allowing  for  an  integrated  approach  for  control  of  the  fish  throughout  the  entire 
commercial chain, from net to plate. Their formulation and implementation again however did 
not bring all the expected results.  

Even  though  an  improvement  has  been  observed  across  Member  States  and  while  post 
landing  control,  and  increased  the  reliability  and  quality  of  data  thanks  to  cross  checks  and 
validation  procedures,  there  are  still  issues  in  weighing,  deficiencies  in  weighing  plans,  in 
control at first sales and during transport. The current practices in weighing show that at times 
catch  quantities  are  not  fully  weighed,  nor  estimated  before  first  sale.  This  might  result  in 
counting unverified (and potentially erroneous) quantities against quota. Issues relate  also to 
the powers conferred to the Commission. Furthermore, there is still insufficient control of the 
origin  of  products  offered  for  first  sale.  This  is  particularly  serious  when  fish  has  been 

11 

 
 
 
transported  across  Europe  from  the  place  of  landing  to  the  place  of  sale.  Destination  can 
change  depending  on  market  opportunities,  without  information  being  given  to  the  control 
authorities,  so  an  adequate  monitoring  of  transport  would  require  real  time  information 
exchange. The liability currently attributed in the Control Regulation to the transporter is also 
questioned and not considered appropriate. Transport and exchange of fish between Member 
States increased during the last years16 and the current provisions in the Control Regulation 
are found outdated and not adequate to effectively follow fish during transport. This situation, 
combined with a lack of control at first sale, can give room to misreporting of fish, or in the 
worst  cases  to  the  introduction  of  IUU  fish  in  the  market  chain.  In  addition  the  majority  of 
stakeholders pointed out at lack of clarity in the current traceability provisions, which prevent 
them from being fully effective. 

The deficiencies in traceability are also due to the fact that the Control Regulation provides 
that  Member  States  may  implement  a  paper  based  traceability  system  for  lots  of  fisheries 
products. Recognising such system as ineffective, a number of Member States are voluntarily 
developing  extensive  electronic  traceability  systems,  which  however  are  not  harmonised  at 
European  level,  creating  difficulties  in  data  exchange.  It  should  also  be  noted  that  in  some 
cases  difficulties  in  data  exchange  are  attributed  to  reluctance  in  data  sharing,  including 
between the Member States, the Commission and EFCA. 

The Control Regulation is effective in strengthening cooperation among Member States and 
between  Member  States  and  EFCA.  This  has  been  achieved  through  increased  exchange  of 
information on fishing and control efforts among all players. Most of the control authorities 
indicated  that  the  Control  Regulation  provisions  on  data  exchange  led  to  improved  data 
quality  and  coordination.  While  most  of  the  technical  difficulties  concerning  that  exchange 
are  resolved,  some  challenges  still  remain,  such  as  differences  in  formats  or  lack  of 
responsiveness of some control authorities to data requests, which hinder effectiveness of this 
instrument. 

EFCA  plays  a  pivotal  role  in  the  cooperation  among  Member  States  by  providing 
coordination  of  monitoring,  control  and  surveillance  efforts  through  the  JDPs,  training  of 
Union  and  national  inspectors,  and  general  support  on  control  issues.  In  particular,  JDPs 
coordinated  by  EFCA  to  implement  specific  control  and  inspection  programmes,  are 
considered by all stakeholders indispensable for effective inspections, indicating that this tool 
is  effective  also  in  strengthening  the  cooperation  among  Member  States  in  Union  and 
international waters. The Expert Group on Compliance and the Action Plans are also effective 
instruments  of  collaboration  between  the  Commission  and  Member  States  and  are  strongly 
appreciated by both parties.  

The  assessment  found  that  the  Control  Regulation  is  effective  in  contributing  to  a  more 
inclusive  and  harmonised  system  for  control,  inspection  and  enforcement.  Examples  of  this 
EU-wide approach are the common inspection standards, the inclusion of more vessels subject 

16 Almost half of the fish products trade within and outside the EU consists of exchanges between EU Member 
States. In 2015, intra-EU ex ports were 4 times higher than exports to extra-EU countries, and totalled the all-
time peak of 6 million tonnes worth EUR 22,5 billion [reference 'The EU fish market, 2016' EUMOFA]. 

12 

 
 
                                                 
to  electronic  monitoring  and  reporting,  and  the  introduction  of  a  more  uniform  sanctioning 
mechanism. Such harmonisation revealed to be effective in promoting the level playing field, 
imposing  comparable  obligations  for  each  category  of  actors,  in  particular  operators  and 
control  authorities.  The  level  playing  field  is  however  hindered  when  rules  and  choices  are 
discretional to Member States, like for instance the application of derogations to small vessels 
and, in case of sanctions and point system for serious infringements, to the criteria used by the 
Member States to define and apply them. 

The  penalty  points  system  introduced  for  serious  infringements  was  supposed  to  lead  to  a 
better  and  more  harmonised  enforcement  of  the  CFP  rules.  At  this  stage,  however,  the 
opinions  of  stakeholders  on  the  topic  are  highly  controversial  and  the  effectiveness  of  the 
whole sanctioning  system is  disputed. The current point system for serious  infringements is 
not  applied  by  Member  States  with  even  criteria,  and  cooperation  among  Member  States  is 
absolutely necessary for fair treatment of fishermen and to gain their trust and respect of the 
rules.  In  addition,  the  implementation  of  adequate  sanctions  in  case  of  infringements  in  a 
consistent and even manner is essential to ensure their deterrent effects, besides contributing 
to the fulfilment of the EU's international obligations. 

The impacts of the Control Regulation on economic, social and environmental sustainability 
of the fisheries industry within the Union were difficult to assess, as several factors strongly 
affect those parameters and any unambiguous attribution to the Control Regulation would be 
impossible. It is however clear that the situation in Northern Europe differs from that in the 
South.  While  in  the  North-East  Atlantic  economic,  social  and  environmental  sustainability 
improved, the situation worsened for all the three parameters in the area of the Mediterranean 
and  Black  Sea.  To  explain  these  different  trends  the  very  different  nature  of  fisheries 
exploited, the different geographical and political nature of the two sea basins, together with 
the  extent  of  the  economic  crisis  shall  be  taken  into  account.  The  assessment  undoubtedly 
highlighted  issues  of  suitability  and  enforceability  of  the  Control  Regulation  for  the 
Mediterranean fleet, composed mainly by small vessels and with a prevalence of recreational 
fisheries,  for  which  no  limit  of  fishing  opportunities  exist,  and  for  which  stocks  are  shared 
with third countries. 

