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 REFIT Evaluation of the impact of the fisheries regulation
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  COM(2017) 192 final   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   REFIT Evaluation of the impact of the fisheries regulation {SWD(2017) 134 final}  
 
 
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 

REFIT 
Evaluation of the impact of the fisheries regulation  

1. 

INTRODUCTION 

The  success  of  the  Common  Fisheries  Policy1  (CFP)  depends  very  much  on  the 
implementation  of  an  effective  control  system.  The  measures  provided  for  in  Council 
Regulation  (EC)  No  1224/20092  establishing  an  EU-wide  control  system  for  ensuring 
compliance  with  rules  of  the  CFP  (hereinafter  ‘the  Control  Regulation’)  seek  to  establish  a 
Union  system  for  control,  inspection,  and  enforcement  based  on  a  global  and  integrated 
approach,  in  accordance  with  the  principle  of  proportionality  and  administrative  cost-
efficiency. 

This document 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 
(Article 118 (2)), and to evaluate its impacts on the CFP  five years after its entry into force 
(Article 118 (3)). 

The  evaluation  of  the  Control  Regulation  is  also  included  in  the  Commission's  Regulatory 
Fitness  and  Performance  programme  (REFIT)3  and  its  aim  was  to  assess  whether  the 
Regulation is fit for purpose by focusing on its simplification and regulatory burden reduction 
aspects. 

The  evaluation  was  carried  out  according  to  the  five  criteria  of  relevance,  EU  added  value, 
coherence,  effectiveness  and  efficiency  set  out  in  the  Commission's  Better  Regulation 
Guidelines  of  May  20154.  An  analysis  of  simplification  and  regulatory  burden  reduction 
aspects was also carried out as part of the evaluation. 

In this context the main provisions of the Control Regulation have been assessed against the 
general  objectives  of  promotion  of  level  playing  field  and  development  of  a  culture  of 
compliance with the CFP rules. In addition, the effectiveness of the instruments foreseen by 

1  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. 

2 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 L343 22.12.2009 
p.1 

3  Regulatory  Fitness  and  Performance  Programme  (REFIT)  State  of  Play  and  Outlook  "REFIT  Scoreboard, 

SWD (2015) 110 final. 

4 Better regulation guidelines (Commission Staff Working Document), SWD (2015) 111 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
the  Control  Regulation  for  the  Commission  to  ensure  the  implementation  of  the  CFP  by 
Member  States  has  also  been  examined.  These  were  the  areas  that  showed  weaknesses  and 
shortcomings  in  the  previous  control  regime  and  that  therefore  have  been  specifically 
addressed through new instruments in the current Control Regulation.  

In addition the evaluation of such a legal framework could not abstract from considering the 
policy  environment  it  is  related  to.  Besides  the  context  and  objectives  set  at  the  time  of  its 
adoption, the Control Regulation has been evaluated in light of the recent CFP reform, which 
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 IUU Regulation5, 
the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund6  (EMFF) for the period  2014-2020 (introducing, 
among  others,  new  provisions  on  financial  sanctions),  the  Regulation  on  Common  Markets 
Organisation7  (CMO),  as  well  as  on-going  discussions  on  a  Regulation  on  the  sustainable 
management  of  external  fishing  fleets8  and  the  EU's  efforts  to  shape  international  ocean 
governance have also been taken into account. Finally, the evaluation considered the changes 
in institutional and political scenarios, especially the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty and 
the establishment of a European Cooperation Function on Coast Guard9. 

The  overview  results  presented  in  this  document  rely  on  an  extensive  consultation  process 
with relevant stakeholders. More details on the consultations carried out, the data source and 
information  used,  the  methodology  followed  and  results  obtained  are  provided  in  the 
accompany  Staff  Working  Document  'REFIT:  Evaluation  of  the  impact  of  the  fisheries 
control regulation'. 

2. 

IMPLEMENTATION - STATE OF PLAY 

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  Member 
States have implemented the main obligations of the Control Regulation and have set up the 
necessary  instruments,  procedures  and  standards  for  ensuring  monitoring  and  inspection  of 
fishing  activities  throughout  the  EU.  They  have  established  modern  and  efficient  Fishing 
Monitoring  Centres  which,  together  with  risk-based  control  strategies  and  national  control 
programmes,  have  improved  the  surveillance  and  tracking  of  fishing  vessels  in  EU  and 
international  waters,  as  well  as  the  collection  and  transmission  of  reliable  data.  Vessel 
Monitoring Systems (VMS) and Electronic Reporting Systems (ERS) are used throughout the 

5 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.1. 