The evaluation indicates that the principles embedded in the Control Regulation are effective 
in  introducing  a  framework,  which  contributes  to  the  achievement  of  its  objectives.  If  the 
Control  Regulation  greatly  contributed  to  improve  the  fishery  control  system  in  Europe, 
however  delays  and  deficiencies  in  the  actual  implementation  of  some  of  its  provisions 
hindered the global effectiveness of this legal instrument. 

6.3.  Efficiency:  To  what  extent  the  Control  Regime  has  been  efficient  to  achieve  its 

objectives? 

The  efficiency  was  assessed  considering  the  relationship  between  the  resources  used  to 
implement  the  main  provisions  of  the  Control  Regulation  and  the  changes  generated.  The 
analysis  mainly  focussed  on  level  playing  field,  traceability  of  fish  products,  cooperation 
among stakeholders, data use and culture of compliance. 

13 

 
 
 
During  the years 2010-2013 the Commission adopted nine financial decisions17 allocating a 
total  of  €185,2  million  for  supporting  investments  for  fisheries  control.  A  total  of  €580 
million  are  ear-marked  in  the  frame  of  EMFF  for  support  to  Member  States  in  the  area  of 
fisheries control for the period 2014-2020. 

The Control Regulation lays down various provisions which (directly and indirectly) promote 
level  playing  field,  among  them  the  conditions  of  access  to  waters  and  resources  and  the 
control of fisheries and of fleet through the increased use of modern technologies. All these 
provisions were found to be efficient in creating a harmonised system, enhancing the control 
and monitoring efforts and forming a cost effective system to control vessels activities. The 
VMS  and  the  ERS  are  the  instruments  with  the  most  prominent  efficiency  gain,  enabling 
remote  monitoring  of  the  fishing  vessels,  creating  means  for  data  collection,  common 
standards  for  the  (digital)  registration,  storage  and  exchange  of  data  on  catch,  landing  and 
fishing  effort.  The  level  playing  field  is  further  enhanced  by  the  training  of  inspectors  by 
EFCA,  and  the  development  of  inspection  standards,  which  results  in  a  more  harmonised 
manner  of  conducting  inspections  throughout  the  Union.  In  the  period  2010  –  2014,  the 
number of Member State officials trained by the EFCA grew from 212 in 2011 to 842 in 2014 
and the number of events doubled from 23 in 2010 to 47 in 2014. On average, for the years 
between 2012 and 2014 every event resulted in 20 trained inspectors. 

The  Control  Regulation  contains  provisions  for  the  full  traceability  of  fisheries  and 
aquaculture  products  from  catch  to  the  retail  stage.  While  the  principles  embedded  in  the 
legislation  are  considered  good,  with  a  system  designed  to  transcend  national  borders,  the 
efficiency of this tool is not yet fully exploited mainly due to the fact that the provisions in the 
Control Regulation refer to a paper based system. Various Member States started at national 
level the development of IT systems which are considered much more efficient. 

The  collaboration  among  Members  States  increased  compared  to  the  past,  and  the  digital 
infrastructure developed for data storage and exchange is considered an efficient mechanism. 
The  efficiency  of  the  collection  and  use  of  data  can  be  however  still  improved,  since  many 
Member  States  are  still  in  the  process  of  developing  fully  computer-based  information 
systems,  including  automated  cross-checking  and  validation.  Another  element  which  was 
found to be efficient in reinforcing cooperation was the strengthened mandate of EFCA. The 
coordination of inspections through JDPs strengthens the capacity of the Union as a whole to 
ensure compliance with the CFP rules and enhances cooperation between Member States. In 
2014 five JDP were successfully implemented with a total of 17,000 coordinated inspections 
and 703 suspected infringements detected, figures than have more than doubled since 2009. 

The  evaluation  shows  that  the  newly  introduced  risk-based  approach  in  control  strategy  is 
efficient, maximising benefits and use of resources. The risk-based approach allows Member 
States  to  rank  the  risk  of  non  compliance  for  the  different  type  of  fisheries  and  therefore, 
rather  than  a  random  approach,  focus  inspections  and  control  activities  on  vessels  showing 

17  The  legal  basis  for  these  decisions  is  the  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  861/2006  establishing  Community 
financial measures for the implementation of the common fisheries policy and in the area of the Law of the Sea, 
OJ L160 14.6.2006, p; 1. 

14 

 
 
                                                 
higher risk of non compliance with CFP or control rules. The same strategy allowed to shift 
the  inspections  onshore  with  a  consistent  reduction  of  costs  (according  to  data  provided  by 
EFCA  sea  control  are  conducted  by  patrol  aircrafts  which  costs  about  2,919  €  per  hour,  or 
patrol vessels costing on average 15,613 € a day, while inspection on shore cost on average 
360 € a day). Thanks to its application the compliance with both CFP policy and with control 
rules have increased while the cost for surveillance and inspections decreased, optimising as 
well  resource  deployment.  The  efficiency  of  this  tool  is  again  however  limited  by  the 
differences  in  risk  assessment  methodologies  used  at  national  level,  which  undermine  the 
uniform implementation of the Control Regulation. 

6.4. 

Coherence: To what extent the new control Regime has been coherent with the 
CFP  (internal  coherence)?  To  what  extent  the  new  control  Regime  has  been 
coherent with other EU policies (external coherence)? 

The  analysis  showed  that  the  general  and  specific  objectives  of  the  Control  Regulation  are 
coherent and directly supporting the achievement of the CFP objectives, aiming at creating a 
comprehensive, effective and efficient control system characterised by level playing field and 
a culture of compliance, as called for in Article 36 of the CFP. Despite this consistency, and 
the amendment in  2015 of the Control Regulation for alignment  with  the new CFP through 
the  so  called  Omnibus  Regulation18,  concerns  among  stakeholders  remain  on  the  current 
provisions for the control of some of the new obligations set in the CFP, as for instance the 
landing  obligation,  which  do  not  seem  to  adequately  cover  all  the  steps  in  the  commercial 
chain  of  the  different  fisheries  (e.g.  control  of  the  use  of  catches  of  species  below  the 
minimum conservation reference size and not for direct human consumption). 

The  Control  Regulation  was  found  consistent  with  other  existing  fishery  legislation  such  as 
Fishing  Authorisation  Regulation19, 
the 
Mediterranean Regulation21, the IUU and the CMO Regulation. 

the  Regulation  on  Technical  Measures20, 

Thanks to the investments done in new and modern technologies (e.g. VMS, ERS), and to the 
funds  allocated  to  sustain  research  and  innovation  the  Control  Regulation  contributes  in 
creating  a  smart,  sustainable  and  inclusive  growth  (Europe  2020)  and  is  coherent  with 
environmental, maritime, innovation, sanitary, customs and trade EU policies. 

The  tools  in  the  Control  Regulation  however  lack  of  synergies  with  the  Marine  Strategy 
Framework Directive and with the newly established European Cooperation on Coast Guard 

18 Regulation (EU) 2015/812 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 amending Council 
Regulations (EC) No 850/98, (EC) No 2187/2005, (EC) No 1967/2006, (EC) No 1098/2007, (EC) No 254/2002, 
(EC) No 2347/2002 and (EC) No 1224/2009, and Regulations (EU) No 1379/2013 and (EU) No 1380/2013 of 
the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council,  as  regards  the  landing  obligation,  and  repealing  Council 
Regulation (EC) No 1434/98, OJ L 133 29.05.2015 p.1. 

19 Council Regulation (EC) No 1005/2008 establishing an Union system to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, 

unreported and unregulated fishing, OJ L 286 29.10.2008 p.33. 

20 Council Regulation (EC) No 850/98 for the conservation of fishery resources through technical measures for 

the protection of juveniles of marine organisms, OJ L 125 27.04.1998 p.1. 

21 Council Regulation (EC) No 1967/2006 concerning management measures for the sustainable exploitation of 

fishery resources in the Mediterranean Sea, OJ L 409 30.12.2006 p.11. 

15 

 
 
 
                                                 
functions  and  improvements  in  these  fields  should  be  looked  upon.  The  deficiencies 
highlighted in the traceability system might also hamper the achievement of the objectives of 
the CMO Regulation. 

6.5. 

EU  added  value:  What  are  the  advantages  of  one  EU-wide  control  system? 
What are the advantages of an EU-wide coordination? 

The  Control  Regulation  was  found  as  being  essential  in  adding  value  compared  to  possible 
diversified  national  approaches  and  in  guaranteeing  a  proper  control  and  management  of 
shared  resources.  In  prescribing  a  harmonised  and  common  framework  for  control  of  CFP 
measures,  and  in  defining  harmonised  inspection  and  control  standards,  the  Control 
Regulation contributes to create a level playing field across the EU and hence to improve the 
culture of compliance with CFP rules. The general measures on inspection and proceedings, 
with  the  definition  of  the  duties  of  operators,  of  Union  inspectors,  and  procedures  for 
inspections of fishing vessels outside the waters of the inspecting Member States, provisions 
on  minimum  information  required  for  the  fishing  licences  and  authorisations,  the  minimum 
information  required  for  completion  of  inspection  and  surveillance  reports,  the  defined 
reporting  formats,  the  methodologies  set  for  establishing  the  various  sampling  plans  among 
others allowed to uniform the control procedures at European level. 

Member  States  control  authorities  consulted  in  the  frame  of  this  evaluation  unanimously 
commented  that  the  Control  Regulation  was  supportive  to  their  efforts.  The  principles 
embedded  in  the  Control  Regulation  and  its  implementing  rules  have  an  added  value  and 
coordination and initiatives from the Commission and EFCA in having a common approach 
to  control  activities  is  fundamental.  Cooperation  mechanisms  for  solving  problems  or 
contributing  to  capacity  building  are  valuable  and  appreciated.  The  Control  Regulation  also 
contributed  to  enhance  compliance  by  Member  States  to  CFP  rules  in  foreseeing  financial 
corrections by the Commission as shown in Section 5 of this SWD. While this was initially 
foreseen only by the Control Regulation for control measures, this principle was extended to 
all expenditure areas in the EMFF. 

6.6. 

Administrative burden  

The  administrative  burden  has  been  assessed  both  for  operators  and  for  public  control 
authorities22. 

The  assessment  showed  that  the  administrative  burden  for  operators  clearly  diminished 
compared  to  the  previous  system,  although  not  to  the  extent  envisaged.  The  administrative 
burden reduction calculated on the basis of the legislative act adopted in 201023 was estimated 

22 It should be noted that while nowadays administrative burden refers to both operators and public authorities, in 
2007  at  the  time  of  the  impact  assessment  of  the  Control  Regulation  only  the  administrative  burden  for 
operators was assessed. 

23  SWD(2012)423.  The  reduction  in  administrative  burden  presented  in  the  impact  assessment  had  to  be 
recalculated as not all the provisions of the proposal of the Commission, which were supposed to reduce the 
administrative burden, were adopted. 