6 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. 

7 Regulation (EU) 1379/2013 on the Common Organisation of the Markets of Fishery and Aquaculture Products, 

OJ L 354 28.12.2013 p.1. 
8 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). 

9 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. 

3 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
fishing  fleets  for  vessels  above  12  meters,  improving  monitoring,  control  and  reliability  of 
catch  data.  The  fishing  capacity  at  EU  level  decreased  according  to  the  set  objectives,  the 
quality  of  catch  data  improved  compared  to  the  previous  regime  and  there  is  a  general 
recognised better compliance with CFP rules, both from operators and Member States. 

While many positive elements have emerged in the five -years period examined, the analysis 
also  highlighted  both  shortcomings  in  the  implementation  and  deficiencies  in  some  of  the 
provisions of the Control Regulation,  mainly concerning sanctions and point system, follow 
up of infringements, data exchange and sharing between Member States, traceability, control 
of weighing practices, and monitoring and catch reporting tools for vessels below 12 meters. 

3. 

RESULTS OF THE EVALUATION 

The  evaluation  confirms  the  relevance  and  the  EU  added  value  of  the  Control  Regulation, 
which  proves  to  be  a  valid  instrument  providing  for  a  consistent  framework  for  control, 
inspection and enforcement to ensure compliance with the CFP. It is also considered critical 
in establishing a level playing field among operators.  

The Control Regulation simplified and rationalised the previous control system. Despite the 
existence  of  other  parallel  instruments  containing  control  measures  (e.g.  the  Fishing 
Authorisation  Regulation10,  the  Technical  Measures11  and  the  Mediterranean  Regulation12), 
no  particular  issues  have  been  identified  in  their  simultaneous  implementation.  The  Control 
Regulation  is  also  coherent  with  other  fishery  legislations  and  acts  (e.g.  with  the  CMO 
Regulation and the EMFF). It aligned the EU with its international obligations in the control 
area, in particular allowing for a non-discriminatory implementation of the IUU Regulation in 
relation  to  third  countries.  The  coherence  with  other  EU  policies,  such  as  environment, 
maritime, innovation (blue growth), sanitary, customs and trade policies, is also not disputed. 
In  spite  of  this  consistency  there  are  however  concerns  among  stakeholders  on  the  current 
provisions for the control of some of the new obligations set in the CFP, as for instance the 
landing  obligation.  Also  shortcomings  related  to  traceability  might  hinder  the  effective 
implementation  of  the  CMO.  In  addition  the  instruments  of  the  Control  Regulation  lack  of 
synergies  for  an  effective  and  efficient  implementation  of  the  Marine  Strategy  Framework 
Directive13 and of the newly created European Cooperation function on Coast Guard. 

As  far  as  effectiveness  and  efficiency  are  concerned,  the  implementation  of  the  VMS,  the 
ERS  and  the  use  of  risk-based  control  strategies  proved  to  be  essential  tools  to  monitor 
activities and to increase the quality of reported catch data. It has also been acknowledged that 

10 Council Regulation (EC) No 1006/2008 concerning authorisations for fishing activities of Community fishing 
vessels  outside  Community  waters  and  the  access  of  third  country  vessels  to  Community  waters,  OJ  L  286 
29.10.2008 p.33. 

11 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. 

12 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. 

13 Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for community 
action  in  the  field  of  marine  environmental  policy  (Marine  Strategy  Framework  Directive),  OJ  L  164, 
25.6.2008, p. 19 

4 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
the  use  of  electronic  fisheries  information  systems  and  standard  control  procedures  reduced 
the  administrative  burden  on  operators,  as  well  as  on  public  authorities  (more  details  are 
presented  in  the  next  section  'Simplification  and  reduction  of  Administrative  Burden').  Yet, 
the complexity of some rules and the new approach compared to the previous regime led to 
delays in the implementation. Given that the entry into force of a series of provisions was also 
spread over three years since 2010, in certain areas the extent of benefits is only materialising 
now  and  it  is  only  in  the  long  term  that  the  advantages  will  be  fully  apparent.  It  should  be 
however  noted  that  if  some  delays  in  implementation  are  due  to  the  time  necessary  for 
technical  developments  (e.g.  to  implement  new  technologies  and  IT  systems)  or  to  the 
transposition  into  national  law,  some  stakeholders  also  refer  to  a  lack  of  political  will  to 
ensure  timely  implementation  and  Member  States  systematically  highlighted  shortage  in 
human resources.  