16 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
at  77%  in  respect  to  the  previous  system.  The  reduction  of  administrative  burden  was 
associated to the introduction of the electronic logbook for vessels above 12 meters and to the 
harmonisation  of  inspection  standards.  Actually  the  implementations  of  those  measures,  on 
the  base  of  the  vessel  population  in  2014,  accounted  for  a  28%  reduction.  The  electronic 
reporting is the measure that mostly contributed to it. It should be noted, however, that if this 
tool did  not bring great benefits for the operators themselves  it was found  to  be of extreme 
importance  in  reducing  costs  for  public  authorities.  While  its  introduction  implied  great 
investment costs (mainly born  by the European Commission, with  a 90%  reimbursement of 
costs incurred by Member States24) a return of investment is nevertheless foreseen in the long 
term. Electronic reporting reduces the need for human resources in compiling and aggregating 
catch data from paper logbooks25, while at the same time increasing the quality and reliability 
of  these  data  minimising  the  human  error  component  and  through  a  data  validation  system.  
Also  resources  for  data  cross-checks  can  be  minimised  by  automating  the  processes  and 
increasing  the  reliability  of  data.  Consequently,  the  exchange  of  data  with  other  Member 
States, the EFCA and the European Commission is possible in a much more efficient way. A 
cost  reduction  has  also  taken  place  further  to  fewer  physical  offshore  surveillance  activities 
and  inspections.  In  general,  the  majority  of  the  stakeholders  agree  that  the  administrative 
burden of the whole control system (operators and public authorities) clearly diminished with 
respect  to  the  past.  Improvements  could  be  further  gained  if  electronic  (IT)  systems  were 
applied to areas which still rely on a paper-based system.  

7. 

CONCLUSIONS 

Member States have generally implemented the main obligations set in the EU control regime 
and  set  up  new  instruments,  procedures  and  standards  for  inspection  and  enforcement  of 
fishing  activities  throughout  the  EU.  Full  implementation  of  this  legal  instrument  however 
still  needs  to  be  achieved.  This  is  mainly  caused  by  the  time  necessary  for  technical 
adaptation (the Regulation imposed a series of new technologies and IT systems that needed 
development) and in some cases for the transposition into national law of the Member States 
(e.g.  point  for  serious  infringements  and  sanctions).  Other  reasons  however  might  have 
hindered the process as well, and while Member States highlighted lack of human resources, 
other stakeholders also referred to lack of political will to ensure timely implementation. 

The  evaluation  proved  that  the  Control  Regulation  is  relevant  for  assuring  compliance  with 
the  CFP  policy,  with  the  need  to  enforce  implementation  of  sustainable  and  conservation 

24  In  the  frame  of  the  financial  decision  adopted  since  2010,  the  European  Commission  paid,  as  of  February 
2017, 87,5 Mio EURO and payments are still possible till the end of 2018. The main categories of expenditure 
are the development of IT tools and databases (EUR 33 Mio); ERS devices to be put on fishing vessels (EUR 
14  Mio);  the  development  of  ERS  Systems  (EUR  13,3  Mio);  traceability  (EUR  12  Mio)  and  VMS  devices 
(EUR 6,9 Mio). 

25 In 2008, before the adoption of the current Control Regulation and the introduction of ERS, one Member State 
had  79  people  used  exclusively  for  entering  such  data  into  the  system  [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  IMPACT  ASSESSMENT, 
SEC(2008) 2760]. 

17 

 
 
                                                 
measures  still  of  great  actuality.  The  Control  Regulation  is  also  fundamental  in  adding  EU 
value  to  the  fishery  control  system  by  assuring  level  playing  field.  While  the  principles 
embedded in its provisions are in general adequate and appropriate for ensuring compliance 
with the CFP policy, coherence is however lacking regarding the new measures introduced by 
CFP adopted in 2013, mainly related to the control of the landing obligation. Coherence is on 
the  other  side  respected  internally  with  other  fishery  legislations,  as  well  as  externally  with 
other  EU  policies  such  as  environment,  maritime,  innovation,  sanitary,  customs  and  trade 
policies, even if synergies could be improved. 

The Control Regulation is well accepted by relevant stakeholders. Its principles tackle issues 
that have in the past led to extensive overfishing, poor compliance with CFP rules and lack of 
ownership  and  it  is  recognised  that  in  this  respect  the  reform  of  2009  improved  the  EU 
fisheries  control  system.  The  level  playing  field  and  the  culture  of  compliance  improved, 
together with the quality and reliability of catch data and collaboration among Member States. 
In  this  regard  the  Control  Regulation  was  found  to  be  effective  and  efficient,  and  new 
technologies (VMS, ERS) and new management tools (e.g. SCIPs, risk analysis) contributed 
to it. The single legal framework for the CFP control measures adopted in 2009 simplified and 
rationalised the previous system, but the lack of clarity of some of the provisions hinders both 
its effectiveness and efficiency, which are not fully exploited. Shortcomings are mainly due to 
lack or delays in implementation. While during the past five years all the players strove for 
complying with the new system, the development of new IT tools and new procedures and the 
transposition  into  national  law  took  time,  sometimes  more  than  envisaged.  As  already 
anticipated at the time of adoption, results and impacts will be seen in the long term, when the 
whole  system  will  be  implemented  and  working  for  some  consecutive  years.  The  very 
different implementation of some of the measures across countries also has a negative impact 
on  effectiveness  and  efficiency  of  this  legal  instrument.  Although  political  will  to  ensure 
compliance is essential, derogations provided in the legal text were also found to hinder the 
level playing field. In other cases the different interpretation of the provisions was attributable 
to  obscurity  in  the  text.  The  update  of  obsolete  measures  and  the  modification  of  technical 
provisions which proved to be very rigid or of difficult implementation is asked by relevant 
stakeholders.  

Enforcement, especially  concerning sanctions and point system, follow up of infringements, 
monitoring  and  catch  reporting  tools  for  vessels  below  12  meters,  control  of  weighing 
practices, traceability,  and  exchange  and  access  of  data  among  Member  States  and  between 
Member States and the Commission are the areas that show the biggest shortcomings. 

The  use  of  modern  technologies,  the  development  of  an  electronic  information  system  and 
data  sharing,  and  of  standard  control  procedures,  were  supposed,  in  the  long  term,  to 
drastically reduce the administrative burden of the operators. This still did not fully concretise 
as  the  development  of  those  systems  took  time  and  in  some  cases  they  are  still  under 
development. The administrative burden on operators however already decreased and there is 
a recognised decrease in the costs for public authorities. The benefits of the electronic system 
compared  to  the  paper-based  one  already  concretised  in  a  better  quality  of  catch  data  and 
improved  collaboration  among  Member  States,  although  more  can  be  done.  Benefits  are 

18 

 
 
thought  to  outdo  in  the  long  term,  but  there  is  still  potential  for  simplification  and  further 
reduction of the administrative burden. 

The  results  of  this  evaluation  will  feed  into  a  reflection  on  how  to  address  the  challenges  and 
shortcomings identified and how to improve the overall performance of the Control Regulation. 

19 

 
 
 
 
ANNEX I 

Intervention Logic 

Needs-Problems  

Implement a sufficiently specified and uniform policy for the control system of Member States fishing 
activities  in  order  to  ensure  the  effective  implementation  of  the  CFP  rules,  for  assuring  sustainable 
exploitation of living aquatic resources, and reduction of overcapacity. 

Objectives of the Regulation  

1.  Consolidating,  rationalising  and  simplifying  all  control  related  obligations  in  a  single  legal 

instrument; 

2.  Establish  an  EU-wide  system  for  control,  inspection,  and  enforcement  with  global  and 

integrated approach in accordance with the principle of proportionality; 

3.  Ensuring  exploitation  of  living  aquatic  resources  that  provides  sustainable  economic, 

environmental and social conditions; 

4.  Ensuring the protection of the Union financial interest and secure the overriding interest in the 

conservation of fisheries resources; 

5.  Establishing a global and integrated new common approach to fisheries control “from the net to 
the plate” through development of a culture of compliance among all stakeholders and use of a 
risk-based strategy; 

6.  Contributing  to  the  creation  of  a  more  level  playing  field  for  the  fishing  sector  through 

harmonised control rules and inspection standards; 

7.  Enhancing mutual cooperation between all Member States, the Commission and the European 

Fisheries Control Agency (EFCA); 

8.  Ensuring better enforcement of the CFP rules via the implementation of effective, proportionate 

and dissuasive penalties; 

9.  Making  more  use  of  modern  technologies,  for  both  monitoring  of  fishing  activities  and  for 

collection, validation and data exchange; 

10.  Increasing cost-effectiveness of control measures, by focusing on the reduction of administrative 

burden and simplification. 

Inputs 

Amending 15 regulations in a single act  

With provisions on  

Conditions of access to waters and resources 

Control of fisheries 

Monitoring of marketing  

Surveillance 

Enforcement 

Control programmes 

Evaluation and Control by the Commission 

20 

 
 
 
 
 
Measures to ensure compliance by MSs with CFP objectives  

Data and information  

Mandate of the EFCA (extension of missions and tasks) 

Actions 

Verification of fishing vessels engine power 

Equipment  of  fishing  fleet  with  modern  monitoring  technologies  (Vessel  Monitoring  System, 
Automated Identification System, Vessel Detection System) 

Development of electronic systems for data recording and data exchange (ERS) 

Development of computerised national databases 

Development of risk based control strategies 

Development of methodologies to assess fishing activities (including catches and efforts) 

Development of a traceability system of fisheries and aquaculture products 

Development of EU control standards  

Control at sea 

Control ashore  

Enforcement 

Verifications , audits, inspections by the European Commission  

The  European  Fisheries  Control  Agency  to  provide  assistance  to  MSs,  to  encourage  closer 
collaboration between MSs, to promote exchange of best practice 

Outputs  

Remote monitoring of fishing vessels 

Common standards for reporting fishing efforts 

Common standards for inspections 

Common standard for reporting  

Electronic system for reporting and data exchange  

National databases with public and secure access  

Adoption of Specific Control and Inspection Programmes (SCIPs) 

Adoption of Joint Deployment Plans (for implementation of SCIPs) 

Adoption  of  National  Action  Plans  (to  address  shortcomings  from  MSs  identified  by  the 
Commission) 

Controls at sea and ashore  

Detection of infringements 

Applications of sanctions and penalty points  

Training of inspectors  

Guidance and manuals for inspectors 

Results (short term effects)  

Reduction of fishing capacity 

Integrated approach for fisheries control 

Uniform and common approach to fisheries control 

21 

 
 
Common inspection standards  

Access to control data by competent authorities for surveillance purposes 

Comparison and verification of catch data 

Collaboration  between  MSs  and  between  MSs  and  the  Commission  and  the  European  Fishing 
Agency 

Cooperation among stakeholders 

Impacts (long term effects)  

Sustainable exploitation of living resources.  

Community system for control, inspection, and enforcement with global and integrated approach 

Efficient surveillance of fishing activities 

Better monitoring of fish origin 

Level playing field in the implementation of an effective and reliable control system 

Strong culture of compliance of all stakeholders 

Cost-effective control regime in the EU  

Systematic proceedings of infringements detected in the course of inspections  

Effective and dissuasive sanction system in every Member State 

Better  overall  efficiency  of  maritime  surveillance  authorities  (other  than  fisheries)  thanks  to 
enhanced data exchange with fisheries control authorities 

Evaluation questions 

Effectiveness 

  To  what  extent  has  the  CR  established  a  Community  system  for  control,  inspection, 
and  enforcement  with  global  and  integrated  approach  to  ensure  compliance  with  all 
rules of the CFP? 

  To  what  extent  does  the  CR  support  exploitation  of  living  aquatic  resources  that 

provides sustainable economic, environmental and social conditions? 

  To what extent does establishes the CR establish a global and integrated new common 
approach  to  fisheries  control  “from  the  net  to  the  plate”  through  development  of  a 
culture of compliance among all stakeholders? 

  To what extent does the CR contribute to the creation of a more level playing field for 
the  fishing  sector  through  the  implementation  of  harmonised  control  rules  and 
inspection standards in Union waters? 

  To what extent does the CR enhance mutual cooperation between all Member States, 

the Commission and the EFCA? 

  To  what  extent  ensures  the  CR  better  enforcement  of  the  CFP  rules  via  the 

implementation of effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties? 

Efficiency 

  Conditions of access to waters and resources 
  Control of fisheries and of the fleet, the increased use of modern technologies 

22 

 
 
 
 
 
  Monitoring  of  marketing  and  full  traceability  of  fisheries  and  aquaculture  products 

from catch to the retail stage 
  Data and information systems 
  Surveillance, common inspection standards, proceedings of infringements detected in 

the course of inspections and enforcement 

  Mandate of EFCA; Coordination and educational role and Strengthened powers by the 

Commission; Evaluation and control 

Relevance 

  To what  extent  have the original objectives  proven to  be appropriate for  the Control 

Regulation? 