Lack of clarity in some of the provisions, obsolete provisions and discretional implementation 
across  Member  States  (e.  g.  derogations,  sanctions)  also  hamper  the  effectiveness  and 
efficiency of this legal instrument. 

Level Playing Field 

All stakeholders stated that having a uniform, harmonised and global fisheries control system 
at EU level shall be a priority in the Union fishery policy. Ensuring a level playing field in the 
control  area  among  Member  States,  among  fisheries,  among  EU  fleets  fishing  in  or  outside 
EU waters and among both EU and non-EU fleets fishing in EU waters is one of the pillars 
for  an  effective  functioning  of  the  CFP.  While  a  lot  has  been  achieved  thanks  to  the  new 
control regime, there is still room for improvement and further commitment is required from 
Member States to ensure a coherent and uniform application of the Regulation for operators at 
EU level.  

The  analysis  confirmed  that  the  development  of  EU  standards,  of  a  harmonised  approach 
towards control activities and of shared IT platforms for data exchange are essential tools for 
achieving  a  solid  level  playing  field.  It  was  acknowledged  that  the  role  played  by  the 
European Fisheries Control Agency (EFCA) and by the European Commission in developing 
and enhancing a  harmonised and coherent approach, with compatible systems for  reporting, 
exchange of data, and traceability of fishery products is in this regard fundamental.  

The  traceability  of  fishery  products  across  Member  States  is  a  concern.  Even  though  a 
significant  improvement  has  been  observed  across  Member  States  and  while  post  landing 
control  increased  the  reliability  and  quality  of data there  are  still  issues  with  control  at  first 
sales and during transport. Key problems are due to loss of traceability in those two steps of 
the  production  chain,  where  consignments  might  be  put  on  the  market  without  preliminary 
control of their origin. Control authorities consider that the current framework for the control 
of weighing and transport is giving room for misreporting, while weighing provisions tend to 
transfer  the  control  from  the  flag  state  to  the  coastal  state.  The  experience  has  shown  that 
transport  is  the  ideal  vehicle  for  misreporting  catch  data.  Also  the  paper  based  traceability 
system  mandated  by  the  Control  Regulation  is  not  considered  effective.  As  a  result,  some 
Member  States  are  developing  on  a  voluntary  basis  electronic  traceability  systems,  but  the 

5 

 
 
 
 
different approaches taken at national level hinder data exchange, cross checks and validation. 
On  the  other  hand,  it  should  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.  

Claims  of  confidentiality,  raised  in  several  cases,  could  be  also  a  serious  obstacle  to  the 
implementation  of  other  related  policies  (e.g.  cooperation  on  coast  guard  functions). 
Moreover  there  are  still  unresolved  issues  concerning  the  use  of  scientific  data  for  control 
purposes  and  of  control  data  for  management  purposes,  which  need  to  be  tackled  for  an 
effective  achievement  of  the  CFP  objectives.  The  analysis  clearly  showed  that  some  of  the 
provisions of the Control Regulation on data and information gathering and exchange are not 
sufficiently clear. 

The  specific  rules  applying  to  vessels  less  than  12  meters  are  considered  not  fully  suitable: 
while  exemptions  and  derogations  are  perceived  by  operators  of  bigger  vessels  as  lack  of 
control  and  hampering  the  level  playing  field,  the  rigidity  of  some  provisions  imposed  are 
perceived  by  the  small  scale  fisheries  as  an  unjustified  burden,  especially  for  the  sectors 
which strongly suffered from the recent economic crisis.  