  How  relevant  was  the  objective  of  establishing  a  global  and  integrated  common 

approach to fisheries control to ensure compliance with all the rules of the CFP? 

  How  relevant  was  the  objective  of  creation  of  harmonised  control  rules  and 

inspections standards? 

  How relevant was the objective of enhancing mutual cooperation between all Member 

States, the Commission and EFCA? 

  How  relevant  was  the  objective  of  implementation  of  effective,  proportionate  and 

dissuasive penalties? 

  How  relevant  was  the  objective  of  increasing  the  cost-effectiveness  of  control 

measures? 

  How relevant was the objective of simplification? 
  To what extent is the Control Regulation still relevant? 
  How well do the original objectives still correspond to the needs within the EU 

Coherence 

  Evaluation of internal Coherence: EU laws on fisheries and maritime affairs 
  Evaluation of external coherence: EU law in other policies 
  Evaluation of international coherence: International fisheries agreements 

EU added value 

  What  are  the  advantages  of  one  EU-wide  Control  Regulation  instead  of  individual 

regulations / arrangements by Member States? 

  Can the effectiveness of the Control Regulation be improved? Is it possible to link the 
instruments even more directly to the objectives of the Common Fisheries Policy? 

Administrative burden 

  Administrative burden for businesses 
  Change in cost structure for public authorities 

23 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX II 

Procedural information 

Lead DG: Maritime Affairs and Fisheries (MARE)  

Agenda planning number: 2016/MARE/048  

A steering group was formed end of November 2014 to oversee the entire evaluation process. 
The  steering  group  was  composed  of  relevant  Commission  departments  (DG  MARE,  DG 
ENV, DG SANTE, and the Secretariat-General) and two representatives of EFCA.  
The steering group discussed and validated the terms of reference for a study to be carried out 
by an external consultant. 
The  request  for  service  was  issued  in  November  2014.  The  offers  were  evaluated  by  the 
steering  group,  and  Capgemini  was  selected  for  carrying  out  the  work.  The  contract  was 
signed in April 2015. 

Tasks  of  the  study  were  1)  data  collection  and  analysis  2)  assessment  of  the  status  of 
implementation  of  the  Control  Regulation  on  the  basis  of  the  first  five  years  report  from 
Member States and 3) assessment of the impacts and performances of the Control regulation 
according to the criteria of relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, coherence and EU added value 
and specific assessment of administrative burden. The  study was conducted in three phases: 
data collection, analysis and judgement. The collection of data included both compilation of 
data already available and calls for additional information collected specifically in the frame 
of  the  study  through  surveys  and  interviews  with  relevant  stakeholders.  Analysis  of 
information  collected  included  validation  and  cross  checks  with  other  sources.  The 
methodology  used  for  judgment  (evaluations  questions  and  sub-questions,  criteria  and 
indicators)  were  at  length  discussed  in  the  steering  group.  The  consultant  submitted  its 
preliminary  findings  to  the  steering  committee  in  spring  2016.  The  report  went  through 
several revisions on the basis on inputs from the steering committee. The steering committee 
approved the final report on 14 November 2016.  

In parallel to the study DG MARE also directly engaged in stakeholders consultations. 

In this document the results of the study carried out by the external consultant are summarised 
and complemented with the outcome of DG MARE stakeholders' consultations and with the 
results of Commission verification missions and audits. 

24 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX III 

Stakeholder consultation 

For  gathering  data  and  opinion  on  the  implementation  of  the  Control  Regulation  and  its 
impacts a wide consultation campaign has been carried out between November 2014 and June 
2016  addressing  stakeholders  directly  and  indirectly  impacted  by  the  Regulation,  plus  the 
ones who have stated interest in the policy. 

Different  tools  have  been  used  in  the  consultation  process  to  ensure  broad  and  exhaustive 
coverage of stakeholders. 

Member  States  and  national  control  authorities  have  been  consulted  by  mean  of  a 
questionnaire,  by  a  survey26,  in  two  meetings  of  the  Expert  Group  on  Compliance,  through 
national  visits  (all  the  coastal  Member  States  have  been  visited  by  DG  MARE)  and  via 
specific interviews. 

Advisory Councils have been consulted in dedicated meetings and by organising a seminar. 
Fisheries organisations, fisheries producers, scientific bodies and NGOs have been contacted 
through surveys26, specific interviews26 and in targeted meetings. 

Citizen,  individuals  and  scientific  organisations  have  been  addressed  through  the  public 
online  questionnaire  which  was  active  for  12  weeks,  from  December  2015  to  March  2016. 
The  public  consultation  got  four  hundred  forty  one  responses,  sixteen  of  which  came  from 
registered organisations, all the others from individuals.  

On  the  top  of  those  twenty-one  position  papers  were  submitted  by  Advisory  Councils,  EU 
organisations,  environmental  NGOs,  national  fishery  organisations  and  national  control 
authorities. The original contributions, together with a Summary Report of the Results of the 
Public Consultations are published on the Commission webpage27. 

In  2015  and  2016  DG  MARE  participated  to  several  discussions  held  on  the  Control 
Regulation  and  related  issues  in  the  PECH  Committee  of  the  European  Parliament28.  A 
workshop for gathering the view of the Members of the European Parliament was organised 
by DG MARE and held in the European Parliament in March 2016.  

A high level meeting for discussing strength and weaknesses and status of implementation of 
the Control Regulation was also organised by the Latvia Presidency and took place in Jurmala 
in  April  2015.  Directors-Generals  and  Fisheries  Attachés  and  the  Director  General  of  DG 
MARE attended it. 

26 Carried out by the external consultant. 
27 http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/maritimeaffairs_fisheries/consultations/control-regulation-evaluation/index_en.htm. 
28 The works of the PECH Committee in particular brought to the publication of the study 'Social and Economic 
Impact of the Penalty Point System' and of the Report 'how to make fisheries controls in Europe uniform' 

25 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Main conclusions from stakeholder consultations 

There is general agreement among stakeholders that the principles embedded in the Control 
Regulation  provide  an  adequate  and  appropriate  framework  for  ensuring  compliance  of  the 
CFP policy, aiming at assuring level playing field and promoting a culture of compliance. The 
formulation  of  the  provisions  however  is  not  always  clear,  resulting  in  a  very  different 
interpretation and implementation by Member States. 

The system put in place in 2010 called for a drastic change in the fisheries management, huge 
structural changes and big investments.  While during the past 6 years all the players strove 
for complying with the new system, full implementation still has to be achieved. Many if not 
most of the effectiveness issues relating to the Control Regulation stem from insufficient or 
inadequate  implementation  and  enforcement  of  the  regulation  itself,  or  from  provisions 
included in the implementing act (Regulation 2015/1962 ex Regulation 404/2011). 

Continuity of the current system is asked from all the players, both for assuring return of the 
investment done and for achieving the set goals.  Some modifications are however requested 
for  adapting  to  the  changed  policy  scenario  (new  CFP,  Marine  Strategy  Framework 
Directive), evolving towards a more flexible, regionalised and result oriented approach. 

Below an overview of the feedback provided in the four areas investigated. More details are 
given in the Summary Report of the Results of the Public Consultations. 

Level Playing field 

Stakeholders  state  that  having  a  uniform,  harmonised  and  global  fisheries  control  system  at 
European level shall be a priority of the Union.  Assuring level playing field among Member 
States, among fisheries, among EU fleets fishing in or outside EU waters and for both EU and 
non-EU fleets  fishing  in EU  waters  is  one of the pillars for an  effectively  functioning CFP. 
While a lot has been achieved thanks to the new system in force since 2010, there is still room 
for  improvement  and  further  commitment  is  required  from  Member  States  and  from  the 
European Commission for a coherent application. Implementation of provisions on sanctions, 
inspections,  traceability,  vessel  monitoring  and  catch  reporting  tools  needs  particular 
attention.  Development  of  EU  standards,  harmonise  approaches  for  control  activities  and 
shared IT platform for data exchange are essential tools for achieving a uniform level playing 
field and the Commission and EFCA should continue the work initiated in this fields. 
According  to  50%  of  responses  to  the  online  questionnaire,  the  level  playing  field  among 
Member States did not improve with the new system, while 34% of the responses are positive 
(among them 12 of the registered organisations). According to 49% of the responses the level 
playing  field  did  not  improve  for  fisheries  and  fishermen,  while  it  did  for  38%  of  the 
responses (among which 10 of the registered organisations). 

26 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Culture of Compliance 

According to stakeholders an important cornerstone of the Control Policy is to cover and raise 
awareness  among  all  players  involved  in  the  full  range  of  fishing  activities  (catching, 
processing, distribution and marketing) of the importance of compliance with the CFP rules.  
The  current  framework  favourably  influenced  the  responsibility  of  operators  and  Member 
States,  however  it  is  still  necessary  to  strongly  enforce  compliance  with  the  policies  and 
regulations of the CFP through a comprehensive monitoring and control system.  The Specific 
Control and Inspection Programmes are highly appreciated by all stakeholders and the Joint 
Deployment  Plans  coordinated  by  EFCA  for  their  implementations  are  seen  as  an  excellent 
tool  for  improving  cooperation  and  exchange  of  information  among  Member  States.  The 
educational activities and training carried out by EFCA have been valuable and important in 
explaining  the  new  applicable  rules  and  raise  awareness  among  operators  on  conservation 
issues.  Some specific sectors of the EU fleet, in particular the so called small scale fisheries, 
strongly suffered from the recent economic crisis and feel the new rules imposed (especially 
on the landing obligation) are an unjustified burden.  If the situation is not handled carefully 
there is the concrete risk that the trust built between fishermen and control authorities in the 
last  years  will  be  irremediably  undermined.    Culture  of  compliance  strongly  relies  on  a  fair 
level  playing  field,  uniform  application  of  the  control  rules  across  fisheries  and  countries, 
included  third  country  vessels  fishing  in  EU  waters,  and  above  all  on  a  transparent  system.  
The current system of serious infringements and sanctions is  not  applied by Member States 
with even criteria, and harmonisation is absolutely necessary for building trust in the rules and 
their respect by fishermen.  Incentives for operators that behave correctly should be sought.  It 
is  believed  that  a  more  participatory  approach  and  sense  of  ownership  by  fishers  to  the 
management of the fisheries they operate would improve levels of compliance.  For pursing 
this  goal  exchange  of  information  on  control  implementation  between  Member  States  and 
operators shall also be improved and encouraged. 

According to 62% of the responses to the online questionnaire the behaviour in the fisheries 
changed towards better compliance with the Common Fisheries Policy rules since the Control 
Regulation has entered into force (among them 15 of the registered organisations).  

The  opinion  is  divided  on  half  on  the  question  whether  the  new  integrated  approach  to 
fisheries control contributed to a positive impact on the status of the EU fisheries stocks, with 
46% positive answers (among them 14 of the registered organisations) and 46% negative (2 
registered organisations).  

New  instruments  of  the  Commission  to  ensure  the  implementation  of  Common  Fisheries 
Policy by Member States 

The  new  instruments  set  in  place  in  the  control  Regulation  to  ensure  implementation  of  the 
CFP by Member States are in general very much appreciated by stakeholders. 

According to 58% of the respondents to the online questionnaire (11 registered organisations) 
the  increased  powers  of  the  European  Commission  in  verifying  Member  States'  control 

27 

 
 
 
activities,  performing  audits  and  carrying  out  autonomous  inspections  increased  the 
compliance attitude of Member States with the Common Fisheries Policy rules. 

The  action  plans  established  by  the  Commission  to  address  identified  shortcomings  in  the 
control system of the Member States are also considered an effective cooperative tool to end 
situations of systemic deficiencies by 52% of the respondents to the online questionnaire (9 
registered organisations). 