The  control  of  the  activities  of  vessels  below  10  meters,  which  are  currently  exempt  from 
keeping  a  logbook,  is  not  properly  implemented  by  the  Member  States  (e.g.  control  by 
sampling  at  the  time  of  landing).  In  the  Mediterranean  Sea,  where  more  than  80%  of  the 
vessels  are  small  this  is  a  topic  that  the  current  Control  Regulation  does  not  appropriately 
address. Similar difficulties are met in other sea basins, even though to a lesser extent. 

Lack of control provisions relating to recreational fisheries is also felt as hindering the level 
playing field and considered necessary by citizens and the majority of relevant stakeholders. 

Many  stakeholders  expressed  their  concerns  with  regard  to  the  control  of  the  landing 
obligation.  Operators  are  especially  concerned  about  the  level  playing  field  and  seek 
limitation  of  any  additional  burden.  It  should  be  noted  that  while  the  text  of  the  Control 
Regulation has been aligned with the new CFP through the so called Omnibus Regulation14, it 
is perceived that the provisions for controlling the landing obligation are not adequate and that 
the  control  of  new  obligations  (e.g.  control  of  the  use  of  catches  of  species  below  the 
minimum conservation reference size and not for direct human consumption) should be more 
adequately  addressed  to  avoid  any  confusion  and  doubts  for  many  public  and  private 
stakeholders.  

The  evaluation  also  showed  that  roles  and  responsibilities  of  the  Commission,  EFCA  and 
Member States are, for some tasks, not clear, bringing to duplication of similar activities.  

Industrial  operators  and  fishermen  voiced  concerns  about  the  rigidity  of  some  technical 
provisions  that  were  found  difficult  to  implement  (e.g.  weighing  practices,  tolerances, 
transport, prior notification, transmission deadlines of sales notes). 

14 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. 

6 

 
 
 
                                                            
Culture of Compliance 

An  important  cornerstone  of  the  Control  Policy  is  to  raise  awareness  among  all  players 
involved in  the  full  range  of  activities  related  to  fisheries  (catching,  processing,  distribution 
and  marketing)  on  the importance  of  compliance  with  the CFP  rules.  The  evaluation  shows 
that  the  current  framework  contributed  to  building  up  a  culture  of  compliance  among 
operators and Member States, which in turn resulted in an improved compliance with the CFP 
obligations.  However,  it  is  also clear  that  it is  still  necessary  to  strengthen  compliance  with 
the CFP rules through a comprehensive and robust monitoring and control system and to raise 
awareness of industry on the importance of respecting conservation measures. 

The  Specific  Control  and  Inspection  Programmes  and  the  Joint  Deployment  Plans 
implemented under the coordination of EFCA  are efficient tools, and were found also to be 
excellent for improving cooperation and exchange of information among Member States. The 
divulgation activities and trainings carried out by EFCA have also been extremely valuable in 
explaining  the  new  applicable  rules  and  raise  awareness  among  operators  on  conservation 
issues. 

The  evaluation  shows  that  a  culture  of  compliance  strongly  relies  on  a  fair  and  uniform 
application  of  the  control  rules  across  fisheries  and  Member  States,  including  third  country 
vessels  fishing  in  EU  waters,  and  on  a  strict  and  consistent  follow-up  of  detected 
infringements.  The  effective  implementation  of  the  sanctioning  system,  including  point 
system for serious infringements are recognised pillars to ensure equal treatment of fishermen. 
However,  while  the  Control  Regulation  provides  for  what  is  considered  to  be  an  adequate 
legal  framework  in  line  with  the  Treaty,  national  systems  and  their  application  vary 
considerably across Member States. The current point system for serious infringements is not 
applied  by  Member  States  with  even  criteria15.  Cooperation  among  Member  States  is 
absolutely  necessary  for  a  fair  treatment  of  fishermen,  which  allows  gaining  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. 

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

The new instruments set by the Control Regulation to ensure implementation of the CFP by 
Member  States  are  in  general  well  received  by  stakeholders.  The  increased  powers  of  the 
European Commission  in verifying Member States' control activities,  performing  audits  and 
carrying out autonomous inspections also increased the compliance attitude of Member States 
with the CFP rules.  

15  Member  States  shall  apply  a  point  system  for  serious  infringements  as  referred  to  in  Article  42(1)(a)  of 
Regulation (EC)No 1005/2008 on the basis of which the holder of a fishing licence is assigned the appropriate 
number of points as a result of an infringement of the rules of the common fisheries policy. 
The  gravity  of  the  infringement  in  question  is  determined  by  the  competent  authority  of  the  Member  State, 
taking into account criteria such as the nature of the damage, its value, the economic situation of the offender and 
the extent of the infringement or its repetition.  

7 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
The  action  plans  established  by  the  Commission  in  cooperation  with  Member  States 
concerned to address identified systemic deficiencies in their control system have proved to 
be effective cooperative tools. 

Simplification and reduction of Administrative Burden 

The  Control  Regulation  has  streamlined  and  rationalised  the  previous  control  regulatory 
system, simplified the communication among players and reduced the administrative burden. 

The Control Regulation however remains complex and a number of provisions require legal 
clarification.  In  addition,  as  some  obligations  can  be  interpreted  and  thus  applied  very 
differently by Member States, the Commission is often requested to provide guidance to avoid 
multiple interpretations. 

The  use  of  modern  technologies  and  the  development  of  electronic  fisheries  information 
systems  and  data  sharing  were  supposed,  in  the  long  term,  to  reduce  the  administrative 
burden. This still did not fully concretise as the development of those systems took time and 
in some cases electronic platforms are still under development. Nevertheless, when compared 
to  the  previous  control  system,  there  has  been  an  estimated  net  reduction  of  28%  of 
administrative  burden  for  operators.  It  is  recognised  that  most  of  the  benefits  and  cost 
reductions  have  been  and  will  be  gained  by  the public  authorities,  although  the  information 
available did not allow quantifying them16. 

The  analysis  shows  that  the  Control  Regulation  has  potential  for  further  decreasing 
administrative burden, for instance by promoting the use of IT tools. 

4. 

CONCLUSIONS 

The  Control  Regulation  is  essential  for  ensuring  respect  of  the  CFP  rules.  This  legal 
instrument is considered one of the main tools to achieve the CFP objectives, and ensure that 
conservation  and  management  measures  are  enforced.  Its  principles  and  provisions  tackle 
issues that have in the past led to extensive overfishing and poor compliance. 

Member  States  have  generally  implemented  the  main  provisions  of  the  Control  Regulation 
and there are no doubts that, after six years, this legal framework is well accepted by relevant 
stakeholders.  Due  to  the  complexity  of  the  rules  and  the  time  needed  for  adaptation, 
implementation of some of the provisions is however in some cases delayed. 

The evaluation confirmed that, while it is indisputable that the Control Regulation contributed 
to improve the fisheries control system and to step up compliance with the CFP, the current 
legislative framework is not entirely fit for purpose. There is a strong call from stakeholders 

16 It should be noted that while nowadays administrative burden refers to both operators and public authorities, in 
2008,  at  the  time  of  the  impact  assessment,  only  the  administrative  burden  for  operators  was  assessed.  In 
absence of a baseline, it was therefore not possible to quantify the net reduction of administrative burden for 
the competent authorities. 

8 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
to  better  adapt  the  control  system  to  the  new  CFP,  addressing  in  particular  the  landing 
obligation, increase synergies with other policies, notably environment and market. 

Furthermore lack of clarity of some of the provisions were one of the factors that resulted in 
sometimes  different  implementation  approaches  at  Member  State  level,  hindering  the  level 
playing  field  among  operators  and  therefore  their  trust  in  the  system.  In  addition,  the 
obsolescence of some of the provisions, the lack of flexibility as well as sometimes ineffective 
implementation by Member States hamper the effectiveness and efficiency of the current legal 
regime. In this regard provisions on sanctions and point system, follow up of infringements, 
data exchange and data sharing, traceability, monitoring and catch reporting tools for vessels 
below 12 meters require particular attention. 

5. 

WAY FORWARD  

The  contributions  to  this  report  from  Member  States  and  other  stakeholders  highlight  a 
number of key challenges that the EU and its Member States need to address for assuring a 
coherent, effective and efficient system of control of fisheries conservation and management 
measures and respect of CFP rules. These also include improving the overall performance of 
the  Control  Regulation,  aiming  at  securing  sustainable  fisheries  while  at  the  same  time 
improving synergies with other policies. 

The  Commission  will  present  the  result  of  the  evaluation  to  Member  States  and  relevant 
stakeholders for discussion of effective solutions. 

9