Simplification and Administrative Burden 

According to stakeholders the single legal framework for the CFP control measures simplified 
and rationalised the system.  The Control regulation however is still very complex, and there 
is the need for clarification of some provisions. Because some obligations are interpreted or 
applied very differently from Member States there is also the necessity of interpretation and 
or  guidance  from  the  European  Commission.  The  use  of  modern  technologies  and  the 
development of an electronic information system and data sharing were also supposed, on a 
long  term,  to  reduce  the  administrative  burden  of  the  whole  system.  This  still  didn’t  fully 
concretise  as  the  development  of  those  systems  took  time  and  in  some  cases  they  are  still 
under  development.  The  role  of  EFCA  and  of  the  European  Commission  in  assuring  a 
harmonised and coherent approach, with compatible systems for reporting, exchange of data, 
and for traceability of fishery products is fundamental. 

In general according to the majority of the respondents to the online questionnaire the current 
system  has  simplified  the  overall  regulatory  system,  simplified  the  communication  among 
players and reduced the administrative burden. 

28 

 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX IV 

Implementation of the Control Regulation by sea basin and geographic 
region 

Baltic and North Sea 

In the Baltic and North Seas, 89 audit, verification (e.g. follow-up on action plans, informal 
bilateral dialogues, evaluation of EMFF ex-ante conditionality, sanction systems etc.) and fact 
finding missions were carried out during the period 2010-2014. In 2015 and 2016, so far 30 
missions were accomplished.  

The findings of these missions demonstrate that in general all Baltic and North Sea countries 
have set up fisheries control and monitoring systems by allocating necessary resources.  

The  changes  introduced  by  the  Control  Regulation  in  2009  were  effectively  addressed  by 
most  countries.  Implementation  of  new  technologies  with  relevant  information  systems  to 
ensure more reliable fisheries data and quota uptake monitoring is either implemented or well-
advancing.  Control  of  fisheries  and  data  flows  is  mostly  based  on  risk  management  with 
control efforts focusing on higher risk vessels, fisheries or operators.  

The work conducted by the Commission allowed also identifying certain deficiencies in the 
control national systems.  

The  areas  where  improvements  were  needed  regarded  mainly  fisheries  data  management, 
sanctioning systems, weighing sampling systems, and effective collaboration among national 
authorities.  The  shortcomings  identified  in  those  areas  were  effectively  addressed  by  the 
relevant follow up tools. Where possible, as first step to solve the cases of non-compliance the 
Commission  adopted  action  plans.  Where  however  no  compliance  with  the  Control 
Regulation  persisted  informal  bilateral  dialogues  and,  if  necessary,  formal  infringements 
procedures were initiated. 

In the period 2010-2014, one Action plan was adopted by the Commission and satisfactorily 
closed by the end of 2014. After 2014, three action plans were adopted and are still ongoing.  

The Action Plans allow significantly improving the control systems in the Member States and 
giving an assurance to the Commission that specific weaknesses are addressed. In particular, 
since 2010 at least 3 Member States have allocated additional resources and even created new 
control  offices,  thanks  to  the  collaboration  between  the  Commission  and  relevant  Member 
States. 

In the period 2010-2014 the Commission initiated seventeen informal bilateral dialogues with 
the  Member  States  bordering  the  North  Sea  and  Baltic  Sea.  In  two  of  these  cases,  formal 
infringement  procedures  were  launched  in  the  period  2010-2014  (still  ongoing)  because  the 
shortcomings  had  not  been  satisfactorily  addressed.  In  the  period  following  2014,  one 
informal bilateral dialogue was initiated and is still ongoing.  

29 

 
 
 
Atlantic  

During the period 2010-2014, 85 audit and verification missions have been carried out in the 
Atlantic sea basin, with the objective to assess the control system of France, Ireland, Portugal, 
Spain and the United Kingdom. 

While the first priority has been given to auditing the catch and effort registration system of 
the Member States, as a basis of the conservation policy in this sea basin (49 audit missions), 
focus  was  also  put  on  the  exchange  of  control  information  between  Member  States  and 
traceability of fisheries products (19 missions). A series of verifications focusing on specific 
issues related to pelagic, hake and deep sea fisheries was also organised and results where fed 
into  these  two  audit  programmes.  As  a  result,  three  action  plans  have  been  adopted  to 
overcome  the  deficiencies  of  the  control  system  of  three  Member  States.  Mainly  systemic 
deficiencies  were  encountered  and  concerned  weaknesses  in  (1)  coordination  between  the 
control bodies involved, (2) exchange of information between Member States, (3) databases 
consistency,  (4)  collection,  management  and  crosscheck  of  control  documents.  Overall  the 
exchange of information between Member States and cooperation in control and monitoring 
has significantly improved. 

Four  action  plans  have  been  adopted.  Informal  bilateral  dialogues  led  to  adoption  of  the 
necessary corrective measures in two cases.  

Mediterranean and Black Sea 

In  the Mediterranean and Black  Sea 127  verification and fact finding missions were carried 
out during the period 2010-2014, 19 missions were done in 2015. 

The  work  carried  out  by  the  Commission  brought  to  the  adoption  of  five  Action  Plans  to 
address systemic deficiencies, irregularities or shortcomings identified in the national control 
systems. Ten missions were carried out to verify the application of these four action plans. 

The Commission recognise that main achievements observed during this period were on the 
improvement  of  the  control  capacity  of  the  national  administrations  (provision  of  electronic 
systems,  operational  cooperation,  etc.),  the  improvement  of  the  control  of  Blue  Fin  Tuna 
fisheries  (implementation  of  the  Specific  Control  Programme  estimation  of  catches  through 
the provision and the use of stereoscopical cameras, releases, etc.), the limitation of the use of 
illegal  driftnets  and  the  conduct  of  joint  control  and  inspection  actions  between  Member 
States. The main shortcomings detected refer to the monitoring of the activities of the fishing 
vessels not subject to the fishing logbook requirements and the collection of data on catches 
resulting from recreational fisheries. Other issues concerned incorrect or missing labelling of 
fish products, the completion, submission and cross-check of sales notes, the implementation 
of  the  Electronic  Recording  System  (electronic  logbook,  exchange  of  data,  etc.),  and  the 
marking of the fishing vessels.  

30